House civil service leaders appear set to make another run at passage of broadened whistleblower protections for federal employees, even though some experts raised caution flags at a recent hearing and the Obama administration expressed reservations about some key elements of the plan.
Proposed strengthening of protections against retaliation for whistleblowing have been pending in Congress for a number of years and earlier this year a package passed the House as part of the economic stimulus package. However, that language was dropped after the Senate refused to accept it, and sponsors now are concentrating on a free-standing bill, HR-1507.
The measure for example would allow federal employees who lose challenges before the Merit Systems Protection Board to appeal to federal appellate courts other than the Washington-based Federal Circuit—a court that has issued a series of decisions that sponsors term overly restrictive of whistleblower protections. The measure also would overturn some of those decisions, for example by extending protections to disclosures made through normal lines of reporting and in the ordinary course of duties. The measure also would expand whistleblower protections to TSA screeners.
However, consensus remains elusive on another feature of the proposal, to expand protections for employees in national security agencies. Current law allows them to make disclosures to their agency IG, who may then pass the concern along to Congress; if it refuses, the employee can make the disclosure directly to certain congressional officials. However, there is no avenue for review of any personnel actions the employee considers retaliatory.
The Obama administration favors creation of a board of senior officials who would receive disclosures involving classified information and recommend that agencies inform Congress of the situation; if the agency refuses, the board could overrule the agency. That body, or perhaps the MSPB, would be better positioned to hear employee complaints of retaliation, an official said, as compared to going to federal court as would be allowed under the bill as currently written.
