From IAW Secretary and Parentadvocates.org Editor Betsy Combier:

The testimony today at the conference was fascinating, and alarming. We heard from Linda Lewis, a former employee of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) who told of disdain for public safety measures we all take for granted. In 2003 Linda was told to take a course called "Anti-Terrorism Training".She attended a class at the Holiday Inn in College Park, Maryland, May 19-22, 2003. Soon after Linda objected to groups such as Greenpeace being labelled "terrorist groups", and protesting a disk with encrypted messages on it, she was terminated.

Then, we heard from federal air marshalls who told us that there is no oversight for safety in their industry:

Air marshal service sued over free speech
Marshals not allowed to exercise free speech, suit says
By Brock N. Meeks, Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC, April. 26, 2005
LINK

Update -- Frank Terreri has been cleared of any wrong-doing associated with the disciplinary action noted in this story. Terreri was informed by Air Marshal Service officials that his flight status had been reinstated hours after the news conference mentioned here outlined the details of his lawsuit. The Air Marshal Service said his reinstatement had nothing to do with the lawsuit’s timing.

WASHINGTON - The Federal Air Marshal Service is squelching the First Amendment rights of its rank-and-file employees by not allowing them to speak out about alleged security lapses in the commercial airline industry, the American Civil Liberties Union charged in a lawsuit Thursday.

The lawsuit, which claims the policy of not allowing air marshals to speak to the press or public is unconstitutional, was filed Thursday on behalf of Frank Terreri, an air marshal based in Los Angeles. Terreri, currently on non-flying administrative status due to a disciplinary proceeding unrelated to the current lawsuit, has been in a long-running dispute with air marshal officials to correct several policy areas he believes compromise commercial air travel.

“One of the fundamental lessons of the horrific events of 9/11 and the heroic efforts of the 9/11 widows to force the Bush administration to set up the 9/11 commission is that secrecy can be the enemy of accountability and good security,” said Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU lawyer in the group’s Southern California office.

“Unfortunately, the Federal Air Marshal Service has not learned this lesson,” Eliasberg said. “Instead of promoting accountability they have set up a series of rules that are so restrictive that our client, Mr. Terreri … can’t appear here today or speak with any of you any day or any time.”

David Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, declined to comment on the specifics of the litigation, saying the agency hadn’t yet seen anything from the court. However, on the general issue of whether air marshal policies restricting speech were unconstitutional, Adams said, “We never violate anybody’s civil rights; however, we are strictly adhering to Department of Homeland Security policies on these issues.”

No conflict here
The interest of air security and First Amendment rights present no conflict, said Allan Ides, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Southern California, who also is representing Terreri in the case.

Air marshals like Terreri “are essentially muzzled,” Ides said. “We are not talking about classified or sensitive security information, but only about commentary on matters already of public record, much of it which has been disclosed to the public by federal air marshal administrators,” Ides said.

Terreri has authored several e-mails sent to his co-workers about security lapses he alleges put the flying public and air marshals themselves at risk. These alleged lapses include making air marshals board planes in full view of other passengers; making them easily identifiable; and creating a dress code that makes air marshals stand out on flights. In addition, Terreri has been critical of information contained in newspaper, magazine and television broadcasts about the marshal service, all of which were done with the approval of air marshal officials, that he believes have compromised the “operational security” of the air marshals themselves.

Air marshal officials deny any such compromises have taken place and refute allegations that internal policies, which remain classified, such as the agency’s dress code, are too restrictive.

Such classified policies effectively isolate them from “the critical review the First Amendment was designed to promote,” Ides said. “The purpose of this lawsuit is to alter that course and return us to the constitutional model of robust public debate.”

Former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, who became well known as a whistleblower in 2002 for her criticism of FBI policies, weighed in on the subject Thursday.

“Terreri wants to tighten holes in the security of the commercial airline industry. This is infinitely important to the safety of airline passengers and, ultimately, everyone,” Rowley said at a news conference, appearing on videotape. “But the overly restrictive policies of the Federal Air Marshal Service that he must follow are putting us all in danger and prohibiting the dissemination of important information and debate,” she said.

Rowley is well known for her 13-page memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller in 2002 outlining several areas where the bureau’s counterterrorism efforts fell flat prior to 9/11. Her memo was eventually leaked to the media, setting off a firestorm of congressional inquiry.

Pointing to her own experience when she wrote the memo, Rowley said, “I had no idea how close I came to losing my job. If my letter had not been leaked to the press, I probably would have been unceremoniously fired, and that information might not have made it into the public sphere.”

Air Marshall Quota letter
"Do as we say, not as we do"

Bogdan Dzakovic spoke about the US Transportation Security Administration and how this agency is not fixing problems in airport screening operations. See the May 10, 2008 article published in the The Star-Ledger:

Expert says airport security still lacking
Saturday, May 10, 2008
BY RON MARSICO, Star-Ledger Staff
LINK

Aviation officials have reneged on an agreement made more than five years ago to improve covert se curity testing and results at the nation's airports, a prominent federal whistleblower alleges in a complaint scheduled to be filed Monday.

Bogdan Dzakovic, who testified before the 9/11 Commission after raising concerns about airport screening operations before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, is raising the allegations against the U.S. Transportation Security Administration in papers to be submitted to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Dzakovic, a former member of the Federal Aviation Administration's undercover "Red Team" that conducted pre-9/11 airport security tests, now works for the TSA. His case is being handled by the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C., dedicated to helping whistleblowers.

Tom Devine, a GAP lawyer, said Dzakovic had prepared a "Lessons Learned" report for the TSA, based on his FAA experiences, that was to be used by the TSA to help fix problems with its covert security testing and results of those tests.

"Not only was the report ig nored, but Bogdan became persona non grata for any work related to airline security," Devine said.

In papers submitted to the Government Accountability Project, Dzakovic wrote that "the gist of my report...is that all these technological 'layers' of security that FAA espoused can be fairly easily circumvented by would-be attack ers; and that TSA is basically doing the exact same thing as the FAA before it.

"But rather than learn from the past, hold people accountable and fix the bureaucratic problems which contributed to the ease with which the terrorist(s) succeeded on 9/11, TSA plunged the roller coaster of security to new depths," he wrote.

TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the agency was not aware of Dzakovic's pending filing. But, she said, his current position with the TSA "is not in any way related to covert testing."

She added: "TSA's covert test ing program today is very different from the program in 2002," when Dzakovic challenged the federal agency after it took over from private screening companies.

Dzakovic is a principal security inspector with the TSA at the agency's Virginia headquarters, but has for
a long time accused superiors of giving him insignificant du ties because of his protected whistleblower status. He advocates a greater emphasis on behavioral profiling of passengers rather than relying on technology to thwart terrorists, while also reducing rote methods of conducting tests.

In a 2003 letter to Congress and President Bush, then-U.S. Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan praised Dzakovic for his "courage" and said his allegations had been verified in a report by the U.S. Department of Transportation's inspector general.

That report, Kaplan wrote, "substantiates the crux of Mr. Dza kovic's allegation: that the Red Team program was grossly mismanaged and that the result was the creation of a substantial and specific danger to public safety."

Kaplan said the inspector general determined "the Red Team consistently found and reported -- throughout its existence -- high rates of test failure, reflecting often stark localized and systemic secu rity vulnerabilities."

Post 9/11 U.S. Government Accountability Office investigations have repeatedly shown screeners miss high percentages of bombs, guns and other prohibited items.

Ron Marsico can be reached at rmarsico@starledger.com or (973) 392-7860.

Simultaneously, Tom Devine, Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project, has filed a lawsuit to address the suppression of information on negligence and the retaliation against whistleblowers formerly at the agency:

Government Accountability Project
National Office
1612 K Street, NW Suite #1100 • Washington, D.C. 20006
202.408.0034 • www.whistleblower.org

May 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Tom Devine, Legal Director
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext 124, cell 240.888.4080
Email: whistle47@aol.com

OSC Filing Challenges Aviation Security

(Washington, D.C.) – Today the Government Accountability Project (GAP) filed a whistleblowing disclosure on behalf of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and aviation security expert Bodgan Dzakovic, with the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Dzakovic charges that TSA has reneged on its reform commitments to correct confirmed security breakdowns from his last whistleblowing disclosure, and that further mismanagement has left aviation security weaker than prior to the 9/11 attacks. Before the tragedy, Dzakovic was a senior team leader in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “Red Team,” a covert operations unit that monitored and tested aviation security.

After 9/11, Dzakovic charged that FAA had refused to act on and suppressed Red Team warnings of vulnerability to hijacking – even going so far as to obstruct covert testing by supplying advance warnings to airlines of surprise tests. After two Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General investigations, in 2003 TSA conceded that gross mismanagement caused a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety contributing to 9/11, and promised wide-ranging corrective action.

In filing his new disclosure, Dzakovic explained, “TSA has systematically reneged on its reform commitments. It has created an appearance of tighter security by inconveniencing passengers, while avoiding the security breaches that matter to terrorists. The Special Counsel needs to hold TSA’s feet to the fire until it makes an honest effort to implement lessons learned from 9/11.”

Dzakovic’s latest disclosure seeks an OSC order for DHS to investigate ten concerns of gross mismanagement, gross waste, abuse of authority, and substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. He charges that in addition to reneging on OSC commitments, TSA has canceled overseas Red Team testing, intensified advance warnings of “unannounced” tests, and replaced surveillance sweeps to find vulnerabilities with contracts to “Tom Clancy style” authors and screen writers who create terrorist scripts as the baseline for terrorist threats. He alleges that TSA has intensified the old FAA “reactive” approach to terrorists instead of adopting proactive strategies, and systematically replaced knowledgeable professionals with unqualified pork barrel hires and lavish spending on duplicative contracts. He criticizes a wide range of agency practices that serve as “terrorist tutoring,” from standardized ticket notations that serve as advance warnings for suspects, to Web site disclosure of government tactics. He challenges a gaping hole in the aviation safety security net, in air taxi transport of public figures such as political leaders, athletes and entertainers. He challenges the agency’s continued reliance on CTX and “trace” methods to catch terrorists, when their empirical track record is less than random. Finally, he challenges an overall lack of accountability, charging that officials responsible for the pre-9/11 security breakdowns have been promoted into more powerful posts where they act as stronger roadblocks to reform.

As part of settling Dzakovic’s last whistleblowing case, TSA assigned Dzakovic to prepare a “Lessons Learned” report and recommendations. It contained many of the themes in today’s disclosure. Within weeks, Dzakovic was removed from his post and reassigned to administrative duties requiring only a high school degree. His attorney, GAP Legal Director Tom Devine, commented, “The only lesson TSA has learned from 9/11 is how to make airports miserable for passengers. In terms of obstructing terrorists, aviation security is weaker now than before 9/11.”

The Government Accountability Project is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.
Dylan Blaylock
Communications Director, Government Accountability Project
202.408.0034 ext. 137; 202.236.3733 (cell)
1612 K. St, #1100 Washington, D.C. 20006

Also at the IAW conference on May 12, scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists told the audience that not only is scientific data being changed or held secret, but anyone who asks why is terminated. Read their report on political interference at the EPA:

April 23, 2008

Hundreds of EPA Scientists Report Political Interference Over Last Five Years
UCS calls for strengthened protections for federal scientists
LINK

WASHINGTON (April 23, 2008) — An investigation of the Environmental Protection Agency released today found that 889 of nearly 1,600 staff scientists reported that they experienced political interference in their work over the last five years. The study, by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), follows previous UCS investigations of the Food and Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and climate scientists at seven federal agencies, which also found significant administration manipulation of federal science.

"Our investigation found an agency in crisis," said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program. "Nearly 900 EPA scientists reported political interference in their scientific work. That's 900 too many. Distorting science to accommodate a narrow political agenda threatens our environment, our health, and our democracy itself."

The UCS report comes amidst a flurry of controversial activity swirling around the EPA. Congress is currently investigating administration interference in a new chemical toxicity review process as well as California's request to regulate tailpipe emissions. And in early May, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is expected to hold a hearing on political interference in the new EPA ground-level ozone pollution standard.

Today's UCS investigation included dozens of interviews with current and former EPA staff members, analysis of government documents, and a questionnaire sent to 5,419 EPA scientists by Iowa State University's Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology. The questionnaire generated responses from 1,586 scientists, but not all of the respondents answered every question. (For the report, "Interference at EPA: Science and Politics at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency," go to www.ucsusa.org/EPAscience.)

Among the UCS report's top findings:

*889 scientists (60 percent) said they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in their work over the last five years.

*394 scientists (31 percent) personally experienced frequent or occasional "statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists' findings."

*285 scientists (22 percent) said they frequently or occasionally personally experienced "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome."

*224 scientists (17 percent) said they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document."

*Of the 969 agency veterans with more than 10 years of EPA experience, 409 scientists (43 percent) said interference has occurred more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year period. Only 43 scientists (4 percent) said interference occurred less often.

*Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express concerns about the EPA's work without fear of retaliation; 492 (31 percent) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency and 382 (24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.

UCS's investigation revealed political interference is most pronounced in offices where scientists write regulations and at the National Center for Environmental Assessment, where scientists conduct risk assessments that could lead to strengthened regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work," said Dr. Grifo. "But their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations."

Nearly 100 scientists identified the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the primary culprit. In scientists' responses to an essay question, "How could the integrity of scientific work produced by the EPA best be improved?," OMB took center stage:

*"Currently, OMB is allowed to force or make changes as they want, and rules are held hostage until this happens," said a scientist at the agency's Office of Air and Radiation. "OMB's power needs to be checked as time after time they weaken rulemakings and policy decisions to favor industry."

