Was there a bigoted feminist conspiracy within the ranks of Big Brothers? If so, where's the proof? It's in the details.
The proof to a conspiracy and cover up is in the number of irregularities and inconsistencies in the known details. In this case, I find the proof that Ms Zimmer and Ms Mrozek were acting as feminist bigots is overwhelming. Just look at the number of irregularities and unanswered questions left by the actions of these two women. Unless they can rationally explain all of these inconsistencies, there would seem to be a hidden agenda.Lets go over some of the irregularities, lies and deceptions they left.
- The overall picture of what happened is absurd.
- Speed of "match" closure and a trail of broken Big Brother rules.
- Letters to mother and I are deceptions, fabrications and lies.
- Why the continuing stone wall cover up?
Abundant absurdities
If you look at this entire incident as a whole, it makes little sense. Prior to Ms. Mrozek’s and Ms. Zimmer’s actions, the mother, her son and I all considered our experience with Big Brothers the best. We received nothing but encouragement and pleasant comments from case managers #1 and #2. Everyone was having a pleasant experience. We were all looking forward to continuing the "match".How was it possible for Ms. Mrozek and Ms. Zimmer to instantly view the same "match" so differently? Is Big Brothers saying that case managers #1 & #2 were incompetent? Are the mother's and my viewpoint immaterial? Is it the job of the case manager to facilitate the "match" or to create reasons to terminate the "match?" Did Ms Zimmer and Ms Mrozek ever do anything positive to encourage the "match?"
Also, let’s say these two women had truly found something that needed to be corrected. Why wouldn’t they have brought up these issues with the mother or me? Furthermore, why would the only available option have been closing the match? Certainly something else could have been done to save the "match". Mrozek and Zimmer never once tried to save it.
It should also be pointed out that at the same time Zimmer and Mrozek were "terminating" this match the Big Brothers organization was having a recruitment drive to recruit more big brothers. (See Thank You letter to me from Seattle Mayor Norm Rice for being a big brother.) Why not even try to save this "match?"
From every angle that I can imagine, when viewed as a whole, this incident makes virtually no sense. Why would they put at risk a little boy? Why would they throw away over a year’s effort by the mother, myself and case managers #1 and #2? Why would this organization go out of its way to create this problem? Maybe Ms. Mrozek, Ms. Zimmer and the Big Brothers organization have explanations for their actions, but thus far they have refused to say what they could be.
The speed and how the match was closed
How fast this "match" was closed is extremely compelling proof by itself. Ms. Mrozek and Ms. Zimmer broke all of their own written rules and they were willing to sacrifice the interests of the little boy even though the only reason that their job exists is to help little boys. How can they justify their actions?Remember here that the Big Brothers handbook says: (1) "the loss of a Big Brother is a significant loss." (2) "every possibility explored to avoid ending the match." (3) "four weeks" and "A final match closure meeting." (4) "all concerned parties be involved in the match closure." None of these written policies were followed. What is the justification for breaking all of these the rules?
Look at all of the forgotten details and see the trail of deceit Ms. Mrozek left behind. She is supposed to be supervisor, how could she forget to follow so many of her own organization's written rules? Is it possible she made a of mistake? I find that hard to believe. She would have to be either overwhelmingly incompetent or guilty of having a hidden agenda.
Then there is the issue that Ms. Mrozek and Ms. Zimmer never calling the mother to tell her that the "match" was closed.
This is virtually impossible for them to explain away. For any legitimate reason to close the "match," the mother has a right to know. Furthermore, Zimmer and Mrozek had an obligation to tell the mother of the closure. But in their zeal, Mrozek and Zimmer seem to have forgotten to pick up the phone and call.
The mother runs day care out of her home. She is there every day. Mrozek and Zimmer can't say they called and no one answered. All they did was send the mother a letter saying the match had been closed.
What was the mother supposed to tell her son? Is this how Big Brothers normally treats little boys? If so, then the entire organization is guilty of harming little boys.
Letters filled with lies and more
Making an issue of the trip is a half baked fantasy Ms. Mrozek and Ms. Zimmer cooked up. The trip was approved in advance. The mother and I verify this detail. The fact I was paying for the trip was also approved. Case manager #1 even suggested that I have the little brother earn part of the trip by doing some odd jobs around my house.Nor was the trip something that quickly happened. I planned it for many months. There were six children and two adults. The planning involved five separate families, and all were aware of Big Brothers' involvement. (Are all five families lying?) Big Brothers was acutely aware of all of this. Case manager #1 even suggested I arrange some outings with all of the children before the trip.
Lack of approval for the trip was never a problem. The fact Ms. Mrozek did not know any of the details about the "match" or the trip is the problem.
Furthermore, Big Brothers even encourages trips and over night outings. The May 1997 issue of The Big News (the monthly publication for Big and Little Brothers) clearly has an offer of free tickets to a Southern California amusement park. Why would Southern California be okay and Nevada not? Also, other issues of The Big News have included offers of numerous overnights and camp outs. So why would Big Brothers encourage trips, and then complain about one that had been approved in advance?
The wet suit issue is another lie. I have never given the child a wet suit. This glaring error is bad enough, but on this particular issue Ms. Mrozek leaves an interesting trail of deceit.
Look at the letter she wrote to me. The Date is May 6, 1997. She wrote this letter before she called me. It clearly states the wet suit as part of the problem. But Ms. Mrozek wrote the letter to the mother on May 8, 1997. This was two days after she talked to me, and she does not mention the wet suit. Why would the wet suit be an important reason for me and not the mother? Because after Ms. Mrozek talked to me she realized she had made an error. She did not want to make the same mistake with the mother.
The letters' other stated reasons are distortions, lies, and insults. In addition, they even reinforce the feminist agenda theory.
The "school conference" and "sex Ed" issues are gross distortions of a conversation lasting less than 30 seconds. These two conversations happened many months earlier when case managers #1 and #2 managed the match. How is it possible for Ms. Mrozek to see a problem where the others did not? Were the mother and I suppose to have every conversation approved in advance by Big Brothers? Do we have a right to free speech?
Also, here again, Ms Mrozek's two letters to the mother and I are inconsistent. In the letter to the mother the issue of "school conferences" is included; in the letter to me it is not. Why the inconsistency?
Ms. Mrozek also tried to create some involvement between the mother and myself. This is a perfect display of Ms. Mrozek's feminist viewpoint. She tried to paint a picture of a weak, susceptible mother dependent on some man. This is a standard feminist explanation for everything. Look at the letters.
In the letter to me, Ms Mrozek says that the mother's "over dependence on you … is beyond" the "goals … and guidelines" for the match. And in the letter to the mother Ms. Mrozek says I have somehow become "too involved with … the … family." These are quite significant fabrications. How is it possible for her to draw these conclusions? Did she read this from the file? Why didn't the previous case managers bring up any of these "issues"?
Additionally, in her letters, Ms. Mrozek tried to astound the mother and I with childish psycho babble. She wrote, "Our guidelines are extremely perspicuous" and that Big Brothers needs a "specific outcome." In the letter to the mother, Ms. Mrozek writes again about "guidelines and the specific outcome." If everything is so perspicuous what are the broken guidelines? What is the target outcome? She was never specific.
Finally, in the letter to me Ms. Mrozek says that "Rachel will be contacting (mother) and (son) to apprise them of the match closure." This is another outright lie. Rachel never called the mother.
The stonewalling and cover up
Ms. Mrozek must have started the cover up as soon as the call was over. She talked to Keith Padgett and told him to expect my call. In my conversation with Mr. Padgett it was clear that he had already talked with Ms. Mrozek.Since this incident took place, the entire Big Brothers organization has refused to talk. I have written letters. I have called. Friends have written letters and called. I, along with 20 other concerned citizens picketed a Big Brothers fund raiser. Despite this, for some unexplained reason, no one will talk. What are they hiding? What is the real reason this match was closed?
All I and the mother want is an explanation for their actions. To date the Big Brothers office has refused to say anything.
They have denied me access to my own file. Their answer to my request is, "sue us." They have even refused to send me copies of the documents I signed when I joined Big Brothers.
The real question is, what are they trying to cover up?
The unfortunate answer is that Big Brothers, a program for little boys, is infested with feminist bigots.
| Hall of Shame |