Whistleblower Protection Blog : Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund : Whistleblower Protection, Fraud Claims : Washington DC

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports today that county legislators for Monroe County, New York, have proposed new whistleblower protections. The article says that Monroe County was rocked this year by a contracting scandal in which eight employees of one contractor have already pled guilty to petty larceny. A supervisor in the county's environmental services department and five other employees of the contractor were also arrested. Democrats proposed this Summer that the County's whistleblower protection be enhanced.  A Republican  leader refused to assign that proposal to a committee, but is now propomoting a Republican draft to strengthen county law for whistleblowers.  I have asked county officials to provide me with both proposals so I can compare them to the National Whistleblowers Center model legislation. The new Republican proposal is still at the county attorney's office for drafting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Transparency International (TI) today released its 2009 Global Corruption Report: Corruption and the Private Sector (GCR). TI finds that one out of five business executives report that they received a solicitation for a bribe.  An equal number report that they lost business due to a competitor paying a bribe.

 

I like to read the GCR together with the Price Waterhouse study reported here in 2008.  It found that the most effective way to uncover corruption is through whistleblowers.  The logical conclusion is that we need effective legal protections and rewards for whistleblowers, both here and in other countries.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 14, 2009, the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague ordered Florence Hartmann to pay a fine of 7,000 Euros for violating the court's confidentiality pledge.

Florence Hartmann, a former journalist for the French Daily Le Monde, was a spokeswoman for the ICTY from 2000 to 2006. After she left her position as a spokeswoman for the former chief war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte in 2006, she wrote a book – Peace and Punishment: The Secret Wars of Politics and International Justice and several articles in Paris Match magazine. In her book and articles, she revealed “the ICTY had decided in secret not to disclose information that could have proved a link between Belgrade and war crimes committed in Bosnia – most notably massacre of up to 8,000 Muslim men and boys at the Bosnian village of Srebrenica in 1995.” During the war crimes case against former President Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian government had submitted the document to the court on the condition of secrecy. Upon Milosevic’s death in March of 2006, the trial ended – without a verdict. The original documents have been not published yet (BBC News, 2009).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael D. Kohn, President of the National Whistleblowers Center, is attending the Anti-Corruption and Transparency Symposium this week in Seoul, South Korea. According to an article in today's The Korea Times, the symposium is co-hosted by Korea's Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) and the APEC Secretariat. It is called, ``Systematic Approach to Building Anti-Corruption Capacity,'' 

Michael Kohn is speaking on the importance of protecting whistleblowers to encourage them to come forward with information about corrupt activities in government and business. Other photos of the event, including photos of the food served there, are available from a Korean language blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

San Francisco attorney Cliff Palefsky testified on Tuesday about the need for legislation to protect workers from losing their right to trial by jury through employer-imposed pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements.  Palefsky testified to the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of the

National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA)

, and a copy of his testimony is now available. The Committee is currently considering the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, HR 1020, which would prohibit employer-imposed arbitration agreements from having any effect on employment discrimination and retaliation claims that arise after the agreement is signed.  Too many whistleblowers have lost their right to a trial by jury because of employer policies that require employees to sign away this right as a condition of employment.  Hopefully, Congressional action passing this bill will restore the right to trial by jury for whistleblowers and for all of America's working men and women.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC), is in Montenegro this week calling for enactment of whistleblower protections as a key component of transparency.

Kohn is traveling to Montenegro under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State. Today, the on-line journal Vijesti is running an article in Croatian about Kohn's visit to Podgorica, Montenegro's capital.

According to the Vijesti article, Kohn is saying that efforts to expose corruption in government and in businesses depend on protecting whistleblowers. A translation of the Vijesti article is available in the continuation of this blog entry.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 29, 2009 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously reported out of committee S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.  Unfortunately, this bill contains many significant differences from the House Bill (H.R. 1507), which the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) fully supports.  

This post is the twelfth in a series of twelve, examining specific weaknesses in the Senate Bill. Each installment examines a crucial issue of whistleblower rights compromised by the Senate’s version of the bill.

XII: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WHITE HOUSE?

I had the “honor” of being involved in the initial discussion process with the White House and reviewing the proposals circulated by the White House.  I could spend the rest of this blog venting my frustration over what did and did not happen as a result of that process, but I won’t.

The bottom line is that President Obama did promise, on numerous occasions, to support whistleblowers.  He did specifically endorse the framework for protection set forth in the House bill.
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 29, 2009 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously reported out of committee S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.  Unfortunately, this bill contains many significant differences from the House Bill (H.R. 1507), which the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) fully supports.  

This post is the eleventh in a series of twelve, examining specific weaknesses in the Senate Bill. Each installment examines a crucial issue of whistleblower rights compromised by the Senate’s version of the bill.

XI: IS FILING A NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWER CASE UNDER S. 372 MALPRACTICE PER SE?

In the posts 9 and 10, we set forth some of the deficiencies in the national security whistleblower section of S. 372.  We explained how it is basically impossible for a whistleblower to win under the current Senate language.

Simply wasting many years and thousands of dollars in a new bureaucracy that Franz Kafka would have marveled at is not enough unto itself to say that filing a claim under the Senate provisions would constitute legal malpractice.  However, Title II of S. 372 is not so benign.  It is a retaliators fantasy.  It creates a process, which permits the agency to completely discredit an employee and destroy their career in law enforcement and intelligence forever.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At a Labor Day rally held yesterday in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Barack Obama told the story about his visit to Greenwood, South Carolina in the presidential primary campaign. Not realizing the remote location of Greenwood, President Obama agreed to visit that small southern town in exchange for the primary endorsement of a South Carolina state legislator.

Having forgotten about his promise, on his next trip to South Carolina Mr. Obama was tapped on the shoulder by a campaign staffer who informed the Senator that he needed to wake up early the next morning.  

Mr. Obama asked why?  “Because you need to be in the car at 6:30am so we can go to Greenwood like you promised,” the staffer replied.

Upon arriving at Greenwood, the future president was disappointed by the size of the small crowd of about 20 people, but that small crowd proved to be a turning point in his campaign when Mr. Obama was greeted by a Greenwood city council member, who started chanting, “Fired, Up? Ready to Go!”   
By keeping a promise, Mr. Obama by happenstance found his voice in the primaries and his campaign was re-energized all the way to the White House after adopting that chant.

It is now time for Mr. Obama to keep another promise he made during the campaign. 

In May of 2007, Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign promised America's whistleblowers in writing that he stood behind their need for legal protection and fully supported federal court access and jury trials for all federal employees.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you may know, Army Corp of Engineers whistleblower Bunny Greenhouse has been actively involved in the fight for stronger whistleblower protection.  She has often said that she is only trying to allow the truth to be spoken.  Studies have proven that the best way to discover the truth is to encourage employees to blow the whistle and protect them from retaliation.

Ms. Greenhouse, concerned about the provisions included in the Senate bill, wrote a letter urging the Senate and the White House to “stop paying lip service to strong whistleblower protection for federal employees.”  She stated that despite all the retaliation she suffered as a result of blowing the whistle on the no-bid contract to Halliburton she would still not be able to tell her story to a jury of her peers.  Ms. Greenhouse explained that most federal employee would also be denied court access under the current Senate bill.

Her letter featured on the front-page of today’s Washington Times has sparked a debate over the true effectiveness of the Senate jury trial provision.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 
On July 29, 2009 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously reported out of committee S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.  Unfortunately, this bill contains many significant differences from the House Bill (H.R. 1507), which the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) fully supports.  

This post is the tenth in a series of twelve, examining specific weaknesses in the Senate Bill. Each installment examines a crucial issue of whistleblower rights compromised by the Senate’s version of the bill.

X: IF IN DOUBT – THROW OUT THE CASE!

Buried at the very end of the national security whistleblower section of S. 372 is a grant of unprecedented power to the directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and every other intelligence agency.  

These directors are authorized to have any whistleblower case summarily dismissed, with no administrative or judicial review. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 29, 2009 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously reported out of committee S. 372, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.  Unfortunately, this bill contains many significant differences from the House Bill (H.R. 1507), which the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) fully supports.  

This post is the ninth in a series of twelve, examining specific weaknesses in the Senate Bill. Each installment examines a crucial issue of whistleblower rights compromised by the Senate’s version of the bill.

IX: DUE PROCESS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WHISTLEBLOWERS?

The national security whistleblower protection sections of S. 372 are a bad joke.  They completely undermine any semblance of whistleblower rights, and ensure that no national security worker will ever prevail in a disputed whistleblower case.  The language set forth in Title II of S. 372 is disheartening, and should be struck from the law without delay.  

Why is it so bad?

First, there is no court access.  

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link