Instead, it disappeared.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2010 (S. 372) was introduced in February of 2009. The bill is summarized by congress as “A bill to amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements that such policies, forms, and agreements conform with certain disclosure protections, provide certain authority for the Special Counsel, and for other purposes.” The Senate finally passed the bill in December 2010, which was subsequently passed a few weeks later by the House of Representatives.

Following a year long editing process, The Whistleblower Protection Act finally made it to the House, only to disappear ten days later as it was being voted.

So what actually happened?

One senator slyly put an anonymous block on the bill, using a last-minute “secret-hold.” This controversial practice allows any senator, for any reason, to anonymously prevent a bill from being passed or a nomination from coming to vote.
In 2011, the senate eliminated this tradition on a 92-4 vote.

WNYC’s On the Media began an investigation, narrowing down the possible culprits to five senators. Two then stated that they did not put the secret block on the bill.

So now there’s three senators left, and nobody’s talking.

Ironically, the three possible transgressors all voted to reform the “secret-hold” practice. Republican senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and James Risch of Idaho all chose to reform the practice, yet are being suspected of using it.

Senator Risch’s and Senator Sessions’ offices both neither confirm nor deny their votes, but both adhere that anonymous votes should remain anonymous. Senator Kyl’s office would not make any statements, though one staffer hinted Kyl’s stance by pointing out that the bill was amended twice, and was not given nearly enough attention to on the way to the house. Kyl’s vote to get rid of the “secret-hold” practice would have been a very good cover for him, as his verbal opposition to the reform as well as his use of the secret hold before on a similar matter involving the Freedom of Information Act, strongly indicates his feelings on the bill.

After the long, seemingly fruitful journey of this bill to only be stopped in its tracks by a senator who won’t even step forward, is a major disappointment. I can’t help but think of the Schoolhouse Rocks song “I’m just a Bill.” I imagine the Whistleblower Protection Enforcement Act sitting glum on the steps of the courthouse.

Boy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?

Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.

Boy: Die?

Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Oooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.

Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?

Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.

Boy: Oh no!

Bill: Oh yes!

I guess all we can do now is hope and pray, while the bill sulks on the steps.

Sources:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/whistleblower-secret-hold-5370157

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s372/show

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/13475113403/down-to-just-3-senators-who-refuse-to-say-if-they-anonymously-killed-whistleblower-bill.shtml

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the author of the 2006 law, modeled the Whistleblower Rewards Program after the successful False Claims Act. In June, Grassley expressed his concern with the limitations of the 2006 law, which this new proposal intends to correct.

According to Grassley, the agency procedures were limiting whistleblowers’ abilities from claiming rewards:

“These regulations are good news for whistleblowers. The Commissioner made the common-sense decision of ensuring that individuals who blow the whistle on improper refund claims will be rewarded, as I intended when I wrote the law. These new regulations will help the IRS target tax fraud. This is an issue of fairness for honest taxpayers. I hope these new regulations mean the IRS has turned the corner on encouraging whistleblowers and that this program will be a success. Next, the IRS needs to finalize these regulations quickly so they will apply to all the whistleblowers who filed claims after the 2006 law and have been waiting for their awards.”

The IRS described the proposal as an amendment to 26 CFR Section 301.7623-1.

“This regulation clarifies the definitions of proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds for purposes of section 7623 and that the provisions of Treas. Reg. Sec. 301.7623-1(a) concerning refund prevention claims are applicable to claims under section 7623(a) and (b). In clarifying the definitions of proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds, this regulation provides that the reduction of an overpayment credit balance is also considered proceeds of amountscollected and collected proceeds under section 7623.”

The actual language of the text is as follows:

Sec. 301.7623-1 Rewards and awards for information relating to violations of internal revenue laws.

(a) In general--(1) Rewards and awards. When information that has been provided to the Internal Revenue Service results in the detection of underpayments of tax or the detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating the internal revenue laws or conniving at the same, the IRS may approve a reward under section 7623(a) in a suitable amount from the proceeds of amounts collected in cases when rewards are not otherwise provided by law, or shall determine an award under section 7623(b) from collected proceeds. (2) Proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds. For
purposes of section 7623 and this section, both proceeds of amounts collected and collected proceeds include: tax, penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts collected by reason of the information provided; amounts collected prior to receipt of the information if the information provided results in the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid; and a reduction of an overpayment credit balance used to satisfy a tax liability incurred because of the information provided.

* * * * *

(g) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable with respect to rewards paid after January 29, 1997, except the rules of paragraph (a) of this section apply with respect to rewards and awards paid after these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.

In existence for five years, the Whistleblower Reward Program has brought in an increasing amount of tips. In an annual report submitted by Congress in 2009. Whistleblowers identified 1,941 taxpayers who were each suspected of owing more than $2 million in taxes. This is a significant increase from 2008, where only 1,246 taxpayers were identified.

The IRS will be accepting written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing until April 18, 2011.
The full text released by the IRS is located here: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-928.htm

Sources:

F-A Mag

IowaPolitics.com

WhistleblowerBlog

For one thing, a home office might not be quite as secure as a federal office building.

Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley (R), has disclosed a whistleblower’s allegation that the number one investigator for FDA’s criminal enforcement section, Terry Vermillion, has been acting beyond the safe scope of his employment. Besides the allegation of an unauthorized telecommute, Vermillion was also charged with specific instances of “alteration of internal agency reports,” and additional misconduct.

Vermillion announced his resignation over the 2010 Thanksgiving holidays (The Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2010). Vermillion, whose branch has been investigating allegations of doping in professional bicycle racing, reportedly refused any comment on the high-profile whistle blower’s anonymous allegations.

Grassley received the anonymous letter in September, but chose to begin an initially private investigation before pushing ahead with a more formal investigation. It was unclear as to whether additional data had been received from the anonymous whistle blower. Vermillion’s branch was large, even by Washington insider standards: Vermillion’s salary was $200,000 annually, and had grown to more than 200 employees with a $41 million budget.

Interestingly, in a pattern not uncommon among qui tam cases. The CI unit had been feeling heat for two years. In 2008, Senate and House Republicans criticized the unit for over-emphasizing drug cases, instead of corporate misconduct. And early in 2010, the GAO criticized the lack of “accountability” over Vermilion’s—a former secret service agent-- activities.

When it comes to whistleblowing, a fine art has emerged in the Nation’s Capitol. Some critics, however, are concerned the process is becoming more opera than openness.

The recurring saga, alleged mismanagement, and waste, of the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) revealed the recurring nature of oil oversight: and the frustrating, often ignored, role of whistleblowers.

In 2007, what was viewed as a vital internal reform effort against MMS, the Kerr-McGee jury verdict of $7.6M, was dismissed by the trial court. It took an agonizing, long year, but a federal court of appeals reversed the dismissal, and resurrected the award.

Ironically, but not at all unusual for a Qui Tam, the government was entitled to share equally with the whistle blower, Bobby Maxwell (a former MMS auditor). Ironic, since Maxwell had discovered a series of underpayments by the exploration company to MMS. After reporting the apparent underpayments to her MMS superiors, Maxwell’s complaints were apparently “deep sixed.” Evidence at trial suggested the total of Kerr-McGee’s underpayments in licensing, royalties, fees, and penalties might exceed $30 million.

Though not an apologist for the  industry—let alone any certainty of avoiding the 2010 Gulf leak--- there is little doubt many experts see oil as being…between  a rock and  hard place, when it comes to harsh realities. Oil, expensive in its location, often prohibitive in its extraction, represents the drilling of human potential...and human exploitation: Niger Delta, Prudhoe Bay, California. All are viewed as pristine and natural bounties: and areas ripe for billions in payments to greedy government bureaucrats. But few people suspected, when Maxwell became a reluctant whistleblower, that many employees at MMS/Denver might be as open to graft as international oil cartels.

It is also remarkable, perhaps, to consider the revelations attendant to the Maxwell case were essentially ignored. Only when the top blew off the Deepwater Horizon platform were many of the reports aired by Maxwell’s whistle blowing revealed: employees accepting gifts, and even suggestions of improper liaisons (Reported by the Denver Post 09/11/2008).

The costs of forcing these resolutions to individual qui tam actions are high, in terms of oil market efficiency, as well. Kerr-McGee—after its losses in court—was absorbed by massive Anadarko Petroleum. Yet the problem goes much deeper than costs of whistle blowing. A study by the non-profit Common Dreams reported that MMS has cited thousands of oil spills in the last decade.

Source:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/11-2.

" If the Secretary proceeds with any administrative or judicial action based upon information brought to the Secretary’s attention by an individual, the individual shall receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent of the collected proceeds (including penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts resulting from the action), or from any settlement in response to such action... ."

There are interesting limitations, however, on this apparent government largess. The good news was the large increase in IRS whistleblower awards, from 15 to a possible 30% maximum. There were some compromises, however. For example, the whistleblower award is predicated upon a claim against someone whose annual income exceeds $200,000, AND when the total amount in taxes, penalties, and interest owed is more than $2,000,000. In fact, revisions to the whistleblower statute suggest there may be more limits than many whistleblowers anticipate.

Courts have recently weighed in on saying how low can attorney fees in whistle blowing go. The answer is...quiet a tweet: the First US Circuit Court of Appeals lowered an attorney's contingency-based recovery from $292,000 to $50,000. The court noted that government officials did the bulk of the work, and that the attorney was able to 'piggy back' on their efforts. Most importantly, the court reasoned the rationale of whistleblower laws was to protect and serve the interests of the public...and to a large extent, the whistle blower's interests in an award are indistinguishable.

"The whole purpose of the discretionary award to whistleblowers under this statute is to create incentives for the whistleblower to take risks that may disadvantage the whistleblower in his relationship to his employer....The amount of the fee that will be siphoned off by the lawyer significantly affects the size of that award and the power of the incentive. The court in administering this statute is obligated to ensure his excessive legal fees will not diminish the statutory incentive." Judge Dyk, U.S. v. Hawthorn, entered 10/18/2010.

The importance of any potential limitations, or even reductions in anticipated awards, is that whistleblowers, without adequately motivated legal counsel, frequently have no means to deal with the costly and career debilitating efforts to maintain a whistleblower case. Since first introduced in 1863, qui tam laws have routinely allowed up to 30% awards.

At the end of the process, however, government may always reduce a Whistleblower award the good old fashioned way: by collecting taxes on it. Happily, the IRS allows legal fees to be deducted. (Campbell  v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, January 21, 2010).

Acting with unusual speed, federal officials went from closing a prominent New York City bank (March 12, 2010) to arresting its CEO and President at his home (March 15, 2010). The president and CEO of New York's Park Avenue Bank, Charles J. Antonucci (59), this fall took a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. Antonucci admitted to taking more than $11 million illegally from TARP.

Antonucci's guilty plea was the conclusion of the first prosecution of misappropriated TARP funds.

As with TARP's national premises, Antonucci's offenses also crossed state lines...literally and figuratively. What remains shrouded, however, is the extent to which federal prosecutors will use their discretion to pursue a potential slew of unindicted co-conspirators. Count Three in the complaint gives an inkling to the potential breadth of this problem, given recent revelations into how high flying banks have cozied up with influential customers:

Antonucci accepted bribes from customers of the Bank, including but not limited to over $250,000 in cash bribes, free use of a customer's airplane, and free use of another customer's luxury automobile, in exchange for Antonucci's approval of various banking transactions. Indeed, on more than ten occasions in 2008 and 2009, Antonucci used a private plane owned by a co-conspirator ("CC-1") to fly to, among other places, Florida, Panama, Arizona (so that Antonucci could attend the Super Bowl), and Augusta, Georgia (so that Antonucci could attend the Masters Golf Tournament). All the while, Antonucci approved over $8 million in overdrafts on accounts for entities controlled by CC-1 at Park Avenue Bank.

