A California bill aiming to ban confidentiality agreements when negotiating legislation fails
SACRAMENTO, California — A bill aimed at banning the use of confidentiality agreements in negotiations over potential California laws has failed to pass a state legislative committee.
Republican Assembly Member Vince Fong’s proposal did not receive enough votes to be rejected by the Assembly Elections Committee on Thursday. Two Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while Democratic Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, the committee chairman, voted against it.
Five other Democrats on the committee did not vote.
The legislation was inspired by last year’s negotiations over a bill that would mandate a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers. The bill, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, includes an exemption for restaurants that produce their own bread and sell it as a standalone menu item.
It is not clear why that exception has been included. The exception was also included in similar legislation passed the year before.
Bloomberg News reported that the exception was intended to benefit one of Newsom’s wealthy campaign donors, who owns Panera Bread restaurants. Newsom and the donor, Greg Flynn, denied the story. Newsom’s administration said the exemption does not apply to Panera Bread restaurants. Flynn also promised to pay his employees $20 an hour starting April 1.
Unions and trade associations representing California restaurants met privately last summer to discuss the bill before reaching an agreement. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement, which KCRA first reported.
Fong criticized that agreement. He introduced a bill that would void any non-disclosure agreement relating to the drafting, negotiating, discussing or creating of legislation. The bill would also prohibit government officials from signing these agreements or asking third parties to sign them.
“Nondisclosure agreements certainly have their place to protect proprietary and financial information. But they should not be used in drafting and negotiating laws that affect the daily lives of our constituents,” Fong said. “The public already has a poor perception of the legislative process. Allowing the use of NDAs will further erode and erode their trust in government.”
Pellerin, the committee’s Democratic chairman, noted that there is no evidence that government officials signed confidentiality agreements related to legislative negotiations.
“The core of what this bill seeks to address is conversations between private parties, not legislative negotiations involving government officials,” she said. “That’s a complicated issue.”
Pellerin said the issue was so complex that lawmakers did not have enough time to fully consider it. Fong introduced the bill last week. The committee held a special hearing Thursday to discuss the issue ahead of the legislation deadline on Friday.
Fong, who has frequently criticized the speed with which Democrats often pass legislation, noted that the Legislature often moves quickly when it comes to priority bills. He noted that just before Thursday’s hearing, Democrats in the state Assembly — including Pellerin — had voted for a bill to allow Arizona doctors to come to California and perform abortions on their patients.
“I would just respectfully ask that this bill, in the interest of preserving the legislative process of this institution, may move forward to preserve, you know, what the people expect of us when we work on their behalf,” Fong said . said.