WhistleblowerSupporter

Local Emergency Personnel Enlisted in Terror Watch Operations

·                                 

  BIG BROTHER GAINS MORE HANDS, AND EARS, AND EYES...

    It is of concern to think of all of the emergency personnel being used to collect warrentless data and reports on the U.S. Citizens in our states.  Imagine how that would change how people view a 911 health emergency call, or a domestic violence call or a fire emergency call.  When you read the quick and dirty  list here of things to look for, that list, put into the hands of undertrained and in many cases, under-qualified local police and emergency fire and safety personnel could make the current concerns about racial profiling seem a clearly defined issue by comparison.  This sounds like more trouble for the the taxpaying citizens.  It is carrying fear mongering and the alleged snooping and violating of the citizens constitutional rights to a new low.  Does anyone have knowledge of the full list of states participating or considering cooperating with this scheme? 

   -GFS

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

Terror Watch Uses Local Eyes; 181 Trained in Colorado

Saturday 28 June 2008

»

by: Bruce Finley, The Denver Post

Federal "Terrorism Liaison Officer" training is now conducted in eight states for local law enforcement, emergency responders and private companies. Civil rights advocates argue such involvement by local officials and private interests in federal intelligence operations undermines public trust and threatens individual privacy. (Image: dawizofodds / thewizardofodds.blogspot.com)

    Privacy advocates worry that officers' snooping will entangle innocent people.

    Hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and even utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as "Terrorism Liaison Officers" in Colorado and a handful of other states to hunt for "suspicious activity" - and are reporting their findings into secret government databases.

    It's a tactic intended to feed better data into terrorism early-warning systems and uncover intelligence that could help fight anti-U.S. forces. But the vague nature of the TLOs' mission, and their focus on reporting both legal and illegal activity, has generated objections from privacy advocates and civil libertarians.

    "Suspicious activity" is broadly defined in TLO training as behavior that could lead to terrorism: taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value, making measurements or notes, espousing extremist beliefs or conversing in code, according to a draft Department of Justice/Major Cities Chiefs Association document.

    All this is anathema to opponents of domestic surveillance.

    Yet U.S. intelligence and homeland security officials say they support the widening use of TLOs - state-run under federal agreements - as part of a necessary integrated network for preventing attacks.

    "We're simply providing information on crime-related issues or suspicious circumstances," said Denver police Lt. Tony Lopez, commander of Denver's intelligence unit and one of 181 individual TLOs deployed across Colorado. "We don't snoop into private citizens' lives. We aren't living in a communist state."

    Local Watchdogs

    Among recent activities the Colorado contingent detailed:

·  Thefts of copper that could be used in bomb-making.

·  Civilians impersonating police officers and stopping vehicles - of particular concern with the pending Democratic National Convention in Denver.

·  Graffiti showing a man holding an AK-47 rifle.

·  Men filming the Dillon dam that holds Denver's water.

·  Overheard threats.

·  Widespread thefts of up to 20 propane gas tanks.

    Future terrorism "is going to be noticed earliest at the most local level," said Robert Riegle, director of state and local programs for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington.

    Civil liberties watchdogs warn of unprecedented new threats to privacy.

    "The problem is, you're drafting individuals whose job isn't law enforcement to spy on ordinary Americans and report their activities to the government," said John Verdi, director of the open-government project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

    In Colorado, TLOs report not only illegal but legal activity, such as bulk purchases along Colorado's Front Range of up to 150 disposable cellphones. TLO supervisors said these bulk buys were suspicious because similar phones are used as remote detonators for bombs overseas and can be re-sold to fund terrorism. Taking photos or videos can be deemed suspicious because "surveillance is a precursor to terrorist activity," said Colorado State Patrol Sgt. Steve Garcia, an analyst in Colorado's intelligence fusion center south of Denver, which handles TLO-supplied information.

    Colorado, California and Arizona are among the first to deploy TLOs after establishing robust state-run fusion centers, which initially relied on tips from private citizens. Federal security agents now sit in 25 of those centers, including Colorado's.

    Florida, Illinois, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., also have deployed TLOs, and authorities in dozens of states are preparing to do so, said Norm Beasley, a retired Arizona trooper who has popularized the practice.

    181 in Colorado

    In Colorado, TLO training began last year, with FBI assistance. A three-day seminar presented material on how to recognize and stop suicide bombers and included discussion of civil liberties.

    State officials declined to release the course syllabus or say specifically how far TLOs are allowed to go in search of information without a warrant.

    The 181 TLOs in Colorado were deployed without any announcement over the past year and are posted widely from Durango in the mountains to metro Denver to La Junta on the eastern prairie.

