California State Employees' Ass'n v. State Personnel Board

In this case, we construe subdivision (a)(2) of Government Code section 19130, 1 which specifies certain conditions pursuant to which the State of California can contract with private firms for the performance of personal services.

Defendants and appellants, California State Personnel Board (Board), Department of General Services (General Services), and Teale Data Center (Teale) appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate compelling appellants (a) to refrain from entering into a contract between Teale and respondent Universal Service Contractors (Universal) providing for security guard services for Teale, or (b) to regard the contract as void if the contract has been executed. We agree with the trial court that the proposed contract violated subdivision (a)(2) of section 19130. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

Facts

General Services has historically supplied state civil service security guards to protect the state’s Teale data processing center.

In April 1985, pursuant to a statutory mandate, 2 the Board informed respondent California State Employees’ Association (CSEA) that Teale in *377 tended to enter into a contract with Universal pursuant to which…

I dissent.

The factual background set forth in the majority opinion does not adequately establish a sufficient basis to appropriately construe Government Code section 19130 et seq.; 1 and as a consequence, I am compelled to expand the factual background giving rise to the present controversy.

Prior to May 24, 1985, Department of General Services (General Services) provided security guard service to the Stephen P. Teale Data Center in Sacramento. Prior to that date, the State Personnel Board had been advised by General Services of its decision to phase out use of the security guard class of personnel. As a result, all appropriate agencies were notified that by virtue of General Services’ decision, Teale Data Center had elected to contract for its needed security services, and that defendant Universal Service Contractors had been the low responsible bidder.

As required by section 19130, defendant State Personnel Board (SPB or board) made an analysis of the circumstances and the contract, in which it applied and considered each of the elements (11) required to be met by section 19130. SPB communicated its decision to approve the cost-based contract with Universal Service…

In this case, we construe subdivision (a)(2) of Government Code section 19130, [1] which specifies certain conditions pursuant to which the State of California can contract with private firms for the performance of personal services.

Defendants and appellants, California State Personnel Board (Board), Department of General Services (General Services), and Teale Data Center (Teale) appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate compelling appellants (a) to refrain from entering into a contract between Teale and respondent Universal Service Contractors (Universal) providing for security guard services for Teale, or (b) to regard the contract as void if the contract has been executed. We agree with the trial court that the proposed contract violated subdivision (a)(2) of section 19130. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

General Services has historically supplied state civil service security guards to protect the state's Teale data processing center.

In April 1985, pursuant to a statutory mandate, [2] the Board informed respondent California State Employees' Association (CSEA) that Teale intended to enter into a contract with Universal pursuant to which…