Dear Legislator

Please vote for HB2617 whistleblowers; exemptions

 

I am [name] and am a member of [group].  I am well [some very positive comment about yourself, or a few sentences, showing good status in society].

 

 HB2617 should be supported because [give reasons]

 

Sincerely,

[name, address and phone]  [if from outside of Arizona, just give name]

----------------------------------------------------

 

Possible reasons to use parts of, quote from, or adapt:

 

Text # 1

 

In all states, there is a strong pattern of reprisals against whistle-blowers at public universities, community colleges and within state public agencies, because all laws giving state level protection for whistle-blowers are weak.  Whistle-blower protection has greatly improved, however, at the Federal level, with new federal statutes passed in 1994.  These new federal provisions improved the 1978-1994 record of 4 wins for federal whistle-blowers out of about 10,000 cases presented, to the post-1994 record of 25% to 33% of whistle-blowers prevailing (and achieving reversal of reprisals).  Current Arizona law has a poor record of protecting whistle-blowers, similar to the pre-1994 federal statutes.  In the 8 years from 1991 to 1998 in Arizona, only 2 out of 57 whistle-blowers who received reprisals and then appealed to the State Personnel Board received a positive ruling, and reversal of their reprisals.  The universities, because of an exemption from state law, have even weaker whistle-blower protection than for other public employees, who can appeal to the State Personnel Board.  The new Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) proposed whistle-blower protection policy does not allow whistle-blowers to appeal to an unbiased outside forum, which other state employees can do.  The ABOR policy does not allow whistle-blowers to be awarded legal fees, etc., so they can never be "made whole" if they received a reprisal, and had to appeal -- this is a right that other state employees have under even the weak Arizona Law.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Text #2

 

The universities are out of control, with respect to protection of whistle-blowers.  For instance, the Supreme Court ruling of Oct. 4, 1999 was ignored in the case of whistle-blower Glenn Johnson at the UA

 

Glenn Johnson, Director of the UA American Indian Graduate Center, brought in almost $900,000 in aid to Native American Graduate Students during 8 years in his position.  He received numerous evaluations citing his performance as "far exceeds expectations".

 

However, Mr. Johnson found that some of the funds he had brought in were missing.  He made a formal report of misappropriation of about $5,000 in funds by the UA Graduate College.  He then received reprisals in the form of a written letter of reprimand, an alleged plan to greatly diminish space allocated to his functions, an alleged proposal for demotion, and a greatly delayed evaluation.  All previous evaluations had been timely and highly positive.

 

Mr. Johnson then went through the UA's whistle blower grievance process.  In the Fall of 1999, Mr. Johnson was granted a whistle-blower hearing by an external hearing officer. When he had his hearing process in December, 1999, he was pleased with the impartiality of his hearing officer, but dismayed to find that the UA administration refused to produce documents central to understanding what had gone on, and refused to allow him legal representation.  Thus reprisals against him appeared to occur by "immaculate conception."  This violated the Oct. 4, 1999 Arizona Supreme Court decision that a university employee having a hearing must be allowed subpoena rights for documentation and witnesses, and must be allowed to be fully represented by an attorney.  All pre-hearing discovery or subpoena of documents was refused.

 

Mr. Johnson believes his future at the UA is in jeopardy because complete documentation establishing the abuses of authority, the mismanagement, and the reprisals that occurred in his case were never made available.  The only outcome of his hearing is that the written reprimand was withdrawn.  He believes that further reprisals are continuing.  In particular, he has been given severely reduced responsibilities.

 

If HB2617 were in place, cases like that of Glenn Johnson could be taken to court, and the university could be held accountable for its actions.  Currently, there is no accountability for a university administrator who acts in violation of Supreme Court rulings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Text #3

 

Here are some important facts on HB2617 whistleblowers; exemptions

 

University employees will now receive the same level of protection as other state employees.

The previous exemption for universities from the state whistle-blower protection statute led to numerous abuses of whistle-blowers on the university campuses. Although the bill will allow campuses to maintain separate rules, new internal rules on the campuses will have to meet the same standards as set for other public employees.

 

Allows recovery of attorney fees at the intermediate arbitrator level.

This allows attorneys to take cases on a contingency fee level, providing a more economical means of having a first hearing for a clearly wronged whistle-blower.

 

Provides a new ability for university employees to go to court for a trial on the facts of the case (a trial "de novo").  This will make university employee rights comparable to the rights of other state employees for a trial de novo.  This provision will allow a trial for university employees in an unbiased public forum