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

DSS Continues to Hold "All-Hands" Meetings, Despite OSD Policy Change

 

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose"   (The same can be said for things that do not smell so sweet.)

As an update on the problem of expensive "all-hands" meetings,  I received information from several people in the DC area in answer to some questions I posed to them some time ago.  Nothing seems to have changed on that front, but the window dressing. 

Errant DSS management has continued to hold these meetings, requiring employees to travel to attend what still is the same event.  Now, however, it seems DSS management is calling them "trainings" to avoid requesting official authorization for expenditure of these funds by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as is now required for "all-hands" meetings.

No matter what title is put on it, a lecture is a lecture is a lecture.  Even worse, sitting and watching managers argue with each other for hours is beyond the pale.

Demanding employees leave their assigned work, travel across the country, to sit in a large room for days as an audience to a group of managers, while being brow beaten by those managers (or being told things that could just have easily been sent out in an email or handled more efficiently via a teleconference), shows extreme bad judgment in this blogger's opinion.  Their dedication to find a way to try to get around policy put into place to stop this travesty shows their astounding stubborn resolve to do as they like, not as they are told.  Why is no one holding them responsible?  It is amazing how the failures of these managers, appears to have nearly totally taken down this agency in such a relatively brief amount of time.

 

Problem: Corporate Tax Evasion and Loss of Critical Technology

Here is an interesting article and comment sent to me by a reader.  This is something to think about.  Right on from what I know about that problem.  GFS

 

 

G Florence

 

So what other large corporations are enjoying these tax reduction opportunities?  This question becomes critically important when we look at the defense corporations, since transfer of proprietary technologies also has serious export control considerations, and national security considerations.  Is this one more mechanism for the loss of United States militarily critical technologies for large corporate profit returns?

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

From:  Truthout.Org

 

No Tax Holiday for Multinational Corporations

Saturday 11 June 2011

by: Dr. Eileen Appelbaum, Truthout

 

If you think that "double Irish" and "Dutch sandwich" are schoolyard jump rope games girls play, think again. These are the nefarious, but legal, games that hundreds of multinationals play to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. According to a report by Bloomberg, Google used these techniques to cut its tax rate to 2.4 percent and its taxes by $3.1 billion over the three years from 2007 through 2009. The company's top two markets by revenue are the US, with a 35 percent corporate income tax rate, and the UK, with a 28 percent rate, yet Google - using practices widely employed by global companies - dramatically reduced its tax rate.

 

At the heart of this strategy is the transfer of rights to intellectual property developed in the US - often, as in Google's case, with early research funded by US taxpayers through the National Science Foundation - to a subsidiary in a low-tax country. Foreign earnings based on the technology are then attributed to the subsidiary. Google transferred its search and advertising technology for much of the world to its Irish subsidiary at a price sanctioned in 2006 by the IRS. But even the much-vaunted low Irish taxes were not low enough for Google. That's where the "double Irish" and the "Dutch sandwich" come in.

Here's how it works. In the "double Irish," Google establishes two subsidiaries in Ireland. Google Ireland Holdings, managed from Bermuda, licenses intellectual property rights to Google Ireland Limited, which sells advertising rights in Europe, Africa and the Middle East and collects the advertising revenue. Google Ireland Limited keeps a fraction of these revenues and, ultimately, pays the balance in royalties to Google Ireland Holdings which, under Irish law, is a Bermuda company. No taxes are paid on these royalties because Bermuda has no corporate tax.

 

Ireland does have a 20 percent withholding tax that it would collect if royalties were paid to Google Ireland Holdings directly. That's where the "Dutch sandwich" comes into play. A Dutch subsidiary, Google Netherlands Holdings, is "sandwiched" between the two Irish subsidiaries. Google Ireland Limited actually pays the royalties to the Dutch subsidiary, which then pays the royalties to Google Ireland Holdings. Irish law exempts this type of royalty payment to companies in other EU countries from the withholding tax.

 

Google is not alone. Hundreds of multinationals - including Microsoft, Oracle and Eli Lilly - use these ploys, with a foreign tax haven as the ultimate repository for the firms' overseas profits. This kind of income shifting - known as transfer pricing - can significantly increase a company's earnings and share price.

 

Companies continue to owe taxes to the US government on these overseas earnings - technically, the taxes have only been deferred. But the taxes don't come due until the profits are brought back to the US - that is, repatriated. And companies do want to repatriate these profits.

 

A dozen large multinationals have joined the "Win America Campaign" to lobby for a tax holiday, so US companies can bring foreign profits home. In 2004, when Congress last declared a tax holiday, much of the $900 billion that corporations held abroad was repatriated at a reduced tax rate of just 5 percent. Today, US corporations hold roughly $1.43 trillion overseas. The demand for a tax holiday clearly indicates that parking profits overseas is a tax-avoidance strategy, not a business necessity.

 

The push for a tax holiday has bipartisan support in Congress. However, the Treasury opposes a tax holiday as a stand-alone measure although it might consider it as part of a broader tax reform package.

 

How should the rules governing taxes on overseas profits be reformed?

House Speaker John Boehner has proposed a system of territorial taxation, in which overseas profits of US corporations would not be taxed in the US. This would only increase incentives for US companies to offshore operations and increase the use of transfer pricing. Ultimately, it would mean a race to the bottom in which no country could tax corporate profits, since companies would threaten to move operations to a lower-tax country unless the home country reduced its tax rate.

Here's a better idea: replace the rules for transfer pricing with rules that allocate a company's profits among its subsidiaries based on metrics such as the number of employees or the sales revenue generated in each jurisdiction. Currently, about half of US states with corporate income taxes use this method for companies that operate in multiple states. It would not be difficult to apply the same rules to multinational companies.

 

Dr. Eileen Appelbaum is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. She previously served as director of the Rutgers Center for Women and Work. During her tenure, Dr. Appelbaum built the Center into a major locus for research on women's advancement in the labor market and at the workplace. The Center undertook numerous projects that were aimed at understanding and improving the lives of working women at all income levels. Prior to taking over the Center at Rutgers she was the research director at the Economic Policy Institute. She previously had been a professor of economics at Temple University.

 

Link to original:  http://www.truth-out.org/no-tax-holiday-multinational-corporations/1307797781

 

Cyber Attacks, National Security and US Economic Survival

Anyone interested in both real national security and economic security should read this set of articles.  What is discussed in these articles does not cover even half of the problems.  It is not only cyber espionage and theft, but other more direct kinds of actions that may also be very risky to our security and economic well-being.   Problems, such as sloppy security or imprudent decisions made by defense contractors regarding how security is handled, often brought about by penny wise, pound foolish financial decisions designed to save money for the company.  Misguided notions of an open world – a fantasy non-competitive world where science and technology should all be shared, can also bring about loss of technology and “technical secrets”.  Sometimes the visitors that are allowed in, (as in the case of foreign nationals), who ask for in person visits, or sometimes extended project or work time, in the defense contractor’s company sites, can provide significant risks to these same kinds of materials.    

Read these two articles for now if you did not already see them.  GFS

 

* * * * *

 

US arms makers said to be bleeding secrets to cyber foes

By Jim Wolf

Reuters

 

Link:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43230826

 

* * * * *

 

From Nextgov:

 

Pentagon to adversaries: An attack on U.S. networks might unleash military force

By Aliya Sternstein  05/31/11

A new Defense Department policy that reportedly authorizes troops to use physical force in response to a cyberattack does not represent a change in posture, but rather a signal to adversaries that the United States will not hesitate to act, said a former U.S. military and intelligence official who managed network security.

According to an article in Monday's Wall Street Journal, the Pentagon penned a departmental policy that for the first time unequivocally states that a grave attack on U.S. networks will be treated as an act of war. In other words, a cyberattack severe enough to cause death and destruction can trigger the use of military force.

"I don't think the statement is a giant step forward in terms of new policy," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Dale W. Meyerrose, former chief information officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "It's an explicit statement, which underpins the military being serious about cyberspace and its relationship to the other domains of land, sea and air."

