WhistleblowerSupporter

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Prohibited Personnel Practices List

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) investigates allegations of prohibited personnel practices.

 

Download Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP) Complaint Form (OSC-11).  This form can also be used to
complain retaliation for whistleblowing.

The following practices are prohibited by the federal government agencies under the Prohibited
Personnel Practices (PPP) Act:

(1) discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin,
age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation;  

 

Although OSC is authorized to investigate discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or handicapping condition, as well as reprisal for filing an EEO complaint, OSC generally defers
such allegations to agency procedures established under regulations issued by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 5 C.F.R. § 1810.1.  (This deferral policy does not apply to discrimination
claims outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC, such as complaints alleging discrimination based upon marital
status or political affiliation.) (See http://www.osc.gov/ppp.htm#q10.)

Filing a complaint with OSC will not relieve you of the obligation to file a complaint with the agency’s EEO
office within the time prescribed by EEOC regulations (at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614).

(2) solicit or consider employment recommendations based on factors other than personal knowledge
or records of job-related abilities or characteristics;

(3) coerce the political activity of any person;

(4) deceive or willfully obstruct anyone from competing for employment;

(5) influence anyone to withdraw from competition for any position so as to improve or injure the
employment prospects of any other person;

(6) give an unauthorized preference or advantage to anyone so as to improve or injure the employment
prospects of any particular employee or applicant;

(7) engage in nepotism (i.e., hire, promote, or advocate the hiring or promotion of relatives);

(8) engage in reprisal for whistleblowing – i.e., take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a
personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by
the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably believes evidences a violation of a law, rule or
regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety (if such disclosure is not barred by law and such information is
not specifically required by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the
conduct of foreign affairs – if so restricted by law or Executive Order, the disclosure is only protected if
made to the Special Counsel, the Inspector General, or comparable agency official);

 

In order to allege retaliation arising from whistleblowing, you must first blow the whistle--that is, you must
make the "disclosure" of agency's wrongful acts.  See more on whistleblowing.

 

Download OSC-11 form: prohibited personnel practice complaint form or whistleblower
retaliation complaint form.

 

Download OSC-12 form: whistleblower disclosure form.

 

(9) take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action against an employee or
applicant for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right; testifying for or assisting another in
exercising such a right; cooperating with or disclosing information to the Special Counsel or to an
Inspector General; or refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law;

(10) discriminate based on personal conduct which is not adverse to the on-the-job performance of an
employee, applicant, or others; or

(11) take or fail to take, recommend, or approve a personnel action if taking or failing to take such an
action would violate a veterans’ preference requirement; and

(12) take or fail to take a personnel action, if taking or failing to take action would violate any law, rule or
regulation implementing or directly concerning merit system principles at 5 U.S.C. § 2301.

(Obtained from http://www.osc.gov/ppp.htm#q1)  

 

OSC receives, investigates, and prosecutes allegations of PPPs, with an emphasis on protecting federal government
whistleblowers.  OSC seeks corrective action remedies (such as back pay and reinstatement), by negotiation or from
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), for injuries suffered by whistleblowers and other complainants.  OSC is
also authorized to file complaints at the MSPB to seek disciplinary action against individuals who commit PPPs.



All statements contained in this page are subject to change and update.  EEO 21 does not take responsibility for any
errors or misrepresentation contained therein.

MSPB Prohibited Personnel Practices List and Description

Prohibited Personnel Practices (5 USC § 2302(b))

Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority—

1. discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment—

A.     on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as prohibited under section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16);

B.     on the basis of age, as prohibited under sections 12 and 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 631, 633a);

C.    on the basis of sex, as prohibited under section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (d));

D.    on the basis of handicapping condition, as prohibited under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791); or

E.     on the basis of marital status or political affiliation, as prohibited under any law, rule, or regulation;

1. solicit or consider any recommendation or statement, oral or written, with respect to any individual who requests or is under consideration for any personnel action unless such recommendation or statement is based on the personal knowledge or records of the person furnishing it and consists of—

 .       an evaluation of the work performance, ability, aptitude, or general qualifications of such individual; or

A.     an evaluation of the character, loyalty, or suitability of such individual;

1. coerce the political activity of any person (including the providing of any political contribution or service), or take any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;
2. deceive or willfully obstruct any person with respect to such person's right to compete for employment;
3. influence any person to withdraw from competition for any position for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any other person for employment;
4. grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment;
5. appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position any individual who is a relative (as defined in section 3110 (a)(3) of this title) of such employee if such position is in the agency in which such employee is serving as a public official (as defined in section 3110 (a)(2) of this title) or over which such employee exercises jurisdiction or control as such an official;
6. take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of—

 .       any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—

                               i.            a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

                                                    ii.            gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or

A.     any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—

                                                        .            a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or

                                                       i.            gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;

1. take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of—

 .                   the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation;

A.     testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any right referred to in subparagraph (A);

B.     cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the Special Counsel, in accordance with applicable provisions of law; or

C.    for refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law;

1. discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;
2.  

