San Diego city leaders say they want to strengthen the city’s protections for whistleblower employees, possibly by adopting anti-retaliation language similar to what San Francisco and Oakland use.
The language would go beyond whistleblower protections included in state law by specifying that employees can’t be either demoted, terminated or suspended for reporting suspected fraud, waste or other abuses of city resources.
The language would be added to the city’s municipal code, which now only includes whistleblower protections for people who report violations of the city’s Ethics Ordinance, file complaints to the Commission on Police Practices or take some specific actions under the city’s Surveillance Ordinance.
While the municipal code doesn’t yet protect all instances of whistleblowing, city officials stress that all whistleblowers are afforded protections anyway.
A fraud hotline operated by City Auditor Andy Hanau already receives 200 to 300 whistleblower complaints per year. But City Attorney Mara Elliott said the city should give its 11,000 employees as many options as possible.
“Any person who wants to bring forward a concern has to use the mechanism that feels the most comfortable,” said Elliott, who is spearheading the effort. “We do have other mechanisms in place, but they don’t address every individual. If we don’t hear about the concerns, we can’t respond to them.”
The City Council’s Rules Committee voted unanimously last month to direct Elliott to write up a proposed whistleblower ordinance. She said she would give the committee a few choices but suggested San Francisco’s language was her favorite.
That city’s says that retaliation is prohibited and that “no city officer or employee may terminate, demote, suspend, or take other similar adverse employment action” against any employees for filing complaints or attempting to file complaints.
Elliott is also proposing a new hotline and website where whistleblowers could make complaints.
While Elliott hasn’t specified who should run the new hotline and website, she suggested it should be “an entity that is not directly or indirectly controlled by the City Council or mayor.”
That would arguably be in contrast to the auditor, who is appointed by the council, receives a salary set by the council and could be terminated by the council.
But the auditor frequently stresses that while his office is overseen by the council’s Audit Committee, neither that committee nor the full council directs the auditor’s work.
Hanau said Wednesday that he’ll be open to considering whatever Elliott proposes. He said his office has a strong track record running its whistleblower hotline since 2008.
“We are routinely consulted by other municipalities seeking to establish or strengthen their own whistleblower programs,” he said. “While we would welcome any revisions to existing laws and codes to strengthen or clarify whistleblower protections, no specific proposal has been presented for our input.”
Councilmember Kent Lee praised Elliott’s effort during a March 20 public hearing on the proposal at the Rules Committee.
“This seems to be something that’s missing when it comes to our municipal code,” he said.
Councilmember Vivian Moreno said uncovering fraud and waste is so important that every effort must be made.
“While I do believe existing state law provides sufficient legal protection to whistleblowers, I agree with the city attorney that it’s worth doing anything we can to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and report wrongdoing,” Moreno said.
Councilmember Joe LaCava compared adding the extra avenue for whistleblower complaints to him taking live questions twice a month at a local farmer’s market because some constituents don’t feel comfortable emailing or calling in complaints.
“City staff should always feel comfortable to report instances where public resources may be misused or where there are operational inefficiencies,” he said.
Elliott said she was inspired by a recent scandal in Anaheim.
“The FBI probe in Anaheim revealed that city workers did not report the undue influence exerted by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Disneyland Resort District on City Hall because they feared retaliation,” she said.
