3 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The WPO does not fully “protect” City officers and employees from retaliation for filing a complaint as required by the Charter mandate of Proposition C, because it covers only a limited range of complaints, it provides no effective remedy for the victim, and its secrecy provisions limit its deterrent effect.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The WPO does not fully "protect" City officers and employees from retaliation for filing a complaint as required by the Charter mandate of Proposition C, because it covers only a limited range of complaints, it provides no effective remedy for the victim, and its secrecy provisions limit its deterrent effect. Finding 1. Partially agree. The WPO does have some limitations that can be improved. However, the confidentiality provisions for investigations are important as they protect both the complainant and the respondent during the period when accusations are proved or disproved. There is a diff...
F2
The WPO also fails to fulfill the Charter mandate, in that it does not cover all whistleblower disclosures specified in the Charter
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The WPO also fails to fulfill the Charter mandate, in that it does not cover all whistleblower disclosures specified in the Charter. Finding 2. Partially agree. The WPO may not reach all aspects of complaints provided in the Charter. However, defining "providing information" in terms of oral complaints may provide difficulties in that the record of the complaint is not memorialized as the person making the complaint and the person receiving the complaint could easily have different versions of the conversation.
Recommendation 2.1:
That amendments to the WPO expand the definition of whistlebl...
F4
The WPO creates an unwarranted obstacle to administrative complaints of retaliation filed with the Ethics Commission, by imposing a burden of proof on the complainant during preliminary review and investigation of such complaints.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The WPO creates an unwarranted obstacle to administrative complaints of retaliation filed with the Ethics Commission, by imposing a burden of proof on the complainant during preliminary review and investigation of such complaints. Finding 4. Partially agree. The Commission was not party to the creation of the WPO, and so is not aware of the intended scope by the creators of the ordinance.
Recommendation 4:
That amendments to the WPO include a revision of Subsection 4.115(b)(iii) providing that the burden of proof set forth therein does not apply during preliminary review and investigation of...
