BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1908|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1908
Author: Alejo (D), et al.
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-1, 6/13/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian
NOES: Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Blakeslee, Vargas, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-22, 4/26/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Classified employees: notice of layoff
SOURCE : California School Employees Association
DIGEST : This bill increases from 45 to 60 days the
layoff notice requirement for classified employees working
in California Community Colleges (CCCs) and public schools.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
AB 1908
Page
2
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.)
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), Chapter 880, Statutes of 2003, required
school districts and CCCs to provide classified employees
with notice of layoffs 45 days in advance.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
potentially substantial reimbursable mandate on CCCs,
school districts, and county offices of education for
administrative costs to implement the bill, as well as
wages, and benefits to continue employment for a longer
period of time.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/16/12)
California School Employees Association (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 777
Los Angeles Unified School District
Service Employees International Union
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/16/12)
Association of California Community College Administrators
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
CONTINUED
AB 1908
Page
3
California School Boards Association
Community College League of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, the
current 45-day layoff notice for classified staff is
inequitable and does not provide sufficient time for an
employee to prepare for the loss of his or her job.
Supporters state that "the state's budget crisis has
dramatically impacted classified school employees, 30,000
of whom have been laid off and the majority of those who
remain being placed on some type of furlough." The author
maintains increasing the timeline from 45 to 60 days
addresses the inequity in current law with regard to layoff
notices and gives a classified employee two additional
weeks to prepare for the layoff and find a new job.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that the
increased timeline reduces the flexibility of local
educational agencies to address unanticipated issues that
may arise during the school year, such as mid-year cuts,
budget triggers, or shortfalls in property tax revenue, a
problem of particular concern to Community Colleges that
are experiencing unexpected revenue shortfall due to lower
property tax and student fee revenues than originally
estimated. Further, some district business officers have
noted that under the provisions of this bill, notices for
classified and certificated staff could overlap and need to
be done at the same governing board meeting, which could
increase workloads for human resource departments at a time
they are busy with certificated staff layoffs and hearings.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-22, 4/26/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Campos, Carter, 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, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Donnelly, Beth
CONTINUED
AB 1908
Page
4
Gaines, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Halderman, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nielsen, Norby,
Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Charles Calderon, Cedillo, Cook,
Fletcher, Furutani, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Nestande
PQ:n 8/20/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED