BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 682
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 682
(Leno) - As Amended June 24, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|7 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill places conditions on trial courts' use of contracts
for personal services. Specifically, this bill:
SB 682
Page 2
1)Allows a trial court to enter into a contract for services
currently or customarily performed by that trial court's
employees if all of the following conditions are met:
a) Demonstration that actual contract savings, in
comparison as specified, with the court's costs of
providing the same services.
b) The contract shall not be approved solely because of
savings from lower contractor pay rates or benefits.
c) The contract shall not cause loss of an existing
employee's job, seniority, a reduction in wages or
benefits, or an involuntary transfer.
d) The savings will be large enough to ensure they will not
be eliminated by normally expected private sector and trial
court fluctuations.
e) The savings clearly justifies the size and duration of
the contract, and the potential for economic risk to the
trial court is minimal.
f) The contract shall be awarded through a competitive
bidding process, and will include provisions regarding
qualifications of those performing the work.
g) The economic advantage of contracting out is not
outweighed by the public interest in having a particular
function performed directly by the trial court.
2)States that contracting is also permissible under any of the
following conditions:
a) For a new trial court function for which the Legislature
has mandated or authorized use of contractors.
b) For contracts between trial courts or between a trial
court and another government agency, with the contracted
services being provided by employees of the other trial
court or government agency.
c) For contracts where the services required are highly
specialized or require technical expertise outside the
courts' capabilities.
d) For services that are incidental to a lease of real or
personal property.
SB 682
Page 3
e) For contracts required due to potential conflicts of
interest regarding trial court employees.
f) Contracting is due to an emergency and necessary to
protect public health and safety.
g) Contracts involving training courses not requiring
permanent instructor positions.
h) Equipment, materials, facilities, or services provided
under the contract could not feasibly by provided by the
trial court in the location where the services would be
performed.
i) For services of an urgent nature where the process for
hiring court employees would frustrate the purpose of the
contract. This exception does not apply to court reporters,
except on a pro tempore basis.
j) Developed pursuant to rehabilitation programs under the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
aa) For court interpreter services that are consistent with
existing law for such contracts.
3)Requires every trial court, by February 1, 2016, to report
specified information to the Legislature and the Department of
Finance regarding contracts for services that were provided or
are customarily provided by trial court employees and were
entered into, renewed or extended between July 1, 2015, and
December 31, 2015, with a term extending beyond March 31,
2016.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown, significant costs, potentially in the millions of
dollars (General Fund), to the extent the standards
established in this bill limit the courts' ability to
negotiate contracts for services and to renew or extend
SB 682
Page 4
existing contracts. (Based on a survey of the courts, the
Judicial Council estimates increased costs of $25 million to
hire employees for work currently performed by contract
staff.)
2)Offsetting a portion of the above costs will be savings in
cases where the decision to continue or resume performing
functions with court employees is more cost effective.
3)Unknown, significant loss of future savings, potentially in
the millions of dollars (General Fund) annually, to the extent
this bill restricts the ability of courts to transition to
technology-based services for existing court services.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Most government entities in California are restricted
from contracting out functions that are customarily done by
public employees, unless certain conditions are satisfied.
These requirements are designed to ensure not only that work
is done cost-effectively, but also that the public interest in
government activities remains paramount. As a general rule,
work performed for the state must be done by state employees,
unless the proposed contract for personal services meets
specified criteria, including a clear demonstration of cost
savings. Schools, community college districts and public
libraries are also required to comply with generally the same
standards that apply to the state.
SB 682, co-sponsored by the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Laborers' Local 777
and 792, the Orange County Employees Association, and the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), extends these
same contracting requirements to the courts. The bill
generally follows the requirements for contracting by state
SB 682
Page 5
agencies, as delineated in Government Code Section 19130.
2)Opposition. The Judicial Council argues that the bill: 1) is
too prescriptive and will make it impossible to contract out
for services; 2) has language applying to services "currently
or customarily" performed by trial court employees that is
vague and could impact existing contracts when they come up
for renewal or extension; 3) inhibits a court's ability to
manage its staff and resources; 4) reduces local control; 5)
conflicts with the Judicial Branch Contracting Manual; and 6)
affects circumstances that are more appropriately addressed
through collective bargaining at the local level.
3)Prior Legislation. Last year a similar bill, AB 2332
(Wieckowski), was held on Suspense in Senate Appropriations.
In 2013, AB 566 (Wieckowski), also a similar bill, was vetoed
by the Governor, who opined that the bill contained unclear
provisions and required courts to meet overly detailed
requirements, particularly in light of the courts' funding
constraints.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081