Dr. Frank Kardasz  P.O. Box 45048 Phoenix, AZ 85064
e-mail:  
kardasz(at)kardasz.org
Whistle-Blowing

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dishonesty in government is the business of every citizen.... It is not enough to do your own job. There's
no particular virtue in that. Democracy isn't a gift. It's a responsibility.
- Dalton Trumbo (1905-1976) - from the 1942 film: The Remarkable Andrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Frank Kardasz,  January 7, 2009

A whistle blower is an individual who discloses unlawful acts against the wishes of vested interests who
seek to cover them up. (Vernon-Wortzel, 1994) Reporting the misconduct of peers is difficult for some
law enforcement officers.

Laws to protect whistle blowers began in the 1980's. According to Vernon-Wortzel:

    The first legislation to protect whistle blowers was passed by the State of Michigan in 1981. The
    law came out of Michigan's PBB (polybrominated biphenyl) tragedy in the 1970's. Michigan
    Chemical Company accidentally shipped poisonous fire retardant to a state feed grain
    cooperative. The PBB's were fed to livestock and contaminated their milk and meat. When farm
    animals began dying in large numbers, Michigan Chemical employees were warned not to tell
    investigators about the accident or they would be fired (ibid.).

Many states now have laws to protect whistle blowers. The State of Utah Supervisor's Liability
Management Reference Manual states:

The Whistle Blower Law prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee who
acted in good faith to report the waste of public funds, property, manpower, or a violation or suspected
violation of a legally adopted rule or law. Good faith is assumed if the person has communicated the
information to the State Auditor. (2).

One of Arizona's whistle blower laws is contained in Arizona Revised Statutes 38-532. It states, in part,

It is a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who has control over personnel actions to take
reprisal against an employee for a disclosure of information of a matter of public concern by the
employee to a public body which the employee reasonably believes evidences:

    1. A violation of any law.
    2. Mismanagement, a gross waste of monies or an abuse of authority (3).

Informing on a fellow employee is a difficult and often lonely choice.  It is unfortunate that whistleblowers
are often ostracized and ridiculed. According to Vernon-Wortzel, (p.151):

Sanctions against whistle blowers do deter some employees from reporting wrongdoing. Others,
however, are so outraged about a situation that their personal ethical codes demand action. In today's
society, many whistle blowers become both victims and heros at the same time (4).

References:

(1) Vernon-Wortzel, H. (1994). Business and society: A managerial approach. (5th ed). Burr Ridge,
Illinois: Irwin.149.

(2) State of Utah, Supervisor's Liability Management Reference Manual. (1997, October). Ethics and
WhistleBlowing Laws, Utah Public Officers? and Employers Ethics Act and Protection of Employees.
Retrieved May 16, 2003 from http://www.dhrm.state.ut.us/Policies/slmrm/documents/section6.htm

(3) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2003). Title 38, Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 3, Conduct in
Office, Article 9 - Disclosure of Information by Public Employees,  38-532. Prohibited personnel practice;
violation; reinstatement; exceptions; civil penalty. Retrieved May 17, 2003 from http://www.azleg.state.az.
us/ars/38/00532.htm

(4) Vernon-Wortzel, 151.

(5) Lacayo, R. & Ripley, A. (2002, December 22). Persons of the year, 2002, Cynthia Cooper, Coleen
Rowley and Sherron Watkins. Time Magazine (on-line). Posted Sunday, December 22, 2002; 4:31 a.m.
EST, Retrieved May 17, 2003 from http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poyintro.html#
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an interesting story from Australia where whistle-blowing is referred to as "dobbing".

Dob in a Copper

From the Herald Sun, Victoria, Australia. by Keith Moor, November 16, 2005

Every Victorian (Australia) will be urged to dob in bent police officers. The Office of Police Integrity
revealed plans for a 24-hour hotline so people can report police for alleged corruption and misconduct.
The Office also revealed evidence of corruption and sloppy management in the Victoria Police force.

The Office wants Victorians to use the new hotline and vowed to provide more protection for police who
want to inform on fellow officers. Director George Brouwer said, "I do not believe that most honest and
ethical police members deliberately turn a blind eye to signs of corruption and serious misconduct,"
said in the OPI annual report. "However, it is clear that many members are fearful and reluctant to report
incidents. Corrupt police play on such fears of retribution. Corrupt members often cultivate an aura of
menace, some are ruthless. Such conduct is one of the reasons they can often continue their activities
for so long."

The Herald Sun last week revealed the OPI had uncovered evidence of police involvement in various
corrupt activities. The report detailed some of the areas of concern, including: The prevalence of
allegations of theft by police during the execution of search warrants. Improper association by police with
unregistered informers. Inappropriate associations of police with private investigators and the private
security industry. Continuing and significant inappropriate access to LEAP and
other police computerised information systems. Allegations some police are involved in drug dealing or
green-lighting the activities of drug dealers. The incidence of bullying, predatory behaviour or other
intimidation by some individual police members towards other police and to members of the public.  

"Convincing evidence illustrating these problems has emerged from investigations of specific cases,"
the OPI report said. "They are being, or will be, addressed in OPI's work on systemic issues and on the
prevention of corruption and serious misconduct."

The OPI report is critical of Victoria Police management practices. "Questions about the quality of police
investigations have arisen from a number of complaints, many of which have been well-founded," it said.
"Heavy work loads, limited guidance and supervision of less experienced detectives and poor
investigative methodology generally emerge as central issues with those complaints which are
substantiated.

Director Brouwer said, "I have observed a tolerance on the part of some senior police for management
processes and equipment which are long out of date. "They can make corrupt conduct difficult to detect,
even more so to investigate.

The OPI was created in 2004 in response to calls for a royal commission into police corruption and a
permanent anti-corruption body. A Victoria Police spokesman said the force took allegations of
misconduct against its staff very seriously and had effective internal processes to deal with  any
allegations. "Victoria Police launched its ethical health strategy. It is an ongoing strategy which focuses
on professional standards, ethics and the eradication of unethical behaviour and corruption through a
number of programs."

Retrieved November 16, 2005 from http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,
5478,17259866%255E2862,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rookie Oakland California Police Officer "Demonized" for Reporting Wrongdoing
‘Riders’ Prosecutor Angry at Attack on his Ethics

Bay City News Wire, 04/01/05, Oakland, California

The lead prosecutor in the trial of three former Oakland police officers accused of beating and framing
suspected drug dealers in West Oakland in the summer of 2000 told jurors today he's "angry'' that
defense lawyers have attacked the prosecution's integrity. In closing arguments in the so-called "Riders''
case, Alameda County Deputy District Attorney Terry Wiley alleged that defense lawyers for the former
officers attacked the credibility of the prosecution and its witnesses because they don't want the officers
to be held accountable for their alleged misconduct. "The pope could be here and they would attack
him,'' Wiley said in a booming voice, asserting that the defense would attack anyone who had the
courage to speak out against the three officers and their tactics.

Referring to repeated claims by defense lawyers that the prosecution engaged in a win-at-all-costs
strategy to try to get the former officers convicted, Wiley said, "I'm angry and I don't care what anyone
thinks.'' Former officers Jude Siapno, 36, Clarence "Chuck'' Mabanag, 39, and Matthew Hornung, 33, are
standing trial a second time on charges that they beat and framed suspected drug dealers in West
Oakland in the summer of 2000. They face a total of 15 felony counts: conspiracy to obstruct justice, filing
false police reports, assault and battery, kidnapping and false imprisonment. A fourth officer, Frank
Vasquez, also has been charged in the case but he fled the country to avoid prosecution.

The Riders' first trial was one of the longest criminal trials in California history, lasting more than a year
and including 56 days of jury deliberations. It ended on Sept. 30, 2003, with jurors acquitting the former
officers of eight charges and deadlocking on the remaining 27 counts. In his closing argument on
Wednesday, Mabanag's attorney, Michael Rains, alleged that a rookie officer Keith Batt, who accused the
Riders officers of wrongdoing, was a liar. But Wiley said today the defense lawyers "demonized Keith
Batt because they believe he was honest.'' Wiley told jurors, "Don't forget Keith Batt and the courage it
took to face this onslaught'' of allegations by defense lawyers that he lied. On Wednesday, Rains said
that in 1999, shortly before the alleged offenses in the case, Mabanag, who was Batt's field training
officer, was named officer of the year and best preliminary investigator among Oakland police officers
who worked the overnight shift.

Rains asked jurors, "Do you think Chuck Mabanag just kissed it all off, turned his back on the law after
upholding it for 11 years and said I'm going to be a criminal now?'' Jurors will begin contemplating their
answer next week, when they finally begin deliberations. Closing arguments are expected to conclude
on Monday and jurors will get the case either late Monday or early Tuesday after getting lengthy legal
instructions from Alameda County Superior Court Jeffrey Horner.

Retrieved April 2, 2005 from http://www2.cbs5.
com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2005/04/01/n/HeadlineNews/PROSECUTOR-
ANGRY/resources_bcn_html  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following story is an interesting discussion of the ethics surrounding "deep throat", the name given to
former FBI agent Mark Felt who revealed information related to the famous Watergate scandal
associated with former President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

Was Deep Throat Ethical? by Rushworth Kidder

From Global Ethics Web Site: June 7, 2005 - http://www.globalethics.org/

So now we know. Deep Throat, whose leaks to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post eventually
helped unseat the Nixon administration, is officially W. Mark Felt, the No. 2 at the FBI during Watergate.
An article published last week in Vanity Fair by the Felt family's lawyer, John D. O'Connor, makes the
identification, now confirmed by Woodward and his journalistic partner, Carl Bernstein.

Thus ends one of the most compelling mysteries of the twentieth century. Ended, too, is an entire
cottage industry of speculation about Deep Throat's identity. Left behind, however, are three ethical
questions. The first two are modest and immediate, while the third has so much moral gravity that it may
never be fully settled:

1. Felt maintained rigorous silence for decades. To their credit, so have Woodward and Bernstein. But
the Deep Throat story has generated a small fortune in books, film, and the sale of the journalists'
Watergate papers to the University of Texas Library for $5 million. Felt never made a penny. Should he?
Is there an ethic of fairness that should compel the journalists to give him a share of the wealth that,
without him, never would have been generated?

2. Was there in fact a Deep Throat? Or was the character a fictional composite of several sources,
conflated by Bernstein and Woodward into one person for the sake of literary economy in All the
President's Men? Some students of Watergate question whether one person could know all that Deep
Throat knew. More intriguing is the book's report that whenever Felt had something to share, a clock
would appear drawn on page 20 of Woodward's home-delivered copy of the New York Times. How,
skeptics ask, could a high-visibility FBI official regularly make his way unseen to Woodward's door
before dawn to do that -- especially since he dared bring no one else into his plot? Felt may indeed be
some part of Deep Throat, but are there other Deep Throats out there, still undivulged? If so, what are
the ethics of passing off a composite character as a real person -- the kind of journalistic malfeasance
for which Washington Post writer Janet Cooke had her Pulitzer Prize revoked in 1981?

3. The tough question, however, lies in Felt's own ethics. Was he a hero or a traitor? His case revolves
around a classic right-versus-right dilemma of the loyalty-versus-truth variety. As an agent of the FBI, his
loyalty lay in upholding the Constitution. His duty was to protect the justice system, keep confidences,
and support the presidency. His fidelity, in other words, was to the established chain of command, and
any wrongdoing needing exposure or redress should have been worked out within that chain. It was
ethical, in other words, not to speak up.

But as a citizen in possession of some appalling truths -- regarding corruption at the highest levels in
the White House -- he had an obligation to protect justice itself from a perverted justice system. As the
FBI developed information suggesting that the Constitution was being subverted, his integrity compelled
him to act. But with the Watergate investigation being squelched by the White House and with his
superiors resistant to his ideas, he turned to the media as the only channel he could trust to get the truth
to the public. It was ethical, in other words, to leak.

Two sides, two moral cases. Which is the higher right? If you're an ends-based utilitarian, you'll agree
that ethics happens when you do the greatest good for the greatest number. That may mean that some
smaller bad happens along the way -- in this case, by disregarding the oath he took on joining the FBI.
The greater good for the nation, the utilitarian will reason, was to flush out Richard Nixon's wrongdoing.

If you're a rule-based Kantian, however, you'll feel that ethics happens only when the rule you're following
can be universalized – when you feel that everyone in the world ought to do as you're doing. Should the
rule be that every investigator must leak confidential information whenever those above him or her are
suspected of abusing their power by concealing criminal acts? Hardly. The resulting vigilante mentality
would subject every investigative process to second-guessing and every insider to media pressure.
Best, then, to protect the system itself by keeping quiet, even though crooks sometimes go free.

To those in the former, ends-based camp, Felt remains a hero. Those choosing the latter argument will
forever see him as a traitor -- with one reservation. If the rule to be universalized is, "Always support
principles rather than personalities," then protecting the Constitution can mean protecting the
presidency from the president -- something even a strict rule-based thinker could countenance.

