Investigations of Improper Activities by State Agencies and Employees

8/4/2019 Investigations of Improper Activities by State Agencies and Employees

1/69

Investigations of ImproperActivities by State Agenciesand Employees

Waste o State Funds, Misuse o State Resources,Falsifcation o Records, Inexcusable Neglect oDuty, Failure to Monitor Time Reporting, andOther Violations o State Law

July 1 Through March 11

August 11 Report I11-1

IndependentTRANSPARENT Accountability

NONPARTISAN


2/69

Te rst ve copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by

check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address:

California State Auditor

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

916.445.0255 or Y 916.445.0033

OR

Tis report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov

Te California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. Forinformation on how to subscribe, please contact the Information echnology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456,

or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov.

Alternate format reports available upon request.

Permission is granted to reproduce reports.

For questions regarding the contents of this report,

please contact Margarita Fernndez, Chief of Public Aairs, at 916.445.0255.


3/69

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITORB u r e a u o f S t a t e A u d i t s

Doug Cordiner

Chief Deputy

Elaine M. Howle

State Auditor

555 C a pit o l Ma l l , Su i t e 300 Sa c ra m ent o , C A 9584 9 6 . 4 4 5 . 0 2 5 5 9 6 . 3 2 7 . 0 0 9 a x www.bs a .c a .go v

August 25, 2011 Investigative Report I2011-1

Te Governor of CaliforniaPresident pro empore of the SenateSpeaker of the AssemblyState CapitolSacramento, California 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

Pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, the Bureau of State Audits presents itsinvestigative report summarizing investigations completed between July 2010 and March 2011concerning allegations of improper governmental activities.

Tis report details seven substantiated allegations involving several state departments. Troughour investigations, we found waste of state funds, misuse of state resources, falsication ofrecords, inexcusable neglect of duty, and failure to monitor time reporting. As an example, wefound that an executive at the Department of Mental Health wasted at least $51,244 in statefunds in 2009the one-year period that we examinedby employing a longtime senior ocialto perform activities that either were undertaken on behalf of a nonstate organization or didnot serve a state purpose. In addition, a chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated bythe Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation used his state-compensated time and stateequipment to perform work related to his private psychology practice, costing the State up toan estimated $212,261 in lost productivity over nearly ve years.

Tis report also provides an update on previously reported investigations and describesadditional actions taken by state departments to correct the problems we identied. For example,the Department of General Services signed an agreement in June 2011 with a now-retired eetdivision manager directing him to reimburse the State for his misuse of state vehicles for hisdaily commute for three years. Te terms of the agreement require the manager to repay theState $12,379 in monthly payments from June 2011 through August 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPAState Auditor


4/69

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Contents

Summary 1

Chapter 1

DepartmentofMentalHealth:WasteofStateFunds,MisuseofStateResources 5

Chapter 2DepartmentofCorrectionsandRehabilitation:MisuseofStateResources 15

Chapter 3CaliforniaEnergyCommission:FalsicationofTimeand

AttendanceRecords 21

Chapter 4

DepartmentofTransportation:InexcusableNeglectofDuty 27

Chapter 5

DepartmentofFishandGame:MisuseofaStateVehicle,ImproperTravelReimbursements 33

Chapter 6DepartmentofIndustrialRelations:FailuretoMonitorAdequatelyEmployeesTimeReporting 39

Chapter 7StateControllersOce:FailuretoReportAbsences,FailuretoMonitorAdequatelyanEmployeesTimeReporting 43

Chapter 8

UpdateofPreviouslyReportedIssues 49

Appendix

TheInvestigationsProgram 59

Index 63


5/69


August 2011

viii

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.


6/69


August 2011

Summary

Results in Brief

Te California Whistleblower Protection Act (Whistleblower Act)empowers the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to investigateand report on improper governmental activities by agencies andemployees of the State of California (State). Under theWhistleblower Act, an improper governmental activity is anyaction by a state agency or employee related to state governmentthat violates a law, is economically wasteful, or involves grossmisconduct, incompetence, or ineciency.

Tis report details the results of seven particularly signicant

investigations completed by the bureau or undertaken jointlyby the bureau and other state agencies between July 1, 2010,and March 31, 2011. Tis report also outlines actions taken bystate agencies in response to the investigations of impropergovernmental activities described here and in previous reports.Te following paragraphs briey summarize the investigationsand the state agencies actions, which are discussed more fullyin the individual chapters of this report.

Department of Mental Health

An executive at the Department of Mental Health (Mental Health)wasted at least $51,244 in state funds in 2009, the one-yearperiod that we examined, by employing a longtime senior ocialto perform activities that either were undertaken on behalf of anonstate organization or did not serve a state purpose. In fall 2010the executive directed the senior ocial to discontinue usingstate-compensated time for activities that we found did not benetthe State. Soon thereafter, the executive retired from state service,and the senior ocial began using leave while he awaited newwork assignments.

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Te chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated by theDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) usedhis state-compensated time and state equipment to perform workrelated to his private psychology practice, costing the State up to anestimated $212,261 in lost productivity over nearly ve years.

1 For more information about the bureaus investigations program, please refer to the Appendix.

Investigative Highlights . . .

State agencies and employees engaged in

improper activities, including the following:

An agency wasted at least $51,244 in

state funds during 2009 by employing a

senior ocial to perform activities that

did not benet the State.

A chief psychologist misused state time

and equipment by performing work for

his private practice, costing the State an

estimated $212,261.

A personnel specialist and an employee

falsied time and attendance records

to enable the employee to receive

at retirement, a benet estimated at

$6,589 more than allowed.

A supervisor neglected to supervise the

work of a subordinate employee, resulting

in the employee receiving compensation

for which the State lacked assurance that

it received adequate work in return.

A manager improperly directed an

employee to use a state vehicle for

her commute at a cost of $8,282 and

improperly reimbursed the employee

$595 for lodging and meal expenses.


7/69


August 2011

2

California Energy Commission

An employee and a personnel specialist at the California EnergyCommission falsied time and attendance records to enable theemployeeat the time of her retirementto receive a payment forunused annual leave that was higher than the amount to which shewas entitled, costing the State an estimated $6,589.

Department of Transportation

For nearly three years, a transportation planning supervisorfor the Department of ransportation neglected his duty tosupervise the work of a subordinate transportation planner,

resulting in the transportation planner receiving compensation,including overtime pay, for which the State lacked assurancethat the transportation planner performed adequate work tojustify the compensation.

Department of Fish and Game

A manager at the Department of Fish and Game improperlydirected an employee under his supervision to use a state vehicle forcommuting between her home and work locations at a cost to theState of $8,282 over a nine-month period. In addition, the employeeimproperly requestedand the manager improperly approvedreimbursement for $595 in lodging and meal expenses incurred bythe employee near her work headquarters.

Department of Industrial Relations

An ocial and a supervisor at a district oce of the Department ofIndustrial Relations failed to monitor adequately the time reportingof four subordinate employees from July 2007 through June 2009.

State Controllers Oce

An employee with the State Controllers Oce failed to report anestimated 322 hours of absences over an 18-month period. Becauseher supervisor, a high-level ocial, failed to monitor adequately hertime reporting, the State paid the employee $6,591 for hours she didnot work.


8/69


August 2011

Update on Previously Reported Investigations

In addition to conveying our ndings about investigations completedfrom July 2010 through March 2011, this report summarizesthe status of certain ndings described in our previous reports.Chapter 8 details the actions takenor declined to be takenby therespective agencies for seven previously reported investigations.Te following updates have particular signicance:

Te Department of General Services (General Services) signedan agreement in June 2011 with a now-retired eet divisionmanager directing him to reimburse the State for his misuse ofstate vehicles for his daily commute. Our January 2011 reporthad revealed that the manager improperly used state vehicles for

his daily commute for nine years. We estimated that the cost ofthe misuse for the three years for which complete records wereavailable totaled $12,379. Te terms of the agreement require themanager to repay the State the entire $12,379 at $200 a monthfrom June 2011 through August 2016. Te manager made his rstinstallment payment in June 2011.

Te California State University, Oce of the Chancellor (ChancellorsOce) has implemented four of the ve recommendations we madein our December 2009 report, which found that the ChancellorsOce had reimbursed a former ocial $152,441 for unnecessaryexpenses that did not further the best interests of the universityor the State. Te Chancellors Oce reiterated its assertion aboutthe diculty in implementing the remaining recommendation.Tis lack of action by the Chancellors Oce will permit itsemployees to continue an activity we identied as being wastefuland, therefore not in the States best interests.

able 1 on the following page summarizes the impropergovernmental activities appearing in this report, the nancialimpact of the activities, and their status.


9/69


August 2011

4

Table 1

Issues, Financial Impact, and Status of Recommendations for Cases Described in This Report

STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER DEPARTMENT

DATE OF OUR

INITIAL REPORT ISSUE

COST TO THE

STATE AS OF

MARCH 31, 2011*

FULLY

IMPLEMENTED

PARTIALLY

IMPLEMENTED PENDING

NO

ACTION

TAKEN

New Cases

1 Department of Mental Health August 2011 Waste of state funds, misuse

of state resources. $51,244

2 Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation

August 2011 Misuse of state resources.

212,261

3 California Energy Commission August 2011 Falsication of time and

attendance records. 6,589

4 Department of Transportation August 2011 Inexcusable neglect of duty. NA

5 Department of Fish and Game August 2011 Misuse of state vehicle,improper travel

reimbursements. 8,877

6 Departme nt of Indus tria l

Relations

August 2011 Failure to monitor adequately

employees time reporting. NA

7 State Controllers Oce August 2011 Failure to report absences,

failure to monitor adequately

an employees time reporting. 6,591

Previously Reported Cases


and Rehabilitation

September

2005

Failure to account for

employees use of union leave. $1,654,664

8 Departme nt of Fish and

Game, Oce of Spill

Prevention and Response

April 2009 Improper travel expenses.

71,747

8 California State University,

Oce of the ChancellorDecember

2009

Improper and wasteful

expenditures. 150,538


and Rehabilitation

January 2011 Improper overtime reporting.

446

8 California Conservation Corps January 2011 Failure to follow state

contracting laws. 84,478

8 Department of General

Services

January 2011 Misuse of state resources.

12,379


and Rehabilitation

January 2011 Delay in reassigning an

incompetent psychiatrist,

waste of state funds. 366,656

Source: Bureau of State Audits.

NA = Not applicable because the situation did not involve a dollar amount or because the ndings did not allow us to quantify the nancial impact.

* We have estimated the cost to the State as noted in individual chapters of this report.

The California State University, Oce of the Chancellor has implemented four of the ve recommendations. However, it does not plan toimplement the remaining recommendation.


10/69


August 2011

Chapter 1

DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH: WASTE OF STATEFUNDS, MISUSE OF STATE RESOURCESCase I2009-0644

Results in Brief

An executive at the Department of Mental Health (Mental Health)wasted state funds by employing a senior ocial to performactivities, most of which did not provide any benet to the State. In2009 alone, the one-year period that we examined, the State paidat least $51,244 in salary to the senior ocial to perform activities

that either were undertaken on behalf of a nonstate organization ordid not serve a state purpose. In fall 2010, during the course of ourinvestigation, the executive directed the senior ocial to stop usingstate-compensated time to perform activities that we found did notbenet the State. Soon thereafter, the executive retired from stateservice, and the senior ocial began using leave while awaiting newwork assignments from the executives successor.

Background

Mental Health, as the state department entrusted with providingleadership for Californias mental health system, bears responsibilityfor administering a host of programs related to ensuring theavailability of mental health services and otherwise improvingthe lives of individuals aicted with mental illness. Its mostvisible responsibility is to administer the treatment of individualswith mental illness at ve state mental hospitals. Anotherresponsibility is to administer the Mental Health Services Act,which calls for the establishment of programs for a reduction in[the] stigma associated with either being diagnosed with a mentalillness or seeking mental health services and a reduction indiscrimination against people with mental illness. oward that

end, Mental Health adopted a California Strategic Plan on ReducingMental Health Stigma and Discrimination, but due to fundingconstraints it has not taken action to implement the plan.

Government Code section 8547.2, subdivision (c), provides thatany activity by a state agency or employee that is economicallywasteful is an improper governmental activity. In addition,

2 Welfare and Institutions Code section , subdivision (b) ()-().



11/69


August 2011

6

Government Code section 8314 prohibits any state employeefrom using state resources, including state-compensated time, for

purposes unrelated to state employment.

Upon receiving an allegation that a senior ocial at MentalHealth was engaging in activities that constituted a waste of stateresources, we initiated an investigation.

Facts and Analysis

In 1998 the governor, who was about to leave oce, contactedthe Mental Health executive and asked him whether he hada position at Mental Health that he could ll with the senior

ocial. Te executive told the governor that he had sucha position, and the governor appointed the senior ocial to thatposition, which was under the executives direct supervision.

Te senior ocial was acquainted with many Southern Californiacelebrities, including a number of celebrities in the entertainmenteld. Te senior ocial also had many contacts in the lawenforcement community, having worked in the security industryand having been appointed to several boards and commissionsrelated to law enforcement.

Te executive originally assigned the senior ocial to work onsecurity issues at Mental Health. Te senior ocials primary dutybecame serving as Mental Healths liaison to Southern Californialaw enforcement agencies, an assignment that included littleinteraction with state hospitals but involved serving as thedepartments point of contact for county sheris and chiefsof police, as well as representing the department at select lawenforcement functions. Later, the executive expanded the seniorocials duties to include using his access to celebrities to try toenlist them to serve as spokespeople supporting the departmentseorts to reduce the stigma and discrimination associated withmental illness and mental health treatment.

During his tenure at Mental Health, the senior ocial reporteddirectly to the executive and worked almost exclusively from hishome in Southern California. Te executive provided the seniorocial with a state vehicle outtted as a police car for travelingto meetings and other events because the executive felt thatthe car gave the senior ocial credibility when dealing with lawenforcement personnel, and he felt that it created a perceptionproblem for the senior ocial to arrive at meetings in his personalluxury vehicle. Te executive aorded the senior ocial signicantdiscretion in deciding the activities in which he would engage.Te senior ocial told us that his work hours varied substantially

The executive provided the senior

ocial with a state vehicle outtted

as a police car for traveling to

meetings and other events.



12/69


August 2011

from week to week and that he did not maintain a regular workschedule. Te senior ocial stated that he spoke with the executive

by telephone once or twice per week to keep him apprised ofhis activities.

Troughout his employment at Mental Health, the senior ocialhas held positions with two other organizations. One positionis president and chief executive ocer (CEO) of a nonprotorganization whose mission is to provide support for the ocersand families of a Southern California police department and forthe children in the communities that the ocers serve. Te otherposition is as a volunteer serving as senior special advisor to acounty sheri. In this position, the senior ocial serves as a reservedeputy sheri.

The Senior Ocial Spent Most of His State-Compensated Time on

Activities Unrelated to His State Job

When we conducted this investigation in 2010, we askedMental Health to provide us with evidence of the work that thesenior ocial performed in 2009. In response to our request,Mental Health did not provide us with any work products, butinstead gave us a work summary prepared by the senior ocial,which purported to describe his work activities on each of hisworkdays in 2009.

Based on the information provided in the work summary, wefound that most of the senior ocials stated work activities wereunrelated to his job at Mental Health. For example, the seniorocials nonprot organization hosts a large gala each year forcelebrities and local law enforcement ocials to raise funds for thenonprot organization. Te senior ocial claimed as state workactivities his attendance at numerous meetings for planning thegala, meetings with potential presenters and honored guests forthe gala, and participation in various fundraising and social eventsto solicit attendees for the gala. In one instance, the senior ocial

attended a famous comedians funeral. In his work record, thesenior ocial stated that his reason for attending the funeral wasto meet celebrities . . . and enlist support and attendance for the[nonprot organizations] gala.

In addition, the senior ocial claimed as state work activities hisattendance at meetings and social events that related primarilyto his duties as a senior special advisor to a county sheri. AsFigure 1 on page 9 shows, these events included attending a balletfundraiser, the sheri s birthday party, and four sheri-sponsoredgolf tournaments.

We found that most of the senior

ocials stated work activities

were unrelated to his job at Mental

Health. In one instance, the

senior ocial attended a famous

comedians funeral.



13/69


August 2011

8

Further, the senior ocials work summary cited attendance atmeetings and social events that, while not appearing to be related

to his nonprot organization or to his work with the sheris oce,also were not related to his state job. Tese events includedattendance at fundraisers for various political candidates andretirement parties for local ocials.

When we interviewed the senior ocial and the executive aboutthe senior ocials participation at these events, they eachprovided a dierent perspective. Te senior ocial claimed that hisparticipation in these activities fell within his Mental Health duties.He asserted that his involvement with dierent organizations didnot conict with or detract from his work at Mental Health. In fact,the senior ocial claimed that everything he did was focused on

helping Mental Health. However, he could not demonstrate how hisparticipation in the events directly benetted Mental Health.

In contrast, the executive asserted that the senior ocials eortsrelated to fundraising for the nonprot organization should nothave been counted as Mental Health work activities. Further, theexecutive stated that work completed for the sheris oce was notpart of the senior ocials Mental Health assignments and that thesenior ocial should not have claimed this work as Mental Healthwork activities.

Comparing the information we received from the executive withthe senior ocials work summary for 2009, we concluded thatmost of the senior ocials activities in 2009 were for his nonstateendeavors. Of the 227 days that the senior ocial reported he hadworked, we found that on 125 of those days (55 percent), his onlystated work activities were to attend meetings and social eventsthat clearly related to his nonprot organization, the county sheri,or other groups. As the ocial earned $76,484 during 2009, weestimated that at least $42,066 of his state salary during that yearimproperly paid for work performed for nonstate organizations.Figure 1 identies examples of the activities the senior ocialimproperly claimed as work related to his Mental Health position.

Although the senior ocial used a state vehicle to travel to eventsunrelated to his state job, such as those listed in Figure 1, andthis practice constituted misuse of the vehicle, we were unable todetermine how much of the mileage on the state vehicle could be

3 Because the senior ocial worked in an exempt job classication, on days that the senior ocialreported engaging in activities unrelated to his state employment, we counted the entire day as aday spent performing work for Mental Health if the senior ocial also claimed to have engaged inactivities related to his state employment.

As the ocial earned $76,484

during 2009, we estimated that at

least $42,066 of his state salary

during that year improperly

paid for work performed for

nonstate organizations.



14/69


August 2011

attributed to his attending these events. Terefore, we were unableto determine the cost to the State associated with the misuse of the

state vehicle.

By using his state-compensated time and state vehicle to engage inactivities unrelated to his state job, the senior ocial misused stateresources in violation of section 8314 of the Government Code.

Figure 1

Examples of 2009 Activities the Senior Ocial Identied as

Mental Health Activities

American Ballet fundraiser

Chinese American Museum gala

Celebritys funeral

County sheriffs birthday party

Annual gala for the senior officialsnonprofit organization

Retirement dinner for the wife of a police commissioner

Retirement parties for various police department chiefs

Mayors inauguration

City attorneys swearing-in ceremony

Mexican AmericanBar Association dinner

California gubernatorial candidates fundraiser

Multiple county sheriffsgolf tournaments

United States senators multiple fundraisers

United States congressmans multiple fundraisers

CLAIMED 2009 MENTAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES

Source: Bureau of State Audits analysis of the senior ocials work summary.



15/69


August 2011

10

A Signicant Portion of the Senior Ocials Activities on Behalf of

Mental Health Did Not Benet the State

As previously noted, one of the senior ocials primary dutieswas to use his access to celebrities to try to enlist them to serveas spokespeople in support of Mental Healths eorts to reducethe stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness andmental health treatment. However, this anti-stigma programwas at a standstill due to a lack of funding, so the senior ocialswork in this areaas described by the executivewas to interactwith celebrities who sometime in the future might be willing toparticipate in the anti-stigma program by doing public serviceannouncements for Mental Health.

o facilitate this interaction, the senior ocial attended manyhigh-prole meetings and social events in order to cultivateand maintain relationships with celebrities and other famousindividuals. Some of the events that the senior ocial attendedin the name of promoting Mental Healths anti-stigma programwere the Golden Globe Awards, the World Magic Awards, and aJulio Iglesias concert. See Figure 2 for a sample of the events thatthe employee stated he attended on behalf of Mental Healthsanti-stigma program.

When we asked the senior ocial why he considered his attendanceat the awards ceremonies as a duty of his state employment, hestated that his attendance enabled him to interact directly withmany celebrities and their handlers, managers, and agents so thathe could gather support for the anti-stigma program. In response toquestioning about his attendance at the concert, the senior ocialstated that the singer is a close friend, and he went to the concertto ask him to participate in a possible concert for the anti-stigmaprogram. Nevertheless, when we asked the executive about theseevents, the executive stated that the senior ocial did not ask himin advance whether he could attend these events as part of hisMental Health duties. Instead, the senior ocial told the executiveafter attending the events about the people he spoke with regarding

Mental Health issues. Te executive stated that he would countsome of the time that the senior ocial spent at these events aslegitimate work time, but not all of it. However, neither the seniorocial nor the executive could identify any measurable benet thatthe State garnered as a result of the senior ocials interaction withcelebrities at social and entertainment events in the name of MentalHealths anti-stigma program.

Our investigation found that of the 227 days that the senior ocialreported working in 2009, on 27 of those days (12 percent) thesenior ocial only listed as work activities his attendance at socialand entertainment events to interact with celebrities. Because we

When we asked the executive about

the senior ocials attendance at

certain events, the executive stated

that the senior ocial did not ask

him in advance whether he could

attend these events as part of his

Mental Health duties.



16/69


August 2011

found that these activities had provided no benet to the State, weconcluded that the payment of $9,178 in salary to the senior ocial

for those workdays was wasteful.

Figure 2

Examples of Activities the Senior Ocial Attended in 2009 on Behalf of the

Anti-Stigma Program

Golden Globe Awards

Various holiday parties hostedby private businesses

World Magic Awards

Birthday celebration for theowner of a luxury hotel

Latina Heritage Day

Julio Iglesiasworld tour concert

Night of 100 Stars Awards

CLAIMED 2009 ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF

OF THE ANTI-STIGMA PROGRAM

Source: Bureau of State Audits analysis of the senior ocials work summary.



17/69


August 2011

12

The Executive Implemented Changes After Our Interview

During our investigation of this case, and, more specically, afterour interview of the executive in September 2010 regarding thesenior ocials work activities, the executive instructed the seniorocial not to claim as part of his Mental Health duties the timehe spends on activities for his nonprot organization and onactivities for the county sheris oce. Te executive also reducedthe senior ocials role in promoting Mental Healths anti-stigmaprogram by directing him to focus more time on conductingsecurity audits at Mental Healths hospitals. Lastly, the executivetold the senior ocial to provide him with more advance noticeand information regarding the events he plans to attend on behalfof Mental Health. Finally, the executive told the senior ocial that

whenever an events applicability to Mental Health is questionable,the senior ocial should err on the side of caution and use leave toattend the event.

Te executive retired from state service at the end of 2010 andinstructed the senior ocial to ask the executives replacement fornew job assignments. While awaiting new job assignments from theexecutives replacement, the senior ocial elected to use leave.

Recommendations

o address the waste and misuse of state resources, Mental Healthshould do the following:

Evaluate the need for the senior ocials position.

If Mental Health determines that the senior ocials position canprovide a benet to the State, clarify the job duties associated withthe position and increase oversight of the positions activities toensure that the State receives material benets from the activities.

Evaluate the senior ocials workdays during the past three years

to determine whether the senior ocial should have chargedleave on workdays that he claimed to have worked but actuallydevoted himself to nonstate activities.

Require the senior ocial to use leave for workdays on which hedid not actually perform work for the State or to repay the Statethe amount of salary he received for those days.



18/69


August 2011

Agency Response

In June 2011 Mental Health reported that in following ourrecommendations, it reevaluated the necessity of the senior ocialsposition and concluded that the position was unnecessary. MentalHealth stated that although a former administration created theposition for desirable purposes, it determined that these functionswere no longer essential and should not be maintained givencurrent scal constraints. Te senior ocial resigned from stateservice in May 2011, and Mental Health eliminated his position.

Mental Health agreed that the senior ocials state employmentoverlapped with his volunteer service as a reserve deputy sheri,his status as a special advisor to a county sheri, and his role as the

CEO of a nonprot organization that supports law enforcementocers and their families. Moreover, Mental Health agreed thatthe ocial attended various police and entertainment events, someof which likely were unrelated to his state duties. However, MentalHealth asserted that given the senior ocials duties, it disagreedwith our conclusion that his attendance at these events failed tobenet the State. Despite Mental Healths assertion, we maintainour position that the ocials attendance at the events noted in ourreport provided no discernible benet to the State.

Mental Health also reported that it was unable to evaluate fullythe senior ocials workdays during the past three years, as we hadrecommended, to determine whether the senior ocial shouldhave charged more leave. Instead, Mental Health stated that itfound scant evidence of how the senior ocial spent his workdayseven though it tried to reconstruct his daily work activities. MentalHealth thus concluded that compiling the necessary evidencewould require extensive work by sta to evaluate daily activities thatoccurred long ago.

Although we recommended that Mental Health require the seniorocial to use leave for workdays he did not actually perform workfor the State or repay the State the amount of salary he received for

those days, Mental Health stated that it is unlikely to recover anyportion of the senior ocials salary. In addition to its inability toevaluate the senior ocials workdays, Mental Health stated thateven though it expected a 40-hour workweek from the seniorocial, more or less than eight hours on individual days waspermissible. Further, it stated that it had no documented evidencethat the senior ocial failed to perform many of his duties. Finally,Mental Health indicated that even if it were able to determine thesalary amount the senior ocial earned on workdays he did notactually perform work for the State, it could not seek to recoverthose costs since he no longer is employed by the State.



19/69


August 2011

14



20/69


August 2011

Chapter 2

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION:MISUSE OF STATE RESOURCESCase I2009-1203

Results in Brief

Te chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated by theDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) usedhis state-compensated time and state equipment to perform workrelated to his private psychology practice, costing the State up to anestimated $212,261 in lost productivity.

Background

Inmates conned to a state correctional facility are legally entitledto receive necessary medical and psychological treatment duringthe time of their incarceration. Corrections therefore hires healthprofessionals, including psychologists, to ensure that inmatesreceive adequate treatment while incarcerated.

Like other state employees, Corrections psychologists mustcomply with state laws prohibiting the misuse of state resourcesand prohibiting state employees from engaging in activities thatconict with their state employment. Specically, Government Codesection 8314 prohibits state employees from using state resources,including state-compensated time and state equipment, for purposesunrelated to their employment. In addition, Government Codesection 19990 prohibits state employees from engaging in anyemployment, activity, or enterprise that is clearly incompatiblewith their duties as state employees.

When we received information that a chief psychologist for acorrectional facility was performing work for his private practice

during state work hours, we initiated an investigation.

Facts and Analysis

Our investigation revealed that in June 2005 the chief psychologistbegan pursuing a private psychology practice in addition to workingas a full-time employee of the State. In furtherance of his privatepractice, he performed psychological evaluations of individuals athis oces located in four cities. Te chief psychologist performedmany of these evaluations for private companies.



21/69


August 2011

16

Te chief psychologist unlawfully misused state resources whenhe used his state-compensated time to perform work for his

private psychology practice. According to the chief psychologist,his scheduled work hours at the correctional facility were6 a.m. to 2 p.m., but he typically left the facility by 1 p.m. eachday to attend to his private practice. Tus, he regularly left workone hour earlier than the scheduled end of his shift. Moreover,the chief psychologist acknowledged that while he was at thefacility, he dedicated approximately 30 percent of his time towork on his private practice. Based on these admissions, weestimated that from June 2005 through April 2010 the chiefpsychologist misused up to 3,454 hours of state-compensatedtime valued at $212,261, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Te chief psychologist attempted to justify his misuse ofstate-compensated time by arguing that he often worked outsidehis regular hours to respond to emergencies and other urgentmatters. He also stated that he sometimes reported to the facilityto perform a few hours of work on days when he reportedusing a full day of leave. A subordinate employee conrmedthat the chief psychologist responded to emergencies. Severalsubordinates, while acknowledging the chief psychologiststendency to leave early each day, told us that he had at one timeor another responded to their e-mails or telephone messagesafter he left for the day. However, we were unable to capture anyof this time in our $212,261 estimate because specic evidencewas not available for us to calculate the time that the chiefpsychologist asserted he spent on these activities after he hadleft the facility. Further, we do not believe that the additionaltime was signicant because the chief psychologist admitted helikely did not average a 40-hour workweek. We therefore basedour estimate for the lost productivity to the State on the variousadmissions by the chief psychologist that he did not dedicatehis full time, attention, and eorts to his state position during hisregular work hours.

Te chief psychologist also used his state computer to perform

work related to his private practice. He told us that he used his statecomputer to send and store documents and to perform researchrelated to his private practice. We reviewed his state e-mailaccount, which largely contained e-mails from December 2009through March 2010, and found 57 e-mails related solely tohis private practice. Te chief psychologist conrmed that thecontent of these e-mails was related exclusively to his privatepsychology practice.

We estimated that from June 2005

through April 2010 the chief

psychologist misused up to

3,454 hours of state-compensated

time valued at $212,261 to

perform work for his private

psychology practice.



22/69


August 2011

By using his state-compensated time and his state computer to conductbusiness related to his private practice, the psychologist misused state

resources in violation of Government Code section 8314, and engagedin activities that were incompatible with his state employment, inviolation of section 19990 of the Government Code.

Figure 3

Estimated Costs of the Chief Psychologists Misuse of State Time From

June 2005 Through April 2010

EstimatedCosts

384Estimated Hours

735 747 747 639 202

2005(June through

December)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010(January through

April)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

$60,000

Total Estimated Cost

Total Estimated Hours

$212,261

3,454

$18,428

$35,769

$50,029 $50,855

$43,466

$13,714

Sources: Bureau of State Audits analysis of the chief psychologists salary history, leave usage, andsigned statement.



23/69


August 2011

18

Recommendations

o ensure that the chief psychologist and other Correctionsemployees do not misuse state resources, Corrections should dothe following:

ake appropriate disciplinary action against the chiefpsychologist for misusing state resources.

Require psychology sta at the correctional facility, including thechief psychologist, to specify hours of duty.

Establish a system for monitoring whether psychology sta at thecorrectional facility, including the chief psychologist, are working

during specied hours of duty.

