California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 312 — San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District: Office of Citizen Complaints.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

This bill would require the BART board to create an Office of Citizen Complaints to investigate complaints and allegations of police misconduct by the BART police department. The bill would provide for the nomination of the director of that office by the district attorneys of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco, subject to confirmation by the board. The bill would require the staff of the office to consist of no fewer than one line investigator for every 150 sworn members of the police department. The bill would require the office to investigate complaints of police misconduct or allegations that a member of the police department has not properly performed a duty and would require the office to recommend disciplinary action to the chief of police. The bill would authorize the director of the office to file charges with the board against members of the police department under specified circumstances. The bill would require the office to prepare monthly summaries of the complaints received and quarterly recommendations concerning policies or practices of the police department that could be changed, along with a quarterly report to the board. The bill would require all departments, officers, and employees of the district to promptly produce all records required by the office and to otherwise cooperate with the office, except as specified. The bill would require the district to implement these and other related provisions utilizing existing funds available to the district. Because the bill would impose new responsibilities on the district, it 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, 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

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Set, first hearing. Held without recommendation.

  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  5. From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (January 12).

  6. In committee: Set, first hearing. Held without recommendation.

  7. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  8. From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.

  9. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Ammiano · Primary
  • Yee · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Ammiano

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Yee

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
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 AB 312 do?
This bill would require the BART board to create an Office of Citizen Complaints to investigate complaints and allegations of police misconduct by the BART police department. The bill would provide for the nomination of the director of that office by the district attorneys of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco, subject to confirmation by the board. The bill would require the staff of the office to consist of no fewer than one line investigator for every 150 sworn members of the police department. The bill would require the office to investigate complaints of police misconduct or allegations that a member of the police department has not properly performed a duty and would require the office to recommend disciplinary action to the chief of police. The bill would authorize the director of the office to file charges with the board against members of the police department under specified circumstances. The bill would require the office to prepare monthly summaries of the complaints received and quarterly recommendations concerning policies or practices of the police department that could be changed, along with a quarterly report to the board. The bill would require all departments, officers, and employees of the district to promptly produce all records required by the office and to otherwise cooperate with the office, except as specified. The bill would require the district to implement these and other related provisions utilizing existing funds available to the district. Because the bill would impose new responsibilities on the district, it 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, 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 AB 312?
AB 312 is sponsored by Ammiano and Yee.
What is the current status of AB 312?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 AB 312?
Track AB 312 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 312

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 AB 312

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →