*1 health, 12-36-107(2) safety and provides appli- welfare” to for- allow Section eign graduates school twenty-one years medical to obtain a at least old cants must be license medical based lesser standards approved from medical graduate require gradu- than we for someone who college, permits the Board to issue and also college in ates from a medical Colorado or probation. A conclu- subject a license elsewhere in the United States. Gen- 12-36-107(2) ap- not that section does sion foreign eral intended medical graduates ply foreign medical school graduates satisfy gener- school the same require- result that the leads absurd licensure, requirements al for medical in graduates of medical schools ments for graduating approved from an medical stringent more than the Colorado would be college, applicants graduate as those who foreign medical requirements for school from medical schools in Colorado and the Assembly did not graduates. The General Such intent can ascer- United States. “consequence” they intend such a when express language from the sec- tained City Ouray v. enacted the Act. See requires tion 12-36-107.6 which the licens- (Colo.1988)(when Olin, 761 P.2d procedures foreign standards and statute, construing the court should not graduates medical school to be “substan- statutory construction that leads to follow graduates tially the same as those for Therefore, result). we can rea- an absurd colleges from in this Ac- medical state.” sonably Assem- conclude that the General judgment cordingly, we reverse the approved college bly intended the medical appeals court of remand the case to proba- requirement, age requirement, and proceedings that court for further consist- 12-36-107(2) apply option tion in section opinion. ent with this only graduates of medical schools Colorado, provi- these but also intended foreign apply medical school
sions
graduates. People Terry, See give (stating that a court should con-
effect to the whole statute and avoid meaningless DEMPSEY, Abel, structions that would render John N. Frank Richard statute). Adamich, part Gary Angerhofer, J. E. An Archambault, thony Aragon, William Finally, so “statutes must be construed Atchison, Baca, Harvey Carlos Arthur as to their intent and effectuate beneficial Barnhart, Joseph Basquez, L. N. Brad purposes, not to defeat them.” Colorado Beckham, Bemelen, ley J. Johan J. Dept. Health Care Ass’n v. Colorado Bishop, Donna Sue R. Bor William (10th Servs., 842 F.2d Social chelt, Bower, Dwight Gary M. G. Cir.1988) added). (emphasis The General Broetzman, Raymond Q. Brown, Ho- purpose in Assembly stated the Act’s sec Bruton, Buchanan, mer L. Amelie Ron- 12-36-102, tion This sec 5 C.R.S. Cada, Cammarata, Gary Ray- ald L. D. provides: Cleek, Cardy, mond A. L. Robert L. Jim Legislative declaration. general Clevenger, Conger, John E. Kenneth R. assembly declares it to be the interests Conyers, Cooper, Thomas I. James R. health, public safety, and welfare to Davis, Dawson, Demko, Joseph Peter R. regulating controlling enact laws Diesslin, Donald, Warren T. Dennis W. healing practice of the arts to the end Duncan, Duncan, John A. Earl L.G. people properly protect- that the shall be Fritts, Larry Embry, Pricilla Glenn W. unauthorized, against unqualified, and ed Gallegos, Conway Gandy, H. H. Richard practice healing improper arts Goodman, Georgeson, Patsy D. D. Dan state, this and this article shall be con- Gossert, Granner, iel J. Ronald H. Clif conformity strued in with this declara- Hall, Hancock, ford W. Thomas L. Dee purpose. tion of Hartman, Henson, Ellis Harold Rob W. added.) construing (Emphasis the Act Henson, Hinz, ert L. Christian E. John mind, purpose in conclude that with this we Holm, Horton, David Patrick Ken C. public “interests it would not be Howard, Huls, Larry neth Mi- L. D. *2 Hurtado, H. Hutche H. Kenneth chael Jackson, son, Ivy, Kai H. John William Johnson, Harry John Jaitly, N. B. lash Kendall, George Kelly, Joseph M. O. P.
Kerin, Kirkpatrick, Dennis L. Don C.
Kleinsasser, Leary, T. James F. John Longenbaugh, Lipcomb, A. Robert MacNeil, Looby, Kenneth Thomas P. Mauro, Martinez, Kenneth F.
Albert Meares, George
Guy Mayo, Sharon A. Jr., Michael, Richard
L. Ted V. Middle Mills, Mohatt, E. Gloria V. John
G. Moser, Moston, Morgan, P. Kris Robert Motza, Noble,
Maryann L. Richard Orkow, Paitt, Harold
Bonnie M. Austin Perko, Parker, Robert M. J.
E. John Rames, Quillin, Douglas D. William Rice, Rice,
Rayner, J. Frank Donald Ricker, Roberts, Kaylon E. Elizabeth J. Ross, Schade, Jerry Philip L.
David C. Shablo, Douglas Seymour, Alfred A. E.
Shaffer, Shelton, Angelo C. Jo David Siebels, Siccardi, seph Pamela James E.
Sillars, Smith, Robert L. William V.
Speckman, Stringfellow, Lewis F. W.G. Sturm, Sullivan, I. Robert L. Robert
Sutherland, Swigert, A. Tom E. Marie Telkits,
Talmadge, Edward M. Robert S. Unbewust, Tormohlen, Philip M. John Vidal, Vasques, Linda
A. Guillermo V. Walton, Waldman, Elizabeth Bill B. Wills, Wilson, L. Jerome William Wil
son, Wolfard, Lyle B. Wull Dennis J.
brandt, Yarrington, Daryl A. R. James
Yeates, Young, Nancy F. Walter
Zurbuch, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ROMER, capacity
Roy in his official Colorado, Ann Jo Sok
the Governor er, capacity in her as the Execu official Depart
tive Director Colorado Personnel, De ment the Colorado Personnel, Defendants-Ap
partment of
pellees.
No. 91SA9. Colorado,
Supreme Court
En Banc.
Feb. 1992.
Rehearing Denied March *3 appealed judg- have
ment. affirm. We I A appeal In this assert 10B section C.R.S. vio- 13(8), article lates Colo- the Equal rado Constitution and Protection *4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to Clause They the United States Constitution. also 14, 13 and contend that article sections the in essence of Colorado Constitution grant exclusive to the director to compensation pay- establish the levels of persons employed per- in the able state (hereafter system referred to sonnel job employees) state commensurate with classifications and certified finally employees suggest director. statutory the current scheme authoriz- pay plans justi- ing the director to establish by salary surveys prohibits the Gener- fied Holm, Denver, plaintiffs-appel- Jon L. establishing specific Assembly from sala- al lants. ry applicable particular limitations resolving signifi- Prior these grades. Gen., Norton, Raymond T. Atty. Gale A. questions concerning the constitution- cant Gen., Slaughter, Deputy Atty. Timo- Chief statutory authority and of the director al Gen., thy Tymkovich, Michael P. M. Sol. Assembly to and of the General establish Serruto, Gen., Denver, Atty. Asst. de- compensation employees, of of state levels fendants-appellees. general appropriate it is to consider of this state’s institutional re- evolution Justice KIRSHBAUM delivered hiring, with sponses to issues associated Opinion of the Court. employ- retaining compensating state and employees of Appellants, of the State ees. declaratory (employees), Colorado filed a Assembly con- judgment in the District Until 1919 the General action Court compensation City County employment of and for Denver trolled Romer, by enacting special leg- against appellees, Roy state Gover- of Colorado, Soker, positions, establishing pay Ann nor of and Jo islation See, (the 24, e.g., director) levels. ch. Director Col- and Executive 58-64; (the 1, Department De- Colo. Sess. Laws ch. orado of Personnel sec. 1903 448, 449; 157, 3, Laws inter partment). complaint alleged, sec. 1915 Colo. Sess. alia, 45, 21, 136, Colo. that section ch. sec. 1917 Sess. Laws However, ap- establishing monthly in 1918 the electorate a maximum 137. amending the Colorado payable employees, proved level vio- an initiative 13, 14, of an to ensure the creation lates article sections and 15 Constitution agency with constitutional au- the Colorado Constitution and the Four- executive thority develop the United and administer a merit- teenth Amendment States Colo- system employment. Rejecting employees’ based state Constitution. Depart- Employees v. claims, rado Ass’n Pub. summary trial court entered 988, (Colo. Highways, and ment judgment appellees, 991 behalf of the 809 P.2d 48
1991); Employ- ry grade, level for ultimately State Civil Serv. each Colorado es- 436, Love, 446, 167 ees v. Colo. tablishing steps correspond- different with 624, initiative called for 1949, adopted 1953, levels were the creation a Civil Service Commission 1957, 1-10, 1959 and 1967. Ch. secs. promote, disci- appoint, with 409-10; 103, 1949 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. pline discharge “ac- 1-2, 289-90; Colo. secs. Sess. Laws fitness, cording to merit and to be ascer- 1, 26-2-3, 97 sec. ch. 1957 Colo. Sess. by competitive competence.” tained tests 292; 1-2, 26-2-3, Laws ch. secs. 102, 1919 Colo. Laws 342- Ch. Sess. 309-310; Colo. Sess. Laws ch. sec. provided employ- 43.1 further that state It 26-1-2, Sess. Laws graded compensated ees ac- “shall The 1970 constitutional revisions were cording to of efficient service standards designed to delineate the ministerial and persons which shall be the same for all duties”; policy-making functions incident to having like shall be the ad “[l]aws enforce personnel system. made to ministration of [the amendment]”; appro- “[ajdequate and that Employees Colorado Ass’n Pub. priations carry shall be made to out Regents, (Colo.1990). Board P.2d 138 *5 purposes of Id. [the amendment]....” They called for the creation of newa execu agency, Department, tive headed a
Upon adoption, its the initiative was des- XII, 14, responsible ignated administering article sections director for 13 and of the Colorado Constitution. These consti- personnel system and for creation provisions tutional remained effect until five-person of a State Personnel Board 1970, when current article functioning primarily policy-making as a 13,14 XII, 15 adopted sections and were appeals entity. “Legislative and See Coun electorate, 1971.2 effective Assembly Analysis cil the General initiative, Proposals,” Ballot response In to the 1918 1970 Research Publica legislation (1970). General enacted es- No. 151 The 1970 constitution a tablishing Civil Service Commission and provided al amendments also “[ade classify granting posi- it broad appropriations quate carry shall be made to pay grades tions and establish for state XII, purposes 13, out the of [article §§ employees. Compiled 1921 Laws of Colora- 14(5). Colo. art. Const. 14].” § do, 9, 1947, sec. ch. 131. From 1919 to 1972, pursuant In to the revised constitu- Assembly periodically established amendments, tional compensation posi- levels of for identified legislation reorganizing adopted salary all system.3 tions In within civil service establishing grades, a chart of minimum 1947, adopted plan it a for compensation all grades, and maximum salaries for all such positions classified civil service that con- a establishing and maximum level. twenty-four salary grades tained cor- with 38, 26-1-4, 1, Ch. sec. 1972 Colo. Sess. responding ranging § salaries from $130 158, 1973, 189, 1-2, legislation In Laws 161-68. was per month. Ch. secs. $625 altering adopted deleting chart of Colo. Sess. Laws 453-54. Statutes minimum and salaries, grades, increasing authorizing number the sala- maximum the director ists, file-clerks, clerk-typists, inspectors, 1. The initiative defined classified civil ser- messen- appointed vice to ployees all include officers and em- gers, computers multigraph opera- assistant and state, exceptions certain 1, with for 156, tors.” Ch. Sess. sec. Laws judicial legislative particular and officers 1935, 740. In salaries were set elevator employees. 202, 1-2, pilots, Ch. secs. 1935 Colo. Sess. Laws 1941, In 1048. salaries for several different 1944, adopted 2. In the electorate an amendment 2, 6, 9, specified. officials were Ch. secs. 14, relating preferential to article 1943, Colo. Sess. Laws In the salaries of 35-43. filling treatment veterans in vacancies specific all state were increased civil classified service. 98, 2-5, percentage. Ch. secs. Colo. Sess. 1931, 3. In salaries were established "ste- for all Laws 245-247. clerks, nographers, bookkeepers, registrars, typ- plan for pay plans4 employees. 24-50-104(6), for state to establish § (1988). 10B criteria, G.R.S. policy under certain establish- $3,227 monthly salary” “maximum developing compensation In policies, the 119, 2, employees. secs. 1 for state Ch. & required director is to utilize the results of 1—4(1)—(5), 421, 1973 Colo. Sess. Laws salary surveys § annual to determine 26— 26-1-4(6), 423; ch. sec. grades, salary rates and ranges § 421, 423, 24-50-104(l)-(6), positions classified comparable Sess. Laws to levels of § (1973). prevailing for subsequent legislation posi- All similar C.R.S. public private tions employment. authorizing develop pay the director 24-50-104(2)(a) -104(3)(e), 10B §§ plans monthly has contained a maximum (1988). required C.R.S. The director is also salary provision. the maximum salary adjustments to recommend $4,872. monthly salary was set at level Ch. “by pay plans developed Governor in ac- sec. 1980 Colo. Sess. § 24-50-104(6) cordance with [section ].” Laws 24-50-104(5)(d), (1988). 10B C.R.S. statutory applicable scheme here re- required Governor submit di- quires the director to establish classifica- report, together rector’s with estimated positions tions of different within the state salary adjustments, costs of to the Joint 24-50-104(3)(a), system. 10B Budget Committee of the General Assem- (1988). position partic- A consists of bly. 24-50-104(5)(g)(I), C.R.S. ularly responsibilities. defined duties and A class of one or consists more At the time this civil action was duties, sufficiently responsibili- similar initiated, personnel system recog the state ties, complexity required skill, tasks 1,559 and, nized separate job classifications *6 knowledge ability justify to the estab- 1, 1990, January sixty-one effective salary requirements lishment of identical of edu- through Employ numbered 39 experience cation and and the administra- compensated grade highest ees competitive tion of identical tests. Each pay grade, salary authorized a received position class and each a class is $4,872 month, within per salary per the maximum grade pay accorded a different 24-50-104(6), estab- by mitted section 10B C.R.S. by (1988).5 pursuant pay According parties, pay lished the director to a 853-56; 24-50-104(6), 4. The relevant statutes refer to the director’s 1991 Colo. Sess. Laws § addition, (1991 responsibility "compensation” plans, Supp.). to establish 10B § C.R.S. In 24-50- 24-50-104(2)(b), (1988), "pay” 104(5)(g)(VII) pertinent § 10B C.R.S. was amended read in to 24-50-104(6), (1988). plans, part § 10B C.R.S. The as follows: 1, 1992, (VII) parties suggested any [B]eginning January have not distinction be- ... pay grade assigned any positions tween the terms. to class of 30, 1991, assigned grade to 99 on or after June filed, complaint 5. At the time the herein was grade shall be one-half the difference between 24-50-104(6) stated as follows: grade pay 99 and the recommended for such (6) plans. Pay pursuant paragraph (g), subject There shall be established class to this to by personnel pay plans monthly salary the state director for five thousand maximum dollars; employees personnel system; forty except in the state ex- six hundred that such monthly salary cept monthly salary requir- that the maximum maximum for classes any employee ing physician such shall not exceed four thou- licensure as a or dentist shall be eight seventy-two fifty sand hundred dollars. Such six thousand two hundred dollars.... plans designed implement monthly salary any shall be in order to maximum em- [T]he ployee policies position assigned of the state as set forth subsec- whose to a (2), (e) (3), 1, 1991, paragraph plan prior July of subsection in effect shall be six (5) dollars; per- eighteen subsection of this section. The state thousand two hundred ex- assign may reassign cept requiring phy- shall sonnel director that classes licensure as a subject plans, subject classes of to such sician or dentist shall not be to such monthly salary.... of this article. maximum fiscal [E]ach 24-50-104(6), thereafter, year adjusted 10B C.R.S. amount shall be 24, 1991, May Assembly the General On the state director in accordance 24-50-104(6) provision change price to delete the amended with the in the consumer index establishing monthly salary metropolitan a maximum level of for the Denver-Boulder statisti- 1-2, $4,872. 24-50-104(5)-(6); preceding year Ch. secs. cal §§ area for the calendar sought injunctive requiring relief of the 1989-90 the Gen- plan on the results based appropriate the director would funds in salary survey utilized eral job additional classifi- included several implement fully have sufficient amount salary grades, imple- and new cations salary justified by levels the results of the required would have mentation of which salary survey. director’s 1989-90 $4,872 per in excess of salaries payment of appellees filed a motion for sum- employees.6 month to the asserting mary judgment, the General
Assembly possesses ultimate constitutional
B
adopt
legislation establishing
salary
employees
maximum
levels for state
employees alleged
complaint,
their
and that section
13(8),
XII,
of the Colora-
section
that article
(1988), does not violate state or federal
payment
only prohibits
not
do Constitution
provisions.
persons
compensation to
hav-
of different
summary judgment
filed a cross-motion for
prohibits pay-
ing
also
similar duties but
ultimately
their claims. The trial court
persons
ment of identical
granting
appellees’
entered an order
having
They further as-
dissimilar duties.7
denying
employees’
motion.
motion and
13(8), re-
serted that article
section
The trial court concluded that
appropriate
quires the
Assembly possesses constitutional
authori-
compensate
em-
sums to
sufficient
appropriate
purpose
ty to
funds for the
ployees
justified
levels
at the
compensating
employees,
that article
surveys
uti-
results of the annual
13(8),
section
Colorado Constitu-
that section 24-
lized
the director and
prohibit payment
of identical
tion does
(1988),
50-104(6), 10B
violates that
C.R.S.
employees perform-
compensation to state
Constitution as
requirement
of Colorado’s
duties,
and that
24-
dissimilar
Equal
as the
Protection Clause
well
50-104(6),
10B
does not
C.R.S.
vio-
to the United
Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection
standards.
late
States
Constitution.
general
appeal
copies
percentage
fund
6. The record on
does not contain
increase in state
appropria-
appropriations
to such
salary survey,
in relation
the recommenda-
of the 1989-90
*7
preceding
year,
for the
fiscal
tions
is less....
whichever
the director to the Governor
tions submitted
1990,
year
or
for fiscal
the recommendations
(1991
24-50-140(5)(g)(VII),
Supp.)
10B C.R.S.
Budget
submitted
the Governor to the Joint
arguable
amendments have
It is
these
year
parties
fiscal
The
Committee for
A case becomes moot
rendered this case moot.
rely on a document which the trial court found
any judgment
therein can have
when
rendered
salary levels based on
contained “theoretical”
controversy.
practical
upon
no
effect
Van
salary survey
apparent
the 1989-90
for their
Fulenwider,
Holdings,
Schaack
Ltd. v.
798 P.2d
agreement,
summary judgment,
purposes
Court,
(Colo. 1990); Barnes v. District
199
424
director’s
that had the results
1989-90
310,
(1980);
Lininger
(b) Assembly ment that under our constitutional the General has Whether classify power to includ classify the Commission’s authority to Colo, compensate. 115 at power ed the to the classified civil service and to within 585, Bloom, 579, according Vivian to standards of efficient service having persons which shall be the same for all like duties. obligation pointed employ persons 544. We out that sion’s to accord- 177 P.2d at criteria, ing to merit-based and the authori- systems jur in other although civil service fix ty compensation particular for levels characterized an execu isdictions were grades, the classifications and exercise of combining the agency tive of com necessarily which would not undermine classification, the power of pensation with the responsibility Commission’s to establish rejected of this state such the electorate implement personnel and merit-based crite- system that separated model in of a favor ria.9 appropriation legislative power the of from power of the executive classification. provisions The current constitutional es- 585, 586, 177 P.2d at This Colo. at 544. tablishing authority Department the of the fundamental distinction was altered and the materially director do not differ
the 1970 initiative.
provisions
the
from
former constitutional
establishing
XII,
Article
the Commission.
recognized
We
that the
also
Commission
13(8),
predeces-
provides,
section
as did its
granted
was
exclusive constitutional au-
sor,
person
graded
that a
shall be
and
positions,
thority to establish
classes and
compensated according to standards of effi-
grades,
recognition led to our obser-
which
service
for
cient
which shall be the same
all
provisions
es-
vation that the
persons
provisions
having like duties.
tablishing the
not an
Commission were
XII,
14, defining
of article
the
section
ad-
shell,
empty
in fact
but did
restrict
the
authority
ministrative
director
and
authority
Assembly’s
appropria-
describing
authority
rule-making
the
the
by prohibiting
the exercise of such
substantially
do not
from
Board
differ
the
fix the
of an
authority “to
individual
provisions
prior
defining
the
amendment
Colo,
P.2d at
employee.”
powers
the
of the Commission.10 Neither
concluded, however,
545.
that the Gen-
We
prior
the
the current constitutional
nor
authority
Assembly
eral
retained
express limitations
amendments contain
grade
“fix
of each class
as
authority
of the General
Commission,
by the
and the
established
appropriate
purpose
for the
com-
funds
performance
obligations
fix
of its
so to
employees other than
pensating state
necessary for the proper
salaries is
estab-
prohibition recognized by this court in Vivi-
in ac-
lishment of civil service Colorado
an.
Id.,
cordance with that amendment.”
provisions of
The distinction
The conclusion that the
arti-
at 545.
was drawn
XII,
require
fix
do not
authority
compensation
between
cle
sections 13 and
individuals,
adopt the
levels
levels
exercise of which
compensation
necessarily undermine
for classifications and
would
the Commis-
service,
competitive
may
legisla-
competent
It
that in some
the conduct
9.
circumstances
establishing compensation
grievance proce-
tive
competence,
decisions
levels
examinations of
dures,
particular positions,
classifications or
appeals
by appointing
actions
au-
from
can
to in effect
di-
be shown
undermine the
thorities,
hearings by hearing
conduct of
meaningful
rector’s
to establish
merit-
by law.
officers where authorized
positions,
those
distinctions between
clas-
based
sifications or
Const,
14(3). The 1918
art.
initia-
grades.
employees argue
here
powers of the Civil Service
tive sets forth the
Assembly’s authority
that the General
is limited
Commission as follows:
appro-
all circumstances to
making
carry
of rules to
and enforcement
priate
a total amount
of state
purposes
amendment and of
out the
of this
employees.
hereof,
pursuance
the laws enacted in
rules,
pertinent
section
states
alteration and rescission of
Article
tests,
part
competitive
as follows:
conduct
all
determi-
cases,
(3)
disciplinary
or
adopt,
nation
all removal
The state
board shall
may
repeal,
positions,
from time to time amend
rules
of all
deter-
standardization
implement
this
service
mination
of efficient
of standards
article,
13 and 15 of
and sections
amended,
this
posi-
of all
determination
thereto,
pursuant
laws enacted
shall be
tions
the classified service
vested
*10
including
concerning
but not limited to rules
in the Commission.
positions,
of
of
standardization
grades
determination
Ch.
Colo. Sess. Laws
342-43.
positions,
of
standards of efficient and
sup
such transfer
authority
appropria-
recommended
the director is
of the
of
ported by the conduct of the General As
tion.
sembly subsequent
adoption
of our
In construing
comprehensive leg
previously
amendments. As
promulgated by
islative scheme
the Gener
noted,
Assembly
fixed the sala
General
Assembly,
al
we must consider all of the
by specific
legisla
ries of state
together,
provisions
harmony,
give
tion from 1919 until
under both con
legislative
effect
to the overall
intent.
legisla
all
stitutional schemes. Since
Waterworks,
City
Florence v. Board
of
of
authorizing
classify po
the director to
(Colo.1990);
ple
B
ty
quality
performance....
24-50-101(3)(a),
(1988).
10B C.R.S.
employees alternatively suggest
duty
It is the
statutory
adopted by
scheme
the Gen-
general
director to
criteria
Assembly
eral
authorizes the director to
establish
specific
compensation
principles
for adherence to the merit
establish
levels
for fair treatment of
paid
employees. They suggest
to state
individuals within
personnel system....
statutory
the state
that as a result of this
scheme
Assembly may
appropri-
the General
either
24-50-101(3)(c),
(1988).
10B C.R.S.
implement
ate a sum sufficient policy
It is also the
of the state to base
plan developed by
appropri-
the director or
employee
advancement and
amount,
may
ate a sum less than that
but
ability
quality
on demonstrated
upon
24-50-104(6),
rely
10B
performance
encourage
in order to
specific monthly
C.R.S.
to establish
high
performance
achieve
levels
specific salary grades.
levels for
productivity by
employees.
disagree.
We
(1988).
These
any
provisions emphasize
constitutionally
It must first be observed that
effort
policy
ensuring
employment
to transfer the
based
legislative authority
appropriation
personnel system
to an within the state
will be
department
job-related
quality
officer in the executive
based
abilities and
government might
performance.
language
raise serious constitu
neither states
separation
powers questions.
implies
responsibility
tional
See nor
director’s
III;
“general”
Colo. Const. art.
Colorado
to establish
criteria to ensure
Lamm,
(Colo.
principles
Section
report
by
24-50-104(3)(b), (c),
annual
to the Gover-
scribed
subsections
to transmit an
(d), (e)
(f),
account-
specific
to the General
and
forth
nor and
which set
discharge of the re-
ing for the director’s
criteria which must
utilized
the di-
be
“assigned by
or directive
sponsibilities
law
creating
plans.11
pro-
rector in
These
[Department],”
10B
support
authority
§
that the
visions
the view
(1988),and to transmit to the Gener-
C.R.S.
design pay plans
of the director to
is limit-
concerning
Assembly recommendations
al
by policy
ed
determinations established
employees serving in
compensation of state
the General
in various sections
their status
military concurrently with
statutory
of the entire
scheme.
concerning the fea-
as state
and
24-50-104(4)
-104(5)
Sections
and
de-
sibility
providing
of
state
with
responsibilities
scribe the director’s
for re-
disability
24-50-
long-term
insurance. §
vising
maintaining
and
the classification
102(5),
(1988).
provision
10B C.R.S.
system
conducting salary
for
and
and
accounting for the exercise of
requiring an
fringe
surveys.
revising
benefit
When
responsibilities assigned “by law” to the
system,
classification
the director must
reflects the fact that the director’s
director
“assign
appropriate pay
the class to an
authority is defined and thus limited
rate,
grade, salary
salary range.”
or
24-
§
requiring
provision
statutes. The
several
50-104(4)(b),
(1988).
10B C.R.S.
Section
re-
of recommendations with
transmittal
24-50-104(4)(d)(II)
following
contains the
programs rec-
gard
special compensation
pertinent provisions respecting the fiscal
ognizes
Assembly’s
ultimate
impact
sys-
of the classification
of revisions
of state
to determine the amount
tem:
pro-
appropriated
funds to be
for state
grams, including programs
compensa-
Any assignments
reassignments
or
of
employees.
tion of state
Anderson v.
pay grades, salary ranges,
classes to
or
Personnel,
Dep’t
P.2d 969
State
relationships required by
classification
of
Bloom,
(Colo.1988).
See Vivian
positions
any duly
the creation of
or
new
(1947).
reorganization
change
authorized
impact
method which have a fiscal
work
Section 24-50-104 contains
re-
effective,
approv-
shall be made
with the
specting
compensation
and
classification
governor,
ensuing July
al
on the
employees.
required
The director is
impact
fiscal
1....
order for the
pay plans
to establish
“based on demon-
study
includ-
any such classification
to be
ability
quality
performance,”
strated
general appropriation
in the
ed
annual
24-50-104(2)(b),
10B C.R.S.
and to
§
bill,
study
the results of such
shall be
prepare, maintain and revise classification
general assembly no
submitted to the
non-exempt positions in
systems for all
24-50-104(3)(a),
year.
of each
February
later than
government.
10B
§
(1988). However,
study
a detailed fiscal
Each
shall contain
C.R.S.
24-50-104(3)(d),
(3)(b)
system.”
C.R.S.
