BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 425|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 425
Author: DeSaulnier (D)
Amended: 5/7/13
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE : 8-2, 4/9/13
AYES: Wright, Calderon, Correa, De León, Galgiani, Hernandez,
Lieu, Padilla
NOES: Nielsen, Berryhill
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cannella
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/1/13
AYES: Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
NOES: Knight, Emmerson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Public Works Peer Review Act of 2013
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill creates the Public Works Project Peer
Review Act of 2013, which allows a public agency that is
principally tasked with administering, planning, developing, and
operating a public works project to establish a peer review
group, as defined, and requires the administering agency, if a
peer review group is established, to draft a charter, published
on the agency's Internet Web site, related to the duties of the
peer review group.
CONTINUED
SB 425
Page
2
ANALYSIS : 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
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.
This bill:
1. Allows an administering agency to establish a peer review
group, and if the group is established, requires the agency
to do the following:
A. Before establishing a peer review group, develop a
transparent process for selecting members of the group.
B. Draft a charter and post it on the administering
agency's Internet Web site as a public document containing
all of the following information:
(1) The group's official name or designation.
(2) The group's objective and the scope of its
activities.
(3) A statement of the expertise and balance of
interests required of the group membership to
perform its charge.
(4) The name of the administering agency and
official to whom the group reports.
(5) A description of the duties for which the
group is responsible.
(6) The estimated number and frequency of group
meetings.
(7) The estimated annual operating costs for the
group.
CONTINUED
SB 425
Page
3
(8) A statement authorizing a peer reviewer to
conduct his/her duties under the charter
impartially, without restriction or limitation, and
in a manner the peer reviewer believes is necessary
to appropriately review a proposed project.
(9) A statement declaring whether the members of
the peer review group have signed a conflict of
interest disclosure form that identifies real or
perceived conflicts between a peer reviewer and the
specified public works project.
2. Defines the following terms:
A. "Administering agency" as a public agency principally
tasked with administering, planning, developing, and
operating a public works project.
B. "Peer review group" as a group of persons qualified by
training and experience in particular scientific or
technical fields, or as authorities knowledgeable in the
disciplines and fields related to the public works project
under review.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/13)
---
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/20/13)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, 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
CONTINUED
SB 425
Page
4
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 believes 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 bill takes a number of steps toward legitimizing the use of
peer review on public works projects in California. This is
especially important today with the potential large-scale
projects proposed in California's near future.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance is opposed
to this bill "due to the potential of creating a
state-reimbursable mandate. This bill would declare
administrative requirements for all agencies that have
established or will establish a peer review group for a public
works project. This bill would establish universal criteria for
peer review groups and requirements for agencies that establish
them. Any public agency would be required to draft a charter,
as defined, and post it on the agency's internet site.
Establishing a new peer review group under these conditions is
voluntary and, as such, would probably not be a mandate.
However, previously established peer review groups would also be
subject to the new provisions, leading to the possibility of
local agencies filing a state-reimbursable mandate claim."
MW:d 5/22/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED