Massachusetts Whistleblower at Oversight Watch Massachusetts
Massachusetts: Government/Business/ Labor Oversight
is a Website dedicated to all Massachuestts citizens striving for Government, Business, and Labor Accountability and Oversight in the continual battle against.waste, fraud, and abuse.
BEWARE: LAW FIRMS WHO EXPLOIT POTENTIAL WRONG DOING REPORTING FOR
WARNING: Beware of Law Firms that exploit sincerity for $$$$$ and public relation gains who do not respect persons who sincerely come forward to expose waste, fraud, and abuse.
There should no need for Whistleblowers if government did its job of oversight and accountability of public funds. Law Enforcement and Regulatory Agencies watchdogs have failed in their mission of enforcement and regulations of functions of business practices.
There is an almost complete lack of codes of conduct by labor bosses and those in business operations in performing services or producing commodities and products. This has resulted in a lack of high standards of performance by a go along to get along workforce afraid to stand up to improprieties for fear of retaliation or job loss. Now, the greed sector of for profit and billing attorneys finding a way to gain moneys by taking and promoting litigation and insincere devious persons look to cash in by collaborating not to correct injustices but to obtain dollars.
ATTENTION:
Massachusetts Public Employees
WARNING. DO NOT CONTACT OR REPORT WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE OR ANY FORM OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO ANY IN THE MEDIA, UNION OFFICIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FBI, LOCAL OR STATE POLICE AS THESE ENTITIES MAY PROTECT OR REPRESENT THOSE WHO MAY BE DOING THE VIOLATIONS AND NOT YOU....FIRST, YOU MUST SEEK A REPUTABLE PRIVATE LAWYER YOU TRUST BEFORE COMMUNICATING, TALKING TO, OR ACTING OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER.
John Gatti Jr
Enclosed is the LAW
The Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act THE MASSACHUSETTS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT "An Act to Protect Conscientious Employees"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 149 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1992 Official edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 184 the following:
Section 185.
(a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Employee", any individual who preforms services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.
(2) "Employer", the commonwealth, and its agencies or subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof.
(3) "Public body",
(A) the United States Congress, any state legislature, including the general court, or any popularly elected local government body. or any member or employee thereof;
(B) any federal, state, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
(C) any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer; or
(D) any division, board,bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs of this subsection.
(4) "Supervisor", any individual to whom an employer has given the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has the authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under subsection (g).
(5) "Retaliatory action", the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
(b) An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:
(1) Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of an other employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of the law, or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment;
(2) Provides information to, or testifies before, any public boy conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment by the employer, or by another employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship; or
(3) Objects to, or refuse to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of the law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment, to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.
(2) An employee is not required to comply with paragraph (1) if he:
(A) is reasonably certain that the activity, policy or practice ia known to one or more supervisors of the employer and the situation is emergency in nature;
(B) reasonably fears physical harm as a result of the disclosure provided; or
(C) makes the disclosure to a public body as defined in clause (B) or (D) of the definition of 'public body" in subsection (a) for the purpose of providing evidence of what the employee reasonably believes to be a crime.
(d) Any employee or former employee aggrieved by a violation of this section may, within two years, institute a civil action in the superior court. Any party to said action shall be entitled to claim a jury trial. All remedies available in common law tort actions shall be made available to prevailing plaintiffs. These remedies are in a addition to any legal or equitable relief provided herein. The court may:
(1) issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary or permanent injunctions to restrain continued violation of this section;
(2) reinstate the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position;
(3) reinstate full fringe benefits ad seniority rights to the employee;
(4) compensate the employee for three times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and interest thereon; and
(5) order payment by the employer of reasonable costs, and attorneys' fees.
(e)
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action brought by an employee under subsection (d), if the court finds the action was without basis in law or fact, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to the employer.
(2) An employee shall not be assessed attorney's fees under paragraph 1 one (1) if, after exercising reasonable and diligent efforts after filing a suit, the employee moves to dismiss the action against the employer, or files a notice agreeing to a voluntary dismissal, within a reasonable time after determining that the employer would not be found liable for damages.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges or remedies of any employee under any other federal or state law or regulation, or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of a private action in accordance subsection (d) shall be deemed a waiver by the plaintiff of the rights and remedies available to him, for the actions of the employer, under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, state law, rule or regulation, or under common law.
(g) An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name of the person or person the employer has designated to receive written notification pursuant to subsection
NO MASSACHUSETTS GAS TAX INCREASE IS CURRENTLY JUSTIFIFIED BALLOT QUESTION 1- ROLL BACK SHOULD BE SUPPORTED
I am most disappointed in any support of a Gas Tax Increase without stating the facts and history of how previous ones were spent. At least look at the issue in total and present all the facts and history of where the gas tax increases went before demanding any new gas tax or allowing any toll increases.
The former chair of the House Transportation Committee Representative Steven J. Karol stated in a contentious debate on the House Floor in May 1990 that no Turnpike funds would be used to pay for the Big Dig. This took place to approve legislation many were involved that already passed the Senate which would have provided oversight and accountability of the Big Dig project. The Special Interests defeated the measure.
When the last gas tax increase was approved in 1991, we were told that was adequate to fix the deteriorating roads and bridges that upon review did not. Look at was done and not fixed. Look at Federal Funds pouring into Massachusetts that could have been used to repair Massachusetts Interstate and Primary Roads and Bridges and were not.
The sad revelation revealed that Parsons Brinkerhoff part of the Big Dig engineering, design, and private oversight of the construction team that ran the Big Dig project from the original $2.3 billion to $23 Billion+ that subsequently now awarded the lead design manager for the $370 million Massport project. Government leaders should be asked the if this is right for the inefficiency, waste, mismanaged, fraud, and abuse of the Big Dig. under their watch? This is a moral and financial outrage. The Big Dig is the world’s largest construction project and is a monument for private sector greed and ravage of taxpayers by state and national government. Gas Taxes, Turnpike and Tunnel Tolls expansions should be taken off the table and not even be considered upfront.
Gas Taxes, Turnpike and Tunnel Tolls expansions should be taken off the table and not even be considered.
The time has come for Massachusetts to establish a new WARD Type Commission such as established during the Boston Government Scandal that forced the legislature to implement many government contracting reforms that seem to have eroded in recent years.
Government and the media should inform the Citizens and Taxpayers where previous gas tax increases were diverted or spent that were previously promised to fix and repair all the dysfunctional roads and bridges.
The guilty and enablers who got Massachusetts into this mess must be exposed and held accountable first. The failure to prosecute in criminal and Civil Courts the truly guilty for mthe Big Dig mess is deplorable and an insult to all Massachusetts citizens and ther pocketbook.
To do any increases to the taxpayer without insuring again independent proper government oversight and accountability that is truly independent and staffed to stand up to bad construction practices and the many special interests of contractors, bankers, bonding companies, insurers, consultants, out of touch labor bosses, and campaign contributions that will take Massachusetts citizens for a ride again is wrong and will lead to a further disaster to Taxpayers.
Raising the Gas Tax during the current recession is not a good public policy.
National So Called Big Bucks Advocacy Group Suing Massachusetts Over Failure to Protect Vulnerable Children With Attorney General Opposing!
When is enough is enough? This issue has been around for decades. Democratic and Republican Administrations, The Legislature with few exceptions, and Union Bosses from SEIU and AFSCME are responsible for the continuous carnage of the most vulnerable Children and misuse of Taxpayer Dollars.
We have seen the in Massachusetts the rise of the most expensive, unaccountable, inhumane Human Services Industrial Establishment composed of no bid providers, consultants, vendors, and billable minutes lawyers literally conducting rape of tax dollars on a continuous basis.
What is sad to witness is an almost callous disregard lacking compassion, care, and concern for vulnerable children and families that only goes on and on from crisis to crisis and only reported when those few investigative journalists left employed inform the citizenry.
ATTENTION:
Massachusetts Public Employees
WARNING. DO NOT CONTACT OR REPORT WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE OR ANY FORM OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO ANY IN THE MEDIA, UNION OFFICIAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FBI, LOCAL OR STATE POLICE AS THESE ENTITIES MAY PROTECT OR REPRESENT THOSE WHO MAY BE DOING THE VIOLATIONS AND NOT YOU....FIRST, YOU MUST SEEK A REPUTABLE PRIVATE LAWYER YOU TRUST BEFORE COMMUNICATING, TALKING TO, OR ACTING OUTSIDE YOUR EMPLOYER.
John Gatti Jr
Enclosed is the LAW
The Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act THE MASSACHUSETTS WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT "An Act to Protect Conscientious Employees"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Chapter 149 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 1992 Official edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 184 the following:
Section 185.
(a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) "Employee", any individual who preforms services for and under the control and direction of an employer for wages or other remuneration.
(2) "Employer", the commonwealth, and its agencies or subdivisions, including, but not limited to, cities, towns, counties and regional school districts, or any authority, commission, board or instrumentality thereof.
(3) "Public body",
(A) the United States Congress, any state legislature, including the general court, or any popularly elected local government body. or any member or employee thereof;
(B) any federal, state, or local judiciary, or any member or employee thereof, or any grand or petit jury;
(C) any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, prosecutorial office, or police or peace officer; or
(D) any division, board,bureau, office, committee or commission of any of the public bodies described in the above paragraphs of this subsection.
(4) "Supervisor", any individual to whom an employer has given the authority to direct and control the work performance of the affected employee, who has the authority to take corrective action regarding the violation of the law, rule or regulation of which the employee complains, or who has been designated by the employer on the notice required under subsection (g).
(5) "Retaliatory action", the discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.
(b) An employer shall not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:
(1) Discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer, or of an other employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of the law, or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment;
(2) Provides information to, or testifies before, any public boy conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment by the employer, or by another employer with whom the employee's employer has a business relationship; or
(3) Objects to, or refuse to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment.
(c)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the protection against retaliatory action provided by subsection (b)(1) shall not apply to an employee who makes a disclosure to a public body unless the employee has brought the activity, policy or practice in violation of the law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or which the employee reasonably believes poses a risk to public health, safety or the environment, to the attention of a supervisor of the employee by written notice and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy or practice.
(2) An employee is not required to comply with paragraph (1) if he:
(A) is reasonably certain that the activity, policy or practice ia known to one or more supervisors of the employer and the situation is emergency in nature;
(B) reasonably fears physical harm as a result of the disclosure provided; or
(C) makes the disclosure to a public body as defined in clause (B) or (D) of the definition of 'public body" in subsection (a) for the purpose of providing evidence of what the employee reasonably believes to be a crime.
(d) Any employee or former employee aggrieved by a violation of this section may, within two years, institute a civil action in the superior court. Any party to said action shall be entitled to claim a jury trial. All remedies available in common law tort actions shall be made available to prevailing plaintiffs. These remedies are in a addition to any legal or equitable relief provided herein. The court may:
(1) issue temporary restraining orders or preliminary or permanent injunctions to restrain continued violation of this section;
(2) reinstate the employee to the same position held before the retaliatory action, or to an equivalent position;
(3) reinstate full fringe benefits ad seniority rights to the employee;
(4) compensate the employee for three times the lost wages, benefits and other remuneration, and interest thereon; and
(5) order payment by the employer of reasonable costs, and attorneys' fees.
(e)
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action brought by an employee under subsection (d), if the court finds the action was without basis in law or fact, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to the employer.
(2) An employee shall not be assessed attorney's fees under paragraph 1 one (1) if, after exercising reasonable and diligent efforts after filing a suit, the employee moves to dismiss the action against the employer, or files a notice agreeing to a voluntary dismissal, within a reasonable time after determining that the employer would not be found liable for damages.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges or remedies of any employee under any other federal or state law or regulation, or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of a private action in accordance subsection (d) shall be deemed a waiver by the plaintiff of the rights and remedies available to him, for the actions of the employer, under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, state law, rule or regulation, or under common law.
(g) An employer shall conspicuously display notices reasonably designed to inform its employees of their protection and obligations under this section, and use other appropriate means to keep its employees informed. Each notice posted pursuant to this subsection shall include the name of the person or person the employer has designated to receive written notification pursuant to subsection
[UPDATED]
MARKET BASKET FIASCO AIDED
PROMOTED BY INACTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMEMNT
DEMOCRATS GOVERNOR DEVAL PATRICK OBLIVIOUS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL MARTHA COAKLEY NOT ENFORCING AND ADMINISTERING LAWS...POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR CANDIDATE CHARLES BAKER ADVOCATES DOING NOTHING!
SHAMELESS
Market basket is a national story relative to Massachusetts business, industry, and labor failure which will be discussed by historians when over.
Government lack of action is disgusting to allow 2 million consumers, 25,000 employees, vendors, suppliers, and tax revenue to suffer with no mediation or action is an economic calamity. If this was single building, they would have moved to Texas or Florida and be welcomed.
Statements made by two State Attorney Generals from Massachusetts and New Hampshire responsible for enforcement of these laws leave the wrong impression of the issues.
The Massachusetts Attorney General; is not enforcing or administering Employment Laws under her jurisdiction to maintain balance and meditation for Market Basket owners and employees.
Governor Patrick has failed as exhibited by his stating no action from the outset and at the 11th now as the crisis worsens doing damaging control denial conflicts of interest because his spouse being revealed working for a law firm who represents one of the warring family factions alleging no involvement.
A Republican Candidate for Governor Charlie Baker disgusting statement of disinterest gives encouragement to other states trying to steal Massachusetts Businesses thinking of leaving or relocating!
Hopefully, Texas Governor Rick Perry who will be in New Hampshire this month and goes from state trying to take existing businesses and industries to Texas does not get ideas to solicit by stopping in Massachusetts.
What also that must be noted is a cursory interest by organized labor failing to take advantage to organize employees and increase union dues for Labor Boss spending as Market Basket wages and benefits are said to surpass existing union contracts.?
What should chagrins all is a disregard to existing labor laws and administration as well those charged with economic development and well-being by Massachusetts Government as well as those so called business organizations doing nothing;
Now we wait for warring family factions, their $$$$$media advisors, and disgustin$$$$$ attorneys to run out of energy and come to a conclusion.
The University of Louisville last year paid three officials close to its president twice as much to take early retirement as other administrators, so they would keep quiet about sensitive information the university did not want them to disclose.
Records show that the school paid a full year's salary to outgoing Vice Presidents Michael Curtin ($252,350) and Larry Owsley ($248,255) and to assistant to the president Vivian Hibbs ($66,391) in part to induce them not to "disparage, demean or impugn the university or its senior leadership."
"We had to give them something," said Mark Hebert, U of L spokesman.
But several of the 175 other university staff and administrators who only got a half-year's pay for taking early retirement said the extra — and previously secret — payments were unfair.
"I think it is a disgrace and an insult," said James Harper, a lieutenant on the U of L police force who retired after 37 years and received $28,714, half his final salary.
Experts on university practices, including Marcia McCormick, an employment law professor at St. Louis University, also say it is inappropriate for a public university to pay to buy the silence of officials who are in the best position to inform the public about how a university is being run and spending public money.
Jason Kurland, a leader of the Washington-based American Association of University Professors and a former administrator and professor at the University of California, said he was disappointed with both the university and the three administrators — and that he'd never heard of "anything quite like this."
"They are selling their souls for some extra money," he said. "This is not the way to do business."
Hebert noted that the three ex-administrators could still criticize the university, if they were willing to give up their extra six months' pay. Asked if any of the three would have disparaged the university, if not for the clauses, he said he didn't think any left unhappy but "you'll have to ask them that."
Curtin, the former vice president for finance, who worked for U of L for 38 years, and Owsley, vice president for business affairs, who started at the university in 1983, did not respond to messages.
Hibbs, who also worked for former President John Shumaker, declined to comment before hanging up the phone on a reporter.
Hebert said that the agreements — which also bar the university from disparaging Curtin, Owsley and Hibbs — represent a "mutual affirmation of good will." He said non-disparagement clauses are "fairly commonplace" in higher education and "certainly common" in the business world.
He said the agreements were sought from these three administrators because they had access to confidential information about personnel matters and contract and budget negotiations. Curtin and Owsley were the only two vice presidents who took early retirement.
At the University of Kentucky, non-disparagement clauses have been included in "legal separation agreements on occasion," but it is not university policy to include such language as part of an employee's retirement, said university spokesman Jay Blanton.
McCormick said she opposes such deals "if for no other reason than it gives the public reason to suspect that there is something worth hiding."
She also said the agreements may violate the U of L's statement on academic freedom, which says in part that "academic institutions in a democratic society exist for the pursuit of truth" and that "free inquiry and free expression are indispensable to the attainment of these goals."
President, provost approved agreements
Curtin, Owsley and Hibbs were among 285 employees who retired early in a program the university says will save about $7.5 million over the next four years.
Faculty members received a full year's compensation, while other staff and administrators collected a half-year's pay.
Ramsey, who didn't respond to a request for comment made through Hebert, personally approved the extra pay for Hibbs, while Provost Shirley Willihnganz approved the agreements for Curtin and Owsley, according to documents obtained under the Kentucky Open Records Acts.
The agreements, which The Courier-Journal obtained under the open-records law, bar them from making any statements, "without limitation ... impugning the personal or professional character of any director, officer, employee or consultant for the university."
They also agreed not to disclose anything about the university that is not already known to the public or subject to Kentucky open-records laws, and to testify only if required by subpoena, which they must share in advance with the university.
They also agreed to do occasional consulting work, if required, at their final rate of pay.
The cases against, for non-disclosure
Employment law experts say that non-disparagement clauses are constitutional because the employees voluntarily surrender their First Amendment rights. But authorities say it's possible that a court would not enforce them if a public employee made criticisms that are found to be true.
Outside academia, non-disclosure and disparagement clauses are included in about a quarter of executive employment agreements, though they have recently come in for criticism.
Author Chuck Klosterman, who writes a column called "The Ethicist" for The New York Times Magazine, said last year that such provisions that stretch beyond a straightforward embargo on business-oriented trade secrets "represent the worst kind of corporate limitations on individual freedom."
Writer Will Blythe, explaining why he turned down additional money he would have gotten if he had promised not to disparage a digital publishing company that fired him, wrote in January in The Times that such contracts have a "paralyzing effect on the dissemination of the truth, with all of truth's caustically cleansing powers."
Common Cause and some unions have condemned their use in the public sector, saying they could discourage legitimate criticism of government or hide wrongdoing by public officials.
After a Boston Globe investigation in 2011 found that they had been used by 16 state agencies in Massachusetts, John Gatti Jr., a former state employee union official and a chief architect of the Massachusetts public employee whistle-blower law, said: "If there is any inappropriate behavior, it could stifle reporting of it. I cannot believe cash for silence in public employment practices is being allowed to continue."
At the University of Wisconsin, after professors complained that the non-disparagement clause in its athletic department's shoe contract with Reebok could bar anyone on campus from criticizing the sneaker-maker's workplace practices abroad, the school's chancellor in 1996 got Reebok to rescind it, saying, "I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that the university has abandoned its historic commitment to freedom of expression."