home > AB 624 resource center > timeline

AB 624 Timeline

AB 624 has been jointly referred and awaits consideration by the California State Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. The Senate has until August 31, 2008, to vote on this legislation.

• March
• February
• January
• May

May

May 12, 2008: The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee held a hearing on AB 624. At the hearing, there was a good showing by foundations and at least equal, if not more, opposition than support.

In the end, Chairman Ridley-Thomas did not ask for a vote on AB 624. Instead, the Chairman asked the foundations to work with the authors of the legislation and others to come up with amendments to the bill to make it better. Given the time constraints that the Committee faces, it appears the Chairman is hoping for a compromise version of the legislation that the BP&ED Committee can vote on by the middle of June.

March

March 3, 2008: AB 624 has been amended for the third time and amendments make the following changes:

Now, AB 624 does not require foundations to collect and disclose data regarding the sexual orientation of their foundation Board and staff, or their grantees or business contracts. Foundations still must collect and disclose data regarding the race, ethnicity and gender of their foundation Board, staff and their grantees and business contacts.

Now, AB 624 requires foundations to collect information on grants given to "minority communities, LGBT communities, predominantly low-income communities and other underrepresented communities . " The previous version did not include "other underrepresented communities."

It is unclear whether any additional amendments will be made.

AB 624 had been tentatively scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on March 10th, 2008. However, the date has slipped and we expect consideration of AB 624 to occur in April, at the earliest. When the Senate does consider AB 624, they will consider the latest version of the bill. Because substantial amendments have been made to the bill since the Assembly passed the bill, if the Senate passes AB 624 the bill will have to go back to the Assembly for another vote.

February

February 13, 2008: Yesterday, Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally and Assemblymember Ted Lieu introduced two amendments to AB 624.

As a result, AB 624 no longer requires foundations to collect and report on the sexual orientation of their board or staff members. However, it does still require this information from their grantees and business contacts.
Also, AB 624 now requires foundations to collect and disclose data on the number of grants and of percentage of grant dollars given to predominantly low-income communities. Originally, foundations were only required to monitor and disclose information on grants going to “minority-led” communities.

As you know from previous updates, AB 624 has been jointly referred to the California State Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee. However, State Senate President Don Perata has not yet transmitted AB 624 to these committees, which has slowed this process considerably.

The process in the California Senate will be considerably slower than what we saw in the California State Assembly. Senator Perata must transmit the bill to both committees, and they must both hold hearings and vote on this legislation before it can be sent to the Senate floor for a vote.

February 7th, 2008: AB 624 has been jointly referred and awaits consideration by the California State Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. The Senate has until August 31, 2008, to vote on this legislation.

February 2007: At the urging of the Greenlining Institute, Assemblyman Joe Coto introduced legislation to require private foundations with assets over $250 million to annually collect and publicly disclose the race, gender and ethnicity of board members, foundation staff, and grantee recipients. AB 624 also requires private foundations to report the amount and percentage of grants to organizations where 50 percent or more of board members and staff are an ethnic or racial minority.

January

January 29th, 2008: The California State Assembly passed AB 624 by a vote of 45 – 29. The vote was split completely along party lines with all the “yeas” from Democrats and all the “noes” from Republicans. Additionally, we understand that several Democrats cast their vote in favor of the legislation with the understanding that there would be an opportunity to tweak some areas they found troublesome.

Unfortunately, very few groups registered their formal opposition to this legislation. We understand that only two groups “formally” filed their opposition to the legislation – the Nonprofit and Unincorporated Organizations Committee of the California State Bar and the California Family Council.

One of the open issues is whether the legislation applies to CA-only foundations or whether it is broader to apply to foundations that have some nexus to California. Indeed, the Judiciary Committee’s analysis of the bill suggests several areas that the author of the bill may “fine-tune” including “whether the bill covers all foundations making grants or otherwise doing business in California, or only those with a principal place of business in the state or perhaps those organized as California corporations.”

January 2008: The Judiciary Committee of the California Assembly, at the urging of Assemblyman Coto, passed AB 624 by a vote of 7-1. However, before receiving a formal floor vote, the measure was sent back to the Assembly Judiciary Committee where the scope of the legislation was broadened.

Specifically, Assemblyman John Laird (D-Monterey) broadened the bill to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender as one of the reporting standards required by AB 624. The legislation was further broadened to apply to public, private and corporate foundations. Shortly thereafter, AB 624 was again passed out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 7 – 1.