BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 425
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 425 (DeSaulnier)
As Amended May 7, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :35-0
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 10-0
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Frazier, Allen, Ian |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Calderon, Cooley, Hagman, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Lowenthal, Medina, Olsen, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Quirk-Silva, Salas | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Hall, Holden, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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;
SB 425
Page 2
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
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, to the extent a state or local agency exercises the
authority to establish a peer review group, any associated costs
would presumably be absorbed either within the agency's
administrative budget or within the budget for the public works
project under review. No costs to local agencies would be state
reimbursable.
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
SB 425
Page 3
administering agencies in the state that utilize a peer review
group 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
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 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Cassie Royce / A. & A.R. / (916)
319-3600
FN: 0001885