|
Special Projects Committee
Part 1
CHARTER
The Special Projects Committee is charged with investigating topics which fall outside the specific jurisdictions of the other Grand Jury committees
Committee Members
Jose Martinez, Chairperson
Mike Oliveira
Jean Gillaspie
Mike Sheldon
Diana Tucker
I. VETERANS' SERVICE OFFICER SELECTION PROCESS COMPLAINTS
BACKGROUND
Three citizen complaints were received by the Grand Jury concerning the selection process for the position of Veterans' Service Officer. The complaints alleged two counts against the County Board of Supervisors and the San Benito County Chief Administrative Officer. One count of the complaint stated that the County had failed to comply with Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employment policy. The second count alleged that tampering had occurred during the process of selecting the final five candidates to be interviewed. The Grand Jury investigated the allegations in those complaints.
METHOD OF REVIEW
Reviewed:
Agenda Item Transmittal to Board of Supervisors (2/20/01)
Applications that met minimum requirements
Veterans' Service Officer job announcement
Military and Veterans Code (Section 980)
San Benito County Personnel (Chapter 12)
San Benito County Personnel Rules (Sections 3 & 4)
San Benito County Recruitment and Selection Guidelines |
Interviewed:
Complainants
San Benito County Chief Administrative Officer
San Benito County Supervisors |
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
The San Benito County Board of Supervisors, supported by the San Benito County Chief Administrative Officer, conducted a selection process to fill the vacant Veteran's Service Officer position during the first quarter of 2001.
The process used by the Chief Administrative Officer was, first, to disqualify any applications which failed to meet the minimum requirements. That threshold was primarily the definition of "veteran" (from the Military and Veterans Code) used as a Federal requirement for the position: The term "veteran" as used in this context requires military service during very specific time periods during history. That requirement plus experience and education requirements reduced the list of 20 applicants to 10 qualified ones.
The Chief Administrative Officer's next step was to reduce the list of 10 to what he considered a more manageable number (5) to be interviewed, using County Recruitment and Selection Guidelines. The approach used by the Chief Administrative Officer was to send the 10 applications to 3 existing Veteran's Service Officers in neighboring counties and ask them to evaluate and rank them. This was accomplished and from that activity a final list of five candidates was obtained. Interviews were then scheduled with all five.
Unfortunately, the interview date conflicted with other commitments for two of the Supervisors and the decision was made to go ahead with the interviews with only three Supervisors present, which still constituted a quorum. After the interviews were scheduled and just shortly before the interview date, another Supervisor dropped off the interview panel, leaving only two Supervisors available to do the interviewing. The Chair of the Board of Supervisors decided to "appoint a subcommittee" consisting of the remaining two members and go ahead with the interviews. That subcommittee would then report back to full Board at a later date. Shortly after the interviews, one of the Supervisors disqualified herself, leaving one Supervisor to report to the other three.
Another part of the complaint alleges that one Supervisor not only took all 20 applications home, but presumably discussed the merits of those candidates with her husband, the retiring San Benito County Veteran's Service Officer. The complaint further alleges that that Supervisor then provided the Chief Administrative Officer with a list of the five finalists she wanted. That Supervisor did, in fact, take all 20 applications home but denies having her husband review the applications, saying she only asked him for suggested questions to the interviewees. That Supervisor did provide the Chief Administrative Officer with a list of the five candidates she thought were most qualified and submitted it to him during his downselect process. The Chief Administrative Officer denied using that list in any way, relying solely on the recommendations of the three out-of-County Veteran's Service Officers to make his final list. Because of the controversy that arose over this issue, that Supervisor removed herself from any further dealings with the Veterans' Service Officer hiring process.
CONCLUSIONS
The Grand Jury found no evidence that Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity rules were violated.
The Chief Administrative Officer conducted an objective, businesslike downselect process fully compliant with precedent and County rules.
The selection process was marred by a few irregularities during its course, but the Grand Jury found no evidence of code or guideline violations that would invalidate the result.
The Grand Jury found no evidence that receiving a suggestive list from one of the Supervisors during the selection process had any influence on the Chief Administrative Officer's final list of applicants to be interviewed. The Grand Jury does, however, consider the submission of that list to the Chief Administrative Officer as inappropriate.
Conducting the interviews with a "Subcommittee" of two Supervisors has sufficient precedent to be deemed legitimate. The Grand Jury believes, however, that for an important activity such as selecting a Department Head, the Board should be sensitive to "sending a message" of unimportance of the position to potential candidates. The interviews should have been rescheduled to a later time when a quorum of the Board was available.
Since the Grand Jury has no knowledge of the other commitments of the three non-attending Supervisors, it is not in a position to evaluate their priorities placed on the selection process.
The proper role of the Board of Supervisors during a hiring and selection process for department heads is undocumented and, in this case, was somewhat undisciplined.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that:
| 1. |
The County Board of Supervisors establish a written set of guidelines to define
their role in department head hiring processes. |
| 2. |
The County Board of supervisors guarantee at least a quorum when
conducting future interviews for department head positions.
|
AFFECTED AGENCIES
San Benito County Board of Supervisors
RESPONSE REQUIRED
California Penal Code s/s 933 requires that a response to this final
report's recommendations be delivered to the presiding judge within 90
days of the receipt of the report.
|
