Dra Sworn Statement of Chelsea Aus n
Based on February 5, 2019 Interview

I, Chelsea Aus n, hereby aﬃrm as follows:
1. What is your current posi on?
a. I am an ORISE fellow. My main tasks are helping our Climate and Health Program
evaluate what we do, and helping our grantees evaluate their interven ons, projects and
programs.
2. How long have you been an ORISE fellow?
a. Since 2014. I came to the Center with the food and water safety group through the CDC
Evalua on Fellowship, then in April 2016 moved to the posi on I have now with the
Climate and Health Program.
3. Who do you report to now?
a. I report to Maureen Wilce, the Team Lead for evalua on in our Branch.
4. Who did you report to when you moved to the Climate and Health Program?
a. I reported to Ken Archer and George Luber, though the repor ng protocol was never
really clear.
5. What conversa ons did you have about the course materials and syllabus for the Climate
Adapta on Course in conjunc on with Yale? How did you become involved?
a. I was brought in through my colleague and former Epidemiologist with our Climate and
Health Program, Dr. Kathryn Conlon (Ka e), who is now at UC Davis. I never spoke about
the project directly with George or Ken. Ka e showed me the emails she sent George
(see zipped ﬁle #1, “Yale”), which included informing him that she’d like me to serve as
the discussion leader for the course, which was a secondary role Yale had requested
each Course have. My connec on was only through her. I do not have any
correspondence from him about the course work itself.
6. Do you remember what ini ated this collabora on?
a. From my understanding, it was someone with the Yale School of Public Health who
contacted George about crea ng a course on climate and health adapta on. I believe
the original ask was to develop and implement the course formally with CDC. Some me
shortly a er that, and I don’t know the exact sequence of events, George brought Ka e
in on the project.
b. Katie tried to work with George to determine the permissions and protocols needed to
develop and implement the course formally with CDC, through our oﬃcial work
capaci es. As I recall from conversa ons with Ka e, George was direc ng Ka e to
pursue work on the course without engaging any formal approvals from CDC. Since
neither of us felt comfortable with that we decided to complete the project outside of
our CDC work du es. To do that, Ka e sought outside work approvals, which is a
1
WrightWay Consul ng
2451 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 3677
(770) 578- 7987, adena@wrightwayconsul ng.com
www.wrightwayconsul ng.com

 requirement of a CDC employee. As I am not a formal CDC employee, my obliga on was
simply to move my work on this oﬀ my CDC hours, which I did.
7. What caused you to want to be part of this project?
a. Several things. It concerned a topic that I was interested in and passionate about. It gave
me the chance to work with Yale, a respected, educa onal ins tu on. It also involved
teaching, which is part of my Masters educa on. Addi onally, Katie and I have a lot of
professional chemistry -- we work really well together.
8. What is your understanding of the authoriza on process for ORISE Fellows for a project like
this?
a. My understanding comes from ORISE policy, which states that we may pursue paid or
unpaid work ac vi es so long as they are oﬀ-hours and we are not represen ng
ourselves as aﬃliates of CDC.
9. How long did you work on the course?
a. Ka e and I worked on the curriculum between April and August 2018, over many
evenings and weekends. We needed to create six weeks of content.
b. Once the course began, in October of 2018, I took on the discussion lead role which
included facilita ng weekly discussions, grading, and answering student ques ons over
email.
10. Did you see or sign a formal agreement?
a. I signed a basic employment contract with Yale.
11. Did you feel as if you had a choice in being able to work on it?
a. Yes. I could have said no.
12. How would you describe Ken and George’s leadership?
a. As supervisors and leaders, I found them neglec ul, absent and, at mes, cruel. Even
when they were present, they seemed disengaged and disinterested in staﬀ. Program
staﬀ o en had to remind them about our projects, why we were doing them, only to
have George or Ken throw a wrench in them.
b. When I ﬁrst joined the Program in 2016, I tried to engage them on work-related topics
and projects but it o en led nowhere or was completely ignored. So, I started engaging
them only on the absolute basics - making sure my ORISE contract was renewed; le ng
them know about major projects I was working on, when I was sick or needed to take
leave. I gave up discussing my future with the program because it was too
nonproduc ve.
13. Did you ﬁnd other avenues for those conversa ons or for guidance?
a. No.
b. It wasn’t un l I moved to this new Team structure, that I received real guidance. The
amount of assistance I get now is the most it has been since coming to CDC. My Team
Lead is available and responsive. She doesn’t make you feel like a burden.
14. How was the morale in the program when George was there?
a. It was awful. I was in colleagues’ oﬃces mul ple mes a week who were distressed or
despondent due to their most recent threat from or interac on with George.
2
WrightWay Consul ng
2451 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 3677
(770) 578- 7987, adena@wrightwayconsul ng.com
www.wrightwayconsul ng.com

