The Whistleblower and Ethical Order
When I began my whistleblowing, I envisioned a world of
right and wrong. An order I could rely
on. I expected that I would disclose a misdeed
and it would be corrected. I thought that
the board of directors would enforce company policies to protect me from
retaliation. I assumed that the government
would follow its rules and defend me after the retaliation.
That view of the world is shared by others. They applaud us as prosocial
and solvers
of organizational problems, who resist
evil. On National Whistleblower Day,
Senator
Chuck Grassley praised whistleblowers as patriots and heroes. It’s an attractive way to see things. We have a good guy up against a bad guy. We encourage good guys to speak up, protecting
them from harm when they do. In the end,
the good guy wins, either outright or in our hearts.
Sometimes life goes in that satisfying fashion. Jacquelyn
Ferentz joined the police department of tiny West Wildwood, New Jersey in 2001. When her boss took a leave of absence in
2008, he named her acting police chief. Then
things got interesting. In May, a borough
election brought in Herbert Frederick as mayor, replacing Christopher Fox (who
shared a house, but no romantic relationship, with Ferentz). Ferentz and Fox signed petitions to recall
Frederick.
Mayor Frederick began interfering in police affairs and went
afoul of the law, Ferentz thought.
Frederick said that Ferentz violated various laws herself and suspended her
without pay in March 2009. She was
subsequently reinstated but not before she lost her home to foreclosure. Ferentz sued the borough and Frederick. Fredrick avoided conviction for wrongdoing but
did not seek re-election. Ferentz remains
police chief in West Wildwood, and Fox is back as mayor. And last month, a jury awarded
her $1.165 million for economic loss and emotional harm.
Ferentz won out because her community endorsed a system of
right and wrong – and she was in the right.
Other whistleblowers[1]
have not been so fortunate. Joel
Clement was director of the Office of Policy Analysis at the U.S.
Department of Interior. He argued that science
should inform
government environmental management and guide
Department of the Interior practices.
His scientific research emphasized the catastrophic effects of
global warming on arctic populations.
President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke disagreed
with his conclusions. In June Zinke
announced that about 50 Department employees would be reassigned. Clement’s new job is in accounting – a senior
advisor for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue. He complained to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel that the Trump
administration retaliated against him for raising awareness of the dangers of
climate change.
Despite the findings
of scientists like Clement, a significant portion of the voting public –
and the administration they elected – thinks Clement’s environmental views are a
political, not ethical, challenge. For them,
he argued in favor of an uncertain understanding and ignored the real economic damage
from environmental protection. For them
he was not pro-social or a problem solver; his
candidate lost the election is all. He
hardly qualified as a whistleblower.
Most
organizations claim their dissidents are not whistleblowers. They are disgruntled employees. Poor performers. Or, as HomeFirst
labelled me, problem creators, not problem solvers. Whistleblowers overvalue ethical order,
making them headaches for managers like HomeFirst’s
CEO.
When judgments go against us, we whistleblowers may not be
sure if the community or just some rogue bureaucrat made the decision. Clement spoke out through the Washington Post
and other media after a line of powerful authorities opposed him. Most of us, though, are turned aside by organizational
minions.
When the Department of Justice attorney told me that they
did not like to hurt organizations that do good, as she supposed HomeFirst
did, I could not be sure if she spoke for our federal government. I only knew that my complaint about bid
collusion had petered out. Investigations
of HomeFirst’s federal
and county
government overbillings drag on for years.
Other complaints[2]
were simply ignored.
Arbiters of right and wrong seldom emerge in whistleblower cases. Power – generally bureaucratic power – more often
prevails. It is an ultimately
unsatisfying business we are in, whether we win or lose.
[2] For
example, on master
leasing violations, City
of San Jose advance, EHAP
loan violation, and payroll
violations.
No comments:
Post a Comment