Download Free The Office Of The Special Counsel Can Improve Its Management Of Whistle Blower Cases Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Office Of The Special Counsel Can Improve Its Management Of Whistle Blower Cases and write the review.

The Office of the Special Counsel Can Improve Its Management of Whistleblower Cases
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.
In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the responsiveness of the Merit Systems Protection Board's (MSPB) Office of the Special Counsel to the complaints of whistleblowers, those federal employees who have taken career risks to expose fraud, waste, mismanagement, or illegality. GAO found that, while the Special Counsel does not believe his role is to represent the interests of individual whistleblowers, some employee representatives believe that the Office was established to support individual complainants. The Office's policies and procedures for processing and investigating complaints from federal employees emphasize timeliness and responsiveness. GAO found that whistleblower reprisal complaints rarely qualify for Special Counsel protection because exacting standards of proof are required to secure a judgment against an agency or a supervisor for taking whistleblower reprisal, and the Office did not close any of the cases it reviewed without reasonable grounds to do so. GAO found that the Office's measurable results are primarily settlements at the agency level. In late 1984, the Office prevailed in a case before the MSPB with the argument that supervisory officials are subject to discipline for prohibited personnel practices even if there were valid independent grounds for taking adverse action against an employee. Finally, GAO failed to find a specific legal hurdle that makes the Office's protections inapplicable to most complainants and that protections should be made stronger for individual whistleblowers or other employees who allege that they are victims of prohibited personnel practices. Ultimately, Congress must weigh the objective of stronger protection for whistleblower disclosures against the objectives of management authority and accountability.
The Office of the Special Counsel is an independent component of the Merit Systems Protection Board, charged by the Civil Service Reform Act with prosecuting violations of prohibited personnel practices--such as reprisal for whistleblowing--to secure both disciplinary and corrective action. The vast majority of complaints brought to the Special Counsel by federal employees are closed during the office's screening process. GAO examined a random sample of 76 whistleblower reprisal complaints closed by the Office of the Special Counsel in the past 2 years and found that each case file documented at least one defect that the office believed would prevent successful prosecution of the case under current law. Comparing the facts with the legal requirements for a successful prosecution, GAO found that the Office of the Special Counsel had reasonable grounds to close each case. In assessing the need for stronger whistleblower protections, the Congress should consider that the Office of the Special Counsel is only one of the institutions involved in deterring reprisals against legitimate whistleblowers.
Excerpt from Oversight Hearing on Whistleblower Protection and the Office of Special Counsel: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Civil Service of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, March 31, 1993 Mr. Mccloskey. Good morning. I have been informed several subcommittee members are on their way. Also, we have with us today Mr. Bishop, who very generously is participating, a member of the full committee, with a strong awareness in the area; and hopefully we will have about 2 hours of good testimony coming to a close about 12 m. I guess before too long Congresswoman Morella should be here. I am looking forward to her input today. I might say we are happy and gratified to be involved in this area as the chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee. I think it is a fascinating and important subject area. I would sincerely com mend and request anyone with an interest in any pertinent civil service issues to get in touch with our subcommittee here in Can non, particularly Debbie Kendall, the staff director. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
Federal employee whistleblowers—individuals who report allegations of wrongdoing—potentially help to safeguard the government from fraud, waste, and abuse. OSC was created to help protect whistleblowers. Probationary employees—generally those with less than 1 or 2 years of federal service—can be especially vulnerable to reprisal because they have fewer protections from adverse personnel actions, including termination. This report examines (1) the extent to which probationary employees filed whistleblower disclosures or reprisal complaints, (2) termination rates of complainants, and (3) OSC procedures related to probationary employees. GAO recommends that OSC require claimants to identify their status as permanent or probationary employees.