LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY * GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Legislative Advocacy Index

FUNDING OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY LAW LIBRARIES

NOCALL supports adequate funding for California county law libraries. These libraries are currently primarily funded by local civil filing fees -- an insufficient and inherently inequitable funding base. The Council of California County Law Librarians (CCCLL) is currently investigating alternative funding mechanisms. Background on this issue is provided at their website at http://www.cccll.org.  See in particular the "Final Report" of the Fall 2000 California county law libraries legal information needs assessment at http://www.cccll.org/FinalReport.htm.

AB 1095  Assembly Bill 1095 (Corbett, 2003) would establish a task force to consider and recommend possible funding mechanisms for the state's county public law libraries. NOCALL supports this measure, and in April 2003, the NOCALL Government Relations Committee forwarded a letter soliciting support from members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. AB 1095 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a 7-0 vote and will next be before Appropriations. Text and current status of the bill are provided at  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.

2002 Campaign Against AB 2648 Initially, this bill was simply a technical amendment to California Business & Professions Code section 6301.1 that revised the composition of the law library board of trustees San Diego County necessitated by court unification. The bill was later amended by the author to revise Business & Profession Code section 6361 as well -- shifting funding sources of all California county law libraries from county general funds to a library’s share of the civil filing fees. The measure was later amended to again apply exclusively to San Diego County, but to provide the San Diego County Board of Supervisors with greater authority over county law library expenditures by granting the Board the right to require and review reimbursement claims submitted by law library trustees and to reject any claims the Board deemed outside the county’s obligation to the law library (see the position statement by David McFadden, Chair of the Government Relations Committee of the Southern California Association of Law Libraries). The measure would not have significantly enhanced the authority already granted to the County Board under section 6361, but would have created a complicated adversarial process. The bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate, but was vetoed by the Governor (text of Veto message) -- in large measure because of opposition from the state’s community of law librarians. In alliance with the Council of California County Law Librarians, the Southern California Association of Law Libraries, and the San Diego Area Law Libraries, the NOCALL GRC launched a campaign opposing the measure in early April of 2002.  We sent  letters to the following: in April to the members of the Assembly Local Government Committee; in June to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (see text); in August to the Governor (see text). Letters of opposition to legislators and letters to the Governor urging veto were also forwarded by the Southern California Association of Law Libraries (text) and the San Diego Area Law Libraries (text).

Page last updated: November 07, 2007

NOCALL * PMB 336 * 100 First Street, Suite 100 * San Francisco, CA 94105
Webmaster: