July 9th, 2008 Guest Contributor
By A.H. Martin
What 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.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/19934.html
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or check out our talk-back forum. Thanks for your support!
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
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 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, Office of Special Counsel | No Comments »
March 25th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Dear Advocate for Merit-Based Federal Civil Service,
OSC Watch is a group of concerned current or former federal employees who claim that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has failed to comply with aspects of its non-discretionary duties as an investigatory agency to the 10,000 or more federal employees who sought its protection from prohibited personnel practices (PPP’s), particularly the whistleblower reprisal type PPP, since being created as an independent agency in 1989.
OSC Watch has 3 objectives:
1) expose OSC’s lawbreaking, 2 stop it, and 3) obtain some measure of justice for the direct victims of OSC’s lawbreaking since 1989. To advance those ends, OSC Watch has prepared the attached petition to Congress, which already has an impressive list of names on it. OSC Watch has decided to keep the petition open until COB on March 31, 2008 so more parties - people or organizations can join it. Following that, it will be sent to Congress.Additional parties will be able to join following March 31, 2008 and subsequent revisions of the petition will show the parties who joined after March 31, 2008.
OSC Watch accepts that some of the petition’s claims could be dispelled via Congressional oversight and that some parties might want to qualify their endorsement of the entire petition.It is fine for a party to add qualifying language as “agrees in principle, but not necessarily with every particular claim” in joining the petition.
The petition is just that - a petition - intended to spur the Congressional oversight necessary to substantiate or dispel its claims and, if substantiated (in whole or part), to spur additional appropriate Congressional action.Parties that wish to join the petition can do so via the OSC Watch website or by sending an email to Traci Hallstrom, the Communication Director for OSC Watch traci.hallstrom@gmail.com.
OSC Watch much appreciates GAP’s support of the principles of this petition and its objectives and the interest POGO has shown in it too.
Respectfully,
Traci Hallstrom
Communication Director, OSC Watch.org
Posted in OSC Watch | 1 Comment »
March 23rd, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Please click on the link to view the OSC Watch Petition to Congress as of April 10th, 2008. The final petition is on it’s way to Congress. We have only included current and former Federal employees.
Due to the large number of public citizens who would like to be added to the petition, we have an open list of signatures. If you would like to be added to that list, please post a comment below with your name, title, and state if you are a Whistleblower Advocate.
Thank you
Posted in OSC Watch | 4 Comments »
March 16th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
Eliot Spitzer must be so proud to be the top story everywhere! Or not. There were, amazingly, other stories in the news this week: the wayward balls of March Madness, the bouncing banks of the economy, and those Superdelegates, who are able to leap coalition building in a single bound! Uncle Jay explains it all.
Posted in OSC Watch | 2 Comments »
February 16th, 2008 P. Jeffrey Black
By Beth Daley
February 15, 2008
Two weeks ago, U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of blocking his supposed investigations into the U.S. attorney firings when DOJ’s Inspector General asked Bloch to defer his review until they had completed their own investigation. At the time, the dueling investigations argument didn’t pass muster with Bloch’s office. But that same defense was good enough for Bloch to use in his own defense last week in a letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis.
The Committee wants to question Bloch about his seven-level wipe of computers at his office. That may have been an effort to cover up wrongdoing or obstruct an investigation into Bloch himself, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Bloch has canceled scheduled interviews with the Committee twice.
According to Bloch’s letter last week:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 16, 2008 regarding the Committee’s request for a transcribed interview of me. I continue to have substantial concerns about the Committee’s request because any such interview may touch on a matter that remains under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (”OPM”).
That sounds familiar. According to the Washington Post a few weeks back:
[DOJ Inspector General Glenn] Fine’s office generally does not comment on investigations, but Cynthia Schnedar, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, rejected Bloch’s letter as “both factually inaccurate and misleading.”
She added: “We agree with the Department of Justice that the more responsible course would be for Mr. Bloch to postpone his limited review–as OSC has stated that it has done in other instances–so that it does not interfere with the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility’s comprehensive joint investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings.”
James P. Mitchell, a spokesman for Bloch, challenged Fine’s office to explain the alleged inaccuracies in detail. “We have our jurisdiction,” he said. “We have always said we will not be interfering with this investigation.”
Looming in the background are questions as well about whether Bloch perjured himself when he testified before the Committee’s Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia. Members of Congress questioned Mr. Bloch at the hearing about the circumstances surrounding the leak of an Office of Special Counsel report chastising GSA Administrator Lurita Doan. Sources say Bloch lied when he claimed he knew nothing about the leak of the report, and that he, in fact, may have directed that it be leaked in order to bask in the media spotlight.
Sources also raise questions about whether Bloch’s supposed investigation of the U.S. attorney firings at DOJ is even within OSC’s jurisdiction, whether he is being disingenuous in claiming to be actively investigating Karl Rove, or whether Bloch is simply using every last trick in the book, from seven level security wipes to phony high profile investigations, to save his own hide.
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2008/02/blochs-double-s.html
Posted in Equal Employment Opportunity, Government Accountability Project, Government Corruption, OSC, OSC Watch, Office of Personnel Management, PEER, Project on Government Oversight, Scott Bloch | No Comments »
February 15th, 2008 Traci Hallstrom
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Friday, February 15, 2008
A U.S. appeals court ordered a federal merit board yesterday to consider whether former Park Police chief Teresa C. Chambers was unfairly targeted as a whistleblower when she was fired in 2004.
Chambers was ousted after telling The Washington Post that her police force was strained by providing stepped-up protection for national monuments after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in addition to its work patrolling parks and highways.
A federal civil service merit board upheld her removal in 2006. Chambers then took her case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In its decision yesterday, the court upheld the merit board’s findings of several charges of misconduct against Chambers. It also said that removing her from her job was “a reasonable penalty” for such actions as failing to follow the chain of command.
But it also ruled that the merit board had erred in deciding that the Whistleblower Protection Act didn’t apply to her case and sent it back for reconsideration. The appeals court said that the merit board must consider a broader standard, reviewing the public safety issues Chambers raised with the media as well as her disagreements with Park Police budget policy. Chambers contends she was protected as a whistle-blower for flagging dangers.
“While Chambers certainly expressed a disagreement with a policy decision, she also potentially disclosed a danger to public safety that may have resulted from that decision,” the decision said.
Chambers said she was heartened by the decision, although it wasn’t a reversal of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s ruling.
“I think it’s critical for all of us that our federal employees can have some measure of protection when they speak out about issues that affect our safety,” she said.
A National Park Service spokesman, Dave Barna, declined to comment, saying the matter involved a personnel issue in litigation.
Chambers, the first woman to head the Park Police, led the force from February 2002 until she was suspended in December 2003 and subsequently fired. She recently became police chief in Riverdale Park in Prince George’s County.
A recent report by the Interior Department’s inspector general said the Park Police is still plagued by some of the problems Chambers highlighted.
Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/14/AR2008021403431_pf.html
Posted in OSC Watch | No Comments »
