Mark Reinhardt- Boise Idaho
Last year, the Office of the Inspector General for the US Environmental Protection Agency faced roadblocks when investigating the United States Chemical Safety Board. In a written statement issued to Representative Daryl Issa, the Chair of the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The IG began investigating an issue surrounding the disclosure of a confidential whistle-blowing source from inside the CSB by an Official with the US Office of Special Counsel.
According to the Office of Special Counsel, it defines Whistle-blower retaliation as: “A federal employee authorized to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action may not take, fail to take, or threaten to take any personnel action against an employee because of protected whistle-blowing.”
Protected whistleblowing is defined as disclosing information which the discloser reasonably believes evidences: 1. a violation of law, rule, or regulation, 2. gross mismanagement, 3. gross waste of funds, 4. an abuse of authority, or 5. a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
The EPA said of Whistleblower protection of the CSB Source;
“In September 2012, the EPA OIG received a written complaint from a CSB employee alleging that a high-level Office of Special Counsel (OSC) employee had disclosed to a CSB official the identities of CSB whistleblowers who previously had filed confidential complaints with the OSC. The complaint also alleged that the same high-level OSC employee had taken actions to thwart an open OSC investigation into the CSB whistleblowers’ complaints.”
Previously, the United States Department of Justice had declined to pursue Criminal Charges in the investigation. The CSB later refused to release the records citing Attorney-client privilege. The reasoning given was;
“I have concluded that release of the documents requested by OIG would result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege of the CSB with respect to certain third-party claimants whose interests are adverse to the CSB and the executive branch. . . . The vast majority of the documents you have requested are communications between CSB personnel and the agency’s outside legal counsel. A small number of communications are between me and CSB attorneys. I am concerned that release of these documents to the OIG will waive the agency’s attorney-client privilege vis-a-vis third parties adverse to the agency and the executive branch.”
The EPA later asked for Congressional Assistance in pursing the matter, stating;
“Refusal is a particularly serious and flagrant problem requiring the issuance of the EPA OIG’s Seven Day Letter. However, without congressional follow-up, the letter is without teeth.”
The Chairman of the CSB dismissed the decision, citing the delay as siding with the unfair critics of the board. According to a report by the Washington Times Newspaper. Sources:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/epa-watchdog-says-federal-board-blocking-probe-int/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/epa-watchdog-says-federal-board-blocking-probe-int/?page=2http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/Written_Statement_for_EPA_IG_Arthur_Elkins_6-19-14.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/EPAOIG_Seven_Day_Letter_9-5-2013.pdfhttp://www.csb.gov/about-the-csb/history/
