BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: AB 952
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  jones
                                                         VERSION: 5/10/11
          Analysis by:  Art Bauer                        FISCAL:  No
          Hearing date:  June 28, 2011



          SUBJECT:

          High-speed rail

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill imposes specific conflict of interest requirements and 
          limitations on the California High-Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), 
          the board members, and its employees as well as businesses and 
          consultants that are doing, or desire to do, business with the 
          HSRA.

          ANALYSIS:

          Existing law: 

             1)   Permits members of, staff to, and consultants to the 
               HSRA to accept gifts up to $420 per annum.

             2)   Permits the HSRA, as an organizational body, to accept 
               gifts in any amount from any source, and then transfer 
               that gift to any HSRA member, staff, or consultant without 
               limitation.  

           This bill  : 
          
             1)   Prohibits any HSRA board member, consultant, or staff 
               from receiving any gift. 

             2)   Prohibits a consultant, a construction company, or 
               other firms seeking contracts with the HSRA from making 
               any gift to a member of the HSRA board, a staff person, or 
               to a member of the family of a board members or staff 
               person.

             3)   Prohibits a board member, consultant, or employee of 
               the HSRA from appearing before the HSRA for compensation 
               for a period of 3 years following the termination of the 




          AB 952 (JONES)                                         Page 2

                                                                       


               employment with the HSRA. 
          
          COMMENTS:

              1)   Purpose  :  According to the author, inquiries have 
               focused on HSRA officials receiving gift, including 
               European trips sponsored by foreign governmental entities.  
               These trips, some of which were worth thousands of dollars, 
               were donated to the HSRA and then HSRA officials allotted 
               them to board members and executives.  This, in effect, 
               circumvents the disclosure on annual reports of gifts, 
               income, and personal investments.

               The Los Angeles Times reported that the HSRA could not 
               account for the donated trips, as generally required by 
               state ethics regulations, and that the HSRA failed to post 
               details on the sources, costs, and itineraries of the 
               trips on its website, as required by Fair Political 
               Practices Commission rules.

               In order to ensure the integrity of the process and 
               instill public confidence, the author believes it is 
               imperative that board members, staff, and consultants not 
               be permitted to accept gifts from any individual who 
               conducts business or intends to conduct business with the 
               HSRA. 

              2)   Proposed amendment  .  Existing law allows the HSRA to 
               receive "grants, fees, and allocations" from local 
               governments, the federal government, and "foreign 
               governments."  The committee may wish to amend the bill to 
               delete authorization to receive funds from foreign 
               governments.  This authorization has been a source of some 
               of the ethical issues encountered by the HSRA.
          
          Assembly Votes:
               Floor:    78-0
               E&R:    7-0
               Trans:    11-0

          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before noon on 
          Wednesday,
                     June 22, 2011)

               SUPPORT:  City of Palo Alto
                         City of Pico Rivera




          AB 952 (JONES)                                         Page 3

                                                                       


                         Town of Atherton

          
               OPPOSED:  None receive.