WhistleblowerSupporter

Support Your Local “Occupy Your Town/City” Movement

I received an email today from someone who did not understand why I was not actively supporting the “Occupy” efforts across the country.  I’ve been watching news of these activities with interest. (The real news, not corporate owned media outlets who are NOT reporting it for the most part, and not accurately reporting it for the rest.)   A week or so ago I intended to go down and find out for myself what was going on, but work and several family disasters delayed my expedition down there.  Probably the same excuse, many of you have for not actively helping in some way or another.  

 

When you consider that the Occupy efforts appear to be a collaboration of committed individuals who have various concerns and complaints, many of which are caused by corporations, politicians, bureaucracy, greedy examples of those with more than most, etc.  The problems are social, economic, and political.  I can see my reader’s point

 

These are the same people who are helping to enable corporations and various hands and arms of government that are causing the very situations that are creating whistleblowers.  Greed, power mongering, cronyism, influence pedaling, unethical and criminal contracting activities, fraud, waste, abuse, and a host of other ills are examples.  Honorable people when confronted by this try to change it, report it, fix it and usually get the stuffing kicked out of them for their efforts in the climate we are dealing with in this country today. 

 

I agree that I should help promote the support of those who have the courage, determination and commitment to go be an active part of peaceful protest in events being staged across the nation.  Even if you cannot take part in the sign holding and waving, stop by and talk, find out why these people are down there and what they need to stay well and comfortable.  This is especially true in parts of the country that are now turning cold, wet and inhospitable.  My reader suggested donating supplies that are so critically needed like, warm coats, gloves, hats, food, especially things that can be cooked or heated under outdoor camping conditions.  Waterproof plastic storage boxes, tents, sleeping bags, cooking utensils, first aid supplies, those hand warmer sticks you can buy at sporting goods stores, and anything else that will keep up the volunteer’s spirits and energy.  

 

My reader reported that the Occupy Tacoma (in Washington State, south of Seattle, in a park on Pacific Avenue, downtown, at the cross street with the new bridge across the Puyallup River) is a neat and orderly effort showing a positively motivated cooperative of young and old that demonstrates a stellar example of the best of human effort.  They, who are giving the best they can to make a difference and to help the majority of us break out of our complacency and paralyzed condition, deserve our support and help. 

 

When those  with wealth and political control,  who continue to take and take and manipulate things to the detriment of the majority (working class and poor)  in this country are taken to task, and our society balances and rights itself again, we will also be reducing the number of whistleblowers, because there will be less crap and corruption to report,  and to fight against in our work places. 

 

Please take time this week or weekend and do what you can for your local “Occupy ____________” effort.  If you can report on your local Occupy activities, please comment here on this site; you are welcome to voice your observations and opinions. 

 

As for me, I am going to the coat closet, storage room and pantry right now! 

GFS

 

 

DSS Director Ignores DoD OIG Report and Recommendations: Why?

I hear through my sources that the DoD OIG completed a Title V investigation (Reprisal Office) and issued a report of findings in support of the federal employee whistleblower.  I have obtained a copy of this report from my sources in the DC area.  I am wading through it as we speak.  It would appear that Stanley Sims, DSS Director and Jay Freaude, DSS Counsel are purposefully refusing to acknowledge receipt of this report and responsibility to take constructive action to make the damaged employee whole, as directed by the DoD OIG. 

Is this how it will work?  Defense Security Service Director, Legal Department and Management will ignore investigative reports and pretend the investigation from DoD OIG simply does not exist and continue on their unethical and illegal path with impunity?  There are some very angry federal employees and civilian citizens regarding this cavalier attitude toward justice.  Not to mention questions about what appears to be DSS malfeasance in managing a federal agency and expenditure of taxpayer funds. 

If Defense Security Service oversight cannot be ethical in its own in-house matters, how can they be trusted to be ethical in doing their oversight job of policing government defense contracting and contractor corporations?

Anybody have more information or perspective? 

GFS

Senate Intelligence Committee Plans to Take Away Fed Whistleblower's Retirements

First, of all, it has been some time since federal employees had a true pension.  At least three different retirement systems exist.  Employees have been put in to one of them based on when they started their federal service.  It used to be that workers had something more like a pension in many federal and state jobs, including teaching.  But over time, that was abandoned by the employers as it was seen as too expensive. (for them)  Currently federal employees who have been working for around 20 years have essentially just a 401 K, which is called the Federal Thrift Savings Plan.  For a short while, employees got a small percentage of matching funds, but I am not sure if that is still being honored.  The money these federal employees have in the Federal Thrift Savings Plan is their own money, deducted out of each paycheck and put away for their own retirement, should they live long enough to collect it. 

Several years ago, the Executive Branch made the decision to borrow a bunch of money from these federal employees personal savings accounts to pay for war expenses.  Supposedly they were supposed to pay it back.  The withdrawal was done very quietly.  Most federal workers did not know their funds were being taken out.  Does anyone have good knowledge of this and do you know if it indeed was paid back?  Somehow I doubt it, in which case, it more resembles theft.  It would be like someone going to your bank, without your knowledge or permission, accessing your personal individual savings account and withdrawing a large portion of your savings and leaving you an "iou" sitting in the account.  If you didn't go in to check your balance and account status, you would not even know it happened.  For those of you who will be irritated by my clarifying that situation, please read on.

The real issue of this article appears to be efforts by at least part of the Senate Intelligence Committee to take away the retirements of anyone they deem to be a whistleblower.    Just great.  Many federal and other government whistleblowers are individuals who were trying to do their jobs following the laws and ethical demands so stated in their employment oath and/or job description. 

Due to the extreme amount of corruption and corrupt people, particularly in management in some areas of government, they became whistleblowers for standing up to wrongdoers, refusing to look the other way when they discovered criminal behavior, waste, fraud, and other problems.  If they refused to take orders from supervisors to commit fraud, or to help cover up the crimes rather than report them, open up and finish inquiries, and other types of correct response, many of them became targeted whistleblowers, whose work life, and in some cases personal life as well were no doubt going to take on nightmare qualities and proportions, due to the efforts of the bad actors to take them down and out.  

Please read the next notice from a whistleblower organization carefully and take action as they ask.  This is very important for everyone.  If they are allowed to do this, then no one will dare stand up to the evil and corrupted people in management.  We will be moved ever so much closer to living in a dictatorial police state.   GFS

Whistleblower's Pensions Threatened By Intelligence Committee

Take Action!

 
Tomorrow in a "closed" mark-up, the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee plan to slip into an appropriations bill a provision that will give the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the heads of other intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and NSA, the power to strip whistleblowers of their pensions. The appropriations mark-up is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 2:30 pm EST.

The provision empowers intelligence agency bureaucrats to strip whistleblowers of their hard-earned pensions, simply by accusing them of leaking classified information.

This provision is so dangerous because intelligence agencies often retaliate against whistleblowers by accusing of them of leaking information. For example, prominent whistleblower Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, who blew the whistle on forensic fraud and misconduct at the FBI crime lab, was falsely accused of leaking information.

TAKE ACTION! Protect whistleblowers' pensions!

The government also retroactively classifies information as way of targeting whistleblowers. For example, in the case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, who blew the whistle on national security breaches in the FBI's translation division, the FBI retroactively marked as classified information about her allegations long after the same information had been publicly released by the FBI.

The Obama administration's recent announcement targeting whistleblowers as part of its campaign to prevent leaks to the news media and Wikileaks makes situations such as Dr. Whitehurst and Ms. Edmonds more likely to occur.

TAKE ACTION! Time is of the Essence!

Stripping pensions based on accusations of classified leaks will be yet another way that the government can retaliate against whistleblowers. It will also increase the existing chilling effect and deter federal employees from lawfully exposing waste, fraud and abuse. On the whim of the DNI, whistleblowers will lose their life savings and be forced into poverty.

The whistleblowers who lose their pensions will not be able to take their case to court. Instead, they will be forced to use the DNI's Mickey Mouse administrative procedures to try to defend themselves. In other words, the DNI will be the prosecutor, the judge and the jury to strip pensions from whistleblowers.

Please take a minute to Call Senator Diane Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and tell her to stop threatening whistleblowers and withdraw such harmful language from the Intelligence Authorization Bill.

Senator Diane Feinstein (202) 224-3841

PASS THIS ALERT TO A FRIEND!

Whistleblowers are often victims of workplace bullies

An anoymous source sent me this tonight.  I think this person is right.  So often it seems that whistleblowers, or those who are trying to ethically do their jobs are targeted for this kind of abuse.  This article is based on a new book, described below.   Thank you reader!  If anyone has any other material to contribute to this topic, personal experiences or other articles you've read, or books you'd recommend, please let me know.  GFS

 

Workplace bullies ruin lives

By Laura Casey

Contra Costa Times

Posted: 10/28/2010 04:07:18 PM PDT

Updated: 11/01/2010 11:07:53 AM PDT

 

 

Kim is being stalked in the halls by her supervisor. Her every move is scrutinized, judged. Every day, she is berated with personal insults suggesting that she's just not good enough to work anywhere.

The yelling and unfair accusations do not simply make her hate coming to work. It has led to more serious health issues.

Kim, a 29-year-old medical office worker, who didn't want her last name used, has fallen into a depression. She's losing weight, having panic attacks and, two months ago, had to take a leave of absence from work. The Berkeley resident is hoping to transfer to another office, but in the meantime, she's going to counseling to heal. She dreads returning to her workplace and her bully.

"It's like I'm stuck," she says. "I don't know what to do. I am sick, and I can't change this person. I don't want to lose my job."

Bullying is a growing concern across the country, yet workplace bullying is a life-altering threat that rarely gathers the attention that schoolyard bullying does. Still, workplace bullying can prompt feelings of stress, depression and anxiety, and some say it can cause heart attacks and even lead to suicide.

There are no laws on the books in any state against workplace bullying and no easy legal recourse to embark on when bullying ruins lives.

Psychologists and spouses Gary and Ruth Namie have heard thousands of stories as heartbreaking as Kim's since 1997, when they developed an anti-workplace bullying organization in Benicia. Now called the Workplace Bullying Institute and headquartered in Bellingham, Wash., the center offers support and counseling to people who are victims of what the Namies call verbal violence in the workplace. They also commission studies to find out whom is being bullied at work and how bullying affects the workplace.

The Namies got into this business after Ruth Namie became a target for a bully at a Bay Area mental health center. Shortly after reporting to her job, she says she was screamed at in the halls, picked on by her boss and isolated from her co-workers.

"I felt I had done something wrong," she says. "I did so well in my other jobs and never had a problem. I had a very good career. I just wanted to work. But I kept feeling like I was doing something wrong. I was ashamed, and I didn't want to tell anybody."

She was eventually put on administrative leave, and she and her husband made it their mission to fight workplace bullying.

"I am so worried about this," says Gary Namie, visibly shaken during a recent seminar in South San Francisco where a young woman in tears shared that she had been bullied two years before. "You don't typically read about the suicides that are related to this, the health problems. Yet we tell (victims of bullying) that if you don't take care of your health, it will harm you in innumerable ways, and it could cost you your life."

Workplace bullying can happen in any workplace, Namie says, and the targets are usually people who simply want to do their work undisturbed. The bully can be a boss, co-worker or supervisor. According to 2010 research by Zogby International, 35 percent of workers have experienced bullying firsthand, what amounts to 53 million people. The study says that 62 percent of bullies are men, while 58 percent of targets are women. Women target women 80 percent of time. Workplace bullies are usually jealous of the target's accomplishments and drive, the Namies say.

"You're sport," Gary Namie says. "Targets are the salt of the Earth, and it gets you snookered."

Peralta College District math professor William Lepowsky had been teaching at Laney College in Oakland for 32 years when bullies started targeting him in the early 2000s.

"It was something I was absolutely ignorant of until I experienced it," he says. The bullying started after Lepowsky wrote and self-published a statistics textbook used at Laney. He was accused by an administrator of acting improperly and, even after being cleared of any wrongdoing, Lepowsky says he was threatened with the loss of his job.

"A good analogy to (workplace bullying) is that it's like a mugging. You go to the theater and you're walking home, and they steal your purse or something," he says. "It's obviously a huge violation, something no one is looking for. It comes out of the blue and prevents you from enjoying going out to the movie or whatever you were going to enjoy."

Lepowsky fought back by gathering support from co-workers and won, eventually receiving a written apology from the then-Chancellor of the District for the "stress and strain" caused by actions of other administrators. A change in leadership at the college and District made him feel comfortable at work again.

Lepowsky talks openly about his experience because he wants to help others. He never sued the district nor got a settlement.

