Tuesday, September 16, 2014

California school district rewrites menu for student lunches

How engaging diversity made Xerox a company to copy

bought a skincare toner made of wine (rice)
feel like to drink it...........

Richard Wesley Conference on Environmental Politics & Governance University of Washington, Seattle

Richard Wesley Conference on Environmental Politics & Governance 
University of Washington, Seattle
May 14-16, 2015

Sponsored by
Center for Environmental Politics
University of Washington, Seattle

Dear Colleagues:

University of Washington’s Center for Environmental Politics is organizing an international conference on Environmental Politics and Governance (EPG) in Seattle on May 14-16, 2015. The conference aims to showcase the cutting edge scholarship on EPG, provide a venue for scholars to present their research and network, and shape future EPG research across subfields in political science (American, Comparative, and International).

Agenda and Rationale
Few will deny the importance of environmental challenges in the contemporary era. As scholars we are asked by policy practioners for solutions to environmental challenges. Universities increasingly are recognizing the immense interest among students for environmental courses. The Nobel Prize to Elinor Ostrom for her work on common-pool resources showed that international community recognizes the scholarly contributions of EPG scholars. Yet, and tragically so, EPG remains an under-studied area in political science and in other social sciences as well. One reason is that the study of EPG tends to take place in different subfields. This silo approach leads to inadequate sharing and accumulation of knowledge, and the tendency to work with issue-focused frameworks instead of generalizable theories. We hope this and subsequent conferences will motivate EPG scholars to advance theoretical insights, work with generalizable theories, and use cutting-edge empirical methods.

Why focus on politics and governance? Although there has been substantial progress in the development of technical and scientific knowledge about the causes of several environmental problems, the translation of these ideas into politically feasible policy regimes has been a major stumbling block. The repeated lessons of these failures underscore the basic point that environmental issues pose important political challenges that need to be addressed with equal footing to their economic and technical dimensions. This conference will provide a forum for EPG scholars to present research and develop research networks with the objective to push the frontiers of knowledge via theoretically informed, rigorous empirical work. The format of the conference will allow for substantial give and take, and opportunities to network with others.

The 2015 conference will be held at the bucolic Islandwood conference facility near Seattle (http://www.islandwood.org/gatherings-and-events/lodging). With its majestic Northwest architecture and the location on Bainbridge Island, this facility provides an ideal venue for EPG scholars to meet, network, and present their work. Recognizing that conference participants confront issues of information overload and cabin fever, we will leave ample time for them to enjoy the beautiful Northwest surroundings. To top it all, the food at this resort is excellent, a testimony to the reputation of Seattle as a foodie city!

We will email information on logistics to conference participants in due course. For planning purposes, participants should plan on arriving by late afternoon on Thursday 14 May and leave on the morning of Sunday May 17.

This conference has been made possible by the generous gift of Dr. Richard Wesley, who is a longtime supporter and benefactor of University of Washington’s Department of Political Science and has a strong interest in environmental issues. Thanks to his gift, the Center for Environmental Politics will defray the following costs (for one participant per paper only).

- Lodging and food (3 nights, May 14, 15 & 16).
- Economy Airfare and local travel expenses up to $500 for participants from North America and $1,000 for participants from others part of the world.

There are no conference fees. We have reserved a limited number of rooms in the Islandwood facility for participants. Should a co-author desire to attend at their own expense, please contact us upon acceptance to explore relevant options.

An international steering committee of leading EPG scholars will review paper proposals. Through a double-blind review process, this committee will identify the most promising paper proposals.

Paper proposals should consist of electronic submission of a Word document with a cover page listing authors, affiliations, and contact information; and up to two pages of a paper abstract that details the relevance of the work to the EPG literature. To submit your paper proposal, please go to the Center’s website (http://depts.washington.edu/envirpol/) and click on “2015 conference” (top right corner).

We will consider work-in-progress only. Please DO NOT submit published, forthcoming, or accepted work.

Time Line:

1. Proposal submission deadline: November 3, 2014.
2. Notification of paper acceptance: January 15, 2015.
3. Arrival in Seattle: the afternoon of Thursday, May 14, 2015
4. Conference begins: evening of May 14, 2015.
5. Organized panels: Friday, May 15 and Saturday May 16, 2015.
6. Conference ends: the morning of Sunday, May 17, 2015

Steering Committee

Aseem Prakash, University of Washington, Seattle
Peter J. May, University of Washington, Seattle

Arun Agrawal, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Liliana Andonova, Graduate Institute for International & Development
                              Studies, Geneva
Thomas Bernauer, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Xun Cao, Pennsylvania State University
Ashwini Chhatre, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad
Stephen Dovers, Australian National University
Andreas Duit, Stockholm University
Riley Dunlap, Oklahama State University
Adrienne Heritier, EUI Florence
Robert Keohane, Princeton University
David Konisky, Georgetown University
Wai-Fung (Danny) Lam, University of Hong Kong
Mark Lubell, UC Davis
Helen Milner, Princeton University
Ronald Mitchell, University of Oregon
Matthew Potoski, UC Santa Barbara
Hugh Ward, University of Essex

Monday, September 15, 2014

A new anti-Semitism? Why thousands of Jewish citizens are leaving France







2003年修正公務人員保障法, 增設「情況決定制度」是指保訓會發現原行政處分雖違法或顯然不當,但其撤銷或變更於公益有重大損害,經斟酌復審人所受損害、賠償程度、防止方法及其他一切情事,認原行政處分之撤銷或變更顯與公益相違背時,得駁回其復審。前項情形,應於決定主文中載明原行政處分違法或顯然不當。參閱趙達瑜(2007a17)。(林全發,2010)


      2003年修正公務人員保障法,強化審議程序理由 (林全發,2010)


    2003年修正公務人員保障法, 設再審議制度 (林全發,2010) 


調職, 調遷, 調任

保訓會立場多為:職務之調派與否,尚非屬得提起復審,再復審及行政訴訟之範圍,係屬機關所為之管理措施,核屬申訴,再申訴之範圍, 多半以申訴案處理;再加上是否對公務員服公職有重大影響(降級,減俸),可能被允許復審。


人事行政行為是否僅屬機關內部的管理措施,抑或具有外部效力的行政處分? 行政處分的主要特徵之一為:直接發生法律上對外效力,此要素之判別應從客觀規範內容的目標設定,而非取決於各該措施的事實上效應,






(李建良, 2002)

Sunday, September 14, 2014

繼黃色小鴨爆掉後 霍夫曼月兔燒毀!

 李建良(2002)申訴制度的設計,旨在針對「行政處分以外」的人事行政事項,提供公務員救濟管道, 具有補充復審程序的功能。

實際運作上,保訓會對申訴標的的審查,經常是作適法性審查(李建良cite # 154),且操作模式大體仿照訴願程序,,申訴標的不宜超越復審的制度格局, 李建良認為申訴標的仍以個案救濟為限。管理措施須對當事人具有一定程度拘束性或確定性


Who will feed China's growing middle class?

Who’s behind the Chinese takeover of a U.S. pork producer?

if you are interested in learning Chinese history in a lazy way

recommend you to watch Chinese movies

「重要性理論」影響,公務人員得提起復審之標的逐步擴大: 298

在大法官作成釋字 298 號解釋,揭示了「足以改變公務員身分或對於公務員有重大影響之處分,得向掌理懲戒事項之司法機關聲明不服,由該司法機關就原處分是否違法或不當加以審查,以資救濟……」以降,受到此「重要性理論」影響,公務人員得提起復審之標的逐步擴大。

Saturday, September 13, 2014

MSPB Watch Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Federal Court to Undo MSPB’s Erosion of Whistleblower Protections


5 CFR 1201.34 - Intervenors and amicus curiae.



Amicus curiae.
(1) An amicus curiae is a person or organization who, although not a party to an appeal, gives advice or suggestions by filing a brief with the judge or the Board regarding an appeal. Any person or organization, including those who do not qualify as intervenors, may request permission to file an amicus brief. The Board may solicit amicus briefs on its own motion.
(2) A request to file an amicus curiae brief must include a statement of the person's or organization's interest in the appeal and how the brief will be relevant to the issues involved.
(3) The request may be granted, in the discretion of the judge or the Board, if the person or organization has a legitimate interest in the proceedings, and such participation will not unduly delay the outcome and may contribute materially to the proper disposition thereof.
(4) The amicus curiae shall submit its brief within the time limits set by the judge or the Board and must comply with any further orders by the judge or the Board.
(5) An amicus curiae is not a party to the proceeding and may not participate in any way in the conduct of the hearing, including the presentation of evidence or the examination of witnesses. The Board, in its discretion, may invite an amicus curiae to participate in oral argument in proceedings in which oral argument is scheduled.

MSPB do not do :

What We Do Not Do

  • Hear and decide discrimination complaints except when allegations of discrimination are raised in appeals from agency personnel actions brought before Board. That responsibility belongs to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 
  • Negotiate and resolve disputes, unfair labor practice complaints, and exceptions to arbitration awards. That responsibility belongs to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). 
  • Provide advice on employment, examinations, staffing, retirement and benefits. That responsibility belongs to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 
  • Investigate allegations of activities prohibited by civil service laws, rules or regulations. That responsibility belongs to the Office of Special Counsel(OSC). 
  • Hear or decide claims of whistleblowing reprisal filed by employees of, or applicants for employment with, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). That responsibility belongs to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM). 
  • Have jurisdiction over non-Federal appeals from private industry, local, city, county or state employees.


 MSPB reviews the significant actions of OPM

OSC, outreach programs, whistleblower, White House’s 2013 second Open Government National Action Plan (NAP)


5 U.S.C. § 2302(c)

White House’s 2013 second Open Government National Action Plan (NAP)

Whistleblower Protection Act

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act

The White House’s second NAP mandates agencies’ participation in OSC’s Section 2302(c) Certification Program

OSC, whistleblower reports, 2013


Upon receipt of a disclosure, Disclosure Unit (DU) attorneys review the information to evaluate whether there is a “substantial likelihood” that the information discloses one or more of the categories of wrongdoing described in 5 U.S.C. § 1213. If it does, the Special Counsel is required by § 1213(c) to send the information to the head of the agency for an investigation. If the whistleblower consents, his or her name is provided to the agency as the source of the information. If the whistleblower does not consent, the agency is notified that the whistleblower has chosen to remain anonymous. (The Special Counsel may also make discretionary referrals to the heads of agencies in certain circumstances.)

Upon receipt of a § 1213(c) referral from the Special Counsel, the agency head is required to conduct an investigation and promptly issue a report to the Special Counsel describing the agency’s findings. The whistleblower has the right to review and comment on the report. The DU and Special Counsel review the report to determine whether the agency’s findings appear to be reasonable. The Special Counsel then sends the agency report, any comments by the whistleblower, and any comments or recommendations by the Special Counsel, to the President and congressional oversight committees for the agency involved. A copy of the agency report and any comments on the report are placed in OSC’s public file.

Improper Maintenance of Reusable Medical Equipment
A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) investigation substantiated the whistleblower’s allegation that Continuous Positive Air Pressure (CPAP) machines were put into service in the Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana, without maintenance and safety inspections despite a policy requiring the inspection of medical equipment prior to use. In its initial report, the Office of  the Medical Inspector (OMI) concluded that the equipment was not properly inspected but did not find that a violation of law, rule, or regulation occurred. The investigation also found that it was likely that biologic filters were not used in the home-use CPAP machines, thus creating a potential risk in converting home-use CPAP machines to hospital inpatient use. The supplemental report clarified the agency’s findings and stated that the Medical Center’s handling and management of the CPAP machines violated Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Directives 2009-004 and 2009-031 requiring medical facilities to develop and follow standard operating procedures for the proper maintenance of reusable medical equipment. The OMI also concluded that the failure to conduct the biomedical safety and maintenance checks did not result in a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety to patients. Finally, after review and consideration of the investigative findings, the Medical Center removed from service all CPAP machines initially distributed for home use and discontinued the program. The Special Counsel determined that the reports contain all of the information required by statute and the findings appear to be reasonable. Referred in February 2011; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in December 2012.

Improper Accessing of Medical Records
On August 30, 2011, OSC requested that the VA conduct an investigation based on information provided by two whistleblowers employed at the Boston Healthcare System, Brockton Division, Business Office, Brockton, Massachusetts. The whistleblowers alleged that three Brockton administrative employees improperly accessed an employee’s medical records, in violation of
agency policy.

The agency did not substantiate the whistleblowers’ allegations, finding that the three administrative employees had valid work-related reasons to access the employee’s records. However, the agency failed to provide documentation to support these findings, and failed to reasonably account for access that occurred on several dates identified by the employee. In their comments, both whistleblowers called the agency’s findings into question and reasserted that the subject employees did not have valid reasons to view the medical records.

OSC reviewed the original disclosures, the agency’s reports, and the whistleblowers’ comments. Based on that review, OSC found the agency’s report lacked responsive, adequate explanations for the repeated accessing of the employee’s records, and that as a result, the report was deficient and not reasonable. Referred in August 2011; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in February 2013.

Accounting Irregularities
OSC received disclosures about financial improprieties from a whistleblower who was an accountant with the Cleveland VA Medical Center (VAMC), Fiscal Department and North Central Consolidated Patient Account Center (CPAC), Cleveland, Ohio. The whistleblower alleged that employees improperly transferred funds from suspense accounts to permanent accounts in violation of federal and agency regulations in order to hide the VA’s failure to reconcile suspense funds. She also disclosed that employees failed to properly track payments made to the agency resulting in misleading financial records.

The agency reports substantiated the allegations. The Department of the Treasury requires federal agencies to classify payments and collections properly. According to the Department of the Treasury Financial Manual, Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 1520.25 (Clearing Accounts), suspense funds may be used to temporarily hold unidentified collections with the expectation that these funds will be cleared within 60 days. VA policy requires that employees must make all efforts to research and clear unapplied deposit items (suspense funds) prior to 60 days from receipt. The failure to reconcile deposits in a timely manner weakens the agency’s financial reports and increases the risk of fund mismanagement. The investigation revealed, however, that the errors were strictly accounting errors and did not rise to criminal wrongdoing, such as a misappropriation of funds or theft. The agency report added that only the whistleblower and the VAMC’s Chief Financial Officer were able to correctly describe the procedures for transfers from suspense accounts to permanent accounts. In the supplemental report, the agency confirmed that investigators had identified $37,163 in accounting errors.

As a result of these determinations, VA has taken several steps to address these issues in order to ensure the integrity of the financial records. Specifically, employees conducted journal voucher reviews, identified accounting errors, and corrected them. Proper accounting training was also provided to the VAMC and CPAC accounting staff.

Furthermore, VAMC issued an admonishment to the Accounting Section chief, who resigned effective May 2012, and to the former accounts receivable supervisor, who was reassigned to another VAMC position. The agency report found that these two individuals were responsible for ensuring the proper justification to transfer funds from suspense accounts to permanent accounts. The Special Counsel determined that the agency’s reports contained all the information required by statute and that the findings appeared reasonable. Referred in January 2012; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in November 2012.

Faulty Laboratory Policies and Procedures
OSC requested that the VA conduct an investigation based on information provided by a whistleblower employed at the San Francisco VA Medical Center (VAMC), San Francisco, California. The whistleblower, a laboratory technician, alleged that urine samples at the San Francisco VAMC were improperly handled.

The agency report did not conclude that employees at the San Francisco VAMC engaged in conduct that constituted gross mismanagement or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. The investigation also did not substantiate the allegations that lab technicians routinely stored urine samples in an unsafe manner, that the means of disposal of samples was unsafe, or that disposal was accomplished without the use of personal protective equipment. The agency was also unable to substantiate the allegation that management was aware of these concerns and failed to take action. However, the agency determined that the San Francisco VAMC lab lacked a written policy manual or documentation of employee training on the proper methods of storage and disposal of urine samples. In its report, the agency found that the lab was not in compliance with its own local policy requiring refrigeration of urine samples, nor was it in compliance with local and national policies on the procedure for documenting the time of sample collection. The agency also found that lab employees did not have a consistent definition for the criteria necessary to reclassify a sample as medical waste. In response, the agency recommended that the San Francisco VAMC lab take steps to improve its process for receiving and storing samples, including refrigeration of samples immediately after testing and additional training for staff. OSC found that the agency’s reports contained all of the information required by statute and that the findings appeared to be reasonable. Referred November 2011; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in February 2013.

Regulatory Non-Compliance
OSC requested that the VA conduct an investigation based on information provided by a whistleblower employed at the Canandaigua VA Medical Center (VAMC), in Canandaigua, New York. The whistleblower, a police officer at the Canandaigua and Bath VAMCs, alleged that the chief of the Police Service at the Canandaigua and Bath VMACs, directed the whistleblower to improperly issue Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards. Specifically, the whistleblower disclosed that the police chief ordered him to enter PIV-required employee information into the VA PIV System and issue PIV cards prior to completion of his own background check and without proper training. He further disclosed that the chief directed the Bath VAMC assistant chief to enter the whistleblower’s employee and personal information into VA and Department of Justice computer systems under a false badge number to enable him to issue PIV cards.

In its report, the agency stated that it was unable to substantiate the whistleblower’s allegations regarding the improper issuance of PIV cards. However, the agency did find that the Bath VAMC lacked a standard policy governing the retention of employee PIV training records. The report stated that the Bath VAMC was not in compliance with regulatory requirements regarding such records. The agency recommended that a compliant record retention policy be put in place for PIV training employee records. OSC determined that the agency’s report contained all the information required by statute and the agency’s findings appeared to be reasonable. Referred March 2012; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in December 2012.

Improper Records Maintenance
The whistleblowers, four medical record technicians at the VA Western New York Healthcare System (WNYHS), Health Information Management System Department (HIMS), Buffalo, New York, alleged that the HIMS Department managers engaged in conduct that may constitute violations of law, rule, or regulation and gross mismanagement. The agency report substantiated the majority of the whistleblowers’ allegations. Specifically, the investigation confirmed the whistleblowers’ allegation that VA records at both the Buffalo and Batavia sites of WNYHS were not maintained in accordance with the requirements for records management as defined by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The investigation further substantiated the whistleblowers’ allegation that the HIMS manager authorized the transfer of 227 boxes of records to the VA Records Center & Vault in Neosho, New York (Neosho RC&V), five of which were damaged by water and mildew. The report recommended numerous steps, including the development of a strategic plan for the creation of an effective records management program that allows the facility to properly create, maintain, and dispose of records in accordance with VA Directives and the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, a letter of counseling was issued to the HIMS Manager. The Special Counsel found that the report contained all of the information required by statute and that the findings were reasonable. Referred May 2012; closed and transmitted to the President and congressional oversight committees in April 2013.

Mishandling of Prescription Drugs at VA Pharmacy 
The whistleblower alleged that employees of the West Palm Beach VA Medical Center, Outpatient Pharmacy, violated VA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules and regulations by failing to properly dispose of prescription drugs that were returned to the pharmacy. The whistleblower also reported that employees retained and restocked prescription drugs that were returned to the pharmacy as a means of managing and reconciling the pharmacy inventory. According to the whistleblower, the restocking of previously dispensed prescription drugs created a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety as the potential existed that the drugs may have been contaminated or otherwise adulterated while outside the custody of the pharmacy.

for more information


電影《鴛鴦蝴蝶》- 陳坤 周迅 Classic Movie "A West Lake Moment"

大陸禁片 « 花兒為什麼這樣紅 »

Friday, September 12, 2014

飞越老人院 (Full Circle) 2012 (with English subtitles)

Have you read the 200 ‘best American novels’?


The Best Ice Cream In Los Angeles


Columbia Students Drag Mattresses Onto Campus to Support Rape Survivor


Thursday, September 11, 2014

Students show solidarity by helping Columbia rape survivor carry her mattress


Protecting Employees in their Right to Due Process, OSC cases 2013

OSC filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to support
two employees who suffered adverse actions after their agencies had found them ineligible to
occupy positions that were categorized as noncritical sensitive. See Kaplan v. Conyersc
. After a Federal Circuit panel held that the MSPB was prohibited from reviewing national security
determinations concerning the eligibility of employees to occupy a “sensitive” position, the
Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, agreed to rehear the appeal. On rehearing, OSC urged the court
to respect the due process rights of federal employees by allowing the MSPB and OSC to review
adverse personnel actions based on security determinations, especially in whistleblower cases.
The court held that the employees could not appeal these adverse actions against them based on
the national security concerns. The decision reserved for another day the question of whether a
whistleblower might be allowed to appeal a personnel action under the MSPB’s individual right
of action appeal authority if the action is based on an adverse security determination.

In an enforcement action that had systemic impact, OSC issued a PPP report that concluded that
an agency’s procedure to indefinitely suspend employees whose personal reliability certifications
had been revoked or suspended constituted a violation of due process. In this case, an
employee’s certification was temporarily revoked pending an administrative review. During the
review, which lasted 13 months, the employee was placed on suspension and denied any salary.
At the conclusion of the long review process, the agency determined that the employee’s
certification should not be revoked and returned him to duty, but without back pay. Because
more than a year had elapsed since the employee had last been certified, the agency required the
employee to submit to recertification before returning to work. During the second certification
process, the agency failed the employee again. This led to another indefinite suspension while
the agency completed its administrative review. At that point, the employee filed a complaint for
relief with OSC. Based on clear evidence that the agency’s procedures failed to provide any
meaningful opportunity for relief, OSC issued a report that recommended a change in the
agency’s procedures so that revocation of the personal reliability certification did not result
automatically in loss of pay. The agency agreed to change its policy to add this protection and it
agreed to provide back pay to the employee. Under the amended policy, employees whose
certifications are revoked or suspended will be placed on administrative leave pending
administrative review.

Protecting Employees from Retaliation for Whistleblowing, OSC cases 2013

OSC obtained corrective action on behalf of a whistleblower who reported improper interference in an agency determination. The whistleblower alleged that a political appointee inappropriately pressured career employees to make a favorable decision on behalf of a nongovernmental
customer. An investigation by the agency’s Inspector General confirmed the unethical conduct
and the political appointee resigned from government service. Subsequently, the whistleblower
received a directed reassignment to a different city. When the whistleblower refused to move for
personal reasons, the agency required the whistleblower to accept a demotion to a lower graded
position. To resolve the OSC complaint, the agency agreed to provide the whistleblower a
significant lump sum payment in return for the whistleblower’s agreement to retire from service.

OSC obtained corrective action on behalf of a whistleblower who reported to an Inspector
General improper government expenditures by the head of a federal agency and other high-level
agency officials. Subsequently, the agency proposed the whistleblower’s removal from service
for misconduct and subpar performance. OSC obtained an informal stay of the proposed
removal. At the conclusion of the investigation, OSC negotiated a settlement in which the parties
agreed to provide the employee with a clean employment record and a neutral job
recommendation. The whistleblower received a retroactive, within-grade increase, agency
contributions to a private annuity, and reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The agency also agreed
to provide the whistleblower with professional training to enable the employee to maintain
professional credentialing.

OSC helped achieve a global settlement in a matter stemming from a whistleblower’s report to
management that a coworker had violated security protocol regarding classified documents.
Subsequent to the disclosure, the agency caused criminal charges to be brought against the
whistleblower for alleged time and attendance fraud. After a court dismissed the charges with
prejudice, the agency fired the whistleblower based on the same underlying allegations. That
removal action was reversed by the MSPB. On the day the whistleblower was reinstated, the
agency gave notice that it planned to place the employee on indefinite suspension pending a new
security clearance review. The whistleblower then filed an OSC complaint alleging retaliation
for whistleblowing and the exercise of appeal rights. The complaint was resolved when the
agency reinstated the whistleblower’s security clearance, returned the whistleblower to work and
removed all references to the suspension and proposed removal from the whistleblower’s
personnel files. The whistleblower also received payment of damages and attorneys’ fees
associated with their ordeal.

A whistleblower disclosed that a nonprofit corporation that raised funds to finance a government
entity had engaged in gross mismanagement of the funds. This disclosure angered the nonprofit
board of directors which persuaded the employing federal agency to intervene. The agency
proposed to demote and geographically reassign the whistleblower. OSC negotiated a stay of
these actions with the agency while it conducted its investigation. At the conclusion of the
investigation, OSC assisted in negotiating a settlement in which the whistleblower would serve
two years as a visiting professor at a well-known college under the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act and then retire from service. The agency also agreed to reimburse the whistleblower for
attorneys’ fees, rescind the orders of demotion and reassignment, and provide the whistleblower
with a clean record.

OSC filed an amicus brief before the MSPB in support of a whistleblower’s attempt to have
portions of Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 applied retroactively to his
pending appeal. The case concerned whether restrictive decisions by the Federal Circuit that
barred certain recurring whistleblower claims from review should be applied to pending cases or
only to cases filed after the WPEA’s enactment. OSC urged that the statute should be applied
retroactively to pending cases. In its decision, Day v. Department of Homeland Security
, the MSPB agreed with OSC and ordered that the WPEA’s provision to overturn restrictive court
decisions applied retroactively. Under this decision, previously barred whistleblower claims may
now be reviewed by OSC and the MSPB.

As it did in the Day case, OSC filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on behalf of a whistleblower whose claim had been rejected by a district court that relied
on the Federal Circuit’s restrictive rulings. In Kerr v. Salazarb , the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court and allowed the retaliation claim, but it did so by rejecting the criticized Federal
Circuit decisions and finding that the whistleblower’s disclosures were protected by the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014



Giving Americans better tools to prevent domestic violence

pink cup

read her papers before and after her death............
need to cut a paper of 30,000 words into 20,000 words....
the more you sue or appeal in the courts, the more she has to read....
the problem of reading too much material is that...
you are ready to submit the paper, then you find extra and new materials, then you have to revise and rewrite your papers

thus, to finish and submit your papers efficiently, you had better not read too much...

good logic??

OSC Investigation and Prosecution Division (IPD)

If ADR is unable to resolve a matter, it is referred to IPD, which is comprised of the four field
offices, and is responsible for conducting investigations of prohibited personnel practices. IPD
attorneys determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that a violation has occurred.
If it is not, the matter is closed. If the evidence is sufficient, IPD decides whether the matter
warrants corrective action, disciplinary action, or both. If a meritorious case cannot be resolved
through negotiation with the agency involved, IPD may bring an enforcement action before the


OSC Complaints Examining Unit (CEU)

This unit is the intake point for all complaints alleging prohibited personnel practices. CEU
normally screens approximately 2,500 such complaints each year, but last year that number
spiked to almost 3,000. Attorneys and personnel-management specialists conduct an initial
review of complaints to determine if they are within OSC’s jurisdiction and, if so, whether
further investigation is warranted. The unit refers qualifying matters for alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) to the ADR Unit or to the Investigation and Prosecution Division (IPD) for
further investigation, possible settlement, or prosecution. Matters that do not qualify for referral
to ADR or IPD are closed.


2012, Hatch Act

In December 2012, Congress, with OSC’s support, passed the Hatch Act Modernization Act,
which created a more flexible penalty structure for violations of the Hatch Act by federal
employees and lifted the ban on state and local government employees running for partisan
political office in most cases. The new act allows state and local employees to run as long as
their salary is not entirely provided by the federal government.

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 1994

In 1994, Congress enacted the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA). USERRA protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of those who
serve or have served in the Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserve, and other
uniformed services. It prohibits employment discrimination based on military service, requires
prompt reinstatement in civilian employment upon return from military service, and prohibits
retaliation for exercising USERRA rights. Under USERRA, OSC may seek corrective action for
service members whose rights have been violated by federal agency employers.2

Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA, 1989

In 1989, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Under the WPA, OSC
became an independent agency within the executive branch with continued responsibility for the
functions described above. The WPA also enhanced protections for employees who alleged
reprisal for whistleblowing and strengthened OSC’s ability to enforce those protections.

Shame & Guilt

Product Details

The Spirituality of Imperfection: Storytelling and the Search for Meaning