DWP Rigged Some Promotions, Study Finds : Utilities: Investigation shows that managers often manipulated Civil Service ratings to aid candidates. Officials deny wrongdoing.

An investigation into high-level promotions at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has determined that some managers manipulated Civil Service ratings to benefit favored candidates for prized positions in the huge municipal utility.

The practice is so widespread that the city’s Personnel Department has temporarily suspended all DWP promotions that require a rating and has recommended its use be eliminated until DWP officials “prevent upper management from exerting undue influence,” according to a report to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners.

The report, to be presented to the board today, states that the practice has compromised the integrity of promotions to highly sought senior and principal engineer posts by enabling candidates to receive higher scores than they deserve. “Unfortunately, the reverse of this scenario is also a possibility,” the report said.

DWP officials denied that scores have been rigged, but they defended what one manager called “consensus ratings” of candidates to ensure that only the best employees are promoted. One official acknowledged that the practice, used since 1982, appears to violate civil service rules, but he said the DWP was only recently made aware of the problem.

“If there were any breaches, they were unintentional, and certainly we didn’t want to circumvent any civil service system,” said Bernard Palk, an assistant chief engineer. “We are going to go to the Civil Service Commission and say, ‘Yes, from your perception this is messed up . . . but let’s work together and resolve it.’ ”

Although investigators did not look into motives for manipulating scores, several minority employees complained that the ratings have been routinely weighted against them. The 11,000-employee department long has been criticized for passing over women and minorities for promotions, particularly to professional-level jobs.

“I believe a de facto glass ceiling exists,” electrical engineer Jeu Foon Jr., a candidate for one of the jobs, wrote to the commission. “For many, a decade of opportunity has been lost.”

African-American engineer Wallace T. Russell, who said he was twice passed over for promotion, urged the commission to do away with the rating system because of its “biased and prejudicial” application. Without it, he wrote, “maybe I can then compete on a level playing field.”

Attorney Laurence B. Labovitz, who has represented several minority employees in lawsuits against the department, said the civil service investigation provides the first independent confirmation of what many employees have suspected for years: that promotions are not always based on merit.

“They are so damn discriminatory down there it almost shocks the conscience,” Labovitz said. “And the moment some employees complain, they retaliate against them.”

A study last year of DWP employee attitudes, conducted by the Evaluation and Training Institute, found that employees believe that hiring and promotional decisions are predetermined and that affirmative action and equal opportunity programs are not working. The study recommended that “an independent third party” be included in all hiring and promotion decisions to avoid the appearance of bias.

Palk, a Latino, disputed that the system is designed to deny promotions to minorities, arguing instead that it helps ensure bias does not creep into evaluations. “It is not done in the closet, with one person dictating scores,” he said. “There is a lot of light on the process, so that in the event there is bias, it will be identified very quickly.”

But Leo Angelo, a senior personnel analyst who headed the investigation, said the probe was prompted by a complaint that a top department official dictated scores to one of 26 managers responsible for rating candidates. Civil service regulations require that the ratings be conducted without influence from upper management, he said.

“The ratings are supposed to be done independently,” Angelo said. “But the department (managers) got together and actually assigned scores for each of the candidates.”

Angelo said the investigation found the collusion to be “common practice” in the power system division. Although the probe did not involve the water system division, the Personnel Department has recommended that the rating procedure be dropped in both sections of the utility.

The rating system is a crucial factor--counting for up to 40% of a candidate’s score--in determining promotions to about 100 high-paid jobs. Senior engineers earn about $90,000 a year and principal engineers $108,000, putting them in the entry ranks of the department’s top management.

The raters--usually the employee’s immediate supervisors--judge on a scale of 1 to 100 a candidate’s likelihood of succeeding by evaluating his or her technical and administrative skills, as well as abilities to supervise, solve problems and get along with colleagues. The ratings, which are supposed to be confidential, are sent to the Personnel Department, where they are combined with written and oral exam results.

About 65 candidates for jobs in the power division received the ratings last year, but the results have been put on hold pending a ruling by civil service commissioners, which could come today. Many candidates for promotion have written to the board defending the rating practice, saying it helps the department find the best employees for advancement. Some also complained that it would be unfair to suddenly change the rules of advancement.

The ratings are “of great value to both the city and the candidates,” said one letter signed by 22 employees vying for the post of principal power engineer. “(They) allow top-level managers to score the candidates based on their individual skills . . . difficult, if not impossible, to test for.”

But opponents of the rating system said the collusion has made a mockery of the reward system, inviting ambitious employees to ingratiate themselves with influential superiors and rewarding only a select few. Employee Willie R. Gibson said the promotion process has become a “popularity contest or ‘who do you know in high places’ evaluation.”

In a letter to the board of commissioners, engineer E.N. Friesen also questioned the integrity of the process. “This makes a charade of ethical, equitable and honest evaluation and treatment of candidates,” he said.