Federal Times - Critics Can’t Refute OSC’s Record of Success
October 9, 2007
Editor's Note: This op-ed was sent and published by the Federal Times in response to a previous editorial written by GAP Legal Director Tom Devine and GAP Legislative Representative Adam Miles. For the original op-ed, click here.
by Scott Bloch
The op-ed piece by Tom Devine and Adam Miles [“Special counsel should resign or be removed,” Sept. 17] was an unfounded attack on the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and deserves rebuttal. Their cherry-picked statistics and self-serving analysis are at the expense of whistleblowers. They are entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
Productivity of OSC remains high, largely through the case management changes I implemented, eliminating large case backlogs I inherited and doubling positive findings on whistleblower disclosures each year. We continue to slash processing times and produce great results, substantiating compromise of federal air marshal anonymity, improper assembly of electrical supply unit for Navy F/A-18 aircraft, requiring an investigation into a continuing cover-up of air traffic controller errors, correcting improper Customs Service inspections, and reversing wrongful withholding of returning service members’ jobs. Check our “successful case summaries” at www.osc.gov to see the relief obtained for many aggrieved federal complainants.
We often work with the Government Accountability Project and other advocacy groups for whistleblowers, and frequently they praise our efforts in substantiating their clients’ cases. In fact, on the cases set forth above, GAP represents some of the whistleblowers. GAP has nothing negative to say about the Special Counsel in those cases where GAP stands to collect legal fees, partly through the efforts of OSC. Is there a gap in the criticism here? When it suits them, they are quoted as saying OSC’s opinion on whistleblower disclosures is “the gold standard” as Devine said last year in The New York Times. They do have bias and economic interest, in that they collect a substantial portion of their income from representing whistleblowers in legal proceedings. We act in the public interest based on law and fact, but outside advocacy groups can do what they want with impunity. We don’t blame employees for expressing dissatisfaction, but we expect lawyers and advocacy groups that hold themselves out as acting in the public interest to be more honest and responsible.
GAP and Devine signed onto a complaint against me and OSC two years ago that is the subject of a two-year investigation by an inspector general. It is an attack on OSC, my policies, my prosecutorial and management discretion. The heart of the complaint is a disagreement with my insisting that we pursue claims of sexual orientation discrimination according to the requirements of our statute, and not as they wish me to. In that complaint, I am accused of politicizing the Hatch Act by not bringing actions against Republicans and being a “Bush crony.” Now they say I’m politicizing it against Republicans. Apparently, OSC’s record of disciplinary actions against Republican, Democratic and Green Party violators gets in the way of their shrill narrative. I am statutorily independent and do not curry favor with any party.
We are conducting expanded investigations of possible Hatch Act violations stemming from presentations by the White House Office of Political Affairs to political appointees across the Executive Branch, because OSC has exclusive jurisdiction over the Hatch Act — no one else can enforce it. These were based on complaints filed with our office. In light of our findings on the General Services Administration administrator, if we had not expanded our investigations, we would rightly be accused of dereliction of our duty to enforce the Hatch Act. This is another unfair attack on the ethical and professional OSC career staff members who are pursuing these matters and making findings of fact.
The authors repeat the allegations of a former OSC employee they see as a “poster child for what has gone wrong.” This is telling for them to bring up this case as it is in litigation. It would be more accurate if they would honestly reflect how badly these allegations have fared in the justice system so far. They stand to profit if they win the next round of litigation they filed against our office. Exaggeration is in their interest, where OSC’s charge is to act in the public interest and of whistleblowers when the evidence is there.
Scott J. Bloch was appointed by President Bush in 2003 to a five-year term as head of the Office of Special Counsel.
|
