COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

Compliance Review Unit 
State Personnel Board 
July 21, 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 ............................................................................... 12 
Personal Services Contracts.................................................................................... 14 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 16 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 16 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 17 

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), and 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 Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (CDFW) personnel practices in the areas of examinations, appointments, EEO, 
PSC’s from June 1, 2015 through November 30, 2015, and mandated training from 
November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2015. The following table summarizes the 
compliance review findings. 

Area Finding Severity 
Examinations Job Analysis Was Not Developed or Used for 
the Examination Process Very Serious 
Appointments Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires 
Were Not Separated from Applications Very Serious 
Appointments Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided 
for All Appointments Serious 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Area Finding Severity 
Appointments Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or 
Accepted After the Final File Date 
Non-Serious 
or Technical 
Equal Employment 
Opportunity 
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been 
Established Very Serious 
Personal Services 
Contracts 
Personal Services Contracts Complied with 
Procedural Requirements In Compliance 
Mandated Training Mandated Training Complied with Statutory 
Requirements In Compliance 

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 CDFW is to manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources, and the habitats upon which they depend for their ecological values and for 
their use and enjoyment by the public. Throughout California there are seven divisions 
including administration, data and technology, wildlife and fisheries, ecosystem 
conservation, law enforcement, regional operations, and office of spill prevention and 
response. As of 2015, the CDFW employed 2,364 employees including law 
enforcement officers, environmental scientists, managers, analysts, and clerical staff. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing CDFW examinations, 
appointments, EEO program, PSC’s from June 1, 2015, through November 30, 2015, 
and mandated training from November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2015. The primary 
objective of the review was to determine if CDFW 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 CDFW 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 CDFW 
provided, which included examination plans, examination bulletins, job analyses, 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 CDFW 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). 

CDFW PSC’s were also reviewed.1 It was beyond the scope of the compliance review to 
make conclusions as to whether CDFW justifications for the contracts were legally 
sufficient. The review was limited to whether CDFW practices, policies, and procedures 
relative to PSC’s complied with procedural requirements. 

In addition, the CDFW 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 
training within statutory timelines. 

On June 27, 2016, an exit conference was held with the CDFW to explain and discuss 
the CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. The CRU received and carefully 
reviewed the CDFW’s written response on July 15, 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 

1If an employee organization requests the SPB to review any personal services contract during the SPB 
compliance review period or prior to the completion of the final compliance review report, the SPB will not 
audit the contract. Instead, the SPB will review the contract pursuant to its statutory and regulatory 
process. In this instance, none of the reviewed PSC’s were challenged. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 CDFW conducted 11 examinations. The CRU 
reviewed seven of those examinations, which are listed below: 

Classification Exam Type Exam 
Components 
Final File 
Date 
No of 
Applications 
Career Executive 
Assignment (CEA) A, 
Chief Habitat 
Conservation Branch 
CEA 
Statement of 
Qualifications 
(SOQ)2 
7/1/2015 5 
CEA A, Regional 
Manager CEA SOQ 4/17/2015 4 
CEA A, Regional 
Manager CEA SOQ 6/2/2015 5 
Fish and Game 
Lieutenant 
(Supervisor) 
Departmental 
Promotional 
Supplemental 
Application 
(SA)3 
6/15/2015 46 

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 In a supplemental application (SA) examination, applicants are not required to present themselves in 
person at a predetermined time and place. Supplemental applications are in addition to the regular 
application and must be completed in order to remain in the examination. Supplemental applications are 
also known as "rated" applications. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Classification Exam Type Exam 
Components 
Final File 
Date 
No of 
Applications 
Fish and Game 
Warden Open Written 6/26/2015 82 
Management Services 
Technician 
Departmental 
Promotional Written4 10/19/2015 19 
Veterinarian Specialist 
(General) 
Departmental 
Promotional 
Education and 
Experience 
(E&E)5 
8/13/2015 3 

FINDING NO. 1 – Job Analysis Was Not Developed or Used for the Examination 
Process 

Summary: 
A job analysis is required for each civil service examination. The 
CDFW did not complete a job analysis for the Fish and Game 
Warden civil service examination. 

Classification List Active Date List Expiration 
Date No. of Eligibles 
Fish and Game Warden 10/30/2015 10/30/2016 23 

Criteria: 
The Merit Selection Manual (MSM), which is incorporated in 
California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 50, mandates the 
development and use of a job analysis for the examination process. 
A "[j]ob 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 

4 A written examination is a testing procedure in which candidates’ job-related knowledge and skills are 
assessed through the use of a variety of item formats. Written examinations are either objectively scored 
or subjectively scored. 

5 In an education and experience (E&E) examination, one or more raters reviews the applicants’ Standard 
678 application forms, and scores and ranks them according to a predetermined rating scale that may 
include years of relevant higher education, professional licenses or certifications, and/or years of relevant 
work experience. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 must be sufficiently detailed to derive the requisite 
knowledge, skills, abilities (KSAs), 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 examination may not have been job-related or 
legally defensible. 
Cause: The CDFW states that the personnel analyst administering the job 
analysis took another position prior to completing the full analysis. 
Action: To correct this deficiency, the CDFW must abolish the Fish and 
Game Warden examination list, which has not yet expired. Within 
60 days of the SPB’s Executive Officer’s approval of these findings 
and recommendations, the CDFW must submit to the CRU a 
written report of compliance verifying that the above-stated 
examination list has been abolished. Additionally, prior to 
administering any future examinations, the CDFW must create and 
develop each examination based upon a job analysis that meets 
the requirements of the MSM. 
Furthermore, the CRU finds the appointments that were made from 
the Fish and Game Warden examination were made in good faith, 
were not the fault of the appointed employees, and do not merit 
being voided. 
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 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 CDFW made 388 appointments. Of these, 160 
were temporary and/or seasonal appointments. The CRU reviewed 50 of those 
appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification Appointment 
Type Tenure Time Base No. of 
Appointments 
Administrative Officer 
III, Resources Agency 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Associate Personnel 
Analyst 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 2 
Attorney IV Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Fish and Game 
Assistant Chief 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Fish and Game 
Lieutenant (Specialist) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 3 
Fish Hatchery 
Manager I 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Office Technician 
(General) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Office Technician 
(Typing) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Office Technician 
(Typing) 
Certification 
List Permanent Intermittent 1 
Office Technician 
(Typing) 
Certification 
List Permanent ¾ Time 1 
Office Technician 
(Typing) 
Certification 
List Permanent Part-Time 1 
Research Program 
Specialist I 
(Geographic 
Information Systems) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 2 
Senior Information 
Systems Analyst 
(Supervisor) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Staff Services 
Manager II 
(Supervisory) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 2 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Classification Appointment 
Type Tenure Time Base No. of 
Appointments 
Staff Services 
Manager III 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Veterinarian Specialist 
(General) 
Certification 
List Permanent Full Time 1 
Associate Accounting 
Analyst 
Mandatory 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 1 
Fish and Game 
Warden 
Mandatory 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 1 
Personnel Specialist Mandatory 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 1 
Program Technician II Mandatory 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 1 
Senior Personnel 
Specialist 
Mandatory 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 1 
Environmental 
Scientist 
Permissive 
Reinstatement Permanent Full Time 3 
Seasonal Clerk 
Temporary 
Authorization 
Utilization 
(TAU) 
Temporary Intermittent 6 
Student Assistant TAU Temporary Intermittent 3 
Environmental 
Scientist Transfer Permanent Full Time 2 
Fish and Wildlife 
Interpreter II Transfer Permanent Intermittent 1 
Fish and Wildlife 
Interpreter II Transfer Temporary Intermittent 1 
Management Services 
Technician Transfer Permanent Full Time 3 
Senior Personnel 
Specialist Transfer Permanent Full Time 1 
Staff Services Analyst 
(General) Transfer Permanent Full Time 2 
Tractor Operator-
Laborer Transfer Permanent Full Time 1 
Associate 
Governmental 
Program Analyst 
Training and 
Development Permanent Full Time 1 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