Felt himself endured the weight of this dilemma for more than three decades -- believing he had done
the right thing, yet feeling too that he had done something terribly wrong along the way. Even in the face
of his doubts -- the danger of betrayal, the risk that Nixon would survive the allegations, the soul-
searching about whether his own motives were to protect the Constitution or simply to get back at his
superiors -- he persevered. There's a term for that: moral courage. It often operates in the midst of
ambiguity. It frequently remains anonymous. It sometimes goes unrewarded. Yet it can change the
history of nations, as Mark Felt surely did. For this we owe him our gratitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deep Throat Revelations Raise Ethical and Legal Issues - Did Mark Felt owe duty to FBI or were leaks
part of 'higher calling'?

June 7, 2005 - http://www.globalethics.org/
Special to Newsline from Editor Carl Hausman

The stunning disclosure that the former No. 2 man in the FBI was the legendary Watergate source Deep
Throat has provoked a national debate on the ethics of whistle-blowing, with some characterizing 91-
year-old Mark Felt as a civic-minded hero while others say he betrayed a public trust.

Writing in the New York Times, political reporter Katharine Seelye noted that while many observers say
that Felt played an honorable role in helping expose government misconduct, Felt's "role as a
newspaper informer raises questions about the obligations of officials at institutions like the FBI."

"Should those obligations be defined as adhering to the regulations of the bureau and the laws about
releasing secret information?" Seelye wrote. "Or is there a higher calling when law enforcement officials
think that they are being obstructed at the highest levels of government?"

Retired FBI agents interviewed by USA Today expressed mixed emotions about Felt's actions. James
DeSarno, former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office, said that by divulging information to Washington
Post reporter Bob Woodward, Felt broke a law against releasing information being heard by a grand jury.

"The government's trust that was placed in him was somewhat tarnished," DeSarno said. "Isn't that why
there are three separate branches of government? And one of the branches of government isn't the
press."

Others are reserving judgment until Felt's motives are clarified. Presidential historian Robert Dallek
noted that Felt expected to be named head of the FBI after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, and was
resentful that Nixon passed him over and appointed an outsider to oversee the agency.

"If this was a vendetta, then that would devalue what he did," Dallek told the New York Times. "But
people never operate strictly out of one motive or another. He was clearly offended by the constitutional
breaches that had occurred, but he was probably fueled by a certain amount of resentment at the
politicization of the FBI."

Money issues also clouded the issues swirling around the revelation. NBC News Washington Bureau
Chief Tim Russert noted that Felt and his family were motivated to reveal his identity not only so Felt
could have his "day in the sun," but also for profit. "They do think they also can make some money,"
Russert told MSNBC. "They've been very open about that. They can pay off tuition bills. Mr. Felt said that
the other day. I don't think there's any other dark secret behind it."

In any event, Felt probably will not be prosecuted for releasing the information, according to U.S. Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales. "It happened a long time ago," Gonzales told the Associated Press. "The
department has a lot of other priorities."

Gonzales would not comment on whether Felt was a hero or criminal, saying he would "leave it to history
to make that determination," echoing comments by President Bush, who also declined to weigh in on
the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Specialist Joseph Darby to Receive Special Profile in Courage Award

March 10, 2005,  Tom McNaught

BOSTON — U.S. Army Specialist Joseph M. Darby has been awarded a Special John F. Kennedy Profile
in Courage Award. Darby is recognized for standing up for the principles imbedded in the rule of law
when he took action to expose the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.
The Profile in Courage Award Committee recognized that although the courage demonstrated by Darby
was somewhat different than that required by elective office, it was nonetheless deserving of recognition.

Darby will be formally presented with the Profile in Courage Award by Caroline Kennedy and Senator
Edward Kennedy at a ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston on
Monday, May 16.

Of Darby’s recognition, Ms. Kennedy said, “Individuals who are willing to take personal risk to further the
national interest and uphold the values of American democracy should be recognized and encouraged
in all parts of government. Our nation is indebted to U.S. Army Specialist Joseph Darby for standing up
for the rule of law that we embrace as a nation.”

The John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award is presented annually to public servants who have
withstood strong opposition to follow what they believe is the right course of action. The award is named
for President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which recounts the
stories of eight U.S. senators who risked their careers to fight for what they believed in.

U.S. Army Specialist Joseph M. Darby, of Corriganville, Md., is credited with alerting officials to the
alleged torture of Iraqi prisoners by members of his 372nd Military Police Company, based in
Cumberland, Md. Darby was commended in a military report for promptly alerting superiors in January
after discovering photographs of fellow 372nd Military Police Company personnel taking part in abuse of
prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison. Darby's tip led to an investigation of practices at the facility that have
outraged people around the world and changed the tenor of America's war effort in Iraq. Darby wrestled
with the consequences of reporting the abuse in Abu Ghraib and finally spoke out, he said, because
what he saw was so "morally wrong." In August 2004, Darby and his family were forced to move out of
their Maryland home and into protective custody due to death threats against them.

Darby’s wife, Bernadette, says her husband’s act of whistle blowing angered many people in their
Western Maryland community. "People were mean, saying he was a walking dead man, he was walking
around with a bull's eye on his head. It was scary," she told Reuters.

Despite the threats, she believed her husband made the right choice exposing the torture and abuse.
"Joe is the type of person to take what is going on around him and be like, 'How would I feel if that was
my wife?'... He just could not live with himself knowing that that was happening and he did not do
anything about it," she said.

In selecting a recipient, the Profile in Courage Award Committee considers public servants who have
demonstrated the kind of political courage described by John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. In his
Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Kennedy wrote:

In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he
faces if he follows his conscience –the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem
of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past
courage can define that ingredient – they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But
they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul.

Source: http://www.jfklibrary.org/pr_pica2005_winners_announce.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georgia Prison Guard Who Exposed Beatings of Handcuffed Inmates Back on Job

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 05/24/05, By Carlos Campos

A former prison guard who said he was fired for exposing alleged beatings of handcuffed inmates at a
southeast Georgia prison will start getting a paycheck again. Tommy Cardell, 52, was placed on
suspension with pay on Monday while the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the state Department of
Corrections look into allegations that officers at Rogers State Prison in Reidsville routinely beat inmates
with the knowledge of their superiors.

Cardell said he was fired May 11 after blowing the whistle on alleged beatings to his superiors and
internal investigators for the Department of Corrections. Scheree Lipscomb, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Corrections, said putting Cardell back on the payroll was "the right thing to do," given the
serious nature of his allegations. Five other employees at Rogers, including the warden and deputy
warden, have been suspended with pay while authorities check out Cardell's claims.

"I think it's only right that it should happen," Cardell said Monday when told his firing had been
temporarily reversed. "I didn't expect it. I think Commissioner [James] Donald and his staff are truly trying
to rehabilitate the system."Cardell's allegations also claimed the job of the department's official in
charge of managing the prisons, Alan Adams, who has been removed from his post pending further
possible action.

Cardell has said he witnessed from 20 to 30 beatings of handcuffed inmates during his three years of
working  at Rogers, a medium- security facility where prisoners work in farm and dairy operations that
produce food for the prison system. Cardell said handcuffed inmates were taken into showers by
guards and supervisors and severely punched and kicked in a manner that would not leave cuts or
serious bruises.

Cardell said the warden and other prison administrators were aware of the beatings. He also claims
medical officials were involved in ensuring that the severity or source of inmate injuries were covered up.

Corrections officials launched an investigation after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution inquired about
Cardell's story. Prison system officials have emphasized that none of the suspended employees has
been found guilty of wrongdoing.

Source: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0505/24prison.html

Recently, there has been a trend towards honoring and recognizing whistle blowers. Time magazine
named three prominent whistle blowers as their persons of the year in 2002. (5) One of the three was
Coleen Rowley, an FBI staff attorney whose authored a controversial memo to FBI Director Robert
Mueller about how the bureau disregarded information that Zacarias Moussaoui, a Sept. 11, co-
conspirator, was someone who required investigation.

According to Time magazine:

These were ordinary people who did not wait for higher authorities to do what needed to be done.
Literature's great statement on unwelcome truth telling is Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People.
Something said by one of his characters reminds us of what we admire about our Dynamic Trio. "A
community is like a ship," he observes. "Everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm." When the time
came, these women saw the ship in citizenship. And they stepped up to that wheel. (5)

It is fitting that whistle blowing is now being recognized and protected as an act of courage and honor.
Employees should be encouraged to report wrongdoing instead of being criticized and ridiculed.

Ethics Training for Law Enforcement