BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1431
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1431 (Gonzalez) - As Amended: May 5, 2014
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-1
Judiciary 8-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill amends the Political Reform Act (PRA) to prohibit an
administrator of a school or community college district from
knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving a campaign
contribution for a governing board member or candidate for the
board of that school or community college district. The
prohibition would not extend to an administrator regarding
contributions for his or her own campaign.
FISCAL EFFECT
Any costs to the Fair Political Practices Commission should be
minor and absorbable, and could be partially offset by penalty
revenues.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The author is concerned about administrators
soliciting funds from third party vendors or other businesses
that may have reason to contract with the school at some point
in the future. Administrators, the author notes, manage
contracts and, conceivably, could make recommendations to
their governing board that would result in granting contracts
to campaign donors. The author cites, for example, public
corruption cases involving the Sweetwater Unified School
District, where prosecutors alleged that a "common thread" in
these cases was an administrator fundraising on behalf of
board members. This measure, therefore, prohibits a school or
community college district administrator from knowingly
soliciting, accepting, or receiving a political contribution
from any person for a candidate for any elected office of the
AB 1431
Page 2
district that would employ the administrator, except as
specified.
2)Opposition . The Association of California School
Administrators (ACSA) opposes this bill unless amended. ACSA
contends that while the Legislature can limit political
donations, it cannot ban the arranging of campaign
contributions. ACSA also expresses concern that the bill only
applies to "administrators" and not to other "employees."
According to ACSA, if "the argument is that there is undue
influence over their job security the same can be argued for
both certificated and classified employees of a district."
In addition, ACSA believes the limitation to administrators
ignores "the efforts made by teachers and classified employee
unions to influence elections of school board members who also
make the final decisions on employment contracts, benefits,
dismissals, layoffs, etc."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081