Fwd: Complexity & Community Sustainability Seminar for Faculty, Staff, Students & Community

"Pinto, Allison" <APinto@fmhi.usf.edu> wrote:

COMPLEXITY & COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

BROWNBAG / SEMINAR

 

SPRING 2008

Wednesdays, 12 – 2

FMHI MHC 1503

 

You are invited to participate in a brownbag seminar that is designed to provide opportunities for USF faculty, staff and students, as well as other interested individuals in local USF-affiliated communities, to come together from a variety of disciplines, departments and sectors to generate knowledge about how the theory and science of complexity can inform the development of sustainable communities.

 

Students may choose to register for 1 - 3 USF credits of MHS 6900-902, CRN#19432 to correspond with their participation in this seminar. 

 

The seminar is hosted by the Complexity & Community Sustainability Initiative, which is funded by the USF Interdisciplinary Initiative on Sustainable Communities and also supported through resources provided by the other institutional partners of the Initiative, which include:  the Children's Board of Hillsborough County, MacDill Air Force Base Family Advocacy & Outreach Program, SCOPE (a community organization in Sarasota) and the Sarasota County Government. 

 

Further details are included in the attached schedule / syllabus, and a preliminary schedule is provided below.

 

If you have questions or would like further information, please feel free to contact Heather Curry, Graduate Assistant with the Initiative, at hrcurry@gmail.com or 813-480-4787. 

 

Hope to see you soon!

 

Week	Date	Topic	Presenter(s) / Facilitator(s)
1	Jan 9	"Wanna Co-create?"—Orientation for Student Participants in the Brownbag Seminar	Facilitators:  Doug Uzzell, Ph.D. & Heather Curry
2	Jan 16	Complexity-Informed Approaches to Developing a Learning Community – Official Start Up for 2008	Facilitators:  Allison Pinto, Ph.D. & Fred Steier, Ph.D.
3	Jan 23	Working with our Local Communities in Earnest:  Preliminary Efforts to Understand Hillsborough & Sarasota Counties as Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)	Presenters: Members of 2007 HC & SRQ Communiplexity Teams   Facilitator: Gregory Teague, Ph.D.
	Jan 26 (Sat)	Using Storymodeling and the Cynefin Model to Understand and Support Communities as CAS	Presenter: Dave Snowden Cognitive-Edge, U.K.  / Singapore
4	Jan 30	Complexity-Informed Approaches to Social Network Analysis for Cultivating Community Sustainability	Presenters:  John-Willy Bakke & Tom-Erik Julsrud: Telenor R&D, Oslo, Norway; Andreas Soyland:  Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU)
5	Feb 6	Sensemaking in Organizational Life   (Dates, time & location:  Feb 4 – 8, 3:30 – 6:00 p.m., BSN 231)	Presenter:  Karl Weick, Ph.D. Northwestern U.
6	Feb 13	"Whose Business is Community Sustainability, Anyway?"	Facilitator:  Walter Nord, Ph.D.
7	Feb 20	A Capital Investments Approach to Communities as CAS Community Partners:  Dr. Gorski is the Director of Program Impact and Innovation, as well as Research and Evaluation:  Children's Board of Hillsborough County.  Major Navarro (Ret.) is the Director of Family Advocacy and Outreach at MacDill Air Force Base.	Presenters: Peter Gorski, M.D., M.P.A.   John Navarro, L.C.S.W., Major (Ret.), USAF
8	Feb 25 - 27	A "Maybe" Approach to Communities as CAS (Location:  Westside C)	Presenter:  Michael Quinn Patton, Ph.D.
9	March 5	An Asset-Based Approach to Communities as CAS Community Partners: Mr. Dutton is the Executive Director of SCOPE, an innovative non-profit organization that exists to cultivate communities in Sarasota County.  Ms. Scott is the Deputy County Administrator in Sarasota County.	Presenters:  Tim Dutton. M.S.  & Susan Scott   Facilitator: Mike Gibbons, Ph.D.
10	March 12	SPRING BREAK – no meeting
11	March 19	Where Are We Now?  -- Reflecting on the Evolution of the Communiplexity Learning Community to Date…	Facilitators: Allison Pinto, Ph.D., Fred Steier, Ph.D. & Doug Uzzell, Ph.D.
12	March 26	A Complexity Perspective on the University Community (Location:  Westside C)	Presenters:  Mike Gibbons, Ph.D. Greg Teague, Ph.D. & Fred Steier, Ph.D.
13	April 2	How the Arts Support Communities as CAS	Facilitators: Tim Dutton, M.P.A. Greg Teague, Ph.D. Fred Steier, Ph.D.
14	April 9	How Architecture & Design Support Communities as CAS (to begin at 11:30 a.m.)	Facilitator:  Trent Green, M.Arch.
15	April 16	How Technology Influences Communities as CAS	Facilitators: Bruce Neubauer, Ph.D. Doug Uzzell, Ph.D.
16	April 23	Where are We Now?  -- Reflecting on the Evolution of the Communiplexity Learning Community to Date… (Location:  Westside C)	Facilitators: Allison Pinto, Ph.D., Fred Steier, Ph.D., Heather Curry & David Lee

 

Communiplexity Party Chat

I realized I said more to people about this last night than I explained in my paper, so I better add some details about this.

The Complexity class ended last night "officially," while everyone wants to keep on meeting and doing things. Course we are all staying for next semester too. Last night we had a paper due where we needed to link the concepts with our own personal lives and experiences . . . so of course Thursday I got another giant project that George has fought with the county for over 2 years. It's on Delany Creek again where we did Long Pond, the Mall and the track south of it; so it's funny how it's finally coming to me now . . .

I mean just the river model is enough complexity already. It is actually simulating a natural system . . . where every drop of rain (over 52 inches/year here in Tampa) runs across the ground into a pipe and then to the creek out to Tampa Bay, the Gulf, a lake or other impoundment. Each pipe, ditch, and bridge acts as an individual "Agent" measured and calculated for changing the complex flow of the water. The river model itself becomes a very complex system of Agents where each piece is simulated by the water flow equations one after the other in the linear flow from where the first rain drop hits the ground to where ever the drop finally stops moving.

It is almost like the river is a community of Agents where the water itself might be the information or resources transferred from agent to agent in the community. In the natural environment of the river the flow of water is governed by gravity. The water will always flow downhill. Surprising enough I've seen engineering designs where they intend the water to flow uphill. This seems to represent the extreme complexity of the system, where something so obvious is overlooked because of the shear multitude of other components that must be simultaneously addressed.

The 33 square mile model of Delany Creek is a simple text file read by a computer program that includes over 14,000 lines of data, which represents 1200 pipes or channels, 358 creek sections, 611 weirs, 1200 nodes and 468 ponds. Each of these elements includes a list of characteristics and measurements that change the flow of water, most commonly determined by a professional survey company. Surprising enough many engineers seem to think this can all be controlled just as easily as they control a pipe and pond on a small commercial site or subdivision. However, this is a dynamic flow model, which means it will simulate the water flow as well as the wave actions created when the different water flows combine and create backflows, surface waves and flooding.

Thus it is truly a dynamic living model of the systems of water flow controlled by a multitude of Agents - 3837 Agents in Delany Creek. Bringing this engineering system into a Complexity perspective is what I wrote about in this assignment, see attached:

http://groups.google.com/group/community_sustainability_complexity/

Communiplexity Position Statement

A personally, academically and / or professionally-informed perspective on communities as complex adaptive systems, integrating knowledge generated over the course of the semester with understanding developed through scholarship in one’s “discipline of origin” and lived experience.

The first reading we reviewed from the Plexus Institute[1] really set the stage for our exploration of this semester's Complexity Seminar. I had just completed the Capstone Class for my MBA which included a Market Analysis and Strategic Plan for a local company. However, this class began where "they didn't believe in the strategic plans they wrote because the future was not as predictable as it was depicted in the plans... Complexity science offered an opportunity to explore an alternative world view.[2] Thus, escaping the Newtonian conception of the world was the first task to undertake. After nearly 20 years of working as an engineer this is a difficult task, but I welcomed the challenge.Complexity Science is based on relationships and context which allows for the emergence of self-organization.[3] Different patterns and relationships emerge from complex systems much like we all have seen in the unpredictable growth of Ants and Broccoli in nature. In this class I recognized that the sustainable aspects of nature might be primarily a result of the Complex Adaptive System which we see in much of nature. This inspired me further to understand and explore how emergence can bring change and innovation into organized systems.

This perspective gave me a new insight into my professional work as well. River modeling is a very complex system in engineering where a great multitude of components interact and combine together to create the whole system. Recognizing how any aspect of this complex whole can be instrumental in creating consistency is fundamental for successful modeling. I routinely compare simulations where one entity is changed from maximum to minimum values to understand the effects on the entire system. Similarly, each Agent in any other CAS we find can be instrumental in creating success or failure. Distinguishing how each agent interacts and what they can bring or take away from the CAS can be critical. We do not always have the freedom to adjust how an Agent impacts from maximum and minimum values as I can in the engineering of river models. However, if we are mindful enough of events to understand and note the influences demonstrated we can encourage specific agents and see new emergence in ways we want.

During much of this semester we studied and reviewed how Complexity Science has developed and what the current research has shown. Developing Agent Based Models has also been conceptually covered. Again my engineering background has been very valuable to improve my understanding of how these models and theories apply to the community systems around us. Understanding the Agents influence on the emergence of new properties is what makes me a good river modeler since I know how changing one component can affect the entire system. After years of modeling I have developed a "feeling" for how things changed in any river. The engineering experience shows that changing a specific agent must change other system components, but this "feeling" from experience has proven to be a better asset in modeling.

For example, I have recently been hired to address a critical flooding issue on a piece of property near Brandon. The owner has the property under contract for sale, and during the "due diligence process" before the final sale, the county suddenly changed the flood data for the property putting it into the flood zone. Thus, the land was suddenly not saleable. This is actually a situation that is very common in Florida, though most people are not in the middle of a sales contract when the flood zone changes, and it becomes critically apparent. Here the complex dynamics between the relationship of regulation, data collection and modeling for public safety suddenly collided with a private sales contract.

The parties involved hired attorneys and confronted the county administrators to bring this issue to the forefront. In this area of government regulation the data and compilation of the data is very critical. Therefore, the county dispatched a new survey crew to measure the mile of creek involved to get new data for the model and verify the change in the flood elevation. They then hired another engineering firm to compile the new data into the river model. When I received the completed work submitted to the property owner I began reproducing the model changes. Again the accuracy and integrity of the data and compilation of the data is critical. Each separate “Agent” in this system can be critical to success or failure. This figure shows a typical comparison of the new model section (no. 210291) where it is partially accurate with this surveyed creek cross-section data (x-sect1), while the hatched area shows how the right part of the creek was excluded from the model. This might seem like a minor error, but for a mile of creek this will be very significant. Once again I know from experience that this highly complex model will have a considerable impact with the change of this single "agent."

Additionally, the complexity of the River Model is one tiny aspect of the problem. The politics of the Engineering firm’s relationship with the County comes to bear as well. Evidently this particular engineering firm had become complacent where accuracy is no longer critical. As the previous figure shows there are differences between the proposed model and the actual county survey data. Making these corrections alone dropped the water surface elevation (WSEL) over 2 feet on the property as noted in this table below.

Further, the dynamics between the owner, the engineer and county; their relationships with each other and my own personal technical skills all added to make this a more complex system trying to resolve this flooding issue. The Engineers are in the middle of the issue between the Owner and the County, where the model, survey data and resulting flood elevations can lead to the sale of the property.

At this time I was consulted by the owner’s staff to address this situation. My first response was to check the survey (as indicated at left) this consequence allow for the recovery of buildable land with the model. This led to planning a new site permits based on the new flood elevation. Now we can make it work, or at least I can give them the limits for them to make it work.

This application of Complexity Science to engineering results in the emerging of a new property ready to be built on. Here in Tampa Bay I do not think we need anymore shopping centers, condos or anything like this. However, the economy will bring these new creations into our community. Possibly these new studies and understanding into the new complexity techniques emerging in our community can change this. This might become a new Lowes, or Publix, or maybe more condos and another hotel and a Home Depot too? The complexity I deal with in the engineering models makes it easier for them to build more. This inspires me to explore another more complex system about how the community interacts with the zoning and permitting to allow this construction to be planned.

How the community interacts with Zoning and Permitting introduces a completely new level of complexity to this evaluation. I see each aspect of the environment and how participants interact expands the complexity. This encourages me to explore and study the new relationships of these agents to define this larger system. What other Agents and relationships are involved? All of these have a significant impact on the environment where construction on the land also creates adverse impact on the flora, fauna and water. This brings me back to the River Models and engineering. These models don't account for the flora and fauna in any too well; however the growth and diversity in the flora and fauna are signals to the quality of the water. Again this adds another new level of complexity to this system. Modeling the flood stage is necessary for construction which impacts the flora and fauna by the derogated water supplies. If my engineering couldn't help save the environment maybe exploring the emerging complexity applications with the relationships of permitting and zoning will.

[Footnotes]

[1] A Complexity Science Primer: What is Complexity Science and Why Should I Learn About It? Adapted From: Edgeware: Lessons From Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders, by Brenda Zimmerman, Curt Lindberg, and Paul Plsek, 1998, Dallas, TX: VHA Inc.

[2] Ibid. p 2

[3] Ibid. p 3

new post

not sure what to do yet but checking it out....
thanks
erw

TUT... A Note from the Universe

The greatest predicament of living in the jungles of time and space, Eric, is learning to be happy while still having unfulfilled dreams.

The greatest challenge, is not looking to the illusions for meaning, definition, and answers.

The greatest mystery, is figuring out who you really are.

And the greatest reward, Eric, of living in the jungles of time and space, is having predicaments, challenges, and mysteries that you have absolutely aced, crushed, and unraveled.

Lucky you,
The Universe

Watch "Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs"

Your friend, stars2man@gmail.com, has sent you the following video and included this message:

more videos to watch

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs



Description: The Codex Alimentarius is a threat to the freedom of people to choose natural healing and alternative medicine and nutrition. Ratified by the World Health Organization, and going into Law in the United States in 2009, the threat to health freedom has never been greater. This is the first part of a series of talks by Dr. Rima Laibow MD, available on DVD from the Natural Solutions Foundation, an non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about how to stop Codex Alimentarius from taking away our right to freely choose nutritional health.

Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/

Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform

If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634&pr=goog-sl

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Case Study:

An employee (Joe) was hired as a Senior Engineer on contract to resolve a flooding issue affecting what is now known as the Emerald Greens Golf and Country Club of Carrollwood Village. The manager who hired Joe petitioned the executive staff of the large corporation, over 10,000 people, to wave the pay scale limitations for the job position description. Joe completed the job, and subsequently was hired full time in their Planning Department, and then moved to the Fiscal Department. During the six years employed at the offices in downtown Tampa, Joe had the opportunity to be involved in a multiplicity of duties providing a broad level of interaction with different systems corporation wide. This included stormwater infrastructure design, client meetings, site inspection visits, permitting meetings, staff coordination, budgeting, preparing procedure manuals, websites and training other staff amongst other duties.

It was a critical time for change both in the company and the nation as a whole. The internet was suddenly opened to the public with the development of the web browser and the simultaneous onslaught of inexpensive personal computers. Every firm was struggling to get into this new digital paradigm to exploit the new opportunities. As a stormwater engineer, specializing in one of the most used and accepted infrastructure computer modeling software programs, Joe was accustomed to arriving at a new firm and upgrading their computer infrastructure before beginning to work. This new company soon discovered this and was intent on utilizing all his skills and contacts throughout their operations.

Within months of being hired as a full time staff engineer, Joe was contacted by a senior manager who was exploring the new internet technologies. As a director in a separate public service charity at the local university, Joe was also in deep discussions with the university senior technological staff about the new opportunities the internet afforded the university. The company soon sent Joe back to college driving a company truck, all expenses paid with a flexible schedule allowing part time classes and contract negotiation opportunities. The hope was that Joe could organize the company's new technology infrastructure after the digital technology processes the university had tested and implemented.

It was an exciting time, with great opportunities and experiences unfolding every day. Joe created the first company website, doubled his department's digital infrastructure budget, trained staff on new automation techniques and enjoyed the freedom to attend day classes and debate new technologies over lunch with university officials. He soon had the first company laptop, the newest Window NT Server Computer and was scheduled to get a new company vehicle. Suddenly, he got an interesting phone call from another department. This manager called to say he was the network administrator in the Information Technology Department (ITS) and wanted the new server shut off immediately. Joe laughed. The Novel technologies in the ITS department were fine for email, but still light-years behind the superior technologies in Planning for web development. Joe knew quite well that it would be months before ITS could get anything online and all his equipment and activities were approved by the highest levels in the company.

But something about this phone call seemed a little odd to Joe. Not just the audacity of some clown from another department trying to stop what the Planning Department Director authorized and funded him to do. Joe backed up all his emails, dating from the very first day he started, and even made disk copies to take home. This was all still on the ITS network so who knows what could happen. Then he even printed it all out sitting by the printer until the wee hours of the morning. Security staff recognized Joe, since his odd hours with school had him dropping in late at night on more than one occasion. He left with what must have been 2 reams of paper under his arm after 3am.

When Joe arrived the next day after lunch his immediate supervisor called him into his office. The last time Joe had even spoken to this supervisor it was about customizing some software on his machine. Joe rarely ever saw him and the last three performance reviews defined goals of meeting Director's initiative for automating the department. This supervisor essentially had no idea what Joe was doing 99% of the time and essentially the last visit asked for "a favor to help" him understand the technologies being implemented. Joe was a bit surprised by his request to come into his office, but he had kinda had seen the writing on the wall the night before.