 .                   knowingly take, recommend, or approve any personnel action if the taking of such action would violate a veterans' preference requirement; or

A.     knowingly fail to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action if the failure to take such action would violate a veterans' preference requirement; or

1. take or fail to take any other personnel action if the taking of or failure to take such action violates any law, rule, or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the merit system principles contained in section 2301 of this title.

This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the withholding of information from the Congress or the taking of any personnel action against an employee who discloses information to the Congress.

DOD OIG Director of Whistleblowing and Transparency Was a Whistleblower

Thanks Old Navy Man,

I appreciate your contributions.   It is good to learn of someone who is trying to support whistleblowers instead of destroy them.  GFS

 

G Florence:

There are some good ones out there.  Dan is one.

An Old Navy Man

See article

Whistleblower sits in Defense IG office

By Jeremy Herb - 07/12/12 06:00 AM ET

at this link:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/237469-whistleblowers-have-one-of-their-own-in-dod-office

 

Russian Sub in Gulf Emblematic of Greater Problem of Negligently Lost Technology

Old Navy Man, 

 

Thanks for the information.  That is quite disturbing indeed.   I am posting this to see if anyone else can elaborate or comment. 

 

GFS

 

 

 

 

G Florence:

 

Here is a link to a story that emphasizes why it is so important for this country to be ferociously protecting our most advanced technology.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/19/Reports-of-Russian-sub-in-gulf-downplayed/UPI-35751345390615/

 

 

 

Who remembers the sale and transfer of advanced navy quieting technology to Toshiba?  Because of that poorly informed sale this country lost some of our most advanced navy quieting technology.  Remember those countries where these most advanced navy technologies ended up?  Refresh your memories!  This article just came out today, through the United Press International.  It is a U.S. News article entitled “Reports of Russian sub in gulf downplayed.”  This is what happens when we do not let good men like Mr. Conley and Mr. Kelly do their jobs.  This is what happens when the people of this country are complacent and do not support the tireless efforts of patriotic Americans like Mr. Conley and Mr. Kelly.

 

Shame on us!

 

An Old Navy Man

 

DSS and Boeing Continue Retribution Against DSS Security Specialist Despite DOD OIG Report

Thanks Old Navy Man for sending this.  It is a good follow up in one of the continuing stories I had been observing.  The Defense Security Service has truly reached the point of no salvation in this whistleblower supporter's opinion.  It just gets worse and worse.  I have a lot more I've been told or have been able to find out during my family emergency trips back east.  I'll be unrolling more stuff from this point forward.   Please do go to this link.  I see that POGO's Nick Schwellenbach included links to the DOD OIG's report concerning Mr. Conley's case from 2002-2008, where the DOD OIG validated and upheld Mr. Conley's concerns and that he has been fiercely retaliated against by DSS managers and it appears the director.  Mr. Conley has been on the receiving end of a vendetta for doing his job lawfully and trying to make sure a particular case was not covered up and would be prosecuted.  But because of the demonstrated actions of the defense contractor involved (Boeing) and the conflict of interest relationships certain managers in DSS have personally and professionally with Boeing,  and as it was discovered later, Boeing's relationships with other government managers and  defense agencies or activities, it has been a brutal uphill battle to assure integrity in the oversight process.  Start with reading all of this.  I will be publishing more later.    GFS

 

 

G Florence:
 
Please read this article    http://getinvolved.pogo.org/site/PageNavigator/dss_boeing_whistleblower.html

I just stumbled across this link to a very disturbing whistleblower article.  I did not see it posted at your site so I am forwarding it to you.  Please take the time read it.  I hope you will consider posting it with your comments.  This recent article is from the Project On Government Oversight.  As an old navy man I am incensed that the two government workers identified in this article have been persecuted by the Marine Corps, my Navy and the Defense Security Service for trying to do their jobs.  More people need to know what is going on in our government!
 
An Old Navy Man

And the Corruption Goes On and On and On....

I'm back. This seems to be my time for family matters that require me to be away from home. I have not given up. I have heard some more interesting things while away. There seems to be an increasing amount of corruption coming into the light. Some of it is in the news media. Some of it is not yet.

If any of you have something to report or bring public attention to, please let me know. I believe not "going quietly into the good night" is a key to prevailing.

GFS

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