Investigations of Improper
Activities by State Agencies
and Employees
Waste of State Funds, Misuse of State Resources,
Falsification of Records, Inexcusable Neglect of
Duty, Failure to Monitor Time Reporting, and
Other Violations of State Law
July 2010 Through March 2011
August 2011 Report I2011-1

Independent NONPARTISAN
TRANSPARENT Accountability

The first five 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 TTY 916.445.0033
OR
This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For
information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology 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 Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

Elaine M. Howle
State Auditor

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR

Doug Cordiner
Chief Deputy

Bureau of State Audits

555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300

S a c r a m e n t o, C A 9 5 8 1 4

August 25, 2011	

916.445.0255

916.327.0019 fax

w w w. b s a . c a . g o v

Investigative Report I2011-1

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
Pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, the Bureau of State Audits presents its
investigative report summarizing investigations completed between July 2010 and March 2011
concerning allegations of improper governmental activities.
This report details seven substantiated allegations involving several state departments. Through
our investigations, we found waste of state funds, misuse of state resources, falsification of
records, inexcusable neglect of duty, and failure to monitor time reporting. As an example, we
found that an executive at the Department of Mental Health wasted at least $51,244 in state
funds in 2009—the one-year period that we examined—by employing a longtime senior official
to perform activities that either were undertaken on behalf of a nonstate organization or did
not serve a state purpose. In addition, a chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated by
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation used his state-compensated time and state
equipment to perform work related to his private psychology practice, costing the State up to
an estimated $212,261 in lost productivity over nearly five years.
This report also provides an update on previously reported investigations and describes
additional actions taken by state departments to correct the problems we identified. For example,
the Department of General Services signed an agreement in June 2011 with a now-retired fleet
division manager directing him to reimburse the State for his misuse of state vehicles for his
daily commute for three years. The terms of the agreement require the manager to repay the
State $12,379 in monthly payments from June 2011 through August 2016.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Contents
Summary	

1

Chapter 1
Department of Mental Health: Waste of State Funds, Misuse of 	
State Resources	

5

Chapter 2
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: 	
Misuse of State Resources	

15

Chapter 3
California Energy Commission: Falsification of Time and 	
Attendance Records	

21

Chapter 4
Department of Transportation: Inexcusable Neglect of Duty	

27

Chapter 5
Department of Fish and Game: Misuse of a State Vehicle, Improper 	
Travel Reimbursements	

33

Chapter 6
Department of Industrial Relations: Failure to Monitor 	
Adequately Employees’ Time Reporting 	

39

Chapter 7
State Controller’s Office: Failure to Report Absences, Failure to 	
Monitor Adequately an Employee’s Time Reporting 	

43

Chapter 8
Update of Previously Reported Issues	

49

Appendix
The Investigations Program	

59

Index	

63

vii

viii

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Summary
Results in Brief

Investigative Highlights . . .

The California Whistleblower Protection Act (Whistleblower Act)
empowers the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) to investigate
and report on improper governmental activities by agencies and
employees of the State of California (State). Under the
Whistleblower Act, an improper governmental activity is any
action by a state agency or employee related to state government
that violates a law, is economically wasteful, or involves gross
misconduct, incompetence, or inefficiency.1

State agencies and employees engaged in
improper activities, including the following:

This report details the results of seven particularly significant
investigations completed by the bureau or undertaken jointly
by the bureau and other state agencies between July 1, 2010,
and March 31, 2011. This report also outlines actions taken by
state agencies in response to the investigations of improper
governmental activities described here and in previous reports.
The following paragraphs briefly summarize the investigations
and the state agencies’ actions, which are discussed more fully
in 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-year
period that we examined, by employing a longtime senior official
to perform activities that either were undertaken on behalf of a
nonstate organization or did not serve a state purpose. In fall 2010
the executive directed the senior official to discontinue using
state-compensated time for activities that we found did not benefit
the State. Soon thereafter, the executive retired from state service,
and the senior official began using leave while he awaited new
work assignments.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
The chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) used
his state-compensated time and state equipment to perform work
related to his private psychology practice, costing the State up to an
estimated $212,261 in lost productivity over nearly five years.

1	

For more information about the bureau’s investigations program, please refer to the Appendix.

»» An agency wasted at least $51,244 in
state funds during 2009 by employing a
senior official to perform activities that
did not benefit 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
falsified time and attendance records
to enable the employee to receive
at retirement, a benefit 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.

1

2

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

California Energy Commission
An employee and a personnel specialist at the California Energy
Commission falsified time and attendance records to enable the
employee—at the time of her retirement—to receive a payment for
unused annual leave that was higher than the amount to which she
was entitled, costing the State an estimated $6,589.
Department of Transportation
For nearly three years, a transportation planning supervisor
for the Department of Transportation neglected his duty to
supervise the work of a subordinate transportation planner,
resulting in the transportation planner receiving compensation,
including overtime pay, for which the State lacked assurance
that the transportation planner performed adequate work to
justify the compensation.
Department of Fish and Game
A manager at the Department of Fish and Game improperly
directed an employee under his supervision to use a state vehicle for
commuting between her home and work locations at a cost to the
State of $8,282 over a nine-month period. In addition, the employee
improperly requested—and the manager improperly approved—
reimbursement for $595 in lodging and meal expenses incurred by
the employee near her work headquarters.
Department of Industrial Relations
An official and a supervisor at a district office of the Department of
Industrial Relations failed to monitor adequately the time reporting
of four subordinate employees from July 2007 through June 2009.
State Controller’s Office
An employee with the State Controller’s Office failed to report an
estimated 322 hours of absences over an 18-month period. Because
her supervisor, a high-level official, failed to monitor adequately her
time reporting, the State paid the employee $6,591 for hours she did
not work.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Update on Previously Reported Investigations
In addition to conveying our findings about investigations completed
from July 2010 through March 2011, this report summarizes
the status of certain findings described in our previous reports.
Chapter 8 details the actions taken—or declined to be taken—by the
respective agencies for seven previously reported investigations.
The following updates have particular significance:
•	 The Department of General Services (General Services) signed
an agreement in June 2011 with a now-retired fleet division
manager directing him to reimburse the State for his misuse of
state vehicles for his daily commute. Our January 2011 report
had revealed that the manager improperly used state vehicles for
his daily commute for nine years. We estimated that the cost of
the misuse for the three years for which complete records were
available totaled $12,379. The terms of the agreement require the
manager to repay the State the entire $12,379 at $200 a month
from June 2011 through August 2016. The manager made his first
installment payment in June 2011.
•	 The California State University, Office of the Chancellor (Chancellor’s
Office) has implemented four of the five recommendations we made
in our December 2009 report, which found that the Chancellor’s
Office had reimbursed a former official $152,441 for unnecessary
expenses that did not further the best interests of the university
or the State. The Chancellor’s Office reiterated its assertion about
the difficulty in implementing the remaining recommendation.
This lack of action by the Chancellor’s Office will permit its
employees to continue an activity we identified as being wasteful
and, therefore not in the State’s best interests.
Table 1 on the following page summarizes the improper
governmental activities appearing in this report, the financial
impact of the activities, and their status.

3

4

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

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
2
3

Department of Mental Health
Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation

August 2011 Waste of state funds, misuse
of state resources.



212,261

California Energy Commission August 2011 Falsification of time and
attendance records.
Department of Transportation August 2011 Inexcusable neglect of duty.

5

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

7



August 2011 Misuse of state resources.

4

6

$51,244



6,589



NA


8,877

Department of Industrial
Relations

August 2011 Failure to monitor adequately
employees’ time reporting.

NA

State Controller’s Office

August 2011 Failure to report absences,
failure to monitor adequately
an employee’s time reporting.

6,591




Previously Reported Cases
8
8

8
8
8
8
8

Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation

September
2005

Failure to account for
employees’ use of union leave.

Department of Fish and
Game, Office of Spill
Prevention and Response

April 2009

Improper travel expenses.

California State University,
Office of the Chancellor†

December
2009

Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation



$1,654,664


71,747
Improper and wasteful
expenditures.

150,538





January 2011 Improper overtime reporting.



446

California Conservation Corps January 2011 Failure to follow state
contracting laws.

84,478

Department of General
Services

January 2011 Misuse of state resources.
12,379

Department of Corrections
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 findings did not allow us to quantify the financial impact.
*	 We have estimated the cost to the State as noted in individual chapters of this report.
†	 The California State University, Office of the Chancellor has implemented four of the five recommendations. However, it does not plan to
implement the remaining recommendation.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

Chapter 1
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH: WASTE OF STATE
FUNDS, MISUSE OF STATE RESOURCES
Case I2009-0644
Results in Brief
An executive at the Department of Mental Health (Mental Health)
wasted state funds by employing a senior official to perform
activities, most of which did not provide any benefit to the State. In
2009 alone, the one-year period that we examined, the State paid
at least $51,244 in salary to the senior official to perform activities
that either were undertaken on behalf of a nonstate organization or
did not serve a state purpose. In fall 2010, during the course of our
investigation, the executive directed the senior official to stop using
state-compensated time to perform activities that we found did not
benefit the State. Soon thereafter, the executive retired from state
service, and the senior official began using leave while awaiting new
work assignments from the executive’s successor.
Background
Mental Health, as the state department entrusted with providing
leadership for California’s mental health system, bears responsibility
for administering a host of programs related to ensuring the
availability of mental health services and otherwise improving
the lives of individuals afflicted with mental illness. Its most
visible responsibility is to administer the treatment of individuals
with mental illness at five state mental hospitals. Another
responsibility 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 mental
illness or seeking mental health services” and a “reduction in
discrimination against people with mental illness.”2 Toward that
end, Mental Health adopted a California Strategic Plan on Reducing
Mental Health Stigma and Discrimination, but due to funding
constraints it has not taken action to implement the plan.
Government Code section 8547.2, subdivision (c), provides that
any activity by a state agency or employee that is economically
wasteful is an improper governmental activity. In addition,

2	

Welfare and Institutions Code section 5840, subdivision (b) (3)-(4).

5

6

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

Government Code section 8314 prohibits any state employee
from using state resources, including state-compensated time, for
purposes unrelated to state employment.
Upon receiving an allegation that a senior official at Mental
Health was engaging in activities that constituted a waste of state
resources, we initiated an investigation.
Facts and Analysis
In 1998 the governor, who was about to leave office, contacted
the Mental Health executive and asked him whether he had
a position at Mental Health that he could fill with the senior
official. The executive told the governor that he had such
a position, and the governor appointed the senior official to that
position, which was under the executive’s direct supervision.
The senior official was acquainted with many Southern California
celebrities, including a number of celebrities in the entertainment
field. The senior official also had many contacts in the law
enforcement community, having worked in the security industry
and having been appointed to several boards and commissions
related to law enforcement.
The executive originally assigned the senior official to work on
security issues at Mental Health. The senior official’s primary duty
became serving as Mental Health’s liaison to Southern California
law enforcement agencies, an assignment that included little
interaction with state hospitals but involved serving as the
department’s point of contact for county sheriffs and chiefs
of police, as well as representing the department at select law
enforcement functions. Later, the executive expanded the senior
official’s duties to include using his access to celebrities to try to
enlist them to serve as spokespeople supporting the department’s
efforts to reduce the stigma and discrimination associated with
mental illness and mental health treatment.

The executive provided the senior
official with a state vehicle outfitted
as a police car for traveling to
meetings and other events.

During his tenure at Mental Health, the senior official reported
directly to the executive and worked almost exclusively from his
home in Southern California. The executive provided the senior
official with a state vehicle outfitted as a police car for traveling
to meetings and other events because the executive felt that
the car gave the senior official credibility when dealing with law
enforcement personnel, and he felt that it created a perception
problem for the senior official to arrive at meetings in his personal
luxury vehicle. The executive afforded the senior official significant
discretion in deciding the activities in which he would engage.
The senior official told us that his work hours varied substantially

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

from week to week and that he did not maintain a regular work
schedule. The senior official stated that he spoke with the executive
by telephone once or twice per week to keep him apprised of
his activities.
Throughout his employment at Mental Health, the senior official
has held positions with two other organizations. One position
is president and chief executive officer (CEO) of a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to provide support for the officers
and families of a Southern California police department and for
the children in the communities that the officers serve. The other
position is as a volunteer serving as senior special advisor to a
county sheriff. In this position, the senior official serves as a reserve
deputy sheriff.
The Senior Official Spent Most of His State-Compensated Time on
Activities Unrelated to His State Job
When we conducted this investigation in 2010, we asked
Mental Health to provide us with evidence of the work that the
senior official performed in 2009. In response to our request,
Mental Health did not provide us with any work products, but
instead gave us a “work summary” prepared by the senior official,
which purported to describe his work activities on each of his
workdays in 2009.
Based on the information provided in the work summary, we
found that most of the senior official’s stated work activities were
unrelated to his job at Mental Health. For example, the senior
official’s nonprofit organization hosts a large gala each year for
celebrities and local law enforcement officials to raise funds for the
nonprofit organization. The senior official claimed as state work
activities his attendance at numerous meetings for planning the
gala, meetings with potential presenters and honored guests for
the gala, and participation in various fundraising and social events
to solicit attendees for the gala. In one instance, the senior official
attended a famous comedian’s funeral. In his work record, the
senior official stated that his reason for attending the funeral was
“to meet celebrities . . . and enlist support and attendance for the
[nonprofit organization’s] gala.”
In addition, the senior official claimed as state work activities his
attendance at meetings and social events that related primarily
to his duties as a senior special advisor to a county sheriff. As
Figure 1 on page 9 shows, these events included attending a ballet
fundraiser, the sheriff ’s birthday party, and four sheriff-sponsored
golf tournaments.

We found that most of the senior
official’s stated work activities
were unrelated to his job at Mental
Health. In one instance, the
senior official attended a famous
comedian’s funeral.

7

8

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

Further, the senior official’s work summary cited attendance at
meetings and social events that, while not appearing to be related
to his nonprofit organization or to his work with the sheriff ’s office,
also were not related to his state job. These events included
attendance at fundraisers for various political candidates and
retirement parties for local officials.
When we interviewed the senior official and the executive about
the senior official’s participation at these events, they each
provided a different perspective. The senior official claimed that his
participation in these activities fell within his Mental Health duties.
He asserted that his involvement with different organizations did
not conflict with or detract from his work at Mental Health. In fact,
the senior official claimed that everything he did was focused on
helping Mental Health. However, he could not demonstrate how his
participation in the events directly benefitted Mental Health.
In contrast, the executive asserted that the senior official’s efforts
related to fundraising for the nonprofit organization should not
have been counted as Mental Health work activities. Further, the
executive stated that work completed for the sheriff ’s office was not
part of the senior official’s Mental Health assignments and that the
senior official should not have claimed this work as Mental Health
work activities.

As the official 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.

Comparing the information we received from the executive with
the senior official’s work summary for 2009, we concluded that
most of the senior official’s activities in 2009 were for his nonstate
endeavors. Of the 227 days that the senior official reported he had
worked, we found that on 125 of those days (55 percent), his only
stated work activities were to attend meetings and social events
that clearly related to his nonprofit organization, the county sheriff,
or other groups.3 As the official 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.
Figure 1 identifies examples of the activities the senior official
improperly claimed as work related to his Mental Health position.
Although the senior official used a state vehicle to travel to events
unrelated to his state job, such as those listed in Figure 1, and
this practice constituted misuse of the vehicle, we were unable to
determine how much of the mileage on the state vehicle could be

3	

Because the senior official worked in an exempt job classification, on days that the senior official
reported engaging in activities unrelated to his state employment, we counted the entire day as a
day spent performing work for Mental Health if the senior official also claimed to have engaged in
activities related to his state employment.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

attributed to his attending these events. Therefore, we were unable
to 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 in
activities unrelated to his state job, the senior official misused state
resources in violation of section 8314 of the Government Code.
Figure 1
Examples of 2009 Activities the Senior Official Identified as
Mental Health Activities
American Ballet fundraiser

Celebrity’s funeral

• Chinese American Museum gala
• Annual gala for the senior official’s
nonprofit organization
Multiple county sheriffs’
golf tournaments
Mexican American
Bar Association dinner

• County sheriff’s birthday party
• Retirement dinner for the wife of a police commissioner
• Retirement parties for various police department chiefs

• California gubernatorial candidate’s fundraiser
• United States senator’s multiple fundraisers
• United States congressman’s multiple fundraisers

• Mayor’s inauguration
• City attorney’s swearing-in ceremony

CLAIMED 2009 MENTAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the senior official’s work summary.

9

10

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

A Significant Portion of the Senior Official’s Activities on Behalf of
Mental Health Did Not Benefit the State
As previously noted, one of the senior official’s primary duties
was to use his access to celebrities to try to enlist them to serve
as spokespeople in support of Mental Health’s efforts to reduce
the stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness and
mental health treatment. However, this anti-stigma program
was at a standstill due to a lack of funding, so the senior official’s
work in this area—as described by the executive—was to interact
with celebrities who sometime in the future might be willing to
participate in the anti-stigma program by doing public service
announcements for Mental Health.
To facilitate this interaction, the senior official attended many
high-profile meetings and social events in order to “cultivate
and maintain relationships” with celebrities and other famous
individuals. Some of the events that the senior official attended
in the name of promoting Mental Health’s anti-stigma program
were the Golden Globe Awards, the World Magic Awards, and a
Julio Iglesias concert. See Figure 2 for a sample of the events that
the employee stated he attended on behalf of Mental Health’s
anti‑stigma program.

When we asked the executive about
the senior official’s attendance at
certain events, the executive stated
that the senior official did not ask
him in advance whether he could
attend these events as part of his
Mental Health duties.

When we asked the senior official why he considered his attendance
at the awards ceremonies as a duty of his state employment, he
stated that his attendance enabled him to interact directly with
many celebrities and their handlers, managers, and agents so that
he could gather support for the anti-stigma program. In response to
questioning about his attendance at the concert, the senior official
stated that the singer is a close friend, and he went to the concert
to ask him to participate in a possible concert for the anti-stigma
program. Nevertheless, when we asked the executive about these
events, the executive stated that the senior official did not ask him
in advance whether he could attend these events as part of his
Mental Health duties. Instead, the senior official told the executive
after attending the events about the people he spoke with regarding
Mental Health issues. The executive stated that he would count
some of the time that the senior official spent at these events as
legitimate work time, but not all of it. However, neither the senior
official nor the executive could identify any measurable benefit that
the State garnered as a result of the senior official’s interaction with
celebrities at social and entertainment events in the name of Mental
Health’s anti-stigma program.
Our investigation found that of the 227 days that the senior official
reported working in 2009, on 27 of those days (12 percent) the
senior official only listed as work activities his attendance at social
and entertainment events to interact with celebrities. Because we

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

found that these activities had provided no benefit to the State, we
concluded that the payment of $9,178 in salary to the senior official
for those workdays was wasteful.
Figure 2
Examples of Activities the Senior Official Attended in 2009 on Behalf of the
Anti‑Stigma Program

Golden Globe Awards

World Magic Awards

Various holiday parties hosted
by private businesses

Night of 100 Stars Awards
Latina Heritage Day

Birthday celebration for the
owner of a luxury hotel

Julio Iglesias
world tour concert

CLAIMED 2009 ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF
OF THE ANTI-STIGMA PROGRAM

Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the senior official’s work summary.

11

12

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

The Executive Implemented Changes After Our Interview
During our investigation of this case, and, more specifically, after
our interview of the executive in September 2010 regarding the
senior official’s work activities, the executive instructed the senior
official not to claim as part of his Mental Health duties the time
he spends on activities for his nonprofit organization and on
activities for the county sheriff ’s office. The executive also reduced
the senior official’s role in promoting Mental Health’s anti-stigma
program by directing him to focus more time on conducting
security audits at Mental Health’s hospitals. Lastly, the executive
told the senior official to provide him with more advance notice
and information regarding the events he plans to attend on behalf
of Mental Health. Finally, the executive told the senior official that
whenever an event’s applicability to Mental Health is questionable,
the senior official should err on the side of caution and use leave to
attend the event.
The executive retired from state service at the end of 2010 and
instructed the senior official to ask the executive’s replacement for
new job assignments. While awaiting new job assignments from the
executive’s replacement, the senior official elected to use leave.
Recommendations
To address the waste and misuse of state resources, Mental Health
should do the following:
•	 Evaluate the need for the senior official’s position.
•	 If Mental Health determines that the senior official’s position can
provide a benefit to the State, clarify the job duties associated with
the position and increase oversight of the position’s activities to
ensure that the State receives material benefits from the activities.
•	 Evaluate the senior official’s workdays during the past three years
to determine whether the senior official should have charged
leave on workdays that he claimed to have worked but actually
devoted himself to nonstate activities.
•	 Require the senior official to use leave for workdays on which he
did not actually perform work for the State or to repay the State
the amount of salary he received for those days.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Mental Health

Agency Response
In June 2011 Mental Health reported that in following our
recommendations, it reevaluated the necessity of the senior official’s
position and concluded that the position was unnecessary. Mental
Health stated that although a former administration created the
position for desirable purposes, it determined that these functions
were no longer essential and should not be maintained given
current fiscal constraints. The senior official resigned from state
service in May 2011, and Mental Health eliminated his position.
Mental Health agreed that the senior official’s state employment
overlapped with his volunteer service as a reserve deputy sheriff,
his status as a special advisor to a county sheriff, and his role as the
CEO of a nonprofit organization that supports law enforcement
officers and their families. Moreover, Mental Health agreed that
the official attended various police and entertainment events, some
of which likely were unrelated to his state duties. However, Mental
Health asserted that given the senior official’s duties, it disagreed
with our conclusion that his attendance at these events failed to
benefit the State. Despite Mental Health’s assertion, we maintain
our position that the official’s attendance at the events noted in our
report provided no discernible benefit to the State.
Mental Health also reported that it was unable to evaluate fully
the senior official’s workdays during the past three years, as we had
recommended, to determine whether the senior official should
have charged more leave. Instead, Mental Health stated that it
found scant evidence of how the senior official spent his workdays
even though it tried to reconstruct his daily work activities. Mental
Health thus concluded that compiling the necessary evidence
would require extensive work by staff to evaluate daily activities that
occurred “long ago.”
Although we recommended that Mental Health require the senior
official to use leave for workdays he did not actually perform work
for the State or repay the State the amount of salary he received for
those days, Mental Health stated that it is unlikely to recover any
portion of the senior official’s salary. In addition to its inability to
evaluate the senior official’s workdays, Mental Health stated that
even though it expected a 40-hour workweek from the senior
official, more or less than eight hours on individual days was
permissible. Further, it stated that it had no documented evidence
that the senior official failed to perform many of his duties. Finally,
Mental Health indicated that even if it were able to determine the
salary amount the senior official earned on workdays he did not
actually perform work for the State, it could not seek to recover
those costs since he no longer is employed by the State.

13

14

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Chapter 2
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION:
MISUSE OF STATE RESOURCES
Case I2009-1203
Results in Brief
The chief psychologist at a correctional facility operated by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) used
his state-compensated time and state equipment to perform work
related to his private psychology practice, costing the State up to an
estimated $212,261 in lost productivity.
Background
Inmates confined to a state correctional facility are legally entitled
to receive necessary medical and psychological treatment during
the time of their incarceration. Corrections therefore hires health
professionals, including psychologists, to ensure that inmates
receive adequate treatment while incarcerated.
Like other state employees, Corrections’ psychologists must
comply with state laws prohibiting the misuse of state resources
and prohibiting state employees from engaging in activities that
conflict with their state employment. Specifically, Government Code
section 8314 prohibits state employees from using state resources,
including state-compensated time and state equipment, for purposes
unrelated to their employment. In addition, Government Code
section 19990 prohibits state employees from engaging in any
employment, activity, or enterprise that is clearly incompatible
with their duties as state employees.
When we received information that a chief psychologist for a
correctional 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 psychologist
began pursuing a private psychology practice in addition to working
as a full-time employee of the State. In furtherance of his private
practice, he performed psychological evaluations of individuals at
his offices located in four cities. The chief psychologist performed
many of these evaluations for private companies.

15

16

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

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.

The chief psychologist unlawfully misused state resources when
he 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 were
6 a.m. to 2 p.m., but he typically left the facility by 1 p.m. each
day to attend to his private practice. Thus, he regularly left work
one hour earlier than the scheduled end of his shift. Moreover,
the chief psychologist acknowledged that while he was at the
facility, he dedicated approximately 30 percent of his time to
work on his private practice. Based on these admissions, 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, as illustrated in Figure 3.
The chief psychologist attempted to justify his misuse of
state‑compensated time by arguing that he often worked outside
his regular hours to respond to emergencies and other urgent
matters. He also stated that he sometimes reported to the facility
to perform a few hours of work on days when he reported
using a full day of leave. A subordinate employee confirmed
that the chief psychologist responded to emergencies. Several
subordinates, while acknowledging the chief psychologist’s
tendency to leave early each day, told us that he had at one time
or another responded to their e-mails or telephone messages
after he left for the day. However, we were unable to capture any
of this time in our $212,261 estimate because specific evidence
was not available for us to calculate the time that the chief
psychologist asserted he spent on these activities after he had
left the facility. Further, we do not believe that the additional
time was significant because the chief psychologist admitted he
likely did not average a 40-hour workweek. We therefore based
our estimate for the lost productivity to the State on the various
admissions by the chief psychologist that he did not dedicate
his full time, attention, and efforts to his state position during his
regular work hours.
The chief psychologist also used his state computer to perform
work related to his private practice. He told us that he used his state
computer to send and store documents and to perform research
related to his private practice. We reviewed his state e-mail
account, which largely contained e-mails from December 2009
through March 2010, and found 57 e-mails related solely to
his private practice. The chief psychologist confirmed that the
content of these e-mails was related exclusively to his private
psychology practice.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

By using his state-compensated time and his state computer to conduct
business related to his private practice, the psychologist misused state
resources in violation of Government Code section 8314, and engaged
in activities that were incompatible with his state employment, in
violation of section 19990 of the Government Code.
Figure 3
Estimated Costs of the Chief Psychologist’s Misuse of State Time From
June 2005 Through April 2010

$212,261
Total Estimated Cost

$60,000

Total Estimated Hours

3,454

$50,029 $50,855

50,000

$43,466
Estimated Costs

40,000

$35,769

30,000

20,000

$18,428
$13,714

10,000

0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

384

735

747

747

639

(June through
December)

Estimated Hours

2010

(January through
April)

202

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the chief psychologist’s salary history, leave usage, and
signed statement.

17

18

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Recommendations
To ensure that the chief psychologist and other Corrections
employees do not misuse state resources, Corrections should do
the following:
•	 Take appropriate disciplinary action against the chief
psychologist for misusing state resources.
•	 Require psychology staff at the correctional facility, including the
chief psychologist, to specify hours of duty.
•	 Establish a system for monitoring whether psychology staff at the
correctional facility, including the chief psychologist, are working
during specified hours of duty.
Agency Response
After reviewing our draft report, Corrections commented in
August 2011 that the chief psychologist classification is exempt from
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (act). It then noted that state
employees who are exempt from the act are not hourly workers
and are paid on a “salaried” basis. It further stated that exempt
employees are expected to work “as many hours as is necessary,
within reason, to provide the public services for which they
are hired.”
Corrections’ comments suggest that it believes the chief
psychologist’s misuse of an estimated 3,454 hours of state time—
at a cost of $212,261—over a nearly five-year period does not
violate state law because the chief psychologist’s classification is a
salaried position. However, as we described in our investigation,
the chief psychologist regularly left work one hour earlier than the
scheduled end of his shift and he acknowledged that while he was
at the facility, he dedicated about 30 percent of his time to work
on his private practice. Consequently, his actions clearly violate
Government Code section 8314, which prohibits state employees
from using state-compensated time for purposes unrelated to their
employment, and Government Code section 19990, which prohibits
state employees from engaging in any employment that is clearly
incompatible with their state duties.
Notwithstanding its comments, Corrections reported in June 2011
that it planned to request disciplinary action against the chief
psychologist for misuse of state equipment and resources. It also
stated that in January 2011 the chief psychologist voluntarily
demoted to a staff psychologist position. Corrections further stated
that before his voluntary demotion, health care management

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

had attempted to make the chief psychologist comply with
Corrections’ policies and procedures regarding hours of work and
secondary employment.
To ensure that psychology personnel at the correctional facility
specify hours of duty, Corrections reported that it now requires
each affected employee to have a signed duty statement, secondary
employment approval, and documentation of work schedule in
the supervisory files. It stated that it planned to issue a directive
outlining the enforcement of these requirements in August 2011.
Corrections also stated that it planned to take several actions
designed to monitor whether psychology staff are working the
appropriate hours. In its August 2011 directive, it intends to include
a description of proper time-reporting procedures and a statement
about the consequences of failing to follow the procedures.
Further, Corrections stated that it planned to train its managers,
supervisors, and staff regarding proper time-reporting procedures.
Finally, it stated that it planned to enter into labor negotiations
about the use of time clocks but that it did not know when the
negotiations would occur.

19

20

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

Chapter 3
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION: FALSIFICATION OF
TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS
Case I2010-0844
Results in Brief
An employee and a personnel specialist at the California Energy
Commission (Energy Commission) falsified time and attendance
records in order to enable the employee, at the time of her
retirement, to receive a payment for unused annual leave that was
higher than the amount to which she was entitled, costing the State
an estimated $6,589.
Background
Having primary responsibility for the State’s energy policy and
planning activities, the Energy Commission employs civil service
employees who perform duties that include forecasting state
energy needs, licensing power plants, promoting energy efficiency,
supporting renewable energy resources, and performing routine
administrative functions essential to the operation of a state agency.
State civil service employees receive a specified number of hours of
paid leave every month they are employed by the State. Employees
generally accrue paid leave each month in the form of eight hours
of sick leave and a specified number of hours of vacation time based
on the length of time they have been employed by the State. Unlike
vacation time, which an employee may use at his or her discretion,
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.745 specifies that
sick leave only may be used by an employee for absences from work
that are necessary because the employee is ill, injured, has been
exposed to a contagious disease, or requires medical treatment,
or because a member of the employee’s family is ill, injured, or
has died. As further provided in this regulation and the collective
bargaining agreements established between the State and the
various employee bargaining groups, the amounts of sick leave that
an employee may use per year due to family member illness, injury,
or death is limited to a specified number of days. An employee may
accrue or accumulate unused sick leave until the employee leaves
state service. Upon the employee’s retirement, unused sick leave is
converted to a retirement service credit, with 2,000 hours of sick
leave equaling one year of service credit. The amount of service
credit an employee has accumulated at the time of retirement

21

22

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

is a part of what determines the amount of the pension the
employee will receive from the California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS).
As an alternative to receiving leave in the form of both sick leave
and vacation time, most state employees can instead elect to receive
annual leave. Like vacation time, an employee may use annual leave
at his or her discretion, and not just for absences prompted by
illness. The amount of annual leave an employee accrues per month
depends on his or her length of state service, but always accrues at
a higher rate than vacation time and at a lower rate than vacation
time and sick leave combined. An employee may continue to
accrue and accumulate annual leave until reaching a maximum of
640 hours of accumulated leave (unless exceptional circumstances
justify an accumulation of more hours). When an employee retires
from state service, the employee may receive a lump sum payment
for the amount of unused annual leave he or she has accumulated,
based on the employee’s salary at the time of retirement.
An employee who accrues sick leave and vacation time generally
has the option to stop accruing sick leave and vacation time and to
start accruing annual leave instead. Upon enrolling in the annual
leave program, any vacation time the employee has accumulated
is converted to annual leave. However, any sick leave the employee
has accumulated is not converted to annual leave. Instead, the sick
leave simply remains available for the employee to use in the event
the employee needs to be absent from work due to illness.
To ensure that state agencies correctly track the amount of leave
accrued, accumulated, and used by their employees, California
Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665 mandates that
state agencies keep complete, accurate time and attendance records.
To comply with this mandate, the Energy Commission requires
each of its employees to submit a time sheet at the end of every
month that marks the dates on which the employee is absent from
work and that designates the kind of leave the employee is using to
cover each absence, including annual leave, sick leave used because
the employee is ill, and sick leave used because a family member is
ill. After a supervisor approves the time sheet, the timekeeper for
the employee’s unit verifies its accuracy. The Energy Commission
then uses the time sheet to post the employee’s absences and
earned benefits, such as annual leave, into the State’s leave
accounting system. In order for an employee to amend a previously
submitted time sheet, the Energy Commission’s policies require
that the supervisor who approved the original time sheet authorize
the amendment by signing the amended time sheet. Under
Government Code section 19572, subdivision (f ), state employees
have a duty to behave honestly in dealing with their employer as
acts of dishonesty constitute grounds for discipline.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

When we received information that an employee at the Energy
Commission, with the assistance of a personnel specialist, obtained
an improper adjustment of her leave balances to inflate the amount
of annual leave for which she received payment at the time of her
retirement, we initiated an investigation.
Facts and Analysis
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 employee’s retirement. We found
that the employee, who worked for the State for many years, at
one time accrued paid leave as a combination of sick leave and
vacation time, and then she made a switch to accrue paid leave as
annual leave. Accordingly, the employee accumulated a bank of
unused leave that included sick leave and annual leave.
During a 17-month period before her retirement, spanning
May 2008 through September 2009, the employee used
several hours of accumulated sick leave and more than 175 hours
of accumulated annual leave to cover her absences from work
during this period. Then in November 2009, with her planned
retirement approaching at the end of the year, the employee had a
discussion with the personnel specialist in which it was noted that
if the employee had used sick leave rather than annual leave for
the 175 hours of absences, she would have a larger accumulation
of unused annual leave at retirement, for which she could
receive payment.
Following this discussion, the personnel specialist provided the
employee with the monthly time sheets that the employee had
completed—and that the employee’s supervisor had approved—
throughout the 17-month period. The employee then altered
the time sheets to report that 175 hours of annual leave she had
taken during the period was taken as sick leave due to family
member illness. The employee initialed each of these alterations.
In conjunction with the employee altering the time sheets, the
personnel specialist adjusted the employee’s leave balances in
the State’s leave accounting system to restore the 175 hours of leave
to her accumulated annual leave and to deduct 175 hours from the
employee’s accumulated sick leave. The personnel specialist made
this adjustment even though doing so meant that the employee
far exceeded the amount of sick leave she was entitled to use for
family member illness in both 2008 and 2009, which under the
collective bargaining agreement with the employee’s bargaining
unit was capped at eight days per year. Neither the employee
nor the personnel specialist presented the amended time sheets to
the employee’s 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
employee’s retirement.

23

24

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

The employee was improperly paid
$8,533 for 175 hours of annual leave
that she already had used.

employees reported to her respective supervisor that they were
redesignating the previously approved annual leave as sick leave.
Because of this augmentation of the employee’s unused annual
leave balance, which was brought about by the alteration of time
sheets and leave balances, the employee was improperly paid $8,533
for 175 hours of annual leave that she already had used.
When we interviewed the employee and the personnel specialist
about the alteration of the employee’s time sheets and leave
balances, they each provided somewhat different accounts of how
the alterations came about. The employee stated that she and the
personnel specialist were simply “work friends.” She insisted that
the personnel specialist was the one who initiated a conversation
about the amount of sick leave the employee had used and
suggested the time she had reported taking as annual leave could
be converted to time taken as sick leave. The employee admitted
that she had been aware she could use sick leave for family illnesses
but that she had stopped using sick leave for her absences when
other employees told her she could not use sick leave for long-term
family illnesses. The employee also acknowledged that she did not
have documentation to support that she used annual leave to care
for family members on the days converted to sick leave. In fact, the
employee admitted that when changing her time sheets to report
taking sick leave instead of annual leave, the personnel specialist
randomly selected dates to change on the employee’s time sheets,
altered the entries on those dates, and told her where to initial. The
employee also stated that the personnel specialist assured her that
she would notify the employee’s supervisor of the changes.
In contrast, the personnel specialist stated that she and the
employee became friends when she started helping the employee
plan for her retirement. They discussed similar experiences of
caring for ill family members. The personnel specialist claimed
the employee had not been aware that she was permitted to use
sick leave to care for ill family members and that the employee
had asked about converting the annual leave she had used for
this purpose to sick leave. The personnel specialist went on to
state that the employee told her she had been caring for an ill
family member on the days for which she had previously claimed
annual leave and, because the personnel specialist believed the
employee when she was told this, the personnel specialist changed
the entries on the time sheets for the dates the employee indicated
she had been taking care of an ill family member. The personnel
specialist admitted that she did not follow the Energy Commission’s
procedures for amending time sheets, and that this was a mistake.
By altering her previously submitted time sheets to report that she
used sick leave rather than annual leave for 175 hours of absences,
the employee violated her duty of honesty toward her employer

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

under Government Code section 19572, subdivision (f ), and
she claimed more sick leave than she was entitled to take under
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.745 and the
collective bargaining agreement with her employee bargaining
unit. Similarly, by helping the employee alter her time sheets and
changing the employee’s leave balances based on those alterations,
the personnel specialist aided this dishonesty, facilitated the
employee’s using more sick leave than she was entitled to take, and
circumvented Energy Commission policies established to ensure
that employee leave balances are accounted for properly, as required
by California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665.
Moreover, this improper alteration of time sheets and leave
balances cost the State an estimated $6,589 in overpayment to
the employee. Had the personnel specialist and the employee
not shifted improperly 175 hours from the employee’s sick leave
balance to her annual leave balance, the employee would not
have been paid, upon her retirement, for the 175 hours of unused
annual leave added to her leave balance. She instead would have
received an additional service credit of 0.09 years for the 175 hours
that had been listed as unused sick leave, and this credit would
have resulted in her receiving an additional $9.31 per month in
retirement benefits. Multiplied by the number of months she could
be expected to receive that payment according to an actuarial table
used by CalPERS, this would have resulted in a projected cost to
the State of $1,944. However, because the 175 hours were shifted
to the employee’s annual leave balance, she received at retirement a
lump sum payment of $8,533 for those hours. Table 2 illustrates the
additional cost to the State that resulted from this improper altering
of the employee’s 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 total value of sick leave service credit
Loss to the State

(1,944)
$6,589

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis, State Controller’s Office records, and California Public
Employees’ Retirement System records.

25

26

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
California Energy Commission

Recommendations
The Energy Commission should seek to recover the amount it
improperly paid the retiring employee for unused annual leave
hours. If it is unable to recover any or all of this reimbursement, the
Energy Commission should explain and document its reasons for
not obtaining recovery of the funds.
In addition, the Energy Commission should do the following:
•	 Take appropriate disciplinary action against the personnel
specialist for making unauthorized changes to the retiring
employee’s leave balances.
•	 Monitor the personnel specialist’s payroll and leave
balance transactions to ensure that she follows Energy
Commission policies.
•	 Provide training to employees responsible for managing
leave balance and time-sheet transactions to ensure that they
understand the Energy Commission’s policies for safeguarding
their accuracy and respecting the limitations on the use of sick
leave for family member illness as specified by the law and
applicable collective bargaining agreements.
Agency Response
The Energy Commission reported in July 2011 that it planned to
seek reimbursement from the retired employee for leave hours used
inappropriately. The Energy Commission stated that if the retired
employee failed to respond to its requests for reimbursement, it
would forward this information to the Franchise Tax Board to
collect the overpayments from the retired employee’s future tax
returns. In addition, the Energy Commission stated that it planned
to train personnel office staff about differences in bargaining
unit language related to leave accounting, retirement, and
proper procedures for amending time sheets. Finally, the Energy
Commission reported that the personnel specialist retired in
June 2011; thus, it was unable to take disciplinary action against her.
However, we made Energy Commission staff aware of the personnel
specialist’s improper activities during our investigation. Therefore,
the Energy Commission had ample opportunity to seek corrective
or disciplinary action against the personnel specialist before her
retirement. Consequently, at a minimum, the Energy Commission
should consider placing in the personnel specialist’s personnel file
a memorandum describing the improper activities identified in
our investigation in case she seeks reinstatement to state service
sometime in the future.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

Chapter 4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: INEXCUSABLE
NEGLECT OF DUTY
Case I2008-0731
Results in Brief
During a nearly three-year period, a transportation planning
supervisor for the Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
neglected his duty to supervise the work of a subordinate
transportation planner, resulting in the transportation planner’s
receiving compensation, including compensation for overtime,
for which Caltrans lacked assurance the transportation planner
performed adequate work to justify the compensation.
Background
As the department responsible for developing California’s
transportation system, Caltrans employs transportation planners
who develop and analyze policy and data to prepare, administer,
and monitor transportation projects. Caltrans also employs senior
transportation planners having a duty to supervise the work of
subordinate transportation planners assigned to their oversight in
order to ensure that they perform the quantity and quality of work
expected of them.
Caltrans employees, like other employees of the State, are required
to exercise due diligence in performing their official duties.
Inexcusable neglect of duty by a state employee is prohibited
misconduct that constitutes grounds for discipline under
Government Code section 19572, subdivision (d). In a precedential
decision, the State Personnel Board has defined “inexcusable neglect
of duty” as “an intentional or grossly negligent failure to exercise
due diligence in the performance of a known official duty.”4
Government Code section 19851, subdivision (a), provides that it is
the policy of the State to avoid the necessity for overtime work by
its employees whenever possible. However, this same subdivision
also provides that a state agency may extend an employee’s working
hours to include overtime work when it is necessary to properly
carry on state business during a manpower shortage. In order
to ensure that employees do not work overtime unnecessarily,

4	

Jack Tolchin (1996) SPB Dec. No. 96-04, page 11, citing Gubser v. Dept. of Employment (1969) 271
Cal.App.2d 240, 242.

27

28

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

thus obligating the State to pay overtime compensation
unnecessarily, the State Administrative Manual declares at
section 8540 that as a general practice compensation for overtime,
either as a cash payment or time off, should be based on prior
written approval signed by a designated supervisor.
In 1994 the State instituted a telecommuting program which,
according to Government Code section 14200.1, is intended to
“encourage state agencies to adopt policies which encourage
telecommuting by state employees.” Under this program, as
provided in Government Code section 14201, every state agency
must develop and implement a telecommuting plan in work areas
where telecommuting by the agency’s employees is identified as
being both practical and beneficial to the organization. As part
of its telecommuting plan, Caltrans requires its supervisors to
enter into telecommuting agreements with every employee that
it allows to telecommute, setting forth the terms and conditions
that shall be observed by both the telecommuting employee and
his or her supervisor in order to ensure that while telecommuting
the employee continues to perform work satisfactorily and the
telecommuting arrangement does not adversely affect Caltrans’
operations. Caltrans’ telecommuting policy also provides that
every telecommuting agreement must be reviewed at least
annually to determine whether telecommuting by the employee
remains feasible based on the operational needs of the agency,
satisfactory employee performance, and the demonstrated ability
of the employee to work independently.
When we received information that Caltrans had allowed one of
its employees to telecommute full-time from home in conflict with
her telecommuting agreement, we asked Caltrans to assist us in
conducting an investigation.
Facts and Analysis

The senior transportation planner
neglected his duty to supervise.

The investigation revealed that throughout the three-year
period the senior transportation planner was assigned to supervise
the transportation planner, he neglected his duty to supervise her
performance by allowing her to work overtime hours that were not
preapproved or monitored for their amount or necessity, allowing
her to telecommute without complying with Caltrans’ policies
governing telecommuting, and not making an adequate effort to
ensure that the transportation planner was performing work when
she was supposed to be working at home.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

The Senior Transportation Planner Failed to Manage the Transportation
Planner’s Overtime
The transportation planner was transferred to the supervision
of the senior transportation planner in August 2006. At that
time, the transportation planner was scheduled to work 20 hours
per week as a half-time employee of Caltrans. Because the
transportation planner was living in Nevada and was not a resident
of California, the senior transportation planner allowed the
transportation planner to work almost entirely at her home as a
telecommuter, despite not having a telecommuting agreement in
place as required by Caltrans’ telecommuting policy.
Our review of the transportation planner’s time sheets and leave
records indicated that she claimed to have worked 712.25 hours
of overtime beyond the 20 hours per week she was scheduled
to work during the period from August 2006 through July 2007.
For this overtime work she was compensated with 739 hours of
leave that she could either use during her state employment or
be paid for when leaving her state employment. In August 2007
the transportation planner increased her scheduled work hours
to become a full-time employee working 40 hours per week over
four 10-hour days. During the year that followed, the transportation
planner claimed to have worked 301.42 hours of overtime beyond
the 40 hours per week that she was scheduled to work. For this
overtime she was compensated $9,934 in cash for months she
worked some of the overtime and with 243.38 hours of leave for
the remaining overtime.5
The senior transportation planner acknowledged that he had not
preapproved the overtime the transportation planner claimed to
have worked and admitted that he had not realized the amount
of overtime she accumulated might be an issue. The senior
transportation planner stated that he took the transportation
planner’s word for the fact that she was working the reported
overtime 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 began
working under the supervision of the senior transportation
planner in August 2006, he allowed the transportation planner
to work almost entirely at her home as a telecommuter despite
5	

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

The senior transportation planner
acknowledged that he had not
preapproved the overtime the
transportation planner claimed.

29

30

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

The investigation found that the
transportation planner was not
in her office more than one day in
any week and seldom stayed in the
office for the required 10 hours per
the telecommuting agreement.

her not having a telecommuting agreement in place as required
by Caltrans’ telecommuting policy. A year later, in August 2007,
when the transportation planner increased her scheduled work
hours to become a full-time employee working four 10-hour days
per week, the senior transportation planner continued to allow
the transportation planner to telecommute, but entered into a
telecommuting agreement with her. The telecommuting agreement,
extending for a year through July 2008, provided that the
transportation planner was to work two of the 10-hour days at her
Caltrans office and the other two days at home as a telecommuter.
However, the investigation found that the transportation planner
was not in her office more than one day in any week and seldom
stayed in the office for the required 10 hours. Witnesses confirmed
that despite the terms of the telecommuting agreement, the
transportation planner was rarely in the office. When asked during
the investigation about the transportation planner’s general absence
from the office, the senior transportation planner admitted that he
did not require the transportation planner to be present in the office
on the days she was scheduled to be in the office unless she needed
to be present to attend a meeting.
Moreover, when the telecommuting agreement expired in
July 2008, the senior transportation planner did not conduct a
review as required by Caltrans’ telecommuting policy to determine
whether telecommuting by the employee remained feasible based
on the operational needs of the agency, satisfactory employee
performance, and the demonstrated ability of the employee to
work independently. He also did not, as required by Caltrans’
telecommuting policy, engage in the process of renewing the
agreement with the transportation planner. He instead allowed
the transportation planner to continue telecommuting, virtually
every day, without a renewed agreement until February 2009 when
an acting division chief terminated the transportation planner’s
telecommuting privilege.
The Senior Transportation Planner Did Not Ensure That the
Transportation Planner Performed Work When She Was Supposed to Be
Working at Home
While allowing the transportation planner to perform her assigned
work almost entirely at home from 2006 to 2009, and permitting
her to claim substantial amounts of overtime without pre-approval
from August 2006 through July 2008, the senior transportation
planner failed to require the transportation planner to demonstrate
that she was performing an acceptable amount of work during this
two-year period.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

