BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
As Amended June 15, 2013
Hearing Date: June 25, 2013
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Courts: Personal Services Contracting
DESCRIPTION
This bill would require specified standards to be met if a trial
court intends to enter into a new contract, or renew or extend
an existing contract, for any services that are currently or
customarily performed by that trial court's employees, or that
were performed or customarily performed by that trial court's
employees as of July 1, 2012. Among other things, the bill
would require the trial court to clearly demonstrate that the
contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial
court for the duration of the entire contract as compared with
the trial court's actual costs of providing the same services.
This bill would also require specific, measurable performance
standards for any contract for services in excess of $100,000
annually and require audits, as specified.
This bill would also authorize courts to execute personal
service contracts under certain circumstances, without meeting
the specified standards, including where:
the contract is between a trial court and another trial court
or a local government entity for services to be performed by
employees of the other trial court or employees of the local
government entity; or
due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety.
This bill would provide that any contract entered into, renewed,
or extended between the date this bill is enacted and its date
of operation which does not comply with the requirements of this
(more)
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 2 of ?
Act shall terminate 90 days after the date this Act becomes
operative, unless the contract contains an earlier termination
date.
BACKGROUND
Under California law, most governmental entities can use
personal services contracts (i.e. contracting out) to achieve
cost savings only if specified standards are satisfied, chief
among them being that the entity clearly demonstrates actual
overall cost savings based upon certain information. These
entities include executive branch agencies, public schools,
community colleges, and libraries. (See AB 3336 (Ryan, Ch.
1057, Stats. 1982); SB 1419 (Alarcon, Ch. 894, Stats. 2002); AB
438 (Williams, Ch. 611, Stats. 2011).)
Over the past five years, California's judicial branch has
experienced ongoing budget reductions of $535 million and has
diverted around $1 billion in courthouse construction funds to
support court operations. Those catastrophic budget reductions
have crippled California's court system by, among other things,
forcing the closure of courts and self-help centers, which has
resulted in delayed access to justice for a large number of
Californians.
In response, many courts have begun seeking ways in which to
operationalize those budget reductions. According to
information provided to this Committee by the Judicial Council
of California, examples of services that trial courts currently
contract out for include: court reporters; interpreters; child
custody evaluations; probate investigations; family law
facilitators; minor's counsel in dependency cases; child custody
mediation services; mediators/alternative dispute resolution;
security guards; personnel services; payroll; information
services; collections; adoption investigation services; services
for self-represented litigants; labor negotiation services;
transcripts for electronically recorded proceedings; and more.
This bill would permit the trial courts to engage in personal
service contracts for any services that are currently or
customarily performed by that trial court's employees, or that
were performed or customarily performed by that trial court's
employees as of July 1, 2012, only if certain requirements are
met, or if a specified exception applies. Among other things,
this bill would not only apply to contracts entered into,
renewed, or extended on or after its date of operation, but
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 3 of ?
would also cause the termination of any non-complying contract
entered into, renewed, or extended by a trial court between the
date this bill is enacted and the date this bill becomes
operative, as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law provides that civil service includes every officer
and employee of the State, except as otherwise provided in the
California Constitution. That article also specifies that
certain employees are exempt from civil service, including among
others: officers and employees appointed or employed by
councils, commissions or public corporations in the judicial
branch or by a court of record or officer thereof. (Cal.
Const., article VII.)
Existing law permits a state agency to contract out for personal
services only if specified standards are satisfied, including,
among other things, that:
the contracting agency clearly demonstrates actual overall
cost savings, as specified;
proposals to contract out work are not approved solely on the
basis that savings will result from lower contractor pay rates
or benefits, except that proposals to contract out work are
eligible for approval if the contractor's wages are at the
industry's level and do not significantly undercut state pay
rates;
the contract does not cause the displacement of civil service
employees, as specified;
the savings must be large enough to ensure that they will not
be eliminated by cost fluctuations that could normally be
expected during the contracting period;
the amount of savings clearly justify the size and duration of
the agreement;
the contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive
bidding process;
the potential for future economic risk to the state from
potential contractor rate increases is minimal; and
the potential economic advantage of contracting is not
outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular
function performed directly by state government. (Gov. Code
Sec. 19130(a)(1)-(11).)
