SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

Compliance Review Unit State Personnel Board December 01, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction	1
Executive Summary	2
Scope and Methodology	3
Findings and Recommendations	3
Appointments	3
Permanent Appointment	5
Limited-Term Appointment	6
Conclusion	8
Departmental Response	9
CRU Reply	10

INTRODUCTION
Established by the California Constitution, the State Personnel Board (the SPB or Board) is charged with enforcing and administering the civil service statutes, prescribing

probationary	periods	and

classifications,	adopting	regulations,

and	reviewing

disciplinary actions and merit-related

appeals. The SPB

oversees the merit-based

recruitment and selection process for the hiring of over 200,000 state employees. These employees provide critical services to the people of California, including but not limited
to, prot cting life and property, managing emergency operations, providing education,
promoting  the  public  health,  and  preserving  the  environment.  The  SPB  provides
direction to departments through the Bo  rd’s decisions, rules, policies, and consultation.

Pursuant to Government Code section 18661, the SPB’s

Compliance Review

Unit

(CRU) conducts compliance reviews of appointing authority’s personnel practices in four areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), and personal

services

contracts

(PSC’s) to ensure

compliance

with civil

service laws and board

regulations. The p rpose of these reviews is to ensure state agencies are in compliance

with merit related

laws, rules, and policies and to identify

and share

best practices

identified during the reviews. The CRU conducts these reviews on a three-year cycle.
The CRU may also conduct special investigations in response to a specific request or
when CRU obtains information suggesti g a potential merit-related violation.
BACKGROUND
In 2015, adverse actions were taken against three employees for allegedly improperly

receiving interview

questions

and desired answers before participating

in competitive

interviews for vacant Fire

Captain positions. All three of

the employees received

promotions to the

Fire Captain positions following their

interviews.

When it

was

subsequently discovered that the three employees had

improperly received

the

interview questions and desired answers in advance of the interviews, adverse actions

were taken to remove them

from their

positions. Two of the three individuals

were

demoted from limited-term Fire Captain positions back to their previous Fire Apparatus

Engineer classification within

the same fire stations. Both

were given a 5% salary

reduction for 12 months, while the third individual was rejected on probation from the
limited-term Fire Captain position to his previous Fire Apparatus Engineer classification

at a different fire

station than he had

been promoted from

and given a 5% salary

reduction for 12 months. Within 30 days of the effective date of the demotions, however,

two of the demoted employees were re-appointed to Fire Captain positions within the

same fire stations

they had

been demoted to. One was appointed on

a limited-term

basis and one was appointed on a permanent full-time basis.

After CRU contacted the CAL FIRE to begin this promotions, the CAL FIRE rescinded the original

special investigation into the two re- adverse actions issued against the

three individuals and served new adverse actions demoting the three individuals to the lower classification of Firefighter II, effective June 1, 2015.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this special investigation was

to determine whether the two

re-

promotions to Fire Captain following the original

adverse action were

appropriate. As

part of the special investigation, the CRU reviewed the three original appointments to

Fire Captain positions and t following the brief demotion.

e two subsequent re-appointments back

to Fire Captain

The CRU found that CAL

FIRE failed

to maintain proper

documentation, provided

inconsistent and contradictory information, and failed to follow established procedures in the appointments. Specifically, CRU made the following findings:
The CAL FIRE provided inconsistent and contradictory information related to the total number of applications received and the number of candidates interviewed.

The scores

from the

developed screening criteria

did not correlate to

the

candidates who were selected for an interview.
The CAL FIRE provided inconsistent information as selected for interviews.

to how candidates

were

The CAL FIRE did not provide

documentation of

an interview schedule or

correspondence history between the CAL FIRE and candidates.

The CAL FIRE failed

to maintain

responses to interview questions and scored

interview rating sheets.
One appointment was made on the same day that the first interviews were held.
The CAL FIRE’s certification process is improper, as it does not document that

candidates

hired were

in a reachable rank

and that

SROA or

Reemployment

eligibles were properly processed.

