URGENT: If you KNEW corp.'s 10-Q was a lie??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have a relative who is employed by a division of a Fortune 500 corporation. I posted a thread awhile back about this situation---here is a recap of that thread:

1. The plant where he is employed uses hazardous chemicals in their manufacturing process
2. My relative (a hardware technician and CNA with no programming background) was given the responsibility for remediating the plant's computers
3. He did not complete the remediation (still incomplete at this time)
4. He was given the responsibility for writing the telecom contingency plan for the plant with no clue of how to accomplish it

In the previous thread I asked for help to find a completed telecom contingency plan that he could use, and an astute poster came up with a link that had everything necessary, which I gave to my relative. He was extremely relieved and grateful when given this. In the previous thread, I also mentioned that the parent company's 10-Q filing indicated that the entire corp, including all business units, was 100% compliant two months prior to me posting the thread. The 10-Q also stated that all business units had completed world-wide contingency plans two months earlier, and they listed telecom among their highest priorities.

Here's the update, and my dilemma. I spoke with my relative yesterday for the first time since I gave him a printout of the telecom contingency plan, and asked him how the contingency planning was going. Here is what he told me---"Oh, they know nothing's going to happen, so they decided we don't need to do anything."

It is useless to appeal to my relative about blowing the whistle on the plant, as he has somehow been "rehabilitated" back into the plant's mindset. The plant is located within a half-block of a river that feeds this entire medium-sized city's water supply. The chemicals used in their manufacturing process are toxic and explosive.

I am frightened. What can I do? And, can I do it with assurance of complete anonymity, given that I am not an employee of this plant with first-hand knowledge? Is there any governing authority that would audit the plant based on an anonymous report?

-- . (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 08, 1999



This is a tough one ... I would suggest that you occupy your time by stockpiling bottled water while you try to figure out what to do.

I suspect that without some form of a "smoking gun" -- i.e., tangible evidence that could be used to justify an on-site audit -- it will be difficult to get regulators, safety inspectors, auditors, etc., to do anything ... but that's just a hunch, and I could be wrong.

As you probably know from dozens of incidents over the past several decades, whistleblowers are rarely given much credence, respect, or even a simple "thank-you," even when they turn out to be correct. And while the wheels of justice grind along, the whistle-blower often has to cope with ridicule, scorn, smear jobs, loss of employment, and even worse. It sounds like your relative is in no mood to do that -- and you should think carefully about whether you're willing to do so. Ultimately, the question you have to ask yourself is: do you think the risk is bad enough, and the stakes are high enough, to be willing to be sued for libel, and possibly even being fined or jailed?

For what it's worth, I think this kind of corporate behavior is pretty pervasive. I'm surprised that we haven't seen more people in your relative's position who decided to blow the whistle ... but corporations have somehow managed to scare their employees enough, so that they're all keeping their mouths shut. It doesn't bode well for the outcome 84 days from now...


-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 08, 1999.


We DON'T know which computer systems -- if any -- are going to fail at this plant; that is presumably what an audit would determine. Perhaps you come from a different planet, where things like this don't matter, but if a close relative of mine told me the kind of story that RUOK's relative told him/her, I think I would be a little worried.

Seems to me that you don't have to be a rocket-scientist to realize there could be a serious problem is (a) your relative has been put in charge of remediation, (b) he's not technically qualified to do it, (c) he tells you that he didn't finish it, (d) he's in charge of contingency planning for the telecom section of the plant, but (e) doesn't know how to do that either, and (f) he then tells you that the contingency planning effort has been shut down.

Okay, so maybe your close relative is pulling your leg; maybe he's start raving mad. Or maybe he'll deny the whole thing at some later point by telling you that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

As someone noted earlier on this thread, the whole thing is moot anyway, because there's not enough time in the remaining 84 days to do a detailed audit. Not that an audit would happen anyway, because if RUOK or her relative were to contact the authorities, chances are that they would find themselves dealing with someone with an attitude like yours.


-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 08, 1999.

What a dilemma, RUOK. We've seen much evidence that at the crucial moment, just when there was some momentum to make contingency progress, the workers fell prey to complacency and false renewed sense that "nothing's going to happen, it's fixed, it's not important, it's OK to move on, it doesn't matter anymore."

Shelter In Place: Make Your Kits

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.


Hell, T Minus 84 days +/- and counting. No amount of whistleblowing is going to do any good. It'd take roughly 3X's that long to do a "proper" investigation. My advice, bail. bail now. Bail fast, quickly and quietly. And make sure that the fumble-fingered oaf of a relation (who sounds more like he used you bro) doesn't know where you are.

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Sure, after decades of pink slips, rightsizing, automations, age discrimination, intimidation, lies, drainage corporate culture, implosion, PHM, and general biz idiocy, workers are conditioned to work mute and keep their tails tucked firmly under legs. Loyalty to anything but onself and one's survival is out. CYA in In. Y2K will usher a LOT OUT.

Prepare so your life isn't one of the EXITS

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

Um, Ed, exactly which computer systems at this plant are going to fail when the date changes to 1/1/2000? Do we know if the critical systems are complete or incomplete? How do you doomers jump so easily to conclusions that the logical, sound-minded scientific-thinker would never jump to?

The plant uses toxic chemicals. My wife's second-cousin's friend says that they haven't done the remediation. Well obviously the plant is going to explode at midnight on 1/1/2000. How can anyone not see this? Sheesh, give me a break doomers. ROTFLMAO!

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.

This reminds me of a conversation I had last November with a young corporate lawyer in NYC. Based on the most casual commonality, both of us being alumni of the same small western University, she told me this: She was spending her time writing 10Q statements for Fortune 500 clients of her firms, and was getting pressure on the Y2K disclosure issue. Specifically, she was being 'guided' to focus on the domestic operations of said companies, and to IGNORE THEIR INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS.

This was 11 MONTHS AGO.

Now, if I can find this out in a casual conversation with a stranger in a bar, you might think that TPTB could also find this out, if they wanted to.

It appears to me that the marching phalanxes of blue-suited corporate types have had their attitude on Y2K well and truly adjusted. (I used to be one, and am well aware how this works.)

Thank God for the net, or we would all be screwed. Let's keep sharing our private intelligence, for the good of all.

It doesn't matter how hard you you wish or hope, computers are stupid and they don't care.


-- Brady (brady@docuscribe.com), October 08, 1999.

Hey, You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), we were at a meeting with chemical plant workers. They are scared beyond sh*tless. For all our sakes, please do not make any kind of provisions for yourself. In fact, please play outside on 1/1/2000. This is a public service post.

-- troll slap (they@really.stink), October 08, 1999.

Ed said:

"For what it's worth, I think this kind of corporate behavior is pretty pervasive. I'm surprised that we haven't seen more people in your relative's position who decided to blow the whistle ... but corporations have somehow managed to scare their employees enough, so that they're all keeping their mouths shut. It doesn't bode well for the outcome 84 days from now..."

You are 100% correct.

Lying is now considered the norm. I have seen it first hand.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 08, 1999.


I think I'd locate an investigative reporter in that local town's main newspaper (could take some research) and under agreement of anon., tell him/her what you know.

Then store 10x as much water as you were going to... to share.

Good luck!


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

RUOK, go ahead and shout out the name of the company in this thread. It won't take long to investigate it. There are a lot of people in this forum and on CSY2K that enjoy doing first-hand research on claims of Y2K-compliance problems. Bradley, want to take this one?

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.

OSHA will investigate plant safety complaints. Es[ecillay if made by an employee or by a citizen living near the plant.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), October 08, 1999.

BTW... You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com) = Plato the Elder (plato@giblet.net)...

Any rage among doomers if their leaders are wrong?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001XRD

NOT the kind to take advice from RUOK, IMHO.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Diane, that would be my first approach, also.

However, I'm not so sure that investigative reporting is 'allowed' by many newspapers anymore. Especially when the newspaper is owned by a conglomerate. Can't run the risk of offending a major advertiser. Can't run the risk of offending a major politician, etc., who may be a 'close, personal friend' of the publisher.

And consider this: Perhaps the newspapers *have* been tipped off. Perhaps the reporter did indeed find something significant, began researching it further, shared info with his/her editor and said editor killed any further investigation.

I've seen this happen.

Whistle blowers have good reason to be concerned about the consequences of blowing the whistle. Remember Karen Silkwood? Yes, I'm sure some people will think that was 'made up'. Whistle blowers are subjected to as intense of a grilling than the suspect company; maybe even moreso, in an effort to 'discredit' their statements. These people have families to feed -- heck, they have their own mouth to feed. They receive NO THANKS, but instead receive the label of busy-body, instigator, rabble rouser, etc.

No wonder why people are loathe to tell what they *really* know.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

Ever hear of proxy Diane? Nice try though.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.

RUOK, here's what you do: Write a letter saying as much as you can and being as specific as you can. Send it to the chemical plant, the water utility, city hall, a couple of local papers, any environmental organizations in your area and any other governmental entities you deem relevant. Now here's the important part: you must cc: everyone you are sending the letter to on the bottom of the letter so that everyone, particularly the chemical plant, knows that you are telling everyone else what you know, thereby putting the pressure on to act. If you must remain anonymous, make sure you make the point that you are afraid of losing your job and follow that statement with the horrible consequences of a poisoned water supply. No one wants that, and no one, especially city hall and the water utility, will want to explain why they were told about this (confirmed by the newspaper's copy of the letter) and didn't do anything about it. Meanwhile, get yourself a very large water container. Good luck RUOK.

-- Jean Shift (jean@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

See also thread...

Asked by RUOK (RUOK@I've been better.com) on September 12, 1999...

HELP - Communication contingency plan for HAZMAT?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001OVz

Interesting background reading.


(Ever hear of the word "Sysop" You Knowwho? You aren't a proxy kiddo. And Y2K isn't a "game" like you think it is).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

Ummm...last time I checked, Diane, I do use a proxy.

So is it your nature on this website to try to hack information from users that are not following the party line? What does that say about your ethics Diane? Do you condone this Ed Yourdon? Truly the desperation of the Doomers rears its ugly head...

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.

Mary Sciavo and the FAA

Until her resignation Sciavo was inspector general of the Department of Transportation.

Schiavo also charges that a key report on airport security was suppressed by the FAA and Department of Transportation officials prior to the Atlanta Olympic Games. The report was prepared by Schiavo following a security audit in which her agents and FAA inspectors attempted to skirt airport security, carrying fake bombs, guns and knives through metal detectors and were not stopped 40% of the time.

Schiavo writes that FAA Administrator David Hinson and representatives from then-Transportation Secretary Federico Pena's office pressured Schiavo to bury her report to avoid pre-Olympic bad publicity.

Following her resignation, the report was further suppressed, she writes, until after the Democratic National Committee. "When it was finally issued, all the incriminating information about the FAA had been blacked out, including the failure rates and the FAA's response to our findings," she writes.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 08, 1999.

RUOK - I may be misreading between the lines, but I think part of what you are trying to do is to point out an *illegal* activity and to involve those particular agencies.

Sounds like an SEC violation unless the lawyers really covered themselves on this one in the 10-Qs.

With respect to failure to finalize the contingency plan, the only legal requirement I'm aware of would be if the company were subject to Clean Air Act Section 112r. In that case, the emergency response plan, which was required to take Y2K impacts into account, had to be completed by 6/21/99. EPA (and conceivably the state equivalent) is the agency who would look into that. The company is also setting itself up for severe enforcement action by EPA if there is an incident following the rollover and the company did not make a solid effort to prepare and test ahead of time.

Meanwhile, if the company's actions are not technically illegal, I think it will be a matter of tracking down someone in authority who is also a GI. There are any number of specific local agencies who might have an interest, like the board of health, whoever is in charge of the water treatment plant, and the fire department. Perhaps sounding them out for their level of oversight of similar companies in the area.

I don't really see how you can accomplish anything without blowing your relative's position. Good luck, it's a tough one.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Would anyone mind if I hunted down YouKnowWho, and fed him to the Squirrel King?

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

HEY You Know Who,

Desperation, what the F*** would you know about desperation???? You got your head buried so far up your A** you wouldn't even know if Y2K hit in your own front yard. Also, desperate times call for desperate measures, but, you first must have a conscience to consider that helping your fellow neighbors is a good thing, not bitching about it on some website where people of all backgrounds have joined in to help/learn from each other. What are you doing to mitigate the possible effects of Y2K??? I thought so!!! Please don't feed the trolls, other citizens who are concerned could use the food. 84 days.

-- watcher (tired of polly crap@now.com), October 08, 1999.

Actually watcher I know quite a bit about Y2K. I've actually remediated code to meet the needs of a lot of Fortune 500 customers. Some of which were requiring Y2K compliant code back in 1997. I know that this flies in the face of the doomer creed that companies haven't done anything to prevent Y2K disaster, and that many will not be ready, and that they are all lying on their 10Q's.

The crazy extrapolations that I see the doomers engaging in are quite hilarious to me. You people discount every piece of good news as lies and rubbish. You cannot make a fair assessment of any situation with such a closed mind.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.


I am, as before, deeply humbled by the helpfulness and concern of those who post to this forum. I was worried when I posted this thread that I might get replies along the lines of calling me a premeditated murderer for not taking some kind of immediate action. Believe me, I am struggling enough with thoughts like that myself. Thank you for treating with respect and understanding the complexities of such a decision. I really appreciated Ed's intuitive grasp of the dilemma. Nothing about y2k has caused me as much torment, and as many sleepless nights as this has.

I am printing out your replies, and will study and consider them for all the options that may be available and feasible. Yes, Brooks, I had wondered about SEC fraud, and if that might be a more expedient avenue...but, I do feel hopelessly uninformed in that regard.

To YouKnowWho...I have been prepared since my first post regarding this situation to provide all identifying information about myself, and about this plant, to a trusted party (and NOT on a public forum with posters who have handles like debunking@doomeridiots.com")if that was ever needed in order to get help with this. Actually, the sysops already know MY real name and e-mail address in connection with an unrelated issue.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 08, 1999.

Gee RUOK, don't judge a man by his anonymous ID. If you want to post the name of the company somewhat anonymously, sneak into a public library or cyber-cafe and use a computer to post to this forum. If you had done that to begin with we wouldn't even associate it with RUOK. I actually wish more people like you would try to "blow the whistle", then it would be easier to debunk the rumors and accusations. But who knows you may actually expose a legitimate concern that would need to be addressed in the time remaining. See, I can have an open mind.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.

You Knowwho may actually be telling the truth about cranking code at some Fortune 500s. Unfortunately, for us and those F500s he's been messing with, he sounds exactly like one of those "fakes from the Polly pool" that Cory talks about from time to time. They are in there. God help us all!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

If you trust a 10-Q statement, you are trusting the same mentality as John Koskinen. I know my company's statement and I know the true state of affairs. While I don't think we pose the same kind of safety hazard as is the case with RUOK, we might. I assure you that there is not time to expose and stop the danger. Legal maneuvering could forestall that for months.

The prudent thing to do is to look at your own surroundings and assess the situation as if everybody is lying to you. Chances are, everyone is at least stretching the truth. Plan accordingly. Forget jerk pollyannas. They hardly have your best interests at heart.

Warn those who are receptive. You can't save the world. With luck, you are wrong. If not, you tried.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), October 08, 1999.


While you are collecting your thoughts, why don't you email a link for this page to Roleigh Martin? He has been very busy studying the chemical industry and their potential for failure. Roleigh is very knowledgeable about this and has some additional expert help available from others who are concerned. He might be able to steer you in the right direction, or at least give you some good tips.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

RUOK, why not get in touch with some environmental groups like "Greenpeace," or the "Sierra Club," and show them the evidence. They have lawyers, etc., and they aren't afraid of big brother or big corporations. I can tell you first hand that it's tough being a whistle blower, did it once, and I won't do it again for nobody, no how, no way! If you think that the situation is a "critical" one then go for it, but keep a loaded gun with you at ALL times, otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself.

-- been there (beenthere@beenthereee.xcom), October 08, 1999.

"Look at what they do, not at what they say." We have all heard this said before, and it's true. Now, look at what You Knowwho tells RUOK to do. *Sneak* into a public library, etc, to make your posts. At least a Freudian slip here, if not outright admission of a dishonest mind. Seems I have heard this suggestion for Mutha Natchu before, as well. This is the mentality of the debunkers. Sneak around, making up anything you want, because others won't know who is saying this. Some F500 expert, huh? Doesn't have Cory's balls, that's for sure!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

What the hell are you talking about Gordo? I'm just trying to come up with ways that you doomwits can post anonymous info about real companies in relative obscurity. Hello??? I'm trying to help you out here. Stop tripping on your ignorance Gordon.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), October 08, 1999.


