BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 466
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
466 (McCarty) - As Amended March 26, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Employees, |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: |Retirement/Soc Sec | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill clarifies that provisions requiring state employment
forms to require an applicant to disclose whether the applicant
has ever entered into an agreement with the state prohibiting
the applicant from seeking or accepting any subsequent
employment with the state do not apply if the agreement only
prohibits the applicant from seeking employment with a
particular state agency and not all state employment.
FISCAL EFFECT:
AB 466
Page 2
Minor and absorbable costs to CalHR and state agencies to update
employment forms.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill clarifies a requirement adopted in SB 1240
(Anderson), Statutes of 2014, that amended state employment
forms to require an applicant to disclose whether the
applicant had ever entered into an agreement with a state
department prohibiting the applicant from seeking or accepting
any subsequent employment with the state. SB 1240 was enacted
in response to a series of disciplinary actions initiated
against several employees of the Department of Transportation
(CalTrans) in connection with the Bay Bridge construction. At
least one former employee entered into a settlement agreement
with CalTrans whereby he agreed not to seek or accept any
other employment with the state.
According to the author, while the intent of SB 1240 was
clear, the language was unclear as to whether all applicants,
including those who agreed not to seek or accept subsequent
employment only with a particular department, would be
required to disclose such an agreement on a subsequent
application. The author contends that without AB 466, both
employees and the state could be discouraged from settling
dismissal appeals, leading to additional costly adjudication.
2)Dismissal Appeals. Under existing law, terminated civil
service employees are entitled to appeal dismissals to the
independent State Personnel Board (SPB). The SBP has the
authority and discretion to sustain, revoke, or modify the
terms of any employee's termination. Typically, a prehearing
and settlement conference is convened to offer parties an
opportunity to negotiate a settlement prior to a full hearing
before SPB. According to the author, it is common for
AB 466
Page 3
settlement terms to include a prohibition on the employee
seeking or accepting employment with their department, and
that without the ability to keep those agreements
confidential, employees may be disincentivised from agreeing
to them.
Analysis Prepared by:Joel Tashjian / APPR. / (916)
319-2081