BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2002
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2002 (Mark Stone) - As Amended April 12, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|6 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Natural Resources | |7 - 2 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill:
1)Provides that communicating with the Coastal Commission in
order to influence specified actions can result in a person
being considered a "lobbyist" under the Political Reform Act
(PRA).
AB 2002
Page 2
2)Requires Commissioners to disclose any ex parte communication
in writing at least 24 hours before a hearing if the
communication occurs within seven days of the next hearing and
relates to a matter that the Commission will discuss at the
hearing.
3)Prohibits Commissioners or an interested person in a
Commission action from conducting an ex parte communication
within 24 hours before a hearing regarding a matter that the
Commission will discuss at that hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Due to the bill's expanding the regulation of lobbying into
matters before the Coastal Commission, the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) will require two positions, at an
annual General Fund cost of around $200,000 to amend
regulations and manuals, respond to additional advice
requests, and for additional enforcement.
2)Minor absorbable costs to the Coastal Commission associated
with an increased in public disclosures for ex parte
communications occurring within seven days before the hearing
on any matter.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. The Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial
state agency generally charged with the management and
regulation of California's coastal resources. The Commission
is empowered to act as a policy-maker and a regulator with
AB 2002
Page 3
regard to coastal resources, and is heavily lobbied by the
many interests affected by its policies and decisions.
Under existing law, individuals and entities that make or
receive specified levels of payments for the purpose of
influencing legislative or administrative actions may be
required to comply with the state's lobbying rules, including
requirements to register with the SOS and to file periodic
reports. The term "legislative action," for these purposes,
is limited to matters before the Legislature and the action of
the Governor in approving or vetoing bills. The term
"administrative action" is defined primarily to include rule-
and rate-making, the adoption of regulations, and
quasi-legislative proceedings. Most of the Commission's
proceedings are quasi-judicial. Because quasi-judicial
proceedings are not legislative or administrative actions,
payments for the purpose of influencing quasi-judicial
proceedings do not currently trigger the lobbying rules found
in the PRA.
Most boards and commissions that conduct quasi-judicial
hearings prohibit members from having ex parte communications
with interested parties. This ban does not apply to members
of the Commission. Instead, members of the Commission are
required to publicly disclose any ex parte communication.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Currently, members of the
California Coastal Commission are lobbied without the same
level of transparency that is met when other state officials
are lobbied?The decisions made by the Commission can have
broad and lasting impacts on coastal conservation and coastal
access. The Commission works with cities and counties in the
coastal zone to approve land use policy that reflects the
values put forth by the voters in 1972. Due to the gravity of
these decisions, transparency of the process is critical."
AB 2002
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081