California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 330 — Public officers: contracts: financial interest.

Last action — August 27 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

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

This bill died with 2015-2016 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 prohibits Members of the Legislature, and state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees from being financially interested in a contract, as specified, made by them in their official capacity or by any body or board of which they are members, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law identifies certain remote interests that are not subject to this prohibition and other situations in which an official is not deemed to be financially interested in a contract, including, among others, that of a parent in the earnings of his or her minor child for personal services. Existing law makes a willful violation of this prohibition a crime. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2017, instead include within the definition of remote interests that of a public officer who is an elected member of any state or local body, board, or commission, if that public officer's spouse, child, parent, sibling, or the spouse of the child, parent, or sibling, has a financial interest in any contract made by that public officer in his or her official capacity, or by any body, board, or commission of which that public officer is a member. (2) Existing law imposes a criminal penalty for every officer or person who willfully violates the prohibitions against making or being financially interested in contracts, as specified. This bill would additionally provide that a member who knows and fails to disclose his or her remote interest in a contract, as defined, or knows and willfully fails to disclose the fact of his or her remote interest in a contract, as defined, is subject to criminal penalty. By expanding these prohibitions, this bill would create a new crime, and thus, would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 Text

Action History

  1. August 27 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. Joint Rule 62(a) suspended.

  3. August 26 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. (Received at desk July 17 pursuant to JR 61(a)(10))

  6. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 15).

  7. Reconsideration of the favorable vote granted on the motion to hold in committee for interim study.

  8. July 15 hearing: Held in committee for interim study.

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 15). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  10. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 2303.)

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on E. & R.

  12. July 1 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

  13. Referred to Com. on E. & R.

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

  15. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1253.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  16. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  17. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1152.) (May 28).

  18. Set for hearing May 28.

  19. April 27 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  20. Set for hearing April 27.

  21. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 618.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. Set for hearing April 15.

  23. Referred to Com. on GOV. & F.

  24. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.

  25. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Mendoza · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Mendoza

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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

Reconsideration of a favorable vote granted.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7002
Total 7002
% of votes cast 78%0%0%22%
How each member voted (9)
Member Party Vote
Linder — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Chiu — Not Voting
Alejo — Yea
Cooley — Not Voting
Mullin — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pan — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Bates — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea

Official roll call →

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 SB 330 do?
(1) Existing law prohibits Members of the Legislature, and state, county, district, judicial district, and city officers or employees from being financially interested in a contract, as specified, made by them in their official capacity or by any body or board of which they are members, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law identifies certain remote interests that are not subject to this prohibition and other situations in which an official is not deemed to be financially interested in a contract, including, among others, that of a parent in the earnings of his or her minor child for personal services. Existing law makes a willful violation of this prohibition a crime. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2017, instead include within the definition of remote interests that of a public officer who is an elected member of any state or local body, board, or commission, if that public officer's spouse, child, parent, sibling, or the spouse of the child, parent, or sibling, has a financial interest in any contract made by that public officer in his or her official capacity, or by any body, board, or commission of which that public officer is a member. (2) Existing law imposes a criminal penalty for every officer or person who willfully violates the prohibitions against making or being financially interested in contracts, as specified. This bill would additionally provide that a member who knows and fails to disclose his or her remote interest in a contract, as defined, or knows and willfully fails to disclose the fact of his or her remote interest in a contract, as defined, is subject to criminal penalty. By expanding these prohibitions, this bill would create a new crime, and thus, would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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.
Who sponsors SB 330?
SB 330 is sponsored by Mendoza.
What is the current status of SB 330?
This bill died with 2015-2016 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 330?
Track SB 330 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 330

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 330

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →