BILL ANALYSIS
SB 106
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 15, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 106 (Committee on Local Government) - As Amended: June 25,
2009
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:10-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires a local agency official of a community
college (CC) district, county board of education, or school
district, who is serving as of January 1, 2010, to receive
ethics training before January 1, 2011 and at least once every
two years. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that training is required if a local agency
provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a
member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for
actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a
legislative body in the performance of official duties, as
specified.
2)Specifies that this measure does not apply to local agency
officials whose term ends before January 1, 2011.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown potential reimbursable GF/98 mandated costs, likely
between $115,000 and $280,000, to require school district, CC
district, and county board members to complete ethics training.
This assumes approximately 280 and 565 educational entities file
a mandate reimbursement claim related to notification of
training, cost of providing the training, and enforcement of the
requirement. There are 1,050 school district governing boards;
58 county boards of education; and 22 CC districts.
COMMENTS
SB 106
Page 2
1)Purpose . AB 1234 (Salinas), Chapter 700, Statutes of 2005,
required a local agency (i.e., city, county, special district,
charter city, and city and county) that provided any type of
compensation to a member of a legislative body to provide
ethics training to these members.
A 2007 survey conducted by the Bakersfield Californian
reported that school board members in Kern County failed to
disclose their financial interests, as required by law.
According to the Senate Local Government Committee, author of
this bill, "The public values honest government. And good
government relies on the support of the governed. Government
leaders earn their constituents' trust by acting in the public
interest and behaving with integrity. But the public's trust
in our representative democracy is fragile; even small ethical
lapses can swiftly undermine confidence in public
institutions."
This bill adds CC district, county board of education, and
school district governing board members to the list of
individuals required to complete ethics training.
2)Existing law . For the most part, statue is permissive in
terms of educational governing boards providing compensation
to their members. However, statute requires CC governing
boards to provide for the payment of travel expenses for any
representatives of the board, as specified.
3)Do local governing boards require ethics training for their
members ? According to the California School Boards
Association (CSBA), the organization does not make ethics
training available to its members. However, it is unclear
whether or not individual governing boards make this available
to their board members.
The Attorney General's Office (AG), in conjunction with the
Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC), has developed
guidelines to articulate the ethics course content for state
and local governments. The AG's website indicates that ethics
training for local governments may be offered by commercial
enterprises, non-profit organizations, and a local agency's
own legal counsel. The AG does state that any outside
entities should review the guidelines it has developed for
this training.
SB 106
Page 3
The FPPC, in conjunction with the Institute For Local
Government, has developed an online ethics training course
available at the FPPC's website for local governments. The
course has been approved by the AG and the FPPC.
4)Non-fiscal bill and potential reimbursable mandate . This bill
is keyed non-fiscal, however, the committee requested this
measure because of the potential reimbursable state-mandated
costs associated with requiring educational board members to
complete ethics training.
Chapter 700 requires local agencies to provide ethics training
to their members, if they provide compensation to a member of
legislative body. As mentioned earlier, with the exception of
CC districts, statute is permissive as to whether or not
educational governing boards provide their members with
compensation (travel or otherwise). According to CSBA,
approximately 548 (52%) of the 1,054 school districts provide
compensation via a monthly payment or stipend to their school
board members. Since a majority of school districts provide
compensation to their members and CC districts are required to
provide reimbursement for travel, it is possible that school
districts and CC districts may submit a reimbursement claim to
the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) for providing ethics
training. The claim may request costs associated with staff
time regarding notification of training to its members,
enforcement procedures, and actual costs of the training.
5)City of Newport Beach test claim on Chapter 700 . In October
2007, the City of Newport Beach filed a test claim with the
CSM. They argue that because the state required the city to
offer ethics training per Chapter 700, it is entitled to the
reimbursement for new duties performed as a result of this
law. Specifically, the new duties identified by the City of
Newport Beach include developing forms, disseminating
information on available training, and maintaining training
records.
In December 2007, the Department of Finance (DOF) reviewed
this test claim and argues that Chapter 700 does not create a
new state mandate because the local agencies' have the
discretion as to whether or not they provide their board
members with compensation. Specifically, DOF argues that
"portions of the test claim are not reimbursable state
mandates because the local agencies' decision to compensate
SB 106
Page 4
and/or reimburse their members is optional." Also, DOF cites
a 2003 court decision that resulted in the court affirming
that "where participation is the underlying program is
voluntary, the resulting new attached requirements do not
constitute a reimbursable state mandate."
The determination of whether or not a test claim is as a state
reimbursable mandated costs lies solely with the CSM. As of
May 2009, this test claim has not been heard by the CSM and
therefore, no decision has been made on this claim.
6)Previous legislation . SB 76 (Florez), which was very similar
to this measure, was held on this committee's suspense file in
August 2007.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081