BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1241
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1241 (Norby)
As Introduced February 18, 2011
2/3 vote
ELECTIONS 5-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Logue, Bonilla, Hall, | | |
| |Gatto, Valadao | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 1241
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : 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
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)."
The Act, named after its author Assembly Member 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 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.
This bill would exempt officials who are elected to the agency
AB 1241
Page 3
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
that have both elected and appointed members. 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 and
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 Fair Political Practices Commission 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.
This bill is similar to AB 2164 (Norby) of 2010. AB 2164 was
approved by the Assembly on a 60-2 vote, but was held in the
Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment, and
Constitutional Amendments.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
AB 1241
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN: 0000427