Home |  Maillist 

Response to Warning Letter dated October 7, 2005

On October 7, 2005, Zane Blaney called me into his office to give me a formal warning letter that was to be filed into my permanent file. I regret that I don't have a machine-readable copy of his written reprimand, but after working 15 months at Access SF for less money than my rent, I can't afford to get my scanner repaired to scan the original letter. Rest assured, I believe I responded to every allegation.

When I was pasting my response letter to this page and realized that I replied on November 11, 2005, I realized that this is about the same time the retaliation against me started to escalate. Perhaps it was this response to his warning letter that really set Zane off. Who can say? Read for yourself.

My formal response:

SFCTC / Access SF
1720 Market Street
San Francisco, California
94102

November 11, 2005

Zane Blaney, Executive Director
SFCTC / Access SF
1720 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102

Re: Response to Warning Letter dated October 7, 2005

Zane:

This letter is my response to your warning letter to me dated October 7, 2005. When we met to discuss your letter, you invited me to write a response to be filed in my personal file. I believe that everything stated in my response has been discussed directly with you. This letter restates and challenges allegations in your letter to me in the spirit of open communication. I am always open to discussing these issues with you in hopes of clearing up any misunderstandings.

When you interviewed me back in October 2004, for the position of Production Facilitator, you offered me the position of Operations Manager. Even though I had worked for many years producing and directing a public radio program while making a living consulting in the computer industry, my television experience was limited to a year in junior high school, and a couple of years as a volunteer at Access SF. I felt I needed more hands-on experience working in public access television before stepping up to the challenges of managing operations at Access SF.

During our interview, you expressed some concern that my friendship with staff and producers may be a liability and you told me in no uncertain terms that my allegiance must be to SFCTC and I must be committed to following and enforcing the policies and procedures, even when doing so may conflict with my relationships with other staff and producers. I believe that the "pattern of altercations and conflicts" you mention are a direct result of my following your directives.

You mention that some staff members are uncomfortable working with me, and at times you have told me that nobody on staff wants to work with me, yet when I come to work I seem to get along with people I work with. Where as people working together with varying skills, interests, and personalities may from time to time disagree, that doesn't mean we can't get along professionally or work as a team towards common goals. I strive to do a good job and get along with everyone. If anyone else is holding some sort of grudge and is unwilling to work with me, I believe that reflects more on them than on me.

The so-called incident on August 16 with Marc (Smolowitz) was in Marc's head, not in mind. I believe Marc was more disturbed that I had questions about his plan than he was with the content of my questions or the manner in which they were expressed. This has been a recurring problem of Marc's. He makes a considerable effort to plan thing out in detail, but he does so in a vacuum and misses some fundamental issues. On this particular day, Marc scheduled us down to the minute, yet he neglected to account for mandated breaks that you and Sade (Huron) have repeatedly reminded us that we are mandated to take. When I asked where he planned our breaks into his timeline, he reacted poorly with a snide and non-responsive comment. My question was honest and needed to be asked. Later in the control room, when he was showing me his detailed CG chart, which did not reflect the Inscriber files he created, I told him I would need to redo the documentation to be useful. Again that triggered a response in him that I was questioning his work. His response was that I could go home if I didn't accept his documentation without question. It was his temper that was the problem, not my questions. I have witnessed Marc throwing many temper tantrums since I began working here, and they weren't all directed at me. I believe the way to improve the situation would be to have a peer review of work plans prior to the event, so potential problems can be resolved beforehand.

My other confrontation with Marc was once again one-sided on Marc's end. Last December (2004) over the Christmas/New Years holiday week I was working in playback while Tom (Barkett) was on vacation, Marc confronted me on some outstanding work on the web site. There I was in the lobby pulling tapes for playback, when Marc started yelling at me for not finishing some web task on his schedule. Again, I was calm and collected throughout Marc's temper tantrum, yet I am accused of having a confrontation. I asked Marc to move to the office, where I reminded him that I was limited to 4 hours a week for the web site, and although I asked you (Zane) for additional hours to meet Marc's schedule, you had limited me to 4 hours a week. Marc was screaming at me that I must volunteer (unpaid) additional time to meet his schedule. Marc complained that I created pages for Newsroom (on Access SF) and Open Mic and that wasn't on his list. He demanded that I remove it from the web site. That work was authorized by you, but I temporarily disabled those pages until you returned from vacation. When you returned, you had me reinstate the pages. Again, I don't understand why your warning letter disciplines me for following your directives, because others get upset. I respectfully suggest that perhaps some of your directives are not clearly communicated, understood, or accepted by others.

Just a couple weeks after Marc neglected to plan for breaks; Bud (Dillon) planned a remote MAS test run at The Center, where he started the test by stating that he had scheduled his timeline without breaks. True to his word, I was unable to take a break that day. All plans should have a peer review up front which would allow us as a team to identify and correct potential problems. We all bring different skills into the mix, and we must work as a team to benefit from the synergy associated with teamwork.

You mention problems with Sade (Huron), and I agree that she is a problem. Even now, she only responds to me with grunts, and it all seems to go back to her feelings that I didn't respect her authority when she forbidden me from touching the Avid workstation. As you may recall, you and I had discussed the possibility of streaming media, and you authorized a pilot program where I would stream Newsroom on Access SF. Following procedures, I reserved time on the Avid in Facil, and captured an episode of Newsroom on disk, so I could use it to encode the program. Sade sent me a rather nasty note telling me that I wasn't authorized to touch that machine, and when I next came into work she confronted me in the lobby and demanded that I agree to never touch the Avid workstation. I acknowledged that I received her note, but I couldn't give her any commitment until I talked with you (Zane). I was working on a project authorized by you. This is the ongoing cause of her distain for me and her feelings that I don't respect her authority. You, Sade, and I had a couple meetings on this where she made some very bizarre statements that you seemed to accept without question, yet you directed her to provide me a copy of the published Avid procedures. She refused, and did so right in front of you. I was never provided a copy of the Avid procedures, even though you repeatedly directed her to do so. A couple of months ago, at a staff meeting, she said that the procedures were posted in the Avid suite. These so-called procedures turned out to be a short paragraph on how to name the work file.

You mention that other staff members have issues with me questioning operations procedures. I think it would be more accurate to state that I question why and under what conditions they choose to ignore published policies and procedures as well as very explicit directives from you (Zane). If I go along with what seems to be standard operations procedures, which defy published policies, procedures, and directives, then I can be accused of insubordination. When I ask other team members what they consider when granting ad hoc waivers to themselves and producers, I do so in the spirit of learning and working together as a team. When I can't reconcile these so-called standard operation procedures from what I know are published policies, procedures, and directives, I ask you for clarification. If someone had some thoughtful discussion on some policy sometime in the past prior to my employment, am I expected to divinely know about it? I believe any policy, procedure, or directive that we are expected to abide by and enforce must be published. Since when are questions deemed bad?

My impression is that most staff ignores published policies, procedures, and directives for people they are friendly with, and enforce them of those they don't care for. I believe this is a dangerous way to operate, and we must be even-handed with enforcing the rules. Yes, that had gotten me in hot water with some producers, even some that I had a very good working relationship with prior to my employment. Case-by-case and flexibility must not be directly related to friendships and relationships, but must be based on the circumstances. I disagree with your assertion that it is not what I say but how I say it. Many people react poorly to "no", regardless of the form in which it is stated. There are some staff members, who for the purest of intentions will rarely if ever say "no". I've seen those actions encourage bad behavior and production problems. Warning me of my behavior in following published policies, procedures, and directives for the sake of fitting in seems to be in conflict your statements on the consequences of insubordination. I believe in the need for rules, policies, procedures, and directives, for the sake of avoiding anarchy and protecting our investment in equipment and facilities. If on a case-by-case basis something seems arbitrary, wouldn't we all want to question it, discuss it, and come to a meeting of minds? Again, since when are questions bad? I'm not questioning anything in public. I'm not questioning your authority. As an employee, I feel I must be able to question, discuss, and resolve conflicts in my and our team's understanding and enforcement of rules, policies, procedures, and directives. We must work and act as a team, not have people bending the rules for friends.

The confrontation with a volunteer who you claimed left the building in tears was no confrontation. While setting up for a San Franciscans show, the volunteer in question let someone into the building who I did not recognize. I asked the volunteer if he knew who that person was, and he said he did not. I told the volunteer that he shouldn't let unknown persons into the building and that only staff should be letting people in. I made those statements in a gentle and supportive manner, so why would that person walk out in tears? I take security very seriously. We have had many thefts. Yet I still see door left wide open and laptops sitting unlocked on desks. About 10 years ago while we were setting up a West Coast Live show at the Cowell Theater, a volunteer let an unknown person backstage. That person grabbed my day pack including my home and car keys, and stole my car. I firmly believe that if we let anyone into the building without determining who they are and why they are here, we invite opportunistic thefts.

I started my employment with SFCTC effective November 1, 2004. The last year has been a growing experience for me, which I believe prepares me for additional challenges and responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Michael Faklis
Production Facilitator

Questions/Comments?