BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2228 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooley |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 9, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Code Enforcement Officers
HISTORY
Source: League of California Cities and California Association
of Code Enforcement Officers
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: American Planning Association; Association of Los
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California College and
University Police Chiefs Association; California
Narcotics Association; Los Angeles County Professional
Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; Los Angeles Police Protective League;
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 68 - 10
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to establish the Code Enforcement
Officers Standards Act (CEOSA) which requires the Board of
Directors of the California Association of Code Enforcement
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
2 of ?
Officers (CACEO) to develop and maintain standards for the
designation of Certified Code Enforcement Officers (CCEO's), as
specified.
Existing law defines "code enforcement officer" as a person who
is not described in Penal Code Chapter 4.5 (commencing with
Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 and who is employed by a
governmental subdivision, public or quasi-public corporation,
public agency, public service corporation, a town, city, county,
or municipal corporation, whether incorporated or chartered, who
has enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare
requirements, and whose duties include enforcement of a statute,
rule, regulation, or standard, and who is authorized to issue
citations or file formal complaints. And, states that a "code
enforcement officer" is also a person who is employed by the
Department of Housing and Community Development who has
enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare
requirements, as specified. (Penal Code § 829.5.)
Existing law defines a "code enforcement officer" as any person
who is not a peace officer and who is employed by any
governmental subdivision; public or quasi-public corporation;
public agency; public service corporation; or any town, city,
county, or municipal corporation, whether incorporated or
chartered, who has enforcement authority for health, safety, and
welfare requirements; whose duties include enforcement of any
statute, rules, regulations, or standards; and who is authorized
to issue citations, or file formal complaints. (Penal Code §
243(f)(11)(A).)
Existing law defines "code enforcement officer" as also
including any person employed by the Department of Housing and
Community Development who has enforcement authority for health,
safety, and welfare requirements pursuant to the Employee
Housing Act, State Housing Law, the Mobilehomes-Manufactured
Housing Act, the Mobilehome Parks Act, and the Special Occupancy
Parks Act. (Penal Code § 243(f)(11)(B).)
This bill provides that for the purposes of the Code the
following terms have the following meaning:
"Board" means the duly elected Board of Directors of
CACEO;
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
3 of ?
"CACEO" means California Association of Code Enforcement
Officers a public benefits corporation domiciled in
California;
"CCEO" means a Certified Code Enforcement certified
pursuant to the CEOSA;
"Code Enforcement Officer" means an person who is not a
peace officer and who is employed by a governmental
subdivision, public or quasi-public corporation, public
agency, public service corporation, a town, city, county,
or municipal corporation, whether incorporated or
chartered, who has enforcement authority for health,
safety, and welfare requirements, and whose duties include
enforcement of a statute, rule, regulation, or standard,
and who is authorized to issue citations or file formal
complaints.
This bill requires the board to develop and maintain standards
for the various classes of CCEO's that it designates. The
standards for education, training, and certification shall be
adopted by the board and meet the minimum requirements of the
CEOSA, and CCEO's shall not have the powers of arrest unless
authorized by the city, county, or city and county charter,
code, or regulations in which they operate. CCEO's shall not
have access to summary criminal history information, but persons
employed by a city, county or city and county upon a showing of
compelling need if the criteria for access under existing law is
otherwise met.
This bill requires the board to review all applications from
cities, counties, city and counties, and accredited educational
institutions who seek to develop and provide education designed
to qualify participants as CCEO's. All applications that are
submitted are subject to the boards review and approval to
determine if they demonstrate the equivalency of the standards
adopted under the rules of the board in order to qualify as Code
Enforcement Officer Education Program Providers (program
providers).
This bill states that all program providers are subject to
ongoing program review and evaluation under the board's
administrative rules. A program provider shall renew its
program provider application and obtain approval under the
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
4 of ?
board's administrative rules no later than 36 months from the
date of the last approval or else it shall lapse.
