BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 1787 |Hearing |6/29/16 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Gomez |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |6/16/16 |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Favorini-Csorba |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Open meetings: public comments: translation
Requires local agency legislative bodies to allow at least twice
as much time to members of the public commenting through a
translator.
Background
The Brown Act. The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), first
enacted by the Legislature in 1953, is the set of state laws
which guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in
local legislative bodies' meetings. The Brown Act establishes
procedures to ensure public access to information maintained by
local agencies and that the decisions made by public agencies
are done in an open and transparent fashion to retain public
control over those agencies. Local agencies subject to the
Brown Act include cities, charter cities, counties, school
districts, special districts, and other political subdivisions
of the state.
The Brown Act establishes the presumption that business of local
agencies' legislative bodies must be conducted in open and
public meetings. Among other things, the Brown Act requires the
legislative body of a local agency to provide the public with
the opportunity to comment on each agenda item, subject to
reasonable regulations (such as time limits on individual
testimony) that further the intent of the Brown Act to allow
AB 1787 (Gomez) 6/16/16 Page 2
of ?
public input.
Kettleman City. Kettleman City is 3.5 miles northeast of a
large hazardous waste treatment and storage facility that has
raised environmental justice issues over the past 30 years.
Driven by concerns over environmental violations and pollution
exposure, Kettleman City residents have fought King County's
plans to expand the facility. Kettleman City residents are
predominantly Latino and low-income. In 1991, residents blocked
a plan to expand the waste management facility by successfully
arguing that the failure to provide a summary of environmental
documents in Spanish violated the California Environmental
Quality Act. More recently, residents protested a subsequent
expansion proposal at a Kings County board of supervisors
meeting, but testimony was limited and no extension of allotted
time was granted to speakers using a translator.
Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting
Act (Bagley-Keene Act) requires state bodies-boards and
commissions with multiple members-to hold open meetings. State
bodies must publicly notice their meetings, prepare agendas,
accept public testimony, and conduct their meetings in public
unless specifically authorized by the Act to meet in closed
session. Like local agencies, state bodies must provide the
public with the opportunity to comment on each agenda item and
may similarly adopt reasonable rules to ensure equal access. In
2012, the Legislature amended the Bagley-Keene Act to require a
state body to provide at least twice as much time to any
individual using a translator when the body limits testimony,
unless the body uses simultaneous translation technology that
allows the body to hear the translation simultaneously (SB 965,
Wright, 2012). Some legislators want to extend these
requirements to local agencies.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 1787 requires the legislative body of a local
agency that imposes time limits on public comment to provide at
least twice the allotted time to a member of the public that
speaks through a translator. A local agency does not need to
meet this requirement if it provides simultaneous translation
equipment that allows the legislative body to hear the
translation simultaneously.
AB 1787 (Gomez) 6/16/16 Page 3
of ?
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . The right to comment on government
decisions is fundamental to ensuring that the perspectives of
everyday Californians are heard and considered by their
representatives. California draws residents from all over the
world, including individuals that speak a primary language other
than English. Yet some local agencies, in a desire to expedite
their decisions, limit the testimony of these residents by
imposing time limits that do not consider the need for a
translator to make their voices heard. These limitations
violate the spirit of the Brown Act, if not the letter of the
law. AB 1787 ensures that local agencies provide all
Californians with equal opportunity to comment by doubling the
time allotted for those that need translators. State boards and
commissions already have to meet this requirement, and most
local agencies conduct meetings this way as well. AB 1787
simply ensures that the requirements for those remaining
agencies are clear.
2. Technical amendment . The Legislative Counsel digest for AB
1787 cites the incorrect code section that the bill is amending.
The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 1787 to correct
this reference.
3. Related legislation . AB 1330 (Perez, 2014) would have
required local agencies that limit testimony to not count the
testimony of translators towards the allotted speaking time for
non-English speakers, in addition to requiring CALEPA to post on
its website a searchable database of all permits and enforcement
actions issued by state departments within CALEPA. AB 1330 died
in the Senate Rules Committee. AB 194 (Campos, 2014) would have
imposed an identical requirement to not count translator
testimony, as well as imposed other restrictions on the ability
of local agency legislative bodies to limit testimony, such as
prohibiting the legislative body from cutting off comment by a
member of the public based on his or her viewpoint where the
AB 1787 (Gomez) 6/16/16 Page 4
of ?
comment is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body. AB 194 was vetoed by the Governor, with the
following veto message:
"This bill amends the Ralph M. Brown Act to allow
individuals who attend local agency meetings to speak
before and during an agenda item, a common practice.
The bill restates that local agencies shall not
prohibit public criticism at meetings. Finally, the
bill prescribes how time should be allotted to each
speaker. California has robust policies and
longstanding laws in place that promote an open and
transparent government and guarantee public decision
making. This bill adds certain procedures to the
Brown Act, which at best will elongate but in no way
enhance the quality of debate at the local level."
4. Mandate . The California Constitution generally requires the
state to reimburse local agencies for their costs when the state
imposes new programs or additional duties on them. In 2014
California voters approved Proposition 42, which amended the
California Constitution to eliminate the state's responsibility
to pay local governments for compliance with the Brown Act and
its amendments. According to the Legislative Counsel's Office,
AB 1787 creates a new state-mandated local program. But this
bill disclaims the state's responsibility for reimbursing local
agencies by including findings and declarations that the bill
amends the Brown Act and furthers its purposes.
5. New bill, prior votes not relevant . As passed by the
Assembly, AB 1787 contained provisions relating to environmental
protection. The Senate Governance & Finance Committee never
heard that version of the bill. The June 16 amendments deleted
AB 1787's contents and inserted the current language relating to
open meetings.
Assembly Actions
Not relevant to the June 16, 2016 version of the bill.
Support and
Opposition (6/23/16)
AB 1787 (Gomez) 6/16/16 Page 5
of ?
Support : California Special Districts Association; California
State Association of Counties; League of California Cities.
Opposition : Unknown.
-- END --