Orange County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Orange County Human Resources Procedures Out Of Date, Out Of Time 05/20/08, 118k

Published: May 13, 2008 13 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 5 findings

The Orange County Merit System Selection Rules and Appeals Procedure (SRAP) was last revised November 20, 1978. The Grand Jury found that: • The SRAP contains outdated terminology. • The SRAP does not reflect the current decentralized structure of the Human Resources function. • The SRAP is inconsistently interpreted among County agencies and departments. • The oversight and audit procedures of Orange County Human Resources (OCHR) are marginally effective. • The appeals process described in SRAP does not reflect current practice. • The SRAP references government programs which have evolved or been redefined. • The SRAP does not reference government programs which have been established since 1978. • The SRAP does not reflect current practice in reference to computerized or on-line capability and utilization.

The Human Resources function in Orange County has lost over 22% of its staff since 1996 and continues to shrink.

Background screening of job applicants is inconsistent and not verified in most cases.

Recruitment, hiring and promotion practices are inconsistent from agency to agency, deviating from the merit principles governing recruitment, selection and career advancement procedures, as defined in California Local Agency Personnel Standards (LAPS). 10

Material misrepresentations by job candidates in the hiring/promotion process may not result in termination. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are requested from the Director of Human Resources and Employee Relations. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Response to Finding F-5 is requested from County Counsel. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:

Recommendations 4

R1

Rewrite the Orange County Merit System Selection Rules and Appeals Procedure without further delay.
R3

Redefine background screening procedures to verify job applicant qualifications, experience and credentials.
R4

Implement consistent recruitment, hiring and promotion practices throughout County government in accordance with merit principles as defined in California Local Agency Personnel Standards (LAPS).
R5

OCHR coordinate with County Counsel to draft new language which would be included as a standard statement in each posting, further defining the County’s right to terminate any employee upon discovery of a material omission or misrepresentation during the employment process. Responses to Recommendations R-1, R-3, R-4 and R-5 are requested from the Director of Human Resources and Employee Relations. Responses to Recommendations R-2a, R-2b and R-5 are required from the Board of Supervisors. Response to Recommendation R-5 is requested from County Counsel. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.