Report 2020-111 Recommendation 13 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 #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

All Recommendations in 2020-111

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.