Monona - we need to be accurate - Patrick Harran did NOT "cop a plea"; read the Agreement; he accepted responsibility without admitting fault. All charges will be dismissed at the conclusion of the Agreement if there are no further violations.
From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:dchas-l**At_Symbol_Here**med.cornell.edu] On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 8:52 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Follow-up on ACS national awards and Fellows program RE: [DCHAS-L] Just published
Oh picky picky picky. No one wants to crawl through EHS reports at the school where a professor teaches and get opinions about the candidates safety record. You also don't want to limit this to having caused an actual injury. OSHA can cite for breaking rules that could have led to serious injury or death as well,
All that's needed is a general policy that:
Any proven violations of federal, state or local occupational safety regulations, standards or codes in the nominees recent (define*) history disqualifies the nominee.
The "recent" can be defined in two ways: 1. time passed with no similar charges, and 2. corrective actions taken by the person charged.
Are we forgetting that Harran coped a plea to 4 felony charges in relation to State occupational safety regulations and is still doing community service? This is not time to split hairs. I can foresee my approving of his nomination at some time in the future. The Cal. AG set up the community service in a way that he could become a spokesperson for lab safety if he chooses to take this route.
Monona Rossol, M.S., M.F.A., Industrial Hygienist
President: Arts, Crafts & Theater Safety, Inc.
Safety Officer: Local USA829, IATSE
New York, NY 10012 212-777-0062
-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Rakas <mrakas**At_Symbol_Here**SMITH.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**MED.CORNELL.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2015 11:22 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Follow-up on ACS national awards and Fellows program RE: [DCHAS-L] Just published
I agree with Rob--look at how UCLA is still saying that Harran deserves the award. Does anyone really think that the Chair of the Chem Dept or EHS would not feel some degree of pressure? Do not underestimate "pack" behavior here...no one wants to be the bad guy saying Professor X is not worthy...this is not like the peer review process where the reviewers are anonymous !
My suggestion is that the nominee be asked some version of "Has any student or employee under your supervision received a permanent or serious physical injury while working in your lab?" Or they could be asked to certify that no one working in their lab received a serious or permanent physical injury- that's probably a bit more positive. If they lie, well then, just like with falsifying any other statement they can be removed...
My personal opinion only...
Margaret
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:49 AM, Ralph Stuart <rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**ME.COM> wrote:
>>> I guess I have greater trust and respect for the goodness of 99.9% of humanity (including EHS and faculty and administrators and small business owners too <grin>).
> I think the concern Rob expressed is a realistic appraisal of the resources, both financial and bureaucratic, available to EHS departments relative to the size of the activities they're asked to oversee. The immediate example is telling; the UCLA EHS staff had pointed out concerns with the Harran lab months before the accident with no impact on conditions there. If the accident hadn't happened would anyone have known this to comment on the award nomination?
>
> If someone is in a position to attest to the safety performance of a Principle Investigator, it should be their supervisor, i.e. the Chair of the Department. Is there any potential conflict of interest there?
>
> - Ralph
>
> Ralph Stuart, CIH
> rstuartcih**At_Symbol_Here**me.com
