BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    







         ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Hearing Date:June 21, 2010         |Bill No:AB                         |
        |                                   |1659                               |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 


                      SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS 
                               AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
                         Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair

                          Bill No:        AB 1659Author:Huber
                        As Amended:June 2, 2010  Fiscal:   Yes

        
        SUBJECT:  State government: agency repeals.
        
        SUMMARY:  Recasts existing law governing the periodic review (known as  
        "Sunset Review") of departments, administrative or regulatory boards,  
        commissions, committees, councils, associations, authorities, or other  
        offices of state government, however denominated, by creating a new  
        Joint Sunset Review Committee with the responsibility to review and  
        evaluate these state agencies based on specific criteria and  
        information provided by these agencies.

        Existing law, the Business and Professions Code:
        
        1) Establishes the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) within  
           the State and Consumer Services Agency, and provides that the  
           Department is under the control of the Director of Consumer Affairs  
           (Director) who is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate  
           confirmation.

        2) Provides that the Department consists of boards and bureaus, as  
           defined, that have been created by law to license and regulate  
           members of various professions and vocations.

        3) Provides that the  boards  are made up of appointees of the Governor  
           and the Legislature who perform, among their duties, licensing and  
           regulatory functions such as appointment of an executive officer,  
           setting educational and experience requirements for licensing and  
           regulatory activities, and taking enforcement and disciplinary  
           actions against licensees for violations of law or their individual  
           practice acts.  These boards are considered as separate and  
           independent from the control of the Department.






                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 2



        4) Provides that the  bureaus  are created and operate as part of the  
           Department and under its administrative control, and generally  
           provides that the Director may appoint a chief for each bureau to  
           carry out the powers and duties placed upon the Director in regards  
           to that bureau.

        5) States that it is the intent of the Legislature that all existing  
           and proposed consumer-related boards or categories of licensed  
           professionals be subject to a review every four years to evaluate  
           and determine whether each board has demonstrated a public need for  
           the continued existence of that board in accordance with enumerated  
           factors and standards as specified.  (Commonly referred to as the  
           "sunset review" process.)

        6) Provides that in the event that any board becomes inoperative or is  
           repealed (sunsets) that the Department shall succeed to and is  
           vested with all the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities of  
           that board.  (The board would effectively become a "bureau" under  
           the Department by operation of law.)

        7) Established in 1994, the  Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee  ,  
           and in 2004 changed the name to the  Joint Committee on Boards,  
           Commissions and Consumer Protection  (Joint Committee). 

        8) Specifies that the Joint Committee shall consist of three members  
           appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and three members  
           appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.  No more than two of  
           three members appointed from the Senate or the Assembly shall be  
           from the same party.  The Joint Rules Committee shall appoint the  
           chairperson of the Joint Committee.  The Joint Committee is  
           authorized to act until January 1, 2012, at which time the  
           committee's existence shall terminate.

        9) Provides that the Joint Committee shall have and exercise all the  
           rights, duties and powers conferred upon investigating committees  
           and their members by the Joint Rules Committee and that the  
           Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules may designate staff for  
           the Joint Committee.

        10)Provides that all boards under the Department that are scheduled to  
           become inoperative and repealed on a specified date or established  
           pursuant to initiative act, or certain specified bureaus or other  
           programs of the Department, are subject to review by the Joint  
           Committee.

        11)Provides, as of January 1, 2004,  all  administrative or regulatory  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 3



           boards, commissions, committees, councils, associations, or other  
           authorities who have appointed membership, are subject to review by  
           the Joint Committee.

        12)Provides for a process of review and evaluation conducted by the  
           Joint Committee which includes the preparation of an analysis and  
           report by the board submitted to the Joint Committee which  
           describes in detail the activities of the board and its programs,  
           evaluation of the board by the Joint Committee based on specified  
           factors and minimum standards of performance, public hearing(s)  
           conducted by the Joint Committee and final recommendations of the  
           Joint Committee included in a published report on whether each  
           board or function scheduled for repeal shall be terminated,  
           continued, or reestablished, and whether or not its functions  
           should be revised.  If the Joint Committee deems it advisable, its  
           report may include proposed bills to carry out its recommendations.

        13)Allows the chairpersons of the appropriate policy committees of the  
           Legislature to refer to the Joint Committee for review of any  
           legislative issues or proposals to create new licensure or  
           regulatory categories, change licensing requirements, modify scope  
           of practice, or create a new licensing board.    
        
        Existing law the Government Code:
        
        1) Provides that any state board or any category of licensed  
           professional proposed for creation by the Legislature shall require  
           a plan to be developed by the Author or Sponsor of the legislation,  
           as specified.

        2) The Joint Committee, acting pursuant to a request from the  
           chairperson of the appropriate policy committee, shall evaluate the  
           plan and provide its evaluation to the respective policy and fiscal  
           committees of the Legislature pursuant to rules adopted by each  
           committee for this purpose.

        3) Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that California's  
           multilevel, complex governmental structure today contains more than  
           400 categories of administrative or regulatory boards, commissions,  
           committees, councils, associations, and authorities and that these  
           governmental entities have been established without any method of  
           periodically reviewing their necessity, effectiveness or utility  
           and as a result the Legislature and residents of California cannot  
           be assured that these existing or proposed governmental entities  
           adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare.






                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 4



        4) Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all existing  
           state boards be subject to review every four years to evaluate and  
           determine whether each has demonstrated a public need for its  
           continued existence in accordance with enumerated factors and  
           standards.

        5) Requires the Joint Committee to review all state boards every four  
           years and to evaluate and make determinations as specified.
        
        This bill:

        1)Creates a  new  Joint Sunset Review Committee (JSRC), to identify and  
          eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government  
          agencies and to conduct a comprehensive analysis over 15 years, and  
          on a periodic basis thereafter, of every "eligible agency," as  
          defined, to determine if the agency is still necessary and cost  
          effective.

        2)Requires each eligible agency scheduled for repeal, on or before  
          December 1 prior to the year it is set to be repealed, to submit to  
          JSRC a complete agency report covering the entire period since it  
          was last reviewed, to include, but not be limited to:

           a)   The purpose and necessity of the agency.

           b)   A description of the agency budget, priorities, and job  
             descriptions of employees of the agency.

           c)   Any programs and projects under the direction of the agency.

           d)   Measures of the success or failures of the agency and  
             justifications for the metrics used to evaluate successes and  
             failures.

           e)   Any recommendations of the agency for changes or  
             reorganization in order to better fulfill its purpose.

        3)Requires JSRC to take public testimony and evaluate the eligible  
          agency prior to the date the agency is scheduled to be repealed.

        4)Requires the elimination of any eligible agency unless the  
          Legislature enacts a law to extend, consolidate, or reorganize the  
          eligible agency.

        5)Prohibits an eligible agency from extending in perpetuity unless  
          specifically exempted from the provisions of this bill.





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 5




        6)Allows JSRC to recommend that the Legislature extend the statutory  
          sunset date for no more than one year to allow JSRC more time to  
          evaluate the eligible agency.

        7)Specifies that JSRC shall be comprised of 10 members of the  
          Legislature as follows:

           a)   Five Senators appointed by the President pro Tempore of the  
             Senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of the same  
             political party.

           b)   Five Assembly Members appointed by the Speaker of the  
             Assembly, not more than three of whom shall be members of the  
             same political party.

        8)Requires JSRC to meet no later than 30 days after the first day of  
          the regular session to choose a chairperson and to establish the  
          schedule for eligible agency review provided for             in the  
          statutes governing the eligible agencies, for which a date for  
          repeal has been established by statute on or after January 1, 2011.

        9)States that this bill should not be construed to change the existing  
          jurisdiction of the budget or policy committees of the Legislature.

        10)Defines "eligible agency" to mean any agency, authority, board,  
          bureau, commission, conservancy, council, department, division, or  
          office of state government, however denominated, excluding an agency  
          that is constitutionally created or an agency related to  
          postsecondary education. 

        FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis,  
        dated May 5, 2010, annual costs in the range of $250,000 (GF) for the  
        Legislature due to the workload associated with reviewing the boards  
        and bureaus within the Department of Consumer Affairs. 

        COMMENTS:
        
        1.Purpose.  According to the Author who is the Sponsor of this  
          measure, there is no current process in place to review state  
          entities on a regular basis with the exception of boards and  
          commissions that fall under the Business and Professions Code.  Even  
          the Committee that is charged with doing that though has not had  
          members appointed to it since 2006.  

