BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2100
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENTAL
EFFICIENCY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Susan Davis, Chair
AB 2100 (Dutra) - As Amended: May 15, 2000
SUBJECT: California Electronic Government and Information Act.
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Information Technology
(DOIT) to oversee the development and maintenance 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 DOIT 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)Requires DOIT to administer, manage, maintain, and establish
policies regarding the technical use of the Internet domain of
the state of California. 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)States that it is not the intent of the Legislature to create
a central authority to review the content proposed for posting
on the Internet, nor is it legislative intent to require state
AB 2100
Page 2
agencies to apply or make formal requests to a central state
Internet authority, as specified.
5)States that DOIT shall develop technical criteria and policies
for proposed postings on the Internet and that DOIT shall
create and make available to all state agencies a "checklist"
associated with the technical criteria and policies
established by the bill. The checklist shall include Internet
posting and privacy requirements and restrictions, digital
signature regulations, and electronic payment rules and
regulations, in addition to other specified information.
6)Forbids any state agency from establishing a location to post
information on the Internet unless both a proposal for posting
and a completed checklist have been submitted to DOIT. DOIT
has 10 days after receipt of this information to make a
determination as to whether the proposal meets statutory and
regulatory requirements. The Secretary of State is exempted
from this requirement as it relates to the provisions of the
Political Reform Act of 1974.
7)Authorizes DOIT to "deny the posting of information" on the
Internet if a state agency's proposal for posting does not
meet the requirements of this bill.
8)States that a state agency "shall post information on the
Internet, should there be an appropriation in the annual
Budget Act directing the posting of specific content on the
Internet."
9)Requires DOIT to approve for posting all information on the
Internet developed by Legislative Counsel pursuant to
specified statutes.
10)Requires DOIT to submit a quarterly letter to the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee with a complete listing of all
proposals submitted, the determination made by DOIT, the cost
of implementing and maintaining each proposal and the
enterprise solutions associated with each proposal.
11)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
AB 2100
Page 3
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.
12)Requires DOIT to develop an Internet Security Policy by
December 31, 2002.
13)Details DOIT'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.
14)Requires DOIT to adopt regulations for state agency use of
digital signatures by January 1, 2002.
15)Requires DOIT 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.
16)Requires the Controller to send to DOIT by November 1, 2001,
guidelines for the adoption of electronic payment rules and
regulations, as specified.
17)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
AB 2100
Page 4
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 administration
and supervision of posting Internet information. Additional
unknown, potentially significant, General Fund costs relating to
the establishment of the Task Force. Unknown possible long-term
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
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)May 15 Amendments Intended to Resolve Issues Raised in May 2
Hearing But Fall Short
The bill's most recent set of amendments remove the Internet
Portal Management Authority previously created by the bill.
AB 2100
Page 5
However, most of the previous authority's functions are merely
transferred over to DOIT, within which the authority
previously resided. In place of the authority is a checklist
that state agencies are to compete and send to DOIT, along
with a formal proposal for posting. Failure of a state agency
to complete the checklist and a posting proposal would be a
violation of state law.
While the amendments also include legislative intent
statements indicating that the bill is not intended to create
a central authority to review state agency Internet content it
does not appear that the practical effect of the amendments
differs from the previous version of the bill.
3)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 DOIT 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 DOIT
would have authority as broad as that envisioned by the bill.
4)Bill Would Seem to Significantly Expand DOIT Authority; DOIT
May be Better Off Focusing on Core Competencies for Time Being
The bill is clearly 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 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.
AB 2100
Page 6
5)Related Legislation
AB 2163 (Cunneen), stalled at the Assembly Information
Technology Committee, would make various changes to DOIT
authorizing statute, including establishing one Internet
portal.
AB 2934 (Information Technology Committee), awaiting
hearing at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, is a
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), on the Senate floor, 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), stalled at the Senate Governmental
Organization Committee, would authorize DOIT to provide for
the implementation of a single Internet portal by January
1, 2006. The bill also 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
Analysis Prepared by: Robert Herrell / C.P., G.E. & E.D. /
(916) 319-2076