Home

MAKE IT SAFE COALITION STATEMENT ON 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT OF 1989

Leave a comment

April 10, 2019
The Make It Safe Coalition’s (MISC) Steering Committee commemorates the anniversary with a call to bridge the still-wide gap between the rights and the reality of implementing that landmark legislation’s free speech principles. The Act became effective on April 10, 1989. Since then the MISC, a non-partisan, trans-ideological good government coalition, has grown to 75 member organizations committed to the rights of whistleblowers.
Inexcusably, federal whistleblowers still have weaker rights than their contractor counterparts and nearly all private sector whistleblowers.  Congress unanimously enacted rights in the Whistleblower Protection Act four times –first, as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, second, in the WPA, third, in the 1994 amendments, and fourth, in the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), a law that took thirteen years of advocacy in Congress until it passed. Despite this clear mandate, Congress had to restore these rights three times after hostile judicial activism functionally canceled them; a trend so far halted by the WPEA.
If paper rights have survived, however, actual protection is on life support. The commitment of administrative agencies charged with enforcement has been a roller coaster.  Currently, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), responsible for federal employee administrative due process, does not have any Members, so justice is being denied by default. Furthermore, in any given year federal government whistleblowers have had only a five to ten percent chance of winning a ruling that their rights were violated.  This is a devastating reality for those brave employees who have risked so much to protect the public.

More

Advertisements

GUARDIANS TAKE TOTAL CONTROL: ISOLATE, MEDICATE, LIQUIDATE: The Tragic End of Marvin Siegel’s Life

Leave a comment

FROM OUR APRIL 1, 2019 PRINTED EDITION:

by Lonnie Brennan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“They killed him,” Marvin Siegel’s daughter Lisa Siegel Belanger wrote in a text. She followed up to explain that six years of round-the-clock captivity in his own home and in various medical facilities, together with forced drugging and morphine, lack of proper care and the ability for his family to interact with him and help with decisions, accelerated her father’s death.

As we previously reported in this paper through a multi-part series of articles, including a personal account by Lisa, six years ago her father was taken from his Boxford, Mass. home via ambulance at the direction of a visiting nurse, and  was shortly thereafter placed in a psychiatric facility, forced on drugs, and then, while in the facility, signed over control of his estate to what Lisa detailed as predatory lawyers. That list of “predators” is long, and despite many trips to court to fight them, the lawyers continued to prevail.

Yes, Sometimes It IS All About the Money

At the time of his taking, Mr. Siegel’s known assets exceeded $6 million. During the past six years, attorneys drew off more than $4 million in what they termed as caring for the senior. A large chunk of that money was spent on round-the-clock home health care. But the numbers included more, much more.

Indeed, a review of the finances showed certain attorneys drawing tens of thousands of dollars and more, quarterly from the estate, with some racking up more than $200,000 in billing, and at attorney rates over a wide range, including some at more than $450 per hour.

For their fees they answered e-mails from one another, paid Mr. Siegel’s bills, ensured that he had his trash removed, the utilities bills paid, grass mowed, repairs made, and all the normal things to keep a household going.

With the signing over of his estate, Mr. Siegel lost all control and was appointed a guardian and other lawyers who managed his affairs. He was force-drugged without his knowledge to keep him complacent, and he began a long, slow decline, according to multiple court documents and written and oral testimony and writings by some of his family members. More

Wyden Statement on the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Whistleblower Protection Act

Leave a comment

April 10, 2019

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. President, thirty years ago today, the Whistleblower Protection Act was signed into law. To call it a triumph doesn’t do justice to the sheer number of years and people it took on both sides of the aisle to overcome numerous obstacles and enact federal protections for federal government employees who step forward and do what we all should do: expose wrongdoings in order to hold government officials and agencies accountable.

Congressional efforts to protect whistleblowers date back to at least 1912 with the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912. This act guaranteed the right of federal employees to communicate with members of Congress without the oversight of their employer, and prohibited compensation to managers who retaliated against employees attempting to disclose whistleblower matters.

However, empowering Federal employees to speak up and speak the truth was, and continues to be, an ongoing struggle, one that has often pitted Congress against the Executive Branch. When President George H.W. Bush signed the Whistleblower Protection Act into law that April morning in 1989, it came after his predecessor President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a similar bill despite the fact that it had been unanimously adopted by both the Senate and the House.

The Whistleblower Protection Act, itself, was first introduced by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado as an amendment to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and then as a stand-alone bill in 1982. The principal purpose of the bill was to block retaliation against employees who came forward, a never-ending problem. The bill would have allowed “a person claiming to be aggrieved by a prohibited personnel practice to: (1) bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against the employee or agency involved (respondent); or (2) seek corrective action through the (Merit Systems Protection) Board.”

While that particular bill ultimately died after receiving unfavorable comments from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates whistleblower complaints, its failure didn’t deter our colleagues from persevering. More

%d bloggers like this: