"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
--H. L. Mencken
The Fraud Chronicles
"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!"
"Ka Chink!, Ka Chink!, Ka Chink!"
“Mistakes were made.”
“The system broke down.”
“Regulators were co-opted by industry.”
“Judgments were botched.”
“Mature relationships were established.”
“Bribes were accepted.”
“Lunches and dinners were eaten.”
“We can blackmail every member of Congress!”
--Overheard at the IRS.
"Every member of Congress has been bought!"
--Overheard in the Metro (Must have been uttered by a lobbyist.)
"The agency, part of the Interior Department, has been the subject of two scathing inspector general's reports in the past two years, documenting how MMS officials have improperly accepted gifts from officials they regulate and have been engaged in illegal drug use and sexual activities with them."
-- Washington Post, June 16, 2010.
Why stop at the MMS? It goes on in every Government Agency. Just look at the IRS. Read below.
These guys should be tried in a criminal Court!
Cecil Hua, Steve Benigni, Behrooz Sabet.
A Court Case:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________________
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
XXXXXXXXXXXXX )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
JOHN SNOW, SECRETARY, )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, )
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )
Washington, DC 20220 )
)
and )
)
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER )
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
)
Defendant, )
)
Serve: )
)
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE )
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Case No. ________________
Attn: Civil Process Clerk )
United States Attorney’s Office )
555 4th Street, NW )
Washington, DC 20530 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL )
10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW )
Washington, DC 20530 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
JOHN SNOW )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY )
20th and C Streets, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20551 )
-Via Certified Mail )
MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER )
U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
-Via Certified Mail )
)
U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE )
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW )
Washington, D.C. 20224 )
-Via Certified Mail )
________________________________________________)
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND MONETARY RELIEF
AND DEMAND FOR JURY
1.This action arises out of the Defendant United States Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) unlawful employment actions against the Plaintiff. Specifically, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX alleges that the IRS discriminated against him on the bases of national origin (XXXXXX) and religion (XXXXX), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when it failed during over six years of employment to: advance or promote him in any way; to give him any meritorious salary increases; to assign him career-enhancing projects related to modernization; to provide him with the proper support, tools, computer equipment and software to accomplish projects; and to allow him to take necessary training programs to remain updated on technological developments and advance his career.
2.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also alleges that the IRS repeatedly and persistently harassed him in reprisal for engaging in Equal Employment Opportunities activities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when it, inter alia, subjected him to physical and verbal harassment leading to his constructive discharge in 2001.
3.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also alleges that his former employer, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS), through its unlawful discriminatory behavior and retaliation, made his working conditions so unbearable that any reasonable person in his position would feel compelled to resign.
Parties
4.Plaintiff (“Mr. XXXXXXXXXX”) is a U.S. citizen, a male of XXXXXX origin, and a resident of the Town of XXXXXX, County of XXXXXXX, in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
5.Defendant John Snow is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury and is responsible for the lawful administration of the Department of the Treasury and those Agencies and Bureaus under its purview including the Plaintiff’s employer, the United States Internal Revenue Service. As such, Secretary Snow is a proper defendant in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
6.Defendant Mark W. Everson is the Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service, the Plaintiff’s former employer and is responsible for the United States Internal Revenue Service’s lawful administration. As such, Commissioner Everson is a proper defendant in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
Jurisdiction
7.This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it asserts a claim that arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
8.This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(F)(3), as it asserts a claim that arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Venue
9.Venue is proper in the District of Columbia under 29 U.S.C. § 1402 because a substantial part of the acts and omissions that give rise to this Complaint occurred in the Internal Revenue Service’s offices located at 1111 Constitution Avenue,., NW, in Washington, D.C., and venue is proper under § 2000e-5(F)(3) because the Defendant has its principal office in the District of Columbia.
Factual Allegations
10.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was born in XXXXXX, emigrated to the U.S. from XXXX via XXXXXX, and became a U.S. citizen in XXXX.
11.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX has at all times in his life followed the XXXXX religious faith.
12.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was hired as a Senior Technical Advisor (Computer Science and Electrical Engineering), at the level of GS-15, at the IRS’s Washington, D.C. offices in XXXXXXXX.
13.The IRS hired Mr. XXXXXXXXXX as one of fifteen hires out of approximately three thousand applicants to take part in the modernization of IRS computer systems.
14.In or around November 1998, the IRS assigned him to its Information Systems Division under the supervision of Steve Benigni.
15. From the outset of his employment under Mr. Benigni, Mr. Benigni displayed a hostile attitude toward Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he did not display toward Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s XXXXXXX coworkers.
16.In or around August 1999, Mr. Benigni assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to the ETSS/RGS (Electronic Technical Support System/Report Generation System) project, a project in which almost every week Mr. XXXXXXXXXX had to travel to Dallas, Texas, with Mr. Benigni’s full knowledge and approval.
17.During his assignment to the ETSS/RGS project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX would call every week from Dallas or from wherever to where he was traveling to report to Mr. Benigni on the on going project activities.
18.On or about August 13, 1999, Mr. Benigni admonished in an e-mail Mr. XXXXXXXXXX for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s failing to attend meetings at New Carrollton, Maryland, despite the fact that Mr. Benigni was aware that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was in T exas on a work assignment at the time.
19.In or around March, 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was assigned to prepare an “Alternatives Analysis” for the SCRIPS (Service Center Recognition and Image Processing System project) project, which is one of the systems that processes tax returns.
20.Although Mr. Benigni assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to prepare an “Alternatives Analysis” for the project, he did not identify the particular problem that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was to analyze.
21.During his undertaking of this “Alternatives Analysis” project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX repeatedly had to ask Mr. Benigni what the real problem was that he had to analyze.
22. During his undertaking of “Alternatives Analysis” project, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also repeatedly asked to meet with Mr. Albicker, an important executive at the IRS, who purportedly asked for the analysis to be performed.
23.Mr. Benigni never granted Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s request for this meeting with Mr. Albicker regarding the “Alternatives Analysis” project.
24.In or around April 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was assigned an assistant to help with the “Alternatives Analysis” project, but his superiors removed her from this assignment shortly thereafter.
25.The IRS also did not allow Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to meet with the contractor who was already working on this SCRIPS project despite repeated warnings from Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that the project would fall short in its quality without a meeting with the contractor.
26.Through persistent efforts, despite several obstacles put in his way, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX managed to identify the correct problem.
