Pima County anti-bullying policy found to have weaknesses

pima-countyWednesday, April 16, 2014 was the one year anniversary of the vote by the Pima County Board of Supervisor to approve an anti-bullying policy to “prevent, identify and address workplace bullying,” according to the Workplace Bullying Institute.

At the time, the County joined only a handful of counties across the country to adopt a policy which recognized workplace bullying as an “intentional behavior intended to create an abusive work environment for an employee or employees,” according to the Institute. “Bullying behavior is behavior in the workplace that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and not obviously related to an employer’s legitimate business interests.

However, according to multiple sources, the policy has done little to curb the abusive and bullying behavior of Supervisor Ray Carroll. In 2013, just days before the Board first voted on the policy, a complaint had been filed by staff about Carroll, and one day before the anniversary of the policy another complaint against Carroll was filed. In between, staff members of Supervisor Ally Miller have reportedly taken the brunt of Carroll’s wrath, and at least one was brought to tears by his bullying.

Some of Miller’s staff have begun locking their doors to prevent the erratic and random verbal attacks by Carroll, and after a review of the County’s policy by the Institute, locked doors might be the only real protection they have for now.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, Pima County’s policy leaves staff vulnerable to further abuse.

In their study of the County’s policy, the Institute made note of the weaknesses of the policy:

• There is a stated requirement that employees and witnesses MUST report incidents. This will help break the silence surrounding bullying, but it also is certain to trigger retaliation for reporting. The policy inadvertently ensures retaliation of workers who might have chosen to remain silent and safe.

• HR is central to implementation of the policy. Managers must report incidents to HR. HR must investigate. HR is instructed to conduct thorough and impartial investigations. Unfortunately, the track record tells another story about HR capabilities.

• The County Administrator (CEO-equivalent) determines fate of alleged bully after HR reports results of its investigation. This is very problematic. The big boss should never have the final say. CEOs are often the executive sponsors for manager-bullies. They have a terrible record of not holding bully-friends accountable. Workers groan knowing that the bully is unlikely to suffer punishment while the target and witnesses are retaliated against.

• Though the definition refers to an abusive work environment where one can infer abuse occurs, the only corrective actions for the confirmed violator are referral to either HR Training (as if a skill deficiency is the only reason for the cruelty inflicted — wonder what training spouse abusers should take?) or to EAP (counseling by employer-paid contractors, the Employee Assistance Program).

• “Appointing Authorities will take appropriate corrective action with any employee(s) found to have violated this policy.” This is deliberately ambiguous which allows each case to be settled without following strict guidelines. One manager may discipline a confirmed offender; another may reward her or him. Adjudication on a “case-by-case” basis opens the door to favoritism, something bullied county workers know all too well.

• A confidentiality clause hypocritically allows the County to gag participants in an investigation while simultaneously mandating that they report bullying incidents. In other words, the mandate is to suffer retaliation only to have HR and the Administrator tell the bullied target and testifying witnesses that they have no right to know either the outcome of the investigation or what consequences, if any, the confirmed policy violator experienced.

For years, encounters of Carroll’s bullying behavior, was the subject of chatter among members of the business community and within his own Pima County Republican Party, however little was ever mentioned about his workplace.

Things have changed. Focused attention by the media on Supervisor Ally Miller and her growing popularity has reportedly created resentment in Carroll and some of the other Board members.

Tensions came to a boil this week. According to witnesses Carroll attacked one of Miller’s staff members during and after the Board of Supervisors’ meeting. Witnesses say that Carroll left the dais during the meeting and could be heard from just outside the Board room inexplicably screaming something at a young County staffer about a tattoo.