BILL NUMBER: SB 1718 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 23, 2008
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 8, 2008
INTRODUCED BY Senator Perata
FEBRUARY 22, 2008
An act to add Section 19827.4 to the Government Code, relating to
public employment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1718, as amended, Perata. Public employment: State Bargaining
Unit 2: compensation.
The Ralph C. Dills Act permits state employees to form, join, and
participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own
choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of
employer-employee relations, as specified. Existing law permits an
employee organization to become the exclusive representative of an
appropriate unit for purposes of meeting and negotiating, as
specified. Existing law requires the Governor, or his or her
representative, as properly designated by law, to meet and confer in
good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations,
and to consider fully any presentation that is made by an employee
organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a
determination of policy or course of action.
This bill would require that salaries of legal professionals in
State Bargaining Unit 2, California Attorneys, Administrative Law
Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment, be determined by a
specified calculation that would be based on the salaries of other
public sector legal professionals. The bill would also require the
state and the exclusive representative to jointly survey and
calculate the salaries for the specified legal professionals no later
than March 15 of each year. The bill would require any increase in
salary resulting from these provisions to be implemented through a
memorandum of understanding. However, the failure of the parties to
reach agreement for a memorandum of understanding would not relieve
the state of the duty to compensate those legal professionals in
accordance with the specified formula. The bill would permit the
salary of those legal professionals to deviate from the amount
derived from the survey results by mutual agreement between the
exclusive representative and the state pursuant to the collective
bargaining process. The bill would also provide that if these
provisions are in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of
understanding reached, as specified, the memorandum of understanding
is controlling without further legislative action, except that if the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure
of funds, the provisions would not become effective unless approved
by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. The
Existing law requires the Department of Personnel Administration
to establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in
the state civil service, subject to specified merit limits. Existing
law requires the salary range to be based on the principle that like
salaries shall be paid for comparable duties and responsibilities. In
establishing or changing these ranges, existing law requires
consideration to be given to the prevailing rates for comparable
service in other public employment and in private business. Existing
law also requires the department, at least 6 months before the end of
the term of an existing memorandum of understanding or immediately
upon the reopening of negotiations under an existing memorandum of
understanding, to submit to the parties meeting and conferring and to
the Legislature, a report containing the department's findings
relating to the salaries of employees in comparable occupations in
private industry and other governmental agencies.
This bill would require the Department of Personnel
Administration to annually conduct a survey that would obtain
specified information regarding the compensation of certain legal
professionals, including attorneys employed by specified public
entities and judges. The bill would require the department to issue
an annual report that would include the data obtained from the
surveys as well as specified analyses. The bill would also
require the report to be provided to the Legislature, the Governor,
and the exclusive representative of State Bargaining Unit 2, no later
than March 15 of each year. The bill would specify that this report
would satisfy the department's reporting
requirement to the parties meeting and conferring and to the
Legislature. The bill would specify that the department would absorb
the cost of preparing the surveys required by these provisions from
existing appropriations. The bill would make related
legislative findings and declarations regarding State Bargaining Unit
2.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 19827.4 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
19827.4. (a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(1) The state's attorneys, administrative law judges, hearing
officers, and commissioners litigate in, and preside over, a vast
array of criminal and civil cases and issues with substantial public
safety, economic, social, and cultural impact on the people of
California. The state's ability to ensure public safety, protect its
fiscal resources, and defend its laws requires that it attract and
retain highly-skilled and competent legal professionals.
(2) State law, the Ralph C. Dills Act, mandates collective
bargaining for state public employees in order to secure fair and
reasonable compensation and benefits. The state has divided its
employees into 21 bargaining units, combining all of its legal
professionals-attorneys professionals
(attorneys , administrative law judges, hearing officers, and
commissioners-into commissioners) into
Bargaining Unit 2.
(3) The California Supreme Court has found that for collective
bargaining to achieve fair and reasonable compensation and benefits,
state employees must be able to use all of the traditional tools
available to labor, including the ability to present a credible
threat of a strike or job action.
(4) The state's legal professionals are officers of the court and
have a unique legal and ethical duty to ensure the fair
administration of justice and to put the state's interests ahead of
their own.
(5) Existing law and the California Rules of Professional Conduct
prohibit an attorney from delaying a client's case or cause or
intentionally harming a client's case or cause in a dispute over
compensation.
(6) Unlike other state employees subject to collective bargaining
under the Ralph C. Dills Act, these legal and ethical obligations
prevent legal professionals employed by the state from striking for
better pay or otherwise engaging in any meaningful collective
bargaining.
(7) As a result of the failure of the state's collective
bargaining system with respect to the state's legal professionals,
the salaries paid to the state's professional legal staff are as much
as 50 percent less than those paid by local public agencies for the
same skills and are far below the salaries paid by private law firms
with whom the state competes for legal talent. Grossly underpaying
the state's legal professionals places the state, its treasury, its
citizens, and its taxpayers at an extreme disadvantage, and inhibits
the ability of the state to effectively protect public safety, defend
public resources, and ensure the fair administration of justice.
