BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 2499 (Portantino and Gilmore)
          As Amended  August 5, 2010
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |64-10|(June 1, 2010)  |SENATE: |22-8 |(August 18,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2010)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    TRANS  .

           SUMMARY  :  Brings home study traffic violator schools (TVSs)  
          under the purview of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).  

           The Senate amendments  : 

          1)Add legislative findings regarding the need to provide uniform  
            statewide regulation of TVSs.  

          2)Require court clerks to notify DMV that a traffic violator's  
            conviction is to be held confidential if the violator  
            completes a TVS program.  

          3)Require DMV to hold the first such conviction in an 18-month  
            period confidential and prohibits it from assessing a  
            violation point unless the violator holds a commercial  
            license, the violation took place in a commercial vehicle, or  
            the violation carries more than one point.  

          4)Allow a TVS owner to operate that TVS if his or her license  
            includes an owner/operator designation.  

          5)Allow operators to operate more than one TVS if those TVSs  
            have common ownership and the same business address.  

          6)Require a TVS operator to complete a four hour educational  
            program and provide certification from the owner that he or  
            she has the necessary knowledge to perform an operator's  
            duties.  

          7)Require any hard copy list of TVSs provided to traffic  
            violators to be a current listing obtained from DMV.  

          8)Allow court assistance programs (CAPs), which are renamed  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  2

            "traffic assistance programs" (TAPs), to contract with DMV in  
            order to assist with TVS oversight activities.

          9)Allow TAP services to include printing and providing to the  
            court and traffic violators hard copy county-specific lists  
            printed from DMV's Internet Web site, administratively  
            assisting traffic violators, and any other lawful activity  
            relating to the administration of the court's traffic  
            infraction caseload.  

          10)  Allow courts to charge traffic violators a fee to defray  
            the costs incurred by a TAP for traffic case administration  
            services provided to the court.  

          11)  Allow courts to delegate collection of the fee to the TAP.   
            Fees must be approved and regulated by the court and may not  
            exceed the actual costs incurred by the court assistance  
            program for authorized activities.  

          12)  Repeal the requirement for traffic violators to submit TVS  
            completion certificates to the court.  

          13)  Allow, until April 1, 2012, courts to restrict referrals to  
            those TVSs or licensed driving schools that are under contract  
            with the court or with the county in those counties in which,  
            prior to January 1, 1985, one or more individual courts, or  
            the county acting on behalf of one or more individual courts,  
            contracted for the provision of traffic safety instructional  
            services to traffic violators referred by the court pursuant  
            to a pretrial diversion program.  

          14)  Allow these counties to continue to provide those programs  
            in accordance with the provisions of current and future  
            contracts as may be amended and approved by the individual  
            courts within those counties and exempt them from state  
            regulations relative to maximum classroom attendance.  

          15)  Require DMV to adopt regulations necessary for implementing  
            this bill no later than September 1, 2011.  

          16)  Clarify that traffic violations can be held confidential as  
            a result of a violator completing a TVS course of instruction,  
            rather than by merely attending that course.  

          17)  Require the hard copy list of licensed TVSs provided by a  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  3

            court or TAP to be as current as practicable, but in no event  
            to be distributed with a date stamp that is more than 60 days  
            old.  

          18)  Require TVSs to submit updated course completion  
            information to DMV for DMV's tracking purposes, within three  
            business days, rather than within 72 hours.  

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          1)Allows a court to order any person convicted of a traffic  
            violation to attend a TVS.  

          2)Allows a court, in lieu of adjudicating a traffic offense, to  
            order a person to attend a TVS with the consent of that  
            person.  

          3)Allows a court to grant a continuance and dismiss an action  
            for violation of any statute related to the safe operation of  
            a vehicle in consideration for attendance at a TVS or any  
            other court-approved program of driving instruction.  

          4)Requires DMV to license TVSs and prohibits persons from owning  
            or operating TVSs without a DMV license.  

          5)Establishes various license requirements for TVSs, including  
            the maintenance of a place of business, the procurement of a  
            bond, and having a lesson plan approved by DMV with a  
            prescribed number of minutes of instruction.  

          6)Requires DMV to license TVS operators and prescribes minimum  
            qualifications for licensed operators including passage of a  
            DMV examination and having 500 hours experience providing  
            in-class instruction in driver training and education.  

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill is significantly similar to  
          the version passed by the Senate.  

           FISCAL EFFECT :  According to the Senate Appropriations Committee  
          analysis, DMV reports that its costs to set up a Web-based  
          database to track enrollment and completion of TVS programs by  
          participants would be in the range of $40,000.  Initial DMV  
          costs associated with developing new regulations for the  
          licensing and monitoring of TVS programs would be minor.  All  
          ongoing licensing and monitoring of the program, estimated at  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  4

          over $3 million annually, would be fully offset by licensing  
          fees and fees paid by participants when a court approves  
          adjudication of a violation by completing a TVS program.  

           COMMENTS  :  Under existing law, motorists cited for certain  
          traffic violations may, at the option of the court, be ordered  
          to attend TVS as part of their sentence or be offered to have  
          the charges dismissed in consideration for attending TVS.  There  
          are reportedly 400 licensed TVSs and unlicensed 200 home study  
          schools currently operating in the state.  It is estimated that  
          about one million persons, or one fourth of all minor traffic  
          offenders, take a TVS class annually.  The TVS option assists  
          the operation of the courts by significantly reducing the sheer  
          volume of potential court cases.  

          DMV licenses all classroom TVSs, plus their owner-operators, and  
          instructors.  In addition, DMV establishes course curricula,  
          provides completion certificates, conducts monitoring  
          activities, and performs other related responsibilities.  Home  
          study courses, on the other hand, are approved by individual  
          courts on a court-by-court basis.  Consequently, for these  
          courses, there are no consistent standards for curriculum  
          content, duration of course, or verification of the identity of  
          the student.  

          This bill is the latest in a long series of attempts to bring  
          all segments of the TVS industry under the direction of DMV.   
          The issue of providing a uniform set of standards for traffic  
          school operations has tended to pit the "brick-and-mortar," or  
          classroom, segment of the industry against the "home study"  
          (i.e., mostly Internet, but also video, and correspondence)  
          segment of the industry.  Other interested parties, each with  
          their own preferences and points of view, include the courts,  
          the CAPs, and DMV itself.  As noted below, a number of attempts  
          to resolve this issue have been unsuccessful, with numerous  
          bills failing to clear the Legislature and one having been  
          vetoed by the Governor.  

          Most recently, the Legislature directed DMV to recommend a  
          comprehensive plan for licensing all TVS instructional programs.  
           This bill is intended to implement the DMV recommendation that  
          were developed in response to that mandate.  

          The DMV report laid out a far-reaching plan for licensing all  
          segments of the TVS industry, transitioning the court-approved  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  5

          programs to this new licensing scheme, and implementing a fee  
          schedule that would support these licensing and oversight  
          activities.  It also recommended that the process for dismissing  
          traffic violations be re-structured to prevent high-risk drivers  
          from completing traffic safety instruction multiple times to  
          avoid convictions, that all complaints concerning the TVS  
          program be submitted directly to the department and not be  
          submitted or processed by any other entity, and that, while DMV  
          should be responsible for annual post-licensing review of the  
          business, the routine monitoring of the TVS courses could be  
          "outsourced" (i.e., by the use of CAPs, as is currently done by  
          the courts).  

          On this last point, the report states, "The department  
          recognizes and appreciates the services provided by CAPs, which  
          have assumed a significant role in monitoring classroom and  
          home-study programs.  For example, the California Traffic Safety  
          Institute has 60 course monitors working in 25 counties every  
          day.  This means that nearly 25% of the TVS providers operating  
          within those judicial districts are monitored daily."  It also  
          states, "The department recommends that the routine monitoring  
          of the TVS courses be performed by department employees and  
          third parties, similar to the function provided under today's  
          system by CAPs."  

          The classroom segment of the industry, which opposes this bill,  
          claims that this bill is unworkable as DMV has nowhere near the  
          resources to oversee this large of an operation.  The classroom  
          operators contend that, "There is no demonstrated need to  
          authorize DMV to regulate home study traffic violator programs  
          on a statewide basis.  Only home study programs will profit  
          which will force more classroom schools out of business.  The  
          current system is not broken and is not in need of major  
          surgery.  DMV has not demonstrated over the years that it can  
          effectively regulate the classroom industry.  Based on past  
          experience, DMV cannot effectively regulate the hundreds of  
          existing home study programs, hundreds of new home study school  
          applications that will result from the enactment of AB 2499."   
          Classroom operators also object to the bill's reliance on online  
          lists of TVSs rather than the current paper list that is  
          distributed by DMV.  "The proposal in AB 2499 to only make the  
          Classroom Location List available to the traffic violator  
          electronically via DMV's website, is strongly opposed.  It is  
          discriminatory!  It discriminates against all California drivers  
          who do not have, or use, the internet.  This one change alone  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  6

          will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of traffic violators,  
          including 10.9 million Californians who do not go online."  

          Nevertheless, this bill represents a major step forward in  
          enacting a long-sought regulatory scheme to bring some parity  
          and consistency to a process that impacts so many drivers and  
          holds the potential, if as yet unrealized, to positively affect  
          driver behavior.  

          Speaking on behalf of the courts, which currently (and  
          reluctantly) oversee home study courses, the Judicial Council  
          states, "The bill effectively implements the goals the Judicial  
          Council supported in 2007 of ensuring meaningful statewide  
          regulation of an industry, and relieving the judicial branch of  
          its well-intended, but misplaced, role in attempting to ensure  
          quality TVS programs for court users in the absence of statewide  
          regulation.  It is critical to maintain the distinction between  
          executive branch and judicial branch function.  AB 2499 would  
          properly place the regulation of the TVS industry with the  
          executive branch.  AB 2499 brings consistency to the TVS  
          licensing requirements, while giving DMV the ability to ensure  
          that all components of the TVS process are designed to improve  
          traffic safety in California."  

          Similarly, the National Association of Driving Safety Educators,  
          representing home study providers, states, "There is simply no  
          public policy reason why providers of traffic violator education  
          should be regulated based upon the modality of the instruction  
          they offer.  Licensing and regulation is properly an executive  
          branch function which should be performed by DMV, not by 58  
          different Superior Courts.  In a time of extreme pressure on  
          court budgets, there is a compelling need to relieve courts of  
          duties more properly performed by the executive branch, so that  
          courts can focus on core duties.  Consolidating regulation in  
          the DMV will eliminate the current hodge-podge of rules applied  
          to traffic violator schools by the various courts.  Although our  
          client companies may well pay more for regulation under AB 2499,  
          we are in strong support of the measure because we will have one  
          regulator, with one set of rules, and be relieved of the burden  
          of seeking approval to operate on a court-by-court basis, 58  
          times."  

          There seems to be consensus, other than from the classroom  
          segment of the industry and some CAPs who fear that DMV may not  
          contract for their services, that it is time to bring all TVS  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  7

          activities under the purview of DMV.  Inasmuch as this bill  
          builds on the efforts of the vetoed AB 2377 (Longville) of 2004,  
          but also incorporates the recommendations contained in DMV's  
          report, it would appear to have the best chance of any of the  
          recent attempts at TVS reform to both pass legislative review  
          and obtain a Governor's signature.  

          Legislative history:  This bill is a followup to AB 758 (Plescia  
          and Portantino) Chapter 396, Statutes of 2007.  The introduced  
          version of AB 758 would have required DMV to license home study  
          TVSs.  When consensus could not be achieved on a means of  
          accomplishing that goal, the bill more modestly required DMV to  
          recommend to the Legislature a comprehensive plan for licensing  
          all TVS instructional programs.  

          In that same session, Mr. Portantino carried AB 1099, which  
          would have restructured the governance of TVSs.  AB 1099 died on  
          Suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.  Previously,  
          AB 1932 (Benoit) of 2006, offered a comprehensive scheme for the  
          DMV regulation of home study TVSs.  AB 1932 also died on  
          Suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.  AB 1932 was  
          largely a reintroduction of AB 2377 (Longville), which was  
          vetoed by the Governor in 2004.  The Governor's veto message  
          said, in part: "This bill is another example of expanding state  
          bureaucracy without demonstrating a need.  It is a waste of  
          taxpayer money to require the Department of Motor Vehicles to  
          expend significant funds to provide for licensing of traffic  
          violator schools that are currently approved at the local level  
          by the courts."  

          AB 2377 was, in turn, a follow-up to AB 435 (Matthews),  
          introduced in 2003 and AB 546 (Cohn), introduced in 2001.  AB  
          435 and AB 546 were ultimately unsuccessful due to the inability  
          of the affected parties to come to a comprehensive agreement.   
          The long and contentious history of this issue had, in fact, led  
          the then-chair of the Senate Transportation Committee to state  
          that his committee would not hear any TVS-related legislation  
          that did not represent a consensus.  In that context, long-term  
          discussions between classroom TVSs, home study TVSs, court  
          assistance programs (CAPs), court clerks, DMV, and legislative  
          staff did manage to achieve consensus on one facet of the TVS  
          issue, the oversight of TVSs by DMV and CAPs.  That consensus  
          was embodied in AB 1479 (Chu), Chapter 518, Statutes of 2003.  

          Senator Runner introduced a spot bill earlier in this session,  








                                                                  AB 2499
                                                                  Page  8

          SB 210, that might have served as a vehicle for TVS reform.  An  
          inability to achieve consensus among that various parties  
          reportedly led the senator to abandon that effort.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093  



                                                              FN:  0005851