Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paula R Strawser's avatar

My comment on NDA proposal submitted to.the Federal Register today.

"Federal Employees swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to their bosses and not to political appointees.

Requiring a Non-Disclosure Agreement will chill every employee's free speech.

“non-public, confidential or proprietary information.” is an imprecise criterion, subject to personal interpretation. Enforcement may be arbitrary. Employees may not be able to distinguish what is non-public. After all, if the media has reported on a subject, it is no longer non-public by definition.

Confidential and proprietary information should be restricted to documentation clearly marked so, under current classification rules.

And what about whistleblower protections. Will this NDA forestall these? Federal employees have a duty to inform when there is wrongdoing. The NDA is an implied threat against whistleblowers.

And how does this affect Offices of Inspectors General? Are they no longer able to publicize their findings because some of the content is non-public.

As written, signing the NDA is not mandatory, creating even more uncertainty for employees and agencies.

I agree with this statement from the AFGE: “OPM claims the form will be ‘optional’ for agencies to use and merely restates existing law. We know that will not be true,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said Tuesday. “OPM will pressure agencies to make the NDA mandatory and then fire employees who refuse to sign it.”

This is just one more Authoritarian move by the Trump Regime.

I ask you to withdraw this rule for revision and clarification at a minimum, and optimally for cancellation of this unnecessary requirement."

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?