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.