Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning and welcome to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Before we begin, I have several announcements. The following bills have been proposed for consent. They are file item 5, SB 521, Gonzalez. File item 6, SB 581, McGuire and file item 7, SB 853, Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement.

For this hearing, we will be limiting testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill and each will have two minutes to speak. All others may only say their names, organization, if any, and and position on the Bill.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who has registered a support position with the Committee. And the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee. All other supporting opposition can be stated at the standing microphone.

When called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position.

For committee members, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the Bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the Bill is about and why it's proposed.

If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply say that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. For authors, you'll note that our hearing is publicly notice as file order. Your staff should be monitoring this hearing to assist you with coming at the appropriate time to present your Bill.

Finally, the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years because we seek to protect the rights of all participating in the legislative process and can effectively deliberate on critical issues facing California.

So that everyone is absolutely clear, conduct that disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited. We will not accept such behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. To address any such conduct, I'll direct the individual to stop and warn them.

If they continue, they'll be removed from the participate- from participating in this hearing or from the Capitol and will temporarily recess the hearing if necessary so that the sergeants can restore order. Hopefully, it won't come to that. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Members, we need to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

McKinnor? Mckinnor, present. Lackey? Lackey, present. Alanis? Boerner? Elhawary? Garcia? Garcia, present. Nguyen? Nguyen, present. T

Thank you. Before we start with the reminder of the agenda with the remainder of the agenda agenda, I remind everyone that we will be limiting the testimony to two minutes each for each side. So we'll start with the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please take the role.

Item number five, SB 521. The motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent removed. Item number six, SB 581. The motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Natural Resources with recommendation to consent. Item number seven, SB 853.

The recommendation is to pass and be refer to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent.

A first by Assembly Member Lackey, second by Assembly Member Nguyen.

Mckinnor? McKinnor, aye. Lackey? Lackey, aye. Alanis? Boerner? Elhawary? Garcia? Garcia, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. We'll place that on call.

File item number one, SB301. Grayson. Hi, Senator. Mr.

Good morning, Madam Chair Mckinnor and esteemed Members of this Committee. I'm pleased to present SB301, a bill that would prevent cities or districts contracting under the County Employees retirement law of 1937, also known as Searle, from amending their contracts in a way that excludes certain groups of employees.

In recent years, I've been working to ensure that worker protection measures adopted in the Public Employee Retirement Law, which is Pearl, are appropriate and this or are also adopted in the county Employment Retirement Law where appropriate. And this measure continues my efforts in that particular regard.

In 2019, the City of Placentia identified and exploited a loophole when it ended this contract with Orange County fire Authority, a 1937 act agency, and established its own fire Department, the Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department, as a cost cutting measure.

Later that year, the city petitioned CalPERS to amend its contract to exclude all new firefighters from pension membership. As a result, firefighters in the newly formed Department were denied access to CalPERS pension benefits. In response, the Legislature passed AB 2967 in 2020, closing this loophole with CalPERS.

However, similar protections do not currently exist for employees covered under seril. This remaining gap could allow a city or a district to potentially exclude specific classes of workers from pension participation. So SB301 addresses this issue by prohibiting selective exclusion of employee groups under SERIL contracts.

It ensures parity between SERIL and parole and also protects the retirement security of all public employees. With that, I do have, through the Chair, my witness, Doug Subers, with California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members, Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we are pleased to be here and sponsoring SB301. We've worked, as the author noted, we've worked for several years with the author in this Committee to ensure where Appropriate. There is consistency between the public employee retirement law and the county employee retirement law.

And this measure is another effort in that regard. The law clearly outlines how membership is achieved for county employees and district employees. But this bill provides further clarity on to say that exclusion is not appropriate unless otherwise applicable under the law. And we think that's really important to protect the employees.

It's unfortunate that in some jurisdictions you have situations in which some employees have the benefit of a secure retirement through the county retirement System or the CalPERS, and some do not. And we think that's just a bad outcome for public workers. And so this bill will ensure that doesn't happen and there's consistency across the law.

For those reasons, we would ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support. Please come to the mic and state your name, organization and your position. Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses that would like to come to the mic and. And give their opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Members. Any. Any questions?

Move the bill. The. The bill was moved by Nguyen and seconded by Lackey or, I'm sorry, by Assembly Member Garcia. Please call the votes.

Move the bill.

The motion is due Pass. [Roll Call] Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

I am so sorry. We're just moving it right along.

Yes. Thank you so much for this bill. And this. This bill gets an recommendation from me.

That's a good thing.

I'm honored. Thank you.

[Roll Call] We have four votes. Thank you.

Do we have any other member?

We're going to open the roll to add on. Madam Secretary.

Item number one. Elhawary.

I.

Elhawary I. Place it back on hold. Consent items 5, 6, and 7. Elhawary. Elhawary I. Place this back on hold. Thank you.

Madam Secretary. Please open the roll.

Item number one, Alanis. SB 301. The current vote. Alanis I. Place this bill back on hold. Items number 5, 6, 7 for the consent calendar. Alanis. Alanis I. Place these bills back on hold. Thank you.

Now what? Good morning, senator. Now we'll hear SB item number two. SB 443 Rubio.

Good morning.

You may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of this Committee. Today I'm proud to present SB 443. This is a good government Bill that will help join powers of authority to operate effectively and recruit experienced local government employees. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for giving me your feedback.

I always appreciate the the dialogue. SB 443 will clarify the process for public employees to retain their CalPERS retirement when transitioning to a joint powers of authority. Under existing law, when local government form JPAs, employees who transfer to work for the JPA can take their existing CalPERS with them.

However, when other local governments join the JPA in the future, the law is ambiguous with whether or not they also qualify for the same retirement benefits. SB 443 will clarify that the same rules apply when transferring to CalPERS at the beginning or midterm.

So I know it's a little convoluted, so I'm going to give you a real life experience for my district which is happening right now. In my district, the City of La Verne and the City of Covina are exploring a JPA to operate a regional police dispatch center.

But if other cities want to join in later time, they will not be able to. Existing law could prevent experienced employees from those cities from wanting to work in the dispatch center.

Without the clarification provided by this Bill, this could effectively prevent experienced good employees from joining the JPA and the impact could be catastrophic when we know we need qualified individuals, especially when it when it comes to public safety. So today I have Carly Shelby on behalf of the City of La Verne and Jack W.A.

on behalf of Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agencies and they can share with you some of those experiences. So if I may.

Yes, thank you. You have two minutes.

Great. Good morning Chair, Members of the Committee. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the City of La Verne, here to express our strong support for Senate Bill 443 which provides critical clarification regarding the retention of retirement benefits for CalPERS Classic Members under existing law.

As Senator Rubio mentioned, the Cities of La Verne and Covina are actively collaborating to establish a joint powers authority to create a Regional police and communications dispatch Center.

While La Verne and Covina could serve as the founding Members, the long term vision of this JPA is to expand it to include additional public agencies, thus strengthening regional collaboration and achieving greater efficiencies.

Under current CalPERS law and guidance, Classic Members from Laverne and Covina can retain their status and transferred into the JPA within 180 days of its formation. However, law has been interpreted to mean that employees from any city joining after that 100 day window could not be eligible to retain their Classic status.

Instead, they would be subject to PEPRA Tier retirement benefits. Despite their prior classic designation and uninterrupted public service. This restriction only applies to joint powers authorities. In contrast, classic CalPERS Members who move directly between individual CalPERS agencies do retain their classic status benefits.

So this creates disparity and disincentivizes future participation in regional JPAs and effectively penalizes experienced public safety professionals from joining cooperative ventures and enhancing local service delivery.

SB 443 ensures equity and continuity by allowing CalPERS employees within these newly formed JPAs to maintain their benefit status when transferred within 180 days after joining that new JPA, just as they would if they were transferring between standalone CalPERS agencies. And for these reasons we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Jack Gualco on behalf of the Pajaro River Flood Management Agency. The same kind of issues arise in this, in this situation for that agency. They're struggling to find who qualified employees in the Silicon Valley region and competitive salary structure is difficult for reasons you will quickly understand.

So one of the things we can offer is an enhanced pension opportunity. And so being able to allow current employees of state or local agencies to migrate their CalPERS Classic system over to. Over to this new JPA that's responsible for bolstering flood protection in a very disadvantaged and economically distressed area is critical.

So we support this Bill wholeheartedly and thanks Senator Rubio for including us here very recently. So thank you, Senator, and thank the Committee staff for working closely with us. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Please step up and give your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Janice o' Malley with AFSCME California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. I'm seeing no witnesses in opposition. We'll bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? Second, the Bill was moved by Ms. Nguyen and seconded by Mr. Lackey. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Well, first of all, I know from local government that when we form JPAs we don't know what is going to look like. For example, I created a JPA for housing and only three cities believed in the project. Now we have over 25 cities.

They keep adding on and adding on and similarly, we don't know how these JPAs are going to work. And once they work, everyone wants to jump on board. So thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present and hopefully allow Member cities to join later in the game. So thank you.

And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

It is extremely important to keep qualified and experienced workers and make sure that they have a pinch that we can be proud of. And so with that, I will be giving this a nine vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're going to give Senator Cortese five to seven minutes and then we will adjourn. Thank you. Excuse me. Good morning again with the absence of absence of Senator Cortese. Oh, I thought he might be coming through the door. Sorry, not Senator. Oh, he's walking in. Perfect. Can we clap? Is that. Good morning, Senator.

Good morning. Apologize for.

We'll have file number. File number three. SB 494. Cortese. Thank you, sir.

All right. A formal good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. SB494 provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by administrative law judges. Under current law, teachers already have this right.

If a K12 teacher chooses to appeal a disciplinary decision made by their district, it's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a third-party arbitrator paid for by the district. Classified employees, however, are not currently guaranteed the same right under under current law.

This system is not equitable and it denies many employees a fair hearing. While classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third-party hearing officer, the mass majority of those bargaining unions have not been able to do so.

So SB494 provides classified employees with the same right as K12 teachers, community college faculty and many other public employees. This Bill is cosponsored by the California School Employees Association, otherwise known as CSEA, CSEA and AFSCME, and it's also supported by other California unions.

With us to testify today is an Navnit Puryear with CSEA. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navnit Puryear and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified public school employees across the state. We're proud to cosponsor SB 494.

At its heart, SB494 is a parity Bill. It will provide classified school employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers and community college faculty. Currently, a classified school employee who is suspended or terminated and wants to exercise their right to an appeal hearing must have that hearing conducted by the school board.

This deprives many classified employees of a fair appeal hearing because most school boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It's unfair for the same board that voted to terminate or suspend an employee to also be the appellate body.

I like to share the story of two members who cannot be here today. One district terminated a maintenance employee over vague allegations of incompetence and insubordination. An arbitrator found that the district did not have sufficient evidence to support the termination and that the employee should be reinstated.

Another district terminated a member shortly after she became chapter President and raised concerns at a school board meeting. She appealed to an attorney representing the school board. The attorney refused to reinstate her. She was denied a fair discipline hearing.

Classified school employees deserve the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers, faculty, college faculty and other public sector employees. So for these reasons and many more, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come up and give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Thank you. You'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Erika Hoffman on behalf of the California School Boards Association and the California County Superintendents in respect- in respectful opposition to SB494. I do want to say that we appreciate the author, his staff and the sponsors for meeting with us with regards to this Bill.

Fundamentally, this measure wrests away authority from duly elected school boards which are charged with the authority in statute to determine the disciplinary outcomes for classified staff. Excuse me.

When it comes to significant disciplinary matters, SB 494 removes the ability of school districts and county offices of education to make the final dispensation determinations when a staff person is facing suspension, demotion, or termination actions. Excuse me, my voice is going out.

We understand that the sponsors of the Bill argue that the is unfair that the school board makes both the initial decision to pursue disciplinary action and act as the appellate body for the appeal. Respectfully, we must disagree. Under current practice, the appellate process is negotiated at the local level.

