November 25th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
November 25, 2008
Today the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is releasing a report, Breaking the Sound Barrier: Experiences of Air Marshals Confirm Need for Reform at the OSC, recommending to the incoming Administration a major overhaul of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).
This investigative report seeks not only to set the record straight on former Special Counsel Bloch’s actual accomplishments, but also to provide lessons learned for the next Special Counsel. As a case study, POGO focused on the OSC’s handling of federal air marshal cases for two reasons: President Bush has pointed to the critical role in homeland security played by air marshals, and Bloch himself has touted his work with air marshals as evidence of the success of his tenure.
POGO decided to investigate.
In addition to POGO’s recommended reforms of the OSC, POGO is also calling upon the Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) to foster an organizational culture where employees are not only encouraged by management to express safety concerns, but in which they are protected when they do so.
“As many of us travel for Thanksgiving, we should remember the federal air marshals upon whom we are relying to keep us safe. We have not kept up our end of the bargain. When they blew the whistle on misconduct, there was no one keeping them safe from retaliation. Air marshals deserve a system that both listens to their concerns and protects them, the way they are protecting us,” said Danielle Brian, Executive Director, POGO.
Despite contacting almost a dozen current and former air marshals who blew the whistle, POGO could not identify one instance where the OSC upheld its responsibility to provide a secure whistleblower disclosure channel for the resolution of workplace improprieties, to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, and to hold accountable those responsible for whistleblower retaliation.
“The POGO report describes in great detail what actually happens to federal air marshals when they do come forward to root out misconduct and criminal behavior –– they are retaliated against, and in most cases terminated,” says P. Jeffrey Black, a Federal Air Marshal from the Las Vegas field office.
Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
November 25th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
By Michael Grabell
November 25, 2008 - 7:00 a.m. EST
After a ProPublica investigation found that dozens of air marshals have been charged with crimes, the director of the Air Marshal Service sent an agency-wide e-mail stating, ”We must dedicate ourselves to root out and report any instance of misconduct or criminal behavior.”
But a new report being released today (Tuesday, Nov. 25) by a government watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, (POGO) says that current and former air marshals have been shut out and retaliated against when they tried to report problems to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that protects whistleblowers.
“The POGO report describes in great detail what actually happens to federal air marshals when they do come forward to root out misconduct and criminal behavior,” said P. Jeffrey Black, a Las Vegas air marshal and whistleblower. After he testified before Congress in 2004 about security breaches, Black says the air marshal service launched an investigation into whether he released sensitive information.
Air marshal spokesman Greg Alter said his agency had not yet reviewed the POGO report. In an e-mailed statement, he said the agency has “zero tolerance” for retaliation.
“Any Federal Air Marshal Service employee who in good faith reports waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or a violation of law or agency policy shall not be subjected to any form of harassment, adverse employment consequences or other form of retaliation,” he said.
The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be a refuge for government whistleblowers — a place where complaints of corruption, abuses of power and security lapses are aired and exposed. POGO cited interviews with nearly a dozen current and former air marshals to assert that the agency has closed cases without investigating and failed to shield whistleblowers from retaliation.
The report places much of the blame on Special Counsel Scott Bloch.
Bloch went on administrative leave in October, five months after the FBI raided his home and office as part of an investigation into obstruction of justice. One of the accusations is that Bloch hired Geeks on Call (instead of the agency’s computer technicians) to perform a “seven-level wipe” and erase all the files on his office computer. Bloch has said he was trying to get rid of a virus.
In his resignation letter, Bloch quoted the Greek poet Sophocles in saying, “No one likes the bearer of bad news.” Bloch highlighted the office’s achievements exposing airline inspection problems, air traffic control cover-ups and defective New Orleans levee pumps.
He also has cited his success in protecting air marshals.
POGO decided to have a look-see and found that several air marshals felt the special counsel hadn’t helped. In some cases described in the report, the office did follow-up, but the whistleblowers weren’t satisfied with the extent of the investigation or the result.
In others, air marshals said the office stood by while they were harassed, disciplined or fired.
The report cites the case of one air marshal who took a photograph of a suspicious individual at an airport in August 2004. He pressed his supervisors to forward the photo to the FBI for further investigation. After they didn’t, he complained to Bloch’s office in March 2005.
As the air marshal waited for OSC to start investigating, the report says, he was subjected to hostility at work, including several attempts to fire him. The OSC completed its investigation in February 2007 and decided not to take any action, according to the report.
The air marshal was fired three months later after the service discovered he had obtained a fake degree from a diploma mill, although he never used it when he applied to become an air marshal.
POGO says such cases discouraged other air marshals.
“The horror stories from everybody else’” convinced air marshal Spencer Pickard to go to ABC News in 2006 with concerns about the air marshals’ dress code rather, than complain to the special counsel, the POGO report says. After Pickard and others argued that mandatory business attire blew their cover, Congress investigated and the service relaxed the dress rules.
Pickard, who is no longer an air marshal, was placed on administrative leave a few weeks after speaking out.
Bloch’s attorney, Paul Orfanedes, said POGO has an ax to grind. In 2005, the group joined a whistleblower complaint alleging that Bloch had retaliated against his own employees, which Bloch’s attorney denies.
“I think he is very proud of his work with the Air Marshal Service and in doing what really the law allows the OSC to do, which sometimes isn’t enough for advocacy organizations,” said Orfanedes, who has represented whistleblowers. “There’s always a fair amount of unrealistic expectations of what the law allows and, therefore, dissatisfaction with the result.”
OSC spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said the office didn’t want to dwell on the past and is focused on getting prepared for the next administration.
“Look forward to tomorrow,” he said. “Yesterday’s gone.”
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
November 11th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
By GREGG CARLSTROM
November 11, 2008
The high-profile controversy that has swirled for months around the tiny Office of Special Counsel has obscured one of the independent agency’s biggest problems: a need for more money and staff to keep up with its growing workload.
The office enforces the Hatch Act, protects federal employees from whistleblower retaliation, and protects military reservists from adverse actions by their employers. It’s been in the limelight because of its former director, Scott Bloch, a controversial figure who was disliked by lawmakers of both parties.
Bloch was also the subject of an embarrassing FBI search of his office and home, allegedly to look for evidence that he impeded an investigation into retaliation against his employees. Bloch was forced to resign by the White House last month.
Now, Bloch’s former deputy, William Reukauf, is temporarily in charge of the office and trying to get it back on solid footing.
“My priority is to put the agency in as healthy a position as possible with regard to its budget, case processing and enforcement,” Reukauf said in an interview last week. “I want to leave a healthy situation for the new special counsel.”
Reukauf is crafting a 2010 budget that asks for a sizable increase. He wouldn’t say how much but he said OSC is seriously understaffed.
“We have a problem in terms of resources in some areas,” Reukauf said.
The biggest shortfall is in the office responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from using government resources for partisan politics. The office had to review 280 Hatch Act complaints in fiscal 2007; in 2008, that figure jumped to 444.
The whistleblower disclosure unit which reviews initial complaints by whistleblowers to see if they merit further attention has also seen its workload increase.
Several OSC employees contacted by Federal Times said morale at the office has improved since Bloch’s departure. Bloch had been criticized for years by good-government groups and members of Congress who accuse him of politicizing the office. The FBI raided his home and office in May under grand jury subpoenas, allegedly in search of proof that Bloch destroyed evidence connected to a whistleblower retaliation case in his office.
Reukauf wouldn’t discuss the agency’s morale during Bloch’s tenure.
“Morale is good now,” he said. “This has been a big change, but … people are in high spirits.”
He gave Bloch credit for some improvements at OSC over the past few years. The agency reduced its backlog of whistleblower complaints, and Reukauf said the agency was also doing a good job enforcing the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act, which prohibits adverse action against military reservists.
He also weighed in on the Detroit field office, the subject of some controversy over the past few years. Bloch created the office in 2004 and reassigned several Washington-based employees to work there; most of those employees say the relocation was retaliation against whistleblowers within the agency.
Critics say the field office doesn’t have enough work to justify its existence. But Reukauf said it was operating at “full capacity,” and said he had no immediate plans to close it.
“It’s not my thought that I should do any major reorganization,” Reukauf said. “That’s for the political appointees, for the next special counsel.”
There isn’t much of a learning curve for the newly appointed acting special counsel. This is Reukauf’s third stint in charge of the Office of Special Counsel; he also ran the agency before Bloch took office, and before Bloch’s predecessor, Elaine Kaplan. Reukauf said he wanted to act as a caretaker for the agency until a new special counsel is confirmed next year.
That means no major priorities and no immediate plans to reorganize the office.
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
November 9th, 2008 Guest Contributor
The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
1333 H Street, N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
RE: RESPONSE TO ELAINE KAPLAN AND TIM HANNAPEL’S ISSUE BRIEF
Dear ACS Executive Director Lisa Brown:
My name is Douglas Kinan. I am an officer of the court - an Assistant Register with the Massachusetts Trial Court.
Respectfully, please be assured that my request is focused on conduct, the facts and the official record - not on any specific individual and certainly not the “government.”
The government actually works when responsible individuals follow the rule of law, live up to their oath and a basic moral code to not make life horrible for others because they can.
In accordance with the ACS’s mission statement and the promotion of “access to justice, democracy and the rule of law,” please accept and incorporate my good faith response and my affidavit into the record concerning Kaplan and Hannapel’s, issue brief: “Reinvigorating the U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Suggestions for the next Administration.”
Based on my direct and independent knowledge, Kaplan and Hannapel’s words are just that - only words. Put to the test, Kaplan and Hannapel failed and/or refused to apply and enforce the OSC’s mandate.
As so many can testify, when Kaplan had the opportunity and sworn obligation to do “good and important stuff,” uphold the law, “serve the needs of its people” and enforce the mandate of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), their conduct, actions and behavior were pathetic at best and criminal at worst. Harsh comments? Of course not.
Notwithstanding the heinous and violent acts against women (and their children,) in their proper context and perspective, anyone willing to make a conscious decision to do nothing concerning a retaliatory pattern and practice of framing innocent whistleblowers and complainants, designed to strip them (and their families) of a livelihood, career and full pension is about the lowest act you can do.
As a former DoD employee, beginning approximately June 1998, I conscientiously and repeatedly requested that Kaplan, who was at the helm of the OSC, conduct an investigation concerning prohibited personnel practices (PPP) at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMAE), Boston, Massachusetts, including the DCMAE’s insistence on targeting, framing, prosecuting and punishing innocent whistleblowers and complainants. Kaplan had the power and the authority to do “a lot of really good and important stuff.” Accordingly, Kaplan did not have the right to remain silent and allow innocent individuals to suffer.
Concerning the frame-ups and my opposition to such conduct as it was happening, the DCMAE’s Chief Counsel boasted, “We (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It’s called gaming. We can deny, we can delay…dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want.”
Aside from the plain language mandating an OSC investigation, by operation and rule of law, Kaplan knew or should have known that in accordance with 18 USC 4: “Whoever having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.”
And 18 USC 2(a), “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission is punished as a principal.” (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punished as a principal.”
My requests to Kaplan concerning the “good and important stuff” she talks about in her issue brief and the “rule of law” were ignored, which allowed the DCMAE to continue with a verified criminal enterprise, subsidized by millions of taxpayer dollars. No investigation occurred.
Kaplan’s successor, Scott J. Bloch emulated Kaplan’s conduct and dismissed my reporting regarding the DCMAE’s continuing PPP’s, including the current, in-progress frame up (one of many) of DCMAE whistleblower, Ken Pedeleose.
Malfeasance, secrecy, silence, denial and cover up must be infectious at the OSC. Acting Director, William Reukauf’s disregard for the rule of law is plain to see by his conduct and decision in the PPP concerning Pedeleose’s retaliatory frame up. He refuses to investigate the DCMAE’s continuing pattern and practice of PPP’s.
On October 27, 2008, Reukauf sent agency spokesman, Anthony Guglielmi, out to publicly declare, “OSC thrived despite the investigation of Bloch and the office would continue ‘business as usual’ during the transition to new leadership.” Guglielmi added, “Through it all, this office has never stopped doing its job. In fact, they are doing it better than ever.”
Does “business as usual” mean Reukauf can make a conscious decision, with specific intent to ignore Pedeleose’s frame up, which makes him a relevant and willing participant?
Senator Grassley’s letter to Reukauf dated September 16, 2003 talks about the “serious problems at OSC,” which still have not been resolved.
And Reukauf’s two-paragraph letter dated October 20, 2008, denying whistleblower, Carol Czarkowski’s “Request for Reconsideration” in OSC File No. MA-99-1884 & MA-00-1346, concerning the verified retaliation against her is a decision, which contradicts his mandated responsibility and suffocates Czarkowski’s administrative remedy, to which she is entitled.
