2017 REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

COMPLIANCE REVIEW AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

Prepared by

State Personnel Board
801 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Kimiko Burton, President
Lauri Shanahan, Vice President Patricia Clarey, Member Richard Costigan, Member Maeley Tom, Member

Suzanne M. Ambrose, Executive Officer

October 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND	1
INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS	2
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS	3
VERY SERIOUS ISSUES	5
SERIOUS ISSUES	12
COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS	14
INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS	15
INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEW COSTS	21

BACKGROUND

Effective July 1, 2012, the Governor’s Reorganization Plan #1 (GRP1) of 2011 consolidated all of the functions of the Department of Personnel Administration and the merit-related transactional functions of the State Personnel Board (SPB) into the Department of Human Resources (CalHR). Specifically, SPB programs related to appointments consultation, career executive assignment allocations, test development, recruitment, examinations, psychological and medical screening, training, and the Office of Civil Rights transferred to the CalHR along with the associated staff and funding. In addition, all of the SPB’s accounting, budget, business services, human resources, information technology, legislative affairs, and public information office resources were transferred to the CalHR. The CalHR staff is now charged with providing these services to the SPB.

The GRP1 recognized and preserved the SPB’s exclusive constitutional authority to administer the merit system. As a result, in addition to retaining the Appeals Division, the GRP1 created both a Policy Unit and Compliance Review Unit (CRU) at the SPB to establish merit-related policy and conduct reviews of departmental merit-related practices to ensure compliance with laws, rules, and board policy. The CRU performs cyclical standard reviews of five major areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal services contracts (PSC’s) and mandated trainings. The CRU also conducts special investigations of certain departments’ personnel practices as determined by the Board. Special investigations may be initiated in response to a specific request or when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation.

Government Code section 18662, subdivision (e), provides, “On or before October 1, 2014, and every October 1 thereafter, the board shall report to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the audit and special investigation activities of the board pursuant to this article from the preceding fiscal year. The board shall include in the report the following information:

(1)	A summary of each audit and special investigation, including findings.

(2)	The number and total cost of audits and special investigations, by department.”

This report, which is due October 1, 2017, describes the compliance review and special investigation activities of the CRU from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. The report summarizes the compliance review and special investigation findings by state department and includes the numbers and total cost of compliance reviews and special investigations by state department in compliance with the statute cited above.

INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS

#	Department	Exam	Appt	EEO	PSC	Trn	
1	Agricultural Labor Relations Board	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
2	Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency	X	X	ü	X	ü	
3	California Commission on Teacher Credentialing	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
4	California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
5	California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
6	California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
7	California Department of Education	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
8	California Department of Fish and Wildlife	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
9	California Department of Veterans Affairs	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
10	California Environmental Protection Agency	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
11	California Health Benefit Exchange	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
12	California High Speed Rail Authority	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
13	California Natural Resources Agency	X	ü	ü	ü	ü	
14	California Office of Systems Integration	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
15	California Public Utilities Commission	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
16	California State Auditor	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
17	California State Council on Developmental Disabilities	X	ü	ü	X	ü	
18	California State Lands Commission	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
19	California State Library	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
20	California Tahoe Conservancy	X	ü	ü	ü	ü	
21	Department of Business Oversight	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
22	Employment Development Department	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
23	Office of Administrative Law	X	ü	ü	X	ü	

#	Department	Exam	Appt	EEO	PSC	Trn	
24	Office of Legislative Counsel	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
25	Office of the State Public Defender	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
26	San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development	ü	ü	ü	X	ü	
27	Secretary of State	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
28	State Water Resources Control Board	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	
	Total	23	27	28	15	28	
Key:	ü	Signifies that a review of the area was conducted.
X	Signifies that a review of the area was not conducted.

SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS

From July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, the CRU completed full compliance reviews of 28 state departments. Six of the 28 departments reviewed had no deficiencies. PSC procedural deficiencies were not found at any of the 15 departments reviewed for PSC compliance. The examination, appointment, EEO and mandated training deficiencies found are described below.

A color-coded system is used to identify the severity of the violations as follows:
•	Red = Very Serious	
•	Orange = Serious	

In addition the frequency occurrence is classified as follows:

•	1-9% of departments reviewed = Low
•	10-19% of departments reviewed = Medium
•	20%+ of departments reviewed = High
•	

Violation Percentage Break Down

Appointments
Examinations

Equal Employment Opportunity
Mandated Trainings

33%

45%

2%

20%

The following chart displays the departmental violations found within each major area.

The most common violations and corrective actions from the compliance reviews were: Very Serious Issues
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All Applications –  9 of 28 Departments Reviewed or 32%
o	Corrective Action: Departments must ensure all EEO questionnaires are separated from applications

•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training was not provided for all Supervisors  –   9 of 28 Departments Reviewed or 32%
o	Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements

Serious Issues
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed –  16 of 27 Departments Reviewed or 59%
o	Corrective Action: Departments must ensure probationary evaluations are completed and retained

The CRU is continuing to conduct full compliance reviews. The CRU will continue to post review findings and consult with departments during reviews in order to educate departments regarding appropriate personnel practices. The CRU will monitor to ensure departments adopt corrective actions within the period prescribed.

The CRU will monitor violations to view trends and make further corrective action, if warranted. Departments found in repeated violation will face severe corrective action which could include mandating training, additional monitoring, voiding examinations or appointments, and revocation or modification of delegated agreements.

VERY SERIOUS ISSUES

Issue 1:	EEO Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications

Criteria:	Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where such data is determined by 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.”

Cause:	Lack of policies, procedures, and training related to the proper processing of EEO information; lack of staff resources; and inadvertent oversight.

Severity:	Very  Serious.  The applicants’ protected classes were visible, subjecting the departments to potential liability.

Frequency:	High. 9 out of 28 departments or 32%.

Action:	The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure that, in the future, all EEO questionnaires will be separated from applications.

Issue 2:

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for
All Supervisors

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

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new managers are properly trained. Without proper training, supervisors are not prepared to properly respond to issues involving sexual harassment, which limits the department’s ability to retain a quality workforce, impacts employee morale and productivity, and subjects the department to liability.

Frequency:	High. 9 out of 28 departments or 32%.

Cause:	Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative notification, follow-up, and enforcement; failure to collect and retain training certificates; and, lack of trainer availability.

Action:	The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements of Government Code section 12950.1, subd (a).

Issue 3:

Basic Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All
Supervisors

Criteria:	Each department must provide its new supervisors supervisory training within twelve months of appointment. (Gov. Code,
§ 19995.4 subd. (b) and (c.).) The training must be a minimum of 80 hours, 40 of which must be structured and given by a qualified instructor. The other 40 hours may be done on the job by a higher- level supervisor or manager. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4 subd. (b).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new managers are properly trained. Without proper training, new supervisory employees may not properly carry out their supervisory roles, including managing employees.

Frequency:	High. 6 out of 28 departments or 21%.

Cause:	Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative notification, follow-up, and enforcement; failure to collect and retain training certificates; and, lack of training availability.

Action:	The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements of Government Code section 19995.4, subd. (b) and (c.)

Issue 4:	Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers

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 its filers are aware of prohibitions related to his or her official position and influence.

Frequency:	High. 6 out of 28 departments or 21%.

Cause:	Lack of effective tracking processes; lack of administrative notification, follow-up, and enforcement; and, failure to collect and retain training certificates.

Action:	The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure compliance in meeting the mandatory training requirements of Government Code section 11146.3, subd (b).

Issue 5:	A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established

Criteria:	Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code,
§ 19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to serve on the committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that the final committee is comprised of members who have disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(2).)

Cause:	Prior Disability Advisory Committees (DAC)’s became inactive, recruitment issues and/or declining participation, DAC member turnover, and minimal staff.

Severity:	Very Serious. The department heads did not have direct information on issues of concern to employees or other persons with disabilities and input to correct any underrepresentation. The lack of a DAC may limit a department’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, impact productivity, and subject the department to liability.

Frequency:	High. 6 out of 28 departments or 21%.

Action:	The departments were required to submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure the establishment of legally compliant DAC’s.

Issue 6:

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

Criteria:	The appointing power must issue a written decision to the complainant within 90 days of the discrimination complaint being filed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 64.4, subd. (a).) If the appointing power is unable to issue its decision within the prescribed time period, the appointing power must inform the complainant in writing of the reasons for the delay. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Very  Serious.  Employees were not informed of the reasons for delays in decision for complaints of discrimination. Employees may feel their concerns are not being taken seriously, which can leave the department open to liability and low employee morale.

Frequency:	Medium. 3 out of 28 departments or 11%.

Cause:	Lack of policies, procedures, and training related to proper processing of EEO claims; lack of information and staff resources and inadvertent oversight of policies.

Action:	The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure that complainants are notified of the reasons for delays in decisions within the prescribed time period.

Issue 7:	No Active Upward Mobility Program

Criteria:	Each appointing authority shall develop and maintain a written upward mobility plan as specified in the State Personnel Board's Guidelines for Administering Departmental Upward Mobility Employment Programs (Guidelines), revised July 25, 2000.

The plan shall include: (a) A policy statement regarding the appointing authority's commitment to providing equal upward mobility opportunity for its employees in low-paying occupations. (b) A description of the components of its program consistent with Government Code section 19401, how employees may access the program, and where information about the program may be obtained. (c) The roles and responsibilities of the employee, the employee's supervisor, the upward mobility program coordinator, the personnel office, the training office, and the equal employment opportunity office regarding the upward mobility program. (d) Criteria for selecting employees in low-paying occupations to 19401. (e) The number of employees in classifications in low- paying occupations technical, professional, and administrative classes targeted for upward mobility; and planned upward mobility examinations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.983.)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not have a plan to ensure it has an effective upward mobility program to develop and advance employees in low-paying occupations.

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 28 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Lack of resources and personnel; staff turnover; and, written upward mobility plan in developmental stage due to lengthy review process.

Action:	The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure conformity with upward mobility requirements of Government Code section 19401.

Issue 8:

Job Analyses Were Not Developed or Used for the
Examination Process

Criteria:	The Merit Selection Manual (MSM), which is incorporated in California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, section 50, mandates the development and use of a job analysis for the examination process. A "job analysis shall serve as the primary basis for demonstrating and documenting the job-relatedness of examination processes conducted for the establishment of eligible lists within the State’s civil service." (MSM (Oct. 2003), § 2200, p. 2.) The MSM requires that job analyses adhere to the legal and professional standards outlined in the job analysis section of the MSM and that certain elements must be included in the job analysis studies. (Ibid.) Those requirements include the following: (1) that  the job analysis be performed for the job for which the subsequent selection procedure is developed and used; (2) the methodology utilized be described and documented; (3) the job analytic data be collected from a variety of current sources; (4) job tasks be  specified in terms of importance or criticality, and their frequency of performance; (5) and job tasks be sufficiently detailed to derive the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities (KSA's), and personal characteristics that are required to perform the essential tasks and functions of the job classification. (MSM, § 2200, pp. 2-3.)

Severity:	Very Serious. The examinations may not have been job-related or legally defensible.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 23 departments or 4%.

Cause:	Lack of training; staff turnover and/or inadequate staffing; and, lack of examination resources.

Action:	Eligible lists from examinations without a job analysis which had not expired were abolished and the department was required to submit corrective action plans to the CRU to ensure that, in the future, job analyses will be developed and used for the examination process.

Issue 9:

EEO Officers Did Not Monitor the Composition of Oral Panels
in Department Exams

Criteria:	The EEO Officer at each department must monitor the composition of oral panels in departmental examinations (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (a)).

Severity:	Very Serious. Requiring the EEO Officer to monitor oral panels is intended to ensure protection against discrimination in the hiring process.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 28 departments or 4%.

Cause:	Lack of process/procedure and lack of training and/or awareness of applicable laws and rules.

Action:	The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure that the EEO Officer monitors the composition of oral panels in departmental exams.

Issue 10:	Unlawful Appointments

Criteria:	Article VII of the State Constitution requires that permanent appointments in State civil service be based on merit as ascertained by competitive examination. Unlawful appointments may occur for a variety of reasons including administrative errors, oversight, misinformation, or, in rare cases, attempts to circumvent the state’s civil service system. Some of the most common reasons for unlawful appointments are:

•	Transfer of an individual based on inaccurate interpretation of the transfer requirements.
•	Appointment of an individual from a non-reachable rank of the certification list.
•	Appointment of an individual who does not meet the minimum qualifications of the classification.

Severity:	Very Serious.  An unlawful appointment provides the employee with an unfair and unearned appointment advantage over other employees whose appointments have been processed in compliance with the requirements of civil service law. Unlawful appointments which are not corrected also create appointment inconsistencies that jeopardize the equitable administration of the civil service merit system.

When an unlawful appointment is voided, the employee loses any tenure in the position, as well as seniority credits, eligibility to take promotional examinations, and compensation at the voided appointment level. If “bad faith” is determined on the part of the appointing power, civil or criminal action may be initiated. Disciplinary action may also be pursued against any officer or

employee in a position of authority who directs any officer or employee to take action in violation of the appointment laws. If bad faith is determined on the part of the employee, the employee may be required to reimburse all compensation resulting from the unlawful appointment and may also be subject to disciplinary action.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 27 departments or 4%.

Cause:	Staff error, lack of proper staff training and awareness of the laws and rules governing the appointment process.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU that addresses the corrections the departments will implement to ensure the departments will improve their hiring practices.

SERIOUS ISSUES

Issue 11:

Probationary	Evaluations
Appointments

Were

Not	Provided	for	All

Criteria:	A new probationary period is not required when an employee is appointed by reinstatement with a right of return. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322, subd. (d)(2).) However, the service of a probationary period is required when an employee enters state civil service by permanent appointment from an employment list. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322, subd. (a).) In addition, unless waived by the appointing power, a new probationary is required when an employee is appointed to a position under the following circumstances: (1) without a break in service in the same class in which the employee has completed the probationary period, but under a different appointing power; and (2) without a break in service to a class with substantially the same or lower level of duties and responsibilities and salary range as a class in which the employee has completed the probationary period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322, subd. (c)(1) & (2).)

During the probationary period, the appointing power is required to evaluate the work and efficiency of a probationer at sufficiently frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately informed of progress on the job. (Gov. Code, § 19172; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2,
§ 599.795.) The appointing power must prepare a written  appraisal

of performance each one-third of the probationary period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.)

Severity:	Serious.  The probationary period is the final step in the selection process to ensure that the individual selected can successfully perform the full scope of their job duties. Failing to use the probationary period to assist an employee in improving his or her performance or terminating the appointment upon determination that the appointment is not a good job/person match is unfair to the employee and serves to erode the quality of state government.

Frequency:	High. 16 out of 27 departments or 59%.

Cause:	Lack of or deficiency in process, tracking system, training; workload issues; or staff failed to follow existing policies and procedures.

Action:	The departments were required to submit to the CRU a written corrective action plan that addresses how they will ensure full compliance from supervisory/managerial staff to meet with the probationary requirements of Government Code section 19172.

Issue 12:

Appointment	Documentation	Was	Not	Kept	for	the

Appropriate Amount of Time

Criteria:	As specified in California Code of Regulations, section 26, (Rule 26), appointing powers are required to retain records related to affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, examinations, merit, selection, and appointment for a minimum period of five years from the date the record is created. These records are required to be readily accessible and retained in an orderly and systematic manner. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 26.)

Severity:	Serious. Without  documentation, the CRU could not verify if the appointments were legal.

Frequency:	Low. 3 out of 27 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Lack of policies, procedures, and training; or erroneous destruction of documents by hiring manager.

Action:	The departments were required to submit a corrective action plan to the CRU to ensure that, in the future, appointment documentation is retained for the appropriate period of time.

COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS

The CRU completed 28 compliance reviews from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. The total cost of the completed reviews was $1,156,298.00. The total only includes completed reviews and does not include compliance reviews currently in process. A per department breakdown of costs is listed in the Index of Compliance Review Costs.

INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

Agricultural Labor Relations Board
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	A Disability Advisory Committee has not been established
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Supervisory Training was not provided for all supervisors
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training was not provided for all supervisors
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
•	Equal Employment Opportunity questionnaires were not separated from all applications (Appointments)
•	Equal Employment Opportunity program complied with Civil Service Laws and Board rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training complied with Statutory requirements
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	
California Department of Education
•	Probationary evaluations were not provided for all appointments received
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Supervisory training was not provided for all supervisors
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Ethics training was not provided for all filers
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention training was not provided for all supervisors
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All Applications (Appointments)
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	A Disability Advisory Committee has not been established
•	Job analyses were not developed or used for the Examination process
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Mandatory Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
California Department of Veterans Affairs
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated From All Applications (Appointments)
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied With Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Ethics training was not provided for all filers
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention training was not provided for all supervisors
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
California Environmental Protection Agency
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period
•	A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not been Established
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors
•	Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	
California Health Benefit Exchange
•	Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
California High Speed Rail Authority
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
California Natural Resources Agency
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
California Office of Systems Integration
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Unlawful Appointment
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
California Public Utilities Commission
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Monitor the Composition of Oral Panels in Departmental Exams
•	
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
•	Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
California State Auditor
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	No Active Upward Mobility Program
•	Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
•	Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
California State Lands Commission
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
California State Library
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
California Tahoe Conservancy
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	
Department of Business Oversight
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
Employment Development Department
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
Office of Administrative Law
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
Office of Legislative Counsel
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not been Established
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
Office of State Public Defender
•	Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	A Written Upward Mobility Plan Has Not Been Established
•	A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not been Established
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
•	Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not been Established
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements
•	
Secretary of State
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Mandatory Training Complied With Statutory Requirements

State Water Resources Control Board
•	Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
•	Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
•	A Written Upward Mobility Plan Has Not Been Established
•	Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period
•	Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
•	Supervisory Training Was Not Provided For All Supervisors
•	Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
•	Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
•	
INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEW COSTS

Department	Compliance Review Completed	
Total Cost	
Agricultural Labor Relations Board	Yes	$20,592.00	
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency	Yes	$10,296.00	
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing	Yes	$37,752.00	
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office	Yes	$37,752.00	
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission	Yes	$10,296.00	
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control	Yes	$37,752.00	
California Department of Education	Yes	$96,096.00	
California Department of Fish and Wildlife	Yes	$96,096.00	
California Department of Veterans Affairs	Yes	$96,096.00	
California Environmental Protection Agency	Yes	$20,592.00	
California Health Benefit Exchange	Yes	$54,912.00	
California High Speed Rail Authority	Yes	$37,752.00	
California Natural Resources Agency	Yes	$13,728.00	
California Office of Systems Integration	Yes	$30,602.00	
California Public Utilities Commission	Yes	$54,912.00	
California State Auditor	Yes	$37,752.00	
California State Council on Developmental Disabilities	Yes	$20,592.00	
California State Lands Commission	Yes	$37,752.00	
California State Library	Yes	$37,752.00	
California Tahoe Conservancy	Yes	$13,728.00	
Department of Business Oversight	Yes	$54,912.00	
Employment Development Department	Yes	$106,392.00	
Office of Administrative Law	Yes	$10,296.00	
Office of Legislative Counsel	Yes	$54,912.00	
Office of the State Public Defender	Yes	$20,592.00	
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development	Yes	$13,728.00	
Secretary of State	Yes	$37,752.00	
State Water Resources Control Board	Yes	$54,912.00	
Total	$1,156,298.00	
The costs only include completed reviews from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, and do not include reviews currently in progress.