BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:June 28, 2010 |Bill No:AB |
| |2130 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chair
Bill No: AB 2130Author:Huber
As Amended:June 22, 2010 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Professions and vocations: sunset review.
SUMMARY: Abolishes the Joint Committee on Boards, Commission, and
Consumer Protection and would instead make "eligible agencies," as
defined, subject to review by the Joint Sunset Review Committee.
Initially specifies five agencies which would be subject to review and
have a sunset date of December 2012. Requires the Joint Sunset
Review Committee to report to the public and the Legislature on
whether an agency should be terminated, or continued, or whether its
functions should be revised or consolidated with those of another
agency, and include any other recommendations as necessary to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency and any proposed
legislation to carry out its recommendations.
NOTE : This measure is a companion measure to AB 1659, which was
passed out of this Committee on June 21, 2010 by a vote of 6-0. The
provisions of this measure will not become operative unless AB 1659 is
enacted and establishes the Joint Sunset Review Committee.
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 40 boards, bureaus and a
commission, as defined, that have been created by law to license
and regulate members of various professions and vocations.
AB 2130
Page 2
3) Provides that the boards under the Department 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.
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) 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).
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) 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
AB 2130
Page 3
programs of the Department, are subject to review by the Joint
Committee.
10)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, and provides that when the regulatory program is taken
over by the Department, that program shall be designated as a
" bureau ."
11)Provides, as of January 1, 2004, all administrative or regulatory
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 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.
2)Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all existing
AB 2130
Page 4
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.
3)Requires the Joint Committee to review all state boards every four
years and to evaluate and make determinations as specified.
This bill:
1)Abolishes the current "Sunset Review" process and the ability of the
Joint Committee to review boards and bureaus under the Department of
Consumer Affairs. [It is intended that the review of boards
scheduled for sunset will now be the responsibility of the Senate
and Assembly Business and Professions committees. The same
evaluative and review process performed by the former Joint
Committee will be continued jointly by these committees as part of
their oversight function.]
2)Repeals provisions which allow a board to become a bureau under the
Department in the event that any board becomes inoperative or is
repealed (sunsets). [This will require the Legislature to take an
affirmative action to decide on the appropriate changes and
continuation of the board prior to its sunset date.]
3)Abolishes the authority granted to the Joint Committee in January of
2004, to review all existing state boards and other entities every
four years.
4)Makes instead all "eligible agencies," as defined, subject to review
by the new Joint Sunset Review Committee (JSRC) which would be
established pursuant to AB 1659.
5)Specifies that the following four agencies would be subject to
review by the JSRC in its first year of operation and would have
sunset dates of January 1, 2013:
a) The State Race Track Leasing Commission.
b) The Capitol Area Committee.
c) The Continuing Care Advisory Committee.
d) The California Recreational Trails Committee.
6)Provides that the JSRC shall make a report available to the public
and the Legislature or whether an agency should be terminated, or
continued, or whether its functions should be revised or
consolidated with those of another agency, and include any other
recommendations as necessary to improve the effectiveness and
AB 2130
Page 5
efficiency of the agency.
7)Provides that if the JSRC deems it advisable, the report may include
proposed bill to carry out its recommendations.
8)Specifies that the provisions of this measure would not become
operative unless AB 1659 is enacted and establishes the JSRC.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed "fiscal" by Legislative
Counsel
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose. According to the Author who is the Sponsor of the measure,
this bill serves as the implementation bill for the JSRC created by
her companion bill AB 1659 which creates the JSRC and outlines its
duties and responsibilities in reviewing "eligible agencies," as
defined in AB 1659. As indicated by the Author, this bill seeks to
establish accountability and oversight for government entities by
requiring systematic review and evaluation of state entities. Under
current law, as explained by the Author, the Joint Committee is
granted the power to hold public hearings at specified times and to
evaluate whether a board or regulatory program under the Department
has demonstrated a need for its continued existence, and to also
review all other 400 plus categories of administrative or regulatory
boards, commissions, committees, councils, associations, and
authorities. Joint Committee members have not been appointed to
this committee since 2006, and the Joint Committee never implemented
their new authority granted to it in 2004, to review all other types
of appointed governmental entities.
The Author further indicates that this bill would abolish the Joint
Committee and move the functions of the Joint Committee as it
relates to review of appointed governmental entities to the JSRC.
The JSRC would not , however, review those boards and bureaus under
the Department. As earlier indicated, these agencies would continue
to be reviewed and evaluated by the Business and Professions
committees of the Senate and the Assembly. However, if at any time
these committees no longer reviewed these agencies, then the JSRC
would have the authority to continue such reviews.
As stated by the Author, "the purpose of AB 1659 and AB 2130 is to
establish a long term process through which the state can conduct
routine reviews of entities and determine if they are still
necessary. It is not the intention of AB 1659 or AB 2130 to
prohibit standing committees from conducting their own periodic
AB 2130
Page 6
reviews of boards and commissions under their jurisdiction."
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
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
AB 2130
Page 7
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 LAO at that 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 September 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 LAO 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
AB 2130
Page 8
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
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
AB 2130
Page 9
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
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
AB 2130
Page 10
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,
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, 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 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
AB 2130
Page 11
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
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.
AB 2130
Page 12
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
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 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 becoming a bureau. 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
AB 2130
Page 13
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. Currently,
by operation of law, when a board does actually sunset it
automatically converts to bureau under the Department.
Converting a board to a bureau was always considered as the last
thing either the appointing authority or the professions wanted
and therefore provided a means to achieve needed changes to these
boards. However, as earlier explained, eliminating all consumer
boards and converting them to bureaus became part of the
Governor's Reorganization Plan in 2005 and was strongly rejected
by the Legislature and others. The one alternative to the sunset
of a board appeared to be appointing all new members to a board
if their were serious concerns with its current operation.
b) Transferring the sunset review responsibilities to the policy
committees. Transferring responsibilities for sunset review from
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 and the Speaker
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
AB 2130
Page 14
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 a
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
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 1659 (Huber) 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.
This measure was heard in this Committee on June 21, 2010, and was
AB 2130
Page 15
passed out of this Committee by a vote of 6-0.
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 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.Policy Issue : Should the Joint Committee on Boards, Commissions and
Consumer Protection be abolished and the current requirements under
the sunset review process pursuant to Section 473 et seq. of the
Business and Professions Code be eliminated? 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 the Joint Committee to be
continued, at least in name only, since there have been no
AB 2130
Page 16
appointments to the Joint Committee since 2006, nor has the Joint
Committee convened since 2005. 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 Joint Committee be abolished along with the sunset review
process and that the standing policy committees assume this
responsibility. If at some future date the policy committees no
longer review boards and bureaus of the Department, then the newly
created JSRC would have the authority to continue review of these
agencies.
NOTE : Double-referral to Rules Committee.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: None on file as of June 21, 2010.
Opposition: None on file as of June 21, 2010.
Consultant:Bill Gage