BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2100
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENTAL
EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Susan Davis, Chair
AB 2100 (Dutra) - As Amended: March 29, 2000
SUBJECT: California Electronic Government and Information Act.
SUMMARY: Establishes the California Internet Portal Management
Authority to oversee the development of a single state Internet
portal, repeals provisions requiring the posting of specified
information on the Internet by state agencies and departments,
and requires the Director of the Department of Information
Technology (DOIT), also known as the Chief Information Officer
of the State (CIO), to convene an Electronic Government Task
Force, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Eliminates numerous state laws requiring agencies and
departments to post specified information on their respective
Internet websites. These requirements currently include
information about individuals licensed by the Department of
Consumer Affairs, requirements that state Internet sites
provide easy access for citizen complaints, limitations on how
state agencies are to utilize electronically collected
personal information, required free access to the California
Code of Regulations and other specified provisions. Many of
these laws are recast under the auspices of the bill's
framework.
2)Establishes the California Internet Portal Management
Authority (Authority) in DOIT, managed by the Director of
DOIT. The bill makes numerous findings and declarations
relating to the wisdom of using Internet technology to provide
more efficient and effective delivery of services to
California citizens.
3)States that there shall only be one domain of the State of
California on the Internet, to include all state agencies, the
legislative and judicial branches and all entities that had
been identified as part of the domain of the State of
California as of January 1, 2000.
4)Forbids any state agency, except the Secretary of State, from
posting information on the Internet unless a proposal for
AB 2100
Page 2
posting has been approved by the Authority, as specified. The
Authority has 10 business days to determine whether a proposal
is consistent with specified rules, regulations and technical
criteria overseeing the Authority's workings.
5)Requires the CIO to convene an Electronic Government Task
Force (Task Force), made up of individuals from within state
government, as determined by the CIO. The Task Force is to
convene a business advisory council made up of private sector
individuals, as specified, and the advisory council is to
develop a strategic plan for the development of a "policy to
create an enterprise system environment for all electronic
government initiatives" by December 31, 2001.
6)Allows the Authority to post information on the Internet with
or without the prior approval of that agency if the Authority
is implementing the policy recommendations of the Task Force,
as specified.
7)States that the Authority shall post information on the
Internet, or direct a state agency to do so, "should there be
an appropriation in the annual Budget Act directing the
posting of specific content on the Internet."
8)Requires the Authority to develop an Internet Security Policy
by December 31, 2002.
9)Requires the Authority to submit a quarterly letter to the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee with a complete listing of
all posting proposals submitted, their cost and other
specified information.
10)Details the Authority's Internet posting and privacy
requirements and restrictions, as specified. These include a
prohibition on the sale or distribution of electronically
collected personal information by state agencies unless prior
written permission is received from the user.
11)Requires the Authority to adopt regulations for state agency
use of digital signatures by January 1, 2002.
12)Requires the Authority to adopt rules and regulations that
authorize public entities to accept electronic payments for
any tax, assessment, rate, fee, charge, rent, interest,
penalty, or any other account receivable by December 31, 2001.
AB 2100
Page 3
13)Requires the Controller to send to the Authority by November
1, 2001, guidelines for the adoption of electronic payment
rules and regulations, as specified.
14)Deletes explicit references requiring the Public Utilities
Commission to publish its decisions and resolutions on the
Internet, as specified.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes DOIT and grants it general oversight of state
information technology programs, as specified.
2)Requires the Secretary of State to issue and maintain rules
and regulations for the use of digital signatures (Digital
Signature Act of 1995) and establishes the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act.
3)Upholds the provisions of the Public Records Act and the
Information Practices Act as they apply to statutes requiring
or restricting specific Internet-related activities by state
agencies.
4)Establishes specific privacy and security guidelines for state
agencies to adhere to when involved in Internet-related
activities.
5)Requires that numerous departments and agencies post specific
information and content on the Internet.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown, potentially significant, General Fund
administrative costs to DOIT associated with the creation and
ongoing activities of the Authority and the Task Force. Unknown
administrative and programmatic savings to state agencies
through the use of standardized digital signature and electronic
payment infrastructures.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of Bill
According to the author's office, AB 2100 will provide a
"framework for state agencies to begin to reevaluate their
interaction with citizens, businesses, and other government
AB 2100
Page 4
agencies through the power of Internet technology, ultimately
enabling the state to provide more efficient and effective
state services." The author's office indicates that the state
currently does not utilize a single framework for the
development of its websites, resulting in 115 separate agency
ideas about what "e-government" is and how such initiatives
should be implemented.
The author additionally notes that AB 2100 is modeled after
legislation enacted in other states such as Arizona,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Utah and Washington. The objective
of the bill is to enact a policy where "citizens should be
able to access information and services they require from and
initial contact point" with a state.
2)Under Guise of "E-Government" Efficiency, Does This Bill
Simply Create Another Layer of Bureaucracy?
While the author's goals and objectives seem laudable, it
could be argued that the bill simply creates another layer of
bureaucracy by requiring state agencies and departments to
first gain permission from the Authority created in the bill
prior to posting information on their Internet site. While it
is important that DOIT play a coordinating role in seeing that
information is easily obtainable and usable, it does not seem
appropriate that the Authority would be able to post
information on behalf of a state agency without the approval
or knowledge of that state agency (page 12, lines 18-26).
That seems to be a possible prescription for confusion.
The author should address this general concern, and the
committee may wish to amend the bill accordingly if it
believes that it could be seen as an additional bureaucratic
layer.
3)Bill Would Seem to Significantly Expand DOIT Authority; DOIT
May be Better Off Focusing on Core Competencies for Time Being
The bill could be characterized as a significant expansion of
the authority of DOIT. Up to this point DOIT has been focused
more on overseeing major information technology procurement
projects and heading up the state effort to combat possible
Y2K disasters. Indeed, the Governor's January Budget stated
that DOIT "is currently developing a new organizational
structure and Information Technology Model which will be
AB 2100
Page 5
designed to more fully maximize the authority" granted under
its authorizing legislation. The model is to be finished in
the spring of this year. Given this and the numerous problems
that high-profile information technology procurement projects
have had in California, it may be more appropriate to focus
DOIT's energies on these projects. DOIT should be allowed to
develop their new model before requiring all state agencies to
ask their permission prior to posting information on their
Internet sites.
The author should address this issue before the committee, and
the committee may wish to amend the bill accordingly.
4)Related Legislation
AB 2163 (Cunneen) - Would make various changes to DOIT
authorizing statute, including establishing one Internet
portal.
AB 2934 (Information Technology Committee) - Clean-up
measure to further define the ability of the Department of
Motor Vehicles to proceed with its on-line automobile
registration project.
SB 1371 (Sher) - Would expand the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act to include a definition of transferable
records, specify who has control of a transferable record,
and establish the rights and obligations of a person who
has control of a transferable record.
SB 1750 (Murray) - Would authorize DOIT to provide for
the implementation of a single Internet portal by January
1, 2006. Requires the Franchise Tax Board to submit to the
Legislature a plan for electronic filing of returns for and
electronic payment of every state tax.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
SGI
Opposition
None on file
AB 2100
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by: Robert Herrell / C.P., G.E. & E.D. /
(916) 319-2076