BILL ANALYSIS SB 1417 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 22, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair SB 1417 (Cox) - As Amended: May 18, 2010 As Proposed to Be Amended SENATE VOTE : 29-0 SUBJECT : CORPORATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS KEY ISSUE : TO INCREASE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND OVERSIGHT OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF HUMANE OFFICERS, SHOULD MORE PRACTICAL PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE CREATION OF HUMANE SOCIETIES AND THE APPOINTMENT OF HUMANE OFFICERS? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. SYNOPSIS This bill is co-sponsored by the Placer County Board of Supervisors, the California State Sheriffs' Association, and the State Humane Association of California, a non-profit membership association of humane societies. This bill significantly revises current law by imposing new procedures and requirements for the appointment of humane officers by non-profit corporations formed for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals. According to the author, the overall purpose of this bill is to strengthen inadequate existing law and "raise the professional bar" for the formation of humane societies and the appointment of humane officers. Because humane officers have certain search, seizure, and arrest powers under existing law, supporters believe this bill is needed to increase standards for humane officers. The author and sponsors have worked closely with the Committee to draft a series of amendments that meet the author's objectives of quality and oversight, while simultaneously attempting to address concerns from the opposition that new requirements will effectively deter new humane officers from being appointed. As proposed to be amended, the bill, among other things, (1) eliminates any requirement for judicial endorsement of the articles of incorporation; (2) reduces the period of time that a humane society must wait before it can SB 1417 Page 2 appoint a humane officer from five years to two years for appointment of a level 2 humane officer; (3) specifies several qualitative examples of documents and evidence that a new petitioning society may submit in affidavit form to the court; (4) eliminates any requirement for reaffirmation of a previously confirmed humane officer; and (5) aligns the revocation process with the initial appointment and confirmation process. Prior to the proposed amendments, the bill's opponents have generally contended that the procedures and requirements imposed by this bill are "onerous," make the appointment and confirmation process "adversarial," and will have the practical result of fewer new humane societies being created and fewer new humane officers appointed in a time when more, not less, enforcement of animal laws is needed. It is unknown whether the amendments remove any or all of the opposition to the previous version of the bill. SUMMARY : Establishes new procedures and requirements for the appointment and confirmation of humane officers by non-profit humane societies. Specifically, this bill : 1)Repeals Sections 10401 and 10402 of the Corporations Code, eliminating the requirement that a humane society's articles of incorporation must be endorsed either by the Department of Justice or by the judge of the superior court in the county and instead permits a corporation for the prevention of cruelty of animals (humane society) to form under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law without the need to obtain endorsement of its articles or other special restrictions, except that a humane society formed on or after January 1, 2011, must state in its articles that the corporation is formed pursuant to Section 10400 of the Corporations Code. 2)Eliminates the antiquated requirement that a city, county, or city and county, pay up to $500 per month to a society actively engaged in enforcing state laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children, and instead authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with humane societies for the enforcement of laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but also permits these societies to enforce these laws without a contract. 3)Requires that a humane society seeking to appoint a humane SB 1417 Page 3 officer shall file a Petition for Order Confirming Appointment of a Humane Officer with the superior court of the county in which its principal office is located, in compliance with the following rules: a) Prior to filing the Petition, the society must obtain criminal record offender information regarding the appointee from the Department of Justice. b) Prior to filing the Petition, the society shall serve a copy on: (1) the police department having jurisdiction in the city in which the principal office of the appointing society is located; (2) the sheriff's department having jurisdiction in the county in which the principal office of the appointing society is located; (3) the Department of the California Highway Patrol; (4) the State Humane Association of California; (5) the Department of Justice. c) The society must attach to the petition a number of supporting documents, including (1) proof of proper incorporation of the society; (2) criminal record information of the appointee; (3) a copy of the society's insurance policy for at least $1 million; (4) proof that the appointee has met training requirements; (5) documentation that the society is operating a shelter or has contracted with another entity to shelter any animals it seizes, as specified. d) If the society has not previously appointed a humane officer, then it must also attach to the petition an affidavit that demonstrates the society's competence to appoint a humane officer by providing additional information, such as: (1) evidence of partnerships with other community agencies, (2) current or prior law enforcement experience or non-profit managerial experience, (3) cash reserve and donor base of the society; and (4) need for the humane officer in the county. 4)Provides that a party that was required to be served with the Petition may file an opposition to the Petition, which shall be filed no later than 15 days after the Petition and is limited in subject matter to the competency of the society to appoint and supervise a humane officer, and the qualifications, background, and fitness of the appointee that are specific to the work of a humane officer. Permits the SB 1417 Page 4 society to file a reply to any opposition to the Petition no later than 10 days after service of the opposition. 5)Specifies certain conditions upon which the court is required to deny the petition without further consideration if the society cannot demonstrate in its submitted materials that: a) In the case of a Petition to appoint a level 1 humane officer, at least 5 years have elapsed between the date the society filed its articles of incorporation and filed the Petition. In the case of a Petition to appoint a level 2 humane officer, at least 2 years must have elapsed. b) The society has a written agreement with another entity, such as a public or private animal shelter or licensed veterinary clinic, that (i) provides for the humane care and treatment of any animals seized by the society; (ii) is capable of preserving evidence that may be used to prosecute an animal cruelty case; (iii) is compliant with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including licensing laws. Alternatively, the society may operate its own animal shelter that meets these three requirements. 6)Requires the court, in determining whether to confirm the appointment, to review the appointee's qualifications and any documents that have been provided in support of or in opposition to confirmation of the appointment. Provides that if the court finds that the appointee is "qualified and fit to act as a humane officer", then the court shall issue an order confirming the appointment, otherwise it may deny the appointment. 7)Eliminates the judicial procedure for reaffirmation of a humane officer's appointment proposed in the previous version of the bill. Provides instead that any humane officer confirmed prior to January 1, 2012 shall not be required to seek a new court order confirming his or her appointment, but that a level 2 humane officer shall file a certificate of compliance with criminal background requirements, as specified, with the Department of Justice on or before January 1, 2012, or that humane officer's appointment will be immediately revoked. 8)Requires a party petitioning for a revocation of the appointment of a humane officer to follow the same law and SB 1417 Page 5 motion requirements for filing, service, and format of papers submitted to the court that apply to the petition to confirm appointment of the officer. 9)Requires that all level 1 and level 2 humane officers complete the background checks and physical and mental evaluations currently required only of level 1 officers. Additionally requires a level 2 humane officer to provide proof of compliance with criminal background check requirements, as specified, by filing a certificate of compliance with the Department of Justice on or before January 1, 2012, or that humane officer's appointment will be immediately revoked. 10)Requires humane officers to complete continuing education and training requirements during each three-year period following his or her appointment. Requires Level 1 humane officers to complete additional weapons training and range qualifications every six months. Requires all humane officers to file certificates of compliance with the Department of Justice at the end of the three-year or six-month period. Provides that failure to comply with the ongoing training requirements shall result in revocation of the humane officer's appointment at the end of a three-year term. 11)Requires all humane societies and humane officers to be in full compliance with Section 14502 on or before January 1, 2012. 12)Authorizes the Department of Justice to charge a reasonable fee sufficient to cover costs of maintaining various records of Orders, certificates of compliance, and other documents. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that corporations for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, or both, may be formed under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, commencing with Section 5110), by 20 or more persons, who shall be citizens and residents of this state. (Corporations Code Section 10400.) 2)Pursuant to the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, permits one or more persons to form a corporation for any public or charitable purposes by executing and filing articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. The corporate SB 1417 Page 6 existence begins upon filing of the articles and continues perpetually, unless otherwise expressly provided by law or in the articles. (Corporations Code Sections 5111, 5120.) 3)Requires all articles of incorporation of corporations for the prevention of cruelty of animals filed with the Secretary of State to be endorsed by the Department of Justice or by a judge of the superior court of the county in which the principal office of the corporation is located, as evidence of necessity. Under circumstances where the application for endorsement has been made to the judge, after giving due consideration to the necessity of such corporation and assuring himself that the incorporators are acting in good faith, the judge may endorse the articles if so desires. (Corporations Code Sections 10401, 10402.) 4)Provides that all magistrates, sheriffs, and officers of police shall, as occasion may require, aid a corporation for the prevention of cruelty to animals, its officers, members, and agents, in the enforcement of all laws relating to or affecting animals. (Corporations Code Section 10405.) 5)Requires a city, county, or city and county, to pay up to $500 per month to a society actively engaged in enforcing state laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. (Corporations Code Section 14501.) 6)Provides that only a humane society is eligible to apply for appointment of a level 1 or level 2 humane officer, whose duty shall be the enforcement of the laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals. (Corporations Code Section 14502(a)(1)(A).) 7)Provides that any humane society that has insurance of at least $1 million for liability for bodily injury or property damage may appoint any number of persons as humane officers, as long as those individuals are California citizens and specified training guidelines have been met. Authorizes the society to appoint humane officers only after it has been incorporated for 6 months, upon resolution by its board of directors or trustees. (Corporations Code Sections 14502(a)(2), 14502(a)(3).) 8)Requires that any humane society that proposes to appoint a humane officer to submit an application for appointment to a SB 1417 Page 7 judge of the superior court for the county in which the society is located, and must provide documentation demonstrating that the individual has completed specified training requirements. Upon receipt of a report from the Department of Justice of the appointee's record, if any, existing law requires the judge to review the appointee's qualifications and fitness to act as a humane officer and either confirm or deny the appointment. (Corporations Code Sections 14502(a)(1)(B), 14502(i).) 9)Requires that before appointing a humane officer, a humane society must first notify the sheriff of the county in which the society is incorporated of the society's intent to enforce laws pertaining to the prevention of cruelty to animals. (Corporations Code Section 14502(n).) 10)Permits a corporation which has appointed an officer to revoke that appointment at any time upon filing a copy of the revocation with the county's clerk office in which the appointment of the officer is recorded. Additionally, an authorized sheriff, local police agency, or the State Humane Association of California may initiate a revocation hearing by petition. (Corporations Code Section 14502(g).) 11)Provides that all appointments of humane officers automatically expire within three years from the date a copy of the court order certifying his or her appointment was filed with the county clerk. Officers whose appointments are about to expire may only be reappointed after completing the continuing education and training. (Corporations Code Section 14502(f).) 12)Provides that level 1 and level 2 humane officers are not peace officers, but may exercise the power of a police officer at all places within the state in order to prevent the perpetration of animal cruelty. Prescribes the powers and qualifications of level 1 and level 2 humane officers. Level 1 humane officers are authorized to carry firearms, subject to specified requirements, including background checks and mental and physical evaluations, but Level 2 humane officers are not authorized to carry firearms. (Corporations Code Section 14502(i).) 13)Requires the Department of Justice to maintain state summary criminal history information, as defined, and to provide that SB 1417 Page 8 information to persons holding specified occupations including, without limitation, probation officers and parole officers. Requires local criminal justice agencies to maintain similar information and provide that information to specified agencies and persons holding specified occupations. (Penal Code Sections 11105, 13300.) COMMENTS : This bill is sponsored by the Placer County Board of Supervisors, the California State Sheriffs' Association, and the State Humane Association of California, a non-profit membership association of humane societies with over 130 member organizations in the state. This bill significantly revises current law by imposing new procedures and requirements for the appointment of humane officers by non-profit corporations formed for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals (customarily referred to as "humane societies.") What is a Humane Officer? Humane officers occupy an unusual status in California between purely private actors and public peace officers. Humane officers work to enforce the state's animal welfare laws, but may be appointed only by a private non-profit humane society formed under California's Corporations Code. Appointment must be followed by judicial confirmation of the appointment petition before a person enjoys humane officer authority under the law. Existing law explicitly provides that "a humane officer is not a peace officer, but may exercise the powers of a peace officer at all places within the state." A humane officer's scope of powers can vary, depending on the level of training and animal welfare education, but can include the ability to exercise the powers of a peace officer in order to prevent animal cruelty, make arrests, serve search warrants, and carry firearms. According to the co-sponsor State Humane Association (SHAC), there are approximately seventy-five humane officers in the state, the majority of which work for a humane society that is a member of SHAC and are not authorized to carry firearms. Humane officers serve the public good by assisting law enforcement officials enforce animal cruelty laws, and the benefits they provide typically comes at no cost to the state because officers are volunteers or work for the non-profit humane society that appointed them. Legislating about humane officers presents a special challenge simply because Competing concerns: Increasing standards for humane officers SB 1417 Page 9 without deterring good candidates for appointment . According to supporters, the overall purpose of this bill is to strengthen inadequate existing law and "raise the professional bar" for the formation of humane societies and the appointment of humane officers. Because humane officers have certain search, seizure, and arrest powers under existing law, the author believes this bill is needed to "increase the standards for humane officers." Proponents of the bill speak of "raising the professional bar" to ensure that new humane societies and their officer appointees possess certain assurances of quality before an appointment is confirmed. Existing law has in practice set an uncertain standard for appointment of humane officers but it does not provide appropriate guidance to the judge charged with confirming or denying the appointment. By design, this bill creates new obligations and responsibilities for both the appointing humane society and an appointee seeking confirmation as a humane officer, which could conceivably have the effect of preventing some appointees from being confirmed who under existing law might otherwise be confirmed. On balance, it is believed that the trade off between weeding out unqualified or questionable candidates who should not be granted the privilege of humane officer status justifies imposing additional obligations and responsibilities that may potentially deter well-meaning and qualified candidates from pursuing appointment or forming a new humane society. The author and sponsors have worked closely with the Committee to draft a series of amendments that meet the objectives of quality and oversight, while simultaneously attempting to address concerns from the opposition that new requirements will effectively deter new humane officers from being appointed. As proposed to be amended, the bill reaches a balance of these competing concerns, and contains several qualitative improvements. It is unknown whether the amendments have removed any or all of the opposition to the earlier version of the bill. Prior to these amendments, opponents complained that the procedures and requirements imposed by the bill are "onerous", make the appointment and confirmation process "adversarial," and will have the practical result of fewer new humane societies being created and fewer new humane officers appointed in a time when more, not less, enforcement of animal laws is needed, particularly because local government cannot afford to keep it a priority. SB 1417 Page 10 As proposed to be amended, this bill eliminates any requirement for judicial endorsement . The author has proposed to amend the bill to remove the comprehensive procedure and rules for judicial endorsement of a society's articles of incorporation, proposed in previous versions of the bill, that would have had to be undertaken before the petitioning group could obtain humane society status under the Corporations Code. This proposed amendment directly addresses opponents' concerns that the proposed endorsement process was onerous and unprecedented in non-profit corporation law. It addresses the Committee's concern that because it applied to all groups seeking status, it created unnecessary barriers that might deter the formation of legitimate non-profit organizations, uninterested in enforcing animal cruelty laws, that wished to incorporate as an official humane society to carry out a number of other important community-based functions related to animals (e.g. run a shelter, spay/neuter services, coordinate pet adoptions, etc.) Finally, this proposed amendment also relieves some burden for the courts, who, faced with additional responsibilities in hearing petitions for appointment of humane officers, likely did not wish this particular responsibility as well. As proposed to be amended, the bill also repeals the skeletal requirement for judicial endorsement in existing law, which as written was widely considered inefficient because the courts lacked guidance on how to handle such petitions and were not assured any substantive information on which to base a decision to endorse or not endorse. As proposed to be amended, this bill establishes new criteria and new procedures for handling a petition confirming appointment of a humane officer. The author has proposed to amend the bill to revise several criteria and procedural requirements for appointment and confirmation of humane officers. First, the "eligibility criteria" for authority to file a petition to appoint a humane officer have been slightly changed, and incorporated into the criteria of the petition itself. This proposed amendment solves a workability problem for the court and petitioners because there is no appropriate decisionmaker, other than the judge who must review the petition, to determine whether the petitioning group has met the conditions specified as "eligibility" criteria in the previous version of the bill. The court clerk at the time of filing is not equipped to make such a determination. Therefore, as proposed to be amended, the bill requires that evidence that the former "eligibility" criteria have been satisfied are submitted SB 1417 Page 11 as part of the materials attached to the petition, and the court is required to evaluate those factors first. If the court determines one of those criteria has not been satisfied (and would have rendered the petitioner "ineligible"), the court may deny the petition without further consideration. As proposed to be amended, the period of time that a humane society must wait before it can appoint a humane officer is reduced from five years to two years for appointment of a level 2 humane officer. For appointment of a level 1 humane officer, who differs mainly because of his authority to carry firearms, the waiting period remains at five years. This period now starts running at the time of filing the articles of incorporation, since endorsement of the articles is no longer required. Furthermore, as proposed to be amended, there is no minimum time requirement for the operation of a shelter that the petitioning group may operate or contract with, because the relative age of the shelter is thought not to be a guarantee of a well-run operation; instead, strict qualitative benchmarks are imposed on the evaluation of the shelter to assure it will protect any seized animals that it shelters in the future. Similarly, as proposed to be amended, this bill now adds a number of qualitative examples of documents and evidence that a petitioning society shall submit in affidavit form to the court to demonstrate its competence to appoint a humane officer and show it has taken affirmative steps to ensure success and working relationships in the community for the future. This assures the court has a wealth of information on which to evaluate the petition, and also provides a basis for reducing the waiting period from five years to two years for the majority of petitions. As proposed to be amended, this bill eliminates any requirement for reaffirmation of a previously confirmed humane officer, and aligns the revocation process with the appointment and confirmation process. The author proposes to eliminate the reaffirmation requirement and corresponding judicial procedure, and proposes amendments to make the procedural and law and motion rules for revocation proceedings consistent with those now to be applied for confirmation of appointment proceedings. Standardized vetting of level 1 and level 2 humane officers. Current law contains two categories of humane officers (level 1 and level 2) and prescribes the powers and qualifications for SB 1417 Page 12 each. A level 2 officer must complete 60 hours of training in state humane laws and animal care. In order to make arrests and serve search warrants, the officer must complete the arrest component of the course prescribed under Penal Code Section 832. A level 1 humane officer must also complete 60 hours of training, but also has the option of carrying a firearm if he or she completes the basic training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training for a level 1 reserve officer. In addition, a level 1 humane officer may not be a felon and must be free from physical, emotional, or mental conditions that could affect the exercise of his or her powers. (Corporations Code 14502(i) This bill requires that both level 1 and level 2 humane officers be subject to the same disqualification standards, background checks, and evaluations for physical, emotional, or mental fitness as currently required for level 1 officers. These are also some of the same requirements imposed on peace officers. As previously stated, humane officers are not peace officers, but they may exercise the powers of a peace officer at all places within the state in order to prevent cruelty to animals. Thus, they may serve warrants, make arrests, and use reasonable force necessary to prevent the perpetration of cruelty to animals. Because humane officers have some authority to act under the color of law, it is arguably appropriate to ensure that they go through heightened background checks for criminal history and physical and mental evaluations to ensure that they are capable of carrying out their duties. Ability to freely contract with any city or county. Current law requires a city or county to pay up to $500 per month to a society actively engaged in enforcing state laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. This bill would instead authorize local governments to enter into contracts with humane societies, thereby ensuring that a contract is in place before a humane society can request payment for its services. This is intended to eliminate the likelihood that a humane society could receive payment for services not sanctioned or requested by a local government. However, humane societies would still be able to enforce state laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals in the absence of a contract. This code section and some neighboring sections also retain references to societies for the prevention of cruelty to children, which are obsolete. Counties no longer contract with SB 1417 Page 13 humane societies for child welfare services because counties have assumed these responsibilities. Accordingly, this bill would delete the outdated references appropriately. Compliance with continuing education and training requirements for humane officers. This bill would require all humane officers to complete certification of compliance for continuing education and training during each three-year period following his or her appointment. A humane society would also be required to obtain Criminal Record Offender Information on the humane officer no more than 60 days prior to the end of the three-year period. The certificate of compliance must be filed with the Department of Justice, who is authorized to charge a fee to cover the reasonable cost of filing and processing the certificates of compliance. Failure to file the certificate of compliance no later than twenty-one days after the expiration of a three-year period would result in immediate revocation of the appointment. If the humane officer is authorized to carry a firearm, he or she would additionally be required to complete weapons training and range qualifications every six months, and a certificate filed with the Department of Justice showing compliance. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : As proposed to be amended, this bill requires a two-year waiting period for level 2 officers and a five-year period for level 1 officers. In opposing the previous version of the bill that had required a five-year waiting period before a new humane society could appoint either level of humane officer, the Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills (HSSF) expressed the viewpoint, shared by other opponents, that "there is no nexus between a five-year wait and a successful Humane Officer. No new Humane Society will form or be able to wait five years before being able to perform the task for which it was formed." HSSF suggested alternatively a 6-month period for level 2 humane officers (which reflects the waiting period required by existing law), and a two-year period for level 1 officers (i.e. an increase of 18 months.) In its letter to the Committee, HSSF also articulated a number of other "Necessary Changes" it felt should be made to the bill. In some cases, the author has proposed to amend the bill to directly resolve these concerns. For example, the author proposes to eliminate extensive provisions creating a judicial proceeding for endorsement of articles of incorporation - an "adversarial "proceeding that HHSF believes would "spell the end SB 1417 Page 14 to any new humane societies." HSSF also advocates for the elimination of the "formal adversarial proceeding" for confirmation of a new humane officer, stating: Present code requires court confirmation of a Humane Officer appointment after the court reviews the petition for compliance with training requirements, a DOJ fingerprint report, and a number of other factors. Present code requires notice to the county sheriff of this confirmation petition. The sheriff, if he/she desires, can intervene and object to the confirmation. A formal adversarial proceeding with 10 to 20 or more adversarial parties is chilling, expensive, and not necessary. The reference to "10 to 20 or more adversarial parties" refers to the requirement that the society serve "local city police departments" a copy of its petition - which potentially could involve 20 or more departments in a county like Los Angeles. The author now proposes to amend the bill to require service only to a single city police department, having jurisdiction over the society's home city. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Placer County Board of Supervisors (co-sponsor) State Humane Association of California (co-sponsor) California State Sheriffs' Association (co-sponsor) Judicial Council of California Humane Society of the United States American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) East Bay SPCA SPCA Los Angeles Santa Cruz SPCA Haven Humane Society of Redding San Francisco SPCA Humane Society of Silicon Valley Sacramento SPCA Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) California State Association of Counties California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) SB 1417 Page 15 Animal Issues Movement PetPAC Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Opposition Paw PAC Animal Legal Defense Fund Social Compassion in Legislation Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills League of Placer County Taxpayers Protecting Earth and Animals with Compassion and Education (PEACE) Analysis Prepared by : Anthony Lew / JUD. / (916) 319-2334