Legislative Intent Service

AB 2920 of 1982

2006-01-30T16:22:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 2920 (Rogers-1982)
Chapter 1041, Statutes of 1982

In 1982, the 1967 and 1970 versions of certain Public Utilities Code sections were amended, repealed, and re-added following legislative passage of Assembly Bill 2920.  (See Exhibit #1h)  This was done by giving termination dates of January 1, 1989 to the older text of the sections with amendments to the language.  (Id.)  On January 1, 1989 the sections were to cease to be operative, and new sections, with similar, or substantially similar provisions were to become operative.  (Id.)  Assembly Bill 2920, introduced on March 2, 1982 by Assembly member Don Rogers of Bakersfield.  (See Exhibit #1a)

Assembly Bill 2920 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Local Government and in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.  (See Exhibit #3 and #5)  In the Senate, Assembly Bill 2920 was heard by the Senate Committee on Local Government and the Senate Committee on Finance.  (See Exhibit #2 and #6)  Six amendments were made to Assembly Bill 2920.  (See Exhibit #1b through #1g and #2)  Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., signed the bill on September 14th, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on September 15th as Chapter 1041 of the Statutes of 1982.  (See Exhibits #1hand #2)

Commenting on the nature of the bill as last amended on August 16, 1982, the Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis prepared by the Assembly Office of Research stated “. . .this bill altered the powers of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). . .”  (See Exhibit #11, page 1)

The analysis of the Assembly Committee on Local Government summarized the bill, stating it “makes various changes to the provisions of law governing planning for airports.”  (See Exhibit #3, page 1)  This analysis commented on the need for the bill, stating:

THE PURPOSE OF AB 2920 IS TO STRENGTHEN THE ROLE OF AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSIONS IN PLANNING FOR THE ORDERLY GROWTH OF AIRPORTS AND SURROUNDING TERRITORY. ACCORDING TO THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL, ALUC’S HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CARRYING OUT THEIR MANDATE TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHICH WILL SAFEGUARD THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE INHABITANTS WITHIN THE VICINITY OF AIRPORTS AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. CURRENTLY, THE ALUC DOES NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AIRPORTS AND DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING AIRPORTS, NOR DOES THE LAW CLEARLY STATE THE PURPOSE AND POWERS OF AN ALUC. IN ADDITION, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE METHOD FOR ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN ALUC PLANS AND LOCAL AGENCY’S GENERAL PLANS.

(See Exhibit #3, page 6)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1238 of 1983

2006-01-10T16:16:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1238 (Watson-1983)
Chapter 1322, Statutes of 1983


The Enrolled Bill Memorandum to the Governor from the Legislative Secretary contains the following digest of Senate Bill 1238:

This bill would authorize the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) to establish special benefit assessment districts to finance facilities of the “Metro Rail” project in Los Angeles.
(See Exhibit #17, document PE-2)

Background on Senate Bill 1238 is set forth in the analysis of the Senate Committee on Local Government, which was the first Committee to hear the bill.  (See Exhibit #3)  The analysis states:

The Southern California Rapid Transit District  (SCRTD) is building “Metro Rail,” a rapid transit line from Union Station in Los Angeles, through the Wilshire District and Hollywood, to North Hollywood.  SCRTD plans 16 stations along this route.  SCRTD wants to capture part of the increased property values that will occur around its Metro Rail stations to help pay for the project.
     (See Exhibit #3a, page 1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1159 of 1983

2006-01-10T16:14:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1159 (Torres-1983)
Chapter 497, Statutes of 1983


The Enrolled Bill Report of the Department of Transportation summarizes Senate Bill 1159 stating that it “broadens SCRTD’s authority to fund transit operations and construction of transit related facilities.”  (See Exhibit #13, document PE-5)

The Senate Transportation Committee analysis of Senate Bill 1159 as it was amended on April 6, 1983 discusses the need for the bill, stating:

The Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) is currently planning the construction of a major rapid transit line in Los Angeles County referred to as the Metro Rail Project or Wilshire Corridor.  The project is estimated to cost over $3 billion and the district is anticipating 75% federal funding for the project.

     This bill would provided the district with more flexibility in the planning and construction of the system. . . .

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL:  The Metro Rail is a major public investment which requires careful planning for the project and the adjacent properties.  The bill would provide the district with needed authority to interact with other entities, including the private sector, to maximize its potential.
     (See Exhibit #3, pages 1 and 2)

In a floor statement on Senate Bill 1159, Senator Torres explains the purpose of the bill as follows:

This measure is designed to allow the Southern California Rapid Transit District to participate in land use decisions which will protect existing neighborhoods, attract new private investment in stations, and preserve options for expansion of the initial stations and support facilities.
(See Exhibit #12, document A-3)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 220 of 1971

2006-01-09T12:59:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 220 (Cologne-1971)
Chapter 633, Statutes of 1971


Senator Gordon Cologne, the author of Senate Bill 220, described the bill in his letter to Governor Ronald Reagan as follows:

This bill prohibits incompatible employment for compensation by officers and employees of local agencies identical to that which the law now prescribes for state employees.  The bill sets up the mechanics for determining whether or not outside employment by these people is or is not incompatible, inconsistent, in conflict with or inimical to his duties as an employee of such local agency.  The language has been carefully worked out with private businesses who depend on off-duty local employees and the League of California Cities and other representatives of local agencies who are interested in what type of work these employees are doing.

At the present time, I know of no opposition and see the bill as a means of eliminating some conflicts of interest which have arisen.
(See Exhibit #5, document PE-5)

The Senate Local Government Committee analysis of the April 26, 1971 version of Senate Bill 220 states that the bill “is roughly similar to Gov. Code Section 19251 dealing with state employees.”  (See Exhibit #3, page 2)  This analysis further explains the background of the bill as follows:

In general, the California Constitution provides the basic authority for cities and counties to establish qualifications for their respective employees.  (For the most part, special district basic enabling acts grant them authority to employ necessary means to accomplish their purposes.)

Various statutory provisions (and the Civil Service Act) governs what constitutes conflict of interest with regard to state and local agency officers and employees -- including political activities thereby.

One section in particular (Gov. Code § 19251) expressly prohibits state employees from engaging in activities determined to be “clearly inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or inimical to” their duties as state employees.  The various appointing powers, with the approval of the State Personnel Board, are responsible for determining which activities incompatible.
(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 643 of 1963

2006-01-09T11:27:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 643 (O’Sullivan-1963)
Chapter 2038, Statutes of 1963


The Legislative Analyst prepared an analysis of Senate Bill 643 as amended on June 6, 1963 which provides this brief summary of the measure:

This bill is a comprehensive attempt to reduce fire hazards in those areas of the State for which fire protection is the responsibility of the Division of Forestry.  The bill stems from the recommendations of the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Natural Resources.
(See Exhibit #4b, page 1)

Summarizing the provisions of Senate Bill 643, the Bill Memorandum to the Governor dated July 19, 1963 states:

Declares that burning of vegetation is for a public purpose if the State Forester determines that such burning is necessary to prevent or suppress forest fires.  Authorizes cities, counties, and districts to adopt more restrictive fire prevention regulations if necessary to meet local fire hazards.  Regulates rubbish dumps outside of cities.  Authorizes the State Forester and State Board of Forestry to establish hazardous fire areas and to prescribe regulations, conditions and penalties with respect to the use of property in such areas.  Establishes Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Rights of Way.  Provides additional regulations concerning throwing litter or burning substances from vehicles.
(See Exhibit #5, document PE-3)

A letter from the Director of Conservation of the Department of Conservation to Governor Brown described Senate Bill 643 as “. . . the first major attempt in over twenty years to provide the fire agencies with up-to-date statutes to cope with the prevention of fires.  It should give the fire agencies statutes designed to reduce the losses of lives and property and damage to our natural resources.”  (See Exhibit #5, document PE-5)  This letter also indicated that the Senate Bill 643 was the result of an interim study conducted by the Senate Fact Finding Committee on Natural Resources.  (See Exhibit #5, document PE-4)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 885 of 1965

2005-12-05T15:03:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 885 (Burns-1965)
Chapter 848, Statutes of 1965

Legislative Counsel summarized Senate Bill 885 in its analysis to the Governor dated June 16, 1965, which stated as follows:

. . . Provides that where complaint for involuntary winding up or dissolution of corporations, other than bank, public utility, savings and loan association or insurance company, is brought by 1/3 of record share-holders of 6-month period or more, calculation of number of outstanding shares need not include shares owned by directors or those in control of corporation who are alleged in complaint and subsequently found by court to have personally participated in persistent fraud, mismanagement, or abuse of authority, or persistent unfairness to minority shareholders, or waste, loss or misapplication of property.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-3)

In his letter to Governor Brown, Senator Burns, the author of this measure and the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, discussed the rationale for the proposals in Senate Bill 885:

The present provisions of Sec. 4650 of the Corporations Code are that when a complaint for involuntary dissolution is filed by shareholders, it can be filed only by those shareholders owning one-third or more of the shares.  This bill excludes those shares owned by persons who are alleged in the complaint and subsequently found by the court to have personally participated in any of the transactions enumerated in subdivision (e) of Sec. 4651.  I am assured by the Corporations Commissioner that the enactment of this legislation will facilitate procedures and strengthen the corporate system.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 2386 of 1988

2005-12-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2386 (Campbell-1988)
Chapter 1548, Statutes of 1988

A Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 2386 as last amended on May 4, 1988, produced by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses, described the bill stating that it “requires individuals submitting bids for public works contracts to include with the bid an affidavit of noncollusion.”  (See Exhibit #7, page 1)

A statement regarding Senate Bill 2386 found in the Senate policy committee file addresses the need for the legislation as follows:

     There are currently operating “bidding firms” which purchase plans and specifications for a given public works job, and which then prepare bids for two or more contractors.  The problem with this practice is that there are numerous cases which suggest that by using one estimate firm to prepare bids for different competing contractors, several things are happening which, frankly, point to collusion.  These practices include price fixing, sharing of knowledge of bids, and securing price advantage over other bidders.

     As as [sic] example, I know of one firm which submitted bids for the same project to a city in my district.  The city attorney was concerned to note that the two separate bids, for two separate companies were remarkably similar.  The bids were suspect enough that the city threw them out -- they had been the first and second lower bidder -- and awarded the contract to the third lowest bidder instead.

     Evidently, some contractors are willing to let the “bidding firm” control the bids in such a way that the first lowest bidder on today’s project will be the second lowest bidder on the next.  In this way, certain contractors will alternate successful bids in an effort to fix prices and shut out successful competition.
(See Exhibit #4, documents SP-4 and SP-5)

The Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 2386 prepared by the Assembly Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Consumer Protection commented that the Engineering Contractors’ Association sponsored the measure “. . . to eliminate ‘bid rigging’ by groups or bidders working in concert to control prices. . . .”  (See Exhibit #14, page 2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1277 of 1976

2005-12-05T14:53:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1277 (Smith-1976) Chapter 1330, Statutes of 1976

Senate Bill 1277 enacted the California Coastal Act of 1976 creating a California Coastal Commission to monitor and control coastal development. (See Exhibits #2j and #13, document PE‑1) The analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife on Assembly Bill 1277 described the bill generally as follows:

This bill enacts the California Coastal Act of 1976 to implement the Coastal Plan, although the bill does not incorporate all of the policy recommendations of the Coastal Plan. The Act is required to be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes and objectives.

(See Exhibit #4, page 1)

The Enrolled Bill Report of Senate Bill 1277 that was prepared by the Department of Transportation provided the following background:

This bill is essentially the same as the last version of SB 1579. This comprehensive bill would establish the California Coastal Commission and six regional commissions who, together with cities and counties, would enact controls over development and public use of the “coastal zone”. This zone is defined generally as the area 1,000 yards inland from the shoreline with the exception of certain specific areas of estuarine, habitat and recreational significance. It provides standards by which the adequacy of local coastal programs and the permissibility of proposed developments are determined; it requires local governments to develop a local coastal program (land use plans and zoning ordinances) to be certified by the commission; and it requires obtaining a coastal development permit for any major public works project. It provides for the transfer of permit authority for development from the Coastal Commission to the local authorities once the local program has been “certified”.

The Department has supported the coastal bill since it was introduced as SB 1579. The Department’s suggested amendments have been incorporated in SB 1277.

(See Exhibit #13, document PE-12)

The Coastal Act has a long and complex history, dating back to at least 1969.

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 179 of 2003

2005-12-05T13:44:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 179 (Alarcon-2003)
Chapter 908, Statutes of 2003

A brief summary of Senate Bill 179 was contained in the Third Reading analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment:

Provides that any person or entity that enters into specified contracts for labor or services, that knows or should know that the contract does not provide sufficient funds to comply with various laws, violates state law, and provides for a rebuttable presumption, as provided.
(See Exhibit #9, page 1)

The need for the legislation was explained as follows in the analysis of the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, the first Committee hearing the bill.

Proponents argue that this measure attacks the hidden use of unfair economic leverage to influence labor contractors to enter into contracts that are financially inadequate to permit the contractor to comply with applicable laws. While employers usually claim they are unaware of abuses committed by their contractors, the reality is just the opposite. This measure does not require written contracts, rather it encourages them for sound business practices.

Some janitorial and security guard industry representatives state that this measure is necessary to weed out illegal and unethical employers in their industries.

Supporters cite federal and state evidence of Underground Economy enterprises that are unfair competition to law-abiding employers. These lawless operations pay little or no taxes, and fail to abide by minimum labor standards.
(See Exhibit #3, page 2)

Senate Bill 179 was preceded by an earlier vetoed bill.  (See Exhibits #3, #5, and #10, document A-2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 296 of 2005

2005-12-05T13:37:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 296 (Campbell-2005)
Chapter 51, Statutes of 2005

The Unfinished Business analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provides the following digest of Senate Bill 296 as last amended on June 14, 2005:

This bill corrects an erroneous appellate court decision on whether a distribution to a trust is allocable to principal or income, and immunizes from liability in part those trustees who made allocations pursuant to the Thomas decision, as specified.
(See Exhibit #8a, page 1)

This same analysis discussed the Thomas case stating:

Existing case law, Estate of Thomas, supra, held that the phrase “the total amount of money and property received in a distribution,” in Section 16350(d) of the Probate Code, means the total amount of money received by the trust, not the total amount of an entity’s distribution. . . .

This bill corrects the court’s interpretation of Section 16350 of the Probate Code and provides that money is received by a trust in partial liquidation of an entity if the total amount of money received by all owners, collectively, in a distribution or series of related distributions is greater than 20 percent of the entity’s gross assets as described.
(See Exhibit #8a, page 2)

The Assembly Committee on Judiciary analysis of the bill as of its June 7, 2005 hearing described Senate Bill 296 “as proposed to be amended” as a “non-controversial urgency bill.”  (See Exhibit #6, page 1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1120 of 1957

2005-12-05T13:34:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1120 (Busch-1957)
Chapter 1907, Statutes of 1957

Senate Bill 1120 was introduced by Senator Busch on January 21, 1957.  (See Exhibit #1a)   This measure was a single section bill only proposing the addition of former Welfare and Institutions Code section 103.7, the precursor to current Welfare and Institutions Code section 11101.  (See Exhibit #1e)

Legislative Counsel, in its Summary Digest of Senate Bill 1120 as enacted, provided this synopsis of its provisions:

Provides that where recipient of public assistance for which state grants-in-aid are made to counties is absent from United States for period in excess of 30 days, his aid shall be suspended wherever need cannot be determined for ensuing period of absence.  Makes provision inapplicable to recipients residing in territories, possessions, or other districts eligible to receive grants-in-aid from Federal Government under Social Security Act.
(See Exhibit #5, page 72)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 320 of 1971

2005-12-05T13:30:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 320 (Zenovich-1971)
Chapter 52, Statutes of 1971


Senator Zenovich provides the following description of the purpose of his bill in a letter to the Governor urging approval of the amendments proposed:

The enactment of this legislation will enable private mortgage insurance companies to guarantee high ratio conventional mortgage loans to 95% of value and thus satisfy the immediate needs of those California citizens seeking better housing.
(See Exhibit #7, document PE-3)

The analysis of the Senate Committee on Insurance and Financial Institutions provides this description of the changes made by Senate Bill 320, and their purpose:

ANALYSIS:     SB 320, as amended, changes the mortgage guaranty insurance loan section, as cited above, to increase the permissible loan to value ratio from a maximum of 90 to 95 percent of the secured property’s fair market value.

The intended effect of the bill is to qualify “moderate income” families who have limited cash reserves to finance home purchases requiring a cash down-payment of only 5 percent of the purchase price.
(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

Further background is provided in the analysis of the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions:

     Under existing Section 12640.02 of the Insurance Code, a mortgage guaranty insurer may guarantee a loan if it does not exceed 90% of the fair market value of the mortgaged property.  This bill would increase that to 95%, thus allowing insuring of property when there is only 5% down rather than 10%.

     There is at least one new federal loan program that allows lenders to make 95% conventional loans with the government making part of the monthly payment.  This bill would allow the mortgage insurer to insure such a conventional loan.  The bill, however, does not limit the 95% insurable loans to those under this subsidized federal program but permits the insurer to insure all 95% loans.
(See Exhibit #5)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1188 of 1991

2005-12-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1188 (Davis-1991)
Chapter 545, Statutes of 1991

The Special Consent analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses summarizes Senate Bill 1188 as follows:

. . . The provisions of this bill as it left the Senate were deleted in the Assembly and the author changed from Maddy to Davis.  The bill as it left the Senate would have shifted the Department of Finance's cash accounting system for the handling of public money to an accrual system basing credit transactions in the year in which they occur.

This bill now contains the provisions of SB 451 as it passed the Senate 37-0 on consent.  SB 1188 authorizes causes of actions against dissolved corporations (and shareholders), whether arising before or after the dissolution, if brought within the applicable statute of limitations, or within four years of dissolution, whichever is sooner.
(See Exhibit A, #5b, page 1)

An analysis prepared by the Department of Finance on the July 3, 1991 version of Senate Bill 1188 provides this background on the measure:

This bill is sponsored by the State Bar in response to a court ruling (Pacific Scene, Inc. v. Penasquitos, Inc. 1988) which held that a lawsuit could be brought against a dissolved corporation only for causes of actions arising prior to the dissolution of a corporation.  Prior to that court ruling, a dissolved corporation or its shareholders could be held liable for post-dissolution claims under common law known as the “trust fund theory”.  This bill seeks to establish in statute the authority for post-dissolution claims.
(See Exhibit #11, document PE-4)

The Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 1188 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses offers this additional commentary:

SB 1188 enacts a comprehensive system regulating the manner in which claims, whether they arise pre-dissolution or post-dissolution, may be pursued.  Moreover, the sponsor notes that this bill is based on the Model Business Corporations Act, which, in fact, provides a five year statute of limitations after dissolution.  [Note that SB 1188 contains a four year period in which to bring these actions.]
(See Exhibit #11, document PE-9)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1870 of 1980

2005-11-28T15:40:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1870 (Rodda-1980) Chapter 797, Statutes of 1980 The Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 1870 as amended on June 2, 1980, provided the following digest of the bill: This bill makes significant revisions in the provisions governing the state’s special education programs. Specifically, it (1) implements a plan for transition to the Master Plan for Special Education and requires all districts and counties to adopt the Master Plan program delivery system by 1981‑82; (2) makes certain modifications in the governance structure for operation of the Master Plan; (3) makes certain procedural changes in the Master Plan program; and (4) establishes a new funding system which would be utilized by all local education agencies, effective in 1980‑81. (See details of bill in comments.) (See Exhibit #7) According to the press release issued by Governor Brown on July 28, 1980, upon his signing Senate Bill 1870: . . . SB 1870 by Senator Albert S. Rodda, D-Sacramento, is the first comprehensive reform of the state’s $1 billion program to aid students who need special attention in the classroom. The bill fully implements the Master Plan for Special Education developed by the state Department of Education. . . . . . . The bill makes California the first state in the nation to comply with a new federal special education law. . . . (See Exhibit #13) The Senate Committee on Education analysis of Senate Bill 1870 as amended on April 10, 1980, discussed the following background for the bill and explained the need for the new law: California currently has two separate special education delivery systems: the Master Plan for Special Education and non‑Master Plan special education categorical aid programs. The features which most clearly distinguish the two systems are as follows: . . . In the current fiscal year Master Plan RLA’s are serving approximately 31% of the state’s handicapped enrollment; in 1980‑81 the Governor’s Budget proposes increasing the Master Plan service level to 45%. … In SB 154 (1978) this funding mechanism was severely modified into what is, in effect, a per‑pupil reimbursement rate. According to a 1980 Auditor General’s report, per‑pupil funding does not address variations in programs and costs of services among RLA’s, may encourage growth in low cost programs and services for the mildly handicapped. Master Plan funding difficulties were compounded in AB 8, where new RLA’s could not be guaranteed as high a level of per‑pupil funding as could old RLA’s. Because of these problems, three of the eight RLA’s scheduled to enter into the Master Plan this year opted instead to maintain non‑Master Plan programs. (See Exhibit #3a, pages 1 and 2) Senate Bill 1870 was double-joined with another bill, Assembly Bill 1265, as to Education Code section 6200. (See Exhibit #1j, page 62) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service, or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1319 of 1984

2005-11-21T15:36:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1319 (Marks-1984)
Chapter 1059, Statutes of 1984

Describing Senate Bill 1319 as last amended on August 16, 1984, the Senate Republican Caucus analysis stated, in part:

This bill extends until 6/30/85, the date by which a local agency formation commission must adopt spheres of influence for those local governmental agencies which do not provide “facilities or services related to development”.

Defines facilities or services related to development as public works or service programs related to services, nonagricultural water, streets and roads, flood control, drainage, and structural fire protection.

. . .

Provides that on and after 1/1/85, a commission which has not adopted spheres of influence for each local governmental agency affected is not to approve or conditionally approve any proposal which would result in the convention of prime agricultural land to nonagricultural consistent with the spheres of influence of all affected local agencies.
(See Exhibit #15, page 1)

In his letter to Governor Deukmejian, Senator Marks provided the following explanation and scope of his bill:

At least 22 LAFCOs will not meet the January 1 deadline for adopting spheres of influence.  My bill extends that deadline for six months for nondevelopment related special districts.  SB 1319 also simplifies the steps that LAFCOs need to follow in adopting these spheres.  Because the bill also requires LAFCOs to follow their own spheres of influence once they adopt them, it creates a new state-mandate.  However, I have been assured by the LAFCOs themselves that this will not create any substantial new costs.
(See Exhibit #16, document A-1)

The author’s file materials contain a June 27, 1984, Floor Statement by Senator Marks that included a handwritten notation indicating that a portion of Senate Bill 1319 came from another measure before the Legislature that session.  (See Exhibit #16, document A-5)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1918 of 1978

2005-11-21T14:54:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1918 (Beverly-1978)
Chapter 383, Statutes of 1978

The Senate Committee on Judiciary analysis of Senate Bill 1918 as introduced states that the purpose for this legislation “. . . is to eliminate unnecessary and costly deposition inquiry of personnel from large organizations when such personnel do not have the information sought by the deposing party.”  (See Exhibit #3, page 1)

The sponsor of this measure, the State Bar, provided the following discussion of the background circumstances driving this legislation as well as an analysis of the proposed amendments:

When a corporation, large organization or other entity employing numerous persons is a party to an action, it often happens that the adverse party desires to obtain information prior to trial which he knows the entity to have, but he does not know the name of the specific individual having that information.  As a result he must serve a subpoena on several officers of the entity and then frequently find that none of them has the information sought or, if he knows the name of one officer having some information, that officer may disclaim knowledge of certain areas and refer the questioner to others in the organization who may have the knowledge.  This results in frustration, unnecessary extension of the discovery process, and increased cost of litigation.

This proposal will permit the deposing party in his notice or subpoena to set out, with reasonable particularity, the matters upon which he wishes to examine the other party, and require the entity then to designate one or more persons who have the required knowledge to testify on its behalf.  In this manner when the deposition is conducted there will be reasonable assurance that the person to testify is the one with the requested information.
(See Exhibit #4, documents SP-2 and SP-3)

The State Bar also informed the Governor in a letter regarding Senate Bill 1918 that “[t]his proposal is patterned after rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the experience with which has been very favorable in federal actions.”  (See Exhibit #10, document PE-6)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1949 of 1978

2005-11-21T14:47:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1949 (Dunlap-1978)
Chapter 1384, Statutes of 1978


The Assembly Third Reading analysis of Senate Bill 1949, as amended on August 22, 1978, indicated that this “bill was introduced to remedy a massive storage problem confronting county clerks.”  (See Exhibit #8, page 1)

In his letter to Governor Brown, Senator Dunlap explained the background and his rationale for proposing this measure:

     Presently about 12,000 file drawers are filled each year with depositions which are never used by the courts.  Oftentimes, the depositions are filed after the final disposition of the case.  All of this costs the taxpayer about $250,000 per year.

     SB 1949 provides that court reporters maintain the original sealed copy of those depositions not requested by the court, for a period of 6 months after final disposition of the case.

. . .

     I carried SB 1949 at the request of the County Clerks Association, because I believe that the present filing requirements are an unnecessary burden upon county taxpayers.  Certainly, those depositions requested by the court should be held in the public interest and be filed with the Clerk, but in the preponderance of cases, the depositions are never called directly into the proceedings.  All parties have access to copies of the depositions taken in cases in which they are involved.  This is not changed by SB 1949.
(See Exhibit #11, documents PE-7 and PE-8)

Some of the changes made by Senate Bill 1949 were also made by an earlier-enacted measure.  These changes were incorporated into Senate Bill 1949 to avoid the nullification of the earlier-enacted amendments by the enactment of Senate Bill 1949, pursuant to Government Code section 9605.  (See Exhibit #11, document PE-2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1215 of 1990

2005-11-21T14:45:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2515 (Presley-1990)
Chapter 1536, Statutes of 1990

The Unfinished Business analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses on the August 14, 1990 version of Senate Bill 2515 states that the measure “. . . would establish time frames for payment of retention funds withheld by the owner from the original contractor or withheld by the general contractor from the subcontractor, as specified.”  (See Exhibit #10, page 1)

Senator Presley provides this commentary to the Governor, reflecting on the purpose and need for the legislation:

SB 2515 would encourage prompt payment of retentions by establishing clear guidelines and time frames for payment of undisputed retentions.  It authorizes appropriate penalties, specifically 2% monthly interest and reasonable attorney's fees when payment is withheld in violation of the law.

. . .

This measure deals with the growing abuses of retentions in the private construction industry.  The profit margin for many contractors has shrunk, to the point where it is often far exceeded by the monies withheld.  Prolonged delay in releasing retentions often requires the smaller contractor or subcontractor to jeopardize his business by having to borrow funds to pay his ongoing obligations to his workers, materials suppliers, and union trust accounts.  This measure will contribute to a more healthy and stable construction industry by ensuring that contractors are paid more promptly for their completed work.
(See Exhibit #12, document PE-3)

The Enrolled Bill Report of the Department of Consumer Affairs indicates that Senate Bill 2515 was not the first bill proposing time limits on the holding of retentions.  It provides:

The Concrete Contractors Association sponsored this bill to ensure that retentions on private construction contracts are released when the project is completed, and that the practice of withholding retentions will cease to serve as a means of financing owners’ construction costs.

As introduced, SB 2515 was a re-introduction of SB 274 which was vetoed by the Governor.  In an effort to address the concerns of the Governor and other opposition (the Irvine Company and the California Building Industry Association), the scope of SB 2515 has been substantially narrowed.
(See Exhibit #12, document PE-6)

Material in the file of the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Senate Bill 274 indicate that legislative efforts to reform the law governing retention payments began as early as 1988.  (See Exhibit #4a, documents BG-1 through BG-11)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 4 of 1984

2005-11-21T14:42:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 4 (Montoya-1984)
Chapter 297, Statutes of 1984

The final version of Senate Bill 4 is summarized in the Senate Democratic and Republican Caucus Joint Conference Report as follows:

The amendments clarify the terms and conditions by which representatives of public utility customers are eligible for awards of intervenor fees to compensate for the costs of their participation before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

The amendments specify that the types of proceedings for which intervenors may receive awards include any hearing or proceeding for the purpose of modifying a rate or establishing a fact or role that may influence a rate.

The amendments also confirm the authority of the PUC to issue awards under their current rules until December 31, 1984, after which the terms of this bill shall become effective.
(See Exhibit #14, page 1)

The Senate Committee on Energy and Public Utilities analysis of the April 7, 1984 version of Senate Bill 4 indicates that the bill was the result of a concern “. . . that the interests of the state’s residential ratepayers are not adequately represented in PUC hearings.” (See Exhibit #3, page 1)  The analysis then states:

The various proposals to improve public participation in the ratemaking process include:  the creation of an independent consumers utility board, the creation of a state office of consumers counsel, the public election of PUC members, and the payment of fees to individuals or groups who intervene in Commission proceedings on behalf of residential consumers.

In regard to the latter proposal, the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act, known as “PURPA”, authorizes the payment of intervenor fees under specified conditions for limited ratemaking proceedings.  In addition to authorizing intervenor fees,
PURPA provides for federal grants to assist in consumer representation.  However, the Reagan Administration has not budgeted any funds for this purpose.

The PUC has awarded intervenor fees on three occasions in the approximate amount of $40 thousand each.  Furthermore, last week the Commission approved new rules which expand the opportunities for the awarding of intervenor fees.
(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

The Enrolled Bill Report of Senate Bill 4 prepared by the Department of Consumer Affairs provides the following background information:

SB 4 has been in conference committee since last year during which time intervenors and representatives of the major utilities have met and attempted to draft compromise bill language.  The latest meeting was held on June 7, 1984.  At that time, additional draft amendments were submitted by the Author and a final agreement was reached on the bill’s language.  In its present form, most of the public utilities are neutral.
(See Exhibit #16, document PE-5)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 2068 of 1986

2005-11-21T14:40:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2068 (Seymour-1986)
Chapter 888, Statutes of 1986


The Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 2068 as it was amended on August 29, 1986 describes the bill as a “. . .clean-up bill for the school facilities package.”  This analysis goes on to state:

This bill corrects omissions and errors made in the school facilities conference for the school facilities package.

1.     Extends annual $150 million Tideland Oil Revenue transfers to 1990-91.

2.     Clarifies that the $1.50 square foot residential fee only applies when the construction produces new habitable space (e.g., not kitchen remodel if no new space is added).

3.     Change the charge on covered walkways from 1/2 to 1/3.

4.     Retain three-square-foot bonus for using relocatables.

5.     Permit exclusion of portable area to be based on high school attendance area.

6.     Clarify that local lease revenues can be used to meet the required local participation in project cost.

7.     Increases the state match for deferred maintenance from one-half percent to one percent.
(See Exhibit #11, pages 1 and 2)

An analysis prepared by the Department of Finance on Senate Bill 2068 provides the following as the reason for approval of the measure:

This bill would reestablish statutory provisions which were adopted by the School Construction Legislative conference Committee in SB 327 and AB 2926, but were erroneously deleted in drafting the bills or which would be inadvertently “chaptered-out” with the signing of either bill.
(See Exhibit #13, document PE-4)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 796 of 2003

2005-11-21T12:09:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 796 (Dunn-2003)
Chapter 906, Statutes of 2003

Senate Bill 796 added Part 13 (commencing with Section 2698) to Division 2 of the Labor Code, known as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.  (See Exhibit #1)  The documents indicate that the source of the legislation was the California Labor Federation and CRLA Foundation.  (See Exhibit #4, document SP1-6)

The Unfinished Business analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provides the following digest of Senate Bill 796 as it was last amended on September 2, 2003:

This bill allows employees to sue their employers for civil penalties for employment law violations. This bill is intended to augment the enforcement abilities of the Labor Commissioner by creating an alternative “private attorney general” system for labor law enforcement.
(See Exhibit #14, page 2)

Background on the legislation is set forth in the analysis of the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, the first policy Committee hearing the bill.  (See Exhibit #3)  The analysis states in part:

… the California Labor Federation asserts that in the last decade state government labor law enforcement functions have failed to keep pace with the growth of the economy and the workforce. Additionally they note that, resources available to county district attorneys, for prosecution of Labor Code violations as crimes, are similarly lacking.
(See Exhibit #3, page 4)

This same analysis also stated:

Existing law, authorizes the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (comprised of the Department of Industrial Relations, the Employment Development Department, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and the Workforce Investment Board) to assess and collect civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code, where specified.

The Attorney General is authorized to seek appropriate injunctive relief and file charges against employers for criminal violations of the Labor Code, where specified.

While many Labor Code sections provide for criminal penalties, many sections do not provide for corresponding civil penalties. Business and Professions Code Section 17200, also known as the “Unfair Competition Act” (UCA) authorizes aggrieved individuals to act on their own behalf in the capacity of “private attorney general” (PAG) when maintaining a claim against a business for violating the law or competing unfairly.

Individuals aggrieved by violations of the Labor Code are not expressly permitted to act in the capacity of PAG in the filing of civil actions against their employers.
(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1218 of 2001

2005-11-21T12:07:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1218 (Romero-2001)
Chapter 96, Statutes of 2001

The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Assembly Judiciary Committee provides the following summary of Senate Bill 1218 as it was last amended on April 30, 2001:

SUMMARY : Provides more specific guidelines for the distribution of residual funds in class action litigation. Specifically, this bill:

Requires that the court direct the payment of residual funds from class action litigation to nonprofit organizations or foundations that will support projects that will benefit the class or similarly situated persons, or that promote the law consistent with the objectives and purposes of the underlying cause of action, to child advocacy programs, or to nonprofit organizations providing civil legal services to the indigent.

Deletes statutory provisions authorizing establishment of the California Legal Corps (Legal Corps).

(See Exhibit #9, page 1)

A good description of the background and need for Senate Bill 1218 is set forth in the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis which states, in part:

In 1993, Section 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted to establish a procedure for the distribution of any funds from class action lawsuits remaining after all claims, costs and attorney’s fees had been paid. …

Since the enactment of this provision, courts attempting to comply with its objectives have expressed frustration over its lack of clearer guidelines, and have been criticized for some of their choices for distribution of funds.  In addition, courts have not complied with the provision’s requirement that orders directing payment of class action residuals be reported to the State Bar; accordingly, no monitoring of such payments has been made.

Other critics of the current provision note that, although one of its express purposes is “to promote justice for all Californians,” nothing in the law prevents a court from distributing the residuals to entities outside of the state.  Finally, critics note that the California Legal Corps, which was authorized in conjunction with the enactment of Section 384 as a specified potential recipient of its funds, has never been formed because no funds ever were dedicated to its purpose.
(See Exhibit #3, pages 1 and 2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 2105 of 1994

2005-11-21T12:04:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2105 (Campbell-1994)
Chapter 237, Statutes of 1994


The Assembly Committee on Judiciary analysis of Senate Bill 2105 described the bill as follows:

This bill amends Section 383 to specify that its provisions shall not apply to class actions brought against public entities or employees thereof, as defined by the Tort Claims Act, commencing with Government Code Section 810.
(See Exhibit #7, page 1)

This same analysis provided the following background discussion:

The provisions of SB 536 were diligently negotiated last year with numerous parties, including the Governor’s Office.  At the conclusion of the negotiations, no party, including the Governor’s Office, objected to enactment of SB 536.  However, after SB 536 was signed, the Governor’s Office realized that its provisions applied to class actions brought against public entities and its employees.

