BILL ANALYSIS
AB 379
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Ed Hernandez, Chair
AB 379 (Torlakson) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Classified employees: personnel commissions:
director.
SUMMARY : Requires both school and community college district
personnel commissions to determine compensation for, evaluate
and supervise the commission's personnel director, as specified.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the personnel commission at merit system school
districts and community college districts to determine the
compensation for, evaluate, and supervise the personnel
director.
2)Requires the district administration and the exclusive
representatives (unions) of classified employees of the
district to participate in the annual performance evaluation
of the personnel director by completing an evaluation or
comment form distributed by the commission.
3)Requires the personnel commission to review any submitted
evaluations and comment forms and consider them as part of the
overall evaluation process.
4)Specifies that if the personnel commission prepares an
evaluation, the personnel commission is responsible for the
content.
5)Authorizes the personnel commission to impose discipline,
including dismissal, but prohibits disciplinary action
inconsistent with any bargaining agreement in effect as of
January 1, 2010, and under which the personnel director works.
6)Establishes the following rights for the personnel director:
a) As a member of the classified service, the director must
have all the rights, benefits, and burdens of a classified
employee.
AB 379
Page 2
b) Requires the personnel director be given the option of
requesting a hearing by an impartial hearing officer in
response to any disciplinary action imposed.
7)Requires integration of these procedures into the regular
personnel commission activity and within the amount otherwise
budgeted for the personnel commission of the district.
EXISTING LAW authorizes the classified employees (e.g.,
administrative assistants, teacher aides, custodians) of a
school district with at least 3,000 average daily attendance and
classified employees of a community college district with at
least 3,000 full-time equivalent students, with a petition
signed by 15% of the classified employees, to call for an
election to become a merit (civil service) system district.
Current law also requires any district that adopts the merit
system to appoint a personnel commission, to be comprised of one
member appointed by the school district, one nominated by the
classified employees, and the third appointed by the initial two
members. The personnel commission is required to appoint a
personnel director from an eligibility list based on an exam
given by the commission. The personnel director is responsible
to the commission for overseeing all procedures in the
administration of the classified personnel under a merit system,
and to prepare an annual report for submission to the personnel
commission.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : The Committee is informed that school and community
college districts in the merit system currently evaluate all
classified employees. Personnel directors are labeled as
"classified management" with the school district as the employer
and the personnel commission as the supervisor. No specific
evaluation provisions exist in statute for directors of
personnel commissions. Some districts apparently conduct
evaluations of their personnel directors, while others do not.
According to supporters, "State law specifies the process by
which personnel commissioners hire a director of the personnel
commission and confers on the commissioners' supervisory
responsibility for the duties and activities of the director.
Whereas all other classified employees are afforded a
performance evaluation procedure, a process employed to annually
AB 379
Page 3
assess the performance and responsibilities of individual
employees, no specific evaluation process exist in state
statutes for the directors of personnel commissions. This
situation exists despite the fact that the law regards personnel
directors as classified employees of school and community
college districts. We believe that personnel directors should
be correspondingly evaluated and classified employees should
have input in such evaluations."
Opponents believe that this bill places burdensome and
unnecessary requirements on districts by "?adding additional
requirements to the Personnel Commission. We believe that
personnel-related matters are best addressed at the local level.
Our locally elected Board of Trustees set policies for the
District and appoint our Personnel Commissioners who have
responsibility for establishing staffing and personnel policies,
and dealing with employee discipline. Furthermore, Long Beach
City College already has evaluation measures in place for our
Personnel Director and the Commission has a role in that
process."
Previous legislation that was similar to this bill include SB
1676 (Negrete McLeod), which was held under submission in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee last year and SB 453
(Negrete-McLeod) of 2007, which was held under submission in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Additionally, AB 2633 (Negrete-McLeod), which was vetoed by the
Governor in 2006, was also similar to this bill. In his veto
message, the Governor stated, in part, "I am concerned that this
bill, by establishing new requirements regarding the
compensation, evaluation, and supervision of personnel
directors, would result in significant reimbursable state
mandated costs. Further, these provisions do not need to be
codified since nothing in current law prevents a school district
or community college district personnel commission from
performing the specified activities."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 379
Page 4
California Federation of Teachers (Sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Opposition
Long Beach City College
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957