BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1936
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1936 (Knight) - As Amended: April 10, 2012
Policy Committee: PERSSVote:5-0
Veterans 8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill adds periods of inactive duty for training to the
types of duty for which it is permissible for state employees to
take military leave.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potentially significant fiscal costs in the millions of dollars
for the following:
1)As employees would no longer be using their personal leave,
the state can expect higher lump sum payments upon retirement
or separation.
2)Affected departments and agencies would have to supplement
impacted salaries to ensure no loss of compensation during
inactive duty training (up to the state salary amount for the
first 172 hours/30 days each fiscal year). For example, a
correctional officer's salary and benefits are equal to $7,987
a month. If an institution has 10 correctional officers who
meet this requirement in a given year, the total cost would be
$79,870, less the reservist salary.
3)Increased workload on human resources staff. In addition to
initial training on new procedures, human resources would have
to verify eligibility, track receipt of documentation, prepare
and transmit information to the State Controller's Office and
work with employees to obtain the necessary information.
COMMENTS
AB 1936
Page 2
1)Purpose. According to the author, current law prevents civil
service employees from using the 30 days of military leave for
inactive duty, including for weekend drills. The author notes
while many employees work a typical Monday through Friday
workweek, and would not typically require a leave request when
training for weekend drills, there are several groups who may
be affected, since their employment frequently requires they
work on Saturday and/or Sunday. According to the author, this
bill would rectify an error in SB 1950 (Lewis), Chapter 928 of
2000, which provided state and local employees who are on
inactive military duty with paid leave. The author states
that due to a drafting error in SB 1950, the bill amended the
Military and Veterans Code but omitted the Government Code
reference which pertains to state employees. The author
concludes all service members, whether they are active duty or
inactive duty when called to serve our country, deserve the
same rights and benefits afforded to them under California
law.
2)Background. An employee who is granted a short-term military
leave of absence for active military duty, but not for
inactive duty, including, but not limited to, scheduled
reserve drill periods, and who for a period of not less than
one year immediately prior to the effective date of active
duty has had continuous state service as defined by Department
of Personnel Administration rule that is not broken by a
permanent separation, or who has had continuous state service
immediately prior to the effective date of active duty not
broken by a permanent separation and sufficient recognized
military service that need not be contiguous to equal one year
shall be entitled to receive his or her salary or compensation
for the first 30 calendar days of active duty served during
the absence.
3)Previous legislation. This bill is similar to SB 569 (Morrow)
of 2002, which was held on this committee's Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Roger Dunstan / APPR. / (916) 319-2081