But if he had chosen to sue because of the bullying, he would have faced a daunting problem: The practice is not illegal in the workplace if it's not based on discrimination and doesn't fit the legal definition of harassment. Therefore, if a target chooses to take legal action they rarely win cases against their employers.

"They have no legal recourse because it's not against the law," says Michelle Smith, a Sacramento-based workplace advocate trying to gather support for the Healthy Workplace Bill. The bill, which has been introduced in several states and has died in committee in California, would define an "abusive work environment" and hold both the bully and the employer accountable for the harm workplace bullying causes.

So what can be done if you are a target of bullying?

The Namies assure targets that they are not alone, that they didn't cause the bullying to happen.

"Bullying is domestic violence where the abuser is on the payroll," Gary Namie says. And, like in cases of domestic violence, the victim is simply that, a victim.

In their book "The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job," (Sourcebooks, $16.99) the Namies suggest ways of taking care of your needs first. See a therapist or work with a Workplace Bullying Institute expert to develop strategies for coping with the bully. In some cases, asking an employer to fix the problem is appropriate -- but it could backfire. According to Workplace Bullying Institute research, in some cases the complaints are either ignored or the bullying is intensified.

In a worst-case scenario, if your health is being severely harmed, they suggest taking time off work or looking for alternative workplaces.

"I think your health is much more important than working at a job that can potentially kill you," Ruth Namie says.

·  Screaming Mimi: This bully isn't afraid to yell at you. She controls through fear and intimidation, even throwing objects around the office.

·  Constant Critic: The critic is an extremely negative nit-picker and aims to destroy confidence in your competence. He makes unreasonable demands for work with impossible deadlines and expects perfection.

·  Two-Headed Snake: This bully is passive-aggressive, dishonest and indirect. He smiles to hide aggression.

·  Gatekeeper: She controls all the resources you need to succeed, including money, staffing and time. She keeps her target out of the loop and makes new rules on a whim.

-- excerpt from "The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job," by Gary and Ruth Namie.

 http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16460359?nclick_check=1

Comments Regarding “Declining DCAA Role in Oversight of Tens of Billions of Pentagon Contract Dollars

Here are some comments left on one of the articles I posted earlier today.  You will want to check the original article and additional comments.  See link at bottom of this post.  And thanks again, Old Navy Man.  GFS

 

G. Florence-

 

It’s not just ‘An Old Navy Man’ that believes there’s a problem.  See comments below.

 

Good investigative reporting on the part of Mr. Schwellenbach!

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Declining DCAA Role in Oversight of Tens of Billions of Pentagon Contract Dollars:

Comments

Joe   It is a shame that the only reason that DCAA gave away proposal audits under the stated PGI threshold is so that we can put more time in working paper documentation. Not that our audits will be any better or that we will question more cost. No, just the opposite. We gave away millions of dollars of proposal work just to have more time to document our work. Such as waste of effort. This is definately contrary to Secretary Gates efficiency initiative. I am dispoointed that Fitzgerald did not have a backbone and went along with AT&L on this one. Stephenson never would have given away work just to have more time for those picture perfect working papers. What's next, $500 million and $50 million. Before we know it, Fitzgerald will have each auditor completing only one audit per year. I imagine that Policy is already examining how to raise the desk review incurred cost threshold to $100 million per year. Here's a clue how to deal with the gap between the audit work that needs to be accomplished and the current funding, provide DCAA more funds. Simple, issue solved. DCAA saves dollar for dollar more than it costs, period. So why won't Comptroller Hale provide DCAA more money? Oh I get it, he does not want oversight of contractors and neither does our lobbyist Deputy Secretary of Defense. I get it now. We need a change of administration and fast!

Posted on: Oct 30, 2010 at 05:54 PM

Carol   The blog comments are 100% on the mark. In essence, pricing evaluations by DCMA for FFP under $10 million and cost type over $100 million will become nothing more than a rate check. DCMA is not staffed to perform a full price analysis of proposals under these thresholds. This represents a high volume of proposals. Rather DCMA will call DCAA for the latest rates and that will be the extent of the price analysis. It will not matter than the rates are 2-3 years old or perhaps no rate information. The message was been sent by AT&L, pricing actions under these thresholds are immaterial and become a blank check for contractors. I am curious about the independence comment made by Frank. I thought that the Defense Business Board in its October 2008 report stated that DCAA should perform any audits it felt necessary regardless of the DPAP guidance, FAR, DFARS, CAS, etc. How can DPAP decide the audits to be performed by DCAA? This seems to be an independence issue. The PGI guidance was not revised due to a change in law or other legal statute. Perhaps Fitzgerald is confusing Army Audit with DCAA where in Army Audit the Secretary of the Army may decide the audits that are performed. But in DCAA, the responsibility is on the DCAA Director to decide the audits that are necessary, no one else has that responsibility. I believe we have a GAGAS noncompliance. POGO, could you research the independence issue. This could be very serious.

Posted on: Oct 30, 2010 at 08:02 AM

John    Agree with Frank and Mike. The Pentagon has wanted DCAA to get out of the forward pricing audit business for years. Contracting officials want to place as much money on contract as possible and do not want to have to address audit findings while negotiating contracts. However, I would argue that the new thresholds really do not matter because many forward pricing reports are issued too late to be of use to the contracting officer and many others are never issued because the supervisor, manager, region, QA reviewers have an issue with the working papers such as the entrance conference was not thoroughly documented or the sample was too small. All the while, real dollars are wasted especially on FFP contracts. Assignments are cancelled all the time. I recall a time when the FAO had a prepare a detailed explanation for the region when it cancelled an assignment. Now we cancel more assignments that we complete. POGO, you should ask for the number of cancelled assignments for the last five years, you should see a significant increase in FY 2010. Not to mention the millions that have gone unaudited and thousands of audit hours wasted. I guess Army Audit has a very liberal cancellation policy.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 07:42 PM

Jan   Here's the next scandle, DCAA spends twice as much to do 25%of the audits. Overpayments and fraud triple due to no oversight. GAO and IG find DCAA's audit working papers are perfect, but gig DCAA for performing marginal analytical procedures. Wake-up Fitzgerald, you have many hearings in your future so start practicing the opening statement on how the Pentagon made you do it and how important it is to ensure that all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Oh, and do not forget, you are responsible for DCAA and cannot use the Pentagon or anyone else as an excuse. The independence issue is squarely on you. Keep in mind that Under Secretary Hale and Deputy Lynn will not be around forever to protect you.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 07:01 PM

Mike   This action is very short-sighted by Director Fitzgerald. The ratio of questioned cost to dollars examined on the smaller dollar pricing actions is generally greater than the larger dollars especially the fixed price effort. These are generally smaller, less experienced contractors that do not have adequate pricing systems in place and are not knowledgeable of the FAR and CAS. Last month my office issued a report on a FFP $8 million proposal. We questioned half of the proposed amount ($4 million) because the contractor charged all indirect costs to the Government contract and none to its commercial customers. Reason, the commercial customer would not pay for the indirect costs, but they tried to get the Government to pay it. The CO sustained 100% and reduced the negotiated price accordingly. DCMA does not know contractor accounting records at the level of detail as DCAA and would not have had this finding in their price evaluation. Result, $4 million down the drain. POGO stay with this one, it has scandle written all over it.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 06:10 PM

Frank   It is an impairment to DCAA's independence for the Pentagon to dictate the audits that DCAA will perform. If there is a risk such as an inadequate estimating system, history of overbillings, or even fraud referrals, DCAA should be able to perform the pricing audits. This is just the Pentagon's way of reducing the oversight of contractors. DCMA is not equipped to handle the significant workload associated with pre-award pricing effort on cost-type contracts under $100 million and fixed-price under $10 million.

Posted on: Oct 29, 2010 at 0 http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/declining-dcaa-role-in-oversight-of-tens-of-billions-of-pentagon-contract-dollars.html6:02 PM

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/declining-dcaa-role-in-oversight-of-tens-of-billions-of-pentagon-contract-dollars.html

 

Oversight of Contracts Worth Billions and Billions is Broken

This is another article sent to me today.  Thank you reader!  GFS

 

G. Florence-

 

The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) is broken.  The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is broken.  And the Defense Security Service (DSS) is broken.  It looks like the entire contracting and security oversight of defense contractors is broken.

 

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

POGO

Pentagon Radically Reducing Oversight of Contracts Worth Tens of Billions

October 29, 2010  Nick Schwellenbach

The Pentagon has radically decreased the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s (DCAA) review of contracts, according to an October 18 DCAA memo obtained by POGO. DCAA’s job is to protect taxpayers from contractor overbilling.

“POGO has long feared contractors and their government allies would block DCAA from exposing contractor ripoffs,” said Nick Schwellenbach, POGO’s director of investigations.  “Why are billions of dollars being put at risk when Secretary Gates is demanding cost savings?”

According to the memo, contracting guidance “now limits contracting officer requests for audit services to Fixed-price proposals over $10 million and Cost-Type proposals over $100 million, unless there are exceptional circumstances.”

These audit services are reviews of cost data (referred to as “reviews”) and they entail an examination of a contractor’s cost proposal to the government.  In these proposals, contractors estimate how much it will cost them to accomplish work on a contract.

Previously, there was no dollar threshold for reviews on fixed-price contract proposals, but contracting officers would limit requests for DCAA reviews of proposals over a threshold tied to the submission of cost or pricing data, which is currently $700,000. The old threshold for reviews of cost-type proposals was $10 million, but could be lower if the contractor has systemic problems estimating costs.

In FY 2009, a total of at least $92 billion in Defense Department contracts fell between the old thresholds and the new ones, according to USAspending.gov.  The $92 billion figure is a conservative estimate – it reflects awarded and funded contracts, rather than contract proposals, which are often higher than the funded contract award amounts.

The guidance states that cost proposals below the new dollar thresholds for review may be sent instead to the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). DCMA is typically less thorough than DCAA, according to a 2009 Wartime Contracting Commission report.  The DCMA also does not specialize in examining and verifying cost and pricing data.

The reason for this new restriction is DCAA’s attempt to perfectly comply with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). With this standard, which requires meticulous documentation of findings, DCAA is unable to cover as much ground as they used to, thus the need to restrict “audits” as defined by GAGAS.  The number of DCAA reports produced annually has plunged: 33,801 in FY 2007 to 30,352 in FY 2008 to 21,276 reports in FY 2009.

Rather than subjecting reviews of cost or pricing data to GAGAS, DCAA should consider these reviews as financial advisory services, which are not subject to all GAGAS requirements.  This would better protect taxpayers and warfighters by allowing DCAA to review cost data and deliver advice to contracting officers in a timely fashion.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/contract-oversight/co-ca-20101029.html

 

POGO Reports: Secret Deals May Lead to Bailouts for Defense Contractor Misconduct

Something I found today on POGO follows..  There seems to be a pattern of seeking no accountability for contractor’s malevolent actions.  KBR (Halliburton) has a disgraceful record in the Middle East.  Is this another such corrupt action taken by government, in this case DoD,  to hold these contractors harmless for their crimes?  Could something be in the works for other contractors? 

Read the articles posted previously on this blog regarding the unfortunate experiences of Boeing International Support Systems employee, Robin Petersen, and his being held captive by BISS and Saudi Arabia and not be allowed to return to the U.S. for medical help after he was injured while doing the job he was hired to do by this Boeing wholly owned subsidiary while in Saudi Arabia.  Boeing’s evasion of Petersen's attorney serving Boeing/BISS the summons and paperwork for Petersen's lawsuit is certainly interesting in light of all of this.

Think back to Druyan and Sears and the Tanker scandal and Boeing getting Eric Holder's help in putting into place a non-prosecution agreement.  As long as Boeing offered up victims, of lower managers or employees, Boeing Corporate itself would not be held accountable or be barred from receiving contracts in the future.  Handy, yes?  Is there some other smoke and mirrors thing starting to manifest itself again?  This time it would be DoD writing off accountability for contractors and their actions.  GFS

POGO

Oct 01, 2010

Secret Deals May Lead to Bailouts for Defense Contractor Misconduct

We may be unknowingly bailing out defense contractors such as KBR for the harm they cause, according to Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.

This week, Blumenauer, along with Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., and Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced the Accountability for Defense Contractors Act. This bill would increase transparency and accountability in defense contracting by regulating the Pentagon’s use of classified contract provisions that indemnify contractors from damage lawsuits. It would require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress when accepting liability in excess of $1 million on behalf of a contractor. It also would prohibit indemnification in cases where the contractor acted with “gross negligence, willful misconduct, or lack of good faith” or the harm resulted from “an unusually hazardous or nuclear risk not specified in the terms of the contract and discovered on the site where the contract is performed, or that reasonably should have been discovered.”

Last year, several Oregon National Guard veterans sued KBR for knowingly exposing them to a cancer-causing substance called hexavalent chromium while protecting KBR employees who were restoring a water treatment plant in Iraq in 2003. It was discovered during the course of litigation that KBR’s Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract with the U.S. Army contains a classified clause indemnifying KBR for any property damage, injury or death occurring at all KBR worksites. Similar lawsuits against KBR have been filed by current and former National Guard members from Indiana and West Virginia who were also stationed at the water treatment plant in the early months of the war. This means the Army (i.e. the taxpayer) could be hit with millions of dollars in costs and damages.

Last month, Army Secretary John McHugh refused to declassify the KBR indemnification clause in his response to Blumenauer’s inquiry, but he insisted that, apart from the RIO contract, no other Army contracts awarded to companies operating in contingency situations since 2001 contain indemnification provisions. Left unsaid, of course, is whether the other service branches and units of the Department of Defense, to say nothing of other federal agencies, are providing secret indemnity to their contractors.

“The Army considers the use of indemnification provisions only in extraordinary circumstances involving unusually hazardous risks,” McHugh wrote. He also assured Blumenauer that KBR has not yet asserted any claim—and the Army has not made any payments—under the provision.

We’re glad to see Members of Congress addressing this issue and we support the Accountability for Defense Contractors Act. But we’re not convinced that contractors need immunity for wrongdoing. We’re also still left wondering: If certain government functions require perks such as secret grants of legal immunity in order to get the private sector to perform them, why are these functions even considered suitable for outsourcing in the first place?

Neil Gordon

Link to original:   http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/secret-deals-may-lead-to-bailouts-for-defense-contractor-misconduct.html

Change is not really Change at Defense Security Service

I received a follow up comment from "An Old Navy Man" today.  He states:

"I guess Lawhorn will have to share underwear with Cole and Hellman now.  The Beltway rumor is that Vince Taylor was encouraged to move on."

 

Original Post - story

GFS,  

 

There’s an old Navy story about a ship’s Captain who inspected his sailors.  Afterward he told the first mate that his men smelled bad.  Perhaps it would help if the sailors would change underwear occasionally.  The first mate responded “Aye, aye sir, I’ll see to it immediately!”

 

The first mate went straight to the sailor’s berth and announced, “The Captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear.”  The first mate continued, “Watson, you change with Sterling.”  “Taylor you change with Cole.”  “Lawhorn you change with Hellmann.”

 

The moral of the story-   someone may come along and promise change, but don’t count on things smelling any better.

 

It’s time for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to hand the Industrial Security mission back to the Government Contracting Authorities.

 

From an old Navy man

 

 

 

 

Sick of Corporate and Government Corruption? Read this!

Someone sent this to me last week.  I post it here for everyone to consider.  It appears some of our elected officials including Alan Grayson, Congressman from Florida, are working to help people see how their congressional candidates stand on certain types of reform legislation prior to the fall elections.  You also can add your name to the list of people committed to real change and clean up of the swamp we have been dealing with as of late.  Go for it!

GFS

*********

Subject: Sick of corporate corruption? Join me and Stand for Democracy
 
We need a government that solves real problems and answers to the people, not to BP, Goldman Sachs and big corporate lobbyists. We have seen where that gets us.
Decades of lobbying and influence peddling in DC have given us a government that is full of corporate corruption. It is not a new problem, but we can end it now if this election year we join together to support a blueprint to take back our democracy and demand that our elected leaders stand with us.
That is why I endorsed on the Stand for Democracy Pledge, a crowd-sourced statement of principles about how democracy should work. If we people across the country come together to sign this pledge, we can send a real message to candidates about what we need to do to get this job done.
I participated and I hope you will, too.
Follow this link to take a stand for democracy: http://www.fightwashingtoncorruption.org

The Human Cost of Government Waste and Fraud

Thursday 02 September 2010

by: Dina Rasor, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

There is something missing in the constant political argument about the size of the federal government. Most of the American public want federal programs when needed for disasters, national defense, medical research and the Medicare and Social Security safety net. What the public has said in many polls is that they want not big or smaller government, but effective government. And there is a whole group of good government groups in Washington that work diligently on exposing government fraud and waste and trying to fix it.

