close X

Archives for 2012

09/5/2012

FAA Hatch Act Investigation Exhibits

 

Cause of Action released documents today revealing a potential Hatch Act violation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) involving John J. Hickey, deputy associate administrator for aviation safety at the FAA, and Raymond Towles, deputy director of flight standards field operations. At a May 23, 2012 staff meeting, Hickey told subordinates that “if the Republicans win office [their] jobs may be effected [sic]…if the Democrats win office then [their] jobs would not be effected [sic].” Additionally, Hickey and Towles held mandatory meetings with employees at other regional FAA offices, where similar comments may have been repeated.
 
In light of these allegations, Cause of Action sent a request for investigation to Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Transportation Calvin L. Scovel III, urging “a swift investigation, not only into whether the comments made by Mr. Hickey and Mr. Towles at the Seattle FSDO violated the Hatch Act, but also whether their comments violated any other federal laws, as well as if they engaged in any other activities in violation of the Hatch Act or other applicable law.”

 

The documents related to this investigation:

Exhibit 1 (2)

Exhibit 2 2_Redacted

Exhibit 3 1_Redacted

 

Blog Learn More
09/5/2012

AP: Group: FAA bosses urged workers to vote Democrat

Group: FAA bosses urged workers to vote Democrat

 

By: Manuel Valdes, Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) — A government transparency group is urging an investigation into Federal Aviation Administration managers who allegedly urged workers in Seattle to vote Democrat in the upcoming elections.

The Washington, D.C.-based group Cause of Action sent a letter Wednesday to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s inspector general saying that in May at a mandatory staff meeting in Seattle, two senior FAA managers told employees that if Republicans win the presidential and congressional elections, the agency would face budget cuts. They allegedly said that if Democrats win, their budget would remain largely unchanged.

One of the managers is alleged to have said that “Republican politicians wished to cut the budget of the FAA, while Democratic politicians intended to keep the FAA budget at the same or similar levels as in recent years. Any cuts in the FAA budget would lead to furloughs, job losses, and pay reductions among FAA employees,” the Cause of Action complaint said.

Employees at the meeting complained that the statements felt like a threat.

Cause of Action argues that the managers violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees from engaging in partisan politics at the workplace.

A FAA comment was not immediately available.

“These career employees were led to believe their jobs were at risk if their political support did not line up with the agenda of the Administration,” said Daniel Epstein, executive director of the group.

Cause of Action describes itself as an “organization that uses public advocacy and legal reform strategies to ensure greater transparency in government and protect taxpayer interests and economic freedom.”

 

News Learn More
09/5/2012

Cause of Action Exposes Potential Hatch Act Violation at the FAA

   Cause of Action Exposes Potential Hatch Act Violation at the FAA

 Subordinates told “how to vote if they wanted to keep their job”

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA) released documents today revealing a potential Hatch Act violation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) involving John J. Hickey, deputy associate administrator for aviation safety at the FAA, and Raymond Towles, deputy director of flight standards field operations. At a May 23, 2012 staff meeting, Hickey told subordinates that “if the Republicans win office [their] jobs may be effected [sic]…if the Democrats win office then [their] jobs would not be effected [sic].” Additionally, Hickey and Towles held mandatory meetings with employees at other regional FAA offices, where similar comments may have been repeated.

 

Whistleblowers came forward after the May 23 meeting at the Seattle Flight Standards Division Office (Seattle FSDO), alerting a Deputy Regional Counsel in the FAA’s Northwest Mountain Region Office who is now conducting an investigation into both Hickey and Towles for telling employees “how to vote if they wanted to keep their job,” sources tell Cause of Action.

 

In light of these allegations, Cause of Action sent a request for investigation to Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Transportation Calvin L. Scovel III, urging “a swift investigation, not only into whether the comments made by Mr. Hickey and Mr. Towles at the Seattle FSDO violated the Hatch Act, but also whether their comments violated any other federal laws, as well as if they engaged in any other activities in violation of the Hatch Act or other applicable law.”

 

“The egregious abuse of power for political gain is exactly what Cause of Action aims to expose,” said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action. “These career employees were led to believe their jobs were at risk if their political support did not line up with the agenda of the Administration. The Hatch Act is designed to prevent such politicization and we are demanding that IG Scovel investigate any potential violations of federal law and make appropriate referrals to the Justice Department.”

 

The Hatch Act prohibits Executive agency employees from engaging in political activity intended to affect the result of an election.  As CoA’s letter to IG Scovel explains, “Previously, the Office of Special Counsel has indicated that such a standard also prohibits covered Executive agency officials from suggesting to subordinate employees that they undertake any partisan political activity.  Mr. Hickey and Mr. Towles’s alleged statements to FAA employees, in their roles as senior FAA management, amounts to illegal political activity under the Hatch Act.”

 

At the time of this release, CoA has not received a response from the OIG concerning the request for investigation.   According to sources familiar with the matter, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has begun an investigation.

 

The letter to DOT OIG can be found here.

Internal emails from the FAA can be found here.

 

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that uses investigative, legal, and communications tools to educate the public on how government accountability and transparency protects taxpayer interests and economic opportunity. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

Press Release Learn More
08/31/2012

Regulating Social Media

 

The legal implications of using social media as an organization and as part of an organization have not yet been fully vetted. Yesterday, Forbes reported on a growing controversy over Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulation of advertising on social media. The FTC imposed new regulations covering social media a few years ago and is now taking a PR agency, Reverb, to court over their practice of having paid employees post reviews for products without disclosing their employment.  This brings up serious questions about free speech and FTC regulation of Social Media.

The expanding regulations related to Social Media use are a topic that has continues to interest to Cause of Action. See our previous discussion of social media standing in court here.

 

Reviews Can Work Wonders, but They Can’t be Faked

By Ed Keller
August 30, 2012

An article in the New York Times caught my eye recently.  Entitled “The Best Book Reviews Money Can Buy”, the article says there is a growing practice of authors who commission reviews for their books, rather than letting them spring up organically on online sites such as Amazon.com or BN.com.

 

It’s not just authors who crave positive reviews. The products and services from businesses of all sizes and sectors are now being reviewed online, whether on Amazon, or travel sites such as Trip Advisor or Expedia, or restaurant sites such as Open Table, or sites relating to local service providers, like Angie’s List and Yelp, or the many retail and manufacturers offer online ratings on their websites.

 

It’s not a surprise that there should be such a surfeit of ratings and reviews.  The research is very clear that online reviews are popular with consumers and are a powerful driver of online (and offline) commerce. According to Google, 70% of Americans say they look at reviews before taking the next step to purchase products.  And according to a 2012 global study by Nielsen, online consumer reviews are the second most trusted form of advertising with 70 percent of global consumers surveyed online indicating they trust this platform, an increase of 15 percent in four years; only word of mouth recommendations directly from friends or family is more trusted.  The Timesarticle quotes professor Bing Liu from the University of Illinois who says “The wheels of online commerce run on positive reviews.”

 

The troubling part about the Times article is the underlying premise that people with something to sell feel so strongly motivated to get positive reviews that they would fake it by writing them themselves or paying people to write positive reviews, rather than building up a stable to authentic reviews from customers.  This is a bad business practice on two counts. First, the marketplace is too wise to let fake reviews go unnoticed, and there is a very good chance the people who do so will be “smoked out” and publicly embarrassed, thereby negating whatever benefit they might have otherwise achieved. Second, it is potentially against the law and many businesses do not realize that.   A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission issued new advertising guidelines that cover social media and word of mouth marketing.    The guidelines make clear that companies are subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through endorsements, or for failing to disclose a material connection between themselves and their endorsers.

