BILL ANALYSIS
AB 220
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 220 (Bass) - As Introduced: January 29, 2007
Policy Committee: P. E. R. & S. S.
Vote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill creates the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights
(FBPR), which extends certain enhanced rights and due-process
protections currently afforded to peace officers to firefighters
(including those functioning as paramedics and emergency medical
technicians).
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires that firefighters be given an opportunity for
administrative appeal whenever subjected to punitive actions
or denied promotion on grounds other than merit.
2)Sets various conditions for interrogations that may lead to
punitive actions. These include requirements that: the
interrogations be conducted during the employee's normal
working hours or that the employee be paid at overtime rate;
recordings of interrogations be made available to the employee
prior to subsequent interrogations and that the employee be
permitted to record the interrogation; the employee be
permitted to have a representative present during the
interrogation.
3)Specifies that a firefighter shall not be prohibited from
participating in political activity, nor shall the employee be
required to participate in such activity.
4)Prohibits employers from compelling a firefighter to submit to
a lie detector test against their will, or searching the
employee's locker or on-site storage area without except in
his presence and with his or her consent.
AB 220
Page 2
5)Specifies that a fire chief, prior to removal, must be
provided with written notice stating the reasons for removal
and an opportunity for administrative appeal.
6)Includes other requirements relating to advanced notification,
administrative appeals and adverse comments entered into
firefighter's personnel file.
FISCAL EFFECT
The bill creates a state-mandated local program by establishing
procedural requirements for local agencies that employ
firefighters. Local agencies would incur significant costs,
potentially in the range of $2 million annually, to comply with
the procedures specified in this bill. These costs would be
state-reimbursable.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The bill's sponsor, The California Professional
Firefighters, indicates that firefighters are required to work
in highly-charged atmospheres where they must trust their
instincts in volatile and emergency situations, and where
safety protocols that have been instituted can be subsequently
compromised. Hence they are vulnerable investigations and
interrogations that could ultimately result in unwarranted
punitive actions. Thus, the sponsors assert that firefighters
deserve the same enhanced protection level and due process
rights as peace officers when administrative actions are taken
against them.
2)Opposition. Opponents (The California State Association of
Counties and Emergency Medical Services Administrators
Association of California) assert that the bill would impose
unnecessary reimbursable state mandate costs on local
governments. They claim that firefighters are not subject to
investigations and interrogations to the same extent as peace
officers, that county employees, including firefighters,
already have substantial due process rights, and that
firefighters have collective bargaining rights that cover
due-process procedures.
3)Background--Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights (POBAR) .
The FPBR would confer to firefighters protections that are
AB 220
Page 3
very similar to those afforded to peace officers under POBOR,
a measure enacted in 1976. In 1999, the Commission on State
Mandates found that those requirements of POBAR which exceed
rights provided all public employees under the due process
clause of the United States and California Constitutions are
reimbursable mandates. So far, local governments have
submitted POBAR-related reimbursement claims averaging roughly
$25 million per year for 1995-96 through 2005-06. However,
audits by the California State Auditor and State Controller
found that large parts of local governments' claims have been
inconsistent with the commission's parameters and guidelines.
Examples include local governments claiming for full
investigative costs as opposed to just those costs
attributable the enhanced POBAR requirements. The Commission
is currently working on a simpler POBAR claiming methodology,
although it has not been able to adopt new standards due to
differences in state and local perspectives regarding the
mandate's costs. The ultimate annual cost of the POBAR mandate
under these revised guidelines is unknown, but is likely to
remain significant.
4)Fiscal Estimates . Given the disputes regarding the magnitude
of reimbursable costs under the existing POBAR mandate, the
potential cost of this bill is uncertain. For illustrative
purposes, if the ultimate cost of POBAR claims turns out to be
roughly $10 million annually, costs associated with this bill
would be in the general range of $2 million per year. The
lower estimate for FPBR takes into account two key factors:
(1) There are about 30,000 firefighters in California,
compared to about 80,000 rank and file peace officers; and (2)
the frequency of adverse actions and interrogations are likely
to be considerably lower for firefighters than peace officers,
given the nature of their respective professions.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081