BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Isadore Hall, III
Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 281 Hearing Date: 4/28/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Stone |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/21/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Felipe Lopez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Boards and commissions: salaries.
DIGEST: This bill sets an annual salary of $12,000 for
nonelected members of various state boards and commissions
appointed on or after January 1, 2016.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law establishes the annual salary of the members of the
Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission, the Public Employment
Relations Board, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the State Water Resources
Control Board, the Board of Parole Hearings, the Occupational
Safety and Health Appeals Board, the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Appeals Board, the State Personnel Board, the State Air
Resources Board, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
This bill:
1)Sets an annual salary of $12,000 for nonelected members of the
Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission, the Public Employment
Relations Board, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, the State Water Resources
Control Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals
Board, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, the State
Personnel Board, the State Air Resources Board, and the
SB 281 (Stone) Page 2 of ?
Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
2)Exempts non-elected members of the Public Utilities
Commission, the Board of Parole Hearings and the Fair
Political Practices Commission.
3)Provides that the annual salary of $12,000 applies to board
and commission members appointed after January 1, 2016.
Background
Purpose of the bill: According to the author, with our budget
facing uncertainty in the coming years and students in our
University of California system facing tuition hikes, it seems
tone-deaf to offer six figure salaries to members of several
boards and commissions in California. The author further
contends that most of the members of these boards and
commissions are doing a great service to the people of
California, but people who serve in these largely part-time
posts should treat their appointments as public service instead
of full time patronage positions. The author concludes that
California must send a signal that our limited tax dollars
should be directed towards the most needy and most vulnerable,
not on six figure salaries to sit on a state board.
Current salaries: Below are salary ranges for members of the
boards and commissions to which this bill applies. Some of
these salaries were obtained through public information
available on the State Controller's Government Compensation in
California Web site. It is important to note that these numbers
are based on salaries for 2013. Some of these salaries were
also obtained through the Sacramento Bee's State Worker Salary
Database.
Agricultural Labor Relations Board: $119,128 - $134,431
State Energy Resources Commission: $125,529 - $127,082
Public Employees Relations Board: $122,638 - $127,638
Unemployment Insurance appeals Board: $103,000 - $133,000
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board: $133,000 - $134,000
State Water Resources Control Board: $93,332 - $126,551
Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board: $116,000 -$118,000
Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board: $15,300 - $24,311
State Personnel Board: $41,475 - $41,941
State Air Resources Board: $39,867 - $41,941
Central Valley Flood Protection Board: $40,236 - $41,941
SB 281 (Stone) Page 3 of ?
Prior/Related Legislation
SB 153 (Strickland), 2011-2012 Legislative Session. The bill
would have prohibited members from various boards and
commissions from receiving a salary and would have instead
authorized for members of these various boards and commissions
to receive $100 per diem. (Failed Passage in Senate
Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 1368 (Anderson) 2011-2012 Legislative Session. The bill
would have limited the salaries of state officers and employees,
including overtime, to no more than the salary received by the
Governor, and would have recommended that the University of
California also limit salaries for officers and employees to no
more than the salary received by the Governor. (Failed passage
in Senate Governmental Organization Committee)
SB 685 (Strickland), 2009-2010 Legislative Session. The bill
would have prohibited members from various boards and
commissions from receiving a salary and would have instead
authorized for members of these various boards and commissions
to receive $100 per diem. (Failed Passage in Senate
Governmental Organization Committee)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.: Yes Local: No
SUPPORT:
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
OPPOSITION:
Glendale City Employees Association
Organization of SMUD Employees
San Bernardino Public Employees Association
San Luis Obispo County Employees Association
Santa Rosa City Employees Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association, regardless of whether these salaries are
paid for out of general or special funds, the issue is restoring
the public trust and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well
SB 281 (Stone) Page 4 of ?
spent. They further argue that while some of these boards and
commissions exist for legitimate purposes, others perform
functions that could be performed by existing administrative
agencies. They conclude that while limiting salaries to $12,000
will not end all criticism, it certainly will address the
perception by the voting public and taxpayers that these offices
are little more than parking places for termed out legislators.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents of the bill are
particularly concerned about the impact that this bill would
have on the compensation of members of the Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB). They argue that while the PERB only
meets formally once a month, the Board members work full time to
administer the collective bargaining statutes covering employees
of California's public schools, colleges, and universities,
employees of the State of California, employees of California
local public agencies (cities, counties, and special districts),
trial court employees and supervisory employees of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. They
argue that the impact of leaving the administrative and
adjudicatory responsibilities of the PERB unfinished could be
far reaching and have significant negative impacts on local and
state government, the unions that represent the employees, and
the individual employees who are authorized to file their own
unfair labor practice charges. Opponents conclude by stating
that the relatively miniscule state savings cannot be justified
in severely restricting the salaries of PERB board members who
have a charge to protect workers.