BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2466
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 5, 2010

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Felipe Fuentes, Chair

                    AB 2466 (Smyth) - As Amended:  April 28, 2010 

          Policy Committee:                              Business and  
          Professions  Vote:                            9 - 1 

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) submit  
          all regulations packages to the Legislature and require that the  
          appropriate legislative policy committees review those  
          regulations. Specifically, this bill: 

          1)Changes the effective date of regulations from 30 days to 90  
            days.

          2)Requires the OAL submit a copy of any regulation submitted to  
            the Secretary of State to each house of the Legislature.

          3)Requires the Legislature to refer the regulations to the  
            appropriate policy committee in each house for review.

          4)Requires the policy committee to review the regulation for  
            consistency with the intent of the Legislature in regard to  
            the statute that authorizes the particular regulation.

          5)Requires the committee to offer recommendations as to whether  
            or not the regulation should be repealed by statute. 

          FISCAL EFFECT  

          1)Given the 600 to 800 regulations packages per year and the  
            fact that many of them exceed several hundred pages, it is  
            likely that workload requirements for the policy committees  
            would increase significantly.  In addition, it is likely that  
            the workload for the Legislative Analyst's Office, Legislative  
            Counsel, and the Chief Clerk's Office would also increase  
            significantly. 








                                                                  AB 2466
                                                                  Page  2


          2)The Legislature currently spends approximately $30 million per  
            year to staff policy committees in both the Senate and the  
            Assembly.  If this legislation caused a 25% increase in  
            workload it would require a $7.5 million (GF) increase or  
            redirection from other areas of the Legislature's budget. 

            The governor's 2010-11 proposed budget includes over $3  
            million and 22 personnel, including 14 attorneys, for OAL to  
            review all proposed state regulations. 

          3)Unknown, but likely significant costs for the OAL if the  
            90-day delay in regulations causes more departments to use the  
            emergency regulations process. 

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale  . According to the author's office, "California  
            delegates much of its lawmaking authority to unelected  
            administrative bodies that promulgate regulations without  
            regard for the broader impact of those regulations on the  
            state and the economy. Constituents feel that the people they  
            elected to represent them are not the ones making the  
            decisions that impact them on a daily basis." The author  
            further contends that legislators are frustrated that  
            regulations are approved that run counter to the intent of the  
            Legislature, with little opportunity for legislative input.  

            This bill would delay the effective date of regulations from  
            30 to 90 days and would require policy committees to review  
            each regulation adopted and recommend whether it be repealed.   
            Presumably, this would provide the Legislature with more input  
            into the regulatory process.
           
          2)Funding for the State Legislature  . In 1990, California voters  
            passed Proposition 140 which imposed term limits for  
            legislators and established a funding formula for the  
            Legislature's budget. Under that formula, funding for the  
            Legislature was reduced by 38% and expenditures were limited  
            to $950,000 per member or 80% of the amount of money expended  
            for the prior fiscal year, whichever is less.  For each  
            subsequent fiscal year, the funding level is adjusted by an  
            established formula. Therefore, the Legislature operates  
            within a capped funding system and any additional workload  
            imposed on the Legislature must be absorbed within those  








                                                                  AB 2466
                                                                  Page  3

            resources. 

           3)Related Legislation  . AB 2529 (Fuentes) of 2010, revises a  
            regulation's effective date from 30 to 60 days after the  
            filing date with the Secretary of State. This bill is  
            currently pending in this committee.

            AB 2652 (Niello), 2010, requires a standing committee with  
            jurisdiction over a state agency that proposes a regulation  
            costing with costs exceeding $10 million, to hold an  
            informational hearing regarding the proposed regulation.  This  
            bill is pending in the Assembly Rules Committee.

            AB 3511 (Jones; Chapter 1306, Statutes of 2002) requires state  
            agencies proposing to adopt or amend any administrative  
            regulation to assess the potential for adverse economic impact  
            on California business enterprises and individuals, and to  
            avoid the imposition of unnecessary or unreasonable  
            regulations or reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance  
            requirements.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081