One sophisticated and potentially aggressive component of the TARP program utilizes classic whistle blower techniques...meet the sleuth next door, SIGTARP. Though not a law enforcement agency, SITARP relies extensively on public input: and SIGTARP's inspector has shown a  willingness to confront his peers at Treasury.

But critics have argued the enabling language of TARP may be  as guilty as Antonucci. Though in Antonucci's case, obtaining a plea agreement was likely seen as being of the highest priority, subsequent prosecutions of TARP offenses may look toward fleshing out intent offenses under the legislation...making insider information, typically obtained best by whistle blowing, ever more vital. Whistle blowing for enforcing "intent" of TARP's vague regulation will complicate the tasks of those given the responsibility of managing the language. And the police powers under TARP are already vague.

"Residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Treasury Secretary determines promotes financial market stability. And any other financial instrument that the Treasury Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

The vagueness of TARP's language has led one important voice to attack the intention of TARP: and by implication, similar bailouts. According to Neil Barofsky, who serves as the Special Inspector General for TARP:

"Inadequate oversight and insufficient information about what companies are doing with the money leaves the program open to fraud, including conflicts of interest facing fund managers, collusion between participants and vulnerabilities to money laundering."

The Washington Post has reported (July 20, 2009) the Treasury Department refused to implement Barofsky's recommendations to Congress for TARP reform. Instead, Treasury official insist, tracking TARP funds to banks is akin to tracking "water poured into the ocean."

Source:
"TARP  and the Acronym of Trouble:  Good Rap, Bad Rap"  http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/tarp-fraud-uncovered-bank-ceo-pleads-guilty-new-york-city

This article is brought to you by the QTT, the epicenter for whistleblowers and people interested in the False Claims Act, Qui Tam Provisions, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud. To discuss a potential case, please call Eric Young at 1 (800) 590-4116.

The first called foul against OSHA's whistleblower program came in August, 2010, when the Government Accounting Office (GAO) concluded OSHA functioned as though its field investigators were simply overwhelmed by the scope of their job. The GAO report was sweepingly negative: “OSHA could not provide assurance that complainants were protected as intended under the various whistleblower protection statutes.”

OSHA is responsible for maintaining the Office of Whistleblower Protection Programs (OWPP). The OWPP is critical in the field: OSHA is primarily responsible for investigating 19 first-line whistleblower laws.

Critics of OSHA's investigative record argue that the concept is simple enough..if whistleblowers don't feel protected from being fired for what they know, then they are generally less willing to take a risk to share their knowledge. Even worse, OSHA's critical ability to gather safety information will be compromised, if it won't take the lead in whistleblower protection.

Less obvious in the GAO report was precisely how to remedy OSHA's glaring faults. A second and separate agency audit, this time from DOL's Office of Inspector General (OIG) ,was released in September, 2010, and used unusually blunt language against a sister agency. The GAO's stinging report alleges an array of inadequate whistleblower protections by OSHA. The GAO report, revealing the portrait of an agency with a potential bias against supporting whistleblowers, added fresh doubts to OSHA's field safety record. Among the enforcement errors, OSHA is alleged to fail to meet even its own internal whistleblower standards in a host of critical areas.

Among the leading complaints by the DOL/OIG:

• Almost 80% of the agency's whistleblower investigations failed at least one element of OSHA's own Whistleblower Investigations Manual.
• Critics believe OSHA's 2% merited case findings of retaliation complaints was likely too low.
• Final rulings, without conducting minimal face-to-face interviews, occurred in almost half of OSHA's whistleblower investigations.

Conclusion: Faulting OSHA's Internal Culture

Worrisome to many experts in the whistleblower field is wonder if OSHA may have simply developed a culture of disconcern toward internal reforms. Ironically, months before the scathing audits, an internal OSHA memo addressed this potential tone deafness.

Subsequent testimony before Congress detailed OSHA's apparently lax attitude toward whistleblower protections. Representatives of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) have alleged OSHA's handling of industry whistleblowers was not isolated to a few cases. Instead, PEER believes OSHA's inattention to internal industry reports reflects OSHA's own attitudes toward its own potential whistleblowers”

“OSHA does not effectively protect workers who report health and safety hazards or other violations and dangers. Moreover, OSHA does not protect its own specialists from retaliation for raising health and safety issues or concerns about the consequences of OSHA’s own actions – or inaction.” March 4, 2010 “OSHA Listens” Stakeholder Session OSHA Docket # OSHA-2010-0004."

PEER has also staked out its position that OSHA can no longer be trusted to watch after whistleblowers. Instead, the group now advocates removing whistleblower investigations from the department altogether.

Sources:
"Complainants DId Not Always Receive Appropriate Investigations Under the Whistleblower Protection Program." http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2010/02-10-202-10-105.pdf
"OSHA Must Address Crippling Weaknesses in Whistleblower Protection" http://peer.org/docs/osha/3_4_10_PEER_OSHA_Listens_testimony.pdf
"Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency" http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-106

This article is brought to you by the QTT, the epicenter for whistleblowers and people interested in the False Claims Act, Qui Tam Provisions, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud. To discuss a potential case, please call Eric Young at 1 (800) 590-4116.

In the U.S. whistleblowers cannot be fired nor punished in their field for blowing the whistle. Under the most recent law protecting whistleblowers, the Dodd-Frank Act (the new Financial Reform bill), employers cannot “‘discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, directly or indirectly, or in any other manner discriminate against, a whistle-blower in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the whistle-blower’” (for more information on the new U.S. law see “New Financial Reform Law Provides Incentives for Whistleblowers”). Because of these stringent protections, other countries are modeling after the U.S. law. However, it is not only the protections that the U.S. offers whistleblowers, but the monetary incentives that make the U.S. system a good model. In cases that involve recoveries of $1 million or more, the whistleblower must receive a minimum of 10 percent to a maximum of 30 percent of the recovery. (In order to receive a reward the recovery must total $1 million or more.) This means that the lowest possible reward a whistleblower can reap is $100,000.

Because of the advantages of the U.S. qui tam law, some lawmakers in other countries, such as the UK, would like similar protections and rewards for their citizens. It appears that the most recent law protecting whistleblowers in the UK is the Public Disclosure Act 1998, which amends the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under the 1998 Act, citizens can disclose illegal activity including, “a criminal offence; the breach of a legal obligation; a miscarriage of justice; a danger to the health or safety of any individual; damage to the environment; or deliberate covering up of information tending to show any of the above five matters.” Under Part V, “Protection from suffering detriment in employment,” of this law, 47B on “Protected disclosures” states that, “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.” Detriment includes a range of punishments including “denial of promotion, facilities or training opportunities which the employer would otherwise have offered.” In this case, a whistleblower in the UK cannot be punished by his employer for whistleblowing if the whistleblower has made a protected disclosure. However, it appears that under these laws, whistleblowers are protected but not rewarded.

Seeing that rewards are what push many to become whistleblowers, UK government officials have questioned whether it should provide such incentives to its citizens. In the “Asset Recovery Action Plan” the Home Office of the UK presents arguments for and against enacting a program similar to the U.S.’s qui tam under the False Claims Act (FCA). Some promising features of the qui tam law that would support the creation similar program include:
• Whistleblowing laws in the U.S. have been “strikingly successful, particularly in defence and healthcare sectors, with many billions of dollars raised annually.”
• “FCA recoveries far exceed the cost of prosecuting fraud—it has been estimated that for every dollar the federal government invests in investigating and prosecuting these case[s], it receives $15 back.”
• It is believed that the law allows for cases to be brought to the attention of the government that otherwise may not have been reported.
• It is believed that, because of qui tam provisions, companies are more likely to comply with the law and avoid committing fraud.
These are advantages to the law in the U.S. that could influence UK policymakers to attempt to create a similar law that would be effective in the UK. However, there are obstacles to qui tam that would require the creation of a similar yet different law that would suit the UK. Qui tam types of provisions have existed since 1790 in the U.S., whereas they would be new to the UK. Legislative differences in U.S. and UK laws would make a law similar to the U.S.’s qui tam hard to implement in the UK because of how unusual it would be in the UK system. Additionally, “Some organizations representing the interests of whistleblowers in the UK have been skeptical about the Qui Tam approach, arguing it would discredit the practice generally.” Because of these similarities and differences the UK government has welcomed debate on the creation of a law similar to the U.S. qui tam law.

This more open debate has sparked further knowledge of whistleblowing and U.S. whistleblowing laws in the UK as it has been reported in The Guardian and other news sources throughout the country. The UK government has not changed its present law, but is certainly on the way to offering a better incentive to blow the whistle.

Sources:
“Asset Recovery Action Plan.” Home Office, the National Archives. 24 May 2007.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-asset-recovery/asset-recovery-consultation.pdf.
“Asset Recovery Action Plan: A Consultation Document.” Home Office. May 2007.
http://www.lccsa.org.uk/assets/documents/consultation/asset-recovery-consultation.pdf.
“Employment Rights Act 1996.” The National Archives.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents.
Henning, Peter J. “Come Blow Your Horn for the S.E.C.” The New York Times
DealBook Blog. 26 July 2010. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/come-blow-your-horn-to-the-s-e-c/.
Laytons Solicitors. “Whistleblowing.” UK Employment Law. 2005.
http://www.roydens.co.uk/content40.htm.
“Public interest Disclosure Act 1998.” The National Archives.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents.
Walker, Peter. “Fraud whistleblowers could get cash rewards.” Guardian.co.uk.
24 May 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/24/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy.
Wylie, Ian. “Whistleblowing that pays.” Guardian.co.uk Money Blog. 1 Feb. 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2008/feb/01/whistleblowingthatpays.

Strangely enough, while Congress passed laws to protect whistleblowers, it has not extended the same protections to its own employees.  Because legislative branch employees are not protected under the same laws, they may be less inclined to blow the whistle, for fear of losing their jobs or potential lawsuits.  Senator Chuck Grassley  (R-IA) (see previous article) is trying to change the status quo to allow Congressional employees to speak up without fear of being punished.  Last year, Sen. Grassley and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act to amend the Congressional Accountability Act to allow legislative branch employees to enjoy the same whistleblower protections as executive branch employees and others.  Grassley justify his Act not only because it protects the whistleblowers, but also because it allows for a more transparent government that abides by the laws.  He stated that “‘Compliance isn’t just something to check off a list once, but it should be a daily effort to be sure the Senate is abiding by the law.’”  In order to ensure that the government does abide by the law, whistleblowers should be able to report on wrongful activities in Congress without the worry of losing their jobs or facing lawsuits.  According to Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) “Being a whistleblower takes courage…Any federal employee, including those who work in the legislative branch, who sees wrongful and unethical conduct in the workplace, should be able to report such conduct without fear of losing their job.”

Legislative branch employees are able to voice concerns to the Ethics Committee in the House or Senate or the to Office of Compliance.  However, they are not protected if they blow the whistle.  Grassley’s Act would provide them with protection.  Act’s similar to Grassley’s have been offered in the previous 3 Congresses but have never come out of Committee.  Grassley’s Act is stuck in Committee now as well.  Despite the fact that the Office of Compliance has called for such protections to be extended to legislative branch employees for more than 10 years, no such Act has been passed.

Even though this seems like striking news, this is not a new issue.  You may be questioning why you have not heard of this issue before.  Part of the reason is that Congressional employees are not keen to blow the whistle when not protected by the law.  Additionally, they may be uncomfortable lobbying Congress for the law to be extended to them.  According to Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project on Government Oversight, this is due to loyalty.  People working for someone in Congress are loyal to the Congressperson they represent and therefore are less likely to blow the whistle on inappropriate activity.  So, despite the fact that the Act is being offered by Grassley, it is questionable as to which will trump: loyalty to the employer or the need to report wrongdoings.

If Grassley’s Act makes it out of Committee and was voted on and passed, would Congressional employees blow the whistle more often, or will loyalty still stand in the way?

NOTE: The Qui Tam Team has written a News Article about this issue.  See “Congressional Employees Do Not Receive Whistleblower Protections” at http://quitamteam.com/news/legal-news/678-congressional-employees-do-not-receive-whistleblower-protection

In related news see:
Blog: “Why It’s Worth It to Be a Whistleblower” at http://quitamteam.com/blog/worth-whistleblower/#comments
News: “Grassley Promoting ‘The Value of Whistleblowers’ by writing to Drug Companies at http://quitamteam.com/news/top-headlines/661-senator-grassely-promoting-the-value-of-whistleblowers-by-writing-to-drug-companies

Sources:
Lovely, Erika. “Congress delays on whistleblowers.” Politico. 17 August 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41178.html.
“S. 474: Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2009.” Govtrack.us. 111^th Congress. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-474.

This article is brought to you by the QTT, the epicenter for whistleblowers and people interested in the False Claims Act, Qui Tam Provisions, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud. To discuss a potential case, please call Eric Young at 1 (800) 590-4116.

Scott is a Republican candidate running for Governor of Florida. A native of Illinois with no former experience in the government, Scott joined the gubernatorial race on April 9. The primary election for the Republican candidate for governor will take place on August 24. Scott is running against Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida, and Florida Senator Paula Dockery for the Republican candidacy. Due to Scott’s personal commitment of $4.7 million to his own campaign (more than McCollum has raised in a year), he has been able to buy advertising slots. Thanks to his ads, he is becoming increasingly popular as reflected in polls. Scott, in his few months in the race, only trails McCollum by 14 percentage points. The most recent Mason-Dixon poll, places McCollum at 38 percent and Scott at 24 percent. However, this 14 percent lead is not a good sign for McCollum according to Brad Coker, a Mason-Dixon pollster. He stated, “’McCollum’s 38-24 lead over Scott doesn’t look impressive given his long tenure and high visibility as a Republican office holder.’” McCollum’s place as the front-runner is not secure as Scott’s campaign gains more momentum and support.

Despite the fact that the author of this article has droned on about the race, the question remains, “why would this entry characterize Grasso of the NYSE, Hurd of HP, and new-to-the-political scene Scott, as similar to one another?” The key: the past will always be questioned in the future, and fraud will follow you in future endeavors. While Grasso and Hurd have left their respective companies, they have not decided to run for office. Scott, fraudulent company CEO on one hand, and self-proclaimed honest-politician on the other, is running. The largest Health Care Fraud case in U.S. History took place against Columbia/Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). Rick Scott was CEO of Columbia/HCA when the company committed fraud and during the time of the investigations.

Scott helped to found the Columbia Hospital Corporation in 1987, which merged with HCA in 1989. During Scott’s time as CEO, Columbia/HCA committed fraud against the government by improperly billing Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare. The cases included evidence that Columbia/HCA overbilled, paid kickbacks, billed for treatments and drugs that weren’t covered and billed for hospitality costs not related to healthcare costs (sports tickets, country club dues, etc.) Scott resigned in 1997 after it was proven that the company kept two books: one that was shown to the government, and one that had listed the actual truthful expenses of the company. Columbia/HCA paid $1.7 billion to settle the case. According to the “Rick Scott for Governor” website when Scott left Columbia/HCA it was revered as “one of the most admired companies in America.” It is unknown how much the average American buys this statement, but then again, the website says nothing about the fraud committed.

