BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2164
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2164 (Norby)
As Amended April 28, 2010
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Adams, Bill Berryhill, | | |
| |Coto, Mendoza, Saldana | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Exempts officials who are elected to local and state
agencies from provisions of state law limiting contributions to
those officials from entities with business before the agency
involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use.
Specifically, this bill exempts an officer of an agency who is
elected to that agency from the following provisions of the
Levine Act of 1982 (Act):
1)A prohibition against accepting, soliciting or directing a
contribution of more than $250 from a party or participant
with a matter pending before the agency involving a license,
permit, or other entitlement for use during the time the
matter is pending before the agency and for three months
following the date a final decision is rendered in the matter.
2)A requirement to disclose on the record of a proceeding the
receipt of any contribution of more than $250 from a party to
or participant in the proceeding in the 12 previous months if
the proceeding involves a license, permit, or other
entitlement for use.
3)A prohibition against making, participating in making, or
attempting to influence the decision in any proceeding
involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if
the officer received a contribution of more than $250 from a
party or participant in the proceeding in the 12 months before
the proceeding and the officer did not return that
contribution within 30 days of knowing, or the time the
officer should have known, of the contribution and the
proceeding.
AB 2164
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "Current language in Section
84308 of the Government Code is overly broad in that the
definition of an 'agency' that is subject to additional
restrictions includes any agency that has appointed members. It
exempts 'local government agencies whose members are directly
elected by the voters,' but the [Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC)] has interpreted this in their regulations to
mean that the agency must be made up entirely of directly
elected members, and that even one appointed member disqualifies
the entire agency from exemption. This means that a county board
of supervisors or a city council that has a member appointed to
fill a vacancy could possibly fall under the Levine Act. Also,
there is no exemption made for directly elected members of local
agencies. AB 2164 would clarify Section 84308 so that directly
elected members of agencies are exempt from the Levine Act. By
striking the words "elected or" from the definition of
"officer," members of local agencies that have been directly
elected to their posts will not fall under the added
restrictions of the Levine Act. However, all members that have
been appointed to their posts will still be subject to the
Levine Act, as originally intended."
The Act, named after its author Assemblymember Mel Levine,
restricts campaign contributions made to officers of most state
and local agencies by parties to a proceeding pending before
those agencies. Enacted in 1982, the Act was a response to
reports that members of a state agency sought to raise money
from individuals and entities that had permit requests pending
before the agency. The Act is unique among the provisions of
the Political Reform Act (PRA) in that it is the only area in
which a campaign contribution can be the basis for a
disqualifying conflict of interest. The PRA otherwise does not
treat campaign contributions as a potential basis for conflicts
of interest. The Act is narrowly drafted to apply only to
decisions made by agencies with membership that is not directly
elected by voters, and only to proceedings involving licenses,
permits, or other entitlements for use. Proceedings of a more
general nature and with broader applicability are not covered by
the Act.
The Act generally does not apply to the judicial branch, local
officials elected directly by the voters, members of the
AB 2164
Page 3
Legislature and the Board of Equalization, or constitutional
officers. However, when an officer otherwise exempted serves as
a voting member of an agency that is subject to the Act, then
the contribution restrictions of the Act do apply to that
officer, as well.
This bill would exempt officials who are elected to the agency
on which they serve from the provisions of the Act, therefore
making the Act applicable only to officials who are appointed to
the agency on which they serve. Because the Act currently does
not apply to any local governmental agency whose members are
directly elected by the voters, the only officials who would be
affected by this bill are officials who serve as officers of an
agency that is governed by a board that contains both elected
and appointed members. Such boards are relatively uncommon in
California; it appears that only eight districts in the state
will have both elected and appointed members by the end of this
year. Those districts are the Colusa Basin Drainage District,
the Honey Lake Valley Groundwater Management District, the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management Agency, the Mono County
Tri-Valley Groundwater Management District, the Orange County
Water District, the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, the
Scott Valley & Shasta Valley Watermaster District, and the
Shasta-Tehama County Watermaster District. Those eight
districts have a combined total of 59 members, 39 of which are
elected, and 20 of which are appointed. As such, if this bill
becomes law, it is expected that it would affect fewer than 40
officials in the state.
California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974
that created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and
prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. That
initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the PRA
that are not submitted to the voters, such as those contained in
this bill, must further the purposes of the initiative and
require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0004152
AB 2164
Page 4