December 19, 2016
Lem Pratt, Area Manager
Maryhill State Park
50 Hwy 97, Goldendale WA 98620
Dear Mr. Pratt,
I am writing this letter to provide you with a formal complaint of unprofessional conduct, and requesting investigation of possible violations of State Law including conflicts of interest, forgery, and inefficient and wasteful expenditure of State funds by Troy Carpenter, Interpretive Specialist of the Goldendale Observatory State Park (GOSP). I am taking this action because the benefits of mutual cooperation are threatened. Mr. Carpenter’s now longstanding unprofessional behavior is inappropriate for a State employee who represents the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC), and has proven detrimental in maintaining a positive and mutually beneficial relationship with the Friends of Goldendale Observatory (FOGO).
There is no excuse for the unprofessional text dated November 27 (Exhibit 4), which is the latest in a succession of unprofessional and seemingly retaliatory communications I have received from Mr. Carpenter. This series of communications originated with the events of July 4, at which time I told Mr. Carpenter that I, as FOGO’s President, did not agree with his proposed “at cost” payment for purchase of FOGO T-shirts, and would consult with the FOGO board before proceeding to accept payment. However, within hours - on July 5 - Mr. Carpenter, acting in his capacity as a WSPRC employee, purchased FOGO-owned T-Shirts without my authorization. More seriously, Mr. Carpenter’s July 5 actions included improper and unauthorized access our FOGO PayPal account, and the subsequent creation of a fraudulent PayPal invoice in my name (Exhibit 3). This invoice, allegedly from me as President of FOGO, was then apparently transmitted by Mr. Carpenter to his immediate supervisor, Ranger Andy Kallinen for payment without my knowledge or approval. This appears to be a violation of RCW 9A.60.020 Forgery, as well as possibly others.
Mr. Carpenter’s the-ends-justifies-the-means July 7 text messages (Exhibit 4) suggest he believes he was somehow authorized to act as the FOGO President, who, per the bylaws is the only person authorized to “execute all instruments on its behalf.” The Treasurer and I attempted to resolve these issues by reporting Mr. Carpenter’s actions directly to Mr. Kallinen on the weekend of July 9. Mr. Kallinen indicated we should change our PayPal password, and outlined the appropriate procedures to be followed for any future financial arrangements, documented on July 14 (Exhibit 5). I hoped after a productive meeting with Mr. Kallinen that the issues with Mr. Carpenter would be resolved.
I have at all times remained cordial and professional with Mr. Carpenter. He, on the other hand, has not. Since responding to his initial malfeasance, I have received a number of unprofessional and troubling communications from Mr. Carpenter. These communications include calling me derogatory names (“Bob Quixote”) shortly after the phone conversation you and I had on July 15 (Exhibit 4), and insinuating that I have significant psychological problems (Exhibit 6). While Mr. Carpenter accuses me of creating “acrimony,” I believe an honest and dispassionate review of the record will indicate he bears complete responsibility for any existing animosity.
Mr. Carpenter appears to have contacted various FOGO board members with his allegations regarding my alleged “selfish nonsense” and “angry Cicillian (sic)” motives for questioning the legality of his July 5 actions. This interaction appears to have been aimed at undermining my credibility and led directly to the resignation of one of our board members (Exhibit 6). Mr. Carpenter has minimized and dismissed my fiduciary concerns over his inappropriate actions (i.e. fraud/forgery) as a “red herring,” and states he has your support in his position (Exhibit 6). I believe Mr. Carpenter’s behavior constitutes both harassment and retaliation, and is a violation of “whistle-blower” protection principles for reporting Mr. Carpenter’s improper behavior to the appropriate WSPRC officials, Mr. Kallinen and you, and exercising my duties and responsibilities as President to protect FOGO’s financial integrity and legitimate legal and other interests.
Moreover, Mr. Carpenter’s attitude of entitlement and authority over FOGO includes access and control of the FOGO website, as well as having maintained his own independent, and previously unknown to me, access to the FOGO PayPal account – again, allegedly with your knowledge (Exhibit 6). Mr. Carpenter originally set everything up so that he, not FOGO, would be notified of FOGO PayPal transactions. Mr. Carpenter’s claim (Exhibit 6) that he required his “own login” in order to do FOGO website support and maintenance for PayPal, etc., seems completely untrue. If his assistance was needed, we could have him access it through our login. The contrived rationalization that Mr. Carpenter generated a fraudulent invoice in my name as a “convenience” to the Treasurer, in direct violation of my explicitly communicated wishes as President just hours earlier, appears to be chicanery as well as absurd (Exhibit 6).
In Exhibit 6 Mr. Carpenter fallaciously argues because the previous FOGO Treasurer allegedly may have (inappropriately) permitted him independent access to the FOGO PayPal account and bank information via his own private “log in,” this somehow makes it permissible, and gave him authority to override my decision to postpone any payment action. I find this argument highly questionable considering the obvious conflicts of interest involved. It’s even more concerning that Mr. Carpenter alleges he maintained independent access to FOGO’s PayPal account with your knowledge. Moreover, per the Cooperative Agreement between WSPRC and FOGO, I doubt that a WSPRC settlement based on an unauthorized and fraudulent invoice met the requirement that FOGO operate “in accordance with accepted business practices” (Cooperative Agreement 517-096, pg. 4). Despite having changed the FOGO PayPal password in July as Mr. Kallinen advised (and removing the GOSP email account), PayPal membership donations via our website were apparently routed to the GOSP email address/account instead of the FOGO email address/account as recently as October (Exhibit 7). As of December 8 and possibly thereafter, Mr. Carpenter apparently continues to access and edit the FOGO website without my authorization (Exhibit 10).
Therefore, it seems that the unauthorized use of the FOGO PayPal account to create a fraudulent invoice was necessary for Mr. Carpenter to effect a WSPRC payment on his terms, which he could unilaterally impose. This apparently was because Mr. Carpenter knew I would not yet generate or authorize a FOGO-originated invoice. I assume a valid invoice is required for any form of WSPRC official payment method. Mr. Carpenter appears to have moved quickly based on previously established contact with the Treasurer so as to ensure his desired outcome was a “done deal” (as he repeatedly stated to me directly on July 4 and at length via text July 7, Exhibit 4). This seems to have effectively rendered moot any additional transaction consideration by the FOGO Board of Directors or WSPRC for payment alternatives, even though both you and Mr. Kallinen stated this would have been appropriate. Specifically, you both stated this included later reimbursement by check (versus PayPal) as well as a completely allowable and appropriate wholesale purchase versus cost-only purchase.
After receipt of Mr. Carpenter’s July 18 email (Exhibit 6), the Treasurer and I consulted with an attorney who deals frequently with governmental agencies and is familiar with Washington State law for such agencies. I was concerned with: 1) the lawfulness of creating and issuing a fraudulent invoice in my name and improper and unauthorized access to the FOGO PayPal account, and 2) Mr. Carpenter stating he needed more FOGO funds in order to purchase additional T-shirts, yet also stating he had doubled GOSP profits to “almost $1700” with the sale of FOGO T-shirts (Exhibit 6). The entire combined GOSP-FOGO order originally cost less than $1000 (Exhibit 2). FOGO had yet to break even, let alone realize the gains that Mr. Carpenter originally stated FOGO would realize through the joint purchase.
Upon review, the attorney not only found Mr. Carpenter’s communications to be “rude and snarky,” he also advised that Mr. Carpenter’s self-admitted actions appeared to violate RCW 42.52.020 and 030 regarding financial conflicts of interest, and may have also violated RCW 42.20 governing the conduct of State officials. Moreover, it appears the actions in question might also constitute Official Misconduct under RCW 9A.08.010, forgery as previously specified in RCW 9A.60.020, and possible complicity under RCW 9A.08.020. The attorney strongly advised that in addition to notifying you, I should file for an investigation with the State Auditor’s Office and the State Attorney General’s Office regarding these matters. I did not report to these agencies despite the attorney's advice, as I hoped Mr. Carpenter’s unprofessional behavior would dissipate and we could resolve the issues directly, amicably, and internally. However, this has not occurred.
My attempts to work cooperatively with Mr. Carpenter have apparently failed. In visiting with him on September 29, he initially physically blocked my entrance to the observatory. Mr. Carpenter has not responded to verbal requests and emails to purchase equipment as specified in the Operating Plan. He did respond recently to the Treasurer soliciting input for the FOGO Newsletter, but declined to make a submission. The Treasurer also asked if Mr. Carpenter had any requests for equipment; to which he did not respond. He instead asked that I go through you, as he plans to “stay out of the loop” apparently due to disgruntlement with my making changes to our website (Exhibit 9). It seems to me Mr. Carpenter considers me “persona-non-grata,” which fits the evidenced pattern of retaliatory behavior.
Related to the September 29 incident, it was I who originally proposed the reconfiguration of the 24-inch telescope to become a Newtonian. Due to the obvious lack of hands-on knowledge and experience by any GOSP/WSPRC personnel with something a specialized as a large observatory telescope, I also strongly encouraged consulting with knowledgeable individuals with extensive telescope design experience for this conversion. I went even further and contacted one of the better telescope engineering firms in the country – The Edward R. Byers Company http://www.edbyersco.com/telescopes.html. Mr. Carpenter subsequently discouraged these recommendations as he considered it a “waste of money” (Exhibit 1), and therefore obtaining such expertise and consultation apparently was not followed through on.
Since then, what I have observed gives me serious pause for concern over Mr. Carpenter’s implementation of the Newtonian conversion for the 24-inch telescope. These concerns include both the 24-inch primary mirror, and the rotating secondary mirror and focuser assembly implemented by Mr. Carpenter. Significant issues concerning the secondary mirror and focuser assembly (Exhibit 12) include the:
• support structure (“spider”) for the secondary diagonal mirror, which places the secondary mirror below the rotating ring, and results in obstruction of the optical path by the Serrurier truss supports;
• a rotating-ring securing bolt which introduces motion of the focuser base plate at the position of the upper rotating ring;
• unstable method used to mount the focuser (a surplus photographic enlarger bellows);
• Implementation of an undersized and inappropriate focuser designed for a refractor (not reflector) telescope, which is unsuitable for wide-field imaging.
These issues appear inappropriate even for a “temporary” implementation, defeat the increased size (and therefore increased cost) of the secondary mirror that was procured, and preclude use for the desired and intended ability to provide a large-format wide-field imaging capability. While Mr. Carpenter stated the current arrangement is “temporary” (September 29 Exhibit 4), and at the October 29 meeting with the Rose City Astronomers representatives cited a “purchasing error” for the focuser (which he recommended - Exhibit 1 - and begs the question of why it hasn’t been returned) -- it seems ambiguous as to what the final specifications and configuration may involve, or how many of these issues will be appropriately and successfully addressed.
When I visited to view and photograph the refurbished telescope for the FOGO Newsletter and website in September, I was frankly shocked at what I saw, and shared my concerns with a GOSP staff member who was present during my inspection. Mr. Carpenter again reacted unprofessionally and defensively. Rather than constructively engage, he chose to insult, obstruct, ignore, stated “we need money,” and then accused FOGO of “wasting money” on “hippy dippy activism” related to our light pollution education activities (September 29 Exhibit 4). I have since offered to help mitigate the focuser issue with an optimal focuser replacement (~ $900.00) and suitable wide-field imaging camera (~ $1900.00), but I received no response (Exhibit 8). Ironically, while Mr. Carpenter has stated “we need money,” multiple verbal requests I have made for a list of equipment needs which FOGO would be able to fulfill have been ignored. Apparently Mr. Carpenter doesn’t believe he needs this equipment, as he stated “the monthly donations you receive more than cover the minor expenses associated with what GOSP requires of your group” (Exhibit 6 – which also reveals his access to our financial activities).
Speaking of a “waste of money,” and a glaring example of such, Mr. Carpenter has pursued acquisition of a high-tech very light-weight molded primary mirror which he touts as being used in Department of Defense and NASA space flight applications (for which extreme light weight is irrelevant for a ground-based telescope). This mirror is extraordinarily expensive even with the stated educational discount - “$25,000, and while that may sound like a lot, Carpenter noted a similar-sized mirror made of fused quartz might go for ten times as much, a quarter million [dollars]” - December Seattle Astronomy Blog
http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/2016/12/major-changes-in-store-at-goldendale-observatory/ (Exhibit 11, emphasis added).
This description for the cost of a fused-quartz primary mirror, which I also initially recommended to Mr. Carpenter, is a gross exaggeration – if not a total fabrication. More concerning, this inaccurate representation apparently may have been used to violate applicable State laws for the purchasing process that ensures efficient purchasing of products and services and avoiding wasteful expenditures of taxpayer dollars (i.e. RCW 85.32, 43.19, et.al.).
First, a fused-quartz 24-inch mirror would be suitably thermally stable due to an inherently very low coefficient of thermal expansion, and also light in weight compared to the original mirror. Second, high-quality fused-quartz 24-inch primary mirrors of the appropriate focal length and focal ratio, and perfectly suitable for use in the upgrade, could be obtained from multiple vendors via a competitive bid process. The well-regarded Zambuto Optical Company http://zambutomirrors.com/mirrors.html, can provide a 24-inch fused-quartz mirror at f4.5 or greater for $12,000 (Exhibit 13). Another well-known and highly regarded telescope mirror provider would be Lockwood Custom Optics http://www.loptics.com/info.html, where a 24-inch fused-quartz mirror of f4.5 focal ratio is quoted as $14,500 (Exhibit 15).
There is no significant weight issue for either of these mirrors, since they would be replacing the much heavier original mirror, and any replacement mirror would therefore need additional ballast for proper implementation. The not-insignificant opportunity cost of $10,500 to $13,000 for the ~ twice-the-price Dream Cellular mirror over a fused-quartz mirror of excellent optical quality could more appropriately be applied to other areas of the telescope upgrade - such as a properly implemented rotating secondary mirror and focuser assembly (i.e. the Edward R. Byers Company 27-inch Newtonian with an upper eyepiece rotating assembly and properly sized and located focuser assembly - Exhibit 14).
Due to the foregoing facts, and given the history of production problems and delays for the Dream Cellular mirror, I recommend that the WSPRC consider immediate cancellation of the Dream Cellular mirror procurement as it appears to be unnecessarily complex, costly, and without any real-world optical performance benefit -- and therefore constitutes an unquestionably large “waste of money.” I once again strongly recommend that qualified individuals with extensive telescope design credentials be sought for input before any further telescope upgrade activity takes place, and thereby avoid additional wasteful and inefficient expenditures of limited taxpayer funds.
In hopes of discussing these important issues, and working towards a more productive relationship between Mr. Carpenter and myself, I called in October to schedule a meeting with you. You suggested that it take place directly following a Lighting Ordinance Task Force meeting you and I would both be attending. While at the meeting, however, after hastily handing me the Cooperative Agreement Operating Plan review, you left abruptly without explanation. I have not subsequently heard from you about rescheduling.
Unfortunately, due to the seriousness of the telescope reconfiguration issues and Mr. Carpenter’s past and ongoing unprofessional behavior, I believe I have no alternative but to initiate this report to you, as well as the Attorney General and State Auditor, as advised earlier this year by qualified legal counsel.
I remain deeply committed to the success of the GOSP and IDSP. I have donated hundreds if not thousands of hours of my personal time, money, and other resources to the WSPRC in support of GOSP, including newsletter development, website editing, membership recruitment and solicitation, helping to secure additional astronomical instruments and equipment, support and advocacy for dark skies, and the performance of many public outreach events both locally and regionally.
However, I have great reservations about the ability to interact productively with WSPRC staff given the unprofessional communications I have received, as well as the lack of appropriate responses, and the obvious transgressions of ethics and propriety that have occurred.
I appreciate your time and interest in addressing these concerns, which I hope will lead to a positive outcome.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Yoesle, President
Friends of Goldendale Observatory
PO Box 899, Goldendale WA 98620
c: Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission
Washington State Auditor
Washington State Attorney General
Attachments: Exhibits 1 - 15
Lem Pratt, Area Manager
Maryhill State Park
50 Hwy 97, Goldendale WA 98620
Dear Mr. Pratt,
I am writing this letter to provide you with a formal complaint of unprofessional conduct, and requesting investigation of possible violations of State Law including conflicts of interest, forgery, and inefficient and wasteful expenditure of State funds by Troy Carpenter, Interpretive Specialist of the Goldendale Observatory State Park (GOSP). I am taking this action because the benefits of mutual cooperation are threatened. Mr. Carpenter’s now longstanding unprofessional behavior is inappropriate for a State employee who represents the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC), and has proven detrimental in maintaining a positive and mutually beneficial relationship with the Friends of Goldendale Observatory (FOGO).
There is no excuse for the unprofessional text dated November 27 (Exhibit 4), which is the latest in a succession of unprofessional and seemingly retaliatory communications I have received from Mr. Carpenter. This series of communications originated with the events of July 4, at which time I told Mr. Carpenter that I, as FOGO’s President, did not agree with his proposed “at cost” payment for purchase of FOGO T-shirts, and would consult with the FOGO board before proceeding to accept payment. However, within hours - on July 5 - Mr. Carpenter, acting in his capacity as a WSPRC employee, purchased FOGO-owned T-Shirts without my authorization. More seriously, Mr. Carpenter’s July 5 actions included improper and unauthorized access our FOGO PayPal account, and the subsequent creation of a fraudulent PayPal invoice in my name (Exhibit 3). This invoice, allegedly from me as President of FOGO, was then apparently transmitted by Mr. Carpenter to his immediate supervisor, Ranger Andy Kallinen for payment without my knowledge or approval. This appears to be a violation of RCW 9A.60.020 Forgery, as well as possibly others.
Mr. Carpenter’s the-ends-justifies-the-means July 7 text messages (Exhibit 4) suggest he believes he was somehow authorized to act as the FOGO President, who, per the bylaws is the only person authorized to “execute all instruments on its behalf.” The Treasurer and I attempted to resolve these issues by reporting Mr. Carpenter’s actions directly to Mr. Kallinen on the weekend of July 9. Mr. Kallinen indicated we should change our PayPal password, and outlined the appropriate procedures to be followed for any future financial arrangements, documented on July 14 (Exhibit 5). I hoped after a productive meeting with Mr. Kallinen that the issues with Mr. Carpenter would be resolved.
I have at all times remained cordial and professional with Mr. Carpenter. He, on the other hand, has not. Since responding to his initial malfeasance, I have received a number of unprofessional and troubling communications from Mr. Carpenter. These communications include calling me derogatory names (“Bob Quixote”) shortly after the phone conversation you and I had on July 15 (Exhibit 4), and insinuating that I have significant psychological problems (Exhibit 6). While Mr. Carpenter accuses me of creating “acrimony,” I believe an honest and dispassionate review of the record will indicate he bears complete responsibility for any existing animosity.
Mr. Carpenter appears to have contacted various FOGO board members with his allegations regarding my alleged “selfish nonsense” and “angry Cicillian (sic)” motives for questioning the legality of his July 5 actions. This interaction appears to have been aimed at undermining my credibility and led directly to the resignation of one of our board members (Exhibit 6). Mr. Carpenter has minimized and dismissed my fiduciary concerns over his inappropriate actions (i.e. fraud/forgery) as a “red herring,” and states he has your support in his position (Exhibit 6). I believe Mr. Carpenter’s behavior constitutes both harassment and retaliation, and is a violation of “whistle-blower” protection principles for reporting Mr. Carpenter’s improper behavior to the appropriate WSPRC officials, Mr. Kallinen and you, and exercising my duties and responsibilities as President to protect FOGO’s financial integrity and legitimate legal and other interests.
Moreover, Mr. Carpenter’s attitude of entitlement and authority over FOGO includes access and control of the FOGO website, as well as having maintained his own independent, and previously unknown to me, access to the FOGO PayPal account – again, allegedly with your knowledge (Exhibit 6). Mr. Carpenter originally set everything up so that he, not FOGO, would be notified of FOGO PayPal transactions. Mr. Carpenter’s claim (Exhibit 6) that he required his “own login” in order to do FOGO website support and maintenance for PayPal, etc., seems completely untrue. If his assistance was needed, we could have him access it through our login. The contrived rationalization that Mr. Carpenter generated a fraudulent invoice in my name as a “convenience” to the Treasurer, in direct violation of my explicitly communicated wishes as President just hours earlier, appears to be chicanery as well as absurd (Exhibit 6).
In Exhibit 6 Mr. Carpenter fallaciously argues because the previous FOGO Treasurer allegedly may have (inappropriately) permitted him independent access to the FOGO PayPal account and bank information via his own private “log in,” this somehow makes it permissible, and gave him authority to override my decision to postpone any payment action. I find this argument highly questionable considering the obvious conflicts of interest involved. It’s even more concerning that Mr. Carpenter alleges he maintained independent access to FOGO’s PayPal account with your knowledge. Moreover, per the Cooperative Agreement between WSPRC and FOGO, I doubt that a WSPRC settlement based on an unauthorized and fraudulent invoice met the requirement that FOGO operate “in accordance with accepted business practices” (Cooperative Agreement 517-096, pg. 4). Despite having changed the FOGO PayPal password in July as Mr. Kallinen advised (and removing the GOSP email account), PayPal membership donations via our website were apparently routed to the GOSP email address/account instead of the FOGO email address/account as recently as October (Exhibit 7). As of December 8 and possibly thereafter, Mr. Carpenter apparently continues to access and edit the FOGO website without my authorization (Exhibit 10).
Therefore, it seems that the unauthorized use of the FOGO PayPal account to create a fraudulent invoice was necessary for Mr. Carpenter to effect a WSPRC payment on his terms, which he could unilaterally impose. This apparently was because Mr. Carpenter knew I would not yet generate or authorize a FOGO-originated invoice. I assume a valid invoice is required for any form of WSPRC official payment method. Mr. Carpenter appears to have moved quickly based on previously established contact with the Treasurer so as to ensure his desired outcome was a “done deal” (as he repeatedly stated to me directly on July 4 and at length via text July 7, Exhibit 4). This seems to have effectively rendered moot any additional transaction consideration by the FOGO Board of Directors or WSPRC for payment alternatives, even though both you and Mr. Kallinen stated this would have been appropriate. Specifically, you both stated this included later reimbursement by check (versus PayPal) as well as a completely allowable and appropriate wholesale purchase versus cost-only purchase.
After receipt of Mr. Carpenter’s July 18 email (Exhibit 6), the Treasurer and I consulted with an attorney who deals frequently with governmental agencies and is familiar with Washington State law for such agencies. I was concerned with: 1) the lawfulness of creating and issuing a fraudulent invoice in my name and improper and unauthorized access to the FOGO PayPal account, and 2) Mr. Carpenter stating he needed more FOGO funds in order to purchase additional T-shirts, yet also stating he had doubled GOSP profits to “almost $1700” with the sale of FOGO T-shirts (Exhibit 6). The entire combined GOSP-FOGO order originally cost less than $1000 (Exhibit 2). FOGO had yet to break even, let alone realize the gains that Mr. Carpenter originally stated FOGO would realize through the joint purchase.
Upon review, the attorney not only found Mr. Carpenter’s communications to be “rude and snarky,” he also advised that Mr. Carpenter’s self-admitted actions appeared to violate RCW 42.52.020 and 030 regarding financial conflicts of interest, and may have also violated RCW 42.20 governing the conduct of State officials. Moreover, it appears the actions in question might also constitute Official Misconduct under RCW 9A.08.010, forgery as previously specified in RCW 9A.60.020, and possible complicity under RCW 9A.08.020. The attorney strongly advised that in addition to notifying you, I should file for an investigation with the State Auditor’s Office and the State Attorney General’s Office regarding these matters. I did not report to these agencies despite the attorney's advice, as I hoped Mr. Carpenter’s unprofessional behavior would dissipate and we could resolve the issues directly, amicably, and internally. However, this has not occurred.
My attempts to work cooperatively with Mr. Carpenter have apparently failed. In visiting with him on September 29, he initially physically blocked my entrance to the observatory. Mr. Carpenter has not responded to verbal requests and emails to purchase equipment as specified in the Operating Plan. He did respond recently to the Treasurer soliciting input for the FOGO Newsletter, but declined to make a submission. The Treasurer also asked if Mr. Carpenter had any requests for equipment; to which he did not respond. He instead asked that I go through you, as he plans to “stay out of the loop” apparently due to disgruntlement with my making changes to our website (Exhibit 9). It seems to me Mr. Carpenter considers me “persona-non-grata,” which fits the evidenced pattern of retaliatory behavior.
Related to the September 29 incident, it was I who originally proposed the reconfiguration of the 24-inch telescope to become a Newtonian. Due to the obvious lack of hands-on knowledge and experience by any GOSP/WSPRC personnel with something a specialized as a large observatory telescope, I also strongly encouraged consulting with knowledgeable individuals with extensive telescope design experience for this conversion. I went even further and contacted one of the better telescope engineering firms in the country – The Edward R. Byers Company http://www.edbyersco.com/telescopes.html. Mr. Carpenter subsequently discouraged these recommendations as he considered it a “waste of money” (Exhibit 1), and therefore obtaining such expertise and consultation apparently was not followed through on.
Since then, what I have observed gives me serious pause for concern over Mr. Carpenter’s implementation of the Newtonian conversion for the 24-inch telescope. These concerns include both the 24-inch primary mirror, and the rotating secondary mirror and focuser assembly implemented by Mr. Carpenter. Significant issues concerning the secondary mirror and focuser assembly (Exhibit 12) include the:
• support structure (“spider”) for the secondary diagonal mirror, which places the secondary mirror below the rotating ring, and results in obstruction of the optical path by the Serrurier truss supports;
• a rotating-ring securing bolt which introduces motion of the focuser base plate at the position of the upper rotating ring;
• unstable method used to mount the focuser (a surplus photographic enlarger bellows);
• Implementation of an undersized and inappropriate focuser designed for a refractor (not reflector) telescope, which is unsuitable for wide-field imaging.
These issues appear inappropriate even for a “temporary” implementation, defeat the increased size (and therefore increased cost) of the secondary mirror that was procured, and preclude use for the desired and intended ability to provide a large-format wide-field imaging capability. While Mr. Carpenter stated the current arrangement is “temporary” (September 29 Exhibit 4), and at the October 29 meeting with the Rose City Astronomers representatives cited a “purchasing error” for the focuser (which he recommended - Exhibit 1 - and begs the question of why it hasn’t been returned) -- it seems ambiguous as to what the final specifications and configuration may involve, or how many of these issues will be appropriately and successfully addressed.
When I visited to view and photograph the refurbished telescope for the FOGO Newsletter and website in September, I was frankly shocked at what I saw, and shared my concerns with a GOSP staff member who was present during my inspection. Mr. Carpenter again reacted unprofessionally and defensively. Rather than constructively engage, he chose to insult, obstruct, ignore, stated “we need money,” and then accused FOGO of “wasting money” on “hippy dippy activism” related to our light pollution education activities (September 29 Exhibit 4). I have since offered to help mitigate the focuser issue with an optimal focuser replacement (~ $900.00) and suitable wide-field imaging camera (~ $1900.00), but I received no response (Exhibit 8). Ironically, while Mr. Carpenter has stated “we need money,” multiple verbal requests I have made for a list of equipment needs which FOGO would be able to fulfill have been ignored. Apparently Mr. Carpenter doesn’t believe he needs this equipment, as he stated “the monthly donations you receive more than cover the minor expenses associated with what GOSP requires of your group” (Exhibit 6 – which also reveals his access to our financial activities).
Speaking of a “waste of money,” and a glaring example of such, Mr. Carpenter has pursued acquisition of a high-tech very light-weight molded primary mirror which he touts as being used in Department of Defense and NASA space flight applications (for which extreme light weight is irrelevant for a ground-based telescope). This mirror is extraordinarily expensive even with the stated educational discount - “$25,000, and while that may sound like a lot, Carpenter noted a similar-sized mirror made of fused quartz might go for ten times as much, a quarter million [dollars]” - December Seattle Astronomy Blog
http://www.seattleastronomy.com/blog1/2016/12/major-changes-in-store-at-goldendale-observatory/ (Exhibit 11, emphasis added).
This description for the cost of a fused-quartz primary mirror, which I also initially recommended to Mr. Carpenter, is a gross exaggeration – if not a total fabrication. More concerning, this inaccurate representation apparently may have been used to violate applicable State laws for the purchasing process that ensures efficient purchasing of products and services and avoiding wasteful expenditures of taxpayer dollars (i.e. RCW 85.32, 43.19, et.al.).
First, a fused-quartz 24-inch mirror would be suitably thermally stable due to an inherently very low coefficient of thermal expansion, and also light in weight compared to the original mirror. Second, high-quality fused-quartz 24-inch primary mirrors of the appropriate focal length and focal ratio, and perfectly suitable for use in the upgrade, could be obtained from multiple vendors via a competitive bid process. The well-regarded Zambuto Optical Company http://zambutomirrors.com/mirrors.html, can provide a 24-inch fused-quartz mirror at f4.5 or greater for $12,000 (Exhibit 13). Another well-known and highly regarded telescope mirror provider would be Lockwood Custom Optics http://www.loptics.com/info.html, where a 24-inch fused-quartz mirror of f4.5 focal ratio is quoted as $14,500 (Exhibit 15).
There is no significant weight issue for either of these mirrors, since they would be replacing the much heavier original mirror, and any replacement mirror would therefore need additional ballast for proper implementation. The not-insignificant opportunity cost of $10,500 to $13,000 for the ~ twice-the-price Dream Cellular mirror over a fused-quartz mirror of excellent optical quality could more appropriately be applied to other areas of the telescope upgrade - such as a properly implemented rotating secondary mirror and focuser assembly (i.e. the Edward R. Byers Company 27-inch Newtonian with an upper eyepiece rotating assembly and properly sized and located focuser assembly - Exhibit 14).
Due to the foregoing facts, and given the history of production problems and delays for the Dream Cellular mirror, I recommend that the WSPRC consider immediate cancellation of the Dream Cellular mirror procurement as it appears to be unnecessarily complex, costly, and without any real-world optical performance benefit -- and therefore constitutes an unquestionably large “waste of money.” I once again strongly recommend that qualified individuals with extensive telescope design credentials be sought for input before any further telescope upgrade activity takes place, and thereby avoid additional wasteful and inefficient expenditures of limited taxpayer funds.
In hopes of discussing these important issues, and working towards a more productive relationship between Mr. Carpenter and myself, I called in October to schedule a meeting with you. You suggested that it take place directly following a Lighting Ordinance Task Force meeting you and I would both be attending. While at the meeting, however, after hastily handing me the Cooperative Agreement Operating Plan review, you left abruptly without explanation. I have not subsequently heard from you about rescheduling.
Unfortunately, due to the seriousness of the telescope reconfiguration issues and Mr. Carpenter’s past and ongoing unprofessional behavior, I believe I have no alternative but to initiate this report to you, as well as the Attorney General and State Auditor, as advised earlier this year by qualified legal counsel.
I remain deeply committed to the success of the GOSP and IDSP. I have donated hundreds if not thousands of hours of my personal time, money, and other resources to the WSPRC in support of GOSP, including newsletter development, website editing, membership recruitment and solicitation, helping to secure additional astronomical instruments and equipment, support and advocacy for dark skies, and the performance of many public outreach events both locally and regionally.
However, I have great reservations about the ability to interact productively with WSPRC staff given the unprofessional communications I have received, as well as the lack of appropriate responses, and the obvious transgressions of ethics and propriety that have occurred.
I appreciate your time and interest in addressing these concerns, which I hope will lead to a positive outcome.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Yoesle, President
Friends of Goldendale Observatory
PO Box 899, Goldendale WA 98620
c: Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission
Washington State Auditor
Washington State Attorney General
Attachments: Exhibits 1 - 15
