COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Review Unit 

State Personnel Board 

October 7, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 3 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 3 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 4 
Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................. 7 
Personal Services Contracts ...................................................................................... 8 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 10 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 11 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 11 

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 High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) 
personnel practices in the areas of examinations, appointments, EEO, and PSC’s from 
June 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016, and mandated training from April 1, 2014, 
through April 1, 2016. The following table summarizes the compliance review findings. 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Examinations 

Examinations Complied with Civil Service 
Laws and Board Rules 

In Compliance 

Appointments 

Equal Employment Opportunity 
Questionnaires Were Not Separated from 
Applications 

Very Serious 

Equal Employment 
Opportunity 

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

In Compliance 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

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 HSRA is responsible for planning, designing, building, and operation of the first 
high-speed rail system in the nation. California high-speed rail will connect the megaregions 
of the state, contribute to economic development and a cleaner environment, 
create jobs, and preserve agricultural and protected lands. By 2029, the system will run 
from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under three hours at speeds capable of 
over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend to Sacramento and San 
Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to 24 stations. In addition, the HSRA is working with 
regional partners to implement a statewide rail modernization plan that will invest 
billions of dollars in local and regional rail lines to meet the state’s 21st century 
transportation needs. The HSRA currently has 219 authorized positions and four offices 
that are located in Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, and Los Angeles. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing HSRA examinations, 
appointments, EEO program, and PSC’s from June 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016, 
and mandated training from April 1, 2014, through April 1, 2016. The primary objective 
of the review was to determine if HSRA personnel practices, policies, and procedures 
complied with state civil service laws and board regulations, and to recommend 
corrective action for those deficiencies identified. 

A cross-section of the HSRA examinations and appointments were selected to ensure 
that samples of various examinations and appointment types, classifications, and levels 
were reviewed. The CRU examined the documentation that the HSRA provided, which 

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

1 If 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. 

 

In addition, the HSRA’s 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 basic supervisory and sexual 
harassment prevention training within statutory timelines. 

On September 2, 2016, an exit conference was held with the HSRA to explain and 
discuss the CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. The CRU received and 
carefully reviewed HSRA’s written response on September 28, 2016, which is attached 
to this final compliance 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 HSRA conducted 18 examinations, 15 of which 
were administered through California Department of Human Resources (CalHR). The 
CRU reviewed the remaining three examinations, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

CEA B, Assistant Chief 
Financial Officer 

Career 
Executive 
Assignment 
(CEA) 

State of 
Qualifications 
(SOQ)2 

Until Filled 

10 

CEA B, Chief Auditor 

CEA 

SOQ 

9/11/2015 

13 

CEA B, Chief 
Information Officer 

CEA 

SOQ 

Until Filled 

25 

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. 

 

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

 

The HSRA administered three CEA examinations in order to create eligible and 
information lists from which to make appointments, respectively. For the three CEA 
examinations, the HSRA published and distributed examination bulletins containing 
required information. Applications and SOQ’s were received by the HSRA and were 
thereafter properly assessed to determine applicant ranks from one to six. 

 

The CRU found no deficiencies in the examinations that the HSRA conducted during 
the compliance review period. Accordingly, the HSRA 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.) Except as provided by law, appointments to 
vacant positions shall be made from employment lists. (Ibid.) 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 HSRA made 69 appointments. The CRU 
reviewed 24 of those appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Accountant Trainee 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Associate Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

4 

Associate Personnel 
Analyst 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Attorney III 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Attorney IV 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Executive Assistant 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Senior Accounting 
Officer (Specialist) 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Senior Personnel 
Specialist 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Senior Transportation 
Engineer, CalTrans 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

2 

Staff Services Analyst 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

System Software 
Specialist III 

Certification 
List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Associate Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Permissive 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Associate Management 
Auditor 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Temporary 

Intermittent 

1 

Accounting Officer 
(Specialist) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Administrative Assistant 
II 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Senior Transportation 
Engineer, Caltrans 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

3 

 

FINDING NO. 2 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated from Applications 

 

Summary: Out of 24 appointments reviewed, six appointment files included 
applications where EEO questionnaires were not separated from 
the STD 678 employment application. Specifically, fifteen of the 894 
applications reviewed included EEO questionnaires that were not 
separated from the STD 678 employment application. 

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, age, or sexual orientation). Applicants for employment in 
state civil service are asked to provide voluntarily ethnic data about 

themselves where such data is determined by the 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 HRSA states that the error rate was a result of human error, 
and not a procedural issue. 

Action: The HRSA has submitted a corrective action plan for ensuring EEO 
questionnaires are separated from the STD 678 employment 
applications; therefore, no further action is required at this time. 

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 equal employment opportunity; 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 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. In a state agency with less than 500 employees, like the 
HRSA, the EEO Officer may be the Personnel Officer. 

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 HSRA’s EEO program that was in effect during the compliance 
review period. 

FINDING NO. 3 – Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil 
Service Laws and Board Rules 

 

After reviewing the policies, procedures, and programs necessary for compliance with 
the EEO program’s role and responsibilities according to statutory and regulatory 
guidelines, the CRU determined that the HSRA EEO program provided employees with 
information and guidance on the EEO process including instructions on how to file 
discrimination claims. Furthermore, the EEO program outlines the roles and 
responsibilities of the EEO Officer, as well as supervisors and managers. The EEO 
Officer, who is at a managerial level, reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the 
HSRA. In addition, the HSRA has an established DAC that reports to the Chief 
Executive Officer on issues affecting persons with a disability. The HSRA also provided 
evidence of its efforts to promote EEO in its hiring and employment practices, to 
increase its hiring of persons with a disability, and to offer upward mobility opportunities 
for its entry-level staff. 

