Posts
opednews.com
December 29, 2010
26Dems Editorial Comment: S. 372 was defeated by a secret hold, a tactic that allows a Senator to misappropriate power without being held publicly accountable. Senators McCaskill (D) of Missouri and Grassley (R) of Iowa introduced legislation to ban secret holds, but the bill went down to defeat because of a secret hold.
Shanna Devine is the Legislative Campaign Coordinator at GAP [the Government Accountability Project]. Welcome to OpEdNews, Shanna. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act failed to pass in the lame duck House session just concluded. Boy, that's disappointing: to you, the crew, who worked your tails off to get this passed, and to all of us who are worse off without the legislation. Take a minute, Shanna, and break this down for us. Why is whistleblower protection important in the first place? Why is S. 372's defeat so bad all around, regardless of one's politics?
Whistleblower protection is a cornerstone of our nation's security, because whistleblowers are the eyes and ears to abuses of power that betray the public trust. If they are not empowered to disclose wrongdoing, the pubic at large remains vulnerable to unchecked abuses of power, gross mismanagement, waste, fraud, and public safety threats. Often whistleblowers do come forward, at great personal cost, because they feel the stakes are too great to remain silent observers. Take for example sweetheart contracts that have interfered with the shipment of lifesaving military equipment, to contaminated beef used for children's fast food burgers, to illegal domestic surveillance under the guise of national security, without whistleblowers the public would remain unaware and vulnerable to these types of abuses that affect our daily lives. Public safety and taxpayer protection are bipartisan issues, which is why this reform has champions across the ideological spectrum; from Goldwater republicans to liberal democrats, everyone except the wrongdoer sees the benefits of strong whistleblower rights.
S. 372 would have strengthened protections so that federal whistleblowers would have a fighting chance to defend themselves against retaliation. Unfortunately current law, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), remains a would-be whistleblowers best excuse to turn a blind eye to government abuse. The law has been gutted over the years through judicial activism to eliminate coverage under the most frequent scenarios: Currently, you are not eligible for federal whistleblower protection if : you are not the first person who discloses given misconduct; you make a disclosure to your co-worker; you make a disclosure to your supervisor; you disclose the consequences of a policy decision; and the kicker: if you blow the whistle while carrying out your job duties.
S. 372 would have overhauled these judicially created loopholes, so that the law can protect federal whistleblowers as intended. It also would have
For the rest of the interview continue reading here.
- Offered Title 5 employees access to jury trials to challenge major disciplinary actions (for the first time in history)
- Ended the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals monopoly on appellate review
- Expanded whistleblower protection coverage to 40,000 TSA baggage screeners
- Created protections for scientific freedom
- Codified and provided a remedy for the anti-gag statute
- Barred a Patriot Act hybrid secrecy category that overrides federal whistleblower rights
- Protect more than just the "first person" who discloses given misconduct
- Barred Critical Infrastructure Information -- a hybrid secrecy category created by the Patriot Act -- from overriding WPA free speech rights.
- Provided government contractors the right to make classified whistleblowing disclosures to Congress
- Provided the Office of Special Counsel with authority to file friend of the court briefs in court to support employees appealing MSPB rulingsAnd here is the rest of it.
