Yolo County Grand Jury • 2013-2014

2013-14 Yolo County Grand Jury Final Report

Published: June 30, 2014 106 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 14 findings

F1
Yolo County currently operates according to Personnel Rules and Regulations that have been in draft form for a number of years. There is no definite timeline for completion by HR, review by employee union groups or adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
F2
Although the oral interview is required and is one of the most important events in a departmental promotion process, Yolo County has no written rules, regulations or guidelines covering the selection or training of oral interview panelists, the confidentiality of interview materials or feedback to selected and non-selected candidates.
F3
HR provides no oversight of department promotion practices unless requested to do so by a department. In this area, HR acts in an advisory role and assumes county departments are conducting promotional practices in a fair manner unless it learns otherwise. 16 2013 - 2014 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT: INVESTIGATIONS 2013 - 2014 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Yolo County Promotion Practices: Need for Standards and Oversight
F4
Human Resources has failed to adopt rules and regulations addressing departmental promotion processes. As a result, HR’s role in the departmental promotional process has been solely advisory.
F5
In the absence of countywide rules and HR oversight, department hiring managers develop their own methods for conducting the oral interview and promotion selection process, which vary widely.
F6
The department promotion process within Roads Division lacks written minimum standards for selection and training of oral interview panelists, method for recusal for bias, requirements for confidentiality or a process for meaningful feedback to non- selected candidates.
F7
Although Roads Division has not violated any policy or code relating to promotions, the lack of standards, consistency and transparency in Roads Division’s promotion practices has led to a perception among some employees that the promotion process itself is unfair and biased.
F8
Development of countywide policies covering promotion practices, including use of objective screening criteria, along with more HR oversight for policy compliance, would ensure a standardized promotional process, improving uniformity between departments, increasing fairness and decreasing potential legal risk to the county.
F9
HR has taken steps to meet the need for more oversight of County promotions by offering elective courses through Yolo Training Academy in 2014.
F10
Currently, HR reviews department promotion practices only if a problem is reported. HR has no prescribed complaint process that requires investigation, accountability and communication of investigation results to concerned employees.
F11
HR manages harassment and ethics online training courses for all employees to comply with state and federal laws. These outdated and repetitious trainings are found to be inadequate and ineffective.
F12
The HR Department serves in an advisory role and lacks appropriate oversight and accountability of personnel matters at the Sheriff’s Department.
F13
The CAO and HR have insufficiently monitored and audited the Sheriff’s Department compliance with County Codes and Policies and Procedures.
F14
The CAO conducts a 360 degree evaluation for all appointed Department Heads. This evaluation process currently excludes elected officials.

Recommendations 9

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Yolo County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office