New Law Updates Bidding Preferences for Various Public Agencies

November 2018
Number 75

The Legislature has significantly expanded local agencies’ ability to use a small business preferences on a public works projects, and has expanded the use of preferences for small businesses, disabled veterans businesses and social enterprises in some counties. This new law seems to indicate the Legislature is responding to the desire of local agencies to support local businesses.

Assembly Bill (AB) 2762, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, increases the small business preference from five percent to seven percent for all local agencies, including counties, cities, school districts, and other districts. The bill limits the value of a preference to a maximum of $150,000 on any contract, no matter the value of that contract. The small business preference authorizes a local agency, in facilitating contract awards to small businesses, to provide for a small business preference in construction, the procurement of goods, or the delivery of services.

AB 2762 also authorizes local agencies in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Los Angeles, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, to adopt preferences for disabled veteran businesses and social enterprises, and provides for the preferences to be a maximum of seven percent for an individual preference and up to fifteen percent for a single bid having two or more preferences. In these counties, an agency’s ability to use a small business preference is not different from agencies outside those counties.

This new law defines a social enterprise to include a nonprofit or for-profit business whose primary purpose is to benefit the economic, environmental, or social health of the community and which uses the methods and disciplines of business and the power of the marketplace to advance its social, environmental, and human justice agendas. The business must also have been in operation for at least one year providing transitional or permanent employment to a transitional workforce or providing social, environmental, or human justice services.

Under AB 2762, each local agency within the specified counties that chooses to utilize a disabled veteran business or social enterprise preference is authorized to define a disabled veteran business and social enterprise and to define their eligibility for the purposes of these preferences and goals. The statute granting authority in certain counties to utilize preferences is set to expire in 2024. However, the statute permitting small business preferences by all local agencies in the state has no expiration date.

To help local agencies meet these preferences, the new law permits a prime contractor, with the approval of the local agency, and subject to meeting specified conditions, to substitute one subcontractor for another, if doing so will help meet the preference adopted by the agency. This provision seems to create a scenario where a subcontractor could be substituted solely in the interest of meeting the agency’s adopted preference, but the new law explicitly states that subcontractors are still afforded all the protections of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.

Takeaways

AB 2762 demonstrates a greater interest by the Legislature in allowing public agencies to adopt preferences for certain types of businesses. Agencies wishing to adopt such preferences should first review their existing policies and bidding practices for any needed updates to comply with the new law.

For more information on AB 2762, or preferences in bidding generally, including for assistance in drafting policies and bid documents to implement preferences, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Devon B. Lincoln

Partner

Alyse A. Pacheco

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Advertisements

Directory and Personal Information Must Be Withheld from Board Meeting Minutes upon Request

November 2018
Number 72

Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1036, which will allow parents and adult pupils to prevent the governing board of a local education agency from including the directory and personal information of a student and/or the student’s family in the governing board’s meeting minutes. SB 1036 is set to take effect on January 1, 2019.

Federal and State law define the extent to which local educational agencies (LEAs), including schools districts, charter schools, community college districts, and county offices of education, can collect and distribute information about students and their families. Under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and California law, LEAs are generally prohibited from releasing a student’s “educational” or “pupil” records without written consent.

However, both Federal and State law exclude “directory information” from the definition of “educational” and “pupil records.” Directory information includes a student’s name, address, telephone number, date of birth, email address, major field of study, and dates of attendance.

SB 1036 was proposed to protect directory and personal information of students and their parents or guardians at school board meetings by not allowing their information to be published in the minutes of the meeting upon request. According to the author of the bill, some students and parents feel that the release of their information presents the potential for intimidation, harm, or other harassment based on their testimony during meetings. For this reason, SB 1036 authorizes students and their families to prevent their directory and “personal information” (defined to include a person’s address, telephone number, date of birth, and email address), from being disclosed in the minutes of an LEA board meeting if a student who is age 18 or older, or the parent or guardian of a student, so requests in writing to the secretary or clerk of the LEA governing body.

Takeaway

While SB 1036 provides students and their families with some basic protections against public disclosure of personal information, it is by no means a guarantee that such information will be protected. As stated by the Assembly Committee on Education, given the public nature of LEA meetings, excluding names from meeting minutes is not a guarantee of anonymity, as the names of speakers can be obtained from other meeting participants and attendees, other written reports, and video or audio tape recordings. Further, the new law explicitly states that the provision is not intended to affect the public’s right of access to information pursuant to any other law (e.g., the California Public Records Act or the Brown Act). Entities and individuals should, therefore, be aware of the limits of SB 1036.

Further, LEAs should make sure their staff are aware of SB 1036, and should consider adopting practices and procedures allowing them to properly respond to written requests from parents or adult students. LEAs should also ensure that their board policies pertaining to the release of directory information are updated to be consistent with the new requirements of SB 1036. Finally, school districts may consider alerting parents and the public of SB 1036 through their annual parental notification.

If you have any questions about SB 1036 or about data privacy laws in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Manuel F. Martinez

Partner

Bradley R. Sena

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Bathrooms Are No Longer Acceptable Lactation Accommodations

November 2018
Number 66

Beginning January 1, 2019, employers will have to make reasonable efforts to provide employees with the use of a room or location, other than a bathroom, as a lactation accommodation.

Existing law already requires employers to make reasonable efforts to provide employees the use of a room or location, other than a single toilet stall, in close proximity to the employee’s work area for the purpose of expressing milk in private. Under these requirements, employers could provide space in a bathroom as an accommodation. Assembly Bill (AB) 1976, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2018, amends existing Labor Code requirements to expressly state that employers will now have to designate space other than a restroom facility for this purpose. Employees may still use the room or location where they normally work, such as a private office.

AB 1976 creates exceptions to the above requirements in limited circumstances. Relevant to districts and public agencies, an employer who can demonstrate the requirements impose an undue hardship relative to the size, nature, or structure of the employer’s business, may remain legally compliant by providing a room or location, other than a single toilet stall, to an employee wishing to express milk in private.

While AB 1976 narrows employers’ ability to create legally compliant permanent lactation accommodations, it also further amends Labor Code section 1031 to allow employers to create temporary lactation locations, so long as the following conditions are met:

  • The employer is unable to provide a permanent lactation location because of operational, financial, or space limitations.
  • The temporary lactation location is private and free from intrusion while an employee expresses milk.
  • The temporary lactation location is used only for lactation purposes while the employee expresses milk.
  • The temporary lactation location otherwise meets the requirements for state law concerning lactation accommodation.

Because the provisions of AB 1976 take effect January 1, 2019, and violations are subject to a civil penalty, public agencies should take steps now to amend their board policies and administrative practices, and update employee handbooks regarding provisions interpreting Labor Code sections 1030 and 1031 to ensure they are compliant.

If you would like to discuss what might constitute an acceptable permanent or temporary lactation accommodation location, the process to be considered for an exception, or any other matters related to employee accommodations, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Dulcinea Grantham

Partner

Michelle N. Sinks

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Law Requires Paid Time Off for Union Stewards and Officers

October 2018
Number 65

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill (SB) 1085 requires public agency employers in California to grant, upon the request of a union, “reasonable” paid leaves of absence to employees serving as stewards or officers of the union or of any statewide or national employee organization with which the union is affiliated.

While on such leave, employees must suffer no loss of compensation or benefits and retain reinstatement rights, meaning they have the right to return to the same position and work location held before the leave, or if this is not feasible, a substantially similar position without loss of seniority, rank, or classification. Benefits while on leave also include retirement fund contributions and service credit. Unions must reimburse the employer within 30 days for all compensation paid to employees while on leave, unless negotiated otherwise.

“Steward” is defined very broadly as:

[A]ny employee designated by the exclusive representative as a representative for unit employees, whether for the unit as a whole or at a particular site, department, or other division of the employer’s operations, regardless of whether the employee is referred to by the exclusive representative as a steward or by a different title.

