Score: +3 (5/2/2)
Monterey County Grand Jury • 2019-2020

Sexual Harassment Prevention

Published: June 04, 2020 68 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 47 findings

F1
A November 2018 classroom training by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not in compliance with AB 1825 and 2 CCR §11024: a) it was not undertaken within 24 months of the last training event for any of the attendees, b) insufficient time was allocated to the required subject matter, and c) written proof of attendance and/or course completion was not generated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16
The city should diligently assess whether the AB 1825 training programs it uses, such as those offered by the federal EEOC, meet the training curriculum mandates outlined in AB 1825 and its amendments. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published. Recommendations – City of Pacific Grove
F2
A contributing factor to the city’s failure to meet the two-year timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training was the absence of city staff with the responsibility to oversee employee training.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
By September 30, 2020, Carmel-by-the-Sea should always have a staff member whose responsibility includes oversight of AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct workforce training. Recommendations – City of Del Rey Oaks
R27
By September 30, 2020, the city of Seaside’s HR Director should assign one HR staff member to oversee AB 1825 training requirements and recordkeeping, so that all employees with training due in 2020 are trained
F3
The lack of attendance and completion of paperwork for the November 2018 EEOC classroom training was due in part to the city’s assumption that the trainer would be responsible for all such documentation, and in part to the EEOC’s practice of not generating certificates.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
There were six people who the city either hired or promoted to supervisory positions at some point during the 2017/18 fiscal year, and who should have received AB 1825 training within six months of hire/promotion. The November 15, 2018 EEOC training could have afforded a timely compliance scenario only for those FY 17/18 employees that were hired/promoted during the six-week period between May 16 and June 30, 2018. There were no other AB 1825 trainings of city employees during the period May 16, 2017 to November 15, 2018. Findings – City of Del Rel Oaks
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The city of Del Rey Oaks has not ensured that every employee who is required to take AB 1825 training, completes that training in a manner and at a time as required by law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2020, those Del Rey Oaks supervisory employees who received AB 1825 training in 2018, should have completed the training again, as the law mandates the training must be completed every two calendar years or every 24 months, whichever method is chosen by the employer.
F6
The city has not provided their employees with an updated and accurate Personnel Manual that includes all AB 1825 and related training requirements. Findings – City of Gonzales
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By September 30, 2020, Del Rey Oaks should have published an updated Personnel Manual that
F7
Gonzales currently has a viable dual approach toward of AB 1825 training through use of group-oriented classroom presentations and e-learning (i.e. computer-based training). Classroom presentations are preferred but E-learning is used for supervisorial promotions/new hires (e.g. where a classroom training is unavailable).
No recommendations for this finding
F8
A December 6, 2016 classroom training by Concern-EAP, although deficient with reference to 2 CCR §11024, was sufficient to render the city of Gonzales compliant with the training mandate imposed by AB 1825.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Online AB 1825 training by EVERFI that was done in 2017 was not in compliance with AB 1825 and 2 CCR §11024: the Civil Grand Jury was provided with insufficient information upon which to make a determination whether or not the online supervisory employee training complied with 2 CCR §11024.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1
By September 30, 2020, AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea should follow the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
R5
By September 30, 2020, AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city of Gonzales should follow the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
R24
By December 31, 2020, Sand City should ensure that AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct prevention training undertaken by and/or at the direction of the city follows the directives and protocols laid out in 2 CCR §11024, including but not limited to the following areas: frequency, duration, and documentation of training; content of training; method of delivery of training; qualification of the trainer.
F10
The city failed to meet the timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re- training of supervisory employees, as directed by California Government Code §12950.1 and more particularly specified in 2 CCR §11024. 52
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The city’s failure to meet the timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training established by 2 CCR §11024 was due to staff changes and workload issues.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The city has no written policy about AB 1825 sexual harassment/ abusive conduct training. Findings – City of Greenfield
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Greenfield’s Office of the City Manager should be recognized for its clear understanding of state requirements for AB 1825 supervisor training, and its dedicated approach to actively conducting both online and in-person classroom AB 1825 supervisor training in spite of lack of support from some city supervisory employees.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
The city’s sexual harassment prevention policy (Attachment B to Rule 17, Section 7) is incomplete and out of date. It does not provide adequate information to assist employees or guide supervisors in dealing with sexual harassment situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Greenfield should revise its sexual harassment prevention policy to reflect current state law, city practices, and to make it a useful guide for employee and supervisors alike. This revision should be completed
F15
The city’s Office of the City Manager’s AB 1825 compliance records management is inadequate. The combination of a lack of a viable tracking system and a single staff point of contact has made effective tracking and compliance problematic.
Related Recommendations (2)
R6
By September 30, 2020, the city should retain a full and complete written record with respect to all AB 1825 trainings that it provides, sponsors, or otherwise uses, regardless of whether delivered via classroom, e-learning, or webinar format.
R9
The city’s Office of the City Manager should review and revise current management practices for AB 1825 supervisory training and tracking. This revision should include: (1) development of a city supervisory responsibility system that will create a “demand pull” for AB 1825 supervisor training to complement the current “requirement push” approach that the city has used; (2) integration of all in-person classroom AB 1825 training rosters and training data with the TargetSolutions learning management system to ensure one unified 60 management, tracking, and reporting system for all AB 1825 training; and (3) off- loading the AB 1825 training and tracking responsibilities from the Office of the City Manager to a new or existing HR section, or augmenting the Office of the City Manager’s personnel with part-time or dedicated personnel responsible for tracking and coordinating AB 1825 training and compliance data. This revision should be completed by June 30, 2022. Recommendations – City of Marina
F16
The city’s Office of the City Manager’s decision to use an automated learning management system, like TargetSolutions, was a positive measure that may facilitate more timely training delivery and better records keeping in the future.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Even with an automated learning management system for AB 1825 training and records compliance, the city’s Office of the City Manager will have continued difficulty meeting state standards for AB 1825 training compliance because of 53 competing work requirements in the City Manager’s office and the limited time and resources devoted to this training. The current approach does not recognize the expanded range of compliance measures required by AB 1825. Findings – King City
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Marina should employ a back-up online training provider in the event of a future hiatus in the TargetSolutions training program. This recommendation should be implemented no later than 6 months after this report is published.
F18
King City is to be commended for their excellent record in maintaining 100% compliance with AB 1825 requirements for the fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19. Findings – City of Marina
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Marina has implemented a streamlined, effective training year tracking system for AB 1825 training for supervisory employees in its general management group.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
The city did not address an alternate online training source for new and promoted supervisors during 2018, which may have resulted in two late trainings.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
A high-ranking official is the only supervisory employee with no record of training for 2017 or 2019 and is assumed to have failed to complete required AB 1825 training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Department heads should be models to other supervisory employees on the importance of respect in the workplace. Therefore, by September 30, 2020, the one city official who did not train in 2017 and 2019 should complete online AB 1825 training in 2020, 2021, and subsequent odd years.
F22
The city’s written, stand-alone harassment policy needs updating, because it is missing certain language governing protected classes required by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s 2 CCR §11023 regulations, and it does not contain a reference to AB 1825 supervisor training mandated under 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
The city should update its written, stand-alone, “Policy Against Sexual Harassment,” and its associated Acknowledgement of Receipt form, of the publication of this report.
F23
Revision of the city’s Personnel Policy Manual is extremely overdue. Findings – City of Monterey
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
The city should revise its Personnel Policy Manual so that it reflects the mandated training requirements outlined in 2 CCR §11024. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published. Recommendations – City of Monterey
F24
The city of Monterey’s personnel tracking system does not include enough data to ascertain whether employees promoted to a supervisory position received AB 1825 training within six months of hire or promotion as a supervisory and then every two years thereafter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Monterey should revise their personnel tracking system to include all city employees regardless of department, each employee’s date of hire as a supervisor or date of promotion to a supervisory position, and date of classification change to a non-supervisory position, in order to accurately determine if AB 1825 training mandates are being met. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published.
F25
Monterey was unable to provide a complete and accurate roster of all of its supervisory employees along with their AB 1825 training dates resulting in the Civil Grand Jury having insufficient information to determine if the city was indeed training all of its supervisors timely and according to AB 1825 mandates.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
Monterey’s sexual harassment policy titled, Harassment/Discrimination/ Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy, in city code 25-3.03 accurately reflects the 2 CCR §11023 conduct prohibitions, but it does not include the mandated employee training requirements in 2 CCR §11024. Findings – City of Pacific Grove
Related Recommendations (1)
R15
The city should review its Harassment/Discrimination/Retaliation/Abusive Conduct/Bullying Policy to include the employee training requirements mandated by 2 CCR §11024. This recommendation should be completed no later than 12 months after this report is published.
F27
Pacific Grove has a first-rate classroom training program. However, its structured in-person training dates sometimes make it hard to achieve timely training for all employees who have training due.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
The city’s existing AB 1825 recordkeeping system does not facilitate tracking two-calendar year retraining and six-month supervisory employee training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17
By September 30, 2020, Pacific Grove should continue to improve its recordkeeping efforts and fully update its supervisory employee roster worksheet to better track and address potentially late AB 1825 training before it becomes late.
F29
The city’s electronic onboarding or induction does not ensure timely six-month training for new and promoted supervisors, which has resulted in a low percentage of timely training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18
The city should develop a practice to individually counsel and refer new and promoted supervisors to online training when classroom training is not available of their hire. Those employees also should be encouraged to take the next session of in-person classroom training to reinforce the city’s culture of respect. This recommendation should be completed no later than six months after this report is published. 62
F30
The city’s policies no. 100.80 –100.110, Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention Policy and Complaint Procedure, found in the 55 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual posted on the website, are missing a reference to mandated AB 1825 training requirements contained in 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19
By December 31, 2020, the city should amend their Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, policies no. 100.80 –100.110, Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention Policy and Complaint Procedure, to reference AB 1825 training requirements per 2 CCR §11024 regulations.
F31
The city’s Employee Handbook, for which employees sign an acknowledgement of receipt, is missing references to AB 1825 policy and mandated training requirements. Findings – City of Salinas
Related Recommendations (1)
R20
The city should publish an updated Employee Handbook that
F32
The city of Salinas HR Department should be recognized for its clear understanding of state requirements for AB 1825 supervisor training and its active and professional approach to that training for the city.
No recommendations for this finding
F33
The city’s AB 1825 compliance program is generally compliant with state requirements but is somewhat deficient in identifying and ensuring new supervisor six-month AB 1825 training compliance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21
By June 30, 2021, the city of Salinas should automate the six-month new supervisor training signal for AB 1825 training. The city’s HR Department should develop an automated HR noticing process that informs all newly hired or appointed supervisors of the six-month AB 1825 supervisor training requirement, and signals HR to (automated or manually) enter that training suspense in the New World ERP system.
F34
The city currently manages AB 1825 using the New World ERP system and using online vendors like TargetSolutions. This dual systems approach is a point of potential failure in tracking.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22
By June 30, 2022, the city should continue to advance HR integration and automation of training processes and functions. This should include (1) automated notices or “ticklers” to supervisors on AB 1825 training deadlines, (2) integrating online training records with the New World ERP system, and (3) routinely creating global city reports of compliance that can provide HR and senior city leadership with a comprehensive snapshot of AB 1825 training compliance by city supervisory personnel.
F35
The city currently manages AB 1825 using the New World ERP system and HR records to generate notices for supervisors of required training. However, the Civil Grand Jury found there is insufficient senior management accountability or focus on the individual city supervisory employee to complete required training in a timely manner. Absent senior management emphasis, complete compliance or even high rates of compliance with AB 1825 training requirements may be difficult to achieve. Findings – Sand City
Related Recommendations (1)
R23
By September 30, 2020 the city’s senior management should adopt a stronger emphasis on promoting individual city supervisory employee responsibility to 63 complete required training, including AB 1825 supervisor training, in a timely manner. Recommendations – Sand City
F36
For two employees, Sand City failed to meet the two-year timeframe for sexual harassment/abusive conduct re-training of supervisory employees, as directed by California Government Code §12950.1 and more particularly specified in 2 CCR §11024.
No recommendations for this finding
F37
The city has no written policy regarding AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct training. Findings – City of Seaside
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
By December 31, 2020, the city should prepare a written AB 1825 harassment, discrimination, retaliation prevention policy that is consistent with 2 CCR §11023; the policy should contain a provision covering the employer’s training obligation under G.C. §12950.1 and 2 CCR §11024. Recommendations – City of Greenfield
R26
By December 31, 2020, Sand City should engage with the City Attorney, other staff, or an outside contractor to prepare a written policy regarding AB 1825 sexual harassment/abusive conduct prevention training for its workforce. Recommendations – City of Seaside
F38
Seaside is commended for its fully compliant AB 1825 written policy.
No recommendations for this finding
F39
The city has a comprehensive AB 1825 training program that allows employees to select their preferred training method.
No recommendations for this finding
F40
The city does not fully coordinate course completion between its three AB 1825 training modalities (classroom, online, and webinar) and does not limit employee training, which has resulted in some supervisory employees training more than required and other training late or not at all.
No recommendations for this finding
F41
Seaside’s onboarding procedures are ineffective at ensuring new and promoted supervisory employees complete AB 1825 training within six months.
Related Recommendations (1)
R28
Seaside should implement an onboarding system that effectively captures new or promoted employees and requires them to complete AB 1825 training within six 64 months of their hire or promotion. This recommendation should be completed of the publication of this report.
F42
The city lacks an efficient recordkeeping system for AB 1825 training compliance, and some training records for supervisory employees are archived off-site and are not readily accessible. Findings – City of Soledad
Related Recommendations (2)
R25
Sand City should develop a system to ensure that a full and complete written record of all AB 1825 trainings that it sponsors, regardless of whether delivered via classroom, e-learning, or webinar format, is in place and includes the date of the trainings and the names of attendees. This recommendation should be completed of the publication of this report.
R29
Seaside should adopt an effective training tracking system to assemble all AB 1825 recordkeeping in one location, preferably saved to electronic files with cloud access. This recommendation should be completed of the publication of this report. Recommendations – County of Monterey
F43
Soledad is to be commended for their excellent record in maintaining 100% compliance with AB 1825 requirements for the fiscal years 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19. Findings – County of Monterey
No recommendations for this finding
F44
Monterey County Civil Rights Office (MCCRO) has a strong, professional understanding of all requirements to comply with AB 1825 training in the Monterey County government, and delivers high quality, compliant AB 1825 training to County supervisory employees in both online and classroom/in-person settings.
No recommendations for this finding
F45
MCCRO’s AB 1825 compliance records management is inadequate. The office (1) lacks a unified interface for accessing or directly managing all past training, and (2) lacks sufficient access to individual personnel records to actively track ongoing AB 1825 training deadlines for current or new supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R30
The Monterey County Civil Rights Office should review and revise the processes used to manage AB 1825 supervisory employee records to include the following: (1) develop a unified interface for accessing and directly managing all past training; (2) develop a method either with Learning Management Specialists, or centralized with an automated and trackable notice or tickler for AB 1825 training due dates; and (3) increase staffing and authority for personnel responsible for tracking and coordinating AB 1825 training and compliance data. This recommendation should be completed of the publication of this report.
F46
MCCRO’s AB 1825 compliance records management process is a complex series of push-pull actions—requiring careful, ongoing interaction between the MCCRO and other County departments. Each department has Learning Management Specialists to help make this process work, but the MCCRO itself does not have sufficient staff to keep up with the coordination and planning work of ensuring AB 1825 training requirements are met for supervisors in all departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F47
Monterey County Civil Rights Office leadership and staff displayed a high degree of professionalism and personal commitment to the spirit as well as the letter of the AB 1825 law. All office personnel were forthcoming, honest, and helpful for this investigation. 58
No recommendations for this finding

Agency Responses 7

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

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

Monterey City
Monterey County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office