BILL ANALYSIS
AB 579
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
Mary Hayashi, Chair
AB 579 (Huber) - As Introduced: February 25, 2009
SUBJECT : State boards and commissions: annual salaries.
SUMMARY : Eliminates the current salary authority for paid
boards and commissions, directs the State Auditor to assess the
workload of these boards and commissions, and requires the
Governor to establish salaries for affected board members and
commissioners at a level that does not exceed their workload, as
determined by the State Auditor. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes current provisions of law pertaining to the salaries
and raises of board members and commissioners that receive an
annual salary from the state for their state board or
commission service.
2)Requires the State Auditor to audit and make a finding, during
each even-numbered year as specified, regarding the workload
of each state board or commission comprised of board members
or commissioners to whom the state pays an annual salary for
their state board or commission service, and the number of
hours necessary for each board member or commissioner to work
to fulfill his or her duties.
3)Requires the Governor to rely on the workload audits and
associated findings of the state auditor, and to establish, by
January 1 of each odd-numbered year, the annual salaries of
all affected board members and commissioners.
4)Prohibits the Governor from modifying the salaries of the Fair
Political Practices Commission prior to September 1, 2012.
5)Places the following conditions on the annual salaries of
affected board members and commissioners established by the
Governor:
a) An annual salary may not exceed the median annual salary
of state employees, as determined by the Department of
Personnel Administration;
b) An annual salary must be proportional to the type and
AB 579
Page 2
amount of work required to fulfill a member or
commissioner's duties; and,
c) If the State Auditor fails to conduct a workload audit,
or the Governor fails to establish an annual salary, as
specified, an affected board member or commissioner's
compensation for the following year is limited to per diem,
travel reimbursement, and attendance costs.
EXISTING LAW provides for the salaries and raises of various
exempt state employees, including board members and
commissioners that receive an annual salary from the state for
their service on a state board or commission.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill . According to the author's office, "The
state does not have a mechanism in place to examine the work
performed by individuals appointed to boards and commissions to
ensure that these salaried appointees are paid salaries
commensurate with their duties. To ensure that state boards and
commissions are neither performing superfluous tasks nor
providing excessive salaries with taxpayer funds, the state must
develop a process to provide an independent, non-partisan
assessment of their activities and the salaries paid to
appointees."
Background . According to information provided by the author,
state entities subject to this bill include:
Agricultural Labor Relations Board
Air Resources Board
Alcohol and Beverage Control Appeals Board
California Integrated Waste Management Board
California Medical Assistance Commission
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Fair Political Practices Commission
Occupational Health and Safety Administration Appeals Board
Parole Hearings, Board of
Public Employment Relations Board
Public Utilities Commission
State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
State Personnel Board
AB 579
Page 3
State Water Resources Control Board
Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
This bill may drastically reduce the salaries of the board
members without consideration of how the administrative and
adjudicatory responsibilities of the boards and commissions will
be performed if existing board members seek employment
elsewhere. The impacts of leaving the administrative and
adjudicatory responsibilities of these boards unfinished could
be far reaching and have significant negative impacts on
businesses, employees, public health and safety and the
environment.
For example, the Board of Prison Terms (BOPT) is California's
adult parole board and, among other things, establishes terms
and conditions for all persons released on parole in California;
conducts parole revocation hearings for persons who violate the
terms and conditions of parole; conducts certification,
placement, and parole revocation hearings for mentally
disordered offenders; conducts probable cause hearings for
prisoners or parolees in revoked status who meet the criteria to
be identified as sexually violent predators. In 2003, BOPT
conducted over 48,000 hearings around the state at various
correctional institutions. If the salaries of BOPT are
drastically reduced to the median salary level of state
employees as prescribed by this bill, and the members resign in
favor of appropriately compensated employment, a sudden
disruption of the parole process could occur. This bill does
not propose an alternative system of administering parole.
Eliminating the parole process would presumably result in longer
than necessary prison terms, which would cost far more money
than BOPT salaries and could compromise public safety if parole
revocations are not administered and dangerous criminals are
left on the streets. It appears that this bill could result in
higher costs for taxpayers in both the costs of incarceration
and a reduction in public safety.
Similarly, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board exercises
judicial powers in the review of petitions for reconsideration
of decisions, findings, orders, or awards by workers'
compensation administrative law judges. If the salaries of WCAB
are drastically reduced to the median salary level of state
employees as prescribed by this bill, and the members resign in
favor of appropriately compensated employment, the workload of
AB 579
Page 4
WCAB would not simply disappear. Petitions that are not acted
upon within 60 days are denied by operation of law and the
remaining avenue of recourse is through the courts. Since this
bill does not establish a similar timetable for court decisions
on these petitions, it is unclear how the potential delays in
resolving cases would better serve injured workers and
businesses. Further, it is likely that the salary savings would
be more than offset by trial court costs, thus making it unclear
how this bill would save taxpayers money.
Related legislation . AB 1501 (V. Manual Perez) of 2009 requires
if a board member whose salary is $100,000 or more does not work
full time, as defined, in any given month, that member's salary
shall be prorated to the actual hours worked while serving as a
board member.
Previous legislation . AB 309 (Tran) of 2008, AB 38 (Tran) of
2006, and AB 556 (Strickland) of 2004 specify that members
appointed to specified state boards and commissions that pay
salaries to board members in excess of $100,000 shall receive no
salary for 3 fiscal years, except that they may receive a per
diem payment during that time. These bills all died in the
Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
AB 2539 (Strickland) of 2008 prohibits a member of a state board
or commission from receiving any salary in 2007 or later, if the
position of the member on the state board or commission received
or would receive a salary totaling at least $100,000 per year,
and the members of the state board or commission are required to
meet 2 or less times per month. AB 2539 died in the Assembly
Business and Professions Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Whitney Clark / B. & P. / (916)
319-3301