BILL ANALYSIS AB 206 Date of Hearing: May 14, 1997 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Carole Migden, Chairwoman AB 206 (Hertzberg) - As Amended: May 6, 1997 Policy Committee: Televising the Assembly Vote: 5-0 (Consent) Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY 1) Requires state agencies that maintain Internet web sites to provide plain-language complaint forms on their web sites by July 1, 1998, or within six months of establishing a web site. 2) Requires state agencies to be consistent with statewide strategy for electronic commerce as established by the Department of Information Technology (DOIT). 3) Allows a state agency to determine whether it will accept complaint forms via the Internet or through the mail. 4) States legislative intent that this bill not affect procedures established to investigate citizens' complaints against peace officers. FISCAL EFFECT Indeterminable, probably absorbable, costs to state agencies to develop an Internet complaint system. BACKGROUND 1) Purpose . This bill is designed to help the public overcome the many frustrations of dealing with governmental agencies. This bill makes it easier for consumers to register and resolve complaints with a state agency. At least two other states, Massachusetts and Illinois, currently provide services over the Internet. 2) Current Web Sites . Many state agencies provide information on the Internet, including forms and regulations. The system is not used for interactive purposes due to unresolved security and privacy issues. - continued - AB 206 Page 1 AB 206 3) Opposition . The last amended version of this bill addresses many state agency concerns. The California State University (CSU), writing with late concerns, indicates it would like to be excluded from the provisions of the bill. CSU contends students have ready access to the individual's who can assist them in resolving a complaint. CSU believes a commmon complaint form would make complaint resolution more difficult because each situation requires an understanding of the specific CSU policies in question. - continued - AB 206 Page 2