📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
8. Role of the Ethics Commission and the Board Of Supervisors
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 4 findings
F1
Page 19
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.
F2
Page 19
The WPO also fails to fulfill the Charter mandate, in that it does not cover all whistleblower disclosures specified in the Charter
F3
Page 20
2: Whistleblower protection laws that cover government employees at the state and Federal level can serve as a useful model for improving the WPO.
F4
Page 20
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.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 191: That the Ethics Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the WPO that provides real protection for whistleblowers, in conformity with the Charter mandate of Proposition C.
-
R2Page 191: That amendments to the WPO expand the definition of whistleblowing to cover oral complaints to the complainant’s department; disclosures to a City department or commission other than the complainant’s own; and providing information to any of the recipients listed in the Charter mandate (hereafter “listed recipients”), outside of the formal complaint or investigation process.
-
R3Page 20That amendments to the WPO provide a meaningful remedy for the effects of retaliation, by authorizing the Ethics Commission to order cancellation of a retaliatory job action, and increasing the limit of the civil penalty available under the WPO to an amount adequate to repay the financial losses that can result from such an action.
-
R4Page 20That 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 administrative complaints to the C ommission.