House endorses whistleblower measure

The proposal, which passed a prefatory voice vote on the House floor, would allow university employees to petition the state personnel board for grievances - an option currently not allowed under state law.

But that proposal may not be around for long, according to University of Arizona lobbyist Greg Fahey, who said the three state universities have drafted a counterproposal that would modify the existing university employee grievance systems to include independent mediation.

"We are trying to offer a compromise that would change the existing system but not put an unconstitutional statute into law," Fahey said.

Questions remain as to whether the whistleblower protection measure, as it stands, would conflict with the Arizona Constitution, which gives the Arizona Board of Regents jurisdiction over universities.

"The state personnel board is not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents," said Rep. Marion Pickens, D-Tucson, who spoke against the bill during floor debate yesterday.

"All three universities are willing to work with (bill sponsor) Mrs. Jarrett, look at that process and enact some sort of arbitration process," Pickens added.

Lawmakers gave attention to the whistleblower question after some university employees complained and later testified that the existing employee grievance system is inadequate. Each cited alleged reprisals when they reported improprieties to university administrators.

According to Fahey, the counterproposal was as yet incomplete, but could involve an independent personnel board or independent binding arbitration. Both of these would remain under Board of Regents jurisdiction and avoid the constitutional question, Fahey said.

"We've committed to have a meeting with all the major players in this," Fahey said, adding the rendezvous was to be for yesterday afternoon but was canceled due to scheduling conflicts.

"We're still talking and trying to work it out," he added.

UA professor Carol Bernstein, who has lobbied hard for the current whistleblower measure, said the universities' counterproposal would be ineffective.

"It's a very bad thing from my perspective," she said. "It would be worthless."

Bernstein, a UA immunology and neurology professor who heads the American Association of University Professors in Arizona, said the idea of binding arbitration was better than nothing, but would not be the same as the state personnel board option.

"When there are reprisals that prevent a state organization from working properly, that really should go to an independent judicial process," Bernstein said, adding she would contest any proposal that keeps jurisdiction with the Board of Regents.

"That's not as good as a state personnel board," Bernstein said. "If you went through binding arbitration, then you still would have to go to court to enforce the arbitration."

Rep. Marilyn Jarrett, R-Mesa, said she hopes to hash out the ambiguities soon.

"I hope we can work something out so we can have an independent personnel board not beholden to the universities or Board of Regents," Jarrett said. "The universities are saying we will arrange to have an independent board."

It remains unclear whether the measure, House Bill 2182, has sufficient support to pass an upcoming House roll-call vote.