Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers to provide services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Existing law requires the department to establish an Office of the Self-Determination Program Ombudsperson to be headed by an individual to be known as the Self-Determination Program Ombudsperson, who is appointed by the Director of Developmental Services. Existing law requires the office to be an independent and autonomous entity within the department and prescribes specified duties and rights of the office, including recommending to the department strategies for change and improvement of the program.

This bill would repeal the above-described provisions establishing the Office of the Self-Determination Program Ombudsperson and instead establish the Office of the Developmental Services Ombudsperson as an independent and autonomous entity within the department for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of specified services for individuals served by a regional center, as defined. The bill would set forth the duties of the Office of the Developmental Services Ombudsperson, including, among other things, disseminating information and providing training and technical assistance, and receiving and possibly investigating complaints made by or on behalf of individuals served by a regional center. The bill would establish the position of the Developmental Services Ombudsperson to head the office and specify appointment procedures and the duties of that position.

Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a 2 3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

This bill would prohibit the ombudsperson or their staff from being compelled to testify or be deposed, or to disclose specified records, in a judicial or administrative proceeding. Because this prohibition would affect the admissibility of relevant evidence in criminal proceedings, the bill would require a ⅔ vote of the Legislature.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.