During the course of the past few months, I’ve received a few inquiries on advertising. After flip-flopping on the concept (wouldn’t it be nice to say this site was “successful” by blogosphere money standards?), I’ve come to the conclusion that readers don’t want this to be a commercial site. Therefore, I’m putting out a new policy.
If you have something valuable to add, you can do it here. There’s no charge, and you get a byline and a link to your own site. Readers get the benefit of the writer’s expertise, and the writer gets the benefit of additional traffic and the exposure of their knowledge.
You don’t have to be an attorney to submit a piece, but you do have to have information relevant to the issue of government accountability and federal issues. Submissions are subject to light review, and I reserve the right to reject submissions. That said, I’m a light editor, and I love to have others contribute vocal variety. Submissions or inquiries can be made to democracy@fedhallofshame.com.
For those contemplating a submission, this site receives between 2,000-3,000 unique visitors per month, with a heavy emphasis on those who appear to be conducting research on the Merit Systems Protection Board and the processes involved.
Interested authors may also submit editorial pieces for publication, but any submission for official posting will not be published anonymously. For anonymous submission, please use the comment function of this site.
Responsibility and ownership of material contained within the article remains entirely with the author. Accepted entries will be preceded by the words “special to the Government Accountability is a Citizen’s Responsibility blog,” and followed by the author’s name and optional weblink.
5 users commented in " Guest Submissions: Blog Policy "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI’am now a retired FERS employee. (CSA83760600) I uncovered a systemic, unlawful practice in 1996 as an employee of INS/DOJ. I petioned MSPB NY0842960340-B-1, AJ Milagros Farnes. The central issue in the case was unequal treatment as to retirement by OPM. The. OPM rep. was John Pearson. It was a pro se proceeding, Neither the AJ nor the OPM rep. addressed the central issue of my case. They both loved the word moot, and dismissed the case as failure to prosecute. Actions and inaction by the government during my employment and subsequent retirement has and is causing me significant harm. What can I do?
This is an older case, closed in 1998. According to the initial decision (I’m not taking any position as to whether it is true or not — MSPB HAS been known to make stuff up), you did not follow-up after having had the case remanded by the MSPB Board. At this point, I don’t know what you can do. Best advice, if you think that you may have remedy, contact a legal professional for an initial consultation.
Robert,
As many of us have learned, you’re up against a system with unlimited money and resources. I know a former INS employee who got tossed out for exposing a security treat. The agency turned the tables on the agent and several years later the guy is still fighting the system.
Lawyers are expensive and its an uphill battle. Currently, MSPB is pro agency. The stats speak for themselves. Two new board members are coming in and most believe they will place the board back on track.
Thank you for your interest. In 1998 I was an employee of INS and on the road to retirement. The MSPB board and my employer INS/DOJ did nothing to resolve the errors in my OPF. Milagros Farnes called a hearing at 26 Fed, to discuss a $20.00 interest payment on my military deposit. This never was an issue in my case, and if I attended, I worked at JFK. I would’ve lost OT pay. My union got my pay adjusted and credit for A/L and S/L owed in November of 2000. The issues now are FERS basic annuity and TSP payments. The amount of money isn’t large. The thing that is mine boggling is at retirement April 30, 2008, my employer USCBP/DHS, was still unaware of my complete employment history. (so much for security clearances) Best regards, Robert A. Kehl
Julia’s story was in the press today (twice, different articles) – please read:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m1d19-Thinking-about-telling-on-your-boss-Whistle-blowers-face-many-retaliatory-perils
http://www.advocatescouncil.us/pdf/LEOAC-PRESS-RELEASE-01-2010.pdf
BJ Davis
(310) 752-3501
http://www.BJDavisFilms.com
Vincit Qui Patitur
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE – This electronic message contains information which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine and is intended solely for the use of the addressee listed above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this electronic message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the use of the content of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. Thank you.
NOTE DE CONFIDENTIALITE – Ce message et toutes les pieces jointes (ci-apres le “message”) sont etablis a l’intention exclusive de ses destinataires et sont confidentiels. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci de le detruire et d’en avertir immediatement l’expediteur. Toute utilisation de ce message non conforme a sa destination, toute diffusion ou toute publication, totale ou partielle, est interdite, sauf autorisation expresse. L’internet ne permettant pas d’assurer l’integrite de ce message, Ubiqus (et ses filiales) decline(nt) toute responsabilite au titre de ce message, dans l’hypothese ou il aurait ete modifie. Merci.
Leave A Reply