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

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?

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. ”

An enhanced Whistleblower publicity program may:

 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

A Pandora's Box Of Workplace Horrors

In February 2006, a group of Department of Parking and Traffic employees met with Stuart Sunshine and Diana Buchbinder, two San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency directors.  They met to discuss a statement sent to MTA by the group that included a request to relieve various Parking and Traffic directors and supervisors from duty.  The statement provided evidence of favoritism, nepotism and retaliation on the part of the Department's administrative offices.  Examples of doctoring internal work records to excuse chronic unexcused absenteeism were included.


The two directors listened to the employees, asked questions and thanked them.  No apparent action was ever taken as a result of the reports.


As a former DPT employee and a participant at this meeting, I myself was a victim of harassment and retaliation.  I knew first hand of injustices suffered by other colleagues within the Department.


For two years, my workplace presented an emotional and physical threat to my well-being on a daily basis.  I followed internal protocol in reporting and documenting my complaints through all of the proper channels.  I began to help other colleagues who were suffering worse violations, including homophobia, intimidation and actual threats, for even longer periods of time.  The only action taken on my behalf, in the end, was to temporarily move me from my workplace to another MTA facility--while the culprits remained in place.  I subsequently found another position--a wonderful position, as it turns out--within San Francisco government.




By the end of 2006, two other parking supervisors brought additional nepotism charges to SFMTA management.  They both claimed that the assistant directors office was attempting to list the daughter of Assistant Director Marie Holland above them on the seniority list.  Their charges were confirmed by SFMTA.


All of the Assistant Directors and supervisors identified by the 2006 DPT employee group--except for one, who has retired--remain in the employ of The City and County of San Francisco.  When ABC local television affiliate KGO ran its May 2011 story on rogue DPT supervisor Elias Georgopolous, and when the SFMTA quickly fired the supervisor who had "blown the whistle" on Georgopolous, I was not surprised.  San Francisco government's defense of such employees goes back years and even decades.


Reform of San Francisco civil service is long overdue.