| Written by Suzanne Flynn & Drummond Kahn,
|
Drummond Kahn is Chief of Internal Audit Services for the Oregon Department of Transportation and Suzanne Flynn is the Multnomah County Auditor. They have agreed to disagree for this Local Government Audit Quarterly column.
 | Why Suzanne Flynn Prefers the Use of “At Will” Staff
An audit is no better than the auditor who conducts it. When I am hiring an auditor I look for good organization, an ability to work independently as well as in a team, the ability to listen and also communicate effectively, problem resolution, the ability to establish priorities and apply good judgment, and analytical and research skills. |
Experience in government or management in other types of positions is also preferable. And finally, an auditor needs a good sense of humor, strong personal integrity, and a desire to improve government.
Easy to find? No. That is why recruiting and hiring is critical in ensuring audit quality. Auditing tools, techniques, and standards can be learned on-the-job, but finding employees who have a good foundation in the needed skills and experiences is difficult. Hiring auditors “at will” is the best method for maintaining an office with competent and committed staff. As an employer of “at will” staff, I have control over how a position is advertised, what qualifications will be weighted higher than others, how quickly the process proceeds, and at what level to place new hires. I can consider candidates based upon what each adds relative to the current mix in the office.
When I was looking for a job almost 15 years ago, I came across an advertisement in the newspaper that was intriguing. It was for a management auditor (something that I had never heard of) and seemed to require skills similar to those I had acquired in previous jobs. It was listed in the “P” section of the ads under program evaluation. A week passed as I considered whether to apply. I checked the newspaper again to see if the position was still advertised. The ad was there but now the job was listed in the “A” section and the skills that were emphasized were more financially and auditing oriented. At that point, the job did not seem as interesting and I did not apply. Finally I reviewed the ad one more time in the next week. Again the wording had been changed and once again it sounded interesting. I applied, interviewed, and was hired by Gary Blackmer in the Multnomah County Auditor’s Office. Later I learned that he had battled with the County’s personnel department over where to place the ad and the wording to be used. The ads that he designed and had placed in the “P” section were those that recruited me. This single event taught me the importance of ad wording and placement. It also illustrated the value of having “at will” staff over having to follow civil service requirements.
Civil service is a broken system that makes it difficult to hire the best staff. Civil service requires standardization and ignores diversity. I have worked in state and local government for over 30 years. In almost every place I worked tremendous effort was required to counteract the effects of the civil service system. Managers who were seriously committed to hiring the best had to “play the game” and learn ways to get around this anachronistic and cumbersome hiring process. Even if strong candidates applied, by the time that HR finished reviewing the applications those candidates were already snapped up by more adept employers who are able to review applications sooner than the standard 1 ½ to 2 months that it took in a civil service system.
In the pursuit of fairness, judgment is all but removed from the civil service process. Applications are reviewed by HR without an adequate understanding of the job needs. Applicants are scored based upon whether they meet minimum requirements and whether the application contained key words that have been identified as qualifiers for the position. Judgment and weighing alternatives are removed from the process. Managers are forced to consider only those who scored higher according to HR developed criteria. In an “at will” system, candidates with tremendous potential but less experience can also be considered.
Some have a concern that if auditors are “at will” there is a higher risk that independence will be compromised. Auditors will be threatened with capricious firing if they audit sensitive areas. However, independence is not guaranteed if the auditor is civil service. There are many subtle ways to threaten employees short of firing. An employee who “rocks the boat” can find that her assignments are the least desirable. Employees can be shunned by their peers and even suffer “joking” comments for their inflexibility in applying audit standards. Further, lawsuits involving a plaintiff suing over a hostile workplace environment often occur in organizations where employees are supposedly protected by civil service requirements.
It is the auditor’s personal integrity that guarantees auditor independence. As we heard from Cynthia Cooper, Time Magazine Person of the Year, at the recent ALGA conference, when faced with exposing fraud for her there was no choice. Hiring an auditor who accepts a job knowing it is “at will” and because of personal goals and beliefs ensures that same type of employee.
Finally, being “at will” does not mean you are at the whim of a capricious employer. Most job applicants consider their employer’s management style and philosophy before accepting a position. A prospective employee, and one that I want to hire, will also approach the hiring process as an opportunity to judge the prospective employer. As an employer of “at will” staff I am committed to fairness and equity. Although more effective and efficient than a civil service process, I too have a process that is designed to consider everybody equally. Our office has policies and procedures that outline expectations and how performance will be evaluated. Procedures also outline measures that will be taken when performance is not meeting expectations. And finally, “at will” employees have the full protection of the law against retaliatory discharges and discriminatory acts.
 | Why Drummond Kahn Prefers Civil Service Protection for Staff
Professional auditing standards are the main separation between auditors and other professions (like management analysts or budget officers). Auditors should not be "at-will" employees, because making them "serve at the pleasure" of another official could cause pressure in audit topic selection or even the contents of a report. |
Exceptions are that some auditors can't have Civil Service protection -- specifically those who themselves are elected officials (since the public decides whether to hire a replacement).
And speaking of “at-will” and “at the pleasure of”, think about those terms for a moment – “will” and “pleasure” are fairly subjective terms for our objective profession as government auditors. I can understand that political appointees are “at-will”, and I appreciate the notion in some work environments. But, in our chosen field of government auditing, this should not be the only basis for a continued livelihood. Some supervisors might be pleased with audits that lead to improvements, while others might want to avoid controversy.
I agree with Suzanne on most of these issues – recruiting and hiring are important, and it’s tough to find excellent auditors. Where we disagree is on her point that “at will” hiring best maintains competent and committed staff. As a civil service manager hiring other civil service employees, I, too, have control over advertising, qualifications, and other personnel issues. Civil service practices, like hiring though a competitive process, are helpful – interviews and hiring structure help moderate the process and ensure that qualified civil servants are hired and retained. We’ve worked effectively with our agency and state human resources personnel to craft both Position Description and position advertising language that best reflects our needs for auditor hiring. I think this process is effective in a Civil Service environment.
I, too, was once recruited into a job from the “P” section of the “Help Wanted” ads – the ad read “Performance Auditor” and was also duplicated in the general ads under “Auditor”. Through a civil service process, the panel met many applicants and made a hiring decision through a competitive process. Our position announcements are advertised widely to attract the best-qualified candidates.
I’d agree that all systems, including the civil service system, could benefit from review and improvement. We’re now able to make good and quick decisions within this system – as an example, we had an auditor vacancy this January – we advertised while the resigning employee was still here, interviewed during January, and had an offer and acceptance by mid-February, less than five weeks after the departure. We had a second similarly efficient process resulting in an April hire. Both recruitments were worked effectively with Human Resources within the civil service system.
The use of HR as an initial reviewer of applicants sounds like a justified concern, but a concern with the position description and scoring process, rather than a problem unique to civil service. In a recruitment several years ago, our department “underfilled” a position with a highly competent individual who did not, at the time, meet one of the specific qualifications.
I agree that “civil service” is not a carte blanche guarantee of employment – nor should it be – it simply provides a clear structure for hiring and removal, as well as an appeal process, that some “at-will” environments don’t have. There are both good and bad work environments at both civil service and at-will employers. My position is that for government auditors (those who aren’t elected), some sense of structure and process to hiring and firing decisions stands the organization in better stead than an environment with less structure and process.
A competitive recruiting process, paired with regular performance appraisals, should provide all of the necessary protection for an organization in hiring and retaining auditors. The notion that civil servants are hard to fire is true, but it’s certainly possible to manage performance of civil servants as well as at-will employees. The difference is “cause”. While I agree that most good managers would only take action for cause (even on “at-will” employees), there’s no assurance that a new, poor manager/auditor wouldn’t take employment action without cause. In other words, an auditor might be happy to work in an “at-will” environment with people who are trusted and respected, but for auditors who find themselves in other environments, civil service protection becomes important.
Retention of a professional auditor should not be based on how "agreeable" management deems the report contents, but rather on whether the auditor followed professional standards. Bad news from an audit does not necessarily mean that the auditor performed badly. Civil Service protection is not “carte blanche” to perform poorly – instead, this protection assures management, staff, and the public that employment actions have reasons and that competent auditing with controversial results won’t hurt the author’s employment situation.
Poor auditing (or audit conclusions reached without evidence or analysis) is manifest in incomplete working papers, conclusions made without support, and other visible and actionable evidence of poor job performance. "At will" status is not needed to take employment action, should an auditor fail to meet basic standards.
If an auditor was hired "for cause", based on their work experience, education, and professional history, then they should only be fired "for cause". Poor performance provides ample "cause" to take employment action, so this stance should help preserve audit quality while safeguarding auditors who do good audit work and follow standards, but reach unpopular conclusions.
While some managers fail to take action with poorly-performing employees, I’d argue that this is probably true in both “at-will” and Civil Service environments. But well-defined job objectives, regular appraisals, and appropriate personnel actions can improve audit office operations in either context. The fact that Civil Service hiring and discipline might take longer shouldn’t justify placing all employees at higher career risk, when they’re doing good work and following standards.
Thorough recruiting and regular performance appraisals can help ensure that good auditors are hired and retained. My personal interest in public service has been equally strong in both “at-will” and civil service jobs I’ve held in the federal and state government, and I’ve observed no difference in the vision of staff members in either environment. Civil service and “at-will” environments both host excellent, visionary auditors.
|
Quarterly Articles