California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 1285 — Education employment.

Last action — From Assembly without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires that, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the layoffs occur in order of employee seniority. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. Existing law requires, for 39 months from the date of termination, that any employee who in the meantime has not attained 65 years of age have the preferred right to reappointment, in the order of original employment, as specified. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. This bill would provide that this exception relates to both pupils and certificated employees. The bill would require that, when classroom teachers, as defined, are subject to notice and layoffs pursuant to these provisions, that the proportion of classroom teachers terminated at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index in any given year as part of a reduction in the number of employees pursuant to these provisions be no greater than the proportion of classroom teachers noticed and, when applicable, terminated, respectively, in the school district as a whole. (2) Existing law requires, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the notice of the termination of the services of an employee in the subsequent school year be given by the governing board to the employee, in a prescribed manner, before May 15. Existing law requires the superintendent of the district, prior to March 15 and before an employee is given the described notice, to give written notice to the governing board and the employee that it has been recommended that the notice be given to the employee, and stating the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes an employee who is given this notice to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing year. Existing law requires that an administrative law judge conduct this hearing, and issue a proposed decision to the governing board containing certain findings of fact and a determination as to the sufficiency of cause for the termination. This bill would require that this determination also include a determination as to whether the notices of termination issued at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index violate the aforementioned limit on terminations of classroom teachers.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Assembly without further action.

  2. From committee without further action.

  3. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  4. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  5. (Heard in committee on August 12.)

  6. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on RULES. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.)

  7. Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  8. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 5989.)

  9. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  10. (Heard in committee on June 30.)

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.)

  12. (Heard in committee on June 24.)

  13. From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on ED. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  14. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  15. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. To Com. on JUD.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 0. Page 3519.) To Assembly.

  20. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

  21. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 3444.)

  22. Set for hearing May 4.

  23. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  24. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  25. To Com. on RLS.

  26. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 23.

  27. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Steinberg · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Steinberg

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Rules.

Passed 10 Yea · 2 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10206
Total 10206
% of votes cast 56%11%0%33%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Hall — Yea
Huffman — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Coto — Yea
Fuentes — Nay
Harkey — Not Voting
Conway — Not Voting
Miller — Not Voting
Norby — Not Voting
Torlakson — Nay
Torrico — Yea
Bradford — Not Voting
Nielsen — Not Voting
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Davis — Yea
Gatto — Yea

Official roll call →

Author's amendments.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 10000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Saldana — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Adams — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Silva — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar 2nd SB1285 Steinberg

Passed 32 Yea · 0 Nay · 7 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 30006
Republican 1000
Democratic 1001
Total 32007
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Corbett — Not Voting
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Not Voting
Aanestad — Yea
Hollingsworth — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Walters — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Wyland — Not Voting
Correa — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor education
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1285 do?
(1) Existing law requires that, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the layoffs occur in order of employee seniority. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. Existing law requires, for 39 months from the date of termination, that any employee who in the meantime has not attained 65 years of age have the preferred right to reappointment, in the order of original employment, as specified. Existing law provides certain exceptions to this requirement, including an exception for purposes of maintaining or achieving compliance with constitutional requirements related to equal protection of the laws. This bill would provide that this exception relates to both pupils and certificated employees. The bill would require that, when classroom teachers, as defined, are subject to notice and layoffs pursuant to these provisions, that the proportion of classroom teachers terminated at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index in any given year as part of a reduction in the number of employees pursuant to these provisions be no greater than the proportion of classroom teachers noticed and, when applicable, terminated, respectively, in the school district as a whole. (2) Existing law requires, when a reduction in the number of certificated employees employed by a school district is authorized for specified reasons, the notice of the termination of the services of an employee in the subsequent school year be given by the governing board to the employee, in a prescribed manner, before May 15. Existing law requires the superintendent of the district, prior to March 15 and before an employee is given the described notice, to give written notice to the governing board and the employee that it has been recommended that the notice be given to the employee, and stating the reasons therefor. Existing law authorizes an employee who is given this notice to request a hearing to determine if there is cause for not reemploying him or her for the ensuing year. Existing law requires that an administrative law judge conduct this hearing, and issue a proposed decision to the governing board containing certain findings of fact and a determination as to the sufficiency of cause for the termination. This bill would require that this determination also include a determination as to whether the notices of termination issued at schools in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the Academic Performance Index violate the aforementioned limit on terminations of classroom teachers.
Who sponsors SB 1285?
SB 1285 is sponsored by Steinberg.
What is the current status of SB 1285?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1285?
Track SB 1285 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1285

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1285

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →