BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 475 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 13, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Cameron Smyth, Chair SB 475 (Wright) - As Amended: June 7, 2012 SENATE VOTE : Vote not relevant SUBJECT : Local agencies: open meetings: teleconferences. SUMMARY : Permits local health authorities to establish a quorum under the state's open meeting laws via teleconference if at least 50% of the board members constituting the quorum are physically present within the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Specifically, this bill : 1)Reestablishes the authority of local health authorities to establish a quorum under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) via teleconference by counting members outside the jurisdiction towards the number needed for a quorum if at least 50% of that quorum are physically present within the jurisdiction, and the health authority provides a teleconference number and any associated access codes to allow any person to call in to participate in the meeting, and identifies the number and access codes in the notice and agenda of the meeting. 2)Provides for the authorization to sunset on January 1, 2018. 3)Makes legislative findings and declarations relative to the difficulty of obtaining a quorum of health authority board members within the physical jurisdiction of the authority. EXISTING LAW : 1)Requires that all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency be open and public, and requires that all persons be permitted to attend any such meetings, unless otherwise specified in law. SB 475 Page 2 2)Allows the legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing for the benefit of the public and the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. 3)Specifies that if the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it must post agendas at all teleconference locations and conduct teleconference meetings in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. 4)Requires that each teleconference location be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location be accessible to the public. 5)Requires that during the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction. 6)Provides that, in counties selected by the Director of Health Care Services with the concurrence of the county, a special county health authority may be established in order to meet the problems of delivery of publicly assisted medical care in each county, and to demonstrate ways of promoting quality care and cost efficiency. 7)Requires, according to existing constitutional provisions, that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. FISCAL EFFECT : None COMMENTS : 1)The Brown Act requires local governments' meetings to be "open and public," in order to promote citizen involvement in and SB 475 Page 3 oversight of their local legislative bodies. Local officials must post agendas 72 hours before their regular meetings and they are prohibited from discussing or making decisions about topics that are not on the agenda. The Brown Act allows local governments' legislative bodies to use teleconferencing for their meetings as long as they post agendas at all teleconference locations, take all votes by roll call, and accommodate persons wishing to address the governing body. Each teleconference location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting and must be accessible to the public. In 1998, the Legislature added the requirement that, during a teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the governing body must participate from locations within the boundaries of the local government's jurisdiction ŬSB 139 (Kopp) Chapter 260, Statutes of 1998]. The aim was to require that a sufficient number of board members remain in the physical jurisdiction during the meeting in order to ensure that at least one physical teleconference site was available so that members of the public could more easily participate. In 2005, the Legislature created an exception to that teleconference requirement by permitting health authorities to reach a teleconference meeting quorum by counting members not physically within the authority's boundaries as long as those outside members constitute a minority of the quorum ŬAB 1438 (Salinas), Chapter 540, Statutes of 2005]. That measure also contained a January 1, 2009 sunset date. According to the author, there were no reported problems with the use of the exemption during the 2006-2009 period. However, it is possible that some health authorities continued to operate in reliance upon this provision even after the sunset date. 2)This bill would reestablish a special authorization for local health authorities to meet their quorum meeting requirement via teleconference under the Brown Act by counting board members calling from outside of the authority's physical jurisdiction. Health authorities would still be required to have over 50% of the quorum within the boundaries of the SB 475 Page 4 jurisdiction during the teleconference, and must provide the public teleconference number and any access code in the notice and agenda for the meeting. This re-authorization will sunset in 2018. The measure is sponsored by Local Health Plans of California. 3)As defined, a health authority is any of various specified commissions, non-profit corporations, joint powers authorities, advisory committees or other entities that have been selected or authorized to meet the problems of delivery of publicly-assisted medical care in certain counties, usually by operating a public, not-for-profit health plan. As of 2005, local health authorities served over 1.4 million Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, and Healthy Kids beneficiaries in nine counties throughout California According to the sponsor, "Ŭl]ocal health plans' governing boards consist of doctors, hospitals, Medi-Cal beneficiaries, consumer advocates, county supervisors, community clinics and county health departments. Most of these representatives have full-time jobs outside of their board duties and very demanding schedules. Even with regularly scheduled monthly or bi-monthly meetings, local health plan boards find it challenging to meet quorum requirements." 4)The reauthorization of a provision that relaxes Brown Act requirements for health authorities alone raises certain questions that the Committee may wish to consider: a) First, is there sufficient reason to believe that health authorities are having such a difficult time meeting teleconference quorum requirements that a special exemption is called for under the Brown Act? Should health authority boards instead consider potential board members who are based in the jurisdiction or travel outside of it less frequently? b) Second, what kind of precedent does this extension set? Should other types of public agencies also be permitted to meet via teleconference with a minority of the quorum calling from outside the jurisdiction? SB 475 Page 5 5)AB 1438 (Salinas) created the original quorum exemption for health authorities that is the subject of this bill, as well as the provision for the 2009 sunset date. The measure was approved June 6, 2005, in this Committee by a 7-0 vote. 6)Support arguments : According to the sponsor, by "allowing half of the members necessary to establish a quorum to call in from outside the board's jurisdiction during teleconferenced meetings, SB 475 will allow local health plan boards to meet and conduct business on a regular basis with the benefit of the continued participation by their highly qualified - and busy - board members." Opposition arguments : One might argue that there is no evidence to believe that health authorities are more burdened by the quorum requirements of the Brown Act than any other public entity, and that the appropriate response should be greater selectivity in choosing board members. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Local Health Plans of California ŬSPONSOR] L.A. Care Health Plan Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Hank Dempsey / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 SB 475 Page 6