Laserfiche WebLink
City employees who report improper governmental activity shall be protected <br /> from retaliation in the form of any adverse personnel action by any City <br /> employee, appointed or elected official, against another who reports <br /> corruption, criminal activity, conflict of interest, mismanagement or gross <br /> waste of public funds or resources. <br /> <br /> Any City of Eugene employee, appointed and elected officials, may report a <br /> suspected improper governmental activity through the Whistle Blower <br /> Program." The Whistle Blower Program shaft provide an avenue for City <br /> employees, appointed and elected officials, to report or testify on suspected <br /> improper governmental activity. The Whistle Blower Program shaft not <br /> include personnel actions for which other remedies exist, such as employee <br /> grievances. <br /> <br /> Improper governmental activity is defined as any action by an employee, <br /> appointed or elected official, undertaken in the performance of duties which <br /> 1) results in mismanagement or gross waste of public funds or resources; 2) <br /> is in violation of federal, state, county, or city law or rule, if the violation is not <br /> merely technical or of a minimum nature; 3) is of substantial and specific <br /> danger to the public health or safety; and 4) results in expenditures of public <br /> funds or significant policy decisions occurring under false pretense. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought it important to articulate in the charter that the City encouraged honesty, <br />transparency, and openness, and to reassure employees that they can be honest and open <br />without jeopardizing their livelihood. She noted that the proposed amendment did not address <br />personnel issues governed by a grievance process, and was specific to the definition of improper <br />activity. An implementing ordinance would address mechanics such as provisions for anonymity, <br />penalties for retaliation, reporting processes, etc. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr was not able to support the motion as a charter amendment. He asked if such issues <br />were addressed by the City's bargaining agreements with its unions. Mr. Carlson did not know. <br />There were provisions related to grievances. Mr. Farr was unsure the charter was the place for <br />the program in question. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion because the council was not attempting to craft final language at <br />this time. He thought that such a charter provision would be another way of demonstrating <br />openness and integrity at the local government level. He pointed out to Mr. Fart that the provision <br />would apply to all employees and officials, not just those in bargaining units. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if there was a need for such a provision. He asked if there had been a <br />problem, noting that the CCRC had not raised the issue. Mr. Carlson said that he had not seen a <br />problem in his tenure as City Manager pro tern. Mr. Meisner questioned the need for the provision <br />in light of the lack of citizen demand or demonstrated need. <br />Mr. Pap8 perceived no need for the proposed provision, and pointed out that there were <br />protections for whistle blowers provided by State and federal law. Mr. Carlson concurred. Mr. <br />Pap8 asked Ms. Bettman how her proposal differentiated from State law. Ms. Bettman pointed out <br />that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) had enabling provisions allowing cities to implement their <br />own whistle blower provisions if consistent with State law. Many of the ORS provisions were <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 2002 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />