California Bill Attempting to Prohibit Confidentiality Agreements in Legislative Negotiations Falls Short

A bill in California that aimed to prohibit the use of confidentiality agreements during legislative negotiations has been unsuccessful in passing a state legislative committee.

The bill, proposed by Republican Assemblymember Vince Fong, did not receive enough votes to move out of the Assembly Elections Committee. While two Republicans supported the bill, Democratic Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, the committee chair, voted against it.

Five other Democrats on the committee did not cast their votes.

The legislation was prompted by discussions surrounding a bill last year that mandated a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers. This bill, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, included an exception for restaurants that make and sell their own bread separately.

The reason for this exception remains unclear and was also present in a similar bill passed the previous year.

According to Bloomberg News, the exception was reportedly included to benefit one of Newsom’s campaign donors who owns Panera Bread restaurants. Both Newsom and the donor denied these claims. The Newsom administration clarified that the exemption does not apply to Panera Bread. The donor also pledged to raise his workers’ hourly wage to $20 on April 1.

Labor unions and industry groups representing California restaurants held private meetings last summer to discuss the bill before reaching an agreement. They signed nondisclosure agreements, as initially reported by KCRA.

Fong criticized these agreements and introduced a bill to invalidate any confidentiality agreements related to legislative discussions. The bill would have also prohibited public officials from signing or requesting third parties to sign such agreements.

“While nondisclosure agreements have their place in safeguarding businesses’ sensitive information, they should not be utilized in shaping laws that impact our constituents’ lives,” Fong stated. “The public’s perception of the legislative process is already questionable, and allowing NDAs would further erode their trust in government.”

Chair of the committee, Pellerin, mentioned that there is no evidence of public officials signing confidentiality agreements related to legislative talks.

“The core of this bill addresses conversations between private entities, not legislative negotiations involving public officials,” she explained. “It’s a complex matter.”

Pellerin pointed out that the issue was too intricate for lawmakers to fully consider. Fong introduced the bill a week prior, and the committee convened a special session to review it before the legislative deadline on Friday.

Fong, known for critiquing the rapid approval of legislation by Democrats, highlighted the quick pace at which priority bills move through the Legislature. He noted that just before the hearing, Democrats in the state Assembly, including Pellerin, amended a bill to allow Arizona doctors to provide abortions in California.

“I respectfully request that this bill, vital for preserving the legislative process, be allowed to progress to uphold our duty to the people we serve,” Fong stated.