11. Subsection
provides
tion
10B
§
that the classifica-
“sound, system-
(3)(e)
system
(1988).
provides
must be based on
Subsection
that the
analysis
position
occupational
rate,
evalua-
atic
salary range
grade, salary
established
provide for
occu-
tion methods which
pational groupings
consistent
occupational
classes
con-
for each
level of
shall
align-
differences,
of classes and uniform
difficulty and the
sider the levels of
salaries_”
ment of classes and
24-50-
§
responsibilities of each class as
in duties and
104(3)(b),
(1988).
(3)(c)
10B C.R.S.
Subsection
comparable
well as levels
“[p]ositions having comparable
provides that all
pri-
employments
places
public
other
responsibilities
grouped into
duties and
shall be
employment
appropriate competitive la-
vate
title,
subject
descriptive
classes
to the same
24-50-104(3)(e), bor markets.
responsibilities,
of duties and
and re-
definition
quirements
(3)(f)
(1988).
per-
requires
Subsection
the state
filling positions in the class.”
sonnel director to "allocate individual
24-50-104(3)(c),
(1988).
C.R.S.
Accord-
10B
a clear evaluation of duties
to classes based on
(3)(d),
“[cjlasses
posi-
to subsection
appointing
responsibilities assigned
grouped
occupa-
and related to
tions shall be
24-50-104(3)(f), 10B C.R.S.
authorities.”
clearly
which can
dis-
tional levels of work
tinguished
logically
compensa-
related to a
*12
ing monthly
by agency
depart-
salary
in
impact calculation
levels
excess of the
provided
in section levels established
ment. Other than as
General Assem-
bly.
paragraph (g)
in
of sub-
24-50-109.5 or
section,
(5)
only excep-
of this
section
policy
support
Sound
considerations
this
July
regarding any
1 date
tion to the
statutory
construction of the
Al-
scheme.
reassignment
assignment or
of classes to
though
the constitutional
rates,
pay grades,
legislation
designed
their attendant
are
in
resulting from
ranges,
including those
part
encourage
career service for and to
in
special salary surveys, shall be made
employees,
benefit
see
10B
§
situations_
urgent
In such ur-
...
(1988),
primary objective
C.R.S.
of the
situations,
gent
upon approval of the
system promotion
is
of the best interests of
personnel
governor and the state
di-
public
Denver,
as a whole. Turner v.
rector,
changes
shall be effective
(1961).
146 Colo.
ry and benefit taining salary cap pay plans, a the Gen- 24-50-104(5). The di- lished public eral fosters confidence required rector is to recommend integrity the fiscal of the entire “salary adjustments by pay plans Governor system. developed in 24-50- accordance with [§ 24-50-104(5)(d), 104(6)],” 10B C.R.S. § Furthermore, it is well settled that (1988), salary survey and the data “shall be grants our constitution the General Assem presented on the basis of recommended bly determining primary responsibility for all effective on the ensu- classes expended amount of revenue 24-50-104(5)(f), ing July 1.” carrying public policies out the of the state. (1988). Finally, required is the director V, 1; Colo. Const. art. Colorado General report compensation recommendations to Lamm, (Colo. Assembly v. consider- the Governor time for ultimate 1985); Lamm, Anderson v. 195 Colo. Assembly. ation 24-50- Bloom, (1978); Vivian (1988). 104(5)(g)(I),10B C.R.S. 579, 177 (1947). respon P.2d 541 The purse of the together, When construed subsections sible exercise of this 24-50-104(4) (5) legislative comprehen- requires branch to assume establish accountability appropria for the authorizing sive scheme the director to de- ultimate Vivian, classes, velop pay plans establishing posi- process. pay upon salary personnel budget
tions and
based
P.2d 541.
pay
significant category
surveys;
to revise such
state constitutes
benefit
criteria;
budget. To construe the stat
plans
specific
under
and to submit
each annual
establishing
person
utory
exercise of such authori-
scheme
the state
the results of the
system authorizing
appointed
nel
ex
ty in the form of recommendations
and,
appropriations
ultimately, the General As-
ecutive officer to control the
Governor
process
impacted by
is
classification
sembly.
The director’s
to devel-
as it
repre
op
plans,
by section 24-
and reclassification decisions would
as established
50-104(6),
respect
major
system
expressly
limited with
sent a
alteration
prevailing in
arena
monthly
checks and
to the establishment of maximum
balances
whole,
governmental
responsibility.
salary levels.
construed as a
fiscal
See
When
Service,
statutory
clearly prohibits
Kaplan,
the H. Eliot
Law Civil
this
scheme
developing pay plans contain-
director from
122-23
24-50-109.5,
12. Section
10B
de-
C.R.S.
fiscal situations.
urgent
deemed
fines conditions which are to be
suggest
applicable
that to the
The standards
protection
challenges
statutory
equal
legis
scheme does not au
clause
extent
unilaterally
director to establish
lative classifications are well established.
thorize the
appropriated annually for
infringement
to be
In the absence of an
of a
the amount
*13
that
employees,
right
of state
fundamental
or the creation of a sus
the director to es
class, legislative
does authorize
pect
scheme
classifications do not
compensation.
specific levels of
protection
tablish all
equal
contravene
standards if
Thus, according
employees,
the Gen
statutory
scheme has a reasonable ba
response
salary
Assembly,
eral
relationship
sis in fact and
a rational
bears
pay plan
contained in a
recommendations
legitimate governmental
to a
interest.
director,
ap
developed by
may
either
Inc.,
Ragan,
Persichini v. Brad
735 P.2d
accomplish
propriate a sum sufficient to
168, 174(Colo.1987);
Dep’t
Lee v. Colorado
recommendations,
appropriate
those
Health,
(Colo.1986).
718 P.2d
227
A
sum,
may not alter
some lesser overall
but
party challenging
statutory
classification
specific salary
recommendations con
proving
beyond
bears
burden of
a rea
pay plan.
arguments
tained in such
These
sonable doubt that the classification is un
express language limiting the
ignore the
or,
reasonable,
if
reasonable
is unrelated to
pay plans
contained in section
contents
any legitimate governmental purpose.
(1988). They
also Lee,
eral
since 1919 of
of its decision in 1973 to
view
by specific legislation.
salary
discrete
levels
develop
the director to
merit-
authorize
required
While
General
pay plans
salary
that include
rates
based
carry
appropriate
adequate
funds
out
ranges,
by the
As
retention
General
purposes of article
sections
14
sembly
fiscal control over the
of ultimate
require
purposes
those
include the
personnel budget
of the state
establish
adhere to relevant
ment that the director
some limitations on the contents of
exercising
legislative criteria in
the authori
repre
plans recommended
the director
ty of that office. Those criteria include
legislative
sents a
exercise of
reasonable
salary
contained in section
level limitations
responsibility
maintaining
the fiscal in
24-50-104(6).
personnel system.
tegrity of the state
See
Bloom,
579, 586, 177
v.
Vivian
IV
P.2d
The determination to
monthly salary that
establish the maximum
employees
24-50-
assert
section
may
employees
earned
bears a
104(6)
Equal
violates the
Protection Clause
governmen
relationship to that
reasonable
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unit-
Furthermore,
tal interest.
the maximum
They assert that
ed States Constitution.13
limitation contained in
24-50-104(6)
monthly
level
of section
es-
24-50-104(6) does not discriminate
tablishing
monthly
maximum
levels
given class or
between members of a
relationship
any
no reasonable
le-
bear
grade.
legitimate
gitimate governmental purpose and thus
The statute furthers
governmental purpose, and the distinctions
unfairly discriminate between state em-
reasonably
ployees
grade
all other
therein are
related to
classified at
99 and
contained
employees.
disagree.
purpose.14
We
suggest
considering
reply
employees
brief the
13. The
have cited cases
14. In their
24-50-104(6)
rights
property
procedural
violates the doctrine of the
issues of
due
separation
powers
process rights
established
article III
under the Fourteenth Amend
procedural
Constitution. See Colorado
ment. The
did not assert
of the Colorado
trial;
therefore,
Lamm,
(Colo.
process rights
rights_ [S]alaries J., QUINN, joins in this dissent. established cording grade class and as and the determination by the Commission rests in its discre- equality of service
tion. added). (emphasis
177 P.2d at equality
Thus, since the determination value)
(or now rests with relative of service board, the civil ser- I would hold that The PEOPLE of the State same com- prohibits amendment vice Petitioner, Colorado, providing public employees pensation which the board has found to be services VIALPANDO, Respondent. Timothy public. Further- value to the different more, by gener- fixed No. 91SC82. relative, that assembly al must be fair and Colorado, Supreme Court of is, relative to the and standards En Banc. by This means that determined the board. purport which nominal differences Feb. 1992. satisfy established board, bear no fair and relative but which hierarchy of
correspondence to the board’s ORDER OF COURT grades, pass scrutiny. The board will employees here has determined Ap- of the Record on Upon consideration providing public are with services together the written and oral peal, with equal, superior, to the which are not but counsel, being suffi- arguments of and now Nevertheless, provided services others. premises, in the ciently advised effectively are classed IT THIS DAY ORDERED that Certio- IS practice with those others improvi- having DENIED as been rari is cap.3 precisely This is what the merit- dently granted. service amendment was de- based civil
signed prevent. VOLLACK, J., dissents. extinguish- majority opinion virtually powers mandated
es the division
language and structure of the civil service Because as we have said so
amendment. intent of the amendment is
often the personnel system
protect the merit-based record, higher grades receive corre- According should the director deter- graded spondingly higher compensation. certain should be mined that higher *19 grade of 99 and than the then current