(1) Existing law created the Legal Services Revolving Fund in the State Treasury. Existing law requires the Attorney General to charge the costs incurred in providing legal services. Existing law prohibits charges, except as approved by the Department of Finance, for legal services to be against the General Fund. Existing law requires the Controller to transfer the amount of the charges for services rendered from the agency’s appropriation to the appropriation for the support of the Attorney General’s Office; however, the Attorney General is prohibited from requesting an amount that exceeds the amount budgeted by the state agency for the Attorney General’s legal services.
This bill would delete the prohibition that charges for legal services cannot be made against the General Fund. This bill would require the Controller to transfer the amount of the charges for services rendered
from the agency’s appropriation to the appropriation for the support of the Attorney General’s office using the Controller’s direct transfer process. This bill would require all disputes to be resolved in accordance with a specified provision of the State Administrative Manual.
(2) Existing law classifies certain police officers, sheriff deputies, and firefighters who have responsibility for the direct supervision of state peace officer/firefighter personnel as state peace officer/firefighter members under the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). Employees classified as safety members under PERS, including state peace officer/firefighter members, are generally entitled to higher benefits and subject to higher contribution rates than employees classified as miscellaneous or general members. Certain employees of the Office of the Inspector General are peace officers and entitled to state peace officer/firefighter
benefits under PERS.
This bill would include in the state peace officer/firefighter classification employees of the Office of the Inspector General who are no longer peace officers after the effective date of this act but who were hired as peace officers prior to April 1, 2011, or prior to the first day of the first pay period following the enactment of this act if this act is enacted after April 1, 2011.
(3) Existing law requires the Judicial Council to provide an annual status report to the chairpersons of the budget committee in each house of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee regarding the California Case Management System and Court Accounting and Reporting System on or before December 1 of each year until project completion. Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to annually provide to those
chairpersons copies of any independent project oversight report for the California Case Management System.
Existing law also provides that the California Case Management System, and all other administrative and infrastructure information technology projects of the Judicial Council or the courts with total costs estimated at more than $5,000,000, shall be subject to the review and recommendations of the California Technology Agency, as specified. Existing law requires the
Secretary of California Technology to submit a copy of those reviews and recommendations to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
This bill would instead require the Judicial Council to provide the above-described status report on or before December 1 of each year until the completion and full implementation of the project. The bill would also require the AOC to retain an independent consultant to review the California Case Management System and produce a written independent assessment of the system, as specified. The bill would, prior to the acceptance and deployment of the system, require the independent consultant to provide the written assessment to the AOC, require the AOC to provide a copy of the written assessment to legislative budget committees, as specified, and require the AOC to work with the development vendor to ensure that any flaws, defects, or risks identified in the assessment are
remedied during the warranty period.
(4) Existing law provides that the Judicial Council may regulate the budget and fiscal management of the trial courts. Existing law requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to contract with the Controller to perform specified audits, except as specified.
This bill would require that the audits referenced above additionally determine compliance with the California Judicial Branch Contract Law, as described in (8) below.
(5) Existing law creates the independent Office of the Inspector General and provides that it is not a subdivision of any other government entity. The Inspector General and certain other employees of the office are peace officers provided that the primary duty of these peace officers is conducting audits of investigatory practices and other audits, as well as conducting investigations, of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities, and the Board of Parole Hearings.
This bill would remove the Inspector General and other
employees of his or her office as peace officers, except for those employees whose primary duties are conducting investigations of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities, and the Board of Parole Hearings. The bill would make conforming changes. The bill would further make nonsubstantive, technical changes to these provisions.
(6) Existing law requires that $40 be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense, including traffic offenses, to ensure and maintain
adequate funding for court security. Existing law requires that amount to be reduced to $30 on July 1, 2011, and reduced to $20 on July 1, 2013.
This bill would instead keep in effect the charge of $40 until July 1, 2013, at which time the charge would be reduced to $30. The bill would delete the provision reducing the charge to $20.
(7) Existing law regulates the terms and conditions of conservatorships. Existing law authorizes a court to refer certain issues relating to a conservatorship to a court investigator and prescribes the duties of
an investigator in this regard, which include interviewing specified relatives of a proposed conservatee, conducting investigations of, and reporting to a court about, the appropriateness of a conservatorship, and, to the extent practicable, reviewing accountings with a conservatee. Existing law requires a court to review each limited conservatorship one year after the appointment of the conservator and biennially thereafter. Existing law permits specified parties to file a petition for an appointment of a temporary guardian or a temporary conservator and establishes requirements for the petition and for notice of the hearing on the petition. Existing law also creates various requirements for a court in this regard, and for a court investigator, including interviewing a proposed conservatee and informing him or her of the nature, purpose, and effect of a temporary
conservatorship.
This bill would provide that a superior court is not required to perform certain duties enacted by specified statutes in relation to conservatorships, as described above, until an appropriation is made that is identified for this purpose.
(8) The Public Contract Code generally governs contracts entered into by a state agency, including contracts for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any state structure, building, road, or other state improvement of any kind, as prescribed, and the
acquisition of goods and services, by the state agency, and also sets forth the requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of those contracts. For purposes of those laws, “state agency” does not include the courts, or any agency in the judicial branch of government.
This bill would create the California Judicial Branch Contract Law, which would apply specified provisions of the Public Contract Code that are applicable to state agencies and departments to specified contracts initially entered into or amended by judicial branch entities, as defined, on or after October 1, 2011, as provided. The bill would require specified contracts to be subject to review by the Bureau of State Audits and all administrative and infrastructure information technology projects of the Judicial Council to be subject to review by the California
Technology Agency, as specified.
This bill would provide that the California Judicial Branch Contract Law does not apply to procurement and contracting by judicial branch entities that are related to trial court construction, including, but not limited to, the planning, design, construction, rehabilitation, renovation, replacement, lease, or acquisition of trial court facilities.
This bill would also require the Judicial Council to provide a report containing certain information relating to procurement to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee twice a year, beginning in 2012, as specified, and, by January 15, 2013, to
provide a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on the process, transparency, costs, and timeliness of its construction procurement practices. The bill would also require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct an analysis of the findings. The Legislative Analyst’s Office may request that the Department of General Services provide comparable information, as specified. The bill would require the audits referenced in (4) above to include an audit and report by the State Auditor on his or her assessment of the implementation of the California Judicial Branch Contract Law by the judicial branch. The bill would provide that the State Auditor shall be reimbursed by the judicial branch entity that is the subject of the audit for all reasonable costs associated with conducting that audit.
(9) The DNA Fingerprint, Unresolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act, an initiative measure, requires an additional penalty of one dollar for every $10 or part thereof to be levied in each county upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for all criminal offenses, as specified. The act requires 25% of those moneys to be transferred to the state’s DNA Identification Fund and specifies the purposes for which those funds may be used.
This bill would appropriate $1,000 from the DNA Identification Fund to the Department of Justice for state operations, consistent with those purposes, in the 2011–12 fiscal
year.
(10) The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. Governor Schwarzenegger issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 6, 2010. Governor Brown issued a proclamation on January 20, 2011, declaring and reaffirming that a fiscal emergency exists and stating that his proclamation supersedes the earlier proclamation for purposes of that constitutional provision.
This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared and reaffirmed by the Governor by proclamation issued on January
20, 2011, pursuant to the California Constitution.
(11) This bill would declare that it is to take immediate effect as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.