Use the links below to skip to the Appendix you wish to view:
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF OUR EMPLOYEE SURVEY AT THE STATE BAR
To gain an understanding of the work environment at the State Bar, we surveyed nearly 550 State Bar employees in April 2017. We notified employees about this survey by email and collected their electronic responses. The survey asked employees to specify whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statements listed in Table A beginning on the following page. The statements generally related to State Bar’s control environment, risk management, control activities, monitoring, and communication. We computed an average response score for each statement by assigning a response score of 4 to “strongly agree”, 3 to “agree”, 2 to “disagree”, and 1 to “strongly disagree.” We also asked State Bar employees to provide us with additional information for questions with which they indicated disagreement or strong disagreement. We received 354 valid responses from State Bar employees, although not all employees answered each question. We ensured that we included only one survey response per employee by assigning and requiring a code from each employee. Table A shows the aggregated results of this survey.
Employees generally indicated that they are accountable for defined, measurable tasks and objectives. They indicated that they have sufficient information to do their jobs and receive adequate supervision. Employees typically believe their direct superiors place a sufficient emphasis on the importance of integrity, ethical conduct, fairness, and honesty. Even so, survey respondents used their opportunity to write in additional comments to express concerns over the tone from the top, including a lack of trust in the State Bar’s management, and concerns over staffing levels at the State Bar. Further, we found two instances in which the average score in response to a question indicated a neutral or negative aggregate response. Those two questions were on the existence of an atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication between management and employees, and on the impact personnel turnover has had on the ability of individual work units to effectively complete their tasks.
We raised these respondent concerns with the State Bar, as well as respondent concerns that were outside the scope of our audit related to the improper appointment of individuals into particular positions. The State Bar indicated that staff concerns over turnover may be the result of its January 2017 reduction in force, which we mentioned earlier. As part of this reduction in force, 56 staff members voluntarily separated from the State Bar. The State Bar plans to fill 37 of the 56 positions, including 22 positions in the Chief Trial Counsel. As a result, the net reduction will be 19 positions. Further, the State Bar indicated that it created an action plan in June 2016 that includes an emphasis on communication and collaboration. The State Bar believes this action plan will help it foster an atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication.
| SURVEY QUESTIONS | METHOD | |
|---|---|---|
| 4 = Strongly agree 3 = Agree 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly disagree |
||
| SECTION I—CONTROL ENVIRONMENT | ||
| 1 | The director’s office of the State Bar places sufficient emphasis on the importance of integrity, ethical conduct, fairness and honesty in dealings with employees, clients, and other organizations. | 2.9 |
| 2 | My direct supervisor(s) place sufficient emphasis on the importance of integrity, ethical conduct, fairness, and honesty in their dealings with employees, clients, and other organizations. | 3.3 |
| 3 | The director’s office of the State Bar strives to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. | 3.1 |
| 4 | My direct supervisor(s) strive to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. | 3.4 |
| 5 | An atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication between management and employees has been established in my work unit. | 2.8 |
| 6 | An atmosphere of mutual trust and open communication between management and employees has been established at the State Bar as a whole. | 2.4 |
| 7 | The acts and actions of management are consistent with the stated values and conduct expected of all other employees. | 2.7 |
| 8 | My work unit is committed to making decisions free of favoritism or bias. | 3.0 |
| 9 | My supervisors are open to suggestions for improvement. | 3.1 |
| 10 | State Bar management is open to suggestions for improvement. | 2.7 |
| 11 | Personnel turnover has not impacted my work unit’s ability to effectively complete its tasks. | 2.5 |
| 12 | Employees in my work unit are treated fairly and justly. | 2.9 |
| SECTION II—RISK MANAGEMENT | ||
| 13 | I am accountable for defined, measurable tasks and objectives. | 3.3 |
| 14 | My supervisors hold staff accountable for defined, measurable tasks and objectives. | 3.2 |
| 15 | State Bar management holds staff accountable for defined, measurable tasks and objectives. | 3.0 |
| 16 | I am always clear about to whom I report and who oversees my work.. | 3.3 |
| 17 | I have sufficient resources, tools, and time to perform my job. | 2.8 |
| 18 | The objectives and goals of my work unit are reasonable and attainable. | 2.9 |
| 19 | My supervisors have given me an appropriate level of authority to accomplish my job. | 3.2 |
| 20 | State Bar management has given me an appropriate level of authority to accomplish my job. | 3.0 |
| 21 | Generally, I do not feel unreasonable pressure from any State Bar supervisors or management to make decisions that contradict the stated mission of the organization. | 3.2 |
| 22 | In my work unit, we identify barriers and obstacles and resolve issues that could impact achievement of objectives. | 3.0 |
| 23 | My supervisors have created safe mechanisms for employees to raise concerns about practices that may put the State Bar’s reputation at risk. | 3.0 |
| 24 | State Bar management has created safe mechanisms for employees to raise concerns about practices that may put the State Bar’s reputation at risk. | 2.7 |
| SECTION III—CONTROL ACTIVITIES | ||
| 25 | The policies and procedures in my work unit are clearly stated and allow me to do my job effectively. | 3.0 |
| 26 | My work is adequately supervised. | 3.2 |
| SECTION IV—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION | ||
| 27 | There is a way for me to provide recommendations for process improvements. | 3.0 |
| 28 | The interaction between State Bar management and my work unit enables us to perform our jobs effectively. | 2.8 |
| 29 | The communication across organizational boundaries within the State Bar enables us to perform our jobs effectively. | 2.8 |
| 30 | I have sufficient information to do my job. | 3.2 |
| 31 | My direct supervisor has clearly communicated to me the behavior that is expected of me. | 3.3 |
| 32 | State Bar management is informed and is aware of my work unit’s actual performance. | 3.0 |
| 33 | I know how to report employee misconduct. | 3.1 |
| 34 | If I report wrongdoing to my supervisor, I am confident the wrongdoing will stop. | 2.8 |
| 35 | Employees who report suspected misconduct are protected from retaliation. | 2.8 |
| SECTION V—MONITORING | ||
| 36 | Information reported to management reflects the actual results of operations in my work unit. | 3.1 |
| 37 | Internal and/or external feedback and complaints are followed up in a timely and effective manner. | 3 |
| 38 | Employees in my work unit know what actions to take when they find mistakes or gaps in what we are supposed to do. | 3.1 |
| 39 | My supervisor reviews my performance with me at appropriate intervals. | 3.2 |
| 40 | I receive written performance evaluations at least every calendar year. | 3.4 |
| 41 | I know what action to take if I become aware of unethical, illegal, or fraudulent activity. | 3.1 |
Sources: California State Auditor’s survey of the State Bar’s employees, conducted April 2017.
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF THE CPS HR CONSULTING TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY OF THE STATE BAR JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
In response to the 2016 state law requiring it to conduct a compensation and benefit study of those classifications required to conduct disciplinary activities, the State Bar retained CPS HR Consulting (consultant) to conduct an agencywide total compensation study. As part of its April 2017 study, the consultant surveyed 14 current State Bar job classifications and determined that the State Bar pays base salaries that are on average 10 percent above the labor market median. Because the consultant found that the State Bar had established a 36.25‑hour workweek for many job classifications, the consultant converted the monthly salaries to a 40‑hour workweek equivalent. It then compared the salaries of these 14 positions against those of 16 similar agencies, including local government and the State’s Judicial and Executive branches. For example, the consultant reviewed the State Bar’s paralegal classification against comparable positions of nine cities and counties, two county superior courts, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Executive Branch. It then converted all salary information to an annual base salary basis. The consultant concluded that the State Bar pays base salaries that are above the market median for five of the six represented classifications and five of the six nonrepresented classifications. Further, the other two classifications, the legal secretary II and fiscal services specialist, which include both represented and nonrepresented employees, are also paid base salaries above the market median. Figure B presents the maximum annual base salary for the 14 current State Bar job classifications the consultant surveyed, along with the salaries of comparable positions it identified. In addition, Figure B shows the results of the consultant’s salary survey for the executive director and the chief operating officer. The consultant concluded that these salaries were within the market median.
Figure B
Comparison of the Salaries for the State Bar with Comparable Positions in Similar Agencies
Source:The CPS HR Consulting study of State Bar employees’ total compensation, April 2017.