📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 11
The Personnel Rules of Plumas County ("Personnel Rules") define nepotism as: "The appointment in a department of a member of any employee's family to a permanent, temporary, or extra-help position resulting in the employee having substantial supervisorial authority over the family member."
F2
Page 11
There was no supportable evidence of improper job postings.
F3
Page 11
The department heads reported that performance evaluations are not consistently completed on an annual basis.
F4
Page 11
In "Personnel Rules," the Plumas County Human Resources Department neither defines nor provides procedures for employee pre-disciplinary hearings (Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194).
F5
Page 11
The Grand Jury found no evidence of Skelly Hearing violations in 2004.
Recommendations 3
-
R1Page 11PCHA should always comply with guidelines specified in "Personnel Rules" regarding nepotism. Posting job opportunities should continue to be in accordance with "Personnel Rules. "
-
R2Page 11Annual performance evaluations should be completed for each employee as required in "Personnel Rules. "
-
R3Page 11Basic rules of procedure for the Skelly Hearing process should be included in "Personnel Rules " in order that all county employees have knowledge of their rights in the disciplinary process.