When asked, the senior transportation planner could only
provide work items generated by the transportation planner for
four of the 24 months from August 2006 through July 2008. In
September 2008, the acting division chief, having concerns about
the amount of work the transportation planner was producing
as a telecommuter, insisted that the senior transportation
planner require the transportation planner to submit weekly
reports describing the work she had performed during the
week. However, the senior transportation planner only collected
11 weekly reports during the 20 weeks from September 22, 2008,
to February 5, 2009, when the telecommuting was terminated. The
senior transportation planner admitted that he generally just took
the transportation planner’s word for having been busy working on
things until she resigned from state service in June 2009.
Because the senior transportation planner neglected his duty to
supervise the work of the transportation planner, Caltrans obtained
no assurance that the State received adequate work for the salary
that it paid her during the period we examined.
Recommendations
To address the improper governmental activity identified in this
investigation and to prevent similar improper activities from
occurring in the future, Caltrans should do the following:
•	 Take appropriate corrective action against the senior
transportation planner for neglecting his duty to supervise
the transportation planner.
•	 Institute training to ensure that all Caltrans employees are aware
of the requirement that all overtime work be preapproved.
•	 Establish controls to ensure that Caltrans’ telecommuting
agreements are reviewed and renewed annually in order for an
employee to be allowed to continue telecommuting.
•	 Revise Caltrans’ telecommuting policy to require that employees
participating in the telecommuting program provide regular
documentation of the work they perform away from the office.
Agency Response
In June 2011 Caltrans reported that it issued a corrective
memorandum to the senior transportation planner for neglecting to
supervise his employee properly. Caltrans also stated that it placed
a copy of the corrective memorandum in the senior transportation

31

32

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Transportation

planner’s personnel file, but that it would be removed from the file
after 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/or
reissue its overtime policy before September 2011 and would require
its supervisors and managers to review the policy with all of their
employees. Caltrans stated that these actions would ensure that
its employees are aware of the requirement that overtime must be
authorized in advance, except in emergencies, and that employees
provide specific evidence of overtime, preapproval of overtime
hours worked, the reason for overtime, and the products resulting
from overtime.
Further, Caltrans stated that in February 2011 it revised its
directive, which defines the responsibilities of managers and
supervisors to ensure that telecommuting agreements are reviewed
annually. It also stated that its telework unit would begin to
distribute notifications to supervisors about the need to review
telecommuting agreements nearing their expiration.
Finally, Caltrans reported that it had revised its Telework Program
Policy and Procedures guidelines in March 2011. According to
Caltrans, these guidelines require managers and supervisors
to provide specific, measurable, and attainable performance
expectations for their telecommuting employees. The agreements
must define in writing detailed work tasks, corresponding
deadlines, and expected work performance. The policy also requires
managers and supervisors to review their expectations with their
telecommuting employees at least quarterly.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Fish and Game

Chapter 5
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME: MISUSE OF A STATE
VEHICLE, IMPROPER TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTS
Case I2009-0601
Results in Brief
A manager at the Department of Fish and Game (Fish and
Game) improperly directed a Fish and Game employee under
his supervision to use a state vehicle for commuting between her
home and work locations at a cost to the State of $8,282 during
a nine‑month period. In addition, the employee improperly
requested, and the manager improperly approved, reimbursement
for $595 in lodging and meal expenses incurred by the employee
near her headquarters.
Background
Fish and Game performs its work through a management structure
that divides the State into seven geographical regions. Within each of
these regions, Fish and Game employs administrative staff, including
personnel specialists and managers, to support the work of the
department’s employees.
Like other state employees, Fish and Game employees are subject
to state laws governing the proper use of state-owned vehicles and
the proper reimbursement of travel-related expenses. Specifically,
Government Code section 19993.1 prohibits the use of a state
vehicle for any purpose other than to conduct state business.
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.615 requires each
state agency to determine the necessity for authorizing state‑paid
travel and for determining the method of travel. In deciding
whether state-paid travel is necessary, additional regulations
addressing state vehicle use and reimbursement for the distance
driven in a private vehicle must be considered before determining if
a business need exists. For example, California Code of Regulations,
title 2, section 599.802 generally prohibits the use of a state vehicle
for commuting to or from an employee’s home, and California Code
of Regulations, title 2, section 599.626, subdivision (d), prohibits
reimbursement for the cost of an employee’s commute to work in a
private vehicle. In the event improper use of a state vehicle occurs,
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.803 declares that
an employee is liable to the State for the actual cost of the misuse
unless the misuse was directed by the employee’s superior, in which
case the superior is liable for the cost of the misuse.

33

34

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Fish and Game

In this case, the manager and employee also were subject to a
collective bargaining unit agreement entered into between the
State and the employee’s bargaining unit (Unit 1). The agreement
provides additional guidance regarding whether state-paid travel
is appropriate. Specifically, the agreement states that when an
employee is required to report to an alternative work location,
the employee may be reimbursed only for the distance driven in
excess of the employee’s normal commute.
In addition, Fish and Game employees are subject to other
travel‑related regulations and requirements regarding management
review of travel expense claims. Specifically, California Code of
Regulations, title 2, section 599.616, subdivision (a)(1), prohibits
employee reimbursement for per diem expenses, defined by
subdivision (c)(1) as including meal and lodging expenses,
incurred within 25 miles of an employee’s headquarters. Finally,
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.638, subdivision (a),
states that it is the responsibility of the officer approving a travel
expense claim to ascertain the necessity and reasonableness of the
travel expenses for which the employee is seeking reimbursement.
When we received information that an employee at Fish and Game
was using a state vehicle to commute between her home and work
locations, we initiated an investigation.
Facts and Analysis
Before February 2008 the employee occupied an administrative
support position in San Diego, providing personnel services at a
Fish and Game office in San Diego. However, in February 2008,
a similar position at the Fish and Game office in Los Alamitos
became vacant. To facilitate the Los Alamitos office continuing
to provide personnel services despite the vacancy, the employee,
while continuing to be headquartered at the San Diego office,
provided personnel services at the Los Alamitos office two days
per week. The employee did not work in both offices on the same
day, but simply reported for work at the San Diego office and the
Los Alamitos office on different days. The Los Alamitos office was
further from the employee’s home than the San Diego office, adding
approximately 64 miles per day to her round trip commute.
On July 1, 2008, the employee transferred her headquarters
from the San Diego office to the Los Alamitos office. When
the employee transferred her headquarters, her manager at the
Los Alamitos office obtained a state vehicle for the employee to
use and directed her to use the vehicle to commute between her

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Fish and Game

home and the two offices where she worked. Just as she had done
before transferring her headquarters, the employee reported
for work at the San Diego office and the Los Alamitos office on
different days and did not work at both offices on the same day.
Aside from using the state vehicle to commute between her home
and her two work locations, the employee did not use the vehicle
except to travel to occasional meetings at another office in the same
region as the Los Alamitos office. Therefore, the vehicle was used
almost exclusively for the employee’s commute between her home
and work.
The employee continued to use the vehicle for nine months,
until March 2009. In December 2008 Fish and Game filled the
vacancy in the San Diego office that was created by the employee
transferring to Los Alamitos, thus eliminating the need for
the employee to report to the San Diego office. Nonetheless, the
employee continued to use the state vehicle to commute between
her home and the Los Alamitos office. The employee logged nearly
20,000 miles before she stopped using the state vehicle for her
commute 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 commuting
to or from an employee’s home. As such, the manager acted
improperly when he directed the employee to use a state vehicle
to commute to her two work locations.
When we asked the manager about obtaining a state vehicle for
the employee to use for her commute to work, the manager stated
that he obtained the state vehicle for the employee because she
was working at two locations—the Los Alamitos office and the
San Diego office. However, the mere fact that the employee was
working at two offices on different days did not justify giving her a
state car to commute to these two offices. As just stated, she was
not entitled to use a state car to commute between her home and
her headquarters in Los Alamitos because doing so constituted
using a state car for her normal commute to work. Further,
subsequent to July 1, 2008, she was not entitled to use a state car
to commute between her home and her alternate work location
in San Diego, as the collective bargaining agreement governing
her compensation and benefits states that when an employee is
required to report to an alternative work location, the employee
is not entitled to have the State pay for her transportation

The vehicle was used almost
exclusively for the employee’s
commute between her home
and work.

35

36

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Fish and Game

to the alternate work location if the commuting distance between
the employee’s home and the alternate work location is less
than the employee’s normal commute.
We also asked the manager about the employee’s continued use of
a state vehicle to commute between her home and Los Alamitos
for an additional three months after she stopped working at the
San Diego office. To this the manager replied that failing to require
the employee to surrender the vehicle once she no longer was
assisting the San Diego office was an oversight on his part.
By directing the employee to use
a state vehicle for her commute to
work, the manager authorized the
misuse of a state resource at a cost
of approximately $8,282.

By directing the employee to use a state vehicle for her commute
to work, the manager authorized the misuse of a state resource at
a cost of approximately $8,282 based on the number of miles the
employee drove the vehicle for commuting during the nine months
that the vehicle was assigned to her. Moreover, according to
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.803, because
the manager directed the employee to misuse the vehicle in this
manner, he is liable to the State for the cost of the misuse.
The Employee Improperly Claimed and the Manager Improperly
Approved the Employee’s Lodging and Meal Expenses
In addition to commuting in a state vehicle at the State’s
expense, the employee submitted travel expense claims seeking
reimbursement for $595 in lodging and meal expenses incurred
within two miles of her headquarters location in Los Alamitos. As
provided in California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.616,
subdivision (a)(1), a state employee is prohibited from receiving
reimbursement from the State for meal and lodging expenses
within 25 miles of the employee’s headquarters. Additionally, the
manager improperly approved the reimbursement despite this
regulatory prohibition and the duty imposed upon managers by
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.638 to ascertain
the necessity and reasonableness of travel-related expenses for
which reimbursement is being requested by an employee. When
asked about the reimbursements during the investigation, the
employee asserted that all of the expenses she claimed were
incurred as a direct result of conducting state business. The
manager, however, acknowledged that these expenses should not
have been reimbursed and stated that approving reimbursement
for the expenses was an oversight on his part.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Fish and Game

Recommendations
To recover the costs of the improper use of the state vehicle and
improper travel reimbursements, Fish and Game should take the
following actions:
•	 Follow the guidelines established in state regulations and initiate
repayment from the manager for the costs associated with the
misuse of the state vehicle.
•	 Seek recovery of the $595 in lodging and meal reimbursements
that were paid to the employee.
•	 Take appropriate disciplinary action against the manager for
directing the misuse of a state vehicle.
•	 Provide training to the manager and the employee about state
rules for the payment of employee travel expenses.
Agency Response
Fish and Game reported in June 2011 that it planned to prepare a
corrective counseling memorandum for the manager detailing the
improper direction he provided to the employee. In addition, it
stated that it would provide him and other managers in the region
with training detailing the proper rules and procedures for travel
reimbursements and use.
In response to our recommendation that it provide training to the
employee regarding state rules about the payment of employee
travel expenses, Fish and Game reported that it would provide
training to all senior staff in the manager’s region. However, Fish
and Game did not indicate that it intended to provide any training
to the employee.
Finally, in response to our recommendations that it seek recovery
from the employee and the manager for the improper travel
reimbursements we identified, Fish and Game reported that it
would follow the appropriate process to collect the improper
reimbursements made to the employee and that it would follow
guidelines established in state regulations and allow the manager
to respond to our findings.

37

38

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Industrial Relations

Chapter 6
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: FAILURE TO
MONITOR ADEQUATELY EMPLOYEES’ TIME REPORTING
Case I2008-0902
Results in Brief
An official and a supervisor at a Department of Industrial Relations
(Industrial Relations) district office failed to monitor adequately
the time reporting of four subordinate employees from July 2007
through June 2009.
Background
The mission of Industrial Relations is to improve working conditions
and advance opportunities for California workers. District offices in
its division of workers’ compensation provide forums throughout
the State in which injured workers’ claims for compensation are
heard by administrative law judges. The official was responsible for
overseeing the district office, approving employees’ time sheets and
requests for alternate work schedules, and providing guidance to staff
to ensure that time‑keeping practices comply with legal requirements
and Industrial Relations’ policies. The supervisor monitored the
attendance of clerical staff.
Like other state agencies, Industrial Relations must keep complete
and accurate time and attendance records for its employees, as
required by California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665.
In addition, Industrial Relations requires its supervisors to follow
policies addressing proper authorization and reporting of overtime,
absences, and alternate work schedule requests.
When we received an allegation that the district office was not
keeping accurate time sheets, we asked Industrial Relations to assist
us in conducting an investigation.
Facts and Analysis
The investigation determined that from July 2007 through
June 2009, an official and a supervisor at a district office failed to
ensure the accuracy of its clerical staffs’ time sheets. Specifically,
the official and the supervisor allowed the employees to maintain
informal timekeeping records to track their overtime hours. The
employees then could use the informal leave they accumulated by
working the overtime to take time off without charging that time

39

40

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Industrial Relations

against their official leave balances. In addition, without obtaining
proper authorization for an alternate work schedule, the official and
the supervisor allowed two of the employees, for a period of up to
six months, to work overtime hours regularly throughout the week
and then use the accrued time to take every other Friday off.
As a result of the informal timekeeping and the lack of oversight by
the official and the supervisor, the employees’ time sheets generally
do not reflect the actual hours they worked. The official never
verified the accuracy of the employees’ time sheets and failed to
require a satisfactory system of recordkeeping to provide assurance
that the employees were working the hours reported on their time
sheets. Although the supervisor tracked absences on a monthly
calendar, she did not independently monitor or track the informal
time. Instead, she relied on the employees to inform her of the days
they were taking as informal time off without ever verifying that
the employees had accrued sufficient overtime hours. Additionally,
neither the supervisor nor the employees retained records of
the actual hours worked by the employees. The supervisor’s
monthly calendar and the employees’ self-monitored informal
tracking logs generally were purged at the end of each month.
By neglecting their responsibility to ensure that the employees’
timekeeping was accurate, the official and the supervisor violated
state regulations and Industrial Relations’ policies. Furthermore,
as a result of the official’s failure to ensure the accuracy of his
employees’ time reporting, Industrial Relations could not rely on
the employees’ time sheets to determine their actual attendance and
thus could not hold the employees accountable for any inaccurate
time reporting.
Following the investigation,
Industrial Relations formally
disciplined the official and
the supervisor.

Following the investigation, Industrial Relations formally disciplined
the official and the supervisor for failing to ensure that timekeeping
practices were consistent with the department’s internal policies
and state regulations. Industrial Relations also removed attendance
monitoring responsibilities from the supervisor,6 and in March 2010
provided the official and supervisor with time-reporting and
record-keeping training. Further, Industrial Relations prohibited
all informal timekeeping practices and required daily tracking
of the actual start and end times of its rank-and-file employees’
work shifts.

6	

In 2003 Industrial Relations had previously reprimanded the supervisor for engaging in similar
inappropriate timekeeping practices.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Department of Industrial Relations

Recommendation
To ensure that employees at this district office follow
time‑reporting requirements in accordance with applicable state
law and department policies, Industrial Relations should continue
to monitor the time-reporting practices of the official and his staff.
Agency Response
In June 2011 Industrial Relations reported that it provided further
time-reporting and record-keeping training to all of its managers and
supervisors. In addition, a regional manager issued a memorandum
about attendance and reporting requirements to some district
offices. Industrial Relations also stated that it planned to distribute a
memorandum on attendance requirements to its remaining district
locations throughout the State. Finally, Industrial Relations stated that
in August 2010 and March 2011, it provided training to all attendance
reporting officers about the proper documentation of all hours
worked and leave taken.

41

42

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
State Controller’s Office

Chapter 7
STATE CONTROLLER’S OFFICE: FAILURE TO REPORT
ABSENCES, FAILURE TO MONITOR ADEQUATELY AN
EMPLOYEE’S TIME REPORTING
Case I2009-1476
Results in Brief
An employee with the State Controller’s Office (Controller’s
Office) failed to report an estimated 322 hours of absences over
an 18-month period. Because her supervisor, a high-level official,
failed to monitor adequately the employee’s time reporting, the
Controller ‘s Office did not charge the employee’s leave balance for
the absences and consequently paid her $6,591 for hours she did
not work.
Background
The Controller’s Office pays the State’s bills, administers the
State’s payroll system, and prepares reports on the State’s financial
condition. In order to accomplish these tasks, the Controller’s
Office employs administrative staff to support its daily operations.
Like other state employees, employees of the Controller’s Office
are subject to state regulations governing appropriate timekeeping.
Specifically, California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665
mandates that state agencies are responsible for keeping complete
and accurate time and attendance records for their employees.
To comply with this mandate, the Controller’s Office requires
its employees to submit monthly time sheets documenting their
absences and any overtime worked.
Supplementing the regulation cited above, the collective bargaining
agreement between the State and the employee’s bargaining unit
(Unit 4) specifically prohibits employees from counting meal periods
as part of their total hours worked. The agreement also prohibits the
accumulation of breaks and an employee working during a break to
“make up” for other time not spent working.
When we received an allegation that a Controller’s Office employee
was not working the hours she reported on her time sheets, we
initiated an investigation.

43

44

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
State Controller’s Office

Facts and Analysis
Our investigation revealed that over an 18-month period from
October 2008 through March 2010, a Controller’s Office employee
did not report her absences from work, including her late arrivals
and early departures, in an accurate manner. The supervisor
overseeing the employee allowed her to track her time informally
and did not provide the oversight necessary to ensure that the hours
reported by the employee matched the hours she actually worked.
The Employee Failed to Report Absences From Work
During the period we investigated, the employee called coworkers
on mornings when she expected to arrive to work late or when she
needed to take an unexpected day off. Although the coworkers were
not the employee’s superiors, the employee called as a courtesy to
the coworkers, as her time away from the office sometimes affected
their workloads. The calls were a regular occurrence each month.
For example, the employee called her coworkers 11 days in
October 2009, nine days in November 2009, and eight days
in December 2009 to report that she expected to be at least
90 minutes late. After receiving the calls, the coworkers sent e-mails
to the official who supervised the employee, notifying him of the
employee’s late arrivals or full-day absences from the office.
We estimated that the employee
missed full days of work but did not
charge leave for a total of 61 hours
and failed to charge an estimated
149 hours when she arrived late or
left early.

When we compared the e-mails to the employee’s time sheets,
we repeatedly identified instances in which the employee did not
charge leave. Specifically, we estimated that the employee missed
full days of work but did not charge leave for a total of 61 hours.7
In addition, the employee failed to charge an estimated 149 hours
when she arrived late or left early.
During our investigation, we asked the supervisor about the
employee’s absences and we learned that throughout the 18-month
period we reviewed, the supervisor allowed the employee to track
her time informally. This practice gave the employee the flexibility
to “make up” for her time away from work by working through her
breaks, including her lunch breaks, and by working on her regularly
scheduled days off that she received as part of having an alternate
work schedule. The supervisor also indicated that due to the
responsibilities of his job, he had to be out of the office frequently
attending to various matters, and therefore he could not physically
observe when the employee arrived at work or whether she made
up her time except when the employee was working at a time when
the supervisor was in the office.
7	

The employee missed work on five nine-hour workdays and two eight-hour workdays.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
State Controller’s Office

The employee confirmed that she tracked informally the time she
took off from work and that she used her breaks, meal periods,
and regularly scheduled days off to make up for her absences from
work. However, she did not document her informal timekeeping.
The employee indicated that she would come in early to make
up time, but that she did not make up time at the end of the
day because the last bus to her home left her work location at
5:30 p.m. She also said that she did not make up time by working
on weekends. The employee stated that she did not take any breaks
during the workday and that, during the most recent three-month
period before our interview with her, she had not taken any lunch
breaks. However, witnesses interviewed during the investigation
indicated that the employee regularly took lunch breaks. Regardless,
the employee’s bargaining unit agreement required her to take an
uncompensated meal period of at least 30 minutes per day.
Because of the employee’s alternate work schedule and the required
lunch break, she was required to work a 9.5-hour workday on most
days. During our investigation, we asked both the supervisor and
the employee for the employee’s work hours Monday through
Thursday during the 18-month period. We received a response of
7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. from both the supervisor and the employee.
As that schedule did not allow for the employee’s lunch break,
and witnesses told us that she routinely took a lunch break, the
employee regularly worked 30 minutes less than required of her
each day. As a result, the employee was paid for an estimated
additional 112 hours she did not work.
In total, the employee’s time sheets failed to account for 322 hours
of absences from October 2008 through March 2010. As a result,
the Controller’s Office paid the employee $6,591 for hours she
did not work. Table 3 summarizes our estimate of the employee’s
absences and the associated cost to the State.
Table 3
Cost of the Employee’s Unreported Absences From October 2008 Through
March 2010
TYPE OF ABSENCE

Full-day absences
Late arrivals or early departures
Early departures violating lunch break rules
Totals

ESTIMATED HOURS

ESTIMATED COST

61

$1,259

149

3,048

112

2,284

322

$6,591

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the employee’s time sheets and attendance records.

45

46

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
State Controller’s Office

Our analysis took into account the regularly scheduled days off
worked by the employee to make up for absences during the week.
It also considered, among other things, the number of hours
available to her to make up for hours given her reliance on the bus
system, her work schedule that did not include any time for a lunch
break, and the number of days the employee called her coworkers
to report a late arrival or an unexpected full-day absence.
The Supervisor Failed to Monitor the Employee’s Attendance Adequately
The supervisor failed to ensure that the employee accounted for
all of her absences. As part of his regular duties, the supervisor
was obligated to provide the level of supervision necessary to
prevent the State from paying an employee for hours he or she did
not work. Considering his knowledge of the employee’s frequent
absences from the office, the supervisor should have monitored the
employee’s time more closely and required her to keep accurate
time sheets as opposed to allowing her to track the hours she
worked informally.
The employee retired from state service in August 2010, during
our investigation.
Recommendations
To address the employee’s improper time reporting and the
supervisor’s failure to monitor her time adequately, the Controller’s
Office should do the following:
•	 Seek reimbursement from the employee for the wages she did
not earn.
•	 Take appropriate disciplinary action against the supervisor.
•	 Provide training to the supervisor on proper time-reporting and
supervisory requirements.
Agency Response
In June 2011 the Controller’s Office reported that when it hired the
employee she understood that her hours of work would be from
7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., with one-half hour for lunch and every other
Friday off. It also stated that the employee was informed she could
make up partial day absences during the same month in which
an absence occurred or the month immediately following. The
Controller’s Office further stated that it expected any time not made

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
State Controller’s Office

up to be charged to the employee’s leave hours. However, allowing
the employee, on a regular basis, to make up time missed in a
subsequent month fails to ensure complete, accurate time reporting
each month. Coupled with the official’s admission that he did not
observe when the employee worked or made up the time unless
he was in the office, the employee should not have been given the
latitude to make up missed work hours in a subsequent month.
In addition, the Controller’s Office stated that since the official had
no reason to suspect that the employee failed to make up hours
in the manner described previously, he approved her time sheets.
However, our investigation found that the official received about
160 e-mails regarding the employee’s absences, late arrivals, and
early departures during the 18-month period we reviewed. This
volume of e-mails certainly put the official on notice that there
were issues regarding the employee’s attendance and that properly
supervising her attendance required closer monitoring than just
accepting whatever she reported on her time sheets as accurate.
The Controller’s Office also reported that before the employee’s
retirement in August 2010, it subtracted approximately 21 days
from her leave balance, equaling $3,613 in gross payments, and
applied this leave to the employee’s unauthorized time off. In
addition, it established an accounts receivable for the balance of the
unauthorized leave, and it notified the employee of the remaining
$2,978 owed to the State. In August 2011 the Controller’s Office told
us that the employee had repaid the amount owed.
Further, the Controller’s Office informed us that management
representatives counseled the official because it acknowledged that
the official was responsible for monitoring the employee’s time
and that he provided insufficient oversight. As a result, its chief of
Human Resources provided the official with additional training on
proper time-reporting and related supervisory requirements. The
Controller’s Office also reported that because the official’s busy
schedule did not allow him to monitor adequately his support staff ’s
time, his staff was placed under the direct supervision of an office
manager effective August 2010.
Finally, the Controller’s Office reported that it has developed
training on proper time‑reporting and related supervisory
requirements. The Controller’s Office stated that it anticipated all
of its supervisors will complete the training in September 2011.

47

48

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

Chapter 8
UPDATE OF PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ISSUES
Chapter Summary
The California Whistleblower Protection Act requires an employing
agency or appropriate appointing authority for the State to report
to the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) any corrective action or
disciplinary action that it takes in response to an investigative
report. The agency or authority must submit information regarding
its actions implemented in response to recommendations made
by the bureau no later than 60 days after the bureau notifies it
about the improper governmental activities. If the agency or
authority has not implemented the recommendations within
this time, it must submit monthly reports to the bureau until
it completes that implementation. This chapter summarizes
actions that agencies and authorities implemented in response
to seven previous investigations.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Cases I2004-0649, I2004-0681, and I2004-0789
On September 21, 2005, we reported that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) had failed to track
the total number of hours available in a release time bank (time
bank) composed of leave hours donated by members of the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association (union) for use
by union representatives performing union business. Consequently,
Corrections released employees to work on union-related activities
without knowing whether the bank had sufficient balances to cover
these releases. In addition, the reports that Corrections used to track
time-bank charges did not capture 10,980 hours that three union
representatives used from May 2003 through April 2005.
Corrections appears to have paid these hours through regular payroll
at a cost to the State of $395,256. Following our report, Corrections
did not attempt to obtain reimbursement for additional hours the
three representatives spent conducting union activities in May 2005
and June 2005, resulting in an added cost to the State of $39,151.
In total, Corrections inappropriately paid these representatives
$434,407 from May 2003 through June 2005.
Corrections subsequently reported that it had been unable
to reconstruct an accurate leave history for the three union
representatives before July 2005. Thus, it decided it would not seek

49

50

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

recovery of the $434,407 it improperly paid the representatives
before this date. Instead, it directed its efforts toward the period
beginning in July 2005, billing the union for $1,078,193 for
unreimbursed union work the three employees performed from
July 2005 through June 2010.8 In June 2010 Corrections notified
us that it had initiated litigation against the union to recover the
unreimbursed costs for all Corrections employees on full-time
union leave.
Updated Information
Corrections has provided monthly updates regarding its effort
to obtain reimbursement for the cost of the union work hours
of the three employees discussed in our report. As Table 4
shows, Corrections’ most recent update shows that it has failed
to collect $1,654,664 for union activities conducted by the
three representatives from May 2003 through March 2011.

Table 4
Unreimbursed Union Leave Costs From May 2003 Through June 2010 for
Three Union Members
TIME PERIOD

COST

May 2003 through June 2005: Union work hours for which the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (Corrections) failed to seek reimbursement

$434,407

July 2005 through June 2010: Union work hours billed but not reimbursed
to the State

1,078,193

July 2010 through March 2011: Union work hours billed but not reimbursed
to the State
Total

142,064
$1,654,664

Sources:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis, State Controller’s Office records, and invoices provided
by Corrections.
Note:  The cost of union work hours for which Corrections failed to seek reimbursement consists
of the three union members’ salaries. The cost of union work hours billed but not reimbursed
includes the union members’ salaries plus benefits as prescribed in the collective bargaining
agreement with this union. The total unpaid cost of union‑related activities for all Corrections’
employees on full‑time union leave—including the three union representatives in our report—
for July 2005 through March 2011 was $4,909,931.

8	

In January 2008 one of the three union representatives returned to his full-time assignment at a
correctional institution, thus ending his full-time union leave.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response
Case I2006-1125
On April 28, 2009, we reported that Official A, formerly a high‑level
official with the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (spill office)
of the Department of Fish and Game (Fish and Game), had received
reimbursements to which she was not entitled for commute
expenses between her official headquarters in Sacramento and
her Southern California residence. Despite lacking the necessary
authority, former officials for the spill office permitted Official A to
identify her home as her headquarters and to claim expenses when
traveling to Sacramento. Fish and Game allowed her to use state
vehicles or state-funded flights for commutes between her Southern
California home and her Sacramento headquarters, and to claim
lodging and per diem expenses when she stayed in Sacramento.
In addition, Fish and Game violated state travel regulations by
reimbursing Official A for lodging and meal expenses incurred near
her Sacramento headquarters and her residence. In total, Fish and
Game improperly reimbursed Official A $71,747 from October 2003
through March 2008.
At the time of our report, we recommended that Fish and Game
either seek to recover the amount it had reimbursed Official A
for her improper travel expenses or to explain and document its
reasons for not seeking recovery. In addition, we made several
recommendations for Fish and Game to improve its accounting
office’s review process for travel claims.
Fish and Game later reported that it would not seek to recover
reimbursement from Official A for her improper commute and
travel expenses because former Fish and Game officials had
informed her that she would receive such reimbursements and
had honored these “agreements” throughout her employment with
the spill office. In addition, Fish and Game reported that it had
since directed staff to implement more effective internal controls
to ensure that any assignment of an employee’s home as his or her
headquarters is based on established criteria and approved by a
Fish and Game deputy director or higher-level official. Fish and
Game also reported that its accounting staff must ensure that the
addresses of employees’ residences and headquarters are identified
when staff process travel claims. It further stated that when an
employee’s residence and headquarters are the same, the staff must
ensure that the employee has included a form with the travel claim
that explains the criteria for the headquarters designation and
demonstrates that the designation has been approved by executive
management. However, we expressed serious concerns about
the lack of oversight in Fish and Game’s process for determining the
headquarters designations for its employees. Finally, Fish and Game
reported that by December 2010 it would provide us with a list

In total, Fish and Game improperly
reimbursed Official A $71,747 from
October 2003 through March 2008
for commute expenses.

51

52

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

of employees having a headquarters location that differs from the
place where their position is located, including employees who
identify their residences as their headquarters.
Updated Information
In July 2011 Fish and Game provided us with the list of employees
whose headquarters differ from those designated for their
established positions. Operating from this list, we now have
requested additional information from Fish and Game, including
a justification for why each of the employees on the list has a
headquarters location that differs from the established location of
the employee’s position.

A Former University Official’s Improper
Expense Reimbursements
•	 $39,135 in unnecessary travel costs that appeared to offer
the university few tangible benefits and that were not
in the State’s best interest.
•	 $26,455 in reimbursements that exceeded the amounts
allowed for the official to organize, host, and attend
business meals.
•	 $43,288 in commute expenses that violated
university policies.
•	 $17,053 for personal expenses that the official incurred
while purportedly conducting university business from
his home in Northern California.
•	 $24,676 related to monthly payments for long-term living
expenses the employee received for 33 months but for
which he did not qualify.
•	 $1,834 in duplicate reimbursements and overpayments
made to the official.
Source:  Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of the former university
official’s expenses.

California State University, Office of the Chancellor
Case I2007-1158
On December 2, 2009, we reported that the
Chancellor’s Office for the California State
University (university) system had improperly
reimbursed a former official9 $152,441 from
July 2005 through July 2008 for unnecessary
expenses that did not reflect the best interests of
the university or the State. The text box explains
these improper reimbursements in detail. The
former official’s supervisor and the university
failed to review the official’s reimbursement
claims sufficiently or to follow long-established
policies and procedures designed to ensure the
accuracy and adequate control of expenses. In
addition, the lack of clarity in university policies
regarding business meals contributed to the waste
of public funds, as did the university’s failure to
place limits on lodging expenses.
We recommended that the university take several
actions, including the following:

•	 Recover from the official the duplicate payments
and overpayments.
•	 Reexamine its review process for preapproving and reimbursing
high-level university employees for their expenses.

9	

The official left the university in July 2008.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

•	 Terminate informal agreements that allow university employees
to work at locations other than their headquarters.
•	 Establish maximum limits with regard to business meals and
specify when these policies apply.
•	 Establish maximum limits for lodging costs and create
controls that allow for exceptions to such limits only in
specific circumstances.
At the time of our report, the university agreed that it would seek
repayment from the official for any duplicate reimbursements or
overpayments and that it would reexamine its reimbursement
procedures for high-level employees. However, it did not agree
that it would terminate informal agreements regarding work
locations, stating that it needed flexibility to recruit and retain
highly skilled employees. The university failed to indicate whether
it would specify in its policies monetary limits for business meals
and clarify when specific policies apply. Finally, the university stated
that establishing defined limits for reimbursing the costs of lodging
would be “impractical.” The university stated that it had instead
asked its employees who travel frequently to “pay careful attention
to lodging choices,” and requested that its managers “scrutinize
travel claims for wasteful expenditures.”
Subsequently, the university collected from the official $1,903—
consisting of $1,834 we identified and $69 the university
identified later—in duplicate payments and overpayments. In
addition, the university reported that it sent a memorandum
to its vice chancellors informing them that international travel
by any Chancellor’s Office staff member must be preapproved by
the chancellor. However, the university took no specific actions
related to our other recommendations. Thus, the university did
not terminate its informal agreements that allowed employees to
work at locations other than their headquarters, it did not clarify its
reimbursement policies for business meals, and it did not establish
limits on lodging costs. In fact, university administrators informed
us that the university does not need to take further action on these
recommendations. In November 2010 the university reported that
it needed to take no further corrective action.
Updated Information
In August 2011 the university reported that to strengthen its policies
relating to food and beverage reimbursements, it had implemented
a policy of only reimbursing employees based on the actual cost of
meals and setting a maximum limit on meal reimbursements for
any 24-hour period. In addition, it reported that under the policy

Subsequently, the university
collected from the official
$1,903—consisting of $1,834
we identified and $69 the university
identified later—in duplicate
payments and overpayments.

53

54

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

the university will reimburse employees only for “expenses that are
ordinary, reasonable, not extravagant, and necessary to conduct
official university business.”
With regard to our recommendation that the university terminate
informal agreements that allow its employees to work at locations
other than their headquarters, the university reported that it had
reviewed all of the alternate work location agreements that it
currently has with its employees. The university stated that when
it found no compelling rationale for an agreement, it gave the
involved employee the option either to relocate his or her work
location to the employee’s headquarters or to terminate his or her
employment. The university noted that few of its employees chose
to work at remote locations.
Finally, the university reiterated its assertion that lodging costs at
the numerous locations where it does business make it difficult
to establish a reasonable limit. It also stated that its supervisors
carefully monitor expenditures to ensure the “prudent spending of
resources.” Nevertheless, the university’s failure to place limits on its
employees’ lodging costs, even though these costs can be excessive,
will permit employees to continue an activity we identified as being
wasteful and, therefore, not in the State’s best interest.
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Case I2007-0887
On January 18, 2011, we reported that a Corrections employee
improperly reported 16 hours of overtime for responding to
building alarm activations that never occurred. Because Corrections
did not have adequate controls to detect the improper reporting,
it compensated the employee $446 in overtime pay she did not
earn. After discovering the employee’s misconduct, it failed to take
appropriate actions to establish controls, discipline the employee, or
collect the improper pay. We recommended that Corrections take
the following actions:
•	 Take appropriate disciplinary actions against the employee and
pursue collection efforts for the compensation she did not earn.
•	 Obtain monthly logs from the alarm company and verify that
overtime reported for responding to building alarm activations is
consistent with the logs.
At the time of our report, Corrections stated that, based on
its review of the findings, the employee did not engage in any
misconduct. Thus, it took no action with regard to either of
our recommendations.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

Updated Information
Corrections has declined to take any action to implement
our recommendations.
California Conservation Corps
Case I2008-1021
On January 18, 2011, we reported that the California Conservation
Corps (Conservation Corps) evaded competitive bidding
requirements by splitting contracts to purchase uniforms costing
$64,666 from a single vendor. In addition, the Conservation
Corps did not properly obtain price quotations when approving
two other uniform purchases totaling $19,812 from the same
vendor. We recommended that the Conservation Corps take the
following actions:
•	 Take appropriate corrective action against the employees
responsible for the improper purchases.
•	 Implement controls to ensure that staff does not split contracts
to evade competitive bidding requirements and that staff
document the appropriate number of price quotations before
purchasing goods.
•	 Provide adequate training to staff responsible for initiating and
approving purchases.
•	 Correct inconsistent accounting practices and require staff to
associate expenditures directly with the purchase orders that
authorized the expenditures.
At the time of our report, the Conservation Corps stated that it
had issued a corrective action memorandum to each employee
responsible for the improper purchases. In addition, the
Conservation Corps told us that it had randomly conducted reviews
of purchase orders from fiscal years 2007–08 through 2010–11, but
it did not keep documentation of the results of these reviews. The
Conservation Corps also stated that it had provided procurement
training to its staff in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Updated Information
The Conservations Corps informed us that it created a procedure in
February 2011 that requires field staff to submit bid information with
every purchase or service order to ensure that the staff follow the
proper procedures regarding bidding documents and price quotations.

55

56

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

The procedure also requires business services staff to review the
information to ensure compliance. In addition, the Conservation
Corps stated that it holds quarterly meetings with its business
services officers to discuss procurement matters, including new
policies and procedures. Finally, in March 2011 it held training
for business services officers that focused on proper bidding
procedures and other procurement activities.
Department of General Services
Case I2008-1024
On January 18, 2011, we reported that a fleet division manager with
the Department of General Services (General Services) improperly
used state vehicles for his daily commute for nine years. The cost
of the misuse from July 2006 through July 2009, the three years for
which complete records are available, totaled an estimated $12,379.
Because the records were not retained, we were not able to estimate
accurately the cost to the State for the remaining six years. We
recommended that General Services take the following actions:
•	 Seek reimbursement from the manager for the costs associated
with his misuse of state vehicles.
•	 Issue to all fleet division employees with access to state
vehicles a memorandum regarding the appropriate use of
state‑owned vehicles.
At the time of our report, General Services stated that it planned
to seek reimbursement from the manager, who retired during
the investigation, for the costs associated with his misuse of state
vehicles. In addition, General Services stated that in March 2010,
before the completion of our investigation, it issued a number
of operating policies to its employees that prohibit the use of
state‑owned vehicles for travel to and from an employee’s home
without express permission.
Updated Information
In June 2011 General Services and the manager signed an agreement
directing the manager to reimburse the State the $12,379 in costs
arising from his misuse of state vehicles. The terms of the agreement
require the manager to repay the State $200 a month from June 2011
through August 2016. The manager made his first installment
payment in June 2011.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Case I2009-0607
On January 18, 2011, we reported that Corrections placed parolees
at risk by allowing a psychiatrist to continue to treat them for
four months after it received allegations of his incompetence. In
addition, Corrections wasted at least $366,656 in state funds by
not conducting a timely investigation of the allegations. Because
it identified the investigation as low priority, Corrections took
35 months to complete it, resulting in the psychiatrist’s performing
only administrative duties for 31 months before being discharged.
Nonetheless, during the 35-month investigation, he received more
than $600,000 in salary and accrued 226 hours of leave, for which
Corrections paid him an additional $29,149 upon his termination.
We recommended that Corrections take the following actions:
•	 Establish a protocol to ensure that upon receiving credible
information that a medical professional may not be capable
of treating patients competently, it promptly relieves that
professional of his or her duty to treat patients, pending
an investigation.
•	 Increase the priority that its Office of Internal Affairs (Internal
Affairs) assigns to investigations of high-salaried employees.
•	 Develop procedures to ensure that Internal Affairs assigns
a higher priority for completion of investigations involving
employees who are assigned alternate duties.
At the time of our report, Corrections disagreed with our
findings. Nevertheless, it reported that it would take some steps to
implement our recommendations that it establish protocols and
expedite the completion of investigations involving high-salaried
staff assigned alternate duties. In addition, Corrections included in
a training presentation a discussion of the need for staff involved
in the disciplinary process to consult with Internal Affairs when
employees are placed on administrative leave or removed from their
primary duties.
Updated Information
Corrections reported that it established a task force to discuss its
policies and procedures for removing medical professionals from
the treatment of patients when an investigation is pending. In
addition, Corrections reported that to reduce the fiscal impact to
the State, Internal Affairs would ensure that it considers expediting
investigations that involve high-salaried employees who are

57

58

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Update of Previously Reported Issues

assigned alternate duties. Corrections also identified various factors
it will consider when giving priority to investigations that involve
high‑salaried employees. Corrections further stated that Internal Affairs
would communicate with the proper authorities to determine whether
employees under investigation have been removed from their primary
duties. To assist in this process, Corrections reported that in June 2011
it established policies and procedures for collecting information about
the costs related to health care employees who are either assigned
alternate duties or on administrative time off. Finally, as of August 2011,
Corrections reported that on several occasions it had presented to
different staff involved in the disciplinary process a training session
on the need to consult with Internal Affairs.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor
Date:			

August 25, 2011

			
			
Legal Counsel:		

Steven Benito Russo, JD, Chief of Investigations

Investigative Staff:	
			
			
			
			
			
			

Russ Hayden, CGFM, Manager of Investigations
Siu‑Henh Canimo, CFE
Beka Clement, MPA (Chapters 1, 4, 7)
Lane Hendricks, CFE (Chapter 2)
Andrea Javist (Chapter 3)
Kerri Spano, CPA (Chapter 6)
Michael A. Urso, CFE (Chapter 5)

Support Staff:		
			
			
			

Rhoda Cooper, Staff Services Analyst
Sara Lopez, Staff Services Analyst
Deb Sneed, Staff Services Analyst
Dee Silberstein, Office Technician

Janis Burnett

For questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not contact investigative staff.
Contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Appendix

Appendix
THE INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM
The California Whistleblower Protection Act (Whistleblower Act)
authorizes the Bureau of State Audits (bureau), headed by the state
auditor, to investigate allegations of improper governmental activities
by state agencies and employees. Contained in the California
Government Code, beginning with section 8547, the Whistleblower
Act defines an improper governmental activity as any action by a state
agency or employee during the performance of official duties that
violates any state or federal law; is economically wasteful; or involves
gross misconduct, incompetence, or inefficiency.
To enable state employees and the public to report suspected
improper governmental activities, the bureau maintains a toll-free
Whistleblower Hotline (hotline) at (800) 952-5665. The bureau also
accepts reports of improper governmental activities by mail and
over the Internet at www.bsa.ca.gov.
The Whistleblower Act provides that the bureau may independently
investigate allegations of improper governmental activities. In
addition, the Whistleblower Act specifies that the state auditor
may request the assistance of any state entity in conducting an
investigation. After a state agency completes its investigation and
reports its results to the bureau, the bureau analyzes the agency’s
investigative report and supporting evidence, and it determines
whether it agrees with the agency’s conclusions or whether
additional work must be done.
Although the bureau conducts investigations, it does not
have enforcement powers. When it substantiates an improper
governmental activity, the bureau reports confidentially the details
to the head of the state agency or to the appointing authority
responsible for taking corrective action. The Whistleblower Act
requires the agency or appointing authority to notify the bureau
of any corrective action taken, including disciplinary action, no
later than 60 days after transmittal of the confidential investigative
report and monthly thereafter until the corrective action concludes.
The Whistleblower Act authorizes the state auditor to report
publicly on substantiated allegations of improper governmental
activities as necessary to serve the State’s interests. The state
auditor may also report improper governmental activities to other
authorities, such as law enforcement agencies, when appropriate.

59

60

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Appendix

Improper Governmental Activities Identified by the Bureau
Since 1993, when the bureau activated the hotline, it has
identified improper governmental activities totaling $30.5 million.
These improper activities include theft of state property, conflicts
of interest, and personal use of state resources. For example,
the bureau reported in September 2005 that a supervisor at the
Military Department embezzled at least $132,523 in state funds over
an eight‑year period. As another example, the bureau reported in
September 2007 that the California Highway Patrol wasted $881,565
in state funds when it purchased 51 vans that remained unused for
more than two years. The investigations have also substantiated
improper governmental activities that cannot be quantified in
dollars but have had negative social impacts. Examples include
violations of fiduciary trust, failure to perform mandated duties,
and abuse of authority.
Corrective Actions Taken in Response to Investigations
The chapters of this report describe the corrective actions that
departments implemented on individual cases that we completed
from September 2005 through March 2011. Table A summarizes
all of the corrective actions that departments took in response
to investigations between the time that the bureau opened the
hotline in July 1993 until March 2011. In addition to the corrective
actions listed, our investigations have resulted in many departments
modifying or reiterating their policies and procedures to prevent
future improper governmental activities.
Table A
Corrective Actions
July 1993 Through March 2011
TYPE OF CORRECTIVE ACTION

TOTALS

Convictions

10

Demotions

19

Job terminations

81

Resignations or retirements while under investigation
Pay reductions
Reprimands
Suspensions without pay
Total

5*
54
298
24
491

Source:  Bureau of State Audits.
*	 The number of resignations or retirements consists of those resulting from investigations
completed since September 2007.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Appendix

The Bureau’s Investigative Work From July 2010 Through March 2011
The bureau receives allegations of improper governmental activities
in several ways. From July 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011, the
bureau received 4,484 calls or inquiries. Of these, 3,945 came
through the hotline, 142 through the mail, and 397 through the
bureau’s Web site. When the bureau determined that allegations
were outside its jurisdiction, it referred the callers and inquirers to
the appropriate federal, local, or state agencies, when possible.
During this nine-month period, the bureau conducted investigative
work on 1,189 cases that it opened either in previous periods or
in the current period. After completing a preliminary review
process that includes analyzing available evidence and contacting
witnesses, the bureau determined that 987 of the 1,189 cases the
investigative staff worked on lacked sufficient information for
further investigation. As Figure A shows, the bureau referred
35 cases to other state agencies to gather information or to take
action. The bureau independently investigated 39 cases and
investigated 101 cases with assistance from other state agencies.
The bureau was still conducting its preliminary review of 27 cases
as of March 31, 2011.
Figure A
Status of 1,189 Cases
July 2010 Through March 2011
In preliminary review—27 (2%)
Referred to another state agency
for action—35 (3%)
Independently investigated by the
Bureau of State Audits—39 (3%)
Investigated with assistance of
another state agency—101 (9%)

Closed—987 (83%)

Source: Bureau of State Audits.

61

62

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011
Appendix

Of the 39 cases the bureau independently investigated, it
substantiated an improper governmental activity in five of
the investigations it completed during the period. In addition, the
bureau conducted analyses of the 101 investigations that state
agencies conducted under its direction, and it substantiated
an improper governmental activity in two of the investigations
completed. The results of the seven investigations with
substantiated improper governmental activities appear in
this report.

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

Index
DEPARTMENT/AGENCY

CASE NUMBER

ALLEGATION

PAGE NUMBER

California Conservation Corps

I2008-1021

Failure to follow state contracting laws

55

California Energy Commission

I2010-0844

Falsification of time and attendance records

21

California State University, Office of the
Chancellor

I2007-1158

Improper and wasteful expenditures

52

Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

I2004-0649

Failure to account for employees’ use of union leave

49

I2004-0681

49

I2004-0789

49

I2007-0887

Improper overtime reporting

54

I2009-0607

Delay in reassigning an incompetent psychiatrist put
patients at risk, waste of state funds

57

I2009-1203

Misuse of state resources

15

Fish and Game, Department of, Office of Spill
Prevention and Response

I2006-1125

Improper travel expenses

51

Fish and Game, Department of

I2009-0601

Misuse of a state vehicle, improper travel reimbursements

33

General Services, Department of

I2008-1024

Misuse of state resources

56

Industrial Relations, Department of

I2008-0902

Failure to monitor adequately employees’ time reporting

39

Mental Health, Department of

I2009-0644

Waste of state funds, misuse of state resources

State Controller’s Office

I2009-1476

Failure to report absences, failure to monitor adequately
an employee’s time reporting

43

Transportation, Department of

I2008-0731

Inexcusable neglect of duty

27

5

63

64

California State Auditor Report I2011-1

August 2011

cc:	

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press