One of these organizations, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), has been exposing fraud and waste for almost 30 years.(Disclaimer: I founded POGO and still serve on its board of directors.) We have worked for decades to expose the wrongdoing and then push Congress and the administration to fix the problem so there won't be more waste and fraud that so disillusions the public.

POGO's former director of investigations, Beth Daley, worked on exposing MMS (Mineral Management Services, the bureaucracy that helped bring us the BP oil disaster) years before anyone else paid any attention to it. Through Beth's and others' work at POGO, the royalty program was changed and all the oil companies had to pay a fair price for the oil that was taken from federal lands. This lead to millions of dollars of income for the federal government. She was also a champion for national security whistleblowers and worked, as I have, to try to change the decades-long and insidious waste and fraud in the Department of Defense (DoD) and other national security agencies. It is so bad that the DoD now openly admits that it is unauditable, a dismal and awkward word that they use to say that they can't really figure out where their money is and how much is stolen or wasted.

While POGO and other good government groups can, with small resources, expose fraud and waste, and suggest changes, it is up to the federal government to do true oversight on themselves to stop the fraud and waste, recover the fraudulent contract money (are you listening Department of Justice?) and reform the system. All we can do is embarrass them in public and try to demand accountability. Beth dedicated ten years of her life to this effort.

So, who really suffers from the fraudulent and wasteful spending? The bureaucracies get their money, the members of Congress get jobs in their districts and we put it on the federal credit card even though China owns a large portion of our debt. But there are programs that get cut or have less money because of Big Oil's and Big Weapons' wasteful and fraudulent spending. One of these areas is health research, something that the US excels at (versus health care) and we can lead the world in saving lives.

Why do I bring up health research as something that could have more funding if we got control of the fraud and waste in our government? Because Beth died in her sleep Sunday, August 22, at age 43 after an excruciating fight with cancer for seven years. She leaves behind a grieving family including twin seven-year-old girls. She had the type of cancer that was genetically based and prime for a cure with the newest genetic research breakthroughs. Unfortunately, she didn't live to see that breakthrough. If the federal government had recovered just some of the waste and fraud that Beth uncovered in her years at POGO, perhaps that money could have been used to save her and so many others who face and fight cancer and other life-threatening diseases every day. That wasted money helped no one other than the recipients of the contracts and their government cronies.

President Eisenhower, a military man, said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." I am realistic and know that we need to buy weapons to protect our country and we need oil to keep America moving. However, a modern-day version of the that quote could be that every fraudulent or wasteful government contract that the government allows and tolerates, steals federal funding away from health research to save lives and endless suffering, education that can lift people out of their poverty and misery and energy research and manufacturing that can perhaps give us even more national security by giving us energy independence.

Beth's work will go on at POGO and other good government groups, but, after 30 years of exposing the fraud and waste, I am imploring all the branches of the federal government to look at what we and others uncover, recover the money and fix the problem and start seriously doing oversight on itself despite the cronyism and politics. The price of this fraud and waste seems at times to be vague, but the needless loss of just one mother to her young daughters is an illustration of the damage done. Ironically, Beth saved the government millions of dollars in oil royalties, but lost her life to a disease that still needs more research funding from that same government.

After uncovering fraud for 30 years and being very frustrated at the lack of government reform to stop it, I will be launching a new column for Truthout in the fall called "Solutions: Making Government Work." I will be writing some of the columns myself with anonymous sources on small slices of solutions to march through the mounds of government waste and fraud and I will also have guest columnists who can put their name in the column and use the wisdom that they have seen in their neck of the bureaucracy to fix the system to stop or at least curb this needless government fraud and waste. I want to dedicate this new column to Beth's memory and work in the hope of fixing the federal government, instead of just exposing the problems. To learn more about Beth's amazing life, go here.

I invite Truthout readers to contact me if you have a realistic solution for a part of the federal government and would like me to write about it in the column or if you would like to submit a column. We all need to pick up where Beth had to stop and keep on in her memory to fix this problem that damages so much of our national life.

 

Link to original:  http://www.truth-out.org/the-human-cost-government-waste-and-fraud62911