BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2332
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2332 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: April 10, 2014
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill places conditions on trial courts use of contracts for
personal services. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires trial courts, prior to entering into or renewing
contracts, on or after January 1, 2015, for services currently
or customarily performed by trial court employees, or for
court reporter services, to meet specified requirements,
including:
a) Demonstrating actual savings compared to the court's
actual costs of providing the same services.
b) That the contract shall not be approved solely because
of savings from lower contractor pay rates or benefits.
c) That the contract shall not cause loss of an existing
employee's job, seniority, a reduction in wages or
benefits, or an involuntary transfer.
d) That the contract shall be awarded through a competitive
bidding process and limited to a five-year duration.
2)Requires that contracts over $100,000 must (i) disclose
specified information, (ii) provide measurable performance
standards; and (iii) require a performance audit and a cost
audit be done and considered prior to any contract renewal.
3)Prohibits contract approval if, in light of the special nature
of the judicial function, it would be inconsistent with the
public interest to have the service provided by a private
entity.
AB 2332
Page 2
4)States that the above requirements do not apply to contracts:
a) Between trial courts or between a court and a local
government agency.
b) For a new trial court function for which the Legislature
has mandated or authorized use of contractors.
c) Where the services required are highly specialized or
require technical expertise outside the courts'
capabilities.
d) Where the services are incidental to a leave of real or
personal property.
e) Are required due to potential conflicts of interest
regarding trial court employees.
f) Are due to an emergency and necessary to protect public
health and safety.
g) Involving training courses not requiring permanent
instructor positions.
h) For services of an urgent nature and the process for
hiring court employees would frustrate the purpose of the
contract. This exception does not apply to court reporters
except on a pro tempore basis.
i) Developed pursuant to rehabilitation programs under the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
j) For court interpreter services that are consistent with
existing law for such contracts.
5)Requires every trial court, by February 1, 2015, to report
specified information to the Legislature on contracts for
services that were provided by or are customarily provided by
trial court employees and were entered into between July 1,
2014 and December 31, 2014, with a term extending beyond March
31, 2015.
6)State legislative intent to consider reductions to trial court
appropriations by the amount of contracts that would not have
met the requirements of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, significant loss of future savings, potentially in
the millions of dollars (General Fund) annually, to the extent
this bill restricts the ability of courts to transition to
technology-based services for existing court services,
including but not limited to court reporting.
AB 2332
Page 3
2)The Judicial Council estimate that 20 courts will incur
additional costs exceeding $4 million annually for replacing
pro tempore court reporters with equivalent staff.
3)Unknown, significant costs potentially in the millions of
dollars (General Fund) to the extent the standards established
in this bill limit the courts' ability to negotiate contracts
for services. The courts will also incur administrative costs
to demonstrate that a decision to contract-out for services is
allowable under the bill's parameters, and to provide the
specified additional information and performance audit for
contracts exceeding $100,000.
4)Offsetting a portion of the above costs will be savings in
cases where the decisions to continue or resume performing
functions with court employees is more cost effective.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Nearly all government entities in California are
restricted from contracting out functions customarily done by
public employees, unless specified conditions are satisfied.
These requirements are designed to ensure that not only is
work done cost-effectively, but that the public interest in
government activities remains paramount. As a general rule,
work performed for the state must be done by state employees
unless the proposed contract for personal services meets
specified criteria, including a clear demonstration of cost
savings. Schools and community college districts are also
required to comply with the same standards that apply to state
departments.
AB 2332, sponsored by the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), extends these same
contracting requirements to the courts.
2)Prior Legislation . In 2013, AB 566 (Wieckowski), a
substantially similar bill, was vetoed by the Governor, who
opined that the bill contained unclear provisions and required
courts to meet overly detailed requirements, particularly in
light of the courts' funding constraints. Though AB 2332,
unlike AB 566, does not apply to contracts for services that
were historically provided by court employees, it contains all
AB 2332
Page 4
of the same parameters and requirements that caused the
Governor's concern, and trial court budgets remained stressed.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081