Reukauf operated with no shame, no fear and no conscience when he disingenuously writes: “Accordingly, your request for reconsideration is denied and there is no further appeal available to you within the Office of Special Counsel.” Reukauf offered no explanation for ignoring OSC’s mandate, his denial and provided no appeal rights information to Czarkowski.
It’s fairly obvious that Reukauf does not abide by the rules or the laws either. The facts are the facts and the record is the record. Should the public believe the facts and the evidence, corroborated by the official record, or take Reukauf’s word?
Back to Pedeleose. Pedeleose’s retaliatory frame up is not based on a hunch or conjecture. By being a DoD whistleblower, according to DoD estimates Pedeleose saved the government $34 million. Pending OPM’s fraudulent and frivolous appeal, on March 31, 2008, his peers voted Pedeleose as, “Employee of the Year - 2007.”
In exchange for Pedeleose’s exemplary government service, he earned a bull’s-eye on his back and successfully fought false charges, a rigged investigation, felony perjury by a DCMAE witness and prosecutorial misconduct by DCMAE attorneys - the standard DCMAE modus operandi against whistleblowers.
Pedeleose’s unwarranted and unjust ordeal is not over. He is now contending with OPM’s fraudulent and frivolous appeal to overturn a favorable adjudication by the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dated October 24, 2007, (Docket No. AT-0752-06-0350-I-1.) Prima facie evidence to prove the appeal to be frivolous and fraudulent lies in the fact that the appeal does not explain the DCMAE’s rigged investigation, and perjured testimony by the DCMAE witnesses against Pedeleose.
I do not know Pedeleose or Czarkowski and I have never met them. However, someone in government and/or law enforcement needs to lend dignity to the facts and the verified record to end the DCMAE’s criminal enterprise. Strangely, my reporting seems to be more offensive than the conduct I report and has been met with silence.
The public needs to have some assurance those whistleblower disclosures and other PPP’s will be accorded due process and investigated on the merits - not denied based on back-room dealing, fraternity, collusion, evasion or other reasons.
Despite two phone messages and three email requests for comment from Kaplan and Hannabel, two requests were met with silence and my third email request was blocked by Kaplan’s firewall.
Thank you for your time. I hope the ACS will consider my request.
Sincerely,
Douglas Kinan
cc: John D. Podesta - Obama Transition Team
Relevent Bar Associations
Posted in OSC Watch | 1 Comment »
October 30th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Your Donations for
Scott Bloch’s Defense
By Gregg Carlston
October 30, 2008
Can’t find a worthy charity in the Combined Federal Campaign?
Send a check to the Scott Bloch Legal Defense Trust (Donations are not tax-deductible, sorry.)
The recently-retired special counsel is looking for help to defray his mounting legal costs. Bloch was forced out of office last week, an event that capped years of controversy surrounding his tenure, but still faces an ongoing grand jury investigation.
The Web site includes praise for Bloch from a number of conservative luminaries, includingWeekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich, and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Noticeably absent is any praise from current or former employees of the Office of Special Counsel.
Original article HERE
Posted in OSC Watch | 1 Comment »
October 29th, 2008 Joe Carson
October 28, 2008
Ms. Elaine Kaplan, Esq.
Senior Deputy General Counsel
National Treasury Employees Union
1750 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. Tim Hannapel
Office of the General Counsel
National Treasury Employees Union
1750 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Subject: Critique on your recent article “Reinvigorating OSC: Suggestions for Next Administration” and request for your active assistance in advancing the objectives of OSC Watch
Dear Ms. Kaplan and Mr. Hannapel,
You are the former Special Counsel and Deputy Special Counsel. You are licensed attorneys and long-time employees of a government employee union. I have closely read your recent 15 page issue brief “Reinvigorating the US Office of Special Counsel: Suggestions for the Next Administration” which is issue brief of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. It is available on the internet at < http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kaplan%20FINAL.pdf>.
I also read the recent article in “Government Executive” that mentions the recent removal of former Special Counsel Scott Bloch and summarizes your suggestions for OSC. It is available on the internet at < http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=41273&dcn=todaysnews >.
As you know, I contend OSC is, relatively speaking, the most corrupt and corrupting agency in our Country’s history. It was created, along with Merit Systems Protection Board, by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. I contend that its now 30-year long lawbreaking failure to protect federal employees from agency violations of the merit system principles (i.e., “prohibited personnel practices (PPP’s) and other agency violations of law, rule or regulation under OSC’s investigatory jurisdiction has resulted in many dysfunctional and corrupt federal workplaces, a battered federal civil service, and a much diminished and more threatened America.
OSC’s lawbreaking has also created thousands of direct victims - loyal, patriotic federal employees who put professional duty to the public welfare before their personal economies and who were betrayed by OSC lawbreaking failure to protect them from agency retribution. OSC’s lawbreaking has not occurred in a vacuum, it was enabled by 30-year long lawbreaking failure of US Merit System Protection Board to do the statutory required oversight of OSC’s compliance with law in protecting the federal employees who sought its protection.
Basically, OSC and MSPB nullified themselves, at their creation in 1978, by OSC’s (mis)interpretations of its key duties to protect the federal employees who sought its protection and MSPB (mis)interpretation of one of its primary duties to conduct “special studies” focused on OSC’s compliance with law and performance in protecting them.
These fundamental misinterpretations include (using the law’s current numbering, which was changed by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989): OSC’s claim that the reporting requirements of 5 U.S.C. §1214(e) do not apply to laws, rule, or regulation under OSC’s investigatory jurisdiction, meaning OSC never has an unqualified requirement to formally report its determinations of violations of law, rule, or regulation under its investigatory jurisdiction. It also means OSC has yet to make a report per §1214(e), not in over 20,000 investigations it has conducted since 1989.
OSC’s claim (one which is contrary to Supreme Court precedent) that there is no such thing as a “civil service rule.” As a result, OSC does not investigate or even consider if agency directives (i.e. “civil service rules”) such as workforce discipline procedures, grievance procedures, performance evaluation procedures, etc were violated as part of a PPP. By 5 U.S.C. §1216(a)(4), OSC has jurisdiction over any agency “activities prohibited by any civil service law, rule or regulation.”
OSC’s policy of not considering or investigating, as part of its investigations of PPP’s, whether any agency “activities prohibited by any civil service law rule or regulation” also occurred. When OSC is conducting an investigation of an alleged PPP, it only considers whether a violation of 5 U.S.C. §2302(b) occurred, unless the PPP complaint specifically alleges violations of laws, rules, or regulations under OSC’s jurisdiction per §1216(a)(4) occurred as part of the PPP or separate complaint of “other prohibited activity” alleging them is filed.
MSPB’s claim that the “special studies” it conducts per 5 U.S.C.§1204(a)(3) need not focus on “whether the public interest in a civil service free of PPP’s is being adequately protected.” MSPB claims to have no opinion as to whether it is, despite its statutory requirement to regularly report its determination on this point to the President and Congress. Since OSC is, by law, the primary bulwark to protect federal employees from PPP’s, MSPB should have, for the past 30 years been doing what it has yet to do - conduct reviews of OSC’s compliance with law and performance in protecting federal employees from PPP’s. Had it done so, OSC misinterpretations of law would have been exposed and corrected almost 30 years ago - and the federal civil service and America would be in a much different and better place today.
Why Has This Gone On For 30 Years? Follow the Money! Many people and organizations benefit, directly or indirectly, from a broken, lawbreaking OSC and an MSPB that enables it.
This includes: Government employee unions benefit - their major selling point to their dues-paying members (who are frequently only 10-15% of the members of the bargaining unit) is dues-paying members get more support in a negotiated grievance procedure. Since by “election of remedies” of 5 U.S.C. 7121 (added to the law in 1994), a federal employee must choose between an OSC complaint, an MSPB appeal, or a negotiated grievance, if OSC is not credible, the relative attractiveness of the union negotiated grievance process (and voluntarily paying union dues) increases.
Private sector attorneys who specialize in federal employment law benefit. A broken, lawbreaking OSC emboldens abusive federal managers and results in more federal employees seeking them out, cash in hand, to pursue remedies at EEO, MSPB, or elsewhere.
“Good government groups” benefit as concerned federal employees go to them with their concerns about agency wrongdoing, because they know they will not be protected from agency retribution if they use established channels. “Information is power” to these groups and they trade their insider information with Congress and media for access and influence, which they need to secure you are age a person funding from the relatively few foundations that provide much of their funding.
Mainstream media benefits for the same reasons the good government groups do - concerned federal employee go to them with their concerns, because they cannot trust OSC to protect them if they use established channels.
I created OSC Watch with others who largely perceive things as I do, with three limited objectives:
1) expose OSC’s lawbreaking and MSPB’s enabling lawbreaking; 2) stop it; and 3) obtain some measure of justice for the thousands of feds directly harmed by it - feds who did not receive the nondiscretionary protection OSC owed them. To return to your article - while I agree with much of it, your analysis of OSC goes seriously awry on page 9. Frazier v. MSPB, 672 F.2d (D.C. Cir. 1982) was, in large part, legislatively overturned by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
OSC is no longer an “ombudsman” or advocate for the merit system principles - it is now specifically charged to “act in the interests” of the employees who seek its protection. It has a specific mandate to “that employees should not suffer adverse consequences as a result of PPP’s.” The law directs OSC that “the protection of individuals who are the subject to PPP’s remains the paramount consideration.”
See 5 U.S.C. §1201 “note,” quoting from the “findings and purpose” section of the WPA.While I agree that OSC does not have an attorney-client relationship with complainants and that OSC has discretion as a prosecutor in seeking corrective action and/or disciplinary action, I contend that OSC does not have discretion as an investigator - it must determine, for all the complaints it receives, “whether there are reasonable grounds to believe” the violation occurred and, if so, formally report them to the involved agency, via a permanent, public record, per §1214(e).
It must do this, unless OSC additionally makes the discretionary determination that the violation is one “which requires corrective action” and formally reports both determinations per §1214(b)(2)(B), thereby satisfying the §1214(e) reporting requirement.
So What?While I do not consider you blameless in the federal workplace disaster at OSC, you did inherit OSC’s now 30 year-long misinterpretations of its key duties, which was enabled by MSPB’s misinterpretation of one of its key duties. Regardless, there should be no reasonable question about OSC proper interpretation and full compliance with its nondiscretionary duties to those who seek its protection.
There is now plenty of question and the questions go back to OSC’s creation. You can help get these questions answered and, if OSC has been, as I contend, fundamentally remiss in its nondiscretionary duties to the 20,000 or more federal employees who sought its protection since 1978, you can help obtain some measure of justice for those directly harmed. Or you can ignore these claims and concerns and continue, in the eyes of many, to defend the undefendable at OSC, including your records there. You have positive professional duties as attorneys.
As I understand the position of OSC attorneys, because they consider OSC to be their client, they are prohibited from “blowing whistles” on their and OSC’s lawbreaking by legal ethics. On the other hand, I contend that they are betraying both their oaths as attorneys and their oaths as government employees by not implementing the laws they are responsible to implement, to protect federal employees who try to do their duty, ethically and competently, without fear or favor.
I suggest you consult with ethical experts in your profession in deciding how to proceed in this matter. I was raised Catholic and while I did not personally experience abusive priests, I was lucky because I was around some as a youth. The scandal at OSC has some similarities to the Catholic priest scandal - vulnerable people are betrayed by those charged to protect them and the system tries to stonewall. But the outrage of those betrayed would not be deterred and the stonewalling failed.
I suggest the sense of betrayal many feel to you and OSC should not be minimized.
Respectfully,
Joe Carson, PE
Chair, OSC Watch Steering Committee
Posted in OSC Watch, Scott Bloch | No Comments »
October 23rd, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
October 20th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
August 21st, 2008 Guest Contributor
To Visit Martin Salazar’s Website:
CLICK HERE
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
July 9th, 2008 Guest Contributor
By A.H. MartinWhat happens to Federal employees when the bureaucracy that employs them no longer sees them as a team player, but rather a weak link, not a member of their “team,” or worse, a whistleblower?This article will give just a brief glimpse into the lives of two such public servants. Every American citizen should care about the treatment of Federal civil servants. Simply stated, if the rights of the public’s servants can be easily compromised, so can the rights of every and any citizen if they find themselves in the unfortunate position of being bullied by the Federal Bureaucracy, in other words, an Enemy of the State.In the movie “Enemy of the State,” Will Smith found himself being hunted down by a very powerful Federal agency. The leaders of that agency believed he had something that would compromise, or expose the Government’s management integrity—or lack thereof. By no fault of his own, Smith, a private citizen, was targeted and the orders were given to terminate the problem—his life—because he threatened some very powerful ideologies. Gene Hackman was the Federal employee, and he too was targeted. There is a saying that goes something like truth is stranger than fiction.Within the bricks and mortar of the Federal infrastructure—many Federal employees, and private citizens find themselves targeted as enemies of Federal executives, managers and political appointees. They find themselves there not because they intentionally sold secrets to China or gave military intelligence to the Soviet Union. Rather they find themselves being enemies of management employees because they tried to help another employee, who their boss didn’t like, or stood up for a member of the public…an act that political appointees simply didn’t appreciate, or exposed an exploitation of power.Martin Salazar is one of those employees. Salazar testified in support of a Discrimination Case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for a coworker, Shirley Smith. In return for his support of a mother of two, he could be facing over 12 months in Federal Prison because management was upset with Shirley and even more upset that Salazar would challenge their authority. The young mother, Shirley Smith served 24 months in Federal Prison for filing a false EEO statement, she charged the agency with discrimination through an EEO complaint and she didn’t win the complaint.In order for the Federal management to retaliate effectively against Martin Salazar for aiding Shirley, collaboration with several parts of government is essential.The case is in Aiken, South Carolina regarding Martin Salazar (if you Google his name), you will find that his crime was signing a retirement settlement agreement with the wrong birth date on the forms—forms which the agency, who initiated the charges, prepared. He was charged with making a false statement.You may wonder why their lawyers didn’t do a better job of defending them. You may also refuse to believe that our justice system could be so unjust. Surely there is more to this story. Well there is and it goes something like this.Remember the firings of the U.S. Attorneys? Well it takes a U.S. Attorney to decide if they will prosecute a case. Some U.S. Attorneys wouldn’t prosecute cases on clearly Administrative matters, while others overzealous U.S. Attorneys will. The US Attorney in Aiken, South Carolina is one of those that would and did. South Carolina has a history of taking actions to put the fear of God in people of color and/or minorities; reminding these people of “their place.”Both Martin and Shirley are minorities. Martin is a Mexican American, Shirley is African American. If those in power want to send a message to Federal employees not to testify for other employees, or if the people in power want to silence whistleblowers both within and outside of government, sending people to prison for filing discrimination lawsuits is one sure way to accomplish this.Federal managers and executives only need the “right” U.S. Attorney—one that is a “team player”—to be willing to use their power to retaliate against the employee. The Federal Judicial system is a powerful tool. Lawyers are intimidated every day to comply with the wishes of powerful people at the expense of their client. This is the reality of the legal and judicial system we have in the United States.Is it illegal? Is it unethical? Is it immoral? Yes to all three questions. The more complicated question is “what can we do about it”? The answer—not much—if you have limited financial resources or political influence.After his support of Ms. Smith, Mr. Salazar became a true enemy of the Department of Energy (DOE) management officials, and the division they worked for.These officials do what most Federal managers do when they don’t like an employee who exposes errors/issues—they targeted him, harassed him, alienated him, and bullied him, hoping he would give up and leave. He filed discrimination charges against the DOE, which was the only way he could try to protect himself, his job to provide for his family.The DOE proposed a unilateral settlement with Salazar. He accepted. The DOE prepared the settlement agreement and validated his retirement documents. Both were base upon the DOE’s calculations and set dates for each function; the erroneous separation date and retirement date. Once enacted by the government 16 months later, they charged him with making a false statement. He was arrested, charged and found guilty in Federal District court of making a false statement as he was not part of the “team.” He is now facing 12 Months in Federal Prison for this “crime” he did not commit.There are laws against retaliation for filing discrimination complaints and testifying. There are also laws against selective prosecution. But who is going to enforce these laws—the Justice Department? The Justice Department was unable, or unwilling to handle the overzealous prosecution of six children in Jena Louisiana. Laws are only as good as the desire and agenda of the empowered individuals responsible for enforcing them.If Federal executives and managers choose to validate bad dates on retirement papers, that they themselves prepared, and also prosecute unsuccessful discrimination lawsuits, which result in federal crimes of false statement, and then send Federal employees to prison, then the general public, and not just the Federal employee, is at the mercy of Federal Agency officials and U.S. Attorneys, who choose to use the judicial system as a tool to retaliate, bully and destroy the lives of those they do not like, who are not considered “team players.”Interestingly enough Martin Salazar obtained “sworn Declarations/Affidavits” from two of the three main government witnesses. These same government witnesses made declaration unlike those at the trial, and only now state the truth, “after the fact”, because they are protected from criminal perjury by the very US Attorney that prosecuted this case… can we say “conflict of interest”? In fact, the statements from these government witnesses are more egregious acts than the charges faced by Salazar.Although the U.S Attorney and the Court were made aware of the potential perjury, neither the U.S. Attorney, or the Court was concerned with these violations; they obtained the ill results of a conviction despite the fact it came from absolute and known lies.In other words the U.S. Attorney in Aiken, South Carolina is not protecting the public from a criminal, or seeking to uncover the truth, but merely seeking a conviction. Now that they have a conviction, the truth and justice are not of concern. The U.S. attorney is not interested in pursuing witnesses who helped railroad an innocent man. They get away with the real crime—an innocent man goes to prison—where is the justice?The nightmare of Shirley Smith and Martin Salazar’s life is not a movie and unfortunately not unique.They, like countless other Private Citizens and Federal Employees, have suffered and have not only lost a job but have lost the God given freedoms of American life for themselves and their families, with the impact of the future consequences from Federal convictions, which is immeasurable.Federal employment is competitive but it can also be life threatening in untold ways. More and more people are entering public service because jobs in the private sector are not readily available. People want security. At the same time the prison industrial complex is flourishing. Taxpayers are funding the destruction of thousands of lives like Martin’s and Shirley’s on frivolous issues and selective prosecutions. Good people who did the right thing are going to Federal Prison because high ranking Federal employees have friends in positions of power, and exploit these advantages for personal agendas.The Federal Government is the nation’s largest employer. Over 1.8 million people are employed by our government. The Federal government’s reach touches the lives of absolutely every American Citizen. To be a Federal civil, or public servant brings to mind images of postal workers, forest rangers, FBI Agents, air traffic controllers and of course tax collectors, just to name a few. As an employer, the Federal government has a solid reputation of offering its’ employees job security, and decent salary and good benefits. What the public often doesn’t realize is the that there is a dark side to that good government job.The dark side reflects an employer that has unlimited money, unbridled power, and undeserved respect within the minds of the American public, media, and judicial system. When an employee finds themselves on the other side of an issue that contradicts management—whether the issue be public safety, national security, or public health, the employee can easily become, to borrow a movie title, an “Enemy of the State.”Not only is the employee’s livelihood at stake, but also at risk are their lives and the lives of their families; becoming pawns in the abuse of power in “protecting Federal government”; Moreover, the government is spending untold Millions of taxpayer’s dollars to carry out theses atrocities, and will continue to do so at our expense, in covering up Federal executives and managers errors and personal agendas.Without exposure of the conduct of the Federal bureaucracy unjust actions against its Citizens and against its employees, and a change in the culture of institutional and bureaucratic bullying, we are all vulnerable to becoming Enemies of the State.What can you do to help?
PLEASE SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION AND PASS IT ON.
CLICK HERE
PLEASE ALSO VISIT MARTIN SALAZAR’S WEBSITE:
CLICK HERE
Posted in OSC Watch | 1 Comment »
July 1st, 2008 Guest Contributor
By Douglas K. Kinan
Assistant Register, Massachusetts Trial Court
A July 1, 2008, Washington Post story by Joby Warrick concerning a former CIA operative who tried to warn CIA officials about faulty intelligence on the Iraqi weapons program suggests that responsible CIA officials ignored the evidence. According to his attorney Roy Krieger, “On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all.” Silence, evasion, false denials, ignoring the facts and the evidence and changing the subject are common tactics by government officials who commit high crime against their own government.
So, who’s watching the watchdogs? Let’s see.
As a former DoD employee, I wrote up the chain-of-command requesting that the DoD Inspector General investigate verified criminal activity by the DCMAE’s Chief Counsel, Bruce Krasker and his former Deputy Counsel, Jerome C. Brennan.
Some of the conduct, funded by millions of taxpayer dollars, included heinous and violent acts against women (and their children), targeting, framing, prosecuting, and punishing innocent individuals, certifying fraudulent promotional certifications which the agency ethics attorney characterized as “criminal,” premeditated and deliberate retaliation, fabricating charges, fabricating official government records, program fraud, witness intimidation, tampering with a witness, prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of power and authority, well-planned discrimination, manipulation of investigations, fraudulent investigations and rewarding cultivated witnesses with jobs, promotions, and awards in exchange for testimony and/or affidavits/depositions that the attorneys and others knew was tainted and/or false.
Concerning two of many employees who were framed and fired for violations they did not commit, the DoD Hotline Director, Leonard Trahan, Jr. rationalized the framing this way: “There were two EEO cases in the District in which Mr. Kinan disagreed with the decisions made by [the Equal Employment Manager] and the DCMDE Chief Counsel. Instead of accepting those decisions “as reasonable people can disagree”, they became a ‘cause celebre’ for Mr. Kinan.”
That the person responsible for DoD fraud, waste and abuse would essentially admit that it is okay to frame innocent individuals (a felony), stand by and watch them anguish for 50 - 60 months and allow them to be stripped of their career and full pension is unconscionable and un-American. Even worse, for the DoD Hotline Director to look the other way is dangerous to the DoD and the government. There is no ambiguity in the law. The law did not intend for any United States attorney to frame innocent citizens. These two frame-ups (there are many more) were “secretly” settled at a taxpayer cost exceeding one million dollars to prevent the DCMAE’s criminal activity from being exposed.
In a glaring conflict of interest, the DoD Hotline Director’s counterpart and the Assistant Inspector General (AIG) for Policy and Oversight, James L. Pavlik, covered up by conducting a fraudulent investigation, making false official statements and issuing a fraudulent report to deceive Senator Grassley. Contrary to his sworn duty, Pavlik ignored the facts and the evidence. And the DoD IG’s General Counsel, Uldric Fiore, Jr., who is responsible for ensuring “independent, accurate and responsible” legal advice and knows that framing an innocent citizen is about the most cowardly and lowest act you can do, continues to ignore Krasker’s verified pattern of felony conduct and his legal and professional obligation to end such practices.
Ready for this? The chief fraud investigator for the DoD, Richard Race, covered up for his subordinates by also ignoring the facts and the evidence. On February 19, 2008, this low character individual pleaded guilty to fraudulent banking transactions and on May 2, 2008, was “sentenced” in Judge Leonie Brinkema’s court.
Chief Counsel Krasker who boasted, “We (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It’s called gaming. We can deny, we can delay…dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want.” is now in the process of framing DCMAE employee and whistle blower, Kenneth Pedeleose, using the same modus operandi. DoD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter needs to make a decision: Will he allow another innocent person (Pedeleose) to be framed or will he put and end to the DCMAE’s crime?
In a March 29, 2008 AP story by Deb Riechmann, President Bush said, “Any government that presumes to represent the majority of the people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law.”
Special Counsel Scott Bloch and his Complaints Examining Attorney, Mary Monahan has not yet addressed the DCMAE’s pattern of prohibited personnel practices and verified felony conduct. And I have not heard back from Attorney General Michael Mukasey concerning the DCMAE’S verified felony conduct.
A March 3, 2008 letter to President Bush requesting a special investigator to investigate the verified pattern and practice of DCMAE criminal activity awaits a response.
Does this resemble American justice?
Mr. Kinan may be contacted at: DougKinan@yahoo.com or (617) 323-6171
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
May 6th, 2008 P. Jeffrey Black
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By John R. Wilke
May 6, 2008 3:10 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Federal Bureau of Investigation agents raided the Office of Special Counsel here, seizing computers and documents belonging to the agency chief Scott Bloch and staff.
More than a dozen FBI agents served grand jury subpoenas shortly after 10 a.m., shutting down the agency’s computer network and searching its offices, as well as Mr. Bloch’s home. Employees said the searches appeared focused on alleged obstruction of justice by Mr. Bloch during the course of an 2006 inquiry into his conduct in office.
The independent agency, created by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal, is charged with protecting federal employees and deciding whether their complaints merit full-scale investigation — a first line of defense against fraud and mismanagement in government. It also enforces a ban on U.S. employees engaging in partisan political activity.
The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Mr. Bloch had used “Geeks on Call,” an outside computer-service firm, to erase his computer and those of two former staff members in December 2006. (See related article)
Mr. Bloch’s agency is typically involved in sensitive investigations of alleged government wrongdoing. Before the departure of White House political director Karl Rove, Mr. Bloch’s staff was looking into whether he or other White House officials improperly used federal agencies to help re-elect Republicans in 2006.
At the same time, Mr. Bloch has been under investigation himself since 2005. At the direction of the White House, the federal Office of Personnel Management’s inspector general is looking into claims that Mr. Bloch abused his investigative authority, improperly retaliated against employees or dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination.
The computer erasures became part of that investigation and are one of the reasons behind today’s raid, employees said. Investigators were trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, the Journal article reported.
Bypassing his agency’s computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned 1-800-905-GEEKS, the mobile PC-help service. It dispatched a technician in one of its signature PT Cruiser wagons. In the Journal story, Mr. Bloch confirmed that he contacted Geeks on Call but said he was trying to eradicate a virus that had seized control of his computer. He said the erasures didn’t delete any files related to the inquiry.
Mr. Bloch was in the office this morning during the raid but couldn’t be reached for comment. The search was still under way early this afternoon, witnesses said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121009238217171025.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
May 2nd, 2008 P. Jeffrey Black
By Matthew Blake
The Washington Independent
February 26, 2008
Update: Lurita Doan announced April 29th that she will resign from her position. Here are some reasons why…
What if Alberto Gonzales were still attorney general?
The independent investigations, congressional hearings and growing media outrage seemingly doomed Gonzales. But what if he had refused to resign and President George W. Bush, who had begun working with him long ago back in Texas, had continued his support? Gonzales would now preside over a huge bureaucracy that was collectively holding its breath until Bush left the White House.
The scenario is not too hard to envision — because it’s happening right now at the General Services Administration under Administrator Lurita Doan.
In May, an Office of Special Counsel report found that Doan had violated the Hatch Act, the law that prevents federal employees from engaging in partisan politics. Investigations from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and also Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) laid out charges that she intimidated employees, awarded a no-bid contract to a friend and inappropriately interfered in approving a contract where the government was overcharged by millions of dollars.
Yet Doan still leads GSA — to the surprise and dismay of a number of congressional investigators and GSA employees. That she hasn’t resigned and the White House’s hasn’t told her to raises a broader question: What does it take before a government official leaves for the good of her agency?
“Working in the negative atmosphere that Doan’s created is hard,” said Ted Stenchey, a 28-year GSA veteran in the office of Inspector General. “Hopefully, the next 11 months will go quickly.”
Stenchey and other employees who spoke to The Washington Independent were as upset about the impact Doan has had on their day-to-day jobs as the scandals that made her a frequent target for Bush administration critics. Indeed, the scandals seem to go hand-in-hand with her unusual meddling into the work of the 12,000-employee bureaucracy.
Multiple Allegations
GSA arranges about $60 billion in contracts each year that provide the government with everything from air conditioning units to automatic sprinklers. It also finds office space for agencies, hence the nickname, “the government’s landlord.” While other agencies go through the White House and Congress for funding, GSA relies on brokerage fees from agencies.
Doan came to GSA in May 2006, after starting New Technology Management, Inc., an information technology company for border surveillance that had government contracts from the Dept. of Homeland Security.
Doan came in promising an accelerated process for awarding contracts. “She’s a private entrepreneur,” said one employee, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “She wanted to increase revenues and decrease costs.”
For Doan, that meant curtailing the time and money spent by the GSA’s Office of Inspector General, which audits contracts to ensure the government is getting the best deal. Three months into her job, Doan and the GSA Inspector General Brian Miller had their regular monthly meeting.
Doan accused Miller of “terrorizing” GSA regional administrators because he was persistently requesting information about contracts. She said she wanted the Inspector General’s budget cut $5 billion, an unusual intervention by the agency head into her auditing office. She separately told GSA regional administrators in an e-mail that the Inspector General was the “No. 1 obstacle” to an effective agency.
A longtime employee of the Inspector General’s office complained last week that he does “double duty” — doing his job and then justifying his job to the rest of the agency.
Doan had specific problems with the IG’s auditing a $20,000 no-bid contract she tried to arrange with Public Affairs Group. Edie Fraser, the chief executive of that company, is an old friend of Doan’s.
GSA also renewed the government’s contract with Sun Microsystems — despite an IG’s audit had concluded Sun charged millions more to the government than to private consumers. Doan, however, pushed for the deal, replacing contract negotiators who disagreed with her.
Soon after Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) took over as chairman, the House oversight committee began investigating Doan for “overruling and removing contract negotiators” and the latest complaint from a GSA employee — that Doan may have violated the Hatch Act.
A month later, the House oversight committee held a hearing to examine a GSA brown bag lunch that would briefly, but spectacularly, make Doan a Gonzales-like target of Bush cronyism. The committee showed that Scott Jennings, the White House deputy director of political affairs, gave a power point presentation to GSA employees.
Jennings had laid out where GOP congressmen were vulnerable in 2008, and which districts they might win back. After the presentation, Doan addressed her employees, saying, “How can we help our candidates?” At the hearing, Doan said she didn’t recall making the statement — or even much of the meeting — because she had been too busy checking her Blackberry.
In June, the Office of Special Counsel released a report where more than 20 lunch attendees said Doan had not been on her Blackberry. The report also concluded Doan had violated the Hatch Act. Additionally, Doan disparaged employees who cooperated with the OSC’s investigation and told them that they wouldn’t get bonuses. OSC concluded that the White House should discipline Doan to the fullest extent.
In the wake of the OSC report, The Washington Post editorial page called Doan “troubled and troubling.” The New York Times editorialized, “Her credibility now stands as tattered as her memory. Her fate will be in President Bush’s hand, who supposedly knows a slam dunk when he sees one. Ms. Doan should be dismissed for violating one of the most hallowed laws of fairness in government service.”
The House oversight committee brought Doan back for a second hearing in June that looked into allegations that she intimated employees, and committed perjury in her first round of testimony. At the end of this hearing, Waxman concluded, “You refuse to take responsibility and you attack others for doing their jobs…[I]t is unusual for me to ever call for the resignation of a federal official, but I do not see any other course of action.”
After the Scandals Hit
And so Doan returned to the private sector. No, wait, she’s still running GSA.
