Report 2020-111 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2020-111: Los Angeles Community College District Personnel Commission: Its Inconsistent Practices and Inadequate Policies Adversely Affect District Employees and Job Candidates, Leading to Concerns About the Fairness of Its Decisions (Release Date: May 2021)

Recommendation #1 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To increase the objectivity and transparency of its minimum qualification requirements, when possible the Commission should create qualification requirements based on time spent working in District job classifications or equivalent experience, rather than using ambiguous terms such as "professional-level."

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #2 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To increase transparency and ensure that it makes consistent decisions when assessing applicants' minimum qualifications, 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."

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC staff updated the jobaps procedure manual with further updates on the documentation process. Only applicants who intentionally create major inconsistencies on their jobs applications are subject to debarment. Before submitting an application, all applicants are provided with instructions on how to fill out an application. Instructions specifically asks an applicant to provide accurate and complete information on their employment history. Therefore, an applicant omitting jobs or duties from past applications because they were not relevant to the position is in direction opposition to PC's explicit instructions for completing an application. In addition, debarments of applicants due to inconsistencies are very rare (less than 1%) when compared to the 10,000+ apps received every year. Lastly, applicants that are debarred due to significant inconsistencies on applications can formally appeal this decision by an examiner to the Personnel Director and the Commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

It is not clear how the Commission's response is related to this recommendation. The Commission describes elements of its process related to debarrment but fails to address whether it has defined key terms for its examiners when they review applications for minimum qualifications, as we recommended. Further, although the Commission stated that it has updated its procedure manual, it failed to provide us with a copy of that manual. Thus, we are unable to assess whether its revisions to that manual address our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #3 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that its examination process is fair and evaluates all candidates consistently, the Commission should establish a rule by October 2021 to require examiners to provide disqualification notices that describe their reasons for disqualifying an applicant.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Excerpt from PC Rule 600. Implemented during an Open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act.

Rule 600, Pg 4 Section F: "An applicant or candidate who is rejected ... shall be given one opportunity to provide supplementary information, documentation, or evidence necessary to meet the entrance qualifications. Such supplementary material must be submitted in writing to the examination unit within five calendar days after the rejection notice was sent. If it is determined by the examiner of record that such supplementary material does not satisfy the entrance qualifications, the applicant or candidate shall be notified in writing."

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Although the Commission's response cites a section of its rules that does not implement our recommendation, another section of those rules, Rule 600 Section I, states that: applicants, candidates, and eligibles who are rejected for any of the reasons identified in Paragraph E of this rule shall be notified in writing and the notification must include a reason for their rejection. Thus, the Commission has implemented our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #4 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that its examination process is fair and evaluates all candidates consistently, the Commission should establish a rule by October 2021 to require examiners to create detailed scoring benchmarks that provide raters guidance on how to rate individual evaluation factors.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC accepted this recommendation. Improvements to rating sheets were implemented which provide specific and detailed definition for each rating on the rating sheet (fully implemented in July of 2021)

Implemented during an Open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

Although the Commission provided a sample scoring sheet for one position, it did not provide evidence that it established a rule requiring the creation of detailed scoring benchmarks. Such a rule would help ensure that scoring benchmarks are created for all positions. Absent such a rule, the Commission has not fully implemented our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #5 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that its examination process is fair and evaluates all candidates consistently, the Commission should establish a rule by October 2021 requiring that when it creates examinations it establish a method for determining candidates' overall scores based on the ratings of the individual evaluation factors.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Candidates' overall scores are calculated by summing all individual factor rating scores (fully implemented in July of 2021). More important factors are assigned a heavier weight than factors that are less important. All exams are administered using this new approach.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The Commission provided a sample interview scoring sheet with its response that includes a method for determining candidates' overall scores based on the ratings of the individual evaluation factors. However, it did not provide evidence that it established a rule requiring the use of this method for all candidate evaluations. Thus, the Commission has not fully implemented our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #6 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that its examination process is fair and evaluates all candidates consistently, the Commission should establish a rule by October 2021 to require raters to provide written comments on rating sheets for each candidate, explaining the basis for the score they awarded.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

The new rating sheet has a mandatory field for comments where raters are required to provide comments about a candidate's strength and weaknesses (fully implemented in July of 2021). This applies to all candidates regardless of whether they pass or fail the exam. In the past examiners were only looking for comments for candidates that a rater failed. Examiners will review rating sheets to ensure that comments are sufficient.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The Commission provided a sample interview scoring sheet that directs raters to provide a written comment at the end of the evaluation sheet to "briefly explain" their ratings of the candidate. However, it did not provide evidence that it established a rule requiring such comments for all positions and candidates. Thus, the Commission has not yet demonstrated that it has fully implemented our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #7 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that its examination process is fair and evaluates all candidates consistently, the Commission should establish a rule by October 2021 to require examiners to review scoring sheets to determine if raters have followed the Commission's candidate evaluation guidance, and if the raters have failed to follow the guidance request that the raters review their evaluation of the candidate.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC already has a process in place that was implemented in early 2021 by which multiple examiners review rating sheets to ensure that the PC's evaluation guidance is being followed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

The Los Angeles Community College District Personnel Commission did not provide any documentation demonstrating that it has a process in place requiring multiple examiners to review rating sheets to ensure that the Commission's evaluation guidance is being followed. Thus, we are unable to evaluate whether it has implemented our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #8 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To promote transparency in its application process and to minimize the perception that it arbitrarily disqualifies applicants, the Commission should revise its rules by October 2021 to implement an appeal process for applicants who it has determined do not meet minimum qualifications for a position.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC now provides an applicant who is rejected for not meeting the minimum entrance qualifications one opportunity to provide supplementary information/documentation/evidence necessary to meet the entrance qualifications. An amendment to Rule 600 reflecting this new process was amended on June 23, 2021. Process applies to exams that opened after June 23, 2021.

Implemented during an open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The Los Angeles Community College District Personnel Commission revised its rules to allow applicants it has rejected to appeal that rejection. Its rules specifically allow for appeals of rejections due to a failure to meet the minimum job qualifications specified, and they allow the applicant one opportunity to submit supplemental documentation, information, or evidence.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #9 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that employees are aware that they can request intermittent payments while performing out-of-class work assignments, the Commission should immediately revise its claim form to include this option.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #10 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that employees receive prompt compensation for the higher-level duties they perform, the Commission should revise its rules by October 2021 to process employees' compensation for out-of-class work each month.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

As of June 23, 2021 approved claims are submitted monthly and implemented during an open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The Commission did not submit any documentation to substantiate that it had created a rule to process employees' compensation for out-of-class work each month, nor did it provided evidence that it is approving compensation for out-of-class work each month.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #11 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that employees are fairly compensated for the entirety of the out-of-class work they perform, 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Implemented during an Open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act. June 23, 2021

The amendments to this rule are based on a state auditor recommendation to increase the

allowable days for employees to submit his/her work out-of-class claims from 45 days to 100 days, which was the previous time line established in this rule for claims. It is anticipated that reverting back to the original submission deadline will aid in addressing the issue of claims not being forwarded from the District/College administrations to the Personnel Commission in a timely manner, which had been a finding of the auditors.

Rule 550 Pg 3 Sec B(4):

The claim form shall be submitted on behalf of the employee to the Personnel Commission no later than 100 calendar days after the first date of temporary work out of classification was performed. In unusual circumstances, the Personnel Commission may excuse the untimely filing of a claim when there is credible documentation and the facts establish that there was a mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect by an employee or supervisor.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

The Commission amended its rules to allow employees 100 days to submit their out-of-class work claims before limiting their compensation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #12 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that employees are fairly compensated for the entirety of the out-of-class work they perform, the Commission should amend its rules by October 2021 to require employees to submit a copy of their out-of-class claim form to the Commission at the same time as they submit it to their supervisors, and use the date the Commission receives this copy of the form as the date of submission.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #13 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it consistently identifies and responds to all complaints and to reduce the risk of retaliation against complainants, by October 2021 the Commission should amend its rules to clearly define complaints 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.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Implemented during an Open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act. April 21, 2021.

Rules 600, 624, 735 and 893 outline appeal or adjustment processes for examination results, disciplinary actions, debarements from employment, and grievances of unrepresented employees, which represents the core areas of employment and grievances of unrepresented employee issues in a Personnel Commission environment. All those areas are tracked in logs, which were provided to the SA. All key terms listed in Commission rules are defined in Rule 500. This includes definition for appeal, grievance, adjustment procedure, etc. The term "complainant" is not a term that independently exists in a merit system environment. The Commission believes that these rules taken together, sufficiently address the few complaints that are made regarding our practices and policies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Commission's justification for not addressing this recommendation is flawed. The Commission incorrectly suggests that complaint is not a term that exist independently in merit systems and that the Commission's existing processes sufficiently address complaints about its practices and policies. First, as we describe in our report, the State Center Community College District has established a process for addressing complaints. The Commission may find that process a useful model for improving its own practices. Second, as we also describe in the report, district employees have expressed a variety of concerns about the Commission, some of which went unaddressed. To ensure that the Commission responds to concerns that do not fall within what it describes as the "core areas of employment and grievances," it should create a definition of "complaint" and create a formal process for addressing complaints that fall outside of its existing processes. Further, as we recommend, it should establish a process for elevating to commissioners those complaints that are not resolved at lower levels. The rules described in the Commission's response do not implement these concepts.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #14 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it consistently identifies and responds to all complaints and to reduce the risk of retaliation against complainants, by October 2021 the Commission should amend its rules to include a provision for submitting whistleblower complaints directly to the District's Office of the General Counsel and assign it the responsibility of designating an appropriate party to respond.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #15 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it consistently identifies and responds to all complaints and to reduce the risk of retaliation against complainants, by October 2021 the Commission should amend its rules to establish that complainant information may not be shared with the subject of a whistleblower complaint.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #16 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it treats applicants consistently when considering whether to debar them in the case of false statements or deception, the Commission should establish rules to require that examiners independently verify the reason for inconsistencies between applications.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC staff has updated the JobAps procedure manual with further updates on the documentation process.

