COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Review Unit 

State Personnel Board 

March 20, 2020 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 3 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 3 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 5 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 5 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 8 
Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................................................... 10 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 11 
Compensation and Pay ............................................................................................ 13 
Leave ....................................................................................................................... 19 
Policy and Processes ............................................................................................... 25 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 28 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 28 

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 authorities’ 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. 

Pursuant to Government Code section 18502, subdivision (c), the SPB and the California 
Department of Human Resources (CalHR) may “delegate, share, or transfer between 
them responsibilities for programs within their respective jurisdictions pursuant to an 
agreement.” SPB and CalHR, by mutual agreement, expanded the scope of program 
areas to be audited to include more operational practices that have been delegated to 
departments and for which CalHR provides policy direction. Many of these delegated 
practices are cost drivers to the state and were not being monitored on a statewide basis. 

As such, SPB also conducts compliance reviews of appointing authorities’ personnel 
practices to ensure that state departments are appropriately managing the following non-
merit-related personnel functions: compensation and pay, leave, and policy and 
processes. These reviews will help to avoid and prevent potential costly litigation related 
to improper personnel practices, and deter waste, fraud, and abuse. 

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. 

It should be noted that this report only contains findings from this hiring authority’s 
compliance review. Other issues found in SPB appeals and special investigations as well 
as audit and review findings by other agencies such as the CalHR and the California State 
Auditor are reported elsewhere. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The CRU conducted a routine compliance review of the Public Employment Relations 
Board (PERB) personnel practices in the areas of examinations, appointments, EEO, 
PSC’s, mandated training, compensation and pay, leave, and policy and processes. The 
following table summarizes the compliance review findings. 

Area 

Finding 

Examinations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated From Applications 

Appointments 

Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for all 
Appointments Reviewed 

Equal Employment 
Opportunity 

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

Mandated Training 

Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

Compensation and Pay 

Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, 
Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines for 
Appointment 

Compensation and Pay 

Alternate Range Movements Did Not Comply with Civil 
Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and 
Guidelines 

Compensation and Pay 

Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differentials 

Leave 

Positive Paid Employees’ Tracked Hours Complied with 
Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies 
and Guidelines 

Leave 

Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were 
Not Completed For All Leave Records 

Leave 

Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees 
Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits 

Policy 

Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board 
Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines 

Policy 

Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil 
Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and 
Guidelines 

Area 

Finding 

Policy 

Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All 
Employees 

 

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

. Red = Very Serious 
. Orange = Serious 
. Yellow = Technical 
. Green = In Compliance 

 

BACKGROUND 

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is a quasi-judicial administrative agency 
charged with administering eight collective bargaining statutes covering employees of 
California's public schools, colleges, and universities, employees of the State of 
California, employees of California local public agencies (cities, counties and special 
districts), trial court employees, trial court interpreters, supervisory employees of the Los 
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Judicial Council employees. 
The Board employs approximately 65 employees in the following 4 divisions: Office of the 
General Counsel, Administrative Services, Administrative Law, and State Mediation and 
Conciliation Services. The PERB is headquartered in Sacramento and has offices in 
Oakland and Glendale. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing the PERB’s examinations, 
appointments, EEO program, PSC’s, mandated training, compensation and pay, leave, 
and policy and processes1. The primary objective of the review was to determine if the 
PERB’s personnel practices, policies, and procedures complied with state civil service 
laws and Board regulations, Bargaining Unit Agreements, CalHR policies and guidelines, 
CalHR Delegation Agreements, and to recommend corrective action where deficiencies 
were identified. 

1 Timeframes of the compliance review varied depending on the area of review. Please refer to each section 
for specific compliance review timeframes. 

A cross-section of the PERB’s examinations were selected for review to ensure that 
samples of various examination types, classifications, and levels were reviewed. The 
CRU examined the documentation that the PERB provided, which included examination 
plans, examination bulletins, job analyses, and scoring results. 

 

The PERB did not conduct any permanent withhold actions during the compliance review 
period. 

A cross-section of the PERB’s appointments were selected for review to ensure that 
samples of various appointment types, classifications, and levels were reviewed. The 
CRU examined the documentation that the PERB provided, which included Notice of 
Personnel Action (NOPA) forms, Request for Personnel Actions (RPA’s), vacancy 
postings, certification lists, transfer movement worksheets, employment history records, 
correspondence, and probation reports. 

The PERB did not conduct any unlawful appointment investigations during the 
compliance review period. 

Additionally, the PERB did not make any additional appointments during the compliance 
review period. 

The PERB’s appointments were also selected for review to ensure the PERB applied 
salary regulations accurately and correctly processed employees’ compensation and pay. 
The CRU examined the documentation that the PERB provided, which included 
employees’ employment and pay history and any other relevant documentation such as 
certifications, degrees, and/or the appointee’s application. Additionally, the CRU reviewed 
specific documentation related to monthly pay differentials. 

During the compliance review period, the PERB did not issue or authorize hiring above 
minimum (HAM) requests, red circle rate requests, arduous pay, bilingual pay, or out-of-
class assignments. 

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

The PERB did not execute any PSC’s during the compliance review period. 

The PERB’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 supervisory training and sexual harassment prevention 
training within statutory timelines. 

The CRU also identified the PERB’s employees whose current annual leave, or vacation 
leave credits, exceeded established limits. The CRU reviewed a cross-section of these 
identified employees to ensure that employees who have significant “over-the-cap” leave 
balances have a leave reduction plan in place. Additionally, the CRU asked the PERB to 
provide a copy of their leave reduction policy. 

