Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whistleblower Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller’s Office reports rising whistleblower filings, stable corrective-action rate
Summary
The Controller’s Office told the Board of Supervisors’ Government Audit & Oversight Committee that whistleblower reports have steadily increased since 2012 but the share of investigated complaints that lead to corrective or preventative action has held roughly steady at about 30–40%. Staff said many referrals to charter agencies close in their system and that the office is exploring how to capture downstream outcomes.
The San Francisco Controller’s Office told the Government Audit & Oversight Committee on April 15 that the city’s whistleblower hotline has seen a steady rise in reports since 2012 and that the office met its goal of closing 75% of cases within 90 days in the most recent quarter.
Mark De La Rosa, acting director of audits for the Controller’s Office, described the whistleblower program’s legal authority and intake role. He cited “California state code section 53087.6,” San Francisco Charter Appendix F and Article 4 of the San Francisco campaign and government code as the bases for the office’s program and public reporting duties. De La Rosa said the office triages complaints centrally and refers matters outside its charter jurisdiction to departments such as the Department of Human Resources, the Ethics Commission, the City Attorney and the District Attorney’s Office.
Dave Jensen, the whistleblower program manager, presented quarterly metrics showing an increase in filings and noted that most recent reports arrive online and are filed anonymously. Jensen said the office typically investigates just over half of all reports and that roughly 30–40% of investigated matters result in corrective or preventative action — a band he described as consistent even as total volume rose. He also described a new case-management system implemented to report multiple outcomes and improve accuracy.
Supervisors questioned staff about how reports are categorized and tracked. Chair Dean Preston asked whether “corruption” is tracked as a discrete category; staff said they currently bucket matters by four or five general categories (for example, misuse of funds, deficient service delivery, improper employee activity and waste or inefficiency) and would explore breaking out corruption-related complaints separately if the board requested it. Vice Chair Connie Chan asked why the corrective-action percentage has remained steady despite rising volumes; Jensen said the composition of complaint types has not shifted markedly and the office’s triage protocols have stayed consistent.
Committee members also pressed the Controller’s Office on handling of charter referrals. Staff said complaints that must be sent by charter to other agencies (for example criminal allegations to the District Attorney) are closed in the whistleblower system at referral and that the office does not always receive outcomes back from referral agencies. Deputy Controller Todd Reedstrom said the office will seek ways to request outcome information from charter departments so that the Controller’s Office can better account for downstream results that started as whistleblower reports.
The committee heard public comment from members of the public who asked that the controller’s audit of refuse rate-setting be linked to future hearings. After discussion, the committee voted to file the whistleblower report and to continue follow-up work on categories and outcome tracking.