27.After identifying the correct problem involved with the “SCRIPS Alternatives Analysis” project Mr. XXXXXXXXXX completed the study for the project and delivered the study report on time.
28.Despite Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s success, in or about November of 2000 Mr. Benigni gave Mr. XXXXXXXXXX his annual performance rating, which was less than outstanding despite Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s outstanding work performance and completion of the project (Mr. XXXXXXXXXX received an “outstanding” rating for the same type of work in the previous year).
29.Whereupon Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed Mr. Benigni of his dissatisfaction with the rating in the light of all the extraordinary efforts he had to put in for the SCRIPS project, and Mr. Benigni instructed him to speak with Mr. Cecil Hua, Mr. Benigni’s direct superior and the Director of the IRS’s Systems Engineering and Integration Division.
30.Accordingly, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX met with Mr. Hua to discuss his performance rating.
31.During the meeting Mr. Hua lost his temper, physically threw Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s SCRIPS report and electronic mail exchanges on the floor and said “Get out, that is your rating!”
32.As a result of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s dissatisfaction with his performance rating and his inability to resolve the situation due to the IRS’s discriminatory attitude toward him, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed an EEO Counseling Report of Discrimination based on his national origin in November 2000.
33.Subsequently, in or around late November or early December of 2000, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX did not elevate his EEO Complaint of Discrimination to the Treasury Department as a gesture to amicably resolve the situation and return his concentration to his work.
34.In or around January of 2001, unknown IRS employees assigned Mr. XXXXXXXXXX a project called the “Impact Assessment,” a multi-million dollar project that pertained to data mining using a data warehouse, and instructed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, without first consulting Mr. XXXXXXXXXX about his workload, that he was to perform and complete the Impact Assessment within 2 weeks.
35.The Impact Assessment was a prodigious project involving a large amount of time-consuming attention to detail.
36.In response to this unreasonable assignment of work, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed in an e-mail that he was not in a position to perform the Impact Assessment project because he already was involved in another project and because the deadline was unreasonable.
37.Shortly thereafter, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX met with Mr. Benigni to discuss the Impact Assessment project and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s responsive e-mail.
38.During the meeting between Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and Mr. Benigni to discuss the Impact Assessment project and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s responsive e-mail, Mr. Benigni yelled and cursed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX.
39.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX attempted to leave the meeting to retrieve his file that contained all correspondence and information related to the Impact Assessment project, Mr. Benigni threatened Mr. XXXXXXXXXX saying, “God damn it, sit down, I will write you up.”
40.On or about March 9, 2001, Mr. Benigni walked into Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s work area and threw a counseling letter at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, striking Mr. XXXXXXXXXX in the face with the letter.
41.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was shocked and astonished at this behavior, and so Mr. XXXXXXXXXX again met with Mr. Hua to discuss the Impact Assessment project and the issues between himself and Mr. Benigni.
42.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX raised the issue of Mr. Benigni’s abusive conduct with Mr. Hua, Mr. Benigni’s direct supervisor, Mr. Hua curtly responded by telling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “Who cares? You Indians are corrupt anyway. What’s the big deal?”
43.Mr. Hua also advised Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that, “You have two problems. You tend to escalate problems, and you associate with the niggers.” Mr. Hua added the names "Charles Murray, Al Holloway, Bridgette Kendrick, Cynthia Forrest, Fred Bumbry.
44.Despite the forgoing, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX pursued the issue of the counseling letter, and Mr. Hua eventually agreed to withdraw Mr. Benigni’s counseling letter.
45.After Mr. Hua failed to withdraw the counseling letter in or about April of 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed an EEO discrimination claim on or about April 16, 2001.
46.On or about April 19, 2001, shortly after learning that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed his EEO claim, Mr. Benigni came to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle and told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he wanted to do Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s mid-year assessment/performance appraisal.
47.Mr. Benigni then made a gesture with his foot like he was crushing a bug and stated, “We’re going to put you on probation.”
48.Accordingly, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX declined to attend his “mid-year assessment” meeting with Mr. Benigni in the light of Mr. Benigni’s behavior and the stated intent of putting Mr. XXXXXXXXXX on probation.
49.On April 20, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX then appealed to Mr. Bob Albicker, the IRS’s Deputy Chief Information Officer/Associate Commissioner and Cecil Hua’s supervisor, and Ms. Toni Zimmerman, the IRS’s Deputy Chief Information Officer.
50.Within a few days after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX appealed to Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. Benigni started circling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle repeatedly.
51.Within a few days after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX appealed to Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also began receiving multiple silent phone calls a day, however at times he heard heavy breathing on the other end of the line.
52.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX reported these matters to the IRS’s EEO Counselors, but the EEO Counselors did nothing to stop these activities.
53.As a result of Mr. Benigni’s harassment, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX developed a variety of stomach problems, leading to his having to consult with a gastro-intestinal specialist, Dr. Pinnar, when his stomach pain became severe.
54.Around this period, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX also began to experience angina attacks with increasing frequency, and he had to consume liberal doses of nitroglycerin tablets to contain the severe chest pains.
55.After one such severe angina attack, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was rushed to a cardiologist.
56.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX told Mr. Benigni, Mr. Hua, and the EEO Counselors that all of these incidents of extreme physical distress and psychological pain were being caused by Mr. Benigni’s treatment of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, but nobody acted to stop Mr. Benigni.
57.Finally, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX informed Mr. Hua that he no longer wanted to work under Mr. Benigni’s purview.
58.Accordingly, in or around July of 2001 Mr. Hua assigned Mr. Behrooz Sabet as a “Management Contact” for XXXXXXXXXX, although he did not define for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX what exactly a “management contact” really meant.
59. Within a week following his assignment as a “Management Contact” for Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You better watch out. I’ve been brought into this Division to force you out. If I do that, I have been promised a Senior Executive position.”
60.Mr. Sabet then proceeded to give Mr. XXXXXXXXXX multiple assignments.
61.The first one was to write a White Paper on “How Do We Communicate the New Functionality Resulting from Information System Modernization to Our Stakeholders?” and Mr. Sabet demanded that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX should not affix his name as the author of this White Paper.
62.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet constantly cursed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, calling him, among other profanities, a “motherfucker” and repeatedly asked him, “You bastard, who do you think you are?”
63.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet followed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into the bathroom and spit on the bathroom floor where Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s feet were.
64.Mr. Sabet also constantly followed Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into the elevators and including the cafeteria, even though Mr. Sabet did not eat his lunch at the cafeteria.