Given the lack of

documentation and

the inconsistent and

contradictory information

provided by CAL FIRE, the CRU cannot verify that either appointment merit and fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).)

was based on

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The CRU reviewed a total of five appointments:

three appointments

to Fire Captain

positions that subsequently resulted in punitive demotions, and two re-appointments to

Fire Captain positions occurring less demotions.

than 30

days after

the candidates’ punitive

The CRU examined the documentation that CAL FIRE provided, which included Notices of Adverse Action, applications, vacancy postings, screening criteria, application scoring
sheets, interview rating sheets, employment history records, and correspondence. In
addition to the files that the CAL FIRE provided, the CRU reviewed information within

the Examination and Certification Online System

(ECOS),

as well as

data from

the

California State Controller’s Office Personnel Information Management Systems (SCO PIMS).

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Appointments

In all cases not excepted or exempted by Article VII of the California Constitution, the

appointing power

must fill

positions by appointment, including cases of transfers,

reinstatements, promotions, and demotions in strict accordance with the Civil Service
Act and Board rul s. (Gov. Code, § 19050.) Appointments made from eligible lists, by

way of transfer, or by way of reinstatement, must

be made

on the basis of merit and

fitness, which requires consideration of each individual’s job-related qualifications for a position, including his or her knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and physical and mental fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).)

The focus of this special

investigation was to determine whether the two

re-

appointments to Fire Captain positions after a brief period of demotion complied with the merit system. The two appointments in question are listed below:

Classification	Appointment
Type	Tenure	Time Base	No. of
Appoint	ents	
Fire Captain	Certification List	Limited Term	Full Time	1	
Fire Captain	Certification List	Permanent	Full Time	1	

m

Departments must have recruitment strategies designed to be “as broad and inclusive

as necessary to ensure the

identification of an

appropriate

candidate

group.” (Merit

Selection Manual MSM], § 1100, p. 1100.2 (Oct. 2003); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 50.)

Generally, the typical steps a department takes in

making a

civil service appointment

include: determining whether there is an eligible list for the classification in which the

vacancy

exits; determining

whether an

eligible list is necessary to fill the vacancy;

advertising the vacancy, which may

include certifying the eligible

list; receiving

applications, and

if no applications are received, re-advertising the position

with

increased recruitment efforts; screening applications to determine which candidates

meet minimum qualification

requirements and

are eligible for appointment;

and

conducting hiring interviews. (MSM, § 1200, pp. 1200.7-1200.8; Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 50.)

Through the use of a sound

job-related selection

process,

a department can identify

and sel ct individuals based upon their job-related qualifications to perform successfully

in a given job. The increased effectiveness and

productivity

of a qualified workforce,

selected on the basis of fair, objective, job-related criteria, make it advantageous to a
department to conduct selection processes that are merit-based and job-related. (MSM,
§ 1200, pp. 1200.2)

The CAL FIRE selection process for Fire Captains begins with an advertisement on the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) Vacant Positions (VPOS) website located at www.jobs.ca.gov. The certification of the applicable eligible lists are ordered in ECOS. General y, certifications are viable for 120 days; however, with peace officer
classifications the certifications can be	xtended to one year to allow time for intensive
background checks. Once the final filing date for applications has passed on the job
posting,  the  applications  are  reviewed  with  pre-determined  job-related  screening

criteria.

To find the best candidates, the CAL FIRE units

are given

the flexibility of

proceeding in three ways: following up

with a supplemental application, inviting

the

screened applicants in for an interview, or opting to perform a resume review with pre- determined rating criteria specific to their program’s needs following bargaining Unit 8

MOU 9.2 on inter-unit transfers. Once

the candidate pool

is determined, units

send

applications	to	the	examination	unit	at	headquarters

to	verify

the	minimum

qualifications. If applicable, the units then interview the verified candidates and create a score order candidate listing used at the Statewide Hiring Meeting. For the Statewide Hiring Meeting, representatives meet to determine which candidates will be offered a  job for each unit, and update the hiring matrix accordingly. The selection of candidates is based upon the score order candidate listing, the  unit’s needs, and the budget for the
year.  Once a job offer  is  accepted,  the Certification List  Working   Report  (CLWR)  is

notated.

Once the

certification list expires, regional personnel staff

code the entire

CLWR,

check for

legal hires, and send the hard copy to

headquarters with

other

applicable documents for filing. Hiring

notes are

made on

the electronic certification

within ECOS, and hire dates and certification numbers are verified in SCO PIMS.

INFORMATION

REGARDING	THE

SELECTION	OF

CANDIDATES

WAS

CONTRADICTORY

The CRU received contradictory information from

CAL FIRE over the

course of the

review regarding the process of selecting candidates for an interview.

Permanent Appointment

For the permanent Fire Captain appointment on February 23, 2015, the compact disc submitted to the CRU indicated that 103 applications were received for the position, and

43 candidates appeared for

an interview. However, on May 5, 2015,

the CAL

FIRE

emailed

the CRU

a spreadsheet showing 105

applications were received and 47

candidates were invited to interview, although interview rating criteria was only provided

for 36 candidates. Documentation of an interview

schedule

or correspondence history

between the CAL FIRE and candidates was not provided.

The CRU found that benchmarked screening criteria was developed and utilized for the first round of screening candidates. However, the scores from the developed screening

criteria

did not correlate to

the candidates who were selected for an interview.

Specifically, a candidate with a resume review of 27 out of 100 was interviewed while a candidate with a score of 60 out of 100 was not.

In response to the CRU’s questions regarding the interview screening process, the CAL

FIRE stated in an e-mail on

May 14, 2015, that

all applicants who met the minimum

qualifications were invited to an interview. However, the documentation provided by the
CAL  FIRE  on  May  5,  2015,  does  not  corroborate  this.  Specifically,  there  was  no
documentation demonstrating that the 47 of the 84 candidates who could be verified to

meet the minimum qualifications were

extended

an interview or participated in an

interview, as an interview schedule, documentation of communication to the candidates, responses to interview questions, and scored interview rating sheets were absent from

the file.

In response to the

CRU’s questions regarding the number

of candidates

interviewed, the CAL FIRE stated in an e-mail that all applicants had been invited to the interview by phone and that the non-interviewed applicants did not show up or were not interested in the position.

On May 14, 2015, the CAL FIRE revised the Fire Captain recruitment spreadsheet from May 5, 2015, changing their original response from a “No” to a “Yes” on the “invited to an interview” spreadsheet column for 57 candidates. On June 1, 2015, the CAL FIRE confirmed that they did not keep any documentation showing that all candidates were contacted to participate in an interview.

Given the lack of

documentation and

the inconsistent and

contradictory information

provided by CAL FIRE, the CRU cannot verify that the appointment was based on merit and fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).)

Limited-Term Appointment

For the

second appointment

reviewed,

the limited-term Fire

Captain

appointment on

March 2, 2015, the CAL FIRE provided the recruitment file to CRU on May 8, 2015. The

CRU found that 93 applications were

received for the vacancy, 14 candidates

were

scheduled for an interview, 8 candidates appeared for an interview, and 1 candidate
was subject to resume review1. Interviews were held on March 2, 2015, March 3, 2015, and March 16, 2015. The documentation reflected the appointee’s effective date as March 2, 2015, the same day that the f rst interviews were held. The CAL FIRE stated that the hired applicant was the only candidate that had worked in the unit previously and was selected utilizing the resume review method on April 21, 2015. However, the CRU found 14 candidates had experience working within the unit and had applied for the position but were either not interviewed or had their resumes screened out.

To clarify why interviews were held after the appointment of the limited-term Fire

Captain, the CAL

FIRE responded on

April 24,

2015, that

there were a total of six

limited-term Fire

Captain positions within the unit. Therefore, the interviews

were

conducted for the remaining open positions. The CAL FIRE provided additional material

to clear

up why it appeared

that 12

of the 14

candidates

had not

been invited to

1 The CAL FIRE utili es resume review as an alternative worked in a specific unit.

selection method for employees who have

interview. Of the two remaining candidates, the CAL FIRE stated that one was not in a
reachable  rank,  and  the  other  had  not  completed  the  Fire  Fighter  Apprenticeship
Committee Program. The CRU found that the first candidate was in fact in a reachable rank on the certification, and that while the second candidate  had not been interviewed,

the CAL FIRE had invited

three other candidates to interview who

also had

not

completed the Fire Fighter Apprenticeship Committee Program.

The  CRU  requested  the  CAL  FIRE  to  complete  a  spreadsheet  identifying  which
candidates were invited to interview, which candidates appeared for an interview, and to provide the reason for excluding any candidate from the interview process. After review of the CAL FIRE’s May 12, 2015 response, the CRU found the information listed to be misleading. For example, the CAL FIRE stated that five candidates did not have list
eligibilit ; however, an independent review of SCO PIMS indicated that the applicants
had eligibility for appointment by transfer and/or permissive reinstatement.

On May 14, 2015, the CAL FIRE stated that all candidates, excluding those hired from the resume review process, were in fact invited to interview. The CAL FIRE’s response indicated 79 applicants either declined the interview or did not show up for the interview.

On June 1, 2015,

the CAL

FIRE confirmed that

they did not have documentation to

demonstrate that all candidates were contacted to participate in the interview process.

Given the lack of

documentation and

the inconsistent and

contradictory information

provided by the CAL FIRE, the CRU cannot verify that the appointment was based on merit and fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).)

CERTIFICATION PROCESS WAS IMPROPER

For Fire Captain appointments, the CAL FIRE used Certification List Working Reports

(CLWR)

to code

appointments in place of the actual certification lists within ECOS.

Since the implementation of ECOS in January 2014, the proper procedure requires that a certification be ordered electronically to certify eligibility of a candidate, and that the hire be documented on the electronic certification. The CLWR is a report within ECOS
that acts as a sna shot of a point in time of the status of the certification; however, it is
not the official certification. The header on every page of the CLWR states: “CAUTION –

DO NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS OR COMMITMENTS FROM THIS

REPORT.”

This

instruction is to prevent agencies from coding the hires on the paper reports. The CLWR expressly instructs agencies to process hires on the electronic certifications.

Between January 1, 2014 and June 26, 2015, 626 Fire Captains were hired. As of May 15, 2015, only 2 of the 626 Fire Captain appointments have been documented on the electronic certifications within ECOS. For one of the two electronically coded hires, the

certification number utilized

within E

OS did

not match

the certification number

documented in the appointment file

and SCO

PIMS.

These 624

Fire Captain

appointments should been properly documented

within the

ECOS system given

that

ECOS was in effect during the time period in which the appointments were made

By failing to docu  ent the certification electronically, the CAL FIRE is unable to retain
the historical data of their appointments, including verifying that hired candidates were  in a reachable rank. This can lead to a violation of California Code of Regulations, title
2, section 254, mandating that vacancies under Government Code sections 19057.1,
19057.2 and 19057.3 be filled by the three highest ranks certified. In addition, if SROA or Reemployment were present, bypassing electronic coding can lead to a violation of

California Code of

Regulations, title 2,

section 599.854.4. In this instance, however,

SROA2

or Reemployment3

eligible lists were

not in effect for the Fire Captain

certifications.

CONCLUSION

During the special investigati  n, the CRU found that the CAL FIRE consistently failed to
maintain files crucial to documenting a fair and merit based hiring process. Specifically, correspondence history, interview schedules, responses to interview questions, scored
interview rating sheets, and the predetermined standard method of sorting applicants

into a

resume review process or interview process were

missing

from the

files.

Inconsistent data

was given

to the CRU over the

duration

of the revi

w. After an in-

depth review, the CRU cannot verify the permanent and limited-term Fire Captains were

appointed based

on merit

and fitness because

the documentation

provided

was

disjointed and unclear.

2 The state restriction of appointments (SROA) program is intended to prevent the layoff and separation of skilled and experienced employees from State service. The SROA program assists in placing affected employees by temporarily restricting the methods of appointment available to appointing powers. Employees on SROA lists are granted preferential consideration over all other types of appointments except appointments from reemployment lists and mandatory reinstatements.

3 Reemployment lists

show employees who have been laid off or demoted in lieu of layoff.

Hiring

departments must hire from reemployments lists before using any other list. The SPB places employees
on  reemployment  lists  in  seniority  order.  Employees  on  reemployment  lists  are  granted preferential
consideration over all other types of appointments except mandatory reinstatements.

Furthermore, the

CAL FIRE’s failure

to document the list appointments on

the

certifications within ECOS

resulted in

a loss

of data and crucial

documentation

throughout all files. This included the following: proper correspondence notations, hiring

of the

appointees

on the certification,

and evidence that

the department followed

applicable civil service laws and regulations. In addition, not documenting hires within

the electronic system is inefficient and hinders the State of centralized hiring records.

California

from accessing

This is not the first time that the CAL FIRE has been found to have deficient personnel practices. On November 9, 2009, the SPB revoked the CAL FIRE’s delegated authority

to administer civil

service examinatio

s due to

a number of irregularities in

their

examinations for Fire Captain and Fire Captain (Paramedic). In addition to ordering the examinations and lists abolished for these classifications and revoking the CAL FIRE’s delegated authority to administer exams, the CAL FIRE’s HR staff was placed under the

SPB’s supervision for a two-year period. SPB staff provided

oversight,

guidance,

and

training on examination administration. At the end of the two-year supervision period in
2011,  the  CAL  FIRE’s  delegated  authority  was  reinstated  given  the  CAL  FIRE’s

renewed compliance with civil service laws, regulations, and merit selection process for examinations.

policies pertaining to the

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) appreciates the opportunity to respond to this special investigation. The CAL FIRE acknowledges and does not contest the findings in this report relative to the supporting documentation for
the hires in question. In  fact, separate	f any investigation, the department  recognized
the problems associated with those hires and took steps to rescind the original adverse

actions,

subsequent appointments, and

issue new adverse

actions with more clearly

defined penalties.

In addit on, and again separate from any investigation, the

CAL FIRE

recognized the

need fo   a more consistent hiring process for all classifications, not strictly those related
to fire suppression. As a result, the department created a new unit within the Labor and

Human

Resource

Management	Office	called

the	Hiring	Review

Unit	(HRU).

Implemented in September 2015, this unit’s purpose is to review all potential offers of

employment to ensure that

the selection process has been conducted fairly

and

equitably for all candidates. Among other things, the HRU reviews screening and rating

criteria and ensur

s that reference checks are being conducted on candidates.

Hires

within the department are now being reviewed by the HRU made.

prior to

any offer being

Furthermore, since the time that the appointments in question were made, and before

the CRU released

this report, the CAL FIRE began taking

steps to

ensure that all

managers, supervisors, or other employees involved in the recruitment and selection

process

are properly trained

and aware of the appropriate

steps to be taken prior to

making

an offer of employment. Beginning in September

2015, the

HRU has

been

providing Recruitment and Selection Process training to all managers and supervisors

statewide. Among

other things, this

training emphasizes

that all

hires must be

documented with	upporting documents retained within a Hiring Retention folder. This
folder must contain a copy of the advertisement for vacancies, all applications received, the duties statement, screening criteria, rating criteria, communications regarding the

recruitment, and any other documentation related

to the selection of candidates

for a

vacancy. The department will be happy to provide the syllabus for the Recruitment and Selection Process training, as well as examples of the documentation now required for every hire.

Regarding the alleged failure to document list appointments on the certifications within ECOS, the CAL FIRE believes that the manual process it is currently using still ensures that hires are only made out of reachable ranks. However, given the concerns raised in

the investigations,

the department will

reevaluate

its current process

to see if it

can

identify and reduce any inefficiencies or loss of data.

The CAL FIRE b

lieves that it has already implemented a

number

of measures to

ensure adherence to civil service laws and State Personnel Board rules with regard to hiring, and it is prepared to report as much through the corrective action plan process.

The department is

confident

that through the formulation and implementation of the

Hiring

eview Unit, it has

already addressed the issues

raised in this report,

and

welcomes any further discussion to provide additional information or clarification.

CRU REPLY

To ensure adherence with civil service laws and Board rules, the CAL FIRE must have
HR hiri g staff attend California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) trainings
specifically on merit and fitness, best hiring practices, and ECOS certification clearance.

Within

60	days

of	the

Executive

Officer’s

approval

of	these

findings

and

recommendations,

the CAL

FIRE must

submit to

the CRU

a written corrective action

plan that addresses the corrections the department will

implement

to ensure

the

department will improve its

hiring practices. Copies of any relevant

documentation

should

be included with the

plan. Failure to comply with

this may result in further

sanctions including the removal of the CAL FIRE’s hiring delegation.