By RICHARD CONDIT
The Aug. 28 Metro story “Jury finds D.C. police officials violated whistleblower act,” focusing on a verdict in a whistleblower case involving Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier and former chief Charles H. Ramsey, omitted a key point: The D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act requires that when a court finds a supervisor or manager in violation of the act, he or she “shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, including dismissal.” D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles described the suit as “bogus” and a “waste of union member funds.” Mr. Nickles may not like the lawsuit or the statute, but he is sworn to uphold the law.
Mr. Nickles might better lend his office to expediting justice for, rather than defaming, whistleblowers. Often whistleblower claimants are terminated or disciplined before their cases get to court, suffering unemployment or unjust discipline while the court process drags on.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Mr. Nickles and Chief Lanier’s subordinates should not be deciding how or whether Chief Lanier is punished; that should be up to a more independent decision maker. Since the allegations have been vetted in public before a D.C. Superior Court jury, the disciplinary determination for Ms. Lanier must be open to public observation.