Agency Response

After reviewing our draft report, Corrections commented inAugust 2011 that the chief psychologist classication is exempt fromthe federal Fair Labor Standards Act (act). It then noted that stateemployees who are exempt from the act are not hourly workersand are paid on a salaried basis. It further stated that exemptemployees are expected to work as many hours as is necessary,within reason, to provide the public services for which theyare hired.

Corrections comments suggest that it believes the chiefpsychologists misuse of an estimated 3,454 hours of state timeat a cost of $212,261over a nearly ve-year period does notviolate state law because the chief psychologists classication is asalaried position. However, as we described in our investigation,the chief psychologist regularly left work one hour earlier than thescheduled end of his shift and he acknowledged that while he wasat the facility, he dedicated about 30 percent of his time to workon his private practice. Consequently, his actions clearly violate

Government Code section 8314, which prohibits state employeesfrom using state-compensated time for purposes unrelated to theiremployment, and Government Code section 19990, which prohibitsstate employees from engaging in any employment that is clearlyincompatible with their state duties.

Notwithstanding its comments, Corrections reported in June 2011that it planned to request disciplinary action against the chiefpsychologist for misuse of state equipment and resources. It alsostated that in January 2011 the chief psychologist voluntarilydemoted to a sta psychologist position. Corrections further statedthat before his voluntary demotion, health care management



24/69


August 2011

had attempted to make the chief psychologist comply withCorrections policies and procedures regarding hours of work and

secondary employment.

o ensure that psychology personnel at the correctional facilityspecify hours of duty, Corrections reported that it now requireseach aected employee to have a signed duty statement, secondaryemployment approval, and documentation of work schedule inthe supervisory les. It stated that it planned to issue a directiveoutlining the enforcement of these requirements in August 2011.

Corrections also stated that it planned to take several actionsdesigned to monitor whether psychology sta are working theappropriate hours. In its August 2011 directive, it intends to include

a description of proper time-reporting procedures and a statementabout the consequences of failing to follow the procedures.Further, Corrections stated that it planned to train its managers,supervisors, and sta regarding proper time-reporting procedures.Finally, it stated that it planned to enter into labor negotiationsabout the use of time clocks but that it did not know when thenegotiations would occur.



25/69


August 2011

20



26/69


August 2011

Chapter 3

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION: FALSIFICATION OFTIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDSCase I2010-0844

Results in Brief

An employee and a personnel specialist at the California EnergyCommission (Energy Commission) falsied time and attendancerecords in order to enable the employee, at the time of herretirement, to receive a payment for unused annual leave that washigher than the amount to which she was entitled, costing the State

an estimated $6,589.

Background

Having primary responsibility for the States energy policy andplanning activities, the Energy Commission employs civil serviceemployees who perform duties that include forecasting stateenergy needs, licensing power plants, promoting energy eciency,supporting renewable energy resources, and performing routineadministrative functions essential to the operation of a state agency.

State civil service employees receive a specied number of hours ofpaid leave every month they are employed by the State. Employeesgenerally accrue paid leave each month in the form of eight hoursof sick leave and a specied number of hours of vacation time basedon the length of time they have been employed by the State. Unlikevacation time, which an employee may use at his or her discretion,California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.745 species thatsick leave only may be used by an employee for absences from workthat are necessary because the employee is ill, injured, has beenexposed to a contagious disease, or requires medical treatment,or because a member of the employees family is ill, injured, or

has died. As further provided in this regulation and the collectivebargaining agreements established between the State and thevarious employee bargaining groups, the amounts of sick leave thatan employee may use per year due to family member illness, injury,or death is limited to a specied number of days. An employee mayaccrue or accumulate unused sick leave until the employee leavesstate service. Upon the employees retirement, unused sick leave isconverted to a retirement service credit, with 2,000 hours of sickleave equaling one year of service credit. Te amount of servicecredit an employee has accumulated at the time of retirement



27/69


August 2011

22

is a part of what determines the amount of the pension theemployee will receive from the California Public Employees

Retirement System (CalPERS).

As an alternative to receiving leave in the form of both sick leaveand vacation time, most state employees can instead elect to receiveannual leave. Like vacation time, an employee may use annual leaveat his or her discretion, and not just for absences prompted byillness. Te amount of annual leave an employee accrues per monthdepends on his or her length of state service, but always accrues ata higher rate than vacation time and at a lower rate than vacationtime and sick leave combined. An employee may continue toaccrue and accumulate annual leave until reaching a maximum of640 hours of accumulated leave (unless exceptional circumstances

justify an accumulation of more hours). When an employee retiresfrom state service, the employee may receive a lump sum paymentfor the amount of unused annual leave he or she has accumulated,based on the employees salary at the time of retirement.

An employee who accrues sick leave and vacation time generallyhas the option to stop accruing sick leave and vacation time and tostart accruing annual leave instead. Upon enrolling in the annualleave program, any vacation time the employee has accumulatedis converted to annual leave. However, any sick leave the employeehas accumulated is not converted to annual leave. Instead, the sickleave simply remains available for the employee to use in the eventthe employee needs to be absent from work due to illness.

o ensure that state agencies correctly track the amount of leaveaccrued, accumulated, and used by their employees, CaliforniaCode of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665 mandates thatstate agencies keep complete, accurate time and attendance records.o comply with this mandate, the Energy Commission requireseach of its employees to submit a time sheet at the end of everymonth that marks the dates on which the employee is absent fromwork and that designates the kind of leave the employee is using tocover each absence, including annual leave, sick leave used because

the employee is ill, and sick leave used because a family member isill. After a supervisor approves the time sheet, the timekeeper forthe employees unit veries its accuracy. Te Energy Commissionthen uses the time sheet to post the employees absences andearned benets, such as annual leave, into the States leaveaccounting system. In order for an employee to amend a previouslysubmitted time sheet, the Energy Commissions policies requirethat the supervisor who approved the original time sheet authorizethe amendment by signing the amended time sheet. UnderGovernment Code section 19572, subdivision (f ), state employeeshave a duty to behave honestly in dealing with their employer asacts of dishonesty constitute grounds for discipline.



28/69


August 2011

When we received information that an employee at the EnergyCommission, with the assistance of a personnel specialist, obtained

an improper adjustment of her leave balances to inate the amountof annual leave for which she received payment at the time of herretirement, we initiated an investigation.

Facts and Analysis

Our investigation revealed that the employee and the personnelspecialist worked together to enable the employee to be overpaidfor annual leave at the time of the employees retirement. We foundthat the employee, who worked for the State for many years, atone time accrued paid leave as a combination of sick leave and

vacation time, and then she made a switch to accrue paid leave asannual leave. Accordingly, the employee accumulated a bank ofunused leave that included sick leave and annual leave.

During a 17-month period before her retirement, spanningMay 2008 through September 2009, the employee usedseveral hours of accumulated sick leave and more than 175 hoursof accumulated annual leave to cover her absences from workduring this period. Ten in November 2009, with her plannedretirement approaching at the end of the year, the employee had adiscussion with the personnel specialist in which it was noted thatif the employee had used sick leave rather than annual leave forthe 175 hours of absences, she would have a larger accumulationof unused annual leave at retirement, for which she couldreceive payment.

Following this discussion, the personnel specialist provided theemployee with the monthly time sheets that the employee hadcompletedand that the employees supervisor had approvedthroughout the 17-month period. Te employee then alteredthe time sheets to report that 175 hours of annual leave she hadtaken during the period was taken as sick leave due to familymember illness. Te employee initialed each of these alterations.

In conjunction with the employee altering the time sheets, thepersonnel specialist adjusted the employees leave balances inthe States leave accounting system to restore the 175 hours of leaveto her accumulated annual leave and to deduct 175 hours from theemployees accumulated sick leave. Te personnel specialist madethis adjustment even though doing so meant that the employeefar exceeded the amount of sick leave she was entitled to use forfamily member illness in both 2008 and 2009, which under thecollective bargaining agreement with the employees bargainingunit was capped at eight days per year. Neither the employeenor the personnel specialist presented the amended time sheets tothe employees supervisor for approval. Moreover, neither of the

Our investigation revealed that

the employee and the personnel

specialist worked together to

enable the employee to be overpaid

for annual leave at the time of the

employees retirement.



