BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 630 |Hearing |7/8/15 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Linder |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |7/1/15 |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counties are sometimes left with outdated information on file as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) 7/1/15 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to be rescinded.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are rescinded when he or she leaves office.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 allows a county to maintain a record of each person
required to file a new oath of office, indicating whether or not
the person has complied. The bill specifies that those records
are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records
Act.
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
AB 630 (Linder) 7/1/15 Page 3
of ?
of State as soon as he or she has taken and subscribed his or
her oath.
AB 630 also provides that the failure to file a new oath of
office required by a board of supervisors pursuant to this
bill's provisions is not punishable as a crime.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. Current law does not require a county
officer 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
due to movement between offices, name changes due to marriage,
divorce, or other reasons. When members of the public 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, 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. Not a crime . State law makes it a crime, punishable by
imprisonment for up to four years, to knowingly make a false
statement of material fact while taking an oath of office, or to
take an oath of office and subsequently advocate for the violent
AB 630 (Linder) 7/1/15 Page 4
of ?
overthrow of the United States government. To avoid exposing
some county officers, deputies, and disaster service workers to
criminal liability for failing to update their oaths. The July
1 amendments to this bill clarify that no one can be subject to
prosecution under AB 630 for failure to update his or her oath
due to a legal change in name, delegated authority, or
department.
3. Mandate . Because AB 630 would result in more people taking an
oath of office-the violation of which is a crime-the Legislative
Counsel's Office says that this bill expands the scope of an
existing crime and therefore imposes 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
Assembly Local Government 9-0
Assembly Appropriations 17-0
Assembly Floor 78-0
Support and Opposition (6/18/15)
Support : California Association of Clerks and Elections
Officials.
Opposition : Unknown.
-- END --