Local government and government service providers rally opposition to AB 339 (Ortega)

A bill that could, according to critics, render contracting for services unworkable for local agencies has reached its final committee hearing in the California State Legislature. If enacted, Assembly Bill 339 (Ortega) could disrupt local government service delivery and decimate a significant number of nonprofit organizations and local businesses that partner with local governments in delivering basic services ranging from water and fire protection to homeless services and economic development.

AB 339 has advanced out of the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee as amended in a July 9, 4-1 vote and will now be re-referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. All four Democratic senators, Dave Cortese (a former county supervisor and city council member), Maria Elena Durazo (lifelong union organizer), John Laird (former city council member) and Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (former labor organizer and civil rights activist), voted in favor of the bill, while Republican Tony Strickland (former city council member) voted in opposition. This follows the 51-11 assembly vote on June 18 that sent the Bill to the Senate. The full list of assemblymembers and their vote can be found in the table at the end of this article.

AB 339 would require public agencies, boards and commissions to give employee organizations no less than 60 days written notice before contracting for services for work that is or has ever been performed by recognized employee organization staff. AB 339 also provides an option for employee organizations to reopen labor agreements with each contract consideration by a local government. Proponents of the bill argue it provides greater transparency and prevents “DOGE-like” moves to gut local government staffing. However, many local agencies argue that the practical effect this bill would have on California local government is profoundly negative, preventing flexibility, posing risks during emergencies and leaving agencies in perpetual labor negotiations. Given that AB 339 would apply to any contract that might affect work done by a union-represented position, the Bill’s broad applicability would undercut local governments’ ability to contract for services. 

In response to the Bill, cities and other local government agencies all over California have banded together to oppose its progress. The opposition list is lengthy, including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Cal Chamber; California & Nevada Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Association;  California Association for Local Economic Development; California Association of Recreation & Park Districts; American Public Works Association; California Contract Cities Association; California Parks & Recreation Society; California Special Districts Association; California State Association of Counties; and League of California Cities.

The California Special Districts Association (CSDA) released its official statement saying that the bill “would be impractical in its execution, is unworkable for ensuring provision of public services and undermines local labor negotiations.” Moreover, the bill “deters local agencies from working in partnership with local community organizations, who are at the front lines of providing critical local services.” 

California Contract Cities Association (CCCA) also declared its stance of opposition in its official statement on February 20. “CCCA is concerned AB 339 will unnecessarily place a new financial burden on cities as an unfunded mandate,” it began. “The legislation will reduce the efficiency of the contract service delivery model that many of our member cities rely upon to provide local services to their communities.” 

Another coalition of local government agencies and associations published an official statement on March 13 expressing their opposition to the bill. “There is no benefit to employers to finalize negotiations and close on an agreement and, as a result, no labor peace,” said the group. “AB 339 will not improve services, reduce costs, or protect employees.” This opinion was later echoed by the County of Mendocino in its official statement on June 13. 

Finally, one of the most critical issues groups opposed to AB 399 voice is the risks it would create in emergency situations. In emergency situations, time is the single most valuable resource available to everyone. The ability to act swiftly and the timely responses of help can be the difference between saving a life and not. While language has been added to the bill to seek to address emergency situations, the general concern remains that the emergency language is ill-defined and will result in substantial confusion and legal implications in the midst of crisis situations.

Noted one local government service provider who requested anonymity, “This bill is designed, like prior ones, to inhibit the ability of public agencies to maximize flexibility and scale with contract support. I realize the labor unions want to grow their ranks, but they are threatening the stability of local government services and creating a poison pill with the requirement to reopen labor negotiations with each new contract. What problem is this legislation supposed to solve?”

As the Bill moves into its final legislative steps, stakeholders have their final opportunity to voice their opinion. Support for the bill is dominated by employee labor group organizations, while opposition consists primarily of local government associations and their member agencies and service-providing organizations. These include numerous non-profits that provide contract services to local governments, such as homeless outreach services or after-school care.

The next hearing is slated for the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Interested parties can submit letters with their viewpoints via the Appropriations Committee website. If it succeeds in making it out of that committee, the Bill will go to a vote of the Senate and then back to the Assembly to reconcile the amendments.

AB 339 Ortega Assembly Third Reading Voting Distribution June 18