(8) For these reasons, it is necessary to revise the state's
collective bargaining system to put in place a system that will
ensure that, at a minimum, California's legal professionals are
compensated in a manner comparable to that of skilled legal
professionals for whom other California public sector employers
compete in the labor market.
(b) To effectuate the intent of subdivision (a), the salaries for
attorneys in Bargaining Unit 2 shall be the average of the salaries
of attorneys with the same level of experience employed by the
following 20 public agencies in California:
(1) The office of the district attorney in the eight most populous
counties.
(2) The office of the city attorney in the eight most populous
cities.
(3) The following statewide public agency employers of attorneys:
(A) The Habeas Corpus Resource Center.
(B) The California State University.
(C) The University of California.
(D) The Administrative Office of the Courts.
(c) To effectuate the intent of subdivision (a), the salaries for
administrative law judges, hearing officers, and commissioners in
Bargaining Unit 2 shall be the average of the salaries of judges with
the same level of experience employed as federal administrative law
judges in California and as State Bar Court judges.
(d) The state and the exclusive representative shall jointly
survey and calculate the salaries for the above entities and
classifications no later than March 15 of each year.
(e) Any increase in salary resulting from this section shall be
implemented through a memorandum of understanding negotiated pursuant
to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section
3512) of Division 4 of Title 1). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
failure of the parties to reach agreement for a memorandum of
understanding pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act shall not relieve
the state of the duty to compensate members of Bargaining Unit 2 in
accordance with the formula set forth in this section.
(f) The salary for members of Bargaining Unit 2 may deviate from
the amount derived from the survey results by mutual agreement
between the exclusive representative and the state pursuant to the
collective bargaining process.
(g) If the provisions of this subdivision are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to
Section 3517.5, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling
without further legislative action, except that if the provisions of
a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the
provisions shall not become effective unless approved by the
Legislature in the annual Budget Act.
(7) Ensuring that the state's legal professionals are compensated
at competitive rates compared to other relevant public sector
entities enables the state to effectively protect public safety,
defend public resources, and ensure the fair administration of
justice.
(8) For these reasons, it is critically important to conduct a
methodologically sound survey of the compensation of other comparable
public sector legal professionals, in order to provide the state
with an accurate assessment of the relevant labor market.
(b) To effectuate the intent of subdivision (a), with respect to
the state's attorneys, the Department of Personnel Administration
shall annually conduct a survey of the following public entities:
(1) The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office.
(2) The Sacramento City Attorney's Office.
(3) The San Francisco District Attorney's Office.
(4) The Alameda County District Attorney's Office.
(5) The Oakland City Attorney's Office.
(6) The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.
(7) The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office.
(8) The San Diego County District Attorney's Office.
(9) The San Diego City Attorney's Office.
(10) The Fresno District Attorney's Office.
(11) The Fresno City Attorney's Office.
(12) The Habeas Corpus Resource Center.
(c) To effectuate the intent of subdivision (a), with respect to
the state's administrative law judges, hearing officers, and
commissioners, the Department of Personnel Administration shall
annually conduct a survey of the compensation of federal
administrative law judges in California and judges on the California
State Bar Court.
(d) The surveys conducted pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c)
shall be considered to fulfill the reporting requirements of Section
19826 and shall gather, at a minimum, the following data:
(1) The entire pay scale, including all steps and ranges, for the
attorneys employed by the entities in subdivision (b) and the judges
described in subdivision (c), from entry level to the highest
nonmanagerial judge or attorney position.
(2) All duty statements, minimum qualifications, time-in-grade
requirements, and promotional standards for all positions described
in paragraph (1).
(3) All compensation in addition to the base salary paid by the
employer to the positions listed in paragraph (1), including, but not
limited to, contributions to pensions, 401k, 457, or other
retirement plans, health care insurance contributions, and any other
allowances, premiums, or differentials available to the positions
described in paragraph (1).
(4) Complete and accurate descriptions of all benefits available
to the positions described in paragraph (1), including, but not
limited to, retirement plans, health care plans, and vacation, leave,
and holiday plans.
(e) The Department of Personnel Administration shall issue an
annual report, including all of the data described in subdivision
(d), as well as the following analyses:
(1) The average salary paid to all attorneys or judges employed in
each surveyed entity, reported by the entity.
(2) The average of the salaries actually paid to incoming,
entry-level attorneys or judges employed by the surveyed entities,
reported by the entity.
(3) The average of the salaries paid to the highest paid
nonmanagerial attorneys or judges employed by all of the surveyed
entities.
(4) The number of attorneys or judges at each salary level within
each entity.
(5) The average years of postbar legal experience of attorneys or
judges at each salary level within each entity.
(f) The report described in subdivision (e) shall be provided to
the Legislature, the Governor, and the exclusive representative of
State Bargaining Unit 2, no later than March 15 of each year. The
report shall be accompanied by a declaration from the Director of the
Department of Personnel Administration certifying that the report is
true and accurate to the best of his or her knowledge.
(g) The Department of Personnel Administration shall absorb the
cost of preparing the surveys required by this section from existing
appropriations.