Figure 1 contains a pie chart showing the status of all 1,481 cases on which the State Auditor performed some work from July 2017 through June 2018. For 1,018 or 68.7 percent of the cases The State Auditor's staff found that they lacked sufficient information to conduct an investigation or the cases are pending preliminary review. The staff conducted or will conduct work to assess the allegations for 348 or 23.5 percent of the cases. For 50 or 3.4 percent of the cases, the staff referred the cases to another agency for investigation. The staff independently investigated 36 or 2.4 percent of the cases and requested information from another state agency for 29 or 2.0 percent of the cases.
Figure 2 shows a standard workday on which employees work a total of eight hours compared to Employee A and B's observed attendance during one selected day. During a standard workday, employees are allowed one hour total per day for breaks, which includes two 15-minute paid breaks and a 30-minute unpaid lunch break. During one particular day, Employee A arrived to work on time, but spent the first 75 minutes of his shift sitting in his vehicle rather than working. For approximately the next hour and 45 minutes, he appeared to be working most of the time. He then left campus to drive home for about one hour before returning back to work. For the next two hours, he appeared to be working most of the time. Then, he once again left campus to drive home for about one hour, before returning back to work. He appeared to work another hour and a half, before leaving for the day. He worked approximately five hours on this day. In addition, during one particular day, Employee B was not at work for the first five hours of her shift. She arrived to work five hour late and then shortly afterwards left campus again to go shopping for about two hours. She then returned back to work, but sat in her vehicle for about 15 minutes. She appeared to be working during the final hour of her shift, before leaving for the day. She worked only about one hour on this day.
Figure 3 shows five points on a timeline which shows that the supervisor had ample time to take disciplinary or medical action both before and after the employee requested a reasonable accommodation. The first point is February 2014, which was the first documented observation of the employee falling asleep at work. The next point is June 2016, when the employee requested a reasonable accommodation. Between February 2014 and June 2016, the supervisors failed to take disciplinary or medical action after the preventive and corrective actions did not correct the employee's behavior. The third point on the timeline is August 2016, when the department continued to engage with the employee in an interactive process regarding her reasonable accommodation. The fourth point on the timeline is November 2016, when the department denied the employee's request for reasonable accommodation. Finally, the fifth point on the timeline is January 2017, when the employee's physician indicated that she can perform all of her assigned duties. From January 2017 through December 2017, the supervisors once again failed to take disciplinary or medical action after the preventive and corrective actions did not correct the employee's behavior.
Figure shows the reporting structure for the prison's scheduling office until May 2015. The scheduling office was composed of an office technician who reported to a supervising nurse. The supervising nurse reported to the nursing director who reported to the chief nurse. The chief nurse then reported to the CEO.
Figure 5 displays a timeline of the analyst's eligibility for Inmate Supervision Pay from July 2013 through April 2017. In July 2013, the analyst became eligible for inmate supervision pay as an office technician and began supervising inmate workers. She earned $190 a month for inmate supervision. In July 2015, the analyst promoted from an office technician to an analyst and lost her eligibility for inmate supervision pay. She did not supervise inmate workers or receive inmate supervision pay during this time. In July 2016, the analyst began supervising inmate workers as an analyst; however, she was still not eligible for inmate supervision pay. She was improperly paid $325 a month for inmate supervision. In April 2017, the analyst stopped receiving inmate supervision pay after personnel staff discovered her ineligibility. The timeline also displays a bar with two distinct colors. The green bar indicates the analyst was eligible for inmate supervision pay from July 2013 through June 2015 and the red bar shows the analyst was not eligible for inmate supervisions pay from July 2015 through April 2017.
Figure 6 is a timeline of our investigations of the inmate supervision pay program that shows the improper pay we identified at nine prisons from October 2018 through July 2018. In October 2008, we reported in Report I2008-2 that CDCR improperly paid a total of $16,530 to nine employees in one prison. In November 2009, we reported in Report I2009-0702 that CDCR improperly paid a total of $34,512 to 23 employees at six prisons. In March 2017, we reported in Report I2017-1 that CDCR improperly paid a total of $2,520 to one employee. In July 2018, we reported in Report I2018-1 (this report) that CDCR improperly paid a total of $2,925 to one employee.
Figure 7 is a timeline of CSU Dominguez Hills' actions with the Nissan Quick Charger with six key points starting in February 2013 and ending in September 2017. In February 2013, the manager learned that Nissan offered an incentive program for the quick charger. In March 2013, CSU, Dominguez Hills purchased a quick charger for $6,840. In May 2013, the university incorporated the Quick Charger into the electric vehicle charging station installation plans. In May 2014, a change to the master plan for electric vehicle installation moved the electric vehicle charging stations to a different parking lot that did not have infrastructure for the quick charger. In April 2015, the university installed six electric vehicle charging stations for $141,652. In September 2017, the university estimated the installation of the quick charger to be $100,000 and determined this to be cost-prohibitive. Meanwhile, between March 2013 through November 2017, the university stored the quick charger outside at the central plant, and it was never used.
Figure 8 shows two color photographs of the interior of the structure that is the subject of this report. The first photograph shows one corner of the structure. The furnishings follow an island or tiki theme. There is an L-shaped seating for up to four people around a teal-colored round table. The brown walls are covered with photo frames and various island-themed objects such as a turtle, a mermaid, and seahorses. A high shelf holds other various objects that also appear to follow the tiki theme of the structure. Hanging from the ceiling appears to be a fire hose. The second photograph shows another corner of the structure with a bar height table with two bar-height stools with blue cushions. Similar in décor to the first photograph, the brown walls are covered with various tiki-themed images including two tiki totems. Hanging from the ceiling of the structure is a light fixture that is turned on.