Legislative Report - Annual Business Meeting

Legislation Report

 Francie Koehler, Chair

Annual Conference June 29-30, 2012

California Association of Licensed Investigators

So, this year the Legislation Committee met for one full day and reviewed around 400 bills to determine if we were to support, to oppose, to look into, or to watch. From those we developed a list to monitor closely. Those were the bills we discussed with our representatives on our annual Legislation Day.

AB 1720 [Torres] Service of Process Gated Communities

The Legislation Committee recommended to the CALI's Board of Directors, and the Board of Directors agreed, to sponsor a bill to give private investigators access to gated communities to serve process.

AB 1720 authored by Assembly Member Norma Torres. Today, June 28, 2012, AB 1720 was passed on the Senate Floor and is on its way to the Governor's desk. Department of Consumer Affairs has recommended a support position to Governor Jerry Brown.

SB 1384 [Simitian] Consumer information privacy as amended – Inactive File - Senate Judiciary Committee

· "Existing state and federal law define and regulate consumer credit reports. Existing federal law regulates consumer file information that is compiled and maintained by a nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency, which is defined as a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis relating to medical records or payments, residential or tenant history, check writing history, employment history, or insurance claims. Existing state law permits a consumer to place and to remove a security on his or her credit report by following a specified procedure.

· This bill would define a nationwide specialty consumer-reporting agency and consumer file for purposes of California law and would authorize a consumer to place a freeze on his or her consumer file that is compiled and maintained by a nationwide specialty consumer-reporting agency. The bill would also make conforming changes.”

SB 2299 [Feuer] Redaction of Public Safety Officials Names, Property Tax Records

The following is a prime example of how to utilize the key relationships CALI members have developed with their elected representatives.

Barbara Burr, Distinguished Award Recipient, attended the Senate Governance and Finance Committee Hearing on the CALI-opposed AB 2299 [Feuer] that would authorize counties to redact the names of public safety officials from property tax records.

Barbara, representing all of the opposition, testified, and did the following:

· Button-holed her Senator Lois Wolk who is the committee chair on the Senator'sway into the hearing, as she knows the Senator well, and

· Responded to the request from our allies by serving as one of the two opposition witnesses allowed to present substantive testimony, and

· Nailed the testimony to the extent that three Senators noted her specific concerns by [a] raising them with the author in the hearing and [b] mentioning them as reasons they did not favor the bill, and

· Was stopped more than once as she exited the hearing room by other opponents, thanking her for her excellent testimony.

Numerous law enforcement groups were represented and testified in support. Sixteen witnesses attended in opposition including the California Land Title Association, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the County Recorders Association, the California Escrow Association, the California Association of Realtors, First American Title Insurance, the California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors, the California Assessors Association, and several individual county clerks and recorders from Napa, Sutter, Colusa, Yolo, and other counties.

The key issues that resonated with Senators on the committee were that:

· The bill is overly broad in that it would protect many types of government employees.

· The bill is overly broad in that it would protect not just current but former government employees.

· The bill is overly broad in that it would not require any showing of a threat of harm.

· The bill overreaches in that it would provide a lifetime of confidentiality for the protected individual: this was a key addition by Barbara

· The bill is not workable because of the burden it would place on local government officials.

The result of the hearing was that Assembly Member Feuer agreed not to ask for a vote and the bill was held in Committee.

AB 1821 [HALL] – Firearm Qualifications Card

AB 1821, as introduced, Hall. Security personnel: firearm qualification cards. Current status: Ordered to Special Consent Calendar 6/27/2012 Senate Appropriations Committee.

"Existing law, the Private Security Services Act, provides for the registration and regulation of private security personnel by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. Under existing law, a security guard or security patrolperson may not carry or use a firearm unless he or she has a valid registration card and a valid firearm qualification card issued by the bureau. Existing law authorizes a security guard or security patrolperson to perform his or her duties pending receipt of a permanent off replacement registration card as long as he or she carries a hard copy printout of the bureau's approval form from the bureau's Internet Web site and valid picture identification. Existing law authorizes the bureau to charge a $10 certification fee to provide a replacement certification card.

This bill would authorize a security guard or security patrolperson to carry and use a firearm pending receipt of a permanent or replacement firearm qualification card as long as he or she carries a hard copy printout of the bureau's approval from the bureau's Internet Web site and a valid picture identification. The bill would also authorize the bureau to charge a $10 certification\ fee to provide a replacement firearm qualification card.”

AB 1634 [Lowenthal] Unclaimed Property as amended

A meeting with the bill's sponsors was being scheduled for next week with the State Controller's Office to gather additional information, however the bill was defeated on the Senate Floor today, June 28, 2012.

"The Unclaimed Property Law requires a person holding funds or other property escheated to the state to file a report with the Controller and to pay or deliver the escheated property to the Controller, unless another person has established his or her right to any of the property specified in the report. The Controller is required to publish notice within one year after payment or delivery of the escheated property, as specified. Under existing law, any agreement to locate, deliver, recover, or assist in the recovery of escheated property that is entered into between the date the report is filed and the date of publication of notice is not valid. Such an agreement made after publication of notice is valid if the fee or compensation agreed upon is not in excess of 10% of the recoverable property, and the agreement is in writing and signed by the owner after disclosure in the agreement of the nature and value of the property and the name and address of the person or entity in possession of the property.

This bill would provide that, on and after January 1, 2013, any solicitation made to locate, deliver, recover, or assist in the recovery of escheated property shall be in writing, and shall disclose the nature and value of the property and the name, current mailing address, and telephone number or Internet Web site of the person or entity in possession of the property on the front page of the solicitation in at least a 12-point type. The bill would require any agreement made after publication of notice to comply with these requirements, in addition to those requirements described above, in order to be valid.”

State Fund

Jerry Desmond, President Chris Reynolds and the Legislation Committee spent a considerable amount of time this year addressing the RFP distributed by State Fund to award a third-party administrator to supervise workers compensation cases. Concerns were as follows:

· The timeliness of the RFP.

· The confidentiality provision of the RFP.

· The requirements of the RFP.

· Fear of loss of business due to the case assignment control of the 3rd Party Administrator.

· Fear that the 3^rd-Party Administrator would be awarded outside California.

Ultimately the deadline was extended, the confidentiality provision was stricken, and other concerns are still pending.

#    #   #