BILL ANALYSIS
AB 843
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 843 (Block) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
Policy Committee: P.E.R. &
S.S.Vote: 5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill shifts the burden of proof in appeals of disciplinary
actions taken against managerial state employees from the
employee to the state. The bill deletes the rebuttable
presumption in law that the disciplinary action taken against
the managerial employee was free from fraud and bad faith.
FISCAL EFFECT
SPB indicates that the shift in burden could increase state
legal-related costs associated with sustaining disciplinary
actions. Annual costs are unknown, but could be more than
$200,000.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Existing law provides that a state employer 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.
For non managerial employees (rank and file and supervisory
classifications), the burden of proof is on the employer 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.
AB 843
Page 2
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.
2)Rationale . This bill conforms the due process rights governing
adverse actions taken against managerial state employees to
those afforded to rank and file and supervisory state
employees under current law. Supporters (including CSEA)
assert that presumption that employer disciplinary actions are
just and proper is refuted by the number of actions that are
modified by the SPB.
3)Previous legislation . This bill is similar to AB 2314 (J.
Horton) of 2004, which was vetoed. In his veto message,
governor Schwarzenegger stated that AB 2314 would encourage
more appeals and thus impose added costs and workload on SPB,
which was already facing budgetary strains.
A nalysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916)
319-2081