Overview
The Human Resources Division (HRD) did not ensure that each state agency that was operating during the audit period submitted an affirmative action plan and a diversity plan in a timely manner, nor did it implement any remedial courses of action for those state agencies that submitted these plans late. Of the 62 state agencies that were required to submit affirmative action plans and diversity plans during the audit period, we found the following.
- Out of 20 state agencies, 14 submitted their affirmative action plans late, ranging from 13 to 351 days past the due date.
- Out of 20 state agencies, 12 submitted their diversity plans late, ranging from 95 to 304 days past the due date.
- Additionally, for the 26 affirmative action plans and diversity plans in our sample that state agencies submitted late, HRD’s Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity (ODEO) did not send any follow-up communications to any state agencies, nor did HRD take any remedial courses of action.
If HRD does not ensure that each state agency submits the required affirmative action plans and diversity plans in a timely manner, then residents of the Commonwealth cannot be sure of the following:
- whether state agency employees represent the demographics of the Commonwealth and
- whether state agencies take necessary measures to implement Executive Order (EO) 592 “to ensure that,” as EO 592 states, “non-discrimination, diversity, and equal opportunity are safeguarded, promoted, and reflected in state workplaces.”
Authoritative Guidance
Bullet point 10 of Section 7 of HRD’s Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 592 states,
Investigate instances of non-compliance with plan submission and reporting requirements and, where appropriate, determine and impose remedial courses of action, including the suspension of a non-compliant agency’s authority to post a new position or the imposition of a freeze on all personnel requisitions and appointment forms submitted by any non-compliant agency to the Chief Human Resources Officer.
ODEO’s “Accountability Policy for Affirmative Action Plans for Executive Branch Agencies,” dated March 2021, states,
ODEO also publishes an annual calendar of specific due dates for Affirmative Action, Diversity Plans and Progress reports. Affirmative Action and Diversity Plans are developed every two years. . . .
The Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity shall initiate a review process after the stated due date for submission of Affirmative Action and Diversity Plans to determine compliance. Agencies that did not comply with established due dates will be deemed non-compliant and will trigger ODEO’s escalation process. In our efforts to assist you in being compliant as standard practices our communications around missed deadlines will be as follows:
| Plan Overdue | ODEO Action |
| 3 days | Reminder to Agency Diversity Director with copy to Secretariat Diversity Director |
| One week | Reminder to Agency Diversity Officer with copy to Secretariat Diversity Director. Notice of late submission made to [the chief human resources officer] with recommendation for hiring freeze until agency is compliant. |
| Two weeks | Hiring Freeze on all personnel transactions until compliant. |
Reasons for Noncompliance
HRD officials told us that HRD followed up with the noncompliant state agencies that were late using phone calls and emails. HRD was unable to provide us with evidence of phone calls made, but HRD did provide us with examples of some of the email communications. However, we determined that these email communications did not take place within the required timeframes. Additionally, HRD did not have monitoring controls to ensure that HRD sent follow-up communications within the required timeframes.
HRD management further explained that during the audit period, the Governor issued EO 595, which required state agency employees to demonstrate that they received a COVID-19 vaccination, unless they were approved for either a medical or a religious exemption. EO 595 also required HRD to establish and issue a written policy, within 60 days of EO 595’s issuance, for state agencies to follow in order for both HRD and the state agencies to be in compliance with EO 595’s vaccination mandate. This caused ODEO employees and state agency diversity directors and diversity officers to shift priorities in order to process over 2,500 requests for religious and medical exemptions for those state agency employees seeking to retain employment under EO 595 by the deadline of October 17, 2021. Furthermore, ODEO did not execute a hiring freeze because of the significant loss of employees (resulting from noncompliance of employees regarding EO 595’s vaccine mandate, as well as retirements, resignations, or terminations), and difficulty in filling vacant positions. Moreover, in an email HRD management sent to us on August 28, 2023, HRD stated,
To execute a hiring freeze in the midst of staff losses and difficulty in filling vacant positions seemed counterproductive and further contribute to the crisis as staff losses were especially high in the healthcare and public safety agencies.
We requested evidence that HRD notified the Office of the Governor about the noncompliance and whether the Office of the Governor was aware of and approved HRD’s decision not to impose any remedial courses of action. However, HRD did not have any evidence to provide to us.
Recommendations
- HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls to ensure that HRD sends follow-up communications to state agencies within the timeframe established for noncompliant state agencies that have not submitted affirmative action plans and/or diversity plans.
- HRD should develop, document, and implement monitoring controls to ensure that HRD notifies the chief human resources officer with a recommendation for remedial courses of action until a state agency is compliant.
Auditee’s Response
HRD/ODEO acknowledges there is an opportunity for improvement in our current process. HRD followed the 20219 recommendations of the Audit team and implemented tighter controls aimed at ensuring more timely submissions of affirmative action and diversity plans. We also developed an accountability policy to enhance these processes further. However, the fact remains that [affirmative action] and [diversity] plans were not submitted in a timely manner.
HRD/ODEO provided an explanation of the re-prioritization of priorities during the implementation of EO595. It appears no consideration was given to this document in your final review. I am including the full statement below as an abbreviated version appears in the draft audit report: “To execute a hiring freeze in the midst of staff losses and difficulty in filling vacant positions seemed counterproductive and further contribute to the crisis as staff losses were especially high in the healthcare and public safety agencies. Therefore, during these unprecedented times, we concentrated our energies to continuing to work with the agencies to assist them in the submission of their plans.”
We will make further enhancements to our processes and documentation.
Auditor’s Reply
We commend HRD for its efforts to implement tighter controls and develop an accountability policy to ensure the timely submission of affirmative action and diversity plans. We understand the need for HRD to reprioritize its responsibilities during the audit period due to the implementation of EO 595. However, HRD did not provide us with evidence to support that a determination was made by HRD and approved by the Office of the Governor to pause HRD’s remedial course of action process (i.e., HRD would not impose any remedial courses of action for noncompliant state agencies) during the audit period. Furthermore, HRD did not provide us with evidence that it followed its remedial course of action process and sent communications regarding missed deadlines within the required timeframes.
HRD implemented some of the recommendations from our prior audits, and we strongly encourage it to implement our recommendations from this audit.
| Date published: | July 5, 2024 |
|---|