Whistleblowers in Public Administration: Role and Impact

Introduction: The Whistleblower in Public Administration

The role of the whistleblower in public administration is one that continues to be controversial. On the one hand, some members of the public view the whistleblower as an important player in maintaining public service offices and agencies. Individuals like Edward Snowden are seen as patriots because they expose overreach and illegal activity by agencies like the NSA that overstep their mandates. Others view the same individuals as threats to the state or to the public offices and agencies to which they belong. This view holds that the agency or office should not be exposed to public scrutiny, and that theft of information or "leaks" produced by hacking are crimes that should be punished. In this framing, the actions are not viewed as blowing the whistle on criminal or unethical activity within the agency or organization — instead, all focus is placed negatively on the whistleblower.

These two opposite perspectives produce tensions in society that are exacerbated by the media, by political pundits, and by real-world events such as acts of terror, espionage, corruption, and diplomatic scrutiny. This paper examines the role of the whistleblower in an attempt to illustrate why the whistleblower is a necessary and important figure in a free, open, and democratic society, and why public administration stands to benefit from the scrutiny that whistleblowing brings about.

Historical Cases of Whistleblowing in Government

There are many cases of whistleblowing in the public administration sector throughout American history, some more famous than others. The whistleblowing of Mark Felt — a top-level administrator in the FBI better known as "Deep Throat" — helped bring down the Nixon Administration after the Watergate scandal erupted (Weiner, 2012). That case, like many others in the history of whistleblowing in public administration, served a purpose: shedding light on actions or policies within the agency, organization, or administration that required attention in order to be corrected. In the case of public administration, that attention typically comes from the public and its representatives in government. Oversight committees, members of Congress, governors, mayors, and attorneys general can each launch or assist in investigations designed to hold public administrators accountable for wrongdoing.

The press and media also serve a role in the whistleblower's function by helping to raise awareness of situations that would otherwise go unnoticed. The whole point of blowing the whistle is to be heard, to raise awareness, and eventually to bring about change that would not otherwise occur because of obstacles within the administration itself. Outside pressure must be applied in order to break down those internal barriers and allow ethical decision-making to be restored. This is what happened with Nixon once he was implicated in the Watergate scandal: feeling pressure from the public, he resigned and a new administration took over the White House. In that case, the whistleblower "Deep Throat" was heralded as a hero.

That is not always the outcome in the whistleblower's story. The situation at Corcoran State Prison is one in which the whistleblowers were vilified by the administration and punished for leaking information about corruption to the media (Dryburgh, 2009). What happened at Corcoran was that prison guards were race-baiting prisoners so they could watch and bet on fights in the common area where prisoners gathered for recreation. The guards used violence against the prisoners, and eventually death resulted. When two prison guards decided to bring the situation to the administration, the administration did nothing in response. The guards then took the matter to the FBI — and they did so by going public with the information. By gaining media support, the whistleblowers were able to bring pressure upon officials to act in response to the killings and race-baiting occurring at the prison. Eventually, the state prison was reformed — but the whistleblowers were never lauded or thanked by the administration for bringing about this change. In fact, upon releasing the information, the guards were punished by administrators: they were removed from their positions and placed in lower-level roles (Dryburgh, 2009). Administrators were not pleased that the whistleblowers were tarnishing the prison's public image.

Club Rule, Technological Citizenship, and the NSA

This fear within administrations — that whistleblowing leads to tarnishing of the institution — is understandable, but in reality it is unwarranted. With the rise of "club rule" administrations — agencies, organizations, and offices effectively overseen by a fraternal network in which those who are supposed to provide oversight are on friendly terms with those who are supposed to be acting responsibly but are not — the role of what can be called technological citizenship has increased. Technological citizenship is a term used to denote persons, individuals, groups, or organizations devoted to holding administrations and public organizations accountable: they research, analyze, gather data, and publish information so as to bring about the same kind of changes that a whistleblower aims to achieve — corporate and social responsibility.

The technological citizenship often works closely with today's whistleblowers, as digital media allows information to be shared instantaneously with people around the world. For instance, the publication of Edward Snowden's documents could not have been accomplished without the help of journalist Glenn Greenwald and many others within the technological citizenship who promoted his findings and spread word of the NSA's overreach. Did this make the NSA comfortable? No — but the comfort level of NSA administrators is not the issue. The issue is that the NSA must act within the boundaries of its mandate. The Obama Administration likewise felt embarrassed by Snowden's document release and immediately called for his arrest. Snowden sought asylum outside the country and eventually received it from Russia — and since then Russia has been vilified in the mainstream media, by political pundits, and by members of the Obama Administration, who view it as a threat to American interests.

Here, then, is an example of how an administration and a whistleblower can be at odds — and what makes matters worse is that public opinion of Snowden's actions has been shaped by the mainstream media, which — as in the case of the Corcoran prison guards — should rally behind whistleblowers. Instead, the mainstream media has been mostly antagonistic toward Snowden. Journalists like Greenwald and other members of the technological citizenship — the so-called alternative media — are supportive. Organizations like DCLeaks and WikiLeaks support such whistleblowing, but the mainstream media in the United States gives considerable airtime to individuals who speak ill of Snowden. Thus, the tension that should have been resolved by his whistleblowing continues and has in some ways been worsened by the ongoing animosity between the administration and the whistleblower. Instead of admitting wrongdoing and accepting responsibility, the NSA and the Obama Administration simply attempted to divert negative attention from themselves and place it entirely on the whistleblower for "stealing" documents that, as they argued, did not belong to him.

Conclusion: Accountability and the Rule of Law

In conclusion, the role of the whistleblower in public administration is an important one because it demonstrates the need for administrators to act with impartiality and to enforce the ethical code of conduct that the society they represent supports and promotes. When that code is violated by members of an administration, and when that same administration seeks to overlook the offense by failing to prosecute, the public can act to remove that administration.

The whistleblower thus serves as a mechanism by which the divulger of information, in conjunction with the technological citizenship, brings about a change in the club rule mentality that tends to permeate administrations and creates an atmosphere in which the public yearns for a more genuinely representative form of government. Administrations rise and fall — and public support is a correlating factor. As long as administrations remain unwilling to hold themselves accountable, the whistleblower will remain a necessary and vital force in preserving democratic governance.

References

Anand, V., Ashforth, B., & Joshi, M. "Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations." Academy of Management Executive, 19, no. 4 (2005): 9–23.

Dekker, S. (2009). Just culture: Who gets to draw the line? Journal of Cognition, Technology and Work, 11(3): 177–185.

Durden, T. (2016). White House intervened to suppress Hillary 'secret server' scandal, leaked emails reveal. Zerohedge. Retrieved from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-07/white-house-intervened-suppress-hillary-email-scandal-leaked-emails-reveal

Dryburgh, M. (2009). Policy implications of whistle-blowing: The case of Corcoran State Prison. Public Integrity, 11(2): 155–170.

Kass, H. (1986). Whistleblowers and the ethics of stewardship: A comment on Truelson. Dialogue, 8(3): 36–45.

LaCapria, K. (2016). Traitor hater. Snopes. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/bob-beckel-julian-assange/

O'Leary, R. (2014). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Weiner, T. (2012). Enemies: A history of the FBI. New York: Penguin Books.