BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 630
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
630 (Linder)
As Amended July 1, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |78-0 |(May 14, 2015) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 20, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY: Allows a county board of supervisors to require the
filing of a new oath of office.
The Senate amendments:
1)Allow 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 with the requirements, pursuant to this bill's
provisions.
2)Clarify that any record maintained pursuant to this bill's
provisions is a public record subject to disclosure under the
California Public Records Act.
AB 630
Page 2
3)Clarify that failure of an elected or appointed officer or
department head, or a disaster service worker, to file a new
oath of office pursuant to this bill's provisions shall not be
punishable as a crime.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill allows a county board of supervisors
to require a new oath or affirmation to be filed within 10
days of a county employee changing, his or her name, delegated
authority, or department, and would apply to every elected or
appointed county officer or department head, disaster service
worker, and county appointed deputy. This bill also allows a
county board of supervisors to require an appointing authority
to file a revocation with the county clerk in the event of an
officer's departure from office, thus giving notice to the
county clerk when an elected or appointed officer leaves
office so that the records can be updated. This bill
additionally allows a county to maintain a record of each
person required to file a new oath of office, and to indicate
whether the person has complied, and clarifies that any record
maintained in this manner is a public record that is subject
to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
Failure to file a new oath of office pursuant to the bill's
provisions shall not be punishable as a crime.
This bill is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks
and Election Officials (CACEO).
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "AB 630 attempts
to update and clarify existing law in regards to the filing of
required oaths for public office at the county level. Under
current law, a loyalty oath is administered by the county
clerk and is retained on file as public record for that local
official and must be presented upon request according to the
California Public Records Act.
AB 630
Page 3
"Current law does not require the filing of a new oath in the
event of a name, title, or department change. The existing
process has left 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."
3)Arguments in Support. CACEO, the sponsor, notes that "The
existing process left the county with outdated information on
file that was often untraceable to current staff based on
movement between offices or name change due to marriage,
divorce, or other reasons."
4)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0001345