On Tuesday, Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s (D-Oakley) Non-Profit Bill, AB 2855, was killed in the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.
In a 5-3 partisan vote, the bill failed with Assembly members Catharine Baker, Kristin Olsen and Scott Wilk (all republicans) opposing. Five democrats supported the bill.
Frazier, who had been blasted by more than 300 non-profits, issued a late amendment to the bill on April 7, but could still not get it passed.
After his last minute amendment to reduce some of the requirements, the CALNonprofits still rejected the bill calling it a “warning label” on non-profits.
Update 4/8/16: In less than a week, nearly 300 California nonprofits signed letters opposing AB 2855 – the bill that would require nonprofits to post unnecessary, duplicative information on our websites and materials.
We call this the “Warning Label Bill” because forcing us to put such labels on everything implies that – like tobacco – nonprofits are dangerous and the public needs to be warned about us. The bill is scheduled to be heard in committee on April 12. CalNonprofits staff have met with committee members and their staff, and presented them with the powerful list of nonprofits that are opposing the bill.
It’s especially great that opposition has come from all parts of the state and all parts of the nonprofit community. As just a few examples, signers include the Association of California Symphony Orchestras, Klamath Forest Alliance, Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches, National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Diego Guild of Puppetry, San Francisco SPCA, United Ways of California, Meals on Wheels of San Francisco, American Lung Association, California League of Community Foundations, Environmental Defense Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and many more — large and small, all over the state.
It’s working. Committee members have heard us loud and clear. But we’re not out of the woods. The bill has been amended, and while some of the most disastrous aspects of the bill have changed, its core problem remains: requiring nonprofits to warn prospective clients, volunteers and donors…like the warning labels about side effects on pharmaceuticals.
Here is a look at the bill:
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
This bill would authorize the Attorney General to enforce these requirements by directing the Franchise Tax Board to suspend or revoke a violating charity’s tax-exempt status, by suspending or revoking the registration of a violating charity, or by taking any other enforcement action pursuant to the Attorney General’s existing powers and duties, as specified.
Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 17510.86 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
17510.86.
(a) An Internet Web site produced by, or on behalf of, a charity that operates or engages in the solicitation for charitable purposes of funds or other property in this state shall include a prominent link on the home page of the Internet Web site that immediately directs all consumers to the Attorney General’s Internet Web site, which contains information about consumer rights and protections and charity research resources.
SECTION 1.Section 17510.86 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
17510.86.(a)An Internet Web site produced by, or on behalf of, a charity that operates, or engages in the solicitation for charitable purposes of funds or other property, in this state shall comply with both of the following:
(1)The Internet Web site shall contain a financial disclosures Internet Web page, which shall include both of the following:
(A)A disclosure of the sum total of the salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits of the charity’s executive director and board of directors and all of the charity’s other administrative overhead expenses, as reported on the charity’s most recent Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filing. The disclosure shall be set forth in at least 14-point, bold, sans serif type font and shall be clear and conspicuous, as defined in Section 17601.
(B)A complete copy of the charity’s most recent Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filing.
(2)Each Internet Web page on the Internet Web site shall include a direct link to the financial disclosures Internet Web page required pursuant to paragraph (1). The direct link shall contain the phrase “Click here to read a full disclosure of the finances, including the salaries and expenses, of this organization,” shall be placed in the top right corner of each Internet Web page in at least 14-point, bold, sans serif type font, and shall be clear and conspicuous, as defined in Section 17601.
(b)(1)A document produced by, or on behalf of, a charity for the solicitation for charitable purposes of funds or other property in this state shall include a disclosure statement indicating the percentage of the charity’s funding that is spent on the sum total of the salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits of the charity’s executive director and board of directors and all of the charity’s other administrative overhead expenses, as reported on the charity’s most recent Internal Revenue Service Form 990 filing.
(2)The disclosure statement shall be printed on the first page of the document in at least 14-point, bold, sans serif type font and shall be clear and conspicuous, as defined in Section 17601.
(c)The Attorney General may enforce this section by taking any of the following actions against a charity that provides false information or otherwise violates this section:
(1)Directing the Franchise Tax Board to suspend or revoke the charity’s exemption from the taxes imposed by the Corporation Tax Law (Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code). The suspension or revocation shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the Franchise Tax Board, and the Franchise Tax Board shall reinstate the exemption only upon subsequent notification by the Attorney General that the charity is in compliance with this section.
(2)Refusing to register, or revoking or suspending the registration of, a charity pursuant to the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act (Article 7 (commencing with Section 12580) of Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).
(3)Taking any other enforcement action pursuant to the Attorney General’s existing powers and duties.
SEC. 2.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
4 comments
I am embarrassed that this man is our representative at the state capital. Frazier should realize that by putting up a petty bill like this he drew the attention and mistrust of thousands of people across the state who would have not otherwise had him on their radar. His judgement, his integrity and his ability to manage his emotions is questionable when he uses his office & state tax dollar funded staff to create legislation as some vendetta. His credibility has diminished and he is now viewed as a power hungry bully not only on the local level but now on the state level. His staff, advisers,and supporters should reign him in.
Thank Goodness.
Frazier needs to get his head on straight. IMHO this whole thing exposed the real Jim Frazier and probably is the breaking point of his political career. I don’t think he has many supporters left in his district or in Oakley. Does he even live here anymore?
Well, according to Secretary of State filings, his new address, since leaving Oakley, is a PO Box, in a Mail Boxes Etc. Store in Safeway Plaza on Waterman Blvd. in Fairfield. Personally, I’d concur with the analysis that he’s setting his sights on Congressman John Garamendi’s House seat in 3rd Congressional District. Besides, all the anonymous emails I’m getting from Sacramento insiders, tell me, once you put the pieces together, that that is exactly what his intentions are.
When Contra Costa Voters come after you with Pitchforks and Torches, like you’re some sort of Frankenstein Monster, you play the only card you have left…thats in Solano County. Late last night, he abruptly cancelled his scheduled League of Women Voters Debate with me. You read into that what you want, but I feel like he’s running scared, since the failure of the “Burgis Bill,” as the Sacramento Bee likes to call it.
Frazier in a congressional seat? Now that’s the best fiction I’ve read all year. He is a jackwaggon that is out of his league as a lowly assemblyman. He doesn’t possess the skills to ascend into a higher seat. Face the facts, it’s the end of a short road for Frazier. The jig is up.
Comments are closed.