Blog Note: this article
references grand jury recommendations on the subject.
The Board of Supervisors
will face the choice to amend the whistle-blower law.
Best wishes to the San
Francisco FBI director and the San Francisco district attorney in getting city
workers or contractors to tell them about City Hall corruption. I say “best
wishes” because that is about all they can hope for because, under San
Francisco’s whistle-blower law, neither city workers nor contractors are
protected against retaliation if they tell the truth. That’s how our law is
written, but soon the Board of Supervisors will face the choice to amend it.
The civil grand jury
recommendations and the Ethics Commission’s draft whistle-blower law are a
start. Here’s why this is important:
•While 316 whistle-blower
complaints were filed last year, just three city employees faced disciplinary
action for their wrongdoing.
•No city department head or
senior manager has ever been held accountable when they retaliated against a
whistle-blower, and in many cases they have been promoted.
We know about these cases
because lawsuits were filed and the city settled for millions of dollars, e.g.:
•Contractors were
threatened with termination if they refused to “volunteer” for the political
campaign of a city officeholder. After the whistle was blown, the coerced
contractor lost his contract, the staff lost their jobs and the city official
was promoted.
•Bid rigging and
discrimination were disclosed by senior officials and the department head was
named as responsible. The charges were backed up with sworn affidavits. The
senior official whistle-blowers were demoted to lesser duties, and the
department head continued in his position.
•Sexual harassment by a
supervisor that included holding an employee “hostage” in a city vehicle was
reported by the department’s EEO officer. No adverse action was taken, and
instead the officer was disparaged, told to “stop acting ghetto” and fired. The
department head was promoted.
•City workers were skipping
out and engaged in covering for each other while important citizen needs were
ignored. No action or investigation was taken, and the whistle-blowers were
harassed. A suit brought a significant cash settlement.
As a result of two civil
grand jury investigations, the Ethics Commission now is recommending reforms
that definitely will make for a better law and hopefully better outcomes. But
it will be a halfway step unless the Board of Supervisors adds muscle. Here are
suggested reforms:
•Department heads and
at-will employees should face a two-week suspension without pay if they are
found to have retaliated against a whistle-blower.
• City contractors should
be required to protect whistle-blowers or face potential disbarment from future
contracts.
•City leaders should be
prohibited from deleting emails and other records needed to investigate complaints.
• The mayor should issue
and sign an annual whistle-blower report that is more transparent than the one
issued by the controller. It should identify departments that are repeat
offenders, the cost to the city, and the cost to correct wrongdoing and to
settle. Press releases should be issued.
Polls show that San
Franciscans think private interests trump public interests and that City Hall
covers up to protect itself and its friends. A well-implemented, effective
whistle-blower law can begin to put things back on track.
April
11, 2016
San
Francisco Chronicle
By Larry Bush
No comments:
Post a Comment