BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 495|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 495
Author: Yee (D)
Amended: 4/22/13
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-2, 5/1/13
AYES: Liu, Wyland, Block, Correa, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Hancock, Huff
SUBJECT : Compensation for Postsecondary Physicians
SOURCE : AFSCME
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
DIGEST : This bill encourages the University of California
(UC) and the California State University (CSU) make funding of
student health center clinics a priority when allocating funds
for student and campus services and give consideration for
additional compensation of physicians who address student health
care challenges at their student health centers.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes the CSU trustees and
requires that they administer the CSU. Existing law also
outlines the authorities, responsibilities and requirements of
the trustees relative to personnel matters.
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
CONTINUED
SB 495
Page
2
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.
This bill encourages the UC and CSU make funding of student
health center clinics a priority when allocating funds for
student and campus services and give consideration for
additional compensation of physicians who address student health
care challenges at their student health centers.
Prior Legislation
SB 952 (Alquist, 2012) would have prohibited the trustees of the
CSU from entering into or renewing a contract for a compensation
increase of more that 10% using General Fund monies for any
administrator, as defined, from July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2018.
The bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 967 (Yee, 2012) proposed a 5% cap on executive compensation
increases, linked any increase in compensation to student fees
and General Fund appropriations, and unlike SB 952, the bill
would have requested that the UC comply with these provisions
and would not have limited prohibitions on monetary compensation
to public funds. The bill failed passage in the Senate
Education Committee.
Though never heard, special session bills SB 25X1 (Alquist), SB
26X1 (Lieu), and SB 27X1 (Yee) were all introduced in August
2011. These bills were substantively similar to SB 952 and SB
967.
SB 86 (Yee, 2009), also almost identical to SB 967, 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
CONTINUED
SB 495
Page
3
managing their systems, given the difficult fiscal crisis we
face as a state, but it is unnecessary for the State to
micromanage their operations."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/3/13)
AFSCME (co-source)
Union of American Physicians and Dentists (co-source)
California Medical Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/3/13)
California State University
University of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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 the sponsors of
this 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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : According to the University of
California:
In an effort to ensure a supportive and enriched learning
environment for all undergraduate, graduate and professional
students the University provides various services that
directly benefit students and that are complementary to, but
not a part of, UC's core instructional program. Student
services include a variety of programs such as academic and
career counseling services, cultural and social activities
and student health services. Student health services provide
primary care and other services to keep students healthy,
including general outpatient medical care; specialty medical
CONTINUED
SB 495
Page
4
care, including mental health services; and health education.
Student services are primarily funded by the Student Services
Fee, which is a mandatory systemwide fee to all students. At
each UC campus a Student Fee Advisory Committee, which
includes student representation, obtains student input into
decisions regarding the use of student fee funds and advises
the Chancellor on the allocation of the fee revenue. This
committee already has the authority to advise the Chancellor
to make the funding of student health services a priority.
Thus, it is unclear to the UC why this legislation is needed.
PQ:k 5/6/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED