The committee met at 8:49 a.m.

[B. D’Eith in the chair.]

B. D’Eith (Chair): It’s very nice to be here today. We have financial and operational updates from statutory officers.

Today we have with us the Office of the Merit Commissioner — Fiona Spencer.

Welcome.

Financial and Operational Updates
from Statutory Officers

OFFICE OF THE MERIT COMMISSIONER

F. Spencer: Thanks for this opportunity to share with you how we’re making progress on fulfilling our mandate. I have with me today Dave Van Swieten, who is our executive director of corporate shared services. Dave was just mentioning to me this morning that this is his 30th appearance before this committee, so he’s a real pro.

On April 3, our 2018-19 annual report was tabled. I’ve provided you copies to use as a reference, if that’s helpful at all. As you may know, in accordance with the Public Service Act, the Merit Commissioner has three major responsibilities: to conduct random audits of appointments to and within the B.C. public service, to act as the final level of review for appointment decisions at the request of unsuccessful employee applicants and to conduct reviews of processes related to eligible just-cause dismissals from the public service.

[8:50 a.m.]

I’d just like to talk about progress in each of these areas over the past fiscal year and our plans for the current year and, of course, the budget implications.

With respect to audits of appointments, audit activity goes on continually. However, we do sample quarterly and report on our audits of appointments on a fiscal year basis. We completed the audit of approximately 260 appointments, which occurred in 2017-18. Included in this number were appointments from seven different inventory processes, which involved a combined total of over 9,000 applicants.

Our sample of the almost 7,000 eligible appointments, which occurred in the B.C. Public Service in that fiscal year, was sufficient to enable us to generalize the results of our audits to the bigger population. From our audits, we make findings related to the selection process, the individual appointed and the quality of the documentation. We report results of individual audits to responsible deputy ministers, and the Deputy Minister of the Public Service Agency. We also prepare a comprehensive analysis of results and publish a report.

We found that, consistent with past audits, 57 percent of appointments had some form of error. We did find, however, improvements in the overall number of errors found, which we consider to be positive progress in hiring practice.

While some errors had significant consequences, many had no identifiable negative impact on the outcome of the process and are fixable with attention to detail or training. Areas where focus is needed include the phase of selection where candidates are shortlisted and the determination is made who will be given further consideration in the hiring process.

I’m pleased to report that with very few exceptions, we found that individuals appointed met the requirements of the position to which they were appointed. Once again, we found no evidence of patronage or partisanship in audited B.C. Public Service appointments.

Last fiscal year we also completed a special audit of auxiliary appointments — these are appointments which are hires for short-term or special requirements — and a special audit of direct appointments, which are appointments that are made without competition. In both these audits, we found no or limited risk to merit-based hiring.

We’ve recently completed the audit of appointments made in the first half of the 2018-19 fiscal year and reported the results to deputy ministers and the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency, and we’re actively engaged in audits of appointments made in the last half of the fiscal year.

Once again, we’re being faced with the need to audit a number of inventory processes, and it’s predicted this method of hiring will be more frequently used in the future. Our priority in this area will be to consult with the hiring bodies and work internally to delve into new approaches being taken to hiring, to modify our audit process to ensure it adequately covers such processes and to increase efficiency in our practice.

Also, with the increased use of eligibility lists to facilitate appointments, we have been observing some practices which may pose a risk to merit-based hiring. We’ll undertake a study of these practices to assess the risk they may pose and where improvements may be possible.

Before moving on, I’d just like to mention that I recently met with the president of the Public Service Commission of Canada. In the past, we’ve shared with this federal body our approach to audit and oversight of hiring practices, and I was pleased to hear they have recently modified their federal audit program to a program that’s been based on our approach. So I’m very proud that we can consider ourselves a best-practice organization and a model in this regard.

With respect to staffing reviews, in 2017-18, we saw the highest number of requests for reviews since the office was established. That’s 25. In 2018-19, we once again received 25 requests for review. This unusually high activity has created workload pressures over the last two years.

Grounds which employees put forth for requesting reviews have included insufficient or inappropriate consideration of education and/or experience, unfair marking of test or interview responses, improper consideration of past work performance and bias in the hiring process. We give priority to the investigation and consideration of review requests and have set ourselves the standard of a 30-day response time. Given the high level of activity in the past two years, we’re discussing how best to address this unpredictable workload while respecting our quality standards.

[8:55 a.m.]

Dismissal process reviews are a new area, an additional mandate for the Office of the Merit Commissioner. Since the amendment to the legislation a year ago April resulted in this additional mandate for the office, we’ve undertaken work to prepare for the review of dismissal processes. This work has included an environmental scan of other jurisdictions to independently validate the B.C. Public Service approach to just cause dismissals.

We found some variations, but overall, we found the practice here to be in keeping with standard best practices. We’ve addressed resourcing issues by transferring, reassigning duties within our existing workforce and have prepared to bring on new staff should the workload dictate the requirement once we start this review process.

We’ve contracted with legal experts to review the legislation, clarify rules and responsibilities, to finalize our methodology for review and develop protocols for information-sharing. Many administrative and systems procedures have been developed, tested and put in place, and we are reconfiguring our existing office space to accommodate staff necessary to fulfil our entire mandate. Finally, we’ve contracted with a labour relations expert to conduct file reviews as they become eligible.

Throughout this development work, I’ve been pleased with the excellent cooperation of the B.C. Public Service Agency. For the most part, this work has gone smoothly. There are currently outstanding and unresolved issues related to our ability to access relevant legal advice. I’m hopeful that this may be addressed quickly so that reviews of files will not be hampered or delayed.

