BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 334
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 334 (Gomez)
As Introduced February 13, 2013
Majority vote
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonta, Jones-Sawyer, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Mullin Rendon, Wieckowski | |Bradford, |
| | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Holden, Pan, Quirk, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Allen, Harkey |Nays:|Donnelly, Linder, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Specifies that the failure of a state agency to
provide a copy of a contract for the employment of outside
counsel to the designated representative of State Bargaining
Unit (BU) 2, California Attorney's, Administrative Law Judges
and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE) when it provides
a copy to the Department of General Services (DGS) is an
independent basis for the State Personnel Board (SPB) to
disapprove the contract.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, with certain exceptions, the consent of the Attorney
General prior to the employment of outside counsel for
representation of any state agency or employee in a judicial
proceeding.
2)Requires specified state agencies when seeking approval from
the Attorney General to employ outside legal counsel to
provide the designated representative of BU 2 with a written
notice.
3)Requires the notice to include a copy of the complaint or
other pleadings, justification for the contract, nature of the
legal services, estimated hourly wage to be paid under the
contract, estimated length of the contract, and identity of
the person or party entering into the contract.
AB 334
Page 2
4)Specifies that this disclosure is deemed to be privileged
communication and the notification is not to be considered a
waiver of any privilege.
5)Exempts from the notice requirement contracts for expert
witnesses or consultations in connection with a confidential
investigation or to any confidential component of a pending or
active legal action, as specified.
6)Requires, further, a state agency, when submitting a contract
for outside counsel to DGS in connection with state
contracting requirements, to also submit a copy of the
contract to the BU 2 designated representative.
7)Authorizes SPB to review personal service contracts to ensure
that civil service rules are being followed.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible fiscal impact to state agencies.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Current law requires state
agencies who wish to use private, non-civil service lawyers to
give notice of the contract to CASE. However, it provides no
penalty for failing to do so. Unfortunately, many agencies
routinely shirk their responsibility to provide notice to the
union. This bill provide a consequence in the event an agency
fails to notice the union: the State Personnel Board could use
that failure as basis to invalidate the contract. SPB recently
opined in a contract challenge care that while a state agency
failed to provide the statutorily required notice, it was
powerless to invalidate the contract on that basis. As a
result, there is currently no disincentive to stop agencies from
continuing to violate the law."
According to the sponsor, CASE, this bill will, "?incentivize
departments and agencies to follow through with their notice
obligations, and will also provide SPB with a remedy in those
cases where state agencies continue to violate the law. AB 334
is a modest bill that will ultimately allow for more
transparency. By providing early notice to CASE of its legal
outsourcing contracts, the state and the union can work together
to identify legal work for which an outside firm is genuinely
necessary, as opposed to legal work that can be performed far
AB 334
Page 3
less expensively by some of the talented lawyers already
employed by the State of California."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0000217