This was sent around on one of the Y2K lists I belong to. Well worth a read.

Diane

Subject: (Fwd)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:28:20 -0700 (PDT)

Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:00:16 -0400
From: Dick Mills dmills@albany.net
Subject: Whistle Blower

Rick Cowles and I frequently get mail from readers who tell us that things within their company are not at all like management and the public is being told. Alhough interesting, the vast majority aren't useable in a public forum because the senders don't want to name names or to expose themselves as public whistle blowers.

The enclosed message is a remarkable exception to that rule. Ms. Kerr provides her own name and the name of the company and a lot of details. She sent her letter to the Senate Committee. (I just heard that the committee wants to talk to her by phone.) She also gave me permission to repost it here. I think that her courage is admirable.

Delivered-To: dmills@albany.net
From: Snedaze@aol.com
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 01:41:32 EDT
Subject: Y2k - My Story
To: dmills@albany.net

I have read a lot of what you have written. Very good work. Below please find a letter I wrote to the Y2k Senate Committee. I'm sure you will find it interesting. Far too many of "us", who have followed this problem, or who have worked on it, are coming to the same conclusions.

Letter to Senators Dodd and Bennett:

With the utmost respect for the work you have done on trying to make sense of Y2k , I would like to relate my Y2k experience. I'm really just your average citizen. A secretary. But this is my story. I've just finished reading your Year 2000 100 day report. I read the previous one which, I believe, was written in April 1999. I had never given Y2k any thought, even though I have been an executive assistant for 20 years and in the last ten years I have seen technology, at the desktop level, change at a ridiculous rate. As assistants we would barely learn one software and a new one was coming out, and they didn't always show improvement. I'm a 40 year old female. I have worked mostly as a temporary at the executive level. I've worked in virtually every industry including banking, manufacturing, healthcare, aerospace, and on and on.

Recently I spent five months in the IT department of a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company. I went there, as a temp, to "help" with their Y2k due diligence paperwork (you see, their primary concern was documenting for possible lawsuits). I was to assess their infrastructure, hubs, routers, desktop software, AS400 system, etc. In addition, I was to prepare a plan to fix everything. When I arrived in April of 1999 it quickly became apparent that nothing in the area of assessment had been documented for their infrastructure. Working closely with another temp, a man who generally fixes computers, called a wiseguy, we began this project. We actually took this project from a man who did not have the skill set of project management or basic computer skills to do the job he had been assigned. I won't go into details about the job, however, the task was huge.

I managed to get most of my due diligence paperwork off of the web and filled binder after binder with vendor compliance statements. Next came their AS400 system, which included some home grown programs and about 800 different applications. The first project manager, who was to see that this system became compliant, walked off the job in Dec. 98 and sent an e-mail out stating that all work he had done to date was to be considered null and void. None of the programmers or the man who left wanted to sign any of the due diligence paperwork stating that individual applications of this vast system were compliant. I battled with this "applications group" until I left the company after 5 months. I never did get statements from them, and informed my IT management numerous times that this was a problem. I received an e-mail from the head of the IT department at the Corporate office. By the way, the company is 3M - they are Minnesota, Miningin Minnesota. Our company was in Los Angeles, California.

She stated that, per their legal department, employees would be covered legally in the event of lawsuits, but not contractors, and that if contractors had a problem with this then they should be let go. I had to sign my name to all compliance documentation, or else. During my time there, a new head of IT was hired. I tried repeatedly to discuss the AS400 system with him. He told me that because of the cost, they would not be forward date testing the system, and that if it crashed he would simply send back-up tapes to the corporate office in Minnesota (not a solution). I also attempted to show him examples of what other corporations were doing as far as testing. He seemed to think this was funny, and wouldn't even look. Further complicating the matter, this system is considered validated. Which means anytime you alter the system, extra special testing and documentation is required.

The plant manger knew I was there working on Y2k and would see me out and about and say hello, etc. Never once did he ask me about the project status. I also know that my management lied to the upper, upper management at a video conference at a Y2k update in July 1999. I feel for these people since they can only rely on the word of those who should be "in the know". They personally can be sued, I understand. I was told to present my numbers in a way I knew was wrong.

Then they went behind the scenes to those working on the project and said they had to make major headway before the next management update. They told them, during this video conference, that systems were completed (some were in the plant, embedded systems, none of which were being tested (Fix on Failure) - other systems were given too rosey completion dates, and others were downgraded to non-critical. Thus, you didn't have to say anything. This is going on all over the world, I fear. Also, how many non-critical, not upgraded systems, equal a critical situation?

This whole business of using percentages complete is questionable. We had trouble creating our Gantt charts using percentages and we just threw around numbers in meetings, hazarding a guess. The numbers changed drastically, up and down constantly. When do you just stop changing the numbers? We weren't sure. We called our project "Creep" because one door opened leads to another and so on.

I believe we are in real trouble. When I get on the internet to research, I stick to sites that state the facts. I form my own opinions. I have come to the conclusion that we have come too far, too fast, technologically and without much thought we have created the mother of all systems that no one totally understands. Too much information and a spoiled society. The public will not be patient, I fear.

But, in one way you can be content. Since the media has been so quick historically to take anything negative and wring it for all it's worth, and since they have yet to do that, most people I talk to couldn't care less about Y2k problems. When the yuppies I work with and live near can't get their favorite brand of toilet tissue, the finger pointing will start. It will get ugly. Politicians, corporate executives, and programmers will all be targets. "May you live in interesting times."

I'm sure we will. Believe1/2 of what you read and nothing of what you hear. There is a lot of lying going on out there.

Erin Kerr
Just a Secretary
Snedaze@aol.com

--
Dick Mills
www.albany.net/~dmills
dmills@albany.net
----------------------------------------------


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999

Answers

Polly Response #1: "This woman is some sort of psycho. Polly Response #2: "An obviously isolated case." Polly Response #3: "She gonna write a book and make millios off the free advertising" Polly Response #4: "She's a secretary for Chrissake! What does she know about computers? Polly Response #5: This is OLD news. Polly Response #6: This isn't EVEN news. Polly Response #7: Hello out there, last time I checked 3M was just a SINGLE company. It's a joke the way you doomers rush to judgement from unsupported info no less!

Anyone else like to add to the list before we get the usual BS?

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), October 01, 1999.

Uh, Roger,

Who even cares what the polly response is?

;-D

(They're "old" news... for the most part).

This can be confirmed, ya know.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Polly response #8, "so, I don't even use 3m products..."

Owl

-- owl (b@a.com), October 01, 1999.

The next polly response: "It's just a small mining company, it isn't even the big 3M corporation..."

-- James Collins (jacollins@thegrid.net), October 01, 1999.

3M is a very progressive leading manufacturing company...and a member of the DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL group. If this letter is not a hoax...IOW on the up and up, Scary Gary is right. Next year will be a mess.

-- B (b@b.com), October 01, 1999.

Got Scotch tape? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Diane:

There's less than 3 months left. MAYBE this story will convince some fence sitters that there really IS a problem out there, but I doubt it. For the rest of us doomers, stories like this confirm our worst fears, but we definitely are NOT surprised. So let's take a poke or two at the pollys... it's about the only thing left to laugh about.

-- Dr. Roger Altman (rogaltman@aol.com), October 01, 1999.

It's gonna go beyond a 10. All the sins of our present Way Of Life will be compounded and amplified and come into glaring view when TSHTF. And then a drastic plummet. Unimaginable consequences.

So much worthy of commentary in that letter, but don't have the time ...
zounds

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999.

Wait, let's be reasonable here. This woman is probably some sort of psycho. Even if true, it's an obviously isolated case. Maybe she's planning to write a book and make million. She's a secretary for Chrissake! What does she know about computers? I don't think this is EVEN news and even if it is, it's OLD news. Most all companies have made huge leaps in progress this past week. I suppose none of you noticed that 3M was just a SINGLE company. It's a joke the way you doomers rush to judgement from unsupported info no less!

Sorry Dr., I couldn't help myself.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), October 01, 1999.

Something's funny about this letter. Apart from the fact that it is badly written and disjointed, there are some points which, at face value, appear illogical.

"I'm really just your average citizen. A secretary...[big snip] I'm a 40 year old female. I have worked mostly as a temporary at the executive level. I've worked in virtually every industry including banking, manufacturing, healthcare, aerospace, and on and on.

Recently I spent five months in the IT department of a Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company. I went there, as a temp, to "help" with their Y2k due diligence paperwork (you see, their primary concern was documenting for possible lawsuits). I was to assess their infrastructure, hubs, routers, desktop software, AS400 system, etc. In addition, I was to prepare a plan to fix everything."

(Emphasis added)

Huh? Is she assessing their due diligence paperwork with respect to "hubs, routers, desktop software, AS400 system."? Because if she is, she sure gives the impression (in the words I have put in bold) that she is doing the Y2K assessments of the actual hardware. What the heck does she mean when she says that she was to "prepare a plan to fix everything"??? Fix what? The hardware?

I also can't tell if she worked for 3M or someone else:

"I received an e-mail from the head of the IT department at the Corporate office. By the way, the company is 3M - they are Minnesota, Miningin Minnesota. Our company was in Los Angeles, California."

So, did she work for 3M? If she did, why does she say "our company was in LA"? Were they a plant within the 3M empire? Were they a subsidiary company of 3M? Were they a supplier to 3M? There is ambiguity here.

Finally, I found this quotation to be interesting:

"I have come to the conclusion that we have come too far, too fast, technologically and without much thought we have created the mother of all systems that no one totally understands. Too much information and a spoiled society"

Kinda sums up the views of a few of you here, doesn't it?

Let's try and get a bit more info about this situation before the choir goes "A-HAAA"

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

"There is alot of lying going on out there"

Duh!

In our culture--old timers talk about the virtues that once existed in our land. Whereas technology has gone one way- unfortunately-virtues (honesty) went the other.

Our entire society is resting upon the pillars of deception! And we are all adept deceivers!! We have learned it since we were children and unfortunately very few of us were ever made accountable.

Financially-------> The deception of our money system (Fiat) The deception of the Federal Reserve

Government-------->"The gov. that governs least governs best" Thomas Jefferson.

Media------------->"No money down"--"lose 50lbs in two days"--"guaranteed!!"---Slick advertising---etc.

Marriage---------> "I love you, Honey" I would never cheat on you" "for better or worse, richer or poorer"

Parents---------> "daddys fine kids"--"Mommys fine kids"--Mommy and daddy will always be together"---"

Friends--------> "You are my best friend forever"----until I get around my other best friend!!

We have been raised to lie, because for our culture,telling the truth became too uncomfortable.

Ayn Rand said in one of her books that---"when you lie to someone, you make them your master".

who have you made your master lately???

-- Dave Butts (dciinc@aol.com), October 01, 1999.

If this checks out, it sounds like Mitch Ratcliffe has his first customer for the "whistle-blower" fund. Wasn't it $1,000 he offered to help pay a Y2K whistle-blower's legal expenses?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), October 01, 1999.

I rather suspect, there are MANY Secretaries and Executive Admistrative Assistants, who organize most the Y2K paperwork, who could tell us ALL a thing or two.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

I'll take her defense on one thing; my mother has been working as an executive assistant for several years and they always get assigned to wacky projects. Is my mother an AS/400 expert? NO. But if she is asked to get a document signed by some pinhead in the I.T. department to prove that an assessment or repairs have been done, then she will. Don't leap to conclusions on either side of this letter, let's wait to see what happens 1/1 now.

Polly response #10: This is b.s. Everyone knows Post-it notes have been compliant for years.

-- John Galt (jgaltfla@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

Good idea, Mac.

I think I'll e-mail this to Radcliffe, FWIW.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.

I just e-mailed Dick Mills, Rick Cowles and Erin Kerr.

Also have a contact at the Senate Y2K committee. (Will wait for a response from Dick, Rick or Erin first).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

3M does indeed have a plant in the LA area (Northridge, as I recall) called 3M Pharmaceuticals. Several years ago I tried to sell them some of my document-assembly software.

At that time, I was told that they had serious compliance problems with the FDA, in terms of 'validating' their drug-producing processes. My limited view through the corporate peephole suggested management problems and inattention to details.

Computers are stupid and they don't care.

-- Brady (brady@docuscribe.com), October 01, 1999.

I dunno about this one folks. I'm no polly, either! Shall we begin by grading this "executive secretary" on her command of the English language and proper grammer? Then, how many companies are putting secretaries in charge of assesment of huge computer systems like this? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it!!

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), October 01, 1999.

Dick may want to check with:

3M Pharmaceuticals Division

19901 Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA 91324-3213

James F. Vetricek, Manufacturing Product Manager

(818) 709-3013, (818) 709-3044 FAX

or someone like him.

Ah, Nort hridge. Not quite Burbank, north of West Hollywood, just another tentacle in the sprawling city-form that is LA.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), October 01, 1999.