Applicants who intentionally create major inconsistencies on their jobs applications are subject to debarment. Before submitting an application, all applicants are provided with instructions on how to fill out an application. Instructions specifically asks an applicant to provide accurate and complete information on their employment history. Therefore, an applicant omitting jobs or duties from past applications because they were not relevant to the position is in direction opposition to PC's explicit instructions for completing an application. In addition, debarments of applicants due to inconsistencies are very rare (less than 1%) when compared to the 10,000+ apps received every year. Lastly, applicants that are debarred due to significant inconsistencies on applications can formally appeal this decision by an examiner to the Personnel Director and the Commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Commission did not describe any rules that it adopted to require that examiners independently verify the reason for inconsistencies between applications, as we recommended, nor did it provide a copy of its updated procedure manual as evidence of the changes it asserts that it made. Thus, we were unable to determine whether the Commission took any action to implement our recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #17 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it treats applicants consistently when considering whether to debar them in the case of false statements or deception, the Commission should establish rules to require that examiners provide applicants with an opportunity to address the inconsistencies.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

Debarements have a 3 step appeals process to the examiner, then the Director and then the Commissioners.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Commission's appeal process does not address the deficiency we identified. Discrepancies in applications may be a cause for suspicion and may warrant further follow-up, but, absent evidence of actual dishonesty, should not be grounds for debarment. Eliminating a candidate from an examination and requiring him or her to use the appeal process for defense places an undue burden on the applicant. Thus, we stand by our recommendation that the Commission should establish a rule that requires examiners to provide applicants with the opportunity to address inconsistencies in their applications before disbarring them.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #18 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that it treats applicants consistently when considering whether to debar them in the case of false statements or deception, the Commission should establish rules to require that examiners document the steps taken to verify the disputed information and retain relevant supporting documentation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC staff has updated the JobAps procedure manual with further updates on the documentation process.

Applicants who intentionally create major inconsistencies on their jobs applications are subject to debarment. Before submitting an application, all applicants are provided with instructions on how to fill out an application. Instructions specifically asks an applicant to provide accurate and complete information on their employment history. Therefore, an applicant omitting jobs or duties from past applications because they were not relevant to the position is in direction opposition to PC's explicit instructions for completing an application. In addition, debarments of applicants due to inconsistencies are very rare (less than 1%) when compared to the 10,000+ apps received every year. Lastly, applicants that are debarred due to significant inconsistencies on applications can formally appeal this decision by an examiner to the Personnel Director and the Commission.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The process the Commission describes does not differ significantly from the flawed process we identified during the course of our audit. The Commission did not address our suggestion that it establish rules to implement this recommendation, nor did it provide its updated procedure manual so that we could assess the updates that it asserts it made. Thus, we were unable to determine that the Commission took any action to implement this recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

Recommendation #19 To: Los Angeles Community College District

To ensure that the Commission's practices align with the mission of the merit system, the Commissioners should establish rules that require staff to periodically report to them on how its practices compare to those of other entities with merit systems, along with any recommendations for improving the Commission's practices.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2022

PC agreed to have staff add details on other agencies practices when rule amendments are presented (implemented in rule amendments starting in July of 2021).

Implemented during an Open session of the Personnel Commission having been properly placed on a publicly noticed agenda per the procedural rules of the Brown Act.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: No Action Taken

The Commission did not provide any evidence that staff have added details on other agencies' practices when presenting rule amendments to the Commission or that the Commission had established a rule requiring staff to do so. Further, the Commission did not provide any evidence that it has established rules that require staff to periodically report to the commissioners on how its practices compare to those of other entities with merit systems, along with any recommendations for improving the Commission's practices. Thus, we were unable to verify that the Commission has made any progress toward implementing this recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: No Action Taken

To date the Commission has declined to provide a response. Thus, we cannot determine whether it has taken any action to implement this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 6-Month response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

60-Day Agency Response

Although we contacted the Commission repeatedly to ask it to submit a 60-Day response, it did not do so.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

All Recommendations in 2020-111

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.