BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-14 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 495
AUTHOR: Yee
AMENDED: April 22, 2013
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: May 1, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Compensation for Postsecondary Physicians.
SUMMARY
This bill requires that the University of California (UC)
and the California State University (CSU) be encouraged to
make funding of student health center clinics a priority
when allocating funds for student and campus services and
also give consideration for additional compensation of
physicians who address student health care challenges at
their student health centers.
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.
(Education Code � 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
This bill requires that the UC and CSU be encouraged to
SB 495
Page 2
make funding of student health center clinics a priority
when allocating funds for student and campus services and
also give consideration for additional compensation of
physicians who address student health care challenges at
their student health centers.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
physicians employed by the CSU student health centers
vary significantly when compared to their 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 California
State University (CSU) and University of California
(UC) health center programs.
2) Is this the appropriate solution ? While the bill
requires the UC and CSU to give consideration for
additional compensation of physicians employed at
student health centers, these provisions are not
binding. The governing bodies of the institutions,
the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees, will continue to
have the discretion to determine appropriate
compensation levels. Fee levels set by the
institutions are historically tied to the funding
decisions made in the annual budget by the Legislature
and the Governor.
3) 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 but eventually died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SB 495
Page 3
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.
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).
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
SB 495
Page 4
None on file.