BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1241
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1241 (Norby) - As Introduced: February 18, 2011
UPDATED ANALYSIS - May 2, 2011 PM
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: contributions.
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.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and
makes it responsible for the impartial, effective
AB 1241
Page 2
administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act
(PRA).
2)Prohibits any officer of an agency, as defined, from
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.
3)Requires any officer of an agency, as defined, who received 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 in the 12 months before
the proceeding, to disclose the contribution on the record of
the proceeding.
4)Prohibits any officer of an agency, as defined, who received 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 in the 12 months before
the proceeding from making, participating in making, or
attempting to influence the decision in the proceeding.
Allows an officer to participate in the proceeding if the
officer returns the contribution within 30 days of knowing, or
the time the officer should have known, of the contribution
and the proceeding.
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
This bill would amend the Levine Act of 1982, to clarify
that officers directly elected to local agencies are not
held to two standards if the agency includes appointed
members. By striking the words "elected or" from the Code,
it would ensure that additional campaign contribution
disclosure and conflict of interest requirements originally
intended for appointed members of local agencies do not
extend to directly elected members. For example, under
current law, if a local water district is made up of both
directly elected members and appointed members, the entire
AB 1241
Page 3
membership is subject to the Levine Act. AB 1241 would
clarify that if a person is a directly elected member of
the water district, they are exempt from the Levine Act
(but still subject to the many other provisions of the
Political Reform Act of 1974), but if a person is appointed
to the water district, they are not. This would further the
intent of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (which targeted
elected officials) and the intent of the Levine Act of 1982
(which targeted appointed officials).
2)Levine Act of 1982 : 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 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
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. For example, someone elected to a county board of
supervisors would not be subject to the Act simply for sitting
on the board of supervisors; but, if that official also sits
on a regional transit agency, which is subject to the Act,
then the officer would be required to comply with the
contribution restrictions that apply to all other members of
the regional transit agency.
3)Elected vs. Appointed Agency Officials : This bill would
AB 1241
Page 4
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. While this may appear to be a
significant change to who is subject to the Act, the number of
officials impacted is likely to be relatively modest. That's
because the Act currently does not apply to any local
governmental agency whose members are directly elected by the
voters, nor does the Act apply to the Legislature, the Board
of Equalization, or constitutional officers. As a result,
most officials who are elected to the agency on which they
serve already are exempted from the provisions of the Act with
respect to decisions made by that agency.
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; committee
staff is aware of only eight districts in the state that have
both elected and appointed members. The eight districts known
to the committee to have boards comprised of both appointed
and directly elected members 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 four dozen officials in the
state.
Under the Act and under regulations adopted by the FPPC, all
members of these boards are subject to the provisions of the
Act. Under this bill, those agency officials who were
appointed would still be subject to the provisions of the Act,
but those agency officials who were directly elected to the
agency would not be subject to the Act.
As noted above, the Act is drafted to apply only to decisions
made by agencies with membership that is not directly elected
by voters. It could be argued that this bill is consistent
with that policy because it would exempt only officials who
AB 1241
Page 5
are directly elected to an agency from the Act.
On the other hand, while this bill would make the Act applicable
equally to all elected members of agencies, it would mark the
first time that the Act applied to some officials on an agency
board, but not all officials on that board. The committee may
wish to consider whether it is more desirable to have the Act
apply consistently with respect to an official's elected or
appointed status, or whether it is more desirable to have the
Act applied in the same manner for all members of an agency's
board.
4)Does This Bill Violate the Political Reform Act of 1974 ?
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. Bills that propose to amend
the PRA but do not further the purposes of the act must be
submitted to the voters for their approval. It is unclear
whether this bill, which exempts a class of elected officials
from an existing conflict of interest provision, furthers the
purposes of the PRA.
5)Previous Legislation : This bill is similar to AB 2146 (Norby)
of 2010. AB 2146 was approved by the Assembly on a 60-2 vote,
but was held in the Senate Committee on Elections,
Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Association of California Water Agencies
California Special Districts Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Water District
Opposition
None on file.
AB 1241
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094