Bill Text: CA SB425 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Introduced

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Public works: the Public Works Peer Review Act of 2013.

Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-1)

Status: (Passed) 2013-09-06 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 252, Statutes of 2013. [SB425 Detail]

Download: California-2013-SB425-Introduced.html

---

BILL NUMBER: SB 425	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY   Senator DeSaulnier
   (Coauthor: Senator Gaines)

                        FEBRUARY 21, 2013

   An act to add Section 87202.1 to, and to add Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 8847) to Division 1 of Title 2 of, the
Government Code, relating to public works.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 425, as introduced, DeSaulnier. Public works: the Public Works
Peer Review Act of 2013.
   Existing law defines a public work as construction, alteration,
demolition, installation, or repair work done under contract and paid
for in whole or in part out of public funds, work done for
irrigation, utility, reclamation, and improvement districts, and
other districts of this type, street, sewer, or other improvement
work done under the direction and supervision or by the authority of
any officer or public body of the state, or of any political
subdivision or district thereof, and public transportation
demonstration projects, as specified.
   This bill would require a state agency or department or a regional
or local agency, principally tasked with administering the planning
and development of a public works project to establish a specified
peer review group, to provide it with expert advice on the scientific
and technical aspects of the project if the public works is a
megaproject, defined as having total development, construction, and
reasonable projected maintenance costs exceeding one billion dollars
$1,000,000,000; if the Governor or the head of the administering
agency has determined that the establishment of a peer review group
is in the public interest in connection with the development and
construction of the project; or if a statute or concurrent resolution
is passed by the Legislature requiring the administering agency to
do so. The bill would prohibit a peer review group from meeting or
taking any action until a charter is filed with the head of the
administering agency and the relevant standing committees of the
Legislature and is posted on the administering agency's Internet Web
site, stating the group's objective, the scope of its activities, and
a description of the duties for which the group is responsible,
among other things.
   Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, prohibits a public
official at any level of state or local government from making,
participating in making, or in any way attempting to use his or her
official position to influence a governmental decision in which he or
she knows, or has reason to know, he or she has a financial
interest. A violation of the act is a crime.
   This bill would require a member of a peer review group, within 30
days of joining the group, to file specified forms with the Fair
Political Practices Commission, under penalty of perjury, stating his
or her economic interests, and declaring himself or herself to be
independent of all parties involved in the project and to have no
conflicts of interest.
   Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime under the
act, it would impose a state-mandated local program.
   The bill would also require the Fair Political Practices
Commission to create a form that identifies potential institutional
conflicts for members of peer review groups, and requires a member of
a peer review group to declare, under penalty of perjury, to be
independent of all parties involved in the project, including project
sponsors or contractors, and to have no conflicts of interest.
   Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that
limits the right of access to public bodies or the writings of public
officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the
interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that
interest.
   This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no
reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
   With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains
costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall
be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
   The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides
that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes
upon a 2/3 vote of each house and compliance with specified
procedural requirements.
   This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


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

  SECTION 1.  Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 8847) is added to
Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:
      CHAPTER 11.  THE PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT PEER REVIEW ACT OF 2013


   8847.  This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Public
Works Project Peer Review Act of 2013.
   8847.1.  For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have
the following meanings, unless expressly stated otherwise:
   (a) "Administering agency" means either a state agency or
department or a regional or local agency principally tasked with
administering the planning and development of a public works project.

