BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-14 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 215
AUTHOR: Buchanan
AMENDED: April 3, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lenin Del Castillo
SUBJECT : Certificated staff: dismissal.
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the dismissal procedures for certificated
employees who have attained permanent status and establishes a
separate set of dismissal processes for employees charged only
with egregious misconduct.
BACKGROUND
Current law prohibits the dismissal of a certificated employee
who has achieved permanent status except for one or more of
the following causes:
(Education Code � 44932)
Immoral or unprofessional conduct.
Commission, 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.
AB 215
Page 2
Knowing membership in the Communist Party.
Alcoholism or other drug abuse that makes the employee
unfit to instruct or associate with children.
Current law also 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 from being issued between May 15
and September 15 in any year. (Education Code � 44934 and �
44936)
The Legislature has established additional notice requirements
that school districts must follow when seeking to suspend or
dismiss an employee for unprofessional conduct or
unsatisfactory performance. Before a governing board can take
action to issue a 30-day notice for either of these causes,
the following must occur:
1) Unprofessional Conduct : The employee must be given
advance notice of at least 45 days. A notice of
unprofessional conduct must specify the 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. The notice must also
include a copy of the employee's evaluation. (Education
Code � 44938)
2) Unsatisfactory Performance : The employee must be
given advance notice of at least 90 days. A notice of
unsatisfactory performance 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. The notice must also include a
copy of the employee's evaluation.
(Education Code � 44938)
Current law authorizes the immediate suspension of a permanent
employee for specified conduct including: immoral conduct,
conviction of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude,
incompetency due to mental disability, willful refusal to
perform regular assignments without reasonable cause,
advocating or teaching communism, or knowing membership in the
Communist Party.
AB 215
Page 3
(Education Code � 44939)
Existing law requires that a dismissal or suspension hearing
requested by an employee must begin within 60 days of an
employee's request and further:
1) Requires that the hearing be conducted by a commission on
professional competence (CPC) made up of three members:
a) One member selected by the employee;
b) One member selected by the governing board;
and,
c) An administrative law judge who serves as the
chair.
2) Provides that the decision made by the CPC is made by
majority vote and deems the decision of the CPC to be the
final decision of the governing board.
3) Specifies that members of the CPC may not be employees of
the district and must have at least five years of
experience (within the last ten) in the discipline of the
employee.
4) 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. Specifies that evidence of records
regularly kept by the governing board may be introduced,
but no decision relating to the dismissal or suspension
of any employee can be made based on charges or evidence
of any nature relating to matters occurring more than
four years prior to the filing of the notice.
5) Specifies that members of a commission on professional
competence (CPC) receive their regular salary, fringe
benefits, accumulated sick leave and other leaves and
benefits but shall receive no additional compensation.
6) Specifies that in the event the employee is dismissed or
AB 215
Page 4
suspended, the employee will share equally the expenses
of the hearing including the cost of the administrative
law judge (ALJ).
7) Specifies that in the event that the employee will not be
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's fees incurred by the employee.
(Education Code � 44944)
ANALYSIS
This bill modifies the dismissal procedures for certificated
employees who have attained permanent status and establishes a
separate set of dismissal processes for employees charged only
with egregious misconduct. Specifically, this bill:
Dismissals for egregious misconduct only
1) Defines "egregious misconduct" as immoral conduct as
specified in the following statutes:
a) Sexual misconduct offenses specified in EC �
44010.
b) Controlled substances offenses specified in EC
� 44011.
c) Child abuse, neglect, willful harming, and
injury offenses specified in Penal Code � 11165.2 to
� 11165.6 inclusive.
2) Establishes a dismissal process for proceedings based
solely on charges of egregious misconduct as follows:
a) Provides that the governing board of school
district, upon the filing or
formulation of written charges, may immediately suspend
the employee
from his or her duties and give notice of the suspension,
and 30 days
after service of the notice of dismissal, the employee
will be dismissed
unless he or she demands a hearing.