“We remain perplexed as to why the president would continue to allow her to serve as GSA Administrator,” said an oversight committee staff member, “when the Office of Special Counsel concluded she broke the law.”
“I’m still shocked she stayed on after the Hatch Act violation,” said a GSA employee who also requested anonymity. “The Hatch Act is there to protect me- I don’t want to be called to the auditorium for a political speech.”
The White House says that the matter is still under review. “It’s in the hands of the president and we know nothing more than that,” said James Mitchell, spokesman for the Office of Special Counsel.
Doan and her defenders have been defiant of the charges against her. The oversight committee ranking minority member, Tom Davis (R-Va.), said at the June hearing that the committee’s look into Doan is a “farce premised on a sham.” Doan herself said at the hearing she was the victim of a “culture of gotcha.”
Since the hearing Doan has kept a low profile, avoiding the press coveted earlier in her tenure. Her spokeswoman declined to comment for this article.
For GSA employees, that may be the scandal’s silver lining. “She’s been quieter and that helps,” the employee said, “It’s really scary when she says her employees are the No. 1 obstacle in her job.”
Article Original Link HERE
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
April 24th, 2008 Guest Contributor
The sentencing of former Pentagon IG Chief Investigator Richard T. Race
By Douglas K. Kinan
In a well unpublicized case, “Richard T. Race, the Pentagon inspector general’s chief investigator of procurement fraud and official misconduct quit his job and pleaded guilty last month to violating U.S. banking laws.” Mr. Race was also a key member of the Defense Council on Integrity and Efficiency. The sentencing date for Mr. Race is May 2, 2008.
A March 18, 2008, Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) Information Release, states, “The Office of Inspector General was not involved in the reporting or investigation of the matters underlying the recent judicial action and has no information that would suggest any relationship between those matters and Mr. Race’s official duties with the OIG.”
I disagree. Felony conduct is not about the person – it’s about felony conduct – and its related.
At his arraignment Judge Leonie Brinkema told Mr. Race that he should have “known better.” Mr. Race’s many years of experience in law enforcement and his actions demonstrate that his intent was clear. See the letter Mr. Kinan sent to Judge Brinkema.
As a former Department of Defense employee, after Mr. Race’s appointment I wrote to him requesting that the extensive and pervasive verified record of felony conduct and well planned discrimination by several officials at the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMAE), Boston, Massachusetts be investigated.
Concerning two, of many employees, who were framed and fired for violations that Mr. Race knew they did not commit, the Hotline Director, Mr. Leonard Trahan, Jr., (and eventually Mr. Race’s subordinate) writes, “There were two EEO cases in the District in which Mr. Kinan disagreed with the decisions made by Ms. Appleton and Mr. Krasker, the DCMDE Chief Counsel. Instead of accepting those decisions “as reasonable people can disagree”, they became a ‘cause celebre’ for Mr. Kinan.”
That the Hotline Director who is responsible for DoD fraud, waste and abuse would essentially admit that it is okay to frame innocent individuals, stand by and watch them anguish for many months (Virella was 60 months) and allow them to be stripped of their career and full pension and then justify felony conduct as a “cause celebre” is contrary to what the DoD Hotline does.
In a conflict of interest, Mr. Race’s second subordinate, Mr. James L. Pavlik, covered up for Mr. Trahan by conducting a fraudulent investigation, making false official statements and issuing a fraudulent report to Senator Charles Grassley.
Despite the unequivocal fact that Mr. Pavlik had a “specific and credible” record that innocent employees were framed, Mr. Pavlik wrote, “The analysis that concludes Mr. Kinan’s disclosure did not contain “specific and credible” information or did not meet the “substantial likelihood” test that it would be substantiated and was therefore not in the category of cases referable to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service…”
Mr. Race could have prevented the DCMAE from framing others. Instead, Mr. Race opted to shield his subordinates’ felony conduct. As I wrote to the DoD Inspector General, Claude Kicklighter, “Framing two innocent individuals is not just a simple matter of “two EEO cases” - it’s framing two innocent people.”
The DCMAE wasted more than one million taxpayer dollars to secretly settle these two threatened lawsuits that could expose their felony conduct, promotion fixing and program fraud in the millions of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Race’s deliberate indifference to the conduct outlined in my thirty-page affidavit caused many innocent individuals permanent and immeasurable damage. Additionally, the ripple effect of fixed promotions essentially denies many DoD employees the opportunity to compete for merit-based promotions.
As evidence of the DCMAE’s continuing violations, Mr. Race also had knowledge of the DCMAE’s recent framing and fraudulent investigation of whistleblower, Mr. Kenneth Pedeleose, as can be verified by the October 24, 2007, United States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) “Opinion and Order” reversing Pedeleose’s 30 day retaliatory suspension. See MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-06-0350-I-1.
The MSPB’s opinion and order breathes legitimacy into and corroborates the factual record that the DCMAE attorneys continue to insist on framing innocent citizens and conducting fraudulent investigations to sustain false and fabricated charges, using the same modus operandi each time.
Mr. Race’s insensitivity has no limits and knows no bounds – his deeds supersede his words. Anyone willing to frame an innocent person should not be taken seriously. It’s about the lowest act you can do.
At his sentencing hearing Mr. Race or his attorney will be asking the court for leniency and will offer the standard shibboleths routinely issued by defendants. There will be no one there to offset Mr. Race’s malice, lack of mercy, empathy or “remorse.” The court should not overlook Mr. Race’s willingness and propensity to permanently harm innocent individuals, their families and the government.
Mr. Race ignored the fact that many innocent individuals were framed, stripped of their career and full pension for violations he knew they did not commit and he condoned his subordinates’ chronic and systemic malfeasance.
Mr. Race was allowed to “take voluntary retirement” on February 16, 2008. Should Mr. Race, who admitted guilt, be allowed to collect his full pension when he knew that his subordinates consciously decided that innocent employees should not collect theirs?
Mr. Kinan is a former Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) Specialist with the Defense Contract Management Agency, and he may be contacted as follows:
Douglas K. Kinan
DougKinan@yahoo.com
617-788-8330 - days
617-323-6171 - evenings
Posted in Federal Government Whistleblower | No Comments »
April 10th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Please click on the link to view theFinal OSC Watch Petition that is now on its way into the hands of Congress.
Please visit the Government Accountability Project, (GAP) and read what they had to say about OSCWatch Petition to Congress.
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
