Headlines  |  Bills  |  Leg. Votes  |  Code/Laws  |  ElectionTrack   |  About   |  Feedback
Create Account  Log In
Get the free THE NOONER daily e-mail update of aroundthecapitol headlines:
   

Get free e-mail updates on SBX2 11


No Spam Privacy Policy







california political news & opinion
Read. Create. Discuss.
california legislation > SBX2 11

Create a free account to track bills.
SBX2 11 (Steinberg)
Judges: employment benefits.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 11, as amended, Ducheny Steinberg
. Budget Act of 2008. Judges: employment
benefits.

The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe
compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes
a county to deem judges and court employees as county employees for
purposes of providing employment benefits. These provisions were held
unconstitutional as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of
the Legislature to prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of
record.

This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental
judicial benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July
1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the
county or court then paying the benefits on the same terms and
conditions as were in effect on that date. The bill would authorize a
county to terminate its obligation to provide benefits upon
providing 180 days' written notice to the Administrative Director of
the Courts and the impacted judges, but that termination would not be
effective as to any judge during his or her current term while that
judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the election
of the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would
authorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges in
that county. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to
the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly
Committee on Budget, and both the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Judiciary on or before December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide
benefits inconsistencies.

This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or
employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be
subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of benefits
provided to a judge under the official action of a governmental
entity prior to the effective date of the bill on the ground that
those benefits were not authorized under law.

This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shall
require the Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for the
purpose of paying judicial benefits or obligate the state or the
Judicial Council to pay for benefits previously provided by the
county, city and county, or the court.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact
statutory changes relating to the Budget Act of 2008.

 

Bill Text:

  • 02/20/09 - Chaptered (pdf)
  • 02/15/09 - Enrolled (pdf)
  • 02/14/09 - Amended Senate (pdf)
  • 02/11/09 - Introduced (pdf)

  • Bill Location:

  • Secretary of State

  • Last Action:

  • 02/20/09: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 9, Statutes of 2009-10 Second Extraordinary Session.


  • Bill Analysis
  • 02/15/09 - Assembly Floor Analysis
  • 02/14/09 - Sen. Floor Analyses

  •  

    E-mail this bill to a friend

    Top Headlines

    1. Proposed Oil Tax Divides Education Leaders
    2. Harry Reid To Hit Up California For Cash | Political | Los Angeles Times
    3. Schwarzenegger To Carry Olympic Torch | Political | Los Angeles Times
    4. Three Democrats Call For Abel Maldonado's Rejection | Political | Los Angeles Times
    5. Assembly Rules Committee to forward Maldonado nomination to floor vote
    6. Immigrant Activists Blast Proposed State Cuts | Immigrants, Legal, State - News - The Orange County Register
    7. California Budget Crisis' Teachable Moment - Latimes.com
    8. California budget crisis' teachable moment
    9. Whitman’s Contributors Boost Her Chances
    10. ACLU accuses Fresno City College health instructor of religion lessons