Stanislaus County Grand Jury
• 2001-2002
Reason for Investigation The Stanislaus County Civil Grand Jury received a written complaint from four (4)
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 12 findings
F1
Reclassifications were based on the intent SCBOS to simplify SCCSA staff structure, streamline overall department operations, and produce a workforce better equipped to provide client services. These changes not only met the legal requirements of the new system, but also reflected the spirit of welfare reform.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
SCCSA employed a consulting firm, CPS, to assist in the reclassification study. The CPS study involved meetings with a panel composed of management and non- management employees. Periodic informational meetings with employees and their bargaining units were held during the development of the reclassification plan and after its implementation to familiarize SCCSA employees with the new system.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
As part of the reclassification plan, an internship position was created. This internship was created to provide an interim job classification until new educational 3 requirements were met to become an FSS. An employee who meets the experience requirements of the new position, but does not meet educational requirements, may elect to become an intern. As an intern, an employee will receive a two percent (2%) pay increase until educational requirements are met. Once educational requirements are met, an employee is given the FSS title and moved to the FSS salary range.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Each new job classification has five (5) pay steps. For example, FSSIII is a new classification with five (5) pay steps. If employees do not meet the education requirements of an FSSIII, they can become an FSSIII intern.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
When employees were moved from their current classification to an internship, they were given internship pay. Some employees were inadvertently placed in the third step rather than the second step of the pay scale. This administrative error was discovered after two (2) pay periods and explained to the affected employees in a letter dated September 19, 2001. All errors were subsequently corrected. CONCLUSIONS The Civil Grand Jury concluded that:
No recommendations for this finding
F6
CPS recommended against the concept of grandfathering for the following reasons: a. While SCCSA=s rationale for the grandfathering is that some employees are Aalready doing the job@, the scope of these jobs is expanding significantly in most areas. b. If grandfathering is allowed, employees will be going into a new classification when they do not meet the minimum qualifications. These employees will not have met the educational requirements to be promoted to any higher class in the series. c. Job titles and duties from current positions to new positions are often different. Many employees in the new job classification plan will have more diverse duties requiring greater skills. d. SCCSA desires to promote education within the ranks and feels that education in certain areas will enhance an employee=s performance in their new job classification.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
SCCSA, realizing that some employees did not meet educational requirements of their new classification, assisted these employees by providing work time for study and funds for purchasing books.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
SCCSA provided instructors and on-site classrooms so employees could take their required college courses. 5
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Employees desiring to meet new educational requirements may have to spend some of their own money and attend courses on off-duty time.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The reclassification plan took three years to implement.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Employee labor groups participated in the reclassification process.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Informational newsletters were printed and distributed to employees throughout the reclassification process. CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 6
-
CL1 Page 4There were errors regarding the placement of some employees within their new salary schedules. These errors were discovered and corrected. All other pay increases were proper and given in accordance with reclassification implementation.
-
CL2 Page 4There were no improprieties on the part of the County.
-
CL3 Page 6SCCSA demonstrated that the duties of their employees are changing and expanding. The reclassification process was an enormous undertaking which involved several hundred employees.
-
CL4 Page 6SCCSA considered grandfathering certain employees; however, CPS recommended against this concept.
-
CL5 Page 6SCCSA addressed the needs of employees by assisting them in obtaining the required education. While employees were required to take certain classes, SCCSA was under no obligation to provide on-site college classes or help with books and tuition.
-
CL6 Page 6SCCSA took appropriate and equitable actions during the reclassification process. The overwhelming majority of employees have been positively affected by this reclassification process.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Stanislaus County
County
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office