SB 425, as amended, DeSaulnier. Public works: the Public Works Peer Review Act of 2013.
Existing law defines a public work as construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of publicbegin delete funds,end deletebegin insert funds;end insert work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of thisbegin delete type,end deletebegin insert type;end insert street, sewer, or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or public body of thebegin delete state,end deletebegin insert
state;end insert
or of any political subdivision or district thereof, and public transportation demonstration projects, as specified.
This bill would require abegin delete state agency or department or a regional or localend deletebegin insert publicend insert agency, principally tasked with administering the planningbegin delete andend deletebegin insert,end insert developmentbegin insert, and operationend insert of abegin delete public worksend delete projectbegin insert,end insert
to establish a specified peer review group, to provide it with expert advice on the scientific and technical aspects of the project if the public works is a megaproject, defined as having total development, construction, and reasonable projected maintenance costs exceedingbegin delete one billion dollarsend delete $1,000,000,000; if the Governor or the head of the administering agency has determined that the establishment of a peer review group is in the public interest in connection with the development and construction of the project; or if a statute or concurrent resolution is passed by the Legislature requiring the administering agency to do so. The bill would prohibit a peer review group from meeting or taking any action until a charter is filed with the head of the administering agency and the relevant standing committees of the Legislature and is posted on the administering agency’s Internet Web site, stating the group’s
objective, the scope of its activities, and a description of the duties for which the group is responsible, among other things.
Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public official at any level of state or local government from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he or she knows, or has reason to know, he or she has a financial interest. A violation of the act is a crime.
This bill would require a member of a peer review group, within 30 days of joining the group, to file specified forms with the Fair Political Practices Commission, under penalty of perjury, stating his or her economic interests, and declaring himself or herself to be independent of all parties involved in the project and to have no conflicts of interest.
Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime under the act, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also require the Fair Political Practices Commission to create a form that identifies potential institutional conflicts for members of peer review groups, and requires a member of a peer review group to declare, under penalty of perjury, to be independent of all parties involved in the project, including project sponsors or contractors, and to have no conflicts of interest.
end deleteExisting constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to 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.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act’s purposes upon a 2⁄3 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements.
This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 8847) is
2added to Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:
3
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the
8Public Works Project Peer Review Act of 2013.
For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have
10the following meanings, unless expressly stated otherwise:
11(a) “Administering agency” meansbegin delete either a state agency or begin insert a public agency, excluding
12department or a regional or local agencyend delete
13an “exempt agency”end insert principally tasked with administering the
14planningbegin delete andend deletebegin insert,end insert developmentbegin insert,
and operationend insert of a begin deletepublic works end delete
15project.
16(b) “Auditor” means the Bureau of State Audits.
17(c) “Conflict of interest” means a reviewer or a relative or
18professional associate of the reviewer has a financial or other
19interest in a project or with a project sponsor that is known to the
20reviewer and is likely to bias the reviewer’s evaluation of that
21project. A reviewer has a conflict of interest ifbegin delete he or sheend deletebegin insert any of the
22following apply to him or herend insert orbegin insert
toend insert a close relative or professional
23associate of the reviewerbegin delete and any of the following also applyend delete:
24(1) He or she has received or could receive a direct financial
25benefit of any amount deriving from a project sponsor of or any
26contractor connected to the project under review.
P4 1(2) Apart from any direct financial benefit deriving from a
2project sponsor of or contractor connected to the project under
3review, he or she has received or could receive an indirect financial
4benefit from a project sponsor or contractor that in the aggregate
5exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per year, including
6honoraria, fees, stock or other financial benefit, and the current
7value of the
reviewer’s already existing stock holdings.
8(3) He or she has the appearance of a conflict of interest that
9would cause a reasonable person to question the reviewer’s
10impartiality if he or she were to participate in the review.
11(4) He or she has any other interest in the project, project
12sponsor, or any connected contractor that, in the view of a
13reasonable person, is likely to bias the reviewer’s evaluation of
14that project.
15(d) “Exempt agency” means the California Water Commission,
16California Department of Water Resources, or any state, regional,
17or local public entity or district engaged in storing, supplying,
18transporting, distributing, or delivering water.
19(d)
end delete
20begin insert(e)end insert “Megaproject” means a projectbegin delete as defined in Section 1720 with total development, construction, and
21of the Labor Codeend delete
22reasonable projected maintenance costs exceeding one billion
23dollars ($1,000,000,000).
24(e)
end delete
25begin insert(f)end insert “Peer review group” means a group of persons qualified by
26training and experience in particular scientific or technical fields,
27or as authorities
knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields
28related to the public works project under review, who give expert
29advice on the scientific and technical aspects of the project as
30described in this chapter.
31(f)
end delete
32begin insert(g)end insert “Project” means a public works project as public works is
33defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Codebegin insert that will be owned by
34a public agency, excluding an exempt agencyend insert.
35(g)
end delete
36begin insert(h)end insert “Project sponsor” means anybegin delete entityend deletebegin insert public agencyend insert that funds
37a project, including a federal, state, local, or other entity, or the
38administering agency.
(a) The administering agency of a project shall establish
40a peer review group if any of the following circumstances apply:
P5 1(1) The project is a megaproject.
2(2) The Governor, or the head of the administering agency
3involved, has determined that the establishment of a peer review
4group is in the public interest in connection with the development
5and construction of a project.
6(3) A statute or concurrent resolution is passed by the Legislature
7requiring the administering agency to establish a peer review group.
8(b) Unless otherwise provided in statute, an administering
9agency shall not establish a peer review group other than under
10the provisions of this chapter.
(a) A peer review group shall not meet or take any action
12until a charter has been written by the administering agency and
13filed with the relevant standing committees of the Legislature. The
14charter also shall be posted on the administering agency’s Internet
15Web site and shall contain all of the following information:
16(1) The group’s official name or designation.
17(2) The group’s objective and the scope of its activities.
18(3) A statement of the expertise and balance of interests required
19of the group membership to perform its charge.
20(4) The name of the administering agency and official to whom
21the group reports.
22(5) A description of the duties for which the group is responsible.
23(6) The estimated number and frequency of group meetings.
24(7) The estimated annual operating costs for the group.
25(b) Before establishing a peer review group, an administering
26agency shall develop a transparent process for selecting members
27of the group. The auditor shall review the process by which the
28administering agency comprised the peer review group, to warrant
29that the process was followed.
30(c) The administering agency shall enter into a contract with
31each of the peer review group members that requires each member
32to do all of the following:
33(1) File the Statement of Economic Interest, Form 700, with the
34Fair Political Practices Commission.
35(2) Commit, upon penalty of perjury, to comply with the conflict
36of interest requirements of this chapter.
Components of megaprojects that must be evaluated by
38a peer review group include, but are not limited to, the following:
39(a) Project demand studies.
40(b) Design and engineering models and estimates.
P6 1(c) Construction, testing, and inspection practices.
All of the following shall apply to members of a peer
3review group:
4(a) A member shall, within 30 days of joining the group, file
5the statements required under Sections 87202 and 87202.1, under
6penalty of perjury, stating his or her economic interests, and
7declaring himself or herself to be independent of all parties
8involved in the project and to have no conflicts of interest.
9(b) A member shall be reimbursed only for actual expenses, for
10example, transportation and room and board costs, plus one
11hundred dollars ($100) per day he or she performs work in the
12review.
13(c) A member shall have some expertise involving the work to
14be reviewed, but need not be an expert in the specific field.
15(d) If a member feels unable to provide objective advice, he or
16she shall recusebegin delete himend deletebegin insert himselfend insert or herself from the peer review group.
(a) All of the following shall apply to peer review group
18meetings:
19(1) An agenda and relevant documentsbegin delete,end delete shall be posted on the
20administering agency’s Internet Web site at least one week before
21the meeting.
22(2) The meeting shall be held in a publicly accessible forum.
23(3) The meeting shall contain a public participation component,
24including presentations identifying specific issues to be discussed
25or reviewed, and any other relevant presentations from the
26administering
agency.
27(b) All documentation related to the issues to be reviewed at a
28peer review group meeting, to the extent possible without putting
29the administering agency at a negotiating disadvantage, shall be
30made available to the public upon request.
31(c) (1) In order to evaluate matters that relate to personnel,
32design standards, contract amounts, or other issues that may put
33the administering agency at a negotiating disadvantage, a meeting
34of a peer review group subject to this act may be exempt in part
35from the requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
36(Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Divisionbegin delete 3 of Title begin insert
3)end insert, at the discretion of the head of the administering agency to
372)end delete
38whom the peer review group reports, unless that meeting includes
39participation by one or more full-time, or permanent part-time,
40officers or employees of the administering agency.
P7 1(2) This section shall not preclude a full-time, or permanent
2part-time, officer or employee of the administering agency from
3supplying administrative support to a peer review group. Support
4staff shall not divulge the contents of a closed-door meeting. The
5head of the administering agency shall be responsible for ensuring
6compliance with Section 11228.
This chapter shall not apply to the peer review group
8created pursuant to Section 185035 of the Public Utilities Code.
Section 87202.1 is added to the Government Code, to
10read:
The commission shall create a form, similar to a Form
12700 statement of economic interests, that identifies potential
13institutional conflicts for members of peer review groups. The
14form shall require a member of a peer review group to declare,
15under penalty of perjury, to be independent of all parties involved
16in the project, including project sponsors or contractors, and to
17have no conflicts of interest, as defined in Section 8847.1.
The Legislature finds and declares that this act imposes
20a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public
21bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the
22meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
23Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes
24the following finding to demonstrate the interest protected by this
25limitation and the need for protecting the interest:
26The public interest in nondisclosure pursuant to this
act
27outweighs the public interest in disclosure, because requiring the
28public disclosure of the internal deliberations of peer review groups
29could impair the soundness of the group’s evaluation and
30disadvantage the administering agency in contract negotiations.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
33Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for certain
34costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
35because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or infraction,
36eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
37or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
38Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
39meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
40Constitution.
P8 1However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that
2this act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
3to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
4pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
54 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers
8the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the
9meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government
10Code.
O
98