Outsourcing the Complaint Process: How the U.S. Government is Sacrificing Public Involvement and Safety

by G. Florence Scott

Once a person recognizes a problem exists in his or her workplace and decides to try to do something about it, they have entered the misty world of the Whistleblower, a world populated by an evergrowing class of people who try to help solve problems by bringing problems to the attention of their employers and elected officials. Whether you are a private citizen or government or industry employee, there is a process you may use to make a complaint or voice a concern. Generally, the government and most businesses have departments to listen to concerns and take complaints, investigate the allegations and then proceed with mitigation of the problem or prosecution of wrongdoers, depending on the outcome of the investigation. Sometimes however, the process can be purposefully derailed by the very agencies whose charge it is to do the job. One person, reading about some airplane safety problems, and seeing a serious safety risk to the American public, contacted the whistleblower who made the allegations. (The Last Inspector website, http://thelastinspector.com/id19.html) Then, feeling that the reporter, a former airplane inspector for a large commercial airplane manufacturer with plants in the northwest, had some very valid and disturbing allegations, she decided to contact the Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General, whose inspectors were allegedly beginning an investigation on the matter. She encountered a rather deceptive system, which led complainants to believe they were in contact with employees of the DOT OIG investigative staff. Because this complainant had experience with government communications practices, she realized fairly quickly that something was not right and set about trying to find out who she really was talking with and where they really were located. It ended up that the DOT OIG had decided (as a cost saving measure?) to outsource their complaint lines to an east coast contractor, placing minimally qualified, non-governmental employees in charge of sorting complaints and deciding which ones would be sent on up to the actual OIG officials to investigate. Believing that concerned citizens or government employees expect to be able to reach a qualified person with both the authority and power to do something about the problem, she wrote a letter to U.S. Senator, Maria Cantwell, pointing out that the outsourcing of such a process further created an opportunity for justice to be denied to the complainants, or for the process to be manipulated negatively. The letter was as follows: “April 12, 2007 Dear Senator Cantwell, I decided to go to the Dept. of Transportation OIG and make a complaint on behalf of someone who is fighting to bring to light corruption within FAA which is apparently causing FAA not to ethically inspect planes and certify according to policy and law. (You may read about this at the following website: www.thelastinspector.com) In any case, I visited DOT OIG and found their hotline for reporting fraud, waste, abuse etc. Upon sending in my concerns, I was answered via email by a person named Anna. She asked some questions which I answered. Emails went back and forth a couple of times and then I noticed her email was coming from: (*@hotlines.com) On Behalf Of US Department of Transportation. This is most irregular. Government offices as I understand it, are required to use a .gov address, unless they are DoD; they would use a .mil address. I became very suspicious, and somewhat alarmed about whom I was really speaking to and where they really were located. Upon visiting www.hotlines.com, I found that the Department of Transportation OIG has contracted out their reporting crimes and fraud hotline to a contractor. There is a news announcement article bragging about it at the hotlines.com site. I find that the young person who answered my emailed report, who appears to be a recent college graduate, holds a BA in Anthropology, and has been made the supervisor of this site. Now for the life of me, I cannot understand how the DOT OIG can see that it is proper to turn over sorting and prioritizing reports of criminal and other improper actions to a non-governmental or un-qualified person. First there is the security issue, both to the reporter and to the government programs involved. Also, putting the contractor’s employee and the contractor hotlines in the position of filtering out what is and what is not of real concern to the “professional investigators” at DOT OIG is letting the non-government contractor decide which issues are going to be investigated by the DOT OIG. Also, what good is one more layer of bureaucracy that could be corrupted and used nefariously? I questioned someone who works for the government and knows the law and policy well. The response I got back was this: “As you can see from the policy letter, (OMB Policy Letter 92-1, September 23, 1992), the policy reads “the direct conduct of criminal investigations.” I am sure that the DOT contracting officer that awarded this contract considered that the contractor was only gathering information. However, in this case the contracting authority for the DOT has placed a contractor in the even more powerful position of actually determining/deciding what information is going to go forward to the DOT for consideration for opening a criminal investigation. Minimally, the actions of the DOT contracting authority need to be reviewed for appropriateness, and need close scrutiny as to whether, in this case, they have placed a contractor in an inherently governmental position by the nature of the way the contract has been implemented. Why should a contractor decide whether potentially serious (and possibly at times life threatening to the individual(s) providing the information) information is provided to the DOT for potential criminal investigation?” (End of expert opinion) This is ridiculous. I have a copy of the full OMB Policy Letter 92-1 (Sept. 23, 1992), which states what role contractors may play and what duties are inherently governmental in function, and cannot be handed over to non-governmental contractors. Not only do I believe this is against policy and illegal it is one more case of disaster within our government to the detriment of U.S. Citizens who may be trying to make the system work right in solving some serious problems! I would be happy to send the above-mentioned policy and copies of the emails I described above it they are of help in allowing you to tackle this problem. Let me know how to send them to you. I do not think the policy will paste into one of these boxes on your automatic email submission site. Thank you.” She further reports that Senator Cantwell did open an investigation for her, and that she received a phone call from one of the Senator’s aides, who sent her some forms which she filled out and sent back with detailed documentation, including a copy of the policy mentioned. A few weeks later, she received a letter from DOT OIG saying they were looking into the matter and would get back to her. That has been more than a month ago. The ability to “petition the government” or point out where and when problems occur that have a negative impact on individuals or citizens as a whole is a very important one. American’s deserve to know that their government is providing a way to confront and resolve problems in a straightforward and safe manner, for both the whistleblower and for other involved parties. They also deserve to know that a competent investigation will be conducted and the problems mitigated, and/or wrongdoers held accountable. Without these expectations being met, public trust of our government, and satisfaction with our jobs and our ability to participate in our government will further erode.

The Federal Training Gap: An Act of Negligence or an Intentional Act to Paralyze Government Oversight?

by G. Florence Scott

Recently an article by Stephen Barr, Washington Post (“Study Reveals a Training Gap,” Tuesday March 27, 2007), contended that there is a “training gap” and that Federal employees need and want more training, but are not being given the opportunity to go to classes. It seemed to present a simple view which appears to focus on the symptom, rather than the root of the problem. Most sensible people would see the value of training, particularly ongoing career long training which allows a person to renew and become increasing proficient in doing their job. There are perhaps, darker forces at work here, which lie below the trend toward reducing training for employees in some Federal Agencies. It has been the observation of this writer that there is much more to the “training gap” than benign negligence or budget constraints. Early in his career one Senior Security Specialist, (who worked in the Department of Defense for nearly 20 years, policing defense contractors in the area of security practices), and his colleagues had ready access to the many courses of study that would make them increasingly competent and knowledgeable in the areas they would be working. That began to change about six years ago, as there began to be more political change of attitude and increased micromanagement of federal employees by those political forces. This appeared to be especially true in agencies charged with oversight of defense contractors. This translated to first proposing having industry police itself, with a reduction in government oversight, and then reducing the number of Security Specialists, increasing intensely their workloads, and a cutting back of monies and opportunities for employees for training. At about that time, many federal employees were encouraged to take part in work groups, particularly in civilian defense agencies, to contribute to a “reinvention” of government. Many willingly did this hoping to help improve matters. The “reinvention of government” parade marched on and rather than a clarifying and improving of policy and management, there appeared to be increasing numbers of improper relationships and connections growing between some of those in government, particularly mid and upper managers and the defense contractors. Along with this trend, also appeared to be an increase in movement of employees from government to contractors and contractors to government, referred to by many as a “revolving door.” Conditions worsened as some federal Defense Department agency managers chastened employees who were not “friendly” enough to defense contractors or who were not willing to overlook things that needed to be addressed and corrected. For instance, after a particularly egregious investigation during which the Senior Security Specialist’s work had uncovered documented fraud and criminal activity by a particular defense contractor, the Security Specialist found that he was targeted for very personal attacks because of standing up and faithfully fulfilling his agency’s stated mission. Eventually, due to the extreme harassment and efforts by his supervisors, in the multiple layers above him, to drive him out or do him in, (retaliation for not agreeing to remove information in his report which would make it prosecutable, and refusing to commit fraud as he was ordered by upper management in his agency to do), he moved on to another job. Those same supervisors also drove out the only other Senior Security Specialist as well, to an early retirement. Then they took the next most experienced layer of Security Specialists and drove them out as well, as they had benefited from the training and expertise of the Senior Specialists, seemingly because they knew too much and continued to try to hold the defense contractors accountable. New, junior employees were hired when the agency managers could not postpone doing so any longer. The new employees have gotten little of the high quality professional training they need in order to be effective in policing and managing the security concerns, (of which there are many), regarding defense contracts and defense contractors for which they technically have oversight responsibility. And please keep in mind they do not locally have any experienced Senior Security Specialists to advise, assist and train them at this point, so they are having to rely more on the very people they are supposed to be policing for help in grasping what is going on; read that the hens asking the fox for help. Furthermore, one of the mid-managers has been documented as having visited the local office and taken the newer employees aside and in an effort to intimidate and control them, boasted that he personally “got rid of” the two Senior Security Specialists, intimating that they too would be driven out and their careers ruined if they dared to be too diligent in doing their jobs. Effectively, the corruption between at least this one defense contractor and certain supervisors in at least one government agency took a giant leap forward as they made a purposeful decision after forcing out anyone with history and corporate memory to leave and then to withhold from future employees critical education and training, as a way of minimizing their effectiveness in policing defense contractors. This scheme, first of all destines employees to a frustrating and continuing lack of knowledge and experience because of the lack of training and therefore a lack of needed competence. The expertise that under previously normal required training schedules for employees, that would have grown and served our government and citizens well, was in short order eliminated, effectively emasculating the employee’s ability to do their jobs. In the current climate of government and defense contractor corruption and graft, it appears that this scenario may not be singular, and may be more widespread than American citizens would want to believe. The Government and other pertinent organizations should be making every effort to bring these matters to light and have them responsibly confronted and resolved. American citizens deserve no less.

Federal Workplace: Into the Snake Pit?

by G. Florence Scott

I guess it finally had to happen, considering the current attitudes and climate within our government, particularly at the highest levels. Welcome to your federal, taxpayer funded snake pit. It seemed like it used to be just industry where this kind of corrupt environment was running so rampant, but now, you can find it at a federal office near you. This gives the phrase “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you right out” a more ominous meaning. From the current state of things, it appears that ethical, responsible people are finding it harder and harder to continue to work in the federal government. Why is this? It is not because the majority of people are corrupt. It is because a minority of the workforce is corrupt, and many others are unwitting, or unwilling accomplices, and still others do not like what is going on, but remain silent, afraid to stand up as in some cases they do not qualify under current law for whistleblower protections and they don’t really have anyone in authority to go to that is not involved in the problem. And those that cross the wrongdoers, are dealt with severely by the corrupt good old boys/girls network, making sure that they will not stand up again, and for good measure, their coworkers are intimidated into not even going there. The corrupt activities and players appear to cross multi-agencies and into certain defense contractor’s ranks and back again. Quid pro quo relationships appear to abound between corrupted oversight authority agency employees and corrupt defense contractor corporations and their employees and vice-versa. The revolving door is quite functional between these various entities, and it appears current laws and policies, which were intended to prevent improper movement from one place to another, are for the most part ignored, and sadly, not enforced. One only has to pay moderate attention to note that the number of whistleblowers appears to be increasing exponentially. And those are the stories that break in the national or local press. There are many more people who find themselves whistleblowers, or are in situations that should make them whistleblowers, whose dilemma is hidden from view. And if the wrong doers committing the offenses that the whistleblowers are reporting have their way, that is where these cases will stay – out of site and out of the view of the public. Every method of damage control by those responsible for unethical or criminal activity is being employed to try to keep anyone, (whistleblowers, or those federal agencies who are supposed to have oversight and control), from stopping the unethical or criminal activities and from reporting the wrongdoers and holding them accountable. An associate who is an experienced and skillful federal investigator has told me “Follow the money.” And one can see with just a little research that this is indeed true. The money is a main issue here. Those that seek to manipulate and pervert our government agencies and our system of awarding and overseeing government contracts, as well as policy and procedures put in place to assure the security of our nation, are about the money. As the late Carl Sagan said, it is about billions and billions and BILLIONS. It would appear unmitigated greed is a major motivator. How can this have gotten so out of control? Most of us believed we had federal law and policies, including civil service regulations to help keep things in line. What we have not noticed perhaps is that there has been a progression of changes made which have derailed the checks we had in place that helped minimize problems in the past. It is an unfortunate and not accidental meeting of a number of elements: 1. An executive branch, bent on doing what is good for a few in the inner good old boy/girl circles at the expense of our country and its citizens. 2. An executive branch that has adopted an absolute scheme of secrecy to try to keep anyone from getting enough information to stop them. 3. Agencies which have received appointees who appear to either be a part of the good old boy/girl circles, or are easily duped into acting in the political best interests of the wrong-doers, not the best interests of our country. 4. Appointees in charge of various agencies in our government, who were placed there because of their willingness to comply with political mandates from above, not comply with law and the Constitution of the United States. And in some cases, the appointees have not even been qualified to competently perform their duties. 5. Appointees who have helped create a very hostile environment for Federal employees who stand up to wrongdoing and corruption they witness or encounter while doing the jobs they were hired to do. Remember, stuff really does run down hill. 6. Appointees who will help direct hiring and firing of employees based not on competence to do the job expertly and ethically, but employees who will “shut up and do as they are told” including overlooking corrupt activities and corrupt dealings of supervisors, even to the extent of purging reports and removing the very findings which make a criminal case prosecutable, there by protecting the wrongdoers, including corrupt defense contractors. 7. Federal managers, who as a part of helping dismantle oversight of contractors who hold awarded federal contracts, have worked for a protracted length of time (years) to try to weaken law, and when that does not work, change and weaken policy (in violation of the law), to disable oversight authority of those in charge of keeping the contractors in line. 8. Contractors who have sought increased profits at any cost, defying federal laws, federal security requirements, and ethical business practices, sometimes cutting the legs off of the very security and economic safeguards of the American public. 9. Federal managers and defense contractors who work through membership and involvement in other special interest organizations, such as security organizations who help with conference presentations and other lobbying activities to try to influence and change how oversight functions, twisting the system until it is incapable of actually holding these contractors accountable for their actions. 10. An executive branch which with its ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges, (and other Justice Department employees), using the same faulty and self-serving criteria for appointment, has profoundly affected the functioning (or malfunctioning) of checks and balances in our government. This sad state of government affairs is creating chaos and leaving the Americans shaking their heads in shock, confusion, and in some cases denial. It is vitally important for these problems to be confronted and ethically resolved. This is not really about political party, though some see it that way right now. The problems cut across all political party lines, and so must the solutions. We cannot expect for our government to remain functional, when it cannot honor and stay true to our Constitution and to the expectations of the American public. If the prevailing trend toward expansion of corruption within the federal government and industry, particularly defense contractors is not stopped soon, our collective future is very much at risk.

A Closer Examination of a Whistleblower Situation

by G. Florence Scott

“Ex-Boeing Worker Accused Of Downloading Documents And Leaking To Reporters.”  And so the story begins.

 

In a July 10, 2007 article by Steve Miletich, Seattle Times staff reporter, a Mr. Gerald Eastman of Kent, WA is accused of “16 felony counts of first-degree computer trespass” in court papers filed by the King County Prosecutor’s Office.  So what’s the story?  And, what’s the story-behind-the story?  It seems that Eastman worked as a quality-control inspector at Boeing in the Pacific Northwest.  According to Eastman, he was trying to call attention to quality-control problems at Boeing.  These quality-control problems were serious concerns about safety of the airplanes for those civilians or military who must fly.  And according to the July 10, 2007 Seattle Times article, Eastman “had been downloading highly sensitive computer files” for more than two years and providing information to The Times.  The article goes on to say “as a quality-control inspector, Eastman had unfettered access to Boeing’s computer system so he could perform his job, according to papers.  But, Eastman violated a company policy that limits access to areas relevant and necessary to perform work duties, the paper alleges.”

 

Let’s think about these statements, and try to put them into some kind of perspective.  Eastman is self-described as a whistleblower employee concerned about serious safety quality-control issues at The Boeing Company.  What has Eastman done to try to resolve those concerns?  Has he gone to his management?  If so, how did they (Boeing) handle the situation?  It would appear that Eastman remained concerned enough that he sought additional help outside of his company.  Obviously, he was concerned enough to first carry his concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  So how did they handle the situation?  Apparently, they did not feel that Eastman’s concerns had any merit; in other words, they took no further action.  O.K., so then what?  Mr. Eastman remained concerned enough that he carried those concerns on to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Office of Inspector General (OIG).  So how does the DOT/OIG handle whistleblower information?

 

Interestingly, the DOT appears to have outsourced (hired) a contractor company to screen all their whistleblower cases.  Now, how does that work?  A contractor screening other contractor and governmental whistleblower’s information?  So a contractor company has first cut on deciding what information, if any, has any merit!  I’ll bet that works well.  Talk about your self-licking governmental lollypop.  Nope… no problems here!

 

So let’s continue.  Eastman had unfettered access to Boeing’s computer system, and violated a company policy that limits access to areas relevant and necessary to perform work duties.  Sounds good on the surface, doesn’t it?  But, let’s look a little deeper and ask a few more questions about what has been said. 

 

First, you need to know, and understand, that The Boeing Company in Seattle is one of the United States largest companies.  I am sure that no one is surprised by that fact.  The Boeing Company is also one of the largest United States defense contractors.  Again, that is hardly new information to anyone.  Many defense procurements with various levels of classified parameters are worked on at Boeing Seattle.  This means that Boeing has legal obligations; legal obligations, both as a U.S. corporation and as a U.S. defense contractor.  Let’s look a little further.

 

Boeing, as a U.S. corporation, has a legal obligation to adhere to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  So who in the federal government oversees and enforces the EAR.  Well, much of the EAR is covered by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)/Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).  BIS principally oversees the Commerce Commodity List (CCL) items.  These items are unclassified information and/or technology that have various export restrictions placed upon them.  In short, this means that non-U.S. citizens will not have access (in any form) to the information without going through the proper U.S. Government export control process to seek and receive a properly executed export license to export that information and/or technology to said individual’s country.  However, the EAR is not all inclusive.  The EAR does not cover all goods, services and technologies.

 

More specialized types of information and technology may be covered under the United States Government’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).  And, yes, Boeing as a U.S. corporation, has the legal obligation to adhere to the ITAR.  The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has authority over defense articles and defense services.  But, the DOS has assistance from several governmental agencies for day-to-day oversight and enforcement of export restrictions placed upon ITAR controlled information and technology.  Classified information and technology resident at a U.S. defense contractor is the prerogative of the DOS in concert with the Defense Security Service (DSS).  Unclassified ITAR controlled information and technology historically was the oversight responsibility of U.S. Customs (now a part of the Department of Homeland Security).  More recently, DSS has also been tasked to oversee and enforce proper control of unclassified ITAR controlled information and technology resident at U.S. defense contractors.

 

So Boeing has legal obligations to protect various types of export controlled information and technology- both classified and unclassified.  And Eastman has had “unfettered access” and has been downloading “highly sensitive computer files” for more than two years off a system that depends upon a company policy to limit an individual’s access to areas relevant and necessary to perform work duties.  In other words, words or “a company policy” are what restrict an employees’ access to “highly sensitive computer files” that apparently not everyone has the same common need-to-know for.  Mr. Eastman’s access has been restricted by words?  So Mr. Eastman has been charged with 16 felony counts for computer trespass of a system he was authorized access into, but portions of ‘the system’ were being protected by words?  That is interesting indeed. 

 

Is this an insight into how Boeing may be protecting unclassified export controlled information and technology?  Has anyone asked that question?  Has anyone, besides Boeing personnel, really investigated, or is the U.S. government depending upon company personnel to investigate, and the local government to prosecute?  And speaking of investigation, has anyone done an internet search pertaining to Mr. Eastman.  Gerald Eastman seems to have the following web site [  http://www.thelastinspector.com  ] devoted to his particular situation, and his concerns with regard to his former employer (Boeing).

 

In review of Mr. Eastman’s web site, he speaks to concerns for questionable export control situations with regard to export controlled advanced technologies resident within Boeing’s portion of the B-2 program.  Now that really is interesting.  What if Gerald Eastman is right?

 

These charges of 16 felony counts for computer trespass of a system he was authorized access into, but portions of ‘the system’ were being protected by words, come from the same Boeing company found to be holding 30,000+ pages, prior to contract award, of classified U.S. Air Force information relating to satellite launch vehicles that Lockheed had been working on.

 

My comments are referenced to the situation ably described by the Project on Government Oversight’s (POGO) Beth Daley in her testimony at the Office of Special Council (OSC)/Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing July 12, 2007.  (http://www.pogo.org/p/government/gt-070712-osc.html)

 

 

 

 

 

It is a good that talk and dialogue continues regarding the OSC and MSPB and the environment for whistleblowers in the federal government.  However it is important to realize that the sum total effect of the inactivity of real accomplishment means that real people’s lives are being affected, and in some cases, ruined and families torn apart.  One federal employee over the course of his/her career conducted a number of serious investigations with regard to the inappropriate handling and mishandling of classified national security information and technology.

 

 

In one investigation, the Investigator was called in by a Security Specialist from the Dept. of Energy (DOE), to investigate the refusal of DOE management to take their investigative findings seriously.  The Department of Defense (DOD) Investigator was dispatched along with a second DOD Senior Security Specialist, to investigate the allegations.  The DOD Investigator met with a DOE scientist, and the DOE Security Specialist, making the allegations.  The DOE scientist, and Security Specialist provided sworn statements and documented evidence was provided to the DOD investigator and Senior Security Specialist.

 

 

Upon return to the DOD field office, the Investigator and the Senior Security Specialist wrote a classified report of findings (administrative inquiry).  What had been shared with the DOD was a DOE security program out of control.  The evidence documented critical nuclear weapons design information (CNWDI), and fissionable nuclear material being improperly stored at a DOE facility.  The report was appropriately classified, and appropriately forwarded through channels to the DOD headquarters.  Several weeks later, the DOD field office received a telephone call from one of the DOD headquarters personnel who had read the report.  The comment made to the DOD investigator and Senior Security Specialist was:  And what do you expect me to do with this?

 

 

The field office said that they expected it to be briefed to the DOE Director, believing that the problem was extremely serious, and when disclosed, would be addressed and fixed by the DOE Director.   At that point, the DOD headquarters individual said:  If you think that DOD headquarters is gonna walk over to the director of the DOE and brief her on the fact that she has fissionable nuclear material being improperly stored, you’re out of your “God damned mind.”

 

 

 

The effect of this DOD management level person’s refusal to do his job was that good people within the DOE that wanted to do the right thing were left swinging in the wind.  For the past 10 years, these people’s lives have been holy Hell.  The scientist was forced to relocate to another DOE facility; one much more remote to his/her family, by DOE and commutes back to his/her home several times a year, time permitting.  The DOE Security Specialist that tried to do the right thing, and when all appropriate channels failed within the DOE, then reported it to the DOD, found that DOD miserably failed them also.  For the past 10 plus years, that person’s career has been lost; their life has been ruined.  They have lost almost everything they owned.  And nothing has changed.  It’s time to get past just talking about this.  It is time to DO something.  -GFS

Why the OSC and MSPB are in trouble

Federal Whistleblower Office Accused of ‘Purging’ Staff
by Brian Dominick
www.newstandardnews.net

Gov’t workers in charge of making sure other gov’t workers are not punished for reporting agency abuses or for other illegitimate reasons say they are being squeezed out of their own jobs by the Bush-appointed special counsel.
Jan. 13, 2005 – The federal agency tasked with evaluating workplace complaints among US government employees is once again coming under fire for suspicious practices, this time from its own employees, who claim that the man President Bush appointed ostensibly to protect whistleblowers and other workers is engaged in punishing critics within his own office in order to stock it with friendly new hires.

According to public employee advocacy organizations and a lawyer representing staff of the US Office of Special Counsel (OSC), some twelve people — more than a fifth of the office’s investigative and legal staff — face the choice of moving to a distant city within two months or losing their jobs.

Some of the affected employees have retained an attorney and complained to three nongovernmental organizations that specialize in advocating for the rights of government employees who bring allegations of misconduct against government agencies. The workers’ representatives say the affected employees have reason to believe that the reassignments amount to an attempted “purge.” They further suggest that Special Counsel Scott Bloch is gradually doing away with his critics while making way for pliant, fresh-faced replacements, fitting a pattern of “cronyism” they allege he has engaged in throughout most of his thirteen-month tenure as head of OSC.

Bloch did not issue the reassignments with the expectation that the employees would accept them, said Tony Vergnetti, a partner at the private practice Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, P.C. and an expert in federal employment law. Vergnetti is representing “several” of the twelve employees who received transfer orders last week.

“Our clients feel very strongly that the reasons proffered by the OSC — and we’re seeing different ones each day — are just completely unfounded,” Vergnetti told The NewStandard, noting that the affected staff were offered just ten days to accept the transfer, two weeks to find new housing at least halfway across the country, and 60 days to report to their new assignments.

Contrary to a statement in a recent OSC press release that “extensive discussions with [OSC] staff” preceded the decision to transfer a dozen employees to OSC field offices in Detroit, Houston and Oakland, Vergnetti said that the relocation announcement “took everybody by surprise.” The affected workers’ advocates say that not one of them — including senior OSC staffers who have served under Bloch’s predecessors — was consulted on the move.

Furthermore, no call for relocation volunteers preceded the decision, and Bloch has reportedly refused to allow other staff to voluntarily take the places of those ordered to relocate to new assignments.

Vergnetti said the relocation announcement was “very upsetting” to his clients. “Ten days to decide is completely unreasonable,” he said, since many of the workers “have well-established family lives” and roots in the DC area.

Although Vergnetti stopped short of explicitly questioning the motives behind Bloch’s move, Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), was more willing to speculate. PEER has long been critical of Bloch for what the group calls “crony” hiring practices and his refusal to release documents pertaining to personnel decisions.

Since assuming office, Ruch told TNS, Bloch has exclusively filled openings at OSC with non-civil service employees appointed without competition, including many fresh out of the Christian conservative Ave Maria Law School. Ruch also said Bloch has employed no-bid contractors, an unusual practice at OSC.

All of the staff directly affected by unilateral relocation orders are career civil service workers, according to both Vergnetti and Ruch. None of the Bloch’s own appointees has been told to move. “The best we can figure,” Ruch said, speaking for PEER, “is that if [Bloch] didn’t appoint them, he suspects their loyalty.”

Normally, federal employees concerned that they are being punished for speaking out on the job, or for any other illegitimate reason, would turn to the Office of Special Counsel for assistance in seeking redress. Staff of OSC themselves, however, have no direct recourse for registering such a complaint of their own within the system.

“Our biggest concern is [that] OSC… is not policed by any governmental agency other than Congress,” Vergnetti told TNS. “So, to ensure that [OSC] complies with [workplace] laws, the employees are really left without any meaningful forum to question or challenge the legitimacy of these reassignments.”

With no other agency to turn to, the employees are hoping for congressional intervention. “Their sole avenue to keep this train from leaving the station,” Vergnetti said, “is that Congress will conduct some sort of oversight hearing or some sort of investigation into the reassignments.”

Toward that end, three independent organizations have written a joint letter to Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, heads of the Senate Committee on Government Oversight, the body directly responsible for the Office of Special Counsel.

In addition to PEER, the letter is signed by the Project on Government Oversight and the Government Accountability Project.

According to the groups, Bloch’s actions threaten to “transform the OSC from an independent agency whose mission is to protect the merit system, into a role model for destroying it.”

The advocacy groups also say they have “every reason to believe that the employees directly affected by the ‘reorganization’ have been deliberately targeted to make way for Mr. Bloch’s own hand-picks. Virtually all of the employees affected are individuals who either work under, or have themselves dared to engage in even mild private discussions with Mr. Bloch over the advisability of management and policy decisions he has made over the last twelve months.”

The letter goes on to state that OSC employees, “whose morale is now at an all-time low,” have been “living in a culture of fear” since Bloch issued a gag order to employees, forbidding staff — part of whose job, ironically, is to protect whistleblowers — from discussing OSC policy outside the agency.

Two federal employees’ unions joined the call this week. The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 workers, issued a statement demanding an investigation. The National Treasury Employees Union made a similar call on Wednesday.

Bloch has faced considerable criticism from PEER and others in the past. When he was nominated to head the Office of Special Counsel, Bloch was helping run the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives at the Department of Justice. The special counsel is itself an appointed position with a fixed, five-year term of office. Ostensibly to protect the independence of the agency, the special counsel cannot be unseated unless convicted of a crime.

Last year even the Bush administration, under pressure from gay rights activists and members of Congress, rebuked Bloch’s conservative ways, criticizing the special counsel’s suggestion that discrimination against federal employees based on their sexual orientation is permissible.

But nearly a year later, and despite having issued an apparent retraction of the change, language protecting federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation remains absent from OSC literature.

Bloch’s spokesperson, Cathy Deeds, failed to return several calls and an email on the matter of Bloch’s relocation orders, but speaking to the Washington Post she called charges that they are punitive “outrageous and inaccurate.”

OSC employees issued relocation orders on January 7 have been told they must give Bloch their answer by Monday. PEER and the other groups argue it would be more efficient to fill openings in the other workplaces, including the as-yet-unopened Detroit field office, with an allotment Congress recently gave the OSC to hire seven new employees, rather than shuffling so many settled workers around.

Letter to Rep. Pelosi Re: Corruption

Dear Rep. Pelosi, Speaker of the House,

I am very concerned about the growing amount of corruption the American people are having to suffer through particularly the increasing amount during this past decade.  I am including a piece from a blog, which quite nicely expresses the intensity of my feelings on this subject.  This piece is posted at: http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com

Please use your leadership to set an example of how to stand up to the wrongdoers and use our system and laws to correct the conditions, which are taking us down. 

Thank you,

——————————————–
Saturday August 25, 2007
Patterns of Corruption: What you can do!

O.K. So, do we not have laws to prevent a lot of the criminal and corrupt activities going on between corporate and other interests and our government? Yes, the answer is yes. We do have laws. Laws (and policies) that prohibit certain activities, that are or may even appear to be, corrupt, or a conflict of interest. For example, the revolving door between government and industry is a continuing problem, and using it is prohibited, however, rarely it seems is anyone enforcing the law or policies regarding this. [Employees who move from positions of authority back and forth between related branches of government and say, contractors or defense contractors, (usually for personal gain, or to manipulate gain for their corporation, financial or other), not always acting in the best interest of the American government and public are said to be using the revolving door.]

Is it a bad idea to accept gifts or bribes, or pay-offs for services rendered? Especially when you are a policy maker, policy implementer or a federal employee in an oversight agency? Yes, it is a bad idea, and it is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt. There are laws and policies against that type of unethical activity; if those with the authority to act, would act in accordance with the letter and intent of the law, we wouldn’t be where we are now.  Where we are now is with a flood of reports of various kinds of corrupt, unethical, illegal and just plain greedy behaviors that permeate the corporate and governmental world.  It has always been a problem to some degree due to human nature and a percentage of our population; it has grown exponentially in recent years. 

Why is no one holding the line, enforcing the rules? Good question. We have laws, which if enforced, can take care of much of the lawbreaking right now. We have people, who are in positions of trust in the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch of our federal government as well as investigations and enforcement in oversight agencies and federal criminal law enforcement oversight agencies and others, who right now as we speak, know they have the mission and responsibility to do right by our Constitution, laws, and the American people. Some of them are trying to do what is right and are paying, in many cases, heavy penalties for doing so. Others have lost sight of their civic and moral duty to serve. Still others have been lured away by the usual sirens of greed, power, need to belong, or affiliate with the wrong people, or are manipulated into passivity and silence through fear and intimidation.

And is no one outing the wrongdoers? Yes, in fact there are some responsible, loyal and authentically patriotic Americans quite concerned about the wrong they see being done by others, often higher up on the food chain within our government or within their corporation. Some do report, what they see and find as they do their jobs, taking it officially up the prescribed channels as a part of routine inspections, investigations and reports. Some, upon finding something not directly related to his/her job, go out of their way to try to find someone who cares to report it to, someone who might give a rip and do something about it. And these ethical reporters of unethical actions are most often labeled whistleblowers, or it is said they are not “team players” and their careers and lives are ruined. In case it is not clear, corrupt people doing illegal and unethical things do not like someone calling them on it and threatening their little empires.

Why do some people feel compelled to report wrongdoing when they find it?  For some it is their job and they take their job seriously.  For others it is necessary because of their principles.  Someone once called this the choiceless choice that whistleblowers face. For the whistleblower, it is choiceless, as due to their character, they could do no less. These are the people who overcome fear and who refuse to be intimidated and silenced. These people are the heroes of our time.

The list below is from a 2004 Harper’s article. It is not a well-balanced list but shows a variety of things that have been going wrong going back a few years.  I guarantee it has not gotten better since then.  I have posted quite a few “historical” pieces of information on my Whistleblower blogs in order to show the continuing pattern of ugliness. Corruption isn’t new.  But it sure as heck has gotten worse over the past decade.  Some companies and individuals are not even trying very hard any more to do their dirty work in secret.  In some environments it has come out of the closet with the wrongdoers blatantly confident they will be supported from the highest levels of the Pentagon and our government, and this has significantly changed the work environment.   Is it that we can’t do anything about it? No, I do not believe that. It is that few people, particularly those with authority to address the situations head-on, want to inconvenience or cause trouble to themselves for doing so, and it appears the more corrupt the layers get heading toward the top of our government, the worse it gets.

To clean up is going to take more of us paying attention, and being willing to stand up and try to do something about it. Getting Congress to pass workable whistleblower protections is one thing. This bill, S. 274, is on hold in the Senate as we speak. A version of it passed the house months ago. It is currently stuck in the Senate. Your emails and letters are needed to your Senators and others are needed to get the Oklahoma Senator to take it off hold and allow it to come to a vote.  Until this law, or one like it passes both the House and Senate, so called whistleblowers, (more often ethical employees who report wrongdoing as a required part of their job description), will continue to be cannon fodder.

I believe there are many people, corporate/defense contractor employees and federal employees who know of wrongdoing, corruption, etc. There is still a tendency of some to look the other way, to be afraid to report in fear of causing trouble for themselves.  Things are not getting better folks.  Extinction as a behavior modification technique does not work on this type of problem.  It is time to stand up and report what you know. If you cannot do it internally at your work place, or are afraid to do so, please contact organizations that help whistleblowers such as POGO (Project On Government Oversight) and GAP (Government Accountability Project) among others, or if what you know is something related to what the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Chair Henry Waxman), is already investigating, email or write them. POGO will even accept anonymous reports of corruption from those of you not so courageous. Or do all of the above. Contact addresses: www.pogo.org,  http://whistleblower.org., http://www.house.gov (go to committees and then to Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.)

Do not “go gentle into the good night” ducking and covering and living in fear. It only gets worse if allowed to continue; the bad actors only become bolder. And once you allow yourself to become compromised, and co-opted, you are dead in the water, and if you hold a security clearance, are now set up for blackmail later, or dismissal and loss of your clearance should you decide to try to stand up later. It is a desperate road to allow oneself to start down; resist it.  Stand up and blow that whistle hard, to paraphrase whistleblower, Steven Heller.

Elections are important. Not only do the people we elect have authority (and often power) they can wield in writing and passing laws and implementing policy, they can affect the other branches of government, and as we’ve seen recently, even upset the balance of power, checks and balances, cut the legs off of Justice, and severely put a spin on the work of judges, and through precedents being set, even affect the interpretation and implementation of Constitutional Law now and well into our distant future. Think about what kind of world we want to leave to those that follow us; think hard.

The every day things that American citizens can do are also important. We must pay attention and read and learn as a regular habit. We cannot allow our lives and focus to be taken over in an Orwellian/Bradburyesque way with sports, and “reality” shows, and soap operas taking up our time, co-opting our minds, focus, and initiative.  We must remain alert and we must be willing to speak up and speak out. We must be willing to explain, and teach, and yes, even lobby if it is necessary in order to get a problem addressed. We must be vigilant and not allow ourselves to be buried in the small things of life, which can take our attention away from the big things. We must be resolute and courageous and not listen to those who would fear monger among us, trying to keep us distracted, fearful, and passive.

It will not improve until we do. It will not take all of us. It never takes everyone. That is myth perpetuated by those that do not want us to believe we can do anything, who want to disillusion us before we even start. But it will take a significant number of us committing ourselves to trying to make a difference. And I hope we will do so, because the path already blazed and paved will continue to draw us down if we do not.

I am not a federal or corporate whistleblower myself. My experience in standing up for what is right and in advocating for others comes through my union work in the education field and seeing what has happened to a family member, a federal employee who has been labeled a whistleblower, just for ethically doing his job. But I know other federal and corporate whistleblowers and meet still more all the time, since starting collecting information and sharing information on the topic. I hear from people regularly and I have empathy for their situations and am committed to help them as I can.

I started this blog in order to find and share useful information about whistleblowers and situations, which create whistleblowers, and to encourage others to stand up and to do what is right. If you are a whistleblower, bless you. You have my highest regard. If you are experiencing things, which should lead you to be a whistleblower, please stand up for yourself and others. You will not be alone. There are many others like you who are trying to do the right thing too. And if you are a family member or friend of a person who finds themselves a whistleblower, be there for them. Help them any way you can. Please join me in supporting the countless others who are fighting for the good of all of us.

G.F. Scott
Corruption—Subject of—16 Facts
———————————————
Mar
2004 Amount earmarked by the House last December to create an indoor rain forest in Iowa : $50,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
Iowa Environmental/Educational Project (Des Moines)
———————————————
Mar
2004 Ratio of 2004 Bush campaign donations from Merrill Lynch employees to those from Bechtel employees : 60:1 Harper’s Index
Source:
Center for Responsive Politics (Washington)
———————————————
Jun
2004 Minimum U.S. spending on missile defense each year since President Reagan’s 1983 “Star Wars” speech : $2,700,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
Office of Sen. Jack Reed (Washington)
———————————————
Jun
2004 Number of the ten missile-defense components to be deployed this fall that have been field-tested as a system : 0 Harper’s Index
Source:
General Accounting Office (Washington)/Council for a Livable World (Washington)
———————————————
Jun
2004 Estimated value of a painting that the Saudi ambassador has given George W. Bush for his future presidential library : $1,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
National Archives & Records Administration (Washington)
———————————————
Jun
2004 Value of the solid-gold model of a Saudi fortress on display in his father’s presidential library : $1,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
George Bush Presidential Library and Museum (College Station, Tex.)
———————————————
Jul
2004 Amount NBC’s parent company, General Electric, stands to earn from Iraq’s reconstruction : $600,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
General Electric (Fairfield, Conn.)
———————————————
Sep
2004 Minimum number of ex-senior government officials who have worked for a major U.S. defense contractor since 1997 : 176 Harper’s Index
Source:
Project on Government Oversight (Washington)/Harper’s research
———————————————
Sep
2004 Chance that one of them was a member of Congress who became a registered lobbyist : 1 in 4 Harper’s Index
Source:
Project on Government Oversight (Washington)/Harper’s research
———————————————
Oct
2004 Days a House committee postponed July hearings on antidepressants while its chair considered a pharmaceutical-lobbyist job : 50 Harper’s Index
Source:
Congressman Jim Greenwood’s Office (Washington)
———————————————
Oct
2004 Number of the 5 Republicans investigating Rep. Tom DeLay on ethics charges who have taken donations from his PAC : 4 Harper’s Index
Source:
Federal Election Commission (Washington)
———————————————
Dec
2004 Revenue generated by Halliburton under CEO Dick Cheney from business deals with Iraq under Saddam Hussein : $30,000,000 Harper’s Index
Source:
Colum Lynch, Washington Post (N.Y.C.)
———————————————
Dec
2004 Value of the Halliburton shares owned by New York City’s Fire Department Pension Fund : $3,359,095 Harper’s Index
Source:
Office of the Comptroller (N.Y.C.)
———————————————
Dec
2004 Number of companies in which Tom Ridge holds stock that have a contract with the Department of Homeland Security : 7 Harper’s Index
Source:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
———————————————
Dec
2004 Ratio of U.S. arms dealers’ campaign contributions made since January 2001 to Democrats to those made to Republicans : 1:2 Harper’s Index
Source:
PoliticalMoneyLine (Washington)
——————————————–
2005
Jan
2005 Estimated value of a diamond-and-sapphire jewelry set given to Laura Bush in 2003 by the Saudi crown prince : $95,500 Harper’s Index
Source:
U.S. Department of State

Congr. Reichert’s Response to Defense Contracting (Boeing) Corruption

I have sent numerous letters to all of my elected representatives, including Congressman Dave Reichert, regarding the continuing (and growing) problem with corruption within Defense Contracting, Defense contractors, such as The Boeing Company, the “Tanker Deal,” the more recent GAO decisions regarding the “Helicopter Deal” with the USAF, etc.  (This information is posted previously on this site.)

   
My letters have all stated concerns for the corruption, no bid aspects, etc. and have asked for my elected officials to stand up and clean up the mess and my contention that business should be done in an ethical manner both by defense contractors, all government agencies and the Pentagon.

This is the response I got back 9-14-07 from Congressman Reichert, which makes it seem that they note the topic, but not the view and what they are being asked to do.  I feel like he counted my letter as one supporting the current status quo, which to say the least, is NOT what I stated! 

I am disgusted with what has been going on in the Boeing Company and others.  I am further disgusted with the apparent lack of ethical and responsible government oversight of defense and other contracting.  I asked Rep. Reichert to challenge Boeing and their corrupt counterparts within our government, not to continue to give them contracts at any cost, but to clean their act up and make them deal ethically and honestly with the government and the American people.

   
To date, I have not received any kind of response from Senator Patti Murray or Senator Maria Cantwell or any of the others I wrote to about this matter. 
GFS

———————————————————————-

Response from Congressman David Reichert on September 14, 2007

“Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Air Force tanker selection process. It was good to hear from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
 
The United States Air Force is currently looking to purchase a new line of refueling tankers. They have come up with a list of 26 requirements that must be met by companies such as Boeing in order to receive a contract.
 
In 2004, the House Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to require the Air Force to enter into a multi-year contract for new tankers. The current line of tankers includes planes that are 40 years old, some of which are corroding and the Air Force now has an urgent need to replace these planes. The Department of Defense is currently considering all options for this contract to ensure that they get the best planes for the taxpayers’ dollars. I believe that Boeing is the company that can provide the Air Force with the best possible planes for the taxpayers’ money, and I am hopeful that Congress will work to continue a strong relationship with Boeing. Boeing has a proven track record of providing high-quality refueling tankers for the US Air Force.
 
Please know that I will continue to support Boeing and jobs in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing’s Everett plant provides hundreds of jobs for Washington families. The impact that this contract could have on the economy of our region and the lives of thousands of Washingtonians is very significant. Please know that I will continue to fight on behalf of Washington families by advocating that this contract be awarded to Boeing.
 
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign up for my weekly e-newsletter at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation.”

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress

A Criminal Attorney or an Attorney Criminal?

How do you tell the difference?  Gerald Eastman discusses the answer to this question and more in his recent blog post:

From Gerald Eastman’s “The Last Inspector” blog.

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/index.php

http://www.thelastinspector.com/index.html

My blog today has a lot to do with part of my July 29th, 2007 blog, “What is Wrong With the Legal System?” which can be found at the following link:

http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/ind … 729-222028

It has to do with the portion of the blog dealing with lawyers I had had to deal with over the course of my quest to end the Boeing fraud documented on my web site, specifically (with the important points bolded):

“You would hope somewhere in this system there was somebody that followed the rules and did their jobs…A prosecutor’s office. A company’s legal department. A private legal firm. An attorney.

It seems finding people of integrity in the legal system is as slapdash as it was to find such people in my department when I was an inspector at Boeing. I was almost alone in being the one with enough integrity to do my job while being pressured not to do it by people without integrity.

Take the Boeing Legal department, for instance, which I tried to report fraud to on two occasions and who are assisting in my persecution now. They have many attorneys in house who presumably had to pass the bar and have to stay members of the bar to continue their profession.

Why weren’t any of them kicked out of the bar association when they advised Boeing that the State Department had no authority to keep them from exporting militarily sensitive devices on aircraft to proscribed countries without an export license? It would seem like an open and shut case. The State Department prevailed over the Boeing legal department’s wrong legal opinion that may have placed our country in danger. Boeing had to pay a $15 million dollar fine. But why weren’t the attorneys who made that obviously incorrect decision fired or disbarred to keep them from making such huge “errors” in the future? Your guess may be as good as mine. There seems to be a lack of accountability in the profession. Or did Boeing’s attorneys give the errant legal opinion and let the militarily sensitive technology on the airplanes deliver just because Boeing needed to deliver the airplanes to meet revenue and profit targets? That might explain both the highly questionable opinion by Boeing’s attorneys and why Boeing deferred complying with State Department requests for Boeing to apply for export licenses before delivering such airplanes on multiple occasions. It also explains why such attorneys were not fired or debarred for incompetence. They were just doing their jobs. But that would have made them even better candidates for disbarment, you would think.

But since when did attorneys stop advising companies how to avoid legal problems by ensuring they complied with laws, and stop advising companies how to minimize the damage from any accidental breaking of the law, and start advising their companies how to break the law with impunity?

I saw that in the same Boeing legal department. They refused to end the fraud in quality assurance I reported to their chief counsel on two occasions, and instead seemed to pull out all the stops in ensuring that fraud was not ended, as a naive person like me (at the time) might have expected. Hell, the Chief Counsel of Boeing showed up at the doorstep of my work not to help end the fraud, but instead to decide how to dispose of me, who they viewed as the real problem. You would think any attorney involved in this covering up of this fraud and the resulting retaliation against me would be a prime candidate for disbarment. But I have no knowledge of any of them being disbarred. To this day they labor to cover up the same fraud I reported to them over five years ago…Indeed, my prosecution is just one part of their plan to cover up the noted fraud.

But if private legal departments operate thusly, what about our prosecutors? Wouldn’t those attorneys who work on our dime spot such fraud and the related efforts to cover it up by placing false reports to the police to get people trying to end it arrested and the information they were gathering for the relevant authorities confiscated? Nope. They apparently do what the Boeing legal department wants them to do, not what is in the interests of the public or public safety. They decide to participate in the cover up by attacking the messenger of the fraud. Of course, maybe it is not incompetence or corruption that caused our public attorneys to act against their professional ethics. Maybe Boeing’s chief outside law firm contributing to the campaign of the prosecutor who faces his first election for King County Prosecutor in a few months played a part. I don’t know if Boeing is helping his election directly yet, but they have certainly proven themselves arrogant enough to do so. Shouldn’t these types of activities cause these prosecutors to get disbarred as well? It would seem so. I don’t see the bar association condoning this type of behavior.

…I am just one insignificant “victim” of unethical public and private attorneys working together that should probably be disbarred for incompetence and/or corruption. There will be others, unless someone, like I did in my job as an inspector at Boeing, stands up and actually does their job with the required ethics.”

End of blog excerpt.

What I wanted to relay today was some insight I have gotten into the answer for this conundrum: Attorneys protecting illegalities rather than representing their clients in order to prevent illegalities from occurring or to defend their clients after they have (wittingly or not) engaged in illegal activity. While researching this subject, I have found a startling answer by consulting definitive sources of legal information on the subject:

As it turns out, the behavior of attorneys I mentioned in the above examples that help their clients continue to engage in fraud in any way (covering it up, etc.) are not just doing their jobs as attorneys. Such attorneys are in fact considered accomplices in the fraud or crime they help ensure continues, rather than ensure it ends. Those among you who are legally savvy are probably saying “duh” right now, but this was news to me.

What does this mean? (Yeah, get ready for another “duh” moment.) Of course, it means that attorneys cannot legally act in the way I have witnessed them act. There is nothing that lets them do their jobs in that way. Such attorneys that cover up ongoing fraud or enable its continuance don’t just need to be disbarred–they are as complicit themselves with those that commit the fraud they are protecting. They are criminals, not attorneys. Due to the lowly state of public opinion of attorneys you may not sense the significance of this. Some people think all lawyers are bad and even criminally so because they have been so demonized as a group. However, what I found out shows (in this one area of law) who the real attorneys who are criminals are, and why they are criminal accomplices rather than just counsel to criminals.

So, attorneys who protect such fraud should be disbarred and tried with those whose fraud they were protecting. The fact that this kind of behavior by attorneys seems so common (in the limited circle of public and private attorneys I have had to deal with) is even more disconcerting with the knowledge it is not only ABA rules they are breaking, but that they are breaking the law as well.

It is indeed a sad era in America when both public and private attorneys protect fraud that places so many lives at extra levels of risk of an unknown and random severity.

DSS Is Broken: Defense Contracting Industry Out of Control

With all of the information being posted which shows runaway contractors, fraud and corruption in contracts and in contract oversight and management, particularly in the area of defense contracts, it is interesting to note that currently, the Oversight of such contracts is under the purvey of The Defense Security Service (formerly Defense Investigative Service) who’s employees have the charge of fulfilling their agencies assigned mission to “protect classified information and technology in the hands of industry.”  It would appear that DSS is broken and that this critical mission is no longer being accomplished.  (Someone recently contacted me and told me that the new DSS Director bluntly pretty much stated this when she was a guest speaker at a conference recently, although her statement was not included in the audio record of the conference.)  I checked with someone who had access to the laws and policies and found out the following:

 

 

 

The National Industrial Security Program (NISP)

 

“DoD 5220.22-M, Chapter 1, Para. 1-101- Authority

 

The NISP was established by Executive Order 12829.  The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) has been designated Executive Agent for the NISP by the President.

 

While the SecDef serves as the Executive Agent for inspecting and monitoring contractors, practical day-to-day administration of the program has been, and continues to be, the purvey of the Defense Security Service (DSS).

 

One of the responsibilities of the DSS is the administration of the Facility Clearance (FCL) program of defense contractors.  DoD 5220.22-M, Chapter 2, Para. 2-102- Eligibility Requirements, Sub Para. c. stipulates “The company must have a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings.”

 

So why isn’t the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Security Service enforcing this requirement?  They have the authority to revoke a defense contractor’s facility clearance and participation in the NISP until that contractor comes into compliance.  It appears to be used very selectively on small defense contractors, but never as a compliance tool in large defense contractor transgressions.”

 

 

 

 

So, current law does provide legal means to enforce expectations, policies, and laws regarding the actions of defense contractors, but the expectations, policies, and laws are not being enforced.  In fact, over less than a decade, it has become decidedly out of control.  It appears that Congress is going to have to stand up and take this to the mat, or it will never be wrestled back into control.  It would appear the following must be done:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Corruption within and connected to the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative Branches must be confronted and routed.

 

2.  Government Agencies must also be audited, removing first appointed managers who are either not doing the job required, or who are actively thwarting the employee’s   efforts to do the oversight work ethically.   This will include on an agency-by-agency basis, determining which employees are a part of the problem and those who may be paralyzed victims of the corruption and the corrupted managers and/or coworkers.

 

3.  Congressional intervention into defense contractor influence pedaling and lobbying wrongdoing must be accomplished and violations of current laws stopped.

 

4.  The Government needs to step up to its role as the governing authority.  Far too often contractors, defense contractors in particular have much too much influence into decisions that should be inherently governmental decisions.  This is not to say that defense contractors should not have input into the process.  However the final determination of policy needs to squarely rest on the shoulders of government. 

 

5.  Government employees who have oversight responsibilities must be uncompromised and independent of pressures either directly or indirectly applied from defense contractors or corrupted employees or managers within the government who are “owned” by those contractors.

 

6.  The defense contracting community is its own best advocate.  It does not need government workers or agencies advocating on its behalf.  The government should not be trying to be the “friend” of industry.  In business dealings, the government and industry, must maintain appropriate separation because of the legal oversight responsibility government has.  There are currently laws and policies, which have been in place a long time to assure that the lines between contractor and oversight authority are clear and clean.  However, those policies have in some cases been corrupted, and in others ignored, and in all cases where problems are evident have not been enforced.

 

 

 

Will all of this be easy?  No, although the path that must be taken is clear.  The heaviest weight in responsibility at this time, due to the apparent level of corruption and dysfunction in the Executive and Judicial branches, falls squarely on the shoulders of the Legislative Branch.  The Senate and House of Representatives must stand up and do the right thing for our country.