BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair S
2005-2006 Regular Session B
1
0
1
SB 1015 (Romero) 5
As Amended August 15, 2005
Hearing date: August 16, 2005
Government Code; Penal Code; Vehicle Code; Uncodified Law
(URGENCY)
SH:mc
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY
HISTORY
Source: Administration
Prior Legislation: SB 77 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review)
- Ch. 38, Stats. of 2005
AB 139 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 74, Stats. of
2005
AB 2104 (Committee on Budget) - Ch. 702, Stats. of
2004
AB 1759 (Wesson) - Ch. 38, Stats. of 2003
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; Sheriff, San
Bernardino County
Opposition:None known (as currently amended)
KEY ISSUES
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 2
SHOULD A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO RESTRUCTURE THE
STATE OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY DURING THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE
SESSION BUT TO GIVE THE EXISTING OFFICE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
ADMINISTERING ITS OWN BUDGET APPROPRIATION COMMENCING WITH THIS
FISCAL YEAR BE ENACTED INTO LAW, AS SPECIFIED?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BE REQUIRIED TO FURNISH STATE
SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION TO PERSONS EMPLOYED WITHIN
THE OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY WHOSE DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES REQUIRE THE AUTHORITY TO ACCESS CRIMINAL
HISTORY AND OTHER CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, AND WHO
HAVE BEEN CLEARED TO DO SO BY BOTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY BE CONSIDERED A LAW
ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION AS REQUIRED FOR RECEIPT OF CONFIDENTIAL
CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE BUDGET ACT OF 2005 BE AMENDED TO REVISE - AND ADD NEW
LINE ITEM APPROPRIATIONS - REAPPROPRIATING MONEY CURRENTLY IN
THE BUDGET ACT FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF HOMELAND
SECURITY (GIVING THAT OFFICE "LINE ITEM STATUS" IN THE BUDGET
ACT), AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD RELATED CHANGES IN LAW BE MADE AND SHOULD THIS BILL TAKE
EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON ENACTMENT AS AN URGENCY MEASURE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) enact a statement of
legislative intent to restructure the State Office of Homeland
Security during the next legislative session but to give the
existing office the responsibility of administering its own
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 3
budget appropriations commencing with this fiscal yea.; (2) give
statutory authority for persons employed within the Office of
Homeland security whose duties and responsibilities require the
authority to access criminal history and other criminal
intelligence information, as specified; (3) amend the Budget Act
of 2005 to revise and add new line item appropriations -
reappropriating money currently in the Budget Act - for the
support of the Office of Homeland Security (giving that office
"line item status" in the Budget Act), as specified; and, (4)
make related changes in law and take effect immediately upon
enactment as an urgency measure.
Existing law provides that the Governor shall appoint, to serve
at his or her pleasure, an executive officer who shall be
Director of Homeland Security. The Director of Homeland
Security shall be in charge of homeland security and shall be
the state coordinator of all homeland security activities,
including, but not limited to, homeland security strategy,
information analysis related to terrorism, and protection of
critical infrastructure from terrorism. The Governor shall also
appoint one deputy director of homeland security who shall serve
at the pleasure of the director. (Government Code 12016.)
Existing law requires that the Department of Justice maintain
state summary criminal history information and make that
information available to specified persons. (Penal Code
11105 - 11105.4.)
Existing law (the California Public Records Act) provides for
the public access to governmental records with exceptions which
include law enforcement records, as specified. (Government Code
5250 et seq.; law enforcement exceptions in Government Code
6254(f).)
Existing law creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST) which among other responsibilities sets
minimum selection and training standards for California law
enforcement, as specified. (Penal Code 13500 et seq.)
Existing law creates the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 4
the office of the Governor. Among other duties, during a state
of war emergency, a state of emergency, or a local emergency,
the director of OES shall coordinate the emergency activities of
all state agencies in connection with such emergency, and every
state agency and officer shall cooperate with the director in
rendering all possible assistance in carrying out the provisions
of this chapter. (Government Code 8585 et seq.)
Existing law provides that the OES Emergency Response Training
Advisory Committee shall be established and shall recommend the
criteria for terrorism awareness curriculum content to meet the
training needs of state and local emergency response personnel
and volunteers. (Government Code 8588.10.)
Existing law does the following:
Creates the California Department of Health Services and
Director of Health Services, as specified. (Health and Safety
Code 100100 et seq.)
Requires each of California's counties to provide public
health services. (Health and Safety Code 101000.) Each of
California's 58 counties and 3 large California cities have
Physician Health Officers. (See Health and Safety Code
101375 and 101460 relating to city health officers where a
city has not opted for county exercise of health officer
powers in a city.)
Grants specific authority to county health officers, including
(1) the authority to take any preventive measure that may be
necessary to protect and preserve the public health from any
public health hazard during any "state of war emergency,"
"state of emergency," or "local emergency," as defined by
Section 8558 of the Government Code, within his or her
jurisdiction; (2) defines "preventive measure" as abatement,
correction, removal or any other protective step that may be
taken against any public health hazard that is caused by a
disaster and affects the public health; (3) the authority,
upon consent of the county board of supervisors or a city
governing body, to certify any public health hazard resulting
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 5
from any disaster condition if certification is required for
any federal or state disaster relief program. (Health and
Safety Code 101040.)
Provides that federal funding received by the State Department
of Health Services for bioterrorism preparedness and emergency
response is subject to appropriation in the annual Budget Act
commencing with the 2003-04 fiscal year. (Health and Safety
Code 101317.)
Existing law requires that the Director of Homeland Security, in
collaboration with the State Department of Health Services,
shall, on or before February 1 of each year, report to the
chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the
chairperson of the budget committee of each house of the
Legislature, on their respective expenditures of federal
homeland security and bioterrorism funds, as specified.
(Government Code 9147.5.)
This bill does the following:
Enacts a statement of legislative intent to restructure the
State Office of Homeland Security during the next legislative
session but to give the existing office the responsibility of
administering its own budget appropriations commencing with
this fiscal year.
Requires that the Attorney General shall furnish state summary
criminal history information to persons employed within the
Office of Homeland Security whose duties and responsibilities
require the authority to access criminal history and other
criminal intelligence information, and who have been cleared
to do so by both the State Department of Justice and the
United States Department of Homeland Security, as specified.
Adds to law that the State Office of Homeland Security is
considered a law enforcement organization as required for
receipt of confidential intelligence information, as
specified.
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 6
Amends the Budget Act of 2005 to revise - and add new line
item appropriations - reappropriating money currently in the
Budget Act - for the support of the Office of Homeland
Security (giving that office "line item status" in the Budget
Act), as specified.
Makes related changes in law and takes effect immediately upon
enactment as an urgency measure.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The author's office indicates that:
The Governor's Office of Homeland Security (OHS)
was established on February 7, 2003, by Executive
Order D-67-03. The Office is responsible for
coordinating homeland security activities
throughout California and serves as the Governor's
chief advisor on all homeland security related
issues.
OHS functions are divided into six divisions, each
of which is headed by a deputy director, aided by
an assistant deputy.
Information Analysis;
Critical Infrastructure Protection;
Local, External and Legislative Affairs;
Grants Management;
Planning, Research and Emergency
Preparedness;
Training and Exercises
OHS has made real progress in its efforts to
secure California from terrorist attacks.
Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Centers have
been established across the state. A State
Terrorism Threat Assessment Center has been
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 7
created in conjunction with the California Highway
Patrol and the Department of Justice.
Organizations from federal, state, and local
levels have participated in statewide training
exercises. Furthermore, representatives from OHS
have been working to evaluate and harden critical
infrastructure across California.
This bill would provide budgetary authority to
streamline contractual services necessary to
facilitate its day-to-day operations. And last,
the measure would authorize OHS to review criminal
justice information, which is essential to its
grant programs and preparing California for a
terrorist attack.
2. What Does This Bill as Amended Do ?
Intent language - this bill contains uncodified Legislative
intent language - both in Section 1 of the bill and in
provisions rewriting budget line items - which states that the
Office of Homeland Security is to be restructured during the
next legislative session (see Comment #11 for the general effect
of such intent):
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of
the following:
(1) The Office of Homeland Security was established in
February 2003 by executive order to coordinate the state's
antiterrorism activities.
(2) In February of 2005, the Legislative Analyst's Office
recommended that the Legislature provide statutory authority for
the Office of Homeland Security. The Legislative Analyst's
Office analysis points out funding delays and the lack of a
unified strategic approach to homeland security issues.
(3) The Legislature recognizes, in light of the events of
September 11, 2001, and the more recent London bombings, the
pressing need for a unified approach to homeland security within
the state.
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 8
(b) Therefore, the Legislature intends to restructure the
Office of Homeland Security during the next legislative session
but to give the existing Office of Homeland Security
responsibility of administering its own budget appropriations
commencing with this fiscal year.
Access to criminal history information - see Comment #3, below.
Budget Act amendments - The Office of Homeland Security states
that they have operated since early 2003 as an "orphan" office
with dependence on the Office of Emergency Services to provide
the administrative support necessary for a state agency to
operate. With the recent 2005 State Budget changes and an
increase to approximately 50 employees, the OHS indicates that
they are hampered in efficiently operating because they are
neither a statutory state agency nor do they have "line item
status" in the state budget. While this bill as currently
amended does not create that statutory status, the OHS indicates
that the line item status will itself help facilitate operations
of the Office. The money appropriated in the State Budget is
federal funding, not state general fund money (plus the OHS also
distributes federal dollars in grants and funding to local and
state agencies, as well). NOTE: the budget language in this
bill would be in effect through June 30, 2006, and would need to
be extended in the 2006-07 State Budget to remain in effect
after that date.
Technical change to Vehicle Code section 5066 - this bill keeps
the "technical" change to Vehicle Code section 5066 which was
first added when this bill was totally rewritten on July 1,
2005, to pertain to the Office of Homeland Security. Section
5066 creates the California memorial license plate, with one
half of the funds raised - upon appropriation by the Legislature
- to be allocated to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning
(OCJP) to be used solely for antiterrorism activities. OCJP no
longer is in existence and this bill replaces that office with
the Office of Homeland Security. [NOTE: the OCJP was abolished
as of January 1, 2004, by Chapter 157, Statutes of 2003. OCJP's
programs have generally been transferred to the Office of
Emergency Services and the Board of Corrections.]
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 9
Ugency clause - this bill contains an urgency clause which
states:
In order for the Office of Homeland Security to adequately
administer the grants, properly reimburse local agencies for
their homeland security expenditures, and receive all
information necessary to evaluate threats and prepare training,
it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
3. Furnishing State Summary Criminal History Information; and, an
Exemption to the Public Records Act
This bill proposes to authorize specified employees of the new
Office of Homeland Security to have access to state summary
criminal history information on the same basis as "peace
officers" by adding a new Penal Code section 11105.06 within
the sections of the Penal Code relating to that information
and the requirements on the Attorney General in maintaining
and sharing that information. Other non-law enforcement
persons are given similar access to that information in other
"11105" provisions.
This bill proposes a new "exemption" for specified staff of
the Office of Homeland Security to have access to public
records which are otherwise confidential by adding those OHS
staff to the exemptions from disclosure under the California
Public Records Act contained in existing Government Code
section 6254(f) which currently includes the following:
? nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require
disclosure of records
that are any of the following: (f) Records of complaints
to, or investigations conducted by, or records of
intelligence information or security procedures of, the
office of the Attorney General and the Department of
Justice, and any state or local police agency, or any
investigatory or security files compiled by any other state
or local police agency, or any investigatory or security
files compiled by any other state or local agency for
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 10
correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes,
except that state and local law enforcement agencies shall
disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or
witnesses other than confidential informants to, the
incident, the description of any property involved, the
date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams,
statements of the parties involved in the incident, the
statements of all witnesses, other than confidential
informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized
representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which
a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering
bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of
the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion,
larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or
a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951,
unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a
witness or other person involved in the investigation, or
unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion
of the investigation or a related investigation. However,
nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of
that portion of those investigative files that reflect the
analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.
Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency
by an alarm or security company at the request of the
agency shall be construed to be records subject to this
subdivision. [Specified arrest and related information
which shall be disclosed follows in this section but is not
included here.]
Committee staff is informed that the OHS staff currently may
obtain some redacted information but that the OHS needs these
two new proposed authorizations in order to do the work
necessary to evaluate security risks and related tasks. OHS
also indicates that accessing such information is limited in
general for all "authorized" persons under current law and
regulatory provisions. For example, the California Attorney
General's office has prepared and distributed "Criminal
Intelligence Guidelines" - reprinted June 1999 - which include
a number of definitions and procedures to be followed for the
creation, maintenance, and dissemination of criminal file
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 11
information. Those guidelines also include Part 23, Section
28 of the Code of Federal Regulations (as revised September
16, 1993) which indicates that the "purpose of this regulation
is to assure that all criminal intelligence systems operating
through support under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3711, et seq., as amended (Pub.
L. 90-351, as amended by Pub. L. 91-644, Pub. L. 93-83, Pub.
L. 93-415, Pub. L. 94-430, Pub. L. 94-503, Pub. L. 95-115,
Pub. L. 96-157, Pub. L. 98-473, Pub. L. 99-570, Pub. L.
100-690, and Pub. L. 101-647), are utilized in conformance
with the privacy and constitutional rights of individuals."
The CFR provisions also include the following in 23.20
"Operating principles":
(a) A project shall collect and maintain criminal
intelligence information concerning an individual only if
there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is
involved in criminal conduct or activity and the
information is relevant to that criminal conduct or
activity.
(b) A project shall not collect or maintain criminal
intelligence information about the political, religious
or social views, associations, or activities of any
individual or any group, association, corporation,
business, partnership, or other organization unless such
information directly relates to criminal conduct or
activity and there is reasonable suspicion that the
subject of the information is or may be involved in
criminal conduct or activity.
(c) Reasonable Suspicion or Criminal Predicate is
established when information exists which establishes
sufficient facts to give a trained law enforcement or
criminal investigative agency officer, investigator, or
employee a basis to believe that there is a reasonable
possibility that an individual or organization is
involved in a definable criminal activity or enterprise.
In an interjurisdictional intelligence system, the
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 12
project is responsible for establishing the existence of
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity either through
examination of supporting information submitted by a
participating agency or by delegation of this
responsibility to a properly trained participating agency
which is subject to routine inspection and audit
procedures established by the project. ?
(l) A project shall make assurances that there will be no
harassment or interference with any lawful political
activities as part of the intelligence operation. ?
(o) The [United States] Attorney General or designee may
waive, in whole or in part, the applicability of a
particular requirement or requirements contained in this
part with respect to a criminal intelligence system, or
for a class of submitters or users of such system, upon a
clear and convincing showing that such waiver would
enhance the collection, maintenance or dissemination of
information in the criminal intelligence system, while
ensuring that such system would not be utilized in
violation of the privacy and constitutional rights of
individuals or any applicable state or federal law.
The OHS is subject to those CFR provisions if the Office has
access to such information. However, neither the state
guidelines nor the CFR provisions define what actually may be
within the purview of the state Office of Homeland Security
and therefore do not define "criminal conduct or activity"
which the OHS might investigate or maintain information about.
SHOULD THESE TWO PROPOSED NEW PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL BE
ENACTED PRIOR TO THE STATUTORY CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF
HOMELAND SECURITY AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE OFFICE TO
INVESTIGATE?
IF THESE PROPOSED NEW PROVISIONS ARE ENACTED, WOULD IT BE
APPROPRIATE TO PLACE A SUNSET ON THEM TO ENSURE THAT THE
FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE STATUTORY CREATION OF AN OFFICE
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 13
OF HOMELAND SECURITY INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE ACCESS TO
SUCH INFORMATION?
4. Action of the Senate Budget Subcommittee #5
On May 19, 2005, the Senate Budget Subcommittee #5 had the
following agenda item:
2. May Revise. Establish Office of Homeland Security
as a New Agency
May Revise Request. This Finance Letter proposal
consists of the following:
? $7.4 million in federal funds and 21 positions
for additional support of OHS activities.
? $22 million in federal funds for state
operations.
? $117 million in federal funds for local
assistance.
? Trailer bill language to establish OHS as a
separate department and various budget bill
provisions which would spilt the funding of OHS
activities between the OES (from 7/1/05 to 12/31/05)
and OHS (from 1/1/06 to 6/30/06).
Analyst's Recommendation. The LAO does not have any
issues with the proposed staffing and funding
increases. However, the LAO has raised concerns with
the proposed trailer bill language. First, the LAO
indicates that there are a number of significant
policy issues related to the authorization of OHS
which deserve policy consideration by the Legislature.
For example, the administration is proposing
establishing OHS as a separate standalone department.
The LAO notes that the Legislature may wish to
consider other alternatives such as authorizing OHS to
be over OES (which would be similar to the federal
Department of Homeland Security model) or continuing
to have OHS as a part of OES (which would be
consistent with the current situation). In addition,
the LAO indicates that the proposed trailer language
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 14
contains some significant policy issues such as
allowing OHS to (1) issue search warrants and (2) be
exempt from the entire Administrative Procedure Act.
In the view of the LAO, both of these policy issues
require significant legislative input which is not
typically provided through the budget committee
process. For these reasons, the LAO recommends that
the Legislature reject the proposed trailer bill and
direct the administration to seek approval of the
language through a policy bill.
The Budget Subcommittee did suggest that the Administration
sponsor a separate bill in the normal - not "trailer bill" -
process. There were staff positions funded in the 2005-06 State
Budget for the existing "Office of Homeland Security."
In addition, the language in this bill as currently amended does
not include any new "search warrant" authority nor does it
involve an exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act.
5. Recommendations of the Legislative Analyst
The LAO 2005-06 analysis of the Governor's proposed budget
includes "General Government" which notes the following (pages
F-13 to F-25):
California has received almost $900 million in
federal homeland security funds, which has helped
the state start addressing homeland security
needs. The state, however, lacks a unified
strategic approach to homeland security. In
addition, only 31 percent of the state's homeland
security funds have been spent to date. We make a
number of recommendations on how to address these
problems in the state's homeland security
approach.
***
Many State and Local Agencies Involved in Homeland
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 15
Security. Many agencies - at both the state and
local levels - are involved in California's
homeland security activities. At the state level,
the primary agencies are OHS, DHS, Emergency
Medical Services Authority (EMSA), California
Highway Patrol (CHP), Military Department, and the
Departments of Transportation, and Forestry and
Fire Protection. The OHS and DHS regularly meet
with these departments to coordinate the state's
antiterrorism activities. At the local level, the
primary agencies are the sheriffs, police, public
health, fire, emergency medical services,
hospitals, and other health-related agencies. At
the local level, the emphasis has been on updating
emergency response plans, conducting exercises,
training first responders (people who are the
first on the scene of an event), and purchasing
personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical
supplies. In addition, since 2001, state and
local agencies have been involved in a number of
joint homeland security related activities. For
example, the Military Department, in collaboration
with several different state and local agencies,
has trained over 100,000 first responders on what
to do in the event of a terrorist attack. The
OHS, through the collaboration of various law
enforcement agencies, has established the state
terrorism threat assessment and early warning
centers to gather intelligence and share
information statewide among federal, state, and
local law enforcement agencies. In addition, DHS
has been able to design a statewide disease
reporting system and develop a statewide network
that alerts public health officials of
bioterrorism events.
***
Legislative Direction Needed
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 16
Our review found that legislative policy direction
of the state's homeland security efforts is
needed.
Lack of Statutory Framework for OHS. To date, the
state's homeland security efforts have been
directed through executive orders and budget
requests. The authority for OHS has been
primarily provided through broader emergency
authority under the Emergency Services Act (ESA).
Our review, however, found that OHS and some of
its specific duties (in particular the prevention
of disasters) are not delineated in the ESA.
Without specific statutory authority, it could be
difficult for OHS to prioritize and accomplish
some of its activities. For example, OHS
currently relies on local agencies' cooperation to
coordinate activities. There may, however, be
occasions when some local agencies do not wish to
participate or coordinate their activities.
Currently, OHS lacks the statutory authority to
require local agencies to participate in those
activities.
Legislative Funding Priorities Have Not Been
Identified. Both OHS and DHS approve state and
local grant proposals. The OHS grant funding
decisions are based on (1) priorities set by the
administration and (2) federal government
restrictions on the use of the funds. Typically,
the administration has requested appropriation
authority for OHS funds from the Legislature after
making grant funding decisions. A better process
would allow the Legislature to provide input prior
to making the funding decisions. The DHS grant
funding decisions are based on priorities set by
the administration and state constituency groups.
In previous years, the Legislature has
appropriated a portion of the grant funding
through both the budget and other statutes to
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 17
allow more time for DHS to work with the relevant
groups to determine how funds would be spent.
Since the state's homeland security efforts lack a
statutory framework, the Legislature has never
established its priorities for the use of the
grant funds. For this reason, there may be some
legislative priorities on the use of these funds
that are not being addressed. For example, the
Legislature may consider evaluating communication
systems or assessing vulnerabilities in public
buildings a higher priority than some of the
administration's funding priorities.
Alternatively, it could decide to dedicate a
larger or smaller portion of the CDC grant funds
to local jurisdictions. (As noted earlier, CDC
does not require a certain split of funding.)
6. Executive Order D-67-03 (February 7, 2003)
Executive Order D-67-03 first mentions the following:
WHEREAS, in 1999, the Governor's Office of Emergency
Services joined with federal, state and local agencies
to establish an inter-disciplinary committee known as
the State Strategic Committee on Terrorism to plan for
and develop programs to address terrorist threats; and
WHEREAS, the California Anti-Terrorism Information
Center was established on September 25, 2001, to
coordinate the exchange and assessment of information
between state and local law enforcement agencies
regarding terrorism within California . . .
That order also includes the following:
IT IS ORDERED that the State of California Office of
Homeland Security is established in the Office of the
Governor. The mission of the Office of Homeland
Security shall be to develop and coordinate the
implementation of a comprehensive state strategy to
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 18
coordinate security activities throughout California,
and to highlight the extraordinary technological
capabilities of California's private industry to help
protect all Americans.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Homeland
Security shall be headed by a Director, who shall be
appointed by, and who shall serve at the pleasure of,
the Governor. The Director of the Office of Homeland
Security shall be the individual primarily responsible
for coordinating state security efforts of all
departments and agencies in the State of California and
shall be the principal point of contact for and to the
Governor with respect to coordination of such efforts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the duties and
responsibilities of the Office of Homeland Security
shall include the following:
1. Coordinating security activities throughout
California.
2. Coordinating the activities of all state agencies
pertaining to terrorism-related issues, including, but not
limited to, all legislative issues, contact with federal and
local agencies, training, and public outreach activities.
3. Coordinating and approving all activities between
state agencies and federal agencies on topics related to
terrorism, including coordinating and approving all state
requests for federal funds designated for terrorism-related
activities, developing guidelines for all such state
requests, and approving the distribution of any federal
funds allocated to the state.
4. Serving as the principal point of contact for and to
the Governor with respect to the federal Department of
Homeland Security and all other federal and state agencies,
and legislators, on matters relating to terrorism and state
security.
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 19
5. Coordinating the review and assessment of the State of
California Emergency Plan and the California Terrorism
Response Plan, and coordinating the amendment and the
submission of those plans, through the California Emergency
Council, to the Governor for approval.
6. Assigning specific state security functions to
state agencies consistent with the duties and
responsibilities identified in the California Emergency
Plan and the California Terrorism Response Plan. Such
assignments will be made by Administrative Order issued
by the Director of the Office of Homeland Security.
7. Coordinating efforts to ensure that all state
departments and agencies that have intelligence
collection responsibilities have sufficient
technological capabilities and resources to collect
intelligence and data relating to terrorist activities
or possible terrorist acts within the State of
California.
