LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

April 14, 2021

Elaine Howle
California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, STE 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

①RE: Response to State Auditor's Report Pertaining to the Los Angeles Community College District's Personnel Commission

Dear Ms. Howle:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to the audit report prepared by your office and provided to the Personnel Commission on April 7, 2021. Although we appreciate the time the State's audit team spent on preparing this report and some of the suggestions made to improve processes, we do not believe that your audit staff adequately absorbed how a merit system-based Personnel Commission functions in the State of California or operates in the true spirit of the law. First, we would like to note that we believe the title of the report inadequately portrays our policies and practices and makes unwarranted conclusions based on the evidence. The Personnel Commission acknowledges that there are opportunities for change and improvements that can allow us to better service District employees and job candidates. We don't believe it is accurate to take a few cases where mistakes may have been made or where improvements may be needed and conclude that our processes and policies are inconsistent. The Personnel Commission makes every reasonable effort to apply practices and policies consistently and fairly and do not believe the title of this report accurately reflects reality.

Furthermore, we do not agree with the methodology your staff applied in their analysis of the data they collected over the course of a 12-month period. All conclusions drawn by the audit team in this report are based on data that represents only a very small percentage of cases and do not fairly represent the processes that work for the overwhelming majority of employees and job applicants served by the Personnel Commission. The Personnel Commission staff diligently and promptly provided detailed information and explanations for all areas reviewed or questioned by the audit team over the course of the audit. Yet, in the conclusions drawn in this report, it became apparent that in many instances this information and our explanations were not considered or accepted by your audit team even when supported by sound and credible evidence. Preliminary conclusions reached by your audit team remained on their list of final findings even after we provided credible evidence that refuted or clarified them. This led to the portrayal of the functions fulfilled and quality of service provided by the Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Community College District that is neither accurate nor supported by solid and undisputable evidence.

Below you will find the Personnel Commission of the Los Angeles Community College District's specific responses to the three conclusions noted in the California State Auditor's report and its subsequent recommendations as well as to the other areas that were reviewed as part of the audit and its recommendations.

②State Auditor’s Conclusion 1 Regarding the Screening of Job Applications and Oral and Performance Examination Processes

The Personnel Commission disagrees with the conclusion noted for this area and contends that it is not warranted given the evidence provided.

With respect to the State auditor’s conclusion related to the screening of job applications, the Personnel Commission notes that the State auditors cited as supporting evidence that they found concerns with 5 out of 119 disqualified job applications they reviewed. This represents a percentage of less than 5% of all applications they reviewed. The State auditors acknowledged that the majority of applications were screened appropriately by the Personnel Commission. The State auditors provided the Personnel Commission with the names of those 5 applicants whose applications they had concerns with and the Personnel Commission provided detailed explanations as to why those applicants were disqualified. It included a combination of cases where clerical employees claimed to have performed higher level duties outside the scope of their job classifications, work experiences were described inaccurately with the intent to make them look qualifying, work experiences were not closely aligning with the minimum requirements, etc. The State auditors also stated that it appears that the “Commission made some qualification decisions based on internal applicants’ District job titles, rather than the experience they described in their applications. The Personnel Commission holds that its examiners decisions on whether or not to qualify an applicant are methodical, evidence driven, and based on our examiners’ shared understanding of the minimum entrance qualifications established for positions as well as their knowledge of the job classifications that exist in the classified service. The job history of applicants undergoes a comprehensive review by which the duties of all positions are carefully reviewed, additional research on an employer may be conducted to fully understand the level of an applicant’s position within the organization, and the final assessment of experiences is not based on job titles listed in the job application. Furthermore, all examiners undergo extensive and closely supervised on-the-job training covering all exam processes. Minimum entrance qualifications are carefully discussed with the supervisor and peer examiners and instructions are provided on how to interpret them. All examiners are required to follow the steps outlined in the JobAps applicant tracking system manual in the administration of their examinations, which includes definition of the terms “professional-level” and “recent”, which are commonly used terms in the minimum entrance qualifications of job descriptions used by public agencies at large, including the State Auditor’s Office. The Personnel Commission’s examiners make great efforts to ensure that the standards for the minimum qualifications are applied consistently and justly to all applicants. If clarification on specialized job classification qualifications is needed, subject matter experts are also consulted by the examiners. Contacts with employee supervisors are also made if the duties listed by an employee on the application represent duties that are inconsistent with the class concept of their current job classification and therefore require follow up and validation. The Personnel Commission receives well over ten thousand applications every year and, while an error may occasionally be made in a decision, such errors are rare and whenever they are discovered they are promptly corrected. The State auditors cite a few examples, some of which we would dispute are errors at all, but nonetheless, they represent a very small sample of applicants and fail to demonstrate that this is a consistent problem in our screening process. For the State auditors to say that we are inconsistent and unjustified in our qualification decisions is undeservedly harsh and does not accurately portray the Commission’s effort to ensure a fair and consistent process for all.

With respect to the State Auditor’s conclusion related to oral and performance examination processes, which were the only examinations reported on in their conclusion, the Personnel Commission notes the following. The State auditors cited in their report that raters provided minimal or no justification to explain the scores they had assigned to 19 of 25 qualified candidates they reviewed. The Commission has processes in place wherein we provide detailed instructions and guidance to raters to ensure that fair scores are provided. Additionally, raters who have a close relationship with or have supervised a candidate are not permitted to rate that candidate which further helps to ensure a fair process. While, auditors did note a few instances where a rater provided a final score that was incongruent with a candidate’s individual factor ratings, these instances almost always result from a situation when a rater updated their final score based on discussion with other raters, but neglected to go back and update individual factor ratings corresponding to the change in final score. Additionally, the issues cited by the auditors represent raters’ scores that are averaged with at least one or two other raters’ scores thus offsetting any differences that may exist between raters. In many cases, there are multiple exam parts that comprise a score, thus lowering the impact on the final score even further. However, as we will note later differences between raters’ final scores are minimal and well within acceptable levels prescribed by psychometric experts. To conclude that this clerical oversight proves bias or unjustified scoring is unfair and exaggerates the issues cited by the State auditors. It is also important to note that despite the incongruency between individual factor scores and final score, the exams in question display a high-level interrater reliability/agreement. This level of agreement underscores the fact that the final ratings were closely agreed upon by all raters, which would suggest that these scores are consistent, justified, and impartial. Ultimately, it is this final rating that determines a candidate’s exam score. The individual factors ratings, while in some rare instances are incongruent with the final score, do not directly factor into the calculation of the final score. Therefore, inconsistencies between factor ratings and final ratings do not mean that a candidate’s score ought to have been different. In fact, the high levels of interrater reliability/agreement for the final scores for these exams indicates that raters had high levels of agreement on both the final scores and the rank ordering of candidates. Thus, in these cases it is unlikely that these incongruencies affected whether or not the candidate placed in the top 3 ranks. The Personnel Commission would also like to note that only some of 9 examples cited by the auditors actually represent a clerical oversight on our part. Others reflect factors that rater’s might have weighted more heavily because they are more important (e.g., Training & Experience). Given the uneven weighting, one cannot look simply at the number of each type of ratings a candidate received (e.g., # of weak, # of strong, etc.) and the relative weighting given by the raters must be considered to gain a full understanding of a candidate’s score. Furthermore, it is possible that there are slight variations in candidates’ skills within a rating category that are being factored into a candidate’s final score. For example, it could be the case that some candidates in the “Strong” category for a given factor may be slightly stronger than others and rater’s may choose to account for such nuances when assigning their final scores (as may be the case in comparing “Candidate A” & “Candidate B” in Figure 4 in the audit report). The Personnel Commission would also like to note that the 5 exams reviewed by the auditors included 327 ratings sheets for either performance or oral exams and the 9 examples cited represent only 2.8% of the rating sheets in these exams and therefore, these issues are outliers. The Personnel Commission’s low exam appeal rate further supports our assertion that our exams are fair. The percentage of candidates who participate in an examination and appeal their examination results in any given year amounts to less than 1% of all candidates. This highlights that candidates likely perceive this process as fair, otherwise we would see greater number of candidates take advantage of the formal appeal process that is being offered to them through a well-publicized due process. Additionally, we would like to note that while raters may have not provided written comments on their rating sheets for some passing candidates to say their ratings are unjustified is misleading. The ratings a rater provides on a rating sheet in the vast majority of cases are in fact justified by the rating they provided on the individual factors and the final score categories are defined. Finally, this conclusion should reflect the fact that the auditor’s conclusion only refers to oral exams and one performance exam and not all exams conducted by the Commission. There are a multitude of other tests administered by the Commission such as standardized written tests, standardized computer software tests, and training and experience evaluations. The State auditors review did not yield any conclusions regarding our other test types.

