Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Whistleblower Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civil grand jury urges changes to San Francisco’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance; committee calls for further analysis
Summary
A civil grand jury concluded the city’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance is too narrow and lacks remedies; the Ethics Commission was receptive but the committee decided many recommendations require further analysis and coordinated legislative work.
The Government Audit & Oversight Committee on Sept. 3 heard a civil grand jury report concluding that the city’s Whistleblower Protection Ordinance (WPO) is too narrow, provides little remedy for employees who face retaliation and places an initial burden of proof on complainants that discourages complaints. Phil Reid, principal writer of the grand jury report, told the committee the ordinance has never resulted in a remedy restoring a retaliated employee and recommended expanding coverage, revising burden of proof rules, and authorizing the Ethics Commission to order cancellation of retaliatory job actions.
Jesse Menardi, acting director of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, said the commission found the grand jury report "well written" and will provide a progress report within six months. Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the committee the existing ordinance complies with the Charter but agreed the Board may amend it consistent with the charter mandate to enact and maintain a whistleblower protection law.
Public commenters included current and former whistleblowers who urged statutory changes and stronger remedies; one commenter cited multimillion‑dollar settlements that, they said, followed alleged retaliation. Another commenter, Dr. Derek Kerr, argued against the proposed changes and said zero of roughly 60 Ethics Commission retaliation complaints had been sustained over 20 years.
Committee members expressed concern that some recommendations need precise definitions (for example, what constitutes an "oral complaint") and legal and collective‑bargaining implications (reinstatement, remedies) need analysis. The committee opted in many cases for "will not be implemented" or "requires further analysis" responses in its official reply to the grand jury, while committing to continue work with the Ethics Commission and possibly pursue legislative changes later. The committee filed the hearing and forwarded its responses to the full Board.
