BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1787
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1787 (Gomez)
As Amended August 2, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |73-0 |(April 11, |SENATE: |32-5 |(August 15, |
| | |2016) | | |2016) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |9-0 |(August 25, |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | |2016) | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Gov.
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
AB 1787
Page 2
SUMMARY: Requires local agencies to provide at least twice the
allotted time for public comment to speakers who require
translation services.
The Senate amendments strike the Assembly version of this bill
and instead:
1)Require, when the legislative body of a local agency limits
time for public comment, the legislative body 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.
2)Provide that the above requirement shall not apply if the
legislative body utilizes simultaneous translation equipment
in a manner that allows the legislative body of a local agency
to hear the translated public testimony simultaneously.
3)Find and declare that Section 1 of the bill furthers, within
the meaning of California Constitution Article I Section 3
subdivision (b) paragraph (7), the purposes of that
constitutional section 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, and declare,
pursuant to California Constitution Article I Section 3
subdivision (b) paragraph (7), the Legislature makes the
following findings:
Because this bill restricts the authority of a legislative
body of a local agency under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown
Act) to limit time for public comment by a speaker who uses a
translator, the bill furthers the purpose of Section 3 of
Article I of the California Constitution.
4)Provide that no reimbursement is required by this bill because
AB 1787
Page 3
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or
school district under this bill would result from a
legislative mandate that is within the scope of California
Constitution Article I Section 3(b)(7).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires, pursuant to the 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 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, which 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
AB 1787
Page 4
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:
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. The 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
AB 1787
Page 5
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
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 California Constitution Article I Section 3
subdivision (b) paragraph (7), the 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
AB 1787
Page 6
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."
5)Support Arguments. The League of California Cities, the
California State Association of Counties, and the California
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."
6)Opposition Arguments. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0004936
AB 1787
Page 7