|
|
|
Support
|
|
|
|
AB 271
|
(Cooper D)
Civil service: Personnel Classification Plan: salary equalization.
|
|
|
Current Text: Enrollment: 9/11/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/24/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/6/2019
|
|
|
Status: 9/15/2019-9/15/2019-Failed Deadline
pursuant to Rule 61(a)(15). (Last location was DESK on 9/11/2019)(May be acted
upon Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 9/15/2019-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the State Civil
Service Act, provides for filling certain state positions through the process
of examinations and the establishment of eligible lists and promotional
lists. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to administer
the Personnel Classification Plan for state civil service positions,
including the allocation of every position to the appropriate class in the
classification plan.This bill would require the Department of Human Resources
to, by December 31, 2020, and every 2 years thereafter, evaluate all civil
service classifications and prepare a detailed report on gender and ethnicity
pay equity in each classification where there is an underrepresentation of
women and minorities. The bill would require each state agency to submit
specified information to the department about each state civil service
classification within the agency. The bill would require the department to
prepare a plan for each state agency to attain pay equity if a discrepancy is
found and a specified plan to recruit, attract, and retain women and
minorities into positions where there is an underrepresentation of those
subgroups. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, require the department to
submit the report to the Legislature, not later than January 1 of each year,
as specified.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 3/14/19
Support letter sent to Asm. PE&R -- 3/15/19
Support letter sent to Asm. APPR -- 4/5/19
Support letter sent to Sen. LPE&R -- 6/14/19
|
|
|
|
AB 1007
|
(Jones-Sawyer D)
State Civil Service Act: adverse action: notice.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/25/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/25/2019
|
|
|
Status: 9/15/2019-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule
61(a)(15). (Last location was INACTIVE FILE on 9/4/2019)(May be acted upon
Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 9/15/2019-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The State Civil Service Act
requires notice of any adverse action against any state employee for any
cause for discipline based on any civil service law to be served within 3
years after the cause for discipline, upon which the notice is based, first
arose. That act provides that an adverse action based on fraud, embezzlement,
or the falsification of records is valid if notice of the adverse action is
served within 3 years after the discovery of the fraud, embezzlement, or
falsification.This bill would prohibit adverse action based on fraud,
embezzlement, falsification of records, harassment on specified bases, sexual
assault, or a cause for discipline that is the subject of a criminal
investigation or criminal prosecution for a felony, from being valid unless
notice is served within 3 years after the discovery of the cause for
discipline. The bill would also prohibit adverse action from being valid
unless notice is served within one year after the discovery of the cause for
discipline if the cause for discipline is not of those excepted bases
specified in the previous sentence and it was discovered on or after January
1, 2020. The bill would also make other clarifying changes to that provision.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 4/22/19
Support letter sent to Asm. PE&R -- 4/22/19
Support letter sent to Sen. LPE&R-- 6/14/19
Support letter sent to Sen. APPR -- 7/5/19
|
|
|
|
AB 2365
|
(Rodriguez D)
Public Employees’ Retirement System: employment without reinstatement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on P.E. &
R. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.)
(May 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Public
Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), creates the Public Employees’ Retirement
System (PERS), which provides pension and disability benefits to its members
and prescribes their rights and duties. Existing law, the Public Employees’
Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), prescribed various limitations on public
employees, employers, and retirement systems concerning, among other things,
work after retirement. PERL generally prohibits retired PERS members from
working for an agency participating in the system without reinstatement in
the system, unless that employment is otherwise specifically authorized.
PEPRA also prohibits retirees from serving or being employed directly, or
through a contract, with a public employer, as defined, in the same
retirement system from which they receive their benefits, except as expressly
permitted. Both PERL and PEPRA generally prescribe limits on the manner and
duration that retired members may be employed without reinstatement. PERL
requires a person who is employed in violation of its reinstatement
requirements to be reinstated in the member category previously held and on
the date on which the unlawful employment occurred. In these circumstances,
PERL requires that a retired member reimburse the system for the person’s
allowance received during the periods of the unlawful employment, to pay to
the system employee contributions that otherwise should have been paid, and
to contribute for associated administrative expenses, as specified. PERL
requires employers in these circumstances to pay to the system the employer
contributions that otherwise should have been paid and to contribute for
associated administrative expenses, as specified. This bill would eliminate
the above-described requirement that a person employed without reinstatement
in a manner other than authorized by PERL be reinstated, instead providing
that reinstatement permissive. The bill would make conforming changes and
make specific reference to the duties of employees and employers regarding
reinstatement after retirement in violation of PEPRA.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 5/4/2020
Support letter sent to Asm. PE&R -- 5/4/2020
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2378
|
(Cooper D)
Public Employees’ Retirement System: postretirement death benefit.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/18/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/24/2020-Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Location: 2/24/2020-A. P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Summary: The Public Employees’
Retirement Law requires that, upon the death of certain members after
retirement and while receiving a retirement allowance, a specified sum of
money be paid to the member’s designated beneficiary. Existing law provides
that the additional employer contributions required to fund these benefits be
computed as a level percentage of member compensation, and requires the
contributions to be deposited in the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, a
continuously appropriated fund.This bill would authorize the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, beginning on or
after January 1, 2021, to adjust the death benefit amounts following each
actuarial valuation to reflect changes in the All Urban California Consumer
Price Index, as specified. By authorizing the board to increase contributions
deposited in the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, this bill would make an
appropriation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2394
|
(Cooper D)
Public Employees’ Retirement System: allowances: cost of living
adjustment.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/18/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/24/2020-Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Location: 2/24/2020-A. P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Public
Employees’ Retirement Law, establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement
System, which provides a defined benefit to members of the system, based on
final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to
certain variations. Existing law generally provides that retirement
allowances are adjusted annually to reflect increases in the cost of living
in relation to the consumer price index, as defined. Existing law defines
“consumer price index” for these purposes to mean the United States city
average “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” effective January 1,
1978. Existing law establishes the Department of Industrial Relations as an
instrumentality of California government.This bill would change the
definition of “consumer price index,” effective January 1, 2021, to instead
refer to the California Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for all
items, as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 179
|
(Nielsen R)
Excluded employees: arbitration.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 1/28/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/28/2019
|
|
|
Status: 9/15/2019-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule
61(a)(15). (Last location was INACTIVE FILE on 9/5/2019)(May be acted upon
Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 9/15/2019-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The Bill of Rights for State
Excluded Employees permits, among other things, excluded employee
organizations to represent their excluded members in their employment
relations, including grievances, with the state. That law defines excluded
employees as all managerial employees, confidential employees, supervisory
employees, as well as specified employees of the Department of Personnel
Administration, the Department of Finance, the Controller’s office, the
Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Bureau of State Audits, the Public Employment
Relations Board, the Department of Industrial Relations, and the State
Athletic Commission.This bill would enact the Excluded Employee Arbitration
Act to permit an employee organization that represents an excluded employee
who has filed certain grievances with the Department of Human Resources to
request arbitration of the grievance if specified conditions are met. The
bill would require the designation of a standing panel of arbitrators and,
under specified circumstances, the provision of arbitrators from the
California State Mediation and Conciliation Service within the Public
Employment Relations Board. The bill would then require the arbitrator to be
chosen in a specified manner and would prescribe the duties of that
arbitrator. The bill would provide that a party to the arbitration has the
right to have a certified shorthand reporter transcribe the proceeding and
that the transcription would be the official record of the proceeding. The
bill would require a nonprevailing party, other than an excluded employee, to
bear the costs of arbitration and would prohibit the costs of arbitration
from being passed on to the excluded employee.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 3/22/19
Support letter sent to Sen. LPE&R -- 3/22/19
Support letter sent to Sen. Judiciary -- 4/5/19
Support letter sent to Sen. APPR -- 4/19/19
Support letter sent to Asm. PE&R -- 6/14/19
Support letter sent to Asm. Judiciary -- 6/14/19
|
|
|
|
SB 266
|
(Leyva D)
Public Employees’ Retirement System: disallowed compensation: benefit
adjustments.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 9/3/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/12/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 9/3/2019
|
|
|
Status: 9/15/2019-9/15/2019-Failed Deadline
pursuant to Rule 61(a)(15). (Last location was DESK on 9/11/2019)(May be
acted upon Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 9/15/2019-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: (1)Existing law, the Public
Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), establishes the Public Employees’
Retirement System (PERS), which provides a defined benefit to members of the
system, based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement,
subject to certain variations. PERL authorizes a public agency to contract to
make its employees members of PERS and prescribes a process for this. PERS is
administered by its board of administration, which is responsible for
correcting errors and omissions in the administration of the system and the
payment of benefits. Existing law requires the board to correct all actions
taken as a result of errors or omissions of the state or a contracting
agency, in accordance with certain procedures. This bill would establish new
procedures under PERL for cases in which PERS determines that the benefits of
a member or annuitant are, or would be, based on disallowed compensation that
conflicts with PEPRA and other specified laws and thus impermissible under
PERL. The bill would also apply these procedures retroactively to
determinations made on or after January 1, 2017, if an appeal has been filed
and the employee member, survivor, or beneficiary has not exhausted their
administrative or legal remedies. At the threshold, after determining that
compensation for an employee member reported by the state, school employer,
or a contracting agency is disallowed, the bill would require the applicable
employer to discontinue the reporting of the disallowed compensation. The
bill would require that contributions made on the disallowed compensation,
for active members, be credited against future contributions on behalf of the
state, school employer, or contracting agency that reported the disallowed
compensation and would require that the state, school employer, or
contracting agency return to the member any contributions paid by the member
or on the member’s behalf. This bill contains other related provisions and
other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 6/14/19
Support letter sent to Asm. PE&R -- 6/14/19
Support letter sent to Asm. APPR -- 7/5/19
|
|
Oppose
|
|
|
|
AB 2998
|
(Kiley R)
Teachers: defined contribution plans: salaries.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on P.E. &
R.
|
|
|
Location: 4/24/2020-A. P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Teachers’
Retirement Law, establishes the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) and
creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers’ Retirement Plan,
which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation,
credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. STRS
is administered by the Teachers’ Retirement Board. The Defined Benefit
Program is funded by employer and employee contributions, as well as
investment returns and state appropriations, which are deposited or credited
to the Teachers’ Retirement Fund.This bill contains other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 1067
|
(Moorlach R)
Local agencies: refunding bonds: pension obligations.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/6/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/6/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/6/2020-From committee with author's
amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on GOV. &
F.
|
|
|
Location: 2/27/2020-S. GOV. & F.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law generally
authorizes local agencies to issue bonds and distinguishes between different
types of bonds for this purpose. Existing law regulates the issuance of
refunding bonds by a local agency, which are issued for the purpose of
refunding other indebtedness, as specified. The California Constitution
prohibits a county, city, town, township, board of education, or school
district from incurring a debt or liability in any manner or for any purpose
exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for the year, without
approval by 2/3 of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to
be held for that purpose, except for certain debts issued for public schools,
as specified. Existing case law has qualified this prohibition by creating
certain exceptions that have been judicially deemed not to implicate it,
including for revenue bonds and for obligations imposed by law. The
California Constitution generally authorizes the Legislature to provide
maximum property tax rates and bonding limits for local governments. Existing
law authorizes a local agency that intends to issue refunding bonds to do so
without submitting the question of the issuance to a vote of the qualified
electors of the local agency.This bill would require that refunding bonds to
be used to refund pension obligation bonds with specified characteristics be
approved by 55 percent of the voters of the local agency voting on the
proposition that authorizes the indebtedness. The bill would apply this
requirement to bonds issued on or after January 1, 2021, for the purpose of
refunding pension obligations, and the bonds to be refunded have a maturity
date of more than 36 months after the date the bonds are issued.This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 1297
|
(Moorlach R)
Public employees’ retirement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/5/2020-Referred to Com. on L., P.E. &
R.
|
|
|
Location: 3/5/2020-S. L., P.E. &
R.
|
|
|
Summary: (1)Existing law creates various
public employee retirement systems in the state, including the Public
Employees’ Retirement System, the State Teachers’ Retirement System, the
Judges’ Retirement System, the Judges’ Retirement System II, county and
district retirement systems created pursuant to the County Employees
Retirement Law of 1937, the University of California Retirement Plan, various
transit district retirement systems, and other independent public retirement
systems. These systems, which are supported by member and employer
contributions and investment earnings, may provide defined benefits to their
members based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement,
subject to certain variations. This bill would revise the provision of pension
and other benefits to members of all state or local public retirement
systems. The bill would apply its provisions prospectively to any member of a
state or local public retirement system who is employed upon the date of its
enactment and to any person who may be employed and become a member
thereafter. The bill would void any limit on a pension that prohibits the
pension from exceeding a percentage of final compensation, as specified. The
bill would prohibit a local entity from establishing a deferred retirement
option program, as described, and if a local entity has established a
deferred retirement option program, whether or not the program is closed to
new participants, it would be required to disenroll any participating
employees and close the program. With regard to any member of a state or
local public retirement system, the bill would require that final annual
compensation used for purposes of ascertaining any pension or benefit be
calculated as an average of the member’s 3 highest earning years. The bill
would prohibit, for any method of calculating a pension that is based on
fractional percentage of final compensation multiplied by years of service
with respect to a particular age at retirement, that fractional percentage
from exceeding 2.7%.This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws.
|
|
|
|
Watch
|
|
|
|
AB 103
|
(Committee on Budget) Health.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/20/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2018
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/20/2019
|
|
|
Status: 6/26/2019-Re-referred to Com. on B. &
F.R.
|
|
|
Location: 6/26/2019-S. BUDGET &
F.R.
|
|
|
Summary: (1)Until January 1, 2022,
existing law establishes the Council on Health Care Delivery Systems to
develop a plan that includes options for advancing progress toward achieving
a health care delivery system in California that provides coverage and access
through a unified financing system for all Californians. Existing law, on or
before October 1, 2021, requires the council to submit to the Legislature and
Governor a plan with options that include a timeline of the benchmarks and
steps necessary to implement health care delivery system changes. Existing
law authorizes the California Health and Human Services Agency to provide
staff support to implement these requirements.Until January 1, 2022, this
bill would instead establish the Healthy California for All Commission for
purposes of developing a plan that includes options for advancing progress
toward achieving a health care delivery system in California that provides
coverage and access through a unified financing system, including, but not
limited to, a single-payer financing system, for all Californians. The bill
would require the commission, by July 1, 2020, to submit a report to the
Legislature and the Governor with, among other things, an analysis of
California’s existing health care delivery system and options to transition
to a unified financing system, including a single-payer financing system. The
bill would also require the commission, by February 1, 2021, to submit a
report to the Legislature and the Governor that includes options for key
design considerations for a unified financing system, including a
single-payer financing system. The bill would require those reports to be
posted on the California Health and Human Services Agency’s internet
website.(2)Under existing law, an individual is eligible for Medi-Cal
benefits, to the extent required by federal law, as though the individual was
pregnant, for all pregnancy-related and postpartum services for a 60-day
period beginning on the last day of pregnancy.This bill would, subject to an
appropriation in the annual Budget Act, extend Medi-Cal eligibility for a
pregnant individual who is receiving health care coverage under the Medi-Cal
program, or another specified program, and who has been diagnosed with a
maternal mental health condition, for a period of one year following the last
day of the individual’s pregnancy if the individual complies with certain
requirements. The bill would define “maternal mental health condition” for
purposes of the bill. The bill would suspend implementation of these provisions
on December 31, 2021, unless specified circumstances apply. (3)The federal
Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance
furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or
otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of
law.Existing law requires that individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in
restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services
makes a determination that systems have been programmed for implementation of
these provisions be enrolled in the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits, if
otherwise eligible. Existing law requires the department to maximize federal
financial participation in implementing the provisions.This bill would extend
eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals 19 to 25 years of
age, inclusive, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for
their immigration status. This bill would additionally require the department
to claim federal financial participation to the extent that the department
determines it is available, and to the extent that federal financial
participation is not available, would require the department to use state
funds. Because counties are required to make eligibility determinations and
this bill would expand Medicaid eligibility, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.(4)Existing law also requires the State
Department of Health Care Services to exercise its option under federal law
to implement a program for aged and disabled persons, as described. Existing
law requires an individual under these provisions to satisfy certain
financial eligibility requirements, including, among other things, that the
individual’s countable income does not exceed an income standard equal to
100% of the applicable federal poverty level, plus an income disregard of
$230 for an individual, or $310 in the case of a couple, except that the
income standard determined shall not be less than the SSI/SSP payment level
for a disabled individual or couple, as applicable. Existing law requires the
department to implement this program by means of all-county letters or
similar instructions without taking regulatory action and thereafter requires
the department to adopt regulations.This bill would instead require, upon
receipt of federal approval, all countable income over 100% of the federal
poverty level, up to 138% of the federal poverty level, to be disregarded,
after taking all other disregards, deductions, and exclusions into account
for those persons eligible under the program for aged and disabled persons.
The bill would require that provision to be implemented after the Director of
Health Care Services determines, and communicates that determination in
writing to the Department of Finance, that systems have been programmed for
implementation of that provision, but no sooner than January 1, 2020.The bill
would require the department to implement, interpret, or make specific the
above-described program for aged and disabled persons by means of all-county
letters, plan or provider bulletins, or similar instructions until
regulations are adopted, and would require the department to adopt
regulations by July 1, 2023. The bill would require the department to provide
a status report on a semiannual basis to the Legislature until regulations
are adopted. The bill would require the implementation of the program only if
and to the extent that any necessary federal approvals have been
obtained.Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility
determinations, and this bill would expand Medi-Cal eligibility by increasing
the income disregard amounts and would increase the responsibility of
counties in determining Medi-Cal eligibility, the bill would impose a
state-mandated local program.(5)Existing federal law establishes the Program
of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), which provides specified
services for older individuals, and authorizes states to implement the PACE
program as a Medicaid state option. Existing law authorizes the State
Department of Health Care Services to enter into contracts with public or
private organizations for implementation of the PACE program and to enter
into separate contracts with PACE organizations. Existing law requires the
State Department of Health Care Services to develop and pay capitation rates
to contracted PACE organizations using actuarial methods and in accordance
with criteria specific to those organizations, based on, among other things,
a standardized rate methodology across managed care plan models for
comparable populations. Existing law requires the department to pay a
capitation rate within the actuarially sound rate range during the first 2
years in which a new PACE organization enters a previously unserved area.This
bill would require the department’s rate methodology to be consistent with
actuarial rate development principles and to provide for all reasonable,
appropriate, and attainable costs for each PACE organization within a region.
During the first 2 years in which a new PACE organization enters a previously
unserved area, the bill would require the department to pay a capitation rate
within the actuarially sound rate range to reflect the lower enrollment and
higher operating costs associated with a new PACE organization.(6)Existing
law redirects specified 1991 health realignment funds to pay an increased
county contribution toward the cost of CalWORKs grants, a county contribution
toward the costs of the CalWORKs single allocation, or both. Existing law
specifies the formula to be used in determining the amount of funds that are
required to be redirected, which varies depending on the method a county uses
to provide indigent health care services. Existing law requires, for counties
that provide indigent health care services via the County Medical Services Program
(CMSP), 60% of 1991 health realignment funds be redirected to the Family
Support Subaccount.This bill would instead require, for counties that
participate in CMSP, the amount identified on a specified schedule that would
have otherwise been payable to the CMSP, and the amount that would have
otherwise been allocated to the governing board of the CMSP, be redirected
until the Department of Finance determines that the total reserves of the
CMSP are projected to fall below an amount totaling 2 fiscal years of total
expenditures, and, after the Department of Finance makes that determination,
the bill would reinstate the existing formula for determining the amount of
1991 health realignment funds that are redirected to the Family Support
Subaccount. By increasing county payments to the Family Support Subaccount of
the continuously appropriated Local Revenue Fund, this bill would make an
appropriation.(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This
bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that
the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs
shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.(8)This bill
would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for
appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 160
|
(Voepel R)
Employment policy: voluntary veterans’ preference.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/29/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/7/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/29/2019
|
|
|
Status: 7/10/2019-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule
61(a)(10). (Last location was JUD. on 5/29/2019)(May be acted upon Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 7/10/2019-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Under the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is an unlawful employment practice for
an employer, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or
applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State
of California, to refuse to hire or employ a person or to refuse to select a
person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or discharge a
person from employment or a training program leading to employment, or to
discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment because of the race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity,
gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status of
that person. FEHA provides that nothing in that act relating to
discrimination on account of sex affects the right of an employer to use
veteran status as a factor in employee selection or to give special
consideration to Vietnam-era veterans.This bill would enact the Voluntary
Veterans’ Preference Employment Policy Act to authorize a private employer to
establish and maintain a written veterans’ preference employment policy, to
be applied uniformly to hiring decisions, to give a voluntary preference for
hiring or retaining a veteran over another qualified applicant or employee.
The bill would provide that the granting of a veterans’ preference pursuant
to the bill, in and of itself, shall be deemed not to violate any local or
state equal employment opportunity law or regulation, including, but not
limited to, the antidiscrimination provisions of FEHA. The bill would revise
the existing veteran status provision in FEHA to remove references to
discrimination on account of sex and to Vietnam-era veterans, and would,
instead, provide that nothing in that act relating to discrimination affects
the right of an employer to use veteran status as a factor in hiring
decisions if the employer maintains a veterans’ preference employment policy
established in accordance with the Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment
Policy Act. The bill would prohibit a veterans’ preference employment policy
from being established or applied for the purpose of discriminating against
an employment applicant on the basis of a protected classification, as
specified. The bill would make the Voluntary Veterans’ Preference Employment
Policy Act contingent upon the United States Department of Defense rescinding
a specified policy prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in the
United States Armed Forces, as provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 462
|
(Rodriguez D)
Asset management: emerging managers.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/21/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/11/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/21/2019
|
|
|
Status: 5/21/2019-From committee chair, with
author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time,
amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
|
|
|
Location: 4/23/2019-S. RLS.
|
|
|
Summary: The California Constitution
grants the retirement board of a public employee retirement system plenary
authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and
administration of the retirement fund and system. The Public Employees’
Retirement Law creates the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund for the benefit
of the members and retired members of this retirement system and their
survivors and beneficiaries. The Board of Administration of the Public
Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) has the exclusive control of the
administration and investment of the retirement fund.The Teachers’ Retirement
Law establishes the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) for the benefit
of teachers and other persons employed in connection with the schools of this
state. STRS is administered by the Teachers’ Retirement Board. This bill
would require the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement
System and the Teachers’ Retirement Board to each provide a report to the
Legislature, commencing March 1, 2021, and annually thereafter, on the status
of achieving appropriate objectives and initiatives, to be defined by the
boards, regarding participation of emerging managers responsible for asset
management within each system’s portfolio of investments. The bill would
require that the report be based on contracts that the system enters into on
and after January 1, 2020, and be based on information from the prior fiscal
year. The bill would require each report to include certain elements and
would require the boards to define emerging manager for purposes of these
provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1002
|
(Quirk-Silva D)
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Low-Carbon Fuel
Standard regulations: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 1/27/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 1/27/2020
|
|
|
Status: 1/27/2020-From committee chair, with
author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time,
amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.
|
|
|
Location: 5/30/2019-S. RLS.
|
|
|
Summary: The California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 establishes the State Air Resources Board as the state
agency responsible for monitoring and regulating sources emitting greenhouse
gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based
compliance mechanisms. Pursuant to the act, the state board has adopted the
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations. Existing law requires all moneys,
except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board from a
market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office to annually submit a
report to the Legislature on the economic impacts and benefits of specified
greenhouse gas emissions targets.This bill would require the state board to
ensure alternative fuels are treated equally with regard to the requirements
for generating credits under the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard regulations. The
bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, require the Legislative Analyst’s
Office to also annually prepare an analysis of moneys allocated from the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, as specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1961
|
(Patterson R)
Whistleblower protection.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 1/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 1/22/2020-From printer. May be heard in
committee February 21.
|
|
|
Location: 1/21/2020-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California
Whistleblower Protection Act, prohibits an employee from interfering with a
person’s rights to disclose improper activity and be free from reprisal under
the act. The act authorizes the California State Auditor to conduct an
investigation upon receiving specific information that an employee or state
agency has engaged in an improper governmental activity, as defined. The act
applies to state agencies, as defined, and to the University of California,
the California State University, and courts, as specified. The act requires
the auditor to establish a means of submitting allegations of improper
governmental activity, and generally requires the California State Auditor to
keep confidential every investigation, including all investigative files and
work product. Under the act, a person who intentionally engages in acts of
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state
employee or an applicant for state employment for having made a protected
disclosure is subject to civil liability and criminal penalties. The act
defines a “protected disclosure” to mean, among other things, a good faith
communication that discloses information that may evidence an improper
governmental activity. The act specifically includes in “protected
disclosure” a good faith communication to the California State Auditor’s
Office alleging an improper governmental activity and any evidence delivered
to the California State Auditor’s Office in support of the allegation. Under
the act, “protected disclosure” also includes, but is not limited to, a
complaint made to the Commission on Judicial Performance.This bill would
expand the definition of the term “protected disclosure” to include a
complaint made to a Member of the Legislature, the Legislature, or any
subdivision thereof.This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1973
|
(Kamlager D)
Health care coverage: abortion services: cost sharing.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 2/27/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/22/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 2/27/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/2/2020-Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 2/27/2020-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Reproductive
Privacy Act, provides that the state may not deny or interfere with a
person’s right to choose or obtain an abortion prior to viability of the
fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the
person. The act defines “abortion” as a medical treatment intended to induce
the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live
birth.Existing law also provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is
administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which
qualified low-income individuals receive health care services through, among
other things, managed care plans licensed under the act that contract with
the State Department of Health Care Services.Existing law, the Knox-Keene
Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and
regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health
Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also
provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of
Insurance. Existing law requires group and individual health care service
plan contracts and disability insurance policies to cover contraceptives,
without cost sharing, as specified.This bill would prohibit a health care service
plan or an individual or group policy of disability insurance that is issued,
amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2021, from imposing a
deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or any other cost-sharing requirement on
coverage for all abortion services, as specified, and additionally would
prohibit cost sharing from being imposed on a Medi-Cal beneficiary for those
services. The bill would apply the same benefits with respect to an
enrollee’s or insured’s covered spouse and covered nonspouse dependents. The
bill would not require an individual or group health care service plan
contract or disability insurance policy to cover an experimental or
investigational treatment.Because a violation of the bill by a health care
service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This
bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a
specified reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2101
|
(Committee on Public Employment and Retirement) Public
employees’ retirement: required distributions: age.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/6/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To
Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: (1)The Public Employees’
Retirement Law (PERL) establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System
(PERS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to state employees and
employees of contracting agencies. Existing law requires administration of
PERS by the Board of Administration of PERS. Existing law creates the Public
Employees’ Retirement Fund as a trust fund to be expended only for purposes
related to the system and its administration, as specified, and provides that
the fund is continuously appropriated for these purposes. Existing law, the
California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), on and after
January 1, 2013, generally requires a public retirement system, as defined,
to modify its plan or plans to comply with the act, as specified. This bill
would make various technical and clarifying changes to these provisions,
including specifying that data filed on behalf of any member, retired member,
beneficiary, or annuitant is also confidential and that data may be divulged
to other retirement systems that provide reciprocal benefits to members of
PERS. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2144
|
(Arambula D)
Health care coverage: step therapy.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/12/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/10/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/12/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/16/2020-Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 2/20/2020-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene
Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene), provides for the licensure
and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed
Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law
provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of
Insurance. Existing law authorizes a health insurer to require step therapy
if there is more than one drug that is appropriate for the treatment of a
medical condition, and authorizes a health care service plan to utilize step
therapy consistent with Knox-Keene. Under existing law, if a health care
service plan, health insurer, or contracted physician group fails to respond
to a completed prior authorization request from a prescribing provider within
a specified timeframe, the prior authorization request is deemed to have been
granted.This bill would clarify that a health care service plan may require
step therapy if there is more than one drug that is appropriate for the treatment
of a medical condition. The bill would require a health care service plan or
health insurer to expeditiously grant a step therapy exception if specified
criteria are met. The bill would authorize an enrollee or insured or their
designee, guardian, primary care physician, or health care provider to file
an appeal of a prior authorization or the denial of a step therapy exception
request, and would require a health care service plan or health insurer to
designate a clinical peer to review those appeals. The bill would require a
health care service plan, health insurer, or utilization review organization
to annually report specified information about their step therapy exception
requests and prior authorization requests to the Department of Managed Health
Care or the Department of Insurance, as appropriate. The bill would require a
prior authorization request or step therapy exception request to be deemed to
have been granted if a health care service plan, health insurer, or
contracted physician group fails to send an approval or denial within a
specified timeframe. Because a willful violation of the bill’s requirements
relative to health care service plans would be a crime, the bill would impose
a state-mandated local program.This bill contains other related provisions
and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2159
|
(Wood D)
Health care coverage.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/10/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/10/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/17/2020-In committee: Hearing postponed
by committee.
|
|
|
Location: 2/20/2020-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Summary: The federal Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacts various health care market reforms.
Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department
of Insurance. Existing law requires a health insurer that issues, sells,
renews, or offers plan contracts for health care coverage in the state to
comply with the requirements of the PPACA, and any rules or regulations
issued under the PPACA, that generally prohibit a health insurer offering
group or individual coverage from imposing lifetime or annual limits on the
dollar value of benefits for an insured. Existing law requires an insurer to
comply with those provisions to the extent required by federal law. This bill
would delete the requirement that a health insurer comply with the
prohibition on lifetime or annual limits to the extent required by federal
law, and would instead prohibit an individual or group health insurance
policy from establishing lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of
benefits for an insured, thereby indefinitely extending the prohibitions on
lifetime or annual limits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2212
|
(Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review)
State employees: pay system: warrants upon death.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/12/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/12/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/2/2020-Referred to Coms. on A. & A.R.
and P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Location: 3/2/2020-A. A. & A.R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law authorizes an
employee of the state to file with their appointing power a designation of a
person who may, upon the employee’s death, receive the employee’s warrants.
Existing law requires the appointing power, upon sufficient proof of
identity, to deliver the warrants to the person making claim to the warrants.
Existing law entitles a designated person who receives warrants to negotiate
the warrants as if they were the payee.This bill would revise that provision
to instead require the appointing power, upon sufficient proof of the
person’s identity, to endorse and deposit the warrants in a specified manner
and issue a revolving fund check in the original amount payable to the
designated person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2242
|
(Levine D)
Mental health services.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/13/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/13/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/20/2020-Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 2/20/2020-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene
Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and
regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health
Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also
provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of
Insurance. Existing law requires an individual or small group health care
service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed
on or after January 1, 2017, to include coverage for essential health
benefits, which include mental health services.This bill would require a
health care service plan or a health insurance policy issued, amended, or
renewed on or after January 1, 2021, that includes coverage for mental health
services to, among other things, approve the provision of mental health
services for persons who are detained for 72-hour treatment and evaluation
under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and to schedule an initial outpatient
appointment for that person with a licensed mental health professional on a
date that is within 48 hours of the person’s release from detention. The bill
would prohibit a noncontracting provider of covered mental health services
from billing the previously described enrollee or insured more than the
cost-sharing amount the enrollee or insured would pay to a contracting
provider for those services. Because a willful violation of the bill’s
requirement by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.This bill contains other related
provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2328
|
(Garcia,
Cristina D) Civil service: Limited Examination and
Appointment Program.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/14/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/14/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/16/2020-In committee: Hearing postponed
by committee.
|
|
|
Location: 2/24/2020-A. P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law creates the
Department of Human Resources, which succeeds to and is vested with all of
the powers and duties exercised and performed by the Department of Personnel
Administration. Existing law specifically grants the department the powers, duties,
and authority necessary to operate the state civil service system in
accordance with Article VII of the California Constitution, the Government
Code, the merit principle, and applicable rules duly adopted by the State
Personnel Board. Existing law creates the Limited Examination and Appointment
Program (LEAP), which the Department of Human Resources administers, to
provide an alternative to the traditional civil service examination and
appointment process to facilitate the hiring of persons with disabilities.
Existing law will repeal certain provisions of LEAP on January 1, 2021.
Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, when an appointing
power seeks to fill a vacant position by using an employment list, to provide
the appointing power with a certified list of the names and addresses of all
eligible candidates, as specified. Existing law requires the department to
provide a single certified list of eligible candidates if more than one
employment list or LEAP referral list exists, the department is required to
combine the names and addresses of all eligible candidates. This bill would
require, notwithstanding those provisions, that the department, upon request
of the appointing power, provide the appointing power a LEAP referral list
without combining that list with a parallel list. The bill would require the
department to establish guidelines for provision of reasonable accommodation
to applicants and employees with disabilities and to promulgate a model
reasonable accommodation policy, as specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2473
|
(Cooper D)
Public investment funds.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/19/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/19/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-From committee: Do pass and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 5). Re-referred to Com. on
APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California
Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records
available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies.
Existing law excludes from the disclosure requirement certain records regarding
alternative investments in which public investment funds invest.This bill
would exempt from disclosure under the act specified records regarding an
internally managed private loan made directly by a public investment fund,
including quarterly and annual financial statements of the borrower or its
constituent owners, unless the information has already been publicly released
by the keeper of the information.This bill contains other related provisions
and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2758
|
(Cooper D)
Alternative workweek schedule: agricultural employees.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on L. & E.
|
|
|
Location: 4/24/2020-A. L. & E.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law authorizes an
employer to propose a regularly scheduled alternative workweek that
authorizes work by the affected employees for no longer than 10 hours per day
within a 40-hour workweek without the payment to the affected employees of an
overtime rate of compensation and that will be adopted if it receives
approval in a secret ballot election by at least 2/3 of affected employees in
a work unit. Existing law establishes a time and 1/2 overtime rate for
affected employees for any work in excess of the regularly scheduled hours
established by the alternative workweek agreement and for any work in excess
of 40 hours per week. Existing law establishes a minimum double-time rate for
work in excess of 12 hours per day and for any work in excess of 8 hours on
those days worked beyond the regularly scheduled workdays established by the
alternative workweek agreement.Other existing law relating only to
agricultural employees phases in overtime requirements according to a
prescribed schedule over the course of 4 years, from 2019 to 2022, inclusive.
Beginning January 1, 2022, existing law prohibits any person employed in an
agricultural occupation from being employed more than 8 hours in any one
workday or working in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, unless the
employee receives one and 1/2 times that employee’s regular rate of pay for
all hours worked over 8 hours in any workday or over 40 hours in any
workweek. Beginning January 1, 2022, existing law requires any work performed
by a person employed in an agricultural occupation in excess of 12 hours in
one day to be compensated at a minimum double-time rate. Under existing law,
employers who employ 25 or fewer employees have an additional 3 years to
comply with the phasing in of these overtime requirements. This bill would
require, for purposes of those alternative workweek provisions, that an
affected employee employed in an agricultural occupation working longer than
8 hours, but not more than 12 hours in a day, pursuant to an alternative
workweek schedule, be paid an overtime rate of compensation according to the
agricultural employee overtime phase-in provisions, as specified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2830
|
(Wood D)
Health care cost transparency database.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/20/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/2/2020-Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 3/2/2020-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Calendar: 5/18/2020 10 a.m. -
Assembly Chambers ASSEMBLY HEALTH, WOOD, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law states the intent
of the Legislature to establish a Health Care Cost Transparency Database to
collect information on the cost of health care, and requires the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development to convene a review committee to
advise the office on the establishment and implementation of the database.
Existing law requires, subject to appropriation, the office to establish,
implement, and administer the database by January 1, 2023. Existing law
exempts contracts entered into by the office from provisions of the Public
Contract Code. Existing law requires certain health care entities, including
a health care service plan, to provide specified information to the office
for collection in the database. Existing law provides that a violation of
these provisions is not a crime.This bill would state the intent of the
Legislature to establish a system to collect health information related to
health care cost, quality, and efficiency by January 1, 2022. The bill would
direct the office to take a number of actions with respect to developing and
implementing the Health Care Cost Transparency Database, including, among
other things, ensuring the database can map to other databases, contracting
with a data collection vendor, as necessary, collecting and incorporating
data from other state and federal agencies, developing and maintaining a
master person index, a master provider index, and a master payer index,
developing data quality and improvement processes, and developing an
information security program to ensure the privacy of individuals and the
security of the data collected. The bill would authorize the office to impose
a user fee on eligible users of the database in an amount that does not
exceed the office’s administrative costs in providing eligible users access
to the database.This bill contains other related provisions and other
existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2874
|
(Gabriel D)
Individual retirement accounts.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/24/2020-Read first time.
|
|
|
Location: 2/21/2020-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: Existing federal law provides
for tax-qualified retirement plans and individual retirement accounts or
individual retirement annuities by which private citizens may save money for
retirement. Existing law modifies, for state income tax purposes, provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code relating to individual retirement accounts.This
bill would make a nonsubstantive change to that state provision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 2967
|
(O'Donnell D)
Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act: firefighters and
public safety officers.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on P.E. &
R. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation:
To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Public
Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act, which is administered by the Board
of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, governs the
funding and provision of postemployment health care benefits for eligible
retired public employees and their beneficiaries. The act deems a surviving
spouse or other eligible family member of certain firefighters or peace
officers, whose deaths occur as a result of injury or disease arising out of
their official duties, to be an annuitant, as specified, for purposes of
enrollment in a health benefit plan, if the spouse or family member is
uninsured. Existing law requires the employer of the deceased firefighter or
peace officer to notify the board within 10 business days of the death of the
employee, among other things, if that spouse or family member may be eligible
for enrollment.This bill would reduce the period within which an employer is
to provide notice to the board, as described above, to within 7 calendar
days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 3069
|
(Lackey R)
State employment: homeless and foster youth: pilot program.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-From committee: Do pass and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 5). Re-referred to Com. on
APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law creates the
Department of Human Resources, which succeeds to and is vested with all of
the powers and duties exercised and performed by the Department of Personnel
Administration. Existing law specifically grants the department the powers, duties,
and authority necessary to operate the state civil service system in
accordance with Article VII of the California Constitution, the Government
Code, the merit principle, and applicable rules duly adopted by the State
Personnel Board. Existing law creates the Limited Examination and Appointment
Program (LEAP), which the Department of Human Resources administers, to
provide an alternative to the traditional civil service examination and
appointment process to facilitate the hiring of persons with disabilities,
including a LEAP internship program. Existing law will repeal the LEAP
internship on January 1, 2021. This bill, until January 1, 2026, would
require the Department of Human Resources to establish and administer a LEAP
internship pilot program for homeless youth and former foster youth. The bill
would require the department to work with the Department of Social Services
in implementing the program. The bill would define former foster youth and
homeless youth for these purposes. The bill would require the department to
conduct competitive examinations to determine the qualifications and
readiness of a homeless youth or former and former foster youth for state
employment, which would be permitted to include on-the-job-performance
evaluation and any other selection techniques deemed appropriate. The bill
would also require the department to permit an applicant youth to complete a
written examination or readiness evaluation, or to complete an internship, as
specified, in order to qualify for service in a position under the program.
The use of an internship as a competitive examination would be subject to
specified requirements.This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 3249
|
(Fong R)
Public retirement: Controller: annual report.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/9/2020-Referred to Com. on P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Location: 3/9/2020-A. P.E. & R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law requires state and
local public retirement systems to submit audited financial statements to the
Controller at the earliest practicable opportunity within 6 months of the
close of each fiscal year, and requires the Controller, within 12 months of
receipt of the information, to compile and publish a report on the financial
condition of all state and local public retirement systems.This bill would
additionally require the Controller to post the report on the financial
condition of all state and local public retirement systems on the
Controller’s internet website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 3265
|
(McCarty D)
Whistleblowers: California State Auditor: State Personnel Board.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
|
|
|
Location: 4/24/2020-A. JUD.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law creates the
California State Auditor’s Office, which is independent of the executive
branch and legislative control, to examine and report annually upon the
financial statements prepared by the executive branch. Other existing law,
the California Whistleblower Protection Act, authorizes the California State
Auditor to conduct an investigative audit upon receiving specific information
that an employee or state agency has engaged in an improper governmental
activity, as defined. The act requires the auditor to administer its
provisions and to investigate and report on improper governmental activities.
The act requires the auditor, if, after investigating, the auditor finds that
an employee may have engaged or participated in improper governmental activities,
to prepare an investigative report and send a copy of the investigative
report to the employee’s appointing power. The act prohibits an employee from
directly or indirectly using or attempting to use the official authority or
influence of the employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening,
coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
command any person for the purpose of interfering with the rights conferred
pursuant to the act. This bill would specify that the improper activities to
be investigated and reported on include actual or attempted acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts as prohibited by the
act. The act requires the auditor to create the means for the submission of allegations
of improper governmental activity, as prescribed, and authorizes the auditor,
upon receiving specific information that any employee or state agency has
engaged in an improper governmental activity, to conduct an investigation of
the matter.This bill would require the auditor to provide a dated notice of
receipt of submission to the person submitting an allegation of improper
governmental activity.The act requires the auditor, if, after investigating
an allegation, the auditor finds that a state agency or employee may have
engaged or participated in an improper governmental activity, to prepare an
investigative report and send a copy of that report to the head of the agency
involved and to the head of any other agency that has direct oversight over
that involved agency. Under the act, the auditor does not have any
enforcement power with regard to such a violation. This bill would require
the auditor, upon request, to also notify the employee providing the
information that initiated the investigation that an investigative report has
been issued. The bill would require the auditor, if the auditor finds that a
state agency or employee may have engaged in actual or attempted acts of
reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts as prohibited
by the act, to send a copy of those findings to the State Personnel Board.
The bill would require, in any civil action or administrative proceeding for
such a violation, that the investigative report and findings be made
available to the complainant, as specified.The act authorizes a state
employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint with
the employee or applicant’s supervisor, manager, or the appointing power
alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar prohibited improper acts, to also file a copy of the
written complaint in a prescribed manner with the board, together with a
sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are
believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. Under the act,
a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for state
employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not
to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in the county jail as prescribed. The act
provides for additional relief, including an action for damages by the
injured party, and provides for punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s
fees. Under these provisions, any action for damages is not available to the
injured party unless the injured party has first filed a complaint with the
board and the board has issued, or failed to issue, specified findings. This
bill would also authorize the filing of such a complaint with the auditor. By
expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would imposed a state-mandated
local program. The bill would subject a person who violates that protected
disclosure provision to a penalty of $25,000 and imprisonment. The bill would
also entitle an injured party, where liability has been established, to
specified costs. The bill, with respect to an action by the injured party,
would authorize a court to order specified appropriate relief. Under the
bill, it would not be a prerequisite for an action for damages for the
injured party to first file a complaint with the board. The bill would
authorize an employee, in any civil action or administrative proceeding
brought pursuant to these provisions, to petition the board or the superior
court in any county wherein the violation in question is alleged to have
occurred, or wherein the person resides or transacts business, for
appropriate temporary or preliminary injunctive relief. The bill would grant
the board or court jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctive relief, as
prescribed.The act contains complaint provisions specific to the University
of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Those
university provisions make certain persons who intentionally engage in acts
of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a UC or
CSU employee for having made a protected disclosure, subject to a fine not to
exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in the county jail, as prescribed. Under
those provisions, where liability has been established, the injured party is
entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Additionally, under those provisions,
an action for damages is not available until a complaint has been filed with
the university and the university has failed to reach a decision within
specified time limits.This bill would instead impose a penalty of $25,000 and
imprisonment. The bill would specify that an injured party’s reasonable
attorney’s fees include fees and costs for any actions or proceedings before the
State Personnel Board. The bill would authorize a court, if liability is
established, to order any appropriate relief, including, but not limited to,
reinstatement, backpay, restoration of lost service credit, if appropriate,
compensatory damages, and the expungement of any adverse records of the
employee or applicant for employment who was the subject of the alleged acts
of misconduct prohibited by the act. Under the bill, it would not be a
prerequisite for an action for damages for the injured party to first file a
complaint with the university. The act contains complaint provisions specific
to certain courts. Those provisions, except as specified, make a person who
intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or
similar acts against an employee or applicant for employment for having made
a protected disclosure, subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and
imprisonment in the county jail, as prescribed. Under the court provisions,
where liability has been established, the injured party is entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees.This bill would instead impose a penalty of
$25,000 and imprisonment. The bill would authorize a court, if liability is
established, to order any appropriate relief, including, but not limited to,
reinstatement, backpay, restoration of lost service credit, if appropriate,
compensatory damages, and the expungement of any adverse records of the
employee or applicant for employment who was the subject of the alleged acts
of misconduct prohibited by the act.Existing law authorizes the board to
initiate a hearing or investigation of a written complaint of prohibited
conduct within 10 working days of its submission. If the executive officer
finds that the supervisor, manager, employee, or appointing power retaliated
against the complainant for engaging in protected whistleblower activities,
the supervisor, manager, employee, or appointing power may request a hearing
before the board regarding the findings of the executive officer. If, after
the hearing, the board determines that a violation occurred, or if no hearing
is requested and the findings of the executive officer conclude that improper
activity has occurred, the board is authorized to order any appropriate
relief. Existing law requires, if a state employee is successful in an action
brought pursuant to these provisions, that the complaining employee be
reimbursed for specified costs.This bill would specify that appropriate
relief may include reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successful
prosecution of a retaliation complaint before the board. The bill would also
require the reimbursement of reasonable attorney’s fees for a successful
action by a complaining employee. Existing law relating to state civil
service disciplinary proceedings provides an employee 30 calendar days after
the effective date of an adverse action to file with the board a written
answer to the notice of adverse action, as prescribed.This bill would
additionally authorize an employee to file a complaint pursuant to the act
within that period.The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by
the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by
this act for a specified reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 3302
|
(Salas D)
State public employment: memorandum of understanding: State Bargaining
Unit 6.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/4/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/4/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2020-Re-referred to Com. on P.E. &
R. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.)
(May 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 5/5/2020-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a
provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer
and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service
employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless
approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. This bill would,
notwithstanding those provisions, require that the provisions of the
memorandum of understanding requiring the expenditure of funds to also become
effective if they are approved by the Legislature in legislation other than
the annual Budget Act. This bill would approve provisions requiring the
expenditure of funds in the memorandum of understanding, to be identified by
date, entered into between the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6,
but would specify that the provisions will not take effect unless funds for
those provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill
would require the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6 to meet and
confer to renegotiate the affected provisions if funds for those provisions
are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 3359
|
(Cooper D)
State employment.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/24/2020-Read first time.
|
|
|
Location: 2/21/2020-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the State Civil
Service Act, regulates employment with the state and vests in the Department
of Human Resources all powers, duties, and authority necessary to operate the
state civil service system. Existing law requires that appointments to state
employment generally be made from lists of eligible candidates established
pursuant to competitive examinations. Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act,
regulates the labor relations of the state. This bill would state the intent
of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions
that would require the state to make available to specified exclusive labor
representatives information regarding how many people have applied, been
interviewed, and have been hired or rejected for any state job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACA 2
|
(Nazarian D)
State tax agency.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 12/3/2018 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2018
|
|
|
Status: 5/24/2019-Referred to Com. on REV. &
TAX.
|
|
|
Location: 5/24/2019-A. REV. &
TAX
|
|
|
Summary: The California Constitution
establishes the State Board of Equalization, consisting of the Controller and
4 other members elected from districts, and provides for the election,
recall, impeachment, filling of vacancies, and salaries and benefits of those
board members elected from districts. The California Constitution vests the
board with various powers, duties, and responsibilities related to the
administration of taxes imposed on property, insurance, and alcoholic
beverages.This measure would abolish the State Board of Equalization and
instead require the Legislature to create a state tax agency by statute for
purposes of carrying out those powers, duties, and responsibilities
previously vested in the State Board of Equalization by the California
Constitution and by statute. The bill would authorize the Legislature to vest
all powers, duties, and responsibilities in a single state tax agency or
separately in multiple state tax agencies. The measure would deem the
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and the office of Tax
Appeals to be state tax agencies for purposes of these provisions and vest in
those entities specified powers, duties and responsibilities currently vested
in the State Board of Equalization. The measure would make conforming changes
by deleting various references to the State Board of Equalization throughout
the California Constitution, including in those provisions regarding the
election, recall, impeachment, filling of vacancies, and salaries and
benefits of members of the board, and make other nonsubstantive changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACA 24
|
(Low D)
Legislature: benefits and retirement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 2/24/2020-Read first time.
|
|
|
Location: 2/21/2020-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: (1) The California Constitution
directs the California Citizens Compensation Commission to establish and
adjust the salary and benefits for state officers, including Members of the
Legislature. This measure would remove the commission’s authority to
establish and adjust the benefits of Members of the Legislature first elected
to the Legislature for terms commencing on or after December 7, 2020, and
would instead require that the total monetary value of the medical, dental,
insurance, and other similar benefits for a Member of the Legislature who is
first elected to the Legislature for a term commencing on or after December
7, 2020, be equal to the total monetary value of those benefits provided to a
full-time employee of the house in which the Member serves. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 175
|
(Pan D)
Health care coverage.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 1/6/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/28/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 1/6/2020
|
|
|
Status: 1/27/2020-Read third time. Passed. (Ayes
39. Noes 0.) Ordered to the Assembly. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at
Desk.
|
|
|
Location: 1/27/2020-A. DESK
|
|
|
Summary: Existing federal law, the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacts various health
care market reforms. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan
Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service
plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation
of the act a crime. Existing law requires a health care service plan that
issues, sells, renews, or offers plan contracts for health care coverage in
the state to comply with the requirements of the PPACA, and any rules or
regulations issued under the PPACA, that generally prohibit a health plan
offering group or individual coverage from imposing lifetime or annual limits
on the dollar value of benefits for a participant or beneficiary. Existing
law requires a plan to comply with those provisions to the extent required by
federal law.This bill would delete the requirement that a plan comply with
the prohibition on lifetime or annual limits to the extent required by
federal law, and would instead prohibit an individual or group health care
service plan contract from establishing lifetime or annual limits on the
dollar value of benefits for an enrollee, thereby indefinitely extending the
prohibitions on lifetime or annual limits, except as specified. Because a
willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be
a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.The California
Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school
districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions
establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide
that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 430
|
(Wieckowski D)
Public employees’ retirement benefits: judges.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/17/2019 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2019
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/17/2019
|
|
|
Status: 7/10/2019-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule
61(a)(10). (Last location was P.E. & R. on 5/30/2019)(May be acted upon
Jan 2020)
|
|
|
Location: 7/10/2019-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The California Public
Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) generally requires a public
retirement system, as defined, to modify its pension plan or plans to comply
with the act, as specified. Among other things, PEPRA prohibits a public
employer offering a defined benefit pension plan from exceeding specified
retirement formulas for new members and prohibits an enhancement of a public
employee’s retirement formula or benefit adopted after January 1, 2013, from
applying to service performed prior to the operative date of the enhancement.
PEPRA defines terms for those purposes, including defining “new member” to
mean, among other things, an individual who becomes a member of any public
retirement system for the first time on or after January 1, 2013, and who was
not a member of any other public retirement system prior to that date. Existing
law creates the Judges’ Retirement System II, which is administered by the
Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, for the
provision of retirement and other benefits to specified judges and their
beneficiaries.This bill would grant a judge who was elected to office in
2012, but did not take office until on or after January 1, 2013, the option
of making a one-time, irrevocable election to have a pre-January 1, 2013,
membership status in the Judges’ Retirement System II for service accrued
after on and after July 1, 2020. The bill would require the election to be
made during a 30-day period beginning March 1, 2020. A judge making this
election would no longer be a new member under specified provisions of PEPRA.
The election would apply prospectively only, and membership rights and
obligations that accrued based on service subject to PEPRA prior to July 1,
2020, would remain unchanged. The bill would specify that the Public
Employees’ Retirement System is not obligated to inform or locate a person
who may be eligible to make the election and that its provisions do not
affect the Legislature’s reserved right to increase contributions or reduce
benefits for purposes of the Judges’ Retirement System II.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 1042
|
(Pan D)
Retirement savings.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/18/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/18/2020-March 25 hearing postponed by
committee.
|
|
|
Location: 2/27/2020-S. L., P.E.
& R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California
Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act, establishes the CalSavers
Retirement Savings Program to be administered by the California Secure Choice
Retirement Savings Investment Board. Existing law requires the Treasurer, on behalf
of the board, to appoint an executive director, who is not a member of the
board and who serves at its pleasure. Existing law requires eligible
employers to offer a payroll deposit retirement savings arrangement so that
eligible employees may contribute a portion of their salary or wages to a
retirement savings program account in the program, as specified. Existing law
requires the board to take various actions upon implementation of the program
and, for to up 3 years following its initial implementation of the program,
requires the board to establish managed accounts invested in United States
Treasuries, myRAs, or similar investments. Existing law states that the
program is implemented as of January 1, 2017. This bill would rename the
California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Trust Act as the CalSavers
Retirement Savings Trust Act, the body that administers the act as the
CalSavers Retirement Savings Board, and make conforming changes in this
regard. The bill would make various changes in the act to reflect that it has
been implemented, including eliminating the requirement to establish managed
accounts invested in United States Treasuries, myRAs, or similar investments
described above. The bill would authorize the board to delegate rulemaking
authority to its executive director. The bill would authorize an employee to
opt out of participation in the program by telephone and would eliminate a
condition relating to contribution amounts that depends on the length of time
that an employee has contributed to the program. This bill contains other
related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 1173
|
(Durazo D)
Public employment: labor relations: employee information.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/26/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2020
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/26/2020
|
|
|
Status: 5/8/2020-Set for hearing May 14.
|
|
|
Location: 3/5/2020-S. L., P.E. &
R.
|
|
|
Calendar: 5/14/2020 1:30 p.m. -
John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SENATE LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
AND RETIREMENT, HILL, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, including the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, the Trial Court Employment
Protection and Governance Act, the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and
Labor Relations Act, and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Transit Employer-Employee Relations Act, provisions commonly
referred to as the Educational Employment Relations Act, and the Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, among others, regulates the labor
relations of the state, the courts, and specified local public agencies and
their employees. Existing law requires these public employers to provide
certain labor representatives with the names and home addresses of newly
hired employees, as well as their job titles, departments, work locations,
telephone numbers, and personal email addresses, within 30 days of hire or by
the first pay period of the month following hire. Existing law also requires
the public employers to provide this information for all employees in a
bargaining unit at least every 120 days, except as specified. This bill would
generally authorize an exclusive representative to file a charge of an unfair
labor practice with the Public Employment Relations Board, as specified,
alleging a violation of the above-described requirements. The bill would
condition this authorization on the exclusive representative giving written
notice, as specified, to the public employer of the alleged violation and
would provide a public employer a limited opportunity to cure certain
violations. The bill would require the Public Employment Relations Board to
impose a penalty, not to exceed an unspecified amount, to be determined by
the board with reference to specified criteria. The bill would require that
an exclusive representative who prevails in these circumstances be awarded of
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 1408
|
(Dodd D)
State Route 37 Toll Bridge Act.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2020 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2020
|
|
|
Status: 3/12/2020-Referred to Coms. on TRANS. and
GOV. & F.
|
|
|
Location: 3/12/2020-S. TRANS.
|
|
|
Summary: The California Toll Bridge
Authority Act makes the California Transportation Commission, together with
the Department of Transportation, responsible for building and acquiring toll
facilities and related transportation facilities.This bill would require an
unspecified authority, on behalf of the state, to operate and maintain
tolling infrastructure, including by installing toll facilities, and charge
and collect tolls for the use of the Sonoma Creek Bridge, and to be
responsible for the design and construction of improvements on the bridge and
a segment of State Route 37 between its intersections with Route 121 in the
County of Sonoma and Walnut Avenue in the County of Solano in accordance with
programming and scheduling requirements adopted by the authority. The bill
would authorize the authority to issue bonds payable from the revenues
derived from those tolls. The bill would authorize those toll and bond
revenues to be used for specified purposes, including near-term and long-term
improvements to the segment of State Route 37 and the bridge to improve the
roadway’s mobility, safety, and long-term resiliency to sea level rise and
flooding. The bill would require the authority to update and approve an
expenditure plan for those toll and bond revenues on an annual basis
beginning on July 1 following implementation of a toll. The bill would
require the authority to develop and implement an equity program for the toll
bridge to reduce the impact of the toll on low-income drivers.This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|