Now the U.S. Justice Department has concluded that there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing that it is going to review SFPD and its history. Yahoo News has details:

“We will examine the San Francisco Police Department’s current operational policies, training practices and accountability systems, and help identify key areas for improvement going forward,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.

 

At the conclusion of the review, the Justice Department will give San Francisco police a list of best practices it can follow to ensure fairness in its interactions with citizens.

 

San Francisco police will then report back to the Justice Department on a periodic basis to show it is following the practices, a Justice Department official said.

The ACLU of Northern California and African American activists welcomed the announcement.

Officers asked to pledge not to be racists

Meanwhile, San Francisco police are also being called out, in essence, by their chief, who is asking them to pledge to not act like racists, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

“People that would use racial epithets, slurs and things like that clearly fall below the minimum standard of being a police officer,” Police Chief Greg Suhr [said]. “A cop needs to show character and point that out.”

Suhr noted that a website — notonmywatchsfpd.org — had been launched to emphasize what he expects out of his officers. This is from its “About” description:

SFPD created the Not On My Watch initiative … in an effort to improve relationships between police officers and the diverse communities they serve.

 

“This first-of-its-kind pledge is about recognizing that we need to guard against our own implicit biases,” said SFPD Chief Greg Suhr, “and to call out anyone who is intolerant or bigoted.”

 

Since 2011, SFPD policy has prohibited biased policing. The inspiration for the Not On My Watch project came from SFPD Sergeant Yulanda Williams, president of Officers for Justice. “It tells everyone that I am going to treat them with dignity and respect,” said Sgt. Williams. “And at the same time, we’re encouraging them to trust us, respect us and allow us to help them by delivering the type of police service that makes for viable, stable communities.”

Selling police chief as idealist may prove difficult

This initiative may play well in San Francisco and nationallly, but Suhr’s critics will question his sincerity and idealism. He’s had to deal with two rounds of harsh news coverage since last summer.

The city had to spend nearly $1.5 million to defend him from a whistleblower’s lawsuit with embarrassing allegations and persuasive evidence that Suhr mishandled a domestic violence case to help a friend.

He’s also accused of giving special breaks to a family friend in his attempt to secure a job as a San Francisco officer.

Overtime for nannies and domestic workers

The “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights,” Assembly Bill 241, by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, “would specially regulate the wages, hours, and working conditions of domestic work employees,” according to the bill’s language. And it would “include childcare providers, caregivers of people with disabilities, sick, convalescing, or elderly persons, house cleaners, housekeepers, maids, and other household occupations.”

It also would mandate pay for “travel time spent by a personal attendant” and regulate “accommodations for a domestic work employee who is required to sleep in a private household.”

In 2010, the State Legislature passed a Resolution for a Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which spawned a study by UCLA on the issue. What was promised in the Legislature as just a resolution recognizing this group of the workforce morphed into AB241.

According to Ammiano:

“The campaign to adopt a California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights attempts to address one core principle: domestic workers deserve equal treatment under the law. Unfortunately, California suffers from a unique and confounding contradiction: Domestic workers who care for property such as landscaping or housekeeping are generally entitled to overtime. Those domestic workers who care for children, the infirm, the elderly, and those with disabilities do not.”

The California Chamber of Commerce explained its opposition:

“The wage-and-hour burden that AB241 creates on individual homeowners as well as third-party employers is significant, and unprecedented. …

“Failure to comply invokes costly statutory penalties and litigation, including an employee’s right to attorneys’ fees. The detrimental impact of this potential liability will either discourage the employment of ‘domestic work employees,’ thereby increasing the unemployment rate in California; or force such homeowners and ‘third-party employers’ into the underground economy.”

Expanding the prevailing wage

Senate Bill 7 is by state Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. It expands the prevailing wage law to the projects of charter cities. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, the “prevailing wage” is determined by several factors in each sector, but is heavily dependent on wages from union contracts.

Before SB7, state law already mandated that the prevailing wage be paid by “general law” cities, which have less autonomy than the state’s 121 charter cities. (Charter cities tend to be larger, such as Los Angeles and Anaheim.)

The California Constitution guarantees California’s charter cities broad authority over their municipal actions, including setting prevailing wage laws. According to the state Senate floor analysis of SB7, several court cases have upheld the charter cities’ rights in this matter. That’s why SB7 does not outright order charter cities to pay the prevailing wage. Instead, it withholds state funds from charter cities that refuse to pay the prevailing wage.

According to an analysis by the Haight Brown & Bonesteel law firm, “The fight about SB7 will likely now turn to the courts given the constitutional ramifications of the legislation.”

If SB7 remains the law, charter cities might have to forego important infrastructure projects because of higher costs. The League of California Cities had asked Governor Brown to veto the bill, noting that “using political leverage to punish those exercising rights provided by the Constitution is unjust.”

The bill was sponsored by the powerful State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO, which would benefit from SB7’s punishment of construction firms using non-union labor. SBCTC President Robbie Hunter explained why he thought the bill was needed:

“Low-ball contractors have used charter cities as a loophole to get around the state policy of requiring prevailing wage on public works projects. SB7 makes it clear that such tactics are not in the best interest of California, and cities who permit these substandard wages on their projects won’t be rewarded with state funds.”

Prevailing wage in private businesses

SB54 is by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. It expands the payment of prevailing wages to privately financed refinery construction projects. “We have people dying in the refineries,” said Hancock at a September hearing. “We need a skilled work force, they need to be trained in a state-accredited program.”

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, explained industry opposition:

“Despite a strong and vocal opposition from oil industry workers, small businesses, labor, safety officials, and regional newspapers, California Governor Jerry Brown yesterday [Oct. 13, 2013] signed into law SB54. The bill requires refiners to pay prevailing wages to contract workers and restricts their ability to hire qualified employees to a limited pool of applicants.”

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, said at the September hearing.

“This bill is going to make it harder to build another refinery in California. We need at least two more. If we want to lower gas prices for the average hard-working Californian, we need to get off the backs of those who are refining the fuels that operate the vast majority of vehicles in this state. This is the government coming in and interfering in the name of safety in a private contract. We need to make it easier for those who are willing to go through the inordinate amount of regulation we already have on them to put a refinery in to refine the special fuels we use in California. We need more refineries. This is not going to add refineries.”

Hancock’s response to these objections, according to the state Senate floor analysis of SB54:

“[T]he author’s office states that ensuring that outside contractors that work at chemical refineries have properly trained workers through approved apprenticeship programs will reduce public health and safety risks. The author’s office states that outside contractors at these facilities should be using a qualified workforce, not unskilled, low-wage workers hired off the street or brought in from other states to save money.”

New whistle-blower protections

SB496 is by Sen. Rod Wright, D-Los Angeles. Starting Jan. 1, employers will be prohibited from engaging in anticipatory retaliation, or taking action against an employee based on the belief he or she might report suspected illegal activity. The new law also expands employee whistleblower protections to prohibit retaliation by any person acting on behalf of the employer.

And it protects employees who disclose, or may disclose, information regarding alleged violations “to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation.” The bill was passed unopposed in both the state Senate and the Assembly.

Explained attorney Laura Reathaford, writing for the Society of Human Resource Management:

“Because a violation of California’s general whistle-blower statute can have serious consequences for employers — not the least of which are civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation — California employers would be well advised to update their whistle-blower protection policies to reflect the changes effected by SB496 and to train managers and supervisors about the new retaliation provisions applicable to their conduct. Of particular concern to employers should be the fact that they can now be found liable for ‘anticipatory retaliation’ if they, or any person acting on their behalf, take adverse action against an employee based on the mere belief that the employee has disclosed or might disclose information about a reasonably-believed violation of federal, state, or local law.”

By KATY GRIMES

So much for open government.

AB 1378 would have provided legislative staffers the same safeguards that nearly all other state employees receive after blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing. But on Thursday, it was muzzled by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, a move that looked retaliatory.

Previously, AB 1378 passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week unanimously. So why was it then later killed in the Appropriations Committee. The bill’s author was Assemblyman Anthony Portantino,  D-La Canada. He explained that, when state employees do the right thing and expose waste, fraud and abuse, they are protected from retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act.

However, there are no protections for California’s Capitol staff should they decide to blow the whistle on fraud. That’s because California whistleblower law specifically exempts employees of the Legislature.

Portantino was on a plane and unavailable after the hearing, but his office released his statement to the media. “I am disappointed that the Assembly Appropriations Committee chose to kill Whistleblower Protection in the State Capitol,” said Portantino.“Every other state agency has protections in place for folks who bring forward allegations of waste fraud and abuse. Today’s action continues a self-serving exemption that undermines the public’s confidence and trust. Late opposition to AB 1378 was unfortunate since the measure had previously been supported unanimously in policy committee. I will continue to bring forward proposals to seek openness and transparency in California government.”

Howle Opposition

Late opposition to the bill came from California State Auditor Elaine Howle. Last week during the lengthy Judiciary Committee hearing, no opposition came from the auditor’s office, and Portantino’s bill sailed through the Judiciary Committee after very spirited debate.

Howle is involved because, under the existing Whistleblower Protection Act, the auditor’s office accepts complaints from state employees who wish to report any action within government that “violates the law, is wasteful, or involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency.” But in a last minute stratagem, it appeared that Howle decided to oppose AB 1378.

Portantino reported that he was only notified about the auditor’s opposition Wednesday evening, the night before the committee hearing. “AB 1378 called for legislative employees to be given legal protection from reprisals for reporting government wrongdoing such as waste or abuse,” the Portantino statement explained. “Specifically, AB 1378 would have required the Rules Committees of both the Assembly and Senate to designate an officer to receive written complaints and the State Auditor would then investigate those complaints. Those found guilty of retaliation faced fines up to $10,000 and a year in county jail.”

Howle told the committee Thursday that her agency could not absorb the estimated $400,000 it would cost to investigate the more than 2,000 anticipated legislative whistleblower complaints if the legislative staff exemption was lifted.

But in August 2010, the Legislature passed AB 1749, giving 22,000 state trial court employees protection from retaliation for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the state’s court system. The auditor did not object at that time, nor was any additional cost ascribedto the 22,000 potential whistleblower complaints for judicial employees.

Whistleblower Experience

Portantino knows what retaliation looks and feels like after blowing a whistle on colleagues. In August 2011, Portantino confronted the Assembly for not complying with the state-required performance audit of the Assembly.

Portantino then introduced legislation to force the Assembly and Senate to comply with the California Public Records Act, which makes access to records much easier. But that bill was killed. In a retaliatory move, the Assembly Rules Committee one-upped Portantino when it released member-by-member spending records, incorrectly listing Portantino as the top Assembly spender.

However, he subsequently proved that the records were not accurate and that his office was actually 37th in spending, of all of the 80 Assembly members. And it finally took an order from Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley before the Assembly released its own real spending records.

Portantino’s office said that the Assemblyman will be introducing another whistleblower bill, with a new, independent agency as the recipient for complaints.