29/69


August 2011

24

employees reported to her respective supervisor that they wereredesignating the previously approved annual leave as sick leave.

Because of this augmentation of the employees unused annualleave balance, which was brought about by the alteration of timesheets and leave balances, the employee was improperly paid $8,533for 175 hours of annual leave that she already had used.

When we interviewed the employee and the personnel specialistabout the alteration of the employees time sheets and leavebalances, they each provided somewhat dierent accounts of howthe alterations came about. Te employee stated that she and thepersonnel specialist were simply work friends. She insisted thatthe personnel specialist was the one who initiated a conversationabout the amount of sick leave the employee had used and

suggested the time she had reported taking as annual leave couldbe converted to time taken as sick leave. Te employee admittedthat she had been aware she could use sick leave for family illnessesbut that she had stopped using sick leave for her absences whenother employees told her she could not use sick leave for long-termfamily illnesses. Te employee also acknowledged that she did nothave documentation to support that she used annual leave to carefor family members on the days converted to sick leave. In fact, theemployee admitted that when changing her time sheets to reporttaking sick leave instead of annual leave, the personnel specialistrandomly selected dates to change on the employees time sheets,altered the entries on those dates, and told her where to initial. Teemployee also stated that the personnel specialist assured her thatshe would notify the employees supervisor of the changes.

In contrast, the personnel specialist stated that she and theemployee became friends when she started helping the employeeplan for her retirement. Tey discussed similar experiences ofcaring for ill family members. Te personnel specialist claimedthe employee had not been aware that she was permitted to usesick leave to care for ill family members and that the employeehad asked about converting the annual leave she had used forthis purpose to sick leave. Te personnel specialist went on to

state that the employee told her she had been caring for an illfamily member on the days for which she had previously claimedannual leave and, because the personnel specialist believed theemployee when she was told this, the personnel specialist changedthe entries on the time sheets for the dates the employee indicatedshe had been taking care of an ill family member. Te personnelspecialist admitted that she did not follow the Energy Commissionsprocedures for amending time sheets, and that this was a mistake.

By altering her previously submitted time sheets to report that sheused sick leave rather than annual leave for 175 hours of absences,the employee violated her duty of honesty toward her employer

The employee was improperly paid

$8,533 for 175 hours of annual leave

that she already had used.



30/69


August 2011

under Government Code section 19572, subdivision (f), andshe claimed more sick leave than she was entitled to take under

California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.745 and thecollective bargaining agreement with her employee bargainingunit. Similarly, by helping the employee alter her time sheets andchanging the employees leave balances based on those alterations,the personnel specialist aided this dishonesty, facilitated theemployees using more sick leave than she was entitled to take, andcircumvented Energy Commission policies established to ensurethat employee leave balances are accounted for properly, as requiredby California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665.

Moreover, this improper alteration of time sheets and leavebalances cost the State an estimated $6,589 in overpayment to

the employee. Had the personnel specialist and the employeenot shifted improperly 175 hours from the employees sick leavebalance to her annual leave balance, the employee would nothave been paid, upon her retirement, for the 175 hours of unusedannual leave added to her leave balance. She instead would havereceived an additional service credit of 0.09 years for the 175 hoursthat had been listed as unused sick leave, and this credit wouldhave resulted in her receiving an additional $9.31 per month inretirement benets. Multiplied by the number of months she couldbe expected to receive that payment according to an actuarial tableused by CalPERS, this would have resulted in a projected cost tothe State of $1,944. However, because the 175 hours were shiftedto the employees annual leave balance, she received at retirement alump sum payment of $8,533 for those hours. able 2 illustrates theadditional cost to the State that resulted from this improper alteringof the employees leave balances.

Table 2

Estimated Loss to the State for the Adjustment of Annual Leave to Sick Leave

TYPE OF LEAVE OR SERVICE CREDIT COST TO THE STATE

Annual leave lump sum payment related to the adjustment $8,533

Less : Estimated tot al va lue of s ick leave ser vice credit (1,944)

Loss to the State $6,589

Sources: Bureau of State Audits analysis, State Controllers Oce records, and California PublicEmployees Retirement System records.



31/69


August 2011

26

Recommendations

Te Energy Commission should seek to recover the amount itimproperly paid the retiring employee for unused annual leavehours. If it is unable to recover any or all of this reimbursement, theEnergy Commission should explain and document its reasons fornot obtaining recovery of the funds.

In addition, the Energy Commission should do the following:

ake appropriate disciplinary action against the personnelspecialist for making unauthorized changes to the retiringemployees leave balances.

Monitor the personnel specialists payroll and leavebalance transactions to ensure that she follows EnergyCommission policies.

Provide training to employees responsible for managingleave balance and time-sheet transactions to ensure that theyunderstand the Energy Commissions policies for safeguardingtheir accuracy and respecting the limitations on the use of sickleave for family member illness as specied by the law andapplicable collective bargaining agreements.

Agency Response

Te Energy Commission reported in July 2011 that it planned toseek reimbursement from the retired employee for leave hours usedinappropriately. Te Energy Commission stated that if the retiredemployee failed to respond to its requests for reimbursement, itwould forward this information to the Franchise ax Board tocollect the overpayments from the retired employees future taxreturns. In addition, the Energy Commission stated that it plannedto train personnel oce sta about dierences in bargainingunit language related to leave accounting, retirement, and

proper procedures for amending time sheets. Finally, the EnergyCommission reported that the personnel specialist retired inJune 2011; thus, it was unable to take disciplinary action against her.However, we made Energy Commission sta aware of the personnelspecialists improper activities during our investigation. Terefore,the Energy Commission had ample opportunity to seek correctiveor disciplinary action against the personnel specialist before herretirement. Consequently, at a minimum, the Energy Commissionshould consider placing in the personnel specialists personnel lea memorandum describing the improper activities identied inour investigation in case she seeks reinstatement to state servicesometime in the future.



32/69


August 2011

Chapter 4

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: INEXCUSABLENEGLECT OF DUTYCase I2008-0731

Results in Brief

During a nearly three-year period, a transportation planningsupervisor for the Department of ransportation (Caltrans)neglected his duty to supervise the work of a subordinatetransportation planner, resulting in the transportation plannersreceiving compensation, including compensation for overtime,

for which Caltrans lacked assurance the transportation plannerperformed adequate work to justify the compensation.

Background

As the department responsible for developing Californiastransportation system, Caltrans employs transportation plannerswho develop and analyze policy and data to prepare, administer,and monitor transportation projects. Caltrans also employs seniortransportation planners having a duty to supervise the work ofsubordinate transportation planners assigned to their oversight inorder to ensure that they perform the quantity and quality of workexpected of them.

Caltrans employees, like other employees of the State, are requiredto exercise due diligence in performing their ocial duties.Inexcusable neglect of duty by a state employee is prohibitedmisconduct that constitutes grounds for discipline underGovernment Code section 19572, subdivision (d). In a precedentialdecision, the State Personnel Board has dened inexcusable neglectof duty as an intentional or grossly negligent failure to exercisedue diligence in the performance of a known ocial duty.

Government Code section 19851, subdivision (a), provides that it isthe policy of the State to avoid the necessity for overtime work byits employees whenever possible. However, this same subdivisionalso provides that a state agency may extend an employees workinghours to include overtime work when it is necessary to properlycarry on state business during a manpower shortage. In orderto ensure that employees do not work overtime unnecessarily,

4 Jack Tolchin () SPB Dec. No. -, page , citing Gubser v. Dept. of Employment() Cal.App.d , .



33/69


August 2011

28

thus obligating the State to pay overtime compensationunnecessarily, the State Administrative Manual declares at

section 8540 that as a general practice compensation for overtime,either as a cash payment or time o, should be based on priorwritten approval signed by a designated supervisor.

In 1994 the State instituted a telecommuting program which,according to Government Code section 14200.1, is intended toencourage state agencies to adopt policies which encouragetelecommuting by state employees. Under this program, asprovided in Government Code section 14201, every state agencymust develop and implement a telecommuting plan in work areaswhere telecommuting by the agencys employees is identied asbeing both practical and benecial to the organization. As part

of its telecommuting plan, Caltrans requires its supervisors toenter into telecommuting agreements with every employee thatit allows to telecommute, setting forth the terms and conditionsthat shall be observed by both the telecommuting employee andhis or her supervisor in order to ensure that while telecommutingthe employee continues to perform work satisfactorily and thetelecommuting arrangement does not adversely aect Caltransoperations. Caltrans telecommuting policy also provides thatevery telecommuting agreement must be reviewed at leastannually to determine whether telecommuting by the employeeremains feasible based on the operational needs of the agency,satisfactory employee performance, and the demonstrated abilityof the employee to work independently.

When we received information that Caltrans had allowed one ofits employees to telecommute full-time from home in conict withher telecommuting agreement, we asked Caltrans to assist us inconducting an investigation.

Facts and Analysis

Te investigation revealed that throughout the three-year

period the senior transportation planner was assigned to supervisethe transportation planner, he neglected his duty to supervise herperformance by allowing her to work overtime hours that were notpreapproved or monitored for their amount or necessity, allowingher to telecommute without complying with Caltrans policiesgoverning telecommuting, and not making an adequate eort toensure that the transportation planner was performing work whenshe was supposed to be working at home.

The senior transportation plannerneglected his duty to supervise.



34/69


August 2011

The Senior Transportation Planner Failed to Manage the Transportation

Planners Overtime

Te transportation planner was transferred to the supervisionof the senior transportation planner in August 2006. At thattime, the transportation planner was scheduled to work 20 hoursper week as a half-time employee of Caltrans. Because thetransportation planner was living in Nevada and was not a residentof California, the senior transportation planner allowed thetransportation planner to work almost entirely at her home as atelecommuter, despite not having a telecommuting agreement inplace as required by Caltrans telecommuting policy.

Our review of the transportation planners time sheets and leave

records indicated that she claimed to have worked 712.25 hoursof overtime beyond the 20 hours per week she was scheduledto work during the period from August 2006 through July 2007.For this overtime work she was compensated with 739 hours ofleave that she could either use during her state employment orbe paid for when leaving her state employment. In August 2007the transportation planner increased her scheduled work hoursto become a full-time employee working 40 hours per week overfour 10-hour days. During the year that followed, the transportationplanner claimed to have worked 301.42 hours of overtime beyondthe 40 hours per week that she was scheduled to work. For thisovertime she was compensated $9,934 in cash for months sheworked some of the overtime and with 243.38 hours of leave forthe remaining overtime.

Te senior transportation planner acknowledged that he had notpreapproved the overtime the transportation planner claimed tohave worked and admitted that he had not realized the amountof overtime she accumulated might be an issue. Te seniortransportation planner stated that he took the transportationplanners word for the fact that she was working the reportedovertime and that the work was necessary.

The Senior Transportation Planner Permitted the Transportation

Planner to Telecommute in Violation of Caltrans Telecommuting Policy

As noted previously, when the transportation planner beganworking under the supervision of the senior transportationplanner in August 2006, he allowed the transportation plannerto work almost entirely at her home as a telecommuter despite

5 Some of the employees overtime was compensated at a time-and-a-half rate, and some of it wascompensated at a straight time rate depending on whether the employee worked more than hours during a workweek.

The senior transportation planner

acknowledged that he had not

preapproved the overtime the

transportation planner claimed.



35/69


August 2011

30

her not having a telecommuting agreement in place as requiredby Caltrans telecommuting policy. A year later, in August 2007,

when the transportation planner increased her scheduled workhours to become a full-time employee working four 10-hour daysper week, the senior transportation planner continued to allowthe transportation planner to telecommute, but entered into atelecommuting agreement with her. Te telecommuting agreement,extending for a year through July 2008, provided that thetransportation planner was to work two of the 10-hour days at herCaltrans oce and the other two days at home as a telecommuter.However, the investigation found that the transportation plannerwas not in her oce more than one day in any week and seldomstayed in the oce for the required 10 hours. Witnesses conrmedthat despite the terms of the telecommuting agreement, the

transportation planner was rarely in the oce. When asked duringthe investigation about the transportation planners general absencefrom the oce, the senior transportation planner admitted that hedid not require the transportation planner to be present in the oceon the days she was scheduled to be in the oce unless she neededto be present to attend a meeting.

Moreover, when the telecommuting agreement expired inJuly 2008, the senior transportation planner did not conduct areview as required by Caltrans telecommuting policy to determinewhether telecommuting by the employee remained feasible basedon the operational needs of the agency, satisfactory employeeperformance, and the demonstrated ability of the employee towork independently. He also did not, as required by Caltranstelecommuting policy, engage in the process of renewing theagreement with the transportation planner. He instead allowedthe transportation planner to continue telecommuting, virtuallyevery day, without a renewed agreement until February 2009 whenan acting division chief terminated the transportation plannerstelecommuting privilege.

The Senior Transportation Planner Did Not Ensure That the

Transportation Planner Performed Work When She Was Supposed to BeWorking at Home

While allowing the transportation planner to perform her assignedwork almost entirely at home from 2006 to 2009, and permittingher to claim substantial amounts of overtime without pre-approvalfrom August 2006 through July 2008, the senior transportationplanner failed to require the transportation planner to demonstratethat she was performing an acceptable amount of work during thistwo-year period.

The investigation found that the

transportation planner was not

in her oce more than one day in

any week and seldom stayed in the

oce for the required 10 hours per

the telecommuting agreement.



36/69


August 2011

When asked, the senior transportation planner could onlyprovide work items generated by the transportation planner for

four of the 24 months from August 2006 through July 2008. InSeptember 2008, the acting division chief, having concerns aboutthe amount of work the transportation planner was producingas a telecommuter, insisted that the senior transportationplanner require the transportation planner to submit weeklyreports describing the work she had performed during theweek. However, the senior transportation planner only collected11 weekly reports during the 20 weeks from September 22, 2008,to February 5, 2009, when the telecommuting was terminated. Tesenior transportation planner admitted that he generally just tookthe transportation planners word for having been busy working onthings until she resigned from state service in June 2009.

Because the senior transportation planner neglected his duty tosupervise the work of the transportation planner, Caltrans obtainedno assurance that the State received adequate work for the salarythat it paid her during the period we examined.

Recommendations

o address the improper governmental activity identied in thisinvestigation and to prevent similar improper activities fromoccurring in the future, Caltrans should do the following:

ake appropriate corrective action against the seniortransportation planner for neglecting his duty to supervisethe transportation planner.

Institute training to ensure that all Caltrans employees are awareof the requirement that all overtime work be preapproved.

Establish controls to ensure that Caltrans telecommutingagreements are reviewed and renewed annually in order for anemployee to be allowed to continue telecommuting.

Revise Caltrans telecommuting policy to require that employeesparticipating in the telecommuting program provide regulardocumentation of the work they perform away from the oce.

Agency Response

In June 2011 Caltrans reported that it issued a correctivememorandum to the senior transportation planner for neglecting tosupervise his employee properly. Caltrans also stated that it placeda copy of the corrective memorandum in the senior transportation



37/69


August 2011

32

planners personnel le, but that it would be removed from the leafter one year, provided the senior transportation planner does not

engage in similar actions or otherwise fail in his duties.

