BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator Bruce McPherson, Chair A
2003-2004 Regular Session B
2
8
5
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas) 8
As Amended June 28, 2004
Hearing date: June 29, 2004
Public Utilities Code and Uncodified Law
MK:br
PASSENGER STATE CORPORATIONS/CHARTER-PARTY PASSENGER CARRIERS
DRIVERS AND SPECIFIED EMPLOYEES - BACKGROUND CHECKS
HISTORY
Source: City of Los Angeles
Prior Legislation: AB 1642 (Ridley-Thomas) - 2004; in Senate
Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee
AB 1645 (Ridley-Thomas) - 2003; held in Assembly
Appropriations Committee
Support: California Airport Coalition; League of California
Cities; Los Angeles World Airports; Port of Oakland;
California Bus Association
Opposition:Greater California Livery Association; Public
Utilities Commission; California Teamsters Public
Affairs Council (unless amended)
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 48 - Noes 27
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD DRIVERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES OF PASSENGER STAGE CORPORATIONS AND
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 2
CHARTER-PARTY CARRIERS BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN SECURITY CLEARANCES AS
SPECIFIED IN THIS BILL?
SHOULD PERSONS CONVICTED OF SPECIFIED CRIMES BE PROHIBITED FROM
WORKING AS DRIVERS FOR PASSENGER STAGE CORPORATIONS OR CHARTER-PARTY
CARRIERS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require that drivers and key
employees of passenger stage corporations and charter-party
carriers have obtained security clearances and to provide
uniformity in credentialing among charter-party carriers, as
specified.
Existing law requires that the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) impose specified obligations on passenger
state corporations and charter-party carriers, vehicles which
transport passengers on a charter, or pre-arranged, basis such
as limousines and airport shuttles. Those obligations include
maintaining safe vehicles, ensuring driver fitness, and
maintaining adequate workers compensation insurance. (Public
Utilities Code 1031 et seq. and 5381 et seq.)
This bill does the following:
Enacts uncodified language that it is the intent of the
Legislature to reaffirm its commitment to homeland security as
it relates to passenger stage corporations and charter-party
carriers of passengers and their employees who drive
passengers to and from airports. The purpose of this act is
to ensure that procedures and regulations are in place
consistent with the airport security programs operated by
airports in this state, to assure the traveling public that
drivers or key employees of privately engaged carriers have
been through security clearances, and to provide uniformity in
credentialing among charter-party carriers of passengers.
Requires passenger stage corporations and charter-party
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 3
carriers who transport passengers to or from airports and
specified railroad terminals to also certify that its drivers
and "key employees" have successfully completed a criminal
history background check.
Defines "key employees" as owners, partners, or officers and
directors.
Requires that the CPUC adopt regulations implementing a
criminal background check program which shall include a
fingerprint-based criminal background investigation to uncover
prior convictions for the following criminal acts: unlawful
transportation of hazardous materials; carrying weapons or
explosives aboard an aircraft; unlawful entry into an aircraft
or airport area; destruction of an aircraft or aircraft
facility; violence at international airports; unlawful
possession or distribution of explosives or assault weapons;
felony arson; and hate crimes.
Provides that a driver or other key employee who has been
convicted of committing any of these crimes may not be
employed by the charter-party carrier in that capacity, with
this requirement applicable to drivers and key employees
employed on or after January 1, 2003.
Provides that employees who pass the background check shall be
issued an appropriate credential by the CPUC, with such
credentials subject to inspection by airport law enforcement
officers.
Requires the fingerprint-based background check to be
performed by the Department of Justice.
Makes violations of this provision subject to civil penalties
up to $2,000 with repeated violations grounds for revocation
of the carrier's CPUC operating permit.
Provides that any person authorized to operate school activity
busses is exempt from the credentialing requirements.
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 4
Provides for passenger stage corporations and charter-party
carriers to pay fees to the CPUC to cover the cost of the
program.
Provides that this bill shall become operative on July 1,
2005.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
Background from the author includes the following:
Following the 9/11 terrorist incidents, Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) was closed down for
several days. When LAX initially reopened only bus,
van, taxi and limousine drivers were allowed to drive
into the Central Terminal Area (CTA) for several
weeks. None of the bus, van or limousine drivers was
subject to a criminal background check, even though
they were the only vehicles allowed access to the CTA.
Airport police requested that legislation be sought
to require criminal background checks of bus, van and
limousine drivers. This bill would require the PUC to
adopt regulations establishing standards and
procedures to review the criminal background of
candidates seeking certificates for employment as
drivers or key employees, as defined, with
charter-party carriers of passengers and passenger
service corporations (such as limousine services,
shuttles, charter buses and scheduled bus operators)
that provide passenger transportation to and from
airports and railroad passenger terminals.
In the City of Los Angeles, taxi cab drivers are
already required to undergo background checks. The
San Diego airport also conducts its own criminal
background review. One goal of this bill is to avoid
a circumstance where various airport authorities
pursue duplicative and costly criminal background
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 5
checks using potentially different standards for
drivers that may serve several or all the airports in
a region, such as Southern CA and the SF Bay Area.
2. Criminal Background Check
a. PUC to require background check for licensure
This bill requires the Public Utilities Commission to adopt
regulations and establish standards and procedures to
investigate the background of candidates seeking certificates
of employment as drivers or key employees with charter-party
carriers of passengers that provide passenger transportation
to or from airports, or to or from any railroad terminal
serving passenger trains. Criminal history information shall
be used to determine whether applicants for employment as
drivers as key employees have convictions for specified
offenses that would disqualify them from being hired as
drivers or employees.
The PUC argues that they do not "need to establish regulations
as a precondition to gather any information that seems
pertinent to issuing a license or certificate, or otherwise
carrying on an investigation, formal or informal, in
performance of its regulatory duties. This provision would
serve as a severe and inappropriate limitation on the
Commission's ability to implement this measure and would, in
effect, make it harder for the Commission to conduct
background checks." It is unclear whether the amendments
taken in Energy, Utilities and Communications removed the
PUC's concerns since it still requires them to create
regulations.
b. DOJ and background checks
Department of Justice (DOJ) is the criminal record check
depository. They provide criminal history information to
various regulatory agencies with history information for
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 6
licensure purposes as specified in various sections of law.
The DOJ does not do "investigations" but merely is the
supplier of the information to the agency.
This bill intends to require a person applying drivers and key
employees of charter-party carriers of passengers and
passenger stage corporations who transport people to and from
airports or railway stations. However, as amended in EU&C
this bill requires the DOJ to perform a background
"investigation". It appears this amendment may have been
taken in response to concerns raised by the PUC regarding
requiring them to duplicate the function of the DOJ in getting
a background check, but the language in Section 4 of the bill,
PUC Section 5384.7 (b) raises new problems and is confusing.
"Investigation" is not the proper term for what DOJ does. If
a DOJ background is required this language needs to be
rewritten to provide that the PUC shall require an applicant
to submit fingerprints via livescan to the DOJ for the DOJ to
perform a criminal history on the individual.
Furthermore, the DOJ does not get involved in determining
whether or not someone is prohibited from being licensed or
employed because of some conviction. Section 5384.7(f) talks
about "determining" disqualification in the middle of language
discussing the DOJ history information. This is not an
appropriate function of DOJ and should be cleaned-up.
There are other references in the bill to the PUC performing a
criminal "investigation" which should not be confused with the
DOJ criminal history information which could be one piece of
an investigation. If it is not contemplated that the PUC do
an independent investigation of anything that may show up on a
criminal history search then the use of the term investigation
may be appropriate in the bill, but if that is not what is
contemplated then the term should probably not be used at all.
It should be noted that the cost of a further investigation
by the PUC could be significant.
SHOULD DRIVERS TRANSPORTING PEOPLE TO AND FROM THE AIRPORT
HAVE A CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE THEY ARE
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 7
LICENSED TO DO SO?
IF SO, SHOULD THIS BILL BE REDRAFTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DOJ
DOES NOT PERFORM INVESTIGATIONS OR GET INVOLVED IN
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING DISQUALIFICATION?
SHOULD THE PUC BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM SOME SORT OF
INVESTIGATION OF A PERSON'S CRIMINAL BACKGROUND BEYOND THE
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION FROM DOJ? IF NOT SHOULD THE
CONFUSING LANGUAGE IN THE BILL BE CLARIFIED OR DELETED? IF SO
SHOULD IT BE MADE CLEAR THAT IS WHAT IS INTENDED?
c. Who has access to background information
Generally, criminal history information is sent from DOJ to
the appropriate licensing or employing agency and there are
strict regulations about the dissemination beyond that agency
in order to safeguard the privacy of the information. This
bill seems to allow the PUC to designate someone else to
receive this information. Allowing third party dissemination
would likely violate the existing record security regulations
as well as likely constitute a violation of privacy. If it is
determined that these individuals need to be background
checked, then this bill has to state to whom the information
will be sent by DOJ. That entity cannot pass the information
or the duties on to others.
IN ORDER TO NOT VIOLATE EXISTING DOJ REGULATIONS REGARDING
RECORD SECURITY OR THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS SHOULD
THE BILL SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THE
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION ON THESE INDIVIDUALS?
d. Disqualifying offenses
This bill would prohibit a person with the following offenses
from working being a driver or a key employee for a
charter-party carrier or passenger stage corporation:
Federal violation: unlawful transportation of a
hazardous material;
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 8
Federal violation: carrying a weapon or explosive
aboard an aircraft;
Federal violation: unlawful entry into an aircraft of
airport area that serves air carriers or foreign air
carriers contrary to established security requirements;
Federal violation: destruction of an aircraft facility;
Federal violation: violence at international airports;
Unlawful possession, use, sale, distribution, or
manufacture of an explosive, incendiary device or assault
weapon;
Felony arson;
Hate crime.
Most of the offenses are airport related. The definition of
"hate crime" is broad and could be problematic. It defines
"hate crime" as "described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b)
of section 628.1" of the Penal Code which is the broad section
for school reporting of crimes and then goes on to say
"including but not limited to offenses in Title 11.6" of the
Penal Code which are the sections that provide for some of the
"hate crime" offenses and enhancements in the Penal Code. The
broad definition in Penal Code Section 628.1 as well as the
"included but not limited to" language could make it difficult
for the PUC to determine whether or not a person is
disqualified. Almost any offense, misdemeanor or felony could
fall into the Penal Code 628.1 definition which provides that
a "hate crime" means "an act or attempted act against the
person or property of another individual or institution which
in any way manifest evidence of hostility toward the victim
because of his or her actual or perceived race, religion,
disability, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation." This
broad definition could end up making the PUC investigate
almost any conviction to determine if it was a "hate crime"
under this definition. If the intent is to stop people
convicted of hate crimes from working in these jobs then those
sections that are relevant should be specifically listed.
(More)
IS THIS LIST OF OFFENSES APPROPRIATE FOR DISQUALIFYING THESE
PEOPLE FROM EMPLOYMENT?
SHOULD WHAT IS INTENDED TO BE A HATE CRIME BE SPECIFIED?
e. Penalty for violation
This bill provides that a person who falls under this bill
shall carry their valid license credential at all times.
Failure to produce the credential at the request of an airport
law enforcement officer shall constitute a violation of
regulations and subject the driver and the carrier to civil
penalties not to exceed $500.
f. Fee
This bill provides that the PUC shall by regulation provide
for a fee to be charged to the carriers covered by the bill in
order to cover the costs of the background check including any
fee assessed by the DOJ. An individual can only be charged
the fee charged by DOJ.
3. Opposition
a. Greater California Livery Association
The Greater California Livery Association oppose this bill
stating:
The preferential treatment gained by the credential is
undesired by our industry. For the sake of everyone's
security we feel that our drivers and our passengers
should be subject to the same security standards as
everyone else. Law enforcement officials currently
have the authority to stop every vehicle accessing
airports and we believe that is sufficient. If law
enforcement believes that stopping vehicles at
airports to check vehicles and luggage is necessary to
ensure security then all vehicles, including those in
(More)
AB 2858 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 10
our industry, should be stopped and checked by
security officials.
It is unclear if the intent of this bill is that once these
drivers are credentialed, their passengers will not have their
luggage checked as they enter the airport. If that is the
case, what is to stop a person who wants to do harm to use the
airport van as a potential bomb by filling their suitcase with
something deadly and designating it as the van reaches the
curb. It does not seem that credentialing the driver would
stop this, while checking all cars and vans when there is a
high security warning level might.
b. Teamsters
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council opposes the
imposition of fees in this bill. If the fees are removed they
will remove their opposition.
***************