Page 80 - Freedom in the world_Neat

appropriate internal auditors, Congress, or the public continue to risk retaliation, against
which they often have no legal recourse.

While all corporate and most federal employees are protected from retaliation for blowing
the whistle on their employers, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 and its
subsequent amendments do not fully cover civil servants working to guarantee food safety,
prevent the abuse of medical patients, and ensure homeland security. Furthermore, the
Bush administration has objected strenuously to extending such protections, arguing that
they would infringe on the president’s ability to manage the executive branch.24
Concern over the lack of protection intensified when it was revealed that top Medicare
administrator Thomas Scully in 2003 had threatened to fire analyst Richard Foster if he
presented evidence to Congress that the cost of a proposed Medicare overhaul bill would
greatly exceed White House estimates. Foster withheld the information as lawmakers
considered the bill, which passed later that year.25
More disturbing is the apparently common practice of retaliating against those who expose
serious weaknesses in the government’s security efforts. In 2000, for instance, Energy
Department nuclear security specialist Richard Levernier repeatedly voiced his concern that
many of the country’s nuclear facilities were not properly secured. In fact, the weapons
laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, had repeatedly failed preparedness tests by
allowing mock terrorists to steal plutonium, and officials at the facility had both falsified
documents to hide those failures and destroyed inspection reports to cover up their
actions.26 When Levernier disclosed this information, the Energy Department suspended
him and revoked his security clearance. After his story was featured in Vanity
Fair magazine and on the television program 60 Minutes, the Office of Special Council
(OSC) investigated and ultimately vindicated Levernier, but his security clearance was never
reinstated.
Revoking security clearance is a common form of retaliation by the country’s security
agencies, since employees have no legal recourse when their clearance is removed and
they cannot continue their work without it. Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, a
vocal advocate of whistleblower rights, has said of the problem, “The pulling of a security
clearance effectively fires employees.”27 Having lost his job after 22 years with the Energy
Department and just two years short of retiring with a full pension, Levernier told 60
Minutes, “Given my experience, I would not do it again, even though I truly believe it was
the right thing to do.”
Even after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, civil servants
who come forward with evidence of lapses in national security are putting their careers at
risk. Border security agents Mark Hall and Robert Lindeman were suspended, demoted,
and suffered pay cuts for emphasizing, in the months after the terrorist attacks, that the
northern border of the United States was inadequately monitored and presented a
significant threat to homeland security. Bogdan Dzakovic, former leader of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Red Team, which is charged with testing airport security, felt
similarly compelled after the attacks to bring to light weaknesses in airport security and
efforts by his superiors to cover up those weaknesses.28 For coming forward, the FAA
stripped Dzakovic of all security-related duties, despite his expertise in airport security.
Airport baggage screeners who followed in Dzakovic’s footsteps claim that they too were
punished for raising concerns about aviation security. In response to their grievances, the
Merit System Protection Board ruled in 2004 that Transportation Security Administration

Page 80 of 168