Summary: Traffic Paint Sign Poster
Findings:
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Traffic Paint Sign Poster (TPSP) I Christopher Torres failed to disclose an existing close personal association on his Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) “Close Personal Association Notification” form.
Complaint:
On Friday, September 9, 2016, the Department of Transportation received a complaint alleging an existing close personal association between Mr. Torres and Acting Division Manager, Traffic Mark/Sign Superintendent III, Manuel Viramontes. The allegation alleged that Mr. Torres was Mr. Viramontes’ stepson or nephew.
Background:
On December 5, 2014, Mr. Torres was interviewed for Traffic Post and Sign Painter positions. When Mr. Torres arrived for his interview …show more content…
at the Department of Transportation Human Resources Office, he completed a Close Personal Association Notification form and placed an “X” in the “NO” field and left the “Full Name” and “Association” fields blank. (Attachment 1)
On December 5, 2014, Manuel Viramontes served as a rater for the Traffic Post and Sign Painter interviews. (Attachment 2)
On January 11, 2015, Christopher Torres was hired as a Traffic Paint and Sign Poster with the LADOT.
On September 9, 2016, Mr. Torres submitted a new Close Personal Association Notification form listing Manuel Viramontes as his “Mom’s half sister’s husband.” (Attachment 3)
On August 9, 2016, Mr.
Viramontes submitted a Close Personal Association Notification form listing Christopher Torres as his “Wife’s nephew.” (Attachment 4)
Investigation:
Christopher Torres, Traffic Paint Sign Poster I: On October 18, 2016, Mr. Torres was interviewed regarding the aforementioned complaint. He was not aware of the complaint alleging a close personal association between him and Mr. Manuel Viramontes prior to his interview.
Mr. Torres was questioned about a possible relationship with Mr. Viramontes based on information contained on a subsequent Close Personal Association Notification form he had completed on September 9, 2016, which identifies Manuel Viramontes as being married to his Aunt. This form contained information not contained on Torres’ original Close Personal Association Notification which he submitted on December 5, 2014 when he interviewed for his current position at LADOT.
When Torres was asked how long Viramontes had been married to his aunt, he replied, “20 plus years.” He confirmed that Viramontes is still married to his aunt. When questioned if he had ever lived with Viramontes or his family, Torres replied he had for a short while, although several years ago. He also indicated that he would see Viramontes occasionally throughout the year. When pressed for more specificity, he agreed to the statement “Was it only at holidays, say family get-togethers to celebrate special occasions?” as being …show more content…
fair.
Torres was questioned about whether or not Viramontes ever discussed career options with him, assisted him with preparing any City applications, provided mock interviews or interview assistance, or mentored him – to which Torres answered no to all questions on this topic.
Torres was asked directly if he was aware of any other familial relationships in his work unit. He stated, “Yes,” but didn’t know how many and indicated that this was not common that he knew of.
Mr. Torres was asked if he recalled completing the Close Personal Association Notification form the day of the interview. He was shown a copy of the form dated December 5, 2014. He confirmed his signature on the form. He did not remember if he filled in the form before or after his interview. When questioned if there was anything posted showing or stating who the panelists would be, he replied he doesn’t remember. When asked directly, “Were you surprised to see Viramontes in the interview room?” He replied, “I don’t remember.” He could not recall if anything was said by anyone regarding his and Viramontes’ familiarity with one another.
When asked directly why he, Torres, did not revise his Close Personal Association Notification form after his interview, he replied that he “thought brother, sister – direct family.” He “doesn’t consider Viramontes closely related.” When he was asked if he filled in this form after his interview, why he selected the “No” field, he stated that he “thought Viramontes was too distantly removed.” At the end of his interview, Torres was given an opportunity to provide any additional information.
None was provided.
Caryl Miller, Senior Personnel Analyst I: Senior Personnel Analyst I Caryl Miller was interviewed to obtain information and insight about the interview processes in place in HR at the time of the Torres interview. Ms. Miller has been a Senior Personnel Analyst I with LADOT for approximately 15 years and was the HR analyst who signed off on the selection package from which Mr. Torres was hired. In the past 15 years, Ms. Miller observed various minor process changes with regard to the overseeing the interview portion of selection
hiring.
When asked to explain the procedures in place when convening an interview panel and how panelists are selected, Ms. Miller stated that at the time of the Torres selection interview (early December 2014), the Analyst briefing process [for the interview panel] was not as formal. The analysts would go over the information on the selection criteria sheet at least verbally. She did not believe that the panelists were required to read the instructions. She did not believe that there was a signature line for the panelists to acknowledge having read the instruction sheet, and that practice was instituted at a later time. She stated that the division manager, Eric Taylor, would supply the names of the raters for the interview panels. He supplied the names of Dale Wyrick and Manuel Viramontes for this set of interviews.
Additionally, the topic of recusing oneself from a panel was not regularly addressed during the briefing; however, an analyst might mention it though it is not written anywhere. She did not remember if there was anything mentioned in the briefing instructions addressing personal relationships to the panelists. When asked if a panelist has ever brought up this issue, she said no one has ever said anything. During this time, the analysts did not ask the panelists if they knew any of the candidates, either before or after the interviews.
On the date of Torres’ interview (12/5/14), Ms. Miller was not aware of an existing relationship between Torres and Viramontes. She did not find out until late 2016, when she was informed by her supervisor, Personnel Director Tammy Watson. Viramontes never said anything to Miller regarding this issue.
Analyst Miller was asked specifically if based on how she’s described the interview process, did Viramontes know about the policy on Close Personal Association Notifications? Should he have known based on his responsibilities as a Traffic Mark/Sign Superintendent II and Acting Division Manager? She replied that Viramontes has sat on many panels. She added that he should have known since it’s in MPP 215 (which addresses Employment and Assignment of Relatives and Close Associates). (Attachment)
When questioned why Viramontes would think it was okay to sit on Torres’ panel, she opined that she thought it was a “cultural issue” within this work group. There was a history of this type of scenario occurring in this work group prior to this incident; hence her characterization as “cultural.”
Lastly, when asked if she knew if anyone told Christopher Torres to mark “No” on his Close Personal Association Notification form, Miller stated that no one would have because Records staff gives the forms directly to the candidate to fill in. Miller added that “Manny [Viramontes] seems to be an ethical person, [but this was] culturally okay to do.”
There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Traffic Paint Sign Poster (TPSP) I Christopher Torres failed to disclose an existing close personal association on his Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) “Close Personal Association Notification” form.
Complaint:
On Friday, September 9, 2016, the Department of Transportation received a complaint alleging an existing close personal association between Mr. Torres and Acting Division Manager, Traffic Mark/Sign Superintendent III, Manuel Viramontes. The allegation alleged that Mr. Torres was Mr. Viramontes’ stepson or nephew.
Background:
On December 5, 2014, Mr. Torres was interviewed for Traffic Post and Sign Painter positions. When Mr. Torres arrived for his interview …show more content…
at the Department of Transportation Human Resources Office, he completed a Close Personal Association Notification form and placed an “X” in the “NO” field and left the “Full Name” and “Association” fields blank. (Attachment 1)
On December 5, 2014, Manuel Viramontes served as a rater for the Traffic Post and Sign Painter interviews. (Attachment 2)
On January 11, 2015, Christopher Torres was hired as a Traffic Paint and Sign Poster with the LADOT.
On September 9, 2016, Mr. Torres submitted a new Close Personal Association Notification form listing Manuel Viramontes as his “Mom’s half sister’s husband.” (Attachment 3)
On August 9, 2016, Mr.
Viramontes submitted a Close Personal Association Notification form listing Christopher Torres as his “Wife’s nephew.” (Attachment 4)
Investigation:
Christopher Torres, Traffic Paint Sign Poster I: On October 18, 2016, Mr. Torres was interviewed regarding the aforementioned complaint. He was not aware of the complaint alleging a close personal association between him and Mr. Manuel Viramontes prior to his interview.
Mr. Torres was questioned about a possible relationship with Mr. Viramontes based on information contained on a subsequent Close Personal Association Notification form he had completed on September 9, 2016, which identifies Manuel Viramontes as being married to his Aunt. This form contained information not contained on Torres’ original Close Personal Association Notification which he submitted on December 5, 2014 when he interviewed for his current position at LADOT.
When Torres was asked how long Viramontes had been married to his aunt, he replied, “20 plus years.” He confirmed that Viramontes is still married to his aunt. When questioned if he had ever lived with Viramontes or his family, Torres replied he had for a short while, although several years ago. He also indicated that he would see Viramontes occasionally throughout the year. When pressed for more specificity, he agreed to the statement “Was it only at holidays, say family get-togethers to celebrate special occasions?” as being …show more content…
fair.
Torres was questioned about whether or not Viramontes ever discussed career options with him, assisted him with preparing any City applications, provided mock interviews or interview assistance, or mentored him – to which Torres answered no to all questions on this topic.
Torres was asked directly if he was aware of any other familial relationships in his work unit. He stated, “Yes,” but didn’t know how many and indicated that this was not common that he knew of.
Mr. Torres was asked if he recalled completing the Close Personal Association Notification form the day of the interview. He was shown a copy of the form dated December 5, 2014. He confirmed his signature on the form. He did not remember if he filled in the form before or after his interview. When questioned if there was anything posted showing or stating who the panelists would be, he replied he doesn’t remember. When asked directly, “Were you surprised to see Viramontes in the interview room?” He replied, “I don’t remember.” He could not recall if anything was said by anyone regarding his and Viramontes’ familiarity with one another.
When asked directly why he, Torres, did not revise his Close Personal Association Notification form after his interview, he replied that he “thought brother, sister – direct family.” He “doesn’t consider Viramontes closely related.” When he was asked if he filled in this form after his interview, why he selected the “No” field, he stated that he “thought Viramontes was too distantly removed.” At the end of his interview, Torres was given an opportunity to provide any additional information.
None was provided.
Caryl Miller, Senior Personnel Analyst I: Senior Personnel Analyst I Caryl Miller was interviewed to obtain information and insight about the interview processes in place in HR at the time of the Torres interview. Ms. Miller has been a Senior Personnel Analyst I with LADOT for approximately 15 years and was the HR analyst who signed off on the selection package from which Mr. Torres was hired. In the past 15 years, Ms. Miller observed various minor process changes with regard to the overseeing the interview portion of selection
hiring.
When asked to explain the procedures in place when convening an interview panel and how panelists are selected, Ms. Miller stated that at the time of the Torres selection interview (early December 2014), the Analyst briefing process [for the interview panel] was not as formal. The analysts would go over the information on the selection criteria sheet at least verbally. She did not believe that the panelists were required to read the instructions. She did not believe that there was a signature line for the panelists to acknowledge having read the instruction sheet, and that practice was instituted at a later time. She stated that the division manager, Eric Taylor, would supply the names of the raters for the interview panels. He supplied the names of Dale Wyrick and Manuel Viramontes for this set of interviews.
Additionally, the topic of recusing oneself from a panel was not regularly addressed during the briefing; however, an analyst might mention it though it is not written anywhere. She did not remember if there was anything mentioned in the briefing instructions addressing personal relationships to the panelists. When asked if a panelist has ever brought up this issue, she said no one has ever said anything. During this time, the analysts did not ask the panelists if they knew any of the candidates, either before or after the interviews.
On the date of Torres’ interview (12/5/14), Ms. Miller was not aware of an existing relationship between Torres and Viramontes. She did not find out until late 2016, when she was informed by her supervisor, Personnel Director Tammy Watson. Viramontes never said anything to Miller regarding this issue.
Analyst Miller was asked specifically if based on how she’s described the interview process, did Viramontes know about the policy on Close Personal Association Notifications? Should he have known based on his responsibilities as a Traffic Mark/Sign Superintendent II and Acting Division Manager? She replied that Viramontes has sat on many panels. She added that he should have known since it’s in MPP 215 (which addresses Employment and Assignment of Relatives and Close Associates). (Attachment)
When questioned why Viramontes would think it was okay to sit on Torres’ panel, she opined that she thought it was a “cultural issue” within this work group. There was a history of this type of scenario occurring in this work group prior to this incident; hence her characterization as “cultural.”
Lastly, when asked if she knew if anyone told Christopher Torres to mark “No” on his Close Personal Association Notification form, Miller stated that no one would have because Records staff gives the forms directly to the candidate to fill in. Miller added that “Manny [Viramontes] seems to be an ethical person, [but this was] culturally okay to do.”