COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT

THE CALIFORNIA CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

Compliance Review Unit State Personnel Board February 24, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction	1
Executive Summary	2
Background	2
Scope and Methodology	3
Findings and Recommendations	4
Appointments	4
Equal Employment Opportunity	5
Mandated Training	7
Leave	9
Policy and Processes	11
Departmental Response	13
SPB Reply	14

INTRODUCTION

Established by the California Constitution, the State Personnel Board (the SPB or Board) is charged with enforcing and administering the civil service statutes, prescribing probationary periods and classifications, adopting regulations, and reviewing disciplinary actions and merit-related appeals. The SPB oversees the merit-based recruitment and selection process for the hiring of over 200,000 state employees. These employees provide critical services to the people of California, including but not limited to, protecting life and property, managing emergency operations, providing education, promoting the public health, and preserving the environment. The SPB provides direction to departments through the Board’s decisions, rules, policies, and consultation.

Pursuant to Government Code section 18661, the SPB’s Compliance Review Unit (CRU) conducts compliance reviews of appointing authorities’ personnel practices in five areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal services contracts (PSC’s), and mandated training, to ensure compliance with civil service laws and Board regulations. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure state agencies are in compliance with merit related laws, rules, and policies and to identify and share best practices identified during the reviews.

Pursuant to Government Code section 18502, subdivision (c), the SPB and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) may “delegate, share, or transfer between them responsibilities for programs within their respective jurisdictions pursuant to an agreement.” SPB and CalHR, by mutual agreement, expanded the scope of program areas to be audited to include more operational practices that have been delegated to departments and for which CalHR provides policy direction. Many of these delegated practices are cost drivers to the state and were not being monitored on a statewide basis.

As such, SPB also conducts compliance reviews of appointing authorities’ personnel practices to ensure that state departments are appropriately managing the following non- merit-related personnel functions: compensation and pay, leave, and policy and processes. These reviews will help to avoid and prevent potential costly litigation related to improper personnel practices, and deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

The SPB conducts these reviews on a three-year cycle.

The CRU may also conduct special investigations in response to a specific request or when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation.

It should be noted that this report only contains findings from this hiring authority’s compliance review. Other issues found in SPB appeals and special investigations as well as audit and review findings by other agencies such as the CalHR and the California State Auditor are reported elsewhere.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The CRU conducted a routine compliance review of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) personnel practices in the areas of appointments, EEO, mandated training, leave, and policy and processes. The following table summarizes the compliance review findings.

Area	Finding	
Appointments	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules	
Equal Employment Opportunity	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Has Not been Established	
Mandated Training	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors	

Leave	Positive Paid Employees Tracked Hours Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines	
Policy	Department Does Not Maintain a Current Written Nepotism Policy	
Policy	Workers’ Compensation Policy Was Not Provided to New Employees by the End of First Pay Period	

A color-coded system is used to identify the severity of the violations as follows:

Red = Very Serious
Orange = Serious
Yellow = Non-serious or Technical
Green = In Compliance

BACKGROUND

The CRC is a 14-member Commission that Californians created by passing the Voters FIRST Act at the November 2008 general election. The 14 commissioners define the geographic boundaries for 80 Assembly districts, 40 Senate districts, and four Board of Equalization districts so that they contain reasonably equal populations. The Commission

draws the district lines in conformity with strict, nonpartisan rules designed to create districts of relatively equal population that will provide fair representation for all Californians. The Commission holds public hearings and accepts public comment. After hearing from the public and drawing the maps for the House of Representatives districts, 40 Senate districts, 80 Assembly districts, and four Board of Equalization districts, the Commission votes on the new maps to be used for the next decade.

The Department of General Services (DGS) performs human resources operations for the CRC.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing the CRC’s appointments, EEO program, mandated training, leave, and policy and processes1. The primary objective of the review was to determine if CRC’s personnel practices, policies, and procedures complied with state civil service laws and Board regulations, Bargaining Unit Agreements, CalHR policies and guidelines, CalHR Delegation Agreements, and to recommend corrective action where deficiencies were identified.

The CRC did not conduct any examinations or permanent withhold actions during the compliance review period.

A cross-section of the CRC’s appointments were selected for review to ensure that samples of various appointment types, classifications, and levels were reviewed. The CRU examined the documentation that the CRC provided, which included Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) forms, Request for Personnel Actions (RPA’s), vacancy postings, certification lists, transfer movement worksheets, employment history records, correspondence, and probation reports. The CRC did not conduct any unlawful appointment investigations during the compliance review period. Additionally, the CRC did not make any additional appointments during the compliance review period.

During the compliance review period, the CRC did not issue or authorize hiring above minimum (HAM) requests, red circle rate requests, arduous pay, bilingual pay, monthly pay differentials, alternate range movements, or out-of-class assignments.

The review of the CRC’s EEO program included examining written EEO policies and procedures;  the  EEO  Officer’s  role,  duties,  and  reporting  relationship;  the  internal

1 Timeframes of the compliance review varied depending on the area of review. Please refer to each section for specific compliance review timeframes.

discrimination complaint process; the reasonable accommodation program; the discrimination complaint process; and the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC).

The CRC did not execute any PSC’s during the compliance review period.

State agencies are mandated to have training programs to ensure all employees required to file statements of economic interest are provided ethics training, and that all supervisors are provided supervisory training and sexual harassment prevention training within statutory timelines. In this instance, the CRC did not have any employees who were subject to the ethics and supervisory training requirements2.

The CRU reviewed a selection of CRC positive paid employees whose hours are tracked during the compliance review period in order to ensure that they adhered to procedural requirements.

During the compliance review period, the CRC did not have any employees with non- qualifying pay period transactions. The CRC also did not authorize Administrative Time Off (ATO).

Moreover, the CRU reviewed the CRC’s policies and processes concerning nepotism and workers’ compensation. The review was limited to whether the CRC’s policies and processes adhered to procedural requirements.

On January 15, 2020, the CRU provided the CRC with the draft compliance review report and the opportunity participate in an exit conference to explain and discuss findings and recommendations. The CRC did not request an exit conference, nor did it provide a departmental response to the audit findings.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appointments

In all cases not excepted or exempted by Article VII of the California Constitution, the appointing power must fill positions by appointment, including cases of transfers, reinstatements, promotions, and demotions in strict accordance with the Civil Service Act and Board rules. (Gov. Code, § 19050.) The hiring process for eligible candidates chosen for  job  interviews  shall  be  competitive  and  be  designed  and  administered  to  hire

2 The CRC has only two employees, both Retired Annuitants holding Staff Services Manager I (Specialist) classifications. They each work an average of 8-10 hours weekly, and do not supervise any staff.

candidates who will be successful. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (b).) Interviews shall be conducted using job-related criteria. (Ibid.) Persons selected for appointment shall satisfy the minimum qualifications of the classification to which he or she is appointed or have previously passed probation and achieved permanent status in that same classification. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (d).) While persons selected for appointment may meet some or most of the preferred or desirable qualifications, they are not required to meet all the preferred or desirable qualifications. (Ibid.) This section does not apply to intra-agency job reassignments. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (e).)

During the period under review, August 1, 2018, through July 30, 2019, the CRC made two appointments. The CRU reviewed both of those appointments, which are listed below:

Classification	Appointment Type	Tenure	Time Base	No. of Appts.	
Staff Services Manager I	Retired Annuitant	Retired	Intermittent	2	

FINDING NO. 1 – Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules

The CRU reviewed two retired annuitant appointments. The employees submitted their applications and were eligible to be hired as retired annuitants, not to exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year.

The CRU found no deficiencies in the appointments that the CRC initiated during the compliance review period. Accordingly, the CRU found that the CRC’s appointments processes and procedures utilized during the compliance review period satisfied civil service laws and Board rules.
Equal Employment Opportunity

Each state agency is responsible for an effective EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19790.) The appointing power for each state agency has the major responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of its EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19794.) To that end, the appointing power must issue a policy statement committed to EEO; issue procedures for filing, processing, and resolving discrimination complaints; and cooperate with the CalHR, in accordance with Civil Code section 1798.24, subdivisions (o) and (p), by providing access to all required files, documents and data necessary to carry out these mandates. (Ibid.) In addition, the appointing power must appoint, at the managerial level, an EEO Officer,

who shall report directly to, and be under the supervision of, the director of the department to develop, implement, coordinate, and monitor the department’s EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (a).)

Pursuant to Government Code section 19795, subdivision (a), in a state agency with less than 500 employees, like CRC, the EEO Officer may be the Personnel Officer.

Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to serve on the committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that the final committee is comprised of members who have disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(2).)

FINDING NO. 2 – Equal Employment Opportunity Program Has Not Been Established

Summary:	The CRC failed to provide documentation demonstrating they have an active EEO program. An active EEO program should include the following compenents:
Departmental policy statement committing the department to equal employment opportunity.
An EEO Officer who is responsible for developing, implementing, coordinating, and monitoring their department’s EEO program.
An active Disability Advisory Committee (DAC).

Criteria:	The appointing power must appoint, at the managerial level, an EEO Officer, who shall report directly to, and be under the supervision of, the Director of the department to develop, implement, coordinate, and monitor the department’s EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (a).) The EEO Officer shall, among other duties, analyze and report on appointments of employees, bring issues of concern regarding EEO to the appointing power and recommend appropriate action, and perform other duties necessary for the effective implementation of the agency EEO plans. (Ibid.)

Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on

issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to serve on the committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that the final committee is comprised of members who have disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(2).)

Severity:	Very Serious. To have an effective EEO program, the head    of the organization must be actively involved. Due to the substantial responsibilities held by each department’s EEO Officer, it is essential that each department, dedicate sufficient staff resources to successfully maintain an effective EEO program.The agency head does not have direct information on issues of concern to employees or other persons with disabilities and input to correct any underrepresentation. The lack of a DAC may limit an agency’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, impact productivity, and subject the agency to liability.

Cause:	The CRC did not provide a written departmental response indicating the cause of the deficient finding.

Corrective Action: Within 60 days of the date of this report, the CRC must submit to the SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the corrections the department will implement to ensure the establishment of an active EEO program, comprised of a policy statement committing the department to equal employment opportunity, an EEO Officer who is responsible for developing, implementing, coordinating, and monitoring their department’s EEO program, and an active DAC. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must be included with the corrective action response.

Mandated Training

Each member, officer, or designated employee of a state agency who is required to file a statement of economic interest (referred to as “filers”) because of the position he or she holds with the agency is required to take an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of state officials. (Gov. Code, §§ 11146 & 11146.1.) State agencies are required to offer filers the orientation course on a semi-annual basis. (Gov. Code, § 11146.1.) New filers must be trained within six months

of appointment and at least once during each consecutive period of two calendar years, commencing on the first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3.)

Upon the initial appointment of any employee designated in a supervisory position, the employee shall be provided a minimum of 80 hours of training, as prescribed by the CalHR. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subd. (b).) The training addresses such topics as the role of the supervisor, techniques of supervision, performance standards, and sexual harassment and abusive conduct prevention. (Gov. Code, §§ 12950.1, subds. (a), (b), & 19995.4, subd. (b).)

Additionally, the training must be successfully completed within the term of the employee’s probationary period or within six months of the initial appointment, unless it is demonstrated that to do so creates additional costs or that the training cannot be completed during this time period due to limited availability of supervisory training courses. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subd. (c).) As to the sexual harassment and abusive- conduct prevention component, the training must thereafter be provided to supervisors once every two years. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1.)

Within 12 months of the initial appointment of an employee to a management or Career Executive Assignment (CEA) position, the employee shall be provided leadership training and development, as prescribed by CalHR. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subds. (d) & (e).) For management employees the training must be a minimum of 40 hours and for CEAs the training must be a minimum of 20 hours. (Ibid.) Thereafter, for both categories of appointment, the employee must be provided a minimum of 20 hours of leadership training on a biennial basis. (Ibid.)

The Board may conduct reviews of any appointing power’s personnel practices to ensure compliance with civil service laws and Board regulations. (Gov. Code, § 18661, subd. (a).) In particular, the Board may audit personnel practices related to such matters as selection and examination procedures, appointments, promotions, the management of probationary periods, and any other area related to the operation of the merit principle in state civil service. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the CRU reviews documents and records related to training that appointing powers are required by the afore-cited laws to provide its employees.

The CRU reviewed the CRC’s mandated training program that was in effect during the compliance review period, August 1, 2017, through July 30, 2019.

 
FINDING NO. 3 – Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors

Summary:	The CRC did not provide sexual harassment prevention  training to two new supervisors within six months of their appointment.

Criteria:	Each department must provide its supervisors two hours   of sexual harassment prevention training every two years. New supervisors must be provided sexual harassment prevention training within six months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (a).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure that all new and existing supervisors are properly trained to respond to sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. This limits the department’s ability to retain a quality workforce, impacts employee morale and productivity, and subjects the department to litigation.

Cause:	The CRC did not provide a written departmental response indicating the cause of the deficient finding.

Corrective Action: Within 60 days of the date of this report, the CRC must submit to the SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the corrections the department will implement to ensure that supervisors are provided sexual harassment prevention training within the time periods prescribed. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must be included with the corrective action response.
Leave

Positive Paid Employees

Actual Time Worked (ATW) is a method that can be used to keep track of a Temporary Authorization Utilization (TAU) employee’s time to ensure that the Constitutional limit of 9 months in any 12 consecutive months is not exceeded. The ATW method of counting time is used in order to continue the employment status for an employee until the completion of an examination, for seasonal type work, while attending school, or for consulting services.

An employee is appointed TAU-ATW when he/she is not expected to work all of the working days of a month. When counting 189 days, every day worked, including partial days3 worked and paid absences, 4 is counted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. (b).) The hours worked in one day is not limited by this rule. (Ibid.) The 12-consecutive month timeframe begins by counting the first pay period worked as the first month of the 12-consecutive month timeframe. (Ibid.) The employee shall serve no longer than 189 days in a 12 consecutive month period. (Ibid.) A new 189-days working limit in a 12- consecutive month timeframe may begin in the month immediately following the month that marks the end of the previous 12-consecutive month timeframe. (Ibid.)

It is an ATW appointment because the employee does not work each workday of the month, and it might become desirable or necessary for the employee to work beyond nine calendar months. The appointing power shall monitor and control the days worked to ensure the limitations set forth are not exceeded. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. (f).)

For student assistants, graduate student assistants, youth aides, and seasonal classifications a maximum work-time limit of 1500 hours within 12 consecutive months may be used rather than the 189-day calculation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. (d).)

Generally, permanent intermittent employees may work up to 1500 hours in any calendar year. (Applicable Bargaining Unit Agreements.) However, Bargaining Unit 6 employees may work up to 2000 hours in any calendar year.

Additionally, according to Government Code section 21224, retired annuitant appointments shall not exceed a maximum of 960 hours in any fiscal year (July-June), regardless of the number of state employers, without reinstatement, loss or interruption of benefits.

At the time of the review, the CRC had two positive paid employees whose hours were tracked. The CRU reviewed both of those positive paid appointments to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies and guidelines, which are listed below:

3 For example, two hours or ten hours counts as one day.
4 For example, vacation, sick leave, compensating time off, etc.

Classification	Time Base	Time Frame	Time Worked	
Staff Services Manager I	Intermittent	7/1/18 –
6/30/19	279 Hours	
Staff Services Manager I	Intermittent	7/1/18 –
6/30/19	142.5 Hours	

FINDING NO. 4 – Positive Paid Employees’ Tracked Hours Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

The CRU found no deficiencies in the positive paid employees reviewed during the compliance review period. The CRC provided sufficient justification and adhered to applicable laws, regulations and CalHR policy and guidelines for positive paid employees.

Policy and Processes

Nepotism

It is the policy of the State of California to recruit, hire and assign all employees on the basis of merit and fitness in accordance with civil service statutes, rules and regulations. (Human Resources Manual Section 1204.) Nepotism is expressly prohibited in the state workplace because it is antithetical to California’s merit based civil service. (Ibid.) Nepotism is defined as the practice of an employee using his or her influence or power to aid or hinder another in the employment setting because of a personal relationship. (Ibid.) Personal relationships for this purpose include but are not limited to, association by blood, adoption, marriage and/or cohabitation. (Ibid.) In addition, there may be personal relationships beyond this general definition that could be subject to these policies. (Ibid.) All department nepotism policies should emphasize that nepotism is antithetical to a merit-based personnel system and that the department is committed to the state policy of recruiting, hiring and assigning employees on the basis of merit. (Ibid.)

FINDING NO. 5 – Department Does Not Maintain a Current Written Nepotism Policy

Summary:	The  CRC  failed  to  provide  documentation    demonstrating  they maintain a current written nepotism policy designed to prevent favoritism or bias in the recruiting, hiring, or assigning of employees.

Criteria:	It is the policy of the State of California to recruit, hire and assign all employees on the basis of fitness and merit in accordance with civil service statutes, rules and regulations. (Human Resources  Manual

Section 1204). All department policies should emphasize that nepotism is antithetical to a merit-based personnel system and that the department is committed to the state policy of recruiting, hiring, and assigning employees on the basis of merit. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Nepotism is expressly prohibited in the state workplace because it is antithetical to California’s merit based civil service. Departments must take proactive steps to ensure that the recruitment, hiring, and assigning of all employees is done on the basis of merit and fitness in accordance with civil service statutes. Maintaining a current written nepotism policy, and its dissemination to all staff, is the cornerstone for achieving these outcomes.

Cause:	The CRC did not provide a written departmental response indicating the cause of the deficient finding.

Corrective Action: Within 60 days of the date of this report, the CRC must submit to the SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with Human Resources Manual Section 1204. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must be included with the corrective action response.

Workers’ Compensation

Employers shall provide to every new employee, either at the time of hire or by the end of the first pay period, written notice concerning the rights, benefits, and obligations under workers’ compensation law. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9880 subd. (a).) This notice shall include the right to predesignate their personal physician or medical group; a form that the employee may use as an optional method for notifying the employer of the name of employee’s “personal physician,” as defined by Labor Code section 4600. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9880 subds. (c)(7) & (8).) Additionally, within one working day of receiving notice or knowledge that the employee has suffered a work related injury or illness, employers shall provide a claim form and notice of potential eligibility for benefits to the injured employee. (Labor Code, § 5401 subd. (a).)

Public employers may choose to extend workers' compensation coverage to volunteers that perform services for the organization. (Human Resources Manual Section 1415.) Workers’ compensation coverage is not mandatory for volunteers as it is for employees. (Ibid.) This is specific to the legally uninsured state departments participating in the

Master Agreement. (Ibid.) Departments with an insurance policy for workers’ compensation coverage should contact their State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) office to discuss the status of volunteers. (Ibid.)

In this case, the CRC did not employ volunteers during the compliance review period.

FINDING NO. 6 – Workers’ Compensation Policy Was Not Provided to New Employees by the End of First Pay Period

Summary:	The CRC did not provide documentation demonstrating they provide specific notices to their employees to inform them of their rights and responsibilities under California Workers’ Compensation Law.

Criteria:	Employers shall provide to every new employee at the time of hire or by the end of the first pay period, written notice concerning the rights, benefits, and obligations under Workers’ Compensation Law. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9880.)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure that  its employees’ are aware of policies and procedures concerning worker’s compensation.

Cause:	The CRC did not provide a written departmental response indicating the cause of the deficient finding.

Corrective Action: Within 60 days of the date of this report, the CRC must submit to the SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9880. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must be included with the corrective action response.
DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE

On January 15, 2020, the CRU provided the CRC with the draft compliance review report and requested CRC’s written departmental response to the draft report, indicating the cause of each deficient finding, to be submitted by January 29, 2020. The CRC did not provide the written response by the date requested. The CRU followed up with the CRC

on January 30, 2020, regarding its written response. As of February 20, 2020, the CRC has not provided the CRU with the departmental response.
SPB REPLY

Within 60 days of the date of this report, a written corrective action response including documentation demonstrating implementation of the corrective actions specified, must be submitted to the CRU.