In "Charging WikiLeaks," Washington Post misses a better alternative

In yesterday's Washington Post, an editorial called "Charging WikiLeaks" urges the Obama administration to refrain from pressing criminal charges against WikiLeaks leaders for releasing classified State Department cables. "Media outlets do not have a legal duty to abide by the government's secrecy demands," the editorial declares. What should the government do? At the end of the editorial, the Post editors suggest, "[s]horing up the independence and tools of the inspectors general . . . might persuade the next would-be whistleblower to tern to a responsive . . . government entity . . ..." Does the Post really think that would-be whistleblowers don't have the address of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? My experience is that inspectors generals are good at taking action against corruption that the leadership does not want.  If it is the leadership that is corrupt, then the inspector general they pick is unlikely to take action against them.  My hunch is that most would-be whistleblowers would figure that out. How about meaningful legal protections against retaliation? The current version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) in the Senate (S. 372) would leave national security whistleblowers stuck with the decisions of the leaders of the intelligence agencies.  That is likely to be worse that the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) which rules against whistleblowers over 98% of the time. The House version (HR 1507) would allow all federal employees to have access to jury trials.  Even the employees of national security agencies have access to jury trials for Title VII claims of discrimination. The legal system has figured out how to permit these claims to be tried without damaging national security. It is time we use this process to enhance national security by making sure that whistleblowers have the gold standard of justice when they pursue the lawful means of raising concerns about abuses.

Neon Tommy considers plight of national security whistleblowers

Student Paresh Dave of the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California (USC) has written an incisive story about how national security whistleblowers can protect themselves while blowing the whistle on misconduct by government officials. Dave's story is called, "Whistleblowers Have Some Protection, If They Leak To The Right People." He notes that the government is currently investigating detained Specialist Bradley Manning to see if he could be the source for the WikiLeaks.org release of 91,000 classified State Department cables. Dave spoke with me about my prior blog post about how Manning might have protected himself if he had consulted a lawyer before blowing the whistle on the unnecessary civilian casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If he had learned about the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034, he could have made his disclosures to members of Congress and preserved a legal defense to the impending charges.

Dave's article is clear about the shortcomings of the whistleblower protections for military and federal civilian employees. Congress has created a patchwork of whistleblower protections that give employees in certain private industry sectors, and certain state and local government employees protection from retaliation through private causes of action. It has not done so for military personnel, and the federal civilian employees are shunted to the disappointing Merit System Protection Board.

Dave's article also mentions a mark-up that had been scheduled for yesterday in the House Committee for Oversight and Government Reform on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, HR 1507.  That mark-up was canceled on short notice. The prospects for passing meaningful improvements in whistleblower protections for federal employees are now dimmer.

Whistleblower Bobby Maxwell tells CNN about slipshod MMS inspections

Last month, CNN's Special Investigations Unit released a story about Bobby Maxwell's experience as an inspector for the U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS). Deepwater Horizon explosionThe main point of the story is how MMS was infused with a "culture of corruption," and its slipshod inspections missed opportunities to prevent the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The story also mentions that Maxwell is in the fifth year of a whistleblower lawsuit against Kerr-McGee. In that case, Maxwell won a $7.5 million dollar verdict against Kerr-McGee. After a judge threw out the verdict, he appealed. In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed that Maxwell had a right to pursue his fraud case and reinstated the verdict. No doubt, Maxwell's status as a wistleblower, especially a whistleblower who has won his case, empowered him to speak out about the dangers of MMS' alignment with the oil companies instead of with the environment.  No doubt, Maxwell raised his concerns years ago, but no one was listening until 11 workers lost their lives and the ecology of the Gulf of Mexico was ruined by this disaster. Maxell's story makes obvious how we would all benefit from giving our federal employees strong whistleblower protections. To me, this is the reason why our Senators must scrap the poison pills in their current version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372, and adopt the strong House version, HR 1507. Follow this link for more information about helping environmental whistleblowers.

Fred Whitehurst speaks on BP, the FBI and the state of our union

I find it amazing when I look over these past seventeen years of having been involved with the National  Whistleblowers Center and the law firm of Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto that we have not moved so much further ahead in this nation with protections for whistleblowers.  In 1992 when I Fred Whitehurstfirst approached the law firm of Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto to represent me in my attempts to address the problems at the FBI crime lab, we were a nation in denial.  Whistleblowers had a history of being dealt with brutally.  And today the same brutality is evident in every whistleblower case the law firm and the NWC handles.  Today I look at the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as countless lives and resources are destroyed and know that somewhere in that group of people who brought this disaster on our nation, there were potential whistleblowers who said to themselves that the risks of blowing the whistle on BP malpractices were just not worth the dangers to themselves and their families.  After all, this nation cares little for the rights and protections of individuals who would proactively stop such disasters.  This lack of concern is reflected in the actions of our Congressmen and Senators, some of whom have labored hard and diligently to establish whistleblower protections while most ignore obvious safeguards for our nation, our citizens and our natural resources.  If we do not wake up in the face of this, the worst environmental disaster in history created by lax standards by the British Petroleum Corporation, then we deserve what we get. 
 
In our recent attempts to strengthen whistleblower protections we have even faced almost insurmountable barriers to whistleblower protections from President Obama's staff, in fact efforts to thoroughly gut whistleblower protections by that very staff.  Present Barack Obama cannot be so blind as to believe that gutting whistleblower protections will do anything but lead to repeats in other forms of the BP environmental disaster we see going on now.  And yet, as a nation, we maintain a society where individuals who would expose serious dangers to this nation are treated as criminals. 
 
These many years later, I remain confused and saddened by this state of affairs, by the mistreatment of whistleblowers and the lack of protections for those individuals who would put the safety of this nation above the safety of themselves and their own families. In days gone by, these patriots would have been treated as heroes. Today, they are simply martyrs to lost causes. This is a shame on our nation, on our President and on our Congress.
 
Fred Whitehurst

AFGE local hot for WPEA corrections

Richard Renner, Legal Director for the National Whistleblower Center, spoke today with Local #1812 of the American Federation of Government Employees about the need for improved whistleblower protections for government employees. “The plight of federal employee whistleblowers is that they have fewer protections than employees in the private sector. The present system is broken, and we need to work together to fix it,” Renner explained.

Under current law, federal employees are denied the right to bring their claims of government misconduct in front of a jury. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 forces federal employee whistleblowers to have their cases heard before an administrative agency such as the Merit System Protection Board, where federal employees’ claims are not fairly adjudicated. The National Whistleblower Center supports the HR 1507 version of the the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA). In 2007, House of Representatives passed the WPEA with a large bipartisan majority. It has still not passed the Senate. H.R. 1507 would give every federal employee the right to eventually have their claims heard by a jury.

This blog post was written by intern Kevin Heade.  Photo by intern Phil Shank.

 

The Senate's current version of the WPEA, S. 372, would be a setback for federal employees because of certain “poison pill” provisions. The poison pills in S. 372 include:

  • Repealing the FBI whistleblower protection law.

  • Agency heads of security agencies would be empowered to fire employees with no administrative or judicial review.

  • National security whistleblowers are denied independent review over retaliation cases.

  • A procedural roadblock that could deny any federal employee the opportunity to have a hearing or obtaining a jury trial.

“Our adversaries like to have power and not explain how they use it, while we want to see how the power is used and want to see them held accountable,” Renner told union members, explaining the Senate’s reluctance to pass the House version of the WPEA, HR 1507. “The National Whistleblower Center is a natural ally with unions in our common efforts to protect the rights of employees,” Renner said, emphasizing the utility of The National Whistleblower Center Action Alerts tool. NWC Action Alerts help constituents to impress upon their Congressional representatives the importance of strengthening whistleblower rights for federal employees while not allowing a change in the law to take a step back in worker protections. “The number of members receiving NWC Action Alerts has grown from around 2,000 to over 18,000 in the last four years,” Renner said, “and that number will continue to grow as we partner with unions such as the AFGE to demand that federal employees are guaranteed the rights they deserve.”

Local 1812 members were eager to get sign-up cards for NWC's Action Alert network. As employees of the Voice of America, they share from experience the natural consequences of speaking truth to power. You can join the NWC Action Alerts here.

 

truthout reports WPEA being "hotlined"

The independent journalism website, truthout.org, is reporting that the Senate is set to "hotline" the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372.  Hotlining is a procedure in which the Senate leaders agree that a bill is uncontroversial and they put the measure on the Senate floor to call for passage by unanimous consent.  If no Senator objects, then the measure passes the Senate.