This bill provides that all students, participants, and
employees who successfully pass the minimum education and
certification requirements of the program provider approved
curriculum shall, subject to the same fees as other registered
CCEO's under the board's administrative rules, be granted status
as CCEO's in an equivalent manner as applicants who attained
certification through the CACEO education and certification
program and academics.
This bill states that the development and perpetual advancement
of code enforcement officer professional standards and actively
providing related educational offerings that lead to increased
professional competence and ethical behavior shall be the
highest priority for the board in its licensing, certification,
and disciplinary functions. Whenever the advancement of code
enforcement officer professional standards and the provision of
related educational offerings is inconsistent with other
interests sought to be promoted, the former shall be paramount.
This bill provides that the board's administrative rules shall
designate minimum training, qualifications, and experience
requirements for applicants to qualify for the CCEO designation,
including, but not limited to, training and competency
requirements in the areas of land use and zoning laws, health
and housing codes, building and fire codes, environmental
regulations, sign standards, public nuisance laws, applicable
constitutional law, investigation and enforcement techniques,
application of remedies, officer safety, and community
engagement. The board may, by administrative rule, designate
additional classes of certifications to help meet its mission.
This bill requires the board to conspicuously and continually
publish its list of CCEOs on the CACEO Internet Web site,
containing the registrant's full name, summary status as to
individual disciplinary concerns, active or inactive status,
date of active CCEO expiration, and business address, unless the
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
5 of ?
business address is a residence, which shall be treated as
confidential.
This bill states that a CCEO shall hold a valid certificate
designating the person as a CCEO issued by the CACEO, shall at
all times remain a member in good standing of the CACEO, and
shall be subject to ongoing continuing education and
registration requirements as designated by the board's
administrative rules.
This bill provides that a failure to maintain the continuing
education requirements shall cause the certification status to
lapse, subject to redemption as specified by the board's
administrative rules. Once a certification lapses, the
certification status shall automatically convert to inactive
CCEO status unless it is redeemed. The rights, privileges, and
procedures or limitations on redemption of inactive CCEOs shall
be specified in the board's administrative rules.
This bill requires the board to annually set fees in amounts
that are reasonably related and necessary to cover the cost of
administering this chapter. The fees shall be set by the board
and published on the CACEO Internet Web site and maintained at
the CACEO's headquarters.
This bill provides that he board shall maintain a register of
each application for a certificate of registration under this
chapter. The register shall include all of the following:
The name, residence, date of birth, and driver's license
number (including state or country of origin) of the
applicant;
The name and address of the employer or business of the
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
6 of ?
applicant;
The date of the application;
The education and experience qualifications of the
applicant;
The action taken by the board regarding the application
and the date of the action;
The serial number of any certificate of registration
issued to an applicant; and
Any other information required by board rule.
This bill states that a person may not hold himself or herself
out to be a Certified Code Enforcement Officer in this state or
use the title "Certified Code Enforcement Officer" in this state
unless the person holds a certificate of registration pursuant
to this chapter.
This bill requires the board, by administrative rule, create a
process to timely consider and review all applicants who hold
certification from any other agency, and allow them to seek
review and potential approval of the qualifications to
potentially be recognized as a CCEO in this state. A denial of
full recognition as a CCEO shall be accompanied by written
justification and a list of required steps that may be required
for the individual applicant to complete the registration and
certification process. Recognition fees shall be set as
specified.
This bill provides that board shall adopt administrative rules
to process information, investigate allegations or suspicions of
applicants or licensees providing false information, failing to
disclose material information on the registration application,
or not providing any information that may, either before or
during the certification process, disqualify the applicant or
certificant as specified. The board shall adopt procedures and
guidelines to impose any discipline, revocation of
certification, or sanction, for cause, against any applicant,
registrant, or certificant.
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
7 of ?
This bill states that the administrative rules shall provide the
applicant or registrant with adequate and fair notice and
hearing opportunities prior to the board taking any adverse
action against the applicant or certificant.
This bill provides that any factual finding after a hearing that
the board concludes is cause for revocation, suspension, or
other disciplinary or administrative action against a
registration or certification shall result in an order after
hearing that meets the fair notification requirements of this
section.
