Fri., Mar. 20, 2009

[gstickley]

Friday, Mar. 20, 2009

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Sloane denied ‘longevity’ raise
Madeira: Employee worked less than 40 percent of year
Sara Ganim sganim@centredaily.com
(snip)

[Politigal]

http://tinyurl.com/csm43l

Steve Sloane, who has been working in the District Attorney’s Office for 17 years, was on unpaid medical leave more than 60 percent of the last 12 months, county Administrator Tim Boyde said.

Wasn't he on extended medical leave in April 2005 as well?

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/gricardisappearance

Until Mr. Sloane's public comments last spring, I would have believed that he was among the staff that police interviewed, albeit not at the DA office, as his medical leave had been in place from sometime during the winter of 2005 until May or June of that year.

I wonder about 2006 & 2007.

And, if he was on *unpaid* medical leave (as per the article) for such long periods of time....how was he earning a living? paying his bills? Maybe Ray Gricar knew the answer to that.

[Politigal]

From the same article------------------'Annual reviews in Centre County are done each year on the anniversary of an employee’s start date.'

Isn't this the same time period in March, 2005, when RG started to appear to be irritated/agitated, moody---- five weeks before disappearance?

When I do reviews, if someone is off on sick time at raise time, there may be a raise but only if it is backed up with a definite 'resume work' date. Only those in the 'know' would know the particulars in this case, I guess.
JMO

Gricar did handle all the personnel issues per this older article

http://tinyurl.com/cd92mw

"Each attorney stepped up to the plate and got the work done," said Smith, who has handled all the personnel matters that would have fallen to Gricar while continuing to prosecute a full load of cases.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sloane was initially hired in late winter or early spring of 1992.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1992/10/10-08-92tdc/10-08-92dnews-7.asp

IIRC, he was called back at about the same time in 1993.

[Politigal]

From the same article------------------'Annual reviews in Centre County are done each year on the anniversary of an employee’s start date.'

Isn't this the same time period in March, 2005, when RG started to appear to be irritated/agitated, moody---- five weeks before disappearance?

When I do reviews, if someone is off on sick time at raise time, there may be a raise but only if it is backed up with a definite 'resume work' date. Only those in the 'know' would know the particulars in this case, I guess.
JMO

I wonder if Sloane's raise in April 2005 was approved by Gricar...or if it fell to Smith in Gricar's absence.

[J. J. in Phila]

Neither, the pay board sets it.

Sloane noted that he had gotten it every year and 4/15 was after March at any rate.

[Politigal]

From the 1st article I linked in this thread...Sloane's raise was denied --

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1182222.html

based on a recommendation from his boss

[UndertheRadar]

From the 1st article I linked in this thread...Sloane's raise was denied --

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1182222.html

based on a recommendation from his boss

Right, Pgal. I would imagine the board simply rubber stamps whatever the recommendations are from whoever does the evaluations. That's how it's usually done. The board can't have any way of knowing who is doing a good job and who isn't (except through feedback from a boss who provides "yes" or "no" recommendations).

[J. J. in Phila]

From the 1st article I linked in this thread...Sloane's raise was denied --

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1182222.html

based on a recommendation from his boss


The "boss" doesn't make the decision, the pay board does.

And no, UTR, they do not rubber stamp anything. I think it includes the Commissioners, though MM's recommendation might carry some weight. This was possibly the same body that laid Sloane off in 1992.

[UndertheRadar]

Let's clarify terms here. Any workplace I'm familiar with the system operates this way: bosses evaluate and recommend who should receive raises, promotions, etc. Boards and other higher ups make decisions about the size of any raises, how many promotions will be available, etc., IOW, the what. Bosses recommend who; boards rubber stamp who and specify what. No board can evaluate the work product of employees.

With that out of the way, like Pgal, I'm curious how SS has been able to stay afloat in this economy while on unpaid leave and curious whether RG knew anything about that. RG being distraught in late March and April before the disappearance . . . could there be some kind of connection?

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, while the "bosses" recommendation carries weight, it isn't a rubber stamp. I think the pay board includes the commissioners, and won't rubber stamp anything.

[UndertheRadar]

Re post #9 and the reference to Sloane being laid off in 1992: isn't that the year he supposedly started working in the DA's office? He was laid off the same year he started working there?

[gstickley]

Waaay back in the olden days when I first started reading "the board", it sounded to me like RG's "look" might have been caused by a VCF/Courthouse Connection. Since the courthouse employees & at least a couple ADA's weren't interviewed by LE, I really wondered if RG were not concerned about activities of someone around him. I also wondered if perhaps his laptop contained pertinent information about said activities, and that was the reason the laptop turned up in the river after his disappearance. RG probably wouldn't have had be "lured" away; he may have just been meeting said person & the meeting turned ugly. Who knows? Maybe first impressions are the best.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[Serendipitous1]

Re post #9 and the reference to Sloane being laid off in 1992: isn't that the year he supposedly started working in the DA's office? He was laid off the same year he started working there?Yes, just 6 months in...per J.J.'s link. Here is an opinion piece a few days later. (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1992/10/10-13-93tdc/10-13-92dops-edit.asp) Good ole VW and company!

[Politigal]

Waaay back in the olden days when I first started reading "the board", it sounded to me like RG's "look" might have been caused by a VCF/Courthouse Connection. Since the courthouse employees & at least a couple ADA's weren't interviewed by LE, I really wondered if RG were not concerned about activities of someone around him. I also wondered if perhaps his laptop contained pertinent information about said activities, and that was the reason the laptop turned up in the river after his disappearance. RG probably wouldn't have had be "lured" away; he may have just been meeting said person & the meeting turned ugly. Who knows? Maybe first impressions are the best.

This is my opinion, to which I am entitled.


Although JKA didn't intimate that she felt Sloane had anything to do with RG's disappearance, she did write this about the fact that he wasn't interviewed by police:

In fairness, traffic operates in both directions over the half-mile route from the BPD station to the courthouse, and 'standing on ceremony' as to who is to institute a contact appears a questionable approach.

And I've puzzled over why exactly Sloane didn't take the initiative and go to police....being the best friend & all.

[Politigal]

Sort of strange isn't it....

Patty doesn't call Sloane when RG doesn't come home.

Sloane doesn't call police when his best friend has gone missing.

[UndertheRadar]

Yes, just 6 months in...per J.J.'s link. Here is an opinion piece a few days later. (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1992/10/10-13-93tdc/10-13-92dops-edit.asp) Good ole VW and company!

Thanks for the reminder, S1. (Juggling too many ideas to keep this all straight right now, apparently. Reminders necessary from time to time and helpful.)

[UndertheRadar]

Although JKA didn't intimate that she felt Sloane had anything to do with RG's disappearance, she did write this about the fact that he wasn't interviewed by police:

In fairness, traffic operates in both directions over the half-mile route from the BPD station to the courthouse, and 'standing on ceremony' as to who is to institute a contact appears a questionable approach.

And I've puzzled over why exactly Sloane didn't take the initiative and go to police....being the best friend & all.

It doesn't quite make sense, does it? DZ said, IIRC, that SS and EW weren't interviewed because it would "just lead it another theory," and neither went to LE to offer any insight or to ask any questions.

[J. J. in Phila]

You might want to read the last three paragraphs of my last entry, if you want strange; not the posts, the actual blog. ;)

[UndertheRadar]

If no one is paying as much attention to the last three paragraphs of your latest blog entry as you would hope, it's probably because we've all seen that argument dozens of times before over the last several years.

And most of us have concluded the following:

A. If this is the key to solving the RG, mystery, you should pick up the phone, call BPD, and strongly suggest they check car purchases. If they believe it to be an important and useful suggestion, they will follow up on it. If BPD follows up AND finds a record that RG purchased a car, more power to you. You found a major key to solving the mystery.

B. It is, however, not likely to be the key to solving the RG mystery.


If RG was in Lewisburg, not finding a car purchase does not mean he didn't have a way to leave Lewisburg. So failure to find a car purchase tells us nothing except that BPD failed to find a car purchase.

There is no hard evidence to prove RG was in Lewisburg in the first place. Even if it could be proven that EVERY possible means out of Lewisburg was not used by RG (and that cannot be proven), that tells us nothing unless it can be proven with objective, hard evidence** that he was in Lewisburg in the first place. Otherwise, we're just talking about guesswork and lessening odds, not about proving anything.


**Objective, hard evidence does not equal scent in the parking lot where the car was or witness ID.

Was this supposed to relate somehow to the discussion of SS on this thread? Or was it a diversion from that topic?