[Processed] Alan Grimm - CCIA action appeal

Appealing Personnel: Alan Grimm

Specific Incident: Requesting an arrest warrant for sabotage after a medical doctor decided to argue about whether i need a warrant or not in order to requisition a body from the morgue instead of handing over the body which subsequently led to a red infraction investigation being dropped

Action taken as a result: Reprimand

Action contested: Reprimand

Reasoning for contest: The reasoning behind the action taken was as follows "Medical staff are expected to reasonably accommodate security's requests for investigation material, unless they are otherwise occupied with more pressing matters. Given the status of the Medical Department during this shift and their workload, it is found that they did not negate access to the body out of defiance, but out of simply being busy.". However upon initial contact and request the medic was idle. Despite the medic allegedly being busy, his non-existant workload allowed him to request a search warrant after the body requisition request, spend some time listening to the explanation of a search warrant not being required, spend some time processing this explanation and coming up with a solution of trying to use a cadaver identity confirmation form for an obscure reason, printing the form, handing it to the investigator, listening to the explanation of what the form actually was and why wasn't it applicable, spending time to process the information, spending time to start skipping through forms again for a suitable one (which is not there). All of that until the radiation storm forced the crew into the maintanance tunnels only after which a patient preoccupying the medic and making him to busy to tend to the morgue arrived. The time spent idly chatting about what to do in the medical lobby was more than sufficient enough for a human to walk a fairly short distance to the tempomorgue and unlock two doors. It was instead wasted effectively killing an investigation. Medical staff failed to, using the CCIAA words "reasonably accomodate security's request for investigation material" despite not being "otherwise occupied with more pressing matters" and that is why the charges requested were warranted as seconded by the head of security chief who aproved the request.

Additional notes: While i do agree that failure to submit evidence was not an act of defiance, the reason for it was poor familiarity with medical protocols. Which unlike being occupied with more pressing matters is not a sufficient enough reason to drop the charges

TO: Alan Grimm, CSI, NSS Aurora

FROM: Xiuying Tan, CCIA Appeals Processing, NTCC Odin

SUBJECT: Appeal Receipt Confirmation

--------------------

BODY:

Your appeal for the following incident is currently being reviewed:

Case ID: 24600504 CSandavol_AGrimm

Date Actioned: 5.24.2460

Handling Agent: Alistair LaCroix

If necessary, you will be contacted by the office of the CCIA Bureau Supervisor to discuss the resolution applied to this incident.

You remain obligated to comply with previous CCIA decisions while this appeal is being processed.

--------------------

DTG: 25-09:23-TAU CETI STANDARD-05-2060

SIGN: Tan

TO: Alan Grimm, CSI, NSS Aurora

FROM: Whitney Foster-Liang, CCIA Bureau Supervisor, Mendell City HQ Bldg.

SUBJECT: 24600504 CSandavol_AGrimm Appeal

--------------------

BODY:

26 May, 2460

Mr. Grimm,

After a review of the facts of the relevant shift, as determined by both the previous investigation and independent review, this office does not find sufficient reason to contest the decision of Agent LaCroix.

Your assertion that the relevant medical staff were idle enough to accommodate your request is not corroborated by other accounts, including those of your own security department. Additionally, the medical department is generally expected to prioritize the well-being of the living over the dead, and your personal opinion regarding the capacity of the staff to handle your request is irrelevant, in both the context of this appeal and that of the original report. Your willingness to have a doctor treating critical patients arrested for not accommodating you is an unfortunate reflection on your professionalism, and sufficient cause for the reprimand you are appealing.

Regarding that reprimand: given the minimal nature of the disciplinary action taken, we see no need to reconsider it. These records are made available so that Command Staff and Internal Affairs can be made aware of any potential issues or patterns with your professional behavior, and at this time we deem it valid to maintain them. The use of the appeals process to attempt to reverse what amounts to a matter of note-taking is ineffective, and disrespectful of this office's time. Had your disruptions in medical caused the death of a patient, you would be liable for much more than a talking-to, and in that case, the filing of an appeal with new, objective and verifiable information would perhaps be in your professional interest.

In this case however, it is not. Further appeals concerning this incident's resolution will not be considered.

 

Whitney Foster-Liang, JD-Ph.D

Central Command Internal Affairs Bureau Supervisor, Tau Ceti Operations

NanoTrasen Corporation

--------------------

DTG: 26-09:52-TAU CETI STANDARD-05-2060

SIGN: W. F.-L.