BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 349
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 349 (Gatto)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Majority vote
EDUCATION 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 12-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Buchanan, Olsen, Campos, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Ch�vez, Nazarian, | |Bradford, |
| |Williams | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Weber |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes a new process for tracking classified
employees who have a change in employment status while an allegation
of misconduct is pending, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires, when a classified employee is dismissed, resigns, is
suspended, retires, or is otherwise terminated by a decision not
to employ or reemploy, as a result of an allegation of misconduct
or while an allegation of misconduct is pending, the
superintendent of the employing school district or a charter
school administrator to report the change in employment status to
the California Department of Education (CDE) no later than 30 days
after the employment action; and, specifies that this requirement
shall not be interpreted to include a change of status that is
solely for a layoff.
2)Defines "allegation of misconduct" to mean misconduct that
involves the same specified drug offenses, sexual offences, child
abuse, and violent felonies that necessitate suspending or
revoking an educator's credential under existing law.
3)Defines the term "school district" to include a county office of
education.
4)Requires the report to CDE to contain all known information about
each alleged act of misconduct and all of the following:
a) The name of the classified employee.
AB 349
Page 2
b) The current address of the classified employee.
c) The name of the reporting school district or charter school.
d) The name of the last school of employment.
e) An explanation of the allegation of misconduct or pending
allegation of misconduct.
f) Current contact information for all persons who may have
information relating to allegation of misconduct.
g) Any and all documentation related to the case.
5)Requires the report to be made to the CDE regardless of any
proposed or actual agreement, settlement, or stipulation not to
make such a report; requires the report to also be made if
allegations of misconduct served on the employee are withdrawn in
consideration of the employee's resignation, retirement, or other
failure to contest the truth of the allegations; requires the CDE
to maintain these reports by county and the employee's name, in a
searchable format; and, specifies this information shall not be
made available to the general public.
6)Requires the superintendent of an employing school district or a
charter school administrator to, in writing, inform a classified
employee if that employee is dismissed, resigns, is suspended,
retires, or is otherwise terminated by a decision not to employ or
reemploy, as a result of an allegation of misconduct or while an
allegation of misconduct is pending.
7)Requires the CDE to establish due process procedures for the
purpose of removing a classified employee's name from the reports
and, specifies these procedures shall include, but not be limited
to, a timeframe for how long a classified employee's name shall be
included in the reports.
8)Requires the CDE to establish procedures to determine whether a
decision to dismiss, suspend, or not to employ or reemploy a
classified employee, or when an employee resigns or retires, as a
result of an allegation of misconduct or while an allegation of
misconduct is pending are proven unfounded or substantiated; and,
specifies if the CDE determines the allegation of misconduct are
proved unfounded, the classified employee's name shall not be
AB 349
Page 3
included in reports.
9)Specifies that for this purpose, "unfounded" means a report that
is determined by the CDE to be false, to involve an accidental
injury, or to not constitute misconduct, as defined, based on the
preponderance of evidence.
10)Specifies that for this purpose, "substantiated" means a report
determined by the CDE to constitute misconduct, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence that makes it more likely than not
that misconduct occurred.
11)Requires, if a school district or charter school initiates an
investigation against a classified employee for allegations of
misconduct, the school district or charter school to provide the
CDE with all relevant information pertinent to this investigation.
12)Declares the intent of the Legislature that CDE and the
Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) enter into an
interagency agreement for a minimum of three years, in order for
the commission to provide assistance to CDE.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,
one-time General Fund/Proposition 98 (GF/98) start-up costs, likely
between $1 million and $5 million, to CDE to develop a database to
house the reported information and due process procedures, as
specified. Annual, GF/98 costs, likely between $500,000 and $1
million, to CDE to conduct due process and investigative procedures
related to this bill, as specified.
COMMENTS : According to the author, classified school employees
serve in a number of roles essential to California's public school
system, working in positions such as office and administrative
personnel, groundskeepers, campus aides, librarians, security
officers, counselors, food service workers, and bus drivers. In
2010, there were more than 265,000 classified employees working in
more than 1,000 school districts in California's public school
system. In 2012, almost 30,400 classified employees worked for the
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) alone, the largest
district in the state serving more than 659,200 elementary, middle,
and high school students. Spurred by numerous accounts of child
abuse in LAUSD that remained unreported for years, the Legislature
requested an audit of LAUSD's process for handling allegations of
employee abuse against students. In November 2012, the Auditor
AB 349
Page 4
completed and released a report titled "Los Angeles Unified School
District: It Could Do More to Improve Its Handling of Child Abuse
Allegations." Amongst its findings, the State Auditor reported that
there is no statewide, centralized mechanism to communicate
information about the circumstances under which a classified
employee leaves one school district to find employment in another
school district. Absent such a system, a classified employee that
left a school by dismissal, resignation or settlement during the
course of an investigation for child abuse that did not result in an
arrest or criminal conviction can easily return to work in another
school district, a system failure that puts California's children at
risk.
This bill will align the reporting requirements for allegations of
misconduct as they pertain to classified school employees with those
established for certificated teachers, thereby creating a
centralized, statewide information system. It requires the
supervising superintendent of a school district or charter school
administrator to report to the CDE whenever a classified employee is
dismissed, resigns, is suspended, retires or is otherwise terminated
as a result of an allegation of misconduct or while an allegation of
misconduct is pending. This bill defines "allegation of misconduct"
to mean misconduct that involves specified drug offense, sex
offenses, child abuse and violent felonies. These are the same
offenses that currently necessitate the suspension or revocation of
an educator's credential by the CTC. Finally, this bill requires
the reporting superintendent or charter school administrator to
notify the classified employee in writing of the contents of the
report.
Process questions : Because this bill creates an entirely new
employee tracking program, there are many unanswered process
questions. For instance, once an employee is placed on this list,
what is the precise process by which they are removed from the list
if the allegations are found to be false? Who will investigate the
allegations? Typically, once a classified employee leaves
employment pending these types of allegations, the employing agency
stops investigating; therefore, it is unclear precisely how
employees will be removed from this list. The bill requires the CDE
to establish a due process system for classified employees to be
removed from the list if the allegations are not substantiated,
however the details of this process are still unclear.
Additionally, the bill requires CDE to maintain a report of these
employee names, but does not address how or if employing agencies
AB 349
Page 5
(school districts, county offices of education or charter schools)
would obtain information about whether a prospective employee is on
the list or not.
Is CDE the right agency for this process ? Currently, the CTC does
similar work compared to the contents of this bill, as it pertains
to certificated employees. The CTC receives subsequent arrest
records and reports from employing school districts and investigates
misconduct. The CTC takes action on a certificate holder's
credential when the misconduct warrants such action. While the CTC
does not currently track classified employees, the Assembly should
consider whether the CTC has greater expertise in these matters and
may be a more appropriate place to house this new process, rather
than the CDE. The Assembly should also consider the CTC's existing
workload and whether they have the capacity to add this type of
process to their workload, without a source of funding.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0000977