WhistleblowerSupporter

Congress, Corruption, Cover-ups and Government Oversight Agencies Gone Wild

A reader sent this to me today and asked to remain anonymous when it posted.  Thank you to the reader who took the time to write this thoughtful comment.  Here it is.   GFS

Has anyone considered the DSS mad-dash to become an "Intelligence Agency" might have been a desperate attempt to hide from any oversight? As an Intelligence agency, they would not have to answer to any inspectors, DOD/IG, GAO or even Congress. Their years of incompetence, mismanagement and looking the other way while Defense contractors compromised our nation's most classified technologies would be safe from accountability.

Why would they do this? As an example, simply look at the former DSS upper management personnel who have garnered for themselves high paying positions within industry after leaving Government service.

Look back to the Boeing Tanker scandal, Senator McCain publicly asked for a list of all formerly high placed government employees who retired and went to work for DOD contractors. Senator McCain is/was a very influential Senator, yet no such list was ever forthcoming to the public and after losing the Tanker contract, Boeing pulled a Senator or two and a couple of Congressmen/women out of a hat and hocus-pocus, Boeing is back in the Tanker business.

This is just one example of what is going on within DSS and most other agencies; DSS looks the other way, Senators and Congressmen look the other way and God help anyone stupid enough to report security violations, retaliations here we come!  No one wants to address the fraud waste and abuse that is taking over our whole government; why fall on your sword and ruin your career when nothing will change.

I have found with association with others as well as my own personal involvement,  that a great many major security violations and classified technology compromises that we reported, were either dismissed by upper management types who were more loyal to Industry than to the government or dismissed as not an issue, by hiding behind the claim, "National Secrets", and thereby not having to explain anything to anyone with no further comment.  Or the problems we reported were  just plain covered up by agencies such as DSS, Navy, DCIS, NCIS and others. This is the norm in today's Government upper management - no ethics, and no honor.

If it were not so sad a state of affairs in our government, you could laugh at those who are asking Congressmen/women and Senators to pass Whistle blower protections for those who report Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

Think about this; they are asking for Congressmen/women and Senators to provide protections for those who report criminal acts committed by those very same members of Congress, and therein is the reason why agencies such as DSS, Navy, DCIS, NCIS, etc do not fear having to be held accountable for their actions. Our Congressional Representatives don't want to be thrown under the bus or in some cases, disrupt the production of the campaign cash cow. 

-Anonymous Guest Blogger

Whistleblowers Speak Up at the National Press Conference

This came from a group I belong to earlier this week.  I post it here for all to read.  If you are interested in joining the group, it is Whistleblower 411 on Yahoo. 

GFS

 

Whistleblowers give shocking testimony at the national press conference in Washington, D.C.

On July 19, 2010, at a press conference held at the National Press Club, major government "Watch Dog" organizations, Whistleblower protection organizations, and numerous Whistleblowers came together in support of a new direction for the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).   Some of the organizations in attendance were: The National Federation of Federal Government Employees (NFFE); The National Whistleblower Center; U.S. Justice Watch, the Federal Ethics Center and The Government Accountability Project (GAP).   OSC is the primary governmental agency tasked with the protection of our most important watchdogs on the front lines of our national security, government employees and the military.

 

The press conference, sponsored by U.S. Justice Watch ( www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com) ,  brought these organizations together to support and endorse Attorney Dave Nolan for Special Counsel and  government Whistleblower Darlene F. Price as his Deputy.   Nolan would replace the former Special Counsel for the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch.  Scott Bloch's criminal sentence hearing is scheduled for July 23rd.  Although Bloch plead guilty only to withholding information from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he was also accused by many of retaliating against his own agency employees and failing to protect federal Whistleblowers. 

 

During the press conference several Whistleblowers had an opportunity to tell their amazing yet most disturbing stories in order to demonstrate how the ineffectiveness of OSC has brought real harm to citizens, and why OSC is so important.  Some of this testimony was not only shocking, but heart-wrenching as well.

 

The most compelling was the testimony of  Gary Vander Boegh.  Mr. Vander Boegh was a contract engineer at the Paducah, Kentucky Gaseous Diffusion Plant for many years.  He and his boss were "conveniently" fired after he began to report serious environmental crimes of  improper/illegal dumping  of radiological (enriched uranium), hazardous waste in Western Kentucky.  Mr. Vander Boegh alleged that these crimes have been going on for years and continue to be "covered up" by numerous government officials with the Department of Energy (DOE), KY Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Ed Whitfield - just to name a few.

 

This illegal dumping has contaminated not only the ground in the surrounding area of Paducah, KY, but has also involved releasing hazardous radiological gases into the air where it has the potential to spread as far as the wind may take it.  This cover-up has led to widespread cancer clusters in the surrounding area, and currently endangers the tri-state area of KY, ILL, and OH.  To view this terrifying testimony go to:www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com.

 

Also videotaped at the press conference was the heart wrenching story of Jim Faller, founder of U.S. Justice Watch.  Mr. Faller described being wrongfully held in custody without a trial by corrupt federal agents and prosecutors. This happened after he exposed that government officials were allowing large amounts of money to be funneled to the terrorist organization PPK, a Marxist-Leninist Radical Islamic, TERRORIST group of Kurds trying to establish an independent Kurdish state in Eastern Turkey.  You may view his Presentation also at: www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com.

 

Statements (oral and written) from the following Whistleblowers were also submitted in support of Attorney Dave Nolan's nomination:

 

Joe Carson, licensed Professional Engineer, Facility Representative - safety inspector, Department of Energy (DOE), Oak Ridge, TN.

 

Darlene Fitzgerald Price, Former Special Agent and Author: "BorderGate, the story the government doesn't want you to read."

 

Former FBI Agent and Time Magazine's person of the year, Coleen Rowley

 

Carol Czardowski, former Department of the Navy employee

 

Sandy Nunn, former Special Agent, U.S. Customs Service.

 

Mark Danielson, former Department of Energy, Special Response Team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

 

Larry Fisher, Founder, National Accountant Whistleblower Coalition, http://www.nawbc.com

 

Environmental Protection Agency Staff Accountant, GS-14

 

 

 

Janet Howard, former Department of Commerce employee and Whistleblower who reported the commercial airliner that flew by the Capitol on 9-11, just above tree level. Designated as the "Class Agent" for all Department of Commerce African American Employees.

 

Dorothy Pritchett, DOE, employee, the proposed "Class Agent" for African American Employees at the Dept of Energy Headquarters, who reported illegalities by a first cousin of a powerful U.S. Senator.

 

Joseph Santos, Former DOE intern, who was denied the promise tuition assistance and terminated after he blew the whistle on the same powerful U.S. Senator mentioned above.

 

Caroline E. Williams, Former DOE Headquarters employee, terminated after reporting financial irregularities of the very same first cousin of a powerful U.S. Senator mentioned above.

 

For more information regarding this press conference please feel free to contact:

 

Jim Faller at: www.USJUSTICEWATCH.com

 

Darlene Fitzgerald Price at: (606) 310-0078

 

Attorney Dave Nolan at: (703) 780-1864

Review: Watchdogs Undermined by Political Appointees

I am hearing from a lot of people who are dealing with the same old same old in government, particularly defense, and in the work they do in some defense contractors.  There appears to be just as much corruption, fraud, waste and abuse going on as before.  And unfortunately, there is no miraculous change in how oversight is being managed, and in the poor leadership that seems to be endemic in both government and industry as of late.  More whistleblowers are still being created and whistleblowers are still suffering retribution and every other kind of abuse for caring enough to try to stand up to wrongdoers.  I am extremely disappointed that the political change does not seem to have had a reparative effect on government and business.  I am also disappointed the many of the appointments made by our current administration, as it seems to perpetuate the problems and the poor judgment of the last administration.  GFS

 

 

 

Watchdogs Undermined by Political Appointees

Congress to Reasses Office Created to Rein in Executive Branch

By Matthew Blake 02/11/2008

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

 

The inspectors general for 64 federal agencies are the government’s frontline against waste, fraud and abuse. It sounds like a salutary public service. But the performances and experiences of inspectors general vary alarmingly and now Congress is reassessing an office created after Watergate to rein in the executive branch.

 

 

In two weeks, the Senate will debate the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007, according to aide for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a bill co-sponsor. Meanwhile, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform collected a survey last week from the majority of inspectors general, listing the recommendations they have made during the Bush administration that have gone unimplemented.

The Senate legislation—the House passed a Reform Act in November—would "ensure that IGs remain autonomous and operate independent of the agencies they oversee," said Beth Petite Lavine, spokeswoman for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) a bill co-sponsor. The oversight committee is looking at what happens when the agencies allow the investigations but ignore the findings.

Both efforts are part of a sentiment expressed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress who focus on oversight as well as by analysts who study the federal bureaucracy: the White House-appointed leadership at federal agencies is undermining the watchdogs. "This is a crisis," argued Kenneth Gold, director of Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, "The IG’s power has diminished."

Beverley Lumpkin, an investigator for the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, agrees. But she emphasizes it’s more than a blame-Bush situation. "Things are not much worse in the Bush administration," Lumpkin said, "It’s been a problem for 20 years. Administrations take advantage of the fact that agency heads control so much."

Advocates for inspector general reform argue that there are essentially three ways the office of inspector general has been politicized and consequently lost its bite. The first is the matter of a rogue inspector general stonewalling his own staff’s investigations. In the past year, six inspectors general have been investigated by a committee of their peers for allegations like stopping staff investigations on administration political appointees, cutting back on staff while giving themselves a raise and abusive treatment of employees.

 

The most well-known case is that of the State Department IG, Howard "Cookie" Krongard. Krongard resigned shortly after deceiving the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about knowing whether his brother was on the Blackwater advisory board. Blackwater was one of several State Department contractors Krongard had ordered his staff to stop investigating.

 

While Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice didn’t seem to mind that Krongard stopping investigations, agency heads have taken action on IG’s who started them. The CIA’s John Helgerson appears to be the latest IG to be undermined in this way. Helgerson issued scathing reports on issues like the intelligence agency failing to anticipate 9/11 and the agency’s disregard for humane interrogation practices. So the Central Intelligence Agency turned the tables last October, and started investigating Helgerson on the premise of helping him do his job better.

 

Last week with no public explanation, the CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, announced the appointment of an ombusdman for Helgerson. "This is especially troubling," said Brian Miller, inspector general of the General Services Administration, "because it may tend ultimately to subvert the independence of inspectors general."

 

Miller knows about going up against an agency head. GSA Administrator Lurita Doan told Miller last year that he was terrorizing employees by scrutinizing whether they were getting the best deal on the $56 billion worth of contracts purchased by GSA. Doan subsequently wrote an e-mail to GSA regional administrators stating, "Everyone now understands we have challenges with our OIG. ... This is going to require a lot of work to fix and I’m going to need your help."

"Psychologically it is extremely hard for people who take their jobs seriously and want to improve GSA to work in a climate where the agency head is openly hostile to the duties those people must perform," said David Farley, a spokesman for the GSA’s office of inspector general.

 

Doan also took the extraordinary step of reducing Miller’s budget. One key provision of the Senate legislation, according to McCaskill’s aide, is that inspectors general would be able to send their budget proposal straight to Congress and the White House. Another key provision would set up an "integrity council," independent of the White House, with the ability to discipline IG’s not aggressively investigating their agencies.

 

The legislation doesn’t tackle the third obstacle to effective IG’s, when the agency is simply looking the other way. That was the problem Clark Kent Ervin experienced as the first inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security. "This administration has tended more to ignore recommendations than to actively fight or obstruct investigations," Ervin said.

Sen. John F. Kerry may have cited Ervin’s scathing audits during the 2004 presidential campaign, but DHS ignored them. After publicly feuding with the White House, Ervin left in December 2004.

 

Still, a good deal of work by inspector generals is implemented. Roll Call newspaper reported last year that IG’s provided the government $9.9 billion in potential savings from audit recommendations and $6.8 billion in investigative recoveries. And some IG’s are neither thwarting investigations nor being thwarted. "Everyone in town agrees that Glenn Fine at the Justice Department and Earl Devaney at Interior are great," said Lumpkin, of the Project of Government Oversight.

 

Lumpkin added that the public doesn’t know about the work of a lot of other good ones because the administration is interfering with it. And this, she said, "is a problem that’s reached it’s boiling point."

Review: 20 Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime...Still!

10-13-08

I am hearing from a lot of people who are dealing with the same old same old in government, particularly defense, and in the work they do in some defense contractors.  There appears to be just as much corruption, fraud, waste and abuse going on as before.  And unfortunately, there is no miraculous change in how oversight is being managed, and in the poor leadership that seems to be endemic in both government and industry as of late.  More whistleblowers are still being created and whistleblowers are still suffering retribution and every other kind of abuse for caring enough to try to stand up to wrongdoers.  I am extremely disappointed that the political change does not seem to have had a reparative effect on government and business.  GFS

This is a very interesting piece that I thought I’d post again.  Visit Alternet and see what else they’ve got going there:  http://www.alternet.org

http://www.alternet.org/story/54093/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime

By Russell Mokhiber, AlterNet
Posted on June 16, 2007, Printed on October 13, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/54093/

The following is text from a speech delivered by Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter to the Taming the Giant Corporation conference in Washington, D.C., June 9, 2007.

20. Corporate crime inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime combined.

Whether in bodies or injuries or dollars lost, corporate crime and violence wins by a landslide.

The FBI estimates, for example, that burglary and robbery -- street crimes -- costs the nation $3.8 billion a year.

The losses from a handful of major corporate frauds -- Tyco, Adelphia, Worldcom, Enron -- swamp the losses from all street robberies and burglaries combined.

Health care fraud alone costs Americans $100 billion to $400 billion a year.

The savings and loan fraud -- which former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh called "the biggest white collar swindle in history" -- cost us anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion.

And then you have your lesser frauds: auto repair fraud, $40 billion a year, securities fraud, $15 billion a year -- and on down the list.

19. Corporate crime is often violent crime.

Recite this list of corporate frauds and people will immediately say to you: but you can’t compare street crime and corporate crime -- corporate crime is not violent crime.

Not true.

Corporate crime is often violent crime.

The FBI estimates that, 16,000 Americans are murdered every year.

Compare this to the 56,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice.

These deaths are often the result of criminal recklessness. Yet, they are rarely prosecuted as homicides or as criminal violations of federal laws.

18. Corporate criminals are the only criminal class in the United States that have the power to define the laws under which they live.

The mafia, no.

The gangstas, no.

The street thugs, no.

But the corporate criminal lobby, yes. They have marinated Washington -- from the White House to the Congress to K Street -- with their largesse. And out the other end come the laws they can live with. They still violate their own rules with impunity. But they make sure the laws are kept within reasonable bounds.

Exhibit A -- the automobile industry.

Over the past 30 years, the industry has worked its will on Congress to block legislation that would impose criminal sanctions on knowing and willful violations of the federal auto safety laws. Today, with very narrow exceptions, if an auto company is caught violating the law, only a civil fine is imposed.

17. Corporate crime is underprosecuted by a factor of say -- 100. And the flip side of that -- corporate crime prosecutors are underfunded by a factor of say -- 100.

Big companies that are criminally prosecuted represent only the tip of a very large iceberg of corporate wrongdoing.

For every company convicted of health care fraud, there are hundreds of others who get away with ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, or face only mild slap-on-the-wrist fines and civil penalties when caught.

For every company convicted of polluting the nation’s waterways, there are many others who are not prosecuted because their corporate defense lawyers are able to offer up a low-level employee to go to jail in exchange for a promise from prosecutors not to touch the company or high-level executives.

For every corporation convicted of bribery or of giving money directly to a public official in violation of federal law, there are thousands who give money legally through political action committees to candidates and political parties. They profit from a system that effectively has legalized bribery.

For every corporation convicted of selling illegal pesticides, there are hundreds more who are not prosecuted because their lobbyists have worked their way in Washington to ensure that dangerous pesticides remain legal.

For every corporation convicted of reckless homicide in the death of a worker, there are hundreds of others that don’t even get investigated for reckless homicide when a worker is killed on the job. Only a few district attorneys across the country have historically investigated workplace deaths as homicides.

White collar crime defense attorneys regularly admit that if more prosecutors had more resources, the number of corporate crime prosecutions would increase dramatically. A large number of serious corporate and white collar crime cases are now left on the table for lack of resources.

16. Beware of consumer groups or other public interest groups who make nice with corporations.

There are now probably more fake public interest groups than actual ones in America today. And many formerly legitimate public interest groups have been taken over or compromised by big corporations. Our favorite example is the National Consumer League. It’s the oldest consumer group in the country. It was created to eradicate child labor.

But in the last ten years or so, it has been taken over by large corporations. It now gets the majority of its budget from big corporations such as Pfizer, Bank of America, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kaiser Permanente, Wyeth-Ayerst, and Verizon.

15. It used to be when a corporation committed a crime, they pled guilty to a crime.

So, for example, so many large corporations were pleading guilty to crimes in the 1990s, that in 2000, we put out a report titled The Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s. We went back through all of the Corporate Crime Reporters for that decade, pulled out all of the big corporations that had been convicted, ranked the corporate criminals by the amount of their criminal fines, and cut it off at 100.

So, you have your Fortune 500, your Forbes 400, and your Corporate Crime Reporter 100.

14. Now, corporate criminals don’t have to worry about pleading guilty to crimes.

Three new loopholes have developed over the past five years -- the deferred prosecution agreement, the non prosecution agreement, and pleading guilty a closet entity or a defunct entity that has nothing to lose.

13. Corporations love deferred prosecution agreements.

In the 1990s, if prosecutors had evidence of a crime, they would bring a criminal charge against the corporation and sometimes against the individual executives. And the company would end up pleading guilty.

Then, about three years ago, the Justice Department said -- hey, there is this thing called a deferred prosecution agreement.

We can bring a criminal charge against the company. And we will tell the company -- if you are a good company and do not violate the law for the next two years, we will drop the charges. No harm, no foul. This is called a deferred prosecution agreement.

And most major corporate crime prosecutions are brought this way now. The company pays a fine. The company is charged with a crime. But there is no conviction. And after two or three years, depending on the term of the agreement, the charges are dropped.

12. Corporations love non prosecution agreements even more.

One Friday evening last July, I was sitting my office in the National Press Building. And into my e-mail box came a press release from the Justice Department.

The press release announced that Boeing will pay a $50 million criminal penalty and $615 million in civil penalties to resolve federal claims relating to the company’s hiring of the former Air Force acquisitions chief Darleen A. Druyun, by its then CFO, Michael Sears -- and stealing sensitive procurement information.

So, the company pays a criminal penalty. And I figure, okay if they paid a criminal penalty, they must have pled guilty.

No, they did not plead guilty.

Okay, they must have been charged with a crime and had the prosecution deferred.

No, they were not charged with a crime and did not have the prosecution deferred.

About a week later, after pounding the Justice Department for an answer as to what happened to Boeing, they sent over something called a non prosecution agreement.

That is where the Justice Department says -- we’re going to fine you criminally, but hey, we don’t want to cost you any government business, so sign this agreement. It says we won’t prosecute you if you pay the fine and change your ways.

Corporate criminals love non prosecution agreements. No criminal charge. No criminal record. No guilty plea. Just pay the fine and leave.

11. In health fraud cases, find an empty closet or defunct entity to plead guilty.

The government has a mandatory exclusion rule for health care corporations that are convicted of ripping off Medicare.

Such an exclusion is the equivalent of the death penalty. If a major drug company can’t do business with Medicare, it loses a big chunk of its business. There have been many criminal prosecutions of major health care corporations for ripping off Medicare. And many of these companies have pled guilty. But not one major health care company has been excluded from Medicare.

Why not?

Because when you read in the newspaper that a major health care company pled guilty, it’s not the parent company that pleads guilty. The prosecutor will allow a unit of the corporation that has no assets -- or even a defunct entity -- to plead guilty. And therefore that unit will be excluded from Medicare -- which doesn’t bother the parent corporation, because the unit had no business with Medicare to begin with.

Earlier, Dr. Sidney Wolfe was here and talked about the criminal prosecution of Purdue Pharma, the Stamford, Connecticut-based maker of OxyContin.

Dr. Wolfe said that the company pled guilty to pushing OxyContin by making claims that it is less addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications and that it continued to do so despite warnings to the contrary from doctors, the media, and members of its own sales force.

Well, Purdue Pharma -- the company that makes and markets the drug -- didn’t plead guilty. A different company -- Purdue Frederick pled guilty. Purdue Pharma actually got a non-prosecution agreement. Purdue Frederick had nothing to lose, so it pled guilty.

10. Corporate criminals don’t like to be put on probation.

Very rarely, a corporation convicted of a crime will be placed on probation. Many years ago, Consolidated Edison in New York was convicted of an environmental crime. A probation official was assigned. Employees would call him with wrongdoing. He would write reports for the judge. The company changed its ways. There was actual change within the corporation.

Corporations hate this. They hate being under the supervision of some public official, like a judge.

We need more corporate probation.

9. Corporate criminals don’t like to be charged with homicide.

Street murders occur every day in America. And they are prosecuted every day in America. Corporate homicides occur every day in America. But they are rarely prosecuted.

The last homicide prosecution brought against a major American corporation was in 1980, when a Republican Indiana prosecutor charged Ford Motor Co. with homicide for the deaths of three teenaged girls who died when their Ford Pinto caught on fire after being rear-ended in northern Indiana.

The prosecutor alleged that Ford knew that it was marketing a defective product, with a gas tank that crushed when rear ended, spilling fuel.

In the Indiana case, the girls were incinerated to death.

But Ford brought in a hot shot criminal defense lawyer who in turn hired the best friend of the judge as local counsel, and who, as a result, secured a not guilty verdict after persuading the judge to keep key evidence out of the jury room.

It’s time to crank up the corporate homicide prosecutions.

8. There are very few career prosecutors of corporate crime.

Patrick Fitzgerald is one that comes to mind. He’s the U.S. Attorney in Chicago. He put away Scooter Libby. And he’s now prosecuting the Canadian media baron Conrad Black.

7. Most corporate crime prosecutors see their jobs as a stepping stone to greater things.

Spitzer and Giuliani prosecuted corporate crime as a way to move up the political ladder. But most young prosecutors prosecute corporate crime to move into the lucrative corporate crime defense bar.

6. Most corporate criminals turn themselves into the authorities.

The vast majority of corporate criminal prosecutions are now driven by the corporations themselves. If they find something wrong, they know they can trust the prosecutor to do the right thing. They will be forced to pay a fine, maybe agree to make some internal changes.

But in this day and age, in all likelihood, they will not be forced to plead guilty.

So, better to be up front with the prosecutor and put the matter behind them. To save the hide of the corporation, they will cooperate with federal prosecutors against individual executives within the company. Individuals will be charged, the corporation will not.

5. The market doesn’t take most modern corporate criminal prosecutions seriously.

Almost universally, when a corporate crime case is settled, the stock of the company involved goes up.

Why? Because a cloud has been cleared and there is no serious consequence to the company. No structural changes in how the company does business. No monitor. No probation. Preserving corporate reputation is the name of the game.

4. The Justice Department needs to start publishing an annual Corporate Crime in the United States report.

Every year, the Justice Department puts out an annual report titled "Crime in the United States."

But by "Crime in the United States," the Justice Department means "street crime in the United States."

In the "Crime in the United States" annual report, you can read about burglary, robbery and theft.

There is little or nothing about price-fixing, corporate fraud, pollution, or public corruption.

A yearly Justice Department report on Corporate Crime in the United States is long overdue.

3. We must start asking -- which side are you on -- with the corporate criminals or against?

Most professionals in Washington work for, are paid by, or are under the control of the corporate crime lobby. Young lawyers come to town, fresh out of law school, 25 years old, and their starting salary is $160,000 a year. And they’re working for the corporate criminals.

Young lawyers graduating from the top law schools have all kinds of excuses for working for the corporate criminals -- huge debt, just going to stay a couple of years for the experience.

But the reality is, they are working for the corporate criminals.

What kind of respect should we give them? Especially since they have many options other than working for the corporate criminals.

Time to dust off that age-old question -- which side are you on? (For young lawyers out there considering other options, check out Alan Morrison’s new book, Beyond the Big Firm: Profiles of Lawyers Who Want Something More.)

2. We need a 911 number for the American people to dial to report corporate crime and violence.

If you want to report street crime and violence, call 911.

But what number do you call if you want to report corporate crime and violence?

We propose 611.

Call 611 to report corporate crime and violence.

We need a national number where people can pick up the phone and report the corporate criminals in our midst.

What triggered this thought?

We attended the press conference at the Justice Department the other day announcing the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson (D-Louisiana).

Jefferson was the first U.S. official charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Federal officials alleged that Jefferson was both on the giving and receiving ends of bribe payments.

On the receiving end, he took $100,000 in cash -- $90,000 of it was stuffed into his freezer in Washington, D.C.

The $90,000 was separated in $10,000 increments, wrapped in aluminum foil, and concealed inside various frozen food containers.

At the press conference announcing the indictment, after various federal officials made their case before the cameras, up to the mike came Joe Persichini, assistant director of the Washington field office of the FBI.

"To the American people, I ask you, take time," Persichini said. "Read this charging document line by line, scheme by scheme, count by count. This case is about greed, power and arrogance."

"Everyone is entitled to honest and ethical public service," Persichini continued. "We as leaders standing here today cannot do it alone. We need the public’s help. The amount of corruption is dependent on what the public with allow.

Again, the amount of corruption is dependent on what the public will allow."

“"f you have knowledge of, if you’ve been confronted with or you are participating, I ask that you contact your local FBI office or you call the Washington Field Office of the FBI at 202.278.2000. Thank you very much."

Shorten the number -- make it 611.

1. And the number one thing you should know about corporate crime?

Everyone is deserving of justice. So, question, debate, strategize, yes.

But if God-forbid you too are victimized by a corporate criminal, you too will demand justice.

We need a more beefed up, more effective justice system to deal with the corporate criminals in our midst.

Russell Mokhiber is the editor of Corporate Crime Reporter.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/54093/

FAA Whistleblower safety warnings found to have merit

 

 

Link to Original Blog:  http://southwestairlinesalmostkilledyou.blogspot.com/2009/07/faa-is-very-sick-agency-run-by-college.html

 

 

July 2, 2009
FAA whistle-blower safety warnings found to have merit
Posted: 12:14 PM ET
American Morning - amFIXFiled under: Airline safety

Tom Devine, legal director of the non-profit Government Accountability Project, tells CNN the FAA is a 'very sick agency.'
By Allan Chernoff
CNN Sr. Correspondent

A federal investigation into Federal Aviation Administration employee whistle-blower safety complaints has found more than two dozen to be on the mark, CNN has learned, potentially putting the public’s safety at risk.

The federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates allegations of reprisal against whistle-blowers, tells CNN it has made a “positive determination” that the FAA improperly responded to 27 current cases of FAA employee whistle-blowers warning of safety violations ranging from airline maintenance concerns to runway and air traffic control issues.

“It means that FAA is a very sick agency,” said Tom Devine, legal director of the non-profit Government Accountability Project. “There’s never been an agency that’s had that large of a surge of whistle-blowers whose concerns were vindicated by the government’s official whistle-blower protection office.”

The Department of Transportation told CNN, “We acknowledge it’s a large number of cases.”

“We take whistle-blower complaints very seriously and we fully cooperate with all of the investigations,” said FAA spokesperson Laura J. Brown.

Among the warnings found to have merit are those of FAA inspector Christopher Monteleon, who flagged safety problems at Colgan Air for several years before a Colgan plane crashed near Buffalo in February killing 50 people. He told CNN he’s faced retaliation at the FAA for pointing out issues including faulty aircraft manuals and poor cockpit procedures he observed during in-flight aircraft testing.

“My supervisor called me into his office and said, ‘Stop your investigation.’ He said that these violations never occurred,” said Monteleon.

But Monteleon continued raising safety concerns about the airline. Eventually he was demoted and put on leave of absence.

“I had my aviation inspector credentials taken from me,” Monteleon told CNN. “It has just been humiliating. It’s been awful.”

The FAA says it does not believe any of Monteleon’s reassignments were retaliatory, and cannot comment further because this is a personnel issue covered by privacy laws.

While the Office of Special Counsel has found merit in Monteleon’s charges of safety violations, the Special Counsel continues to investigate his claim that he was the victim of retaliation for pressing his safety concerns.

Though passenger safety is at stake, the Office of Special Counsel found the FAA has repeatedly deferred to the airlines it regulates.

“That’s shocking, and it’s really unconscionable for a government agency that’s supposed to be about safety, not about witch hunts for those who find safety lacking,” said Mary Schiavo, inspector general of the Department of Transportation from 1990-1996, who is now an attorney representing families of accident victims.

What’s going on at FAA? Critics say it’s the culture.

In 2003, former FAA administrator Marion Blakey established a “Customer Service Initiative” that defined airlines as customers, rather than the flying public. The current Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel, found, “FAA’s definition of its customer has had a pervasively negative, although unintended, impact on its oversight program.”

While there’s no evidence of illegal dealings, the FAA has an active revolving door. Agency managers regularly go on to work in the aviation industry while industry executives take top spots at FAA.

-Former FAA administrator Marion Blakey is now president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association.

-Former FAA chief operating officer Russell Chew moved on to become president of Jet Blue Airways, where he just stepped down and took on the role of Senior Adviser for the company.

-FAA’s chief operating officer of air traffic, Hank Krakowski, came from United Airlines where he held a number of senior management positions, including vice president of flight operations.

-Linda Daschle, wife of the former Senate Democratic leader, was the FAA’s acting administrator, and then became a lobbyist representing the airline industry.

“There’s a very cozy relationship between the lobbyists for the industry and the Department of Transportation and the FAA,” said Schiavo.

As in all federal agencies, senior executives leaving the FAA are subject to a one-year “cooling off” period that forbids them from representing a client before the FAA.

The new transportation secretary Ray LaHood and FAA administrator Randy Babbitt, who took office June 1, say they will make sure whistle-blowers are heard.

“We will pay attention to any kind of complaint or accusation or any concern expressed by an employee of FAA. It’s a new day at the FAA and at DOT,” LaHood told CNN.

FAA last year established a Safety Issues Reporting System for employees to raise safety concerns. FAA also tracks employee hotline complaints in its General Counsel Office.

But, the agency has resisted calls to establish an independent office to investigate whistle-blower safety claims. The pending House bill to reauthorize FAA would require the agency to establish such an office. The Senate still has to write its version of the bill.

The Office of Special Counsel has referred all 27 cases to the transportation secretary who is investigating and must tell the Special Counsel what steps will be taken to fix the safety problems.

FAA Whistleblower Alliance letter about OSC

http://faa-whistleb lower.blogspot. com/2009/ 04/faa-whistlebl ower-alliance- letter-to. html

Chairman Joseph Lieberman
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Chairman Daniel Akaka
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia
605 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510

Chairman Edolphus Towns
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Chairman Stephen Lynch
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia
349A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: "FAA Whistleblower Alliance" Urges Strong Oversight of the Office
of Special Counsel

Dear Chairmen Lieberman, Akaka, Towns and Lynch:

The FAA Whistleblower Alliance is a newly-formed group of Federal
Aviation Administration professionals that have been retaliated
against by the FAA for raising concerns about substantial and
specific dangers to aviation safety. This letter urges the committees
that have oversight jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel to
enact badly-needed accountability and transparency reforms in the
Office of Special Counsel and Merit Systems Protection Board
Reauthorization law.

Common to our experience in speaking out at the FAA to correct
serious dangers to the flying public is the FAA's insistence on
ignoring, diminishing, and suppressing the safety concern raised, as
well as the viscous backlash from FAA management in the form of
retaliation. Federal employee whistleblowers are statutorily forced
to bring their retaliation claims to the OSC for relief, rather than
to the public courts, and are systematically denied redress evident
by the OSC's dismal rate of corrective action. The OSC fails to
fulfill its Congressional mandate of protecting legitimate
whistleblowers. Instead the OSC appears to be following an internal
institutional mandate of closing out cases regardless of genuine
merit. The common experience of the Alliance members, all who have
had or currently have an OSC prohibited personnel practices
complaint, is that OSC consistently fails to do a proper
investigation of claims and to adequately communicate with
whistleblowers during the investigation process. We have attached a
summary of individual Alliance member's experiences with the OSC.

The FAA Whistleblower Alliance urges Congress to initiate aggressive
oversight of how the OSC has functioned, particularly since former
Special Counsel Scott Bloch's resignation. Many have attempted to
personify him as the primary cause of the Office's weakness. But in
our experience, the combination of bureaucratic arrogance and
incompetence has sharply increased since his departure. We hope that
oversight hearings can be scheduled promptly after appointment of a
new Special Counsel, to provide the context and a mandate for
leadership, both in terms of changed practices and accountability for
those who have grossly abused their discretion.

Hearings also are necessary to create a record for provisions in the
upcoming OSC - MSPB Reauthorization bill. To illustrate, the attached
case studies demonstrate that arbitrary practices are the rule,
rather than the exception, necessitating professional regulations as
a standard operating procedure for investigating and acting on
prohibited personnel practice complaints. On occasion, OSC staff even
engaged in retaliatory closeouts, officially canceling investigations
when pressed to communicate about what work, if any, had been
completed. That illustrates our most basic plea -- the right to know
what happened to our rights. Although cases are open for extended
periods, we are not allowed to know what evidence, if any, was
gathered. The lack of consistent procedures, communication and
transparency are three strikes for a credible Office of Special
Counsel. Our experiences illustrate that those professional
breakdowns have become the norm.

We thank you for considering our views on the OSC and request the
opportunity to work with your Committees on the OSC - MSPB
Reauthorization bill and the amended Whistleblower Protection Act.
Please contact Gabe Bruno at 407-977-1505 and/or Tom Devine of the
Government Accountability Project at 202-457-0034, ext. 124 with any
follow-up communications.

Sincerely,
Gabriel Bruno, retired Manager, Flight Standards Service,

Mike Cole, active Air Traffic Control, Flight Service Specialist,

Mary Rose Diefenderfer, former Flight Standards Inspector,

Bogdan Dzakovic, former Special Agent/Air Marshal Service, currently with TSA,

Kim Farrington, former Flight Standards, Air Carrier Cabin Safety Inspector,

Edward Jeszka, former Flight Standards Inspector,

Chris Monteleone, active Flight Standards Inspector,

Peter Nesbitt, active Air Traffic Controller,

Geoffrey Weiss, active Air Traffic Controller,

Anne Whiteman, active Air Traffic Control, Front Line Manager

Enclosure

Some of our members wish to keep their names confidential, due to
fear of continued retaliation.

[Any listed affiliation with the FAA or any other federal agency is
listed only for identification purposes. We are speaking in our
capacity as citizens and as part of the FAA Whistleblower Alliance,
and not on behalf of the FAA or any other federal agency.]

The following are short statements from some members of the FAA
Whistleblowers Alliance that characterize their experiences with the
Office of Special Counsel. Further information is available on all of
the cases mentioned. A number of our members decided not to provide
statements at this time because of concerns of retaliation.

Kim Farrington Flight Standards Inspector (removed from service/ in litigation)

I filed an OSC Form 11 on 4-27-08. The Midwest Field Office OSC IPD
attorney did not effectively communicate with me throughout the 10
months my complaint was open. With the exception of an initial intake
interview by an IPD investigator, I was never re-contacted by the OSC
again about the details of my case, the status of the investigation,
or asking for information to rebut the information learned from FAA
before the OCS IPD attorney sent a preliminary determination letter
saying they were going to close out my case. My witnesses I provided
were never contacted by the OSC IPD investigator or attorney. The
preliminary decision letter and final close-out letter stated "based
on our investigation" but did not indicate to me that there had been
an investigation because the information they outlined was only a
restatement of the details I initially provided to them in my
complaint. The final close out letter misstated the law on the job
duties doctrine sweeping in all disclosures of information learned
during my job duties but communicated outside the normal chain of
command. My claim was closed with no corrective action recommended.

Gabe Bruno Flight Standards Manager (retired)
My experience with the Office of Special Counsel began in 2002, when
I filed two safety disclosures about the FAA creating a danger to the
public. It took OSC two years to process these disclosures while the
FAA was taking a series of adverse personnel actions against me. I
requested that OSC file for a "stay" to halt the adverse actions,
including my removal, until my safety disclosures were properly
investigated, but my request was ignored. Ultimately, the OSC
Disclosure Unit found that two of my whistleblower disclosures had a
substantial likelihood finding. The problem was that the FAA never
completed the corrective actions as promised to the OSC, and while no
one was monitoring the FAA's promises, an aircraft carrying 18
passengers and a crew of two crashed, in 2005, killing all 20 on board.

I also have a Prohibited Personnel Practice complaint with the OSC,
originally filed in 2005 and reopened by Former Special Counsel Scott
Bloch in 2008, because of the retaliatory adverse actions the FAA
took against me. After the case was reopened, the OSC refused to
communicate with me about the status of the investigation or answer
questions posed after the initial interview beyond acknowledging
receipt of my correspondence. The OSC provided me with a letter
stating that the OSC has not completed the investigation after 240
days and I had options regarding extensions to the OSC. My counsel
contacted the attorney on the case to speak about the extension
options, get an update on the investigation to date, and ensure the
prohibited personnel practices were framed correctly for
investigation. The OSC attorney refused to speak to my counsel and
instead sent me a preliminary determination letter that is about to
close my case out. This is troubling because two weeks before I
received the preliminary determination letter I received a letter
stating that the OSC had not completed its investigation.

Geoffrey Weiss Air Traffic Controller (active)
In 2008, I submitted an OSC complaint. My whistleblower disclosure
was found by the OSC Disclosure Unit to have a substantial likelihood
of substantial and specific danger to public safety. My prohibited
personnel practices complaint was assigned to the Midwest Field
Office. The OSC IPD attorney never spoke with me except an
introduction call with the OSC IPD investigator. I provided
documents, witnesses, and other evidence to the OSC IPD investigator
but was never granted the face to face interview I repeatedly
requested to present all my documents for review. The OSC IPD
investigator did call on occasion to ask for clarification but he
never presented me with anything specific provided by the FAA to
refute or verify. I did not hear from the OSC IPD attorney until he
sent a letter proposing that the OSC wanted to drop my complaint
because it could not verify retaliation had taken place. The letter
was full of glaring inaccuracies and seemed to be completed devoid of
any real understanding of the issue and the dynamics of the Air
Traffic portion of the matter. I provided my comments to that
preliminary determination and am awaiting a response. I contacted
some of the witnesses I had provided and was told that they had never
been contacted by the OSC.

Peter Nesbitt Air Traffic Controller (active)
The FAA retaliated against me for disclosing an unsafe practice and
procedure which placed the American flying public at risk with
intersecting flight paths at the Memphis International Airport.
While I have been impressed with OSC personnel within the Disclosure
Unit, I do not believe that the OSC Midwest Field Office thoroughly
investigated my allegations of Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP)
by Memphis FAA Management. During the course of my PPP investigation,
I was verbally informed of the FAA's position by the OSC -- but never
formally informed or allowed to refute the FAA's position. At the
request of the OSC Midwest Field Office, I provided a list of
approximately 30 co-workers and supervisors as character references
-- none of which were ever interviewed. The original OSC investigator
was removed from my case, and it was obvious during my first and only
personal interview with the replacement OSC investigator -- that he
did not believe my allegations of retaliation by Memphis FAA Management.
The Midwest Field Office intervened on my behalf during two key
situations, however these interventions came only after I had been
subjected to additional acts of retaliation by Memphis FAA Management
-- and only after I demanded that the OSC do something to help me. I
continued to make additional safety disclosures throughout my PPP
investigation, and the FAA eventually informed the OSC that they
wanted to settle my PPP case. Based on conversations with the OSC
attorney who handled my PPP case, it is my belief that the continued
and repeated safety disclosures are what drove the FAA to finally
enter a settlement agreement with me nearly 1.5 years after I filed
my original complaint with the OSC.

