Whistleblowing Case Study

The conflict of whistleblowing in modern days varies in opinion among citizens and public servants. For some, this action is perceived positively because it promotes the public good and for others this action is perceived negatively because it endangers the organization itself and can ultimately jeopardize U.S. National Security. The level of importance that is given to the whistleblower and whistleblowers depends on its nature, its political contexture, and media portrayal. In this scenario, the supervisor made decisions oblivious to the facts presented by his staff and scientists’ opinions. The problem relied on HNF supervisor Girton lack of consideration to address the concerns of the majority and his own subordinates. The dissatisfaction

Otherwise, the employee is never going to know if there was a viable solution to address the matter internally. For Ferguson, an employee who devoted his life to the protection of the land, Girton’s behavior only amounted loads of frustration. Although the boiling point was when the construction commenced without the proper regulation in place, which for Ferguson signified he needed to take action (O’Leary, p. 71). Despite his frustration, Ferguson continue to advise Girton over the construction’s violations, to what he responded his opinion was “one man’s opinion” leaving no room for consensus (O’Leary, p. 73). The way Girton succumbed to AMA’s interests, left no other options for Ferguson than to join forces with Walton League of America (IWL), the organization he had helped to file an appeal to ORV’s policy (O’Leary, p. 71). Unintentionally becoming a whistleblower, yet whistleblowing it is justified because of the safety of the environment and the support of the majority who felt the same way Ferguson felt. By helping IWL to file a claim at the federal level, Ferguson assured a forceful legal battle to protect the

The collected data or professional evaluations show that this type of trailers did not fit the landscape, yet Girton poor leadership prevailed. Ferguson and his colleagues all agreed that not ORV policy should be implemented, yet none of them could convince the solo advocator for ORV policy, Girton, therefore, the whistleblowing was timely to avoid further damage of what already ORV had caused to the park. Although it did not prevent mishandling of funding when $34,000 were allocated for construction of ORV trails instead of routine maintenance of roads and trails (O’Leary,