HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08131996 - D9 69
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IOC-03
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
n: :s
�� �- � • � County
DATE: August 5 1996 Y y�
9 CBOT• •y,P
� T'9 COU21'�
PROPOSED RESPONSE TO REPORT#9608 FROM THE 1995-96 GRAND
SUBJECT: JURY, ENTITLED: "HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT-PROJECT
POSITIONS"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
DETERMINE how to respond to Report#9608 from the 1995-96 Grand Jury, entitled
"Human Resources Department-Project Positions."
BACKGROUND:
On June 25, 1996, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee Report #9608
from the 1995-96 Grand Jury, entitled: "Human Resources Department - Project
Positions." This Report was accepted by the Court for filing on June 11, 1996. A
response must, therefore, be approved by the Board of Supervisors by August 13,
1996, since the Board does not meet again before the end of the 90-day period
within which a response must be filed with the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Our practice has been to ask appropriate staff to provide their responses to the
recommendations made by the Grand Jury. The County Administrator's Office then
prepares a proposed response which is provided to our Committee to review with
the Grand Jury and affected staff. Once our Committee is satisfied with the
response, it is prepared as a report from our Committee to the full Board of
Supervisors for the Board's consideration.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): c olc+unn
(`��YI nye ROGERS
... . � � v� i v� Vf'f�►�CTGT�►
August 13, 19919 ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
The Board REFERRED to the internal Operations Committee the proposed responses to Report No. 9608,
"Human Resources Department - Project Positions," from the 1995-96 Grand Jury; and DIRECTED
County Counsel to correspond with the Grand Jury regarding the status of the County's response.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
—X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT II and V ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED August 13,_;996
Contact: County Administrator PHIL RA L ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Director of Human Resources SU AND COUNT ADMI STRA OR
County Counsel
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Internal Operations Committee (via CAO) BY
I.O.-3
On August 5, 1996, our Committee met with the Human Resources Director, Leslie
Knight; Assistant Human Resources Director, Eileen Bitten; Assistant County
Counsel, Arthur Walenta; Paul Katz from Local 1; staff from the County
Administrator's Office, and members of the 1995-96 and 1996-97 Grand Juries.
Staff had prepared the attached proposed response to the Grand Jury's report. We
believe that it is important to separate in our thinking the two main functions which
are involved in hiring of an individual for a position with the County: first, the creation
and funding of a particular position with a specific classification at an established
salary level, and second, the process of selecting an individual to fill a particular
position.
The County Counsel's Office clearly indicated that it is the constitutional
responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to determine the number and classification
of positions in each County department and to fix the salary of those positions. We
agree with the Board's role and responsibility in this area. The second area,
however, the actual selection of an individual to be hired for a position, is generally
the role of the department head (the "Appointing Authority"), within the guidelines set
down by the Board of Supervisors.
All positions are required to be Merit System positions, unless the Board of
Supervisors has adopted an ordinance to exempt a position(s) from the Merit
System. Project positions (the subject of the Grand Jury Report) are one of the
classes of positions which have been exempted from the Merit System. The Board
of Supervisors can and does establish guidelines for the type of recruitment which
should be pursued for particular positions, and whether and what type of
examination should be conducted to identify the most qualified candidates.
It is the responsibility of the Human Resources Department to insure that those
guidelines are adhered to in recruiting and testing applicants. However, the actual
selection of an applicant, within the guidelines established by the Board of
Supervisors, is and should remain the responsibility of the department head, whether
an elected or appointed department head. We understand that the Grand Jury's
Report addresses the issue of selecting and appointing an applicant to a position
rather than the process which is followed in creating a position.
In carefully reviewing the Grand Jury's Report and staffs proposed response, our
Committee is unable to concur with some of the responses. Supervisor Bishop
outlined the following concerns with the Report and proposed response:
1. Concern about whether it is appropriate to interject the Human Resources
Department or the Board of Supervisors into the process followed by an
elected department head in deciding to fill a project position by examination
versus making a direct appointment as is implied in the Grand Jury's
recommendation #1. That control should be exercised by the Board of
Supervisors in agreeing to establish a project position in the first place.
2. Concern that a far more detailed definition is needed of what constitutes a
"conflict of interest" as used in the Grand Jury's recommendations #2 and #3
if the Board of Supervisors is going to ask either a department head or the
Human Resources Department to review and comment on whether an
appointment decision being considered by a department head involves either
an actual or a perceived "conflict of interest."
-2-
I.O.-3
3. Department heads and many other employees must already publicly report
substantial amounts of information which allows a judgment to be made about
whether a conflict of interest does or might exist in regard to any decision that
individual might make. The Committee is concerned that the Board of
Supervisors not require reporting that would duplicate or overlap existing
reporting requirements.
4. Concern about whether it is appropriate to mandate the number of people who
are interviewed and the record keeping which would be involved in requesting
waivers from the Human Resources Department and maintaining additional
records as is implied in the Grand Jury's recommendation #4.
5. Concern that it may be inappropriate to document the content of interviews,
as is implied in the Grand Jury's recommendation #5.
Supervisor Rogers shares many of Supervisor Bishop's concerns.
For these reasons and since we are up against a deadline for responding to the
Presiding Judge, we are forwarding staffs response without a recommendation from
our Committee.
-3-
VICTOR J.WESTMAN OFFICE-OPCOUNTYrCOUNSEL oePunes:
PHIWP S.ALTHOFF
COUNTY COUNSEL CONTRA COSTA;COUNTY BRANDON D. AUM
BRANDON D.BAUM
ANDREA W.CASSIDY
COUNTYYADMINISTRATION BUILDING VICKIE L.DAWES
SILVANO B.MARCHESI 65y'PINE STREET,9th FLOOR MARKE S.ESTIS
ARTHUR W.WALENTA,JR. MICHAEL D.FARR
ASSISTANTS MARTINEZ;.,CALIFORNIA,94553-1288 ULLIAN T.FUJII
DENNIS C.GRAVES
GREGORY C.HARVEY
GAYLE MUGGLI AizguSt'1.4, 19.96 KEVIN T.KERR
EDWARD V.LANE,JR.
OFFICE MANAGER VIVIAN LILY
MARY ANN MASON
PHONE(510)335-1800 - PAUL R.MUNIZ
VALERIE J.RANCHE
FAX(510)646-1078 R E C E N E D DAVID F.SCHMIDT
Contra Costa County Grand Jury DIANA J.SILVER
AT WILLIAMS
725 Court Street JACQUELINE Y.WOODS
Martinez, CA 94553 EAUG4 X996
Attention: Ramiro Arosemena, Foreman CLE Cpm RAoOs A co IS�RS
Re: Report No. 9608
Dear Foreman Arosemena:
On August 13, 1996, the Board of Supervisors considered its proposed response to Grand
Jury report No. 9608, Human Resources Department-Project Positions. The Board did not reach
agreement as to its response and has continued the matter to its next meeting which is on
September 10, 1996. This may result in the Board's response to report No. 9608 being delayed
for a short time beyond the 90 day period provided in Penal Code section 933.
The Board has asked that the County Counsel advise the Grand Jury that the-Board
regrets the delay and will undertake to formulate its response to the report as soon as possible
after it reconvenes in September.
Very truly yours,
Victor J. Westman
County Counsel
By: Arthur W. Walenta
Assistant County Counsel
AWW:fjb
cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
Human Resources Director
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
H:\fbent\aww\arosemna
"HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT - PROJECT POSITIONS"
REPORT NO. 9608
The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisor require a more detailed justification on the
establishment, recruitment and selection for vacant Project
Positions, to include:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1:
Written justification for waiver of examination.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted.
B. Administrative Bulletin No. 416 "Project Positions" will be
amended to require that any department seeking to fill a
project position by waiver of examination and direct
appointment first submit a written request and justification
for review and approval to the Human Resources Director.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Written conflict of interest statement for any selection made
without examination, identifying any relationship between the
selecting official and the selected candidate.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted.
B. On Jun 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution
No. 96/293, "Policy on Avoiding Conflicts of Interest in
Appointments by Department Heads to Authorized Positions . "
To assure compliance with this policy, Administrative Bulletin
No. 416 "Project Positions" will be amended to require
submission by the department head of written verification that
all steps have been taken to insure that no legal or implied
conflicts of interest will be encountered in the appointment.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 :
Requirement that the Human Resources Director review the conflict
of interest statement and seek Board approval of the selection in
sensitive or questionable instances.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted in part.
B. The Human Resources Director will review the form to ensure
that all information is complete and will maintain a copy in
the employee ' s file. In the event of a Waiver of Competition,
this information will also be included with the Human Resource
Director' s Quarterly Report to the Board.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4:
Requirement that at least three (3) identified persons be
interviewed for any project position unless waived in writing by
the Director of Human Resources .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted.
B. Current certification rules of three (3) names for a
promotional position and ten ( 10) names for an open position
is adequate protection in all instances where a waiver is not
sought.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 :
Written documentation on the results of each interview be kept on
file with HRD for the duration of the project period.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted in part.
B. The Human Resources Director will initiate a procedure whereby
the appointing authority is required to submit the results of
all final selection interviews conducted for project positions
back to the Human Resources Department with the appointment
document(s) . These records will be maintained for the
duration of the project position.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 :
Written certification to the Board of Supervisors by the Director
of Human Resources that all requirements for the establishment,
recruitment and selection for Project Position vacancies have been
met.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is adopted.
B. This information will be included in the Human Resources
Director' s quarterly reports to the Board on direct
appointments .
t
A REPORT BY
THE 1995-96 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, California 94553
(510) 646-2345
RECEIVED
Report No. 9608
1 2 1996
CLERK BO- OF SUPERVISOR:
CC"-::,, --OSTA CO.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT-
PROJECT POSITIONS
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
RAMiRo
JURY FOREMAN
Accepted for Filing: _
Dater i v
VO F. VAN DE POEL
GE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
PROJECT POSITIONS
SUMMARY
Use and recruitment for Project Position vacancies in Contra Costa County is subject to misuse
and carried a strong potential for conflict of interest in selections. The personnel processes
require modification to assure unbiased and appropriate use of this employment method.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past year, news media attention has been given to this employment of the Mayor of
Martinez by the Contra Costa County Assessor for a position in the Assessor Office using Project
Position personnel regulations. This report examines the project position processes in detail,
using the Assessor Office position as a case study.
FINDINGS
1. The Contra Costa County Merit System Ordinance 33-5, Section 33-5.323, states that
project positions are excluded from the provisions of this ordinance.
2. Contra Costa County Administrative Bulletin#416.1 sets forth policies and:procedures
governing the use of Project Positions. Such positions are:
* designated by the County Administrator.
* implemented for a specific project.
* of limited duration.
* financed in whole or in part by federal, state or private agencies.
3. Administrative Bulletin#416.1 states that the"Director of Personnel shall:
* maintain a classification plan, and
* administer competitive examinations and selection processes for employment
-similar to those for positions in the merit service."
4. Section 502 of the Personnel Management Regulations authorizes the Director of
Personnel(now Human Resources)to suspend competitive examination for Merit System
vacancies and authorize direct appointment,with a provision that a monthly report be
furnished to the Board of Supervisors on suspension of competition.
___.5. _-.The Director of Human Resources has interpreted that County regulations on Merit
System vacancies to allow suspension of competitive examination for Project Positions
vacancies without the need to report such actions to the Board of Supervisors..
1
e' ^
6. Out of 100 Project Position appointments between July 31, 1995 and November 13, 1995,
only three(3) project positions involving new hires were filled without examination. Of
the remainder, seventy-one(7 1)were filled through examination and twenty-six(26)by
lateral transfer.
7. An analysis of the paperwork for one(1)of the undocumented project positions filled
without examination(Administrative Aids in the Assessor Office)disclosed the following
findings:
a. processing of the Position Adjustment Request(P300 Form)for appropriate
approvals followed prescribed procedures.
b. reason given on the P300 Form for the position adjustment was: "To reduce cost
of middle management and to expand public service for resolving outstanding
residential assessment appeals and to relieve the appellate burden from a more
expensive appraisal staff."
C. the P300 Form approved by the Administrators Office and the Board of
Supervisors did not address an outside source of funding for, or the duration of the
proposed position. No rationale was provided as the reason for creating a project
position. Funding was indicated through downgrading a vacant supervising
appraiser position.
d. detailed supporting documentation(not a part of the P300 Position Adjustment
Request)indicates that funding for the position was of be obtained from cities and
school districts and that a two(2)year period was expected for the position. The
position was approved as"Project"based on anticipated non-County funding.
e. the original intent of the Project Position, an ombudsman for residents seeking
review of their tax assessments,was in conflict from the outset with the interests of
the anticipated funding participants(cities and school districts)who were seeking
protection of their tax base.
f. non-County funding arrangements had not been made prior to all the approvals of
---- -- .the P300 Form. -
g. funding from cities and school districts has not been forthcoming other than a
grant of$5000 from the Martinez Unified School District.
h the State of California,under AB 818, recently provided funds to Contra Costa
County for defensive efforts in protecting the County tax base. These funds
--_--__-___--___-are, in part,planned to-be used in supporting the Administrative Aide Project -- -----__-_-- . ._
Position.
2
i. the Director of Human Resources waived the requirement for competitive
examination and authorized a direct hiring. Reason for this authorization was not
documented. It was later explained in documentation to the Internal Operations
Committee of the Board of Supervisors that the level of effort required to
formulate and administer an examination for a single position was not considered
'Justifiable."
j. the position was filled on July 24, 1995. The Contra Costa County Assessor was
the selecting official. Four persons are said to have been interviewed;the selectee
was the Mayor of Martinez.
k the identity of two(2)of the three(3)other persons interviewed is not known.
1. no documentation is available for the selection or results of interviews with the
other three 3 persons. `
M. The selecting official(the Contra Costa County Assessor)is also the City Clerk
for the City of Martinez and has been a member of its Planning Commission.
n. the selected person,the Mayor of Martinez, nominated the selecting official for a
City Planning Commission position and was legal counsel for the Assessor on
matters relating to the Fair Political Practices Commission at the time of the
selection.
o. On September 12, 1995,the Board of Supervisors reconsidered its earlier approval
of the Project Position based on misperceptions of the role and responsibility of the
position. It withdrew its reconsideration but directed the County Administrator to
investigate possible revisions to the Personnel Change Form and the information
provided to the Board.
8. On October 3, 1995,the Board of Supervisors directed the Human resources Director to
provide information to the Internal Operations Committee on"criteria used in determining
whether filling a vacant`project' positions will require testing or be accomplished by a
direct appointment."
9. On January 16, 1996,the Board of Supervisors reviewed a report from the Internal
Operations Committee and requested the County Administrator and the Finance
Committee to provide recommendations on criteria for creating and recruiting for project
positions. Further,the Board directed County Counsel to prepare"...a general policy
statement which encourages appointing authorities who are not appointed by the Board of
Supervisors and which directs appointing authorities who are appointed by the Board of
Supervisors to avoid situations which maybe viewed as an appearance of a conflict of
interest in filling positions, even though no legal conflict exits."
3
10. On February 6, 1996,the Board of Supervisors reviewed the prior report from the Internal
Operations Committee, accepting it"... with the understanding that the issue could be
revisited if there are additional thoughts of comments that come forward during the year..
11. On March 12, 1996,the Board of Supervisors approved changes to the Project Position
system. The Human Resources Department was directed to:
a. "...modify Personnel Adjustment Request form to include identification of project
positions, funding sources, duration of the project and potential benefits to be
provided by the position."
b. -"...provide the Board of Supervisors an updated cost-benefit analysis.of each
project position at the half-way point of the project duration."
C. "...pursue changing the Personnel Management Regulations to require an
examination process for filling project positions that were filled by direct
appointment and are subsequently brought into the merit system.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The policies and procedures governing the establishment, recruitment and selection of
project positions are subject to misuse and require strong top-level management oversight.
2. Recent changes made-to the personnel system at the the Board of Supervisors' are
insufficient to avoid potential misuse.
3. -Filling of the Project Position for Administrative Aide in the Office of the Assessor,while
in technical adherence to Contra Costa County personnel regulations, was poorly
administered, i.e., all elements of the County's approval process treated this action as
merely the substitution of a lower paid Administrative Aide position for a more costly
Supervising Appraiser.
a On May 15, 1995,the County Administrator's Office(CAO)reviewed the
Assessor's Office proposal to establish a project position without any evidence of
outside funding, indication of position duration or description of the"project,"
then sent the action to the Human Resources Department(HRD)for evaluation
and recommendation without counsel.
-b. The HRD obtained the appropriate information but, in.recommending the
substitution on May 24, 1995,neglected to disclose key data to the CAO
regarding funding, duration and"project"description.
C. On May 25, 1995,the CAO approved the recommendations of HRD without
comment, forwarding the action to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.
4
` d. On June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved the action without
comment.
4. Direct hiring into vacant project position is relatively rare. Only three(3)of one hundred
(100)positions filled between July 31, 1995 and November 13, 1995 were by direct hire.
The remainder involved either lateral transfer of individuals from other positions or
resulted from examination..
5. The information contained in the Position Adjustment Requests(P300 Form)is
insufficient to make a reasoned decision on the appropriateness of establishing a project
position.
7. The process by which examinations are waived and direct hiring is authorized for project
positions is deficient and requires improvement to preclude potential conflicts of interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1995-96 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors
require a more detailed justification on the establishment, recruitment and selection for vacant
Project Positions, to include:
1. written justification for waiver of examination.
2. written conflict of interest statement for any selection made without examination,
identifying any relationship between the selecting official and the selected candidate.
3. requirement that the Human Resources Director review the conflict of interest statement
and seek Board approval of the selection in sensitive or questionable instances.
4. requirement that at least three(3)identified persons be interviewed for any project
position unless waived in writing by the Director of Human Resources.
5. written documentation on the results of each interview be kept on file with HRD for the
_duration of the project period.
6. written certification to the Board of Supervisors by the Director of Human Resources that
all requirements for the establishment, recruitment and selection for Project Position
vacancies have been met.
COMMENT
Instances of direct hiring for vacant project positions has been, and should be, relatively
infrequent. A stronger ethical burden of propriety must be placed on the selecting official and the
Human Resources Department to.prevent misuse of this valuable employment tool.
5
` SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge
of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and*every elective county officer or agency head
for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All such
comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled 'the_
grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports
shall-be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency
and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury
final report by, and in the control of the currently impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, I963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs. 107, 187, I980 ch.
543. 1981 ch. 203. 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 3985 ch. 221 §I,
effective July 12, 1985. 1987 ch. 690 §1. 1988 ch. 1297.
Ccoss•References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §388.
Grand jury report to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9.