Untitled California Attorney General Opinion ( 1992 )


Menu:
  •                       TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    State of California
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN
    Attorney General
    ______________________________________
    OPINION            :
    :          No. 92-313
    of                 :
    :          OCTOBER 21, 1992
    DANIEL E. LUNGREN            :
    Attorney General          :
    :
    ANTHONY DA VIGO             :
    Deputy Attorney General      :
    :
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    THE HONORABLE WILLIE L. BROWN, JR., SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY,
    has requested an opinion on the following question:
    Are employees serving in the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community
    Colleges under the interjurisdictional exchange program eligible to serve on qualifications appraisal
    panels for the hiring and promotion of state civil service employees?
    CONCLUSION
    Employees serving in the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community
    Colleges under the interjurisdictional exchange program are eligible to serve on qualifications
    appraisal panels for hiring and promotion of state civil service employees.
    ANALYSIS
    The Legislature has established an interjurisdictional exchange program providing
    for the temporary assignment or loan of employees between agencies or jurisdictions. (Gov. Code,
    § 19050.8.)1/ The program is part of the State Civil Service Act (§§ 18500-19799) administered by
    the State Personnel Board (hereafter "Board"). (See Cal. Const., art. VII, §§ 2-3; § 18521.) Section
    19050.8 provides in part:
    "The board may prescribe rules governing the temporary assignment or loan
    of employees within an agency or between agencies for not to exceed two years or
    between jurisdictions for not to exceed four years for any of the following purposes:
    1.    Unidentified section references herein are to the Government Code.
    "(a) To provide training to employees.
    "(b) To enable an agency to obtain expertise needed to meet a compelling
    program or management need.
    "(c) To facilitate the return of injured employees to work.
    "These temporary assignments or loans shall be deemed to be in accord with
    this part limiting employees to duties consistent with their class and may be used to
    meet minimum requirements for promotional as well as open examinations. . . .
    ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    "For purposes of this section, a temporary assignment or loan between
    educational agencies shall be extended for up to two additional years upon a finding
    by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the Chancellor of the California
    Community Colleges, and with the approval of the Executive Officer of the State
    Personnel Board, that the extension is necessary in order to substantially complete
    work on an educational improvement project. Public and private colleges and
    universities shall be considered educational jurisdictions within the meaning of this
    section."
    The Board is authorized to prescribe, amend, and repeal rules for the administration
    and enforcement of the State Civil Service Act. (§ 18701.) Pursuant to this authority and the
    express provisions of section 19050.8, the Board has promulgated rules relating to the interagency
    and interjurisdictional exchange of employees. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 426, 427.)2/
    We are asked whether employees serving in the Office of the Chancellor of the
    California Community Colleges under the interjurisdictional exchange program are eligible to serve
    on qualifications appraisal panels for the hiring and promotion of state civil service employees.
    Typically, these employees are administrators from local community college districts and serve in
    the Chancellor's Office in a variety of managerial and supervisory positions. We conclude that such
    employees may serve on the panels in question.
    In examining the language of section 19050.8 and the administrative rules implement
    it, we are mindful of several principles of statutory construction. "The words of the statute must be
    construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections
    relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent
    possible." (Dyra-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 
    43 Cal.3d 1379
    , 1387.)
    "Unless unreasonable or clearly contrary to the statutory language or purpose, the consistent
    construction of a statute by an agency charged with responsibility for its implementation is entitled
    to great deference." (Dix v. Superior Court, supra, Cal.3d 442, 460; see Board of Supervisors v.
    Lonergan (1980) 
    27 Cal.3d 855
    , 866.) "[W]hen the construction of an administrative regulation is
    in issue, the administrative construction is accorded even greater deference." (Westfall v. Swoap
    (1976) 
    58 Cal.3d 109
    , 114; see Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
    (1990) 
    218 Cal.3d 999
    , 1009; American Hospital Supply Corp. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1985)
    2. "Rule" references herein are to regulations contained in title 2 of the California Code
    of Regulations.
    2.                                                                     92-313
    
    169 Cal.3d 1088
    , 1092; Herrick v. State of California (1983) 
    149 Cal.3d 156
    , 165.) Normally, "the
    same rules of construction and interpretation which apply to statutes govern the construction and
    interpretation of rules and regulations of administrative agencies." (Cal. Drive-In Restaurant Assn.
    v. Clark (1943) 
    22 Cal.2d 287
    , 292; accord, Industrial Indemnity Co. v. City and County of San
    Francisco, supra (1990) 
    218 Cal.3d 999
    , 1008; Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City
    Council (1983) 
    149 Cal.3d 584
    , 595.) Finally, the failure of the Legislature to amend an existing
    statute may have some interpretive value. (Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside (1989) 
    48 Cal.3d 84
    , 96-97; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 
    30 Cal.3d 721
    , 735, fn. 7; Nestle v. City
    of Santa Monica (1972) 
    6 Cal.3d 920
    , 935-936.)
    It is the purpose of the State Civil Service Act, inter alia, to provide a comprehensive
    personnel system for the state civil service in which appointments are based on merit and fitness
    ascertained through practical and competitive examination. (§ 18500, subd. (c)(2).) Examinations
    may be written or oral, but 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.)
    Qualifications appraisal interviews for competitive oral examinations are typically
    conducted by qualifications appraisal panels. (Rule 195.) Rule 196 prescribes the composition of
    such panels:
    "Each qualifications panel shall include a representative of the State
    Personnel Board who shall be chairman and, except when the executive officer finds
    that the state's interest will not benefit therefrom:
    "(a) One or more persons within the state service, preferably from the agency
    or agencies for which the employment list is being established, who are familiar with
    the job requirements of the class for which the examination is being held; and
    "(b) One or more citizens not in the state service."
    The primary issue to be addressed herein is whether a temporary employee under the
    interjurisdictional exchange program is a person "within the state service" for purposes of Rule 196,
    subdivision (a). It is assumed that the second qualification, i.e., familiarity with the job requirements
    of the class for which the examination is being held, shall have been satisfied.
    A temporary employee is similarly situated in virtually all respects with state civil
    service employees, works under the same direction and supervision, on the same projects, performs
    essentially the same duties, and has the same responsibilities and expectations as other state
    employees. A temporary employee's duties must be consistent with the employee's classification,
    and such as to meet minimum requirements for promotional as well as open examinations. (§
    19050.8.)
    On the other hand, it may be pointed out that the Board's rules governing temporary
    transfers provide in part that a temporary employee ". . . shall be considered for all purposes of the
    Government Code and rules as an employee of the agency from which loaned or assigned except
    that the employee's salary may be paid in any proper manner agreed upon by the participating
    agencies." (Rule 426.) In our view, Rule 426 refers to the salary and benefits of an assigned
    employee.
    3.                                             92-313
    Rule 196, subdivision (a), on the other hand, requires only that the employee in
    question, whether that of the assigning agency or that of the agency to which assigned, be a person
    "within the state service," a significantly broader term.
    Rule 196 thus does not require that the person designated to serve on a panel be a
    member of the "state civil service."3/ Rather, the plain meaning of "within the state service" simply
    connotes a person who is in the service of the state. Consequently, an individual assigned from
    another jurisdiction,4/ while not a civil service employee of the State of California, is nevertheless
    ". . . subject to the direction of the [state]" (Rule 427) and plainly within its service. The Board has
    interpreted Rule 196 as including "within the state service" those who are specifically exempt from
    civil service and those on temporary assignment under the interjurisdictional exchange program.
    We believe that the Board's interpretation of its own rule is reasonable.
    Finally, we note that the Legislature recently failed in its attempt to amend section
    19050.8 to prohibit interjurisdictional employees from being "assigned . . . personnel duties and
    functions" (Assem. Bill No. 1569 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.), when the Governor vetoed the bill.
    Under these circumstances, and given the Board's interpretation of Rule 196, this legislative history
    is consistent with our conclusion.
    It is concluded that an employee serving in the Chancellor's Office under the
    interjurisdictional exchange program is eligible to serve on qualifications appraisal panels for the
    hiring and promotion of state civil service employees.
    *****
    3
    The state civil service includes every officer and employee of the state except as otherwise
    provided in the Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 1, subd. (a).) Temporary employees from
    other jurisdictions gain no status in the state civil service. (Rule 427.)
    4
    Section 19050.8 provides that public and private colleges and universities shall be considered
    educational jurisdictions for purposes of the interjurisdictional exchange program.
    4.                                            92-313
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 92-313

Filed Date: 10/21/1992

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017