BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2568
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 2568 (Bloom) - As Amended: April 28, 2014
SUBJECT : Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority.
SUMMARY : Decreases, from three to one year, the amount of time
before a member, alternate member, or employee of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) may
accept employment with a company, vendor, or business entity
that was awarded a contract as the result of their
participation, if that participation took place within one year
prior to their exit from MTA.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits a member, alternate member, or employee of MTA, who
has participated in the preparation, evaluation, award, or
implementation of a contract, from accepting employment within
three years with a company, vendor, or business entity that
was awarded a contract as a result of his or her
participation.
2)Requires the chief executive office to approve and award all
contracts for construction, and requires that approval to be
based upon the lowest responsible and responsive bid
submitted.
3)Prohibits a former MTA official from becoming a lobbyist for a
period of one year after leaving MTA. Defines "lobbyist" to
mean any individual who receives any economic consideration,
other than reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses, for
lobbying, including consultants and officers or employees of
any business entity seeking to enter into a contract with MTA.
Defines "official" to mean "any member of MTA, member of an
organizational unit to MTA, or employee of MTA".
4)Prohibits, under the Political Reform Act, for a period of one
year after an official leaves his or her office or employment,
a local elected official, chief administrative officer of a
county, city manager, or general manager or chief
administrator of a special district who held a position with a
AB 2568
Page 2
local government agency, from representing for compensation
any other person by appearing before, or communicating with,
that local government agency (or any committee, subcommittee,
member of that local government agency, or any officer or
employee of the local government agency) if the appearance or
communication is made for the purpose of influencing
administrative or legislative action or influencing any action
or proceeding involving the issuance, amendment, awarding, or
revocation of a permit, license, grant, or contract, or the
sale or purchase of goods or property.
5)Permits a local government agency to adopt a similar
post-government employment ordinance or policy that is more
restrictive than the current prohibition in 4), above.
6)Prohibits, under the Political Reform Act, for a period of one
year, air pollution control and air quality management
district former board members, officers, and certain employees
from representing any other person by appearing before or
communicating with, their former district in an attempt to
influence any regulatory action.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Current law and purpose of this bill . Current law prohibits a
member, alternate member, or employee of MTA, who has
participated in the preparation, evaluation, award, or
implementation of a contract, from accepting employment within
three years with a company, vendor, or business entity that
was awarded a contract as a result of his or her
participation. This bill decreases the time frame in the
current revolving door policy from three years to one year,
and also specifies that the prohibition from accepting
employment for one year only applies to a member, alternate
member, or employee who participated on a contract with an
entity that was awarded a contract within one year prior to
their exit from MTA.
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "It is the
author's legislative intent to bring the Los Angeles County
AB 2568
Page 3
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's revolving door policy
in line with other post-employment prohibitions for local
agencies. MTA is distinct in that it is governed by state,
rather than local regulations. MTA's current revolving door
policy is significantly longer than those in practice for
other local transportation agencies and authorities. This bill
would modify the existing post-employment prohibitions for all
employees of MTA from accepting employment with any company,
vendor, or business entity that was awarded a contract as a
result of their participation as a decision maker in the
preparation, evaluation, award, or implementation of a
contract. This bill would make MTA's revolving door policy
consistent with other agencies by converting the current
post-employment prohibition from three years to one year,
which would be equivalent to other local transportation
agencies and authorities."
3)Previous legislation . SB 89 (Hayden), Chapter 65, Statutes of
1997, imposed limitations on gifts and donations to members
and employees of MTA and placed restrictions on employees who
left MTA. SB 89 was introduced with a number of other bills
seeking to make changes to MTA. The author of SB 89 argued
that any undue influence by contractors and or the award of
contracts based on any criteria other than cost-effectiveness
is not in the public interest and that a perception of
wrongdoing is harmful to the interest of public
transportation.
4)Political Reform Act of 1974 . California voters passed
Proposition 9 (1974) that created the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) and codified significant restrictions and
prohibitions on candidates, officeholders and lobbyists. The
Political Reform Act (PRA) contains a number of
post-government employment restrictions, also known as
"revolving door" prohibitions, which are intended to address
situations whereby former state and local elected officers and
other officials return to represent clients who have business
before, or are seeking to influence policy decisions made by,
their former agencies. Additionally, "revolving door"
policies seek to prevent former officials from taking
advantage of "insider" information to unfairly benefit the
clients they represent. The PRA currently places several
restrictions on the activities of public officials who are
leaving governmental employment. The one year ban, in
general, restricts specified officials, including general
AB 2568
Page 4
managers or chief administrators of special districts, for a
period of one year after leaving their office, from being paid
to communicate with their former agency in an attempt to
influence certain actions or proceedings. While there are
subtle differences, the one year restriction also applies to
certain local officials and air pollution control and air
quality management district members, officers, and employees.
Supporters of this bill argue that MTA is the only district
with a three year revolving door policy in statute. Other
transit districts comply with the PRA and some have
established their own additional policies at the local level.
5)Policy considerations . Under this bill, the one-year
revolving door policy only prohibits members, alternate
members, or employees from accepting employment with an entity
that has been awarded a contract as a result of their
participation in the past year. The Committee may wish to
consider if that confusing language achieves the author's goal
of creating consistency for MTA. Generally, the revolving
door policies in current law, including the PRA, contain a
timeframe that begins at the point of when an individual
leaves employment, which is a much easier point in time to
distinguish than the language contained in this bill for
transparency and implementation purposes.
6)Committee amendments . The Committee may wish to ask the
author to accept amendments to strike out the provision of the
bill contained in Section 130051.20 subdivision (b) that only
applies the one year revolving door policy if that
participation took place within one year prior to the member,
alternate member, or employee leaving the authority.
7)Arguments in support . Supporters argue that the normal
limitation of nearly every other government agency is one
year, and that there is no reason why MTA should be treated
more harshly.
8)Arguments in opposition . None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
AB 2568
Page 5
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958