Part I: Working at the Request of the Project
About a year ago, I discovered something that would eventually be investigated as fraud. I can’t provide any more details, except that nothing I found implicated anyone named in this post, that my suspicions were confirmed, and that it should have qualified for whistleblower protection.
After sharing my initial findings with a small group of JSI colleagues but before I officially presented my findings to investigators, I had a conversation with Jonathan Metzger, the Director of JSI’s Center for Digital Health (CDH). Metzger would later be asked about this conversation by JSI investigators, who wrote:
[Metzger] said that if ever said anything like [what Jimi accused] it could have been related to issues Jimi has had in the past with his behavior irritating people on the project and him being difficult to work with, and because he is working at the request of the project, irritating people with his inappropriate behavior might mean they no longer work with him.
I can’t speak to Metzger’s recollection, or even what his intentions were, I can only speak to how I felt when he reminded me that I worked at the request of the project—I was scared. I was being told that I only had a job because leadership wanted me there and, as Metzger warned against “being difficult” or “annoying,” I began to wonder if sharing what I found would count as annoying or irritating. I did go through with the presentation, which went well and briefly put my fears to rest.
• • •
Over the next few months, I began to notice and experience things that led me to fear that I was no longer welcome at JSI in the way I had been prior to my conversation with Metzger. These include:
I felt that communication with Metzger and Leona Rosenblum (CDH Deputy Director and my direct supervisor) had become incredibly tense. When I scheduled a meeting with them to get back on the same page, I was surprised when they leveled pointed criticism, including that I was undependable and unreliable. The only details provided were examples where I had received positive, supportive feedback in the past.
My salary was frozen as part of a new compensation policy. Laura Colantropo, JSI Director of Human Resources, explained to me (in a 15-minute meeting) that I would be eligible for a one-time 3% raise at my next annual review, and then would no longer be eligible for any kind of salary increase. The new policy was based on state and job title. Because I was the only person with my job title in my state, I worried that this could have potentially targeted me.
When I reached out to Colantropo to ask for additional details and respectfully voice my frustration, she issued a written warning for “threatening” language. This incident, and a related one below, will be discussed in a future blog post about what I felt was a lack of transparency and standardized processes.
By the last week of June, Metzger had begun asking to review my work, something he had never done and something I felt was completely out of character for him. It was enough for me to reach out to Morgan Curtis, JSI’s Senior Manager for Fraud and Compliance Investigations, about a potential whistleblower retaliation complaint. I was terrified of making a complaint and still in denial that it was even happening. In her notes, Curtis described how I was too scared to name the people who I believed were retaliating against me, especially when I believed someone from HR was involved (emphasis mine):
[Jimi] asked what happens when an implicated person is in HR. And I explained that generally we will go to levels of leadership beyond HR whether that be the C-suite or the Board. He finds the weight of the process very concerning.
I wouldn't have to wait long to understand how prescient my concerns were.
• • •
At 1:00pm on July 1, 2024, I received an email from Jonathan Metzger criticizing me for not sending a deliverable for him to review. Some things to note about this email:
Metzger already had access to these documents on Google Drive (I had shared them almost a year before).
Metzger would later accuse me of creating the deliverable with ChatGPT right before sending it to him, even though it had widely been circulated during the past six months and had recently received positive feedback from nearly a dozen colleagues.
Metzger copied Laura Colantropo on the email, which was surprising given that there had never been any questions or concerns about the quality or dependability of my work prior to the events that began this post.
Three minutes later, at approximately 1:03pm on July 1, 2024, I logged in to a meeting that was originally supposed to be a one-on-one with Rosenblum. Laura Colantropo had joined and I was quickly informed that Colantropo was there to deliver a formal warning for threatening and harassing language. As I mentioned above, I will be dedicating a future blog post to this part of my story. For now, I can share:
The only two examples of misconduct were both raised within a span of just a few days by Colantropo without following JSI’s SOPs for investigating complaints. There are no other written records of misconduct and I do not believe that either of the two cited by Colantropo meet JSI’s definition for misconduct.
The warning clearly states that further actions, including termination, would follow if I failed to take corrective action and improve my conduct, but no specific corrective actions were outlined or detailed. This left me fearful that the lack of clarity could later be used to justify my termination for reasons that I could not anticipate or remedy.
