BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 330
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 26, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 330
(Mendoza) - As Amended August 18, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections |Vote:|5 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |6 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill provides, commencing January 1, 2017, for the purposes
of Government Code Section 1090 dealing with conflicts of
interests in contracts, that an elected public officer with
membership on any state or local body, board, or commission, is
deemed to have a remote interest in a contract if the officer's
spouse, child, parent, sibling, or the spouse of the child,
parent, or sibling, has a financial interest in the contract
SB 330
Page 2
made by the public officer in his or her official capacity, or
by a body, board, or commission of which the public officer is a
member.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), pursuant to
legislation enacted in 2013, has authority to: (a) commence
administrative or civil enforcement actions for violations of
Section 1090 and related statutes; and (b) issue written
opinions or advice in response to requests from persons
subject to these laws. The FPPC will experience an increase in
advice requests from public officials to determine whether
they may have a financial interest in a contract as a result
of a family relationship. Ongoing General Fund costs will be
up to $211,000 annually for 1.5 positions in the legal and
enforcement divisions.
2)Potential but likely minor increase in state costs to the
extent anyone is sentenced to state prison for violation of
the bill's provisions. (The penalty for violation of the
conflict of interest provisions is a fine of not more than
$1,000, or by imprisonment in the state prison, and by
permanent disqualification from holding any office in this
state.)
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "The public perception
that political decisions are wrongly influenced by
personal financial interests is pervasive. Public
officers may be seen as having biases in their public
contract decisions when a specific contract decision may
affect their spouse, child, parent, sibling, or the
SB 330
Page 3
spouse of a child, parent, or sibling? California is at
the forefront in defining the potential consequences of a
violation of conflict of interest policies. However, in
light of allegations involving our state in the last
several years, it is time to expand and strengthen our
definition of a conflict of interest.
2)Background. Section 1090 of the Government Code generally
prohibits a public official or employee from making a contract
in his or her official capacity in which he or she has a
financial interest. In addition, a public body or board is
prohibited from making a contract in which any member of the
body or board has a financial interest, even if that member
does not participate in the making of the contract. This
prohibition, contained in Section 1090, dates back to the
second session of the California Legislature (Chapter
136/Statutes of 1851).
State law recognizes two categories of exceptions to Section
1090. One category is "remote interests". Where a government
official has a "remote interest" in a contract, he or she must
take three steps before the body on which he or she sits may
vote on that contract. First, the official must disclose the
interest to the government body. Second, the interest must be
noted in the government body's official records. Finally, the
official with the "remote interest" must abstain from
participating in the review and approval of the contract.
State law lists 16 situations that qualify as "remote
interests." While the willful failure of an officer to
disclose a remote interest in a contract would subject that
officer to the conflict of interest penalties, the contract
SB 330
Page 4
itself is not subject to cancelation due to the violation
unless the contracting party had knowledge of the fact of the
remote interest of the officer at the time the contract was
executed.
3)Precedent-Setting. This bill creates a new "remote
interest," establishing a situation under which the
financial interests of an elected official's relatives
create a remote interest for the official. Most
previously-established remote interests were designed to
narrow the reach of Section 1090, by taking interests
that were found by legal opinions to be financial
interests under Section 1090, and redefining those
interests as "remote interests." Conversely, this bill
expands the scope of Section 1090 through the creation of
a new remote interest, i.e. it makes interests currently
not covered by Section 1090 subject to that law by
defining those interests as "remote interests."
Because actions that affect the financial interests of a
public official's spouse or dependent child may have a
corresponding impact on the official, existing conflict
of interest laws generally recognize that the financial
interests of an official's spouse or dependent child can
create a conflict of interest for the official. This
bill, however, breaks new ground by extending the
conflict of interest provisions of Section 1090 to
situations where a governmental decision does not have
the potential for having a financial impact on an elected
official. Instead, this bill deems a public official's
ties by blood or marriage with siblings, children,
parents, and the spouses of those relatives to be
sufficiently important as to prohibit the official from
participating in a contracting decision.
SB 330
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081