BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 36
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
36 (Campos)
As Enrolled September 14, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |56-12 |(May 18, 2015) |SENATE: |33-3 |(September 9, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(September 10, | | | |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY: Prohibits local agencies, except local law enforcement
agencies that are directly under the control of an elected
officer, from applying to receive specified surplus military
equipment from the federal government, unless the legislative
AB 36
Page 2
body of the local agency approves the acquisition at a regular
meeting held pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill makes a number of changes to
California's Federal Surplus Property Law, which governs the
receipt of surplus military equipment under the federal 1033
Program. Among its many provisions, this bill prohibits local
agencies, except local law enforcement agencies that are
directly under the control of an elected officer, from
applying to receive tactical surplus military equipment from
the 1033 Program, unless the acquisition is approved by
ordinance or resolution at a regular meeting held pursuant to
the Brown Act.
This bill requires the state coordinator, as defined, to
develop a list of tactical surplus military equipment, which
must include specified types of equipment and be posted on the
state coordinator's Web site, as specified.
This bill updates the Federal Surplus Property Law's
definition of "local agency" to include a county, city,
whether general law or chartered, city and county, town,
school district, municipal corporation, district, political
subdivision, or any board, commission, or agency thereof, or
other local public agency. All of these entities (except for
sheriff's departments) would be subject to these provisions of
this bill.
AB 36
Page 3
This bill also prohibits any local agency from applying to
receive the following types of surplus military equipment:
tracked armored vehicles; weaponized vehicles; firearms of .50
caliber or greater; ammunition of .50 caliber or greater;
grenade launchers; bayonets; and, camouflage uniforms.
This bill declares that it constitutes a matter of statewide
concern, that it shall apply to charter cities and charter
counties, and that its provisions shall supersede any
inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or
city and county. This bill is sponsored by the author.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "Due to recent
events of police brutality, distrust between law enforcement
and many of our communities remains at an all-time high.
Further exacerbating the issue is the recent militarization of
law enforcement agencies and a movement away from community
policing across the nation.
"Amid a national debate over the militarization of police, the
San Jose Police Department acquired a 15-ton armored vehicle
earlier this year from the military surplus program. After
receiving community input that the armored vehicle was
damaging the trust that a decade of community policing had
created, the San Jose Police Department decided to return the
vehicle. In a separate case, in Ferguson, Missouri, the
mine-resistant, ambush-protected troop transport, or
Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP), became a focus
for debate after this military surplus vehicle and other
military equipment were used by local law enforcement to
respond to civil unrest over the police killing of unarmed
teenager Michael Brown.
"These are only a few cases where the public felt threatened
by military equipment in their communities. In both cases,
AB 36
Page 4
the communities involved did not have the opportunity to weigh
in before the military equipment was acquired. These
situations hurt our most underserved communities by
exacerbating their relationship with the police and
government.
"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."
3)Related Legislation. SB 242 (Monning), Chapter 79, Statutes
of 2015, requires a school district's police department to
obtain approval from its governing board prior to receiving
federal surplus military equipment.
4)Arguments in Support. The California State Conference of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in
support, states "Law enforcement agencies unilateral decisions
to acquire military grade equipment provide little or no
opportunity for community input as most law enforcement
agencies are not required to engage in a public process that
involves public debate about equipment purchases. Local
communities must be able to discuss the acquisition of
military equipment and decide whether there is a real need for
it before it becomes present in their everyday lives.
"AB 36 is good public safety policy in that it would require
AB 36
Page 5
local agencies to have a hearing conducted by a governing body
in the community regarding the necessity of military weapons
in their community and would require a vote for approval of
military grade weapons."
5)Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities,
California Police Chiefs Association, California Colleges and
University Police Chiefs Association, California Narcotics
Officers Association, and California Association of Code
Enforcement Officers, in opposition, write, "In a free
society, keeping local police agencies accountable is
critical. Transparency in connection with their acquisition
of military equipment is equally critical. But transparency
must be tempered by the security considerations associated
with equipment designed to counter well-armed criminal acts,
or to enhance local first response capability in the event of
a terrorist attack. Making decisions about such equipment in
an open meeting should be at the discretion of the local
governing body. This was the sole motivation for the closed
session amendment (in the prior version of the bill).
"As amended, AB 36 represents an irresponsible approach to a
vitally important matter which stands to adversely affect the
safety of all of the heavily populated communities in
California."
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill requires a local agency governing body to hold a
public meeting prior to the acquisition of certain surplus
military equipment.
Transparency is important between law enforcement and the
communities they serve, but it must be tempered by security
AB 36
Page 6
considerations before revealing law enforcement equipment
shortages in a public hearing. This bill fails to strike the
proper balance.
Moreover, the bill is unnecessary, as President Obama's
Executive Order 13688 will implement a similar requirement for
governing bodies to grant approval of surplus military
equipment.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0002469