BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1787
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1787 (Gomez)
As Amended August 2, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | | (April 11, |SENATE: |32-5 |(August 15, |
| | |2016) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY: Requires local agencies to provide twice the allotted
time for public comment to speakers who require translation
services.
The Senate amendments delete the prior contents of the bill and
add the current language.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), all
meetings of a legislative body of a local agency to be open
and public and all persons be permitted to attend, with
AB 1787
Page 2
specified exceptions.
2)Requires every agenda for regular meetings and every notice
for special meetings to provide an opportunity for members of
the public to directly address the legislative body on any
item of interest to the public, before or during the
legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, as
specified.
3)Allows the legislative body of a local agency to adopt
reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of 2) above,
is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations
limiting the total amount of time allocated for public
testimony on particular issues and for each individual
speaker.
4)Prohibits the legislative body of a local agency from
prohibiting public criticism of the policies, procedures,
programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or
omissions of the local legislative body, and provides that
nothing in this provision shall confer any privilege or
protection for expression beyond that otherwise provided by
law.
5)Requires, pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act
(Bagley-Keene Act), state bodies 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
AB 1787
Page 3
1)Bill Summary. This bill requires the legislative body of a
local agency that limits time for public comment to provide at
least twice the allotted time to a member of the public who
utilizes a translator, to ensure that non-English speakers
receive the same opportunity to directly address the
legislative body of a local agency.
This bill's provisions do not apply if the legislative body
utilizes simultaneous translation equipment in a manner that
allows the legislative body to hear the translated public
testimony simultaneously.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "AB 1787
requires local public agencies that limit time for public
comment to provide at least twice the allotted time to a
member of the public who uses a translator to ensure that
non-English speakers receive an equal opportunity to directly
address their representatives. Our democracy and communities
can only thrive when our diverse constituencies have the equal
opportunity to participate in civic discourse and shape the
decisions that affect their neighborhoods and lives."
3)Background. The Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Act generally
require state and local agencies to hold open meetings,
publicly notice their meetings, prepare agendas, accept public
testimony, and conduct their meetings in public, with specific
exceptions. State and local agencies must provide the public
with the opportunity to comment on each agenda item and may
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
AB 1787
Page 4
simultaneously. The Brown Act does not contain such a
provision. This bill would amend the Brown Act to require
local agencies to comply with this requirement.
This bill was prompted by public meetings held in 2009 in
Kings County during the process of expanding a hazardous waste
facility near Kettleman City. English speakers were allotted
a maximum of five minutes to provide public comment. However,
non-English speakers were allowed only two and a half minutes
to comment, with the remaining time allotted for translation.
4)Proposition 42. Proposition 42 was passed by voters on June
3, 2014, and requires all local governments to comply with the
California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act and
with any subsequent changes to those Acts. Proposition 42
also eliminated reimbursement to local agencies for costs of
complying with the California Public Records Act and the Ralph
M. Brown Act.
This bill contains language that says that the Legislature
finds and declares that Section 1 of the bill furthers the
purpose of the California Constitution as it relates to the
right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies
or the writings of local public officials and local agencies.
Pursuant to Constitution Article 1 Section 3 subdivision (b)
paragraph (7), this bill also includes a finding that says
that "Because this act restricts the authority of a
legislative body of a local agency under the Ralph M. Brown
Act to limit time for public comment by a speaker who uses a
translator, the act furthers the purpose of Section 3 of
Article I of the California Constitution."
Section 3 of the bill specifies that no reimbursement is
required by this bill because "the only costs that may be
incurred by a local agency or school district?would result
from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of
paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of
the California Constitution."
AB 1787
Page 5
5)Previous Legislation. AB 194 (Campos) of 2014 would have
revised and expanded the Brown Act's provisions that require
local legislative bodies to allow public comment and public
criticism at regular and special meetings, including a
prohibition against counting time spent questioning or
interrupting a speaker if a legislative body limits the amount
of time allocated for public testimony. 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.
AB 1330 (Perez) of 2014 would have prohibited local agencies
that limit testimony from counting the testimony of
translators towards the allotted speaking time for non-English
speakers, in addition to other requirements. AB 1330 was held
in the Senate Rules Committee.
SB 965 (Wright), Chapter 551, Statutes of 2012, 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.
6)Support Arguments. The League of California Cities, the
California State Association of Counties, and the California
AB 1787
Page 6
Special Districts Association, in support, state, "Under the
Ralph M. Brown Act, local legislative bodies are required to
provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on
any points mentioned in the meeting agenda. The act
authorizes legislative bodies to reasonably limit the time for
each individual public speaker. If not accommodated,
individuals who need to utilize a translator may be
disadvantaged by time restrictions. AB 1787 addresses this
issue by requiring the legislative body to provide at least
twice the allotted time to members of the public who need a
translator to address legislative bodies. Providing the
public with equal access to their government is a cornerstone
of modern democracy. Not speaking English should not prevent
some members of the public from having their voices equally
heard by their legislative bodies."
7)Opposition Arguments. None on file.
8)Gut and Amend. The subject matter of this bill has not been
heard in any Assembly policy committee this legislative
session.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0003917