AgdaPkt 2005-07-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/.4-7 BUDGET ENACTS CHANGES TO SOME KEY REIMBURSABLE MANDATES As part of the budget deliberations, the Legisla- ture passed Assembly Bill 138, a trailer bill ad- dressing some key issues related to reimbursable mandates. AB 138 impacts, among others, the Open Meeting Act (Brown Act) reimbursable man- date items, and the Police Officer's Bill of Rights. In addition to those items, the bill also changed the "payback" period for previously deferred man- dates payments from a period of five years (as had been agreed to last year), to a period of not more than 15 years, beginning in 2006-2007. Currently, there is more than $1.19 billion in deferred man- date payments owed to local govemments. The League is concemed about these actions to remove, reconsider, and extend the state's obligation to reimburse local governments for the costs of programs that have been determined to be reimbursable by the Commission on State Man- dates (COSM). We will continue our efforts to work with the Legislature on mandate related issues as they arise to ensure that locals receive the monies owed to them. Brown Act Mandate In its effort to eliminate the Brown Act reimburs- able mandate, the Legislature made a significant change to the Govemment Code that will have implications beyond the Brown Act mandate. It changed the law to read that if any mandate is "necessary to implement or reasonably within the scope of' a voter-approved ballot measure, then the mandate is not reimbursable. Prior to this change, the law provided that reimbursement was not required if a statute imposed duties that were "expressly included in a ballot measure approved by the voters." Secondly, with specific regard to the Brown Act, it found that the previously reimbursable require- ments were "necessary to implement and reason- ably within the "scope of' Proposition 59 approved by the voters last November. Proposition 59 was the measure that grants a constitutional right of access to public information and public meetings. By enacting both of these changes, the Brown Act requirements are no longer reimbursable. POBAR The Legislature directed the COSM to review its statement of decision regarding the Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights in light of San Diego Unified School District v. Commission on State Mandates. This case analyzed a section of the Education Code that requires suspension of pupils for carrying firearms and requires that such pupils receive a hearing. The section also permits a principal to recommend suspension for other behavior (but does not require suspension for other behavior). If a principal recommends suspension, then the pupil must receive a hear- ing. The California Supreme Court held that the former, but not the latter, was a reimbursable mandate. Since the principal was not required to recommend suspension of a pupil the costs of the mandatory hearing were not reimbursable. It appears as if the Legislature is making an anal- ogy to the Police Chief, for example, who is not required to impose discipline, investigate behav- ior, etc. but once the decision is made to do so, a hearing/other procedures are required. Miscellaneous The Legislature amended Section 13304 of the Elections Code to relieve local govemments of the reimbursable state mandate to provide handicapped voter access information. Chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1979 initially imposed this activity. The Legislature also amended Sections 15151 and 15375 ofthe Elections Code to repeal the presidential primaries reimbursable state mandate imposed by Chapter 18 of the Statutes of 1999. For full language and details on these changes, go to www.cacities.org and search for AB 138. Visit the league's Official Website--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 .~..1r.