This seems to be looking like an emerging trend. Companies, often contractors with government contracts who are commiting acts of fraud, or other wrong doing and are outed by their more ethical employees, are seeking to press criminal charges on their whistleblowing employees. It seems to this observer that this is an attempt deny the whistleblower their whistleblower identity, and what little protections there are for them in the law, and to paint them to be “common” criminals instead, throwing them into criminal courts, fighting for their freedom and reputations. A reader of one of my blogs sent his article to me. Steven Heller courageously spoke out some time ago, regarding problems with those providing services for Voting, which affect the integrity of our American voting system. I see similaries, such as described above to the case of Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, (who was and still continues to seek remedy to public safety risks in his former company’s aircraft manufacturing business), in that the attempt is being made to deny they are whistleblowers at all. (www.thelastinspector.com) I pass this information and the article that follows along to those of you who may wish to help.
-GFS

**********************************************************************

Huffington Post: www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-soby-jr/whistleblower-charged-wit_b_16411.html
Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold’s Crimes
By Peter Soby, Jr.
A whistleblower in Los Angeles is in legal trouble and needs our help. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold's California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway. Heller is alleged to have come across these docs while temping as a word processor at Jones Day, and he is further alleged to have taken the docs and exposed them to the bright light of day. Now, after sitting on this for 2 years, the Los Angeles District Attorney, under pressure from Jones Day, is going after this whistleblower with 3 felony charges, each of which carries the potential of time in state prison. Here is a story in the LA Times. Heller's lawyer believes the 2 year wait to file charges was due to the then-impending 2004 election, and that Diebold and their attorneys didn't want the information to be made public in the lead up to the election.
The documents also look bad for Diebold's California lawyers, Jones Day. According to Bev Harris, author of the book Black Box Voting, the docs "provided evidence that the Jones Day law firm was helping Diebold to cover up the fact that they were installing uncertified software which, as it turns out, caused thousands of voters to be unable to vote just weeks later."
· Email
· Print
Bev Harris continues, "Jim March, another investigator for Black Box Voting, and I immediately took the documents to both the California Attorney General's office and to Kevin Shelley, who was then the California Secretary of State. Just days later, the secretary of state decertified Diebold." At the time, Shelley called the company's conduct "reprehensible" and said "their performance, their behavior, is despicable," and that "if that's the kind of deceitful behavior they're going to engage in, they can't do business in California." In an interview, Shelly said "We will not tolerate the deceitful conduct of Diebold, and we must send a clear message to the rest of the industry: Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California." Shelley then requested Cal. Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate taking criminal and civil actions against the company based on what he called "fraudulent actions by Diebold." Lockyer eventually dropped the criminal probe of Diebold but he sued the company on behalf of California, and Diebold settled out of court for $2.6 million.
Let's make this clear, folks. The docs Heller is accused of exposing were important evidence. First, they show that Diebold and their attorneys, Jones Day, conspired to mislead the California secretary of state, and that the lie they told was material, and resulted directly in the disenfranchisement of voters. Second, another document demonstrates that Diebold lied to the secretary of state when it represented that certain problems with its software were "fixed." This document, the release notes for the new software, showed that the problems were not fixed. Third, the documents showed that Diebold had been advised by Jones Day that what it had been doing with its uncertified software was illegal. Fourth, the documents show that Jones Day advised Diebold that it was subject to criminal prosecution. So in a nutshell, Diebold was defrauding the state government and taxpayers of California, and disenfranchising the voters of California. And the documents PROVE it.
And for allegedly exposing Diebold's felonious behavior (which led directly to Diebold being de-certified in California), for allegedly helping protect the taxpayers and voters of California, for allegedly helping to keep elections clean and fair, what happens? Diebold, the true criminal in this case, and their powerful international law firm Jones Day, press the L.A. District Attorney's office to hammer Heller, a whistleblower. Three felonies! Diebold was (and probably still is) screwing California voters, Heller is alleged to have seen the smoking gun evidence of Diebold's crimes, and, like a true patriot and whistleblower, allegedly exposed that smoking gun evidence, and now HE'S the one facing jail time. Only in Bush's America!
And the irony is, if Heller is convicted of a felony for exposing Diebold's crimes against the California voters, he'll lose his right to vote. Diebold will win. We can't let that happen!
But we can help. Let's flood the Los Angeles DA's office with phone calls, letters and emails asking them not to crucify this whistleblower.
Now of course, BE POLITE. Remember you are writing, calling and emailing the office of the Los Angeles District Attorney, which is a branch of law enforcement. Being harassing, rude, or threatening will only get you in legal trouble of your own, and it won't help Steve Heller, the whistleblower.
Talking points:
Don't prosecute Stephen Heller. He's a whistleblower, not a criminal, and he should not be prosecuted.
Diebold is the criminal here. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed Diebold's criminal activity, and that makes him a whistleblower. He should not be prosecuted.
Diebold's election malfeasance strikes at the very heart of our democratic republic. Without clean elections, we don't have democracy anymore. Those who expose such crimes are whistleblowers and should not be prosecuted.
America has a long history of whistleblowers exposing criminal activity, and prosecuting them is wrong; it puts a chilling effect on others who might see criminal activity and want to expose it.
Heller is getting pounded. He's the victim of bullies; a huge, powerful, wealthy, politically connected corporation and their equally huge and powerful international law firm are slamming him, grinding him up in legal machinery for allegedly lifting up the pretty skirt Diebold shows to the world, exposing the dirty, stinking criminal secrets that lie beneath. For what he's alleged to have done, there was nothing in it for him. No financial gain (in fact a serious financial loss, because he got fired from his job, and he's had to pay 10s of thousands of dollars to his lawyers, and owes them 10s of thousands more). And he's now at risk of over 3 years in state prison. It's insane. His cause is a worthy one, and he needs our help. Please call, write and email today.
Email the Los Angeles District Attorney's office at lada@co.la.ca.us.
A good old fashioned snail mail letter is very powerful tool:
District Attorney's Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210
And of course, phone calls:
Telephone (213) 974-3512
Fax (213) 974-1484
TTY (800) 457-7778 (8:30am - 5:00pm M-F)
Let's help defend a whistleblower from Diebold and their attorneys!

At what point does an aggressive temperament become a liability for an officer of the King County Prosecutor's Office? When he is held above the law?

**********************************************************************

This was sent to Mr. Eastman as a guest editorial to his www.thelastinspector.com site. It is a response to the posting of the story about the difficulties King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Scott Peterson got himself into somewhat recently. This is the same King County Prosecutor who under direction of The Boeing Company, went after Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, and helped convince the Judge on the case to disregard Mr. Eastman’s whistleblower status, whistleblowing activities, and whistleblower law in the case. I found this writer’s perspective interesting and with Mr. Eastman’s permission, offer it to you…

**********************************************************************

From www.thelastinspector.com

Something New on This Blog--A Guest Editorial (Anonymously Contributed)
Thursday, May 15, 2008, 01:17 AM
Posted by Administrator
Assault With Car on Woman Standing in a Parking Space, by Scott
Peterson, the same King County Prosecutor Who is Trying to Railroad Boeing Whistle-blower, Gerald Eastman, into Jail

The assault with his car on an innocent and vulnerable woman, by King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson, was recently covered on Mr. Eastman’s blog. The 2004 presentation by KIRO News TV documented the fact that Peterson took possession of her parking space by intentionally driving his car into the woman who was standing in reserve of it, thus injuring her to the degree that she had to be taken to a hospital. This felony assault, using a deadly weapon, was witnessed by several persons. The woman, Danatte Griffin, was standing in the parking space to save it for someone about to arrive, an accepted custom in a city where there is often a shortage of parking spaces.

The person she was saving the parking space for arrived in time to insert himself in this confrontation in some manner, reportedly striking Peterson. Whether this was to help stop the assault, and/or because she was his girlfriend and the assaulter had injured her, is not clear. Whatever the reason, King County prosecuted this woman’s protector, but was unwilling to do the same to their insider who assaulted her. Thus, Peterson has so far gotten away with not only committing a defacto felony assault using a deadly weapon, but also subsequently helping to arrange legal retribution against the person who struck him because he was in the process of, or had already, assaulted the victim.

This ill-considered assault with his auto, by the same person who has been trying to tar and feather (words used in the KIRO TV presentation about this assault) a Boeing whistle-blower, is an almost unbelievable happening. It is so unusual and absurd that it will likely become a classic case of crazed behavior by a prominent official and subsequent attempts to downplay and cover it up. In the end it will probably not be Gerald Eastman who is tarred and feathered, even if a corrupt conviction is achieved. Actually, subjecting him to another trial may be the most counterproductive action they could take to enhance their own interests. Why? Because the people of our country are increasingly realizing that a great deal of corruption exists in the various agencies and companies in our current culture, leading to a popular onus to do what is necessary to clean house.

