The hypocrisy of this Board under its(illegally seated-under appeal in New Britain Superior Court)chairman Kenneth Bernhard to tell the people of the state of Connecticut who have had thousands upon thousands of dollars of taxpayer money wasted on this investigation and hearing that they reached their decision so quickly is an insult. For the Citizens Ethics Advisory Board to have published this brief is an embarrassment to them not to me, it demonstrates they have no regard or understanding of the statutes and they realized OSE had no evidence to prove a case of violation of the code of ethics and so in participating in the illegal and unethical advancement of the actions of the OSE rather than dismiss they imposed fines. More importantly the Board has shown it has no regard whatsoever for my Constitutional Rights and with their brief it asserts our belief they are a Kangaroo Court that needs serious Legislative Review.

To add further insult to this mix Jones and Director Carol Carson requested overtime payments for the OSE employees retroactively to August 2009 when they wasted the taxpayers time inorder to secure probable cause and prosecute this case. Jones stated in his August 2009 closing on probable cause-\”this is the states computer, email, equipment and time used\”- he must have forgotten he was employed by the OSE in December 2007 well after DAS clarified and published its May 2006 established guidelines for use of state computers, emails or equipment. I retired in 2005. In a 2008 Freedom of Information request for two months of Jones emails a review demonstrates Jones spent up to one third of his day on the states computer, using the states time and email address to offer up girl scout cookies, fund raiser tickets, sporting events, arranging home and lawncare and excessive time in emails with his wife for nonwork related activity. Since that release of those 2008 emails I have had to file appeals for the release of further emails from the OSE as they have come redacted in most cases so they are virtually useless.

I call into question Jones\’unethical conduct when he allowed Denise Conderino to perjure herself with her testimony on January 5th when he was aware there was no basis for her statements.

The Board, the OSE and its actions will be under a looking glass for some time to come as a result of the conduct they engaged in during the first trial of this New Improved CT Office of State Ethics. I would imagine the Supreme Court will find in CT. on the issue of Ethics we still cannot seem to get this right.
Posted by PRISCILLA

Comment made on January 21st, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Wednesday, January 20, 2010
OSE-Continues to mislead the Citizens of the State

Ms.Trimble should be aware of the emails concerning Jones use of state computers and state emails since they were provided by the OSE and a check presented for their printing in 2008. This behaviour directly conflicts with the statement “Public resources are for public use and not for any personal or private use,” said Carol Carson,executive director for the Office of State Ethics. ” The Office of State Ethics will continue to fairly and vigorously enforce the code of ethics regarding any misuses of public resources”-good to know we have now put in place another hypocritical Ethics Office that makes the rules but allows its own employees to break them after DAS detailed their policy in 2006 well before OSE Enforcement Officer Thomas K.Jones accepted the position.
Meredith Trimble again misleads when she states there was ever a reprimand concerning use of emails or computers by the supervisors, managers, or human resources. The documents entered into evidence detail this additional advancement of misinformation was blatantly untrue. Trimble was aware as well that the supervisor Dias AFTER the policy on computer use in May 2006 was in place was found by Office of Public Auditors case # 2008-06 to have violated the policy by using the computer, internet and emails for personal use in excess of one hour per day. No discipline was taken as evidenced by information obtained thru Freedom of Information and as evidenced by Feliciano Dias’ testimony during the probable cause hearing (where he stated he was not aware of a problem with his use) nor during his testimony on day 6 of the trial.
At some point the OSE must stop misleading and manufacturing evidence. They are servants of the state, the citizens do not work for the OSE, the OSE works for the citizens and at some point they too must be accountable for their actions.
What Trimble failed to address is that they failed to prove their case and we will expect them to do that, not assume a fine imposed is the end of the issue. It is merely the beginning or state employees will have had all their rights stripped away with no access to a fair trial with this NEW IMPROVED OFFICE OF STATE ETHIC-
Posted by PRISCILLA at 7:05 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Coventry Woman To Appeal Ethics Fine-Hebron Times 1/19/2010

Coventry woman says she will appeal ruling
by: Staff Writer Tuesday, January 19th, 2010
The Coventry woman accused of violating state ethic’s policy while working at the University of Connecticut Health Center is appealing the $15,000 fine issued to her last week by the state ethics board.

Priscilla Dickman is also accusing health center and Office of State Ethics officials of harassing and targeting her, adding they “manufactured” evidence in the case and acted unethically.

The OSE had charged Dickman with using state time and health center computers, the e-mail system, telephones, Internet access and printers for business ventures.

The state’s Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board issued the $15,000 fine Friday after ruling she had violated state ethics policies. It released the information Saturday.

But Dickman, who worked as a medical technologist at the health center from 1978 through 2005, denies doing any work while on state time.

She also said the health center had no policy in place prohibiting employees from using their e-mail accounts for personal reasons until after she retired and the OSE was using a policy from May 2006 in its case.

“You can’t put a rule in place after I leave and hold me to it,” she said.

OSE spokesman Meredith Trimble, though, said witnesses testified the health center had a policy on computer usage and supervisors instructed Dickman to stop using her e-mail for personal usage.

Dickman also accused OSE employees, including enforcement officer T.J. Jones, of “manufacturing” evidence and copying documents in order to provide “copious amounts” of the same data to demonstrate probable cause.
She also accused Jones of violating ethics policies pertaining to computer usage, saying she has obtained e-mails showing Jones spent “excessive time” addressing personal matters.

Dickman, who has started a blog to track her complaints, said she got the e-mails via Freedom of Information requests, but Trimble said she has not seen any evidence of wrongdoing by Jones.

Dickman also accused the OSE of changing statutes and policies during the process and even questioned the appointment of its chairman.

She said she and her attorney, John Geida, have already filed an appeal, and will take the case to any appropriate court, whether it’s an appellate court or the state Supreme Court.

Trimble, though, said she has not seen any information about an appeal or complaint from Dickman “in any official terms” and only heard of it through media reports.

Dickman has also filed a civil complaint in July against Jones, OSE investigator Michael Morrissey and seven health center officials.

Dickman said in the complaint health center employees discriminated against her after she suffered a back injury in 1979 that resulted in a disability and she required special accommodations.

In the complaint, she said health center officials failed to make such accommodations and questioned her doctor’s diagnosis, prognosis and directions, and she was forced to retire because of this in April 2005.

Dickman then filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, leading to additional harassment from other health center officials, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges health center employees “manufactured” an ethics complaint against her and the OSE has continued to prosecute Dickman while ignoring similar activity by other health center employees.

Dickman said Tuesday her ethics complaint was put on hold pending the outcome of the advisory board’s hearing, but it is now “very much active.”

The hypocrisy of this Board under its(illegally seated-under appeal in New Britain Superior Court)chairman Kenneth Bernhard to tell the people of the state of Connecticut who have had thousands upon thousands of dollars of taxpayer money wasted on this investigation and hearing that they reached their decision so quickly is an insult. For the Citizens Ethics Advisory Board to have published this brief is an embarrassment to them not to me, it demonstrates they have no regard or understanding of the statutes and they realized OSE had no evidence to prove a case of violation of the code of ethics and so in participating in the illegal and unethical advancement of the actions of the OSE rather than dismiss they imposed fines. More importantly the Board has shown it has no regard whatsoever for my Constitutional Rights and with their brief it asserts our belief they are a Kangaroo Court that needs serious Legislative Review.

To add further insult to this mix Jones and Director Carol Carson requested overtime payments for the OSE employees retroactively to August 2009 when they wasted the taxpayers time inorder to secure probable cause and prosecute this case. Jones stated in his August 2009 closing on probable cause-”this is the states computer, email, equipment and time used”- he must have forgotten he was employed by the OSE in December 2007 well after DAS clarified and published its May 2006 established guidelines for use of state computers, emails or equipment. I retired in 2005. In a 2008 Freedom of Information request for two months of Jones emails a review demonstrates Jones spent up to one third of his day on the states computer, using the states time and email address to offer up girl scout cookies, fund raiser tickets, sporting events, arranging home and lawncare and excessive time in emails with his wife for nonwork related activity. Since that release of those 2008 emails I have had to file appeals for the release of further emails from the OSE as they have come redacted in most cases so they are virtually useless.

I call into question Jones’unethical conduct when he allowed Denise Conderino to perjure herself with her testimony on January 5th when he was aware there was no basis for her statements.

The Board, the OSE and its actions will be under a looking glass for some time to come as a result of the conduct they engaged in during the first trial of this New Improved CT Office of State Ethics. I would imagine that an appellate court or if necessary the Supreme Court will find in CT. on the issue of Ethics we still cannot seem to get this right.
Refer to my blog for further information

Selective Prosecution
By Priscilla C. Dickman

I appreciate Dean Pagani’s column, “Swatting At Ethical Flies” (Hartford Business Journal, Nov. 9). The issue here is whether the Office of State Ethics SHOULD use the statute to continue to investigate an employee, such as myself, who for 28 years had excellent evaluations and was never reprimanded for the actions I am accused of. The question must be: Why would the Office of State Ethics (OSE), two years after my retirement, decide to investigate me on this supposed violation of OSE statute?

In 2005, after an “anonymous complaint” was forwarded to my directors and supervisor, I was twice investigated with no disciplinary action found necessary. The reason: I did not violate a policy, statute or act in any manner in comparison to the other 4,000 University of Connecticut Health Center employees, except that I was found to have used my e-mail account on my break in the most limited of time and my cell phone less than two to 10 minutes per day in general on breaks and lunch.

State documents demonstrate that I utilized the state’s telephone for personal use minimally as compared with other state employees. The documents proved personal telephone usage by other state employees who were not disciplined was far greater compared with my usage. That information should have raised red flags, alerting officials that selective prosecution was taking place. A real investigation should have been undertaken for internal discipline against those individuals abusing the state’s e-mail system and telephones on behalf of taxpayers.

Yes, I am afraid I do see selective prosecution by many state agencies who participated and continue to participate in their investigation of me, particularly because during the initial OSE probable cause hearing, the state labor relations director clarified that no wrong-doing was found during a previous investigation prompted by an “anonymous tip.” This earlier investigation revealed that my usage of e-mails and state telephones was minimal compared with other state workers, which is the reason that no action was needed to be taken against me. [Dickmans’ 78 kilobytes of usage as a full-time employee vs. up to 1,461 kilobytes by part-time and full-time employees in the same department Dickman worked in. This evidence was provided by health center’s IT department.]

Notably, other state employees identified for excessively abusing state e-mail and telephone systems for personal purposes by the Connecticut Auditors of Public Accounts have not been disciplined. Notably, Feliciano Dias, my supervisor of 28 years, was the individual found to have violated state policies for personal use in excess of one hour per day, according to a January 2009 letter from the attorney general’s office. However, Dias was not required to make restitution nor disciplined, but rather was “counseled regarding his Internet usage.”

I do believe I am being selectively prosecuted and the citizens of the state need to contact their legislatures and ask why the Office of State Ethics spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this issue concerning a retired state employee? I contend one merely needs to look at my federal/civil suit against the state and it will be evident.

The citizens need to ask whether the state’s actions are in retaliation because I filed a Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities complaint on the Americans with Disabilities Act (2005) for failure to accommodate me by my employer, the University of Connecticut Health Center, which resulted in a finding in my favor in October 2006.

Note that after working 28 years and earning my state retirement pension, I retired, accepting a reduced state pension and giving back to the state — and taxpayers — 2,100 hours of earned sick leave, valued at $28,000.

I would hope the independent investigation of the whistle blower retaliation act finally moves the legislature to rewrite the much-needed Whistle Blower Retaliation Legislation.

In addition, lawmakers need to review the Office of State Ethics’ actions since June 2007. When public officials are misled, as they have been in my instance, the state must and should look into criminal actions or ethical actions taken against the individuals responsible. The citizens deserve to get their wasted tax dollars back for the actions engaged in here.

Priscilla C. Dickman, Coventry, CT