Obsession
A year after HomeFirst
Services of Santa Clara County fired me, it called me
obsessive when I continued to press on the complaints of wrongdoing that I had
filed. Others have observed that maybe it would be healthier if I just dropped my
whistleblower activities that have been fruitless. And a recent New
York Times article pointed out the cost of holding onto things we should let
go of. The cost can come, the author
wrote, in the form of anger, frustration, resentment, or something even worse.
Maybe I am obsessive, but it is hard to know what should be
dropped and what is worth fighting for. Whistleblowers
raise concerns that they think are important for a variety of reasons, mostly
to the benefit of society. If our stands
once had value, the simple passage of time doesn’t make them valueless;
wrongdoers seldom self-correct.
At this point I persist on four of my complaints:
-
My complaint about the County of Santa Clara’s failure to collect $140,000 owed by HomeFirst since 2013
Each project seems to be moving forward, but very slowly and
with the risk of regression.
I wrote to the HUD Office of
Inspector General (OIG) four times from February through August 2014 about HUD’s
failure to collect its money. The OIG
finally stopped responding. I exchanged
emails with the HUD-SF office a half dozen times until it stopped responding. I sent four letters to Senator Feinstein, and
she stopped replying, too. I sent three FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) requests to HUD.
The last request yielded HUD’s letter demanding that HomeFirst propose a
repayment schedule by September 30, 2016.
I sent the letter to two newspapers, which chose not to do anything with
it. I also sent it the HomeFirst’s
auditors so that HomeFirst’s 2016 audit report might reflect it, but I do not
expect a reply from them.
My persistence doesn’t fit traditional
descriptions of obsessive behavior any more than HomeFirst’s persistent
denial of its wrongdoing does. I would
say that I am focused.
Beginning in October 2013, I sent the
California Department of Industrial Relations my complaint about HomeFirst’s minimum
wage violation twice, called them four times, and visited their San Jose office
three times. I wrote to my State Senator
and to the Governor. I sent my complaint
to the U.S. Department of Labor twice and called them twice. I complained to the HUD-OIG. I complained to the City of San Jose twice, requested
public documents from them eight times, and exchanged emails with its Office of
Equality a few times. I requested pro
bono assistance from six different law groups.
I talked with one newspaper journalist and emailed HomeFirst’s auditor about
the issue.
Francis
Fukuyama described how the U.S. has evolved to depend on the legal system to
enforce or change the government’s administrative objectives. The court fights of the whistleblower can continue
for years or until the whistleblower runs out of money to keep her case
going. Understanding this situation, my attorney
showed little interest in a lawsuit against HomeFirst. He had even less interest in my obsession or
courageous persistence, which could only harm his bottom line.
I have taken the cheaper – but not obviously effective –
approach of working with government offices rather than fighting against them.
Starting in February 2014, I filed
complaints with the County of Santa Clara twice concerning the failure of its
Mental Health Department to demand HomeFirst’s repayment of overbillings. I also complained to the State Attorney
General’s office and to the State Mental Health Oversight and Accountability
Commission; I followed up with the Commission seven times. I wrote to the County Executive, to the
County Board Supervisor who represents me (three times), and to the Governor (twice). I filed requests for public documents with
the County three times. Most complaints
and requests required at least one follow-up call or email. I pitched the issue to one local newspaper.
I filed my whistleblower
retaliation complaint with the State 22 months ago. Since then, I have sent follow-up emails and made follow-up phone calls sixteen times. I have been interviewed three times, and I sent supporting documentation (totaling 200+ pages) three times. The woman in charge of investigating my case
told me that she might make her determination in a month or so. Then, if
HomeFirst is not happy with it, they can appeal. Everything drags on so.
I was fired by HomeFirst more than two years ago, and I began
my whistleblowing three years ago. Without
my persistent focus, I am pretty sure nothing would have happened on any of my
complaints, but I’m not confident that anything will happen even with that
focus, or obsession.
No comments:
Post a Comment