BILL ANALYSIS
ACR 49
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
ACR 49 (Evans)
As Amended August 24, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(June 2, 2009) |SENATE: |36-0 |(August 31, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Authorizes the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) to study specific topics. Specifically, this measure :
1)Re-authorizes CLRC's study of specified topics (listed below).
2)Removes authority to study the law relating to offers of
compromise and adds authority to study the legal and policy
implications of treating a charter school as a public entity
for purposes of the Tort Claims Act.
3)Requires that before commencing work on any project within the
calendar of topics authorized or directed for study by the
Legislature, CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the
scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Committees
on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and if during the
course of the project there is a major change to the scope of
work, submit a description of the change.
The Senate amendments delete the prohibition of the CLRC making
a recommendation on whether a charter school should be treated
as a public entity.
EXISTING LAW authorizes CLRC to study topics approved by
concurrent resolution of the Legislature.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this measure was substantially
similar to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : CLRC was created in 1953 and given the responsibility
for a continuing substantive review of California statutory and
ACR 49
Page 2
decisional law. CLRC studies the law to discover defects and
anachronisms and recommends legislation to make needed reforms.
CLRC's enabling statute recognizes two types of topics CLRC is
authorized to study: 1) those that CLRC identifies for study
and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the
Legislature; and, 2) those that the Legislature assigns to CLRC
directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. In the past, the
bulk of CLRC's study topics have come through the first route -
matters identified by CLRC and approved by the Legislature.
Once CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work
on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution,
authorizes CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative
assignments have become much more common in recent years. Many
of CLRC's recent studies were directly assigned by the
Legislature.
CLRC currently has a list of 21 topics that the Legislature has
previously authorized for study. This resolution would
reauthorize CLRC to study the following topics:
1)Creditors' Remedies
2)Probate Code
3)Real and Personal Property
4)Family Law
5)Discovery in Civil Cases
6)Special Assessments for Public Improvements
7)Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons
8)Evidence
9)Arbitration
10)Administrative Law
11)Attorney's Fees
12)Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act
13)Trial Court Unification
14)Contract Law
15)Common Interest Developments
16)Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation
17)Coordination of Public Records Statutes
18)Criminal Sentencing
19)Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act
20)Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
21)Place of Trial in Civil Cases
This resolution would remove authority to study the law relating
to offers of compromise. In 1975, the topic of offers of
ACR 49
Page 3
compromise was added to CLRC's Calendar of Topics, at the
request of CLRC. CLRC was concerned with Code of Civil
Procedure Section 998, which calls for an adjustment of costs
following the rejection of an offer of compromise in civil
litigation. CLRC noted ambiguity in the language of the
section, suggesting it did not deal adequately with the problem
of a joint offer to several plaintiffs. That issue has now been
substantially addressed by case law. Therefore, removal of
authorization is appropriate.
To help address any future questions pertaining to the potential
merits and downsides of providing the protections of the
Government Tort Claims Act to charter schools, an issue that has
arisen in the Legislature recently, the resolution adds
authority for the CLRC to study the legal and policy
implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for
purposes of the Tort Claims Act.
The last provision in the resolution (which was also in last
session's resolution) will provide that prior to commencing work
on any project within the list of topics authorized or directed
for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed
description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs
of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and
if during the course of the project there is a major change to
the scope of work, submit a description of the change.
In light of the generally broad grant of authority to the CLRC
for some of the listed topics, e.g., study and make
recommendations for Probate Code revisions, concern was
expressed that CLRC might undertake on its own initiative and
without legislative input a study that goes beyond the CLRC's
traditional role of studying and developing recommended
non-controversial changes to the law that are primarily of a
cleanup, consolidation, or restatement nature. Given the
limited resources of CLRC which has suffered budget cuts in past
years, early communication to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committee chairs and vice chairs of proposed topics of study
would allow legislative input on whether a particular proposed
topic would likely be controversial and thus perhaps avoided by
CLRC so that it may devote its limited resources to other, more
productive studies.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
ACR 49
Page 4
FN: 0002541