Gov't scientist fired over Emails?

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is attempting to fire biologist Charles (Rex) Wahl, charging he shared sensitive information with environmental groups and other government agencies in a deliberate attempt to undermine Reclamation projects.

Both Wahl and the Bureau of Reclamation have declined to speak to the press while the decision is pending.

At issue are Emails Wahl sent while an Environmental Specialist in Reclamation's Yuma, Arizona office. His supervisors discovered the messages -- addressed to individuals at the Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the nonprofit group Environmental Defense -- on Wahl's computer after he transferred from Yuma to Albuquerque last May.

Wahl has been on paid administrative leave since September, when Reclamation issued the first notice of their proposal to dismiss him. The notice charged Wahl with releasing unauthorized information, among other offenses. In late December, after receiving a response from Wahl defending himself, Reclamation issued a second, modified notice that didn't identify specific charges against Wahl, but described his actions as an "offense against the employee-employer relationship."

In his response to the Bureau, Wahl argued that many of the messages he sent were routine communications as part of keeping the public informed of Reclamation's water management projects. In several messages, though, Wahl urged his contacts to look into Reclamation activities that he believed were environmentally unsound or illegal. More than once, he asked not to be identified as the source of the information.

The reason for secrecy, Wahl wrote in his letter to Reclamation, was fear of retaliation. He claimed that senior managers in the office viewed other organizations and agencies as enemies, and were hostile toward anyone who pushed for environmental compliance. According to Paula Dinerstein, an attorney with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is representing Wahl, he is protected by provisions of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Solid Waste Disposal Act. "In some cases he was disclosing what he saw as a violation of a regulation or law, or a danger to public health or safety," she said. "Those are protected disclosures."

In his letter, Wahl suggested his former supervisor, Thayer Broili, was motivated to leave the agency because he was "ostracized" for pushing environmental compliance. Broili, however, painted a different picture. "Not being as effective in the job as I would have liked did have some influence, but it certainly wasn't the only influence," Broili told The Scientist. "I don't feel like I was driven out."

Yet the hostile environment Wahl described sounded familiar to Kirk Lashmett, a biologist who retired from the Bureau of Reclamation's Western Colorado office last spring. [Wahl's] "is not an isolated case," Lashmett told The Scientist. After more than 30 years with Reclamation, Lashmett claimed he was forced into early retirement when his supervisors cited him for misconduct. He contends a bizarre misconduct claim -- that he let his dog defecate in the office (a charge he denies) -- was invented as retaliation for speaking out about environmental negligence. "Environmental compliance is a joke," he said. "If you're not willing to turn your cheek and look the other way, they'll go after you."

Asked to respond to those charges, Reclamation spokesman Barry Wirth said he didn't know the details of Lashmett's case but that he was "a little mystified" by his allegations. "The Bureau of Reclamation adheres very strongly to the environmental obligations that we have," Wirth said. "The bureau stands behind its environmental reputation."

Another Reclamation employee defended the Bureau's reputation. "Perfect compliance is difficult; it's all about good faith effort," said Doug McPherson, an Environmental Specialist in Reclamation's Southern California office. He argued that Reclamation is trying hard to make up for environmental damage done in the past. "I don't think I'd work for them if I thought they were environmentally evil."

Wahl now has an opportunity to respond to Reclamation's second notice of their intent to dismiss him. If he is fired, Dinerstein said, he and PEER intend to fight the decision.

According to Broili, his former supervisor, Wahl was "very knowledgeable, capable, and conscientious in his field." He was also someone, Broili said, who had very strong opinions about what he believed to be right and wrong. "He definitely wanted to do the right thing."

Kirsten Weir
mail@the-scientist.com

Links within this article:

Bureau of Reclamation
http://www.usbr.gov

Corps of Engineers
http://www.usace.army.mil

Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov

Environmental Defense
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/home.cfm

Bureau of Reclamation's notice to Wahl
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/06_19_12_term_ltr.pdf

Wahl's response to the Bureau of Reclamation
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/06_19_12_wahl_declar.pdf

Bureau of Reclamation's revised notice to Wahl
http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/07_3_1_wahl_removal_ltr_rev.pdf

E. Russo, "The plight of the whistleblower," The Scientist, January 1, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15197

PEER
http://www.peer.org

L. Defranceso, "Researcher seeks whistleblower protection," The Scientist, November 1, 2002.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/20828