BILL ANALYSIS Ó Bill No: SB 425 SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION Senator Roderick D. Wright, Chair 2013-2014 Regular Session Staff Analysis SB 425 Author: DeSaulnier As Introduced: February 21, 2013 Hearing Date: April 9, 2013 Consultant: Paul Donahue SUBJECT Public Works Peer Review Act of 2013 DESCRIPTION This bill establishes a process for selection and functioning of peer review groups that would conduct evaluations of the scientific and technical aspects of public works projects that exceed $1 billion. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires the administering agency of a project to establish a peer review group under any of the following circumstances: a) The project is a megaproject, defined as having total development, construction, and reasonable projected maintenance costs exceeding $1 billion. b) The Governor, or the head of the administering agency involved, has determined that the establishment of a peer review group is in the public interest in connection with the development and construction of a project. c) A statute or concurrent resolution is passed by the Legislature requiring the administering agency to SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageB establish a peer review group.<1> 2)Defines a "peer review group" to mean a group of persons qualified by training and experience in particular scientific or technical fields, or as authorities knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields related to the public works project under review, who give expert advice on the scientific and technical aspects of the megaprojects. 3)Requires an administering agency, before establishing a peer review group, to develop a transparent process for selecting its members, and provides that the Bureau of State Audits shall review the process to ensure it was followed. 4)Prohibits 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 website, stating among other things the group's objective, the scope of its activities, and a description of the duties for which the group is responsible. 5)Specifies that peer review group meetings shall be held in accordance with the following: (a) an agenda and relevant documents must be posted on the agency website a week in advance; (b) meetings shall be held in publicly accessible forum, and provide for public participation; and (c) most relevant documents at issue shall be made available to the public, except those which place the ------------------------- <1> The bill also specifies that, unless otherwise provided in statute, an administering agency is barred from establishing a peer review group except as provided for herein. SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageC agency at a negotiating disadvantage.<2> The bill authorizes agency employees to provide administrative support to the peer review group. 6) Requires a member of a peer review group, within 30 days of joining the group, to file forms with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) stating his or her economic interests, and declaring himself or herself to be independent of all parties involved in the project, including project sponsors or contractors, and to have no conflicts of interest. 7)Defines "conflict of interest" for a reviewer, or his or her relative or professional associate, if the person has: a) A financial or other interest, either in the project or with a project sponsor, that is known to the reviewer and is likely to bias the reviewer's evaluation of the project. b) Received or could receive a direct financial benefit of any amount deriving from a project sponsor or any contractor connected to a project under review. c) Received, or could receive, an indirect financial benefit from a project sponsor or contractor that in the aggregate exceeds $10,000 per year, including honoraria, fees, stock or other financial benefit, and the current value of the reviewer's already existing stock holdings. d) The appearance of a conflict of interest that would cause a reasonable person to question the reviewer's impartiality if he or she were to participate in the review. e) Any other interest in the project, project sponsor, or any connected contractor that, in the view of a reasonable person, is likely to bias the reviewer's evaluation of that project. ----------------------- <2> The bill additionally provides that, in order to evaluate matters that relate to personnel, design standards, contract amounts, or other issues that may put the administering agency at a negotiating disadvantage, a meeting of a peer review group may be exempt in part from the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, at the discretion of the head of the administering agency to whom the peer review group reports, unless that meeting includes participation by one or more full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees of the administering agency. The bill also makes legislative findings concerning the foregoing. SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageD 8)Requires the FPPC to create a form that identifies potential institutional conflicts for members of peer review groups, and that requires the peer review group member to declare under penalty of perjury that he or she is independent of all parties involved in the project and has no conflicts of interest. EXISTING LAW 1)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 public funds, work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and other districts of this type, street, sewer, or other improvement work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or public body of the state, or of any of its political subdivisions, and specified public transportation demonstration projects. 2)Requires the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) to establish an independent peer review group for the purpose of reviewing the planning, engineering, financing, and other elements of the its plans, and issuing an analysis of appropriateness and accuracy of the HSRA's assumptions, and an analysis of the viability of the authority's financing plan, including the funding plan for each corridor. 3)Prohibits public officials and officers, acting in their official capacities, from making any contracts in which they are financially interested, unless the interest is remote, as defined. 4)The Political Reform Act 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 the official knows, or has reason to know, he or she has a financial interest. A violation of the act is a crime. BACKGROUND 1)Purpose of the bill : According to the author, this bill SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageE seeks to defend the term "peer review" and ensure that it is only used in the public works project arena in the way that we all understand it to mean: an objective review by independent peers without conflicts of interest. The author states that "large public works projects can take on monumental importance and even proceed against better judgment if logical concerns are ignored for the potential 'greater good' the project may promise. In the project selection process, policymakers must rely on experts to evaluate a project's costs and benefits; these experts can make varying assumptions in order to reach a variety of conclusions. Legitimate peer review is a cornerstone of the scientific method and a key tool for policymakers to use to validate conclusions presented by these experts. "Further, when a project sponsor claims that a project has been "peer reviewed," policymakers and the public often grant more credibility to offered justifications for constructing a project. Because of this, it is important that the term "peer review" mean what the public generally believe it to mean. This includes ensuring the project sponsor followed a transparent process for development of the peer review, and that no conflicts of interest reside with the peer review panelists?This is especially important today with the potential large-scale projects proposed in California's near future." 2)High Speed Rail Authority's peer reviewed forecasts called into question : In 2009, the HSRA developed forecasts of demand and ridership for a "high-speed" train running from San Francisco to LA, based on a model system developed for HSRA by Cambridge Systematics, a leading transportation consulting firm, to forecast high-speed rail ridership under a variety of scenarios, including different configurations of routing, pricing, frequency of service and travel time. The ridership forecasts were included in California's successful application for federal stimulus dollars,<3> but the ridership study was roundly criticized. ------------------------ <3> In January 2010, the state received $2.25 billion in federal stimulus funds for high speed rail. SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageF In 2010, the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee commissioned a review of the HSRA ridership forecasts. In June, 2010, researchers at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley highlighted numerous problems identified in the ridership study, including its use of: a) A sample of long-distance travelers that was not sufficiently representative, and of a statistical method to adjust for that difference that has been proven unreliable. b) Statistical adjustments that were valid for intra-regional ridership models, but not for inter-regional ones, thereby exaggerating the importance of having frequent service. c) A structure that predetermines which high-speed rail station travelers will choose rather than allowing travelers to make the choice themselves. d) Restrictions that were based on professional judgment, not on observed data. In 2011, the HSRA's own peer review panel among other things found that projections prepared by consultants in the ridership study suffered from "important technical deficiencies." 3)Conflict of Interest : This measure contains extensive conflict of interest provisions to which peer review group members would be subject. Current law prohibits public officials and officers, acting in their official capacities, from making any contracts in which they are financially interested, unless the interest is remote, as defined.<4> The courts have held that the purpose of this prohibition is to not only strike at actual impropriety, but also to strike at the appearance of impropriety, by removing or limiting "the possibility of any personal influence, either directly or indirectly which might bear on an official's decision, as well as to void contracts which are actually obtained through fraud ------------------------- <4> Govt. Code § 1090 SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageG or dishonest conduct."<5> In light of the far-reaching aspects of existing statutes, the author may wish to consider harmonizing, to the extent practicable, the bill's conflict of interest provisions with existing statutes. The author intends to delete SEC. 2 from the bill if it moves to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance, to which it is double-referred. That provision directs the FPPC to create a form that identifies potential institutional conflicts for members of peer review groups, and that requires the peer review group member to declare under penalty of perjury that he or she is independent of all parties involved in the project and has no conflicts of interest. 4)Opponents : The organizations opposing the bill have grave concerns that, by imposing yet another legal requirement on major projects, it will undoubtedly encourage more legal challenges by opponents whenever a potential conflict, no matter how small, was reported - or not reported - by one of the selected peers. Opponents also believe that once peer review is mandated, with all the limitations and disclosures required under this bill, peer review will lose its effectiveness as a sounding board for project participants and will become simply another legal hurdle standing in the way of project development. Other opponents note that the bill would apply to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, which has been through years of, "rigorous environmental and scientific review." They see no benefit to adding an additional layer of review, and state they are unaware of any problems that necessitate the introduction of this measure PRIOR/RELATED LEGISLATION AB 41 (Hill) Chapter 626, Statutes of 2012. Added members of the High-Speed Rail Authority to those specified officers who must publicly identify a financial interest giving rise to a conflict of interest or potential conflict ------------------------- <5> See, e.g., Stigall v. City of Taft (1962) 58 Cal.2d 565; City of Imperial Beach v. Bailey (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 191 SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageH of interest, and recuse themselves accordingly, pursuant to the Political Reform Act. AB 58 (Galgiani) 2011-2012 Session. Would have required initial designations to the High-Speed Rail Authority independent peer review group be made by January 1, 2012, and would have required the peer review group to designate a member of its staff to serve as a liaison to the peer review group. (Hearing cancelled by author) AB 527 (Hernandez) 2011-2012 Session. Would have prohibited public officials or employees from authorizing the approval of public funds if any member of the governing body or board has a financial interest in the person or entity that receives the expended funds. (Failed passage in Senate Governmental Organization Committee). AB 2801 (Carter) Chapter 181, Statutes of 2008. Added a "remote interest" exception to conflict of interest law to allow resolution of litigation involving a public body and a member of the public body and sets forth the circumstances under which that exception applies. AB 1754 (Committee on Housing and Community Development) Chapter 348, Statutes of 2005. Established that no conflict of interest exists for a California Housing Finance Agency employee or board member who participates in the planning, discussion, development, or approval of loan products or programs so long as the loan product or program may be originated by any of the lenders approved by agency and that the loan product or program is made available to all qualified borrowers. SUPPORT: None on file OPPOSE: Association of California Water Agencies Castaic Lake Water Agency Coachella Valley Water District Desert Water Agency Eastern Municipal Water Agency SB 425 (DeSaulnier) continued PageI Kern County Water Agency Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Mojave Water Agency Three Valleys Municipal Water District Valley Ag Water Coalition Westlands Water District Western Growers Association Western Municipal Water District DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Governance and Finance Committee FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations Committee **********