PNNL whistleblower claims retaliation in fraud case. Battelle tells jury she is exaggerating

Battelle managers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory did not tamper in a $530,000 fraud investigation, the company’s attorneys argued Monday.

The investigation into the theft of taxpayer money was handled no differently than previous investigations, according to opening statements a federal civil court case in Richland that’s expected to last two weeks.

Aleta Busselman, the former enforcement officer for the Richland lab, is claiming she was removed from her position after complaining that managers were tampering with the conclusions of the report that her team prepared.

Battelle operates PNNL, a major national research laboratory, for the Department of Energy.

She was responsible for investigating why PNNL had been vulnerable to the theft of $530,000, or the “root cause” of the incident, to prevent something similar from happening again.

She said in court documents that some managers found the draft report too critical and she was told it made management seem “asleep at the wheel.”

Busselman notified a lab director that “we do not just let concerned stakeholders manipulate root causes at the end of the process to make us sound better” and days later she was removed from her position, said court documents.

Battelle’s attorney Mark Bartlett asked the jury Monday “not to reward her exaggerations and revisions to history.”

She does not qualify as a whistleblower because her discussions with higher management were part of routine “give and take,” he argued. No information was hidden from DOE, he maintained.

She did not lose her job but was reassigned to another position and continued to receive raises to bring her current salary to close to $160,000, he said.

Investigation of fraud

The case goes back to December 2016 when the lab was tricked into sending a $530,000 payment owed to Fowler General Construction of Richland to a fraudulent bank account.

Employees fell for an email saying there was a new bank account for Fowler payments. The company was being paid in periodic installments for building the $9.8 million Discovery Hall at PNNL.

Only a qualified analyst could write the root cause analysis under DOE policy, said Busselman’s attorney, Jack Sheridan, in his opening statement.

DOE requires causal analysis to be done by employees who are adequately trained and that the analysis be prepared independently of the people involved in the improper payment, Sheridan said.

At issue was the independence of the report that Busselman’s team prepared, he said.

Some Battelle managers were concerned that the way the report was written could influence whether the federal government would absorb the cost the fraud or whether Battelle would have to cover all or a portion of it, Sheridan said.

Busselman’s team was pressured by managers, including on behalf of those with financial responsibility at the lab, to make changes to the report without supporting facts, he argued.

He said Busselman told Battelle managers that they could challenge the facts in the report, but not its conclusions.

Busselman unhappy in position

The causal analysis was not perfect, said Battelle’s attorney. But it did not come close to rising to the level of gross mismanagement or a violation of the law, he said.

The change that was made to the final report was minimal, Bartlett said.

Busselman had long told her managers that she was unhappy in her position as enforcement officer and was struggling, Bartlett said. She had preferred her previous project management position, she told supervisors.

The lab returned her to a project management position, as she had requested, with no reduction in salary or benefits, Bartlett said.

The lab had already made a full disclosure of the fraud to DOE and cooperated fully, including in Department of Energy Office of Inspector General and Department of Justice investigations, he said.

“All facts were disclosed thoroughly to the federal government. None were hidden,” he said.

Busselman wants PNNL job back

Busselman’s attorney agreed that Busselman was not fired.

“They don’t take your money, they take your career,” Sheridan said.

A supervisor wrote her resignation announcement and then Busselman, a 30-year-manager, was assigned to a windowless office, he said.

She was told she would be moving to a new “special assignment” job, but there was no new job, he said.

She felt blacklisted in 2017, unable to find a job and told she would be laid off if she did not find another position. She finally found a job in cybersecurity at the lab, where she is doing well, he told jurors.

Battelle ended up covering $430,000 of the fraudulent payment, with $100,000 recovered with the help of the bank and investigators.

Busselman is asking for reinstatement to her former position, management training on the need for independence in investigations, a prohibition from pressuring the investigation team to change findings, damages for emotional harm and legal fees and costs.

This story was originally published December 10, 2019 at 5:00 AM.