BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 451
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 451 (Hall) - As Introduced: February 15, 2011
Policy Committee: PERS Vote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
The personnel commission of merit system school districts and
community college districts to determine the personnel
director's compensation and evaluate and supervise the personnel
director. Specifically, this bill:
1)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.
2)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.
3)Establishes various rights for the personnel director,
including the right to an impartial hearing in response to any
disciplinary action imposed.
4)Requires integration of these procedures into the regular
personnel commission activity and within the amount otherwise
budgeted for the personnel commission of the district.
FISCAL EFFECT
The requirements that each commission determine the compensation
for its personnel director and supervise the personnel director
are reimbursable mandates, as are (potentially) the due process
provisions of the bill. Depending on how the bill's
requirements are interpreted and implemented by the districts,
AB 451
Page 2
the bill could result in significant state costs, potentially
exceeding $500,000 annually. These costs would be funded from
within Proposition 98.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . This bill, which is co-sponsored by the California
Federation of Teachers and the California School Personnel
Commissioners Association, is intended to subject personnel
directors to performance evaluations that have input from
classified employees. Supporters assert it is appropriate that
personnel directors be subject to the same reviews as other
classified employees.
2)Background . Current law authorizes the classified employees
(administrative assistants, teacher aides, custodians) of a
school district with at least 3,000 average daily attendance
or a community college district with at least 3,000 full-time
equivalent students to call for an election to become a merit
(civil service) system district. A district that adopts a
merit system is required to establish a three-member personnel
commission, which is required to appoint a personnel director.
The personnel director is responsible for overseeing the
administration of the classified personnel under the merit
system, and for preparing an annual report to the commission.
According to the California School Personnel Commissioners
Association, there are about 100-merit based school systems in
California, which encompass about 70% of the classified school
employees in the state.
No specific evaluation provisions exist in statute for
directors of personnel commissions. Some districts apparently
conduct evaluations of their personnel directors, while others
do not.
3)Previous legislation. Legislation that was similar to this
bill includes:
a. AB 2584(Torlakson), 2010, which was held in this
committee.
b. AB 379 (Torlakson), 2009, which was not heard in
this committee at the request of the author.
c. SB 1676 (Negrete McLeod ,2008, which was held in
AB 451
Page 3
this committee.
d. SB 453 (Negrete McLeod), 2007, which was held in
the Senate Appropriations Committee. +
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081