California State Worker Accused of Exaggerating Past Work Experience, May Have To Repay $250K

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) - A California Department of Fish and Wildlife senior manager fabricated his past management experience in order to be promoted and ended up getting paid $234,717 as a result of the fabrication and now he's required under state law to pay the full amount back due to his dishonesty.

The information came out in the State Auditor Whistleblower report. It reviewed more than 800 cases, including 84 cases involving allegations of improper hiring or other violations of civil service rules from July 1, 2018-December 31, 2018.

Of those 84 cases, the agency conducted preliminary investigative work on 24 of them. Of those, investigators obtained sufficient evidence in six cases, allowing them to launch thorough investigations.

The branch chief who misrepresented his experience was promoted in May 2016. He had worked at the state for 10 years before that, but did not supervise any employees. He had only served as a non-supervisory staff services manager I for nine months at the time he applied for the new position, which was classified as a staff services manager III. In order to qualify for an SSM III position, candidates would be eligible following one of four ways:

• One year of experience in California state service performing the duties of an SSM II.
• One year of experience in California state service with responsibilities equivalent to those of an SSM II.
• Two years of experience in California state service performing the duties of an SSM I.
• Five years outside of California state service with increasing responsibility in management, personnel, fiscal, planning, program evaluation, or related analytical experience. At least two years of this experience must be in a supervisory capacity, with a level of responsibility not less than that of an SSM II.

The candidate's application for the SSM III position stated he worked full-time as a general manager at a small retail store. However, a review of his past applications showed different descriptions.

As part of the investigation, the state contacted the small business to verify employment and discovered the branch chief's dad actually owned the business and served as his son's supervisor. The report states:

"When we asked the father to describe his son's duties during those six years, he stated that the branch chief worked part time through high school, college, and after graduation performing delivery, counter sales, and cashier duties. The father further described that the branch chief worked as a full‑time employee only during school breaks and that his sole supervisory duties involved occasionally overseeing two to three employees on the weekends when his father needed a day off. When we asked about the discrepancies in the ways that he had characterized his work experience, the branch chief admitted that he realized he was "short" on meeting the minimum qualifications when he saw the job advertisement, and he agreed that he had "embellished" his experience and 'probably made [his general manager experience] look a little bit better than' it actually was. He admitted to having mischaracterized his experience in the following ways:

• He did not hire or fire employees.
• He did not schedule staff.
• He did not regularly prepare monthly or quarterly sales and earnings for his father's business.

When we asked why his salary claims differed so greatly between the two applications, he asserted that he had included monthly and yearly sales bonuses in the significantly higher representation of his salary."

The state requires all SSM III candidates to complete a competitive exam prior to applying. That exam requires candidates to attest to the following facts:

• "I hereby assert my intention to provide information that is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that contains no willful misrepresentations or falsifications.
• I understand that, if it is later determined that I did make any false or inaccurate representations in any of my responses, I may be removed from this examination and/or the eligible list(s) resulting from the examination, suffer loss of state employment, and/or suffer loss of the right to compete in any
  future State of California hiring processes.
• I understand that I am the person solely responsible for the accuracy of the responses I provide."

The exam also asks candidates to state how many months they've served in supervisory roles before they're allowed to continue with the test. Candidates must also sign their job applications under penalty of perjury.

The supervisor who hired the branch chief said he thought Fish and Wildlife's Human Resources staff confirmed employment records and verified candidate's met the minimum qualifications. He also contacted the candidate's most recent references and got positive reviews.

The auditor determined the branch chief "acted in bad faith" and that the State of California could "void his improper appointment." Additionally, the branch chief is required, by state law, to reimburse the compensation he received from the improper appointment. From May 2016-December 2018 the branch chief was paid $234,717.

Fish and Wildlife is now conducting its own investigation and will take "appropriate administrative, corrective, or disciplinary action."