“All that is needed for evil to prosper is for people of good will to do nothing”—Edmund Burke

TheWhistle NO. 40, DECEMBER 2004

Newsletter of Whistleblowers AustraliaPO Box U129, Wollongong NSW 2500

Bill Toomer, WBA founder member (see back page)

PAGE 2 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

Media watch

Secret award forwhistleblower

Cameron StewartWeekend Australian,

20-21 November 2004, pp. 1-2

For Australia’s newest and mostunlikely military hero, it was anextraordinary ceremony that unfoldedin the Qantas club lounge of Brisbaneairport on Monday.

Nathan Moore, an airfield defenceguard with the RAAF, was to be givena citation for his courage in blowingthe whistle on drug use in the defenceforce two years ago.

Moore’s actions — which led tohim being bashed and his life threat-ened — had exposed the dark under-belly of drug use in the military,sparking raids at defence bases acrossthe nation and leading to tough newdrug laws.

But when the 24-year-old fromQueensland’s Sunshine Coast turnedup to receive his citation, there was nota television camera or journalist insight.

The Australian Defence Force,which loves nothing better than toparade its heroes in front of the nation,did not want any publicity for thisceremony. What’s more, it hadinstructed Moore not to talk about it.

Moore was the military hero thedefence force did not want Australia toknow about.

And why? Because defencewanted to avoid any damaging pub-licity about the explosive case andabout its treatment of the youngfreckle-faced soldier who first exposeddrug use at Queensland’s AmberleyRAAF base in 2002.

Moore’s decision to tell hissuperior officers about drug-taking onthe base — including using ecstasy andmarijuana during live-fire exercises —very nearly destroyed his life.

Instead of being praised by theRAAF for reporting drug use, Moorewas sent back to his unit — where hewas bashed and threatened by hiscolleagues for breaking the military’scode of silence.

Recovering from a broken jaw andtrauma, he was then transferred to

other RAAF bases, without beinggiven personal protection or specificduties.

He was eventually forced to hidein safe houses up and down Australia’seast coast.

Astonishingly, the RAAF thendemoted him, citing that his previouspromotion was an “administrativeerror.” It then tried unsuccessfully todischarge him.

Eventually, in January this year,Moore had a nervous breakdown andtried to take his own life.

For the past two years, the federalGovernment has denied it mistreatedMoore, with former veterans affairsminister Danna Vale concluding thatthe RAAF had “acted appropriatelyunder the circumstances.”

In July this year The WeekendAustralian revealed Moore’s full storyand the fact that the nation’s militarywatchdog, ADF Inspector-GeneralGeoff Earley, had launched an investi-gation into whether the RAAF gravelymistreated Moore.

Mr Earley said yesterday that hehad not yet completed his report intoMoore’s case because it had proved tobe “more complicated” than expected.

However the RAAF last monthcame to its own conclusion, acceptingit had mishandled aspects of his case.

Moore had been treated as aheadache rather than a hero by theRAAF. For taking the high moralground on drug abuse, he had beenvilified by colleagues who saw thedrug issue as less important thanbreaking the bond that says you don’tsqueal on your mates.

So, two weeks ago, on November6, Air Force Chief Angus Houstondecided to deliver some belated justiceto Moore by penning a letter ofappreciation.

“I wish to acknowledge that youtook a courageous step in reporting …the abuse of illicit drugs during yourservice,” Houston wrote.

“In taking this step you exhibitedthe values I expect from all membersof the air force … you clearly set anexample for all to follow.

“I regret that your actions resultedin considerable stress and personal

injury … I would like to take thisopportunity to formally express myappreciation of you.”

Moore declined to discuss his casewith The Weekend Australian, citing aconfidentiality agreement with theRAAF, but defence sources say he wasvisibly moved when the citation wasread out by acting air force chief AirCommodore Ken Birrer at the airportceremony.

As part of the deal with the RAAF,Moore was discharged from the forceon Monday and will be given medicalcompensation. His demotion was alsoreversed.

After two years of living a night-mare for doing something he believedwas right, Moore now leaves themilitary as a hero.

But his story is not one the topbrass will be re-telling in the historybooks or on the evening news.

In the pantheon of the Anzacs, itseems not all of our military heroes areequal.

Shameful assault onfreedom of speech

Des HoughtonCourier-Mail, 28 August 2004

The Beattie Government has come upwith a successful way to silence itscritics — it simply bans them fromtalking to reporters. In a cynical move,charities and social welfare groupshave been threatened with funding cutsif they dare to speak out on problemsin health, education, housing andfamily services.

This is repression, of course, andanother example of the erosion of freespeech in Queensland.

It came to my notice just a weekafter Premier Peter Beattie pattedhimself on the back in Parliament, andsaid his Government was open andaccountable.

The full extent of the censorshipwas exposed last week at a Brisbaneconference hosted by the QueenslandCouncil of Social Services.

I gate-crashed the gathering atNorth Quay, and heard a number of

THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004 PAGE 3

speakers complain the Governmentwas attempting to stifle debate onissues as widespread as juvenile crime,homelessness and drug abuse.

Not long after the conferencebegan, Shirley Watters, executivedirector of QCOSS, politely warnedspeakers that I was in the room takingnotes. She specifically urged hercolleagues to be wary of criticising theGovernment while The Courier-Mailwas listening.

How shameful was that? I have nocriticism of Watters here. She wastrying to shield her colleagues. Whatwas disturbing was the broad accept-ance that anyone who spoke their mindrisked government censure.

What has Queensland come towhen a group of professionals cannotmeet to discuss their problems openlywithout the fear of government perse-cution?

Later, Watters admitted thatcommunity groups were experiencingheavy censorship in the form of“service agreements” which they mustsign before they could get funding.

She said the agreements specifi-cally prohibited groups from speakingto the media.

She spoke cautiously, saying: “Wehave to walk a fine line.”

She declined to elaborate.One delegate said groups had been

punished already for speaking out.Funds had dried up and three-yearcontracts had been slashed.

“Community agencies need to beable to speak out and point out defi-ciencies, because many of the peoplethey care for cannot,” he said.

“From the Government’s point ofview it is not only about stoppingdiscussion, it’s about media censor-ship.”

Beattie’s carpet must be gettinglumpy with all the bad news sweptunder it lately.

Said another delegate: “What theydon’t want you to hear about is thesevere shortage of housing, the hospi-tals that are closing wards, or that thereis a four-year wait for public dentistryor that 14 kids a day are being sus-pended from school for drugs.”

There also was a severe shortage ofbeds for psychiatric patients who weresimply turned out on the streets.

He said the Beattie bans silencedthose with the most expertise on theproblems.

“While the bans remain there arefew to speak on behalf of the mentallyill, the intellectually disabled, prison-ers, children at risk, the homeless andthose with drug and alcohol problems.”

Another social worker saidHousing Minister Rob Schwarten hadquite openly stated at a conferencerecently that he would not toleratecriticism of the Government.

Schwarten had been “explicit andmuscling,” she said.

Education Minister Anna Bligh’soffice also had warned communitygroups not to highlight school drugabuse problems, they said.

When quizzed from the floor of theconference, visiting speaker LindaHancock, associate professor at DeakinUniversity, said it was “appalling” thatstate agreements were “trying to stifleadvocacy.”

She said the Howard Governmentand the Victorian State Governmenthad similar bans in place.

“There is a real silencing by theGovernment; a flight from controversyto make it all look good.”

A leading Brisbane social workersaid: “Fragile organisations reliant ongovernment funding are frightened tocriticise.”

Queensland Alcohol and DrugFoundation CEO Bob Aldred told theconference he was concerned that theservice agreements were prohibitingvital public discussions.

“Can we really be partners (withthe State Government) when we can’texercise our democratic rights?” heasked.

Whistleblowers callfor disclosure of

government’s Iraq deceitDaniel Ellsberg and former CIA andFBI officials say Americans need full

disclosure of lies, cover-ups, andwar’s projected costs in lives and

dollarshttp://www.rense.com,

20 September 2004

Washington, DC — Daniel Ellsberg,joined today by ten former employeesof the FBI, CIA, State and Defense

Departments, issued a call to currentgovernment officials to disclose classi-fied information that is being wronglywithheld, about plans for and estimatedcosts of the war in Iraq, and otherdocuments that contradict governmentlies.

The “call,” in the form of an openmemo to current government employ-ees, says “It is time for unauthorizedtruth-telling.” Drawing the clearparallel to Vietnam, the group urgesthat ongoing silence about governmentdeceptions and cover-ups and reluc-tance to publicize information aboutthe war’s costs and projected casualtiescarries with it a significant price inhuman life and national security.

The group released a list of existingdocuments wrongly withheld withinthe government as examples of thekind that the public has a right to see(see below). These include backgroundon Army Staff estimates before the warthat the Iraq effort would requireseveral hundred thousand troops.Similarly, current estimates of poten-tial casualty rates as the insurgency inIraq continues to grow as well as thelikely cost of waging war over the nextfew years almost surely exist, andshould be disclosed now.

To current government officials,Ellsberg says: “If you have documen-tary evidence that our country has beenlied into an unnecessary, wrongful,endless war — as I had duringVietnam — I urge you to considerdoing right now what I wish I haddone years earlier than I did: give thetruth to Congress and the press, withcopies of those documents. Thepersonal costs you risk are great, butyou may save many Americans frombeing lied to death.”

Ray McGovern adds: “Truth.Never in the past 50 years has it beenin such short supply in the U.S.defense/intelligence community. Yet itis the truth — once known — that willkeep us free. Truth-tellers, arise!”

Ellsberg, best known for releasingthe Pentagon Papers to Congress andthe press in 1971, was joined at aWashington press conference by RayMcGovern, formerly an analyst for 27years at the CIA, who provided severalpresidential staffs with their dailymorning security briefings; SibelEdmonds, former FBI translator whowas fired for revealing security lapses

PAGE 4 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

at the FBI; and Coleen Rowley, one ofTime magazine’s Persons of the Yearas a Whistleblower, currently a SpecialAgent in the FBI’s Minneapolis fieldoffice.

The Call and press conference arepart of Ellsberg’s ongoing work withthe Truth Tel l ing Projec t :http://www.truthtellingproject.org/

The conference is also sponsoredby the Sam Adams Associates forIntegrity in Intelligence, which hasgiven its annual Award to ColleenRowley and Katharine Gun (who willalso be present at the conference) and,last night at American University, toSibel Edmonds.

Gun, a former translator with theBritish equivalent of the NSA, wasfired after leaking sensitive informa-tion to the British press about efforts to“surge” intercept capability againstmembers of the UN Security Council.Gun was acquitted of charges ofviolating England’s Official SecretsAct. Another participant is MajorFrank Grevil, of the Danish Intelli-gence Service, who faces trial forreleasing his estimates that revealedlack of evidence of WMDs in Iraq,contradicting his country’s involve-ment in efforts to distort intelligence inorder to support the war.

Other signers of the Call —including Mary Ann Wright, whoresigned as Deputy Chief of Mission inMongolia over the war — will also bepresent, along with Ann Beeson of theACLU and Beth Daly of the Project onGovernment Oversight (POGO).

For more information contact:Kawana Lloyd, Jessica Smith, or SteveSmith Fenton Communications (202)822-5200; http://www.fenton.com/

Call to patriotic whistleblowing ofBush Administration’swidespread corruption

The Truth-Telling Project,Washington, DC

20 September 2004It is time for unauthorized truth-

telling. Citizens cannot make informedchoices if they do not have the facts —for example, the facts that have beenwrongly concealed about the ongoingwar in Iraq: the real reasons behind it,the prospective costs in blood andtreasure, and the setback it has dealt toefforts to stem terrorism.

Administration deception and

cover-up on these vital matters has sofar been all too successful in mislead-ing the public. Many Americans aretoo young to remember Vietnam.Then, as now, senior governmentofficials did not tell the Americanpeople the truth. Now, as then, insiderswho know better have kept theirsilence, as the country was misled intothe most serious foreign policy disastersince Vietnam.

Some of you have documentationof wrongly concealed facts and analy-ses that — if brought to light — wouldimpact heavily on public debateregarding crucial matters of nationalsecurity, both foreign and domestic.We urge you to provide that informa-tion now, both to Congress and,through the media, to the public.

Thanks to our First Amendment,there is in America no broad OfficialsSecrets Act, nor even a statutory basisfor the classification system. Only veryrarely would it be appropriate to revealinformation of the three types whosedisclosure has been expressly crimi-nalized by Congress: communicationsintelligence, nuclear data, and theidentity of U.S. intelligence operatives.However, this administration hasstretched existing criminal laws tocover other disclosures in ways nevercontemplated by Congress.

There is a growing network ofsupport for whistleblowers. Inparticular, for anyone who wishes toknow the legal implications of disclo-sures they may be contemplating, theACLU stands ready to provide probono legal counsel, with lawyer-clientprivilege. The Project on GovernmentOversight (POGO) will offer advice onwhistleblowing, dissemination andrelations with the media.

Needless to say, any unauthorizeddisclosure that exposes your superiorsto embarrassment entails personal risk.Should you be identified as the source,the price could be considerable,including loss of career and possiblyeven prosecution. Some of us knowfrom experience how difficult it is tocountenance such costs. But continuedsilence brings an even more terriblecost, as our leaders persist in a disas-trous course and young Americanscome home in coffins or with missinglimbs.

