•  Summary 
  •  
  •  Actions 
  •  
  •  Votes 
  •  
  •  Memo 
  •  
  •  Text 

A05371 Summary:

BILL NO    A05371 

SAME AS    SAME AS S06258

SPONSOR    Zebrowski (MS)

COSPNSR    Lavine

MLTSPNSR   

Amd S102-a, St Ad Proc Act

Relates to providing information and assistance to small businesses to prevent
common regulatory violations.
Go to top

A05371 Memo:

BILL NUMBER:A5371

TITLE  OF  BILL:    An act to amend the state administrative procedure
act, in relation to providing information on the prevention of  common
regulatory violations in small business regulation guides

PURPOSE:  OR  GENERAL  IDEA  OF  'RILL:    This bill would enhance the
Slate's  business  climate  by  providing  effective   oversight   and
coordination  of  the  process  of preparing small business regulation
guides and by highlighting information on  how  small  businesses  can
avoid common violations.

SUMMARY  OF  PROVISIONS:    Bill  S  1  amends  S  102-a  of the State
Administrative Procedure Act to vest the Division for  Small  Business
(within  DED) with responsibility for overseeing the process of agency
issuance of small business regulation guides --  this  duty  had  been
assigned  to  the now-disbanded Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform
(GORR). The bill provides that such guides shall "identify any sources
of information and assistance available to facilitate  small  business
regulatory  compliance"  and  where  appropriate,  shall  also include
information on how to avoid  the  most  common  regulatory  violations
small businesses are cited for by the agency.

The  Division  for  Small  Business  would  activate  the inclusion of
information on avoiding common violations by  requesting  agencies  to
provide  (i) statistical information on the frequency of violations of
various regulations  by  small  businesses  and  (2)  information  and
analysis regarding actions that small publishing and using enforcement
results  for  management  and  control  of agency resources so long as
enforcement results tabulations are not used as the primary  criterion
to  evaluate  enforcement  staff  or  to impose or suggest enforcement
quotas. Also, agency managers could raise questions with an officer or
employee about the number of cases processed or inspections  performed
by the officer or employee, the amount of time the officer or employee
has been spending on individual enforcement activities, or the kind of
results  the  officer  or  employee  has  been  obtaining, and may use
similar standards in evaluating the performance  of  a  supervisor  of
such officers or employees.

"Enforcement   quota"  is  defined  as  a  quantitative  standard  for
evaluating or measuring  enforcement  activities,  including  but  not
limited  to  (a)  a  specific  number  of  enforcement  cases in Which
citations for violations are made within a specified period  of  time;
(b)  the  total  number of violations found within a specified period;
(c) the total dollar amount of penalties associated  with  enforcement
activities within a specified period of time; or (d) any comparison of
the enforcement activities of an officer, employee or supervisors with
other  officers,  employees  or  supervisors,  with an average or such
activities or with other quantitative standards, when used to penalize
or reward officers, employees or supervisors for attaining or  failing
to  attain  a  specific  number  of  citations  For  violations and/or
penalties within a specified period of time.

EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER:    Currently,  the
Labor  Law  bans  quotas for traffic tickets and the Tax Law prohibits
using records of tax enforcement results as  a  basis  for  evaluating


employee  performance,  This bill would establish similar restrictions
on enforcement of regulatory violations.

JUSTIFICATION:    Regulatory  programs perform important and necessary
functions that protect public health and safety, preserve our  natural
environment  and  neighborhoods,  and  ensure  an orderly marketplace.
Monetary penalties are useful as a means of  promoting  compliance  as
well as defraying the cost of regulatory oversight. However, penalties
should  always be used as a means to an end - incentivizing compliance
- and should never come  to  be  viewed  as  a  guaranteed  source  of
revenue.

The  increasing  use  of  performance  metrics in public organizations
brings many benefits, but also the risk of creation  of  inappropriate
numerical  standards by which employee performance can be judged. This
has long been recognized for some types of enforcement.  For  example,
Labor  Law  S  215-a  was  enacted  in  1978 to prevent discrimination
against police officers for failing to meet  pre-ordained  quotas  for
the number of traffic tickets issued or arrests or stops made within a
specified  time  period.  More recently, Tax Law S 3012 was enacted as
part of the "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" to bar imposition of quotas in
tax collection  efforts.  This  bill  establishes  similar  safeguards
against the establishment of regulatory enforcement quotas.
Go to top
Page display time = 0.0725 sec