City & County of San Francisco Office of the Controller Whistleblower Program Update Review of Activities and Initiatives Presentation to Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee November 15, 2016 1
Whistleblower Program Authority The authority for Whistleblower Program investigations is derived from statute and regulation: – California Government Code, Section 53087.6 – San Francisco Charter, Appendix F – San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Article IV 2
Matters Appropriate for Investigation The Whistleblower Program shall investigate or otherwise attempt to resolve complaints concerning: – The misuse of city funds – Improper activities by city officers and employees. – Deficiencies in the quality and delivery of government services – Wasteful and inefficient government practices 3
Referral of Certain Complaints The Whistleblower Program shall refer complaints that: – Another city department is required by federal, state, or local law to adjudicate – May be resolved through a grievance mechanism established by bargaining unit or contract – Involve violations of criminal law – Are subject to an existing investigation – Allege violations of governmental ethics laws 4
Whistleblower Program Importance and Benefits • A fraud hotline is a critical internal control that is often noted as an operating and credit rating strength when well implemented by a municipality • The Whistleblower Program allows complaints to be submitted anonymously and confidentially • Whistleblower Program investigations: – Stop improper conduct and prevent further violations – Reveal relevant facts so that management can make a fully informed decision on how best to proceed 5
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Complaint Activity • Complaints Open at July 1, 2015 53 • Complaints Received in Fiscal Year 2015-16 325 • Complaints Closed in Fiscal Year 2015-16 309 • Complaints Open at July 1, 2016 69 6
Complaints Received By Quarter 350 300 101 95 77 250 89 Q4 200 68 75 Q3 72 79 150 Q2 73 72 63 100 Q1 51 50 103 79 80 77 73 0 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 7
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Disposition of 309 Closed Complaints 250 221 200 150 100 31 50 26 23 8 0 Investigated and Referred to Closed without Merged with Outside of closed department with investigation; previous Whistleblower Charter unable complaint under Program jurisdiction to investigate with original tracking jurisdiction the number information given 8
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Investigated and Closed by Department 9
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Age of 309 Complaints Closed 140 121 120 113 100 80 60 51 40 20 13 6 5 0 30 Days or 31-90 Days 91-180 Days 181-270 Days 271-360 Days More Than Less 360 Days 10
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Complaint Dispositions • Of the 221 complaints investigated and closed, 81 (37 percent) led to a corrective or preventive action • Whistleblower Program investigations resulted in: – The proposed termination of an employee who abused their supervisory authority, intimidated other employees, and engaged in a pervasive pattern of making discriminatory comments. – A ten-day suspension of an employee who participated in decisions involving family members. – The resignation of an employee who directed customers to use and make cash payments to a family member’s business. 11
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Age of 69 Complaints Open at July 1, 2016 1 1 9 30 Days or Less 31-90 Days 91-180 Days 40 18 181-270 Days 271-360 Days 12
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Initiatives The Whistleblower Program published bulletins to make employees aware of the red flags associated with the costly occupational frauds of payroll schemes, inventory theft, and bid rigging: 13
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Initiatives As part of the effort to publicize and promote itself to city employees and residents, the Whistleblower Program published an on-demand outreach video. The video is available on YouTube. The Whistleblower Program asked departments to incorporate the video in their new employee orientation programs. 14
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Initiatives In fiscal year 2015-16 the Whistleblower Program hosted webinars featuring speakers from the: – City of San Diego (Marketing Your Fraud Hotline) City of Austin – (How Audits Become Investigations) County of Los Angeles – (Bid Rigging in the Government Sector) – U.S. Government Accountability Office (Using GAO’s Fraud Risk Management Framework) 15
Recommend
More recommend