In conclusion, the Commission recognizes that our processes will always have room for improvement as technology develops and knowledge grows and that in a very few instances human error can occur, but the conclusions drawn by the State auditor harshly overstate the problems making them appear more widespread than they really are.

The Personnel Commission would also like to note that it always strives to improve current processes and develop new methods and processes for the evaluation of candidates’ qualifications in our classified examination process. Staff frequently exchange information regarding testing methods and practices with other merit system agencies in an effort to stay current and innovative and attends professional conferences and presentations on topics related to employee recruitment and selection. Since the beginning of this year the Personnel Commission has been working on modifications to our interview rating sheet and has begun to pilot test this rating sheet in exams. These modifications have been prompted by two things. First, over the past year analysts were forced to begin doing exams virtually due to the Covid-19 pandemic and this served as an opportunity to re-think our methods and how to adapt them to a virtual environment. As part of these changes, we have already begun to improve various methods to better align them with best practices as part of these improvements we have begun to implement. Second, comments from the State auditors have underscored a few areas for improvement which the commission has taken under consideration in this effort.

Below is the summary of the changes made to the oral interview rating sheet and explanations for how it addresses issues raised by the State auditors.

In addition to factor definitions which already exist, the Personnel Commission will add a definition for each point on our rating scale that is unique to each factor. These definitions will further ensure that raters are using same criteria to assign ratings and should further enhance inter-rater agreement. Finally, this will provide more specific guidance to raters when compared to the former rating sheet.

The Personnel Commission will also be removing the final rating that is independent of the factors scores. Now raters’ scores will be calculated by summing all factor rating scores. More important factors will be assigned a heavier weight than factors that are less important. This will make the appearances of inconsistency between factor scores and total scores impossible.

The new rating sheet will have a mandatory field for “Comments” where raters are required to provide written comments about a candidate’s overall strength and weaknesses. This will apply to all candidates regardless of whether they pass or fail the examination.

Taken together these changes should significantly improve our rating sheet and create a more transparent process.

State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1)When possible, the Commission should create qualification requirements based on time spent working in the District job classifications or equivalent experience rather than ambiguous terms such as professional-level.
2)The Commission should establish a rule for its examiners by October 2021 that defines the key terms it uses when reviewing applications for minimum qualifications such as “professional-level” and “recent”.
3)The Commission should require examiners to provide disqualification notices that describe their reasons for disqualifying an applicant.
4) The Commission should require examiners to create detailed scoring benchmarks that provide raters guidance on how to rate individual evaluation factors.
5) The Commission should establish methods for determining candidates’ overall scores based on the ratings of the individual evaluation factors.
6) The Commission should require raters to provide written comments on rating sheets for each candidate, explaining the basis for the score they awarded.
7) The Commission should require examiners to review scoring sheets to determine if raters follow the Commission’s candidate evaluation guidance, and if the raters fail to follow the guidance requests that they review their evaluation of the candidate.
8) The Commission should revise its rules by October 2021 to implement an appeal process for applicants that it has determined do not meet minimum qualifications for the position.

Personnel Commission’s Response to State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1) The Personnel Commission contends that there is already a sound process in place for how class descriptions, including class qualifications and minimum requirements, are developed. All job descriptions developed and maintained by the Personnel Commission are based on solid research by Personnel Commission staff. Information is gathered on comparable jobs from the U.S, Department of Labor data base, other public agencies, and internally related job classes within the Los Angeles Community College District. Position duties are prescribed by the governing board and minimum qualification requirements that reasonably relate to the duties are prepared and approved by the Personnel Commission (see Personnel Commission Rule 522). Furthermore, all class specification reviews follow a standardized process that is outlined in the Revision Flow Chart for class specifications which is publicly posted on the Personnel Commission website. All constituent groups are afforded an opportunity to participate in this process. This includes administrators, supervisors, incumbents, and collective bargaining unit representatives.
2) Auditors stated that Personnel Commission does not provide definitions for key terms included on our job specifications (e.g., professional). This is not accurate, while these definitions are not part of any public materials, they are a part of on-the-job training that all examiners in our department receive and therefore, examiners all have a shared understanding of the terms used on our job specs. This shared understanding allows all examiners, to a reasonable degree, to come to the same conclusions about the qualifications of similar/same applicants in the overwhelming majority of cases. Additionally, key terms are now formally defined in the JobAps examiner manual and all examiners are required to follow the instructions provided in this manual in their examination administrations. Human error may occur, because of the sheer volume of applications we review, but these are rare exceptions and when they occur, they are corrected and explained to applicants.
3)The Personnel Commission accepts this recommendation and will amend the disqualification notification provided to applicants to include the basic reason(s) why an application was not found qualified in an effort to enhance transparency.
4) The Personnel Commission accepts this recommendation and improvements to rating sheets that are already underway will provide specific and detailed definition for each rating on the rating sheet. These definitions will further ensure that raters are using same criteria to assign ratings and should enhance inter-rater agreement. Finally, this will provide more specific guidance to raters when compared to our former rating sheet.
5) The Personnel Commission accepts this recommendation that candidates’ overall scores will be calculated by summing all individual factor rating scores. More important factors will be assigned a heavier weight than factors that are less important. This will make the appearance of inconsistency between factor ratings and total scores impossible.
6) The Commission accepts this recommendation. The new rating sheet will have a mandatory field for “Comments” where raters are required to provide written comments about a candidate’s strength and weaknesses. This will apply to all candidates regardless of whether they pass or fail the examination. Examiners will review rating sheets to ensure that comments are sufficient.
7) The Personnel Commission already has a process in place that was implemented this year by which multiple examiners review ratings sheets to ensure that the Commission’s evaluation guidance is being followed.
8) The Personnel Commission notes that the applicant tracking system (JobAps) that was implemented in 2017 provides detailed instructions to applicants on how to fill out a job application. Those instructions specifically advise applicants to provide complete and accurate information that substantiates that they meet the minimum entrance qualifications noted on the job announcement. However, in light of the fact that some applicants, including promotional candidates, have difficulty following these instructions, the Personnel Commission agrees to provide an applicant who is rejected for not meeting the minimum entrance qualifications one opportunity to provide supplemental information, documentation, or evidence necessary to meet the entrance qualifications. A rule amendment to Rule 600 reflecting this new process is scheduled to be placed on the Personnel Commission meeting agenda in May of 2021.

Excerpt from the Jobaps System: Instructions to Job Applicants:

③State Auditor’s Conclusion Regarding Compensation for Temporary Work-out-Class Cases

Personnel Commission’s Response to this Conclusion:
First, the Personnel Commission would like to note that temporary work-out-of -class cases are not very common transactions in the Personnel Commission. There are typically less than 10 cases in any given year. With respect to the State auditor’s conclusion implying that work-out-class work is not compensated on a prompt basis, the Personnel Commission notes that, as discussed with the audit staff on numerous occasions, there are multiple factors that may cause delays in the processing of claims and a fair amount of them are not within the control of Personnel Commission staff. The variation of the time it takes to compensate employees for out-of-class work is not only contingent on the length of time an employee performs the work, but there are several other factors that add time to the processing of claims. These factors include incomplete/missing information on the claim form and the time it takes to receive the requested incomplete/missing information from the employee; time reports to verify and calculate warranted compensation as the longer the work out-of-class claim period the more time it takes to verify and calculate the warranted compensation; work logs/descriptions of work performed take longer to evaluate depending upon the complexity of the work as well as the length of the work out-of-class period; Subject Matter Experts may need to be consulted with to verify and evaluate work performed for specialized job areas.

With respect to the processes in place for temporary work-out-class cases compensation, the Personnel Commission notes that it has compensated employees in a consistent and fair manner in accordance with the established applicable Personnel Commission Rule. Since the deadline for an employee to submit a claim form time limit changed from 100 days to 45 days last year on April 29, 2020, only one temporary work out of class case was processed and the employee did submit all of her claims in a timely manner within the deadline of 45 calendar days from the first date of working out of class.

State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1)The Commission should immediately revise the Work-out-of Class Form to include an option for employees to request intermittent payments while performing out-of-class work assignments.
2)The Commission should revise its rules by October 2021 to process employees’ compensation for out-of-class work each month.
3)The Commission should amend its rules by October 2021 to allow employees at least 100 days to submit their out-of-class work claims before limiting their compensation.
4)The Commission should require employee to submit a copy of their out-of-class claim form at the same time they submit it to their supervisor, and use the date the Commission receives this copy of the form as the date of submission.

Personnel Commission’s Response to State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1) The Personnel Commission accepts this recommendation. The Work-out-of-Class Claim Form will be amended to include an option for employees to request intermittent payments while performing out-of-class work assignments.
2) The Personnel Commission does not agree with the recommendation to automatically process compensation for work-out-class claims on a monthly basis. As stated consistently in interviews with auditing staff, this would not be considered an efficient approach and would increase the work for the Commission, the Board of Trustees, and the Payroll Department to approve payments for work out of class on a monthly basis rather than waiting until the employee is no longer working out of class. This would be additional time for the Personnel Commission staff to prepare and filter time reports, preparation of the Personnel Commission and Board of Trustees reports, distribution of the Personnel Commission report to the employee, supervisor, administration, and union, and time spent on responding to questions/feedback received which may result in amendments to the temporary work out-of-class report. Likewise, this would also increase the workload of the Board of Trustees’ Office to place this on their agenda as well as the Payroll Department since this is a specialized payment in addition to the regular payroll that is run on a semi-monthly and monthly basis. Additionally, the employee and supervisory feedback survey data for work out-of-class cases routinely gathered by the Personnel Commission over the last four fiscal years indicated that the overwhelming majority of employees and supervisors are satisfied with our current process. This information was provided to the audit staff. However, in recognition of the fact that compensation for some work out-of-class cases have taken months due to aforementioned reasons that can cause delays, the Personnel Commission agrees to process claims intermittently if the employee makes the request on the Claim Form.
3)The Personnel Commission accepts the recommendation to amend the applicable Personnel Commission rule to allow employees at least 100 days to submit their out-of-class claim form in acknowledgement that there have been instances where District administrators did not forward claims to the Personnel Commission in a timely manner. This rule amendment is scheduled to be placed on the Personnel Commission meeting agenda in May of 2021.
4) The Personnel Commission does not agree with the recommendation to amend Personnel Commission rules to require employees to copy the Commission when submitting out-of-class claims to their supervisor and have the recognized date of submission be changed to the date that the employee submits his/her claim forms to their supervisor. The duly authorized supervisor must certify that the out-of-class work was assigned prior to processing any out-of-class claims since assignment of duties is within the purview of management and not the employee (see Ed Code 88095). Additionally, Personnel Commission rules already address situations where the untimely filing of a claim may be excused under certain circumstances and increasing the allowable days to submit a claim to 100 days will also facilitate in maximizing compensation for employees who do not submit out-of-class claims in a timely manner.

④State Auditor Conclusion 3 Regarding Methods for Addressing Complaints

Personnel Commission’s Response to this Conclusion:
The Personnel Commission contends that this conclusion ignores how employee inquiries/complaints/grievances are addressed in a merit system environment.

Furthermore, the Personnel Commission believes that the State auditors made unsound inferences based on the evidence cited below from their report:

“The Personnel Commission could not provide documentation that it appropriately addressed 5 out 21 emails that the auditors gathered for a three-year period (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2019) from the email server of the Los Angeles Community District.” First, the Personnel Commission notes that it had provided evidence that it had responded to the majority of the emails. Second, 21 emails represent a very small number of cases in a three-year period, an average of 7 emails in a year, particularly in light of the fact that the Personnel Commission processes thousands of transactions in a year where employees or applicants could have raised a question or concern. Thirdly, 6 out of the 21 emails compiled by the auditors were emails addressing areas that were either outside the purview of the Personnel Commission’s authority to take action, covered a procedural question raised by an employee, provided general comments with no specifics that did not require further action, or where anonymously submitted and staff was not able to further research the matter and respond. Fourthly, the Personnel Commission explained to the audit staff that the retrieval of emails for documentation purposes had been problematic due to email migration issues when the District switched email servers in 2019, which prevented the Personnel Commission from securing documentation that would have otherwise been available to be downloaded.
“The Commission rules do not provide clear criteria for what it considers to be a complaint”. The Personnel Commission notes that employee issues in a merit system environment relate to formal appeals, grievances, or are tied to the outcome of of a formal study/case. Both appeal and grievance terms are formally defined in Rule 500 and specific rules have been developed that outline the processes. Additionally, there are processes in place where employees have multiple opportunities to provide feedback on studies/job descriptions, etc. that involve their positions, and are ultimately able to address the Personnel Commission in a public meeting before a final action is taken on their case. Furthermore, all case studies are shared with an employee’s collective bargaining representative to provide them an opportunity for input and to get their concerns addressed before any actions are taken by the Personnel Commission. Monthly union consultations take place with the Personnel Director where collective bargaining unit reps can bring up any employee issues that fall within the purview of the Personnel Commission and the Personnel Commission staff will aid in resolving these matters promptly.

Personnel Commission Rule 513, outlines the processes for how requests for investigations of personnel problems related to alleged violations of the Merit System Laws or Personnel Commission Rules are to be handled. This rule also addresses how requests should be handled when the Personnel Director is implicated in an allegation. The applicable rule provision reads as follows:

A.4.: “If the allegations in a request for investigation implicate the Personnel Director, the request shall be referred to the Personnel Commission who shall appoint an independent investigator to perform the duties of the Personnel Director in carrying out the provisions of Paragraph A1. Through 3..”

Furthermore, processes for this area are formally prescribed in Personnel Commission Rules 600, 624, 735, and 893, which are publicly posted on the Commission’s website. Therefore, the illustration in the audit report of the Complaint Column in Figure 9 under the description of the Commission’s Appeal Process is also incorrect. A detailed description of the Personnel Commission’s processes relevant to this area was provided early on during the audit (see below) and was consistently reiterated by the Personnel Commission staff in the interview notes that were provided to the State auditor as well as substantiated by the numerous logs provided by the Personnel Commission as supporting evidence, i.e. non-agenda speaker log, employee outreach log, appeal log, employee satisfaction survey summaries, etc.
It is the Personnel Commission’s position, that the “complaint process” is not a stand-alone isolated process and that the core business transactions of the Personnel Commission are not handled through an independent “complaint process”but through processes and procedures outlined in Personnel Commission Laws and Rules. By definition, it is a guiding principle for all Personnel Commissions. Each rule, policy, and procedure have avenues and outlets for all stakeholders to complain, disagree, and provide feedback. The Personnel Commission staff processes for conducting exams, classification studies, and rule revisions include multiple opportunities for direct communication, consultation, and collaboration with impacted constituents. Ultimately any constituent, stakeholder, or member of the public can bring any inquiry/issue/complaint directly to the Personnel Commissioners for consideration in a public meeting or closed meeting session if appropriate. The Commission is beholden to the Brown Act and all decisions are publicly noticed with measures built in to allow those affected to have their concerns heard and addressed. Opportunities to provide feedback, including “complaints”, is incorporated into Personnel Commission Operations via several additional mechanisms including general and special area Personnel Commission email addresses (one for general inquiries; another for examination related inquiries); online feedback surveys, individual feedback surveys (for employee and supervisor experience that went through a class study or work out of class process); and new employee satisfaction surveys.

INFORMATION SUMMARY ON HOW EMPLOYEE INQUIRIES/ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED (developed by the Personnel Commission and provided to audit team on May 19, 2020)

CONTEXT STATEMENT

Within the Los Angeles Community College District, there are several offices that handle employee-related inquiries/issues/ “complaints”, which includes Human Resources Operations, Employee and Labor Relations, Employee Benefits, Payroll, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and the Personnel Commission.

The Personnel Commission is frequently the first point of contact for employees, union representatives, and District administration, managers, and supervisors seeking information and answers regarding HR matters. This has happened in part for the following reasons:

Accessibility – We are available. Examples: Dedicated office staff that answers the phone during regular business hours; email addresses dedicated to general inquires and job and exam information that are attended to by staff on a daily basis; the Personnel Commission Field Representative/Outreach Program; direct, unencumbered access to the Personnel Commissioners at public meetings; our level of participation with administrative and union groups.

Expertise - We have qualified and broadly experienced staff both in technical HR/PC matters and in District-specific HR/PC operational/procedural matters. As such we can provide comprehensive answers and instructions to employees and job applicants.

Navigating the Organization: Often classified employees need support and information from the Personnel Commission as to which District Office department may be the appropriate office to contact to have their concerns or complaints addressed. The Commission staff regularly refers classified staff to our Human Resources counterparts when they have concerns about benefits, their assignment, hours, quotas, pay, or equity related issues.

COMPLAINT MANAGEMENT

During interviews conducted by the auditors there have been recurring questions regarding our “Complaint Process”. According to widely recognized industry standards, an effective complaint management process typically includes the following elements.

Policies and Procedures
Accessibility
Clear Channels of Communication
Record Keeping
Investigation/Analysis/Research Process
Response
Corrective Action, when necessary
Employee Education

Questions/Inquiries/Complaints exist on a spectrum from minor, which are routine and simple to resolve, to serious allegations that require more formal attention and action.

The Personnel Commission receives questions/inquiries, phone and email, from employees, supervisors, managers, administrators, and the public on a continuous basis. The vast majority of contacts are: requests for information; requests for explanation/clarification; status requests, and requests for assistance in resolving problems. These inquires/issues are addressed by Personnel Commission staff who are trained to provide direct technical support and assistance which most often resolves the issue immediately.

Complaints, i.e. more serious objections/allegations that something is unfair, unacceptable, or otherwise not up to normal standards, are sporadic and do not happen frequently. At the employee/public level, they often stem from misinformation, misunderstanding, or disagreement with a decision/ transaction/outcome regarding the individual. From District representatives, they often stem from new, unexperienced, untrained supervisory personnel (high turnover). These “complaints” are addressed by Personnel Commission staff who are trained to provide direct technical support and assistance which most often resolves the issue immediately. If the “complaint” cannot be resolved at that level, the matter is referred to the Assistant Director or Director for resolution, sometimes through a rule-based formal appeal process. In situations where the matter involves a formal appeal related to an examination, disciplinary action, or a debarment from employment, the appeal process outlined in the applicable Personnel Commission rules 600, 624, or 735 as well as in the Personnel Commission procedural summaries posted on the website is followed.

It is our position, that the “complaint process” of the Personnel Commission is not a stand-alone isolated process. By definition, it is a guiding principal for all Personnel Commissions. Each rule, policy, and procedure have avenues and outlets for all stakeholders to complain, disagree, and provide feedback. The Personnel Commission processes for conducting exams, classification studies, and rule revisions include multiple opportunities for direct communication, consultation, and collaboration with impacted constituents. Ultimately any constituent, stakeholder, or a member of the public can bring any inquiry/issue/complaint directly to the Personnel Commissioners for consideration in a public meeting or closed meeting session if appropriate. The Commission is beholden to the Brown Act and all decisions are publicly noticed with measures build-in to allow those affected to have their concerns heard and addressed.

The following segments illustrate the principals of the merit system. For each of our processes/procedures/practices, we make reference to how it relates back to the essential elements of effective complaint management.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The functional areas of the Personnel Commission are: Job Classification, Compensation, Policy/Rule Development, Recruitment and Selection, Assignment Processing/Audit, and Disciplinary Appeals. Each functional area has prescribed rules, processes, procedures, forms, and other tools which identify for individuals, employees, supervisors, managers, administrators, and executives how “transactions/complaints” within the purview of the Personnel Commission will be addressed from start to finish.

