An Informative Story About Scott Bloch

The strange case of Scott Bloch

By GREGG CARLSTROM

May 11, 2008

Since he took his job in January 2004 as one of the government’s top independent investigators, Special Counsel Scott Bloch has generated controversy — and enemies.

 

After last week’s unprecedented FBI raids on his office and home, many of those enemies are now calling for him to step down.

The raids, which seized computers and documents, were connected to a long-running Office of Personnel Management inspector general’s investigation into whether Bloch retaliated against employees in his office who disagreed with his management of the office.

 

Critics of Bloch say they think the FBI — along with inspector general agents — raided Bloch’s office and home because they suspect him of obstructing justice. Critics accuse him having his computer wiped clean of files that may support the claims of retaliation leveled against him. For his part, Bloch said he had his computer wiped clean because it was infected with a virus.

A grand jury looking into the allegations against Bloch, assembled by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor, approved the May 6 raid and subpoenaed about 20 members of Bloch’s staff to testify.

 

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called on Bloch to resign and asked committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to call Bloch in to testify before the committee.

 

OSC investigates alleged incidents of whistleblower retaliation, politicking by state and federal employees, discrimination against employees, and adverse employment actions taken against military reservists.

 

A controversial appointment

 

Almost immediately upon taking his job, Bloch started making enemies.

 

Within months, Bloch decided the Office of Special Counsel would no longer pursue discrimination cases based on an employee’s sexual orientation. Bloch argued the law is ambiguous on the matter, but gay rights groups said he was reversing long-held and accepted policy because of his personal views.

 

Several members of his office leaked Bloch’s decision to the press. Bloch allegedly retaliated, ordering those employees to relocate from Washington to a newly created Detroit office or lose their jobs. The allegations sparked outcry from whistleblower advocacy groups and prompted an investigation by the Office of Personnel Management inspector general’s office.

 

Bloch has denied the charges that he retaliated against employees. Jim Mitchell, communications director at OSC, says nobody was forced to relocate. “Some people just left OSC, thinking they were going to be sent to Detroit,” he said.

 

Critics of Bloch, which include Davis and various whistleblower groups, say Bloch appears to have obstructed the investigation into his alleged retaliation by having his laptop computer wiped clean in December 2006 by an outside computer repair firm, Geeks on Call. That incident has become part of the OPM IG probe: Investigators want to know if Bloch deleted documents relating to the alleged retaliation case, although they don’t know what might have been erased.

 

Bloch also made enemies within the administration and Republican Party by investigating numerous Bush administration figures. He investigated — and subsequently cleared — then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for possible Hatch Act violations in 2004. And last year, he investigated whether the chief of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, and top White House advisers Karl Rove and Scott Jennings violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from using their positions to advance a political party or candidate.

 

A draft copy of OSC’s investigation report that found GSA chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act was leaked to the news media last year. Doan accused Bloch’s office of leaking it, a charge he denied.

 

Also last year, Bloch had his office look into allegations by former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that he was illegally fired by top Justice Department officials in part because he spent time away from his job when he was activated as a Navy reservist. OSC is responsible for enforcing the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which prohibits adverse employment actions against military reservists.

 

`The Geeks incident’

 

Most observers said they think last week’s FBI raid and the ongoing grand jury investigation are linked to Bloch’s decision to hire Geeks On Call to erase the files on his laptop computer.

 

“These charges may be focused on the Geeks incident,” a source who has followed the investigation told Federal Times. “The OPM IG was doing its investigation, and Bloch was uncooperative, and it took a long time for [this raid] to come about. But because of Geeks, it looked like there were crimes.”

 

The OPM IG’s office declined to comment on the status of its investigation.

 

But officials within OSC describe the raid as “baffling,” because of the expansive scope of the subpoena, which also covered case files related to the Rove and Doan investigations.

 

“I don’t know what they’re looking for,” Mitchell said.

 

Mitchell says there are also questions about the Justice Department’s role in last week’s raid. “It’s a little strange for someone we’re investigating to come in and subpoena the investigator, ” he said in an interview, referring to OSC’s work on the Iglesias investigation. “Someone coming in from DOJ, requesting documents, that’s violating our independence. ”

 

Watchdog groups — who have been critical of Bloch for his handling of the OPM IG probe — say Mitchell has the story backward.

The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight says Bloch launched the Rove and Doan investigations to shield himself from being fired or investigated by the administration.

 

POGO is one of several watchdog groups listed as parties to the complaint filed by the OSC whistleblowers.

 

“Bloch will try to turn this investigation on its head, saying the White House is going after him,” said Avi Kumin, an attorney at Katz, Marshall and Banks, a firm that represents federal whistleblowers. “But OPM’s been investigating him for years … well before the Rove and Doan probes. Those were attempts to insulate himself politically. ”

 

OSC spokesman Mitchell disputes the charge that Bloch’s investigations into Bush administration figures were only attempts to protect himself.

 

“That’s absolute nonsense. We found Doan guilty of violating the Hatch Act,” Mitchell said. “She practically convicted herself [during testimony] on the Hill. … If we get a complaint, we investigate it.”

 

Several Bloch critics say the grand jury is probably considering obstruction of justice charges stemming from the computer incident. Bloch has admitted using more than $1,000 in public money to hire the company, but claims he had the computer cleared to erase a virus.

 

“They’ve never offered a theory about the computer files, or notified us that they were investigating the Geeks stuff,” Mitchell said, referring to the OPM IG’s office. “OPM never interviewed Scott about the computer.”

 

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided more details about that incident last week: Davis, a longtime Bloch critic, released a transcript of testimony Bloch gave the committee in March.

 

Committee staff told Federal Times the testimony’s release had nothing to do with the FBI raid — although they acknowledged the possibility that the grand jury was also considering perjury charges related to Bloch’s testimony.

 

During the two-hour interview, Bloch was repeatedly asked why he contracted with an outside firm, rather than using OSC’s in-house technology staff.

 

“I don’t want to be critical of my people,” Bloch told committee staff. “But there are issues there of, you know, on a scale of … one to 10 — 10 being, you know, Bill Gates — I don’t think I’m dealing with Bill Gates.”

 

Staffers also asked Bloch about a Wall Street Journal article that claimed Geeks on Call scrubbed computers belonging to two of his aides. Bloch claimed he had no knowledge of that work.

 

“If there was a virus on his computer, why was he scrubbing the computers of two top deputies?” said Kumin. “The testimony makes no sense, and it probably plays into their investigation. ”

 

According to Mitchell, the OPM IG’s office told OSC in January that it had finished collecting documents in connection with its probe.

 

Fighting FAA & Boeing Fraud from the 737 to the 787

Last Inspector’s Blog – Fighting FAA & Boeing Fraud from the 737 to the 787

Alert From the Project On Government Oversight Supporting their Op-Ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer  

Monday, May 12, 2008, 12:14 AM
Posted by Administrator (www.thelastinspector.com)

 

 

If you thought the last blog was noteworthy, check out this alert on the Project On Government Oversight’s website, which gives facts and data backing up their op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that showed that Boeing and the FAA knew my report on massive rollerstamping fraud by BCA inspectors was correct. Yet over the years they knew it was the status quo at BCA they did nothing about this fraud allowing defects of unknown number and severity to deliver to airline and government customers. In fact, the STA (Special Technical Audit) of BCA in 1999/2000 was actually used to further weaken an already ineffective quality system, rather than to make it more effective, as an reasonable person would deduce was what was needed.

This effort to weaken and make “less prescriptive” Boeing’s already sievelike quality system was called the “Quality Management System,” or QMS. Why would Boeing further weaken such a compromised quality assurance department as documented in the STA? Because, of course, as noted on my website, Boeing management was always aware rollerstamping was going on on a massive scale in QA because it was Boeing management who wanted that fraud to take place for cost and production flow reasons. And they knew they could count on their counterparts in the FAA to look the other way.

In January, 2002, I began my effort to end the rollerstamping in Boeing QA after my manager of the time proved to me it was Boeing management directed fraud, by going to the FAA. After several rounds of trying to get the FAA and Boeing Headquarters management to end that fraud placing passenger and crew lives at extra risk for a few more bottom line dollars for Boeing, Boeing dared me to go public, knowing they had FAA management to cover for their continuing fraud. The FAA had reliably done so since at least the 1999 STA.

That’s where the “Dual Failures” charade came in, which began, not coincidentally, just after I last spoke with Boeing about the subject, in October, 2003. This was a cover for Both FAA and Boeing management should I go public, as they and I expected I would. However, due to aforesaid reasons, I was unable to do so in a timely manner. They thought that I had decided to not go public after all, so they dropped this “Dual Failures” cover up project. More proof of Boeing/FAA management complicity in ensuring the rollerstamping quality system at BCA can continue. What more proof does DOT OIG Inspector General Scovel need to investigate the crooks in the FAA “overseeing” Boeing Type and Production Certificates? You have to wonder at what point they will step up and do their jobs in this critical area. Corrupt FAA mmanagement are not going to out themselves. Real oversight of BCA is needed now that will not only restore Boeing’s quality system to minimum standards, but also restore Boeing’s and/or the FAA’s oversight of Boeing supplier’s compliance with minimum quality system standards, which the OIG has documented serious noncompliances with. The root causes of both are the same–corrupt BCA and FAA management.

http://www.pogo.org/p/transportation/ta-080508-faa.html

Alert

May 8, 2008

Internal Boeing Documents Support Whistleblower’s Allegations: Aircraft Quality Control Problems Cited

For Immediate Release
Contact Nick Schwellenbach (202) 347-1122

Internal Boeing documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight show that the allegations of a former Boeing quality control inspector facing criminal charges have merit. Quality control problems at Boeing increase the likelihood that defective aircraft parts end up on planes and flaws in the manufacturing of planes remain uncorrected. This can potentially threaten public safety and drive up the cost of aircraft maintenance. These documents are linked at the bottom of this release.

Gerald Eastman, the former Boeing inspector, is facing a second trial of criminal charges for disclosing Boeing information to the press. His first trial last month resulted in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on whether Eastman committed “computer trespass.” Mr. Eastman claims that his involvement with the press stemmed from the lack of corrective actions taken by Boeing and the government in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing to them.

An internal Boeing memo sent to Boeing employees in October 2000 stated that misuse of “production stamps” or “roller-stamping” can result in negative consequences for the company and the individual misusing their stamp. Roller-stamping is the misuse of production stamps to stamp work on critical parts and assemblies as complete and fully inspected when there has only been a cursory inspection, if one at all, of the part or assembly in question. Eastman’s central claim is that he had perceived widespread “roller-stamping” and Boeing did little to curtail the practice.

“These documents show that Eastman clearly had a reasonable basis for his belief roller-stamping was occurring,” according to Nick Schwellenbach, POGO investigator. “It’s one thing to break company policy on releasing documents and getting fired, it’s another matter to file criminal charges. Who do the prosecutors work for?”

The Boeing memo came months after the Federal Aviation Agency conducted a special technical audit of Boeing that concluded that there were systemic quality control problems. The 2000 FAA special technical audit found “in some cases, manufacturing planning was not adequate, requirements were not followed, inspections were not specific, or personnel were not knowledgeable about requirements.” Thus, “parts, assemblies, and installations are released through the system that do not conform” to approved designs. Also, in 2000, the FAA proposed “a record $1.24 million in civil penalties against Boeing for inadequate supplier oversight and for failing to quickly report cracked parts on two older jetliners,” according to a news report (James Wallace, “FAA Audit Rips Boeing Over 100 Production, Design Problems Detailed; Company Plans Corrective Action,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 11, 2000.).

Years later, roller-stamping was still occurring when Eastman acted on his concerns.

Boeing certainly was aware of the practice because a Boeing document dated January 2004, states that, “There appears to be a systemic issue within BCA [Boeing Commercial Aircraft] involving parallel process breakdowns of mechanics and inspectors involved in assembling and inspecting aircraft, assemblies and parts.” The 2004 document also states that the FAA examined 55 issues at Boeing between 2002 and 2003 and found that “24% of these issues have involved instances where the mechanic and inspector created and accepted nonconforming conditions”—i.e. roller-stamping.

In further support of Eastman’s claims, other Boeing employees became whistleblowers when they reported that Boeing supplier Ducommun was regularly supplying non-conforming parts to Boeing, according to the whistleblowers’ False Claims Act lawsuit obtained by POGO. Now-former Boeing employees Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes were then retaliated against by management because Boeing allegedly did not want to deal with the repercussions of their findings.

For additional information

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group memorandum, ” Use of personal stamps in our production system ,” October 31, 2000.

Federal Aviation Administration, ” Special Technical Audit of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group ,” December 1, 1999, through February 11, 2000.

Boeing Airplane Program Systemic Issues Chartered Team 1, ” Investigation of ‘Dual Failures ,’” January 2004.

United States of America ex rel Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes vs. The Boeing Company and Ducommun, Inc. , Federal District Court of Kansas. Filed on March 11, 2005.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.

 

Government Accountability Project: Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman

From:  http://www.fedhallofshame.com/?p=317

Boeing Whistleblower Gerald Eastman

Posted in May 12th, 2008

by C. Yee in Accountability, Current Events, Whistleblowers

Picture not only being terminated from your job for whistleblowing, but being charged with computer trespass and arrested too.  It happened to ex-Boeing employee, Gerald Eastman.  

Here’s a link to an April 7 article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about Eastman’s first court ordeal, which ended in a mistrial.  The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) also blogged about Eastman’s disclosures, writing:

Internal Boeing documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight show that the allegations of a former Boeing quality control inspector facing criminal charges have merit.  Quality control problems at Boeing increase the likelihood that defective aircraft parts end up on planes and flaws in the manufacturing of planes remain uncorrected.  This can potentially threaten public safety and drive up the cost of aircraft maintenance.

Gerald Eastman, the former Boeing inspector, is facing a second trial of criminal charges for disclosing Boeing information to the press.  His first trial last month resulted in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on whether Eastman committed “computer trespass.”  Mr. Eastman claims that his involvement with the press stemmed from the lack of corrective actions taken by Boeing and the government in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing to them.

The rest of POGO’s post can be found here.  As POGO notes, if Mr. Eastman is found guilty, it could set a terrible precedent for not just aviation safety, but public safety in general.  Mr. Eastman is set to return to King County (WA) Municipal Court again next week. 

 

2 users commented in ” Boeing Whistleblower Gerald Eastman ”

Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback

 

RLK said,

in May 12th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Boeing is a criminal enterprise;

RICCO Act–”When three or more parties conspire to carry on an on going criminal enterprise, it can fall under the “RICCO Act.

Boeing should be barred from Gov’t contracts for a year.

 

 

Jim said,

in May 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

It won’t happen. Once Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas, they eliminated the competition. Besides, where would all those SESers and Generals go to work after retiring from Govt. service?