65.At this time Mr. Sabet also referred to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX as a “stupid minority.”
66.At this time Mr. Sabet also told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You are an XXXXXX. You’re a minority. Why don’t you get with it?”
67.Mr. Sabet also frequently interrupted the work Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was doing by entering Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle, sitting down very close to him, and then repeatedly cursing at him using profanities even when Mr. XXXXXXXXXX asked him to stop.
68.In addition, at this time Mr. Sabet also told Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, “You Hindus are stupid anyway. You’ve got all those gods running around.”
69.During Mr. Sabet’s supervision of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Mr. Sabet also bogged Mr. XXXXXXXXXX down with more and more assignments in an attempt to prevent him from completing his EEO interrogatories timely and in a coherent fashion by aggressively interfering with Mr. XXXXXXXXXX when Mr. Sabet knew that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was working on his EEO interrogatories.
70.In or about mid August of 2001, Mr. Sabet refused to allow Mr. XXXXXXXXXX to take time off to complete an EEO discovery request, ripping up in front of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s leave request for leave and then throwing the torn document in the trash can.
71.When Mr. XXXXXXXXXX went to pick up the pieces in the trash can, Mr. Sabet quickly bent over, picked up the pieces and put them in his pocket.
72.After all of this had taken place, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX encountered Mr. Hua in the hall, and Mr. XXXXXXXXXX asked Mr. Hua, “Why are you doing all these things to me?”
73.Mr. Cecil Hua responded by showing Mr. XXXXXXXXXX his middle finger, whereupon Mr. Hua laughed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and walked away.
74.During about August of 2001, with increasing frequency Mr. Sabet commenced banging violently on the outside of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle walls, resulting in Mr. XXXXXXXXXX suffering further acute stomach pains, intestinal distress, and angina attacks.
75.On August 16, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX filed a complaint directly to the Commissioner of the IRS, Mr. Charles Rossotti, in which he notified Mr. Rossotti that IRS employees were retaliating against him for his previous EEO complaint. Mr. XXXXXXXXXX requested that the IRS Commissioner take immediate measures to stop the retaliation and continued harassment. To the best of Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s knowledge, the IRS took no remedial measures in response to his request.
76.On or about August 22, 2001, Mr. Sabet’s banging on Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s cubicle walls with a binder markedly increased in frequency, the intimidation becoming more severe in an attempt to intimidate Mr. XXXXXXXXXX into resigning.
77.On or about August 22, 2001, Mr. Sabet threw and hit Mr. XXXXXXXXXX in the shoulder with a 3-ring binder, stating “I’m going to force you out.”
78.On or about August 22, 2001, due to Mr. Sabet’s retaliatory actions and physical assaults, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was forced to leave the IRS Building in haste, as Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was unable to endure it any more.
79.On or about September 4, 2001, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX sent an e-mail to Mr. Hua stating that his civil rights had been violated, and he again requested time off to complete his EEO interrogatories.
80.Hua responded to Mr. XXXXXXXXXX’s e-mail dated in or about September 4, 2001, by telling Mr. XXXXXXXXXX that he was absent without leave and ordered Mr. XXXXXXXXXX not to write to him anymore.
81.On at least three separate occasions prior to September 10, 2001, Mr. Sabet called Mr. XXXXXXXXXX at home and left messages on his voice mail, two of them stating “Get back to work or I will chop your balls off.”
82.On or about September 10, 2001, as the direct and proximate result of the IRS’s illegal discrimination on the basis of his national origin and its illegal retaliation and reprisal for his having made an EEO complaint, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was compelled to submit his resignation to the IRS.
83.Because of all aggressive, virulent, retaliatory and hostile environment to which Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was subjected, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was unable to complete his EEO Interrogatories at work.
84.Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was only able to complete them only by in or about September 14, 2001, after he was forced to submit his resignation on or about September 10, 2001.
85.Within two or three weeks after Mr. XXXXXXXXXX submitted his resignation, Mr. XXXXXXXXXX called the IRS’s Commissioner’s office and spoke to a woman named Gail Carol, informing her that he submitted his resignation under duress and wished to withdraw it.
86.Ms. Carol instead laughed at Mr. XXXXXXXXXX and hung up on him.
87.After Mr. XXXXXXXXXX was forced out of the IRS, Mr. Benigni and Mr. Sabet began falsely telling people at the IRS that Mr. XXXXXXXXXX had illegally entered the IRS building, logged into the computers, and sent an electronic mail threatening to kill someone.
Count I
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Discrimination/Tangible Employment Action
(Including, but not limited to, Constructive Discharge)
88.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 87 as though alleged herein.
89.Plaintiff is a “person” and an “employee” as the terms are defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e and the Defendant is an “executive agency” as the term is defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.(a).
90.Defendant failed and/or refused to hire Plaintiff for new positions, and otherwise discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
91.Defendant limited, segregated, and/or classified the Plaintiff in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
92.Defendant took a tangible employment action against the Plaintiff when it constructively discharged the Plaintiff when it made the Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable that his resignation was compelled and is qualified as a fitting response to Defendant’s behavior and conduct.
93.Defendant did not have a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of discrimination and harassment.
94.Plaintiff reasonably availed himself of Defendant’s EEO procedures; however, Defendant’s purported anti-harassment policies and grievance mechanisms were ineffective and were not properly implemented.
95.Plaintiff sustained substantial monetary and non-monetary damages as the result of the Defendant’s illegal conduct.
96.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Count II
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment
97.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 96 as though alleged herein.
98.Plaintiff is a “person” and an “employee” as the terms are defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e and the Defendant is an “executive agency” as the term is defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16.(a).
99.Defendant failed and/or refused to hire Plaintiff for new positions, and otherwise discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
100.Defendant limited, segregated, and/or classified the Plaintiff in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of Plaintiff’s ethnic origin and religion.
101.Defendant engaged in hostile conduct, including verbal, psychological and physical assaults, against the Plaintiff.
102.Plaintiff sustained substantial monetary and non-monetary damages as the result of the Defendant’s illegal conduct.
103.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Count III
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
Retaliation
(Adverse Employment Actions including, but not limited to, Constructive Discharge)
104.Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 103 as though alleged herein.
105.Defendant, in response to Plaintiff’s engaging in protected activity by filing and prosecuting an EEO complaint against the Defendant, made the Plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable, through its unlawful discriminatory behavior and retaliation, that his resignation was compelled and is qualified as a fitting response to Defendant’s behavior and conduct.
