BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 952
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 11, 2011

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                               Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
                  AB 952 (Jones) - As Introduced:  February 18, 2011
           
          SUBJECT  :  High-Speed Rail Authority

           SUMMARY  :  Imposes specific conflict of interest requirements and 
          limitations on the California High-Speed Rail Authority 
          (Authority), its employees, and businesses that are doing, or 
          want to do, business with the Authority.  Specifically,  this 
          bill  :  

          1)Prohibits a member or an employee of the Authority from 
            receiving any gift, as defined by reference, unless the gift 
            was originally given to the Authority and the Authority, in 
            turn, transferred the gift to the member or employee; however, 
            such a transfer may be made only upon approval of the Senate 
            by resolution.  

          2)Prohibits any construction company, engineering firm, 
            consultant, legal firm, or any other company, vendor, or 
            business entity that is under contract, or seeking a contract, 
            with the Authority, or subcontractor of any of the above, or 
            owner, employee, or any member of their immediate families of 
            any of these companies, firms, vendors, entities or 
            subcontracts from making gifts to any member or employee of 
            the Authority or to any member of their immediate families.  

          3)Authorizes the Authority to accept gifts, subject to approval 
            of the Senate by resolution.  

          4)Prohibits a member or employee of Authority from appearing 
            before the Authority, for compensation, on behalf of any 
            individual or private or public entity for a period of three 
            years after termination of the person's relationship with the 
            Authority.  

           EXISTING LAW:
           
          1)The Political Reform Act (Act), requires most state and local 
            government officials and employees to publicly disclose their 
            personal assets and income and to disqualify themselves from 
            participating in decisions that may affect their personal 








                                                                  AB 952
                                                                  Page  2

            economic interests; assigns to the Fair Political Practices 
            Commission (FPPC) the responsibility for interpreting the 
            Act's provisions.  

          2)Generally limits gifts to a public official from a third party 
            to a specified amount (currently $420) per year per donor; 
            gifts received over $50 from a single source must be reported 
            on the recipient's yearly statement of economic interests.  

          3)Defines "gift" to mean any payment that confers a personal 
            benefit on the recipient, to the extent that consideration of 
            equal or greater value is not received.  

          4)Excludes from the definition of "gift" any informational 
            material such as books, reports, pamphlets, calendars, or 
            periodicals; provides that payment for travel or reimbursement 
            for any expenses is specifically not "informational material." 
             

          5)Under the Act, places two types of restrictions on 
            post-governmental activity (a.k.a. "revolving door ban"):  

             a)   A one-year ban prohibits certain officials, for one year 
               after leaving state service, from representing any other 
               person by appearing before or communicating with, for 
               compensation, their former agency in an attempt to 
               influence agency decisions that involve the making of 
               general rules (such as regulations or legislation), or to 
               influence certain proceedings involving a permit, license, 
               contract, or transaction involving the sale or purchase of 
               property or goods.  Members of the Legislature, members of 
               state boards and commissions with decision-making 
               authority, and any individual who manages public 
               investments are examples of people who are subject to the 
               one-year ban.  

             b)   A permanent ban prohibits former state officials from 
               working on proceedings that they participated in while 
               working for the state.  The ban prohibits appearances and 
               communications to represent any other person, as well as 
               aiding, advising, counseling, consulting or assisting in 
               representing any other person, for compensation, before any 
               state administrative agency in a proceeding involving 
               specific parties (such as a lawsuit, a hearing before an 
               administrative law judge, or a state contract) if the 








                                                                  AB 952
                                                                  Page  3

               official previously participated in the proceeding.  

          6)Provides a three-year revolving door ban for any member of the 
            California Gambling Control Commission, the executive 
            director, the chief, and any employee of the commission.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  :  Last fall, the FPPC investigated several Authority 
          board members and the former executive director to ascertain if 
          they had violated rules regarding the receipt of gifts.  The 
          investigations centered on officials having taken a number of 
          overseas trips paid for by foreign governments that are hoping 
          to participate in the development of the high-speed rail project 
          in California.  

          The investigation was officially closed earlier this year and 
          the FPPC reported that there was no evidence of any violations 
          having occurred.  As it turns out, individual recipients of the 
          trips were not required to disclose the trips as gifts on annual 
          conflict of interested reports because the trips were given to 
          the Authority, not the individuals.  

          Under FPPC regulations, certain payments may be considered a 
          gift to a state agency and not an individual official if the 
          following four requirements are met:
               
          1)The agency receives and controls the gifts or payments;

          2)The gift or payment is used for official agency business;

          3)The agency, not the donor, determines the officials who will 
            use the gift or payment; and,

          4)The agency memorializes the payment in written record.  

          Within 30 days after use of the payment, a state agency must 
          fully disclose receipt of the gift, file the disclosure report 
          with the FPPC, and post the disclosure report on the agency's 
          website.  

          The author has introduced this bill "to ensure the integrity of 
          the process and instill public confidence, it is imperative that 
          members, staff, and consultants not be permitted to accept gifts 
          from any individual who conducts business or intends to conduct 








                                                                  AB 952
                                                                  Page  4

          business with the HSRA.  Given the extraordinary amount of 
          public monies involved, high standards of conduct must be 
          observed as even the perception of corruption is harmful."

          The sponsors of this bill, the Cities of Palo Alto, Atherton, 
          Menlo Park, and Pico Rivera argue that the bill would hold 
          members of the Authority to the same three-year "revolving door" 
          ban that members of the California Gambling Control Commission 
          are held.  The sponsors argue that this higher level of scrutiny 
          is appropriate given the Authority's heavy reliance on outside 
          contractors and the billions of dollars involved in the project. 
           

           Committee concerns  :  Provisions of this bill that impose a 
          three-year revolving door ban on the Authority seem appropriate, 
          given the size and dollar value of the project, the unusually 
          heavy reliance on outside contractors, and the precedent already 
          set as it relates to the California Gambling Control Commission. 
           

          Provisions prohibiting the Authority from accepting any gifts 
          unless approved by the Senate, however, seem excessive.  The 
          sponsor argues in support of this provision that reporting after 
          the fact does not provide sufficient protection to insure 
          against corruption, especially given the amount of money 
          involved in this project.  However, this argument conflicts with 
          the existing premise used throughout California's fair political 
          practices process which relies almost entirely on 
          after-the-fact-reporting (via, for example, the Statement of 
          Economic Interests, Form 700.)  Consequently, provisions that 
          hold the Authority to excessive restrictions on gifts should be 
          stricken from the bill.  

           Double-referred:   This bill has also been referred to the 
          Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting.  

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :   

           Support 
           
          City of Palo Alto
          Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design
          City of Pico Rivera
          Professional Engineers in California Government 









                                                                  AB 952
                                                                  Page  5

           Opposition 
           
          None on file
           

          Analysis Prepared by  :   Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093