Association of CA State Employees with Disabilities

Legislative Report, October 8, 2008

1.    AB 851 (Brownley). Work incentives. Under current law, the Medi-Cal 250% Working Disabled Program, which was begun in 2002, creates a special Medi-Cal category that allows workers with disabilities to retain more of their earnings without losing Medi-Cal and IHSS benefits.  The purpose of the program is to encourage and reward work for Medi-Cal and IHSS recipients with disabilities. AB851 makes changes to this program to eliminate the sunset date of September 2008 and to remove remaining work disincentives that have been identified since the program began in 2002.

This very good bill is identical to AB1113 from last year, which ACSED supported as a high priority, and which was vetoed by the governor. The sponsors feel they have fixed the problem that caused the governor's veto, and now have his support.

Outcome:  Although the bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee, the most important goal was accomplished. The sunset date, which would have terminated the program, was removed through AB1183, one of the budget trailer bills. So the program is now permanent.    

Position: Support. Letter sent.

2.    AB 1940 (DeVore).  Temporary disabled persons; placards; pregnancy. Would allow women in last trimester of pregnancy and two months after giving birth to get temporary handicapped parking placard.

Outcome:  Defeated in Assembly Transportation Committee at hearing March 24.

Position:  Oppose.

3.    AB 2308-(Karnette). Public employment, disabled persons.  Amended May 23, 2008. Would require the State Personnel Board to waive the requirement for a high school diploma, in job categories where it is appropriate, as a reasonable accommodation for otherwise qualified persons with disabilities who have not been able to pass the high school exit exam despite multiple attempts.

Outcome:  Vetoed by the Governor.

Position:  Support.

4.    AB 2533 (Keane).  Disability Access Notification. This, like SB1766 below, is a bad bill, although not quite as bad. It would also require a person with a disability who encounters an access violation to notify the owner or manager before he or she would be able to file a legal action, but does not require a certified letter and allows legal action to proceed after 30 days.

Both these bills are worthy of ACSED opposition. They place restrictions on the legal rights of persons with disabilities that are not put on any other group. They also weaken accessibility regulations by essentially telling building owners and managers that there are no consequences if they don't comply until they get a letter from an individual with a disability. The reason often given for requiring notice is that supposedly some people with disabilities file large numbers of lawsuits at businesses they don't actually patronize just to make money.  But the courts have more that sufficient power to deal with litigants that the court feels are not behaving ethically, and it's not appropriate to restrict the rights of all.

Outcome:  Failed passage.

Position:  Oppose.

5.    AB 2635 (Beall). Individuals with severe disabilities. State employment. Amended May 23, 2008. Would require the State Personnel Board to include in their annual report on the employment of persons with disabilities persons who could benefit from supported employment. These shall be reported as a separate category.

Outcome:  Died in Senate Appropriations Committee.

Position:  Support.

6.    SB1608 (Corbett, Harmon, Steinberg, Runner and Calderon). Disabled persons. Equal access rights. Civil Rights.  Amended August 12, 2008. This very lengthy and complicated bill attempts to resolve issues of poor enforcement of architectural access regulations for persons with disabilities, and the issue of allegedly excessive lawsuits against businesses. It has five major provisions: first, new educational requirements for building inspectors and architects; second, through the Judicial Council, improved procedures for informing defendants and plaintiffs of their rights and responsibilities and for resolving disputes through an early evaluation conference in the court; third, use of Certified Access Specialists to survey buildings to determine whether they comply with access requirements and to grant certificates of accessibility which the business can post; fourth, creation of a 19-member Disability Access Commission with various responsibilities including for public education; and fifth, allow a business to appeal the decision of the local building department on an access requirement to the State Building Standards Commission (this fifth provision is eliminated in the July 2 amendment). This bill has become very controversial, with some groups in the disability community supporting and some opposing.

Outcome: Enacted as Chapter 549, Statutes of 2008, but also amended to answer many of our concerns.

Position:  Oppose unless amended, with opposition to three provisions. First of all, to use of the Certified Access Specialist since that program, authorized in 2003, is not yet up and running and, as it now stands, looks like it could be very easily subverted by businesses since the CAS would be paid by the business. Second, to the provision that allows a business to appeal the decision of the building department to the Building Standards Commission because this would undermine the building department and politicize the issues (this provision is eliminated in the July 2 amendment). Third, to the creation of the Disability Access Commission, since it would repeat activities already covered by the Division of the State Architect, and since it would be expensive and politicizing. Support for the provisions involving education of architects and building inspectors and increased support from the Judicial Council for lawsuit activities.

7.    SB 1766 (McClintock).  Disability Access Notification. This very bad bill does a number of things that would damage accessibility for people with disabilities and put restrictions on the legal rights of people with disabilities that are not put on any other group. Simply stated, it would prevent any person with a disability from filing a legal action regarding an inaccessible building until they had first sent a certified letter to the business owner or manager informing them of their concern, and then waited six months (or longer under some conditions) for the owner or manager to take action. This is a terrible bill, worse than similar bills, which ACSED has opposed in the past.

Outcome:  Failed passage.

Position:  Oppose. Letter of opposition sent.

8.    State Personnel Board Budget. Proposal for general staff cut. This cut may harm the ability of the SPB to carry out responsibilities for LEAP and other services to employees and applicants with disabilities.

Outcome: 

Position:  Oppose.

9.    Department of Rehabilitation Budget. Proposal for a 10% cut to DOR staffing and services. This cut would do great harm to DOR's ability to provide needed employment services for current and prospective employees with disabilities.

Outcome:  Some but not all cuts made. More mid-year cuts may be coming.

Position:  Oppose. Letter of opposition sent.

For more information:  If you would like more information regarding any of the California Legislative matters presented at ACSEDonline.org please contact Pat McPartland, ACSED's Legislation Coordinator, by completing and sending the online contact form available via this link.