Last week, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ordered the National Park Service to reinstate whistleblower Teresa Chambers as Chief of the U.S. Park Police, as well as to reimburse her for back pay and legal costs. Her case garnered national attention when she was removed by the Bush administration in 2004 after telling the Washington Post that "traffic accidents had increased along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway because two, rather than the recommended four, officers were on patrol," as well as that more officers were needed to safeguard the country's national monuments and memorials. The fifty-three page ruling by the MSPB is a tremendous victory, and is precedent-setting for other federal employee whistleblowers. From the Washington Post:
The case also sends an important message that legal safeguards apply to top officials who expose problems, not just to middle- and low-ranking ones.However, Chambers' ultimate victory does not eclipse the struggles faced during her seven-year legal battle. Chambers and her husband engaged in an all-out campaign -- often working 18-20 hours a day (see video below) -- to build a case, with the aid of public interest lawyers and a web of public support. The case suggests that success resulted not only from the slivers of protections afforded under the Whistleblower Protection Act, but also from the Chambers’ own determination, hard work, and network of advocates. Yet, many whistleblowers are unable to dedicate such time and money to their cases, and thus, fall through the cracks.
Three months ago, journalist Michael Isikoff noted the disturbing "Double Standard" in White House Leak Inquiries. But now it's not just the Executive Branch. Josh Gerstein of Politico just published an article on how a judge ruled that the Justice Department can keep secret names of its own lawyers who leak classified information.
It is indisputable that the Obama, via the Holder Justice Department, has brought more "leak" prosecutions than any presidential Administration, ever.
To add hypocrisy to the injury of selective and malicious prosecutions of Shamai Liebowitz, Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, and Jeffrey Sterling -- the Justice Department's own attorneys are immune from the "war on leaks."
U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney ruled last week that the Justice Department does not have to disclose the identities of two lawyers who were found by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to have intentionally disclosed classified information to the media in 1996.
This is rank hypocrisy and the putrid stench is overwhelming.
Read more »
The strength of government's unyielding animus toward whistleblowers is no more evident than in the latest statements from disgraced prosecutor William Welch, who is "redeeming" himself amidst prosecutorial misconduct allegations stemming from the botched case against late-senator Ted Stevens by prosecuting whistleblowers like Thomas Drake under the Espionage Act.
Politico reported Welch's latest swill filed in the case against ex-CIA official Jeffery Sterling:
"The defendant’s unauthorized disclosures...may be viewed as more pernicious than the typical espionage case where a spy sells classified information for money,"
In other words, disclosing information of public interest to the public is worse the selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy. The idea that whistleblowers are somehow more dangerous than spies is both laughable in its absurdity and tragic as it represents the level of vindictiveness the government harbors against whistleblowers.
Read more »
 Dear GAP Supporters:
As you know, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) -- a critical reform that would have provided real, solid protections to federal employees who wish to speak out about wrongdoing, corruption, and fraud that they witness -- was killed by an anonymous "secret hold" by a lone senator on the final day of the last session of Congress. This action came just a few weeks after the Senate passed a stronger version of the legislation by unanimous consent -- making this action particularly underhanded.
Senators are in the middle of debating rule changes to specifically end this type of cowardly action. In the meantime, however, GAP is working in conjunction with the NPR show On The Media to identify which senator placed this hold. This will bring needed public attention to the issue -- with the hopes of passing this crucial legislation as soon as possible.
Click here to help GAP and On The Media identify the culpable senator!
On The Media is asking its listeners, and GAP is asking our supporters to contact their respective senator's offices and ask them if they were the party who wrongfully killed this paramount legislation. Then, however senators may answer, you can report your correspondence to On The Media at blowthewhistle@wnyc.org and their site will post the information. With your help, we can blow the whistle on the senator that refused protections to government whistleblowers.
Click here to help GAP and On The Media identify the culpable senator!
Dylan Blaylock is Communications Director for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
Read more »
Today, GAP is praising a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruling last week that reverses a far-reaching November 2009 decision exempting national security positions from protections under the civil service merit system. (Conyers v. Dep’t Defense, 2010 MSPB 2047, December 22, 2010)
What a difference a year makes! The new Board acted decisively to restore civilian merit system control of the federal civil service. It reversed a disastrous 2009 decision expanding a narrow 1988 Supreme Court merit system exception on security clearances for access classified information, into the right to exempt any national security job. Many of the jobs do not require clearances, and many government offices label all positions as national security jobs. Ironically, the Board gave the merit system back to federal employees on December 22 -- the same day an anonymous Senator’s hold killed S. 372, legislation to restore whistleblower rights.
The original, narrower restriction came from a 1988 Supreme Court decision barring merit system review of judgment calls on security clearance decisions for access to classified information (Egan v. Dep’t Navy, 484 U.S. 518, 1988). In a disastrous legacy precedent -- Crumpler v. Department of Defense, 113 MSPR 94, 2009 -- outgoing MSPB Chairman Neil McPhie’s final decision created an open-ended loophole permitting agencies to cancel MSPB review of potentially any federal job by designating it “sensitive” – a non-reviewable, vague national security category for any job that “could enable its occupant to bring about a material adverse effect on national security.” Such an employee would be limited to internal review, where agencies act as the judges of their own alleged misconduct.
Read more »
Protections Cover Workers in Industries Regulated by FDA;
GAP Calls for Similar Rights for Federal Workers to be Passed
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) is praising Congress for passing the most comprehensive whistleblower protections for food industry workers in history. A provision in the Food Safety Modernization Act, passed today by the House and expected to be signed by President Obama, provides sweeping protections for corporate employees who report any food violations enforced by the FDA. "These whistleblower protection provisions are a monumental change in public health protection, and a huge win for food safety," said GAP Food Integrity Campaign (FIC) Director Amanda Hitt. "Whistleblower rights don’t get any stronger than this. Without a doubt, these protections will allow more workers to come forward before outbreaks, which will save lives and enhance food integrity. Lawmakers who made this happen should be commended for standing up for public health."
The protections only extend to corporate workers who report violations of FDA regulations -- not to violations of USDA regulations, which cover the meat and poultry industries. On this point, GAP Legal Director Tom Devine added: “There is no rational excuse to protect corporate workers challenging violations of FDA food safety laws while allowing them to keep getting fired at will for defending USDA food safety laws.”
Read more »
We’re at the crossroads of a breakthrough for free speech rights; however, there has been a divergent campaign in the 11 th hour. Today, Ms. Julia Davis wrote an article titled “Kill the Bill” – referring to S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Curiously, days earlier this same author joined a letter by whistleblowers that supports S. 372. In the Examiner, Davis writes, “Proponents of the corrections for the bill argue that unless the bill is fixed before it’s signed into law, whistleblowers rights will be catapulted backwards into the dark ages.”
The aforementioned statement, unaddressed, is dangerously misleading for anybody unfamiliar with the current state of federal whistleblower protections, because whistleblowers do not have viable rights under current law.
A few examples of how the Whistleblower Protection Act has been gutted over the years through judicial activism may help put Davis’ statement into context. Currently, you are not eligible for federal whistleblower protection if:
- you are not the first person who discloses given misconduct;
- you make a disclosure to your co-worker;
- you make a disclosure to your supervisor;
- you disclose the consequences of a policy decision;
- and the kicker: if you blow the whistle while carrying out your job duties.
|
|