The Governor’s Office is concerned that SB 536 presents a potentially adverse financial risk to the State of California.  Consequently, in February of this year, the Governor’s Office asked Senator Petris to modify the provisions of SB 536.

SB 2105 is the product of discussions between Senator Petris, the Governor’s Office, and the State Bar, the sponsor of SB 536.

Most simply, SB 536 makes the otherwise mandatory provisions of Section 383 discretionary with regard to class actions against public entities.
(See Exhibit #7, page 2)

The Enrolled Bill Report prepared by the Department of Consumer Affairs states the following:

This is a clean-up measure to amend the statute to specify that the provisions of Ch. 863 would not apply to class actions brought against public entities or employees.  This measure would not limit any equitable cy pres remedies that are otherwise available to the court.
(See Exhibit #11, document PE-3)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 155 of 1968

2005-11-21T11:49:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 155 (Grunsky-1968)
Chapter 918, Statutes of 1968

The Governor's Legislative Secretary provided the following description of Senate Bill 155:

Senate Bill No. 155 provides that a deposition of any person other than a party may be taken only in the county where the deponent resides or at a place not more than 75 miles from the deponent's residence. In the case of a party, the deposition may be in the county of residence, or the county of the trial, provided the place of deposition is less than 150 miles from the party's residence. The judge may still order the deposition to be taken under different terms.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-2)

Explaining the reasoning behind this amendment, Senator Grunsky stated in his letter to the Governor:

Briefly, the bill requires the person who desires to take a deposition to go to the witness rather than requiring the witness to come to him.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-3)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 469 of 1994

2005-11-21T11:47:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 469 (Beverly-1994)
Chapter 1200, Statutes of 1994

Senate Bill 469 was introduced on February 25, 1993 by Senator Robert Beverly.  (See Exhibit #1a)  Senate Bill 469 enacted the “Beverly-Killea Limited Liability Company Act,” and was sponsored by the Business Law Section of the State Bar of California.  (See Exhibit #20, document PE-12)

In his letter to Governor Wilson, the author of the measure, Senator Beverly, explained the intent and purpose behind Senate Bill 469, stating:

The purpose of the bill, introduced at the request of the Business Law Section of the State Bar, is to create a new entity called a limited liability company (LLC), which is a hybrid between a corporation and a partnership.  The intent behind a limited liability company statute is to combine the corporate characteristics of limited liability protection for its members with the organizational flexibility and tax attributes of a partnership.
(See Exhibit #20, document PE-2)

The Unfinished Business analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses discussed the arguments in support of Senate Bill 469, stating, in part:

The State Bar of California states, this bill “would enact the California Limited Liability Company Act, authorizing and regulating the formation and operation of limited liability companies in this state.  Limited liability companies (or LLCs), which are already authorized by legislation in at least 38 other states, are business entities which combine certain characteristics of corporations (e.g., separate legal identity and limited liability of members) with other characteristics associated with partnerships (e.g., management flexibility and ‘pass through’ income tax treatment).  These attributes make LLCs ideal vehicles for capital formation, particularly for small businesses.”
(See Exhibit #18, page 4)

This history of the development of LLCs is provided in the bill analysis of the Franchise Tax Board found in the file of the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation:

In, 1977 Wyoming was the first state to enact LLC legislation.  At first, interest in forming LLCs remained subdued because of the uncertainty regarding federal tax treatment and concern regarding whether the limited liability accorded members of an LLC under one state’s statute would be honored by other states.  In 1988, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concluded that an LLC organized under the Wyoming Limited Liability Company Act would be treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes.

Since then, more than 35 additional states have recognized the LLC form of business organization by statute.  The further proliferation of LLCs depends upon the remaining states (particularly such commercially important states as California and New York) enacting LLC enabling legislation.
(See Exhibit #4, document SP-32)

There was another measure that proposed provisions similar to those in Senate Bill 469 and shared the same language development history as that demonstrated in Senate Bill 469.

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 630 of 1963

2005-11-21T11:41:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 630 (Dolwig-1963)
Chapter 597, Statutes of 1963


A Bill Memorandum to the Governor describes Senate Bill 630 as follows:

Permits any shareholder of a corporation which sells: (1) all, or substantially all, of its operating assets, and its good will, or (2) all, or substantially all, of the operating assets of a division or subsidiary of the corporation, and its good will or (3) all of the shares of any subsidiary, to agree with the buyer not to compete within any specified area, so long as the buyer carries on a like business in the area.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-4)

The changes proposed by Senate Bill 630 were the result of Resolution No. 5, proposed by the Hollywood Bar Association and accepted by the California State Bar at the 1962 Conference of State Bar Delegates.  (See Exhibits #5 and #6)  The State Bar then sponsored the legislation.  It seems the purpose of Senate Bill 630 was to provide protection to buyers against competition from shareholders in a corporation where the corporation is actually the seller of all or substantially all of its assets.  (See Exhibit #5)

There was one bill which competed with Senate Bill 630 during the 1963 legislative session which eventually died.

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 272 of 1970

2005-11-21T11:39:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 272 (Song-1970)
Chapter 1333, Statutes of 1970


The Assembly Commerce and Public Utilities Committee analysis of the bill as amended on July 29, 1970 described the bill in part as follows:

The measure defines “consumer goods” as any motor vehicle, machine, appliance or like product that is used or bought for use, primarily for personal, family, or household purpose.  Senate Bill 272 also defines “implied warranty of merchantability”, “implied warranty of fitness” and “express warranty”. . . .

The measure specifies that for violations of the act judgments may be entered for three times the amount at which the actual damages are assessed plus reasonable attorney fees.
(See Exhibit #4, page 1)

Senator Song indicated in a formal statement to the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Public Utilities that Senate Bill 272 was intended to give “the manufacturer a series of choices.  The first choice is whether or not he wishes to issue an express warranty.  If, and only if, he issues an express warranty, does he face the second choice” of “either to maintain authorized service facilities or to fully reimburse his retailers for servicing his (the manufacturer’s) warranty.”  (See Exhibit #7, document A-93)

In his letter to Governor Reagan, Senator Song provided discussion regarding two significant points addressed by Senate Bill 272:

First, the bill deals only with the retail sale of “consumer goods”, a term which is rather narrowly defined.  Non-retail sales of consumer goods, retail sales of non-consumer goods, and all non-retail commercial transactions will continue to be regulated by the Commercial Code and would not be affected by SB 272.

Second, the bill only affects those manufacturers who choose to give written warranties with their consumer goods.  Further, it requires them to provide only those services that they themselves have promised in their warranties.  The purpose of the bill is to permit the buyer of a defective product to obtain this promised service with relative convenience and thus eliminate the situation in which enforcement of the warranty becomes (as the warrantor knows and intends) more difficult and expensive than the purchase of a new product.
(See Exhibit #8, document PE-6)

The analysis of Senate Bill 272 produced by the Senate Committee on Business and Professions indicates that the bill “was an outgrowth of an investigation done by this committee of November, 1969 on the subject of warranties.”  (See Exhibit #3, page 1)  The analyses and file material on Senate Bill 272 also make mention of a related predecessor bill and a companion measure.  (See Exhibits #3, #7, #11 and #12 for example)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 585 of 1927

2005-11-21T11:37:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 585 (McKinley-1927)
Chapter 874, Statutes of 1927


Legislative Counsel summarized Senate Bill 585 in its Legislative Digest, stating:

New general law.  Authorizes any county or city to establish for it an official plan showing street, parks and playgrounds, and provides for the details thereof, and for filing thereof.  Power granted also to create a planning board of five members; term of office five years.  Local legislative body may change or add to the officials.  Plats showing new streets, parks, etc., must be submitted to planning board for approval or disapproval . . . No public sewer or other municipal or public utility improvement shall be constructed in any city until latter is duly placed on the official plan.  No permit for erection of a building shall be issued unless the street giving access to such proposed structure has been placed on the official plan.  Certain tolerances granted.
(See Exhibit #5)

Commentary on Senate Bill 585 in the California Real Estate Magazine provide the following background:

Governor Young signed Senate Bill 585, called the standard city and county planning act.  This measure, opposed by several subdividers, had general support throughout California.  It is a permissive act, and is discussed in more detail in this magazine under the signature of Harry Cheney, of Palos Verdes, who, with the League of California Municipalities, was largely responsible for its being carried through the legislature.  This measure had the endorsement of the Oakland City Planning conference last March.
(See Exhibit #9b, page 18)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us by at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 977 of 1974

2005-11-21T11:35:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 977 (Gregorio-1974)
Chapter 1536, Statutes of 1974

Senate Bill 977 is summarized in the analysis that was produced by the Assembly Committee on Planning, Land Use, and Energy as follows:

This bill repeals the existing Subdivision Map Act and places it in the Government Code in a division entitled “Subdivisions” under the new title “Planning and Land Use.”  Although there are numerous changes made to existing law, many are technical revisions intended to clarify the requirements for processing subdivision maps, certification requirements, etc.  The bill also affects specified sections of the Public Resources Code.
(See Exhibit #5, page 1)

In his letter to Governor Reagan, the author of this measure, Assembly member Knox, provided the following rationale for the bill:

As Chairman of the Assembly Local Government Committee and as Floor Manager of SB 977 I can readily assert that the measure will benefit not only local governments but also the real estate and building industries of California.  This latter benefit will take the form of faster and more expeditious processing of new subdivisions under a clearer and more expeditious set of requirements than existing under present law.
(See Exhibit #10, document PE-20)

Assembly member Knox also indicated in his letter to the Governor that Senate Bill 977 was “. . . a recodification of the Subdivision Map Act which represents two years of effort on the part of Senator Gregorio and the League of California Cities to clarify and rewrite this important statute---without making major substantive changes in it.”  (See Exhibit #10, document PE-20)

It appears that Senate Bill 977 was the final measure in a series of bills that had been before the Legislature for four years proposing to amend the subdivision law.

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 614 of 1929

2005-11-21T11:33:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 614 (McKinley-1929)
Chapter 837, Statutes of 1929


The Legislative Counsel digested the provisions of Senate Bill 614, stating, in part:

New Act which appears to be an act to supersede that part of Act 5211a, known as “The Planning Act,” chapter 874, statutes 1927, which part relates to the subdivision of land within incorporated territory and of land within a radius of three miles thereof, and to sale of lots therefrom.
(See Exhibit #3, page 179)

It appears that the bill was a part of efforts by the California Real Estate Association to “clarify the chaotic condition that now exists as to map filing. . . .”  (See Exhibit #6d, page 25, as well as #6b, first few paragraphs and #6c)

The materials seem to indicate that Senate Bill 614 was one of a series of bills granting new authority to local government to regulate the development of cities.  (See Exhibit #5, pages 2445 and 2446)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service, or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 2926 of 1986

2005-11-11T11:47:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 2926 (Stirling-1986)
Chapter 887, Statutes of 1986

Assembly Bill 2926 established a “partnership” between the State and local school districts for the funding of school construction.  (See Exhibits #17 and #18, document LC-49)  The Department of Finance wrote in its report to the Governor that Assembly Bill 2926 was “. . . part of a comprehensive five-bill package that is intended to meet the identified $3.8 billion need for new classroom and school facility reconstruction over the next five years.”  (See Exhibit #16, document PE-7)

In a Conference Report Analysis of Assembly Bill 2926, the bill is described follows:

. . . Generally the bill:

1)     Establishes a state-local partnership for funding school construction and reconstruction
2)      Authorizes local school boards to control developer fees to meet school construction needs.  Current developer fees under contract or voter approved are not affected;
3)      Developer fees are “capped” at $1.50 per square foot for residential and $0.25 per square foot for commercial or industrial; the caps are eliminated if G.O. bonds fail.
4)      Appropriates $15 million annually for emergency classrooms.
5)      Appropriates $30 million from PVEA for air conditioning and insulation in year-round schools.
(See Exhibit #14, document SFA-1)

Assembly Bill 2926 was contingent upon the enactment of Senate Bill 327 and the ratification by the voters in the November 4, 1986, general election of the Greene-Hughes School Building Leasing Purchase Bond Law.  (See Exhibit #1g and #16, document PE-22 for example)  There were also ten other measures competing with Assembly Bill 2926 in the Conference Committee.  (See Exhibit #14, document SFA-1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 3638 of 1978

2005-11-11T11:38:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 3638 (Nestande-1978) Chapter 552, Statutes of 1978 Discussing Assembly Bill 3638 in a Background Worksheet prepared for the Senate Committee on Insurance and Financial Institutions, Assembly member Nestande explained the intent of the measure “. . . is that agents for the sale of real property cannot direct the escrow to a “Captive” and possibly “biased” escrow agent for the handling of this type of transaction.” (See Exhibit #6, document SP‑2) The Senate Committee on Insurance and Financial Institutions analysis of Assembly Bill 3638 as last amended provided the following description of this measure: . . . AB 3638 would remove from law the provisions enacted by Chapter 679, and instead would add new provisions to the Civil Code to specify that no real estate developer shall require as a condition precedent to the transfer of a single family dwelling that escrow services be provided by an escrow entity in which the developer has a financial interest (ownership or control of 5% or more of the escrow entity). For the purposes of the section, real estate developer is defined as a person or entity having an ownership in real property which is improved by such person or entity with single family residential dwe-lings [sic]. A developer who violates the provisions of the section shall be liable to the purchaser of the property for three times the amount charged for the escrow services, but in no case, less than $250 plus attorney fees. (See Exhibit #5b, pages 1 and 2) The Department of Corporations produced an Enrolled Bill Report for the Governor that provided the following discussion regarding the background and purpose of Assembly Bill 3638: The purpose of this bill is to clarify the provisions of AB 1324 (Nestande), Chapter 679, Statues of 1977, which amended the Escrow Law, effective January 1, 1978, to prohibit any person, as a condition precedent to purchasing residential property, from requiring that the escrow be conducted by any specified escrow agent. The basic intent of AB 1324 was to prohibit a dominant principal in a real estate transaction (normally the seller) from directing the transaction to an escrow over which he or she has control. Although this activity more likely occurs when the seller is a real estate broker or a real estate developer, the provisions of AB 1324 did not affect brokers or developers. Since only the Escrow Law was amended, the effect of the bill was that it only applied to licensed escrow agents (i.e., the term “person” as defined in the Escrow Law is limited to only escrow agent licensees) and therefore the prohibition extended only to principals of escrow companies in the purchase or sale of their own residence. Since persons licensed under the escrow law comprise only about 35% of the escrow industry, the bill fell far short of its objective, even assuming it intended to cover all principals of escrow entities. (See Exhibit #11, document PE-3) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1322 of 1961

2005-11-11T11:25:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1322 (Busterud-1961)
Chapter 1189, Statutes of 1961

Legislative Counsel’s Report on Assembly Bill 1322 described the bill as follows:

     Requires all automobile bodily injury liability insurance policies to include provisions for protection to an insured against bodily injuries caused by an uninsured motorist.  Allows the insurer and the named insured by agreement in writing to delete an uninsured motorist provision if they desire.

     Defines various terms as used in the section such as “bodily injury,” “named insured,” “insured,” “insured motor vehicle” and “uninsured motor vehicle.”

     Specifies the extents of and limitations upon coverage under the uninsured motorist coverage provision.

     Authorizes any insurer paying claims under an uninsured motorist provision to be subrogated to the rights of the insured.  Allows an insured entitled to recover under an uninsured motorist provision to be reimbursed independently from other coverage applicable to the accident subject to certain conditions.

     Deletes the present uninsured motorist coverage provisions.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-6)

As explained in the Department of Justice’s Memorandum to the Governor:

. . . Former Insurance Code section 11580.2 relating to the same subject is repealed and a new section 11580.2 is enacted by the bill.  It involves a substantial reshuffleing [sic] of and addition to the former provisions. . . .
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-2)

Background to the provisions enacted by Assembly Bill 1322 is provided in the Bill Memorandum produced by the Governor’s Legislative Secretary as follows:

The Department of Insurance recommends approval and advises that the bill grew out of several meetings among various persons in the insurance industry including agents and brokers, motor group associations and individual insurers to correct certain administrative falws [sic] in the 1959 Law which will bring the California statutory coverage in line with the uninsured motorist coverage now being sold generally by the insurers on a voluntary
basis in other states and will prevent fraudulent claims and double
recoveries, thereby keeping premiums lower for honest insurers.
(See Exhibit #3, document PE-1)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 3027 of 2002

2005-11-10T15:25:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 3027 (Assembly Committee on Judiciary-2002)
Chapter 806, Statutes of 2002


The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provided the following summary of Assembly Bill 3027 as last amended on August 29, 2002:

DIGEST:     This bill makes several amendments, deletions, and additions to the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, and Government Code.  The bill seeks to reduce the "gamesmanship" that may occur in the deposit of jury fees by requiring all parties demanding a jury to deposit advance jury fees.  The bill deletes obsolete provisions regarding the transfer of cases between a municipal and superior court.  The bill also makes the following amendments:  extends the time for service of a claim in small claim actions; specifies a time for making a written request for postponement of a hearing in small claim action; extends immunity to independent contractors providing small claim advice on behalf of a court or county in small claim actions; requires notice and an opportunity to be heard to a party failing to comply with local court rules; clarifies the oath statute; and updates the Clergy-Penitent privilege with gender neutral language.
(See Exhibit #7c, page 1)

Background and the need for the legislation, specifically regarding the amendments made to Code of Civil Procedure section 631, were noted as follows from an analysis prepared by the Senate Committee on Judiciary:

According to the Judicial Council (JC) this bill is designed to eliminate "gamesmanship," which may be involved in the deposit of jury fees.  Current law does not specify that each party demanding a jury trial must deposit advance jury fees.  Thus, a party can rely on another party to deposit fees and, if that other party fails to do so, it may preserve its right to a jury trial by later depositing its own fees.  JC asserts that as a result a party sometimes engages in a game of wait-and-see; if no other party has deposited fees, only then will a party do so.  In addition, the JC states that if one party deposits the fees and the other does not, under current law the party making an advance deposit of jury fees may then waive the jury on the first day of trial.  The other party or parties may then be faced with paying the jury fees at the last minute or proceeding to trial without a jury having prepared for a jury trial.

According to the JC, the "gamesmanship" can be disruptive because the court and the parties may not know whether the trial will be by a jury.  The JC states that this uncertainty can result in calendar management problems, delays of trials, and pretrial litigation over whether a jury trial has been waived.
(See Exhibit #5b, pages 4 and 5)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 583 of 1996

2005-11-10T15:23:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 583 (Sher-1996)
Chapter 1003, Statutes of 1996

An Enrolled Bill Report prepared by the Department of Finance summarizes the changes made by Assembly Bill 583 as follows:

This bill would repeal the Uniform Partnership Act and would enact the Uniform Partnership Act of 1994. The various changes that would be promulgated by this measure include:

revisions to the fiduciary duties of partners in a partnership

requirements that partnership statements be filed with the Secretary of State and would authorize the Secretary of State to charge filing and copying fees

clarification of the treatment of partnerships as legal entities separate from the individual partners

provision for conversion of general partnerships to limited partnerships and from limited partnerships to general partnerships

provision for the merger of partnerships

provides new rules for the dissolution of partnerships

(See Exhibit #14, document PE-19)

The Office of Senate Floor Analyses produced a Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 583 as amended August 23, 1996 that provided the following background on the bill:

The existing, comprehensive law governing business partnerships in California is based on the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA) drafted in 1914.  The UPA’s most recent iteration in California was enacted by the Legislature in 1949.  The Uniform Partnership Act has remained unchanged since its inception in 1914.  AB 583 proposes the adoption of the Revised Uniform Partnership Act (RUPA) adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners of [sic] Uniform State Laws in 1993.

Partnership law forms an essential constituent to the conduct of business.  Unless persons associated to do business together establish a formal entity like a corporation or limited partnership, the association is deemed to be a partnership, and all of their business relations with one another, with other businesses, and with the public, are governed by the law of partnerships.

The author initially introduced the RUPA in 1994 as AB 2612. Because of unresolved controversies among the participants, including the Business Law Section of the State Bar, legal scholars, the Department of Corporations, the Secretary of State and the Consumer Attorneys of California, the bill was put over for interim study and discussion. AB 583 includes modifications that resolve all of the controversies.

To date, RUPA has been adopted in roughly 12 states. The known states are as follows: Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Texas, Montana, and Wyoming.

If enacted, the RUPA will govern all general partnerships formed after its effective date and, after a transition period, will also replace the current UPA with respect to existing partnerships.
(See Exhibit #11c, pages 3 and 4)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 460 of 2000

2005-11-10T15:03:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 460 (Ackerman-2000)
Chapter 34, Statutes of 2000

The Special Consent Calendar analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses included the following summary of Assembly Bill 460 as last amended, May 18, 2000:

This bill conforms California law to federal law providing immunity to trustees of federal or state government retirement plans that allow an employee to direct investment of employee-contributed assets to the plan.  The immunity applies to limit liability for losses incurred with respect to those employee-directed investment assets.
(See Exhibit #11, page 1)

The analysis prepared by the Senate Committee on Judiciary noted the following as the need for the bill:

The California Bankers Association (CBA), sponsors of the bill, contend that current California law does not conform to federal law that provides immunity to trustees for losses incurred by employees of pension trusts, where those losses are from directed investments of the employee's contributions to the plan.  Current state law covers state and federal government pension plans, but not those established by a local government, such as a city, city and county, district, school district, municipal or public corporation, or other political subdivision or public agency of the state or any instrumentality of such agency.

Banks often act as trustees for those types of government pension plans, where employees may direct the investment of their own contributions, such as a 457 plan.  This bill would provide the immunity now available to trustees of other state or federal agency pension plans that allow employees to direct the investment of their own contributions.

CBA further contends that the notice provisions of the Probate Code, with respect to beneficiaries and non-beneficiary heirs when a trust or portions thereof become irrevocable need to be clarified, and that the "good faith" effort to serve notice should be changed to "reasonable and diligent" effort, making the definition easier to understand for practical purposes.
(See Exhibit #7, page 3)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us atLegislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1172 of 1997

2005-11-10T14:48:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1172 (Kaloogian-1997)
Chapter 724, Statutes of 1997

The analysis of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary noted the following regarding Assembly Bill 1172:

This bill is the annual Probate Law omnibus bill sponsored by the Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law Section of the State Bar of California (Bar).  According to the Bar, a major focus of estate planning is probate avoidance.  Trusts and other dispositions of property are used more frequently.  This bill clarifies aspects of trust law and provides consistency between trust, family, and probate law.
(See Exhibit #3, page 2)

The Business, Transportation and Housing Agency prepared an Enrolled Bill Report which cited the following arguments in support of the bill:

A major focus of estate planning is probate avoidance.  This bill clarifies aspects of trust law and provides consistency between trust, family and probate law.

The bill groups all of the appeal provisions of the various types of proceedings under the Probate Code into one place.

People take care of those (spouses and children) they leave behind to the extent they are able.  To the extent they do not wish to provide, they would be required to specifically direct in their trust instruments.

Care custodian often work alone and could take advantage of the person they are caring for.  This bill would provide only a presumption of invalidity, not a prohibition of any gift to the care custodian.  If protections are followed (i.e., review by an independent attorney) such gifts would be valid.
(See Exhibit #15, document PE-4)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1960 of 1978

2005-11-10T12:16:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1960 (Berman-1978)
Chapter 1321, Statutes of 1978

Regarding the purpose of Assembly Bill 1960, the Senate Democratic Caucus analysis of the bill as amended August 8, 1978 states in its "Arguments in Support" section that “. . . this bill provides equal access for employment for all people.  Its purpose is to prevent discrimination against female employees merely because of a temporary physical condition which, absent medical problems, does not hinder job performance.”  (See Exhibit #11, page 2)

The Senate Industrial Relations Committee analysis of the June 21, 1978 version of Assembly Bill 1960 provides the following information regarding this bill:

Under both federal and state law, it is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sex.  The scope of this protection does not, however, embrace discrimination prior to or in the course of one’s employment on account of pregnancy.  In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court in G.E. v. Gilbert (1976) held that the exclusion of pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities is not a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

. . .

This bill would provide some protections under the Fair Employment Practice Act for employees who become pregnant.  The effect of this would be to overcome the Gilbert decision by designating pregnant individuals as a protected class, thus requiring employers, who regularly employ five or more persons, to treat them in a prescribed manner. . . .
(See Exhibit #7, page 2)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 169 of 1986

2005-11-10T12:14:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 169 (Harris-1986) Chapter 1334, Statutes of 1986 Assembly Bill 169 enacted the 1986 California Civil Discovery Act. (See Exhibit #1g) The Senate Committee on Judiciary analysis described Assembly Bill 169 as follows: According to proponents, this bill and its companion - AB 1334 (Harris) - would thoroughly rewrite the California civil discovery law. Existing statutes would be repealed and replaced by new ones. In general, the revisions would bring California closer to the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Exhibit #7b, page 9) The Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Bill 169 as last amended on August 25, 1996, prepared by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, outlined the changes in the law proposed by the legislation. (See generally, Exhibit #11b) The “Comments” section of the analysis provided, in part: 2) This bill proposes a comprehensive revision of the civil discovery system in California. It incorporates existing law and procedures, statutorily recognizes case law which interpreted existing statutory law and makes both major and minor changes in the law relative to civil discovery. According the [sic] the author, the Senate amendments were the result of negotiations with various interest groups including representatives from the trial bar, insurance industry, and members of the bench. The amendments are aimed at resolving problems raised by these groups. (See Exhibit #11b, page 3) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 2023 of 2002

2005-11-10T12:11:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 2023 (Frommer-2002)
Chapter 1152, Statutes of 2002

The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses contains the following summary of Assembly Bill 2023 as last amended on August 22, 2002:

This bill (1) allows local agencies and counties to include local persons who, as of January 1, 2002, were employed as prosecutors, local public defenders, local public defender investigators and certain city attorneys as safety members of the various retirement systems, thereby excluding them from Social Security, (2) allows local prosecutors and state public safety defenders to be included within the state safety member clarifications under PERS, if agreed to in a MOU, and (3) is double-jointed with SB 1984 (Soto).
(See Exhibit #9a, page 1)

The analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations discussed the background and purpose of the bill, stating:

1)      Background.  Safety members receive enhanced retirement formulas and industrial death and disability benefits. Basic requirements for safety status include the duty of active law enforcement, substantial responsibility for the protection of people and property, and physical fitness.  Some local safety designations are mandated by statute, such as local police officers, firefighters, sheriffs, and investigators for district attorneys' offices. Local agencies contracting with CalPERS must provide safety status for those members. Other local safety designations set forth in the Public Employees Retirement Law are optional and must be contracted for by local agencies; some of these include lifeguards, emergency medical technicians, harbor and port police, police in school districts, some park rangers, and others.

Currently, local prosecuting attorneys, public defenders and public defender investigators are classified as local miscellaneous members by CalPERS and other local retirement systems.

2)      Purpose.  This bill provides local agencies with the option of classifying local prosecutors, public defenders and public defender investigators as safety employees for retirement purposes.  Although these employees do not meet the standard of active law enforcement presently required for safety status, their job duties require regular contact with dangerous people, and they face risks from criminals or the families and friends of criminals they prosecute or defend.
(See Exhibit #4, page 2)

The materials mentioned that Assembly Bill 2023 was similar to two bills previously before the Legislature.  (See Exhibits #3; #6; and #7, document SP-1 for example)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above.  In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation.  To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 3260 of 1994

2005-11-10T12:05:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 3260 (Bornstein-1994) Chapter 653, Statutes of 1994 The Special Consent analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses on Assembly Bill 3260 as last amended on August 24, 1994 provides the following digest of the bill: This bill provides that a health care service plan arbitration award over $30,000 against a physician, which is reported to the state medical board, be subject to public disclosure by the board. This bill would require health insurance policies and plans to prominently display notices in contracts concerning requirements for an insured to resolve medical malpractice disputes through binding arbitration. This bill provides that health insurance policies and plans that require parties to submit a medical malpractice claim to binding arbitration be require to provide for selection of a single neutral arbitrator in cases alleging total damages of $50,000 or less. This bill would require a licensed health care facility operated by a health care service plan be required to establish and follow specified protocols for use in an injection card system when it elects that usage. (See Exhibit #8, page 1) The Senate Committee on Judiciary provides a statement of purpose for Assembly Bill 3260, stating: The purpose of this bill is to promote health care safety and consumer awareness of rights under health or disability insurance plans that require binding arbitration to resolve medical malpractice disputes. (See Exhibit #6a, page 3) Most of the analysis generated on Assembly Bill 3260 note that it is similar to an earlier vetoed bill. (See Exhibits #3, #6, and #12, document PE-5 for example) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 715 of 1961

2005-11-10T11:49:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 715 (Marks-1961) Chapter 1091, Statutes of 1961 A Memorandum from the Department of Justice to Preble Stolz explains the amendments to section 16602, stating in part:

This bill amends Business and Professions Code section 16602 . . .. The basic provision of this chapter is that, except as provided therein, contracts restraining a person from engaging in a lawful occupation are void [Section 16600]. Section 16601 relates to an exception where a person sells a business or where a shareholder in a corporation disposes of his shares. Section 16602 makes a further exception on the dissolution of a partnership and an agreement by a partner not to carry on a similar business. The changes proposed by the amendment will make the provisions of section 16602 substantially the same as section 16601. The changes are:
(1) Whereas former 16602 stated that “partners” could make such an agreement, as amended, “any partner” could do so. (2) Whereas the former exception related to the “same city or town” it would by amendment be “county or counties, city or cities, or part thereof where the partnership business has been transacted.” (3) The amendment permits the restriction in point of time to be applicable as long as the remaining partners or persons deriving title from them are in the business. As previously indicated, substantially these provisions are already applicable to other persons and shareholders or corporations [B&PC § 16601]. (See Exhibit #3, document PE-2)

Background on the legislation is addressed in a letter from the State Bar of California to the Governor urging his approval of the legislation. Therein, it states, in part:

. . . This proposal originated at the 1960 Conference of State Bar Delegates . . . It was subsequently studied by the State Bar Committee on Administration of Justice . . . and thereafter approved by the Board of Governors. Under present law, if one partner buys out the other and the partnership is dissolved, the partner bought out may agree not to carry on a similar business within the same city or town, or a specified part thereof, where the partnership business has been transacted. Business and Professions Code Section 16602. You will observe that the territorial limitation is “the same city or town or a specified part thereof”. If, on the other hand, the two partners sell their business to a third party, they may agree that the sellers will not carry on a similar business within a specified county or counties, city or cities, or part thereof. Business and Professions Code Section 16601. The territorial restriction here is much broader: county or counties, city or cities. A recent actual case involved two partners engaged in a crop dusting business. They dissolved the partnership, and the partner being bought out agreed not to engage in a similar business in any county in which the partnership had engaged in the business, for a period of five years. It was held that the agreement was invalid under Section 16602 of the Business and Professions Code. Anderson Crop Dusters, Inc. vs. Matley (1958) 159 Cal. App. 2d 811. (See Exhibit #3, documents PE-6 and PE-7)

The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 596 of 1965

2005-11-09T01:00:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 596 (Rodda-1965) Chapter 1279, Statutes of 1965

The Summary Digest of Statutes Enacted published by the Legislative Counsel contains the following digest of Senate Bill 596:

S.B. 596 (Ch. 1279). RODDA. Amends Sec. 10602, Ed.C., re student behavior in public schools.

Adds as cause for suspension or expulsion of student from public school, any assault or battery upon a student while on school premises or while under authority of school personnel, continued abuse of school personnel, assault or battery upon school personnel, or any threat of force or violence directed toward school personnel at any time or place, but qualifies bases for suspension or expulsion by requiring that conduct for which student is to be disciplined be related to school activity or school attendance.

(See Exhibit #6, pages 57 and 58)

A document found in the bill file of Senator Rodda entitled, “Explanation for Senate Bill 596, Rodda” discusses the need for the bill as follows:

During the last 2 ½ years there have been 25 expulsions by the Los Angeles City Board of Education. Every case has involved violence (assault and battery) against a teacher. Action by the Board as well as court cases are complicated by the fact that Section 10602 of the Code contains no reference to violence or assault and battery. In each case the cause is indicated as “continued willful disobedience” or “open and persistent defiance of the authority of the teacher.” In most cases the situation is not the result of either “continued” or persistent “defiance;” is it usually one serious incident of violence to a particular teacher.

(See Exhibit #4, document A-16)

Senate Bill 596 was supported by the Department of Education, the California Teachers Association, and the California School Boards Association. (See Exhibit #4, documents A-4, A-7, and A-17) There was no opposition to Senate Bill 596. (Id. at document A-18)

SB 2460 of 1974

2005-11-09T00:57:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2460 (Bradley-1974) Chapter 1278, Statutes of 1974

The Enrolled Bill Memorandum to Governor provides the following digest of Senate Bill 2460:

Authorizes hospital districts to enter into contracts of employment with hospital administrators, not to exceed four years in duration, but which may be periodically renewed upon expiration for not more than four years. The bill becomes effective immediately.

(See Exhibit #5, document PE-2)

The letter from the sponsor of Senate Bill 2460, El Camino Hospital, to Senator Bradley explains the need for the legislation as follows:

At the present time it is not possible under the existing hospital district law for the Board to have a contract with an administrator, since it states that all employees should serve at the pleasure of the Board.

(See Exhibit #4, document SP-1)

This letter also states that the proposed language was modeled after Education Code section 13305. (See Exhibit #4, document SP-1)

SB 818 of 1917

2005-11-09T00:53:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 818 (Luce-1917) Chapter 586, Statutes of 1917

The Labor Clarion described Senate Bill 818 as follows:

New Workmen’s Compensation act, proposed by the Industrial Accident Commission; many improvements, reduces waiting period to ten days, establishes limited choice of physician, abolishes action for damages but doubles compensation in cases of wilful [sic] and serious misconduct of employer.

(See Exhibit #9a, page 2)

The 1917 revision seems to have been necessary to clear up issues which had arisen from the practical administration of the 1913 Workmen's Compensation Act. (See Exhibits #4, page 6 and #7, page 8) It also seems to have been responding to various judicial decisions about the application and scope of the earlier Act. (See Exhibit #4, pages 8 through 10) The measure, like its predecessors, was considered very controversial and subject to intense opposition by industrial accident insurers as well as “reactionary elements” of the press and Legislature. (See Exhibits #6, page 4 and #8, page 25) Apparently days of debate were given over to the bill in the Assembly and Senate, which was extensively reported in the press. (See Exhibit C, #6, page 4)

Commenting specifically to the changes proposed by Senate Bill 818, a Report of the Industrial Accident Commission stated that:

New responsibilities have been created by the chapter in question, which will greatly increase the volume of business to be handled by the Commission. We refer particularly to the provisions of sections 10 and 29, the former of which gives to the Commission power to inspect and determine the adequacy of hospital and hospital facilities and the latter providing that security be furnished by employers for the payment of compensation.