     
Al.

WrightWay Consulting, Inc,

For example. I would often find my colleague Deneise distraught over a recent email
George had sent or rumor he had started. that fed targeted hostility towards her from
George's inner work circles. When you spend eight hours every day in that environment.
it amasses. and she'd experienced it for years.

. The Program always felt like the "George Show." a platform to advance his celebrity, with

the rest of us as supporting or unimportant players. Ken's role in that seemed to be only
to protect or propel George.

Thus. those of us who cared about advancing science. or protecting health. felt
impotent. Our morale issues. which George always blamed on Center leadership. were
never going to improve under his leadership.

15. Was it the same throughout your two and a half years?

a.

It's hard to say. It seemed to rev up over time but that could have also been my
heightening awareness. I don't recall anytime that I would describe as 'good' while he
was in charge.

16. Did anyone try to bring these issues to someone's attention?
b. A few did. Deneise. as I recall. tried moving complaints up her Union chains. Jane. our

c.

former project officer. said she spoke quite frequently with our then Division Director
about these issues over lunch. Additionally. the former Program evaluator. for whom I
took over. let me know she had sent that Division Director an email from Ken Archer
which mocked her (the evaluator's) mental health. I was also aware of oneroff
complaints made to the then Division Deputy by former staff. I had always hoped the
former or current staff complaints would do something but they never materialized into
consequences for George or Ken that I could see.

The start of this investigation last year was the first complaint process with which I was
involved.

I should add that. as a general observation. George's most egregious behavior targeted
those with the least institutional power 7 fellows. contractors. interns. And we were all
aware that George had a particularly favorable reputation outside of the Program so
there was always the "who would believe us?" fear. We thought. and some of us still do
think. that coming forward would be career suicide. As of today. a number of employees
have left the Program or CDC because of George and the continued stress of going up
against him.

17. Do you remember a study that was done by It was an audit that was done right before
you came.

 
Wfighlway Consulting
2451 Cumberland Parkway. Suite 3577
(770) am 7937 mm


Al.

WrightWay Consulting, Inc.

a. I'm aware of the report that came from it. I wasn't with the Program at the time of the
study.

18. What do you remember the recommendations were?

a. only recall one recommendation because it was echoed a great many times by Jane and
our grantees: that our Program needed to provide more guidance and support around
Communications.

19. Do you have it associated with the Vale work?

a. No.

20. Were your conversations with Katie about the Vale project mostly verbal and between just the
two of you?

a. Ves.

21. Vpu said George was never in those conversations. but you were copied on emails.

a. I think was copied on one or two emails. but for the most part. I remember she would
show me what she sent him and whatever response he provided. though he often did
not respond.

22. Vpu also mentioned there were inappropriate comments made to you or others.

a. Ves. oftentimes about women or alcohol.

b. The specific things that happened to me or were witnessed by me included George lying
about somethingl said to negatively impact a project and working relationship with a
colleague (see zipped file fostering a fratrlike culture with male colleagues.
leading me to believe I would be hired on as a Title 42 (see zipped file "hiring") and
neglecting to include me in emails that prevented me from moderating a session at
APHA (see zipped file 

c. The names of the people that I think should be part of this investigation are-

Note: The referenced files are in the appendix.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the information have provided is true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge. information and belief.

Signature:

Date:

Interview conducted by Adena Wright Williams

 
Wrigmway consuliirg
2451 Cumberland Parkway. Suite 3577
1770) 7937. com