Legislators Want Better Whistleblower Protections, Forget To Include Their Own Staff Members
from the Ohhh,-THOSE-unprotected-government-employees dept
This administration hasn't been big on protecting whistleblowers. It often talks about increasing transparency and accountability, but its actions have been the complete opposite. The same goes for the rest of the government. Agencies institute whistleblower protections, often in response to Inspector Generals' reports detailing violations of existing policies, but still remain much more interested in nabbing "insider threats" than protecting whistleblowers from retaliation.
Various bills have been introduced to strengthen protections for whistleblowers. But, as Marcy Wheeler (writing for Expose Facts) points out, legislators fighting for whistleblowers are leaving behind a lot of people very close to them.
When Congress passes good governance laws — most notably FOIA — they tend to exempt themselves.Sadly, this seems to be the case far too often. Lawmakers tend to write laws for other people. But accountability shouldn't just apply to other entities. Congress needs whistleblowers just as much as the rest of the government does. In this case, however, it doesn't appear to be intentional. It appears to be that some of these legislators are simply unaware they're pushing for something they've already exempted themselves from having to follow.
They’ve done the same with a series of Whistleblower Protection laws. While they’ve amended the Whistleblower Protection Act and added protections to employees in the private finance industry, they have not offered the same protections to their employees.
Roll Call -- a DC-focused new site -- confronted some of the legislators who approved a resolution naming July 30th "Whistleblower Protection Day" about the unprotected potential whistleblowers working for them.
Asked about the [Whistleblower Protection Caucus] report, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the caucus’s founders, said federal workers are protected. When informed about the OOC report that stated protections did not extend to legislative branch workers, Grassley said, “We’ll take a look at it.”Hindsight has been adjusted to roughly 20/20, give or take an ongoing blindspot. Now, instead of congratulating themselves on crafting healthier whistleblower protections while their respective staffs look on in concern, they'll be performing the civic duty of "getting right on that." Hopefully, this will result in the institution of the currently-missing protections. But it can just as easily result in this being yet another law Congress doesn't have to follow -- especially if the numerous legislators currently unconcerned with the lack of strong whistleblower protections decide their interests are more important than the public's.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., another of the caucus’s founding members, was shocked to learn congressional employees are not protected.
“They should [be protected],” McCaskill said. “I’ll go right back to the office and say, ‘Draft that legislation!'”
“Whistleblowers should be allowed to operate and have protections everywhere in our government,” McCaskill added. “Everywhere.”
A few legislators were aware of the missing protection, however. Senator Barbara Boxer is already working on legislation that will encompass federal employees not currently covered by existing laws, and Senator Ron Johnson has already set up his own whistleblower "hotline."
“I would say that is news to me,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., when told that legislative workers were not protected. “I think they should be. And certainly we’ve [set up] a website, whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate.gov, and I hope they would take advantage of that.”It's not clear how much protection Johnson can offer anyone not currently covered by whistleblower protections, but a senator's office likely offers a bit more of a shield than going it alone.
“I’ll protect ‘em,” he added.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, congressional staffers, whistleblower protections, whistleblowers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Theyre Joking, Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theyre Joking, Right?
“They should [be protected],” McCaskill said. “I’ll go right back to the office and say, ‘Draft that legislation!'” And then he started running in place. "I'm running back to my office!" He pantomimes shouting. "Draft that legislation! What?" He turns to the reporter. "They want to know if 'whistleblower' is all one word, or hyphenated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Theyre Joking, Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senate: "So, you're saying you were doing what you were told by your boss?"
Aide: "Yep."
Senate: "Well, son, you're screwed. We can't touch your boss, but we sure as hell can touch you. Don't drop the soap."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now go back and ask them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now go back and ask them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lack of Basic Research?
It sounds as if the those who drafted the legislation, and their supporters, did not bother with conducting some basic research first before they crafted their bill.
This is, of course, assuming the exemptions the article refers to were indeed unintended and not deliberate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of Basic Research?
(Unless you count the "research" provided by campaign donors.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't that the important part of Napoleonic law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wasn't that the important part of Napoleonic law?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wasn't that the important part of Napoleonic law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distracted by the T&A, I suspect.
C'mon, world. Half of you are watching Game of Thrones which telegraphs its cause and effect and why diffusion of wealth and power are a pretty good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else catch this? Just shows the technical prowess of Sen. Johnson to think an email is a "website." Guess that's what you get when you have lawyers and businessmen deciding technical policy when the majority of them have no freakin' clue what a website is versus an email address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]