BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1718
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1718 (Perata)
As Amended August 8, 2008
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :34-4
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hernandez, Jeffries, |Ayes:|Leno, Caballero, Davis, |
| |Mullin, Furutani, Torrico | |DeSaulnier, Furutani, |
| | | |Huffman, Karnette, |
| | | |Krekorian, Lieu, Ma, |
| | | |Nava, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Anderson |Nays:|Walters, Emmerson, La |
| | | |Malfa, Nakanishi |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Personnel Administration
(DPA) to annually conduct a survey of specified public entities
relative to salary, compensation, and benefits paid to their
legal professionals in order to provide the state with an
accurate assessment of the relevant labor market. DPA is
required to report the findings and analysis of the survey to
the Legislature, Governor and the exclusive representative of
State Bargaining Unit (BU) 2, California Attorneys,
Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State
Employment (CASE), by March 15 of each year. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires DPA to conduct a survey of the following public
entities with respect to the state's attorneys:
a) The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office;
b) The Sacramento City Attorney's Office;
c) The San Francisco District Attorney's Office;
d) The Alameda County District Attorney's Office;
e) The Oakland City Attorney's Office;
f) The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office;
g) The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office;
SB 1718
Page 2
h) The San Diego County District Attorney's Office;
i) The San Diego City Attorney's Office;
j) The Fresno District Attorney's Office;
aa) The Fresno City Attorney's Office; and,
bb) The Habeas Corpus Resource Center.
2)Requires DPA, with respect to the state's administrative law
judges, hearing officers and commissioners, conduct a survey
of the compensation of federal administrative law judges in
California and judges on the California State Bar Court.
3)Requires the surveys to gather the following data:
a) The entire pay scale, including all steps and ranges,
from entry level to the highest non-managerial position;
b) All duty statements, minimum qualifications,
time-in-grade requirements and promotional standards;
c) All compensation in addition to base salary paid by the
employer, including retirement, health care, and other
allowances, premiums or differentials;
d) Complete and accurate descriptions of all benefits
available;
e) The average salary actually paid to all attorneys or
judges employed by all the surveyed entities;
f) The salaries actually paid to incoming, entry level
attorneys and judges;
g) The number of attorneys and judges at each salary level
with each entity; and,
h) The average years of postbar legal experience of
attorneys or judges at each salary level with each entity.
4)Requires DPA to issue an annual report, and provide it to the
Legislature, Governor, and CASE, by March 15 of each year
which shall include the above data as well as the following
analyses:
a) The average salaries actually paid to the highest paid
non-managerial attorney or judges; and,
b) The average salaries actually paid to entry-level
attorneys or judges.
5)Requires the report be accompanied by a declaration from the
Director of DPA certifying the report is true and accurate to
SB 1718
Page 3
the best of his or her knowledge.
6)Contains legislative findings and declarations relative to the
state's legal professionals.
EXISTING LAW provides, under the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act),
also known as the State Employer Employee Relations Act, that
state employee compensation is determined in collective
bargaining with the state.
If agreement is reached between the state and its 21 BUs,
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are sent to the Legislature
for ratification. If the MOUs are ratified by the Legislature
and members of the respective bargaining units, they go into
effect and the agreed upon employee compensation package is
implemented.
Requires DPA is to establish and adjust salary ranges for all
state employees. Additionally, at least six months before the
end of the term of an existing memorandum of understanding, or
immediately upon the reopening of negotiations under an existing
memorandum of understanding, DPA is required to submit, to the
parties meeting and conferring and to the Legislature, a report
containing the department's findings relating to the salaries of
employees in comparable occupations in private industry and
other governmental agencies.
BU 5 (Highway Patrol) has a statutory salary survey. Salaries
of State Traffic Officers are determined based on a salary
survey of the compensation provided to similar occupations in
specified California governmental entities.
BU 9 (Professional Engineers) has a salary survey agreed to in
their current MOU (effective July 2, 2003 to July 2, 2008).
Salaries of professional engineers employed by the State of
California are determined based on a salary survey of the
compensation provided to similar occupations in specified
California governmental entities.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, DPA would require one position, and about $150,000
(GF) annually, to implement the survey and reporting
SB 1718
Page 4
requirements of the bill.
COMMENTS : According to the bill's sponsor, CASE, "Three
decades of collective bargaining between the state and its legal
professionals has resulted in the State becoming, according to
Dr. David Lewin of UCLA's Anderson School of Business, 'the
legal employer of last resort' with salaries as much as 50%
below comparable salaries at other public agencies in California
and far below the salaries paid to private attorneys suing the
state. The cost to the State of allowing its legal foundation
to crumble is incalculable. For this reason, in litigation now
pending in the Third District Court of Appeal, the State's
Attorney General recently appeared in court and urged the judge
to find the Dills Act unconstitutional as applied to legal
professionals noting that the State's low salaries were forcing
him to choose between adhering to a broken civil service system
and his constitutional duty to enforce the law and protect the
citizens of the State of California."
In June of 2007, DPA issued a survey of total compensation for
attorneys in California which was conducted pursuant to the
current contract between the State and CASE. CASE states that
while a prior survey conducted in 2006 showed a statewide
disparity for legal professionals of 36%, the 2007 survey showed
virtually no disparity. CASE indicates that DPA's explanation
for the difference between the two surveys was that their
methodology had changed.
The sponsor believes this bill will establish a plan to "?obtain
accurate data about the scope of the problem. This bill will
provide that data to policy makers so that an honest discussion
can be had about how to compensate the State's legal
professionals. The bill will require DPA to collect
compensation data from relevant comparable jurisdictions, and to
share that data with CASE as well as with the Legislature and
the Governor. Only when the true disparity is acknowledged can
there be any coherent strategy about how to address it."
Analysis Prepared by : Karon Green / P.E., R. & S.S. / (916)
319-3957
FN: 0006639
SB 1718
Page 5