October 6, 1999

The Honorable Joseph Scarborough
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Civil Service
B-371C RHOB
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Scarborough:

The purpose of this letter is to urge you to urge Comptroller General Walker to a) drop his unwarranted defense of the preference giving, age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and retaliation for complaining about such discrimination that occurred under former Comptroller General Bowsher and former Acting Comptroller General Hinchman; b) stop fighting Chennareddy v. Bowsher and Diersen v. Hinchman; c) enter into good faith negotiations to settle those lawsuits; and d) stop his employees from retaliating against me.

Since he took office, sadly, Mr. Walker has taken many actions that make it clear that he refuses to accept the fact that age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and retaliation occurred under Mr. Bowsher and Mr. Hinchman. Mr. Walker’s actions include his continued fighting of Chennareddy and Diersen; his refusal to enter into good faith negotiations to settle those lawsuits; his delaying the issuance of an extremely important GAO Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) report; his rejection of PAB’s conclusion in that report that GAO’s younger employees, females, and minorities received significantly more favorable promotion rates; his public statements which imply that he has a low opinion of the value of the experience that senior employees have; his refusal to stop my former superiors from sabotaging my job search; his refusal to stop his attorney from referring to me as being "nuts;" and his statement that he "cannot attribute any credibility" to my assertions about GAO because I allegedly "play fast and loose with facts."

Mr. Walker seems to believe that if age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, or retaliation occurred under Mr. Bowsher or Mr. Hinchman, it was necessary to remedy past discrimination, that it occurred only in isolated situations, and that for sure, it all somehow stopped when he took office. He seems to believe that even if it did occur, that it was simply the price that some senior employees had to pay for past discrimination and that those who were selected to pay the price should just keep quiet about it.

The following is a summary of some of my recent correspondence concerning these matters. I would be more than happy to provide copies of the letters:

My January 29, 1999 letter to you:

I urged you to oppose use of broadbanding (BB), pay-for-performance (PFP), buyouts, and early outs in the federal government because of the Clinton Administration’s history of abusing those systems to give preferential treatment to its prime constituency -- younger employees, females, and minorities. As an example of that abuse, I cited GAO and the age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and retaliation that I suffered there. I am very pleased to see that you acknowledged in your July 26, 1999 letter to OPM the Subcommittee’s continuing concern that retirement incentives might be used to discriminate against senior employees who want to continue to work.

My February 26, 1999 letter to you:

I pointed out that on September 30, 1998, PAB issued a report titled "Selection Into the Senior Executive Service at GAO (1992-1997);" that PAB found that while 64% of those under age 40 who requested nomination to GAO’s Executive Candidate Development Program (ECDP) were successful, only 49% of those age 40-49 were successful, only 17% of those age 50-59 were successful, and 0% of those over age 60 were successful; and that PAB also found that while 50% of white and black females who requested nomination to the ECDP were successful, only 40% of white males were successful.

I also pointed out that in October of 1998, PAB issued a draft report which contained a conclusion that between 1991 and 1995, GAO’s "younger employees had nearly a 40% more favorable rate of promotion; females had nearly a 30% more favorable rate; and minority employees had nearly 20% more favorable rate." I stated that I was sure that if PAB had also studied PFP rankings, it would have similarly found that younger employees, females, and minorities received higher PFP rankings. I urged you request the PAB to finalize and issue its promotion report as soon as possible because PAB’s conclusion is extremely relevant to both Chennareddy and Diersen. Sadly, Mr. Walker delayed issuance of PAB’s final report until September 30, 1999. Sadly, he characterized the methodology PAB used as being "seriously flawed," he rejected PAB’s conclusions, and he rejected PAB’s recommendation to "further investigate the disparities revealed by this study to ascertain their underlying causes" and "if improper selection methods, rather than merit, are found to be the cause of disparities, GAO should institute appropriate changes."

My March 25, 1999 letter to PAB:

I suggested that PAB study the Evaluator-In-Charge (EIC) roles that GAO gave its Band II Evaluators under BB since 1989 and the bonuses and merit pay increases it gave them under PFP to determine if there have been significant differences in terms of age, gender, race, and political affiliation. I am confident that such studies would show that younger employees, females, minorities, and Democrats disproportionately received more EIC roles, bonuses, and larger merit pay increases.

My August 10, 1999 letter to OPM:

I urged OPM to not allow BB at IRS unless it could assure that IRS would not abuse BB to a) give preference to employees because of their demographics or b) retaliate against whistleblowers including employees who complain about age discrimination or reverse discrimination. As an example of such abuse, I cited GAO and the age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and retaliation that I suffered there. I asked OPM to not take any final action on its proposal allow BB at IRS, at least until Chennareddy and Diersen are resolved, because those lawsuits include allegations that GAO abused BB to give preferential treatment to its younger employees, minorities, and females; because those lawsuits allege that such preferential treatment resulted in age discrimination, reverse discrimination, and retaliation; and because of the direct relevance of those lawsuits to OPM’s proposal.

My September 30, 1999 letter to Senator Hatch and Representative Coble:

I provided additional information concerning recent actions Judge Robertson has taken in Diersen which a) show his bias in favor of President Clinton and his Administration and b) support my belief that the Court’s assignment of Diersen to him was not random, and therefore, improper. Judge Robertson:

-- Did not rule on GAO’s October 20, 1998 motion to dismiss until September 3, 1999 even though he could have issued his ruling as early as January 27, 1999. Justice delayed is justice denied;

-- Did not issue his ruling on GAO’s motion to dismiss until after my attorney filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on August 26, 1999. My attorney filed that motion because of GAO’s continuing retaliatory actions to sabotage my job search. GAO’s retaliatory actions are well documented in the supporting documents filed with that motion;

-- Ruled on GAO’s motion to dismiss without holding a hearing even though there are many disputed material facts;

-- Dismissed my class action claims, and to do so, he relied on obviously false statements GAO made concerning both the nature of those claims and the additional information about those claims that was included in amended complaints;

-- Denied leave to file the first and second amended complaints, and to do so, he relied on obviously false statements GAO made concerning the content of those complaints. GAO has still not filed an answer and Judge Robertson ignored the fact that I have a right to amend my complaint prior to GAO’s filing an answer; and

-- Granted the alternative relief GAO sought and transferred my individual claims to Chicago knowing full well that would constructively deny me legal representation.

On September 20, 1999, my attorney filed a motion alter or amend judgment and a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Given Judge Robertson’s recent actions, I am even more convinced that assignment of my lawsuit to him was not random. I would not be surprised to learn that the number of cases that implicate President Clinton and his Administration that were "randomly" assigned to one of the eight judges President Clinton appointed in that Court is significantly more than statistical likelihood would indicate. I believe that Diersen should be reassigned to a judge who has demonstrated fairness and objectivity and is not biased in favor of President Clinton and his Administration.

For additional information concerning Diersen and related matters, please visit Horror Story Case No. 16 at http://www.Adversity.Net/c16_tbd.htm.  Adversity.Net’s mission is to eliminate reverse discrimination. It was recently incorporated in the State of Maryland. I am its Treasurer and one of its three directors. We are in the process of applying for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

Again, please urge Mr. Walker to a) drop his unwarranted defense of the preference giving, age discrimination, reverse discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and retaliation that occurred under Mr. Bowsher and Mr. Hinchman; b) stop fighting Chennareddy and Diersen; c) enter into good faith negotiations to settle those lawsuits; and d) stop his employees from retaliating against me. Please do not hesitate to contact me and please consider me to be a potential witness at any relevant hearings that may be scheduled. I look forward to learning your views are on these very important issues.

Signed Sincerely,
/s/Dave Diersen

cc:
Speaker Hastert
Representatives Hyde and Burton
Majority Leader Lott
Senators Thompson and Fitzgerald