106.Defendant did not have a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of discrimination and harassment.
107.Plaintiff reasonably availed himself of Defendant’s EEO procedures; however, Defendant’s purported anti-harassment policies and grievance mechanisms were ineffective and were not properly implemented.
108.Plaintiff demands such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., including, but not limited to, the following:
a.reinstatement and economic damages, including back pay;
b.compensatory damages;
c.punitive damages;
d.reasonable attorney’s fees;
e.court costs; and any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXX prays this Honorable Court for Judgment against the Defendant, in addition to reinstatement, in the amount of economic damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages to be determined at trial, plus attorneys’ fees, costs of this action, equitable relief (including Plaintiff’s employment status and awarding back pay) and any other relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper to award.
Respectfully Submitted,
XXXXXX X. XXXXXXXXXX,
By Counsel,
_________________________________
R. Scott Oswald, D.C. Bar No. 458859
Nicholas Woodfield, D.C. Bar No. 471801
Employment Law Group, P.L.L.C.
888 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20006-3307
(202) 261-2812
(202) 261-2835 (facsimile)
soswald@employmentlawgroup.net
nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.net
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jury Demand
Plaintiff XXXXXXXXXX demands a jury for all issues proper to be so tried.
_________________________________
R. Scott Oswald
Nicholas Woodfield
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Notarized: _____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
--H. L. Mencken
Cecil,
Oh Cecil! You are dripping with such synthetic sincerity in your written correspondence, but every time we meet you show your fangs drenched in venom! Not only that, you have assembled a whole retinue of collaborators such as Steve Benigni in this nefarious activity, only the Good lord knows who else that are willing to serve as hatchet men and women.
I respectfully submit that neither you nor Steve Benigni may be qualified xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
I want you to forward a copy of this e-mail to Mr. John Reece, our current CIO. Let him read what I have written here. No, I am not copying him in this e-mail—I want you to deliver this to him.
What have you done in the past six years as a Systems Engineer—not just by the title, but in fact?
Remember TCP-3? What a circus that was! And what a colossal failure that was! You led that effort didn’t you? No one even knows what TCP-3 stood for! It violated every principle in systems engineering! No wonder it crashed and burned! How many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was lost in that magnificent TCP-3 endeavor? Who else was involved in that ignominious activity? How many contractor personnel? You didn’t follow any architectural principles, did you? Did you follow any systems engineering concepts in that odious affair? I don’t want to mention other kinds of malfeasance that have been going on here.
What has Steve Benigni done in the last six years—especially when he is not doing his crossword puzzles, when he is not on vacation, and when he is not taking those training classes?
............................
............................
At the IRS, it has been one fiasco after another! It reeks of a cheap perfume!
Remember George Z? Remember Jim LoudeX? Remember John O'KX? Remember Wayne JanXxx? Within months of their hiring they were gone! They figured that this place was up to no good. They had figured in short order that this place will not let anyone do Systems Engineering the way it ought to be done. In hindsight, I should have known better and bailed out too—I had an offer to be the Chief Engineer at the FBI headquarters within a month of joining the IRS. I thought it would be unethical to leave the IRS within a month of joining! Yes, I still have a copy of that job offer. That job paid more too!
Coming back to our original question, either you don’t know or have forgotten what systems engineering is all about. I had high hopes when you took over as the Director. In the last six months since you took over, it has been chaos and pandemonium. All these so-called “Alternatives Analysis” is a tiny part of systems engineering and none of you even understand how to do them according to systems engineering principles.
I want you to give Mr. John Reece a copy of that nonsensical “Counseling Letter” that Steve Benigni threw at me. I want him to see that even my name has not been spelled right in that piece of paper! I want you to provide him a copy of all the electronic mails that have been exchanged on that subject of the so-called “Impact Assessment” in their chronological order. To be fair, Mr. Reece should demand it from you, without any omissions or alterations. You may already know that any destruction or alteration of Government records, including electronic mails may be illegal.
I want John Reece to understand what really passes for systems engineering around here.
By the way, ................... I have a couple of questions for you. Mr. Reece may want to ask you the same questions also. Here they are:
..................................
..................................
..................................
I heard that TXX XX got a rating of “Outstanding”—a guy who didn’t even show up for work for months while some of us were busting our chops! How did I know this? It is the talk of the town!
.........................................
I want you to explain these “concepts” and modus operandi to John Reece. He should know. He has a right to know. There are fiduciary responsibilities involved here.
How was the training budget being spent? On whom? Who are the individuals who have been consuming the training budget just for the last year?
Is this place being run for just “friends and family”?
Cranking out something in the name of “Alternative Analysis” is NOT systems engineering. The real “alternative” is to “Modernize”—and that you see we don’t want to do!
Let me ask you this simple question: “Have you ever stood up and said that this is the wrong way to do business? This is unethical. This will fail.” I have—with clear explanations. And they are well documented. I am willing to produce them to John Reece and the Commissioner.
Have you shown loyalty to the profession—in this case, Systems Engineering? Only those who have demonstrated their commitment to the profession and the ethics that go along with it are professionals. Groveling does not count. Coercing people to perform unethical work that may be called “Waste, fraud, and abuse” does not count, even though that may get you a promotion or two. Producing obese documents do not count.
I believe that you and several others have a completely mistaken notion of what loyalty means. It appears that you are confused between the loyalty to the person and the loyalty to the profession. It is not always possible to give “pleasing answers” to difficult questions. If you have a serious illness, you would want your doctor to tell you the truth, don’t you? If you were having a quadruple bypass surgery, you wouldn’t necessarily want your best friend operating on you, would you?
Look sir, every time I came to talk to you in the first five months of your taking over, you didn’t have five seconds to talk to me. How is it Reggie McFadden always found time to talk to people—not just to me, but also to everyone in the Division? Not only that, he understood what I was talking about in ample measure—the real technical and engineering issues. He had integrity—real professional integrity. He refused to indulge in subversions.
Many of us know how most of you got your promotions. They go by various names such as, “networking”, “making connections”, “simple groveling”, and an unquestioning willingness to do “assassinations” when ordered to. Professional qualifications never mattered. If you find an honest fellow, just get rid of him or her—whatever it takes.
Cecil, I am sick to my stomach—literally. I will be out for the rest of the week.
With the best regards, as always,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
_______________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 1:51 PM
To: Albicker Bob F; Zimmerman Toni
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL.
