Whistleblower Program Office of the Controller – City Services Auditor

Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: November 19, 2012 July Through September 2012

Background An amendment to the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco (City), passed by San Francisco voters in 2003, instructed the Office of the Controller (Controller) to administer a whistleblower and citizen complaint hotline telephone number and website, and to publicize the hotline and website through public advertising and communications to city employees. As specifically authorized by the charter, since 2004 the Controller has received and tracked complaints on the quality and delivery of government services, wasteful and inefficient city government practices, misuse of government funds, and improper activities by city government officials, employees, and contractors. The Whistleblower Program evaluates complaints it receives and forwards them to the appropriate agency. The charter also instructs the Controller to investigate and attempt to resolve the complaints when appropriate.

Filing a Complaint Potential complainants should review the Whistleblower Program’s website to facilitate the complaint-filing process. Information on the website, including Charter Appendix F, Section 1.107, and the frequently asked questions section, will provide complainants with a better understanding of the matters that are under the Whistleblower Program’s jurisdiction.

If potential complainants determine that the Whistleblower Program is the appropriate venue for their complaint, they should gather the information needed to answer, as specifically as possible, the following questions:

Who: What is the subject of the complaint’s full name or what city department is involved? What: What did the subject(s) do, or fail to do, that was wrong? When: When did the incident occur? When were you made aware of the problem? Where: Where did the incident take place?

Potential complainants can contact the Whistleblower Program for assistance. Staff can describe the issues that are within the Whistleblower Program’s authority. Staff can also provide information about how to file a complaint with the Whistleblower Program, and the investigation process.

Complaints may include copies of documents that support the allegations. Original documents should not be submitted to the Whistleblower Program, as they cannot be returned. Complainants who use the online form can upload documents, pictures, and other evidence pertinent to their complaint.

Copies of the report may be obtained at: Controller’s Office ● City Hall, Room 316 ● 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place ● San Francisco, CA 94102 ● 415.554.7500 or on the Internet at http://www.sfcontroller.org

Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Complaints Received

During July through September 2012 (quarter 1), 79 complaints were filed with the Whistleblower Program, which had 43 open complaints as of July 1st, 2012. The Whistleblower Program closed 71 complaints in quarter 1, leaving 51 complaints open as of October 1, 2012.

Sources of Complaints Received

As shown in Exhibit 1, 60 (76 percent) of the complaints received in quarter 1 were submitted through the Whistleblower Program website. This includes complaints reported through the City’s 311 Customer Service Center. All other complaints were submitted through:

 Direct calls to the Controller’s offices (8 complaints)  Walk-in visits to the Controller’s offices (6 complaints)  E-mail to [email protected] (3 complaints)  Letters sent to the Controller in care of the Whistleblower Program (2 complaints)

EXHIBIT 1 Sources of the 79 Complaints Received in Quarter 1

70 60 60

50

40

30

20 8 10 6 3 2 0 Web Phone Walk‐In E‐mail Letter

Source: Whistleblower Program

Actions Taken

Whistleblower Program personnel may lead certain investigations. However, program staff coordinates the majority of investigations with management of the department associated with the complaint. In these circumstances, department management leads the investigation, and, where appropriate, the Whistleblower Program helps guide the investigation. This coordinated approach uses the expertise of all involved departments and leverages resources to ensure that allegations are resolved in a timely manner.

Management of the department associated with the complaint must report to the Whistleblower Program on any action(s) taken. Program staff then reviews the departmental actions and

2 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

investigative findings, and determines the adequacy of the information provided and whether additional action is required before closing the complaint. Exhibit 2 displays the actions taken on complaints received.

EXHIBIT 2 Actions Taken on the 79 Complaints Received in Quarter 1

Outside Whistleblower Referred to Program Department With Not Enough Jurisdiction - 4 Charter Information ‐ 4 Jurisdiction - 2

No Action Required - 6

Investigated ‐ 63

Source: Whistleblower Program

 Of the 79 complaints received in quarter 1, 63 (80 percent) were investigated or referred for investigation.

 The remaining 16 complaints (20 percent) were categorized as follows:

o Not Enough Information (4 complaints) – Insufficient information to investigate. For example, no indication of department, employees involved, or vehicle number.

o Outside of Jurisdiction (4 complaints) – Issue is in the jurisdiction of federal, state, or other noncity government agency, or is a suggestion or general complaint about decisions that are within management’s discretion.

o No Action Required (6 complaints) – A complaint was not explicitly conveyed, or it is a duplicate complaint.

o Referred to Department With Charter Jurisdiction (2 complaints) - Complaint was referred to the city department with charter-granted jurisdiction over the issue, such as the Ethics Commission, City Attorney, or District Attorney.

The Whistleblower Program investigated, either alone or in collaboration with another department, and closed 71 complaints in quarter 1. As shown in Exhibit 3, the vast majority (87 percent) of complaints received by the program were closed within 90 days.

3 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

EXHIBIT 3 Age of 71 Complaints Closed in Quarter 1 40 36 35 30 26 25 20 15 10 6 5 2 1 0 Less Than 30 30 ‐ 90 Days 90 ‐ 180 Days 270 ‐ 360 Days Over 360 Days Days

Source: Whistleblower Program

Fifty-one complaints were open at the close of quarter 1. As shown in Exhibit 4, 38 (75 percent) of these complaints were less than 90 days old. Investigation completion times can vary greatly, depending on the complexity of the issues involved. Steps that influence the length of investigations include researching issues identified in the complaint, gathering documentation from multiple sources, interviewing witnesses, and coordinating resources between departments.

EXHIBIT 4 Aging of 51 Complaints Open at End of Quarter 1

35 29 30

25

20

15 13 9 10

5

0 Under 30 Days 30 - 90 Days 90 - 180 Days

Source: Whistleblower Program

4 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Quarter 1 Sustained Complaint Overview

The Whistleblower Program sustained 15 complaints in quarter 1. Exhibit 5 lists the complaints sustained by category. Some complaints may contain more than one type of allegation. Complaints in Exhibit 5 are categorized by their primary allegation.

EXHIBIT 5 Sustained Complaint Allegations in Quarter 1 Complaint Category Number of Sustained Complaints Improper Activities by City Employees 12 Quality and Delivery of Government Services 3 Total 15 Source: Whistleblower Program

Exhibit 6 summarizes the corrective actions taken on sustained complaints. Some complaints may involve multiple suspects or contain multiple allegations. As a result, it is possible for a complaint to have multiple dispositions.

EXHIBIT 6 Actions Taken on Sustained Complaints in Quarter 1 Action Taken Number of Actions Taken Procedures Changed/Reinforced 9 Counseled (Verbal/Written Warning) 5 Termination 1 Other 3 Total 18 Source: Whistleblower Program

Retaliation Complaints

Retaliation against whistleblowers is illegal. That is, no city officer or employee may terminate, demote, suspend, or take other similar adverse employment action against a city officer or employee because that person has in good faith filed a complaint alleging that a city officer or employee engaged in improper governmental activity. The Ethics Commission is charged with investigating retaliation complaints. Exhibit 7 displays the number of retaliation complaints filed, closed, and currently under investigation by the Ethics Commission during quarter 1. The one complaint closed was related to a complaint filed with the Whistleblower Program.

EXHIBIT 7 Retaliation Complaints in Quarter 1 Action Count Filed 0 Closed 1 Sustained 0 Open 0 Source: San Francisco Ethics Commission

5 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Highlights of Sustained Complaints in Quarter 1

Complaint Complaint/Allegation Resolution Category Improper An employee fueled a The department found that its gas-key was used at activity by a noncity vehicle at a city the location, date, and time alleged. The vehicle city employee gas station that is for license plate number reported by the complainant city vehicles only. corresponded to a vehicle owned by a city employee. The department released (terminated) the employee from probation.

Improper An employee The Whistleblower Program substantiated the activity by a improperly approved a allegation that the employee improperly approved a city employee permit application, and permit application. The Whistleblower Program did inappropriately signed not substantiate that the employee intentionally off on the resulting signed the permit on behalf of another city permit on behalf of department. The department reissued the another department. statement of incompatible activities and the code of professional conduct to remind staff not to engage in activities that would appear to conflict with fair, impartial, and objective performance of officially assigned duties and responsibilities.

Improper Employees conducted The Whistleblower Program found that employees activity by a personal business used city-provided internet access for personal city employee using city resources, purposes, did not follow any formal policies and did not perform their procedures for ensuring the propriety of the required duties, did not disbursements of city funds, and a supervisor fully account for the telecommuted without the proper authorization on disbursement of city file. Allegations of employees not performing their funds, and a supervisor job duties were sustained. was absent without approved leave. The Whistleblower Program recommended that the Further, the department annually disseminate all policies on the department did not proper use of city resources and on time and complete a attendance. The Whistleblower Program also jurisdictional transfer of recommended that the department implement property from another controls over disbursements, work with the city department. appropriate departments for the transfer of property, and consider monitoring employee internet usage.

6 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Complaint Complaint/Allegation Resolution Category Improper A manager exhibited The department held a meeting with the employee activity by a poor management to address the complaint’s issues. The employee city employee practices and verbally was counseled for their behavior. The department abused staff. required that the employee attend training to improve communication and management skills.

Summarized Details of All Other Sustained Complaints

All complaints in this section were either sustained in full or in part, or resulted in a department taking some corrective or preventive action during July 1 through September 30, 2012.

Complaint Complaint/Allegation Resolution Category Improper A lead employee The department's investigation was unable to activity by a harassed and attacked substantiate that the employee harassed or city employee staff. attacked staff. However, the department acknowledged the need for improvement in the employee's management style, and counseled the employee. The department also directed the employee to attend training to improve management skills.

Improper Employees parked The department acknowledged that it allows its activity by a their personal vehicles employees to park in a parking space reserved for city employee in a space reserved for people with disabilities in an employee parking people with disabilities area, provided that no employee with a disability in an employee parking requests use of the space. The department lot. updated its policies on parking space usage to clarify that the space is to be reserved for any employee who presents a valid disabled parking placard. The department reviewed its policies on the use of, and access to, the parking lot with employees.

Improper Employees did not The department confirmed the allegation and activity by a contain the debris they reminded the employees to clean up debris created city employee created when abating by their work. The department also instructed graffiti. supervisors of these employees to ensure that the vehicles they use are stocked with supplies for this purpose.

7 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Complaint Complaint/Allegation Resolution Category Improper A driver operated a city The department could not substantiate the activity by a vehicle recklessly, complainant’s account of the situation. However, city employee used a cell phone while the department counseled the employee on safe driving, and yelled driving practices. profanity at another driver.

Improper An employee made an The department did not substantiate the allegation. activity by a unsafe lane change in The department reminded the employee to operate city employee a city vehicle, and the vehicle responsibly and to secure all loose contents of the vehicle debris to prevent it from spilling onto the road. littered the road.

Improper An employee The department did not substantiate the allegation, activity by a continuously used a but found that the employee had signed out the city employee city vehicle’s horn while vehicle to take a client to an appointment. The driving an entire block department added to its policies and procedures a and did not signal clause reminding staff not to yell, honk, or whistle before making a turn. at clients when picking them up for appointments. It also reviewed policies and procedures with all staff in the unit, emphasizing the proper use of city vehicles.

Improper An employee used a The department reprimanded the employee in activity by a cell phone while driving writing for violating both the state vehicle code city employee a city vehicle. prohibition on using a cell phone while operating a vehicle and the department’s safe driving policy.

Improper An employee used a Using vehicle GPS records, the department activity by a cell phone while driving confirmed that the employee was in the area at the city employee a city vehicle and time identified by the complainant, but the nearly hit another investigation did not substantiate the allegation. vehicle. Nonetheless, the department reviewed its vehicle and cell phone use policies with the employee.

Quality and An employee did not The department did not substantiate the allegation. delivery of properly respond to a However, the employee was reminded of their government service request. duties and responsibilities. services

8 Office of the Controller, City Services Auditor Whistleblower Program Quarterly Report: July Through September 2012

Complaint Complaint/Allegation Resolution Category Quality and A street sweeper drove The department reminded the driver of the delivery of down the center of a mechanical street sweeping vehicle on this route to government street, ignoring the pay extra attention to picking up debris along services curb area. curbs.

Quality and A street artist violated The vendor was ordered to go before the licensing delivery of the terms of their advisory committee and was instructed to comply government license. A city with the license terms or face a possible license services employee ignored suspension or revocation. The Whistleblower previous complaints Program did not substantiate that the employee against the street artist. ignored complaints about the vendor.

9