BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2727|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2727
Author: Frazier (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/10/14
AYES: Jackson, Anderson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning, Vidak
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/7/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Courts: witness: local agency employees
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill increases the amount that a subpoenaing
party must advance, together with the subpoena, from $150 to
$275 for each day that a local agency employee is required to
remain in attendance pursuant to the subpoena.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Allows for employees of local agencies to be subpoenaed in a
civil action or proceeding as a witness with regard to events
or transactions they perceived or investigated in the course
of their duties, to which that local agency is not a party.
Specifies that the employee shall receive the salary of other
compensation to which he or she is normally entitled from that
local agency during the time that he or she prepares for his
or her response and appearance, the time spent traveling to
and from the place where the court or other tribunal is
CONTINUED
AB 2727
Page
2
located, and while he or she is required to remain at that
place pursuant to the subpoena, as well as the actual
necessary and reasonable traveling expenses incurred in
complying with the subpoena.
2.Defines "local agency" for these purposes to mean a city,
county, city and county, special district, redevelopment
agency, or any other political subdivision of the state.
3.Requires that the party at whose request the subpoena is
issued to reimburse the local agency for the full cost
incurred by the local agency in paying for the employee's
salary or other compensation and traveling expenses, as
provided, for each day that the employee is required to remain
in attendance pursuant to the subpoena.
4.Requires that the local agency refund any excess amount paid
if the actual expenses later prove to be less than the amount
tendered, and that the party at whose request the subpoena is
issued pay the difference between the amount tendered and the
actual expenses incurred by the local agency if the amount
proves to be more than the amount tendered.
5.Requires that the amount of $150, together with the subpoena,
must be tendered to the local agency for each day that the
employee is required to remain in attendance pursuant to the
subpoena.
This bill increases the amount that a subpoenaing party must
advance, together with the subpoena, from $150 to $275 for each
day that a local agency employee is required to remain in
attendance pursuant to the subpoena.
Background
California law acknowledges that there is a cost when local
agency employees are subpoenaed as witnesses in civil trials
with regard to events or transactions they perceived or
investigated in the course of their duties. To offset that
cost, the subpoenaing party, however, is required to provide, at
the same time that the subpoena is provided, an advance of a fee
(advance deposit) for each day that the employee is required to
remain in attendance pursuant to that subpoena. The local
agency must return any amount later proven to have been in
CONTINUED
AB 2727
Page
3
excess, while the subpoenaing party must pay any difference
between the amount advanced and the actual amount.
Under California law, similar provisions exist with respect to
other (non-local agency) public entity employees, including
peace officers, firefighters, trial court employees, and state
and county employees. When the statute pertaining to these
public entity employees was first passed in 1963, the amount of
the advance deposit was $25 for each day. By 1969, it was
raised to $45, followed by $75 in 1974, $125 by 1980, and $150
by 1986. That amount stayed static from 1986 until 2012,
despite increases seen in salaries and travel costs. Then, in
2012, AB 2612 (Achadjian, Chapter 377, Statutes of 2012) was
enacted to raise the rate for public entity employees, including
county employees, to $275.
With respect to local agency employees, the $150 advance deposit
rate has not been raised since it was first implemented in 1991
by SB 109 (Kopp, Chapter 230, Statutes of 1991). As a result,
the amount paid in advance is necessarily a smaller portion than
the actual cost and is more likely to be inadequate to cover the
actual expenses as the years pass without any increase. While
the local agency is entitled to demand payment for the remaining
portion, it has proven difficult at times and invoices can go
unpaid.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/12/14)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
City of Vista
League of California Cities
Peace Officers Research Association
Vacaville City Council
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
Local agencies are required to pay an employee's regular
CONTINUED
AB 2727
Page
4
salary and other compensation when the employee is required
by subpoena to attend a civil action or proceeding as a
witness in litigation in a matter regarding an event or
transaction that he or she perceived or investigated, in
the course of his or her duties, when the public entity is
not a party. Under current law, the party that requests the
subpoena must pay local agencies a $150 deposit for each
day that an employee is required to remain in attendance
under subpoena. Additionally, the requesting party must
reimburse the local agency for the actual employee costs
beyond the $150 (and local agencies are responsible for
returning deposit funds if actual employee expenses are
less than the deposit).
However, in practice, local governments have found that
collecting amounts beyond the $150 deposit can sometimes be
challenging and administratively difficult. Generally, a
local government's legal remedy for non-payment is to sue
in small claims court. Except for in egregious cases, the
work to prepare for such litigation might not justify what
the local agency would expect to recover.
The purpose of this bill is to treat local governments
fairly and consistently, and protect them from covering
expenses for which they may not receive required
reimbursements.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/7/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell,
Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein,
Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski,
Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Conway, Lowenthal, Vacancy
AL:nl 6/12/14 Senate Floor Analyses
CONTINUED
AB 2727
Page
5
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED