BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1530|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1530
Author: Padilla (D)
Amended: 5/25/12
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 9-0, 4/18/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Blakeslee, Hancock, Huff, Liu,
Price, Simitian, Vargas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/24/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Steinberg
NOES: Lieu, Price
SUBJECT : School employees: dismissal, suspension, and
leave of
absence
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill modifies the notice and hearing
procedures relating to the dismissal and suspension or
certificated employees, as specified. This bill also
expands the scope of offenses for which a certificated
employee must be immediately placed on a mandatory leave of
absence.
ANALYSIS : Existing law prohibits the dismissal of a
certificated employee who has achieved permanent status
except for one or more of the following causes:
CONTINUED
SB 1530
Page
2
Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
Commissioning, aiding, or advocating the commission of
acts of criminal syndicalism.
Dishonesty.
Unsatisfactory performance.
Evident unfitness for service.
Physical or mental condition unfitting him or her to
instruct or associate with children.
Persistent violation of or refusal to obey state laws or
regulations pertaining to schools.
Conviction of a felony or of any crime involving moral
turpitude.
Violation of the prohibition against advocating or
teaching communism with the intent to indoctrinate or
inculcate in the mind of any pupil a preference for
communism.
Knowing membership in the Communist Party.
Alcoholism or other drug abuse which makes the employee
unfit to instruct or associate with children.
Existing law requires a governing board to notify an
employee in writing of its intention to dismiss or suspend
him or her at the expiration of 30 days unless the employee
demands a hearing. Current law prohibits a 30-day Notice
of Intent to Dismiss or Suspend (30-day Notice) from being
given between May 15 and September 15 in any year.
Additionally, before a governing board can take action to
issue a 30-day Notice for unprofessional conduct or
unsatisfactory performance, the following must occur:
Unprofessional Conduct : The employee must be given advance
notice of at least 45 days, and the notice must specify the
CONTINUED
SB 1530
Page
3
nature of the cause, list specific instances of behavior,
and furnish the employee an opportunity to correct the
faults and overcome the grounds of the charge. (EC �
44938(a))
Unsatisfactory Performance : The employee must be given
advance notice of at least 90 days, and the notice must
specify the nature of the performance issues, with specific
instances of behavior with "such particularity" as to
furnish the employee an opportunity to correct his or her
faults and overcome the grounds for the charge.
Existing law authorizes immediate suspension of a permanent
employee for specified conduct, and requires that a
dismissal or suspension hearing requested by an employee
must begin within 60 days of an employee's request.
Additionally, the hearing must be conducted by a Commission
on Professional Competence (CPC) made up of three members:
(1) One member selected by the employee; (2) one member
selected by the governing board; and, (3) an Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) who serves as the chair.
The decision made by the CPC is made by majority vote and
is deemed to be the final decision of the governing board.
Existing law also prohibits testimony or evidence relating
to matters that occurred more than four years prior to the
date of the filing of the notice, and prohibits a decision
relating to the dismissal or suspension of any employee
from being made based on charges or evidence of any nature
relating to matters occurring more than four years prior to
the filing of the notice.
Members of a CPC receive their regular salary, fringe
benefits, accumulated sick leave and other leaves and
benefits, but receive no additional compensation. If the
result is that the employee is dismissed or suspended, the
employee will share equally the expenses of the hearing
including the cost of the ALJ. If the employee is not
dismissed or suspended, the governing board will pay the
expenses of the hearing, including the cost of the ALJ, the
cost of the educators serving on the CPC, and reasonable
attorney fees incurred by the employee.
Existing law establishes certain crimes as "mandatory leave
CONTINUED
SB 1530
Page
4
of absence offenses" and requires school districts to place
an employee criminally charged of those offenses on a
compulsory leave of absence. Mandatory offenses include sex
offenses specified in EC � 44010 and offenses involving
aiding or abetting the unlawful sale, use, or exchange to
minors of specified controlled substances with the
exception of marijuana, mescaline, peyote, or
tetrahydrocannabinols.
This bill modifies the notice and hearing procedures
relating to the dismissal and suspension or certificated
employees, as specified. This bill also expands the scope
of offenses for which a certificated employee must be
immediately placed on a mandatory leave of absence.
Prior Legislation
SB 955 (Huff, 2010) proposed various changes to statutes
governing the layoff and dismissal of certificated
educators, and would have given governing boards the final
say over dismissal cases. This bill was passed by the
Senate Education Committee and later held by the Senate
Rules Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Hearing notice and procedures: Unlikely to result in new
state costs.
Expansion of offenses: Potentially significant
reimbursable state mandate, to the extent that
certificated employees are placed on mandatory leaves of
absence for the new offenses.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/25/12)
Alliance for a Better Community
Burbank Unified School District
California Association of Suburban School Districts
California School Boards Association
City of Santa Ana Police Department
CONTINUED
SB 1530
Page
5
Children Now
Crime Victims Action Alliance
Crime Victims United of California
Fresno Unified School District
Humboldt County Office of Education
Inyo County Office of Education
Lake County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
MALDEF
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Nury Martinez, Los Angeles School Board Member, District 6
Orange County Department of Education
Partnership for Los Angeles Schools
Riverside County School Superintendents Association
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Tamar Galatzan, Los Angeles School Board Member
The Child Abuse Prevention Center
The Education Trust-West
Tony Cardenas, Los Angeles City Councilman, 6th District
Visalia Unified School District
Youth Policy Institute
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/25/12)
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
PORAC
United Teachers Los Angeles
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
existing dismissal statutes make it difficult for governing
boards to dismiss employees who engage in serious
misconduct. Dismissal proceedings are often long and
costly. The requirement to give employees who engage in
unprofessional conduct 45 days to correct their behavior is
often too long. Additionally, the prohibition against
issuing a 30-day Notice between May 15 and September 15 can
limit the ability of a school district to address issues in
a timely manner. The author's office maintains that
because governing boards are responsible for the safety of
pupils enrolled in the schools under their jurisdiction,
they should have the authority to dismiss employees who
CONTINUED
SB 1530
Page
6
jeopardize that safety or otherwise engage in conduct that
harms pupils. This bill addresses two problematic areas
for employers: The suspension and dismissal of
certificated employees who engage in unprofessional conduct
and the dismissal of employees charged with committing
specified criminal offenses.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The opponents argue that this
bill eliminates employer obligations for due process and
erodes the integrity of the teacher dismissal process.
This bill eliminates timelines for notice as well as the
current prohibition to give notice of intent to dismiss
during the summer. In addition, this bill includes
existing statutory authority for local education agencies
to place employees on unpaid leave. Finally, this bill
pares down the composition and function of the Commission
on Professional Competence - a key statutory function that
balances the power of the employer with the state's
obligation to protect employees form abuse of process and
unfair employer practices.
PQ:do 5/25/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED