The opinion of the court was delivered by

FASCIALE, J.A.D.

In these six appeals, which we have consolidated for the purpose of rendering this opinion, the State Senate, Stephen M. Sweeney, President of the New Jersey Senate, the General Assembly, and Vincent Prieto, Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly (collectively the Legislature), Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA), and the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 195 (IFPTE), challenge several final administrative agency decisions (the decisions) rendered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pertaining to a Job Banding Rule (the Rule), N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.2A. The CSC adopted and implemented the Rule after the Legislature invoked its veto power, pursuant to N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6 (the Legislative Review Clause), finding in numerous concurrent resolutions that the Rule conflicted with the Civil Service Act (CSA), N.J.S.A. 11A:1-1 to 12-6, which incorporated the text of N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Legislature validly exercised its authority under the Legislative Review Clause and correctly invalidated the Rule. We therefore reverse the decisions and vacate the implementation of that Rule, including any subsequent amendments.

I.

We begin with a brief history of the Legislative Review Clause and related governing legal principles. Doing so will inform our holding on our standard of review and our conclusion that the Legislature enjoys a limited constitutional power to determine whether any administrative rule or regulation is "consistent with the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement." N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6.

In 1981, the Legislature overrode Governor Brendan T. Byrne's veto and passed the Legislative Oversight Act, L. 1981, c. 27, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-4.1 to -4.9. In general, the Legislative Oversight Act permitted legislative veto of administrative regulations by concurrent resolution of both houses. In General Assembly v. Byrne, 90 N.J. 376, 378-79, 448 A.2d 438 (1982), the Court applied the then existing New Jersey Constitution, invalidated the Legislative Oversight Act, and stated:

The Court found that

The separation of powers doctrine tempers the use of governmental power. In New Jersey, the Framers created a government with three distinct branches, each a separate source of power that could check the potential abuses of the other branches. N.J. Const. art. III, ¶ 1 reads:

The Framers established a government of separated and balanced powers primarily because they feared "that in a representative democracy the Legislature would be capable of using its plenary lawmaking power to swallow up the other departments of the Government." Gen. Assembly, supra, 90 N.J. at 383, 448 A.2d 438 (quoting Consumer Energy Council of Am. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm'n, 673 F.2d 425, 464 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). It has been the well-recognized constitutional role of the judiciary to prevent one branch of government from exercising illegitimate power over the other. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).

The Presentment Clause, N.J. Const. art. V, § 1, ¶ 14, like that in the Federal Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, states in relevant part:

The Presentment Clause therefore "prevents the exercise of lawmaking power without the concurrence of both houses of the Legislature and approval by the Executive, unless the Legislature can muster a two-thirds majority vote of both houses to override the executive veto." Gen. Assembly, supra, 90 N.J. at 384, 448 A.2d 438.

In response to the Court's decision in General Assembly, the Legislature immediately introduced concurrent resolution SCR-133 proposing an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution giving the Legislature the power to "invalidate any rule or regulation, in whole or part," and to "prohibit any proposed rule or regulation, in whole or part, by a majority of the authorized membership of each House." The Attorney General appealed the decision of the Secretary of State to place the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, arguing the interpretive statement was confusing and that the language of SCR-133 was ambiguous. See Kimmelman v. Burgio, 204 N.J.Super. 44, 47, 497 A.2d 890 (App. Div. 1985).

In Kimmelman, we concluded the proposed amendment should be placed on the ballot, but agreed the interpretive statement was misleading. Id. at 53-54, 497 A.2d 890. We suggested the interpretive statement be replaced with the following language:

In 1985, this interpretive statement appeared on the ballot, but the voters rejected the sweeping proposed constitutional amendment.

Instead, seven years later, the voters approved amending the New Jersey Constitution with the text of the Legislative Review Clause, giving the Legislature limited power to invalidate an administrative rule or regulation, which states:

The Legislative Review Clause specifically addressed the Court's decision in General Assembly, supra, 90 N.J. at 379, 448 A.2d 438.

Pursuant to the unambiguous plain language of the Legislative Review Clause, the Legislature may review the rule or regulation to determine if it conforms to legislative intent, reflected in "language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement." N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6. In other words, the text of the Legislative Review Clause permits the Legislature to analyze two things: the State agency administrative rule or regulation and the language of the statute.

II.

In May 2012, the CSC established a pilot program for job banding in the CSC and the Department of the Treasury. Job banding means grouping certain job titles into one "band" and allowing advancement of employees from lower to higher titles in the same band without competitive promotional examination. The program included job banding the Human Resource Consultant, Personnel and Labor Analyst, State Budget Specialist, and Test Development Specialist title series.

In February 2013, the CSC filed a proposal (the proposal) to amend its regulations and implement the Rule. The proposal appeared in the March 2013 Register, 45 N.J.R. 500(a). The Proposed Rule (Proposed Rule) implemented job banding, redefining "promotion" to mean "movement to a title with a higher class code not in the employee's current job band."

According to the Proposed Rule, a "promotion" from a lower title to a higher title within a job band would be redefined as an "advancement appointment." Adopting the Proposed Rule would allow job bands and advancement of employees in the competitive service from lower to higher titles without the long-standing requirement for competitive promotional examination. The CSC acknowledged this change by stating in its social impact statement accompanying the proposal that

The practical effect of adopting the Proposed Rule would give appointing authorities greater discretion in selecting candidates for promotion to higher titles than would otherwise exist in a competitive examination system.

Between June 2013 and November 2014, the Legislature passed four sets of concurrent resolutions1 finding that the Rule, in all its amended forms, contravened the CSA, which incorporated the plain text of N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2. In June 2013, Assembly resolution ACR-199 and Senate resolution SCR-158 were introduced in the Legislature, pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause. The resolutions stated that the Legislature found the Proposed Rule was inconsistent with the legislative intent as reflected in the statutes governing appointments and promotions in the classified service. The Legislature passed ACR-1992 after considering the Proposed Rule in light of the plain text of the CSA. The Legislature also noted the public policy, statutes, and constitutional provisions applicable to public employees' appointments and promotions in the competitive division of the classified service.

In these concurrent resolutions, the Legislature resolved that

The Legislature transmitted the concurrent resolutions to the CSC on December 4, 2013, and notified the CSC that it would have thirty days to "amend or withdraw" the Proposed Rule, or if there was no action, the Legislature may, by the passage of another concurrent resolution, invalidate the Proposed Rule "in whole or in part."

On December 23, 2013, the CSC adopted amendments (the first amendments) to the Proposed Rule (the First Amended Proposed Rule). The first amendments, however, permitted the CSC to place titles in job bands and advance employees from lower to higher titles in a job band upon attaining certain "competencies." They also stated that veterans would receive the same preference in advancements within the band as they did in promotional settings in place at the time, limited the scope of job banding to State service, excluded law enforcement and public safety jobs from job banding, and stated that employees would retain the right to complain about discrimination in the advancement process.

These amendments did not change the provisions of the rule that allowed job banding of titles and promotions within those titles without competitive examinations. The first amendments therefore did not withdraw or substantively amend the Proposed Rule to cure its inconsistency with the statutory provisions of the CSA which require promotional competitive testing for appointments and promotions in the State's competitive service.

In January 2014, the Legislature passed concurrent resolution ACR-215,3 which invalidated the First Amended Proposed Rule. Nevertheless, on May 7, 2014, the CSC disregarded the Legislature's veto and adopted the First Amended Proposed Rule with an effective date of June 2, 2014. The CWA appealed from the CSC's decision to adopt the First Amended Proposed Rule shortly thereafter.

In May 2014, another set of concurrent resolutions was introduced in the Legislature pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause. The Senate introduced SCR-116 and the Assembly introduced ACR-155. On June 12, 2014 and June 16, 2014, the Senate and the Assembly passed these concurrent resolutions, which mirrored ACR-199 and SCR-158, stating that the First Amended Rule remained inconsistent with legislative intent and added "[a]ny amended rule that contains a job banding provision or elimination of competitive promotional examinations shall be deemed by the Legislature as violating Article VII, [§ 1, ¶] 2 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the [CSA.]" The Legislature transmitted SCR-116 and ACR-155 to the CSC on June 17, 2014.

On July 16, 2014, the CSC proposed a second set of amendments (the Second Amended Proposed Rule). The Second Amended Proposed Rule stated that the "appointing authority would be required to obtain approval of the advancement appointment selection process from the Chairperson of the [CSC] or designee" before proceeding with its advancement appointment selection process. Furthermore, the Second Amended Proposed Rule stated that the appointing authority would have to rank candidates after determining which employees may receive an advancement appointment. The Second Amended Proposed Rule also retained for civil titles in State service the same components of the Proposed Rule, specifically, job banding and the lack of competitive promotional examinations, to which the Legislature fundamentally and repeatedly found to be inconsistent with the intent of the plain language of the statutes governing promotions in the competitive service.

Once again, concurrent resolutions were introduced in the Legislature: ACR-192 was introduced in the Assembly on September 29, 2014, and SCR-147 was introduced in the Senate on October 9, 2014. On October 22, 2014, the CSC adopted its Second Amended Proposed Rule. On November 13, 2014, the Assembly passed ACR-192, and on December 18, 2014, the Senate passed ACR-192, which the Senate had substituted for SCR-147. ACR-192 invalidated the Second Amended Proposed Rule stating it remained inconsistent with legislative intent of the CSA and the civil service provision of the New Jersey Constitution.

In February 2015, the CWA wrote to the CSC asking whether the CSC planned to proceed with the Second Amended Proposed Rule, given the Legislature's numerous concurrent resolutions. On February 9, 2015, the CSC rendered its decision asserting that the Second Amended Proposed Rule was not invalidated by the Legislature. The CWA appealed from this decision.

In June 2015, the Office of Information Technology (OIT) submitted a proposal to the CSC to implement job banding for Software Development Specialist 1 and 2 and Network Administrator 1 and 2. In July 2015, the CWA requested that the CSC withhold a decision on whether to implement OIT's proposal to band job titles. On July 31, 2015, the CSC issued its decision approving OIT's job banding proposal. The Legislature and the CWA appealed from this decision.

In July 2015, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) submitted a proposal to the CSC to discontinue certain titles and consolidate others. The NJDOT proposed to assign seven job titles to the new Highway Operation Technician (HOT) Title Series and job band them pursuant to the Rule. This new title series included HOT Trainee, HOT 1, HOT 2, and HOT 3. On August 21, 2015, the CSC issued its decision approving the NJDOT's proposal. The Legislature and the IFPTE appealed from this decision.

III.

On appeal, the Legislature, the CWA, and the IFPTE argue the Legislature possessed the constitutional power to veto the Rule; the Legislature followed the procedural process expressed in the Legislative Review Clause for invalidating the Rule; the Legislature's findings and conclusions contained in its concurrent resolutions are entitled to substantial deference; and the CSC's decision to ignore the Legislature's invalidation of the Rule amounted to a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

We begin by addressing our standard of review applicable to the Legislature's findings and conclusions contained in its concurrent resolutions.

The Legislature argues our role is primarily limited to determining whether it followed procedural safeguards contained in the Legislative Review Clause. Relying on the Legislative Review Clause, the Legislature maintains "[t]here is [generally] no role for judicial review of the Legislature's findings that a regulation is contrary to legislative intent." The Legislature asserts we may reverse its concurrent resolutions only if its findings and conclusions are repugnant to the New Jersey Constitution. The Legislature contends that a presumption of validity applies to its concurrent resolutions, and that we should afford the Legislature substantial deference and not second-guess its findings.

