Public officials: financial interests.
Summary
Existing law prohibits Members of the Legislature, and state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees from being financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members. Existing law defines what is a remote interest in a contract that does not present a prohibited conflict of interest under these provisions. Existing law authorizes a body or board to make a contract that involves a remote interest of a member of the body if, among other things, the remote interest is disclosed to the body or board and noted in its official records, and thereafter the body or board authorizes, approves, or ratifies the contract in good faith by a vote of its membership sufficient for the purpose without counting the vote or votes of the officer or member with the remote interest. Violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would additionally require that the remote interest be disclosed at a public meeting of that body or board and would require a statutory basis for classifying the interest as a remote interest to be identified. By increasing the scope of actions that constitute a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that members of the Legislature, state, county, and city officers or employees shall be deemed to be financially interested in a contract if that member, officer, or employee has an independent contracting relationship with an individual or nongovernmental entity that enters, or seeks to enter, into a contract with that body that the member, officer, or employee is a member, officer, or employee of. This bill would not limit the liability of any person under specified provisions. By increasing the scope of actions that constitute a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Jun 2011
Assembly Passage
May 2011
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 15, 2011
Last action Aug 30, 2011
Floor votes · Assembly May 27, 2011
How they voted
52–3
Passed · 15 other
Total votes 70
May 27, 2011
D
Democratic44
93% Yea
R
Republican26
42% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
18
Key actions
4
Committee
6
Amendments
1
Jun 28, 2011
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jun 8, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on G.O.
upper
May 27, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (52-3-15)
assembly
May 16, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) (May 11).
lower
Apr 28, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 25, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Mar 3, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Feb 16, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
RH
Roger Hernández
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 527
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 527. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline