Copyright© 2000 by School Services of California, Inc.
The Governor Gives a Little and Takes
a Little From Classified Employees
Governor Davis took action on several bills of interest to classified employees, signing a few bills and vetoing some. The measures that were vetoed were of particular concern to the community colleges.
The Governor signed the following bills:
AB 707 (House, R-Hughson), Chapter 951/00: Educational Employees
Senior classified administrative employee is defined as a classified employee who acts as the chief business, fiscal, facilities, or information technology advisor or administrator for the district chancellor or superintendent or a college president, as determined by the governing board and certified by the personnel commission.
Senior classified administrative employees would not have permanency in the exempt position, upon leaving the position, they would have the right to return to a position which they previously occupied, or it that position no longer exists, in a similar classification.
This legislation would authorize a community college district that participates in a merit system to exempt designated senior classified administrative positions from the provisions of law relative to classified employees of the community colleges. However, although they would have the same rights and privileges of other classified employees, these rights would not include permanency in the position, and they can be appointed from a qualifying eligibility list, rather that having to achieve rank on the list.
AB 2691 (Corbett, D-San Leandro), Chapter 488/00: Classified Employees: Personnel Commission Appointments
This bill modifies the way personnel commission members are appointed in K-12 and community college districts that have adopted "merit system" personnel policies. This legislation allows classified employees, in a merit system district adopted prior to September 15, 1965 (Compton, Los Angeles CCD, Santa Monica CCD and Ventura CCD), to petition the governing board to request that the majority of the classified employees of the district determine how personnel commission members are appointed.
The Governor vetoed the following bills:
AB 2578 (Wesson, D-Los Angeles) Lay-off Notices
This bill would have increased, from 30 days to 60 days, the current notification requirement that K-12 schools and community college districts must comply with prior to laying off classified school employees.
The Governor's veto message stated:
"I cannot support this measure because it would require school or community college districts to foresee their personnel needs 60 days in advance, which is not always possible. Many districts are not notified until the final weeks of the fiscal year of programs that will continue to be funded for the next year."
SB 358 (Ortiz, D-Sacramento) Short-term Employees
This bill would have prohibited the number of short-term employees in the classified service from exceeding 20 percent of the district's total classified workforce. The bill also would have required the governing board to specify the service to be preformed by the employee and to certify the ending date of the service, prior to hiring the short-term employee.
The Governor's veto message stated:
"I believe the enactment of this bill would restrict the ability of local school and community college districts to effectively and efficiently manage their administrative requirements and other workforce duties that require short-term employees. This measure would not provide any exceptions for short-term high demand time periods. One example is student registration at the beginning of each academic term, during which time many short-term employees are needed to provide services to students. For this reason I can not support this measure."
SB 360 (Solis, D-El Monte) Short-term Employees
This measure was all most identical to SB 358; the two measure were double-jointed. This bill would have required the governing board of the school or community college district to specify the service required to be performed by the employee and certify the estimated ending date of the service before employing a short-term employee. The bill also provided that the estimated ending date would not be binding on the employee or the board.
The Governor's veto message stated:
"By requiring the governing boards of school districts and community college districts to specify the services that each short-term employee is expected to perform preparatory to hiring them, this bill would make it logistically difficult to hire sufficient number of these staff to meet their operational needs. This would have the effect of forcing districts to hire an increased number of classified employees, who generally earn higher salary and benefit rates than short-term employees, to meet their staffing needs. As the increased costs associated with hiring these staff would be state-mandated, this legislation could cost hundreds of millions of dollars per year. In addition, to imposing significant costs, I believe this legislation would unnecessarily limit the ability of school and community college districts to implement personnel policies that best meet their individual needs."
--Arnold Bray