Multiple Agency Fiscal Note Summary

Bill Number: 1911 HB Title: Whistleblower protection Estimated Cash Receipts

Agency Name 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 GF- State Total GF- State Total GF- State Total Office of State Auditor 0 4,758,000 0 4,924,800 0 4,665,600

Total $ 0 4,758,000 0 4,924,800 0 4,665,600

Local Gov. Courts * Local Gov. Other ** Local Gov. Total Estimated Expenditures

Agency Name 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total FTEs GF-State Total Office of State Auditor 13.1 0 4,758,000 14.3 0 4,924,800 13.9 0 4,665,600 Human Rights 2.0 334,299 334,299 1.0 202,516 202,516 6.0 202,516 202,516 Commission

Total 15.1 $334,299 $5,092,299 15.3 $202,516 $5,127,316 19.9 $202,516 $4,868,116

Local Gov. Courts * Local Gov. Other ** Local Gov. Total

Prepared by: Theo Yu, OFM Phone: Date Published: 360-902-0548 Final 2/26/2007

* See Office of the Administrator for the Courts judicial fiscal note ** See local government fiscal note FNPID: 16589 Individual State Agency Fiscal Note

Bill Number: 1911 HB Title: Whistleblower protection Agency: 095-Office of State Auditor Part I: Estimates

No Fiscal Impact

Estimated Cash Receipts to: FUND FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 State Auditing Services Revolving 1,878,000 2,880,000 4,758,000 4,924,800 4,665,600 Account-State 483-1 Total $ 1,878,000 2,880,000 4,758,000 4,924,800 4,665,600

Estimated Expenditures from: FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 FTE Staff Years 10.9 15.3 13.1 14.3 13.9 Fund State Auditing Services Revolving 1,878,000 2,880,000 4,758,000 4,924,800 4,665,600 Account-State 483-1 Total $ 1,878,000 2,880,000 4,758,000 4,924,800 4,665,600

The cash receipts and expenditure estimates on this page represent the most likely fiscal impact. Factors impacting the precision of these estimates, and alternate ranges (if appropriate), are explained in Part II.

Check applicable boxes and follow corresponding instructions: If fiscal impact is greater than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete entire fiscal note X form Parts I-V. If fiscal impact is less than $50,000 per fiscal year in the current biennium or in subsequent biennia, complete this page only (Part I).

Capital budget impact, complete Part IV.

Requires new rule making, complete Part V.

Legislative Contact: Marsha Reilly Phone: 360-786-7135 Date: 02/08/2007 Agency Preparation: Janel Roper Phone: 360-725-5600 Date: 02/14/2007 Agency Approval: Linda Long Phone: 360 902 0367 Date: 02/15/2007 OFM Review: Theo Yu Phone: 360-902-0548 Date: 02/16/2007

Request # 07-009-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 1 Bill # 1911 HB Part II: Narrative Explanation

II. A - Brief Description Of What The Measure Does That Has Fiscal Impact Briefly describe, by section number, the significant provisions of the bill, and any related workload or policy assumptions, that have revenue or expenditure impact on the responding agency. Section 1 Adds three new types of actions that would be “improper governmental action”—gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or any action which impedes the communication of scientific opinion or alters technical findings without scientifically valid justification.

Expands the definition of “whistleblower” to include an employee who refuses to obey an order that he or she believes in good faith would require him or her to violate the law. II. B - Cash receipts Impact Briefly describe and quantify the cash receipts impact of the legislation on the responding agency, identifying the cash receipts provisions by section number and when appropriate the detail of the revenue sources. Briefly describe the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the cash receipts impact is derived. Explain how workload assumptions translate into estimates. Distinguish between one time and ongoing functions.

The state employee whistleblower program is funded by the auditing services revolving account (483), which is an appropriated internal service fund. The cost of whistleblower investigations is billed directly to the state agency where the work is performed.

This bill would require an increase in appropriation for the auditing services revolving account and an increase in appropriation and/or funding to state agencies undergoing whistleblower investigations.

The state employee whistleblower act has been in existence since 1982, so the State Auditor’s Office has 25 years’ experience administering the program.

The average number of investigations historically has been 150 per year.

Assumptions:

Based on our experience with the program, we predict the number of cases that would be investigated would increase significantly with the three new types of actions that would be considered improper governmental action—gross mismanagement, abuse of authority or any action which impedes the communication of scientific opinion or alters technical findings without scientifically valid justification.

While certain agencies have experienced over 50 percent of the whistleblower caseload, history has shown that it is unreliable to predict whistleblower caseload with any degree of precision. Fifty-seven percent of our current biennium's whistleblower efforts have been with Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Corrections and Department of Transportation.

