Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administration Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller proposes moving garnishment processing to state payroll to improve efficiency, privacy
Summary
State Controller Andy Matthews and Chief Deputy James Smack presented Assembly Bill 17 to transfer receipt and processing of writs of garnishment to the Department of Human Resources Management, citing payroll alignment, modest case volume and improved privacy protections for employees.
State Controller Andy Matthews and Chief Deputy James Smack briefed the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on Assembly Bill 17, a proposed statutory change that would move the initial receipt and processing of writs of garnishment from the Controller’s Office to the Department of Human Resources Management (DHRM).
What the bill would change: Under AB17, sheriffs would deliver writs of garnishment to the agency that administers state payroll rather than to the Controller’s Office. Matthews and Smack said the shift aligns administrative responsibility with payroll functions and should reduce duplicative information transfers between offices.
Why the change: Chief Deputy James Smack told the committee the Controller’s Office currently receives only a small number of garnishments—“maybe 2 or 3 a week” on average—and that most garnishment processing requires payroll data the Controller’s Office does not maintain. “We have to involve payroll in the process … so it made a lot more sense to just have payroll assume the process,” Smack said. The presenters said the change should also reduce the amount of personally identifiable information exchanged across offices, improving privacy for state employees.
Logistics and safeguards: Matthews and Smack said the Controller’s Office will train DHRM staff on the garnishment process and provide notary services if DHRM needs them. The presenters said the change is not intended to materially increase workload for DHRM; rather, it consolidates steps where the payroll records already reside.
Questions from lawmakers: Assemblymember Hardy asked whether the change would speed processing of priority garnishments such as child support; Smack said the processes are not time consuming and that prioritization of specific types of garnishments could be handled within payroll. Chair Miller and other members praised the privacy benefit and the potential for administrative efficiency.
Testimony: No members of the public testified for, against or neutral on AB17 at the committee hearing.
Next steps: The committee closed the AB17 hearing after questions and sponsor remarks; members did not take an immediate vote on the bill during the session reported here.
