A San Francisco Chronicle editorial argues that the University of California must do more than give lip-service to the importance of whistle-blower protection laws. UC is opposing legislation that would provide that protection for its employees. -DB
San Francisco Chronicle
Editorial
May 26, 2009
The University of California is lobbying against state legislation that would provide whistle-blowers within its ranks the same legal protections as other state employees.
The compelling need for such legislation became apparent last year when the California Supreme Court was forced to dismiss a lawsuit by two former computer scientists at UC’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The court pointed to a gap in state law that prevents UC employees from seeking damages in court if the university conducted its own investigation of their retaliation claims in a timely manner. Three of the justices encouraged the California Legislature to change the law, suggesting that without an independent court review of whistle-blower claims, “the law’s protection against retaliation is illusory.”
The fairest and most straightforward solution would be to extend standard state whistle-blower protections to UC employees, which Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, proposed in SB219, awaiting a vote on the Senate floor.
Regrettably, SB219 has encountered resistance from the university, which has insisted that any claims of whistle-blower retaliation should first go through its in-house process – and only then, if the employee is unhappy with the outcome, could he or she appeal to the courts to assess the fairness of the process and whether the findings were supported by the evidence.
Whistle-blowers from other state operations have the ability to take their retaliation claims directly to court.
“The fundamental position that UC holds is that they want to continue to be judge and jury, and they want to disadvantage the claimant as much as they can,” Yee said. “I think that’s wrong.”
UC President Mark Yudof characterized himself as a strong advocate of whistle-blower protections in a meeting with The Chronicle’s editorial board last week. Yudof noted that he championed whistle-blower reforms at the University of Texas. He suggested the UC-proposed amendment to SB219 amounted to “a legal nuance.”
It’s obviously more than a nuance. It’s a double standard that disadvantages UC employees who want to come forward with evidence of waste, fraud and abuse.
At a time when the University of California is asking families to pay higher fees and pleading with legislators to sustain state support for higher education, its leadership should be doing everything in its power to demonstrate its commitment to transparency and accountability. It should be encouraging employees to step forward to identify inefficiencies and wrongdoing, to help preserve confidence in this world-class university system that is so essential to our overall economy and the upward mobility of legions of talented, hard-working Californians.
UC’s opposition to SB219 undermines a noble cause at a precarious moment when every state dollar is coming under scrutiny.
Senators who want to support and advance the UC mission should vote yes on SB219.
© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.