CA AB 465
deadLocal public employees: memoranda of understanding.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 465 pass?
No. CA AB 465 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA AB 465 about?
Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (act) , authorizes local public employees, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on matters of labor relations and defines various terms for these purposes. The act prohibits a public agency from, among other things, refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization. Existing law states that the Legislature finds and declares that the duties and responsibilities of local agency employer representatives under the act are substantially similar to the duties and responsibilities required under existing collective bargaining enforcement procedures and therefore the costs incurred by the local agency employer representatives in performing those duties and responsibilities under that act are not reimbursable as state-mandated costs. This bill would require, on or after January 1, 2026, a memorandum of understanding between a public agency and a recognized employee organization to include specified provisions including, among other things, a provision providing for a system of progressive discipline that grants due process to an employee when they are disciplined, upon the request of the recognized employee organization. The bill would define "progressive discipline" and "due process" for this purpose. The bill would specify that the refusal or failure to include those provisions in a memorandum of understanding upon request of the recognized employee organization constitutes refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith for purposes of the above-described prohibition. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that a local agency or school district may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.
Who sponsors CA AB 465?
Zbur is the primary sponsor of CA AB 465.
Description
Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (act) , authorizes local public employees, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on matters of labor relations and defines various terms for these purposes. The act prohibits a public agency from, among other things, refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization. Existing law states that the Legislature finds and declares that the duties and responsibilities of local agency employer representatives under the act are substantially similar to the duties and responsibilities required under existing collective bargaining enforcement procedures and therefore the costs incurred by the local agency employer representatives in performing those duties and responsibilities under that act are not reimbursable as state-mandated costs. This bill would require, on or after January 1, 2026, a memorandum of understanding between a public agency and a recognized employee organization to include specified provisions including, among other things, a provision providing for a system of progressive discipline that grants due process to an employee when they are disciplined, upon the request of the recognized employee organization. The bill would define "progressive discipline" and "due process" for this purpose. The bill would specify that the refusal or failure to include those provisions in a memorandum of understanding upon request of the recognized employee organization constitutes refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith for purposes of the above-described prohibition. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions for costs mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would recognize that a local agency or school district may pursue any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.
- Introduced
- 2025-03-13
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Zburauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-06
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-07
From printer. May be heard in committee March 9.
2025-03-13
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on P. E. & R. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-13
Referred to Com. on P. E. & R.
referral-committee
2025-03-17
Re-referred to Com. on P. E. & R.
referral-committee
2025-04-02
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-23
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-05-23
In committee: Held under submission.
2026-01-31
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
failure
2026-02-02
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
committee-passage,failure
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-02 · pass · 5-0
Member-level votes (7)
- McKinnor: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Alanis: other
- Lackey: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 465. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.