Despite Scott’s position as CEO of a fraudulent company, he left with $10 million in severance, $300 million in stock options, spent $5 million to oppose President Obama’s healthcare plan, and it looks as through he will spend $25 in the governor’s race, according to Caputo. Scott was not charged or interviewed in the investigation of Columbia/HCA and claims that he “’denies the chain committed any criminal acts that he was aware of.” To be fair, it is possible that Scott did not know of the fraud committed when he was CEO. However, he has made it known that, “Mistakes were made at the company, and as CEO I have to accept responsibility for those mistakes.’”

So thirteen years after his resignation, Scott returns to the limelight, this time as an “honest-politician” instead of a “fraudulent company’s CEO.” However, Scott’s return certainly has not been easy, as his opponents (McCollum and Democratic frontrunner Alex Sink) have used the lawsuit against Columbia/HCA against him in attack ads. McCollum’s campaign stated that, “’The fact that Rick Scott is running for Governor as a ‘reformer’ would be funny if it wasn’t so outrageous…Rick Scott not only oversaw fraud, Rick Scott is fraud.’” However, when McCollum was in Congress during the investigation of Columbia/HCA, he noted that the crackdown on health care providers was overzealous, and sponsored the Health Care Claims Guidance Act, which tried to cut back on the investigations.

The company’s fraudulent activity aside, Scott thinks that his background prepares him for governor. While he may have a prestigious business background and be quite the entrepreneur, the fraud committed by Columbia/HCA will draw negative attention to his campaign. When asked why he’s running for governor when never holding a political position before, Scott answered, “‘I’m an outsider, I’m a business person, I know how to create private sector jobs, I know how to balance a budget.’” To Scott’s credit, he did create jobs as CEO of Columbia/HCA by employing 285,000 workers, making it the seventh largest employer in the U.S. at the time. But Scott’s budget-balancing skills may be in question when looking at Columbia/HCA’s budget under his watch. Scott responded further to the initial question stating, “‘I know how to get results by holding people accountable.’” This was probably not his best choice of words, considering those who hold him accountable for defrauding Medicare.

The most ironic part of the former-CEO-turned-politician’s campaign must be the type of fraud committed by Columbia/HCA with respect to the state that Scott is running in. William March of the Tampa Tribune was likely half serious, half joking, when he questioned, “Can the man who ran the company that committed the biggest Medicare fraud in history get elected governor in a state full of retirees?” This is an ironic possibility.

NOTE: This blog is meant to inform viewers of fraudulent activity and qui tam laws and lawsuits. The Qui Tam Team has no personal or professional feelings on Rick Scott’s campaign, nor the outcome of the election. This entry was written with the intention to educate, not to state an opinion.

Sources:
Appleby, Julie. “HCA to settle more allegations for $631M.” USA Today. 18 December 2002. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2002-12-18-hca-settlement-_x.htm.
Caputo, Marc. “Poll: Former healthcare exec Rick Scott trails Bill McCollum in GOP primary.” The Miami Herald. 5 August 2010. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/08/1620055/poll-former-healthcare-exec-rick.html.
March, William. “Rick Scott criticized for heading company that committed fraud.” The Tampa Tribune. 28 May 2010. http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may/28/281228/gop-candidate-scott-criticized-heading-company-com/news-politics/.
“Meet Rick.” Republican Rick Scott For Governor. 2010. http://www.rickscottforflorida.com/home/meet-rick/.

This article is brought to you by the QTT, the epicenter for whistleblowers and people interested in the False Claims Act, Qui Tam Provisions, and Medicare and Medicaid fraud. To discuss a potential case, please call Eric Young at 1 (800) 590-4116.