Pursuant to LSA R.S. 42:1169 – Kevin Day - 2018/06/23
Pursuant to LSA R.S. 42:1169, Freedom from Reprisal for disclosure of improper acts.
I, Kevin Day, wish to File a Complaint against McNeese State University for reporting accessibility violations, security violations, and project policy violations and refusing to perform said violations as a public employee of said institution. I have suffered reprisal, have been dismissed/terminated, have been threatened, have been made to feel that my life was in danger, have had my complaints altered, and have had my U.S. Constitutional Rights violated by McNeese State University immediately following my reporting and refusal to participate in said violations. Some actions against me are on-going.
I have compiled a large number of e-mails, digital reports, and audio recordings. Some of the provided information consists technology related materials that may require additional technical understanding to more accurately parse and understand. There exists more evidence than what I have provided that I do not have access to that is significantly relevant to my accusations. I am also actively pursuing FOIA requests related to this matter. Due to the volume of the information already at hand I believe there is enough evidence to justify the Louisiana Board of Ethics to open an investigation on the matters described herein.
It is my intentions to compile this in an easy to parse format but some of the material can only be provided in electronic format. A DVD-Rom of the evidence has been provided. This document and other printed material is also provided on the DVD-Rom. Additional material has been printed and is provided along with this document.
Notes on Relevant Technical Matters 1. E-mails a) E-mails contain E-mail Headers, which describe details on the e-mail itself and how it was delivered. b) The e-mails may also contain Digital Signatures, such as PGP, to help reduce falsification of e-mails or encrypt the body of e-mails. 2. E-mail Headers a) The Headers are very important in helping identify fraud or otherwise hacked or fake e-mails and can be used for Digital Fingerprints. b) A header called Message-ID is a distinctly named identification provided on all e-mails to relatively uniquely identify a given e-mail. This is the most accurate way to identify an e-mail and follow e-mail conversations. 3. Digital Signatures a) Provide a way to reasonable confirm that the signed information is from a known and possibly trusted source. 4. Digital Fingerprints a) Digital Fingerprints may be used to assist in identifying who may or may not have done something such as sending a specific e-mail and help in identifying fraud or otherwise falsified information. 5. Git a) Do not confuse Git with the word get, they have different meanings. b) Git is a software technology used in software programming for facilitating management and interaction of changes to software and includes support for Digital Signatures and Checksums. c) Manages records of changes based on date, time, author, and committer, includes comments as well as all changes. In Git, an author is who made the change, a committer is who saved the change in Git, and a commit is a single change or collection of changes. 6. Checksum a) Similar to Digital Signatures, except it only ensures that the information associated with the checksum has not been altered. b) Does not provide authenticity. 7. Wiki a) A Wiki is similar to Git in that they both record changes based on date, time, and author, including comments and changes. b) A Wiki is different from Git in that its focus is on documentation and presentation of material and provides a custom syntax for formatting and presenting the information. c) Most do not provide Digital Signatures or Checksums. 8. Internet Archive a) The website, https://archive.org/, (aka: Wayback Machine) provides an archive of major portions of the internet. b) This may be used to verify the existence and compliance of websites no longer on-line. 9. Wave a) The website, http://wave.webaim.org/, provides tools to perform bare minimum ADA validation. Abstract
McNeese State University retaliated against me, Kevin Day, for repeatedly reporting numerous violations of laws, policies, and procedures by Patrick Eustis. The most notable of which would be the violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act that occurred on April 3, 2017.
The McNeese State University hired me, Kevin Day, as an open-source programmer to explicitly perform open-source programming and to contribute to the open-source community. The main project that I was eventually assigned to was the McNeese Website, which is based on Drupal. The web team, that is the team that only worked on the www.mcneese.edu website, was instructed by Dennis Stutes (my Immediate Supervisor at the time) and Michael Graham (the Chief Technology officer at the time) to build the new website under Drupal and the rest of the websites would be slowly moved into Drupal projects and theme. At some point during the process Michael Graham and Dennis Stutes left the university and Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler took over. During this, Chad Thibodeaux had Patrick Eustis build a theme to be used for the McNeese website (www.mcneese.edu). This theme was designed by Patrick Eustis and implemented by me, Kevin Day, Andrew Mapley, and Patrick Eustis. We were under direct orders to use this theme (and Drupal) for all subsequent websites, including any non-webteam websites. These orders were never lifted. In particular, we were told and emphasized that we must follow the ADA codes. (See Internet Archive of www.mcneese.edu).
Patrick Eustis was not part of the UCS department at the time and worked under Chad Thibodeaux in some manner (before Chad Thibodeaux became Chief Technology officer). Once the theme work was done, Patrick Eustis was not involved with the web team or any UCS projects until years later. At some point before joining the UCS, Patrick Eustis was assigned to work on the McNeese Radio Station (kbys.fm). Patrick Eustis violated the requirements that we must use Drupal, that we must maintain the same primary theme, and the ADA requirements (See Internet Archive for kbys.com). (Which to this day, continues to violate the ADA requirements McNeese State University, under law, claimed they would follow. (see “Settlement Agreement Between The United States of America and the Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DJ #204-33-109”) (See Internet Archive, specifically: https://web.archive.org/web/20140929015210/http://www.kbys.fm:80/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180323145036/http://www.kbys.fm/) (e-mails: 0172).
Eventually, Patrick Eustis was suddenly added to the UCS department without any job opportunities being posted (a possible EEOC violation) to a position that never prior existed (as far as I can tell). When added to the department and subsequently to the webtream, I, Kevin Day, went out of my way to make sure Patrick Eustis had access that he needed. He was given the rules and requirements, by which he immediately began to violate. Furthermore, Patrick Eustis began excluding and ignoring me, effectively harassing me. On a number of occasions, both Andrew Mapley and I, Kevin Day, had to limit Patrick's access or correct problems caused by Patrick Eustis' failure to follow proper protocol. (See Internet Archive, specifically: https://web.archive.org/web/20130124071432/www.mcneese.edu/ucs https://web.archive.org/web/20150426062438/www.mcneese.edu/ucs https://web.archive.org/web/20160319072818/http://www.mcneese.edu:80/ucs) (emails: 0011, 0012, 0026, 0027, 0032, 0148, 0170, 0248, 0261, 0262)
Patrick was then suddenly moved out of the UCS department into a brand new (and not clearly defined) position that didn't exist before, again without any job opportunity postings (another possible EEOC violation). The passive aggressive behavior of Patrick Eustis, by ignoring and excluding me, Kevin Day, then increased tenfold. Andrew Mapley and Patrick Eustis were apparently talking and meeting without me on a number of occasions that directly involved my job. I had filed harassment complaints and Patrick Eustis, Andrew Mapley, Stan Hippler, and Chad Thibodeaux subsequently ignored the complaints, for the most part. In fact, both Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler completely ignored my harassment complaint about month later when I contacted Charlene Abbot from Human Resources about my harassment complaint being disregarded and ignored. (emails: 0013, 0201, 0203, 0214, 0215, 0218, 0230, 0232, 0233, 0234, 0235)
Patrick Eustis then violated a number of security policies and ADA requirements that I then refused to publish as-is. Instead, I spent an hour implementing an immediate solution and asked if Patrick Eustis if it was a Hotfix (aka: needed to be immediately be applied to the production system). Patrick Eustis ignored the request. Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler seemed to have an issue with me refusing to violated the law in regards to ADA after having reported the violations (via a tool and a system called Jira). Instead of addressing Patrick's violations of the law and security issues (that could potentially put the university and its students at risk), they decided to remove me from the web team (but not the other web projects, oddly enough) assign me to an unrelated non-programming job and directly told me not to do any programming for that project. (Bear in mind that I was hired as a programmer, this is blatant whistleblower retaliation.)
That was apparently not good enough for them, so they decided to then terminate my position at the university without explanation, without every telling me I did anything wrong, without any bad performance reviews, and with extreme prejudice. Chief of Police, Robert Spinks, stepped in to unlawfully bar me from the campus, admitting that something I said was the reason for the bar (in contradiction to Human Resources Charlene Abbott). So the campus Chief of Police has no problems admitting to retaliating against me for saying that Patrick Eustis was consistently violating numerous laws, policies, and procedures. With Roberts Spinks' unlawful bar order giving me reason to fear for my life when taking into consideration Stan Hippler insisting that my work at McNeese State University is “..supporting Chemical Terrorism”. (see: annual performance reviews, audio recordings) (e-mails: 0265, 0266, 0267, 0268, 0269)
I then filed a Discrimination complaint, because at the time I was not aware that “retaliation” and “whistleblower retaliation” were two different things in the eyes of the law. McNeese State University decided that since I mentioned Patrick Eustis, Stan Hippler, Chad Thibodeaux, and other Senior Staff (possibly including Robert Spinks) in my complaint that they would just alter and replace my Discrimination Complaint with another.
I further point out that Andrew Mapley has the same access and know how to perform these same steps but has received no hostile action against him. Even Patrick Eustis has partial access to perform the necessary steps. Apparently, only I, Kevin Day, have action taken against me. The only difference between me and Andrew Mapley in terms of duties and tasks is that I more consistently report ADA violations and publicly report. Furthermore, Andrew Mapley stripped Patrick Eustis of security access for violating security policies and no action was taken against Andrew Mapley. Only I, Kevin Day, am treated as if I am the bad guy when it comes to removing access or blocking actions by Patrick Eustis (or any other user for that matter) for violating security, Accessibility, and other policies. (e-mails: 0015, 0019, 0028, 0029, 0030, 0033, 0034, 0036, 0039, 0042, 0051, 0054, 0056, 0083, 0114, 0126, 0127, 0133, 0154, 0180, 0184, 0196, 0219, 0220, 0230, 0263) (git 22-24, 30, 38, 40, 58, 73)
After discovering that Patrick Eustis, Chad Thibodeaux, and the other Senior Staff were removed from the Discrimination Complaint that I filed on July 18, 2017 and that the Discrimination Complaint was replaced with a Bullying Complaint, I e-mailed the university my own complaint about these violations. The McNeese State University president, Dr. Daryl Burckel, claimed that he would have the complaint reviewed by a special committee. After waiting months, the committee finally met with me, electronically. The committee was not even aware of the Discrimination Complaint that the committee was supposedly set up to address. Furthermore they directly told me that they were not allowed to review anything related to my termination. Keep in mind that my termination is the entire focus of the discrimination complaint. I therefore, have no clue what the committee's purposes was or what they were reviewing. All I know is that the president disallowed the committee from investigating and reviewing the complaint that he told me they would investigate and review.
At this point, I am convinced that McNeese State University thinks that they are above the law and are allowed to discriminate, harass, intimidate, violate laws, and retaliate against whistleblowers with impunity under the law.
To gather further information that what I already have, I have begun FOIA Requests for information that I am able to access due to it being stored in means deemed public records by law. Parts of the request have been completed, others have not. Of particular note is that when I asked for Patrick Eustis' public job posting (the one where there is no job posting to my knowledge), they gave me the job posting for my position (now held by Michael Redlich) with McNeese State University and not Patricks. McNeese State University has further claimed that they do not have any Jabber/Pidgin records of conversations between Patrick Eustis and Andrew Mapley. This is particularly interesting because some e-mails and jira tickets have Andrew Mapley admitting that he was exchanging private messages between himself and Patrick Eustis in regards to the Web Team projects (directly omitting me, Kevin Day, from conversation despite it directly relating to my duties). (see: provided FOIA Requests and Responses) (e-mails: 0046, 0047, 0050, 0125, 0144, 00201, 0205, 0215) Brief on E-mails The e-mails contain what is called Headers. These headers provide additional information that is pertinent to investigations. Most notably is that they can be used to identify who actually sent the e-mail or give reason to believe that any given e-mail may be falsified or the result of a hack. They also provide timestamps of when the e-mails were sent and received.
In particular, there is a special type of e-mail address used called webteam. The webteam e-mail (email@example.com) was started by Andrew Mapley and when I talked to Wendell Jones about it, he created the special account. This webteam account may be sent by anybody in the webteam, namely Andrew Mapley, Patrick Eustis, and Kevin Day. The e-mail headers may be used to identify who actually sent a given webteam e-mail.
Brief on Git The Git repositories provide a log of who did what and when, in terms of source code. Everything in the Git repository is under some form of open-source license, usually GPL v2 or greater. The logs show Patrick Eustis, Andrew Mapley, and Kevin Day having made changes and used the repository. There are more than one of these repositories, in fact there may be 50 repositories. There is redundancy in some of the commits based on the design.
The update process for the production systems, such as the McNeese website is broken into 3 stages: 1: development, 2: sandbox, 3: production. Transition between stages is done via the technical term rebase. As a result of how rebase works, these actions are not logged. However, complex situations require another technical action called merge. These are similar to a rebase but are logged. As a result logs of a merge show that an individual has done something and implies that the individual may have performed one or more rebase actions.
Brief on Jira The jira is a project management and issue tracking product. My current understanding is that jira is not directly public but because it sends e-mails out, those e-mails end up in public. E-mails sent by Jira provide evidence (or an audit trail) of where to look for a particular piece of evidence stored in Jira when performing an investigation. Jira has code numbers associated with them, such as www-1234.
Brief on the UCS Wiki The UCS wiki is a private wiki that all UCS personnel have access to. It provides documentation, among other things, for helping UCS perform tasks. It contains evidence worth investigation. Specifically, my documentation where I explain the how to use Git and how the systems and website are structured.
Brief on Project Update Procedures Updates are performed on Fridays at 4:30pm for production systems. Development and Sandbox systems are performed whenever. This is a practice long practiced by the entire UCS department and has existed long before even I, Kevin Day, was employed at McNeese State University.
Whistleblower Retaliation Et Al. It is my belief that McNeese State University, Senior Staff, Patrick Eustis, Andrew Mapley, Robert Spinks, Chad Thibodeaux, Stan Hippler, and perhaps a few others, engaged in hostile and retaliatory actions against me for consistently reporting ADA violations.
I believe their violations include (but not limited to): 1. Civil Rights Act of 1871. 2. 42 U.S.C. 1983 3. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C 2000e-3(a) 4. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12203 5. LA R.S. 23:967 6. LA R.S. 42:1169 7. EEOC, discrimination in hiring process.
There are numerous actions performed against me, Kevin Day, that violates other laws, policies, and procedures. These violations are used as evidence towards their discriminatory and hostile behavior. These violations further provide evidence that the said individuals have no interest in following any laws, procedures, or policies that they find inconvenient but maintain that everyone else must follow them.
In my attempts to follow the procedures and protocols in reporting these violations, McNeese State University Senior Staff retaliated against me. Further actions after my termination included the rewriting and replacement of my subsequent complaints.
This and much of the evidence focuses on Patrick Eustis, not because of any disagreement between him or I, but instead because he consistently violated laws, policies, and procedures. In following these laws, policies, and procedures, I, Kevin Day, have had to deny him access and prohibit actions by him for anything in which I am involved in. McNeese State University appears to be of the mind that if a police officer were to repeatedly arrest a criminal who is repeatedly caught violated some arbitrary law, then it must be the cop who is not at fault instead of the criminal for repeatedly violated some arbitrary law. Furthermore, their actions are discriminatory because Andrew Mapley has also restricted and denied access to Patrick Eustis in multiple occasions for violating laws, policies, and procedures with no action taken against him. The only difference between Andrew Mapley and I, Kevin Day, is that I am more vocal in identifying, reporting, and refusing to violate ADA laws (within a respectable level of reason). I believe that I have a lot of compelling evidence to this matter and that there is more evidence that I do not otherwise currently have access to.
Patrick Eustis consistently violates laws, policies, and procedures of McNeese State University. He has even abused his rights and granted unauthorized access to certain individuals within a few days of being granted administrative rights. These rights were subsequently denied to him by Andrew Mapley with no actions taken against Andrew for doing such.
Patrick Eustis and Andrew Mapley have been isolating me, Kevin Day, effectively harassing me. They leave me out of conversations directly involving my job and duties and (occasionally on record as shown in the provided e-mails) have decided to include me after the discussion is over or only after I ask questions about unusual behavior. Ostracizing is harassment. There are likely more instances of this happening that I have no direct records of but such records may exist. Most notable are records in a text messaging product called Jabber (commonly access via clients like Pidgin). As shown in some of the e-mails, Andrew Mapley admittedly has private conversations with Patrick Eustis. One of the FOIA Requests from McNeese State University claims there is no records of this despite such records existing an e-mail (and provided by me). More of these records may exist in Jira, where I have no direct access to. Their personal computers may have copies of their conversation (which they may have deleted). I believe these Jabber communications fall within Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1.
To show how Patrick Eustis is given special treatment in being allowed to violate any law, policy, or procedure, one can look at how he was repeatedly hired in likely violation of Equal Opportunity regulations. Using the web archive, you can browse the www.mcneese.edu/ucs website and see that he was a member of the UCS at some point and then moved out. One can further review the University Job Opportunities and attempt to find any records of Patrick Eustis' job posting. There is none that I can find. If nobody knows about a job to apply for it, then there must be discrimination against everybody who is not Patrick Eustis. Patrick was moved into UCS without a job posting and then move into the brand new Redisgn Team without a job posting as far as I have been able to discover. There are third-party systems not affiliated with McNeese State University that also receive these public job posting and are a good place for evidence should McNeese State University deign to forge the Job Postings after the fact.
