Laserfiche WebLink
It appears, too, that the agenda was to reduce the Employees' <br />salaries. This also constitutes arbitrariness and capriciousness. <br />See Buddy and Lloyd's Store v. City Council, supra. The Director's <br />Decision should be reversed. <br />2. The Director's affirmance was contrary to law. <br />The applicable statute governing the placement of occupational <br />groups mandates "consistent occupational groupings of classes" and <br />that "[c]lasses of positions shall be grouped and related to <br />occupational levels of work which can be clearly distinguished and <br />logically related to a compensation system." C.R.S. §24-50 - <br />104(3)(b)(d) (emphasis supplied) . A reviewing court may set aside <br />any action taken which is in excess of the agency's statutory <br />authority or otherwise contrary to law. C.R.S. §24 -4- 106(7); <br />Bostron v. Colorado Dept. of Personnel, 860 P.2d 595 (Colo. App. <br />1993) . <br />Further, the record does not reflect that there was the <br />approval of the governor, as required by §24 -50 -104, 10B C.R.S. <br />(1988 & 1993 Supp.). The case of Department of Personnel v. <br />Alexander, No. 97SC719 (Colo., November 30, 1998), recently decided <br />by the state supreme court, held that where there is a statewide <br />study whose "objective was to revise salaries in accordance with <br />market standards {,} ", as here, it constitutes a reorganization for <br />the purposes of §24- 50- 104(4)(d)(II) and the approval of the <br />15 <br />