|
View archived CACEO newsletters and articles here.
|
COB Committee Opposes SB1329
On March 28, Senator Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys gutted and amended his SB 1329 to now establish the right to appeal all issues in an assessment appeal involving locally assessed certificated aircraft, including issues of value, to the Superior Court. If successful, this would be the first instance where the decisions of the county board of equalization or assessment appeals board affecting value would be subject to a full re-trial in the courts.
Under current statutory and constitutional law, the Superior Court is limited to reviewing legal issues and claims that the county board acted capriciously or with bias. SB 1329 would amend Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5170 to provide that the court shall not be restricted to simply reviewing the administrative record established the county board, but shall consider all evidence relating to the valuation of aircraft owned and operated by airlines and air cargo companies. Thus, the administrative hearing would become an expensive (for counties) and rather meaningless stop on the parties’ way to the Superior Court.
The last similar legislation of memory was in 1995 and 1996. Those bills would have created a trial de novo for all locally assessed property. The bills were opposed by counties, CACEO and assessors and were defeated, insofar as their do novo provisions were concerned.
De novo review of county board decisions has been generally viewed as being unconstitutional. Over the years, the courts have ruled that the county boards are “creatures of the constitution” that function as fact-finding bodies established by law to remedy disputes of value in equalizing the property tax roll. Thus, the courts have no standing to review their factual findings affecting the value of property.
Last week, CACEO’s Clerk of the Board Legislative Committee voted to oppose SB 1329. The committee urges all clerks to bring this bill to the attention of their counties and to urge their counties to likewise oppose the bill. Even if a county has no airport used by certificated aircraft, the county should still oppose this bill as a camel’s nose in the tent. If this legislation were to become law, it would be a very short time before all appeals of commercial/industrial property, or even all property subject to the property tax, would become subject to the same court review. |
|
New Co-Chair and Election Legislation Update
SB 450, the Vote Center bill still continues to lead the discussion at our meetings. There have been some suggested amendments on the ratios of voters to vote centers and we are expecting to see these in print soon, with a Hearing scheduled sometime in April.
SB 967, the bill that would pay for special elections passed out of Committee but it now heads to Appropriations. CACEO has taken a support position on this bill.
AB 2911, is the longest bill. It is 51 pages clarifying what is a state or a county voter information guide. Thanks to John Gardner and his committee for this clean-up language.
Another bill, AB 2265, was also a proposal from CACEO. Cathy Darling Allen and Gail Pellerin proposed to allow the county counsel when preparing the impartial analysis to clarify what a yes vote means and what a no vote means.
Other bills cover allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in school board elections, felon voting rights, who can return a vote by mail ballot, expanding San Diego’s all mail ballot pilot to fill special vacancies and make it available state wide, and the daily posting of precinct results during the canvass. You can see a complete list of the bills and their status on the CACEO website at caceo58.org. |
New Public Records Act Bill May Pose Problems
Recently Assemblymember Eric Linder of Corona introduced AB 1707, a California Public Records Act bill. AB 1707 would amend Section 6255 of the Government Code to require an agency to respond in writing to all public records requests, oral or written, when the agency determines that the request must be denied, in whole or in part, because the record(s) contain information that is not disclosable pursuant to the act. The bill would require that the response include the title or other identifying information of each record requested but withheld due to an exemption and the specific exemption that applies to that record.
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Legislative Committee is currently reviewing the bill to examine whether the bill would make simple at-the-counter records requests unnecessarily burdensome, and whether the bill should be amended to make it more manageable. Clerks wishing to weigh in on the bill can contact any member of the COB Leg. Committee or John McKibben at (213) 200-9610. |
|
Clerks of the Board: Got a Legislative Proposal for CACEO Sponsorship?
Legislative proposals suitable for CACEO sponsorship that impact Clerk of the Board programs should focus on improving or streamlining the processes and programs administered by COBs. Primarily such legislation will be technical in nature and will usually not involve controversial policy issues. If you are considering submitting a proposal for sponsorship, bear in mind that legislation that merely shifts workload and administrative responsibility to the state or to another local government officer is not likely to be successful without very significant justification.