FINDING NO. 2 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated From Applications 
Summary: The CDFW did not separate 239 EEO questionnaires from 964 
STD. 678 employment applications. 
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 provide voluntarily ethnic data about themselves where 
such data is determined by the California Department of Human 
Resources (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.” 
Severity: Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, 
subjecting the agency to potential liability. 
Cause: The CDFW states that in some programs applications were routed 
to the hiring supervisor who did not separate the EEO 
questionnaires from the applications. 
Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the SPB’s Executive 
Officer’s approval of these findings and recommendations, the 
CDFW submit to the CRU a written corrective action plan that the 
department will implement to ensure that future EEO 
questionnaires are separated from all applications. Copies of any 
relevant documentation should be included with the plan. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

FINDING NO. 3 – Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All 
Appointments 

Summary: 
The CDFW did not prepare, complete, and/or retain required 
probationary reports of performance for four of the 50 appointments 
reviewed, which is reflected in the table below. 

Classification Appointment 
Type 
No. of 
Appointments 
Missing Reports 
No. of 
Uncompleted 
Probation Reports 
Associate Personnel 
Analyst Certification List 1 2 
Fish and Game Lieutenant 
(Specialist) Certification List 2 2 
Management Services 
Technician Transfer 1 1 
Total 4 5 

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 period is required when an employee is 
appointed to a position under the following circumstances: (1) 
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 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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. 

Cause: 
The CDFW states that some of the first level supervisors did not 
ensure that probationary evaluations were completed. 

Action: 
It is recommended that within 60 days of the SPB’s Executive 
Officer’s approval of these findings and recommendations, the 
CDFW submit to the CRU a written corrective action plan that 
addresses the corrections the department will implement to ensure 
conformity with the probationary requirements of Government Code 
section 19172. 

FINDING NO. 4 – Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After 
the Final File Date 

Summary: 
Out of the 964 applications received, the CDFW accepted and 
processed 194 applications that were not date stamped, as well as 
144 applications that were date stamped after the final filing date. 

Criteria: 
California Code 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 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 applicant failed to receive 
timely notice of promotional examination. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 
174, suds. (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. 
Cause: The CDFW states that the regional offices did not ensure that all 
applications were date stamped and/or accepted after the final filing 
date. 
Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the SPB’s Executive 
Officer’s approval of these findings and recommendations, the 
CDFW submit to the CRU a written corrective action plan that the 
department will implement to ensure conformity with Rule 174. 
Copies of any relevant documentation should be included with the 
plan. 

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 CalHR by 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

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 CDFW EEO program that was in effect during the compliance 
review period. 

FINDING NO. 5 – A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established 
Summary: The CDFW does not have an active DAC. 
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 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

may limit an agency’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified 
workforce, impact productivity, and subject the agency to liability. 

Cause: The CDFW states that there were several vacancies in the EEO 
office, which led to the DAC not remaining active. 
Action: The CDFW must take immediate steps to ensure the establishment 
of an active DAC, comprised of members who have disabilities or 
who have an interest in disability issues. The CDFW 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’s Executive Officer’s approval of these findings and 
recommendations. 

Personal Services Contracts 

A PSC includes any contract, requisition, or purchase order under which labor or 
personal services is a significant, separately identifiable element, and the business or 
person performing the services is an independent contractor that does not have status 
as an employee of the State. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.59.) The California 
Constitution has an implied civil service mandate limiting the state’s authority to contract 
with private entities to perform services the state has historically or customarily 
performed. Government Code section 19130, subdivision (a), however, codifies 
exceptions to the civil service mandate where PSC’s achieve cost savings for the state. 
PSC’s that are of a type enumerated in subdivision (b) of Government Code section 
19130 are also permissible. Subdivision (b) contracts include private contracts for a new 
state function, services that are not available within state service, services that are 
incidental to a contract for the purchase or lease of real or personal property, and 
services that are of an urgent, temporary, or occasional nature. 

For cost-savings PSC’s, a state agency is required to notify SPB of its intent to execute 
such a contract. (Gov. Code, § 19131.) For subdivision (b) contracts, the SPB reviews 
the adequacy of the proposed or executed contract at the request of an employee 
organization representing state employees. (Gov. Code, § 19132.) 

During the compliance review period, the CDFW had 25 PSC’s that were in effect and 
subject to the Department of General Services (DGS) approval, and thus our procedural 
review. The CRU reviewed six of those PSC’s, which are listed below: 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Vendor Services Contract 
Dates 
Contract 
Amount 
Sufficient 
Justification 
Air Shasta Rotor & 
Wing, Inc. 
Helicopter Services 
for Wildlife Surveys 
9/1/2015 – 
6/30/2017 $690,837 Yes 
Ascent 
Environmental, Inc. 
State Wildlife Action 
Plan Update 2015, 
Phase II 
5/16/2014 – 
6/30/2016 $749,909 Yes 
Hubbs Sea World 
Research Institute 
Carlsbad Marine 
Hatchery Operations 
7/1/2014 -
10/31/2017 $4,288,542 Yes 
JetExe Aviation 
Airframe and Power 
Plant Repair 
Services 
7/1/2015 – 
6/30/2017 $249,999 Yes 
Pacific States 
Marine Fisheries 
Commission 
Provide 
Biological/Technical/ 
Statistical Assistant 
to CDFW 
7/1/2015 – 
6/30/2016 $322,925 Yes 
Regents of the 
University of 
California 
Hyperspectral 
Imagery Study on 
Submerged Aquatic 
Vegetation 
Throughout the Delta 
10/3/2014 – 
7/30/2016 $622,512 Yes 

FINDING NO. 6 – Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural 
Requirements 
When a state agency requests approval from the DGS for a subdivision (b) contract, the 
agency must include with its contract transmittal a written justification that includes 
specific and detailed factual information that demonstrates how the contract meets one 
or more conditions specified in Government Code section 19131, subdivision (b). (Cal. 
Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.60.) 

The total amount of the PSC’s reviewed was $6,924,724. It was beyond the scope of 
the review to make conclusions as to whether CDFW justifications for the contracts 
were legally sufficient. For all PSC’s subject to DGS approval, the CDFW provided 
specific and detailed factual information in the written justifications as to how each of the 
six contracts met at least one condition set forth in Government Code section 19131, 
subdivision (b). Accordingly, the CDFW PSC’s complied with procedural requirements. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Mandated Training 

Each state agency shall offer at least once during each consecutive period of two 
calendar years an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that 
govern the official conduct of state officials. New filers must be trained within six 
months. (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 training every two years. New supervisors must be provided supervisory 
training within six months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (a).) 

The CRU reviewed the CDFW mandated training program that was in effect during the 
compliance review period. 

FINDING NO. 7 – Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

The CDFW provided ethics training to its 70 new filers within six months of appointment, 
and semiannual ethics training to its 352 existing filers during two-year calendar year 
period commencing in 2014. The CDFW also provided supervisory training to its 43 new 
supervisors within 12 months of appointment. In addition, the CDFW provided sexual 
harassment training to its 43 new supervisors within six months of appointment, and 
semiannual sexual harassment training to its 318 supervisors every two years. Thus, 
the CDFW complied with mandated training requirements within statutory timelines. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

 The CDFW’s response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the CDFW’s written response, the CDFW will comply with the CRU 
recommendations and findings and provide the CRU a corrective action plan. 

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

SPB Compliance Review 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(Typewriter comment Attachment 1)
State of California -Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor 
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director 
Director's Office 
1416 Ninth Street, 12'" Floor 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

www.wildlife.ca.gov 

July 14, 2016 

Alton Ford, Chief 
Compliance Review Division 
State Personnel Board 

Dear Mr. Ford: 

RE: Compliance Review Report Response to Findings and Recommendations 

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Human Resources Branch (HRB) 
has completed a thorough review of the State Personnel Board's Compliance Review 
Report. Below are the actions CDFW will take to ensure the Department is in compliance 
and maintains the integrity of the State of California's m~rit system. 

' 
Finding No. 1 

Job Analysis not developed or used for the Examination Process 

The CDFW did complete a substantial part of the job analysis in preparation for the Fish and 
Game Warden examination. The components included the collection of job analytic date, job 
tasks documented in terms of their criticality and frequency of performance and were 
detailed to derive the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) and subject matter 
experts (SMEs) linked the essential tasks to the required upon-entry KSAs. At that time, the 
final report was the only incomplete component of the job analysis. The final report has 
been completed. 

The CDFW currently conducts job analysis for all examinations as it serves as the primary 
basis for demonstrating and documenting job-relatedness of examination processes. 

Finding No. 2 

Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications 

Our current process allows recruitment applications to go directly to hiring 

supervisors/personnel liaisons in our regional offices. 

Over the next year, the CDFW plans to provide statewide training on "Best Hiring Practices" 
to educate department staff on the appropriate handling of applications/EEO questionnaires. 
This training includes a "Best Hiring Practices Instructional Guide" that will be posted on the 
department's intranet site. 

Additionally, a memorandum will be sent to all CDFW administrative officers/personal 

liaisons reminding them that EEO questionnaires are to be removed prior to submission to 

hiring programs for consideration. 

Conserving Ca[ijornia's Wi[a[ije Since 1870 

Mr. Alton Ford 
State Personnel Board 
July 14, 2016 
Page 2 

Finding No. 3 

Probationary Evaluations were not provided for all appointments 

The CDFW acknowledges that not all supervisors and managers consistently meet this 
requirement. Notifications are provided to the supervisory staff. 

Over the next year, the CDFW plans to provide statewide training on "Best Hiring Practices" 
to educate managers and supervisors on the importance of completing probationary 
evaluations. This training includes a "Best Hiring Practices Instructional Guide" that will be 
posted on the department's intranet site. CDFW will also send an annual memorandum 
reminding supervisors of their responsibility. 

Finding No. 4 

Applications were not date stamped and/or accepted after the final file date 

Applications previously received by regional personnel were not consistently date stamped 
upon receipt. 

The headquarters personnel office has implemented procedures to retain the envelope 
attached to the application. If the postmark date is after the final file date, the applicant 
receives a notice that he/she did not submit the application in a timely manner. 

Over the next year, the CDFW plans to provide statewide training on Best Hiring Practices 
to educate department staff on the appropriate handling of applications. This training 
includes a "Best Hiring Practices Instructional Guide" that will be posted on the department's 
intranet site. Additionally, a memorandum will be sent to all CDFW administrative 
officers/personal liaisons reminding them that applications must be date stamped and not 
accepted after the final file date. 

Finding No.5 

A Disability Advisory Committee has not been established 

CDFW is working to re-establish its Disability Advisory Committee (DAC). The committee's 

first meeting will be held in July 2016 and will include members from the department's 

various regional and field office locations throughout the state. The purpose of the DAC will 

be to help raise awareness with management and staff regarding persons with disabilities 

and the contributions they bring to our workforce and community. The committee will assist 

in exploring ways to make all CDFW sites accessible to all members of the public, and help 

identify any potential barriers to applicants and employees with disabilities. The committee 

will also assist in the development of a questionnaire to be used for conducting the 

department's annual staff disability survey later this year. 

Mr. Alton Ford 
State Personnel Board 
July 14, 2016 
Page 3 

The CDFW wo uld again like to thank the SPB Compliance Review team and appreciate the 
opportunity to respond to the findings . CDFW will continue to educate and train our staff on 
the best hiring practices and requirements to ensure compliance with the State 's civil service 
merit system. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Trayce Gilkey, 
Chief of Human Resources at (916) 838-8978 . 

Sincerely, 

Gabe Tiffany, Deputy Director 
Admin istration Division