Existing law provides that in determining whether the proposed
contract will result in actual savings to the state, in
comparing costs, the contracting agency must clearly demonstrate
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 4 of ?
actual overall cost savings as follows:
the state's additional cost of providing the same service as
proposed by a contractor, including the salaries and benefits
of additional staff that would be needed and the cost of
additional space, equipment, and materials needed to perform
the function must be included;
the state's indirect overhead costs, as defined, must not be
included unless these costs can be attributed solely to the
function in question and would not exist if that function was
not performed in state service; and
in the cost of a contractor providing a service, any
continuing state costs (such as inspection, supervision, and
monitoring) that would be directly associated with the
contracted function must be included. (Gov. Code Sec.
19130(a)(1)(A)-(C).)
Existing law exempts personal services contracting from the
above requirements if, among other things:
the functions contracted are exempt from civil service under
the state constitution;
the contract is for a new state function and the Legislature
has specifically mandated or authorized the performance of the
work by independent contractors;
the services contracted are not available within civil
service, cannot be performed satisfactorily by civil service
employees, or are of such a highly specialized or technical
nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, and
ability are not available through the civil service system;
the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes
cannot be accomplished through the utilization of persons
selected pursuant to the regular civil service system, such as
where there is a conflict of interest or to insure independent
and unbiased findings in cases where there is a clear need for
a different, outside perspective (e.g., obtaining expert
witnesses in litigation);
the nature of the work is such that specified existing law
standards for emergency appointments apply;
the contractor will provide equipment, materials, facilities,
or support services that the state could not feasibly provide
in the location where the services are to be performed; or
the services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional
nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation under
civil service would frustrate their very purpose. (Gov. Code
Sec. 19130(b).)
Existing law provides similar requirements and exceptions for
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 5 of ?
personal service contracting for school districts, community
college districts, and libraries. (See Ed. Code Secs. 19104.5,
45103.1, 88003.1.)
This bill would provide that if a trial court intends to enter
into a contract, or renew or extend an existing contract, for
any services that are currently or customarily performed by that
trial court's employees, or that were performed or customarily
performed by that trial court's employees as of July 1, 2012,
all of the following must be met:
the trial court must clearly demonstrate that the contract
will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court
for the duration of the entire contract as compared with the
trial court's actual costs of providing the same services, as
specified;
the contract must not be approved solely on the basis that
savings will result from lower contractor pay rates or
benefits, except contracts are eligible for approval if the
contractor's wages are at the industry level and do not
undercut trial court pay rates;
the contract cannot cause an existing trial court employee to
incur a loss of his or her employment or employment seniority,
a reduction in wages, benefits, or hours, or an involuntary
transfer to a new location requiring a change in residence;
the contract cannot be approved if, in light of the services
provided by trial courts and the special nature of the
judicial function, it would be inconsistent with the public
interest to have the services performed by a private entity;
the contract must be awarded through a publicized, competitive
bidding process;
the contract must include specific provisions pertaining to
the qualifications of the staff that will perform the work
under the contract, as well as assurances that the
contractor's hiring practices meet applicable
nondiscrimination standards;
the contract must provide that it may be terminated at any
time by the trial court without penalty if there is a material
breach of the contract and notice is provided within 30 days
of termination;
the term of the contract shall not be more than five years
from the date on which the trial court approves the contract;
and
if the contract is for services over $100,000 annually, the
trial court must meet certain auditing requirements, as
specified, and a requirement that the contractor disclose a
description of all of the following as part of its bid,
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 6 of ?
application, or answer to a request for proposal:
o all charges, claims, or complaints filed against the
contractor with a federal, state, or local administrative
agency during the prior 10 years;
o all civil complaints filed against the contractor in a
state or federal court during the prior 10 years;
o all state or federal criminal complaints or indictments
filed against the contractor, or any of its officers,
directors, or managers, at any time; and
o any debarments of the contractor by a public agency or
licensing body at any time.
This bill would require that in comparing costs to demonstrate
that the contract will result in actual overall cost savings to
the trial court for the duration of the entire contract as
compared with the trial court's actual costs of providing the
same services:
the trial court's additional cost of providing the same
services as proposed by the contract shall be included, such
as the salaries and benefits of additional staff that would be
needed and the cost of additional space, equipment, and
materials needed to perform the services;
the trial court's indirect overhead costs, as defined, shall
not be included unless those costs can be attributed solely to
the function in question and would not exist if that function
was not performed by the trial court; and
the cost of a contractor providing a service for any
continuing trial court costs, including costs for inspection,
supervision, and monitoring, that would be directly associated
with the contracted function shall be included.
This bill would exempt contracts from the requirements listed
above in any of the following circumstances:
the contract is between a trial court and another trial court
or a local government entity for services to be performed by
employees of the other trial court or employees of the local
government entity;
the contract is for a new trial court function and the
Legislature has specifically mandated or authorized the
performance of the services by independent contractors;
the services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or
lease of real or personal property. Those contracts shall
include, but not be limited to, agreements to service or
maintain office equipment or computers that are leased or
rented, but exclude agreements to operate equipment or
computers;
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 7 of ?
the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes
cannot be accomplished through the utilization of trial court
employees because of the need to protect against a conflict of
interest or to ensure independent and unbiased findings in
situations where there is a clear need for an independent,
outside perspective;
due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety; or
the contractor will conduct training courses for which
appropriately qualified trial court employee instructors are
not available from the court, provided that permanent
instructor positions shall be filled through the process for
hiring trial court employees.
This bill would authorize a trial court or the Judicial Council
of California to adopt more restrictive rules regarding the
contracting of court services.
This bill would apply the above standards and exceptions to any
contract entered into, renewed, or extended after the effective
date of this Act. Any contract entered into, renewed, or
extended by a trial court between the date this bill is enacted
and the date it becomes operative that does not comply with the
bill's requirements must terminate 90 days after the date this
bill becomes operative, unless the contract contains an earlier
termination date, except that the bill would allow the contract
to be renewed or extended in compliance with those requirements.
This bill would include a severability clause.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
Historically, trial courts in California were county entities,
funded by the Counties and thus subject to the privatization
restrictions that applied to counties. But in 1997, the
Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding
Act [AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997)] and
shifted the responsibility for funding from the Counties to
the State. Subsequently, many of the laws that had previously
applied to the trial courts no longer applied once they were
removed from the Counties' jurisdictions, such as open
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 8 of ?
meetings, access to public records, whistleblower protections,
public contract code requirements for contracting purposes and
provisions relating to privatization.
As a result of recent budget cuts to the trial courts, some
courts have sought alternative ways to provide critically
important services to the public, including privatizing some
of the most sensitive services that help preserve the
integrity of our impartial trial court system. Alternatives
being considered include privatizing the handling and
maintenance of private, confidential and sensitive information
contained in official court records.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO, co-sponsor of this bill, writes that
"Assembly Bill 566 provides an efficient way of evaluating
whether privatizing trial court jobs is in the best interests of
the state. These specific standards in this bill protect trial
court services, and all contracts must pay working wages and
cannot undercut current employees' wages. This bill is
important because i[t] protects trial court employees and stops
automatic privatization of these public sector jobs."
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), co-sponsor of
this bill, adds that:
AB 566 would allow for privatization of trial court services
if certain good government contracting standards are first
met; such as 1) a fair cost analysis, 2) proven savings to the
taxpayers, 3) competitive bidding, 4) proven qualifications of
the contractor, 5) doesn't displace employees, and 6)
performance and financial audits are conducted.
. . .
[Tax] dollars have the dual responsibility of being well spent
for quality services, as well as being an investment in the
larger society. In fact, it could be argued that the level of
accountability should be higher for trial court services.
Being a nation of laws, a fair and impartial judicial system
that is accessible to all is a critical underpinning of
democracy and is fundamental to the success of a civilized
society.
Trial court services represent a "public good," which are most
effectively delivered by government and public employees. AB
566 correctly places the burden of altering one of the most
essential public services on those advocating it.
