|
Radsafe Folks -- I have been asked by the president of my local chapter of the Health Physics Society to make a clarification. Earlier I stated that he told me that he and the other officers and council members were mulling over my request to give a presentation to the chapter on my whistleblower experiences but that their (preliminary) feeling was that the subject was "not of professional interest" to the chapter. I also stated that I thought they were being too deferential to DOE and the contractors by not letting me speak. The president tells me that he thinks that I implied that they had already made their decision and he asks that I make clear that at the time of my earlier posting they hadn't met yet and made their final decision. He also says that he and the other officers felt "set aside" (put off?) by my statement about the deference. He says that they have now met and discussed the issue. The nine of them voted unanimously that a such a presentation by me is "not of professional interest". He said that he had also consulted with "national officers" (of the HPS), who told him the same thing. He did not give a reason for why they thought so, or why the ordinary members would think so. I asked him why he, personally, would not be interested in hearing me speak. He said that he had read my RadSafe posting and "had no interest" in hearing anything more about it. He said he had never been in "anything (a situation) like that". He also said that he had heard "rebuttals" of my RadSafe posting from local folks who communicated with him by telephone and E-mail. I forbore to ask him who they were or why they didn't post their rebuttals on RadSafe for me to answer. But I did point out that whereas I had extensive documentation of my contentions, the other side (my former employer) does not, at least to judge by the dearth of documentation they produced at my retaliation hearing. I said I'd put my "paper" up against theirs any time. The president says I have two other avenues now. The council voted to allow their Web site person to link to a writeup to be provided by me. He said, as an afterthought, that the writeup should address "both sides". So I am assuming that the content of the writeup would have to be approved by the council. He also says that I can appeal the presentation decision to the membership at large. The president is a self-professed '"straight-up guy" (i.e., honest and straightforward). In all my previous dealings with him, and those of others with him, I have always found him to be an open and friendly person. This quality and his willingness to work for the chapter are what got him (deservedly) elected president. I would have hoped that a mover and shaker like him and the other officers and councilpersons would get behind me in my struggle to ensure that safety commitments are kept -- not as an expression of agreement with me, necessarily, but as a way to allow a diversity of professional voices to be heard. It is so discouraging that they will not. |