In other words, the designation of an employee as a “steward” for purposes of this new law is left up to the union, or potentially up to the negotiation process.

The bill faced opposition from many public agency employer groups who argued that it creates a highly expansive form of protected leave for employees without consideration of the potential burdens on employers. Opponents further argued that such leave is traditionally negotiated at the bargaining table where both parties are better positioned to have their interests equally represented.

The new law also provides that employers are not liable for any acts, omissions, or injuries by employees on leave. In the event that liability arises, the union is required to indemnify the employer and hold the employer harmless.

The actual procedures for requesting and granting leave are still left up to negotiations and the mutual agreement of the employer and the union. Generally, the law as written contains significant ambiguities that will likely need to be resolved at the bargaining table, such as what is considered “reasonable.”

This new State legislation may have been intended to counter the effect of the decision issued in Janus v. AFSCME earlier this year. (See 2018 Client News Brief No. 27.) In Janus, the United States Supreme Court held that public

employees may not be compelled to pay fair share fees to public sector unions, as such fees violate the First Amendment. SB 1085 offers a layer of protection for labor organizing at a time when unions are feeling threatened and fear low participation rates.

Existing Law

Protected paid time off for public employees for labor-related reasons is not a new concept. The paid time off granted by SB 1085 is in addition to leave entitlements provided to employees by negotiated agreement and by the various collective bargaining laws in California. Most of the public sector collective bargaining laws in California guarantee employee representatives the right to receive reasonable periods of release time without loss of compensation when meeting and negotiating or conferring and for purposes of processing grievances. This includes, but is not limited to, the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) (covering K-12 and community college public school districts), the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) (covering public institutions of higher education), the Ralph C. Dills Act (covering state government employees), and the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) (covering local public agencies). Going beyond these minimum release time entitlements, the Education Code also requires public school or community college districts to grant paid time off to specified represented employees to serve as elected officers or attend important organizational activities; and the MMBA provides paid time off for public agency employees to testify or appear in certain conferences, hearings, and general matters before a personnel or merit commission.

SB 1085 addresses what some may identify as an inconsistency with regard to existing statutory paid time off allowances by creating an entitlement that applies uniformly to stewards of public employee unions (however steward may be defined for the particular organization).

Next Step: Negotiation

With some exception, SB 1085 leaves the technical details up to the employer and union and does not invalidate existing negotiated agreements, which must be reopened for negotiations on the subject of this new leave entitlement upon request of the union.

Public agency employers are encouraged to review their existing collective bargaining agreements to determine if existing language conflicts or can be harmonized with SB 1085 and consider their interests in anticipation of the inevitable requests and proposals that will likely come in from the unions representing their employees.

If you have any questions about SB 1085, contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Thomas R. Manniello

Partner

Niki Nabavi Nouri

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Court Rejects Developer-Sponsored Initiatives

October 2018
Number 61

A California appellate court has ruled that development agreements may not be approved through voter initiatives. Development agreements are contracts between a local agency and a property owner or developer.

In Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v. City of Moreno Valley et al., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that it was the Legislature’s intent to exclusively delegate approval of
development agreements to local legislative bodies and that such approval is subject to voter referendum, but not voter initiative.

Background

In August 2015, the Moreno Valley City Council adopted an ordinance approving a development agreement for the development of the World Logistics Center project, which was proposed by Highland Fairview. Environmental groups sued, alleging the project failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The developer, Highland Fairview, subsequently backed and supported the filing with the city of an initiative petition that would repeal the ordinance approving the
development agreement and approve substantially the same development agreement. Once the initiative qualified for the ballot, the city council had the option of adopting the initiative without change, or submitting it to the voters for approval. The city council chose to adopt the initiative, instead of submitting it to the voters. In these instances, cities are powerless and cannot reject an initiative or require alterations to a project.

The environmental groups challenged the city council’s adoption of the initiative, contending that the adoption of a development agreement by an initiative violated the development agreement statute (Gov. Code, § 65864, et seq.) and article II, section 12 of the California Constitution. The trial court denied the groups’ petitions. The Court of Appeal reversed, directing the trial court to issue a writ of mandate instructing the city council to set aside its adoption of the initiative.

In reviewing the legislative history and the express statutory language of the development agreement statute, the Court of Appeal concluded there was clear evidence that the Legislature intended to exclusively delegate approval of development agreements to governing bodies and to preclude their adoption by initiative. According to the court, as a negotiated contract between a developer and a municipality, a development agreement was incompatible with the initiative process, in which the measure is proposed by the voters and, if approved, cannot be changed.

Takeaways

The City of Moreno Valley decision offers important judicial guidance on the longstanding practice of developers using the initiative process to circumvent the traditional local legislative process. Because voter initiatives can only be revised by another vote of the people, initiatives developed and sponsored by developers significantly impede a city council’s ability to regulate a project. The development agreement statute contemplates negotiation between a local government and developer. An initiative, on the other hand, cannot be changed before adoption, making it impossible for the city council to secure assurances from the developer and benefits for local residents.

Since the California Supreme Court’s 2014 decision inTuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, which held that that an initiative is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, California cities and counties have seen a dramatic increase in development projects proposed by developer sponsored initiatives. At least for the moment, the City of Moreno Valley decision will put an end to this practice and restore negotiation power over development projects to local governments.

For more information about the City of Moreno Valley decision or about development agreements in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley, III

Partner

Jose Montoya

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws Increase State Control of Addiction Treatment Facilities, Require Student Athlete Opioid Warning

October 2018
Number 58

On September 26, Governor Jerry Brown signed a package of bills designed to enhance state regulation of licensed alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities (RTFs). Governor Brown also signed Senate Bill (SB) 1109, which aims to better inform the public of the risks associated with the use of opioids. These bills take effect January 1, 2019 unless otherwise noted.

Senate Bill (SB) 992: Disclosure of Business Relationships; Developing Plans to Address Resident Relapse

SB 992 expands the types of facilities subject to licensing and regulatory requirements by broadening the definition of “alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility” to include facilities that provide residential nonmedical services for less than 24 hours per day. Additionally, SB 992 requires all RTFs and certified outpatient programs to publicly disclose ownership of, financial interest in, or control over recovery residences, which include residential dwellings commonly referred to as “sober living homes,” “sober living environments,” or “unlicensed alcohol and drug free residences.” RTFs must develop plans to address resident relapses, including details regarding how the resident’s treatment stay and treatment plan will be adjusted to address the relapse episode and how the resident will be treated and supervised while under the influence. It is unclear where the plans will be kept or who will enforce use of the plans.

Assembly Bill (AB) 3162: Facility Licenses and Increased Penalties for Unlicensed Operations

AB 3162 makes initial licenses to operate a new RTF provisional for one year and revocable by the Department of Health Care Services for good cause. It also requires licensed services offered or provided by an RTF to be specified on the license and provided exclusively within either the licensed facility or any facility identified on a single license by street address. AB 3162 also increases the civil penalty assessed by the Department of Health Care Services for providing recovery, treatment, or detoxification services without a license from $200 per day to $2,000 per day, and increases the penalties for a violation of the licensing and regulatory provisions from $25 to $50 per day for each violation to $250 to $500 per day for each violation.

SB 823: Evidence-Based Standard of Care for Licensed Facilities

RTFs currently vary in their level of service provided. SB 823 requires the Department of Health Care Services to adopt the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s treatment criteria, or an equivalent evidence-based standard, as the minimum standard of care for RTFs by January 1, 2023. The Department of Health Care Services will require RTFs to maintain those standards with respect to the level of care to be provided by the facilities.

SB 1228: Ban on Patient Brokering

SB 1228 prohibits RTFs and other alcohol or drug programs certified by the Department of Health Care Services and their employees from patient brokering, a practice in which patients are recruited to go to a treatment facility in exchange for cash payments, drugs, or other items of value. The Department of Health Care Services may investigate allegations of patient brokering and may, upon finding a violation, assess a penalty or impose other enforcement mechanisms. RTFs or other programs that engage in patient brokering may be fined or have their license or certification suspended or revoked. RTF or program employees who engage in patient brokering may be recommended for disciplinary action, such as termination of employment and suspension and revocation of licensure or certification.