Chris Monteleone Flight Standards Inspector (on administrative leave)
On April 16, 2008 I filed OSC prohibited personnel practices
complaint and whistleblower disclosure case and was assigned to the
Washington DC Field Office. I was retaliated against for reporting
safety violations related to Colgan Air and the Office of Runway
Safety. Meanwhile, Colgan Air 3407 (operating as Continental) crashed
on February 12, 2009 killing on 49 on board and 1 on the ground, in
Buffalo, New York. I have not been informed of whether they have
interviewed my witnesses or the status of the investigation. I have
also not been notified about any FAA responses or provided with the
opportunity to rebut the responses.

Anne Whiteman Air Traffic Control, Front Line Manager (active)
OSC investigated my PPP case for 5 years. Scott Bloch sent a letter
to the Secretary of the DOT asking for compensation for the 10-year
vendetta against me. He gave them two weeks to respond and that was
the summer of 2007. Nothing came of it. During the course of their 5
year investigation, I would have to say that the OSC was always
disturbed by the way I was being treated at work, but I was never
protected. Not once did anyone at the OSC, to my knowledge make any
contact with anyone at FAA and DFW in an effort to protect me. During
the original "investigation" quite a few people were interviewed and
ultimately a report was issues, but only one person from the list I
gave them was contacted. I received a letter every 60 days for years
informing me my case was in their prosecution division. When I
started to fear termination I hired an attorney for my protection and
upon filing with the MSPB the OSC sent me a letter informing me my
case was closed. I as grateful for Scott Bloch's support and his
efforts to effect change in the FAA and at DFW specifically, but the
OSC as a whole was ineffective in protecting me.

Mary Rose Diefenderfer Flight Standards Inspector (removed from
service/in litigation)
Mary Rose was the POI for Alaska Airlines and predicted that Alaska
Airlines was about to have a tragedy, before she was removed from her
position. At least 88 families wish someone had listened to her. Her
prohibited personnel practices case has been going on for 11 years
and is currently at the Federal Court level. Her first exposure to
the OSC was in 1994 when she was removed from her position for
reporting falsification of pilot training records at a major carrier.
The OSC was helpful and responsive in communicating with her and Mary
Rose got her position back. Then in 1997, Mary Rose was removed from
her reinstated position for reporting the same problem. The OSC took
corrective action but Mary Rose lost at the MSPB level with an AJ
that had never ruled in favor of employee as a MPSB judge.

Edward Jeszka Flight Standards Inspector (retired)
I was retaliated against after I submitted a complaint to the
Department of Transportation Inspection General about the
circumstances surrounding a false accident report. I filed a
prohibited personnel practices complaint with the OSC. I have been
told that the OSC is reviewing my submittal but as I am now retired
there wasn't any personnel action taken as a result of my complaint
to the DOT IG. However, the FAA is attempting to revoke my pilot
certificates and the OSC IDP attorney does not think that is an
action that would qualify this as retaliation. I have submitted
additional information and am now in the process of assembling three
years of documents and statements that will show prohibited personnel
practices.

Mike Cole Air Traffic Control, Flight Service Specialist (active)
In December 2007, I was retaliated against for reporting safety
issues involving air carriers. I filed an OSC prohibited personnel
practice complaint and a whistleblower disclosure. The OSC attorney
on my whistleblower disclosure appears to have no knowledge of Air
Traffic and does not communicate with me adequately. The Disclosure
Unit found evidence of that there are safety issues and requested FAA
OIG investigate. The request for the FAA OIG to investigate omitted
many of my concerns. The OSC IDP investigator and attorney did not
effectively communicate with me and closed out my prohibited practice
case without an adequate investigation into my complaint.

Bogdan Dzakovic TSA, Former FAA Red Team Security Leader
I filed a Whistleblower Disclosure against the FAA with the OSC in
October of 2001, concerning the dangerous culture of mismanagement
within FAA Security and which contributed directly to the ease with
which the terrorists successfully attacked on 9-11. The
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) formally took over
operational responsibility of Aviation Security in February of 2002.
That same week the OSC formally (and publicly) accepted my case for
further investigation. The very first week of TSA's existence, TSA
took away ALL my job duties which lasted for an entire year. A short
time later the OSC- sponsored a mediation session between myself and
TSA and, while the OSC didn't explicitly state it, the results of
this "mediation" was that I should be grateful still have a job and
am being paid. That was the extent of the OSC's protection of my
rights. I spent most of the following year assigned to this
night-shift telephone operator position when in late 2003 I was
transferred to an entry level staff position at TSA headquarters,
where I remain.

 

Oversight Broken, Broken, Broken, Particularly in Texas

Part 2: Hundreds of aircraft mechanics improperly licensed

10:54 PM CDT on Friday, April 24, 2009

By BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV

VIDEOApril 24th, 2009 Byron Harris reports. >More WFAA Latest News video View largerE-mail clipMore videoRelated links:News 8 Investigates

Federal Aviation Administration

Hundreds of aircraft mechanics improperly licensed

Is aircraft safety for sale?

 

A News 8 investigation reveals thousands of aircraft mechanics may have been improperly licensed in Texas since the early 1990s.

They have been scattered throughout the state and the country.

They may even have worked on the airplanes on which you or your family have flown.

The FAA issues the certificates that permit mechanics to fix the airplanes Texans fly on.

But we've learned that some of those licenses have been for sale.

"My opinion is that the FAA and the Southwest region is corrupt."

These are the words of Gene Bland, a former FAA inspector.

His harsh judgment of his former employer comes in part from a case he worked on in San Antonio 16 years ago.

Examiners, approved by the FAA, were selling certificates to mechanics.

"Those people know that the FAA is not waiting there to catch them," he said.

Some 250 mechanics had to be re-tested by the FAA, because the FAA-deputized examiners were cheating, giving mechanics the license to repair planes, when they weren't necessarily qualified to do the job. That was in 1993.

Now a building at the San Antonio airport is the focus of a similar scandal.

It was home to Tobias Aerospace, where 1,300 mechanics have been tested - mechanics who work on aircraft flying in Texas.

What may have happened here is what some experts call a "shake and bake" school - where improperly-certified mechanics got certificates to do business.

The testing facility was headed by Brian Tobias, an approved Designated Mechanic Examiner, known as a DME. DMEs administer a two-part test to mechanics, for what's known as an A&P certificate.

The first part - called the written test - is given on a computer.

The second is a grueling oral and practical exam between one examiner and one mechanic. The test can take as long as ten hours - the mechanic pays the examiner, usually $600 to take it. In theory, the more tests an examiner gives, the more money he makes.

Hundreds of mechanics appear to have been tested correctly. But for the last eight months, FAA investigators have been probing the operation.

