Zur Navigation | Zum Inhalt
     
 
A blog of all section with no images
Whistleblower Letter to House and Senate Conferees PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Wednesday, 16 July 2008

July 16, 2008

Dear Conferees,

Last October, 42 citizen, consumer and good government organizations signed a letter urging the Senate to support whistleblower protection in S. 2045, the CPSC Reform Act of 2007. Despite intense industry opposition, the Senate respected this mandate. With bi-partisan agreement the Senate adopted a strong whistleblower provision for enforcement of the law’s stronger consumer protection standards.

There no longer are any credible objections to the Senate provision. To illustrate, last fall industry lobbyists insisted that protection was unnecessary, because there were no reported cases of retaliation. Reform proponents pointed out the obvious: that was largely unavoidable due to the absence of legal rights. Nonetheless, proponents presented a menu of cases from whistleblowers who filed suit even without rights. Among others, the examples included a quality control manager fired for challenging inferior materials in an infant stationery play center; a product designer fired for challenging light fixtures that flunked federal safety standards but were marketed without prior testing; a product engineer fired after challenging continued sales without corrective action of faulty home furnace ignition devices that already had caused a fire; and a wire company employee fired for reporting shipment of faulty wiring in smoke alarms. Similarly, industry lobbyists asserted a deluge of litigation would ensue, but the allegation had no credibility. It has been made for virtually every whistleblower shield enacted by Congress, and never has materialized to date in 36 preexisting whistleblower laws

After the attacks could not stand scrutiny, special interest opponents largely stopped making them, in public.  We understand, however, that the pace of lobbying has intensified behind closed doors. It would be most unfortunate if this tactic worked. For one reason, the voters do not support it. A Democracy Corps survey of likely voters after the last election found whistleblower rights their second highest priority, chosen by 79%, only second to the related goal picked by 81% of ending illegal government spending.

That is understandable. Voters recognize that whistleblowers are the public’s eyes and ears. As illustrated above, whistleblowers have confirmed repeated instances of companies refusing to disclose the full extent of adverse internal tests results to the government, or to institute recalls despite test results that confirmed a high likelihood of fatal injuries.

Last week an anonymous whistleblower contacted the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project to urge that the final CPSC legislation contain whistleblower protection. The employee’s experience is a microcosm of why that provision is, in the whistleblower’s words, “indispensable” for companies to take the new standards seriously for any products self-regulated through internal testing. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest are too severe and the certain costs too great to delay production at the stage when testing normally occurs.” That scenario is the rule, rather than the exception, for the 15,000 products covered by H.R. 4040/S 2045. GAP reports that the employee’s concerns are being distributed to conferee staff whose offices pledge to respect confidentiality even for a highly sanitized memorandum of concerns – the only conditions the employee would accept without rights.

The lesson to be learned is unavoidable. Even with greater resources, the CPSC cannot always enforce stronger safety standards unless employees have the legally-protected right to help enforce the law. In 2005 the House respected that principle by enacting “best practice” whistleblower rights in the Energy Policy Act. Last August, Congress proved it was serious about homeland security by passing best practice whistleblower rights for ground transportation employees. In January, Congress followed suit for defense contractors, despite the shrill objections from such powerful firms as Halliburton and Bechtel.

It would be unfortunate if Congress did not stand up to industry lobbyists on this bill who no longer can make their objections in public. America routinely depends on retail products that if defective could threaten our families many times every day. We urge you to protect those who are indispensable to enforce this law. It is unrealistic to expect that whistleblowers will defend the public if they can’t defend themselves. 

Gil Mileikowsky, M.D.

Alliance for Patient Safety

 

Mary Alice Baish, Acting Washington Affairs Representative

American Association of Law Libraries

 

F. Patricia Callahan, president and general counsel

American Association of Small Property Owners

 

Nancy Talanian, Director

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

 

Charlie Cray, Director

Center for Corporate Policy

 

Merrill Goozner

Director, Integrity in Science

Center for Science in the Public Interest

 

Linda Lazarus, Director

Center to Advance Human Potential

 

Evelyn M. Hurwich, President and Chair

Circumpolar Conservation Union

 

John Judge

Coalition on Political Assassinations

9/11 Research Project

 

Matthew Fogg, President

Congress Against Racism & Corruption in Law Enforcement (CARCLE)

 

Ellen Bloom, Director of Federal Policy

Ami Gadhia, Policy Counsel

Consumers Union

 

Sue Udry, Director

Defending Dissent Foundation

 

Ben Smilowitz, Director

Disaster Accountability Project

 

Dr. Jim Murtagh

Doctors for Open Government

 

Gregory Hile

EnviroJustice

 

John Richard

Essential Information

 

George Anderson

Ethics in Government Group (EGG)

 

Steven Aftergood, Project Director

Federation of American Scientists

 

Marilyn Fitterman, Vice President

Feminists For Free Expression

 

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director

Food and Water Watch

 

Conrad Martin, Executive Director

Fund for Constitutional Government

 

Gwen Marshall, co-Chairman

Georgians for Open Government

 

Tom Devine, Legal Director

Government Accountability Project

 

James C. Turner, Executive Director

HALT, Inc. -- An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform

 

Tom Carpenter, Executive Director

Hanford Challenge

 

Helen Salisbury, M.D.

Health Integrity Project

 

Rich Carlson , Legal Counsel

Idaho Rural Council

 

Michael McCray, Esq., Co-Chair

International Association of Whistleblowers

 

Donald Soeken, President

Integrity International

 

Mory Atashkar, Vice President

Iranian American Democratic Association

 

Mark S. Zaid

James Madison Project

 

Nancy Cowles, Executive Director

Kids in Danger

 

Michael D. Ostrolenk, National Director

Liberty Coalition

 

James Landrith, Founder

The Multiracial Activist

 

Joan E. Bertin, Esq., Executive Director

National Coalition Against Censorship

 

Sally Greenberg, Executive Director

National Consumers League

 

Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director

National Employment Lawyers Association

 

Paul Brown, Government Relations Manager

National Research Center for Women & Families

 

Steve Kohn, President

National Whistleblower Center

 

Amy Allina

National Women's Health Network

 

Ron Marshall, Chairman

The New Grady Coalition

 

Rick Engler, Director

New Jersey Work Environment Council

 

Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, Chair

No FEAR Coalition

 

Sean Moulton, Director, Federal Information Policy

OMB Watch

 

Patrice McDermott, Executive Director

OpenTheGovernment.org

 

Joe Carson, PE, Chair

OSC Watch Steering Committee

 

Judy Norsigian, Executive Director

Our Bodies Ourselves

 

Betsy Combier, President and Editor

Parentadvocates.org

 

Former Special Agent Darlene Fitzgerald

Patrick Henry Center

 

Ronald J Riley, President

Professional Inventor's Alliance

 

Danielle Brian, Executive Director

Project On Government Oversight

 

David Arkush, Director, Congress Watch

Public Citizen

 

Jeff Ruch, Executive Director

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

 

John W. Whitehead, president

The Rutherford Institute

 

Dr. Roland Chalifoux

The Semmelweis Society International (SSI)

 

Clint Brewer, President

Society of Professional Journalists

 

Kevin Kuritzky

The Student Health Integrity Project (SHIP)

 

Daphne Wysham, Co-Director

Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN)

 

Jeb White, Executive Director

Taxpayers Against Fraud

 

Ken Paff, National Organizer

Teamsters for a Democratic Union

 

Paul Taylor

Truckers Justice Center

 

Francesca Grifo, Ph.D., Director

Scientific Integrity Program

Union of Concerned Scientists

 

Michael J. Wilson, International Vice President and Director,

Legislative and Political Action Department

United Food & Commercial Workers International Union

 

Dane von Breichenruchardt, President

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

 

Mabel Dobbs, Chair

Livestock Committee

Western Organization of Resource Councils

 

Janet Chandler, Co-Founder

Whistleblower Mentoring Project

 

Linda Lewis, Director

Whistleblowers USA

 

Kim Witczak

WoodyMatters

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (37) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 649

 
Letter to Senate Judiciary on OPEN FOIA Act PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Monday, 07 July 2008

July 7, 2008

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Arlen Specter
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Specter:

We write on behalf of the undersigned group of business, public interest, and historical organizations to endorse the OPEN FOIA Act (S. 2746), which would ensure transparency by requiring that every statutory carve-out to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) expressly reference section 552(b)(3) of that Act. These statutory exemptions limit public access to information under the FOIA and need to be openly discussed prior to enactment.

As you know, the intent of the FOIA, ensuring an open and accountable government, has been seriously undermined by members of Congress who attempt to limit public access to government information through inconspicuous provisions buried deep in proposed legislation. Such provisions can establish new FOIA exemptions under section 552(b)(3), often without any public debate about whether the new exemption is necessary or appropriate. Passage of S. 2746 is vitally important because it will require that every proposed new carve-out to the FOIA specifically reference the Act.

To preserve the ideals of openness that FOIA embodies, bills that exempt records from FOIA should be transparent about their intent and effect. By requiring that every proposed FOIA carveout specifically reference 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(3), the OPEN FOIA Act will give members of the public and open government advocates the tools they need to find, analyze and challenge these hidden exemptions before they are passed into law. We therefore urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to report S. 2746 favorably and help it move quickly to the Senate floor for passage.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Alliance for Patient Safety

The Association of American Publishers

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

American Association of Law Libraries

American Association of Small Property Owners

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Awake In Philly

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

California First Amendment Coalition

Center for Democracy and Technology

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Citizens Watch

Citizen Outreach Project

Defending Dissent Foundation

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Essential Information

iSolon.org

James Madison Project

Knowledge Ecology International

Liberty Coalition

Maine Association of Broadcasters

Minnesota Coalition on Government Information

The Multiracial Activist

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Security Archive

New Jersey Foundation for Open Government

OMB Watch

Open Society Policy Center

OpenTheGovernment.org

People For the American Way

Project on Government Oversight

Public Citizen

The Rutherford Institute

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Washington Coalition for Open Government

Woodhull Freedom Foundation

David F. Jackson,
Freelance Investigative Journalist

Richard P. Kleeman, Former Chairman,
National Freedom of Information Committee,
Society of Professional Journalists

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (54) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 752

 
Opposition to the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304 PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Wednesday, 25 June 2008

Oppose Bill to Expand Government Surveillance: Coalition Letter to Senators

 
 
June 25, 2008

Re: Opposition to the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304

Dear Senator:

As organizations that are deeply committed to both civil liberties and effective intelligence-gathering, we strongly urge you to oppose the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304. This bill unreasonably and unnecessarily authorizes broad surveillance of Americans’ international communications without meaningful Fourth Amendment protections: no individualized warrant issued by a court, no determination of probable cause of wrongdoing, and no specification of the location or means of the surveillance.

The bill would threaten Americans' privacy by doing too little to restore judicial review and failing to include other reasonable civil liberties protection. The administration has not made a persuasive case that these sweeping new powers are needed or that existing authorities are inadequate to ensure the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence-gathering activities.

In addition, this legislation would use the federal courts to rubber stamp a grant of immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted with unlawful warrantless surveillance.

The proposal incorporates a few important improvements, such as an audit of illegal warrantless surveillance, a reaffirmation that FISA is the exclusive means by which foreign intelligence surveillance can lawfully be conducted in the United States, a presumption of prior court review, a probable cause requirement for Americans over seas and a sunset of four years. We appreciate the efforts of House and Senate negotiators, but these modest concessions do not offset the virtually unchecked surveillance powers the bill confers on the government.

Among the most important reasons to oppose this bill are the following:

* The bill would authorize massive warrantless surveillance. The bill allows the government to intentionally acquire millions of Americans’ international communications with no individualized warrant or determination of probable cause, so long as the surveillance is targeted at people or organizations believed to be located abroad and the purpose is to gather foreign intelligence. However, the bill’s avowed purpose is the collection of Americans’ communications with persons over seas.

* The bill would require no individualized warrant even when an American’s communications clearly are of interest to the government. The bill requires an individualized warrant only if and when the government decides to “target” a particular American by using the person’s phone number or e-mail address to select his or her communications for acquisition. While the legislation provides for judicial review of targeting and other guidelines, the court procedures are inadequate to meet Fourth Amendment requirements.

* The bill would curtail effective judicial review of surveillance. While the bill contains provisions for FISA court review of targeting and other guidelines, those provisions do not provide a meaningful role for the court in ensuring that the government does not seize and data-mine the private communications of law-abiding Americans. Moreover, the bill contains an exception for “exigent circumstances” that could be misused to circumvent even the limited court review provided by the bill with respect to new surveillance programs.

* The bill would grant retroactive immunity for wrongdoing. The bill would give blanket immunity to companies that aided the government in conducting warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans. Like S. 2248, the bill would direct the court to dismiss privacy lawsuits against telecommunications providers if they received written assurances that the President had authorized the surveillance—assurances which in fact they received.

* The bill would not provide a reasonable sunset. While the bill shortens the sunset period to four years, this would leave the bill in place far longer than is necessary to determine whether it is operating effectively without adversely affecting the civil liberties of Americans.

The proposed bill would grant unnecessary and unconstitutional powers to the Executive Branch. We urge you to vote no, and to vote against any legislation that contains the defects described above.

Thank you for considering our views.

American Civil Liberties Union
Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Committee
Bob Barr, Former Congressman
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Center for National Security Studies
Common Cause
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Equal Justice Alliance
Fairfax County Privacy Council
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
International Association of Whistleblowers (IAW)
Justice Through Music
League of Women Voters of the United States
Libertarian National Committee
MAS Freedom
National Lawyers Guild--National Office
OMB Watch
OpenTheGovernment.org
People For the American Way
Privacy Lives
Republican Liberty Caucus
The Multiracial Activist
The Rutherford Institute
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
Velvet Revolution

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (48) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 628

 
Happy Loving Day! PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
From The Editor
Written by James A. Landrith   
Thursday, 12 June 2008

Please remember this important day and the positive impact it has had on American society and our own personal lives as well.

Attached below is this year’s message from Ken Tanabe, founder of Loving Day.

Forward from Ken:

Forty one years ago today, Richard and Mildred Loving walked out of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. After nine years of struggle, they won the right to be together as an interracial couple. They also won that right for interracial couples nationwide, ending about 400 years of racist laws that existed in 35 states. So today, we celebrate our legal right to marriage and relationships without regard to race.

This year is particularly significant because Mrs. Loving tragically passed away. While we are saddened by this, we can also be inspired by her historic achievement. Mrs. Loving was a regular person from a small town who made a big difference. We can all make a difference as well. Let's teach our children, friends, and relatives about the Loving decision. Let's fight the prejudice that still exists for people in interracial, international, and intercultural relationships. Let's join together as a community of many races, cultures, and nationalities to celebrate Loving Day.

There are Loving Day Celebrations happening nationwide! Take a look at our list of celebrations to see if there's one near you:
http://www.lovingday.org/list_of_celebrations.htm

It's fun and easy to host your own Loving Day Celebration with our free Celebration Kit in PDF format. Download it here:
http://www.lovingday.org/files/documents/loving_day_kit_2007_01.pdf

If you host a Celebration, be sure to share it with us! Take photos or videos and post them online through Flickr or YouTube:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/lovingday/
http://www.youtube.com/group/lovingday

All the best to you and yours, and Happy Loving Day!

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (81) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1047

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 4 of 1566
 
     
Free Joomla! Templates provided by funky-visions.de
Template modding by Sven Brier