BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:June 21, 2010 |Bill No:AB |
| |1659 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: AB 1659Author:Huber
As Amended:June 2, 2010 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: State government: agency repeals.
SUMMARY: Recasts existing law governing the periodic review (known as
"Sunset Review") of departments, administrative or regulatory boards,
commissions, committees, councils, associations, authorities, or other
offices of state government, however denominated, by creating a new
Joint Sunset Review Committee with the responsibility to review and
evaluate these state agencies based on specific criteria and
information provided by these agencies.
Existing law, the Business and Professions Code:
1) Establishes the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) within
the State and Consumer Services Agency, and provides that the
Department is under the control of the Director of Consumer Affairs
(Director) who is appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation.
2) Provides that the Department consists of boards and bureaus, as
defined, that have been created by law to license and regulate
members of various professions and vocations.
3) Provides that the boards are made up of appointees of the Governor
and the Legislature who perform, among their duties, licensing and
regulatory functions such as appointment of an executive officer,
setting educational and experience requirements for licensing and
regulatory activities, and taking enforcement and disciplinary
actions against licensees for violations of law or their individual
practice acts. These boards are considered as separate and
independent from the control of the Department.
AB 1659
Page 2
4) Provides that the bureaus are created and operate as part of the
Department and under its administrative control, and generally
provides that the Director may appoint a chief for each bureau to
carry out the powers and duties placed upon the Director in regards
to that bureau.
5) States that it is the intent of the Legislature that all existing
and proposed consumer-related boards or categories of licensed
professionals be subject to a review every four years to evaluate
and determine whether each board has demonstrated a public need for
the continued existence of that board in accordance with enumerated
factors and standards as specified. (Commonly referred to as the
"sunset review" process.)
6) Provides that in the event that any board becomes inoperative or is
repealed (sunsets) that the Department shall succeed to and is
vested with all the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities of
that board. (The board would effectively become a "bureau" under
the Department by operation of law.)
7) Established in 1994, the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee ,
and in 2004 changed the name to the Joint Committee on Boards,
Commissions and Consumer Protection (Joint Committee).
8) Specifies that the Joint Committee shall consist of three members
appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules and three members
appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. No more than two of
three members appointed from the Senate or the Assembly shall be
from the same party. The Joint Rules Committee shall appoint the
chairperson of the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee is
authorized to act until January 1, 2012, at which time the
committee's existence shall terminate.
9) Provides that the Joint Committee shall have and exercise all the
rights, duties and powers conferred upon investigating committees
and their members by the Joint Rules Committee and that the
Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules may designate staff for
the Joint Committee.
10)Provides that all boards under the Department that are scheduled to
become inoperative and repealed on a specified date or established
pursuant to initiative act, or certain specified bureaus or other
programs of the Department, are subject to review by the Joint
Committee.
11)Provides, as of January 1, 2004, all administrative or regulatory
AB 1659
Page 3
boards, commissions, committees, councils, associations, or other
authorities who have appointed membership, are subject to review by
the Joint Committee.
12)Provides for a process of review and evaluation conducted by the
Joint Committee which includes the preparation of an analysis and
report by the board submitted to the Joint Committee which
describes in detail the activities of the board and its programs,
evaluation of the board by the Joint Committee based on specified
factors and minimum standards of performance, public hearing(s)
conducted by the Joint Committee and final recommendations of the
Joint Committee included in a published report on whether each
board or function scheduled for repeal shall be terminated,
continued, or reestablished, and whether or not its functions
should be revised. If the Joint Committee deems it advisable, its
report may include proposed bills to carry out its recommendations.
13)Allows the chairpersons of the appropriate policy committees of the
Legislature to refer to the Joint Committee for review of any
legislative issues or proposals to create new licensure or
regulatory categories, change licensing requirements, modify scope
of practice, or create a new licensing board.
Existing law the Government Code:
1) Provides that any state board or any category of licensed
professional proposed for creation by the Legislature shall require
a plan to be developed by the Author or Sponsor of the legislation,
as specified.
2) The Joint Committee, acting pursuant to a request from the
chairperson of the appropriate policy committee, shall evaluate the
plan and provide its evaluation to the respective policy and fiscal
committees of the Legislature pursuant to rules adopted by each
committee for this purpose.