In addition, Caltrans reported that it planned to update and/orreissue its overtime policy before September 2011 and would requireits supervisors and managers to review the policy with all of theiremployees. Caltrans stated that these actions would ensure thatits employees are aware of the requirement that overtime must beauthorized in advance, except in emergencies, and that employeesprovide specic evidence of overtime, preapproval of overtimehours worked, the reason for overtime, and the products resultingfrom overtime.

Further, Caltrans stated that in February 2011 it revised itsdirective, which denes the responsibilities of managers andsupervisors to ensure that telecommuting agreements are reviewedannually. It also stated that its telework unit would begin todistribute notications to supervisors about the need to reviewtelecommuting agreements nearing their expiration.

Finally, Caltrans reported that it had revised its Telework ProgramPolicy and Procedures guidelines in March 2011. According toCaltrans, these guidelines require managers and supervisorsto provide specic, measurable, and attainable performanceexpectations for their telecommuting employees. Te agreementsmust dene in writing detailed work tasks, correspondingdeadlines, and expected work performance. Te policy also requiresmanagers and supervisors to review their expectations with theirtelecommuting employees at least quarterly.



38/69


August 2011

Chapter 5

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: MISUSE OF A STATEVEHICLE, IMPROPER TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTSCase I2009-0601

Results in Brief

A manager at the Department of Fish and Game (Fish andGame) improperly directed a Fish and Game employee underhis supervision to use a state vehicle for commuting between herhome and work locations at a cost to the State of $8,282 duringa nine-month period. In addition, the employee improperly

requested, and the manager improperly approved, reimbursementfor $595 in lodging and meal expenses incurred by the employeenear her headquarters.

Background

Fish and Game performs its work through a management structurethat divides the State into seven geographical regions. Within each ofthese regions, Fish and Game employs administrative sta, includingpersonnel specialists and managers, to support the work of thedepartments employees.

Like other state employees, Fish and Game employees are subjectto state laws governing the proper use of state-owned vehicles andthe proper reimbursement of travel-related expenses. Specically,Government Code section 19993.1 prohibits the use of a statevehicle for any purpose other than to conduct state business.California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.615 requires eachstate agency to determine the necessity for authorizing state-paidtravel and for determining the method of travel. In decidingwhether state-paid travel is necessary, additional regulationsaddressing state vehicle use and reimbursement for the distance

driven in a private vehicle must be considered before determining ifa business need exists. For example, California Code of Regulations,title 2, section 599.802 generally prohibits the use of a state vehiclefor commuting to or from an employees home, and California Codeof Regulations, title 2, section 599.626, subdivision (d), prohibitsreimbursement for the cost of an employees commute to work in aprivate vehicle. In the event improper use of a state vehicle occurs,California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.803 declares thatan employee is liable to the State for the actual cost of the misuseunless the misuse was directed by the employees superior, in whichcase the superior is liable for the cost of the misuse.



39/69


August 2011

34

In this case, the manager and employee also were subject to acollective bargaining unit agreement entered into between the

State and the employees bargaining unit (Unit 1). Te agreementprovides additional guidance regarding whether state-paid travelis appropriate. Specically, the agreement states that when anemployee is required to report to an alternative work location,the employee may be reimbursed only for the distance driven inexcess of the employees normal commute.

In addition, Fish and Game employees are subject to othertravel-related regulations and requirements regarding managementreview of travel expense claims. Specically, California Code ofRegulations, title 2, section 599.616, subdivision (a)(1), prohibitsemployee reimbursement for per diem expenses, dened by

subdivision (c)(1) as including meal and lodging expenses,incurred within 25 miles of an employees headquarters. Finally,California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.638, subdivision (a),states that it is the responsibility of the ocer approving a travelexpense claim to ascertain the necessity and reasonableness of thetravel expenses for which the employee is seeking reimbursement.

When we received information that an employee at Fish and Gamewas using a state vehicle to commute between her home and worklocations, we initiated an investigation.

Facts and Analysis

Before February 2008 the employee occupied an administrativesupport position in San Diego, providing personnel services at aFish and Game oce in San Diego. However, in February 2008,a similar position at the Fish and Game oce in Los Alamitosbecame vacant. o facilitate the Los Alamitos oce continuingto provide personnel services despite the vacancy, the employee,while continuing to be headquartered at the San Diego oce,provided personnel services at the Los Alamitos oce two daysper week. Te employee did not work in both oces on the same

day, but simply reported for work at the San Diego oce and theLos Alamitos oce on dierent days. Te Los Alamitos oce wasfurther from the employees home than the San Diego oce, addingapproximately 64 miles per day to her round trip commute.

On July 1, 2008, the employee transferred her headquartersfrom the San Diego oce to the Los Alamitos oce. Whenthe employee transferred her headquarters, her manager at theLos Alamitos oce obtained a state vehicle for the employee touse and directed her to use the vehicle to commute between her



40/69


August 2011

home and the two oces where she worked. Just as she had donebefore transferring her headquarters, the employee reported

for work at the San Diego oce and the Los Alamitos oce ondierent days and did not work at both oces on the same day.Aside from using the state vehicle to commute between her homeand her two work locations, the employee did not use the vehicleexcept to travel to occasional meetings at another oce in the sameregion as the Los Alamitos oce. Terefore, the vehicle was usedalmost exclusively for the employees commute between her homeand work.

Te employee continued to use the vehicle for nine months,until March 2009. In December 2008 Fish and Game lled thevacancy in the San Diego oce that was created by the employee

transferring to Los Alamitos, thus eliminating the need forthe employee to report to the San Diego oce. Nonetheless, theemployee continued to use the state vehicle to commute betweenher home and the Los Alamitos oce. Te employee logged nearly20,000 miles before she stopped using the state vehicle for hercommute in March 2009.

The Manager Improperly Directed the Employee to Use a State Vehicle

for Her Commute

As previously noted, California Code of Regulations, title 2,section 599.802 prohibits the use of a state vehicle for commutingto or from an employees home. As such, the manager actedimproperly when he directed the employee to use a state vehicleto commute to her two work locations.

When we asked the manager about obtaining a state vehicle forthe employee to use for her commute to work, the manager statedthat he obtained the state vehicle for the employee because shewas working at two locationsthe Los Alamitos oce and theSan Diego oce. However, the mere fact that the employee wasworking at two oces on dierent days did not justify giving her a

state car to commute to these two oces. As just stated, she wasnot entitled to use a state car to commute between her home andher headquarters in Los Alamitos because doing so constitutedusing a state car for her normal commute to work. Further,subsequent to July 1, 2008, she was not entitled to use a state carto commute between her home and her alternate work locationin San Diego, as the collective bargaining agreement governingher compensation and benets states that when an employee isrequired to report to an alternative work location, the employeeis not entitled to have the State pay for her transportation

The vehicle was used almost

exclusively for the employees

commute between her home

and work.



41/69


August 2011

36

to the alternate work location if the commuting distance betweenthe employees home and the alternate work location is less

than the employees normal commute.

We also asked the manager about the employees continued use ofa state vehicle to commute between her home and Los Alamitosfor an additional three months after she stopped working at theSan Diego oce. o this the manager replied that failing to requirethe employee to surrender the vehicle once she no longer wasassisting the San Diego oce was an oversight on his part.

By directing the employee to use a state vehicle for her commuteto work, the manager authorized the misuse of a state resource ata cost of approximately $8,282 based on the number of miles the

employee drove the vehicle for commuting during the nine monthsthat the vehicle was assigned to her. Moreover, according toCalifornia Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.803, becausethe manager directed the employee to misuse the vehicle in thismanner, he is liable to the State for the cost of the misuse.

The Employee Improperly Claimed and the Manager Improperly

Approved the Employees Lodging and Meal Expenses

In addition to commuting in a state vehicle at the Statesexpense, the employee submitted tra

Documents

Investigations of Improper Activities by State Agencies and Employees