The CRU reviewed the PERB’s Leave Activity and Correction Certification forms to verify 
that the PERB created a monthly internal audit process to verify all leave input into any 
leave accounting system was keyed accurately and timely. The CRU selected a small 
cross-section of the PERB’s units in order to ensure they maintained accurate and timely 
leave accounting records. Further, the CRU reviewed a selection of PERB’s positive paid 
employees whose hours are tracked during the compliance review period in order to 
ensure that they adhered to procedural requirements. 

During the compliance review period, the PERB did not have any employees with non-
qualifying pay period transactions. 

Additionally, the PERB did not authorize Administrative Time Off (ATO). 

Moreover, the CRU reviewed the PERB’s policies and processes concerning nepotism, 
workers’ compensation, performance appraisals, and Administrative Hearing and Medical 
Interpreter Program. The review was limited to whether the PERB’s policies and 
processes adhered to procedural requirements. 

On February 28, 2020, an exit conference was held with the PERB to explain and discuss 
the CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. The CRU received and carefully 
reviewed the PERB’s written response on March 6, 2020, which is attached to this final 
compliance review report. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Examinations 

Examinations to establish an eligible list must be competitive and of such character as 
fairly to test and determine the qualifications, fitness, and ability of competitors to perform 
the duties of the class of position for which he or she seeks appointment. (Gov. Code, § 
18930.) Examinations may be assembled or unassembled, written or oral, or in the form 
of a demonstration of skills, or any combination of those tests. (Ibid.) The Board 
establishes minimum qualifications for determining the fitness and qualifications of 
employees for each class of position and for applicants for examinations. (Gov. Code, § 

18931, subd. (a).) 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 with the department or a designated appointing power as directed by 
the examination announcement. (Gov. Code, § 18934, subd. (a)(1).) 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, May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2018, the PERB 
conducted one examination. The CRU reviewed that examination, which is listed below: 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Apps 

Conciliator, Department 
of Industrial Relations 

Open 

Training and 
Experience (T&E)2 

4/6/2018 

19 

2 The Training and Experience examination is administered either online or in writing, and asks the 

applicant to answer multiple-choice questions about his or her level of training and/or experience 

performing certain tasks typically performed by those in this classification. Responses yield point values. 

The CRU reviewed one open examination which the PERB administered in order to 
create eligible lists from which to make appointments. The PERB published and 
distributed examination bulletins containing the required information for all examinations. 
Applications received by the PERB were accepted prior to the final filing date. Applicants 
were notified about the next phase of the examination process. After all phases of the 
examination process were completed, the score of each competitor was computed, and 
a list of eligible candidates was established. The examination results listed the names of 
all successful competitors arranged in order of the score received by rank. 

However, in reviewing the PERB examination that was administered during the 
compliance review period, the CRU determined the following: 

FINDING NO. 1 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated From Applications 

 

Summary: The examination reviewed included applications where EEO 
questionnaires were not separated from the STD. 678 employment 
application. Specifically, 3 of the 19 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): for example, a person’s race, religious creed, color, 
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, 
medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, 
gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or 
military and veteran status. Applicants for employment in state civil 
service are asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves 
where such data is determined by 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 PERB states that the EEO questionnaires were not removed 
from all applications due to staff error. In addition to staff training, the 
PERB now uses the Examination and Certification Online System 
which automates this process for applications submitted through the 
system, which eliminates the potential for error for a vast majority of 
applications. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure that future EEO 
questionnaires are separated from all applications. Copies of 
relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has 

been implemented must be included with the corrective action 
response. 

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.) The hiring process for eligible candidates chosen 
for job interviews shall be competitive and be designed and administered to hire 
candidates who will be successful. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (b).) Interviews 
shall be conducted using job-related criteria. (Ibid.) Persons selected for appointment 
shall satisfy the minimum qualifications of the classification to which he or she is 
appointed or have previously passed probation and achieved permanent status in that 
same classification. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (d).) While persons selected 
for appointment may meet some or most of the preferred or desirable qualifications, they 
are not required to meet all the preferred or desirable qualifications. (Ibid.) This section 
does not apply to intra-agency job reassignments. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. 
(e).) 

During the period under review, April 1, 2017, through March 30, 2018, the PERB made 
18 appointments. The CRU reviewed 9 of those appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appts. 

Attorney 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

1 

Attorney III 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Conciliator, Department of 
Industrial Relations 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Senior Legal Typist 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Analyst 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

2 

Attorney 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Senior Legal Analyst 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Manager II 
(Supervisory) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

 

FINDING NO. 2 – Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for all 
Appointments Reviewed 

 

Summary: The PERB did not provide four probationary reports of performance 
for three of the nine appointments reviewed by the CRU, as reflected 
in the table below. 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Number of 
Appointments 

Total Number of Missing 
Probation Reports 

Attorney 

Transfer 

1 

1 

Attorney III 

Certification List 

1 

2 

Conciliator, Department 
of Industrial Relations 

Certification List 

1 

1 

Total 

3 

4 

 

Criteria: The service of a probationary period is required when an employee 
enters or is promoted in the state civil service by permanent 
appointment from an employment list; upon reinstatement after a 
break in continuity of service resulting from a permanent separation; 
or after any other type of appointment situation not specifically 
excepted from the probationary period. (Gov. Code, § 19171.) During 
the probationary period, the appointing power shall evaluate the work 
and efficiency of a probationer in the manner and at such periods as 
the department rules may require. (Gov. Code, § 19172.) A report of 
the probationer’s performance shall be made to the employee at 
sufficiently frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately 
informed of progress on the job. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.) 
A written appraisal of performance shall be made to the Department 
within 10 days after the end of each one-third portion of the 
probationary period. (Ibid.) The Board’s record retention rules require 
that appointing powers retain all probationary reports for five years 
from the date the record is created. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 26, 
subd. (a)(3).) 

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 PERB acknowledges that supervisors and managers missed 
opportunities to provide feedback to their employees due to the lack 
of an effective tracking system and notification process. Since the 
review, the PERB has revised its process to track and inform 
supervisors and managers of probationary report deadlines. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
Government Code section 19172. Copies of relevant documentation 
demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must 
be included with the corrective action response. 

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; and cooperate with the CalHR, in 
accordance with Civil Code section 1798.24, subdivisions (o) and (p), by providing access 
to all required files, documents and data necessary to carry out these mandates. (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, subd. (a).) 

Pursuant to Government Code section 19795, subdivision (a), in a state agency with less 
than 500 employees, like PERB, 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).) 

 

FINDING NO. 3 – Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with All 
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 PERB’s 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 Executive Director of the PERB. The PERB also provided 
evidence of its efforts to promote EEO in its hiring and employment practices and to 
increase its hiring of persons with a disability. 

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), & 
19995.4, subd. (b).) 

Additionally, 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 Career 
Executive Assignment (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 biennial 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 PERB’s mandated training program that was in effect during the 
compliance review period, May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2018. The PERB’s supervisory 
training and sexual harassment prevention training were found to be in compliance, while 
the PERB’s ethics training was found to be out of compliance. 

FINDING NO. 4 – Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

 

Summary: The PERB did not provide ethics training to 2 of 31 existing filers. In 
addition, the PERB did not provide ethics training to 3 of 11 new filers 
within six months of their appointment. 

Criteria: New filers must be provided ethics training within six months of 
appointment. Existing filers must be trained at least once during each 
consecutive period of two calendar years commencing on the first 
odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3, subd. (b).) 

Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure that its filers are 
aware of prohibitions related to their official position and influence. 

Cause: The PERB states that the responsibility to ensure compliance and 
track completion of ethics training fell solely on the direct supervisor 
or manager during the compliance review period. More 

appropriately, the PERB’s current process includes a tracking 
system overseen by human resources staff to ensure compliance. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure that all filers are 
provided ethics training within the time periods prescribed. Copies of 
relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has 
been implemented must be included with the corrective action 
response. 

Compensation and Pay 

Salary Determination 

The pay plan for state civil service consists of salary ranges and steps established by 
CalHR. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.666.) Several salary rules dictate how departments 
calculate and determine an employee’s salary rate3 upon appointment depending on the 
appointment type, the employee’s state employment and pay history, and tenure. 

3 “Rate” is any one of the salary rates in the resolution by CalHR which establishes the salary ranges and 
steps of the Pay Plan (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, section 599.666). 

Typically, agencies appoint employees to the minimum rate of the salary range for the 
class. Special provisions for appointments above the minimum exist to meet special 
recruitment needs and to accommodate employees who transfer into a class from another 
civil service class and are already receiving salaries above the minimum. 

During the period under review, April 1, 2017, through March 30, 2018, the PERB made 
18 appointments. The CRU reviewed 9 of those appointments to determine if the PERB 
applied salary regulations accurately and correctly processed employees’ compensation, 
which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

Salary 
(Monthly 
Rate) 

Attorney 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

$9,385 

Attorney III 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

$8,856 

Conciliator, Department 
of Industrial Relations 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Full Time 

$6,750 

Senior Legal Typist 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

$3,632 

 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time 
Base 

Salary 
(Monthly 
Rate) 

Staff Services Analyst 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

$4,097 

Staff Services Analyst 

Certification List 

Limited Term 

Full Time 

$4,097 

Attorney 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

$7,316 

Senior Legal Analyst 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

$6,478 

Staff Services Manager 
II (Supervisory) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Full Time 

N/A 

 

The CRU found no deficiencies in eight out of nine salary determinations that were 
reviewed. The PERB appropriately calculated and keyed the salaries for each 
appointment and correctly determined employees’ anniversary dates ensuring that 
subsequent merit salary adjustments will satisfy civil service laws, Board rules and CalHR 
policies and guidelines. 

However, the PERB incorrectly applied compensation laws, rules and/or CalHR policies 
and guidelines for one salary determination reviewed. 

FINDING NO. 5 – Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Rules, and 
CalHR Policies and Guidelines for Appointment 

 

Summary: The CRU found the following error in the PERB’s determination of 
employee compensation: 

Classification 

Description of Finding(s) 

Criteria 

Senior Legal Typist 

Incorrect salary determination, resulting in 
overpayment. 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 
2, § 599.675 

 

Criteria: Departments are required to calculate and apply salary rules for each 
appointed employee accurately based on the pay plan for the state 
civil service. All civil service classes have salary ranges with 
minimum and maximum rates. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.666.) 

Severity: Very Serious. The PERB failed to comply with the state civil service 
pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in 
accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil 
service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate 
compensation. 

Cause: The PERB acknowledges the incorrect salary determination due to 
staff error. Currently, PERB staff who provide salary determinations 
have been given training; and a two-level review process has been 
implemented. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure that employees 
are compensated correctly. The PERB must establish an audit 
system to correct current compensation transactions as well as 
future transactions. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating 
that the corrective action has been implemented must be included 
with the corrective action response. In addition, the PERB must 
provide any relevant documentation showing the correction(s) that 
were made and that accounts receivable(s) were created to collect 
the overpayment(s). 

Alternate Range Movement Salary Determination (within same classification) 

If an employee qualifies under established criteria and moves from one alternate range 
to another alternate range of a class, the employee shall receive an increase or a 
decrease equivalent to the total of the range differential between the maximum salary 
rates of the alternate ranges. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.681.) However, in many 
instances, the CalHR provides salary rules departments must use when employees move 
between alternate ranges. These rules are described in the alternate range criteria. 
(CalHR Pay Scales). When no salary rule or method is cited in the alternate range criteria, 
departments must default to Rule 599.681. 

During the period under review, April 1, 2017, through March 30, 2018, the PERB 
employees made three alternate range movements within a classification. The CRU 
reviewed those three alternate range movements to determine if the PERB applied salary 
regulations accurately and correctly processed each employee’s compensation, which 
are listed below: 

Classification 

Prior 
Range 

Current 
Range 

Time Base 

Salary 
(Monthly 
Rate) 

Attorney 

Range N 

Range O 

Full Time 

$7,237 

Attorney 

Range L 

Range M 

Full Time 

$5,656 

Staff Services Analyst 

Range M 

Range N 

Full Time 

$4,298 

 

FINDING NO. 6 – Alternate Range Movements Did Not Comply with Civil Service 
Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines 

 

Summary: The CRU found the following errors in the PERB’s determination of 
employee compensation: 

Classification 

Description of Finding(s) 

Criteria 

Attorney 

Incorrect salary determination 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 
599.681 

Attorney 

Incorrect salary determination 
and anniversary date 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 
599.681 

Staff Services 
Analyst 

Incorrect salary determination 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 
599.681 

 

Criteria: Alternate ranges are designed to recognize increased competence 
in the performance of class duties based upon experience obtained 
while in the class. The employee gains status in the alternate range 
as though each range were a separate classification. (Classification 
and Pay Guide Section 220.) 

 Departments are required to calculate and apply salary rules for each 
appointed employee accurately based on the pay plan for the state 
civil service. All civil service classes have salary ranges with 
minimum and maximum rates. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.666.) 

Severity: Very Serious. The PERB failed to comply, in three instances, with 
the state civil service pay plan, by incorrectly applying compensation 
laws and rules not in accordance with CalHR’s policies and 
guidelines. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect 
and/or inappropriate pay amounts. 

Cause: The PERB acknowledges salary determinations for alternate range 
movements were incorrect due to staff error. Currently, PERB staff 
who provide salary determinations have been provided additional 
training; and a two-level review process has been implemented to 
ensure salary calculations are accurate. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure that employees 

are compensated correctly. The PERB must establish an audit 
system to correct current compensation transactions as well as 
future transactions. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating 
that the corrective action has been implemented must be included 
with the corrective action response. In addition, the PERB must 
provide any relevant documentation showing the correction(s) that 
were made and that accounts receivable(s) were created to collect 
the overpayment(s); and/or accounts payable(s) were made to 
compensate employees for underpayment(s). 

 

Pay Differentials 

A pay differential is special additional pay recognizing unusual competencies, 
circumstances, or working conditions applying to some or all incumbents in select 
classes. A pay differential may be appropriate in those instances when a subgroup of 
positions within the overall job class might have unusual circumstances, competencies, 
or working conditions that distinguish these positions from other positions in the same 
class. Typically, pay differentials are based on qualifying pay criteria such as: work 
locations or shift assignments; professional or educational certification; temporary 
responsibilities; special licenses, skills or training; performance-based pay; incentive-
based pay; or, recruitment and retention. (Classification and Pay Manual Section 230.) 

California State Civil Service Pay Scales Section 14 describes the qualifying pay criteria 
for the majority of pay differentials. However, some of the alternate range criteria in the 
pay scales function as pay differentials. Generally, departments issuing pay differentials 
should, in order to justify the additional pay, document the following: the effective date of 
the pay differential, the collective bargaining unit identifier, the classification applicable to 
the salary rate and conditions along with the specific criteria, and any relevant 
documentation to verify the employee meets the criteria. 

During the period under review, April 1, 2017, through March 30, 2018, the PERB issued 
pay differentials4 to eight employees. The CRU reviewed all of these pay differentials to 
ensure compliance with applicable CalHR policies and guidelines. These are listed below: 

4 For the purposes of CRU’s review, only monthly pay differentials were selected for review at this time. 

Classification 

Pay Differential 

Monthly 
Amount 

Administrative Law Judge I, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Classification 

Pay Differential 

Monthly 
Amount 

Administrative Law Judge II, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Administrative Law Judge II, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Administrative Law Judge II, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Administrative Law Judge I, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Administrative Law Judge II, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

Administrative Law Judge I, PERB 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

C.E.A. 

National Judicial College Differential Pay 

5% of salary 

 

FINDING NO. 7 – Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differentials 

 

Summary: The CRU found three errors in the eight pay differentials reviewed: 

Classification 

Area 

Description of Finding(s) 

Criteria 

Administrative Law 
Judge II, PERB 

National 
Judicial 
College 
Differential 
Pay 

The incumbent’s 
certification of completion 
for the designated training 
courses was not available 
for verification. 

Pay Differential 84 

Administrative Law 
Judge II, PERB 

National 
Judicial 
College 
Differential 
Pay 

The incumbent’s 
certification of completion 
for the designated training 
courses was not available 
for verification. 

Pay Differential 84 

C.E.A. 

National 
Judicial 
College 
Differential 
Pay 

The employee’s 
classification is not eligible 
to receive the pay 
differential. 

Pay Differential 84 

 

Criteria: A pay differential may be appropriate when a subgroup of positions 
within the overall job class might have unusual circumstances, 
competencies, or working conditions that distinguish these positions 
from other positions in the same class. Pay differentials are based 
on qualifying pay criteria such as: work locations or shift 
assignments; professional or educational certification; temporary 
responsibilities; special licenses, skills or training; performance-
based pay; incentive-based pay; or, recruitment and retention. 
(CalHR Classification and Pay Manual Section 230.) 

Severity: Very Serious. The PERB failed to comply with the state civil service 
pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in 
accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil 
service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate 
compensation. 

Cause: The PERB acknowledges that two certifications for completion of 
designated training were unavailable during the compliance review 
period due to incomplete transfer of records. Since the review, 
certifications for both employees have been obtained and placed in 
the appropriate personnel files. The third error was caused by a data 
entry error when the employee was appointed to the CEA position. 
The PERB states this error will be corrected. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
Pay Differential 84 and ensure that employees are compensated 
correctly and that transactions are keyed accurately. Copies of 
relevant documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has 
been implemented, including documentation showing that accounts 
receivables were created to collect overpayments where applicable, 
must be included with the corrective action response. 

Leave 

Positive Paid Employees 

Actual Time Worked (ATW) is a method that can be used to keep track of a Temporary 
Authorization Utilization (TAU) employee’s time to ensure that the Constitutional limit of 
9 months in any 12 consecutive months is not exceeded. The ATW method of counting 
time is used in order to continue the employment status for an employee until the 
completion of an examination, for seasonal type work, while attending school, or for 
consulting services. 

An employee is appointed TAU-ATW when he/she is not expected to work all of the 
working days of a month. When counting 189 days, every day worked, including partial 

days5 worked and paid absences, 6 is counted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. 
(b).) The hours worked in one day is not limited by this rule. (Ibid.) The 12-consecutive 
month timeframe begins by counting the first pay period worked as the first month of the 
12-consecutive month timeframe. (Ibid.) The employee shall serve no longer than 189 
days in a 12 consecutive month period. (Ibid.) A new 189-days working limit in a 12-
consecutive month timeframe may begin in the month immediately following the month 
that marks the end of the previous 12-consecutive month timeframe. (Ibid.) 

5 For example, two hours or ten hours counts as one day. 

6 For example, vacation, sick leave, compensating time off, etc. 

It is an ATW appointment because the employee does not work each workday of the 
month, and it might become desirable or necessary for the employee to work beyond nine 
calendar months. The appointing power shall monitor and control the days worked to 
ensure the limitations set forth are not exceeded. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. 
(f).) 

For student assistants, graduate student assistants, youth aides, and seasonal 
classifications a maximum work-time limit of 1500 hours within 12 consecutive months 
may be used rather than the 189-day calculation. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. 
(d).) 

Generally, permanent intermittent employees may work up to 1500 hours in any calendar 
year. (Applicable Bargaining Unit Agreements.) However, Bargaining Unit 6 employees 
may work up to 2000 hours in any calendar year. 

Additionally, according to Government Code section 21224, retired annuitant 
appointments shall not exceed a maximum of 960 hours in any fiscal year (July-June), 
regardless of the number of state employers, without reinstatement, loss or interruption 
of benefits. 

At the time of the review, the PERB had two positive paid employees whose hours were 
tracked. The CRU reviewed all of those positive paid appointments to ensure compliance 
with applicable laws, regulations, policies and guidelines, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Time Base 

Time Frame 

Time Worked 

Accounting Officer 
(Specialist) 

Intermittent 

Calendar 
Year 

2016 - 666.00 hours 
2017 - 284.00 hours 

Personnel Specialist 

Intermittent 

Calendar 
Year 

2018 - 414.75 hours 

 

FINDING NO. 8 – Positive Paid Employees’ Tracked Hours Complied with Civil 
Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and 
Guidelines 

 

The CRU found no deficiencies in the positive paid employees reviewed during the 
compliance review period. The PERB provided sufficient justification and adhered to 
applicable laws, regulations and CalHR policy and guidelines for positive paid employees 

Leave Auditing and Timekeeping 

Departments must keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for each 
employee and officer employed within the agency over which it has jurisdiction. (Cal. 
Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.665.) 

Departments are directed to create a monthly internal audit process to verify all leave 
input into any leave accounting system is keyed accurately and timely. (Human 
Resources Manual Section 2101.) Departments shall create an audit process to review 
and correct leave input errors on a monthly basis. The review of leave accounting records 
shall be completed by the pay period following the pay period in which the leave was 
keyed into the leave accounting system. (Ibid.) If an employee’s attendance record is 
determined to have errors or it is determined that the employee has insufficient balances 
for a leave type used, the attendance record must be amended. (Ibid.) Attendance 
records shall be corrected by the pay period following the pay period in which the error 
occurred. (Ibid.) Accurate and timely attendance reporting is required of all departments 
and is subject to audit. (Ibid.) 

During the period under review, November 1, 2017, through January 30, 2018, the PERB 
reported 5 units comprised of 60 active employees. The pay periods and timesheets 
reviewed by the CRU are summarized below: 

Timesheet 

 Leave Period 

Unit Reviewed 

Number of 
Employees 

Number of 
Timesheets 
Reviewed 

Number of 
Missing 
Timesheets 

November 2017 

003 

9 

8 

1 

November 2017 

007 

19 

15 

4 

December 2017 

007 

19 

16 

3 

 

FINDING NO. 9 – Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not 
Completed For All Leave Records 

 

Summary: The PERB failed to provide completed Leave Activity and Correction 
Certification forms for all units reviewed during the November and 
December 2017, pay periods. 

Criteria: Departments are responsible for maintaining accurate and timely 
leave accounting records for their employees. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 
2, § 599.665.) Departments shall identify and record all errors found 
using a Leave Activity and Correction form. (Human Resources 
Manual Section 2101.) Furthermore, departments shall certify that all 
leave records for the unit/pay period identified on the certification 
form have been reviewed and all leave errors identified have been 
corrected. (Ibid.) 

Severity: Technical. Departments must document that they reviewed all leave 
inputted into their leave accounting system to ensure accuracy and 
timeliness. For post-audit purposes, the completion of Leave Activity 
and Correction Certification forms demonstrates compliance with 
CalHR policies and guidelines. 

Cause: The PERB states that it used an internal audit process to ensure 
accurate and timely leave accounting records on a monthly basis, 
however, it did not use the Leave Activity and Correction Certification 
form (CalHR 139). Staff were unaware of the requirement to use the 
form to document the process. Moving forward, the PERB will 
incorporate the use of the CalHR 139 into its monthly internal audit 
process. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure that their 
monthly internal audit process is documented. The PERB must 
incorporate completion of Leave Activity and Correction Certification 
forms for all leave records even when errors are not identified or 
corrected. Copies of relevant documentation demonstrating that the 
corrective action has been implemented must be included with the 
corrective action response. 

 

Leave Reduction Efforts 

Departments must create a leave reduction policy for their organization and monitor 
employees’ leave to ensure compliance with the departmental leave policy; and ensure 
employees who have significant “over-the-cap” leave balances have a leave reduction 
plan in place. (Human Resources Manual Section 2124.) 

Applicable Memorandums of Understanding and the California Code of Regulations 
prescribe the maximum amount of vacation or annual leave permitted. “If a represented 
employee is not permitted to use all of the vacation to which he or she is entitled in a 
calendar year, the employee may accumulate the unused portion.”7 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 
2, § 599.737.) If it appears an excluded employee will have a vacation or annual leave 
balance that will be above the maximum amount8 as of January 1 of each year, the 
appointing power shall require the supervisor to notify and meet with each employee so 
affected by the preceding July 1, to allow the employee to plan time off, consistent with 
operational needs, sufficient to reduce their balance to the amount permitted by the 
applicable regulation, prior to January 1. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.742.1.) 

7 For represented employees, the established limit for annual or vacation leave accruals is 640 hours, 
however for Bargaining Unit 06 there is no established limit and for Bargaining Unit 05 the established limit 
is 816 hours. 

8 Excluded employees shall not accumulate more than 80 days. 

It is the intent of the state to allow employees to utilize credited vacation or annual leave 
each year for relaxation and recreation, ensuring employees maintain the capacity to 
optimally perform their jobs. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.742.1.) For excluded 
employees, the employee shall also be notified by July 1 that, if the employee fails to take 
off the required number of hours by January 1, the appointing power shall require the 
employee to take off the excess hours over the maximum permitted by the applicable 
regulation at the convenience of the agency during the following calendar year. (Ibid.) To 
both comply with existing civil service rules and adhere to contemporary human resources 
principles, state managers and supervisors must cultivate healthy work- life balance by 
granting reasonable employee vacation and annual leave requests when operationally 
feasible. (Human Resources Manual Section 2124.) 

As of December 2017, seven PERB employees exceeded the established limits of 
vacation or annual leave. The CRU reviewed all of those employees’ leave reduction 
plans to ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations and CalHR policy and 
guidelines, which are listed below: 

 

Classification 

Collective 
Bargaining 
Identifier 

Total Hours 
Over 
Established 
Limit 

Leave 
Reduction Plan 
Provided 

Administrative Assistant 

E97 

496 

No 

Administrative Law Judge II 

E97 

373 

Yes 

CEA 

E97 

722 

Yes 

Conciliator, DIR 

E97 

20 

Yes 

Conciliator, DIR 

E97 

36 

Yes 

Attorney IV 

E97 

15.75 

No 

Attorney III 

E97 

127 

No 

Total 

1,789.75 

 

FINDING NO. 10 – Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees 
Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits 

 

Summary: Although the PERB made a reasonable effort to ensure that all 
employees over the maximum vacation or annual leave hours had 
leave reduction plans in place, the PERB did not provide leave 
reduction plans for three employees reviewed whose leave balances 
significantly exceeded established limits. 

Criteria: It is the policy of the state to foster and maintain a workforce that has 
the capacity to effectively produce quality services expected by both 
internal customers and the citizens of California. (Human Resources 
Manual Section 2124.) Therefore, appointing authorities and state 
managers and supervisors must create a leave reduction policy for 
the organization and monitor employees’ leave to ensure compliance 
with the departmental leave policy. Employees who have significant 
“over-the-cap” leave balances must have a leave reduction plan in 
place and be actively reducing hours. (Ibid.) 

Severity: Technical. California state employees have accumulated significant 
leave hours creating an unfunded liability for departmental budgets. 
The value of this liability increases with each passing promotion and 
salary increase. Accordingly, leave balances exceeding established 
limits need to be addressed immediately. 

Cause: The PERB states that the responsibility to monitor and issue leave 
reduction plans fell solely on the direct supervisor or manager during 

the compliance review period. More appropriately, the PERB’s 
revised process includes a tracking system overseen by human 
resources staff to ensure compliance, and a supervisor review of 
leave balances on a quarterly basis. The PERB states it is now 
current on all leave reduction plans. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure employees who 
have significant “over-the-cap” leave balances have a leave 
reduction plan in place. Copies of relevant documentation 
demonstrating that the corrective action has been implemented must 
be included with the corrective action response. 

Policy and Processes 

Nepotism 

It is the policy of the State of California to recruit, hire and assign all employees on the 
basis of merit and fitness in accordance with civil service statutes, rules and regulations. 
(Human Resources Manual Section 1204.) Nepotism is expressly prohibited in the state 
workplace because it is antithetical to California’s merit based civil service. (Ibid.) 
Nepotism is defined as the practice of an employee using his or her influence or power to 
aid or hinder another in the employment setting because of a personal relationship. (Ibid.) 
Personal relationships for this purpose include but are not limited to, association by blood, 
adoption, marriage and/or cohabitation. (Ibid.) In addition, there may be personal 
relationships beyond this general definition that could be subject to these policies. (Ibid.) 
All department nepotism policies should emphasize that nepotism is antithetical to a 
merit-based personnel system and that the department is committed to the state policy of 
recruiting, hiring and assigning employees on the basis of merit. (Ibid.) 

FINDING NO. 11 – Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board 
Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines 

 

The CRU verified that the policy was disseminated to all staff and emphasized the PERB’s 
commitment to the state policy of recruiting, hiring and assigning employees on the basis 
of merit. Additionally, the PERB’s nepotism policy was comprised of specific and sufficient 
components intended to prevent favoritism, or bias, based on a personal relationship from 
unduly influencing employment decisions. 

Workers’ Compensation 

Employers shall provide to every new employee, either at the time of hire or by the end 
of the first pay period, written notice concerning the rights, benefits, and obligations under 
workers’ compensation law. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9880 subd. (a).) This notice shall 
include the right to predesignate their personal physician or medical group; a form that 
the employee may use as an optional method for notifying the employer of the name of 
employee’s “personal physician,” as defined by Labor Code section 4600. (Cal. Code 
Regs., tit. 8, § 9880 subds. (c)(7) & (8).) Additionally, within one working day of receiving 
notice or knowledge that the employee has suffered a work related injury or illness, 
employers shall provide a claim form and notice of potential eligibility for benefits to the 
injured employee. (Labor Code, § 5401 subd. (a).) 

Public employers may choose to extend workers' compensation coverage to volunteers 
that perform services for the organization. (Human Resources Manual Section 1415.) 
Workers’ compensation coverage is not mandatory for volunteers as it is for employees. 
(Ibid.) This is specific to the legally uninsured state departments participating in the 
Master Agreement. (Ibid.) Departments with an insurance policy for workers’ 
compensation coverage should contact their State Compensation Insurance Fund (State 
Fund) office to discuss the status of volunteers. (Ibid.) 

In this case, the PERB did not employ volunteers during the compliance review period. 

FINDING NO. 12 – Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service 
Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines 

 

The CRU verified that the PERB provides notice to their employees to inform them of their 
rights and responsibilities under California’s Workers’ Compensation Law. Furthermore, 
the CRU verified that when the PERB received worker’s compensation claims, they 
properly provided claim forms within one working day of notice or knowledge of injury. 

Performance Appraisals 

According to Government Code section 19992.2, subdivision (a), appointing powers must 
“prepare performance reports.” Furthermore, California Code of Regulations, title 2, 
section 599.798, directs supervisors to conduct written performance appraisals and 
discuss overall work performance with permanent employees at least once in each twelve 
calendar months after the completion of the employee’s probationary period. 

The CRU selected 17 permanent PERB employees to ensure that the department was 
conducting performance appraisals on an annual basis in accordance with applicable 
laws, regulations, policies and guidelines. These are listed below: 

Classification 

Date Performance 
Appraisals Due 

Attorney 

3/1/2018 

Attorney IV 

8/1/2017 

Staff Services Analyst 

5/17/2018 

Attorney 

6/29/2017 

Legal Secretary 

5/19/2017 

Accounting Administrator I (Specialist) 

6/1/2017 

Associate Governmental Program Analyst 

3/31/2017 

Administrative Law Judge II 

4/30/2017 

Administrative Law Judge I 

5/4/2017 

Administrative Law Judge II 

12/31/2017 

Staff Services Analyst 

9/10/2017 

Administrative Law Judge I 

3/31/2017 

Conciliator Department of Industrial Relations 

5/1/2017 

Presiding Conciliator, Department of Industrial 
Relations 

11/12/2017 

Conciliator Department of Industrial Relations 

4/30/2017 

Conciliator Department of Industrial Relations 

3/31/2017 

Supervisor of Conciliation, Department of Industrial 
Relations, CEA 

6/30/2017 

 

FINDING NO. 13 – Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees 

 

Summary: The PERB did not provide annual performance appraisals to 11 of 
17 non-probationary employees. 

Criteria: Appointing powers shall prepare performance reports and keep them 
on file as prescribed by department rule. (Gov. Code, § 19992.2, 
subd. (a).) Each supervisor, as designated by the appointing power, 
shall make an appraisal in writing and shall discuss with the 
employee overall work performance at least once in each twelve 

calendar months following the end of the employee's probationary 
period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.798.) 