Once we’ve commenced reviews of dismissal files, work should start later this month as the first dismissal process becomes eligible for review. We’ll be in a position to amend or refine our processes as needed. Otherwise, work ahead of us includes the finalization of information-sharing protocols; the clarification of the list of agencies, boards and commissions which are subject to this oversight; the development of a practice agreement with the agency related to information-gathering from these organizations; the development of a reporting format and procedures; and a communications strategy.

Now, just to talk a little bit about our budget. In 2018-19, the office was allocated a budget of $1.141 million. Last May when I appeared before this committee, I indicated that based on the change to statutory responsibilities, we would likely need access to contingency funding later in the fiscal year, but at that time, I was not in a position to provide an estimate. In November 2018, based on work completed as of that date and our best estimate of costs for the balance of the fiscal year, I requested access to up to $75,000 in contingencies. This request was subsequently approved.

The office was able to manage existing funds so that by the end of the fiscal year, only approximately $37,000 of the contingency funding was required. The office was allocated a budget of $1.365 million for the current fiscal year. Given this is a start-up year with respect to our additional mandate, it’s difficult to predict with certainty what the financial requirements may be with respect to that work. However, based on expenditures to date and what we are anticipating with respect to the volume of activity, unless there are unforeseen circumstances, I’m confident that the office will be able to manage within this allocation and no further request for access to contingencies will be necessary.

Those are my remarks, and I’m happy to take any questions.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Any questions?

R. Coleman: I have a couple questions for you, and tell me whether I’m going in a place that you can’t actually touch. Before I get to the one question, can you explain to me your inventory practices — what that means?

F. Spencer: Inventory practices — it’s a method of hiring when you’re anticipating a large number of similar-type appointments in any fixed period. Rather than running a competitive process for one or two positions at a time, you run a huge process and fill what’s called a candidate inventory so that when managers have positions to fill, they go to that inventory where individuals are prequalified to a certain extent, pull them and then finish the selection process.

R. Coleman: Great, thank you.

You mentioned you had some interesting stuff you can do with legal counsel to clarify, and I didn’t quite catch what you’re doing to clarify with your legal counsel. Can you…?

[9:00 a.m.]

F. Spencer: To clarify?

R. Coleman: Yeah.

F. Spencer: Well, the legislation says that we’re to conduct oversight of dismissal processes for ministries and then agencies, boards and commissions. Obviously, it’s for those agencies, boards and commissions who may dismiss employees under section 22 of the Public Service Act.

Given the volume of those, it’s not entirely clear what that list consists of. We’re having to go through a process where we look at the legislation or the regulations that pertain to each of those and determine whether or not they actually fall within my mandate.

Once that’s determined, there is an issue around how we are to gather information from them, because they don’t necessarily use the services of the B.C. Public Service Agency for advice on dismissal policy or get the normal sorts of approvals that are required in the broader public service. So there’s some of that clarity needed.

R. Coleman: When you deal with the Public Service Agency, maybe you could ask them a question for me. It’s this. I had the experience of a transition of government from one side to the other. A number of people were what you would call OIC appointments — right? — in minister’s offices who were automatically terminated on their contract, because they serve at pleasure. But they actually cannot step back in and go to work somewhere unless they take full severance, because the Public Service Agency doesn’t recognize caucuses as continuing employers for people that work within this building in the public service.

They actually take that approach, and then as a result, it incurs an unnecessary liability on the continuation of employment for an employee and moves the liability from the Public Service Agency or from, in this case, Vote 1, which is the Legislative Assembly, to a caucus. As an example, you could have somebody working for 15, 20 years in one of our caucuses, for instance. A changeover in government takes place, and the liability for their severance flows to the caucus, who doesn’t have a budget for it. The PSA says: “Well, we don’t recognize the continuation of employment, because a caucus employee is not a public service employee, and an OIC appointment is neither of the above.”

It sort of makes it a bit confusing for the management. I don’t know why there’s this discrepancy. Now, it may be outside your scope. But somewhere I’m going to get the answer, so I thought I’d ask you. You’re the first one. You mentioned the PSA, so I had to ask the question.

F. Spencer: So you got that in.

Well, I understand what you’re saying. It is. It’s totally outside my mandate, but I will certainly indicate to the Deputy Minister of the Public Service Agency your concern. I’m sure he’ll have a look and see what you’ve said here and address it, as appropriate.

R. Coleman: Just tell him to give me a call.

Thank you.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thanks, Rich.

Any other questions?

N. Simons: I just had a couple of questions — sort of detailed. With the increase in staffing and your increase in the requirement for office space, how did you manage that with recent additions to your office?

F. Spencer: You’re talking about increase in staffing in my office?

N. Simons: Yes.

F. Spencer: Oh, okay.

Well, we haven’t had to increase significantly. The mandate that we have is really…. We’re feeling our way as to what the volume of the work would be. What we’ve done is we have reallocated some duties internally. We’ve contracted out, but we’ve determined that we would likely require one extra person at the most.

What we’ve done is we’ve decided to, rather than expand, reconfigure our current space. As you know, some of these walls are very movable. We’ve taken down movable walls. We’re reconstructing a bit of an office, and we’ll squeeze whatever was in that previous space into other spaces.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Sounds excellent.

Any other questions?

Okay, well, thank you very much for the update. We really appreciate all the work that you’re doing. I know you have this new challenge, so thank you for all the due diligence on that.

I really look forward to hearing, once you actually get into it, what the reality is of the changes to legislation. We’ll look forward to that.

F. Spencer: Thank you. Yes, we’ve been preparing for this, and we’re very anxious, too, to see how this all goes in the next little while. I look forward to seeing you in the fall.

Thanks for your time.

B. D’Eith (Chair): Thank you very much.

Any other business?

Motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:04 a.m.