BILL ANALYSIS AB 206 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 8, 1997 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Susan Davis, Chair AB 206 (Hertzberg) - As Amended: March 18, 1997 SUBJECT : Requires state agencies to provide complaint forms on their web sites SUMMARY : Requires state agencies that maintain Internet web sites to make plain-language complaint forms available on their Internet web sites by July 1, 1998, or within six months of establishing a web site. Specifically, this bill : 1) Requires state agencies to allow California residents to register complaints about the performance of the agency electronically via the Internet or by downloading and mailing in the complaint form available on the agency's web site. 2) Requires state agencies to accept complaints against individuals licensed by their agency through either electronic filing of a complaint form via the Internet or mailing in of forms downloaded from the agency's web site. 3) Requires state agencies to notify individuals who call the agencies that i) complaint forms are available on state Internet web sites and ii) public libraries provide free Internet access. 4) Requires state agencies, to the extent feasible, to print their Internet web site addresses in telephone directories. 5) Requires state agencies to respond within an unspecified number of days of receiving a complaint form. 6) Requires the Department of Consumer Affairs (department) to compile the complaint forms from all state agencies and make them available "on the Internet for distribution to public libraries." 7) Requires public libraries, to the extent permitted through donations, to provide Internet access and advertise that they provide this access. EXISTING LAW : 1) Is silent on the filing of citizen complaints against state agency performance. According to available information, it appears that most state agencies do not have a formal citizen complaint process. Rather, most agencies require citizens to write a letter to the agency director. 2) Requires the department to accept and investigate written complaints against licensees of the department. AB 206 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown additional costs to most state agencies to establish and/or modify a web site to accommodate the specified complaint process. Theses costs would likely exceed several hundred thousand dollars annually, assuming: i) the one-time costs of developing complaint forms and the on-going costs of maintaining complaint forms on state Internet web sites will be a few thousand dollars per agency and ii) the on-going costs of increased workload to respond to citizen complaints could be in the thousands of dollars for each state agency. COMMENTS : 1) Measure Intended to Make it Easier for Citizens to Register Complaints Against State Agencies and State Licensees According to the author's office, the purpose of this bill is twofold: i) to make it easier for citizens to communicate with and register complaints about state agencies and individuals licensed by the state and ii) to help state agencies improve response time to citizen complaints. This bill tries to accomplish this by i) providing citizens another method of registering complaints and ii) requiring state agencies to respond to complaints by an unspecified time period. 2) Response Time and Nature of Response Not Specified As amended, the bill does not specify the number of days a state agency has to respond to a complaint received either electronically or by mail on the form specified in the bill. To the extent most agencies already have a complaint process in place, the response time specified in the bill could be a key factor in determining agency cost. If a period is specified which is shorter than existing response times, significantly higher agency costs are probably involved. Additionally, the bill does not specify how detailed an agency response must be. If agencies are just being required to acknowledge a complaint without providing any other information, the cost of the program may be minimal. However, if the measure contemplates a more thorough response, it should be amended to reflect that expectation. 3) Response Options for State Agencies Not Clear The bill does not indicate if state agencies can respond electronically via the Internet to citizen complaints registered via web site. Currently, over 100 state agencies maintain web sites or web servers. If one of the bill's goals is to improve state agency response time, then perhaps the bill should be amended to give state agencies the option of responding via the Internet. 4) Contents of Form Unspecified AB 206 Page 3 The bill does not specify the contents or format of the complaint form to be used. The state may want to have a uniform form for all agencies. In addition, it may be useful to allow citizens to register not only their complaints but also any comments they may have about a state agency. 5) Requirement to Distribute Complaint Forms to Libraries Needs Clarification The bill is not clear on how the department is to make complaint forms available to libraries. Can the department send the forms via electronic transmission to the libraries or is it required to send hard-copy forms? Should the distribution of these forms be limited to only those libraries that provide Internet access? 6) Libraries May Have Additional Resources Available As drafted, the bill indicates that libraries are to provide Internet access to the extent permitted through donations. However, libraries may have other resources or other means available to them to provide Internet access. 7) Should Measure Apply to Non-residents ? As drafted, the bill only applies to residents of the state. However, there are many people who deal with California state agencies who do not reside here. If the intention of the measure is to cover all complaints, then the bill should be amended to read that all individuals, not just residents of the state, can register their complaints and comments via the Internet. 8) Technical Amendment Needed On Page 2, line 25 of the measure, the bill incorrectly references the date July 1, 19 8 8. The bill should be amended to correct this date. 9) Double Referral The bill has also been referred to the Committee on Televising the Assembly and Information Technology. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support California Community Colleges (if amended) Planning and Conservation League Opposition None on file AB 206 Page 4 Analysis prepared by : Sailaja Cherukuri / aconpro / (916) 324-7440