Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for your commitment to federal workers and for listening to their concerns. By holding today's oversight hearing on the Office of Special Counsel, you have once again demonstrated your leadership in protecting employees' rights.
OSC has a special role in the federal government. It is charged with making sure that federal employees are free from discriminatory, retaliatory, and arbitrary actions. These protections are essential so that employees can perform their duties in the best interests of the American public. By enforcing the merit system principles and serving as an advocate for federal employees, OSC helps ensure that the federal government is an employer of choice.
As the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security embark on new personnel systems that -- in my opinion -- severely diminish the rights and protections of federal employees, the importance of OSC in protecting the merit system principles will increase.
Today's hearing examines how well OSC is meeting this extremely important mission.
The role of OSC has evolved. Created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, OSC was established as an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency working on behalf of employees, particularly whistleblowers. But it did not live up to this role.
The Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989 in large part because OSC was perceived as ineffectual. At that time, OSC had not brought a single corrective action case since 1979 to the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of a whistleblower. A former Special Counsel advised whistleblowers "Don't put your head up, because it will get blown off." Whistleblowers told Congress that they thought of OSC as an adversary -- rather than an ally -- and urged this Committee to abolish the office altogether.
Instead, Congress strengthened rather than abolished the office, and the Whistleblower Protection Act gave OSC a new charter: "to protect employees, especially whistleblowers, from prohibited personnel practices" and to "act in the interests of employees" who seek its assistance.
Despite significant changes in OSC after the 1989 Act, employee satisfaction with the Office remained surprisingly low. According to the Government Accountability Office in 1993, 81 percent of employees with cases before OSC gave the Office a generally low-to very-low rating for overall effectiveness. Even employees with successful cases before OSC gave the agency low marks for poor customer service and effectiveness.
Congress passed amendments to the WPA to strengthen protections for whistleblowers and improve OSC's effectiveness in 1994. We have been encouraged about the direction OSC was headed.
For example, in 2001, the Government Accountability Project, one of OSC's stakeholders, said that OSC had won over even the most disillusioned critics by opening channels of communication with stakeholders and developing a genuine docket of ongoing litigation.
I was pleased to see that even though changes are needed to strengthen the WPA, those filing whistleblower cases generally believed that their cases had a fair evaluation and that OSC was actively pursuing its mission.
Sadly, it appears that this trend is reversing and that OSC may be reverting to the anti-employee practices of the past.
For example, employees, good government groups, and employee unions have publicly expressed their concerns over the activities of OSC regarding the backlog of cases. While I appreciate the efforts by Special Counsel Bloch and his staff to reduce the backlog, there are charges that the manner in which the reduction was accomplished is suspect.
Very serious allegations have been raised that: • complaints are not being adequately reviewed,
- cases have simply been shifted from one office to another, or
- cases were simply dumped.
If true, these practices are directly counter to OSC's legal responsibility to be the protector of civil service employees.
Moreover, the concerns about the adverse treatment of OSC employees are deeply troubling.
Earlier this year -- without notice to congressional authorizers or appropriators -- OSC initiated a reorganization which resulted in the opening of a new field office in Detroit and the loss of approximately 10 percent of the agency's workforce.
The reorganization announcement came on the heels of a $140,000 external review of OSC which did not recommend such a change. In addition, the reorganization proposed moving the Alternative Dispute Resolution office, which has been highly successful in resolving disputes, from the Washington, D.C. headquarters -- where a majority of cases are handled -- to the new Detroit field office.
In my opinion, the business case for a new field office has not been made. And, I am alarmed by the way employees were forced to relocate or lose their jobs. Volunteers were not solicited and those selected to relocate were not consulted before the decision was made.
In fact, the unilateral action was the impetus for some remaining OSC staff, who have asked to remain anonymous, to write this Committee in support of the fired employees who have joined in filing a complaint against Special Counsel Bloch with the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Equally troubling, shortly after taking office in 2004, Special Counsel Bloch removed all information relating to sexual orientation discrimination from OSC's website. This action was taken in spite of repeated questioning by myself and other members of this Committee during Mr. Bloch's confirmation process as to his views on this subject. He repeatedly assured us -- under oath before this Committee -- that discrimination based on one's sexual orientation is prohibited and is under OSC's jurisdiction.
Only after Senators Collins, Lieberman, Levin, and I questioned this action in a letter to Mr. Bloch, dated February 19, 2004 -- and after both the Office of Personnel Management and the White House reaffirmed that the long-standing position that sexual orientation discrimination was prohibited -- did OSC reverse itself. However, employees are still unsure of the degree of their protection, and subject matter information that was on the website prior to the legal review of this issue still has not been returned to the site.
Lastly, some OSC employees claim they have faced retaliation for being "leakers" after alerting Congress and the press that OSC's policy on sexual orientation discrimination was under review and for filing complaints against Mr. Bloch. These charges, if proven true, could result in Mr. Bloch's dismissal from federal service.
Let me be clear, if the lead agency charged with protecting federal employees is seen as the most egregious offender of the merit principles, the best and brightest now serving in the federal government will want to leave and it will be hard, if not impossible, to recruit young men and women to serve.
With fears over retaliatory and arbitrary action against employees under the new personnel systems at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, it is imperative that OSC be a safe haven and a place of hope for employees. As such, OSC must be held to a higher standard. The activities of OSC must be above reproach. To the detriment of employees and the merit principles, it appears that OSC is not meeting this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that today's hearing will allow us to get to the bottom of these concerns and allegations and ensure that OSC is a safe haven for federal employees and a staunch advocate for the merit system principles.
Thank you.
