Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whistleblower Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller's office reports rise in whistleblower reports; committee considers external review
Summary
City auditors reported 502 new whistleblower reports in FY 2018-19, closed 493 cases (average 59 days to closure), and said 40% of closed investigations resulted in corrective action. Liaisons recommended an external review; a public commenter urged an independent audit rather than a peer review.
Mark De La Rosa, acting director of audits and the city services auditor, briefed the committee on the whistleblower program's fiscal year 2018-19 activity. He said the program received 502 new reports in FY18-19 (an 8% increase from the prior year), closed 493 reports with an average closure time of 59 days, and left 91 open cases heading into the next fiscal year. "We closed 493 reports in fiscal year 18-19, and we did so in an average of 59 days," auditors reported.
Staff described intake and triage practices: most reports arrive via the online web form, each report is assigned a unique tracking number, and cases inappropriate for the whistleblower program are referred to other authorities. Of the 256 investigations closed in FY18-19, auditors said 103 (about 40%) resulted in corrective or preventive action.
Auditors outlined recent program initiatives: fraud-bulletin topics (construction materials fraud, supply chain fraud, incompatible activities, overtime abuse), a webinar series (one webinar scheduled for November 6), cross-training of auditors, and a planned whistleblower program website redesign to improve user experience. Staff also noted January 2019 changes to the San Francisco campaign and governmental conduct code that expanded whistleblower protections (for example to contractors) and added new responsibilities for supervisors; the program is collaborating with Human Resources and the Ethics Commission to implement those changes.
Siobhan McHugh, liaison to the whistleblower program, said liaisons reviewed redacted reports and post-report surveys, and supported engaging an external expert to review program processes and staffing. Committee discussion focused on whether the committee should pursue a peer review by audit peers, an attestation engagement from a prequalified provider, or a full independent audit. Controller's staff said they were exploring peer review options and would craft a scope of work for committee feedback.
In public comment, Dr. Derek Kerr urged an independent, external audit and recommended consulting whistleblower advocacy organizations; he criticized the program for a preponderance of low-value complaints and pressed the committee to explain why mid- and high-risk allegations are not appearing in whistleblower reports or are being referred elsewhere.
The committee directed staff and liaisons to develop options for an external review and to return with a scope for consideration; no substantive change to program authority was made at the meeting.
