BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2072
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 2072 (Monta?ez) - As Amended: April 17, 2006
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires any person, other than a talent agent or
person operating under the license of a talent agent, who
represents or provides specified services to artists who are
minors to submit his or her fingerprints to the Labor
Commissioner to permit screening of the individual to determine
if he or she is a registered sex offender.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Requires a filing fee of $25 to be paid to the Labor
Commissioner (the head of the Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (DLSE) within the Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR)) at the time the fingerprint is filed. DLSE
anticipates between 5,000 and 20,000 initial applications in
the first year, and ongoing applications of less than 1,000
annually. This would result in fee revenue of $125,000 to
$400,000 in the first year, and ongoing fee revenue of less
than $25,000 annually thereafter.
2)DLSE anticipates that it would need eight full-time clerical
staff to process applications in the first year for a
six-month period. This would result in a one-time cost of
$250,000, including postage and storage. DLSE estimates that
ongoing workload and storage costs after the first year would
be minor and absorbable.
3)Authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to charge a fee to
DLSE offset its costs of screening applicants against its
AB 2072
Page 2
Megan's Law database (the fee is expected to equal $5 per
applicant). This would result in DOJ fee revenue of between
$25,000 and $100,000 in the first year, and less than $5,000
annually thereafter.
4)Although the $25 fee authorized in the bill should be
sufficient to offset DLSE's costs - even after the DOJ
screening fee is deducted - the bill does not address how DLSE
would finance the start-up costs it would incur prior to the
collection of fees. Most likely, DLSE would need a budget act
appropriation, which could be reimbursed once the fees are
collected.
5)Establishes a misdemeanor for violations; local law
enforcement costs not state-reimbursable
6)Establishes a private right of action for persons injured by a
violation and authorizes treble damages, punitive damages, and
the award of attorney's fees.
AB 2072
Page 3
COMMENTS
1)Background . Penal Code 290.95 prohibits a sex offender
registrant whose sex crime was against a victim under age 16
from working as an employee or volunteer with minors, if the
registrant would be working with minors directly and in an
unaccompanied setting on more than an incidental or occasional
basis, or would have supervisory or disciplinary power over
children. If the registrant's crime was not against a victim
under age 16, the registrant must disclose his or her status
as a registrant to the employer or volunteer organization.
Violations of these provisions constitutes a misdemeanor
offense.
2)Purpose . Supporters are concerned that child performers may
be vulnerable to pedophiles. It is common in the
entertainment industry for children to be in the company of
adults who are not their parents, to have photos taken by
strangers in order to obtain work, and to rely on adults for
assistance in their professional growth. Child predators
working as professional photographers or managers can use
their positions to develop the trust of unassuming children
and their parents.
The screening requirement established by this bill would make
it more difficult for child predators to operate in the child
entertainment business. The requirement would apply to
persons who represent minors or who provide photography,
management, counseling, or publicity services to minors.
3)No Criminal Background Check/Fingerprinting Unnecessary . This
bill requires a one-time screening of persons providing
specified entertainment services to minors against the DOJ's
Megan's Law database. The bill does not require a DOJ or FBI
criminal background check, which is the reason why a
fingerprinting requirement typically is included in
legislation. The bill does not require the fingerprints to be
collected under the supervision of qualified personnel;
applicants would be responsible for obtaining their prints and
forwarding them to the Labor Commissioner, which could result
in high error and fraud rates. The bill does not address the
purpose of the requiring the Labor Commissioner to maintain
the fingerprint records of applicants. While the bill is on
the committee's suspense file, the author and staff should
evaluate the options of either removing the fingerprinting
AB 2072
Page 4
requirement, or expanding the bill to require a criminal
background check and annual licensing.
Analysis Prepared by : Stephen Shea / APPR. / (916) 319-2081