BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 1908 (Alejo) - Classified Employees: Notice of Layoff.
Amended: As Introduced Policy Vote: Education 6-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 16, 2012
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: AB 1908 increases, from 45 to 60 days, the layoff
notice requirement for classified employees working in
California Community Colleges (CCCs) and public schools.
Fiscal Impact: Potentially substantial reimbursable mandate on
CCCs, school districts, and county offices of education (COEs)
for administrative costs to implement the bill, as well as
wages, and benefits to continue employment for a longer period
of time.
Background: Existing law requires classified employees working
in public schools and CCCs to be provided written notice not
less than 45 days prior to the effective date of a layoff. When
positions must be eliminated at the end of the school year due
to the expiration of a specially funded program, affected
employees must be given written notice on or before April 29 of
the year in question. (If the termination date of the program is
other than June 30, the notice must be given not less than 45
days before the effective date of the layoff.) (Education Code
� 45117, � 88017)
Proposed Law: This bill changes the layoff notification timeline
for CCC, COE, and school district classified employees,
requiring a minimum of 60 days' notice rather than the 45 days
required under existing law.
Related Legislation: AB 290 (Firebaugh) Ch. 880/2003 required
school districts and CCCs to provide classified employees with
notice of layoffs 45 days in advance.
Staff Comments: This bill likely imposes a new state mandate on
school districts, COEs and CCCs. While there is no requirement
AB 1908 (Alejo)
Page 1
that these entities lay off classified employees (which trigger
the bill's provisions), personnel costs are schools districts'
and COEs' largest expenditures. Their only two choices when
considering laying off employees to balance their budgets are to
continue to employ the classified employees or to adhere to the
bill's provisions for layoff notifications; both actions would
result in costs, and the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) is
likely to deem the increased layoff notification requirements as
reimbursable. At the time that the initial notification
requirement statute was enacted, and later extended, layoffs
were not as prevalent as they have been in recent years and may
be in the 2012-13 school year. Since 2008-09, more than 30,000
classified school employees have been laid off statewide.
School districts and COEs - The true fiscal impact of this bill
will be determined by local decisions and actions. Some school
districts and COEs will have more difficulty implementing its
provisions than others depending, in part, on their particular
fiscal constraints and how extensive their budget contingency
planning is. School districts and COEs, in general, are
primarily funded through Proposition 98 General Fund money, so
any fiscal impact to a school district or COE puts pressure on
state funds. Additionally, this bill will likely have a direct
fiscal impact on the state General Fund, determined by the
extent to which school districts and COEs file successful
mandate claims seeking state reimbursement for increased
administrative workload and classified employee wage costs to
implement this bill; it is not known which mandated and de facto
mandated actions will be considered by the CSM to be
reimbursable.
This bill requires school districts and COEs to notify
classified employees of layoffs 60 days before the layoff takes
place. This is 15 days earlier than the requirement under
existing law. From the date of notification, a school district
or COE would have to continue to employ the individual slated
for a layoff for 15 additional days beyond what is required
under current law. It is likely that this requirement will be
deemed a state reimbursable mandate. If, for example, a school
was notified at the end of the school year that a grant program
with assigned classified staff would not be renewed, the school
would have to employ the staff person for 60 days from
notification, even if the program/position funding has ended.
Regardless of whether a school district or COE knows that it
AB 1908 (Alejo)
Page 2
will lay off classified employees more than 60 days ahead of
time, mandating an increased employment time beyond the
notification will likely result in the state having to reimburse
that time; there will be a strong incentive to file mandate
claims because the stakes are high.
Some school districts and COEs have expressed concern that the
60 day notification requirement will be problematic for their
human resources offices, because it is likely to move the
timeline for many classified employees into one that more
closely mirrors statutorily required notifications for
certificated employees; essentially, they will be processing all
layoffs at the same time. To the extent that this bill results
in necessary staff overtime, or contracting out services, those
expenses are likely to be reimbursable. Moreover, to the extent
that school districts have to make layoff decisions before they
know for sure that positions will absolutely need to be
eliminated, they will likely have to over-notice classified
staff (as is common with certificated staff) and then send
notices rescinding the layoffs.
Collective bargaining agreements that include "bumping rights"
are likely to exacerbate the notification timeline, and the need
to over-notice. Many local collective bargaining agreements
provide for bumping rights, which entitle a more senior employee
whose position is eliminated to "bump" another employee in a
similar job classification who has less seniority out of his or
her position, causing that employee to be the one laid off
instead. For example, a COE data technician who supports a
grant-funded program that gets eliminated may receive a layoff
notice indicating his position is going to be eliminated, and
that he has the right to bump another less senior data
technician in another COE program rather than be laid off; he
then, has a period of time (often, a week) to decide whether to
bump that employee and take that position, or to accept the
layoff. If the data technician decides to bump the other
employee, that employee must receive a layoff notice, which
would begin a new notification clock for that employee.
The additional 15 days required by this bill would multiply
under certain bumping rights situations. In turn, this could
extend the time for which a school district or COE has to
continue to employ multiple employees because of the ripple
effect. School districts and COEs would have to plan even
AB 1908 (Alejo)
Page 3
further in advance, to account for the lag time between
notifying the original employee whose position will be
eliminated, and eventually laying off the least senior employee.
CCCs - The CCCs are likely to experience many of the same
workload and expense issues that the school districts and COEs
will face; and, like those entities, CCCs are eligible to submit
mandate reimbursement claims. Having sustained $809 million in
budget reductions since 2008-09, the CCCs are likely to file
mandate reimbursement claims for this new administrative
workload, extended wage payments, and benefits expenses. Most
community college districts also have collective bargaining
agreements that include bumping rights for classified employees,
and will experience the same ripple effect that school districts
and COEs will, in having to notify multiple employees. Whether
or not a mandate claim is successful, and to what extent, these
new requirements result in costs to the CCCs' state and local
funds.