BILL ANALYSIS
AB 843
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2008
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Ed Hernandez, Chair
AB 843 (Block) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
SUBJECT : State employees.
SUMMARY : Revises disciplinary procedures for managerial
employees. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows managerial employees to be included in existing
procedures for taking adverse action against state employees.
2)Deletes the provision providing that disciplined managerial
employees will have the burden of proof.
3)Deletes the rebuttable presumption that the action was free
from fraud and bad faith and that the statement of reason in
the notice of disciplinary action is true.
EXISTING LAW provides that a state appointing power may take an
adverse action (defined as dismissal, demotion, suspension, or
other disciplinary action) against a civil service employee
based upon specified legal causes for discipline. The
disciplined employee has the right to appeal to the State
Personnel Board, which reviews the disciplinary action and makes
the final determination as to the whether the disciplinary
action should be sustained, modified or revoked. The burden of
proof is on the appointing power to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the factual basis for the
discipline is true and that the penalty imposed is just and
proper. For state employees designated as "managerial," by
contrast, the burden of proof is on the disciplined employee to
disprove the charges, and there is a rebuttable presumption that
the action was free from fraud and bad faith.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the California State
Employees Association, "Existing law is inconsistent and
inequitable as it applies the 'burden of proof' requirement in
adverse actions for managerial employees. This bill would
correct this disparity and make a uniform standard procedure for
AB 843
Page 2
rank and file, supervisory and managerial employees."
Supporters state, "This bill would delete the provision that the
disciplined managerial employee has the burden of proof, and
would delete the presumptions that the action was free from
fraud and bad faith and that the statement of reasons in the
notice of disciplinary action is true. The presumption that the
action was free from fraud and bad faith is an ideal but not
reality. We have far too many State Personnel Board cases that
reveal that 50% of the disciplined managerial employees were
wrongfully punished."
This bill is similar to AB 2314 (J. Horton) of 2004, which was
vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor
stated, in part:
This bill impacts the state fiscally and creates an
environment of lesser accountability among management
employees.
AB 2314 would result in the state expending additional
funds to defend these disciplinary actions by encouraging
managerial employees to make an appeal to the State
Personnel Board (SPB) of a Departments decisions regarding
the adverse action process. Additionally, due to the
State's fiscal crisis, the SPB has experienced significant
budget reductions and would be unable to perform these new
activities without additional funding.
Transferring the burden of proof in the appeals process to
the state would create another redundant process. Adverse
actions are only taken after correction actions have failed
to rectify an employee's performance or behavior.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Employees Association (Sponsor)
California Association of Professional Scientists (if amended)
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
Professional Engineers in California Government (if amended)
Opposition
AB 843
Page 3
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957