Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gmail - Sign on Letter

Gmail - Sign on Letter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 522 |Likes:
Published by MSPBWatch

More info:

Published by: MSPBWatch on Jun 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/07/2012

pdf

text

original

 
David Pardo <dpardo220@gmail.com>
Sign on letter 
evy brown
<evybrown@gmail.com>Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:45 PMTo: Tom Devine <tomd@whistleblower.org>Cc: David Pardo <dpardo220@gmail.com>No need to strike Tom. The letter is out there. The community will respond better if they don't think they rightsare used as bargaining chips.Let's just try to work together instead of drawing lines in the sand. David and I are still willing to hear the SteeringCommittee. Please arrange.On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Tom Devine <tomd@whistleblower.org> wrote:
Re/technical – Sorry, I was speaking in short hand. Here’s the passage I think is inaccurate: “….
we call upon you to build on these reforms with H.R. 3289 by addressing recent developments that couldrender these protections obsolete on the first day the Act takes effect.” We’ve been fighting on three of thoseissues for as long as I’ve been at GAP – winning on SJ, losing on Fed Circuit for all appeals, and on courtaccess with or without jury trials.
 David, the Senate UC includes jury trials. They’re not in House bill, because Chairman Lamar Smith OR-Tex) said he would kill the whole thing if they weren’t removed, and he has the procedural power to doit. I would die in a heartbeat to get jury trials for federal workers if that price would get them.Colleagues think I’m nuts, but it’s true. I know I won’t stop voluntarily breathing until we do.Re/burdens of proof, I ghost wrote both attached letters fighting to keep them from getting tougher asprice for jury trials. But we have to free wbers from monopoly by MSPB AJ’s whose hostility is legalizedby Federal Circuit contempt for the law. Personally am not willing to go to mat at this moment for afight that we can’t possibly win if it will kill the rest of the bill and leave wbers still helpless. That’s whynot advocating to make it a litmus test issue and looking for ways to set up next opportunity. I gave thumbs up for your guys draft initially, because it reflects how I feel with exception of SJ andrespect community’s views on that. The SC objected, and after considering I agreed, because thedynamic is disproportionate at this stage. There’s one page that says pass it, and two that say fix it. I’dfeel better if the dynamic were reversed. Even our supporters will dump the bills at this point inprocedure rather than attempt major makeovers. The core provisions are over after committee. Unlesssome big picture development so all bets off, at that point the potential to make a difference shifts toleg history and a small number of floor amendments justified as technical fine tuning usually for newdevelopments. There’s hardly ever legislation without painful compromises and bitter disappointments for thewinning side. These are just my opinions, but they come from a lot of experience in this spot and I thinkthey reflect facts of life whether we like it or not.
 
 Tom P.S. I’m on strike from further dialogue so can complete deadline assignments.
From:
David Pardo [mailto:dpardo220@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, June 04, 2012 7:35 PM
To:
Tom Devine
Cc:
evy brown
Subject:
Re: Sign on letter  Tom,I respect your position but the technical/non-technical distinction is not one we make in the letter. We justwant the things we mentioned, how they're defined relative to the legislative process is immaterial to thecontent. That said, technically speaking retroactivity is not a "new development," just our catching it is relativeto attempts in past 13 years. I believe the bench/jury distinction is also new to this round, but I could bemistaken. The point is, the fact that it may be too late to do anything but technical changes does not changethe fact that WPEA should have jury trials and no s.j. How that comes about is a function of the decisionmaking process. It's come to this at the last minute because we haven't been at the table, or the "lowestcommon denominator," despite trying. Jury trials should not be bargained away, at the very least not withoutpublicly naming the obstructionists. Unanimous consent for a raw deal is still a raw deal.On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Tom Devine <tomd@whistleblower.org> wrote:
We have had this conversation repeatedly, and I just don’t have time to do it again. Will be up until 3this morning on writing deadlines, and have a 9 AM meeting, as well as two more on WPEA T2. I did askyou folks to do a writing project, and am grateful you’re so committed to follow through. If you don’tagree with my strategy views, so be it. I hope you’re right. I haven’t given up on summary judgment atall, but that’s different from advocacy tactics for it that overshadow and endanger the rest of bill. Ibelieve the letter also is just inaccurate about being solely technical requests in response to newdevelopments. You guys are free to take or leave my comments for whatever you think they’re worth. I asked for you to speak at the last SC meeting, and you did. I’ll ask for you to speak at next one. I’m notdoing anything to obstruct or oppose your procedural agenda for wber membership on SC or other fineideas. Re/respect, my comments were solely b/c you seemed offended; none taken on my part. I agreeto disagree with folks all the time, without hard feelings. That’s case here. 
 
From:
evy brown [mailto:evybrown@gmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, June 04, 2012 7:13 PM
To:
Tom Devine
Cc:
David Pardo
Subject:
Re: Sign on letter  Tom,What has gotten into you? I asked for a call for the 3 of us. I asked for a conversation with the SteeringCommittee. You won't do either. You leave us little choice but to go forward. To be summarily dismissedafter all our hard work and patience is not collegial.We aren't attacking your track record. It is inappropriate for you to bring this down to a level where you areacting like we don't respect you.David and I are whistleblowers and advocates with a pretty high level of expertise who want the very bestoutcome for all federal employees. We know you are an empathetic person but unless you've been through themeat grinder, you can never truly understand what we went through. No disrespect intended, writing about it isnot living it.I can honestly tell you that reading the report from the HHS OIG this past weekend was not fun. It's disgustingto see in black and white that highly paid people actually conspired to hurt me. There's a report where the IGcontacted my local police after the newspaper article broke because they feared grantees under investigationor their supporters would come to my home. The IG monitored comments in the press. It's frightening.Seeing the final conclusion of the IG that agreed my disclosures were violations of law and directingmanagement to take corrective actions was of little solace. I paid a heavy price for speaking up. Bottom line-itwas OSC and MSPB that failed to protect me. It was their duty!For you to give in on the summary judgment issue is like giving the dragon a flame thrower. MSPB does notdeserve to have any enhanced powers-zero. It needs is to be investigated for criminal conspiracy and judicialmisconduct. Whitmore shows that MSPB can't be trusted.You asked us to do this letter writing campaign. We've spent significant time on the project. What I don'tunderstand is why it is being seen as a threat today when you approved the letter less than 2 weeks ago? Wedidn't change our position why do you? Are you sure this isn't more about us opening cracks in a piece of legislation that could do more harm than good?Working together on a common cause is too important for us to have a falling out over hypothetical tail feather rustling of Congressional staff. If the Bill has problems, they should be vetted not hidden from the people whowill be most impacted.Too many federal employees are relying on the advocates to be straight with them. I sincerely hope you willnot try to go back on your word of supporting the work we did together for partisan politics.Best,EvyOn Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Tom Devine <tomd@whistleblower.org> wrote:
Having passed 20 plus laws and worked with over 5,000 whistleblowers for over 30 years, it’s inevitablethat I pick up lessons learned that you haven’t had a chance to. Please accept my apologies if that seemsto devalue your own contributions or quality of your analysis, and take or leave my insights forwhatever they’re worth to you. I’ll have nothing more to say on this.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->