BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2006
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 14, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                     AB 2006 (Hill) - As Amended:  April 6, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              JudiciaryVote:7-2

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the California Research Bureau (CRB) to  
          report on the use of language in state documents suggesting a  
          particular religious faith or sect.  Specifically, this bill  
          requires the CRB to:

          1)Determine the extent to which existing state documents use  
            such language.

          2)Identify, with consultation from experts, religiously neutral  
            and inclusive terms that can replace religiously-biased  
            language.

          3)Identify any legal ramifications in replacing such language  
            per (2).

          4)Identify fiscal ramifications of requiring state entities to  
            review agency documents to ensure use of  religiously neutral  
            language.

          5)Report its findings to the Legislature by December 31, 2011.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)In addition to using existing staff resources, the CRB will  
            likely incur contract-related costs to obtain legal and  
            budgetary expertise in order to complete the report.  These  
            costs are unknown, but could be in the range of $50,000 to  
            $100,000.

          2)To the extent documents would subsequently be modified to  
            incorporate unbiased language, costs could range for minor and  








                                                                  AB 2006
                                                                  Page  2

            absorbable, if modifications were accomplished as part of a  
            routine updating of agency documents, to significant, if the  
            specific changes were to be incorporated immediately.

           COMMENTS  

           Purpose  .  This bill was suggested to the author by a constituent  
          who is the Executive Director of an interfaith network.  This  
          constituent, while filling out a Board of Equalization (BOE)  
          religious tax exemption form, noticed that the only choice he  
          was given-other than "other"-for identifying the qualifying  
          "religious purpose" was "church, or church and school," even  
          though his religious institution was not a "church," nor  
          presumably did the constituent members of his interfaith network  
          all attend "churches."  The BOE's basic property tax exemption  
          form for religious exemptions (BOE-262-AH) is actually entitled  
          "Church Exemption," even though the exemption would apply to  
          synagogues, temples, mosques, meeting houses, and any number of  
          other places where religious groups might congregate for  
          religious purposes.  

          The author believes that the use of such language, however  
          innocent or unconscious, may suggest a preference toward some  
          religious groups and may be deemed offensive to other religious  
          or non-religious groups who do not practice at churches.  As  
          originally introduced, this bill would have directed all state  
          agencies, departments, and offices when writing any future  
          documents intended for public use to phrase all references to  
          religious institutions in "neutral language."  Because of the  
          uncertain legal and fiscal implications of such a comprehensive  
          undertaking, the bill was amended to require the CRB to assess  
          the extent of the problem, identify appropriate alternative  
          language, and consider the fiscal and legal implications of  
          changing existing language.
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081