BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2002 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2002 (Mark Stone, et al.) As Amended April 12, 2016 2/3 vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Elections |6-1 |Weber, Harper, |Travis Allen | | | |Gordon, Low, Mullin, | | | | |Nazarian | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Natural |7-2 |Williams, Cristina |Jones, Harper | |Resources | |Garcia, Gomez, | | | | |Hadley, McCarty, Mark | | | | |Stone, Wood | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Roger | | | | |Hernández, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | | | | | | AB 2002 Page 2 | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Provides that communicating with the California Coastal Commission (Commission) in order to influence specified actions can result in a person being considered a "lobbyist" under the Political Reform Act (PRA). Prohibits an ex parte communication with a member of the Commission regarding a matter during the 24 hours before that matter will be discussed at a Commission hearing. Specifically, this bill: 1)Provides that communications with members of the Commission regarding specified business before the Commission can result in a person being considered a lobbyist under the PRA: a) Provides that the proposal, drafting, development, consideration, amendment, enactment, or defeat of any rule, regulation, permit action, federal consistency review, appeal, local coastal program, port master plan, public works plan, long-range development plan, or categorical or other exclusion from coastal development permit requirements, with respect to proceedings before the Commission, is considered to be an "administrative action," for the purposes of the PRA, thereby making attempts to influence these actions subject to the lobbying rules found in the PRA. b) Provides, for the purposes of a matter before the Commission, that the term "agency official" only means a member of the Commission, thereby generally excluding communications with staff or consultants from the types of communications that may result in a person being classified as a lobbyist under this bill. AB 2002 Page 3 c) Provides that an employee of a local government agency seeking, within the scope of his or her employment, to influence quasi-judicial decisions of the Commission, does not subject that employee to the lobbying requirements in the PRA. 2)Requires a member of the Commission 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. Prohibits a member of the Commission, 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. 3)Makes corresponding and technical changes. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis: 1)Due to the bill's expanding the regulation of lobbying into matters before the 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 Commission associated with an increase in public disclosures for ex parte communications occurring within seven days before the hearing on any matter. COMMENTS: According to the author, "AB 2002 will amend the AB 2002 Page 4 California Coastal Act and the [PRA] to require that those lobbying the Commission must register with the [FPPC] as a lobbyist; they must? disclose activities they are pursuing on behalf of a client. 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." 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 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 and 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. AB 2002 Page 5 California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA that are not submitted to the voters, such as those contained in this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill. Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0003123