WhistleblowerSupporter

Boeing/BISS Continue to Frustrate Justice for Former Employee Held Hostage in Saudi Arabia

This from Rob Petersen, who is still trying to get justice, concerning his unlawful treatment by BISS, (a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing), and the Saudi Arabian government. 

Read and be advised what kinds of things happen to Americans and what little support they have from our government, if they decide to work overseas for a company doing work outside of the U.S. even if the company is American or is a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company.  Or does Boeing now consider itself to no longer be an American corporation?  If that is the case, a whole lot of things need to be reinvestigated and redetermined regarding defense contracts and other contracts, which have to do with U.S. national security. 

KB Richter has not answered Mr. Petersen’s question.  Her/his answer is no answer.  If a person accepted work with a Saudi company, and it was not represented as an American corporation, or a division of a well-known American corporation, that is one thing.  But if an American corporation like Boeing, and/or its wholly owned subsidiary represents itself as doing business in both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that is another thing altogether.  It sounds like Mr. Peterson and others have a valid false claims complaint. 

From what I understand of Mr. Petersen’s unfortunate experience, he was injured and needed medical care in the U.S. and was not allowed access to his passport to return to the U.S. for that necessary medical care.  That ventures into the human rights arena in my mind.  This is not merely a “labor dispute" over some small matter.  This was a matter of life and health. 

It would appear people should be very careful about accepting employment with any American company that does business overseas, either the parent company, or any subsidiaries, wholly owned or not.  If our government cannot and will not protect it’s citizens in these situations, and that country, Saudi Arabia, is such a violator of human rights, I again ask, why Saudi Arabia holds such a high degree of trust with regard to trade and arms sales?  Why are we selling them weapons, planes with secret technology, and so on? 

I ask this to push the issue.  I am aware of previous personal relationships between our heads of state and Saudi royal family.  I am aware of manipulation of trade agreements to accomplish sale of certain airplanes produced by Boeing.  I am aware of other business and banking relationships between certain entities here and Saudi entities.  None of this should make it acceptable to hold an American hostage like Robin Petersen was when injured and needing medical treatment back home in the U.S.  Outrageous.  Particularly the Boeing Company’s efforts to now distance themselves from their wholly owned subsidiary, now that they’ve been caught with their hands in this matter.  

 If any of you can add your voice to the call for justice, regarding all of this, please do! 

GFS

 

 

 Rob says:

To all;

After over eight months I finally received an email from the U.S. State Department stating they are unable to help Americans in the country of Saudi Arabia.

If you should care about America and our rights, as I do, please send a letter to your Senators or House Representatives asking just two questions:  (Consider enclosing the email found below with your letters)

1.  How is possible that our young men and women can be fighting for "Freedom" in Afghanistan or Iraq, but that our own U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia will throw an injured American Veteran out on the street when he asks for help to have his illegally confiscated U.S. Passport returned? 

2.  Ask how is it that no action will be taken against American Companies that participate, support and condone the illegal activity of passport confiscation? 

Thank you for your help.

My Best,

Rob

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: OIG complaint regarding your experience in Saudi Arabia

Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:47:08 +0000

Dear Ms. Richter;

Would you please identify your position; which office within the U.S. Department of State you work; your supervisors position; and the date of the letter (my letter) of which you are now responding.

For your information, I was told that my complaint had been sent to the Bureau of Consulate Affairs, Washington DC for action over eight (8) months ago.  I am still waiting for a response from that office.

Thank for providing the information concerning Saudi Arabia.  My complaint however, concerns the fraud that was perpetrated upon me by "The Boeing Company" and its "American Run" and wholly own subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems (first) here in the United States and then again in Saudi Arabia.  Boeing International Support Systems operates from Oklahoma City and St. Louis Missouri.  The evidence package I provided the DOJ and Bureau of Consulate Affairs supports this claim.  My U.S. passport was taken from me by an American Citizen working for Boeing/BISS and was not returned upon my reasonable (written) request.

As your information (found below) confirms the fact that it is illegal to confiscate passports in the country of Saudi Arabia.  Any American business that engages or condones the confiscation of U.S. passports and who supports human trafficking in any way has violated U.S. law.  The Presidential Interagency Task Force created in February 3, 2010 pledges;  "To uphold a system that provides for all victims, whether they lost their freedom through sex trafficking or labor trafficking and regardless of age, gender or immigration status."   I believe the U.S. State Department is part of this "Interagency Task Force" and has a duty to protect my rights as an American Citizen.

As such, I am again stating for the record, that my country follow the law, utilize the "Presidential Interagency Task Force" and bring those to justice who bring disgrace and discredit upon our Nation's Constitution and the Laws of this Country.  Thank you for your email and I look forward to hearing that this matter will be thoroughly investigated.

Sincerely,

//Signed//

Robin P. Petersen 

(480) 993-5344

Subject: OIG complaint regarding your experience in Saudi Arabia

Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:47:52 -0400

From: [email protected]

To: [email protected]

Mr. Petersen,

I just received your OIG complaint regarding your experience with Boeing in Saudi Arabia.   I understand you have concerns regarding your time in Saudi and how you feel you were held against your will and your passport was confiscated and the Consulate in Jeddah did nothing to assist you.  Working in Saudi Arabia is completely different than working in the U.S.  Your sponsor – the company that hired you – has control over you while in Saudi and can stop you from departing if there are contractual or other disputes.  The U.S. Embassy/Consulate is unable to assist you those situations. 

In our Consular Information Products which are available at http://travel.state.gov we try to give you as much information as we can regarding travel and work in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html#special_circumstance

Business Contracts: The written Arabic text of a contract governs employment and business arrangements under Saudi law. Before signing a contract, U.S. companies should obtain an independent translation to ensure a full understanding of the contract's terms, limits, and agreements. No U.S. citizen should come to work in Saudi Arabia or make a business arrangement without having read and understood the full written contract. Verbal assurances or side letters are not binding under Saudi law. In the event of any contract dispute, the Saudi authorities refer to the contract. Since the Saudi sponsor holds the employee's passport and controls the issuance of exit permits, U.S. citizens cannot simply leave Saudi Arabia in the event of a labor or business dispute. A U.S. citizen who breaks an employment or business contract may have to pay substantial penalties before being allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. To change employers in Saudi Arabia requires the written permission of the original sponsoring employer, which is discretionary. Saudi courts take seriously their responsibility to adjudicate disputes. This process, which is performed in accordance with Saudi law and customs, may require hiring legal counsel, should not be entered into without an Arabic translator, and generally takes several months. Persons involved in legal cases are not permitted to leave the Kingdom until the case has been resolved or abandoned. The U.S. Embassy and U.S. Consulates General cannot adjudicate labor or business disputes or provide translation services. U.S. consular officers can provide lists of local attorneys to help U.S. citizens settle business disputes, but ultimate responsibility for the resolution of disputes through the Saudi legal system lies with the parties involved. For additional information on Saudi labor law, please refer to the Ministry of Labor’s information on related regulations.

The Human Rights Report from 2010 discusses the lack of workers’ rights in Saudi Arabia. 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm - The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.

Noncitizens may reside or work in the country only under the sponsorship of a citizen or business. The law does not permit noncitizens to change their workplace without their sponsor's permission, thus forcing the worker to remain with the sponsor until the satisfaction of the contractual terms or to seek the assistance of the embassy to return home. Foreign workers were under the complete control of their sponsoring employers, who held their passports and were responsible for processing residence permits on their behalf, although the country has a law prohibiting the withholding of passports. Sponsors involved in a commercial or labor dispute with foreign employees could ask authorities to prohibit the employees from departing the country until the dispute is resolved. Workers can hire a lawyer or represent themselves in the arbitration or court proceedings to settle the contractual dispute.

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

 

 

 

 

 

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 [email protected] or Associate

         Seminar Director Philip Barrett at [email protected] 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 [email protected].  

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

[email protected] 

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.”

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whistleblower's Pensions Threatened By Intelligence Committee

Take Action!

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

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

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

TAKE ACTION! Protect whistleblowers' pensions!

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

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

TAKE ACTION! Time is of the Essence!

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

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

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

Senator Diane Feinstein (202) 224-3841

PASS THIS ALERT TO A FRIEND!

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

DSS: Forced Overtime Continues

Some time ago, I posted information about complaints that DSS managers were forcing employees to work beyond their paid work hours with no additional pay.  DSS managers, including Richard Lawhorn, have denied the practice, and in fact have said that if they catch anyone working any unpaid overtime hours, they are in trouble. 

The reality is that with understaffed offices in many cases, and over-worked employees, the only way people can even hope to keep up with the paperwork is to work hours on nights and weekends that DSS managers refuse to pay for and don't want to hear about.  DSS managers do however want employees to be sure they meet statistical demands, no matter how unreasonable they may be.  So, beating up employees for not getting all that additional work assigned completed as fast as managers demand it be done, (work beyond what is reasonable for a standard workday or workweek), leaves many of them in fear to work unreported and unpaid overtime hours...lots of them.  And those that succumb to this kind of heavy handed manipulation and fearfully do the unpaid Forced Overtime, make it even harder for those who try to hold the line and restrict their hard work to paid working hours.  Employees must think this over and talk with each other.  It is typical of management to try to divide and conquer, often by picking a victim to be made an example of, in order to terrorize the other employees into doing as directed, even if it is illegal and wrong.  Be advised.   

I heard that some employees who brought this up in a meeting when a visiting manager was conducting a meeting were punished severely, for bringing up the subject in public.  I hope there will be an investigation into all of this, not only the forcing of unpaid overtime hours, but the lying about doing it.  If the talking heads like manager, Richard Lawhorn,  tell you there is no Forced Overtime, do not believe it.  DSS field employees know better and are living the hell that comes with loss of evening and weekend personal and family time.  There is no honor in pressuring and threatening employees, and stealing their time.  Trying to pretend that you are not doing this is even more despicable, DSS management!

GFS

 

Failing Inspector Generals Do Not Go Unnoticed

This was sent in today by a reader.  Thank you Old Navy Man, again.  -GFS

 

G. Florence

Federal government agency officials are going to do everything they can to ensure that these Inspector General reports are marginalized, or that they never come to the attention of the taxpaying public.  More times than not, these cases involve the misconduct of federal officials, acts of retaliation against whistleblowers trying to do the right thing, and the fraud and the waste and the abuse of taxpayer dollars.  Cover up and minimization of Inspector General investigations within the Department of Defense is rampant.  But don’t take my word for it, check the case statistics! 

An Old Navy Man

 

Watch Blog

POGO: The Case of the Missing Inspector General Reports

Posted at 10:28 am, November 4th, 2010

By Michael Smallberg,  (cross-posted with the Project On Government Oversight)

Inspector General (IG) investigations expose some of the most egregious examples of misconduct by federal officials—everything from whistleblower retaliation to the abuse of taxpayer dollars—and the public has every right to see the (non-classified, non-redacted) results of these investigations. Yet in many cases, agencies have been known to over-redact, delay, or completely block the release of IG investigative reports. As we discussed in our 2008 report on IG independence, restricting public access to these reports undermines the important work performed by IGs, and creates a significant barrier to holding agency officials accountable.

A few weeks ago, Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) released letters from 13 IGs describing how their agencies have interfered with investigations. Among other things, the senators asked the IGs to provide “biannual reports on all closed investigations, evaluations, and audits conducted by your office that were not disclosed to the public.”

As the senators continue their review, we hope they take a close look at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has a troubling history of withholding records from the public, including investigative reports issued by the IG.

On the SEC IG’s website, you won’t find any investigative reports issued prior to 2009, and there are only eight reports posted since then. Yet the IG’s semiannual reports to Congress describe dozens of investigative reports that have been issued to SEC management over the past two years.

