There is more to lawmaking than passing bills

Yes, Article IV, Section 1 of the California Constitution grants the lawmaking power to the legislative branch of state government (which it actually shares with the People through direct democracy). Nonetheless, I think lawmaking does not just mean passing bills and creating new laws. It also means oversight and accountability, as well as constituent services.

This is not a partisan stance, nor does it matter who is in office in either the legislative or executive branches of state government. Instead, it is based upon a strong belief that a key responsibility of the Legislature is to evaluate existing laws and determine their effectiveness. This is especially true in tough budget times when the state cannot afford to be wasteful or duplicative in providing critical services.

While California continues to face a myriad of public policy issues that demand attention by the Legislature, simply enacting additional laws may not always be the best answer. In addition to the need to provide oversight, alternative solutions should also be examined as part of the legislative process.

What that means is that the Legislature generally considers just the bills before them. Is this particular approach as set forth in this bill the best approach to solving the policy issue? The better approach is to consider alternatives before the decision is made to take a certain legislative route. In fact, legislation may not be the right response in every instance.

Returning to oversight and accountability, this does not have to take on a partisan nature and does not have to be a showdown between the legislative and executive branches of state government. Instead, it should be viewed as a critical part of the legislative process, essentially a continuum from bringing forth a policy proposal through its eventual enactment and evaluation of whether the law is working as intended.

In this light, the legislative branch in California needs to ensure that, after a law’s enactment, there is appropriate review and examination, which can be conducted by the more than 50 standing committees in the Legislature that have jurisdiction over policy areas.

What does oversight and accountability look like in practice? Nothing new has to be created. There are already adequate procedures in effect that are available. For example, there are specific internal rules that apply to oversight hearings by the Legislature, including the following:

Assembly Rule 11.5 provides: “(a) The standing committees of the Assembly created pursuant to Rule 11, with the exception of the Committee on Rules, are hereby constituted Assembly investigating committees and are authorized and directed to conduct oversight hearings and to ascertain, study, and analyze all facts relating to any subjects or matters which the Committee on Rules shall assign to them upon request of the Assembly or upon its own initiative.”

In addition, Subdivision (b) of AR 11.5 specifies: “Each of the Assembly investigating committees consists of the members of the standing committee on the same subject as most recently constituted.” Thereafter, Subdivision (d) notes, “In order to prevent duplication and overlapping of studies between the various investigating committees herein created, a committee may not commence the study of any subject or matter not specifically authorized herein or assigned to it unless and until prior written approval thereof has been obtained from the Committee on Rules.”

Similarly, Senate Rule 16 provides for general powers of standing committees and states: “Each standing committee of the Senate to which a proposed law or bill is assigned has full power and authority during the session of the Legislature, or any recess thereof, to make an investigation and study concerning any proposed law or bill as the committee shall determine necessary to enable it to properly act thereon.”

Joint Rule 36 provides for investigating committees and specifies that, “In order to expedite the work of the Legislature, either house, or both houses jointly, may by resolution or statute provide for the appointment of committees to ascertain facts and to make recommendations as to any subject within the scope of legislative regulation or control. The resolution providing for the appointment of a committee pursuant to this rule shall state the purpose of the committee and the scope of the subject concerning which it is to act, and may authorize it to act either during sessions of the Legislature or, when authorization may lawfully be made, after final adjournment.”

In addition, Joint Rule 36 provides: “Every department, commission, board, agency, officer, and employee of the state government, including the Legislative Counsel and the Attorney General and their subordinates, and of every political subdivision, county, city, or public district of or in this state, shall give and furnish to these committees and to their subcommittees upon request information, records, and documents as the committees deem necessary or proper for the achievement of the purposes for which each committee was created.”

Finally, Joint Rule 37 provides for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and that the “committee, with the permission of the appointing authorities of the two houses, may also create subcommittees from its membership, assigning to its subcommittees any study, inquiry, investigation, or hearing that the committee itself has authority to undertake or hold.”

As the reader can see, there are numerous available processes for the 32 Assembly standing committees and the 23 Senate standing committees to investigate or hold oversight hearings on laws that are in effect and how they are being implemented or interpreted.

Support for The Micheli Files is provided by The McGeorge School of Law Capital Center for Law & Policy