Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, Members and Committee of the Committee and the Public to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Before we begin, I have a few announcements to make. First, Assemblymember Brian will be substituting for Assemblymember Addis during the hearing today. He'll be here soon. Second, we have four items on the agenda with two of those bills on consent. The two bills on consent are SB 698, Wilk and SB 885.

Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. Finally, we are limited to testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill, and each will have three minutes to speak. We need to establish. Quorum Secretary, please call the role.

Mckinnor, Here. Lackey, Here. Bryan, Here. Fong. Haney, Here. Nguyen, Here. Schiavo, Here.

Welcome, Mr. Bryan. Members, we have the following items on consent file item three, SB 698. Wilk and file item four, SB 885. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. Is there any Member on the Committee who wishes to remove an item from the consent calendar hearing none?

Is there a motion? And second, on the consent calendar, Assembly Member Lackey has requested the file item and. No, that's wrong. Assembly Member Lackey moves and Assembly Member Brian. Second Secretary, please call the roll on consent calendar.

On item number three, the motion is do pass to consent. And on item number four, the motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent. Mckinnor, aye. Lackey, aye. Bryan, aye. Fong. Haney, aye. Nguyen, aye. Schiavo, aye.

I'm going to place this item on hold. Let's move on to the file item number two, SB 510. Laird, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning. Senate Bill 510 clarifies that a civil service employee's probation period begins on the date that the employee reports to work or begins performing the duties of the job, rather, on the date that they accept the offer. There was a court decision that issued a narrow decision that found that the appointment date starts when the employee accepts the offer. This Bill is a common sense solution that clarifies that situation.

It's a reintroduction of a Bill last year, SB 647, that encountered some opposition and stopped in the Assembly. And my office has worked with the previous opposition to successfully find an alternative solution. That's this Bill. As a result, there's no opposition. It passed off the Senate Floor in a 37 to zero vote. And today I have with me for technical assistance, people from the State Personnel Board. If you have any questions, and at the appropriate time, I would request an iPhone.

Thank you. We'll start with witnesses in support of this Bill. As a reminder, two primary witnesses in support of this Bill will have three minutes to provide testimony. All others may only state their name and organization.

Madam Chair Mario Guerrero. On behalf of the State Personnel Board, with my colleague Joseph Ruguero. We are only here for technical questions. Happy to answer anything you may have. Thank you.

I'm seeing and hearing no other support. Is there any other support in the room that would like to speak, hearing and I'm seeing no other support. Are there any on opposition that would like to speak, hearing and seeing no others in opposition? Let's bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Assembly Member Haney has moved the Bill, and Assembly Member Lackey has seconded. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Mckinnor, aye. Lackey, aye. Bryan, aye. Fong. hanye, Aye. Nguyen, aye. Schiavo. Place this Bill on call.

The Bill will be placed on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Let's move on to file item number one. Senator Cortesse.

Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members. Thank you very much for allowing me to present SB 433 to you today. SB 433 provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by an unbiased third party hearing officer. Currently, teachers already have the right to an impartial third party hearing officer. If a K-12 teacher chooses to appeal disciplinary decision made by their district, it's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a neutral, paid for by the district. Classified employees, however, are not guaranteed the same right under current law. If a classified employee appeals a disciplinary decision, they're appealing to the school's governing board. This is the very board involved in the initial decision to discipline them in the first place. This system is not equitable, and it denies many employees a fair hearing. And while classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third party hearing officer, the vast majority have not been able to do so. SB 433 provides classified employees with the same right as K-12 teachers, community college faculty, and many other public employees. If classified employee unions prefer the current system this Bill still allows them to negotiate for this in collective bargaining agreements. The Bill is co sponsored by the California School Employees Association, otherwise known as CSEA and ASKME. It's supported by the California Labor Federation, the California Federation of Teachers. With us to testify today are Janice O'Malley with Ask me and Glas Ramirez, a former CSEA Member, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The witnesses in support, you have three minutes to provide testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley on behalf of Ask Me California representing our Members who work as classified staff in K-12 school districts and in community colleges, we are proud co sponsors of SB 433. SB 433 is solving for the lack of parity and due process for classified school employees, which is different from what teachers and community college faculty currently receive. By providing classified school employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights that teachers and faculty at the community colleges have. Due process provides protection against arbitrary dismissal, unfair discipline, and other forms of discrimination. It also helps ensure employees are given an opportunity to respond to and defend themselves against accusations or allegations that may arise in the workplace. This is especially important to ensure that all employers provide equitable and respectful treatment to their employees. Currently, disciplinary appeal hearings for teachers and faculty are conducted by a neutral panel provided through the Commission on Professional Competence. Whereas classified staff appeals are decided by school district or community college governing boards, these boards are typically the same bodies that vote on initial disciplinary decisions. This is problematic. Many of our Members forego the appeal process because they feel that they would not receive a fair appeal since the first decision was made by the same board that they would have to appeal to. SB 433 would still allow unions and districts to negotiate alternative appeal hearings in their collective bargaining agreements. We want to stress that this Bill does not apply to cases involving egregious conduct. Arbitration is very rare, but we do believe that classified staff deserve the same ability to have a fair appeal hearing conducted by a neutral arbitrator as teachers and faculty currently do. We respectfully ask for your aye vote and my colleague Navnit Puryear from CSEA is available to answer any technical questions you may have.

Yes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Gladys Ramirez and I'm a proud former Member of CSEA. I worked as an administrative assistant at Visalia Unified School District for 24 years. I loved my job because I was able to grow, learn, and obtain the skills I needed to do my job for our kids in the City of Visalia. Classified employees are essential in the backbone of our TK through 12th grade, in our schools and also our community colleges, we ensure schools are clean, children are fed and get to school safely. We do the work that most take for granted. However, even though we do this essential work, we are often denied basic disciplinary appeal rights that are granted to teachers. Today, I'd like to share my story. I was active in my union as chapter President. In January 2018. I spoke at a board meeting and raised concerns and issues regarding a climate survey we had conducted in our chapter. Shortly after, I was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation, eventually served with termination charges. I then requested a hearing where the hearing officer, an attorney hired by the school district, not surprisingly sided with the district management. I was officially terminated by the school board on April 7, 2019. On October 7, 2019, my union CSEA, filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Board. PERB against vicenfied for terminating me in retaliation. On January 20 and February 3 of 2021, there was a virtual formal hearing in which PERB issued a proposed decision. On June 20, eigth of 2021, PERB found that Visalia school District violated the Educational Employment Relations act by terminating me in retaliation for my protected activities. This process has taken five and a half years and in my case is currently pending in the Fifth appellate Court. All of this could have been prevented if I had been allowed to appeal my termination to a neutral arbitrator instead of the school board. It would have saved the district time and money. SB 433 would require disciplinary appeal hearings for classified school employees to be conducted by neutral arbitrator instead of the school board. This Bill will also provide classified employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights that teachers and other public employees receive. I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others remaining in support? Please state your name and your organization.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Good Morning Madam Chair, Members of the Committee Navnit Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, we're proud co sponsors of this Bill and respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

Good Morning Madam Chair and Members. Alyssa Yun, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union, in support, thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals here in support. Thank you.

Hearing and seeing no others in support, are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Reef, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, really want to thank the Senator and, of course, the sponsors for trying to work with us on the measure. Want to also thank the Committee and Committee staff as well, for taking the time. Fundamentally at this issue is that this actually undermines the principles of local control. Right. School boards have the statutory responsibility, the legal responsibility to make personnel decisions for its employees. And when a classified staff person appeals to a school board, predominantly, many of these cases already have the opportunity to go to a third party hearing officer or a mediator. Many of them do. Many of our school boards don't actually like to do these types of hearings, not because of a desire not to, but because of the workload that comes with it. They are lengthy. They are based in legalities. Sometimes there's often attorneys involved. And so what happens is that the bargaining unit and the school district will agree to a third party hearing officer process. That will go to that hearing officer process. The hearing officer will actually recommend to the board, based upon those legalities, whether or not to dismiss or reject the recommendation or the decision to dismiss or suspend or suspend without pay, if you will, or demote the employee. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of school board. Our school board members are duly elected by their communities to represent their communities and their employees. And as a result, this is something that is embedded in the merits and the principles of local control. That is our predominant reason for our opposition. Secondarily is the cost associated with this measure. If this is put to a required third party hearing officer every time, this will actually elongate and prolong the costs associated with those appeals. Some of these appeals can cost upwards of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many of them can go on for months at times. And so these are costs that are going to be borne by districts, and we're entering a time period where we're entering a deficit budget. These are costs that will be an unfunded mandate for districts, and they will have to decide whether or not to cover these costs by taking money from the classroom to be able to address some of these issues. And so additionally, there is also a lack of availability of a lot of third party hearing officers in some areas. Think of rural school districts, in our districts, in mountainous areas, and then it also places the full cost of the hearing officer on the district. Typically, right now, many districts will actually negotiate with their labor partners to share the cost of the third party hearing officer. So it's shared 5050, generally speaking. This then places the full cost of that third party hearing officer on the district. And so that only increases those costs. So for those reasons, we are opposed.

Thank you. Are there any others remaining in opposition? Please state your name, organization, and your position.

I apologize. I was also have authority to state the opposition of the Riverside County Superintendent's Office, as well as the Association of California School Administrators.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Michelle Gill from California Association of School Business Officials and on behalf of our colleagues at Association of California Community College Administrators. In opposition. Thank you.

Hearing and seeing no more opposition, I'll bring it back to the Members. Does anyone on the Committee have any questions or comments? No. Would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Moved by Assemblymember Nguyen. Seconded by Assemblymember Bryan. Please call the roll.

The motion is due pass, and rerefered to the Committee on Higher Education. McKinnor, McKinnor aye. Lackey, Lackey not voting. Bryan, Bryan aye. Vince Fong, Vince Fong no. Haney, Haney aye. Stephanie Nguyen, Stephanie Nguyen aye. Schiavo. Put on call.

Put on call. Thank you, Senator.

All right. Thank you again.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bryan. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mr. Bryan. I'm sorry, guys. We'll take up the measures that are on call.

Item number two, AB. Excuse me. SB 510. The current vote is 5-0. Vince Fong, Vince Fong aye. Place that bill back on call.

Place it back on call. Thank you.

Item number three. And item number four. The current vote is 6-0. Vince Fong, Vince Fong aye. Those two bills are out.

Take up the measures on call please.

Item number one, SB 433, the current vote is four to one. Schiavo, Schiavo aye. That Bill is out five to one. Item number two. SB 510. The current vote is 6-0. Schiavo, Schiavo aye. That Bill is out seven to zero.

Meeting is adjourned.