The Uncivil Service (Chapter 5)

By gferren, Unfiltered 1-16-08

Chapter 5: The Administrative Review Report Analysis - First Look

(Ruth Welch notes - Admin Review Team) Interview Notes from 1/19/99, 2:00pm with Janet Singer, DSD, at the Montana State Office.
Janet discussed the following with Rick Hotaling, Sandy Powell, and me:
June 1998 - Montana moved to 2-tier organization. There is an Admin Officer at each office that reports to Janet Singer. In Miles City the Admin Officer is Janet Edmonds. In September 1998 there were reports of IRM problems at Miles City. There have also been conflicts between Tim Murphy and Janet E. In October 1998 the issues with Glenn Ferren were brought up by Tim. Glenn's office is in the library (at Glenn's request). Glenn's nephew and son were caught using government equipment in the library with the door locked. Glenn was in Billings at the time. Glenn gave them access. The boys were accessing the Internet. Glenn was verbally counseled by Tim. There have been conflicts in the MCDO with web page space, access (Glenn locks out the web coordinator), and Glenn places unnecessary restrictions on computer use by Robert Mitchell. There have been conflicts over the new web servers needed/required for the web pages. In December 1998 another access issue - Glenn's cousin was caught using a government computer. Glenn wasn't around. Documentation from Janet S. to Asko and Robin on security issues and accessing government computers by non-BLM employees. Glenn bragged to Asko the he had his and Janet Singer's passwords. Asko wrote Janet's password down and gave it to her, asking if it was indeed her password. It was. Glenn also had other Montana employee's passwords. Glenn's actions were inappropriate. He does not seem to have concern for BLM or the security of the system. Glenn's rationale - As a systems administrator, he can give anyone access. Montana has a family friendly work environment. Glenn was "computer king" and made access decisions for people without their, or management's, input. Some of Janet Singer's questions - Did Glenn receive this direction from the Admin Officer (Janet E.)? Does Janet E. agree with Glenn because she doesn't know any better? Janet E. isn't a good communicator. Is Janet E. doing her job? Or is Glenn disregarding her authority? The outcome from this review that Janet Singer would like to have - Information as to whether Glenn should have root access. Is his judgement sound? Glenn hasn't followed the rules for domiciling his government vehicle over the weekends (is this another blatant disregard for authority that plays into the above questions/concerns?). Glenn was supposed to be mentoring Tammy Watts. Is Glenn training her well? Tammy has been a computer assistant for 3 years. What are the appropriate consequences for not following Montana's and BLM's computer procedures, even after verbal counseling? (Janet Singer will decide these after the review) Janet Singer's three issues: 1. Glenn's conduct. He needs to follow the rules set by management. 2. There are problems with the management of the IRM program at Miles City. 3. Tammy Watts - is she capable of providing IRM support to the Miles City office? Janet Singer needs this information to make some decisions by Friday, January 22. This information can be in draft form. Glenn has filed an EEO complaint. He alleges that Janet Singer is retaliating against him for his interview regarding Janet Edmond's EEO complaints against Tim Murphy, Aden Seidlitz, and Darrel Pistorius (Darrel was reassigned to Billings).

[My comments to this review report will be included as bold text in the paragraphs below. The text below is from my web site posting of and comments on this "report"]

[Administrative Review Team Qualifications or lack thereof, per an email from Diane Friez, Glenn D Ferren "…There is no requirement for the members of a review team to have had specialized training…"]

List of Employees to be Interviewed
Billings: Janet Singer, Robin Stoebe, Asko Virtanen, Park Richard, Kevin Brooks, Glenn Ferren; Miles City: Tim Murphy, Aden Seidlitz, Janet Edmonds, Tammy Watts, Linda Reder, Robert Mitchell, Gerald French, Dale Tribby, Kass Portra, Hubert Livingston, Fred Wambolt, Carol Larson, John Bramhall, Bernice Knopp, Dave Swogger, Kathy Bockness; by Telephone: Steve Brandenburg, Lynne Ridl, Greg Pederson

[re: Quality of Customer Service…Of the Billings interviewees I could expect good ratings from Virtanen and Brooks and of course from myself; of the Miles City interviewees I could expect good ratings from Edmonds, French, Wambolt, Larson, Bramhall, Knopp, and Swogger; and there would have been good ratings from all of the phone interviewees…good ratings from (13) of (25) and I know French was not interviewed, so worst case at least (12) of (24). Wonder who else was not interviewed? Certainly looks like the review team "report" was rigged to emphasize the negative otherwise the report could not be used as the basis to justify the recommendations of this "team". GF]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
1849 C STREET NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:1242,1400-735 (WO-500)
January 28, 1999
To: Deputy State Director for Support Services
Montana State Office
From: Richard H. Hotaling, Manager Malta Field Office
Sandy Powell, Personnel Management Specialist National Interagency Fire Center
Ruth Welch, Management Analyst Information Resources Management
Subject: IRM Review of the Miles City Field Office, January 19-22, 1999
1
As requested, please find attached the final report for your information, review, and action.
If you would like to discuss this report with us further, please contact Ruth Welch at (303) 236-1783, and she will schedule a conference call.
Thank you for the opportunity to work on this review. If there is an opportunity for us to assist you in the future, please feel free to contact us again.
1 Attachment
IRM and Customer Service Review of the Miles City Field Office
cc: L. Hamilton-(MT 910)
G. Gordon, CIO (WO-500)
R. Hotaling (Malta Field Office)
S. Powell (FA-202)
ATTACHMENT 2
MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE
INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
CUSTOMER SERVICE AND PROGRAM REVIEW
By Rick Hotaling Sandy Powell Ruth Welch
January 1999

INTRODUCTlON
The Deputy Director for Support Services at the Montana State Office (MSO), Janet Singer, requested a review of the IRM program at the Miles City Field Office (MCFO), specifically, the level of customer service the internal customers were receiving. In addition, Ms. Singer requested that the evaluation of the program include information in the following three areas:
Should the MCFO Systems Administrator remain at the MCFO?
[ (remainder of this section blacked out by MSO staff) my original copy was redacted]
[Ms Singer's comment was that certain sections of the report would be deleted since they did not apply to me (Glenn D Ferren).]

In order to gather information sufficient for Ms. Singer to make decisions on the above issues, a team of specialists was tasked with performing the IRM program review. The team consisted of the following members:
Richard M. (Rick) Hotaling, Manager, Malta field Office
Sandy Powell, Personnel Management Specialist, National Interagency Fire Center
Ruth Welch, Management Analyst, Information Resources Management

The team convened at the Montana State Office on Tuesday, January 19, 1999. Ms. Singer provided the introductory interview, information (Appendices 1 and 4), and guidance to the team. The team then met with Glenn Ferren, Systems Administrator for the MCFO (currently on a 60 day detail to the MSO) who provided the team with a package of information (Appendix 2), and with Robin Stoebe, IRM Chief for the Montana State Office.
On Wednesday and Thursday, January 20-21, 1999, the team met with the MCFO Manager and Associate Manager, the IRM staff, MCFO supervisors and team leads (documentation provided by Todd Christensen is contained in Appendix 3), and customers (a complete listing of persons interviewed is contained in Attachment 1). On Friday, January 22, 1999, the team met with several MSO IRM personnel and provided a close out briefing for Ms. Singer and Larry Hamilton, State Director, Montana.
[Rick Hotaling and Sandy Powell have been identified as having current and former working relationships with Ms Singer.]
Page 1 of 9

MAJOR FINDINGS
1. Security of the Miles City computer systems (Unix, PC, and Internet/Intranet)
Family Members Using BLM Systems and Software
On two separate occasions, Mr. Ferren allowed family members access to the MCFO computer system and the Internet/Intranet. In addition, the family members were using the equipment unsupervised by himself or another BLM employee. After the first occasion in October or November 1998, Mr. Ferren was counseled verbally by his supervisor, Janet Edmonds, and he said that he would "stop their use of the PC" (Attachment 2). Mr. Ferren believes that at some point a policy was issued within Montana regarding the use of the Internet/Intranet by family members. No one else the team interviewed remembered such a policy and no written policy discovered by the team.

[The team did not interview Darla Mclean at the MCFO, who also thinks she saw such a document. As for the Internet use (my son using the PC and web browser to access Internet sites related to automobiles and stereo equipment) this occurred in October. I had requested a clarification of just how liberal our Internet Use Policy is from both Robin Stoebe and Asko Virtanen, MSO IRM, several times starting prior to August 1998, and never received any reply to the inquiry.]

There is specific Department of the Interior, Bureau, and Montana State Internet policy guidance (Instruction Memorandum No. MT-98-010) that is very clear in that only full time Department of the Interior Employees, volunteers who are authorized to use Departmental resources to access the Internet, and Departmental contractors who are authorized to use government -owned equipment or facilities may access the Internet (Attachment 3, p.5).
Mr. Ferren felt that unless policy was issued that directly covered Internet access at the MCFO, he did not have to comply with the Department's, BLM'S, or Montana's current Internet policy. Mr. Ferren, in an E-mail to Ms. Singer dated December 16, 1998, requested "that you (Janet Singer) issue a confirming directive document and reissue the related IM/IB 's that address this issue. I have no problem conforming MCFO local Internet access security policy to existing BLM Internet Access Policy should our policy be in conflict." (Attachment 4). The Bureau's Internet policy, Instruction Memorandum No. 97-177, clearly states that "supervisors may institute necessary limitations on Internet use by employees or contractors." (Attachment 3, p.3)

["I have no problem conforming MCFO local Internet access security policy to existing BLM Internet Access Policy should our policy be in conflict." I don't read this as indicating that I "felt that I did not have to comply", but rather as another request for clarification of the policy that I had begun asking for prior to August 1998.]

