Bill Text: CA AB2537 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Amended

---

Bill Title: State agencies: adjudications: presiding officers.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)

Status: (Engrossed - Dead) 2010-08-12 - In committee: Held under submission. [AB2537 Detail]

Download: California-2009-AB2537-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 2537	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  AUGUST 2, 2010
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 14, 2010
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 6, 2010

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Silva

                        FEBRUARY 19, 2010

   An act to amend Section 11425.40 of the Government Code, relating
to state agencies.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 2537, as amended, Silva. State agencies: adjudications:
presiding officers.
   Existing law, the Administrative Procedure Act, provides for the
conduct of administrative adjudication proceedings of state agencies.
Existing law provides for the disqualification of a presiding
officer for bias, prejudice, or interest in the proceeding. Existing
law authorizes an agency that conducts an adjudicative proceeding to
provide by regulation for peremptory challenge of the presiding
officer.
   This bill would require that certain agencies that conduct an
adjudicative proceeding provide by regulation for peremptory
challenge of the presiding officer in cases where the presiding
officer is an administrative law judge, and authorize those agencies
to provide by regulation for peremptory challenge of a presiding
officer who is not an administrative law judge.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 11425.40 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
   11425.40.  (a) The presiding officer is subject to
disqualification for bias, prejudice, or interest in the proceeding.
   (b) It is not alone or in itself grounds for disqualification,
without further evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest, that the
presiding officer:
   (1) Is or is not a member of a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual,
or similar group and the proceeding involves the rights of that
group.
   (2) Has experience, technical competence, or specialized knowledge
of, or has in any capacity expressed a view on, a legal, factual, or
policy issue presented in the proceeding.
   (3) Has as a lawyer or public official participated in the
drafting of laws or regulations or in the effort to pass or defeat
laws or regulations, the meaning, effect, or application of which is
in issue in the proceeding.
   (c) The provisions of this section governing disqualification of
the presiding officer also govern disqualification of the agency head
or other person or body to which the power to hear or decide in the
proceeding is delegated.
   (d) An agency that conducts an adjudicative proceeding shall
provide by regulation for peremptory challenge of a presiding officer
who is an administrative law judge. An agency that conducts an
adjudicative proceeding may also provide by regulation for peremptory
challenge of a presiding officer who is not an administrative law
judge. 
   (e) Subdivision (d) shall not apply to an agency that has five or
fewer administrative law judges and has an existing system of
internal review for requests for disqualification of an
administrative law judge in which the disqualification determination
is made by the agency.  
   (e) Subdivision (d) shall not apply to any agency that meets
either of the following criteria: 
   (1) The agency has had more than 1,000 scheduled proceedings in
each of the last three fiscal years.  
   (2) The agency has a system of reconsideration and review of
denials for requests for disqualification of an administrative law
judge for cause in which the administrative law judge being
challenged does not participate in the disqualification decision.