CWA, like the Legislature, asserts we should afford deference to the findings and conclusions contained in the Legislature's concurrent resolutions invalidating the Rule. CWA points out that here, unlike in a typical third-party challenge to a final agency decision, we are primarily reviewing whether the Legislature correctly exercised its veto power. CWA therefore emphasizes that the well-settled standards of review in typical agency appeals are inapplicable. The IFPTE also argues that if the Legislature properly exercises its constitutional veto power, an executive agency is "bound to adhere to the legislative will and not implement the invalidated regulation."

The CSC submits our role is not as limited as appellants advocate. The CSC emphasizes that we should conduct an exacting and thorough judicial review of the Legislature's findings and conclusions. It stresses that such a review is fundamental to our system of governmental checks and balances. The CSC urges judicial review of the Legislature's invalidation of the Rule to avoid violations of the law in general, and particularly to ensure compliance with the separation of powers and presentment clauses of the New Jersey Constitution. The CSC argues that such an exhaustive judicial review is not precluded or limited in any way by the plain text of the Legislative Review Clause.

We agree that our general standard of review in appeals from final agency decisions is inapplicable. In a typical appeal from a final agency decision, which this is not, our capacity to review administrative actions "is severely limited," Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 143 N.J. 22, 25, 667 A.2d 1052 (1995), and we are not free to substitute our judgment for the "`wisdom of a particular administrative action'" as long as the action is statutorily authorized and not arbitrary or unreasonable. Gloucester Cty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 391, 461 A.2d 575 (1983) (quoting N.J. Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long, 75 N.J. 544, 562, 384 A.2d 795 (1978)). Although such a standard has been well-recognized for years, the distinguishing factor obviating use of an administrative agency standard of review here is the substantial involvement of the Legislature pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause. We are not merely determining, as we would if this were a typical appeal from an agency decision, whether the CSC decisions were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or whether they were otherwise unsupported by credible evidence in the record.

The plain text of the Legislative Review Clause does not, however, limit our traditional role of interpreting the law. And it does not preclude the judicial branch from exercising its role to enforce the checks and balances embodied in the State Constitution. The Legislative Review Clause does not negate the well-recognized role of the judiciary to safeguard the protections afforded in the constitution and to prevent any of the branches from potentially exercising illegitimate power over the other. As a result, we are not bound by the Legislature's interpretation of a statute. Such questions of law have always been within the province of the judicial branch.

We nevertheless conclude that the Legislature is entitled to substantial deference when it exercises its constitutional power to invalidate an administrative rule or regulation pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause. We do so because the legislative process for invalidating an administrative rule or regulation, established pursuant to the Legislative Review Clause, is procedurally rigorous, substantively precise, and most importantly, the Legislature possesses general expertise in the field of lawmaking.

We retain our authority, however, to review the Legislature's findings and conclusions to ensure the Legislature has validly exercised its veto power under the Legislative Review Clause, by invalidating the rule or regulation, rather than passing new legislation, subject to the presentment clause. We therefore hold that we may reverse the Legislature's invalidation of an administrative executive rule or regulation if (1) the Legislature has not complied with the procedural requirements of the Legislative Review Clause; (2) its action violates the protections afforded by the Federal or New Jersey Constitution; or (3) the Legislature's concurrent resolution amounts to a patently erroneous interpretation of "the language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement."

At least one other jurisdiction with even stronger language than that which appears in the Legislative Review Clause has likewise persuasively held that the judiciary is not precluded from reviewing the Legislature's veto power. For example, the Iowa constitution includes a broad provision allowing for nullification of administrative rules, which states that "[t]he general assembly may nullify an adopted administrative rule of a state agency by the passage of a resolution by a majority of all of the members of each house of the general assembly." Iowa Const. art. III, § 40. The Iowa Supreme Court found that this provision did not preclude judicial review to determine if its legislative branch violated the law by invalidating an administrative rule or regulation. Iowa Fed'n of Labor v. Iowa Dep't of Job Service, 427 N.W.2d 443, 447 (1988) (stating "[g]iven th[e] importance of the judiciary's oversight of agency rules, we doubt that article III, section 40 was intended to eliminate one of the three important checks over an agency's power to legislate").

IV.

