Instructions For The Report Of Changes In: Fill & Download for Free

Why did US government intelligence agencies change their whistleblower rules in August 2019 to allow secondhand or hearsay reports?I just got additional information on this. The option to report based on second hand knowledge was in the earlier form. The instructions for first hand knowledge were from an accompanying information sheet for the follow up investigation to determine if the report was credible. Trump’s own report of the telephone conversation provided this first hand knowledge.Team Trump Stirs Up Completely Bogus Claim About WhistleblowerThe Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act dates back to 1998, and was last amended in 2010. It contains no prohibition against secondhand or hearsay reports. Instead it refers to “information with respect to an urgent concern.” It states in relevant part:‘‘(f) In this paragraph:‘‘(1) The term ‘urgent concern’ means any of the following:‘‘(A) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the administration or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.‘‘(B) A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the administration or operation of an intelligence activity.‘‘(C) An action, including a personnel ac4 tion described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under section 7(c) in response to the employee’s reporting an urgent concern pursuant to the terms of this Act.https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr3829/BILLS-105hr3829rh.pdfThere is nothing in there about firsthand knowledge. From what Finton says the revision to the form used by employees to report their concerns was started in 2018. I assume the recently uploaded revision was to correct errors in the previous version and bring it in line with long standing law.

A young man in his 20’s worked for me and a male colleague with less experience than me but the same title. The young man had an undergraduate degree I don’t recall where from. I was in my late 30’s, have an MBA from Harvard and had worked on a Wall Street Bond Trading desk. His job was to perform all of the portfolio accounting, produce quarterly portfolio reports and do research when requested. I asked him to adjust the reports to show performance both annually and the usual 1/3/5 year format and explained why I needed two sets of information. I told him to come back to me with any questions if any came up. His remark to ME was “Chicks really like to make things complicated”. I was stunned. I cleared my throat and said “Excuse me?” he said, “Well you’re not a chick but you know, chicks in general”. I told him that that was inappropriate and disrespectful language and he is lucky I didn’t fire him on the spot. Then I sent him to go do the project and change the reports. It took 2 quarters and my “checking in” multiple times to get the changes. I then asked him to do research on one set of mutual funds vs another for a presentation I was going to give. I gave very clear instructions on the methodology I wanted him to use and again said, if he had any difficulty, needed clarification or had questions, please come and ask. I don’t want him to waste his time trying to figure something out if I could give him the answer to get him going again. A week before the presentation I asked for the research. He turned to me and said “(Male Colleague’s Name) told me I don’t have to do anything for you that I don’t feel like doing it.” Given my previous mentioned exchange, I had recorded the exchange. I left his cubicle, gathered my notes from the “Chicks” incident and went straight to HR. He was fired, my male colleague was interviewed and was allow to resign (There were other issues there - like exaggerating (lying about) his title in the company and lying to partners about my position.) They both hated working for and with a woman and thought they could disregard me and treat me badly without consequence. (BAD idea - I made it through HBS and loved working on a Bond trading desk. I’m not sure who they thought they were dealing with.)

Arjun Tendulkar will definitely fare better than Rohan Gavaskar.Rohan was a very good batsman in the domestic arena, but couldn't excel in the Indian jersey. He was always under the shadow of his legendary father and was unfortunate to get very few chances to prove.But it's a fact that he wasn't the best in comparison to his then competitors - Yuvraj Singh or Mohammad Kaif.But Arjun Tendulkar is fortunate to have some privileges that Rohan couldn't get.Reason 1: International ExposureArjun used to train at the Lord’s indoor academy. There were reports of him bowling to the English batsmen and Johnny Bairstow almost got an injury once, facing one of his yorkers.He also bowls regularly to the Indian Men's and Women's team and plays matches quite frequently in the Australian pitches representing some Indian clubs.Reason 2: Coached by World-class expertsArjun has been working on his bowling action with former Indian pacer Subroto Banerji and Atul Gaikwad, a Pune-based coach and biomechanics expert. He even got instructions to change the bowling action by them, as he was prone to injuries.Being a tall left-arm fast bowler, who is able to generate late swing, he can be a great prospect to the Indian team.Hope his career is not destroyed under the burden of being the son of a legend.