Although the story below appeared in print over one year ago, it remains relevant as a tale of corruption within San Francisco Government. LHH executive administrator Mivic Hirose remains in place. The Controller's Office has never explained why its audit of the Laguna Honda Patient Gift fund failed to discover that Laguna Honda administrators took approximately $350,000 from the fund to cover a capital fund deficit, pay for staff training and for other wayward hospital accounting purposes.
Award-winning whistleblowing Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, on the other hand, remain out of San Francisco Government and have yet to receive thanks from an ungrateful bureaucracy . . .
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-1-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-2-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
http://www.examiner.com/hospital-in-san-francisco/part-3-audit-restores-350-000-to-laguna-honda-patient-gift-fund
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
The (possible) glacial pace of SF civil service change
One month after running their article on the corruption with San Francisco Government's Rec and Parks Park Patrol, the SF Weekly published an item stating that Park Patrol head honcho Marcus Santiago may be on his way out. That's a big "may be."
San Francisco whistleblowers know that the City and County government acts only when the corruption within is exposed by the media--and even then, it's a delicate dance. San Francisco leaders, even when shamed by public attention, don't like to feel as if they're being bullied into anything (which is ironic, as their status quo consists of kowtowing to the more powerful labor unions who have organized their employees and the assorted cast of bullies within their ranks). And, more often than not, San Francisco bureaucracy goes out of its way to bilaterally move or actually promote the few they do decide to get rid of, albeit to positions in which the miscreants are responsible for overseeing less of their fellow employees.
So the answer to the question of whether or not the Park Patrol's Marcus Santiago is on his way out is decidedly unanswered. And as to whether or not the Rec and Parks' corruption unearthed by the SF Weekly will be rooted out altogether? The odds are slim indeed.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/marcus_santiago_1.php
San Francisco whistleblowers know that the City and County government acts only when the corruption within is exposed by the media--and even then, it's a delicate dance. San Francisco leaders, even when shamed by public attention, don't like to feel as if they're being bullied into anything (which is ironic, as their status quo consists of kowtowing to the more powerful labor unions who have organized their employees and the assorted cast of bullies within their ranks). And, more often than not, San Francisco bureaucracy goes out of its way to bilaterally move or actually promote the few they do decide to get rid of, albeit to positions in which the miscreants are responsible for overseeing less of their fellow employees.
So the answer to the question of whether or not the Park Patrol's Marcus Santiago is on his way out is decidedly unanswered. And as to whether or not the Rec and Parks' corruption unearthed by the SF Weekly will be rooted out altogether? The odds are slim indeed.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/marcus_santiago_1.php
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Further Tales of Corruption Within San Francisco Government
San Francisco Weekly's September 21-27, 2011 cover story is "Ranger Noir: Accusations of wrongdoing at S.F.'s Park Patrol have gone into overtime." Written by Weekly columnist Matt Smith, "Ranger Noir" provides ample evidence of the top-down corruption of San Francisco government's Park Patrol.
It should come as no surprise to learn that the administrative corruption within the Park Patrol--which includes cronyism, favoritism, the manipulation of favored employee's time-sheets, the false billing of Park Patrolmen time to Golden Gate Park event holders and retaliation against personnel brave enough to complain about same--has been made known to "top officials at city agencies including Recreation and Parks, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Human Resources, and the City Controller's Whistleblower Program," but these new revelations are, indeed, shocking.
Whistleblowers throughout San Francisco Government have followed a similar chain of command resulting in the same lack of action taken by City and County of San Francisco leaders. Rather than clean up such corruption--which would provide a huge boost to both employee morale and the efficient provision of City services to the public--San Francisco Government's caretakers seem content instead to defend the guilty and pay out taxpayers' monies to those employees and members of the public who win civil lawsuits and equal employment opportunity cases filed against the City and County.
San Francisco Government's leader's cowardice in the face of such internal corruption is a past and present disgrace.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-09-21/news/marcus-santiago-sf-park-patrol-overtime-fraud-matt-smith/
It should come as no surprise to learn that the administrative corruption within the Park Patrol--which includes cronyism, favoritism, the manipulation of favored employee's time-sheets, the false billing of Park Patrolmen time to Golden Gate Park event holders and retaliation against personnel brave enough to complain about same--has been made known to "top officials at city agencies including Recreation and Parks, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Human Resources, and the City Controller's Whistleblower Program," but these new revelations are, indeed, shocking.
Whistleblowers throughout San Francisco Government have followed a similar chain of command resulting in the same lack of action taken by City and County of San Francisco leaders. Rather than clean up such corruption--which would provide a huge boost to both employee morale and the efficient provision of City services to the public--San Francisco Government's caretakers seem content instead to defend the guilty and pay out taxpayers' monies to those employees and members of the public who win civil lawsuits and equal employment opportunity cases filed against the City and County.
San Francisco Government's leader's cowardice in the face of such internal corruption is a past and present disgrace.
EXTERNAL LINK:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-09-21/news/marcus-santiago-sf-park-patrol-overtime-fraud-matt-smith/
Sunday, August 21, 2011
St. Francis Continues to Weep
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government since this blog's first post on May 30 of this year--but not enough. Nathaniel Ford and Carter Rohan have left the numbers one and two positions, respectively, at San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority. San Francisco's Ethics Commission appears to have been awakened from its years-long hibernation by the June San Francisco Civil Grand Jury report condemning the Commission for failing to perform its titular duty. Ed Reiskin, SFMTA's newly installed Executive Director, begins his second week in office today. Reiskin offers hope by virtue of not being a member of San Francisco government's dog-tired, old-boy network of bringing long-overdue change to one of the City and County's most dysfunctional government offices.
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government, but not enough. The City and County's Whistleblower program, which was designed to allow San Francisco civil servants to report "misuse of government funds, and improper activities by City government officials, employees and contractors" remains an empty shell. The Laguna Honda Hospital administrators responsible for the reprehensible workplace harassment campaign against Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, which began after the two reported to the Whistleblower Program the misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars of Patients Gift Fund money for lavish staff parties, remain in place. Neither Kerr nor Rivero have yet to be offered a well-deserved return to duty at Laguna Honda.
Debra A. Johnson, SFMTA's deputy director in charge of the agency's morally bankrupt equal employment opportunity and human resources offices, remains in her position, despite news reports that she has applied for the top post at Bay Area Rapid Transit. (MTA’s latest organizational chart, updated August 15, no longer lists Johnson as overseeing MTA’s EEO office, however.)
MTA's Department of Parking and Traffic Assistant Directors remain in place, as does Elias Georgopolous, the parking control supervisor who is the subject of multiple legal cases. Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, the parking control officer who was fired by the MTA for blowing the whistle on Georgopolous, remains unemployed after being fired in May.
It has been difficult to remain silent in the month since this blog’s last post. Parking supervisor Georgopolous has continued to act as if the restraining order issued against him by San Francisco Superior Court is meaningless—which it is, so long as San Francisco’s City Attorney’s Office, the MTA, Parking and Traffic’s AD office and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 continue to support him.
We have also learned recently that another Parking and Traffic officer has suffered irreparable career damage due to their fear that revealing their same-sex sexual preference would lead to their firing. No other information can be provided about this matter due to the officer’s legitimate concern. What can be said is that San Francisco’s Parking and Traffic’s assistant directors office continues to maintain its de facto hostile workplace environment towards lesbians and gays because San Francisco City Hall and the MTA allow them to remain in office. This intolerable human rights crisis must end.
Rogue San Francisco government administrators continue to hide their misdeeds behind pledges of allegiance to personnel record confidentiality and ongoing/possible lawsuits. These officers are allowed to pick and choose which legitimate civil service and legal concerns they honor by virtue only of their illegitimate hold on positions of authority.
All of the above issues and many similar others have been made known to San Francisco government leaders for years and, in some cases, even decades. Sanity still needs to be restored to the ways in which the City and County’s Government delivers its services to the public.
Postscript: It is no surprise to followers of San Francisco’s public transportation system that new Executive Director Ed Reiskin would not be able to complete his first week in office without a tragedy occurring on his watch. On the afternoon of Friday, August 19, 2011, a Muni bus struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the corner of 18th and Hartford Streets. There are stop signs at all four corners of the intersection. The Muni bus driver was either in too much of a hurry to reach his or her destination, was not paying close enough attention to the street onto which he or she was turning, or thought that the pedestrian was close enough to reaching the far corner to make the turn safely. In any case, the driver made a tragic error in judgment that led to the loss of life.
Too many San Francisco pedestrians have died in the past due to such driver negligence. It is hoped here that director Reiskin will institute a zero tolerance policy for such incidents, beginning with this one, terminate the employment of the driver and forward all relevant evidence to the San Francisco District Attorney's office for possible criminal prosecution.
Significant change has occurred within San Francisco government, but not enough. The City and County's Whistleblower program, which was designed to allow San Francisco civil servants to report "misuse of government funds, and improper activities by City government officials, employees and contractors" remains an empty shell. The Laguna Honda Hospital administrators responsible for the reprehensible workplace harassment campaign against Doctors Derek Kerr and Maria Rivero, which began after the two reported to the Whistleblower Program the misuse of hundreds of thousands of dollars of Patients Gift Fund money for lavish staff parties, remain in place. Neither Kerr nor Rivero have yet to be offered a well-deserved return to duty at Laguna Honda.
Debra A. Johnson, SFMTA's deputy director in charge of the agency's morally bankrupt equal employment opportunity and human resources offices, remains in her position, despite news reports that she has applied for the top post at Bay Area Rapid Transit. (MTA’s latest organizational chart, updated August 15, no longer lists Johnson as overseeing MTA’s EEO office, however.)
MTA's Department of Parking and Traffic Assistant Directors remain in place, as does Elias Georgopolous, the parking control supervisor who is the subject of multiple legal cases. Vidalina "Bebe" Pubill, the parking control officer who was fired by the MTA for blowing the whistle on Georgopolous, remains unemployed after being fired in May.
It has been difficult to remain silent in the month since this blog’s last post. Parking supervisor Georgopolous has continued to act as if the restraining order issued against him by San Francisco Superior Court is meaningless—which it is, so long as San Francisco’s City Attorney’s Office, the MTA, Parking and Traffic’s AD office and Service Employees International Union Local 1021 continue to support him.
We have also learned recently that another Parking and Traffic officer has suffered irreparable career damage due to their fear that revealing their same-sex sexual preference would lead to their firing. No other information can be provided about this matter due to the officer’s legitimate concern. What can be said is that San Francisco’s Parking and Traffic’s assistant directors office continues to maintain its de facto hostile workplace environment towards lesbians and gays because San Francisco City Hall and the MTA allow them to remain in office. This intolerable human rights crisis must end.
Rogue San Francisco government administrators continue to hide their misdeeds behind pledges of allegiance to personnel record confidentiality and ongoing/possible lawsuits. These officers are allowed to pick and choose which legitimate civil service and legal concerns they honor by virtue only of their illegitimate hold on positions of authority.
All of the above issues and many similar others have been made known to San Francisco government leaders for years and, in some cases, even decades. Sanity still needs to be restored to the ways in which the City and County’s Government delivers its services to the public.
Postscript: It is no surprise to followers of San Francisco’s public transportation system that new Executive Director Ed Reiskin would not be able to complete his first week in office without a tragedy occurring on his watch. On the afternoon of Friday, August 19, 2011, a Muni bus struck and killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the corner of 18th and Hartford Streets. There are stop signs at all four corners of the intersection. The Muni bus driver was either in too much of a hurry to reach his or her destination, was not paying close enough attention to the street onto which he or she was turning, or thought that the pedestrian was close enough to reaching the far corner to make the turn safely. In any case, the driver made a tragic error in judgment that led to the loss of life.
Too many San Francisco pedestrians have died in the past due to such driver negligence. It is hoped here that director Reiskin will institute a zero tolerance policy for such incidents, beginning with this one, terminate the employment of the driver and forward all relevant evidence to the San Francisco District Attorney's office for possible criminal prosecution.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The best possible outcome in the search for new SFMTA leadership!
Ed Reiskin is a solid government administration professional. His rise through San Francisco government has been rapid--from the director of San Francisco 311 to the director of Public Works to the Executive Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.
There is still hope yet!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAJP1KD48G.DTL
There is still hope yet!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/20/BAJP1KD48G.DTL
Monday, July 18, 2011
San Francisco Government's LGBT problem
San Francisco was the last place on Earth I expected to find a discriminatory and hostile work environment for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, but find it here I did. It took a few years to learn this about the City and County's Department of Parking and Traffic's enforcement division. Such things are not discussed openly. Instead, employees live in fear.
The Municipal Transportation Agency, the entity responsible for administering DPT, will tell you that both the agency and the department are in full compliance with all relevant equal employment opportunity law. Whenever the MTA executive offices receive a report about a LGBT employee being harassed or threatened at DPT, the agency is quick to pull in the suspect employee and have a talk with them. They will also instruct the General Enforcement Division's Assistant Director office to post (ad nauseum) the city's Workplace Non-Harassment policy, where employees are sure to see it. These actions, MTA will assure, prove the the agency does not tolerate a discriminatory and hostile work environment. What MTA will not tell you is that most of DPT's LGBT community knows better than to file sexual preference discrimination complaints, because they have proven to be a waste of time.
"Gays employed at the MTA are afraid to stand up for other gays," a former MTA administrator who keeps in touch with some former workmates wrote to me recently, "because of the fear they might lose their jobs. Gays stand by and watch as promotions and new positions go to family and friends of favored and powerful SFMTA/DPT employees, who may or may not be qualified, instead of to eligible gay candidates.
"Management is sidestepping the laws and policies in place, without any consequences, to prevent such favoritism and nepotism from occurring. Morale is very low for gay employees, except for those who are in the favored group. The MTA is very slow to enforce equal employment opportunity laws for gays," the former administrator concludes, "simply because cronyism, favoritism and nepotism are deeply engrained in the new hire and promotional protocol."
Such corroded hiring and promoting practices may have something to do with the low morale of gay employees at DPT's General Enforcement Division, but there is something afoot there that is even more sinister. LGBT employees know that a gay officer worked fruitlessly for years, beginning in 2000, to see that justice was done after he walked in on two other DPT parking officers attempting to assault another gay colleague. They also know that, more recently, at least one of their own has suffered a nervous breakdown due to a fear that DPT's Assistant Directors would become aware of their sexual preference.
All of these issues have been reported for years to City Hall--including the Mayor's office when Gavin Newsom was at the helm. But MTA and DPT remain cesspools of employment law malpractice.
Since May of this year, San Francisco civil grand jury and news reports have revealed the breakdown of the City and County's self-regulating policing mechanisms. Both the Ethics Commission and San Francisco civil servants' Whistleblower Program have been shown to be shams. San Francisco employees who have dared to take on the corruption after their own offices have failed to do the right thing in response to their complaints have known this about CCSF administration for years.
When KGO-TV aired an expose in May of the breakdown of the Whistleblower Program, San Francisco County Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sits on the Board's Government Audit and Oversight Committee, told KGO's reporter "If we have a lot of complaints and a lot of people coming to us . . . talking about how this might not be as effective as they want it to be, it's absolutely something that we're going to look at." It is still unclear if the Board of Supervisors will take a look, even after a civil grand jury issued a report since then stating "The whistleblower program could be described as (a) bad joke, except there's nothing funny about employees suffering abusive and career-killing treatment."
Nor is there anything funny, or even understandable, about the hostile work environment at SFMTA/DPT that exists for LGBT employees.
When will the "good" people within San Francisco government take action of behalf of all of the employees who serve within their ranks?
The Municipal Transportation Agency, the entity responsible for administering DPT, will tell you that both the agency and the department are in full compliance with all relevant equal employment opportunity law. Whenever the MTA executive offices receive a report about a LGBT employee being harassed or threatened at DPT, the agency is quick to pull in the suspect employee and have a talk with them. They will also instruct the General Enforcement Division's Assistant Director office to post (ad nauseum) the city's Workplace Non-Harassment policy, where employees are sure to see it. These actions, MTA will assure, prove the the agency does not tolerate a discriminatory and hostile work environment. What MTA will not tell you is that most of DPT's LGBT community knows better than to file sexual preference discrimination complaints, because they have proven to be a waste of time.
"Gays employed at the MTA are afraid to stand up for other gays," a former MTA administrator who keeps in touch with some former workmates wrote to me recently, "because of the fear they might lose their jobs. Gays stand by and watch as promotions and new positions go to family and friends of favored and powerful SFMTA/DPT employees, who may or may not be qualified, instead of to eligible gay candidates.
"Management is sidestepping the laws and policies in place, without any consequences, to prevent such favoritism and nepotism from occurring. Morale is very low for gay employees, except for those who are in the favored group. The MTA is very slow to enforce equal employment opportunity laws for gays," the former administrator concludes, "simply because cronyism, favoritism and nepotism are deeply engrained in the new hire and promotional protocol."
Such corroded hiring and promoting practices may have something to do with the low morale of gay employees at DPT's General Enforcement Division, but there is something afoot there that is even more sinister. LGBT employees know that a gay officer worked fruitlessly for years, beginning in 2000, to see that justice was done after he walked in on two other DPT parking officers attempting to assault another gay colleague. They also know that, more recently, at least one of their own has suffered a nervous breakdown due to a fear that DPT's Assistant Directors would become aware of their sexual preference.
All of these issues have been reported for years to City Hall--including the Mayor's office when Gavin Newsom was at the helm. But MTA and DPT remain cesspools of employment law malpractice.
Since May of this year, San Francisco civil grand jury and news reports have revealed the breakdown of the City and County's self-regulating policing mechanisms. Both the Ethics Commission and San Francisco civil servants' Whistleblower Program have been shown to be shams. San Francisco employees who have dared to take on the corruption after their own offices have failed to do the right thing in response to their complaints have known this about CCSF administration for years.
When KGO-TV aired an expose in May of the breakdown of the Whistleblower Program, San Francisco County Supervisor Mark Farrell, who sits on the Board's Government Audit and Oversight Committee, told KGO's reporter "If we have a lot of complaints and a lot of people coming to us . . . talking about how this might not be as effective as they want it to be, it's absolutely something that we're going to look at." It is still unclear if the Board of Supervisors will take a look, even after a civil grand jury issued a report since then stating "The whistleblower program could be described as (a) bad joke, except there's nothing funny about employees suffering abusive and career-killing treatment."
Nor is there anything funny, or even understandable, about the hostile work environment at SFMTA/DPT that exists for LGBT employees.
When will the "good" people within San Francisco government take action of behalf of all of the employees who serve within their ranks?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Report: San Francisco Whistleblower Program "a bad joke"
CIVIL GRAND JURY
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
2010-2011
WHISTLING IN THE DARK:
THE SAN FRANCISCO WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM
SUMMARY
Whistleblowing in San Francisco is a high-risk decision.
Government transparency is vital in a democracy, and San Francisco’s citizens demand it. There is no denying that bona fide policy reform can and does occur when a witness to organizational misconduct steps forth to report it.
Whistleblowers serve a particularly important role in curbing unchecked authority and abuse of power. Often uniquely situated as witnesses to “the people’s business,” government workers can function as important agents of change, forcing organizations to reform policy and enhance accountability.
Nearly eight years after its re-launch under a 2003 charter amendment, the Jury finds that the San Francisco's Whistleblower Program has failed in its mission to promote the identification of waste, fraud and abuse.
The existing program deals with mostly low-level issues, does not foster transparency, lacks a comprehensive tracking system, angers and confuses whistleblowers, lacks an appeals system, and fails to create effective and independent oversight.
The Civil Grand Jury decided to investigate the operation of the Whistleblower program and its effect on the whistleblowers themselves.
*********************************************************************
WHISTLEBLOWERS FACE THEIR FEARS
“ALL your work was done FOR you. All the evidence was presented to you. No one has even attempted to deny irrefutable facts that state a prima facie case of fraud and false claims against government funds. Yet all of you just sit there and collect your salaries as the defendants turn around and retaliate against whistleblowers. Amazing. Absolutely amazing!”
Excerpt, San Francisco Whistleblower Complaint
Whistleblowers Face Their Fears
No discussion about public policy and whistleblowing can ignore the toll that is exacted from a man or woman on the inside who refuses to look the other way. Nor can we ignore the profound effect, cumulatively, of listening to so many credible, often harrowing accounts from the whistleblowers whom we interviewed.
A long time San Francisco General Hospital employee filed his first whistleblower complaint in 2004. After filing two more whistleblower complaints, he was placed on involuntary sick leave in 2007. Believing this to be retaliation for his whistleblower complaints, he filed a grievance through his union. The whistleblower suspected the Department of Public Health may have been involved with his involuntary sick leave. From 2007 to 2011, the whistleblower reported experiencing many challenges: an inability to retire with the benefits earned, being denied his Social Security disability benefits, and facing ostracism from his former colleagues. In 2009 the whistleblower filed a lawsuit against the City. In 2011, it was settled for an undisclosed amount.
Personal Sacrifice and the Emotional Toll Endured
“It’s as if you become radioactive.”
–– Witness Interview
Former city employee, describing the experience of being shunned by long-time colleagues as a direct result of blowing the whistle on managerial misconduct.
WHISTLEBLOWER
Imagine the pressure. Your boss, your boss’s boss, and even your co-workers turn against you. You are mistreated daily, and threatened with suspension, demotion, termination. You have your family to consider, your security, your career, and your future. The personal toll extracted from those who stand alone in voicing their dissent can be overwhelming.
From a program policy perspective, there are several issues. Most glaringly, once a complaint is filed, the whistleblower is from that point forward, essentially shut out of the entire process and left to navigate a “black hole” where further access to the investigation is denied.
During witness interviews, whistleblowers repeatedly indicated that they weren’t given, because of the confidentiality statutes, any specific information about the current status or the results of the investigation beyond a one line nebulous phrase (see section Complaint Status Updates below). As a result the complainants feel “left out in the cold” which reinforces whatever sense of isolation they are experiencing.
A member of the Ethics Commission staff filed five whistleblower complaints. The subject of one complaint was an incriminating e-mail sent erroneously to the unit where the staffer worked. He was directed by his supervisor to delete the e-mail. However, the staffer believed doing as he was told constituted a felony. Receiving a reprimand for his refusal, the staffer was told he was "insubordinate".
This employee was bumped from his position in early 2010 and felt this was done in retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. The Ethics Commission's sole duty under the Whistleblower program is to investigate complaints of retaliation. Where could this Ethics Commission staffer turn?
Like a number of whistleblowers who filed complaints through the Controller's Office, the former staffer felt frustrated, unprotected, and decided to take his story to the news media. In the Jury's interview, he stated that had he to do it all over again he would have never been a whistleblower.
No Appeal Process and the Problems With Confidentiality
One of the problems with the Whistleblower program is the lack of an appeals process. The following illustrates one example of where an appeals process might have been appropriate. For the purpose of this report, we will call this next whistleblower "Ms. X.” She detailed the difficulties encountered with filing a complaint related to a San Francisco non-profit. City and Federal funding, in the amount of $100 million, was provided through the City to the non-profit in question.
Filed through the Controller's Whistleblower program, Ms. X explained her complaint was related to non-compliance with federal grant reporting requirements, deficiencies in the nonprofit's internal financial accounting controls, and negligent management.
In response to Ms. X's whistleblower complaint, the Controller's Office indicated after, an “informal review”, they found "no violations" and stated there was no budget for even a cursory audit that could have substantiated her complaint. Additionally, her case was closed with no explanation and no information provided.
Ms. X requested a return of any and all information relating to her complaint and was informed that she could not have the documents due to the confidentiality of investigation records. She declared she was in fact the whistleblower and waived her rights of confidentiality. The Controller's Office would not release even redacted documents. Believing this was not a satisfactory end to her complaint, Ms. X filed a request with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force for her documentation and information about the investigation.
Ms. X stated “...information is being kept from the public, and confidentiality should not preclude transparency.” This San Francisco whistleblower has made continuous attempts to obtain the information related to her complaint and has expressed frustration over the lack of communication from the Whistleblower Program.
The Jury notes that confidentiality is an important aspect of the Whistleblower Program. Confidentiality protects individuals interviewed, and it guards alleged violators from having to face unsubstantiated complaints.
However, confidentiality is the proverbial “double-edged sword.” While protecting the individuals in an investigation, it can also result in a lack of transparency as it relates to investigations. Confidentiality, as described by the whistleblowers interviewed, should not be a shield. Confidentiality should be a tool used carefully with balance provided to those being investigated and those whistleblowers filing complaints.
If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the whistleblower investigation, there is no process for appeal.
Limited Publicity of the Whistleblower Program
A simple fear for all is the fear of the unknown. In our interviews with some employees with grievances it was clear that they did not know about the Whistleblower Program. A case in point, employees from a first responder's department told the Jury they had not been informed about the Whistleblower Program. Instead they filed a union grievance and ultimately filed a suit against the City.
To further illustrate this point, The Jury was told that not all employees in the six city departments that received the most whistleblower complaints received training on the Whistleblower Program.
The City's employee handbook does little to promote the Whistleblower Program, devoting only a single paragraph to the subject. It is located near the end of the 45-page manual on page 42:
If You Suspect Improper or Criminal Activity on the Job
As a City employee, you have a duty to report any incidents of improper or
illegal activity involving your department or another City department. Never
confront an employee whom you suspect is involved in illegal or criminal
activity. Discuss the matter with your supervisor or departmental personnel
officer. If you feel it necessary to protect your safety or avoid retaliation, you
may report illegal or improper conduct to the Whistleblower Hotline at 554-CITY.
You may make an anonymous report on the hotline. However, keep in mind
that anonymous reports are more difficult to investigate. ”
Reduce the fear of workplace retaliation;
Give employees information on what to expect when filing a whistleblower
complaint.
Read the full report at http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2884
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)