November 2, 2010
Tuntland asked who at WSI
had the power to suspend him. Long replied that Sandy Blunt was his only
boss.
Long said his personnel
file had no derogatory information. He had had three performance
appraisals. The first in January of 2006. He did really good.
The second in April of 2007. Again, he said he did really good.
This was just a few days before Blunt was charged. Tuntland asked whether
until the time Blunt had been charged was there anything to indicate that he
was doing badly. "To the contrary," Long said "I was
doing very well." In June of 2007, Halvorson gave Long a mid term
review. This was after Long had his discussion with Halvorson regarding
his relationship with Peltz. There was no mention of he and Peltz in the
report and there were no negative comments in the report. He said
Halvorson did a decent job on his review, gave him things to work on, and also
talked about goals and strengths.
Tuntland asked whether
Long could think of anything other than his request for whistleblower
protection that led to his suspension on November 15, 2007. "No,
that was the only thing."
There were several
conditions of the suspension, including he was relieved of his office duties,
could have no contact with vendors or employees, and had limited access to his
computer and to the grounds. The suspension letter stated that WSI will
have a plan to reintegrate you back into the organization. He turned in
his keys and laptop and phone and said nobody ever called him and there never
was a plan for reintegration.
Long testified he asked
for reinstatement on numerous occasions. He asked why he had been
suspended and never got an answer. Tuntland established there were a
series of disqualifications and assignments of people to investigate Long's
complaint of whistleblower retaliation and established there was much publicity
surrounding the event.
Tuntland established that
Long eventually got a letter from Halvorson outlining the allegations against
him. This occurred 75 days after his suspension. The allegations
included engaging in wrongdoing and disclosure of privileged and confidential
information. The letter asked him to explain how it is as a current
employee of WSI that this information was allowed to be publicly
released. Tuntland asked was information puclicly released prior to his
suspension. Long didn't think so, but said there was information he had
supplied to the state's attorney after his suspension. Tuntland
established there was a 30 page report of allegations that Long wrote that
became known as the manifesto.
The state's attorney
excused itself from investigating. The attorney general's office
disqualified itself. In fact, Tuntland established that there was no one
in law enforcement that was not disqualified from investigating Long's
allegations, as Bureau of Criminal Investigation reported to the AG's
office. Long said the manifesto was made public because his attorney
Tuntland made it public. Tuntland asked whether Long had refused to
provide the manifesto to WSI. He said he did refuse but told them to get
it from state's attorney Cynthia Feland, who had a copy.
One specific account was
of a former board member; Long said he thought there was criminal activity
involved. Tuntland asked, if you thought criminal activity was involved,
who would you call. Long said, law enforcement. I did give it to
law enforcement. Cynthia Feland.
On or about February 3,
2008, Long said he answered Halvorson's allegations in a letter which Halvorson
called defiant. Long said he sent that letter not only to Halvorson, but
numerous state officials because he was backed against the wall. "We
needed sunshine. It was a cry for help." He also said, since
Halvorson had sent the allegations against him to the press, he sent his
rebuttal to the press as well.
At some point, Long said
he received another letter from Halvorson asking a set of questions. He
responded to Bjornson as he'd received an email from Wahlin that that was his
new contact. Halvorson's response on March 12, 2008 stated that Long was
fired. Tuntland asked whether anyone else who had sought whistleblower
protection had been fired. Long responded that Billie Peltz and Kay
Grinsteinner were fired the same day he was.
Tuntland established that
under WSI procedures there was an appeal process to go to the executive
performance committee, but no such committee was in existence at the time of
his firing so there was no formal group for him to go to. So Long said he
submitted a packet of information regarding his termination to the board of
directors. The appeal package was visible in the courtroom and was
approximately 2 1/2 inches thick.
Long's request for
reinstatement was brought to the board of directors. He was present at
that meeting, but not allowed to speak. Members at the meeting complained
they had not had sufficient time to review his appeal packet. Many had
not received it until that very morning.
Tuntland established that
Long provided information to investigator Quinn, at his request, and that he
was later asked to testify at the Blunt trial after which Blunt was convicted
of a felony. Long went on to describe his search for new
employment, how he was eventually hired for a job at Cross Country Courier at a
much lower salary. He said he today teaches at the University
of Mary, at Grand Canyon-Phoenix, and Rasmussen College. The rest of testimony had
to do with specific details about his income.
No comments:
Post a Comment