State auditor tells committee HR discipline cases suffer delays, sparse decision records

State Auditor Doug told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 4, 2025, that state human-resources investigations were generally completed in a timely fashion but appointing authorities often delayed final disciplinary decisions and rarely kept written records explaining those decisions.

The auditor said the audits in question date to February 2017 and that recommendation follow-ups showed mixed adoption: as of a 2020 follow-up, HR had adopted or partially adopted six of 10 recommendations while four recommendations were not adopted, three of those without explanation. "Sometimes, an auditee will say we don't have the resources," Doug said; "in this case, they just said we're not gonna do that. I like the honesty, but it's an interesting subject."

Why it matters: the auditor told the committee that delays by appointing authorities can increase costs, harm morale and leave work undone. He said paid leave for employees removed from duties averaged more than $1.5 million per year in the period after the audit and that the cumulative cost since the audit period could be in the range of $10 million to $15 million. "I was shocked when I heard about the money thing," he said. The auditor also noted the overall state budget context, saying the administration operates an approximately $8 billion budget.

Key findings and discussion

- Investigations vs. decisions: The auditor said HR's investigative units generally met internal timelines, but once HR forwarded investigation results to appointing authorities (commissioners, secretaries or deputies), those authorities often took months to decide disciplinary outcomes. "If you're not gonna fire somebody, then why not just bring them back to the office?" Doug said, describing operational strains when positions remain unfilled during lengthy cases.

- Documentation gaps: The audit found little written documentation that showed how appointing authorities reached disciplinary decisions or how decisions were calibrated across comparable cases. "There weren't a lot of records in that regard," the auditor said, adding that absence of such records makes it impossible to judge whether decisions were applied equitably.

- Recommendations and follow-up: The auditor described three clusters of recommendations the office made in 2017: (1) compile and preserve more comprehensive employee histories for decision-makers; (2) document appointing-authority reasons for final decisions; and (3) establish timeframes for resolution beyond HR's investigatory goals. HR accepted some recommendations but explicitly declined to compile comprehensive decision-support records.

- Cost and due process: The auditor acknowledged the role of due process and union representation in stretching timelines. "I couldn't be happier to live in a society that has due process," he said, while also warning that prolonged processes drive expense.

Committee response and next steps

Committee members asked for copies of the audit and follow-up reports; the auditor said he would send them to committee staff. Committee members also discussed inviting Department of Human Resources representatives for further questioning. A committee member said the panel would hear DHR officials the following day around 1:30 p.m. to follow up on the recommendations and HR's current practices.

The hearing contained questions from multiple senators and staff about timing, records and costs, but no formal committee votes or binding decisions were taken during this session.

Ending

The committee scheduled further discussion with DHR representatives for the next day to probe outstanding recommendations and to seek updated information on current practices and timelines.