This bill provides all orders after hearing shall be deemed
final under the board's authority and procedures and may be
appealed as specified in the Code of Civil Procedure.
This bill states that the requirements of the CEOSA do not
interfere with the regulations or certification requirements for
building inspectors as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
8 of ?
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
9 of ?
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Legislation
According to the Author:
Code enforcement officers employed by a city or county, or city
and county, possess specialized training, but the level of
training these officers receive varies based on the city or
county in which they live. There is currently no uniform
training standard.
In recent years, the California Association of Code Enforcement
Officers has received over 30 safety incident reports involving
code enforcement officers. These include a 2015 incident in
which two men pointed a rifle at a code enforcement officer
serving legal papers, as well as a 2012 incident in which an
officer was shot while serving an inspection warrant.
There have also been several notable cases of misconduct by code
enforcement officers in which local jurisdictions were required
to pay large amounts in settlements. For example, in 2014, San
Jacinto paid $746, 559 in damages for disability discrimination
after code enforcement officers did a sweep of unlicensed group
homes without warrants and unlawfully questioned residents. In
2005, the City of Sacramento was found to be liable for $717,000
in compensatory and punitive damages for seizing and destroying
property without required due process. Lack of proper training
led to code officers being in danger, as well as a liability to
local governments.
AB 2228 establishes a framework through which code
enforcement officers may receive state recognized
certification, if they so choose. Setting standards,
minimum qualifications, and ongoing educational
requirements for local code enforcement officers who elect
to attain the Certified Code Enforcement title helps local
agencies identify, select, and train qualified public
officers to enforce laws and codes necessary to help
preserve safe, well-ordered communities.
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
10 of ?
2. Effect of This Legislation
This bill creates the CEOSA and requires its Board of Directors
to develop and maintain standards for the certification of code
enforcement officers. While the legislation does not require
all code enforcement officers to have the certification, it does
create a new class of "Certified Code Enforcement Officers."
The Government Code states that prior to consideration by the
Legislature of "legislation creating a new category of licensed
professional, a plan for the establishment and operation of the
proposed state board or new category of licensed professional
shall be developed by the author or sponsor of the legislation."
(Government Code § 9148.4.) Specifically, the Government Code
requires the plan to include:
A description of the problem that the creation of the
specific state board or new category of licensed
professional would address, including the specific evidence
of need for the state to address the problem.
The reasons why this proposed state board or new
category of licensed professional was selected to address
this problem, including the full range of alternatives
considered and the reason why each of these alternatives
was not selected. Alternatives that shall be considered
include, but are not limited to, the following:
o No action taken to establish a state board or
create a new category of licensed professional.
o The use of a current state board or agency or
the existence of a current category of licensed
professional to address the problem, including any
necessary changes to the mandate or composition of the
existing state board or agency or current category of
licensed professional.
o The various levels of regulation or
administration available to address the problem.
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
11 of ?
o Addressing the problem by federal or local
agencies.
The specific public benefit or harm that would result
from the establishment of the proposed state board or new
category of licensed professional, the specific manner in
which the proposed state board or new category of licensed
professional would achieve this benefit, and the specific
standards of performance which shall be used in reviewing
the subsequent operation of the board or category of
licensed professional.
The specific source or sources of revenue and funding to
be utilized by the proposed state board or new category of
licensed professional in achieving its mandate.
The necessary data and other information required in
this section shall be provided to the Legislature with the
initial legislation and forwarded to the policy committees
in which the bill will be heard. (Id.)
In addition, the Government Code authorizes the appropriate
policy committee of to evaluate the plan. (Government Code §
9148.8.) The chairperson of a policy committee may
alternatively require that the Joint Sunset Review Committee
evaluate and provide recommendations on the plan. (Id.)
Members may wish to consider whether the proponents of this
legislation should be required to go through the process
outlined above.
-- END -
AB 2228 (Cooley ) Page
12 of ?