HB2617 whistleblowers; exemptions

Year 2001 bill to protect University whistle-blowers

 

language to be removed from current law is shown in [square brackets]

language to be added to the current law is shown in ALL CAPS

 

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

 ¦                                            REFERENCE TITLE: whistleblowers; exemptions  ¦

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

 ¦                                                                                       ¦

 ¦                                                                                       ¦

 ¦                                                                                       ¦

 ¦ State of Arizona                                                                      ¦

 ¦ House of Representatives                                                              ¦

 ¦ Forty-fifth Legislature                                                               ¦

 ¦ First Regular Session                                                                 ¦

 ¦ 2001                                                                                  ¦

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

 ¦                                       HB 2617                                         ¦

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

 ¦                                    Introduced by                                      ¦

 ¦  Representatives Johnson, Laughter, Brimhall, Cardamone, O'Halleran, Senators Petersen, ¦

 ¦  Bowers: Representatives Camarot, Clark, Cooley, Graf, Gray, Gullett, Hanson, Loredo,  ¦

 ¦  Lugo, Miranda, Nelson, Poelstra, Sedillo, Somers, Tom, Senators Hartley, Richardson  ¦

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

 

 

AN ACT

 

AMENDING SECTION 38-533, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO DISCLOSURE

OF INFORMATION BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.

 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

 

Section 1. Section 38-533, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

 

38-533. Exemptions

 

This article does not apply to an employee or former employee of a state university or the ARIZONA

board of regents [which] THAT has in effect at the time a personnel action is taken against the employee a

rule, POLICY or provision for the protection of its employees from reprisal for the disclosure of

information to a public body. [, except that the employee or former employee may appeal the final

administrative decision to the superior court as provided in title 12, chapter 7, article 6. Notwithstanding

section 12-910, an employee or former employee who has been dismissed is entitled to a trial de novo in

superior court.] THE INTERNAL RULE, POLICY OR PROVISION SHALL CONTAIN ALL

ELEMENTS, DEFINITIONS AND REMEDIES OF THIS ARTICLE, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF

AN EMPLOYEE TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE SPECIFIC APPEAL

PROCESS AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE OR FORMER

EMPLOYEE TO APPEAL TO THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD. THE RULE, POLICY OR

PROVISION SHALL PRESCRIBE REASONABLE TIME LIMITS, UP TO NINETY DAYS, FOR

THE COMPLETION OF THE UNIVERSITY PROCEDURE AND THE PUBLIC BODY FOR

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OF PUBLIC CONCERN SHALL INCLUDE THE DEANS

AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY. THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ALSO

SHALL HAVE IN PLACE A RULE OR PROVISION ALLOWING AN EMPLOYEE OR FORMER

EMPLOYEE WHO IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE FINAL DECISION OF THE UNIVERSITY TO

HAVE A HEARING CONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER CHOSEN BY

MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES. THE PARTIES EQUALLY SHALL BEAR THE

COSTS OF THE ARBITRATION UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE IS THE PREVAILING PARTY, IN

WHICH CASE THE UNIVERSITY ENTIRELY SHALL BEAR THE COSTS. AN EMPLOYEE OR

FORMER EMPLOYEE AGAINST WHOM A PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE IS

COMMITTED MAY RECOVER ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, BACK PAY, GENERAL AND

SPECIAL DAMAGES AND FULL REINSTATEMENT FOR ANY REPRISAL RESULTING FROM

THE PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE. THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE

FINAL DECISIONS REGARDING THE AWARD OF TENURE OR CONTINUING STATUS BUT

HAS THE POWER TO ORDER THAT THESE DECISIONS BE MADE BY A COMMITTEE OF

QUALIFIED FACULTY MEMBERS FROM WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE INSTITUTION

CONSISTING OF TWO MEMBERS CHOSEN BY THE UNIVERSITY, TWO MEMBERS

CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE, AND ONE MEMBER CHOSEN BY

THE APPOINTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND THE EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE

ACTING JOINTLY. THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN DECISION TO

THE PARTIES AND THE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW. THE EMPLOYEE OR

FORMER EMPLOYEE AGAINST WHOM A PROHIBITED PERSONNEL PRACTICE IS

ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED MAY APPEAL THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO

THE SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6.

NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 12-910, AN APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT UNDER

THIS SECTION SHALL BE TRIED DE NOVO.