Laserfiche WebLink
others. In addition, specifics of the appeals process are beyond <br />the scope of any individual appeal." (Appendix A, p. 6, 912.) <br />Compare, Department's position, Appendix A, p. 6, 11. There is no <br />support in the record for this statement. <br />(7) In addressing the issue of the July 1, 1998 <br />implementation data as arbitrary in section H, he finds that <br />"Decisions concerning the implementation date of studies are within <br />the DOP authority and responsibility. In addition, the different <br />effective dates do not have an impact on either group's salaries. <br />The seemingly contradictory movement of the salaries for these two <br />series is due to two separate applications: the system maintenance <br />study which moved them down as set for in JEL- 98 -11; and the annual <br />salary survey which moved the occupational group up." Again, he <br />merely echoes the Department's position statement, ignoring that <br />this is the first time in history that implementation has been <br />other than July 1, and that one group received salary survey <br />increases and another did not. (Appendix A, p. 6, 117 -8.) <br />Compare, Department's position, p. 6, 115 -6. <br />Article XII, §§13, 14 and 15 of the Colorado Constitution <br />(Civil Service Amendment) establishes the state personnel system, <br />which is further developed statutorily by §§24 -50 -101 et seq. of <br />the Colorado Revised Statutes (1997). See Colorado Assn of Public <br />Employees v. Dept. of Highways, 809 P.2d 988 (Colo. 1991) . The <br />13 <br />