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 9 of ?
Additionally, profit should never be associated with any
aspect of fair review and fair rights to redress in an
impartial judicial system that should be accessible to all
people.
Finally, the provisions contained in AB 566 are neither
radical nor a departure from current law governing most other
parts of government and will ensure that tax dollars are
accountable.
2. Contracting out of services in the Judicial Branch
Modeled upon existing statutes that require various governmental
entities (executive branch agencies, public K-12 schools,
community colleges, and public libraries) to meet specified
standards before executing personal service contracts, this bill
would allow the trial courts to engage in personal service
contracts for any services that are currently or customarily
performed by that trial court's employees, or that were
performed or customarily performed by that trial court's
employees as of July 1, 2012, if certain requirements are met,
or if a specified exception applies.
First, the bill would require that a trial court wishing to
enter into a new contract, or to renew or extend a contract, for
personal services, clearly demonstrate that the contract will
result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court for the
duration of the entire contract as compared with the trial
court's actual costs of providing the same services. Moreover,
the contract must not be approved solely on the basis that
savings will result from lower contractor pay rates or benefits
(except that contracts would be eligible for approval if the
contractor's wages are at the industry level and do not undercut
trial court pay rates). Furthermore, this bill would prohibit
the contracting out of services if the contract would cause an
existing trial court employee to incur a loss of his or her
employment or employment seniority, a reduction in wages,
benefits, or hours, or an involuntary transfer to a new location
requiring a change in residence.
Additionally, this bill would differ from the current statutes
that apply to state entities seeking to contract out personal
services by including elements that reflect the unique role of
trial courts. For example, the bill would provide that a
contract cannot be approved if, in light of the services
provided by trial courts and the special nature of the judicial
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 10 of ?
function, it would be inconsistent with the public interest to
have the services performed by a private entity. Also, in
contrast to the current statutes (except for the statute
relating to libraries), this bill would impose additional
requirements for any contract for services in excess of $100,000
annually. Namely, the bill would require that such a contract
also include specific, measurable performance standards and
provisions for audits on performance and cost savings, as well
as a requirement for the trial court to obtain certain
documentation from the potential contractor as to their
qualifications and any history of charges, claims, or complaints
against them.
As amended on June 15, 2013, this bill now includes several new
exceptions to the above requirements, thereby more closely
tracking existing statutes. Pursuant to those newly added
exceptions, a trial court would be permitted to contract out for
services without meeting the above standards, if, for example:
the contract is between a trial court and another trial court
or a local government entity for services to be performed by
employees of the other trial court or employees of the local
government entity;
the contract is for a new trial court function and the
Legislature has specifically mandated or authorized the
performance of the services by independent contractors;
the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes
cannot be accomplished through the utilization of trial court
employees because of the need to protect against a conflict of
interest or to ensure independent and unbiased findings in
situations where there is a clear need for an independent,
outside perspective; or
due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety.
Of note, this bill would not only apply to contracts entered
into, renewed, or extended on or after its operative date
(January 1, 2014), but also would cause the termination of any
non-complying contract entered into, renewed, or extended by a
trial court between the date this bill is enacted and the date
this bill becomes operative. That termination would be required
no later than 90 days after the date the bill becomes operative.
In opposition to the bill, the Judicial Council of California
writes that despite the recent amendments to the bill, it
remains opposed as the bill would "severely hamper the trial
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 11 of ?
courts' ability to contract with private entities for personal
services. . . . AB 566 continues to require trial courts to
demonstrate actual cost savings for the duration of every
personal services contract but does not allow this cost savings
to be achieved through lower contract pay rates or benefits.
Further, the contract cannot cause any existing trial court
employee to lose their job, seniority, or experience a reduction
in wages, benefits, hours, or an involuntary transfer requiring
a change in residence. In other words, AB 566 requires courts
to use court employees to perform many services even if it would
be more cost effective for courts to contract for these
services. AB 566 also imposes audit requirements on courts that
do enter into private contracts that are far more extensive and
costly than requirements placed on other government entities."
The Judicial Council raises concerns not only with how the bill
generally inhibits the courts' ability to manage their staff and
resources in response to recent budget cuts, but also with the
fact that the bill does not include the same list of exceptions
to the contracting restrictions that are present in the other
statutes relating to executive branch agencies, school districts
and community colleges, and at the same time contains additional
restrictions not included in those other statutes. The Judicial
Council also raises concerns with respect to the retroactivity
provisions of the bill.
As a matter of public policy, any restriction on the ability for
trial courts to enter into personal service contracts must be
appropriately tailored so as to address concerns that arise when
a trial court elects to privatize services. At the same time,
those restrictions must be carefully balanced so as not to
unduly restrict a trial court's ability to perform its vital
functions in times of fiscal crisis. To arguably achieve that
balance, the author offers amendments which would add new
exceptions to: (1) permit courts to contract out for services
that are urgent, temporary, or occasional in nature if the delay
in hiring trial court employees would frustrate their very
purpose; and (2) permit contracting out for services that are of
such a highly specialized nature that the requisite experience,
knowledge or ability cannot be obtained from court employees.
Furthermore, due to continuing concerns about trial courts
contracting out for court reporter services, the amendment
allowing courts to contract out for services that are urgent in
nature would not to apply to contracts for the services of
official court reporters.
Additionally, to address concerns raised about this bill's
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 12 of ?
retroactive provision that would automatically terminate
non-complying contracts entered into between the date of
enactment and the operative date (the time period between the
Governor's signature and January 1, 2014), the author offers an
amendment to, instead, apply the bill prospectively to any
contract signed, renewed or extended after January 1, 2014.
That amendment also seeks to respond to concerns about trial
courts rushing to enter into contracts to avoid the requirements
of this bill by requiring courts to report details about recent
contracts for services that were customarily performed by trial
court employees, and adding intent language that the Legislature
consider reducing budget appropriations to courts who enter into
contracts that would have violated this bill.
Author's Amendments :
1. On page 5, after line 17, insert: "(3) The services
contracted for are of such a highly specialized or
technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge,
experience and ability cannot be obtained from the court's
trial court employees." and renumber accordingly
2. On page 5, after line 37, insert: "(8) The services are
of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional nature that the
delay incumbent in their implementation through the process
for hiring trial court employees would frustrate their very
purpose. This provision shall not be applied to the
services of official reporters."
3. On page 5, strike lines 38-40, inclusive, and on page 6,
strike lines 1-5, inclusive, and insert:
Sec. 2. Section 1 of this act shall apply to any contract
entered into, renewed, or extended by a trial court after
the effective date of this act.
Sec 3. Each trial court shall provide a report by no later
than February 1, 2014 to the chairperson of the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee and the chairpersons of the
Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Judiciary Committee
if the trial court entered into a contract between July 1,
2013 and the effective date of this act for services that
were provided or customarily provided by its trial court
employees and that contract has a term extending beyond
March 31, 2014. The report shall provide the following
information for each such contract: 1) a copy of the
contract, 2) an analysis of whether the contract would have
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 13 of ?
been permissible under the standards set out in Section 1
of this act, 3) an analysis of whether the contract
resulted in the displacement of trial court employees, and
4) an analysis of whether the contract involves the use of
contractors to perform the type of services that were
customarily performed by trial court employees. It is the
intent of the Legislature to consider the reduction of
future budget appropriations to each trial court by the
amount of any such contract if the Legislature concludes
that the contract would not have been permissible under the
standards provided by Section 1 of this act.
4. On page 6, renumber "Sec. 3" to "Sec. 4"
3. Other arguments in opposition
In addition to the arguments raised in Comment 2, the Judicial
Council notes:
[This bill reduces] local control and discretion over
trial court management. Trial courts are uniquely and
constitutionally independent, as well as different from
one another. Each presiding judge has the
responsibility to manage the court in a manner deemed
appropriate to the unique characteristics of that court
and its court users. Restrictions on the way trial
courts provide for appropriate staffing reduces the
courts' ability to serve the public. Many courts
currently contract for services, such as child custody
evaluations and probate investigations. In light of
judicial branch autonomy, and taking into consideration
the budget crisis facing the trial courts, the courts
must not be hampered in their ability to provide court
services, even with respect to personal service
contracts.
The Judicial Council also takes issue with the bill
applying to the renewal or extension of a contract for
services that were performed by a trial court's employees
as of July 1, 2012, because the language "arbitrarily
settles on a date in order to prohibit the renewal of
specific contracts recently entered into by particular
courts." Staff notes that the effect of that provision is
not to void any existing contract, but, to address the
situation where trial court employees performed services
as of July 1, 2012, but, court employees no longer perform
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 14 of ?
those services as of July 1, 2014.
Finally, the Judicial Council writes that, "[i]n 2011, SB 78
created the Judicial Branch Contract Law (Pub. Contract Code
section 19201 et seq.), which extended all portions of the
Public Contract Code applicable to state agencies to the
judicial branch. SB 78 also provided for audits to determine
compliance with the Judicial Branch Contract Law. [The]
Judicial Branch Contract Law, through the Public Contract Code
and Judicial Branch Contracting Manual, contains detailed
requirements for the trial courts when they engage in service
contracts. The strict requirements for contracts under AB 566
(section 71621(a)(1)-(8) of the bill) conflicts with Judicial
Branch Contract Law."
In response, the proponents of the bill argue that AB 566
contains additional provisions that the trial courts must follow
when contacting out "for any services that are currently or
customarily performed by that trial court's employees." In
other words, this bill only deals with a subset of contracts and
no such major conflict would exist, as suggested by the fact
that other agencies currently comply with the Public Contract
Code, as well as similar statutes as proposed by AB 566.
Committee staff notes that a significant number of the
state's superior courts also submitted letters of
opposition for reasons similar to those stated by the
Judicial Council. Additionally, the Superior Court of
Placer County writes that:
[I]n February 2013[,] the court awarded a contract to a
private court reporter firm to provide court reporting
services. It is anticipated that this will result in a
cost-saving to this court of $600,000 annually. It is
important to note that the court's memorandum of
understanding with the labor organization representing
court employees specifically allowed for privatization
of functions.
It should be noted that the transition to private court
reporters has not resulted in a decrease in the level of
service required for court proceedings that require
court reporters. . . . Some of the court reporters who
previously worked for the court are now employed by the
private firm that provides service to the court. The
court reporting firm that provides service to our court
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 15 of ?
has been a provider of regular court reporting service
to another nearby court.
It would not have been possible for the court to achieve
an annual savings of $600,000 if AB 566 had been in
effect. Indeed, had AB 566 been in effect, the court
would have been left with no alternative but to layoff
additional clerk staff and non-reporter courtroom staff.
Such cutbacks also would necessarily result in further
reductions in the court's operating hours, courtrooms,
and would result in additional delays in providing
service to the public. This would have had a crippling
effect on our already reduced services and the public's
access to justice after years of fiscal restraint and
funding reductions.
The Superior Court of Napa County writes:
Implementation of AB 566 would be incredibly expensive
and actually detract from court justice services to
citizens of California. The Napa Superior Court
typically uses contractors under two key sets of
circumstances. First, we use them to provide support
services that are indispensable but not necessarily part
of the court justice services required by our
constituents. In many cases, such services are for a
limited duration or require specialized skills and
knowledge that are not possessed by current court staff.
Examples include network upgrades and technical
support, case management upgrades and enhancements and
janitorial services. Second, we also use contract
services for some routine tasks that can be done more
efficiently by contractors, thereby allowing us to focus
staff resources on more complex and valuable public
services. For example, rather than expending valuable
employee resources to input traffic citations, the court
contracts for this service, thereby freeing staff to
spen[d] time performing direct public service tasks such
as explaining court procedures, facilitating access to
justice services, and assisting self-represented
litigants with completing court documents.
We estimate that, if signed into law, AB 566 would
increase our operational costs by as much as $500,000. .
. . As a result, access to needed justice services
would actually be severely hampered by implementation of
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 16 of ?
this legislation.
Besides failing to enhance access to court services, AB
566 does not provide any significant safeguards for
court employees that they do not already possess. Based
on longstanding labor relations legal requirements and a
locally negotiated set of personnel rules and memoranda
of understanding that clearly defines bargaining unit
work, the Napa Superior Court already has a
responsibility to meet and confer on any action that
would contract out services currently performed by court
employees. This is true for most, if not all, other
California trial courts.
Finally, the Superior Court of Orange County asserts that
the bill actually "does not restrict its application to
personal services contracts. The first sentence says it
applies to 'any contract, for any services, that are
currently or customarily performed by that trial court's
employees . . . ' Over the last several years[,] our
court has implemented a number of technology based
enhancements that have significantly reduced our costs
and, even better, provided greater service to litigants,
lawyers and the public. Litigants and lawyers can now
e-file documents within the court 24 hours a day instead
of driving down to the court or mailing paper copies.
Receiving documents electronically has also allowed us to
get rid of paper files and makes copies of court documents
available almost instantaneously through the internet to
anyone at less cost. We are also working with law
enforcement to receive traffic citations electronically
instead of sending paper copies which we have to manually
enter data into our cases management system. In addition,
we have outsourced our email to a cloud provider instead
of maintaining the system in house. It would even reverse
savings as simple as contracting with a vendor to provide
and maintain printers and copiers. Since aspects of all
these services were provided by trial court employees,
this bill would require us to undo the technology, go back
to a paper world, and hire court employees to handle
paper."
Support : Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs;
California Court Reporters Association; California Labor
Federation; California Official Court Reporters Association;
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 17 of ?
California Professional Firefighters; California Public
Defenders Association; California School Employees Association;
Deposition Reporters Association of California; Glendale City
Employees Association; Laborers' Locals 777 & 792; Los Angeles
County Probation Officers Union, Local 685; Organization of SMUD
Employees; Professional Engineers in California Government;
Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21; Public
Employees Local Union #1; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; San
Bernardino Public Employees Association; San Luis Obispo County
Employees Association; Santa Rosa City Employees Association;
State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; one
individual
Opposition : California Chamber of Commerce; Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda; Superior Court of California,
County of Amador; Superior Court of California, County of Contra
Costa; Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado;
Superior Court of California, County of Fresno; Superior Court
of California, County of Glenn; Superior Court of California,
County of Imperial; Superior Court of California, County of
Kings; Superior Court of California, County of Lake; Superior
Court of California, County of Lassen; Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles; Superior Court of California,
County of Marin; Superior Court of California, County of
Mariposa; Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino;
Superior Court of California, County of Merced; Superior Court
of California, County of Modoc; Superior Court of California,
County of Monterey; Superior Court of California, County of
Napa; Superior Court of California, County of Nevada; Superior
Court of California, County of Orange; Superior Court of
California, County of Placer; Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside; Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento; Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino; Superior Court of California, County of San Diego;
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin; Superior
Court of California, County of San Luis Obispo; Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara; Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Cruz; Superior Court of California,
County of Shasta; Superior Court of California, County of
Siskiyou; Superior Court of California, County of Solano;
Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma; Superior Court
of California, County of Sutter; Superior Court of California,
County of Trinity; Superior Court of California, County of
Tulare; Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne;
Superior Court of California, County of Ventura
AB 566 (Wieckowski)
Page 18 of ?
HISTORY
Source : American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO; Service Employees International Union
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 438 (Williams, Ch. 611, Stats. 2011) See Background.
SB 78 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 10, Stats.
2011) See Comment 3.
AB 3084 (Horton, 2004) would have applied specified contracting
requirements to a metropolitan water district's contracts for
services. AB 3084 was held in the Senate Local Government
Committee and died without a hearing.
SB 906 (Alarcon, 2003) would have required all general law
county and city contracts for services to achieve cost savings
and meet certain other requirements. SB 906 died on the
Assembly Floor.
SB 163 (Alarcon, 2003) was substantially similar to SB 906 and
was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1419 (Alarcon, Ch. 894, Stats. 2002) See Background.
AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997) See Comment
1.
AB 3336 (Ryan, Ch. 1057, Stats. 1982) See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 51, Noes 25)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 2)
**************