Senate Bill No. 11
CHAPTER 9
An act to add Sections 68220, 68221, and 68222 to the Government Code,
relating to judges.
[Approved by Governor February 20, 2009. Filed with
Secretary of State February 20, 2009.]
legislative counsel
’
s digest
SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment bene
fi
ts.
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 bene
fi
ts. 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
bene
fi
ts provided by a county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall
continue to receive supplemental bene
fi
ts from the county or court then
paying the bene
fi
ts 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 bene
fits 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 of
fi
ce. The bill also would
authorize the county to elect to provide bene
fi
ts 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 bene
fi
ts inconsistencies.
This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or of
fi
cer or employee
of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution
or disciplinary action because of bene
fi
ts provided to a judge under the
of
fi
cial action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill
on the ground that those bene
fi
ts 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 bene
fi
ts or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for
bene
fi
ts previously provided by the county, city and county, or the court.
96
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature
fi
nds and declares all of the following:
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature to address the decision of the Court
of Appeal in Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th
630, regarding county-provided bene
fi
ts for judges.
(b) These county-provided bene
fi
ts were considered by the Legislature
in enacting the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, in which
counties could receive a reduction in the county
’
s maintenance of effort
obligations if counties elected to provide bene
fits pursuant to paragraph (l
)
of subdivision (c) of Section 77201 of the Government Code for trial court
judges of that county.
(c) Numerous counties and courts established local or court supplemental
bene
fits to retain qualified applicants for judicial offi
ce, and trial court
judges relied upon the existence of these longstanding supplemental bene
fi
ts
provided by the counties or the court.
SEC. 2. Section 68220 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68220. (a) Judges of a court whose judges received supplemental judicial
bene
fi
ts provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall
continue to receive supplemental bene
fi
ts from the county or court then
paying the bene
fi
ts on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on
that date.
(b) A county may terminate its obligation to provide bene
fi
ts under this
section upon providing the Administrative Director of the Courts and the
impacted judges with 180 days
’
written notice. The termination shall 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 of
fi
ce. The county is also authorized to elect to
provide bene
fi
ts for all judges in the county.
SEC. 3. Section 68221 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68221. To clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies in terms with regard
to judges and justices and to ensure uniformity statewide, the following
shall apply for purposes of Sections 68220 to 68222, inclusive:
(a)
“Benefits” and “benefit” shall include federally regulated benefi
ts,
as described in Section 71627, and deferred compensation plan bene
fi
ts,
such as 401(k) and 457 plans, as described in Section 71628, and may also
include professional development allowances.
(b)
“Salary” and “compensation”
shall have the meaning as set forth in
Section 1241.
SEC. 4. Section 68222 is added to the Government Code, to read:
68222. Nothing in this act shall require the Judicial Council to increase
funding to a court for the purpose of paying judicial bene
fi
ts or obligate the
state or the Judicial Council to pay for bene
fi
ts previously provided by the
county, city and county, or the court.
SEC. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no governmental entity, or
of
fi
cer or employee of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be
subject to prosecution or disciplinary action because of bene
fi
ts provided
96
Ch. 9
— 2
—
to a judge under the of
fi
cial action of a governmental entity prior to the
effective date of this act on the ground that those bene
fi
ts were not authorized
under law.
SEC. 6. The Judicial Council shall 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 bene
fi
ts inconsistencies.
SEC. 7. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this
act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
O
96
—
3 —
Ch. 9