*"OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit."

*"They (OMB) … have inappropriately stopped agency work that has been in progress for years due to their lack of scientific understanding," said a scientist at the agency's Office of Research and Development.

The UCS investigation also revealed that EPA scientists cannot freely communicate their findings to the media, public or colleagues. Seven-hundred-eighty-three respondents (51 percent) said EPA policies do not let scientists speak freely to the news media about their findings. Scientists also shared anecdotes about being barred from presenting their research at conferences and their difficulties clearing research publication articles with EPA managers.

"Scientific integrity is the bedrock on which the federal science establishment must rest," said Bill Hirzy, an EPA senior scientist and senior vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 280, the union that represents EPA scientists. "Too many EPA scientists have had to fight interference from political or private sector interests and fear retaliation for speaking out."

Previous UCS investigations of other federal agencies show that the problem of political interference is not unique to the EPA. These investigations recently prompted a group of prominent scientists — organized by UCS — to call on the next president and Congress to strengthen protections for all federal scientists. The statement urges them to ensure that federal scientists have the freedom to publicly communicate their findings; publish their work; disclose misrepresentation, censorship or other abuses; and have their technical work evaluated by peers — all without fear of retribution. (For the statement, go to www.ucsusa.org/scientificfreedom

GAP Whistleblower Week Events Kick Off Monday
May 8, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Sarah Goldmann, Nat. Campaign Coordinator for Whistleblower Rights
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext 141
Email: sarahg@whistleblower.org

Contact: Tom Devine, Legal Director
Phone: 202.408.0034 ext 124, 202.888.4080 (cell)
Email: whistle47@aol.com

GAP Whistleblower Week Events Kick Off Monday
GAP Participating in Six Events
LINK

(Washington, D.C.) – Next week marks the second year of annual events and conferences aimed at raising awareness of whistleblower issues in Washington, D.C. Two separate coalitions will host conferences. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) will sponsor six forums and/or panels at these conferences.

In chronological order, these events include:

Monday, May 12

Secret Domestic Surveillance
9:00 a.m. – 9:55 a.m., Stewart Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue, NE

This workshop will discuss the implications of the National Security Agency (NSA) eavesdropping program on the First Amendment. It will also address warrant-less wiretapping in the context of attorney-client communications, terrorism investigations, the “state secrets privilege,” and consider the implications for pending congressional showdowns such as telecom immunity in FISA legislation. Panelists include:

o Jesselyn Radack (Moderator), GAP Homeland Security Director.
o Babak Pasdar, telecommunications whistleblower whose disclosure is credited with turning the tide in the House of Representatives denying corporate immunity in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
o Eric Lichtblau, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist who broke the government’s secret surveillance program.
o Linda Lewis, USDA whistleblower who disclosed a course manual for USDA employees on how to infiltrate and spy on citizen organizations.
o Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU

Are We Safe When We Fly?: Addressing Issues of Aviation Safety & Security
10:00 a.m. – 10:55 a.m., Stewart Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue, NE

This panel focuses on the federal government’s dangerous and deceptive policy of shielding the industry from liability; failing to execute genuine protections against terrorism while fostering a false pretense of safety; and retaliating against federal and aviation industry employees who witness and report threats to aviation safety and security.

o Ingrid Drake (Moderator), Fellow, Project on Government Oversight
o Bogdan Dzakovic, Transportation Security Administration, FAA Red Team Whistleblower
o Gabe Bruno, Former FAA Manager
o Shawn McCullers, Former Federal Air Marshal (FAMS), TSA/DHS

Scientific Freedom & the Public Good
11:30 a.m. – 12:25 a.m., Stewart Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue, NE

This panel, co-sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists, addresses the effects of scientific censorship across a wide range of issues, including prescription drug safety, climate change, and mercury emission levels. Panelists include:

o Celia Wexler (Facilitator), Washington Representative, Union of Concerned Scientists
o Rick Piltz, Former Senior Associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program and Director of GAP’s Climate Science Watch Program
o David Ross, FDA drug safety whistleblower
o Tim Donaghy, Researcher/Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists

Joint Congressional Forum: Congress at the Crossroads for Your Rights
1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m., Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 342

GAP, the Semmelweis Society, and Public Citizen will host this forum, where Congressional members and staff, whistleblowers, NGO’s, and the public will recognize and discuss recent gains made in whistleblower rights and legislation. Congressional offices will be presented with awards honoring their leadership on these issues. The awarded offices will provide an update on the eight-year legislative campaign to overhaul the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), corporate whistleblower legislation, and other pending specific whistleblower bills, and engage in a dialogue with the whistleblower community on how to help most effectively. Participants will include staff or members of 13 congressional offices: Sen. Daniel Akaka (D.-Hi), Sen. Susan Collins (R.-Me), Rep. Tom Davis (R.-Va), Rep. John Dingell (D.-Mi), Sen. Charles Grassley (R.-Ia), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I.-Ct), Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Ma), Rep. Todd Platts (R.-Pa), Rep. Christopher Shays (R.-Ct), Rep. Bart Stupak (D.-Mi), Rep. Bennie Thompson (D.-Ms), Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-Ca), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

The forum will conclude with a legislative panel focusing on the rights at stake in various pending legislation, and their importance. A speaker from Public Citizen will offer introductory remarks. Beth Slavet, former Chair of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, will moderate the discussion, which will include the following NGO’s (with specialized expertise on specific issues):

o National Employment Lawyers Association (Corporate Whistleblower Protection)
o Government Accountability Project (Jury Trial Rights)
o National Whistleblower Center (FBI/Intelligence Agency WPA Coverage)
o OMB Watch (Hybrid Secrecy Categories, State Secrets Privilege)
o Project on Government Oversight (Contractor Whistleblower Rights)
o Semmelweis Society: Alliance for Patient Safety (Medical Whistleblower Rights)
o Union of Concerned Scientists (Scientific Freedom)
o American Federation of Government Employees (TSA/Screener whistleblower rights).

Tuesday, May 13

Forum on the Office of Special Counsel
9:00 a.m. – 9:50 a.m., Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Ave, NW.

This forum will focus on the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), its nondiscretionary duties as an investigatory agency for the laws under its jurisdiction (particularly to protect federal employees from whistleblower reprisal), efforts to spur Congress to perform necessary oversight, and what the recent federal raid on the office means for its future. Panelists include:

o Joe Carson, P.E., Nuclear Safety Engineer, DOE.
o David Nolan, Legal Advisor to OSC Watch Steering Committee.
o Carol Czarkowski, Former Department of Navy Contracting Officer.
o Sandalio “Sandy” Gonzalez, Former Special Agent Officer in charge of DEA.

Thursday, May 15

From Immunity to Impunity: Whistleblowers at International Organizations
12 p.m. – 1 p.m., Stewart Mott House, 122 Maryland Avenue, NE

Because International Financial Institutions (IFIs) enjoy immunity from national laws, staff members and consultants who report corruption and fraud internally are vulnerable to retaliation. This panel presents the problems confronted by IFI staff members and project beneficiaries who blew the whistle because of legal immunities; a case in which both the whistleblower and the project beneficiaries were victimized by a World Bank health care project and the corruption it fostered in India; and a decision in a groundbreaking case allowing a lawsuit to proceed against an IFI in US District Court. Panelists include:

o Mishka Zaman, Asia Program Director of the Bank Information Center. Zaman will discuss the transparency and accountability practices of the Asian Development Bank, identifying issues where the rhetoric and the reality diverge.
o Kunal Saha, M.D. An independent HIV/AIDS researcher, Dr. Saha served on the investigation team of the Department of Institutional Integrity of the World Bank and exposed corruption in the National AIDS Control Project II in India.
o Douglas Hartnett, Elitok and Hartnett at Law, LLC. Hartnett successfully challenged the immunity of an IFI in Vila v. the Inter-American Investment Corporation. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff was made by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in February, 2008.

All panelists listed above, from any panel, will be representing their own personal opinions, not those of their employers.

GAP is working in conjunction with the Semmelweis Society on the Joint Congressional Forum event. For more information, visit http://www.semmelweis.org/ or http://allianceforpatientsafety.org/

The numerous events, in addition to those listed above, scheduled for next week involving the promotion of whistleblower rights, are each part of two separate events: the International Assembly of Whistleblowers, which is being sponsored by the International Association of Whistleblowers, and Washington Whistleblower Week, which is sponsored by the No Fear Coalition, Semmelweis Society, and the Bill of Rights Foundation. For more information about other events next week, visit www.internationalassociationofwhistleblowers.net or http://groups.msn.com/NoFearCoalition.

The Government Accountability Project is the nation’s leading whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal reforms, GAP’s mission is to protect the public interest by promoting government and corporate accountability. Founded in 1977, GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C.

Government Accountability Project • www.whistleblower.org
National Office
1612 K Street, NW Suite #1100
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.408.0034