BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 911|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 911
Author: Kehoe (D)
Amended: 4/12/10
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-1, 4/26/10
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Denham
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Wyland
SUBJECT : Claims against the state: appropriation
SOURCE : Department of Justice
DIGEST : This bill appropriates $840,000 from the General
Fund to the Department of Justice to pay settlements in
Huntsman v. California Department of Forestry ($623,000)
and California School Board Association v. State of
California ($217,000). Any funds appropriated in excess of
the amount required for the payment of these claims shall
revert to the General Fund.
ANALYSIS :
Huntsman v. California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 08 CE CG 02671
This case involved discrimination claims against the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CONTINUED
SB 911
Page
2
(CDFFP), including disability discrimination, age
discrimination, failure to provide reasonable
accommodation, and retaliation. The case was settled
following mediation on August 5, 2009. Under the
settlement, CDFFP agreed to pay the plaintiff $585,000. In
exchange, the plaintiff has released all claims against the
CDFFP. Following an evaluation at the mediation of the
evidence that would be produced at trial, CDFFP and the
Department of Justice concluded that the settlement
reflects a reasonable compromise that serves the public
interest.
California School Boards Association v. State of California
Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 06CS01335
The California Constitution, Article XIII B, Section 6,
requires that the state reimburse local governmental
agencies for the costs of complying with mandates
established through legislation or executive order.
(Mandates arising from federal law, or established via a
voter approved initiative, are not reimbursable.) Over the
years, the Commission on State Mandates has handed down
many decisions drawing the line between reimbursable and
non-reimbursable mandates. Over time, a question emerged
regarding whether legislation merely "related to" a ballot
proposition is also exempt from state reimbursement.
On July 19, 2005, AB 138 (Budget Committee), Chapter 722,
Statues of 2005, made a number of changes to California
mandate law, including an amendment to Government Code
Section 17556 (f) to apply expressly the reimbursement
exception to legislation "related to" ballot measures. In
light of these amendments, the Legislature directed the
Commission to reconsider the School Accountability Report
Card and Mandate Reimbursement test claims, and to set
aside the Open Meetings Act and Brown Act Reform test
claims. In response, the Commission reconsidered claims it
had previously found to have required reimbursement under
Article XIII B, Section 6 and, interpreting AB 138, found
these claims were no longer reimbursable mandates under
Article XIII B, Section 6.
In this case the California School Boards Association
successfully challenged the constitutionality of AB 138 and
SB 911
Page
3
the authority of the Legislature to order the
reconsideration of prior mandate decisions. The Court of
Appeal found that the Legislature's actions violated
separation of powers principles. The Court also held that
expanding the scope of the statewide ballot reimbursement
exception to laws merely "related to" the ballot measures
was over-broad, and invalid. The parties entered into a
stipulated order for an award of attorney's fees in the
amount of $200,000, and costs in the amount of $2,423.28.
The appropriate of $217,000 includes an estimate of
anticipated interest. As noted above, any funds
appropriated in excess of the amount required for payment
of the settlement and any interest (estimated daily accrual
rate of $38.82 times 12 months) due at the time of payment
will revert to the General Fund on June 30, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Appropriates $840,000 from the General Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/27/10)
Department of Justice (source)
Department of Finance
DLW:nl 4/27/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****