The role of a whistleblower, particularly in city government, demands an intricate balance between ethical duty and personal risk.
Ricardo Morales, a former deputy commissioner, experienced this firsthand after exposing corruption related to city real estate deals.
He provided vital evidence concerning backroom transactions to multiple law enforcement entities, including the city Department of Investigation (DOI), the FBI, and federal prosecutors investigating corruption under Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration.
However, his pursuit of whistleblower protection—a status that would have required the city to reinstate him if his retaliation claims were substantiated—ended in disappointment.
Morales was dismissed from his position, prohibited from retiring, and abruptly had his health benefits terminated shortly after being hospitalized for heart issues.
The DOI declared that Morales, despite his commendable record and prior accolades for promoting ethics in government, had not met the eligibility criteria for whistleblower protection.
Addressing a City Council committee, Morales remarked that his situation sends a clear message to other potential whistleblowers: “If a guy like me doesn’t get the status, the chilling effect is, ‘This guy had all of these things going for him… I’m going to keep my mouth shut’.”
The Department of Investigation’s statistics presented at that same hearing reflect a concerning trend regarding whistleblower protection claims in New York City.
Over the past decade, only seven out of 179 city employees—merely 3%—succeeded in obtaining whistleblower protection.
In stark contrast, reports of retaliation for reporting corruption have plummeted dramatically, dropping from 52 reported cases in fiscal year 2009 to just five in fiscal year 2024.
This decline raises questions; it’s possible that city employees are opting to leave their positions instead of enduring the struggle of job retention following corruption reporting.
City Council member Gale Brewer commented on this troubling statistic, stating, “I couldn’t believe how low the numbers are.”
In response, she intends to introduce legislation aimed at expanding training for city employees and contractors, informing them of their rights as whistleblowers, as many may be unaware of their eligibility.
“It is scary to be a whistleblower,” Brewer acknowledged, “but we have to make sure they’re protected.”
During the Council hearing, DOI Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber elaborated on the reasons behind the dramatic decrease in reported retaliation claims.
She posited that many potential cases do not fulfill the stringent eligibility criteria set forth for whistleblower protection.
To qualify, applicants must be employed by covered entities, formally report the alleged retaliation to the appropriate bodies, and demonstrate that their adverse treatment was directly connected to their claims about corruption or misconduct.
Additionally, applicants need to show they experienced negative repercussions after reporting the corruption.
Strauber noted that many cases fail to satisfy these rigorous criteria, leading to DOI’s stringent evaluation processes.
Furthermore, a law passed in 2021, shifting complaints from school employees to the Special Commissioner for Investigation (SCI), has contributed to the decrease in cases reported to DOI, further complicating the landscape.
The challenge of obtaining whistleblower protection is mirrored in the SCI’s statistics, where none of the 47 school staff applicants have gained protection since the law’s enactment.
Morales, whose journey into whistleblowing began while he was employed at the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, has a story that illustrates the difficult paths whistleblowers face.
In 2015, while overseeing city property leases, Morales became involved in a case concerning a nonprofit clinic that had city-imposed restrictions on its real estate.
The property owner sought to remove these restrictions to enable a sale to a for-profit entity.
When Morales documented his insights and concerns regarding the potential impropriety of this transaction, he soon found himself at odds with other city officials.
His memos signaled trouble, as City Hall appeared to intervene in negotiations, ultimately leading to troubling questions about the integrity of the deal.
After DOI launched an investigation into the related city hall activities, Morales’s name surfaced amid accusations attempting to deflect blame onto him.
In light of the investigations, Morales provided evidence and detailed discussions to law enforcement, unveiling the extent of City Hall’s interference.
As the situation escalated, it became apparent that Morales was not only a whistleblower but also a pivotal figure in broader corruption inquiries.
He’s recounted his clandestine meetings with federal agents, where critical documentation about the alleged corruption was exchanged.
The revelations tied back to a restaurateur named Harendra Singh, who was embroiled in financial controversies involving back rent owed to the city.
Singh, seeking relief from his debts, reportedly sought political assistance from City Hall, implicating Mayor de Blasio in a scheme that involved illegal fundraising practices.
Ultimately, Singh faced legal consequences, while Morales faced termination in February 2017, coinciding with the timeline of an investigation into the mayor’s office, which would conclude without charges against de Blasio.
Morales subsequently alleged retaliation for his cooperation with law enforcement and sought protection under whistleblower statutes.
During a City Council hearing, it was stated that Morales had not only acted as a whistleblower but had also substantiated claims of retaliation stemming from his principled actions.
However, despite the federal magistrate’s findings that city officials misrepresented the circumstances surrounding Morales’s termination, the lawsuit that followed concluded with a ruling favoring City Hall’s right to terminate his employment.
In the wake of his challenges, Morales’s recommendations for reform have gained traction.
He has called for the Council to reconsider eligibility criteria for whistleblower protection, to undergo a comprehensive audit of the process, and to mandate anti-corruption training across all tiers of city government.
Despite the hurdles he has faced, Morales remains committed to advocating for a more transparent and accountable city government, insisting that no one should be deterred from reporting wrongdoing due to fear of retaliation.
He emphasized the importance of creating a supportive environment for potential whistleblowers, advocating for an independent review panel to assess applications for whistleblower protection.
Morales concluded with a poignant declaration of his motivations, stating, “If I had to do it all again, I would do it again because I love government.
Because I think it’s the most noble thing you can do to help your fellow man.”
image source from：thecity
