California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 632 — Government compensation: disclosure.

Last action — From Assembly without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law charges the Controller with various duties, including, among others, superintending the fiscal concerns of the state. Existing law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance providing each member of the city council a salary based on the population of the city, and to provide for other forms of compensation, as specified. This bill would require the Controller to determine, based on a review of public records or reported salary information, whether a city is an excess compensation city, as defined. The bill would authorize a city to request a hearing, as specified, to contest the Controller's determination. The bill would require the Controller, if the city does not request a hearing or if the Attorney General concurs with the Controller's determination after a hearing, to notify the city and the redevelopment agency in the city of the city's status as an excess compensation city, as prescribed. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight, as defined, in blighted areas in those communities known as project areas, and authorizes the agency to issue bonds. This bill would prohibit the agency, once the agency has received written notice from the Controller that the city is an excess compensation city, from adopting a redevelopment plan for a new project area or amending an existing redevelopment plan for existing project areas; from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations, as specified; and from encumbering any funds or expending any moneys derived from any source except as specified. (3) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act authorizes a legislative body to hold a closed session with the local agency's designated representatives regarding various issues, including compensation, regarding its represented and unrepresented employees, but the legislative body is prohibited from taking final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees. Existing law also requires that all contracts of employment with a local agency, as defined, for certain positions be ratified in an open session of the governing body and be reflected in the governing body's minutes. This bill would require that any individual contract of employment or amendment to a contract of employment with an employee who is or will be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency be ratified in an open session of the legislative body after prescribed information regarding the contract or amendment to the contract is made available in a conspicuous location on the local agency's Internet Web site, if it maintains one, and in a location that is freely accessible to the public, no later than 5 days prior to the meeting to ratify the contract or amend the contract. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also specify that final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees who are to be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency only be taken in open session, consistent with the prescribed disclosure requirements. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would express a legislative finding and declaration that, to ensure the statewide integrity of local government, disclosure of compensation paid to officers and designated employees is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Assembly without further action.

  2. (Page 6971.)

  3. Placed on third reading.

  4. Withdrawn from committee.

  5. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  6. (Heard in committee on August 31.)

  7. From committee: Amend and re-refer to Com. on RULES. (Ayes 7. Noes 1.)

  8. Re-referred to Com. on RULES.

  9. Action rescinded whereby the bill was re-referred to Com. on RULES pursuant to Assrmbly Rule 77.2.

  10. Re-referred to Com. On RULES pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  11. Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Ayes 51. Noes 28. Page 6372.)

  12. Read third time. Amended. (Ayes 47. Noes 22. Page 6329.) To third reading.

  13. From inactive file to third reading file.

  14. Notice of motion to remove from inactive file given by Assembly Member Charles Calderon.

  15. Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Torrico.

  16. Read second time. To third reading.

  17. (Heard in committee on July 8.)

  18. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.)

  19. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  20. (Heard in committee on June 22.)

  21. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 1.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. To Com. on TRANS.

  23. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  24. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 30. Noes 4. Page 975.) To Assembly.

  25. Read second time. To third reading.

  26. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  27. Set for hearing May 18.

  28. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  29. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 680.)

  30. Set for hearing April 27.

  31. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on EQ. (Ayes 10. Noes 1. Page 399.) Re-referred to Com. on EQ.

  32. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  33. Set for hearing March 31.

  34. To Coms. on T. & H. and EQ.

  35. Read first time.

  36. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 30.

  37. Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Block · Cosponsor
  • Portantino · Cosponsor
  • Correa · Primary
  • De La Torre · Cosponsor
  • Eng · Cosponsor
  • Feuer · Cosponsor
  • Gatto · Cosponsor
  • Ma · Cosponsor
  • Norby · Cosponsor
  • Solorio · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 9 co-sponsors · 112 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Correa

Co-sponsors (9)

  • Block
  • Portantino
  • De La Torre
  • Eng
  • Feuer
  • Gatto
  • Ma
  • Norby
  • Solorio

Not signed on (112)

112 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 112 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

