You are browsing the archive for CSRA.

DC Media Relays OPM Director’s Crocodile Tears for Civil Servants On Last Day in Office

2:16 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

Various publications covering the federal government relayed concerns by outgoing OPM director John Berry over the “denigrat[ion]” of public service while ignoring his role in the Obama Administration’s unprecedented assault on workplace protections for hundreds of thousands of civil servants, via Berry v. Conyers & Northover. (The “Berry” is for John Berry, on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management).

Whistle blowers

Whistle blowers

That case, which is currently on appeal, has generated the following comments:

Tom Devine, Government Accountability Project:

If the ruling stands, “the merit system will be history.”

Lynne Bernabei, Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC:

[T]he Obama administration’s support of this position is an integral part of the administration’s increasing secrecy and support of a national security system that is unaccountable.

Judge Dyk, dissenting opinion in Berry v. Conyers & Northover:

The majority completely fails to come to grips with the [Civil Service Reform Act of 1978]. . . the majority’s holding effectively nullifies the statute.

Angela Canterbury, Project on Government Oversight:

Congress must legislate to overturn the wrongheaded over-reach of the Federal Circuit, . . . and to prevent agencies from arbitrarily labeling away the rights of civil servants.

None of the major publications that cover civil service issues mentioned that decision. Instead, we’re treated to this:

Federal Times, April 11, 2013:

After taking over OPM, Berry quickly became known for his optimistic and passionate speeches defending federal employees. As the political winds soured on civil servants in recent years, Berry continued speaking up for feds. At a March labor-management meeting, an angry-sounding Berry warned that the government risks becoming unable to recruit and retain a qualified workforce if it keeps freezing employees’ pay, cutting their benefits, and publicly denigrating them.

Government Executive, April 11, 2013:

Berry has been a vocal champion for federal workers during the last four years, and has a good reputation among lawmakers on Capitol Hill. His exit comes just as federal employees at a number of agencies are starting to feel the effects of sequestration, including furloughs.

The biggest offender seems to be the Washington Post, which served up the following:

Though Berry faced major headaches from computer systems and retiree issues, his greatest frustration was something more fundamental.

“I don’t know if we succeeded in beating back those small-hearted people who somehow feel it is appropriate to denigrate public service,” he said during an interview.

“I don’t know what sort of smallness of mind or heart motivates them, but they need to understand that public service matters. And these jobs are just too important to not be able to recruit the best and the brightest to do them. . . . Do you want Homer Simpson researching cancer for your children’s diseases?”

It was President Obama, Berry’s boss, who, with congressional approval, upset federal workers by freezing their basic pay rates, a freeze now in its third year.

Obama has proposed a 1 percent pay raise for next year, paired with a requirement that employees increase contributions to their pensions.

The freeze happened on Berry’s watch, but it was largely out of his hands.

Meanwhile, Federal News Radio covered its flank a bit by getting positive comments from stakeholders. None of these publications, however, mentioned the decision that could gut civil service protections for hundreds of thousands of employees.

It’s difficult to square Berry’s stated concerns for public servants in the media when he’s trying to strip them of their rights in court. It’s even more difficult to see what’s in it for the free press to give him a pass.
Read the rest of this entry →

1978 to 2012: Transparency and Congressional Deliberation of Whistleblower Laws through the Years

12:17 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

An array of tin whistles

A look at whistleblower laws of recent decades

In 1978, Congress debated the Civil Service Reform Act extensively. It was a landmark, once-in-a-century effort. Naturally, there would be a lot of coverage. Deliberations in the Senate took 12 days, deliberations in the House took 13 days, and the House-Senate conference took place over at least 6 days, according to records recently discovered in the Library of Congress. Here are some of the mark-up sessions and other documents from those deliberations:

By contrast, research into the mark up of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 revealed only one day’s worth of deliberations, and the Senate’s mark up of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2011/12 took only five minutes.

