BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 692|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 692
Author: Hall (D)
Amended: 5/27/11 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIRE. COMM. : 4-0, 6/27/11
AYES: Negrete McLeod, Gaines, Padilla, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-25, 6/1/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil service: employee hearings
SOURCE : California Correctional Supervisors
Organization
Service Employees International Union, Local
1000
DIGEST : This bill (1) authorizes 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, (2) requires, within 60 days of
receiving the request, the SPB to schedule an evidentiary
hearing, and (3) authorizes the SPB to use electronic media
to conduct all, or any portion of, any hearing.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
AB 692
Page
2
Existing law:
1. 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
violations of civil service laws and rules.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Allows the SPB to extend the six-month period by 45 days
upon a publication of substantial reasons for the
extension prior to the conclusion of the six-month
period.
5. Allows an employee to waive the six-month or 90-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.
6. 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.
7. Provides that should a state employee prevail in his/her
appeal, the SPB has the authority to grant the following
remedies, including compensatory damages in
discrimination appeals:
A. Reinstatement including back salary, benefits, and
interest at seven percent.
B. Change in work assignment and/or location.
CONTINUED
AB 692
Page
3
C. Assignment of an alternative or passing score on
an examination.
This bill:
1. 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 six months
of the filing of the appeal.
2. Requires the SPB to schedule an evidentiary hearing at a
location designated by the SPB within 60 days of receipt
of the written request.
3. Authorizes the SPB to order all of, or a portion of, any
hearing to be conducted using electronic media pursuant
to SPB rules.
Comments
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 the 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
render a decision, that failure does not unconstitutionally
infringe upon the authority of the SPB over civil service
disciplinary actions.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
CONTINUED
AB 692
Page
4
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/11/11)
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
(co-source)
Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
(co-source)
California State Employees Association
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 bill's sponsors, "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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-25, 6/1/11
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez,
Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, Portantino,
CONTINUED
AB 692
Page
5
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Harkey,
Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Furutani, Garrick, Gorell, Jeffries, V.
Manuel P�rez
CPM:mw 8/11/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED