One evening, as she was approaching her
100th year, Mary Harris “Mother” Jones was introduced to a
college convocation as “a great humanitarian.” When she took
the podium she hollered, “I’m not a humanitarian, I’m a
hellraiser.” That’s where our title comes from.
Mother Jones was one of the most effective
organizers of her time. She organized anti-child labor
marches to Washington, mine workers’unions, prison reform
groups and protests against the Spanish-American war.
She was effective – not only because she organized, but
because she knew where to strike. And she knew how to
investigate, uncover corruption and expose the weak spots of
power. This guide is about her art.
Student Confidentiality
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) defines
education records as all records, files, documents and other materials
containing information directly related to a student; and maintained
by the education agency or institution, or by a person acting for such agency or
institution (34 CFR § 99.3). This includes all records regardless of medium,
including, but not limited to, handwriting, videotape or audiotape, electronic
or computer files, film, print, microfilm, and microfiche.
In addition, for students who attend a public school district,
all records pertaining toservices provided under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are considered “education records” under FERPA.
As such, they are subject to the confidentiality provisions of both Acts.
The Board shall establish procedures to
consider complaints that a parent's right has been denied. Education
Code 26.001(d)
The Board shall adopt a grievance
procedure under which the Board shall address each complaint that the
Board receives concerning a violation of Education Code Chapter 26
(Parental Rights). Education Code 26.011
Note:
"Retaliation: A Primer" and the "Retaliation Triangle" were originally published
in The Observer, a newsletter published by the Sacramento LDA (Spring 1998).
This link is no longer active. However, this article and more information
about retaliation for advocacy are available
here
(see "Enemies List" Targets Parents).
Retaliation: A Primer
Note to the Reader: "Retaliation: A Primer" and the
"Retaliation Triangle" were originally published in The Observer, a
newsletter published by the Sacramento LDA.
retaliation, n.-Syn.
vengeance, reprisal, punishment; see revenge
Retaliation against parents is a taboo topic in special education.
No one knows how wide spread it is, or how often it occurs. Yet,
wherever parents gather and whenever parents talk among themselves,
the topic of retaliation receives lively attention. The focus of
this essay is on parents; however, retaliation is not limited to
parents alone. Anyone who advocates for children can become the
target of retaliation. (click
here to read about Pamella Settlegoode, adaptive
PE teacher, who sued her Portland, Oregon school district for
retaliation and won a one million dollar verdict that was upheld on
appeal).
Retaliation is the act of using official resources to "punish"
parents. It can take many forms. It is not, technically, a crime and
it can be difficult to detect. (Note: This is not correct.
Retaliation is defined and prohibited by the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Click here for the legal definition of Retaliation from the ADA)
However, the underlying "causes" of retaliation are no mystery.
There are two key ingredients: power and accountability - too much
of the former and not enough of the later. The mechanism that seems
to trigger retaliation is effective advocacy.
Retaliation occurs in an environment where school officials view
IDEA as an unwanted imposition or as a way to develop a power base.
In this setting the job is not to fully implement IDEA. Instead,
school officials translate their responsibilities and duties to
children and families into unquestioned decision making power over
them. The profile of such officials can take two forms: openly
hostile or smoothly deceptive, the latter preferring passive
aggressive resistance. Hostile officials on the other hand use their
position as an instrument of power to openly intimidate and even
punish parents.
Many
parents never encounter retaliation. Those that do however, are
usually strong advocates for their children. Regardless, retaliation
does occur and the fear of retaliation inhibits many parents. This
affords school officials wide latitude to implement IDEA and the ADA
as they see fit.
The Retaliation Triangle
Patterns of Retaliation
Like the
food triangle, patterns of retaliation can be classified into three
levels. Level I, the most frequent, is low-level passive activity,
with the goal of delaying the process. Level II is more overt; the
goal is to scare parents. Level III is the form of open hostility
and the goal is to punish parents. Level III retaliation is rare,
but costly, dramatic, and damaging.
Level
I - Delay. The goal at this level of retaliation is to reduce
parent effectiveness by passive resistance, such as the introduction
of delays and obstacles in the many processes involved in special
education. There are numerous ways officials can achieve this
result.
One is
simply playing dumb. This allows officials to effectively ignore the
law and parent rights under the law. Another is "forgetting" to do
things. An official may repeatedly forget to follow-up on a
commitment, such as getting back to parents with further
information, or fail to schedule further meetings without several
reminders. Being "away from the phone," so often that parents give
up on some important issue is also effective.
