Stronger protections proposed for state employees reporting waste, fraud

Current state statute provides protections for so-called “whistleblowers” who report a violation or suspected violation of law or refuse to participate in an activity they believe to be illegal.

Reporting on issues of waste, fraud or abuse could be explicitly added to that statute.

HF23 would add protections to “a public employee, (who) in good faith, reports gross mismanagement or a gross waste of funds to the employer, any governmental body, law enforcement official, the legislative auditor, a member of the legislature, or a constitutional officer.”

Approved, as amended, by the House State Government Finance and Policy Committee Tuesday on a 7-6 party-line vote, the bill’s next stop is the House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy Committee.

Rep. Kristin Robbins (R-Maple Grove) sponsors the bill. She said state employees are “coming out of the woodwork” to report to her and the House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee she chairs with things they have seen.

“We owe it to our hard-working state workers to provide this protection,” she said.

Devin Bruce, director of legislative and political affairs at the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, appreciates the bill but has a few concerns as it is now drafted.

“It only covers state employees in the classified service and therefore creates additional tiering between unclassified and classified in state programs as well as differences between state employees and other public employees in local municipalities, schools, etc.,” he said.

He requested an amendment, already added to the Senate companion bill, be tacked on to ensure all levels of employees in all levels of government are covered. Robbins said work is underway to address the classification issue.

Additional concern was expressed that the bill does not ensure that all private data will not become public.

“I would certainly hate for any public employee … who thinks they have additional protections for sharing information that may be classified, private or nonpublic or might be proprietary,” Bruce said.

Robbins believes state privacy and data practices issues need to be looked at but would best be done in a separate bill.