August 30–September 1, 1999

Judicial Council Conference Center

San Francisco, California

I. OPENING REMARKS

Justice James A. Ardaiz, chair, called the meeting in San Francisco to order at 10:30 a.m. and welcomed everyone to the 16th meeting of the task force.

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

II. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

There were no public speakers.

III. REVIEW OF JULY 28–30 TASK FORCE MEETING AND ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR TODAY’S MEETING

Justice Ardaiz summarized the following action taken by the task force during the

July 28–30, 1999, meeting in San Francisco:

• Provided an opportunity for communication;
• Provided an update on survey addendum; provided reports to the task force for their review;
• Revisited employment status options; reached agreement on modifications and form of task force’s recommendation;
• Finalized assumptions, objectives, and models for the following:

• Provided an update on documentation requirements;
• Provided an update on Social Security issues; and
• Agreed on a process for drafting legislation for the task force’s recommendations.

Justice Ardaiz asked if there were any additions or corrections to the July l999 meeting minutes. Ms. Karleen A. George requested a correction to the minutes to add that she was not present at the meeting on July 30, 1999. Mr. Steve Perez moved that the July minutes be accepted as corrected. Mr. Ronald G. Overholt seconded the motion. No other additions or corrections to the July 28–30, 1999, minutes were made, and the minutes as revised will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

IV. PROCESS FOR DRAFTING LEGISLATION

Ms. Judith A. Myers discussed the objective and process for drafting legislation. She reviewed the proposed objective of ensuring that legislative language accurately reflects all trial court employee personnel system assumptions. The following proposed process was reviewed and discussed by the task force:

• Staff will present the proposed legislation to the task force.
• Task force members will remain available for consultation and group meetings from January through March 2000.
• Staff may use consultants to assist them in drafting the legislation.

Ms. Barbara J. Bare made a motion to adopt the proposal. Ms. Mary Louise Lee seconded the motion. The proposed process was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

V. SECOND INTERIM REPORT

Ms. Myers presented background information on the logistical constraints to providing a draft of the second interim report by the September meeting in Riverside. Ms. Myers also reviewed the proposed approach for the second interim report. Ms. Lee moved to adopt the staff’s objectives and proposed approach for the second interim report. Mr. Overholt seconded the motion.

VI. GROUP INSURANCE AND OTHER EMPLOYER-PROVIDED BENEFITS

Ms. Myers reviewed the decisions made at the July meeting relating to the group insurance model and other employer-provided benefits model. Because these models are very similar and have parallel sections that have the same wording, the staff felt the two models could be combined into one more simplified document. The task force reviewed the new Working Benefits Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. A general discussion took place and modifications were made to the model. It was proposed that staff revise the model for review the next day.

VII. RETIREE GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS

Ms. Schiff reviewed the Working Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. A general discussion by the task force took place and modifications were made to the model. Staff will revise the model for review the next day.

VIII. FEDERALLY REGULATED BENEFITS

Ms. Myers presented a brief recap of the discussion during the July meeting on Working Federally Regulated Benefits Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Ms. Schiff reviewed the federally regulated benefits and model. A general discussion took place and modifications were made to the model. Staff will revise the model for review the next day.

IX. DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Ms. Deborah Brown gave a legal update on Working Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Assumptions, Objective, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. Ms. Schiff reviewed the deferred compensation plan and model. A general discussion took place and modifications were made to the model. Staff will revise the model for review the next day.

X. CLOSING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 8:55 a.m.

II. SURVEY UPDATE

Ms. Hazel Ann Reimche gave an update on the survey addendum on deferred compensation plans and union verification process of survey data. Ms. Myers introduced Mr. Drew James, Actuary of William M. Mercer, Inc., who provided an update on the survey process and survey data electronic diskettes to be distributed to the task force members.