Dear Mr. Albicker and Ms. Zimmerman:
I am reluctant and actually regret that I have to write this.
It is not even an exaggeration to say that I have been compelled by circumstances beyond my control to write this.
This is in response to the "Counseling Letter" thrown at me by Mr. Steve Benigni.
I believe that no one has a right to coerce me into performing illegal and unethical activities that may constitute "Waste, fraud, and Abuse" in the Federal Government.
All of us in the Federal Government, especially those in management, have a fiduciary responsibility.
I respectfully request that the following be done:
1.Retract the "Counseling Letter",
2.Issue a letter of apology,
3.Restore all of the sick leave I have been forced to take because of all the harassment I have been subjected to--I have developed an ulcer and a severe stomach pain,
4.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
5.Stop the harassment immediately.
I have repeatedly tried to bring all these to the attention of Mr. Steve Benigni, and Mr. Cecil Hua to no avail.
Instead of attending to these matters, they continue to aggravate the situation, increase the harassment and retaliation, and other activities that may only be called prejudicial, unethical and nefarious. You may wish to talk to Mr. Steve Benigni and Mr. Cecil Hua and get the true story of what is happening-- if they would tell you the truth. As part of your investigation, you may want them to construct and reproduce a chronological record of all the events that have happened so far and all the electronic mails that have been exchanged on this subject, including the so-called "Impact assessment". You may also want to point out to them that any destruction and/or alteration of Government records, including electronic mail may constitute illegal acts.
I consider myself a loyal employee of the IRS.
You and I may differ on how this or that is done, or how modernization should be done. Those differences do not constitute disloyalty. Often, only through expressing our differences, the real solutions emerge.
I am sure you know that I have done a lot of good work in the past six years I have been with the IRS. I don't need to list them here. I am here to serve, and I have. If you want me to leave the organization, I will leave. But before that, the issues outlined above must be resolved. It is widely perceived that this "Counseling Letter" is an underhanded way to get rid of honest people.
I have given below some of my correspondence that may help you in sorting out this matter.
If this matter is not resolved quickly, I will be forced to raise these issues with others--I don't have a choice, including but not limited to the filing of a lawsuit, which will entail airing the issues in public.
Please note that my original response to that nonsensical "Counseling Letter" ran to fifty pages-- fully notarized. I chose not to file that fifty page response, but instead I filed only an abbreviated three page filing.
With the best regards,
X. XXXXXXXXX
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
This paper was written in response to a request by the scoundrel Behrooz Sabet asking the author to commit fraud. The author of the following paper told him that he does not commit fraud nor accept bribes.
In response, this rascal went on to say in the presence of others something related to sex and even pointed out at a picture hanging on the wall. This guy further added that Senator Grassley and Dean Zerbe have been put in their places by Rossotti. Hey, committing fraud can get you promoted all the way to the Senior Executive level in the Federal Government.
How Do We Communicate The New Functionality
Resulting From
Information System Modernization To Our Stakeholders?
Or
The Enterprise Architecture, Release Architecture,
Sequencing Plan and Other Miscellany.
A White Paper.
August 08, 2001
Executive Summary
We have a problem: How to communicate our modernization-related annual incremental functionality and related items to our stakeholders?
The answer to this problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture (EA) itself by definition, and not outside of it in some other “Deliverable”. That is exactly the purpose of the Enterprise Architecture (EA). If it is not there already, the IRS should insist that the PRIME Contractor (CSC) create another chapter or “View” to the EA that will portray this required information. No separate “tasking” is required to accomplish this. This tasking was created on the day the contract was signed with the PRIME Contractor.
This paper explains why this is so. This paper also explains why items such as “Release Architecture” and “Release Engineering” are concepts that do not make sense and serve no useful purpose, merely causing confusion and wasting money.
1.0 Background
There was an informal meeting on July 31, 2001. The purpose was to discuss the need expressed by John Reece (Deputy Commissioner of Modernization & CIO) and Bob Albicker (Deputy Associate Commissioner, Systems Integration) to explain to the stakeholders what they are getting and when.
The attendees were Behrooz Sabet, Peter Wade, and X. XXXXXXXXXX.
It was agreed that XXXXXXXXXX would define the problem by August 09, 2001. While the problem definition was in progress, its solution also became perceptible. Hence, this White Paper not only defines the problem, it also proposes a solution that does it at the least cost.
2.0 Introduction
IRS now has four business units that have been created as a result of organizational modernization initiated by the Commissioner, Mr. Rossotti. These are:
1.Large and Mid-size Business (LMSB),
2.Small Business and Self-employed (SB/SE)
3.Wage and Investment (W & I)
4.Tax Exempt and Government Entities (TE/GE)
These four units have already “stood up” and are fully operational.
In addition to the above four entities, the Information Systems organization has other customers and stakeholders as well, such as the office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Human Resources, etc.
It all starts with “Business Needs”, both tactical and strategic.
Strategic planning, both by our stakeholders and our own Information Systems (IS) organization if done properly, is intended to address and link the goals and objectives to the budget and appropriations. Indeed, this is a natural process that is widely practiced in the private sector.
However, since this process is not widely practiced within the Government, the Congress enacted legislation called the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the Clinger-Cohen Act (also known as the Information Technology and Management Reform Act) to bring all these into alignment.
The “Goals” and “Objectives” resulting from strategic planning are translated into a variety of projects, among them, modernizing the information systems and related business processes. Information system modernization is done over a period of time depending on its magnitude, the available funding and other resources, commensurate with risk.
It is not entirely unreasonable for our customers and stakeholders to ask us, “We have expressed our needs through our strategic plans. What have you done for us lately? And what are you going to do for us in the coming years so that we can achieve our objectives?”
We should be able to answer them even before they ask us.
The Mission, Goals, and Objectives expressed in the Strategic Plans of the four Business Units, the other stakeholders and the Information System organization are the desired products or the desired end states, also known as the “Target Vision”.
Producing these products requires a process. And the process needs to be tailored to the product. Producing automobiles requires a process, producing ships requires a different process, and producing software requires yet another process. In other words, the product and the process required to produce it are intimately linked. Indeed, stated differently, the product determines the process—not the other way around.
3.0 What Is The Process?
We have already said that it all starts with the business needs.
For after all, if there are no business needs, you might as well sit and breathe, watch the grass grow and the paint dry.
What does the Information System organization do in response (or proactively if it has vision)?