(See Exhibit #4, page 6)

SB 1305 of 2000

2005-11-09T00:48:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1305 (Figueroa-2000) Chapter 1305, Statutes of 2000

The Office of Senate Floor Analyses prepared an Unfinished Business analysis on Senate Bill 1305 as last amended on August 18, 2000, which described the bill as follows:

. . . This bill provides that interest and costs, including attorney’s fees, shall be awarded to an employee in an indemnification action against an employer for necessary work-related expenditures and losses.

(See Exhibit #11, page 1 and #14, document PE-22)

TheAssembly Committee on Labor and Employment analysis addressed the bill as amended on August 7, 2000, stating as follows regarding the need for the bill:

1) Section 2802 establishes the right of an employee for indemnification by an employer for necessary work related expenses and losses. This section, enacted in 1937, does not explicitly address the right of the employee to recover costs of enforcing the right to indemnification including attorney’s fees. Section 2802 also does not explicitly address whether the employee is entitled to interest. This bill would provide for such interest and costs including attorney’s fees.

(See Exhibit #7, page 1)

Later, in that same analysis, the following background was provided:

3) Case law interpreting section 2802 is split on the issue of whether an employee may recover costs and attorneys fees in a civil action for indemnification under that section. A March, 2000 decision of the California Court of Appeals held that fees are not recoverable under this section. (Jacobus v. Krambo Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105-1106.) An earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that fees are recoverable under this section. (O’Hara v. Teamsters Union Local No. 856 (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1152, 1160- 1161.) The Jacobus decision specifically rejected the analysis of the O'Hara decision. This bill codifies the holding of the O'Hara decision.

(See Exhibit #7, pages 1 and 2)

The author was quoted as stating the section “. . . is designed to prevent employers from passing their operating expenses on to their employees.” (See Exhibit #7, page 2)

SB 2011 of 1990

2005-11-09T00:43:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 2011 (L. Greene-1990) Chapter 1439, Statutes of 1990

The Ways and Means Committee analysis provided the following description of Senate Bill 2011 as it was amended on August 15, 1990:

This bill prohibits local agencies from disapproving an affordable, as defined, housing project or conditioning its approval in a manner which renders it infeasible development for the use by low- and moderate-income households unless the agency makes one of several specified findings. (See Exhibit #11)

According to Senator Greene, Senate Bill 2011 resulted from the recognition that the affordability and availability of housing are major factors in business and industrial site location decisions, stating also that:

This measure will increase housing opportunities for the backbone of our society . . . teachers, public safety employees, retail clerks, secretaries and nurses. It is supported by a broad coalition of groups representing business interests, the housing industry, building and construction trade unions, mental health advocates, religious lobbies and low income housing advocacy groups. The League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, Sierra Club and Farm Bureau are all neutral on the bill.

(See Exhibit #16 document PE-3; see also Exhibit #4 document SP-23)

The bill file of the Senate Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs contains a copy of the Governor’s August 3, 1990 radio address indicating that the Governor was also concerned about the difficulties involved with affordable housing. (See Exhibit #4, document SP-24) In his radio address, the Governor said:

Unfortunately, when builders try to construct affordable housing projects, such as apartment houses, they are often blocked by community concerns that lower income projects will bring congestion, lower property values and other undesirable effects. Everyone agrees that California needs more affordable housing, but most people don’t want those kinds of projects in their communities. This is an unfair and counterproductive attitude.

(See Exhibit #4, document SP-24)

AB 2948 of 1976

2005-11-09T00:37:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 2948 (Hart-1976) Chapter 1331, Statutes of 1976

Assembly Bill 2948 was a trailer bill picked up in late August of 1976 to handle needed amendments or additions to the Coastal Act as enacted by Senate Bill 1277. (See Exhibits #1, #3, #6 and #13) The Enrolled Bill Report prepared by the Resources Agency for the Governor summarizes Assembly Bill 2948 as follows:

This bill amends SB 1277 (Smith) which is now on the Governor’s desk. AB 2948 had been on the Senate inactive file until recently revived as a “trailer bill” to the Smith bill. The amendments contained in this bill represent changes agreed upon by the Governor, labor representatives, Senator Smith, and several other Legislators at the time SB 1277 was on the Senate floor.

(See Exhibit #13, document PE-8)

The Enrolled Bill Report of the Department of Food and Agriculture indicates that many of the amendments proposed by Assembly Bill 2948 are nonsubstantive with the exception of the following:

However, the bill does provide that with respect to any project outside the coastal zone that may have a substantial effect on the resources within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and for which any certification is required under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, such certification shall be issued by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and further provides that the Commission may review and submit comments on any project which affects resources within the coastal zone.

The bill also provides the Coastal Commission shall make recommendations to specified departments of the State which may include proposed changes in administrative regulations, rules, and statutes. Each such State agency is required to review and consider such recommendations and within six months after receipt, and in the event the recommendations are not implemented, report to the Governor and the Legislature its actions and reasons therefore.

(See Exhibit #13, document PE-10)

AB 1081 of 1999

2005-11-09T00:33:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1081 (Calderon-1999) Chapter 498, Statutes of 1999

The Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Bill 1081 as last amended prepared by the Assembly Committee on Insurance stated that it “. . . [d]eletes the sunset on the law that governs exceptions to when a nonadmitted insurer must post a pre-answer bond. (See Exhibit #12, page 1) This analysis provided the following discussion regarding the purpose of this measure:

. . . The purpose of this bill is to make the provisions regarding exceptions to posting a pre-answer bond permanent. The author introduced this bill at the request of Lloyds of London, the sponsor of this bill. The sponsor argues that the requirement for a pre‑answer bond may have a chilling effect on the ability of businesses in this state to obtain insurance. The nonrefundable portion of the bond may exceed several million dollars, and also may exceed the value of the disputed claim. An insurer may be put in the position of choosing between paying a large, nonrefundable premium for a bond or paying a lesser amount to settle a claim of questionable merit. According to the sponsor, since the enactment of AB 328 (Knowles), Chapter 687, in 1996, the Department of Insurance has identified no instances in which a nonadmitted insurer on the LESLI list has been exempted from the bond and then failed to pay the judgment. The sunset on the law, therefore, should be removed.

(See Exhibit #12, pages 1 and 2)

AB 2055 of 1937

2005-11-09T00:29:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 2055 (Weber-1937) Chapter 670, Statutes of 1937

Legislative Counsel described Assembly Bill 2055 in the 1937 Summary Digest of Statutes Enacted as follows:

New act, the Subdivision Map Act. Requires recordation of map prior to sale of subdivision or part thereof. Map is to conform to provisions of act and also to provisions of local ordinances. Provides method of preparation and procedure re recording such maps.

(See Exhibit #4)

The League of California Municipalities’ Legislative Bulletin described the purpose of Assembly Bill 2055 as follows:

A.B. 2055, relating to the making of real estate subdivisions, received a favorable vote from the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The bill seeks to strengthen local control of subdivisions by eliminating the metes and bounds subdivision procedure and at the same time simplify the present complicated laws regulating the making of subdivisions. The measure was prepared by a committee of the League and was introduced in the Legislature as a League sponsored bill.

(See Exhibit #7a, page 3)

AB 483 of 1974

2005-11-09T00:27:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 483 (Keene-1974) Chapter 233, Statutes of 1974

An Enrolled Bill Memorandum of Assembly Bill 483 as last amended prepared by the Governor’s Legislative Secretary described this measure as follows:

AB 483 repeals existing Elections Code provisions relating to the required contents of petitions to recall state officers and the required period of circulation of such petitions.

The bill establishes a procedure for the recall of state officers including requirements for the circulation of recall petitions, the contents and form of petitions, the certification of petitions, the contents of the recall ballot, and the nomination of persons seeking the office of the officer sought to be recalled.

The bill also permits cities and counties to reimburse an officer not recalled for his recall election expenses.

(See Exhibit #9, document PE-2)

The Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments analysis of the bill provided the following background discussion:

Recall first appeared on the U.S. political scene in 1903 when the City of L.A. incorporated recall provisions in its charger.. [sic] By 1914 ten states, including California, had adopted constitutional provisions to recall state officers. All of the existing recall provisions were added to the California Constitution in the “reform” election of October 10, 1911, and have not since been amended. According to ballot arguments a specific object of recall was to provide a check on the powers of the courts. Since adoption, there are few California court decisions or opinions which directly apply to the recall provisions. Recall has never been used to remove a state-wide official from office in California.

(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

The materials discuss Assembly Constitutional Amendment 29 of 1974. (See, for example, Exhibit #3, page 1) Assembly Constitutional Amendment 29, accompanying Assembly Bill 483, was the legislative vehicle to amend the State Constitution that repealed Article XXIII and re-added Article XXIII. As a consequence of the legislative passage of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 29, Proposition 9 of 1974 was placed before the voters.

AB 376 of 1975

2005-11-09T00:23:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 376 (Knox-1975) Chapter 682, Statutes of 1975

The analysis produced for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary that was prepared after the May 1, 1975 amendments noted that Assembly Bill 376 “. . . revises a major part of the law governing business corporations.” (See Exhibit #6c, page 1)

An Enrolled Bill Report, dated September 12, 1975, prepared by the Department of Corporations explains the proposals and provisions of Assembly Bill 376, stating, in part:

In large measure, the bill’s provisions are merely a reorganization of the provisions of the existing law, with changes for the purpose of clarification and streamlining. These changes appear to be noncontroversial and beneficial and, particularly with respect to those provisions relating to corporate filings and the procedures of the Secretary of State, should represent significant cost savings to the State and the public.

(See Exhibit #10, document PE-2)

Assembly Bill 376 was developed by a joint effort between a Special Select Committee appointed by the Assembly and the State Bar Committee on Corporations. (See Exhibit #11) As previously stated above, the purpose of the effort was to totally revise and update the corporation laws in the State. (Id.)

AB 1242 of 1981

2005-11-09T00:16:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1242 (LaFollette-1981) Chapter 449, Statutes of 1981

The analysis of the Senate Committee on Industrial Relations of Assembly Bill 1242 as last amended indicated that the purpose of this legislation was to “ . . . increase from $500 to $1,000 the threshold amount of public works contracts over which prevailing wages and benefits must be paid to workers employed on such contracts.” (See Exhibit #7)

The Office of Planning and Research produced an Enrolled Bill Report for the Governor in which it noted that “AB 1242 was introduced at the request of the Republican Caucus in response to the impact of inflation on small contractors who handle small public works projects . . . .” (See Exhibit #13, document PE-4)

A Newsletter published by the staff of Assembly member La Follette provided the following background discussion:

California has on the books outmoded laws that add millions of dollars to the cost of state government. One of the most costly of these is a provision of our labor law that requires “prevailing wages” to be paid to employees working on ALL public works projects of more than $500.00.

California’s prevailing wage law is patterned after the federal Davis-Bacon Act and requires that the state Department of Industrial Relations set the prevailing wages for public works projects based on a sample of wages in an area. In order to eliminate the bureaucratic harangue that would ensue in ascertaining the prevailing wage for each area in the state, the Department of Industrial Relations determines the average rate paid to employees in three major metropolitan areas in the state. These areas are San Francisco for Northern California, Los Angeles for Southern California, and San Diego for the far southern end of the state. Basic economic reports tell us that these three areas have higher costs of living than most other parts of the state.

In practice this means that “prevailing” wages are those wages paid to union workers with collective bargaining agreements. . . .

That this method is flawed is shown in a survey done in the small Central Valley town of Dinuba. . . .

(See Exhibit #11, document A-11)

AB 930 of 2002

2005-11-09T00:13:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 930 (Keeley-2002) Chapter 1143, Statutes of 2002

The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses summarizes Assembly Bill 930 as last amended on August 26, 2002 stating that it “clarifies how the rent is governed as it relates to the formula in current law for mitigating displacement of non-purchasing residents when a mobilehome converts to resident ownership.” (See Exhibit #11b, page 1)

The Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Bill 930 prepared by the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development provides the following discussion on the rationale for the measure:

. . . In 1996, the Second Appellate District Court heard Donohue v. Paula West Mobile Home Park regarding a proposed mobilehome park conversion that failed due to a lack of financing available to the residents. In that park, the owner sought to increase rents, after the passage of a local rent control ordinance, by arguing that Section 66427.5 overrode the local initiative and instead the rent formula provided in that statute applied, allowing the owner to increase rents on non low income residents to market level. However, the court ruled that Section 66427.5 did not apply because no single unit was ever sold. Therefore the conversion never occurred and the statute did not apply

In El Dorado v. Palm Springs, the issue before the court was whether the conditions imposed by the city exceeded the authority provided under Section 66427.5. Considering Palm Springs’ concern that a conversion could be used to circumvent local rent control the court in El Dorado stated, “We are equally concerned about the use of the section [66247.5] to avoid local rent control,” but “the City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions.” The court went on to rule that 66427.5 takes effect as soon as one unit is sold and supercedes [sic] a local rent control ordinance.

As a result of these two court rulings, the proponents of this bill are seeking to address what they feel could potentially become a way for park owners to get around local rent control ordinances. As evidence of these concerns, the supporters have submitted a newsletter from a law firm that encourages park owners seeking an “exit strategy” from mobilehome park ownership to consider selling their park on a space by space basis through conversion to resident ownership. The newsletter continues that, “This decision offers mobilehome park owners a new and more viable option to escape the draconian revenue limits imposed by rent control.”

(See Exhibit #13, pages 3 and 4)

AB 1396 of 1992

2005-11-09T00:10:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1396 (Speier-1992) Chapter 36, Statutes of 1992

The Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 1396 as amended on March 2, 1992 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses stated that the “bill specifies the grounds and time periods for setting aside a family law judgment.” (See Exhibit #9, page 1)

In explaining the background of Assembly Bill 1396, the analysis of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary stated:

AB 1396 expands the grounds for setting aside judgments for parties in Family Law actions.

The basis for the expansion of the grounds for setting aside any judgment, no matter how obtained, is based on the proponents’ perception that family law actions are different in nature from other legal actions, and that the public policy should be to encourage accurate and fair results based upon all the true facts of the case. This public policy is further promoted by AB 1437.

(See Exhibit #3d, page 3)

The Third Reading analysis explained the rationale for the bill as follows:

This bill would state that the State of California has a strong policy of ensuring the division of community and quasi-community property in the dissolution of a marriage, and of providing for fair and sufficient child and spousal support awards. These policy goals can only be implemented with full disclosure of community, quasi-community, and separate assets, liability, income and expenses, and decisions freely and knowingly made. The bill would further state that it occasionally happens that the division of property or the award of support, whether made as a result of agreement or trial, are inequitable when made due to the nondisclosure or other misconduct of one of the parties. “The public policy of assuring finality of judgments must be balanced against the public interest in ensuring proper division of marital property, in ensuring sufficient support awards, and in deterring misconduct.”

(See Exhibit #9, page 2; see also #13, document PE-7)

AB 117 of 2002

2005-11-09T00:07:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 117 (Migden-2002) Chapter 838, Statutes of 2002

The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses on Assembly Bill 117 as it was last amended on August 27, 2002 states that the bill, “. . . subject to certain conditions, allows cities and counties to aggregate their electric loads and provide service directly to their residents.” (See Exhibit #10a, page 1) This same analysis also provides background information stating:

In 1996, the Legislature passed AB 1890 (Brulte), Chapter 856, Statutes of 1996, to restructure the electric industry. One of the key features of electrical restructuring was the authorization of retail competition within IOU service areas. AB 1890 ended the service monopoly of utilities and authorized retail customers to purchase energy directly from suppliers. These transactions are known as “direct access.” Community aggregation is a form of direct access where, for example, a city may act as a purchasing agent on behalf of its residents.

Opt-in community aggregation, wherein the governing body of the community, such as the city council, chooses an electricity supplier for the entire community, was discussed but ultimately tabled during the AB 1890 debates. This bill resurrects that concept by permitting the governing body to select a provider of electricity which then becomes the default provider for everyone in the community.

(See Exhibit #10a, page 2)

Comments in several of the documents on Assembly Bill 117 suggest it is based on a vetoed measure from the prior year.

AB 1391 of 1945

2005-11-09T00:02:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 1391 (Lyons-1945) Chapter 1431, Statutes of 1945

In its Report on Assembly Bill No. 1391 prepared for the Governor, Legislative Counsel summarizes the bill stating:

Amends, repeals, and adds numerous sections to the Labor Code and the insurance Code relating to the reorganization of the Deparetment of Industrial Relations, and making an appropriation therefore.

(See Exhibit #4, document PE-6)

The Department of Finance recommended approval of Assembly Bill 1391 in its “Report to Governor on Assembly Bill No. 1391” which provides the following commentary on the effect of the measure:

The reorganization which will be accomplished by this bill should increase the efficiency of the operations of this very important function of state government by rendering a more expeditious and effective service to labor in conjunction with industrial accidents and safety, to employers in settling industrial accident disputes and to the public in connection with housing facilities. . . .

(See Exhibit #4, documents PE-24 and PE-25)

A Memorandum from the Governor’s Legislative Secretary notes the Department of Industrial Relations as the sponsor of this measure. (See Exhibit #4, document PE-2)

AB 629 of 1968

2005-11-01T23:27:00.000-08:00

Assembly Bill 629 (Knox-1968) Chapter 347, Statutes of 1968

The Assembly Committee on Finance and Insurance provides the following explanation of the provisions of Assembly Bill 629:

Mortgage guarantee insurance provides protection to the lender against loss due to nonpayment of principal, interest and other obligations arising out of indebtedness secured by real property. AB 629 places such obligation in two categories: those arising from residential property designed for occupancy by four or fewer families; and property intended for industrial and commercial purposes, as well as for residentail [sic] use by five or more families. In addition, the bill would extend the availability of such insurance to obligations due under leases for industrial and commercial properties. (See Exhibit #3)

Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1188 of 1991

2005-11-01T23:22:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1188 (Davis-1991) Chapter 545, Statutes of 1991

The Special Consent analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses summarizes Senate Bill 1188 as follows:

. . . The provisions of this bill as it left the Senate were deleted in the Assembly and the author changed from Maddy to Davis. The bill as it left the Senate would have shifted the Department of Finance's cash accounting system for the handling of public money to an accrual system basing credit transactions in the year in which they occur.

This bill now contains the provisions of SB 451 as it passed the Senate 37-0 on consent. SB 1188 authorizes causes of actions against dissolved corporations (and shareholders), whether arising before or after the dissolution, if brought within the applicable statute of limitations, or within four years of dissolution, whichever is sooner. (See Exhibit A, #5b, page 1)

An analysis prepared by the Department of Finance on the July 3, 1991 version of Senate Bill 1188 provides this background on the measure:

This bill is sponsored by the State Bar in response to a court ruling (Pacific Scene, Inc. v. Penasquitos, Inc. 1988) which held that a lawsuit could be brought against a dissolved corporation only for causes of actions arising prior to the dissolution of a corporation. Prior to that court ruling, a dissolved corporation or its shareholders could be held liable for post-dissolution claims under common law known as the “trust fund theory”. This bill seeks to establish in statute the authority for post-dissolution claims.

(See Exhibit #11, document PE-4)

The Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 1188 prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses offers this additional commentary:

SB 1188 enacts a comprehensive system regulating the manner in which claims, whether they arise pre-dissolution or post-dissolution, may be pursued. Moreover, the sponsor notes that this bill is based on the Model Business Corporations Act, which, in fact, provides a five year statute of limitations after dissolution. [Note that SB 1188 contains a four year period in which to bring these actions.] (See Exhibit #11, document PE-9)

SB 320 of 1971

2005-11-01T23:18:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 320 (Zenovich-1971) Chapter 52, Statutes of 1971

Senator Zenovich provides the following description of the purpose of his bill in a letter to the Governor urging approval of the amendments proposed:

The enactment of this legislation will enable private mortgage insurance companies to guarantee high ratio conventional mortgage loans to 95% of value and thus satisfy the immediate needs of those California citizens seeking better housing.

(See Exhibit #7, document PE-3)

The analysis of the Senate Committee on Insurance and Financial Institutions provides this description of the changes made by Senate Bill 320, and their purpose:

ANALYSIS: SB 320, as amended, changes the mortgage guaranty insurance loan section, as cited above, to increase the permissible loan to value ratio from a maximum of 90 to 95 percent of the secured property’s fair market value.

The intended effect of the bill is to qualify “moderate income” families who have limited cash reserves to finance home purchases requiring a cash down-payment of only 5 percent of the purchase price.

(See Exhibit #3, page 1)

Further background is provided in the analysis of the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions:

Under existing Section 12640.02 of the Insurance Code, a mortgage guaranty insurer may guarantee a loan if it does not exceed 90% of the fair market value of the mortgaged property. This bill would increase that to 95%, thus allowing insuring of property when there is only 5% down rather than 10%.

There is at least one new federal loan program that allows lenders to make 95% conventional loans with the government making part of the monthly payment. This bill would allow the mortgage insurer to insure such a conventional loan. The bill, however, does not limit the 95% insurable loans to those under this subsidized federal program but permits the insurer to insure all 95% loans.

(See Exhibit #5)

SB 1120 of 1957

2005-11-01T23:11:00.000-08:00

Senate Bill 1120 (Busch-1957) Chapter 1907, Statutes of 1957

Senate Bill 1120 was introduced by Senator Busch on January 21, 1957. (See Exhibit #1a) This measure was a single section bill only proposing the addition of former Welfare and Institutions Code section 103.7, the precursor to current Welfare and Institutions Code section 11101. (See Exhibit #1e)

Legislative Counsel, in its Summary Digest of Senate Bill 1120 as enacted, provided this synopsis of its provisions:

Provides that where recipient of public assistance for which state grants-in-aid are made to counties is absent from United States for period in excess of 30 days, his aid shall be suspended wherever need cannot be determined for ensuing period of absence. Makes provision inapplicable to recipients residing in territories, possessions, or other districts eligible to receive grants-in-aid from Federal Government under Social Security Act.

(See Exhibit #5, page 72)

Bill and Tom

2005-11-01T00:10:00.000-08:00

Q: Are Bill and Tom still around? A:Indeed they are! Thank you for asking! Please see our Attorney pages

Pro Bono

2005-11-01T00:05:00.000-08:00

Q: Do you give discounts to non-profit organizations or pro bono attorneys? A: We do not give discounts to such organizations and attorneys. However, and only on an ad hoc basis, we may be willing to give a discount. Please give us a call to discuss this possibility.

Federal Research

2005-10-31T23:57:00.000-08:00

Q: Do you do federal research? A: Yes!! See our Federal Research information

Specific Discussion

2005-10-31T23:52:00.000-08:00

Q: Will there be discussion of my section, subdivision, clause, phrase, word, or sentence in the materials? A:We cannot promise that the Legislature discussed your particular section, subdivision, clause, phrase, word or sentence. Whenever possible, we will in our report point you to discussion in the materials collected regarding your language of interest. We are an objective legal research firm and cannot provide a legal opinion one way or another regarding your research issue. However, even if we are unable to locate specific discussion regarding your language of interest, your own more careful review of the documents may reveal helpful discussion on the issue before you. If not, you should be able to draw some conclusions based upon the assumption that the language of interest to you being added or amended by the bill in question was intended to be consistent with the overall goal of that particular legislation. Whenever you are unable to find specific discussion regarding your research question, the analyses contained in the Legislative Committees’ bill files, the Governor’s post-enrollment file, and the author’s file on the bill may provide you with an arguable assessment of the goals and purpose that you could apply to your particular situation.

How Many Enactments do I Need?

2005-10-31T23:50:00.000-08:00

Q: Do I need to research all 20 enactments in the history of my section? A:Since we bill by the number of bills ordered for research, our clients have been able to minimize their research fees by focusing on a subdivision or a term or a phrase that is the focus of their research. Once they have identified their focus, we will trace that language to provide only the most relevant bill or bills affecting that particular language focus. If a client is interested in the complete legislative history of a particular section, we are happy to provide the legislative history for all of the bills affecting the section, whether substantively and technically. By ordering the complete substantive legislative history, instead, the client would receive bills that substantively affected the section language and avoid reviewing and paying for the research of code maintenance, major revisions or codification bills that, at best, merely enacted technical changes to the language and did not affect the section substantively.

Beyond the Library

2005-10-31T23:42:00.000-08:00

Q: I've spent all day at the county law library researching: what more can you do? A:Over our 30 years researching legislative history, we have developed an excellent capacity to search out file materials directly from the Legislative Committees, or from the State Archives and the State Law Library, as well as any out-of-the-area facilities, such as libraries at Stanford, California State University or University of California, for file materials lodged by the author or sponsor of your bill. In most cases, the county law library has the annotated code books, the Statutes at Large, Final Histories and Table of Sections Affected, and, in a few cases, the bills themselves. In addition to not having any of the legislative, gubernatorial, and author/sponsor bill file materials discussed above, the county libraries also do not have the resource capacity to trace statutory language to determine if your research focus was generated by an earlier or competitor failed bill.

How is LIS different?

2005-10-31T23:30:00.000-08:00

Q: What do you provide that I can't get at California's www.leginfo.ca.gov? A:There is a lot not on this State’s legislative website. The website currently includes, from 1993 forward only, most of the analyses, every bill version, and a bill history. We provide the remaining Legislative committees’ analyses not lodged on that website, all surviving legislative committees’ analyses and their legislative bill files, the author’s and/or sponsor’s legislative bill files, the Governor’s post-enrollment bill file, and any other related legislative committee file that may have been generated on the bill. None of these materials are on that website. Also not on that website that we look for are predecessor and competitor bills from which the language of interest to you may have developed as well as any relevant state agency reports and interim committee reports and studies that may have generated the bill or the section language of interest. Finally, we would be the resource to provide the surviving legislative history materials for all bills predating 1993

What Else do I get?

2005-10-31T23:22:00.000-08:00

Q: What else do I get besides these materials to help me make sense of them? A:Our legislative materials will include, without additional charge, our objective report on the history of the bill ordered, perhaps with a focus on your code section. This report is intended to serve two functions. The first is to assure the thoroughness of our research, noting sources such as competitor and predecessor bills as well as studies and hearings or model language. The second function is as a guide to the reader through the legislative history of the bill in question. When there is a section or issue focus, we also try to point to discussions in the materials that may be relevant. There will also be a declaration that serves as a first step towards authenticating the legislative history materials that we have gathered on the bill. Many of our clients also find this declaration to be useful when offering the legislative history materials as evidence. There will also be points and authorities on the use of legislative history materials as extrinsic aides in court. At this time, Legislative Intent Service has been cited in over 50 published court opinions rendered by the California Supreme and Appellate Courts.

What do I get?

2005-10-31T23:20:00.000-08:00

Q: What do I get when I order the legislative history of a state statute? A:The types of materials we collect for each bill ordered includes every amended version of the bill, its final history, all surviving legislative committees’ analyses and their legislative bill files, the author’s and/or sponsor’s legislative bill files, the Governor’s post-enrollment bill file, and any other related legislative committee file that may have been generated on the bill. We look for predecessor and competitor bills since the legislative history of the enacting bill would naturally include those earlier or contemporaneous failed attempts. We also provide state agency reports and interim committee reports and studies that may have generated the bill or the section language of interest. We have developed a system for researching legislation coming from different time periods, from the 19^th Century through this 21^st Century, so that we can efficiently and quickly provide you with whatever surviving materials are out there.

Who Uses the Our Service

2005-10-31T23:19:00.000-08:00

Q: Who uses this service? A:Attorneys, courts, law librarians, paralegals, historians, researchers, lobbyists and reporters, just to name a few.

Quotes

2005-10-31T23:11:00.000-08:00

Q: Will you give a quote before beginning work? A: Yes! Give us a call at 1-800-666-1917 to discuss your section and language focus and one of our staff attorneys will be happy to give you a quote. Never hesitate to call us for quotes!

Time Frames

2005-10-31T22:20:00.000-08:00

Q: What are the time frames for research and the fees associated? A: You will find this answer at Legislative Intent Service

AB 2179 of 1963

2005-10-21T11:23:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2179 (Knox-1963) Chapter 1976, Statutes of 1963 The Legislative Counsel provides a digest for the provisions of Assembly Bill 2179 which states: Defines “authorized real estate security” for limited purposes as an amortized note, bond or other evidence of indebtedness on certain improved real estate, not exceeding 90 percent of its fair market value, secured by a first mortgage or other first lien, when the loan secured in such manner is one which banks, savings and loan associations or insurance companies regulated by the state or federal government would be authorized to make, instead of when the loan secured in such manner is originated by such banks, savings and loan associations or insurance companies. (See Exhibit #1a, page 1) The Insurance Department provides the following rationale for the amendments made by the bill: Assembly Bill No. 2179 proposes to reword the restriction so that any lender can originate the loan provided the loan is such as could be originated by one of the named regulated financial institutions. As a legal matter this immensely expands the field of operation of mortgage guaranty insurers and would as a legal matter permit them to insure at least some loans which could be considered unsound. In my opinion there is not as a practical matter much danger of the latter development. The statute requires such an insurer to have capital funds of two-million dollars before commencing business. The one now licensed in California and the only other one which is apt to become licensed here in the foreseeable future are seasoned companies with relatively conservative managements. (See Exhibit #3, documents PE-1 and PE-2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1539 of 1961

2005-10-21T11:21:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 1539 (Hanna-1961) Chapter 719, Statutes of 1961 A brief description of Assembly Bill 1539 was provided by the Legislative Analyst which states: This bill would enact the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Act which provides for the licensing and regulating of mortgage guarantee insurance companies which are engaged in insuring lenders against loss on authorized real estate security. (See Exhibit #3) The Bill Memorandum of the Governor’s Legislative Secretary, Alexander H. Pope, provides the following summary and rationale for the bill: This bill is the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Act. It provides for the issuance by private insurance companies of policies comparable to the Federal Housing Authority insurance against the possibility of default by the borrower. . . . The Insurance Commissioner advises that the bill is strongly supported by the Home Builders Council. In the opinion of the Commissioner this type of insurance is essentially against changing economic conditions which is a highly hazardous type of insurance . . . The Commissioner concludes that the bill is appropriate if it is deemed advisable to permit private insurers, as opposed to the government, to enter this field. (See Exhibit #5, document PE-12) The Department of Insurance notes that Assembly Bill 1539 was “. . . developed from an Assembly interim study conducted by a committee of which the author, Richard T. Hanna, was the Chairman.” (See Exhibit #5, document PE-6) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 2812 of 1986

2005-10-21T11:05:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2812 (Calderon-1986) Chapter 358, Statutes of 1986 The Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 2812 as last amended prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses stated that the bill “. . . would revise eminent domain procedures” and then provided the following analysis: Under existing law, a public entity may not commence an eminent domain proceeding until its governing body, as defined, has adopted a prescribed resolution of necessity. Existing law requires that specified notice and an opportunity to appear in a hearing on the resolution of necessity be given to persons whose names and addressed appear on the last equalized county assessment role as owners of property to be acquired. This bill would permit a public entity with a governing body exceeding 40 members to appoint a geographically representative committee of at least 11 members of the governing body to conduct these hearings. The committee would be required to provide a written summary of the hearing and recommendations for action to the entire governing body and to those persons who appear before the committee. Those persons could then also appear before the entire governing body. (See Exhibit #11, page 1) Background on the legislation is addressed in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary analysis of the bill, which stated: The source of this measure, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), points out that existing law requires the legislative body of a condemning agency to conduct a hearing on resolutions of necessity when a landowner so requests. MWD governing board has 51 members. Such a large number, it argues, is not conducive to a productive or efficient hearing that the eminent domain process requires. MWD suggests that the “landowner would in fact receive a fairer and more complete hearing if it were held by a Board Committee” as permitted by this bill. (See Exhibit #3b, pages 1 and 2; see also letter from sponsor, Exhibit #4, document AP-3) According to the Enrolled Bill Report of the Office of Local Government Affairs: This bill attempts to improve the existing eminent domain hearing process by permitting large governing boards with 40 or more members to appoint a committee of at least 11 members from the board to conduct hearings on resolutions of necessity in eminent domain proceedings. To date, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) has the only governing body with over 40 members. (See Exhibit #14, document PE-6) Documents indicate there was another measure in the 1985-86 legislative session “. . . which contained the same provisions of this bill relative to permitting large governing board of condemning agencies to appoint a committee to conduct hearings on resolutions of necessity.” (See Exhibit #3b, pages 1 and 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 771 of 1979

2005-10-21T11:01:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 771 (Hart-1979) Chapter 652, Statutes of 1979 An Enrolled Bill Memorandum of the final version of Assembly Bill 771 prepared by the Legislative Secretary for the Governor described the proposals in this measure as follows: This bill would make the following changes to existing law governing retaliatory evictions.

Provide protection against retaliatory actions for exercising legal rights, engaging in political activities, and tenant organizing.
Allow the award of actual damages and attorney fees for a retaliatory act and if such act was with malice, punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 would be required.
Extend from 60 days to 180 days the period during which the retaliatory eviction defense could be used.
Change the tenant’s burden of proof to a showing that the landlord’s conduct was retaliatory rather than the landlord’s dominant purpose was retaliation.
Protect an oral complaint as well as a written complaint.

(See Exhibit #13, document PE-1) The Senate Republican Caucus’ Third Reading analysis explained the background driving this legislation: Under existing law, if a landlord evicts tenant (expressly or constructively), increases rent, or decreases services within 60 days of the tenant’s exercise of certain rights relating to the habitability of the dwelling, a tenant who is not in default as to rent may raise the defense that the landlord’s dominant purpose was to retaliate against tenant for exercising those rights. A court finding retaliatory eviction by the landlord usually denies landlord’s complaint in unlawful detainer in such case. Proponents state that a landlord’s threats to evict tenant or raise rent has a chilling effect on the tenant’s free exercise of his First Amendment rights. (See Exhibit #8, page 2) In his letter to Governor Brown, Assembly member Hart explained that his bill sought to expand “the coverage of the retaliatory eviction defense” and provide “a new section which protects participation in tenant’s association.” (See Exhibit #13, document PE-5) The Department of Housing and Community Development prepared an Enrolled Bill Report on Assembly Bill 771 noting that it was in part a product of a seven-year effort to revise the retaliatory eviction statute in California. (See Exhibit #13, document PE‑3) This analysis represented Assembly Bill 771 to be a compromise between interests representing tenants and interests representing landlords. (Id., documents PE-3 and PE-4) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1724 of 1977

2005-10-21T10:58:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 1724 (Hart-1977) Chapter 308, Statutes of 1977 The Senate Republican Caucus analysis of Assembly Bill 1724 provides the following digest of the bill as last amended on June 20, 1977: This bill permits governing boards of community college districts to enforce the rules and regulations relating to eligibility for, and participation in, intercollegiate athletics, which rules and regulations may include, but are not limited to, those adopted by a voluntary association, one of whose purposes is the governance of intercollegiate athletics. (See Exhibit #8) Background information regarding the need for Assembly Bill 1724 is discussed in the analysis of the Senate Committee on Education as follows: Under existing case law (Delong vs. CCJCA), the rules and regulations of a state association of junior and community colleges may not prohibit a student in a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletic programs. (See Exhibit #5) A letter found in the file of the Senate Committee on Health to Assembly member Antonovich explains in more detail the problem that Assembly Bill 1724 was attempting to resolve: Without such legislation, community college athletic programs are left in something akin to chaos. As an example, a community college student 18 years of age or older may attend any college in whose district he resides. Thus, one day he might attend college X and on the next day move into the district of college Y and immediately be eligible to attend college Y. Without the legislation of AB 1724, the courts have decreed that an athlete may do the same thing. Thus, on one day an athlete may be playing for college X against college Y and a day later may be playing for college Y against college X. This actually happened. It makes a mockery of intercollegiate athletics and fosters the pirating of players from one school to another. (See Exhibit #6, document SP-1) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 2816 of 2002

2005-10-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2816 (Shelley – 2002) Chapter 1098, Statutes of 2002 The Concurrence in Senate Amendments analysis of Assembly Bill 2816 as last amended provided the following summary of the bill: Requires entities such as temporary employment agencies that enter into a contract to provide a licensed contractor with the services of an individual, to work under the contractor’s license and subject to the contractor’s supervision, that the agency shall be solely responsible for the individual’s workers’ compensation, and for reporting certain information regarding the licensed contractor to the insurer. Allows the agency to pass on costs incurred as a result of this bill to the contractor. (See Exhibit #10c, page 1) In his Floor Statement, Assembly member Shelley identified the objectives of Assembly Bill 2816 as “safety” and “fairness,” stating that: A loophole exists in current law that allows unsafe contractors, with horrible safety records to use temp agencies to lower workers comp cost. The problem is unique to the construction industry since they have the highest premiums. Thus, unsafe contractors are often able to underbid the good actor simply by how much they save on comp costs. (See Exhibit #7, document SP-12) A “Fact Sheet” attached to the worksheet prepared for the Senate Committee by the author’s office provides the following conclusion: AB 2816 closes the gap that allows unsafe contractors to undermine the integrity of the workers’ compensation system by circumventing their own experience modification rating. Contractors should not be able to use a temporary agency as a means to lower their workers compensation costs. (See Exhibit #7, document SP-8) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 3642 of 1994

2005-10-21T10:45:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 3642 (Rainey-1994) Chapter 894, Statutes of 1994 The Third Reading analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provides the following digest of Assembly Bill 3642 as it was last amended on August 23, 1994: This bill expands a pilot project in San Diego County and the City of Oakland allowing courts to impound vehicles used to commit prostitution to the counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, Alameda, and San Francisco. This bill expands the authorization for impoundment of vehicles used to commit prostitution to include pimping, pandering, and any lesser included or reasonably related offense of these or of prostitution. This bill deletes the existing restrictions on impoundment of vehicles which have community property interest.(See Exhibit #8b, page 1) The Senate Judiciary Committee Background Information sheet sets forth the need for Assembly Bill 3642 as follows: Prostitution has become a major problem in a number of communities in Contra Costa, Alameda and Sacramento counties. The problem has reached critical proportions in some communities, with blatant sex acts being committed in broad daylight. It is not uncommon for children walking home from school to witness acts of oral copulation and solicitation for purposes of prostitution. Associated problems include sidewalks and yards littered with used condoms, tampons and sanitary napkins, empty liquor bottles and drug paraphernalia. This poses a health hazard for small children who tend to pick up and play with objects they find on the ground. It is also not uncommon for alley and driveways to be blocked by vehicles belonging to prostitutes and their customers “in the act.” This poses a nuisance, a threat to public health and safety – and over time, detracts from property values. Conventional law enforcement methods provide only limited, temporary relief from this problem. Finally, AB 1332, (Gotch) was simply too restrictive to provide a workable tool for local nuisance abatement efforts. For example, it prohibited impoundment of any vehicle in which there is a joint property interest (i.e., vehicles purchased with bank loans or owned by married couples.) This would preclude impound of most vehicles for nuisance abatement. However, vehicles involved in other criminal activity may be impounded without regard to such restrictions. (See Exhibit #7, documents SP-2 and SP-3) The purpose of Assembly Bill 3642 was listed in the Concurrence in Senate Amendments to be “to make existing law more readily enforceable.” (See Exhibit #10) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 1264 of 1971

2005-10-21T10:42:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 1264 (Bagley-1971) Chapter 1772, Statutes of 1971 The Enrolled Bill Memorandum to Governor provides the following digest of Assembly Bill 1264: AB 1264 adds property used exclusively for preservation of native life and geology of scientific or educational interest and owned by scientific or charitable body to the welfare exemption from property taxation if open to the general public and otherwise qualified for the exemption. (See Exhibit #7, document PE-2) Background information is set forth in the Senate Committee on Revenue and Taxation analysis as follows: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation studied the provisions of this bill in the 1970 interim. The report of the Committee’s interim study recommends that the welfare exemption be expanded to include these provisions . . . That Committee found that the Nature Conservancy is allowed tax exemptions under federal law, by most states, and by most counties in California. However, because this type of conservation organization is not specifically included under the welfare exemption in existing law, there are some disagreements about meeting qualifications and some counties have not allowed the exemption. (See Exhibit #4b, page 447) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 2443 of 1982

2005-10-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2443 (Sher-1982) Chapter 1541, Statutes of 1982 A digest of Assembly Bill 2443 as last amended on August 9, 1982 is set forth in the Senate Republican Caucus as follows: This bill revises the Miller-Warren Energy Lifeline Act (1975) by requiring the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to designate a “baseline” allowance for electricity and natural gas consumption based on the “reasonable needs” of the average residential customer. This bill requires that the baseline quantity be established by the commission as 50% to 60% of average residential consumption, with a special allowance for persons dependent upon life support equipment. A separate quantity shall be established for customers with solely electrical service or space heating. Further, AB 2443 directs the Commission to require that utilities file “baseline” rate schedules and that baseline rates be 15% to 25% lower than average rates. (See Comments for details.) (See Exhibit #11, page 1) The analysis of the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee discusses the background of Assembly Bill 2443 stating: AB 2443 is the result of three joint interim hearings held by the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee and the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee last September, November and December in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego, respectively. These hearings were held because each Committee last year heard numerous legislative proposals to expand lifeline by adding new end-uses. . . . Even though no formal action was taken by the members of the Committees during the interim hearings on lifeline, considerable testimony was presented which suggested that the addition of end-uses to the lifeline program in 1978 and 1979 has eroded the original intent of the program. Also, to the extent that additional energy is consumed at the lifeline rate (which is below the system average rate) rates will have to be increased for energy that is consumed by residential customers above the lifeline allowance and by other customer classes, e.g. agriculture, industrial and commercial. AB 2443 attempts to simplify and preserve the original lifeline program designed to promote the conservation of energy by discouraging the addition of new end-uses, while at the same time assuring that residential customers will receive the same amount of energy at a reduced rate under the baseline program as they now receive under the lifeline program. (See Exhibit #3, pages 2 and 3) Assembly Bill 2443 was supported by Southern California Edison, the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sierra Energy Commission, the California Chamber of Commerce and Californians for Environmental and Economic Balance. (See Exhibit #10, page 2) The California Manufacturers Association and Solidarity for Utility Rate Justice opposed the bill. (See Exhibit #10, page 2 and #11, documents SDC-1 and SDC-2) A memorandum to the Governor from the Public Utilities Commission indicates that it sponsored Assembly Bill 2443. (See Exhibit #15, document PE-4) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 708 of 1987

2005-10-21T10:37:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 708 (Harris-1987) Chapter 923, Statutes of 1987 The Assembly Committee on Judiciary analysis of Assembly Bill 708 as amended on April 23, 1987 briefly stated that it “comprehensively revises the law relating to Probate Law, particularly the administration of decedent’s estates and the estates of missing persons.” (See Exhibit #3, page 1) Background on this bill was provided by the Senate Committee on Judiciary analysis of the bill as amended on July 13, 1987, which stated: The bill resulted from extensive studies and recommendations by the Law Revision Commission. The bill places all estate management provisions of existing law into one section of the Probate Code, improves the drafting of those provisions and eliminates obsolete provisions. In arriving at its recommendations, the Commission obtained the views of members of the public, bar associations, lawyers, judges, court commissioners, probate referees, public administrators and guardians, realtors, newspaper publishers, law professors and others who work with or are concerned with probate law. (See Exhibit #6, page 2) The need for this legislation is also given in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s analysis as follows: According to one supporter, the advantages of the bill are that it would expedite and improve the administration of decedents’ estates by clarifying the law in many instances and setting forth more specific procedures than are now found in the law for various aspects of estate administration, with or without court supervision. Since the bill deals almost entirely with procedural aspects of probate administration, there are few public policy issues, as such, raised in the bill. (See Exhibit #6, page 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 963 of 1955

2005-10-06T15:34:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 963 (Cunningham-1955) Chapter 571, Statutes of 1955 Legislative Counsel prepared the following digest of Assembly Bill 963 as it was enacted: A.B. 963 (Ch. 571). CUNNINGHAM. Amends Sec. 640, Pen. C., re wire tapping. Substitutes for provision that the punishment for such offense shall be as provided in Section 639, Pen. C., language spelling out what that punishment is, without making any change in such punishment. (See Exhibit #4, page 169) The Report to the Governor from the Office of the Attorney General further explains Assembly Bill 963 as follows: This bill amends Section 640 of the Penal Code, relating to wire tapping. The section as it now reads provides that the punishment for violation of this section shall be the same as for violation of Section 639 of the Penal Code. The bill deletes from Section 640 of the Penal Code, the words “as provided in Section 639” and sets forth instead a specific provision for punishment “by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Section 639 of the Penal Code, referred to in the former section, was repealed by the Statutes of 1951, Chapter 764, and the substance of said section is now found in Section 7903 of the Public Utilities Code, and carries the same punishment. (See Exhibit #5, document PE-3) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

AB 708 of 1987

2005-10-06T15:32:00.000-07:00

AB 2443 of 1982

2005-10-06T15:31:00.000-07:00

AB 1264 of 1971

2005-10-06T15:28:00.000-07:00

AB 3642 of 1994

2005-10-06T15:26:00.000-07:00

SB 807 of 1999

2005-10-06T15:06:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 807 (Costa-1999) Chapter 779, Statutes of 1999 Senator Costa, Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources, wrote the following in his letter to Governor Davis: It is a pleasure to offer Senate Bill 807 for your review and signature. This is the annual Senate Agriculture and Water Resources committee bill that addresses a long list of non-controversial, and often technical issues affecting water agencies throughout California. (See Exhibit #4, document SP1-4) As last amended on September 1, 1999, Senate Bill 807 was summarized in the Unfinished Business Analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses as making the following changes: Allows, if certain conditions are met, a Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) to authorize a city or special district to extend services outside of its jurisdictional boundaries and outside its sphere of influence to respond to an existing or threatened public health or safety threat to the residents of the affected territory. Specifies that the board of supervisors, rather than the Director of the state’s Department of Water Resources, shall appoint members to positions in uncontested water storage district elections. (See Exhibit #16, at page 3) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 1305 of 2000

2005-10-06T15:04:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 1305 (Figueroa-2000) Chapter 1305, Statutes of 2000 The Office of Senate Floor Analyses prepared an Unfinished Business analysis on Senate Bill 1305 as last amended on August 18, 2000, which described the bill as follows: . . . This bill provides that interest and costs, including attorney’s fees, shall be awarded to an employee in an indemnification action against an employer for necessary work-related expenditures and losses. (See Exhibit #11, page 1 and #14, document PE-22) The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment analysis addressed the bill as amended on August 7, 2000, stating as follows regarding the need for the bill: 1) Section 2802 establishes the right of an employee for indemnification by an employer for necessary work related expenses and losses. This section, enacted in 1937, does not explicitly address the right of the employee to recover costs of enforcing the right to indemnification including attorney’s fees. Section 2802 also does not explicitly address whether the employee is entitled to interest. This bill would provide for such interest and costs including attorney’s fees. (See Exhibit #7, page 1) Later, in that same analysis, the following background was provided: 3) Case law interpreting section 2802 is split on the issue of whether an employee may recover costs and attorneys fees in a civil action for indemnification under that section. A March, 2000 decision of the California Court of Appeals held that fees are not recoverable under this section. (Jacobus v. Krambo Corp. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1105-1106.) An earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that fees are recoverable under this section. (O’Hara v. Teamsters Union Local No. 856 (9th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 1152, 1160- 1161.) The Jacobus decision specifically rejected the analysis of the O'Hara decision. This bill codifies the holding of the O'Hara decision. (See Exhibit #7, pages 1 and 2) The author was quoted as stating the section “. . . is designed to prevent employers from passing their operating expenses on to their employees.” (See Exhibit #7, page 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 2011 of 1990

2005-10-06T15:02:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 2011 (L. Greene-1990) Chapter 1439, Statutes of 1990 The Ways and Means Committee analysis provided the following description of Senate Bill 2011 as it was amended on August 15, 1990: This bill prohibits local agencies from disapproving an affordable, as defined, housing project or conditioning its approval in a manner which renders it infeasible development for the use by low- and moderate-income households unless the agency makes one of several specified findings. (See Exhibit #11) According to Senator Greene, Senate Bill 2011 resulted from the recognition that the affordability and availability of housing are major factors in business and industrial site location decisions, stating also that: This measure will increase housing opportunities for the backbone of our society . . . teachers, public safety employees, retail clerks, secretaries and nurses. It is supported by a broad coalition of groups representing business interests, the housing industry, building and construction trade unions, mental health advocates, religious lobbies and low income housing advocacy groups. The League of California Cities, County Supervisors Association of California, Sierra Club and Farm Bureau are all neutral on the bill. (See Exhibit #16 document PE-3; see also Exhibit #4 document SP-23) The bill file of the Senate Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs contains a copy of the Governor’s August 3, 1990 radio address indicating that the Governor was also concerned about the difficulties involved with affordable housing. (See Exhibit #4, document SP-24) In his radio address, the Governor said: Unfortunately, when builders try to construct affordable housing projects, such as apartment houses, they are often blocked by community concerns that lower income projects will bring congestion, lower property values and other undesirable effects. Everyone agrees that California needs more affordable housing, but most people don’t want those kinds of projects in their communities. This is an unfair and counterproductive attitude. (See Exhibit #4, document SP-24) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 179 of 2003

2005-10-06T14:59:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 179 (Alarcon-2003) Chapter 908, Statutes of 2003 A brief summary of Senate Bill 179 was contained in the Third Reading analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment: Provides that any person or entity that enters into specified contracts for labor or services, that knows or should know that the contract does not provide sufficient funds to comply with various laws, violates state law, and provides for a rebuttable presumption, as provided. (See Exhibit #9, page 1) The need for the legislation was explained as follows in the analysis of the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations, the first Committee hearing the bill. Proponents argue that this measure attacks the hidden use of unfair economic leverage to influence labor contractors to enter into contracts that are financially inadequate to permit the contractor to comply with applicable laws. While employers usually claim they are unaware of abuses committed by their contractors, the reality is just the opposite. This measure does not require written contracts, rather it encourages them for sound business practices. Some janitorial and security guard industry representatives state that this measure is necessary to weed out illegal and unethical employers in their industries. Supporters cite federal and state evidence of Underground Economy enterprises that are unfair competition to law-abiding employers. These lawless operations pay little or no taxes, and fail to abide by minimum labor standards. (See Exhibit #3, page 2) Senate Bill 179 was preceded by an earlier vetoed bill. (See Exhibits #3, #5, and #10, document A-2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

SB 296 of 2005

2005-10-06T14:58:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 296 (Campbell-2005) Chapter 51, Statutes of 2005 The Unfinished Business analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses provides the following digest of Senate Bill 296 as last amended on June 14, 2005: This bill corrects an erroneous appellate court decision on whether a distribution to a trust is allocable to principal or income, and immunizes from liability in part those trustees who made allocations pursuant to the Thomas decision, as specified. (See Exhibit #8a, page 1) This same analysis discussed the Thomas case stating: Existing case law, Estate of Thomas, supra, held that the phrase “the total amount of money and property received in a distribution,” in Section 16350(d) of the Probate Code, means the total amount of money received by the trust, not the total amount of an entity’s distribution. . . . This bill corrects the court’s interpretation of Section 16350 of the Probate Code and provides that money is received by a trust in partial liquidation of an entity if the total amount of money received by all owners, collectively, in a distribution or series of related distributions is greater than 20 percent of the entity’s gross assets as described. (See Exhibit #8a, page 2) The Assembly Committee on Judiciary analysis of the bill as of its June 7, 2005 hearing described Senate Bill 296 “as proposed to be amended” as a “non-controversial urgency bill.” (See Exhibit #6, page 1) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Assembly Bill 2838 of 2000