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 HSRA had 63 PSC’s that were in effect and 
subject to the Department of General Services (DGS) approval, and thus the CRU 
procedural review. The CRU reviewed eight of those, which are listed below: 

Vendor 

Services 

Contract 
Dates 

Contract 
Amount 

Justification 
Identified 

Baker and Miller, 
PLLC 

Legal Services 

9/28/15 - 
7/31/17 

$2,000,000 

Yes 

Mayer Brown, LLP 

Legal Services 

11/17/15 - 
11/14/17 

$3,000,000 

Yes 

Peninsula Corridor 
Joint Powers Board 

Operate 
Commuter Rail 

1/7/16 - 
6/30/18 

$1,000,000 

Yes 

Project Finance 
Advisory Limited 

Reporting for CA 
Streets & Hwy 
Code 

12/18/15 - 
10/10/17 

$4,000,000 

Yes 

Rutan & Tucker, LLP 

Legal Services 

8/13/15 - 
7/31/17 

$3,000,000 

Yes 

San Joaquin Valley 
Railroad Co. 

Railroad Design 
Drawing Review 

8/28/15 - 
6/30/20 

$5,000,000 

Yes 

SJ Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control 
District 

Offset Air 
Pollution – 
Environmental 

1/13/16 - 
7/31/28 

$10,806,923 

Yes 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Services 

Environmental 
Services 

10/1/15 - 
9/30/17 

$1,291,383 

Yes 

 

FINDING NO. 4 – 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 dollar amount of all the PSC’s reviewed was $30,098,306. It was beyond the 
scope of the review to make conclusions as to whether HSRA justifications for the 

contracts were legally sufficient. The HSRA provided specific and detailed factual 
information in the written justifications as to how the contracts met at least one condition 
set forth in Government Code section 19131, subdivision (b). Accordingly, the HSRA 
PSC’s complied with procedural requirements. 

Mandated Training 

Each member, officer, or designated employee of a state agency who is required to file 
a statement of economic interest (referred to as “filers”) because of the position he or 
she holds with the agency is required to take an orientation course on the relevant 
ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of state officials. (Gov. 
Code, §§ 11146 & 11146.1.) State agencies are required to offer filers the orientation 
course on a semi-annual basis. (Gov. Code, § 11146.1.) New filers must be trained 
within six months of appointment and at least once during each consecutive period of 
two calendar years, commencing on the first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. 
Code, § 11146.3.) 

Upon the initial appointment of any employee designated in a supervisory position, the 
employee shall be provided a minimum of 80 hours of training, as prescribed by the 
CalHR. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subd. (b).) The training addresses such topics as the 
role of the supervisor, techniques of supervision, performance standards, and sexual 
harassment and abusive conduct prevention. (Gov. Code, §§ 12950.1, subds. (a), (b), & 
(c), & 19995.4, subd. (b).) The training must be successfully completed within the term 
of the employee’s probationary period or within six months of the initial appointment, 
unless it is demonstrated that to do so creates additional costs or that the training 
cannot be completed during this time period due to limited availability of supervisory 
training courses. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subd. (c).) As to the sexual harassment and 
abusive-conduct prevention component, the training must thereafter be provided to 
supervisors once every two years. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1.) 

Within 12 months of the initial appointment of an employee to a management or CEA 
position, the employee shall be provided leadership training and development, as 
prescribed by CalHR. (Gov. Code, §§ 19995.4, subds. (d) & (e).) For management 
employees the training must be a minimum of 40 hours and for CEAs the training must 
be a minimum of 20 hours. (Ibid.) Thereafter, for both categories of appointment, the 
employee must be provided a minimum of 20 hours of leadership training on a biannual 
basis. (Ibid.) 

The Board may conduct reviews of any appointing power’s personnel practices to 
ensure compliance with civil service laws and Board regulations. (Gov. Code, § 18661, 
subd. (a).) In particular, the Board may audit personnel practices related to such matters 

as selection and examination procedures, appointments, promotions, the management 
of probationary periods, and any other area related to the operation of the merit 
principle in state civil service. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the CRU reviews documents and 
records related to training that appointing powers are required by the afore-cited laws to 
provide its employees. 

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

FINDING NO. 5 – Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

 

The HSRA provided ethics training to its 72 new filers within six months of appointment 
and semiannual ethics training to its 47 existing filers during the two-year calendar year 
period commencing in 2014. The HSRA also provided supervisory training to its 18 new 
supervisors within 12 months of appointment. In addition, the HSRA provided sexual 
harassment prevention training its 36 new supervisors within 6 months of appointment 
and semiannual sexual harassment prevention training to its existing 21 supervisors. 
Thus, the HSRA complied with mandated training requirements within statutory 
timelines. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

The HSRA’s response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the HSRA’s written response, the HSRA will comply with the CRU 
recommendations and findings. The HSRA submitted a corrective action plan for the 
one departmental finding that was out of compliance. 

It is further recommended that the HRSA 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.