BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                             SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
                         Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
                            2015 - 2016  Regular  Session


          SB 682 (Leno)
          Version: February 27, 2015
          Hearing Date:  April 28, 2015
          Fiscal: Yes
          Urgency: No
          RD   
                    

                                        SUBJECT
                                           
                                       Courts

                                      DESCRIPTION 

          This bill would require specified standards to be met if a trial  
          court intends to enter into, or renew or extend, a contract for  
          any services that are currently or customarily performed by that  
          trial court's employees.  Among other things, the bill would  
          require the trial court to clearly demonstrate that the contract  
          will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court.   
          This bill would also authorize courts to contract out without  
          meeting the requisite standards, in certain circumstances  
          including where: 
           the contract is between a trial court and another trial court  
            or a local government entity for services to be performed by  
            employees of the other trial court or employees of the local  
            government entity; or
           due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate  
            preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety.

          This bill would impose certain reporting requirements on any  
          trial court that enters into, renews or extends, a contract  
          between July 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, for services that  
          were provided or customarily provided by its trial court  
          employees, if the contract has a term extending beyond March 31,  
          2016.  

                                      BACKGROUND  

          Under California law, most governmental entities can use  
          personal services contracts (i.e. contracting out) to achieve  
          cost savings only if specified standards are satisfied, chief  
          among them being that the entity clearly demonstrates actual  
          overall cost savings based upon certain information.  These  







          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 2 of ? 

          entities include executive branch agencies, public schools,  
          community colleges, and libraries.  (See AB 3336 (Ryan, Ch.  
          1057, Stats. 1982); SB 1419 (Alarcon, Ch. 894, Stats. 2002); AB  
          438 (Williams, Ch. 611, Stats. 2011).)

          In recent years, California's judicial branch has experienced  
          catastrophic budget reductions that have crippled California's  
          court system by, among other things, forcing the closure of  
          courts and self-help centers, which has resulted in delayed  
          access to justice for a large number of Californians.  In  
          response, many courts have begun seeking ways in which to  
          operationalize those budget reductions.  According to  
          information provided to this Committee by the Judicial Council  
          of California, examples of services that trial courts currently  
          contract out for include:  court reporters; interpreters; child  
          custody evaluations; probate investigations; family law  
          facilitators; minor's counsel in dependency cases; child custody  
          mediation services;  mediators/alternative dispute resolution;  
          security guards; personnel services; payroll; information  
          services; collections; adoption investigation services; services  
          for self-represented litigants; labor negotiation services;  
          transcripts for electronically recorded proceedings; and more.

          Over the last two years, bills have been introduced in an effort  
          to impose various contracting out standards upon the trial  
          courts.  The first bill, AB 566 (Wieckowski, 2013) was  
          ultimately vetoed by the Governor, and the second bill, AB 2332  
          (Wieckowski, 2014) passed this Committee but died on the  
          Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee.  Those  
          bills were modeled upon various statutes that required  
          governmental entities (executive branch agencies, public K-12  
          schools, community colleges, and public libraries) to meet  
          specified standards before executing personal service contracts.  
           

          This bill would similarly seek to impose certain standards upon  
          courts when entering into, renewing or extending, contracts for  
          services currently or customarily performed by the trial court's  
          employees, but would largely base those requirements on the  
          standards imposed on state agencies.  

                                CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
           
           Existing law  provides that civil service includes every officer  
          and employee of the State, except as otherwise provided in the  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 3 of ? 

          California Constitution.  That article also specifies that  
          certain employees are exempt from civil service, including among  
          others:  officers and employees appointed or employed by  
          councils, commissions or public corporations in the judicial  
          branch or by a court of record or officer thereof.  (Cal.  
          Const., article VII.)
           
          Existing law  permits a state agency to contract out for personal  
          services only if specified standards are satisfied, including,  
          among other things, that: 
           the contracting agency clearly demonstrates actual overall  
            cost savings, as specified;
           proposals to contract out work are not approved solely on the  
            basis that savings will result from lower contractor pay rates  
            or benefits, except that proposals to contract out work are  
            eligible for approval if the contractor's wages are at the  
            industry's level and do not significantly undercut state pay  
            rates;
           the contract does not cause the displacement of civil service  
            employees, as specified;
           the savings must be large enough to ensure that they will not  
            be eliminated by cost fluctuations that could normally be  
            expected during the contracting period;
           the amount of savings clearly justify the size and duration of  
            the agreement;
           the contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive  
            bidding process;
           the potential for future economic risk to the state from  
            potential contractor rate increases is minimal; and 
           the potential economic advantage of contracting is not  
            outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular  
            function performed directly by state government.  (Gov. Code  
            Sec. 19130(a)(1)-(11).) 

           Existing law provides that in comparing costs to demonstrate  
          that the proposed contract will result in actual overall savings  
          to the state: 
           the state's additional cost of providing the same service as  
            proposed by a contractor, including the salaries and benefits  
            of additional staff that would be needed and the cost of  
            additional space, equipment, and materials needed to perform  
            the function must be included;
           the state's indirect overhead costs, as defined, shall not be  
            included unless these costs can be attributed solely to the  
            function in question and would not exist if that function was  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 4 of ? 

            not performed in state service; and 
           in the cost of a contractor providing a service, any  
            continuing state costs (such as inspection, supervision, and  
            monitoring) that would be directly associated with the  
            contracted function must be included.  (Gov. Code Sec.  
            19130(a)(1)(A)-(C).)
           
           Existing law  exempts personal services contracting from the  
          above requirements if:
          1)the functions contracted are exempt from civil service under  
            the state constitution; 
          2)the contract is for a new state function and the Legislature  
            has specifically mandated or authorized the performance of the  
            work by independent contractors;
          3)the services contracted are not available within civil  
            service, cannot be performed satisfactorily by civil service  
            employees, or are of such a highly specialized or technical  
            nature that the necessary expert knowledge, experience, and  
            ability are not available through the civil service system;
          4)the services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or  
            lease of real or personal property.  Contracts under this  
            criterion, known as "service agreements," shall include, but  
            not be limited to, agreements to service or maintain office  
            equipment or computers that are leased or rented;
          5)the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes  
            cannot be accomplished through the utilization of persons  
            selected pursuant to the regular civil service system, such as  
            where there is a conflict of interest or to ensure independent  
            and unbiased findings in cases where there is a clear need for  
            a different, outside perspective (e.g., obtaining expert  
            witnesses in litigation);
          6)the nature of the work is such that specified existing law  
            standards for emergency appointments apply; 
          7)state agencies need private counsel because a conflict of  
            interest on the part of the Attorney General's office prevents  
            it from representing the agency without compromising its  
            position, subject to the written consent of the Attorney  
            General, as specified;
          8)the contractor will provide equipment, materials, facilities,  
            or support services that the state could not feasibly provide  
            in the location where the services are to be performed; 
          9)the contractor will conduct training courses for which  
            appropriately qualified civil service instructors are not  
            available, provided that permanent instructor positions in  
            academies or similar settings shall be filled through civil  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 5 of ? 

            service appointment; or
          10)the services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional  
            nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation under  
            civil service would frustrate their very purpose.  (Gov. Code  
            Sec. 19130(b).)

           This bill  would provide that the purpose of its provisions is to  
          establish standards when a trial court intends to enter into, or  
          renew or extend, a contract for any services that are currently  
          or have customarily been performed by that trial court's  
          employees. 

           This bill  would provide that contracts for services that are  
          currently or customarily performed by trial court employees are  
          permissible in a trial court when all of the following  
          conditions are met:
           the trial court clearly demonstrates that the contract will  
            result in actual overall cost savings to the trial court, as  
            specified;
           the contract shall not be approved solely on the basis that  
            savings will result from lower contractor pay rates or  
            benefits, except contracts shall be eligible for approval if  
            the contractor's wages are at the industry level and do not  
            undercut trial court pay rates;
           the contract does not cause the "displacement" of trial court  
            employees, which includes layoff, demotion, loss of employment  
            or employment seniority, involuntary transfer to a new class,  
            involuntary transfer to a new location requiring change of  
            residence, and time base reductions, but does not include  
            changes in shifts or days off, or reassignment to other  
            positions within the same class and general location;
           the savings shall be large enough to ensure that they will not  
            be eliminated by private sector and trial court fluctuations  
            that could normally be expected during the contracting period;
           the amount of savings clearly justify the size and duration of  
            the contracting agreement;
           the contract is awarded through a publicized, competitive  
            bidding process; 
           the contract includes specific provisions pertaining to the  
            qualifications of the staff that will perform the work under  
            the contract, as well as assurance that the contractor's  
            hiring practices meet applicable nondiscrimination standards;
           the potential for future economic risk to the trial court from  
            potential contractor rate increases is minimal;
           the contract is with a "firm," which means a corporation,  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 6 of ? 

            partnership, nonprofit organization, or sole proprietorship;  
            and
           the potential economic advantage of contracting out is not  
            outweighed by the public's interest in having a particular  
            function performed directly by the trial court. 

           This bill  would provide that in comparing costs to demonstrate  
          that the contract will result in actual overall cost savings to  
          the trial court:
           the trial court's additional costs of providing the same  
            services as proposed by a contractor, including salaries and  
            benefits of additional staff that would be needed and the cost  
            of additional space, equipment, and materials needed to  
            perform the function, must be included;
           the trial court's indirect overhead costs, as defined, shall  
            not be included unless those costs can be attributed solely to  
            the function in question and would not exist if that function  
            was not performed by the trial court; and
           the cost of a contractor providing a service for any  
            continuing trial court costs (such as costs for inspection,  
            supervision, and monitoring) that would be directly associated  
            with the contracted function must be included.

           This bill  would provide that these provisions do not preclude a  
          trial court or the Judicial Council from adopting more  
          restrictive rules regarding the contracting of court services. 

           This bill  would exempt contracts from the above requirements if:
          1)the contract is for a new trial court function and the  
            Legislature has specifically mandated or authorized the  
            performance of the work by independent contractors;
          2)the contract is between a trial court and another trial court  
            or a local government entity for services to be performed by  
            employees of the other trial court or employees of the local  
            government entity;
          3)the services contracted for cannot be satisfactorily performed  
            by trial court employees, or are of such a highly specialized  
            or technical nature that the necessary expert knowledge,  
            experience, and ability cannot be obtained from the court's  
            trial court employees; 
          4)the services are incidental to a contract for the purchase or  
            lease of real or personal property.  Such contracts, known as  
            "service agreements," shall include, but not be limited to,  
            agreements to service or maintain office equipment or  
            computers that are leased or rented.  Service agreements do  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 7 of ? 

            not include contracts to operate equipment or computers for  
            purposes other than service or maintenance; 
          5)the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes  
            cannot be accomplished through the utilization of trial court  
            employees because of the need to protect against a conflict of  
            interest or to ensure independent and unbiased findings in  
            situations where there is a clear need for an independent,  
            outside perspective;
          6)due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate  
            preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety; 
          7)the contractor will conduct training courses for which  
            appropriately qualified trial court employee instructors are  
            not available from the court, provided that permanent  
            instructor positions shall be filled through the process for  
            hiring trial court employees; 
          8)the services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional  
            nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation  
            through the process for hiring trial court employees would  
            frustrate their very purpose.  This provision does not apply  
            to the services of official court reporters, except with  
            respect to individual official reporters pro tempore used by a  
            trial court, as specified; 
          9)the contract is a personal services contract developed  
            pursuant to rehabilitation programs, as specified, or pursuant  
            to a program vendored or contracted through a regional center  
            or the Statement Department of Developmental Services in  
            accordance with the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities  
            Services Act, as specified, and the contract will not cause an  
            existing trial court employee to incur a loss of his or her  
            employment or employment seniority, a reduction in wages,  
            benefits, or hours; or an involuntary transfer to a new  
            location requiring a change in residence; or 
          10)the contract is for the services of any court interpreter,  
            which shall be governed by the Trial Court Interpreter  
            Employment and Labor Relations Act or by the other provisions  
            of the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act,  
            and any memorandum of understanding or agreement entered into  
            pursuant to those acts, as specified. 

           This bill  would authorize a trial court or the Judicial Council  
          of California to adopt more restrictive rules regarding the  
          contracting of court services.

           This bill  would specify that if a trial court entered into, or  
          renewed or extended, a contract between July 1, 2015, and  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 8 of ? 

          December 31, 2015, inclusive, for services that were provided or  
          are customarily provided by its trial court employees and that  
          contract has a term extending beyond March 31, 2016, the trial  
          court shall provide a report by no later than February 1, 2016,  
          to the Department of Finance, chairperson of the Joint  
          Legislative Budget Committee and the chairpersons of the Senate  
          and Assembly Judiciary committees.  The bill would require the  
          report to include:
           a copy of the contract; 
           an analysis of whether the contract is permissible under the  
            standards set forth above; 
           an analysis of whether the contract resulted in the  
            displacement of trial court employees; and
           an analysis of whether the contract involves the use of  
            contractors to perform the type of services that were  
            customarily performed by trial court employees. 
           
           This bill  would include a severability clause.

                                        COMMENT
           
          1.    Stated need for the bill  

          According to the author: 

            The major government entities in California either face  
            explicit limits (cities and counties) on privatization of  
            public services or must meet due diligence requirements  
            (State, community colleges, K-12 school districts, libraries)  
            prior to privatizing their services. 

            Historically, trial courts in California were county entities,  
            funded by the [c]ounties and thus subject to the privatization  
            restrictions that applied to [c]ounties. But in 1997, the  
            Legislature passed the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding  
            Act, AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle), Ch. 850, Stats. 1997[,] and  
            shifted the responsibility for funding from the [c]ounties to  
            the State. Subsequently, many of the laws that had previously  
            applied to the trial courts no longer applied once they were  
            removed from the [c]ounties' jurisdictions, such as open  
            meetings, access to public records, whistleblower protections,  
            public contract code requirements for contracting purposes and  
            provisions relating to privatization.

            As a result of recent budget cuts to the trial courts, some  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 9 of ? 

            courts have sought alternative ways to provide critically  
            important services to the public, including privatizing some  
            of the most sensitive services that help preserve the  
            integrity of our impartial trial court system.  Alternatives  
            being considered include privatizing the handling and  
            maintenance of private, confidential and sensitive information  
            contained in official court records.

          2.    Bill is largely based upon existing contract standards  
          imposed on state agencies  

          Modeled largely upon existing law, Government Code Section  
          19130, which requires that state agencies meet specified  
          standards before executing personal service contracts, this bill  
          would allow the trial courts to enter into, renew or extend, a  
          contract for any services that are currently or customarily  
          performed by that trial court's employees if certain  
          requirements are met or, alternatively, if a specified exception  
          applies.  

          First, the bill would require that a trial court wishing to  
          enter into a new contract, or to renew or extend a contract, for  
          services currently or customarily performed by trial court  
          employees clearly demonstrate that the contract will result in  
          actual overall cost savings to the trial court.  Moreover, the  
          contract must not be approved solely on the basis that savings  
          will result from lower contractor pay rates or benefits (except  
          that contracts would be eligible for approval if the  
          contractor's wages are at the industry level and do not undercut  
          trial court pay rates).  Furthermore, this bill would prohibit  
          the contracting out of services if the contract would cause an  
          existing trial court employee to incur a loss of his or her  
          employment or employment seniority, a reduction in wages,  
          benefits, or hours, or an involuntary transfer to a new location  
          requiring a change in residence.  

          This bill also contains several exceptions to the above  
          requirements that are similar to the exceptions provided under  
          the existing law for state agencies seeking to contract out.  
          Pursuant to these exceptions, a trial court would be permitted  
          to contract out for services without meeting the above  
          standards, if, for example: 
           the contract is for a new trial court function and the  
            Legislature has specifically mandated or authorized the  
            performance of the services by independent contractors;








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 10 of ? 

           the contract is between a trial court and another trial court  
            or a local government entity for services to be performed by  
            employees of the other trial court or employees of the local  
            government entity;
           the legislative, administrative, or legal goals and purposes  
            cannot be accomplished through the utilization of trial court  
            employees because of the need to protect against a conflict of  
            interest or to ensure independent and unbiased findings in  
            situations where there is a clear need for an independent,  
            outside perspective; 
           due to an emergency, a contract is necessary for the immediate  
            preservation of the public health, welfare, or safety; or 
           the services are of such an urgent, temporary, or occasional  
            nature that the delay incumbent in their implementation  
            through the process for hiring trial court employees would  
            frustrate their very purpose, except as specified for court  
            reporter services.

