a?

Discussion with Dan Weissburg (DW) and AJ Mundt on Dec 17. (201%) f2?; ff

Started off with DW angrily saying that keep raising the bar and taking issues up at higher
levels, and it?s creating a lot of of 

?You?ve gotten Judy Bruner involved and now 

"Did you call UCOP, you call I answered no since I didn?t call, had used
the online service with UCOP one day earlier, on December 16, 2018.

?you didn?t call 

DW says, lot of smoke coming from multiple different it in a tone as if to
imply there must be a 

When I asked why my audit report was delayed, he admonished me for yelling at Dave 
advised you it doesn?t make sense to upset and yell at the chair of the audit 

responded with ?DaVe Meier and his staff called my colleagues in other states and told
them ?this is a Confidential call from the University of California, San Diego we are
?investigating? Dr. Murphy, please do not discuss with i sent Dave Meier an email to
stop this harassment of me and my colleagues, stating it was damaging my reputation, and

the complaint against me, he wouldn
executive level management at UCSD I asked ?who he said he could not tell
me, and that their complaint would be protected by the CA whistleblower 

DW then told me David Meier had ?every right to perform that audit in this manner, given the
degree or severity of the i said, ?i have gotten two other lawyers opinions that
that?s not the case, and you have no right to intentionally damage my reputation, and conduct
an external audit before conducting an internal ?l also have not been "afforded any due
process, or been given the benefit of doubt?, I said. (To this day, I do not know the reason or
nature of the audit, no documents, updates, emails, outcomes, a single piece of paper
or report since the audit began in August 2018).

DW warned me since I have chosen to take this issue to higher levels, that other, more serious
committees would now need to get involved, and review my case (naming all potential high
level University individuals who would be present, in an attempt to intimidate me), and that the
resolution from these meetings might include a few options, such as ?maybe you?re just too
much of a hassle, and this may not work out for you to stay here at Also said you
might choose it?s too much hassle for you and you want to 

DW warned me against signing a MSP contract, ?saying you have more rights as a faculty?. ?I?m
not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but i would not go to MSP until this is all 
(this is a bit oftrap that we should discuss Ries told me days earlier, that going MSP
removes my conflict of at this point in the call, DW realized was not backing
down and he was trying to make a veiled attempt to ?be on my DW says for one, am

really impressed and excited by the research you are doing, l?m one of your biggest 
(yes, he actually said those exact 

DW then asked me again, to not call anyone else in the administration or to file any more
complaints, as this was just making matters worse. He then described, in an intimidating
fashion, what was going to happen now ifl kept raising ?these issues at higher levels?. That
there would now need to be a series of other ?high level meetings?, and he named who would
be attending (Le. the CEO Patty Maysent, Vice Chancellor Andy Ries, Dean Brenner, 

I said i didn?t think it was right for him to tell AJ that he should not sign my software waiver (in a
previous conversation, complained to DW that the general counsel Kim Gillespie was not
returning my calls. DW told me that he told her to not contact me until he did first and that
he (DW) had directed Kim Gillespie to not respond to my has not followed up with me
since). i complained that Judy Bruner has never followed up either since my contact with her in
early November 

I asked AJ and DW to describe what my conflict of commitment actually said he didn?t
know didn?t understand it, but was told that ?ifl went MSP, the conflict goes DW
argued that the conflict of commitment can be monetary or include time said ?i perform
almost 10k eru?s and that UCSD is a merit and activity based compensation plan? (total
wrvu), so where?s the conflict?. I said, ?we spent 4 in person meetings earlier this year with you
(DW) and your staff, in your office Dan, and we mutually agreed to a have been
performing exactly as we agreed DW interrupts, no no, a lot of things have changed since
said, like DW had no said, ?i am also paid 200k of my salary (50%
of my base full time salary) out of my research fund to allow me more research days and travel.
'He basically stated that the audit will determine ifl am out of compliance, and we have to ?be
patient, and wait? DW said he ?pings Dave Meier?s office every few weeks to get an update,
and we should be hearing any day have not heard from David Meier?s office since).

interjects that he sees ?no reason not to sign the MSP contract that he supplied me a few
days earlier?, to be effective January 1, sent AJ an email after receiving the contract,
outlining 10 questions re the IVISP contract. I said that did not want to go MSP, then find out
that I cannot perform my research as would be ?going part?time to allow me time
to oversee the research and direct the UCSD Center for Neuromodulation that founded, but I
would not be the Pi on any of the trials, so I don?t see where the conflict 

l-asked AJ again why he hasn?t signed my software waiver with tech transfer, and DW said 
instructed AJ to not sign it until the audit is over? I stated ?our department can show that there
is no evidence that departmental or UCSD resources were used to create our (PeakLogic)
I also stated that ?tech transfer has told both me and my attorney, Mike
Kinkelaar, that the software declarations I submitted are in?line with receiving a waiver claim by
why not sign DW just repeated that it will not be signed until after the

audit I complained that this audit has gone on too long, i was told 6?8 weeks when they

started the audit in August this point, we were into our fifth said, have a
right to know what is going?, but have continued to receive no information to this 

I then asked DW twice, to tell mewriting his own plan, discussed and
agreed to at one of our 4 compliance meetings, for a kind-for?kind exchange for two pieces of
research equipment that were currently this information help the auditors,
The phone went completely silent for 5-6 No answer. i said ?my attorney
and have asked you verbally and in writing for this document from you, and you have not
no answer was given, and DW changed the 

DW again reinforced that it was essentially ?my fault that pissed of the chair of the audit
committee (Dave Meier), so now I have to deal with the consequences.?

DW asked me again, to ?not contact any more people at the University, and to lay low and wait
til next year to allow time for the audit to complete. ?are we all in agreeance that we can let
this go til next year, DW 

DW then summarized the call "so it sounds like you are telling me that we, UCSD, are
not good at helping nurture innovators like yourself, and that our bureaucracy has created a
difficult environment for you to carry out your that correct, said, "ahh
yes, you could say that?

He then brought up that there are a few possible outcomes and that ?we have live by the rules
of the State of stated again that possible outcomes could be just leave and
go to Duke or Rady?s, or the committees might decide that I?m just too much of a hassle, and
recommend separation.? (funny there was no outcome that they were just wrong and found
nothing substantial in the audit, would apologize, and allow me to actually use the gift fund per
the donor?s