7. Recommendations of the California Performance Review
The Report of the California Performance Review includes a
number recommendations pertaining to Homeland Security (starting
on page 302) including the following:
ISSUE
In California, authority and responsibility for
public safety - law enforcement, fire and emergency
management, homeland security, and victim services
are divided among more than 80 separate state
entities. This creates confusing command structures
and causes miscommunication and inoperability between
entities.
SOLUTIONS
Consolidate state government entities responsible
for public safety into a single Department of Public
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 20
Safety and Homeland Security.
There are numerous other related recommendations in the CPR
report.
8. 2005-06 Budget Act
The 2005-06 Budget Act and trailer bill language includes
the following:
(More)
Annual reporting requirement for homeland security
expenditures from AB 139 (trailer bill):
SEC. 27. Section 9147.5 is added to the Government Code, to
read: 9147.5. (a) Notwithstanding Section 7550.5, the
Director of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the
State Department of Health Services, shall, on or before
February 1 of each year, report to the chairperson of the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the chairperson of
the budget committee of each house of the Legislature, on
their respective expenditures of federal homeland security
and bioterrorism funds. (b) The report shall include all of
the following information: (1) Descriptions of grant
expenditures and coordination activities at the state and
local level that have occurred over the past fiscal year.
(2) How those activities met the state's strategic goals
and objectives. (3) Funding amounts awarded to state and
local agencies. (4) Funding levels by grant and grant year,
designating which funds have been expended or encumbered,
or remain unencumbered. (5) Any challenges encountered by
state or local agencies that hindered their expenditure of
the funds. (6) Areas of focus for the upcoming fiscal year.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
the Director of Homeland Security or the State Department
of Health Services to disclose or include classified
information.
Strategic plan requirement in the 2005 Budget Act (SB 77):
4. The Office of Homeland Security, in collaboration with
the State Department of Health Services, shall report to
the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee,
and the chairperson of the fiscal and policy committees of
each house of the Legislature on or before February 1,
2006, a statewide strategic plan for the use of federal
homeland security and bioterrorism funds by all departments
(More)
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 22
and local jurisdictions. The plan shall include the state's
goals and objectives for improving the state's level of
preparedness for a terrorism event, which (a) is based on
an assessment of the state's level of preparedness and (b)
reflects a coordination of preparedness activities at the
state and local level. It is not the intent of the
Legislature to require the Office of Homeland Security or
the State Department of Health Services to disclose or
include sensitive or classified information in the
strategic plan.
Funding priorities for homeland security in the 2005 State
Budget Act (SB 77):
5. It is the intent of the Legislature that the funding
priorities for federal homeland security funds are: (a)
enhancing information sharing between local, state, and
federal public safety agencies; (b) identifying and
protecting critical infrastructure and key assets to deter
terrorists; (c) enhancing coordination of state agencies'
homeland security activities; (d) implementing the state's
homeland security strategy; and (e) implementing
interoperable communications for public safety agencies.
9. May Revise Proposed Language
Committee staff is informed that the May revise this year
did include budget item language for support of the Office
of Homeland Security which is similar to that included in
this bill. That language was not included in the State
Budget Act of 2005 as enacted in SB 77.
10. Related Legislation
AB 1495 (Canciamilla) as first amended on June 20, 2005, exempts
SB 1015 (Romero)
Page 23
from the California Public Records Act disclosure "critical
infrastructure" information, as defined, that is voluntarily
submitted to the California Office of Homeland Security for use
by that office, including the identity of the person or entity
submitting the information. AB 1495 is an urgency measure and
is in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.
11. Effect of Stated Legislative Intent
This bill would enact uncodified legislative intent to create an
Office of Homeland Security, as specified. As is oft noted in
Legislative Counsel Opinions:
The acts of one legislative body cannot limit or restrict
its own power or that of subsequent Legislatures by
enacting legislation, and the act of one Legislature cannot
bind its successors (City and County of San Francisco v.
Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 929; In re Collie (1952) 38
Cal.2d 396, 398; County Mobilehome Positive Action Com.,
Inc. v. County of San Diego (1998) 62 Cal.App 4th 727,
734).
However, as a statement of intent, this bill does provide
notice that a bill or bills will be introduced to create
that office in statute.
***************