BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 474 (Stone)
As Amended January 6, 2014
Hearing Date: June 17, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
BCP:rm
SUBJECT
California Coastal Commission: Ex Parte Communications:
Disclosure Forms
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires members of the California Coastal
Commission to disclose and make public any ex parte
communication by providing a full report of the communication.
This bill would require the disclosure form for that report to
additionally include: (1) the identity of the person on whose
behalf the communication was made; (2) the identity of all
persons present during the communication; and (3) a complete,
comprehensive description of the content of the ex parte
communication, including a complete set of all text and graphic
material that was part of the communication.
BACKGROUND
The California Coastal Commission (Commission), initially
created by voter initiative and permanently established by the
California Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), seeks to protect the
state's natural and scenic resources along the California coast.
The Commission's primary responsibility is to implement the
provisions of the Act, including regulation of development in
the coastal zone - the Commission's core program activities
include issuing and enforcing permits for coastal development.
The Act further finds and declares that "in a democracy, due
process, fairness, and the responsible exercise of authority are
all essential elements of good government which require that the
public's business be conducted in public meetings, with limited
(more)
AB 474 (Stone)
Page 2 of ?
exceptions for sensitive personnel matters and litigation, and
on the official record." (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 30320.)
Consistent with that finding, the Act requires all Commission
members to report "ex parte communications" (communications made
between a member and an interested person not at an official
proceeding or on the record). Those reports must disclose the
communication to the public by providing a full report of the
communication that the executive director is required to place
in the public record. To facilitate disclosure of ex parte
communications, the Commission is required to adopt standard
disclosure forms for reporting ex parte communications. This
bill would clarify the content of those forms by requiring them
to additionally contain the identity of the person on whose
behalf the communication was made, the identity of all persons
present during the communication, and a complete, comprehensive
description of the content of the ex parte communication, as
specified.
The provisions of this bill were approved by the Senate
Committee on Natural Resources and Water on June 10, 2014, on a
vote of 9-0.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Act), creates
the California Coastal Commission (Commission), which is
responsible for implementation of the Act and is designated as
the state coastal zone planning and management agency. The Act
further finds and declares that the duties, responsibilities,
and quasi-judicial actions of the Commission are sensitive and
extremely important for the well-being of current and future
generations and that the public interest and principles of
fundamental fairness and due process of law require that the
Commission conduct its affairs in an open, objective, and
impartial manner free of undue influence and the abuse of power
and authority. (Pub. Resources Code Secs. 30300, 30301, 30320,
30330.)
Existing law requires commissioners to disclose and make public
any ex parte communication by providing a full report of the
communication to the executive director within seven days of the
communication. Existing law also requires the Commission to
adopt standard disclosure forms for reporting ex parte
communications, which shall include, but not be limited to: (1)
the date, time, and location of the communication; (2) the
identity of the person or persons initiating and the persons
AB 474 (Stone)
Page 3 of ?
receiving the communication; and (3) a complete description of
the content of the communication, as specified. (Pub. Resources
Code Sec. 30324.)
Existing law defines an ex parte communication as any oral or
written communication between a member of the Commission and an
interested person about a matter within the Commission's
jurisdiction. The definition excludes communications that occur
in a public hearing, workshop, or other official proceeding,
communications limited entirely to procedural issues, and
communications on the record at an agency proceeding. (Pub.
Resources Code Sec. 30322.)
Existing law defines a "matter within the commission's
jurisdiction" as any permit action, federal consistency review,
appeal, local coastal program, port or public works plan, or any
other quasi-judicial matter requiring Commission action. (Pub.
Resources Code Sec. 30321.)
Existing law defines an interested person as: 1) any applicant,
applicant's agent or representative, or participant in a
commission proceeding; 2) any person with a financial interest
in a matter before the Commission, or his or her agent or
employee; or 3) a representative acting on behalf of any civic,
environmental, neighborhood, business, labor, trade, or similar
organization who intends to influence the decision of a
commissioner. (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 30323.)
This bill would additionally require the Commission's standard
disclosure forms for reporting ex parte communications to
include: (1) the identity of the person on whose behalf the
communication was made; and (2) the identity of all persons
present during the communication. The bill would also clarify
that the forms must include a complete, comprehensive
description of the content of the ex parte communication,
including a complete set of all text and graphic material that
was part of the communication.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
This bill [will] put into statute a requirement for
disclosure of information that is not currently required to
AB 474 (Stone)
Page 4 of ?
be disclosed. Specifically, it requires disclosure of
non-initiating participants at ex parte meetings so that
this information becomes part of the public record.
Without the change to law that AB 474 provides, the public
does not have access to all of the information that would
provide an accurate explanation for communication between
[California Coastal] Commission (Commission) members and
others. Public record of ex parte communications with
Commission members is important because the Commission is
tasked with operating in an open, transparent manner. This
measure is a simple fix to ensure greater transparency for
ex parte communications with Commission members.
2. Importance of disclosing ex parte communications
Under existing law, members of the Commission are prohibited
from conducting an "ex parte" communication unless the member
fully discloses and makes public the communication by providing
a full report. "Ex parte" communications are generally defined
as a communication between a member of the Commission and an
interested person about a matter within the Commission's
jurisdiction that does not occur in an official proceeding or on
the official record. Members must make a full report within
seven days after the communication (or on the record if it is
within seven days of the next commission hearing), and the
executive director is required to place any report of an ex
parte communication in the public record. The current
procedures seek to provide a degree of transparency so that the
public is fully aware when persons with an interest in a matter
before the Commission seek to have conversations with members
outside of an official proceeding.
This bill seeks to further clarify those procedures by requiring
the standard disclosure form adopted by the Commission to
additionally include: (1) the identity of the person on whose
behalf the communication was made; (2) the identity of all
persons present during the communication; and (3) a complete,
comprehensive description of the content of the ex parte
communication, including a complete set of all text and graphic
material that was part of the communication. As a result, this
bill seeks to ensure that the public is aware of the identity of
an interested person involved in an ex parte communication with
a Commission member, if there were other individuals present
during the ex parte communication, and that a complete set of
all text or graphic material that was part of the communication
is also reported. Consistent with the codified findings and
AB 474 (Stone)
Page 5 of ?
declarations in the Act, the proposed additional disclosures
appear to further the goal "that the commission conduct its
affairs in an open, objective, and impartial manner free of
undue influence and the abuse of power and authority." (Pub.
Resources Code Sec. 30320(a).)
The Surfrider Foundation, in support, observes that this bill
would provide greater transparency for ex parte communications
with members of the Commission and that: "Current law does not
require disclosure of information about all communication
participants. This simple fix to the law will place into
statute a requirement that information about all participants in
ex parte communications be disclosed. The Commission manages
[some] of the most expensive real estate on the [planet] and
therefore it is critical the ex parte communications are open
and transparent to ensure protection of coastal resources, as
required by the . . . Act."
Support : CALPIRG; North County Watch; Surfrider Foundation
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 2725 (Laird, 2004) would have prohibited an ex parte
communication between a member of the California Coastal
Commission (Commission) and an interested party, as defined,
relating to a cease and desist order or a restoration order.
This bill failed passage on the Senate Floor.
AB 771 (Salda�a, 2005) would have set new standards governing ex
parte communications by the members of the Commission and
required the Commission to put all staff reports for a public
hearing on the Commission's Internet Web site prior to the
hearing. AB 771 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Prior Vote :
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)
AB 474 (Stone)
Page 6 of ?
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 16, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************