Coast Guard Employee Alleges Retaliation
Whistle-Blower Seeks Probe of His Charges Against Staff of DHS Inspector General
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page A08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2007121501400.html

A civilian U.S. Coast Guard employee was placed on paid administrative leave, threatened with a criminal investigation and confronted by guards at gunpoint in retaliation for disclosing information embarrassing to the service's troubled fleet replacement program, his attorney said...

Thanks for the link, now would you offer a point or counterpoint for discussion?

1110, since you follow the whistle blower issues that has made DW what it is today, wonder why with laws passed to protect a WB do people feel they can still come down hard on'em?

Of course in some peoples minds there is no chance at all that the supervisor is 'coming down' on a disgruntled, ineffective, non performing crybaby.

quote:

Originally posted by tc1uscg:
1110, since you follow the whistle blower issues that has made DW what it is today, wonder why with laws passed to protect a WB do people feel they can still come down hard on'em?

I don't know Dennis, but it always makes it worse for the agency or company in the end when that happens.

See below for a link to next month's Corporate Counsel...

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1198058690626

"Over time, management responses grew clipped. "No one likes it but its [sic] there," wrote one manager in an e-mailed response to DeKort's complaint about the external equipment. "We all need to move on." Unable to make headway, DeKort finally asked to be reassigned.

In April of that year, he received a performance evaluation significantly lower than his previous ones. "You're doing the right thing," DeKort remembers his manager telling him when he asked for support in pursuing the Deepwater problems, "but it's going to come back to bite you." After the weak performance appraisal, he was told he would no longer get the same caliber of work assignments. In August he made an ethics complaint, citing the Deepwater issues and retribution."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 1110,

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Of course in some peoples minds there is no chance at all that the supervisor is 'coming down' on a disgruntled, ineffective, non performing crybaby.

And who would that be be MC? Sometimes a "disgruntled" employee got there for a reason and is the company's worst enemy if they are doing wrong. Crybaby? Maybe but if it's waisting taxpayers money and/or putting lives a risk.. Cry on.. Cry on..

When D'Armiento refused to answer, three guards appeared, one pointed a gun at his chest, denied him his equipment and threatened him with arrest if he returned, Katz said.

Though I would figure that it might happen at a TSA airport check-point....I would think that it's more unlikely that guns were drawn at the DHS offices because someone wanted his laptop.....

"Mr. Weare was trying to lure Mr. D'Armiento to the OIG office where he could be further interrogated without his attorney present,"

It wouldn't have been an interrogation without him knowing that indeed he was under investigation for releasing senitive information.

I think there is a third non-government entity involved here that isn't being brought up. You can be investigated for releasing senitive info up your chain..(CG-dhs). The question you should be asking is, who else did he give info too?

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Of course in some peoples minds there is no chance at all that the supervisor is 'coming down' on a disgruntled, ineffective, non performing crybaby.

OR maybe The Supervisor didn't have the COJONES to do the right thing. How come Senior Level leaders always assume the whistle blowers or anyone who makes a complaint about the service is a disgruntled member/employee.

Its already been established that the Coast Guard made huge mistakes with Deep Water.

Was this Guy a dirt bag before this, probably not. But the "COMPANY MEN/Senior leaders" both enlisted and officers up at HQ only see whats convenient, not what may in-fact be true. And God forbid some one disagrees with them, they will eat them up.

Nobody wants a Whistle Blower on their staff, not good for career if you want to make flag OR continue as a Gold Badge.

You anonymous guys always have such a way with words................

Wray...

and Wray - they prooved my point precisely!

I didn't call anyone a crybaby. I leave open both posibilities.

They wouldn't.

Sounds to me like the WB Act is nothing more than an act. No matter what, no matter how correct or factual you are, once you play w/ fire, you will be burned!

I'll leave the door open that the WB did the right thing 'blowing the whistle,' that he did so w/o commiting and policy, regulations, rules or law violations in the way that he 'blew the whistle,' (ie - kept protected information in the hands of people authorized to know it - and not in the press), and that he kept performing his duties as good or better than he did before he got a 'protected' status.

Why can't you guys even consider the fact that maybe:
1. He violated security measures by WHO he gave info too.
2. He used his perception of an entitlment to 'WB' status to start doing things not part of his job, during his regular work hours, which affected the performance of the duties which he is getting paid to perform.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
I'll leave the door open that the WB did the right thing 'blowing the whistle,' that he did so w/o commiting and policy, regulations, rules or law violations in the way that he 'blew the whistle,' (ie - kept protected information in the hands of people authorized to know it - and not in the press), and that he kept performing his duties as good or better than he did before he got a 'protected' status.

Why can't you guys even consider the fact that maybe:
1. He violated security measures by WHO he gave info too.
2. He used his perception of an entitlment to 'WB' status to start doing things not part of his job, during his regular work hours, which affected the performance of the duties which he is getting paid to perform.

Sometimes you just have to be a man and step up to do the right thing. SO what if he violated security by blowing the whistle? So what if he remained on the payroll while gathering Intel to bring this to the public/ What I find questionable is why a MC, in HQ, and a OS at that would hide behind the thin excuse that some bs disclosure form protects you from doing the right thing. We are not talking selling crypto or a slightly used KG84. Nothing that threatens our national security appears to have been disclosed so it's my experience (and JMO) that sometimes signing some disclosure clause/form for a project that everyone thats involved with must sign is a safety net to protect failure. What they don't count on is someone with a backbone to step up and say "this isn't right". I don't care if these WB's were just pissed because they lost the coffee mess and wanted to "pay back" mgmt. They did what I, as a taxpayer expects them to do. Screw upper mgmt and protect my investment. And I have to ask.. Why don't Coasties read. Mostly, their own posts.

quote:

and Wray - they proved my point precisely!

I didn't call anyone a crybaby. I leave open both possibilities (SIC).

They wouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Mightyz90_93:
Of course in some people’s minds there is no chance at all that the supervisor is 'coming down' on a disgruntled, ineffective, non performing crybaby.

Now maybe my super secret decoder ring needed to be OTAR'd but I seem to read you were calling them crybabies.. I would expect a more subjective perspective from a HQ MC post's on the matter but could shine some light on your inablity to see this issue from a spvr's perspective. Just a little advice from someone who's been there.

Dennis;
I love ya man!

I can see both possibilities. I have seen both possibilities. I don't know where the actual facts lie in this case. I baited some folks and they bit.

There are right ways to be a WB and wrong ways. There are mgrs that won't recognize bad info and even those that hide bad info. There are those that will try to attack a WB and those that will allow a WB to do nothing from there on out for fear of a second WB/report of retribution. There are also mgrs, that will still require a person to do the job they get paid for whether or not they are 'under protection.' There are WBs that will 'do their research' at lunch and still earn there paycheck during working hours. There are WBs that will 'toot' the whistle and then not do a damn thing but sit on their butt with their thumb on their nose to anyone who wants to hold them accountable for their normal duties without giving reprisal about the WB stuff.

Not everything is a conspiracy. Not every part of DW is bad. Not every WB is a hero, not every one is bad.

This is a little old but gotta love it when the govt blows the whistle too..

Little late for a fix

you may want to check your link....

Works for me. The video is delivered via FLASH so, after the inital comercial, it goes right into the CG Fleecing of america bit.. I just checked it and it worked fine..

I think everyone who started to complain about Deepwater in 2006 did the right thing. They got the project CHANGED. Some people did it right. They left the Coast Guard or Northrup-Grumman before they took the issues to outsiders.

I think Tony also did the right thing, but the Coast Guard may not be willing to undergo more scrutiny. There's an unwritten rule here...if you complain while being paid to work on a project it won't be tolerated.

Who is protecting the whistleblowers from those we trust to protect them? Collectively we must all do that together. You have rights. They may not be equal just yet, but you have them nonetheless. http://equalcivilrights.blogspot.com/

Sad thing.. the Mike D's of this world will always get kicked to the curb. As he wasn't on the payroll after the fact, it was long enough to know something wasn't right.. and he gets kicked off the web, for a very STUPID mistake that as far as I'm concerned, the mods went overboard, didn't warrant a banning.. But hey.. think they or the people who wanted this guy to shut up cares? No. Think they will ever say, oops.. we were wrong about this guy.. No. But bottom line, it didn't shut him up and SHAME on the people, The mods.. Patton, even Fred if he was consulted for allowing this guy to get treated the way he was on this website.. Now before ANYBODY comes back and says.. "but they were just doing "their" job", so was Mike.. and to think what would have happened, how far this would have went, had he not had the balls to do what he did. It's obvious his were much bigger then the ones involved with his banning from this board. Toss is some back bone too.

Some good reading. here.