BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1827
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1827 (Cohn)
As Amended July 12, 2004
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |70-7 |(May 17, 2004) |SENATE: |32-4 |(August 9, |
| | | | | |2004) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Creates a new exception to both state and local
government open meeting laws that would allow state and local
government bodies to meet in closed session for the purpose
of discussing a confidential final draft audit report from the
Bureau of State Audits (State Auditor).
The Senate amendments incorporate additional changes in
Government Code Section 54954.5, proposed by AB 2782 (Benoit),
to become operative only if AB 1827 and AB 2782 are enacted and
become effective on or before January 1, 2005, and this bill is
enacted last.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Allowed a legislative body of a local agency to meet in closed
session for the purpose of discussing its response to the
final draft audit report, a confidential document prepared by
the State Auditor, and further specifies that after the public
release of the audit report that a local agency must then meet
in open session if it wants to deliberate further.
2)Allowed a state body to meet in closed session for the purpose
of discussing the final draft audit report, a confidential
document prepared by the State Auditor, and further specifies
that after the public release of the audit report that a local
agency must meet in open session.
3)Allowed a state body, or local agency to hold a closed session
to consider its response to a confidential draft audit report.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) governs the rules
AB 1827
Page 2
for meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as
boards of supervisors, city councils, and school boards. The
Brown Act is meant to strike a balance between public access to
meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand, and the
need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering
on the other. The Legislature has established a presumption in
favor of public access and requires most local agency meetings
be open to the public. However, a number of exceptions have
been carved out to provide local agencies with some flexibility
where the Legislature has found it to be warranted.
The Bagley-Keene Act: 1) requires all meetings of a state body
to be open and public and grants the right to attend such
meetings to all persons, with certain exceptions; requires these
public meetings to be noticed with an agenda that contains the
items of business that may be acted upon at the meeting; and,
defines a state body to mean every state board, commission, or
similar multimember body of the state that is created by statute
or required by law to conduct official meetings and every
commission created by executive order. Neither the Brown Act
nor the Bagley-Keene Act includes an exception that would allow
closed session discussion of a confidential draft audit report
from the State Auditor.
The state's "accounting firm," the State Auditor, provides
independent, nonpartisan assessments of California government's
financial and operational activities. The State Auditor is
organized under the executive branch and is funded by public
monies via the General Fund. However, recognizing the
importance of audit independence, the statute creating the
Bureau of State Audits specifically states: "In order to be
free of organizational impairments to independence, the bureau
shall be independent of the executive branch and legislative
control." The State Auditor requested the author to introduce
this bill.
In December 2003, the State Auditor published a report regarding
the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). CIWMB
is organized under the State of California's Environmental
Protection Agency and as such is subject to state open meeting
laws. While the subject of the report is not relevant to this
bill, CIWMB specifically mentioned in its official response that
it could not thoroughly respond to the report because it is
bound by State Auditor confidentiality requirements. CIWMB
stated that, "Due to the confidential nature of the document and
AB 1827
Page 3
the fact that the Board may not deliberate except in a noticed
public meeting, the Board itself had not been able to discuss
this response."
According to the author, a state or local government body's
inability to meet in closed session to discuss ongoing audits
presents a persistent challenge for the State Auditor. While
state and local legislative bodies respond to the reports, they
are often incomplete due to the Catch-22 of confidentiality and
open meeting law requirements. The conflict prevents the
auditee's board members from meeting as a group to discuss a
report's accuracy amongst themselves or with their staff. More
importantly, it does not allow board members to formulate a plan
of action based on the recommendations or to discuss their
disagreement with the findings, resulting in the board's plan of
action not being included in the report. This partial response
hampers the Legislature's ability to fulfill its oversight role.
This bill permits state and local governmental bodies to meet
in closed session for the narrow purpose of discussing its
response to the confidential draft report.
Analysis Prepared by : Katie A. Dokken / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN:
0006478