The Plight of a Whistle-blower
by Mary Lou Herring
Whistle-blowing.
I am a whistle-blower. I was the controller at Washburn University and put in the position of transferring funds to a related institution in a manner that would violate state law. I raised my concerns about this transaction on a Monday; and my employment was terminated on Thursday, with all the standard explanations given. In spite of a prior performance evaluation indicating that I exceeded job expectations, my two year employment with the university was terminated due to the stated fact that my particular skills and abilities were not a good match for the university.
Inadequate protections.
The laws designed to protect whistle-blowers are inadequate. The decision to speak out on behalf of the public welfare is still full of risk for the individual involved. The risks include an immediate loss of job, the challenge to replace that job with meaningful employment, a costly litigation process as an underdog against a well established institution, a tarnished reputation, and living continuously with the question of whether doing what is right is the right thing to do.
Systemic problem.
For governmental employees, a systemic problem exists in that public servants are in the position of serving two masters, their immediate supervisor and the public. When the immediate supervisor (and oftentimes those above that supervisor) does not engage in ethical behavior it forces you to decide whether you will do what is right for yourself or what is right. When public servants have different ideas about public trust and stewardship of public assets, the work environment is oftentimes acrimonious. One knows that it is only a matter of time before things will come to a head, and as the lower person on the ladder, it is unlikely that you will fare well in the end. The other option is to leave, but that is not without its own limitations and implications in the workplace. So, one goes about doing their job as best they can, hoping for the best, hoping that right can prevail, but knowing it is unlikely.
Termination.
Apparently my concern for the wanton disregard of state law was so dangerous to the university and its administration that I learned of my termination via a letter, delivered by two uniformed campus police officers at the door to my classroom as I, and my students, were exiting from an evening class session that I taught as an adjunct instructor. The affect of this action was to fuel the public perception that I did something very wrong. Attempts to meet with the university president and/or the Director of the Board of Regents to discuss this situation were rebuffed. Unofficial announcements were made that I had resigned, but more likely people were simply told that I didn't work there anymore in the dismissive manner that tends to discourage any further questions. The implication speaks for itself. I must have done something seriously wrong.
The aftermath.
Following the termination of my employment I began the simultaneous activities of applying for unemployment benefits, hiring an attorney and searching for new employment. None of these activities was ever engaged in from any position of strength.
Unemployment.
Although humiliating, the unemployment process was the most painless, due in large part to the Internet. But that did not relieve the mortification that I felt when explaining to the state employee that I had no explanation for why I was so abruptly terminated. Although I read the explanation directly from the letter that I received from the university, her skepticism was evident. It took over two months before I received my first unemployment compensation check.
Isolation.
Hiring an attorney was easier because I received a good referral, and the attorney that I contacted saw the validity of my claim. Now I had at least one person on my side. Ask anyone who has been fired from their employment; most of your contacts in the workplace will treat you like you have a communicable disease. Call one. You can feel their discomfort over the phone and making arrangements to meet with one will feel like you are arranging a clandestine affair. It can be especially challenging to convince your family that you didn't do anything wrong. Loss of these relationships is not insignificant.
Job search.
The search for new employment presented specific challenges. Since most employers list "team player" as a key requirement for future employment with their organization, introducing yourself as a whistleblower is not recommended. So, how does one get around the classic question "Why did you leave your last position?" I have been on interviews that felt more like therapy sessions as I was asked more questions about my relationships with authority than I was asked about my accounting skills. It is a very delicate area, and left me confused as to why I experienced such a feeling of shame. What I did was the right thing, wasn't it? I tried to prevent the misuse of public money. Yet I'm the one who's punished and feeling that I must explain away my actions rather than being up front about it.
Litigation.
Simultaneously with the process of putting my life back together, the litigation process got underway. I was clearly the underdog, one single individual taking on the establishment. I had an attorney that believed in my case; the university had all of their institutional resources, including the insurance company, backing them up. They are dealing with a personnel matter that is allowed to be cloaked in all the secrecy that suits their case. I was fighting from a very weakened position, with few resources, mounting debt, a tarnished reputation and escalating self-doubt. The deposition was brutal, again more of a therapy session with questions designed to find all of my personal flaws than any real attempt to get to the issues at hand. Than the settlement conference was conveniently moved to convene on campus, (with no notice to me or my attorney; we learned of the revised location as we were leaving his office) not the neutral site that I had been promised. This move clearly illustrated the imbalance of power. All the top administrators, the insurance representatives, and opposing counsel were present for what became a full day bargaining session. In the end, I accepted the settlement, not because it was right, but because I needed the resources to buy groceries, make the mortgage payment, and stop the accumulation of debt that I was incurring for living expenses. I ended the day feeling like I had sold out. I had a check, but nothing had changed. So, what public good was served?
Settling (or selling out).
The settlement was supposed to provide closure. Again, it is a process that is designed to protect the institution and its integrity. The whole point of a whistleblower claim is to correct the actions engaged in by the institution that damage public safety, waste tax dollars, or violate the public trust in government. But the secrecy embedded in the settlement agreement insures that the whole matter is swept cleanly under the rug. There is no public exposure of the wrongdoing. So at the end of the process, the institution continues to engage in its arrogant, callous business practices, and the whistleblower is on the outside earning less and questioning more, still fighting the sense that doing what was right was wrong.