BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2012-13 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 495
AUTHOR: Yee
INTRODUCED: February 21, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 3, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Compensation for Postsecondary Physicians.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to
increase the compensation of physicians employed at its
student health centers until the compensation is comparable
to the compensation earned by physicians employed at the
University of California (UC) student health centers. This
bill also requires a UC campus to request that the
compensation of its physicians at student health centers be
increased if their colleagues at another UC campus receives
an increase.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the CSU trustees and requires that
they administer the CSU. (Education Code � 66600) Current
law also outlines the authorities, responsibilities and
requirements of the trustees relative to personnel matters.
(EC � 89500 et. seq.)
The California Constitution establishes the UC as a public
trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC with full
powers of organization and government, subject only to such
legislative control as may be necessary to insure the
security of its funds and compliance with the terms of the
endowments of the university and such competitive bidding
procedures as may be made applicable to the university for
letting construction contracts, selling real property, and
purchasing materials, goods, and services. (Constitution of
California, Article IX, Section 9)
ANALYSIS
SB 495
Page 2
This bill requires the CSU to increase the compensation of
physicians employed at student health centers on campuses of
the CSU until the compensation is comparable to the
compensation earned by physicians employed at student health
centers on campuses of the UC. In addition, this bill
requires the UC to request that the compensation of
physicians employed at student health centers on UC campuses
be increased if the compensation of physicians employed at a
student health center on a different campus within the UC
system is increased.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
physicians employed by the California State University
(CSU) student health centers vary significantly when
compared to their University of California (UC) health
center counterparts. The projected salary range for
these two physician groups may have a disparity of up to
$50,000 per year. Additionally, physicians employed by
individual health centers on UC campuses earn salaries
that vary from campus to campus but the work is
identical. The author's office and co-sponsors of the
bill do not believe that compensation should be used as
leverage against employees from campus to campus, and
that there should be pay equity for the same job between
the CSU and UC health center programs.
2) Arguments in opposition . Opponents have indicated this
bill disregards the collective bargaining process that
CSU has with its represented employees, which includes
physicians, and the current contract in place. This
collective bargaining agreement runs through 2014 and
under that agreement, they considered all compensation
including salary and health care and retirement benefits
for physicians. Further, opponents have argued that
this bill requires pay increases comparable to UC
without regard to workload, difference in scope of
service, and experience and performance. Opponents have
also argued that the bill requires compensation
increases for only one class of CSU employees when no
other CSU employee group has received an increase since
2007-08.
SB 495
Page 3
3) Is this the appropriate solution ? This bill would
eliminate the discretion of the governing bodies of the
institutions to determine appropriate compensation
levels for physicians by placing restrictions in statute
rather than leaving these decisions to the UC Regents
and CSU Trustees. Fee levels set by the institutions
are historically tied to the funding decisions made in
the annual budget by the Legislature and the Governor.
Should the discretion of the governing bodies of the
four year universities to identify compensation levels
also be tied to budget related decisions of the
Legislature and the Governor, factors which they do not
control?
4) Fiscal effect . According to the CSU, at least $3.2
million for the CSU to pay for salary differentials
between UC and CSU. This does not account for future
increases that will be determined by UC.
5) Prior related legislation .
a) SB 952 (Alquist, 2012), proposed to prohibit
the trustees of the CSU from entering into or
renewing a contract for a compensation increase of
more that 10 percent using General Fund monies for
any administrator, as defined, from July 1, 2012,
to July 1, 2018. SB 952 passed this Committee on a
6 to 2 vote.
b) SB 967 (Yee, 2012), proposed a 5 percent cap
on executive compensation increases, linked any
increase in compensation to student fees and
general fund appropriations, and unlike SB 952
(Alquist, 2012), requested that the UC comply with
these provisions and would not have limited
prohibitions on monetary compensation to public
funds. SB 967 failed passage in this Committee on
a 3 to 2 vote.
c) Though never heard, special session bills SBX1
25 (Alquist), SBX1 26 (Lieu), and SBX1 27 (Yee)
were all introduced in August 2011. Those bills
were substantively similar to SB 952 (Alquist,
2012) and SB 967 (Yee, 2012).
SB 495
Page 4
d) SB 86 (Yee, 2009), also almost identical to SB
967 (Yee, 2012), was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger in October 2009, whose veto message
read, in pertinent part:
This bill would limit the ability of the UC and the
CSU to continue to provide a high level of quality
education that our students deserve when they
choose to attend California public universities. A
blanket prohibition limiting the flexibility for
the UC and CSU to compete, both nationally and
internationally, in attracting and retaining high
level personnel does a disservice to those students
seeking the kind of quality education that our
higher education segments offer. The Regents and
the Trustees should be prudent in managing their
systems, given the difficult fiscal crisis we face
as a state, but it is unnecessary for the State to
micromanage their operations.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
(co-sponsor)
Union of American Physicians and Dentists (co-sponsor)
OPPOSITION
California State University
University of California