BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1657
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
William W. Monning, Chair
AB 1657 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: March 22, 2012
SUBJECT : Traffic offenses: additional penalty: spinal cord
injury research.
SUMMARY : Adds an additional penalty assessment of $1 for every
violation of the Vehicle Code, except parking violations, to
provide support to the spinal cord injury research program at
the University of California (UC). Specifically, this bill :
1)Adds an additional penalty assessment of $1 for all Vehicle
Code violations, except parking offenses.
2)Permits UC to create within the existing Roman Reed Spinal
Cord Injury Research Fund (Roman Reed Fund), the Roman Reed
Spinal Cord Injury Research Penalty Account to receive the
penalty assessments referenced in 1) above.
3)Requires penalties imposed and collected to be deposited with
the county treasurer. Requires the county treasurer to
transfer the moneys to the State Treasurer, to be made
available upon appropriation by the Legislature, for
allocation to the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research
Penalty Account within the Roman Reed Fund already existing
within UC.
4)Permits the county treasurer, prior to the transfer of funds
to the State Treasurer, to withhold a sufficient amount
necessary to reimburse the county and the courts for their
actual, reasonable, and necessary costs associated with
administering the provisions in this bill. Permits an
accounting report detailing these costs to be sent by the
county to the UC Regents.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that all fines and forfeitures imposed and collected
for crimes, other than parking offenses, resulting from a
filing in a court to be deposited with the county treasurer
and distributed monthly, as required.
AB 1657
Page 2
2)Establishes the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act and
authorizes UC to establish a spinal cord injury research fund
independent of the State Treasury, to accept public and
private funds for the purpose of injury research programs and
grants.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
committee.
COMMENTS :
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, there are
600,000 Californians living with paralysis. The author argues
that nearly 46% of all reported spinal cord injuries are from
vehicle accidents and the number increases to 56% for
children. The author maintains that the disability, loss of
earning power, and loss of personal freedom resulting from
spinal cord injury is devastating for the injured individual,
and creates a huge financial burden for the State. The author
asserts that the associated rise in health care costs and lost
income potential for those with paralysis is well over $1
billion. The author indicates that to improve the quality of
life of paralyzed individuals, the Roman Reed Spinal Cord
Injury Research Act was created in 2000 and renewed in 2005
and takes advantage of California's outstanding medical
research institutions to fund promising research-driven
therapies that have the potential to enhance the functionality
of people with paralysis. The author indicates that State
funding for the Roman Reed Fund has been eliminated,
jeopardizing the research that this program undertakes in
spinal cord injuries and paralysis. According to the author,
the state funding has leveraged roughly $60 million in federal
research funds over the years. This bill, the author
maintains, will provide the critical funding needed to make
this program viable.
2)ROMAN REED SPINAL CORD INJURY RESEARCH PROGRAM . AB 750
(Dutra), Chapter 777, Statutes of 2000, established the Roman
Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act to support scientific
research related to spinal cord injuries. The original
five-year program was renewed for an additional five years
through AB 1794 (Dutra), Chapter 414, Statutes of 2004. Over
its 10-year history, the fund provided approximately $1.5
million per year for spinal cord injury research in the State
of California. The Roman Reed Spinal Cord Research funds were
AB 1657
Page 3
allocated to UC, and administered by the Reeve-Irvine Research
Center (Center) at UC Irvine.
According to a report produced by the Roman Reed Spinal Cord
Injury Program, the Center serves as the hub of UC and
statewide on spinal cord injury research. The Center
encourages cooperation and collaboration of scientists around
the world seeking treatments for spinal cord dysfunction
produced by injury or disease. The core of the Center is the
research laboratory of approximately 6,000 square feet located
in UC, Irvine, School of Medicine. Faculty housed in the
Center use state-of-the-art molecular biological, cellular
biological, and genetic techniques to study responses of the
nervous system to injury and basic cellular and molecular
processes that are involved in nerve regeneration and repair.
The Center also trains graduate and postdoctoral students and
provides hands-on training to an international group of
students, medical doctors and professors wishing to learn how
to carry out spinal cord injury research.
3)EXISTING PENALTY ASSESSMENTS . With State and local budget
constraints in recent years, penalty assessments have become a
way for California and its counties to raise needed funds.
Currently, penalty assessments are 270% of a base fine, with a
flat $103 added to each fine. For example, a $500 criminal
fine with current maximum assessments is now $1,953.
Current law provides for a series of intertwined and complex
penalty assessments. As noted by a 2006 California Research
Bureau report (CRB Report) entitled "Who Pays For Penalty
Assessment Programs in California," California has dedicated
funding streams for over 269 separate court fines, fees,
forfeitures, surcharges and penalty assessments that may be
levied on offenders and violators. The CRB found that 86% of
penalty assessments are paid by Vehicle Code violators. The
CRB Report also reports that high penalty assessments may
result in higher rates of default by guilty parties with some
offenders spending time in jail, or accepting a plea for
community service, rather than paying fines and penalty
assessments. CRB states the end result may be that a
substantial amount of fines, fees, and revenue is not
collected. Current major assessments include:
a) A State penalty assessment of $10 for every $10 on every
fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the
AB 1657
Page 4
courts for all criminal offenses, including vehicle
offenses except parking fines. Of the funds collected, 70%
goes to the State and 30% to counties. The State portion
is distributed as follows:
i) Fish and Game Preservation Fund: .33%;
ii) Restitution Fund:
32.02%;
iii) Peace Officers
Training Fund: 23.99%;
iv) Driver
Training Penalty Assessment Fund: 25.70%;
v) Correction's Training Fund: 7.88%;
vi) Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders
Fund: 78%, not to exceed $850,000;
vii) Victim-Witness Assistance Fund: 8.64%; and,
viii) Traumatic Brain Injury Fund: .66%.
a) A county penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 on every
fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the
courts for criminal offenses, including vehicle offenses,
except parking fines. Proceeds are distributed to funds
established by county boards of supervisors: Courthouse
Construction, Criminal Justice Facilities Construction,
Automated Fingerprint Identification, Emergency Medical
Services (EMS), and DNA;
b) A state surcharge of 20% on every base fine collected by
the court, deposited in the General Fund;
c) A State Court Facilities Construction penalty assessment
of up to $5 for every $10 upon every fine, penalty, or
forfeiture collected by the courts for criminal offenses;
d) A court security fee of $40 on every conviction for a
criminal offense for court security;
e) A $4 penalty assessment on every $10 in fines and
forfeitures resulting from criminal and traffic offenses
and dedicates these revenues to state and local governments
for DNA identification and databank implementation;
f) The EMS Fund provides supplemental financing for local
emergency services via a $2 penalty assessment for each $10
of traffic fines;
AB 1657
Page 5
g) An additional 20% assessment of $2 for every $10 on
every fine, penalty, forfeiture or criminal offenses and
all offenses dealing with the Vehicle Code except parking
offenses for EMS, in addition to the EMS Fund;
h) An additional $30 for every felony or misdemeanor
criminal conviction and $35 for every criminal infraction,
including traffic offenses, but not including parking
offenses, for the Immediate and Critical Needs Account
within the existing State Court Facilities Construction
Fund; and,
i) Emergency air ambulance transportation assessment of $4
for every Vehicle Code violation, except parking, for
supplemental payments for air ambulance providers who serve
Medi-Cal patients.
4)JUDICIAL COUNCIL EVALUATING PENALTY ASSESSMENTS . Pursuant to
a 2010 Budget Trailer Bill, the Judicial Council has convened
a task force to identify and evaluate the fees, fines,
forfeitures, penalties, and assessments currently in place.
Task force recommendations are likely to be released this
summer.
5)SUPPORT . UC and the University of Alabama write in support
that the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act has been
of enormous importance in terms of advancing research on
spinal cord injury and bringing new funding to the State from
the National Institutes of Health and other entities. UC
maintains that promising research-driven therapies could
greatly improve the quality of life and functional capacity of
individuals with spinal cord injuries. The University of
Alabama writes that the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research
Act has been a great inspiration in Alabama and across the
world and that efforts are currently underway to model
California in the Alabama State Legislature to pass the TJ
Atchison Spinal Cord Injury Act.
Members of the biotechnology community write in support of this
measure and applaud the model of the Roman Reed Fund for its
success in advancing California-based research and attracting
more external investment to the State.
6)OPPOSITION . The Automobile Club of Southern California
AB 1657
Page 6
(ACSC), the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA),
and the California Catholic Conference, Inc. (CCC) write in
opposition to this bill. ACSC states the original purpose of
penalty assessments, when established in the 1950's, was to
fund drivers training in public schools. However, over time
the assessments have increased exponentially and today fund a
plethora of programs unrelated to traffic safety. ACSC
maintains that although some people involved in motor vehicle
collisions sustain spinal cord injuries, there are a number of
other causes such as violent crimes, equestrian and other
sporting activities, or general illness. ACSC asserts that
while spinal cord injury research is a necessary and laudable
effort to support, funding the program through assessments on
Vehicle Code violations places a disproportionate burden upon
the motoring public to achieve this goal.
The CPDA writes that while there are individual criminal acts
that result in spinal cord injury, there is no nexus between
such injury and all of the crimes to which the $1 assessment
would attach. CPDA asserts that in the cases where such
injury is caused by crime the convicted individual can be made
to pay restitution to the victim for the harm caused,
including medical care, rehabilitation, and lost wages. CPDA
maintains that requiring every defendant to pay such a fine
attenuates the connection culpability and penalty. According
to CPDA, the punishment should fit the crime and should not
include a revenue raising measure. CPDA indicates that
penalty assessments have proliferated wildly over the past few
decades, to the point where a typical total fine is now triple
or quadruple the base fine. CPDA argues that an inevitable
side effect of these ballooning fines is that fewer and fewer
criminal defendants can afford to pay them and, when
defendants cannot pay, the fine goes uncollected.
The CCC writes in opposition that this bill would divert
enhanced traffic fine penalties to the funding of immoral and
scientifically unproven embryonic stem cell research instead
of much needed public safety concerns where customarily monies
generated by violations of public safety are targeted. CCC
maintains that with the high employment numbers and the budget
deficit facing our State, levying more fines on Californians
in order to divert them to this type of research is both
morally and fiscally questionable.
7)RELATED AND PREVIOUS LEGISLATION .
AB 1657
Page 7
a) AB 190 (Wieckowski) of 2011, proposed an additional $3
penalty assessment for every violation of the vehicle code,
except parking violations, to provide support to the spinal
cord injury research program at UC. AB 190 was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
b) AB 1931 (Torrico), Chapter 457, Statutes of 2010,
eliminated the sunset date for the Roman Reed Spinal Cord
Injury Research Act and specified that the Roam Reed Spinal
Cord Injury Research Fund be located at UC, rather than the
State Treasury.
c) AB 1794 extended the sunset date for the Roman Reed
Spinal Cord Injury Research Act to January 1, 2011, and
extended the sunset date for the Traumatic Brain Injury
pilot project from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2012.
d) AB 750 established the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury
Research Act and created the Roman Reed Fund within the
State Treasury.
8)DOUBLE REFERRAL . This bill has been double referred. It
passed the Assembly Committee on Public Safety with a vote of
4-2 on March 27, 2012.
9)POLICY CONCERNS .
a) The physical, emotional, and monetary devastation that
spinal cord injuries cause individuals and their families
cannot be understated and the innovation and strides in
research that have taken place through the great work that
is being done as a result of the Roman Reed Spinal Cord
Injury Research Act should be commended. However, there
are a number of disabilities caused by Vehicle Code
violations. The author may wish to explain, from a policy
perspective, why spinal cord injuries should be elevated
above any other devastating injury that is the result of a
Vehicle Code violation?
b) According to the CRB Report, initially, penalty
assessments were based on the concept of an "abuser's fee,"
in which those who broke certain laws helped to finance
programs related to decreasing those violations. For
example, drug and alcohol offenses and domestic violence
AB 1657
Page 8
offenses have special assessments or fines that directly
fund county programs designed to prevent those violations.
Over the years, the intended purpose for penalty
assessments has been expanded to include the following: a)
support for other county programs; b) providing
unreimbursed medical care or direct services related to a
violation; or, c) support for the adjudication of those
offenses such as through court house construction. The
approach to fund research for the treatment and cure for
spinal cord injuries which may result from a Vehicle Code
violation is another policy departure and unprecedented.
The author may wish to explain why such a departure is
warranted, particularly when the existing penalty
assessments appear to be so burdensome?
c) The Judicial Council has established a task force to
review and evaluate fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties,
and assessments currently in place. The task force is
expected to complete their evaluation and report final
recommendations to the Legislature this summer. Is this
measure premature? Should the Committee consider adding
additional penalty assessments prior to the completion of
the Judicial Council's evaluation of the current penalties?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Boston Scientific
California Healthcare Institute
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
StemCyte
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation
University of California, Office of the President
Several Individuals
Opposition
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared by : Tanya Robinson-Taylor / HEALTH / (916)
319-2097
AB 1657
Page 9