Rick just sent me an "e" and has offered to facilitate a conference call between a few folks, on this.

Stay tuned. More to report next week. (I hope).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

I was "just," a secretary for 25 years and I could tell you plenty that went on behind the scenes. I also worked as a temp for banks, engineering firms, hospitals, and several Fortune 500 companies. One project I was put in charge of, was to put together the company's EEO documentation. Because this particular company had government contracts, and as part of the contract process, the government wanted to know how many whites, blacks, latinos, male, female, etc., were employed and at what capacity. Because I was a temp, I figured I would become the scapegoat if they got caught lying. Yes, I was asked to lie about the numbers. I told them under no cetain terms would I lie about anything like that and I walked off the job. While this may not have anything to do with Y2K, it is true that there's more to the eye's and ears than what you are being told.

-- just a secretary (justasecretary@justasecretary.xcom), October 01, 1999.

Thank you, Erin Kerr. My instinct and my experience with the human race tells me that your observations and assessments are correct. I, too, was punished when I predicted that someone would die of cancer. No one ever called me brilliant for giving the correct prognosis. "You are such a pessimist." Denialism is a most common brain defect. It was true during Nazi times; it is still true today: underarm deoderant and face paste notwithstanding.

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), October 01, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Thanks, Erin & Diane

Polly response #11: The 3M Company regularly tops Fortune's list of the world's most highly respected companies. How dare you have the unmitigated gall to think that you have the ability to question the trustworthyness of such a pillar of society!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 01, 1999.

I dunno about this one folks. I'm no polly, either! Shall we begin by grading this "executive secretary" on her command of the English language and proper grammer? ~ Don Wegner

Don, you might want to start with your own spelling of grammar?

-- (pot@kettle.black?), October 01, 1999.

You all can go ahead and grade me because I don't give a rats ass about the spelling or grammar on this forum, I am no longer in corporate America. Even so with my proper grammar and english, the straight forward right-to-the-point message would still be dismissed as being manical. So, go ahead all of you and post whatever and whichever way you choose because no matter how truthful your message is, there will always be someone to point out a typo, or misspelled word to question your credibility. These people have nothing else better to do than to shoot the messenger.

-- Just A Secretary (justasecretary@justasecretaryyy.xcom), October 01, 1999.

Just A Secretary: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 02, 1999.

Um... just a small detail... the posting here "Just A Secretary" is a "different" secretary than the one who wrote to Dick Mills.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 02, 1999.

Gooooood Monitor!!

Thanks a lot Diane, it's impossible for us to tell, so I'm glad we have you folks out there (or in here) for us. [B^}X~~

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), October 02, 1999.

It is useful to know that this is not the same IP, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not the same person. They may have written from work and then from home, or have several accounts for some other reason, as I do.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 02, 1999.

To pot@kettleblack,

I'm not an executive secretary either, ya bonehead!

Would a Fortune 500 company not consider the "due diligence" issue of having a secretary in charge of their Y2K assesment?

-- Don Wegner (donfmwyo@earthlink.net), October 02, 1999.

"When the yuppies I work with and live near can't get their favorite brand of toilet tissue, the finger pointing will start. It will get ugly." Sounds disgusting.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), October 02, 1999.

I work for a "Glorious 100" company, one of those EASILY recognizable acronyms, a critical leg of the iron triangle.

The lying is expected, the work is on-going, the pressure from the very top is to say 'ready', regardless of the actual conditions.

No one and I mean no one is to be allowed to talk and that has been directly and forcefully said. And when I said the very top, I mean it is my understanding that the top may very well reside external to the corporation and well above the corporate level.

-- cant ignore it (its.there.wherever@you.go.now), October 02, 1999.

*begin quote* I work for a "Glorious 100" company, one of those EASILY recognizable acronyms, a critical leg of the iron triangle. (snip) -- cant ignore it (its.there.wherever@you.go.now), October 02, 1999." *end quote*

so, if you are using a completely fake email address, and non-name, why can't you name this company?

Why post this if you can't name anything, especially since you are already posting anonymously?

-- plonk! (realaddress@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.