    "The thing that's surprising is how much stuff is out there," said Denver West Metro Fire Capt. Mike Kirkpatrick, who declined to specify observations he has submitted, saying some led to investigations.

    National intelligence chiefs who coordinate the CIA and 15 other agencies launched an initiative this month to define "suspicious activity" for TLOs and develop a process for handling TLO information so that basic freedoms and privacy are protected, said John Cohen, information-sharing spokesman in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    Training is crucial "because what we don't want is just people documenting innocent activities. We don't want police officers focusing on people because of their ethnicity and religion," Cohen said.

    "What we're advocating for is developing a standardized process that can be put in place across the country so that frontline police officers (and others) are trained to recognize behaviors associated with certain activities related to terrorism," he said.

    Major city police chiefs are participating.

    "You can't profile. So you have to have behavior-based indicators of criminal activity where it's terrorism or activity that supports terrorism," said Tom Frazier, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

    Civil libertarians questioned why firefighters, paramedics and corporate employees - such as Xcel Energy and railroad officials in Colorado - are drafted into the effort. They say public trust in emergency responders will suffer.

    The emerging TLO system "empowers the police officer to poke his nose into your business when you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. It moves the police officer away from his core function, to enforce the law, into being an intelligence officer gathering information about people," said Mike German, a 16-year FBI agent now advising the American Civil Liberties Union.

    "Where are we going to draw the line?"

    ---------

    Bruce Finley: 303-954-1700 or bfinley@denverpost.com

»

Support Whistleblower's Rights: Write your Representatives & Senators

Please Support Immediate Action to Protect Whistleblowers

I am urging you to support an effort underway to finalize legislation to give whistleblower protections to federal employees and government contractors. The legislation is one of the most important common sense ways to ensure that the federal government is honest, open, and accountable.

In doing so, I am joining organizations representing millions of Americans across the political spectrum, who have also endorsed the legislation. The Senate and the House have both passed bills by a veto-proof majority, but the bills must be reconciled.

I believe the House's "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007" (H.R. 985) offers stronger protections than the Senate's bill (S. 274). It closes important loopholes by expanding protection to national security workers in the FBI and other intelligence agencies, government contractors, and almost 40,000 airport baggage screeners. It also has a specific provision to protect scientists, making it illegal to censor or alter the results of federal research. For these and other whistleblowers, the right to due process will be provided, including jury trials when they face retribution from co-workers or employers. Even if disclosures are made during official duties, employees should have meaningful protection.

I am discouraged that we are still waiting for you and your colleagues to reconcile the two bills and enact this critical legislation. I urge you to put politics aside in order to finalize and pass the strongest bill possible to protect whistleblowers who expose government waste, fraud, and abuse.

Thank you for listening to a constituent. I look forward to your reply.

Number Crunching in the Defense Dept.

For Defense, Crunching the Numbers Is Half the Battle

By Stephen Barr
Monday, May 12, 2008; D01

It has more than 3 million employees, more than 600,000 buildings and does business in 134 countries.

Those are some of the numbers that define the Defense Department, a megacorporation with lines of business and obligations that go far beyond war fighting.

"We do everything from floor waxing to repairing vehicles to accounting to logistics operations to running grocery stores," said Tina W. Jonas, the department's comptroller and chief financial officer.

From her Pentagon office, Jonas is responsible for the department's financial management policies, the computer systems that track $3.4 trillion in assets and liabilities, an annual budget of more than $600 billion and efforts to modernize business practices.

There are big-ticket items, like health care, which costs $43 billion a year -- "about $3 billion more than Germany spends on its entire defense budget," Jonas said -- and is likely to keep on increasing, to a projected $64 billion in 2015.

And there's the daily grind of managing cash flow. For example, every time the price of fuel goes up by $1, it costs the department $130 million, she said.

"When you get to this level, pretty much everything that walks through your door is going to be a problem," Jonas said during a recent interview. "So what you have to have is a mind-set to be a problem solver and figure out a corrective action plan."

Jonas was sworn in as an undersecretary of defense in July 2004, after serving as an assistant director and chief financial officer for the FBI. She also has worked as a budget examiner at the Office of Management and Budget and as a staff member on the House Appropriations Committee.

Her job is one of the toughest in the government. The Pentagon has been widely criticized for years on Capitol Hill and by think tanks for poor management, cost overruns, improper payments and payroll problems. The Government Accountability Office designated the department's financial management as an area of "high risk" in 1995.

Jonas, however, thinks the department is making substantial progress in financial management. She has created a "dashboard" on her desk -- two flat-screen monitors that display trend data on dozens of accounts over multiyear periods.

"We look at our numbers and say, 'We're not doing too hot today,' or, 'What are we doing about this problem that is emerging?' or, 'The trend doesn't look good here,' " she said.

One dashboard chart shows Jonas the percentage of debt more than 60 days old because of unpaid bills from "purchase cards," a government credit card used by federal employees for official business. The delinquency rate is about 4 percent, down from nearly 7 percent in 2001.

Another chart shows that unsupported accounting entries have been reduced from $2.3 trillion in 1999 to $95.7 billion at the end of last year. The goal is to make sure all financial information is documented, putting to rest allegations that the department can't find or track its money, Jonas said.

According to the dashboard, the Army's account for military salaries and other expenses will run out of money by June 15. Jonas will likely have to transfer funds from other accounts if a supplemental spending act does not take effect in time.

"It drives me a bit crazy when people say the department's books are all messed up and we don't know what the heck is going on," Jonas said. "We do know what is going on."

Part of the department's accounting woes can be attributed to outdated technology. Some computers in the field still run on old COBOL program language, operating like a checkbook register showing money in and money out, but incapable of connecting to a department-wide system that generates financial statements.

By June, Jonas hopes to have deployed new accounting codes and a software language that pulls together the department's 2,900 accounting systems.

Next year, Jonas predicts that two-thirds of the department's assets and liabilities will be ready for independent audits, a major step on the road to producing a department-wide financial statement that adheres to generally accepted accounting principles.

Jonas also has moved to cut operating overhead. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which once had 22,000 employees, is down to 13,000 and will shrink to 7,000. With the reductions and improvements in technology, the department has saved $500 million in operating costs.

Such savings "in the back office," Jonas said, make millions of dollars available for the armed forces. "It matters to the soldiers, it matters to the Marines, it matters to the airmen, it matters to the sailors, and all their families and all our defense workers whether or not we are efficient.

"So at least we are trying to change the culture, and we think we've made some good progress."

Stephen Barr's e-mail address is barrs@washpost.com.

Job Opportunity: Government Contracting Officer...if you dare!

Swell in Contracting Officers May Not Keep Pace With Retirements

By Stephen Barr
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; D04

The number of contracting officers in the government increased to 28,434 in 2007, up 6.8 percent since the Bush administration began, officials said yesterday.

But how many contracting officers the government actually needs has not been determined, despite efforts by federal agencies, the Office of Personnel Management and the OMB over the past two years to develop plans for hiring and training contracting officers and specialists.

"We are still working real hard with OPM and the departments to try to figure out what the right number is," said Paul A. Denett, an Office of Management and Budget official in charge of government procurement policy.

For his part, Denett added, "I believe we need to increase the hiring even more."

Members of Congress have been concerned that the government has not done enough planning to get a handle on staffing and training needs of employees.

Spending on contracts has surged since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more than $400 billion a year.

As the numbers have increased, some agencies have found it difficult to manage their contracts to avert fraud and abuse.

For example, a 2007 independent commission on Army contracting, headed by acquisition expert Jacques S. Gansler, found that the Army's contracting operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones were not properly staffed, supported and trained.

Other studies have pointed out that statistics about the acquisition workforce have not been collected in a consistent fashion, creating some confusion about the status of the workforce. Experts have emphasized that personnel cuts, ordered by Congress in the 1990s, left many acquisition employees overworked or without necessary training.

In recent years, Congress and the Bush administration have tried to learn more about federal acquisition, with officials paying more attention to an annual demographic report on the acquisition workforce. The report is prepared by the Federal Acquisition Institute, which has published workforce data since 1977.

Yesterday, the OMB and the institute released the 2007 report, showing an increase of about 500 contracting officers in the government last year compared with the previous year. Most -- 19,119 -- worked for the Defense Department, with an additional 9,315 spread across the rest of the government.

According to the report, the number of contracting officers has been rising steadily since 2002, primarily in civilian agencies, where numbers increased from 7,995 in 2000 to the high of 9,315 last year.

But retirements are a concern, Denett said. The average age of contracting officers is 46, and about half of acquisition employees are eligible to retire within the next 10 years. Actual retirements are at a lower rate now, allowing agencies to stay on top of their turnover. Only 18 percent of contracting officers eligible for retirement are filing retirement claims, said Karen Pica, director of the institute.

The OMB is promoting an internship program to attract young people with business degrees into federal acquisition to help counter the loss of contracting officers and ensure that experienced hands pass along their knowledge to interns.

The government also is trying to track the careers of acquisition professionals and learn why some leave their jobs and move to related fields, such as general business and program management.

Preliminary data collected for the report showed that 444 contracting officers left their jobs in 2007 for other government posts. An additional 1,083 are no longer in the government because of retirement, death and other reasons, such as taking a job in the private sector.

And the Winners Are . . .

The National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration presents its annual awards Thursday to honor public service and efforts to improve government performance. This year's winners are:

Kathryn E. Newcomer, associate director of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George Washington University, will receive the Elmer B. Staats Award for Accountability in Government.

Timothy B. Clark, editor in chief of Government Executive magazine, will receive the David O. Cooke Award for Leadership in Public Service.

The Partnership for Public Service will receive the National Capital Area Chapter President's Award for Outstanding Recent Contributions to Public Service. Max Stier, president of the partnership, will accept the award on behalf of the nonprofit organization.

Stephen Barr's e-mail address isbarrs@washpost.com.

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

A Question of Values, Attitude, Judgment, adn Lack of Empathy

A Question of Values, Attitude, Judgment, and Lack of Empathy

Is it any wonder there is so little sincere concern or empathy for the citizens of our country and the plight of honest, decent people, such as federal employees or industry workers who find themselves labeled whistleblowers and isolated, or possibly experience adamant denial by their employers that they are legitimate whistleblowers, so that they can be called common criminals and viciously attacked for standing up?  What kind of people have the American people allowed to run this administration anyway?  GFS

Bush Comment on Food Crisis Brings Anger, Ridicule in India

By Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 8, 2008; A18

NEW DELHI, May 7 -- A brief comment by President Bush about the role of India in the world food crisis has set off a firestorm of criticism in this country.

Speaking to employees at a high-tech firm in St. Louis over the weekend, Bush noted that much of the developing world was prospering and that U.S. businesses could benefit. As an example, he cited India, where the "middle class is larger than our entire population."

But "when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food," he said. "And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up."

Overnight, Indians reacted with outrage at what they saw as a suggestion that they were to blame for inflation. Politicians lashed out at Bush. Newspapers excoriated him.

"India is not a net food importer. It is a food exporter. The assumption that prices are increasing because of a changed India is completely erroneous," said Manish Tewari, a spokesman for the ruling Congress party.

Defense Minister A.K. Antony called Bush's remark a "cruel joke," while an opposition member called the president the world's new "bread inspector."

In an attempt to clarify Bush's remarks, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Monday that it was a "good thing" that countries are developing and that "more and more people have higher standards of living." Stanzel also said growing demands in India and China were causing the price of oil to rise.

To Westerners, Bush's comments might seem innocuous. But after decades of slow national growth and forced austerity, middle-class Indians are now extremely proud of their newfound prosperity and are quick to react if they feel picked on by affluent nations.

Bush's comments Saturday came one day after similar comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put Indians on edge. In a speech before Peace Corps country directors, she mentioned various factors behind the food crisis, among them the "improvement in the diets of people, for instance, in China and India."

In the days since, Indian newspapers have published articles citing comparative food consumption statistics for the United States and India. One headline said, "U.S. eats 5 times more than India per capita," and quoted data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

A cartoon in the Times of India on Tuesday showed a couple of overweight American tourists looking at emaciated Indian men rummaging for leftover food in a trash heap. "No wonder we're having food shortages back home in the States -- these guys in India have started eating way too much," they say.

"Bush is shifting the blame to hide the truth. We all know that the food crisis is an outcome of the American policy of diverting huge land area from food to fuel production," said Devinder Sharma, a food policy analyst and chair at the New Delhi-based Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security. "America has the largest land for ethanol production in the world."

Sharma said Bush's remarks are "an expression of racism" because they imply that excess food is permissible for some but not for others.

"If Indians start eating like Americans, the world would have to grow food on the moon," he said.

President Truman Rejected Revolving Door

Someone sent me this today to share with all of you.  –GFS

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

Subject: HST: A Voice From The Past


When President Truman retired from office in 1952, his income was
substantially a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year.
Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking
them, granted him an "allowance" and, later, a retroactive
pension of $25,000 per year.

When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined, stati ng,
"You don't want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn't
belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale."

Even later, on May 6,1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the
Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I
don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any
award, Congressional or otherwise."

We now see that some past presidents have found a new level of success in
cashing in on the presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in
Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the
fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.

Was good old Harry Truman correct when he observed, "My choice early in

life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to
tell the truth, there's hardly any difference.

(I, for one, think that piano player more honorable than our current
politicians.)

Voter Loyalty to Party Unclear

Republicans Crossing Over to Vote in Democratic Contests
    By Larry Rohter
    The New York Times

    Saturday 03 May 2008

    Indianapolis - Until now, Shirley Morgan had always been the kind of voter the Republican Party thought it could count on. She comes from a family of staunch Republicans, has a son in the military and has supported Republican presidential candidates ever since she cast her first ballot, for Richard M. Nixon in 1972.

    But this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis - the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.

    "I used to like John McCain, but he's aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that's just not what I want for this country," Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.

    Since the start of the primary and caucus season in January, Republican voters have been crossing over in increasing numbers to vote in Democratic contests - supplying up to 10 percent of the vote in states that allow such crossover voting - and they are expected to play a pivotal role in the fiercely contested primary here. What is less clear, however, is the motivation for their behavior: are they genuinely attracted by the two Democratic candidates? Or are they mischief-making spoilers, looking to prolong a divisive Democratic fight or support a candidate Mr. McCain can beat in November?

    Local Republican Party leaders in Indiana concede the attraction of the Democratic candidates to some of their party members. And interviews with roughly a dozen Republican voters in central Indiana suggest that they are driven mainly by concerns about the economy, with discontent over Bush administration policies driving their involvement in the Democratic race.

    "Much as I like John McCain as a war hero, I am fearful he does not have the depth of experience to fix the economy," said Darlene Boatman, 62, a just-retired sales clerk who favors Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. "We're all struggling here to make ends meet. I haven't had health care coverage in about 10 years and jobs are fewer and farther between. The economy is my biggest concern, and I think Hillary has the best understanding of how to pull off the recovery we need."

    The drift has given some comfort to Democrats worried about the searing divisions in their party. Surveys of voters leaving the polls and official vote tabulations indicate that both Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and Mrs. Clinton, of New York, have benefited from the Republican crossover vote, though to different degrees and in patterns that vary by state.

    Initially, Mr. Obama seemed to be getting the bulk of the vote, attracting moderate Republicans who quickly came to be known as Obamacans and lacing his stump speech with references to them. But more recently, Mrs. Clinton's share of the crossover vote has grown.

    In Wisconsin's Feb. 19 contest, for example, Mr. Obama got about three-quarters of the votes cast by those identifying themselves as Republicans. In Texas' March 4 primary, though, he and Mrs. Clinton split the Republican vote almost evenly, while in Mississippi on March 11, she outpolled him among Republicans by a three-to-one margin.

    Even some states without open primaries seem to have experienced crossover voting. In the Pennsylvania vote on April 22, voter surveys indicated that about 5 percent of those voting in the Democratic primary were Republicans who switched their party registration; they split their vote almost evenly between the two candidates.

    Here in Indiana, both Democratic candidates are sending surrogates to campaign in traditionally Republican areas they might have ignored in years past, including in Hamilton County, Indiana's fastest-growing and most affluent county.

    "We're getting a lot of inquiries from Republicans asking how do you do it, how do you cross over," Dan Parker, the Democratic Party state chairman, said in an interview here. "It's been our No. 1 request for the past two months."

    Clouding the picture, however, is a campaign by Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host, urging his listeners to cast their ballots for Mrs. Clinton "if they can stomach it," in order to prolong the Democratic race and weaken the eventual winner.

    "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now," Mr. Limbaugh said in an interview with Fox News just before the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. "It's fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

    But Republican voters interviewed here said that Mr. Limbaugh was not a factor in their decision to vote in the Democratic primary, and that it was the issues that propelled them.

    "I disagree with the Democrats on things like abortion and immigration, but I feel that the Republican Party I grew up in is out of touch with the middle-class family," said Dave Nichols, 40, the owner of a small memorabilia business in Fort Wayne, who has heard of Mr. Limbaugh's effort and is supporting Mrs. Clinton.

    Mr. Nichols said he had no health insurance and lived on a block where three houses were in foreclosure. "McCain doesn't have an economic plan," he said "We're in a recession and need relief now, but he wants to keep spending all that money over there in Iraq when there are so many things we need here at home, from infrastructure to health care."

    Republican officials like Murray Clark, the state party chairman in Indiana, say that the extent of the crossover phenomenon has been "greatly exaggerated" and that in any case it does not serve the party's interests, because it draws potential Republican voters away from deciding other, more local races.

    Mr. Clark acknowledged what he called "heightened interest" in the Democratic primary, but argued that Republican-leaning independents, rather than "reliable and consistently Republican voters," accounted for the bulk of the shift.

    "It's probably a stretch to call it a crossover vote," Mr. Clark said. "This is a unique situation. The circus is in town, and people want to go. This provides them an opportunity. But when the circus leaves town, we'll have six months of opportunities to contrast their candidate with ours."

    Indeed, some of the crossover Republicans here who back Mr. Obama said they would vote for Mr. McCain in November if Mrs. Clinton ends up getting the Democratic nomination, while some of those supporting Mrs. Clinton said the same of Mr. Obama. But others said they simply could not imagine gravitating back to the Republican camp in this election.

    "I would probably not vote, or maybe look at a third party," said Becky Kapsalis, who lives in Carmel, Ind., and describes herself as "a 70-year-old white woman for Barack Obama."

    "I respect McCain for what he's done, his patriotism and devotion," Ms. Kapsalis said, "but I just don't think he has the heart to lead us, and he doesn't speak to my heart the way this Barack Obama man does."

  -------

Go to Original

    Convention Preparations Prompt Suit by ACLU
    By Kirk Johnson
    The New York Times

    Saturday 03 May 2008

    Denver - Groups planning parades or protests at the Democratic National Convention filed a lawsuit here on Friday charging that the Secret Service and the City of Denver are threatening free speech - not because of tight security rules, but by the very lack of them.

    The suit, filed in Federal District Court, says that delays in establishing legal parade routes, and unanswered questions about security arrangements around the convention center, are undermining efforts to plan for events when Democrats gather here from Aug. 25 to 28.

    Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which is representing 12 groups in the lawsuit, said they had no choice but to turn to the court. With just four months until the convention, the groups want a judge to speed the scheduling and the issuing of rules governing activities outside the Pepsi Center.

    At the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004, First Amendment challenges could not be addressed by judges, Mr. Silverstein said, because security measures were announced too late.

    "In Boston, the trial court and the court of appeals said there was not enough time for full evaluation and not enough time to carry out any orders the courts might issue," Mr. Silverstein said. "For that reason, we are filing now and asking the court to place this case on a top-priority schedule."

    Specifically, the suit asks the court to order the Secret Service to immediately provide information to the city that will allow Denver officials to begin considering permit requests for parades and specifying a "demonstration zone" near the convention center. The suit also asks the court to review those regulations for violations of free speech protection.

    A spokesman for the Secret Service, Ed Donovan, declined to comment on the suit or the agency's timetable for communicating with the city on security rules.

    The attorney for the City of Denver, David Fine, said in a statement that the city was not trying to thwart free speech.

    "No one has been denied the right to protest," Mr. Fine said. "In fact, you will see a vigorous exercise of free speech during the convention in many ways and in many places. That being said, we will review the plaintiffs' papers and respond as necessary."

    The groups suing include several that plan to draw attention to various issues and causes, like the Troops Out Now Coalition, which opposes the war in Iraq. Another group, Citizens for Obama, wants to march on behalf of a favored presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

    One member of the lawsuit coalition, Glenn Spagnuolo, from a group called Recreate 68, which is planning multiple demonstrations on issues including health care and the war, said at a news conference that he thought the delays had been deliberate.

    Every passing week of uncertainty, Mr. Spagnuolo said, hobbles the efforts to recruit people to come to Denver and speak their minds.

    "If they announce it very close to August that, yes, you will have your permits, these groups are now shut out of hotels, shut out of flights, buses are booked to come to Denver and it's impossible for them to logistically come here and exercise their First Amendment right," Mr. Spagnuolo said. "In our opinion, it's a planned tactic."

    The suit itself does not make that claim.

    Mr. Silverstein said, "We have to take the city at its word that it doesn't have enough information from the Secret Service to process the permits, and that's why we're asking the court to get the two parties together."

  -------

GSA Inspector Cleared of Allegations

GSA inspector general cleared of whistleblower complaints

By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com April 25, 2008 

The General Services Administration inspector general has been cleared of all allegations of misconduct in a pair of wide-ranging complaints filed by four of the office's former attorneys.

The inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service found that GSA IG Brian Miller had not violated any statute, rule or regulation, according to an April letter from Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, to GSA Administrator Lurita A. Doan.

A similar opinion was offered in January by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's Integrity Committee, which is responsible for probing complaints against inspectors general.

But, despite calls for an immediate cease fire, the closure of the whistleblower case appears to have only inflamed the fury of Doan, who has feuded with Miller virtually since the day she took office.

The Corporation for National and Community Service IG, which agreed to review the case after the integrity and efficiency council ruled that some of the complaints did not fall within its purview, was looking specifically at whether the nonreimbursable detail of a GSA IG employee violated the Anti-Deficiency Act. The employee had been detailed to the Office of the Chief Information Officer at the Housing and Urban Development Department.

Vincent Mulloy, counsel to the community service IG, conducted a full breakdown of the complaint, reviewing the allegations, relevant laws and court decisions, according to Grassley's letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post's Government Inc. blog.

"The complaint should be considered without merit, and closed, to end the distraction of GSA OIG personnel from their duties," Mulloy wrote.

All additional complaints filed by the former attorneys, including former counsel Kevin Buford, were decided to be "personnel management" concerns that should be addressed by the agency's IG and his staff, the letter said. In two separate complaints to the integrity and efficiency council, the whistleblowers had charged Miller and his top deputies with intimidation, harassment and a host of retaliatory actions.

"We are satisfied that this matter has been put to rest," Miller said. "Multiple independent reviews showed the allegations to be false. Let's all get back to work."

Grassley, who has attempted to mediate the fractious relationship between Miller and Doan, encouraged the two to put aside their differences and work together for taxpayers.

"The PCIE review and the CNCS-OIG analysis should convince you the Buford PCIE complaint has been addressed and closed," Grassley wrote to Doan. "As such, I encourage you and IG Miller to demonstrate to all GSA employees the professionalism and character we all expect of top administrators in the federal government. I trust that you will move past this matter and will work cooperatively with the GSA OIG."

Grassley's optimism, however, could be misplaced.

In a statement to Government Executive, Doan made it clear that she is not ready to drop the whistleblower complaint -- or her scrutiny of Miller.

"I am, and will continue to be, a fierce advocate for GSA employees and will not allow any form of improper harassment and intimidation to create a hostile workplace at our agency," she said. "I find it remarkable that none of these whistleblowers has yet been interviewed. Instead, their core complaint about harassment and improper intimidation and retaliation is being ignored. This issue will not be put to rest until their complaints are investigated and a finding of fact is made. Ignoring these complaints and pretending the problem will self-correct is not going to work."

Doan further said the whistleblowers had their "reputations impugned and their careers interrupted after making these allegations, and all have sought transfer to other jobs."

As she has in the past, the controversial administrator once again portrayed the whistleblower complaints as an extension of her own long-running and public feud with Miller. Doan has filed numerous complaints against Miller, alleging improper contracting, leaking documents to the media, falsifying records and issuing excessive bonuses to his staff.

Miller has investigated Doan for her role in a contract with Sun Microsystems, her reported attempt to give a sole-source contract to a friend and her participation in a politically motivated conference. In 2007, the Office of Special Counsel found that Doan had violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by executive branch employees.

Doan has denied the allegations and said Miller is retaliating against her for spending cuts and increased oversight she proposed for the IG's office.

She made it clear that peace with Miller is not in the cards any time soon. "I will stay on this issue like a dog on a bone until I am absolutely convinced that GSA does not harbor or tolerate behavior that creates a hostile workplace," Doan said.

IG Bill May Strengthen Independence of IG's

Compromise Takes Shape for Inspectors General Bill

By Stephen Barr
Friday, April 25, 2008; D04

After a decade of debate, Congress appears ready to strengthen the independence of the government's inspectors general.

The Senate, on a voice vote late Wednesday, approved a bill that would set job qualifications for inspectors general, allow Congress to determine if an agency was trying to punish an IG by cutting his or her budget and ensure that all audits and investigative reports are posted on agency Web sites within three workdays.

"This bill is key to preserving the IGs' role as government watchdogs and making sure they can do their job of rooting out waste in this country," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said in a statement. She and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) are the bill's chief sponsors.

The House approved a similar bill in October, championed by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), on a vote of 404 to 11. But the Bush administration lodged a veto threat against Cooper's bill, prompting the Senate to soften its version while still trying to protect IGs from political pressure.

House and Senate aides plan to hold informal talks on how to shape a compromise bill. Some of the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity, were optimistic that an agreement could be reached that would pass muster at the White House.

Cooper yesterday praised the Senate's action: "With the passage of Sen. McCaskill's companion bill, we're one step closer to seeing this legislation signed into law. I'm encouraged by the nearly unanimous votes in both chambers and look forward to working out a good compromise."

Inspectors general walk fine lines in the government. Those who end up at large agencies are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate and are expected to serve both masters. They are supposed to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse in agencies, while doing their best not to blindside the political appointees that run them.

Last year, some Democrats expressed concern in hearings that some inspectors general seemed too wary of crossing their bosses; others suggested that IGs need to be held more accountable for their work.

The House bill moved first, drawing objections from the White House. Those objections contributed to Senate efforts to create a bill able to win bipartisan support, leading to slightly different approaches in three areas.

Cooper's bill would provide IGs with seven-year terms, let them submit budget requests directly to Congress and permit the White House to fire them only for cause.

The Senate bill would not provide a guaranteed term in office, would require the White House to show how much money each IG requested and the amount recommended in the president's budget, and would require a notification about any effort to remove an IG.

But both bills would urge the appointment of IGs with "demonstrated ability" in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration or investigations. The bills would also create a council to review allegations of wrongdoing made against IGs and their staffs.

The bills would address pay issues within the IG corps. IGs at large agencies would be paid at the midpoint of the executive pay schedule (currently $158,500) plus 3 percent extra. IGs at smaller agencies would be paid at rates comparable to those of other senior executives.

Under both bills, no IG would be able to accept a bonus.

Engineers Back Obama

The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents engineers, scientists and technicians at the departments of Defense and Energy and at NASA, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, the union announced yesterday.

The Illinois Democrat is the best candidate to address civil service, health care, outsourcing, trade and other issues important to the union, said Gregory Junemann, its president.

The union represents about 85,000 workers in the public and private sectors. It helped organize a labor coalition to oppose an attempt by the Bush administration to curb union rights at the Defense Department.

Talk Shows

Craig W. Floyd, chairman and chief executive of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, will be the guest on "FedTalk" at 11 a.m. today on http://federalnewsradio.com and WFED radio (1050 AM).

David L. Norquist, chief financial officer at the Department of Homeland Security, will be the guest on the IBM "Business of Government Hour" at 9 a.m. tomorrow on WJFK radio (106.7 FM).

Stephen Barr's e-mail address is barrs@washpost.com.

IRS Gains by Supreme Court Refusal to Hear Murphy v. IRS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 21, 2008

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Murphy v. IRS

Advocates To Continue Pressing for Changes in Civil Rights Tax Law

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision not to grant certiorari in the case of Murphy v. IRS. The order, posted on the Court's website this morning, means that the IRS can continue to tax non-pecuniary compensatory damages awarded to victims of whistleblower retaliation and other civil rights violations. These damage awards, which are intended to make the victim "whole" again, include payments for loss of reputation and emotional distress.

The case was brought by Marrita Murphy, an environmental whistleblower who won her case before Department of Labor, and was awarded compensatory damages to vindicate her rights under six federal environmental whistleblower statutes. Murphy filed suit when the IRS demanded that she pay taxes on the "make-whole" award as if it were income. After having her case dismissed, Murphy filed an appeal.

After full briefing and oral argument, the Appeals court initially held that Murphy's award was not income and the tax on her damages violated the U.S. Constitution. Then, under pressure from the Bush Administration, the judges decided to rehear the case. In this ruling, Murphy II, the D.C. Circuit reversed its own previous decision, declaring that non-physical compensatory damages are taxable as gross income.

National Whistleblower Center General Counsel David K Colapinto, who represents Ms. Murphy, released the following statements regarding the Court's decision:

"The DC Circuit's decision was contradictory and wrong. It will have a tragic impact on thousands of whistleblowers and victims of discrimination. We are not surprised though, that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, as there was not a traditional "split in the circuits," as the DC Circuit was the first court to take this issue on. Given the DC Circuit's difficulty in dealing with this issue, I expect that it will be taken up in other courts across the country."

"It is unfair and unconstitutional to tax victims of discrimination and retaliation when the awards were simply compensation to make them whole again. The money is to restore a loss for personal injury; it is not income."

Unfortunately, as a result of the Court's decision not to hear the Murphy case, whistleblowers and other civil rights victims whose make whole compensatory damages awards are taxed will have to continue to fight the IRS through the courts. The only alternative to continued litigation is for Congress to change the tax code.
Currently pending before Congress is the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act of 2007 ("CRTRA"), H.R. 1540, which would end unfair taxation of noneconomic damages received by those who have suffered unlawful discrimination in the workplace or other violations of their employment rights.

The CRTRA was introduced in the House by Representative John Lewis (D-GA), who was joined by a bipartisan group of original CRTRA cosponsors, including Representatives Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Sander Levin (D-MI), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), and Phil English (R-PA). The Senate companion bill was introduced by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

The CRTRA has broad bi-partisan support. It is supported by employer and employee advocacy groups alike because both business and employee organizations recognize that taxing non-economic make whole compensatory damages makes settlement more difficult and results in protracted litigation in employment disputes.

• For additional information on Murphy v. IRS, including links to the briefs, Click Here

  -end-
  

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

Since 1988 the NWC has championed whistleblower protection. The NWC is currently supporting FBI Whistleblower Bassem Youssef, who has reported serious misconduct in the War on Terror, and the NWC is currently assisting Bunnatine Greenhouse (the former Army Corps of Engineers top contracting officer who opposed the no-bid multi billion dollar contracts awarded to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq)

For more information, please visit www.whistleblowers.org and www.whistleblowersblog.org.