Earlier today, a nominee of one party appeared in front of a lone Senator of the opposite party. These men traded cordial remarks while discussing the future of the nominee’s legal and political career. Mark A. Robbins, nominee for the Merit Systems Protection Board, appeared in front of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which was represented solely by Senator Daniel Akaka.

Akaka began by introducing Robbins, who was flanked by his parents and many of his friends. After going over his resume, Akaka swore in Robbins and handed him the floor. Here’s what Robbins had to say.

This was followed by a few softball questions, and the matter was over and done with in less than an hour.

What did not take place:

Any serious discussion of the MSPB’s current difficulties, Robbins’ plans for helping to remedy them, and whether MSPB will fulfill its mandate as originally designed by Congress. To hear it from Robbins’ himself (and I was there), you would think that MSPB was doing just fine and was in no need of any course correction.

My blog – its very reason for existence – is proof to the contrary.

Sadly, Akaka played along with this charade, and the NGOs who deign to represent the whistleblower and good government community (and who indeed have a near-monopolistic hold on Congress’ attention) were nowhere to be found. Not one word has been uttered from the press shops of GAP, POGO, MISC, or NWC about Robbins’ nomination. Maybe maintaining cordial relations is more important than holding government officials’ feet to the fire; maybe discussions take place behind closed doors and out of public sight; maybe it doesn’t really matter who the nominee is as long as the whistleblowers keep coming in through the front door.

The Civil Service Reform Act was signed into law in 1978. At the time, it was landmark legislation that was motivated by the abuses of the Watergate scandals. The Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989, a year before the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA has achieved public renown and near-constitutional status. No one would think of repealing it or letting its provisions go unenforced. But how many Americans have heard of the CSRA or WPA? How many know the turbulent history of the Office of Special Counsel, assuming they’ve even heard of it? How many realize that the WPA is one of the least observed laws in the U.S. Code?

It’s been over a dozen years since whistleblower legislation was passed by Congress. But do these new, enhanced laws matter if they can be gutted and ignored before the ink dries?

It’s not enough to pass new laws, or to make sure the ones in the books are enforced. If we really care about good government, it’s also important to raise the profile of these laws to near-constitutional levels. It starts by practicing transparency, by asking the tough questions regardless of impact on personal relationships, and by looking past transactional, beltway politics.

Anne Wagner, who was appointed Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Vice-Chairman by President Obama in 2009, has been named in a workplace discrimination lawsuit now pending in federal district court in Washington, D.C.

The suit, Williams v. Dodaro, (Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-1452), brought by a senior trial attorney in the Government Accountability Office, alleges “age, race, and sex discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile and abusive work environment.” The defendant is Gene Dodaro, the U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Wagner was, for a time, Williams’ direct supervisor as General Counsel of the Personnel Appeals Board at the GAO.

In August, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part a motion for summary judgment, thus paving the way for settlement or trial. In a 2008 memorandum opinion by the court, Wagner is alleged to have “‘physically confront[ed] and loudly threaten[ed]‘ Williams ‘in her office on June 30, 2006,’ . . . ‘regularly disparaged’ Williams’s job performance during discussions with her co-workers and ‘routinely questioned’ those co-workers concerning Williams’s whereabouts during work days.’”

A copy of the August 2011 summary judgment opinion is available here (the 2008 summary judgment opinion is available here).

The consequences of this litigation may not be limited to this trial, as Wagner’s actions have caught the attention of some in the public interest community. Members of the Coalition for Change, Inc. (C4C),”an advocacy support group for present and former federal employees injured due to workplace discrimination,” are calling for the U.S. Office of Government Ethics to conduct an investigation. In a letter dated October 20, 2011, C4C states that ”Ms. Wagner’s continued service on the [MSPB] is troubling and problematic in light of serious allegations against her in Williams v. Dodaro and the fact that a federal judge has denied the Government’s motion for Summary Judgment.”

The letter further states that

C4C believes Ms. Wagner’s continued presence as Vice-Chairman of the MSPB constitutes a conflict of interest and raises a serious concern as to whether she can fairly and without prejudice adjudicate cases of discrimination that may come before the Board. More importantly, the C4C seeks an investigation as to whether Ms. Wagner was forthcoming and/or misled the White House and the Congress regarding her role in the case known as Diane R. Williams v. Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

It’s important to mention that these are only allegations, the truth of which have yet to be proven or disproven in a court of law. But a salient point is that, unlike the whistleblowers over whom Ms. Wagner presides, she will be able to face a jury of her peers and an independent, tenured judge. In other words, Ms. Wagner will enjoy a quality of due process that is far too often denied to federal employees. Given the state of the law today, too many whistleblowers are not able to rebut allegations lodged against them by agencies with unlimited resources and a hostile administrative system.

Regardless of the outcome, here’s hoping Ms. Wagner emerges from this experience with a reinvigorated appreciation for the bedrock principle of the jury trial.

(H/T OpEdNews.com)

Cross-posted at MSPB Watch.

Update: The jury trial has been scheduled for February 13, 2012.