BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT BILL NO: AB 649
Deborah V. Ortiz, Chair Hearing date: 5/30/00
AB 649 (Machado), as amended 5/24/00 FISCAL: YES
State employees: Memoranda of Understanding Clean Up
HISTORY :
Sponsor: Department of Personnel Administration
Prior legislation: see below
ASSEMBLY VOTES :
Not Applicable; New Bill
SUMMARY :
Would make various changes in the state negotiated Memoranda
of Understanding contracts (MOUs) for 1999-2001. These MOUs
need technical clean-up (#1-5 below). Also included are two
provisions reflecting other negotiated agreements (#6-7
below). This URGENCY bill contains these key provisions:
1) Conform drug testing policy with the Unit 11 collective
bargaining agreement.
2) Safety retirement.
3) Public Contract Code.
4) Rural Health Subsidy.
5) Employee Health Benefit Eligibility for Bargaining Unit
19.
6) Allow STRS members who become State employees to stay in
STRS, instead of joining PERS
7) Permit Security Officers Employed By the State
Department of Justice to have PERS State Peace
Officer/Firefighter (POFF) Retirement Benefits.
ANALYSIS :
1) Drug Testing Policy
PROBLEM:
State Bargaining Unit 11 (Engineering and Scientific
Technician, represented by CSEA) MOU, which took effect July
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 1
1, 1999, provides for an election of remedies/forums when
employees are disciplined or rejected on probation for
positive drug test results.
Existing law does not allow the employee to choose between a
neutral third party grievance procedure or an appeal to the
State Personnel Board (SPB). In addition, statutory language
is needed to make it clear that when an employee elects a
third party, his/her access to court review is under the law
governing the arbitration process, and not under the law
governing State Personnel Board appeals.
This bill would amend the Government Code and the Code of
Civil Procedure to conform with the Unit 11 collective
bargaining agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) anticipates
savings.
State agencies are required to reimburse the SPB for all costs
incurred to conduct appeal hearings. State agencies are also
obligated to employ, or pay for, individuals to represent the
agency at appeal hearings. Employees do not pay any of the
SPB costs. Employees generally receive no-cost representation
from their unions. Consequently, there is no reason for
employees not to appeal to the SPB; the State must bear a
disproportionate amount of the costs.
Under the terms of the Bargaining Unit 11 MOU, only the union
can invoke arbitration and the union must pay one-half of the
arbitrator's costs and fees. Consequently, fewer hearings are
anticipated and the cost will be borne equally.
2) Safety Membership for Excluded Employees
PROBLEM:
Existing law provides that DPA administers safety retirement
benefits for State employees through the collective bargaining
process, when this provision was added to law, the inclusion
of managers and supervisors in the safety requirement was
inadvertently omitted. In addition, not all bargaining units
agreed to the DPA process of inclusion of managers and
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 2
supervisors in safety retirement.
This bill would amend the Government Code (Section 19816.20
and Section 19816. 20 (d)) to include excluded employees in
the definition of "state employees" who are not members of
civil service and amend Section 20405.1 ( c ) to cover only
those units that agreed to the provision in collective
bargaining.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
3) Public Contract Code
PROBLEM:
Existing Public Contract Code was previously amended to
exclude DPA from Department of General Services (DGS) review
of contracts for benefits, health and safety, and training
services for those items bargained in an MOU. Contracts
covering "excluded employees" (managers and supervisors),
however, are not exempt from DGS review.
This bill would amend the Public Contract Code (Section
10295.4) to extend the exclusion to cover the benefit
contracts covering "excluded employees."
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
4) Rural Health Subsidy Appropriation and Appropriation For
Other Employee Compensation
PROBLEM:
Existing law , pursuant to SB 514 (Chesbro), Chapter 743 of
1999, authorized a rural health subsidy for state employees
and retirees who live in areas of the State where there is no
health maintenance organization (HMO) available.
Monies were not appropriated to the Work and Family Program
and the Rural Health Subsidy Program pursuant to Chapter 743
of 1999.
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 3
This bill appropriates money to fully fund the Employee
Compensation Package, fulfilling the State's obligations made
in the MOUs negotiated with the 21 bargaining units.
This is a technical change that appropriates the monies that
were agreed to in bargaining.
FISCAL IMPACT:
According to DPA, the $9.1 million current year cost did not
include unforeseen costs resulting from arbitration that
required additional funding for certain bargaining units.
This combined with revised data from CalPERS reflecting
additional enrollments necessitated the current $12.6 million
appropriation request.
5) Employee Eligibility for Bargaining Unit 19
PROBLEM:
As the result of an MOU agreed to in 1999 , the employee
eligibility for representation in Bargaining Unit 19 (Health
and Social Services Professionals, represented by AFSCME) was
changed to be consistent with all other State employees. When
the legislation was passed that ratified the MOU for Unit 19,
the change in employee eligibility was inadvertently omitted.
This bill would amend Government Code section 22754.2 to
remove Subsection 4, which defines employee eligibility for
Unit 19.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. This employee eligibility change was never fully
implemented.
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 4
6) Allow STRS Members to Stay in STRS When Becoming State
Employees
PROBLEM:
Existing STRS law provides , pursuant to 1997 legislation, that
a STRS member who subsequently was employed by the state
Community Colleges in a position requiring PERS membership may
elect to remain in STRS.
This bill would:
a) allow any certificated teacher member of STRS who
becomes employed by the state to stay in STRS instead of
joining PERS,
b) allow current State employees, who were vested members
of STRS and became mandatory members of the PERS Second Tier
plan, to elect to return to STRS membership,
c) apply only to employees who were hired after June 30,
1991 and before the date the First Tier plan became
effective for new employees represented by this Union, and
d) provide that employees hired on and after January 1,
2000 will have the option of membership under the Second
Tier or the First Tier plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
7) Permit Security Officers Employed By the State Department
of Justice to have PERS State Peace Officer/Firefighter (POFF)
Retirement Benefits
PROBLEM:
Existing PERS law specifically provides that security
officers of the State Department of Justice shall be "state
miscellaneous" members of PERS. "State miscellaneous" members
of PERS receive a retirement benefit based on the "2% @ age
55" formula, and are covered by "Ordinary Disability
Retirement" benefits.
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 5
This bill would provide that security officers of the
Department of Justice shall be "state Peace
Officer/Firefighter" members of PERS, receiving a retirement
benefit based on the "3% @ age 50" formula, and are covered by
"Industrial Disability Retirement" benefits.
According to DPA:
"Initially the Security Officer, DOJ was not included in
POFF because, when the class was established, the existing
Attorney General did not want them included. However, over
the past 10 to 12 years, their duties have significantly
been expanded, necessitating recruitment of a more highly
trained Officer . The DOJ supports the inclusion of the
Security Officer into the POFF and we (DPA) agreed to
including them in bargaining."
FISCAL IMPACT:
Possible savings because state "POFF" members of PERS do not
participate in the federal Social Security program, while
"state miscellaneous members" of PERS are in Social Security.
COMMENTS :
OPPOSITION :
none to date
# # # # #
David Felderstein AB 649
Date: 5/30/00 Page 6