Translate the business needs into system level requirements (sometimes also known as functional requirements, non-functional requirements, performance requirements, security requirements, etc.) stated in plain English. No special tools are required at this stage. Indeed, you shouldn’t. The English language is more than adequate at this stage.
We are not talking here about writing one page of COBOL code or Assembly Language Code. Business needs can be contemplated and explored only at the system level—also known as the Enterprise Level.
These system level requirements are used to design a system that will deliver the information system to meet the business needs, the goals and objectives of the stakeholders.
The key phrases here are “system level”, “design”, “system”, and “design a system”.
The business needs together with the system level requirements and available proven technology are the inputs or drivers to what has come to be called “Information System Enterprise Architecture”.
Why an “Architecture”?
The word “Architecture” is a metaphor borrowed from the construction industry to elucidate and explain some complex concepts that used to fall under what is known as Systems Engineering—a rigorous, mathematically intensive discipline. Being gullible, we want to make things easy and touchy-feely. Being “sensitive” that we are, we like to hold hands and have good cry. We take a couple of computer programming courses, and presto—we are computer scientists! Even more, we can call ourselves “Information System Architects.”
Having degraded ourselves, our immune system became susceptible to this new religion called “Architecture” and we became infected. We have always liked new religions, especially the ones that make us comfortable with our vices.
Every religion has its high priests. Thus we have the gospel according to Zachman, the gospel according to Boar, the gospel according to the Treasury and so on. Being of religious proportions, there are no agreements among these various sects, especially when there is a lot of money to be made. Throw in the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), we have a good thing going here!
However, the important thing to realize here is that “Architecture” is here to stay. So, we might as well accept it and extend the conversation to maximize any benefits that we can derive out of it.
Since there are several disagreements on what constitutes an information system architecture, the situation became ripe for creating a “Standard.” Thus was born the IEEE Standard 1471-2000, “IEEE recommended Practice for Architectural Description."
(“Architecture” is considered “conceptual”. The concept has to be “described” in an artifact called “Architectural Description”. Hence the phrase “Architectural Description”. Inside the IRS, this artifact is called the Enterprise Architecture or EA for short.)
IEEE being a big pooh-bah in this business of creating standards, we are going to use their Standard in our discussions. Several illustrious people participated in developing this standard, and consequently, it has merits.
Let us explain what constitutes this “Process” briefly and move on to the question with which we started.
An “Information System Architecture” or an “Enterprise Architecture” should always be accompanied by systems design, which requires systems engineering—there is absolutely no way of getting away from it. Otherwise, you cannot answer questions related to the desired response time, reliability and availability, the required processing power, the number of processing sites, communications capacity, disaster recovery and so on. By the way, all these things cost money.
Simply writing a few banal sentences in broken English is not sufficient for an “Architecture” however obese this “Architecture” document may be. You can put it on a CD, put it on the Web—what is banal will remain banal, merely a high tech banality—an inchoate, jejune, and an incoherent document that is repeatedly called into question as to its completeness and veracity.
After completing the overall system design, systems engineering requires that you verify that the proposed design will indeed meet the business needs as portrayed by the system level requirements. Corrections are made as necessary.
At this point, you will notice that the system has become far more well defined, and hence much more amenable to a far more accurate cost estimate. So you do a cost estimate. This is sometimes called a [program] control estimate or a baseline estimate. If you have proper configuration management practices in place, this establishes the system design baseline—not the Configuration Items (CI), not the Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI), and definitely NOT the so-called Configuration Units—because, there are no such things defined in the standards.
(The overall system design is also sometimes called “Preliminary Design”.)
The system design is followed by the creation of subsystems within the overall system context. Partitioning the overall system into a set of subsystems is a systems engineering activity—not a random act done with reckless abandon. There are established criteria to do this. Functions are allocated to these subsystems. You have an allocated baseline at the subsystem level. Still no CI, no CSCIs.
Each subsystem should deliver some subset of end-to-end functionality, with properly defined interfaces between the subsystems. Thus, you have an interface definition document, which you place under configuration control.
The subsystems are translated into projects. The subsystem functions are allocated to the projects. At this point, you go back and verify that the functions from the system level to the subsystem level and on to the project level have been accounted for. You also go back and validate that the sum total of all project level requirements add up to the business need with which we originally started, and thus the system level requirements. This whole process is called verification and validation. Then and only then, the CI’s etc. are created at the project level. Design at the project level is also sometimes called Detailed Design.
You might have noticed that this whole process is not linear at all.
Contemporaneous with the creation of the system level requirements, you create a Test Plan and the corresponding test data. You refine this as you go along the life cycle. Along the way, you create and establish metrics.
There are always minor variations that are permissible in the overall approach outlined above, but the essential concepts and processes remain.
Has the IRS done any of these? Do we need to answer that question at all?
What did the IRS really do?
Instead of first creating a systems view through an Enterprise Architecture, we created the projects first—thus going back to the earlier days of creating stovepipe systems. Then we decided under pressure from the GAO that we have to have an architecture—without really having any requirements technical or otherwise—we just decided to wing it. And then we decided it would be nice to create some requirements. So we created a group called “Vision and Strategy” to create the “Business Needs”. Even more, we have a separate organization called “Strategic Planning”. What is the relationship between the “Vision & Strategy” organization and the “Strategic Planning” organization—no one knows. If Strategic Planning is not Vision and Strategy, what is?
“If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.”
--Voltaire.
This is not modernization, this is pandemonium. It appears we are trying to chase away one problem with another problem, one crisis with another crisis, etc.
No wonder we are in deep yogurt.
A large project is not a bigger version of a small project, neither is a large bridge a bigger version of a small wooden bridge across a village creek.
IRS information system modernization is not about writing a one page COBOL program.
Since the “Information System Architecture” or the “Enterprise Architecture” is at the nexus of Business Needs, System Level Requirements, and System Design, we need to explore a little bit on what constitutes an “Architecture”. In this brief exploration, we are going to follow the gospel according to the IEEE as mentioned earlier.
4.0 What Is An Architecture?
4.1 The Definitions
Architecture: The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components, their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the principles guiding its design and evolution.
(Note the words “system” and “design”. Architecture presupposes a “system”, and a “system” has to be “designed”.)
System: A collection of components organized to accomplish a specific function or set of functions.
A system inhabits an environment.
A system exists to fulfill one or more missions in its environment. A mission is a use or operation for which a system is intended by one or more stakeholders to meet some set of objectives.
[Translation: mission = function]
4.2 The Stakeholders are at the Core of the Architecture
A system has one or more stakeholders. Each stakeholder has interests or concerns related to that system. Concerns are those interests that pertain to the systems development, its operation, or any other aspects that are critical or otherwise important to one or more stakeholders. Concerns include system considerations such as performance, reliability, security, geographic distribution, and the ability to evolve and extend.
(Italics are added for emphasis.)
Stakeholders include taxpayers, end users, auditors, Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, Customer Service Representatives, the architect, developers, other beneficiaries, and evaluators.
The concept of an “Architecture” is especially important for software intensive systems, such as the IRS information system modernization.
Architectural concepts apply throughout the entire life-cycle
The architecture facilitates:
Expression of the system and its evolution
Communication among the system stakeholders
Expression of the persistent characteristics and supporting principles of a system to guide acceptable change.
There is a general consensus on the importance of the architectural level of systems development, and that level consists of early decision making about overall design structure, goals, requirements, and development strategies.
Every system has an architecture. An architecture can be and is usually recorded by an architectural description. An architectural description is organized into one or more constituents called architectural views. Each view addresses one or more of the concerns of the system stakeholders. Each “view” addresses one or more of the concerns of the system stakeholders, for example, the functional view, physical view, and technical view, etc. The functional view provides the stakeholders on what functions the system will perform for them, when, under what conditions, and under what constraints. Additional information that are usually presented as part of the documentation practices are system overview, the system context, the system stakeholders, and their key concerns, and the architectural rationale.
(The word “Thread” is sometimes used rather loosely. “Thread” is not synonymous with “View”. A “Thread” may be used to explain a “View”.)
An architecture is prepared in response to current and expected user needs expressed through tactical and strategic planning.
4.3 The Quality of an Architecture
The quality of an architecture description refers to its capability to meet the needs and concerns of the stakeholders for whom it was constructed.
Prediction of the quality of the systems resulting from the architectural description includes such qualities as feasibility, efficiency, and reliability.
Identification of stakeholders and their concerns is an important part of an Enterprise Architecture. An architectural description in order to be complete should identify the stakeholders in formulating the architectural concept for the system.
At a minimum, the stakeholders identified shall include the following:
4.3.1 Business units, Users and other beneficiaries of the system,
4.3.2 Acquirers of the system,
4.3.4 Developers of the system,
4.3.5 Maintainers of the system.
At a minimum, the concerns identified should include the following:
4.3.6 The purpose or missions of the system
4.3.7 The appropriateness of the system for use in fulfilling its mission
4.3.8 The feasibility of constructing the system
4.3.9 The risks of system development and operation
4.3.10 Maintainability and deployability, and evolvability of the system.
As stated earlier, an architectural description consists of viewpoints. Each viewpoint shall be specified by
4.3.11 A viewpoint name,
4.3.12 The stakeholders to be addressed by the viewpoint,
4.3.13 The concerns to be addressed by the viewpoint,
4.3.14 The language, modeling techniques, or analytical methods to be used in constructing a view based upon the viewpoint.
Each stakeholder and each concern identified in an architectural description shall be addressed by at least one viewpoint.
5.0 So, What Do We Do and Where do We Go From Here?
The essential question is, “How should we approach complexity?”
“With simplicity”, is the answer. You don’t meet one complexity with another complexity. The problem should be resolved at its source.
We started with a simple question. We have provided a simple, yet straightforward answer. To do so, we had to recapitulate some background material such as the role of systems engineering, its relationship to the architecture, and the importance of configuration management, to place the problem in its proper context. Once we placed the problem in its proper context, the problem actually resolved itself—it sort of vanished-- vanished in the sense that we don’t need to start a separate activity distinct from the architecture itself to provide us the answers.
The answer to the problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture itself. That’s where the answers to the stakeholders’ questions are to be found., simply because the work on the Enterprise Architecture is presumed to have started with the stakeholders’ business needs as articulated in the various tactical and strategic plans.
All that is necessary is for the IRS’ Architect to get together with the PRIME’s Architect and create another chapter or another “View” in the EA that will provide the details on the year-to-year release in functionality, plus the details on how those functions are distributed geographically, distributed among the various phases of the processing cycle such as pre-filing, filing, post-filing, compliance, etc. After all, these are the IRS’ core business functions. If the EA does not address this what else does?
On the surface all these problems we encounter may appear to be disparate, each requiring its own solution. Epistemological considerations tell us that all these seemingly dissimilar problems may have a common thread, namely, we never really laid the right foundation at the beginning of this round of modernization either. We are merely time-driven, more interested in checking the boxes rather than really solving any of these problems. This is the height of immaturity.
6.0 On the “Other Miscellany”
Let us look at this concept called “Release Architecture”. Pray tell what is it? “Architecture” we understand, “Release” we understand—but can you really bring these two words together and create a new phrase that has any meaning in a technical sense?
As we said before, the term “Architecture” is borrowed from the construction industry—a mere metaphor. An architect creates the architecture for the whole building or structure. For a multi-story building, the architect does not create an architecture for the basement, a separate one for the first floor, another one for the second floor and so on. There is just one architecture. The building gets built incrementally—not the architecture itself—all the necessary engineering having been duly completed for the entire building. Hence, there is no such thing as “Release Architecture” and “Release Engineering”. We spit out these phrases with uncontrolled glee, and end up drowning in our own spit—in that process we delude ourselves that we are really smart and we start giving each other the so-called “awards”.
The architect portrays the architecture using multiple views: orthogonal projections, plan, elevation, sectional elevation, the isometric view, and so on. Sometimes, wooden and clay models are built and placed in public view, which I am sure we have all seen. If the “customer” has any questions, the architect pulls out the “architectural drawings” and answers the customers’ or the stakeholders’ questions. Please note that these questions may come from the county and municipal authorities, who are also considered the stakeholders.
So, before these nonsensical concepts carry us too far towards the deep end, let us abolish them—no “Release Architecture”, no “Release Engineering”. Incremental releases in functionality are legitimately the responsibility of the “Systems Engineering and Systems Integration” organization of which configuration management is an integral part, along with the Project Engineering organization. Configuration management takes care of the “increments”.
I mentioned these points at a recent meeting. I was told that we are “committed” to these concepts and our job is to keep the train running on these tracks. We are also feverishly creating the “CI’s” and “CU’s” at a furious pace at an inappropriate time in the program life-cycle.
There arises in this context an apparent question of why do we have this insatiable propensity to come up with these cockamamie concepts.
