August 21, 2007 The Pump Handle 1Comment

Cross-posted by Revere at Effect Measure

You wonder when they will ever learn — or IF they will ever learn. In the wake of yesterday’s announcement that the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Dr. David Schwartz, will step aside while NIH does an inquiry into allegations of turmoil at the institute and management irregularities, comes a letter sent to NIEHS employees — and as far as we know only NIEHS employees — asking for reporting of any contacts with Congress:

Employees of the National Institutes of Health in North Carolina are being asked to report all contacts with Congress – a request that one legislator suspects is an attempt to flush out would-be whistle-blowers.

Managers distributed “record of congressional inquiry” forms to employees of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Research Triangle Park and one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the NIH.

At least one of those workers reported being made “nervous” by the form and forwarded it to congressional investigators who check out allegations of conflicts of interest, excessive spending and other management issues at the institute.


The form asks for details of each telephone call from the offices of members of the House or Senate, including on the information sought. Logging and reporting such calls is standard procedure in the congressional- affairs offices of federal departments and agencies.

But the forms don’t appear to be something given out to “regular” employees, said Sen. Charles Grassley (Rep.-Iowa). Their distribution came in the midst of multiple and continuing investigations by Congress, including by Grassley’s staff. Nor do the forms appear to have been distributed elsewhere within NIH. (AP)

Maybe it is common practice in federal agencies to log such inquiries or discussions with Congress but it shouldn’t be. Under the law, federal employees have an absolute right to provide information to Congress and interfering with this right is itself illegal. Many employees of state governments also are required to report contacts with the press or with members of their state legislatures, and we also consider this a deplorable practice. We know state employees who therefore do this from their homes, off hours, acting as private citizens, which is their right. So the requirement has no practical force, having as its main effect to discourage the exercise of a guaranteed right.

When will they ever learn? Or will they ever learn?

Addendum: The following results of a just completed survey of NIEHS scientists (members of the 206 member Assembly of Scientists) shows a stunning loss of confidence in the current leadership of the Institute. Three quarters of the responding scientists (and half of the total) said the actions and decisions of the Director had a negative effect on their morale, while by two to one they voiced no continued support. 80% gave a vote of no confidence.

Here are the results, in full:

Dear NIEHS Assembly of Scientists Membership,

As per the NIEHS Assembly of Scientists constitution quoted below (Article VI, section 6), a vote was requested of the membership of the NIEHS AoS, seconded, thirded, with 7 additional cosigners from among the membership.

“Any matter shall be submitted by mail to the members of the Assembly for voting by secret ballot if it has been so designated by the Council or requested by at least 3 members of the Assembly”.

Three questions were submitted to the NIEHS Assembly of Scientists for voting by secret ballot at the general meeting of the NIEHS Assembly of Scientists held on Monday, August 13th. To permit all members to vote, a motion was passed to allow voting until COB, Monday August 20, 2007.

146 of the 206 assembly members responded. The results of the balloting are as follows:

On the question “How have the actions and decisions of the Director, David Schwartz affected your morale?”

99 out of 146 responded Negatively
6 out of 146 responded Positively
36 out of 146 responded that they were not affected
One person chose not to respond to this question, but voted on others

On the question “At this time, does the NIEHS Director have your continued support?

36 out of 146 responded YES
91 out of 146 responded NO
15 people chose not to respond to this question, but voted on others

On the question “Do you have confidence in the leadership of the NIEHS Director?

25 responded YES
107 responded NO
10 people chose not to respond to this question, but voted on others

Four members responded to the ballot, but chose to abstain from answering any of the questions.

Thank you for your participation.

Douglas Bell
President NIEHS Assembly of Scientists

One thought on “Blowing the whistle on blowing the whistle on whistle-blowers at NIEHS

  1. Anti Retaliation sentiments appear in our laws but are hard to prosecute for victims. Why? Of course, employers don’t announce their bad motives either orally or in writing. It’s the same with discrimination law, that has a success rate in court of 5%. We can stop this by making the behavior itself illegal whatever the motive. That’s fair and healthy for business. It’s also easier to prove or disprove in court.

    The anti bullyiing or Healthy Workplace Bill has been introduced in 13 states. This bill makes the worst of bullying behavior illegal. For more information please go to and you can see all 13 versions.

    The bill doesn’t create any more work for public agencies, but allows the plaintiff to take the bully to court, plus the employer if the employer did not create a policy about bullying and enforce it. It does mean that those people with dysfunctional personalities that get away with bullying because of their protected group status will not be able to do that any more.
    – – –
    By forcing the plaintif to get a lawyer and go to court, we are preventing the frivolous or opportunist torts that might abound if we treated it like a civil rights problem where folks had access to public agencies to file complaints. It’s not easy to go to court, but this bill will allow legal redress for the worst of bullying.

    Contrary to Molly Selvin’s article in the L.A. Times, workplace bullying is NOT refusing to say good morning, or giving your staff free samples for lunch. It is a highly focused, sustained and sophisticated effort to target an employee for expulsion or mistreatment. But it can be seen by a “searching inquiry … upon a full record”. (9th circuit ct.)
    Supporters in Washington State can email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.