BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Adam B. Schif, Chairman 1999-2000 Regular Session ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 312 | S| |-----------------------------------------------------------| |Senator Schiff | B| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Introduced | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 16, 1999 | 3| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Government Code | 1| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |DLM:cjt 2| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {uUBJECT u} Judicial Administration Efficiency Mdernization Fund {u DESCRIPTION u} This bill would approriate at least $10 million to fund the Judicial Administration Efficiency Modenization Fund. The bill would state legislative intent that the funds be pioritized to assure that Year 2000 computer needs of the courts are met. (Thi analysis reflects amendments to be offered in committee.) {u BACKGROUND u} The Judicial Administration Efficiency Modernization Fund was established in 1997 under the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Funding Act, but hasnever been funded. The fund was intended in part to be used to upgrade and moernize court information systems, such as Y2K compliance. The $10 (More) million proposed as he minimum level of funding in SB 312 mirrors the amount contained in the Govenor's proposed budget. {u CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW u} 1. {u Eisting law u} provides that there is in the State Treasury the Judicial Adminitration Efficiency and Modernization Fund. {u This bill u} would provide an apropriation of at least $10 million from the General Fund to the Judicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund. 2. {u Existing law u} provides hat moneys in the fund may be expended to promote improved access, efficienc, and effectiveness in trial courts that have unified to the fullest extnt permitted by law. Approved projects may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Support the payment for cost of judicial offices or court staff who participate in in-state education programs, or to support local trial court education programs. (2) Improved technolgy including information systems programming or equipment upgrades thatmeet standards approved by the Judicial Council and that promote efficieny and access to justice, or other technology that promotes access,efficiency, or security. (3) Retain experienced jurists by establishing incentives of enhanced judicial benefits and educational sabbaticals, not o exceed 120 days every five years, as provided for by rules of court adopted by the Judicial Council. (4)Acquire improved legal research trough the use of law clerks or technology. (More) {u This bill u} would delete numbers 1 and above. {u This bill u} would add intent language to state that, "It is the inten of the Legislature that the Judicial Council prioritize allocations from the udicial Administration Efficiency and Modernization Fund to give priority to funding information technology projects (1) related to Year 2000 remediation eforts and (2) for those courts with the greatest information technology needs. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Need for legislation u} Antiquaed and outdated computer systems will threaten many California court operatins in the year 2000, claims the author. "The millenium bug which will hit cmputers in the year 2000 could pose an unacceptable threat to public heath and safety if the court computers collapse. The Modernization and Efficincy Fund was created to address exactly this kind of situation. It is impertive that we fund the courts' efforts to become Y2K compliant as soon aspossible. SB 312 will assure the California Court Modernization and Efficiecy Fund of an appropriation of at least $10 million for the purpose of rpairing and improving the court's technology." Last year SB 752 (Schiff, et l) contained an appropriation of $50 million to the California Court Modrnization and Efficiency Fund, which reflected the amount contained in the Gvernor's budget. There was some concern expressed last session that there ws too much discretion granted to Judicial Council in spending from the Clifornia Court Modernization and Efficiency Fund. Ultimately the appropriaton was removed from the bill in conference committee. SB 312 mirrors th amount presently contained in the Governor's proposed budget. It is the inention of the author that SB 312 be viewed as a complement to the budgetprocess, and provides a minimum level of funding for the California Court Moernization and Efficiency Fund. The author and Judicial Council wish to strss the needs of the Court Modernization and Efficiency Fund currently exeed $10 million. (More) The California Judicial Council, the agency that will administer th fund, states, "Without that funding, the judiciary's ability to conduct criical public business will be severely compromised." 2. {u Author's amendment to be offered in committee u} The author will offer amendments in committee whch will adopt the recommendation contained in the Legislative Analysist' Office (LAO) analysis of the Governor's proposed budget. LAO suggests thatthe funds be prioritized to assure Y2K needs of the courts are met. (Ths language is reflected above.) The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2, whichoversees judicial spending, approved the funding level at $10 million at ther March 8th hearing. Budget-Sub 2 also adopted the LAO spending priorit recommendation. (See SB 160 [Peace].) The author will also add language t reflect that the $10 million appropriation is a minimum figure, by adding a appropriation of at least $10 million. In this manner, the bill does nt implicitly endorse the notion that $10 million is sufficient for the moderization needs of the courts, but rather recognizes that at least $10 million is minimally necessary. It also leaves open the hope and possibility tht more monies will be available and appropriated when the May revise numbersare available. Support: None Known Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: Author Related Pending Legislation: SB 160 (Peae) - Budget bill Prior Legislation: SB 752 (Schiff, et al), 1998, Died in Assmbly ************** (More) END@#$ SB 313 03/19/99 14:2:16 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | B 313| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Steet, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax:(916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} CONSENT Bill No: SB 313 Author: Figueroa (D), et al Amended: 3/18/9 Vote: 21 {u SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE u} : 9-0, 3/16/99 AYES: Burton, Esctia, Haynes, Morrow, O'Connell, Peace, Sher, Wright, Schiff {u SUBJECT u} : Debit cards: cardholder liability {u SOURCE u} : Consumers Union California Bankers Association {u DIGEST u} : This bill would generally limi consumer liability for unauthorized debit card charges to a maximum of $50. The bill would require consumers to report any unauthorized uses of a debit crd that appear on their periodic statement within 60 days of the card issuer's transmittal of the statement. The bill would also specify that extenuating ircumstances shall extend the reporting time for a reasonable period. If the onsumer fails to report within the appropriate time, the consumer would be lable for the amount of each unauthorized transfer that occurs after the close f the 60 days and before notice to the debit card issuer. {u ANALYSIS u} : Exsting law limits consumer liability for unauthorized credit card charges to $5. However, existing state law is silent on debit cardholder liability for uauthorized charges. CONTINUED {u SB 313 u} Page 2 Existing federal law provides hree possible tiers of consumer liability for unauthorized uses of debit cards depending on the situation. A consumer may be liable for: (1) up to $50; () up to $500; or (3) an unlimited amount, depending on when the unauthorized ue occurs and when it is reported. This bill would establish the conditions fo a debit cardholder's liability for unauthorized use and limit that liabilit to a maximum of $50 in most cases. This bill also would require consumers to rport any unauthorized use of the debit card that appears on a periodic stateent received by the consumer within 60 days of the statement being sent by thecard issuer, or a longer time period if the delay is due to extenuating circmstances. If the consumer fails to report the unauthorized use within 60 days the consumer shall be liable for the amount of each unauthorized transfer tha occurs after the close of the 60 days and before notice to the debit card isuer. An estimated 88 million debit cards, also known as check cards, have ben issued to consumers, largely as replacements for ATM only cards. Debit card, like ATM cards, pull funds directly from the consumer's bank account. Debt cards resemble ATM cards, but don't require personal access numbers, and cary the logo of Visa or MasterCard. It is estimated that about two-thirds of Aerican households will have debit cards by the year 2000. As a form of elecronic checking, debit cards are a very attractive and cost-effective new produt for the banking industry, and also offer added convenience to consumers who use their debit cards to purchase goods and services totaling close to $60 bilion a year. This bill also would require debit card issuers to give consumes adequate notice of potential liability and a description of means of notifyig the issuer of loss or theft of the card. {u SB 313 u} Page 3 Federal law currently offers debit card consumers some protetion under a three-tiered system of consumer liability for unauthorized charge. Depending on the circumstances, a consumer may be liable for: (1) up to 50; (2) up to $500; or (3) an unlimited amount depending on when an unauthorizd charge occurs. Furthermore, more than one tier may apply to a given situatin because each corresponds to a different (sometimes overlapping) time perio or set of conditions. (12 CFR Section 205.6.) Federal law, however, explicity allows for state law to impose less liability than set forth in federal Reguation E. In particular, Section 205.6(b)(6) provides that: "If state law .. . imposes less liability than is provided by this section, the consumer's libility shall not exceed the amount imposed under the state law." This bill wold impose less liability by limiting the consumer's exposure to $50 as long asthe consumer reports any unauthorized use that appears on a periodic statement within 60 days. It would also expand the consumer's protection by increasin the situations which are considered "extenuating circumstances," thereby exteding the 60-day time period in which a consumer has to report unauthorized ues. In order to avoid confusion and maintain existing practices to the extentpossible, much of the language in the bill is adopted from federal Regulation . Thus, the bill would allow debit card issuers to provide California consumes greater protection, while limiting the procedural changes the debit card isuers would need to make in order to provide this protection. For example, th language and standards used in subdivision (b) of the bill, which would requie a consumer to report unauthorized uses to the debit card issuer within 60 das, closely corresponds to the language of federal Regulation E. Thus, whilethat provision of the bill may appear vague and ambiguous upon first reading (he provision contains no less than three tests of "reasonableness"), applying he language from existing Regulation E would seem to avoid the inconsistencis and confusion that could be associated with requiring debit card issuers to ollow a new and different {u SB 313 u} Page 4 set of standards. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/18/99) Consumers Union (co-source) alifornia Bankers Association co-source) California Alliance for Consumer Protecion {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : The author states that the growth in popularty of debit cards has increased the risk of consumer loss. Debit cards are cosumer friendly, but place consumers at risk as a result of unauthorized uses due to loss, theft, or fraud. The author notes that while current state law limts credit card liability to $50, there is no similar provision for debit cars. Debit card liability is currently left to federal law, which provides for hree tiers of liability, ranging from $50 to unlimited liability, depending onwhen the loss is reported. This bill is a compromise proposal co-sponsored by Consumers Union and the California Bankers Association. Last year, AB 1638 Brown) sought to extend the current $50 maximum liability for unauthorized creit card charges to unauthorized debit card charges. It also sought to enact rules for crediting a consumer's account in cases of reported unauthorized chages. AB 1638 was opposed by the California Bankers Association and by VISA, Ic, it was held by the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection, Governmenta Efficiency, and Economic Development. As California consumers increasingly usedebit cards in place of credit cards, the author and sponsors believe the la needs to be updated to protect consumers against fraud and loss and to provid a valuable source of certainty to California consumers as they move into the ge of electronic payments. While the bill may provide less liability protecion than the credit card law, it will provide consumers better protection thancurrent federal {uB 313 u} Page 5 law (see ext comment). In all, proponents contend that this bill is a fair compromise. Consumer's Union states that, "debit cards pull funds directly from the consuer's bank account. Although a debit card looks much like a credit cared, the oss of a debit card can expose a consumer to much higher liability than the oss of a credit card. Federal law provides for three tiers of liability, rangng from $50 to unlimited liability, depending on when the loss is reported. "he number of debit cards and debit card transactions is exploding. In just th first six months of 1998, 88.2 million debit cardholders made 1.27 billion ofline debit purchases. This was a 52.4% increase in volume from the same perod just the year before. 'Offline' transactions are those in which the debit ard is presented just like a credit card - without a personal identifying numbr. The fact that the card is commonly used without a PIN makes it crucial tat consumers be protected by a realistic cap on the amount of their liability or unauthorized use of the card. "Debit cards are issued by banks under the lgo of Visa or MasterCard. Each has placed voluntary limits on consumer lossafter loss or theft of a debit card which are even lower than the $50 limit inSB 313. Voluntary limits, however, can be changed at any time. SB 313 provids a baseline level of protection for California consumers by putting a ceilig on a consumer's liability for unauthorized use of a debit card. "The $50 libility ceiling contained in SB 313 is the same ceiling that has long been partof the California Civil Code for credit cards. The bill requires consumers to report the theft of funds using a debit card within 60 days of discovery of he theft to receive the benefit of the state law liability limit, or a longer ime period if the delay is due to extenuating circumstances. "SB 313 will proide a valuable source of certainty to California consumers as they move into te age of electronic payments." {u SB 313 u} Pag 6 RJG:sl 3/19/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITIN: SEE ABOVE **** END **** EN@#$ SB 14 02/08/99 09:29:00 SEN. AGR. & WAT. RES. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND WATER RESOURCES Jm Costa, Chairman SB 314 (Kelley) As Introduced Hearing Date: March 16, 1999 iscal: Yes Consultant: Dan Webb PURPOSE OF BILL: To allow improved water supply reliability for those agrcultural water users within Metropolitan Water District who pay full rate for heir water. BACKGROUND: Currently the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) deivers water to its member agencies for municipal and industrial (M&I) purposs, with any surplus water made available for agricultural uses. Under currentlaw, such agricultural water deliveries are subordinate to M&I deliveries and re subject to interruption. Because of this, the rate charged for agricultura (surplus) water subject to interruption is generally $294 per acre foot, whle the full service M&I rate is $431. However, even if an agricultural user pys the same rate as an M&I user (for example, because the user desires a firm upply for a high value crop) the priority system of the current MWD Act puts te agricultural user at risk of interruption. PROPOSED LAW: This bill woul change the Metropolitan Water District Act to treat, in terms of supply reliaility, any water user willing to pay full service rates as a full service custmer. From this standpoint there would be no differentiation between municipal domestic, agricultural or other beneficial uses. Those paying less than ful service rates would still be subject to discontinuance of service. COMMENT: The sponsor feels that agricultural businesses, including nurseries, greenouses, citrus, avocados, and other high value crops are an integral part of th Southern California economy and should have the option of assuring improved wter supply reliability by paying the full M&I rate. This essentially is als the public policy issue at hand. SUPPORT: San Diego County Water uthority (sponsor) OPPOSED: None Received END@#$ SB 314 03/19/99 14:13:53 SEN F. A. sf BILLANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 314| |Offce of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 24 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 314 Author: Kelley (R) Amended: As introduced Vote: 1 {u SENATE AG. AND WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE u} : 9-0, 3/16/99 AYES: Costa, Boen, Johannessen, Monteith, Ortiz, Peace, Perata, Poochigian, Wright NOT VOTIG: Kelley, Speier {u SUBJECT u} : Metropolitan water districts {u SOURCE u} : San Diego Water Authority {u DIGEST u} : This bill provides that, for the urposes of the Metropolitan Water District Act, any water purchased at the uiform rate or rates established by a district for domestic or municipal uses ad used for beneficial purposes within that district shall be deemed to be wate for domestic and municipal uses and not surplus water. {u ANALYSIS u} : Accoding to the Senate Agriculture and Water Resources Committee, the MetropolitanWater District (MWD) currently delivers water to its member agencies for muncipal and industrial (M&I) purposes, with any surplus water made available foragricultural uses. Under current law, such agricultural water deliveries are ubordinate to M&I deliveries and are subject to interruption. Because of ths, the rate charged for agricultural (surplus) water subject to interruption i generally $294 per acre foot, while the full service M&I rate is $431. Howeer, even if CONTINUED {u SB 314 u} Page 2 an agricultural user pays the same rae as an M&I user (for example, because the user desires a firm supply for a hih value crop) the priority system of the current Metropolitan Water DistrictAct puts the agricultural user at risk of interruption. This bill changes theMetropolitan Water District Act to treat, in terms of supply reliability, any ater user willing to pay full service rates as a full service customer. Fro this standpoint, there would be no differentiation between municipal, domesti, agricultural or other beneficial uses. Those paying less than full servic rates would still be subject to discontinuance of service. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No {u SUPPORT u} : (Verifed 3/17/99) San Diego Water Authority (source) Metropolitan Water District of outhern California {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : The sponsor states that agricltural businesses, including nurseries, greenhouses, citrus, avocados, and othr high value crops are an integral part of the Southern California economy andshould have the option of assuring improved water supply reliability by payig the full M&I rate. TSM:cm 3/17/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** EN@#$ SB 19 02/08/99 15:14:25 SEN. I.R. sc BILL ANALYSIS Senate Committee on Industrial Relations 1999-2000 Regular Session Hild L. Solis, Chair Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No Bill No: SB 39 Author: Burton Version: February 8, 199 Subject: Joint Enforcement Strike Force Support: California State Coucil of Laborers Legislative Department (Sponsor) Associated General Contractor of California California National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) iping Industry Progress and Education Trust Fund Painting and Drywall Work Presevation Fund, Inc. CA Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractos, National Association Construction Employers' Association State Building and Cnstruction Trades Council, AFL-CIO Cal-Nevada Conference of Operating Enginees California State Council of Carpenters Northern District Council of Ironworkes California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Trade Council Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers Opposition: None regitered as of March 21, 1999. Purpose: To extend the sunset provision of the mlti-agency Joint Enforcement Strike Force on the Underground Economy to Janury 1, 2006. Analysis: Existing law provides a framework of state eforcement of laws relating to, among other things, the proper payment of wags, mandated benefits, payroll taxes, adherence to occupational safety and healh standards, and occupational licensure requirements. Established in 1994, an due to sunset on January 1, 2000, the Joint Enforcement Strike Force on theUnderground Economy (JESF) is a multi agency enforcement effort which includesthe: - Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) - Employment Development Departmnt (EDD) - Department of Consumer Affairs - Franchise Tax Board - Board of Equalzation - Office of Criminal Justice Planningand the - Department of Justice. DD is designated as the lead agency. JESF's purpose is to enhance the developmet and sharing of information necessary to combat the underground economy; to improve coordination of enforcement activities; and to develop methods to pool focus, and target the enforcement resources of all JESF member agencies in suport of individual agencies. {u This Bill u} would extend the JESF sunset date t January 1, 2006. Comments: 1. {u Proponents u} state that JESF should be cntinued because of its effective track record of coordinating enfocement agencies. Since its inception JESF has made coordinated efforts he norm, not the exception. Both Governor Deukjemian and Governor Wilsoncited the harmful effects of the underground economy: lawless busiess enterprises that pose unfair competition to law-abiding employers; thy pay little or no taxes, engaging in $60 billion worth of transacions per year, cheating the state of over $6 billion per year in taxes. Hearing Date: March 24, 1999 {u SB 319 u} Consultant: Patick Henning Page 2 Sente Committee on Industrial Relations 2. {u JESF Origins and Enforcemnt Statistics u} : Governor Wilson created JESF by Executive Order in 1993. It was statutorily established by SB 1490 (Johnston) in 1994. Sice its formation two enforcement efforts have been implemented: the Emploment Enforcement Task Force (EETF) and the Construction Enforcement Projet (CEP). According to the last issued report of its activities, covering 1997, EETF had conducted 5,777 investigations, resulting in th issuance of 4,682 citations, totaling $27,229,300 for various labor law violations since 1994. Those investigations initiated 2,691 payrol audits. In addition, 18,209 workers, who should have been reported as mployees but were not, were identified. Among the many industries it investigates, EETF is active in the automotive repair, garment manufaturing, construction, furniture, and service-related industries. Alo since 1994, CEP initiated 796 audits in the construction industry, resuting in $16,865,414 in unpaid employment taxes. 3,010 workers were identified who had not been classified as employees by the employers. 18 full-time staff (9 from EDD and 9 from DIR) are assigned to EETF. 8 EDD investigators are assigned to CEP. 3. {u Source Leads and Informatin Sharing u} : There are four major sources of leads utilized by JESF: hotlin calls, other governmental agencies, industry contacts, and JESF staff. JESF has access to the databases of EDD, the Contractors' State License Boar, the Franchise Tax Board, the Board of Equalization, the Department of Moto Vehicles, the Secretary of State, the Workers' Compensation Rating Bureu, and DIR's Registration and Licensure files. The databases are used to deelop and screen leads for possible investigation. Hearing Date: March 24, 199 {u SB 319 u} Consultant: Patrick Henning Page 3 Senate Committee on IndustrialRelations END@#$ SB 338 03/15/99 15:44:04 SEN. ED. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION DedeAlpert, Chair 1999-2000 Regular Session BILL NO: SB 338 AUTHOR: Wright AS AMENDED: March15, 1999 FISCAL COMM.: Yes HEARING DATE: March 24, 1999 URGENC: No CONSULTANT: Lisa R. Horwitch {u SUMMARY u} This bill equires one-year notice, as specified, prior to the discontinuation of an intecollegiate athletic team at the University of California, California State Uniersity, and California Community College campuses. {u BACKGROUND u} Public coleges and universities currently offer a variety of intercollegiate athletic prgrams. In an effort to address program funding issues as well as meet federal compliance with Title IX, colleges and universities may choose to eliminate ome of their intercollegiate athletic programs. Often, such action is taken wihout notice to the campus student association or community at large. Current law is silent on this issue of notification. {u ANALYSIS u} {u This bill u} requres one-year notice, as specified, prior to the discontinuation of an intercolegiate athletic team at the University of California, California State Universty, and California Community College campuses. Specifically, this bill: 1) Requires written notice of the proposed discontinuation of an intercollgiate athletic program to the student body organization of that college o university. 2) Requires published notice of the proposed SB 338 Page 2 discontinuation of the intercollegate athletic program in a newspaper of general circulation serving the community in which that college or university is located. 3) equires a college or university to provide written notice of the proposeddiscontinuation to prospective students who have been offered admission t that college or university and who would attend that college or uiversity during the academic year in which the proposed discontinuation wuld occur. {u STAFF COMMENTS u} {u 1) Purpose of this bill. u} This bill attempt to provide, at minimum, an avenue by which the student association at a college or university and the community at-large will have sufficiet time to consider alternative funding sources in order to continue an intercollegiate team that is in jeopardy of being eliminated. {u u} {u 2 Clarifying Amendment. u} Staff is informed that the author wishes to prvide further clarification of the operational language relative to the on-year notice requirement; the current language is not clear. Staff recommends clarification of this language. {u SUPPORT u} Community College Baeball Coaches Association Individual letters {u OPPOSITION u} None received {u u} END@#$ SB 357 02/10/99 15:56:02 SEN. JUD sc BILL ANALSIS SENATE JUDICIARYCOMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 egular Session ------------------------------------------------------------ |SB 357 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Ortiz | B| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Amended March 18, 1999 | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 23, 999 | 3| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Family Code | 5 |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |GMO:cjt | 7| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |--------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Dissolution of Marriage: Attorney's Fees {u DESCIPTION u} This bill would allow a party to use quai-community or his or her own separate property to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs in order to retain legal counsel. The bill would further requir a party to account to the community for such use of community or quasi-communty property or to the other party for the use of that party's separate propety. {u BACKGROUND u} This bill was proposed by a membe of the Beverly Hills Bar Association, whose client was prohibited by current aw from using even his own separate property in order to retain legal counse in a divorce proceeding. More) {u CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW u} {u Under existinglaw u} , the summons issued with a petition for dissolution of marriage contains temporary restraining order, restraining both parties from, among others, tansferring, hypothecating, encumbering, concealing, or in any way disposing ofany property, whether community, quasi-community, or separate, without the writen consent of the other party or order of the court. A statutory exception t the restraining order permits a party to use community property for the purpoe of retaining legal counsel in the proceeding. {u This bill u} would allow a pary, notwithstanding the automatic restraining order, to use not only community property but also quasi-community property, or his or her own separate propery to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs in order to retain legal counsel {u This bill u} would require the party using community or quasi-community propety to pay the costs of retaining legal counsel, to account to the community fo the use of the property. {u This bill u} would also require the party using anyother property that is later determined to be the other party's separate proerty to retain legal counsel, to account to the other party for the use of theother's separate property. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Statd objective of the bill u} This bill is sponsored by the Beverly Hills Bar Association. The stated purpose of the bill is to cure an anomaly in curren law which prevents a party in a dissolution proceeding from using his or he own separate property to pay attorney's fees and costs incurred in retaning legal counsel. 2. {u Intent of the restraining order is to preserve assetsu} (More) Exising language in Family Code 2040 (a)(2) restrains the parties in a dissoluion from transferring or otherwise disposing of community, quasi-community, r separate property, except for expenses in the usual course of businessor for the necessities of life. In many cases, parties are not aware of the ifferences between community and quasi-community property. And oftentims, especially with marriages of long duration, lines between community propety and separate property can be blurred. The restraining order imposed under current law is intended to preserve the community assets and to prevent aste or concealment of property that may otherwise be determined to belong t the community. 3. {u Current exception for use of community property to retan legal counsel u} An exception to the restraining order preventing the trasfer of property after service of summons allows for the use of community prperty to pay for attorney's fees in order to retain legal counsel. The statte is silent as to the use of quasi-community (property located outside he state or property acquired by a spouse while domiciled outside the state,which would otherwise be characterized as community property) or one's own separate property for that purpose. The statute is similarly silent as to he use of any property to pay court or other costs. Thus, a party who wises to retain legal counsel and who has no access to what is clearly communit property or where there is insufficient accessible community property my be prevented from doing so because of the restraining order. In fact, theproponent of this bill provides anecdotal evidence of the fact that her cliet was prevented by the statute from using his own separate property in oder to pay for her retainer for fees and costs. Although nothing in existng law prevents a party from petitioning the court for an order allowing theparty to use his or her own separate property, upon a clear showing of onership, for any use whatsoever, including payment of his or her attorney's etainer, the attorney may have to go to court without the retainer having ben (More) paidbeforehand. This bill would eliminate that step and would allow a party t use any property, whether community, quasi-community or the party's own seprate property for the purpose of retaining legal counsel only. Any other use would be covered by the restraining order. This bill would allow use o such property for payment of costs as well as attorney's fees in order to rtain legal counsel. Costs normally included in retainer fees are limitedto court costs and reasonable costs of initial discovery such as depositions 4. {u Accounting for use of property required u} While current law requiresthe party who uses community, quasi-community or separate property to accoun for the property if used for business or necessities of life, it only rquires an accounting to the court of extraordinary expenditures made after smmons is served. This bill would require the party using community or qusi-community property to pay for his or her attorney's retainer for fees andcosts to account for the use of said property to the community. In additon, this bill would require the party who uses property that is determined t be the other party's separate property to pay for his or her attorney's retainer for fees and costs to account to the other party for the use of theproperty. 5. {u Use of property restricted to attorney's fees and costs to retain legal counsel u} The original intent of existing law in allowing ue of community property for payment of attorney's fees is to facilitate party's ability to retain legal counsel. Thus, the exception is allowed ony for the purpose of retaining legal counsel. This bill would similarly alow the use of (More) quasi-community or separate property {u only u} for payment of attorney' fees and costs in order to retain legal counsel. Additional expenses fr attorney's fees and costs can be taken care of by applying to the court fo an order for such expenditures. 6. {u State Bar Family Law Section comment u} While the Family Law Section of the State Bar generally supports the ida of expanding current law to allow for the use of quasi-community and one'sown separate property for retaining legal counsel, the group suggests futher amendments that would permit unilateral use of community, quasi-communiy and separate property to pay attorney's fees and costs beyond the retainerfee that would be permitted under this bill. The Section states that ther suggested amendment would reduce the number of hearings in family court. However, such an expansion for the use of community or quasi-community asses could, in some cases, cause diminishment of community assets, perhaps to te detriment of the other party. Existing law requires advanced 5-days' ntice to the other party of any "extraordinary expenditures" and requiresan accounting to the court of such expenditures. Attorney's fees and costs eyond the retainer fee can be taken care of under this "extraordinary expendtures" provision, or by obtaining a court order. The suggested expansionof the bill would circumvent the existing mechanism by which the court monitrs "extraordinary expenditures", i.e., those beyond the usual course of usiness and for the necessities of life. Thus, while perhaps reducing the nuber of hearings at which authorization for further use of community, quai-community or separate property is requested, the suggestion made by the Stte Bar Family Law Section would allow attorneys to charge fees and costs witout regard to the accounting requirements of the court and without priornotice to the other party of the use of community or quasi-community assets. (More) Support: Beverly Hills Bar Association Opposition: None known {u HISTORY u} Source: Beverly Hills Bar Association Related Pending Leislation: None known Prior Legislation: None known *********** (More) END@#$ SB 359 02/10/9 13:02:17 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 359 (Knight) Page SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S 1999-200 Regular Session B 3 5 9 SB 359 (Knight) As IntroducedFebrury 10, 1999 Hearing date: March 16, 1999 PenalCode SH:jm(URGENCY) {u RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS u} HISTORY Source:California Reserve Peace Officers Association Prior Legislatin: SB 1874 - Chapter 676, Statutes of 1994 Support: 3 individual reserve offices Opposition:None known {u KEY ISSUES u} SHOULD A RESERVE PEACE OFFICER, WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY SATISFIED SECIFIED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND HAS BEEN SERVING AS A LEVEL I OR II RESERVE FFICER IN ONE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, BE DEEMED TO REMAIN QUALIFIED EVEN THOGH THAT RESERVE OFFICER ACCEPTS A NEW APPOINTMENT AT THE SAME LEVEL IN ANOTHERLAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (AND IS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET ANY ADDITIONAL TAINING STANDARDS NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRED FOR HIM OR HER TO HAVE CONTINUED AT HE SAME LEVEL WITH HIS OR HER PREVIOUS AGENCY)? SB 359 (Knight) Page (CONTIUED) SHOULD THE EXISTING LIMITATION TO ONLY "REGULAR, SALARIED, FULL-TIME" PACE OFFICERS FOR THE EXEMPTION TO THE USE OF OTHERWISE PROHIBITED WEAPONS AND SILENCERS BE DELETED FROM THOSE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW ANY PEACE OFFICER MEMBER (INCLUDING RESERVE PEACE OFFICERS) OF DESIGNATED POLICE AGENCIES TO BE WITHIN THOSE EXEMPTIONS AND THUS ABLE TO USE THOSE ITEMS WHEN ON DUTY AND WITHN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THEIR DUTIES? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to (1) allow Level I and Level II reserve peace oficers to continue at the same reserve level with a different peace officer agecy as the level they had at a prior agency without triggering any new or addtional training requirements than would have been the case at the prior agency and (2) to allow reserve peace officers otherwise qualified to do so to use sort-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles, as well as machine guns andsilencers if working with a local police department, sheriff's office, marshals office, California Highway Patrol or the Department of Justice when on duty nd within the course and scope of their duties. {u Existing law u} provides for he appointment of reserve peace officers. Every person made a reserve peace oficer is within one of several categories and is to have completed the speciied training. For example, Level I reserve officers may work independently aspeace officers; Level II and III reserve peace officers may generally only wor with specified supervision, although Level II officers may perform Level II duties without immediate supervision. (Penal Code sections 830.6 and 832.6) SB 359 (Knight) Page {u Existing law u} now requirs that a Level I reserve officer deputized or appointed shall complete the reglar basic training course required for all deputy sheriffs and local police fficers (currently 664 hours of training). For reserve officers appointed prir to January 1, 1997, the basic training requirement shall be the course that as prescribed at the time of their appointment. (Penal Code section 832.6) {u Existing law u} generally forbids the possession and use in California of shortbarreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles, as well as machine guns and sileners. An exemption is provided in each of those provisions for "regular, salried, full-time members" of a police department, sheriff's office, marshal's ofice, California Highway Patrol and Department of Justice when on duty and wthin the course and scope of their duties. (Penal Code sections 12020, 12201, nd 12501) {u This bill u} : 1) Requires that a reserve officer who has preiously satisfied the specified training requirements and has ben serving as a Level I or II reserve officer in one law enforcement agncy be deemed to remain qualified even though that reserve officer accets a new appointment at the same level in another law enforcemnt agency. 2) Deletes the "regular, salaried, full-time" designaion from the exemption to the use of the otherwise prohibited weapons ad silencers from those provisions and makes the exemptions for any peace officer member of designated police agencies so that reserve fficers fall within those exemptions and may use those items as may theother officers when on duty and within the course and scope oftheir duties. SB 39 (Knight) Page COMMENTS 1. {u What Does This Bill Do Regarding Reserve Officr Training Requirements u} ? As of January 1, 1997, the training requirements fo Level I reserve officers was generally increased to the full basic peace oficer course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trainig (POST), 664 hours. Level I reserve officers appointed prior to January 1, 197 were grandfathered in by allowing their basic training requirement to be he pre-1997 course that was prescribed at the time of their appointment. Leve II training requirements have also been increased over time. POST, upon advie of legal counsel, has interpreted the reference to "deputized or appointed" s a reserve officer to always be whatever date an officer was deputized or apointed by the "employing agency." If a pre-1997 Level I reserve officer chanes departments, then he or she becomes a "new" reserve officer appointed or deutized at the time of the new appointment. Thus, the pre-1997 reserve officrs are only grandfathered in as long as they remain with their pre-1997 agency A similar effect may occur for Level II officers. Therefore, this bill woul allow pre-1997 reserve officers to move from one agency to another without trggering the need for the new training required for those officers after Janury 1, 1997. 2. {u What Is the Effect of the Grant of Authority to Reserve Oficers to Use Additional Weapons on Duty u} ? As noted in Comment #3, there are curently 7,947 reserve officers in local police and sheriff offices. It is unnown how many of those reserve officers are Level I or II. However, by removig the existing "regular, salaried, full time" limitation on the use of short-brreled shotguns and rifles, machine guns (fully automatic weapons) and SB 359 (Knight) Page silencers, this bill would allo all reserve officers in the specified agencies - including local police and sheriffs - to use those weapons subject to same limitation that currently apples to regular, salaried, full-time peace officers in those agencies, i.e., tha the use be "when on duty" and "authorized by the agency and is within the sope of their duties" for both short-barreled rifles and shotguns and silencersand "for the use in the discharge of their official duties" for machine guns. The sponsors of this bill indicate that numerous reserves may use short-barreld shotguns since many departments have adopted the use of that firearm and tha some more limited number of reserves are involved in S.W.A.T. teams that may utilize both weapons that may function in a fully-automatic mode and silencer. In addition, some agencies have reportedly begun to place a weapon capable f fully automatic use in most or all vehicles used by the agency. 3. {u Numberof Reserve Officers in California u} The California Commission on Peace Officer Sandards and Training is informed when almost any agency that is authorized t use a reserve officer establishes such a relationship. P.O.S.T. is also infomed when that relationship ceases. As of March 11, 1999, P.O.S.T. reports tat there are 8,016 reserves working with law enforcement agencies; that total ncludes Level I, II, and III reserve officers at the local and state level. owever, of that total, 7,947 are reserves at the local police and sheriff leve. There are some additional number of reserves who are not currently "working" Reserve officers serve in an "at-will" relationship with a peace officer gency which is allowed to use reserves. Most reserves are volunteers, althoug there are a number of reserve officers who are paid and serve full-time. *************** END@#$ SB 364 02/11/99 11:35:15 SEN. TRANS. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 364 (PERATA) Page {u u} {u SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTE u} Bill No: SB 364 Senator KARNETTE, Chair Author: PERATA Amended: 2/11/99 Analysis by: Steve SchnaidtFiscal:Yes SUBJECT: State-Local Transportation Patnership Program DESCRIPTION: This {u urgency bill u} would extend the State-Locl Transportation Partnership Program one year until July 1, 2000 in order tomaintain the eligibility of certain transportation projects for state funds. ANALYSIS: Chapter 24, Statutes of 1988 (SB 140, Deddeh), established a statelocal transportation demonstration program to provide state funds to cities, cunties and local transportation entities for highway and mass transit guidewy projects according to specified procedures, criteria and guidelines. The mesure provided that projects eligible for funding must constitute a usable sement that would increase the capacity of the highway or guideway, extend servie to new areas or extend a roadway's useful life by at least 10 years. Projecs receiving other state funds are not eligible for the state-local partnershp program. Chapter 24 and subsequent legislation provided for the appropriatin of state transportation funds for the partnership program through the budgetin the amounts of $250,000,000 in 1990 and 1991, and $200,000,000 each year hereafter, although the actual appropriation amount varied with changes in thestate's fiscal condition and annual budget process. Under the State-Local Prtnership Program, each local agency can submit projects for funding. The Deprtment of SB 364 (PERATA) Page {u u} Transportation receives the applicaions and processes them to verify accuracy and eligibility and informs the Lgislature of the total cost of all eligible projects for the following fiscal ear. Once funds are appropriated, the department distributes the money to allprojects on a pro rata share. For example, if the total cost of all project for the following fiscal year is $800 million and the Legislature appropriate $200 million for that purpose, each project receives a 25% state share. Oncea project is included in the program and funding is appropriated, the sponsorig agency must award the construction contract by the end of the fiscal year, ad the funds must be expended by the fourth year following the appropriation. These conditions are to assure the timely use of state funds. The State-Loca Partnership Program is scheduled to expire and be repealed on July 1, 1999, acording to the terms of SB 45 (Kopp, 1997) which eliminated most separate, ctegorical capital funding programs in favor of the Regional Transportation Impovement Program (local) and the Interregional Transportation Improvement Progrm (state), which constitute the State Transportation Improvement Program (STP). {u This bill u} is intended to extend for one year the funding eligibility ofa particular project or projects under the State-Local Partnership Program. Te language in the bill, however, would have the effect of extending the deadlie for all remaining projects and the program itself. It would extend by oneyear both the time period for awarding construction contracts and the time perod for expending the state appropriation (from 4 to 5 years) for partnership projects. COMMENTS: 1.In past years, the contract award deadline was extende one year for several partnership projects which had encountered unexpeced delays due to catastrophic weather, environmental challenges and other fators beyond the control of the affected local entity. These extensions ere granted legislatively on a case-by-case basis. SB 364 (PERATA) Page {u u} 2.Sponsors of the bill indicate their intention is to extend for oneyear the deadline to complete a partnership program project involving the Pot of Oakland. The Port is constructing an airport roadway project to imrove access to the Oakland Airport but has encountered delays in the environental process. It hopes to receive environmental clearance this spring. If the environmental document is further delayed, the Port will be unable t meet the statutory June 30, 1999 contract award deadline. 3.As written, th bill extends program deadlines for {u all u} remaining partnership projects, whther or not they have encountered delays. Contract award and construction completion deadlines would be extended one year each, delaying the ultimat termination of the partnership program. Current law states the Legislatures intent to appropriate $200,000,000 to the partnership program during each ear of its existence. Although it does not appear to be the author's inent, the bill's general extension implies that another $200,000,000 should b appropriated for the program. {u Suggested amendments u} . The bill should be larified to simply extend for one year the deadline for the Port of Oaklnd project to go to contract. References to program extension would be deleed to allow the program to terminate as planned, resolve confusion regardingfunding and make any extensions for other projects subject to individualreview and evaluation by the Legislature. POSITIONS: (Communicated to theCommittee before noon on Wednesday, 3/10/99) SUPPORT: Pot of Oakland Alameda County Transportation Authority SB 364 (PERATA) Page {u u} OPPOSED: None received. 3/10/99 END@#$ SB 372 02/11/99 17:10:03 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 372 (Solis) Page SENAT COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S 1999-2000 Regular Session B 3 7 2 SB 372 (Solis) As IntroducedFebruary 11, 1999 Hearing dat: March 23, 1999 Uncodified Law AA:br {u CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND ENIORS: FUNDING FOR LOCAL PROSECUTION u} HISTORY Source: Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Prior Legislation: SB2031 (Lockyer)(1998; vetoed ) SB 1092 (Lockyer)(1997; vetoed) Supprt: Merced County District Attorney; California Child, Youth and Famiy Coalition; Congress of California Seniors Opposition:None known {u KEY ISSUE u} SHOULD $10 MILLION FROM THE GNERAL FUND BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND ENIOR CITIZENS, AS SPECIFIED? PURPOSE SB 372 (Solis) Page The purpose of this bill is to approriate a total of $10 million from the General Fund, $5 million each for the rosecution of crimes against children and crimes against senior citizens. {u Exsting law u} authorizes the Office of Child Abuse Prevention in the State Departent of Social Services to make grants to fund various programs relating to chid abuse prevention. (Welfare and Institutions Code section 8952 et seq.) {uhis bill u} would appropriate $10 million from the General Fund for the purpose f supporting district attorneys' offices for the prosecution of crimes againstchildren and crimes against senior citizens, to be allocated as follows: $5million for support for prosecutions of crimes against children; and $5 milion for support of prosecutions of crimes against senior citizens. COMMENTS 1. {u Stated Need for This Bill u} The author states: The prosecution of child and elder abuse crimes are among the mot complicated, time consuming and labor intensive cases initiated by local district attorneys. At the same time, these prosecution acivities are minimally funded. For example, Los Angeles Countyhas a senior population of over one million people, yet the Los AngelesDistrict Attorney's office can only fund two full time prosecuors dedicated to prosecuting crimes SB 372 (Solis) Page against the elderly. 2. {u Prior Legislation u} Last year, SB 201 (Lockyer) would have appropriated $10 million to the Department of Justice, 5 million for the support of the prosecution of crimes against children, incuding, but not limited to, the crimes of child abuse and child molestation, an $5 million for expenditure in support of the prosecution of crimes against th elderly, including abuse of elders and dependent adults. SB 2031 containedadditional language concerning competitive grants and evaluation provisions no included in the bill now before the Committee. SB 2031 was vetoed in part beause, former Governor Wilson concluded, "it would establish an analogous admnistrative structure in the DOJ to an existing one within the Office of Criminl Justice Planning . . . ." In 1997, a related measure, SB 1092 (Lockyer) was introduced and also vetoed. SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE GRANING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SB 2031 FROM LAST YEAR? 3. {u Absnce of State Administering Entity u} Although the Legislative Counsel's digest inicates these funds would be administered by the Governor's Office of Crimina Justice Planning (OCJP), the bill's actual language does not reference OCJP o any other administering entity for the funds. Last year's bill on this subjet proposed that the administering agency for these prosecution funds be the epartment of Justice. Another possible agency, OCJP, currently administers th Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program, the Child Abuse Vertical Prosecuion Program, and the Drug Endangered Children's Program. SB 372 (Solis) Page SHOULD NOT THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE AN DMINISTERING STATE ENTITY FOR THESE FUNDS? SHOULD THE ADMINISTERING ENTITY OR THESE FUNDS BE OCJP, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OR ANOTHER STATE ENTITY? *************** END@#$ SB 373 03/15/99 10:14:50 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 373 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing ate: March 22, 1999| |Chair | | ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 373 (Rainey) as amended3/1599 | FISCAL: No| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 37 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March16, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u 1937 ACT: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: "SAFETY" MEMBESHIP FOR CERTAIN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: Ca. Indpendent Public Employment Legislative Council (CIPELC) Prior legislation none {u SUMMARY u} : Would provide that certain county animal control officers would receive "safety" retirement benefits (instead of "general" or "miscellneous" retirement) if they retire after the bill becomes effective; affected nimal control officers would also drop out of the federal Social Security sytem. {u BACKGROUND u} : {u u} 1) {u CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HAS A '37 ACT RETIREMENT SYSTEu} Contra Costa County is one of 20 counties with an independent retirement sytem, administered by an elected and appointed board of retirement, under an "ubrella" statute known as the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 ("37 Ac). 2) {u COUNTY EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER 1/1/1980 HAVE REDUCED RETIREMENT BENEFITu} The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted a unique lower tier ofretirement benefits for non-safety employees whose county employment began aftr January 1, 1980, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The post-1//80 lower tier, available by statute only to Contra Costa County, is fully "inegrated" with the federal ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 373 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 199 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Social Security system, meaning that County retirement ystem benefits are calculated to replace prescribed percentages of the employe's final salary {u including any monthly benefits received under Social Security. ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u Existing '37 Act law u} provides that animal control oficers employed by Contra Costa County are non-safety members in the county retrement system. 2) {u This bill u} would provide that certain animal control officers would {u become safety u} members of the county retirement system, IF: a) they are "?subject to being assigned to accompany law enforcement offiers when the law enforcement officers are attempting to arrest individuals wo are suspected of operating an illegal laboratory to manufacture controlled substances in order to restrain or capture any animals being used to guad the property," (p. 2, lines 29-34) and b) they retire after the effectve date of {u this bill u} . 3) A comparison {u percentage of final salary per yearof service u} (yos) of the non-safety and safety retirement benefits is as folows: {u AGE 50 55 60 65 u} safety 2.0%/yos 2.62%/yos same (o Social Security) ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 373 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- non-safety Tier 1 1.24%/yos 1.666%/yos 2.619%/yos 3.133%/yos (plus Social Security) non-safety Tier 2 less than 1.0%/yos 1.0@ age 53 integrated with Social (plus Socal Security) Security 4) {u OPPOSITION u} : State Asociation of County Retirement Systems (SACRS) # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 373 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 1999 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 373 03/24/99 14:28:24 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 373| |Office of Sente Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD READING Bll No: SB 373 Author: Rainey (R), et al Amended: 3/15/99 Vote: 21 {u SNATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/22/99 AYES: Ortiz, aca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes {u SUBJECT u} : County employee retirment benefits {u SOURCE u} : California Independent Public Employment Legisltive Council {u DIGEST u} : This bill provides that certain Contra Costa Conty animal control officers would receive "safety" retirement benefits (instea of "general" or "miscellaneous" retirement) if they retire after this bill ecomes effective. Affected animal control officers will also drop out of the ederal Social Security system. {u ANALYSIS u} : 1. {u Contra Costa County has a '3 Act Retirement System u} Contra Costa County is one of 20 counties with an independent retirement system, administered by an elected and appointed oard of retirement, under an "umbrella" statute known as the County Employee Retirement Act of 1937 ('37 Act). CONTINUED {u SB373 u} Page 2 2. {u County Eployees Hired After 1/1/1980 Have Reduced Retirement Benefits u} The ContraCosta County Board of Supervisors adopted unique lower tier of retirement beefits for non-safety employees whose county employment began after January 1 1980, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The post-1/1/80 lowr tier, available by statute only to Contra Costa County, is fully "integratd" with the federal Social Security system, meaning that county retiremet system benefits are calculated to replace prescribed percentages of the emloyee's final salary including any monthly benefits received under Social Security. According to the Senate Public Employment & Retirement Committee'sanalysis: 1.Existing '37 Act law provides that animal control officers emplyed by Contra Costa County are non-safety members in the county retirement sstem. 2.This bill provides that certain Contra Costa County animal control fficers would become safety members of the county retirement system, if: A. They are "?subject to being assigned to accompany law enforcement oficers when the law enforcement officers are attempting to arrest individuls who are suspected of operating an illegal laboratory to manufacure controlled substances in order to restrain or capture any animals beig used to guard the property," and B. They retire after the effectie date of this bill. {u SB 373 u} Page 3 3.A comparison percentage of final salary per year of service (yos) of he non-safety and safety retirement benefits is as follows: {u AGE 50 55 60 65 u} safety 2.0%/yos 2.62%/yos same (no Social Security) non-safety Tier I 1.24%/yos 1.666%/yos2.619%/yos3.133%/yos (plus Social Security) non-safety Tier 2 les than 1.0%/yos 1.0@ age 53integrated with Social (plus Social Security) Security {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/23/99) Califrnia Independent Public Employment Legislative Council (source) Contra Costa Cunty {u OPPOSITION u} : (Verified 3/23/99) State Association of County Retireent systems {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : According to the author's office, inContra Costa County, when law enforcement is going to raid a suspected narcotis operation, animal control officers are often called in to assist. This is dne when there is an animal that could be hostile to officers is suspected tobe on the premises. When this is the case, the animal control officer will ener first and contain the {u SB 373 u} Page 4 nimal. This is done before the law enforcement officers actually enter the prmises. When animal control officers make "first entry," they are very much inharm's way. Narcotics manufacturing sites are generally highly dangerous area, and a person in close proximity to one is risking life and limb. This is th purpose behind SB 373. The bill provides safety retirement membership for irst entering animal control officers, and does not apply to animal control oficers in general. The bill only applies to those who meet the first entering condition. {u ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION u} : According to the State Associatio of County Retirement Systems, the primary reason specified employee classes ae provided safety retirement status is to ensure that the employees have the adequate mental and physical capabilities to properly conduct their duties to afeguard the general public. This is clearly the case with respect to certainclasses of law enforcement, firefighters and lifeguards. Expansion of the sfety employee designation should be preceded by demonstration of the need and ustification for inclusion of a new group as safety personnel. {u u} TSM:kb 3/2/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 378 03/15/99 17:19:59 SEN. B. & P. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 378 Pge ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE CMMITTEE ON | BILL NO: SB 378 | ----------------------------------------------------------- |----------------------------+-----------------------------| | | | |---------------------------+------------------------------| |BUSINESS AND PROFESSONS | AUTHOR: Kelley| ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- |Senator Liz Figueroa, | As Amended: March 15, 1999| |Chair | | ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | |---------------------------+------------------------------| | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ |HEARNG DATE: March 22, 1999 | FISCAL: | | | Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Collateral Recovery SUMMARY: This bill maks various changes related to persons or entities engaged in the repossession o collateral. Existing law: 1)Establishes the Bureau of Security and Investigtive Services (BSIS) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The BSIS enforces the Collateral Recovery Act (Act), which governs persons engged in repossession. 2)Requires licensing of persons or entities engaged in repossession, and certification of persons who are in active control of buinesses engaged in repossession. 3)Requires annual license renewal for repossesion agencies and sets the fee at $475. 4)Allows cities, counties, and stat agencies to charge a fee equal to the administrative costs of removing, impunding, storing, or releasing an impounded vehicle. Specifies that thes charges can be imposed on the vehicle's registered owner SB 378 Page or the agents of the registered owner. This bill: 1)Directs state regulatory agencies, within existing budgetary resources, to cooperate with the BSIS in enforcing the requirement that onlylicensed repossessors can be used to recover secured personal property. 2)xtends the license renewal period from one year to two years and makes commesurate changes in the renewal fees (from $475 a year to a combined two-year ee of $712.50). 3)Makes technical changes to conform various sections of the Ac relating to the employment status of registrants. 4)Makes false statementson applications for licensure punishable as perjury offenses. 5)Clarifies hat the tow vehicles used by repossessors are not tow trucks; therefore, exepting them from specified equipment requirements. 6)Prohibits local and stae agencies from collecting impound administration fees from anyone else (suc as banks, other lien holders, or repossession agencies) other than the egistered owner of a vehicle or the agent of the registered owner. FISCALEFFECT: According to BSIS, negligible revenue loss from the reduced fees potntially offset by administrative cost savings. COMMENTS: NOTE: This bill hs been double-referred to the Public Safety Committee. However, the author hasamended the bill to remove the provisions relating to enhanced misdemeanor penlties for assaults against repossessors. 1. Intended to Clean-Up Various Apects of the Law Governing the Repossession Industry. According to the Calfornia Association of Licensed Repossessors, the sponsor of the bill, ths is the annual technical clean-up measure for the law regulating the repossssion industry. B 378 Page Te first provision attempts to address the problem of unlicensed activity by ncreasing enforcement against those financial institutions and vehicle deales that occasionally use unlicensed, nonexempt persons to repossess collatera. The second provision seeks to streamline the license renewal process byimplementing a two-year license. The sponsors argue that the existing annua renewal process is time consuming and costly for both licensees and BSIS. he proposed biennial fee represents a 25% reduction from twice the annua renewal fee to reflect projected cost savings to BSIS. The third provisin of the bill makes needed technical revisions to conform various provisionsof the act governing the employment status of registrants to changes made seeral years ago to permit licensed repossession agencies to retain registants either as employees or as independent contractors. According to the spnsor, these provisions are purely technical and do not alter, in any respect the state and federal factors that determine whether a person is an employe or an independent contractor. The fourth provision requires all certifictions of experience to be submitted to BSIS under penalty of perjury so as t improve the substantiation of experience on license applications. Th fifth provision would clarify that vehicles used by repossessors are exemptfrom the equipment requirements applied to commercial emergency assistance tw trucks by expressly restating the existing Vehicle Code exemption in the Act. This exemption currently applies to tow vehicles used by dismantlers The final provision of the bill seeks to clarify that vehicle impound fes are the responsibility of the registered owner, and {u not u} the legal owner r its agents. The sponsor of the bill argues that even though existing law imits city, county, and state agencies to imposing impound fees only on the registered owner or the agents of that owner, some agencies force legal oners or their agents to pay these fees as a condition to releasing the vehices. 2. Annual Omnibus Bill Needed to Improve the Act. The sponsors arge that the bill is needed to streamline the license SB 378 Page renewal process for repossession agencies, imrove enforcement of the Act, clarify regulatory requirements for repossessor, and relieve repossessors of the financial burden of paying impound fee. According to the sponsors, the bill is primarily technical in nature. Ths is the latest in a number of annual "technical" bills for the industry. Rcent related legislation includes SB 117 (Kelley, Chapter 582, Statutes of 1998), SB 780 (Kelley, Chapter 401, Statutes of 1997), and SB 1456 (Kelley Chapter 624, Statutes of 1996). Last year's SB 117 contained provisions simiar to the license renewal and fee provisions in this bill. However, these provisions were removed in the Assembly. 3. Fee Amount Should be Modified. The bill sets the new biennial license renewal fee at $712.50. This is an nusual amount, and should be rounded to the more manageable amount of $75. 4. Proposed author's amendments. Author's technical amendments are epected to clarify that repossessors' tow vehicles will be required to displa their agency license numbers. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: CaliforniaAssociation of Licensed Repossessors (Sponsor) Opposition: None n file Consultant: Sailaja Cherukuri END@#$ SB 379 02/11/99 12:24:19 SEN. L. GOV. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMMITTEE Senator Richard K. Rainey, Chairman -------------------------------------------------------------- |BILL NO:SB 379 |HEARING: 3/17/99 | |--------------------------------------+-----------------------| |AUTHOR: Haynes |FISCAL:No | |--------------------------------------+------------------------| |VERSION: 2/1/99 |CONSULTANT: Gordon | -------------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY SERVICE CONTRACS {u Background and Existing Law u} The California Constitution lts charter counties adopt their own employment procedures (Article XI Sec.4 [f). The courts have ruled that the Constitution gives charter counties the athority to hire independent contractors to perform special services. Californa's 13 charter counties are Alameda, Butte, El Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles, Plcer, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cara, and Tehama. General law counties must follow the state's guidelines whencontracting out services. Under current law, general law counties can contrac with private sector firms to provide 14 "special services." Special servicesinclude employee training, accounting and financial assistance, airport or bilding security, and engineering, legal, medical, therapeutic, architectural, nd laundry services. If a county facility is remote from county employees, ounties can contract out the facility's maintenance and custodial services. {u Proposed Law u} Senate Bill 379 allows a general law conty to contract out for all information technology, data processing, and comuter related functions on behalf of the county, county officers and department, districts, or courts. {u Comments u} 1. {u A good rason u} . According to the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based, nonprofit pubic policy research organization, privatization can save taxpayers money, incease decision-makers flexibility, and increase efficiency and innovation. Whie the Constitution lets charter counties contract out for any service, currentlaw limits contracting out by general law counties to just 14 special servics. SB 379 extends that list of services. 2. {u Where's the proof u} ? Despite theclaims by the Reason Foundation, studies measuring cost savings attributable t privatization have been inconclusive. A general problem with government-bycontract is that the supposed ability of the government or the consumerto "shop around" among competing suppliers quickly erodes when the vendor gain a monopoly on knowledge specific to the task. In an extensive report entited "Purchase of Services: Can state government gain control?" the Massachusets Taxpayers Foundation, a conservative business-funded fiscal watchdog, lameted the fact that the political and technical power of vendors made effective upervision and cost containment all but impossible. State "agencies did not hve the structural capacity to establish standards and expectations for progrms, much less to monitor and evaluate them." The report went on to describe hw large providers become oligopolies because government agencies grow dependen on them. If the vendor can restrain its greed, it can extract moderate monpoly rents indefinitely. 3. {u Numerous problems arise u} . Numerous studies conduted on the subject indicate many problems when government contracts out varius services. Corruption often increases, a community's economic base is erode as low wage and low benefit jobs substitute for public employment, age, rac, and sex discrimination increases, and costs often rise. {u u} 4. {u Y2K u} ? here are clearly projects involving technology and data base design that warrnt contracting out special one time skills. The looming Y2K programming issue fit this model. The committee might wish to consider an amendment narrowin the bill to deal solely with Y2K. 5. {u Not a novel idea u} . The Orange County bnkruptcy resulted in numerous prvatization bills in previous sessions. Mostrecently, SB 428 (Hurt, 1997) passed this committee before being defeated on te floor. {u Support and Opposition u} (03/11/99) {u Support u} : Couty of Riverside, EDS. {u Opposition u} : California Independent Public Employees egislative Council, Service Employees International Union. END@#$ SB 381 02/11/99 10:40:02 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 381 (aca) Page SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos Chair S 1999-2000 Regular Session B 3 8 1 SB 381 (Baca) As IntroducedFebruary 11,1999 Hearng date: March 16, 1999 GovernmentCode SH:br {u PEACE OFFICERS - PROVIDINGPROTECTIVE VESTS u} HISORY Source: Peace Officers Research Association of California Prior Legislaton: AB 3169 - Chapter 65, Statutes of 1996 Support: Los Angeles Police Protectve League; Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union; Association or Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Opposition:None known NOTE: THIS AALYSIS REFLECTS AUTHOR'S AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED IN COMMITTEE (SEE COMMENT # ). {u KEY ISSUE u} SHOULD PROTECTIVE VESTS BE DDED AS A NEW CATEGORY OF EQUIPMENT WHICH IS TO BE PROVIDED TO ALL LOCAL POLIC OFFICERS OR DEPUTY SHERIFFS UPON REQUEST OF THE FULL-TIME OFFICER, TO THE EXTNT STATE FUNDS ARE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE? PURPOSE SB 381 (Bac) Page The purpose f this bill is to move protective vests from the category of equipment which i recommended to be provided to local officers, but not reimbursable by the sate, and add it as a new category of equipment which shall be provided upon reuest to all full-time local police officers and deputy sheriffs, to the extentstate funds are made available for that purpose. {u Existing law u} states that ocal agencies shall furnish each newly hired police officer and deputy sheriffemployed full time with a suitable pistol, holster, and other equipment, to he extent that funds are made available. Other safety equipment, such as a prtective vest, an off-duty holster, and a flashlight, are recommended but are nt reimbursable from state funds. Issued equipment shall remain the propertyof the local agency and shall be returned upon request of the local agency. (overnment Code section 50081) {u Existing law u} provides that the Legislature shll make available to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training POST) for allocation to local agencies, funds to be used to provide the equipmnt required to be furnished by section 50081, as specified. (Government Code ection 50082) {u This bill u} would move protective vests from the category of quipment which is recommended and add it as a new category of equipment whic shall be provided upon request to all local police officers or deputy sheriff--without any limitation to newly hired officers--to the extent state funds re made available for that purpose. COMMENTS 1. {u Ned for This Bill u} The sponsors indicate that: SB 381 (Baca) Page The men and women who serve in uniform as police officers and deputy sheriffs place their lives at risk every day. Thes officers are sworn to uphold the laws and to preserve and protect the pulic from acts of violence. In too many cases, police officers and deputy sheriffs become the victims of violence while performing their duies. Officers have lost their lives in various cities throughout the stae as a result of shootings. Present law requires the state to pay fr the cost of equipping police officers with a revolver, holster, elt and ammunition, a nightstick, handcuffs, raincoats, and rainboots. olice officers and deputy sheriffs are not provided state paid protectivevests. (Local agencies may provide protective vests but the statedoes {u not u} pay for them.) This bill will require the state to pay or protective vests for police officers and deputy sheriffs. The ommission on Peace Officer Training in the State Department of Justice wil allocate the funds to local police departments and sheriffs departments Upon the retirement of the officer or other separation from servie, the protective vest will return to the police department or sheriff's epartment. As a society, we should provide our peace officers with oth the tools to protect us, the citizens, as well as the tools to protec themselves from criminals. 2. {u Existing Uncodified Law - AB 3169 u} AB 169 as introduced in 1996 was identical to SB 381, as introduced. However, asamended in the Assembly and subsequently enacted into law, it instead containe uncodified legislative finds and declarations: SB 381 (Baca) Page The Legislature finds and declares both of the following: (1) That existing law recommends that the legislative ody of a local agency furnish each newly hired police officer and deputy heriff employed full time with a protective vest. (2) That the imporance of newly hired police officers and deputy sheriffs employed by a locl agency being provided with a protective vest should be recognized since protective vests serve as an essential safety device. (b) TheLegislature hereby strongly urges the legislative body of a local agency o furnish a protective vest to each newly hired police officer and deputy sheriff employed full time. 3. {u Costs of Protective Vests u} According t the Assembly Local Government analysis of AB 3169, as introduced, in 1996 (whn the bill required protective vests be provided for only newly hired offices): Most local agencies voluntarily provide protective vests, howevr some agencies do not. In other words, a uniform standard for providingthese vests does not exist. According to the sponsor, the Peace Offcers Research Association of California (PORAC), protective vests re the single most effective piece of passive safety equipment. In the pst it has taken an officer's death for the agency to change their policy,and begin providing the vests. Supporters further argue that becase officers face increasingly violent criminals, they should be provided ith the proper safety equipment. The cost for each vest can range fom $300-500. When S 381 (Baca) Page multiplied by the estimated 700 new officers joining the ranks of the LosAngeles Police Department alone next year, these costs could rise into th millions. Most agencies already provide protective vests to thei officers and deputy sheriffs. Opponents could further argue that curren law does not preclude an agency from providing the vests and so is reall a matter of individual choice on the part of the agency and the oficers and deputy sheriffs NOTE: This bill proposes to provide protective vess upon request, to the extent state funds are made available, to all full-tie local police and sheriffs. POST data on March 11, 1999, indicates that there ere 38,137 full-time municipal police and 23, 203 sheriffs deputies as of that date. 4. {u Author's Amendments to Be Offered in Committee and Reflected in his Analysis u} The author's amendments reflected in this analysis do the folloing to the bill as introduced: On page 2, line 2, strike out "rainboots, ad a protective vest." And insert: and rainboots. Additionally upon the request of a police officer or deputy sheriff emloyed full-time by the local agency, he or she shall be funished a protective vest by the local agency. *************** END@#$ SB 391 02/12/99 13:53:14 SEN. ED. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Dede Alpert, Chair 1999-2000 Regular Session BIL NO: SB 391 AUTHOR: Chesbro AS AMENDED: February 12, 1999 FISCAL COMM.: Yes HEARING DATE: March 3, 1999 URGENCY: Ys CONSULTANT: Nancy Anton {u SUMMARY u} This bill, an urgency meaure, revises and expands existing provisions of law which prohibit the Universty of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) from collectng any fees or tuition from any surviving child of a deceased active law enforement or fire suppression employee. Specifically, the bill expands this "fe waiver" provision to include the surviving children of contractors or employes of contractors providing active law enforcement or fire suppression service. These provisions of this bill would not apply to UC unless the Regents adop a resolution to so do. {u BACKGROUND u} Current law (Education Code Sections 6820 and 68121), provides that fees at UC and CSU be waived for children of la enforcement or fire suppression employees who were killed in the performance f active duty, as specified. Also under current law (Labor Code Sections 4709 ad 4728), student financial aid grants are provided to needy dependents (chilren and spouse) of public officials, peace officers, as defined, and firefightrs who were killed in the performance of duty. Further, current law (Educatio Code 32320) prohibits state-owned colleges and universities from charging any tuition or fees to any (1) child of any veteran of the US military who has aservice-connected disability, was killed in service or has died of a service-rlated disability if the child's income does not exceed $7,000 or (2) any dependent of any member of the California National Guard who was killed,died of a disability, or is permanently disabled as a result of active service {u ANALYSIS u} {u This bill, an urgency measure u} expands the provisions of currnt law which, essentially, provide a fee waiver, as specified, to children of pecified law enforcement and fire suppression employees who were killed in theactive line of duty. Specifically, the bill would extend this fee waiver toalso include children of specified law enforcement and fire suppression contrators or employees of contractors who were killed in the active line of duty. he bill also makes technical nonsubstantative revisions to current law by conslidating two related code sections into one single section. {u STAFF COMMENTS 1) Why This Bill u} . This bill is intended to remedy a recent situatin where a Humboldt State University student was thought to be the survivig child of a deceased fire suppression employee and, accordingly, was granted a fee waiver. Later, it was discovered that the student's fther was actually providing active duty fire suppression services on a cntractual basis and was not an employee, per se; consequently, he fee waiver was rescinded. {u 2) Program Statistics u} . CSU indicates that in 997-98, 32 students received a fee waiver under the provisions addessed by this bill (24 full-time students and 9 part-time students.) UC as unable to provide any data but estimates that participation in this prgram is small. The value of a fee waiver in the current year at CS is approximately $1,900 and for UC students ranges from approximately $4000 (undergraduate) to $11,000 (graduate law students.) This waivr is provided regardless of a student's financial need. {u 3) Clarificaion Needed u} . Current law specifies that surviving children of active dut law enforcement/fire suppression persons whose principal duties are clerical are not eligible for a fee waiver even if such persos is subject to occasional call of active duty. In the current version o the bill, it is not clear if these persons are included or excluded from the fee waiver. Accordingly, staff recommends that the bill be mended to clarify this point consistent with current law. {u SUPPORT u} Clifornia State University {u OPPOSITION u} None received {u u} END@#$ SB 393 03/18/99 14:46:36 SEN. H. & H.S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Martha M. Escutia, Chair ---------------------------------------------------------- |BILL NO: |SB 393 |S | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| |AUTHOR: |Speier |B | |--------------+----------------------------------------+--| |AMENDED: |Marh 18, 1999 | | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| |HEARING DATE: |March 24, 1999 | | |---------------+----------------------------------------+--| |FISCAL: |Appropriations |9 | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| | | |3 | |---------------+----------------------------------------+--| |CONSULTAN: | | | ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- |Umino | | | --------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Prescription Rates for Medicare Beneficiaries {u SUMMARY u} This bill requires a pharmacy to use the Medi-Cal reibursement rate as the prescription price for a Medicare beneficiary, as a condtion of participating in the Medi-Cal program. {u ABTRACT u} {u Existing federal law: u} 1.Provides a national health insurance progra for people 65 years of age and older, certain younger disabled people, nd people with permanent kidney failure under the Medicare program. 2.Does ot include outpatient prescription drug coverage under Medicare. {u Existing state law u} : 1.Provides for prescription drug benefits to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, who are qualified low-income persons. 2.Allows the California epartment of Health Services (DHS) to enter into contracts with manufacturer of prescription drugs, and requires DHS to maintain a contract drug lis for Medi-Cal reimbursement claims. 3.Requires DHS to ensure that there is suffcient representation of drugs in each major therapeutic category on the ontract drug list. {u This bill u} requires a pharmacy to use the Medi-Cal reimursement rate as the prescription price for a Medicare beneficiary, as a condiion of participating in the Medi-Cal program. {u FISCL IMPACT u} Unknown. {u BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION u} Medicare Satistics: Sixty-five percent (65%) of the elderly have some form of outpaient drug coverage through supplemental insurance plans, Medicare HMOs, or Mdi-Cal, according to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the .S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nearly 8 of 10 (77%) Medicar beneficiaries report that they take prescription medications on a regular bsis, according to 1997 survey by the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation/The ommonwealth Fund. This survey also found that one of three Medicare benefciaries lives on an income below 200 percent of the poverty level (about $15000 annually for an individual) and reports health problems. Half said theyspend all or most of their monthly income on basic living necessities. Suporters argue: 1.This bill will lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors who often lack the income to buy needed medication. 2.Senios have the greatest need for prescription drugs, but more than 35 percent hae no prescription coverage. 3.California has the highest average prices for prescription drugs than any other state. 4.Pharmaceutical companies raise price for sale to seniors to compensate for discounts to health maintenance oganizations and large insurance companies. This cost shift can result in seiors paying twice as much for their medication. 5.Since 1977, twelve stateshave implemented various programs to provide cost assistance for prescriptio drugs to seniors. 6.Legislation is needed to protect seniors from disciminatory pricing by the pharmaceutical companies. Opponents argue: 1.This bll makes a pharmacy, not a pharmaceutical company, pay for prescription drugdiscounts to Medicare beneficiaries. 2.The business of pharmacy is highly cmpetitive, and most pharmacists conduct business at the narrowest of price margins in order to remain economically viable. 3.In general, a pharmacist dos not know the Medi-Cal reimbursement level for a drug until he/she submits n electronic claim to Electronic Data System (EDS), a Department of Healh Services (DHS) contractor that processes claims. Therefore, a pharmacist ill be unable to determine the price to charge the Medicare beneficiary. 4.Some pharmacies may decline to participate in Medi-Cal, rather than incororate the Medi-Cal reimbursement requirements of this bill to non-Medi-Cal ptients. 5.The Medi-Cal reimbursement system is a complex, unique methodolog replete with hidden price controls that are an economic and administrative urden to pharmacists. Tying Medi-Cal reimbursement to Medicare eneficiaries will impose administrative and economic difficulties on phamacists and potentially impact Medi-Cal patients. The California Department ofHealth Services describes the current {u Medi-Cal u} reimbursement process as follws: 1.The Medi-Cal patient presents his/her Medi-Cal card to a pharmacist. The pharmacist then transmits electronically the information on the card to HS. 2.DHS computers determine Medi-Cal eligibility, or whether or not a patent has another insurance that should be billed. 3.If the patient is eligibe and the prescription drug is on the contract drug list, then DHS reimburse the pharmacist according to various formulas specified in the CA Code o Regulations. 4.EDS, a DHS contractor, processes Medi-Cal claims. A DHS subontractor, First Data Bank, provides data on a monthly basis that allows DHSto determine the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. 5.In general, the Medi-Cal rimbursement rate is the cost of the drug plus a $4.05 dispensing fee; then te state deducts $0.50 cents, as required by law. Comments: 1.The federalPrivacy Act prohibits the Medicare program from releasing information on Medcare eligibility or whether a patient has supplemental Medicare insurance to anyone but the patient. Therefore, a pharmacist must rely on the patien's Medicare card and other identification to verify eligibility. 2.Data todetermine the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate are available to pharmacies at a cst of $129 annually for a monthly publication or $1,800 annual license (ubscription) fee for a diskette that is updated monthly by First Data Bank, DHS subcontractor. 3.Pharmaceutical manufacturers, not retail pharmacies, ppear to be responsible for the discriminatory prices that seniors pay for pescription drugs, according to an October 1998 report by the U.S. House of Rpresentatives' Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. {u POSITIONS u} Support: California Nurses Assocation Gray Panthers of Sacramento Older Women's Legue Various individuals Oppose: California Pharmacists Assocation (CPhA) -- END -- END@#$ SB 393 03/8/99 14:30:17 SEN. H. & H.S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Martha M. Escutia, Chair ---------------------------------------------------------- |BILL NO: |SB 393 |S | |---------------+----------------------------------------+--| |AUTHR: |Speier |B | | | | | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| |AMENDED: |March 18, 1999 | | ---------------+----------------------------------------+--| |HEARING DATE: |Mach 24, 1999 |3 | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| |FISCAL: |Appropriations 9 | |---------------+----------------------------------------+--| | | |3 | |---------------+---------------------------------------+--| |CONSULTANT: | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- |Umino | | | --------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Prescription Rates fo Medicare Beneficiaries {u SUMMARY u} This bill requirs a pharmacy to use the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate as the prescription price or a Medicare beneficiary, as a condition of participating in the Medi-Cal pogram. {u ABSTRACT u} {u Existing federal law: u} 1.Provdes a national health insurance program for people 65 years of age and older certain younger disabled people, and people with permanent kidney failure uder the Medicare program. 2.Does not include outpatient prescrition drug coverage under Medicare. {u Existing state law u} : 1.Provides for pescription drug benefits to Medi-Cal beneficiaries, who are qualified low-inome persons. 2.Allows the California Department of Health Services (DHS) toenter into contracts with manufacturers of prescription drugs, and requires HS to maintain a contract drug list for Medi-Cal reimbursement claims. 3.Reuires DHS to ensure that there is sufficient representation of drugs in eachmajor therapeutic category on the contract drug list. {u This bill u} require a pharmacy to use the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate as the prescription price fr a Medicare beneficiary, as a condition of participating in the Medi-Cal prgram. {u FISCAL IMPACT u} Unknown. {u BCKGROUND AND DISCUSSION u} Medicare Statistics: Sixty-five percent (65%) of he elderly have some form of outpatient drug coverage through supplemental isurance plans, Medicare HMOs, or Medi-Cal, according to the Health Care inancing Administration (HCFA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Sevices. Nearly 8 of 10 (77%) Medicare beneficiaries report that they take rescription medications on a regular basis, according to 1997 survey by the enry Kaiser Family Foundation/The Commonwealth Fund. This survey also foud that one of three Medicare beneficiaries lives on an income below 200 percnt of the poverty level (about $15,000 annually for an individual) and rports health problems. Half said they spend all or most of their monthly inome on basic living necessities. Supporters argue: 1.This bill wil lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors who often lack the incometo buy needed medication. 2.Seniors have the greatest need for prescriptiondrugs, but more than 35 percent have no prescription coverage. 3.Californiahas the highest average prices for prescription drugs than any other state. 4.Pharmaceutical companies raise prices for sale to seniors to compensate fo discounts to health maintenance organizations and large insurance companies This cost shift can result in seniors paying twice as much for their mdication. 5.Since 1977, twelve states have implemented various programs to rovide cost assistance for prescription drugs to seniors. 6.Legislation is eeded to protect seniors from discriminatory pricing by the pharmaceutical cmpanies. Opponents argue: 1.This bill makes a pharmacy, not a pharmaceuticalcompany, pay for prescription drug discounts to Medicare beneficiaries. 2.The business of pharmacy is highly competitive, and most pharmacists condut business at the narrowest of price margins in order to remain economicallyviable. 3.In general, a pharmacist does not know the Medi-Cal reimbursementlevel for a drug until he/she submits an electronic claim to Electronic DataSystem (EDS), a Department of Health Services (DHS) contractor that procsses claims. Therefore, a pharmacist will be unable to determine the price o charge the Medicare beneficiary. 4.Some pharmacies may decline to particiate in Medi-Cal, rather than incorporate the Medi-Cal reimbursement requrements of this bill to non-Medi-Cal patients. 5.The Medi-Cal reimbursement sysem is a complex, unique methodology replete with hidden price controls that re an economic and administrative burden to pharmacists. Tyng Medi-Cal reimbursement to Medicare beneficiaries will impose administratie and economic difficulties on pharmacists and potentially impact Medi-Cal ptients. The California Department of Health Services describes the current {uedi-Cal u} reimbursement process as follows: 1.The Medi-Cal patient presents his/er Medi-Cal card to a pharmacist. The pharmacist then transmits electronicaly the information on the card to DHS. 2.DHS computers determine Medi-Cal eigibility, or whether or not a patient has another insurance that should be billed. 3.If the patient is eligible and the prescription drug is on thecontract drug list, then DHS reimburses the pharmacist according to various ormulas specified in the CA Code of Regulations. 4.EDS, a DHS contractor, pocesses Medi-Cal claims. A DHS subcontractor, First Data Bank, provides dataon a monthly basis that allows DHS to determine the Medi-Cal reimbursemet rate. 5.In general, the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate is the cost of the dug plus a $4.05 dispensing fee; then the state deducts $0.50 cents, as requied by law. Comments: 1.The federal Privacy Act prohibits the Medicare progra from releasing information on Medicare eligibility or whether a patienthas supplemental Medicare insurance to anyone but the patient. Therefore, apharmacist must rely on the patient's Medicare card and other identificaion to verify eligibility. 2.Data to determine the Medi-Cal reimbursement rateare available to pharmacies at a cost of $129 annually for a monthly pubication or $1,800 annual license (subscription) fee for a diskette that is udated monthly by First Data Bank, a DHS subcontractor. 3.Pharmaceutical manfacturers, not retail pharmacies, appear to be responsible for the discrimintory prices that seniors pay for prescription drugs, according to an October 1998 report by the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee n Government Reform and Oversight. {u POSITIONS u} upport: California Nurses Association Gray Panthers of Sacamento Older Women's League Various individuals ppose: California Pharmacists Association (CPhA) -- END -- END@#$ SB 397 02/12/99 10:17:55 SEN. .E. & R. sc BILL AALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL O: SB 397 | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 22, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ |SB 397 (Ortiz as amended2/12/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 397 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: LOCAL AGENCY "GOLDEN HADSHAKE" RE-AUTHORIZATION u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: League of California Ciies Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Pubic Employees Retirement System (PERS) Calif. Independent Public Emloyees Legislative Council (CIPELC) Prior legislation: see below {u SUMARY u} : Would allow PERS local contracting public agencies to amend their conract to offer up to two years of additional service credit (Golden Handshake) o retiring employees who meet the established minimum eligibility requirements(at least 5 years of service, and age 50) and retire within the applicable wndow period. {u BACKGROUND u} : The committee is advised that Gov. Code Section20903 permits local agencies to offer additional service credit to its emploees. In the past, legislation authorizing the "Golden Handshake" was effectiv during a limited period, and was repealed automatically through sunset provisons. Section 20903 was periodically amended to extend the sunset date. PERS furnishes the following legislative history of the local agency "Golden Handsake." Added in 1976 (Chapter 1324 - AB 3901), and repealed Added in 1979(Chapter 1139 - SB 1105) Amended in 1982 (Chapter 327 - SB 1326) Amended in 988 (Chapter 390 - AB 2252) ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 397 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 199 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Amended in 1992 (Chapter 448 - SB 1285) Renumbered in1995 Amended in 1996 (Chapter 906 - SB 1859 ) and repealed Amended in 1997 (hapter 951 - AB 1595) and repealed {u ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u Existing PERS law u} dos not permit local contracting agencies to offer a "Golden Handshake" to theiremployees; the authorizing statute "sunsetted" January 1, 1999. 2) {u Thisbill u} would re-authorize the availability of a PERS local agency "Golden Handsake" of up to 2 years additional service credit to certain eligible member grops, providing the employer: a) specifies the eligible members by designatin of job classifications, departments or other organizational units (orgnizational units refers to the employer's personnel structure, as in bargainng units), b) establish a window period during which retirements must beeffective, which may not be less than 90 days, or more than 180 days, c) transmit to PERS funds equal to the actuarial equivalent of the cost of the enefit under specified conditions. 3) In addition to the contract amendmen, {u this bill u} requires: a) a determination by the governing body that, becuse of an impending curtailment of, or change in the manner of performin service, the best interests of the agency would be served by granting the aditional service credit, ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 397 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 16, 999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- b) a certification by the governing body that it is electing "Golden Handshake" because of impending mandatory transfers, demtions, or layoffs that constitute at least 1% of the job classification, department, or organization unit designated, resulting from the curtailment f, or change in the manner of performing services, c) a certification bythe governing body that, if any early retirements result from the granting o this additional service credit, it is their intention to keep at least ne position vacant, resulting in an overall reduction in work force. 4) Th committee is advised that the language in {u this bill u} is identical to the lanuage, which was in statute before, except that {u this bill u} contains no sunsetdate. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) The committee is advised that existing PERS law, Gov Code Section 20903.5, currently offers a {u 1-4 year "Golden Handshake" u} optin for contracting agencies, but those requirements are {u more restrictive u} thanthe Section 20903 requirements proposed in {u this bill u} . Also, the 1-4 year "Glden Handshake" section will sunset as of July 1, 1999. 2) {u OPPOSITION u} : Noe to date. # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 397 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------||Date: March 16, 1999 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 399 02/12/99 10:26:53 SEN. P.. & R. sc BILL ANAYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO SB 399 | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 22, 1999| |Chair | | ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ |SB 399 (Ortiz) s introduced2/12/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: STATE EMPLOYEES: TIER ON RE-OPENED: TIER TWO AGAIN MADE OPTIONAL INSTEAD OF MANDATORY u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: PERS Board of Administration California StateEmployees' Association Assn. of California State Attorneys an Administrative Law Judges California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen California Assn. of Professional Scientists Californa Dept. of Forestry Firefighters Professional Engineers in Califoria Government Retired Public Employees' Association Prior egislation: see below {u SUMMARY u} : Would provide that: a) {u state employe hired after the effective date u} would be in "Tier One," and b) {u currentstate employees u} could upgrade their "Tier Two" service to "Tier One". {uACKGROUND u} : {u u} 1) {u LEGISLATIVE HISTORY u} : a) AB 529 (Elder), Chapter 674 of1984, established Tier Two, as an option, b) AB 702 (Frizzelle) Chapter 3 of 1991, mandated Tier Two for most state employees hired after on or ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 2 | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- after 7-1-91, c SB 2019 (Russell) 1995, a Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) sposored bill to require that DPA develop a plan to replace Tier Two, died in cmmittee, and d) AB 842 (Strom-Martin) 1997, a California State Emploees' Association (CSEA) sponsored bill which would have established a one yer election period for Tier Two members to elect Tier One died in committee. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 2) {u Tier One u} {u Retirement formula u} is: 1.1 % @ age 50 2. % @ age 60 2.418 %@ ge 63 {u Employee contribution u} is 5% on earnings over $513 (if in social securty) or 6% on earnings over $317 (if not in social security). {u Employer contriution u} varies based on actuarial experience, is adjusted annually, and is currntly 8.541% of payroll for miscellaneous employees, and 4.583% for industrial members (as of 7-1-98). {u Minimum service retirement is 5 years of service @ ag 50 u} . {u COLA u} for Tier One is 2% compounded. {u State employees hired before uly 1, 1991 could participate in Tier One; those hired after that date were madated into Tier Two. u} {u u} 3) {u TIER TWO u} {u Retirement formula u} maximizes at 125% @ age 65. {u Employee contribution u} is zero - the plan is {u non-contributoryfor employees u} . {u Employer contribution u} varies based on actuarial experience, is adjusted annually, and is currently 6.437% of payroll for miscellaneous empoyees, and 4.583% for industrial members (as of 7-1-98). {u Minimum service retrement is 10 years of service @ age 55 u} . {u The retirement benefits for Tier Twoemployees are approximately half the benefits under Tier One. u} ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u COLA u} for Tier Tw is 3% compounded. {u ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u This bill u} would permit (not equire) currently employed state members to elect PERS Tier One. Those state mployees who want to upgrade their past service must "buy back" or submit the ithdrawn contributions plus interest, either as a lump sum or in monthly insallments. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 ||---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17 1999 | Page 5| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 2) {u Existing PERS law u} mandated newly hired state emloyees, hired after July 1, 1991, into Tier Two. {u This bill u} would eliminate ier Two for new employees; placing them in Tier One, effective January 1, 2000 3) {u Existing PERS law u} does not permit Tier Two employees to move to Tier Oe for past or future service. {u This bill u} would permit them to upgrade their pst (and future) service to Tier One, starting January 1, 2000. {u COMMENTu} : 1) The committee is advised that there are now about 65,000 state miscelaneous and industrial members in Tier Two. Current state employees would have3 options under the provisions of {u this bill u} : - remain in Tier Two, -elect Tier One for future service only (and keep the past service under TierTwo), or - elect Tier One for past and future service ("buying back" soe or all past service). 2) {u This bill u} would be available to "inactive" memers (former state employees who have left their contributions on deposit - they can later apply for retirement benefits when they reach the minimum age rquirement). 3) {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 6| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 399 ||---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17 1999 | Page 7| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 400 02/12/99 15:58:21 SEN. P.E. & R. s BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 400 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: Mach 22, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 400 (Ortiz) as introduced2/12/99 FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 199 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: 1959 Survivor Benefit Program: New 5th Level of Benefits Proposed u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS, co-sponsor) California State Employe's Association (CSEA, co-sponsor) California Departmet of Forestry Retirees (CDF, co-sponsor) California Shool Employees Association (co-sponsor) Prior legislation: AB2437 (Ortiz), 1998 Vetoed {u SUMMARY u} : Would establish a new level of survior benefits for state and school employee participants in the 1959 Survivor enefit Program, effective January 1, 1999, increasing the benefit level to moe closely achieve comparability with Social Security. {u BACKGROUND u} : 1) {u Existing PERS law u} contains the '59 Survivor Benefit which was designed to povide pre-retirement death benefits to PERS members not covered by Social Secuity. Employees who participate in the '59 Survivor Benefit program pay $2.0 per month for coverage. It is understood that the program was originally enated to mimic Social Security. Over the years {u four distinct benefit levels u} hve been enacted in the '59 Survivor Benefit. 2) Generally, state and school mployees are covered by the {u existing Level 3 u} , which provides survivors $350 er month for a single recipient, $700 per month for two recipients, or $840 er month for three or more recipients. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | S 400 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: Mrch 17, 1999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 3) {u '59 SURVIVOR BENEFITS: u} The '59 Survivr Benefits are fixed dollar amounts (not related to salary at the time of deat), with no COLA (post-death Consumer Price Index increases). Social Securit death benefits are calculated based on the individual's earnings, and a CPI-idexed COLA. According to PERS, the lack of a COLA is a chronic design flaw inthe '59 Survivor Benefit. Since the program is intended to replace Social Secrity, PERS views the proposed 5th level as an appropriate solution to the indequacy of the current benefit. Significant surpluses have built up in both th state and school '59 Survivor Benefit accounts that cannot be used for othe purposes. {u ANALYSIS u} : {u This bill u} : a) creates a new "5th Level" '59 Survvor Benefit and requires all state members not participating in Social Scurity to be covered, b) specifies that "5th Level" survivors of deceased stae employees and school members would receive $750 per month for a singlerecipient, $1,500 per month for two recipients, or $1,800 per month for thre or more recipients, c) requires the member, and the employer {u if necessry u} , to each pay $2.00 per month for the increased benefit (should theneeded total contribution ever exceed $4.00 per month, the employee and emplyer would evenly share the cost), and d) requires that all surplus asset in both the state and school accounts be absorbed before any employer ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- contriution is required. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) The committee is advised that {u this bill u} developed by PERS in consultation with a task force comprised of employe organizations and employers, addresses the current low level of benefit paymets. This 5th level of benefits would not contain any COLA. 2) AB 2437 (Ortz) 1998, an identical bill, was vetoed by Governor Wilson. His veto message sates: "Under current law, state and local agencies may elect to provide apre-retirement death benefit enhancement through the collective bargaining pocess. This measure eliminates that discretion by requring state and local governments to provide this benefit. The issue here is not whether the ehancement is warranted. It is the impropriety of circumventing the collectie bargaining process. "Despite the present existence of an accumulated suplus of employee assets, retirement benefits are more appropriately incrased only by negotiation required by the collective bargaining process. As ong as state law requires that state and local governments engage in colective bargaining as public employers, it is improper to circumvent the requred negotiation by legislation." 3) {u SUPPORT u} : California Professional Firefihters (CPF) American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME California Federation of Teachers (CFT) 4) {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 199 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 400 02/12/99 10:34:25 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SNATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 400 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 22, 199| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 400 (Ortiz) as introduced2/12/99 | FSCAL: Yes| ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: 1959 Survivor Benefit Program: New 5th Level of Benefit Proposed u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: California Public Employees' Retiremnt System (PERS, co-sponsor) California State Employee's Assocation (CSEA, co-sponsor) California Department of Forstry Retirees (CDF, co-sponsor) California School Empoyees Association (co-sponsor) Prior legislation: AB 2437 (Oriz), 1998 Vetoed {u SUMMARY u} : Would establish a new level of survivor benefts for state and school employee participants in the 1959 Survivor Benefit Pogram, effective January 1, 1999, increasing the benefit level to more closel achieve comparability with Social Security. {u BACKGROUND u} : 1) {u Existig PERS law u} contains the '59 Survivor Benefit which was designed to provide pr-retirement death benefits to PERS members not covered by Social Security. Emloyees who participate in the '59 Survivor Benefit program pay $2.00 per monh for coverage. It is understood that the program was originally enacted to mmic Social Security. Over the years {u four distinct benefit levels u} have been enacted in the '59 Survivor Benefit. 2) Generally, state and school employeesare covered by the {u existing Level 3 u} , which provides survivors $350 per monh for a single recipient, $700 per month for two recipients, or $840 per monthfor three or more recipients. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 3) {u '59 SURVIVOR BENEFITS: u} The '59 Survivor Benefis are fixed dollar amounts (not related to salary at the time of death), with o COLA (post-death Consumer Price Index increases). Social Security death bnefits are calculated based on the individual's earnings, and a CPI-indexed COA. According to PERS, the lack of a COLA is a chronic design flaw in the '59 urvivor Benefit. Since the program is intended to replace Social Security, PES views the proposed 5th level as an appropriate solution to the inadequacy f the current benefit. Significant surpluses have built up in both the state ad school '59 Survivor Benefit accounts that cannot be used for other purpose. {u ANALYSIS u} : {u This bill u} : a) creates a new "5th Level" '59 Survivor Beneit and requires all state members not participating in Social Security t be covered, b) specifies that "5th Level" survivors of deceased state emloyees and school members would receive $750 per month for a single recipien, $1,500 per month for two recipients, or $1,800 per month for three or more recipients, c) requires the member, and the employer {u if necessary u} , to each pay $2.00 per month for the increased benefit (should the needed ttal contribution ever exceed $4.00 per month, the employee and employer woul evenly share the cost), and d) requires that all surplus assets in boththe state and school accounts be absorbed before any employer ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Pag 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- contribution isrequired. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) The committee is advised that {u this bill u} , developd by PERS in consultation with a task force comprised of employee organiztions and employers, addresses the current low level of benefit payments. Thi 5th level of benefits would not contain any COLA. 2) AB 2437 (Ortiz) 1998,an identical bill, was vetoed by Governor Wilson. His veto message states: "Under current law, state and local agencies may elect to provide a pre-retiement death benefit enhancement through the collective bargaining process. his measure eliminates that discretion by requring state and local goverments to provide this benefit. The issue here is not whether the enhancemen is warranted. It is the impropriety of circumventing the collective bargaiing process. "Despite the present existence of an accumulated surplus of employee assets, retirement benefits are more appropriately increased onl by negotiation required by the collective bargaining process. As long as sate law requires that state and local governments engage in collective brgaining as public employers, it is improper to circumvent the required negoiation by legislation." 3) {u SUPPORT u} : California Professional Firefighters (CF) American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Califoria Federation of Teachers (CFT) 4) {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 400 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 401 02/12/99 10:35:45 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 401 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 22, 1999| |Char | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 401 (Ortiz) as introduced2/12/99 | FISCAL: es| ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- |DavidFelderstein | SB 401 | |-------------------------------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 1| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: CLASSIFIED SCHOOL EMPLOYEE MEMBERS: ENHANCED RETIREMENT FORMULAu} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsors: California School Employees Association Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Calif. State Council Prior legislation: see below {u SUMMARY u} : Would provide school members ith the 2% @ age 55 retirement formula, instead of the current 2% @ age 60 frmula. {u BACKGROUND u} : {u u} AB 2981 (Elder) Chapter 549 of 1990, provided the 2 @ age 55 contract option for PERS agencies. AB 2202 (Tanner) 1991, would hve provided the 2% @ age 55 retirement formula for state miscellaneous manager, supervisors or confidential employees. The bill died in committee. AB 151 (Kaloogian) 1996, would have repealed the 2% @ age 55 formula option for PER local agencies. It died in committee. {u ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u Existing PERSlaw u} provides that: a) school members had the 2% @ age 60 retirement formula since 1971, and ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 401 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- b) under the 2% @ 60 formula, the percentage factor begin at 1.092% @ age 50 and gradually increases to 2.418% at age 63 or older. here were 208,432 active school members in June, 1997. 2) {u This bill u} proides: a) the PERS 2% @ age 55 retirement formula for school members who etire after the effective date; the percentage factor starts at 1.426% @ 50 nd increases to 2.418% @ 63 or older, b) school police will not be subjet to this formula, unless they have other school service in their record prior to becoming a school police member, c) the employees of the Los Angele County Office of Education and the San Diego County Office of Education can be subject to the 2% @ 55 formula (they are contracting public agencies utside of the school employers "pool"), and d) the 2% @ age 55 benefit ill be mandatory for all "pool" school employers (it is not optional), andcould result in an increase in the school "pool" employer contribution rte. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) Proponents state: a) {u this bill u} will provide an iproved retirement income level for many school members who routinely receiveonly -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Flderstein | SB 401 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 3| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- partial service credit (because they work only during the school year an their jobs are not full time), and b) classified "pool" school employees hae not had a significant PERS benefit enhancement in many years, 2) {u SUPPORu} : California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council (CIPELC) 3) OPPOSITION : None to date. # # # # # -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Feldersein | SB 401 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 4| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 408 02/12/99 11:35:43 SEN. G.O. sc BILL ANALYSIS Bill No: SB 08 SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION Sentor Don Perata, Chair 1999-2000 Regular Session Staff Analysis SB 408 Author:Alpert As Introduced:February 12, 199 Hearing Date:March 23, 1999 Consultant:Steve Hardy {u SUBJECT u} Secretary of State Fees DESCRIPTION SB 408 would allow the Secretary of State to institute special andling fees in different amounts not to exceed $1,000 for pre-clearance and epedited handling of documents as specified. {u RELATED EGISLATION SB 284 (Kelley) 1999 Session. u} Authorizes the Secretary of Stateto charge fees for the filing, indexing and furnishing of various documents an the performance of other functions by the Secretary of State. (Pending hering hearing before this Committee) {u BACKGROUND u} Current law requires the Secretary of State to estabish by regulation fees in connection with the filing of documents, issuing o certificates, and other services performed by the office. These fees are reqired to approximate the estimated cost of special handling. In sponsoring thi measure, the State Bar reports that these costs cannot be measured in the cas of pre-clearance or expedited handling. SB 408 provides an exception to the requirement that special handling fees established by the Secretary of State pproximate the cost of special handling. Obtaining pre-clearanc of documents to be filed with the Secretary of State and expedited filing of hese documents, is essential for closing certain corporate transactions in atimely manner. There currently is widespread concern among members of the Stae Bar about the fact these services are not presently available in California. The State Bar Corporations Committee is aware of numerous complaints about ransactions being disrupted because of the absence of these services. The sonsor states that members of the Secretary of State's staff have been receptiv and cooperative in the Committee's efforts to develop regulations for the etablishment of these services, but have indicated that Government Code Section12208 be amended to provide these services. {u SUPPORT: u} State Bar of Caifornia (Sponsor) {u OPPOSE: u} None registered as of 3/16/99 {u FISCAL COMITTEE: u} Senate Appropriations ********** SMH:bw END@#$ SB 412 02/12/99 09:4:11 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropritions Committee Fiscal Summary SB 412 (Burto) Hearing Date:3/8/99 Amended:As introduced Consultant: Mareen Brooks Policy Vote:P. E. & R. 4-0 ___________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 412 urgency, ratifies an MOU between the state and Bargaining Unit 7 (Protective ervices and Public Safety). The provisions of the MOU provide a 5 1/2% salay increase effective April 1, 1999, and an increase in the state's monthly conribution towards employee health benefit rates to be effective January 1, 1999 Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salary increase $1,061 $4,226 $4,226General $2,712 $10,868 $10,868 pecial Health benefits $81 $162 $162Geneal $209 $418 $418Special STAFF COMENTS: This bill meets the criteria to be placed on the Suspense file. Howeve, routinely MOU bills are not placed on Suspense due to the urgency of the legslation. The Budget includes $10.7 million GF in 1998-99 and $190 million ($00 million General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund employee compensation increases pusuant to collective bargaining agreements. In addition to the increased salar and health benefit provisions, the MOU also grants members up to five hundred hours of release time to attend to organizational matters as specified. Uni 7 has approximately 5,532 members. END@#$ SB 412 02/12/99 10:00:11 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 412 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearng date: March 1, 1999| |Chair | | ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 412 (Burton) as introducd2/12/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB412 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: Mach 1, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u STATE EMPLOYEES: LGISLATIVE RATIFICATION OF STATE BARGAINING UNIT 7 MOU u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponor: Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) California Unon of Safety Employees (CAUSE) Prior legislation: none {u SUMMARY u} : Would ratify the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the State and StateBargaining Units (BU) 7, California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE), {u includng a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999, and an additional employer contriution to cover recent increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to Jauary 1, 1999 u} . URGENCY BILL. {u BACKGROUND u} : {u u} The committee is advised tht the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislatue must ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). {u This bill u} is the vehile for the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement reached betweenthe State and BU 7, represented by CAUSE. The MOU would expire June 30, 199. {u ANALYSIS u} : Bargaining Unit 7 (Protective Services and Public Safety Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees: 5532 ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 412 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------- |Date: March 1, 1999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u I. Compensation u} The State agees to provide a 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 7, effectiv the start of the March,1999 pay period. {u II. Health benefits u} {u Effectve January 1, 1999 u} , the State agrees to make the following monthly contributins towards employee health benefits rates as follows: 1 Party $167 2 Party $332 3 Party $432 {u III. Release Tie u} CAUSE shall be granted up to 500 hours of release time for use by authoried CAUSE representatives to attend to CAUSE organizational matters which do no conflict with the operations of the State employer; and: a) Release time ust be taken in no less than whole day increments (e.g., eight, nine, ten orother whole hour increments depending upon the employee's regular work shedule), b) The approval and use of release time shall be subject to 72 ours advance notice and the operational needs of the department, c) Requsts for release time shall be made in writing on a form provided by the depatment, and d) Use of such time shall not be unreasonably denied. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 412 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 1, 1999 | Pge 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u IV. Terms ad Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 7employees are adopted and incorporated into this agreement effective February 8, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u V. Duration of MOU u} This agreement is effctive February 28, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u COMMENTS u} : {u OPPOSITION u} None to date # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 412 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 1, 1999 | Pae 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 412 03/08/99 13:59:18 SEN. F A. sf BILL ANLYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 412| |Officeof Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 412 Author: Burton (D) Amended: As introduced Vote: 27 Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EMP. & RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/1/99 AYES: Orti, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 8-0, 3/8/99 AYES: Johnston, Leslie, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Mounjoy, Perata {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memoranda of understanding {u SURCE u} : State Department of Personnel Administration California nion of Safety Employees {u DIGEST u} : This bill ratifies the memorandum of understanding between the State and State Bargaining Units 7, California Unio of Safety Employees (CAUSE), including a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999 and an additional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existng law, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legslature must ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This bill is the ehicle used for the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement reache between the State CONTINUED {u SB 412 u} Page 2 and State Bargaining Unit (BU)7, represented by the California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE). The MOU expires on June 30, 1999. The terms under which the MOU was adopted is as follos: 1. {u Compensation u} The State agrees to provide a 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 7, effective at the beginning of the March, 1999 ay period. 2. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State agrees t make the following monthly contributions towards employee health benefis rates as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------ | 1 Party | $167 | |-----------------------------+------------------------------| | 2 Party | $332 | |------------------------------+-----------------------------| | 3 Party | $432 || | | ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. {u Release Time u} CAUSE shall e granted up to 500 hours of release time for use by authorized CAUSE represntatives to attend to CAUSE organizational matters which do not conflict wit the operations of the State employer, with the following conditions: A. Release time must be taken in no less than whole day increments (e.., eight, nine, ten or other whole hour increments depending upon the empoyee's regular work schedule). B. The approval and use of release tme shall be subject to 72 hours advance notice and the operational needs of the State employer. {u SB 412 u} Page C. Requests for release time shall be made in writing on a form prvided by the State employer. D. Use of such time shall not be unreasonablydenied. 4. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions in the 1992-95 ontract covering BU 7 employees are adopted and incorporated into this areement effective February 28, 1999, through June 30, 1999. 5. {u Duration of OU u} This agreement is effective February 28, 1999 through June 30, 1999. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No Accoding to Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thouands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salay increase $1,061 $ 4,226 $ 4,226General 2,712 10,868 10,868 Special Health benefits 81 162 162General 209 418 418Special {u Commens u} : The Budget includes $10.7 million General Fund in 1998-99 and $190 millio ($100 million General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund employee compensation increase pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. {u SB 412 u} Page 4 In addition to the increased salary and health benefit povisions, the MOU also grants members up to five hundred hours of release timeto attend to organizational matters, as specified. Unit 7 has approximately 5532 members. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State Department of Personel Administration (co-source) California Union of Safety Employees (co-source) TSM:cm 3/8/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEEABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 412 03/08/99 11:34:21 SN. F. A. sf BIL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 412| |Ofice of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suit 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 412 Author: Burton (D) Amended: As introduced Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EMP. & RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/1/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTE u} : Unavailable at time of writing {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memranda of understanding {u SOURCE u} : State Department of Personnel Administraion California Union of Safety Employees {u DIGEST u} : This billratifies the memorandum of understanding between the State and State Bargainin Units 7, California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE), including a 4% pay rise effective March 1, 1999, and an additional employer contribution to cover ecent increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prio to implementation, the Legislature must ratify each Memorandum of Understandig (MOU). This bill is the vehicle used for the ratification of the collectivebargaining agreement reached between the State and State Bargaining Unit (BU) , represented by the CONTINUE {u SB 412 u} Page 2 California Union of Safety Eployees (CAUSE). The MOU expires on June 30, 1999. The terms under which theMOU was adopted is as follows: 1. {u Compensation u} The State agrees to provide 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 7, effective at the begining of the March, 1999 pay period. 2. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January1, 1999, the State agrees to make the following monthly contributions toward employee health benefits rates as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------ | 1 Party | $16 | |------------------------------+------------------------------| | 2 Party | $332 | |-----------------------------+------------------------------| | 3 Party | $432 | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 3. {u Rlease Time u} CAUSE shall be granted up to 500 hours of release time for us by authorized CAUSE representatives to attend to CAUSE organizational mattes which do not conflict with the operations of the State employer, with the ollowing conditions: A. Release time must be taken in no less than whoe day increments (e.g., eight, nine, ten or other whole hour increents depending upon the employee's regular work schedule). B. The aproval and use of release time shall be subject to 72 hours advance notic and the operational needs of the State employer. C. Requests for rlease time shall be made in writing {u SB 412 u} Page 3 on a form provided by the State employer. D. Use of such tie shall not be unreasonably denied. 4. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and cnditions in the 1992-95 contract covering BU 7 employees are adopted and incrporated into this agreement effective February 28, 1999, through June 30, 1999. 5. {u Duration of MOU u} This agreement is effective February 28, 1999 though June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: es Local: No According to Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-200 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salary increase $1,061 $ 4,226 $ 4,226Geneal 2,712 10,868 10,868 Special Health benefits 81 162 162General 209 418 418Special {u Comments u} : The Budget includes $10.7 million General Fund in 998-99 and $190 million ($100 million General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund emploee compensation increases pursuant to collective bargaining agreements. In adition to the increased salary and health benefit provisions, the MOU also grans members up to five hundred hours of release time to attend to organizationalmatters, {u SB 412 Page 4 as specified. Uit 7 has approximately 5,532 members. SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State epartment of Personnel Administration (co-source) California Union of Safety Empoyees (co-source) TSM:cm 3/8/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPRT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 412 03/10/99 16:55:2 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 42| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (91) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 412 Author: Burton (D) Amended: As introduced Voe: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EMP. & RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/1/99 YES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS CMMITTEE u} : 11-0, 3/8/99 AYES: Johnston, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson, Karnete, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata, Vasconcellos NOT VOTING: Alpert, Keley {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memoranda of understanding {u SOURCE u} : State Department of Personnel Administration California Union ofSafety Employees {u DIGEST u} : This bill ratifies the memorandum of undersanding between the State and State Bargaining Units 7, California Union of Safty Employees (CAUSE), including a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999, and anadditional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employee healt coverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existing law,the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislature must ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This bill is the vehicle sed for the ratification of the CONTINUED {u SB 412 u} Page 2 collective bargaiing agreement reached between the State and State Bargaining Unit (BU) 7, reprsented by the California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE). The MOU expireson June 30, 1999. The terms under which the MOU was adopted is as follows: 1. {uompensation u} The State agrees to provide a 4% general salary increase to ll employees in BU 7, effective at the beginning of the March, 1999 pay perid. 2. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State agrees to make te following monthly contributions towards employee health benefits ratesas follows: ------------------------------------------------------------- | 1 Party | $167 | |-----------------------------+------------------------------| | 2 Party | $332 | |------------------------------+-----------------------------| | 3 Party | $432 | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. {u Release Time u} CAUSE shall be grantd up to 500 hours of release time for use by authorized CAUSE representative to attend to CAUSE organizational matters which do not conflict with th operations of the State employer, with the following conditions: A. Rlease time must be taken in no less than whole day increments (e.g., eigh, nine, ten or other whole hour increments depending upon the employee's egular work schedule). B. The approval and use of release time shal be subject to 72 hours advance notice and the operational needs o the State employer. {u SB 412 u} Page 3 C. Requests for release time shall be made in writing on a form provided b the State employer. D. Use of such time shall not be unreasonably denied. 4. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions in the 1992-95 contractcovering BU 7 employees are adopted and incorporated into this agreementeffective February 28, 1999, through June 30, 1999. 5. {u Duration of MOU u} his agreement is effective February 28, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL FFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According toSenate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salary increse $1,061 $ 4,226 $ 4,226General 2,712 10868 10,868 Special Health benefits 81 162 62General 209 418 418Special {u Comments u} : Th Budget includes $10.7 million General Fund in 1998-99 and $190 million ($100 illion General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund employee compensation increases pursuat to collective {uB 412 u} Page 4 bargainin agreements. In addition to the increased salary and health benefit provision, the MOU also grants members up to five hundred hours of release time to atted to organizational matters, as specified. Unit 7 has approximately 5,532 memers. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State Department of Personnel Admiistration (co-source) California Union of Safety Employees (co-source) TSM:cm 3/10/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 412 03/10/99 12:8:51 ASM. P.E.,R. & S.S. ac BILL ANALYSIS {u SB 412 u} Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 11, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMTTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SEURITY Lou Correa, Chair SB 412 (Burton) - As Inroduced: February 12, 1999 {u SENATE VOTE u} : 33-1 {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: emorandum of understanding. {u SUMMARY u} : Ratifies the memorandum of understandig (MOU) between the State and State Bargaining Unit (BU) 7 (approximately 5,32 full-time employees), California Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE), includig a 5.5% pay raise effective the start of the April 1999 pay period, and an aditional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employee health cverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. This bill is an urgency measure and te MOU would expire June 30, 1999. Specifically, {u this bill u} : 1)Provides a 55% general salary increase to all employees in BU 7 effective the start of te April 1999 pay period. 2)Specifies that the State will make the following monhly contributions towards employee health benefit rates as follows: 1 Paty - $167; 2 Party - $332; and 3 Party - $432. 3)Grants CAUSE up to 500 hours o release time for use by authorized CAUSE representatives to attend to CAUSE organizational matters which do not conflict with the operations of the tate employer and specifies that: d) Release time must be taken in no lessthan whole day increments (e.g. eight, nine, ten or other whole hour increments depending upon the employee's regular work schedule); and e) The approval and use of release time shall be subject to 72 hours adance notice and the operational needs of the department; and f) Requsts for release time shall be made in writing on a form provided by the dpartment; and g) Use of such time shall not be unreasonably denied. 8)Specfies that all terms and conditions of the 1992-95 {u SB 412 u} Page 2 contract covering BU 7 employees are adopted an incorporated into this agreement effective February 28, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : According to the Department of Personnel Adminstration, the current year cost of providing the salary increase for BU 7 is $,773,696 to be paid for from a new appropriation. The current year cost for te health benefit contribution change is $290,678 to be paid for from existing departmental budgets. {u COMMENTS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Actrequires the Legislature to ratify each MOU prior to implementation when theagreement contains provisions requiring the expenditure of state funds. This ill represents the negotiated agreement between the State and BU 7. {u SB 412 u} Page 3 {uEGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION u} : {u Support u} Department of Personnel Adminisration (co-sponsor) California Union of Safety Employees (co-sponsor) {u Oppositin u} None on file. {u Analysis Prepared by u} : Karon Green / P.E.R. & S.S. / (16)319-3957 END@#$ SB 412 03/11/99 14:06:55 ASM. BILL ANALYSIS af BILL ANALYSIS {u SB 412 u} Page 1 {u (Without Referenc to File) u} SENATE THIRD READING SB 412 (Burton) As Introduced February 12, 19992/3 vote. Urgency {u SENATE VOTE u} :33-1 {u u} {u PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 6-0 APPRORIATIONS 18-0 u} ---------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Correa, Thompson, |Ayes:|Migden, Brewer, Ashburn, | | |Firebaugh | |Campbell, Cedillo, Davis, | | |Hoda, Knox, Pescetti | |Granlund, Kuehl, | | | | |Maldonado, Papan, Romero, | | | | |Shelley, Steinberg, | | | | |Thomson,Wesson, Wiggins, | | | | |Wright, Zettel | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- {u SUMMARY u} : Ratifies the memoradum of understanding (MOU) between the state and State Bargaining Unit (BU) 7 i.e., approximately 5,532 full-time employees), represented by the Californi Union of Safety Employees (CAUSE). The MOU would expire June 30, 1999. Specfically, {u this bill u} : 1)Provides a 5.5% general salary increase to all employes in BU 7 effective the start of the April 1999 pay period. 2)Specifies tha the state will make the following monthly contributions towards employee helth benefit rates as follows: 1 Party - $167; 2 Party - $332; and 3 Party - 432, retroactive to January 1, 1999. 3)Grants CAUSE up to 500 hours of relese time for use by authorized CAUSE representatives to attend to CAUSE oganizational matters which do not conflict with the operations of the state mployer and specifies that: d) Release time must be taken in no less than hole day increments (e.g. eight, nine, ten or other whole hour incements depending upon the employee's regular work schedule); {u SB 412 u} Page 2 e) The approval and use ofrelease time shall be subject to 72 hours advance notice and the operatioal needs of the department; f) Requests for release time shall be ade in writing on a form provided by the department; and, g) Use ofsuch time shall not be unreasonably denied. 8)Specifies that all terms and condtions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 7 employees are adopted and incorprated into this agreement effective February 28, 1999 through June 30, 199. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : According to the Department of Personnel Administratio, the current year cost of providing the salary increase for BU 7 is $3,773,69 to be paid for from a new appropriation. The current year cost for the healt benefit contribution change is $290,678 to be paid for from existing departental budgets. {u COMMENTS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act require the Legislature to ratify each MOU prior to implementation when the agreemet contains provisions requiring the expenditure of state funds. This bill repesents the negotiated agreement between the State and BU 7. {u Analysis Prepard by u} : Karon Green / P.E.R. & S.S. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0000255 END@#$ SB 417 02/12/99 16:05:33 SEN. JUD. sc BILL ANALYSS SENATE JUDICIARY CMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 Reular Session ------------------------------------------------------------ SB 417 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Bowen | B| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Amended March 18, 1999 | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 23, 199 | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Civil Code | 1| --------------------------------------------------------+---| |JMR:cjt | 7| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |--------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Supermarket club cards: disclosures {u DESCRPTION u} This bill would enact the Supermarket Club Card Disclosure Act of 199, that would give a consumer that applies for a club card the right to prohibi supermarkets from: (1) collecting and aggregating information about the buyig habits of the consumer; and (2) selling or transferring marketing informaton about the consumer that contains the consumer's identity. The bill also wold provide that a violation of the provisions would constitute a misdemeanor and be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars. {u BACKGROUND u} Today, many of the state's largest supermarket chains offer "club cards" to their shoppers. These club cards allow consumers to obtain dscounts from the supermarket without the use of coupons. At the checkout stan, the plastic (More) cards are swiped through a magnetic reader, which gives the shopper automtic discounts on certain items. The author asserts that according to AC-Nielson a market research corporation, two-thirds of all U.S. households have at lest one supermarket club card. In some parts of California, three out of four hoppers are supermarket club members. To obtain a club card, shoppers fill ou a form or application with personal information such as their name, address home phone number, birth date, and apparently in some cases, their driver's lcense and social security numbers. Consumers have complained that supermarket use this personal information for their own marketing and sales purposes, ad often sell it to other persons or entities. {u CHANGES TO EXSTING LAW u} {u Existing law u} , under the Areias-Robbins Credit Card Full Disclosre Act, requires credit card companies to give cardholders the right to prohibt the credit card company from transferring or selling their personal informaton and buying habits to any marketers of goods. (Civil Code 1748.12.) This bill would provide that any application form or written solicitation fora supermarket club card account to be used for personal, family, or household urposes which is obtained on or after January 1, 2000, by a cardholder residin in this state and issued by or on behalf of a supermarket, shall contain or b accompanied by written notice to the cardholder that clearly and conspicuousl describes the cardholder's right to prohibit: (1) the collection and aggregaion of information concerning a cardholder's buying habits; and (2) the saleor transfer of marketing information to marketers of goods concerning the cardolder which discloses the cardholder's identity. {u This bill u} would require te above-mentioned notices to include either a preprinted form by which the carholder would be able to exercise these rights or advise the cardholder of a oll-free telephone number which the cardholder would be able to call to exercie these rights. (More) {u This bill u} would provide that if the application form or written soliciation contains blank spaces designated for personal phone numbers, driver's liense numbers, or social security numbers, the word "optional" must be placed ajacent to each blank space. {u This bill u} would specify that the disclosure requiements do not prohibit a supermarket from collecting and aggregating purchase information that is not in any way linked to the cardholder's name or other prsonal information. {u This bill u} would provide that the disclosure requirements o not apply to any of the following communications of marketing information y a club card issuer: (1) Communications to any party to, or merchant specified in, the club card agreement, or to any person whose name appears on the cub card or on whose behalf the club card is issued. (2) Communications to cosumer credit reporting agencies. (3) Communications to a corporate subsidiary oraffiliate of the card issuer. (4) Communications to a third party when the tird party is responsible for conveying information from the card issuer o any of its cardholders. {u The bill u} provides that a violation of the provision would constitute a misdemeanor. It also provides that the provisions woul be enforceable by a cause of action for a civil penalty of five hundred dollas ($500) for each violation, in addition to damages incurred, if any. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Stated need for legislation u} The author aserts that club card programs force consumers to choose between their privacyand the desire to save money on their weekly grocery bill. The author blieves that this bill would give consumers the ability to enjoy the savings hat come with a club card without forcing them to let supermarkets collect ad sell personal information and buying habits. The author points out tht the bill would not provide an outright prohibition on the collection and sle of this (More) information, rather it would provide an "opt out" provision for consumes. Supporters assert that when supermarkets offer special discounts to cub members, in return the supermarkets gain the greater loyalty of those memers who will choose to shop more often at those stores. In exchange for mor of their business, the supermarket is able to offer additional discount, rebates, and benefits to shoppers who use a "loyalty card." With increase technology, the supporters contend that the supermarkets realized the vlue of the information about their customers that they had collected. Suppoters argue that this bill would balance the system, and return club card prorams back to a win-win system for both supermarkets and consumers. While onsumer complaints and recent pressure from the media have prompted some suprmarkets to state that personal information will not be disclosed to outside companies, the author is concerned that consumers have no legal protectin that ensures their privacy in the future if the supermarket changes its poicy or merges with another company. This bill would provide consumers with that protection to preserve their privacy while saving money. 2. {u Shoud the bill be amended to strengthen its purpose u} ? The Privacy Rights Clearingouse supports this bill, but also believes that it should be strengthened bymaking some suggested amendments. Some of the suggested amendments of tat supporter, as well as others, include: Provide annual notice to shopprs of the ability to prohibit the collection, sale or transfer of persona information, as specified in this bill. This amendment would enale all those shoppers who signed up before the enactment date of the law o learn of their data protection opportunities. Remove the clausewhich would allow supermarket data to be shared with credit bureaus. Thi section of the bill was modeled after the Credit Card Full Discloure Act. However, while it may be necessary for a credit card company todisclose information about its customers to a credit bureau, there is no apparent need for supermarkets to do the same. Prohibit the sale o transfer of marketing (ore) information to "any person or entity." Currently, the bill prohibits the sale or transfer of this information to "marketers of oods," defined as "any business or not-for-profit organization." Again, ome of the language was taken from the Credit Card Full DisclosureAct and modified for the supermarket cases. Making the suggested amendmet would provide clarity and broaden the bill to prohibit a sale or transfr for consideration to any person or business. 3. {u Suggested technicalamendments u} The following are technical, non-substantive amendments recomended by committee staff: In subdivision (a), paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 1749.61, the disclosure provisions are conditional and woul apply only if the supermarket collects or sells the personal informationas specified. The conditional clauses should be placed in front o the disclosure requirements. The last sentence of subdivision (b) of Setion 1749.61 should be deleted as it is inconsistent with the currnt scope of the bill. The bill provides that its provisions would only aply to club cards obtained on or after January 1, 2000. However, this setence implies that the provisions would apply retroactively to allcards. This issue needs to be clarified one way or the other. Th definitions need to be cleaned up and should be moved to the front of th bill. Support: California Public Interest Research Group; Privacy Rihts Clearinghouse Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: Author Related Pending Legislation: SB 129 (Peace), called the "Personal Information and Privacy Act of 1999," is an "opt-in" bill that would, among other tings, prohibit organizations from collecting personal information unless the (More) individual specificallyconsents to it. Prior Legislation: None Known ************** (More) END@#$ SB 417 02/12/99 15:56:53 SEN. JUD. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENAE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 Regular Session ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 417 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Bowen | B| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Amended March 18, 1999 | | |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date March 23, 1999 | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Civil Code | 1| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |JMRcjt | 7| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |--------------------------------------------------------+--| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Supermarket club cards: disclosures {u DESCRIPTION u} This bill would enact the Supermarket Club Card Disclosur Act of 1999, that would give a consumer that applies for a club card the riht to prohibit supermarkets from: (1) collecting and aggregating information bout the buying habits of the consumer; and (2) selling or transferring markting information about the consumer that contains the consumer's identity. Th bill also would provide that a violation of the provisions would constitute amisdemeanor and be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars. {u BACKGROUND u} Today, many of the state's largest supermarketchains offer "club cards" to their shoppers. These club cards allow consumes to obtain discounts from the supermarket without the use of coupons. At thecheckout stand, the plastic (More) cards are swiped through a magnetic reader, which gives the shopper automatic discounts on certain items. The author asserts that accordingto AC-Nielson, a market research corporation, two-thirds of all U.S. household have at least one supermarket club card. In some parts of California, thre out of four shoppers are supermarket club members. To obtain a club card, shppers fill out a form or application with personal information such as their nme, address, home phone number, birth date, and apparently in some cases, thir driver's license and social security numbers. Consumers have complained tht supermarkets use this personal information for their own marketing and sales purposes, and often sell it to other persons or entities. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW {u Existing law u} , under the Areias-Robbins Credit Card ull Disclosure Act, requires credit card companies to give cardholders the rght to prohibit the credit card company from transferring or selling their peronal information and buying habits to any marketers of goods. (Civil Code 1748.12.) {u This bill u} would provide that any application form or written soicitation for a supermarket club card account to be used for personal, family,or household purposes which is obtained on or after January 1, 2000, by a cardolder residing in this state and issued by or on behalf of a supermarket, shal contain or be accompanied by written notice to the cardholder that clearly an conspicuously describes the cardholder's right to prohibit: (1) the collectin and aggregation of information concerning a cardholder's buying habits; and (2) the sale or transfer of marketing information to marketers of goods concening the cardholder which discloses the cardholder's identity. {u This bill u} wuld require the above-mentioned notices to include either a preprinted form bywhich the cardholder would be able to exercise these rights or advise the cadholder of a toll-free telephone number which the cardholder would be able to all to exercise these rights. (More) {u This bill u} would provide that if the application form or ritten solicitation contains blank spaces designated for personal phone number, driver's license numbers, or social security numbers, the word "optional" mut be placed adjacent to each blank space. {u This bill u} would specify that the diclosure requirements do not prohibit a supermarket from collecting and aggregaing purchase information that is not in any way linked to the cardholder's nme or other personal information. {u This bill u} would provide that the disclosurerequirements do not apply to any of the following communications of marketin information by a club card issuer: (1) Communications to any party to, or merchnt specified in, the club card agreement, or to any person whose name apears on the club card or on whose behalf the club card is issued. (2) Communcations to consumer credit reporting agencies. (3) Communications to a corporatesubsidiary or affiliate of the card issuer. (4) Communications to a third paty when the third party is responsible for conveying information from the cad issuer to any of its cardholders. {u The bill u} provides that a violation ofthe provisions would constitute a misdemeanor. It also provides that the povisions would be enforceable by a cause of action for a civil penalty of fivehundred dollars ($500) for each violation, in addition to damages incurred, if ay. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Stated need for legislation u} The author asserts that club card programs force consumers to choose betweentheir privacy and the desire to save money on their weekly grocery bill. Th author believes that this bill would give consumers the ability to enjo the savings that come with a club card without forcing them to let supermarets collect and sell personal information and buying habits. The author points out that the bill would not provide an outright prohibition on the colection and sale of this (More) information, rather it would provide an "opt out" provisin for consumers. Supporters assert that when supermarkets offer special iscounts to club members, in return the supermarkets gain the greater loyalt of those members who will choose to shop more often at those stores. In exhange for more of their business, the supermarket is able to offer additonal discounts, rebates, and benefits to shoppers who use a "loyalty card." With increased technology, the supporters contend that the supermarkets realzed the value of the information about their customers that they had colected. Supporters argue that this bill would balance the system, and returnclub card programs back to a win-win system for both supermarkets and consumrs. While consumer complaints and recent pressure from the media have propted some supermarkets to state that personal information will not be discloed to outside companies, the author is concerned that consumers have no egal protection that ensures their privacy in the future if the supermarket hanges its policy or merges with another company. This bill would provide cnsumers with that protection to preserve their privacy while saving mone. 2. {u Should the bill be amended to strengthen its purpose u} ? The Privacy Rghts Clearinghouse supports this bill, but also believes that it should be srengthened by making some suggested amendments. Some of the suggested aendments of that supporter, as well as others, include: Provide annual ntice to shoppers of the ability to prohibit the collection, sale or transer of personal information, as specified in this bill. This amendent would enable all those shoppers who signed up before the enactment dae of the law to learn of their data protection opportunities. Remve the clause which would allow supermarket data to be shared with creditbureaus. This section of the bill was modeled after the Credit Card Full Disclosure Act. However, while it may be necessary for a credit crd company to disclose information about its customers to a credit bureau there is no apparent need for supermarkets to do the same. Prohiit the sale or transfer of marketing (More) information to "any person or entity." Currenty, the bill prohibits the sale or transfer of this information to marketers of goods," defined as "any business or not-for-profit organizaton." Again, some of the language was taken from the Credit Card Full Disclosure Act and modified for the supermarket cases. Making the sugested amendment would provide clarity and broaden the bill to prohibit a ale or transfer for consideration to any person or business. 3. {u Suggeted technical amendments u} The following are technical, non-substantive amendmnts recommended by committee staff: In subdivision (a), paragraphs () and (2) of Section 1749.61, the disclosure provisions are conditonal and would apply only if the supermarket collects or sells the personl information as specified. The conditional clauses should be placed in front of the disclosure requirements. The last sentence of subdiviion (b) of Section 1749.61 should be deleted as it is inconsistent with the current scope of the bill. The bill provides that its provision would only apply to club cards obtained on or after January 1, 2000. Hoever, this sentence implies that the provisions would apply retroactively to all cards. This issue needs to be clarified one way or the othr. The definitions need to be cleaned up and should be moved to te front of the bill. Support: California Public Interest Research Group; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: Author Related Pending Legislation: SB 129 (Peace), alled the "Personal Information and Privacy Act of 1999," is an "opt-in" bill that would,among other things, prohibit organizations from collectig personal information unless the (More) individua specifically consents to it. Prior Legislation: None nown ************** (More) END@#$ SB 434 02/6/99 15:16:01 SEN. I.R. sc BILL ANALYSIS Senate ommittee on Industrial Relations 1999-2000 Regular Session Hilda L. Solis,Chair Fiscal: No Urgency: No Bill No: SB 434 Author: Hughes Version: As Introduced Subject: Classified school employees Support: Los Angeles Unified School District Prsonnel Commission Opposition: None Purpose: Makes various technical andsubstantive changes to the Education Code relating to school personnel commissons and the merit system. Analysis: Current law provides for school distrits to adopt merit personnel systems. Approximately 100 school districts in the state have such civil service systems for their non-certificate employees.{u This Bill: u} 1. Clarifies the residency requirement for personnel commissiners. 2. Allows school districts to extend the limited term of an employe for not more than one year, based on a declaration of an emergency mde by the Governor or the President. 3. Conforms the definition of a vetean as stated in the Education code with the definition found in th Government code. 4. Requires that the Superintendent provide writtn charges by legal process to an employee in the event of a suspensio. 5. Allows more flexibility in the hiring restricted classes of employees. 6. Eliminates obsolete references to five member commissions. Comments: 1. {u Proponents u} : Proponents state that this bill provides various techncal clean up corrections of the Education Code related to merit systems operted by personnel commissions. The provisions are needed to: clean up ommission issues such as residency requirements, eliminate language regaring five member commissions, since there are none; codify proper lgal proceedings regarding notice after an employee has been suspended. Crrent law requires the personnel director to file written charges with the commission and provide a copy to the employer. Under the Skelly rocedures, this is the responsibility of the district, not the commissions director. The personnel director sends a letter to the employeeafter the disciplinary action has occurred informing the employee of his/er appeal rights. eliminate confusion about what constitutes the definition of a "war" and what qualifies as veteran's credit. There ave been many situations that were not Hearing Date: March 24, 1999 {u SB 434 u} Consultant: Clem Meredith age 2 Senate Committee on Industrial Relations wars, but which qualified as federal service with veteran's redit. 2. {u Opponents u} : None 3. {u Prior Legislation u} : SB 2178 (Watson) 1998 as a bill that addressed similar issues. Some of the issues were removed beause they led to a veto by the Governor. Hearing Dte: March 24, 1999 {u SB 434 u} Consultant: Clem Meredith Page 3 Senate Commitee on Industrial Relations END@#$ SB 437 02/16/99 10:38:20 SEN. P.E. & R. s BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 437 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: Mach 22, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 437 (Rainey) as introduced2/16/99 FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 437 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 199 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u STRS: SURVIVOR BENEFITS: REMARRIAGE PENALTY u} {u HISTORu} : Sponsor: author Prior legislation: see below {u SUMMARY u} : ould {u prospectively u} restore benefits to the surviving spouse of a deceased STS member, if the surviving spouse {u lost entitlement u} to survivor benefits {u dueto remarriage u} before October 16, 1992. No retroactivity. {u BACKGROUND u} : 1) The basic STRS survivor allowance for an un-remarried surviving spouse ith dependent children was 40% of the member's final compensation plus an addiional 10% for each eligible dependent child, up to a maximum of 90% of the mmber's final compensation. This allowance ceased when the youngest child attaied the age of 18 or the last child age 18 to 22 discontinued full-time school ttendance or married. 2) SB 1885 (Cecil Green), Chapter 1166 of 1992 {u prspectively u} repealed the STRS provisions that required termination of the alloance payable to a surviving spouse of a deceased member {u upon remarriage u} . {u Hwever, Chapter 1166 did not restore the STRS survivor benefit of those who hadalready been terminated because of re-marriage before October, 1992. u} {u ANALSIS u} : -------------------------------------------------------------- |David elderstein | SB 437 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 2| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- 1) {u This bill u} provides that the surviving spouse of a deceased STRS meber, who lost entitlement to benefits due to remarriage is entitled to resumepayment of the STRS survivor benefits, effective January 1, 2000 (or the time of receipt by STRS of a written application for resumption of benefits, whicever date is later). Future benefits payments only, no retroactivity. ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 437 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- 2) {u This bill u} also provides that: a) the amount of the benfit payable will be calculated as though the benefit had been paid without iterruption from the date of remarriage, b) the STRS Board has no duty toidentify, locate, or notify a remarried spouse about his or her rights to resume benefits c) the STRS Board has no duty to provide the name or adress of any remarried spouse to any person, agency, or entity for the purpos of notifying those who may be eligible to resume benefits, and d) thee is {u no retroactivity u} . {u COMMENTS u} : 1) According to STRS: a) approxiately {u 96 u} individuals remarried prior to October 16, 1992 and would be eligble to resume payments under {u this bill u} , b) in addition, there are {u 345 surviving spouses that began receiving benefits prior to 10/16/92, and currntly continue to receive benefits, who may or may not have remarried, an c) the estimated costs of the resumed benefits is in excess of $12 milion. u} 2) STRS is requesting technical amendments. The STRS Board has nottaken a position on {u this bill u} to date. 3) {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstei | SB 437 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 4| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- # # # # # -------------------------------------------------------------- |Daid Felderstein | SB 437 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 5| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 447 02/17/99 16:05:55 SEN. JUD. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 Regular Session ------------------------------------------------------------ |SB 447 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Dunn | B| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Itroduced | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 23, 1999 | 4| |--------------------------------------------------------+--| |Code of Civil Procedure | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |JMR:cjt | 7| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Discovery: Inspection Demands {u DESCRIPTION u} This bll would amend the discovery process in civil litigation to explicitly authorie a supplemental demand for inspection to elicit documents, tangible things, ad land or other property that were acquired or discovered after a response t the initial demand for inspection was made. {u BACKGROUND u} After a civil action is filed, any party ay obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant t the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itsel admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discvery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civil Procedure (More) (CCP) 2017(a).) Any party may otain discovery by one or more of the following: oral and written depositions;interrogatories to a party; inspections of documents, things, and places; phsical and mental examinations; requests for admissions; and simultaneous exchages of expert trial witness information. (CCP 2019.) {u CHNGES TO EXISTING LAW u} {u Existing law u} provides that a party may propound to anoher party 35 specially prepared interrogatories, and any additional number o official form interrogatories, that are relevant to the subject matter of theaction. (CCP 2030(c).) {u Existing law u} also provides that, in addition to th specified number of interrogatories, a party may propound a supplemental inerrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers preiously made by a party in response to the interrogatories. (CCP 2030(c)(8)) {u Existing law u} provides that a party may demand inspection of documents, tagible things, and land or other property that are in the possession, custody, r control of any other party to the action. There is no limit on the number o demands for inspection. (CCP 2031.) {u This bill u} would provide that a partymay propound a supplemental demand for inspection to elicit any later acquird or discovered documents, tangible things, or land or other property, provide that a demand for inspection was previously served by that party. The party ould be able to make the demand: (1) twice prior to the initial setting of trial date, and (2) subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings and mtions before trial, once after the initial setting of a trial date. However, n motion, for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to a party to propund an additional number of supplemental demands for inspection. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Stated need for legislation u} (More) The sponsor of the bill, th Beverly Hills Bar Association, states that while existing law permits prties to propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired nformation bearing on all answers previously submitted by any party in respose to the interrogatories, there is no like provision for later acquireddocuments or a supplemental inspection of property. This bill would add a povision to the code relating to production of documents and inspection of property similar to the provision relating to interrogatories. The sponsr asserts that there is no good reason for distinguishing between interrogatries and requests for production of documents and inspection of property. Te sponsor contends that parties may acquire or locate documents which ha been previously requested by opposing parties but which were not located intime to produce a response to the initial demand for inspection. At preent, there is no requirement that later acquired or located documents or thigs be disclosed, thus enabling a party to withhold documents until trial andsurprise an opposing party with the documents that have been previously equested. The sponsor states that by promoting the exchange of informatio, this bill would avoid unfair and time-consuming surprise at trial. The spnsor believes that the policy of the bill countervails any burden which ight be imposed on the responding part to provide supplemental responses. 2 {u The bill would help reduce costly discovery disputes u} The existing discovry section on demands for inspections does not contain a limit on the numberof demands that can be made, and arguably a party could obtain the supplmental responses to an inspection demand by re-issuing previous demands to dscover after-acquired documents. However, the sponsor contends that sincethe right to make this supplemental demand is not explicitly stated, a rsponding party could object to the request and refuse to comply. (See, CCP 2023(a)(2), providing that misuses (More) of the discovery process includes using "a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.") Therefore, to avoid the possibility of any costly discovery disputes, this ill would explicitly set forth a party's right to request supplemental dmands for inspections. {u u} 3. {u Technical amendments u} a. {u Limitation on deands for inspection u} Existing law limits a demand for inspection of documents, tangible things, and land or other property by requiring tht such things must be "in the possession, custody, or control of any othe party to the action." (CCP 2031(a).) However, the supplementalinspection section proposed by this bill does not contain the same limitaion and the language should be conformed to avoid any confusion. . {u Rewording of awkward phrase u} This bill would provide that "a partymay propound a supplemental demand for inspection to elicit any laer acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, or land or other prperty, provided that a demand for inspection was previously served by tha party." The language "to elicit any later acquired" was taken diectly from the interrogatories section of the code, but is not appropriat in the context of land or other property. A party does not elicit land or other property. This provision should be amended to read: "a pary may propound a supplemental demand to inspect any later acquiredor discovered documents, tangible things, or land or other property." (More) c. {u Re-letter cross-references u} The bill would add a subdivision ad re-letter the subsequent subdivisions. However, the cross-refernces to those subdivisions in text have not been amended to reflect this e-lettering. (See, p. 4:10; p. 7:12, 19, 38; p. 9:11.) Support: None Kown Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: Beerly Hills Bar Association Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legilation: None Known ************** (More) END@#$ SB 447 02/17/99 16:00:15 SEN. JUD. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairmn 1999-2000 Regular Session ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 447 | S| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |Sentor Dunn | B| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Introduced | | |--------------------------------------------------------+--| |Hearing Date: March 23, 1999 | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Code of Civil Procedure | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |JMR:cjt | 7| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u SUBJECT u} Discovery: Inspection Demands {u DESCRIPTION u} This bill would amend the discovery proces in civil litigation to explicitly authorize a supplemental demand for inspction to elicit documents, tangible things, and land or other property that wee acquired or discovered after a response to the initial demand for inspectionwas made. {u BACKGROUNu} After a civil action is filed, any party may obtain discovery regarding an matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in th pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appeas reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Cod of Civil Procedure (Mor) (CCP) 2017(a).) Any party may obtain discovery by one or more of te following: oral and written depositions; interrogatories to a party; inspctions of documents, things, and places; physical and mental examinations; reqests for admissions; and simultaneous exchanges of expert trial witness infomation. (CCP 2019.) {u CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW u} {u Existing aw u} provides that a party may propound to another party 35 specially prepared nterrogatories, and any additional number of official form interrogatories, tht are relevant to the subject matter of the action. (CCP 2030(c).) {u Existng law u} also provides that, in addition to the specified number of interrogatoies, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acqired information bearing on all answers previously made by a party in respone to the interrogatories. (CCP 2030(c)(8).) {u Existing law u} provides that a arty may demand inspection of documents, tangible things, and land or other prperty that are in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to he action. There is no limit on the number of demands for inspection. (CCP 031.) {u This bill u} would provide that a party may propound a supplemental demad for inspection to elicit any later acquired or discovered documents, tangibl things, or land or other property, provided that a demand for inspection wa previously served by that party. The party would be able to make the demand: (1) twice prior to the initial setting of a trial date, and (2) subject to th time limits on discovery proceedings and motions before trial, once after te initial setting of a trial date. However, on motion, for good cause shown, he court may grant leave to a party to propound an additional number of suppleental demands for inspection. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Stted need for legislation u} More) The sponsor of the bill, the Beverly Hills Bar Association states that while existing law permits parties to propound a supplemental iterrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answrs previously submitted by any party in response to the interrogatories, thee is no like provision for later acquired documents or a supplemental inspecion of property. This bill would add a provision to the code relating t production of documents and inspection of property similar to the provisionrelating to interrogatories. The sponsor asserts that there is no good reson for distinguishing between interrogatories and requests for productin of documents and inspection of property. The sponsor contends that partie may acquire or locate documents which had been previously requested by oppoing parties but which were not located in time to produce a response to he initial demand for inspection. At present, there is no requirement that ater acquired or located documents or things be disclosed, thus enabling a party to withhold documents until trial and surprise an opposing party wit the documents that have been previously requested. The sponsor states tht by promoting the exchange of information, this bill would avoid unfair and time-consuming surprise at trial. The sponsor believes that the policy f the bill countervails any burden which might be imposed on the responding art to provide supplemental responses. 2. {u The bill would help reduce cosly discovery disputes u} The existing discovery section on demands for inspectins does not contain a limit on the number of demands that can be made, ad arguably a party could obtain the supplemental responses to an inspection emand by re-issuing previous demands to discover after-acquired document. However, the sponsor contends that since the right to make this supplemntal demand is not explicitly stated, a responding party could object to therequest and refuse to comply. (See, CCP 2023(a)(2), providing that misuses (More) of thediscovery process includes using "a discovery method in a manner that does nt comply with its specified procedures.") Therefore, to avoid the possiility of any costly discovery disputes, this bill would explicitly set fortha party's right to request supplemental demands for inspections. {u u} 3. {u Tehnical amendments u} a. {u Limitation on demands for inspection u} Exising law limits a demand for inspection of documents, tangible things, andland or other property by requiring that such things must be "in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action." (CC 2031(a).) However, the supplemental inspection section proposed by thi bill does not contain the same limitation and the language shouldbe conformed to avoid any confusion. b. {u Rewording of awkward phrase u} This bill would provide that "a party may propound a supplementaldemand for inspection to elicit any later acquired or discovered document, tangible things, or land or other property, provided that a demad for inspection was previously served by that party." The language "to licit any later acquired" was taken directly from the interrogatories secion of the code, but is not appropriate in the context of land or ther property. A party does not elicit land or other property. Thi provision should be amended to read: "a party may propound a supplementl demand to inspect any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, or land or other property." (More) c. {u Re-letter cross-reference u} The bill would add a subdivision and re-letter the subsequent ubdivisions. However, the cross-references to those subdivisions in texthave not been amended to reflect this re-lettering. (See, p. 4:10 p. 7:12, 19, 38; p. 9:11.) Support: None Known Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: Beverly Hills Bar Association Relate Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legislation: None Known ************** (More) END@#$ SB 449 02/17/99 16:05:59 SEN. JUD. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMTTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 Regulr Session ------------------------------------------------------------ |SB449 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Burton | B| |-----------------------------------------------------------| |As Introduced | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 23, 1999 | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Government Code | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |GWW:cjt | 9| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | |--------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Court Reporters: Transcription Fees {u DESCRIPTION u} This bill would revise the fee schedule for purchsing a transcript prepared by a court reporter. The fee for an original trascript would be increased from 85 cents to $1.15 for each 100 words, and droppd from 15 cents to 10 cents per 100 words for each copy purchased at the same time. The fee for a first copy to any other person would stay at 20 cents pe 100 words; and each copy purchased at the same time would cost 10 cents insted of 15 cents per 100 words. {u BACKGROUND u} Transcription fees for court reporters were last set in 1990. Since then, inflation has risen about 19.4 percent as measured by the cnsumer price index prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor. While the cost fr an original copy of a transcript would increase 35 percent, the (More) decreased fees for oter copies would effect a 17.3 percent increase for a "typical" transcript orde of an original and two copies. {u CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law u} sets the fee for the original copy, and for other copies, of acourt reporter's transcript. {u This bill u} would revise that fee schedule, as desribed above. {u OMMENT u} 1. {u Proposed changes needed to adjust for inflation and market conditons u} The author states that SB 449 is necessary to bring transcript feespaid to court reporters in line with inflation. He notes that the last incrase in transcript fees was passed nearly ten years ago (1990). Since that time, the consumer price index has gone up over 19 percent, and the cost o requisite equipment and supplies has risen even more. The cost of a stenotpe machine, for example, has risen 21 percent, from $3,295 to almost $4,00, and the cost of paper has increased by about 70 percent. All of these csts must be absorbed by the court reporter. The sponsor, the CaliforniaCourt Reporters Association, further notes that while the increase in the prce of an original transcript appears high at 35 percent, that increase i offset by a reduction in the fee for subsequent copies. Consequently, the ost of a typical transcript order, which is a total of three - one for the court and one each for the plaintiff and the defendant, would only increas by approximately 17.3 percent. With larger orders, such as where there maybe co-defendants, the net increase is even less. Thus, the sponsor argues, the proposed fees are less than the cost adjusted for inflation and also djust for market conditions (see next comment). (More) Notwithstanding the proponent's "aeraging" argument, the bill would result in a higher costs for a copy of an original transcript, costs which would not be averaged out for the purchser who does not purchase extra copies. There is no known opposition to ths bill. 2. {u Why proponents favor an averaging approach as opposed to a straght across inflationary adjustment u} An obvious question is: Why not just incrase the costs across the board instead of averaging? A straight inflatin increase of 19 percent would raise the cost for an original copy to $1.01 er 100 words, and to $.18 per 100 words for copies. To this, the proponnts respond that the revised schedule more accurately reflects the costs of roducing and copying transcripts. Proponents additionally state that cort reporters were already getting complaints for charging the permitted copyng costs of $.15 per 100 words, that increasing the copy fee would likely reult in more complaints, and that reducing that fee to $.10 should ease te complaints and improve the business climate for court reporters. {u u} 3. {unknown impact to state/county coffers in criminal cases u} As a general rule, to copies and an original copy are ordered in criminal appeals - one for thecourt, one for the prosecution and one for the defendant. These transript costs are generally paid by the state, as most defendants appealing ther case are indigent. Hence, the bill will have a presently unknown impact o public expenditures. Proponents argue, however, that it is fair and apropriate to pass on higher costs to public and private litigants alike, and hat court reporters should not be made to subsidize public costs. (The Judiial Council has not expressed any opinion on this bill.) 4. {u A primer on ourt reporters: more background u} Government Code section 69941 provides for he (More) appintment of official reporters to report on the court proceedings "at the reqest of either party or of the court, in a civil action, and on the order of he court, the district attorney, or the attorney for the defendant in a riminal action." (Code of Civil Procedure section 269.) Reporting consist of taking down in shorthand, all testimony, objections made, rulings of thecourt, exceptions taken in all cases, and all arraignments, pleas, and sntences of defendants in criminal cases. Reporting notes are official recors of the court and a certified transcript is prima facie evidence of the proceedings. Depending on the county, court reporters are paid either asalary or a per diem. Fees for transcription are in addition to the salary r per diem payments. Support: None Known Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: California Court Reporters Association Rlated Pending Legislation: None Known ************** (More) END@#$ SB 449 02/17/99 16:03:07 SEN. JUD. s BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Adam B. Schiff, Chairman 1999-2000 Regular Session ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 449 | S| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Senator Burton | B| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |As Introdued | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |Hearing Date: March 23, 1999 | 4| |--------------------------------------------------------+---| |Gvernment Code | 4| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| |GWW:cjt | 9| |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | |-------------------------------------------------------+---| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u SUBJECT u} Court Reporters: Transcription Fees {uESCRIPTION u} This bill would revise the fee schedule for purchasing a transcrpt prepared by a court reporter. The fee for an original transcript would be ncreased from 85 cents to $1.15 for each 100 words, and dropped from 15 cents o 10 cents per 100 words for each copy purchased at the same time. The fee or a first copy to any other person would stay at 20 cents per 100 words; and ach copy purchased at the same time would cost 10 cents instead of 15 cents pe 100 words. {u BACKGROND u} Transcription fees for court reporters were last set in 1990. Since the, inflation has risen about 19.4 percent as measured by the consumer price indx prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor. While the cost for an original opy of a transcript would increase 35 percent, the (More) decreased fees for other copies would ffect a 17.3 percent increase for a "typical" transcript order of an original and two copies. {u CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law u} ets the fee for the original copy, and for other copies, of a court reporter'stranscript. {u This bill u} would revise that fee schedule, as described above. {u COMMENT u} 1. {u Proosed changes needed to adjust for inflation and market conditions u} The autor states that SB 449 is necessary to bring transcript fees paid to court reorters in line with inflation. He notes that the last increase in transcrip fees was passed nearly ten years ago (1990). Since that time, the consmer price index has gone up over 19 percent, and the cost of requisite equipent and supplies has risen even more. The cost of a stenotype machine, or example, has risen 21 percent, from $3,295 to almost $4,000, and the costof paper has increased by about 70 percent. All of these costs must be absobed by the court reporter. The sponsor, the California Court Reporters ssociation, further notes that while the increase in the price of an oriinal transcript appears high at 35 percent, that increase is offset by a redction in the fee for subsequent copies. Consequently, the cost of a typical transcript order, which is a total of three - one for the court and one ach for the plaintiff and the defendant, would only increase by approximatel 17.3 percent. With larger orders, such as where there may be co-defendants the net increase is even less. Thus, the sponsor argues, the proposed ees are less than the cost adjusted for inflation and also adjust for marketconditions (see next comment). (More) Notwithstanding the proponent's "averaging" argumen, the bill would result in a higher costs for a copy of an original trancript, costs which would not be averaged out for the purchaser who does notpurchase extra copies. There is no known opposition to this bill. 2. {u Whyproponents favor an averaging approach as opposed to a straight across inflaionary adjustment u} An obvious question is: Why not just increase the costs across the board instead of averaging? A straight inflation increase of 19percent would raise the cost for an original copy to $1.01 per 100 words, an to $.18 per 100 words for copies. To this, the proponents respond thatthe revised schedule more accurately reflects the costs of producing and copying transcripts. Proponents additionally state that court reporters wer already getting complaints for charging the permitted copying costs of $.15per 100 words, that increasing the copy fee would likely result in more omplaints, and that reducing that fee to $.10 should ease the complaints andimprove the business climate for court reporters. {u u} 3. {u Unknown impact tostate/county coffers in criminal cases u} As a general rule, two copies and anoriginal copy are ordered in criminal appeals - one for the court, one for the prosecution and one for the defendant. These transcript costs are gnerally paid by the state, as most defendants appealing their case are indignt. Hence, the bill will have a presently unknown impact on public expeditures. Proponents argue, however, that it is fair and appropriate to passon higher costs to public and private litigants alike, and that court reportrs should not be made to subsidize public costs. (The Judicial Council as not expressed any opinion on this bill.) 4. {u A primer on court reporters: more background u} Government Code section 69941 provides for the (More) appointment of offical reporters to report on the court proceedings "at the request of either paty or of the court, in a civil action, and on the order of the court, th district attorney, or the attorney for the defendant in a criminal action." (Code of Civil Procedure section 269.) Reporting consists of taking down n shorthand, all testimony, objections made, rulings of the court, excepions taken in all cases, and all arraignments, pleas, and sentences of defenants in criminal cases. Reporting notes are official records of the court ad a certified transcript is prima facie evidence of the proceedings. Depending on the county, court reporters are paid either a salary or a per iem. Fees for transcription are in addition to the salary or per diem paymets. Support: None Known Opposition: None Known {u HISTORY u} Source: California Court Reporters Association Related Pending Leislation: None Known ************** (More) END@#$ SB 459 02/17/99 17:21:04 SEN. B. & P. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 459 Page ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE COMMITTEE ON | BILL NO: SB 459 | ----------------------------------------------------------- |----------------------------+------------------------------| | | | |----------------------------+-----------------------------| |BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS | AUTHOR: ohnson| ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- |Senator Liz Figueroa, | A Introduced: February 17, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- | | | |----------------------------+-----------------------------| | | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |HEARING DATE: March 22, 1999 | FISCAL: | | | Yes| ------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Franchise Investment Law: sale of franchises - disclosure exemption for sals of a "fractional franchise." SUMMARY: SB 459 conforms California franchiselaw to federal law - by exempting sellers of "fractional franchise" interests from the usual, comprehensive sales disclosure requirements. Existing law: A. {u California Franchise Investment Law (Corporations Code 31000 et seq.) u} : 1) Provides that it is unlawful to offer or sell any franchise in this stte unless the offer has been registered with the Commissioner of Corporation (Commissioner) or exempted from the registration requirements. 2) Require that as part of registration with the Commissioner, the seller must make spcified, comprehensive disclosures of information regarding the franchisor an persons affiliated with the franchisor. 3) Exempts specified types of frachise sales or transactions SB 459 Page from registration and the related disclosure requirements (but dos not exempt sales of "fractional franchise" interests.) B. {u Federal Trade Comission Rule (16 CFR 436) u} : {u u} 1) Makes it an unfair trade practice to offer or ell a franchise unless the prospective franchise purchaser is given a coplete franchise offering circular (disclosure document). 2) Exempts various tyes of franchise sales or transactions, including the sale of certain "fractinal franchise" interests. 3) Defines a "fractional franchise" interest as franchise business interest that is (a) sold to a person who has at leat two years' experience in the same industry, and (b) is projected to generae no more than 20% of the sales volume of the franchisee's entire business eterprise. SB 459 Page This bill: 1) Adds a registration exemption to the francise investment law for a "fractional franchise." 2) Defines "fractional frnchise" as any relationship in which the franchisee, current directors or excutive officers of the franchisee has been in the type of business representd by the franchise relationship for more than two years and the parties nticipated or should have anticipated when the franchise agreement was made hat the sales resulting therefrom would represent no more than 20% of the toal dollar sales volume of the franchise. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENS: 1. Purpose. According to the author, this bill is intended to confom state franchise law sales requirements for the sale of fractional franchiss to the standards of federal law that exempt such sales from certain compreensive disclosure requirements. 2. Background. This bill is sponsored b the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California. 3. Arguments n Support. According to the author, the current inconsistency between fedral and state law on the issue of fractional franchise disclosure requiremens unnecessarily and substantially increases the costs to franchisors, and increases the possibility of confusion and inadvertent non-compliance. Furher, because of the inconsistency, there is a greater potential for inadvertnt improper earnings claims being made under either the federal or state laws rules. The author also notes that the current scheme of multi-level federal and state franchise regulations is cumbersome, overly complex and ometimes contradictory. Consequently, absent a compelling need or other overiding state interest, the author and proponents argue that California's frachise regulatory scheme should conform as closely as possible to the federal standard. SB 459 Page 4. Arguments in Opposition. None registered ith the Committee. SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: Business Law Secion of the State Bar of California Opposition: None received Consultant: Jy J. DeFuria END@#$ SB 463 02/17/99 13:34:32 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary SB 463 (Johnston et al.) Hearing Date:3/17/99 Amendd:As introduced Consultant: Karen French Policy Vote:not applicable ____________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 463, an urgency measure, appropriates $1,280,178.62 from the General Fund nd various special funds to pay 273 claims against the state, which have been ccepted by the State Board of Control. Fiscal Impac (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-99 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fnd u} Claims $1,280 -- --Various STAFF COMMENTS: SB 463 is a bill authored by the Committee on Appropriations and introduce at the request of the Department of General Services. In order to avoid undu delay in payment to claimants, whose claims have been approved by the Boardof Control (BOC), Government Code Section 13928 requires the board to submit a least two claims bills each year. Traditionally, these bills have been autored on an alternating basis by the Chair of the Appropriations Committee in te Senate or the Budget Committee in the Assembly, or by the committees as a whle. Under current law, claims against the state must be presented to the BOC. If the BOC approves a claim and funding is available, it then is paid from th budget of the agency against which the claim is made. If the agency is notadequately budgeted to pay the claim, or the state has no legal liability but he BOC approved the claim in "equity," it is placed in one of the two annual caims bills. If the BOC denies the claim, the claimant has six months to fil a civil suit. SB 463 allows the BOC to meet its legal obligation to refer tothe Legislature certain claims against the state. It provides the unds and authority to pay 273 claims and, therefore, end the claimants' financal hardship as soon as possible. Staff notes the Department of Finance recmmends and the BOC concurrs with the following amendments: 1) to delete thepayment of $25,000 from the General Fund for 1992-93 dues to the Western Intertate Commission for Higher Education as funding was in the 1998 Budget Act andpayment has been made; and 2) technical correction amendments. The BOC agres with these amendments. END@#$ SB 463 03/19/99 13:11:13 SN. F. A. sf BIL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 463| |Ofice of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suit 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 463 Author: Senate Appropriations Committee Amended: 318/99 Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 8-1, 3/17/9 AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Karnette, McPherson, Perata, Vasconellos NOES: Leslie NOT VOTING: Escutia, Johnson, Kelley, Mountjoy {u SUBJECT: Claims against the state: State Board of Control SOURCE u} : StateDepartment of General Services {u DIGEST u} : The bill appropriates $1,255,17.62 from various funds to the State Board of Control's Executive Office to py claims accepted by the State Board of Control in accordance with a schedule hat identifies various funds and accounts from which the payments are made. ANALYSIS : This bill is authored by the Senate Appropriations Committee an introduced at the request of the State Department of General Services. In orer to avoid undue delay in payment to claimants, whose claims have been apprved by the State Board of Control (BOC), Government Code Section 13928 require the board to submit at least two claims bills each year. Traditionally, thes bills have been authored on an alternating basis by the chair of the Appropiations Committee in the Senate or the CONTINUED {u S 463 u} Page 2 Budget Comittee in the Assembly, or by the committees as a whole. Under current law, clims against the State must be presented to the BOC. If the BOC approves a clam and funding is available, it then is paid from the budget of the agency aginst which the claim is made. If the agency is not adequately budgeted to paythe claim, or the State has no legal liability but the BOC approved the claim n "equity," it is placed in one of the two annual claims bills. If the BOC enies the claim, the claimant has six months to file a civil suit. This bill llows the BOC to meet its legal obligation to refer to the Legislature certainclaims against the State. It provides the funds and authority to pay 273 clais. The State Department of General Services has indicated there is no abortio claims contained in the State Board of Control legislation. {u FISCAL EFFECu} : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No {u SUPPORT u} : (erified 3/18/99) State Department of General Services (Source) State Board of ontrol State Department of Finance {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : According to th State Department of General Services, the purpose of the bill is to pay 273 claims accepted by the State Board of Control for payment. The bill provides he funds necessary and authority to pay the claims and end the claimants' finacial hardship as soon as possible. DLW:kb 3/19/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** {u SB 463 u} Page 3 END@$ SB 47 02/17/99 10:39:40 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 473 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 22, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 473 (Ortiz) as introduced2/17/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Feldestein | SB 473 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 1| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- {u STRS: "AIR-TIME" ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT: DISTRICT OPTION u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: STRS Board of Administration Prior legislation: see below {uUMMARY u} : Would: a) authorize a school district, community college distict, or county office of education to pay all or a portion of the costs for dditional STRS service credit on behalf of a STRS member, b) require a paticipating district to establish criteria to determine eligibility, c) rquire that these eligibility criteria be broad enough to apply to at least 2 employees, or 3% of the employees who are members (whichever is greater), uless the STRS Board authorizes a lesser number, d) require that the oppotunity to have employer paid STRS credit be equally available to all employes through the eligibility criteria, and e) prohibit school districts frm providing this benefit only to administrators and superintendents. {u BACKROUND u} : 1) LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: a) SB 1027 (Schiff), Chapter 569 of 1997 authorized STRS members to redeposit contributions withdrawn by an ex-souse, as well as purchase additional service credit ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 473 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- for out-of-state public schoo employment without any date restriction, effective 1/01/99, and b) SB 226 (Schiff), Chapter 1076 of 1998, increased the maximum window period from 0 to 120 months to purchase additional service credit, and permitted STRS mebers with at least 5 years of STRS service credit to purchase up to 5 yers of service credit from another retirement system (such as out-of-state prvious employment). {u ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u Existing STRS law u} : a) provides tha, if a former STRS member whose retirement contributions have been withdrawnagain becomes a STRS member, the person may redeposit (with interest), ad b) allows a {u member u} to purchase up to 5 years "permissive" service redit. No link is necessary to any type of prior public service. 2) {u Ths bill u} provides that: a) a school district, community college district, o a county office of education (employer) may pay all, or a portion, of he cost for service credit purchased by a STRS member, or authorized to a reurning STRS member who redeposits, b) the employer must establish critera to determine eligibility, c) the eligibility criteria must be broad enugh to apply to at least 20 employees, or 3% percent of the employees wh are STRS members, whichever is greater, d) the STRS Board may, however, ope eligibility to a ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 473 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- lesser number or percentage of employees, e) the opportunit to have the cost of credit for service paid must be made equally available o any employee, and not just to administrators and superintendents, f) a participating employer must pay the same dollar amount toward the purcase of service credit or purchase an equal amount of credit for service for each employed member who meets the criteria , g) payments by an employermust be made to the STRS Fund annually, not to exceed four years, or a perio acceptable to the Board, and cannot be made directly to the account of he STRS member, h) an employer may make such purchases to {u encourage memers to remain u} with the current employer, or to encourage early retirements o facilitate a change in workforce requirements, i) the employer must inorm the Board of the eligibility criteria and the estimated number of eligibe members, and j) prior to authorizing the payment of funds, the STRS Board must determine whether the criteria submitted by the employer are consitent with established objectives. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) {u SPONSOR'S INTENT u} : This bill does not require the member to retire; if a district needs to {u redue u} its workforce, a teacher can take the offered service credit leave to teachelsewhere. STRS intends that {u this bill u} also be used to encourage teachers to {u come u} to a district that is offering the benefit ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 473 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- enhancement, or {u stay u} at a prticular district longer because they offer the benefit to teachers who reach certain longevity thresholds. 2) {u FISCAL u} : The provisions of {u this bill u} arepermissive; it is not possible to estimate participation. Because the costs ae paid by the employer there would be no cost to the STRS Fund. 3) {u OPPOSITIN u} : None to date. # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 473 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 18, 1999 | Page 5| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 499 02/18/9914:47:50 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 499 (Figueroa and Perata) Page SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S 1999-200 Regular Session B 4 9 9 SB 499 (Figueroa and Perata) As IntroducedFebruar 18, 1999 Hearing date: March 23, 1999 Uncodified Law an PenalCode AA:br {u SEXUAL ASSAULT u} : {u SEXUAL ASSAULT FELONY ENFORCEMENT (SAFE) TEAMS u} HISTORY Source: California Police hiefs Association Prior Legislation: AB 371 (Figueroa) 1997-98 Session; died in Senate Appropriations Support: Chief Probation Officers of California Oppoition:None known {u KEY ISSUE u} SHOULD THE EGISLATURE AUTHORIZE COUNTY SEXUAL ASSAULT FELONY ENFORCEMENT (SAFE) TEAMS, ASSPECIFIED? PURPOSE SB 499 (Figueroa and Perata) Page The purpose of this bill is to expressly authorize counies to establish and implement sexual assault felony enforcement (SAFE) team, as specified. {u Current law u} generally charges law enforcement agencies with the enforcement of existing criminal provisions regarding sex offenders, inclding probation, parole, and requiring persons convicted of specified sex offense to register with local law enforcement officials upon their parole, dischare, or release from confinement. (Penal Code section 290) {u This bill u} would expessly authorize counties to establish and implement "sexual assault felony enfrcement (SAFE) team programs. The mission of these programs would be to "reuce violent sexual assault offenses in the county through proactive surveillane and arrest of habitual sexual offenders, as defined in section 667.71, and srict enforcement of registration requirements for sex offenders pursuant to ection 290." {u This bill u} expressly requires that the "proactive surveillance nd arrest authorized by this chapter shall be conducted within the limits of eisting statutory and constitutional law," and expressly states that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the otherwise unlawful violaion of any person's rights under the law." {u This bill u} further authorizes butdoes not require regional SAFE teams to consist of "officers and agents from te following law enforcement agencies: (a) Police departments. (b)Sheriff's departments. (c) The Bureau of Investigations of the Office of te District Attorney. (d) County probation departments. (e) The Burau of Investigations of the California SB 499 (Figueroa and Perata) Page Department of Justice. (f) The California Highway Patol. (g) The State Department of Corrections. (h) The Federal Bureau f Investigation. {u This bill u} requires programs established pursuant to its prvisions to have the following objectives: a. To identify, monitor, arres, and assist in the prosecution of habitual sexual offenders who violate the terms and conditions of their probation or parole, who fail o comply with the registration requirements of section 290, or who commi new sexual assault offenses. b. To collect data to determine ifthe proactive law enforcement procedures adopted by the program are effective in reducing violent sexual assault offenses. c. To evelop procedures for operating a multijurisdictional regional task forc. d. To staff the SAFE team with a core of full-time personnel fom the participating agencies, with part-time personnel from other agences assigned on a rotational basis. {u This bill u} additionally contains spcified legislative findings and declarations concerning sex offenders. COMMENTS 1. {u Stated Need for This Bill u} The author states: California's version of Megan's Law, the SB 499 (Figueroa and Perata) Page federal statute that required states to deelop plans for notifying communities of the whereabouts of sex offenders gives local law enforcement authority to tell neighbors, schoolofficials and anyone else it deems appropriate if a sex offender moves i nearby. In Santa Clara County there are approximately 3,500 reistered sex offenders. The mission of the Sexual Assault Felony Enforceent (SAFE) Team will be to reduce violent sexual assault crimes n the county through pro-active enforcement focused on predatory sexual assault offenders. Since its inception, the Santa Clara County Tam has initiated 918 cases which reflects the number of individuls identified as targets of surveillance who meet the criteria of a sexul predator. Of these cases, 285 have led to arrests and/or warrnts issued and 209 were arrests of offenders for violations of rgistration requirements, violations of parole or new sex crimes. The man benefit to Santa Clara County has been that predatory sex crims are down 24 percent in the city of San Jose, the largest reporting are in the county. This bill would enable counties to establish regional law enforcement task forces (SAFE Teams) consisting of officrs and agents from several law enforcement agencies for the explcit purpose of reducing violent sexual assaults through proactive surveilance and arrests of habitual sexual offenders. 2. {u Prior Legislation u} his bill largely reflects the author's AB 371 from the 1997-98 session, which ied in the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. The differences betweenAB 371 from SB 499 (Figueroa and Prata) Page last sessio and this bill are as follows: AB 371 would have enacted a 3-year plot project applicable only to Los Angeles and Santa Clara couties; this bill would authorize this program statewide, and contains nosunset or pilot project provisions. AB 371 contained detaied evaluation requirements, and would have required the particpating counties to report on the effectiveness of the programs to the Lgislature annually; this bill contains no evaluation or reportng requirements. AB 371 included membership requirements secific to the participating counties; this bill contains generic team mmbership requirements to reflect its statewide orientation. AB 371 contained budget reference language; this bill contains no fundng provisions. SHOULD THIS BILL INCLUDE EVALUATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTSIF IT LATER IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE STATE FUNDING FOR THESE PROGRAMS? SHOULD THS BILL INCLUDE A SUNSET PROVISION IF IT LATER IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE STATE FUNDNG FOR THESE PROGRAMS? 3. {u Is This Bill Necessary? u} According to the Assembly Apropriations Committee analysis of AB 371, the program proposed by this bill aready exists. In February 1998, the San Jose Mercury News reported: "Sherif's Lt. Brian Beck, commander of the task force, said the program is not in dager of shutting down without state funding. 'The sheriff and chiefs of police won't let it die, he said. 'They see the contribution the task force has mad.'" This bill contains no funding B 499 (Figueroa and Perata) Page provision. IF THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS ALREADY EXIST OR ALREADY CAN B CREATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IS THIS BILL NECESSARY? WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL FFECT OF THIS BILL? **************** END@#$ SB 522 02/18/99 10:40:59 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 522 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearingdate: March 22, 1999| |Chair | | ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 522 (Wright) as introduced/18/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 52 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: Marc 17, 1999 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u PERS: SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN: ODIFICATIONS u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: PERS Board of Administration Prir legislation: see HISTORY below {u SUMMARY u} : Would modify the PERS Supplemenal Contributions Program (SCP) to insure that it: a) operates as a separat {u defined contribution u} plan, b) permits more frequent valuation and creditig of earnings to participant accounts, c) provides the structure necessay to improve customer service, and d) provides that the participants' eanings continue to be tax-deferred through compliance with federal law. {u BCKGROUND u} : 1) The PERS Supplemental Contributions Program (SCP) is a Define Contribution (DC) plan pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 401(a). An mployee of the State of California, who is a PERS member, may voluntarily ontribute to this savings plan, on an after-tax basis, and accrue earnings tha are tax-deferred. Earnings are allocated to the participant's SCP account eah December 31 {u at the net earnings rate of the PERS Fund u} . Administrative coss of the SCP are offset by an administrative fee of $2.00 per account transacton. 2) {u LEGISLATIVE HISTORY u} : ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 522 ||---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March 17 1999 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- a) AB 2283 (Elder), Chapter 1321 of 1992, reinstaed a discontinued PERS program, the "Additional Contributions Program," or State Police Officer and Firefighter employees who were members of the PES defined benefit plan. b) AB 701 (Tucker), Chapter 174 of 1993, expande this program to state employee PERS members. The one significant differece between the original program and the program as reinstated: no employer contributions to the program were permitted. c) AB 2722 (Cannella), Chaptr 570 of 1994, renamed the program and made these significant changes: insured that the program was subject to the limitations of Internal Revene Code Section 415, - specified that earnings to SCP accounts were credited at the net earnings rate of the PERS Fund, and - permited the Boardto extend the program to PERS local agencies and school employers. (The Bard has not yet taken this action.) {u ANALYSIS u} : 1) {u Existing PERSlaw u} provides that: a) the assets of the SCP are commingled with the PERS Fund, and b) the valuation of the PERS Fund is performed at the end of ach calendar year. Because the PERS Fund valuation is performed only annually, SCP accounts cannot be credited more frequently. Therefore, if the participnt takes a distribution from the ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 52 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: March17, 1999 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- SCP, they must wait until the following annual valation to receive the interest. 2) {u This bill u} would: a) repeal existing ections concerning the Supplemental Contributions Program and create a new Gv't. Code part which recodifies and further defines the program, b) idenify the SCP as a Defined Contribution profit-sharing plan, as required by Inernal Revenue Code section 401(a)(27), c) establish a separate trust fun for the SCP (the SCP Fund), d) permit the PERS Board to retain a third-arty administrator for the SCP Fund, and e) confirm enrollment and disbusement processes, including disbursement to a non-participating spouse upon legal separation or dissolution of marriage. {u COMMENTS u} : 1) PERS staes that the purpose of {u this bill u} is to incorporate technical changes that imrove administration and insure compliance with federal law. 2) {u OPPOSITION u} None to date. # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 522 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: March 17, 1999 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 577 02/23/99 15:58:23 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 577 (Peace) Page SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vascocellos, Chair S 1999-2000 Regular Session B 5 7 7 SB 577 (Peace) As IntroducedFebruary 23, 1999 Hearing date: March 23, 1999 PenalCode SH:jm {u CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICER - LENGTH OF BASIC TRAINING u} HISTORY Source: Calfornia Correctional Peace Officers Association Prior Legislation: AB 271 - Chpter 762, Statutes of 1998 Support: California Public Defenders Association Oposition:None known {u KEY ISSUE u} SHOULD TE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SIXTEEN WEEKS OF TRAINING T EACH CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CADET, TO THE EXTENT FUNDING IS APPROPRIATED FOR THT PURPOSE? SB 577 (Pace) Page PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to provide that the Deartment of Corrections provide sixteen weeks of training to each correctiona officer cadet, to the extent funding is appropriated for that training. {u Exsting law u} creates the Commission on Correctional Peace Officers Standards andTraining (CPOST), within the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. CPOST shalldevelop, approve and monitor standards for the selection and training of stae correctional peace officers. (Penal Code sections 13600 and 13601) {u Existig law u} provides that each new cadet who attends an academy after July 1, 2000 shall complete the course of training, pursuant to standards approved by CPOS before he or she may be assigned to a post or job as a peace officer. (Penl Code section 13602) {u Existing law u} provides that CPOST shall report to the overnor and to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislatureby September 1, 1999, concerning the training standards determined for line orrectional peace officers and supervisors of the California Department of Corections and the California Youth Authority. This report shall include, but no be limited to, a description of the standards for the curriculum of the resective academies and the length of time required to satisfactorily train officrs for their duties. It is the intent that the report be included in the bais for a new budget change proposal for the administration to consider in the 000-01 Budget Act to enhance department training operations. (Penal Code setion 13602) SB 577 (Pece) Page {u This bill u} equires that the Department of Corrections, to the extent funding is appropriaed, provide 16 weeks of training to each correctional officer cadet, to be cmpleted prior to the cadet's assignment to a post or position as a correctiona peace officer. COMMENTS 1. {u Need for This Bill u} The author has submitted the following: Corrections has the highest numberof adverse actions proportional to any other department in the state. It also has the lowest training for any peace officer group in the stte. Additional training will mean fewer mistakes and more efficiency. Aditional training will also help reduce litigation and the cost asociated with lawsuit from inmates and other interest groups. With the inrease in prisons, a huge cadre of new officers have been brought on line ut with substandard training. While a large investment in physica plant occurred, none has been forthcoming to improve the human resourcesof CDC. This bill seeks to remedy this inequity. 2. {u Current Basic Traning Requirements for Correctional Officers u} The academy at Galt currently reuires six weeks of training for new correctional officers, two weeks for firt-line supervisors (sergeants), and two weeks for second-line supervisors (lietenants). The six-week program is about 330 hours of training. The academy hs been graduating between 2,000 and 3,000 new officers annually. The curriclum includes communications, supervision, ethics, use of force, security/custoy, SB 577 (Peace) Page medical/health and sfety, records keeping, physical training/stress management, etc. 3. {u Languag Added by AB 271 (1998 u} ) {u u} As introduced, AB 271 required "each new trainee who attends the academy after July 1, 1998, to complete 9 weeks of training befoe he or she may be assigned to a post or job as a peace officer." That speciic length of training was deleted in the Senate in the last set of amendments added to AB 271 before it was sent to the Governor. {u u} As indicated in the Purpse Section, above, AB 271 as enacted provides that: CPOST shall report t the Governor and to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by September 1, 1999, concerning the training standardsdetermined for line correctional peace officers and supervisors of the Caifornia Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authoriy. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of th standards for the curriculum of the respective academies and the length of time required to satisfactorily train officers for their duties. It is the intent of this section that the report be included in the basi for a new budget change proposal for the administration to consider in the 2000-01 Budget Act to enhance department training operations. NTWITHSTANDING THE GENERAL DISPARITY BETWEEN TRAINING HOURS FOR CORRECTIONAL PECE OFFICERS AND OTHER PEACE OFFICERS, SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE WAIT UNTIL THE CPST REPORT REQUIRED IN AB 271 IS COMPLETED BEFORE EXTENDING TRAINING HOURS BYSTATUTE? 4. {u 1999-2000 Budget Act Increased Funding for Training u} There is $5million in the California Department of SB 577 (Peace) Page Corrections item in the proposed 1999-2000 State Budget Act whch, while currently not identified as such, is reportedly going to be the subjct of a CDC Budget Change Proposal which would result in an April Department o Finance letter. That money would be available for implementation of the trining recommendations due from the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Stndards and Training. It may be unclear how much additional training $5 millon would provide. 5. {u Related Legislation u} SB 12 (Rainey), also to be heard tday, is identical to this bill except that SB 12 would provide for twenty-four weeks of training rather than sixteen, depending on an appropriation for tha purpose. 6. {u Training for Other Peace Officers and Public Officers Relatng to Inmate Custody Duties u} The basic training course for regular peace offices, such as local city police and sheriff's deputies, is 664 hours of trainin (with minimal training in custodial duties; those officers assigned to jail gnerally complete the 80 hour training course approved by Standards and Trainin for Corrections). The Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training sts standards for the 664 hour basic peace officer training course. Penal Codesection 830.1(c) provides for deputy sheriffs in Los Angeles County who are "eployed to perform duties exclusively or initially relating to custodial assignents with responsibilities for maintaining the operations of county custodia facilities, including the custody, care, supervision, security, movement, andtransportation of inmates . . ." are allowed to complete only part of the baic peace officer training and serve in the county jail and then complete the rmainder of the basic peace officer training when assigned to regular duty outsde of the county jail system. When that subdivision was added, it SB 577 (Peace) Page was anticipated that the initial " . .training mandated would be the existing 64-hour course given all sheriff's deputies in arrest and firearms plus, within 120 days of employment, an 80-hur course required by the Department of Corrections for custodial personnel." (Conference Committee analysis of AB 574 - Chapter 950, Statutes of 1996) I was also anticipated that those Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies who too that "abbreviated" training would be working with fully trained deputies in the jail facilities. In addition, Penal Code sections 831 and 831.5 create pulic officers who are not peace officers but who may be assigned to city and conty jails, as specified. These officers are required to complete the initial eace officer 40 hours - plus 24 hours for those authorized to use firearms. And when there are at lease 20 custodial officers on duty, one regular peace oficer must be on duty to supervise those custodial officers. *************** END@#$ SB 577 02/23/9 15:53:24 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 577 (Peace) Page SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S 1999-200 Regular Session B 5 7 7 SB 577 (Peace) As IntroducedFebruay 23, 1999 Hearing date: March 23, 1999 PenalCode SH:jm {u CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS - LENGTH OF BASIC TRAINING u} HISTORY Source: California Correctional Peace Officers Associatio Prior Legislation: AB 271 - Chapter 762, Statutes of 1998 Support: Californi Public Defenders Association Opposition:None known {u KEY ISSUE u} SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BE REQUIRED TO PROVDE SIXTEEN WEEKS OF TRAINING TO EACH CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CADET, TO THE EXTENTFUNDING IS APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE? SB 577 (Peace) Page PURPOSE The purpose of ths bill is to provide that the Department of Corrections provide sixteen weeks f training to each correctional officer cadet, to the extent funding is apprpriated for that training. {u Existing law u} creates the Commission on Correctionl Peace Officers Standards and Training (CPOST), within the Youth and Adult orrectional Agency. CPOST shall develop, approve and monitor standards for th selection and training of state correctional peace officers. (Penal Code sctions 13600 and 13601) {u Existing law u} provides that each new cadet who attendsan academy after July 1, 2000, shall complete the course of training, pursunt to standards approved by CPOST before he or she may be assigned to a post o job as a peace officer. (Penal Code section 13602) {u Existing law u} provides hat CPOST shall report to the Governor and to the appropriate policy and fisca committees of the Legislature by September 1, 1999, concerning the trainingstandards determined for line correctional peace officers and supervisors of te California Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority. his report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the standard for the curriculum of the respective academies and the length of time requied to satisfactorily train officers for their duties. It is the intent that te report be included in the basis for a new budget change proposal for the aministration to consider in the 2000-01 Budget Act to enhance department trainng operations. (Penal Code section 13602) SB 577 (Peace) Page {u This bill u} requires that the Department of Corrections, to the extent funding is appropriated, provide 16 weeks of training to each corrctional officer cadet, to be completed prior to the cadet's assignment to a pot or position as a correctional peace officer. COMENTS 1. {u Need for This Bill u} The author has submitted the following: Crrections has the highest number of adverse actions proportional to any oher department in the state. It also has the lowest training for any peae officer group in the state. Additional training will mean fewermistakes and more efficiency. Additional training will also help reduce itigation and the cost associated with lawsuit from inmates and other interest groups. With the increase in prisons, a huge cadre of new oficers have been brought on line but with substandard training. While a lrge investment in physical plant occurred, none has been forthcoming to improve the human resources of CDC. This bill seeks to remedy this nequity. 2. {u Current Basic Training Requirements for Correctional Officers u} The academy at Galt currently requires six weeks of training for new correctioal officers, two weeks for first-line supervisors (sergeants), and two weeks fr second-line supervisors (lieutenants). The six-week program is about 330 ours of training. The academy has been graduating between 2,000 and 3,000 newofficers annually. The curriculum includes communications, supervision, ethcs, use of force, security/custody, SB 577 (Peace) Page medical/health and safety, records keeping, physical training/stres management, etc. 3. {u Language Added by AB 271 (1998 u} ) {u u} As introduced, AB 21 required "each new trainee who attends the academy after July 1, 1998, to coplete 9 weeks of training before he or she may be assigned to a post or job s a peace officer." That specific length of training was deleted in the Senae in the last set of amendments added to AB 271 before it was sent to the Govenor. {u u} As indicated in the Purpose Section, above, AB 271 as enacted providesthat: CPOST shall report to the Governor and to the appropriate polcy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by September 1, 1999, concernng the training standards determined for line correctional peace oficers and supervisors of the California Department of Corrections and th California Youth Authority. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the standards for the curriculum of the resective academies and the length of time required to satisfactorily train fficers for their duties. It is the intent of this section that te report be included in the basis for a new budget change proposal for th administration to consider in the 2000-01 Budget Act to enhance departmet training operations. NOTWITHSTANDING THE GENERAL DISPARITY BETWEEN TRANING HOURS FOR CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS AND OTHER PEACE OFFICERS, SHOULD HE LEGISLATURE WAIT UNTIL THE CPOST REPORT REQUIRED IN AB 271 IS COMPLETED BEFRE EXTENDING TRAINING HOURS BY STATUTE? 4. {u 1999-2000 Budget Act Increased Fnding for Training u} There is $5 million in the California Department of SB 577 (Peace) Page Corrections item in the propose 1999-2000 State Budget Act which, while currently not identified as such, is reportedly going to be the subject of a CDC Budget Change Proposal which woul result in an April Department of Finance letter. That money would be availabe for implementation of the training recommendations due from the Commissionon Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training. It may be unclear how mch additional training $5 million would provide. 5. {u Related Legislation u} S 12 (Rainey), also to be heard today, is identical to this bill except that SB12 would provide for twenty-four weeks of training rather than sixteen, dependng on an appropriation for that purpose. 6. {u Training for Other Peace Officrs and Public Officers Relating to Inmate Custody Duties u} The basic trainin course for regular peace officers, such as local city police and sheriff's deuties, is 664 hours of training (with minimal training in custodial duties; hose officers assigned to jail generally complete the 80 hour training course pproved by Standards and Training for Corrections). The Commission of Peace Oficer Standards and Training sets standards for the 664 hour basic peace offcer training course. Penal Code section 830.1(c) provides for deputy sheriffs i Los Angeles County who are "employed to perform duties exclusively or initilly relating to custodial assignments with responsibilities for maintaining th operations of county custodial facilities, including the custody, care, suprvision, security, movement, and transportation of inmates . . ." are allowed o complete only part of the basic peace officer training and serve in the couny jail and then complete the remainder of the basic peace officer training wen assigned to regular duty outside of the county jail system. When that subdvision was added, it B 577 (Peace) Page wa anticipated that the initial " . . .training mandated would be the existing 6-hour course given all sheriff's deputies in arrest and firearms plus, within 20 days of employment, an 80-hour course required by the Department of Corretions for custodial personnel." (Conference Committee analysis of AB 574 - Chpter 950, Statutes of 1996) It was also anticipated that those Los Angeles ounty Sheriff's deputies who took that "abbreviated" training would be workingwith fully trained deputies in the jail facilities. In addition, Penal Code sctions 831 and 831.5 create public officers who are not peace officers but whomay be assigned to city and county jails, as specified. These officers are equired to complete the initial peace officer 40 hours - plus 24 hours for thoe authorized to use firearms. And when there are at lease 20 custodial offiers on duty, one regular peace officer must be on duty to supervise those custdial officers. *************** END@#$ SB 580 02/23/99 15:52:18 SEN. PUB. S. sc BILL ANALYSIS SB 580 (Lewis) Page SENATECOMMITTEE ON Public Safety Senator John Vasconcellos, Chair S 1999-2000 Regular Session B 5 8 0 SB 580 (Lewis) As IntroducedFebruary 23, 1999 Hearing date March 23, 1999 PenalCode AA:br {u STALKING: VICTIM NOTIFICATION; CONDITIONS F PAROLE u} HISTORY Source: Author Prior Legislaton: None Support: Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau; Adult Entertainent Industry Education Fund Opposition:California Attorneys for Criminal Justic {u KEY ISSUES u} SHOULD VICTIMS OF STALKING BE NOTIFIEDOF ANY CHANGE IN THE PAROLE STATUS OR LOCATION OF THEIR OFFENDER? SHOULD CUSTDIAL AGENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BE REQUIRED TO MAKE "ALL REASONABLE ATTEMPTS" TO LOATE STALKING OR FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHO HAVE REQUESTED NOTIFICATON BUT FOR WHOM A CURRENT ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER IS NOT AVAILABLE? SB 580 (Lewis) Page SHOULD VICTIMS BE IDENTIFIED IN ASTRACTS OF JUDGMENT TO FACILITATE NOTIFICATION, AS SPECIFIED? (CONTINUED) SHOULD SPECIFIED CONDITIONS OF PAROLE BE IPOSED ON PERSONS CONVICTED OF OFFENSES INVOLVING STALKING AT THE REQUEST OF VICTIM? SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY LOCAL LAWENFORCEMENT WHEN PERSONS CONVICTED OF STALKING ARE RELEASED ON PAROLE? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to 1) require that vctims of stalking are notified of any change in the parole status or locatio of their offender; 2) require custodial agents to make "reasonable attempts" o locate stalking or felony domestic violence victims who have requested notifcation but for whom a current address or phone number is not available; 3)rquire that victims be identified in abstracts of judgment to facilitate notifiation, as specified; 4) impose, at the request of a victim, specified conditons of parole on persons convicted of offenses involving stalking; and 5) requre the Department of Corrections to notify local law enforcement when persons convicted of stalking are released on parole. {u Notification to Victims of Offnder's Release from Custody u} : {u u} {u Current law u} generally requires that victms of stalking or felony domestic violence receive at least 15 day' notice that the person who stalked or assaulted them is about to be relased from SB 580 (ewis) Page custod.<1> {u This bill u} would extend the scope of this notification to incude "any change in the parole status or parole location of the convicted erson . . . ." {u Current law u} expressly provides that "the duty to keep the Department of Corrections or county sheriff informed of a current ailing address and telephone number shall remain with the victim."<2> {u This bill u} would additionally require the appropriate custodial agent f the above-enumerated offenders to "make all reasonable attempts to locae a person who has requested notification but whose address and teephone number are incorrect or not current." {u This bill u} also would requir courts to "identify the victims of the offense in the abstract of judgmet and . . . include information, such as the victim's address and telephone number, to permit contacting the victim" . . . "[I]n order to prmit the identification of and contact with victims in the future or purposes of notification and prohibition of contact under sections 64692 and 3053.3 . . . ." {u Mandatory Conditions of Parole u} : {u u} -------------------------- <1> "The Department of Corrections, county sheriff, or diector of the local department of corrections shall give notice not less than 1 days prior to the release from the state prison or a county jail of any perso who is convicted of violating Section 646.9 or convicted of a felony offene involving domestic violence, as defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code, o any person the court identifies as a victim of the offense, a family member f the victim, or a witness to the offense by telephone and certified mail athis or her last known address, upon request." (Penal Code 646.92(a).) <2> Id. SB 580 (Lewis) Page {u Current law u} reqires that the following conditions of parole be imposed on certain stalkig and domestic violence offenders if requested by a victim: Copliance with a protective order enjoining the parolee from threatenig, stalking, sexually abusing, harassing, or taking furter violent acts against the victim and, if appropriate, compliance with any or all of the following: (1) An order prohibitng the parolee from having personal, telephonic, electroic, media, or written contact with the victim. (2) Anorder prohibiting the parolee from coming within at least 100 yards f the victim or the victim's residence or workplace. (3) An order excluding the parolee from the victim's resience.(emphasis added)<3> {u Current law u} authorizes the parole athority to impose specified batterer program requirements on the same category of offenders as a condition of parole.<4> {u This bill u} would reuire that the following conditions of parole be imposed on a person "relesed from prison for an offense involving stalking if requested by a victim, or the victim's parent or legal guardian if -------------------------- <3> Penal Code 3053.2(a), which with respect to victims applies to the victim, or the victim's parent or legal guardian if the victim is a minor. With respect to offenders, this section applies to "a person released from rison for an offense involving threatening, stalking, sexually abusing, harassng, or violent acts in which the victim is a person specified in Section 6211 f the Family Code . . . ." (Id.) <4> Penal Code 3053.2(b). SB 580 (Lewis) Page the victim is a minor: (1 Compliance with a protective order enjoining the parolee from threaening, stalking, or harassing the victim. (2) An order proibiting the parolee from having personal, telephonic, electronic, media, or written contact with the victim. (3) An order prohiiting the parolee from coming within at least 35 miles of the victim or the victim's residence or workplace. {u Notification t Local Law Enforcement of Offender's Release from Custody u} : {u Current law generally requires the Department of Corrections to notify local law enfrcement when persons who have been convicted of certain violent feonies are about to be paroled into a community.<5> This bill u} also wuld require the parole authority to notify the local law enforcement offiials when any person convicted of one of the above-described offenes is released within the jurisdiction of the official, including the nam and contact information concerning the victim. COMMENTS 1. {u Stated Need for This Bill u} The author states: CDC tracks n inmate based upon the most serious crime for which the inmate was convicted - and stalking is rarely the most serious crime for whic an inmate is ----------------------- <5> Penal Code 3058.6; see aso Penal Code 3058.5 and 3058.7. SB 580 (Lewis) Page incarcerated. There are provisions in law which are elpful in protecting victims of domestic violence, including stalking i it is part of a domestic violence profile, but not stalking i general. This bill would protect victims from stalking associated not only with domestic violence, but also stalking by disgruntled mployees, obsessed strangers, celebrity fanatics, etc. It would require better tracking of stalkers regardless of other crimes for whch they may be serving time concurrently, better notification f stalking victims (who are more likely to be repeat victims of the sam perpetrator than most crime victims), and conditions of parol to help keep convicted stalkers who have been released from custody away from their former victims. 2. {u Inclusion of Victim Information in theAbstract of Judgment u} As currently drafted, this bill would require courts to include the name, address and telephone number of a victim in an abstract ofjudgment to facilitate victim notification of an offender's whereabouts. Howeer, because an abstract of judgment generally is a publicly-accessible documnt, this provision may inadvertently put a victim at further risk by making thir addresses and telephone numbers public. For this reason, the author and/orthe Committee may wish to delete this provision from the bill and employ an lternative method for ensuring that custodial or paroling agencies receive appopriate victim information for notification purposes. SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT B MADE? 3. {u Mandatory Conditions of Parole SB 580 (Lewis) Page u} As noted above, current law imposes mandatory restraining orers at a victim's request on parolees who have been convicted of stalking and ther specified offenses.<6> Current law also authorizes additional victim-reqested conditions "if appropriate." This bill would mandate, at a victim's reqest, the following conditions of parole on persons released from prison for n offense involving stalking: (1) Compliance with a protective order enjoining the parolee from threatening, stalking, or harassing thevictim. (2) An order prohibiting the parolee from having persona, telephonic, electronic, media, or written contact with the victim. (3) An order prohibiting the parolee from coming within at least 35miles of the victim or the victim's residence or workplace. The protecive order delineated in (1) already exists in current law (Penal Code section 053.2(a)). The victim contact provision in (2) is authorized under current la "if appropriate; (Id.)" this bill would make this latter condition of parol mandatory at a victim's request. 4. {u Geographic Restriction u} The geographic estriction in (3) is not available to victims of stalkers under current law; hwever, current law does authorize "[a]n order prohibiting the parolee from cming within at least 100 yards of the victim or the victim's residence or worklace." (Penal Code section 3053.2(a)) The 35-mile restriction proposed by ths bill has some ------------------------------ <6> The Department of Correcions currently has approximately 100 inmates whose commitment offense involved stalking. SB 580 (Lews) Page precedent in crrent law. Penal Code section 3003 imposes, if requested by a victim, a 35-mie restriction from the actual residence of a victim of, or a witness to, a vioent felony, as specified, if the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) or the Departmet of Corrections (CDC) "finds that there is a need to protect the life, safety or well-being of a victim or witness." (Penal Code section 3003(f)) Arguabl, there may be instances where a parolee's best employment and housing opportuities might fall within this 35-mile area and, due to the particular circumstaces and nature of the offense, placing an offender closer than at least 35 mles away would pose no more than a de minimis risk to a victim. The author sumits, however, that the unique nature of the crime of felony stalking<7> - icluding its focus on a particular, as opposed to a random, victim -- makes the35-mile restriction proposed by this bill necessary and appropriate. The authr also argues that lowering this proposed mileage restriction would risk pinointing a victim's location, which would work against the intended design of te parole condition.