Copyright© 1999 by School Services of California, Inc.
Governor Vetoes Employees Attempt To Gain
Greater Access To Personnel Files
The September 17, 1999 Update (see page 149) reported that two bills have reached the Governor's desk that were intended to give public employees greater access to their personnel files.
The first bill, SB 172 (Escutia, D-Montebello) was originally introduced to give public employees access to their personnel files to delete or correct materials that are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. Employers would have been required, within 30 days of receiving the request, to either make the requested change or place a written explanation of the reasons for not granting the request in the employee's personnel file. Upon a finding in favor of the employee, any adverse material in the files that have not been used as part of an official act of discipline of the employee within the past two years would be removed.
The second bill, AB 344 (Knox, D-Los Angeles) contained language that was intended to reduce the impact of SB 172 on public higher education institutions. Governor Davis signed AB 344 into law, but because of the veto on SB 172, it is inoperative. This legislation permits institutions of higher education to provide academic employees with access to academic peer review records in a form that does not reveal the identity of any of the reviewers. Also, material within an academic employee's file may not be removed if it is a part of an academic performance evaluation.
AB 344 was "double-joined" to SB 172, meaning that both bills must be signed by the Governor to become effective. Provisions of AB 344 specifically stated that this act shall become operative only if SB 172 is chaptered and become operative on or before January 1, 2000.
The Governor's veto message of SB 172 stated that the measure was flawed in several respects. First, it is vague and ambiguous. Currently, there are no established requirements regarding the content of personnel files, nor is there even a legal requirement for employers to maintain such files. So, it is unclear what exact files would come within the purview of SB 172.
Second, assuming there is a personnel file with negative material, this bill would allow removal of that material after two years and places some burden on the employer to purge files after two years. This could make it difficult to establish the existence of adequate cause for disciplinary action should it become necessary at a later date.
Third, allowing an employee to inspect his or her file at any time during business hours, with no loss of compensation, would be quite disruptive to the workplace environment. Employers should be allowed to establish rules of access.
As a result of the veto of SB 172, the provisions of AB 344 are now inoperative.
-- Arnold Bray