COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION 
AGENCY 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Review Unit 

State Personnel Board 

June 13, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 4 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 4 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 6 
Equal Employment Opportunity ................................................................................. 8 
Personal Services Contracts .................................................................................... 10 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 11 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 12 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 12 

INTRODUCTION 

Established by the California Constitution, the State Personnel Board (the SPB or 
Board) is charged with enforcing and administering the civil service statutes, prescribing 
probationary periods and classifications, adopting regulations, and reviewing 
disciplinary actions and merit-related appeals. The SPB oversees the merit-based 
recruitment and selection process for the hiring of over 200,000 state employees. These 
employees provide critical services to the people of California, including but not limited 
to, protecting life and property, managing emergency operations, providing education, 
promoting the public health, and preserving the environment. The SPB provides 
direction to departments through the Board’s decisions, rules, policies, and consultation. 

Pursuant to Government Code section 18661, the SPB’s Compliance Review Unit 
(CRU) conducts compliance reviews of appointing authority’s personnel practices in five 
areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal 
services contracts (PSC’s), and mandated training to ensure compliance with civil 
service laws and board regulations. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure state 
agencies are in compliance with merit-related laws, rules, and policies and to identify 
and share best practices identified during the reviews. The SPB conducts these reviews 
on a three-year cycle. 

The CRU may also conduct special investigations in response to a specific request or 
when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The CRU conducted a routine compliance review of California State Transportation 
Agency (CalSTA) personnel practices in the areas of examinations, appointments, EEO, 
and PSC’s from February 1, 2015, through February 29, 2016, and mandated training 
from February 1, 2014, through February 29, 2016. The following table summarizes the 
compliance review findings. 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Examinations 

Applications Were Not Date Stamped 

Non-serious or 
Technical 

Appointments 

Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires 
Were Not Separated from Applications 

Very Serious 

Equal 
Employment 
Opportunity 

A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been 
Established 

Very Serious 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Personal 
Services 
Contracts 

Personal Services Contract Complied with 
Procedural Requirements 

In Compliance 

Mandated 
Training 

Mandated Training Complied with Statutory 
Requirements 

In Compliance 

 

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

. Red = Very Serious 
. Orange = Serious 
. Yellow = Non-serious or Technical 
. Green = In Compliance 

 

BACKGROUND 

The CalSTA was created by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. through his Governor’s 
Reorganization Plan #2, effective July 1, 2013. The CalSTA develops and coordinates 
transportation policies and programs to achieve the state's mobility, safety, and 
environmental sustainability objectives. The CalSTA also provides necessary cabinetlevel 
attention and focus to coordinate the policies and programs emanating from the 
following transportation-related entities: Department of Transportation, California 
Transportation Commission, High-Speed Rail Authority, Department of Motor Vehicles, 
California Highway Patrol, and Board of Pilot Commissioners. 

In addition to the aforementioned entities, the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is an 
operational transportation-related entity, but that resides within the CalSTA. The OTS 
develops the California Highway Safety Plan. The plan uses available state and federal 
resources to identify and address major traffic safety problems throughout the state. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

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

 

A cross-section of the CalSTA’s examinations and appointments were selected to 
ensure that various samples of examinations and appointment types, classifications, 
and levels were reviewed. The CRU examined the documentation that the CalSTA 
provided, which included examination plans, examination bulletins, job analyses, 
511b’s, scoring results, notice of personnel action (NOPA) forms, vacancy postings, 
application screening criteria, hiring interview rating criteria, certification lists, transfer 
movement worksheets, employment history records, correspondence, and probation 
reports. 

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

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

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

 

In addition, the CalSTA’s mandated training was reviewed to ensure all employees 
required to file statements of economic interest were provided ethics training and that all 
supervisors were provided basic supervisory and sexual harassment prevention training 
within statutory timelines. 

On June 1, 2016, an exit conference was held with the CalSTA to explain and discuss 
the CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. On June 7, 2016, the CRU received 
and carefully reviewed the response, which is attached to this final compliance report. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Examinations 

Examinations to establish an eligible list must be competitive and of such character as 
fairly to test and determine the qualifications, fitness, and ability of competitors to 
perform the duties of the class of position for which he or she seeks appointment. (Gov. 
Code, § 18930.) Examinations may be assembled or unassembled, written or oral, or in 
the form of a demonstration of skills, or any combination of those tests. (Ibid.) The 
Board establishes minimum qualifications for determining the fitness and qualifications 
of employees for each class of position and for applicants for examinations. (Gov. Code, 
§ 18931.) Within a reasonable time before the scheduled date for the examination, the 
designated appointing power shall announce or advertise the examination for the 
establishment of eligible lists. (Gov. Code, § 18933, subd. (a).) The advertisement shall 
contain such information as the date and place of the examination and the nature of the 
minimum qualifications. (Ibid.) Every applicant for examination shall file an application in 
the office of the department or a designated appointing power as directed by the 
examination announcement. (Gov. Code, § 18934.) Generally, the final earned rating of 
each person competing in any examination is to be determined by the weighted average 
of the earned ratings on all phases of the examination. (Gov. Code, § 18936.) Each 
competitor shall be notified in writing of the results of the examination when the 
employment list resulting from the examination is established. (Gov. Code, § 18938.5.) 