Contrast this give-and-take in 1978 over the role of the Special Counsel, as just one facet of law, versus the entirety of the discussion over the WPEA in the Senate, 33 years later.

June 1978:

Sen. Chiles offered that

My feeling is if you put a Special Counsel in and he is appointed by the President, you know, we are really having sort of two groups that are supposed to be doing the same thing, and that is protecting the workers. You have the Merit Board, and the Merit Board is a bipartisan board with staggered terms, and it is certainly supposed to be operating in the best interests and for the best results of protecting employees. And then you turn around and appoint a Special Counsel by the President, and then you get into the whole thing of how do you get rid of him. Is he for cause? Who can initiate?

He also raised the point that

If you have a Special Counsel, and I am concerned with what we did with the Special Prosecutor in this regard, we are starting to create individuals or posts with tremendous power but no accountability  You let the President nominate him, but then he can’t be removed except for cause. He is really sort of accountable to no one once he gets in that job.

Senator Jacob Javits (R-N.Y.) responded to Sen. Chiles’ concerns and said that

[A] Special Counsel appointed by the commission would not have the standing that a Special Counsel appointed by the President would. . . . I would hope that we could take a Presidential appointee subject to Senate confirmation, give him the necessary stature and then give him the necessary protection so then he is really acting as the independent prosecutor. . . [unintelligible] making him a Special Counsel is that we don’t necessarily want them to work together. We are a little bit concerned that the Merit Systems Protection Board may, like so many other boards, get impregnated with the views and the attitudes, et cetera, of the agency which it serves. Therefore, as a check and balance, especially for whistleblowers, we want to have somebody out there who can initiate a prosecution.

Sen. Chiles responded that

Now what happens, every time that we decide we can’t trust one group and so we are going to add another check, I think really what we do is we remove a little further from the people the ability to judge and assess responsibilities and to pinpoint that responsibility, and we diffuse it. But we also make it where government can’t work because they start working at loggerheads.

So I would rather have the responsibility be on the appointments of the Merit Protection Board, that board be confirmed by the Senate, make that board of some stature, make them responsible and allow them to appoint the Special Prosecutor or the Special Counsel, and have that chain of responsibility. I think when you start deviating from that, before long we are going to need somebody to check on the Special Counsel. Then we will have to give some independence to that person because we are afraid the Special Counsel, by virtue of his term or the fact he is only removed for cause — that is just looking at it philosophically.

October 2011:

Read the rest of this entry →

What’s Missing from the Adulatory Coverage of Obama’s Whistleblower Protections

2:01 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

Several articles have emerged that contain praise from non-profit groups toward President Obama for taking steps to protect whistleblowers, albeit at a time when more whistleblowers are prosecuted by his administration than ever before. The coverage goes something like this:

Obama’s Justice Department is prosecuting a number of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.

A government secrecy expert opines that this is unprecedented.

The article mentions Obama’s efforts to expand whistleblower protections through legislation or executive action.

Non-profit groups such as the Government Accountability Project and the Project on Government Oversight applaud Obama for doing more than any other president in history to protect whistleblowers.

What’s missing, however, is any discussion that such steps are mandated by law, specifically 5 U.S.C. 2301(c), enacted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978:

(c) In administering the provisions of this chapter—

(1) with respect to any agency (as defined in section 2302 (a)(2)(C) of this title), the President shall, pursuant to the authority otherwise available under this title, take any action, including the issuance of rules, regulations, or directives; and

(2) with respect to any entity in the executive branch which is not such an agency or part of such an agency, the head of such entity shall, pursuant to authority otherwise available, take any action, including the issuance of rules, regulations, or directives;

which is consistent with the provisions of this title and which the President or the head, as the case may be, determines is necessary to ensure that personnel management is based on and embodies the merit system principles. [Emphasis added.]

Key among those “merit system principles” is the protection of whistleblowers.

So is it a fact that Obama has ”done more to affirmatively protect whistleblowers than any other president,” as POGO’s Angela Canterbury recently stated? Yes.

However, it is not out of benevolence or favored policy, but his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The fact that a president is finally executing a 1978 law should not be news or grounds for applause. We elect presidents to execute the laws.

What’s newsworthy is why it took 35 years to get to this point.

GAP and POGO are peddling misinformation about the disclosure of classified information and the WPEA. Why?

9:17 am in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

Check out these articles and their comments: (pending moderation)

Both make the same point: that no safe, legal channels exist for the disclosure of classified information. This is simply not true.

The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act would not create any such channels, because Section 119 of S. 743 would only modestly upgrade the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (which upgraded the Inspector General Act of 1978), but neither provided for confidential disclosure channels. And WPEA still would not.

Only the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 did so, by creating and authorizing the Office of Special Counsel to receive classified information, and guaranteeing confidentiality.

But it’s not convenient for GAP and POGO to say that now, apparently (despite GAP acknowledging it in 2006, on page 5).

Let them know you expect good government groups to be honest with the public:

Anatomy of an Oversight Breakdown

5:39 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

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.


Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners blow whistles to the White House about NRC Chair’s abusive, “erratic” behavior

3:07 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

An excerpt from the New York Times:

Another chapter is out in the continuing and very public story of conflict within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has now taken the form of a battle of snail mail.

A letter addressed to the White House chief of staff and signed by four of the five commission members was circulated Friday criticizing the fifth member, Gregory B. Jaczko, its chairman, and expressing “grave concerns” that his deficiencies as a leader could compromise nuclear safety. It was dated Oct. 13. A similar letter was sent directly to Dr. Jaczko.

And this week, a rebuttal letter from Dr. Jaczko, also addressed to William M. Daley, President Obama’s chief of staff, said the other four members were improperly trying to involve themselves in management affairs, which in a reorganization of the commission in 1980 became the chairman’s sole responsibility. Dated Dec. 7, the letter said that the rest of the commission had “taken an approach that is not as protective of public health and safety as I believe is necessary.”

For relevant context on how such breakdowns in the civil service occur, see this letter from Joe Carson, Nuclear Safety Engineer at the Department of Energy:

December 10, 2011

Chairman Jaczko
Commissioner Svinicki
Commissioner Apostolakis
Commissioner Magwood
Commissioner Ostendorff

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Subject: The “broken covenant” of Civil Service Reform Act of 1978; significant and persistent deficiencies in scope and implementation of engineering ethics; and your mission and your disputes about your various authority in executing it

Dear NRC Commissioners,

I am writing because of a NY Times story, “New Discord at NRC,” today about your dispute, which links to your respective letters to the White House.1 I have already established that you cannot demonstrate objective compliance with your fundamental duty to NRC employees – to ensure they are adequately protected from reprisal, discrimination, personal favoritism, or other types of “prohibited personnel practices (PPPs),” so they can perform their duties in a trustworthy fashion, per the merit system principles. How else can you possibly claim to be complying with your duty to “prevent PPPs” at 5 U.S.C. section 2302(c), if you cannot do this?

But I do not blame you, because you cannot do this by yourself. Congress, per the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, assigned the duty to “protect (NRC) employees from PPPs” to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), per (what is now) 5 U.S.C. section 1214, and assigned the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) the duty to conduct oversight of OSC and NRC in interpreting and applying their respective duties to determine whether NRC employees are adequately protected from PPPs, per 5 U.S.C. section 1204(a)(3). But OSC interpreted away, at its creation, its essential duty to “protect” by claiming it never has to tell anyone when it determines a PPP has occurred, and MSPB enabled OSC by claiming it never has to conduct oversight of OSC or NRC to determine whether NRC employees are adequately protected from PPPs. This is detailed, in boring, nuclear safety grade, detail at and

So, maybe Chairman Jaczko took a page from OSC’s and MSPB’s playbooks in claiming he does not have to tell other NRC Commissioners what they believe they need to know to comply with their statutory duties for nuclear and public health and safety.

The NRC Inspector General report about Chairman Jaczko’s actions about terminating the NRC’s review of DOE’s license application for Yucca Mountain determined he did not break any laws.2 But it was silent to the most relevant question – did he abuse his authority? “Abuse of authority” is a legal phrase with defined meaning in federal civil service law – it is not just a subjective “eye of beholder” combination of sounds.3 Perhaps the NRC IG feared retribution to make such a finding, so he was silent to it.

As I understand rule of law in USA, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice should be the final referee in Executive Branch about your respective authorities. I also understand you have the authority to task OLC to issue its opinion on your concerns.4

I played a significant role in the American Nuclear Society (ANS) issuing a new code of ethics about 7 years ago.5 I regret it, it is nothing but worthless eyewash in practice – ANS has yet to ever investigate a member for violating it or taking any action to uphold it when an ANS member claims to have been so foolhardy to put it ahead of their economic self-interest and to be suffering employer retribution for it, even when legally established.

The NRC Inspector General found former NRC Commissioner Merrifield violated some conflict of interest requirements of the federal civil service. This was publicized in the Washington Post.6 In doing so, he also violated aspects of the ANS Code of Ethics. I brought this to the appropriate attention of ANS leadership, the 10 or so former NRC Commissioners who belong to ANS, and others. Everyone stuck their head in the sand and pointed me to someone else, demonstrating the “broken honor code” implementation basis of engineering ethics.7

Commissioner Ostendorff – you knew me in Navy Nuclear Power School. When Admiral Rickover interviewed me, he asked me why I wanted to be in his program and I told him I wanted to be a better engineer. Be careful what you ask for, I suppose, because my being a “better engineer” includes the unpopular assignment to call out my profession about the significant and persistent deficiencies in its code of ethics – which forms an essential part of the engineering, as any other, profession.

Commissioner Magwood – you have known me a bit via our common membership in ANS and common employment in DOE.

Chairman Jaczko – we met about my concerns as a Department of Energy whistleblower when you were on Senator Reid’s staff.

Everyone in nuclear profession would be better served by clarity about your respective roles – as applied in specific instances – not just in theory. Everyone in federal civil service would be better served by clarity about the respective responsibilities of agency heads, the Special Counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, and Members of the Merit Systems Protection Board for ensuring members of federal civil service are adequately protected from PPPs. Everyone on planet earth in 2011 would be better served if the members and leaders of engineering profession would find the moral courage to acknowledge and address the significant and persistent deficiencies in the scope and implementation of engineering ethics.

You have sworn duties for a reason – and not just to burnish your resumes for your next career move – and I am bringing serious, well evidenced, far-reaching concerns to your attention and they are certainly relevant to nuclear safety. Please act in accordance with the merit system principles, your oaths of allegiance, and standing as nuclear professionals, in considering them, because you do have the influence and/or authority to substantiate or dispel them.


Joe Carson, PE

Copy: Relevant Stakeholders in Government, media, and elsewhere


2. See

3. See 5 U.S.C. sections 1213(a)(1)(B), 2301(b)(9), and 2302(b)(8)

4. See 28 U.S.C. sections 510-512, 28 C.F.R. section 0.25, and

5. See

6. See and perform a search on “merrifield” to locate the NRC IG report

7. See for a short article on the broken state of engineering ethics


New FOIA litigation in progress, aimed at clarifying ethical issues at MSPB

6:16 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch

Back in August, a suit was filed (with exhibits) by [8-time prevailing whistleblower and federal nuclear safety engineer] Joe Carson against MSPB in federal district court, over MSPB’s refusal to comply with a FOIA request. In his request, reprinted below, Carson raises worthy questions regarding the ethical duties of the MSPB chair, currently occupied by Susan Tsui Grundmann. Take a look.


Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) REQUEST

May 28, 2011
Mr. Bernard Parker, FOIA Officer
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
1615 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20419

fax at (202) 653-7130 <> <>

Subject: New FOIA request based on Chairman Grundmann’s May 24, 2011 denial of my FOIA appeal in FOIA no. CB11-171

Dear Mr. Parker,

As MSPB leadership knows, I contend there is a 32 year-long “broken covenant” by Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). I contend that the government (i.e. Courts, Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the President, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and agency heads) have failed to ensure federal employees are adequately protected from reprisal and other types of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) as they do their duties in a trustworthy fashion, per the merit system principles - the fundamental objective of the CSRA.

My contentions are detailed at <>. I contend that thousands of loyal patriotic federal employees, foolhardy enough to put duty to the Constitution and the common good before their personal economies were unlawfully betrayed for doing so since 1979. I contend America is much diminished and more threatened as a result. Furthermore, I contend that if my concerns are substantiated at the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, it is GOOD NEWS for America in that: 1) a previously unidentified significant causal factor to much which has befallen and besets America has been exposed, and 2) it can readily be corrected.

If my contentions are substantiated, then the Merit Systems Protection Board – the 3 person Board – for past 32 years, its lawyer members and the lawyers in its Office of General Counsel and Office of Policy are, in my opinion, most responsible. Only MSPB has the positive, nondiscretionary, statutory duty to conduct oversight, via its special studies function at 5 U.S.C. section 1204(a)(3), of the Office of Special Counsel’s interpretation of and compliance with its nondiscretionary statutory duties to protect federal employees from PPPs, most specifically its duty to report its determinations of PPPs at 5 U.S.C. section 1214(e), and agency heads interpretation of and compliance with their nondiscretionary statutory duties to prevent PPPs, per 5 U.S.C. section 2302(c).

I am a licensed professional engineer (PE) employed in the Department of Energy as a nuclear safety engineer. I was so foolhardy as to put my positive legal and professional duty to be a “mandated reporter,” when necessary, to protect others related to my professional duties for their health and safety, regardless of possible job/career retribution. PE’s are “mandated reporters” in such circumstances, I acted consistent with that duty. My actions played a positive, perhaps significant, role in the passage of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000, by which over 65,000 diseased, disabled, or prematurely deceased Department of Energy contractor workers (or their survivors) have received over 7 billion dollars in compensation. So, as I now see it, I have done my positive legal and professional duty, as great personal and professional cost, as a licensed professional employed by a government agency because other licensed professionals employed by a government agency – attorneys who served on the 3 person Board during past 32 years – betrayed their duty to enforce the laws entrusted to them, particularly section 1204(a)(3).

Why has this gone on for 32 years? As I understand Chairman Grundmann’s reasoning in denying my FOIA appeal, she is really not the Chair of MSPB, with a positive legal duty to ensure MSPB is properly interpreting and complying with its non-adjudicatory statutory duties to protect the Merit Systems in the Executive Branch from PPPs – and to “blow whistles” as a “mandated reporter,” if it is not. Instead, she has an attorney-client relationship MSPB, her government employer. Because MSPB is her client, she must as a licensed attorney – what she was before becoming Chair of MSPB and what she will continue to be when her term at MSPB ends – hold paramount MSPB’s interests – not those of the federal civil service when the two come into conflict. Therefore she is a “mandated NON-reporter” about MSPB’s failures or possible failures to properly interpret and comply with its nondiscretionary duties regarding conducting special studies and oversight of Office of Personnel Management regulations.

Additionally, Ms. Grundmann has a background as a lawyer employed by federal employee unions, so she had an attorney-client relationship with them. In my opinion, federal employee unions have devolved to become low-level protection rackets, which use fear of PPPs to sell union memberships at about $400 -$500/year to federal employees. Federal employee unions, in my close observation and experience, benefit from the “broken covenant” of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 – they do NOT want federal employees to be adequately protected from PPPs by agency heads and OSC, because if they were, then they would be even less likely to voluntarily pay union dues. Federal employee unions want status quo – “OSC is the last place an employee alleging a PPP should go” – to continue because it helps sell union memberships.

In fact, federal employee unions were the chief advocate of a 1994 law that put severe restrictions on federal employees represented by federal employee unions (i.e. their members and prospective members, only about 20% of federal employees represented by federal employee unions actually pay their dues), seeking protection from PPPs at OSC, per 5 U.S.C. section 7121(g). They did this to make their remedy for PPPs – binding arbitration – more exclusive. Why? To help sell union memberships, to pay the exorbitant salaries of their officers and their employed attorneys.

So, federal employee unions and their lawyers want and benefit from a broken, lawbreaking fraud of federal law enforcement agency at OSC – one that is “the last place a federal employee alleging a PPP should go,” and lawbreaking enabler of OSC’s fraud at MSPB.

To clarify my understanding of Ms. Grundmann’s ethical obligations as a licensed attorney who is Chair of MSPB and who was previously employed by Federal employee unions, I submit a FOIA request for any responsive records for the following:

  1. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman of MSPB, a federal agency, if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its nondiscretionary duties regarding its special studies function at 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3) and (e)(3) for past 32 years.
  2. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated NON-reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman of MSPB, a federal agency, if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its nondiscretionary duties regarding its special studies function at 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3) and (e)(3) for past 32 years.
  3. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman of MSPB, a federal agency, if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its nondiscretionary duties regarding its oversight function of the Office of Personnel Management at 5 U.S.C. section 1204(a)(4) and (f) for past 32 years.
  4. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated NON-reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman of MSPB, a federal agency, if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its nondiscretionary duties regarding its oversight function of the Office of Personnel Management at 5 U.S.C. section 1204(a)(4) and (f) for past 32 years.
  5. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated NON-reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman MSPB if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its duties regarding its oversight function of the Office of Personnel Management at 5 U.S.C. section 1204(a)(4) and (f) for past 32 years, because she was previously employed by federal employee unions, which possibly benefitted from the government lawbreaking, because fear of PPPs helps sell union memberships.
  6. -Any records relevant to Ms. Grundmann’s duties to be a “mandated NON-reporter” as a lawyer who is the Chairman MSPB if she determines there is reasonable cause to believe MSPB has misinterpreted and/or misapplied its duties regarding its special studies function at 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3) and (e)(3) for past 32 years, because she was previously employed by federal employee unions, who benefitted from the government lawbreaking, because a broken, lawbreaking fraud of an OSC – “the last place a government employee alleging a PPP should go” – and a lawbreaking MSPB that enables it, helps sell federal employee union memberships.
  7. -Any records related to any evaluation MSPB has conducted of its interpretation of and compliance with its non-discretionary statutory duties at 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3), (a)(4), (e)(3) and/or (f).
  8. -Any records related to any consideration MSPB has made of telling the President, Congress or anyone else that its interpretations of and compliance with 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3), (a)(4), (e)(3) and/or (f) during past 32 years is suspect.
  9. -Any records related to any consideration MSPB has made of seeking interpretations from the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice of its interpretations of 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(3), (a)(4), (e)(3) and/or (f) during past 32 years.
  10. -Any records related to MSPB’s compliance with its nondiscretionary statutory duty to conduct reviews of OPM rules and regulations for possible PPP’s, per 5 U.S.C. sections 1204(a)(4) and/or (f)(1)(A), on its own motion.
  11. -Any records of any written complaints received from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), requesting such a review, per section 1204(f)(1)(c),
  12. -Any records of any “special studies” conducted by MSPB, per sections 1204(a)(3) and (e)(3), that considered MSPB’s and OSC’s compliance with their positive, nondiscretionary, statutory duties to proactively review any OPM rule or regulation for possible PPP’s.

I will pay up to $100 for the records I seek.


Joseph Carson, PE


This suit will be tracked at

For more information, see and please sign a related White House petition here.

A brief history of America’s merit system (video)

11:18 pm in Uncategorized by MSPB Watch