That means it will only take one Senator to block unanimous consent and save current whistleblower rights from the poison pills contained in the Senate's current version of S. 372. These "poison pills" include repealing the current whistleblower protections for FBI employees, allowing the heads of intelligence agencies to fire whistleblowers with no due process at all, allowing intelligence agencies to conduct the fact findings in cases they do allow, and allowing for dismissal of whistleblower cases without a hearing. Follow this link for more information on S. 372. Follow this link to TAKE ACTION to call on your Senator to oppose S. 372 with the poison pills.

The full text of the truthout.org story follows in the continuation of this blog entry.

MONDAY 15 MARCH 2010 Share

 

Hotlined Senate Bill Weakens Whistleblower Protection

Monday 15 March 2010

by: Yana Kunichoff, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: stevendepolo, GrungeTextures)

Changes to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act currently working its way through the Senate would cover up intelligence failures and civil liberties abuses in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by repealing existing protections for FBI whistleblowers and strengthening the state secrets privilege.

The bill is currently being "hotlined" through the Senate, which entails both the Senate majority leader and minority leader agreeing to pass the legislation by unanimous consent without a roll-call vote. This practice is usually used to pass uncontroversial bills and simple procedural motions, but opponents fear it is being used to push through this measure with little or no public debate.

"It's unethical to use an 'enhancement act' as a vehicle for repealing existing whistleblower rights," said Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center, an advocacy organization which aims to protect federal employees who speak out about wrongdoing in the workplace.

Though the hotlining process allows senators to object to the passage of a bill in an alloted amount of time, sometimes as little as 15 minutes following its adoption, advocates believe that the unseen power of the FBI in the nation's legislature will ensure that the bill passes.

If it does, it would effectively remove federal employees working for the FBI from protection under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which specifically protects whistleblowing in the workplace.

Kohn, an attorney who has represented prominent whistleblowers in court, says the provision would mean that FBI employees must prove "gross mismanagement" if they are to speak out on wrongdoing in the workplace, which "would make it very difficult to prove" as most bigger investigations start with a "small mismanagement."

He lays responsibility for the passage of this law with Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. People should know "if it does get hotlined, their senators went along with it," Kohn said.

Neither Senator Lieberman's nor Susan Collins' office responded to requests for comment.

According to a letter signed by well-known national security whistleblowers and advocates, the bill "will become known as the Whistleblower Discouragement Act of 2010 if these provisions related to national security and FBI employees are not fixed. The ability of Inspectors General, Congress and the American public to learn about waste, fraud and abuse in numerous agencies that spend hundreds of billions of dollars will be completely undercut. Intelligence failures that led to incredible blunders both before and after the 9/11 attacks will be hidden from oversight and scrutiny. Although honest federal employees who desire to inform their government officials of mistakes and abuses will be the first victims of S. 372, the real victim will be the American people.”

However, it is not only those who work with the FBI that will be affected by this. "The current version [of the bill] will set whistleblower protections back 30 years for hundreds of thousands of federal employees," the letter went on to say.

The act of whistleblowing and what federal employees have blown the whistle on ranges from Bunnatine Greenhouse standing up against contracts given to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq to Jane Turner uncovering failures in the FBI's protection of child sex crime victims to Joseph Carson speaking out against safety violations at the Department of Energy.

Protections for whistleblowers have also long been a matter of debate - many prominent whistleblowers have cases pending for whether their release of often sensitive information was warranted, and federal employees with lower profiles often suffer intimidation and job discrimination for their pains.

Carson, who has been called a career whistleblower, was denied job duties, told he was an unacceptable employee and had his security clearance threatened with removal, which would have kept him from being able to do his job, for trying to highlight safety problems in his workplace.

He said, however, that the problem goes far beyond whistleblowing and, in focusing on the workforce retaliations which he and countless other suffered, "obscures the forest for the trees."

According to Carson, it is the inherent weakness of the US Office of Special Counsel (OSC), set up to protect the rights of federal employees against employer retribution and other discrimination, which "violates the heart of the federal civil service" and "has been so corrupt it has never really pushed what its powers are to protect federal employees."

The systemic nature of the intimidation, which he and countless other whistleblowing federal employees suffered, has led Carson to turn the fight away from his employers to the OSC itself - he has been involved in a federal legal appeal against the OSC for 18 years. If he wins, he will have the agreement of a federal court that the OSC did not do its duty. If he loses, he plans to take his case to the Supreme Court.

"There is a good news aspect to this in the sense that this is fixable," said Carson. However, until then, "I would have to frankly advise any concerned federal employee, if you can't live with yourself looking the other way, don't."

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
 

Jane Turner speaks out about the WPEA, S. 372

Jane Turner Jane Turnerhad worked as a Special Agent for the FBI for twenty years.  She led efforts to force the FBI to provide protection for child sex crime victims on the North Dakota Indian Reservations. She also reported theft of evidence from the scene of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  In retaliation for exposing FBI failures within its child crime program, Turner was removed from her position. She prevailed in a jury trial that redressed her bad performance reviews. Her whistleblower case is still pending with the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Today Jane Turner spoke with James Corbett of CorbettReport.com.Turner  spoke about the problems with the current Senate version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372. CorbettReport.com provides Open Source Intelligence News. Turner explains how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act allowed her to have a jury trial to challenge her retaliatory performance review. However, a special law for FBI employees provides for a special proceeding at the U.S. Department of Justice for her whistleblower claims. Turner explains how S. 372 would take away the right of FBI agents to make whistleblower complaints like hers. Turner calls on everyone to TAKE ACTION on S. 372 to counter the power of the FBI to block whistleblower rights. The 25-minute interview is available from CorbettReport.com in MP3 format.

Fred Whitehurst and Bill Bransford speak to Federal News Radio about WPEA

FBI whistleblower Fred Whitehurst and an attorney for federal managers, Bill Bransford, spoke with Federal News Radio yesterday. They presented different sides of the argument about the Senate version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372. Whitehurst decried the bill saying it, "returns control of the process back to the very organization that is being exposed, and that's bizarre." Bransford supported the bill saying, "It was a very difficult problem that really was not capable of being fixed legislatively, but we tried. So you had this imperfect law, and, the result of it is, you get some really bad cases that come up before the federal circuit court of appeals . . .." Bransford said that he and the management-side Senior Executive Association (SEA) support S. 372.  I find this curious since Bransford testified last summer to a Senate Committee saying that he opposed letting federal employee whistleblowers bring cases to a jury.  Now he supports S. 372.  I conclude that S. 372 does not provide any meaningful hope that whistleblowers could actually get to a jury.  That is why the managers like it and the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) does not. Federal News Radio is providing MP3 files of its interviews. The NWC is providing an Action Alert page for those who want to express a call for effective protection, not S. 372.

Stephen Kohn speaks with CorbettReport.com on S. 372

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC), spoke today with James Corbett of CorbettReport.com. Kohn spoke about the problems with the current Senate version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), S. 372. CorbettReport.com provide Open Source Intelligence News.  Kohn details ways in which the Senate version of WPEA would actually make it harder for whistleblowers to win protection from and remedies for retaliation. Kohn also explains how it will only take one Senator to block S. 372 from passing with unanimous consent in its present form. The interview is available from CorbettReport.com in MP3 format.

For more information about the problems with S. 372, visit this NWC page.

TAKE ACTION now by asking your Senator to block S. 274 from passing until the poison pills are fixed.

Hundreds rally for airport screeners

Amanda Schroeder, AFGEHundreds of Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) and their allies rallied today in Washington for the right of these federal employees to have union recognition. Union leaders remembered that many union members gave their lives in the rescue efforts on 9/11, took down the shooter at Ft. Hood, and defend our security every day as pilots, flight attendants and law enforcement officers.  Indeed, we would be more secure if TSOs knew they had protection on the job when they raise safety concerns against management.  The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO, has just filed a petition to represent 40,000 TSOs, and is rallying support for HR 1881 to assure these dedicated public servants the freedom of association, speech, and petition for redress of grievances that are guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Pictured here is Amanda Schroeder of AFGE Local 2157 in Portland, Oregon. Some attenders even signed up for the National Whistleblowers Center's Action Alert network to call for passage of HR 1507 and assure all federal employees a right to trials by jury in their whistleblower cases.