SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING 45-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 
AND 
THE BOARD’S RESPONSES 

I. 
Introduction 

The State Personnel Board (Board) proposes to amend section 547.60 (Section 547.60) 
and adopt section 547.60.1 (Section 547.60.1) of Title 2, Chapter 1, of the Code of 
Regulations (CCR). A public comment period on these regulations was held from April 
15, 2016, through May 30, 2016. A public hearing was held on June 2, 2016. The Board 
did not receive any oral or written comments on Section 547.60.1. On June 1, 2016, the 
Board received a courtesy copy of SEIU Local 1000’s comments to section 547.60. At 
the June 2 hearing, an SEIU Local 1000 representative appeared and presented oral 
comments on Section 547.60. The comments were taken under submission and 
considered. A summary of those comments and the Board’s responses are below. 

II. 
Summary of Written and Oral Comments from Anne M. Giese, Attorney, on behalf 
of SEIU Local 1000, at the June 2, Hearing 

Comment 1: 

The proposed rule change in section 547.60 incorporates the five-year record retention 
requirement found in section 26. Section 26 provides that the five years is counted from 
the creation of the document. As applied in the context of personnel services contracts, 
this would allow a justification to be disposed of even though a personnel services 
contract may still be in effect. 

Personnel services contracts may be challenged as unconstitutional under the process 
set forth in Board laws and rules. Any such contract may be challenged while it is still in 
effect. In a personnel services contract of five years or longer in duration, the 
justification may be disposed of pursuant to this proposed language in section 547.60 
and section 26. At the very least, the language in section 547.60 shall provide for 
retention of the written justification for the duration of the contract and any of its 
extensions, but not less than the time allowed in the record retention requirement of 
section 26. It would surely be an unintended consequence for the justification to be 
disposed of while the personnel services contract is still in effect or is operating under 
an extension. 

Page 1 of 3 

Responsse 1: 

Regarding record rretention requirementss, the State Contract MManual states: 

TThe Attorneyy General’ss Office hass directed thhat in view of the needd for 
purchase order and contract purchhase files foor antitrust litigation, ssuch 
reecords shouuld be retaiined for sevven years frrom the endd of the fisccal year 
inn which enccumbrance is liquidateed. Destroy after the reequired sevven 
years or wheen audited by the Bureeau of Statee Audits or the Departtment of 
GGeneral Serrvices, whicchever comes first. 

SSince there are variouss sources thhat dictate rrecords reteention 
reequirementts (e.g., stattute, policy, pending litigation, etcc.) and the 
reetention varries dependding on doccument typee and can vvary by deppartment, 
depending oon their inteernal retention schedulle, there is not a one ssize fits 
all retention rule. Whenn in doubt, ddepartmentts should reetain for thee longest 
period appliccable. 

(Chapter 11, Contract Adminisstration, SCCM Vol. 3, RRevision 1, July 2010,, § 11.4.2.) 

Nonetheeless, to en sure that seection 547. 60 does noot result in tthe unintended 
consequuences SEI U states may occur, thhe languag ge of the reggulation is aamended too 
add thatt the contracting-out aggency shall maintain t the written jjustificationn for the 
durationn of the contract and any extensioons of the ccontract or iin accordannce with thee 
record reetention reqquirementss of section 26, whicheever is longeer. 

Comment 2: 

Based oon lengthy eexperience,, many departments sttate one jusstification foor the contrract 
when it iis executedd, and if chaallenged, thhey simply cchange thee justification to anotheer 
subsectiion of Goveernment Coode section 19130(b). While the nneed for thee legibility oof 
the justiffication is oobvious, theere apparenntly is an evven greaterr need to reequire the 
justificattion to be coorrect and aaccurate. Inn virtually aall 19130(b)) challengess, the 
justificattions have cconvenientlly changed to somethiing “more cconvincing” by the timee the 
argumennts on the cchallenge mmust be subbmitted. Thee ease of thhese types of changess 
begs thee question oof how validd was the juustification at the inception? To ccontinue to 
allow a ssystem in wwhich the juustifications for 19130((b) contractts truly wereen’t worth the 
paper thhey were wrritten on seeems to fly in the face oof the consstitutional mmerit systemm 
mandatee. Frankly, it’s a bit shoocking giveen the level of detail thhat goes into justifying 
each and every Personnel Year Equivaleent that outside vendoors can be funded at laarge 
expensee to the taxppayers withhout ever haaving to maake a valid and correct justificatioon at 
the outset. 

PPage 2 of 3 

Responsse 2: 

The scope of this pproposed reegulatory acction is limitted to the reecordkeepiing and 
retentionn requiremeents for Government CCode sectioon 19130, ssubdivision (b) contraccts 
and doees not conceern the proccedures rellated to chaallenging thhose contraacts. Sectionn 

547.60 i s amendedd, however, to make cllear that thee person wwho signs thhe written 
justificattion is doingg so based on his or hher personaal knowledgge, informattion, or belieef 
that the written justtification coorrectly refleects the reaasons why tthe contracct satisfies 
Governmment Code section 19130, subdivvision (b). 
III. 
Conclussion 
The Boaard appreciaates the feeedback it reeceived reggarding this proposed rregulatory 
action. TThe modifieed text with the changees clearly inndicated aree available to the public 
as stated in the Notice of Moddification to Text of Prooposed Reggulation. 

PPage 3 of 3