The policy, expected to be publicly released within the next month, arrives at a time when the notion of cyberwar increasingly is becoming a real-world problem. During the past year, sophisticated intrusions such as the Stuxnet virus, which targets industrial equipment such as nuclear reactors, and so-called advanced persistent threats, worms that invade silently for extensive periods to steal intelligence, have fueled national security concerns.

This weekend, Defense and Homeland Security Department officials confirmed the government is investigating a network penetration at Defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp.

While the Pentagon's policy may seem like a statement of the obvious, "it does put potential folks who want to do mischief with national security apparatus on notice," said Meyerrose, who also served as CIO at several Defense and Air Force commands.

Few nations have enough cyber-savvy to cripple U.S. critical infrastructure, such as power grids, but as soon as terrorist groups or enemy states attain that capability, they will not hesitate to use it, James A. Lewis, a cybersecurity researcher at the nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies, testified before Congress just last week.

The more imminent possibility is that adversaries will disrupt military communications, said Meyerrose, now a senior executive at information technology firm Harris Corp. Under the new Pentagon edict, "the retribution [for that] could be -- we'll take out your ability to transmit, or it could involve killing," he said. "When we report on the elements of cyber, we tend to boil it down to a user on a keyboard. It's not quite that simple. It could be an attack on a military place where computer systems are assembled."

In mid-May, while unveiling a new White House policy framework on international cybersecurity with other Cabinet officials, Defense Department Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III alluded to "a forthcoming strategy for operating in cyberspace."

The White House document asserts that the United States has the right to use military force to defend itself against cyber threats.

"All states possess an inherent right to self-defense, and we recognize that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners," the strategy states. "We reserve the right to use all necessary means -- diplomatic, informational, military and economic -- as appropriate and consistent with applicable international law, in order to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests."

Link:  http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110531_5712.php

 

 

 

ATTENTION! SEC ADOPTS NEW WHISTLEBLOWER RULES

I attended one of these sessions recently.  You do not have to be an attorney to attend.  I recommend that you all attend and read Mr. Kohn's new book.  It is written to make the complexities understandable even for people who are not attorney's.    Your fee includes a copy of Mr. Kohn's new book and handouts.  He was very open to answering participant questions.  GFS

 

 *******

 

On May 25th, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted whistleblower rules that fundamentally changed and enhanced the right of employees to obtain legal protection and large financial rewards (see Washington Post article).  The National Whistleblowers Center and its legal staff were extensively involved in this process, providing the SEC with nine formal rulemaking submissions and personally meeting one-on-one with each of the five SEC commissioners.  Many of the NWC's proposals were adopted by the SEC, and the Final Rules cited to NWC formal comments forty-four times.  The new regulations will prove an invaluable asset in the representation of corporate whistleblowers, and the new regulations if properly utilized will prove to be an invaluable asset in successfully representing employees and preventing corporate fraud.

 

As a result, the National Whistleblowers Center is conducting a series of nationwide seminars that will focus on the new SEC regulations, and the historic whistleblower protections contained in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The seminars will explain the new anti-retaliation rules governing corporate employees and the financial reward provisions.  These rules require the SEC to pay large financial awards to qualified whistleblowers for which there is no cap and can result in multiple millions of dollars in recoveries.

 

 

 

 

Dodd-Frank Act

3-hour CLE Seminar

NEW Corporate Whistleblower Protections and Reward Provisions

 

 

On July 21, 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Act. Corporate whistleblowing was forever changed. The Act established the right of whistleblowers to obtain multi-million dollar rewards for reporting violations of Securities and Commodities Exchange Acts. These "qui tam" provisions were modeled on the False Claims Act -- a law that already has resulted in whistleblowers obtaining over $2.7 billion dollars in rewards for reporting federal contracting and procurement violations to the Justice Department. Dodd-Frank also enhanced employment protections available to whistleblowers. Retaliatory discharge cases can now be filed directly in federal court, with the right to a jury trial. Under Dodd-Frank, mandatory arbitration agreements cannot be enforced.

$150 ATTORNEY REFERRAL SERVICE MEMBERS

($95 For Early Bird Special!)

 

$295 ATTORNEYS

($150 For Early Bird Special!)

 

$75 WHISTLEBLOWERS

 

Call (202) 342-1903 for Early Sign-up or ARS Discount Codes

 

To REGISTER visit our UPCOMING EVENTS page

Locations:

 

Washington, DC -- June 10th, 2011 (Teleconference Available)

         National Whistleblowers Center

         3238 P Street NW

         Washington, DC 20007

 

         Register on or before June 7th for Early Bird Special

 

         Contact Seminar Director Estelle Kohn at ek@whistleblowers.org or Associate

         Seminar Director Philip Barrett at whistle@whistleblowers.org or call

         (202) 342-1903 to register

 

Denver, CO -- June 23rd, 2011

         The Browne Palace Hotel & Spa

         321 17th Street

         Denver, CO 80202

 

         Register on or before June 10th for Early Bird Special

 

San Francisco, CA -- June 27th, 2011

         TURN-The Utility Reform Network

         115 Sansome Street, Suite 900

         San Francisco, CA 94104

 

         Register on or before June 10th for Early Bird Special

 

Los Angeles, CA -- June 28th, 2011

         Carlsmith Ball LLP

         444 South Flower Street, 9th Floor

         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901

 

         Register on or before June 10th for Early Bird Special

 

New York, NY -- July 25th, 2011

         New York Marriott Downtown

         85 West Street at Albany Street

         New York, NY 10006

 

         Register on or before July 15th for Early Bird Special

 

CURRICULUM:

Learn how to use the new corporate whistleblower laws and regulations to effectively represent employees, combat fraud and qualify for large whistleblower rewards. Gain insight into how whistleblower protections laws can be integrated into your law practice as powerful legal tools for maximizing your client's ability to have their case heard before a jury and obtain entitlement to large monetary damage awards and rewards.

 

FACULTY:

Stephen M. Kohn, Esq. is the Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center and one of the nations leading advocates on whistleblower law.  Mr. Kohn will present this unique seminar on the latest whistleblower laws and rewards provisions. Mr. Kohn has represented numerous high profile whistleblowers for over 27 years. He has authored seven books on whistleblower law, including the recently published The Whistleblower's Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide to Doing What's Right and Protecting Yourself (Lyons Press, 2011). Mr. Kohn was the principal author of the NWC's rulemaking petitions and personally met with all five SEC Commissioners and the responsible Commission staff.

 

To Register or For More Information:

Please visit our UPCOMING EVENTS page or contact Estelle Kohn or Philip Barrett by phone: (202) 342-1903 or email: ek@whistleblowers.org or whistle@whistleblowers.org.  

If you cannot make the seminar, you can purchase the course materials, The Whistleblower's Handbook, online for $16.95 plus shipping. 

So, who is the Senator who killed the Whistleblower Protection Bill?

Here is some good information from Government Accountability Project (GAP) regarding the culprit who put a hold on the Whistleblower Protection Act, and is being aided and abetted by other Senators to evade taking responsibility.  GAP has been asking people to help pressure their Senators to get a definite yes or no on whether he or she was the Senator to place the hold.  Presently they have narrowed it down to three Senators.  Is one of them yours? 

-GFS

 

 

 

GAP Announces Results of Campaign to Identify ‘Secret Hold’ Senator

 

This weekend, GAP (Government Accountability Project) and On The Media will conclude our campaign to identify the senator who placed the anonymous hold on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA), effectively killing the bill at the end of the last congressional term. GAP Legal Director Tom Devine will wrap up the campaign and its findings on On The Media.

 

Since the campaign began in early January, we were able to rule out nearly every senator as being a suspect. After the list of prospective senators was narrowed down to five (as a result of your steadfast advocacy!), over 1,000 people signed our Change.org petition urging these remaining senators to either confirm or deny placing the hold. This increased pressure allowed us to further eliminate Senator McConnell and Senator Vitter, leaving only Senator Risch, Senator Kyl, and Senator Sessions as potential suspects.

 

Please check with your local NPR station to see what time On The Media will air this weekend, and tune in to listen to Tom Devine speak about the conclusion of the campaign, and where we're going from here!

 

Additionally, GAP wishes to extend a heartfelt thank you to all of our supporters who participated in our campaign. Because of your efforts, whistleblower rights for all federal employees are closer to becoming a reality.

