Whistling in the Dark:

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  As we began to hear from whistleblowers about their experience in navigating the program, common themes began to emerge. Time and time again, each independent witness we interviewed invoked similar – if not identical – phrases to describe the difficulties they encountered. In our interviews we heard the following common themes:  The program is a complete dead end with no communication;  Investigators circle the wagons;  Whistleblowers are regarded as a burden and threat;  No information is provided at the end of the investigation;  We had nowhere to turn. The Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Whistleblower Program's ineffectiveness can be traced to inadequate procedures, lack of communication with complainants, and the need for truly independent oversight. To expedite efficiency, the program must develop updates to its internal tracking system and to the external website. ___________________________________________________________________________ 21 WHISTLEBLOWER In reviewing actual complaint files, the Civil Grand Jury found that a high percentage of complaints received fall outside the scope of waste, fraud, and abuse. The program does not make the best use of the whistleblower investigator's time. The Whistleblower Program should encourage individuals to file substantive complaints, but should simplify the process, making it easier to navigate. Additionally, once reports are completed, that information should be shared with the public to promote transparency in government. Of paramount importance, the program does not protect the whistleblower. ___________________________________________________________________________ 22 WHISTLEBLOWER METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The Grand Jury relied on a wide array of resources during the course of our investigation: Personal Interviews  Interviewed Management and toured San Francisco 311 City Services Call Center operations and reviewed complete intake process.  Interviewed employees from the two major departments responsible for Whistleblower Program administration, including staff at various levels of both the City Services Auditor Division of the Controller’s Office and the Ethics Commission.  Interviewed individuals who serve on commissions and committees charged with oversight of the Whistleblower Program. We also interviewed past and present members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.  Conducted approximately forty hours of direct, confidential interviews from whistleblowers, including current and former city employees whose employment spanned a broad spectrum of city departments. These whistleblowers provided us with voluminous records that detailed: The information and evidentiary documents that they submitted to support their whistleblower claim; and, All communications they received from Whistleblower Program personnel.  Consulted and interviewed a leading expert and independent policy consultant who has conducted benchmark studies on the topic of whistleblowing. This author was one of the few to address “best practices” of successful Whistleblower Programs. Personal Attendance Attended or audited the following hearings:  Ethics Commission – December 2010  Sunshine Ordinance Task Force – January 2011, April 2011  CGOBOC – February 2011 and April 2011 ___________________________________________________________________________ 23 WHISTLEBLOWER Data Collection, Representative Sampling and Cross-Referenced Complaints  Reviewed 364 whistleblower complaints received by CSA via website, hotline and mail and entered into an internal database.  To ensure proper representation of whistleblower complaints files, our review was based on a statistical sampling of the total number of complaints recorded by the CSA during a period of approximately two years, from January 1, 2009 through December 22, 2010. The total population of complaints available for sampling was calculated by adding the number of complaints received during calendar year 2009 (421) to those received during calendar year 2010 (383) for a sum total of 804 complaints. To achieve a 99% confidence level (with a 5% margin of error), 364 complaints were sampled. Reviewed Requested Data  Sample of complaints representative of internal ranking by CSA as high-, medium- and low-risk;  Six case investigation closing notes – prepared by CSA upon final disposition of investigation. Our Research  Internal policies and procedures manuals maintained by CSA. Publication dates: May 2005, October 2010 & December 2010;  Annual Reports – San Francisco Ethics Commission; City Services Auditor;  Citizens General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee documents;  City Services Auditor’s Annual Work Plan – 2010-2011;  Meeting Agendas and minutes, including audio recordings of special hearings; Best Practices Review  Researched and reviewed materials regarding the administration of governmental Whistleblower Programs in other jurisdictions, both within and outside California;  Data comparisons regarding reported outcomes; the degree to which investigative information is disclosed upon conclusion of the investigation; whether or not independent auditors are used as a control measure to ensure integrity of internal auditing. ___________________________________________________________________________ 24 WHISTLEBLOWER