COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY 

Compliance Review Unit 
State Personnel Board 
July 20, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 4 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 4 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 5 
Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................. 9 
Personal Services Contracts.................................................................................... 12 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 14 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 17 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 17 

INTRRODUCTIORRODUCTION 

Established by thee Californiaa Constituttion, the SState Persoonnel Boarrd (the SPPB or 
Board) is charged wwith enforcing and administering the civil seervice statuutes, prescrribing 
probatioonary perioods and classificattions, adoopting regulations, and revieewing 
disciplinary actionss and merrit-related aappeals. TThe SPB ooversees thhe merit-b ased 
recruitmment and selection proccess for thee hiring of oover 200,0000 state emmployees. T hese 
employeees providee critical services to thhe people oof Californiaa, includingg but not limmited 
to, proteecting life aand propertty, managinng emergency operattions, provi ding educaation, 
promotinng the public health , and preserving thee environmment. The SPB provvides 
directionn to departmments throuugh the Boaard’s decisioons, rules, policies, annd consultaation. 

Pursuannt to Government Coode sectionn 18661, the SPB’s Compliancce Review Unit 
(CRU) cconducts coompliance rreviews of aappointing aauthority’s personnel practices inn five 
areas: eexaminationns, appointments, eqqual emplooyment oppportunity (EEEO), perssonal 
servicess contracts (PSC’s), and manddated training to ensure compliiance with civil 
service laws and bboard regulations. Th e purpose of these rreviews is tto ensure state 
agencies are in coompliance wwith merit-rrelated lawws, rules, annd policies and to ideentify 
and share best praactices identified duringg the reviewws. The SPPB conduct s these revviews 
on a threee-year cyccle. 

The CRU may alsoo conduct sspecial inveestigations in responsse to a speecific requeest or 
when the SPB obtaains informaation suggeesting a pottential meritt-related vioolation. 

EXECUTTIVE SUMMMARY 

The CRU conducteed a routinee compliancce review oof Californiaa Environmeental Proteection 
Agency (CalEPA) personnel practices in the areeas of exaaminations, appointments, 
EEO, annd PSC’s JJanuary 1, 2015, throough Januaary 31, 2016, and maandated training 
from Jannuary 1, 20014, througgh January 31, 2016. The followwing table ssummarizess the 
compliannce review findings. 

AArea Finding Severity 
Examminations Examinations Comp 
and 
plied with C 
Board Rule 
Civil Service 
es Inn Compliannce 
Appointments Probatioonary Evaluuations Weere Not Prov 
Seriousffor All Appoointments RReviewed 
Appointments Appplications WWere Not Daate Stampeed NNon-serious 
Technica 
s or 
l 

1 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

AArea Area Finding Severity 
Eqqual Commplainants WWere Not NNotified of th 
VVery SeriouusEmployment Reasons for Delays in Decissions Within 
Oppoortunity Prescribbed Time PPeriod 
Eqqual A Disabil ity Advisory 
Been 
y Committe 
n Establishe 
ee (DAC) H 
ed VVery SeriouusEmployment 
Oppoortunity 
Persona 
Con 
al Services 
ntracts 
Personnal Services 
Procedur 
s Contracts 
ral Require 
s Complied 
ements Inn Compliannce 
Manndated Supervissory Traininng Was Nott Provided f VVery SeriouusTraaining Suupervisors 
Manndated Ethics Training Wa s Not Proviided for All Filers VVery SeriouusTraaining 
Manndated Sexual Harassmennt Preventioon Training VVery SeriouusTraaining NNot Provided for All Suupervisors 

A color-ccoded systeem is used to identify the severityy of the violations as ffollows: 

. 
RRed = Very Serious 
. 
OOrange = SSerious 

. 
YYellow = Noon-serious oor Technicaal 

. 
GGreen = In Compliancee 

BACCKGROUNDD 

The CallEPA’s misssion is to restore, prootect and eenhance thhe environmment, to ennsure 
public heealth, envirronmental qquality and economic vvitality. Thee CalEPA fuulfills its misssion 
by deveeloping, impplementing and enforccing environnmental lawws that reggulate air, wwater 
and soil quality, peesticide usee, and waste recycling and reducction. Our ddepartmentss are 
at the foorefront of eenvironmenntal sciencee, using thee most recent researcch to shapee the 
state's eenvironmenntal laws. TThe Office oof the Secreetary heads CalEPA overseeingg and 
coordinaating the acctivities of oone office, ttwo boards, and threee departmennts dedicateed to 
improvinng California’s environ ment. The CalEPA emmploys approximately 70 employeees. 

SCOPE ANDD METHODDOLOGY 

The scoope of the compliancee review wwas limited to reviewing CalEPAA examinattions, 
appointmments, EEOO program, and PSCC’s from Ja nuary 1, 2015, througgh Januaryy 31, 
2016, and mandatted trainingg from January 1, 20014, through January 31, 2016. The 
primary objective oof the revieew was to ddetermine if the CalEEPA’s persoonnel practtices, 

2 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

policies, and proceedures commplied with state civil service lawws and boaard regulattions, 
and to reecommend corrective action for tthose deficiiencies idenntified. 
eedures commplied with state civil service lawws and boaard regulattions, 
and to reecommend corrective action for tthose deficiiencies idenntified. 

A crosss-section off the CalEEPA’s examminations aand appoinntments weere selecteed to 
ensure that variouus samples of examinnations andd appointmment types, classificattions, 
and leveels were reeviewed. TThe CRU eexamined tthe documentation thhat the CallEPA 
providedd, which included e xamination plans, exxamination bulletins, job analyyses, 
511b’s, scoring re sults, noticce of persoonnel action (NOPA) forms, vaccancy posttings, 
applicatiion screeniing criteria, hiring inteerview ratinng criteria, certificatioon lists, trannsfer 
movemeent worksheets, employment history recorrds, corresspondence, and probation 
reports. 

The review of the CalEPA EEEO programm included examiningg written EEEO policiess and 
proceduures; the EEEO officer’s role, duties, and reporting relationship; the inteernal 
discriminnation commplaint proocess; thee upward mobility pprogram; tthe reasonnable 
accommmodation program; thhe discrimination commplaint proocess; andd the Disaability 
Advisoryy Committeee (DAC). 

The CalEPA’s PSCC’s were also revieweed.1 It was beyond thee scope of the compliance 
review to make conclusions aas to whethher CalEPAA justificatioons for the contracts wwere 
legally ssufficient. TThe revieww was limiteed to whetther CalEPA practicess, policies, and 
proceduures relativee to PSC’s ccomplied wwith proceduural requireements. 

In addition, the CaalEPA’s mandated training wass reviewed to ensuree all employees 
requiredd to file stateements of eeconomic innterest werre provided ethics trainning and that all 
supervissors were pprovided baasic supervi sory and seexual harasssment preevention traaining 
within sttatutory timelines. 

On Junee 28, 2016, an exit connference wwas held witth the CalEEPA to explaain and disscuss 
the CRUU’s initial fi ndings andd recommendations. OOn July 13, 2016, thee CRU receeived 
and careefully reviewwed the ressponse, which is attached to this final complliance repoort. 

1 If an emmployee organnization requeests the SPB to review an ny personal seervices contraact during thee SPB 
compliancce review perriod or prior too the complettion of the finaal compliancee review repoort, the SPB wwill not 
audit the contract. Insstead, the SPPB will review the contraact pursuant to its statutoory and reguulatory 
process. IIn this instancce, none of the reviewed PPSC’s were chhallenged. 

3 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONNNNS 

Examinaations 

Examinaations to esstablish an eligible listt must be ccompetitivee and of succh characteer as 
fairly to test and determine the qualifiications, fittness, and ability of competitorrs to 
perform the duties of the classs of position for whichh he or she seeks apppointment. ((Gov. 
Code, § 18930.) Exxaminationss may be aassembled or unassemmbled, writtten or oral, or in 
the formm of a demmonstration of skills, oor any commbination oof those teests. (Ibid.) The 
Board eestablishes minimum qqualificationns for deterrmining thee fitness annd qualifications 
of emplooyees for eaach class oof position aand for applicants for eexaminationns. (Gov. CCode, 
§ 18931.) Within a reasonable time befoore the schheduled datte for the eexaminationn, the 
designatted appoinnting power shall announce or advertise the exammination forr the 
establishhment of elligible lists. (Gov. Codde, § 189333, subd. (a)).) The adveertisement shall 
contain such informmation as thhe date andd place of the examinaation and thhe nature oof the 
minimumm qualificat ions. (Ibid.)) Every appplicant for eexaminationn shall file aan application in 
the officce of the ddepartmentt or a dessignated apppointing ppower as ddirected byy the 
examinaation annouuncement. ((Gov. Codee, § 18934.) Generallyy, the final eearned ratinng of 
each person compeeting in anyy examination is to be determinedd by the weeighted aveerage 
of the eearned ratinngs on all phases of the examinnation. (Goov. Code, §§ 18936.) EEach 
competittor shall bbe notified in writing of the results of thhe examinaation whenn the 
employmment list ressulting fromm the examination is esstablished. (Gov. Code, § 18938.5.) 

During tthe period under review, the CCalEPA connducted on ne examinaation. The CRU 
reviewedd this exammination, whhich is listedd below: 

CClassificatio n Exam Type Ex 
Comp 
xam 
ponents 
Final File 
Date 
No. o 
Applicat 
of 
tions 
Digital C 
Specialis 
Composition 
st III 
n Promotionaal 
Educa 
Expe 
(E& 
ation and 
erience 
&E) 2 
1/27/20155 4 

2 In an ed ucation and eexperience (EE&E) examinaation, one or mmore raters reeviews the appplicants’ Sta ndard 
678 appli cation forms, and scores and ranks thhem accordinng to a predeetermined ratiing scale tha t may 
include yeears of relevaant higher eduucation, profeessional licensses or certificcations, and/oor years of rellevant 
work expeerience. 

4 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

FINDINGGG NO. 1 – Examinattions Commplied withh Civil Seervice Lawws and Booard 
Rules 

The CRRU reviewedd one exammination thhe CalEPA administered to creaate eligible lists 
from whhich to makke appointmments. The CalEPA puublished annd distributted examination 
bulletinss containingg the requirred informaation for all examinatioons. Appliccations receeived 
by the CCalEPA were accepted prior to the final filinng date andd were theereafter properly 
assesseed to deteermine whhether appplicants meet the miinimum quualificationss for 
admittannce to the examinatioons. The CCalEPA nottified appliccants as too whether they 
qualifiedd to take the exammination, annd those applicants who mett the minimmum 
qualificaations were also notifieed about thhe next phaase of the eexaminationn process. After 
all phasses of the eexaminationn process were comppleted, the score of eeach compeetitor 
was commputed, annd a list oof eligible ccandidates was established. Thhe examination 
results llisted the nnames of aall successfful compettitors arrangged in order of the sscore 
receivedd by rank. CCompetitorss were thenn notified of their final sscores. 

The CRRU found noo deficiencies in the eexaminationn that the CalEPA coonducted duuring 
the commpliance review periodd. Accordinngly, the CCalEPA fulffilled its ressponsibilitiees to 
administter the exammination in compliancee with civil service lawws and boarrd rules. 

Appointmments 

In all caases not exxcepted or exempted by Article VVII of the CCalifornia CConstitutionn, the 
appointing power must fill ppositions bby appointmment, incluuding casees of transsfers, 
reinstateements, proomotions, aand demotiions in stricct accordance with thhe Civil Se rvice 
Act and Board rules. (Gov. Coode, § 190550.) Exceptt as provideed by law, aappointmennts to 
vacant ppositions shhall be madde from emmployment l lists. (Ibid.) Appointmeents made from 
eligible llists, by waay of transfeer, or by waay of reinsttatement, mmust be made on the bbasis 
of meritt and fitneess, which requires consideratiion of eacch individual’s job-related 
qualificaations for a position, inncluding hiss or her knnowledge, sskills, abilities, experieence, 
and phyysical and mmental fitnesss. (Cal. Coode Regs., tit. 2, § 2500, subd. (a)).) 

During tthe compliaance revieww period, tthe CalEPAA made 21 appointmeents. The CRU 
reviewedd 16 of thosse appointmments, whicch are listedd below: 

CClassificationn AAppointmen 
Type 
Teenure TTime Base No. o 
Appointm 
of 
ments 
Air Polllution Speccialist Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 

5 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

CClassificationn Classificationn AAppointmen 
Type 
Teenure TTime Base No. o 
Appointm 
of 
ments 
Associa 
Govern 
Analyst 
ate 
nmental Pro 
t 
ogram Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Digital 
Specia 
Compositio 
list 
on Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Manag 
Technic 
ement Serv 
cian 
vices Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Office A 
(Gener 
Assistant 
ral) Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 
System 
Specia 
(Superv 
ms Software 
list II 
visory) 
e 
Ceertification LList Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Programm Technici an I Ceertification LList Permmanent Inntermittent 1 
Programm Technici an I Ceertification LList Permmanent PPart-Time 1 
Office AAssistant R 
Mandatory 
Reinstateme 
y 
ent Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Warehoouse Workeer R 
Mandatory 
Reinstateme 
y 
ent Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Associa 
Govern 
Analyst 
ate 
nmental Pro 
t 
ogram Transfer Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Executive Assistant Transfer Permmanent Fulltime 2 
Senior 
Analyst 
Programm 
t (Specialis 
er 
t) Transfer Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Staff Se 
II (Supe 
ervices Ma 
ervisory) 
nager Transfer Permmanent Fulltime 1 
Sr. Prin 
Specia 
nting Trade 
list 
s T 
DTraining an 
Developme 
(T&D) 
nd 
nt Permmanent Fulltime 1 

FINDINNG NO. 2 – Probationary Evaaluations Were NNot Prov ided for all 
Appointmments Reviewed 

Summaary: The CalEEPA did nott prepare, ccomplete, aand/or retainn eight requuired 
probationnary reportss of performmance. 

6 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Classificattion ttion Appoi 
Ty 
ntment 
ype 
No. of 
Appointme 
f 
ents 
No. o 
P 
of Uncomp 
rob. Repor 
leted 
ts 
Air PPollution Sppecialist Certificaation List 1 2 
Officee Assistant ((General) Certificaation List 1 2 
System 
I 
ms Software 
I (Supervis 
e Specialist 
sory) Certificaation List 1 1 
Exxecutive Asssistant Transfer 1 3 
Total 4 8 

Criteria: 
A new probationaryy period is not requirred when aan employeee is 
appointedd by reinstaatement witth a right off return. (Caal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 3322, subd. (d)(2).) Howwever, the service of a probatioonary 
period is required wwhen an emmployee ennters state civil servicce by 
permanennt appointmment from aan employmment list. (Cal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 3222, subd. (aa).) In addittion, unlesss waived byy the appointing 
power, a new probaationary perriod is requuired when an employee is 
appointedd to a possition undeer the folloowing circumstances: (1) 
without a break in seervice in thhe same claass in which the employee 
has commpleted thee probationnary periodd, but undder a diffeerent 
appointing power; and (2) without a breakk in servicee to a classs with 
substantiaally the samme or loweer level of dduties and responsibiilities 
and salarry range ass a class inn which the employee has completed 
the probaationary perriod. (Cal. CCode Regss., tit. 2, § 3322, subd. ((c)(1) 
& (2).) 

During the probationnary periodd, the appointing poweer is requireed to 
evaluate the work and efficieency of a probationer at sufficiently 
frequent intervals too keep thee employeee adequateely informeed of 
progress on the job. (Gov. Codde, § 191722; Cal. Codee Regs., tit.

. 2, § 
599.795.)) The appoiinting poweer must preepare a writtten appraissal of 
performance each oone-third off the probationary perriod. (Cal. CCode 
Regs., tit.. 2, § 599.7795.) 

Severityy: 
Serious. The probaationary peeriod is the final step in the selection 
process to ensure that the individual sselected caan successsfully 
perform the full sccope of thheir job duuties. Failing to usee the 
probationnary period to assist aan employeee in improoving his or her 
performance or ter minating thhe appointtment uponn determination 
that the aappointment is not a good job/person matchh is unfair too the 
employeee and servees to erode the quality of state goovernment. 

7 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Cause: 
The CalEEPA states that the HHuman Ressources unnit attempteed to 
remind thhe manageers/supervisors of their employyees that wwere 
serving aa probationaary period. However, the trackinng system used 
was not aalways connsistent, annd was hanndled by seeveral HR staff, 
and the nnotificationss to the maanagers/suppervisors wwere not alwways 
timely. 

Action: 
It is recoommended that withinn 60 days of the Exeecutive Officer’s 
approval of these findings aand recommendationss, the CallEPA 
submit too the CRU a written ccorrective aaction plan that addreesses 
the correcctions the ddepartmentt will implemment to ensure conformity 
with the probationaary requiremments of GGovernmennt Code section 
19172. 

FINDINGG NO. 3 – Applicatiions Were Not Date SStamped 
Summaary: Out of th 
applicatio 
he 606 app 
ons that we 
plications r 
re not date 
received, th 
stamped. 
he CalEPAA processe d 70 
Criteria: California 
timely fili 
place, wit 
the exam 
a Code Reg 
ng of appl 
thin the tim 
ination ann 
gulations, tit 
lications: A 
me, in the m 
nouncemen 
tle 2, sectio 
All applicati 
manner, an 
nt. 
on 174 (Rul 
ions must 
d on the fo 
le 174) req 
be filed at 
orm specifie 
uires 
t the 
ed in 
Filing an 
postal se 
(or appro 
by the da 
application 
ervice or da 
opriate offic 
te specified 
n ‘within the 
ate stampe 
e of the ag 
d. 
e time’ shal 
d at one o 
gency admi 
l mean pos 
of the depa 
nistering th 
stmarked by 
artment’s of 
he examina 
y the 
ffices 
ation) 
An applic 
specified 
as detaile 
to verified 
wrong sta 
before th 
examinat 
timely no 
(4) the em 
timely no 
cation that 
date shall 
ed in Rule 
d error; (2) 
ate agency 
he specifie 
ion announ 
tification to 
mploying ag 
tice of prom 
is not po 
be accepte 
174 apply: 
) the applic 
and is eithe 
ed date; ( 
ncement d 
o an employ 
gency verifi 
motional ex 
ostmarked 
ed, if one o 
(1) the ap 
cation was 
er postmar 
(3) the em 
distribution 
yee of a pr 
ies that the 
xamination. 
or date st 
of the follow 
plication w 
submitted 
ked or date 
mploying a 
problems 
romotional 
e applicant f 
. (Cal. Cod 
tamped by 
wing condi 
as delayed 
in error to 
e stamped o 
agency ve 
that preve 
examinatio 
failed to rec 
e Reg., tit. 
y the 
tions 
d due 
o the 
on or 
rifies 
ented 
on; or 
ceive 
2, § 

8 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

174, sudss. (a), (b), ((c), & (d).) TThe same ffinal filing ddate proceddures 
are applieed to the seelection proocess used to fill a job vacancy. 
ss. (a), (b), ((c), & (d).) TThe same ffinal filing ddate proceddures 
are applieed to the seelection proocess used to fill a job vacancy. 

Severityy: 
Non-Serioous or Tecchnical. FFinal filing dates are establisheed to 
ensure all applicantss are given the same aamount of ttime in whi ch to 
apply for a job vacaancy and too set a deaadline for tthe recruitmment. 
Thereforee, although the accepptance of aapplicationss after the final 
filing datee may givee some appplicants mmore time to prepare their 
applicatioon than other applicannts who meeet the final filing datee, the 
acceptance of late aapplicationss will not immpact the reesults of thee job 
vacancy sselection. 

Cause: 
The CalEEPA states that previoously, the aapplicationss were receeived 
by the aassigned ddivision liaaisons, wh hether by mail or hhand-
delivered . Howeverr, the applications weere not coonsistently date 
stamped upon receipt. 

Action: 
It is recoommended that withinn 60 days of the Exeecutive Officer’s 
approval of these findings aand recommendationss, the CallEPA 
submit too the CRU a writteen correctiive action plan thatt the 
departmeent will impplement too ensure cconformity wwith Rule 174. 
Copies off any relevant documentation shhould be in cluded withh the 
plan. 

Equal Employmentt Opportunity 

Each staate agencyy is responssible for an effective EEEO prograam. (Gov. CCode, § 197790.) 
The apppointing powwer for eacch state ageency has thhe major reesponsibilityy for monitooring 
the effecctiveness oof its EEO pprogram. (GGov. Code, §§ 19794.) TTo that end, the appointing 
power mmust issue aa policy staatement commmitted to equal employment oppportunity; issue 
proceduures for filling, proceessing, and resolving discrimi nation commplaints; issue 
proceduures for prooviding equal upwardd mobility and promootional oppportunities; and 
cooperaate with the CalHR by providing aaccess to all required ffiles, documments and ddata. 
(Ibid.) Inn addition, tthe appointting power must appooint, at the manageriaal level, an EEO 
officer, wwho shall report direcctly to, and be under t the supervission of, thee director oof the 
CalEPA to developp, implemeent, coordinnate, and mmonitor the CalEPA’s EEO proggram. 
(Gov. Coode, § 197995.) 

Becausee the EEO Officer invvestigates aand ensurees proper hhandling off discriminaation, 
sexual hharassment and otheer employeee complainnts, the poosition requuires separ ation 

9 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

from thee regular chhain of command, as wwell as reguular and uneencumbereed access too the 
head of the organizzation. 
ee regular chhain of command, as wwell as reguular and uneencumbereed access too the 
head of the organizzation. 

Each sttate agenccy must esstablish a separate committeee of emplooyees whoo are 
individuaals with a ddisability, oor who havve an intereest in disabbility issuess, to advisee the 
head of the agencyy on issuess of concerrn to emplooyees with disabilities.. (Gov. Codde, § 
19795, subd. (b)(1).) The ddepartmentt must invite all empployees too serve onn the 
committ ee and takee appropriaate steps too ensure thaat the final committee is compriseed of 
memberrs who havee disabilitiees or who hhave an inteerest in disaability issuees. (Gov. CCode, 
§ 197955, subd. (b)((2).) 

The CRU reviewedd the CalEPPA’s EEO pprogram thaat was in efffect during the compliance 
review pperiod. 

FINDINNG NO. 4– Complai 
Decision 
nants Wer 
ns Within th 
re Not Not 
he Prescri 
ified of the 
bed Time P 
e Reasons 
Period 
s for Delayys in 
Summaary: 

Criteria: 

Severityy: 

Cause: 

The CalEEPA provided evidencce that onee discrimination compplaint 
was filedd during thhe compliaance revieww period. The compplaint 
investigattion exceeded the 990 days annd the CaalEPA faileed to 
provide ccommunicattion to the complainaant regardinng the statuus of 
the compplaint. 

The app ointing powwer must issue a written deecision to the 
complainaant within 990 days of tthe complaaint being fi led. (Cal. CCode 
Regs., tit . 2, § 64.4, subd. (a).)) If the appoointing powwer is unab le to 
issue its ddecision w ithin the prrescribed timme period, the appoinnting 
power muust inform t he complaiinant in writting of the reasons forr the 
delay. (Ibbid.) 

 Very Serrious. Emmployees wwere not informed oof the reassons 
for delayss in decisioons for commplaints. EEmployees may feel ttheir 
concerns are not being takeen seriouslly, which can leave the 
agency o pen to liabi lity and loww employeee morale. 

The CalEEPA states that the Sttate Water Resourcess Control BBoard 
(SWRCB) assumed the EEO Office of Innvestigativee Responsiibility 
for the CaalEPA on JJune 15, 20015, and aat the time, did not haave a 
centralizeed tracking tool or notification sysstem to ensure responses 
were timeely and commplainants wwere awaree of delays. 

10 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Action: 
It is recoommended that withinn 60 days of the Exeecutive Officer’s 
approval of these findings aand recommendationss, the CallEPA 
submit too the CRU a written ccorrective aaction plan that addreesses 
the correcctions the ddepartmentt will implemment to ensure conformity 
with the requiremennts of Caliifornia Codde of Reguulations, title 2, 
section 644.4, subdivvision (a). CCopies of anny relevantt documentation 
should bee included wwith the plaan. 

FINDINNG NO. 5– A Disabbility Advvisory Coommittee (DAC) Haas Not BBeen 
Establishhed 

Summaary: 

Criteria: 

Severityy: 

Cause: 
Action: 

The CalEEPA did nott have an aactive DACC during thee time of thhis or 
the previous comppliance revview. Howeever, in AApril 2016, the 
CalEPA provided documentaation demmonstrating that CallEPA 
employeees were acttively servinng on the AARB/CalEPAA joint DACC. 

Each staate agencyy must esstablish a separate committe e of 
employeees who aree individualls with a ddisability, or who have an 
interest inn disability issues, too advise th e head of the agenccy on 
issues off concern tto employeees with d disabilities. (Gov. Codde, § 
19795, suubd. (b)(1)..) The depaartment muust invite a ll employeees to 
serve on the comm ittee and taake approppriate stepss to ensuree that 
the final ccommittee is compriseed of mem bers who hhave disabiilities 
or who have an inteerest in dissability issu es. (Gov. CCode, § 199795, 
subd. (b)((2).) 

Very Ser ious. The agency heead does nnot have dirrect information 
on issuess of concernn to employyees or otheer persons with disabiilities 
and inputt to correctt any undeerrepresentation. The lack of a DAC 
may limitt an agenncy’s abilityy to recruit and retaain a quaalified 
workforcee, impact prroductivity, and subjecct the agenccy to liabilitty. 

The CalEEPA states that it did nnot solicit aand select member foor the 
DAC during the revieew period. 

The CalEPA musst take iimmediate steps too ensure the 
establishmment of aa DAC, ccomprised of membeers who have 
disabilitie s or who have an inteerest in disaability issuees. The CallEPA 
must subbmit to the CRU a wrritten reportt of compliiance, incluuding 

11 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

the DAC roster, aggenda, and meeting mminutes, noo later than 60 
days fromm the date oof the SPB Executive Officer’s appproval of these 
findings aand recommmendations. 
ggenda, and meeting mminutes, noo later than 60 
days fromm the date oof the SPB Executive Officer’s appproval of these 
findings aand recommmendations. 

Personaal Services Contracts 

A PSC includes aany contra ct, requisittion, or purchase ordder under which laboor or 
personaal services is a significcant, separrately identtifiable elemment, and tthe businesss or 
person pperforming the servicees is an inddependent contractor that does not have sttatus 
as an eemployee of the Staate. (Cal. Code Regg., tit. 2, §§ 547.59.) The Califoornia 
Constituution has ann implied civvil service mmandate limmiting the sstate’s authority to conntract 
with private entitiees to perfform servicces the sttate has hhistorically or custommarily 
performeed. Goverrnment Coode sectionn 19130, subdivisionn (a), howwever, coddifies 
exceptioons to the ccivil service mandate wwhere PSCC’s achieve cost savinggs for the sstate. 
PSC’s that are of a type enuumerated inn subdivisi on (b) of GGovernmennt Code section 
19130 aare also perrmissible. SSubdivision (b) contraccts include pprivate contracts for a new 
state function, serrvices that are not avvailable witthin state sservice, seervices thatt are 
incidentaal to a conntract for tthe purchasse or lease of real oor personaal property, and 
servicess that are off an urgent,, temporaryy, or occasioonal naturee. 

For costt-savings PSC’s, a staate agency is required to notify SSPB of its inntent to exeecute 
such a ccontract. (GGov. Code, § 19131.) For subdivvision (b) contracts, thhe SPB revviews 
the adequacy of tthe proposeed or execcuted contrract at the e request oof an employee 
organizaation repressenting statte employeees. (Gov. CCode, § 191132.) 

During the compliaance revieww period, thee CalEPA hhad 15 PSCC’s that weere in effectt and 
subject tto General Services (DDGS) approoval and thuus our proccedural reviiew. 

Vendor SServices Contra 
Date 
act 
es 
C 
A 
Contract 
Amount 
Justifica 
Identif 
ation 
fied 
Californ 
Univers 
Sacram 
nia State 
sity, 
mento 
Maaintenance 1/1/1 
12/31/ 
5/
15 $550,000.00 Yess 
Dan Firrth Consultiing ITT Services 5/12/1 
5/11/1 
1418 
$4499,998.00 Yess 
Digital 
Departm 
(DHDI) 
Health 
ment, Inc. ITT Services 5/1/1 
4/30/1 
516 
$557,075.00 Yess 
Enterpr 
Solutio 
ENS-In 
rise Networ 
ns, Inc. dba 
nc. 
rking 
a ITT Services 10/20/ 
10/19/ 
/14/
15 $120,062.60 Yess 

12 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Vendor SServices Contra 
Date 
act 
es 
C 
A 
Contract 
Amount 
Justifica 
Identif 
ation 
fied 
Enterpr 
Solutio 
ENS-In 
rise Networ 
ns, Inc. dba 
nc. 
rking 
a ITT Services 10/20/ 
6/30/1 
/1416 
$195,202.00 Yess 
Gartner, Inc. ITT Services 9/10/1 
3/9/1 
1517 
$199,740.00 Yess 
Greate 
Chamb 
Comme 
r Stockton 
ber of 
erce 
Other 2/4/1 
2/3/1 
517 
$550,000.00 Yess 
Link On 
Profess 
ne 
sionals, LLCC. ITT Services 7/10/1 
8/31/1 
1416 
$4499,966.00 Yess 
Ross & 
Environ 
Consul 
Ross S 
& Associate 
nmental 
ting, Ltd. D 
Strategic 
s 
Dba Maaintenance 7/1/1 
12/31/ 
5/
18 $5550,000.00 Yess 
The Cliimate Regisstry Maaintenance 3/1/1 
2/29/1 
516 
$180,000.00 Yess 
Transla 
Simulta 
Interpre 
Trans-L 
ation and 
aneous 
eting, DBA 
Lang 
Maaintenance 6/18/1 
12/31/ 
15/
15 $550,000.00 Yess 
Transla 
Simulta 
Interpre 
Trans-L 
ation and 
aneous 
eting, DBA 
Lang 
Maaintenance 1/1/1 
9/30/1 
517 
$2249,999.99 Yess 
Univers 
Enterpr 
sity 
rises, Inc. Maaintenance 1/1/1 
12/31/ 
5/
16 $2200,000.00 Yess 
Windso 
Inc. 
or Solutionss, ITT Services 5/15/1 
5/14/1 
1418 
$144,000.00 Yess 
Windso 
Inc. 
or Solutionss, ITT Services 6/30/1 
9/30/1 
1415 
$3395,366.00 Yess 

FINDINNG NO. 6 –– Personnrements 
al Servicces Contrracts Commplied witth Proceddural 
Requir 

When a state agenncy request s approval from the DDGS for a suubdivision ((b) contractt, the 
agency must incluude with itss contract transmittal a written justification that includes 
specific and detaileed factual i nformation that demonstrates hoow the conttract meetss one 
or more conditionss specified in Governmment Code section 199131, subdivision (b). (Cal. 
Code Reeg., tit. 2, § 547.60.) 

13 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

The totaal dollar am ount of all tthe PSC’s rreviewed wwas $3,441,,409.59. It wwas beyondd the 
scope oof the revieww to make conclusionns as to whhether the CalEPA’s jjustificationns for 
the contract were legally suufficient. Foor all PSCC’s revieweed, the CaalEPA provvided 
specific and detaileed fact-bassed informaation in the written jusstifications aas to how each 
of the coontract mett at least onne condition set forth in Governmment Code section 199131, 
subdivission (b). Acccordingly, the CalEPAA PSC’s commplied with procedural requiremeents. 
aal dollar am ount of all tthe PSC’s rreviewed wwas $3,441,,409.59. It wwas beyondd the 
scope oof the revieww to make conclusionns as to whhether the CalEPA’s jjustificationns for 
the contract were legally suufficient. Foor all PSCC’s revieweed, the CaalEPA provvided 
specific and detaileed fact-bassed informaation in the written jusstifications aas to how each 
of the coontract mett at least onne condition set forth in Governmment Code section 199131, 
subdivission (b). Acccordingly, the CalEPAA PSC’s commplied with procedural requiremeents. 

Mandateed Training 

Each staate agencyy shall offe r at least ssemiannuallly to each of its filerss an orient ation 
course oon the relevvant ethics statutes annd regulatioons that govvern the offficial conduuct of 
state offficials. (Govv. Code, § 11146.1.) New filers must be traained withi n six monthhs of 
appointmment. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3.) 

Each deepartment must proviide its neww supervisoors basic ssupervisoryy training wwithin 
twelve mmonths of aappointment. (Gov. Coode, § 199995.4, subds. (b) and (cc.).) The tra aining 
must be a minimumm of 80 houurs, 40 of which must bbe structureed and giveen by a quaalified 
instructoor. The otheer 40 hourss may be ddone on thee job by a higher-leveel supervisor or 
manageer. (Gov. Coode, § 199995.4, subd. (b).) 

Additionnally, each departmeent must pprovide its supervisoors two hoours of seexual 
harassmment traininng every ttwo years. New suppervisors mmust be pprovided seexual 
harassmment preveention training within six monthhs of appoointment. (Gov. Codde, § 
12950.1. subd. (a)..) 

The CRU reviewedd the CalEPPA mandateed training program thhat was in eeffect duringg the 
compliannce revieww period. TThe CalEPPA’s supervvisory trainning, ethicss training, and 
sexual hharassmentt preventionn training wwere found tto be out off compliancce. 

FINDINNG NO. 7 – Supervissory Traini ng Was Noot Providedd for All Supervisorss 

Summaary: 

Criteria: 

The CalEEPA did noot provide basic supeervisory training to four of 
four new supervisorss within tweelve monthss of appointment. 

Each deppartment mmust providde its neww supervisoors supervvisory 
training wwithin twelve month s of appoointment. ((Gov. Code, § 
19995.4, subd. (b) aand (c.).) Thhe training must be a minimum oof 80 
hours, 400 of which must be structured and given by a quaalified 
instructorr. The otherr 40 hours may be doone on the jjob by a higgherlevel 
supeervisor or mmanager. (GGov. Code, § 19995.4,, subd. (b).) 

14 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Severityy: yy: Very Ser 
are prop 
employee 
including 
ious. The d 
perly traine 
es may no 
managing 
department 
ed. Without 
ot properly 
employeest does not 
t proper t 
y carry out 
s. 
ensure its 
training, ne 
t their sup 
new mana 
ew superv 
pervisory r 
agers 
visory 
roles, 
Cause: The CalE 
system fo 
resources 
EPA states 
or training, a 
s, the traini 
that it do 
and due to 
ng was not 
es not hav 
the manua 
t scheduled 
ve an auto 
al process a 
d in a timely 
omated trac 
and limited 
y manner. 
cking 
staff 
Action: The CalE 
superviso 
months. 
EPA must 
ors are pro 
take app 
ovided sup 
ropriate st 
pervisory t 
teps to en 
raining wit 
nsure that 
thin the twnew 
welve 
It is there 
SPB’s E 
recomme 
complianc 
SPB a wrefore recom 
Executive 
endations, t 
ce with su 
ritten report 
mmended t 
Officer’s 
the CalEPA 
pervisory t 
t of complia 
that no late 
approval 
A must es 
raining ma 
ance. 
er than 60 
of these 
stablish a 
andates and 
days afte 
findings 
plan to en 
d submit to 
r the 
and 
nsure 
o the 

FINDINNG NO. 8 – Ethics Trraining Waas Not Provvided for AAll Filers 

Summaary: 

Criteria: 

Severityy: 

Cause: 

The CalEEPA did noot provide ethics training to 100 of 34 existing 
filers. In addition, twwo out of seven neww filers werre not provvided 
training wwithin six moonths of apppointment. 

New filerrs must bee provided ethics trainning withinn six monthhs of 
appointment. Existinng filers mmust be traiined at leaast once duuring 
each consecutive peeriod of twoo calendar years commencing onn the 
first odd-numbered year there after. (Govv. Code, § 11146.3, ssubd. 
(b).) 

Very Seriious. The ddepartment does not eensure its ffilers are awware 
of prohibitions relateed to his or her official position annd influencee. 

The CalEEPA states that it does not havve an autoomated traccking 
system foor training, aand due to the manuaal process aand limited staff 
resourcess, the training was nott scheduledd in a timelyy manner. 

15 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Action: The CHR 
provided 
It is there 
SPB’s E 
recomme 
complianc 
written re 
RB must ta 
ethics train 
efore recom 
Executive 
endations, 
ce with eth 
port of com 
ake approp 
ning within t 
mmended t 
Officer’s 
the CHRB 
hics training 
mpliance. 
priate steps 
the time pe 
that no late 
approval 
B must est 
g mandates 
s to ensure 
riods presc 
er than 60 
of these 
tablish a p 
s and subm 
e that filers 
cribed. 
days afte 
findings 
plan to en 
mit to the SP 
s are 
r the 
and 
nsure 
PB a 
FINDING NO. 9 – Sexual H 
All Supe 
Harassmen 
rvisors 
nt Preventiion Traininng Was Noot Providedd for 

Summaary: 

Criteria: 

Severityy: 

Cause: 

Action: 

The CalEEPA did nott provide seexual harasssment preevention traaining 
to two of five neew supervvisors withhin six months of their 
appointment. In adddition, thee CalEPA did not provide seexual 
harassmeent preventtion training to one oof 15 existing supervvisors 
every twoo years. 

Each deppartment mmust providee its supervvisors two hours of seexual 
harassmeent trainingg every two years. NNew supervvisors musst be 
provided sexual harrassment pprevention training witthin six moonths 
of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (a).) 

Very Serious. The ddepartmentt does not ensure its new manaagers 
are propeerly trainedd. Without proper traiining, supeervisors aree not 
prepared to propperly respond to iissues invvolving seexual 
harassmeent, which llimits the d department’’s ability to retain a quuality 
workforcee, impacts eemployee mmorale and productivitty, and subbjects 
the deparrtment to liaability. 

The CalEEPA states that sexuaal harassmment prevenntion traininng is 
mandatorry and thhe SWRCBB notifies all superrvisors of this 
requiremeent annually. Despite notification of the requuirement, not all 
supervisoors were abble to attendd the traininng for a variety of reassons. 

The CalEEPA mustt take apppropriate ssteps to eensure thaat its 
supervisoors are provvided sexuaal harassment trainingg within the time 
periods prescribed. 

It is thereefore recommmended tthat no lateer than 60 days after the 
SPB’s EExecutive Officer’s approval of these findings and 

16 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

recommeendations, tthe CalEPAA must esstablish a plan to ennsure 
compliancce with sexxual harasssment trainning mandaates and suubmit 
to the SPB a written report of ccompliance.. 
eendations, tthe CalEPAA must esstablish a plan to ennsure 
compliancce with sexxual harasssment trainning mandaates and suubmit 
to the SPB a written report of ccompliance.. 

DDEPARTMEENTAL RESSPONSE 

The CalEPA’s respponse is attaached as AAttachment 1. 

SPPB REPLY 

Based uupon the CCalEPA’s wwritten respponse, the CalEPA wwill complyy with the CRU 
recommmendations aand findings and provide the CRUU a correcttive action pplan. 

It is ffurther reccommended that thhe CalEPAA complyy with the afore-sttated 
recommmendations within 60 ddays of the Executive Officer’s aapproval annd submit too the 
CRU a wwritten repoort of complliance. 

17 
SPB Compliancee Review 
California Ennvironmental Protection Aggency 

Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

Governor 

Matthew Rodriquez 

Secretary for Environmental Protection 

July 18, 2016 

Suzanne Ambrose 
State Personnel Board 
801 Capitol Mall 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Ms. Ambrose: 

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CaiEPA) would like to thank the State 
Personnel Board (SPB) for the opportunity to provide feedback to the 2016 compliance 
review conducted by the Compliance Review Unit. 

Cal EPA has reviewed the final draft report and provides the following information 
regarding the findings: 

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

FINDING NO. 2 
Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for all 
Appointments Received. The report noted that CaiEPA did not 
prepare, complete, and/or retain eight required probationary reports 
of performance. 

Cause: Cal EPA Human Resources (HR) unit attempted to remind the 

. managers/supervisors of their employees that were serving a 
probation period. However, the tracking system used was not 
always consistent, and was handled by several HR staff, and the 
notifications to the managers/supervisors were not always timely. 

Response: 
CaiEPA will now have one designated staff within HR tasked with 
maintaining a tracking system, notifying the managers/supervisors 
of probation periods for their employees, as well as following up 
with the managers/supervisors to ensure the probation reports are 
completed and received. 

Air Rcsow·ces Board • Department ol' Pe..<;ticide Regulation • Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery • Department of Toxic Substances Conl!·ol 
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment • State Watm· Resource-s Conlro( Board • Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

1001 [Street, Sacntmenlo, CA 95814 • P.O. Box 2815, Sacrmnenlo, CA 95812 • (916) 323-2514 • www.calepa.ca.gov 

Ms. Ambrose 
July 18, 2016 
Page 2 

FINDING NO. 3 

Cause: 

Response: 

FINDING NO.4 
Cause: 

Response: 

FINDING NO. 5 
Cause: 
Response: 

Applications Were Not Date Stamped. The report noted that 

CaiEPA accepted and processed 70 out of 606 applications that 

were not date stamped. 

Previously, the applications were received by the assigned division 

liaisons, whether by mail or hand-delivered. However, the 

applications were not consistently dated stamped upon receipt. 

With the implementation of the California Department of Human 

Resources updated Exam and Cert Online Systems (EGOS), 

CaiEPA now has all applications submitted directly to the HR, . 
whether by mail, hand-delivered or electronically. Having HR staff 

handle applications, will help ensure that all applications are date 
stamped appropriately. 

Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delay in 
Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period. 

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) assumed the 
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office investigative 
responsibility for Cal EPA on June 15, 2015, and at the time did not 
have a centralized tracking tool or notification system to ensure 
responses were timely and complainants were aware of delays. 

As implemented in February 2016, the SWRCB EEO Office utilizes 
a centralized tracking tool for all complaints. Procedures were also 
created to notify the complainant appropriately within the prescribed 
time period. 

A Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) Has Not Been 
Establ is hed. 

Cal EPA did not solicit and select members for the Cal EPA DAC 
during the review period. 

CaiEPA appointed two staff members in April2016 to participate in 
a Joint Disability Advisory Committee with the Air Resources Board. 
Both CaiEPA staff attended the ARB/CaiEPA Joint DAC meeting in 
May 2016. 

Ms. Ambrose 
July 18, 2016 

Page 3 

FINDING NO. 6 

FINDING NO. 7 

Cause: 

Response: 
FINDING NO. 8 

Cause: 

Response: 

FINDING NO.9 

Cause: 

Response: 

Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural 

Requirements. 

Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors. 

CaiEPA did not provide supervisory training to four of its four new 

supervisors within the twelve months of appointment. 

Cal EPA does not have an automated tracking system for training, 

and due to manual process and limited staff resources; the training 

was not scheduled in a timely manner. 

Cal EPA has implemented a new process to ensure consistent 
tracking and compliance with this mandate going forward. 

Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers. Cal EPA did 

not provide ethics training to 10 of its 34 existing filers. In addition, 
two out of seven new filers were not provided training within the six 

months of appointment. 

Cal EPA does not have an automated tracking system for training, 
and due to manual process and limited staff resources; the training 
was not scheduled in a timely manner. 

Cal EPA has implemented a new process to ensure consistent 
tracking and compliance with this mandate going forward. 

Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All 
Supervisors. CaiEPA did not provide sexual harassment training 
to two of five new supervisors within six months of their 
appointment. 

Sexual Harassment training is mandatory and the State Water 
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) notifies all supervisors of this 
requirement annually. Despite notification of the requirement, not 
all Cal EPA supervisors were able to attend the training for a variety 
of reasons. 

The SWRCB will explore procedural and technological solutions to 
ensure required Sexual Harassment training is completed for CaiEPA 
and training records are maintained. In the interim, the SWRCB 
Equal Employment Opportunity Office has begun tracking Sexual 
Harassment training for Cal EPA supervisors in an effort to ensure 
accuracy and compliance, until such time as a permanent solution is 
implemented. 

Ms. Ambrose 
July 18, 2016 
Page 4 

CaiEPA would like to once again thank the SPB Compliance Review team and 
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the reports . Cal EPA will continue to educate 
and train our agency staff on the best hiring practices and requirements to ensure 
compliance with the SPB's civil service merit system. 

If you have questions or need additional information , feel free to contact me at (916) 
323-2345. 

arvis 
stant Secretary for Fiscal and 
Administrative Programs 

cc: 
Shereta Ale xander, Chief 
Human Resources Branch