For example, the two FAA whistle-blowers who testified in the recent Congressional Hearings on FAA corruption, are generally viewed as brave and truthful advocates of integrity. The opposite is the status of the miscreants they outed, and the same fate has befallen certain former industry leaders, some of whom served time in prison. As a Boeing whistle-blower, Gerald Eastman is also brave and correct in his allegations, as will likely eventually be proven.

Persecuting Eastman is only resulting in helping the truth came out sooner. The
obfuscations of those trying to maintain the charades are bound to eventually fail, because the results of their actions will, in time, manifest. Thus, the attempts of such people to discredit Eastman’s safety neglect claims, while at the same time using him as an example to warn other employees that the same thing can happen to them if they disclose malfeasance to the media, are bound to fail, so long as good people do not fail to oppose their corrupt strategies.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Arrogantly perceiving himself to be above the law, Peterson decided to take from this woman what he felt entitled to, rather than taking the trouble to look for another parking space, because she had defacto taken the space she was standing on. Any normal person would have reacted this way even if they were a bit miffed. But Peterson did not react in a normal way, but rather he acted like a crazed narcissist in his decision to assault her with his auto, not realizing how many persons were watching his actions.

Later, he tried to justify his aberrant behavior as “having a bad day--I owe her an apology.” This is the kind of reaction a typical sociopath would have, downplaying or even denying his own guilt. In reality he had made her day terrible, considering that she ended up in a hospital, for which she has probably had to pay the bills.

Further, Peterson was no doubt already planning to wreak vengeance on the person who intervened against him, on his victim’s behalf by arranging for one of his associates to prosecute the protector. As a result, since he was the boyfriend of Peterson’s victim, he was also rendering additional grief to her. But, with any narcissist, it’s all about him--no one else matters. And, regarding the people in his organization who allowed all this--what a classic case of a justice system run amok.

Peterson has clearly demonstrated, by his deliberate commission of felony assault with a deadly weapon, as well as his relentless pursuit of his victim’s protector and of Gerald Eastman (on Boeing’s behalf), that he does not have the necessary character to practice with integrity the high position of Senior Deputy Prosecutor within in the King County justice system. But, the acceptance of him as a peer, shows that others in this system may have similar twisted ethical standards. Thus, this system is apparently corrupt, and Peterson is probably the exact type of person they want in this position. Otherwise, they would be rendering to him at least the same level of punishment that anyone outside the King County justice system would receive for such a felony, would not have gone after his victim’s boyfriend, and would not be trying to put Gerald Eastman into jail.

Since he is an insider in this system, Peterson’s culpability is even more serious than that of a less knowledgeable outsider. But, King County, as well as the two major Seattle newspapers who did not and have not published any information on this still newsworthy story, are apparently working in collusion with each other in giving a pass to Peterson, thus helping him to continue hounding Eastman. Don’t they realize that he has already survived a mistrial because at least two of the jurors
realized that he’ is a valid Boeing whistle-blower?

If there is a next go-around, given all that has transpired, at least some in the jury are likely to be sympathetic with Gerald Eastman’s efforts to protect the public by exposing truths about safety neglect. Regardless of how the proceedings are constrained to try to prevent this, they will simply see through all the fog and realize that Eastman is being criminally prosecuted in an evil proceeding that is not about the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Rather, it is about railroading to jail a good man who is trying to fight an agenda which is opposed to the best interests of the general public.

At least KIRO TV seemed to have some disdain for the actions of Scott Peterson, judging by their TV presentation at the link below. KIRO TV is to be commended for its well composed disclosure of this incident. I have talked to them and they said that they are looking further into this matter. I think that this is just the opening gun in what will turn out to be a major exposure of widespread corruption.

As the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) recently stated: “The charges against Eastman are a message to all potential whistle-blowers at Boeing” said Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator at POGO. “The message is clear: We’ll try to send you to jail if you disclose information to the press.” From this it is obvious that many persons who have leverage are on to the fact that the King County justice system is biased towards acting on behalf of Boeing by helping them deliver on this threat, even to the level of persecuting a brave whistle-blower who has told the truth about safety neglect that must not be ignored.