["supervisors may institute necessary limitations on Internet use by employees or contractors.", as stated in the DOI Internet Use policy document my supervisor, Janet Edmonds, would be the person directly involved in determining proper/improper Internet Use and not Ms Singer.]

In December 1998, Aden Seidlitz, Associate Manager, discovered Mr. Ferren's cousin using the same PC and accessing the Internet. Mr. Seidlitz was unable to locate Mr. Ferren and sent Ms. Edmonds an E-mail message (Attachment 5) citing the second unauthorized use of government equipment by a member of Mr. Ferren's family. Again, Ms. Edmonds counseled Mr. Ferren verbally regarding family members accessing the Internet/Intranet from BLM computer terminals. In an E-mail message from Mr. Ferren to Ms. Edmonds dated December 16, 1998 (Attachment 6), Mr. Ferren says that he "[has] done nothing wrong", feels that he made "a correct interpretation of BLM's current Internet Use Policy", and that these Actions were not a "Security Issue."

[DOI current Internet Use Policy, removes previous Internet Use restrictions and allows employees to use Government Equipment on the weekend to access the Internet for example. I have asked that the issue of employee/family member use as it pertains to Internet access be clarified for the benefit of all.]

[My sons access of the Internet is not an isolated case in the Montana Dakotas BLM as other employees have also allowed their children access to web browsers.]

[In the paragraph above, it is not made clear that Mr. Seidlitz was performing surveillance upon my work area and it is also not made clear that no attempt to contact me (paging/email/etc.) was made by Mr Seidlitz and that I was onsite in a building less than 100 yards from my work area for approx. (30) minutes.]

Crack Program Used to Identify Montana Users' Passwords
Mr. Ferren downloaded the Crack program from the Internet, applied the program to the Montana systems, and the result was knowledge of many Montana user Passwords.
Mr. Ferren stated that
Page 2 of 9

he did this out of curiosity and that he did inform the Montana Security Officer, Asko Virtanen, of his finding that Montana users had their systems secured with badly formed passwords. Ms. Singer's password was given to Mr. Virtanen at that time, but Mr. Virtanen did not consider this an issue or a breech of security. Several weeks later, Mr. Virtanen informed Ms. Singer that Mr. Ferren knew her password.

[The "crack" program is a freely available program from Internet Sources, used by Systems Administrators to check for poorly formed passwords, despite the name it is not a password "cracker", but rather a password checker.]

Security of GroupWise E-mail
Many of the managers and employees that were interviewed by the team said that they were uncomfortable with minimal or non-existent security of the GroupWise E-mail system. Five people interviewed said that they suspected that their or other's personal E-mail In and Out boxes and messages had been accessed without their knowledge or authorization, read by Mr. Ferren, and possibly passed on to other employees, including Ms. Edmonds.

["The average user level of competence at MCFO is on a scale of 1 to 10, probably at best a 5. I would guess that these employees have proxy'd their mail to others, allowing access to their mailboxes and are not aware of the implications of allowing others access to their mailboxes or the appropriate restrictions to place upon that access. Upon occasion, in the performance of my system administration duties troubleshooting, creating new users, or at request (to retrieve a file sent to someone when no original copy was kept for example) I access employee email systems. I do not share knowledge of any email inadvertently seen. I have also informed all system users that E-mail systems are not private, that anyone from myself to the top levels of Bureau IRM have access to those systems and that E-mail is for official use only, my advice is a standard IRM reply..."do not put anything in E-mail that you do not want someone (else) to read".]

Possible Access of Non-BLM Persons to the BLM Intranet-via the-MCFO Intranet
There is a possibility that requires further investigation by the Bureau Security Manager, of non-BLM persons accessing the Intranet via links established on the Miles City Intranet page. There are multiple links from the MCFO Intranet Homepage to non-government sites, personal sites, and inappropriate sites. The team is concerned that since BLM employees can access these sites, there may be a chance that others may enter the BLM Intranet from those sites. In addition, some of the sites were considered by the team to be blatantly racial, sexual, and violent, and fully inappropriate for inclusion on a government Intranet site (Appendix 5).

["The team has confused a web startup page (a set of pages of various links) that accompanies the activation of the web browser in the MCFO with an Intranet page (the MCFO Intranet page exists on the MSO web server). This is not an Intranet home page or site and is only viewable by the employees in the MCFO. The opening page of this series of pages contains the following notice "this page is to help you learn how to use the Internet, help me by providing comments on these page links". In the previous (2) years of this set of startup pages existence, no employee in the MCFO has made any comment referring to bad or "offending" sites. The links range from a link to Dilbert, to a link to United Airlines, Greyhound, college sites, etc."]

II. System Administration/Technical Support of the Miles City Computer Systems
Technical Management of the MCFO Systems
The overall configuration of the MCFO computer system and network is very effective and operational 99% of the time. Mr. Ferren is considered to be "the best" systems administrator in the state of Montana by his peers at the other Field Offices and the State Office. The system is run efficiently within budgetary allocations and is up and running as consistently, if not more so, than any of the other field systems within the Montana network.

["I started at MCFO in 1991 as the Computer assistant, after the lead Computer Specialist at that time departed approx. (1) year later, I assumed the duties of the Computer Specialist position and by study and by working (6) & (7) day workweeks acquired the skills to reach my current position. During one of those years, I received more than (30) awards from my (approx. 100) fellow employees. My job still involves direct customer service to those employees, though due to my Systems Administration duties, the first line of user support is now channeled to the current computer assistant, Tammy Watts."]

Customers are Locked Out of the Computers
Mr. Ferren stated that "in an effort to control Miles City user end runs to MSO IRM staff for support, and to prevent MSO IRM staff from providing this support without notifying MC IRM staff of their actions and of the MC end users needs.", Robert Mitchell was locked out of his system during business and non-business hours. Specifically, in an E-mail message (Attachment 7) from Mr. Ferren to Ms. Edmonds and Todd Christensen dated October 20, 1998, Mr. Ferren wrote:

["The review team confused two different issues here.]
[MSO IRM staff was locked out (root access) of the MCFO systems after a prolonged period (over (2) years) of access's to the system in support of MCFO employees that circumvented their immediate resource, MCFO IRM staff, and asked MSO IRM directly for support. On most of those occasions of support to MCFO personnel by MSO IRM staff, no indication or notice was given to MCFO IRM staff that a problem existed or of the action taken to resolve the employees particular problem. Usually, MSO access to the system was determined by various system logs, and upon question as to the nature of the login, MSO IRM staff would relate the purpose of their login(s) to MCFO sites. While I do not have a problem with MSO's assistance to either myself or MCFO employees, I do expect a professional courtesy and notification in the event that the user also comes to me with the problem, I need to know what work has already been done on the issue in order to not duplicate that work.]

[Robert Mitchell was curtailed to his normal workstation and normal business hours after a conflict over utilization of a shared hard disk space (an area necessary to all employees at MCFO) in which Mr Mitchell indicated no concern for the implications of filling this shared disk space with files that had a more appropriate location (the MSO web server hard drive), the web server had been created with this concept in mind and had the available disk space for large file storage. Computer etiquette, of which Mr Mitchell is aware, indicates that E-mail replies in the form of all caps INDICATES SHOUTING. His response to my suggestions to limiting file storage on the shared hard disk area was not appropriate or justified. As have been several other of his responses by E-mail.]
Page 3 of 9

"I hope that this sort of response has been corrected.
Robert is currently curtailed to his 250 and associated x-terminals. His login is normal, with the exception of no login on the weekend.
When I am sure that the attitude problem is corrected, and that Robert is a 'team player' and will not cause problems on this system, I will relinquish the access locks on his login."
Mr. Ferren made these decisions of his own accord and with the full knowledge and support of Ms. Edmonds. When Ms. Edmonds was asked by Mr. Christensen, Mr. Mitchell's supervisor, if she knew of this, she said yes. It was also brought to Mr. Christensen's attention by Mr. Mitchell that he was locked out of his system from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., or until Mr. Ferren reported to work each day and unlocked Mr. Mitchell's system. Ms. Edmonds had Mr. Ferren remove the morning lock from Mr. Mitchell's system, but he continued to be locked out in the evenings and on weekends (Attachment 8).

["The time and machine restrictions are an automatic function, once setup to allowable parameters I did not have to report to work to unlock Mr Mitchells system. In order to solve what I perceived to be a danger to ensuring a reliable and available file system, I made a decision which I stand by. Mr Mitchell is inflexible in matters where he does not get his own way and views any direction from me as invalid. Ms Edmonds supports my decisions, knowing that I am reliable, not unable to get along with people, and that I do maintain the MCFO computer systems in an efficient manner and available for the use of all."]

Shut Down of Computers
The team documented one instance where Mr. Ferren shut down Mr. Mitchell's system, explaining to another employee that Mr. Mitchell had been on the system too long. This shut down occurred without explaining to or notifying Mr. Mitchell first. In an E-mail from Mr. Mitchell to Mr. Christensen, dated October 26, 1998 (Attachment 9), the following information was documented:
"...Ferren told [Will] Hubbell that 'Mitchell was the only other one on the system and that I [Mitchell] had been on long enough, and that he [Ferren] would bring that system down without contacting me [Mitchell]."

["This is 2nd hand from Robert Mitchell saying Will Hubbell said this...I think it would be more appropriate to ask Will Hubbell what he said. What I remember of the situation is that Mr Mitchell was not around, it was not known that he was even still in the office, and it was possibly his day off. System users are asked to logout when not actively using a computer system, but many employees do not do this. From my work area, I remotely rebooted Mr Hubbell's[Mitchells] machine, which was the host for Mr Mitchells [Hubbells] attached terminal [which was no longer responding]. I made the judgement call, based on the information I had at the time. As Will Hubbell and Robert Mitchell work in adjacent areas, if Mr Mitchell had been available he would have been notified of the reboot process."]

Deleting and Moving Users Files and Programs from Personal Computers
On several occasions Mr. Ferren moved working files between servers and directories. The files were moved without permission of the fileowner, and no explanation was given either before or after moving the files. In addition, once the files were moved, the user was no longer able to access them (Attachment 10). Mr. Ferren was moving these files and denying access to them without Ms. Edmonds' knowledge. When Ms. Edmonds was asked about this by Mr. Christensen, she said in an E-mail to Mr. Ferren, "Please tell me we didn't do this - please, please, please!!" (Attachment 11). Mr. Ferren denied removing the files in this instance, saying in an E-mail back to Mr. Murphy, "No files removed ... believe this would be OE [operator error] error ... Roberts." (Attachment 11).

["Robert Mitchell claimed some files were deleted, if they were, it was not by me. Robert Mitchell was removed from ownership of the files in question during the dispute over use of the shared disk space area, that file ownership was given to Tammy Watts, computer assistant, who was working with Robert Mitchell on various MCFO Intranet Page projects. These BTW would exist on the Intranet server at the Montana State Office]

[Robert Mitchell did have access to those files, but he did not have permissions in the file area to continue storing new (graphics) files. Ms Edmonds reaction to the Mr Christensen is indicative of her level of frustration with the Robert Mitchell problem and his supervisors ineffectiveness in dealing with Mr Mitchell. Again, older files were moved to the MSO web server hard disk and newer files remained on the MCFO shared disk space area - no files were deleted."]

In another instance, Mr. Ferren completely deleted an entire wildlife database that was being utilized by Dale Tribby. The database was housed on a stand-alone personal computer. Mr.
Page 4 of 9

Ferren made it known that he did not support the stand-alone PC and that he did not like Mr. Tribby working on it. During Mr. Tribby's absence, Mr. Ferren removed the PC on the auspice that it needed fixing, although no one had requested service, and completely erased everything on the computer. When Mr. Tribby asked if any of the data had been saved, Mr. Ferren said that it had and gave Mr. Tribby several diskettes. When Mr. Tribby opened the diskettes, they were empty - the years of accumulated wildlife data that was contained within the database was lost. When Mr. Ferren was confronted regarding the lost data, he had no response, saying that it was not his problem.

["This issue concerned the demobilization and retirement of many older MCFO PC's that were carried long past their Life Cycle of use these units were donated to local schools. Mr Tribby had been directed by the Bureau some time previously [over a year] to use a new database system (Informix WFIS/SSST) which existed upon the official Montana Dakotas operating system and office automation platform AIX Unix. Mr Tribby had maintained an older PC solely for the purpose of this PC database, while being encouraged to participate in a program with MSO database support to convert the no longer viable software platform files (dBASE) to an (Informix) database. What I can say is, if there was indeed data on the PC, it would have existed upon any diskettes given to Mr Tribby and I would never say "it was not my problem". This retirement of Mr Tribby's PC would have occurred after at least (2) and probably more instances where the data from his PC database would have been extracted from the PC and sent to the MSO database contact. This database conversion exercise having extended over this time frame and with multiple requests to users for their data. Also note that primary responsibility for data belongs to the data steward, in this case, Mr Tribby. IRM assists with the maintenance of hardware and software involved needed for the database project and with user requests for help with those databases."]

Sufficient Systems Administration Backup Support
The Montana Field Offices (Butte, Dakotas, Lewiston, and Miles City) provide systems administration backup support to each other during planned and unplanned absences. The systems administrators at these offices, Lynn Ridl, Steve Brandenburg, Greg Pederson, and Mr. Ferren, work closely together to help each other with problems and concerns and to provide backup as necessary to each other. It is understood by all four offices that if their lead system administrator is out of the office they can call one of the other three lead systems administrators for support. The Field Offices do not share their root passwords with the State Office, and at times do not share their root passwords with each other. At each of the other Field Offices, the lead systems administrator shares the root password with their immediate backup. Mr. Ferren does not share his root password with anyone at the MCFO. This raised a concern with the review team, in that if Mr. Ferren is out of the office, it could take hours before someone could be contacted that would be able to fix a problem. If one of Mr. Ferren's backups, either Tammy Watts or Jerry French, had the password, they would be able to call the MSO and have one of the systems administrators fix the problem immediately.

["The other Montana Dakotas Field Offices have a backup in all cases their have been at least (2) people at those offices capable of performing system administration duties, MCFO does not have a qualified systems administration backup, though Mr French will eventually fulfill that role. Shortly after my arrival at MCFO in 1991, I suggested that all pertinent passwords be kept in a locked safe in Ms Edmonds office. That recommendation was not utilized. The primary concern I have with giving system level access (root password) to unqualified personnel is that under direction from an uninformed management, Jerry French or Tammy Watts will be pressured to attempt fixes for problems that they cannot resolve, thus creating larger problems in the process."]

In addition to not providing Ms. Watts or Mr. French with the root password, Mr. Ferren is not training either person to assist with everyday administration of the system. Neither is prepared to step in and provide support to the MCFO in Mr. Ferren's absence. Mr. Ferren explained that this is because Ms. Watts is not able to provide that level of support and that the one time he did leave her to perform some basic backup functions in his absence, she disabled a machine. After further research, the team concluded that Ms. Watts did cause a system problem while performing some backup duties, but that this was five years ago and it was the first time she had performed that function. Since that accident five years ago, Mr. Ferren has not allowed Ms. Watts to learn, practice, or perform even basic user support and systems maintenance functions. Ms. Watts is very interested in learning how to effectively perform her duties as Computer Assistant, but needs to receive the proper training, guidance, mentoring, and support. Currently, she is receiving none of these things.

["Again, the team has not gotten its facts straight. First of all, my function is not to train either Ms Watts or Mr French, but to act as a resource for questions that they may have and that is a function that I gladly perform. Ms Watts has been encouraged to work on computer software support, an area where she shows aptitude, as opposed to hardware and systems level support, an area where she has not show aptitude. The incident mentioned occurred about (2) years ago and not (5) as the team relates. (During Glenn Carpenters tenure as District Office Manager, just prior to the current Field Office Manager and two-tier, which changed the designation from District Office to Field Office, Tammy Watts was a personnel clerk 5 years ago!) In the end, it is not currently my job to develop Ms Watts's abilities or career in ways other than the duties I already perform. If Ms Watts is not receiving what she needs, it would be a further indictment of our current IRM personnel development policy which is also failing to provide the necessary training and management support to the Field Office Computer Specialists/Systems Administrators for the IRM mission in the Montana Dakotas BLM. Let me point out that the training records of both Ms Watts and Mr French would indicate no particular exclusion from acquiring the skills they need to perform their duties."]

Internet/Intranet Server at the MCFO
After much debate, the MCFO bought a nine-gigabyte server for their Internet/Intranet site. The server is only used for Internet/Intranet data and is separate from the rest of the MCFO network.

["The 9g device is a hard disk drive and not a server."]
Page 5 of 9

Mr. Ferren decided that the Internet Team could only have access to 2 gigabytes on the server and locked the server from further use by the Internet Team (Attachment 12). Mr. Ferren did this without discussing it with the Internet Team or working with the team to access their requirements for space for their site. In addition, on October 1, 1998, Mr. Mitchell requested that Mr. Ferren "...not move any files to the web server! These are not your files - leave them alone!" (Attachment 13). Mr. Ferren responded by instructing Mr. Mitchell to "comply with my system admin related directives or (ALL) your access to this system will be terminated. Reply to this msg that you understand and will comply or I will terminate your access effective COB today." (Attachment 14)

["Again dates and issues are mixed. The Intranet hard disk work area, is not a server, is a hard disk drive attached to a workstation that provides 9g of work space. It was originally configured to provide a starting point of 2g of data, with the ability to expand that working area, a need which has not occurred as of this date. This hard disk space was not available or configured until early December 1998, and the October 1st incident mentioned above again relates to the conflict with Mr Mitchell over the use of a shared disk space area at that time used for Intranet files and a variety of files/file systems for other divisions in the MCFO. My message to Mr Mitchell was to address his indication of non-compliance with system administration related direction in regards to that shared disk area."]

III. Customer Service
Quality of Customer Service by the MCFO
During the interview process, the team asked each person to rate the level of service received by the MCFO IRM staff on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 5 (exceptional). The majority of those interviewed rated Mr. Ferren's customer service as 1 or 2. Mr. French and Ms. Watts received ratings between 3 and 5. The exception was those staff that are personal friends of Mr. Ferren. They all rated his quality of customer service at the level 5. The customer service received from the MSO at the MCFO was also rated as very high. For the most part, the only people directly contacting the MSO are the IRM staff. This is due partly because of the nature of their work and partly because Mr. Ferren sent an E-mail to all of the MCFO staff last year that directed them to not contact the MSO IRM staff, but to only contact the MCFO IRM staff. Most of the employees at the MCFO have complied with Mr. Ferren's request.

["It was related to me that Mr French was not available during the teams interview process. I also note above that where I was given a (5) rating, those employees are suddenly "personal friends of Mr Ferren." "For the most part, the only people directly contacting the MSO are the IRM staff", hopefully after (2) years of cajoling and requests, this is true but obviously not completely true, reflected in the lockout (root access) of MSO IRM staff from the MCFO computer systems in Oct/Nov 1998. I recently E-mailed MCFO employees and presented the statement as related to me by Ms Singer that " a large number of employees at MCFO are dissatisfied with your service and view you as an impediment to getting the work of the office done", asking for all that agreed with the statement to reply to me, and indicating my willingness to resign if this should actually be the case. To date I have received (20) responses, even though I only asked those that agreed with the statement to respond of those (20) responses, only (1) from Robert Mitchell, agreed with the statement. In fact, entirely the opposite would be indicated from the text and tone of the responses I received."]

Level of Customer Service
The staff at the MCFO are very frustrated with the level of customer service they receive. They are often refused assistance, products, and instruction/training. Many times Mr. Ferren will not respond to telephone calls, or answer the telephone even when he is at his desk. He will not walk users through functional steps in order to show them how to operate software programs that they need to know in order to perform their job. If he does show them how to do things he is curt, rude, and will not answer questions. He will not provide basic products, such as diskettes or printer toner cartridges, to the users. He will also not provide standard, Bureauwide software products to customers unless he feels that they need them. Many times, the products that he does offer customers are only portions of the software's capabilities, and not what the user needs to finish tasks or work assignments. Most of the customers that the team interviewed have gone out on their own and purchased computer products and services with their own money in order to have the tools that they need to perform their job. These purchases range from boxes of diskettes to software packages to laptops and entire operating systems that they use at home. Most of the customers are so fed up with the level of customer service that they no longer even ask for assistance, they call software vendors directly or other computer specialists in other offices for assistance. Many work at home in order to utilize the software and equipment that they need to

["This paragraph is indicative again of the direction of the IRM program in Montana and the general lack of skills in our user community. First of all, IRM staff are not adequately trained especially in the Windows 95/ Windows NT operating system and software and we must all work with a system that is failing to meet our needs. (AIX UNIX). I understand the frustrations of the user community, but I also realize that once the user community moves outside the official platform, for which IRM staff does have some training, and can support and attempts to move into the Windows world and embrace that software without even attending a local college introductory Windows course - there will be problems. I encourage people to use email, I do utilized my voice mail and in all cases I respond quickly to inquiries for assistance, also prioritizing based upon levels of immediate need. For the most part I am dealing with system level issues and not software step-by-step procedures, normally these requests would go to Ms Watts, who is the software support designee with myself and Mr French as her backups in that area. I am not curt or rude, though I may be short with quick instructions and resolution of a problem, so that I may move on to the next problem needing my attention. "He will not provide basic products, such as diskettes or printer toner cartridges, to the users."; this is blatantly false and petty (and a lie). I often encourage users to recycle diskettes no longer needed for a previous use and I do not immediately replace toner cartridges when a "low toner" indicator appears those cartridges are expensive and normally have several more days of use after a "low toner" indicator. In all cases, employees have at least (2) printers available within their areas and usually more. "He will also not provide standard, Bureauwide software products to customers unless he feels that they need them." This I assume refers to the installation of PowerPoint software, PC software, which is installed upon request to various PC's and laptops. There has never been any directive to install this software on every PC platform, and as such is purchased and installed on a case-by-case basis. *PowerPoint is not Bureau standard software. Software as well as hardware configurations are controlled by the Montana Dakotas BLM Configuration Management Board - requests should be presented to this forum and approved. "Many times, the products that he does offer customers are only portions of the software's capabilities, and not what the user needs to finish tasks or work assignments." This is a false statement made by an uninformed and unsophisticated (unskilled & untrained) user community, wishing to access system level functions in Windows 95/Windows NT operating systems and software.]

[All software is installed and performs the necessary functions for the user to perform their work, in the case of attendant files (clip art for example) those are also installed, but the user community does not receive software installation diskettes or operating system installation media. I am aware that users have gone outside the office platform to perform work at home on personal PC's with personal software. This is a choice made for (2) reasons; They feel that what they wish to do cannot be performed upon the official hardware/software platform and that IRM has failed to provide a system that meets their needs and is more easily used. Neither of which do I have any control over. This process of working outside the office also reflects another issue, we have range cons and hydrologists that have an inordinate amount of time outside their designated duties to spend at home or in the office working on special projects (PowerPoint presentations, Web pages, etc.) and that bring the results of their projects back to the office, encouraging other users with less skills to embrace this practice.]

[If customers (employees) and their supervisors are frustrated, they should not shoot the messenger but take their frustrations to management and help direct IRM policy toward their needs - they should see Robin Stoebe, the state IRM chief, with these issues."]
Page 6 of 9

get the job done. All of this work is being done with the full knowledge of the impacted employees' immediate supervisors, who are also just as frustrated with the level of customer service provided.

Misuse of Procurement Authority
The situation that was brought to the team's attention involved the ordering of a scanner that would scan slides. The MCFO already possessed a scanner that would scan sheets of paper. The entire MCFO organization contributed funds to purchase the slide scanner for the Resources Division. The program specialists picked out the scanner, prepared the requisition, and had it approved by the MCFO manager, Mr. Murphy. The requisition then went to Mr. Ferren, who, without discussing the order with the resources staff, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Murphy, or Ms. Edmonds, changed the requisition and ordered a scanner that is very similar to the one that they already have. Currently, the scanner will not scan slides and has been sent to the MSO IRM staff in an attempt to reconfigure the scanner so that it will meet the customers needs and scan slides.

["All MCFO requisitions go through the lead computer specialists for specifications. I work with the user community to provide a product that will meet their needs. The item in this case did not and an item with more features that meets the user needs at a lesser cost was ordered. This issue was discussed with the requisitioner (Hubert Livingston), but more in the form of an explanation as to why I had purchased this particular scanner."]

According the MSO lead computer specialists, Park Richard, Kevin Brooks, and Asko Virtanen, all requisitions for MT IRM equipment need to be sent through MT IRM in order to ensure that the equipment to be ordered meets Bureau standards, will work with the current equipment, and that the customer is really getting the best product for their needs. If any of the above criteria are not met, the IRM staff discusses these concerns with the requisitioner, IRM management, or program management (the manager paying for the equipment). The IRM role in the procurement process is one of recommendation. IRM does not have the authority to change requisitions, they can only make technical recommendations. Mr. Ferren had no authority to change the requisition at any point during the ordering of the scanner.

["This policy is a policy of the MSO IRM and not of the Montana Field Office IRM staffs. Montana Field Office lead computer specialists do not pass their requisitions on to MSO IRM. My authority to change the requisition comes from the fact that Mr Livingston does not have the technical knowledge to order a slide scanner and did defer to my knowledge of what would be necessary to meet his needs."]

IV. Management of the IRM Function at the Miles City Field Office
(rest of page blacked out by MSO staff)

["(This section of the document would be addressed at Janet Edmonds and Tammy Watts...Janet's performance as AO and as my supervisor, and Tammy's alleged lack of opportunity. Let me point out that I also started as a GS5 computer assistant at MCFO.)"]

Page 7 of 9

Page 8 of 9
(page blanked out by MSO staff)

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this program review was to gather information sufficient for Ms. Singer and Mr.Hamilton to make any necessary decisions regarding the management and level of customer service within the IRM program at the Miles City District Office. Therefore, this report will not contain formal recommendations for action, but the team would like to answer the three questions posed to them at the beginning of the review by Ms. Singer:

Question 1. Should the MCFO Systems Administrator remain at the MCFO?
As outlined in the major findings of the report, Mr. Ferren is not providing adequate customer service and has breached any level of trust between himself and the MCFO management and users. For these reasons, Mr. Ferren should not return to the Miles City Field Office. The MCFO will need to replace Mr. Ferren with a qualified systems administrator to support that office and the other offices within the Eastern Zone.

["Frankly, this is the most inaccurate, biased, false, and misleading report I've ever had the privilege of reviewing. The point being that allegations do not have to be true, facts can be skewed (confused and misrepresented) to suit certain private agenda's."]

(rest of page blanked out by MSO staff

Diane Friez 09/10/99 05:33 PM
To: Glenn Ferren/MTSO/MT/BLM/DOI@BLM
Subject: Administrative/Management Review Team

Glenn - In response to your question regarding administrative/management reviews, the following is provided:
Initially I need to differentiate between a Review Team and an Administrative Inquiry.

An Administrative Inquiry is a more formal, structured, process which management may request when they become aware of issues, or egregious employee misconduct, which on the surface, appears that adverse action may be necessary. This process is usually led by an Employee Relations Specialist who has received specialized training in doing Administrative Inquiries.

Management may assemble a review team when they become aware of issues, employee misconduct, performance problems in a program area, or other problems which warrant concern on management's part which, if found to be true, generally will result in some type of management action. The type of action will obviously be dependent upon the allegations/issues.

There is no requirement for the members of a review team to have had specialized training. Generally, the composition of the team is dependent on the issues to be reviewed. Many times it is beneficial to have a personnelist, manager or management official, and maybe a subject matter expert. This results in a good mix of occupational viewpoints of the issues. The actual members of the team are chosen by the manager, usually in conjunction with Personnel, who has decided a review is the proper method of addressing the potential problems. The manager is looking for objective, impartial, and knowledgeable personnel to look at a given issue. The initial purpose and scope of the review is usually set by the manager, but review teams have the latitude to look at other areas if their questioning produces concerns outside the initial scope.

While BLM does have a list of qualified personnel to perform/lead Administrative Inquiries, there is not a similar listing for Review Team personnel. Again, this is because there is not a positive education/training requirement for a review team member; potentially, depending on the issues, any employee may be invited to be on a review team.
If you have any further questions, please let me know. Thanks.

[(from what I can see - just pick out 3 people that are dumb-as-a-post in a kind description (or that you know are just simply stupid - they can't chew bubblegum and walk at the same time- that would be so confused that they couldn't keep 2 facts straight but most importantly will do what they are told (are loyal to management and its agenda)) and then give them a task list of charges that they need to substantiate for you …to create a report to support your charges, Impartial? Unbiased? Fair? Just? Not a chance. GF)]

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.