SCA 3 (Leno) - Concerns
As Amended on June 20, 2013

Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, by Senator Mark Leno, proposes an amendment to the California Constitution to require local agencies to comply with the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act and proposes an amendment to the Constitution that provides that the Legislature may, but need not, reimburse local agencies for legislative mandates contained in these Acts. If SCA 3 is signed by the Governor, it would be placed on the June 2014 statewide ballot.

CSAC has submitted a letter to the Legislature highlighting the concerns we have with the bill. SCA 3 represents a shift in course by the Legislature and Governor, whereby mandates that are politically popular may be put before the voters in order to relieve the state from reimbursement. SCA 3 sets a troubling precedent which leads to an additional concern about future costs.

Additionally, the Legislature’s consideration of costs associated with expanding the Acts has dramatically tempered action in this area. Since 2001, CSAC has followed 72 bills that would have amended the Brown Act or the Public Records Act. Those bills died in Appropriations Committees likely due to estimated costs associated with reimbursable mandates. Without this ‘threat’ of state costs for mandate reimbursement, the Legislature will have fewer reasons to withhold amendments to the Acts in the future. These potential future changes leave counties vulnerable to 
cost increases that we cannot control.

CSAC has submitted proposed amendments to SCA 3 to the author’s office; these amendments would require the Legislature to consider a fiscal analysis of expansions of the Acts prior to taking action on any bills that do so. It is yet unclear whether those amendments will be taken.

SCA 3 will be heard in the Assembly Budget Committee on August 22.

AB 1373 (Perez) - Oppose
As Introduced on February 22, 2013

Assembly Bill 1373, by Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, would extend from 240 weeks to 480 weeks the statute of limitations for when a claim can be filed for death benefits for dependents of a firefighter or peace officer who dies of certain occupational injuries (cancer, blood-borne infections diseases and tuberculosis). Counties will recall that Speaker Perez last year carried the same bill, AB 2451, which was vetoed by the Governor. A previous version of AB 1373 did not contain a specific time period for the statute of limitations. Sponsors of the bill maintained that this was to allow for discussions between stakeholders regarding time periods that will fairly compensate surviving dependents while maintaining the interests of public agencies to appropriately plan for potential budget obligations. 

At a meeting of the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation (CHSWC) in May, a representative from Bickmore Risk Services presented a report on the potential impacts of AB 1373, concluding that, due to a lack of usable data (including data regarding cancer rates of California’s public safety officers versus the general population, survival rates since the cause of the safety officer’s death is not always cancer, and the percentage of safety officers’ cancer diagnoses that are even reported as workers’ compensation claims), any foresight into the impact of this legislation on future death benefit claim rates and, therefore, on benefit payouts made by public agencies, would be a huge assumption at most.

AB 1373 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 19.

AB 537 (Bonta) – Oppose
As Amended on August 12, 2013

Assembly Bill 537, by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, would prohibit employers from restricting communication between local agency representatives and employee representatives as part of labor negotiation ground rules. This change is contrary to the understood ban on “direct dealing” where a member of a bargaining team communicates directly with the members of the union or the agency. The change is one-sided in that it does not prohibit the union from seeking a ground rule that the employer cannot communicate directly with employees. Additionally, the bill would requires that if a tentative agreement is reached by the authorized representatives of the public agency and a recognized employee organization or recognized employee organizations, that agreement must be presented to the governing body for determination and the governing body then has 30 days to reject the tentative agreement or it will be considered adopted. The MMBA currently states that a tentative agreement is provided to the governing body for review. Again, this change is one-sided in that the bill would not bind the employee representatives to the agreement until ratification by the employees.

The bill makes three changes related to arbitration:

• Applies the provisions of the California Arbitration Act to the enforcement of arbitration agreements under the MMBA;
• Prohibits a rejection of a request for arbitration due to procedural challenges (timelines, failure to exhaust pre-arbitration remedies); and,
• Makes an agreement to arbitrate a dispute enforceable, even if the conduct in question may also constitute an unfair labor practice.

Additionally, AB 537 requires parties to “meet and confer” over local rules rather than “consultation” and subjects an impasse over local rules to factfinding procedures.

AB 537 will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 19. Counties are encouraged to weigh in on this bill with their representatives.