BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1190
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 1190
(Jackson) - As Amended June 8, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|6 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits a Coastal Commissioner or an interested
person from intentionally conducting any ex parte and other
communication, as specified, and prohibits Commissioners from
unduly influencing Commission staff reports. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Prohibits a commissioner or an interested party from
intentionally conducting either an ex parte communication or
an oral or written communication, regarding a pending
enforcement investigation that does not occur in a public
hearing, workshop, or other official proceeding, or on the
SB 1190
Page 2
official record of the proceeding.
2)Requires a Commissioner to fully disclose and make public ex
parte and other prohibited communications by providing a full
report to the Executive Director within seven days after the
communication, or to the Commission in writing to be included
in the record of the proceeding if the communication occurred
less than seven days prior to the hearing.
3)Prohibits a Commissioner from voting or participating in a
Commission matter if he or she has conducted an ex parte or
other prohibited communication.
4)Prohibits a commissioner from using his or her official
position to place undue influence on Commission staff to alter
their staff report. Disqualifies a commissioner from holding
any position at the Commission if they willfully attempt to
place undue influence on staff.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The fiscal impact of this bill is unknown. According to the
Coastal Commission, this bill does not increase costs, and may
provide savings. However, there may be potential unknown cost
pressures, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to
hire staff advisors to assist the six public Commissioners by
attending site visits and gathering information from interested
parties.
COMMENTS:
SB 1190
Page 3
1)Purpose. According to the author, this bill will help restore
the public's trust in the Commission, ensure decisions are
made more openly and transparently, and remove the possibility
of back-room decision making or the perception that it is
happening. The author further states that this bill will
level the playing field between big-moneyed interests and
those without such financial resources.
2)The Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission has
12 voting members and three non-voting members. Six of the
voting members are "public members," and six are local elected
officials who come from specific coastal districts. All voting
members are appointed either by the Governor, Senate Rules
Committee, or the Speaker of the Assembly; each appoints four
commissioners, two public members and two elected officials.
Each Commissioner may appoint an alternate to serve in his or
her absence. The Secretaries of the Resources Agency, the
Business and Transportation Agency, and the Chair of the State
Lands Commission serve as non-voting members and may appoint a
designee to serve in their place.
The Commission voted 6-5 this year to support banning ex parte
communication.
3)Existing Ex Parte Communication Laws. The California Coastal
Act of 1976 prohibits, with specified exceptions, ex parte
communications between a member of the Commission and an
interested person about a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Commission. Such communications, by definition, do not
occur in a public hearing or other official proceeding or on
the record.
When proper disclosure of such communications is made, ex
parte communications are lawful. Existing law also prohibits
commissioners or alternates from trying to influence a
SB 1190
Page 4
commission decision in circumstances in which an ex parte
communication has not been reported. A civil fine of up to
$7,500 may be imposed, plus attorney's fees, and the
Commission action may be revoked.
The Commission's jurisdiction for matters that are subject to
the prohibition on ex parte communications and the disclosure
requirements include any permit action, federal consistency
review, appeal, local coastal program, port master plan,
public works plan, long-range development plan, categorical or
other exclusions from coastal development permit requirements,
or any other quasi-judicial matter requiring commission
action, for which an application has been submitted to the
commission.
Commissioners must disclose to the public an ex parte
communication on the prescribed form within 7 days of the
communication. If the communication occurs within 7 days of
the next Commission meeting, the disclosure must be made on
the record of the proceeding in that hearing.
According to the Natural Resources Agency, the California
Attorney General has opined that Commissioners may not engage
in ex parte communications in the context of enforcement
proceedings because enforcement proceedings are not expressly
called out in the law. This advice letter does not have the
effect of law.
SB 1190
Page 5
4)Related Legislation. AB 2002 (Stone, 2016) 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)
and 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. This bill is
pending in Senate Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081