This is precisely what happened atthis comparable stage in the Vietnam

War. Some of us live with profoundregret that we did not at that pointexpose the administration’s dishonestyand perhaps prevent the needlessslaughter of 50,000 more Americantroops and some 2 to 3 millionVietnamese over the next ten years.We know how misplaced loyalty tobosses, agencies, and careers canobscure the higher allegiance allgovernment officials owe the Consti-tution, the sovereign public, and theyoung men and women put in harm’sway. We urge you to act on thosehigher loyalties.

A hundred forty thousand youngAmericans are risking their lives everyday in Iraq for dubious purpose. Ourcountry has urgent need of comparablemoral courage from its public officials.Truth-telling is a patriotic and effectiveway to serve the nation. The time forspeaking out is now.

Signatories• Edward Costello, Former Special

Agent (Counterintelligence), FederalBureau of Investigation

• Sibel Edmonds, Former LanguageSpecialist, Federal Bureau of Investi-gation

• Daniel Ellsberg, Former official,U.S. Departments of Defense and State

• John D. Heinberg, FormerEconomist, Employment and TrainingAdministration, U.S. Department ofLabor

• Larry C. Johnson, Former DeputyDirector for Anti-Terrorism Assis-tance, Transportation Security, andSpecial Operations, Department ofState, Office of the Coordinator forCounter Terrorism

• John Brady Kiesling, FormerPolitical Counselor, U.S. Embassy,Athens, Department of State

• David MacMichael, FormerSenior Estimates Officer, NationalIntelligence Council, Central Intelli-gence Agency

• Ray McGovern, Former Analyst,Central Intelligence Agency

• Philip G. Vargas, Ph.D., J.D., Dir.Privacy & Confidentiality Study,Commission on Federal Paperwork(Author/Director: “The Vargas Reporton Government Secrecy”—censored)

• Ann Wright, Retired U.S. ArmyReserve Colonel and U.S. ForeignService Officer

• Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski,

THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004 PAGE 5

recently retired from service in thePentagon’s Office of Near East plan-ning

Selected signatory biographies• Daniel Ellsberg is a lecturer,

writer and activist on the dangers ofthe nuclear era and unlawful interven-tions. He is best known for releasingpublicly the Pentagon Papers, the7,000-page Top Secret McNamarastudy of U.S. decision-making inVietnam, to the Senate ForeignRelations Committee in 1969 and tothe New York Times, Washington Postand 17 other newspapers in 1971.

• Ray McGovern worked for 27years as a career analyst in the CIAspanning administrations from John F.Kennedy to George H. W. Bush. Rayis now co-director of the ServantLeadership School, which providestraining and other support for thoseseeking ways to be in relationship withthe marginalized poor.

In January 2003, Ray, along withother intell igence communityalumni/ae, created Veteran IntelligenceProfessionals for Sanity. ThroughVIPS, Ray has written and spokenextensively about intelligence-relatedissues and appeared in severaldocumentaries, notably, Uncovered:the Whole Truth About the Iraq War(Robert Greenwald) and Break theSilence: Truth and Lies in the War onTerror (John Pilger).

* Sibel Edmonds worked as alanguage specialist for the FBI’sWashington Field Office. During herwork with the bureau, she discoveredand reported serious acts of securitybreaches, cover-ups, and intentionalblocking of intelligence that hadnational security implications. Aftershe reported these acts to FBImanagement, she was fired in March2002.

Twelve examples of existingdocuments that deserveunauthorized disclosure

Each of these — wrongly withheld uptill now — could and should bereleased almost in their entirety,perhaps with minor deletions forgenuine security reasons. (In manycases, official promises to releasedeclassified versions have not beenhonored.)

1. Reports by International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)on Guantanamo, Abu Ghrab and otherprisons (ships, prisons in othercountries) that hold prisoners from the“war on terrorism.” (These reportshave been provided to the US govern-ment but have not been made public.)

2. 28 pages redacted from thereport of the Joint House-SenateInquiry on Intelligence Activitiesbefore and after 9/11, concerning theties between the 9/11 terrorists and thegovernment of Saudi Arabia.

3. 800 pages of the United NationsReport on Weapons of Mass Destruc-tion that were taken by the UnitedStates during unauthorized Xeroxingand never given to the SecurityCouncil members. (The original reportwas 1200 pages in length but has neverbeen published in its entirety)

4. Membership, advisors, consult-ants to Vice President Cheney’sEnergy Task Force, and any minutesfrom meetings (January-December,2001).

5. Documents and photographsconcerning/produced by militarydoctors or medical personnel thatdocument abuses toward prisonerscondoned by medical personnel.

6. Documents produced by militarylawyers and legal staff that challengethe political policy makers’ decision toundercut the Geneva Conventions andany other extra-legal procedures.

7. The missing sections of the U.S.Army General Taguba report onprisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

8. Department of Justice-InspectorGeneral (DOJ-IG) Report: RE: SibelEdmonds vs. FBI, completed, classi-fied.

9. DOJ-IG Report: RE: FBI Trans-lation Department (security breaches,intentional mistranslations, espionagecharges), completed, classified.

10. DOJ-IG Report: RE: FBI &Foreknowledge of 9/11, completed,classified.

11. Full staff backup to GeneralShinseki’s 2002 estimate that “severalhundred thousand troops” would berequired for effective occupation ofIraq.

12. The full 2002 State Departmentstudies on requirements for thepostwar occupation and restoration ofcivil government in Iraq.

Related linksProject on Government Oversight,http://www.pogo.orgGovernment Accountability Project,http://www.whistleblower.org/National Whistleblower Center,http://www.whistleblowers.org/OpenTheGovernment.org,http://www.openthegovernment.org/National Security Archive,http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.htmlDaniel Ellsberg’s Website,http://www.ellsberg.netProject on Government Secrecy,http://www.fas.org/sgp/index.html

The betrayal of thewhistle-blowers

Thanks to a glaring legal loophole anda hostile Justice Department, a federal

employee who revealed that U.S.nuclear facilities were unsafe found hiscareer and life ruined. And many other

whistle-blowers share his fate.

Eric Boehlerthttp://www.salon.com/news/feature/

2003/10/21/whistleblower/

Oct. 21, 2003 Time magazine dubbed2002 “The Year of the Whistle-blower,” honoring inside do-gooderswho risked their careers by exposing,among other things, how the FBI let akey terrorism suspect slip through itsfingers before the 9/11 attacks and byblowing the lid off Enron’s outrageousfinancial crimes. Since the terrorattacks, the critical importance ofrevealing governmental failures hasbecome obvious: a breakdown inhomeland security could mean catas-trophe. Indeed, precisely that scenariois laid out in the current issue of VanityFair [October 2003] which features anexposé about federal whistle-blowerswho lay bare the shocking vulnera-bility of America’s nuclear weaponslaboratories at Los Alamos to terroristattack, as well as the ongoing failuresof airline and airport security. Severalof those same whistle-blowers willsoon tell their tale on 60 Minutes.

In recent years, aided in part bymovies like The Insider, whistle-blowers have attained the status of folkheroes. “It’s become popular to protectwhistle-blowers — that’s never

PAGE 6 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

happened before,” says Danielle Brian,executive director of the Project onGovernment Oversight, a nonprofitpublic interest group dedicated toexposing governmental corruption andmismanagement that works closelywith whistle-blowers and that advo-cates for them.

As a result, most people probablyassume that federal whistle-blowersnow enjoy strong legal protectionagainst retaliation.

They’re wrong. Many federalwhistle-blowers — including the onewho exposed the security flaws at U.S.nuclear plants — have had theircareers destroyed because of a glaringloophole in the law designed to protectthem: If their security clearances arerevoked, as frequently happens towhistle-blowers, the special federalagency that investigates their cases hasno power to restore it — and thefederal appeals court that is their lastrecourse is a kangaroo court thatalmost never rules in their favor. Evenif a whistle-blower is vindicated, thecrucial security status is often notrestored — in effect ending a career.

Since the Whistleblower ProtectionAct, or WPA, was unanimously passedin 1989 (and then strengthened in1994) to protect whistle-blowersagainst on-the-job retaliation, the U.S.Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit, the unique court that handlesgovernment-contract disputes, hascontinuously narrowed the rights ofwhistle-blowers and ruled against themin nearly every case, according to theGovernment Accountability Project, apublic advocacy group.

Experts variously describe whathappens to whistle-blowers when theyenter the bureaucratic and judicialprocess as “a Twilight Zone,” “Kafka-esque,” and “Chinese water torture.”

“It’s a big loophole in the law,”says Elaine Kaplan, the former head ofthe Office of Special Counsel, or OSC,the independent federal agency thatinvestigates whistle-blower cases. “It’snot the most satisfying system.”

New legislation, with bipartisansupport in the House and Senate, willattempt to close the loopholes.

“The Whistleblower Protection Actwas passed to ensure employees whocome forward will be free fromharassment for doing the right thing,”says Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., who

introduced the new bill in the House ofRepresentatives. “But the court haschanged the intent of Congress in suchdramatic fashion, to the point wherethere is significant disincentive forcoming forward with information.”

The Department of Justice opposesthe bill, calling it unconstitutional.Defending the right of various federalagencies to decide who does and doesnot get security clearance, the DOJframes the issue as one of executive-branch power — the president, as headof the government, trumps a personnelarbitration court like the OSC. In theDOJ’s view, security clearance is aprivilege, not a right that can be wonback in court

The DOJ and other critics of thepending legislation also argue thatmany federal employees facing legiti-mate sanctions would claim they werebeing punished for whistle-blowing,causing turmoil in the workplace.

“The ease with which Federalemployees would be able to establish aprima facie case of whistle-blowerreprisal, no matter how frivolous,would seriously impair the ability ofFederal managers to effectively andefficiently manage the workforce,”wrote William Moschella, an assistantattorney general, outlining the depart-ment’s opposition.

Advocates deride these arguments.They insist that independent review ofsecurity clearance rulings is essentialbecause bureaucracies, by their nature,almost always retaliate against whistle-blowers. And they say the DOJ claimthat employees would frivolouslyinvoke the law is grossly overstated.

“Historically, the Department ofJustice has been hostile to whistle-blowers,” says Brian. “On a simplelevel, they’re seen as an annoyance,because Justice represents governmentagencies embarrassed by whistle-blowers. As for frivolous casesclogging the workplace, I’ve beendoing this for a long time, and yes,there’s an element of people who callthemselves whistle-blowers who havesour grapes. But to suggest that’s a bigenough percentage so as to not haveactual protection is ridiculous. It’s ared herring.”

Many former and current federalemployees who have spoken out saythat the system is so rigged against

them that if they were decidingwhether to do it again, they wouldn’t.

“What I have learned is, don’t dothe right thing — don’t try to protectthe American people when you see thatthey are in danger, because the lawwon’t protect you,” says BogdanDzakovic, a whistle-blower within theFAA who tried to air warnings aboutlax airline security years before the9/11 attacks. He considers himselflucky: He’s still got a job with theFAA and collects a governmentpaycheck. But he spends his timedoing menial tasks. “My career isover,” he says.

Not every case has ended badly forthe whistle-blower. Last year JamesHopkins, an international aviationoperations specialist with the FAA inWashington, filed for whistle-blowerprotection after he was fired when healerted his supervisors to what hebelieved was a link between one of thehijackers involved in the 9/11 terroristattacks and someone who had receivedaviation training at the FAA Academy.Hopkins wanted to take the informa-tion to FAA Security and the FBI, buthis supervisors told him that “thou-sands of people were investigating” theattack and he needed to focus on hisFAA duties. Hopkins pressed aheadand was fired by his supervisor for hisfailure to maintain a “calm and profes-sional approach in the completion ofduties, as well as evidence of soundjudgment.”

Hopkins’ hunch about a 9/11connection did not turn out to beuseful, but the OSC investigated hiscase, found in his favor, and orderedthe FAA to rehire Hopkins. Theagency eventually agreed, awardinghim full back pay, benefits and attor-ney’s fees.

Fortunately for Hopkins, his casedid not revolve around securityclearance. “The Whistleblower Protec-tion Act doesn’t protect people whoblow the whistle and then have theirsecurity clearance yanked,” Kaplanexplains. Without access to classifieddocuments, a whistle-blower’s career,both inside and outside the gov-ernment, is effectively destroyed. Yeteven if a whistle-blower’s actions arevindicated by the OSC or anotherarbitration body, a federal employer isunder no obligation to reinstate asecurity clearance.

THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004 PAGE 7

“It’s vicarious victimization of thewhistle-blower,” adds Terance Miethe,author of Whistleblowing at Work:Tough Choices in Exposing Fraud,Waste and Abuse on the Job. “They getexonerated and yet nothing happenswith security clearance.”

“It’s a Kafka-esque procedure,”adds Doug Hartnett, a staff attorney forthe Government AccountabilityProject. “You’re asking the peoplewho took clearance away to give itback to you. There’s a visceral reactionto whistle-blowers by these agencies,so they rarely give it back.”

According to Kaplan, the legisla-tive solution is simple: Simply give theOSC, or the Merit System ProtectionBoard (the higher body to which OSCrulings can be appealed) the power torule on security clearances. But,Kaplan says, “there is a lot of politicalopposition.” During the ’90s there wasan attempt in Congress to close theloophole, but the measure failed afterthe Department of Justice strenuouslyobjected.

Richard Levernier, a DOE whistle-blower featured in Mark Hertsgaard’sVanity Fair article, is himself caught inthe judicial Twilight Zone, battling toget back his security clearance. Afederal employee for 33 years,Levernier spent the late ’90s testing thepreparedness of America’s nuclearweapons facilities against terroristattacks. He told the magazine, “Someof the facilities would fail year afteryear. In more than 50 percent of ourtests at the Los Alamos facility, [mockterrorists] got in, captured theplutonium, got out again, and in somecases didn’t fire a shot, because wedidn’t encounter any guards.”

Levernier tried in vain to get theDOE to address the problems. Whenhe refused to drop his crusade, hissecurity clearance was revoked over arelatively minor infraction, effectivelyending his career. Levernier filed forwhistle-blower protection in Septem-ber 2001, claiming the DOE retaliatedagainst him and gagged his freespeech. He took his case to the OSC,which found “a substantial likelihood”that Levernier’s charges were accurate.Recently, after the Vanity Fair articlewas published, the DOE agreed andsettled with Levernier. The details areconfidential, but Hartnett at GAP, who

assisted Levernier, says the whistle-blower is satisfied with the terms.

Still, Levernier remains without hissecurity clearance. “If you lose yoursecurity clearance you’re screwed,”says Brian at the Project on Gov-ernment Oversight. The law beingproposed, known as the WhistleblowerProtection Enhancement Act, stipulatesthat if the OSC finds in favor of afederal whistle-blower who had asecurity clearance taken away, theemployer’s agency must publiclyexplain why it’s not reinstating thatcrucial status.

Looking back on his decision toblow the whistle, Levernier hasnothing but regrets: “Given my experi-ence, I would not do it again, eventhough I truly believe it was the rightthing to do. DOE’s inappropriateremoval of my security clearance hasruined my career and life.”

Unfortunately, that’s often thenorm for the whistle-blower. “It ruinstheir career, whether they’re right orwrong,” says Fred Alford, author ofWhistleblowers: Broken Lives andOrganizational Power. “The law andthe process take so long, and in theend, cases hinge on issues that havevery little to do with the justice of thecase, such as how your boss fired you,or who talked to who. It ends up in astrange Twilight Zone. Most whistle-blowers aren’t prepared for it —they’re not cynics. Cynics don’t blowthe whistle; idealists do. But you needcynicism to survive it.”

What often happens to whistle-blowers as their cases slowly windtheir way through arbitration and thecourts, is that the original charge offraud, waste or abuse recedes into thebackground, and what’s left is a merepersonnel matter. Because personnellaw is weak, the whistle-blower loses.“The original charges become irrel-evant,” says Donald Soeken, apsychotherapist and a frequent expertwitness in whistle-blower cases.

He calls the bureaucratic remediesfor whistle-blowers a “cruel hoax.”Perhaps the cruelest part is thatwhistle-blower appeals are heardexclusively by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit.According to critics, this court haseviscerated the original WPA lawthrough judicial activism and has madea mockery out of the appeals process,

ruling against whistle-blowers 83 outof 84 times.

“You can’t possibly believe noneof those [83] cases had merit,” saysSoeken. “But they didn’t have achance in hell because the judgeswon’t apply the law fairly. Whistle-blowers spend all this time thinkingthere’s justice down the road, but thereis none.”

“The law has become useless,”says Brian at the Project on Gov-ernment Oversight. “Nobody can meetthe standard [created by the court] forfederal employee whistle-blowers —that they have to be the first person totalk about [the fraud], and find outabout it not within the function of theirjob. It’s Chinese water torture.”

For instance, the court has foundthe WPA does not protect whistle-blowers who directly confront theirsupervisor about the supervisor’swrongdoing. Instead, the insiders needto notify more senior officials withinthe organization in order to qualify forprotected status.

Alford recalls one federal whistle-blower he interviewed for his book,“She spent five years and $50,000 toget two minutes in court and be toldshe didn’t have standing.”

Perhaps most upsetting is the new“irrefragable” standard the appealscourt has imposed on whistle-blowers.According to the judges, whenreviewing any federal whistle-blowingcase, the court must begin with the“presumption that public officersperform their duties correctly, fairly, ingood faith and in accordance with thelaw. This presumption stands unlessthere is ‘irrefragable’ proof to thecontrary.”

“Irrefragable” sets an extraordi-narily high threshold that means“incontestable, undeniable, incontro-vertible.” The pending legislationwould require a whistle-blower tosimply have “reasonable belief” ofwrongdoing and be supported by“credible evidence.”

The legislation would also breakFederal Circuit court’s monopoly onfederal whistle-blower cases and giveplaintiffs the ability to file theirappeals in courts throughout thecountry, based on where they lived. …

Advocates argue that if the law isnot passed soon (realistically, they’rehoping for legislative action next year

PAGE 8 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

[in 2004]) whistle-blowers may vanish— and with them, society’s bestchance of uncovering governmentalfailures. “Ultimately,” says Brian, “nogood investigation into governmentoperations can exist without whistle-blowers.”

Congress moves to protectfederal whistleblowers

Robert PearNew York Times, 3 October 2004

Ashington, Oct. 2 — Over strenuousobjections from the Bush administra-tion, Congress is moving to increaseprotections for federal employees whoexpose fraud, waste and wrongdoinginside the government.

Lawmakers of both parties say themeasures are needed to prevent retali-ation against such whistleblowers, whoreveal threats to public health, safetyand security.

But the administration says the billunconstitutionally interferes with thepresident’s ability to control andmanage the government.

On Wednesday, a House commit-tee approved a whistleblower protec-tion bill. In July, a Senate committeeapproved a similar measure offeringmore extensive protections to whistle-blowers.

Representative Todd R. Platts,Republican of Pennsylvania, thesponsor of the House bill, said: “Weneed to protect public servants whoexpose fraud and intentional miscon-duct. Court decisions in the last 10years have eroded whistleblowerprotections, so that if you’re a federalemployee, you’re often risking yourjob — and the wrath of your superiors— if you come forward with evidenceof wrongdoing.”

The Senate bill gained momentumwhen Senator Susan Collins, Republi-can of Maine, chairwoman of theCommittee on Governmental Affairs,joined Senator Daniel K. Akaka,Democrat of Hawaii, in pushing it.

“The campaign for this legislationwent from dormant to active whenSenator Collins embraced the bill afew months ago,” said Thomas M.Devine, legal director of theGovernment Accountability Project, awatchdog group that works with

whistleblowers. “That was the turningpoint.”

While the legislation has broadsupport and a compromise appears tobe within reach, it is impossible toknow whether the measure willbecome law. As evidence of a need forlegislation, lawmakers cited dozens ofcases, including these:

• Federal investigators found thattwo Border Patrol agents, Mark Halland Robert Lindemann, were disci-plined after they disclosed weaknessesin security along the Canadian border.

• Teresa C. Chambers was dis-missed from her job as chief of theUnited States Park Police after she saidthe agency did not have enough moneyor personnel to protect parks andmonuments in the Washington area.

• The nation’s top Medicare officialthreatened to fire Richard S. Foster, thechief Medicare actuary, if he provideddata to Congress showing the cost ofthe new Medicare law, which exceededWhite House estimates.

Airport baggage screeners say theyhave been penalized for raisingconcerns about aviation security. Butin August, an independent federalagency, the Merit Systems ProtectionBoard, ruled that they had none of thewhistleblower rights available to otherfederal employees. The government, itsaid, can “hire, discipline and termi-nate screeners without regard to anyother law.”

The United States Office of SpecialCounsel, which investigates com-plaints of reprisal before they go to theboard, has a large backlog of whistle-blower cases, including many pendingmore than a year.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,2001, have made the government moresecretive, but have also promptedwhistleblowers to come forward ingreater numbers. “They feel they canno longer stand by knowing thatpeople’s lives are at risk,” saidDanielle Brian, executive director ofthe Project on Government Oversight,another watchdog group.

Senator Charles E. Grassley,Republican of Iowa, said he knew ofseveral instances in which federalagencies had retaliated againstwhistleblowers by revoking theirsecurity clearances. Because they canno longer do their jobs, Mr. Grassley

said, “the pulling of a security clear-ance effectively fires employees.”

Administration officials gaveseveral reasons for opposing the bills.Peter D. Keisler, an assistant attorneygeneral, said the legislation wouldencourage frivolous complaints bydisgruntled employees, crippling theability of senior officials to manage thefederal work force.

“The bill would convert everyfederal employee into a potentialwhistleblower and every minorworkplace dispute with a supervisorinto a potential whistleblower case,”Mr. Keisler said.

Mr. Akaka said the objectionscame as no surprise. “The JusticeDepartment has an institutionalconflict of interest” because it isresponsible for defending agenciesaccused of retaliating against whistle-blowers, he said.

Congress has repeatedly tried toprotect conscientious civil servants,under laws adopted in 1978, 1989 and1994. But lawmakers said these effortshad been frustrated by the court thathears appeals from aggrieved federalemployees, the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit.

The court often assumes that afederal agency acted properly unlessan employee offers “irrefragable proofto the contrary.”

The Senate committee cited this asone of many issues on which the courthad misinterpreted the law and theintent of Congress. “By definition,” itsaid, “irrefragable means impossible torefute. This imposes an impossibleburden on whistleblowers.”

By contrast, the House and Senatebills would protect the disclosure ofany information that a whistleblower“reasonably believes” to be evidenceof government i l legali ty ormisconduct.

The legislation would also clarifythe right of federal employees, like Mr.Foster, the Medicare actuary, toprovide information to Congress, freeof threats or reprisals.

[Editor’s note: Though legislationwas approved by US Senate and Housecommittees, it was not put to Congressfor a vote. On 18 November 2004, theGovernment Accountability Projectwrote to the leader of the Senateasking that the legislation be presentedto Congress.]

THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004 PAGE 9

Article

Whistleblowers can win

Peter Bowden

Whistleblower support groups oftenstate that Australian whistleblowerprotection legislation is inadequate. Inmany senses, they are right. We haveno federal legislation, although there issome very weak protection in thePubic Services Act. Generally,Commonwealth public servants areunable to bring in to the open many ofthe political lies and other abuses intheir own ranks without first beingwilling to sacrifice their own careers.

Also there is effectively no cover-age for private sector whistleblowers.There is protection for those who blowthe whistle on contraventions of theCorporations Act, and also of theWorkplace Relations Act. In addition,the ACCC and ASIC will protectturncoat whistleblowers who giveevidence against their formercompanions in crime. The best knownexample is the former finance directorof HIH, Bill Howard, who will end upputting two of his former accomplicesin jail. But using these proceduresrequires knowledge of the acts andregulations, knowledge that is notnormally available to whistleblowers.

The major reason why Whistle-blowers Australia argues against thecurrent legislation, however, is thatthere have been virtually no prosecu-tions for reprisals against whistleblow-ers, despite the fact that all statesprohibit any victimisation of thewhistleblower. In short, the authoritieshave been unwilling to act.

Prosecutions, however, do not tellthe full story. Experience in NSW hasshown that the threat of using theNSW Act is a deterrent in itself. Assimilar legislative acts exist in allstates in Australia, it is possible thatexamples can also be found in otherstates.

The clauses that are particularlypowerful are the no–reprisals and theconfidentiality clauses. All states havethese clauses. In addition, most statespermit injunctions to be taken outagainst reprisals, as well as the right toinstitute proceedings for damages if

the whistleblower is harassed in anyway.

Three NSW experiences, originat-ing from the Tuesday eveningmeetings, are illustrative. The firstinvolved a NSW public service staffmember, a former whistleblower, whowas transferred to ‘Siberia’ – a worklocation that was an unattractivebackwater. On the justification that hisskill was needed there, he had noargument that he was being discrimi-nated against. So he gathered a newgroup of wrongdoings by his organisa-tion — simple enough in most publicservice organisations — and wrote tothe head of his organisation with theinformation, outlining his knowledgeof the Act, including the fact that hecould go public, and reiterated hisdesire to be transferred back to hisoriginal location. He was. He alsosought redress of the worst of thewrongdoing.

The second story is that of Profes-sor Bruce Hall and the scientific fraudwhistleblowing that resulted in theresignation of the Vice-Chancellor ofthe University of NSW. Both whistle-blowers have kept their jobs, a benefitthat can only be put down to theexistence of the Act. The issue itself isstill very much alive, with Senatespeeches on both sides, and theUniversity still taking no action. Thewhistleblowers, however, did sufferdiscrimination short of dismissal, andin the opinion of many, should sue. Itis an option that is under consideration,but still a big step for the two peopleinvolved. Nevertheless, with thesupport of the Act, that option is a realone.

The third story concerns a securityguard who suspected his colleagues ofa number of illegal acts — not turningup for work, making job interviewquestions available, and a possibletheft. An initial statement on his partbrought frosty denials from his superi-ors, a broadcasting of the accusations,a consequent threat of being trans-ferred from his current job, and isola-tion by his fellow workers. Hispresentation of sufficient evidence toat least raise the possibility that hisstatements might be true, plus a simplepointing out that the Act’s requirement

for confidentiality had likely beenbreached, together with its impliedrequirement to investigate, brought achange in attitude. The issues havenow been turned over to the organisa-tion’s investigation and audit group,the whistleblower has stated hiswillingness to cooperate, includingrevealing his sources of information,and his job has been made secure.Early days yet, but it is a win forwhistleblowing.

One lesson that comes from thesestories is that the acts can be usedpositively even if they are not actuallyinvoked. A second lesson is that theevidence of acting in the publicinterest, although not necessarilywatertight, still has to be sufficientlystrong to convince people that therecould be truth behind it. A third andallied lesson out of the Tuesdaymeetings is that the acts are forprotecting people who are working inthe public interest. Complaining abouta supervisor’s wrong or illegal actions,at the same time as complaining aboutthe supervisor’s personal behaviourtowards the complainant, gives theorganisation, and the investigativeauthorities, an all-too-easy excuse todismiss the allegations as personaldislike. Unless tangible evidence ofwrongdoing can be produced, personalaccusations are best dropped. A fourthlesson is the ability to go to the media.Only NSW has this provision, but it isnot as useful as one would think. Themedia would not be interested in mostwhistleblower stories. The threat isoften more effective.

Using the acts in these ways isperhaps a tall order for most whistle-blowers. They have to know the acts insufficient depth to be able to employthem. They also have to have thenegotiating skill to use them inmeetings with people many times theirsenior. Most whistleblowers takeaction on the expectation that theorganisation will correct the problem.As we all know it will not. Butlearning the acts, and how to use them,and giving this advice to potentialwhistleblowers, is a task that whistle-blower support groups could, andshould, readily take on.

PAGE 10 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

Draft minutes of WBA’s 2004 annual general meeting

WhistleblowersAustralia Inc.

Annual General Meeting

Melbourne, Victoria27 November 2004

1. Meeting chaired by J Lennane,President.Minutes taken by C Kardell, NationalSecretary.

2. Apologies: Catherine Crout-Habel,Vince Neary, Ted Regan, JeannieBerger, Feliks Perera, Derek Maitlandand Greg Locke.

3. Attendance: [omitted]

4. Previous minutes: J Lennanereferred to the previous minutespublished in the January 2004 editionof The Whistle, having noted CKardell’s apology for not being able toprovide a copy. She asked if anyonepresent could move that the previousminutes as published, be accepted as atrue and accurate record.

Proposed: Matilda Bawden. Seconded:Lori O’Keeffe.

Business arising: nil.

5. Election of office bearers

J Lennane, nominee for the position ofNational President, stood down forBrian Martin to proceed as returningofficer.

Position of National President. JeanLennane, being the only nominee, waselected unopposed. Cynthia Kardellled the meeting in thanking her for hercontinuing goodwill, and leadership.

Jean acted as returning officer for therest of the election process.

The following nominees to theExecutive were elected unopposed:Vice President: Peter BennettJunior Vice President: Kim Sawyer.Treasurer: Feliks Perera.Secretary: Cynthia KardellNational Director: Greg McMahon.

Jean Lennane congratulated theincoming office bearers on behalf ofthe meeting and thanked them for theircontinuing good work and support ofWhistleblowers.

National Ordinary CommitteeMembers (6).

The following six nominees wereelected unopposed: Matilda Bawden(SA), Catherine Crout-Habel (SA),Geoff Turner (NSW), InformationTechnology, Peter Bowden (NSW),Education Officer, Stan van de Wiel(Vic) and Brian Martin (NSW), Inter-national Director.

C Kardell moved a motion to co-optDerek Maitland, who had beennominated for the national committee,as a casual member, to act as MediaLiasion Officer. Seconded by GMcMahon. Carried.

Jean Lennane reminded the meetingthat J Pezy, as SA branch president,was automatically part of the NationalCommittee. Jean congratulated theincoming members and urged themand their colleagues to be activelyinvolved at a national level.

6. Position of Public Officer

Jean Lennane advised the meeting thatVince Neary was willing to continue inthe position of Public Officer ifrequired. Agreed: Vince’s offer to beaccepted with our thanks.

Business arising: Jean Lennaneadvised that Vince Neary hadforwarded an authority to pay theannual lodgement fee to the Depart-ment of Fair Trading, pursuant tolegislative requirements, and requestedthat two financial members be author-ised by the meeting to sign theapplication form on its behalf.

Brian martin moved the motion:John Pezy seconded it. Carried: JeanLennane and Cynthia Kardell author-ised so to do.

7. Treasurer’s Report: J Lennanetabled a financial statement for the 12

month period ending 30 June 2004,provided by F Perera. Briefly, detailsare as follows:$5,187.66: income, (subscriptions,

donations, book account and bankbalance)

$2,302.71: expenses (Whistle produc-tion, insurance, networkingexpenses, refunds to branches &AGM costs ,etc.)

$2,884.95: excess of income overexpenditure,

$4,871.51: accumulated fund balanceb/f,

$2,884.95: add income over expendi-ture,

$7,756.46: balance at bank, 30 June2004.

Jean Lennane called for the report tobe accepted as a true and accuratestatement of accounts. Proposed: PeterBennett. Seconded: Peter Bowden.Carried.

Business arising:

B Martin, editor of The Whistle,explained how it was produced andpublished. He asked the members tocontinue to provide articles and othermaterial. He thanked Feliks Perera forthe efficient manner in which heprocessed the accounts.

C Kardell advised that membershipwas down on last year’s figures, andthat members were generally tardywith their annual renewal of subscrip-tion. She urged members to recruitnew members, by trading their helpand assistance for others, for member-ship.

8. Other business. There being noformal agenda items, the meeting wasopened for state reports and generaldiscussion.

(i) ACT: Peter Bennett reported thatthey had about five people activelyinvolved in ACT, and was optimisticthat once they had a meeting venueand a little more cohesion they mightbe able to form a branch. They areinvolved in about four cases, includinghis own which is progressing nicely.

THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004 PAGE 11

(ii) Queensland: Greg McMahonreported that he had been able toobtain the Executive’s support tonominate the case of Queenslandpolice whistleblower Col Dillon as acase of national significance, like thatof Jim Leggate, who has moved toTasmania and Kevin Lindeberg, wholooks like getting up an inquiry intothe Goss government.

Col Dillon is credited with havingbeen the catalyst for the FitzgeraldInquiry in Queensland. Greg reportedthat Col Dillon had been ostracised,and eventually left without a desk oroffice, by those who claimed to be partof the reformed Queensland police.

Whistleblowers Action Group(WAG) continues to make annualawards. The 2004 award went to NSWradio presenter Alan Jones, who spokeout about the conviction of PaulineHanson. He was presented with acertificate and cup.

WAG was unsuccessful in its bid toretain charitable status: the AustralianTaxation Office decided WAG did notprovide ‘direct immediate relief’ towhistleblowers.

(iii) SA: John Pezy reported that theSA branch has been busy at a locallevel: it continues to offer support andassistance by telephone, email and inperson. He reported on two longrunning cases, that of Angela Morganand Shelley Pezy, which continue toprovide a catalyst for their attempts toreform the judicial system.

(iv) Victoria: Mervyn Vogt reportedthat he did not believe Nathan Moore,RAAF whistleblower, would be alive,but for his efforts. Nathan had blownthe whistle on drug trading and use inthe services. He had been vindicated,but had been beaten up, hospitalisedand will have poor help and bedisabled for the rest of his life. He hasbeen invalided out of the service.

Telstra continues to resist reform:Mervyn was unsuccessful in his lastattempt to be appointed to the Board.Christina Schwerin had got SBScoverage for Stan van de Wiel’s story.The aged care sector was developinginto the next big story, as elderlypeople were being pushed out of theirhomes, and their assets wronglyappropriated.

(v) NSW: Cynthia Kardell reportedthat NSW continued to providetelephone, email and direct support, byits Tuesday night meetings. We hadtwo formal press releases at ParliamentHouse, with the assistance of GreensMP Lee Rhiannon, one calling for ajudicial inquiry into the University ofNSW and the other calling for anational strategy for the investigationof ‘convenient’ police or whistle-blower deaths.

We contributed to the review of theICAC Act and continue to attend themeetings of the Internal WitnessAdvisory Council, which overseeswhistleblower protection and whistle-blowing in the NSW Police.

(vi) International Liaison: Brian Martinreported that international dialoguecontinues to be brisk. Australia is oneof only two national whistleblowerorganisations in the world made upprimarily of whistleblowers. The otheris Freedom to Care, in the UK. The UShas the Government AccountabilityProject, but that is run by lawyers.Recently he had contact from theFlorida Whistleblowers, a new body,which hopes to have an organisationlike ours.

(vii) Communications: Geoff Turnerreported that whistleblowers.org.aureceives quite a few emails. His loadhas been recently reduced by theaddition of Peter Bennett’s name as acontact. The website is fairly basic, butis about to undergo an upgrade byGeoff, Cynthia and Peter, which willnot deviate from the original decisionto keep it simple, accessible and ableto be used by the vision impaired.

(viii) Education: Peter Bowdenreported that Cynthia and Peter did asession on whistleblowing at theUniversity of Technology Sydney.Peter has given two courses to Chinesestudents, through the University ofSydney, and he has obtained a grant of$10,000 to assess whistleblowinglegislation across the nation. Theresults of the research are being put upon the university website, on a pagedeveloped by Peter for the purpose,which he hopes will become a usefulresource for whistleblowers and others.

(ix) President’s Report: Jean Lennanesaid that the last several years haveseen a steady increase in the calibreand capacity of long term, committedmembers: we have come a long waysince the organisation was founded in1991. For example, Brian’s andGeoff’s work is enabling the organisa-tion to reach out to whistleblowers inways we have not had before.

The recent FBI sting on pornogra-phy has pushed our police services torespond in a hitherto unimagined wayand many arrests were made. This isprogress.

Griffith University has received avery large grant to study whistleblow-ing, and the research team says it willwelcome input from WBA. This isprogress.

We will do more media releases.The second one, about Gary LeeRogers, led to WBA being formallyjoined as a party to the inquest into hisdeath. The Coroner has foreshadowedthat she will deal with the mentalhealth area and the police investigationin her report. A couple of wins there:one was that the press has finally goton top of the fact that mentally illpeople are starving and often beingkilled. Gary’s case is typical. He wassick, depressed, convalescent andneeded daily contact and care. Themental health representative, expectedto visit every day, came only once,over a week down the track, couldn’traise Gary, left a card and went away.Gary might still be alive but for that.

So, good and bad: but ratherworryingly, we do seem to haveslipped into George Orwell’s 1984.But press on!

Other General Business

1. SA agreed to put on the 2005 AGMon the weekend 9-11 September 2005.2. Motion moved by P Bennett, byproxy for C Schwerin, and secondedby C Kardell. Agreed: that WBAauthorise the 2004 AGM committee toarrange for WBA to thank thefounding members of WBA.

Meeting Closed.

PAGE 12 THE WHISTLE, #40, DECEMBER 2004

Whistleblowers Australia contacts

ACT contact: Peter Bennett, phone 02 6254 1850, fax 026254 3755, whistleblowers@iprimus.com.au; Mary Lander,phone 0419 658 308; mary.wba@ozemail.com.au

New South Wales“Caring & Sharing” meetings We listen to your story,provide feedback and possibly guidance for your next fewsteps. Held every Tuesday night 7:30 p.m., PresbyterianChurch Hall, 7-A Campbell St., Balmain 2041.General meetings are held in the Church Hall on the firstSunday in the month commencing at 1:30 pm. (Pleaseconfirm before attending.) The July general meeting is theAGM.Contact: Cynthia Kardell, phone/fax 02 9484 6895;messages phone 02 9810 9468; ckardell@iprimus.com.auWebsite: http://www.whistleblowers.org.au/Goulburn region: Rob Cumming, 0428 483 155.Wollongong: Brian Martin, 02 4221 3763.Website: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/

Queensland contacts: Feliks Perera, phone/fax 07 54488218; Greg McMahon, 07 3378 7232 (a/h) [alsoWhistleblowers Action Group contact]

South Australian contacts: Matilda Bawden, 08 82588744 (a/h); John Pezy, 08 8337 8912

WhistleEditor: Brian Martin, bmartin@uow.edu.au, 02 4221 3763,02 4228 7860Associate editors: Don Eldridge, Isla MacGregor, KimSawyer.Thanks to Cynthia Kardell and Patricia Young forproofreading.

WBA AGM and conference

On the weekend of 27-28 November, WBA’s annualgeneral meeting and conference were held in Melbourne.The event was highly successful, for which special thanksgo to the main organisers, Lori O’Keeffe, Kim Sawyer andStan van de Wiel.

The draft minutes of the AGM are found in this issue, onpages 10-11, including information on the election ofmembers of the national committee.

At the dinner on Saturday evening, founding members ofWBA were honoured. Three of the original group offounding members, of what was then called WhistleblowersAnonymous, were able to attend:

• Bill Toomer — see photo on page 1 — who sufferedreprisals after he ordered fumigation of a ship in the early1970s; his case has led to numerous inquiries in thedecades since;

• Keith Potter, a Victorian member and indefatigableadvocate for whistleblowers, including immense efforts onbehalf of Bill Toomer;

• Jean Lennane, national president of WBA, whosewisdom and calm good sense have been crucial in keepingthe organisation on a sound footing.

Bill, Keith and Jean received framed certificates of lifemembership in WBA plus signed copies of Debbie Locke’sbook Watching the Detectives and Jack Ellis’s book Murderof an Airline. In thanks for her contributions, Jean alsoreceived a silver whistle on a chain.

At the conference on Sunday, Stephen Bolsin and KimSawyer gave talks and many others contributed to paneldiscussions. Photos from the conference will be featured infuture issues of The Whistle.

The 2005 AGM and conference will be held in Adelaideon 9-11 September. Stay tuned for details.

Whistleblowers Australia membershipMembership of WBA involves an annual fee of $25, payable to WhistleblowersAustralia, renewable each June. Membership includes an annual subscription to TheWhistle, and members receive discounts to seminars, invitations to briefings/discussion groups, plus input into policy and submissions.

If you want to subscribe to The Whistle but not join WBA, then the annualsubscription fee is $25.

The activities of Whistleblowers Australia depend entirely on voluntary work bymembers and supporters. We value your ideas, time, expertise and involvement.Whistleblowers Australia is funded almost entirely from membership fees, donationsand bequests.

Send memberships and subscriptions to Feliks Perera, National Treasurer, 1/5Wayne Ave, Marcoola Qld 4564. Phone/Fax 07 5448 8218.