          This bill also includes exceptions to the contracting out  
          requirements that were added to AB 566 (Wieckowski, 2013) at the  
          request of this Committee.  Specifically, those exceptions would  
          permit the courts to contract out for services that are: (1)  
          urgent, temporary, or occasional in nature if the delay in  
                                         hiring trial court employees would frustrate their very purpose;  
          or (2) of such a highly specialized nature that the requisite  
          experience, knowledge, or ability cannot be obtained from court  
          employees.  

          Staff notes that the requirements of this bill generally track  
          the restrictions which apply to state agencies that seek to  
          contract out.  As such, this bill excludes certain provisions  
          that were included in AB 566 and AB 2332, that would be  
          inconsistent with the standards that are currently applicable to  
          state agencies.   For example, like existing Government Code  
          Section 19130, this bill requires that the trial court clearly  
          demonstrate that the contract will result in actual overall cost  
          savings to the trial court, as specified.  Unlike AB 2332 and AB  
          566, however, this bill does not additionally require that the  
          actual cost savings be for the duration of the entire contract  
          as compared with the trial court's actual costs of providing the  
          same services.  Additionally, unlike its predecessors, this bill  
          does not impose additional standards for contracts over  
          $100,000.

          Accordingly, this bill seeks to balance the policy concern of  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 11 of ? 

          ensuring that important public court functions are not  
          inappropriately privatized or privatized without due diligence  
          against the policy concern that any restrictions placed on  
          privatization do not unnecessarily restrict the trial court's  
          ability to perform vital functions in times of fiscal crisis.   
          As argued by co-sponsor Labors' Locals 777 & 792, this bill  
          "would require the trial court to clearly demonstrate that the  
          contract will result in actual overall cost savings to the trial  
          [court], that such contracts not result in the displacement of  
          trial court employees, and that the potential economic advantage  
          of contracting-out is not outweighed by the public's interest in  
          having a particular function performed directly by the trial  
          court employee."  As stated by the California Labor Federation,  
          in support:

            When entities contract out, oftentimes there are sacrifices  
            made in the pursuit of cost savings.  Outsourcing can result  
            in less accountability, public access, and transparency.  Such  
            practices can lead to substantially reduced wages, [thereby]  
            increasing demand for taxpayer funded public assistance.  
            Public interest becomes secondary to profit maximization when  
            for-profit corporations are responsible for delivery of public  
            services.  [Whereas] California requires due diligence  
            standards be satisfied in all sectors of government prior to  
            privatization of public services [. . .] trial courts are  
            exempt from even this minimum standard, which applies to other  
            public entities.  Privatization of court services means that  
            justice truly is in the hands of private contractors whose  
            primary concern is profits for shareholders over fairness to  
            the public.  For these reasons, it is essential to have  
            safeguard in the law protecting the public interests.

          3.   Important distinctions between this bill and existing law  
          for state agencies  

          Notably, the bill does not track the Government Code in some  
          important respects in order to address the proponents' concerns  
          specific to the trial courts, including issues relating to court  
          interpreters, and provisions added at the request of disability  
          community advocates.  It should also be noted that the bill,  
          consistent with prior legislation reviewed by this Committee,  
          would include an important discrepancy from existing law  
          relating to state agencies.  Namely, whereas existing law  
          provides that proposals to contract out work cannot be approved  
          solely on the basis that savings will result from lower  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 12 of ? 

          contractor pay rates or benefits, it also provides that  
          contracts can be eligible for approval if the contractor's wages  
          are at the industry's level and do not significantly undercut  
          state pay rates.  This bill, like earlier versions of AB 2332  
          and AB 566 before it, leaves out the word "significantly" from  
          its otherwise identical provision, thus essentially eliminating  
          any cost-savings possibilities that would arise from lower  
          wages-even by a single dollar.  In other words, any costs  
          savings would have to result from something other than lower  
          wages.  The author offers the amendment below to bring the bill  
          closer in line to the same standard imposed on state agencies,  
          by adding the word "significantly."  