   (b) "Auditor" means the Bureau of State Audits.
   (c) "Conflict of interest" means a reviewer or a relative or
professional associate of the reviewer has a financial or other
interest in a project or with a project sponsor that is known to the
reviewer and is likely to bias the reviewer's evaluation of that
project. A reviewer has a conflict of interest if he or she or a
close relative or professional associate of the reviewer and any of
the following also apply:
   (1) He or she has received or could receive a direct financial
benefit of any amount deriving from a project sponsor of or any
contractor connected to the project under review.
   (2) Apart from any direct financial benefit deriving from a
project sponsor of or contractor connected to the project under
review, he or she has received or could receive an indirect financial
benefit from a project sponsor or contractor that in the aggregate
exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per year, including honoraria,
fees, stock or other financial benefit, and the current value of the
reviewer's already existing stock holdings.
   (3) He or she has the appearance of a conflict of interest that
would cause a reasonable person to question the reviewer's
impartiality if he or she were to participate in the review.
   (4) He or she has any other interest in the project, project
sponsor, or any connected contractor that, in the view of a
reasonable person, is likely to bias the reviewer's evaluation of
that project.
   (d) "Megaproject" means a project as defined in Section 1720 of
the Labor Code with total development, construction, and reasonable
projected maintenance costs exceeding one billion dollars
($1,000,000,000).
   (e) "Peer review group" means a group of persons qualified by
training and experience in particular scientific or technical fields,
or as authorities knowledgeable in the various disciplines and
fields related to the public works project under review, who give
expert advice on the scientific and technical aspects of the project
as described in this chapter.
   (f) "Project" means a public works project as public works is
defined in Section 1720 of the Labor Code.
   (g) "Project sponsor" means any entity that funds a project,
including a federal, state, local, or other entity, or the
administering agency.
   8848.  (a) The administering agency of a project shall establish a
peer review group if any of the following circumstances apply:
   (1) The project is a megaproject.
   (2) The Governor, or the head of the administering agency
involved, has determined that the establishment of a peer review
group is in the public interest in connection with the development
and construction of a project.
   (3) A statute or concurrent resolution is passed by the
Legislature requiring the administering agency to establish a peer
review group.
   (b) Unless otherwise provided in statute, an administering agency
shall not establish a peer review group other than under the
provisions of this chapter.
   8849.  (a) A peer review group shall not meet or take any action
until a charter has been written by the administering agency and
filed with the relevant standing committees of the Legislature. The
charter also shall be posted on the administering agency's Internet
Web site and shall contain all of the following information:
   (1) The group's official name or designation.
   (2) The group's objective and the scope of its activities.
   (3) A statement of the expertise and balance of interests required
of the group membership to perform its charge.
   (4) The name of the administering agency and official to whom the
group reports.
   (5) A description of the duties for which the group is
responsible.
   (6) The estimated number and frequency of group meetings.
   (7) The estimated annual operating costs for the group.
   (b) Before establishing a peer review group, an administering
agency shall develop a transparent process for selecting members of
the group. The auditor shall review the process by which the
administering agency comprised the peer review group, to warrant that
the process was followed.
   8850.  Components of megaprojects that must be evaluated by a peer
review group include, but are not limited to, the following:
   (a) Project demand studies.
   (b) Design and engineering models and estimates.
   (c) Construction, testing, and inspection practices.
   8851.  All of the following shall apply to members of a peer
review group:
   (a) A member shall, within 30 days of joining the group, file the
statements required under Sections 87202 and 87202.1, under penalty
of perjury, stating his or her economic interests, and declaring
himself or herself to be independent of all parties involved in the
project and to have no conflicts of interest.
   (b) A member shall be reimbursed only for actual expenses, for
example, transportation and room and board costs, plus one hundred
dollars ($100) per day he or she performs work in the review.
   (c) A member shall have some expertise involving the work to be
reviewed, but need not be an expert in the specific field.
   (d) If a member feels unable to provide objective advice, he or
she shall recuse him or herself from the peer review group.
   8852.  (a) All of the following shall apply to peer review group
meetings:
   (1) An agenda and relevant documents, shall be posted on the
administering agency's Internet Web site at least one week before the
meeting.
   (2) The meeting shall be held in a publicly accessible forum.
   (3) The meeting shall contain a public participation component,
including presentations identifying specific issues to be discussed
or reviewed, and any other relevant presentations from the
administering agency.
   (b) All documentation related to the issues to be reviewed at a
peer review group meeting, to the extent possible without putting the
administering agency at a negotiating disadvantage, shall be made
available to the public upon request.
   (c) (1) In order to evaluate matters that relate to personnel,
design standards, contract amounts, or other issues that may put the
administering agency at a negotiating disadvantage, a meeting of a
peer review group subject to this act may be exempt in part from the
requirements of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9
(commencing with Section 11120) of Division 3 of Title 2), at the
discretion of the head of the administering agency to whom the peer
review group reports, unless that meeting includes participation by
one or more full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees
of the administering agency.
   (2) This section shall not preclude a full-time, or permanent
part-time, officer or employee of the administering agency from
supplying administrative support to a peer review group. Support
staff shall not divulge the contents of a closed-door meeting. The
head of the administering agency shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance with Section 11228.
  SEC. 2.  Section 87202.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
   87202.1.  The commission shall create a form, similar to a Form
700 statement of economic interests, that identifies potential
institutional conflicts for members of peer review groups. The form
shall require a member of a peer review group to declare, under
penalty of perjury, to be independent of all parties involved in the
project, including project sponsors or contractors, and to have no
conflicts of interest, as defined in Section 8847.1.
  SEC. 3.  The Legislature finds and declares that this act imposes a
limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of public
bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the
meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the
following finding to demonstrate the interest protected by this
limitation and the need for protecting the interest:
   The public interest in nondisclosure pursuant to this act
outweighs the public interest in disclosure, because requiring the
public disclosure of the internal deliberations of peer review groups
could impair the soundness of the group's evaluation and
disadvantage the administering agency in contract negotiations.
  SEC. 4.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for
certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district because, in that regard, this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
   However, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of
Title 2 of the Government Code.
  SEC. 5.  The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers
the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the meaning
of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government Code.