Administration of Justice 04/22/2011
Brown Act
AB 392 (Alejo) – Oppose
As Amended on April 14, 2011
AB 392, by Assembly Member Luis Alejo, would amend Government
Code Sections 54954.2 and 54957.5 of the Brown Act. Specifically,
the recently amended measure seeks to require a local entity that
develops or receives any staff-generated reports related to a
posted agenda item in the time period following the posting of
the 72-hour notice to post that information on its website.
Further, it would prohibit the local legislative body from acting
on any matter for which staff-generated reports were received by
the local legislative body after the 72-hour notice, unless that
material is disclosed as specified in the measure. It also sets
similarly intended conditions for those jurisdictions that do not
currently maintain a website.
CSAC, along with a number of local government stakeholders, have
serious operational and fiscal concerns regarding AB 392 and
counties’ ability to implement the proposed changes to the Brown
Act. Primary among those concerns are the following:
- Costs/capacity. Some counties are unable to post all staff-generated documents on-line due to the hosting capacity of their computer systems and the costs associated with upgrading a county’s computer system to comply the posting requirements contemplated in AB 392. Further, there could be significant manpower associated with the scanning or electronic conversion of documents to meet the bill’s requirements.
- No action trigger. In all likelihood, county staff would be expected to evaluate and, as a result of that analysis, perhaps amend staff reports based on information received from outside sources within the 72 hours prior to the local legislative body’s meeting. It is of concern that this action appears to trigger the provision of the bill that would prohibit a board from taking up a noticed item, regardless of the import or magnitude of the new or revised information provided by staff.
While we appreciate the time and attention the author and his
staff has accorded local government with concerns about this
measure, we regrettably have not been able to identify a workable
way to move forward. We do not dispute the policy objectives
behind the measure and, indeed, believe most counties — over time
and as technology evolves — will be able to meet the standards
contemplated in AB 392. For these reasons, CSAC, the Regional
Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) and the Urban Counties Caucus
(UCC) are jointly opposing the measure. CSAC encourages counties
to review AB 392 for county impacts and consider voicing your
opposition to AB 392 when it is heard in committee.
AB 392 will be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee
on April 27, 2011.
AB 582 (Pan) – Concerns
As Amended on April 14, 2011
AB 582, by Assembly Member Richard Pan, would amend Government
Code Section 54957.6 of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Specifically, the
measure would require a local board of supervisors to follow
specified notice requirements when a compensation increase above
five percent for specified unrepresented employee – including a
county’s chief administrative officer and his/her deputy – is to
come before the board for consideration.
Specifically, the measure would require two notices for such
compensation increases: first, a general notice for nonvoting and
discussion purposes and, subsequently, a second notice when the
local legislative body – and no less than 12 days after the first
notice – intends to vote for the increase. One of the measures
inspired by the Bell scandal, AB 582 is intended to allow for a
period of public evaluation of local government executives’
proposed compensation increases.
CSAC, along with a number of local government stakeholders
including RCRC, UCC, have raised concerns about both the utility
and practicality of the notice requirements. There are additional
technical questions about the specific employees to whom the
notice requirements would apply. CSAC encourages counties to
review AB 582 and provide their input when the measure is heard
in committee. The measure is sponsored by the State Controller’s
Office.
AB 582 will be heard on the special order of business in the
Assembly Local Government Committee on April 27, 2011.
AB 23 (Smyth) – Request for Comment
As Amended on April 14, 2011
AB 23, by Assembly Member Cameron Smyth, seeks to address a
practice that came to light in the City of Bell whereby a sitting
body reconstituted itself into other legislative bodies for
serial meetings and collected payment for each.
As amended, AB 23 would require – in instances where a
legislative body is convened simultaneously or serially as
another body constituted by at least a quorum of the original
sitting body – that an announcement be made prior to the
convening of the second meeting and any meeting thereafter
regarding the level of stipend or compensation provided.
Community Development Commissions would be exempted from this
requirement.
CSAC is very appreciative of the amendments offered by the
author’s office to address the operational difficulties that the
bill, as introduced, would have created. We encourage counties to
review the April 14 version of the measure to ensure that it is
technically and operationally feasible.
AB 23 will be heard on the special order of business in the
Assembly Local Government Committee on April 27, 2011.
SCA 7 (Yee and Jeffries) – Request for Comment
As Amended on April 13, 2011
SCA 7, by Senator Yee, seeks to amend the Constitution by
requiring public agencies, in addition to posting a notice for
public meetings, to also post actions taken at those public
meetings.
SCA 7 seeks to remove the state’s requirement to reimburse Brown
Act claims filed by local governments by putting a constitutional
amendment before the voters that seeks their approval to require
local governments to post public meeting notices as well as
actions taken at public meetings. By making the requirement voter
approved, it would free the state of its obligation to reimburse
counties for compliance with Brown Act notice requirements.
The measure is sponsored by the California Newspaper Publishers
Association and will be heard in the Senate Elections and
Constitutional Amendments Committee on May 3.
Local Fees
AB 1053 (Gordon) – Sponsor/Support
As Proposed to be Amended
AB 1053, by Assembly Member Rich Gordon, would authorize counties
to increase fees for several specified services including
laboratory analysis for specified alcohol and drug related
offenses, juvenile public defender registration, and birth and
death record requests. This measure is sponsored by CSAC.
It is important to note that the Assembly Member Gordon has
agreed to amend the measure as it relates to the alcohol and drug
lab fee components. In its introduced form, AB 1053 would
increase the fees for analysis charged to an offender from $50 to
$200 for a variety of offenses specified both in Penal Code
Section 1463.14 and Health and Safety Code Section 11372.5. As
agreed when the measure was heard in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee last week, the lab analysis fees will instead be
increased from $50 to $100. CSAC encourage counties to review and
consider supporting AB 1053. If you should have any questions on
the measure, please contact Rosemary L. McCool at
rmccool@counties.org.
AB 1053 will be heard in the Assembly Local Government Committee
on May 4.
Optional Amnesty Program for Misdemeanors
AB 1358 (Fuentes) – Request for Comment
As Amended April 15, 2011
AB 1357, by Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes, would expand the
one-time amnesty program for delinquent court-ordered debt
associated with a limited number of offenses. Counties may recall
that CSAC jointly pursued with the Judicial Council a range of
statutory changes – changes enacted in last year’s judiciary
trailer bill (SB 857) – that seek to enhance the collection of
court-ordered debt.
Among the tools made available to courts and counties as a result
of SB 857 is a mandatory six-month amnesty program, established
pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 42008.7 that will operate from
January 1 to July 1, 2012. Only debt due on or before January 1,
2009 is eligible for amnesty program, and, as enacted, only those
who do not owe any victim restitution in the county and have no
outstanding misdemeanor or felony warrants are eligible for
participation. Payment of 50 percent of the fine or bail amount
would be considered full satisfaction of debt during the period
of amnesty.
AB 1358 would allow – but not require – a court and county to
jointly agree to pursue specified misdemeanors as an additional
element to the amnesty program established in Vehicle Code
Section 42008.7. The California Public Defenders Association is
the sponsor of this measure. We provided technical input to
ensure that the optional misdemeanor component could operate
seamlessly with and simultaneously to the mandatory one-time
infraction amnesty program. The provisions of AB 1358 would
change no other aspect of the amnesty program.
AB 1358 is set for hearing in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee on April 26.