All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

Tales from the DoDIG

A review by the Associated Press has found that the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Defense “hardly ever” agrees with whistleblowers who claim they are retaliated against for exposing wrongdoing. The office sided with the military in over 90 percent of 3,000 cases since 2002. From the AP:

The inspector general’s office rejected claims of retaliation and stood by the military in more than 90 percent of nearly 3,000 cases during the past six years. More than 73 percent were closed after only a preliminary review that relied on available documents and sources — often from the military itself — to determine whether a full inquiry was warranted.

The article does a good job in shortly covering the “official” reason for why this happens, but then gets to the heart of the matter:

The high rejection rates suggest scores of complaints aren’t valid, that many whistleblowers are whiners who are prone to exaggeration. But critics, including a Republican senator, wonder whether many valid cases are dismissed before being carefully examined because of attitudes in the inspector general’s office.

Also…

Whistleblowing is risky business, particularly for those in uniform. They have fewer rights than their civilian counterparts and work in a culture where questioning leadership is frowned upon. Demotions, poor performance reports and letters of reprimand are commonly used to penalize or silence whistleblowers. Any one of these can derail even a promising career.

The article then talks about the story of Navy officer Jason Hudson, who was retaliated against for exposing a recruiting policy that favored white candidates. The IG, despite the rescinding of the policy, and evidence of retaliation, has done nothing to help him.

-- Dylan Blaylock

GAP TV - Whistle Where You Work

GAP is excited to tell its supporters about a new project we have launched to bring heightened attention to whistleblower rights and accountability issues. GAP’s new television program, Whistle Where You Work, is running on the Free Speech TV Channel (which airs on the DISH satellite network). In the near future, WWYW will also air on cable channels and non-commercial radio stations across the country.

Here’s the upcoming airing dates for WWYW on Free Speech TV over the next couple of weeks (all times EST):

Sunday, November 2:       11:00 p.m.

Monday, November 3:       10:30 p.m.

Tuesday, November 4:      11:00 p.m.

Sunday, November 9:        11:00 p.m.

Why has GAP started a television program? As the nation’s leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, GAP is uniquely situated to tell the stories of courageous people who, at great risk to themselves and their futures, stand up for what is right. GAP is also at the intersection of law, media and government, which enables us to assemble A-List panelists to discuss critical issues about accountability, openness and secrecy. WWYW will reach out to prospective whistleblowers, informing them GAP is at their service.

Although the public perception of whistleblowers has greatly improved over the past few years, many people still reflexively view whistleblowers as disgruntled employees or even as disloyal traitors. Through WWYW, the public will be exposed to individuals of conscience who will help set the public record straight about blowing the whistle.

The show is comprised of an interview and panel discussion. The interview often provides a prominent whistleblower the chance to tell their personal story – not just what the corruption they exposed was, but the effect of their actions on them, their family, and their professional livelihood. The panel discussion takes up a topic related to free speech, accountability, or watchdogging corruption, and features leading figures from the news media and nonprofit world. At this writing we have already produced five shows, and captured amazing stories and lively debates. These include:

• A panel discussion with Jane Mayer (New Yorker magazine correspondent and author of The Dark Side) and Deb Nelson (Pulitzer Prize winner and author of The War Behind Me) about the trends of investigative reporting
• A panel discussion with Caroline Smith DeWaal (Center for Science in the Public Interest) and Stephen Hedges (Chicago Tribune) about the increased practice of food irradiation, and labeling issues
• An interview with Jesselyn Radack, the Justice Department lawyer who blew the whistle on illegalities in the Bush administration’s first prosecution in the War on Terror
• An interview with Arlington National Cemetery Public Affairs Director Gina Gray, who spoke out against the Cemetery’s practice of denying media access to funerals for American soldiers killed in Iraq
• An interview with Ex-FBI counter-terrorism agent turned ACLU national security counsel Mike German

GAP is excited to take our message of whistleblower advocacy to a new level. All episodes will soon be archived and viewable online. Check back soon to watch archived episodes.

-- Dylan Blaylock

And he's gone!

Yesterday, the White House decided to remove Special Counsel Scott Bloch. And GAP is pretty happy about it. From the Washington Post:

The OSC is supposed to be a haven for federal whistleblowers and disgruntled employees. But the tables turned under Bloch, who previously worked at the Justice Department's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Bloch came under fire shortly after joining the whistleblower unit in 2004. Employees claimed that he engaged in political bias and improperly handled scores of cases. By his own account, White House officials twice had asked him to resign, but he refused.

Said GAP Legal Director Tom Devine: “Mr. Bloch had the same impact as Special Counsel that President Bush has had as President – utter disaster.”

GAP has been a persistent critic of Bloch during his tenure at the Office of Special Counsel. To read GAP’s detailed testimony on this issue from a July 12, 2007 oversight hearing on the office, click here.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Full Speed Ahead

This Congress Daily article details how U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch, whose agency is charged with protecting federal whistleblowers, announced to the President that he will be leaving his position at the end of his term, in early January. Bloch could potentially have stayed in his position until the Senate confirmed his successor.

Bloch’s tenure was mired in criticism from numerous politicians and groups, including GAP. Just some of Bloch’s scandals over the past five years include:

• Allegedly attempting to purge his office of homosexual employees
• Allegedly destroying evidence on his work computer sought by federal investigators related to the purging
• The sharp decrease, year after year, of whistleblower retaliation cases successfully represented by his office – the primary reason of its existence

You can also read the A.P. story here, GAP’s OSC page here, and Bloch’s letter to President Bush here.

And here’s to hoping the next Special Counsel can turn things around. The bar right now is quite low.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Bad Rain

This Washington Post article details how global warming is (and will continue to) cause an great increase in the amount of rainfall in several parts of the world, leading to an inevitable increase of water-borne and other serious diseases. From the article:

Rainfalls will be heavier, triggering sewage overflows, contaminating drinking water and endangering beachgoers. Higher lake and ocean temperatures will cause bacteria, parasites and algal blooms to flourish. Warmer weather and heavier rains also will mean more mosquitoes, which can carry the West Nile virus, malaria and dengue fever. Fresh produce and shellfish are more likely to become contaminated.

Where are the effects most likely to be felt?

The consequences will be particularly severe in the 950 U.S. cities and towns -- including New York, the District, Milwaukee and Philadelphia -- that have "combined sewer systems," archaic designs that carry storm water and sewage in the same pipes. During heavy rains, the systems often cannot handle the volume, and raw sewage spills into lakes or waterways, including drinking-water supplies.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Wolfowitz Fallout - America No Longer Picks Bank President

This article in the U.K. Guardian details how the U.S. will no longer have the power to appoint the president of the World Bank. This reform comes just one year after GAP’s multiple release of documents in 2007 showing misconduct on the part of former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, leading to his resignation.

During the World Bank’s annual meetings last week, the UK’s development secretary reportedly brokered a deal to allow candidates from other countries to be nominated for the Bank presidency. Every president of the World Bank to date has been hand-selected by the U.S. government, whereas European governments selected the managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

This reform – which was backed by Europe and developing countries and resisted by the U.S. and Japan – will widen the possible applicant pool for the Bank presidency and could result in better qualified candidates.

GAP’s disclosures played a pivotal role in this reform. As the Guardian reported,

“Developing countries have grown increasingly frustrated at the stranglehold of rich nations on the two Washington-based multilateral bodies, with pressure for change accelerating after the controversial presidency of Paul Wolfowitz, who was forced to step down after a scandal involving his partner's promotion.”

While broadening the pool of candidates for the presidency of the World Bank to include nominations from all member countries is a step in the right direction, the selection process must now become an open, transparent, merit-based search.  A position of such stature in an institution funded by the world’s taxpayers, and of such importance to the global economy, can no longer be handled as a trading of favors behind closed doors among the privileged ‘members of the club.’

-- Shelley Walden  

Only Wolfowitz Could Start a Cold War with China

Speaking of Paul Wolfowitz, the Daily Telegraph has reported that, in his new position as chair of the International Security and Advisory Board (ISAB), he is trying to start a Cold War with China and advocating for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. According to the Telegraph:

“The ISAB was asked to draft a report on how the US could bring its relationship with China ‘towards greater transparency and mutual confidence.’

Hans M Kristensen, a director at the Federation of American Scientists, an anti-nuclear think tank in Washington, said that instead the report ‘appears to have drawn up a very effective plan for a Cold War with China.’

He added: ‘The authors land on a set of recommendations and observations that strongly resemble a China-version of the Reagan administration's aggressive military posture against the Soviet Union…’

The ten-page report, which was leaked onto the internet, seems to justify a decision by the US to sell $6.5 billion (£3.6 billion) of arms to Taiwan, a move that has infuriated China and led it to cut several high-level military ties with the US. Mr Wolfowitz is also chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council.”

-- Shelley Walden

The Pre-emption Circumvention

Circumventing both the legal system and Congress, the Bush administration is attempting to change multiple federal regulations to shield companies from product-safety legislation by expanding “pre-emption.” From the Wall Street Journal (which features a video with reporter Alicia Mundy):

The administration has written language aimed at pre-empting product-liability litigation into 50 rules governing everything from motorcycle brakes to pain medicine. The latest changes cap a multiyear effort that could be one of the administration's lasting legacies, depending in part on how the underlying principle of pre-emption fares in a case the Supreme Court will hear next month.

This year, lawsuit-protection language has been added to 10 new regulations, including one issued Oct. 8 at the Department of Transportation that limits the number of seatbelts car makers can be forced to install and prohibits suits by injured passengers who didn't get to wear one.

For more on the Supreme Court case coming up, check out this article from the NYT last month.

-- Dylan Blaylock

On Debate Transparency

In an affront to transparency, both presidential campaigns, and the Commission on Presidential Debates, have declined to publicly release the 31-page memo dictating the terms of the four debates this season, as outlined by this San Francisco Chronicle article.

This is the memo that specifies the agreement both sides hammered out regarding debate rules such as rebuttal time, direct-response line of questioning, moderator rules, etc. And there’s no reason it shouldn’t be public knowledge. From the article:

There is historical precedent for releasing the memorandum. In 2004, the Bush and Kerry campaigns consented to the memorandum's release before the debates. No cataclysm resulted. Rather, there was a healthy discussion of the agreement between the campaigns, and voters were able to understand the restrictions the candidates had placed on themselves.

In related news, this New York Times article touches on the Commission on Presidential Debates, delving into the corporate sponsorship of the events, and what that really means.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Slow Weekend

Not a whole lot of whistleblower news from over the weekend. But this article from the Grand Rapids Press tells the story of a father-daughter whistleblower team, who rightfully exposed that school district officials were inflating enrollment numbers in order to receive $1.8 million in taxpayer funds that the school shouldn’t have.

Also, from last Friday, this explosive Washington Post article details how a Senate committee will investigate charges by two former workers of the National Security Agency that the agency routinely listened to calls made between overseas Americans with those in the country, including intimate conversations between foreign-based soldiers and spouses in America.  

-- Dylan Blaylock