Chris Micheli

Specialized Areas of Lobbying  By Chris Micheli There are specialized areas of lobbying, particularly as it relates to certain executive branch agencies, departments, boards, and commissions. Because the vast majority of lobbyists operate in the legislative branch of government, some lobbyists view regulatory advocacy as specialized, particularly because it often requires specific knowledge about how that executive branch entity operates and the unique subject matter of its regulatory work. In fact, there are some regulatory agencies where you may find primarily attorneys working on those regulatory projects. This is especially true when it comes to an agency or department acting in its quasi-judicial function. However, it can also apply then an executive branch entity engages in quasi-legislative activities. What are some of these specialized areas of lobbying? The main ones that come to my mind are the PUC, CEC, CARB, BOE, and CTC. Are there others? Of course, DTSC, DO...

Committee Versus Floor Lobbying  By Chris Micheli Should you tackle committee lobbying differently than you do floor lobbying? Lobbying is lobbying, after all. While there are certainly some similarities between the two venues, there are also some important differences between lobbying legislation in a policy or fiscal committee, or on the Senate or Assembly Floors. In lobbying committees, the focus is on a smaller number of legislators and their staff (although the Senate and Assembly Budget Committees are quite large in size!). The target, of course, is to get a majority of the committee members to agree with your position, just as you need a majority or sometimes a higher threshold on either Floor for certain types of bills. When your bill is in committee, you spend time working with the committee staff (both majority and minority party consultants) on the bill language, and perhaps whether any amendments are necessary or appropriate.  And you work with the consultant...

Designating “Spot” Bills in the California Legislature  By Chris Micheli             It is easy to identify a “spot” bill that is introduced in the California Legislature. The first place to look is in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest. The second place, naturally, is to look at the text of the bill. As described by the Legislative Counsel, a “spot bill” is one that does not make any substantive change to existing law, “and would not otherwise affect the ongoing operations of state or local government.” On the other hand, an “intent bill” is one that merely makes a statement of legislative intent. In the Digest, the reader will find one of the following three statements after the explanation of existing law in the Digest (following the paragraph that begins with “Existing law…): “This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to ….” “This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to ….” “This bill would make no...

Are These Extra Words Needed in California Statutes?  By Chris Micheli             In reading California statutes, I have seen multiple instances in which I believe there are extraneous words in bills and, ultimately, statutes in the 29 California Codes. Being concise is a key principle in drafting legislation and so I raise a couple of examples of language consistently found in statutes and pending legislation.             The first one is the use of the word “may.” The Codes have preliminary or general provisions, including the following guiding principle: “Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive. When the term “may” is used, it conveys a permissive or discretionary action is to be undertaken. So, let’s look at the first item I find duplicative: Why is the following language needed? “A court may, at its discretion, ….” We already know that the term “may” means i...

This Is an Interesting Limit on Rulemaking Power  By Chris Micheli             In perusing statutes in California’s 29 Codes, and with a keen interest in administrative law and the rulemaking process, I came across this interesting provision of state law: Fish and Game Code Section 6885 states that the Fish and Game Commission has “no power to modify the provisions of this article by any order, rule, or regulation.” What makes this statutory provision interesting? Executive branch agencies, departments, boards, commissions, and bureaus can engage in quasi-legislative activity (i.e., rulemaking) generally through a statutory grant of lawmaking authority that obviously comes from the enactment of a statute by the Legislature (who is granted lawmaking power by the state Constitution) and signed into law by the Governor (who essentially oversees the executive branch bureaucracy). However, in this case, the Legislature enact...

Probate Code Could Be a Basis for Statutory Interpretation Principles  By Chris Micheli             In reading sections of California’s Codes (the 29 Codes contain the state’s more than 156,000 statutes), I came across several interesting sections of the California Probate Code which could serve as a basis for codified statutory construction principles. Division 11 (“Construction of Wills, Trusts, and Other Instruments”), Part 1 (“Rules for Interpretation of Instrument”), Chapter 2 (“Ascertaining Meaning of Language Used in the Instrument”) of the California Probate Code could be used for other statutory interpretation principles that could be codified in California law.             Section 21120 provides that the words of an instrument are to receive an interpretation that will give every expression some effect, rather than one that will render any of the expressions...