GovernmentExecutive.com

As legal battles persist between the Justice Department and federal workers who complained about issues within their agencies, legislation intended to strengthen protections for future government whistleblowers was introduced in the Senate Wednesday.

The Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act is identical to a bill that made it out of the former Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last July.

The bill, if passed into law, would clarify the intent of Congress regarding whistleblowers protections. Specifically, the bill would allow for the independent determination on whether a whistleblower is being retaliated against through revoked security clearances, create a pilot program that would suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals' sole claim on federal workers' whistleblower cases for five years, and allow the Office of Special Counsel to file amicus briefs with the federal courts in support of whistleblowers.

The chief sponsor, Sen. Daniel K. Akaka, D-Hawaii, said the bill is an attempt to create an environment that allows workers to expose government wrongdoing and mismanagement.

"A free society should not fear the truth," Akaka said in a statement.

He is joined by 13 other senators, including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will have jurisdiction over the bill.

A similar bill passed the House Government Reform Committee in September 2004.

According to Akaka's office, the legal structure and interpretation of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act is intended to keep whistleblowers from being shielded from reprisals, but legitimate whistleblowers have been denied protection as a result of recent court decisions. Since 1994, federal whistleblowers have prevailed once on the merits of the claim before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Akaka cited, among others, the case of Food and Drug Administration worker David Graham--who exposed problems regarding the safety of new pharmaceuticals that resulted in the creation of FDA's Drug Safety Oversight Board two weeks ago--as a positive result of federal workers making their concerns known to the public.

"In spite of the positive changes resulting from their disclosures, we are concerned that the very public struggles these individuals have endured after alerting Americans to waste, fraud, abuse, and security and health violations in the federal government may discourage others from coming forward," Akaka said upon announcing the bill on the Senate floor.

According to Akaka, the Justice Department objects to the intent of the bill, but provisions within the legislation are intended to address those concerns.

No Unpaid Work

James R. Stewart, a professor at the Army Management Staff College at Fort Belvoir, Va., was demoted from his GS-15 position to a GS-11 position after he was charged with insubordination, abusing his supervisory authority, conduct unbecoming a federal supervisor, and lying.

The charges occurred while Stewart was serving an overseas assignment as a base operations manager with the 104th Area Support Group in Hanau, Germany, starting in 1997.

After an appeal, a settlement agreement in July 2000 reduced Stewart's punishment to a 90-day suspension from his GS-15 position and allowed him to return to his old job as a professor at Fort Belvoir.

After the Defense Finance and Accounting Service attempted to force him to repay the salary he collected during his suspension, Stewart appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge found the Army to be in compliance with the agreement because Stewart's suspension was not considered a "paper suspension" where he would not be paid.

After further appeals, the settlement was interpreted that the contract terms were a suspension from his GS-15 status for 90 days, and during that time he would be paid at the GS-11 status.

James R. Stewart v. Department of the Army, Merit Systems Protection Board, DC-0752-00-0696-M-1, Aug. 29, 2004.

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.