Colorado § 26-1-120 - Merit system.

§ 26-1-120. Merit system.

(1) On January 1, 2001, the merit system for the selection, retention, and promotion of employees of the county departments that has been operated by the state department pursuant to this section is abolished. Beginning on or after July 1, 1997, but no later than January 1, 2001, each county shall provide for a merit system for the selection, retention, and promotion of employees of the county departments that complies with the criteria specified in subsection (8) of this section and with any other federal standards for a merit system of personnel administration for employees, specified as a condition of receipt of federal funds as set forth in subpart F of 5 CFR 900.601, et seq. A county can combine with another county or form a district to provide such a merit system for its employees. The county department shall certify to the state department that the successor merit system of personnel administration used by the county is in conformance with the federal standards. Prior to transferring county employees to a successor merit system, each county shall submit a transition plan to the state department outlining its plan for transferring such employees and for addressing issues that may arise during the transfer, such as salary issues, retention, seniority rights, and appeal processes. The state department shall examine and approve the transition plan if the state department determines that the transition plan is reasonable and that the merit system meets the federal standards. The county may not implement the transition plan or transfer employees to the successor merit system until the state department has approved the transition plan. The state shall not unreasonably withhold approval. Any transition plan for transferring county employees from the state merit system to a successor merit system shall include protections for employees that allow them to retain any accrued annual or sick leave benefits and that compensate such employees at the same or higher rate of salary. The state department shall provide assistance to counties regarding the transition of county employees from the state merit system to a successor merit system. Nothing in this section shall preclude a county from reorganizing employee staff functions or abolishing positions to achieve greater efficiencies in operations.

(1.5) Any moneys saved as a result of eliminating the state merit system shall be available to counties to implement the transition from the state merit system to a successor merit system.

(2) to (7) Repealed.

(8) The merit system provided by the counties shall meet the following federal criteria:

(a) The recruitment, selection, and advancement of employees shall be on the basis of relative abilities, knowledge, and skills, including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment.

(b) The system shall provide equitable and adequate compensation.

(c) The employees shall be trained as needed to assure high quality of performance.

(d) The system shall provide for retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected.

(e) The system shall assure fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, age, or disability and with proper regard for the privacy and constitutional rights of such persons as citizens. This fair treatment principle shall include compliance with all federal equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws.

(f) The system shall assure that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an election or a nomination for office.

(8.5) The merit system provided by the counties must assure fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(9) With respect to the merit system provided by the counties, the state board of human services shall promulgate rules on the following:

(a) Minimum standards for qualifications of certain positions that are determined by the state board to necessitate uniform standards;

(b) Establishment of maximum state reimbursement levels for the salaries of county department employees and county directors.

(10) Repealed.

(11) The county director of a county department shall be exempt from the merit system established and maintained by the state department pursuant to this section as it existed prior to July 1, 1997. Each county shall determine whether to exempt its county director from the successor merit system designed pursuant to this section. Until the county provides for a successor merit system as provided in this section, the state department shall reimburse only eighty percent of the salary established in the compensation plan pursuant to rules of the state department or eighty percent of the actual salary, whichever is less. After the county provides for a successor merit system as provided in this section, the state department shall reimburse only eighty percent of the actual salary; except that such reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum state reimbursement level established by the state board pursuant to subsection (9) of this section.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1171, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 119-1-19. L. 75: (5)(d) amended, p. 895, § 1, effective June 29. L. 76: (6) added, p. 587, § 26, effective May 24. L. 79: (7) added, p. 1122, § 5, effective June 21. L. 81: (5)(d) amended, p. 1369, § 2, effective June 9; (6) repealed, p. 1370, § 3, effective June 9. L. 83: (7) amended, p. 964, § 15, effective July 1, 1984. L. 86: (5)(d) and (5)(g) amended, p. 985, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (5)(g) amended, p. 973, § 88, effective March 13. L. 91: (1), (5)(a) to (5)(d), (5)(g), and (5)(h) amended and (5)(p) added, p. 1785, § 1, effective April 11. L. 92: (7) amended, p. 1043, § 10, effective March 12. L. 97: Entire section amended, p. 1184, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2008: (8.5) added, p. 1603, § 31, effective May 29. L. 2009: (10) repealed, (SB 09-044), ch. 57, p. 204, § 2, effective March 25. L. 2021: (8.5) amended, (HB 21-1108), ch. 156, p. 897, § 42, effective September 7.

Editor's note: Subsections (2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b), (5)(b), and (7)(b) provided for the repeal of subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (7), respectively, effective January 1, 2001. (See L. 97, p. 1184.)

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act enacting subsection (8.5), see section 1 of chapter 341, Session Laws of Colorado 2008. For the legislative declaration in HB 21-1108, see section 1 of chapter 156, Session Laws of Colorado 2021.

ANNOTATION

Valid exercise of state power. Even though employees of the county departments of social services are not employees in the state personnel system as provided by § 13 of art. XII, Colo. Const., the state department of social services has the constitutional jurisdiction to provide for the selection, retention, and promotion of all such employees on a basis of merit and fitness. In re Employees in County Welfare Depts., 106 Colo. 475, 106 P.2d 464 (1940).

Notice failing to state specific reasons for termination. Where the termination notice given to employee stated a conclusion that his performance was substandard but did not indicate what action or lack of action by the employee led to this conclusion, the notice failed to state specific reasons for termination as required by rules and regulations. Hopwood v. Boulder County Dept. of Soc. Servs, 44 Colo. App. 181, 613 P.2d 346 (1980).

County departments and merit system council are divisions of state department. County departments of social services, and the merit system council, are functional divisions of the state department of social services for the convenient administration of the state program and are not independent entities separate and distinct from the state. Nadeau v. Merit Sys. Council, 36 Colo. App. 362, 545 P.2d 1061 (1975).

County department lacks standing for review of state board action. A county department of social services has no standing to seek judicial review of action by the state board of social services by the merit system council. Nadeau v. Merit Sys. Council, 36 Colo. App. 362, 545 P.2d 1061 (1975).