All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

FAA Whistleblowers Recognized for Standing Up

The Office of Special Counsel has revealed that many FAA whistleblower cases have revealed correct, vital information regarding public safety, according to an article and video report on CNN.

The sheer amount of FAA whistleblowers that have come forward in recent years means that FAA is a very sick agency, indicated Tom Devine of GAP, going further in stating “There’s never been an agency that’s had that large of a surge of whistle-blowers whose concerns were vindicated by the government’s official whistle-blower protection office.”

The article rightfully focuses on a possible reason why the FAA is so engrained with whistleblowers (indicating systemic corruption) – a “revolving door” of truly heighted proportions exists between the FAA and Department of Transportation employees obtaining high level positions in the airline industry.

Although the heads of the Department of Transportation and the FAA have pledged to listen to FAA employees with concerns, GAP will wait and see if this truly happens, as the FAA has resisted previous call to create an independent office to investigate whistleblowers.

The Death of the WPA

With a ruling by the Merit Systems Protection Board effectively stripping away whistleblower protections, whistleblowers across the country (and GAP) are mourning the death of the Whistleblower Protection Act. (Center for Public Integrity article)

So what happened? Well, the MSPB ruled that when a whistleblower reveals information deemed “sensitive security information,” there are no protections for the whistleblower under the Whistleblower Protection Act. This is even the case when the information was revealed by the whistleblower before the information was classified as “sensitive security information.” This decision came down in a case involving former Air Marshal Robert MacLean, who was fired for revealing that marshals would no longer be required on long-distance flights, which could compromise the security of air passengers.

This decision essentially means that government agencies can view worker protections outlined by the Whistleblower Protection Act to be voluntary guidelines – effectively killing the WPA.

GAP’s Tom Devine put it best (in the Washington Post):

“Until Congress acts, the Whistleblower Protection Act is dead…the MacLean decision means government agencies can fire employees for any disclosure otherwise protected by the WPA. The decision reduces the WPA to a voluntary guideline that agencies can cancel at will by issuing blanket gag regulations."

Not that things weren’t bad for whistleblowers before – of 45 rulings by the administrative court in recent years, it has only backed whistleblowers once, Devine said in an Orange County Register article. Still, this is an official death warrant, and needs to be corrected immediately with the (hopeful) passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.

-- Dylan Blaylock

World Bank Discrimination Needs More Attention

In additional coverage of GAP’s report on World Bank discrimination, one reporter from the Examiner asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the report. But Gibbs stated that he hadn’t read the report, and denied comment.

As the White House neglects to consider this seemingly obvious discrimination, the situation isn’t getting any better. GAPs Bea Edwards notes that many private companies award bonuses, for example, to directors whose departments meet diversity targets. The World bank does not, and unfortunately, there’s no reason to expect it to do so anytime soon.

Fenty Administration Deletes Public Records despite Public Outcry

In yet another case of a serious lack of government accountability, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty’s administration has been deleting government e-mails every two months despite public protests from interest groups and the D.C. Council, according to an article in the Washington Examiner. Fenty originally proposed the deletion policy and heard outcry for a couple of months, and the D.C. Council began to draft legislation prohibiting the mayor from deleting public records. Despite withdrawing his plan, the destruction of these e-mails continued to occur. This practice, especially after the response it generated, should not have been undertaken. Accountability within this administration should be a higher priority.

WWYW Episode 15 - Accountability at the D.C. Fire Department

This is the page to leave comments about Episode 15 of Whistle Where You Work, GAP’s television program. To view the show online, visit www.whistleblowertv.org. Here’s a description of the program:

Captain Vanessa Coleman is a whistleblower who has been steadily retaliated against since being singled out and made a scapegoat for the Mt. Pleasant apartment fire last year that displaced 200 people. However, as public audio recordings from the fire department show, Coleman was clearly not at fault in any way for the fire or its spreading. Theresa Cusick was General Counsel for the Department, and was transferred to a non-legal position after speaking out about unfair practices intended to cover up a botched investigation. Gerald Pennington was an arson investigator who exposed that the Eastern Market fire investigation was botched by inexperienced investigators, which was then covered up by the top officials at the department.

In our first segment, we interview Coleman, Cusick and Pennington. Each details the struggles they have faced for exposing the information and the retaliation they have faced within a department that is more focused on having orders obeyed than on whether the orders are legal in the first place.

Then, in our panel discussion, we look at the ordering of psychological evaluation as a means of retaliation against whistleblowers. Joining us are Dr. Donald Soekin, a psychologist who exposed the use of psychological evaluations as retaliation towards whistleblowers who have nothing wrong with them, and Richard Condit, GAP Senior Counsel, who speaks directly to this form of retaliation by the Department of D.C. Fire & Emergency Medical Services.

This episode was filmed in June 2009.

DoJ Trying to Keep Documents Showing Saudi Royals - Al Qaeda Financial Links Out of Court

A great article by the NY Times’ Eric Lichtblau today. He reported that there are financial links between the Saudi royal family and Al Qaeda (and other extremist groups), according to documents obtained by lawyers of 9/11 victims families (they were leaked by someone in American intelligence). But these documents may never make it into a courtroom because of two denials of appeals and because families cannot sue a sovereign nation and its leaders in a U.S. Court. From the NYT:

 The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

One would think that the federal government and Justice Department should not be stifling information that could show a direct link between the Saudis and Al Qaeda (especially considering 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia). The fact that the judge can’t even look at the material (or simply that the DoJ is trying to stop it) seems troubling.

Lichtblau’s article contains much of the interesting evidence supporting the link:

Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed “support for terrorist organizations” at least through 2006.

A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself.

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

And a confidential German intelligence report gave a line-by-line description of tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers, with dates and dollar amounts, made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to another charity that was suspected of financing militants’ activities in Pakistan and Bosnia.

Seems like, just as a matter of government accountability, especially given the length of time since 9/11, that the victim’s families deserve to know the full truth about any Saudi-al Qaeda connections.

-- Dylan Blaylock  

Supreme Court Could Limit Whistleblowers

The Supreme Court will review a case that may set new limits on False Claims Act lawsuits, according to two recent articles, one by the Associated Press and another by Bloomberg.

FCA legislation allows for whistleblowers to file a lawsuit against a company for wrongly charging the government funds (the whistleblower can receive up to 30% of such funds recovered). The court will address a section of the FCA that (from the AP):

“…prohibits whistleblower lawsuits when public disclosure of the alleged fraud occurs through a court hearing, a news report or congressional or administrative audit.”

“The question for the court – one that has divided federal appeals courts – is whether the language on administrative audits refers to a report prepared by any government or only a federal government document.”

You see, the law does not allow whistleblowers to bring lawsuits (on behalf of the government) if the waste, fraud or abuse has been made public by the federal government, but the law is unclear as to whether this applies to state and local governments.

GAP will be watching how the issue plays out…