Protecting the whistleblower - Letter to the Editor

Internal Auditor, Dec, 2003 by Hernan Murdock

The views expressed in Jeff Simpson's letter to the editor (October 2003) regarding my article, "Early Warning System" (August 2003), are similar to my own views in most respects. Every whistleblower is different, and while some would like to be recognized publicly, others might prefer to remain anonymous, continue doing their job, and protect their privacy and that of their families.

Some whistleblowers may prefer to remain anonymous until the investigation is complete and corrective action is taken. They can then be recognized--when it is safe--for their role in making the required changes possible. The needs and wants of the whistleblower and their ramifies should always be considered so that others will feel comfortable and safe doing the same.

The section related to the whistleblower program's protocol indicates that provisions should be made in case future communications with whistleblowers take place. The argument for case numbers and discretion is not to cast a blanket of secrecy, but to ensure privacy and ultimately to protect the whistleblower from the possibility of retaliation. Although recognition is important, rushing to go public can cause unnecessary harm if done incorrectly. That said, the wbistleblower should have all the necessary support, in private or in public, to send the right message.

I also agree that face-to-face communication and constant feedback are important. Having active and competent ombudspersons, frequent surveys, and making it a part of routine audit work to ask clients if they are aware of inappropriate activities should all be part of the whistleblowing program. During the program's release, internal auditors should play an active role in fostering a positive climate for the disclosure of inappropriate acts. Their independence, objectivity, professionalism, and knowledge can make whistleblowers feel at ease. At the same time, internal auditors can make the whistleblowers feel confident that the right person in the organization will know about the matter and that it will receive the appropriate attention and follow-up.

It is important for those involved in the investigation to be knowledgeable so that they do not violate any laws or make it possible for the perpetrators to destroy key evidence. Those who commit fraud should not walk away with their ill-gained funds and should pay reparations. A poorly conducted investigation by well-intentioned, but unprepared, individuals can allow the perpetrators to walk away unpunished. This would send a terrible message to future whistleblowers.

Going through "trained staff" does not have to scare people off. Highly qualified, caring, and engaged staff will make all the difference. On the other hand, if the staff only cares about "the case" and ignores the human factor, they will most definitely damage relations.

Simply setting up a phone line is far from enough. Organizations must create a positive environment so that "corporate savers"--a term I also like--can feel safe coming forward, knowing that they will be protected, the matter will be researched by competent individuals without hierarchical or political shackles, and that if they so desire, they will be recognized, publicly or privately, for their good deeds. The events of the past few years provide clear evidence that organizations have not done enough and that we must do a better job in the future.

HERNAN MURDOCK, CIA

Project Manager

Control Solutions International

Boston, Mass.

hmurdock@controlsolutions.com