BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1241 HEARING
DATE: 6/21/11
AUTHOR: NORBY ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 6/14/11
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT
Political Reform Act: contributions
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides that the Political Reform Act (PRA)
may be amended to further its purposes by a two-thirds vote
of each house of the Legislature and signed by the
Governor.
Existing law prohibits an officer of specified government
agencies from accepting, soliciting or directing a campaign
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 while the
matter is pending before the agency and for three months
following the date a final decision is rendered in the
matter.
Existing law requires any officer of one of these agencies
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.
Existing law prohibits any officer of one of these agencies
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. The officer may participate in
the proceeding if he or she returns the contribution within
30 days of knowing, or the time the officer should have
known, of the contribution and the proceeding.
Existing law provides, for the purposes of these conflict
of interest requirements, that "agency" means any state or
local governmental agency but does not include the judicial
branch of government, local governmental agencies whose
members are directly elected by the voters, the
Legislature, the Board of Equalization, or constitutional
officers. However, these conflict of interest requirements
do apply to any person who is a member of an exempted
agency but is acting as a voting member of another agency.
Existing law provides, for the purposes of these conflict
of interest requirements, that "officer" means any elected
or appointed officer of an affected agency, any alternate
to an elected or appointed officer of an affected agency,
and any candidate for elective office in an affected
agency.
Existing law , pursuant to regulations of the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC), provides that the exemption
for the officers of local governmental agencies who are
directly elected by the voters applies only to agencies
whose entire membership consists of officers directly
elected by the voters to serve on that agency.
This bill exempts officials who are elected to affected
agencies from these conflict of interest requirements
(whether or not the entire membership consists of officers
directly elected by the voters to serve on that agency).
BACKGROUND
The Levine Act of 1982 . The Levine Act, named after its
author former Assembly Member Mel Levine, restricts
campaign contributions made to officers of specified state
and local agencies by parties to a proceeding pending
before those agencies. Enacted in 1982, the Levine 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 Levine Act
is unique among the provisions of the PRA in that it is the
AB 1241 (NORBY) Page
2
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 Levine 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 Levine Act.
The Levine 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 Levine Act, then the contribution
restrictions do apply to that officer, as well. For
example, someone elected to a county board of supervisors
would not be subject to the Levine 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
Levine Act, then the officer would be required to comply
with the contribution restrictions that apply to all other
members of that regional transit agency as it relates to
matters before that regional transit agency.
So, Who Exactly Would this Bill Affect ? This bill would
exempt officials who are elected to the agency on which
they serve from the provisions of the Levine Act, therefore
making it applicable only to officials who are appointed to
the agency on which they serve. 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 but the Orange County
Water District is one of them.
COMMENTS
1.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
AB 1241 (NORBY) Page
3
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 Levine Act of 1982
(which targeted appointed officials).
2.Is this Bill Equitable ? Under this bill, affected agency
officials who were appointed would still be subject to
the provisions of the Levine Act, but those agency
officials who were directly elected to the same agency
would not be subject to the Levine Act. This could lead
to a somewhat absurd situation whereby an elected member
of an affected board would be permitted to accept
contributions in excess of $250 from a person with a
matter before the board but an appointed member of the
same board who is running for a completely different
office would be prohibited from accepting that same
contribution. The author argues that all agency members
who are directly elected should be exempt from the Levine
Act restrictions. Is it not more equitable to treat all
members of a given board the same under the Levine Act?
3.Does this Bill Violate the PRA ? The PRA may only be
amended by the Legislature to further its purposes. It
is unclear if this bill, which exempts a class of elected
officials from an existing conflict of interest
provision, furthers the purposes of the PRA.
4.Previous Legislation . This bill is similar to AB 2164
(Norby) of 2010 which was held in this committee.
AB 1241 (NORBY) Page
4
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 5-0
Assembly Floor: 65-6
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: Association of California Water Agencies
California Special Districts Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Water District
Oppose: None received
AB 1241 (NORBY) Page
5