III. GROUP INSURANCE AND OTHER EMPLOYER-PROVIDED BENEFITS

Ms. Schiff reviewed the revised Working Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. There was general discussion on the revisions. Judge Charles D. Field moved to adopt the model. Ms. Bare seconded the motion. The revised Working Benefits Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

IV. RETIREE GROUP INSURANCE BENEFITS

Ms. Schiff reviewed the Working Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. There was a general discussion of the revisions. Sheriff Charles Plummer moved to adopt the model. Mr. Perez seconded the motion. The Working Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

V. FEDERALLY REGULATED BENEFITS

Ms. Schiff reviewed the Working Federally Regulated Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. A general discussion took place on the revisions made to the model. Sheriff Plummer moved to adopt the model. Ms. Lee seconded the motion. The Working Federally Regulated Benefits Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

VI. DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Ms. Schiff reviewed the Working Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Definition, Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. A general discussion took place on the modifications that were made to the model. Additional revisions were made to the already revised model. Sheriff Plummer moved to adopt the newly revised model and Mr. Perez seconded the motion. The Working Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Model was adopted and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

VII. RECOMMENDED DEFINED-BENEFIT RETIREMENT REVISITED

Ms. Schiff reviewed the revised Working Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Assumptions, Objectives and Model. A general discussion took place and modifications were made to the model. Ms. Pamela Aguilar moved to adopt the model as modified. Ms. Lee seconded the motion. Sheriff Plummer abstained. The Working Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Model was adopted as revised and will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

VIII. EMPLOYMENT STATUS OPTIONS IN RELATION TO MODELS

The task force members were asked to review the employment status options and models and to identify the potential issues, areas of concern, and/or consequences that would need to be discussed in the second interim report in relation to each of the employment status options. In addition, each group was asked to address the consequences of each employment status option in relation to budget control, governance, and administration. The task force broke into small groups and discussed the employment status options and models. Each group reported back to the full group and presented their issues, ideas, and concerns discussed during their small group discussions.

IX. ADVISORY VOTE AND PUBLIC ENTITY POLL

Ms. Schiff reviewed the Working Trial Court Employee Advisory Vote and Public Entity Poll Assumptions and Objectives. Mr. Perez moved to adopt the recommended method for conducting the Trial Court Employee Advisory Vote and Public Entity Poll. Judge Field seconded the motion. Judge Aviva K. Bobb moved to post to the Web site and Mr. Perez seconded the motion.

X. CLOSING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.

I. OPENING REMARKS

Justice Ardaiz called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m.

II. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

Ms. Deborah Brown presented an overview of the documentation of existing constitutional, statutory, and other provisions that may be affected by the implementation of the trial court employee personnel system. Ms. Brown discussed the possible layout for presentation of the provisions and answered questions.

III. SOCIAL SECURITY

Ms. Brown gave an overview of the possible issues that might arise concerning Social Security if a change in trial court employee status were to occur. Following discussion by the task force, it was decided that the most direct way to address the issue of Social Security was to modify the Working Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System and, if necessary, seek a private letter ruling from the Social Security Administration. Mr. Gary Cramer moved to adopt the modified defined-benefit retirement model as revised. Ms. George seconded the motion. The revised model will be posted to the task force’s Web site.

IV. TRANSITION

Ms. Brown reviewed the revised Transition Assumptions, Objectives, and Model for Implementation of the Trial Court Employee Personnel System. A general discussion took place, which focused on the issues of transfer rights and small court infrastructure issues. The task force agreed to have staff make modifications to the model and revisit these issues at the next task force meeting.

V. MEET AND CONFER

Justice Ardaiz gave a brief overview regarding adding the language of rules of court into the meet and confer model. Mr. Perez moved to adopt the revised model. Ms. Bare seconded the motion.

VI. CLOSING REMARKS

The following were accomplished at this month’s task force meeting:

• Adopted a process for drafting legislation.
• Agreed to a process for drafting the second interim report.
• Received an update on the survey.
• Agreed to adopt and post:

1. Benefits Model;
2. Retiree Group Insurance Benefits Model;
3. Federally Regulated Benefits Definition Model;
4. Deferred Compensation Plan Benefits Definition Model;
5. Recommended Defined-Benefit Retirement Model; and
6. Advisory Vote and Public Entity Poll Method.

• Reviewed all models in relation to each employee status option and identified issues for purposes of the second interim report.
• Received an update on documentation requirements and plans for compliance.
• Received an update on legal issues related to Social Security.
• Identified outstanding issues in relation to transition; reached general agreement on components of the transition model.

• Agreed to reference language in the rules of court on the meet and confer model.

Justice Ardaiz thanked the task force and the staff for their hard work during the meeting.

Justice Ardaiz adjourned the meeting at 12:00 p.m.