AB 215
Page 5
b) Requires any written statement of charges to
specify instances of behavior and the acts or
omissions constituting the charge so that the
employee will be able to prepare his or her defense.
c) Allows a 30-day notice to be given at any time
of the year.
d) Provides that a 30-day notice given outside of
the instructional year of the school site where the
employee is physically employed shall be in writing
and be served upon the employee personally with a
copy of the charges filed attached to the notice.
e) Prohibits local education agencies (LEAs) from
entering into an agreement that would authorize
expunging from a school employee's personnel file
credible complaints of, substantiated investigations
into, or discipline for, egregious misconduct, as
specified.
f) Requires an LEA that has made a report of an
employee's egregious misconduct to the Commission on
Teacher Credentialing to disclose this fact to
another LEA considering an application for
employment from the employee, upon inquiry.
g) Provides that any school employee who alleges
that another school employee has engaged in
egregious misconduct, knowing at the time of making
the allegation that it was false, shall be subject
to certificate revocation, if applicable.
h) Requires the notice of suspension and intention
to dismiss that is based on charges of egregious
misconduct to be in writing and served upon the
employee personally or by United States registered
mail.
i) Provides that the dismissal and suspension
process initiated for the acts or events
constituting the charge of egregious misconduct
shall not be used to support any additional or
subsequent notice of suspension or dismissal, as
specified.
AB 215
Page 6
j) Provides that the dismissal or suspension
process initiated, as specified, shall be the
exclusive means of pursuing a dismissal or
suspension for the acts or events constituting the
charge of egregious misconduct and these specific
acts or events shall not be used to support any
additional or subsequent notice of suspension or
dismissal that is not exclusively based on charges
of egregious misconduct.
aa) Provides that the dismissal or suspension
process initiated, as specified, shall be the
exclusive means of pursuing a dismissal or
suspension against the certificated employee until a
written decision has been reached by the
administrative law judge. If a suspension is upheld
and a dismissal was not pursued on the same charges,
the entry of judgment of the suspension may be
considered as evidence to support a subsequent
notice of dismissal based on other charges. If a
suspension is upheld but the employee prevailed on
the dismissal proceeding based on the same charges,
the entry of judgment of the suspension shall not be
considered as evidence to support a subsequent
notice if dismissal is based on other charges.
bb) Specifies that the hearings shall be initiated
and conducted, and a decision made, by an
administrative law judge (ALJ).
cc) Requires the hearing to be commenced within 60
days from the date of the employee's demand for a
hearing, unless a continuance is granted which shall
not extend the deadline to commence the hearing by
more than 30 days. The extension shall not include
the period of time attributable to an unlawful
refusal by either party to allow discovery.
dd) Requires the Office of Administrative Hearings
to prioritize the scheduling of dismissal or
suspension proceedings based on charges of egregious
misconduct over other proceedings.
ee) Provides that the right of discovery of the
parties includes the rights and duties of any party
in a civil action brought in a superior court under
AB 215
Page 7
Title 4 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No discovery shall occur later than 30 calendar days
after the employee is served with a copy of the
accusation, as specified.
ff) Requires that discovery be completed prior to
seven calendar days before the date upon which the
hearing commences and specifies the right of a party
seeking an order compelling production of discovery
if the right of discovery is denied and the right of
a party seeking an order for protection.
gg) Provides that a witness shall not be permitted
to testify at the hearing except upon oath or
affirmation and allows testimony and evidence
relating to matters that occurred more than four
years prior to the issuance of the 30-day notice to
be introduced at a hearing.
hh) Requires the ALJ to prepare a written decision
containing findings of fact, determinations of
issues, and a disposition that is one of the
following:
i) The employee is dismissed.
ii) The employee should be
suspended for a specific period of time
without pay.
iii) The employee should not be
dismissed or suspended.
a) Provides various requirements regarding the
hearing and the decision of the ALJ, including the
requirement that his or her decision shall be deemed
to be the final decision of the governing board of
the school district.
b) Provides that if the administrative law judge
(ALJ) determines the employee should be dismissed or
suspended, the school district and the state shall
share equally the expenses of the hearing, including
the cost of the ALJ, and the employee and the school
district shall pay their own attorney's fees. If
the ALJ determines that the employee should not be
AB 215
Page 8
dismissed or suspended, the school district shall
pay the expenses of the hearing, including the cost
of the ALJ, and reasonable attorney's fees incurred
by the employee.
c) Provides that the decision in a dismissal or
suspension proceeding may, on petition of either the
school district or employee, be reviewed by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
d) Establishes various requirements regarding the
payment of costs for a court of competent
jurisdiction if it is petitioned by the school
district or employee.
