A Note To DEP Readers
I’d like to say a few things to my DEP readers.
Yesterday’s Bergen Record editorial “Cleaner Water” is a powerful reminder that informed advocacy can make a huge difference.
Basically, we forced Commissioner Martin to reverse his bad decision to kill a rule proposal. As a result, the health of NJ residents will be better protected.
Ideally, while the editorial makes it crystal clear that Martin was wrong on both the science and the policy, we also would have liked to have forced an apology by Martin for his smear of DEP science, but that is unrealistic.
To obtain the documents that supported our arguments that led to this victory, we had to file both NJ OPRA and federal FOIA requests.
Commissioner Martin denied our OPRA requests to prevent us from getting this information.
So thank goodness for federal FOIA or it would have been impossible to document the abuse that occurred here.
Without credible documentation, it would have been impossible to hold Martin accountable, brief legislators to conduct oversight, and provide media with the factual basis for writing strong news stories and editorials that forced the Commissioner to reverse a bad decision.
We can repeat this success! But I can’t do it alone.
I need DEP documents! Absolutely confidentiality provided to sources.
So, I am asking that you help provide similar documentation to prevent the advance of bad policy or future bad decisions. (for examples, take a look at this prior PEER survey of all DEP employees: N.J. DEP EMPLOYEES SAY WHITMAN ADMINISTRATION SOFT ON POLLUTERS — One in Four Report Orders to Ignore Violations
I fully understand DEP employee professional standards, the constrained role of science in policy and regulatory decisions, and loyalty to colleagues and the chain of command. I can respect a reluctance to become an “advocate” and disclose legitimate policy debates that some say should remain confidential within DEP.
I also understand real fears of career harm or outright retaliation for opposing bad management decisions or unsound DEP policy or regulation.
Nonetheless, I am encouraging you to engage in what we call “anonymous activism” (here is a link to Intro & Chapter 1: Sin against God and not the bureaucracy. For God may forgive your sins . ..
So, when you know of or personally experience a range of unsound DEP management policies or practices – from incompetence or mismanagement to politicization of science, regulatory, permit, enforcement, or financial decisions – drop me a line.
Even a heads up about what I should OPRA is helpful.
But do this from home – don’t do so from your work phone or computer and don’t print out documents at DEP.
We can provide legal advice and guidance to protect you. You call the shots – we will only do what you first approve. We are not affiliated with or beholden to any union or environmental group. Below is PEER’s confidentiality policy – while this blog is my own and distinct from my work at PEER, there are additional legal protections of sources because this blog is a journalistic practice. My contact info:
Bill Wolfe
359 Oliver Street
Bordentown, NJ 08505 (address updated)
609-397-4861 – email Bill_Wolfe@comcast.net
PEER Confidentiality Statement
All communications between PEER staff or volunteers and the environmental public employees they serve are treated as strictly confidential. Any and all information provided to PEER by you as a public employee remains at all times strictly within your control. That means that PEER will not voluntarily release or disclose any information furnished by employees without the employee’s explicit consent and approval.
This confidentiality is legally protected in two ways:
The First Amendment Freedom of Association
First, and most importantly, a government agency cannot (without court order) legally compel PEER to reveal confidential sources of information it discloses. In the precedent-setting case of the United States v. Garde , 673 F.Supp. 604 (D.D.C. 1987), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the government’s attempts to subpoena or otherwise compel a whistleblower support organization to disclose the identity of its confidential sources infringe upon the First Amendment right to association of those sources. Recognizing the risk of great harm to those who disclose problems in their agencies, the Court held, organizations like PEER cannot be forced to disclose the identity of its sources unless the government can show a compelling interest that cannot be served by alternative means. Similarly, the identity of PEER sources is also protected when private entities, such as polluters or developers who may be implicated by a PEER disclosure, seek to obtain confidential identifying information about PEER sources from government investigatory agencies. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. EPA, 856 F.2d 309 (DC Cir. 1988).
The Attorney-Client Privilege
Second, unless we are explicitly advised to the contrary, PEER assumes that all public employees who contact us are seeking some form of legal assistance or advice. Thus, most communications with PEER lawyers, staff, or volunteers are treated as “attorney-client†privileged. The attorney-client privilege is held by the client and may only be waived by the client or breached by court order.
PEER Principles
PEER’s organizational policies forbid the disclosure of employee information or even the identities of public employees seeking PEER services.
Additional Legal Protections
In addition to confidentiality, in many situations employee disclosures to PEER are accorded legal protection under a variety of state and federal whistleblower statutes. That means that you may have a legal right to share information of environmental wrongdoing with PEER free from retaliation by your employing agency.