Government-wide audit of executive (EX) appointments

A report by the Public Service Commission of Canada

October 2008

Public Service Commission of Canada
300 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0M7
Canada

Information: 613-992-9562
Facsimile: 613-992-9352

This Report is also available on our Web site at www.psc-cfp.gc.ca

Cat. No. SC3-134/2008E-PDF
ISBN 978-1-100-10453-9

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Public Service Commission of Canada, 2008

All of the audit work in this report was conducted in accordancewith the legislative mandate and audit policies of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

Table of Contents

• Summary
• Introduction
  • Background
  • Roles and responsibilities
  • Focus of the audit
• Observations
  • Overview
  • Unsatisfactory appointments raised questions about appointees meeting merit
    • Essential qualifications appear not to be met in a few cases
    • Some evidence exists of preferred candidates
    • Some appointment files lack key documents to conclude whether merit was met
    • Actions being taken on unsatisfactory cases
  • The assessment of candidates in advertised appointment processes needs improvement
    • Assessment methods need significant improvement
    • Screening of candidates needs some improvement
    • More attention needed to explain choice of candidate ("right fit")
  • Non-advertised appointment processes require improvement in respecting appointment policies and values
    • Rationales for choice of non-advertised appointment processes need to be better explained
    • Assessment methods for non-advertised appointment processes need significant improvement
  • Assessments for cancelled or non-productive appointment processes need improvement
• Other requirements for appointment processes
  • Most appointments respected the area of selection and priority clearance
  • Conditions of employment were mostly respected
  • Language requirements were largely respected
  • Notification process was largely respected, but aspects of the policy need clarification
  • Delegation to approve appointments was largely respected
• Other areas for improvement
  • Appointment processes used to appoint executives in human resources units face significant challenges
  • Involvement of human resources advisors improves the appointment processes
  • Little evidence asset qualifications used to support selection of candidate
  • Collective staffing creates unique challenges
• PSC commitments
• Follow-up
• Summary of organizations' responses
• Conclusion
• About the audit
• Appendices
  • Appendix A: Key aspects of the executive population
  • Appendix B: Glossary of terms under the current Public Service Employment Act (PSEA)

Summary

• 1. Executives in the federal public service represent an important resource to Parliament and to Canadians. How they are recruited, assessed and appointed has fundamental implications for all aspects of government services, as well as for the government's ability to deliver positive results for Canadians. Furthermore, the management and engagement of the 188 000 federal public servants employed under the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) are directly affected by executive appointment practices. The transparency and accountability of executive appointment decisions set the "tone at the top."
• 2. Until the coming into force of the current PSEA in December 2005, the PSC made the vast majority of executive level appointments. With the change in legislation, the PSC was encouraged to – and did – delegate its authority to appoint federal government executives to the deputy heads of organizations. Delegation allows an organization to manage its own executive staffing and recruitment needs in the most efficient and effective manner, streamlining staffing processes to meet its particular needs. Managers can now make appointments within their own areas of responsibility, in accordance with the delegated appointment authority.
• 3. As noted in the PSEA, deputy heads are expected to exercise the delegated appointment authority within a framework that ensures that they are accountable for its proper use to the Commission, which in turn is accountable to Parliament. The PSEA and the supporting Appointment Framework are based on the core values of merit and non-partisanship, and on the guiding values of representativeness, fairness, transparency and access.
• 4. When the PSC delegated this appointment authority to deputy heads as of December 31, 2005, the Commission made a commitment to undertake a government-wide audit of executive appointments. The audit was to determine the extent to which the executive appointments and appointment processes made across government respected the PSEA, the Appointment Framework and the values that underlie both the PSEA and the Framework.
• 5. The audit focused on executive appointments made within the first year of implementation of the PSEA, from January to December 2006, and included 100% of appointment processes of executives at levels four and five (which includes assistant deputy ministers), and 50% of executives at levels one to three (which includes directors and directors general).
• 6. The current PSEA, as well as assuming increased delegation of the appointment authority for executive resourcing, required a major transformation by organizations. These changes included the following:
  • establishing governance structures to support planning;
  • conducting and monitoring executive recruitment and appointment processes;
  • developing executive resourcing capacity; and
  • engaging the required personnel with the appropriate skill sets within a context of high mobility among human resource advisors.
• 7. Overall, we found that the executive appointment processes respected merit. However, out of the 348 audited appointments, we identified 47 unsatisfactory cases that raised the following concerns:
  • We found three cases where merit was not respected in that the appointees did not appear to meet the essential qualifications of the position.
  • We also found an additional 31 instances where the appointment processes were conducted in a manner that created the appearance that a preferred candidate had already been identified prior to the assessment.
  • There were an additional 13 appointments for which the files did not contain any evidence that an assessment had been carried out. It was therefore not clear why candidates were found to be qualified.
• 8. We found that a number of appointment files needed improvement. This finding included appointments resulting from both advertised and non-advertised appointment processes.
• 9. We were satisfied with the assessments of 132 of the audited advertised appointment processes. Fifty-seven appointments resulting from advertised processes were found to need improvement. In some instances, assessment tools did not provide for a complete assessment of the essential qualifications. In others, candidates were assessed on criteria that were not properly communicated to them. We also found in some cases that candidates in the same appointment process were assessed in different ways. Without the necessary evidence to show why particular candidates were appointed, neither the deputy heads nor the PSC can be sufficiently assured that the merit value was respected and that the processes were fair and transparent.
• 10. For non-advertised appointments, 70 appointments required improvements in either the assessments or the rationale that was given for choosing a non-advertised appointment process. We were satisfied with the assessments of 11 of the audited non-advertised appointment processes. Clearly, organizations faced challenges in meeting the new requirements for non-advertised appointment processes introduced by the change in legislation. For example, rationales for the choice of non-advertised processes were either missing or did not meet organizational or PSC policy requirements. It was often unclear why a non-advertised appointment process was chosen over an advertised one.
• 11. We also found that while some challenges remain, requirements pertaining to area of selection, screening, language requirements, conditions of employment and notification were generally respected.
• 12. We also observed that the PSC Appointment Framework was more closely respected when human resources advisors were involved in the assessment process.
• 13. Given the issues identified in this audit, the PSC has committed to undertake an extensive review of the executive resourcing services it provides to organizations. The PSC will also review and clarify relevant policy and guidance for executive resourcing.
• 14. The 47 unsatisfactory files in our audit will be further reviewed to determine whether investigations are warranted. Those files that did not contain any evidence as to why the candidate was chosen will be referred directly to organizations so that the appropriate assessments can be conducted.
• 15. The PSC has received action plans from some organizations that face significant and systemic challenges in meeting the requirements of the Appointment Framework.
• 16. The deputy heads of all audited organizations were provided with an opportunity to acknowledge and comment on the audit results. Organizations emphasized 2006 as a transition year to the current PSEA, and increased delegated authorities for executive staffing. The audit was viewed as providing an opportunity to better understand the requirements of the new legislation and reflect on policy requirements. Deputy heads noted that, since 2006, organizations have been improving their practices as they gain more experience; they also indicated that their organizations planned to take, or had already taken, action to improve the quality of executive appointment processes.
• 17. The PSC will use this audit as a benchmark and adapt ongoing PSC monitoring to effectively report on the results of executive appointments. We plan to do a follow-up audit in two years.

Introduction

Background

• 18. An innovative and effective public service requires a highly qualified cadre of leaders who can represent and respond to the needs of Canadians in the language of their choice. As part of its mandate to safeguard the core appointment values of merit and non-partisanship, the Public Service Commission (PSC) works to ensure that executives appointed to the public service have the ability to manage both today's challenges and those that are emerging as we move forward into the 21st century.
• 19. The core values of merit and non-partisanship must be respected. The process undertaken to appoint a qualified individual to, and within, the Executive Group should be reasonably accessible to other potential qualified candidates, should treat all candidates in a fair manner, and should be transparent to all these candidates.
• 20. Appointments to and within the Executive Group set the "tone at the top." Appointment practices at the executive level could influence practices at all levels in the public service.If the PSC's guiding values of fairness, transparency, access and representativeness are not respected at the executive level, appointment processes at all levels might also be affected.
• 21. The new Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), which came into effect in December 2005, significantly changed how executives are appointed. Prior to this, the PSC made executive appointments. Appointments typically involved the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada [now known as the Canada Public Service Agency (CPSA)] as a service provider for executive appointments at the EX-4 and EX-5 levels or the PSC Executive Resourcing Services for EX-1s to EX-3s. The new Act encouraged the PSC to delegate the authority to recruit, assess and appoint executives to deputy heads. They could then sub-delegate this authority to managers throughout their organizations. Other changes included the following:
  • a legal definition of merit, giving deputy heads the discretion to establish the factors to be considered in determining merit and the selection of an individual who is deemed the "right fit." Candidates no longer need to be ranked relative to one another but are assessed on the requirements of the position;
  • flexibility in the choice of appointment process, which can be internal or external to the public service and advertised or non-advertised;
    • An advertised process is one in which the persons in the area of selection are informed of a job opportunity and have the opportunity to apply and demonstrate their qualifications in relation to the merit criteria;
    • A non-advertised process occurs when there is no notice of a job opportunity and the hiring manager does not solicit applications; and
  • increased transparency. All candidates in an advertised executive appointment process will be notified at key stages. Executives in all internal appointment processes are now given the same rights to recourse.
• 22. The PSC has delegated most of its appointment authorities to deputy heads through signed delegation agreements – Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instruments (ADAIs). While the PSC remains ultimately accountable to Parliament for the integrity of these appointments, the ADAI identifies the following:
  • the appointment and appointment-related authorities being delegated;
  • the authorities that may be sub-delegated;
  • the conditions of delegation; and
  • how the deputy head is held accountable.
• 23. In exercising delegated authorities, deputy heads are to respect the core appointment values (merit and non-partisanship) and the guiding values (fairness, access, transparency and representativeness). They must also ensure that appointment decisions adhere to the requirements of the PSEA, the Public Service Employment Regulations, related Treasury Board policies and any other statutory instruments, such as the Official Languages Act.
• 24. The PSC Appointment Framework includes appointment policies, the delegation instrument and the accountability framework. The intent of this overall Framework is to provide a more flexible regime in which to manage human resources and to guide deputy heads in building appointment systems that are adapted to their particular needs. Deputy heads are accountable for adhering to the PSC Appointment Framework, to the conditions of their signed delegation instrument and to the core and guiding values that underpin these documents.
• 25. In the past, the authority to make executive appointments was not delegated. Executive appointments were considered to involve greater risk. This is one of the reasons why, when the PSEA came into force in December 2005, along with the delegation of executive resourcing to organizations, the PSC committed to auditing appointments and appointment processes to, and within, the Executive Group carried out by deputy heads in 2006.

Roles and responsibilities

• 26. A number of key players influence the appointment of executives under the new PSEA. Hiring managers are those persons who wish to hire an executive. They initiate the request for an appointment process and play a central role in the planning, design, assessment and selection stages of the process.
• 27. Human resources advisors typically guide hiring managers throughout the appointment process, including ensuring that there has been due consideration of the organization's human resources planning. Human resources advisors can also perform a challenge function to ensure that the process respects the appointment policies and values as well as deputy minister accountability.
• 28. Hiring managers can also use expertise that is external to the organization. Human resources service providers, such as the PSC and the CPSA, as well as private sector consultants, play an important role in supporting the appointment process.
• 29. Once the appointment process is completed and a candidate has been chosen, the deputy head (in a situation where authority has not been sub-delegated) or the sub-delegated authority will sign the letter of offer to the appointee.
• 30. See Appendix A for characteristics of the executive population.

Focus of the audit

• 31. The audit was undertaken with the knowledge that 2006 was the first year of implementation of the new PSEA. It was understood that organizations would be faced with significant challenges in dealing with the major changes required to ensure that they would respect the Act. Under such conditions, an audit becomes a learning tool that can set a benchmark for measuring progress.
• 32. The objective of the audit was to determine whether appointments and appointment processes to and within the Executive Group complied with the PSEA, other governing authorities and policies, the instrument of delegation signed with the PSC and the appointment values, which form the foundation of the policies and the delegation.
• 33. The audit covered appointments and appointment processes to and within the Executive Group that were conducted from January to December 2006. We examined half of the appointment processes at levels EX-1 to EX-3, (which includes directors and directors general) and all the appointment processes at levels EX-4 and EX-5 (which includes assistant deputy ministers). In 2006, there were 589 indeterminate and term appointments to and within the Executive Group. We audited 348 appointments (of which eight were term appointments). Overall, the audit covered 53 federal organizations. (See Exhibit 1.)

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 34. Appointment processes that were initiated but cancelled or found non-productive were included in the audit sample in order to ensure the audit sample covered 50% of EX-1 to EX-3 and 100% of EX-4 and EX-5 appointment processes. In addition, cancelled or non-productive processes can present risks to appointment values similar to the ones created by processes that lead to an appointment, especially when the results are used for other appointments. Our audit sample included 31 such cancelled/non-productive files; two were at the EX-4 and EX-5 levels. These are discussed separately in the Observations section.
• 35. Audit activities consisted of analyzing appointment documentation and other material such as organizational policies. Interviews were also conducted with officials of organizations where deputy heads had signed an Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument with the PSC, through which authority for making appointments to and within the Executive Group had been delegated. Organizations were provided with an opportunity to provide the audit team with additional information or documents through the clearance process.
• 36. We observed that 93 of the audited appointments involved the PSC as a service provider (27%); the CPSA participated in 39 appointments (11%), while private sector consultants participated in 19 appointments (5%).
• 37. Hiring managers choose the process that they use to appoint executives. The process can be advertised or non-advertised, as well as internal to the public service or external, that is, open to the public. As seen in the chart below, of those appointments we audited, advertised appointments constituted 68% of the total (8% were external to the public service; the rest were internal). The other 32% of appointments used non-advertised processes (5% of appointments were external, 10% were reclassifications and 17% were internal non-advertised). Reclassification of a position occurs when the evaluation of its work description results in a change to either or both its occupational group and level due to a significant change in the work. According to PSC guidance, the promotion of a person to a position that he or she held when the position was reclassified may be a situation that lends itself to a non-advertised process. All of the reclassifications in our audit sample were non-advertised. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1: Type of appointment process

Figure 1 long description

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 38. Twenty-nine of the 31 cancelled or non-productive files were advertised (25 internal) and two were non-advertised.
• 39. While advertised appointment processes were used in the majority of the cases within our sample, we found that nearly 40% of candidates appointed from advertised and non-advertised processes were already performing the duties of the position, primarily through acting appointments. In the case of 50 of the 117 acting appointments (43%), the candidate acted for periods of 12 months or more; of these, 17 were in the position for more than two years.¹ Both non-advertised and advertised appointment processes were used to appoint these individuals.
• 40. For more information on the audit objectives and methodology, see About the audit, at the end of this report.

Observations

Overview

• 41. Exhibit 2 below presents a summary of the audit findings. Forty-seven appointments were found to be unsatisfactory. A further 127 appointments (57 advertised and 70 non-advertised) were identified as needing improvement in terms of meeting Public Service Commission appointment policies and values, especially with regard to assessments and the choice of appointment process. A total of 143 appointments were found to have satisfactory assessments and supporting rationales for non-advertised appointments. The 31 files where the appointment process was cancelled or non-productive are treated separately in the report.

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 42. We noted that the appointment processes that were unsatisfactory or that needed improvement were dispersed over a majority of organizations. Some organizations faced more significant challenges than others; these challenges are discussed later in the report. The audit also identified noteworthy executive assessment practices that are consistent with the Appointment Framework and associated appointment values in organizations such as the Canada Border Services Agency, Department of National Defence, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Transport Canada.

Unsatisfactory appointments raised questions about appointees meeting merit

• 43. This section defines and discusses those 47 appointments that were deemed unsatisfactory. The audit found unsatisfactory appointments in the following three areas: merit was not respected; appointment processes were conducted in a manner that created the appearance of a preferred candidate; and files did not contain any evidence that an assessment had been carried out. Some files were found to be unsatisfactory in more than one of these three areas, but are reported only once in terms of the core values. Each of these areas is discussed below.

Essential qualifications appear not to be met in a few cases

• 44. We expected that the appointment processes would adequately demonstrate that successful candidates met the essential education, knowledge, experience and language qualifications established for the position, as well as the Key Leadership Competencies.
• 45. Most appointment processes demonstrated that the appointed candidates met the essential qualifications. However, in the case of three appointments, the appointee did not appear to meet these essential qualifications. All three appointments resulted from advertised processes. For example, a candidate was appointed despite failing to meet the established knowledge criteria required for the position. All three of these appointments were at the EX-1 to EX-3 level.

Some evidence exists of preferred candidates

• 46. Under paragraph 30(2)(a) of the Public Service Employment Act, the deputy head establishes the essential qualifications for the work to be performed. We expected that these would be based on the requirements of the job and not on the qualifications of the person who may have been temporarily filling that position. We looked at:
  • whether the Statement of Merit Criteria was inconsistent with the work description;
  • whether the Statement of Merit Criteria was tailored to the candidate for either the essential qualifications or asset qualifications (where appropriate), as opposed to the work to be performed; and
  • whether a process external to the public service (with its greater flexibility in language requirements) was chosen to enable a preferred internal candidate to be appointed.

Exhibit 3: Examples of evidence that criteria were tailored to candidates' qualifications

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 47. We found 17 appointments to which at least one of the above considerations applied. Of these, 14 appointment processes included qualifications that appeared to be tailored to the qualities of a particular candidate, rather than to the qualifications needed for the work to be performed. (See Exhibit 3.)
• 48. We found information on another 14 appointments (in addition to the 17 discussed above) that also caused us concern about overall fairness and accessibility. For example, we found cases where the choice of the appointment process appeared to be targetted to individual candidates rather than being based on the organization's HR plan, their own criteria for choice of process, and the appointment values; or the choice of process conflicted with other evidence on file. The way in which these appointment processes were conducted created the perception that a preferred candidate had already been chosen. We expected that all appointment processes would respect the guiding values of fairness, access and transparency, whether real or perceived. Exhibit 4 shows examples of the type of evidence we found on file.

Exhibit 4: Examples of processes involving evidence of preferred candidates

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 49. Of the 31 cases in which a candidate appeared to be preferred, 17 resulted from advertised appointment processes, while the other 14 resulted from non-advertised appointment processes. Five of the 31 cases were EX-4 and EX-5 appointments. Fifteen involved appointments of persons acting in the position - five of whom had acted for more than two years.
• 50. We found no evidence that political influence was a factor exerted in the choice of any appointee in these or the rest of the audited appointment files.

Some appointment files lack key documents to conclude whether merit was met

• 51. Documentation is a critical factor in enabling deputy heads to both monitor and account for the processes that lead to the appointment of executives. The value of transparency requires proper documentation practices. Appointment files need to contain sufficient and appropriate evidence so that deputy heads can assure themselves that appointment processes respect the relevant policies and values. Even when the processes are conducted by service providers, it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure that its appointment files are complete. Furthermore, documentation is a condition of delegation within the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument.
• 52. For the deputy head to ensure that merit has been met, the appointment file must contain evidence that the essential qualifications of candidates have been assessed. We found 13 files in which there was no evidence that any of the essential qualifications of the candidates had been assessed. Of these 13 cases, one resulted from an advertised appointment process, while 12 resulted from non-advertised processes. One of these 13 cases was an EX-4 appointment.

Actions being taken on unsatisfactory cases

• 53. The 47 unsatisfactory appointments are being acted upon where warranted. Those files that did not contain any evidence as to why the candidate was chosen will be referred directly to the organizations so that the appropriate assessments can be conducted. Other files will be examined further to determine the necessity for additional corrective action. The Investigations Branch will consider investigating only those appointment processes that meet the criteria for investigation, which include those in which the matter falls within the Commission's jurisdiction in which a possibility exists for implementing corrective action and in which there is no recourse available through other avenues.

The assessment of candidates in advertised appointment processes needs improvement

• 54. The development and application of assessment methods is fundamental to respecting the core value of merit. The assessment phase of the advertised appointment process includes the screening of candidates to ensure that they meet, at a minimum, the education and experience requirements and are within the area of selection. This phase also includes the development and application of methods to assess other essential qualifications, including knowledge, the Key Leadership Competencies and official language proficiency.
• 55. We expected each appointment and appointment process to respect the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), the Appoitment Framework (including organizational and Treasury Board policies) and the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) signed with the PSC.
• 56. We identified a need for improvement in the assessment of 57 of the 189 advertised appointments (30%). This excludes the 21 unsatisfactory advertised cases discussed earlier in the report. External advertised appointment processes were more likely to need improvement than internal advertised processes. The details of this finding are described below.

Assessment methods need significant improvement

• 57. The PSEA requires that, in order to respect the value of merit, candidates must be assessed on the essential qualifications required for the work to be performed. While there is some flexibility as to how these assessments are carried out, there are some basic requirements found in the supporting policies.
• 58. In the first six months of 2006, certain assessment methods — structured interviews and reference checks, at a minimum — were required for entry at all levels into the Executive Group; an additional method was required for external and non-advertised appointment processes. While the PSEA specifically indicates that merit has to be assessed, there were no specific requirements outlined in the Appointment Policy as to how this was to be done for the promotion of persons already within the Executive Group.
• 59. In June 2006, this Policy was amended to require structured interviews and structured reference checks for appointments to, and promotions within, the Executive Group. While this change was communicated to some senior human resources management committees in June 2006, it was not officially communicated to the heads of human resources until December 2006. Therefore, while the audit did look at whether structured interviews and reference checks were used, these requirements were not included in our assessment.

• 60. We expected that qualifications used for assessment would be reflected in the Statement of Merit Criteria. We also expected that the assessment methods would effectively assess the qualifications, including knowledge and the Key Leadership Competencies of values and ethics, strategic thinking, management excellence and engagement (see box). We further expected that these assessments would be administered fairly, by treating all candidates in a similar way (unless there was a requirement for accommodation under employment equity legislation).

• 61. We found that 53 out of 189 advertised appointments (28%) did not meet one or more of these requirements. In 15 of these appointments, the assessment methods did not properly assess the essential qualifications, as required by PSC policy. In addition to these 53 appointments needing improvement, another 46 appointments did not contain sufficient evidence to enable us to adequately demonstrate whether these qualifications were appropriately assessed or whether candidates were treated fairly. (See Exhibit 5.)

Exhibit 5: Examples of challenges identified in assessment methods

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 62. Two of the four identified leadership competencies are further defined by five sub competencies, as seen in the Key Leadership Competencies text box. Under the competency of "management excellence" is "action management, financial management, and people management"; "strategic thinking" is composed of "analysis and ideas." However, policy on whether these sub competencies had to be assessed separately was not clear. For this reason, the audit did not examine the sub competencies within the assessment of these candidates. More than one third of the advertised appointments did include methods to assess these sub competencies. Even those organizations that did assess the sub competencies saw it as a good but not a necessary practice.
• 63. We also examined the extent to which assessments related to advertised appointment processes respected appointment policies and values and varied according to the level of the executive appointment. We found that advertised appointments to the EX-4 and EX-5 positions respected appointment policies and values related to the assessment methods almost two times more often than appointments to EX-1 to EX-3 positions.

Screening of candidates needs some improvement

• 64. Hiring managers, with the assistance of human resources advisors, are required to establish essential qualifications for the work to be performed, including official language proficiency, for both advertised and non-advertised appointment processes. In addition, they may establish asset qualifications, operational requirements or organizational needs as part of the merit criteria. Advertisements for positions should clearly communicate this information to potential candidates. Applications of candidates are first assessed (or screened) to determine whether applicants meet, at minimum, the education and experience needed and are in the area of selection established for the appointment process. Only those candidates who are screened into a process are eligible for further consideration.

Exhibit 6: Examples of screening issues

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 65. We found that, for 15 out of the 189 advertised appointments (8%), candidates were not effectively assessed against the screening criteria. Files for a further two appointments did not contain sufficient evidence to enable us to conclude that the screening process screened candidates effectively. This finding included appointments in which there was no evidence that screening was performed. (See Exhibit 6.)

More attention needed to explain choice of candidate ("right fit")

• 66. Under the previous PSEA, a ranking of candidates relative to one another signed by members of the selection committee was sufficient documentation to explain the choice of candidate and thus meet accountability needs. The current Act introduced a definition of merit that no longer requires that candidates be ranked. Deputy heads can now select an individual based on the "right fit," which can include meeting certain organizational needs or having asset qualifications for the position. The policy framework under the PSEA requires that the reasons for the choice of candidate be documented for the purposes of transparency and fairness. We expected to find, in cases where more than one candidate was found qualified in an advertised process, a justification for the choice of candidate.
• 67. Of the 101 appointments made as a result of advertised processes with more than one qualified candidate, we found 39 appointments (39%) in which there was insufficient evidence to justify why the person appointed was the "right fit."

Non-advertised appointment processes require improvement in respecting appointment policies and values

• 68. The current PSEA allows hiring managers to select an advertised or non-advertised appointment process. A non-advertised process does not require the hiring manager to solicit applications. PSC policies require that the choice of appointment process respect the core and guiding values, help organizations meet their business and human resources needs and fulfill organizational and corporate responsibilities associated with the priority entitlements of individuals. As with all appointments under the PSEA, an assessment is required to ensure the application of merit.
• 69. We identified a need for improvement in 70 of the 81 appointments (86%) resulting from non-advertised processes. This discussion excludes the 26 unsatisfactory non-advertised appointments discussed earlier. The details of these 70 appointments are described below.

Rationales for choice of non-advertised appointment processes need to be better explained

• 70. According to the PSC Policy on the Choice of Appointment Process, hiring managers who choose a non-advertised process must provide a written rationale demonstrating how this particular process is consistent with the appointment values of transparency, access (including representativeness) and fairness. They must also explain how this choice complies with their own organizational criteria for the choice of a non-advertised appointment process.
• 71. The Policy notes that the choice of advertised or non-advertised, and internal or external, appointment processes should be consistent with the organization's human resources (HR) plan and with the core and guiding values. Hiring managers should consider the following factors when using either an advertised or a non-advertised appointment process:
  • values (access, fairness, transparency and representativeness);
  • planning (HR and/or business plan, organizational policies, retention, transfer or development of skills and the career aspirations of employees);
  • position requirements (nature of the work to be done, language requirements and geographic location);
  • operational realities (efficiency and financial considerations); and
  • workforce (circumstances that would support the consideration of only one person, workforce availability and other sources of candidates, such as pools of candidates who have been found to qualify, at least in part).
• 72. Human resources planning helps to determine organizational criteria and develop strategies for recruitment. Planning also guides managers in deciding whether to staff a position internally or externally or to use an advertised or a non-advertised process, and in using the increased flexibilities introduced by the PSEA. (See Exhibit 7.)

Exhibit 7: Noteworthy practices

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 73. Non-advertised appointment processes give hiring managers more flexibility in situations where there is a shortage of expertise, where previous attempts to staff the position were unsuccessful, or when an advertised process would create undue hardship for the organization. The choice for using a non-advertised process can have a major impact on the accessibility of the appointment process. When it is difficult to produce such a rationale, hiring managers should re-examine whether a non-advertised process is the best choice.
• 74. We expected that hiring managers who chose a non-advertised process would provide a written rationale demonstrating how the chosen process met their own organizational criteria and was consistent with the appointment values of transparency, access and fairness.
• 75. As required by Canada Public Service Agency policies, for any reclassification, organizations must prepare a rationale for a reclassification. They must also address the additional step of meeting the requirements of the PSC appointment policy relating to non-advertised appointment processes. For the 28 reclassifications of the 81 non-advertised appointment processes, we found that 15 rationales for the non-advertised process did not indicate how the process met the organizations own organizational criteria or appointment values. Another seven files did not provide any rationale for a non-advertised appointment processes.
• 76. Of the 53 remaining non-advertised appointments, eight appointment files did not contain any rationale for choosing a non-advertised process. In addition, 33 of the non-advertised appointments containing rationales either did not demonstrate how the organization's own criteria for using non-advertised processes were met or did not demonstrate how this choice was consistent with the appointment values. Exhibit 8 shows some comments found within the rationales; the statements were deemed to be either adequate or inadequate.

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

• 77. We found that the reason there was a higher percentage of non-advertised appointment processes in need of improvement than advertised processes was, in large part, due to insufficient explanations for the choice of appointment process. We also found examples where an advertised process was used where it did not appear necessary. (See Exhibit 9.)

Exhibit 9: Choice of advertised process not always clear

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

Assessment methods for non-advertised appointment processes need significant improvement

• 78. As with an advertised process, candidates involved in a non-advertised process, including reclassifications, still have to be assessed to ensure that they meet the essential qualifications of the position.
• 79. Overall, we found that in the case of 55 out of 81 (68%) of appointments resulting from non-advertised appointment processes, assessment practices did not respect the appointment policies and values.
• 80. We found that for 29 of the 81 non-advertised appointments (36%), there was no proper assessment of candidates, especially in the areas of education and experience. Thirty-seven of the 81 processes (46%) did not meet the requirements of an assessment, including assessing the Key Leadership Competencies. One non-advertised appointment process did not contain sufficient documentation on the assessment.
• 81. There were no significant differences in assessment practices between non-advertised appointments that were internal and external to the public service and those that involved reclassifications.

Assessments for cancelled or non-productive appointment processes need improvement

• 82. Cancelled or non-productive processes were assessed in the same way as those appointment processes that led to an appointment. Out of the 31 cancelled or non-productive files audited, five were found to require improvement in terms of how candidates were assessed. Fifteen processes were cancelled before the assessments were completed. We found one case in which the results of a cancelled process were used for another appointment. This appointment was found unsatisfactory for reasons discussed above. Transparency and fairness are key values in terms of cancelled or non-productive processes. This requires that attention be paid to how candidates are initially assessed (or screened in) and how the candidates are assessed against the requirements of the position.

Other requirements for appointment processes

• 83. To this point, the report has focused on issues involving assessments and the choice of appointment process. There are other requirements of the Appointment Framework that are important for ensuring that the relevant appointment values are respected. The following section focuses on the 270 audited appointments that exclude the unsatisfactory appointments and cancelled or non-productive files discussed earlier.

Most appointments respected the area of selection and priority clearance

• 84. The PSC's Policy on the Area of Selection notes that the area of selection provides potential candidates with reasonable and fair access to employment opportunities and/or recourse. An area of selection is established and applied in accordance with the area of selection criteria: employment equity, geographic, occupational and organizational criteria (see definitions in Appendix B.) In a non-advertised appointment process, the area of selection determines who has recourse rights which includes those most affected by the appointment, taking into account the nature of the non-advertised process.
• 85. We expected that the area of selection and recourse for each appointment process would respect the applicable organizational policy and the PSC policy. For advertised processes, we expected that the persons within the area of selection would have a reasonable opportunity to apply and be considered for the position. For internal non-advertised appointment processes, we expected meaningful access to recourse for those not considered for appointment.
• 86. We found that, in the case of 22 of the 270 appointments (7%) resulting from advertised and non-advertised processes, these criteria were not met. For example, in advertised processes, we saw cases in which the area of selection used to screen candidates did not respect the organization's own criteria.
• 87. According to the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), certain meritorious individuals must be considered for most appointments. This includes individuals returning from leaves of absence, those who have been laid off and members of the Canadian Forces injured during duty. We expected that, before proceeding with an appointment process, organizations would determine whether there were any qualified candidates entitled to consideration.
• 88. We found that 14 appointments (5%) did not meet these requirements for priority clearance. For example, in some cases, priority clearance was not obtained; in others, we found that the essential qualifications used for obtaining priority clearance were different from those against which candidates were assessed.

Conditions of employment were mostly respected

• 89. Before being appointed, a candidate must meet certain conditions of employment. These conditions include proof of security clearance, an oath or solemn affirmation for those new to the public service and any other conditions laid out by the organization in the advertisement.
• 90. We found that 22 appointees (8%) did not meet the conditions of employment at the appropriate time. Of these, 14 appointments resulted from advertised appointment processes. In an additional 29 appointment files (11%), documentation was insufficient to show that the appointee met these conditions at the appropriate time.

Language requirements were largely respected

• 91. We expected executive appointments to respect the language requirements of the PSEA, its associated policy framework and other central agency requirements. Treasury Board policy also requires that the language proficiency required of the position should, among other factors, relate to the region of work.
• 92. When the organization does not expect this language proficiency to be met immediately by the pool of candidates but is to be acquired by a certain deadline, other requirements come into effect. According to Treasury Board policies, the justification for the use of non-imperative staffing must show how the bilingual functions of the position will be carried out while the incumbent is on language training. The policies also require that the hiring of executives who do not meet the linguistic profile of a position in a bilingual region be approved by the deputy head. Furthermore, the PSC requires that the candidate sign an agreement to become bilingual. The document is also to be signed by the deputy head.
• 93. Overall, 19 of the 270 advertised and non-advertised appointments (7%) did not meet one of these various language requirements. One third of the 15 non-imperative appointments did not contain an explanation of how the bilingual functions of the position would be carried out. Three of these appointment files lacked a written approval for non-imperative staffing signed by the deputy head.

Notification process was largely respected, but aspects of the policy need clarification

• 94. We also looked at whether appointments respected the appointment policies with regard to informing the candidates about the results of the appointment process. The current PSEA includes the requirement to provide an opportunity for informal discussion and a two-step notification process for internal appointment processes. The policies on Notification and Informal Discussion state that candidates are to be provided with the following:
  • information, in a timely manner, of the decision to eliminate them from further consideration;
  • a first notification of the names of the persons being considered for appointment; and
  • a second notification of the persons being proposed for appointment, or those being appointed.

Notifications provide candidates with an opportunity to have informal discussions and to be informed of their rights and grounds upon which to make a complaint to the Public Service Staffing Tribunal.

• 95. Overall, 28 appointments did not respect the requirements for first or second notifications. For example, we found cases in which letters of offer were issued prior to allowing sufficient time for informal discussions, or in which notifications were not issued. Furthermore, another 24 appointment files did not contain sufficient evidence that notifications were issued or met these requirements.
• 96. The legislation on notification does not distinguish between those advertised appointment processes where there is only one applicant and those where there are more. In advertised processes with only one applicant, notification would only be to the person being considered for appointment. We found eight advertised processes where there was just one applicant. We thus excluded these appointments from the cases discussed above.

Delegation to approve appointments was largely respected

• 97. With the PSEA, the PSC was encouraged to - and did - delegate to deputy heads its authority to appoint executives. The delegated authorities are outlined in an Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI) signed by the President of the PSC and by the organization's deputy head. Delegation allows an organization to manage its own staffing activities and recruitment needs in the most efficient and effective manner. This delegation is intended to give organizations the flexibility to develop their own policies in accordance with the PSC policy suite. Among other requirements, organizations are to maintain policies on area of selection and establish criteria for the choice of appointment process.
• 98. Subject to the ADAI, deputy heads can sub-delegate to other persons within their organization their authority to appoint executives. Hiring managers can make appointments within their own areas of responsibility, in accordance with these sub-delegated authorities. In 2006, 50% of the deputy heads of organizations audited had sub-delegated their authority to appoint executives to specific individuals or positions within their organizations. Individuals with sub-delegated authorities can sign letters of offer to successful candidates.
• 99. We expected that individuals with the appropriate sub-delegated authority would sign these letters of offer. We also expected that the organizations would have developed appropriate policies on area of selection and established criteria for the choice of appointment process.
• 100. We found that nearly all of the letters of offer were signed by individuals with the appropriate sub-delegated authority. However, 13 letters were signed by individuals not sub-delegated to do so. Steps are being taken with organizations to review these appointments and address this issue. Three of these cases are included in those unsatisfactory cases that will undergo further consideration.
• 101. We found that all organizations covered in this audit had developed the policies required for receiving the ADAI.

Other areas for improvement

Appointment processes used to appoint executives in human resources units face significant challenges

• 102. Some of the audited appointment processes included executive positions that focus on human resources (HR) issues, such as staffing. We expected that processes leading to the appointment of these executives would set the "tone at the top" in respecting the PSC policy framework and appointment values.
• 103. Out of the 33 human resources executive appointments audited, four were identified as unsatisfactory. Another 12 human resources executive appointments were identified as needing improvement.
• 104. Organizations and functional communities need to consider ways of improving the objectivity of appointment processes for executives within human resources.

Involvement of human resources advisors improves the appointment processes

• 105. Human resources advisors can play a key role and have a positive impact on meeting policy requirements and ensuring adequate documentation. They typically provide both strategic advice and advice on how to conduct particular appointment processes. We observed the roles of human resources advisors in the appointment process by seeing whether they were involved with the assessment board.

• 106. As noted above, assessment was the stage in the appointment process where there were a number of challenges to respecting the appointment policies and values. We found that, when human resources advisors were involved with the assessment board, policy requirements for assessments were more than twice as likely to be met as when they were not involved.
• 107. Finally, we found evidence in at least 28 appointment files that human resources advisors played an important challenge function to the hiring managers. In many cases, human resources advisors worked with hiring managers to change some aspects of the appointment process to make it more accessible, more transparent, fairer and completely based on merit. In 15 of these cases, it was evident that hiring managers did not follow this advice.

Little evidence asset qualifications used to support selection of candidate

• 108. The PSEA enables deputy heads to consider any additional qualifications that would be an asset for the work to be performed or for the organization, currently or in the future. These qualifications provide flexibility to better manage screening, assessment, and the subsequent appointment of candidates. The use of asset qualifications to select candidates was a new concept when the PSEA was enacted.
• 109. We found little evidence that asset qualifications were used effectively in managing the appointment process. Sixty-seven of all 210 advertised processes (32%) employed asset qualifications as part of their screening or assessment processes.

Collective staffing creates unique challenges

• 110. Collective staffing is a collaborative activity to staff more than one position within, among and across organizations and regions. With the delegation of appointment authority to deputy heads, managers can now engage in collective staffing for executives as well.
• 111. To do this, managers need to agree on common merit criteria, on the definition of the merit criteria and on the degree of skill required for each position. The process is designed to establish pools of partially or fully qualified individuals. Individuals in partially assessed pools will then be further assessed against any remaining merit criteria established for the particular position being staffed. This pool provides hiring managers with the flexibility to undertake "just-in-time" staffing.
• 112. We found that 14 of the 58 non-advertised internal appointment processes (excluding reclassifications) used a list of qualified candidates from other advertised processes, either from other organizations or their own, to fill their positions.²
• 113. It is the responsibility of the hiring manager who appoints a candidate from a collective staffing process to ensure that merit has been met and that the appropriate documentation is on file. Of those 14 persons appointed to positions on the basis of collective staffing processes, five fell into the unsatisfactory cases. Four of these appointments gave the appearance that the candidate was preferred.

PSC commitments

• 114. The audit examined executive appointments in the first year of the PSEA. Organizations were in the process of building their capacity to carry out these appointment processes. The Public Service Commission (PSC) plays a role in safeguarding the integrity of executive appointment processes through educating human resources advisors, developing policy and guidance and providing organizations with staffing services. We found that the advice and services given by the PSC need improvement. The results of this audit also indicate that the PSC should take action in a number of areas.

• 115. In addition to the PSC commitments noted above, we also commit to making ourselves available to meet with organizational executive committees to discuss the findings of the audit and our forthcoming guidance.

Follow-up

• 116. We noted that some organizations faced significant challenges in meeting the requirements of the Appointment Framework in 2006. These organizations were identified on the basis of the proportion of their executive appointments that were considered unsatisfactory cases or in need of improvement. These organizations have provided the PSC with an action plan that outlines actions taken, as well as intended future actions to improve executive appointments and appointment processes so that they are consistent with the PSC policy framework.

Summary of organizations' responses

The deputy heads of all audited organizations were provided with an opportunity to acknowledge and comment on the audit results. Organizations emphasized 2006 as a transition year to the current Public Service Employment Act and increased delegated authorities for executive staffing. These challenges included a new and developing policy framework and a complexity of obligations, policies and guidelines, as well as the interactions of various organizations involved. Deputy heads noted that this was a period of learning and adaptation for managers and human resources practices.

The audit was viewed as providing an opportunity to reflect on policy requirements and to better understand the requirements of the new legislation. Deputy heads noted that, since 2006, organizations have been improving their practices as they gain more experience; they also indicated that their organizations planned to take or had already taken action to improve the quality of executive appointment processes.

Conclusion

• 117. This audit focused on the results of the executive appointments made in the first year of the new Public Service Employment Act — 2006. During this period, organizations faced a significant number of challenges in making their newly delegated authorities a reality. This included establishing governance structures to support planning, conducting and monitoring executive recruitment and appointment processes, developing executive resourcing capacity and engaging the required personnel with the appropriate skill sets within the context of high mobility among human resources advisors.
• 118. We found three appointments in which the successful candidate did not appear to meet the essential qualifications, and another 31 appointments in which the process appeared to be guided towards a preferred candidate. Another 13 appointment files did not contain key documents that would enable either the deputy heads or the PSC to determine whether the successful candidate met the qualifications.
• 119. Of the remaining 270 appointments (excluding unsatisfactory cases and cancelled or non-productive cases), we identified a need for improvement in the assessments of 57 of the 189 advertised appointments (30%). However, in another 46 appointments, we could not determine whether the candidates met all the essential qualifications or whether other candidates were also qualified. Some assessments did not respect the Appointment Framework; in others, not all candidates appeared to be treated fairly.
• 120. Seventy of the 81 appointments (86%) from non-advertised appointment processes were in need of improvement. Rationales for the choice of non-advertised processes were missing or did not meet policy requirements and, in many cases, assessment practices did not respect the appointment policies and values. Without these assessments and the necessary evidence to show why particular candidates were appointed, deputy heads cannot properly assure themselves that the selection of particular appointees was based on merit.
• 121. We also found that, while some challenges remain, requirements related to area of selection, screening, language requirements, conditions of employment and notification were widely respected.
• 122. We also observed other areas for improvement, such as the need for greater involvement of human resources advisors. When the human resources advisors were involved in the assessment process in support of managers, the PSC Appointment Framework was respected more than when they were not involved.
• 123. The PSC has committed to taking action on a number of issues. Where required, organizations have provided the PSC with action plans. Some of the unsatisfactory appointments will be corrected, while others will undergo further consideration to determine whether other action is warranted.

About the audit

Objective

The objective of the audit was to determine whether executive appointment activities comply with the Public Service Employment Act (PSEA), with other applicable legislation and policies and with the instrument of delegation signed with the Public Service Commission (PSC).

We expected that, in examining executive appointment processes and appointments:

• executive appointment activities would demonstrate the core values of merit and non-partisanship, and the guiding values of fairness, access, transparency and representativeness;
• delegated and sub-delegated executive appointment activities would adhere to the requirements of the PSEA, Public Service Employment Regulations, PSC policies and other statutory instruments as they pertain to the integrity of appointments and the appointment values;
• executive appointment activities would be authorized by officials who have been granted the proper authority through an Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument signed with the PSC, or a sub-delegation instrument signed with the delegated deputy head; and
• executive appointment activities would be supported by sufficient and appropriate documentation.

Scope and approach

The audit covered the executive appointment activities conducted under the first year of the PSEA, from January to December 2006. We examined half of the appointments made to the EX-1, EX-2 and EX-3 levels, and all the appointments made to the EX-4 and EX-5 levels. In 2006, 589 indeterminate and term, executive appointments were made. This meant that 348 appointments were audited as described below.

Overall, the audit covered the executive appointments in 53 federal organizations.

We examined 348 appointments resulting from 300 processes conducted under the new PSEA. The difference in numbers is due to the fact that an advertised appointment process may result in more than one appointee.

Criteria

We expected the following:

• the letter of offer is signed by the appropriate delegated authority;
• the area of selection provides a reasonable pool of candidates with the opportunity to apply for advertised processes and complies with organizational policy;
• the language proficiency requirements of position are met;
• the written rationale for non-advertised appointment process complies with organizational criteria and appointment values;
• the screening is properly carried out, including the following:
  • area of selection, education and experience are assessed, as well as any applicable asset qualifications; and
  • for advertised positions, the advertisement provides information on the criteria used in screening;
• the assessment tools are appropriate and adequate to assess merit;
• there is no evidence of tailoring, primarily through inconsistency between the Statement of Merit Criteria and the work description;
• all candidates are treated fairly and are assessed in similar ways, given the duty to accommodate;
• all qualifications have been assessed and the appointee has qualified for position;
• the appointee meets the conditions of employment; and
• candidates are properly notified about the appointment process in a timely manner and are provided with information on recourse.

Audit team

Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch:

Mary Clennett

Director General, Government Wide Audit and Evaluation Directorate:

Terry Hunt

Director, Audit and Studies Division:

Catherine Livingstone

Audit Manager:

Manon LeBrun

Auditors:

Kaddour Abejja
Guillaume Fontaine
Julie Guillerm-Therrien
Josée McKinnon
Linda McNamara
Chantal Séguin
Renée-Anne Ouellet
Suzanne Veaudry-Brown

Functional experts:

Ewa Ochmann, Director
Mariette Jacques, Manager
Ross Meehan, Manager
Paul Pilon, Manager

Appendices

Appendix A: Key aspects of the executive population

Source: Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada

Appendix B: Glossary of terms under the current Public Service Employment Act (PSEA)

Access

One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that persons from across the country have a reasonable opportunity, in their official language of choice, to apply and to be considered for public service employment.

Acting appointment

The temporary promotion of an employee.

Advertised appointment process

When persons in the area of selection are informed of and can apply to an appointment opportunity.

Appointment

An action taken under the Public Service Employment Act to hire or promote someone.

Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI)

The formal document by which the PSC delegates its authorities to deputy heads. It identifies authorities, any conditions related to the delegation and sub-delegation of these authorities and how deputy heads will be held accountable for the exercise of their delegated authorities.

Appointment file

Contains documentation used to support, confirm or explain the staffing practices and the reasons for the appointment decisions that are made throughout a staffing process.

Appointment Framework

Sets out expectations for deputy heads when designing their staffing systems to ensure they respect legislative requirements and values guiding staffing in the public service. The framework has three components: appointment policy, delegation and accountability.

Appointment policy

Under the Public Service Employment Act, the PSC can establish policies on making and revoking appointments and taking corrective action. The PSC has a number of policies on specific subjects that correspond to key decision points in appointment processes and should be read in conjunction with the Public Service Employment Regulations.

Appointment values

Merit, non-partisanship, fairness, access, transparency and representativeness.

Area of selection

The geographic, occupational, organizational and/or employment equity criteria that applicants must meet in order to be eligible for appointment that provides reasonable access to internal and external appointments and a reasonable area of recourse for internal non-advertised appointments. A national area of selection is prescribed by the PSC for certain external appointment processes.

Area of recourse

The area of recourse is derived from the area of selection (as defined by the manager) and determines who has recourse rights in advertised internal and non-advertised internal processes. The area should (provide for a reasonable pool of potential candidates) and provide meaningful access to recourse by providing recourse rights to the individuals most affected by the appointment, taking into account the nature of the process.

Assessment methods

Methods such as interviews, written tests, reference checks and simulations designed to assess candidates against the qualifications for the position.

Asset qualifications

Qualifications that are not essential to perform the work, but which would benefit the organization or enhance the work to be performed. Asset qualifications may include experience, education, knowledge, skills, personal suitability, or any other qualification with the exception of official language requirements.

Collective staffing process

An approach that allows for one staffing process to fill several similar positions within or between departments and agencies, as opposed to several individual processes.

Delegation

The means by which the Public Service Commission shares its roles, responsibilities and authority under the PSEA with deputy heads.

Essential qualifications

Qualifications necessary for the work to be performed and that must be met in order for a person to be appointed. These include education, experience, occupational certification, knowledge, abilities and skills, aptitudes, personal suitability and official language proficiency.

Executive Group

An occupational group providing leadership to the public service. It consists of five levels (EX-1 to EX-5).

External appointment process

A process in which persons may be considered, whether or not they are employed in the public service.

Fairness

One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that decisions be made objectively and free from political influence or personal favouritism, that policies and practices reflect the just treatment of persons, and that persons have the right to be assessed in their official language of choice.

Functional community

A specific career grouping (e.g. Finance, Communications, Policy, Comptrollership), for which a collaboration across departments and agencies has been formed to address the community's collective human resources needs.

Incumbent

A person currently occupying a position as the result of an appointment or a deployment to that position.

Indeterminate (permanent) employment

Employment of no fixed duration, whether part-time, full-time or seasonal.

Informal discussion

The opportunity for a person eliminated from consideration in an internal appointment process to discuss the decision informally before an appointment is made.

Internal appointment process

A process for making one or more appointments for which only persons employed in the public service may be considered.

Investigation

An inquiry into an alleged violation of the Public Service Employment Act or the Public Service Employment Regulations.

Language requirements of the position

The designation of a public service position, by the deputy head, as bilingual or unilingual according to the following categories: bilingual, English essential, French essential or either English or French essential.

Linguistic profile

The language requirements of a bilingual position and the proficiency level required in the second official language for reading, writing and oral interaction.

Merit

One of the core values of the Public Service Employment Act. An appointment is made on the basis of merit when a person appointed meets the essential qualifications for work to be performed, as established by the deputy head, including official language proficiency. The sub-delegated manager may also take into account any current or future asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs.

Merit criteria

Essential qualifications as well as other merit criteria. Essential qualifications are those necessary for the work to be performed; they must be met in order for a person to be appointed. The other merit criteria can include any additional current or future asset qualifications, operational requirements or organizational needs, as established by the deputy head. The sub-delegated manager decides whether to apply the other criteria when making an appointment.

Non-advertised appointment process

An appointment process that does not meet the criteria for an advertised appointment process.

Non-imperative appointment

An indeterminate appointment to a bilingual position that the deputy head has identified as not requiring a person who meets the required level of language proficiency at the time of appointment. Individuals appointed as a result of a non-imperative appointment either meet the language requirements at the time of appointment, agree to attain the required level of language proficiency within two years of the date of appointment, or are exempted from meeting the language requirements of the position on medical grounds or as a result of their eligibility for an immediate annuity within two years of appointment.

Non-partisanship

One of the core values of the Public Service Employment Act, non-partisanship ensures that appointments and promotions to and within the public service are made free from political influence and supports the capacity and willingness of employees to serve governments, regardless of political affiliation.

Notification

The two-step requirement to provide, in writing, the name of the person being considered for appointment, known as Notification of Consideration, and the name of the person being proposed or appointed, known as the Proposal of Appointment or Notification of Appointment, to all persons in the area of selection who participated in an advertised internal appointment process and to all persons in the area of selection for a non-advertised internal process.

Organizations

In this report, the term "organizations" refers to federal government departments and agencies.

Political influence

Interference in the appointment process. It could include, but is not limited to, interference by a minister's or a member of Parliament's office.

Priority entitlement

The right to be appointed to vacant positions ahead of all other persons. There are three types of statutory priorities under the Public Service Employment Act (surplus employees appointed within their own organization; leave of absence; and layoff, in that order) and six regulatory priorities under the Public Service Employment Regulations (surplus employees appointed outside their own organization; Governor General's exempt staff; employees who become disabled; Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are released for medical reasons; relocation of spouse or common law partner and reinstatement, in no particular order).

Priority person

A person who has an entitlement under the Public Service Employment Act or Public Service Employment Regulations, for a limited period, to be appointed ahead of all others to vacant positions in the public service. To be appointed the person must meet the essential qualifications of the position.

Promotion

An appointment to a higher level position.

Public service

As defined by the Public Service Employment Act, the departments named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act, the organizations named in Schedule IV to that Act, and the separate agencies named in Schedule V to that Act.

Representativeness

One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act requiring that appointment processes be conducted without bias and without creating systemic barriers in order to help achieve a public service that reflects the Canadian population it serves.

Resourcing

External and internal appointment activities.

Second language evaluation (SLE)

Language tests administered by the PSC to determine the second official language proficiency of employees and applicants. Includes reading, writing and oral interaction tests that assess the applicants' ability to read, write, and to speak and understand their second official language in a work context.

Staffing actions/activities

Include appointments to and within the public service, deployments, assignments and secondments.

Statement of Merit Criteria

Forms the basis for the assessment of merit; includes essential qualifications, asset qualifications, operational requirements and organizational needs.

Sub-delegated manager

A person to whom a deputy head has sub-delegated, in writing, the authority to exercise specific appointment and appointment-related authorities which have been delegated to the deputy head by the PSC.

Transparency

One of the guiding values of the Public Service Employment Act, requiring that information about strategies, decisions, policies and practices be communicated in an open and timely manner.

Waiting period

The minimum five-day period when no appointment can be made or proposed; begins on the date the persons to be notified are informed of the names of the persons being considered for appointments; applies to an internal advertised and non-advertised processes.

Foot Notes

1. This excludes reclassifications, because the appointee is the incumbent in the position and is not "acting". [Return]

2. In 2008, policy guidance was provided on advertising for collective staffing so that some of these types of practices would be considered advertised appointment processes rather than non-advertised. [Return]

Primary navigation (left column)