Yet
another technique is overly technical interpretations of laws and
regulations. Level I does not appear hostile, but it can be
extremely effective.
Level
II - Fear. Level II retaliation is not hidden. At this stage
officials may appear to be openly frustrated and hostile. They will
state that they won't for example, allow parents to observe a class,
or won't permit certain kinds of testing. The list of "can't do's"
is quite long. Most of it however, is bluff.
Level II retaliation is based on putting up a tough front in an
effort to scare parents and reduce their advocacy. It is predicated
on parental ignorance of the law. While it can be very effective,
parents can break through this barrier by learning more about
special education laws and regulations and simply insisting on
compliance. Once past the obstacles, parents usually find that
resistance is eliminated.
Level
III - Punishment. At this level, retaliation can get ugly, with
school officials openly threatening and actively trying to punish
parents.
In this
war-like state, school officials have a variety of weapons to choose
from. One is the fair hearing (due process hearing) process. Schools
have vast financial resources to transform hearings into major
trial-like proceedings. Since there is no accountability to
taxpayers for the large sums spent in such legal adventures,
officials have free rein to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.
(See the
Hamilton County TN v. Zachary Deal case, where the school
district spent at least 2.8 million dollars on attorneys' fees to
fight parents of a child with autism.)
Aiding
and abetting this practice is a network of attorneys who specialize
in fighting parents. These attorneys are organized into a
professional group which holds national conferences and
training programs at the local level. School officials are
invited to attend these conferences where they are tutored in the
finer points of "aggressive action," in the form of strategies to be
used before an IEP meeting or at the pre-hearing conference of a due
process or fair hearing.
There
have been recent reports of a menacing new form of retaliation
involving the fabrication of child abuse charges against the target
parent. Such allegations can trigger an investigation by Child
Protective Services which has police-like powers. Pending the
outcome of their investigation, they may choose to remove children
from the home.
Level III is so serious that most parents need an attorney to
protect themselves.
Note: "Retaliation: A Primer" and the "Retaliation Triangle"
were originally published in The Observer, a newsletter published by
the Sacramento LDA (Spring 1998). We wrote a short article,
The Enemies List, based on "Retaliation: A Primer" that included
links to the original article on the Sacramento LDA site. In 2006,
we received several reports of broken links to the original article.
We discovered that the link to the Sacramento LDA site was
deactivated. Since we saved the original article, we are posting it
on Wrightslaw. If the Sacramento LDA organization creates a new site
and/or posts the article, we will be happy to remove this article
and create a link to the original.
A 1983 federal report entitled
"A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform"observed: "If any unfriendly
foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational
performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of
war."
But, many parents probably have as much chance of influencing
a foreign dictator as they have of influencing a school board."
Please Note:
Agency procedures require a written and signed complaint
from the complainant before any action can be initiated.
Complaints received via e-mail are logged in, but are
not considered formal complaints. For information on
submitting a formal written complaint, follow the
procedures outlined in the
Compact with Texans.
The Texas Education Agency is
located in the William Travis Building 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, Texas, 78701 (512) 463-9734
Parents' Bill of Rights for Texas Public Schools
These rules, which
have been modified several times since their original
passage, are part of the Texas Education Code and as such,
they must be observed by every Texas public school,
including charter schools.
Please note that parents have other rights that are not
specifically in this list. Local school boards also have
policies that may include additional rights and procedures,
as long they do not conflict with those listed below.
If you believe that either the Parents' Bill of Rights or
another education law is being violated, you can contact the
Texas Education Agency
for guidance. They are the Texas agency responsible to
assuring that school districts and charter schools follow
Texas education laws.
Here is the current version of the Texas Parents' Bill of
Rights and Responsibilities, including changes made during
the 2003 legislative sessions:
Texas
Parent's Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (Texas Education Code, Chapter 26)
Purpose
(a) Parents are partners with educators, administrators,
and school district boards of trustees in their children's
education. Parents shall be encouraged to actively
participate in creating and implementing educational
programs for their children.
(b) The rights listed in this chapter are not exclusive.
This chapter does not limit a parent's rights under other
law.
(c) Unless otherwise provided by law, a board of
trustees, administrator, educator, or other person may not
limit parental rights.
(d) Each board of trustees shall provide for procedures
to consider complaints that a parent's right has been
denied.
(e) Each board of trustees shall cooperate in the
establishment of ongoing operations of at least one
parent-teacher organization at each school in the district
to promote parental involvement in school activities.
Definition
In this chapter, "parent" includes a person standing in
parental relation. The term does not include a person as to
whom the parent-child relationship has been terminated or a
person not entitled to possession of or access to a child
under a court order. Except as provided by federal law, all
rights of a parent under Title 2 of this code [the part of
the Texas Education Code that pertains to public schools]
and all educational rights under
Section 151.001(a)(10), Family Code, shall be exercised
by a student who is 18 years of age or older or whose
disabilities of minority have been removed for general
purposes under
Chapter 31, Family Code, unless the student has been
determined to be incompetent or the student's rights have
been otherwise restricted by a court order.
Rights Concerning Academic Programs
(a) A parent is entitled to:
(1) petition the board of trustees designating the
school in the district that the parent's child will
attend, as provided by
Section 25.033;
(2) reasonable access to the school principal, or to
a designated administrator with the authority to
reassign a student, to request a change in the class or
teacher to which the parent's child has been assigned,
if the reassignment or change would not affect the
assignment or reassignment of another student;
(3) request, with the expectation that the request
will not be unreasonably denied:
(A) the addition of a specific academic class in
the course of study of the parent's child in keeping
with the required curriculum if sufficient interest
is shown in the addition of the class to make it
economically practical to offer the class;
(B) that the parent's child be permitted to
attend a class for credit above the child's grade
level, whether in the child's school or another
school, unless the board or its designated
representative expects that the child cannot perform
satisfactorily in the class; or
(C) that the parent's child be permitted to
graduate from high school earlier than the child
would normally graduate, if the child completes each
course required for graduation; and
(4) have a child who graduates early as provided by
Subdivision (3)(C) participate in graduation ceremonies
at the time the child graduates.
(b) The decision of the board of trustees concerning a
request described by Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is final and
may not be appealed.
Access to Student Records
A parent is entitled to access to all written records of
a school district concerning the parent's child, including:
(1) attendance records;
(2) test scores;
(3) grades;
(4) disciplinary records;
(5) counseling records;
(6) psychological records;
(7) applications for admission;
(8) health and immunization information;
(9) teacher and counselor evaluations; and
(10) reports of behavioral patterns.
Access to State Assessments
Except as provided by
Section 39.023(e), a parent is entitled to access to a
copy of each state assessment instrument administered under
Section 39.023 to the parent's child.
Access to Teaching Materials
(a) A parent is entitled to:
(1) review all teaching materials, textbooks, and
other teaching aids used in the classroom of the
parent's child; and
(2) review each test administered to the parent's
child after the test is administered.
(b) A school district shall make teaching materials and
tests readily available for review by parents. The district
may specify reasonable hours for review.
(c) A student's parent is entitled to request that the
school district or open-enrollment charter school the
student attends allow the student to take home any textbook
used by the student. Subject to the availability of a
textbook, the district or school shall honor the request. A
student who takes home a textbook must return the textbook
to school at the beginning of the next school day if
requested to do so by the student's teacher. In this
subsection, "textbook" has the meaning assigned by
Section 31.002.
Access to Board Meetings
(a) A parent is entitled to complete access to any
meeting of the board of trustees of the school district,
other than a closed meeting held in compliance with
Subchapters D and E, Chapter 551, Government Code.
(b) A board of trustees of a school district must hold
each public meeting of the board within the boundaries of
the district except as required by law or except to hold a
joint meeting with another district or with another
governmental entity, as defined by
Section 2051.041, Government Code, if the boundaries of
the governmental entity are in whole or in part within the
boundaries of the district. All public meetings must comply
with
Chapter 551, Government Code.
Right to Full Information Concerning Student
(a) A parent is entitled to full information regarding
the school activities of a parent's child except as provided
by
Section 38.004.
(b) An attempt by any school district employee to
encourage or coerce a child to withhold information from the
child's parent is grounds for discipline under
Section 21.104,
21.156, or
21.211, as applicable.
Right to Information Concerning Special Education
and Education of Students with Learning Disabilities
(a) The agency shall produce and provide to school
districts sufficient copies of a comprehensive, easily
understood document that explains the process by which an
individualized education program is developed for a student
in a special education program and the rights and
responsibilities of a parent concerning the process. The
document must include information a parent needs to
effectively participate in an admission, review, and
dismissal committee meeting for the parent's child.
(b) The agency will ensure that each school district
provides the document required under this section to the
parent as provided by
20
U.S.C. Section 1415(b):
(1) as soon as practicable after a child is referred
to determine the child's eligibility for admission into
the district's special education program, but at least
five school days before the date of the initial meeting
of the admission, review, and dismissal committee; and
(2) at any other time on reasonable request of the
child's parent.
(c) The agency shall produce and provide to school
districts a written explanation of the options and
requirements for providing assistance to students who have
learning difficulties or who need or may need special
education. The explanation must state that a parent is
entitled at any time to request an evaluation of the
parent's child for special education services under
Section 29.004. Each school year, each district shall
provide the written explanation to a parent of each district
student by including the explanation in the student handbook
or by another means.
Requests for Public Information
(a) A school district or open-enrollment charter school
that seeks to withhold information from a parent who has
requested public information relating to the parent's child
under
Chapter 552, Government Code, and that files suit as
described by
Section 552.324, Government Code, to challenge a
decision by the attorney general issued under
Subchapter G, Chapter 552, Government Code, must bring
the suit not later than the 30th calendar day after the date
the school district or open-enrollment charter school
receives the decision of the attorney general being
challenged.
(b) A court shall grant a suit described by Subsection
(a) precedence over other pending matters to ensure prompt
resolution of the subject matter of the suit.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, a school district or
open-enrollment charter school may not appeal the decision
of a court in a suit filed under Subsection (a). This
subsection does not affect the right of a parent to appeal
the decision.
(d) If the school district or open-enrollment charter
school does not bring suit within the period established by
Subsection (a), the school district or open-enrollment
charter school shall comply with the decision of the
attorney general.
(e) A school district or open-enrollment charter school
that receives a request from a parent for public information
relating to the parent's child shall comply with
Chapter 552, Government Code. If an earlier deadline for
bringing suit is established under
Chapter 552, Government Code, Subsection (a) does not
apply. This section does not affect the earlier deadline for
purposes of
Section 552.353(b)(3) for a suit brought by an officer
for public information.
Consent Required for Certain Activities
(a) An employee of a school district must obtain the
written consent of a child's parent before the employee may:
(1) conduct a psychological examination, test, or
treatment, unless the examination, test, or treatment is
required under
Section 38.004 or state or federal law regarding
requirements for special education; or
(2) make or authorize the making of a videotape of a
child or record or authorize the recording of a child's
voice.
(b) An employee of a school district is not required to
obtain the consent of a child's parent before the employee
may make a videotape of a child or authorize the recording
of a child's voice if the videotape or voice recording is to
be used only for:
(1) purposes of safety, including the maintenance of
order and discipline in common areas of the school or on
school buses;
(2) a purpose related to a cocurricular or
extracurricular activity;
(3) a purpose related to regular classroom
instruction; or
(4) media coverage of the school.
Refusal of Psychiatric or Psychological Treatment
of Child as Basis of Report of Neglect
(b) An employee of a school district may not use or
threaten to use the refusal of a parent, guardian, or
managing or possessory conservator of a child to administer
or consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to
the child, or to consent to any other psychiatric or
psychological testing or treatment of the child, as the sole
basis for making a report of neglect of the child under
Subchapter B, Chapter 261, Family Code, unless the
employee has cause to believe that the refusal: (1) presents
a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury
to the child; or (2) has resulted in an observable and
material impairment to the growth, development, or
functioning of the child.
Exemption From Instruction
(a) A parent is entitled to remove the parent's child
temporarily from a class or other school activity that
conflicts with the parent's religious or moral beliefs if
the parent presents or delivers to the teacher of the
parent's child a written statement authorizing the removal
of the child from the class or other school activity. A
parent is not entitled to remove the parent's child from a
class or other school activity to avoid a test or to prevent
the child from taking a subject for an entire semester.
(b) This section does not exempt a child from satisfying
grade level or graduation requirements in a manner
acceptable to the school district and the agency.
Complaints
The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt
a grievance procedure under which the board shall address
each complaint that the board receives concerning violation
of a right guaranteed by this chapter.
Fee for Copies
The agency or a school district may charge a reasonable
fee in accordance with
Subchapter F, Chapter 552, Government Code, for copies
of materials provided to a parent under this chapter.
TITLE 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION
SUBTITLE
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER
4. PUBLIC EDUCATION MISSION, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS
§
4.001. Public Education Mission and Objectives
(a) The
mission of the public education system of this state is to ensure
that all Texas children have access to a quality education that
enables them to achieve their potential and fully participate now
and in the future in the social, economic, and educational
opportunities of our state and nation. That mission is grounded on
the conviction that a general diffusion of knowledge is essential
for the welfare of this state and for the preservation of the
liberties and rights of citizens. It is further grounded on
the conviction that a successful public education system is directly
related to a strong, dedicated, and supportive family and that
parental involvement in the school is essential for the maximum
educational achievement of a child.
(b) The
objectives of public education are:
OBJECTIVE
1: Parents will be full partners with educators in the education of
their children.
OBJECTIVE 2:
Students will be encouraged and challenged to meet their full
educational potential.
OBJECTIVE 3:
Through enhanced dropout prevention efforts, all students will
remain in school until they obtain a high school diploma.
OBJECTIVE 4:
A well-balanced and appropriate curriculum will be provided to all
students.
OBJECTIVE 5:
Qualified and highly effective personnel will be recruited,
developed, and retained.
OBJECTIVE 6:
The state's students will demonstrate exemplary performance in
comparison to national and international standards.
OBJECTIVE 7:
School campuses will maintain a safe and disciplined environment
conducive to student learning.
OBJECTIVE 8:
Educators will keep abreast of the development of creative and
innovative techniques in instruction and administration using those
techniques as appropriate to improve student learning.
OBJECTIVE 9:
Technology will be implemented and used to increase the
effectiveness of student learning, instructional management, staff
development, and administration.
Added by
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, § 1, eff. May 30, 1995.
Teachers, in particular, must be
surveyed in a way that assures both credibility and anonymity. They
are very often troubled by what they see in the schools yet unable
to candidly express themselves without risking their jobs.
Building an Education Consumers
Association in the Face of Public Apathy
Being a parent activist can be
frustrating. There may be some support for your concerns but most
people seem indifferent to educational issues unless they have
reached crisis levels. In addition, educators and community leaders
are often hostile and defensive. They don’t want to see an object of
local pride tainted by criticism. The recent public response to
educational standards illustrates the problem. Everyone was
supportive until they discovered that it was their school and their
child that did not measure up.
Public concern about local schooling
typically originates as parent protest about a particular event or
policy. Parents become concerned about an issue because of its
expected impact on their children. Their protests may produce some
degree of accommodation but the broader matter of whether the local
schools should adhere to the aims of the local community is never
addressed because public discussions are confined to the immediate
conflict. As soon as the immediate problem is diffused, consumers go
away. For an ECA to form and grow, it needs to look beyond the
immediate crisis.
As is evident from years of polling
data, most people believe their local school system is excellent.
It’s the ones in other towns and other states that need reform.
Instead of having concerns about academic standards and the like,
average parents are more likely to share students’ complaints about
boring classes and too much homework. They believe good teaching is,
first and foremost, teaching that makes learning fun and exciting.
They assume that if students appear to be engaged and enthused, they
must be learning something important. As one activist commented,
most people think of good teaching as something that looks like MTV.
In short, an activist’s life can be
very frustrating because most people literally do not see the
problem. Parents and taxpayers may have complaints about a
particular issue but, in general, they see nothing that calls for
far reaching change. Schools maintain a largely positive public
image and so long as they do so, there isn’t going to be a
groundswell of community support for consumer activism.
Are They Really Apathetic?
While it is true that many of those
who should be concerned about local school quality seem uninterested
in learning more about it, it isn’t true that they don’t care about
the issue. Rather, the truth is that most citizens have little
direct knowledge about whether their schools are doing a good job.
Their view is simply a reflection of the prevailing climate of
opinion. Even if they recognize the need for selective improvements,
most citizens assume that local schools are doing at least an
adequate job of imparting the knowledge and skills necessary to
going to college or getting a job. Parents, for example, may not be
willing to participate in an ECA but they do care about whether
their kids are learning enough to go to college and/or have an
attractive career. Businessmen and community leaders may prefer to
believe the schools are doing a great job but they do care about
whether students are learning enough to be gainfully employed.
In essence, education’s consumers
believe their schools are doing at least an adequate job because
they have no reason to believe otherwise. Virtually all the
information they get about local schools comes from the schools
themselves and most of it sounds good. Most people are favorably
impressed with schools that excite students and tout the latest
innovations because they are given to understand that excitement and
innovation are the keys to student achievement. Most laymen would
never think to question whether schools are continually striving to
use the best and most effective teaching methods. It is only after
the students graduate and enter college or the workplace that
parents, students, and employers may come to have objective reasons
for doubt. Of course, by then it is too late.
Information Needed by the Public
Broad public interest in and support
for an examination of school quality issues is unlikely to emerge
unless the public has reason to doubt the conventional wisdom. Such
a change isn’t likely to take place over night. Responsible citizens
and school board members are not going to abandon long-held beliefs
without credible evidence—especially in the face of claims by local
school officials that minor refinements may be needed but that
otherwise, all is well.
Of course, doubt may never arise if
the public hears only from the schools and that is why ECAs need to
raise the issue. An ECA may be questioning the value of a proposed
program (e.g, the adoption of “new, new math” or the implementation
of block scheduling) but it needs to go into the broader question of
whether existing and past practices have worked as advertised. How
many past fads have been adopted and later swept under the rug?
Broadly, the ECA needs to put the current issue in context: Should a
school system that has been doing a mediocre job be trusted to
implement more pedagogical mischief?
In order to overcome public
indifference, an ECA has to pull together data that validates its
assertions, share that information with the public in a credible and
consumer-friendly way, and be patient. The experience of other
schools and other communities around the country needs to be
gathered, responsibly examined, and publicly reported. Data
collection and dissemination may take days and weeks but it needs to
be done in a way that fair and credible.
Objective data on school performance
may be available from state and national databases but opinions are
valuable too. Groups that might be surveyed include recent
graduates, parents of recent graduates, employers who hire recent
graduates, professors who teach recent graduates, and teachers who
have worked with recent graduates. Professional assistance in survey
construction is advisable.
Teachers, in particular, must be
surveyed in a way that assures both credibility and anonymity. They
are very often troubled by what they see in the schools yet unable
to candidly express themselves without risking their jobs.
Parents and other members of the
community need to understand that they may not have been getting the
full story about the quality of local schooling. They also need to
become accustomed to the notion that there is a responsible point of
view about schooling that differs from the official viewpoint, i.e.,
there is a legitimate consumer viewpoint. With a public recognition
that “let the buyer beware” applies to schools just like it does
other market transactions, a local consumer voice can grow and be
effective. Without such a public understanding, most people who hear
complaints about local schools will reject both the message and the
messenger.
J. E. Stone, Ed.D. Education Consumers ClearingHouseTM P.O. Box 4411 Johnson City, TN 37602 phone & fax (423) 282-6832 professor@education-consumers.com
During my twenty years of government service, I have met and
come to know many whistleblowers. If I could make a generalization about
them, I would describe them this way:
Whistleblowers are over-achievers. They are competent and efficient,
the kind of people who are concerned that things be done right. They are
also people who have the moral fiber to stand up to corruption.
In almost every case, they became whistleblowers because a moral
dilemma, not of their own seeking, was thrust upon them. They were asked
to do something immoral and they refused.
Ninety-nine out of a hundred people, when faced with such a dilemma,
will hold their nose and remember where their bread is buttered. Or they
will convince themselves there is no dilemma.
Most whistleblowers start out doing the right thing thinking that once
"upper management" or some figure of authority learns of the situation
they will straighten it out. Even after they come to understand that
"upper management" is not going to save them, whistleblowers remain
unrepentant and even defiant. From that inevitably follows harassment,
persecution, and vilification. This is not the path for a malingerer.
Each year taxpayers pay billions of dollars for goods and services
ranging from health care and defense to public safety. And each year
taxpayers pay millions of dollars to police and prosecute fraud against
the public purse.
Yet one whistleblower can frequently accomplish more than a roomful
of inspectors or policemen, and costs far less. Whistleblowers know the
system, and speak out in a spirit of public service.
Whistleblowers are precisely the kinds of people we should have in top
management of government and industry. It is not the whistleblower who
needs protection so much as it is the public that needs the protection
of the whistleblower.
William Sanjour US Environmental Protection Agency
watch·dog (wchdōg,
-dg)
noun
One who serves as a guardian or protector against waste,
loss, or illegal practices.
![[Company Logo Image]](_borders/AG00052_.GIF)
Keep Eanes Informed
ch
dōg
,
-d