BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
SCA 7 (Yee)
Hearing Date: 5/26/2011 Amended: 4/13/2011
Consultant: Maureen Ortiz Policy Vote: Jud: 5-0 E&CA:
5-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SCA 7, if approved by the voters, will require
every public body to provide a public notice of its meetings and
disclose any action taken.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Ballot costs ---------one-time costs of
approximately $264--- General
Public notification ----------unknown potentially
millions in
nonreimbursable local costs------------- Local
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
The printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure
on the statewide ballot are approximately $66,000 per page. The
estimates shown above reflect four ballot pages for this
initiative, but actual costs could be higher depending on the
extent of the title, summary, context, and proponents and
opponents arguments.
SCA 7, if approved by the voters, will amend the California
Constitution to provide that the public has the right of access
to notices of public body meetings and disclosure of actions
taken. Costs associated with constitutional requirements are
not reimbursable by the state (Government Code Section 17514).
Therefore, public agency costs associated with meeting notices
and disclosure would not be reimbursable and subject to
suspension by a Budget Act.
In 1961, the Ralph M. Brown Act was enacted which provided
public access to local public agency information. In 1967, the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act provided public access to state
public agency information, and in 1989, the Grunsky-Burton Open
Meeting Act provided public access to legislative information.
The Brown Act was amended in 1975 to provide disclosure of
public agency acts taken during closed meetings, and in 1986 it
SCA 7 (Yee)
Page 3
was amended again to provide for the posting of public agency
agendas.
In 1986, 1988, and 2001, the Commission on State Mandates ruled
that state and local agencies could be reimbursed by the state
for monies spent complying with the Open Meeting and Brown Acts.
Recently, this ruling was upheld in California School Boards
Association v. State of California (2009) 171 Cal. App.4th 1183.
Under the California Constitution, reimbursable mandates, such
as the notice and disclosure requirements contained in the Open
Meetings and Brown Acts, are subject to the Budget Act each
year. If the Budget Act does not appropriate funding to cover
the reimbursable mandate, the mandate is suspended (Cal. Const.,
art XIIIB, Sec 6). The 2010 Budget Act did not appropriate any
funding for compliance with the Open Meeting and Brown Acts,
therefore, the Department of Finance has advised public agencies
that those acts are suspended. Although state and local
agencies may opt to comply with the notice and reporting
requirements, they are not legally required to do so. According
to the Commission on State Mandates, the requirement to
reimburse local agencies for open meeting act provisions is
approximately $20 million per year. Under the provisions of SCA
7, those costs will be borne by local governments in the future.
The Open Meeting and Brown Acts will be used to implement the
provisions of this measure. SCA 7 will require that public
agencies provide notices of meetings and disclosure to the
public of actions taken, but does not define how much notice or
what level of disclosure is required. Therefore, the Open
Meeting and Brown Acts will provide guidance to public agencies
about specific notice and disclosure requirements including
procedures for emergency meetings.