BILL ANALYSIS Ó ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1908| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1908 Author: Alejo (D), et al. Amended: As introduced Vote: 21 SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-1, 6/13/12 AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian NOES: Huff NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Vargas, Vacancy SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12 AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg NOES: Walters, Dutton ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-22, 4/26/12 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Classified employees: notice of layoff SOURCE : California School Employees Association DIGEST : This bill increases from 45 to 60 days the layoff notice requirement for classified employees working in California Community Colleges (CCCs) and public schools. ANALYSIS : Existing law requires classified employees working in public schools and CCCs to be provided written notice not less than 45 days prior to the effective date of a layoff. When positions must be eliminated at the end of the school year due to the expiration of a specially funded program, affected employees must be given written notice on CONTINUED AB 1908 Page 2 or before April 29 of the year in question. (If the termination date of the program is other than June 30, the notice must be given not less than 45 days before the effective date of the layoff.) This bill changes the layoff notification timeline for CCC, COE, and school district classified employees, requiring a minimum of 60 days' notice rather than the 45 days required under existing law. Related Legislation AB 290 (Firebaugh), Chapter 880, Statutes of 2003, required school districts and CCCs to provide classified employees with notice of layoffs 45 days in advance. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potentially substantial reimbursable mandate on CCCs, school districts, and county offices of education for administrative costs to implement the bill, as well as wages, and benefits to continue employment for a longer period of time. SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/12) California School Employees Association (source) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California Federation of Teachers California Labor Federation California Professional Firefighters California School Employees Association Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 777 Los Angeles Unified School District Service Employees International Union OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/12) Association of California Community College Administrators Association of California School Administrators California Association of School Business Officials CONTINUED AB 1908 Page 3 California School Boards Association Community College League of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, the current 45-day layoff notice for classified staff is inequitable and does not provide sufficient time for an employee to prepare for the loss of his or her job. Supporters state that "the state's budget crisis has dramatically impacted classified school employees, 30,000 of whom have been laid off and the majority of those who remain being placed on some type of furlough." The author maintains increasing the timeline from 45 to 60 days addresses the inequity in current law with regard to layoff notices and gives a classified employee two additional weeks to prepare for the layoff and find a new job. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that the increased timeline reduces the flexibility of local educational agencies to address unanticipated issues that may arise during the school year, such as mid-year cuts, budget triggers, or shortfalls in property tax revenue, a problem of particular concern to Community Colleges that are experiencing unexpected revenue shortfall due to lower property tax and student fee revenues than originally estimated. Further, some district business officers have noted that under the provisions of this bill, notices for classified and certificated staff could overlap and need to be done at the same governing board meeting, which could increase workloads for human resource departments at a time they are busy with certificated staff layoffs and hearings. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-22, 4/26/12 AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Campos, Carter, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Donnelly, Beth CONTINUED AB 1908 Page 4 Gaines, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Halderman, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Cedillo, Cook, Fletcher, Furutani, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Nestande PQ:n 8/20/12 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED