June, 24 2009, 11:03am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tom Devine, Legal Director
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 124
Email: tomd@whistleblower.org
Shanna Devine, GAP Legislative Coor.
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 132
Email: shannad@whistleblower.org
Dylan Blaylock, Communications Dir.
Phone: 202.457.0034, ext. 137
Email: dylanb@whistleblower.org
MSPB Ruling Guts Whistleblower Protection Act
WASHINGTON
Yesterday, Tuesday June 23rd, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued a landmark ruling against whistleblowers in MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security.
The decision effectively removes any remaining enforcement authority
for the already-discredited Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).
The
MSPB's decision gives government agencies the power to issue
regulations overriding the free speech rights contained within WPA.
Government Accountability Project (GAP) Legal Director Tom Devine
commented, "Until Congress acts, the Whistleblower Protection Act is
dead. The MacLean decision means government agencies can fire
employees for any disclosure otherwise protected by the WPA. The
decision reduces the WPA to a voluntary guideline that agencies can
cancel at will by issuing blanket gag regulations."
MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security Background
GAP
and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association had submitted a
friend of the court brief on Robert MacLean's behalf. MacLean was a
10-year federal law enforcement officer, and U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Air Marshal (FAM) with an unblemished
record. In July 2003, he successfully blew the whistle on agency plans
to secretly offset budget shortfalls by eliminating air marshals from
long distance flights in the midst of a terrorism alert over suicide
terrorist hijackings. After public congressional pressure, DHS's plans
were canceled. On April 11, 2006, the agency fired MacLean for using
previously-undesignated Sensitive Security Information (SSI) in the
2003 disclosure. SSI is a blanket category for anything "detrimental to
the security of aviation" - and can be applied to virtually anything.
MacLean's alleged misconduct was entirely "ex post facto": the agency
had not yet issued regulations prohibiting release of SSI when he made
the disclosure. The facts of the case illustrate the stakes for the
public if whistleblowers are silenced.
* In late
July 2003, MacLean received a DHS intelligence warning of an imminent
terrorist suicide hijacking threat. It was so severe that FAMs were
mandated to attend unprecedented, one-on-one threat briefings in their
field office regardless of their duty status. No successful attacks
were carried out, but a subsequent DHS report confirmed the plans.* In late July 2003, MacLean also learned that due to a budget
shortfall (caused by suspect contract spending), 60 days of FAM
coverage would be canceled from August 2 until the fiscal year ended on
September 30, 2003 for the highest risk, long distance flights, because
they required overnight accommodations. (His concerns later were
confirmed by a March 31, 2004 GAO report.) He protested to a
supervisor, and to three DHS Office of Inspector General field offices,
all of whom declined to act and said he should drop the issue.* MacLean then disclosed to a media representative the TSA text message
canceling coverage. Other media quickly picked up the story, which
spread and sparked outraged bipartisan congressional protests. Less
than a day after the initial news story, the TSA canceled the plans to
eliminate coverage, publicly explaining that its orders to FAMs had
been "a mistake."* Almost three years later, in April 2006,
the TSA fired MacLean, specifically because his disclosure was SSI. The
TSA justified its position through an ad hoc order issued on August 31,
2006 (three years after his disclosure - four months after his
termination), that the text message was SSI. When he disclosed the
message, there had been no markings indicating that the information was
classified, SSI, or in any way restricted. It was not sent by secure
means.
The MSPB Decision
For
over three years MacLean has fought for a hearing. On Tuesday, the MSPB
ruled he can have one, but without any help from the Whistleblower
Protection Act. The ruling redefines WPA language giving employees
public free speech rights to disclose information unless it is
"specifically prohibited by law." Since 1978, that has meant
disclosures barred by legislative statute, because when it wrote the
law Congress shrank initial restrictions from disclosures barred by
"law, rule or regulation" to merely those specifically banned by "law."
Its legislative history also defined "law" to mean statute. In 30
years, the issue had appeared in one 1993 decision when the MSPB flatly
rejected the authority of agency regulations to override Congress.
Current Merit Systems Protection Board Chairman Neil McPhie, a Bush
holdover, rewrote the law, and in doing so granted agencies a blank
check to cancel the WPA. In order to reach that result, the Board:
* Ignored the word "specifically" in "specifically prohibited by law,"
passively killing a cornerstone of the statute and paving the way for
blanket gag orders, such as SSI in this case.* Based its
entire argument on a Supreme Court definition of "law" from an entirely
different context, applying the same definition for permitting
government exercise of authority as for restraining citizen exercise of
right. Other than the word "law," there is no public policy common
ground.* Explained away inconsistent adjacent WPA language
in which Congress separately shielded disclosures of "law, rule and
regulation" as merely "redundant," and should be extended to free
speech restrictions in the same sentence limited to "law" without any
mention of rules or regulations.* Rejected uncontested
legislative history language that defined "law" to mean "statutory law
and court interpretation of those statutes [, and] ... not ... to agency
rules and regulations." The Board's reasoning was that Congress only
said it once.
The MacLean decision breaks new
ground in MSPB hostility toward whistleblowers but it is not an
aberration. Since 1978, in cases involving national policy
significance, no whistleblower ever has prevailed against retaliation
involving government misconduct or cover-ups. Since 1978, no employee
has won a decision on the merits in the nation's Washington DC region,
where the most significant abuses of power occur. Indeed, the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was passed because the MSPB only
had ruled for whistleblowers four times during the 1980s. Since 2000,
the corresponding record of employee victories is three. Chairman
McPhie has ruled against whistleblowers in 44 out of 45 decisions on
the merits since his 2003 arrival.
"There no longer is any
credible debate that the MSPB is unfit as the sole opportunity for
whistleblowers day in court," stated Devine, who added, "Government
managers oppose House-passed legislation that permits jury trials to
enforce whistleblower rights."
Devine added, "This outrageous
decision should be a wake-up call for the Obama administration to
appoint a new MSPB chair and Special Counsel to protect whistleblowers.
It appears Chairman McPhie is seeking a legacy of killing the good
government law he has already crippled. The President's promise of
transparency will be a magnet for cynicism until he appoints merit
system leaders who believe in his policies."
Adding absurdity
to this specious decision, the MSPB initially tried but failed to keep
its decision killing the anti-secrecy law a secret. It initially marked
the whole ruling "Sensitive Security Information." By mistake, however,
the Board posted its ruling on the MSPB Web site anyway - the same SSI
breach for which it approved MacLean's termination when he blew the
whistle on cancellation of Air Marshal coverage during a terrorist
alert. Over the course of 48 hours, the document was moved to a
password protected site, and then reappeared with the SSI markings
removed. There has been no word of upcoming Board resignations or
accountability actions over the "security" breach.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a 30-year-old nonprofit public interest group that promotes government and corporate accountability by advancing occupational free speech, defending whistleblowers, and empowering citizen activists. We pursue this mission through our Nuclear Safety, International Reform, Corporate Accountability, Food & Drug Safety, and Federal Employee/National Security programs. GAP is the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization.
LATEST NEWS
Database Exposes 'Illicit Network Undermining Democracy Around the World'
Yanis Varoufakis hailed the effort as "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
Apr 17, 2024
"Coups. Assassinations. Riots. Detentions. Disinformation. We know the tactics that have been deployed to undermine our democracies. But who is behind them?"
Progressive International (PI) asks and answers this and other questions with an extensive new database published Wednesday that connects the dots in what the leftist group calls the "Reactionary International"—a loose global network of right-wing leaders and organizations working to subvert democratic institutions.
PI calls it an "illicit network undermining democracy around the world."
"Today is a mask-off moment for the Reactionary International and the parties, politicians, judges, journalists, foundations, think tanks, tech platforms, NGOs, activists, financiers, and entrepreneurs that comprise it," PI said.
"After a year of preparation, we finally open the doors to our new research consortium, exposing the global network of reactionary forces that corrode our democracies, destroy our planet, and drive us closer to world war," the group added.
"The twin insurrections at the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and BrasÃlia's Three Powers Plaza in 2023 left no doubt about the international coordination of reactionary forces," PI argued. "Yet far too little is known about the entities of this network, their sources of financing, and their institutional allies operating inside our political systems."
Ultimately, PI aims to "support democratic systems to become more resilient to their insidious tactics."
From leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and former U.S. President Donald Trump—the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee—to evangelical Christian groups influencing laws in African countries criminalizing LGBTQ+ people and tech companies empowering ubiquitous state surveillance, Reactionary International is a who's-who of the world's right-wing forces.
A cursory search of the database's contents shows users can:
- Learn about Israel's NSO, Rayzone, and Team Jorge, and how a team of Tel Aviv tech entrepreneurs fuel unrest in Latin America;
- Meet the Grey Wolves, Turkey's roving death squad with links to President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan and the ethno-nationalists in his governing coalition; and
- Explore the global network of the Falun Gong, its Trump-connected media outlet The Epoch Times, and its traveling dance troupe known as Shen Yun.
Yanis Varoufakis, a PI member and secretary-general of the left-wing Democracy in Europe Movement 2025, called the database "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
PI invites the public to contribute to the database.
"Together, we will not only name, shame, and expose the forces of the far right—but also dismantle their network of complicity," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP State AGs Ask EPA to 'Eviscerate' Crucial Environmental Justice Tool
"Many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities," said one advocate.
Apr 17, 2024
Led by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, Republican leaders in 23 states on Tuesday filed a petition making clear their aim to allow petrochemical companies and other corporations to continue operating pollution-causing facilities without regard for the "disparate impact" they can have on low-income communities of color.
The attorneys general of states including Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan, asking him to amend Title VI under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The law prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against residents based on race and national origin and allows residents to petition the EPA arguing that state agencies have intentionally discriminated or disparately impacted a particular community.
Title VI has underpinned hundreds of legal cases, including recent EPA investigations into the 85-mile stretch of land in Louisiana known as Cancer Alley, where dozens of petrochemical plants have been built and health experts have observed a disproportionate number of cancer cases and other medical problems among the predominantly Black population.
The attorneys general said they object to the Biden administration's use of Title VI to "advance what it calls 'environmental justice,'" and complained that the EPA aims to create "a condition in which no racially or economically defined group experiences adverse environmental impacts."
Andre Segura, vice president of litigation at the environmental legal group Earthjustice, said Wednesday that the Republican attorneys general aim to "eviscerate civil rights protections just to make it easier for industrial polluters to continue with business as usual."
"Everyone should be alarmed by these outrageous efforts," said Segura. "The fact is, many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities, without regard for the health and safety of residents."
Manuel Fernandez, president of Miami-Dade County Democrats in Florida, said the effort was "embarrassing" and called on Moody to resign.
The petition was filed three months after U.S. District Court Judge James Cain Jr., an appointee of former President Donald Trump in Louisiana, ruled that Title VI requirements amount to "government overreach."
The EPA halted its Title VI investigation into the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) last year a month after Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, sued the agency over its Title VI regulations. The EPA had been probing whether the LDEQ placed the historically Black town of St. John the Baptist Parish at risk by allowing companies to build petrochemical plants nearby.
There are more than 50 pending cases regarding Title VI violations, Earthjustice said.
"These decades-old Title VI regulations are critical tools for the federal government to use to ensure that funding is not used to perpetuate this toxic legacy," said Segura, "and the EPA should swiftly reject this petition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Governors Show 'How Scared They Are' of Workers Organizing With UAW
Congressman Greg Casar said the Republicans behind a new joint statement "sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors."
Apr 17, 2024
As Volkswagen workers in Tennessee began voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers, progressive critics on Wednesday continued to call out six Southern GOP governors for jointly saying they "are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the UAW has brought into our states."
Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas issued their statement in response to "the largest organizing drive in modern American history," which the UAW launched after major contract wins following a strike targeting the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—last year.
"As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by," the Republican leaders said, claiming that "unionization would certainly put our states' jobs in jeopardy" and the UAW is "making big promises to our constituents that they can't deliver on."
"We have serious reservations that the UAW leadership can represent our values. They proudly call themselves democratic socialists and seem more focused on helping President [Joe] Biden get reelected than on the autoworker jobs being cut at plants they already represent," the governors added, nodding to the union's January endorsement of the Democrat—UAW president Shawn Fain also called the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, a "scab."
What actually threatens American workers?\n\u274c Anti-union, anti-worker propaganda like this\n\ud83d\udcb0 Corps that put profits over people\n\u26d1\ufe0f Safety standards not being met\n\n@GovAbbott & @GovernorKayIvey sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors here. @UAW backs American workers!— (@)
The Economic Policy Institutesaid Wednesday that the governors' anti-union statement "clearly shows how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages will upend the highly unequal, failed anti-worker economic development model of Southern states."
Responding to the statement on social media, the Congressional Labor Caucus declared that "we speak up when we see threats to workers' rights. Workers must be allowed to choose whether to form a union on their own—free from influence from their employers or politicians. Shame on these governors for putting out this anti-union propaganda."
After Ivey shared the statement on social media, Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, asked, "Better wages and working conditions are against the values of your state?"
MSNBC's Chris Hayes was even snarkier, jokingly calling the statement "yet more evidence of the populist, pro-worker turn of the Trump-era GOP."
The UAW vote in Chattanooga, Tennessee is set to wrap up on Friday. Then, attention is expected to shift to Vance, Alabama. Workers at a nonunion Mercedes-Benz plant there submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board earlier this month requesting an election to join the union.
Noting Ivey's social media post about the statement, Diana Hussein, who does communications work for the UAW, said: "She's mad cuz she wants to keep the Alabama discount that leaves workers behind. No more! #StandUpUAW."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, also took aim at Ivey, saying, "You used Alabama taxpayers' money to have state troopers escort out-of-state scabs to break the strike of YOUR constituents."
Nelson explained that she was referring to the "hardworking" United Mine Workers of America members employed by Warrior Met, "who were fighting for the right to see their families more than a few days a year."
More Perfect Union told Ivey that "unions only threaten your values if you value denying workers a living wage and good benefits."
In contrast with the Republican governors, around two-thirds of the Senate Democratic Caucus in January wrote to 13 nonunion automakers—including Mercedes and Volkswagen—urging them not to illegally block UAW organizing at their plants.
"We are concerned by reporting at numerous automakers that management has acted illegally to block unionization efforts," the senators stressed, citing multiple examples. "These retaliatory actions are hostile to workers' rights and must not be repeated if further organizing efforts are made by these companies' workers. We therefore urge you all to commit to implementation of a neutrality agreement at your manufacturing plants."
Welcoming their letter, Fain said that "every autoworker in this country deserves their fair share of the auto industry's record profits, whether at the Big Three or the Nonunion 13. We applaud these U.S. senators for standing with workers who are standing up for economic justice on the job."
"It's time for the auto companies to stop breaking the law and take their boot off the neck of the American autoworker," the union leader added, "whether they're at Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, or any other corporation doing business in this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular