BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT BILL NO: AB 692
Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair Hearing date: June 27, 2011
AB 692 (Hall) as amended 5/27/11 FISCAL: YES
STATE EMPLOYEE TERMINATION HEARINGS: APPEALS
HISTORY :
Sponsor: California Correctional Supervisors
Organization (CCSO)
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local
1000, Co-sponsor
Prior legislation: None
ASSEMBLY VOTES :
PER & SS 4-1 3/30/11
Appropriations 12-5 5/27/11
Assembly Floor 50-25 6/01/11
SUMMARY :
This bill would authorize a state employee appealing a
termination action to request a priority hearing from the
State Personnel Board (SPB) if an evidentiary hearing has not
begun within six months of the filing of the appeal. In
addition, within 60 days of receiving the request, the SPB
must schedule an evidentiary hearing, and is authorized to
use electronic media to conduct all, or any portion of, any
hearing.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS :
1)Existing law :
a) establishes the SPB which is responsible for
administering a merit system of civil service employment
within California State government, and establishing
administrative procedures to resolve appeals of alleged
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/17/11 Page 1
violations of civil service laws and rules;
b) requires the SPB, when conducting a hearing or
investigation regarding an appeal by an employee, to
issue a decision within a reasonable time after the
conclusion of the hearing or investigation;
c) requires the SPB to issue a decision regarding most
appeals six months from the filing of an appeal or
ninety days from its submission, whichever is less;
d) allows the SPB to extend the six-month period by
forty-five days upon a publication of substantial
reasons for the extension prior to the conclusion of the
six-month period;
e) allows an employee to waive the six-month or
ninety-day period; however, should the employee not
waive these periods, a failure to render a timely
decision by the SPB constitutes an exhaustion of all
available administrative remedies;
f) provides that in cases involving complaints of
discrimination, harassment, or retaliation where the
executive officer renders a decision, the decision must
be rendered within four months of the filing of the
appeal; and
g) provides that should a State employee prevail in his
or her appeal, the SPB has the authority to grant the
following remedies, including compensatory damages in
discrimination appeals:
i) reinstatement including back salary, benefits, and
interest at 7%;
ii) change in work assignment and/or location; or,
iii) assignment of an alternative or passing score on
an examination.
2)This bill :
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/17/11 Page 2
a) authorizes an employee to make a written request for
a priority hearing by the SPB for an appeal of an action
that resulted in the employee's termination if an
evidentiary hearing has not commenced within 6 months of
the filing of the appeal;
b) would require the SPB to schedule an evidentiary
hearing at a location designated by the SPB within 60
days of receipt of the written request; and
c) authorizes the board to order all of, or a portion
of, any hearing to be conducted using electronic media
pursuant to board rules.
FISCAL :
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill
would result in increased costs of approximately $250,000 to
the State Personnel Board for processing cases within the
time frames specified in this bill.
COMMENTS :
1)Court Ruling on SPB Time Limits and Authority
In California Correctional Peace Officers Association v.
State Personnel Board (1995), 43 Cal.Rprtr.2d 693, 10
Cal.4th 1133, the court ruled that the requirement that SPB
render a decision within the statutory time period is
directory, not mandatory, thus the board retains
jurisdiction over an employee's appeal notwithstanding its
failure to render a decision within statutory time limits.
In addition, the court ruled that if the SPB fails to
render a decision within the statutory time limit, the
employee may seek a writ of mandate either against the
board to compel compliance by a date certain or directly
against the employing authority to compel reversal of
adverse action.
Finally, the court ruled that allowing a de novo (new)
hearing in superior court, if the SPB fails to timely
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/17/11 Page 3
render a decision, that failure does not unconstitutionally
infringe upon the authority of the board over civil service
disciplinary actions.
2)Arguments in Support
According to the author:
"Existing law does not give employee termination cases
priority over other employee cases, but permits
non-monetary and/or small monetary cases to cause
termination cases to wait up to 18 months before they
can receive a hearing date. This bill would authorize
an employee to make a written request for a priority
hearing if an evidentiary hearing has not been commenced
within 6 months of the filing of the appeal."
According to the sponsor:
"The SPB has over 3,800 employee cases to hear and not
enough judges to hear them. When an employee is
terminated, they and their family suffer the loss of
their income and health benefits which results �in
further] devastating loss. The SPB prioritizes cases by
blocks of time rather than based on importance. Many of
the terminated employees have to wait up to 18 months to
receive a hearing date because their case requires
longer blocks of time. Many terminated employees win
their SPB cases, and when this happens, the State has to
pay someone for not working, �and] the employee is
allowed to charge the State 7% in interest on �the lost
income]. This bill would cut the cost to the State when
back pay is considered."
3) SUPPORT :
California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO),
Sponsor
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1000,
Co-sponsor
California State Employees Association (CSEA)
4) OPPOSITION :
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/17/11 Page 4
None to date
#####
Michael Bolden
Date: 6/17/11 Page 5