County public defender: appointment.
- Establishes boards of supervisors as the appointing authority for county public defenders.
- Requires removal by a three-fifths vote for neglect, malfeasance, misconduct, or other good cause.
- Clarifies public defenders remain subject to county performance evaluations.
- Provides reimbursement through the state mandate framework if costs are mandated.
Senator Reyes’s measure would place the appointment of county public defenders squarely with the boards of supervisors (and, for multi-county offices, with the coordinating boards of the involved counties) and establish a removal mechanism requiring a three-fifths vote by the board for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misconduct in office, or other good cause, while preserving the role of local performance evaluation processes.
Section 1 specifies the appointment and removal framework: a county public defender is appointed by the board of supervisors, and a public defender serving two or more counties is appointed by the boards of supervisors of those counties; removal from office requires a three-fifths vote and specified grounds; a clarifying provision states that this framework does not exempt the public defender from a county’s established performance evaluation process for appointed department heads. Section 2 ties any state-mandated costs to the existing reimbursement framework for local agencies and school districts, with no new explicit appropriation identified in the text.
The changes illuminate a board-centric governance model for public defenders and introduce a high-threshold removal mechanism that could affect accountability dynamics within county offices, including multi-county arrangements. The bill preserves alignment with local performance reviews, while invoking the state-mandates reimbursement process if costs are deemed mandated. Procedural timelines or due-process specifics for removal are not specified within the bill text, leaving implementation details to local practice and potential future guidance.
 Eloise ReyesD Senator | Bill Author |  Not Contacted |
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Introduced By
Latest Voting History
| Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 0 | 0 | 40 | PASS |
- Establishes boards of supervisors as the appointing authority for county public defenders.
- Requires removal by a three-fifths vote for neglect, malfeasance, misconduct, or other good cause.
- Clarifies public defenders remain subject to county performance evaluations.
- Provides reimbursement through the state mandate framework if costs are mandated.
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Introduced By
Senator Reyes’s measure would place the appointment of county public defenders squarely with the boards of supervisors (and, for multi-county offices, with the coordinating boards of the involved counties) and establish a removal mechanism requiring a three-fifths vote by the board for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misconduct in office, or other good cause, while preserving the role of local performance evaluation processes.
Section 1 specifies the appointment and removal framework: a county public defender is appointed by the board of supervisors, and a public defender serving two or more counties is appointed by the boards of supervisors of those counties; removal from office requires a three-fifths vote and specified grounds; a clarifying provision states that this framework does not exempt the public defender from a county’s established performance evaluation process for appointed department heads. Section 2 ties any state-mandated costs to the existing reimbursement framework for local agencies and school districts, with no new explicit appropriation identified in the text.
The changes illuminate a board-centric governance model for public defenders and introduce a high-threshold removal mechanism that could affect accountability dynamics within county offices, including multi-county arrangements. The bill preserves alignment with local performance reviews, while invoking the state-mandates reimbursement process if costs are deemed mandated. Procedural timelines or due-process specifics for removal are not specified within the bill text, leaving implementation details to local practice and potential future guidance.
Latest Voting History
| Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 0 | 0 | 40 | PASS |
Eloise ReyesD Senator | Bill Author | Not Contacted |