SR-100-002 (16)
CMO:RM
Council Meeting: May 13, 2003 Santa Monica, CA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Opposition to AB 136 (Kehoe) which Seeks State Legislative Authority to
Allow Increase of Safety Employees’ Leave of Absence Benefits on Full
Salary
Introduction
This report recommends that the City Council oppose AB 136 (Kehoe). This bill seeks
State legislative authority to allow local safety employees (police officers and
firefighters) an additional year of full wages, for a total of two years, under an
amendment to California Labor Code Sec. 4850. Opposition is recommended based on
fiscal concerns as well as the impacts associated with prolonged vacancy of positions
relative to remaining on-duty personnel.
Background
The City of Santa Monica has a record of support for labor issues and offers generous
and responsible benefits to city workers. There would be no reduction of benefits if AB
136 is defeated. It is well known that rising costs of workers’ compensation have
burdened local government budgets and spurred reform legislation. This bill provides a
costly benefit which will negatively impact local resources. It is an unreasonable
attempt to correct the policies of a few agencies that do not offer the same benefits
afforded under the California Labor Code on workers’ compensation as the majority of
public agency safety employees, including Santa Monica’s, enjoy.
1
Safety employees currently receive full wages, untaxed, for a period of up to one year
for a single work-related injuries or illness. The Municipal code allows an extension of
this leave of absence up to a maximum of 26 weeks should the affected employee
require additional time to recuperate to return to work. The proponents of AB 136 seek
to extend this period of leave (Labor Code Section 4850) to allow an additional year of
full wages. For this City that would result in a total of two and one-half years of paid
leave.
The majority of injured safety employees return to work within the single year of
disability or less without further need for leave of absence. This City’s history of injuries
and employee absences shows that, in both Police and Fire Departments, employees
with injuries or illnesses requiring the full extent of one year off duty are unlikely to have
the physical capacity to resume work as a police officer or firefighter. If a safety
employee is unable to resume duty due to the work-related injury or illness, he or she is
eligible for an Industrial Disability Retirement with advance payments issued by the City
to the retiree until he or she begin receiving benefits directly from CalPERS.
The proponents of this bill state in their argument that there are agencies that do not
provide full wages under Labor Code Sec. 4850 for their safety employees while out on
leave due to work-related injuries or illnesses. These agencies apparently participate in
an independent retirement system that does not provide the same benefits as
CalPERS. They also state that certain agencies, whose claims are administered by an
outside agency, routinely deny liability for valid injury claims causing the safety
2
employee to suffer financial hardship. The agencies mentioned are independent
systems in San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose.
In contrast to the arguments for the passage of this bill, the City Of Santa Monica
provides for full wages for their safety employees; injured employees are also afforded
the special retirement benefit if they qualify in accordance with CalPERS regulations;
and, this City’s claims are administered by City staff whose aim is to provide prompt
payment of benefits for all legitimate claims.
This City also has a history of providing flexible schedules for injured employees to
resume work while still obtaining medical treatment, thus reducing the need for total
disability periods. Further, recognizing that public safety officers face a range of unique
exposures and put their lives at risk in the performance of their jobs, current California
law affords them a broad range of special protections and benefits.
Budget and Fiscal Impact
The passage of this bill will have potential devastating impact on the City’s budget. A
projection of overtime and backfill costs in the Police Department should just one officer
in each rank require a two-year absence is $457,949. The same study of overtime and
backfill costs in the Fire Department for one employee in each rank is for the additional
year is projected to be $509,430. The combined totals for both safety departments are
$967,379. Certainly, if greater numbers of safety personnel were on a two-year plus 26
week disability leave, the costs would rise exponentially.
3
These backfill costs impact overtime budgets, creating an oppressive effect on the
ability of the departments to focus on the essential services and training of active duty
personnel. At a time when preparedness and response time is a concern of every
citizen, reducing funds available for specialized services and training activities is
especially irresponsible.
If the injured employee holds a supervisory or management position, the position must
be held open for 2 and one-half years. This results in acting supervisors or managers
being appointed. Eligibility lists expire during that period and individuals holding acting
positions may or may not be able to retain those positions if the incumbents do not
ultimately return to work. This adds uncertainty in command and control in both
departments that require clear lines of accountability and authority.
During this time of economic crisis at the State and local levels, the extension of an
additional year of salary would create an undue fiscal burden on the resources of all
public agencies while overtaxing remaining safety employees and resources. If certain
agencies are not providing adequate benefits, a legislative remedy should be targeted
to address those inadequacies and not burden all systems.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council oppose AB 136 (Kehoe).
Prepared by: Tom Phillips, Risk Manager
Barbara Trujillo, Workers’ Compensation Claims Administrator
Jim T. Butts, Chief of Police
Ettore Berardinelli, Fire Chief
4