BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                           911 (Kehoe)
          
          Hearing Date:  4/26/2010        Amended: 4/12/2010
          Consultant:  Bob Franzoia       Policy Vote: None
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY:  SB 911, an urgency measure, would appropriate  
          $840,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice to  
          pay settlements in Huntsman v. California Department of Forestry  
          ($623,000) and California School Board Association v. State of  
          California ($217,000).  Any funds appropriated in excess of the  
          amount required for the payment of these claims shall revert to  
          the General Fund.
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2010-11      2011-12      2012-13     Fund
           Appropriation          $840                             General

          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to the committee's rules, the Suspense  
          File rule does not apply to the provisions of this bill as  
          judgments and settlements are considered valid obligations of  
          the state.  Additionally, judgments and settlements may have  
          time sensitivity.
          
           Huntsman v. California Department of Forestry and Fire  
          Protection  
          Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 08 CE CG 02671 
           
          This case involved discrimination claims against the California  
          Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), including  
          disability discrimination, age discrimination, failure to  
          provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation.  The case was  
          settled following mediation on August 5, 2009.  Under the  
          settlement, CDFFP agreed to pay the plaintiff $585,000.  In  
          exchange, the plaintiff has released all claims against the  
          CDFFP.  Following an evaluation at the mediation of the evidence  
          that would be produced at trial, CDFFP and the Department of  
          Justice concluded that the settlement reflects a reasonable  










          compromise that serves the public interest.
           
           California School Boards Association v. State of California  
          Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 06CS01335

          The California Constitution, Article XIII B, Section 6, requires  
          that the state reimburse local governmental agencies for the  
          costs of complying with mandates established through legislation  
          or executive order.  (Mandates arising from federal law, or  
          established via a voter approved initiative, are not  
          reimbursable.)  Over the years, the Commission on State Mandates  
          has handed down many decisions drawing the line between  
          reimbursable and non-reimbursable mandates.  Over time, a  
          question emerged regarding whether legislation merely "related  
          to" a ballot proposition is also exempt from state  
          reimbursement.
           
          Page 2
          SB 911 (Kehoe)

          On July 19, 2005, Assembly Bill 138 (Budget Committee), Chapter  
          72/2005, made a number of changes to California mandate law,  
          including an amendment to Government Code Section 17556 (f) to  
          apply expressly the reimbursement exception to legislation  
          "related to" ballot measures.  In light of these amendments, the  
          Legislature directed the Commission to reconsider the School  
          Accountability Report Card and Mandate Reimbursement test  
          claims, and to set aside the Open Meetings Act and Brown Act  
          Reform test claims.  In response, the Commission reconsidered  
          claims it had previously found to have required reimbursement  
          under Article XIII B, Section 6 and, interpreting AB 138, found  
          these claims were no longer reimbursable mandates under Article  
          XIII B, Section 6.
           
          In this case the California School Boards Association  
          successfully challenged the constitutionality of AB 138 and the  
          authority of the Legislature to order the reconsideration of  
          prior mandate decisions.  The Court of Appeal found that the  
          Legislature's actions violated separation of powers principles.   
          The Court also held that expanding the scope of the statewide  
          ballot reimbursement exception to laws merely "related to" the  
          ballot measures was over-broad, and invalid.  The parties  
          entered into a stipulated order for an award of attorney's fees  
          in the amount of $200,000, and costs in the amount of $2,423.28.  
            The appropriate of $217,000 includes an estimate of  
          anticipated interest.  As noted above, any funds appropriated in  










          excess of the amount required for payment of the settlement and  
          any interest (estimated daily accrual rate of $38.82 times 12  
          months) due at the time of payment will revert to the General  
          Fund on June 30, 2011.