BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2220
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 12, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    AB 2220 (Silva) - As Amended:  April 5, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Governmental  
          Organization Vote:                            20-1

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill adds California Department of Developmental Services  
          (DDS) Regional Centers to requirements of disclosure related to  
          the California Public Records Act. This bill specifically adds  
          Regional Centers, which are private nonprofit entities, to the  
          definition of "local agency." Under current law the local agency  
          definition includes city and county agencies, school districts,  
          public boards and commissions, and local legislative bodies. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          GF costs of $3 million to $6 million for 21 Regional Centers  
          (RCs), combined, to establish capacity to comply with California  
          Public Records Act requirements. This bill establishes statewide  
          requirements on the 21 RCs which are non-profit, nonpublic  
          entities, serving 225,000 consumers via 45,000 providers,  
          including parents of consumers. 

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . This bill is sponsored by the ResCoalition to  
            require RCs to comply with the California Public Records Act  
            (CPRA). The CPRA gives the public access to records of public  
            agencies. Agencies have the burden of justifying  
            nondisclosure. Records are to be available immediately and in  
            a variety of formats. Certain categories of records are exempt  
            from disclosure, such as attorney-client communication,  
            appointment calendars, and medical files. According to the  
            author and sponsor, because RCs are supported with public  
            funds, they should be subject to public disclosure laws. 

           2)Concerns  . RCs are community-based nonprofit entities. They  
            contract with DDS to provide services to more than 200,000  
            consumers statewide. The RCs indicate they are subject to DDS  





                                                                  AB 2220
                                                                  Page  2

            monitoring, oversight, and reporting requirements to ensure  
            accountability to the state and public. Opponents to this bill  
            indicate ample information is available and provided to the  
            public under current law. In addition, opponents indicate much  
            of the information about consumers is protected by both  
            federal and state privacy laws. Therefore, implementation of  
            and compliance with many aspects of this bill would be  
            difficult and costly. 

           3)Disconcerting Precedent  .  Prior policy committee analysis  
            raised the question of whether this bill's requirements would  
            withstand legal scrutiny in state and federal courts. If  
            enacted, this bill may open the possibility for numerous  
            private, nonprofit agencies to be subject to the California  
            Public Records Act.   
           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081