Whistle-blower sues FAA over '90s Alaska Air inspections
Full story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008013931_whistleblower24m.html

By Mike Carter
Seattle Times staff reporter

A former top safety inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration
in Seattle who complained bitterly about being thwarted by her own
bosses while trying to enforce air-safety standards at Alaska Airlines has
filed a discrimination lawsuit in federal court.

Mary Rose Diefenderfer alleges that sex discrimination and retaliation
for whistle-blower activities forced her to leave the agency in 1999.
Her various claims through agency merit boards, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and federal appeals courts took 11 years to resolve
before she could file the federal civil lawsuit against the FAA in
U.S. District Court in Seattle.

Diefenderfer is a former airline pilot and pilot instructor who began
working for the FAA in 1988. In 1993, she was appointed assistant
principal operations inspector, overseeing Alaska Airlines from the FAA's
Seattle district office.

Later that year, she was promoted to the principal inspector's job,
which had been vacated by an inspector who warned her of a cozy
relationship between Seattle-based Alaska Airlines and the FAA, according to the
lawsuit.

Over the next several years, Diefenderfer and Alaska Airlines officials
clashed over her efforts to enforce safety regulations. In one of the
more controversial -- and colorful -- confrontations, Diefenderfer took
action against the airline after learning that an executive used
highly flammable vodka to de-ice the wings of an MD-80 jetliner grounded
because of a cold snap in Siberia. She learned about the incident from an
article in the company's newsletter.

She also reported incidents involving falsification of records and
pilot training.

The lawsuit alleges that the company took increasingly aggressive
efforts to stifle Diefenderfer and undermine her team of inspectors and that
her bosses were complicit, eventually removing her as the principal
inspector in 1997 and reprimanding her for talking to the media in 1999.
She resigned from the FAA in 1999.

"Not only was she not supported in her efforts, but several of her
superiors sided with [Alaska Airlines] in an effort to prevent her from
safeguarding public safety through observance of regulations and laws,"
the lawsuit alleges.

The FAA declined to comment.

The following year, the warnings of Diefenderfer and other FAA
inspectors who had complained about Alaska's safety-inspection program were
brought into sharp relief when Flight 261 crashed into the Pacific off
Point Mugu, Calif., killing all 88 on board. An investigation showed
faulty maintenance of a critical stabilizer assembly was responsible for the
crash.

Diefenderfer alleges that she applied for at least 10 other positions
within the FAA but wasn't hired for any of them. She alleges most were
filled with men who were not as qualified for the jobs.

She also alleges discrimination because of her activities as a
whistle-blower, and she says she was denied access to databases and even the
office where she worked. She is asking for reinstatement to her job, back
pay, compensatory damages and attorney fees.

After Diefenderfer left the FAA, she became a vice president for safety
at Pro Air, a discount airline based in Detroit. In 2000, as the FAA
was ordering Pro Air to ground its fleet for safety violations, she
wrote an angry letter to the agency accusing it of singling out Pro Air for
unfair inspections.

Mike Carter: 206-464-3706 or mcarter@seattletimes.com

There is no peace to be found in the area of government contracting. The latest flap over the refueling tanker contract just won’t end. After rival Northrop-Grumman was awarded the contract in what Boeing earlier said was a fair competition, (when they thought they had it in the bag), suddenly blew up amid cries of foul play by Boeing, once it was announced Northrop-Grumman had been awarded the contract. Boeing has pulled in many political favors and quid pro quo favors it appears on this one, if one can judge anything by the fury exploding in rallies and protests attended conspicuously by our elected officials in Congress, (Senator Patty Murray-WA, for instance) many of whom are notorious for their use of large and numerous defense contractor campaign donations.

Boeing has managed, despite the existence of currently open criminal investigations into matters concerning contracts won by Boeing in the past, to rally this kind of support to maintain their claim of automatic right to own the tanker contract. It makes one wonder about our elected government officials when criminal cases being investigated against defense contractors are left open, not allowed to be completed and prosecuted, apparently with Congress’s blessing, and yet new contracts are blindly awarded to the offending defense contractors.

What follows are links to a couple of articles regarding Congress’s attempts to pass new bills which these articles contend would steer the tanker contracts to The Boeing Company. The first article, “New bills steer tanker to Boeing” (Sean Reilly, Friday, June 27, 2008) describes an attempt by Kansas politicians to push through a bill which would pressure the Pentagon to take the tanker contract away from Northrop-Grumman and give it to Boeing or else the Pentagon would have to rebid the contract with an added load of new conditions and red tape.

Mobile Press-Register
http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/121455815441380.xml&coll=3

The second article “Pro-Boeing bill blocked by Sessions” (Sean Reilly, Saturday, June 28, 2008) describes the efforts by Senator Jeff Sessions (AL) to block this bill. Sessions said he put a “hold” on the bill in order to give the Air Force more time to “develop a way forward that serves the military’s best interest.”

Mobile Press-Register
http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/1214644527311860.xml&coll=3

Follow the progress of this one. -VM

The political manipulation of our government by the Bush and Cheney administration is quite apparent to most at this time. One noted area of meddling is in the area of Justice, which has nearly brought our Justice system to its knees.