        As indicated by the Author, the Legislature creates new boards,  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 6



          commissions, agencies and departments to solve a problem, but far  
          too often there is no on-going oversight of the newly created  
          bureaucracy to ensure it actually solved the problem it was created  
          to solve.  The Author believes that this systematic dysfunction can  
          be fixed by conducting comprehensive, regular review of state  
          government to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used wisely.

        The Author points out that in 1989, the Little Hoover Commission  
          issued a report, entitled Boards and Commissions:  California's  
          Hidden Government, which found that, "California's multi-level,  
          complex governmental structure today includes more than 400 boards,  
          commissions, authorities, associations, councils and committees.   
          These plural bodies operate to a large degree autonomously and  
          outside of the normal checks and balances of representative  
          government."  The Commission concluded that "the state's boards,  
          commissions and similar bodies are proliferating without adequate  
          evaluation of need, effectiveness and efficiency."

        The Author further states that since the Little Hoover report many  
          more boards, commissions and other entities have been added to the  
          California government structure.  Some estimate that there are about  
          1,000 government entities.  Recently, the California Performance  
          Review commented on 339 state boards and commissions and they also  
          found, as Little Hoover did 20 years ago, that a comprehensive  
          listing of the entities that make up state government does not  
          exist.  Despite several studies suggesting reform is necessary, the  
          Legislature has failed to act.  Current law, the Author argues,  
          needs an enforcement mechanism to ensure that oversight work is part  
          of the annual legislative action.

        The Author also indicates that numerous other states have a sunset  
          review function.  Texas, for example, created its Sunset Advisory  
          Commission in 1978.  Since the Commission's inception 58 agencies  
          have been abolished and another 12 agencies have been consolidated  
          saving $27 dollars for each dollar spent on the Commission.  Total  
          savings achieved by the Commission equals roughly 5% of the state  
          budget.

        2.Background.
        
           a)   The "Sunrise" of Sunset Review in California.   The concept of  
             sunset review law first began back in the 1970's.  There are now  
             about 35 states which have some sort of sunset review law on the  
             books.  Basically, the genesis behind all sunset laws is to place  
             a termination date on a particular program or agency, and in the  
             meantime, review it to determine if it is still operating in an  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 7



             effective and efficient manner, and whether it should continue.

           When one talks about sunset or sunrise laws, they are usually  
             referring to a review of regulatory licensing agencies.  There  
             are certainly other specific programs which may be subject to  
             sunset, but the idea of subjecting an agency to a more formalized  
             review process, before allowing it to continue, or be established  
             in the first place, is unique to this type of law.

           California was sort of a "Johnny-come-lately" to this process.   
             There had been prior attempts by the Legislature to pass a sunset  
             law, but in those instances the legislation would have sunset  
             both the board and the licensing program of the particular  
             profession.  The law which was passed in 1994, only sunsets the  
             board -  not  the licensing of the occupation.  There are basically  
             two reasons for this, the first is obvious - in most instances  
             there is a continued need to license those professions currently  
             regulated by boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs.  To  
             automatically terminate the licensing requirements would have  
             provided no benefit to the review of these boards under the  
             sunset law.  The second reason, however, is more important.   
             Throughout 1993 and 1994, both the Senate Business and  
             Professions Committee and the Assembly Consumer Protection  
             Committee began a review of some of the 32 regulatory boards  
             under the Department.  There was more concern with the boards'  
             operation and activities (or lack thereof) than whether there was  
             a need to continue the licensing of a particular profession.  A  
             number of problems with these boards were identified and a report  
             was issued by Senate Business and Professions Committee  
             Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness in State Boards and  
             Commissions titled, Reforming and Restructuring California's  
             Regulatory Agencies which detailed a number of changes and  
             recommendations regarding these boards and also strongly  
             recommended the establishment of a Joint Legislative Sunset  
             Review Committee to provide specific review criteria and minimum  
             standards of evaluation for legislative and state agency use, and  
             subject all licensing agencies and regulatory programs of the  
             Department to periodic review and sunset.

