GovernmentExecutive.com

As part of a reorganization, Scott J. Bloch, head of the Office of Special Counsel, sent a memo to 12 career workers last week telling them they had to transfer to regional offices in 60 days or face the loss of their jobs.

An employee that is being asked to move told Government Executive recently that the move is uprooting many lives, and that they are disappointed Bloch did not look for employees who would voluntarily transfer. "Two colleagues are facing the prospect of ... a split marriage," said the worker, who spoke anonymously, fearing retaliation from agency officials. "Another person was seeking to become engaged, and now that money will be set aside for a rainy day."

While the OSC employee would not speculate on why Bloch is relocating the employees, three government watchdog groups--the Project on Government Oversight, the Government Accountability Project and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility--said the move is part of a "crude purge attempt" and "just the latest stage in Scott Bloch's reign of terror." The watchdog groups have long been critical of Bloch's leadership at OSC, the agency responsible with protecting federal workers' rights.

In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., the watchdog groups called for oversight hearings and an independent investigation of Bloch's "illegal personnel practices and the culture of fear he has created at OSC."

Collins spokeswoman Elissa Davidson said that the committee is looking into the situation and is interested in learning more about how the reorganization will help OSC reduce its case backlog and how they are addressing concerns raised by employees.

OSC spokeswomen Cathy Deeds said employees were not targeted or threatened. She said the agency's restructuring is part of a plan to run the agency more efficiently.

Seven of the workers were told to move to a new field office in Detroit, four to OSC's Dallas field office and one to the Oakland, Calif., field office. Deeds said the realignment is strategic and will help prevent future case backlogs. Until recently, OSC was burdened by hundreds of cases involving whistleblower claims of fraud, waste and mismanagement that had not made it through the initial screening process.

"The agency restructuring announced by the special counsel last week will help us better meet our core mission to protect whistleblowers and prevent prohibited personnel practices, and make our agency more effective and efficient," Deeds said. "We have confidence in our employees, and no one was threatened in any way in connection with this new opportunity."

Anthony Vergnetti, a private lawyer representing some of the employees being asked to move, said he is not prepared to identify any specific merit system violations, and no lawsuit has been filed. He said that since OSC investigates merit system abuses, the situation needs congressional oversight.

Union leaders directed criticism at Bloch's reorganization efforts, stating that the agency charged with guarding federal worker rights should not be acting in a manner that abuses those rights. "Forced involuntary transfers - regardless of the name given to the action - are an improper use of management authority by the special counsel," said National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen M. Kelley.

Spy Games

Two former Communist bloc diplomats-turned-spies have taken the Central Intelligence Agency to the Supreme Court for refusing to provide them with financial assistance they say they were guaranteed when they agreed to conduct espionage for the United States during the Cold War.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in the case that could decide whether the court system has jurisdiction over secret espionage contracts.

John and Jane Doe, the names used by the couple in the lawsuit, settled in the United States after the CIA promised them lifetime financial assistance and the opportunity to defect in exchange for espionage, according to court records.

After an unknown period of time, the CIA moved the Does to the United States and gave them new identities and false backgrounds. John Doe was able to find employment, and eventually the CIA stopped providing the couple with financial assistance.

Several years later, John Doe lost his job in a corporate merger and has been unable to find a job since. According to the complaint, the Does will have to return to their home country where they risk detection and punishment for their espionage work, the lawsuit contends.

After the CIA told the Does' attorney that they have done enough to adequately compensate them for their spying, the couple sued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging due process violations. The CIA believes that a Civil War-era case, Totten v. United States removes the court's jurisdiction to decide cases based on alleged secret contracts with the government.

William H. Webster, former CIA director from 1978 to 1987, said that there are many obvious reasons for the CIA to honor its agreements.

"I have seen cases in my time where the government bent over backwards to help people that gave service to this country," Webster said. "It serves the agency and the public interest best if the agency did not develop a reputation for not honoring its agreements."

The District Court agreed and rejected the CIA's argument, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected this summer.

John Doe v. CIA, U.S. Supreme Court, Doc. #03-1395, Jan. 11, 2005.

COMMENTS

• Mr. Bloch may have been accused of hiring friends but has it been proven that he has violated merit principles or committed a prohibited personnel practice? Hardly - and with many experts watching what he does, it would undoubtedly have been successfully challenged. As to "bullying" agency employees to relocate, from an HR perspective, a directed reassignment is a personnel action at management's discretion that is frequently used to facilitate reorganizations. Over the past decade and a half, thousands and thousands of Government employees were moved by reassignment in conjunction with base closures, unit or agency relocations, downsizing, contracting, U.S. force withdrawals etc. Many of them had to move to another city, another state, and some even to another continent. Most were glad they still had a job. There was no outcry then as there is now when twelve "senior" OSC employees are on the receiving end. As senior employees of OSC, they must surely be well versed in personnel rules. If the actions that affect them now are improper, I trust they will effectively exhaust the due process that is available to them. It appears Mr. Bloch is required to reorganize because "OSC was burdened by hundreds of cases involving whistleblower claims of fraud, waste and mismanagement that had not made it through the initial screening process." What had the twelve senior OSC employees done during their tenure to rectify this situation? Could it be that Mr. Bloch is providing leadership that was lacking before and this is what makes him unpopular? And finally, yes, it may well uproot your life when you have to relocate and yes, you may have to deal with family separations - the choice is yours, though. Oh, and by the way, if you are moved outside the commuting area and you decline to go, there are several excellent Government priority placement/reemployment programs available that will assist you in finding new work within your current commuting area. After working reduction-in-force, transfer of function and relocation actions for the past twenty years, and having personally dealt with many, many good employees who were left without a job, I find it extremely difficult to become outraged when twelve senior officials in an agency with less than successful past performance are sent to relatively attractive new locations with no loss in pay. GovExec.com reader Posted January 25, 2005 5:17 AM
• I do not believe the article is about the "Right to choose?" There is a lot more happening at OSC. In addition, I must comment, I am very concerned the Bush administration is allowing a situation like this to occur. In this situation, Mr. Bloch has been accused of hiring his friends and not properly putting positions out for competition. In addition, if that was not enough, he bullies the agencies employees to relocate. You do not have to be a detective to see he is relocating the employees because they choose to speak out against him. I am very concerned that he is allowed to run an agency that is responsible for assuring that employees' civil rights are not infringed on. Is this a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop? We have to keep focused on what is morally right for our County. Are we stripping employees of their Civil Rights? Are we going back to the "Spoils System"? I feel it is important that heads of agencies not be allowed to abuse power. As a taxpayer, I do not favor the hiring of friends and family by heads of agencies, even when competition does occur. And most of all, I do not approve of a head of an agency bullying federal workers. After all, they are not his employees, they are the employees of the American people. His responsibility is to over see the agency for us. And, I'm not pleased with the job he is doing. Why should his friends have those jobs? Only individuals that deserve preference over others are Veterans. Why not relocate his "friends" to the jobs outside the area? I voted for President Bush, but, I must say when I read cases like this, I question his judgment of his appointees. GovExec.com reader Posted January 15, 2005 7:58 PM
• Mr. Bloch has completely destroyed any shred of credibility that OSC may have had since Ms. Kaplan left as Special Counsel. First he strips the website of any mention of protecting homosexuals from discrimination and prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) and now there are allegations that he is committing reprisal against 12 career senior OSC employees by transfer - which is in essence constructive discharges. Even if these allegations aren't true- the Special Counsel really does need to be above reproach and have some semblance of ethical and moral fiber. You can't have the Chair of FLRA committing Unfair Practices Practices- although this would be impossible since FLRA is outside the statute. You can't have the Chair of EEOC committing Title VII discrimination. Certainly you can't have the Special Counsel committing PPPs and violating the WPA. I've heard my peers describe the irony of Mr. Bloch's tenure as Special Counsel. I think it is not just ironic. It is time for this figurative arsonist to be removed as the Fire Chief. But of couse Mr. Bloch can finally take a decent act and resign for the good of OSC. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted January 14, 2005 8:03 AM