In being complicit in such retribution against whistle-blowers, the King County justice system is also possibly assisting the violation of the First Amendment right of free speech. Lawyers have told POGO that even though a whistle-blower can often be legally terminated, it is considered extreme for a government prosecutor to attempt to jail a whistle-blower for his activities and that the Eastman case is part of a disturbing trend of whistle-blowers increasingly facing criminal prosecution. Thus, it appears that the Eastman trial was a seminal event in the inevitable overcoming of the corruption that he has been talking about. Since many involved in governmental oversight are already looking into this issue, surfacing Gerald Eastman’s callous treatment will only help reveal and address the many facets of covered-up safety and programmatic neglect.

The link:

http://www.kirotv.com/video/3532554/index.html?taf=sea

Swell in Contracting Officers May Not Keep Pace With Retirements
By Stephen Barr
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; D04

The number of contracting officers in the government increased to 28,434 in 2007, up 6.8 percent since the Bush administration began, officials said yesterday.
But how many contracting officers the government actually needs has not been determined, despite efforts by federal agencies, the Office of Personnel Management and the OMB over the past two years to develop plans for hiring and training contracting officers and specialists.
"We are still working real hard with OPM and the departments to try to figure out what the right number is," said Paul A. Denett, an Office of Management and Budget official in charge of government procurement policy.
For his part, Denett added, "I believe we need to increase the hiring even more."
Members of Congress have been concerned that the government has not done enough planning to get a handle on staffing and training needs of employees.
Spending on contracts has surged since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more than $400 billion a year.
As the numbers have increased, some agencies have found it difficult to manage their contracts to avert fraud and abuse.
For example, a 2007 independent commission on Army contracting, headed by acquisition expert Jacques S. Gansler, found that the Army's contracting operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones were not properly staffed, supported and trained.
Other studies have pointed out that statistics about the acquisition workforce have not been collected in a consistent fashion, creating some confusion about the status of the workforce. Experts have emphasized that personnel cuts, ordered by Congress in the 1990s, left many acquisition employees overworked or without necessary training.
In recent years, Congress and the Bush administration have tried to learn more about federal acquisition, with officials paying more attention to an annual demographic report on the acquisition workforce. The report is prepared by the Federal Acquisition Institute, which has published workforce data since 1977.
Yesterday, the OMB and the institute released the 2007 report, showing an increase of about 500 contracting officers in the government last year compared with the previous year. Most -- 19,119 -- worked for the Defense Department, with an additional 9,315 spread across the rest of the government.
According to the report, the number of contracting officers has been rising steadily since 2002, primarily in civilian agencies, where numbers increased from 7,995 in 2000 to the high of 9,315 last year.
But retirements are a concern, Denett said. The average age of contracting officers is 46, and about half of acquisition employees are eligible to retire within the next 10 years. Actual retirements are at a lower rate now, allowing agencies to stay on top of their turnover. Only 18 percent of contracting officers eligible for retirement are filing retirement claims, said Karen Pica, director of the institute.
The OMB is promoting an internship program to attract young people with business degrees into federal acquisition to help counter the loss of contracting officers and ensure that experienced hands pass along their knowledge to interns.
The government also is trying to track the careers of acquisition professionals and learn why some leave their jobs and move to related fields, such as general business and program management.
Preliminary data collected for the report showed that 444 contracting officers left their jobs in 2007 for other government posts. An additional 1,083 are no longer in the government because of retirement, death and other reasons, such as taking a job in the private sector.
And the Winners Are . . .
The National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration presents its annual awards Thursday to honor public service and efforts to improve government performance. This year's winners are:
Kathryn E. Newcomer, associate director of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George Washington University, will receive the Elmer B. Staats Award for Accountability in Government.
Timothy B. Clark, editor in chief of Government Executive magazine, will receive the David O. Cooke Award for Leadership in Public Service.
The Partnership for Public Service will receive the National Capital Area Chapter President's Award for Outstanding Recent Contributions to Public Service. Max Stier, president of the partnership, will accept the award on behalf of the nonprofit organization.
Stephen Barr's e-mail address isbarrs@washpost.com.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Swell in Contracting Officers May Not Keep Pace With Retirements
By Stephen Barr
Tuesday, May 6, 2008; D04
The number of contracting officers in the government increased to 28,434 in 2007, up 6.8 percent since the Bush administration began, officials said yesterday.
But how many contracting officers the government actually needs has not been determined, despite efforts by federal agencies, the Office of Personnel Management and the OMB over the past two years to develop plans for hiring and training contracting officers and specialists.
"We are still working real hard with OPM and the departments to try to figure out what the right number is," said Paul A. Denett, an Office of Management and Budget official in charge of government procurement policy.
For his part, Denett added, "I believe we need to increase the hiring even more."
Members of Congress have been concerned that the government has not done enough planning to get a handle on staffing and training needs of employees.
Spending on contracts has surged since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more than $400 billion a year.
As the numbers have increased, some agencies have found it difficult to manage their contracts to avert fraud and abuse.
For example, a 2007 independent commission on Army contracting, headed by acquisition expert Jacques S. Gansler, found that the Army's contracting operations in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones were not properly staffed, supported and trained.
Other studies have pointed out that statistics about the acquisition workforce have not been collected in a consistent fashion, creating some confusion about the status of the workforce. Experts have emphasized that personnel cuts, ordered by Congress in the 1990s, left many acquisition employees overworked or without necessary training.
In recent years, Congress and the Bush administration have tried to learn more about federal acquisition, with officials paying more attention to an annual demographic report on the acquisition workforce. The report is prepared by the Federal Acquisition Institute, which has published workforce data since 1977.
Yesterday, the OMB and the institute released the 2007 report, showing an increase of about 500 contracting officers in the government last year compared with the previous year. Most -- 19,119 -- worked for the Defense Department, with an additional 9,315 spread across the rest of the government.
According to the report, the number of contracting officers has been rising steadily since 2002, primarily in civilian agencies, where numbers increased from 7,995 in 2000 to the high of 9,315 last year.
But retirements are a concern, Denett said. The average age of contracting officers is 46, and about half of acquisition employees are eligible to retire within the next 10 years. Actual retirements are at a lower rate now, allowing agencies to stay on top of their turnover. Only 18 percent of contracting officers eligible for retirement are filing retirement claims, said Karen Pica, director of the institute.
The OMB is promoting an internship program to attract young people with business degrees into federal acquisition to help counter the loss of contracting officers and ensure that experienced hands pass along their knowledge to interns.
The government also is trying to track the careers of acquisition professionals and learn why some leave their jobs and move to related fields, such as general business and program management.
Preliminary data collected for the report showed that 444 contracting officers left their jobs in 2007 for other government posts. An additional 1,083 are no longer in the government because of retirement, death and other reasons, such as taking a job in the private sector.
And the Winners Are . . .
The National Capital Area Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration presents its annual awards Thursday to honor public service and efforts to improve government performance. This year's winners are:
Kathryn E. Newcomer, associate director of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration at George Washington University, will receive the Elmer B. Staats Award for Accountability in Government.
Timothy B. Clark, editor in chief of Government Executive magazine, will receive the David O. Cooke Award for Leadership in Public Service.
The Partnership for Public Service will receive the National Capital Area Chapter President's Award for Outstanding Recent Contributions to Public Service. Max Stier, president of the partnership, will accept the award on behalf of the nonprofit organization.
Stephen Barr's e-mail address isbarrs@washpost.com.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.

For Defense, Crunching the Numbers Is Half the Battle
By Stephen Barr
Monday, May 12, 2008; D01

It has more than 3 million employees, more than 600,000 buildings and does business in 134 countries.
Those are some of the numbers that define the Defense Department, a megacorporation with lines of business and obligations that go far beyond war fighting.
"We do everything from floor waxing to repairing vehicles to accounting to logistics operations to running grocery stores," said Tina W. Jonas, the department's comptroller and chief financial officer.
From her Pentagon office, Jonas is responsible for the department's financial management policies, the computer systems that track $3.4 trillion in assets and liabilities, an annual budget of more than $600 billion and efforts to modernize business practices.
There are big-ticket items, like health care, which costs $43 billion a year -- "about $3 billion more than Germany spends on its entire defense budget," Jonas said -- and is likely to keep on increasing, to a projected $64 billion in 2015.
And there's the daily grind of managing cash flow. For example, every time the price of fuel goes up by $1, it costs the department $130 million, she said.
"When you get to this level, pretty much everything that walks through your door is going to be a problem," Jonas said during a recent interview. "So what you have to have is a mind-set to be a problem solver and figure out a corrective action plan."
Jonas was sworn in as an undersecretary of defense in July 2004, after serving as an assistant director and chief financial officer for the FBI. She also has worked as a budget examiner at the Office of Management and Budget and as a staff member on the House Appropriations Committee.
Her job is one of the toughest in the government. The Pentagon has been widely criticized for years on Capitol Hill and by think tanks for poor management, cost overruns, improper payments and payroll problems. The Government Accountability Office designated the department's financial management as an area of "high risk" in 1995.
Jonas, however, thinks the department is making substantial progress in financial management. She has created a "dashboard" on her desk -- two flat-screen monitors that display trend data on dozens of accounts over multiyear periods.
"We look at our numbers and say, 'We're not doing too hot today,' or, 'What are we doing about this problem that is emerging?' or, 'The trend doesn't look good here,' " she said.
One dashboard chart shows Jonas the percentage of debt more than 60 days old because of unpaid bills from "purchase cards," a government credit card used by federal employees for official business. The delinquency rate is about 4 percent, down from nearly 7 percent in 2001.
Another chart shows that unsupported accounting entries have been reduced from $2.3 trillion in 1999 to $95.7 billion at the end of last year. The goal is to make sure all financial information is documented, putting to rest allegations that the department can't find or track its money, Jonas said.
According to the dashboard, the Army's account for military salaries and other expenses will run out of money by June 15. Jonas will likely have to transfer funds from other accounts if a supplemental spending act does not take effect in time.
"It drives me a bit crazy when people say the department's books are all messed up and we don't know what the heck is going on," Jonas said. "We do know what is going on."
Part of the department's accounting woes can be attributed to outdated technology. Some computers in the field still run on old COBOL program language, operating like a checkbook register showing money in and money out, but incapable of connecting to a department-wide system that generates financial statements.
By June, Jonas hopes to have deployed new accounting codes and a software language that pulls together the department's 2,900 accounting systems.
Next year, Jonas predicts that two-thirds of the department's assets and liabilities will be ready for independent audits, a major step on the road to producing a department-wide financial statement that adheres to generally accepted accounting principles.
Jonas also has moved to cut operating overhead. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, which once had 22,000 employees, is down to 13,000 and will shrink to 7,000. With the reductions and improvements in technology, the department has saved $500 million in operating costs.
Such savings "in the back office," Jonas said, make millions of dollars available for the armed forces. "It matters to the soldiers, it matters to the Marines, it matters to the airmen, it matters to the sailors, and all their families and all our defense workers whether or not we are efficient.
"So at least we are trying to change the culture, and we think we've made some good progress."
Stephen Barr's e-mail address is barrs@washpost.com.

The strange case of Scott Bloch
By GREGG CARLSTROM
May 11, 2008
Since he took his job in January 2004 as one of the government's top independent investigators, Special Counsel Scott Bloch has generated controversy — and enemies.

After last week's unprecedented FBI raids on his office and home, many of those enemies are now calling for him to step down.
The raids, which seized computers and documents, were connected to a long-running Office of Personnel Management inspector general's investigation into whether Bloch retaliated against employees in his office who disagreed with his management of the office.

Critics of Bloch say they think the FBI — along with inspector general agents — raided Bloch's office and home because they suspect him of obstructing justice. Critics accuse him having his computer wiped clean of files that may support the claims of retaliation leveled against him. For his part, Bloch said he had his computer wiped clean because it was infected with a virus.


A grand jury looking into the allegations against Bloch, assembled by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor, approved the May 6 raid and subpoenaed about 20 members of Bloch's staff to testify.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called on Bloch to resign and asked committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to call Bloch in to testify before the committee.

OSC investigates alleged incidents of whistleblower retaliation, politicking by state and federal employees, discrimination against employees, and adverse employment actions taken against military reservists.

A controversial appointment

Almost immediately upon taking his job, Bloch started making enemies.

Within months, Bloch decided the Office of Special Counsel would no longer pursue discrimination cases based on an employee's sexual orientation. Bloch argued the law is ambiguous on the matter, but gay rights groups said he was reversing long-held and accepted policy because of his personal views.

Several members of his office leaked Bloch's decision to the press. Bloch allegedly retaliated, ordering those employees to relocate from Washington to a newly created Detroit office or lose their jobs. The allegations sparked outcry from whistleblower advocacy groups and prompted an investigation by the Office of Personnel Management inspector general's office.

Bloch has denied the charges that he retaliated against employees. Jim Mitchell, communications director at OSC, says nobody was forced to relocate. "Some people just left OSC, thinking they were going to be sent to Detroit," he said.

Critics of Bloch, which include Davis and various whistleblower groups, say Bloch appears to have obstructed the investigation into his alleged retaliation by having his laptop computer wiped clean in December 2006 by an outside computer repair firm, Geeks on Call. That incident has become part of the OPM IG probe: Investigators want to know if Bloch deleted documents relating to the alleged retaliation case, although they don't know what might have been erased.

Bloch also made enemies within the administration and Republican Party by investigating numerous Bush administration figures. He investigated — and subsequently cleared — then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice for possible Hatch Act violations in 2004. And last year, he investigated whether the chief of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, and top White House advisers Karl Rove and Scott Jennings violated the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees from using their positions to advance a political party or candidate.

A draft copy of OSC's investigation report that found GSA chief Lurita Doan violated the Hatch Act was leaked to the news media last year. Doan accused Bloch's office of leaking it, a charge he denied.

Also last year, Bloch had his office look into allegations by former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that he was illegally fired by top Justice Department officials in part because he spent time away from his job when he was activated as a Navy reservist. OSC is responsible for enforcing the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, which prohibits adverse employment actions against military reservists.

`The Geeks incident'

Most observers said they think last week's FBI raid and the ongoing grand jury investigation are linked to Bloch's decision to hire Geeks On Call to erase the files on his laptop computer.

"These charges may be focused on the Geeks incident," a source who has followed the investigation told Federal Times. "The OPM IG was doing its investigation, and Bloch was uncooperative, and it took a long time for [this raid] to come about. But because of Geeks, it looked like there were crimes."

The OPM IG's office declined to comment on the status of its investigation.

But officials within OSC describe the raid as "baffling," because of the expansive scope of the subpoena, which also covered case files related to the Rove and Doan investigations.

"I don't know what they're looking for," Mitchell said.

Mitchell says there are also questions about the Justice Department's role in last week's raid. "It's a little strange for someone we're investigating to come in and subpoena the investigator, " he said in an interview, referring to OSC's work on the Iglesias investigation. "Someone coming in from DOJ, requesting documents, that's violating our independence. "

Watchdog groups — who have been critical of Bloch for his handling of the OPM IG probe — say Mitchell has the story backward.
The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight says Bloch launched the Rove and Doan investigations to shield himself from being fired or investigated by the administration.

POGO is one of several watchdog groups listed as parties to the complaint filed by the OSC whistleblowers.

"Bloch will try to turn this investigation on its head, saying the White House is going after him," said Avi Kumin, an attorney at Katz, Marshall and Banks, a firm that represents federal whistleblowers. "But OPM's been investigating him for years … well before the Rove and Doan probes. Those were attempts to insulate himself politically. "

OSC spokesman Mitchell disputes the charge that Bloch's investigations into Bush administration figures were only attempts to protect himself.

"That's absolute nonsense. We found Doan guilty of violating the Hatch Act," Mitchell said. "She practically convicted herself [during testimony] on the Hill. … If we get a complaint, we investigate it."

Several Bloch critics say the grand jury is probably considering obstruction of justice charges stemming from the computer incident. Bloch has admitted using more than $1,000 in public money to hire the company, but claims he had the computer cleared to erase a virus.

"They've never offered a theory about the computer files, or notified us that they were investigating the Geeks stuff," Mitchell said, referring to the OPM IG's office. "OPM never interviewed Scott about the computer."

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee provided more details about that incident last week: Davis, a longtime Bloch critic, released a transcript of testimony Bloch gave the committee in March.

Committee staff told Federal Times the testimony's release had nothing to do with the FBI raid — although they acknowledged the possibility that the grand jury was also considering perjury charges related to Bloch's testimony.

During the two-hour interview, Bloch was repeatedly asked why he contracted with an outside firm, rather than using OSC's in-house technology staff.

"I don't want to be critical of my people," Bloch told committee staff. "But there are issues there of, you know, on a scale of … one to 10 — 10 being, you know, Bill Gates — I don't think I'm dealing with Bill Gates."

Staffers also asked Bloch about a Wall Street Journal article that claimed Geeks on Call scrubbed computers belonging to two of his aides. Bloch claimed he had no knowledge of that work.

"If there was a virus on his computer, why was he scrubbing the computers of two top deputies?" said Kumin. "The testimony makes no sense, and it probably plays into their investigation. "

According to Mitchell, the OPM IG's office told OSC in January that it had finished collecting documents in connection with its probe.