Pacific Institute reinstates Peter Gleick – but won't provide confirmation of the "independent investigation"

Schrodinger’s Cat says:
June 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm
It seems that Gleick’s apology was good enough for the Institute …the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute.
________________________
One would think that most of the Pacific Institute’s clients are government entities, of one form or another. On that basis, Gleick, et cie are likely to become even richer than they are infamous, as the eco-loons seem to have control of gov’t. at all levels- especially in CA- and Gleick’s antics have been highly praised in those circles. He’s the hero that “exposed” HI, after all.

Schrodinger’s Cat says:
June 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm
“It may not be good enough for the rest of us, but the real test is whether it is good enough for the clients of the Pacific Institute. I am not in a postion to judge that or to influence their judgement.
Whether or not Gleick is tainted goods with respect to the Institute’s missions and claims about themselves is a matter for that market and those who can influence opinion therein.”
“Market”? He got several EPA grants. Your entire administration is tainted goods, so if anything, wire fra*d and forgery makes him more acceptable to them. Maybe he’s good with Adobe Illustrator as well, who knows, maybe that talent could come in handy some day.

Further editing to their statment gets filled in, piece by piece:
It can now be edited to say “…An independent review conducted by Independent Employment Counsel, LLP. on behalf of the Institute has supported what Dr. Gleick (the President of the Pacific Institute) has stated publicly regarding his interaction with the Heartland Institute, that is, he “…solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name…”
How much do you want to bet that this Independent Employment Counsel, LLP becomes the prefered counsel for any future “climate scientist” mis-deeds. They’ve already set a good precedent for other complaints of fraud. Having a world-renowned climate scientist like the self-confessed fraudster Peter Gleik as one of their satisfied customers really adds to their resume.

[from “Financial” section of PI website: “The Pacific Institute is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization established in 1987….”]
Separate from any criminal or civil actions which might proceed about Gleick’s actions, both the State of California and the US federal govt. have powers and responsibilities in relation to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, i.e., the Board of Directors of the PI has fiduciary and legal responsibilities not to run illegal or politically partisan activities. Perhaps readers with relevant legal and political knowledge could explore whether Gleick and PI have endangered their 501(c)(3) status etc.
I realize quite well that under current US and Calif. administrations there may be great reluctance to pursue anything against these darlings of the enviro-whacko left, but even the most ideological bureaucrats will sometimes decide to jettison political allies who have become inconvenient, embarrassing, or just too much trouble.

This also makes me wonder if the leak about Gleick being cleared a week or so ago was intentional. They may have sent that up as a trial balloon to see if the other members of the hockey team would speak out and say they couldn’t accept clearing Gleick in the interests of the cause. SInce we didn’t hear the ‘climate scientists’ clamouring for Gleick’s head for dishonoring their profession, Pacific Institute decided they could go forward.
I am sure if their are emails about that it will all come out in the court case discovery.
And cblf, as long as Heartland can afford a lawyer or find one to do it for them for free the Pacific Institute has just opened the door to turn Heartland Versus Gleick into Heartland Versus Gleick et. al.

Gleick to Huffpo earlier: I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.
I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks lies of climate change is are strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts own lies — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.
There, fixed it for you. We all agree about your statement of the need for a “rational public debate”. Now please, when are you going to organize that with Heartland?

“By not firing Gleick for actions he took on their premises as their President using their equipment they are opening themselves up to criminal charges. If they had let Gleick fall on his sword, PI could have avoided legal blame for his conduct.”
Not sure about that Theodore. Don’t know about the US. But in Australia, an employer would carry vicarious liability for the imposter’s damage. If they dismiss him they admit fault unless they can prove that he was on a frolic of his own and acted against his employers interests. Of course if they called it as a criminal fraud and dismissed him they would have a defense. But that of course would leave Pacific open to defunding from the AGW gravy train. So they went with a sham of “clearing” the imposter and probably hoping that the Heartland action falls over. There is an old saying in the law. A bad case doesnt get any better with time. This one sure wont. There is another old saying in Australia. Don’t cuddle mugs. They die in your arms.

Malcolm says:
June 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm
“BORING! This has gone on long enough. […] I’m a confirmed denier, but I’m very disappointed with the way that Heartland has handled this.”
1.) You’re what? Please check again what’s on your membership card.
2.) No we won’t stop. Now go away and report to your superior.

I think what we are seeing here is really just legal manuevers being played out with attorneys pulling the strings.
They probably realized that PI would have likely been a much bigger and juicier target, financial, than Gleick. So now they’ve taken steps to protect PI and it’s board of directors, and have succeeded. Here is why:
1. PI can now say they had nothing to do with it and did not condone it.
2. PI can now say that none of thier employees were involved (other than Gleick).
3. PI can now say they did the responsible thing by doing an independent investigation, with Gleick on leave of absense until the investigation was finished.
I believe this is not over by far and probably the next action we see will be a civil suit against Gleick. (unless the DOJ actually takes action first.)

The nature of the law firm hired suggests that serious consideration was given at PI to firing Gleick. Their remit would be to consider the question of whether his activities constituted sufficient grounds to fire him. Gleick will no doubt have claimed that his Heartland related activities were not conducted in the workplace and were political activities conducted in his own time. Employment law makes it difficult to fire someone for activities they undertake outside the workplace. Doing so risks a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.
To support this viewpoint I note the quote about “not lying to employees”. This looks tightly focussed on precisely the question of whether anything was done IN THE WORKPLACE for which he could be fired. Lying to other employees or to the board would have done it. But they didn’t find evidence of that. It looks to me like the report was equivocal. Consequently the board seems to have decided that they didn’t have grounds to sack him. Having decided not to bite the bullet and get rid of him they then became obliged to issue statements clearing him and welcoming him back. I bet it was awfully close though.
Personally I think they’ve made a big mistake. Activities which bring the organisation into disrepute and damage its reputation do constitute grounds for dismissal in many places, and there is no question in my mind that Gleick’s activities have brought PI into disrepute. Indeed I question whether he can even continue to do his job effectively given the controversy that will now dog his heels wherever he goes.
In my opinion they chickened out of firing him because the report couldn’t find clear-cut lawsuit-proof grounds for doing so. However if it were me on that board I would have sacked him anyway. Every day he continues to be employed at PI he damages their reputation further. Better to lance the boil and face the lawsuit if necessary than allow this to continue indefinitely.