<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV class=timestamp>From: <EM>New York Times</EM> 10-10-05</DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp> </DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp><FONT size=2>Should the First Amendment protect a public
employee's job-related speech? The Supreme Court's ruling will affect the rights
of millions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp> </DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp>October 10, 2005</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">Occupational Hazard
</NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
<DIV class=byline>By COLEEN ROWLEY and DYLAN
BLAYLOCK</DIV></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody>
<P>EVEN as the public focuses on President Bush's most recent Supreme Court
nomination, the business of the court goes on. And this week, it will take up a
First Amendment case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, that is crucial not only to
government workers across the country, but to all Americans concerned about free
speech and national security. </P>
<P>While a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County, Richard Ceballos
investigated allegations of police misconduct in a case his office was
prosecuting. After finding evidence suggesting that a deputy sheriff might have
lied in order to obtain a search warrant, Mr. Ceballos drafted a memo to
supervisors detailing the wrongdoing and recommending that they drop the case.
After supervisors proceeded with the prosecution, Mr. Ceballos informed the
defense of his findings, as required by law. He was subsequently removed from
the prosecution's team, demoted and transferred to a different office.</P>
<P>Mr. Ceballos filed suit claiming that he was retaliated against in violation
of his rights. His boss, District Attorney Gil Garcetti, and the California
State Association of Counties argued that free speech protection only extends to
public employees when an employee expresses his personal opinions - those being
what he advocates as a citizen, rather than an employee. After the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled in favor of Mr.
Ceballos, his opponents pushed for the nation's highest court to take the
case.</P>
<P>Should the First Amendment protect a public employee's purely job-related
speech? The answer will affect the rights of millions of public employees, from
police officers to public hospital workers. And in particular, the principle
decided here will dictate how whistleblowers are treated in government offices
where the reporting of mismanagement and fraud are vital to our country's
well-being, places like intelligence agencies, the Department of Energy and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.</P>
<P>Presidential administrations seem more often than not to make loyalty
paramount. While loyalty in marriage, family and among friends is the glue that
binds society, government employees owe their ultimate allegiance not to their
supervisor or president but to America: its Constitution, laws and citizens.</P>
<P>The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch,
regulations by which all federal workers are required to abide, clearly state
that employees "shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to appropriate
authorities." </P>
<P>But no law effectively protects federal workers who report malfeasance as
part of their job duties. And coverage of state workers is patchy. As a result,
those workers we depend on for our safety have often faced a terrible conundrum:
either remain quiet and allow fraud and wrongdoing to occur, or speak out and
risk retaliation. When one of us (Ms. Rowley) spoke out about the F.B.I.'s
pre-9/11 lapses, it was likely only the leaking of her memo to the press that
saved her from professional retaliation. </P>
<P>For hundreds of other nameless government truth tellers who tried to work
solely within the system, however, there has been no such happy ending. Instead,
they have been left with the incongruity noted by the appeals court judge who
ruled in favor of Mr. Ceballos: that while they might be protected if they took
their problem to the press, they would not be protected if they tried to remedy
the problem within the system.</P>
<P>With so much at stake in national security, is that a situation we want to
let stand? A ruling against First Amendment rights would muzzle those who know
security issues better than any oversight body officials can hope to create. We
cannot rely solely on Congress to keep tabs on absolutely everything happening
under them - such a task is impossible. </P>
<P>Supported by the Bush administration, lawyers for Mr. Garcetti and the
California counties association are rehashing arguments that government managers
have always used against granting these protections to employees - namely that
providing these rights might lead to management paralysis and a deluge of
litigation. But the Supreme Court in the past has dismissed these unfounded
predictions, realizing that our court system is equipped to weed out frivolous
lawsuits. These managers should be praising an early warning system that detects
problems and maintains departmental integrity.</P>
<P>Now the court has a chance to clarify previous legal precedents and set the
record straight. America should be encouraging those civil servants who step
forward to make our country stronger. Cutting off protection is a recipe for
disasters of mass proportions. </P><NYT_AUTHOR_ID>
<P id=authorId>Coleen Rowley is a retired F.B.I. agent. Dylan Blaylock is the
communications director of the Government Accountability
Project.</P></NYT_AUTHOR_ID></DIV></NYT_TEXT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>