BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1241|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1241
Author: Norby (R)
Amended: 6/14/11 in Senate
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 6/21/11
AYES: La Malfa, De Le�n, Gaines
NOES: Correa, Lieu
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-6, 6/1/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Political Reform Act of 1974: contributions
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill 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.
ANALYSIS : The Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA)
regulates contributions to public officials and also
regulates conflicts of interests on the part of public
officials while carrying out their respective duties.
Among its provisions, the PRA prohibits an officer of an
agency from accepting, soliciting, or directing a
contribution of more than $250 from a party or participant
in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other
entitlement for use while that proceeding is pending before
CONTINUED
AB 1241
Page
2
the agency and for three months following the final
decision in the proceeding. For these purposes, "officer"
is defined to include any elected or appointed officer of
the agency.
This bill exempts an officer of an agency, who is elected
to that agency, from the following provisions of the Levine
Act of 1982:
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.
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.
CONTINUED
AB 1241
Page
3
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 Levine 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 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 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 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 of the Levine Act do apply to that officer.
This bill exempts officials who are elected to the agency
on which they serve from the provisions of the Levine Act,
therefore making the Levine Act applicable only to
officials who are appointed to the agency on which they
serve. Because the Levine 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
CONTINUED
AB 1241
Page
4
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.
This bill is similar to AB 2164 (Norby, 2010) which was
approved by the Assembly (60-2), but was held in the Senate
Elections, Reapportionment, and Constitutional Amendments
Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/22/11)
Association of California Water Agencies
California Special Districts Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Water District
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 65-6, 6/1/11
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter,
Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Fletcher, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jones, Knight, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, V. Manuel P�rez, Silva,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner,
Wieckowski, John A. P�rez
CONTINUED
AB 1241
Page
5
NOES: Feuer, Halderman, Lara, Perea, Portantino, Skinner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Brownley, Eng, Fong, Gorell,
Jeffries, Monning, Williams, Yamada
DLW:mw 6/23/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED