Subject: Whistleblowers Need Stronger Protections, Not Weaker Ones - File Number S7-16-18
From: Barbara

July 12, 2018

Chairman Clayton, Commissioner Piwowar, Commissioner Stein, Commissioner Peirce and Commissioner Jackson --

Some people are crooks, and unfortunately, they don't have "Crook" written across their foreheads. The only way we can hope to keep these people in line is by protecting the honest people who are willing to blow the whistle on the crooks. If anything, whistleblowers need stronger protections than they have now. Before you consider making any changes, you should educate yourselves about the situation, so you can make an informed decision. I didn't write the rest of this email, which was composed by someone at the National Whistleblower Center, but I do agree with what it says.

I write to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the rules governing the SEC whistleblower program (File Number S7-16-18). The proposed rule amendments will weaken and undermine the deterrent effect of rewarding whistleblowers.

I call your attention to the public statements issued by Commissioners Stein and Jackson and the Law360 Op-ed "The Problem With SEC's Plan To Cap Whistleblower Awards." (https://bit.ly/2L0WTaJ) These statements outline reasoning as to why the proposed amendments will undermine the policing of Wall Street.

Specifically, the proposed amendment to the rules capping rewards in the largest cases to the lowest percentage rate should be withdrawn. Furthermore, the SEC should ensure that every employee, regardless of position or title, can disclose corporate fraud directly to the SEC. Any requirement that compliance officers, managers or directors work internally with the company before reporting to the SEC must be struck from the rules.

I request that you meet personally with whistleblower experts from the National Whistleblower Center to obtain additional information as to why the proposed amendments to the rules governing the SEC whistleblower program should not be implemented.

This is going to sound snarky, and maybe it should: The only reason I can think of that someone would want to weaken whistleblower protections is to prevent a whistleblower from informing on him/her or his/her friends and/or associates. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

Sincerely,
Barbara