Officials approve policy defending renters, may lead to wider discussion
Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
Burlingame officials approved protections for tenants fearing retaliation from landlords after reporting violations of the city’s smoking ban, raising questions over the need for a broader set of whistleblower defense policies.
The Burlingame City Council unanimously agreed Monday, May 6, to disallow retribution against those who issue complaints that someone is breaking the city’s policy against smoking in apartment buildings.
While agreeing the protection is a step in the right direction, officials also expressed interest in expanding the reach of the policy intended to protect those who may wish to file other complaints against neighbors, landlords or others.
Councilman Michael Brownrigg shared his support for the smoking retaliation ban, while opening the conversation for a larger examination of similar policies which could be pursued later.
“I do believe giving people an ability to raise issues without worrying about retaliation is valuable, and I guess I feel if whether or not we do it for cigarettes, I think it is a valuable thing that I would like to explore,” he said, according to video of the meeting.
Under the most recent decision, city policy will shield tenants reporting smoking violations from retaliation by their landlords, who could theoretically evict someone for raising a complaint.
City Attorney Kathleen Kane said ultimately the city’s authority on the matter is limited beyond putting the prohibition on the books, because disputes among landlords and tenants are often settled in court. But in instances when a tenant’s concern around retaliation appears justified, the city’s ordinance disallowing such behavior can help the victim build a case when filing legal complaints.
The protection is the extension of a decision by officials recently to ban smoking in apartments or other multi-family developments, which relies heavily on complaints from tenants for effective enforcement.
Expanding the tenant protection was recommended by the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury in a report last year, which suggested Burlingame specify complaint retaliation is disallowed, with terms similar to ordinances in Belmont, Brisbane, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno and unincorporated San Mateo County.
The grand jury report suggested the absence of a specific protection policy may discourage some from stepping forward with a passage that said “vulnerable residents, such as undocumented immigrants, may fear that a complaint could result in disclosure, eviction or deportation.”
Kane said she is not aware of any issues in Burlingame concerning complaint retribution regarding smoking, but has heard from tenants that those fears may exist in other forms. For example, Kane said some renters have said they were afraid to report a hole their apartment floor or plumbing issues for fear of eviction.
It is also possible such concerns around smoking complaints exist but officials have not caught wind of them, said Kane.
“It may have happened but we wouldn’t know because nobody came forward,” she said. “But it was a concern at the county level and we are trying to be responsive to it.”
Such perspective fueled Brownrigg’s motion to broaden the scope of the conversation around protections for whistleblowers.
“For me it would seem reasonable to expand that basket of rights to be able to raise an issue and have some safeguards against retaliation and I think someone could reasonably argue safety issues are even more important than secondhand smoke,” he said.
For her part, Kane said she supported having that conversation but suggested a future study session is likely in order since a potential decision is likely to have widespread impact.
“I think that is certainly a worthwhile discussion that I am happy to let the council consider,” she said.
May 14, 2019
San Mateo Daily Journal
By Austin Walsh
No comments:
Post a Comment