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