"They have told me the charges against Mr. Tobias involves several governmental organizations, including the VA, for defrauding because VA paid for my A&P license," an anonymous source said.

The ramifications spread far beyond Texas, all the way to Boeing in Seattle, because Tobias tested mechanics from all over the world, including dozens from Boeing, who could command higher wages, once they passed the test. Now the FAA is holding all those legitimate candidates in limbo.

"They have kinda been stonewalling me," said a source.

"I think it is a horrible situation as far as many mechanics are being affected by it. We're looking at thousands of mechanics having their A&P revoked or never issued and not being issued," a source said.

Documents, e-mails and interviews indicate that at some point, Tobias Aerospace may have turned into a "shake and bake" operation.

The facility allegedly gave tests to applicants from foreign countries, in Spanish, through a translator, a direct violation of FAA rules.

"She was reading the questions in Spanish and translating it A,B, C," a source said.

"There would be a van full of guys from South America. And these guys would go on in and start testing. They did not speak English," another source said.

The FAA declined an on camera interview. The agency denies tests were given in Spanish.

But these mechanics, like many we talked to for this story, asked that we keep their identity secret.

That's because the FAA has a history of punishing critics. Gene Bland was one.

"The people that have been whistleblowers in the FAA have paid dearly," he said.

Tobias Aerospace was shut down by the FAA last year. Its rooms are empty now.

We called Bryan Tobias and he did not respond.

Then we stopped to see him.

We asked him how many people he tested last year. Was that figure 700?

"It wasn't that many. You'll have to leave my property," he said.

One unanswered question is how much the FAA knew about the Tobias operation.

Mechanics must visit the FAA office before they're even allowed to take an exam. They must be interviewed as part of Form 8610.

Those who couldn't speak English, as required, should not have been allowed to take the test.

This all leads to questions of corruption.

Have FAA individuals been getting kickbacks?

"Yes, some of them have. They had to have because you can't inspect these people. It could not have gone through the FAA office," a source said.

A year ago the FAA was the subject of a congressional investigation for the way it inspected airliners.

Texas was the focus.

Now the issue is mechanics.

Texas is still the focus.

At stake again is safety.

This time, for a problem the agency hasn't solved for 16 years.

E-mail bharris@wfaa.com.

Send Your Comments to the FAA

Concerned about flying and air safety?  Check this out.  Use link at top to go to AirSafe.com website for even more links and information.  -GFS

 

*****************************************************

AirSafe.com

Link to AirSafe.com:  http://www.airsafenews.com/2009/04/send-your-comments-to-faa.html

 

April 2009

Send Your Comments to the FAA

The previous post discussed the FAA's proposal to restrict public access to the Wildlife Hazard Database. This post will show you how you can submit comments about this proposal online, and provides an example of what kinds of comments would be the most effective.

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rule making by submitting written comments, including data, that deal with the possible impacts that may result from adopting a proposal. The most helpful comments are those that deal with a specific part of the proposal.

The FAA accepts comments online, by, fax, by mail, or you can deliver it in person. AirSafe.com will focus on the online option. If you want to use another method, the information is provided in the FAA proposal.

The online portal for submitting comments is at http://www.regulations.gov. If you put in the docket number (FAA-2009-0245) in the Search Documents box, you will be taken to a page with a number of options. To add a comment, click on the words "Send a Comment or Submission" or on the comment icon (it looks like a little yellow balloon).

Before you add comments, you may want to spend some time thinking about what you want to write. It is best to comment on one or more specific points in the proposal. I suggest that you take the time to read it over and come to your own conclusions. Below, I'll list the points that will be highlighted by AirSafe.com.

FAA Arguments and AirSafe.com Objections

FAA Argument: Information about bird and wildlife strikes will not be submitted to the database because the disclosure of raw data could unfairly cast unfounded aspersions on the submitter.
AirSafe.com Objection: There are three parts to this objection:

1. Individuals who submit information to the database are not identified.

2. Assuming that it is somehow possible to identify the organization associated with one or more submissions, for example a specific airline or airport, then if someone makes unfair or unsupported claims, then that implies that there was a very poor analysis based on the data. A competent analysis would likely put the raw data in the proper context and neutralize any unfair claims.

3. According to the US government publication Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States 1990-2007, only one in five bird and wildlife strikes are reported to the FAA's database. The FAA proposal contains no projection or estimate about what affect the proposed rule change would have on those who currently submit data, those who don't submit because of the current disclosure rules, and those who are not submitting for other reasons. Would the proportion of reported strikes go up to 25% if the disclosure rules changed? 50%? 75%? Perhaps it would drop to 15%.

FAA Argument: Releasing information from the database without benefit of proper analysis would produce an inaccurate perception of the individual airports and airlines and also inaccurate and inappropriate comparisons between different airports or different airlines.
AirSafe.com Objection: The fact that individuals or organizations may not understand how to do a proper analysis is not relevant because it is not the FAA's job to judge the competence, motives, or experience of those who may request data from a public database.

FAA Argument: Inaccurate portrayals of airports and airlines could have a negative impact on their participation in reporting bird strikes.
AirSafe.com Objection: As stated before, the FAA has no control over the actions of anyone who requests data. Inaccurate portrayals are always a possibility. However, the FAA has the expertise that should be able to easily counter any inaccurate analysis that unfairly portrays an airline or airport with a better analysis. There are a number of other industry organizations, including any affected airline and airport, that would be very willing to help the FAA to counter these kinds of unfair portrayals.

FAA Argument: The database should be exempt from public disclosure because when the FAA began collecting this data, it assured the entities submitting the data that the submissions would not be made available to the public.
AirSafe.com Objection: A review of the current online form and downloadable paper form for inputs to the Wildlife Hazard Database have nothing that promises that the data would not be available to the public. AirSafe.com's review of historical paper input forms going back to 1997 also show no such written promises. While the FAA may have made promises when the database was first created, the fact that for at least the last 12 years the FAA has apparently not made any promises of data privacy implies that they were not serious about their assurances made nearly 20 years ago.

What Should You Do Now?
If you want to make a comment to the FAA, do it before the deadline of April 20, 2009. Take the time to read the proposal and write down your comments. Follow the links given earlier and submit your comments to the FAA. If you need help or advice,

feel free to contact us.

About Me

Todd Curtis

He holds a PhD in aviation risk assessment from the Union Institute, as well as engineering degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Princeton. His aviation safety work has been featured by numerous news organizations, including the New York Times, and he has appeared on CNN, CBS, Fox News, Discovery Channel, the BBC, and National Public Radio. Previously, he has published and presented a number of technical papers in the areas of aviation risk assessment and also was the author of the 2000 book Understanding Aviation Safety Data. He has taken many of those engineering risk assessment concepts and applied them to Internet related problems in the 2007 book Parenting and the Internet.