Word 2003-15-6 Statement Murphy Iorizzo

8/3/2019 Word 2003-15-6 Statement Murphy Iorizzo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/word-2003-15-6-statement-murphy-iorizzo 1/3

I met with Investigating Officer, COL Tom Murphy, on 28 April 2011 at the Fort

Eustis Education Center, room 129, about 1000-1200 hours. COL Murphy presented

me with three questions. At the end of our time, he said this is more information

than expected and asked me to write and forward a response to the questions. My

response contains some information not presented on 28 April due to time.

The three questions are:

1) Do you believe that Mr. Tighe improperly used delegated classification

authority to downgrade the positions of Deputy Director ATSC and Director,

Future Technology Office?

Why?

What evidence do you have that supports this belief?

2) Do you believe that there was improper motivation by the ATSC

management to abolish the position of Supervisory Executive Director ATSCand to propose your reassignment to the position of Supervisory Training

Support Specialist in the Education Support Directorate?

What knowledge do you have of the motivation?

How do you know this?

Why was the Supervisory Executive Director position created in 2006?

3) Do you believe that COL Baker has engaged in threatening behavior

towards you?

When did this occur?

Describe what happened/the threatening behavior.1

Synopsis of response:

1) Yes. The point value of the newly proposed Deputy ATSC position

description is inconsistent with the supervisory controls listed in the position

description. Supervisory controls establish the basis for classification.

2) Yes. A nexus exists from 17 September 09 through 24 November 09

where the Commander, ATSC, COL Mark Edgren, decides to remove Iorizzo

from a position of authority because Iorizzo questions the providence of the

Commander’s decisions.

3) Yes. Discussion with the Investigating Officer indicates the term reprisal is

a more accurate term than threatening behavior. The acts occurred on 4

January 11, 28 February 11, and 13 March 11.



Question one. I believe Mr. Tighe misused classification authority to

downgrade the GS-15 Deputy ATSC position to eliminate any civilian at ATSC

with responsibility and authority to apply programmatic decisions and

conduct synchronization programs and activities necessary to accomplish the

ATSC mission. I believe the motivation is to remove any civilian who can

exercise wide latitude in applying originality, insight and creativity in thedevelopment of plans and policies for managing and accomplishing the

mission of a complex, diverse and geographically dispersed organization such

as ATSC. I also believe the motivation is to eliminate any senior civilian

management expertise regarding projects having far-reaching and long-term

implications for the United States Army, such as the programs within ATSC.

By eliminating the senior civilian at ATSC, Mr. Tighe becomes the only civilian

with such authority. Since Mr. Tighe has exclusive delegated classification

authority and used the authority to downgrade the Deputy, ATSC position,

and, since Mr. Tighe’s action makes him by default the senior civilian for

ATSC programs and is the only person who benefits in terms of position

scope, complexity, access and opportunity, he used his delegated

classification authority to improve his own position.

I compared the downgraded Deputy, ATSC job description number ER3567562

with the (Senior, Supervisory) Training Program Manager to DCG, CAC-T job

description number EX004493 and (Senior) Training Program Manager

Deputy, ATSC job description ER1531744 (the position job description Iorizzo

was hired for in July 2003.) The supervisory controls are identical for each

position. This is significant because supervisory controls establish the basis

for classification and grading.

The downgraded Deputy, ATSC job description and the (Deputy) CAC-T job

description contained position evaluation factors. This is a point system used

to grade positions. Since the supervisory controls are identical, Factor 1,

Program Scope and Effect should have the same points. I found the

downgraded Deputy, ATSC graded at Level 1-3, 550 points and the (Deputy)

CAC-T at Level 1-4, 775 points. I went to the body of the job description and

found that the downgraded job description combined operational

management and internal staff actions in a degraded way, eliminated

personnel management responsibility, and inserted a supervisory role. In

essence, Mr. Tighe purged all of the management duties commensurate with

the supervisory controls in the job description, creating a Deputy in nameonly.

The evaluation factors for organizational setting in the downgraded Deputy

job description is incorrect. Because the commander position supervises

military 0-6 and GS/GM-15 positions, it is considered the equivalent of SES

and the organizational setting is well established with at least a two-decade

precedent. Further, citation 3 in the downgraded Deputy job description,



HRCD-5 June 1998 page 145, indicate Level 2-3, 350 points should be applied

instead of Level 2-2, 250 points. This is because the position is accountable to

a position which directs a substantial GS/GM-15 or equivalent workload

through GS/GM-15 level subordinate supervisors. By comparison, Mr. Tighe’s

classification of Supervisory Training Support Specialist, Leader for Education

Support Division (ESD) job description ER3711356

, shows Level 2-3, 350points for organizational setting. The conditions that set the organizational

factors are the same for both positions yet the points for the downgraded

deputy position are lower. While the point difference for this factor is not

enough to change the grade, it shows a pattern.

The factor for sub-factor 4B, purpose of contacts, is incongruous, essentially

cut and pasted from the Leader, ESD job description into the downgraded

Deputy job description. This shows a cavalier treatment of the classification,

which is consistent with a pattern of downgrading for the sake of downgrade

compared to legitimate classification.

The first time I knew of a downgrade to the Future Technology Office position

was in an email from the Commander, ATSC dated August 08, 2010 where he

stated CAC-T refused to approve the position as a GS-157. I know from an

email thread to Ms. Sylvia Freeland dated May 03, 20108 that the

Commander, ATSC intent was for a position be commensurate with GS-15

and the civilian personnel office developed factor levels commensurate with

GS-15. A similar, non-supervisory position was approved by Mr. Tighe on

11/20/2009, position description number ER3327529.

I believe Mr. Tighe singled out Iorizzo to remove anyone with authority who

held mastery of educational technology considered commensurate with orsuperior to Mr. Tighe. Mr. Tighe singled out Iorizzo in his email of November

17, 201010. Mr. Tighe spent considerable time to downgrade Iorizzo. Since

Iorizzo converted from NSPS as Supervisory Executive Director and was never

in an FTO position description, Mr. Tighe’s expectation to place Iorizzo in a

lower graded position violates Office of Personnel Management rules

(For question 2: I also believe deputy downgraded to keep Iorizzo from being

a GS-15 Deputy.)

Get copies of Edgren NSPS appraisal and Baker NSPS conversion letter

Word 2003-15-6 Statement Murphy Iorizzo

Documents

Transcript of Word 2003-15-6 Statement Murphy Iorizzo