<8> IS THE 35-MILE RESTRICTION PROPOSED BY THIS BILL APPOPRIATE FOR PAROLEES WHO HAVE COMMITTED OFFENSES INVOLVING STALKING? ----------------------------- <7> A first-time stalking crime in the absence of a resraining order violation is a misdemeanor; stalking becomes a felony only once t occurs in violation of a restraining order or is a repeat stalking offense. (Penal Code 646.9.) <8> The bill's current language, requiring an "order prohibiting the parolee from coming within at least 35 miles of the victim or he victim's residence or workplace," also might inadvertently pinpoint a victi's location. The alternative approach suggested in the analysis to instead mend this provision into existing section 3003 may avoid this problem by requiing CDC to incorporate the geographic restriction into its placement order. SB 580 (Lewis) Page If the Committee agrees a 5-mile geographic restriction is appropriate in stalking cases, the Committee nd/or the author may wish to consider, as an alternative, incorporating it ito the existing Penal Code section 3003 as a new subparagraph. This would be subtly different approach which, by effecting the restriction through parole placement instead of a specific condition of parole, may avoid inadvertently inpointing a victim's location. Section 3003 also requires that BPT or CDC fid the placement is required to "protect the life, safety, or well-being of avictim . . . ," which affords limited discretion for those instances where a gographic restriction may not be necessary to protect a victim. SHOULD THIS AMNDMENT BE MADE? 4. {u Reasonable Attempts to Locate u} This bill would require custdial agents to "make all reasonable attempts to locate a person who has requesed notification but whose address and telephone number are incorrect or not urrent." This is somewhat vague language that arguably could include checkingtelephone directories, motor vehicle records, property records and any other publicly-accessible record. The author and/or the Committee may wish to consier limiting this provision to "a reasonable attempt," or to specify the limitsof the required record searches. SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE? *************** END@#$ SB 609 02/23/99 09:44:32 SEN. APPR. sc ILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Cmmittee Fiscal Summary SB 609 (Burton) Hering Date:3/8/99 Amended:As introduced Consultant: Maureen Broks Policy Vote:P. E. & R. 4-0 ___________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 609, urgenc, ratifies the MOU between the state and Bargaining Unit 12 (Operating Enginees Craft and Maintenance employees), and ratifies the MOU between the state ad Bargaining Unit 13 (Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers employees). Th terms of the MOU provide each Unit with a 4% salary increase effective Marh 2, 1999; an additional 1 % increase effective June 22, 1999; and increas the state's contribution for employee health benefits effective January 1, 999, as specified. Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Majo Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} {u Unit 2 u} -4% salary inc. $2,054 $6,137 $6,137 General $3,628 $10,910 $10,910 Specil -1 % salary inc. $64 $2,394 $2,394Geeral $114 $4,254 $4,254Special Health benefit $160 $320 $320Genera $282 $564 $564 Special {u Unit 13 u} - 4% salary inc. $484 $1,458 $1,458General $138 $412 $412 Special - 1 % salary inc. $15 $569 $569Geeral $4 $160 $160Special - health benefit $161 $322 $322General $46 $91 $91Special* * Various Special Funds STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the critria to be placed on the Suspense file. However, routinely MOU bills are not placed on Suspense due to the urgency of the legislation. The Budget includes 10 million GF in 1998-99 and $190 million ($100 million General Fund) in 1999-0 to fund employee compensation increases pursuant to collective bargaining greements. The total cost attributed to the increased salary and benefit cotributions for Unit 12 is $24.5 million annually. The cost for Unit 13 is $3 million. There are approximately 9,652 employees in Unit 12, and 771 membersof Unit 13. SB 609 (Burton) Page 2 The increase in health benefits provied for Unit 12 consists of an increase in the state contributions towards emloyee health and dental benefits of $8 more for a 2 party family, and $12 for family of 3 or more. For Unit 13, the MOU provides for an increase in the stte's contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trst Fund of $42 per month for each employee. The Fund covers health, dental an vision benefits. END@#$ SB 609 02/23/99 10:04:03 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE UBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 609 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 1, 1999| |hair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 609 (Burton) as introduced2/23/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- |Daid Felderstein | SB 609 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: 03/02/99 09:59 | Page 1| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- {u STATE EMPLOYEES: LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION OF STATE BARGAINING UNITS12 AND 13 MOUs u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: Department of Personnel Administraton (DPA) International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Prior legislation: none {u SUMMARY u} : Would ratify the memorandum of undestanding (MOU) between the State and State Bargaining Units (BUs) 12 (Craft an Maintenance) and 13 (Stationary Engineers), represented by the IUOE, {u incluing a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999, and an additional employer contribtion to cover recent increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to Jnuary 1, 1999 u} . URGENCY BILL. {u BACKGROUND u} : {u u} The committee is advised tat the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislatre must ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). {u This bill u} is the vehcle for the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement reached betwee the State and BUs 12 and 13, represented by IUOE. The MOU would expire Jue 30, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : {u I. Bargaining Unit 12 (Craft and Maintenance) -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstin | SB 609 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: 03/02/99 09:59 | Page 2| | | -------------------------------------------------------------- Numbr of Full-time Equivalent Employees: 9652 u} {u A) Compensation u} The State agres to provide {u a 4% general salary increase u} to all employees in BU 12, effectve March 1, 1999. {u B) Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the Sate agrees to increase the State contribution towards the employee health and ental benefit rates as follows: {u Health u} {u Dental u} {u From u} {u To u} {u From u} {u To u} 1 Party $174 $174 $24.37$24.37 2 Party $323 $329 $43.82$45.82 3 Part $410 $418 $63.95$67.95 {u C) Terms and Conitions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 12 emploees are incorporated as part of this interim agreement. {u D) Duration of MOU The term of this interim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 199. II. Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineer) Number of Full-time Equivalet Employees: 771 u} {u A) Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB609 | |---------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: 0302/99 09:59 | Page 3| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- u} The State agrees to provide {u a 4% general salry increase u} to all employees in BU 13, effective March 1, 1999. {u B) Healt Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State's contribution to {u the Statonary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund will increase from $378to $420 per month for each eligible employee u} . The trust fund provides the fuding for employee health, dental, and vision benefits. {u C) Terms and Conditins u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 13 employeesare incorporated as part of this interim agreement. {u D) Duration of MOU u} Th term of this interim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date # # # # # -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Feldertein | SB 609 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: 03/02/99 09:59 | Page 4| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 609 03/08/99 14:04:09 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMTTEE | SB 609| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 609 Author Burton (D) Amended: As introduced Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EM. & RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/1/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT OTING: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 8-0, 3/8/99 AYES: Johnston Leslie, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Mountjoy, Perata {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memoranda of understanding {u SOURCE u} : State Department f Personnel Administration International Union of Operating Engineer {u DIGEST u} : This bill ratifies the memorandum of understanding between he State and State Bargaining Units 12 (Craft and Maintenance) and 13 (Stationry Engineers), represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers including a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999, and an additional employer ontribution to cover recent increases in employee health coverage retroactive o January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Ac requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislature must ratify each Meorandum of Understanding (MOU). CONTINUED {u SB 609 u} Page 2 This bill is the vhicle for the ratification of the collective bargaining agreement reached betwen the state and Bargaining Units (BU's) 12 and 13, represented by the Interational Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The MOU expires on June 30, 1999 Following are the terms under which the MOU was adopted: 1. {u Bargaining Unit 1 (Craft and Maintenance) u} A. {u Compensation u} The State agrees to proide a 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 12, effective Mach 1, 1999. B. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999,the State agrees to increase the State contribution towards the employee health and dental benefit rates as follows: {u Health u} {u Dental u} {u From u} {u To u} {u From u} {u To u} 1 Party $174 174 $24.37 $24.37 2 Party $323 $328 $43.82 $45.82 3 Party $410 $418 $63.95 $67.95 C. {u Ters and Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 12 employees are incorporated as part of this interim agrement. D. {u Duration of MOU u} The term of this interim agreement sall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u SB 609 u} Page 3 2. {u Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers) u} A. Cmpensation The State agrees to provide a 4% general salary increae to all employees in BU 13, effective March 1, 1999. B. {u Health enefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State's contribution to te Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund will increse from $378 to $420 per month for each eligible employee. The trust fud provides the funding for employee health, dental, and vision bnefits. C. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 992-95 contract covering BU 13 employees are incorporated as part of this interim agreement. D. {u Duration of MOU u} The term of this inerim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} {u Unit 12 u} -4% salary inc. $2,054 $6,137 $6,137General $3,628 $10,910 $10,910Special -1 % salary inc. $64 $2,394 $2,394General $114 $4,254 $4,254Speial {u SB 609 u} Page 4 Health benefit $160 $320 $320General $282 $564 $564 Special {u Unit 13 u} - 4% salary inc. $484 $1,458 $1,458General $138 $412 $412 Specia - 1 % salary inc. $15 $569 $569Genral $4 $160 $160Special - health benefit $161 $322 $322Genral $46 $91 $91 Special* * Various Special Funds TheBudget includes $10 million General Fund in 1998-99 and $190 million ($100 milion General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund employee compensation increases pursuant o collective bargaining agreements. The total cost attributed to the incresed salary and benefit contributions for Unit 12 is $24.5 million annually. Te cost for Unit 13 is $3 million. There are approximately 9,652 employees in nit 12, and 771 members of Unit 13. The increase in health benefits provided or Unit 12 consists of an increase in the state contributions towards employe health and dental benefits of $8 more for a 2 party family, and $12 for a faily of 3 or more. For Unit 13, the MOU provides for an increase in the state' contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust und of $42 per month for each employee. The Fund covers health, dental and viion benefits. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State Department of Personnel dministration (co-source) International Union of Operating Engineers (co-source) {u SB 609 u} Page 5 TSM:jk 3/8/99 Senate Foor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** ED@#$ SB609 03/08/99 11:38:04 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 609| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 45-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIR READING Bill No: SB 609 Author: Burton (D) Aended: As introduced Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EMP. & RETIREMENT OMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/1/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Unavailable at time of writing {u SUBJCT u} : State employees: memoranda of understanding {u SOURCE u} : State Depatment of Personnel Administration International Union of Operating Egineers {u DIGEST u} : This bill ratifies the memorandum of understanding btween the State and State Bargaining Units 12 (Craft and Maintenance) and 13 (tationary Engineers), represented by the International Union of Operating Enineers, including a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999, and an additional emloyer contribution to cover recent increases in employee health coverage retroctive to January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dlls Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislature must ratify ach Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This bill is the vehicle for the ratifiction of the CONTINUED {u SB 609 u} Page 2 collective bargaining agreement reachd between the state and Bargaining Units (BU's) 12 and 13, represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The MOU expires on June 3, 1999. Following are the terms under which the MOU was adopted: 1. {u BargainingUnit 12 (Craft and Maintenance) u} A. {u Compensation u} The State agreesto provide a 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 12, effecive March 1, 1999. B. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1 1999, the State agrees to increase the State contribution towards the eployee health and dental benefit rates as follows: {u Health u} {u Denal u} {u From u} {u To u} {u From u} {u To u} 1 Party $17 $174 $24.37 $24.37 2 Party $323 $328 $43.82 $45.82 3 Party $410 $418 $63.95 $67.95 C. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contrac covering BU 12 employees are incorporated as part of this interm agreement. D. {u Duration of MOU u} The term of this interim agrement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u SB 609 u} Page 3 2. {u Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers) u} A. Compensation The State agrees to provide a 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 13, effective March 1, 1999. B. {uealth Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State's contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund wil increase from $378 to $420 per month for each eligible employee. The tust fund provides the funding for employee health, dental, and vsion benefits. C. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions f the 1992-95 contract covering BU 13 employees are incorporated as partof this interim agreement. D. {u Duration of MOU u} The term of his interim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 19981999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} {u Unit 12 u} -4% salary inc. $2,054 $6,137 $6,137General $,628 $10,910 $10,910Special -1 % salary inc. $64 $2,394 $2,394General $114 $4,254 $4254Special Health benefit $160 $320 {u SB 609 u} Page 4 $320General $282 $564 $564 Special {u Unit 13 u} - 4% salary inc. $484 $1,458 $1,458General $138 $412 $412 Special - 1 % salary inc. $15 $569 569General $4 $160 $160Specal - health benefit $161 $322 322General $46 $9 $91 Special* * Various Special Funds The Budget includes $10 million General Fund in 1998-99 and $190 million ($00 million General Fund) in 1999-00 to fund employee compensation increases pusuant to collective bargaining agreements. The total cost attributed to the increased salary and benefit contributions for Unit 12 is $24.5 million annualy. The cost for Unit 13 is $3 million. There are approximately 9,652 employes in Unit 12, and 771 members of Unit 13. The increase in health benefits prvided for Unit 12 consists of an increase in the state contributions towards employee health and dental benefits of $8 more for a 2 party family, and $12 fr a family of 3 or more. For Unit 13, the MOU provides for an increase in thestate's contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and WelfareTrust Fund of $42 per month for each employee. The Fund covers health, dentaland vision benefits. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State Department of Peronnel Administration (co-source) International Union of Operating Engineers (co-ource) TSM:jk 3/8/99 Senate Floor Analyses {u SB 609 u} Page 5 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 609 03/10/9 16:55:33 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 609| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 609 Author: Burton (D) Amended: As intrduced Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUB. EMP. & RETIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-, 3/1/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTING: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRITIONS COMMITTEE u} : 11-0, 3/8/99 AYES: Johnston, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson Karnette, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata, Vasconcellos NOT VOTING: Alert, Kelley {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memoranda of understanding {u SORCE u} : State Department of Personnel Administration Internationa Union of Operating Engineers {u DIGEST u} : This bill ratifies the memorandu of understanding between the State and State Bargaining Units 12 (Craft andMaintenance) and 13 (Stationary Engineers), represented by the International Uion of Operating Engineers, including a 4% pay raise effective March 1, 1999 and an additional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employeehealth coverage retroactive to January 1, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : Under existig law, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legilature must ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). CONTINUED {u SB 609 u} age 2 This bill is the vehicle for the ratification of the collective bargining agreement reached between the state and Bargaining Units (BU's) 12 and 1, represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). The MU expires on June 30, 1999. Following are the terms under which the MOU was aopted: 1. {u Bargaining Unit 12 (Craft and Maintenance) u} A. {u Compensation u} The State agrees to provide a 4% general salary increase to all empoyees in BU 12, effective March 1, 1999. B. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the State agrees to increase the State contibution towards the employee health and dental benefit rates as follows: {u Health u} {u Dental u} {u From u} {uo u} {u From u} {u To u} 1 Party $174 $174 $24.37 $24.37 2 Party $323 $328 $43.82 $4.82 3 Party $410 $418 $6395 $67.95 C. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions f the 1992-95 contract covering BU 12 employees are incorporated as partof this interim agreement. D. {u Duration of MOU u} The ter of this interim agreement shall be March 2, {u SB 609 u} Page 3 1999 through June 30, 1999. 2. {u Bargaining Unit 13 Stationary Engineers) u} A. Compensation The State agrees to provide a4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 13, effective March 1, 1999. B. {u Health Benefits u} Effective January 1, 1999, the tate's contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund will increase from $378 to $420 per month for eacheligible employee. The trust fund provides the funding for employee heath, dental, and vision benefits. C. {u Terms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 13 employee are incorporated as part of this interim agreement. D. {u Duration o MOU u} The term of this interim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 trough June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Approprition: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No {u SB 609 u} Page 4 According to the Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} {u Unit 12 u} -4% salary nc. $2,054 $6,137 $6,137General $3,628 $10,910 $10,910Special -1 % salary inc. $64 $2,394 $2,394General $114 $4,254 $4,254Special Health benefit $160 $320 $320General $28 $564 $564 Special {u Unit13 u} - 4% salary inc. $484 $1,458 $1,45General $138 $412 $412 Special - 1 % salary inc. $15 $569 $569General $4 $160 $160Special - health benefit $161 $322 $322General $46 $91 $91 Special* * Various Special Funds The Budget includes $10 million Generl Fund in 1998-99 and $190 million ($100 million General Fund) in 1999-00 to fnd employee compensation increases pursuant to collective bargaining agreemets. The total cost attributed to the increased salary and benefit contributins for Unit 12 is {u SB 609 u} Page 5 $24.5 mllion annually. The cost for Unit 13 is $3 million. There are approximately ,652 employees in Unit 12, and 771 members of Unit 13. The increase in healthbenefits provided for Unit 12 consists of an increase in the state contributios towards employee health and dental benefits of $8 more for a 2 party famil, and $12 for a family of 3 or more. For Unit 13, the MOU provides for an incease in the state's contribution to the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund of $42 per month for each employee. The Fund covers helth, dental and vision benefits. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/4/99) State epartment of Personnel Administration (co-source) International Union of Operatig Engineers (co-source) TSM:jk 3/10/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 609 03/10/99 12:31:40 ASM P.E.,R. & S.S. ac BILLANALYSIS {u SB 609 u} Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 11, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBIC EMPLOYEES, RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY Lou Correa, Chair SB 609 (Burton) - As Introduced: Feruary 23, 1999 {u SENATE VOTE u} : 34-0 {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memorandum o understanding. {u SUMMARY u} : Ratifies the memorandum of understanding (MOU) btween the State and State Bargaining Units (BUs) 12 (Craft and Maintenance) an 13 (Stationary Engineers), represented by the International Union of Operatin Engineers, including a 4% pay raise retroactive to the start of the March 199 pay period, an additional 1.5% salary increase effective June 21, 1999, and a additional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employee healh coverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. This bill is an urgency measure ad the MOU would expire June 30, 1999. Specifically, {u this bill u} : 1)Providesa 4% general salary increase to all employees in BU 12 and BU 13 retroactiveto the start of the March 1999 pay period. 2)Provides an additional 1.5% geeral salary increase effective June 21, 1999, to all BU 12 and BU 13 employes. 3)Increases, retroactive to January 1, 1999, the State's contribution toards the employee health and dental benefit rates for BU 12 employees as folows: {u Health u} {u Dental From u} {u To u} {u From u} {u To u} 1 Party $174 $174 $2.37 $24.37 2 Party $323 $329 $43.82 $45.82 3 Party $10 $418 $63.95 $67.95 There is no change in vision benefit ates. 4)Increases, retroactive to January 1, 1999, the State's contributionto the Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund from $378to $420 per month for each eligible employee. The trust fund provides the fnding for {u S 609 u} Page 2 employe health, dental and vision benefits for BU 13 employees. 5)Incorporates al terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contracts covering BU 12 and BU 13 emplyees as part of this interim agreement. 6)Specifies that the term of this iterim agreement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECu} : According to the Department of Personnel Administration, the current yearcost of providing the salary increase is $5,887,182 for BU 12 and $645,895 forBU 13 to be paid for from a new appropriation. The current year cost for th health benefit contribution increases is $443,225 for BU 12 and $206,640 for U 13 to be paid for from existing departmental budgets. {u COMMENTS u} : Under eisting law, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires the Legislature to ratify each MOUprior to implementation when the agreement contains provisions requiring the ependiture of state funds. This bill represents the negotiated agreement beteen the State and BUs 12 and 13, represented by the International Union of Opeating Engineers. {u REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION u} : {u Support u} Department f Personnel Administration (co-sponsor) International Union of Operating Enginees (co-sponsor) {u Opposition u} None of file. {u Analysis Prepared by u} : Karon Geen / P.E.R. & S.S. / (916)319-3957 END#$ SB 69 03/11/99 14:07:13 ASM. BILL ANALYSIS af BILL ANALYSIS {u SB 609 u} Page 1 {u (Without Reference to File) u} ENATE THIRD READING SB 609 (Burton) As Introduced February 23, 1999 2/3 vote. Ugency {u SENATE VOTE u} :34-0 {u u} {u PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 18-0 u} ---------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Correa, Thompson, |Ayes:|Migden, Brewer, Ashburn, | | |Frebaugh, Honda, Knox, | |Campbell, Cedillo, Davis, | | |Pescetti | |Granlund, Kuehl, | | | | |Maldonado, Papan, Romero, | | | | |Shelley Steinberg, | | | | |Thomson, Wesson, Wigins, | | | | |Wright, Zettel | |----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- {u SUMMARY u} : Ratifies the memorandum of undertanding (MOU) between the state and State Bargaining Units (BUs) 12 (i.e., Crat and Maintenance) and 13 (i.e., Stationary Engineers), represented by the Iternational Union of Operating Engineers, including a 4% pay raise retroactiveto the start of the March 1999 pay period, an additional 1.5% salary increase ffective June 21, 1999, and an additional employer contribution to cover recen increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. The MOU would expire June 30, 1999. Specifically, {u this bill u} : 1)Provides a 4% geeral salary increase to all employees in BU 12 and BU 13 retroactive to the tart of the March 1999 pay period. 2)Provides an additional 1.5% general saary increase effective June 21, 1999, to all BU 12 and BU 13 employees. 3)Icreases, retroactive to January 1, 1999, the state's contribution towards th employee health and dental benefit rates for BU 12 employees as follows: {u Health u} {u Dental From u} {uo u} {u From u} {u To u} {u SB 609 u} Page 2 1 Party $174 $174 $24.37 $24.37 2 Party $23 $329 $43.82 $45.82 3 Party $410 $418 $63.95 $67.95 There is no change in vision benefit rates. 4)Increases, retroactve to January 1, 1999, the state's contribution to the Stationary Engineers ocal 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund from $378 to $420 per month for each eligible employee. The trust fund provides the funding for employee healt, dental and vision benefits for BU 13 employees. 5)Incorporates all terms nd conditions of the 1992-95 contracts covering BU 12 and BU 13 employees aspart of this interim agreement. 6)Specifies that the term of this interim areement shall be March 2, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Acording to the Department of Personnel Administration, the current year cost ofproviding the salary increase is $5,887,182 for BU 12 and $645,895 for BU 13 t be paid for from a new appropriation. The current year cost for the healthbenefit contribution increases is $443,225 for BU 12 and $206,640 for BU 13 tobe paid for from existing departmental budgets. {u COMMENTS u} : Under existing aw, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires the Legislature to ratify each MOU prior t implementation when the agreement contains provisions requiring the expenditue of state funds. This bill represents the negotiated agreement between thestate and BUs 12 and 13, represented by the International Union of Operating Egineers. {u Analysis Prepared by u} : Karon Green / P.E.R. & S.S. / (916) 319-957 FN: 0000256 END@#$ SB 656 02/24/99 15:17:06 SEN. I.R. sc BILL ANALYSIS Senate Committee on Industrial Relations 1999-200 Regular Session Hilda L. Solis, Chair Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No Bill No: SB 656 Author: Solis Version: As Introduced Subject: Unemployment Disability Support: Califrnia Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (sponsor) California Teachers Association Califonia State Council of Carpenters California Professional Firefighters California chool Employees Association American Federation of State, County and Municipal EmployeesCalifornia Applicants' Attorneys Association California Teamsters Publc Affairs Council Opposition: No registered opposition as of March 19, 1999. Purpose: To increase the maximum disability insurance benefit from $336 to$490 per week, and to conduct a cost study on extending benefits to individual on unpaid family care and medical leave. Analysis: This measure affects to distinct areas of existing law: 1. {u Disability Insurance u} : The Employment Deelopment Department (EDD) is authorized to pay state disability insurance (SI) benefits as partial wage replacement to employees who are unable to performtheir jobs because of pregnancy or non-industrial illness or injury. SDI is financed through a payroll tax on employees. The weekly benefits relace 55% of base period earnings, up to a maximum of $336. Also, current lawprovides workers' compensation temporary disability (WCTD) benefits for work-rlated injuries. The insurance coverage is provided by employers. Injured wrkers receive two-thirds of their average weekly wage at the time of injury, sbject to the maximum of $490. 2. {u Unpaid Family Leave u} : The Family Rights Ac (FRA), makes it an unlawful employment practice for all public employers, ad any private industry employer of 50 or more employees, to refuse to grant a equest by an employee to take an unpaid family care leave of up to 12 workweek of leave in a year. A leave can be requested by an employee for the birth r adoption of a child or for a serious health condition of the employee, child spouse, or parent. {u This Bill u} would, in the categories listed below: 1. {u Diability Insurance u} : Increase the maximum weekly SDI amount from $336 to $49, making the SDI and WCTD amounts equal, and indexing the SDI levels to futureWCTD increases. 2. {u Unpaid Family Leave u} : Require EDD to conduct a cost study, reporting to the Legislature by July 1, 2000, on expanding the definitin of "disabled" for the purpose of qualifying for SDI benefits, to individualson FRA leave and those employees who don't qualify because their employer ha 49 or fewer employees. Comments: 1. {u Proponents u} : According to the sponsor SDI benefits have historically been set at the same level as WCTD benefits. Under the 1993 workers' compensation reform law, maximum WCTD benefits rose t $490 per week in January, 1996. Proponents point to the disparity between SD and WCTD benefits, which encourages "benefit shopping" between the Hearing ate: March 24, 1999 {u SB 656 u} Consultant: Patrick Hennng Page 2 Senate Commitee on Industrial Relations two systems. Also, supporters argue that orkers deserve an increase in benefits from a system that exists by their own taxes. Proponents further argue that since the Disability Insurance Fund (DI)'s solvency has returned in past years, and the costs of increased benefits ae offset by corresponding increases in the taxable wage ceiling, the benefit should be raised. A FRA extension cost study is needed to assess the fiscal impact on the DIF because most workers who are confronted with serious healthproblems in their family cannot afford to take unpaid leave; some take it to teir financial peril due to the prolonged illness of a family member. 2. {u No pponents: u} Although there is no registered opposition at the time of analysispreparation, opponents to a past similar measure, relating to an SDI increase, argued that no evidence exists that a WCTD benefit results in benefit shoppig, resulting in more workers' compensation claims. If individuals wish to hav higher benefit levels, they should be able to make that choice and not havegovernment mandate it. Further, higher benefit payments will lead to an additinal tax increase and a solvency problem with the DIF. {u 3. Solvency of the DF. u} Since 1997 the tax rate has been 0.5% for a maximum individual contributin of $159. The estimated September 1999 fund balance will be $957 million. DD forecasts that the tax rate will be 0.7% in 2000. EDD had estimated that tis measure would have the effect of increasing the wage ceiling from $31,767 t $46,327, thereby increasing SDI taxes on 25 to 30% of the workers. 4. {u Prir Legislation u} : Two measures of the 1997-98 Legislative session were similar o this measure. For the SDI increase, SB 495 (Rosenthal) of 1997 was placed o the Assembly Inactive File. For the FRA cost study, SB 164 (Solis) was hel in the Assembly Insurance Committee. Hearing Date: March 24, 1999 {u SB 656 u} Consultant: Patrick Henning Pag 3 Senate Committee on Industrial Relations Hearing Date: March 24, 1999 {u SB 656 u} Consultant: Patrick Henning Page 4 Senate Committee on Industrial Relations END@#$ SB 1257 03/15/99 13:27:53 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary SB 1257 (Burton) Hearing Date:3/17/99 Amended:3/15/99 Consultant: Maureen Brooks Policy Vot:N/A ____________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMAY: SB 1257, urgency, appropriates $35.8 million for expenditure in FY 1998/9 for usual and current expenses resulting from state employee compensation an state employer's health benefit costs incurred by the ratification of numerus Memorandums of Understanding between the State and various bargaining unitsfor general salary increases. Fiscal Impact (in thusands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Deficiency for Salary increases $34,476 General Dficiency for Health benefits $1,000Special $348 General* *Costs count toward meeting the Prop. 9 minimum guarantee. STAFF COMMENTS: The general salary increases are effectve April 1, 1999. The total cost incurred by those increases for Fiscal Year 1998/99 totaled $71 million ($28.4 million General Fund, the remaining comes rom various Special Funds). However, there are sufficient funds in the budgetto cover employee salary increases from those Special Funds, therefore necesitating the appropriation for only the above General Fund costs. Of the $34.4million appropriated for general fund salary increases, $28.4 million is necesary to cover the deficit created in FY 1998/99 by the ratification of MOU's btween the state and Bargaining Units, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 5, 17, 18, 20, 21 and the remaining amount is being appropriated to cover a shrtage which resulted from the previous ratification of the MOU betwen the state and the California Highway Patrol. END@#$ SB 1257 03/19/99 14:16:13 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1257| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD REAING Bill No: SB 1257 Author: Burton (D) Amendd: 3/15/99 Vote: 27 {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 11-0, 3/17/99 AES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Johnson, Karnette, Leslie, McPherson, ountjoy, Perata, Vasconcellos NOT VOTING: Escutia, Kelley {u SUBJECT u} : Stte employees: compensation {u SOURCE u} : California State Employees Associaton {u DIGEST u} : This bill appropriates $35.8 million for expenditure in fscal year 1998/99 for usual and current expenses resulting from state employeecompensation and state employer's health benefit costs incurred by the ratifcation of numerous Memorandums of Understanding between the State and various argaining units for general salary increases. {u ANALYSIS u} : The Budget Actof 1998 appropriated $360,479,000 from the General Fund for expenditure to agment state employee compensation and $4,370,000 from unallocated special fund for expenditure to augment the state employer's health benefit costs. The geeral salary increases are effective April 1, 1999. The total cost incurred bythose increases for fiscal year 1998/99 totaled $71 million ($28.4 million Genral Fund, CONTINUED {u SB 1257 u} Page 2 the remaining comes from various Specia Funds). However, there are sufficient funds in the budget to cover employee salary increases from those Special Funds, therefore necessitating the appropiation for only the General Fund costs. Of the $34.4 million appropriated forgeneral fund salary increases, $28.4 million is necessary to cover the deficit created in fiscal year 1998/99 by the ratification of MOU's between the Stat and Bargaining Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, an 21 and the remaining amount is being appropriated to cover a shortage whichresulted from the previous ratification of the MOU between the State and the Clifornia Highway Patrol. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com: Yes Local: No Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major rovisions u} {u 1998-99 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fnd u} Deficiency for salary increases $34,476 General Deficiency for health benefits $ 1,000 Special $ 348 Geneal* *Costs count toward meeting the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/18/99) California State Employees Association (source) Professiona Engineers in California Government California State Attorneys and Administrativ Law Judges International Union of Operating Engineers California Union Safety Eployees {u SB 1257 u} Page 3 State Department ofFinance {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : According to the State Department of Finnce, this bill is necessary to fund the salary increases agreed to by the Stat Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21, as well as to fully fund the salary prvisions and the employer's share of health benefit costs for excluded employee and the MOU's reached between DPA and Units 6, 8, 16, and 19. TSM:cm 3/19/9 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SB 1273 03/11/99 13:39:41 SEN. P.E. & R. sc BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT & RETIREMENT | BILL NO: SB 1273 | ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |Deborah V. Ortiz, | Hearing date: March 1, 1999| |Chair | | ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- |SB 1273 (Burton) as amended3/11/99 | FISCAL: Yes| ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 1273 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: 03/11/99 13:34 | Page 1| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- {u STATE EMPLOYEES: LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION OF STATE BARGAIING UNIT 9 MOU u} {u HISTORY u} : Sponsor: Departmen of Personnel Administration (DPA) Professional Engineers in Clifornia Government (PECG) Prior legislation: none {u SMMARY u} : Would ratify the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Stae and State Bargaining Unit (BU) 9, represented by the PECG, {u including a 5.5%pay raise effective April 1, 1999, and an additional employer contribution to over recent increases in employee health coverage, retroactive to January 1,1999 u} . URGENCY BILL. {u BACKGROUND u} : {u u} The committee is advised that the Rlph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to implementation, the Legislature mus ratify each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). {u This bill u} is the vehicle for he ratification of the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Stae and BU 9, represented by PECG. The MOUs would all expire June 30, 1999. {u u} {u ANALYSIS u} : {u This bill u} ratifies the MOUs for Bargaining Unit 9 (Proessional Scientific), PECG ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 1273 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: 03/11/99 13:4 | Page 2| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- Approx. Number of Full-time Equivalent Employees: 8,935 I. Compensation The State agrees to provide a 5.5% general salary increase, effective April 1,1999. {u II. Health benefits u} {u Effective January 1, 999 u} , the State agrees to cover the increase in the monthly contributions towads employee health benefits rates, as follows: Employee only: $174 Employee plus one $332 Employee plus two or more:$432 {u III. Trms and Conditions u} All terms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 7 employees are adopted and incorporated into this agreement effective Febuary 28, 1999 through June 30, 1999. {u IV. Fair Shares u} Effective upon ratfication of the agreement, the State agrees to deduct and forward to the union"fair share" fees for non-member employees in Bargaining Unit 9. {u V Duration of MOU u} This agreement is effective through June 30, 1999. {u COMMETS u} : -------------------------------------------------------------- |David Federstein | SB 1273 | |---------------------+---------------------------------------| |Date: 03/11/99 13:34 | Page 3| | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- {u OPPOSITION u} : None to date. # # # # # ------------------------------------------------------------- |David Felderstein | SB 1273 | |--------------------+----------------------------------------| |Date: 03/11/99 13:34 | Page 4| | | | ------------------------------------------------------------- END@#$ SB 1273 03/15/99 09:28:29 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Committee Fiscal ummary SB 1273 (Burton) Hearing Date:3/1/99 Amended:3/15/99 Consultant: aureen Brooks Policy Vote: P.E. & R. 4-0 ___________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 173, urgency, ratifies the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the stat and Bargaining Unit 2 (State Attorneys) and Bargaining Unit 9 (ProfessionalEngineers). The MOUs provide a 5 % salary increase to all Unit 2 and Unit 9 embers effective April 1, 1999 and increases the state's monthly contribution towards employee health benefits effective January 1, 1999, as specified. Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salary increase: $1,920 $7,683 $7,683General $7,847 $31,390 $31,390Special Benefit contribution: $83 $166 $166 General $430 $860 $860Special STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria to be placed on the Suspense file. However, rutinely MOU ratification bills are not placed on Suspense due to the urgencyof the legislation. Author's amendments add the provisions of the Unit 2 MOU which was just signed March 15, 1999. The MOUs also contain provisions allowingthe state to deduct and forward to the Union "fair share" fees for non-membe employees. There are 2,653 members of Unit 2 and 8,935 members of Unit 9. The agreements expire on June 30, 1999. This bill is one of several ieces of legislation which ratify the MOU's resulting from agreements between he State and 21 collective bargaining units. END@#$ SB 1273 03/19/99 14:17:47 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1273| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(16) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1273 Author: Burton(D) Amended: 3/18/99 Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RTIREMENT COMMITTEE u} : 4-0, 3/11/99 AYES: Ortiz, Baca, Karnette, Lewis NOT VOTNG: Haynes {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 11-0, 3/17/99 AYES: Johnston, Alprt, Bowen, Burton, Johnson, Karnette, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata, Vsconcellos NOT VOTING: Escutia, Kelley {u SUBJECT u} : State employees: memornda of understanding {u SOURCE u} : State Department of Personnel Administratin Professional Engineers in California Government Califonia State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges {u DIGEST u} : This bill atifies the memorandum of understanding between the State and State BargainingUnit 2, represented by the Association of California State Attorneys, and Stte Bargaining Unit 9, represented by the Professional Engineers in California overnment, including a 5.5 percent pay raise effective April 1, 1999, and an additional employer contribution to cover recent increases in employee health overage, retroactive to January 1, 1999. CONTINUED {uB 1273 u} Page 2 {u ANALYIS u} : Under existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act requires that, prior to imlementation, the Legislature must ratify each memorandum of understanding (MOU. This bill is the vehicle for the ratification of the collective bargaining greement reached between the State and Bargaining Unit (BU) 2, represented by he Association of California State Attorneys (ACSA), and BU 9, represented b the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG). The MOUs will exire June 30, 1999. This bill ratifies the MOUs for: BU 2 (Attorney and hearingofficers), ACSA Approximate number of full-time equivalent employees: 2,653 BU 9 (Professional Scientific), PECG. Approximate number of full-time equivalnt employees: 8,935 I.Compensation The State agrees to provide a 5. percent general salary increase, effective April 1, 1999. II.Health Beefits Effective January 1, 1999, the State agrees to cover the increse in monthly contributions towards employee health benefit rates, as follws: Employee only $174 Employee plus one 33 Employee plus two or more 432 III.Terms and Conditions All trms and conditions of the 1992-95 contract covering BU 7 employees are adoted and incorporated into this agreement effective February 28, 1999, through June 30, 1999. {u SB 1273 u} Page 3 V.Fair Shares Effective upon ratification of the agreement, the Stat agrees to deduct and forward to the union "fair share" fees for non-membe employees in Bargaining Unit 9. V.Duration of MOU This agreemen is effective through June 30, 1999. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No {u Fiscal Impact (in thousands Major Provisions u} {u 1998-1999 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u Fund u} Salary increase: $1,910 $ 7,683 $ 7,683 General $7,847 $31,390 $31,390 Special Benefit contribution: 83 $ 166 $ 166 General $ 430 $ 860 $ 860 Special {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/18/99) State Department o Personnel Administration (co-source) Professional Engineers in California Goverment (co-source) California State Attorneys and Administrative Law Judges (co-ource) State Department of Finance TSM:cm 3/19/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END *** {u SB 1273 u} Page 4 END@#$ SB 1303 03/17/99 09:06:32 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary SB 1303 (Solis) Hearing Date:3/17/99 Amnded:3/17/99 Consultant: David Maxwell-Jolly Policy Vote:I.R. 5- ____________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 1303, an urgency measure, increases from $25 to $200 the amount of earnins that a Unemployment Insurance recipient may keep before benefits are reducedbecause of those earnings. This change would apply to individuals laid off s a direct result of freezing weather in December, 1998, and whose continued uemployment is due to the freezing weather. The bill repeals itself on August , 1999. Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Provisios u} {u 1998-99 u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-2001 u} {u Fund u} UI benefits in excess of 150 UI Fund STAFFCOMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria to be placed on the Suspense file. The cost of the bill depends on how many workers were laid off directly due he freeze and the extent to which they will be working part-time and experiencng reductions in unemployment benefits. If all of these workers engage in prt time employment in lieu of taking full time work, costs could be in excess f $ 1 million. Under the bill's provisions collecting unemployment and workin part time can yield more income than working full time. In some cases this my cause workers to forego full time employment and choose to work part-time whle continuing to receive UI benefits. The bill may also encourage some worker receiving UI who have declined to take part-time work because of the reducton in UI benefits to accept part time employment. These workers wold not impose any additional cost to the state because, in the absence of the ill, they would have received full UI benefits. STAFF NOTES: According to he sponsor, the intent is to provide this added benefit only to those persons eceiving disaster unemployment insurance due to the disaster declared due tolast December's freeze. The language of the bill is much broader than that. END@#$ SB 1303 03/18/9 09:37:52 ASM. BILL ANALYSIS af BILL ANALYSIS {u SB 1303 u} Page 1 {u (Without Reference to File) u} SENATE THIRD EADING SB 1303 (Solis) As Amended March 18, 1999 2/3 vote. Urgency {u SENATE VOTu} :28-8 {u u} {u INSURANCE 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 17-2 u} ---------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Scott, Cx, Gallegos, |Ayes:|Migden, Ashburn, | | |Havice, Leonard, Machdo, | |Campbell, Davis, | | |Wayne | |Hrtzberg, Kuehl, | | | | |Maldonado, Marett, | | | | |Papan, Romero, Shelley, || | | |Steinberg, Thomson, | | | | |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright, | | | | |Zettel | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+-------------------------| |Nays:|Oller, Strickland |Nays:|Brewer, Granlund | | | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------- {u SUMMARY u} : Increases rom $25 to $200 the amount of earnings that a recipient of Unemployment Insurace (UI) may keep before benefits are reduced due to earnings. Specifically, {uhis bill: u} 1)Increases from $25 to $200 the earnings disregard for UI rcipients for a temporary period until August 7, 1999. 2)Applies to individuals ho were laid off as a result of the Citrus Freeze of 1998 and live in a couny with an unemployment rate of 13%. {u EXISTING FEDERAL LAW u} provides for Disster Unemployment Assistance for those persons not eligible for state UI. {u EXSTING LAW: u} 1)Provides weekly unemployment insurance benefits up to a maxium of $230 per week for workers who are unemployed through no fault of theirown. {u SB 1303 u} Page 2 2)Requires tht UI recipient be seeking work and accept a suitable job. 3)Disregards the irst $25 of earnings of UI recipient's earnings. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Accordig to the Senate Floor Analysis, if all eligible workers were to work part-timein lieu of full-time work, costs could be $1 million. {u COMMENTS u} : The autho introduced this bill at the request of the Citrus Freeze Task Force convened y the Governor. The purpose of this bill is to permit workers affected by the1998 Citrus Freeze to earn up to $200 per week in wages without affecting thir UI benefits. Citrus growers still need workers at this time and will need hem later in the season. {u Analysis Prepared by u} : Beverly Hunter / INS. / (16) 319-2086 FN: 0000317 END@#$ SB 1303 03/19/99 14:19:07 SEN. F. A. sf BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULESCOMMITTEE | SB 1303| |Office of Senate Floor Analyse | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |3274478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------- {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1303 uthor: Solis (D) Amended: 3/18/99 Vote: 27 - Urgency {u SENATE INDUSTRIA RELATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 5-2, 3/16/99 AYES: Alarcon, Figueroa, Karnette, Mountjoy,Solis NOES: Haynes, Morrow {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 9-2, 3/17/99 AYES Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Karnette, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata, Vasoncellos NOES: Johnson, Leslie NOT VOTING: Escutia, Kelley {u SUBJECT u} : Unmployment compensation benefits: freezing weather {u SOURCE u} : Citrus Freee Task Force {u DIGEST u} : This bill increases from $25 to $200 the amount f earnings that an Unemployment Insurance recipient may keep before benefits ae reduced because of those earnings. This change would apply to individuals lid off as a direct result of freezing weather in December, 1998, and whose cntinued unemployment is due to the freezing weather. The bill repeals itself n August 7, 1999. {u ANALYSIS u} : The Unemployment Insurance (UI) program admnistered by the Employment Development Department (EDD) provides weekly unempoyment insurance payments for CONTINUED {u SB 1303 u} Page 2 workers who lose thir job through no fault of their own. Eligibility for benefits requires that he claimant be able to work, be seeking work and be willing to accept a suitble job. Pursuant to the federal disaster declaration declared by the Presient for victims of the December 1998 citrus freeze, federal Disaster Unemploymnt Assistance will increase the total weeks of UI benefits from 26 to 32 wees. {u u} The maximum UI benefit is $230 per week for 26 weeks and the minimum eekly benefit amount is $40. UI recipients may earn up to $25 per week, or 25 of UI (whichever is greater), in earnings without their benefits being affeted; this amount is referred to as a "disregard". All wages above $25 are dedcted from UI benefits. {u u} This bill increases the earnings disregard from $25 to$200 until August 7, 1999, the end of the federal disaster proclamation, forUI recipients who have determined to be unemployed due to the citrus freeze. he bill is limited to residents of a county with an unemployment rate in excss of 13 percent that is covered by a specified order of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency. {u Comments u} : {u Source u} : According to the author's office, tis measure originated from discussions among members of the Citrus Freeze Tak Force convened by the Governor. {u Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) u} : nder the federal DUA program now in effect, individuals who would otherwise ot qualify for state UI benefits due to eligibility requirements, are covered y the UI program with minimum UI benefits starting at $77 per week. All costsare paid by the federal government. {u Financing and Costs u} : The UI program i financed by employers who pay unemployment taxes on wages paid up to $7,000for each worker. The actual tax rate varies for each employer, depending on te amount of UI benefits paid {u SB 1303 u} Page 3 to former employees under an experience-rating plan. According to EDD estimaes, there will be no direct costs to employers or the state. Agricultural empoyers, experiencing cyclical employment patterns such as citrus growers, exprience a "negative reserve account" and already pay the maximum UI tax; there ill be no direct impact. {u Average Wages and UI Benefits for Victims of the Freze u} : According to EDD statistics, the average wage of the recipients was $.84 per hour for freeze victims. The average UI weekly benefit is $140. {u FISAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No Accordig to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis: The cost of the bill dependson how many workers were laid off directly due the freeze and the extent to whch they will be working part-time and experiencing reductions in unemploymen benefits. If all of these workers engage in part time employment in lieu of aking full time work, costs could be in excess of $1 million. Under the bill' provisions collecting unemployment and working part time can yield more incom than working full time. In some cases this may cause workers to forego full time employment and choose to work part-time while continuing to receive UI bnefits. The bill may also encourage some workers receiving UI who have declind to take part-time work because of the reduction in UI benefits to accept par time employment. These workers would not impose any additional cost to the state because, in the absence of the bill, they would have received full UI beefits. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 3/18/99) Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante alifornia Citrus Mutual {u SB 1303 u} Page 4 Caifornia Labor Federation, AFL-CIO United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO Califonia Catholic Conference California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation La Cooperatva Campesina de California {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : Proponents state that th disregard amount needs to be increased for a short period to assist workersstruck hard by the freeze while they look for work. Over 4300 workers, many ofwhom are farm workers, are receiving UI benefits. Even after direct harvest wok, the workers themselves need to stay in the community while looking for ful-time employment. UI law was written with the manufacturing setting in mind ad not daily agricultural labor. Some growers had earlier complained that itwas difficult to recruit workers for a day's work in this period for fear of U benefit reduction while they look for full-time work. NC:jk 3/19/99 Senae Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SBX1 1 02/09/99 11:50:15 SEN. ED. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Dede Alpert, Chair 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session BILL NO: SB1x AUTHOR: Alpert AMENDED: February 9, 1999 FISCAL COMM.: Yes HEARING DATE: Fbruary 10, 1999 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Scott Plotkin {u SECIAL NOTE u} This bill was previously heard at the February 3, 1999 hearing ofthis Committee, with no action taken at that time. The amendments of Februar 9 are reflected in this Analysis. See page 6, Section 2, of this Analysis fo a summary of the amendments. {u SUMMARY u} This bill establishes the Public Scool Performance and Accountability Program that would consist of a state Acaemic Performance Index, an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Progam, and a Governor's High Achieving /Improving Schools Program. {u BACKGROUND Focus Schools. u} Under prior law, which was never implemented because fundig for it was never appropriated, the Superintendent of Public Instruction was o designate the schools with the lowest performing pupils as "focus schools"(SB 171, Watson - Chapter 1335, Statutes of 1992). Focus schools were to deveop a school action plan to improve pupil achievement and were entitled to expet assistance and additional resources to implement the plan. The Superintenent was to appoint an outside management consultant to assist and, in some cirumstances, intervene in the management of schools that fail to improve perfomance. The Focus Schools statute became inoperative on July 1, 1998. {u SB1x Page 2 SB 1570 Advisory Committee. u} SB 1570Greene, Chapter 496, Statutes of 1996) authorized the creation of an advisory committee to assist the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) in dveloping a plan and recommendations "for the establishment of incentives for te improvement of pupil academic achievement." In December, 1997, a report ws published, Steering by Results, proposing the implementation of a statewide chool accountability system and a comprehensive program of rewards and intervetions for California schools and students. {u Standards. u} The State Board of Eucation (SBE) is in the process of setting high academic standards - clearly defined statements of what students should be able to know and do at various gade levels. Content standards have been approved by the SBE for language arts mathematics, science and social science/history. However, no performance sandards in any subject have been developed, which has delayed the subsequent dvelopment of the curriculum frameworks which are necessary in order to set te guidelines for the preparation of textbooks and other instructional material, as well as provide direction for the training of teachers to use them. {u Tesing. u} The SBE is in the process of developing a testing system that is aligne with the standards. The recent enactment and first-time administration last pring of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR), a nationallynormed examination for determining individual student performance in grades 2-1, and the soon to be developed statewide matrix testing program aligned with he state's new standards in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10 are part of the emerging ccountability program. {u School Accountability Report Card. u} Under the Classroo Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act (Proposition 98), the govening board of each school district is required to implement a school accountablity report card for each school in the district, to issue the card annually and to provide a copy to parents upon request. Existing law requires the schol accountability report card to provide data by which parents can make meanngful decisions about which school to enroll their children. {u The 1998 Confernce Committee on Public School SB1x Page 3 Accountability u} . During the 1998 Regular Session of the Legislature, a numbe of bills with varying approaches to public school accountability were introdued, leading to the creation of the Conference Committee on Public School Accuntability. Beginning in April 1998, a process began wherein workgroups were reated to examine the various elements of a public school accountability syste, drawing on the perspectives of the various parties of interest and studyin the activities of school districts and other states that were either developig or implementing their own accountability systems. Particular attention was aid to the efforts underway in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as th San Diego City Schools, which was developing a system based on the model utilzed in Texas. What resulted was the development of a two-stage process, an Imediate Short Term Voluntary Program, and the Long Term Public Schools Accountaility System. These proposals were amended into SB 1561 (Leslie), which becam the vehicle for the work of the Conference Committee. The Long Term progra was ultimately not operational in the final bill, primarily because of unresoved issues between Governor Wilson and the Legislature. SB 1561 was vetoed by the Governor, in part because the bill did not create a new state entity to anage and direct the accountability system favored by the Governor and becausethe bill was not fully operational. Attachment "A" of the February 3, 1999 Anlysis contains an outline of the essential elements of SB 1561, as well as a listing of the "unresolved issues" that were to be addressed in subsequent legslation. {u ANALYSIS u} This bill would establish the Public School Performance Accountability Program that would consist of a state Academic Performance Indx, known as the API, an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and a Governor's High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Specifically, te provisions of this bill include (with staff acknowledgement to several organzations, particularly School Services of California, Inc., for their contribtions to this portion of the analysis): 1) State Academic Performance Index API) and Ranking of SB1x Page 4 Schols {u a) Academic Performance Index u} . The bill requiresthat by July 1, 1999, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)must develop and the State Board of Education (SBE) must approve an index to include the STAR test results (with a minimum weght of 60 percent), attendance rates of pupils and employees, and grduation rates. The data is to be disaggregated by socio-economic status and ethnic groups. Eventually, the use of the STAR xam results are to be augmented by the results of the as yet to be dveloped matrix exam, aligned to state standards, and the new high school exit exam to be enacted by SB 2x (O'Connell). n addition, amendments to the bill specify that the API shall be devloped for comprehensive high schools, middle schools, and elementaryschools. The accountability system for schools with less than 100 students and county, community and alternative schools wil be deferred for one year so that the SBE may develop an alternative approach. {u b) Growth Targets u} . By July 1999, the SPI ad the SBE must identify growth targets for all schools bsed on their API baseline score. The growth targets must (1) have aminimum of 5 percent growth annually; (2) have differential growth based on grade level; and, (3) be higher for he lowest performing schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. In addition, the API performance subgroupsmust demonstrate comparable improvements in academic achievement by ll numerically significant ethnic and socio-economicallydisadvantaged subgroups within schools, as defined. {u c) Statewide API Performance Target u} . An API performance target that rpresents the proficiency level required to meet state academic content standards must be adopted by the SPI and the SB1x Page 5 SBE once the State Performance Stadards have been identified. Schools may either meet the state standards or meet their growth targets to be eligible for a Goernor's Performance Award. {u d) School Rankings u} . By June 2000 ever school shall be ranked by grade level (elementary, midde, and high school) and, by June 2001, the rankings will indicate th target annual growth rates along with the actual growth rates attaied by the schools. These will be published by the SPI o the Internet. Schools will be required to report their rankings intheir School Accountability Report Card (as provided for under Proposition 98) and the school board of each district will be equired to hold a public hearing to discuss the results of the annua ranking of its schools. The API will also be used to ientify underperforming schools; those which fail to meet their annua growth target. 2) Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program Te second part of this bill is the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming chool Program. State funding of $10 million and $32 million in federal funds have been set aside for planning and implementation grants forthis program. The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program s to begin by August 15, 1999 when schools that performed below th 50th percentile on the STAR testing program, both in the spring of 1998 nd 1999, will be invited to participate in the program. By September 1, 999, the SPI will notify the selected participants. If the total number f voluntary participants does not reach 200, schools will be selected to ill out the 200th number in a random selection process approved by the SBE. Each of the 200 schools selected will be awarded a planning grnt ranging from $25,000 to $50,000. Each selected participant must choos an external evaluator and form a broad-based school site and community tam for development and implementation of an improvement plan. SB1x Page 6 The evaluators will come from an aproved list developed by the SPI and approved by the SBE. These exerts may include the private sector as well as institutions of higher eduation, county offices of education and educational consortia, and must met certain criteria as specified in the bill. The bill provides that apprval of a school's action plan by the State Board of Education also constiutes a waiver of all code sections, regulations or programs identiied as impediments to improving performance by an external evaluator and ontained in the school's action plan. Implementation is phased in over to years. The first phase, the year 2000-01, grants $150 per pupil enrolled in the school if the school's application is approved. The distict must match this amount of funding from existing resources and is alloed maximum flexibility in the expenditure of their existing categoical funds and must target all necessary funds to their Academic Improvemnt Plan. At the end of the first year, if the school fails to meet its sort-term growth, the local school board can impose serious consequnces, including but not limited to allowing students to attend another pulic school in the district and/or placing the school principal on robation. The second year of implementation (2001-02) provides rewards fr a school that meets or exceeds its growth target each year for two year. Funds received from this program shall be used at the school's discreton. A school that has not met its performance goals but demonstraes significant growth is allowed to continue to participate in the progra for an additional year and to receive funding. A school that does not met its performance goals and has failed to show significant growthwill be deemed a deficient school and the SPI will then assume all of thelegal rights, duties, and powers of the local school board with repect to that school. The principal will be reassigned and the SPI must d one of the following: a) Revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any public school. SB1x Page 7 b) Allow the creation of a charter school by parents at the existing school site (known as a "reversion" nder current law, this procedure is not presently allowed, except inthe case of a petition by teachers at a school). c) Reasign other certificated employees of the school. d) Renegtiate a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of theexisting agreement. e) Reorganize the school. f) Close the school. 3) High Achieving/Improving Schools Program The fina component is the High-Achieving/Improving School Program. An appropriaton of $150 million is reserved for awards and will be used to establish aGovernor's Performance Award Program. The criteria for the disburement of these monetary awards will be developed by the SPI and the SBE. The awards will be available on a per-pupil basis and will not exceed $150 per pupil enrolled. All schools, including schools participatingin the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, are eligible to participate in the Governor's Performance Award Program, as wll. Schools that are eligible for performance awards may receive waiversof code sections, regulations or programs to the extent that they have ben identified as unnecessary for the continued improvement of studet performance. In addition, schools which demonstrate significant growthare to be granted maximum flexibility in the expenditure of their xisting categorical funds to continue improvement in student performance. {u STAFF COMMENTS u} {u 1) Why a Special Session u} ? This bill, along with seveal others, are part of a package of bills sponsored by Governor Dais, and have been introduced in the First Extraordinary Session called bythe Governor on January 19, 1999. The purpose of this Special Session is to bring particular focus on school reform, and to SB1x Page 8 that end the Governor's proclamation specifies request for the Legislature to consider legislation relative to rading, teacher quality, and public school accountability. This bill satifies the requirement that legislation include the topic of public chool accountability. {u 2) Amendments Address Several Issues. u} In summary, th February 9, 1999 amendments do the following (which are also noted in ths Analysis, as appropriate): a) Require that the Academic Peformance Index will be developed for elementary, middle, and comprehensive high schools; with the accountability system for shools with less than 100 students and county, community and alternative schools will be deferred for one year so that the Stae Board of Education may develop an alternative approach. b) Modify many of the implementation dates for the Immediate Interention/Underperforming Schools Program. c) Specify the ligibility criteria for external evaluators. d) Specifythe issues that must be addressed in the school's action plan. e) Provide that approval of a school's action plan by the Stae Board of Education also constitutes a waiver of all code sections, regulations or programs identified as impediments to impoving performance by an external evaluator and contained in the schol's action plan. f) Provide for a similar waiver provision as described in (g) above, for schools that are eligible for perfrmance awards, to the extent that such code sections, regulations orprograms have been identified as unnecessary for the coninued improvement of student performance. SB1x Page 9 g) Provide that all schools which demonstrate significant growth are to be granted maximum flexibility in the expnditure of their existing categorical funds to continue improvement n student performance. {u 3) How does SB 1x compare to last year's ork u} ? SB 1x is very similar in structure and overall intent to SB 1561 (Leslie), which was the product of the 1998 Conference Committee on ublic School Accountability and was ultimately vetoed by Governor Wilson see Background section of this Analysis). However, the bills are uite different in some details. For example, considerable detail and dirction was provided in SB 1561 (and its reintroduction in this years Regular Session as SB 51 - Alpert) because of the desire on the part ofthe Legislature to provide maximum direction to the Superintendent of Pubic Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE). SB 1, in contrast, leaves most of the major decisions up to the SBE, upon recmmendation of the SPI. Attachment "B" of the February 3, 1999 Analysis povides a "side-by-side" comparison of the final provisions of SB 161 (as modified by SB 51) and SB 1x. {u 4) What are the governance issues u} ? SB51 (Alpert), as introduced in the Regular Session, leaves out any pproval role for the SBE altogether, with the objective being to establis a new "floor" for negotiations over the appropriate role for any of the parties of interest in the governance of the public schools. Cleary, this was an effort to force a discussion about the crazy patchwork quit of governance in California, which is a larger issue that may no be of direct consequence to the Special Session. However, it is interesing to note that in states such as Texas-which has become the model for many accountability proposals in California and is the focus of muchnational research - have a highly centralized and hierarchical governancestructure that facilitates the implementation of any high-stakes acountability system. Texas also is {u not u} a collective bargaining state, hich allows the Texas Legislature SB1x Page 0 to authorize and the Texas Education Agency to implement a numbr of accountability interventions and sanctions with significant personne implications that would not be possible in California. {u 5) Bill sets ealistic "growth targets" u} . As noted elsewhere in this Analysis, a majorissue unresolved in the 1998 Conference Committee was the setting of growth targets. This bill adopts a variation of the so-called "gain" o "relative improvement" method, wherein a benchmark is set and an index o multiple measures is used to evaluate growth over time. This is he approach used in Texas and North Carolina, and has been highly acclaimd in some of the national literature. In addition, the bill sets a stateide Academic Performance Index (API) target that represents the proficieny level required to meet state academic content standards. School may either meet the state standard or meet their five percent growth target to make satisfactory progress and to be eligible for a Governor'sPerformance Award. {u 6) Academic Performance Index may require further isaggregation u} . Presently, this bill provides that the API shall be disagregated by socio-economic status and ethnic group. The purpose of such disaggregation includes the desirability of ensuring that no particlar group of students are "left behind" as the API of a school improves, nd to be of greater use in analyzing a school's particular problem. Staf recommends that this disaggregation of data include gender, Engish Language Learners (ELL), and special education pupils. {u 7) Are thee enough performance indicators u} ? A tremendous debate has occurred in Caifornia and across the country as to what constitutes appropriate "multipe measures" that become the key performance indicators within suchmechanisms such as the Academic Performance Index (API) proposed in this ill. In SB 1x, the multiple measures include a variety of indicatrs which include but are not limited to the SB1x Page 11 results of the STAR exam (and the successor matrix exm), attendance rates for pupils and school personnel, and the graduation ates in secondary schools. One school of thought has it that there is suh a direct correlation between standardized exam results and the oher, more variable indicators such as socio-economic status and student mbility rates, there is no real need to add too much more complexity to th API. The other school of thought has it that the API must includ more subjective indicators so that it becomes more useful as a diagnosti tool, helping to understand better the range of problems that a school must address in order to improve student achievement. Texas favors the forer approach, which appears to be the focus of SB 1x although it results in high stakes consequences where sanctions my be administered to schools for failing to solve problems {u not u} within te direct control of the school. There would be little use, therefore, fo the API except to rank schools - not to diagnose and publicly dislose their problems. Criticism of the approach in SB 1x centers on the notion that the bill assumes that the conditions of children and the probles they bring to the school-house door don't matter much as a correlation o academic achievement. And, although there are examples of succesful schools with many of the low-end subjective variables that afflict cildren (all probably with exemplary teachers and principals), they remainthe exception to the rule. {u 8) Focus on schools below the 50th percentle may not maximize effort u} . At present, SB 1x provides that the mmediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program is targeted at schols that perform under the 50th percentile in achievement tests. An explaation for not focussing on the lowest of the low performing school has to do with the desire to see results from the broadest possible rang of schools. However, the entire "average" performance from schools woul rise more significantly if the bill first emphasized support for he lowest performing schools - where the SB1x Page 12 pupils in greatest need are located. Staff recommends that some variation in this approach be considered, such as requiring tha for this program the focus be on the lowest 25 percent of the schools, o, in the alternative, at least 50 of the schools selected be the lwest of the low performing. In addition, it is possible that this provision of he bill may not meet the requirements of proposed federal law, as ow being considered by the President and the Congress of the United State. Under the proposed reauthorization of the various education acts now under consideration, in order to continue receiving certain federal unds, states would be required to implement accountability programs that ocus on the lowest of low performing schools. {u 9) Administration of sactions may be too early and misdirected u} . As noted earlier, it is proposd in SB 1x that sanctions be applied after the first year of the iplementation of the Academic Improvement Plan, with particular focus on pacing the school principal on robation - and reassigned after the second year. Other sanctions are the provided for. The placing of a school principal on "probation" after only one year of implementation of the Academic Improvement Plan -and reassining a principal after the second year - may not be realistic expectation to set, particularly for a school in great distress. Although th literature acknowledges appropriately the strong role that is played by school principal in a successful school, turning around a chronically underperforming school after years of failure in only one or even twoyears is problematic. These expectations may have the unintended consequnce of discouraging the best and brightest principals from willingy taking on the toughest schools, if quick failure from unrealistic timelnes are the ultimate career breaker. The issues are relatively simple. re the sanctions applied earlier than can be reasonably expected, and are people being punished for failure to accomplish objectives not undr their control? It appears that it is intended that the SBE have the dicretion to SB1x Page 13 evaluate a shool's situation on a case by case basis, although that may be difficult o do if the API is not more expansive in the information it provides and he resultant public expectations for action. There are also no direct cosequences enumerated for district superintendents or local school boards, regardless of the role they may have played in school or district ailure. In addition, the sanctions include renegotiation of collective argaining agreements once existing agreements expire. Because, as noted arlier, a collective bargaining environment may make it more diffiult to address site specific school situations (such as bargained rights or senior teachers to have first right of refusal in transfer options), taff recommends that the bill be amended to provide for incentive for site specific amendments to existing collective bargaining agreement that may be part of an Academic Improvement Plan - rather than waiting fr the agreement to expire - to address pupil achievement issues. 10) Funding is weighted towards rewards . Funding in the bill - to the une of $150 million - is directed towards the High-Achieving/Improving Scools Program, with $42 million set aside for the Immediate Intervetion/Underperforming School Program. It would appear that more funds shold be directed towards the area of greatest need, that of pupils in the lwest performing schools that are implementing an Academic Improvemnt Plan. {u 11) Funding source may be a problem u} . The $42 million appropiation for the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program incldes $32 million from the federal Comprehensive School Reform Demontration (CSRD) program. The CSRD program requires that funds be allocate to districts on a competitive basis. In the event that schools are chosen at random - as provided for in SB 1x - they may not be eligble t receive this funding. There may also be federal supplanting restriction on these funds. SB1x Page 14 {u 12) Waivers for existing accountability systems? u} No provision is made in th bill to allow for exceptions from certain requirements (and consequences for school districts that have accountability systems in place. number of school districts in California have or are developing sophistiated accountability plans that may even be more rigorous than that envisioned in this bill. Staff recommends that a waiver provision be icorporated into the bill that allows - on a case by case basis - for the PI and the SBE to exempt school districts from the provisions of tis bill, provided the SPI and the SBE are satisfied that the district's pan meets or exceeds the basic requirements of this act - such as requirin the district's schools to be ranked - and with the understanding hat districts that are exempt are not necessarily entitled to any of the unds appropriated for the purposes of this bill. {u 13) Evaluation componnt necessary u} . This bill contains no requirement that the programs estabished be evaluated in any way. Staff recommends that a biennial evaluation component be incorporated into the bill, with appropriate dedlines and reports to the Governor, Legislature, and other appropriate paties. {u 14) Change in date for Action Plan u} . As noted earlier, a numberof dates have been modified in the bill to set more realistic expectation for implementation. Staff is informed that one date that was overlookedin the amendments is the date by which the school's action plan isto be submitted to the SPI. Therefore, staff recommends that the curret date of "March 1" be changed to "April 1". {u 15) Technical amendments u} A number of strictly technical, non-substantive printing and spelling erors in the bill have been identified. Staff recommends that thse items be corrected. {u SUPPORT u} American Federation of State, County, and Mnicipal SB1x Page 15 Employers (AFSCME) Clifornia Manufacturers Association {u OPPOSITION u} None received {u u} END@$ SBX1 02/12/99 16:37:09 SEN. ED. sc BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Dede Alpert, hair 1999-2000 First Extraordinary Session BILL NO: SB1x AUTHOR: Alpert AMENDED: February 12 1999 FISCAL COMM.: Yes HEARING DATE: February 17, 199 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Scott Plotkin {u SPECIAL NOTE u}This bill was previously heard at the February 3 and 10, 1999 hearings of thisCommittee, with no action taken at those times. The amendments of February 9and 12, are reflected in this Analysis. See page 6, Section 2, of this Analsis for a summary of the amendments of February 12, which were made subsequentto the February 10 hearing of the Committee. {u SUMMARY u} This bill establishe the Public School Performance and Accountability Program that would consist o a state Academic Performance Index, an Immediate Intervention/Underperformig Schools Program, and a Governor's High Achieving /Improving Schools Program. {u BACKGROUND u} {u Focus Schools. u} Under prior law, which was never implemente because funding for it was never appropriated, the Superintendent of Public Istruction was to designate the schools with the lowest performing pupils as "fcus schools" (SB 171, Watson - Chapter 1335, Statutes of 1992). Focus schoos were to develop a school action plan to improve pupil achievement and were etitled to expert assistance and additional resources to implement the plan. The Superintendent was to appoint an outside management consultant to assist ad, in some circumstances, intervene in the management of schools that fail to mprove performance. The Focus Schools statute became inoperative on July 1, SB1x Page 2 1998. {u SB 1570 Advisory Commitee. u} SB 1570-Greene, Chapter 496, Statutes of 1996) authorized the creation f an advisory committee to assist the State Superintendent of Public Instrucion (SPI) in developing a plan and recommendations "for the establishment of icentives for the improvement of pupil academic achievement." In December, 199, a report was published, Steering by Results, proposing the implementation f a statewide school accountability system and a comprehensive program of rewads and interventions for California schools and students. {u Standards. u} The Sate Board of Education (SBE) is in the process of setting high academic standads - clearly defined statements of what students should be able to know and o at various grade levels. Content standards have been approved by the SBE fo language arts, mathematics, science and social science/history. However, no performance standards in any subject have been developed, which has delayed te subsequent development of the curriculum frameworks which are necessary in oder to set the guidelines for the preparation of textbooks and other instrucional materials, as well as provide direction for the training of teachers to se them. {u Testing. u} The SBE is in the process of developing a testing systemthat is aligned with the standards. The recent enactment and first-time adminstration last spring of the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR),a nationally normed examination for determining individual student performane in grades 2-11, and the soon to be developed statewide matrix testing progra aligned with the state's new standards in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10 are part of the emerging accountability program. {u School Accountability Report Card. u} Undr the Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act (Propositio 98), the governing board of each school district is required to implement a shool accountability report card for each school in the district, to issue the card annually, and to provide a copy to parents upon request. Existing law rquires the school accountability report card to provide data by which parents an make meaningful decisions about which school to enroll their children. SB1x Page 3 {u The 1998 Conference Committee onPublic School Accountability u} . During the 1998 Regular Session of the Legisature, a number of bills with varying approaches to public school accountabiliy were introduced, leading to the creation of the Conference Committee on Publc School Accountability. Beginning in April 1998, a process began wherein wrkgroups were created to examine the various elements of a public school accoutability system, drawing on the perspectives of the various parties of interes and studying the activities of school districts and other states that were ither developing or implementing their own accountability systems. Particularattention was paid to the efforts underway in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as the San Diego City Schools, which was developing a system based onthe model utilized in Texas. What resulted was the development of a two-stage pocess, an Immediate Short Term Voluntary Program, and the Long Term Public Shools Accountability System. These proposals were amended into SB 1561 (Lesli), which became the vehicle for the work of the Conference Committee. The Lon Term program was ultimately not operational in the final bill, primarily beause of unresolved issues between Governor Wilson and the Legislature. SB 156 was vetoed by the Governor, in part because the bill did not create a new sate entity to manage and direct the accountability system favored by the Goveror and because the bill was not fully operational. Attachment "A" of the Febrary 3, 1999 Analysis contains an outline of the essential elements of SB 1561,as well as a listing of the "unresolved issues" that were to be addressed insubsequent legislation. {u ANALYSIS u} This bill establishes the Public School Prformance Accountability Program that would consist of a state Academic Perfrmance Index, known as the API, an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schols Program, and a Governor's High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Specfically, the provisions of this bill include (with staff acknowledgement to seeral organizations, particularly School Services of California, Inc., for thei contributions to this portion of the analysis): SB1x Page 4 1) State Academic Performance Index (API) and Ranking of Schools {u a) Academic Performance Index u} . The bill requires that by July 1, 1999, the Superintendent of Public Instrution (SPI) develop and the State Board of Education (SBE) approve anindex to include the STAR test results (with a minimum wight of 60 percent), attendance rates of pupils and employees, and gaduation rates. The data would be disaggregated by special educatio status, English Language Learners (ELL), socio-economicstatus and ethnic groups. Eventually, the use of the STAR exam resuts would be augmented by the results of the as yet to bedeveloped matrix exam, aligned to state standards, and the new high chool exit exam to be enacted by SB 2x (O'Connell). In additio, amendments to the bill specify that the API shall be developed forcomprehensive high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. The accountability system for schools with less than 100students and county, community and alternative schools will be defered for one year so that the SBE may develop an alternative approach. {u b) Growth Targets u} . By July 1999, the SPI and the SBE must identify growth targets for all schools based on thir API baseline score. The growth targets must (1) have a minimum o 5 percent growth annually; (2) have differential growthbased on grade level; and, (3) be higher for the lowestperforming schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. In addition, the API performance subgroups must demostrate comparable improvements in academic achievement by all numerically significant ethnic and socio-economically disadvantged subgroups within schools, as defined. {u c) StatewideAPI Performance Target u} . An API performance target that represents he SB1x Page 5 proficiency leve required to meet state academic content standards must be adopted b the SPI and the SBE once the State Performance Standards hav been identified. Schools may either meet the state stadards or meet their growth targets to be eligible for a Governor's Prformance Award. {u d) School Rankings u} . By June 2000 every school shall be ranked by grade level (elementary, middle, and hih school) and, by June 2001, the rankings will indicate the target anual growth rates along with the actual growth rates attained by the schools. These will be published by the SPI on the Intenet. Schools will be required to report their rankings in their Schol Accountability Report Card (as provided for under Proosition 98) and the school board of each district will be required t hold a public hearing to discuss the results of the annual ranking of its schools. The API will also be used to identify unerperforming schools; those which fail to meet their annual growth trget. 2) Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program The second art of this bill is the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Proram. State funding of $35 million and $32 million in federal fund have been set aside for planning and implementation grants for this progam. The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program is to begin by August 15, 1999 when schools that performed below the 50th perentile on the STAR testing program, both in the spring of 1998 and 1999, ill be invited to participate in the program. By September 1, 1999, the SPI will notify the selected participants. Schools will be selecte by decile rank (e.g., 10 percent ranges up to 50 percent). If the totalnumber of voluntary participants does not reach 300, schools will be seleted to fill out the 300th number in a random selection process approved b the SBE. B1x Page 6 Each of the 00 schools selected will be awarded a planning grant ranging from $25,000to $50,000. Each selected participant must choose an external evaluator nd form a broad-based school site and community team for developmet and implementation of an improvement plan. The evaluators will come frm an approved list developed by the SPI and approved by the SBE. These experts may include the private sector as well as institutions of hiher education, county offices of education and educational consortia, andmust meet certain criteria as specified in the bill. The bill provides tat approval of a school's action plan by the State Board of Education als constitutes a waiver of all code sections, regulations or programs identified as impediments to improving performance by an external evaluaor and contained in the school's action plan. Implementation is phased n over two years. The first phase, the year 2000-01, grants $150 per pupl enrolled in the school if the school's application is approved. The district must match this amount of funding from existing resources an is allowed maximum flexibility in the expenditure of their existing categorical funds and must target all necessary funds to their AcademicImprovement Plan. At the end of the first year, if the school fails to met its short-term growth, the local school board, upon consultation, can impose serious consequences, as specified. The second year of implementaton (2001-02) provides rewards for a school that meets or exceeds its growh target each year for two years. Funds received from this progra shall be used at the school's discretion. A school that has not met itsperformance goals but demonstrates significant growth is allowed to contiue to participate in the program for an additional year and to recive funding. A school that does not meet its performance goals and has filed to show significant growth will be deemed a deficient school nd the SPI will then assume all of the legal rights, duties, and powers o the local school board with respect to that school. The principal will e reassigned and the SPI must do one of the following: SB1x Page 7 a) Revise attendance options for puils to allow them to attend any public school. b) Allow he creation of a charter school by parents at the existing school sie (known as a "reversion" under current law, this procedure is not presently allowed, except in the case of a petition by teahers at a school). c) Reassign other certificated employees of the school. d) Renegotiate a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of the existing agreement. e) Reorganize the school. f) Close the school. g) Takeother actions against the school district and district governing boad. 3) High Achieving/Improving Schools Program The final component is the igh-Achieving/Improving School Program. An appropriation of $125 millionis reserved for awards and will be used to establish a Governor's erformance Award Program. The criteria for the disbursement of these montary awards will be developed by the SPI and the SBE. The awards will be available on a per-pupil basis and will not exceed $150 per pupil nrolled. All schools, including schools participating in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, are eligible to particpate in the Governor's Performance Award Program, as well. In addition t a range of non-monetary awards, schools that are eligible for performanc awards may receive waivers of code sections, regulations or programs to the extent that they have been identified as unnecessary for the cotinued improvement of student performance. In addition, schools which deonstrate significant growth are to be granted maximum flexibility n the expenditure of their existing categorical funds to continue improveent in student performance. {u STAFF COMMENTS u} SB1x Page 8 {u 1) Why a Special Session u} ? This bill, along with sveral others, are part of a package of bills sponsored by GovernorDavis, and have been introduced in the First Extraordinary Session calledby the Governor on January 19, 1999. The purpose of this Special Session is to bring particular focus on school reform, and to that end theGovernor's proclamation specifies a request for the Legislature to considr legislation relative to reading, teacher quality, and public schol accountability. This bill satisfies the requirement that legislation nclude the topic of public school accountability. {u 2) Amendments Addres Several Issues. u} In summary, the February 12, 1999 amendments do the fllowing (which are also noted in this Analysis, as appropriate): {u a Academic Performance Index - Disaggregation of Data u} . Add language to specify that performance indicatordata be reported separately for special education pupils and English Language Learners. {u b) Increase from 200 to 300 schols selected for Immediate Intervention program u} . Augment the number of schools to participate in the Immediate ntervention program by 100 and redirect $25 million from the Governor's Performance Awards program to the Immediate Intrvention program. (As amended, total appropriation for the intervention program will be $67.8 million, appropriation fr Governor's Performance Awards will be $125 million). {u c) Selection of 300 schools for Immediate Intervention program u} . Establish categories for participation of schols based on decile rank (e.g., schools scoring in the 0-10 percen SB1x Page 9 range, in the 11-20 percent range, in the 21-30 percent, etc., through the 49 percentile). Sixty schools would be selected from eac range, with proportionate representation of elementary, middle an high schools and with a proportionate statewide, gegraphic representation of urban and rural schools. {u d) Sanctions after first year of participation in the program u} . Delete current language which requires the local shool board to place a principal on probation if his/her school fais to meet its growth target. Instead, speciy that the local board, upon consultation with the school site committee and external evaluator may choose from a rangeof sanctions including reassignment of school personnel, negotiatin of site-specific amendments to collective bargainig agreements, or other changes deemed appropriate by the local boad. {u e) Sanctions after second year of participation in he program u} . Amend bill to specify that sanctions may also include actions against the school district or the chool district governing board to include appointment of a new suprintendent, suspension of the authority of the school board or removal of members of these boards. {u f) Non-monetary Rewads u} . Add a section to specify that based ona recommendation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and approval by the State Board of Education (SBE), schools who meet their growth targets may receive non-monetary recgnition including, but not limited to classification as a distingushed school, listing on a published public school SB1x Page 10 honor roll, public commendations y the Governor and the Legislature. {u g) Evaluation ofthe program u} . Require a biennial evaluation of the accountability program by the SPI, and approved by the SBE. Recommendations for modification of the program shall be submitte to the Governor and the Legislature. {u h) Intent langage u} . Add legislative findings regarding pupose and objectives of a comprehensive academic accountability sysem. {u i) Advisory Committee. u} Provide for theappointment of an advisory committee to the SPI and SBE, relative to the creation of the API and the implementation of he programs created in the bill. {u j) External Evaluatrs u} . Provide that the external evaluators mst have experience with diverse populations. {u 3) How does SB 1x compare to lat year's work u} ? SB 1x is very similar in structure and overall intent toSB 1561 (Leslie), which was the product of the 1998 Conference Comittee on Public School Accountability and was ultimately vetoed by Governr Wilson (see Background section of this Analysis). However, the ills are quite different in some details. For example, considerable detal and direction was provided in SB 1561 (and its reintroduction in this year's Regular Session as SB 51 - Alpert) because of the desire on te part of the Legislature to provide maximum direction to the Superintendnt of Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SE). SB 1x, in contrast, leaves most of the major decisions up to the SBE upon recommendation of the SPI. SB1x Pge 11 Attachment "B" of the February 3, 1999 Analysis provides a "sid-by-side" comparison of the final provisions of SB 1561 (as modified by S 51) and SB 1x. {u 4) What are the governance issues u} ? SB 51 (Alpert), as introduced in the Regular Session, leaves out any approval role for theSBE altogether, with the objective being to establish a new "floor" for negotiations over the appropriate role for any of the parties of intrest in the governance of the public schools. Clearly, this was an effor to force a discussion about the crazy patchwork quilt of governane in California, which is a larger issue that may not be of direct conseqence to the Special Session. However, it is interesting to note that in states such as Texas-which has become the model for many accountabiity proposals in California and is the focus of much national research - ave a highly centralized and hierarchical governance structure that facilitates the implementation of any high-stakes accountability system. Texas also is {u not u} a collective bargaining state, which allows the Texa Legislature to authorize and the Texas Education Agency to implemnt a number of accountability interventions and sanctions with significan personnel implications that would not be possible in California. {u 5) ill sets realistic "growth targets" u} . As noted elsewhere in this Analysi, a major issue unresolved in the 1998 Conference Committee was the settig of growth targets. This bill adopts a variation of the so-calle "gain" or "relative improvement" method, wherein a benchmark is set and n index of multiple measures is used to evaluate growth over time. This is the approach used in Texas and North Carolina, and has been highy acclaimed in some of the national literature. In addition, the bill ses a statewide Academic Performance Index (API) target that represents theproficiency level required to meet state academic content standard. Schools may either meet the state standard or meet their five percent groth targets to make SB1x Page 12 satifactory progress and to be eligible for a Governor's Performance Award. 6) Are there enough performance indicators ? A tremendous debate has ocurred in California and across the country as to what constitutes appropiate "multiple measures" that become the key performance indicators within such mechanisms such as the Academic Performance Index (API) propsed in this bill. In SB 1x, the multiple measures include a variety of indicators which include but are not limited to the results of the TAR exam (and the successor matrix exam), attendance rates for pupils andschool personnel, and the graduation rates in secondary schools. One schol of thought has it that there is such a direct correlation between stanardized exam results and the other, more variable indicators such as soci-economic status and student mobility rates, there is no real needto add too much more complexity to the API. The other school of thought as it that the API must include more subjective indicators so that it becmes more useful as a diagnostic tool, helping to understand betterthe range of problems that a school must address in order to improve studnt achievement. Texas favors the former approach, which appears to be the focus of SB 1x - although it results in high stakesconsequences where sanctions may be administered to schools for failing t solve problems {u not u} within the direct control of the school. Thre would be little use, therefore, for the API except to rank schools - nt to diagnose and publicly disclose their problems. Criticism of the appoach in SB 1x centers on the notion that the bill assumes that the conditons of children and the problems they bring to the school-house door don't matter much as a correlation to academic achievement. And, althogh there are examples of successful schools with many of the low-end subjctive variables that afflict children (all probably with exemplaryteachers and principals), they remain the exception to the rule. SB1x Page 13 {u 7) Funding source may be a problem u} The $67 million appropriation for the Immediate Intervention/Undrperforming School Program includes $32 million from the federal Comprehesive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program. The CSRD program requires that funds be allocated to districts on a competitive basis. Inthe event that schools are chosen at random - as provided for in SB 1x - hey may not be eligble to receive this funding. There may also befederal supplanting restrictions on these funds. {u 8) Waivers for existng accountability systems? u} No provision is made in the bill to allow fo exceptions from certain requirements (and consequences) for schoo districts that have accountability systems in place. A number of schooldistricts in California have or are developing sophisticated accountabiliy plans that may even be more rigorous than that envisioned in thi bill. Staff recommends that a waiver provision be incorporated into te bill that allows - on a case by case basis - for the SPI and the SBE to exempt school districts from the provisions of this bill, providedthe SPI and the SBE are satisfied that the district's plan meets or excees the basic requirements of this act - such as requiring the distrct's schools to be ranked - and with the understanding that districts tha are exempt are not necessarily entitled to any of the funds appropriated for the purposes of this bill. {u SUPPORT u} American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employers (AFSCME) California Manufacturers Association {u OPPOSITION u} None received {u u} END@#$ SBX1 1 02/19/99 16:34:30 SEN. APPR. sc BILL ANALYSIS Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summar SB 1 x (Alpert) Hearing Date:2/23/99 Amended:2/19/99 Consultant: Karen Fench Policy Vote:Education 9-0 ___________________________________________________________ BILL SUMMARY: SB 1X establishes the Public School Perormance and Accountability Program consisting of a state Academic Performanc Index (API), an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP, and a Governor's High Achieving/Improving Schools Program (GHAISP). Th API ranks all schools in the state based on test results, attendance rates,and graduation rates. By July 1999, the Superintendent of Public Instructio and the State Board of Education must identify growth targets for all shools based on their API baseline score as measured in July 1999, with a minmum percentage growth target of 5%. In addition, the bill requires adoptionof a statewide API performance target representing the proficiency levelrequired to meet state academic standards. A school which either meets is own growth target or meets the statewide standard is eligible for a Governr's Performance Award (either monetary or non-monetary) under the GHAISPestablished by the bill. Monetary awards are on a per pupil basis, not to eceed $150. The IIUSP provides planning grants in 1999-2000 for 430 schoos selected from those scoring below 50% on the API and, upon approval of a chool's action plan, grants of $150 per enrolled pupil beginning in 2000-01. At the end of the first year, the local school board could impose serius specified consequences on a school failing to meet its short-term growth. The second year of implementation (2001-02) provides rewards for a school that meets or exceeds its growth target each year for two years. A schoolthat has not met its goals, but demonstrates significant growth is eligible or an additional year of funding. A school that fails to show significat growth will be deemed a deficient school and will be taken over by the SPI Fiscal Impact (in thousands) {u Major Proisions u} {u 1999-2000 u} {u 2000-01 u} {u 2001-02 u} {u Fund u} SPI & SB admin $2,988 $3,867 $3,867General GHAISP awards $96,150* -- $96,150General** IIUSP Planning & grants $63,850* -- $63,850General** $32,300* -- $32,300Federal School mandate -- ----------Unknown------------General *Appropriated in the bill. **Costs count toward meeting the Proosition 98 minimum guarantee. STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteri to be placed on the Suspense file. Staff notes that while this bill appropiates a total of $192.3 million, under the provisions of the bill only funds for planning grants can be expended during fiscal year 1999-2000 (a maximum of$21.5 million for 431 schools) the balance cannot be expended until fiscal yer 2000-01. The costs, which will begin to be incurred immediately upon enacment of this bill, are to the SPI and SBE, and no appropriation is included fo them. Therefore, staff recommends this bill be amended either: 1) to delete 172.8 million of the appropriation and substitute intent language that theseamounts be appropriated in the 2000 Budget Act or 2) to delay the effective dae of these appropriations until July 1, 2000. In addition, staff recommends te bill be amended to include an appropriation for administrative expenses tothe SPI and SBE from the effective date of the bill through fiscal year 1999-200. The actual costs for the GHAISP and IIUSP depend upon the number of paricipating schools and the number of pupils in those schools. Apparently the umber of participating schools will be adjusted to ensure that the appropriate funds are expended. If less than the number of schools designated in each rade level category apply ("volunteer") for intervention, the bill containsa provision whereby the SPI, with SBE approval, shall randomly select schools rom schools scoring below the 50th percentile. This provision creaes a mandate for those schools, which are selected, rather than volunteer, fr the program. Mandated costs could include any costs necessary to implement he plan, which are in excess of the $150 per pupil grant, including the requred local match. The committee may wish to consider eliminating the mandate fom the bill, and making the program entirely voluntary. END@#$ SBX1 1 02/26/99 12:16:53 SEN. F A. sf BILL ANLYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1X| |Officeof Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1X Author: Alpert (D) Amended: 2/25/99 Vote: 21 {u SEATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE u} : 9-0, 2/17/99 AYES: Alpert, McPherson, Alarcon, Chesbo, Dunn, Hughes, Ortiz, O'Connell, Sher NOT VOTING: Hayden, Haynes, Knight,Monteith, Vasconcellos {u SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE u} : 9-1, 2/23/99 AYES: ohnston, Alpert, Burton, Escutia, Karnette, Kelley, McPherson, Perata, Vascocellos NOES: Johnson NOT VOTING: Bowen, Leslie, Mountjoy {u SUBJECT u} : Edcation accountability {u SOURCE u} : Author {u DIGEST u} : This bill establshes the Public School Performance and Accountability Program that would consit of a state Academic Performance Index, an Immediate Intervention/Underperfrming Schools Program, and a Governor's High Achieving /Improving Schools Progam. {u ANALYSIS u} : {u Focus Schools. u} Under prior law, which was never implmented because funding for it was never appropriated, the State Superintendentof Public Instruction (SPI) was to designate the schools with the CONTINUED {u SB 1X u} Page 2 lowest performing pupils as "focus schools" (SB 171, Watson,Chapter 1335, Statutes of 1992). Focus schools were to develop a school actio plan to improve pupil achievement and were entitled to expert assistance and additional resources to implement the plan. The SPI was to appoint an outsid management consultant to assist and, in some circumstances, intervene in the anagement of schools that fail to improve performance. The Focus Schools staute became inoperative on July 1, 1998. {u SB 1570 Advisory Committee. u} SB 170 (Greene, Chapter 496, Statutes of 1996) authorized the creation of an advisry committee to assist the SPI in developing a plan and recommendations "forthe establishment of incentives for the improvement of pupil academic achievemnt." In December, 1997, a report was published, Steering by Results, proposng the implementation of a statewide school accountability system and a compreensive program of rewards and interventions for California schools and studets. {u Standards. u} The State Board of Education (SBE) is in the process of seting high academic standards - clearly defined statements of what students shold be able to know and do at various grade levels. Content standards have ben approved by the SBE for language arts, mathematics, science and social sciece/history. However, no performance standards in any subject have been develoed, which has delayed the subsequent development of the curriculum framework which are necessary in order to set the guidelines for the preparation of texbooks and other instructional materials, as well as provide direction for th training of teachers to use them. {u Testing. u} The SBE is in the process of deeloping a testing system that is aligned with the standards. The recent enatment and first-time administration last spring of the Standardized Testing an Reporting Program (STAR), a {u SB 1X u} Page 3 nationally normed examination for determining individual student performanc in grades 2-11, and the soon to be developed statewide matrix testing programaligned with the state's new standards in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10 are part of the emerging accountability program. {u School Accountability Report Card. u} Undr the Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act (Propositio 98), the governing board of each school district is required to implement a shool accountability report card for each school in the district, to issue the card annually, and to provide a copy to parents upon request. Existing law rquires the school accountability report card to provide data by which parents an make meaningful decisions about which school to enroll their children. The 1998 Conference Committee on Public School Accountability . During the 198 Regular Session of the Legislature, a number of bills with varying approache to public school accountability were introduced, leading to the creation ofthe Conference Committee on Public School Accountability. Beginning in April 998, a process began wherein workgroups were created to examine the various lements of a public school accountability system, drawing on the perspectives f the various parties of interest and studying the activities of school distrits and other states that were either developing or implementing their own acountability systems. Particular attention was paid to the efforts underway inKentucky, Tennessee, and Texas, as well as the San Diego City Schools, which ws developing a system based on the model utilized in Texas. What resulted wa the development of a two-stage process, an Immediate Short Term Voluntary Proram, and the Long Term Public Schools Accountability System. These proposals were amended into SB 1561 (Leslie), which became the vehicle for the work of he Conference Committee. The Long Term program was ultimately not operationalin the final bill, primarily because of unresolved issues between Governor Wlson and the Legislature. SB 1561 was vetoed by {u SB 1X u} Page 4 the Governor, in part because the bill did not create a nw state entity to manage and direct the accountability system favored by theGovernor and because the bill was not fully operational. This bill establishs the Public School Performance Accountability Program that would consist of astate Academic Performance Index, known as the API, an Immediate Interventio/Underperforming Schools Program, and a Governor's High Achieving/Improving Scools Program. All references to schools shall include charter schools. Speifically, the provisions of this bill include: 1. {u State Academic PerformanceIndex and Ranking of Schools u} A. {u Academic Performance Index (API) u} . This bill requires that by July 1, 1999, the SPI develop and th SBE approve an index to include the STAR test results (with a minimum wight of 60 percent), attendance rates of pupils and employees, and graduation rates. The data would be disaggregated by special educatio status, English Language Learners (ELL), socio-economic status and ethnc groups. Eventually, the use of the STAR exam results would be augmented by the results of the as yet to be developed matrix exam, aliged to state standards, and the new high school exit exam to be enacted b SB 2X (O'Connell). In addition, the API shall be developed for comprehensive high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools. The accountability system for schools with less than 100 students and cunty, community and alternative schools will be deferred for oneyear so that the SBE may develop an alternative approach. Only the testscores of students who were enrolled in a district for one year hall be included in the test results reported in the API. {u SB 1X u} Page 5 B. {u Growth Targets u} . By July 1999, he SPI and the SBE must identify growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score. The growth targets must (1) have a miimum of 5 percent growth annually; (2) have differential growth based ongrade level; and, (3) be higher for the lowest performing schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. In addition, the PI performance subgroups must demonstrate comparable improvements in acaemic achievement by all numerically significant ethnic and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups within schools, as defined. C. {u Statewide API Performance Target u} . An API performance target that rpresents the proficiency level required to meet state academic content standards must be adopted by the SPI and the SBE once the State Peformance Standards have been identified. Schools may either meet the stte standards or meet their growth targets to be eligible for a Governor' Performance Award. D. {u School Rankings u} . By June 2000 every scool shall be ranked by grade level (elementary, middle, and highschool) and, by June 2001, the rankings will indicate the target annual rowth rates along with the actual growth rates attained by the schools, nd growth rates that compare schools with similar characteristic. These will be published by the SPI on the Internet. Schools will be equired to report their rankings in their School Accountability Report Card (as provided for under Proposition 98) and the school board o each district will be required to hold a public hearing to discuss the esults of the annual ranking of its schools. The API will also be used to identify underperforming schools; those which fail to meet ther annual growth target. 2. {u Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Progrm u} {u SB 1X u} Page 6 The second part of his bill is the Immediate Intervention/Under-performing School Program. Stae funding of $63.85 million and $32 million in federal funds have been st aside for planning and implementation grants for this program. The Immedite Intervention/ Underperforming School Program is to begin by August 15, 1999 when schools that performed below the 50th percentile on the STAR testng program, both in the spring of 1998 and 1999, will be invited to participte in the program. By September 1, 1999, the SPI will notify the selectd participants. Schools will be selected by decile rank (e.g., 10 percent rnges up to 50 percent). If the total number of voluntary participants does ot reach 430, schools will be selected to fill out the 430th number in arandom selection process approved by the SBE. Each of the 430 schools selectd will be awarded a planning grant ranging from $25,000 to $50,000. Each seected participant must choose an external evaluator and form a broad-basd school site and community team for development and implementation of an imrovement plan. The evaluators will come from an approved list developed by the SPI and approved by the SBE. These experts may include the private sctor as well as institutions of higher education, county offices of educatio and educational consortia, and must meet certain criteria as specified n the bill. The bill provides that approval of a school's action plan by th SBE also constitutes a waiver of all code sections, regulations or programsidentified as impediments to improving performance by an external evaluaor and contained in the school's action plan. Implementation is phased in over wo years. The first phase, the year 2000-01, grants $150 per pupil enrolled in the school if the school's application is approved, with a minimum of$25,000 per school. The district must match this amount of funding from exiting resources and is allowed maximum flexibility in the expenditure of {u SB 1X u} Page 7 their existing categorical fnds and must target all necessary funds to their Academic Improvement Plan. At the end of the first year, if the school fails to meet its short-termgrowth, the local school board, upon consultation, can impose serious conseqences, as specified. The second year of implementation (2001-02) provides rewards for a school that meets or exceeds its growth target each year fortwo years. Funds received from this program shall be used at the school's dscretion. A school that has not met its performance goals but demonstraes significant growth is allowed to continue to participate in the program fr an additional year and to receive funding. A school that does not meet it performance goals and has failed to show significant growth will be deeed a deficient school and the SPI will then assume all of the legal rights, uties, and powers of the local school board with respect to that school. The principal will be reassigned and the SPI must do one of the following: A. Revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend ay public school. B. Allow the creation of a charter school by parents at the existing school site (known as a "reversion" under current lw, this procedure is not presently allowed, except in the case of a petiion by teachers at a school). C. Reassign other certificated empoyees of the school. D. Renegotiate a new collective bargaining greement at the expiration of the existing agreement. E. Reorganze the school. F. Close the school. {u SB 1X u} Page 8 G. Take other actions against the school district and district governing board. 3. {u High Achieving/Improving Schools Program u} The final component is the High-Achieving/Improving School Program. An apropriation of $96.15 million is reserved for awards and will be used to estalish a Governor's Performance Award Program. The criteria for the disbusement of these monetary awards will be developed by the SPI and the SBE. Te awards will be available on a per-pupil basis and will not exceed $150 perpupil enrolled. All schools, including schools participating in the Immdiate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, are eligible to participte in the Governor's Performance Award Program, as well. In addition to a rnge of non-monetary awards, schools that are eligible for performance awardsmay receive waivers of code sections, regulations or programs to the extent that they have been identified as unnecessary for the continued improvemet of student performance. In addition, schools which demonstrate significan growth are to be granted maximum flexibility in the expenditure of thei existing categorical funds to continue improvement in student performance.{u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes {u Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions u} {u 1999-200u} {u 2000-01 u} {u 2001-02 u} {u Fund u} SPI & SBE admin $ 2,988 $ 3,867 $ 3,867 General GHAISP awards $96,150* -- {u SB 1X u} Page 9 $96,150 General** IIUSP Planning and $63,850* -- $63,850 General** Grants $32,300* -- $32,300 Federal School andate -- --- Unknown --- Genral *Appropriated in the bill. **Costs count toward meeting the Proposition 98 inimum guarantee. {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 2/25/99) American Federation of tate, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) California Manufacurers Association NC:cm 2/26/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** END@#$ SBX1 1 03/0/99 18:41:56 ASM. ED. ac BILL ANALYSIS {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 1 Date of Hearing: March 10, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Kerry Mazzoni, hair SB 1 X1 (Alpert) - As Amended: March 4, 1999 {u SENATE VOTE u} : 334 {u SUBJECT u} : The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. {u SUMMARY u} : This bil establishes the Public School Performance Accountability Program that would pply to all schools, including charter schools, consisting of a state Academic Performance Index (API), an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Pogram, and a High Achieving /Improving Schools Program. Specifically, {u this bll u} : Academic Performance Index (API) 1)The bill requires that by July 1, 199, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) develop and the State Boad of Education (SBE), with the help of an advisory committee, approve anAPI index to be used to measure performance of schools, especially the acadeic performance of pupils, and demonstrate comparable improvement in academicachievement by all numerically significant ethnic and socioeconomically isadvantaged subgroups within schools. The index shall consist of a variety f indicators currently reported to the SDE including, but not limited to, th results of the STAR achievement test, attendance rates for pupils and certiicated school personnel for elementary schools, middle schools, and secodary schools, and the graduation rates for pupils in secondary schools. At last 60 percent of the value of the index shall be from tests including STAR,the new high school exit exam if enacted by SB 2x (O'Connell), and the yet t be developed matrix exam. The data would be disaggregated by special eucation status, English language learners (ELL), socioeconomic status, and ehnic groups. The API shall be developed for comprehensive high schools, mddle schools, and elementary schools. The accountability system for schools with less than 100 students and for schools under the jurisdiction of a ounty board of education or a county superintendent of schools, community da schools, and alternative schools, including continuation high schools and independent study schools, will be deferred until July 1, 2000 {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 2 so that the SBE may develop an lternative approach. 2)The SPI and the SBE must identify growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score as measured in July 1999. Thegrowth targets 1) must have a minimum of 5 percent growth annually; 2) must ave differential growth based on grade level; and 3) may be higher for the lwest performing schools because they have the greatest room for improvement. In addition, the API performance subgroups must demonstrate comparable mprovements in academic achievement by all numerically significant ethnic an socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups within schools, as defined. 3)AnAPI performance target that represents the proficiency level required to mee state academic content standards must be adopted by the SPI and the SBE onc the State Performance Standards have been identified. Schools may either met the state standards or meet their growth targets to be eligible for aGovernor's Performance Award. 4)By June 2000 every school shall be ranked by grde level (elementary, middle, and high school) and, by June 2001, the rakings will indicate the target annual growth rates along with the actual groth rates attained by the schools. These will be published by the SPI on theInternet. Schools will be required to report their rankings in their School Accountability Report Card (as provided for under Proposition 98) and th school board of each district will be required to hold a public hearing to iscuss the results of the annual ranking of its schools. The API will also e used to identify underperforming schools; those which fail to meet their anual growth target. 5)The SPI shall establish a broadly representative and iverse advisory committee to advise on all appropriate matters relative o the creation of the API and the implementation of the Immediate Interventin/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Pogram. Members of the advisory committee shall serve without compensation fr terms not to exceed two years. The SDE shall provide staff to the advsory committee. Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program The Imediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program is to {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 3 begin by August 15, 1999 when schools tha performed below the 50th percentile on the STAR testing program, both in the pring of 1998 and 1999, will be invited to participate in the program. By Sptember 1, 1999, the SPI will notify 430 selected participants. Schools will e selected by decile rank (e.g., 10 percent ranges up to 50 percent) not to exeed 86 per decile. Of the 430 schools, there would be no more than 301 elemenary, 78 middle, and 52 high schools that represent statewide proportionate gographic representation of urban and rural schools. If the total number of vountary participants does not reach 430, schools will be selected by the SPI tofill out the 430th number in a random selection process approved by the SBE. A school required to participate may take any action to improve pupil performace at that school if the action is not otherwise prohibited by state or federa law and does not require reimbursement by the Commission on State Mandates. ach of the 430 schools selected before September 1, 1999, will be awarded a plnning grant ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 as determined by criteria to be deeloped by the SPI and approved by the SBE. Each selected participant must by ctober 1, contract with an external evaluator and form a broad-based school ite and community team for development of an action plan by the following Marc 15th. The evaluators will come from an approved list developed by the SPI andapproved by the SBE. The list may include the private sector experts as well s institutions of higher education, county offices of education and educatioal consortia, and must meet certain criteria as specified in the bill. By Aprl 15th, the governing board must submit the plan to the SPI with a request forfunding. By May 15th, the SPI must recommend and the SBE must act on the loca funding requests. The bill provides that the SBE may waive all code sectionsor any part of code sections, or any regulations controlling specified educaion programs (see comments). Implementation is phased in over two years beginnig in the year 2000. In the first phase, the year 2000-01, grants of up to $50 per pupil enrolled in the school (with a minimum of $25,000 per school site are provided if the school's application is approved before June 15. The disrict must match this amount of funding from existing resources and is allowed aximum {u SB 1X1 u} Page 4 flexibilit in the expenditure of any new or existing categorical funds not otherwise proibited by state or federal law and shall redirect for the purposes of their acdemic improvement plan new or existing categorical or general purpose funds. At the end of the first year, if the school fails to meet its short-term growh, the local school board, upon consultation, can impose consequences, includig reassignment of school personnel, negotiation of site-specific amendments to collective bargaining agreements, or other changes deemed appropriate, in orer to continue implementing the action plan, and to make progress toward meetig the school's growth targets. At the end of the second year of implementation 2001-02) the program provides rewards for a school that meets or exceeds its growth target each year for the two years. Funds received from this program sall be used at the school's discretion. A school that has not met its performnce goals but demonstrates significant growth is allowed to continue to particpate in the program for an additional year and to receive funding. A school tat does not meet its performance goals and has failed to show significant growh after two years in the program will be deemed an educationally deficient schol and the SPI will then assume all of the legal rights, duties, and powers ofthe local school board with respect to that school. The principal will be rassigned, subject to a specified process, and the SPI must do at least one of he following: 1)Revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any public school. 2)Allow the creation of a charter school by parents at the existing school site. 3) Reassign other certificated employees of the school 4)Renegotiate a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of te existing agreement. 5)Reorganize the school. 6)Close the school. 7)Under th supervision of the SPI, assign the management of the school to a college, uiversity, county office of education, {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 5 or other appropriate educational institution. However, th SPI may not assume the management of the school. In addition, the SPI, in onsultation with the SBE, may take other actions against the school district ad district governing board including appointment of a new superintendent or supension of the authority of the governing board. A total of $96.15 million s appropriated (State funding of $63.85 million and $32.3 million in federal fnds) for planning and implementation grants for this program. The High Achieing/Improving Schools Program Under the High-Achieving/Improving School Progra, monetary and non-monetary awards and will granted pursuant to a Governor's Performance Award Program to schools that meet or exceed API performance growt targets, and demonstrate comparable improvement in academic achievement by al numerically significant ethnic and socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups within schools. Commencing in June 2000, and every June thereafter, the SPI, ith approval of the SBE, shall rank all public schools based on the API. The shools shall be ranked by grade level of instruction provided and shall includethree categories: elementary, middle, and high school. Commencing in June 201, the rankings shall indicate the target annual growth rates of schools, theactual growth rates attained by the schools, and how growth rates compare schols that have similar characteristics. Similar characteristics include, but arenot limited to, the following characteristics, insofar as data is available rom SDE data: pupil mobility, pupil ethnicity, pupil socioeconomic status, perentage of teachers who are fully credentialed, percentage of teachers who holdemergency credentials, percentage of pupils who are English language learner, average class size per grade level, and whether the schools operate multitrak year round educational programs. The SPI is to annually publish these rankigs on the Internet. The criteria for the disbursement of the monetary awards wil be developed by the SPI and approved by the SBE. The monetary awards willbe available on a per-pupil or per-school basis and will not exceed $150 per ppil enrolled subject to funds appropriated in the annual budget act. All schols, including schools participating in the Immediate Intervention/Underperfoming Schools Program, are eligible to {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 6 participate in the Governor's Performance Award Program. Inaddition, there would be a range of non-monetary awards. Schools that are eliible for performance awards may request that the SBE waive all code sections o any part of code sections, or any regulations controlling specified education programs (see comments). $96.15 million is appropriated from the General Fud for this purpose. Program Evaluation The bill provides that: 1)By Januay 31, 2002, each school district with schools participating in the ImmediateIntervention/Underperforming Schools Program shall submit to the SPI an evalation of the impact, costs, and benefits of the program as it relates to the school district and the schools under its jurisdiction that are participting in the program and whether or not the schools met their growth targets,with an analysis of the reasons why the schools have or have not met those gowth targets. 2)By January 15, 2000, the SPI shall develop, and the SBE shal approve, the guidelines for a request for proposal for an independent valuation. By March 15, 2000, the SPI shall contract with an independent evluator to prepare a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation, impact, osts, and benefits of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming SchoolsProgram and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. 3)The evaluationsshall consider all of the following: Pupil performance data, including, but notlimited to, results of assessments used to determine whether or not schools ave made significant progress towards meeting their growth targets. Pogram implementation data, including, but not limited to, a review of startu activities, community support, parental participation, and staff developmen activities associated with implementation of the program, percentage of fuly {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 7 credentialed eachers, percentage of teachers who hold emergency credentials, percentage o teachers assigned outside their subject area of competence, average class sze per grade level, and the number of pupils in a multitrack year round ducational program. Pupil performance data, and its impact on the API, for ach of the following subgroups:(i) English language learners. (ii) Pupils wih exceptional needs. (iii) Pupils that qualify for free or reduced price meas. {u EXISTING LAW u} Under prior law, which was never implemented because fundin for it was never appropriated, the SPI was to designate the schools with th lowest performing pupils as "focus schools" (SB 171, Watson - Chapter 1335, Satutes of 1992). Focus schools were to develop a school action plan to improv pupil achievement and were entitled to expert assistance and additional resouces to implement the plan. The SPI was to appoint an outside management conultant to assist and, in some circumstances, intervene in the management of scools that fail to improve performance. The Focus Schools statute became inopeative on July 1, SB 1570 (Greene), Chapter 496, Statutes of 1996, authorize the creation of an advisory committee to assist the SPI in developing a pla and recommendations "for the establishment of incentives for the improvement f pupil academic achievement." In December 1997, a report was published, Steeing by Results, proposing the implementation of a statewide school accountablity system and a comprehensive program of rewards and interventions for Califrnia schools and students. The State Board of Education (SBE) is in the processof setting academic content and performance standards - statements of what sudents should be able to know and do at various grade levels. Content standars have been approved by the SBE for language arts, mathematics, science and soial science/history. However, performance standards in any subject have yet t be developed. The SBE is in the process of developing a testing system that is aligned with the standards. It would consist of the recent enactment and fist-time administration in spring 1998 of the Standardized Testing and Reportin Program (STAR), a nationally normed examination for determining individual stdent performance in grades 2-11, and the yet to be developed {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 8 statewide matrix testing program algned with the state's new standards in grades 4, 5, 8, and 10. Under the Clasroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act (Proposition 98), the gverning board of each school district is required to implement a school accounability report card for each school in the district, to issue the card annualy, and to provide a copy to parents upon request. Existing law requires the chool accountability report card to provide data by which parents can make meaingful decisions about which school to enroll their children. {u FISCAL EFFECT u} Appropriations of $160.0 million from the General Fund and $32.3 million fromthe Federal Trust Fund. {u COMMENTS u} : {u Governor's Education Reform Proposal u} . This bill is one of four bills sponsored by the Governor as part of his callfor an extraordinary session of the legislature dedicated to education refor issues. The other three bills address a high school exit exam (SB 2X O'Connel), peer assistance and review for teachers (AB 1X Villaraigosa), and reading eform (AB 2X Mazzoni). {u When would state rewards or sanction go into effect u} ? he bill provides rewards and sanctions " After two years of participating inthe program." Since 1999-2000 is an identification, evaluation, and planning ear, with plans not being funded until May 15, 2000, the state rewards and santions would not apply until 2002, nearly three years after enactment of thisprogram. {u State to administer local schools u} . This program constitutes a sigificant role for the state. It provides that for all " educationally deficien" schools, the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall assume all the legalrights, duties, and powers of the governing board with respect to that school. This could lead to significant state administrative costs beginning in 200. {u Waivers for existing accountability systems u} ? No provision is madein the bill to allow for exceptions from certain requirements (and consequence) for school districts that have accountability systems in place. A number ofschool districts in California have or are developing sophisticated {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 9 accountability plans that ma even be more rigorous than that envisioned in this bill and they would like t be waived from this state program. {u Costs for administration and evaluation u} The bill does not provide funds for the SDE administrative costs or the evluation, which as specified in this bill could be quite expensive. SDE has reqested an augmentation to state operations funding of approximately $3 million n the budget year to support the work required by this bill. {u English learnerconcerns. u} Various civil rights groups have requested that there be an exempton for ELL students from taking the STAR test for thirty months, thereby not icluding those students in the API. Alternatively, they request requiring reslts of the yet-to-be developed English Language Development test to be include in the API for these students and requiring students to be tested in their prmary language. {u More weight to lowest performing schools u} ? As currently writte, the bill gives equal weight to helping schools in the lowest 10% as it doe schools in the lowest 40%. Concern has been raised that perhaps more weight hould go towards helping more of the very lowest performing schools. {u Categorcal aid flexibility u} . The programs that could receive regulatory relief in eiher the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program or the High Acieving/Improving Schools Program would include: School Improvement Program; Voational education pupil organizations; Specialized secondary schools; Foster yuth services; Opportunity classes and programs; Pupil dropout prevention; Ecnomic Impact Aid; Gifted and talented education; Miller-Unruh reading program;Intergenerational education; Native American Indian education; Demonstration rograms in reading and mathematics; Partnership academies; Agricultural vocatinal education; Environmental education; Instructional materials for kindergaten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive; Instructional materials for grades 9 to 12, nclusive; Mentor teacher program; Beginning teacher support and assessment; Reder services for blind teachers; Child nutrition; School/law enforcement parnership; Educational technology program; and Small school district bus replaceent. {u Technical amendment u} . The bill calls for 430 schools in the {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 10 program consisting of "no mor than" 301 elementary, 78 middle and 52 high schools; this totals 431 schools. This can be corrected by specifying 300 elementary schools. {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 11 {u Related legislation u} . AB 26X (Pescetti) proposes the Public Schools Acountability Act of 1999. {u REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION u} : (3/5/99) {u Suppot u} None on file. {u Opposition u} None on file. {u Analysis Prepared by u} : HalGeiogue / ED. / (916) 319-2087 END@#$ SBX1 1 03/16/99 15:30:50 ASM. APPR. ac BILL ANALYSIS SB 1 X1 Page 1 Date f Hearing: March 17, 1999 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Carole Migden, Chairwoman SB 1 X1 (Alpert) - As Amnded: March 15, 1999 Policy Committee: EducatioVote:17-2 Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:YesRimbursable: Yes {u SUMMARY u} : {u This bill u} establishes the Public SchoolPerformance Accountability Act of 1999 through three major components: 1) cration of an Academic Performance Index (API) to rank all schools, 2) establishent of a intervention program to assist low-performing schools, and 3) establihment of a reward program for high-performing schools. Specifically, {u this bil u} : 1)Creates the API to rank all schools and measure progress, as follows a) Requires the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), ith approval from the State Board of Education (SBE), to develop (API) b July 1, 1999. b) Specifies that test scores on statewide exams make up a least 60 percent of the value of the API. c) Uses the API to rank ll schools. The API includes other indicators like student and teacher ttendance rates and graduation rates for high schools. d) Establishs a minimum annual improvement rate of five percent in the API from schoo base scores. The SBE may establish higher improvement rates when it adots rules and regulations for this legislation. e) Requires the API o be disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, special education status, and enlish language proficiency. {u SB 1 X1 u} Page 2 f) Requires the SPI (Beginning June 2000) to use the API to measure the progress of schools and to select schools for participaion in the Intermediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program (IIUS or in the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program (HAIS). g) Specfies that the ranking applies only to districts with more than 100 Averag Daily Attendance (ADA). 2) Establishes the IIUS Program to assist low-achievng schools, as follows: a) Requires the SPI to invite schools that scorebelow the 50th percentile on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test to participate in the IIUS program. b) Limits participation t 430 schools, with no more than 86 schools from each decile (each tenth prcentile) below the 50th percentile. If fewer than 430 schools volunteer the SPI may randomly select schools to fill the remaining slots i each decile. The SPI must notify schools of their participation by Septmber of each year. c) Provides planning grants ranging from $25,000 to $50000 to participating schools beneath the 50th percentile. d) Requirs the SPI, with SBE approval, to develop a list of qualified external evauators to help low-performing schools develop an action plan as part of te planning grant process. e) Requires underperforming schools to coplete an action plan by April 15th in the year following their selection for participation. f) Authorizes participating schools to submit a rquest for funding of up to $150 per pupil with a minimum grant of 25,000 per school site to implement the school action plan by June 15th. g) Requires school districts to hold a public hearing if its underpeforming school fails to meet the minimum improvement rate {u after one year of implementing the action plan. SB 1 X1 u} Page 3 h) Requires that school to continue to participate inthe IIUS program, if an underperforming school shows significant iprovement {u after one year u} of implementing the action plan. i) Requres the SPI and the SBE, along with the local school board to reassign th principal, if an underperforming school fails to make any improvement {u ater two years u} . The SPI may reassign the school to a college or oher educ