BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 630 |Hearing |6/24/15 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Linder |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |4/27/15 |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Lewis |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Counties' oaths of office
Allows a county board of supervisors to require the filing of a
new oath of office in specified instances.
Background and Existing Law
State law requires members of the Legislature and all other
public officers and employees of the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches to take an oath (or affirmation) to protect
and defend the Constitutions of the United States and of the
State of California, and to faithfully discharge the duties upon
which they are about to enter. Violating an oath or affirmation
is a crime.
County clerks are responsible for keeping records documenting
oaths taken by most county officers. State law requires these
oaths to be kept on file at the clerk's office, and this
information is subject to the California Public Records Act.
However, current law does not require a county officer to take a
new oath in the event that the officer changes his or her name,
title, department, or delegated authority. In such cases,
counties are sometimes left with outdated information on file as
to who occupies what public office-a situation which can impede
counties' responses to public requests for information.
Similarly, if a county officer's delegated authority changes,
state law does not explicitly require his or her old authority
AB 630 (Linder) 4/27/15 Page 2
of ?
to be rescinded.
County clerks and election officials propose changing state law
to allow county boards of supervisors to require a new oath be
filed for county officers, department heads, disaster service
workers, and appointed deputies who change their names,
delegated authority, or department while in public office.
Furthermore, clerks and election officials suggest amending
current law to clarify that an appointed county officer's powers
are rescinded when he or she leaves office.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 630 authorizes a county board of supervisors to
require a new oath or affirmation to be filed within 10 days of
a legal change in name, delegated authority, or department by:
Every elected or appointed officer or department head of
that county;
Every disaster service worker of that county; and,
Every appointed deputy of that county.
AB 630 specifies that the powers of an appointed officer of a
county are no longer granted upon the officer's departure from
office, and would authorize a county board of supervisors to
require the appointing authority to rescind these powers in
writing by filing a revocation in the same manner as the oath of
office was filed.
The bill makes additional changes to current law, specifically
by adding "clerk of the court" to the categories of county
officers required to file a copy of his or her official oath,
signed with his or her own proper signature, with the Secretary
of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed his or
her oath.
State Revenue Impact
AB 630 (Linder) 4/27/15 Page 3
of ?
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. Current law does not require county
officers to file a new oath in the event of a name, title, or
department change. This situation leaves counties with outdated
information on file that is often untraceable to current staff
based on movement between offices or name change due to
marriage, divorce, or other reasons. When members of the public
question the validity of their county officials and request
evidence of mandated oaths, county clerks either spend an
unnecessary amount of time tracking people down based on
outdated names, or in most cases, they are not able to comply
with the request at all. AB 630 is a transparency measure that
will help counties provide the public with current and accurate
public record information in a timely manner by expediting
public record searches for public and county clerk staff. State
law already requires a notary public who legally changes his or
her name change to submit an application to the Secretary of
State to amend their commission and file a new oath with the
Secretary of State. This practice makes sense from a policy
perspective, since it is in the public interest that public
records accurately reflect the legal names, titles, and duties
of individuals performing public functions. AB 630 would
further this purpose by enabling counties to compel their
officers, disaster workers, and deputies to update their oaths
in a similar manner to notaries public in the event of a change
of name, title, department, or delegated authority.
2. Mandate . Violating an oath or affirmation is a crime. Because
AB 630 would expand the scope of an existing crime, the
Legislative Counsel's Office says that this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. But the bill disclaims the
state's responsibility for reimbursing counties for compliance
with AB 630. This disclaimer is consistent with the California
Constitution, which provides that the state does not have to
reimburse local governments for the costs of new crimes (Article
XIIIB, 6[a] [2]).
Assembly Actions
AB 630 (Linder) 4/27/15 Page 4
of ?
Assembly Local Government 9-0
Assembly Appropriations 17-0
Assembly Floor 78-0
AB 630 (Linder) 4/27/15 Page 5
of ?
Support and
Opposition (6/18/15)
Support : California Association of Clerks and Elections
Officials.
Opposition : Unknown.
-- END --