California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB386

Introduced
2/2/21  
Introduced
2/2/21  
Refer
2/12/21  
Refer
2/12/21  
Report Pass
3/18/21  
Report Pass
3/18/21  
Refer
3/22/21  
Refer
3/22/21  
Report Pass
4/19/21  
Report Pass
4/19/21  
Refer
4/19/21  
Refer
4/19/21  
Report Pass
4/27/21  
Report Pass
4/27/21  
Refer
4/29/21  
Refer
4/29/21  
Report Pass
5/12/21  
Report Pass
5/12/21  
Engrossed
6/1/21  
Engrossed
6/1/21  
Refer
6/2/21  
Refer
6/2/21  
Refer
6/9/21  
Refer
6/9/21  
Report Pass
6/22/21  
Report Pass
6/22/21  
Refer
6/22/21  
Refer
6/22/21  
Report Pass
6/29/21  
Report Pass
6/29/21  
Refer
6/29/21  

Caption

Public Employees’ Retirement Fund: investments: confidentiality.

Impact

The primary impact of AB 386 would be to limit public access to details surrounding private loans, which could potentially alter the level of transparency for public investment funds. Supporters argue that this measure is necessary to protect proprietary information and financial privacy, thereby fostering an environment more conducive to discreet investment operations. The bill specifies conditions under which certain records must remain confidential unless the information has been publicly released elsewhere.

Summary

Assembly Bill 386, presented by Assembly Member Cooper, focuses on enhancing the confidentiality of certain records related to the California Public Employees Retirement Fund. The bill amends the California Public Records Act to exempt specific records regarding privately managed loans from public disclosure. This includes financial statements and other business-related information concerning the borrowers of the loans made directly by the Public Employees Retirement Fund.

Sentiment

The legislative discourse around AB 386 presents a mixed sentiment. Advocates of the bill believe that it strikes a critical balance between the public's right to know about how public funds are utilized and the essential need to protect sensitive financial information regarding loan recipients. Conversely, critics may see this move as counterproductive to transparency initiatives essential to public trust and accountability.

Contention

A notable point of contention regarding AB 386 is the perceived risk of diminishing public oversight, which could enable less accountability for how public investment funds manage private loans. While the legislative findings within the bill emphasize the safeguarding of privacy and proprietary interests, there are concerns about the potential for misuse or lack of sufficient oversight in financial dealings that affect public resources.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB2473

Public investment funds.

CT HB05279

An Act Concerning Public Institutions Of Higher Education.

CA AB1328

Oil and gas: water quality.

CT HB06339

An Act Concerning Banks, Loan Production Offices, Exchange Facilitators, Public Deposits And Real Property Tax Liens.

CT HB07328

An Act Revising Certain Ethics Code Definitions And Gift Provisions.

NJ A3114

Includes e-mail addresses in list of confidential items to be redacted from public records under OPRA.

CA AB3218

Unflavored Tobacco List.

CA AB473

California Public Records Act.