 

 

 

 

Senate Shenanigans

March 14, 2011 · By Shanna Devine

Secret holds are just an anonymous filibuster.

As its opening act this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to restrict--but not eliminate--a maneuver known as the "secret hold." The rules still allow a single senator to anonymously delay urgent legislation.

Even bills commanding overwhelming support can get stopped in their tracks when they face "unanimous consent," a procedure that allows for the quick passage of noncontroversial legislation. This is an affront to democratic principles.

Just how do secret holds work? A single senator can request a hold on any legislation--without justification or explanation--to his or her party's leadership. At that point, the legislation can't move forward unless the Senate Majority Leader intervenes.

Previously, senators could remain anonymous for six days, after which they were required to either lift the hold or be publicly identified. Now, thanks to a joint resolution led by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME), the identities of senators requesting holds will be recorded in the Congressional Record after two days.

The rationale for the rule's creation was simple and reasonable. The Senate gets extremely busy. During high-volume times, several bills and massive pieces of legislation are simultaneously pushed through the chamber. Often senators need extra time to read a thousand-page bill, gather information, thoroughly consider potential ramifications, and vote in their constituents' best interest. Guaranteeing short-term anonymity makes sense because senators could be wrongfully labeled as opponents of legislation when they simply want to cast an informed vote.

Unfortunately, senators have heavily abused this process. Working in tag-teams, they would often take turns placing holds every five days, because on the sixth day their identity would be revealed. This tactic allowed both senators to remain anonymous while assuring that the bill would not move forward. This is our democratic process at its worst. Furthermore, if senators decided to place a hold with fewer than five days remaining in the congressional session, they got to kill legislation without stepping forward at all. Effectively, secret holds have become an anonymous way to filibuster.

Case in point: in the last hour of the previous session of Congress, one senator placed a secret hold on the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which would have have strengthened rights for federal employees when they report waste, fraud, and abuse. This sorely needed legislation was ripe for passage. A similar version of this legislation had passed in the Senate just two weeks prior by unanimous consent. Over the next several days, due to unfounded concerns related to WikiLeaks, the legislation's scope was reduced to exclude federal intelligence workers.

Other than deletions, not a word was changed from the version the Senate had already approved. Through a rare agreement between former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and then-Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), it also passed the House by unanimous consent. Then a senator--we don't know who, of course--put a secret hold on it hours later. There's a strong, ongoing campaign to determine which senator placed the hold. Hopefully, that information will surface.

The overwhelming majority of Congress understands the true value of whistleblowers. Lawmakers came close to strengthening their rights in December. It's no wonder this legislation enjoyed so much support from both sides of the aisle--it would have curtailed government malfeasance by providing federal whistleblowers with safe channels to speak out. But so far, Congress still hasn't approved the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

The Senate has faced heavy criticism for using secret holds. This practice is the antithesis of government accountability and transparency. When the amendment reduced the amount of time from six days to two, some senators claimed good government reforms had triumphed.

Unfortunately, even with that change, lawmakers may still place secret holds just hours before Congress adjourns. There's nothing to stop future good-government bills from meeting an untimely death at the hands of anonymous senators.

Until Congress sets more reasonable standards for secret holds, individual senators, or a group of them taking turns, can secretly stonewall any bill that's subject to unanimous consent.

 

Link to original:    http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/senate_shenanigans

 

Scott Bloch, Former Special Counsel (OSC) Sentenced to One Month in Prison

Someone sent me this comment regarding the Scott Bloch travesty:

 

No one in Washington wants this person to do any serious time. He may get upset and start pointing fingers at who, within our government retaliates against the Federal workers. Congress certainly does not want Whistle Blowers to have protections because the minute they are protected, the floodgates open and the citizenry would then find out who the real crooks are.

 

It is only common sense, the politicians must prevent the American public from knowing what they have always suspected, and that is that members of Congress are there for the Graft, Greed and Corruption. Punishing one of their own, like Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel, who so loyally and successfully protected the guilty for all those years, would just not be in the best interest of the members of Congress. 

 

–Disgusted in DC

 

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

 

National Whistleblowers Center

3238 P Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20007

http://www.whistleblowers.org

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Lindsey M. Williams (202) 342-1903

lmw@whistleblowers.org 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Former Special Counsel Sentenced to One Month in Prison

Washington, D.C. March 31, 2011. Scott Bloch, the former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was sentenced to one month in prison, twelve months probation and 200 hours of community service yesterday, after he pled guilty to criminal charges for his misconduct during is tenure at OSC.

During FY 2008, of the 530 new whistleblower disclosures brought to the OSC, just 25 were reported to the President and Congress, meaning 95% of whistleblower disclosures brought to the OSC were ignored with no determination ever made on their validity. More "highlights" on Mr. Bloch's tenure at the OSC can be found at civilservicechange.org, courtesy of Charlotte Yee.

 Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the National Whistleblowers Center, said:

 Instead of deterring fraud, which was his job as the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch promoted it. This will ultimately cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. It is a shame that Mr. Bloch has been given nothing more than a slap on the wrist for his crimes, while true whistleblowers such as Bradley Birkenfeld are ostracized and imprisoned.

It has now been over two years since President Obama made a campaign promise to appoint a strong advocate for whistleblowers as the new Special Counsel. The National Whistleblowers Center repeats our call for the immediate appointment of someone who is aggressive, competent, independent and will change the culture of the OSC and stand behind whistleblowers.

 

Links:

"Highlighting the Accomplishments of Scott Bloch" (Charlotte Yee)

http://civilservicechange.org/?p=2952

Highlighting the accomplishments of Scott Bloch, former head of the Office of Special Counsel

Posted in July 19th, 2010

by C Yee in Absurd, Accountability, Current Events, Merit Systems Protection Board Statistics

Tomorrow, Scott Bloch, former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), is scheduled to be sentenced before Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson. Bloch has pleaded guilty to one count of criminal contempt of Congress for not disclosing the nature and extent of his instructions that a private company erase files from his government-issued computer and the computers of two other Office of Special Counsel employees. As this ominous day approaches, from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel Fiscal year 2008 Annual Report, here are some highlights of Bloch’s five-year OSC career:

During his tenure, Scott Bloch reduced total matters pending at OSC by 56 percent. Statistical analysis indicates he accomplished this by having his agency throw out matters without investigating them. In Fiscal Year 2008, of 2,447 Prohibited Personnel Practice (PPP) Complaints, OSC referred six percent of them to the Complaints Examining Unit (CEU). Of these, only 88 were processed. Prohibited Personnel Practice Complaints made up 67 percent of total matters, yet only 88 of 2,447, four percent were processed by investigators.

In FY 2008, OSC obtained zero stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the quasi-judicial agency tasked with enforcing federal civil service law. In the same year, OSC filed zero corrective action petitions with MSPB.

On whistleblower disclosure activity, OSC received 530 new disclosures in FY 2008. Of these, 25 were reported to the President and Congress. That’s less than five percent that were investigated and any determination made on disclosure validity. Looking at it another way, 95 percent of whistleblower disclosures were not acknowledged by OSC.

That then, explains the record low satisfaction ratings OSC garnered in its survey of customers. Of those that responded to its survey, only 1 out of every 21 respondents obtained a satisfactory result from OSC. Moreover, more than half of respondents indicated that their complaint included allegations of whistleblowing. On a five-point scale, 200 of 220 rated OSC’s results as either dissatisfactory or very dissatisfactory.

As Scott Bloch heads for sentencing tomorrow, he leaves behind innocent victims sentenced to reprisal by his failure to protect those he was tasked to serve. Additionally, as Special Counsel William E. Reukauf’s message from OSC’s Annual Report reads, “FY 2008 was a challenging time for this small, but important, agency. Employees were called upon to respond to and cooperate with two extensive inquiries involving the then-agency head, including a grand jury investigation, and execution of search warrants on agency premises.”

 

Defense Logistics Agency Audits Found Lacking: They want to combine DSS with this one?

A contributor sent this in today.  Thanks!  I appreciate contributions from my readers.  It seems like I have heard nothing good about DSS for a very long time, other than the management has seemingly been successful at pulling the wool over any number of politicians eyes.  It is one long progression of bad decision after bad decision from this observer's perspective.  GFS

 

G. Florence-

Rumors on the contracting street back here in the beltway are that the Defense Security Service and its industrial security mission will be handed back to the Defense Logistics Agency.  Some agency employees have shared,  that the employee pay and benefits program has already been given back to the Defense Logistics Agency.  Handing a failing agency back to another failing agency doesn't seem like a very good idea to this old navy man.  Isn't it time for the agencies who actually own the programs to take back ownership of their programs?

 The Old Navy Man 

 

The Washington Post

Report criticizes defense agency’s auditing

By Robert O'Harrow Jr., Sunday, March 20, 6:54 PM

 

It is supposed to be an A Team that keeps a close eye on the Defense Logistics Agency, the $41 billion-a-year operation that supplies Meals Ready-to-Eat, uniforms, spare parts and just about everything else to troops around the world.

But the agency’s accountability office does F-grade work when it comes to conducting audits, according to a recent report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General.

Many of the audits are improperly performed. Investigators often do not have enough auditing experience and don’t follow generally accepted government auditing standards. In six of eight offices reviewed, planning was found to be deficient, according to the report.

 

“As a result of the significant deficiencies described . . . we are issuing a fail opinion on the DLA audit organization’s system of quality control,” said Randolph R. Stone, deputy inspector general for policy and oversight.

 

The DLA did not respond to requests for comment.

The IG report raises questions about the Pentagon’s ability to properly oversee contractors vital to its far-flung operations.

 

For years, Congress has heard testimony that the Pentagon’s logistics operations are hampered by questionable practices, poor planning and overpriced goods and services. The DLA’s accountability office contributes to the problem by failing in its oversight role, the findings conclude.

 

“The report confirms the alarming trend we are seeing where Pentagon management has relegated audits of contracts and internal controls to a back seat,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a private nonpartisan oversight organization that tracks Pentagon spending. “Despite rhetoric to the contrary, senior DOD leadership has been on a tear to reduce or even eliminate any type of audit oversight, whether related to contractors or DOD’s own internal controls.”

The DLA faces a mammoth task. Its 27,000 employees provide support to nearly 1,900 weapons systems and eight supply chains moving 5 million items. The wars in the Middle East have added to the strain.

 

The accountability office was formed in early 2008 to focus investigators and auditors on improving “efficiency, accountability and warfighter support.”

 

The IG criticism deals with the quality control of audits, which are crucial to identifying theft, fraud and other abuses. The IG report found an “absence of official quality control policies and procedures” and a lack of independence among auditors.

 

The report notes that only “one quality assurance auditor position” was established, in late 2009, but that person has not conducted “any reviews of DLA audit work and therefore could not provide any evidence of quality assurance monitoring.”

The IG made nine recommendations, including calling for revisions of the audit policies. The DLA agreed with all nine, the report said.

 

“We determined that the DLA audit organization did not exercise professional judgment due to the vast array of noncompliances,” the report said. “The DLA Accountability Office, Audit Division, and the DLA Disposition Services audit offices did not have a clear understanding of what constituted an audit.”

 

Link to original: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/report-criticizes-defense-agencys-auditing/2011/03/18/AB4kT02_story.html

 

John M. Cole Blows the Whistle on the FBI

The book I mentioned in another post is While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower's Story, by John M. Cole.

John Cole speaks of his observations and experiences working for the FBI in the counterintelligence and counterterrorism arena, where he worked as a Counterintelligence program manager and other positions while employed nineteen years by the FBI. His story intersects with other noted whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmunds.

I am quite struck with the similarities of what Cole describes occurring in the FBI to what has been going on in other government agencies as well. It is disturbingly parallel. I will be discussing some of his observations and how they are parallel with other agencies here. I will add to this post over the next couple of weeks. Please keep checking in. You may sign up to receive updates by email on my blog.

For those of you who would like to purchase the book, you may find it on Amazon.com.

While America Sleeps: An FBI Whistleblower's Story, by John M. Cole.

ISBN: 978-1-60749-747-9

Published by PUBLISHAMERICA, LLLP

Publisher's web address: www.publishamerica.com, Baltimore MD

Printed in the United States of America. 2009