That is quite a dillema. If I were in your shoes, my concience would give me no peace if I just decided to cover my own butt, but on the other hand, I'd know that I would be sticking my neck out for a futile cause, if I blew the whistle. I think I'd go with Diane's suggestion of contacting an investigative journalist. Someone from your area might take a bigger interest than the feds would. Besides, I think the gov's feeling knee deep in crocodiles, right now, despite the calm demeanors (maintained by truck loads of valium and Zantac, no doubt). Not to deminish your plight at all, but it's probably just one of hundreds of such cases around the country, some of which I'm sure that TPTB are aware of. Your case would just get thrown into the hopper with all the others.

BTW, I'm sorry i didn't get around to answering your question on my thread about the MSNBC McCain interview, But I was in a situation where I was aware that it was on, but couldn't really pay close enough attention to report anything. I just logged on real fast, to give a heads up, because I knew there were posters very interested in McCain.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 08, 1999.

RUOK, UROK by me! Sending support vibes.

Yeah: Anonymous letters with cc's listed to officials from local to federal level, media, environmental groups, etc. How about if you post a copy of it, complete with addresses, and who knows? Maybe these folks would start getting postcards from all over the country, saying, "Hey! We're watching you."

Also, start telling everybody you see that you heard a rumor from a guy who works there that the plant wasn't really fixed and would dump poison in the water at Y2K and that you're sure gonna be storing a bunch of water. Tell strangers in line at the grocery store, people at the filling station...you know, everybody. Whisper it, as if it's confidential inside info.

Print up little cards with the rumor on them and stick them everywhere: store shelves, inside magazines, newspaper, bulletin boards, store counters, restaurant tables.

Maybe, at the very least, some people will actually store water. And maybe you'll get some action from the grassroots level. Make a few Moms worry.

Time's short. Take massive action as inconspicuously as possible. Be creative and audacious. You may not have time to stop the plant from dumping, but you do have time to reach a lot of townspeople; at this point, that's all that matters.

God bless us all.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.

You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com),

You aren't trying to help anyone. I suspect that you are the one who needs help. You hang out on a message board with the intention to upset people, and nothing more.

If you had half a brain, you would realize that RIGHT OR WRONG, the people who are reading/posting to this list have already committed to prepare for possible adversity.

You should think of this whole Y2K thing as sort of a gamble and/or learning experience.

If I am a "doomer", I prepare for possible Y2K problems then Y2K fizzles and nothing happens, in what way do I lose? I spent a few dollars on supplies? Big deal! So I'll have a smaller grocery bill for the first part of the year 2000. Not to mention the fact that I have learned how to prepare for ANYTHING that may come up in my lifetime, and probably have made several friends and important contacts along the way. I have also learned a lot about human behavior. There are many other benifits that im sure are beyond your comprehension.

On the other hand, if you prepare for nothing (LIKE YOU ARE), and something bad *DOES* happen...how big do you lose? What did you learn?

So who is the smart one here? (of course you will think you are)

Feel free to continue your worthless "doomer" bashing. I hope the roll of the dice you are taking works out for you. Me? I dont have to worry either way. Im prepared.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 08, 1999.


Well, you see what the problem is here? You are not only dishonest, but at least a sociopath as well. However, I don't expect you to see that in yourself, since denial is both a Polly and a Sociopathic disorder. You may need to look this term up in order to fully respond to it, but perhaps you have already been advised of that disorder while dealing with a counselor along the way? Where you can test for this, though, is to look at who your friends are, and who won't have anything to do with you. Start with fellow workers (if in fact you do any work) and see how they feel about you. Ask them openly. Then look at your own family (if in fact you have one) and see how the wife or kids feel about you. I'm betting you have real social problems both at work and at home, due to your devious and dishonest nature. Only people that are like you, will have anything to do with you. Hence the Debunker camp for you, huh? Youknow, this may be very hard for you to face, but you are an aberrant in our overall social framework. Probably started way back in childhood for you, who knows. What we do know, because you are so very foolish in your commentaries, is that you are seriously disturbed. Sorry about that. Hello??? I'm trying to help you out here. Stop tripping on *your* own ignorance.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 08, 1999.

Contact yoiur local Environmental Protection agency for the state in which this plant is. Give them a heads up. They might investigate it in one way or another. They frequently have ways of contacting people within a plant to get information. If the water supply might be compromised why be the loyal opposition and let the Dept. of Enironmental Protection run with it?

-- Charlie (cstewart@ime.net), October 08, 1999.


If you should decide to get the word out and you find yourself worried about your safety or the safety of your family, we will do our best to make room here for you and your family, or try to help in any other way you think is best. If you want my phone number, just email me.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Another point to make RUOK,

I'm sure there are others, but a life-threatening HAZMAT incident (or runaway Fires) would be a "most likely" scenario for officials to require an area's mandatory evacuation. Just "be prepared" to be mobile in your car too.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 08, 1999.


Is there a union at the plant? If so, you could try contacting the Union leadership or health & safety dept. The Union could file an information request under the National Labor Relations Act or under OSHA's process safety management (PSM) standard (IF the Company is covered by the PSM standard). Under the PSM standard (which applies generally to hazardous processes), the Company is required to let employees **participate** in y2k-related processes like contingency planning. They can file charges with OSHA if the Company refuses. Or NLRB charges (both are slow processes but might generate publicity).

See for more info & for a handbook you could circulate to workers in the plant.

Please let me know if this info is helpful at all. Thanks.

-- d (d@d.com), October 09, 1999.


I remember reading about several companies that were issued "Cease and Desist" orders by the SEC because they did not report their compliance status or their report was found to be incorrect. I think there is a good chance, assuming we are talking about a public company, that they could order them to shut down until they issue a correction to the statement in their report to reflect their true status. They would also probably be fined, but I think the fines are usually only in the tens of $thousands, depending on the company.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 09, 1999.

Thanks for all the additional suggestions and input. I'm beginning to think that the odds are pretty high that approaching any governing authority would not serve much useful purpose. First, there is probably not enough time remaining for the wheels of justice to achieve the hoped-for result of safeguarding the citizenry. Second, I could only state what my relative has told me as the basis for my complaints. Besides the problem of compromising his job without his consent (secondary concern), I know I couldn't count on him to confirm to authorities anything he has told me, making the risk/return potential unfavorable. He is really being a weasel.

I'm thinking, at this point, that some combination of the suggestions made here would be the best that can be done at this late stage. I'm looking for a good, local investigative reporter who would protect my anonymity and do his/her own research based on the information I could provide. I can also write anonymous letters to certain local officials and entities who should have some concerns. That will be a little tricky. I don't feel I can specifically state that I know "this company has not remediated the global values of their computers, they have no telecom contingency plan, and no plans to produce one." While the specificity would lend credibility, that combination of specific info would probably reveal that my relative was the source. He would be likely to tell the company that I was the only one who had this info, and I'm afraid that would put us both at risk. I wonder if more general language, such as "I have a first-hand report from a company insider that they have not completed their mission-critical remediation. They have not completed contingency plans, and have no timetable for doing so" could suffice? Along with that, I could send a copy of their 10-Q statement, and I could cc the letter to all the appropriate parties, including the company. I also think Faith Weaver's suggestion about the power of the rumor mill is a good one. I am working on some ideas to put it to use, beginning in the residential areas near the plant.

Again, thank you all for your help. You are truly an amazing group of people. Finally, Stan Faryna, words are inadequate to express my appreciation of your compassion towards so many faceless strangers. Thank you, Sir.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 09, 1999.


Sorry for the late posting on this... RUOK, I don't know where you are located but a few states have Y2K programs addressing hazardous materials handlers. If the facility of concern happens to be in California, e-mail me privately, and I'll follow through using appropriate channels, completely anonymously.

If not, see if your state has such a program.... There are numerous federal and state regulations which have a "General Duty" clause requiring companies to take all reasonable measures to prevent harm to employees, the public, or the environment. If you need more, drop a line.

-- Larry. (larrywarren@yahoo.com), October 11, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