Summary of procedures and results 1. Named Employee Specific Procedures:

#	Procedure	Results
1.1	Does management haveindividual or aggregate records for how many times the Named Employee left the City (during normal or expected working hours) related to this and other types of absence during Dec to Feb?	We inquired with management and were informed that the individual named in the allegation has never left the City office during their working hours. IA was informed that between December 2019 and February 2020 the individual had six separatemeetings pertaining to the other organization which were conducted on their personal time. These meetings were approved by their supervisor. The individual often works evenings and weekends and therefore their schedule is adjusted frequently between them and their supervisor. This may lead others, not aware of the situation, to imply that the individual is not working during normal business hours but this is permitted under the work arrangement. We were not able to inspect above mentioned approvals, as they are verbal in nature. The named employee and the supervisor’s office are in the same location. The supervisor indicated that daily communication occurs in person. The verbal adjustment of hours has been past practice for many years and with the recent implementation of the Workforce Management system (WFM), future work hours will be adjusted in the computerized time tracking system to reflect actual/adjusted work hours.
1.2	While the role may permit some flexibility, how does the City know the individual is completing 35 hours weekly? How does the City know the hours reportedwere actually worked, that the expected outcomes are achieved?	We inquired with management and were informed that management staff are not directly monitored on an hourly basis, as is common practice in the public sector and industry. The supervisor is responsible for overseeing that the named employee is completing their 35 hours/week. This is achieved by adjusting the named employee’s work schedule on a weekly basis as well as evening/weekend/holiday events occur successfully without any major concerns. Furthermore, the supervisor regularly communicates/visits the named employee during the events they are working. We were unable to inspect the above mentioned communication between the person named in the allegation and their supervisor as prior to the implementation of the WFM, the named employee is a non-union salaried employee therefore there was not any paperwork to support any schedule changes prior to WFM. The Flexible Work Policy, Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest require disclosure by the named employee via the Conflict of Interest form. We obtained and inspected the Conflict of Interest form submitted by the individual named in the allegation. The form included the date they were to start working with the other organization and also thetime they plan to spend i.e., within their personal time. This form was signed by the HR Manager and Supervisor/Manager of the individual named in the allegation.

Conclusion: further procedures required; however management should document evidence that the individuals in these ​No flexible/alternative work scenarios are performing as required/expected. Management should consider documenting the flexible work program approach, ongoing adaptations (as they occur) and annual assessments thereof. One mechanism already in place is the annual consideration as to if the arrangement should be extended. At a minimum, management should document the assessment of performance over the past year and if the flexible arrangements/alternative work practices met the needs of both the City and the Employee and if the arrangement should be extended into the coming year. This analysis and determination should be documented and retained as part of human resource/personnel records.