Code 315

Definitions

"Improper governmental action" means any action by a SEDC employee:

1. That is undertaken in the performance of the employee's official duties, whether or not the action is within the scope of the employee's employment; and

2. That is in violation of any federal, state, or local law or rule, is an abuse of authority, is of substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety or is a gross waste of public funds.

Reporting Fraud or Abuse

Employees who become aware of improper governmental actions should raise the issue first with the Executive Director. If requested by the Director, the employee shall submit a written report stating in detail the basis for the employee's belief that an improper governmental action has occurred. Where the employee reasonably believes the improper governmental action involves the Executive Director, the employee may raise the issue directly with the Chair of the SEDC Executive Board. Employees may also utilize the Fraud Hotline at the Utah State Board of Education: (801) 538-7813 or audit@schools.utah.gov.

The Executive Director shall take prompt action to assist SEDC in properly investigating the report of improper governmental action. SEDC officers and employees involved in the investigation shall keep the identity of reporting employees confidential to the extent possible under law, unless the employee authorizes the disclosure of his or her identity in writing. After an investigation has been completed, the employee reporting the improper governmental action shall be advised of a summary of the results of the investigation, except that personnel actions taken as a result of the investigation may be kept confidential.

SEDC employees may report information about improper governmental action directly to the Utah State Board of Education if the employee reasonably believes that an adequate investigation was not undertaken to determine whether an improper governmental action occurred, or that insufficient action has been taken to address the improper governmental action or that for other reasons the improper governmental action is likely to recur.

SEDC employees who fail to make a good-faith attempt to follow procedures in reporting improper governmental action shall not receive the protections provided by SEDC in these procedures.

Complaints, Investigations, Review and Enforcement

A. Any person may file a complaint alleging a violation of this policy.

B. The complaint shall be in writing and shall, except as described in section C below, be signed by the complainant. The written complaint should state the nature of the alleged violation(s), the date(s), time and place of each occurrence, and name of the person(s)

charged with the violation(s). The complaint shall be filed with the Executive Director who shall provide a copy to the person charged with a violation. The complainant shall provide the Executive Director with all available documentation or other evidence to demonstrate a reason for believing that a violation has occurred.

C. This policy is intended to protect employees who choose to come forward in good faith with complaints about governmental actions and conduct of SEDC employees. Anonymous complaints have the potential to subject the person who is the subject of the complaint to an investigation that may, at the least, cause stress and embarrassment, and may, at most, result in discipline or termination of employment. SEDC is reluctant to begin an investigation based on an anonymous complaint due to the fact that evidence will be difficult to obtain and verify, and it will be impossible to assess the complainant's credibility. Complainants and whistleblowers have protection from retaliation under SEDC policy. A thorough investigation of complaints is SEDC’s goal. It may not be possible to conduct a thorough investigation when a complainant remains anonymous. Therefore, SEDC reserves the right to decline to investigate any complaint that is provided anonymously.

If a complaint is received anonymously it shall be directed to the Executive Director for a recommendation on the processing of the complaint. Upon review of the complaint, the Executive Director will recommend to the Audit Committee/Executive Board either that the complaint has no merit or that it should be investigated. Such a recommendation will be made within ten (10) days of receipt of the complaint, if possible. Upon receipt of the Executive Director’s recommendation the Audit Committee/Executive Board shall make the final determination on whether or not to continue the investigation, end the investigation, or refer the matter to an outside entity.

D. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a complaint, the Executive Director or another person appointed by the Audit Committee shall conduct a preliminary investigation. If the Executive Director or a member of the Executive Board or the are implicated in the complaint, the remaining Executive Board members will determine an independent person who will conduct the investigation. Criminal allegations will be referred to the proper law enforcement agency.

E. If the Executive Director determines, after preliminary investigation, that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, the Executive Director shall advise the Audit Committee/Executive Board to dismiss the complaint. If the Audit Committee/Executive Board does dismiss the complaint, it shall do so in writing, setting forth the facts and provisions of law upon which the dismissal is based, and shall provide a copy of the written dismissal to the complainant and to the person charged with the violation.

Whistleblower Protection

Utah Code § 67-21-3 prohibits public employers from taking adverse action against their employees for reporting in good faith government waste or violations of law to the appropriate authorities. A public entity employee, public body employee, legislative employee, or judicial employee, is presumed to have communicated in good faith if they have given written notice or otherwise formally communicated the conduct to the person in authority over the person alleged to have engaged in the illegal conduct.

Adopted November 2020