SB 1109: Opioid Factsheet to Youth Athletes

SB 1109 requires school districts, charter schools, private schools, and youth sports organizations offering an athletic program, other than as part of the regular school day or as part of physical education, to annually give the Opioid Factsheet for Patients published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to each athlete. The athlete and, if the athlete is under 17, the athlete’s parent or guardian, must sign and return a document acknowledging receipt of the factsheet before the athlete begins practice or competition. Youth sports organizations include local government agencies that sponsor or conduct amateur sports competitions, training, camps, or clubs in which persons 17 years of age or younger participate.

If you have any questions about these new laws, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

William P. Curley, III

Partner

Jose Montoya

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

New Laws Restrict Law Enforcement Agencies’ Right to Withhold Recordings Relating to “Critical Incidents”

October 2018
Number 60

After years of failed attempts, the Legislature has passed, and Governor Brown has signed into law, two bills that remove the longstanding layers of protection and confidentiality for certain law enforcement records. Senate Bill (SB) 1421, which becomes effective January 1, 2019, increases public access to certain records relating to allegations of misconduct by law enforcement. Assembly Bill (AB) 748, effective July 1, 2019, subjects body camera footage to public records requests.
These laws will be applicable to all public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers, including cities, counties and school districts.

Background

For more than four decades, records relating to citizen complaints against law enforcement officers that are held by the officers’ employing agency have only been made available in a civil or criminal matter, after a showing of cause established in a “Pitchess” motion or through an officer’s voluntary waiver. The courts have supported the protection of peace officer personnel files over the years. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the record of an officer’s administrative disciplinary appeal from a sustained finding of misconduct was confidential and could not be disclosed to the public. However, the confidential status of these records is about to change.

SB 1421 expands the public’s right, through the California Public Records Act (CPRA), to request and receive records related to reports, investigations, or findings of:

  • An incident involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm at a person;
  • An incident in which the use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury;
  • An incident in which a finding that an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public was sustained; and
  • Any record relating to a sustained finding that an officer was dishonest relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the misconduct of another officer.

While SB 1421 permits the redaction of certain personal information and allows a public agency to withhold records when their release would create a reasonable safety concern, and also while an investigation into the use of force is ongoing, the new law will change who has access to information historically found to be confidential.

Separately, AB 748 will require law enforcement agencies to release, upon request, video or audio recording footage of a “critical incident” within 45 days of the incident. A critical incident is defined as a recording that depicts:

  • An incident involving an officer’s discharge of a firearm at a person, or
  • An incident in which the use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury.

AB 748 provides limited exceptions to the requirement that such video or audio footage be released. In an effort to balance transparency with law enforcement’s ability to conduct effective investigations and the right to privacy, a law enforcement agency may withhold such footage for up to one year if it can “demonstrate that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.” An agency may withhold such footage for longer than one year if it can establish by “clear and convincing” evidence that substantial interference would occur if the information is released.

The new law will also allow an agency, when it can demonstrate that release would violate the subject’s reasonable expectation of privacy, to blur, obscure and redact the recordings, so long as the changes do not interfere with the public’s ability to “fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording.”

Takeaways

As early as January 1, 2019, the right to obtain copies of law enforcement agency records pertaining to citizen complaints and recordings of “critical incidents” will be expanded under the CPRA, barring certain limited exceptions. It is not yet clear what facts may pass scrutiny for these exceptions to apply. Public agencies should review their current policies regarding CPRA, body camera footage, video and other recordings to determine what changes will be necessary to comply with these new laws.

For more information about SB 1421, AB 748 or about the CPRA in general, please contact the authors of this Client News Brief or an attorney at one of our eight offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter or download our Client News Brief App.

Written by:

Jenell Van Bindsbergen

Partner

Mark Murray

Associate

©2017 Lozano Smith

As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.