OSC and MSPB Fail Government Workers

Beth Daley, in her presentation at the July 12 hearing for Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) presented many concerns of federal whistleblowers and described the dysfunction in the current system available to federal whistleblowers to seek resolution of their complaints. Thank you Ms. Daley and Project On Government Oversight (POGO) (http://www.pogo.org/p/government/gt-070712-osc.html).

In the recommendations another two year chance to improve is voiced, although it seems after about 30 years of ineffectiveness, and countless numbers of federal employees who've suffered at the hands of perhaps a combination of hostile and inept OSC/MSPB officials and employees, giving them even another 2 years is not only unwise, but seems almost criminal.  It seems that there would be virtue in a Congressional watchdog, an investigations group and would have perhaps more faith in that group's ability to be sure it was done ethically and as per law, but only if adequate funding is provided to do the job. It does not seem that there is much trust of our government at this point to do the right thing, either by the citizens or the federal employees, as both groups have had to learn the hard way what it feels like to be betrayed repeatedly.

It is familiar, Ms. Daley’s description of it turning into a long running game of whack-a-mole for federal whistleblowers.  This has been a common occurrence in many governmental offices over the years, and my own experience while serving as a state employee, and leadership trainer illustrates this also.  I have previously been sent in to do an intervention and training with school groups where due to the repeated use of similar tactics by school district administration, there was little hope of directly and efficiently fixing the problems.

Why don't things magically "get better?" We are dealing with real human beings here. The longer they have had to work under negative, (to the extreme of being treacherous), management operations, the harder it is for them to get over the abusive experiences, and to react in a "normal" way to requests for honest feedback, analysis and criticism. The abuse heaped on by manipulative managers and perhaps even policy makers and executives, triggers a self-protection/survival response. People just shut down. Some, if they can leave that environment, are often even less likely to try to right the wrongs in their next work place fearing creating a hostile atmosphere for themselves again. Others, either unable to leave, or no longer having enough energy and initiative to leave, merely become ghosts who perform the minimum and keep their heads low, generally trying to avoid seeing any more problems, or turning the other way, and doing what they know will help them survive, pretend the corruption and wrongdoing does not exist until they can retire and get away.
I have observed similar unfortunate patterns of behavior in more than one relative's career experiences with the federal government. One passage in Beth Daley's testimony struck a chord.

"Ironically, the complaint seems to have spurred more retaliation and prohibited personnel actions within the OSC. High-level OSC staff inappropriately attempted to interfere with the investigation on several occasions, and have conducted themselves in a manner that is intimidating to employees. On January 30, 2007, a high-level OSC Official sent an email to all of the OSC's employees outlining a series of procedures for the investigation, which, in effect, would allow managers to monitor who was interviewed by the OPM IG (Office of Personnel Management, Inspector General). THIS SEEMED TO BE AN ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHO THE AGENCY'S INTERNAL CRITICS WERE. The contents of the email revealed a startling lack of acumen concerning proper procedures for handling sensitive investigations."

I observed this same kind of very negative and punitive end run on the employees of Defense Security Service, after years of problems in the Defense Department. At around the same time, or a bit after managers were tasked with sessions on "Reinvention" of the government and the agency, some local/regional employees were also brought back for meetings in smaller technical work groups. Those employees who were able to suspend their distrust of upper management based on years of negative experiences, worked very hard to try to meet their mission. All of this was still not going well though, due to a continuing pattern of negative attitudes and behavior on the part of managers at various levels.

Eventually, someone brought in Carol Haave, then Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) C3I, when the Defense Security Service was under the leadership of General Charles Cunningham, (2001-2002 approximately), allegedly to help. She sent out a survey. She specifically asked what was wrong with DSS and how could it be fixed? There was much debate among employees in our local area, and undoubtedly across all regions about what this meant and what it was about.

The way that she had written her communications, and the survey, Ms. Haave obviously (to me as someone who teaches inclusive leadership skills) had at least grasped the surface appearance of knowing what "Inclusive Leadership" looked like and seemed to be making the standard steps to include the field office employees in real identification of problems and possible solutions. She said the right things and asked the right questions. Some, but not all employees overcame their fear and distrust and took the time to answer the survey as honestly and as constructively as they could, hoping they could trust and believe that the DSS and DOD upper management really was, after all they'd been through, going to listen to them and help solve the no small number of problems which were crippling the agency's effectiveness.

And for their trouble, nothing changed for the better. Ms. Haave, instead of showing leadership and using the information gained in the survey answers to help address issues openly, took the information and scuttled off into DSS and DOD management leaving DSS employees in limbo, and anxious. Employees felt they once again had been deceived and assumed that that those who honestly pointed out the problems were now probably on a "trouble-maker" list. Life and work in the agency in fact continued to go down hill. Even more employees felt betrayed. The "reinvention" process by the way, seems to have been a handy way to open the door to some special interests within the DSS, and connected to defense contractors, to have some influence in changing things to better serve the interests of those parties, not the best interests of DSS doing the job with integrity as citizens would expect them to do, in protecting our government and country.