Some of Patrick Eustis's violations were witnessed by others, namely Tina Fuselier. Tina Fuselier had informed me that a website form was not working. This website, she mistakingly thought I was involved and and I informed here that I was not. Looking at this website, I had discovered that it was accessing Banner information, which may or may not contain confidential student information, and was hosted on a 3rd-party website that was apparently privately owned by Patrick Eustis, and likely in violation of numerous accessibility regulations. This was an extreme abuse of access and I reported it to Stan Hippler and Andrew Mapley in person.
The evidence that I have attached with this document are from e-mails that I happen to have a copy of and are not the complete and full log of actions. A further investigation into the e-mails of all parties should be highly relevant to show consistent patterns of behavior and treatment. Furthermore, I have no backups of the year of my termination. Instead of waiting for these to come in via an FOIA request I felt that it would be prudent to do so now (the FOIA requests provide references to additional sources of relevant information that should be investigated). With my termination being on or around July 18, 2017 I wish to have this document filed before then. Having said that, retaliatory actions against me continued, in one part due to the unlawful bar order by Robert Spinks, and in another part for continuously altering complaints that I filed. With the being in January or February 2018. Because McNeese State University has consistently altered or otherwise replaced my complaints, I find reason to believe that they might alter, replace, or otherwise destroy evidence being requested.
The first obvious sign of whistleblower retaliation was when I reported that changes performed by Patrick Eustis were very notably in violation of ADA requirements and our security policies. I must note that we use a more in-depth scanner than just Wave (wave.webaim.org). The problems were numerous enough that I refused to commit them. I must also note that Andrew Mapley was told by Stan Hippler to be the primary person for committing Patrick Eustis' changes. Andrew Mapley and I, Kevin Day, both did not commit those changes into production. On April 3, 2017, in apparent response to Patrick Eustis' ADA violations not being publicized, only I, Kevin Day, was called into a meeting with Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler. While they never directly said I did anything wrong, they asked what problems I had with Patrick Eustis. I told them none and that my problems were with his actions of violating the ADA requirements and our policies and procedures. They even asked why I didn't have Patrick Eustis' updates happen sooner than Friday at 4:30pm. I told them that if they changed the policy then I would (they would not change the policy). Following the meeting I was removed from the web team and was assigned to a non-technical non-programming task in blatant retaliation for refusing to violation the ADA requirements McNeese agreed to follow as per a previous lawsuit settlement. They did not, however, remove me from any of the other web programming projects that I was on, only the one where Patrick Eustis was involved in (that is I was only removed from the webteam).
The second obvious sign of whistleblower retaliation was my surprise termination on July 18, 2017. Without any complaints against me, without ever saying I did anything wrong, with an exceptional if not above annual performance review (including some very high remarks, including words similar to “Keep doing what you are doing.”, and without even letting me know anything was wrong until I was in Charlene Abbot's office, my position was terminated from McNeese State University. According to Charlene Abbot (as heard in the audio recording), I was not terminated for doing anything wrong, but instead because “..[I] am not a right fit.”.
The third obvious sign of whistleblower retaliation was my sudden and inexplicable unlawful bar order with no basis. This is broken down in a separate section because it deserves its own topic. In summary, Robert Spinks directly contradicts Charlene Abbots such that for both of their statements to be true, one must be lying. The police station has audio and video surveillance. It may be worth investigating on July 18, 2017 when I went in there to inquire on the unlawful bar order. You will find that the officer there doesn't even know their own policy. It would be also interesting if Robert Spinks was in his office when I was present and told that he was not. That would be evidence towards him trying to prevent me from properly filing an appeal.
The fourth obvious sign of whistleblower retaliation was when, on July 18, 2017, I filed a Discrimination Complaint with the University. The complaint was turned into Michael Snowden as witnessed by Charlene Abbot. The Discrimination complaint included Senior Staff in the complaint and Patrick Eustis. Both Senior Staff and Patrick Eustis was subsequently removed from the Discrimination Complaint. That Complaint was then replaced with a Bar Order complaint against Stan Hippler.
The fifth obvious sign of whistleblower retaliation was when I complained about my Discrimination Complaint being rewritten to University President Dr. Daryl V. Burckel, complaining that my Discrimination Complaint was altered and rewritten as another complaint. University President Dr. Daryl V. Burckel then had a team assigned to address the issue. Upon having a digital meeting with the team (headed by a Dr. W. Steve Thompson) on January 25, 2018, they stated that they had not even heard of my Discrimination Complaint that was filed on July 18, 2017 and were explicitly told they were not allowed to review anything regarding my termination. The entire complaint was around me being terminated in retaliation. This tells me that this is a meaningless, if not banana-court style, investigation. This is likely meant to waste my time in being able to file a whistleblower retaliation complaint within the years limit. After all, I was waiting for their supposed investigation to complete since I first sent the e-mail on September 20, 2017.
To further help with an investigation, in addition to e-mails I have provided the following: 1. A timeline of notable events and actions. 2. A compilation of e-mails in my possession into for easier discovery. 3. A DVD of all related documents, recordings, and git repositories. 4. A brief compilation of some relevant git commits and logs. 5. A collection of e-mails related to events described or showing consistent behavioral patterns. 6. A copy of my personal copies of my annual performance reviews (APRs) that I have. Unlawful Bar Order
On July 18, 2017, I believe Robert Spinks, University Chief of Police, unlawfully issued a Bar Order to me, Kevin Day, on the false premise of pre-crime. I, having never gotten angry, never attacked anyone, never threatened anyone, never had bad conduct, have had consistent exceptional exceptional annual performance reviews, have had great working relationship with all employees, staff, and even students (with exception to Patrick Eustis, who had issues with me but not the other way around), have no history of aggression, and never have been arrested for any crime, am somehow considered (according to Robert Spinks) have a potential for committing some sort of crime.
The Unlawful Bar Order was issued to me at my home after I walked to my apartment next to campus, without causing any incidents. An officer, whose name is unknown to me, issued me the Unlawful Bar Order and when I asked what the reasons for he stated that “..this is not normal..” and he could not provide any reason for its issuance. This confused and scared me. Not only was I confused about my termination, I was now being treated as a criminal. But for what reasons? I had no idea and neither did the officer who delivered the Unlawful Bar Order. The Unlawful Bar Order is particularly confusing because it is improperly filled out and the fields for explaining the reason for the bar order where left empty.
Trying to find out why I was being issued a bar order, I contacted Charlene Abbott. She stated that she doesn't have anything to do with bar order issuance and could not help me. I then reviewed the university bar order policy and found that the bar order was issued in direct violation of their policies. This meant that the bar order was unlawful.
The university bar order policy states that I could make an appeal to the University Chief of Police and that I must do so in person. When I went in person, to at the very least learn the reasons for the Unlawful Bar Order, I was not allowed to see the Chief of Police and I had to show the officer there their own bar order policy for them to be accept that I have to make an appeal directly to the Chief of Police. He claimed (and the building is under video and audio surveillance), that Robert Spinks was not in his office and would not be available.
I had no idea why I was unlawfully issued a bar order and I needed to find out why. I sent an e-mail asking questions, by which he failed to properly explain why. He also stated that he was assuming that my e-mail was an appeal (which I did not claim as such and also had to be done in person according to the policy) he claimed that he had thoroughly reviewed the policy. For someone who was unavailable to meet in person, he was quite quick to respond (e-mail headers show he responded in about 1 hour) and even claimed to have reviewed the case (what case?). I was not aware of ever having received any complaints nor was I told of ever having done anything wrong. (e-mails: 0265, 0266)
After my most recent complaint about Patrick Eustis violating the university policies, ADA laws and regulations, security policies, and development policies (my whistleblowing), I started recording meetings I had with Stan Hippler. In one of the meetings, Stan Hippler started associating open-source development with chemical terrorism. I dismissed it at the time because of the absurdity of the situation, but now I could see reason to believe it and had strong reason to fear for my life under false (and baseless) allegations of “chemical terrorism”. After all, having never done anything wrong nor having ever received any complaints, I find it hard to believe that “I appreciate and respect the efforts you put into making sure your projects run as efficiently as possible.” means that I deserve to have my position terminated. That only leaves the “chemical terrorism” aspect.
Because the Robert Spink's actions and Stan Hippler's words have given me reason to fear for my life and safety. I even had to (at a later time) have Charlene Abbott walk with me on campus so that I had a witness when I took care of necessary matters. My fear for my life has been witnessed by others, such as Alan Nunez and my neighbor Jon W.
Given the absurdity of “open-source” eluding to “chemical terrorism”, that told me somebody was committing fraud and is defaming me (or perhaps what I later came to learn as “putting me under false light”) for having reported on Patrick Eustis' numerous violations. I suspected that Stan Hippler likely tricked the less-tech savy people into thinking that there something to fear from me, given my utter lack of history to the contrary. If you listen to the termination audio recording, you should be able to discover how (non-) aggressive I was.
Break Down of Robert Spinks' E-mail Responses Mr. Day - Thank you for bringing your concern to my attention. I have had an opportunity to review the Bar Order and the background behind its issuance. 1. My e-mail was submitted to him on *Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:58:13 -0500 (CDT)*. His response was submitted to me on *Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:47:37 -0500 (CDT)*.
A uniformed police officer did serve you with a Bar Order at your residence this afternoon, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'unknown person.' You are correct the order had the box checked for a student by mistake, so that your Banner ID Number was written there. But, that in no way impacts the substance of the Bar Order. 1. Robert Spinks clarifies that my unknown person was in fact an officer. And claims that an improperly filed Bar Order still holds.
Upon being terminated from your employment today, the University exercised its right to bar you from the university properties and events. The reasons for the bar are outlined in the University Bar Policy which you referenced. It is not necessary to have committed a crime nor be involved in an act of violence or aggression, however you should review your conduct up to the point of your termination. For any more specific information about your termination and the issue(s) that precipitated the issuance of the Bar Order you should contact Human Resources. 1. The university bar order policy directly states that ..threaten the safety and security of the campus community… 2. I have done nothing to (and have never received any complaints in regards to) threaten the safety and security of the campus. 3. When my position was terminated, I immediately walked home without incident. 4. I never had any complaints against my conduct, had any conduct issues, or have I been told I did anything wrong. 5. Charlene Abbott, from Human Resources, directly told me (before I even sent the first e-mail) that bar orders are not issued in this way and she didn't know what this was about. 6. Charlene Abbott told me that this has nothing to due with Human Resources or my terminated and Robert Spinks says the opposite? One of these two must be lying.
The justification for the Bar Order falls within University Policy and your contact with Human Resources should clear that up for you. We try to be proactive in issues like this in order to provide safety to the university community and I'm sure that you will take this opportunity to use the buffer of the Bar Order to take time to refocus. 1. It does not fall into the University Policy, I have done nothing nor have I been told I did anything. 2. “take time to refocus”? Refocus about what? I'm not angry, I have no clue what is going on. 3. As witnessed by Charlene Abbott, I never once got angry and I had no clue that anything was even wrong until my surprise termination. 4. We try to be proactive. What? so Pre-crime is now legal? Because I might do something (despite having absolutely no history or evidence for that matter)? Since when is a person treated as a criminal without ever having committed any crime nor never having threatened anyone? Should you have legitimate business on campus you will be required to check-in with the University Police Department - your point of contact is Lt. Martin Mapp. Should you fail to check-in with Lt Mapp and have a valid business breason to be on university property or at a university event you will be subject to immediate arrest for trespassing. I'm hoping that this does not occur. 1. I am being denied my rights because I informed on the ADA violations, security violations, etc.. committed by Patrick Eustis? 2. This is a violation of my civil liberties in accordance to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. You should recontact our office in six (6) months to see if the order has been lifted. 1. As in, I may be permanently banned from all services including a Piano recital because I may have done something but never have and had no history of any such actions? 2. I lived next to McNeese State University, with my entire life was currently around the university, so my entire life is now being attacked? Since you listed in the title of your email that this was an appeal of your order, after thoughtful and in-depth review of your case I'm denying your appeal. 1. Robert Spinks claims that it is an appeal despite that an appeal must be in person according to the university bar order policy. 2. How can Robert Spinks assume that the e-mail is an appeal when I, Kevin Day, am directly asking what is going on so that I can make an appeal. 3. Wait…A thoughtful and in-depth review that lasted under an hour? The e-mail response was sent to me within an hour of sending my e-mail (see the e-mail headers). 4. Just before I sent the e-mail, I was directly told by an officer at the university police station that he was unavailable to meet in person (mind you, only after I showed the university bar order policy because he didn't understand that I had to deliver my appeal in person as per policy). You offered no new or specific or mitigating information in your appeal that changes the validity of the Bar Order. I find that the order was issued in compliance with existing university policy. I concur with the termination and the reasons for this employment action could offer an opportunity of risk to the university community which this Bar Order is designed to provide a buffer or cooling off period. 1. I don't know what I supposedly did to even defend against. 2. I have no history of any incidents, how do you show evidence of a history other than stating “see I have no history”. 3. Provide a “buffer or cooling off period”? From What? walking home? Again, my supposed dangerous behavior was witnessed by Charlene Abbott (and recorded). Yes..talking calm is certainly dangerous. Asking what is going on and why things are happening is just criminal (fyi: the previous two sentences are satire). After a review of information leading up to your termination today, I find that there is a potential for your actions, work conduct and inter-personal interactions while employed generated a concern by persons who reported a feeling that their safety and security as well as that of the larger university community was placed at risk by you either intentionally or not. It is also reasonable to presume that since you were employed in a high security and sensitive job position that a job termination could also be a trigger for a risk to the university community. While I hope that no negative interaction or actions are triggered, it is not unusual for employers to bar terminated employees from work premises. 1. What information? 2. Can Robert Spinks not see how I asked what the reasons were? Not saying? Probably because there is no reason. 3. Wait…“feeling for safety?”, so I feel harassed by Patrick Eustis and get ignored by senior staff…and that is okay, but suddenly and inexplicably somebody else feels for their safety and then with no apparent reason there is a problem. This is blatant discrimination. 4. I never received any charges or complaints filed against me stating I did anything wrong. It is also reasonable to presume that since you were employed in a high security and sensitive job position that a job termination could also be a trigger for a risk to the university community. While I hope that no negative interaction or actions are triggered, it is not unusual for employers to bar terminated employees from work premises. 1. Wait what? High Security? What High Security? Web Programming is high security? Since when? 2. If he is referring to having electronic access (that is disabled upon termination) is somehow justification for physically barring me from the University and All activities? 3. So…I can be dangerous at a McNeese hosted piano recital because I had access to a computer system? what? 4. Even if I did something electronically (which I never have done and never would do) a Bar Order does not do anything whatsoever to stop digital attacks and does not, in any way, apply to the scope of a computer. 5. The Bar Order does not prohibit electronic access. 6. I never had any keys to the server room and the only keys I had were turned in to Charlene Abbott immediately upon termination so I cannot be of any physical threat to any secured room. You may appeal my denial to the University's Incident Management Team. This appeal would be viewed administratively without having the right to an in-person hearing. If you would like to pursue that appeal now or later in the future, please contact by email or mail the Chair-Person of the IMT Candace Townsend, Director of Public Relations & University Events. I would encourage you to provide specific justification in such an appeal so that the IMT understands the breadth and depth of your position. 1. So I cannot defend myself from people who are committing fraud and are lying about me. 2. Candace Townsend is one of the Senior Staff who may be involved in the Whistle blowing retaliation as defined in my Discrimination Complaint. 3. I cannot trust Senior Staff because I have reason to believe they are committing fraud and are retailing against me for effectively blowing the whistle against Patrick Eustis, who, if my memory is correct, works directly under Candace Townsend.
On October 14, 2015 I had been reporting ADA violations by Patrick Eustis (in web-design, Section 508 and WCAG 2.0). See: Jira Tickets www-1409, www-1405, www-1443, www-1547 , www-1276, and pm-32. (git pages: 35, 36, 37, 39, 43)
On November 2, 2015 Patrick Eustis was hired in a new position, that was not announced such that nobody else was given an opportunity to apply for the job, violating Equal Opportunity Employment (Witnessed by Tina Fuselier). (e-mails: 0031)
On February 26, 2016 I sent a grievances complaint to Stanley Hippler, my immediate supervisor, and Chad Thibodeaux, the Chief Technical Officer, on how I felt Patrick's actions since my reporting of problems has led me to feel that I was being harassed.) (e-mails: 0027, 0195)
On March 18, 2016 My grievances complaint appeared to have been ignored, so I sent a second e-mail asking why I was not being responded to. (e-mails: 0027, 0195)
On March 22, 2016 I contacted Charlene Abbot, Director of Human Resources, to get my grievances responded to because multiple members in the chain of command were ignoring my complaints (namely Stan Hippler and Chad Thibodeaux). (e-mails: 0271)
On July 12, 2016 Andrew Mapley and Patrick Eustis both decided not to attend the regular meetings set forth by the grievances resolution overseen by Charlene Abbots. (e-mails: 0244, 0245, 0263)
On August 9, 2016 Patrick Eustis decided to put the regular meetings (the ones assigned by the grievances resolution) to a vote between him, me, and Andrew Mapley that they did not have to attend. I complained (in person) to Stan Hippler and Stan said that they did not have to attend these meetings set forth by the grievances resolution (in direct contrast to the resolution). (e-mails: 0022, 0023, 0024, 0245, 0263)
On or before April 3, 2017 Patrick Eustis continued violating ADA (and other policies and procedures). Specifically, there is a case that had multiple violations in ADA, policies, and security that was bad enough that I had to report it with emphasis (In Jira ticket). These violations are relatively easy to spot an avoid so there should be no undue burden to follow them and yet he continues to blatantly ignore and violate them.
On April 3, 2017 I was called into a private meeting between Chad Thibodeaux, Stan Hippler, and Me. They questioned me about what issues I had with Patrick Eustis and I repeated the problems about his violations of policies, procedures, security, and ADA (many of these problems were the same problems I outlined in my original harassment complaint). I also asked if we could meet to resolve any issues. I was flat-out denied (with emphasis). Chad told me that I must not do anything different (which means I had to follow ADA) but Patrick did not have to follow any such policies or procedures. This means that if I followed policy and ADA I had to deny Patrick's changes but if I listened to Chad and Stan then I had to violate the policies, procedures, and ADA. I was also flat-out denied any meetings or involving in discussions to resolve any misunderstandings that directly involved my job and its duties. I chose the more ethical route of following ADA (Section 508, WCAG 2, etc..). Chad Thibodeaux also mentioned another Web Team that I was not allowed to be part of that directly relates to by job duties.
From June, 2017 to July, 2017 I was subsequently removed from the Web Team, and put on another project that did not involve my job duties, in what I believe to be retaliation for following the Section 508 and WCAG 2.0 ADA requirements and policies set forth by McNeese State University (This did not remove me from the other web related projects, like the Facilities Use System because it is not a web team project). Of particular note is that I was hired as a programmer but now they are specifically telling me that I was not allowed to do any programming for this new project. Feeling that I was in a hostile work environment, I started recording meetings that I had with Stan Hippler (he never sends e-mails and always calls people into his office privately). Specifically see recording “Rec-2017-06-07-08-06-34.ogg”: At about 28 minutes into the recording/meeting, Stan Hippler starts going on a rant that the work I am involved in, specifically open-source (which is a category of a copyright license), is associated with “chemical terrorism” (that is a quote). He then repeats it in different ways and insists upon it. This shocked me, but at the time I thought he was being eccentric and dismissed it.
Sometime in late June or early July, 2017 Feeling the workplace hostility and having my complaints being explicitly ignored by the chain of command in what appears to be some sort of favoritism, I started considering leaving the my job at the university. I informed George Bodin of this because I was actively involved in a non-web-team project for him (the Facilities Use System).
On July 18, 2017 During this day, I saw Stan Hippler and he made no notions that anything was wrong or that I had done anything wrong. I was called into Charlene Abbot's office, with Stan Hippler, and was told that my position was being immediately terminated with no reason specified. (I recorded this entire meeting). Other than the meeting about my ADA complaints, I have had no complaints of conduct (or any complaints at all) and I have an above average annual progress report (see annual progress report). See recording: “Rec-2017-07-18-09-04-02.ogg”.
On July 18, 2017 Immediately after the meeting, I went straight home, exactly as instructed by Charlene Abbot (see Rec-2017-07-18-09-04-02.ogg). While there, an unknown police officer knocked at my door and delivered a Bar Order, barring me from all university locations and activities. The Bar Order was incorrectly filled out and had no reason specified on the Bar Order as to why. The Bar Order itself had only 2 spots for a reason, 1) Violence, 2) Unlawful Action. Neither of which I had done, so neither was filled out (There are other mistakes on the form as well.). Even that officer said that this was unusual and he that did not understand why this was being issued.
On July 18, 2017 I read the Bar Order policy and believed that their actions are in violation of the bar order policy. According to the policy, I had to contact Robert Spinks. I went to the university police station to ask what I was being accused of so that I could make an appeal. I could not get Robert Spinks to meet me, and a Lieutenant was sent to talk to me instead. I had to show the Lieutenant the Bar Order policy to make him realize that I had to report to Robert Spinks as described in the policy. I was given the run-around as far as I could tell, so I wrote and sent an e-mail to Robert Spinks.
On July 18, 2017 Within 1 hour of my e-mail, Robert Spinks responded to my e-mail with the following summarized statements: 1. He had an opportunity to review the Bar Order and the background behind its issuance. 2. The university exercised its rights to bar me and that this was standard policy and I should contact Human Resources. 3. I did not have to be involved in any act of violence or aggression but I should review my conduct. 4. They try to be proactive about these kinds of things. 5. No response was given to my request for reasons for the bar order. 6. He claimed that I should think about my recent conduct. What comes to my mind is the following: 1. He was able to review a bar order and write this response within 1 hour, when I have no history of violence and have neither harassed nor threatened anyone. I did not even refuse the tasks given to me despite the most recent ones being outside the my usual duties and very questionable. 2. According to Charlene Abbots, the Director of Human Resources, this was very much not standard policy. This means that either Charlene or Robert is lying. Numerous other former McNeese personnel have had similar or greater “special security” who were not barred, including (but not limited) to Tina Fuselier, Jason Bartlin, Dr. Phillip Williams, and Dan Boitnot. Furthermore, Patrick Eustis has, in violation of policies, granted administrative access to users without any appropriate clearance to do so without any bar orders being issued (see Jira tickets). 3. The policy seems to be pretty clear and straightforward to me that yes, yes they do need to be involved in an action of violence or aggression to receive a bar order. 4. “Pre-crime?” I am being treated as a criminal without any defense, any proof, or having done anything wrong? I believe this to be a violation of my constitutional rights. 5. I am trying to ask what I did wrong, seeing as no one will tell me. This tells me that they do not have a reason or they do not want to state that it is for calling out ADA violations and feelings of harassment by their very clearly favored personnel (Patrick Eustis). 6. My recent conduct was reporting ADA violations, other than that I have done nothing nor have any complaints be made to me. Not to mention that I have an above average annual performance review that shows I have done nothing wrong and I have a long history of non-aggression.
On July 18, 2017 I was technically still an employee until the end of the day, so I filed an internal discrimination charge with the Chief Diversity Officer, Michael Snowden. I had Charlene Abbott escort me to his office because I feared that the police would attempt to set me up in some way, given their current behavior. At least that way I would have a witness should something occur. Of particular note, I was going through shock this entire month between the loss of the job and the unlawful use of a bar order to harass me or a bar order issued against me for false association with chemical terrorism. ) (emails: 0273, 0274, 0275, 0276, 0277)
On August 1, 2017 Michael Snowden finally processed the charges, but the charges he processed were not the ones I submitted. While I had mentioned Patrick, Stan, and Chad (or really the chain of command because I wanted to include whomever was responsible for the unlawful bar order, which now appears to be Robert Spinks). Michael Snowden ignored most of my complaint and filed an anti-bullying policy violation against only Stan Hippler (essentially he rewrote my complaint to suite his whim).
On August 8, 2017 I was informed by, James L. Arruebarrena that I needed to file a complaint using the EEOC form and that the actions that I described may even be constitutional violation of my civil liberties (Section 1983). I filed a Discrimination complaint form with the EEOC (signed on August 6, 2017). It was delivered, in person, at the New Orleans office with William Day as a witness (as well as the security personnel present on that day as a witness).
On August 9, 2017 I provided supplemental information to Michael Snowden, mentioning how I sent an e-mail to George Bodin about my hostile work environment. I included information on where to find 3 to 10 years of supporting evidence, showing my consistent patterns and that treatment I was given by all of the parties. Referring to, of course, relevant information, such as being assigned to maintain a system that was already hacked and used to cause harm to others while simultaneously denying me the approval to properly resolve the issue. I referenced the git.mcneese.edu system, which contains numerous activity logs that include evidence of Patrick's involvement (and lack thereof) where appropriate. I also mentioned the wiki.mcneese.edu, where I provided detailed information on my projects (proving how far out of my way I went to help and assist everybody I am involved with, including Patrick Eustis). I futhermore mentioned how Chad Thibodeaux had claimed that my calling out Patrick Eustis' violations were angry or hostile (despite my utter lack of hostility and anger). (e-mails: 0274, 0275, 0276, 0277)
On August 28, 2017 I received a response to an inquiry I made.
On September 12, 2017 I received a letter from the University President, Dr. Daryl V. Burckel, stating that they found that Stan Hippler did not bully me. The complaint I filed was not against Stan Hippler, it was against Stan Hippler, Chad Thibodeaux, Patrick Eustis, and other McNeese Senior Staff. The actual complaint is a discrimination complaint and not a bullying complaint. The letter is dated September 8, 2017.
On September 18, 2017 I sent an e-mail to the EEOC asking what the status of my charge was. The e-mail is designated Incident: 170918-000375.
On September 19, 2017 I sent an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org asking for assistance on this matter. Having heard no response to this day, I can only assume to being ignored.
On September 20, 2017 I sent an e-mail to the University President stating that this was not the complaint that I had filed. The President responded that he would forward this and respond once he gets a response. I have yet to receive any response.
On September 28, 2017 I received an e-mail response from the EEOC, in regards to incident 170918-000375, confirming that my charge was received on September 8, 2017. I was informed that the process may take a while (essentially be patient). I was also informed that I may receive an official EEOC charge form to review and sign. I also received a very suspicious call from somebody claiming to be “Federal Investigator Luis” from the number (504) 595-2863. This individual was hostile and falsifying statements immediately after I made a statement. I became increasingly suspicious and asked if I could have some identifying information. He refused to give me any information other than that he is the only investigator with his name. Furthermore, he spent most of his type worrying about being recorded and little to no time about my actual case. By the end of the conversation, I felt that this guy is a fraud. He claimed that the EEOC does not handle cases of retaliation for complaining about harassment, retaliation about reporting ADA violations, or discrimination by denying equal opportunity employment. The very last one is absurd, because they are literally have the Equal Opportunity Employment in their agency name! He also told me that because I am filing against a State agency that I had to file at the state level, not the Federal level. Furthermore, the actions against me should be filed with the Department of Justice. This so called Federal Investigator further refused to provide the official response to my official filing. I the contacted James L. Arruebarrena about this strange contact and James (strangely) suddenly started claiming that he did not understand my case (despite having previously described, in slight detail, such as the Constitutional violation in regards to Section 1983 of my Civil Liberties). In case “Federal Investigator Luis” was not a fraud, I sent a certified mail (with return receipt request) (USPS #7016-3560-001-0318-8207) to the Office of the Governor, Louisiana Commission on Human Rights. At a later date, I received an unsigned and undated return receipt while the tracking code showed a different zip code than the one I mailed. Contacting the USPS, they directly said that certified mail sometimes does not get to the correct address and that the return receipts somehow get lost. They claimed that they would give me a refund and never did so. This is very suspicious behavior.
On October 6, 2017 In case “Federal Investigator Luis” was not a fraud, I sent a certified mail (with return receipt request) (USPS #7016-3560-001-0325-1611) to the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. The return receipt I received was signed and dated on October 10, 2017.
On October 10, 2017 I mailed my original Whistleblower Retaliation form to the Louisiana Board of Ethics (USPS #7016-3560-001-0327-4757), with a return receipt requested. The return receipt I received was returned signed, but undated and was delivered to the correct zip code.
On October 13, 2017 A letter was sent to me from the University President, Dr. Daryl V. Burkel, regarding my complaint that was e-mailed on September 20, 2017. The University President asked if I wanted the Grievance Committee to review my complaint, independent of my termination, despite the fact that Discrimination complaints, do in fact, allow for termination being revoked.
On October 19, 2017 The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, wrote me a letter (signed by Linda A. Garrett, specialist in the Disability Rights Section) advised me that these issues should be sent to the EEOC and also went out of their way to send a letter to the EEOC. They assigned this case DJ# 205-33-0.
On October 23, 2017 Michael T. Snowden sent me an e-mail with the list of the Grievance Committee members. The members included: Michael Roach, Steve Thompson, Tara Chaumont, Debbie Johnston, and George Bodin. George Bodin was removed and replaced with Tanner Stines due to a conflict of interest. (I much later (January 10, 2018) received an e-mail from Wayne Thompson who claimed to be the chairman of the Grievance Committee.) The New Orleans Field office of the EEOC wrote me a letter (Signed by Kellie Light, Secretary of Field Management Programs), in regards to the case forwarded to them by the DOJ. Kellie Light told me that I needed to file a Discrimination charge with the New Orleans branch of the EEOC. Which is strange, because I did and they should have a copy. What happened to my case?
On October 30, 2017 I sent a letter, asking for assistance with the EEOC (due to the suspicious phone call) to Senator. Bill Cassidy. I used USPS certified mail with return receipt, ID: 7017-1450-002-2978-6577. I have never received any response.
On October 31, 2017 The Louisiana Board of Ethics sent me a letter (Signed by Deborah S. Grier), informing me that my docket would be tentatively scheduled for the December 14, 2017 meeting. The Louisiana Commission on Human Rights sent me a letter (Signed by Dr. Leah Raby, Executive Director, LCHR) stating that because my case is against a State agency, that I should file at the Federal level. Which is strange, because it directly contradicts what “Federal Investigator Luis” stated. Not only that, they sent me a written, official, response. This gives me the impression that the New Orleans EEOC branch, or this so-called “Federal Investigator Luis” may somehow be unlawfully involved in the my retaliation case.
On November 8, 2017 Michael T. Snowden sent me an e-mail telling me that the committee was asking for the other recordings. I had given Snowden the information to retrieve all of the recordings from my e-mails (which are archived by Federal law). I replied and reminded Snowden that I already have given him the information on where to find and how to retrieve the recordings. Snowden asked for me to burn the recordings to a CD myself and drop them off at the university police station. This is strong evidence that Snowden did not review all of the evidence that I provided, giving me reason to believe that he intentionally ignored significantly relevant evidence (such as the recordings).
On November 9, 2017 I dropped off a DVD of the audio recordings at the university police station and information Michael T. Snowden.
On November 11, 2017 I sent an e-mail to the EEOC asking to receive the official response from the Discrimination filing that I made on August 8, 2017. I also asked for my “Notice of Right to Sue” form. This e-mail was designated: Incident: 171128-000077.
On December 22, 2017 I received a response from the “EEOC Intake Information Group” claiming that they did not have access to the specific charge I am referring to. They also suggested that I contact the field office directly.
On January 10, 2018 I received an e-mail from the chairman of the Grievances Committee, Dr. Wayne Thompson. The letter asked me about scheduling a meeting in person or via the Internet in regards to my case.
On January 12, 2018 Dr. Wayne Thompson and I concluded to meet on January 25 at 2:00pm via an Internet service.
On January 25, 2018 I met with the Grievance Committee and learned that they were not investigating my Discrimination complaint and, in fact, had never even seen my Discrimination complaint. Furthermore, they were not allowed to address my issues nor did they have access to significant evidence in regards to my complaint (such as how every single Annual Performance review I had was above average and had very good remarks). At this point, I realized that I had spent all this time working with McNeese State University to try to resolve my issues through the proper methods only to be treated like trash. Not only did they not have to follow ADA regulations, EEOC regulations, or even their own policies, but they could not only terminate me without consequences for reporting harassment and reporting violations but they could also rewrite and ignore every complaint I send. Supposedly, the Grievances Committee will be sending me a response, but I do not believe it will have any credibility because McNeese State University is very likely ignoring, rewriting, withholding, or destroying the evidence that I provided and the complaints that I have made.
On February 12, 2018 I have written this update and have not yet received any further documents from any agency. Specifically, I have not heard from McNeese State University nor the New Orleans EEOC office.
On March 19, 2018 I have mailed a notarized FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552) to McNeese.
On March 21, 2018 McNeese State University received my FOIA request that was mailed out on March 19, 2018. It was signed by LeJeune at 10:29 AM.
On March , 2018 I received a response to my March 19, 2018 FOIA request from Eddie P. Meche, McNeese Vice President. He stated that McNeese would respond to my request within 20 business days of March 21, 2018.
On April 23, 2018 I was informed that my mailbox has received a package from McNeese (USPS tracking 70153010000215073607). I picked up the package on April 24, 2018. The package is the response to my FOIA request. The response failed to supply any of the e-mails in electronic format. The response failed to supply any of the jabber/pidgin messages. They pointed out that I sent a Federal FOIA request and they are not bound by it as a Federal request but instead must follow the State laws for FOIA requests. They provided my personal file history, which was included in my request, at no charge. They claimed that they would charge for printing my e-mails and that it would be more expensive than $100. I would note that the request directly stated that if the cost would go over $100, then to immediately stop and immediately contact me (which, based on the date of response, they did not do so). I requested information on Patrick Eustis' Job posting for the position that I have reason to believe was never announced (and witnessed by Tina Fuselier). They provided false information in regards to this and have provided a document claiming that it is Patrick Eustis' job. In fact, the job listing is dated 09/15/2017, and is my job position as it was at McNeese State University. The person hired into this position is a Michael Redlich, who never worked there before and whom I have never met. They response contained my discrimination complaint. (This confirms that they do have it, did not destroy it, but also did not follow my complaint.)
On April 27, 2018 I notarized a Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1 et seq document (State FOIA Request) in response to McNeese's response to my previous Federal FOIA request. Should be the correct form. It emphasizes providing the documents in electronic format. References that the provided Job posting that I received from McNeese is clearly incorrect (it is Michael Redlich's job posting). I further emphasize that the requested posting is the one from the winter of 2015. I made the Expedited Processing request statement bold to be more emphasized. Used a more correct format for a notary public signature than my previous request.
On May 1, 2018 McNeese State University has received by State FOIA Request, Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1 et seq. The package was signed by a Williams at 10:46 AM. Package was shipped (and the FOIA Request was notarized by) the UPS Store and has a tracking code of 1Z251AE40303816592.
On May 9, 2018 5 business days have passed with no response to my May 1, 2018 FOIA request. McNeese State University has failed to comply with Section 44:32(D) of the Louisiana Public Records Act. I sent a an e-mail on Wed, 9 May 2018 18:55:02 -0500 to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org to remind them that they have failed to comply and hope for an e-mail response. (e-mails: 0278)
On May 10, 2018 No e-mail response has been received from McNeese State University in regards to my May 9, 2018 e-mail on their failure to comply within the three business day deadline.
On May 12, 2018 I received a physical mail in response to my FOIA request, dated May 7, 2018. Eddie P. Meche claims that there are a lot of e-mails and it would exceed $100.
On May 23, 2018 After research and review, I responded to the May 12, 2018 FOIA response. I clarified my initial response to ensure spam mail does not get included.
On June 7, 2018 I received a response to my May 23, 2018 FOIA response. Of particular note is that they state “..the University has no recorded Jabber/Pidgin communications between Patrick Eustis and Andrew Mapley in 2016 and 2017”. Which is interesting because I have documented evidence of just that in the Jira and e-mail logs as admitted by Andrew Mapley.
Audio Recordings The audio recordings, as described in the Audio Recordings Transcript, are recordings I made after becoming suspicious of the actions by McNeese State University. These recordings are in OGG Vorbis format. A technical format similar to MP3 but not bound by any patents and is under an open-source license.
I have supplied both the original audio recordings and a converted form of the recordings in WAV format. The WAV format is provided to help guarantee that you have no issues in being able to listen to the recordings. There have been no alterations to these recordings beyond converting them from OGG to WAV.
Audio Recording Transcripts
Transcript: Stan Hippler - 2017/05/23 12:54 0:25 - asked for specific tasks in Jira, Stan stated that he would. 2:38 - production and test tabs, can test the version. 7:00 - Stan talked about content but he never involved me, there is an unknown “we”! 8:45 - Stan talks how its “about what students want”. 16:01 - mentions Colleen and Gerald, who are not at this meeting. 16:10 - I state that marketing and financial aid can come up with terminology. 17:10 - Stan talks about not writing code (which is my job!). 17:42 - don't Ever click “Publish” because it goes to the App Store. 19:20 - Stan says interested in “Send Notifications”. 20:00 - Stan talks about adding local modules (which I have no access to). 20:20 - says “clicking save” for the test url (this is the content). 26:00 - Stan talks about what he has already done before. 28:25 - Stan talks about Ellucian. 31:00 - Stan calls everything “crap”. 32:25 - I point out that “working on both” is already provided by product. 33:40 - I point out that there is nothing that can be done via the product. 34:10 - I continue to point out that there is nothing that can be done for colors.
Transcript: Stan Hippler - 2017/06/01 08:30 00:50 - Stan asks if I have glanced at documentation. 01:10 - Stan talks about mobile app. 04:38 - Stan talks about adding url to the ticket and to see if app still works. 05:00 - Stan talks about debugging. 07:55 - I ask Stan what we are doing with this app. 08:10 - Stan talks about changing the default configuration is what he wants. 08:25 - So I confirm that this is not programming. 08:30 - Stan says “at this point”, yes. 08:56 - I state that it would be helpful if I am told what I need to research. 09:05 - Stan talks about how he thinks most of the fight will be getting it to publish. 09:30 - Stan talks about getting requests for an app and state tags. 09:50 - Stan talks about what departments do. 10:11 - Stan talks about state level. 10:23 - I talk about the recognition level stuff not being available to me. 10:35 - Stan just talks about the 3-months is for getting students to register. 11:00 - Stan talks about working with payment company. 11:08 - Stan claims that this app will replace most of Banner Self Service. 11:35 - Stan talks about moving towards mobile friendly stuff. 11:45 - Stan talks about direction of the website being towards marketing and guest login. 12:00 - Stan talks about user login. 12:10 - Stan says that the McNeese website is moving away from user logins. 12:30 - Stan mentions that I have a lot of experience with forms, graphics, and accessibility. 12:45 - I mention that I am not good at art (drawing). 13:00 - Stan talks about how we will have help. 13:10 - Stan talks about Ellucian. 13:30 - Stan talks about how until that stage most of the work is configuration. 13:48 - Stan claims that he does not have enough time to do the configuration himself. 14:00 - Stan talks about every single student and every single faculty. 14:15 - Stan talks about what people care about. 14:30 - I talk about how we already have that functionality via HTML5 so its trivial, unlike this app. 15:08 - Stan talks about the website having a group or circle working on it. 15:20 - I point out that I was on the web team and that I know. 15:40 - Stan goes into a rant about marketing takes website and then fails and a cycle of sorts. 16:15 - Stan mentions mobile app configuration. 16:25 - I mention about problems connecting to the app website. 16:50 - I mention that maybe the wireless security is blocking it. 19:06 - Stan talks about what he gets while trying to get past access problems. 19:30 - We continue talking about access issues. 20:40 - Stan talks about needing to contact Ellucian to fix the problem. 20:50 - I ask if this meeting is then over. 21:00 - I ask if there is anything else I need to know. 21:06 - Stan mentions that he put the issues on the ticket (Jira ticket). 21:28 - Stan talks how he will review the e-mails. 22:00 - I ask questions on how CAS is setup and LDAP. 22:10 - Stan mentions how it uses AD (Active Directory) which then accesses LDAP. 22:30 - Stan talks about how it has connection problems. 23:00 - Stan talks about how he assumes there is nothing in the documentation on how to test. 23:30 - Stan talks about different servers, mobiletest and mobileprod. 23:46 - Stan talks about how he can have Daniel (Myers) restart the Tomcat. 24:10 - I ask about the name of the program, if it is called Ellucian. 25:10 - While waiting on Stan, I start talking about buzzwords and current trends with kids. 26:33 - Stan also comments idly on how he sees things at basketball games. 27:25 - Stan brings up my use of a tissue to touch the touchscreen and I start talking about soap. 28:10 - Stan talks about his task is to get things working again. 28:25 - Stan talks about how he has to have Daniel (Myers) restart things. 28:35 - I mention that it looks like Tomcat is working and it may be elsewhere. 29:40 - Stan states that he restarted the services. 30:20 - Stan talks about possible firewall issues. 30:30 - I mention the firewall. 30:40 - Stan calls Chad Thibodeaux about possible firewall issues. 31:00 - Stan talks about when he last worked on Ellucian and asks if the firewall was in place. 33:38 - Stan talks again and asks Chad Thibodeaux about an IP address and Chad responds. 34:40 - Stan talks about mobile server. 36:00 - Conversation between Stan and Chad ends.
Transcript: Stan Hippler - 2017/06/07 08:06 1:00 - Stan seems to be trying to determine what account I used to access system (weird). 2:30 - Stan mentions how he talked to Daniel (why was I not included?). 5:30 - Stan starts talking about campus news feed (I wasn't sure what he was talking about). 5:55 - after Stan re-words I realize he is talking about the McNeese website. 6:50 - Stan talks about 'presidents honors list' (not sure what that is..). 7:10 - I point out that the content is entirely user controlled so any cutoffs is created be user. 8:10 - Stan tells me to copy from other institutions. 8:20 - I point out that I don't go steal from other users. 8:50 - I ask why Stan is having me do 'content' when I am a programmer. 9:10 - Stan continues to tell me to copy off others users. 10:10 - Stan says to “get their ideas”. 11:00 - Stan asks me to research a specific task related to financial data. 12:00 - Stan says that there is no need for code to be written and then states thats what for other team members do. 12:20 - I mention APIs and Stan interrupts (this is my accidental incorrect reference). 13:00 - I talk about standard, because I am mixing as it is defined with their definition. 13:40 - Stan specifically does not want me programming (I am hired as a programmer!?). 15:40 - Stan talks about Daniel upgrades the version and installs the software. 16:50 - Stan talks about using the app they paid for instead of HTML5. 17:35 - I point out that this product is designed to just pull data from another system. 18:00 - I explain how the app works by following the standard and pulls data. 18:58 - I notice that I was using based on other people using it incorrectly, accidentally. 20:00 - I point out that its the format of the data that they provide that matters. 20:40 - Stan talks about the “miketest” account. 21:10 - I point out how I don't use my LDAP credentials to login using wireless. 22:10 - Stan again talks about others (Colleen and Gerald) who are not at this meeting. 22:30 - Stan talks about his opinion of Northwestern. 23:30 - Stan talks about meeting Colleen and Stan privately. 24:10 - I point out that if we are a “team” I should be part of it. 24:50 - I point out asking questions is important to avoid communication issues. 26:50 - Stan talks about his problems and personalities. 27:30 - Stan states that he refuses to learn newer technologies. 28:10 - Stan starts associating open-source with chemical terrorism. 28:40 - Stan then mentions that it could be used in Germany for chemical terrorism. 29:20 - Stan claims that people “choose not to see” that it is supporting chemical terrorism. 29:50 - Stan talks about making a meeting with the “team”, but only after he talks with them separately first.
Transcript: Termination - 2017/07/18 09:04 00:05 - Charlene Abbot mentions I am being removed from employment. 00:20 - Charlene describes that it is an At-Will employment and asks if I have personal belongings. 00:40 - Charlene mentions that I cannot go back there and asks if I have anything there. 00:50 - Charlene asks if there is anything there that I have to have immediately. 01:02 - I mention that I couldn't think of anything. 01:20 - Charlene mentions how this may be shocking. 01:30 - Charlene asks about my keys and I have them over. 01:40 - I ask for the justification for this termination. 01:42 - Charlene mentions how it is At-Will and no cause will be listed. 01:50 - Charlene mentions that it is mostly because it is “not a right fit”. 02:08 - Charlene mentions that my access will be removed. 02:36 - Stan leaves. 02:42 - Charlene mentions how she does not get into the whys for termination. 02:50 - Charlene mentions that I am eligible for unemployment. 03:10 - Charlene mentions that Chad and Stan signed off and it was approved by the President. 03:18 - I mention that “you would think that they would communicate with me”. 03:25 - I mention how I have been experience a hostile environment. 03:30 - Charlene asks if I filed official a complaint to Michael Snowden. 03:37 - I mentioned that I have not yet filed a complaint but the hostile environment has gotten worse. 03:41 - Charlene tells me what I can do now, and my options to file a complaint. 04:00 - Charlene mentions what here main task is as an human resources person. 04:20 - Charlene mentions how her thoughts on what is right or wrong is irrelevant. 04:40 - Charlene states that is all she can tell me about it. 04:50 - Charlene talks about my annual leave. 05:05 - Charlene suggests that I should file for unemployment. 05:10 - Charlene mentions that I should direct references to her and not Stan. 05:30 - Charlene says that I can say whatever I want and that it leaves me hanging. 05:50 - Charlene talks about retirement and insurance. 06:03 - I state that I will definitely pull my retirement. 06:20 - Charlene tells me how to get the refund/rollover. 06:50 - Charlene mentions about being subjected to an additional 10% penalty. 07:07 - Charlene talks about the 10% penalty and that they will ultimately take a total of 30%. 07:30 - Charlene says to file it through a 1099-R. 07:45 - Charlene mentions that I have an HSA account and all of that is mine. 07:50 - Charlene asks how I use the HSA and I explain. 08:15 - Charlene talks about OGB and other things that need to be done. 09:00 - Charlene asks about personal belongings and I explain. 09:30 - Charlene mentions that Stan says he is going to pack my items. 09:40 - Charlene mentions what will be done if things are missing. 10:05 - I mention the personal files on the computer and other items and Charlene responds. 10:20 - Charlene asks about sending it on an e-mail and I mention that I have nothing memorized. 10:55 - Charlene mentions about doing her best and maybe even getting a picture. 11:25 - Charlene mentions how she wishes she could give me more clarity. 11:40 - Charlene asks about the keys and I explain how they both lead to my office. 12:15 - I mention the UPSs. 12:24 - Charlene mentions that I can e-mail Michael Snowden before the end of the day. 12:50 - Charlene mentions that I can say my piece to Michael Snowden. 13:00 - Charlene mentions about when I made my harassment complaints before. 13:05 - Charlene mentions that she did speak to Michael Snowden about the harassment. 13:14 - I mention how they decided not to go to the meetings that Charlene had us take in resolution. 13:25 - Charlene mentions that I am more than welcome to e-mail. 13:40 - Charlene mentions that I should file for unemployment, regardless. 14:10 - Charlene continues talking about my leave and payment. 14:30 - Charlene insists that unemployment is not a lot, but is at least something. 14:50 - Charlene mentions that her goal is that I am able to get another job. 15:00 - Charlene finishes that I need to direct future employers to Human Resources. 15:20 - Charlene mentions that I have to go through EEOC out of New Orleans if unemployed. 15:45 - Charlene suggests that may be the route to go, but she doesn't know. 16:00 - We talk about my property and I mention a few and give Charlene my cell phone number. 16:50 - Charlene tells me the website to access to claim unemployment. 17:20 - Charlene continues talking about unemployment claim. 17:30 - Charlene tells me to use “No Cause” because no cause was given for my termination. 17:55 - Charlene mentions that I am shell-shocked and may end up having more questions. 18:15 - I mention that they never gave me my signed copy of my annual performance evaluation. 18:30 - Charlene states that she will get that to me. 18:40 - Charlene talks about giving me her cell phone and to ask her once as questions come. 19:00 - Charlene mentions that I have done what I am supposed to do and exited properly. 19:15 - Charlene asks for my employment card and I realize that I don't have it on me. 19:35 - Charlene mentions that I will think of things once I go home. 19:50 - Charlene mentions that I can contact her and Michael if I am going to file a complaint. 20:20 - Charlene mentions that Michael Snowden will listen to what I have to say. 20:50 - Charlene mentions that I should be putting my complaints in writing. 21:15 - I mention how I didn't want to have to go to the process. 21:25 - I mention their working behind my back, hostility, and favoritism. 21:55 - Charlene wraps up meeting.
Further Investigation As mentioned previously, there is additional evidence that I either do not at the time of this writing have a copy of or have access to (but may be in the process of obtaining). Furthermore, there exists evidence that I would not have access to. These are important areas of investigation that I believe will only provide supportive evidence, and in many cases, stronger evidence that what has already been provided. The following is a shot summary of major areas to investigate: 1. The audio and video records of the Police Station when I was attempting to meet with Robert Spinks in regards to his unlawful bar order. 2. Most information provided in the timeline has some record in either e-mails, jira, git, UCS Wiki, audio recordings, and/or video recordings. 3. Previous court case where McNeese State University settled and agreed to follow certain ADA standards. 4. Previous records of the university, including git repository and the UCS wiki, on what standards we would follow and how we would address them in the context of the McNeese Website. 5. Records of Patrick Eustis repeatedly violating Project Policies, UCS Policies, University Policies, State Laws, and/or Federal Laws. 6. All evidence as requested via the FOIA Requests that I have made. 7. Investigation into Job Positions (or lack thereof), specifically in regards to Patrick Eustis being hired into positions in direct violation of EEOC policies. 8. Investigation into the continued retaliation against me, including interfering in my attempts to seek self employment (such as when the Small Business Development Center held an opportunity to get started in your own self-employed small business, which I was ignored in, should be e-mail records.) 9. The UCS wiki, which provides documentation (with dates) on how the development process works. 10. Access to Jabber/Pidgin records from Andrew Mapleys, Patrick Eustis, Stan Hippler, Chad Thibodeaux, Robert Spinks, and perhaps others such as Candace Townsend, via the copies of conversations generally stored locally on their office machines or personal cell phones (if they used Jaber/Pidgin on those devices). 11. Further investigation into ADA violates by McNeese State University as exposed by the Internet Archive. (see our website page, e-mails, git logs, and possibly the UCS wiki on the specific regulations we follow and their respective interpretations.)
Summary Having repeatedly reported numerous violations against Patrick Eustis and putting such complaints in public records, I was retaliated against by McNeese State University. Having never done anything wrong, never knowingly violated any law, never threatened anyone, never acted in any violence, never been told I have done anything wrong, I was further retaliated against by Robert Spinks, Chief of Police via an unlawful bar order. Having acted in good faith and attempted to follow the proper procedures to address my complaints and having those complaints be altered, replaced, or outright ignored, I have been further retaliated against by McNeese State University in my attempts to address the issues before filing a complaint with the Louisiana Board of Ethics. Having, in good faith, provided my complaints and details therein to numerous organizations, I have been consistently retaliated against and otherwise ignored, despite the seriousness of the matter. Having been accused of supporting chemical terrorism on baseless accusations around the concept that programming in open-source is supporting chemical terrorism I have been ignored and have had multiple constitutional rights deprived of me. I, Kevin Day, believe that McNeese State University, its entire chain of command, its law enforcing personnel, and numerous members of the technical departments have engaged in unlawful, ostracizing, discriminatory, and hostile actions against me for attempting to uphold and refusing to violate the law and follow good moral and ethical standards without reasonably violating them (such as but not limited to ADA regulations).