3) Provides that the Legislature finds and declares that California's
multilevel, complex governmental structure today contains more than
400 categories of administrative or regulatory boards, commissions,
committees, councils, associations, and authorities and that these
governmental entities have been established without any method of
periodically reviewing their necessity, effectiveness or utility
and as a result the Legislature and residents of California cannot
be assured that these existing or proposed governmental entities
adequately protect the public health, safety and welfare.
AB 1659
Page 4
4) Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all existing
state boards be subject to review every four years to evaluate and
determine whether each has demonstrated a public need for its
continued existence in accordance with enumerated factors and
standards.
5) Requires the Joint Committee to review all state boards every four
years and to evaluate and make determinations as specified.
This bill:
1)Creates a new Joint Sunset Review Committee (JSRC), to identify and
eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government
agencies and to conduct a comprehensive analysis over 15 years, and
on a periodic basis thereafter, of every "eligible agency," as
defined, to determine if the agency is still necessary and cost
effective.
2)Requires each eligible agency scheduled for repeal, on or before
December 1 prior to the year it is set to be repealed, to submit to
JSRC a complete agency report covering the entire period since it
was last reviewed, to include, but not be limited to:
a) The purpose and necessity of the agency.
b) A description of the agency budget, priorities, and job
descriptions of employees of the agency.
c) Any programs and projects under the direction of the agency.
d) Measures of the success or failures of the agency and
justifications for the metrics used to evaluate successes and
failures.
e) Any recommendations of the agency for changes or
reorganization in order to better fulfill its purpose.
3)Requires JSRC to take public testimony and evaluate the eligible
agency prior to the date the agency is scheduled to be repealed.
4)Requires the elimination of any eligible agency unless the
Legislature enacts a law to extend, consolidate, or reorganize the
eligible agency.
5)Prohibits an eligible agency from extending in perpetuity unless
specifically exempted from the provisions of this bill.
AB 1659
Page 5
6)Allows JSRC to recommend that the Legislature extend the statutory
sunset date for no more than one year to allow JSRC more time to
evaluate the eligible agency.
7)Specifies that JSRC shall be comprised of 10 members of the
Legislature as follows:
a) Five Senators appointed by the President pro Tempore of the
Senate, not more than three of whom shall be members of the same
political party.
b) Five Assembly Members appointed by the Speaker of the
Assembly, not more than three of whom shall be members of the
same political party.
8)Requires JSRC to meet no later than 30 days after the first day of
the regular session to choose a chairperson and to establish the
schedule for eligible agency review provided for in the
statutes governing the eligible agencies, for which a date for
repeal has been established by statute on or after January 1, 2011.
9)States that this bill should not be construed to change the existing
jurisdiction of the budget or policy committees of the Legislature.
10)Defines "eligible agency" to mean any agency, authority, board,
bureau, commission, conservancy, council, department, division, or
office of state government, however denominated, excluding an agency
that is constitutionally created or an agency related to
postsecondary education.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis,
dated May 5, 2010, annual costs in the range of $250,000 (GF) for the
Legislature due to the workload associated with reviewing the boards
and bureaus within the Department of Consumer Affairs.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. According to the Author who is the Sponsor of this
measure, there is no current process in place to review state
entities on a regular basis with the exception of boards and
commissions that fall under the Business and Professions Code. Even
the Committee that is charged with doing that though has not had
members appointed to it since 2006.
As indicated by the Author, the Legislature creates new boards,
AB 1659
Page 6
commissions, agencies and departments to solve a problem, but far
too often there is no on-going oversight of the newly created
bureaucracy to ensure it actually solved the problem it was created
to solve. The Author believes that this systematic dysfunction can
be fixed by conducting comprehensive, regular review of state
government to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used wisely.
The Author points out that in 1989, the Little Hoover Commission
issued a report, entitled Boards and Commissions: California's
Hidden Government, which found that, "California's multi-level,
complex governmental structure today includes more than 400 boards,
commissions, authorities, associations, councils and committees.
These plural bodies operate to a large degree autonomously and
outside of the normal checks and balances of representative
government." The Commission concluded that "the state's boards,
commissions and similar bodies are proliferating without adequate
evaluation of need, effectiveness and efficiency."
The Author further states that since the Little Hoover report many
more boards, commissions and other entities have been added to the
California government structure. Some estimate that there are about
1,000 government entities. Recently, the California Performance
Review commented on 339 state boards and commissions and they also
found, as Little Hoover did 20 years ago, that a comprehensive
listing of the entities that make up state government does not
exist. Despite several studies suggesting reform is necessary, the
Legislature has failed to act. Current law, the Author argues,
needs an enforcement mechanism to ensure that oversight work is part
of the annual legislative action.
The Author also indicates that numerous other states have a sunset
review function. Texas, for example, created its Sunset Advisory
Commission in 1978. Since the Commission's inception 58 agencies
have been abolished and another 12 agencies have been consolidated
saving $27 dollars for each dollar spent on the Commission. Total
savings achieved by the Commission equals roughly 5% of the state
budget.
2.Background.
a) The "Sunrise" of Sunset Review in California. The concept of
sunset review law first began back in the 1970's. There are now
about 35 states which have some sort of sunset review law on the
books. Basically, the genesis behind all sunset laws is to place
a termination date on a particular program or agency, and in the
meantime, review it to determine if it is still operating in an
AB 1659
Page 7
effective and efficient manner, and whether it should continue.
When one talks about sunset or sunrise laws, they are usually
referring to a review of regulatory licensing agencies. There
are certainly other specific programs which may be subject to
sunset, but the idea of subjecting an agency to a more formalized
review process, before allowing it to continue, or be established
in the first place, is unique to this type of law.
California was sort of a "Johnny-come-lately" to this process.
There had been prior attempts by the Legislature to pass a sunset
law, but in those instances the legislation would have sunset
both the board and the licensing program of the particular
profession. The law which was passed in 1994, only sunsets the
board - not the licensing of the occupation. There are basically
two reasons for this, the first is obvious - in most instances
there is a continued need to license those professions currently
regulated by boards under the Department of Consumer Affairs. To
automatically terminate the licensing requirements would have
provided no benefit to the review of these boards under the
sunset law. The second reason, however, is more important.
Throughout 1993 and 1994, both the Senate Business and
Professions Committee and the Assembly Consumer Protection
Committee began a review of some of the 32 regulatory boards
under the Department. There was more concern with the boards'
operation and activities (or lack thereof) than whether there was
a need to continue the licensing of a particular profession. A
number of problems with these boards were identified and a report
was issued by Senate Business and Professions Committee
Subcommittee on Efficiency and Effectiveness in State Boards and
Commissions titled, Reforming and Restructuring California's
Regulatory Agencies which detailed a number of changes and
recommendations regarding these boards and also strongly
recommended the establishment of a Joint Legislative Sunset
Review Committee to provide specific review criteria and minimum
standards of evaluation for legislative and state agency use, and
subject all licensing agencies and regulatory programs of the
Department to periodic review and sunset.
For all these reasons and more, both the Legislature and the
Administration believed the more immediate task at hand was to
review these consumer boards at regular intervals.
If it was determined the board should sunset, then there would be
adequate time to determine if the entire licensing program should
be eliminated as well. (It should be noted that the Hoover
Commission and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) at that
AB 1659
Page 8
time both recommended establishing a sunset review process for
all regulatory consumer boards.)
In 1994, SB 2036 was signed into law which established the Joint
Legislative Sunset Review Committee. The Joint Committee
reviewed all boards and other programs under the Department for a
period of 10 years on an ongoing basis, until its final review in
2005.
b) Brief Description of the Sunset Review Process. The law, which
went into effect on January 1, 1995, set in place a schedule for
review of all of the 32 independent boards and programs under the
Department. It allowed for an initial review of all boards
beginning in 1995 and ending in 1998. A re-review of these
boards was required after four or more years from the initial
review, and began in 1999 and ended in 2005. All 32 boards and
certain other programs and bureaus of the Department were
reviewed and re-reviewed during the10-year period.
The sunset date for each board allowed enough time for the board to
be reviewed by the Joint Committee, and for legislation to be
passed to extend the sunset date of the board and make
appropriate changes. The actual review process for the Joint
Committee began with sending boards a detailed questionnaire and
a request for information which covered every aspect of the
board's operation for four years. The boards were required to
respond to this request by October 1 of the year they were
scheduled for review.
During this time, staff of the Joint Committee, Senate Business and
Professions Committee, Assembly Consumer Protection Committee,
and the Legislative Analyst's Office worked together to prepare
an analysis and report on each board. (Staff also met with
boards to review documents and information provided, and seek
input from various consumer groups, and the Health and Budget
committees of the Legislature.) The report provided a brief
overview of the board's functions and programs, identified issues
or problem areas concerning each board, and included preliminary
recommendations for members of the Joint Committee to consider.
This included whether each board scheduled for review should be
terminated, continued, or reestablished, and whether its programs
or functions should be restructured or revised.
The Joint Committee then conducted public hearings to review the
issues and preliminary recommendations. The boards were provided
AB 1659
Page 9
an opportunity to respond, along with the regulated industry,
consumer groups and the public. The Department participated in
these hearings as well. After the hearings, the Joint Committee
provided the Department with copies of all testimony and analyses
prepared by staff. The Department then had 60 days to provide
its own recommendations to the Joint Committee. Once received,
the Joint Committee then met to review the recommendations of the
Department and make final recommendations to the Legislature.
c) Results and Accomplishments of Sunset Review. The overall
goal of the Joint Committee was to provide for improved and
effective service to California consumers, and to the board's
current and potential licensees. The process of sunset review
provided an opportunity for legislative staff and members to
focus on the operations of these state regulatory programs and to
consider changes which could improve their overall performance in
protecting the consumer.
The specter of termination served to galvanize most of these
agencies and the professions they regulate, so as to make
necessary statutory and administrative changes to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of these programs under review. If
a regulatory program is considered as unnecessary, or performance
of the board is exceptionally poor, a recommendation was made to
either sunset the agency, reconstitute the board membership, or
shorten its time frame for another review by the Joint Committee.
In the past, the Legislature had often struggled to make some
changes to a particular board, or to deregulate certain programs.
It has spent an inordinate amount of time and energy reviewing
one or two issues concerning a particular regulatory program,
without the ability to effectively evaluate the entire operation
of the agency. Prior to sunset review only three agencies were
ever eliminated by the Legislature, they included the Board of
Fabric Care (licensing dry cleaners), the Auctioneer Commission
and the Board of Polygraph Examiners. In the meantime, the
Legislature continued to create new boards or programs and
licensure categories with little, if any, assessment of their
need or viability.
From 1995 to 2005, the Joint Committee reviewed all boards and
programs under the Department of Consumer Affairs and then
re-reviewed them again to ensure that suggested changes and
recommendations of the Joint Committee were implemented. The
Joint Committee also reviewed proposals to create new boards or
licensure categories and generally found that there was no need
AB 1659
Page 10
for creating a new agency for purposes of licensure or to
regulate a particular profession.
Some of the accomplishments of the Joint Committee included the
following: (1) the elimination of boards or regulatory programs
which were unnecessary, or did not operate in the best interest
of consumers; (2) merger or consolidation of boards or
regulatory programs to improve overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the boards programs and provide cost savings;
(3) changes in board composition to increase overall public
representation on boards and in some instances creating a public
majority;
(4) improvements in the enforcement processes of boards by
increasing the number of disciplinary actions taken against
licensees, reducing the backlog of cases and the time frame to
prosecute cases; (5) improvements in the operational
efficiencies for individual boards by requiring strategic
planning, critical measures of performance in the areas of cost,
quality of service and speed of service, and adoption of
policies, standards, procedures and guidelines for boards'
licensing, examination and enforcement programs; (6) removal and
close examination of artificial barriers of entry into the
profession by requiring standardization and uniformity of
licensing requirements, eliminating excessive requirements and
providing comity between states; (7) expansion of licensing
programs to assure the continuing competency of licensed
professionals; (8) close examination of budgetary needs and
resources for boards and proposed fee increases when necessary to
properly fund these boards; (9) ongoing resolution of proposals
for expanding or changing scope of practice for licensed
professionals; and, (10) requiring additional and more accurate
information to be provided and disclosed to the public regarding
the activities of the board and the status of the licensee.
d) The "Sunset" of Sunset Review. In January 2004, pursuant to
SB 364 (Figueroa, Chapter 789, Statutes of 2003), the Joint
Committee received new authority to review all state boards
(generally, any administrative or regulatory board, commission,
committee, council, association, or authority consisting of more
than one person, whose members are appointed by the Governor or
the Legislature), every four years or over another time period as
determined by the Joint Committee. At that time the Joint
Committee was granted two new staff positions from the Senate who
began to identify those entities for possible review. The
original list identified over 524 separate entities which
included boards, bureaus, commissions, advisory bodies,
AB 1659
Page 11
authorities, etc. From that list, another list was compiled
which dealt with those entities which included members who were
appointed by the Governor and the Legislature. This list
included 156 separate entities with 108 which included
Governor's appointees only. A final list was complied by
February 2004 which included 46 entities which would be reviewed
by 2005 by the Joint Commission.
In February 2004, the Governor began what he titled as the
"California Performance Review" (CPR) to examine all state
operations and agencies and recommend reforms. Part of this
review included a review of all the boards and bureaus under the
Department of Consumer Affairs, and a review of a number of other
boards and entities as already identified by the Joint Committee.
At that time the CPR sent a request to the Chair of the Joint
Committee asking if at least one member of the staff of the Joint
Committee could join with the CPR to assist in their review and
in the meantime hold-off on the review by the Joint Committee.
The Chair agreed to provide assistance to the CPR but decided to
proceed for that year with only reviewing those boards under the
Department of Consumer Affairs which were slated for sunset. The
staff of the Joint Committee worked with CPR for six months in
formulating recommendations regarding the boards under the
Department and other boards and entities as identified.
On August 3, 2004, the CPR issued a lengthy 4-volume report which
included specific recommendations regarding each, including
elimination and consolidation of some, transferring certain
boards or programs to new agencies or departments, and
consolidating enforcement programs of the boards. After the CPR
Report was issued, the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) provided
its own assessment of CPR's recommendations on August 27, 2004,
and concluded that in many areas, including the consolidation or
discontinuation of boards and commissions, that the
reorganization recommendations of the CPR lacked a strong
rationale. The proposals lacked sufficient detail to evaluate
whether a proposed consolidation or elimination of a board would
improve efficiency and coordination of their state functions, and
could have the potential of significantly reducing legislative
oversight and control in key budget and policy matters. The CPR
reorganization emphasized a transition away from independent
boards and towards executive/department program management. LAO
pointed out that among the benefits of independent boards is that
they can include experts in the policy field to offer a variety
of policy perspectives. They can also offer more independent,
forward-thinking proposals than might be typical from a state
AB 1659
Page 12
department and provide for a public forum where meetings are open
to the public rather that having an isolated and somewhat closed
department decision-making process. The Legislature also has the
ability to make direct changes to boards' operations and
structure versus a department run program, and to oversee board
management through the appointment and approval process of board
members. (More checks and balances.)
A CPR Commission was also established to conduct eight full-day
hearings throughout the state to provide review and comment on
the CPR recommendations. In November 2004, the CPR Commission
provided a report regarding the hearings they conducted and
recommended that the professional licensing functions of health
related boards should remain within the new Commerce and Consumer
Protection Department and should not be transferred to the new
Health and Human Services Department. It also recommended that
the investigative functions of the boards be retained and that
they not be moved to new Public Safety Department. Finally, that
because boards and commissions enable public participation and
subject matter expertise in particular fields, that the
Administration more thoroughly evaluate the proposed elimination
of the specified boards based on their suggested criteria and
that all boards and commissions should be reviewed and/or
authorized on a regular basis to ensure that the original purpose
for their creation still exists.
The Little Hoover Commission also conducted three public hearings
to review the CPR proposals and made its report available on
December 2004. The report made rather broad statements regarding
the consolidation or elimination of boards and commissions and
basically said the "If nothing else, some boards that are not
working well, need to work well, rather than being eliminated."
In other cases, well functioning boards need to be focused on
activities that only boards can perform. The Hoover Commission
agreed with the CPR Commission that criteria should be
established that would allow policy-makers to make consistent and
rational decisions whether to eliminate or consolidate certain
board functions.
On January 6, 2005, the Governor's Office put forth their
"Governor's Reorganization Plan #1" and within this plan was the
recommendation to eliminate all independent boards under the
Department of Consumer Affairs and transfer their functions to
the Department as bureaus . This proposal completely ignored the
recommendations of the CPR, the LAO, the CPR Commission and the
Hoover Commission as indicated above. The Governor's
AB 1659
Page 13
Reorganization Plan was strongly rejected by the Legislature and
was finally withdrawn by the Governor in March. However, the
Governor then began to leverage changes he wanted to make
regarding the boards by taking an "oppose unless amended"
position on all the sunset bills which were introduced by the
Joint Committee in 2005. By threatening to veto all sunset
bills, and basically turning all boards into bureaus, the basic
trust which had been established between the Administration and
the Legislature for over 10 years of sunset review was broken and
resulted in the "sunset" of sunset review.
3.Resuscitating Sunset Review. The Legislature has basically kept the
sunset review process on basic "life support." Since 2006, no new
Chair or members have been appointed to the Joint Committee and,
therefore no reviews conducted by the Joint Committee. Each year a
bill or bills are introduced to extend sunset dates of boards under
the Department. There have been attempts to revive the sunset
process, by hopefully addressing some of the primary concerns
regarding the process, but to no avail. To more fully explain, in
2007, SB 963 (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2008) was
amended to revise and recast the sunset review law to remove the
provision that a board automatically by operation of law become a
bureau under the Department if the board sunsets, and instead
provided for the removal (reconstitution) of a board's members and
appointment of a new successor board upon the sunset date. It
eliminated the Joint Committee and instead authorized the
appropriate standing policy committees of the Legislature to carry
out the sunset review functions. The measure also streamlined the
reporting requirements for the boards and the Department. The basic
reasons for these changes were as follows:
a) Reconstitution of the board rather than elimination. In
recent years, when problems have been identified with a variety
of boards, the most effective means of achieving resolution and
change has been by reconstitution of the board. This essentially
creates a new board by allowing appointing authorities to appoint
new members to replace problem members and to reappoint effective
members. The new board may then replace the executive officer if
the executive officer has been ineffective in managing the
operations. This has happened with the Dental Board, the Board
of Optometry, the Acupuncture Board, the Athletic Commission and
most recently the Board of Registered Nursing and has proven to
be an effective method for initiating needed changes.
b) Transferring the sunset review responsibilities to the policy
committees. Transferring responsibilities for sunset review from
AB 1659
Page 14
the Joint Committee to the standing policy committees of the
Legislature was considered as a cost-savings measure which would
eliminate the costs for an additional legislative committee.
Furthermore, over the years, the sunset review process has relied
heavily upon the expertise and staffing of the standing
legislative committees for much of the sunset review work that
the Joint Committee performed.
[This change seemed to be also in keeping with the recently
announced efforts of the Senate President pro Tem to
re-invigorate the oversight functions of the standing policy
committees and to evaluate the conduct and work of an entity or
system of entities with a view to determining facts about the
current activities and operations of the organization. It is
intended that the committee focus will be on those areas of state
government administration or program responsibility within the
committee's subject matter jurisdiction and to research and
examine whether, for the effort and resources being expended,
appropriate results are being obtained, and if changes or
improvements can be made to achieve better, more needed, or
different high-value outcomes.]
The Legislature was unable to come to agreement with the
Administration on the changes proposed in SB 963 and in 2008 the
bill was eventually amended to simply provide for sunset extensions
for only those boards that were being sunsetted the following year.
SB 638 (Negrete McLeod) was a similar measure introduced in 2009 and
passed out of this Committee, but was held in Senate Rules
Committee. SB 1171 (Negrete McLeod) was introduced in 2010 and
passed out of this Committee, but was again held in Senate Rules
Committee.
Even though consensus on modifying the sunset review process has not
been reached, the Committee plans as part of its oversight function
(as described above) to begin a review of all boards and bureaus
under the Department of Consumer Affairs over the next four years.
On March 1, 2010, at least nine boards were chosen for review this
fall and a request for information was sent out to these boards. SB
294 (Negrete McLeod) is currently being amended in the Assembly to
change sunset dates of all boards under the Department to correspond
to their sunset review over the next four years.
4.Related Legislation This Session. SB 1171 (Negrete McLeod) is
similar measure to the current bill and revises the sunset process
by changing the default action of sunset to reconstitution rather
than elimination of a board and creation of a bureau, and transfers
AB 1659
Page 15
the responsibility for sunset review from the Joint Committee to the
policy committees in the Legislature. That bill passed this
Committee and was referred to Rules Committee and has not been
moved.
SBX8 60 (Harman) enacts the Jobs Protection Act, renaming the Joint
Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection as the
Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and Consumer or Business
Protection. Creates a new legislative procedure for any bill that
may have a statewide economic impact affecting business. Requires
the Assembly and Senate Committees on Rules to refer any bill that
may have a statewide economic impact affecting business, as
specified, to the joint committee for the preparation of an economic
impact analysis and a hearing and approval, and requires the joint
committee to make an annual report. That bill was heard in Senate
Rules Committee on March 10, 2010 and held under submission.
SB 954 (Harman) is nearly identical to SBX8 60 (Harman). That bill
has not been set for hearing.
AB 2130 (Huber) abolishes the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions,
and Consumer Protection, and instead makes the specified boards and
regulatory programs subject to review by the Joint Sunset Review
Committee (as established in AB 1659). Makes its provisions
contingent upon the enactment of AB 1659. That bill is also
scheduled to be heard in this Committee on June 21, 2010.
5.Prior Legislation. SB 638 (Negrete McLeod) in 2009, is a similar
measure to the current bill and would have revised the sunset
process by changing the default action of sunset to reconstitution
of the board rather than elimination of the board and creation of a
bureau, and transferring the responsibility for sunset review from
the Joint Committee to the policy committees in the Legislature.
That bill was made a two-year bill and subsequently was not moved in
2010.
SB 963 (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 385, Statutes of 2008) as amended
August 8, 2008, contained many of the same provisions that are in
this bill. In addition to reforming the sunset process, this bill
was complicated by several additional provisions relating to
specific board operations and raised strong objection from several
boards and professional associations. Ultimately, the Legislature
was unable to come to agreement with the Administration on the
policies, and the bill was eventually amended to simply provide for
sunset extensions for only those boards that were being sunsetted
the following year.
AB 1659
Page 16
AB 1467 (Negrete McLeod, Chapter 33, Statutes of 2004) revised the law
to rename the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee to the Joint
Committee on Boards, Commissions, and Consumer Protection confirming
what was done through the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution
No. 56 (Resolution Chapter 14 - 2004). The name was changed to
better reflect the jurisdiction of the Joint Committee that was
modified by the enactment of SB 364 (Figueroa, Chapter 789, Statutes
of 2003).
SB 2036 (McCorquodale, Chapter 908, Statutes of 1994) created the
sunset review process in California. This measure established the
Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee to provide specific review
criteria and minimum standards of evaluation for legislative and
state agency use, and to subject all boards of the DCA to periodic
review and sunset.
6.Arguments in Support. The National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB) is in support of this measure and argues that no
comprehensive process exists for reviewing the numerous boards and
commissions, as many as 1,000 government entities, who have "some
piece of the regulatory pie in our state." They believe that this
measure will hold these government entities accountable by
establishing an automatic sunset date that requires proactive
legislative action to continue the operation of a specified board or
commission. The NFIB further contends that this bill creates a
long-term review process that promotes accountability and
consistency by establishing routine reviews of existing boards and
commissions that focus on determining whether or not they are still
necessary. The NFIB states that "through this improved public
process we hope California will become a better place to start and
grow businesses that keep our state prosperous."
7.Policy Issue : Should this measure provide for the review of boards
and bureaus under the Department of Consumer Affairs? As earlier
indicated, it is the intent of this Committee to do a thorough
review of all boards and bureaus under the Department over the next
four years. For now it does not seem necessary for this new Joint
Committee (the JSRC) to also review these entities. With the
experience that this Committee has along with the Assembly Business
and Professions Committee, and with the efforts of the Senate
President pro Tem and the Assembly Speaker to re-invigorate the
oversight functions of standing policy committees in regards to the
agencies and departments under their jurisdiction, it would seem
appropriate that the Department's boards and bureaus not be subject
to review by the JSRC.
AB 1659
Page 17
8.Policy Issue : Should the measure expand more fully on the
information provided to the JSRC by an "eligible agency" and the
criteria used by the JSRC to evaluate these agencies? Both Section
473.2 and Section 474.2 of the Business and Professions Code details
what the report and information provided to the Joint Committee
should contain for purposes of analysis. Section 473.4 and Section
474.3 provides for a rather extensive listing of specified factors
and minimum standards of performance to be considered by the Joint
Committee in evaluating the particular agency. Suggest that the
Author consider expanding on the information they should receive
from the agency for purposes of their analysis and to include a
listing of those factors and standards or performance to be
considered by the JSRC.
NOTE : Double-referral to Rules Committee (second.)
AB 1659
Page 18
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
National Federation of Independent Business
Physical Therapy Board of California
Numerous Constituent Letters
Opposition: None on File as of June 16, 2010.
Consultant:Bill Gage