BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 451
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Warren T. Furutani, Chair
AB 451 (Hall) - As Introduced: February 15, 2011
SUBJECT : Schools: district employees.
SUMMARY : Requires both school and community college district
personnel commissions to determine compensation for, evaluate,
and supervise the commission's personnel director, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the personnel commission at merit system school
districts and community college districts to determine the
compensation for, evaluate, and supervise the personnel
director.
2)Requires the district administration and the exclusive
representatives of classified employees of the district to
participate in the annual performance evaluation of the
personnel director by completing an evaluation or comment form
distributed by the commission.
3)Requires the personnel commission to review any submitted
evaluations and comment forms and consider them as part of the
overall evaluation process.
4)Specifies that the personnel commission is responsible for
completing the final evaluation.
5)Authorizes the personnel commission to impose discipline,
including dismissal, but prohibits disciplinary action
inconsistent with any bargaining agreement in effect as of
January 1, 2011, and under which the personnel director works.
6)Establishes the following rights for the personnel director:
a) As a member of the classified service, the director must
have all the rights, benefits, and burdens of a classified
employee.
b) Requires the personnel director be given the option of
requesting a hearing by an impartial hearing officer in
AB 451
Page 2
response to any disciplinary action imposed.
7)Requires integration of these procedures into the regular
personnel commission activity and within the amount otherwise
budgeted for the personnel commission of the district.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the classified employees of a school
district with at least 3,000 average daily attendance and
classified employees of a community college district with at
least 3,000 full-time equivalent students, with a petition
signed by 15% of the classified employees, to call for an
election to become a merit system district.
Current law also requires any district that adopts the merit
system to appoint a personnel commission, to be comprised of one
member appointed by the school district, one nominated by the
classified employees, and the third appointed by the initial two
members. The personnel commission is required to appoint a
personnel director from an eligibility list based on an exam
given by the commission. The personnel director is responsible
to the commission for overseeing all procedures in the
administration of the classified personnel under a merit system,
and to prepare an annual report for submission to the personnel
commission.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Under current law school
districts and community college districts that operate under the
merit system have personnel commissions. The personnel
commissions' purpose is to evaluate the performance to
classified employees and make personal decisions based on the
personal director's evaluations of individual employees. The
personnel commission hires a personal director to oversee all
procedures in the administration of the classified personnel
under the merit system and prepare annual reports to the
personnel commission.
"The problem is under the current system no one is evaluating
the personal director. This seems inheritably unfair given the
purpose of the merit system is to ensure employees are advancing
based on the merit or performance. To resolve this discrepancy
AB 451 requires the personnel commission conduct an annual
performance evaluation of personnel director with input from the
representatives of the classified employees. Additionally, it
AB 451
Page 3
gives the personnel commission the authority to impose
discipline upon the personnel direct if there is cause and
provides the personnel direct the same rights as all classified
employees are provided."
Opponents are concerned that this bill would add another layer
of oversight and rules at a time of limited funding.
Previous legislation that was similar to this bill includes: AB
2584 of last year which passed out of this Committee but was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee; AB 379
(Torlakson) of 2009 which passed out of this Committee but was
not heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee at the
request of the author; SB 1676 (Negrete McLeod) of 2008, which
was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee; and, SB 453
(Negrete McLeod) of 2007, which was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Additionally, AB 2633 (Negrete McLeod), which was vetoed by the
Governor in 2006, was also similar to this bill. In his veto
message, the Governor stated, in part, "I am concerned that this
bill, by establishing new requirements regarding the
compensation, evaluation, and supervision of personnel
directors, would result in significant reimbursable state
mandated costs. Further, these provisions do not need to be
codified since nothing in current law prevents a school district
or community college district personnel commission from
performing the specified activities."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Federation of Teachers (Sponsor)
California School Employees Association
AB 451
Page 4
California School Personnel Commissioners' Association
Los Angeles Unified School District Personnel Commission
Opposition
Community College League of California
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957