BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 36
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
36 (Campos) - As Amended April 27, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Local Government |Vote:|9 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill prohibits local agencies from receiving surplus
military equipment from the federal government, unless the
acquisition is approved by the legislative body of the local
AB 36
Page 2
agency, at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Brown Act.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands California's Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law
of 1945 (Federal Surplus Property Law) by prohibiting a local
agency from receiving surplus military equipment pursuant to
Section 2576a of Title 10 the United States Code (1033
Program), unless the legislative body of the local agency
approves the acquisition at a regular meeting held pursuant to
the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).
2)Adds chartered cities and counties, school districts,
political subdivisions, or any board, commission, or agency
thereof, or other local public agency to the definition of
"local agency" in the Federal Surplus Property Law.
3)Declares that this bill constitutes a matter of statewide
concern, and therefore applies to charter cities and charter
counties.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Negligible state fiscal impact.
Local mandate costs would fall under Proposition 42 and, thus,
are not reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
AB 36
Page 3
1)Purpose. According to the author, "Unilateral decisions by law
enforcement agencies to acquire military equipment provide
little or no opportunity for community input. Most law
enforcement agencies are not required to engage in a public
process that involves public debate about equipment purchases.
This results in an inherently skewed decision-making process
about what someone's community will look like. AB 36 helps
address this issue by prohibiting a public safety agency from
receiving and buying surplus military equipment unless the
legislative body of the local agency votes to approve the
purchase at a public meeting."
2)1033 Program. The Department of Defense (DOD) 1033 Program
allows surplus U.S. military equipment to be transferred to
municipal police departments free of charge. The National
Defense Authorization Act of 1997 granted permanent authority
to the Secretary of Defense to transfer defense material to
federal and state agencies for use in law enforcement,
particularly those associated with counter-drug and
counter-terrorism activities.
According to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which
administers the 1033 Program, "For states to participate in
the program, they must each set up a business relationship
with DLA through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Each
participating state's governor is required to appoint a State
Coordinator to ensure the program is used correctly by the
participating law enforcement agencies. The State
Coordinators are expected to maintain property accountability
records and to investigate any alleged misuse of property, and
in certain cases, to report violations of the Memorandum of
Agreement to DLA.
The Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) administers
AB 36
Page 4
the 1033 Program for the state. According to the OES website,
"California law enforcement agencies (LEAs) that wish to
acquire and/or retain 1033 Program excess property must be
certified and currently authorized to use the 1033 Program.
Certification paperwork is required annually and whenever a
participating agency's Chief Executive Official changes. OES
maintains an inventory of tracked 1033 equipment for
California agencies and entities.
3)Proposition 42. Proposition 42, passed by voters on June 3,
2014, amended the state Constitution to require all local
governments to comply with the California Public Records Act
and the Ralph M. Brown Act and with any subsequent changes to
those Acts. Proposition 42 also eliminated reimbursement to
local agencies for costs of complying with the California
Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act.
4)Support. There is no registered support for this bill.
5)Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities, in
opposition, states, "[We] oppose this measure as an
unjustified incursion upon municipal sovereignty. Under
current law, local agencies are fully within their
constitutional police power in deciding whether to acquire
military equipment from the Department of Defense pursuant to
the 1033 Program, and under what circumstances. Some cities
have voluntarily made the decision to acquire equipment such
as an MRAP (an armored truck used by the U.S. Army) via a vote
of the city council. But due to the security implications,
jurisdictions can and should decide for themselves on the
circumstances under which they make such decisions, including
whether to observe the Brown Act.
AB 36
Page 5
6)Related Legislation. SB 242 (Monning) requires a school
district's police department to obtain approval from its
governing board prior to receiving federal surplus military
equipment. SB 242 is keyed non-fiscal and passed off the
Senate Floor on April 30, 2015. The bill is awaiting referral
in the Assembly.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081