The warning was signed by Laura Colantropo and Leona Rosenblum, with space for me to add my signature. While I did acknowledge receipt, I did not sign the document.
• • •
Immediately after the meeting with Colantropo and Rosenblum, I reached out to a senior colleague. I was shaking and upset, but I managed to blurt out what had happened. The colleague offered words of comfort and support, but there wasn’t much they were able to offer beyond that.
Later, they messaged me to say that they felt compelled to report what I had shared. Their message specifically mentions communicating with Janice Clark, JSI’s CFO who, at the time, supervised Laura Colantropo, as well as Rob Schlink, JSI’s VP of Contracts and Compliance:
Around the same time, I finally submitted a formal complaint, naming Jonathan Metzger, Leona Rosenblum, and Laura Colantropo as the individuals that I believed were retaliating against me. I wrote quickly, just to get something down, but included the following:
I am just working on documenting but would very much appreciate having a conversation with someone ASAP as I am concerned that the stress from this pressure is having a negative effect on both my health and my productivity at JSI.
For the next nine days, I waited. I had assumed Morgan Curtis would reach out, but she never did. I sent messages to Rob Schlink, JSI’s VP of Contracts and Compliance, but he didn’t respond. My mental health was getting worse by the day—I couldn’t sleep or get out of bed; I became paranoid that the whole world was out to get me; and I isolated from those closest to me because I didn’t know who I could trust.
On Monday, July 8, I did the thing I had dreaded—I called USAID OIG. If you can believe it, I didn’t want to do anything to hurt JSI. This was the nuclear option, and until the last second, I was hoping that someone from JSI would reach out and at least acknowledge my complaint. It had been nine gut-wrenching days!
Unlike JSI, USAID responded immediately and, within what seemed like minutes, I had begun a thorough intake interview on what had happened and why I felt I was being retaliated against. The agent told me they would be meeting with USAID’s whistleblower protection lead the next morning to present notes from my interview. That morning I got the call and, to my relief, was informed that OIG believed there was enough information from my intake to open a formal investigation.
I met with USAID’s lead whistleblower protection agent that afternoon, who patiently answered my questions and explained how these cases were evaluated. The conversation ended with the following exchange (reduced and paraphrased):
Me: Can you offer me any protection?
Agent: Unfortunately that’s not really our job, your company needs to do that.
Me: Can I tell them I’ve made this complaint and that you’ve opened an investigation?
Agent: Sure, if you think they could help, go ahead.
They’ll have to listen now, right? Wrong.
• • •
I reached out to Curtis later that day, but had one of the most demoralizing moments of the entire experience:
I was at a complete loss. Where do you go from there?
• • •
That night I found a way to get Curtis to meet with me the following morning. It’s a good story, and a rare moment of levity during an otherwise terrible time. Ask me in person and I’ll tell you.
• • •
I met with Curtis first thing Wednesday morning, July 10. It only lasted a few minutes before Curtis dropped her bombshell:
Laura Colantropo had been put in charge of investigating my whistleblower retaliation complaint, even though she was one of three people named in my complaint.
I was speechless. Curtis kept a straight face and just repeated that the decision was made over her head. I honestly have no memory of how the meeting ended, I just remember being in complete shock and disbelief.
I would later compose myself just enough to write Colantropo an email. Looking back, I’m surprised that I could find the right words, or any words at all.
I don’t see any conflict of interest…
That’s where I’m going to leave it for this post.
This is the first of three planned blog posts about leaving JSI. The next one will detail JSI’s “investigation” and will focus on how institutions defend themselves and prioritize self preservation at all costs. The final one will look at my struggle to gain access to my full personnel file, and what I found in the parts of it I was able to access.
—
Doing the right thing is tough, and I’m proud that I did as much of the right thing as I could. Things like this don’t get better until people start sharing their stories, so my silver lining is that I get to do just that and, hopefully, contribute to making things a little better for those who come after me (especially my students).
More soon.
This blog post reflects my personal experiences and opinions. It is based on my recollection of events and the information available to me at the time of writing. While I strive for accuracy, if any individual or organization believes a factual statement is incorrect, I welcome the opportunity to address and, if necessary, correct the record. Please contact me directly with any concerns, and I will promptly review and consider corrections in good faith.