Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.

The measure would also authorize and request the commission to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions that would accomplish specified goals, including, among other things, reducing the length and complexity of current sections and clearly expressing legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, to submit a description of the change. The measure would also invite a staff member of the commission to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation. The measure would also request the commission to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.

The measure would also authorize and request the commission to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions that would accomplish specified goals, including, among other things, reducing the length and complexity of current sections and clearly expressing legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, to submit a description of the change. The measure would also invite a staff member of the commission to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation. The measure would also request the commission to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.

The measure would also authorize and request the commission to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible concerning the revision of the portions of the Government Code relating to public records California Public Records Act and related provisions that would accomplish specified goals, including, among other things, reducing the length and complexity of current sections and clearly expressing legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, to submit a description of the change. The measure would also invite a staff member of the commission to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation. The measure would also request the commission to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

Existing law requires the California Law Revision Commission to study, and limits the commission to studying, topics approved by resolution of the Legislature or by statute.

This measure would grant approval to the commission to continue its study of designated topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.

The measure would also authorize and request the commission to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible concerning the revision of the portions of the Government Code relating to public records that would accomplish specified goals, including, among other things, reducing the length and complexity of current sections and clearly expressing legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

The measure would require the commission, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, to submit a description of the change. The measure would also invite a staff member of the commission to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation. The measure would also request the commission to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2015 and 2016, recommends continued study of 23 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the law relating to the rights and disabilities of minors and incompetent persons should be revised.

(7)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(8)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(9) Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(10)Whether the law relating to the payment and the shifting of attorneys fees between litigants should be revised.

(11)Whether the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, or parts of that uniform act, and related provisions should be adopted in California.

(12)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(13)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(14)Whether the law governing common interest housing developments should be revised to clarify the law, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, consolidate existing statutes in one place in the codes, establish a clear, consistent, and unified policy with regard to formation and management of these developments and transaction of real property interests located within them, and to determine to what extent they should be subject to regulation.

(15)Whether the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice actions should be revised to recognize equitable tolling or other adjustment for the circumstances of simultaneous litigation, and related matters.

(16)Whether the law governing disclosure of public records and the law governing protection of privacy in public records should be revised to better coordinate them, including consolidation and clarification of the scope of required disclosure and creation of a single set of disclosure procedures, to provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and to ensure that the law governing disclosure of public records adequately treats electronic information, and related matters.

(17)Whether the law governing criminal sentences for enhancements relating to weapons or injuries should be revised to simplify and clarify the law and eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions.

(18)Whether the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code) and the Mitigation Fee Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66010), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 66016), and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66020) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code) should be revised to improve their organization, resolve inconsistencies, and clarify and rationalize provisions, and related matters.

(19)Whether the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act (1995) should be adopted in California in whole or in part, and related matters.

(20)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(21)Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code.

(22)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(23)(A)Analysis of the relationship under current law between mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice and other misconduct, and the purposes for, and impact of, those laws on public protection, professional ethics, attorney discipline, client rights, the willingness of parties to participate in voluntary and mandatory mediation, and the effectiveness of mediation, as well as any other issues that the commission deems relevant. Among other matters, the commission shall consider the following:

(i)Sections 703.5, 958, and 1119 of the Evidence Code and predecessor provisions, as well as California court rulings, including, but not limited to, Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, Porter v. Wyner (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 949, and Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137.

(ii)The availability and propriety of contractual waivers.

(iii)The law in other jurisdictions, including the Uniform Mediation Act, as it has been adopted in other states, other statutory acts, scholarly commentary, judicial decisions, and any data regarding the impact of differing confidentiality rules on the use of mediation.

(B)In studying this matter, the commission shall request input from experts and interested parties, including, but not limited to, representatives from the California Supreme Court, the State Bar of California, legal malpractice defense counsel, other attorney groups and individuals, mediators, and mediation trade associations. The commission shall make any recommendations that it deems appropriate for the revision of California law to balance the competing public interests between confidentiality and accountability; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the commissions preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions, and that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

(1)Reduce the length and complexity of current sections.

(2)Avoid unnecessary cross-references.

(3)Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act.

(4)To the extent compatible with (3), use terms with common definitions.

(5)Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another.

(6)Eliminate duplicative provisions.

(7)Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the staff of the commission is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission is requested to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2015 and 2016, recommends continued study of 23 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the law relating to the rights and disabilities of minors and incompetent persons should be revised.

(7)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(8)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(9) Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(10)Whether the law relating to the payment and the shifting of attorneys fees between litigants should be revised.

(11)Whether the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, or parts of that uniform act, and related provisions should be adopted in California.

(12)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(13)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(14)Whether the law governing common interest housing developments should be revised to clarify the law, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, consolidate existing statutes in one place in the codes, establish a clear, consistent, and unified policy with regard to formation and management of these developments and transaction of real property interests located within them, and to determine to what extent they should be subject to regulation.

(15)Whether the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice actions should be revised to recognize equitable tolling or other adjustment for the circumstances of simultaneous litigation, and related matters.

(16)Whether the law governing disclosure of public records and the law governing protection of privacy in public records should be revised to better coordinate them, including consolidation and clarification of the scope of required disclosure and creation of a single set of disclosure procedures, to provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and to ensure that the law governing disclosure of public records adequately treats electronic information, and related matters.

(17)Whether the law governing criminal sentences for enhancements relating to weapons or injuries should be revised to simplify and clarify the law and eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions.

(18)Whether the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code) and the Mitigation Fee Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66010), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 66016), and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66020) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code) should be revised to improve their organization, resolve inconsistencies, and clarify and rationalize provisions, and related matters.

(19)Whether the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act (1995) should be adopted in California in whole or in part, and related matters.

(20)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(21)Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code.

(22)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(23)(A)Analysis of the relationship under current law between mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice and other misconduct, and the purposes for, and impact of, those laws on public protection, professional ethics, attorney discipline, client rights, the willingness of parties to participate in voluntary and mandatory mediation, and the effectiveness of mediation, as well as any other issues that the commission deems relevant. Among other matters, the commission shall consider the following:

(i)Sections 703.5, 958, and 1119 of the Evidence Code and predecessor provisions, as well as California court rulings, including, but not limited to, Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, Porter v. Wyner (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 949, and Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137.

(ii)The availability and propriety of contractual waivers.

(iii)The law in other jurisdictions, including the Uniform Mediation Act, as it has been adopted in other states, other statutory acts, scholarly commentary, judicial decisions, and any data regarding the impact of differing confidentiality rules on the use of mediation.

(B)In studying this matter, the commission shall request input from experts and interested parties, including, but not limited to, representatives from the California Supreme Court, the State Bar of California, legal malpractice defense counsel, other attorney groups and individuals, mediators, and mediation trade associations. The commission shall make any recommendations that it deems appropriate for the revision of California law to balance the competing public interests between confidentiality and accountability; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the commissions preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions, and that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

(1)Reduce the length and complexity of current sections.

(2)Avoid unnecessary cross-references.

(3)Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act.

(4)To the extent compatible with (3), use terms with common definitions.

(5)Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another.

(6)Eliminate duplicative provisions.

(7)Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the staff of the commission is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission is requested to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2015 and 2016, recommends continued study of 23 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the law relating to the rights and disabilities of minors and incompetent persons should be revised.

(7)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(8)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(9) Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(10)Whether the law relating to the payment and the shifting of attorneys fees between litigants should be revised.

(11)Whether the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, or parts of that uniform act, and related provisions should be adopted in California.

(12)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(13)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(14)Whether the law governing common interest housing developments should be revised to clarify the law, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, consolidate existing statutes in one place in the codes, establish a clear, consistent, and unified policy with regard to formation and management of these developments and transaction of real property interests located within them, and to determine to what extent they should be subject to regulation.

(15)Whether the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice actions should be revised to recognize equitable tolling or other adjustment for the circumstances of simultaneous litigation, and related matters.

(16)Whether the law governing disclosure of public records and the law governing protection of privacy in public records should be revised to better coordinate them, including consolidation and clarification of the scope of required disclosure and creation of a single set of disclosure procedures, to provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and to ensure that the law governing disclosure of public records adequately treats electronic information, and related matters.

(17)Whether the law governing criminal sentences for enhancements relating to weapons or injuries should be revised to simplify and clarify the law and eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions.

(18)Whether the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code) and the Mitigation Fee Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66010), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 66016), and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66020) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code) should be revised to improve their organization, resolve inconsistencies, and clarify and rationalize provisions, and related matters.

(19)Whether the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act (1995) should be adopted in California in whole or in part, and related matters.

(20)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(21)Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code.

(22)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(23)(A)Analysis of the relationship under current law between mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice and other misconduct, and the purposes for, and impact of, those laws on public protection, professional ethics, attorney discipline, client rights, the willingness of parties to participate in voluntary and mandatory mediation, and the effectiveness of mediation, as well as any other issues that the commission deems relevant. Among other matters, the commission shall consider the following:

(i)Sections 703.5, 958, and 1119 of the Evidence Code and predecessor provisions, as well as California court rulings, including, but not limited to, Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, Porter v. Wyner (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 949, and Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137.

(ii)The availability and propriety of contractual waivers.

(iii)The law in other jurisdictions, including the Uniform Mediation Act, as it has been adopted in other states, other statutory acts, scholarly commentary, judicial decisions, and any data regarding the impact of differing confidentiality rules on the use of mediation.

(B)In studying this matter, the commission shall request input from experts and interested parties, including, but not limited to, representatives from the California Supreme Court, the State Bar of California, legal malpractice defense counsel, other attorney groups and individuals, mediators, and mediation trade associations. The commission shall make any recommendations that it deems appropriate for the revision of California law to balance the competing public interests between confidentiality and accountability; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the commissions preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the Government Code relating to public records, California Public Records Act and related provisions, and that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

(1)Reduce the length and complexity of current sections.

(2)Avoid unnecessary cross-references.

(3)Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act.

(4)To the extent compatible with (3), use terms with common definitions.

(5)Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another.

(6)Eliminate duplicative provisions.

(7)Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the staff of the commission is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission is requested to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

WHEREAS, The California Law Revision Commission is authorized to study topics set forth in the calendar contained in its report to the Governor and the Legislature that have been or are thereafter approved for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature, and topics that have been referred to the commission for study by concurrent resolution of the Legislature or by statute; and

WHEREAS, The commission, in its annual report covering its activities for 2015 and 2016, recommends continued study of 23 topics, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature approves for continued study by the California Law Revision Commission the topics listed below, all of which the Legislature has previously authorized or directed the commission to study:

(1)Whether the law should be revised that relates to creditors remedies, including, but not limited to, attachment, garnishment, execution, repossession of property (including the claim and delivery statute, self-help repossession of property, and the Commercial Code provisions on repossession of property), confession of judgment procedures, default judgment procedures, enforcement of judgments, the right of redemption, procedures under private power of sale in a trust deed or mortgage, possessory and nonpossessory liens, insolvency, and related matters.

(2)Whether the California Probate Code should be revised, including, but not limited to, the issue of whether California should adopt, in whole or in part, the Uniform Probate Code, and related matters.

(3)Whether the law should be revised that relates to real and personal property, including, but not limited to, a marketable title act, covenants, servitudes, conditions, and restrictions on land use or relating to land, powers of termination, escheat of property and the disposition of unclaimed or abandoned property, eminent domain, quiet title actions, abandonment or vacation of public streets and highways, partition, rights and duties attendant on assignment, subletting, termination, or abandonment of a lease, and related matters.

(4)Whether the law should be revised that relates to family law, including, but not limited to, community property, the adjudication of child and family civil proceedings, child custody, adoption, guardianship, freedom from parental custody and control, and related matters, including other subjects covered by the Family Code.

(5)Whether the law relating to discovery in civil cases should be revised.

(6)Whether the law relating to the rights and disabilities of minors and incompetent persons should be revised.

(7)Whether the Evidence Code should be revised.

(8)Whether the law relating to arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution techniques should be revised.

(9) Whether there should be changes to administrative law.

(10)Whether the law relating to the payment and the shifting of attorneys fees between litigants should be revised.

(11)Whether the Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act, or parts of that uniform act, and related provisions should be adopted in California.

(12)Recommendations to be reported pertaining to statutory changes that may be necessitated by court unification.

(13)Whether the law of contracts should be revised, including the law relating to the effect of electronic communications on the law governing contract formation, the statute of frauds, the parol evidence rule, and related matters.

(14)Whether the law governing common interest housing developments should be revised to clarify the law, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, consolidate existing statutes in one place in the codes, establish a clear, consistent, and unified policy with regard to formation and management of these developments and transaction of real property interests located within them, and to determine to what extent they should be subject to regulation.

(15)Whether the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice actions should be revised to recognize equitable tolling or other adjustment for the circumstances of simultaneous litigation, and related matters.

(16)Whether the law governing disclosure of public records and the law governing protection of privacy in public records should be revised to better coordinate them, including consolidation and clarification of the scope of required disclosure and creation of a single set of disclosure procedures, to provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and to ensure that the law governing disclosure of public records adequately treats electronic information, and related matters.

(17)Whether the law governing criminal sentences for enhancements relating to weapons or injuries should be revised to simplify and clarify the law and eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions.

(18)Whether the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code) and the Mitigation Fee Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66000), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 66010), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 66012), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 66016), and Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 66020) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code) should be revised to improve their organization, resolve inconsistencies, and clarify and rationalize provisions, and related matters.

(19)Whether the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act (1995) should be adopted in California in whole or in part, and related matters.

(20)Whether the law governing the place of trial in a civil case should be revised.

(21)Analysis of the legal and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public entity for the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code.

(22)Whether the Fish and Game Code and related statutory law should be revised to improve its organization, clarify its meaning, resolve inconsistencies, eliminate unnecessary or obsolete provisions, standardize terminology, clarify program authority and funding sources, and make other minor improvements, without making any significant substantive change to the effect of the law.

(23)(A)Analysis of the relationship under current law between mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice and other misconduct, and the purposes for, and impact of, those laws on public protection, professional ethics, attorney discipline, client rights, the willingness of parties to participate in voluntary and mandatory mediation, and the effectiveness of mediation, as well as any other issues that the commission deems relevant. Among other matters, the commission shall consider the following:

(i)Sections 703.5, 958, and 1119 of the Evidence Code and predecessor provisions, as well as California court rulings, including, but not limited to, Cassel v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113, Porter v. Wyner (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 949, and Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137.

(ii)The availability and propriety of contractual waivers.

(iii)The law in other jurisdictions, including the Uniform Mediation Act, as it has been adopted in other states, other statutory acts, scholarly commentary, judicial decisions, and any data regarding the impact of differing confidentiality rules on the use of mediation.

(B)In studying this matter, the commission shall request input from experts and interested parties, including, but not limited to, representatives from the California Supreme Court, the State Bar of California, legal malpractice defense counsel, other attorney groups and individuals, mediators, and mediation trade associations. The commission shall make any recommendations that it deems appropriate for the revision of California law to balance the competing public interests between confidentiality and accountability; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature authorizes and requests that the California Law Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the commissions preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the Government Code relating to public records, and that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

(1)Reduce the length and complexity of current sections.

(2)Avoid unnecessary cross-references.

(3)Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act.

(4)To the extent compatible with (3), use terms with common definitions.

(5)Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another.

(6)Eliminate duplicative provisions.

(7)Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions; and be it further

Resolved, That before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the commission shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change; and be it further

Resolved, That the staff of the commission is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the commission is requested to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the California Law Revision Commission and to the author for appropriate distribution.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:ACR 148

Author:(Chau)

As Amended Ver:May 26, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: JUD.

SUMMARY: Re-authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to study specific topics. Specifically, this resolution:

1. Re-authorizes the CLRC's study of specified topics, as provided.
2. Authorizes the CLRC to further examine the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.
3. Requires that, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.
4. Invites staff of the CLRC to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation.
5. Requests the CLRC to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

The Senate amendments make technical and clarifying changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates the California Law Revision Commission. (Government Code (GOV) Section 8280 et seq. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to the Government Code.)
2. Requires the CLRC, unless provided otherwise, to examine the common law and statutes of California and judicial decisions for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms in the law and recommending needed reforms. (GOV Section 8289.)
3. Allows the CLRC to recommend, from time to time, such changes in the law as it deems necessary to modify or eliminate antiquated and inequitable rules of law, and to bring the law of this state into harmony with modern conditions. (Ibid.)
4. Requires the CLRC to study any topic that the Legislature, by concurrent resolution or statute, refers to it for study. (GOV Section 8293.)
5. Establishes the CPRA. (GOV Section 6250 et seq.)
6. Provides that, under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. (GOV Section 6253 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

COMMENTS: The California Law Revision Commission was created in 1953 and was given the responsibility of substantively reviewing California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and anachronisms, and makes recommendations to the Legislature on needed reforms.

The CLRC's enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: 1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature, and 2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly by statute or concurrent resolution. In the past, the bulk of the CLRC's review has come through the first type: matters identified by the CLRC and approved by the Legislature. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. In recent years, the CLRC's topics have come directly from the Legislature.

Similar to previous CLRC-reauthorizing resolutions, this measure resolves that the CLRC send its recommendations to the Legislature's policy committees, specifically including this Committee, and invites CLRC staff to testify at hearings to explain recommendations and answer questions from Members of the Legislature.

Reauthorization of topics previously authorized for study. The CLRC currently has a list of 23 topics that the Legislature has previously authorized for study. This measure would reauthorize the CLRC to study the following topics:

1. Creditors' Remedies
2. Probate Code
3. Real and Personal Property
4. Family Law
5. Discovery in Civil Cases
6. Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons
7. Evidence
8. Arbitration
9. Administrative Law
10. Attorney's Fees
11. Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act
12. Trial Court Unification
13. Contract Law
14. Common Interest Developments
15. Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation
16. Coordination of Public Records Statutes
17. Criminal Sentencing
18. Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act
19. Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
20. Place of Trial in Civil Cases
21. Implications of treating a charter school as a public entity
22. Fish and Game Code
23. The Legal Doctrine around Mediation Confidentiality and Attorney Malpractice

Given the CLRC's experience in clarifying the law without affecting its substance, a request to reduce the complexity of the California Public Records Act seems appropriate. In addition to the 23 topics of study, this measure authorizes the CLRC to further study the CPRA. The CPRA, signed into law in 1968 as a general record keeping law, allows the public to monitor government activity. Since the enactment of the CPRA, it has been amended multiple times to exempt certain records. These exemptions include health care records, public safety officers' personnel files, and domestic violence survivors' personal information. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the CPRA has become difficult for the public to understand.

In the past, the CLRC has provided hundreds of recommendations, ranging from the creation of entire codes to the repeal of a single section. Given the CLRC's experience and expertise in clarifying the law while maintaining the Legislature's intent, it appears reasonable and consistent with the CLRC work that the Legislature asks the CLRC to also review the CPRA to determine whether it should be revised in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.

Analysis Prepared by: Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003739

 THIRD READING 

Bill No: ACR 148

Author: Chau (D), et al.

Amended: 5/26/16 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/14/16

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/9/16 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Law Revision Commission: studies

SOURCE: California Law Revision Commission

DIGEST: This resolution authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to continue its studies on whether specified laws should be revised; authorizes an additional study of the California Public Records Act (CPRA); provides that before commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the study’s subject matter; and expressly allows the CLRC to provide copies of its recommendations to members of a legislative policy committee and invite CLRC staff to hearings for the purpose of explaining recommendations and answering questions from committee members.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the CLRC to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the Legislature.
2. Prohibits an employee or member of the CLRC, with respect to any proposed legislation concerning matters assigned to the Commission for study, to advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation by the Legislature or the approval or veto of the legislation by the Governor or appear before any committee of the Legislature unless requested to do so by the committee or its chairperson.
3. Establishes CPRA.
4. Provides that, under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided.

This resolution:

1. Reauthorizes the CLRC’s study of 23 specified topics.
2. Authorizes additionally the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the CLRC’s preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the CPRA and related provisions, and specifies that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

• Reduce the length and complexity of current sections;
• Avoid unnecessary cross-references;
• Neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act;
• Use terms with common definitions;
• Organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another;
• Eliminate duplicative provisions; and
• Clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

1. Requires that before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics authorized or directed for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.
2. Provides that CLRC staff is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a CLRC recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by the committee members, provided that the staff do not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation.
3. Requests further the CLRC to provide a copy of a recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

Background

The CLRC was created in 1953 and tasked with the responsibility for a continuing substantive review of California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and make related recommendations to the Legislature for needed reforms.

The CLRC’s enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature; and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more common in recent years, and many of the CLRC’s recent studies were directly assigned by the Legislature.

This resolution, sponsored by the CLRC, continues the authorization of the CLRC’s studies on whether specified laws should be revised or enacted. This resolution also continues the direction to the CLRC to provide a detailed description of any new study to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees and any legislative policy committees that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, as well as continue to provide guidance relating to the distribution of CLRC reports and the appearance of CLRC staff as witnesses at committee hearings. This resolution also requests the CLRC to examine the CPRA to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.

Comments

The author writes:

Once the California Law Revision Commission identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the California Public Record Act has become difficult for the public to understand. ACR 148 will authorize the CLRC to conduct the study on the California Public Records Act.

The CPRA, signed into law in 1968 as a general record keeping law, allows the public to monitor government activity. Since the enactment of the CPRA, it has been amended multiple times to exempt certain records. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the CPRA has become difficult for the public to understand.

Prior Legislation

SCR 54 (Padilla, Chapter 115, Statutes of 2013) authorized the CLRC report on and prepare recommended legislation concerning statutes governing access by state and local government agencies to customer information from communications service providers.

AB 567 (Wagner, Chapter 15, Statutes of 2013) repealed the requirement that the CLRC make the decennial recommendations, and retained the CLRC’s general authority to study, review, and make recommendations regarding the enforcement of judgments law.

ACR 125 (Papan, Chapter 167, Statutes of 2002) authorized the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation concerning the issue of financial privacy to address protection and control of a consumer’s personal information and provide both administrative and civil penalties.

The following is a list of the prior annual authorizing resolutions for the CLRC:

SCR 83 (Monning, Chapter 63, Statutes of 2014)

ACR 98 (Wagner, Resolution Chapter 108, Statutes of 2012)

ACR 49 (Evans, Resolution Chapter 98, Statutes of 2009)

ACR 35 (Evans, Resolution Chapter 100, Statutes of 2007)

SCR 15 (Morrow, Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2006)

SCR 42 (Campbell, Resolution Chapter 122, Statutes of 2005)

SCR 4 (Morrow, Resolution Chapter 92, Statutes of 2003)

ACR 123 (Wayne, Resolution Chapter 166, Statutes of 2002)

SCR 13 (Morrow, Resolution Chapter 78, Statutes of 2001)

ACR 17 (Wayne, Resolution Chapter 81, Statutes of 1999)

SCR 65 (Kopp, Resolution Chapter 91, Statutes of 1998)

SCR 3 (Kopp, Resolution Chapter 102, Statutes of 1997)

SCR 43 (Kopp, Resolution Chapter 38, Statutes of 1996)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/3/16)

California Law Revision Commission (source)

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/3/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/9/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines, Eduardo Garcia

Prepared by: Margie Estrada / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

8/15/16 10:19:18

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2015-2016 Regular Session

Bill No: ACR 148 (Author:Chau)

Version: May 26, 2016

Hearing Date: June 14, 2016

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: N/A

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

California Law Revision Commission: studies

DESCRIPTION

This measure would authorize the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to continue its studies on whether specified laws should be revised and would authorize an additional study of the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

This measure would provide that before commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary and any legislative policy committee with jurisdiction over the study’s subject matter.

The measure would also expressly allow the CLRC to provide copies of its recommendations to members of a legislative policy committee and invite CLRC staff to hearings for the purpose of explaining recommendations and answering questions from committee members.

BACKGROUND

The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) was created in 1953 and tasked with the responsibility for a continuing substantive review of California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and make related recommendations to the Legislature for needed reforms.

The CLRC’s enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature; and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly, by statute or concurrent resolution. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Direct legislative assignments have become much more common in recent years, and many of the CLRC’s recent studies were directly assigned by the Legislature.

This measure, sponsored by the CLRC, would continue the authorization of the CLRC’s studies on whether specified laws should be revised or enacted. This measure would also continue the direction to the CLRC to provide a detailed description of any new study to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees and any legislative policy committees that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, as well as continue to provide guidance relating to the distribution of CLRC reports and the appearance of CLRC staff as witnesses at committee hearings. This measure would also request the CLRC to examine the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to study topics approved by concurrent resolution of the Legislature. (Gov. Code Sec. 8293.)

Existing law prohibits an employee or member of the CLRC, with respect to any proposed legislation concerning matters assigned to the commission for study, to advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation by the Legislature or the approval or veto of the legislation by the Governor or appear before any committee of the Legislature unless requested to do so by the committee or its chairperson. (Gov. Code Sec. 8288.)

Existing law establishes the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.)

Existing law provides that, under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. (Gov. Code Sec. 6253 et seq.)

This measure would reauthorize the CLRC’s study of 23 specified topics.

This measure would additionally authorize the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the CLRC’s preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions, and would specify that this legislation shall accomplish all of the following objectives:

• reduce the length and complexity of current sections;
• avoid unnecessary cross-references;
• neither expand nor contract the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the Public Records Act;
• use terms with common definitions;
• organize the existing provisions in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another;
• eliminate duplicative provisions; and
• clearly express legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

This measure would require that before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics authorized or directed for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.

This measure would provide that CLRC staff is invited to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a CLRC recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by the committee members, provided that the staff do not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation.

This measure would further request the CLRC to provide a copy of a recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

According to the author:

Once the California Law Revision Commission identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the California Public Record Act has become difficult for the public to understand. ACR 148 will authorize the CLRC to conduct the study on the California Public Records Act.

The CPRA, signed into law in 1968 as a general record keeping law, allows the public to monitor government activity. Since the enactment of the CPRA, it has been amended multiple times to exempt certain records. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the CPRA has become difficult for the public to understand.

1. Reauthorization of topics previously authorized for study

The CLRC currently has a list of 23 topics that the Legislature has previously authorized for study. This measure would reauthorize the CLRC to study the following topics: Creditors’ Remedies; Probate Code; Real and Personal Property; Family Law; Discovery in Civil Cases; Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons; Evidence; Arbitration; Administrative Law; Attorney’s Fees; Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act; Trial Court Unification; Contract Law; Common Interest Developments; Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation; Coordination of Public Records Statutes; Criminal Sentencing; Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act; Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act; Place of Trial in Civil Cases; the legal and policy implications of treating a charter school as a public entity; the Fish and Game Code; and the relationship between mediation confidentiality and attorney malpractice.

3. Authorizing the CLRC to further study the California Public Records Act

This measure authorizes the CLRC to further study the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). Under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified in law. Since the CPRA was enacted in 1968, records that would otherwise be available for public access have been exempted from the CPRA.

This measure authorizes the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation as soon as possible, considering the CLRC’s preexisting duties and workload demands, concerning the revision of the portions of the California Public Records Act and related provisions. This measure would specify that the recommended legislation shall accomplish the objectives of: reducing the length and complexity of current sections; avoiding unnecessary cross-references; using terms with common definitions; organizing the existing provision in such a way that similar provisions are located in close proximity to one another; eliminating duplicative provisions; neither expanding nor contracting the scope of existing exemptions to the general rule that records are open to the public pursuant to the current provisions of the CPRA; and clearly expressing legislative intent without any change in the substantive provisions.

Because of nearly 50 years of amendments to the CPRA, the CPRA has become more difficult to understand. Making it easier for the public to understand their rights to access government information will arguably lead to more access to public records and more government accountability.

4. Coordination rules

This measure would continue the existing coordination rules relating to the relationship between the CLRC and the Legislature.

a. Communication with the Legislature

ACR 49 (Evans, Res. Ch. 98, Stats. 2009) increased communication between the CLRC and the Legislature by providing that prior to commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized or directed for study by the Legislature, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Committees on Judiciary of the Senate and Assembly, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.

ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2012) augmented that requirement by further requiring the CLRC to submit that description of the scope of work to any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study. That enhanced requirement for early communication further facilitates legislative input on whether a particular proposed topic is consistent with what has been authorized. This measure would maintain these communication requirements.

b. Inviting staff of the CLRC to appear and testify

ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2012) specifically authorized the staff of the CLRC to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill that implements a CLRC recommendation. That formal authorization ensures that the staff of the CLRC is technically able to testify at committee hearings for the purpose of explaining the CLRC recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members. However, CLRC staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of a commission recommendation by the Legislature. Consistent with ACR 98, this measure would maintain the authorization of and restrictions on CLRC staff testimony.

c. Copies of commission recommendations

Under existing law, the CLRC is required to distribute its reports and recommendations to the Governor, the Members of the Legislature, and the heads of all state departments. Despite that requirement, a separate code section provides that “[n]o report shall be distributed to a Member of the Legislature unless specifically requested by that member.” (Gov. Code Sec. 9795.) ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2012) ensured that the requirement is technically met by formally requiring the CLRC to provide a copy of a recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation. This provision facilitates communication between the Legislature and the CLRC by ensuring the CLRC is able to provide members of policy committees with the underlying recommendation that is the basis of legislation being heard by the committee. This measure would maintain these report and recommendation distribution requirements.

Support: None Known

Opposition: None Known

HISTORY

Source: California Law Revision Commission

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

SCR 54 (Padilla, Ch. 115, Stats. 2013) authorized the CLRC report on and prepare recommended legislation concerning statutes governing access by state and local government agencies to customer information from communications service providers.

AB 567 (Wagner, Ch. 15, Stats. 2013) repealed the requirement that the CLRC make the decennial recommendations, and retained the CLRC’s general authority to study, review, and make recommendations regarding the enforcement of judgments law.

ACR 125 (Papan, Ch. 167, Stats. 2002) authorized the CLRC to study, report on, and prepare recommended legislation concerning the issue of financial privacy to address protection and control of a consumer’s personal information and provide both administrative and civil penalties.

The following is a list of the prior annual authorizing resolutions for the CLRC:

SCR 83 (Monning, Ch. 63, Stats. 2014)

ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Ch. 108, Stats. 2012) See Comment 3a, b, and c.

ACR 49 (Evans, Res. Ch. 98, Stats. 2009) See Comment 3a.

ACR 35 (Evans, Res. Ch. 100, Stats. 2007)

SCR 15 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 1, Stats. 2006)

SCR 42 (Campbell, Res. Ch. 122, Stats. 2005)

SCR 4 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 92, Stats. 2003)

ACR 123 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 166, Stats. 2002)

SCR 13 (Morrow, Res. Ch. 78, Stats 2001)

ACR 17 (Wayne, Res. Ch. 81, Stats. 1999)

SCR 65 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 91, Stats. 1998)

SCR 3 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 102, Stats. 1997)

SCR 43 (Kopp, Res. Ch. 38, Stats. 1996)

Prior Vote:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 78, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 20, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:ACR 148

Author:(Chau) – As Introduced Ver:March 3, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This resolution authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to:

• 1. Continue its study of 23 topics that the Legislature previously authorized or directed the commission to study.
  2. Further examine the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Absorbable costs to the commission. (The commission's proposed budget for 2016-17 totals $872,000, and includes funding for five staff positions.)

COMMENTS:

Purpose. The CLRC was created in 1953 and was given the responsibility to substantively review California's statutory and case law. The commission seeks to discover deficiencies in existing law and makes related recommendations to the Legislature for needed reforms. The commission may only study matters referred to it by concurrent resolution of the Legislature. In the past, the CLRC has provided hundreds of recommendations, ranging from the creation of entire codes to the repeal of a single section.

The CLRC currently has a list of 23 topics that the Legislature has previously authorized for study. This measure would reauthorize the CLRC to study the following topics:

1. Creditors' Remedies
2. Probate Code
3. Real and Personal Property
4. Family Law
5. Discovery in Civil Cases
6. Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons
7. Evidence
8. Arbitration
9. Administrative Law
10. Attorney's Fees
11. Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act
12. Trial Court Unification
13. Contract Law
14. Common Interest Developments
15. Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation
16. Coordination of Public Records Statutes
17. Criminal Sentencing
18. Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act
19. Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
20. Place of Trial in Civil Cases
21. Implications of treating a charter school as a public entity
22. Fish and Game Code
23. The Legal Doctrine around Mediation Confidentiality and Attorney Malpractice

In addition to the 23 topics of study, this measure authorizes the CLRC to further study the CPRA.. The CPRA, signed into law in 1968 as a general record keeping law, allows the public to monitor government activity. Since the enactment of the CPRA, it has been amended multiple times to exempt certain records. Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the CPRA has become difficult for the public to understand.

Given the CLRC's experience and expertise, this resolution asks the CLRC to also review the CPRA to determine whether it should be revised in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.

Prior CLRC Resolutions:

SCR 83 (Monning, 2014)

SCR 53 (Padilla, 2013)

ACR 98 (Wagner, 2012)

ACR 49 (Evans, 2009)

ACR 35 (Evans, 2007)

SCR 15 (Morrow, 2006)

SCR 42 (Campbell, 2005)

SCR 4 (Morrow, 2003)

ACR 123 (Wayne, 2002)

SCR 13 (Morrow, 2001)

ACR 17 (Wayne, 1999)

SCR 65 (Kopp, 1998)

SCR 3 (Kopp, 1997)

SCR 43 (Kopp, 1996)

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:ACR 148

Author:(Chau) – As Introduced Ver:March 3, 2016

PROPOSED CONSENT

SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION: STUDIES

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION BE RE-AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE ITS WORK TO ASSIST THE LEGISLATURE IN IMPROVING CALIFORNIA’S LAWS?

SYNOPSIS

Similar to previous resolutions passed by the Legislature, this non-controversial measure re-authorizes the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) to continue its work to study topics previously authorized or directed for study by the Legislature. In addition to the 23 previously-authorized areas of study, this resolution requests the CLRC to further examine the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions. Like other past resolutions, ACR 148 requires the CLRC, before commencing work on any project within the list of topics authorized for study by the Legislature, to submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study.

SUMMARY: Re-authorizes the CLRC to study specific topics. Specifically, this resolution:

1. Re-authorizes the CLRC's study of specified topics, as provided.
2. Authorizes the CLRC to further examine the CPRA to determine whether it should be amended in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.
3. Requires that, before commencing work on any project within the calendar of topics the Legislature has authorized or directed the commission to study, the CLRC shall submit a detailed description of the scope of work to the chairs and vice chairs of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, and any other policy committee that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the study, and if during the course of the project there is a major change to the scope of work, submit a description of the change.
4. Invites staff of the CLRC to appear and testify at any committee hearing of a bill to implement a commission recommendation, for the purpose of explaining the recommendation and answering questions posed by committee members, provided that the staff may not advocate for the passage or defeat of the legislation.
5. Requests the CLRC to provide a copy of a commission recommendation to each member of a policy committee that is hearing a bill that would implement the recommendation.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates the California Law Revision Commission. (Government Code Section 8280 et seq. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to the Government Code.)
2. Requires the CLRC, unless provided otherwise, to examine the common law and statutes of California and judicial decisions for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms in the law and recommending needed reforms. (Section 8289.)
3. Allows the CLRC to recommend, from time to time, such changes in the law as it deems necessary to modify or eliminate antiquated and inequitable rules of law, and to bring the law of this state into harmony with modern conditions. (Ibid.)
4. Requires the CLRC to study any topic that the Legislature, by concurrent resolution or statute, refers to it for study. (Section 8293.)
5. Establishes the California Public Records Act (CPRA). (Section 6250 et seq.)
6. Provides that, under the CPRA, public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. (Section 6253 et seq.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this measure is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: The California Law Revision Commission was created in 1953 and was given the responsibility of substantively reviewing California statutory and decisional law. The CLRC studies the law in order to discover defects and anachronisms, and makes recommendations to the Legislature on needed reforms.

The CLRC's enabling statute recognizes two types of topics the CLRC is authorized to study: (1) those that the CLRC identifies for study and lists in the Calendar of Topics that it reports to the Legislature, and (2) those that the Legislature assigns to the CLRC directly by statute or concurrent resolution. In the past, the bulk of the CLRC's review has come through the first type: matters identified by the CLRC and approved by the Legislature. Once the CLRC identifies a topic for study, it cannot begin to work on the topic until the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, authorizes the CLRC to conduct the study. In recent years, the CLRC's topics have come directly from the Legislature.

Similar to previous CLRC-reauthorizing resolutions, this measure resolves that the CLRC send its recommendations to the Legislature’s policy committees, specifically including this Committee, and invites CLRC staff to testify at hearings to explain recommendations and answer questions from Members of the Legislature.

Reauthorization of topics previously authorized for study. The CLRC currently has a list of 23 topics that the Legislature has previously authorized for study. This measure would reauthorize the CLRC to study the following topics:

1. Creditors' Remedies
2. Probate Code
3. Real and Personal Property
4. Family Law
5. Discovery in Civil Cases
6. Rights and Disabilities of Minors and Incompetent Persons
7. Evidence
8. Arbitration
9. Administrative Law
10. Attorney's Fees
11. Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act
12. Trial Court Unification
13. Contract Law
14. Common Interest Developments
15. Legal Malpractice Statutes of Limitation
16. Coordination of Public Records Statutes
17. Criminal Sentencing
18. Subdivision Map Act and Mitigation Fee Act
19. Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act
20. Place of Trial in Civil Cases
21. Implications of treating a charter school as a public entity
22. Fish and Game Code
23. The Legal Doctrine around Mediation Confidentiality and Attorney Malpractice

Given the CLRC's experience in clarifying the law without affecting its substance, a request to reduce the complexity of the California Public Records Act seems appropriate. In addition to the 23 topics of study, this measure authorizes the CLRC to further study the CPRA. The CPRA, signed into law in 1968 as a general record keeping law, allows the public to monitor government activity. Since the enactment of the CPRA, it has been amended multiple times to exempt certain records. These exemptions include health care records, public safety officers' personnel files, and domestic violence survivors’ personal information. (Government Code Section 6253 et seq.) Due to the multiple changes to the statute, the CPRA has become difficult for the public to understand.

In the past, the CLRC has provided hundreds of recommendations, ranging from the creation of entire codes to the repeal of a single section. Given the CLRC's experience and expertise in clarifying the law while maintaining the Legislature’s intent, it appears reasonable and consistent with the CLRC work that the Legislature asks the CLRC to also review the CPRA to determine whether it should be revised in a non-substantive manner to reduce its length and complexity, avoid unnecessary cross-references, and eliminate duplicative provisions.

Prior Legislation: SCR 83 (Monning, Res. Chap. 63, Stats. 2014)

SCR 54 (Padilla, Res. Chap. 115, Stats. 2013)

ACR 98 (Wagner, Res. Chap. 108, Stats. 2012)

ACR 49 (Evans, Res. Chap. 98, Stats. 2009)

ACR 35 (Evans, Res. Chap. 100, Stats. 2007)

SCR 15 Morrow (Res. Chap. 1, Stats. 2006)

SCR 42 Campbell (Res. Chap. 122, Stats. 2005)

SCR 4 Morrow (Res. Chap. 92, Stats. 2003)

ACR 123 Wayne (Res. Chap. 166, Stats. 2002)

SCR 13 Morrow (Res. Chap. 78, Stats. 2001)

ACR 17 Wayne (Res. Ch. 81, Stats. 1999)

SCR 65 Kopp (Res. Ch. 91, Stats. 1998)

SCR 3 Kopp (Res. Ch. 102, Stats. 1997)

SCR 43 Kopp (Res. Ch. 38, Stats. 1996)

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Eric Dang and Alexandria Smith-Davis / JUD. / (916) 319-2334