- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Joseph Cervantes (D) on January 28, 2009, to allow government employees to sue their employer if they are retaliated against
for reporting government corruption, testifying before a public body, or refusing to
participate in illegal activity.
- Referred to the House Health and Government Affairs Committee on January 28, 2009.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2009.
- Reported in the House on February 19, 2009.
- Passed 66 to 0 in the House on February 21, 2009, to allow government employees to sue their employer if they are retaliated against for reporting government corruption, testifying before a public body, or refusing to participate in illegal activity.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on February 21, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Public Affairs Committee on February 21, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Judicary Committee on March 6, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on March 15, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 394 (Create Whistleblower Protection Act) by Corey Davis on May 21, 2009New Mexico has recently been ranked by the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility as the worst state in the Union for whistleblower protection. A bill like this would be helpful in exposing government corruption.
This bill would enable public employees to sue their employers for retaliating against them for exposing or refusing to participate in illegal or improper activities. In cases with "special damage," this bill would enable employees who have been retaliated against to sue for two times the amount of back pay plus interest. I'm not sure what this legal jargon means, but it doesn't sound right to hold the people accountable for paying for the crimes of a corrupt official. Although the bill may help to prevent some corruption (for fear of a corrupt official not being able to threaten a would-be whistleblower with retaliatory measures), the source of the monetary reimbursement for retaliation is questionable.
This bill went through all of its designated committees without substitution, and it was passed unanimously in the House. With almost a week for action before the legislative session would end, the full Senate still couldn't bring it upon themselves to vote on. When we've got lawsuits like Frank Foy's in court - painting a picture of state officials willing to fork over $90 million in teachers' retirement funds to sham investments for a few thousand back in Richardson's pocket - it's crucial to come up with a plan for exposing the misuse of public funds. Hopefully Cervantes continues pushing this bill in the next session.
Reply
Introduced in the House on January 28, 2009
The vote was 66 in favor, 0 opposed and 4 not voting
(House Roll Call 1547 at House Journal 0)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation