September 11, 2017
The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE:

Assembly Bill 621 (Bocanegra) Classified Employees Summer Furlough Fund
REQUEST FOR VETO

Dear Governor Brown:
On behalf of the local education agencies and statewide education organizations represented on this letter,
we are writing to request that you veto Assembly Bill 621 (Bocanegra). The bill would establish the
Classified Employees Summer Furlough Fund (Fund) for the purpose of providing an income to classified
school employees during the summer months when school is not in session. If a classified school
employee elects to participate in the Program, the employing school district is required to establish the
specified Fund and deposit the classified employees’ withholdings into the Fund, as well as matching
funds ($2 for every $1 held in the district’s fund) provided by the Department of Education.
Our opposition to the bill is based on a number of fiscal and programmatic concerns:
•

Local education agencies do not currently have systems in place to deduct, track and retain
employee contributions to the Fund.

•

Payroll systems in school districts are not typically equipped to issue payments based on post-tax
deductions, or amounts that were not deducted (the State match). The Department of Finance
analysis of AB 621 estimates the cost to administer payroll withholdings, manage the Fund, and
process additional pay warrants at $2 million to $50 million Proposition 98 General Fund.

•

School districts would have the added administrative burden of tracking various changes to an
employee’s status during the course of a school year. For example, it is not clear how districts
would treat an individual who leaves employment before summer, which presumably would
require a payout. Another complication could arise if an employee elected to participate in the
program while earning less than three times the minimum wage, but was promoted mid-year to a
position earning more than that amount. A similar complication would arise for an employee
who moved mid-year from a 10-month position to a 12-month position.

 Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
September 11, 2017
Page 2
•

There is no way for a school district to determine what an employee’s adjusted gross income is or
will be. We are not aware of any districts that request copies of employee tax returns, and are
unsure whether school districts could legally make such a request. Beyond the issue of legality,
there is a functional problem. The Fund is based on a fiscal year model, whereas adjusted gross
income (for tax filing) is based on tax/calendar year. The bill is unclear as to which tax year
should be used (i.e. the tax year ending prior to the fiscal year an employee would start
contributing, or the tax year ending after they already have).

Even after being amended to narrow the scope of its provisions, AB 621 would result in significant
Proposition 98 General Fund costs (in addition to those identified above). In its analysis of the bill
(written prior to the September 8 amendment), the Department of Finance estimates that if ten to fifty
percent of the approximately 250,000 K-12 classified employees would be eligible to participate and that
each participating employee withheld $100 to $1,000 during the school year, the annual costs to provide
the 2-for-1 match would range from $5 million to $250 million Proposition 98 General Fund.
As the bill was amended on September 8, a classified employee would be eligible for participation in the
Fund if his/her annual pay was less than two and one half times the full-time pay during the school year of
an employee paid at the state minimum wage. Based on a review of data from Orange County school
districts, which represents approximately 9% of the state’s districts, we believe that nearly 185,000
employees would be eligible to participate in the Fund statewide. This would result in statewide
matching costs above $300 million and direct statutory benefit costs to school districts (Social Security,
Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Workers’ Compensation) in excess of $30 million.
The costs resulting from AB 621 –whether direct or indirect – would add pressure on school district
budgets and almost inevitably take funding away from educational and support programs serving
students. As with past legislation that has sought to alleviate a stressful financial period faced by
classified school employees during the summer months, we are sympathetic to the goals of this bill.
However, we must take into account the impact that this additional fiscal burden will have on our ability
to fully fund classroom instruction, educational programs and support programs. Our primary goal is to
educate students and provide them with the necessary support and services so that they may succeed
academically.
For these reasons, we oppose AB 621 and request that you veto the bill when it reaches your desk.
Sincerely,

Laura Preston
Association of California School Administrators

Sara C. Bachez
California Association of School Business Officials

Jeffrey A. Vaca
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools

Jeffrey Frost
Orange County Department of Education
California Association of Suburban Schools

Michael Hulsizer
Kern County Superintendent of Schools

 cc:

The Honorable Raul Bocanegra
Jennifer Johnson, Deputy Legislative Secretary for Education
Judy Cias, Chief Counsel, State Board of Education
Jeff Bell, Education Program Budget Manager, Department of Finance