The gross mismanagement and abuse of authority cases and cases involving whistleblowers who refuse to obey an order that would violate a law could emerge in any state agency, institution of higher education, board or commission.

The scientific opinion cases could develop from a broad range of agencies, including, but not limited to, the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Agriculture, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Pollution Liability Insurance Program, Department of Labor and Industries, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Fish and Wildlife Commission, Environmental Hearings Office, among others.

The three new types of actions that would be considered improper governmental action would require enhanced investigator and legal counsel knowledge, skills and abilities beyond what is currently required.

Request # 07-009-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 2 Bill # 1911 HB The expertise required to investigate cases involving scientific opinion or that alters technical findings would significantly increase our use of contracted specialized expertise.

Based on our 25 years’ experience with the program, we feel that the caseload would increase at least 400 percent in the first two years and then level off in ensuing biennia.

It would take a year to fully plan and operationalize the provisions of this bill.

The Attorney General’s Office would continue to be involved in whistleblower cases as needed, including but not limited to, triaging the complaints, identifying criteria, analyzing evidence and reporting. II. C - Expenditures Briefly describe the agency expenditures necessary to implement this legislation (or savings resulting from this legislation), identifying by section number the provisions of the legislation that result in the expenditures (or savings). Briefly describe the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the expenditure impact is derived. Explain how workload assumptions translate into cost estimates. Distinguish between one time and ongoing functions. Based on an estimate of our whistleblower workload increasing by four times once this is fully implemented, our estimated annual caseload would increase by 600 beginning in Fiscal Year 2009.

We assume the required initial investigation for each case would take 8 hours to complete.

Of these 600 investigations, we estimate that 50% would warrant a full investigation, which would take an average of 72 additional hours to complete.

25% of the investigations would require expertise from an outside contractor. We are estimating this contract work at 40 hours at the rate of $150 per hour.

The caseload is estimated at 60% of full implementation figures during Fiscal Year 2008. Additional costs are factored into Fiscal Year 2008 to develop and fully implement the program.

We estimate that this caseload would be expected to decrease slightly the following two years after implementation and level off in 2011.

Part III: Expenditure Detail III. A - Expenditures by Object Or Purpose FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 FTE Staff Years 10.9 15.3 13.1 14.3 13.9 A-Salaries and Wages 792,096 1,172,160 1,964,256 2,171,427 2,115,750 B-Employee Benefits 174,261 257,875 432,136 477,714 465,466 C-Personal Service Contracts 540,000 900,000 1,440,000 1,752,750 1,795,500 E-Goods and Services 318,643 544,965 863,608 462,909 228,884 G-Travel 3,000 5,000 8,000 10,000 10,000 J-Capital Outlays 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 M-Inter Agency/Fund Transfers N-Grants, Benefits & Client Services P-Debt Service S-Interagency Reimbursements T-Intra-Agency Reimbursements Total: $1,878,000 $2,880,000 $4,758,000 $4,924,800 $4,665,600

Request # 07-009-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 3 Bill # 1911 HB III. B - Detail: List FTEs by classification and corresponding annual compensation. Totals need to agree with total FTEs in Part I and Part IIIA Job Classification Salary FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 Admn/Clerical/Mgmt 52,000 3.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 Deputy Director 95,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Investigator 80,000 6.4 11.8 9.1 10.8 10.4 Total FTE's 10.9 15.3 13.1 14.3 13.9 Part IV: Capital Budget Impact

Part V: New Rule Making Required

Identify provisions of the measure that require the agency to adopt new administrative rules or repeal/revise existing rules.

Request # 07-009-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 4 Bill # 1911 HB Individual State Agency Fiscal Note

Bill Number: 1911 HB Title: Whistleblower protection Agency: 120-Human Rights Commission Part I: Estimates

No Fiscal Impact

Estimated Cash Receipts to: FUND

Total $

Estimated Expenditures from: FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 FTE Staff Years 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 Fund General Fund-State 001-1 176,000 158,299 334,299 202,516 202,516 Total $ 176,000 158,299 334,299 202,516 202,516

Capital budget impact, complete Part IV.

X Requires new rule making, complete Part V.

Legislative Contact: Marsha Reilly Phone: 360-786-7135 Date: 02/08/2007 Agency Preparation: Seth Kirby Phone: (360) 586-3413 Date: 02/20/2007 Agency Approval: Marc Brenman Phone: (360) 753-2558 Date: 02/21/2007 OFM Review: Nick Lutes Phone: 360-902-0570 Date: 02/26/2007

Request # HB 1911-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 1 Bill # 1911 HB Part II: Narrative Explanation

II. A - Brief Description Of What The Measure Does That Has Fiscal Impact Briefly describe, by section number, the significant provisions of the bill, and any related workload or policy assumptions, that have revenue or expenditure impact on the responding agency. The Washington State Human Rights Commission (WSHRC) is a small agency consisting of approximately 40 employees, responsible for enforcement of the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60. HB 1911 would greatly increase protections and filing options for whistleblowers under RCW 49.60.

The WSHRC receives about 1100 new complaints a year, one percent of which are whistleblower complaints. The proposed standard of proof for a whistleblower complaint is lower than for other types of complaints, making it likely that a higher number of complaints would be easily generated. Because of the increased protections and ease of reporting proposed in the bill, the WSHRC estimates that with bill passage, the number of new retaliation complaints is expected to increase significantly. Under the proposed bill, the WSHRC could receive an additional 33 retaliation complaints per year, for a total of 44 retaliation complaints filed annually.

Whistleblower complaints are the most time consuming and costly to investigate since many of the complaints involve many people and large state agencies. Under the proposed bill, each whistleblower complaint would cost the agency approximately $4800 to investigate, resolve, and adjudicate. This includes the high costs that would be associated with consulting with legal and scientific experts. For a three percent increase in complaints, along with the changed standards, the annualized cost of investigation is estimated at $211,200.

With the additional caseload, we would need the equivalent of one experienced investigator in salary and benefits. For outreach and rulemaking efforts, we would also need an additional 1 FTE experienced investigator or specialist for the first two years of implementation. An additional $2000 would be needed for staff training because the proposed standard of proof is different than current standards. Finally, an additional $2100 in expenditures would be required for reprinting publications and outreach materials to include the new jurisdiction. II. B - Cash receipts Impact Briefly describe and quantify the cash receipts impact of the legislation on the responding agency, identifying the cash receipts provisions by section number and when appropriate the detail of the revenue sources. Briefly describe the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the cash receipts impact is derived. Explain how workload assumptions translate into estimates. Distinguish between one time and ongoing functions.

II. C - Expenditures Briefly describe the agency expenditures necessary to implement this legislation (or savings resulting from this legislation), identifying by section number the provisions of the legislation that result in the expenditures (or savings). Briefly describe the factual basis of the assumptions and the method by which the expenditure impact is derived. Explain how workload assumptions translate into cost estimates. Distinguish between one time and ongoing functions. Expenditures are based on the assumption that the WSHRC would need an additional 2 FTEs for two years in order to handle the increased case load generated by expanding whistleblower protections for state employees under RCW 49.60. The WSHRC would need to retain one 1 FTE after two years in order to manage the case load. This assumption includes staff time for outreach and rules revision. The cost of $13,883 is added in staff time for the cost of one manager’s time, estimated at 15% annually. A 2% increase was added to allow for COLA raises for fiscal years 2010-2013. In goods and services, a one time cost of $2,100 has been added for reprinting pamphlets and publications. Costs for computers, monthly communication, and travel have also been added. Finally, Assistant Attorney General costs are estimated at $14,544 annually.

Request # HB 1911-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 2 Bill # 1911 HB Part III: Expenditure Detail III. A - Expenditures by Object Or Purpose FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 FTE Staff Years 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 A-Salaries and Wages 109,993 109,993 219,986 136,164 136,164 B-Employee Benefits 26,545 26,545 53,090 26,437 26,546 C-Personal Service Contracts E-Goods and Services 21,710 4,009 25,719 8,018 8,018 G-Travel 3,208 3,208 6,416 2,700 2,700 J-Capital Outlays M-Inter Agency/Fund Transfers N-Grants, Benefits & Client Services P-Debt Service S-Interagency Reimbursements T-Intra-Agency Reimbursements 9-Assistant Attorney General Expenses 14,544 14,544 29,088 29,088 29,088 Total: $176,000 $158,299 $334,299 $202,407 $202,516

III. B - Detail: List FTEs by classification and corresponding annual compensation. Totals need to agree with total FTEs in Part I and Part IIIA Job Classification Salary FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13 Civil Rights Investigator 2 50,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 Civil Rights Specialist 4 57,000 1.0 1.0 1.0 Total FTE's 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 Part IV: Capital Budget Impact

Part V: New Rule Making Required

Identify provisions of the measure that require the agency to adopt new administrative rules or repeal/revise existing rules. RCW 49.60.210 would need to be revised to reflect the changes. A new section would also need to be added to 162 WAC.

Request # HB 1911-1 Form FN (Rev 1/00) 3 Bill # 1911 HB