Dismissals for all charges, including egregious misconduct,
immoral conduct, unprofessional conduct, and unsatisfactory
performance
1) Provides that if the governing board of the school
district has given notice to a permanent employee of its
intention to dismiss or suspend him or her, based upon
written charges filed or formulated, the charges may be
amended less than 90 days before the hearing on the
charges only upon a showing of good cause. If a motion
to amend charges is granted by the ALJ, the employee
shall be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the
amended charges.
2) Provides that a notice of the governing board to
dismiss or suspend an employee, together with written
charges filed or formulated, shall be sufficient to
initiate a hearing, as specified, and the governing board
shall not be required to file or serve a separate
accusation.
3) Removes the prohibition against issuing a 30-day
notice between May 15 and September 15 and allows it to
be given at any time of the year.
4) Removes "knowing membership of the Communist Party"
from the list of reasons a permanent school employee can
be dismissed or suspended.
5) Provides that an employee who has been placed on
suspension may serve and file with the Office of
AB 215
Page 9
Administrative Hearings a motion for immediate reversal
of suspension.
a) Requires that review of the motion shall be limited to
a determination as
to whether the facts as alleged in the statement of
charges, if true, are
sufficient to constitute a basis for immediate
suspension.
b) Requires the motion to include a memorandum of points
and authorities
setting forth law and argument supporting the
employee's contention
that the statement of charges does not set forth a
sufficient basis for
immediate suspension.
c) Requires the motion to be served upon the governing
board of the
school district and filed within 30 days after
service upon the employee
of the initial pleading in the matter; requires the
hearing on the motion
for immediate reversal of suspension to be held no
later than 30 days
after the motion is filed with the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
d) Requires the administrative law judge (ALJ) to issue
an order denying
or granting the motion no later than 15 days after
the hearing; requires
an order granting a motion for immediate reversal of
suspension to
become effective within five days of service of the
order and the school
district to make the employee whole for any lost
wages, benefits, and compensation within 14 days of
service of an order granting the motion.
e) Provides that a motion shall be the exclusive means of
obtaining
interlocutory review of suspension pending dismissal
AB 215
Page 10
and that the grant
or denial of the motion shall not be subject to
interlocutory judicial
review.
f) Provides that a motion pursuant to this section shall
have no bearing on
the authority of a governing board to determine the
physical placement
and assignment of an employee who is suspended or
placed on
administrative leave during review of the motion or
while dismissal
charges are pending.
1) Adds murder and attempted murder to the list of
mandatory leave of absence offenses.
2) Removes marijuana, mescaline, peyote, and
tetrahydrocannabinols as exceptions to the list of
controlled substance offenses for which a certificated
employee may be charged with a mandatory leave of absence
offense.
3) Requires an employee who demands a hearing to file a
single document containing his or her request for a
hearing and a notice of defense, as specified.
4) Specifies that a dismissal or dismissal hearing shall
commence within six months from the date of the
employee's request for a hearing; provides that a
continuance shall not extend the date for commencement of
the hearing more than six months from the date of the
employee's request for a hearing, except for
extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the ALJ.
a) Provides that if extraordinary circumstances are found
that extend the
date for commencement, the deadline for concluding
the hearing and
closing the record shall be extended for a period of
time equal to the
continuance.
b) Requires the hearing date to be established after
consultation with the
AB 215
Page 11
employee and the governing board, except that if the
parties are not
able to reach agreement on a date, the Office of
Administrative
Hearings shall unilaterally set a date in compliance
with this section.
c) Requires the hearing to be completed by a closing of
the record within
seven months of the date of the employee's demand
for a hearing.
d) Provides that a continuance shall not extend the date
for the close of
the record more than seven months from the date of
the employee's
request for a hearing, except for good cause as
determined by the
administrative law judge (ALJ).
e) Provides that if substantial progress has been made in
completing the
previously scheduled days of the hearing within the
seven-month period
but the hearing cannot be completed, for good cause
shown, within the
seven-month period, the period for completing the
hearing may be
extended by the presiding ALJ and he or she shall
establish a
reasonable timetable for completion of the hearing
and closing of the
record.
1) Deletes the existing discovery process that includes
the rights and duties of any party in a civil action
brought in a Superior Court under Title 4 of Part 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure; creates a new discovery
process where the school district and employee are
required to make initial disclosures within 45 days of
the date of the employee's demand for a hearing; and
specifies that all disclosures must be made no later than
60 days before the start of the hearing, as specified.
2) Authorizes testimony or evidence and decisions to be
made relating to matters that occurred more than four
AB 215
Page 12
years prior to the date of the filing of the notice that
involve sexual offenses and child abuse offenses, as
specified.
3) Authorizes the suspension and dismissal hearing to be
conducted by a single ALJ instead of the full commission
on professional competence (CPC) if both parties agree in
writing.
4) Reduces the number of years of experience that CPC
members are required to have in the discipline of the
employee being suspended or dismissed from five to three.
For purposes of the required discipline of CPC members:
a) For an employee subject to dismissal whose
most recent teaching assignment is in any of the
grades Kindergarten to grade six, inclusive,
"discipline" means a teaching assignment in any of
grades Kindergarten to grade six, inclusive.
b) For an employee subject to dismissal whose
most recent assignment requires an education
specialist credential or a services credential
"discipline" means an assignment that requires an
education specialist credential or a services
credential, respectively.
c) For an employee subject to dismissal whose
most recent teaching assignment is in any of the
grades seven to 12, inclusive, "discipline" means a
teaching assignment in any of grades seven to 12,
inclusive, in the same area of study, as that term
is used in Section 51220, as the most recent
teaching assignment of the employee subject to
dismissal.
1) Requires members of the commission on professional
competence (CPC) to be selected no later than 45 days
before the start of the hearing; and requires the
governing board and the employee to serve notice of their
selection upon all parties and the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
2) Specifies that if a party believes that a selected CPC
member is not qualified, that party may file an objection
with the Office of Administrative Hearings within 10 days
AB 215
Page 13
of the selection; and within seven days of that objection
an administrative law judge (ALJ) shall rule on the
objection.
3) Requires that if a CPC member is a retired employee,
the member shall receive pay at the daily substitute
teacher rate in the school district that is a party to
the hearing.
4) Deletes the requirement that the employee pay the
expenses incurred by the school district at the hearing
if a court overturns the decision of a CPC; and deletes
the requirement that the district pay the expenses
incurred by the employee at the hearing if a court
overturns the decision of a CPC.
Other provisions
1) Requires the ALJ before admitting any testimony or
evidence concerning a student to determine whether the
introduction of the testimony or evidence at an open
hearing would violate any provisions relating to the
privacy of student records.
2) Makes findings and declarations of the Legislature
that:
a) Pupils, educators, administrators, school
boards, and school district employees, need a
certificated employee dismissal process that is both
fair and efficient.
b) This act is intended to revise existing
statutes in a manner that will update and streamline
the procedures for certificated employee discipline
and dismissal, making it more cost effective and
reducing the time necessary to complete the
dismissal process.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author's office, the
current teacher discipline and dismissal process is
outdated and cumbersome and the law has not kept pace
with today's school calendars or practice. Hearing
continuances can allow costly litigation to drag on for
AB 215
Page 14
12-18 months or longer. AB 215 is intended to update the
teacher discipline and dismissal process, saving school
districts time and money while at the same time ensuring
due process.
2) Due process . Many school districts complain the
dismissal process prescribed in current law is cumbersome
and makes it difficult to fire teachers who should not be
in the classroom. Further, they argue that because
educators remain on pay status during the proceedings,
there is little incentive for timeliness.
Notwithstanding the benefits that would be derived by
establishing a less costly and more efficient dismissal
process, the courts have held that permanent employees
have "property rights" to their positions. In Gilbert v.
Homar (1997), 520 U.S. 924 (Gilbert), the Supreme Court
noted that "public employees who can be discharged only
for cause have a constitutionally protected property
interest in their tenure and cannot be fired without due
process." It is unclear how the changes proposed in this
bill would affect the due process rights of certificated
employees.
3) New dismissal process for egregious misconduct . This
bill creates a bifurcated teacher dismissal process by
establishing separate procedures for cases involving
employees accused of egregious misconduct such as sexual
abuse, child abuse, and certain drug crimes. The
hearings based on charges of egregious misconduct would
be conducted by an administrative law judge (ALJ) only
instead of the traditional three-person commission on
professional competence. The bill also requires that a
hearing start within 60 days of a demand for a hearing,
or a maximum of 90 days if the administrative law judge
grants a continuance. The existing discovery process
under current law would continue for these proceedings.
Further, the bill requires the Office of Administrative
Hearings to prioritize the scheduling of dismissal or
suspension proceedings initiated for egregious
misconduct. It is not uncommon for dismissal hearings to
take up to a year or longer to be completed under current
law or for school districts to elect for settlement
agreements with employees rather than pursue dismissals.
Therefore, the reforms proposed by the bill could allow
for a more streamlined process to dismiss employees for
this particular subset of misconduct cases and result in
AB 215
Page 15
cost savings for school districts. However, for a
complex case involving multiple charges and/or multiple
children over an extended period of time, is the deadline
to commence a hearing reasonable? Again, a hearing must
start within 60 days of a demand for a hearing, or a
maximum of 90 days if the administrative law judge grants
a continuance. This means that all discovery must be
completed within this timeframe, specifically, no later
than seven days before commencement of the hearing.
Could the 60 and 90 day requirements result in unintended
consequences of either limiting discovery or even worse,
prevent a school district from going to a hearing and
force the school district to start all over from the
beginning? Note that a school district may elect not to
utilize this accelerated dismissal process for charges
based solely on egregious misconduct because it appears
the bill provides school districts with the option to
also utilize the dismissal proceedings described in
Education Code � 44944 for these proceedings. However,
staff recommends amendments to clarify that both options
are available for charges based solely on egregious
misconduct and to ensure that all provisions specifically
related to these proceedings apply no matter how the
school district opts to pursue charges of egregious
misconduct. Staff also recommends an amendment to
clarify that if a written decision is not reached on
charges of egregious misconduct, it would not prevent any
future dismissal or suspension proceeding against that
employee based on different allegations.
Additionally, opponents of the bill argue that while the
definition of egregious misconduct for purposes of the
bill has merit, it is too narrow and should be broadened
to include allegations related to certain serious and
violent felonies and other crimes involving moral
turpitude. The opponents believe these are also serious
types of offenses that warrant treatment under the new
accelerated process that allows a hearing to be held
before an administrative law judge only. The Committee
may wish to discuss expanding the definition of egregious
misconduct with the author.
4) Procedural reforms . For all dismissal proceedings,
except those initiated for egregious misconduct pursuant
to the accelerated process as described above, this bill
makes a number of procedural reforms that would establish
AB 215
Page 16
more efficient suspension and dismissal procedures.
a) Removes the summer moratorium on issuing 30-day
notices. The purpose of the prohibition against
issuing a 30-day notice between May 15 and September
15 is to ensure a teacher on summer break does not
inadvertently forfeit his or her right to a hearing
by not receiving the notice promptly and not having
adequate time to prepare a response. However,
employers argue that the notice moratorium limits
their ability to address misconduct issues in a
timely manner. Additionally, the moratorium makes
little sense if misconduct occurs between May 15 and
September 15, during summer school, or at school
operating on a year-round schedule. While an
argument could be made that vacation schedules may
make it more challenging to schedule hearings during
the summer, it appears that lifting the moratorium
would remove a burdensome restriction on the
notification process for teacher misconduct issues
(the summer moratorium would still apply to
unsatisfactory performance).
b) Allows the introduction of historical
information. Current law prohibits testimony or
evidence relating to matters more than four years
old to be introduced at a hearing. This bill would
make it easier to include relevant evidence by
allowing information that is more than four years
old involving sexual offenses and child abuse to be
considered during a hearing. This change could
enable employers to establish a pattern of behavior
that could be relevant to their case by having
access to all possible evidence.
c) Commission on Professional Competence. Current
law requires suspension and dismissal hearings to be
conducted by a commission on professional competence
(CPC) made up of three members-one member selected
by the employee; one member selected by the
governing board; and an administrative law judge who
serves as the chair. Members of the CPC may not be
employees of the district and must have at least
five years of experience (within the last ten) in
the discipline of the employee. This bill
authorizes the hearings to be presided over by an
AB 215
Page 17
administrative law judge alone, instead of the full
CPC, if both parties agree in writing. The bill
also reduces the number of years of experience that
members of the commission on professional competence
(CPC) shall have from five years to three years in
the same discipline of the teacher being suspended
or dismissed and for employees subject to dismissal
whose most recent teaching assignments are in grades
seven to twelve, the bill broadens the definition of
"discipline" to mean the same area of study, as
specified. These changes could help increase the
number of teachers eligible to serve on the CPC and
thereby reduce the delays that school districts may
otherwise encounter under existing law.
d) Mandatory Leave of Absence Offenses. This bill
adds murder and attempted murder to the list of
mandatory leave of absence offenses, therefore
school districts would be required to place an
employee on leave should he or she be criminally
charged with murder or attempted murder. This bill
also removes the sale, use, or exchange of
marijuana, mescaline, peyote, and
tetrahydrocannabinols to minors as exceptions to the
list of controlled substance offenses for which a
certificated employee may be charged with a
mandatory leave of absence offense. These
provisions could help increase protection for
children.
