BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:April 5, 2010 |Bill No:AB |
| |1518 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: AB 1518Author:Anderson
As Amended:January 25, 2010 Fiscal:Yes
SUBJECT: State government: boards, commissions, committees: report.
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to submit a report
to the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions and the Senate
Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development that
identifies every state board, commission, and committee DOF determines
to be inactive, as defined, on or before July 1, 2011.
Existing law:
1) Establishes various state boards, commissions, and committees
within the various departments, and agencies of California state
government.
2) Generally provides for the appointment of members of those boards,
commissions and committees, by the Governor, the Senate Committee
on Rules, the Speaker of the Assembly or by other constitutional
officers.
3) Generally provides that a majority of the statutory members the
board, commission or committee, constitute a quorum, and requires a
quorum to be present for the board, commission or committee to
conduct any official business.
This bill:
1) In an uncodified provision, requires the DOF, on or before July 1,
2011, to send a report to the Assembly Committee on Business and
Professions (Assembly B&P) and the Senate Committee on Business,
Professions and Economic Development (BP&ED) that identifies every
state board, commission, and committee created by statute that DOF
AB 1518
Page 2
determines to be inactive with respect to the reason for which it
was established.
2) Defines "inactive" for purposes of the report, as having failed to
meet or to have a quorum at any of its regular meetings on or after
January 1, 2008.
FISCAL EFFECT: The Assembly Third Reading analysis, reflecting the
current version of the bill cites the Assembly Appropriations
Committee's determination of less than $50,000 costs to the General
Fund for DOF to report on inactive state boards and commissions.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. According to the Author, who is the Sponsor of the bill,
this good government bill is the result of a high degree of
bi-partisan focus, and the product of a broad-based desire to better
understand the points for improvement and relevance in our state
government. The Author states: "Hundreds of boards, commissions,
and committees are on the books, but no one's kept track of how many
there are. It simply doesn't make sense to keep non-functioning
pieces of government laying around. This is an easy way to start by
cleaning up the codes where there is simply nothing going on, and
promotes a vision of a more efficient and leaner shape of
government."
2.Background. The Author quotes the independent Little Hoover
Commission: "California, like many states during the last century,
built a government that relied heavily on boards and commissions to
improve government decision-making. Boards and commissions - if
well structured and managed - can be effective mechanisms for
serving the public. But boards and commissions also are frequently
cited as examples of waste and abuse of government resources. The
case is usually made through examples of bodies that are too
independent - not accountable to the people, to the legislation that
authorizes their activity, to the appointing powers or even the
facts before them. There are some instances where members are given
full-time pay for part-time work. Some boards are too close to the
profession or business they are expected to regulate. And there are
even more boards that are not providing the advice or oversight that
is expected of them."
The Author further quotes the Governor's 2004 California Performance
AB 1518
Page 3
Review Review, stating: "Boards and commissions have proliferated
in California at a staggering rate and now comprise a substantial
portion of the bureaucratic weight of state government. While many
boards and commissions provide a critical oversight or regulatory
function, others do little to advance the interests of the people of
California. In fact, many boards and commissions have outlived
their usefulness and interfere with the efficient and accountable
delivery of services . . . Eliminating and consolidating these
boards and commissions will improve the productivity of state
government by removing duplication, leveraging the state's resources
and streamlining decision-making."
The Author introduced AB 1869 in 2008 in an effort to implement parts
of the California Performance Review recommendations regarding how
to best structure the state's myriad boards, commissions, and
committees. That bill failed passage in Assembly Business and
Professions Committee.
3.Sunset Review Process. There have been several attempts over the
years to eliminate, consolidate or revise certain boards or bureaus
under the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). In 1994, the Senate
Business and Professions Committee (now the BP&ED Committee) took on
the task of reviewing many of the boards under DCA and made
recommendations regarding their continuation, elimination or
consolidation. One of the major changes that came about from this
1994 review was the creation of an ongoing sunset review process for
all boards under DCA. Since 1994, all of the boards and several of
the bureaus under DCA have been reviewed at least 2 to 3 times
during the 12 years in which sunset review was conducted. Among the
issues which the sunset review process considered is an evaluation
and determination of whether or not a board or regulatory program
has demonstrated a public need for its continued existence based
upon a specified set of factors and minimum standards of
performance.
While a Joint Sunset Review Committee was not appointed in the
2007-2008 or 2009-2010 Legislative Sessions, several bills have been
introduced to revise and reform the sunset review process. In
addition, recently the Senate President pro Tem and the Assembly
Speaker announced plans to re-invigorate the sunset review process
to evaluate the effectiveness of boards and commissions and provide
continued oversight of these agencies.
4.Related Legislation. AB 1869 (Anderson) in 2008, would have
abolished or consolidated a broad range of boards and commissions,
offices and agencies in California State Government. Among the
AB 1518
Page 4
agencies abolished, the bill would have eliminated the various
boards under DCA and transferred their functions to DCA. That bill
failed passage in Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
AB 783 (Anderson) of 2009 required that all statutorily created state
agencies, boards, and state commissions that are funded by General
Fund revenues, except for the Franchise Tax Board, be repealed on
January 1, 2022. That bill died in Assembly Business and
Professions Committee.
5.Policy Issues: Suggested Amendments. This bill has been
significantly changed from the form in which it was introduced. As
introduced on February 27, 2009, the bill would have repealed all
statutorily created state boards, commissions, and committees that
had not met, or had the necessary quorum at any of their regular
meetings since January 1, 2008. In its current form, the bill does
not require the elimination or repeal of any agencies, but it only
requires that DOF submit a report, as specified. In limiting this
measure's scope and breadth, the current form of the bill raises
several policy issues which the Author may wish to address:
a) It is unclear what boards, commissions and agencies are
intended to be reported. By requiring DOF to submit the report
to the Senate BP&ED and Assembly B&P committees, it would seem to
follow that the concern is focused upon those boards, commissions
and committees that are under the Department of Consumer Affairs.
However by requiring the report to be made on "every state
board, commission, and committee created by statute" the bill
seems to envision a much broader listing of agencies in state
government. The Author may wish to clarify what entities are
intended in the scope of the report.
b) The bill also requires the report to focus on each board,
commission, and committee that DOF "determines to be inactive
with respect to the reason for which it was established." The
bill further states for these purposes, "inactive" means, "has
failed to meet or have a quorum at any of its regular meetings. .
." The wording is ambiguous - is it failure to meet for any
reason , or failure to meet for "the reason for which it was
established?" The Author may wish to amend the bill to clarify
the bill's intent.
c) Is failure to have a quorum for one meeting meet the criteria
of the bill? The bill defines inactive as "failed to meet or
have a quorum at any of its regular meetings . . ." It could be
interpreted that if a board failed to have a quorum for a single
AB 1518
Page 5
meeting it would meet the criteria for failing to have a quorum
at any of its regular meetings. It would appear that the Author
intends for DOF to report when the lack of a quorum kept a board
from meeting at all. The Author may wish to amend the bill to
clarify the intent.
NOTE : Double-referral to Rules Committee (second.)
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: None received as of March 31, 2010.
Opposition: None received as of March 31, 2010.
Consultant:G. V. Ayers