ARCHIVED - Management Practices Review of the Policy and Strategic Direction Sector

Archived information

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Date: September 2009

PDF Version (950 kb, 23 Pages)

 

 

Table of Contents


Review Objectives

Methodology

Context

Human Resources – Background

* The HR statistics presented in this report are based on the HR Dashboard - PSD for April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008

Observations – Human Resources

  1. Some challenges were encountered in locating HR files for testing staffing actions and inconsistency was noted between HQ HR files and HR files drawn from Vancouver in the level of documentation and in the extent of use of checklists.

  2. Of the 20 staffing actions tested, the following exceptions were noted:

    1. In 12 HR files (from HQ), 3 job requisitions could not be located

    2. In 2 transactions (a Determinate FT and a Casual FT) - the job requisition was approved after the employment started

    3. In 1 transaction (a Casual FT) - the job requisition approval date was not documented, rendering it impossible to assess if employment started before or after the job requisition approval

    4. In 2 transactions (A Non-advertised Determinate FT and a Non-advertised Indeterminate FT) - staffing action files did not include a candidate assessment mapping the resume to the Statement of Merit Criteria as required for Non-advertised positions

    5. 1 transaction (an acting position) - no resume of the applicant was included in the file

    6. 3 transactions (an Indeterminate FT and 2 acting appointments of more than 4 months) - no evidence was on file that the staffing action was included in the HR Plan

    7. 2 transactions (an Indeterminate FT and a Determinate FT) - staffing action file did not contain sufficient and appropriate assessment of information to support the appointment decision on the candidate

    8. 1 transaction (an acting appointment) - original acting appointment of 5 months was extended 7 months with no justification on file. Furthermore, no notice was sent to potential candidates for the original appointment

    9. In 3 transactions (3 acting appointments) - there was no letter of offer on file

    10. In 2 transactions - the letter of offer was not signed

    11. In 8 staffing action files (6 from Vancouver and 2 from Ottawa) - no evidence that the checklist was used

    12. In 8 transactions - letter of employment was signed after employment started

  3. Of the 5 leave transactions tested, one leave transaction was approved approximately 3 months after the vacation was taken.

  4. Of the 5 overtime transactions tested, 5 did not demonstrate evidence of pre-approval, 1 was signed and dated after the overtime was worked, 3 were signed but not dated, and 1 was neither signed nor dated.

  5. Of the 5 samples selected for classification actions, one classification action was approved after the effective date of the new position.

  6. Of 5 employees selected, no learning plan was completed for one employee within the 3 month period required by Policy.

Observations - Other

  1. All 5 Responsibility Center Managers selected for testing had a valid financial delegated authority.

  2. Based on the 2 performance agreements sampled, personal performance objectives are aligned with the Sector's objectives.

Grants & Contributions – Background

Observations – Grants and Contributions

Observations – Contracting

  1. In all 5 of the sole source contracts tested there was no justification on file for sole source contracting and contract work had commenced prior to signing of the contract.

  2. In 1 of the transactions - there was no requisition form on file stating RCM approval (Section 32).

  3. Of the 10 competitive contracts tested (over $25,000), the following did not comply fully with contracting policies:

    1. In 6 transactions - contract work had commenced prior to signing of the contract.

    2. In 4 transactions - there was no justification on file for contract amendments.

    3. In 2 transactions - no requisition form indicating RCM approval (Section 32) was on file.

    4. In 5 transactions - a requisition form stating RCM approval (Section 32) was on file but had not been signed.

Observations – Acquisition Cards

  1. For 5 acquisition cards tested to confirm whether due diligence was exercised in the management of acquisition card expenditures, there was no evidence on file that monthly card statements have been reconciled to cardholder purchase log or register.

  2. In all 5 cards sampled, the cardholder signed their own credit card statement.

  3. For 2 of the 5 cards sampled, the card had been used by someone other than the cardholder.

Observations – General Management

Recommendations

We recommend the following in the area of HR:

We recommend the following in the area of contracts:

We recommend the following in the area of acquisition cards:

 
 
Date modified: