📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

El Dorado County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Candidate Not Qualified to Sit for Lieutenant's Exam

5 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 9 findings

F1 Page 27
In 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved a request from the Director of Human Resources Department to divest its responsibility for personnel actions to be taken by four major departments within the County to those department heads. One of those departments was the Sheriff’s Department. Response to F1: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Respondent agrees that in FY95-96, the larger (4) departments added recruitment and examination duties to their responsibilities. Respondent disagrees partially with the statement that this action was made at the request of the Director of Human Resources and disagrees that the decentralization was for all personnel actions. As a result of budget and staffing reductions mandated by the CAO in order to balance the budget, Human Resources staffing was reduced with the impact of the reduction identified in the proposed budget as follows: 28 “Reducing the Personnel Technician and Senior Office Assistant will result in reduced services to County departments and the public. Other than management level positions, the larger departments will need to add recruitment and examination duties to staff workloads. All departments will become responsible for orienting new employees”.
F2 Page 28
The Director of HRD in a letter dated May 8, 1997, advised the Sheriff’s Department to discontinue the past practice of allowing candidates who did not meet the minimum qualifications at the time of the final filing date for application for a position, to take promotional exams. The new policy effective May 8, 1997: “…mandates that applicants for Sheriff’s Sergeant and Sheriff’s Lieutenant meet the minimum qualifications by the final filing date in order to be eligible to participate in the examination process.” Response to F2: The respondent agrees with the finding.
F3 Page 28
In direct violation of HRD’s Policies and Procedures, one candidate taking the Lieutenant’s Exam on March 3, 2000 did not meet the “time- in- grade” qualification. Response to F3: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Respondent agrees that one candidate did not meet the "time-in-grade" qualification at the time of the eligibility list being established. A longstanding past practice of the department (dating back at least 15 years) allowed candidates to compete if they would achieve the "time-in-grade" requirement during the life of the list; a candidate would only be promoted when she/he met the "time in grade" requirement. Due to retirements and staffing changes in the Sheriff's Department, a May 1997 letter changing the practice was never formally codified or implemented. This matter was submitted for arbitration pursuant to the negotiated Memorandum of Understanding and has since been resolved.
F4 Page 28
The situation described in F3 was known to, and approved by, the Sheriff’s Department and by an employee of the HRD. Nevertheless, the Director of HRD is responsible for the actions of her employees. Response to F4: The respondent agrees with the finding within the context of the response to F3.
F5 Page 28
The minimum qualifications of applicants for promotion are not verified by the Sheriff’s Department. Response to F5: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Sheriff’s Office relies upon the information provided by the applicant on the application form.
F6 Page 29
The minimum qualifications of applicants for any position within the County are not verified by HRD. Response to F6: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Human Resources staff reviews each and every application (approximately 3,500 per year) for each recruitment to determine if each applicant identifies education/experience which meets the minimum qualifications. Final verification of education/experience listed on the application is considered part of the final reference check conducted by employing departments after a conditional job offer is made.
F7 Page 29
There are at least nine separate personnel files on any given employee within the Sheriff’s Department. This situation significantly complicates the investigation and verification of personnel issues within the Sheriff’s Department. Response to F7: The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. There are, at most, only 4 personnel files on any given employee within the Sheriff’s Office. Each employee has a payroll file, a personnel file and a background file. Some employees may have an internal affairs investigation file as well. Where the Grand Jury defines the referenced files as “personnel files”, some of these files are not traditionally defined as “personnel files” (e.g. background files and internal investigation files). Whether the filing system the Sheriff’s Office uses complicates or simplifies the investigation and verification of personnel issues is a matter of judgement. The Sheriff’s Office believes the filing system simplifies those activities.
F8 Page 29
The candidate who did not meet the minimum qualifications for the Lieutenant’s Examination at the time of the final filing date for that examination was promoted. Response to F8: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The candidate who did not meet the minimum qualifications at the time of the final filing date was not certified for final selection interview nor promoted until after he met the "time-in-grade" requirement.
F9 Page 29
The promotion of personnel not meeting the minimum qualifications is a violation of policies and procedures, suggests favoritism, and has a negative impact on department morale. Response to F9: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The applicability of a past practice that predated and postdated standard personnel policies and procedures complicated the facts surrounding this matter which went to 30 arbitration. The employee met the minimum qualifications at the time of promotion. If the employee had not met the minimum qualifications at the time of promotion, the respondent would agree with the finding. The effect of the past practice on morale varies depending on who is adversely affected. There is no suggestion of favoritism since the process was based on past practice.

Recommendations 5