 

In one of the first cases the FTC brought under these new guidelines, a PR agency, Reverb , was charged with having engaged in deceptive advertising by having employees pose as ordinary citizens while posting game reviews online and not disclosing that the reviews came from paid employees working on behalf of the game developers.  In the press release announcing the action, Mary Engle, the Director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices stated: “Companies, including public relations firms involved in online marketing, need to abide by long-held principles of truth in advertising. Advertisers should not pass themselves off as ordinary consumers touting a product, and endorsers should make it clear when they have financial connections to sellers.”

If you’re unsure what constitutes ethical business practices in this area, you might want to check out the Word of Mouth Marketing Association.  The WOMMA Ethics Code provides a strong guidepost to help businesses, whether large or small, plan your social media disclosure activities. (Disclosure: my business partner, Brad Fay, is on the WOMMA Board of Directors and I am a former President of the association.)

In part, they say that any word of mouth or social media marketing should include:

  • Disclosure of identity: Make meaningful disclosures of your relationships or identities with consumers in relation to any marketing initiatives that could influence a consumer’s purchasing decisions.
  • Disclosure of consideration or compensation received: Do not engage in marketing practices where the marketer/sponsor or its representative provides goods, services, or compensation to the consumer as consideration for recommendations, reviews, or endorsements, unless full, meaningful, and prominent disclosure is provided.
  • Disclosure of relationship: Any brand or representatives involved in a word of mouth initiative on their behalf should disclose the material aspects of their commercial relationship with a marketer, including the specific type of any remuneration or consideration received.

What it all comes down in the end is that there should be genuine honesty in communication. That’s what makes consumers turn to word of mouth and social media for advice, recommendations, and help in making product choices. If you’re honest, your efforts will be rewarded. If you’re dishonest, it will be come back to haunt you.

The bottom line for all businesses is that you are being watched, both by the FTC and also by consumers who have an uncanny sense of smell for what’s real and what’s fake.

Blog Learn More
08/28/2012

The Washington Free Beacon: Report: 170 ACORN-affiliated groups still active

Read the full article here. Washington Free Beacon

“Cause of Action, a nonprofit government watchdog group, recently identified 174 active or rebranded ACORN affiliates, as well as organizations that share former ACORN staff. The groups shared the same physical location, leadership or staff, or tax ID number as old ACORN chapters, Cause of Action said.

 

At least two of the groups, Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) and Mutual Housing Association of New York (MHANY), have received federal dollars. According to MHANY, it receives funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Fannie Mae. “It’s a serious concern because, as we stated in our letter to the IRS, it has been engaging in political activity,” Cause of Action executive director Dan Epstein told the Free Beacon. “We have concerns that these rebranded groups are using the same model that ACORN essentially trademarked: getting tax-exempt funds and using them for political purposes…”

 

News Learn More
08/27/2012

174 Hidden ACORN Chapters Still Exist

After the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) was shut down in 2010, was there really an end to the scandals and abuse of taxpayer funding for which the organization had become known? Cause of Action recently published a list of “still-active ACORN entities, ACORN allies, and rebranded ACORN organizations.” This list included 174 different entities that have connections to ACORN and may be engaged in the same type of activities.

Read what others are saying about this list and what these re-branded ACORN groups’ existence mean:

Breitbart.com

TheBlaze.com

American Political Blogs

PatDollard.com

Free North Carolina

Sodahead.com

The Daily Blogster

Capitalresearch.org

 

Blog Learn More
08/22/2012

Washington Examiner: Report: ACORN network still active under new names

Read the full story here. Washington Examiner

“But that doesn’t mean it vanished from the landscape altogether. The nonprofit watchdog group Cause of Action published a list today of “still-active ACORN entities, ACORN allies, and rebranded ACORN organizations.”

 

The connections between these groups and the old ACORN groups include: having the same physical location, sharing leadership or staff or having the same tax ID number. “For some of these groups, all they did was legally change their name. Nothing else changed. The corporate structure, leadership and staff are the same,” said Karen Groen Olea, Cause of Action’s chief counsel. “At least two of the groups, Affordable Housing Centers of America and Mutual Housing Association of New York, have received federal dollars”, Cause of Action said…”

News Learn More