Whistleblowers are heros. Okay, sometimes they are just jerks, but a lot of times they are heros. They are usually conscientous highly skilled employees who take their responsibilities seriously.
Professionals working for the City of Medford may have more to worry about if they find wrong or illegal conduct by their employer. They will have to be more than heros to “blow the whistle.”
The Supreme Court recently ruled that mutiny can be retaliated against by the administrator responsible for hiring them. The Court’s ruling also seems to take away any rights a “whistleblower” might have.
What are the implications of this ruling for the City of Medford? The recent lawsuits threatened by the former City Attorney and the insurance attorney that represents the City will certainly be affected by this ruling.
Former City Attorney Ron Doyle was in a double bind. If he doesn’t report he may lose his license to practice law, but if he does report it he may lose his job because his employer prefers the questionable act. Just how courageous was he that he came before Council and reported this. In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling I’d say he went beyond hero status.
What do the citizens of Medford want? An extremely powerful City Manager without checks by potential whistleblowers? Or do we want, and this is my choice of options, ordinances protecting whistleblowers against the Supreme Court’s ruling?
The recent Supreme Court ruling has changed my relationship to the City Manager and the City Attorney. As a City Council member can I trust the opinion of the current City Attorney, when he is now put in that same double bind as the former attorney?
I trust that the current City Attorney will honor the principles and ethics of the Oregon State Bar. But what if his wife were dying of cancer and he needed the health insurance the City offers? If he knows that the City Manager can fire him for blowing the whisle on an illegal act, what will be his decision–health care for his wife in the short term (and possibly her life) or to risk his license to practice law? These are questions I feel obligated to put before the City Council.
Quote from the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Held: When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”
Read Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion. “In a word, the majority says, ‘never.’ That word, in my view, is too absolute.”
Read the Wed. May 31, 2006 Washington Post article.
Read the Tues. May 30, 2006 New York Post article.
Following is a link to the web article that brought the recent Supreme Court ruling to my attention:
Daily Kos: Garcetti v. Ceballos
“Garcetti v. Ceballos
by Brettnet
Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 08:09:37 AM PDT
The United States Supreme Court ruled this week on a case, Garcetti et al v. Ceballos, involving a public official’s right to “blow the whistle” on what the official considered to be wrongful or illegal conduct by his employer, a District Attorney’s Office in which he worked as a professional. The case revolved on an inaccurate affidavit used to get a search warrant, the evidence obtained as a result of which was, of course, “legally contaminated” and so, the case should not have been pressed using that evidence, asserted Deputy District Attorney Ceballos in a memorandum to his superordinates in the office. His employer thought otherwise and, seeing Ceballos’s communication as a form of mutiny, retaliated against him. The Supreme Court overturned the Circuit Court opinion and ruled that the public employee does not have “whistleblower protection rights” under the First Amendment.”
–more at the link at beginning of quote–