Office of Special Counsel, led by controversial Scott Bloch, is the wrong entity to investigate White House scandals
As we noted in the post below, today's LA Times is reporting that the Office of Special Counsel will be investigating scandals surrounding the White House political operation. We also promised more on the Office of Special Counsel and here it is.
The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), headed up by highly controversial presidential appointee Scott Bloch, is the wrong entity for this investigation. The fact that OSC has been charged with handling these matters suggests the possibility that the White House is orchestrating a cover-up of its illegal and improper activities.
Bloch has come under widespread criticism for his gross mismanagement and politicization of the office. Bloch is currently under investigation by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for his mistreatment of career appointees, who have alleged the exact kind of retaliation that OSC is designed to investigate. OSC employees have alleged that Bloch has tossed out legitimate whistleblower cases to reduce the office backlog. The probe into Bloch’s conduct has been stymied by the fear of OSC staff that speaking to investigators will result in reprisal. Prominent conservatives, who support Bloch in part because he adopted a sexual orientation policy that makes it more difficult for gay employees to allege discrimination, have called on President Bush to protect Bloch from the OPM investigation.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, issued the following statement about Bloch and OSC today:
Having transformed OSC into a virtual black hole for legitimate complaints of retaliation, Bloch is decidedly not the right person to tackle the issues of misconduct and illegality that surround top White House officials. There is a serious question as to whether Bloch will just provide cover for an administration that has been covering for him.
There is plenty to investigate at the White House. We're very concerned that Scott Bloch and OSC won't do the job.
Just another typical Rove/Republican firebreak tactic
I see this as an attempt by the WH to build a firebreak for Rove. They'll have the OSC investigate Rove and clear him, insulating him from future charges and investigation. ("Rove was investigated and cleared; the Dems are just on a witch hunt.")
I'll be more than a little surprised if this investigation pinches Turdblossom.
The Office of the Special Counsel
is in the right place if only Bloch can be neutralized or set straight in the job. He is in the spotlight and if he misbehaves he may be looking at criminal charges himself, if not already. The spotlight generates it's own heat.
Mr. Bloch may be one of those who sees his way clear to put political loyalty behind loyalty to #1. We shall see.
skepical here yes. but what is the REAL danger?
it seems there is almost NO chance
that senators leahy, schumer, and whitehouse,
to say nothing of reps. conyers, sanchez and waxman,
will simply decide to "sit this one out, & ride the
pines", in dufus-like reliance on bloch's bona fides,
right. . .? i mean, c'mon! right?!
i would worry if he were to attempt to assert
some form of exclusive jurisdiction. otherwise,
i see only scant downside -- if nothing else, his
announcement is generating "heat, if not light. . ."
that is -- if he does his job, great -- if not,
well. . . i like the odds of these congress-
people on closing the whole deal. . .
we're not (much) worse off for his doing
this -- as it IS generating MORE headlines.
no one will let him run the show.
just my $0.02. . .
-- nolo
Bloch, Clinton, RNC, Jr.
Threats are made by the RNC to expose some doings in the Clinton Administration that certain parties would rather not see, and meanwhile Bloch is given the assignment to repair the breach. Bloch can do this, if he is not interferred with. The whitewash will require the co-operation of the other side, though. Does Jr. think there can be a deal? THIS ONE NEEDS WATCHING.
OSC is a systemic and persistent lawbreaking failure
From "Federal Times" < http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2681966>
Commentary: Lack of protection for whistleblowers imperils us all
April 16, 2007
Many civilian federal employees, in a variety of agencies, are on the front lines of the war on terrorism. But who protects them from workplace retribution when they put their sworn duty to defend and protect the public’s health and safety ahead of their self-interest or the interests of their supervisors and agencies?
The primary mission of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is to protect employees in nearly every agency except FBI and intelligence agencies from 11 types of prohibited personnel practices, particularly whistleblower reprisal. OSC has about 110 employees, about 40 percent of whom are licensed attorneys. Like public defenders, OSC’s attorneys are paid by the government to act in the interests of federal employees who seek their protection.
OSC annually receives about 1,700 complaints of prohibited personnel practices, alleging about 3,500 specific practices. We contend the law 5 USC 1214(b)(2)(A) is absolutely clear that OSC is required to investigate complaints and report its determination “whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a [prohibited practice] has occurred, exists, or is to be taken.”
If OSC makes a positive determination, according to the law and a 2000 federal court decision, then it must report that determination to the involved agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). This is to enable the agency heads to comply with their lawful duty to prevent prohibited personnel practices in their agencies.
However, according to OSC’s annual report for 2004, public records maintained by OSC, and a Freedom of Information Act response from MSPB, OSC did not report a single positive determination of prohibited personnel practices to MSPB during 2002-2004, not in 5,529 separate complaints it investigated and closed in that time. It made three such reports to MSPB in fiscal 2005-2006.
While OSC claims to have obtained about 320 “favorable actions” when agencies took actions as a result of OSC investigations of complaints from fiscal 2002 through 2004, there is little, if any, publicly available documentation to substantiate OSC’s claims.
We contend that MSPB is statutorily required to conduct the necessary inquiries of OSC and other federal agencies to determine and publicly report “whether the public interest in a civil service free of [prohibited personnel practices] is being adequately protected.” In response to a Freedom Of Information Act request, MSPB acknowledged that it has not conducted the necessary inquiries of OSC and other agencies to make that report but claims that its special studies and reports, particularly in the aggregate, contain the relevant information.
Our position is that MSPB has failed to conduct required reviews of OSC, enabling OSC noncompliance with its specific statutory obligations to protect federal employees from prohibited personnel practices.
Bottom line: No one in any agency or Congress can reasonably assure federal employees, based on any independent oversight of OSC, that if they stick their necks out to do their duty to protect public safety including in the war on terrorism OSC will comply with its lawful duty to protect them from government retaliation. That is a formula for failed levees, doomed space shuttles, catastrophic terrorist attacks, neglected veterans, etc.
What to do? The new Congress must perform its constitutional duty of oversight of OSC and MSPB to ensure their scrupulous compliance with relevant law in protecting federal employees from prohibited personnel practices. Both OSC and MSPB are due to be reauthorized by the end of fiscal 2007, so thorough congressional oversight of these agencies is now timely.
If congressional or judicial oversight substantiates our concerns, there are potentially thousands of victims who may well merit official restoration and rehabilitation via congressional action.
If we are correct, OSC attorneys can be seen as failing to comply with their legal and professional duty to “blow whistles” on OSC’s failure to comply with the law in protecting federal employees.
Joe Carson is a whistleblower and Energy Department nuclear safety engineer. His co-authors are Jeffrey Black, a federal air marshal and whistleblower; Carol Czarkowski, former Navy contracting officer and whistleblower; Jeffrey Fudin, founder and director of the Veterans Affairs Whistleblower Coalition; David Nolan, former White House attorney under President Reagan; and Michael Springman, former Foreign Service officer and whistleblower. The opinions are those of the authors and not of their current or previous employers
Syndicate this content
whoblossom?
If that is the plan, it looks like Junior has goofed again. This can't be pulled off in the Dark as in the past unless there is some co-operation from Congess, which is now controlled by them Dems., who operate spotlights so powerful that they are lethal. However, if the Dems turn the spotlight the other way, then....