           For all these reasons and more, both the Legislature and the  
             Administration believed the more immediate task at hand was to  
             review these consumer boards at regular intervals.  
           If it was determined the board should sunset, then there would be  
             adequate time to determine if the entire licensing program should  
             be eliminated as well.  (It should be noted that the Hoover  
             Commission and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) at that  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 8



             time both recommended establishing a sunset review process for  
             all regulatory consumer boards.)  

           In 1994,  SB 2036  was signed into law which established the Joint  
             Legislative Sunset Review Committee.  The Joint Committee  
             reviewed all boards and other programs under the Department for a  
             period of 10 years on an ongoing basis, until its final review in  
             2005.

           b)   Brief Description of the Sunset Review Process. The law, which  
             went into effect on January 1, 1995, set in place a schedule for  
             review of all of the 32 independent boards and programs under the  
             Department.  It allowed for an initial review of all boards  
             beginning in 1995 and ending in 1998.  A re-review of these  
             boards was required after four or more years from the initial  
             review, and began in 1999 and ended in 2005.  All 32 boards and  
             certain other programs and bureaus of the Department were  
             reviewed and re-reviewed during the10-year period.

           The sunset date for each board allowed enough time for the board to  
             be reviewed by the Joint Committee, and for legislation to be  
             passed to extend the sunset date of the board and make  
             appropriate changes.  The actual review process for the Joint  
             Committee began with sending boards a detailed questionnaire and  
             a request for information which covered every aspect of the  
             board's operation for four years.  The boards were required to  
             respond to this request by October 1 of the year they were  
             scheduled for review.

           During this time, staff of the Joint Committee, Senate Business and  
             Professions Committee, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee,  
             and the Legislative Analyst's Office worked together to prepare  
             an analysis and report on each board.  (Staff also met with  
             boards to review documents and information provided, and seek  
             input from various consumer groups, and the Health and Budget  
             committees of the Legislature.)  The report provided a brief  
             overview of the board's functions and programs, identified issues  
             or problem areas concerning each board, and included preliminary  
             recommendations for members of the Joint Committee to consider.   
             This included whether each board scheduled for review should be  
             terminated, continued, or reestablished, and whether its programs  
             or functions should be restructured or revised.


           The Joint Committee then conducted public hearings to review the  
             issues and preliminary recommendations.  The boards were provided  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 9



             an opportunity to respond, along with the regulated industry,  
             consumer groups and the public.  The Department participated in  
             these hearings as well.  After the hearings, the Joint Committee  
             provided the Department with copies of all testimony and analyses  
             prepared by staff.  The Department then had 60 days to provide  
             its own recommendations to the Joint Committee.  Once received,  
             the Joint Committee then met to review the recommendations of the  
             Department and make final recommendations to the Legislature.

           c)   Results and Accomplishments of Sunset Review.  The overall  
             goal of the Joint Committee was to provide for improved and  
             effective service to California consumers, and to the board's  
             current and potential licensees.  The process of sunset review  
             provided an opportunity for legislative staff and members to  
             focus on the operations of these state regulatory programs and to  
             consider changes which could improve their overall performance in  
             protecting the consumer.

           The specter of termination served to galvanize most of these  
             agencies and the professions they regulate, so as to make  
             necessary statutory and administrative changes to increase the  
             efficiency and effectiveness of these programs under review.  If  
             a regulatory program is considered as unnecessary, or performance  
             of the board is exceptionally poor, a recommendation was made to  
             either sunset the agency, reconstitute the board membership, or  
             shorten its time frame for another review by the Joint Committee.

           In the past, the Legislature had often struggled to make some  
             changes to a particular board, or to deregulate certain programs.  
              It has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy reviewing  
             one or two issues concerning a particular regulatory program,  
             without the ability to effectively evaluate the entire operation  
             of the agency.  Prior to sunset review only three agencies were  
             ever eliminated by the Legislature, they included the Board of  
             Fabric Care (licensing dry cleaners), the Auctioneer Commission  
             and the Board of Polygraph Examiners.  In the meantime, the  
             Legislature continued to create new boards or programs and  
             licensure categories with little, if any, assessment of their  
             need or viability.

           From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Committee reviewed all boards and  
             programs under the Department of Consumer Affairs and then  
             re-reviewed them again to ensure that suggested changes and  
             recommendations of the Joint Committee were implemented.  The  
             Joint Committee also reviewed proposals to create new boards or  
             licensure categories and generally found that there was no need  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 10



             for creating a new agency for purposes of licensure or to  
                                                                                          regulate a particular profession.

           Some of the accomplishments of the Joint Committee included the  
             following:  (1) the elimination of boards or regulatory programs  
             which were unnecessary, or did not operate in the best interest  
             of consumers;  (2) merger or consolidation of boards or  
             regulatory programs to improve overall efficiency and  
             effectiveness of the boards programs and provide cost savings;   
             (3) changes in board composition to increase overall public  
             representation on boards and in some instances creating a public  
             majority;  
           (4) improvements in the enforcement processes of boards by  
             increasing the number of disciplinary actions taken against  
             licensees, reducing the backlog of cases and the time frame to  
             prosecute cases;  (5) improvements in the operational  
             efficiencies for individual boards by requiring strategic  
             planning, critical measures of performance in the areas of cost,  
             quality of service and speed of service, and adoption of  
             policies, standards, procedures and guidelines for boards'  
             licensing, examination and enforcement programs;  (6) removal and  
             close examination of artificial barriers of entry into the  
             profession by requiring standardization and uniformity of  
             licensing requirements, eliminating excessive requirements and  
             providing comity between states;  (7) expansion of licensing  
             programs to assure the continuing competency of licensed  
             professionals;  (8) close examination of budgetary needs and  
             resources for boards and proposed fee increases when necessary to  
             properly fund these boards; (9) ongoing resolution of proposals  
             for expanding or changing scope of practice for licensed  
             professionals;  and, (10) requiring additional and more accurate  
             information to be provided and disclosed to the public regarding  
             the activities of the board and the status of the licensee.

           d)   The "Sunset" of Sunset Review.  In January 2004, pursuant to  
              SB 364  (Figueroa, Chapter 789, Statutes of 2003), the Joint  
             Committee received new authority to review  all   state   boards   
             (generally, any administrative or regulatory board, commission,  
             committee, council, association, or authority consisting of more  
             than one person, whose members are appointed by the Governor or  
             the Legislature), every four years or over another time period as  
             determined by the Joint Committee.  At that time the Joint  
             Committee was granted two new staff positions from the Senate who  
             began to identify those entities for possible review.  The  
             original list identified over 524 separate entities which  
             included boards, bureaus, commissions, advisory bodies,  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 11



             authorities, etc.  From that list, another list was compiled  
             which dealt with those entities which included members who were  
             appointed by the Governor and the Legislature.  This list  
             included 156 separate entities with 108 which  included  
             Governor's appointees only.  A final list was complied by  
             February 2004 which included 46 entities which would be reviewed  
             by 2005 by the Joint Commission. 

           In February 2004, the Governor began what he titled as the  
             "California Performance Review" (CPR) to examine  all  state  
             operations and agencies and recommend reforms.  Part of this  
             review included a review of  all   the  boards   and   bureaus  under the  
             Department of Consumer Affairs, and a review of a number of other  
             boards and entities as already identified by the Joint Committee.  
              At that time the CPR sent a request to the Chair of the Joint  
             Committee asking if at least one member of the staff of the Joint  
             Committee could join with the CPR to assist in their review and  
             in the meantime hold-off on the review by the Joint Committee.   
             The Chair agreed to provide assistance to the CPR but decided to  
             proceed for that year with only reviewing those boards under the  
             Department of Consumer Affairs which were slated for sunset.  The  
             staff of the Joint Committee worked with CPR for six months in  
             formulating recommendations regarding the boards under the  
             Department and other boards and entities as identified.     

           On August 3, 2004, the CPR issued a lengthy 4-volume report which  
             included specific recommendations regarding each, including  
             elimination and consolidation of some, transferring certain  
             boards or programs to new agencies or departments, and  
             consolidating enforcement programs of the boards.  After the CPR  
             Report was issued, the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) provided  
             its own assessment of CPR's recommendations on August 27, 2004,  
             and concluded that in many areas, including the consolidation or  
             discontinuation of boards and commissions, that the  
             reorganization recommendations of the CPR lacked a strong  
             rationale.  The proposals lacked sufficient detail to evaluate  
             whether a proposed consolidation or elimination of a board would  
             improve efficiency and coordination of their state functions, and  
             could have the potential of significantly reducing legislative  
             oversight and control in key budget and policy matters.  The CPR  
             reorganization emphasized a transition away from independent  
             boards and towards executive/department program management.  LAO  
             pointed out that among the benefits of independent boards is that  
             they can include experts in the policy field to offer a variety  
             of policy perspectives.  They can also offer more independent,  
             forward-thinking proposals than might be typical from a state  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 12



             department and provide for a public forum where meetings are open  
             to the public rather that having an isolated and somewhat closed  
             department decision-making process.  The Legislature also has the  
             ability to make direct changes to boards' operations and  
             structure versus a department run program, and to oversee board  
             management through the appointment and approval process of board  
             members.  (More checks and balances.)

           A CPR Commission was also established to conduct eight full-day  
             hearings throughout the state to provide review and comment on  
             the CPR recommendations.  In November 2004, the CPR Commission  
             provided a report regarding the hearings they conducted and  
             recommended that the professional licensing functions of health  
             related boards should remain within the new Commerce and Consumer  
             Protection Department and should not be transferred to the new  
             Health and Human Services Department.  It also recommended that  
             the investigative functions of the boards be retained and that  
             they not be moved to new Public Safety Department.  Finally, that  
             because boards and commissions enable public participation and  
             subject matter expertise in particular fields, that the  
             Administration more thoroughly evaluate the proposed elimination  
             of the specified boards based on their suggested criteria and  
             that all boards and commissions should be reviewed and/or  
             authorized on a regular basis to ensure that the original purpose  
             for their creation still exists. 

           The Little Hoover Commission also conducted three public hearings  
             to review the CPR proposals and made its report available on  
             December 2004.  The report made rather broad statements regarding  
             the consolidation or elimination of boards and commissions and  
             basically said the "If nothing else, some boards that are not  
             working well, need to work well, rather than being eliminated."   
             In other cases, well functioning boards need to be focused on  
             activities that only boards can perform.  The Hoover Commission  
             agreed with the CPR Commission that criteria should be  
             established that would allow policy-makers to make consistent and  
             rational decisions whether to eliminate or consolidate certain  
             board functions.

           On January 6, 2005, the Governor's Office put forth their  
             "Governor's Reorganization Plan #1" and within this plan was the  
             recommendation to eliminate  all   independent   boards  under the  
             Department of Consumer Affairs and transfer their functions to  
             the Department as  bureaus  .  This proposal completely ignored the  
             recommendations of the CPR, the LAO, the CPR Commission and the  
             Hoover Commission as indicated above.  The Governor's  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 13



             Reorganization Plan was strongly rejected by the Legislature and  
             was finally withdrawn by the Governor in March.  However, the  
             Governor then began to leverage changes he wanted to make  
             regarding the boards by taking an "oppose unless amended"  
             position on all the sunset bills which were introduced by the  
             Joint Committee in 2005.  By threatening to veto all sunset  
             bills, and basically turning all boards into bureaus, the basic  
             trust which had been established between the Administration and  
             the Legislature for over 10 years of sunset review was broken and  
             resulted in the "sunset" of sunset review.

        3.Resuscitating Sunset Review.  The Legislature has basically kept the  
          sunset review process on basic "life support."  Since 2006, no new  
          Chair or members have been appointed to the Joint Committee and,  
          therefore no reviews conducted by the Joint Committee.  Each year a  
          bill or bills are introduced to extend sunset dates of boards under  
          the Department.  There have been attempts to revive the sunset  
          process, by hopefully addressing some of the primary concerns  
          regarding the process, but to no avail.  To more fully explain, in  
          2007,  SB 963  (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2008) was  
          amended to revise and recast the sunset review law to remove the  
          provision that a board automatically by operation of law become a  
          bureau under the Department if the board sunsets, and instead  
          provided for the removal (reconstitution) of a board's members and  
          appointment of a new successor board upon the sunset date.  It  
          eliminated the Joint Committee and instead authorized the  
          appropriate standing policy committees of the Legislature to carry  
          out the sunset review functions.  The measure also streamlined the  
          reporting requirements for the boards and the Department.  The basic  
          reasons for these changes were as follows:

