363, 364 ["The inclusion of independent contractors is of vital importance as it cuts off a wide area of possible subversion of the civil service system."].). Having reviewed the general constitutional, statutory, and decisional framework, we return to the facts of this case. Morales, et al., 40 Cal.4th 1016 (2007), the union representing government engineers in California sued the State of California arguing that Government Code section 4529.12's "fair, competitive selection process" language mandated competitive bidding of professional services and abrogated California's pre-Proposition 35 QBS process. at p. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 501, Sacramento, CA 95814. As Williams observed, " if the services cannot be adequately rendered by an existing agency of the public entity or if they do not duplicate functions of an existing agency, the contract is permissible." The parties agree that the Legislature has the authority to amend Proposition 103 without voter approval, but only to further the purposes of the initiative. Myers as the contractor. Over 200,000 people work for a State of California department or agency (other than a university). 5 the Legislature noted in its Chapter 433 findings that Caltrans's use of private consultants had recently accelerated nearly $1 billion worth of construction projects on the state highway system and that this increase in project delivery capability must continue for Caltrans to meet its commitments for timely project delivery. (Art. As the dissent explained, "The trial court had determined the rights and obligations of the parties to this litigation under contracts entered into under the law preceding Chapter 433. 4th 547]. [Caltrans] is not required to staff at a level to provide services for other agencies." FN 10. Rptr. I do not consider the impact, if any, of Government Code section 14101, which states: "The department shall contract with qualified architects and engineers for the performance of work when it is determined by the Director of Transportation, with the approval of the Director of Finance, that the obtainable staff is unable to perform the particular work within the time the public interest requires such to be done." California PE Laws and Board Rules Examination (Take Home Examination), application filing process for requesting a waiver of the FE exam, Business and Professionals Code section 6755, Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 438(a), Business and Professions Code section 6759, Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 428, Examination Special/Religious Accommodations, Information for Military Personnel and Their Spouses/Domestic Partners. App. Moreover, as Professional Engineers, supra, 13 Cal. 594.) ", FN 15. 2d 12, 906 P.2d 1112]. Rptr. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. (c), 14130.2, subd. Factually unsupported legislative findings cannot supplant the findings incorporated in a final court judgment. Practices Com., supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. Where, on the other hand, the question was whether the urgency legislation violated the Constitution by abolishing or changing the duties of an office, "[a]lthough this court accorded great deference to the Legislature's factual determination that urgency legislation was necessary, we went on to consider, as a question of law, whether the urgency measure at issue 'create[d] any office or change[d] the salary or duties of any officer, or create[d] any vested right or interest.' v. State of California (1988) 199 Cal. 3d 1035, 1040 [209 Cal. 9, 1, p. Applicants should also review theProcess Flowcharts for Scheduling Exams and Applying for Licensure. All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. Rptr. Conspicuously absent from the legislative materials are any studies, reports, or testimony that would contradict the trial court's specific fact findings regarding the absence of affirmative proof of any cost savings or other justification for private contracting. Unit 9 - Professional Engineers; Unit 10 - Professional Scientific; Unit 11 - Engineering and Scientific Technicians; Unit 12 - Craft and Maintenance; . Thus, the California Constitution Revision Commission considered and rejected an approach that would have given the Legislature open-ended authority to create exemptions from civil service in any area in which the Legislature felt that public policy would be served better by an alternative to the civil service system. as amended June 24, 1993; Assem. Engineering and Scientific Technicians. 0y850h%Z2#B 0\$%R*J sN4fu{]2f3X1)(Khx*pz"`Xnhr{so 3>leWp l>9w+ 2d 816, 821 [51 Cal. 3d 501, 514 [217 Cal. * concurred. Former section 14130, subdivision (a), set forth certain legislative findings, including: (1) recognition of a "compelling public interest" in capturing and using in a timely manner available federal, state, local, and private funds for the state highway program (former 14130, subd. ), FN 3. 4th 585, the Legislature had enacted an urgency measure authorizing Caltrans to contract with private developers to construct and operate tollways under lease agreements with the state. [Citations.]' Co. v. Deukmejian, supra, 48 Cal.3d at p. 814), the judiciary should not interfere. Com. of Scalia, J.) PECG offers members life, disability, and other insurance benefits at group rates. 11 It simply allows the Director the discretion to contract out where such a move makes economic sense. You are now leaving this website and being directed to the specific California government resource or website that you have requested. Supporters of Chapter 433 included various local transportation agencies, the California Transportation Commission, and private engineering firms. California Federation of Interpreters, Local 39000 TNG-CWA v. Orange County Superior Court, et al. Dist. (e) [plans and specifications for projects to comply with Caltrans's standards for state transportation projects].) (See Department of Transportation v. Chavez (1992) 7 Cal. Even the First Amendment cases relied upon by the majority do not espouse such a view. ), Similarly, in California Housing Finance Agency v. Patitucci, supra, 22 Cal. 2d 814, 884 P.2d 645] [statutes must be upheld " ' "unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears" ' "]; County of Sonoma v. State Energy Resources Conservation etc. (3) Contrary to Caltrans's contention, new section 14130.1, characterizing seismic retrofitting services as a "short-term workload demand," fails to constitute adequate justification for private contracting because it fails to consider the civil service staff available and obtainable to perform the work. 572, 573.) Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 2d 484]; Ludwig v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal. PECG has sponsored and produced several Emmy Award-winning documentaries that have been seen by millions of viewers around the country. Civil Engineer Applicants Nonetheless, we affirm the Legislature's interpretive efforts unless they are disclosed to be unreasonable or clearly inconsistent with the express language or clear import of the Constitution." The trial court's use solely of factual conclusions to undermine legislative findings is best illustrated by its order of April 19, 1994, wherein the court stated: "In section 14130, subdivision (a)(5), the Legislature finds that 'the use of private consultants to assist in project delivery is a new state function and does not duplicate the existing functions of the department.' The Legislature envisioned that privately financed projects could '[t]ake advantage of private sector efficiencies' and '[m]ore quickly bring reductions in congestion in existing transportation corridors.' 574.) Moreover, the contracting authorized by Chapter 433 will not encourage a return to the spoils system of political patronage. Transit Authority v. Public Util. 4th 1243 at page 1252 [48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161, 175 [167 Cal. 4th 1069, 1089 [40 Cal. However, Amwest is not analogous. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is . (Dis. ), Additionally, the Legislature added sections 14130.1, providing that engineering services needed to complete the seismic safety retrofit program "shall be considered a short-term workload demand" ( 14130.1, subd. (2) Contrary to new section 14130, subdivision (a)(4), Caltrans has not demonstrated that, because it must use private contracting to perform project delivery "adequately and competently," its actions fall within another exception to the civil service mandate. There is nothing in Riley to suggest that personnel shortages, earthquakes, economic efficiencies, new state functions, higher skills, etc., would not be within the meaning of this exception. Const. (a)(4).) Nothing in Turner or the cases on which it relies suggests that the standard enunciated in Turner applies outside the First Amendment realm. Const. Tragic, frustrating, comical, and historic, this entertaining documentary/news special follows the Bridge from its original construction through the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake up to the present day. (a)(5)), state highway project development is not a "new state function" within the exception recognized by Williams, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at page 397. Moreover, " California courts have held that constitutional and other enactments must receive a liberal, practical common-sense construction which will meet changed conditions and the growing needs of the people. The Professional Engineers in California Government represents 14,000 state-employed engineers and related professionals. 1209 (1993-1994 Reg. FN 6. as amended June 24, 1993), such estimates were open to question (Legis. Although many of these provisions remain in effect, Chapter 433 has supplemented them. Two years ago, COVID-19 prodded the state of California to launch a massive telework program, the most significant operational change to public service since the adoption of . Necessarily under the separation of powers doctrine, however, courts are limited in what they can review to determine the propriety of legislative findings of fact and determinations. First, uncodified section 1 of Chapter 433 recites the Legislature's intent: (1) to allow Caltrans "continued flexibility" to contract privately as needed to assure timely delivery of its projects; and (2) to afford "a new and independent basis upon which to justify contracting out actions.". Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that Riley and its progeny need not be overruled at this time. 846-847.) The Court of Appeal majority recognized that the foregoing conclusion is "illogic[al]," in that it states the tautology that private contracting is necessary to avoid private contracting. 4th 8, 14, fn. of Health (1986) 28 Ohio St.3d 463 [504 N.E.2d 1108, 1109-1110]; Local 4501, Comm. Agricultural, Chemical, Control Systems, Electrical, Fire Protection, Industrial, Mechanical, Metallurgical, Nuclear, and Petroleum Engineer Applicants 4th 549] particular cases. Rptr. [15 Cal. The trial court also found that Caltrans undertook private contracting as a direct result of "gubernatorial/executive branch policy against the expansion of state government," which required Caltrans to "balance[] and temper[]" its requests for funding for additional staff by contracting with private entities, without regard to whether qualified persons were actually available for civil service employment or whether Caltrans could assimilate and train them in a timely manner. (Amwest, supra, at pp. It recounts the progress, delays, setbacks, and politics during the design and construction of a new, safe bridge to re-complete the connection across the Bay between San Francisco and Oakland. 1209 (1993-1994 Reg. 650, 556 P.2d 1101]; Elliott, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 594; Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal. Rptr. Rptr. Code, 14130.1, subd. Practices Com. The single critical commentary Caltrans cited was directed toward a State of Washington decision, Wash. Although some studies, such as the one considered by the trial court below, estimated the average total cost of contracting out as being higher than using Caltrans staff (Sen. Appropriations Com., Fiscal Summary of Sen. Bill. (Sosinsky v. Grant, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. Below, we describe the types of employees in the states 21 bargaining units. A title authority indicates a proficiency in that field greater than what is required for Civil Engineering licensure. (Maj. ), Second, contrary to the majority's suggestion, the experimentation at issue in Professional Engineers did not require the "total" withdrawal of a state function. 4th 45, 60-61 [51 [15 Cal. The record indicated, however, that Caltrans had assumed responsibility for this work since 1963, so no "new state functions" were involved that might have justified an exception to the implied civil service mandate. 414-417; see Williams, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at p. Based on that premise, the trial court found Chapter 433 unconstitutional and concluded, therefore, that Chapter 433 could not then be considered a change in circumstances justifying modification of the 1990 injunction. (Department of Transportation v. Chavez, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. The judiciary, in reviewing statutes enacted by the Legislature, may not undertake to evaluate the wisdom of the policies embodied in such legislation; absent a constitutional prohibition, the choice among competing policy considerations in enacting laws is a legislative function. (f), p. First, the entire law-making authority of the state, except the people's right of initiative and referendum, is vested in the Legislature, and that body may exercise any and all legislative powers which are not expressly or by necessary implication denied to it by the Constitution. Dist. Sess.) 2d 599] (Professional Engineers), the Court of Appeal held that, on an experimental basis, the state might properly release a former function in favor of "privatization" without offending civil service principles. 4th 573] our independent review to determine whether they reasonably support a contrary determination. 4th 1243, 1252 [48 Cal. Professional Engineers in California Government v. State of California (Office of Statewide Health and Planning Development) 04/30/2021: 05/21/2021: HO-U-1678-S SF-CE-1740-M: Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. Alameda Health System: 05/12/2021 LA-CO-1747-E: Salena Ann Gonzales v. California School Employees Association: 05/18 . Founded in 1962, PECG represents 14,000 state-employed engineers and related professionals responsible for designing and inspecting California's infrastructure, improving air and water quality, and developing clean energy and green technology. (a)(1)); (2) declaration of a need to be "plan-ready" to maximize use of these funds (former 14130, subd. Rather, courts should usually apply the tests Riley and its progeny devised on a case-by-case basis, evaluating particular contracts rather than entire areas of operation such as "engineering" or "project development." What's Required When You Return to State Service, Part-time, Seasonal, and Temporary Employees (PST), Savings Plus Educational Workshops & Webinars, Travel and Accident Insurance for Excluded Employees, Discrimination Complaint Tracking and Monitoring, Limited Examination and Appointment Program (LEAP), Workforce Analysis and Census of Employees, Information Technology Class Consolidation, Layoffs / Reinstatement / State Restriction of Appointment (SROA), Reimbursement - Travel, Relocation, and FlexElect, California Network of Learning Professionals Forum, Appeal of denial of merit salary adjustment, Appeal of involuntary geographic transfer, Appeal of involuntary non-geographic transfer, Request for reinstatement after automatic resignation (AWOL), Request for reinstatement after automatic resignation of permanent intermittent employee (AWOL PI), Merit Award Program - Benefits Administration Manual, Merit Award Program Purpose and Authority, Career Executive Assignment (CEA) and Exempt Employees, Career Executive Assignment - Policy Memos, CEA classifications included in leadership competency model, Supervisor's Responsibilities During the Probation Period, CalHR's Supervisors Guide to Addressing Poor Performance, Model Workplace Violence and Bullying Prevention, Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 599.859, Title 2, California Code of Regulations, sections 599.893 through 599.910, Pay package for excluded and exempt employees, Statewide Workforce Planning and Succession Management, State of California Workforce Planning Model, Phase 1 - Set The Strategic Direction for the Workforce Plan, Phase 2 - Gather and Analyze Organizational Data for the Workforce Plan, Phase 3 - Develop Strategies and the Workforce Plan, State of California Succession Management Model, Part 1-Identify and Prioritize Key Positions, Part 2 - Identify Candidate Pool and Gaps, Part 3 - Develop Succession Management Strategies, CalHR Workforce Planning and Succession Management Programs, Current Workforce and Succession Plan Status, Virtual Help Desk for Supervisors and Managers, Benefits Administration Training Course Handouts, Common Carrier Travel and Accident Insurance, Part-time Seasonal and Temporary (PST) Program, Career Executive Assignments Delegation Agreement Template, Changes to the Career Executive Assignment (CEA) Program, Enterprise Core Record (ECR) Project Information, Abolished Classification Listing by State Personnel Board Meeting Date, Guide to the CalHR Substance Abuse Testing Program, Apprenticeship Information for Departments, Apprenticeship Information for State Employees, Exceptional Allocation Delegation Agreement Template, Exceptional Position Allocations Requiring Form STD. )[2] in State Bargaining Unit 9.[3]. opn., ante, at p. App. (Id. ( 14130.2, subd. ", First, although these reasons, if factually based, might support a constitutional amendment to clarify, or indeed abrogate, the private contracting restriction, they offer no solid ground for ignoring traditional principles of stare decisis. (Italics added.). Caltrans points to no new legal developments, such as scholarly criticism or commentary, or contrary case law in other states, that would cast doubt on the continued vitality of Riley and its progeny. I conclude that the trial court erred in rejecting the factual findings of the Legislature, and that neither the trial court nor this court may reject such findings except under very limited circumstances not present here. (Lockard v. City of Los Angeles (1949) 33 Cal. (Id. fn. Code, 143, subd. (41 U.S.C. 2d 636, 642 [76 P.2d 674] [determination of necessity for urgency measure is purely a legislative question; courts will not interfere with determination "save in those few exceptional cases where it appears clearly and affirmatively from the legislature's statement of facts that a public necessity does not exist."].) The reason for this rule is that the [15 Cal. And the Legislature may not undertake to readjudicate controversies that have been litigated in the courts and resolved by final judicial judgment. As this court stated 60 years ago, "judicial decisions abound with declarations to the effect that all presumptions and intendments favor the validity of statutes; that mere doubt by the judicial branch of the government as to the validity of a statute will not afford a sufficient reason for a judicial declaration of its invalidity, but that statutes must be upheld as constitutional unless their invalidity clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears." Clickhereto learn more. as amended June 24, 1993; Assem. David I. Kelly, Douglas L. Kendrick, Anthony T. Caso, Sharon L. Browne, Francis F. Chin, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Stephen N. Roberts, Stanley S. Taylor, Patricia Lee Connors, Robert D. Thornton, Kennedy & Wasserman, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean & Levitan, R. Zachary Wasserman, Bertha Ontiveros, Best, Best & Krieger, Steven C. DeBaun, Zumbrun & Findley, Ronald A. Zumbrun, John H. Findley, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, Kennard R. Smart, Jr., M. Lois Bobak and Jason E. Resnick as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants. For these reasons, I conclude the trial court erroneously found Chapter 433 unconstitutional on its face. Fund, supra, 30 Cal.2d at pp. 419, 434-435, fns. 903, 415 P.2d 791] (anti-obscenity statute); Geiger v. Board of Supervisors (1957) 48 Cal. To accomplish this, PECG supports and sponsors programs that promote Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Com. Qualifying experience must be completed by the date of application submittal and is calculated on an actual time basis, not to exceed forty hours per week. (CSEA, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 2015-12-21, 10:17 AM - Flash Flood in the Northern California, Sacramento and Placer Counties until 12:15 PM. Title act means that only a person licensed by the Board in that branch of engineering may use the title in any manner. Here, by contrast, Chapter 433 constitutes an interpretation of a constitutional provision, the construction and limits of which are disputed. 4th 567] reasonable cost." 593-594, and fn. 847.) In the dissent's view, each statutory change conflicts with the earlier findings and conclusions in the trial court's injunction and orders. Toppin Professional Engineers in California Government 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 501 Sacramento, CA 95814 As the Court of Appeal dissent observed, this provision also seems to conflict with the constitutional civil service mandate by authorizing Caltrans to contract work privately on locally funded projects "even if additional civil service staff could be hired to perform it as cheaply and as promptly.". ), In my view, the findings and statements of intent included in Chapter 433 are not inconsistent on their face with appropriate constitutional interpretation of article VII. An applicant for licensure as a Professional Engineer must meet the qualifying experience requirements outlined in Business and Professions Code sections 6751 (c) and 6753 and Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 424. We therefore limit our present discussion to the effect of Chapter 433 on the trial court's injunction and subsequent enforcement orders. 1, 7-8 [73 P. 597] (superior court's power regarding contempt). "Under the doctrine of judicial notice, certain matters are assumed to be indisputably true, and the introduction of evidence to prove them will not be required." Review theapplication filing process for requesting a waiver of the FE exam. Thus, merely characterizing work as "short-term" does not justify using private contractors to perform it. He has extensive experience and technical expertise in hydraulic and hydrological modeling, stormwater management, flood mapping and control, watershed modeling, design of hydraulic structures, and river engineering. Baxter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. All applicants are required to supply the Board with a full set of fingerprints upon submittal of an application for licensure/certification. (Fn. of Labor & Industry (1993) 154 Pa.Commw. 2930-2931]) and our own California case law (Legislature v. Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 524; Buhl v. Hannigan, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at pp. as amended June 24, 1993.) Com. 4th 548] outline the general constitutional and statutory principles before discussing their application to the facts of this case. Analyst, letter to Sen. Marian Bergeson (July 15, 1993) p. Workers v. Ohio State Univ. "However, this question is not presented by Chapter 433. 4th 698, 710 [42 Cal. (Italics added. Judieth Sullivan-Ojuola v. City of Sunnyvale, Imperial County Deputy District Attorneys Association v. County of Imperial, Junnie Verceles v. Oakland Unified School District, Service Employees International Union Local 721 v. County of Riverside, Teamsters Local 542 v. El Centro Regional Medical Center, Child Care Providers United California v. State of California, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Council 36 v. City of Anaheim, Service Employees International Union, Local 99 v. The Accelerated Schools, Teamsters Local 2010 v. Regents of the University of California (Davis), Antelope Valley College Federation of Teachers v. Antelope Valley Community College District, Service Employees International Union Local 1000 v. State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services), California State University Employees Union v. Trustees of the California State University (San Diego), Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency), California School Employees Association-Chapter 176 v. Barstow Community College District, Operating Engineers Local Union No.