THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Audit shows State Parks violated payroll rules


image_pdfimage_print

By Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee

Dozens of employees at the state Department of Parks and Recreation were inappropriately paid for working outside their job classification, according to an audit by the State Controller’s Office released Tuesday.

These “out-of-class” work assignments may have cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars beyond the misuse of funds at the department that has been previously reported.

The audit was triggered by a Sacramento Bee investigation, published in July, that revealed a secret vacation buyout program offered to employees at parks headquarters in Sacramento. This program cost taxpayers more than $271,000, which would have been sufficient to save a half-dozen parks from closure as a result of state budget cuts.

The Controller’s Office opted not to probe the vacation buyout further, saying prior investigations by internal auditors and the Attorney General’s Office had been adequate. However, it did find that an additional three people received vacation buyout payments, for a total of 59. The amount of money paid to these additional three employees is not revealed.

The audit focuses primarily on other revelations involving parks employees allowed to work in positions above their usual pay grade, often done to temporarily fill a staff vacancy.

Auditors found 203 employees over a three-year period were assigned to these “out-of-class” assignments at state parks. It remains unclear whether all of these were improper, because the department did not follow required record-keeping procedures before approving the assignments.

In many cases, managers circumvented the usual process to approve out-of-class work assignments so that the employee could begin the assignment without the required paperwork.

The audit says this practice “presents a serious risk of abuse or fraud.”

“There’s a number of different rules that were violated here,” said Jacob Roper, a spokesman for the Controller’s Office.

Because of the inadequate documentation, the controller could not determine how much money was inappropriately paid to employees working above their pay grade. It directed the Parks Department to figure that out and seek reimbursement from the employees.

In one potential example, however, it found that 17 employees worked beyond the required 120-day limit in their out-of-class assignment. These cases, which clearly violate state rules, amounted to an expense of $38,900.

In a Nov. 30 written response to the audit, Aaron Robertson, chief deputy director at state parks, said all the affected employees were qualified to work in the out-of-class assignments. The primary issue was that required procedures were not followed.

The letter states the department will seek reimbursement from employees who inappropriately received out-of-class salary payments.

“In general,” Robertson wrote, “we acknowledge and it is widely known that some very unfortunate events occurred at the Department of Parks and Recreation.”

 

 

 

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (2)
  1. Steve says - Posted: December 20, 2012

    For state government bureaucrats, business as usual. Inadequate oversight, incompetent management, wasteful spending, engorging at the public trough. Higher taxes. Pathetic.

  2. ljames says - Posted: December 20, 2012

    what a minute – my boss asks me to cover for a higher, unfilled position – some sort of paper work is filled to get me a temporary pay increase (how else would I have gotten the extra pay). Some additional paperwork is required (presumably by either human resources or the supervisor) which is not completed – and the state wants to take the pay back from the employee? Can the employee take back the work they did? This is absurd and people are just looking for politically charged scapegoats.

    I still have yet to read a description of what went on at state parks, with a clear understanding of how state budgets work and how money is coded for different functions and what can be transferred from one function to another, that makes sense? The implication that this “extra pay” was available for operational budgets at a specific park is not likley to be true.