Severity: Serious. The department does not ensure that all of its employees 
are apprised of work performance issues and/or goals in a 
systematic manner. 

Cause: The PERB acknowledges that supervisors and managers have 
missed opportunities to provide feedback to their employees due to 
the lack of a performance review process. The PERB is in the 
process of establishing performance review procedures to include a 
tracking system for supervisors and managers and regular oversight 
by the executive team. 

Corrective Action: Within 90 days of the date of this report, the PERB must submit to the 
SPB a written corrective action response which addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
Government Code section 19992.2 and California Code of 
Regulations, title 2, section 599.798. Copies of relevant 
documentation demonstrating that the corrective action has been 
implemented must be included with the corrective action response. 

 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

The PERB’s response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the PERB’s written response, the PERB will comply with the corrective 
actions specified in these report findings. Within 90 days of the date of this report, a 
written corrective action response including documentation demonstrating 
implementation of the corrective actions specified, must be submitted to the CRU. 

TO: STATE PERSONNEL BOARD 

FROM: JOSHUA GOLKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

SUBJECT: PERB RESPONSE TO COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

DATE: MARCH 6, 2020 

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) would like to thank the Compliance 
Review Unit for its thorough review of PERB’s personnel practices in the areas of 
examinations, appointments, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Personal 
Services Contracts, mandated training, compensation and pay, leave, and policy and 
processes. PERB appreciates the opportunity to better ensure our compliance and 
looks forward to remedying the findings identified in the report. The majority of staff 
responsible for this process during the compliance review timeframe are no longer 
with the department. PERB has reviewed the report and prepared the following 
responses to the findings. 

Finding No. 1 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated From Applications 

Due to staff error, three of the 19 applications included EEO questionnaires. Staff 
have been trained on removing the EEO questionnaire from applications. In addition, 
PERB now uses the Examination and Certification Online System (ECOS) which 
automates this process for applications submitted through the system, which will 
eliminate the potential for error for a vast majority of applications. 

Finding No. 2 – Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for all 
Appointments Reviewed 

PERB recognizes the importance of probationary reports for both the employee and 
the organization. PERB acknowledges that supervisors and managers missed 
opportunities to provide feedback to their employees. The revised process includes a 
tracking system for all employees as well as an email and calendaring notification 
process to inform supervisors and managers of probationary report deadlines. 
Additionally, a quarterly report detailing probationary report status is provided to 
management staff. 

 

Finding No. 4 – Ethics Training Was Not Provided for all Filers 

During the compliance review timeframe, the responsibility to ensure compliance and 
track completion of ethics training fell solely on the direct supervisor or manager. 
PERB’s current process includes a tracking system overseen by human resources 
staff to ensure compliance. 

Finding No. 5 – Incorrect Application of Compensation Laws, Rules, and CalHR 
Policies and Guidelines 

Due to staff error, one out of nine salary determinations was incorrect. PERB 
acknowledges the previous incorrect determination of salary rules. Currently, PERB 
employees who provide salary determinations have been provided training and a two-
level review process has been implemented to ensure accuracy. 

Finding No. 6 – Alternate Range Movements Did Not Comply with Civil Service 
Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines 

Due to staff error, three salary determinations for alternate range movements were 
incorrect. Currently, PERB employees who provide salary determinations have been 
provided training and a two-level review process has been implemented to ensure 
accuracy. 

Finding No. 7 – Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differentials 

Two of the three errors identified involve certifications for completion of designated 
training being unavailable in the employee personnel file. For one employee, the 
training was completed and differential authorized while at another department. When 
the employee joined PERB, the differential followed, but the certificate was not 
included in the personnel file. For the second employee, at the time of the training 
PERB was under contract with DGS for personnel services. The certification was not 
transferred with the records when the contract was terminated. Certifications for both 
employees have been obtained and placed in the placed in the appropriate personnel 
files. 

The third error was caused by a data entry error when the employee was appointed to 
the CEA position. The employee should have received the total salary plus a 5% 
promotional increase but was keyed into the system as the total salary plus the pay 
differential. PERB will correct this error. 

 

 

 

 

Finding No. 9 – Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not 
Completed for all Leave Records 

PERB used an internal audit process to ensure accurate and timely leave accounting 
records on a monthly basis, including reviewing and correcting leave input errors, but 
not the Leave Activity and Correction Certifications (CalHR 139) to document this 
process. Moving forward, PERB will incorporate the use of the CalHR 139 into its 
monthly internal audit process. 

Finding No. 10 – Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees 
Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits 

During the compliance review timeframe, the responsibility to monitor and issue leave 
reduction plans fell solely on the direct supervisor or manager. PERB’s current 
process includes a tracking system overseen by human resources staff to ensure 
compliance, a supervisor review of leave balances on a quarterly basis. PERB is now 
current on all leave reduction plans. 

Finding No. 13 – Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees 

PERB recognizes the importance of performance appraisals for both the employee 
and the organization. PERB acknowledges that supervisors and managers have 
missed opportunities to provide valuable feedback to their employees. PERB is in the 
process of establishing a performance review process to include a tracking system 
overseen by human resources, an email and calendaring reminder system for 
supervisors and managers and regular oversight by the executive team. 

 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (916) 322-5289 or 
reach out via email – Joshua.Golka@perb.ca.gov 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Joshua Golka 

Executive Director