July 28–30, 1999

Judicial Council Conference Center

San Francisco, California

I. WELCOME

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. in San Francisco and welcomed everyone to the 15th meeting of the task force.

II. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Justice Ardaiz introduced one guest during the public comment period. Mr. Guy Decker, Chief Deputy, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, commented and asked questions for clarification about the task force’s interim report recommendations relative to defined-benefit retirement plans.

Justice Ardaiz summarized the actions of the task force at the June 14–15, 1999, meeting, as follows: (1) finalized definitions, assumptions, objectives, and models for:

(2) identified issues related to retirement benefits for new employees; (3) provided update on survey and report format for unions; (4) reviewed transition assumptions, objectives, and model and reached general agreement; (5) reviewed interim report comments and agreed on appropriate responses/actions; and (6) revisited timeline and reached agreement on extension.

Justice Ardaiz discussed the following objectives for the July meeting:

• Provide an opportunity for communication through public comment period;
• Reach agreement regarding the task force’s timeline;
• Agree on a process for drafting legislation for the task force’s recommendations;
• In relation to the interim report:

- Review additional comments and determine appropriate responses; and

• Review survey analyses and determine reports needed;
• In relation to retiree group insurance benefits:

- Receive educational information;

- Present draft assumptions, objectives, and model; and

- Identify issues;

• Present revised retirement assumptions, objectives, and model for current and new employees; reach agreement wherever possible;
• Revisit and finalize group insurance, accrued leave, and other employer-provided benefits assumptions, objectives, and models (including as they apply to new employees);
• In relation to federally regulated benefits flexible spending accounts and cafeteria plans:

- Receive educational information;

- Present draft assumptions, objectives, and concepts; and

• In relation to employee advisory vote, review and reach agreement on:

- Employee advisory vote distribution;

- Revised ballot formats;

- Orientation and educational materials; and

- Pilot process for employee advisory vote.

Ms. Liz Schiff reviewed the agenda of the meeting and ground rules.

Justice Ardaiz asked if there were any additions or corrections to the June 3, 1999, meeting minutes. Sheriff Charles Plummer moved that the June 3, 1999 minutes be accepted. Judge Charles D. Field seconded the motion. The June 3 meeting minutes were adopted without any additions or corrections and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Justice Ardaiz asked if there were any additions or corrections to the June 14–15, 1999, meeting minutes. Sheriff Charles Plummer moved that the June 14–15, 1999 minutes be accepted. Judge Charles Field seconded the motion. The June 14–15 meeting minutes were adopted without any additions or corrections and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

IV. TASK FORCE TIMELINE

Justice Ardaiz reviewed the discussions of the task force regarding the timeline from the June 14–15 meeting. Ms. Judith A. Myers presented a revised timeline based on the task force’s decision at the prior meeting to extend the deadline of the final report beyond September 1999. The task force agreed to consider the specifics of the timeline and continue the discussion later in the meeting.

V. INTERIM REPORT COMMENTS: COMMENTS AND REVISIONS

Ms. Myers summarized additional comments about the interim report that were received after the deadline. She provided an overview of the work completed at the June 14–15 1999 meeting, including the task force’s recommended changes and responses to the comments.

Justice Ardaiz reviewed comments received regarding the definition of the county employment status option. In response to these comments staff had prepared alternative definitions for the purpose of a discussion. Justice Ardaiz reviewed the original definition, the discussion alternatives, and pertinent sections of the Trial Court Funding Act. The task force formed small groups and discussed the alternatives for a county status option definition. Each group reported their issues to the full group, and the task force engaged in a discussion of the alternatives.

Ms. Myers presented proposed revisions to the definition of trial court employee based on the interim report comments received and from discussions at the previous task force meeting. Judge Aviva K. Bobb moved to adopt the changes. Ms. Mary Louise Lee seconded the motion. The definition of trial court employee was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers explained the clarifying revisions proposed to the Recommended Classification Model. Mr. Larry Spikes moved to adopt the revised Recommended Classification Model. Mr. Steve Perez seconded the motion. The Recommended Classification Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers presented a revised Recommended Salary Model. The task force made additional modifications to the model. Judge Field moved to adopt the revised Recommended Salary Model. Mr. Perez seconded the motion. The Recommended Salary Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers presented revisions to the Recommended Meet-and-Confer Model. Members made additional revisions to the Recommended Meet-and-Confer Model. Judge Field moved to adopt the revised Recommended Meet-and-Confer Model. Mr. Spikes seconded the motion. The Recommended Meet-a-Confer Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers presented the interim report comments received about the Recommended Employment Protection System Model. The task force members discussed the comments and model and agreed to further research and discussion.

VI. CLOSING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m.

I. OPENING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 9:20 a.m.

Ms. Schiff reviewed a revised agenda for the remaining portions of the meeting.

Ms. Myers introduced Ms. Hazel Ann Reimche who provided the task force with a brief update on the union verification of survey reports and the survey addendum about deferred compensation plans.

Ms. Myers introduced Mr. Drew James, Actuary of William M. Mercer, Inc., who presented a sampling of reports from the Trial Court Employee Survey, which included unverified data. The members reviewed and discussed the sample reports. Mr. James will research the possibility of making electronic copies for distribution of the survey data to the task force once the verification process has been completed.

Ms. Myers presented the following revised documents, which were reviewed by staff to determine if changes were necessary to incorporate future employees based on the task force’s discussions during the June 14–15, 1999, meeting: Working Group Insurance Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System; and Working Other Employer-Provided Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. The task force reviewed and discussed these documents. Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Accrued Leave Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Staff did not identify any necessary changes to this document.

Justice Ardaiz introduced the following guest speakers during the public comment period:

Ms. Diane Carter, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, commented about civil service status, progressive discipline, just cause termination, and the need for statewide policies regarding trial court employee personnel issues.

Ms. Barbara J. Blake, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, commented on the need for an "appeal process."

Mr. Ellias Butt, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, commented on concerns of court employees about becoming state employees.

Ms. Myers introduced Mr. Ken Marzion, Chief, Actuarial and Employer Services Division, CalPERS. Mr. Marzion provided education and an overview of retiree health benefits offered through CalPERS.

Ms. Myers introduced Mr. Steve Keil, Legislative Coordinator, California State Association of Counties. Mr. Keil provided education about retiree group insurance benefits in 1937 Act counties. Mr. Keil described the diverse funding mechanisms and arrangements among the county systems for retiree benefits, including excess earnings, unfunded liabilities, pre-funding, and alternative funding provisions.

Ms. Myers presented the Working Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Definitions, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. The task force agreed to modifications and directed staff to continue the model development for further task force review.

The task force formed small groups to discuss transition issues related to counties that offer 401(k) programs to employees. Each small group presented their findings to the full group. Ms. Schiff facilitated a discussion of these issues.

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. and reviewed a revised agenda for the day.

Justice Ardaiz introduced Ms. Barbara McGeoch, Benefits Attorney of William M. Mercer, Inc. Ms. McGeoch delivered an educational presentation about flexible benefits including flexible spending arrangements such as health care and dependent care, and cafeteria plans. She informed the task force of several options for transitioning these benefit programs for the trial court employee personnel structure.

Justice Ardaiz introduced a discussion of the advisory vote of trial court employees. He reviewed the original objectives and issues related to the timing and content of the vote. He raised the following issues for discussion:

• In order to take the advisory vote, employees must be advised of the employment status options and the components of the proposed personnel structure. Therefore, the task force must finalize those decisions before the vote is conducted.
• Comments in response to the task force’s second interim report may warrant revisions to some of the personnel structure models, which means the revisions must be complete prior to writing the ballot and educational materials.

• The Trial Court Funding Act does not require the task force to conduct the advisory vote. The legislation requires the task force to prepare a method for conducting the vote.
• The task force will face serious timeline issues if the final report must be completed by the end of November or the first part of December. The vote would have to be conducted in October, necessitating a complete ballot with final decisions by the task force on every issue.

Ms. Schiff asked the task force to consider the following alternatives:

1. Proceed as planned with the process for the advisory vote described in the task force’s interim report, realizing the final report may not be completed by December 1999. Ms. Myers reviewed, as examples, sample advisory vote ballots and educational materials to demonstrate to the task force the number of issues that still need to be resolved.
2. Use the same advisory vote process but conduct the vote after the final report is issued. Use the results of the advisory vote to inform the Legislature.
3. Follow the mandate of the Trial Court Funding Act and recommend a process for the advisory vote and public entity poll. The task force will not actually conduct the vote.

Ms. Schiff led the task force in a discussion of the alternatives. Mr. Ronald G. Overholt moved to adopt the third alternative. The task force voted in favor of the motion; Ms. Pamela Aguilar and Ms. Barbara Bare abstained from voting. The task force directed staff to notify the trial courts and employees of this revised recommendation as soon as possible.

Several task force members notified staff that they would not be able to attend the

August 19, 1999, meeting. This meeting was rescheduled to add a third day, September 1, 1999, to the August 30–31,1999, meeting in San Francisco. Staff will update the timeline incorporating the revised recommendation regarding the advisory vote and the rescheduled meeting.

Ms. Myers summarized the task force’s discussions regarding retirement from the

June 14–15 meeting. She reviewed the proposed revisions to the Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. The modifications were written to include current and future employees in county defined-benefit retirement plans. The task force made additional revisions to the model. Sheriff Plummer moved to accept the assumptions, objectives, and model as amended. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion. The Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

Ms. Myers reviewed the Working Federally Regulated Benefits Assumptions, Objectives, and Concepts for Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. The task force discussed and made revisions to the assumptions and objectives. The task force discussed the concepts for preparation of a model and Ms. Myers indicated a model would be developed by staff for presentation at a future meeting

Justice Ardaiz summarized the accomplishments of the task force at the meeting as follows:

• Reviewed additional interim report comments and agreed to a process for responding.
• In response to interim report comments, agreed to appropriate modifications to:

• Received overview of survey data; identified general types of reports needed.
• Finalized accrued leave model taking into consideration new employees.
• Proposed modifications to group insurance benefits and other employer-provided benefits.
• Received education on retiree group insurance benefits.
• Discussed retiree group insurance benefits assumptions, objectives and model; identified issues.
• Discussed options for resolving 401(k) concerns.
• Received education on federally regulated benefits; explored assumptions, objectives, and concepts.
• Agreed to revise our process for the employee advisory vote and public entity poll.
• Agreed to a revised timeline.
• Adopted assumptions, objectives, and model for defined-benefit retirement.

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 12 p.m. and thanked the task force for their hard work during the meeting.