BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2621
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
Alberto Torrico, Chair
AB 2621 (Norby) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUBJECT: School districts: personal services contracting.
SUMMARY : Repeals provisions in current law permitting the use of
personal services contracts in school districts and community
colleges for all services currently or customarily performed by
classified school employees only when certain conditions are
met.
EXISTING LAW , as enacted by SB 1419 (Alarcon), Chapter 894,
Statutes of 2002, permits the use of personal services
contracting for all services currently or customarily performed
by classified school employees, for the purpose of achieving
cost savings, if specified conditions, including the following,
are met:
1)The governing board or contracting agency clearly demonstrates
that the proposed contract will result in actual overall cost
savings to the school or community college district, according
to specified criteria;
2)The contracting out proposal does not generate savings solely
on the basis of lower contractor pay rates or benefits. The
contractor's wages must be at the industry's level and not
undercut school or community college district pay rates;
3)The contract does not cause the displacement of school or
community college district employees; and,
4)The contract does not adversely affect the school or community
college district's affirmative action efforts.
Additionally, SB 1419 permits the use of personal services
contracting, for purposes other than achieving cost savings, in
specified instances, including when any of the following
conditions can be met:
1)The contract is for new functions and the Legislature has
specifically mandated authority for the work to be performed
AB 2621
Page 2
by independent contractors; and,
2)The services contracted are not available within the district,
cannot be performed satisfactorily by school or community
college district employees, or are of such a highly
specialized or technical nature they cannot be performed by
the district.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the bill's sponsor, the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association, "At a time when K-12 funds are getting
cut and class sizes are growing, don't we owe it to our children
to spend limited taxpayer dollars in the most effective way
possible? Repealing SB 1419 could allow school districts to
maximize saving through contracting efficiencies, formation of
joint partnerships and contracting with cities, counties, or
other public entities. Competitively bidding out services could
also result in substantial savings to taxpayers. It was
estimated in 2003 that schools could save as much as $300
million; funds that could be put to use for professional
development, student service or other critical needs.
"By mandating that classified employees serve in
non-instructional capacities, school districts don't even have
the option to look at potentially cheaper alternatives. With
both state and local government hemorrhaging money, school
districts deserve to have that flexibility. In essence, the
Legislature has placed an unfunded classified worker mandate
upon school districts - a mandate that our students now simply
cannot afford."
Opponents state, "Current law, established by SB 1419, does not
prohibit outsourcing; it simply extends safeguards that already
applied to all state contracting to also apply to K-14 school
districts. These safeguards include requirements that districts
prove actual cost savings, engage in competitive bidding, ensure
that cost savings will continue over the long-term, and that the
public interest is served."
AB 2621
Page 3
Opponents conclude, "The provisions in current law are not
onerous, nor do they stop public employers from contracting out
services. The State of California contracts out billions of
dollars of services every year under these provisions. The law
strikes a fair balance by ensuring that school employers do not
let sole source contracts, without competitive bids, that end up
costing taxpayers more and providing less, or inferior service."
This bill is similar to AB 2024 (Benoit) of 2006 which failed
passage in this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Sponsor)
California Taxpayers' Association
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Orange County Employees Association
Professional Engineers in California Government
Service Employees International Union
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
AB 2621
Page 4