          This bill also differs from the state agency provisions in that  
          it does not have an exemption from the contracting out  
          requirements where the contractor will provide equipment,  
          materials, facilities, or support services that could not  
          feasibly be provided by the state in the location where the  
          services are to be performed.  The author offers the following  
          amendment to add that exemption to the bill, but preclude any  
          use of the exemption to reopen courts that had been closed  
          during the fiscal crisis as privatized courts or to open new  
          privatized courts. 

             Author's amendments  : 

             (1)  On page 3, line 9, before "undercut" add "significantly"  


             (2)  On page 4, after line 33, insert "(8) The contractor  
               will provide equipment, materials, facilities, or support  
               services that could not feasibly be provided by the trial  
               court in the location where the services are to be  
               performed. This paragraph shall not apply to services  
               contracted in order to open closed courthouses if those  
               services were performed by trial court employees before the  
               closure or for the ongoing operation of new or reopened  
               courthouses."  

          Renumber accordingly. 

          4.    Important distinction between this bill and bill approved  
            by this Committee last year  

          While this bill tracks the provisions of Government Code Section  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 13 of ? 

          19130 that are currently applicable to state agencies, there are  
          some differences.  Whereas existing law applies to "the use of  
          personal service contracts," this bill applies to "contracts for  
          services when a trial court intends to enter into, or renew or  
          extend, a contract for any services that are currently or have  
          been customarily performed by that trial court's employees."   
          When this bill heard AB 2332 last year, it passed the bill with  
          an amendment to remove the reference to contract renewals and  
          extensions.  The amendment below would remove that language from  
          this bill and bring greater parity with the provision for state  
          agencies. 

             Author's amendment:
             
            On page 2, line 4 strike ", or renew or extend," 

          5.   Governor's veto message of AB 566  

          As noted in the Background, this bill is the third recent effort  
          to impose standards upon the courts when contracting out for  
          services that are currently or have customarily been performed  
          by that trial court's employees.  The first bill, AB 566,  
          (Wieckowski, 2013) (to which the second bill, AB 2332  
          (Wieckowski, 2014) was substantially similar) was ultimately  
          vetoed.   

          In vetoing AB 566, Governor Brown stated that while he agrees  
          that decisions to change the way court services are provided  
          should be carefully evaluated to ensure they are both fair and  
          cost-effective, "this measure goes too far. It requires  
          California's courts to meet overly detailed and - in some cases  
          - nearly impossible requirements when entering into or renewing  
          certain contracts.  Other provisions are unclear and will lead  
          to confusion about what services may or may not be subject to  
          this measure."


           Support  :  California Professional Firefighters (CPF); Glendale  
          City Employees Association (GCEA); Orange County Employees  
          Association (OCEA); Organization of SMUD Employees (OSE); San  
          Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA); San Diego  
          County Court Employees Association (SDCCEA); San Luis Obispo  
          County Employees Association (SLOCEA)

           Opposition  :  Judicial Council  








          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 14 of ? 


                                        HISTORY
           
           Source  :  American Federation of State, County and Municipal  
          Employees, AFL-CIO; Service Employees International Union;  
          Laborers' Locals 777 and 792; Orange County Employees  
          Association

           Related Pending Legislation  :  None Known 

           Prior Legislation  :

          AB 2332 (Wieckowski, 2014) See Background. 

          AB 566 (Wieckowski, 2013) See Background. 

          AB 438 (Williams, Ch. 611, Stats. 2011) See Background.

          SB 78 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 10, Stats.  
          2011) See Comment 3.

          AB 3084 (Horton, 2004) would have applied specified contracting  
          requirements to a metropolitan water district's contracts for  
          services.  AB 3084 was held in the Senate Local Government  
          Committee and died without a hearing.

          SB 906 (Alarcon, 2003) would have required all general law  
          county and city contracts for services to achieve cost savings  
          and meet certain other requirements.  SB 906 died on the  
          Assembly Floor.  

          SB 163 (Alarcon, 2003) was substantially similar to SB 906 and  
          was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

          SB 1419 (Alarcon, Ch. 894, Stats. 2002) See Background.

          AB 233 (Escutia and Pringle, Ch. 850, Stats. 1997) See Comment  
          1.

          AB 3336 (Ryan, Ch. 1057, Stats. 1982) See Background.

                                   **************
                                          










          SB 682 (Leno)
          Page 15 of ?