5) Streamlining the dismissal process . Again, the bill is
intended to reduce the timeframe associated with
suspension and dismissal proceedings in order to save
school districts time and money. For all dismissal
proceedings, except those initiated pursuant to the
accelerated process for egregious misconduct, the bill
proposes the following to achieve that objective:
a) Commencement of a hearing. The bill requires
the commencement of a dismissal hearing to be within
six months from the date of the employee's request
for a hearing. However, if the administrative law
judge (ALJ) determines that "extraordinary
circumstances" exist, he or she may grant a
continuance to extend the date for the start of the
hearing.
AB 215
Page 18
b) Timeline to complete a hearing. The bill
requires dismissal and suspension proceedings to
conclude no more than seven months from the date an
employee demands a hearing. If this deadline cannot
be met, the ALJ has the authority to extend the
deadline if he or she believes good cause exists and
establish a reasonable timetable for completion of
the hearing.
c) Limited discovery process. The bill
establishes a limited discovery process for
dismissal proceedings, rather than allowing for full
civil discovery. This process includes the
requirement that the school district and employee
make their initial disclosures within 45 days of the
employee's demand for a hearing and for expert
witness disclosures to be made no later than 60 days
before the commencement of the hearing. The bill
also limits the number of depositions for each party
to no more than five, unless the administrative law
judge allows the limit to be extended, and limits
the depositions to seven hours each.
d) Limit on the amendment of charges. The bill
prohibits a motion to amend charges less than 90
days before the hearing unless a motion to amend
charges is granted by the administrative law judge.
e) Selection of commission on professional
competence (CPC) members. The bill requires the
governing board and the employee to select CPC
members no later than 45 days before the date set
for the hearing. It also creates a mechanism to
challenge the selection of CPC members. If a party
believes that a selected CPC member is not
qualified, that party may file an objection with the
Office of Administrative Hearings within 10 days of
the selection.
6) Will it work ? As the bill moves forward, the author may
wish to consider the following issues in assessing
whether the bill would achieve its objective to
streamline the dismissal process:
a) Does the Office of Administrative Hearings
AB 215
Page 19
have the capacity and resources to conduct the
dismissal hearings within the newly prescribed
timelines, particularly for egregious misconduct
dismissals that would be required to commence within
60 days of an employee's demand for hearing? Is the
Office of Administrative Hearings experiencing any
backlogs that would make this difficult?
b) Is the standard of "extraordinary
circumstances" for granting a continuance to
commence a hearing appropriate? Opponents of the
bill indicate it is too high of a standard to meet
and is not well defined in case law. Additionally,
if the administrative law judge fails to find
"extraordinary circumstances", is the case dismissed
requiring the process to start over from the
beginning?
7) Related and prior legislation .
SB 843 (Correa), similar to this measure, modifies the
dismissal process by establishing a separate set of
procedures for employees charged with certain types of
serious and egregious conduct. SB 843 is pending before
this Committee.
AB 375 (Buchanan), introduced in 2013 and similar to this
bill, proposed to modify the teacher dismissal process.
AB 375 passed this Committee on a 5-0 vote but was
eventually vetoed by the Governor with the following
message:
"The goal of this bill is to simplify the process
for hearing and deciding teacher dismissal cases. I
have listened at great length to arguments both for
and against this measure. While I agree that it
makes worthwhile adjustments to the dismissal
process, such as lifting the summer moratorium on
the filing of charges and eliminating some
opportunities for delay, other changes make the
process too rigid and could create new problems.
I am particularly concerned that limiting the number
of depositions to five per side, regardless of the
AB 215
Page 20
circumstances, and restricting a district's ability
to amend charges even if new evidence comes to
light, may do more harm than good.
I share the authors' desire to streamline the
teacher discipline process, but this bill is an
imperfect solution. I encourage the Legislature to
continue working with stakeholders to identify
changes that are balanced and reduce procedural
complexities."
SB 1530 (Padilla, 2012) proposed to modify procedures
relating to the suspension, dismissal, and leave of
absence of employees and failed passage in the Assembly
Education Committee.
SUPPORT
California Teachers Association
EdVoice
StudentsFirst
OPPOSITION
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of School Business Officials
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
San Diego Unified School District