BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 425
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Jim Frazier, Chair
SB 425 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 7, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 35-0
SUBJECT : Public works: the Public Works Peer Review Act of
2013.
SUMMARY : Allows a public agency that is principally charged
with the administration, planning, development, and operation of
a public works project (administering agency) to establish a
peer review group of qualified persons, as specified, to give
expert advice on the scientific and technical aspects of the
public works project. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits an administering agency of a public works project to
establish a peer review group of qualified persons, as
specified, to give expert advice on the scientific and
technical aspects of the project.
2)Requires an administering agency that chooses to create a peer
review group to develop a transparent process for selecting
members of the group and draft a charter that contains the
following information:
a) The group's official name or designation;
b) The group's objective and the scope of its activities;
c) A statement of the expertise and balance of interests
required of the group membership to perform its charge;
d) The name of the administering agency and official to
whom the group reports;
e) A description of the duties for which the group is
responsible;
f) The estimated number and frequency of group meetings;
g) The estimated annual operating costs for the group;
h) A statement that authorizes a peer reviewer to conduct
his or 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, and;
i) A statement that declares whether the members of the
peer review group have signed a conflict of interest
SB 425
Page 2
disclosure form that would identify real or perceived
conflicts between a peer reviewer and the specified public
works project.
3)Requires the charter in 2) above to be posted on the
administering agency's Internet Web site.
EXISTING LAW is silent with regard to defining the term "peer
review." However, peer review is used in certain circumstances,
such as exempting health care peer review and quality assessment
records from certain disclosure requirements, and requiring peer
review committees to be developed for certain
transportation-related projects. Additionally, various entities
under the jurisdiction of the California Environmental
Protection Agency are required to subject all proposed rules
that have scientific basis or components to external scientific
peer review.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "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." The author adds that this bill is
intended to legitimize the use of peer review by requiring
administering agencies in the state that utilize a peer review
group on a public works project to develop a transparent process
for selecting members as well as draft and post online a charter
for the group describing its members, the scope of its
activities, its operating costs, and its objectives, among other
things.
This bill stems, in part, from a November 2012 informational
hearing of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
(Committee), chaired by the author of this bill, on Caltrans'
peer review process as it relates to the East Span of the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. According to the hearing
SB 425
Page 3
background report, the purpose of the hearing was to ensure the
peer review processes used by Caltrans to address issues
relating to the design and construction of large infrastructure
projects are transparent, include well qualified experts, and
are working in the public interest. The Committee heard from
representatives from Caltrans, the Toll Bridge Program Oversight
Committee, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and
Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, a citizens'
group familiar with the peer review process as it relates to the
California high speed rail project.
The hearing background report states that a well-crafted peer
review process can enhance legislative oversight and cites a
2001 report by the National Academies of Sciences on the role of
peer review in projects involving the US Army Corps of
Engineers, which found that "there is a strong and direct
correlation between the independence of reviewers, in terms of
both knowledge and association with a project and organizational
affiliation, and the credibility, both real and perceived, of
review."
The background report identified several shortcomings regarding
the peer review process relative to the East Span project,
including the informal process for selecting peers, the
potential for economic and professional conflicts of interest,
the lack of sufficient public outreach, the lack of
documentation of peer review group meetings, and the closure of
these meetings to the public. According to the report, Caltrans
utilized a variety of peer review processes with respect to the
East Span project but the processes were not transparent.
The Department of Finance (DOF) opposes this bill "due to the
potential of creating a state-reimbursable mandate." According
to DOF, this bill "would establish universal criteria for peer
review groups and requirements for agencies that choose to
establish them. 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."
SB 425
Page 4
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Department of Finance
Analysis Prepared by : Cassie Royce / A. & A.R. / (916)
319-3600