COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES 
CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Review Unit 

State Personnel Board 

July 15, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 3 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 3 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 6 
Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................. 9 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 10 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 12 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 12 

INTRODUCTION 

Established by the California Constitution, the State Personnel Board (the SPB or 
Board) is charged with enforcing and administering the civil service statutes, prescribing 
probationary periods and classifications, adopting regulations, and reviewing 
disciplinary actions and merit-related appeals. The SPB oversees the merit-based 
recruitment and selection process for the hiring of over 200,000 state employees. These 
employees provide critical services to the people of California, including but not limited 
to, protecting life and property, managing emergency operations, providing education, 
promoting the public health, and preserving the environment. The SPB provides 
direction to departments through the Board’s decisions, rules, policies, and consultation. 

Pursuant to Government Code section 18661, the SPB’s Compliance Review Unit 
(CRU) conducts compliance reviews of appointing authority’s personnel practices in five 
areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal 
services contracts (PSC’s), and mandated training to ensure compliance with civil 
service laws and board regulations. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure state 
agencies are in compliance with merit related laws, rules, and policies and to identify 
and share best practices identified during the reviews. The SPB conducts these reviews 
on a three-year cycle. 

The CRU may also conduct special investigations in response to a specific request or 
when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The CRU conducted a routine compliance review of California Community Colleges 
Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) personnel practices in the areas of examinations, 
appointments, and EEO from May 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, and mandated 
training from February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016. There were no PSC’s 
executed during the compliance review period. The following table summarizes the 
compliance review findings. 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Examinations 

Examinations Complied with Civil Service 
Laws and Board Rules 

In Compliance 

Appointments 

Appointments Complied with Civil Service 
Laws and Board Rules 

In Compliance 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Equal Employment 
Opportunity 

A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been 
Established 

Very Serious 

Mandated Training 

Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All 
Supervisors 

Very Serious 

Mandated Training 

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was 
Not Provided for All Supervisors 

Very Serious 

 

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 
. Green = In Compliance 

 
BACKGROUND 

The mission of the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and the 
Chancellor’s Office is to empower the community colleges through leadership, advocacy 
and support. The California Community Colleges is the largest system of higher 
education in the nation, with 2.1 million students attending 113 colleges. Our colleges 
provide students with the knowledge and background necessary to compete in today’s 
economy. With a wide range of educational offerings, the colleges provide workforce 
training, basic courses in English and math, certificate and degree programs, and 
preparation for transfer to four-year institutions. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing CCCCO examinations, 
appointments, and EEO program from May 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, and 
mandated training from February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2016. The primary 
objective of the review was to determine if CCCCO personnel practices, policies, and 
procedures complied with state civil service laws and board regulations, and to 
recommend corrective action where deficiencies were identified. 

A cross-section of CCCCO examinations and appointments were selected for review to 
ensure that samples of various examinations and appointment types, classifications, 
and levels were reviewed. The CRU examined the documentation that the CCCCO 
provided, which included examination plans, examination bulletins, job analyses, 
511b’s, scoring results, notice of personnel action forms, vacancy postings, application 

screening criteria, hiring interview rating criteria, certification lists, transfer movement 
worksheets, employment history records, correspondence, and probation reports. 

The review of the CCCCO EEO program included examining written EEO policies and 
procedures; the EEO Officer’s role, duties, and reporting relationship; the internal 
discrimination complaint process; the upward mobility program; the reasonable 
accommodation program; the discrimination complaint process; and the Disability 
Advisory Committee (DAC). 

The CCCCO did not execute any PSC’s subject to the Department of General Services 
approval during the compliance review period. 

In addition, the CCCCO mandated training program was reviewed to ensure all 
employees required to file statements of economic interest were provided ethics 
training, and that all supervisors were provided supervisory and sexual harassment 
prevention training within statutory timelines. 

On June 15, 2016, an exit conference was held with the CCCCO to explain and discuss 
the CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. The CRU received and carefully 
reviewed the CCCCO written response on July 5, 2016, which is attached to this final 
compliance review report. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Examinations 

Examinations to establish an eligible list must be competitive and of such character as 
fairly to test and determine the qualifications, fitness, and ability of competitors to 
perform the duties of the class of position for which he or she seeks appointment. (Gov. 
Code, § 18930.) Examinations may be assembled or unassembled, written or oral, or in 
the form of a demonstration of skills, or any combination of those tests. (Ibid.) The 
Board establishes minimum qualifications for determining the fitness and qualifications 
of employees for each class of position and for applicants for examinations. (Gov. Code, 
§ 18931.) Within a reasonable time before the scheduled date for the examination, the 
designated appointing power shall announce or advertise the examination for the 
establishment of eligible lists. (Gov. Code, § 18933, subd. (a).) The advertisement shall 
contain such information as the date and place of the examination and the nature of the 
minimum qualifications. (Ibid.) Every applicant for examination shall file an application in 
the office of the department or a designated appointing power as directed by the 
examination announcement. (Gov. Code, § 18934.) Generally, the final earned rating of 
each person competing in any examination is to be determined by the weighted average 
of the earned ratings on all phases of the examination. (Gov. Code, § 18936.) Each 

competitor shall be notified in writing of the results of the examination when the 
employment list resulting from the examination is established. (Gov. Code, § 18938.5.) 

During the period under review, the CCCCO conducted 40 examinations. The CRU 
reviewed 18 of those examinations, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Apps 

Administrator for 
Academic Planning and 
Development 

Departmental 
Open 

Training and 
Experience 
(T&E)1 

Continuous 

15 

Administrator for Facilities 
Planning & Utilization 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

6/19/2015 

30 

Administrator for Facilities 
Planning and Utilization, 
CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

32 

Administrator for Fiscal 
Planning and 
Administration 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

7 

Administrator for Student 
Services Planning & 
Development 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

6/19/2015 

30 

Administrator for Student 
Services Planning and 
Utilization, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

32 

CEA B Board of 
Governors, CCC--Vice 
Chancellor--Technology, 
Research and Information 
Systems 

CEA 

Statement of 
Qualifications2 

10/14/15 

17 

Director, Vocational 
Education 

Departmental 
Promotional 

Qualification 
Appraisal 
Panel3 

7/3/2015 

2 

1 
The training and experience (T&E) examination is administered either online or in writing, and asks the 
applicant to answer multiple-choice questions about his or her level of training and/or experience 
performing certain tasks typically performed by those in this classification. Responses yield point values. 

2 
In a statement of qualifications (SOQ’s) examination, applicants submit a written summary of their 
qualifications and experience related to a published list of desired qualifications. Raters, typically subject 
matter experts, evaluate the responses according to a predetermined rating scale designed to assess 
their ability to perform in a job classification, assign scores and rank the competitors in a list. 

3 The qualification appraisal panel (QAP) interview is the oral component of an examination whereby 
competitors appear before a panel of two or more evaluators. Candidates are rated and ranked against 
one another based on an assessment of their ability to perform in a job classification. 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Apps 

Specialist For General 
Vocational Education 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

12/10/2015 

38 

Specialist in Academic 
Planning and 
Development, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

38 

Specialist in Academic 
Planning and 
Development, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

19 

Specialist in Academic 
Planning and 
Development, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

12/10/2015 

38 

Specialist in Fiscal 
Planning and 
Administration, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

38 

Specialist in Fiscal 
Planning and 
Administration, CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

9 

Specialist in General 
Vocational Education 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

16 

Specialist in Information 
System & Analyst 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

12/10/2015 

38 

Specialist in Information 
Systems and Analysis, 
CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

38 

Specialist in Information 
Systems and Analysis, 
CCC 

Departmental 
Open 

T&E 

Continuous 

4 

 

FINDING NO. 1 – Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board 
Rules 

 

The CRU reviewed 18 examinations the CCCCO administered to create eligible lists 
from which to make appointments. The CCCCO published and distributed examination 
bulletins containing the required information for all examinations. Applications received 
were accepted prior to the final filing date and were thereafter properly assessed to 
determine whether applicants met the minimum qualifications for admittance to the 
examinations. The CCCCO notified applicants as to whether they qualified to take the 
examination, and those applicants who met the minimum qualifications were also 
notified about the next phase of the examination process. After all phases of the 

examination process were completed, the score of each competitor was computed, and 
a list of eligible candidates was established. The examination results listed the names of 
all successful competitors arranged in order of the score received by rank. Competitors 
were then notified of their final scores. 

The CRU found no deficiencies in the CCCCO examinations reviewed during the 
compliance review period. Accordingly, the CCCCO fulfilled its responsibilities to 
administer those examinations in compliance with civil service laws and board rules. 

Appointments 

In all cases not excepted or exempted by Article VII of the California Constitution, the 
appointing power must fill positions by appointment, including cases of transfers, 
reinstatements, promotions, and demotions in strict accordance with the Civil Service 
Act and Board rules. (Gov. Code, § 19050.) Appointments made from eligible lists, by 
way of transfer, or by way of reinstatement, must be made on the basis of merit and 
fitness, which requires consideration of each individual’s job-related qualifications for a 
position, including his or her knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and physical and 
mental fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).) 

During the compliance review period, the CCCCO made 33 appointments. The CRU 
reviewed 20 of those 33 appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Associate Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Analyst 
(General) 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Specialist in Fiscal 
Planning and 
Administration, 
California Community 
Colleges 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Specialist in General 
Vocational Education 
California Community 
Colleges 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Information Officer I 
(Specialist) 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Research Program 
Specialist II 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Manager I 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Administrator, 
Vocational Education 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Attorney 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Director, Vocational 
Education, California 
Community Colleges 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Graphic Designer III 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Community College 
Program Assistant II 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Systems Software 
Specialist III (Technical) 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Specialist, Student 
Services and Special 
Programs 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Limited 
Term 

Intermittent 

1 

Community College 
Program Assistant II 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Limited 
Term 

Intermittent 

1 

Associate Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Training and 
Development 

Limited 
Term 

Full Time 

1 

Attorney III 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Specialist in Student 
Services Planning and 
Development, CCC 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Associate Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

 

FINDING NO. 2 – Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board 
Rules 

 

The CCCCO measured each applicant’s ability to perform the duties of the job by 
conducting hiring interviews and selecting the best-suited candidates. For each of the 
12 list appointments reviewed, the CCCCO ordered a certification list of candidates 
ranked competitively. After properly clearing the certification lists including SROA, the 

selected candidates were appointed based on eligibility attained by being reachable 
within the first three ranks of the certification lists. 

The CRU reviewed three CCCCO appointments made to positions via transfer. A 
transfer of an employee from a position under one appointing power to a position under 
another appointing power may be made, if the transfer is to a position in the same class 
or in another class with substantially the same salary range and designated as 
appropriate by the executive officer. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 425.) The CCCCO verified 
the eligibility of each candidate to their appointed class. 

For appointments that are mandatory reinstatements, a state agency or department is 
required to reinstate an employee to his or her former position if the employee is (1) 
terminated from a temporary or limited-term appointment by either the employee or the 
appointing power; (2) rejected during probation; or (3) demoted from a managerial 
position. (Gov. Code, § 19140.5.) However, the following conditions must apply: the 
employee accepted the appointment without a break in continuity of service and the 
reinstatement is requested within 10 working days after the effective date of the 
termination. (Ibid.) The two employee appointments reviewed who were appointed as 
mandatory reinstatements accepted their appointments without a break in the continuity 
of his/her state service and requested reinstatement within 10 working days after the 
effective date of the termination of the other position. 

The CRU reviewed two retired annuitant appointments. The individuals submitted their 
applications and were eligible to be hired as retired annuitants, not to exceed 960 hours 
in a fiscal year. 

Eligibility for training and development assignments are limited to employees who (1) 
have permanent status in their class, or (2) who have probationary status and who 
previously have had permanent status and who, since such permanent status, have had 
no break in service due to a permanent separation. The CRU reviewed one training and 
development appointment, and determined it to be in compliance with applicable civil 
service laws and board rules (Gov. Code, § 438, subd. (a)(b)). 

The CRU found no deficiencies in the CCCCO appointments reviewed during the 
compliance review period. Accordingly, the CRU found that the CCCCO appointments 
satisfied civil service laws and board rules. 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Each state agency is responsible for an effective EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19790.) 
The appointing power for each state agency has the major responsibility for monitoring 
the effectiveness of its EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19794.) To that end, the appointing 
power must issue a policy statement committed to EEO; issue procedures for filing, 
processing, and resolving discrimination complaints; issue procedures for providing 
equal upward mobility and promotional opportunities; and cooperate with the California 
Department of Human Resources by providing access to all required files, documents 
and data. (Ibid.) In addition, 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.) 

Because the EEO Officer investigates and ensures proper handling of discrimination, 
sexual harassment and other employee complaints, the position requires separation 
from the regular chain of command, as well as regular and unencumbered access to the 
head of the organization. 

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).) 

The CRU reviewed the CCCCO EEO program that was in effect during the compliance 
review period. 

FINDING NO. 3 – A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 

 

Summary: The CCCCO did not have an established DAC. 

 Although the department provided a draft of DAC bylaws and stated 
that they are planning to implement the DAC, there was no active 
DAC in place at the time of the compliance review. 

Criteria: 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).) 

 

Severity: Very Serious. The agency head does 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 DAC 
may limit an agency’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified 
workforce, impact productivity, and subject the agency to liability. 

Cause: The CCCCO states that because of staff turnover, the DAC 
program was neglected. Provisions are currently in place to 
implement the program. 

Action: The CCCCO must continue to take appropriate steps to ensure the 
establishment of a DAC, comprised of members who have 
disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. The CCCCO 
must submit to the CRU a written report of compliance, including 
the DAC roster, agenda, and meeting minutes, no later than 60 
days from the date of the SPB Executive Officer’s approval of these 
findings and recommendations. 

Mandated Training 

Each state agency shall offer at least semiannually to each of its filers an orientation 
course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of 
state officials. (Gov. Code, § 11146.1) New filers must be trained within six months of 
appointment. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3) 

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).) 

Additionally, each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual 
harassment prevention training every two years. New supervisors must be provided 
sexual harassment prevention training within six months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 
12950.1, subd. (a).) 

The CRU reviewed the CCCCO mandated training program that was in effect during the 
compliance review period. While the CCCCO ethics training was found to be in 
compliance, the supervisory training and sexual harassment prevention training were 
found to be out of compliance. 

FINDING NO. 4 – Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

 

Summary: The CCCCO did not provide supervisory training to 17 of 27 new 
supervisors within twelve months of appointment. 

Criteria: Each department must provide its new supervisors supervisory 
training within twelve months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 
19995.4, subds. (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 higherlevel 
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. 

Cause: The CCCCO states that supervisors did not register for this training, 
nor did their managers ensure that the employees attend the 
mandated training within the required timeframe. 

Action: The CCCCO has submitted a corrective action plan for ensuring 
compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements of 
Government Code section 19995.4, subd. (b) and (c); therefore, no 
further action is required at this time. 

FINDING NO. 5 – Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for 
All Supervisors 

 

Summary: The CCCCO did not provide sexual harassment prevention training 
to 22 of 27 existing supervisors on a two-year basis. In addition, the 
CCCCO did not provide sexual harassment prevention training to 
all three of its new supervisors within six months of appointment. 

Criteria: Each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual 
harassment prevention training every two years. New supervisors 
must be provided supervisory training within six months of 
appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (a).) 

Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new supervisors 

are properly trained to respond to sexual harassment or unwelcome 

sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or 
physical harassment of a sexual nature. This limits the 
department’s ability to retain a quality workforce, impacts employee 
morale and productivity, and subjects the department to litigation. 

Cause: The CCCCO states that sexual harassment prevention training has 
not been given to managers within the past two years. In addition, 
new managers have not taken the training within six months of their 
start date. 

Action: The CCCCO has submitted a corrective action plan for ensuring 
compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements of 
Government Code section 12950.1, subd. (a); therefore, no further 
action is required at this time. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

The CCCCO’s written response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the CCCCO written response, the CCCCO will comply with the CRU 
recommendations and findings, and provide the CRU with a corrective action plan with 
the supporting documentation stated for Finding No. 3. The CCCCO submitted 

corrective action plans for Finding Nos. 4 and 5, therefore no further action is required 
for those findings. 

It is further recommended that the CCCCO continue to comply with the afore-stated 
recommendations and submit to the CRU a written report of compliance within 60 days 
of the Executive Officer’s approval of this report.