BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1337
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1337 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 27, 2014
Policy Committee:
AccountabilityVote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Requires every report submitted to the Legislature by any
state agency or department to include a statement signed by
the head of the agency or department that the contents of the
report are true, accurate, and complete, to the best of their
knowledge.
2)States that (1) applies to the executive officers of the
Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization, to elected
state officials and any official whose duties are prescribed
by the California Constitution.
3)Makes anyone violating the above liable for a civil penalty of
up to $20,000 in an action brought by the Attorney General.
FISCAL EFFECT
Potential, likely minor, absorbable costs to the Attorney
General for investigation and prosecution, offset to some extent
by fine revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author's office, currently heads of
state departments or agencies have no liability for
misrepresenting facts in reports to the legislature or a state
executive body. The author notes that the construction of the
new eastern span of the Bay Bridge was 10 years late and over
$5 billion over budget. This project particularly illustrated
SB 1337
Page 2
how problematic it can be when department and agency heads are
not held accountable.
2)Prior Legislation . This bill is substantially similar to AB
1135 (Strickland) of 2007, AB 2404 (Klehs) of 2006 and AB 1625
(Klehs) of 2005, all of which were vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger. In his veto of AB 2404, the Governor stated,
"?this bill would create an inconsistent system in which some
of the information considered in the legislative process is
subject to declarations of truth, while the majority of the
written material used in the legislative process is accepted
as truth without such verification. The Legislature already
has the authority to question the accuracy of a report by
requiring those responsible for submitting the report to
attest to the accuracy of the report under oath. Given this
legislative oversight?this bill is unnecessary."
3)Opposition . The Department of Finance contends this bill is
unnecessary and could result in additional state costs.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081