Hiring practices need oversight

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know. In the islands, that unspoken directive sometimes applies to catching waves at choice surf break lineups and admission in certain private organizations. But, of course, it has no place in public- sector hiring practices.

So, it’s dismaying that a recent audit tagged Hawaii County hiring routines as marred by apparent favoritism and other flaws. In response to constituent complaints that practices are unfair, the county’s legislative auditor evaluated the 2016 hiring process and this year’s changes to that process.

The audit’s review of 46 civil service positions — clerk, laborer and park caretaker jobs — filled in 2016 (12 percent of the overall job openings count) found that a jaw-dropping 42 contained questionable practices.

Some of the applicants had been offered positions prior to interviews and/or before being provided a list of eligibility requirements for the job. In other cases, no references were checked; some departments held the same number of interviews as there were vacancies; and applicants were rejected for having mainland addresses.

In each of 42 instances flagged, the county failed to consider all applicants who met requirements, and skill-set criteria evaluations were not uniformly conducted. Clearly, these practices fell short of ensuring equitable and transparent candidate selection, leaving the county vulnerable to ethics- focused legal risks.

Cronyism — a manager hiring a friend or an associate over more qualified but unfamiliar applicants, for instance — is unethical yet common in all sorts of employment settings. The practice can be a workplace morale-sinker.

Moreover, when someone lands a job on a public payroll because of connections rather than top-of-the heap credentials and experience, any subsequent inferior service that hire brings to the workplace undermines the public good. Or, put bluntly, cheats taxpayers. Hawaii County, which employs some 2,600 people, must go with the best-qualified applicant for each job opening.

In a written response to the audit, the county’s Finance Department head, Deanna Soto, said job seekers from the mainland were bypassed because that applicant group had a pattern of being uninterested in positions considered low-paying — $2,400 monthly, in this case. The department has since changed its practice to now “call each mainland applicant and record their denial.”

Soto said, “The outcome continues to be that they turn down the interview opportunity.”

Even so, that’s a necessary step.

In an effort to remedy practices, the auditor offered up recommendations for the mayor’s office and the Human Resources Department. Among them:

>> Step up recruitment-related monitoring and oversight procedures as well as staff training, ensuring that corners are not cut.

>> Put in place a whistleblower program so complaints can be presented without fear of retaliation.

>> Ensure that hiring selection rests solely with the hiring department and prevents preferential treatment.

The audit dinged a staffing review committee — established by former Mayor Billy Kenoi and Human Resources in 2013, and scrapped by Mayor Harry Kim this year — for contributing to “questionable hiring practices.” The audit found fault with the committee’s authority to override a department’s hiring decision, maintaining that the department has a better understanding of the best-qualified job candidates.

The county says it is working through the recommendations. That’s a start.

Hawaii County has a public trust obligation to be an equal employment opportunity provider that scrupulously follows best practices in hiring. The county’s citizens deserve no less than the best public employees available, no matter who knows whom.