SB 632 Lowenthal Senate Third Reading Amend By LOWENTHAL Set #1

Passed 53 Yea · 24 Nay · 14 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5022013
Democratic 2001
Republican 1200
Total 5324014
% of votes cast 58%26%0%15%
How each member voted (91)
Member Party Vote
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Coto — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Villines — Yea
Perez — Yea
Tom — Nay
Fletcher — Nay
Audra — Nay
Bill — Not Voting
Charles — Not Voting
V. — Not Voting
Manuel — Not Voting
Perez — Not Voting
Portantino — Not Voting
Conway — Not Voting
Fuller — Nay
Gilmore — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Jeffries — Nay
Knight — Nay
Miller — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Adams — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huber — Not Voting
Logue — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Smyth — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Tran — Not Voting
Cook — Nay
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Evans — Not Voting
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Nay
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 3 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 14302
Democratic 1000
Republican 1000
Total 16302
% of votes cast 76%14%0%10%
How each member voted (21)
Member Party Vote
Charles — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Audra — Yea
Hall — Yea
Duvall — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Miller — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Solorio — Not Voting
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Passed 16 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15101
Republican 1000
Total 16101
% of votes cast 89%6%0%6%
How each member voted (18)
Member Party Vote
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Bill — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Solorio — Not Voting
Torlakson — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Miller — Nay
Monning — Yea
Conway — Yea
Eng — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB632 Lowenthal

Passed 31 Yea · 4 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27405
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 31405
% of votes cast 78%10%0%13%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cedillo — Not Voting
Cogdill — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Hollingsworth — Nay
Huff — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Dutton — Not Voting
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Not Voting
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Benoit — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Maldonado — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Romero — Not Voting
Wiggins — Nay
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Yea
Florez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety finance
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 632 do?
(1) Existing law charges the Controller with various duties, including, among others, superintending the fiscal concerns of the state. Existing law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance providing each member of the city council a salary based on the population of the city, and to provide for other forms of compensation, as specified. This bill would require the Controller to determine, based on a review of public records or reported salary information, whether a city is an excess compensation city, as defined. The bill would authorize a city to request a hearing, as specified, to contest the Controller's determination. The bill would require the Controller, if the city does not request a hearing or if the Attorney General concurs with the Controller's determination after a hearing, to notify the city and the redevelopment agency in the city of the city's status as an excess compensation city, as prescribed. (2) The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the establishment of redevelopment agencies in communities to address the effects of blight, as defined, in blighted areas in those communities known as project areas, and authorizes the agency to issue bonds. This bill would prohibit the agency, once the agency has received written notice from the Controller that the city is an excess compensation city, from adopting a redevelopment plan for a new project area or amending an existing redevelopment plan for existing project areas; from issuing new bonds, notes, interim certificates, debentures, or other obligations, as specified; and from encumbering any funds or expending any moneys derived from any source except as specified. (3) Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. The act authorizes a legislative body to hold a closed session with the local agency's designated representatives regarding various issues, including compensation, regarding its represented and unrepresented employees, but the legislative body is prohibited from taking final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees. Existing law also requires that all contracts of employment with a local agency, as defined, for certain positions be ratified in an open session of the governing body and be reflected in the governing body's minutes. This bill would require that any individual contract of employment or amendment to a contract of employment with an employee who is or will be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency be ratified in an open session of the legislative body after prescribed information regarding the contract or amendment to the contract is made available in a conspicuous location on the local agency's Internet Web site, if it maintains one, and in a location that is freely accessible to the public, no later than 5 days prior to the meeting to ratify the contract or amend the contract. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also specify that final action on the proposed compensation of one or more unrepresented employees who are to be employed by, and report directly to, the legislative body of the local agency only be taken in open session, consistent with the prescribed disclosure requirements. By expanding the duties of local officials, these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would express a legislative finding and declaration that, to ensure the statewide integrity of local government, disclosure of compensation paid to officers and designated employees is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair and that, therefore, all cities, including charter cities, would be subject to the provisions of the bill. (5) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors SB 632?
SB 632 is sponsored by Block, Portantino, Correa, De La Torre, Eng, Feuer, Gatto, Ma, Norby, and Solorio.
What is the current status of SB 632?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 632?
Track SB 632 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 632

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 632

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →