Management Audit

Report No. 2000-03

Kimberly Dutton Cregeur, Management Auditor

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Background
General Conclusions
Summary of Findings and Recommendations:

Finding 2-1  - OHRM’s disregard for county policies and procedures pointed to a lack of management control and, especially in the case of the Director’s former coworkers, gave the appearance of favoritism.
Finding 3-1 - OHRM did not sufficiently monitor term-limited temporary positions in OHRM as required by the Logan/Knox Settlement and the County Executive.
Finding 3-2 - OHRM neglected its responsibilities as the county’s primary personnel recordholder by not maintaining records in accordance with state law.
Finding 3-3 - OHRM made changes to the personnel guidelines that weakened the controls over salary administration.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Finding 2-1.  OHRM’s disregard for county policies and procedures pointed to a lack of management control and, especially in the case of the Director’s former coworkers, gave the appearance of favoritism.

OHRM seemingly ignored county policies and procedures by not retaining hiring records, awarding high starting salaries without explanation, insufficiently authorizing special duty assignments, and not complying with reclassification procedures. Such actions were common in certain divisions within OHRM and demonstrated a lack of management control.

• Although OHRM is required by state law to retain hiring documentation, 12 of 46 career service hiring files (26%) were missing. Twenty-six of the remaining 34 hiring files (76%) lacked records required to document a competitive hiring process.
  

• The Personnel Guidelines state that employees are generally hired at the first step of the salary range, and that a written explanation must accompany salaries over step one. However, 26 of 27 new OHRM career service employees were hired over step one, with one-third hired at step 9 or 10. None of the higher salaries were explained, and the audit estimated the additional cost of the higher salaries to be at least $305,000.
  

• A total of 14 OHRM employees earned over $1,000 in special duty pay in 1998 and 1999. Although annual special duty pay averaged $3,000 per employee, most assignments were not authorized or extended in accordance with the Guidelines.
  

• Audit staff could not establish how many OHRM positions had been reclassified, but several OHRM positions were reclassified without any evidence of approval.

Moreover, multiple irregular actions toward several employees gave the appearance of favoritism. Whereas the non-compliance issues listed above applied individually to many OHRM employees, several employees that had worked with the Director at a previous place of employment were associated with multiple irregular actions.

Nine employees that worked with the Director in the human resources department at SPSD were hired into OHRM after June 1996. Seven of the nine employees ended up in career service positions, all without sufficiently documented hiring processes. Six other new OHRM employees either knew the Director from the city of Seattle or had been employed at SPSD during the Director’s tenure. Two of the six employees obtained career service positions, both with irregular hiring processes. All 15 employees were affiliated with at least one irregular hiring or personnel action, including the following:

• None of the hiring files for the nine former coworkers hired into career service contained sufficient documentation to verify a competitive hiring process. Five of the nine hiring files could not be located at all.
  
• Six of the nine career service employees were hired through an irregular hiring process. (Audit staff could not evaluate the hiring process for the other three career service positions due to missing documentation.) For example, two coworkers that were not entered into the database of eligible applicants were hired over qualified internal career service candidates.
  
• Thirteen of the coworkers, including temporary employees, were hired at or above mid-range. Nine coworkers were hired at step 9 or 10. Although required, no written justification for the higher salaries could be found.
  
• Eight of the nine career service positions filled by former coworkers were unclearly or improperly approved during the position classification process. For example, documentation showing OHRM review and approval for several new positions filled by former coworkers could not be found.

OHRM has the responsibility and obligation to set forth and administer human resources policies and procedures for the county. In the case of the Director’s former coworkers especially, OHRM should have exercised the highest level of caution and adherence to guidelines to avoid even the perception of preferential treatment. Instead, OHRM’s disregard for county policies, combined with other management decisions during hiring, gave the appearance of favoritism.

The audit recommended that the County Executive, along with the Deputy County Executive and current OHRM Director, increase their oversight and monitoring of OHRM to ensure that all OHRM staff are aware of and adhere to King County personnel policies and procedures. The audit further recommended that OHRM formalize its procedures regarding the hiring and selection process for career service positions.

Finding 3-2.  OHRM neglected its responsibilities as the county’s primary personnel recordholder by not maintaining records in accordance with state law.

Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.