Professional Engineers in California Government v. State Personnel Board

In this case we decide that the Career Executive Assignment (CEA) program does not violate the civil service mandate of the California Constitution. However, the implementing regulations that allow selection and transfer of applicants without ranking them violate statutes implementing the constitutional requirement of a “system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination.” As we recently held in Alexander v. State Personnel Bd. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 526, 542 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 324 ] (Alexander), competition denotes a rivalry: “It encompasses a comparison of relative merit.” Such comparison requires rankings.

With specified exceptions, a civil service system governs state workers, as provided by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 1, subd. (a); see Professional Engineers v. Department of Transportation (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 548 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 936 P.2d 473 ].) “In the civil service permanent appointment and promotion shall be made under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination.” (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 1, subd. (b).) The Legislature created the CEA program to promote governmental efficiency. A person may…

I disagree with much of my colleagues’ analysis. In my view, the majority opinion constitutes unwarranted judicial second-guessing of decisions of the legislative and executive branches of government—second-guessing not compelled by the Constitution—and lacks an appreciation of the role of career executives in state government and the need for latitude in the selection of persons for career executive assignments. For reasons that follow, I conclude the trial court got it right in rejecting all of plaintiffs’ challenges to career executive assignments. Hence, I would affirm the judgment in its entirety.

I

The positions at issue may be defined by reference to the following statutory provisions:

Career executive assignments (CEA’s), and the employees who hold these positions, are treated differently from other state positions and employees in the manner of their selection and in the continuation of their appointments. *708 Plaintiffs’ challenges to the CEA employment scheme fall into the broad categories of (1) attacks on the nature of the position and (2) attacks on the manner in which vacancies are filled.

II

Plaintiffs begin by claiming that different treatment of CEA…