You also may have identified one or more code sections that use the term “clerk” or “county clerk” that is either out date or needs clarification as to whether it refers to the county clerk, the clerk of the board, registrar of voters the clerk of the superior court, or the city clerk. CACEO has had an ongoing program for decades designed to clear up these ambiguities.
Included in the information that the proposal form requires is specific legislative language adding, amending, or repealing the code section or sections dealing with the subject. It also requires an explanation of exactly what the proposal would do; a description of what problems the proposed legislation would solve; specifically how the proposal would affect the Clerk of the Board; a justification for the proposal; a listing of other code sections that would be affected, if any; a description and estimate of cost savings to your office or to COBs statewide; a listing of other agencies that would be affected, if any; and your best guess as to who might support or oppose the legislation.
Legislative proposals should be sent to John McKibben, Chairman of the COB Legislative Committee, no later than November 20, 2015 at [email protected] or at 500 West Temple St., Room 383, Los Angeles CA 90012. Or you may fax it to John’s attention at (213) 620-0636. If the COB Legislative Committee approves the proposal, it will be voted upon by CACEO’s COB members at New Law Workshop in Sacramento on Thursday, December 10, 2015.
If you have questions, call John at (213) 200-9610. |
COB's and New Law
The day starts with the usual presentation on legislation enacted this year that will affect Clerks of the Board and discuss any legislation that has been proposed by member Clerks for CACEO sponsorship. You’ll also hear about the “bullets” that you didn’t know you dodged in the form of legislation that would have had a negative workload or financial impact had it not been for CACEO lobbyist Matt Siverling and the COB Legislative Committee.
Next Carla Johnson, Director of the Mayor of San Francisco’s Office on Disability will discuss how San Francisco integrated the principals and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into the everyday work flow of the Clerk of the Board’s operations. She will discuss how Clerks can use technology to make meetings, material, Websites, and agendas accessible. Clerks will learn about what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA in terms of the operations of the Clerk of the Board, and learn about what San Francisco has done to combine communication access, architectural features, and reasonable accommodations to make meetings and services truly accessible under the ADA. Clerks can find out how they might apply these techniques in their own county and thus avoid expensive litigation.
In the afternoon, we will have an extremely important, timely, and informative panel discussion on this year’s legislative hot topic, “Open Data.” Two bills are on the Governor’s desk right now dealing with Open Data that would amend the California Public Records Act and that will directly affect all local agencies, including Clerks of the Board, and they are likely to be signed by Gov. Brown. But what is Open Data, especially to Clerks in our administering the CPRA, and what does it mean to Clerks of the Board generally?
Hear a panel comprised of Robb Korinke of GrassrootsLab, the chief supporter of AB 169 (Maienschein) and SB 272 (Hertzberg), bills that were subject to a lot of CACEO lobbying; Assemblymember Brian Maienschein, the author of AB 169 (invited); Jim Ewart, Chief Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association; Marcia Cunningham, Director of Strategic Business Technology for Stanislaus County; and Krista Whitman, Assistant County Counsel of Sacramento County who will discuss the impact of Open Data on local agencies and on Clerk operations, and what the future holds for future Open Data legislation affecting the CPRA. Don’t miss this one!
And finally – and perhaps best of all – in the second half of the afternoon, Clerks of the Board will meet with E. Dotson Wilson, Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and his staff at the Capitol in the Assembly Chambers to learn about how the Chief Clerk supports a REALLY big legislative body. It is a rare treat to be able to meet with Mr. Wilson, especially on the Assembly Floor. Mr. Wilson has asked that Clerks come prepared to share their own technological and other innovations in clerking a legislative body in the session’s Q & A. This is another session not to be missed! |
|
|
|
|
<< first < Prev 1 2 3 Next > last >>
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
