Email From P.A.

--- P.A. <hidden> wrote:
From: "P.A." <hidden>
To: <jasonpearce-owner@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [jasonpearce] File - Monologue Reminder
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:01:00 -0400

Jason,

I took some time to read through the correspondence that you posted. Here are my thoughts.

  1. It appears to me, particularly based upon the voicemail message you transcribed from the Peace Corp lady, that Peace Corps is relying on something other than the information contained in those emails and memorandums. She referenced a "file" in her message. If I were you, I'd first call and ask for a copy of the file. If she does not provide it, than I'd send a written request for a copy of the file and "all relevant documents upon which the agency made its decision." I'm fairly certain that they are legally obligated to provide this to you, however, employment law isn't exactly my forte. Particularly because they are a federal agency, I believe, unless they are specifically exempted, that they have a duty to disclose this to you.

  2. As for the First Amendment issue, again not my area of legal knowledge, but as a federal agency, they are restricted in how they may censor your free expression. They may restrict the time and place of your expression, but they may not generally restrict your content. In this case, the sensitivity concern they have with respect to local governments is viable, and one can probably assume that as a condition of service, you have explicitly or implicitly agreed to self-censorship. I do not quite understand the direct nature of their concern with respect to the content on your site. I remember reading reference to "naked children" or something, but I do not recall a critical reference to political issues, other than that you were sequestered for a time due to an uprising or something.

  3. The communication with the other WWF office appears to be the most ridiculous of charges. First, it appears that the other PCV contacted you in the first instance. Second, she has for your suggestions on hardware specifications at the request of one of the WWF people. Third, none of the correspondence suggested a communication about sensitive issues. Based upon that correspondence, I'm not certain why Williams is concerned.

  4. There appears to be something else going on here. I base this inference on fourth things. First, Brown's correspondence to you appears to take the most harsh position possible. Second, the email from Williams to Brown suggests that there was something conveyed in their prior phone conversation that is not disclosed in Brown's correspondence. Third, Mortimer's voicemail refers to her getting the "whole story," suggesting that she believes there is additional information which would lead her to believe this termination was justified. Fourth, Brown indicates he doesn't believe you have the "emotional maturity" to fulfill your responsibilities.

Consequently, my question for you is what may be the additional basis for Brown wishing to terminate your service? Is there a strong personality conflict? Is there something else that might explain his arbitrary and capricious conduct? Have other people had similar experiences with him? His statement regarding your "emotional maturity" is of most concern here. As I think I know you pretty well, I am not certain how he could have made this assertion. My guess is that its "boilerplate" language he is using to trigger the termination.

Here is my advice in summary:

  1. Request all relevant documents and information contained in your personnel file relating to the decision to terminate your affiliation.

  2. Write a non-confrontational appeal that focuses on the objective facts. (i.e. You were asked to restrict access, and you complied in a timely manner.)

  3. Indicate that restrictions on speech are not clearly proscribed in any Peace Corps document, other than to be sensitive and refrain from political commentary; it appears from what I've seen that you complied with this. I'd avoid from making too strong of 1st amendment claim here, as they won't want to admit that they are violating your free speech rights, and then reinstate you. If you leave them wiggle room by suggesting that any restrictions were not clearly conveyed, than they can view it as a "mutual misunderstanding".

  4. The most confrontational I would be, is with respect to Brown individually. I'd use the phrase "arbitrary and capricious" to describe his conduct.

That is my advice if you want to be reinstated. Now, if you want to drop a fire in the hole, and head for cover, there are a few other options I'd consider. First, I would look into your political contacts. If your parents have a friend in the House or Senate, that of course, would be helpful. Second, there is always the route of public embarrassment, you have the media experience to know how to really disparage the peace corp. Third, a letter from someone on good legal letterhead is always fun too. You'd have to find someone who is a partner at a firm that doesn't care about their relationship with the Peace Corp. Perhaps Suggs might want to help. If you want to go this route, I'd ask Chuck specifically for advice. You're one of his favorite former staff members, so I know he help if he could.

If I can be of any help or if you want to bounce anything off me, feel free to write. Best of luck Jason.