that case pre-dated the establishment of oawp and his case was much down the road before any of us got involved in that. so his identity of his own accord was already proliferated everywhere. his case had in particular has been reviewed by osc. we didn't even -- we didn't have the chance to investigate it because it wasn't even in our hands. but i believe that case resolved with him being removed and the office of special counsel supporting that decision. the people that had initially been found with doing some retaliation to him initially -- there's a lot more details to this case that we need to go into -- they were disciplined for retaliation because they did, frankly, screw up. they did not handle that the way they should have. >> so disciplined. were they removed? >> they got the mandatory osc retaliation penalty, a 14-day suspension. >> so that's the problem. the punishment for people who retaliate for whistle blowers isn't strong enough is basically what you're saying. >> that's the mandatory. to be honest, in that case, there were several other mitigating factors. it was almost

that case predated the establishment of oawp. his case was much down the road before any of us got involved in that. his identity -- him being removed and the office of special counsel supporting that decision. the people that had initially been found for doing retaliation to him initially, there's more details that we need to go into. they were disciplined for retaliation because they did screw up. they did not handle that the way they should have. >> disciplined -- were they removed? >> they got the mandatory retaliation penalty of 14 day suspension. >> that's the problem. the punishment for people who retaliate against whistleblowers isn't strong enough is what you are saying. >> that's the mandatory. to be honest, in that case, there was several other mitigating factors. it was almost a technicality to charge them with retaliation. >> why does it -- it seems there's a benefit of the doubt given to the people who retaliate against whist whistleblowers. you can shake your head. >> i don't agree with that. >> we have seen exampl

i am concerned about the apparent lack of formal written policies or procedures for operations as oawp. formal policies policies and procedures, inspire confidence in their worth and work product. i also remain concerned about the on going conflict between mr. o'roark and the inspector general over the data base of complaints. hope you have found a way to put this unnecessary distraction behind us. my understanding is, that you have. finally, i want to reiterate this committee will not shy away from our oversight roles to investigate improper usage and implementation of this law. however, the only way to do so is to continue this bipartisan tradition, examine issues with statistics and facts, or partisan agendas. now, yield to ranking member tacano for any opening statements. >> thank you mr. chairman. i thank you for calling this important hearing. when the accountability act passed last summer, i voted for it with a great deal of caution. i was cautiously optimistic that it would do what it set out to do. which was, to provide care by making -- to improve care, which was to improve c

he said his case manager was the even aware of a finding and that oawp did nothing to help. another, daniel martin, said oa himotified management about and as a result of that he experienced retaliation that strip him of his job except in name only. be two examples of whistleblower protection actually doing the exact opposite. what say you about this since you were in charge of that department? crankset case predated the wp and wasnt of oa much down the road. his identity was already proliferated everywhere. his case has been reviewed by os osc.- we did not have a chance to investigate because it was not even in our hands and i believe that resulted with them being and remove in the was supporting that decision. some retaliation to him in this way. there are more details we need to go into. they were disciplined for retaliation because they did screw up. they were not handling it the way they should. they got the mandatory osc retaliation a 14 day suspension. crankset is the problem -- >> that is the problem. the discipline for retaliation is not strong enough. otherre were