When reviewing a Legislative determination that an administrative rule or regulation contravenes the "language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement," we first analyze whether the Legislature complied with procedural requirements outlined in the Legislative Review Clause. N.J. Const. art. V, § 4, ¶ 6. Thereafter we afford the Legislature's conclusions and findings substantial deference, keeping in mind that the judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of questions of law.

(i)

Here, the Legislature complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Legislative Review Clause on two occasions. First, the Legislature passed ACR-199 after the CSC proposed the Rule. In mid-December 2013, the CSC proposed a First Amended Proposed Rule, and in January 2014, the Legislature passed concurrent resolution ACR-215 to invalidate it. Although the CSC purportedly amended the Proposed Rule, the amendments did not alter the Rule's omission of competitive examinations in job banding.

Second, the Legislature passed SCR-116, which mirrored ACR-199, in June 2014. The Legislature stated that the job banding regulations were still inconsistent with legislative intent and "[a]ny amended rule that contains a job banding provision or elimination of competitive promotional examinations shall be deemed by the Legislature as violating Article VII, [§ 1, ¶] 2 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey and the Civil Service Act[.]" After the CSC introduced a purported Second Amended Proposed Rule in July 2014, which still eliminated competitive promotional examinations for job banding, the Legislature passed ACR-192.

We reject the CSC's contention that its amendments to the Proposed Rule required the Legislature to begin the veto procedural process anew. The Legislature correctly invalidated the Proposed Rule, and the amendments consistently ignored the Legislature's steadfast substantive objection to job banding without competitive promotional examinations.

(ii)

The Legislature determined that the Rule conflicts with the long-standing law in New Jersey requiring that appointment and promotions for the civil service in the competitive division shall be accomplished to ensure equal employment opportunity and shall be made according to merit and fitness, which is ascertained, as far as practicable, by competitive examination. That determination by the Legislature does not amount to a patently erroneous interpretation of the language of the CSA. Applying substantial deference to the Legislature, we discern no reason to disagree with the Legislature's determination.

In 1986, the Legislature found and declared the public policy regarding state employees. In N.J.S.A. 11A:1-2, the Legislature explicitly stated:

The Legislature recognized that the Constitution of the State of New Jersey specifically addressed appointments and promotions of public employees. N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2 states:

Consequently, in 1993, the Legislature made further findings and declarations as to civil service, classification, and compensation of public employees. In N.J.S.A. 11A:3-2.1, the Legislature stated:

On the subject of competitive examinations, N.J.S.A. 11A:4-1 states that the CSC shall provide for:

Furthermore, the CSC must meet certain certification and appointment obligations expressed in N.J.S.A. 11A:4-8, which provides that

Thus, the appointment and promotions of the civil service of New Jersey must be made based on merit and fitness except if impracticable. Recognizing that not all types of employment are readily discerned through a competitive examination process, the Legislature declared in N.J.S.A. 11A:3-2, that career service "shall have two divisions, the competitive division and the noncompetitive division." It is therefore well-established, and consistent with N.J. Const. art. VII, § 1, ¶ 2, that appointments and promotions of public employees in the civil service "shall be . . . ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination[.]"

It is undisputed that competitive examinations have been used for years to test the merit and fitness of persons in the State's competitive service. This practice indicates that it is practicable to use such examinations for promotions in the competitive service, and if not, the CSC has the authority to move the title to the non-competitive service.

We therefore conclude that the Legislature validly exercised its authority under the Legislative Review Clause and invalidated the Rule. The Legislature's findings and conclusions, contained in its numerous concurrent resolutions, comply with the procedural requirements of the Legislative Review Clause, and do not violate constitutional protections, or do not amount to a patently erroneous interpretation of "the language of the statute which the rule or regulation is intended to implement." The Legislature reasonably found that job banding without competitive promotional examinations was inconsistent with the legislative intent reflected in the plain language of the relevant provisions of the CSA.

We therefore reverse the decisions and vacate the implementation of the Rule, including the subsequent amendments.