San Joaquin County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
• Agency Response
San Joaquin County-exempt Position Hiring Case No. 02-07
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
After an extensive review of the hiring documentation and interviewing the screening and selecting officials, the Civil Grand Jury finds no evidence of pre-selection of the selected candidate. In addition, the allegations of incorrect process are not true. The final selectee did fill out an application, met the application deadline, was interviewed with all others by the same interviewing panel, and was in both the group of top fourteen candidates as well as the seven referred for a second round of interviews. The process used (as shown in Attachment A) was more extensive than usual and went well beyond anything required by San Joaquin County for an exempt position. This minimized the possibility of pre-selection. While it is possible that the chosen candidate was pre-selected, there was no evidence that she was. Even if she was, no written procedures prevent this from happening.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
While flexibility in hiring might be a good thing, the ability to create numerous exempt positions is not. Because an extensive list of exempt employees appears to have developed over the years, the Grand Jury recommends that the list be re-examined for validity as necessary for exempt status.
F2
It appears that the complainants had a misunderstanding of “exempt” positions and the hiring process required. As noted above, an exempt position is exempt from Civil Service but not from FLSA. As such, there are no written requirements for how exempt position hiring should be handled. The only written documentation is in the San Joaquin County Ordinance No. 4310, Amending County Ordinance Section 2-5003, which just lists all of the positions that are exempt. It would be permissible for a hiring official to select a person without going through any process other than by having that person fill out an application. As noted by the County Administrator and the Director of Human Resources, some type of abbreviated civil service procedure is always followed. Both noted the necessity to have flexibility in the hiring for exempt positions. This provides the appointing authority more flexibility to evaluate an applicant’s experience and personal ability to perform the tasks required of the position.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends that future announcements for exempt positions contain an explanation of what an exempt position means.
F3
In the announcement for the exempt position of Assistant Clerk of the Board, the definition of what it means to be an “exempt” employee is not spelled out.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury recommends that some type of hiring guideline for exempt positions be written and approved by the County Board of Supervisors, so that appointing authorities in the county (and job applicants) have a consistent path to follow. These guidelines should be written to ensure a visible and standard approach to exempt position hiring without overly restricting the appointing official.