During the period under review, the CalSTA conducted three examinations. The CRU 
reviewed all three of the examinations, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

CEA A, Chief Director, 
Operations 

Career 
Executive 
Assignment 
(CEA) 

Statement of 
Qualifications 
(SOQ)2 

12/29/2014 

6 

CEA B, Agency 
Information 
Officer/Deputy Secretary 
for Information 
Technology 

CEA 

SOQ 

Until Filled 

11 

2 In a statement of qualifications (SOQ’s) examination, applicants submit a written summary of their 
qualifications and experience related to a published list of desired qualifications. Raters, typically subject 
matter experts, evaluate the responses according to a predetermined rating scale designed to assess 
their ability to perform in a job classification, assign scores and rank the competitors in a list. 

Classification 

Exam Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

CEA B, Deputy 
Secretary, Budget and 
Finance 

CEA 

SOQ 

Until Filled 

4 

 

FINDING NO. 1 – Applications Were Not Date Stamped 

 

Summary: For three of the exams administered, the CalSTA accepted 13 out 
of 21 applications that were not date stamped. Specifically, the 
CalSTA accepted three applications for the CEA A, Chief Director, 
Operations, eight applications for the CEA B, Information 
Officer/Deputy Secretary for Information Technology, and two 
applications for the CEA B, Deputy Secretary, Budget and Finance, 
without date stamps. 

Criteria: California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 174 (Rule 174) 
requires timely filing of applications: All applications must be filed at 
the place, within the time, in the manner, and on the form specified 
in the examination announcement. 

 Filing an application ‘within the time’ shall mean postmarked by the 
postal service or date stamped at one of the SPB offices (or the 
appropriate office of the agency administering the examination) by 
the date specified. 

 An application that is not postmarked or date stamped by the 
specified date shall be accepted, if one of the following conditions 
as detailed in Rule 174 apply: (1) the application was delayed due 
to a verified error; (2) the application was submitted in error to the 
wrong state agency and is either postmarked or date stamped on or 
before the specified date; (3) the employing agency verifies 
examination announcement distribution problems that prevented 
timely notification to an employee of a promotional examination; or 
(4) the employing agency verifies that the applicant failed to receive 
timely notice of a promotional examination. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, 
§ 174, suds. (a), (b), (c) & (d).) 

Severity: Non-serious or Technical. Final filing dates are established to 
ensure all applicants are given the same amount of time in which to 
apply for an examination and to set a deadline for the recruitment 
phase of the examination. Therefore, although the acceptance of 
applications after the final filing date may give some applicants 
more time to prepare their application than other applicants who 
meet the final filing date, the acceptance of late applications will not 
impact the results of the examination. 

Cause: The CalSTA states that the failure to date stamp all applications 
was the result of oversight on the part of the employee accepting 
applications. 

Action: The CalSTA has submitted a corrective action plan for ensuring full 
compliance in meeting the requirements of Rule 174 as part of its 
departmental response, therefore no further action is required at 
this time. 

Appointments 

In all cases not excepted or exempted by Article VII of the California Constitution, the 
appointing power must fill positions by appointment, including cases of transfers, 
reinstatements, promotions, and demotions in strict accordance with the Civil Service 
Act and Board rules. (Gov. Code, § 19050.) Except as provided by law, appointments to 
vacant positions shall be made from employment lists. (Ibid.) Appointments made from 
eligible lists, by way of transfer, or by way of reinstatement, must be made on the basis 
of merit and fitness, which requires consideration of each individual’s job-related 
qualifications for a position, including his or her knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, 
and physical and mental fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).) 

During the compliance review period, the CalSTA made 15 appointments. The CRU 
reviewed all of the 15 appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Career Executive 
Assignment (CEA) A, 
Chief Director, 
Operations 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

CEA B, Agency 
Information 
Officer/Deputy 
Secretary for 
Information Technology 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

CEA B, Deputy 
Secretary, Budget and 
Finance 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

List 
Appointment 

Limited 
Term 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Manager 
I (Specialist) 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Staff Services Manager 
II (Managerial) 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

2 

Staff Services Manager 
III 

List 
Appointment 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Associate 
Governmental Program 
Analyst 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Executive Assistant 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

4 

Staff Information 
Systems Analyst 
(Specialist) 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Full Time 

1 

Executive Secretary 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Limited 
Term 

Intermittent 

1 

 

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

 

Summary: For the 15 appointments reviewed, four appointment files included 
applications where EEO questionnaires were not separated from 
the STD 678 employment application. Specifically, 51 of the 229 

applications reviewed included EEO questionnaires that were not 
separated from the STD 678 employment application. 

Criteria: Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring 
department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on 
any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to 
any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, 
subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national 
origin, age, or sexual orientation). Applicants for employment in 
state civil service are asked to provide voluntarily ethnic data about 
themselves where such data is determined by the California 
Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to be necessary to an 
assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process 
and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. 
(Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state 
application form (STD 678) states, “This questionnaire will be 
separated from the application prior to the examination and will not 
be used in any employment decisions.” 

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

Cause: The CalSTA states that during the timeframe pertaining to this 
review, there was a change in administrative staff and adequate 
training on the acceptance of applications was not provided. 

Action: The CalSTA has submitted a corrective action plan for ensuring full 
compliance in meeting the requirements of Government Code 
section 19704 as part of its departmental response, therefore no 
further action is required at this time. 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Each state agency is responsible for an effective EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19790.) 
The appointing power for each state agency has the major responsibility for monitoring 
the effectiveness of its EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19794.) To that end, the appointing 
power must issue a policy statement committed to equal employment opportunity; issue 
procedures for filing, processing, and resolving discrimination complaints; issue 
procedures for providing equal upward mobility and promotional opportunities; and 
cooperate with the CalHR by providing access to all required files, documents and data. 
(Ibid.) In addition, the appointing power must appoint, at the managerial level, an EEO 

officer, who shall report directly to, and be under the supervision of, the director of the 
CalSTA to develop, implement, coordinate, and monitor the CalSTA’s EEO program. 
(Gov. Code, § 19795.) 

Because the EEO Officer investigates and ensures proper handling of discrimination, 
sexual harassment and other employee complaints, the position requires separation 
from the regular chain of command, as well as regular and unencumbered access to the 
head of the organization. 

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

The CRU reviewed the CalSTA EEO program that was in effect during the compliance 
review period. 

FINDING NO. 3– A Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) Has Not Been 
Established 

 

Summary: The CalSTA did not have an active DAC during the period under 
review. However, as of May 2016, the CalSTA has active members 
on a combined DAC with the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans). 

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

Severity: Very Serious. The agency head does not have direct information 
on issues of concern to employees or other persons with disabilities 

and input to correct any underrepresentation. The lack of a DAC 
may limit an agency’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified 
workforce, impact productivity, and subject the agency to liability. 

Cause: The CalSTA states that, due to the small size of the agency, they 
have been unable to form and maintain an internal DAC. 

Action: The CalSTA currently has active members on a combined DAC 
with the Caltrans and has submitted a corrective action plan for 
ensuring full compliance in meeting the requirements of 
Government Code section 19795 as part of its departmental 
response; therefore, no further action is required at this time. 

Personal Services Contracts 

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

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

During the compliance review period, the CalSTA had one PSC that was in effect and 
subject to General Services (DGS) approval. The CRU reviewed that contract listed 
below: 

Vendor 

Services 

Contract 
Dates 

Contract 
Amount 

Justification 
Identified 

Prosio 
Communications, Inc 

Marketing 
Services 

8/1/14- 
7/31/16 

$7,000,000.00 

Yes 

 

FINDING NO. 4 – Personal Services Contract Complied with Procedural 
Requirements 

When a state agency requests approval from the DGS for a subdivision (b) contract, the 
agency must include with its contract transmittal a written justification that includes 
specific and detailed factual information that demonstrates how the contract meets one 
or more conditions specified in Government Code section 19131, subdivision (b). (Cal. 
Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.60.) 

The total dollar amount of the PSC reviewed was $7,000,000.00. It was beyond the 
scope of the review to make conclusions as to whether the CalSTA’s justifications for 
the contract were legally sufficient. For the PSC reviewed, the CalSTA provided specific 
and detailed fact-based information in the written justifications as to how the contract 
met at least one condition set forth in Government Code section 19131, subdivision (b). 
Accordingly, the CalSTA PSC complied with procedural requirements. 

Mandated Training 

Each state agency shall offer at least semiannually to each of its filers an orientation 
course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of 
state officials. (Gov. Code, § 11146.1) New filers must be trained within six months of 
appointment. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3) 

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

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

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

FINDING NO. 5 – Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements 

 

The CalSTA provided ethics training to its six new filers within six months of 
appointment, and semiannual ethics training to its existing eight filers during the twoyear 
calendar year period commencing in 2013. The CalSTA also provided supervisory 
training to its two new supervisors within 12 months of appointment. In addition, the 
CalSTA provided sexual harassment training to its 12 new supervisors within six months 
of appointment and semiannual sexual harassment training to its existing eight 
supervisors. Thus, the CalSTA complied with mandated training requirements within 
statutory timelines. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

The CalSTA’s response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the CalSTA’s written response, the CalSTA will comply with the CRU 
recommendations and findings. The CalSTA submitted a corrective action plan for the 
three departmental findings that were out of compliance. Therefore, no further action is 
required.