One of the most common complaints I've heard sounds something like this... The HelpLine is nothing more than a "tattle-" or "whine-line." First of all, let me tell you that this has not been my experience at all. Have I never seen the reporting mechanisms used like this? Sure. I've received calls complaining about parking. I've received emails about a co-worker who leaves dirty dishes in the sink and I've seen web reports about an employee who wears too much perfume. Thankfully, these kind of calls and reports are extremely...and I mean EXTREMELY... rare. I've received far more reports about legitimate concerns...about things that, if they went unreported, could have disastrous results.

If you still don't believe me, look at our data here at UVM. Our HelpLine has received 73 reports since it's inception in 2009. Out of those 73, 25 were unsubstantiated or not enough information was provided to be able to fully investigate; 72% of the unsubstantiated reports were made anonymously. That's just over 3 unsubstantiated anonymous reports per year. As in three. This has been my experience everywhere I've worked...not just here. The numbers just do not support the misconception that people misuse the reporting mechanisms, report excessively, or that they use the HelpLine as nothing more than an outlet for tattle-tailing or whining. Quite on the contrary... the majority of reports are made because the concerns are real.

When reports are made in bad faith (for example, it's dishonest or untrue), that report is, by itself, a violation of your Code of Conduct. In fact, your Code says, "Allegations of suspected violations made in bad faith may give rise to disciplinary action..." Bad faith reports also go against our UVM values. In Our Common Ground under Integrity, it says in part, "We value fairness, straightforward conduct, adherence to the facts, and sincerity." It says, "As stewards of the University of Vermont, we are honest and ethical in all responsibilities entrusted to us." Bad faith reports are not tolerated. This is VERY different from a report that is made in good faith but, after investigation, it is determined that a violation did not occur. We call these reports "unsubstantiated" rather than "bad faith." When the person making the report does so out of legitimate concern and honesty, when that person reports the facts and it turns out that there wasn't any wrongdoing, that's not a bad faith report. That is an unsubstantiated report. And, those reports we welcome. We also receive requests for guidance on difficult situations or when employees are faced with ethical dilemmas. The HelpLine is not just for reporting suspected wrongdoing. It's also a resource that employees and faculty can use to get additional information or clarification.

The thought that employees just continually call the HelpLine anonymously every time they disagree with a management directive or decision is simply false. I'm going to ask managers and supervisors to think about how many times in a day, week or month that someone comes to you with a concern or a problem. Now, compare this to the 3 reports per year mentioned under myth #2. Employees are not circumventing chains of command. They are given, however, the ability to report anonymously or elsewhere when and if they feel they need an alternative or if they feel their initial report to management is not addressed.

Also, when we receive a report in the compliance office, we are going to do some level of investigation. While there are many factors that go in to determining the investigation process, how deep the investigation goes depends on the severity of the issue, how much information we have, what we've learned at the early stages, etc.

When an investigation hits a certain point, we often need to interview others in that department. These interviews often include management or someone from leadership. When we do these interviews, managers/leaders are rarely unaware of the concern. Even when a report is made anonymously, the issues raised often do not come completely out of left field. Employees, for the most part, are not circumventing existing chains of command. More often, they are using the HelpLine because they're not sure where to go or because they feel they don't have another choice. We encourage staff to use existing chains of command whenever possible. But, when that isn't possible...for whatever reason...they need an alternative.

Why do people report anonymously? One reason is because of a fear of retaliation. According to a 2013 national survey conducted by the Ethics & Compliance Initiative, 34% of those who declined to report said they feared payback from senior leadership, 30% worried about retaliation from a supervisor and 24% said their co-workers might react against them. It is a legitimate concern for workers in all industries across the United States. While these are national statistics, our numbers here at UVM are in the same ballpark. Just under a quarter of respondents to our annual compliance survey (fall, 2015) said they had low confidence that they would be protected from retaliation if they reported a violation.

I think that statistic by itself is very telling. "Trust" and "fear of retaliation" do not go hand in hand. It begs the question...if someone fears retaliation, is the trust really there to begin with?

We are all different in our comfort level when it comes to reporting real or perceived wrongdoing. Everyone comes to the table with different skill sets, different personal histories and different comfort levels. This should not prevent someone from having a voice. Again, I turn to the three reports identified under Myth #2. People are not misusing the HelpLine. They are not turning to it routinely just to stir up problems or trouble. But, allowing for anonymous reporting gives everyone a voice regardless of their personal history or background. And, it gives the University the ability to investigate suspected wrongdoing and, as a result, reduce the risk of a government agency or law enforcement finding it first.

Whether or not you think our HelpLine is a good idea, a bad idea or you fall somewhere in the middle, the risk of not having one is too great. Employees at all levels need a place to turn without the fear of retaliation. Your HelpLine is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to all staff and all faculty. You always have a place to go if you suspect wrongdoing. You have someone to reach out to if you have questions about whether your concern really is wrongdoing or not. You have a place available at any time from any where if you are just not sure where to go for answers. You have a way to do all this anonymously if, for any reason, you need to.

I said earlier that I believe employees should be encouraged to use existing chains of command whenever possible. Employees should also feel comfortable identifying themselves when they report. But if, for whatever reason, you feel you can't use existing chains of command, your concerns still need to be heard. Even the staunchest skeptic should realize that it's better for us to know about something and correct it before an outside agency like the government or law enforcement discovers it.

At UVM, these policies all contain non-retaliation clauses:

• Grievance Policy for Non-Represented Staff (PDF)
• Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement (PDF)
• Code of Business Conduct (PDF)
• Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct Policy (PDF)
• Personal Safety and Security (PDF)
• Laboratory Health and Safety (PDF)
• Procedural Guidelines for Disability Accommodation for Employees and Applicants for Employment (PDF)
• Misconduct in Research Policy (PDF)
• Conflicts of Interest and Conflict of Commitment (PDF)

In addition to our own policies, there are laws, government departments and programs that provide whistleblower protections. They are too numerous to list but they include the following:

• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (opens in new window)
• OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program (opens in new window)
• Other Federal Laws (opens in new window) including, but not limited to: The Civil Rights Act, the False Claims Act, the Affordable Care Act, The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Americans with Disabilities Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act
• H.863 (PDF opens in new window): This is a VT state law signed last summer that provides whistleblower protections.

Here's the thing. If you ever have knowledge of wrongdoing or of a violation of a law, act, statute, regulation or University policy, let someone know. There is definitely protection under UVM policy and, as you can see, there is most likely protection under either federal law, state law, or both. Use existing chains of command. If you are uncomfortable for whatever reason doing so, contact the compliance office or use the Ethics and Compliance Reporting and HelpLine (opens in new window). The bottom line is that it is critical that you tell someone. You will be protected from retaliation if you do.

If you have filed a report and feel that you have been retaliated against, contact the Compliance Office (802-656-3086), the Office of General Counsel (802-656-1298) or the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (802-656-3368). At the University of Vermont, retaliation will not be tolerated.

The anonymous letter was received in the Compliance Office. There was no identifying information nor was there any way for us to identify the reporter. The report had to do with an issue that had previously been reported to this office, was investigated, and for which corrective action was taken. We looked into the matter to ensure that the prior corrective action was implemented. We verified that it had and, while we still had questions, we closed the matter since we did not have any additional information nor did we have a way to ask questions.

Had the anonymous report been made through the Ethics and Compliance Reporting & HelpLine, the investigation would have happened more like this...

The report is received in the Compliance Office. There was no identifying information nor was there any way for us to identify the reporter. The report had to do with an issue that had previously been reported to this office, was investigated, and for which corrective action was taken. We would have looked into the matter to ensure that the prior corrective action was implemented. We would have had additional questions. We would have been able to post additional questions in the online reporting system. The person who made the report could go back into the online report and respond to those questions. All without us ever knowing who that person is. We would have asked for additional details on the matter if it was outside the scope of the original corrective action plan.

All of this would have been posted and the reporter would be able to go online or call, provide the report number and the PIN number and answer the questions anonymously. The investigation would continue like this (we would ask questions and the reporter would be able to respond through the HelpLine system using the PIN #) until we had enough information to either substantiate the report or to show that the report was unsubstantiated. We would then be able to communicate back to the reporter so he/she knew that the issue was addressed.

While both methods of reporting can allow the reporter to remain anonymous and while this office will accept all reports, using the HelpLine allows us to perform a much more thorough investigation and to communicate back to the reporter so he/she has some level of comfort that the issue was addressed. Otherwise, the reporter may never know what happened.