To be fair, most of the SEC IG’s audit and evaluation reports dating back to 1994 have been posted online. But when it comes to investigative reports—in which the OIG’s Office of Investigations looks into “allegations of violations of statutes, rules and regulations, and other misconduct by Commission staff and contractors—very few have ever been released to the public.

After reviewing the IG’s semiannual reports, we’ve counted at least 27 investigative reports issued since 2009 that have not been posted online. These reports cover everything from insider trading by SEC employees to botched investigations of fraudulent companies. There are at least two reports—one on the SEC’s bungled investigation of Allied Capital, and one on allegations of whistleblower retaliation at the SEC’s Ft. Worth Regional Office—that have been redacted and released, but are nowhere to be found on the SEC or IG’s websites.

Even when the IG’s reports are released to the public, the SEC can still diminish their impact. In the case of the Allied report, for example, the SEC redacted the name of the official who became a registered lobbyist for Allied after he left the SEC and illegally attempted to access hedge fund manager David Einhorn’s telephone records, even though his name had already been disclosed in Einhorn’s book and various media reports.*

The SEC also has a troubling history of releasing IG reports on slow news days. As reported by the AP, the IG identified this problem in its latest report on the timing of the SEC’s charges filed against Goldman Sachs (the IG was investigating whether the timing was politically motivated or intended to overshadow the release of another IG report on the SEC’s botched investigation of the Stanford Ponzi scheme):

[SEC Office of General Counsel Attorney] sent an email to a personal friend on the day that the Goldman action was announced and the OIG Stanford Report was released, stating about these two matters, “What a coincidence that those two stories came out today. ”

…These suspicions were likely fueled by the recent history of the SEC releasing OIG reports that criticized the agency on “slow” news days… The SEC released the OIG’s 457-page Report of Investigation (“ROI”) concerning the failure of the SEC to uncover Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme after 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2009, the Friday before a three-day holiday weekend….The SEC then released the hundreds of exhibits supporting the OIG’s ROI concerning Madoff late on Friday, October 30, 2009.

…In addition, the OIG ROI concerning the SEC’s failure to vigorously pursue Enforcement action against W. Holding Company, Inc., and Bear Sterns & Co., Inc., was made public on Friday, October 10, 2008….Consistent with this pattern, on the same Friday that the OIG Stanford Report was publicly released and the Goldman action was announced, April 16, 2010, the SEC also publicly released the OIG’s ROI concerning the SEC’s failure to timely investigate allegations of financial fraud at Metromedia International Group, Inc., which had been submitted to the SEC by the OIG almost two months earlier.

As the report suggests, it’s the agency—specifically, the Office of General Counsel—that’s in charge of redacting IG investigative reports, and the reports can only be released through a vote by the SEC commissioners. The IG elaborated on this issue at a September hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, stating that his office does not have the authority to make decisions on nonpublic information by itself, even though it has asked for such authority.

In recent testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, POGO’s Angela Canterbury recommended that “[d]eterminations of FOIA exemption applicability to OIG reports, particularly regarding investigations, should be independently reviewed by the FOIA office or a FOIA officer within the OIG, not by the Chair or OGC.”

We’re hopeful that the next Congress will be receptive to strengthening IG offices across the government.

– Michael Smallberg

 http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=1737

Decision Making Advice from Gandhi

Some quotes from Benjamin F. Schafer, sent in to Whistleblower 411 (Yahoo)   Thank you!  -GFS

 

The idea of the four groups nuance a subcategory of humanity, some people rise above and are outside these four groups. Below are examples of two people that I believe meet this criteria.

-Benjamin F. Schafer

 

“All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move. “

Benjamin Franklin

 

 

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?

Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

- One of the last notes left behind by Gandhi in 1948, expressing his deepest social thought.

 

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

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

 

G. Florence-

 

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

 

Good investigative reporting on the part of Mr. Schwellenbach!

 

An Old Navy Man

 

 

TrackBack

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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