Laserfiche WebLink
(4) In addressing the issue of the Fox Lawson Audit <br />conclusions in section D, the Director states that "FLA conclusions <br />were that DOP /HR actions with the system maintenance study were in <br />accordance with established practices, procedures, statutes and <br />law." The Director here ignores that the study found flaws in the <br />procedure. (Appendix A, p. 4, 16.) <br />(5) In addressing the issue that the study results were <br />contrary to statutes, rules, and procedures in section E, he states <br />"The study was conducted to establish relationships between the <br />EnPS and PSR /S series and the PE series; therefore, it was a system <br />maintenance study, not a salary survey. Salary changes resulting <br />from system maintenance studies are different from annual salary <br />survey adjustments, and fall under the `saved pay' provisions of <br />CRS 24 -50 -107 with a three year limit." (Appendix A, p. 5, 12.) <br />Compare, Department's position, Appendix A, pp. 4 -5. As discussed, <br />supra, calling it a system maintenance study does not make it one. <br />Rather, the court needs to review the record to determine the <br />nature of the actions taken. See Eliopulos v. Colorado State <br />Personnel Board, 705 P.2d 1035 (Colo. App. 1985). <br />(6) In addressing the issue of denial of due process in <br />section G, he states, "Allowances were made for employees in <br />agencies which were tardy in study notification procedures to <br />provide the appellants from those agencies with the same time as <br />12 <br />