Report 2020-111 Recommendation 2 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 #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.
- Completion Date: July 2021
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.
- Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation
- Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation
1-Year Agency Response
We contacted the Commission's personnel director who declined to submit a response.
- Estimated Completion Date: None
- Response Date: May 2022
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.
- Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
- Response Date: December 2021
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.
- Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
- Response Date: August 2021
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken
All Recommendations in 2020-111
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.