Xacc 280 Week 1 Reflection

As a resource, Ms. Pancake had proposed to micro manage my efforts to ensure the conceptual understanding of my responsibilities and I agreed. We had arranged to do so on Wednesday, December 7 as it would be less strenuous on her time schedule. This was to give her the opportunity to complete her required closing processes, while demonstrating to them that I was competent with my allotted tasks by completing them in the time requested. She and Mr. Rackers had accepted my proposal. As the day came, she was resolving an issue from the previous accounting week, and was speaking with Mr. Whittaker about invoicing. After speaking with him, she had walked back to office, but stopped by my cubicle to check my progress. The conversation went
as follows:
Ms. Pancake: Jason. How are you doing over here?
Me: I'm fine other than the problem I had earlier that you already know about (there was an issue with an incorrect entry on behalf of a graduate student that impeded the completion of a particular unit, the Dining Commons).
Ms. Pancake: Well, I don't have much time to sit with you, but would you still like for me to?
Me: Actually, I think that I'm alright with everything, but you can sit with me just to make sure if you want.
Ms. Pancake: Well, if you say that you understand it then, I'll finish what I was doing.
In my opinion, this was an incorrect action if she truly disagreed with my productivity. The opportunity was presented for her to micro manage me as previously agreed, and/or share any advice that would be beneficial to the desired outcome that I had failed to achieve. Instead, she had chose to condone my actions with feign decorum in an attempt to fulfill her obligation. Had it been sincere, she would've requested a later date to micro manage if it was deemed necessary.

On Monday, December 12, I was completing the tasks with serious issues with balancing.
The Odyssey Reports were not balancing the totals in the spreadsheet. Some of it was a brainless blunder of looking at the wrong date for the requested information (mental fatigue), the rest of it was legitimate miscues shown on the report. For the most part, I tried to resolve the issue with no assistance until I could make no further progress. As a result, the process consumed the entire day, and I was summoned to meet with Ms. Pancake and Mr. Rackers with an explanation. After explaining to them the issues, I had requested for them to evaluate my performance on the following day to determine if it was a legitimate case of poor
aptitude.

The following day, Tuesday, December 13, I had reconciled the previous day's issues, and completed the tasks at approximately 11:45 am thus, meeting the requested time which had been communicated via e-mail.
After which, this practice along with verbal confirmation became a standards when completing this task in the attempt to ask for more work. There were no further issues to speak of in regards to this as the e-mail gave a time signature for its completion with an exception to Friday when the entire process is scheduled to be completed by 10 am to expedite the closing process. During the close of the semester, the workload had decreased substantially, and consequently, the daily tasks were completed within an hour span, at most.
On Friday, December 30, Mr. Rackers and I had briefly spoken about his desired task time completion in his office. He had explained to me that it was acceptable to continue and complete my task at my reported time while justifying the reasons for it to be a joint project on Fridays. However, Ms. Pancake had said the exact opposite in regards to my work performance in the termination letter. While explaining this, she had explained to me that she had created a log of the completion time. After refuting the false accusation, I had requested to view the logs in which she spoke of with neither response or
action.