A Birmingham News opinion published today, (“Injustice at Justice” Sunday, June 29, 2008), states that an internal audit of the Justice department’s summer internships and honors programs “concluded that stellar applicants were culled for positively ridiculous reasons that had nothing to do with their professional qualifications, such as their perceived political or ideological affiliations.” The Birmingham News states that because it has now been shown that the Justice Department has systematically “wrongly injected politics into hiring,” that former Governor Don Siegelman says that is more proof he is indeed a victim of partisan prosecutors. (See earlier articles on Karl Rove’s mechanizations against Gov. Siegelman and others previously posted.) -VM

Link to article at Birmingham News:

http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/opinion/121472731277930.xml&coll=2

King County Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson, Assault’s Pedestrian and Is Not Held Accountable by King County Law Enforcement.

1. July 15, 2004: Prosecutor Avoids Charges In Violent Parking Dispute

2. Earlier Investigation Story:

City Attorney Reopens Criminal Case Against Prosecutor
New Evidence Uncovered By KIRO Team 7 Investigators
Chris Halsne
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News Investigative Reporter
POSTED: 4:32 pm PDT July 15, 2004
UPDATED: 5:43 pm PDT July 15, 2004

SEATTLE -- Following a KIRO Team 7 Investigation, the City Attorney's office has reopened what was a closed criminal case of a reported assault committed by a King County prosecutor.
A pedestrian claims Senior Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson hit her with a car while she saving a free street-parking space. Seattle police recommended the prosecutor be charged with assault, but he never was.
We've learned that the top man, Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr, personally made the decision to not file charges against Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson.
Thursday afternoon, Carr sat down with KIRO Team 7 Investigators to explain his controversial ruling. Then, Carr decided to reopen this criminal case based on some new discrepancies we uncovered.
Video
Video: Ugly Dispute Leads To Alleged Assault
"I know that if it was me -- if I had done it -- I would have had charges filed against me," said Danatte Griffin.
Griffin was standing at a parking spot last January when a county prosecutor backed his car into her legs. Witnesses say he badly wanted the open parking spot.
"I felt like he hit pretty hard, but I didn't know how hard it impacted me. I actually don't bruise that easily, but I had huge bruises across my thighs from it," Griffin said.
The injuries -- and independent eyewitness accounts -- led police to conclude a crime likely occurred. Seattle police recommended the driver, Senior Deputy King County Prosecutor Scott Peterson, be charged with assault.
To Griffin's frustration, the City Attorney's office declined to prosecute.
"This guy is somebody. I'm nobody. So it doesn't really matter what happened to me," Griffin said.
"I don't know Scott Peterson. I don't know him. He got no favoritism here," said Seattle City Attorney Thomas Carr.
Carr says his office fully investigated Griffin's complaint and he personally made what he calls a "tough" decision to decline charges against the deputy prosecutor.
"It's not OK to back a car into a person. It's just not, not an appropriate thing. There are circumstances where you do something that is not OK and we can't charge you with a crime. That's what's happened here," Carr said.
But questions still linger about the handling of the case. Carr says his staff interviewed every witness on the police report. Those same witnesses tell KIRO Team 7 Investigators they were never contacted.
We also located a key eyewitness who talked with police the day of the alleged assault, but that prosecutors now say they have no record of.
"He didn't want to run her over," said Barbara Bailor. "But he wanted to move her back so he could get into that space. Bump, bump."
In rapid development late Thursday City Attorney Carr decided to change his position.
After seeing our investigation and hearing Bailor's comments, he reopened the criminal case against Scott Peterson.
The deputy prosecutor tells KIRO Team 7 Investigators he put zero pressure on the City Attorney to give his case any special consideration.
"No. First of all, it wouldn't have done any good. They're a different office. I don't know anyone there. I understand that's totally improper to do," Peterson said.
A City Attorney spokesperson said that office plans to re-interview all eyewitnesses, suspects and alleged victims in this case.
The "no charges" decision against prosecutor Peterson could very well stand, but to avoid all appearances of impropriety, the criminal case will be fully re-examined.

Please Support Immediate Action to Protect Whistleblowers

I am urging you to support an effort underway to finalize legislation to give whistleblower protections to federal employees and government contractors. The legislation is one of the most important common sense ways to ensure that the federal government is honest, open, and accountable.

In doing so, I am joining organizations representing millions of Americans across the political spectrum, who have also endorsed the legislation. The Senate and the House have both passed bills by a veto-proof majority, but the bills must be reconciled.

I believe the House's "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007" (H.R. 985) offers stronger protections than the Senate's bill (S. 274). It closes important loopholes by expanding protection to national security workers in the FBI and other intelligence agencies, government contractors, and almost 40,000 airport baggage screeners. It also has a specific provision to protect scientists, making it illegal to censor or alter the results of federal research. For these and other whistleblowers, the right to due process will be provided, including jury trials when they face retribution from co-workers or employers. Even if disclosures are made during official duties, employees should have meaningful protection.

I am discouraged that we are still waiting for you and your colleagues to reconcile the two bills and enact this critical legislation. I urge you to put politics aside in order to finalize and pass the strongest bill possible to protect whistleblowers who expose government waste, fraud, and abuse.

Thank you for listening to a constituent. I look forward to your reply.