I would like to comment about being suspicious of the veracity of this or any other post based on the quality of grammar or presentation, or doubts that a secretary could be assigned certain tasks which might appear to be outside of his/her purview. I remember well a post from a few months ago, on another forum, from a secretary who had been assigned the job of finding out the Y2K infrastructure status of the areas overseas in which the company had branch offices/plants. She had wanted to be pointed to the web site where she could access this information! She had no idea that finding the type of information she had been assigned to look for was not just a matter of getting to the right web site and copying off a status graph or something. Nor did she have a clue about where to look for even non-official references to overseas status, after she'd been informed that there was no "one" web site which contained all the info she wanted. Yet her work was going to be part of the company's Y2K due diligence plan.

Since then, I have heard from many other employees who told me they were just given some type of Y2K project to accomplish, whether they had the necessary background/expertise to accomplish the job or not. I have written previously about what I termed the "we're in over our head" category of Y2K fears among employees. Besides these letters from people I do not personally know, I DO know of some matching situations told to me by people I would trust my life to. Even allowing for the possibility that some of these other claims are bogus or exaggerated, I am completely convinced that many of them are also accurate and truthful. The people who write me even give the reasons they "were assigned to do this", which can basically be summed up by either "not enough money to hire experts", "don't want to spend the money to hire experts", "can't find the experts to hire at a price we can pay", or "they don't care if we do it right, as long as they can say somebody was assigned to do it".

The three Aces of Confidentiality beat the two Jacks of Reality hands down and the lawyers win the pot nearly every time. There IS a lot of lying going on out there about Y2K work. What kinds and levels of problems will be engendered in the long run because of it, I think is beyond sure prediction, but my threshold for skepticism about these types of reports was passed months ago. I am SURE the whole truth is not being told in many places of business. If I and others were not bound by promises of confidentiality and legal restraints, proving it would not be a problem.

I'll even send a word of warning to managers here. I also know some employees who, even though at this point are bound by confidentiality agreements, have nevertheless kept copies of all internal memos, protests, and/or reports re Y2K issues. They are determined not to be made scapegoats at a future date if things go wrong. There's a good possibility that "due diligence" may not take some companies as far as they think it might. I wouldn't be surprised to see much of the "whistle-blowing" come _after_ 2000 arrives. And the lawyers are ready for just that...

-- Bonnie Camp (bonniec@odyssey.net), October 02, 1999.

1. The fingers that do the pointing will likely have brown stuff on them. 2. I have been in large and small health care operations for over 20 years, and the person most likely to know a department's true status is the person that manages the paperwork, meetings, and information for the "real" boss (just like home, right?). 3. The person appointed to a committee or working group to deal with a situation, project, or problem may not be an "expert" in that field. They may have been drafted, volunteered, or became expert by training in an area outside of their normal duties. 4. I would certainly like to have a truly disinterested 3rd party interview this person and verify what she has said. If all checks out, we are all in trouble. Any suggestions for whom to call to verify this info? 5. Some of us try to maintain some anonymity for self-protection and to avoid our personl opinion being linked to a current or previous employer (lawsuits and jobs department).

-- Healthcare Person (ItalFilfam@aol.com), October 02, 1999.

Your testimony is very good! In my experience I have found that a person that tells a lie must make it sound believable. However a person that tells the truth does not have to make the truth sound believeable it is simply the truth and doesn't change that fact. I remember a situation that sounded believable in Waco, but was not truth. We will see what happens 1-1-00. Christ said 5 of the 10 virgins had oil and the other 5 didn't. Some will never be prepared because they want others to prepare for them. They always want someone to help out of their problems. But this time there may not be enough oil to spare! P.S. I'm not a secretary but I deeply appreciate mine.

-- rabbi (rabbi@mail.ionet.net), October 02, 1999.

So is there going to be a conference call about this? Sounds all too true and pervasive.

-- Former Secretary (weird@assignments.then), October 04, 1999.

This thread linked by Gary North on 10/2 Saturday.

-- h (h@h.h), October 04, 1999.

Ah, a puzzle:

I work for a "Glorious 100" company, one of those EASILY recognizable acronyms, a critical leg of the iron triangle. The lying is expected, the work is on-going, the pressure from the very top is to say 'ready', regardless of the actual conditions.

No one and I mean no one is to be allowed to talk and that has been directly and forcefully said. And when I said the very top, I mean it is my understanding that the top may very well reside external to the corporation and well above the corporate level.

-- cant ignore it (its.there.wherever@you.go.now), October 02, 1999.

Maybe AT&T? MCI? Cant, you mean the gummint asking your company for silence?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 04, 1999.