y2k Legislation in California

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Thought some of my fellow Californians might be interested in a few of the y2k bills that have been introduced in the Legislature so far this year. I skipped the liability bills - too depressing - but found some other bills of interest at the Legislature's website.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Dutra

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

An act to add Section 11006.5 to the Government Code, relating to the Year 2000 Problem.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 724, as introduced, Dutra. State government: Year 2000 problem. Existing law establishes in state government the Department of Information Technology to provide leadership, guidance, and oversight of information technology in state government. This bill would make a legislative finding and declaration that the identification and remediation of the Year 2000 Problem is the top priority information technology project for the state for the duration of 1999. This bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature to isolate Year 2000 Problem remediation as the top information technology priority for all state agencies and departments and to establish new dates of completion that are not in conflict with Year 2000 Problem remediation for all statutorily mandated automation and information technology systems that are not crucial to public health or safety or mission critical. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.

[This bill has lots of neat intent language, but it doesn't actually tell anybody to do anything. Also, since it doesn't have an urgency clause, it wouldn't take effect until January 1, 2000, which would be just a tad late. I assume the author intends to beef up the bill and add an urgency clause at some point. If you're interested in reading the whole bill, it can be found at the following website. Sorry, I'm hyperlink-challenged.]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_724_bill_19990224_introduced.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Alquist

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

An act to add and repeal Part 6 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, relating to state contracts, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 882, as introduced, Alquist. Year 2000 Problem Vendor Compliance and Contracting Act. Existing law sets out the various responsibilities of the Department of General Services, the Department of Information Technology, and state agencies in overseeing and implementing state contracting procedures and policies. This bill would enact the Year 2000 Problem Vendor Compliance and Contracting Act to authorize any public entity to submit a written request for information regarding the Year 2000 Problem, as defined, to any contractor who is under contract to provide, or was at any time under contract to provide, specified projects, materials, supplies, equipment, services, or real property. It would further require the Department of Information Technology to compile a list on a monthly basis until April 1, 2000, and periodically thereafter at the discretion of the department, of all contractors who failed to respond within 30 calendar days to the requests and remit it to the Department of General Services, to the Governor, and to the Legislature. The bill would also authorize the Department of General Services to determine the eligibility of any person to enter into a contract under these provisions by determining that the person acted responsibly in regard to the terms of the original contract, or by requiring the person to submit a statement, as described, subject to a misdemeanor penalty, certifying that neither the person nor any subcontractor to be engaged by the person failed to respond to a written request. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. These provisions would repeal on January 1, 2001. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

[This bill is similar, if not identical, to this author's AB 1345 from last session, which was vetoed by Gov. Wilson. I assume she expects a different result from the new guy. This bill can be found at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_882_bill_19990225_introduced.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Honda (Coauthors: Assembly Members Aanestad, Campbell, Leach, and Washington) (Coauthors: Senators Lewis and Rainey)

FEBRUARY 19, 1999

An act to add Sections 17255.5 and 24356.5 to the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation, to take effect immediately, tax levy.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 579, as introduced, Honda. Income and bank and corporation taxes: Y2K. The Personal Income Tax Law and the Bank and Corporation Tax Law, in partial conformity to federal law, allow a taxpayer to elect to expense certain depreciable business assets. This bill would, in addition, allow a taxpayer to elect to expense the costs of making computers and software year 2000 compliant, as provided. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

[This bill can be found at the following site.]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0551-0600/ab_579_bill_19990219_introduced.html



-- Pam G. (Pam95818@aol.com), March 01, 1999

Answers

"This bill has lots of neat intent language, but it doesn't actually tell anybody to do anything. Also, since it doesn't have an urgency clause, it wouldn't take effect until January 1, 2000, which would be just a tad late."

Pam, this is almost right up there with Kenya, as seen on http://www.y2kculture.com/arts/19990226.jokes.html

"A Washington lawyer writes in to forward us an excerpt from News of the Weird: "According to Kenya's largest newspaper, the Daily Nation, the government in October formed a committee to study potential problems with the country's computers' complying with the Jan. 1, 2000, date changeover. The final report and recommendations of the committee were ordered published within 18 months -- that is to say, by April 18, 2000."

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 01, 1999.


What about a bill that would protect the homeowners from having their assets reclaimed by the mortgage company in the event that the banks cannot process regular payments, and the post office is out, and the atm's don't work, etc etc etc....does anyone know of anything like this in the works? A worst case scenario temporary suspension of financial obligations for everyone?

Mary P.

-- Mary P. (CAgdma@home.com), March 02, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