Administration of Justice 09/09/2013
Judgment Interest Rate
AB 748 (Eggman) – Support
As amended August 30, 2013
AB 748, by Assembly Member Susan Talamantes Eggman, would amend
the current calculation of the judicial interest rate charged to
public entities. Several technical amendments were recently
incorporated, and the measure now awaits action by the full
Senate. SB 748 is sponsored by the Urban Counties Caucus. CSAC, a
number of individual counties, and a range of other public entity
advocacy groups are in support.
As counties are aware, under current law, the interest rate for
judgments against public entities is 7 percent. By way of
comparison, the interest rate on federal judgments is indexed to
a Treasury yield, which currently sits at less than 1 percent. At
a time of historically low interest rates, we believe it is
appropriate to revise the mechanism by which judgment interest
rates are calculated.
As now drafted, AB 748 would specify that for any tax or fee
claim that results in a judgment against a public entity, the
judicial interest rate would be set at the weekly average
one-year constant maturity U.S. Treasury yield. The bill has been
clarified to ensure that in no case would the calculation exceed
the existing rate of 7 percent annually.
CSAC believe this measure is appropriate and fair, as it merely
seeks to modernize the interest rate calculation to reflect
current market conditions.
Identity Theft
AB 1149 (Campos) – Oppose
As amended September 4, 2013
AB 1149, by Assembly Member Nora Campos, would require local
agencies to notify consumers of a breach if unauthorized persons
access specified personal information. The bill was recently
amended to avoid chaptering out provisions – meaning, it now will
incorporate changes made by another bill to the same section of
law (SB 46, by Senator Ellen Corbett) – to ensure that if the two
bills are passed and signed into law then both sets of amendments
are enacted.
CSAC – as part of a broad coalition of public agency advocacy
groups – is in opposition to the bill for fiscal and operational
reasons. As detailed in previous Bulletins, public agency groups
do not oppose the policy objective being advanced in AB 1149. It
is merely a question of resources and concern over the precedent
that local governments – after some 35 years of being expressly
exempt from its provisions – would be subject to a portion of the
Information Practices Act.
The practical effect of double joining AB 1149 to SB 46 is that
it would likely increase the scope of potential workload
associated with the breach notification requirements in AB 1149.
SB 46 on its own does not impose any new duties on local
governments; it merely expands to the definition of “personally
identifiable information” to include the user name, password, and
security question. However, if AB 1149 is signed, all of the
existing breach notification law, plus the expanded definition
and duties offered in SB 46, would be imposed upon local
governments.
AB 1149 awaits action by the full Senate.