Do we see because we have eyes, or do we see because of our desire to see?
7.0 Conclusion
Why this lengthy paper to answer a seemingly simple question?
It is always possible to say, “Here is the answer, take it or leave it!” It is far more important to explain and justify why and how the answer was arrived at—the reasons behind it. After all, systems function according to the laws of physics and certain mathematical principles. This is technology, not theology. Taking great leaps without a conceptual anchoring will break our limbs or even result in fatalities as prior modernization attempts have proved.
What have we accomplished?
We have answered the question: How to communicate our modernization-related annual incremental functionality and related items to our stakeholders?
The answer to this problem is to be found in the Enterprise Architecture (EA) itself by definition, and not outside of it in some other “Deliverable”. If it is not there already, the IRS should insist that the PRIME Contractor (CSC) create another chapter or “View” to the EA that will portray this required information. Along with this we can also add additional “slice & dice” information such as the functionality associated with pre-filing, filing, post-filing, compliance, etc. All these are legitimately part of the Enterprise Architecture Description. Indeed, without these items spelled out in the EA, we have not defined the “system” at all—for, this description is the system.
No separate “tasking” is required to accomplish this. This tasking was created on the day the contract was signed with the PRIME Contractor.
Hence, it is fair to conclude that all the projects we have created are without any foundation and hence, invalid, vacuous and a nullity. Everyone, including the GAO know that the projects such as CAP, CADE, STIR, and e-services were started well before we embarked on the Enterprise Architecture. Even to this date the EA has not become stable. We have gone ahead and exited Milestone 3 on some of these projects!
Simply creating a page for each incremental “Release”—an 8.5” X11” sheet of paper that you can hold in your hand and actually read—can solve this problem. If there are altogether seven “Releases” contemplated for the entire modernization, then there would be seven pages each for each stakeholder. Maybe we should allow a summary page to introduce the other seven pages. Finished.
By the way, why is the PRIME Contractor still working on the Enterprise Life Cycle (ELC) and charging the IRS? The PRIME Contractor is supposed to be in possession of a fully valid life-cycle at the time the IRS signed the contract. Almost three years into the contract, we are still working on the “Life-cycle”?
To be simple is simple. And that is not a cliché.
“Morituri te salutamus”
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Randy Bellows
Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Dear Mr. Bellows:
I am grateful to you for your help in contacting the Treasury Inspector General’s Office in investigating the rumor and allegation concocted by a bunch of thugs at the IRS that I entered the IRS Federal Building illegally (after I resigned from the IRS on September 10, 2001), logged on to their computer, and sent an electronic mail threatening to “kill someone”. I have learned that the IG’s Office is planning to clear my name.
One of the reasons I resigned from the IRS is because I did not want to participate in the ongoing sabotage of the computer modernization by some of the managers and executives at the IRS. After I resigned, I thought I will hold my nose and keep quiet. However, what I saw is deeply troubling. I will be remiss if I did not report this matter.
I contacted the FBI field office at Tysons Corner on May 24, 2002.
The matter I want to report is too intricate, sophisticated, and too serious to be ignored. The IRS has squandered $10 Billion so far. It is NOT due to ignorance or errors in judgment. It is due to a malicious, well-orchestrated sabotage to prevent modernization from happening. Indeed, in hindsight, the rumor the IRS managers and executives started about me entering the building illegally, etc. appears to be calculated to discredit and slander my name, because they know that I have discovered what is happening. They also know, I have the evidence that can “connect the dots”. It runs all the way to the top.
I would once again be grateful if you would be kind enough to put me in touch with a high official within the FBI who can understand the magnitude and subtlety of what is happening.
I am sorry for encroaching on your time. I know you are busy.
Sincerely,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
___________________________________________________________________________________
Anything to commit fraud!
Don't bite the hand that feeds you!!
Subject: Fw: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon. Contracting Officer's denial of XXXXXXXXXX's request to meet with Logicon.
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Propst Mark L
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 8:50 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Cc: Henby Ramona C; Perry Yolanda M; Burfening Tara L
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
XXXX,
I have reviewed your request to meet with the SCRIPS Contractor and provide the following response.
Based on the contractors workload supporting both the current SCRIPS I Tasks: Annual application changes, just approved critical system component upgrades, associated development, integration/testing schedules and deliverables; and the SCRIPS II RFP solicitation efforts, a face to face meeting is denied. However, as previously discussed in the email history a conference call is authorized for next week based a mutually agreed to time for all parties and with the following requirements:
1. Conference call length will be approximately an hour.
2. Your team shall provide me with an agenda identifying the topic(s) and any associated questions. I will forward the agenda to the
Contractor.
3. The COTR and the Project Office will participate in the technical discussion.
Please provide your agenda and availability timeframes so that I can coordinate this with the contractor's availability.
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:18 AM
To: Propst Mark L
Cc: Gountias Constance
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Mr. Propst,
I have been asked to do a study on SCRIPS. I have been working with the SCRIPS project team at the National Office on this project. I have also visited the Austin Service Center.
At this point, both my associate Constance Gountias and I would like to meet with a Logicon technical person since Logicon is the overall contractor. We would like to do this in person instead of over the telephone. I don't anticipate this taking more than an hour. We can do this at either Logicon's facility or here at the National Office-- whichever is convenient. Both you and Yolanda are welcome to be at this meeting.
We will be much obliged if you will be kind enough to arrange for this meeting for next Tuesday or Wednesday. We would like to wrap this up soon.
regards,
XXXX XXXXXXXXXX
(IS:PM:A)
-----Original Message-----
From: Perry Yolanda M
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:45 AM
To: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Cc: Henby Ramona C; Propst Mark L
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Mark Propst is the SCRIPS COTR, and his phone number is 3-6885.
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 7:48 AM
To: Perry Yolanda M
Cc: Gountias Constance
Subject: FW: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Yolanda,
Who is the Contracting Officer for SCRIPS? Maybe, I will try to arrange a meeting through the Contracting Officer.
regards,
X. XXXXXXXXXX
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 6:33 AM
To: Perry Yolanda M
Subject: RE: SCRIPS Software.Meeting with Logicon.
Yolanda, it is surprising that Logicon can't spare an hour!
The meeting does not have to be here at NCFB.
Both Constance and I are willing to go to Logicon's facilities for the meeting.
Constance will be out Thursday and Friday. We can meet with Logicon early part of next week.
Please let me know.
|