Personnel Commission Laws and Rules

The Personnel Commission Rules identify policy, decision makers and their roles, processes, procedures, and forms to be used in pursing all studies and transactions under the purview of the Personnel Commission.

Personnel Commission Laws and Rules are based in large part on provisions of Federal Law, the State of California Education Code with emphasis on the Merit System Article, the State of California Government Code, and many other laws, regulations, ordinances too numerous to specify here. The applicable law is cited at the beginning of each rule for reference and education of the reader When rules are created or amended the process requires at least two readings, one tentative, during which the Personnel Commission accepts and considers comments from interested parties, and one final where the rule is placed on the meeting agenda for final approval which affords interested parties another opportunity to comment before a final adoption occurs. (Communication/Education)

The Personnel Commission determines how it intends to put the various laws into effect following a process which highly encourages the participation of employees, supervisors, managers, administration, and the public during at least two public meetings prior to final adoption. (Accessibility/Communication)

Union representatives are provided additional opportunities for comment during regular consultations and special meetings in advance of adoption of Rules by the Personnel Commission. (Accessibility/Communication)

The Personnel Commission Rules can be amended at any time based on need, but are also on a regular review schedule to respond to any issues that have arisen in daily application of the rule, ensure adherence to current law and best practices, and educate/reeducate constituents regarding available channels to pursue concerns and interests. (Analysis/Corrective Action/Education)

Personnel Commission Rules are published and available on the Personnel Commission Website in their most up-to-date form at all times. (Accessibility/Communication)

Overall Process and Resource Information

In addition to the information available through Personnel Commission Rules, the Commission’s Website provides more “hands-on” process information for employees, supervisors, managers, administration, and the public on various matters. The information available includes:

Process Flow Charts and Timelines - Examples: Class Description Development and Review, Reclassification Study Process; Rule Revision Process; Disciplinary Hearing Process. It is of note that most of these processes/charts were developed and adopted in partnership with our classified union representatives and District administrative representatives in response to questions/inquiries/”complaints”. (Analysis/Communication/Education)

Informational Bulletins – These bulletins provide information and answers to the most often asked questions employees, supervisors, managers, and administrators pose during a study or processing of transactions. They were developed following our analysis of the questions/inquiries/ “complaints” asked over time. (Analysis/Corrective Action)

Career Ladders Guide – This guide was developed in response to questions/inquiries/ “complaints” voiced over time by employees seeking opportunities for promotion. It is of note that the Personnel Commission does not make hiring decisions for District departments, but often hears complaints from frustrated employees who are looking for opportunities to promote within the District. This guide helps all involved to understand the process and better prepare employees for promotional opportunities. This document combined with the opportunity for individual career counseling through our Outreach Process is highly valuable to employees who wish to promote or change careers and need guidance in achieving their career goals. (Analysis/Corrective Action/Communication/Education)

Employee Handbook – This handbook was developed in response to questions/inquiries/ “complaints” voiced over time by employees seeking general information about District and Board employment policies, procedures, services, and benefits. This document serves as a good starting point for new employees and as a quick reference guide for existing employees. (Analysis/Corrective Action/Communication/Education)

Study Initiation

The core business transactions of the Personnel Commission are not handled through an independent “complaint process” but through processes and procedures outlined in Personnel Commission Laws and Rules. Hence, a telephone call from an employee saying, “I am being asked to perform duties outside of my classification" is screened by staff with a few clarifying questions, providing the employee/complainant with basic information, directing them to PC Rules for more in depth information, and advising them of the correct form/procedure to request/initiate a formal study. Although this might be characterized as a “complaint” we consider it a request for a study. The person may also be directed to their union for assistance. Studies of a larger scale that are not necessarily focused on an individual employee, i.e. series reclassifications, new classes, salary studies, reorganizations are typically initiated through administrative channels or the union via a written request to the Personnel Commission. (Policy/Procedure/Accessibility/Communication)

Study Screening and Management

Requests for a study submitted through the required request forms are logged in, reviewed by the Director or Assistant Director, assigned to an analyst, and a working file is created. (Process/Record Keeping)

In an individual study, the employee is notified of receipt of their request and provided procedural information regarding the upcoming process. (Communication)

Studies involving groups or broader issues, rather than individuals, are logged in, reviewed by the Director and Assistant Director, and assigned to an analyst. Required research, consultations, and meetings follow before any study is finalized. (Communication/Research/Investigation)

Study Process

In the classification study process, employees, supervisors, managers, and administrators are all given multiple opportunities to communicate anything they wish during studies involving job classification, reclassification, work-out of classification, etc. Such opportunities involve in-person desk audits, phone audits, submission of work samples, escalation of technical issues to higher-level analysts, involvement of supervisors, etc. Furthermore, union reps are provided opportunities to consult on studies before any action is taken by the Personnel Commission.

The examination process begins with a “Start-Up Questionnaire” forwarded to hiring authorities wherein their input on many issues is proactively sought before an examination proceeds. After an examination has been administered, there is a formal three-level appeal process for exam participants who have been unsuccessful in a test. Administrative “complaints” regarding examination are addressed directly to the Personnel Commission.

Study Conclusion

All study requests are brought to conclusion with a written staff report which summarizes the analyst’s findings, analysis, and recommendations. All staff reports are reviewed by the Director and Assistant Director. The report is widely shared for comment with involved parties before being placed on the Personnel Commission open meeting agenda. All agenda reports are publicly posted on the Personnel Commission website at least 72 hours before the public meeting. All involved parties (i.e. employees, supervisors, union reps) are encouraged to attend the Personnel Commission meeting. (Accessibility/Communication/Response)

The Personnel Commission makes the final decision to approve, amend, or reject staff's recommendations at the applicable open session of the Personnel Commission meeting. There are also instances when the Personnel Commission postpones action on an item based on a request of the employee, administrator, or union representative. This may include cases where the employee wishes to submit additional information, the union asks for more time to consult, the employee is not available to attend the meeting where the item is on the agenda, etc. After addressing the voiced concerns/requests, staff places the item back on the next available Personnel Commission agenda. (Accessibility/Communication/Investigation/Corrective Action)

Outreach Efforts

In an effort to help resolve personnel issues at the local level and increase access to Commission staff, the Personnel Commission initiated its Personnel Commission Field Representative Program in 2001. The program had two full-time field representatives who rotated between the colleges on a regular schedule to meet with employees, supervisors, managers, and administrators to answer questions, facilitate resolutions to issues, conduct workshops on topics of interest to classified employees and supervisors, write monthly informational bulletins, and offer career counseling sessions. In 2017, the program had to be downsized due to financial hardships within the District and the retirement of the last field representative. Currently, the Personnel Commission has one analyst dedicated to serve as a contact person for classified employees, supervisors, managers, and administrators to address any inquiries/issues they may have. This person, Patrick Sung, is listed on the Personnel Commission website under Employee Outreach. (Accessibility/Communication/ Response/ Education)

Solicitation of Feedback

Opportunities to provide feedback, including “complaints”, is incorporated into Personnel Commission operations via several additional mechanisms.

Address the Personnel Commissioners: Callers with concerns are always advised of the opportunity to address the Personnel Commissioners at a meeting or in writing. If in writing, the Personnel Commission receives the document as correspondence and provides direction to staff to address the concerns in a timely manner. Open public meetings are bi-monthly with time and location posted on the Personnel Commission’s website.

Special Personnel Commission Email Addresses: One for general inquiries. The second specifically for examination related inquiries. These email inboxes get frequently checked and inquiries are responded to in a timely manner.

Feedback Survey: Individuals can complete a small survey and provide comments through the Personnel Commission website under the following link: http://laccd.edu/Departments/PersonnelCommission/Pages/We-Want-Your-Feedback.aspx

Individual Feedback Survey: Following completion of a classification study, the subject employee and supervisor are given the opportunity to complete a brief survey regarding their experience.

New Employee Satisfaction Survey: Following a new hire, the hiring authority is asked for feedback regarding the new employee’s likelihood of job success.

State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1)The Commission should amend its rules by October 2021 to clearly define complainants and create a formal process for addressing all complaints, including a process to elevate to the Commissioners those complaints that are not resolved at lower levels.
2)The Commission should amend its rules by October 2021 to include a provision for submitting whistleblower complaints directly to the District’s general counsel and assign it the responsibility of designating an appropriate party to respond (Note: Auditors were considering changing this recommendation).
3)The Commission should amend its rules by October 2021 to establish that complainant information may not be shared with the subject of a whistle-blower complaint. (Note: Auditors were considering changing this recommendation)

Personnel Commission’s Response to State Auditor’s Recommendations:

1)As previously noted, it is the Personnel Commission’s position that the “complaint process” is not a stand-alone isolated process and that the core business transactions of the Personnel Commission are not handled through an independent “complaint process”but through processes and procedures outlined in Personnel Commission Laws and Rules. Rule 513 addresses how requests for investigations of personnel problems related to alleged violations of the Merit System Laws or Personnel Commission Rules are to be processed, and Rules 600, 624, 735, and 893 outline appeal or adjustment processes for examination results, disciplinary actions, debarments from employment, and grievances of unrepresented employees, which represent the core areas of employee issues in a Personnel Commission environment. All key terms listed in Commission rules are defined in Rule 500. This includes definitions for “appeal”, “grievance”, “adjustment procedure”, etc. The term “complainant” is not a term that independently exists in a merit system environment for reasons already explained. The Personnel Commission believes that these rules, taken together, sufficiently address the few complaints that are made regarding our practices and policies.
2)The Personnel Commission notes that Whistleblower complaints do not fall within its purview. They are regulated by the Government Code. These types of complaints are handled by the Internal Audit Department of the Los Angeles Community College District (see Flyer below which is posted on the LACCD website). The audit team made reference to a whistleblower email in their audit report that was erroneously forwarded by the General Counsel’s Office to the Personnel Commissioners and cc’d to the former Personnel Director. Furthermore, as Rule 503 (C.1 and C.2) states the Personnel Commission recognizes that no set of rules can contemplate all possible combination of circumstances affecting particular cases. These rules are to be applied with consideration of their intent. Interpretations regarding the meaning, intent, or applications of the rules shall be made by the Personnel Commission.
3)The Personnel Commission notes that whistleblower complaints do not fall within its purview. They are regulated by the Government Code. These types of complaints are handled by the Internal Audit Department of the Los Angeles Community College District. (see flyer below) Furthermore, as Rule 503 (C.1 and C.2) states the Personnel Commission recognizes that no set of rules can contemplate all possible combination of circumstances affecting particular cases. These rules are to be applied with consideration of their intent. Interpretations regarding the meaning, intent, or applications of the rules shall be made by the Personnel Commission.

⑤Other Areas Reviewed By Auditors

Area Involving Commission’s Debarment and Notification Practices

State Auditor’s Recommendations:

The Commission should establish rules to require that examiners independently verify the reason for inconsistencies between applications.
The Commission should establish rules that examiners provide applicants an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.
The Commission should establish rules that examiners document the steps they take to verify the disputed information and retain relevant supporting documentation.

Personnel Commission’s Response to State Auditor’s Recommendations

1)The Personnel Commission contends that it already has a sound process in place for examiners since they are asked to summarize information on inconsistencies between job applications relevant to a debarment case. This summary is independently compiled and attached to the debarment notice that is sent to the applicant.
2)The Personnel Commission notes that only applicants who intentionally create major inconsistencies on their job applications that are based on making false statements, omitting material facts, and/or practicing deception or fraud to pass an examination or to secure employment are subject to debarment. This includes examples such as where an applicant intentionally leaves off positions he/she was terminated from, changes significant dates of employment for positions to increase the years of experience, adds new jobs that were never listed on prior job applications for the single purpose to list experience that will qualify them for the new position, etc. All applicants before they submit an application are provided instructions in the JopAps application system on how to fill out an application. The instructions specifically ask applicants to provide accurate and complete information on their employment history for the last ten years and educational background. Applicants are also alerted in the instructions to be consistent with the information across their job applications. Therefore, the Personnel Commission does not agree with the statement made by the auditors in the report that “applicants may have omitted jobs or duties from past applications because they were not relevant to the positions.” While applicants may have omitted jobs or duties that appear on previous applications because they did not feel they were relevant to the position now being applied for, this is in direct opposition to our very explicit instructions for completing an application and, unfortunately, leads to the suspicion that the applicant is being dishonest.

The Personnel Commission notes that debarments of applicants due to inconsistencies that appear on their job applications are very rare (less than 1%) when comparing it with the total number of applications received each year by the classified examination unit, which typically ranges well over 10,000. In the event that an applicant is debarred due to providing significant inconsistencies on his/her job applications, there is due process in place by which he/she can appeal the examiner’s decision in accordance with Rule 600. During this appeal process an applicant will be able to provide additional clarification on the inconsistencies on their job applications.

3)The Personnel Commission notes that there is already an established process for how examiners document the information they obtained for debarment cases in the JobAps system. The Personnel Commission agrees to enhance the JobAps examiner’s manual to further outline the documentation process.

Area Involving Commission’s Accountability Measures

The State auditors noted in their report that the “Personnel Commission should exercise greater oversight of Commission operations” and used as an example the examination administrations conducted by Commission staff. The Personnel Commission contends that Commissioners by law do not have regular work schedules like the Commission’s managerial, professional, and clerical staff. Their schedule is based on meetings (see Ed Code 88071) that occur twice a month during which they rule on agendized items, discuss appeal cases, and hear any concerns from non-agenda speakers. Hence by definition of their role, it not reasonable to assume that the Commissioners should get involved in the day-to-day transactions and examination administrations handled by the Commission’s Office. It is the role of the Personnel Director and its professional and clerical staff to attend to business transactions, administer examinations, and resolve routine complaints/inquires at the staff level. Furthermore, it would also constitute a problematic approach since the Commissioners represent a final level of appeal for applicants and employees and therefore it is important that they maintain their objectivity when hearing an appeal or a grievance, which would not be possible if they are involved in the day-to-day transactions of the Personnel Commission Office.

State Auditor’s Recommendation:

The Commission should establish rules to require staff to periodically report to them on how its practices compare to those of other merit system entities’, along with any recommendations for improving the Commission’s practices.

The Personnel Commission’s Response to State Auditor’s Recommendation

The Personnel Commission notes that there is a sound rule review process in place that goes beyond just using other agency’s’ practices when reviewing their own processes. It includes conducting regular annual legislative bill reviews related to human resources areas to determine if they have an impact on rules and processes, which are reported to the Commission in a detailed report, the review of comparable rules from other merit system Districts for comparative purposes, and the review of applicable provisions of collective bargaining unit agreements representing classified employees for consistency purposes. The Personnel Commission agrees to have staff add details on other agencies practices when rule amendments are presented to them, if applicable.

Area Involving Commission Turnover and Work Environment

In the audit report it was alleged that a negative work culture existed in the Personnel Commission that resulted in employee turnover during the past five years. The evidence that was cited in support of this allegation included high employee turnover in 17/18 and interview comments from current and former employees.

The Personnel Commission’s Response to Turnover and Work Environment Statements made by State Auditors

The following is presented in reaction/response to the methodology, analysis, and conclusions related to this allegation.

The following is the “turnover” information the State auditors requested and relied on in their analysis (note: employees names and titles were removed).

Employee	FY
Employee A	14/15
Employee B	15/16
Employee C	15/16
Employee D	16/17
Employee E	16/17
Employee F	17/18
Employee G	17/18
Employee H	17/18
Employee I	18/19
Employee J	18/19

From this information and organization charts, the auditors computed a turnover rate of 21% for l7/l8 and concluded that this was an unusually high turnover rate.

Fiscal Year	Total PC Employees	Employee Turnover	Turnover %
14/15	12	1	8%
15/16	14	2	14%
16/17	15	2	13%
17/18	14	3	21%
18/19	13	2	15%

The impact of a small sample on the statistics is obvious and does not appear to have been considered in the auditors’ conclusion of a “unusually high turnover rate.” However, there is an additional issue.

By definition, employee turnover rate refers to the proportion of employees who leave the employer during a certain time period. This rate includes both voluntary and involuntary separation and excludes internal movements (promotions and transfers) and employees who are on furlough or leave of absence.

Therefore, to accurately compute even a basic turnover rate, knowing the reason an employee left is needed.

The reasons for PC employees leaving during the audit period are as follows:

Fiscal Year	Employee	Reason for Leaving	Yrs. of PC Service
14/15	Employee A	Promotion; employee later promoted back to the Personnel Commission	7 Yr 3 Mo
15/16	Employee B	Transfer to a College which was closer to the employee’s home	1 Yr 10 Mo
15/16	Employee C	Release during probation	4 Mo
16/17	Employee D	Transfer: Career Change Opportunity	2 Yr 4 Mo
16/17	Employee E	Retirement	33 Yr
17/18	Employee F	Transfer to Vice Chancellor of HR Office	8 Yr 8 Mo
17/18	Employee G	Promotion	1 Yr 7 Mo
17/18	Employee H	Resignation due to medical/health Issue	6 Yr 5 Mo
18/19	Employee I	Voluntary Demotion to a college which was closer to the employee’s home	2 Yr 11 Mo
18/19	Employee J	Involuntary Demotion following employee-employer relations matter	15 Y 1 M

By applying a different and more appropriate methodology to the Personnel Commission data, a completely different picture is painted: turnover is well within acceptable HR metrics (chart below); within the turnover record there is nothing to credibly support a conclusion that employees left because of a poor work culture; years of service with the Personnel Commission, all under the same leadership, as well as the reasons noted for turnover do not support a poor work culture finding.

Fiscal Year	Total PC Employees	Employee Turnover	Turnover %
14/15	12	0	0%
15/16	14	1	7%
16/17	15	1	7%
17/18	14	1	7%
18/19	13	0	0%

INTERVIEWS WITH CURRENT AND PAST PC EMPLOYEES

The State auditors reported that some current and past employees were interviewed and made comments about the working conditions and past leadership within the Personnel Commission. From the interviews alone with no specific examples to cite of retaliation or negative classification actions, the auditors alleged that a negative work culture existed in the Personnel Commission. Our concern is that no one in Personnel Commission leadership was contacted to provide context and management perspective to what may have been said. Workplace dynamics are very complex and without hearing all sides of the story, it is possible to come to an inaccurate conclusion.

The Personnel Commission leadership is dedicated to fostering a healthy and positive work environment and would have been interested in knowing what specific events, situations, circumstances, and statements lead to the auditors negative work culture conclusion. How the credibility of the employees they spoke with was established would have also been of interest. For example, there were unfounded discrimination claims made by a former employee who was discredited after the investigation was completed by an independent outside investigator. Finally, if leadership would have been informed of these claims, we would have been able to evaluated them and respond accordingly.

State Auditor’s Statements Related to Concerns Regarding the Commission’s Practices

The State auditors noted in their report that they received survey information from one of the collective bargaining unions of the District which conducted a survey in November of 2019 and alleged that 117 out of 975 total survey responses included negative comments about functions performed by the Personnel Commission. The negative comments included areas such as eligibility and qualifications, classifications and reclassifications, promotions, examinations, compensation, and working out of class. The State auditors also noted in their report that “some district employees told them that they feared retaliation or retribution if they questioned Commission practices”.

The Personnel Commission’s Response to those Concerns

The Personnel Commission notes that there are approximately 2200 regular classified employees in the Los Angeles Community College District. The 117 survey responses cited by the state auditors represent approximately 11% of all regular classified employees that the Personnel Commission serves. The Commission notes that those survey results were neither shared with them nor were specific cases provided as examples so that the Commission would have been given the opportunity to research and respond to the allegations. Therefore, this information represents a one-sided, completely subjective view on Personnel Commission operations from a small percentage of employees that was not supported by any verifiable evidence. These negative survey responses were most likely driven by an outcome on a study or examination that was not satisfactory to the employee and cannot be used as a measure to substantiate valid concerns about the Commission practices and processes. The Personnel Commission also notes that it not aware of any case in its entire history where employees had evidence that they were retaliated against by the Personnel Commission if they questioned practices.

Appendix

Scope and Methodology

Personnel Commission Comments related to Audit Scope 4

The State auditors noted in the fourth bullet in this section that the Personnel Commission did not verify high school transcripts and as as result the Commission did not determine whether 13 candidates met minimum qualifications. The Personnel Commission notes that it used to verify high school transcripts more than a decade ago but since it had become an exceedingly hard burden on job applicants to obtain their high school records from their high schools that they attended years or decades ago in the United States or foreign countries, the Commission made a policy decision to no longer require applicants to provide proof for an educational requirement that only represented proof of a basic education with no focus on an occupational specialty that would have been critical to the qualifications of a position. Furthermore, the Personnel Commission typically administers written tests for those classified positions which require a high school diploma as the minimum education requirement that cover the basic skills taught in high school, i.e. reading, arithmetic, spelling, grammar, etc.

This concludes the summary of our responses to your State Audit report. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

David H. Iwata
Chair, Personnel Commission

COMMENTS

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM the los angeles community college district personnel commission

To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the Commission’s response to our audit. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the Commission’s response.

① The Commission disagreed with a number of our conclusions, objected to some phrasing in our report, and criticized our methodologies and staff expertise. Despite these criticisms, the Commission failed to provide support for its assertions, contradicted itself, mischaracterized some of our conclusions and recommendations, and presented flawed arguments. Furthermore, the Commission states that it has begun to improve its processes and intends to implement most of our recommendations. Rather than comment on all of the areas of its response that we believe are deficient or misleading we have summarized our comments according to the respective sections of our audit report.

② Application and Exam Process

In its response to the section of our report that pertains to the application and examination process for hiring and promotion, the Commission states that our conclusions overstate the problems making them appear more widespread than they really are. Contrary to the Commission’s assertion, our audit conclusions were based on our assessment of the Commission’s processes, and the examples we use in the audit report highlight and strengthen our conclusions regarding the shortcomings of those processes. In addition, as we describe throughout the report, we obtained sufficient evidence to support our conclusions and recommendations.

Although we acknowledge that in its response in most cases the Commission agrees to fix many of the deficiencies we identified, it simultaneously attempts to minimize their effect. For example, by focusing on the number of cases we identified in which the deficiencies affected particular candidates, the Commission overlooks the fact that it should have processes in place to treat all candidates, rather than most candidates, fairly and consistently.

Despite the Commission’s attempt to minimize the deficiencies we identified, we are pleased to note that the Commission asserts that it has recently implemented our recommendation regarding the need to increase transparency and ensure that it makes consistent decisions when assessing applicants’ minimum qualifications by defining key terms such as “professional-level” and “recent.” Furthermore, the Commission asserts that it has updated some of its processes based on issues we raised during the audit and will implement nearly all of the remaining recommendations to improve its application and examination processes for hiring and promotion. We look forward to receiving the Commission’s 60-day, 6-month and one‑year responses so that we can assess its progress in improving its processes and practices.

③Working Out of Class

The Commission’s response to the section of our report regarding compensation for employees temporarily working out of class fails to address the importance of the issue as described in our report.

Specifically, the Commission’s assertion that it has compensated employees working in out-of-class assignments in a consistent and fair manner is not correct. As we describe, of the six out‑of‑class claims we reviewed, five employees did not receive payment for between five and 11 months after they began performing the higher‑level work. In contrast, the remaining employee received multiple intermittent payments during their out-of-class assignment.

In addition, the Commission’s assertion that our recommendation to revise its rules to process employees’ compensation claims for out-of-class work monthly would not be efficient and would increase the work for the Commission, Board and the Payroll Department is disingenuous. As it states in its response, “There are typically less than 10 cases in any given year.” Further, as we state, during the three fiscal year period we reviewed, the Commission only had to consider 22 out-of-class claims. As such, the additional work required to process monthly payments to employees working out-of-class is neither inefficient nor burdensome.

Finally, with respect to our recommendation to require employees to submit a copy of their out-of-class claim to the Commission at the same time they submit it to their supervisors, the Commission’s response is misguided. Contrary to the Commission’s attempt to suggest that our recommendation would require the Commission to begin processing the claim prior to the supervisor and district administrator certifying it, the purpose of our recommendation is to ensure that the Commission has an accurate record of when the employee submitted the claim.

④Addressing Complaints

The Commission’s response to our conclusions and recommendation regarding its processes for addressing complaints and protecting complainants is disappointing. Specifically, the Commission’s statement that the “complaint process” is not a stand-alone isolated process and that core business transactions are not handled through an independent “complaint process” fails to acknowledge the importance of a formal complaint process. In addition, the document that the Commission includes in its response was created by the Commission in responding to questions by auditors from our office during the course of the audit. The document itself is not part of the Commission’s rules or policy manuals; however; its length illustrates the complexity and number of processes employees and applicants must navigate to express a concern. Generally, this document makes a number of assertions about how the Commission addresses all complaints. However, our review revealed that the Commission had not established for all types of complaints several of the elements it describes as typical aspects of a complaint management process. Moreover, as we describe, the Commission lacks a defined process for addressing all employee complaints, and it could not document that it adequately addresses all complaints it received.

Finally, we disagree with the Commission’s assertion that whistleblower complaints do not fall within its purview. Although state law outlines whistleblower complaint processes, it does not preclude the Commission from establishing rules to clarify how whistleblower complaints are to be handled—as the District has. As such we stand by our conclusions and recommendations and believe that the Commission must implement them to ensure that it consistently identifies and responds to all complaints and reduces the risk of retaliation against complainants.

⑤Other Areas We Reviewed

In the Commission’s response to the section of our report concerning its debarment and notification practices, the Commission does not address the deficiency we identified—that the Commission does not verify information used for debarment. Summaries of inconsistencies between job applications, even if they are compiled independently, do not provide adequate assurance that an examiner has reached an accurate conclusion. In addition, debarment is a significant consequence, and although discrepancies in applications may be a cause for suspicion and may warrant further follow-up, suspicion—absent evidence of actual dishonesty—should not be grounds for debarment. Moreover, eliminating a candidate from an examination and requiring them to avail themselves of the appeal process in order to defend themselves places an undue burden on the applicant.

The Commission’s response regarding our report section on the Commission’s accountability measures exaggerates the level of commissioner involvement that we recommend. We did not recommend that the commissioners involve themselves in the day‑to‑day transactions of the Commission. Rather, we recommend that the commissioners more closely review the Commission’s policies and procedures, in accordance with their intended role. Doing so would not compromise their objectivity. Similarly, the Commission’s response does not address our recommendation. Rather than questioning the rule review process, we are recommending that the commissioners apply it more broadly and review existing rules and Commission practices. This proactive review would ensure that Commission practices are kept up to date and aligned with the best practices of other entities.

The Commission’s response to the section of our report concerning Commission turnover and work environment is inaccurate in that we do not allege that a negative work culture existed at the Commission; rather, we state that District employees and former Commission employees described concerns about the Commission’s culture and stated that they feared retaliation by the former director. In addition, former Commission employees told us that the behavior of the former director influenced their decision to leave the Commission. The Commission’s suggestion that we should have provided it the opportunity to address specific employees’ perspectives, which would have required us to identify those employees to the Commission, illustrates its failure to grasp the basic tenets of confidentiality and retaliation prevention.

Regarding the Commission’s statements about calculations of employee turnover, the Commission’s assertion about the information and approach we used for our calculation is incorrect; we shared both with the Commission during the course of our audit and it did not dispute them at that time. We also note that the Commission’s calculation of employee turnover is for a different time period than ours and that it inappropriately excluded some employees that we included in our calculation. It is also important to note that contrary to the Commissions’ assertion, we do not conclude in our report that the Commission had an unusually high turnover rate.

Finally, the Commission’s response raises concerns about how we used information from a 2019 union survey that is included in the introduction of our report. Our purpose in reviewing this information was to assess District employees’ perceptions of the Commission, not to determine whether those perceptions were valid. Rather than reviewing the validity of individuals’ perceptions, we objectively assessed the adequacy of the Commission’s processes and independently reached our own conclusions, as described throughout the report. Nevertheless, the number of negative comments from the survey indicates that some of the District’s classified employees do have a poor perception of the Commission’s practices and the fairness of those practices.