BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó





           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                                                                 |
          |         SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER         |
          |                   Senator Fran Pavley, Chair                    |
          |                    2013-2014 Regular Session                    |
          |                                                                 |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 

          BILL NO: SB 764                    HEARING DATE:  January 14,  
          2014  
          AUTHOR: Yee                        URGENCY: No  
          VERSION: January 9, 2014           CONSULTANT: Bill Craven  
          DUAL REFERRAL: No                  FISCAL: Yes  
          SUBJECT: Fish: accounting records: violation.  
          
          BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
          Section 8050 of the Fish and Game Code imposes record-keeping  
          requirements on commercial fishermen, processors, retailers, and  
          others in the chain of distribution of commercial fish sold in  
          California. To assist the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)  
          in tracing these fish for the purposes of consumer and  
          environmental protection, the law requires that the species,  
          pounds sold, name and address of purchaser, price paid, and  
          other information is maintained. The law also requires this  
          information to be maintained in English by both the buyer and  
          the seller for a period of 3 years. The information shall be  
          available to the department upon request during normal business  
          hours. 

          PROPOSED LAW
          This bill clarifies that the burden of providing the  
          above-described records is on the entity selling the fish to the  
          retail merchant, not the buyer. Violations of this section would  
          be lodged against the seller, not the buyer. 

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
          According to the author, in many localities in California, fish  
          retailers are often non-English speaking. Obvious examples  
          include Chinese and other Asian retailers but there are  
          undoubtedly other ethnic, non-English speaking fish retailers in  
          a state as diverse as California. 

          In 2013, the author indicates that Anna Li, a monolingual  
          employee of Chung Chou City in San Francisco's Chinatown, was  
          cited for violating Section 8050 of the Fish and Game Code  
                                                                      1







          because a receipt she received from a distributor was only in  
          Chinese, not English. Although ultimately dismissed, the  
          citation caused economic hardship to Li who had to hire an  
          attorney to represent her. 

          The author is concerned that non-English speaking fish retailers  
          will continue to face citations unless the burden of providing  
          the necessary records is on the entity that sells the fish to  
          the retailer. 

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
          None received

          COMMENTS 
          Many non-English speaking fish retailers maintain their  
          accounting records in their native language. The bill's  
          provision that the sellers have the responsibility to provide  
          documentation in English to the retailers is a positive step,  
          and still ensures that the department's interest in tracing fish  
          remains in place. However, it does not fully address the  
          question of providing information bilingually which could also  
          serve the interests of the department and the non-English  
          speaking retailers. The author should consider an amendment to  
          the effect that if the buyer would prefer an invoice in their  
          primary language, sellers should transmit a receipt in English  
          that documents the specific transactions. 
          

          SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 

               AMENDMENT 1  
               Add in Sec. 8050 at the end: "and a receipt provided to the  
               retailer shall be in at least the English language." 

               
          SUPPORT
          None Received

          OPPOSITION
          None Received







                                                                      2