Together, the local labor union and the local education agency negotiate the terms by which severe disciplinary action is handled. This can include the joint selection of a third party hearing officer when the appeals are filed and consent with the final decisions is made by the Board of Education upon recommendation of the third party hearing officer.

This Bill flips the local labor harmony upside down by applying a one size fits all approach to disciplinary actions, mandating the use of an administrative law judge and requiring the local education agency to foot the entirety of the cost of the appeal for these matters and for these issues. Thank you very much.

We are in opposition to the measure and we would respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. I think everything I wanted to say was already said by my colleagues. So I'll just say that we are also opposed to this measure. I also want to note that the Association of California Community College Administrators are also opposed as well.

Thank you. Are there any more further witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Give your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning Chair and Members. Sara Pietrowski on the, on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and also on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education. In opposition.

Good morning. Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Ed and also representing the Association of California School Administrators in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Angelina Cournoyer on behalf of the LA County Superintendent of Schools Dr. Debra Duardo. And we respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses, I would like to bring it to the Members. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I need a motion. A motion from Assemblymember Nguyen. A second from Assemblymember Elhawary. And this, this Bill will get an aye vote for me as well.

[ROLL CALL]

Place the Bill on hold. Thank you. Next up is item number four, SJR 2. Cortese.

Thank you again, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. SJR2 urges Congress and the President to enact federal legislation that affirms and protects the rights of classified school employees, the essential workers who keep our public schools running every single day.

Across the country, more than 3 million classified staff, including paraeducators, bus drivers, custodians, clerical workers, food service staff and more are the backbone of our education system. Yet too often their work is undervalued, their hours are limited, their wages and benefits fall far short of what's needed to support themselves.

SJR2 outlines a comprehensive vision of fairness, dignity and opportunity for classified workers that would include livable, competitive wages, affordable health care, benefits, paid family and medical leave, a safe working environment, a voice in school policies that impact their jobs. California cannot allow our classified workers to be treated as an afterthought.

And if we want strong schools, we need to invest in the people who make them work. SGR2 is sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, with support from the California Labor Federation, the California School Employees Association, and SEIU California. With us here today in support of SJR2 is Mitch Steiger with the California Federation of Teachers.

Thank you. Thank you. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members and staff, Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to sponsor this measure for all the reasons stated so well by the author. We would just emphasize that it's hard to overstate the value of classified work.

They do a variety of things, both in the classroom as aides and paraeducators and out of the classroom as counselors and aides and cafeteria workers and office workers and bus drivers, doing all the things without which the education system would pretty quickly collapse. And sadly, that's not just an academic point.

It's becoming harder and harder to recruit people for these jobs for a lot of different reasons. Wages aren't high enough. Workers don't feel safe, they don't feel supported. They don't get enough hours, and they can usually pretty easily make more money elsewhere.

But they do this work because they care so much about the students and keeping the education system going. But if we don't make progress on all these issues that are outlined in the resolution, it's going to become harder and harder for our education system to function.

So this Bill does send a pretty strong message to the President and to Congress that they need to join us in this fight. They need to take steps to put these policies in place so that not just here, but in other states. This is part of a nationwide campaign.

Everyone across the country wants these in place so that we can keep our education system functioning as it should. So we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further witnesses and support? Please come forward. Give your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Nevneet Perrier, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the Members. First by Assemblymember Nguyen, second by Assemblymember Elhawary. Would you like to close?

Yes, again. Thank you again, Madam Chair. And although at some level I want to acknowledge that a plea to the Federal Government at this moment might seem a little bit futile, but the power in these resolutions, especially with California leading, is that we can knit together resolutions across this entire country at some point.

And it's a way for us, of course, to not only empower folks, but get these kind of things accomplished. I appreciate Your patience with me today coming from the other Committee rooms across the way, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I was a classified employee. I was an Auditor at Laco. And so I know how important it is to have our classified workers and what they mean to schools. And with that, I recommend an Aye vote.

Thank you.

Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is be adopted. [Roll Call] We have sufficient votes to put it on hold.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

We'll let her sit.

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll open the roll. Item number one, SB301. The current vote is 60. The motion is do pass. Burner I. Burner I.

Ready?

Thank you.

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.

You're welcome.