2016 REPORT TO THE 
LEGISLATURE 

COMPLIANCE REVIEW 
AND SPECIAL 
INVESTIGATION 
ACTIVITIES 

Prepared by 

State Personnel Board 

801 Capitol Mall 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Kimiko Burton, President 
Lauri Shanahan, Vice President 
Patricia Clarey, Member 
Richard Costigan, Member 
Maeley Tom, Member 

Suzanne M. Ambrose, Executive Officer 

September 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 
INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS ...................................................................................... 2 
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS .......................................................... 4 
VERY SERIOUS ISSUES ............................................................................................... 6 
SERIOUS ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 17 
NON-SERIOUS OR TECHNICAL ISSUES ................................................................... 20 
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................. 23 
COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS ........................................................................ 24 
INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS ................................................ 25 
INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEWS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COSTS ......... 36 

i 

BACKGROUND 

Effective July 1, 2012, the Governor’s Reorganization Plan #1 (GRP1) of 2011 
consolidated all of the functions of the Department of Personnel Administration and the 
merit-related transactional functions of the State Personnel Board (SPB) into the 
Department of Human Resources (CalHR). Specifically, SPB programs related to 
appointments consultation, career executive assignment (CEA) allocations, test 
development, recruitment, examinations, psychological and medical screening, training, 
and the Office of Civil Rights transferred to the CalHR along with the associated staff 
and funding. In addition, all of the SPB’s accounting, budget, business services, human 
resources, information technology, legislative affairs, and public information office 
resources were transferred to the CalHR. The CalHR staff is now charged with 
providing these services to the SPB. 

The GRP1 recognized and preserved the SPB’s exclusive constitutional authority to 
administer the merit system. As a result, in addition to retaining the Appeals Division, 
the GRP1 created both a Policy Unit and Compliance Review Unit (CRU) at the SPB to 
establish merit-related policy and conduct reviews of departmental merit-related 
practices to ensure compliance with laws, rules, and board policy. The CRU performs 
cyclical standard reviews of five major areas: examinations, appointments, equal 
employment opportunity (EEO), personal services contracts (PSC’s) and mandated 
trainings. The CRU also conducts special investigations of certain departments’ 
personnel practices as determined by the Board. Special investigations may be initiated 
in response to a specific request or when the SPB obtains information suggesting a 
potential merit-related violation. 

Government Code section 18662, subdivision (e), provides, “On or before October 1, 
2014, and every October 1 thereafter, the board shall report to the Chairperson of the 
Joint Legislative Budget Committee the audit and special investigation activities of the 
board pursuant to this article from the preceding fiscal year. The board shall include in 
the report the following information: 

“(1) A summary of each audit and special investigation, including findings. 

(2) The number and total cost of audits and special investigations, by department.” 
This report, which is due October 1, 2016, describes the compliance review and special 
investigation activities of the CRU from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. The report 
summarizes the compliance review and special investigation findings by state 
department and includes the numbers and total cost of compliance reviews and special 
investigations by state department in compliance with the statute cited above. 

1 

INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS 

# Department Exam Appt EEO PSC Trn 
Air Resources Board • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Board of State and Community 
Corrections • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Arts Council • 
• 
• 
X X 
California Correctional Health Care 
Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Department of Aging • 
• 
• 
X X 
California Department of Finance • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Department of Health Care 
Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Department of Industrial 
Relations • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Department of Justice • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Department of Motor Vehicles • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Department of Pesticide 
Regulation • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Department of Rehabilitation • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Department of Resources and 
Recycling • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Department of Toxic 
Substances Control • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Energy Commission • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Fair Political Practices 
Commission • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Governor's Office of Emergency 
Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Health and Human Services 
Agency • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Health Facilities Financing 
Authority • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Highway Patrol • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
California Horse Racing Board • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
California Military Department • 
• 
• 
X X 

2 

# Department Exam Appt EEO PSC Trn 
24 California Public Employees Retirement 
System • 
• 
• 
X X 
25 California Science Center • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
26 California State Controller's Office • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
27 California State Transportation Agency • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
28 California Student Aid Commission X • 
• 
X • 
29 California Transportation Commission • 
• 
• 
X X 
30 Commission on Peace Officer Standards 
and Training • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
31 Commission on State Mandates X • 
• 
X • 
32 Department of Child Support Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
33 Department of Community Services and 
Development • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
34 Department of Consumer Affairs • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
35 Department of Food and Agriculture • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
36 Department of General Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
37 Department of Parks and Recreation • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
38 Department of Social Services • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
39 Department of Technology • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
40 Department of Water Resources • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
41 Emergency Medical Services Authority X • 
• 
X • 
42 Franchise Tax Board • 
• 
• 
• 
X 
43 Labor and Workforce Development 
Agency X • 
• 
X • 
44 Mental Health Services Oversight and 
Accountability Commission • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
45 Public Employment Relations Board • 
• 
• 
X X 
46 Sierra Nevada Conservancy • 
• 
• 
X • 
47 State Compensation Insurance Fund • 
• 
• 
X X 

3 

# Department Exam Appt EEO PSC Trn 
Total 42 47 47 35 24 

Key: 
..Signifies that a review of the area was conducted. 
X 
Signifies that a review of the area was not conducted. 

SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS 

From July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the CRU completed full compliance reviews of 47 
state departments and two special investigations. Four out of the 47 departments 
reviewed, or 9%, had no deficiencies. PSC procedural deficiencies were not found at 
any of the 35 departments which were reviewed for PSC compliance. The examination, 
appointment, EEO and mandated training deficiencies found at the other departments 
are described beginning on page six. 

A color-coded system is used to identify the severity of the violations as follows: 

.Red = Very Serious 
.Orange = Serious 
.Yellow = Non-serious or Technical 
In addition the frequency occurrence is classified as follows: 

. 
1-9% of departments reviewed = Low 
. 10-19% of departments reviewed = Medium 
. 
20%+ of departments reviewed = High 

The following chart displays the frequency of violations by severity. These findings are 
as anticipated given the need for education and oversight of the state’s delegated 
selection process. 

4 

July 1, 22015 -Junne 30, 20116 Compplianc22015 -Junne 30, 20116 Comppliance 
Review Summary of Finndings Tootal 

57%% 27 
16% 
% 
% 
VVery Serious 
Serious 
NNon-Serious oor 
Technical Issuues 
The most commonn very serioous and serious violattions and ccorrective aactions fromm the 
compliannce reviewss are: 

Very Serious Issuees 

• 
EEqual Employment Oppportunity QQuestionnaaires Weree Not Sepaarated Fromm All 
AApplicationss (Appointmments) – 233 of 47 Depaartments RReviewed orr 49% 
o 
Correective Actioon: Departmments mustt ensure alll EEO queestionnairess are 
separrated from aapplicationss 
• 
EEqual Employment Oppportunity QQuestionnaaires Weree Not Sepaarated Fromm All 
AApplicationss (Exams) –– 16 of 42 DDepartmentts Reviewedd or 38% 
o 
Correective Actioon: Departmments mustt ensure alll EEO queestionnairess are 
separrated from aapplicationss 
• 
Job Analys es Were Not Devel oped or UUsed for tthe Examinnation Proocess 
(EExams) – 88 of 42 Depaartments RReviewed orr 19% 
o 
Correective Actioon: Departtments muust abolish active eliigible lists and 
devellop job analyses beforre administeering futuree examinations 
• 
AA Disability Advisory CCommittee Has Not Been Estaablished (EEEO) – 8 oof 47 
DDepartmentss Reviewedd or 17% 
o 
Correective Actioon: Departmments weree required t to submit ccorrective a ction 
planss to the CRUU to ensuree the establlishment of legally commpliant DACC’s 
Serious Issues 

• 
PProbationaryy Evaluations Were Noot Providedd for All Apppointments Reviewed – 29 
of 47 Departtments Revviewed or 662% 
5 

o 
Corrective Action: Departments must ensure probationary evaluations are 
completed and retained 
• 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time – 
14 of 47 Departments Reviewed or 30% 
o 
Corrective Action: Departments must ensure documentation is retained in 
the future 
The CRU is continuing to conduct full compliance reviews. The CRU will continue to 
post review findings and consult with departments during reviews in order to educate 
departments regarding appropriate personnel practices. The CRU will monitor to ensure 
departments adopt corrective actions within the period prescribed. 

The CRU will monitor violations to view trends and make further corrective action, if 
warranted. Departments found in repeated violation will face severe corrective action 
which could include mandating training, additional monitoring, voiding examinations or 
appointments, and revocation or modification of delegated agreements. 

Based on the results of the compliance reviews and special investigations, the CRU has 
recommended regulatory changes to the Policy Unit to clarify existing law and to adopt 
long-standing best practices into regulation. Examples of proposed changes include, 
clarifying under what conditions an employee may receive a promotion in place, and the 
policy related to the use of appropriate lists when lists are not available for a particular 
classification. 

In addition, the CRU will periodically report violation trends to human resource forums. 
The CRU will also post best practices and tools on its webpage to aid departments in 
appropriately carrying out their personnel transactions. 

VERY SERIOUS ISSUES 

Issue 1: EEO Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications 
(Appointments) 
Criteria: Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring 
department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on 
any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to 
any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, 
subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national 
origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical 
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender 
identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and 
veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are 

6 

asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where 
such data is determined by CalHR to be necessary to an 
assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process 
and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. 
(Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state 
application form (STD 678) states, “This questionnaire will be 
separated from the application prior to the examination and will not 
be used in any employment decisions.” 
Cause: Lack of policies, procedures, and training related to the proper 
processing of EEO information; lack of staff resources; and 
inadvertent oversight. 
Severity: Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, 
subjecting the departments to potential liability. 
Frequency: High. 23 out of 47 departments or 49%. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that, in the future, all EEO questionnaires will be 
separated from applications. 
Issue 2: EEO Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications 
(Exams) 
Criteria: Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring 
department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on 
any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to 
any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, 
subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national 
origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical 
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender 
identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and 
veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are 
asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where 
such data is determined by CalHR to be necessary to an 
assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process 
and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. 
(Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state 
application form (STD 678) states, “This questionnaire will be 
separated from the application prior to the examination and will not 
be used in any employment decisions.” 

7 

Cause: Lack of policies, procedures, and training related to the proper 
processing of EEO information; lack of staff resources; and 
inadvertent oversight. 
Severity: Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, 
subjecting the departments to potential liability. 
Frequency: High. 16 out of 42 departments or 38%. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that, in the future, all EEO questionnaires will be 
separated from applications. 
Issue 3: Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

Criteria: New filers must be provided ethics training within six months of 
appointment. Existing filers must be trained at least once during 
each consecutive period of two calendar years commencing on the 
first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3, subd. 
(b).) 
Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its filers are aware 
of prohibitions related to his or her official position and influence. 
Frequency: High. 7 out of 24 departments or 29%. 
Cause: Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative 
notification, follow-up, and enforcement; and, failure to collect and 
retain training certificates. 
Action: The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to 
the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training 
requirements of Government Code section 11146.3, subd (b). 
Issue 4: Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for 
All Supervisors 
Criteria: Each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual 
harassment training every two years. New supervisors must be 
provided sexual harassment prevention training within six months 
of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1 subd. (a).) 
Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new managers 
are properly trained. Without proper training, supervisors are not 

8 

prepared to properly respond to issues involving sexual 
harassment, which limits the department’s ability to retain a quality 
workforce, impacts employee morale and productivity, and subjects 
the department to liability. 
Frequency: High. 6 out of 24 departments or 25%. 
Cause: Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative 
notification, follow-up, and enforcement; failure to collect and retain 
training certificates; and, lack of trainer availability. 
Action: The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to 
the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training 
requirements of Government Code section 12950.1, subd (a). 
Issue 5: Basic Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All 
Supervisors 
Criteria: Each department must provide its new supervisors supervisory 
training within twelve months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 
19995.4 subd. (b) and (c.).) The training must be a minimum of 80 
hours, 40 of which must be structured and given by a qualified 
instructor. The other 40 hours may be done on the job by a higher-
level supervisor or manager. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4 subd. (b).) 
Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new managers 
are properly trained. Without proper training, new supervisory 
employees may not properly carry out their supervisory roles, 
including managing employees. 
Frequency: High. Six out of 24 departments or 25%. 
Cause: Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative 
notification, follow-up, and enforcement; failure to collect and retain 
training certificates; and, lack of training availability. 
Action: The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to 
the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training 
requirements of Government Code section 19995.4, subd. (b) and 
(c.) 

9 

Issue 6: Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the 
Examination Process 
Criteria: The Merit Selection Manual (MSM), which is incorporated in 
California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, section 50, mandates 
the development and use of a job analysis for the examination 
process. A "job analysis shall serve as the primary basis for 
demonstrating and documenting the job-relatedness of examination 
processes conducted for the establishment of eligible lists within 
the State’s civil service." (MSM (Oct. 2003), § 2200, p. 2.) The 
MSM requires that job analyses adhere to the legal and 
professional standards outlined in the job analysis section of the 
MSM and that certain elements must be included in the job analysis 
studies. (Ibid.) Those requirements include the following: (1) that 
the job analysis be performed for the job for which the subsequent 
selection procedure is developed and used; (2) the methodology 
utilized be described and documented; (3) the job analytic data be 
collected from a variety of current sources; (4) job tasks be 
specified in terms of importance or criticality, and their frequency of 
performance; (5) and job tasks be sufficiently detailed to derive the 
requisite knowledge, skills, abilities (KSA's), and personal 
characteristics that are required to perform the essential tasks and 
functions of the job classification. (MSM, § 2200, pp. 2-3.) 
Severity: Very Serious. The examinations may not have been job-related or 
legally defensible. 
Frequency: High. 8 out of 42 departments or 19%. 
Cause: Lack of training; staff turnover and/or inadequate staffing; and, lack 
of examination resources. 
Action: Eligible lists from examinations without a job analysis which had not 
expired were abolished and the departments were required to 
submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure that, in the 
future, job analyses will be developed and used for the examination 
process. 
Issue 7: A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
Criteria: 
10 
Each state agency must establish a separate committee of 
employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an 
interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on 
issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 

19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to 
serve on the committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that 
the final committee is comprised of members who have disabilities 
or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, § 19795, 
subd. (b)(2).) 
Cause: Prior Disability Advisory Committees (DAC)’s became inactive, 
recruitment issues and/or declining participation, DAC member 
turnover, and minimal staff. 
Severity: Very Serious. The department heads did not have direct 
information on issues of concern to employees or other persons 
with disabilities and input to correct any underrepresentation. The 
lack of a Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) may limit a 
department’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, 
impact productivity, and subject the department to liability. 
Frequency: Medium. 8 out of 47 departments or 17%. 
Action: The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to 
the CRU to ensure the establishment of legally compliant DAC’s. 
Issue 8: EEO Officers Did Not Monitor the Composition of Oral Panels 
in Department Exams 
Criteria: The EEO Officer at each department must monitor the composition 
of oral panels in departmental examinations (Gov. Code, § 19795, 
subd. (a)). 
Severity: Very Serious. Requiring the EEO Officer to monitor oral panels is 
intended to ensure protection against discrimination in the hiring 
process. 
Frequency: Medium. 6 out of 47 departments or 13%. 
Cause: Lack of process/procedure and lack of training and/or awareness of 
applicable laws and rules. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that the EEO Officer monitors the composition 
of oral panels in departmental exams. 

11 

Issue 9: Unlawful Appointments 

Criteria: 
Article VII of the State Constitution requires that permanent 
appointments in State civil service be based on merit as 
ascertained by competitive examination. Unlawful appointments 
may occur for a variety of reasons including administrative errors, 
oversight, misinformation, or, in rare cases, attempts to circumvent 
the state’s civil service system. Some of the most common reasons 
for unlawful appointments are: 

• 
Transfer of an individual based on inaccurate interpretation 
of the transfer requirements. 
• 
Appointment of an individual from a non-reachable rank of 
the certification list. 
• 
Appointment of an individual who does not meet the 
minimum qualifications of the classification. 
Severity: 
Very Serious. An unlawful appointment provides the employee with 
an unfair and unearned appointment advantage over other 
employees whose appointments have been processed in 
compliance with the requirements of civil service law. Unlawful 
appointments which are not corrected also create appointment 
inconsistencies that jeopardize the equitable administration of the 
civil service merit system. 

When an unlawful appointment is voided, the employee loses any 
tenure in the position, as well as seniority credits, eligibility to take 
promotional examinations, and compensation at the voided 
appointment level. If “bad faith” is determined on the part of the 
appointing power, civil or criminal action may be initiated. 
Disciplinary action may also be pursued against any officer or 
employee in a position of authority who directs any officer or 
employee to take action in violation of the appointment laws. If bad 
faith is determined on the part of the employee, the employee may 
be required to reimburse all compensation resulting from the 
unlawful appointment and may also be subject to disciplinary 
action. 

Frequency: 
Low. 4 out of 47 departments or 9%. 

Cause: 
Staff error, lack of proper staff training and awareness of the laws 
and rules governing the appointment process. 

12 

Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU that addresses the corrections the departments will 
implement to ensure the departments will improve their hiring 
practices. 
Issue 10: The EEO Officers Did Not Report Directly to the Heads of the 
Departments 
Criteria: The appointing power must appoint, at the managerial level, an 
EEO Officer, who shall report directly to, and be under the 
supervision of, the director of the department to develop, 
implement, coordinate, and monitor the department’s EEO 
program. (Gov. Code, § 19795.) In a state department with less 
than 500 employees, the EEO Officer may be the personnel officer. 
(Ibid.) 
Severity: Very Serious. The EEO Officers did not have direct access to the 
head of the organization, diminishing the significance of the EEO 
program. 
Frequency: Low. 4 out of 47 departments or 9%. 
Cause: Reorganization of administrative functions and lack of awareness of 
Government Code section 19795. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that their EEO Officers report directly to the 
head of each department. 
Issue 11: No Active Upward Mobility Program 

Criteria: 
Each appointing authority shall develop and maintain a written 
upward mobility plan as specified in the State Personnel Board's 
Guidelines for Administering Departmental Upward Mobility 
Employment Programs (Guidelines), revised July 25, 2000. 

The plan shall include: (a) A policy statement regarding the 
appointing authority's commitment to providing equal upward 
mobility opportunity for its employees in low-paying occupations. (b) 
A description of the components of its program consistent with 
Government Code section 19401, how employees may access the 
program, and where information about the program may be 
obtained. (c) The roles and responsibilities of the employee, the 

13 

employee's supervisor, the upward mobility program coordinator, 
the personnel office, the training office, and the equal employment 
opportunity office regarding the upward mobility program. (d) 
Criteria for selecting employees in low-paying occupations to 
19401. (e) The number of employees in classifications in low-
paying occupations technical, professional, and administrative 
classes targeted for upward mobility; and planned upward mobility 
examinations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.983.) 
Severity: Very Serious. The department does not have a plan to ensure it 
has an effective upward mobility program to develop and advance 
employees in low-paying occupations. 
Frequency: Low. 3 out of 47 departments or 6%. 
Cause: Lack of resources and personnel; staff turnover; and, written 
upward mobility plan in developmental stage due to lengthy review 
process. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure conformity with upward mobility requirements of 
Government Code section 19401. 
Issue 12: Examination Was Compromised 

Criteria: California Code Regulations, Title 2, section 197.5, subdivision (b) 
mandates that when anyone directly involved in the development or 
administration of any phase of an examination and a competitor are 
related by blood, “(1) The rater shall disqualify him/herself from 
rating the applicant, or (2) shall not participate in any phase of the 
administration of that particular examination.” 
Severity: Very Serious. The compromised examination provided one 
candidate with an unfair advantage over other candidates. The 
equitable administration of the civil service merit system has been 
jeopardized. Additionally, since no job analysis was used, the 
examinations may not have been job-related or legally defensible. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 42 departments or 2%. 
Cause: Lack of staff training and/or awareness of the laws and rules 
governing the examination process. 

14 

Action: The department was required to abolish the exam list and submit a 
corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure that future 
examinations are not compromised. 
Issue 13: Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in 
Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period 
Criteria: The appointing power must issue a written decision to the 
complainant within 90 days of the discrimination complaint being 
filed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 64.4, subd. (a).) If the appointing 
power is unable to issue its decision within the prescribed time 
period, the appointing power must inform the complainant in writing 
of the reasons for the delay. (Ibid.) 
Severity: Very Serious. Employees were not informed of the reasons for 
delays in decision for complaints of discrimination. Employees may 
feel their concerns are not being taken seriously, which can leave 
the department open to liability and low employee morale. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 47 departments or 2%. 
Cause: The department believed that the 90-day window for issuing a 
decision on a discrimination complaint was only applicable for 
complaints based on mental disability, physical disability, and 
medical condition. 
Action: The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that complainants are notified of the reasons for 
delays in decisions within the prescribed time period. 
Issue 14: Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Also Serves as the 
Personnel Officer at a State Agency with More Than 500 
Employees 
Criteria: California Government Code section 19795 (a) states “The 
appointing power of each state agency and the director of each 
state department shall appoint, at the managerial level, an equal 
employment opportunity officer, who shall report directly to, and be 
under the supervision of, the director of the department, to develop, 
implement, coordinate, and monitor the agency's equal employment 
opportunity program. In a state agency with less than 500 
employees, the equal employment opportunity officer may be the 
personnel officer.” 

15 

Severity: Very Serious. The EEO Officer is responsible for developing, 
implementing, coordinating, and monitoring their department’s EEO 
program. Due to the substantial responsibilities held by each 
department’s EEO Officer, it is essential that each department, 
employing more than 500 employees, appoint an EEO Officer, at 
the managerial level, that may successfully maintain the 
effectiveness of the EEO program without the undue burden of also 
maintaining the effectiveness of the department’s Personnel Office. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 47 departments or 2%. 
Cause: No ability to allocate a position to meet this requirement. 
Action: The department was required to submit a written corrective action 
plan to ensure conformity with California Government Code section 
19795. 
Issue 15: Inappropriate Appointment Via Departmental Reemployment 
Criteria: California Government Code section 19056 mandates that the 
individual standing highest on a departmental reemployment list 
shall be certified and appointed. Therefore, the rule of one name 
applies to subdivisional and departmental reemployment lists 
wherein the first interested individual on the list must be selected if 
a list appointment is to be the method of appointment. 
Severity: Very Serious. Without documentation establishing the basis for not 
hiring the highest ranked individual on the departmental 
reemployment list, the CRU could not verify whether the 
appointment was properly conducted. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 47 departments or 2%. 
Cause: Documentation for the reemployment list was not sufficient to 
ensure compliance with California Government Code section 
19056. 
Action: The department was required to submit a written corrective action 
plan to ensure conformity with the requirements of California 
Government Code section 19056. 
Issue 16: Job Opportunities Were Not Properly Advertised 

16 

Criteria: Departments are required to have recruitment strategies designed 
to be “as broad and inclusive as necessary to ensure the 
identification of an appropriate candidate group.” (Merit Selection 
Manual [MSM], § 1100, p. 1100.2 (Oct. 2003); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 
2, § 50.) Generally, the typical steps a department takes after 
determining that approval to fill a vacant position has been secured 
include: determining whether there is an eligible list for the 
classification in which the vacancy exits; determining whether an 
eligible list is necessary to fill the vacancy; advertise the vacancy, 
which may include certifying the eligible list; receive applications, 
and if no applications are received, re-advertise the position with 
increased recruitment efforts; screen applications to determine 
which candidates meet minimum qualification requirements and are 
eligible for appointment; and conduct hiring interviews. (MSM, § 
1200, pp. 1200.7-1200.8; Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 50.) 
Severity: Very Serious. All interested individuals were not provided the 
opportunity to apply. By failing to advertise, the department cannot 
be certain that it has hired the most qualified workforce. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 47 departments or 2%. 
Cause: The department had not yet implemented policies and procedures 
requiring the posting of all vacancies on CalHR’s designated 
website. 
Action: The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that recruitment strategies are broad and 
inclusive and that vacancies are posted on CalHR’s designated 
website. 
SERIOUS ISSUES 
Issue 17: ProbationaryAppointments 
Evaluations Were Not Provided for All 
Criteria: A new probationary period is not required when an employee is 
appointed by reinstatement with a right of return. (Cal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 322, subd. (d)(2).) However, the service of a probationary 
period is required when an employee enters state civil service by 
permanent appointment from an employment list. (Cal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 322, subd. (a).) In addition, unless waived by the appointing 
power, a new probationary is required when an employee is 
appointed to a position under the following circumstances: (1) 

17 

without a break in service in the same class in which the employee 
has completed the probationary period, but under a different 
appointing power; and (2) without a break in service to a class with 
substantially the same or lower level of duties and responsibilities 
and salary range as a class in which the employee has completed 
the probationary period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322, subd. (c)(1) 
& (2).) 
During the probationary period, the appointing power is required to 
evaluate the work and efficiency of a probationer at sufficiently 
frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately informed of 
progress on the job. (Gov. Code, § 19172; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 
599.795.) The appointing power must prepare a written appraisal of 
performance each one-third of the probationary period. (Cal. Code 
Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.) 
Severity: Serious. The probationary period is the final step in the selection 
process to ensure that the individual selected can successfully 
perform the full scope of their job duties. Failing to use the 
probationary period to assist an employee in improving his or her 
performance or terminating the appointment upon determination 
that the appointment is not a good job/person match is unfair to the 
employee and serves to erode the quality of state government. 
Frequency: High. 29 out of 47 departments or 62%. 
Cause: Lack of or deficiency in process, tracking system, training; workload 
issues; or staff failed to follow existing policies and procedures. 
Action: The departments were required to submit to the CRU a written 
corrective action plan that addresses how they will ensure full 
compliance from supervisory/managerial staff to meet with the 
probationary requirements of Government Code section 19172. 
Issue 18: Appointment Documentation 
Appropriate Amount of Time 
Was Not Kept for the 
Criteria: As specified in California Code of Regulations, section 26, (Rule 
26), appointing powers are required to retain records related to 
affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, examinations, 
merit, selection, and appointment for a minimum period of five 
years from the date the record is created. These records are 
required to be readily accessible and retained in an orderly and 
systematic manner. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 26.) 

18 

Severity: Serious. Without documentation, the CRU could not verify if the 
appointments were legal. 
Frequency: High. 14 out of 47 departments or 30%. 
Cause: Lack of policies, procedures, and training; or erroneous destruction 
of documents by hiring manager. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that, in the future, appointment documentation is 
retained for the appropriate period of time. 
Issue 19: Examination Documentation 
Appropriate Amount of Time 
Was Not Kept for the 
Criteria: As specified in California Code of Regulations, section 26, (Rule 
26), appointing powers are required to retain records related to 
affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, examinations, 
merit, selection, and appointment for a minimum period of five 
years from the date the record is created. These records are 
required to be readily accessible and retained in an orderly and 
systematic manner. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 26.) 
Severity: Serious. Without documentation, the 
examinations were properly conducted. 
CRU cannot verify if 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 42 departments or 2%. 
Cause: Lack of policies, procedures, and training. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to 
the CRU to ensure that, in the future, all employment 
documentation is retained for the appropriate amount of time. 
Issue 20: Hiring Individual Below Rank Three Was Not Documented 

Criteria: 
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 254 (Rule 254) 
mandates that each vacancy for a class in which the certification of 
eligibles is under Government Code section 19057, the department 
shall fill a vacancy by eligibles in the three highest names certified. 
Government Code section 19057 refers to promotional employment 
lists. Rule 254 additionally mandates that each vacancy for a class 

19 

in which the certification of eligibles is under Government Code 
sections19057.1, 19057.2 and 19057.3, the department shall fill a 
vacancy by eligibles in the three highest ranks certified. 
Government Code sections 19057.1, 19057.2 and 19057.3 refer to 
professional, scientific, administrative and management 
classifications. 
Severity: Serious. Without documentation establishing the basis for hiring 
below the top three ranks, the CRU could not verify whether one 
appointment to Office Technician was properly conducted. 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 47 departments or 2%. 
Cause: The department had a documentation process for appointing 
candidates from ranks four and below. However, that process was 
not properly followed in this instance. 
Action: The department was required to submit to the CRU a written 
corrective action plan that addresses the corrections the 
department will implement to improve its hiring practices. 
NON-SERIOUS OR TECHNICAL ISSUES 
Issue 21: Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After 
the Final File Date (Appointments) 
Criteria: California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 174 (Rule 174) 
requires timely filing of applications: All applications must be 
filed at the place, within the time, in the manner, and on the form 
specified in the examination announcement. Filing an application 
‘within the time’ shall mean postmarked by the postal service or 
date stamped at one of the department’s offices (or appropriate 
office of the agency administering the examination) by the date 
specified. 
An application that is not postmarked or date stamped by the 
specified date shall be accepted, if one of the following 
conditions as detailed in Rule 174 apply: (1) the application was 
delayed due to verified error; (2) the application was submitted in 
error to the wrong state agency and is either postmarked or date 
stamped on or before the specified date; (3) the employing agency 
verifies examination announcement distribution problems that 
prevented timely notification to an employee of a promotional 
examination; or (4) the employing agency verifies that the 

20 

applicant failed to receive timely notice of promotional 
examination. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 174, subds. (a), (b), (c), & 
(d).) The same final filing date procedures are applied to the 
selection process used to fill a job vacancy. 
Severity: Non-serious or Technical. Final filing dates are established to 
ensure all applicants are given the same amount of time in which to 
apply for a job vacancy and to set a deadline for the 
recruitment. Therefore, although the acceptance of applications 
after the final filing date may give some applicants more time to 
prepare their application than other applicants who meet the final 
filing date, the acceptance of late applications will not impact the 
results of the job vacancy selection. 
Frequency: High. 20 out of 47 departments or 43%. 
Cause: Lack of centralized process for receiving applications to ensure 
proper processes were being followed; staff removed and 
discarded the stamped mailing letters/envelopes stapled to 
applications; and, staff error and/or insufficient training. 
Action: The departments were required to submit a written corrective action 
plan to CRU to ensure conformity with Rule 174. 
Issue 22: Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After 
the Final File Date (Exams) 
Criteria: California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 174 (Rule 174) 
requires timely filing of applications: All applications must be filed 
at the place, within the time, in the manner, and on the form 
specified in the examination announcement. Filing an application 
‘within the time’ shall mean postmarked by the postal service or 
date stamped at one of the department’s offices (or appropriate 
office of the agency administering the examination) by the date 
specified. 
An application that is not postmarked or date stamped by the 
specified date shall be accepted, if one of the following conditions 
as detailed in Rule 174 apply: (1) the application was delayed 
due to verified error; (2) the application was submitted in error to 
the wrong state agency and is either postmarked or date stamped 
on or before the specified date; (3) the employing agency verifies 
examination announcement distribution problems that prevented 
timely notification to an employee of a promotional examination; or 

21 

(4) the employing agency verifies that the applicant failed to receive 
timely notice of promotional examination. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 
174, subds. (a), (b), (c), & (d).) The same final filing date 
procedures are applied to the selection process used to fill a job 
vacancy. 
Severity: Non-serious or Technical. Final filing dates are established to 
ensure all applicants are given the same amount of time in which to 
apply for a job vacancy and to set a deadline for the 
recruitment. Therefore, although the acceptance of applications 
after the final filing date may give some applicants more time to 
prepare their application than other applicants who meet the final 
filing date, the acceptance of late applications will not impact the 
results of the job vacancy selection. 
Frequency: Medium. 7 out of 42 departments or 17%. 
Cause: Lack of centralized process for receiving applications to ensure 
proper processes were being followed; staff removed and 
discarded the stamped mailing letters/envelopes stapled to 
applications; and, staff error and/or insufficient training. 
Action: The departments were required to submit written corrective action 
plans to CRU to ensure conformity with Rule 174. 
Issue 23: Examination Bulletins Did Not Include All Requirements 
Criteria: Government Code section 18933 states that a department or a 
designated appointing power shall announce or advertise 
examinations for the establishment of eligible lists. The 
announcement shall include the following: 
(1) The date and place of the examination. 
(2) The nature of the minimum qualifications. 
(3) The general scope of the examination. 
(4) The relative weight of its several parts if more than one 
type of test is to be utilized. 
(5) Any other information the department deems proper. 
(b) The department shall notify the Department of Veterans Affairs 
when any promotional examination for the establishment of an 
eligible list is announced or advertised to eligible candidates. The 
notification shall state the job position and include all of the 

22 

information listed in paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision 
(a). 
Frequency: Low. 1 out of 42 departments or 2%. 
Severity: Non-Serious or Technical. Although examination bulletins should 
include the relative weight of each part of the tests being utilized, in 
this case, it did not appear to compromise the results of the 
examination process. 
Cause: Specific weight of each component of the exam was not known 
upon release of the exam bulletin. 
Action: The department was required to submit a corrective action plane for 
ensuring full compliance in meeting the requirements of 
Government Code section 18933. 
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS 

In response to the SPB Appeals Division (AD) merit issue determination in David 
Carrillo, Jill Harvey, Luanne Schuler, and Audrey Uratani v. Department of Justice 
(Case No. 14-1031N, 14-1032N, 14-0133N, and 14-0134N) (Carrillo), the CRU 
conducted a special investigation into California Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel 
practices related to appointments made from July 1, 2011, to December 5, 2014. 
Specifically, the special investigation focused on appointments subsequent to the 
Governor’s Reorganization Plan # 2, which involved merging the California Gambling 
Commission (CGC) into the DOJ’s Bureau of Gambling Control (BGC). Based upon the 
review of the information contained in DOJ appointment files and other relevant 
materials, the CRU found records retention deficiencies; but no evidence of illegal hiring 
practices. 

The CRU also investigated the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 
(CalFire) regarding two re-promotional appointments to Fire Captain. In 2015, adverse 
actions were taken against the three employees for improperly receiving interview 
questions and desired answers before participating in competitive interviews for vacant 
Fire Captain positions. Two of the three individuals were demoted from limited-term Fire 
Captain positions back to their previous Fire Apparatus Engineer classification within 
the same fire stations and given a 5% salary reduction for 12 months. The third 
individual was rejected on probation from the limited-term Fire Captain position to his 
previous Fire Apparatus Engineer classification at a different fire station than he had 
been promoted from and given a 5% salary reduction for 12 months. Within 30 days of 
the effective date of the demotions, however, two of the demoted employees were reappointed 
to Fire Captain positions within the same fire stations to which they had been 
demoted. In order to determine whether the two re-promotions to Fire Captain following 

23 

adverse actions were appropriate, the CRU reviewed the three original appointments to 
Fire Captain positions and the two subsequent re-appointments back to Fire Captain 
following the brief demotion. 

The CRU found that CAL FIRE failed to maintain proper documentation, provided 
inconsistent and contradictory information, and failed to follow established procedures in 
the appointments. 

COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS 

The CRU completed 47 compliance reviews and two special investigations from July 1, 
2015, to June 30, 2016. The total cost of the combined completed reviews is 
$2,241,881.38. The total only includes completed reviews and special investigations 
and does not include compliance reviews or special investigations currently in process. 
A per department breakdown of costs for each review and special investigation is listed 
in the Index of Compliance Reviews and Special Investigations Costs on page 36. 

24 

INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS 

Air Resources Board 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

Board of State and Community Corrections 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 
. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

California Arts Council 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 
Board Rules 

California Correctional Health Care Services 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of 
the Agency 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

25 

California Department of Aging 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Department of Finance 

. 
Exam Bulletin Did Not Include All Requirements 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 
. 
Job Opportunities Were Not Properly Advertised 
. Unlawful Appointment By Way of Transfer 
. Unlawful Promotion-In-Place Appointments 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped. 
. 
Certifications Were Not Documented Electronically 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Department of Health Care Services 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Exams) 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 
(Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

26 

California Department of Industrial Relations 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Exams) 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After The Final File Date 
(Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. Unlawful Appointment 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 
. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

California Department of Justice 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Inappropriate Appointment via Departmental Reemployment 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Job Opportunities Were Not Properly Advertised 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 
. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

California Department of Motor Vehicles 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Certifications Were Not Documented Electronically 

27 

. 
Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in Decisions Within 
the Prescribed Time Period 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Department of Rehabilitation 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Department of Resources and Recycling 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Also Serves As the Personnel Officer at a 

State Agency with More Than 500 Employees 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Certifications Were Not Documented Electronically 

28 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 
Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Energy Commission 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

California Fair Political Practices Commission 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Governor's Office of Emergency Services 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of 

the Agency 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Health and Human Services Agency 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Health Facilities Financing Authority 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed. 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

29 

. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Highway Patrol 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Examination Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Applications Were Accepted After the Final File Date (Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. Unlawful Appointment 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 

(Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of 
the Agency 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

California Horse Racing Board 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. 
Basic Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors 
. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 
. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

California Military Department 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 
. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Armory Custodian Examination Was Compromised (Special Investigation) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 

California Public Employees Retirement System 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 

California Science Center 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

30 

. 
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California State Controller's Office 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California State Transportation Agency 

. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After The Final File Date 
(Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Student Aid Commission 

. 
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
No Active Upward Mobility Program 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

California Transportation Commission 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 
Panels in Departmental Exams 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 

Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

31 

Commission on State Mandates 

. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 
Board Rules 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

Department of Child Support Services 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Community Services and Development 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Consumer Affairs 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 

. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Food and Agriculture 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 

. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 

. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

. 
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

. 
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

32 

Department of General Services 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Applications Were Accepted After the Final File Date (Exams) 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Hiring Individual Below Rank Three Was Not Documented 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Social Services 

. 
Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the Examination Process 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Department of Technology 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

Department of Water Resources 

. 
Applications Were Accepted After Final Filing Date 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped 

33 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of 
the Agency 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Emergency Medical Services Authority 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
A Written Upward Mobility Plan Has Not Been Established 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

Franchise Tax Board 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 

Labor and Workforce Development Agency 

. 
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 
Board Rules 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

Public Employment Relations Board 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Exams) 
. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After the Final File Date 
(Exams) 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 
Applications (Appointments) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 

34 

. 
Applications Were Not Date Stamped. 
. 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
. 
A Written Upward Mobility Plan Has Not Been Established 

Sierra Nevada Conservancy 

. 
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and 

Board Rules 
. Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

State Compensation Insurance Fund 

. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All 

Applications (Exams) 
. 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed 
. 
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral 

Panels in Departmental Exams 

35 

INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEWS AND 
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS COSTS 

Department 
Compliance 
Review 
Completed 
Special 
Investigation 
Completed 
Total Cost 
Air Resources Board Yes No $39,489.95 
Board of State and Community Corrections Yes No $18,000 
California Arts Council Yes No $9,000 
California Correctional Health Care Services Yes No $68,431.25 
California Department of Aging Yes No $30,759.38 
California Department of Forestry and Fire 
Protection Yes Yes $93,000 
California Department of Health Care Services Yes No $84,000 
California Department of Industrial Relations Yes No $84,000 
California Department of Justice Yes Yes $84,000 
California Department of Motor Vehicles Yes No $93,000 
California Department of Pesticide Regulation Yes No $33,000 
California Department of Rehabilitation Yes No $48,000 
California Department of Resources Recycling 
and Recovery Yes No $48,000 
California Department of Toxic Substances 
Control Yes No $48,000 
California Energy Commission Yes No $48,000 
California Fair Political Practices Commission Yes No $18,000 
California Governor’s Office of Emergency 
Services Yes No $48,000 
California Health and Human Services Agency Yes No $33,000 
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Yes No $9,000 
California Highway Patrol Yes No $138,000 
California Horse Racing Board Yes No $18,000 
California Military Department Yes No $31,364.50 
California Public Employees Retirement 
System No No $84,000 
California Science Center Yes No $33,000 
California State Controller’s Office Yes No $48,000 
California State Transportation Agency No No $18,000 
California Student Aid Commission Yes No $33,000 
California Transportation Commission Yes No $20,847.64 
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and 
Training Yes No $33,000 
Commission on State Mandates Yes No $9,000 
Department of Child Support Services Yes No $48,000 
Department of Community Services and 
Development Yes No $35,476.88 
Department of Consumer Affairs Yes No $96,000 
Department of Food and Agriculture Yes No $43,819.50 
Department of General Services Yes No $72,692.28 
Department of Parks and Recreation Yes No $84,000 
Department of Social Services Yes No $84,000 
Department of Technology Yes No $48,000 
Department of Water Resources Yes No $84,000 

36 

Department 
Compliance 
Review 
Completed 
Special 
Investigation 
Completed 
Total Cost 
Emergency Medical Services Authority Yes No $18,000 
Franchise Tax Board Yes No $93,000 
Labor and Workforce Development Agency Yes No $9,000 
Mental Health Services Oversight and 
Accountability Commission Yes No $9,000 
Public Employment Relations Board Yes No $18,000 
Sierra Nevada Conservancy Yes No $12,000 
State Compensation Insurance Fund Yes No $84,000 
Total $2,241,881.38 

The costs only include completed reviews and special investigations from July 1, 2015, 
to June 30, 2016, and do not include reviews and special investigations currently in 
progress. 

37