Recently, Contributing Editor David Pitts talked with Thomas Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that defends the rights of employees who "blow the whistle" on illegal or potentially harmful activities of government agencies. Below is the edited transcript.

Mr. Pitts: What is the Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1989, and why was it passed?

Mr. Devine: It's a government statute that implements First Amendment free speech protection for government workers challenging betrayals of the public trust. The law protects disclosures regarding illegality, abuse of authority, gross waste, gross mismanagement or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Congress passed this law as part of a unanimous, bipartisan good-government mandate. In fact, leading sponsors of the legislation explained that it more properly could have been called the "Taxpayer Protection Act." And that helps to explain why the votes for the law were cast unanimously in 1989 and also unanimously strengthened in 1994. Congress seldom passes any significant law unanimously once, let alone twice.

Mr. Pitts: How was the law strengthened in 1994?

Mr. Devine: The 1994 amendments expanded the scope of coverage for the law and overturned hostile court precedents that had interpreted the legislation that threatened to cancel its viability.

Mr. Pitts: Why was it necessary to have such a law when there is a First Amendment to the Constitution?

Mr. Devine: The First Amendment, which is available to all citizens, is a green light for free speech matters affecting the government. Almost all constitutional rights get more detailed rules for implementation through laws passed by Congress. Constitutional rights normally are broad-brush statements of principle. We routinely rely on Congress to flesh out those principles, flesh out those values through statutes creating more tangible boundaries that citizens can rely on and practice. And that was the point of the Whistleblower Protection Act: to apply the First Amendment where it counts most for government employees who want the freedom to act as public servants, rather than as bureaucrats limited to following orders. The law targets free speech rights for federal employees. But it also allows private citizens or government contractors to file disclosures challenging bureaucratic misconduct.

Mr. Pitts: Are there any categories of federal workers that are excluded from the law?

Mr. Devine: Yes, employees of intelligence agencies or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are outside the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act, as are congressional and judicial staff.

Mr. Pitts: Why were those categories excluded?

Mr. Devine: The boundaries for the law match the scope of the civil service system and the due process rules which have existed since the 1880s for federal employees with the equivalent of tenure in the career service. Employees at the judicial and legislative branches traditionally have been excluded from Civil Service Commission rules and regulations.

But in my opinion, all of those workers should be added to the scope of coverage under the Whistleblower Protection Act because their public service duties are just as strong or even more compelling than staff at federal agencies. But that is the legal boundary at the moment.

Mr. Pitts: How effective has the act been since its passage and succeeding amendment?

Mr. Devine: The act has probably never been more effective in terms of support at the administrative level, which adjudicates administrative hearings under the law. The board has demonstrated an unqualified commitment to the merit system principles underlying this law and has applied them in an evenhanded manner, which has earned respect from all parties.

The law also is administered by the Office of Special Counsel, which conducts informal investigations into alleged merit system violations. Since 1998, that agency has made dramatic progress reversing a prior credibiltiy gap.

Unfortunately, the law is probably facing its most severe challenge since its passage due to relentlessly hostile judicial interpretations by a court which has a monopoly of review: the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Congress is considering legislation to again overturn indefensible precedents by that court and to expand judicial review so that these scenarios don't recur.

Mr. Pitts: Can you give us one or two high profile examples of the act's success?

Mr. Devine: One example of helping to make a difference through the Whistleblower Protection Act was the challenge of misconduct involving disclosures of failure by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enforce public safety requirements at facilities under construction.

Disclosures by whistleblowers at a plant in Ohio, for example, led to cancellation of a nuclear facility that was almost completed, because nuclear safety laws had been systematically violated. After intensive investigations, sparked by the whistleblowing disclosure, the owners converted the plant to a coal-fired facility that now is operating safely.

Another example would be defending employees against retaliation. A police officer at a Veterans Administration medical hospital challenged sadistic, racist brutality by the local chief of police against veterans. The chief fired the whistleblower, but he asserted his rights, and had his termination overturned. Eventually, the police chief lost his job and was forced to plead guilty to a series of felonies for his crimes.

So those are examples of how this law allows employees to "commit" the truth and survive. At the Government Accountability Project we say that federal workers are "committing" the truth when they blow the whistle because, so frequently, they're treated as if they had committed a crime. Those are two examples of why people take these risks and how they can be worth it.

Mr. Pitts: Is the Whistleblower Protection Act the kind of legislation that could work equally well in other countries?

Mr. Devine: Without question. Whistleblowers are the human factor that's the Achilles heel of bureaucratic corruption. And these free speech statutes are right-to-know laws not only for the public, but also for legislators and the managers of agencies responsible for keeping societies functional and defending their markets.

In a very real sense, whistleblower protection laws are the lifeblood for managers to receive early warnings of problems and have a fighting chance of limiting the damage before there's an avoidable disaster.

The Council of Europe, for example, is requiring its nations to pass whistleblower protection laws as part of their convention against corruption. And the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption requires member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS) to prepare to adapt whistleblower protection legislation as a shield for those bearing witness against corruption.

GAP was selected by OAS to help develop and advocate implementation of model whistleblower protection laws in OAS member states. And we're starting a pilot program in five Central American nations this fall for that purpose.

Mr. Pitts: What is your role at GAP and what is the organization's role?

Mr. Devine: As the legal director, I serve as our organization's expert on whistleblower rights and lead our campaigns to strengthen those laws, as well as supervise the docket of cases and that we handle.

GAP has existed since 1977. We're a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest group that defends the rights of witnesses who defend the public. We pursue our mission through counseling and representing individuals who are trying to defend themselves against retaliation, just like a normal law firm without the profit factor.

Our second role is conducting investigations to help whistleblowers make a difference by exposing coverups, seeking accountability and correcting problems exposed by those who exercise free speech rights.

The third cornerstone of our organization's work is leading efforts to create and strengthen whistleblower legislation at the federal, state and local level.

Congress has passed laws, for example, to protect employees in the nuclear and airlines industries that we have championed, among others.

The fourth leg of GAP's mission is publishing works on whistleblower rights: what employees can expect when they stick their necks out and how they can make a difference. Our publications have ranged from books to scholarly articles, such as law reviews. For example, in 1997 we published the Whistleblower's Survival Guide: Courage Without Martyrdom, which is a practical law guide for employees that summarizes their legal options. It comprises 20 years of lessons learned at GAP so that others may be spared some of the pain of pioneers who worked with our organization.

Last year, we published the primary article explaining all the nooks and crannies in the Whistleblower Protection Act for the American Bar Association's Administrative Law Review.

I would like to go back for just a minute to whether whistleblower protection can work and be a significant factor internationally.

There is no question that nations around the world are realizing that employees who bear witness on behalf of the public are indispensable.

In the Netherlands, whistleblowers are called "bell ringers," after those who ring church bells when danger threatens a community. In some nations they've been known as lighthouse keepers, whose warnings are akin to those whose warnings expose rocks and danger spots that could sink ships.

The common theme is that these are people, who for whatever motives, exercise free speech rights to warn the public about threats to society. And they are the pioneers of change. These are employees who challenge the conventional wisdom, whether it's scientific, political or business. They keep any society from becoming stagnant.

And the benefits of whistleblowing in no sense are limited to any particular culture or type of political system. Information is an essential prerequisite to responsibly exercised authority, no matter what the ideology.

Our organization, true to that insight, has, in the last year, been expanding our work from domestic advocacy to international whistleblower protection. And that leads me back to answering your question about the nature of our work.

In the international arena, we also have four cornerstones of our efforts. The first is providing expert technical assistance to government or private sector leaders who are interested in planting the seed in their nations.

We've received requests for assistance from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, South Africa, and numerous delegations sponsored by the State Department that have visited Washington, D.C.

In a follow-up to one of those visits, we're making presentations in Mexico this September to show government how to act on its anti-corruption mandate.

The second thing that we're focused on is meeting with representatives of multinational organizations ranging from the World Bank to groups such as the OAS to seek a broader mandate for the principle of whistleblower rights -- both outside and within those organizations.

The third initiative at GAP has been to conduct ongoing legal research and learn the full extent and nature of whistleblower rights internationally. For example, on our website we're putting up regional globes that track the existence of whistleblower laws and new proposals.

Finally, we're looking for test cases to develop a precedence of whistleblower protection as a human right in tribunals such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. In the meantime, we have just begun a program of posting case studies on the international page of our website, as microcosms illustrating the need for international whistleblower rights.

We believe that retaliation against those who challenge corruption on its face is a human rights violation. Further, traditional defense of human rights will be strongly reinforced if there are viable protections for those who challenge violations and abuse of power.

This is the drive for accountability ranging from the integrity of markets to respect for civil society, even in countries with patterns of abuse. It is one of the most powerful phenomenons that exists today.

Whistleblowers are an indispensable cornerstone for viable checks and balances to institutionalize accountability and to establish any hope of credibility for the goals of establishing civil society. Freedom of speech has changed the course of history repeatedly in the United States. And it's one of the principles which defines a genuine democracy. This value has to be at the front lines of globalization. And to date, GAP has been very encouraged that international leaders are taking that premise as a given.

Mr. Pitts: And a final question. Who is your organization funded by?

Mr. Devine: We're primarily funded by foundation grants from a wide variety of small family foundations. We also accept attorney-fee awards after prevailing in test cases or conventional litigation. But we seldom go beyond charging for cost or a portion of the time that we spend representing whistleblowers. We have a modest direct-mail fund-raising program, also.

Mr. Pitts: And if anybody overseas wanted to get in contact with you for the services and publications that you refer to, what would be the best way?

Mr. Devine: Through our Government Accountability Project website.

Mr. Pitts: Thank you very much, Mr. Devine.

Mr. Devine: Thank you.

Back to top | Issues of Democracy, August 2000 | Other IIP E-Journals | IIP Home