He then handed Joe a notice from the Information Technology Department Director claiming that Joe had "jeopardized the security" of the companies technology infrastructure.

Joe about laughed!

But then Joe was told to return the company laptop, truck keys and other equipment, and he would be put on paid suspension until an investigation was completed so this could be resolved. Paid leave? Investigation? What?

"Please have these on my desk before you leave today."

That was weird; the supervisor really didn't even know what equipment Joe had. Joe went to the department director's office to see what was really going on. Of course there was no sign of him, but Joe was told that he had better listen to his immediate supervisor or it would be considered insubordination. Joe went back to my office and found his network ID shut off, so he packed up and left.



Within a week Joe received a reprimand notice of employee policy infractions. Now Joe really laughed, it was almost 20 pages long and had statements in the beginning that contradicted statements in the end. Joe's parents had a business which was expanding so they recently moved into a larger office leaving their home office empty for him to work in. He rifled through the emails and prepared a similarly weighted reply pointing out the company's errors in great detail. His mom read through the stack of emails getting completely sick to her stomach at the inept incompetence seen over and over again as Joe had struggled to bring the company technical infrastructure into order the last few years.

At the disciplinary hearing they made their claims, accepted his written response and adjourned for deliberations. Ten (10) months later Joe was asked to come back to the office. Evidently someone in the EEOC had written to ask about a company engineer paid to stay home. When Joe arrived he was told to empty his desk and move into another department.

"Excuse me? What about the hearing and the claims against me."

"You have your same title and same salary, get back to work."

"Of course I will have to file an employee grievance now."

"You do whatever you want to do, now get back to work."

Joe prepared a grievance; it was over an inch thick, with fifty (50) employment policy violations. At the hearing which included one HR staff, and 3 peer managers the grievance was submitted and tabled. Nothing more was done and Joe was told to get back to work.

His wife had filed for divorce when Joe decided to file the grievance; she said he could never win. His mother's "sick to the stomach" was determined to be stage 3 Ovarian Cancer. The first thing Joe did in the new department was sign up for the mental health counselor provided by the company insurance program.

The new supervisor soon filed a reprimand following a doctor's appointment, claiming Joe had no approval for them. Soon he discovered that several employees in this new department had filed grievances against the company as well. Two more times he had scheduled to be somewhere else and the supervisor claimed Joe had not told him and filed a reprimand.

Joe contacted EEOC and they told him they could not do anything unless he was a minority discriminated against. Then Joe contacted a State Investigator. He was told, they could only investigate crimes involving over $3000. The new supervisor filed another reprimand, claiming Joe had used company equipment to contact others outside the company on personal business in violation of company policies. Once again Joe prepared a reply and the same HR and 3 "peer managers" were there, ignoring his reply and supporting the manager.

Joe soon posted signs in his cubicle "Warning all communications are being recorded," and began carrying a mini recorder in his front shirt pocket. Within two weeks a County Sheriff was called into investigate charges that Joe was illegally recording meetings. The Sheriff interviewed staff and the management making the claim. Warning signs regarding Joe's intent to record all interactions with supervisors and staff were clearly posted throughout his work space. No one could visit or see him without seeing one of the posted signs, or see the little red light on the recorder in his front pocket. The Sheriff carefully took pictures of these, and Joe also provided an original. During the interview, Joe described how his supervisor would be told about doctors appointments, but then file a rule violation notice when he left for the appointment. Joe explained several other events where this supervisor intentionally contradicted earlier agreements and statements to his detriment. After several hours of review the Sheriff concluded that there was no violation of state law. The Sheriff subsequently told Joe privately to file a suit against the employer.

The supervisor then installed a punch clock and Joe and some other staff where told to punch in and out for everything. This included trips to the bathroom, smoke breaks, doctor's visits etc. Joe received another reprimand for coming in late to the office when the supervisor reviewed the time clock cards. One other employee was arrested. He had been stuck in traffic when coming to work and knew he would be fired if he were late again. He pulled out a pistol and shot another car on the bridge coming into Tampa.

Then Joe learned that the employee had a discrimination suit against the company as well. While on vacation out of state the attorneys settled the suit without his knowing. Joe had the same attorney. Joe immediately checked into the grievance and appeals processes to find out where things stood. He then filed for the appeal himself and was soon told he was too late; the statute of limitations had expired.

Subsequently Joe was terminated; his mother died that same week of ovarian cancer.


Analysis:

The first issue to address was on line 25 where Joe described his new duties. He was employed and listed as an exempt employee, but his job title did not match his job duties. Based on this alone he really acted only as an independent contractor, not an employee fixed by a specific job description. If his case came to court the Company could claim he was only a contractor and therefore had no rights under the employee handbook at all. If his grievance and subsequent termination were all ruled by the handbook, the company really did him a favor and could have simply terminated him at any time as determined by the contract.

Based on the duties defined in line 29 Joe was doing many of the job functions of a senior manager, such as discussing contracts and budgeting. Joe could claim he was being exploited. This might allow him to renegotiate his contract, but the courts would not perceive it as anything more that his own poor judgment. If he is doing duties beyond his job description then the Company simply has gotten the better side of the deal. However, if this were a public company, administered by the state, he could file with the Civil Service Board for back pay requiring that they pay him for the duties he completed as required by the Civil Service Act of 1996.

Line 35 described a conflict between Joe and the Network Administrator. Joe subsequently found the Administrator had a fraudulent application on file in the HR Department. The Administrator had listed a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, while in fact it was a Bachelor of Arts in History. At this point Joe could have filed a civil legal action for fraud, or slander against the administrator since a History major could never determine a security breach in the first place. Joe later determined the Administrator did not have the necessary technical skills either, but only managed staff who did have the adequate skills, none of who completed any analysis or determined network security which was itself a very detailed undertaking. If this were a public company Joe could file a complaint with the Civil Service Board. However, the board could respond the application was of no consequence since the manager employed the administrator anyway. However, he could have filed a slander suit against the department director who assumed the administrator knew something. Court decisions have been in favor of the injured party, where the statute of limitations started when the discovery of the injury or act of negligence should "reasonably have been discovered." 4 years is the time limit for fraud, Florida Statutes Chapter 95.11(3)(j).

Line 67 indicated that the claims against him had contradictions. If this had gotten before a judge it would have been thrown out abruptly. Joe could have filed a harassment claim but since this harassment was not sexual in nature it would not fall under the Civil Rights Laws in Florida or otherwise.

When EEOC got involved, as indicated in line 78, Joe investigated filing a claim with them. EEOC informed him that they couldn't do anything for him unless he was a minority discriminated against under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Civil Rights Act of 1991. However, there must have been something there for them if they were snooping into company business? Joe should have investigated it more.

On line 85-90 Joe's family clearly had been impacted by the stressful circumstances he was under. This is not actionable under the laws from a private company or the laws in Florida. There might be something that can be reviewed under civil court where defamation claims and intentional tort are more amenable to this kind of action since the resulting emotional distress and mental anguish are often considered sufficient damages.

If Joe coordinated an action with the other staff mentioned on line 92 he might have been able to be involved in a class action. The other staff had already had litigation pending, where Joe could have benefited, this collaboration would have been protected by the Wagner Act.

Joe is actually from Hispanic origin and could be involved in a minority discrimination action as listed in line 96. The peer managers listed in line 100 were discriminating against him, taking the position of the supervisors without any review of what Joe had submitted. They actually ignored his claims and discounted any evidence he provided without any cause. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices including:

(9) take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or applicant for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right; testifying for or assisting another in exercising such a right; cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel or to an Inspector General; or refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law.



The records mentioned in line 105 could have been used to substantiate the discrimination claims. Further if Joe investigated the false claims filed against him listed in line 113, he could have pursued a case. This information could further be used in making the discrimination case a lot stronger. Even the time clock issues mentioned in line 116 would have demonstrated a hostile work environment toward the minorities. However, there were other minorities in the department who were not subjected to such harassment. The judge might recognize that this time clock issue appeared with the other legal actions the employees were pursuing which would have supported a retaliation claim. Many courts have ruled that retaliation need not involve firing or demotion; simple harassment or hostility qualifies.

Joe could have been a lot more proactive in the legal battle and hired a better attorney to get these issues addressed. The EEOC might have viewed Joe as just another "pretty white boy" but he was technically a minority so he could have pushed a case through if they wanted to or not. Joe needs to study more of his rights and focus on this to protect them.

In conclusion, the actions of the Civil Service Board denying Joe any due process constitute official misconduct (malfeasance); wrongful exercise of lawful authority (misfeasance); and, neglect of duty bestowed upon them by legislative act. The director simply told Joe "It's nothing personal; I'm just doing my job."