           a)   Reconstitution of the board rather than elimination.  In  
             recent years, when problems have been identified with a variety  
             of boards, the most effective means of achieving resolution and  
             change has been by reconstitution of the board.  This essentially  
             creates a new board by allowing appointing authorities to appoint  
             new members to replace problem members and to reappoint effective  
             members.  The new board may then replace the executive officer if  
             the executive officer has been ineffective in managing the  
             operations.  This has happened with the Dental Board, the Board  
             of Optometry, the Acupuncture Board, the Athletic Commission and  
             most recently the Board of Registered Nursing and has proven to  
             be an effective method for initiating needed changes.

           b)   Transferring the sunset review responsibilities to the policy  
             committees.  Transferring responsibilities for sunset review from  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 14



             the Joint Committee to the standing policy committees of the  
             Legislature was considered as a cost-savings measure which would  
             eliminate the costs for an additional legislative committee.   
             Furthermore, over the years, the sunset review process has relied  
             heavily upon the expertise and staffing of the standing  
             legislative committees for much of the sunset review work that  
             the Joint Committee performed.

           [This change seemed to be also in keeping with the recently  
             announced efforts of the Senate President pro Tem to  
             re-invigorate the oversight functions of the standing policy  
             committees and to evaluate the conduct and work of an entity or  
             system of entities with a view to determining facts about the  
             current activities and operations of the organization.  It is  
             intended that the committee focus will be on those areas of state  
             government administration or program responsibility within the  
             committee's subject matter jurisdiction and to research and  
             examine whether, for the effort and resources being expended,  
             appropriate results are being obtained, and if changes or  
             improvements can be made to achieve better, more needed, or  
             different high-value outcomes.]

          The Legislature was unable to come to agreement with the  
          Administration on the changes proposed in SB 963 and in 2008 the  
          bill was eventually amended to simply provide for sunset extensions  
          for only those boards that were being sunsetted the following year.   
          SB 638  (Negrete McLeod) was a similar measure introduced in 2009 and  
          passed out of this Committee, but was held in Senate Rules  
          Committee.   SB 1171  (Negrete McLeod) was introduced in 2010 and  
          passed out of this Committee, but was again held in Senate Rules  
          Committee.

          Even though consensus on modifying the sunset review process has not  
          been reached, the Committee plans as part of its oversight function  
          (as described above) to begin a review of  all  boards and bureaus  
          under the Department of Consumer Affairs over the next four years.   
          On March 1, 2010, at least nine boards were chosen for review this  
          fall and a request for information was sent out to these boards.   SB  
          294  (Negrete McLeod) is currently being amended in the Assembly to  
          change sunset dates of all boards under the Department to correspond  
          to their sunset review over the next four years.

        4.Related Legislation This Session.   SB 1171  (Negrete McLeod) is  
          similar measure to the current bill and revises the sunset process  
          by changing the default action of sunset to reconstitution rather  
          than elimination of a board and creation of a bureau, and transfers  





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 15



          the responsibility for sunset review from the Joint Committee to the  
          policy committees in the Legislature.  That bill passed this  
          Committee and was referred to Rules Committee and has not been  
          moved.

         SBX8 60  (Harman) enacts the Jobs Protection Act, renaming the Joint  
          Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection as the  
          Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer or Business  
          Protection.  Creates a new legislative procedure for any bill that  
          may have a statewide economic impact affecting business.  Requires  
          the Assembly and Senate Committees on Rules to refer any bill that  
          may have a statewide economic impact affecting business, as  
          specified, to the joint committee for the preparation of an economic  
          impact analysis and a hearing and approval, and requires the joint  
          committee to make an annual report.  That bill was heard in Senate  
          Rules Committee on March 10, 2010 and held under submission.

         SB 954  (Harman) is nearly identical to SBX8 60 (Harman).  That bill  
          has not been set for hearing.

         AB 2130  (Huber) abolishes the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions,  
          and Consumer Protection, and instead makes the specified boards and  
          regulatory programs subject to review by the Joint Sunset Review  
          Committee (as established in AB 1659).  Makes its provisions  
          contingent upon the enactment of AB 1659.  That bill is also  
          scheduled to be heard in this Committee on June 21, 2010.

        5.Prior Legislation.   SB 638  (Negrete McLeod) in 2009, is a similar  
          measure to the current bill and would have revised the sunset  
          process by changing the default action of sunset to reconstitution  
          of the board rather than elimination of the board and creation of a  
          bureau, and transferring the responsibility for sunset review from  
          the Joint Committee to the policy committees in the Legislature.   
          That bill was made a two-year bill and subsequently was not moved in  
          2010.

         SB 963  (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2008) as amended  
          August 8, 2008, contained many of the same provisions that are in  
          this bill.  In addition to reforming the sunset process, this bill  
          was complicated by several additional provisions relating to  
          specific board operations and raised strong objection from several  
          boards and professional associations.  Ultimately, the Legislature  
          was unable to come to agreement with the Administration on the  
          policies, and the bill was eventually amended to simply provide for  
          sunset extensions for only those boards that were being sunsetted  
          the following year.





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 16




         AB 1467  (Negrete McLeod, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2004) revised the law  
          to rename the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee to the Joint  
          Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection confirming  
          what was done through the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution  
          No. 56 (Resolution Chapter 14 - 2004).  The name was changed to  
          better reflect the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee that was  
          modified by the enactment of SB 364 (Figueroa, Chapter 789, Statutes  
          of 2003).

         SB 2036  (McCorquodale, Chapter 908, Statutes of 1994) created the  
          sunset review process in California.  This measure established the  
          Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee to provide specific review  
          criteria and minimum standards of evaluation for legislative and  
          state agency use, and to subject all boards of the DCA to periodic  
          review and sunset.
        
        6.Arguments in Support.  The  National Federation of Independent  
          Business  (NFIB) is in support of this measure and argues that no  
          comprehensive process exists for reviewing the numerous boards and  
          commissions, as many as 1,000 government entities, who have "some  
          piece of the regulatory pie in our state."  They believe that this  
          measure will hold these government entities accountable by  
          establishing an automatic sunset date that requires proactive  
          legislative action to continue the operation of a specified board or  
          commission.  The NFIB further contends that this bill creates a  
          long-term review process that promotes accountability and  
          consistency by establishing routine reviews of existing boards and  
          commissions that focus on determining whether or not they are still  
          necessary.  The NFIB states that "through this improved public  
          process we hope California will become a better place to start and  
          grow businesses that keep our state prosperous."

         7.Policy Issue  :  Should this measure provide for the review of boards  
          and bureaus under the Department of Consumer Affairs?  As earlier  
          indicated, it is the intent of this Committee to do a thorough  
          review of all boards and bureaus under the Department over the next  
          four years.  For now it does not seem necessary for this new Joint  
          Committee (the JSRC) to also review these entities.  With the  
          experience that this Committee has along with the Assembly Business  
          and Professions Committee, and with the efforts of the Senate  
          President pro Tem and the Assembly Speaker to re-invigorate the  
          oversight functions of standing policy committees in regards to the  
          agencies and departments under their jurisdiction, it would seem  
          appropriate that the Department's boards and bureaus  not  be subject  
          to review by the JSRC.





                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 17




         8.Policy Issue  :  Should the measure expand more fully on the  
          information provided to the JSRC by an "eligible agency" and the  
          criteria used by the JSRC to evaluate these agencies?  Both Section  
          473.2 and Section 474.2 of the Business and Professions Code details  
          what the report and information provided to the Joint Committee  
          should contain for purposes of analysis.  Section 473.4 and Section  
          474.3 provides for a rather extensive listing of specified factors  
          and minimum standards of performance to be considered by the Joint  
          Committee in evaluating the particular agency.  Suggest that the  
          Author consider expanding on the information they should receive  
          from the agency for purposes of their analysis and to include a  
          listing of those factors and standards or performance to be  
          considered by the JSRC.
         
        NOTE  :  Double-referral to Rules Committee (second.)



































                                                                        AB 1659
                                                                         Page 18



        SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
        
         Support:  
        National Federation of Independent Business
        Physical Therapy Board of California
        Numerous Constituent Letters

         Opposition:  None on File as of June 16, 2010.

        Consultant:Bill Gage