Opinion ID: 2576191
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutional Merit Principle and the State Civil Service Act

Text: Article VII of the California Constitution provides that, generally, the civil service includes every officer and employee of the State ( id., art. VII, § 1, subd. (a)) and that permanent appointment and promotion in the civil service shall be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination ( id., art. VII, § 1, subd. (b)). This constitutional mandate, known as the merit principle, was adopted by California voters in 1934 in an effort to eliminate the spoils system of political patronage from state employment and to ensure that appointments and promotions in state service be made solely on the basis of merit. [3] ( Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 184, 172 Cal.Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215; id. at pp. 181-183, 172 Cal.Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215; see also Professional Engineers in Cal. Government v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 678, 690, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 375 ( Professional Engineers ).) Another constitutional provision, also adopted in 1934, calls for a nonpartisan personnel board (the SPB) to enforce the civil service statutes (Cal. Const., art. VII, §§ 2, 3, subd. (a)) and for an executive officer to administer the statutes under the SPB's rules ( id., §§ 2, subd. (c), 3, subd. (b)). To implement the merit principle, which we have deemed inviolate ( Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 194, 172 Cal.Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215), the Legislature passed the State Civil Service Act (§ 18500 et seq.) (the Act). (§ 18570.) The Act's purpose is to ensure that appointments to state office are made not on the basis of patronage, but on the basis of merit, in order to preserve the economy and efficiency of state service. ( State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, 432, 217 Cal.Rptr. 16, 703 P.2d 354 (plur. opn. of Broussard, J.).) To accomplish this, the Act generally requires appointing powers to fill vacant positions by appointment and, except as otherwise provided, requires appointments to be made from employment lists. (§ 19050.) [4] The Act specifies that an employment list includes an eligible list, meaning a list of persons who have been examined in an open competitive examination and are eligible for certification for a specific class. (§§ 18532, 18537.) Eligible lists are established as a result of free competitive examinations open to persons who lawfully may be appointed to any position within the class for which these examinations are held and who meet the minimum qualifications requisite to the performance of the duties of that position as prescribed by the specifications for the class or by board rule. (§ 18900, subd. (a).) The competitive examination process has been referred to as the `cornerstone' of the merit principle. ( Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ( Alexander ), quoting Lund v. California State Employees Assn. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 174, 186, 271 Cal.Rptr. 425.) Under the Act, examinations to establish eligible lists must be competitive and of such character as fairly to test and determine the qualifications, fitness, and ability of competitors actually to perform the duties of the class of position for which they seek appointment. (§ 18930, 1st par.) While all examinations must conform to this requirement, they may vary in terms of being assembled or unassembled, written or oral, or in the form of a demonstration of skill, or any combination of these; and any investigation of character, personality, education, and experience and any tests of intelligence, capacity, technical knowledge, manual skill, or physical fitness which the board deems are appropriate, may be employed. ( Id., 3d par.) The names of the persons who have attained passing marks in the examination shall be placed on the [eligible or promotional] list in the order of final earned ratings, subject to modification for application of constitutional veterans' preferences. (§ 18937.) The civil service classifications affected by the MOU's in this case are subject to the Act's so-called rule of three ranks, which requires certification of a list to the appointing power with the names of those eligible employees who place in the top three ranks of scores and who are willing to accept appointment under the conditions of employment specified. (§ 19057.1; see Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 254.) [5] For purposes of ranking, scores are rounded to the nearest whole percent; a rank consists of one or more eligible employees with the same whole percentage score. (§ 19057.1.) In making a hiring decision, the appointing power must select a candidate from the eligible list, but need not select the one with the highest ranked score. (See Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 254.) This rule safeguards the merit principle by assuring that one of the better scoring candidates, if not the top scoring one, will be chosen. (See Alexander, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 542, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324.) Finally, the Act imposes a mandatory probationary period for permanent appointments from employment lists. (§ 19170 et seq.; Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322.) The probationary period gives the appointing power the opportunity to observe the conduct and capacity of the probationer, and if, in the opinion of that power, the probationer is not fitted to discharge the duties of the position, then he [or she] may be discharged by the summary method provided for in the Civil Service Act before he [or she] acquires permanent civil service status. ( Wiles v. State Personnel Board (1942) 19 Cal.2d 344, 347, 121 P.2d 673; see § 19173, subds. (a), (b).) This serves to supplement the work of the civil service examiners in passing on the qualifications and eligibility of the probationer. ( Wiles v. State Personnel Board , at p. 347, 121 P.2d 673; see Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (c).) Although the Legislature must at all times abide by the merit principle, it retains a `free hand' to fashion `laws relating to personnel administration for the best interests of the State.' ( Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 184, 172 Cal.Rptr. 487, 624 P.2d 1215.) Moreover, [n]othing in the Constitution requires that all civil service rules apply to all public employees and nothing prohibits the Legislature from experimenting to treat certain employees under different rules, provided the merit principle is not infringed.  ( Alexander, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 536, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324.)