*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 607 P.2d 1008 see v. Colo. salary survey implemented, employees been Sheridan, 1982). (Colo.App. City P.2d 648 1097 monthly in excess would have received salaries However, adjudication ques requiring a case $4,872. According uncontradicted affi- great public importance or of constitu tions of Allikian, manager of the De- davit of Kenneth significance recurring nature that tional Compensation partment's vision, Di- Classification and may might escape judicial otherwise review be printout from that document is a derived practical purposes even if for all it considered Department data file. v. has become moot. Consumer Counsel Moun Co., 278, tain States Tel. & Tel. 816 P.2d 281 n. 5 (Colo.1991); Colorado-Ute Elec. v. Public Utils. pertinent part provision as fol- 7. The states in Comm'n, 627, (Colo.1988); P.2d 633 Best 760 lows: Comm’n, way Disposal v. Public Utils. 184 Colo. (8) personnel system Persons in the 1039, 428, (1974). questions 520 P.2d 1040 respective positions state shall hold their dur- concerning authority herein raised reaching retire- efficient service or until Assembly and of the director to estab age, provided by They shall be ment law. employees levels of state lish maximum graded compensated according to stan- importance, require adjudication public are of dards of efficient service which shall be the may constitutional issues and well reoccur persons having like judicial same for all duties.... escape We therefore do not but review. Const, XII, 13(8). appeal as moot. Colo. art. dismiss graded compensated II es must be ac cording to the same standards. It thus employees that insofar as sec- assert prohibits preferential compensation treat (1988), pur- tion persons equally qualified ment for per who monthly ports to establish a maximum sala- substantially form similar services. The level, provisions of article ry it violates provision expressly neither nor neces XII, 18(8), section of the Colorado Constitu- sary implication prohibits payment of iden requiring that state “shall tical employees per graded compensated according to be forming unlike or dissimilar services. This of efficient service which shall standards construction is consistent with conclu persons having the same for all like Bloom, sion this court reached in Vivian v. Const, 13(8). XII, duties.” Colo. art. 579, 587, 177 541, 115 Colo. They contend that this constitutional lan- rejected argument wherein we similar to prohibits payment guage effect of identi- employees’ construing assertion here in persons performing dissimi- cal salaries to predecessor 13(8). of article reject argument. lar duties. this We We find the rationale of Vivian persuasive Assembly enjoys The General respect with to the construction of the cur legislative responsibility under our broad language. rent constitutional spend constitution to raise and funds for governmental purposes. Colorado Ass’n Ill Lamm, Employees v. Pub. 677 P.2d next contend that article 1350, 1353 (Colo.1984); Groditsky v. Pinck 14, sections 13 and of the Colorado (Colo.1983); ney, 661 P.2d Colora grant Constitution essence the director Love, Employees do State Civil Serv. v. compen- establish levels of (Colo. payable employees by sation to state virtue 1968). course, general authority Of this of the director’s certify classi- conformity must be exercised in with ex grades, prohibiting fications and therefore press implied imposed restraints thereon establishing from by specific provisions. Colo monthly salary partic- maximum levels for Lamm, Employees rado Ass’n Pub. v. pay grades. suggest They ular also Y.D.M., People 1353; P.2d at statutory authorizing the current scheme Statutes pay plans justified the director to establish constitutional, presumed are to be and a by salary surveys prohibits the General party asserting particular that a statute establishing specific from violates constitutional assumes applicable particular grades. limitations establishing assertion burden disagree. We beyond a reasonable doubt. Anderson v. *8 Personnel, Dep’t 969, State (Colo.1988). Furthermore, language if A provision conveys of a a clear constitutional argument that the director is meaning involving and definite no absurdi constitutionally authority vested with to es contradiction, any ty or internal construc compensation payable levels of to tablish language give tion of such must full effect particular year in state fiscal Civil Colorado State meaning. to that by authority of the to virtue establish clas Love, Employees Ass’n v. Serv. 167 Colo. grades argu sifications and is similar to an 436, 445, 448 P.2d presented ment to this court in the context XII, 13(8), XII, predecessor of the Col of the to article Article section section Bloom, 13(8), Vivian v. in provides orado Constitution that state em (1947).8 ployees performing rejected “like” or similar servic- We the ar- 13(8), prior of article Persons in the classified service shall hold 8. The version respective positions during their efficient ser- pertinent part in as follows: stated graded compensated vice and shall be regard then, in the discriminate with to their salaries and find no basis gument persons performing language present so that the same or slightly different unequally paid? similar duties are provision to alter view. (c) or not the Treasurer Whether State Vivian, distinguished the constitu In we shall the salaries within classi- authority of the Civil Service Com tional by as fixed fied civil service the Civil employment positions classify mission to Commission, by or as determined Service salary increases from the and recommend Governor, byor the General Assem- Assembly ap authority of the General bly? thereby ultimately for and propriate funds (d) salaries, by Whether whomsoever establish levels fixed, compensate like service un- which Vivian, 115 Colo. at employees. equally, are valid? pow enumerated P.2d at 543-44. We Commission, no concluded that 581, 177 ers of the Bloom, 115 Colo. at Vivian v. implied provision of the constitu express or reversing judg the trial court’s at 542. granted unilateral au tional amendment plaintiffs, in answer ment favor we to establish the thority to the Commission questions as ed those four follows: employees, deter of state levels (a) power That the has the only compensa reference to mined that the fix duty the salaries for classes in contained the amendment was grades up by set the Commission persons should hold their requirement that right by subject to of veto the Governor “during and shall efficient service legislation; it as in case of other has according graded compensated be fix no the salaries of individuals standards of efficient service.” by grade; other than class and P.2d at 543-44. We then con any legislature case has del- where deprive cluded that the amendment did not Governor, egated authority such authority Assembly of ultimate authority equally of the latter is lim- compensation for the classi to fix levels of disapproval fixing, approval or ited to by fications and established grade. only by class and of salaries Commission. Id. (b) That the has no authori- regard ty to discriminate to salaries employees in assert that essence ar- grade any class and between members 13 and ticle sections establish as established the Commission. agency exclusive executive with (c) required That the state treasurer is payable to compensation levels to establish by legislative pay salaries as fixed grades as positions, classes and well by any agency duly autho- enactment or positions, exclusive establish enactment as to class and rized merit. classes and on the basis of up by upon grade as set the Commission reject- expressly An was identical assertion ap- by the Commission of certification case, In that ed this court Vivian. pursuant required by pointment to law as declaratory plaintiff filed a the amendment. seeking judicial answers to judgment action (d) must fixed accord- questions: That salaries following four grade ing to class and as established Governor, (a) or not the Whether and the determination of the Commission has Assembly or either of them equality of service rests its discretion. fix, right, power duty approve, any *9 persons disapprove or salaries for within Bloom, 588, 177 at P.2d v. 115 Colo. Vivian the classified civil service? argu doing, rejected In so we the at 545. scheme

(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); 793 P.2d 148 Martinez v. Con plans develop pay and to has ex sitions Enters., (Colo.1986). tinental excepted from pressly such pertinent statutory pro Our review ability to establish maximum levels com guided by principle. visions must be this conclusive, pensation. not While the fact general 24-50-101 articulates Section Assembly consistently that the General has purposes personnel system of the state and legislative authority exercised to establish director, the duties of the as follows: compensation pay maximum levels of purpose personnel It of the state amendment, grades suggests that the 1970 system, system, as a merit to assure that legislative department initiated it well-qualified serving work force is self, designed was not to transfer to the Colorado, segments residents of that all director the establish population equal opportu- of its have an Davis, compensation People levels. v. Cf. nity entry employment, into state (Colo.1990); Rauschenberger 794 P.2d 159 qualified that recruitment from be indi- (Colo.1987); Radetsky, 745 P.2d 640 v. Peo sources, appropriate viduals from and Green, (Colo.1987).

ple 734 P.2d 616 v. that, open competition, after fair and se- job-related lection be on the basis of abili-

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 704 P.2d 1371 adherence to merit includes au- 1985); Lamm, specific statutory thority ignore Anderson v. other view, addressing compensa- In our the cur issues of statutory accomplishes rent scheme no tion. *11 develop pay plans the director to requires the director circum- 24-50-102

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. 361 P.2d 631 Pro- following such day the first of the month personnel in the motion confidence approval. system requires as a whole the General (1988).12 24-50-104(4)(d)(II), 10B C.R.S. § integrity ensure fiscal in the director’s conduct of sala- Criteria for By overall scheme. main- fringe surveys are estab-

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, 718 P.2d at 227. practice the consistent of the Gen overlook establishing Assembly

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 704 P.2d 1371 due those is v. Court, 1985); appeal. v. District 681 P.2d 953 sues will not be considered on Ortho Pena Heath, (Colo. 1984); Corp. Denver and Rio Grande Western Pharmaceutical v. Denver, (Colo.1986); Colgan Department City County n. R.R. Co. v. & Revenue, Div., (Colo. (Colo.1983). previously Motor Vehicle This issue was raised; 1981). decline to address it. Or- we therefore my view, V at 51. In presented by the issues employees require a more exacting re- reasons, foregoing judgment For the precedents construing view of our the civil court is affirmed. the trial history service amendment and the of that Specifically, amendment. this case re- MULLARKEY, J., QUINN, dissents quires make us to a clearer determination J., joins the dissent. constitutional division of be- general assembly tween the and the consti- YOLLACK, J., participate. does not board, tutionally created a deter- MULLARKEY, dissenting: Justice upholds the purpose mination which *14 use clause of each and sentence of the civil majority nothing holds in that our service amendment. See Colorado State prohibits general the state constitution as- Love, Employees Civil v. Serv. Ass’n 167 paying sembly salary from the same 436, 624, (1968). Colo. 448 P.2d 630 perform who unlike or dis- setting or from similar services maximum In Colorado Ass’n Public Employees of regard the cap standards without Lamm, (Colo.1984), v. 677 P.2d 1350 we grades employment are of which estab- provisions held that of Article XII of “[t]he by department of lished the director the of the Colorado Constitution forth in set detail personnel (director) personnel or the state the principles person under which the state (board).1 board The effect these hold- system operate. nel is to While the Gener provisions ings is the to make relevant al Assembly supplement can the Sections and 14 of Article XII of 13 the XII, legislation contrary Article no superfluous. Constitution Because Article express implicit the or requirements of that pro- XII of is intended the Constitution Article can survive a constitutional chal system compen- vide a of fair and relative lenge.” P.2d 677 at 1353. We also noted employees according sation for state to the that “the connection between statute and employ- different standards and rule is subtle sometimes a one [board] board, by ment established the and thus to Lamm, P.2d at Subsequently, 677 in power general restrain assembly the the Emp. Colorado Ass’n Pub. v. Colorado otherwise, directly by to do any either Department (D.O.H.), Highways we device, respectfully other I dissent. Board, held that created “[t]he XII, public employees claim 14 adopted contemporane here that sec- of Article 13, tion ously which with section has essential role elaborating pub- upon mandates a maximum level for the framework estab employees, lic violates certain sections of lished that latter section.” 809 P.2d (the amendment). 988, (Colo.1991) Article XII civil service (citing Interroga 993 In re claim, rejects Governor, 406, 412, majority relying pri- Colo. tories the 111 Bloom, 899, marily (1943) 902 (“rulemaking v. Colo. P.2d Vivian (1947). analysis 177 P.2d 541 Our in that one of the Board’s constitutional func case, however, tions”)). However, support majori- does not the stated we also there ty’s XII, general conclusion that Article has a assembly Section the “concur 13(8) expressly necessary fleshing “neither nor rent role out the details of the implication O.H., prohibits payment personnel system.” of identical D. 809 P.2d 14(3) employees perform- (4) to state at 993. Article See Maj. op. (providing may pursu- unlike or dissimilar services.” laws enacted Heath, Corp. personnel system, tho Pharmaceutical v. of the administration Article (Colo.1986); Colgan Department 14(4) 415 n. 3 v. provides that Section director Revenue, Div., (Colo. Motor Vehicle 623 P.2d 871 system shall administer under constitu- 1981); Water, Tri-County Matthews v. thereto, pursuant laws and the enacted (1980). Thus, adopted by under the board. rules dissent, purposes of this shall refer I although by 1. I note that statute the director proper actor board as the vis-a-vis performs many now of the constitutional func- general assembly. day-to-day tions of the board in addition to the amendment). abrogate plain meaning In service cannot to the civil ant Id., D.O.H., addition, that the constitution we concluded Constitution.” at 630. “contemplates the elaboration of the Civil “[tjhere presumption language is a that the through enacted Amendment laws Service provision and structure of a in a constitu- adopted by rules legislature choice, adopted by tion were and that dis- P.2d at 998. Board.” 809 language crimination was exercised in the Anderson, and structure used.” White our There is a tension D.O.H. between role” of the recognition of the “essential recognition of the “concur- board and our Applying foregoing principles to our general assembly role” of the as to rent seemingly conflicting O.H., holdings in D. I sys- implementation of the state power would conclude that the concurrent required tem. We were not to resolve that general assembly implement legis- tension in because neither the D.O.H. civil service does not include amendment attempted lature nor the board had to ad- power purpose to annul the of that out,” “contracting practice dress there provision specifically which allocates to the us, question. The case now before how- board to standardize ever, requires resolution of this tension positions. and to determine the *15 power constitutional to the division of be- purpose specific The of this allocation of general assembly the and the board tween power to is the board to ensure that state there is a direct conflict between because graded according “shall be ... legislative capping the act salaries and the to standards of efficient service which shall setting grades. board’s of standards and persons having the all be same for like majority errs it the because eliminates XII, 13(8) (emphasis duties.” Article constitutionally-created power by board’s added). Thus, grading public the em- subordinating legislative it will. ployees equal least in at Vivian, Again construing maj. op. wrongly compensating stature to the of those em- 51, 52-53, (1) majority fails to differ- grading ployees. Since is an essential ele- legislative adequately entiate between the personnel system, ment of the merit-based power power fix salaries and the board’s to, secondary therefore it cannot be de- to determine the of, compensation. anything, rivative If (2) public clearly the employees and to see gradation. compensation is a function of necessary effect which a determination have, general assembly, has the those must under the consti- which tution, legislative power power purse, on the to set the of the is commanded public employees. adequate salaries amendment to make civil service carry purposes appropriations to out the principles con- Certain of constitutional 14(5). the amendment. Article struction serve to resolve the latent tension purpose general assembly’s of the concur- in In Love we articulated the fol- D.O.H.. power implement the amendment is rent lowing principles govern the con- which employees “shall to ensure that state be provision. struction of a constitutional As compensated according to standards of ... suggested, “[ejach already I have clause the same efficient service which shall be amend- and sentence” of a constitutional persons having duties.” Article for all like presumed purpose ment “must be to have 13(8) added). Thus, (emphasis use, which neither the courts nor the service language and structure of the civil Love, legislature may ignore.” 448 P.2d at a amendment mandate division Secondly, “interpreting a constitu- by powers other- which cannot be breached amendment, adopted has tional which been Any other construction wise concurrent. vote, presume by popular the court must and sentences of would render vital clauses ordinary that the words were used their or ineffective. the amendment useless See meaning people and that the intended what Interrogatories the U.S. District they Thirdly, at 628. In re have said.” Id. (Colo.1982)(court Court, “governing principle, long adhered to in state, by longstanding rule of constitu- legislative “guided this is that construction Legislature In 1907 the in this enacted a so- construction tional (S.L. 1907, called Civil interpreted are to Service Law c. state’s constitution 117); in 1912 this given every was amended initi- effect term a whole with (S.L. 1913, 682); law therein.”). p. ated 1915 the contained Legislature passed a new act and re- Thus, I civil service believe (S.L. 1915, 143); pealed p. all others ... construed to main- amendment should be allocation, between the board tain the 1912, Legislatures Before the act of were power to determine legislature, occasionally system, hostile to the merit employment and of the grades of appropriation support and refused respectively, simulta- to fix salaries but commission. The act of 1912 was initi- recognize that the former must neously to compel appropriations ated to and to view, necessarily my the latter. affect defects, remedy By other and did so. of the civil amend- this construction service 1915, however, repealed act of which all Vivian, analysis ment is the basis laws, Legislature, former from the presenting I shall turn after to which standpoint especially of those devoted to complete history of the civil review system, destroyed the merit much of its amendment. service effect, beneficial and the constitutional begin by noting majority’s I accordingly amendment was initiated consideration of the “evolution of this very purpose avoiding the destruc- responses” prob- state’s institutional tion or emasculation of the law in the recruitment, compen- retention lems of possible future some hostile General public employees, maj. op. sation of at 47- Assembly. These are matters which 49, glosses history antagonism *16 over the should taken into consideration in con- general assembly peo- and the between the struing question. the amendment in proper ple of the state as to the institution- Bradley, 179 P. at 871 and 872. That the question. the In al solution to civil service statute, by people 1912 initiated the to com- contrast, history in our recent review of the pel appropriations remedy and to other de- of the constitutional amendments establish- fects, subsequently repealed by the was personnel system in the state Colo. only general assembly is one of the more Emp. Regents, 804 Ass’n Pub. v. Bd. egregious examples legislature’s of the candidly P.2d 138 we re-acknowl- hostility system. toward the civil service edged possibility legislation the of hostile 1919, including Since after the 1970 general in system toward the civil service amendments, the this court has considered compensation of ser- and toward the civil persistent antagonism general of the as- employees particular. Regents, in In vice sembly toward the civil service when ad- “recognized we that civil [the service] dressing disputes public employment over strong disposition amendment embodies the D.O.H., compensation. See 809 people protect to the Colorado 988, 991, (observing 995 the “Civil system from state civil service ‘destruction originally adopted Amendment was Service or emasculation ... in the future some response legislative hostility to 1918 ” possible general assembly.’ hostile 804 towards a merit-based civil service” and People (quoting Clay P.2d at 145 ex rel. v. holding “any reorganization must still 186, (1919)). Bradley, 66 Colo. 179 P. 871 comply policies with the and strictures Amendment”) (footnote judicial Bradley court took notice of the Civil Service 138, (stat- omitted); legislative history Regents, the of the civil 804 P.2d service university forced before the first civil service amendment to ute which Constitution, approved by hospital personnel system the held the initiated and to leave 13, the voters in 1918. It noted that civil ser- to violate “Article Section which up protects legislative in the constitution from vice ended because state general assembly the con- people’s designed the thwarted the measures to circumvent Lamm, amendment”); attempt through at reform an initiated act: stitutional 677 P.2d promotion by express tutional amendments contain limi- 1350, (holding that a 1359-60 promotion under name remains tations on the any other Love, 13(1)); 167 Colo. Section Article appropriate pur- to for the funds (declaring 436, P.2d 624 sections of pose compensating reorganization statute un administrative recog- than the one ..other limitation excluding depart certain majority’s reading nized the narrow service); the civil Vivi ment directors from 53, Maj. op. majori- n. 10. The Vivian. (hold an, 115 Colo. 177 P.2d ty supposes this conclusion is further persons all “equal ing that salaries supported by general the conduct of the having like classification are assured” assembly having fixed salaries of the amendment); People ex civil service the employees “by specific legislation 456, 457, Milliken, v. Kelly rel. from until under constitu- both (1924) (holding that since the 223 P. 40 Maj. op. tional schemes.” at 54. Contra certain was secured to the tenure of offices Love, (“ ‘Contemporary Constitution, “by the plaintiffs the so-called text; never abrogate construction can 13), amendment, (article XII, civil service sense; away it can fritter its never obvious power deprive to legislature has no it can narrow down its true limita- never it.”). them of ....’”) (quoting People Seeley tions ex rel. Thus, the 1970 amendments the civil (1885)). May, 9 10 P. 641 not, did service amendment were however, issue, is not whether to, modify intended or detract from the general assembly power has the fix sala- power grant of to the board standardize ries, general assembly but can whether and to determine regard fix those salaries without Although the 1970 amendments positions. by the In other grades determined board. replaced the Civil Commission with Service words, what are strictures which board, preserved amendments places gen- service amendment on the civil the 1918 language and structure of amend- fix assembly’s power compensation? eral ment, allocating powers the same relevant view, my salary cap functions formerly the board that were allocated range es- practice to defeat Thus, the commission. board, rendering the con- tablished *17 implement to the sec- adopt rules relevant to and stitutional mandate standardize XII, including Article rules “con- tions of futility. grade positions an exercise in positions, cerning standardization of deter- grades positions, stan- mination of [and] did not Because the amendments service,” competent dards of efficient and the power the alter division between 14(3), to Article Section was allocated general assembly and the constitutional just power as the identical was the board commission, the namely, successor to the to the commission.2 allocated board, Vivian, analysis in 115 Colo. our 579, 177 remains author- P.2d majority compares present the also properly point here if itative and is 14(3) the civil Article Section with first Vivian, In we held that amendment, construed. “[u]n- service Ch. the As- 341, 342-43, [predecessor] der the amendment Laws but concludes Sess. longer fix of an prior sembly current no the nor the consti- can “[n]either appeals Legislative primarily policy-making become and 2. See also Council Colorado body, day-to-day admin- Assembly, Analysis with the Bal- less concerned An system is the Proposals, istration of the than lot Research Publication No. 151 (emphasis (1970) present p. present Service Commission” at 5: three-member Civil Civil "The added). interpreta- legislative replaced be "The council’s Service Commission would with tion, binding, provides important in- Board. five-member State Personnel The new while understanding sight person- electorate’s would establish rules for the state into the board ..., passed.” Place system it was Carrara nel such rules to include standardi- amendment when (Colo.1988). grades positions, Equalization, Bd. determination of zation positions, majority policy-making notes the board’s standards of efficient and com- The function, [and] service_ any proposed maj. op. petent at but fails to attach Under the new or- structure, significance ganizational it. the board itself would to only compensation. ate funds employee, proposi- but This individual established, grade by as simply the constitutionally- each class restates Commission, performance of its power. created division of Neither the obligation necessary fix salaries is general so to assembly nor the board can both proper of civil service in establishment grade compensate personnel positions, with the amend- Colorado accordance compensation and the funds for that cannot language ment.” 545. The appropriated way be in a which defeats the explicitly used there is crucial. We charac- grades standards and which are determined assembly’s general terized the role as an by the board. is, obligation “obligation,” to fix Thus, just could as we not concur in grade the salaries of class and “each “power Vivian with the contention that the by predecessor to established” classify by to it necessary carries with im- board. plication power compensation,” to fix given obligation only This is substance if can I neither concur here we construe to mean the amendment power with the contention that the fix general assembly obliged is fix compensation with it necessary carries grades grade salaries after the are of each implication power classify the de facto board and to fix determined those grade directly or either by any or other correspond range salaries so as to statutory salary cap device. The is one grades. majority opinion, those in con- amply supported device. This view is trast, reduces the amendment’s mandates by Vivian: Vivian, to mere exhortations. we delin- fix con- [T]he eated the constitutional fers no control as classification. Au- predecessor, holding board’s that: thority classify employment all inside implied provision express There is no plainly spe- classified service is the civil service transfer- [in amendment] cifically Commission_ by the vested amendment in the ring to fix the Commission The Commission is re- only compen- salaries. The reference to quired only to standardize. This can in the sation is contained declaration of up mean to set standards means of that, paragraph the third “Persons in the which of employment classes and respec- shall hold classified service their can distinguished be ... standards [and] during tive efficient service and compen- which the and relative fair graded compensated shall be accord- sation classes and for different of efficient to standards service can be determined. persons which shall the same for all (emphasis added). 177 P.2d at 544 having suggestion like duties.” No salary cap longer effect of a which is no grading therein that either the contained *18 keyed highest to own the board’s standard compensation or shall by be made the grade merge, is to blend or not to Commission, in the para- but fourth distinguish, grades those classes with graph authority the to standardize and grades. cap lower The conclusion that the grade given specifically is to the com- practice is another device which circum- specific mission. The declaration of the vents the civil service amendment is con- one exclusion indicates the of the other. by firmed Vivian: added). (emphasis 177 P.2d at 548-44 I Compensation appurtenant be made must applies would the hold here that converse grade by to as class and established the as well. Just the constitutional as declara- authority full Commission and the authority to of the board’s standardize classify grade may Commission to grade the excludes to com- by fixing sep- not pensate, implies be undermined salaries the same declaration employees power arately the compensate other than different accord- departments by any grades by to the other device. determined board general assembly’s ap- excluded to limit from the has appropri- propriation appropriation otherwise unrestricted if the ... and legislature, I be dis- from the hostile actions of fails, employees] must then [the dissent. seniority in accordance with missed fixed ac- must be

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