HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02281995 - 1.63 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ``` .s•..,. °^ Contra
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
FROM: j
. %'•l ,•'•'' as
� . County
DATE:
February 21, 1995 ' r;... ...:.•
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 211 (Richter) RE AMENDING PUBLIC AGENCY
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERSONAL
LIABILITY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION to AB 211 by Assemblyman Bernie
Richter, which would repeal the State' s affirmative action laws and
would require that for promotions or when hiring persons for
professional positions, merit would be the only consideration.
Socioeconomic factors could be considered when evaluating
applicants for entry-level employment. The bill would also make a
public employee personally liable for any injury resulting from the
employee' s failure to enforce the provisions of this bill .
BACKGROUND:
This proposed legislation would repeal the requirement that public
agencies establish an affirmative action plan with goals and
timetables defined to overcome any identifiable underutilization of
minorities and women in their respective organizations, and would
explicitly prohibit any public officer or employee from giving
preference in hiring or promotion on the basis of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin (except that socioeconomic factors
may be considered when evaluating applicants for entry-level
employment) . It also specifically provides that selection for
promotions and hiring for professional positions in public agencies
must be based on merit only.
The impact of this legislation on the County, if it passes, falls
into several areas :
1 . It would immediately place the County's federal consent decree
"out of synch" with state law. Goals 'and timetables would not
be lawful, but would not be required for public agencies under
state law.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON F$h, ri-lary 28,-199- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
(/ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. p
ATTESTED
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
-2-
2 . Forbidding giving "preference in hiring or promotion" is the
opposite of "discriminating in hiring or promotion" and is
already forbidden by law. Theoretically, the result should be
an entirely neutral selection and hiring process in public
agencies without any - attempt to rectify previous
discriminatory practices by making positive efforts to hire
members of underutilized groups .
3 . Requiring hiring solely on the basis of merit in public
agencies might have the effect of reducing the reasons for
exempting employees from the merit system, since all employees
in covered agencies would have to be hired on the basis of
merit alone, with a very few specified exceptions . Of course,
the issues of what is "merit" and who is "best qualified"
remain technical and subject to dispute.
4 . Public employees would become personally liable for failing to
enforce the "no preference" and "merit only" criteria in
hiring. Individuals feeling "injured" by their non-selection
for a public agency job could prevail against the County
and/or against individual officers and employees who directly
"gave preference" or used criteria other than "merit only" in
selecting and hiring an employee or who indirectly "failed" to
enforce" the provisions by properly supervising/monitoring
their subordinates . The number of persons who might consider
public service with these potential liabilities could be
reduced.
The enactment of AB 211 would substantially undermine the efforts
of the past several years and the progress which has been made in
hiring and promoting minorities and women.
The County's Affirmative Action Officer recommends that the Board
of Supervisors oppose AB 211 in its current form.
cc : County Administrator
County Counsel
Director of Personnel
Affirmative Action Officer
Les' Spahnn, Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
Bank of California Center
770 L Street, Suite 960
Sacramento, CA 95814
i;
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1995-96 REGULAR SESSION
i,
ASSEMBLY BILL No.
211
Introduced by Assembly Member Richter
i4
January 30, 1995
An act to repeal Article 4 (commencing with Section 44100)
of Chapter 1 of Part 25 of, and Article 4 (commencing with
Section 87100) of Chapter 1 of Part 51 of,the Education Cade,
and to amend Section 821 of, to add Chapter 6 (commencing
with Section 1950) to Division 4 of Title 1 of, and to repeal
Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 19790) of Part 2 of
Division 5 of Title 2 of, the Government Code, relating to
public officers and employees.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 211, as introduced, Richter. Public officers and
employees: employment preferences: prohibition.
(1) Existing law requires all state agencies,school districts,
and'community college districts to establish an affirmative
action plan for hiring and promotion and to establish goals and
timetables designed to overcome any identifiable
underutilization of minorities and women in their respective
organizations.
This bill would repeal these affirmative action
requirements. It would also prohibit any public officer or
employee from giving any preferences on the basis of race,
sex,color,ethnicity,or national origin to any person for hiring
or promotional purposes, except that socioeconomic factors
may be considered when evaluating applicants for entry-level
employment.However,for promotion or when hiring persons
99
t
AB 211 — 2--
for professional positions, merit would be the only
consideration.
(2) Existing law provides that a public employee is not
liable for an injury caused by the employee's adoption of or
failure to adopt an enactment or by the employee's failure to
enforce an enactment.
This bill would create an exception to this provision for -)
public officers or employees who do not enforce the above
provisions,and would specify that violation of these provisions
by an employee may constitute grounds for discipline.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.-
1 SECTION 1. Article 4 (commencing with Section
2 44100) of Chapter 1 of Part 25 of the Education Code is
3 repealed.
4 SEC.2. Article 4 (commencing with Section 87100) of
5 Chapter 1 of Part 51 of the Education Code is repealed.
6 SEC. 3. Section 821 of the Government Code is
7 amended to read:
rrirf>.<, iSt�i'.:2+22t<;�>..;St? ... �?•'. :Li}•r.;..; ;:Z.i
8 821. -A Except as specked in Chapter 6 (commencing
9 with Section 1950) ofDA sion 4, a public employee is not
10 liable for an injury caused by his or her adoption of or
11 failure to adopt an enactment or by his or her failure to
12 enforce an enactment.
13 SEC. 4. Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1950)
14 is added to Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
15 to read:
16
17 CHAPTER 6. EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES
18
19 1950. Notwithstanding any provision of law,no public
20 officer or employee shall give any preferences on the
21 basis of race,sex,color,ethnicity,or national:origin to any
22 person for hiring or promotional purposes except as
23 specified in Section 1951.
24 1951. A public officer or employee may consider
25 socioeconomic factors when evaluating applicants for
99
-3— AB 211
1 entry-level employment. However, for promotion or
2 when hiring persons for professional positions,merit shall
3 be the only consideration.
4 1952. Notwithstanding Section 821,any public officer
5 or employee shall be personally liable for an injury caused
6 by the failure of the officer's or employee's failure to
7 enforce this chapter. Violation of this chapter may also
~^ 8 constitute grounds for discipline of the employee.
9 SEC.5. Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 19790)
10 of Part 2 of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code
11 is repealed. `
1
O
99