Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Allegations of Unfair Hiring Practices by Santa Cruz County

Published: November 16, 2007 6 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings 22 findings

F1
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has lodged a complaint regarding hiring practices and the county’s whistleblower program with the Civil Service Commission. Provisional Hiring Practices
F2
During calendar years 2006 and 2007, 62 provisional appointees were hired to permanent positions. These represented just over two percent of the 1,733 total County hires for that time period. (Despite making two requests, the Grand Jury was unable to obtain the number of total hires per department.)
F3
Three departments – District Attorney, Health Services Agency (HSA) and Animal Services Authority – accounted for 38 -- or more than 60 percent -- of the provisional appointments hired to permanent positions by the County during 2006 and 2007. Thirteen of 27 departments hired no provisional appointments to permanent positions at all during the last two years. [See Bar Graph 1] Bar Graph 1. Provisional appointments hired to permanent positions (Calendar years 2006 - 2007, all County departments) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 - D is t H ric e t a A A lt n h tt i o m S H r e n a u r e l m v y S P ic a e a e n r r s v k P S i s c e A e e r g r s s S v e o i h n A c n e c e u n I y r s n t e i h f f l f D o o C r P e r m it o r p y o a r a o b P t r i n t a o u m e t n b io r e G l S i n n / c e e t J D W n r a C v e e i o l i r p o c a r u a e k C l n s r s & t o t m y u E T e n C m n r t l e y e t e a T r C r k s g r o u a e / u r n n E A e n s c r u l s p e y d / e o c A S i T l t r t i g o t o a e a r r x n r t i s A v c i s o C i u g c n l o r e t i u A l c le r u s a c l s t l t e A u o C s r u r a o s d l m o B i E t r o o m x a r t ' i R s r e s d s n e P i s c o o o C i o f n o o r S h n l d i u e l P d p r l s e S a r n u R v n p is e i p n o d o C g r e r s v o t D e u e C l n o p t l p e y a m r r A k tm e d o n m e f t n t i h n t e is t B ra o t a iv r e d O ffic e s
F4
Provisionally appointed employees have a clear advantage over other candidates competing for permanent positions the provisionals temporarily occupy. For the last two calendar years, nearly two-thirds of all County provisional appointees were hired to permanent positions; for individual departments the success rate was as high as 100 percent. [See Bar Graph 2] Bar Graph 2. Provisional appointments successfully hired to permanent positions (Calendar years 2006 - 2007, County departments with provisional appointments only) 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 - D istric H t e A a tt l o th r A n S n e e i y m rv a i H c l e S u s e m r A a v g i P n c e a e S n r s e c k A s y rv P u ic e th e r o s s o r D i n t S y e n h p e e a l r r if t I f m n C f e o o n r r m t o P n a r e t o i r o b n / a J t S P a io e u il n r b v l D i ic c e G e W p s e a o n r r e t k m r C s a e l o n & u t n E t C y m o C e u r le n g r t e y T k n r C / c e E y o a l u s S e u n T c e s r r t r e i a e v o r n i l n c / s s e T p A o a u r x d t a i C t t o i o o r l s n le c to r s Provisionals Hired to Probationary Provisionals Not Hired to Probationary
F5
Santa Cruz County code charges the Civil Service Commission with the responsibility for the process of approving provisional appointments. This responsibility has been delegated to the Personnel Director.
F6
Unless there is an appeal, there is no formal oversight by the Civil Service Commission itself of a provisional appointment.
F7
Civil service rules provide for the creation of “eligible lists” of applicants’ names ranked by their examination scores (written, oral, or training and experience ratings). These lists can remain in effect for a maximum period of two years or be abolished before that term by the Personnel Director. Civil service rules can be interpreted to allow provisional appointments after the abolishment or expiration of one eligible list and before a new one is created, or even before any valid eligible list exists.
F8
County management claims to be unaware of specific employee complaints regarding misuse of the provisional appointment process. Nepotism and Favoritism
F9
Civil service rules prohibit the hiring of first or second degree relatives (spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, or siblings) by department heads. These same relatives may not be given positions as direct reports or be within supervisory line of authority. Department heads are also “discouraged” from appointing first or second degree relatives to volunteer assignments within their departments. However, first or second degree relatives may be hired by different department heads, or may work together within the same department as long as one does not supervise the other.
F10
This Grand Jury was unable to confirm any violations of County nepotism policy.
F11
This Grand Jury was unable to find County administration and personnel code or civil service rules defining or prohibiting “favoritism.”
F12
Some County employees with hiring practices complaints are not comfortable meeting with the CAO, the Personnel Director, or their representatives, fearing retaliation.
F13
County code charges the Civil Service Commission with assuring that, whenever possible, merit employment principles are followed.
F14
The Brown Act restricts the Civil Service Commission’s ability to guarantee confidentiality to employees complaining about the County’s hiring practices because all meetings among three or more commissioners must be public. To conform to the Brown Act and yet still provide a confidential forum for County employee complaints, the Civil Service Commission created an ad hoc committee in 2007 consisting of two commissioners to hear complaints from SEIU members. Whistleblower Program
F15
Santa Cruz County’s whistleblower program was established by the Auditor- Controller’s Office in early 2005, possibly stimulated by federal corporate governance legislation passed a few years earlier. The program continues to be administered by the Auditor-Controller’s Office today.
F16
Complaints received by the whistleblower program can address any part of the county’s operation, not just personnel issues or hiring practices.
F17
Code compliance complaints are referred to the Planning Department.
F18
The program was contacted 32 times during calendar year 2007. Fifteen were determined to be outside the scope of the program and two were general questions and referred elsewhere. The remaining 15 were opened as whistleblower cases; 12 were closed during 2007 and three were still open at the end of the year.
F19
Four whistleblower cases involved complaints of improper hiring practices. Two complaints were found to be without merit and closed while two others remained under investigation at the end of 2007.
F20
Employee complaints received by the whistleblower program are given to department heads for investigation and resolution; employees are not informed in advance about this policy. The Grand Jury received testimony that whistleblowers could be easily identified by coworkers or supervisors.
F21
Department heads are given six months to report the results of their investigations to the Auditor-Controller’s Office. The CAO and Personnel Director may also be notified about the complaints.
F22
Although with careful scrutiny the whistleblower program link can eventually be located, many people have difficulty finding it on the county’s website. Typing “whistleblower hotline” into the search box results in “no matches.”

Recommendations 8