2005-10-03T17:05:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2838 (Hertzberg-2000) Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000 Assembly Bill 2838 was introduced by Assembly member Robert M. Hertzberg, Speaker of the Assembly, on February 28, 2000. (See Exhibits #1a and #4, document AP-1) This bill, addressing changes to the Local Formation Commission law, made numerous additions and amendments to sections within the Education, Government, and Revenue and Taxation Codes. (See Exhibits #1i and #12, page 1) Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill 2838 on September 26, 2000, and the Secretary of State recorded it the following day as Chapter 761 of the Statutes of 2000. (See Exhibits #1i and #2) According to the analysis of the Assembly Committee on Local Government: AB 2838 is the legislative vehicle for the implementation of the recommendations concerning LAFCOs made by the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st Century (Commission) . . . The Commission was asked to assess governance issues and make recommendations, with special attention being paid to the Act, the 57 LAFCOs governed by the Act, and citizen participation in local government. (See Exhibit #3, page 5) The Concurrence analysis prepared for Assembly Floor consideration by the Assembly Committee on Local Government explained that this bill “Revises the Cortese-Knox Local Government Act of 1985.” (See Exhibit #15, page 1) Comments on the bill found in that analysis provide insight into the bill’s background, as well as the Senate action on the measure, stating, in part: . . .This bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by the Commission on Local Governance in the 21st Century (Commission) in its report, “Growth Within Bounds.” The Senate amendments delete or soften many of the provisions of the bill that attempted to address California’s growth issues on a more regional, less parochial basis. Proponents of these provisions viewed them as a crucial part of the Commission’s work and a necessary first step towards a statewide approach to growth and its impacts. Opponents viewed them as unwarranted intrusions of regional or state governments into the sacrosanct precincts of local land use control. Perhaps the conclusion to be drawn from this process is that, while the Commission did an excellent job of identifying many of the problems with California’s current land use policies, LAFCOs may not be the suitable vehicle with which to address all, or even most, of them. The Senate amendments have removed all significant organized opposition to the bill. (See Exhibit #15, page 5) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Assembly Bill 2244 of 2002

2005-10-03T17:03:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2244 (Wayne-2002) Chapter 778, Statutes of 2002 Assembly Bill 2244 was introduced on February 20, 2002 by Assembly member Howard Wayne. (See Exhibit #1a) This was a single-section bill that proposed only to amend Business and Professions Code section 17538.9. (See Exhibit #1e) Governor Gray Davis signed the Assembly Bill 2244 on September 21, 2002, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State the following day as Chapter 778 of the Statutes of 2002. (See Exhibits #1e and #2) The Third Reading analysis of Assembly Bill 2244 as last amended that was prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses described this measure as follows: . . . This bill expands the disclosure of prepaid calling card fees or charges, adds restrictions on how fees or charges are imposed and how a prepaid calling card company operates its required customer service telephone number, and requires that mandated disclosures be made in any language that is used on the prepaid card, its packaging, advertising or promotion. (See Exhibit #10, page 1) Discussion of the background of this measure is provided in the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications which states: Prepaid phone cards allow people to buy call time in advance and make calls from a telephone without using cash or credit cards. To make a call using a prepaid phone card, the consumer must dial a toll-free access number, followed by the telephone number the consumer is trying to reach. As calls are made, the balance on the card (or account) is automatically reduced. Many cards are rechargeable, allowing people to buy more call time using a credit card over the phone or Internet. Prepaid phone cards are sold in most supermarkets, drug stores, convenience stores and gas stations, and can be bought through the mail and over the Internet. . . . In February 2002, AT&T and the City and County of San Francisco were named in a class action lawsuit alleging the prepaid phone cards they sold violated the rate disclosure requirements for prepaid phone cards required by law. The plaintiffs, Scott Nisbet and Daniel David of Berkeley, complained of hidden charges for pay phone use and international calls. AT&T sells prepaid phone cards in conjunction with the City and County of San Francisco at vending machines at San Francisco International Airport. (See Exhibit #8, page 2) The Concurrence analysis of Assembly 2244 as last amended explained as follows the purpose of this bill: This bill is intended to provide additional consumer protections for users of prepaid calling cards. It broadens the list of charges that must be disclosed, ensures that appropriate disclosures are made in the language used, and creates five new requirements: customer service phone centers must be adequately staffed and with the appropriate languages spoken; undisclosed fees cannot be charged; consumers cannot be charged for unconnected or customer service calls; the value of the card and the various surcharges must be disclosed in the same format; and, payphone callers must be told about any payphone surcharge and be provided adequate time to end the call without charge. (See Exhibit #11, pages 1 and 2) This same analysis provided the following additional background discussion: The author further states that, "The California Public Utilities Commission reports that hundreds of complaints related to prepaid phone cards have been filed in the last few years. For a variety of reasons, it is likely that the number of unreported claims are much higher. AB 2244 is a reasonable step that will protect consumers without creating a negative impact on the prepaid phone card industry, which, for the most part, is providing a helpful service to consumers." (See Exhibit #11, page 2) The material enclosed documents support for Assembly Bill 2244 from the California Attorney General, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Committees, the United Farmworkers of America, AFL-CIO, just to name a few. (See Exhibits #10, page 4 and #12 in general) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legisaltive Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Assembly Bill 2957 of 2002

2005-10-03T17:01:00.000-07:00

Assembly Bill 2957 (Koretz-2002) Chapter 780, Statutes of 2002 As enacted in 2002, Assembly Bill 2957 added Chapter 4 (sections 1400 through 1408) to Part 4 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, relating to employment: mass layoffs, relocations, and terminations. (See Exhibit #1f) Assembly member Paul Koretz introduced the measure on February 25, 2002 at the request of the California Labor Federation. (See Exhibits #1a and #11a, page 1) Governor Gray Davis signed the legislation on September 21st, and the Secretary of State recorded it on the following day as Chapter 780 of the Statutes of 2002. (See Exhibits #1f and #2) A summary of Assembly Bill 2957 was provided in the Third Reading analysis of the bill as last amended prepared by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses, which stated: . . . This bill supplements the federal plant closure law, by requiring notification of layoffs, terminations, and relocations, which affect 499 or fewer employees. Violators are liable for back wages and civil penalties. (See Exhibit #11c, page 1) As indicated in a letter from the sponsor, the California Labor Federation, to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, “Currently, there is no state law regarding layoff notices and the Federal law has such narrow criteria for what triggers a notice that it is frequently ineffective.” (See Exhibit #4, document AP1-5) The Assembly Committee on Appropriations analysis of Assembly Bill 2957 provided the following explanation of the rationale for this measure: . . .The author is concerned that substantial layoffs that have major impacts on small communities nevertheless do not trigger the notification requirement under the federal law. For example, a lay off of 400 employees in a small or medium sized community may have a dramatic impact, but would not be covered by the federal act. By lowering the notice trigger to 50 employees or one-third of the total workforce, this bill would require notification for many more layoffs. (See Exhibit #7, page 2) Those supporting the bill included the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association, the California Professional Firefighters, and the United Nurses Associations/Union of Health Care Professionals, among others. The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Employment Law Council, the Civil Justice Association of California and the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., among others, opposed it. (See Exhibits #4; #6; #10 and #11c, page 3) The Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment analysis of Assembly Bill 2957 as introduced discussed the need for the bill, noting the views of both the supporters and opponents as follows: . . . Supporters contend that advance notification allows local government agencies to explore alternatives with the employer and provide retraining and placement services to dislocated workers, and allows affected workers the opportunity to make plans and adjustments, explore educational and retraining opportunities, and seek new employment. The federal WARN Act applies to layoffs of 500 or more workers, or 50 or more workers who comprise at least one-third of the entire workforce. Frequently, substantial layoffs that may have major impacts on small communities nevertheless do not trigger the notification requirement under the federal law. This bill would apply to many more workplaces, with stronger sanctions for non-compliance. Opponents argue that overlap with the federal WARN Act will create confusion and may lead to duplicative legal actions, producing greater litigation costs. Providing attorney’s fees only to a prevailing plaintiff is unfair. (See Exhibit #3, pages 1 and 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Senate Bill 688 of 2002

2005-10-03T16:58:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 688 (Escutia-2002) Chapter 448, Statutes of 2002 Senate Bill 688 was introduced on February 23, 2001 by Senator Jack O’Connell and at that time, the bill affected certain Education Code provisions. (See Exhibits #1a through #1d) Senator John Burton was ultimately substituted as author on August 25, 2002. (See Exhibit #1g) Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 688, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on September 10, 2002 as Chapter 448 of the Statutes of 2002. (See Exhibits #1j and #2) The Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 688 as last amended that was produced by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses described the bill as follows: This bill now (1) provides that limitations for assault, battery and personal injury and wrongful death actions be extended from one year to two years and applied retroactively to victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and (2) makes changes to the procedures and motions for summary judgment, including, among others, increasing notice time periods to provide additional time to permit the responding party a more reasonable opportunity to discover the evidence that is needed to respond. (See Exhibit #16, page 1) The Third Reading analysis of the bill as last amended produced by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary provided the following comment on the purpose of the bill: . . . This bill seeks to provide important new procedural protections to California consumers by extending the statute of limitations in personal injury, wrongful death, and assault and battery actions, and making procedural changes with regard to motions for summary judgment. (See Exhibit #15, page 2) We located background discussion in an on-line newsletter published by the Judicial Council of California which may provide an explanation for the language of Senate Bill 688 as finally enacted: Trial lawyers succeeded Thursday in a last-minute effort to get state Assembly approval for lengthening the statute of limitations on personal injury claims and reforming summary judgment procedures to make it easier to bring a claim to trial. As soon as the bill was approved, the Assembly passed a measure addressing construction defect litigation, prompting some observers to wonder if there was a deal by trial lawyers and lawmakers to tie the two measures together to win passage. “It sure smells that way,” said John Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, a tort reform group. Robert Cartwright Jr., president of Consumer Attorneys of California, said there was no deal. “The two bills really are completely separate and unrelated,” Cartwright said. (See Exhibit #20, page 5) The legislative bill file for the Assembly Committee on Judiciary contains a letter to Governor Davis from Mr. Cartwright, identified in the above quote, for the Consumer Attorneys of California, in which he discussed the rationale for the organization’s support of the bill as last amended: On behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California, I write to urge an early signature of SB 688. SB 688 goes a long way to bring fairness in the litigation process by extending California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions from one to two years. Importantly, that change is made retroactive for the families of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Finally, SB 688 gives more time to respond to motions for summary judgment, which means judges will have all the facts when ruling on these important motions. Approximately 200 California families were directly impacted by the events of September 11th, through the death of loved ones on one of the four airplanes, in the World Trade Center or at the Pentagon, or by virtue of physical injuries suffered at the site of one of the terrorist attacks. California’s one-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death actions (CCP §340) requires a California resident to commence a liability lawsuit against the airlines or any other potential defendant that might be held accountable for the events of September 11th on or before September 10, 2002. However, the federal Victim’s Compensation Fund, established by Congress to provide fair and efficient compensation to the victims or their surviving families outside the civil justice system, does not require an application to be filed any sooner than December, 2003, and possibly March, 2004. . . . With the California statute of limitations period soon to expire, families are having to make an impossible and precipitous choice between two unknown alternatives. (See Exhibit #12 documents AP2-1 and AP2-2) The Senate Committee on Judiciary analysis did mention that parts of the contents of Senate Bill 688 relating to the summary judgment provisions were in two other bills: Senate Bill 476 and Assembly Bill 3027. (See Exhibit #5, page 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Senate Bill 1779 of 2002

2005-10-03T16:40:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 1779 (Burton-2002) Chapter 149, Statutes of 2002 Senate Bill 1779 was introduced on February 21, 2002. (See Exhibit #1a) Senator John Burton was the lead author of the bill during most of its time before the Legislature. (See Exhibit #1) Senate Bill 1779 was a single-section bill that amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 only. (Id.) Support for the measure was received from the Legislative Coalition to Prevent Child Abuse, the Coalition for Family Equity, the San Francisco Women Lawyers’ Alliance and the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priest, among others. (See Exhibits #4, documents SP-1 through SP-6; #7, documents AP-1 through AP-19 and #10, documents A-7 through A-9) Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 1779 on July 10, 2002 and the Secretary of State recorded it on July 11th as Chapter 149 of the Statutes of 2002. (See Exhibits #1f and #2) A description of Senate Bill 1779 as last amended is provided in the Unfinished Business analysis of the Office of Senate Floor Analyses that states: . . . This bill provides that the extended statute of limitations in childhood sexual abuse civil cases against a third party not the perpetrator of the sexual abuse extends beyond age 26 of the victim, when the third party knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual contact by an employee, volunteer, representative or agent for unlawful sexual conduct and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid future acts of unlawful sexual conduct by that employee or agent in the future. To preserve a claim in that event, a suit must be filed within three years from the date the victim discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring after age 18 was caused by the childhood abuse. This bill applies retroactively and provides victims of childhood sexual abuse a one-year window to bring an action against a third party, as provided above, when that claim would otherwise be barred solely because the statute of limitations has or had expired, and a cause of action is commenced within one year of January 1, 2003. This revival of claims would not apply to any claim that had been litigated to finality on the merits. (See Exhibit #9, pages 1 and 2) The need for Senate Bill 1779 is explained in the Assembly Committee on Judiciary’s Background Information Worksheet as follows: This bill is essential to ensure that victims severely damaged by childhood sexual abuse are able to seek compensation from those responsible. While current law allows a lawsuit to be brought against the perpetrator within three years of discovery of the adulthood aftereffects of the childhood abuse, current law bars any action against a responsible third party entity (such as an employer, sponsoring organization or religious organization) after the victim’s 26th birthday. Unfortunately for many victims, their adulthood trauma does not manifest itself until well after their 26th birthday, when some event in their current life triggers remembrance of the past abuse and brings on new trauma. For example, a 35-year old man with a 13-year old son involved in many community and sporting events, may begin to relive his nightmare of being molested by an older authoritarian figure when he was 13 years old and about to enter puberty. While a lawsuit against the perpetrator is possible, that person may be dead, may have moved away to places unknown, or may be judgment-proof. However, any lawsuit against a responsible third party is absolutely time-barred after the victim passes this 26th birthday. This arbitrary limitation unfairly deprives a victim from seeking redress, and unfairly and unjustifiably protects responsible third parties from being held accountable for their actions that caused injury to victims. (See Exhibit #7, document AP-25) In Governor Davis’ press release announcing the signing of Senate Bill 1779, he states, in part: “In my opinion, anyone who turns a blind eye to the suffering of a child is almost as guilty as the perpetrator of the abuse,” . . . “this law will help ensure that these people who looked the other way at child abusers are held responsible for their inaction.” (See Exhibit #12) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Senate Bill 724 of 2001

2005-10-03T16:28:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 724 (Senate Committee on Business and Professions-2001) Chapter 728, Statutes of 2001 Senate Bill 724 was proposed to the Legislature on February 23, 2001. (See Exhibit #1a) This large omnibus bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Business and Professions which was chaired by Senator Liz Figueroa. (See Exhibit #1a) Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 724 on October 10, 2001, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on October 11, 2001 as Chapter 728 of the Statutes of 2001. (See Exhibit #1d and #2) The Office of Senate Floor Analyses produced an Unfinished Business analysis of Senate Bill 724 as last amended which described the bill as follows: This bill is an omnibus bill to enact non-controversial provisions relating to various professional licensing boards. It updates statutes to reflect changes to programs over the past year, makes technical and minor changes, and improves the administration of the various boards by clarifying ambiguous provisions or enhancing enforcement authority. The author indicates any provisions generating controversy will be either amended or deleted. (See Exhibit #9b, page 3) This analysis provided a subject-by-subject discussion regarding the many aspects of this large bill. (See Exhibit #9b, pages 2 and 3) The Department of Finance Bill Analysis also provided a thorough programmatic analysis of Senate Bill 724. (See Exhibit #7) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.

Senate Bill 136 of 2001

2005-10-03T15:54:00.000-07:00

Senate Bill 136 (Figueroa-2001) Chapter 495, Statutes of 2001 Senate Bill 136 was introduced on January 29, 2001 by Senator Liz Figueroa. (See Exhibit #1a) Senator Figueroa served as chair of the Senate Committee on Business and Professions, which was the first committee to review Senate Bill 136. (See Exhibits #2 and #3) It appears that she carried this bill because of her position in this committee for the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee and the Department of Consumer Affairs. (See Exhibit #11, page 3; see also Exhibit #7, documents AP-13 and AP-14) Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 136 on October 4, 2001, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State on the same day as Chapter 495 of the Statutes of 2001. (See Exhibits #1f and #2) The Unfinished Business analysis if Senate Bill 136 as last amended produced by the Office of Senate Floor Analyses described the bill as follows: . . . This bill extends the sunset review dates for the Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (BGDB), California Tax Education Council (CTEC), California Council for Interior Design Certification (CCIDC), increases licensing fees for professional engineers and land surveyors regulated by the Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (BPELS), and makes other technical and clarifying changes pursuant to the recommendations of the Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) and the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). (See Exhibit #11, pages 1 and 2) The Assembly Committee on Business and Professions analysis of the bill as amended April 30, 2001 discussed the purpose of this bill, in part, as follows: The purpose of this bill is to implement legislative changes recommended by JLSRC for several licensing boards within DCA. In 2000-01 JLSRC reviewed 3 boards and 1 committee auxiliary under DCA, and 2 private nonprofit organizations independent of DCA. . . . (See Exhibit #6, page 2) The complete Legislative History Report and Analysis and documents with authenticating declaration expands upon the information above. In addition to available legislative file materials from the Assembly and Senate Committees, the author and the Governor, our research typically includes review for competitor and predecessor bills, interim reports, hearings, studies and other relevant background documentation unique to this legislation. To order a complete report, please contact us at Legislative Intent Service or by calling us toll free at 1-800-666-1917.