Department of Water Management Overtime Monitoring Audit

Executive Summary

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the Department of Water Management’s (DWM) overtime monitoring.

The objective of the audit was to determine if DWM effectively monitored overtime to prevent waste and abuse. This included determining whether DWM,

• consistently applied policies for authorizing and approving overtime;
• offered overtime to employees in a manner consistent with established practices and compliant with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs);
• implemented strategies for mitigating excessive overtime; and
• ensured that the crew transfer process adhered to Department policy and CBA requirements.

Our audit focused on the Bureaus of Water Supply (BWS) and Operations and Distribution (BOD), which accounted for 96.8% of the Department’s overtime expenditures from 2015 through 2019.

A. CONCLUSION

OIG concluded that DWM had policies and tools to manage overtime but did not use these resources consistently. DWM management could not ensure overtime was offered in accordance with CBAs and established practices because it was unaware of the full range of overtime processes in use across the Department, it did not provide robust oversight, and it did not consistently retain overtime records.

B. FINDINGS

DWM complied with the Office of Budget and Management’s (OBM) directive that each City department establish overtime policies. However, DWM did not learn that its policy had been approved until OIG inquired. The policy defined “labor tracking codes,” which allowed the Department to track the location of and rationale for every instance of overtime use, but some of the codes were outdated and the policy had not been distributed to supervisors.

In addition, DWM did not take advantage of all available tools to manage and monitor overtime across the Department. Insufficient monitoring limits DWM’s ability to identify operational deficiencies—such as staffing shortages—or potential patterns of overtime abuse. During the audit, OIG learned that OBM had created a set of interactive dashboards to show DWM central management where the Department was incurring overtime. However, the small number of DWM managers who had access to the dashboards were generally unfamiliar with them or misunderstood their contents. Some managers were not even aware they had access. As a result, DWM management did not take full advantage of tools that could inform staffing adjustments. BOD took the initiative of creating its own bureau-specific tools, but some of the supervisors who had direct responsibility for overtime did not have access to these tools, and thus could not make fully informed decisions about overtime operations.

OIG also examined the overtime “call-out” process, which dictates the order in which employees are offered overtime. We could not assess whether DWM correctly distributed overtime to employees because the call-out lists did not clearly identify the order in which employees had been offered overtime. Instead, we reviewed available documentation and interviewed frontline staff in both bureaus to identify concerns or potential abuse in the process. We found that call-out processes across the Department were neither standardized nor transparent, creating a climate where employees might perceive the overtime system as unfair, which may, in turn, negatively affect morale and trigger grievances.

The format, process, and responsibility for call-outs at DWM varied widely depending on supervisor, trade, and work location. For example, BWS employees at the Sawyer and Jardine Water Purification Plants have different shift and work requirements than BOD employees doing construction work on city streets. However, DWM central and bureau management were unaware of the full range of overtime processes in use across the Department, and therefore could not ensure that all employees were offered overtime in a manner consistent with established practices and compliant with CBAs. OIG identified at least 15 unique overtime processes across BWS and BOD—though there are likely many more—and only 5 of the 15 were documented.

Call-out lists, which some supervisors use to identify who is next in line for overtime, were inconsistently used, posted, and updated by BWS and BOD. DWM employees described a wide range of practices for determining who should be offered overtime, including one supervisor who said they relied solely on their memory. Some CBAs explicitly require call-out lists to be posted for employees to see, while others do not. DWM did not have policies requiring call-out lists to be posted.

Finally, OIG identified inconsistencies in the crew transfer process, which allows employees to transfer to potentially high-overtime positions. More consistent and transparent implementation of this process could help ensure that the most senior employees are offered transfer opportunities first, as required by CBAs, and that employees do not waste time submitting invalid requests.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS

OIG recommends that DWM update and distribute its overtime policies to supervisors and timekeepers, provide training to supervisors, and use existing monitoring reports to inform department-wide operational decisions about overtime. The Department should also develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with the policy, continue developing internal reporting tools to provide a real-time view of overtime within its bureaus, and consider distributing the policy to all DWM employees.

We also recommend that DWM take steps to improve the consistency, transparency, and fairness of the overtime process by 1) identifying, documenting, and standardizing overtime callout processes, 2) ensuring overtime records are properly retained, and 3) updating transfer documentation.

D. DWM RESPONSE

In response to our audit findings and recommendations, DWM stated that it will revise its overtime policy, distribute the revised policy to all supervisors and timekeepers, and develop procedures to promote compliance. DWM also stated that additional DWM managers now have access to OBM’s interactive dashboards, and it will give supervisors access to internal overtime reports. DWM has also revised some call-out procedures to make them more uniform and directed all bureaus to ensure transparency by posting their call-out lists. Finally, DWM will update its transfer request form and retention policy.

The specific recommendations related to each finding, and DWM’s response, are described in the “Findings and Recommendations” section of this report.