CA SB 1141
in committeePublic contracts: University of California executives: conflicts of interest: prohibition.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 1141 pass?
Not yet. CA SB 1141 is in committee and has not come to a final vote. Latest recorded action (2026-05-14): May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
What is CA SB 1141 about?
The California Constitution provides that the University of California constitutes a public trust administered by the Regents of the University of California, a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of organization and government, subject to legislative control only for specified purposes, including, among others, as may be necessary to ensure the security of its funds. Existing law prohibits officers or employees of the University of California from engaging in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest if that employment, activity, or enterprise is sponsored or funded by a university department or contract, except as provided. This bill would require a University of California executive, within 60 days of accepting a board of director position with a business entity, to post on a University of California internet website a written recusal from involvement with any future university contract decisions where the business entity is a party, as provided. The bill would prohibit a University of California executive from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to influence a contractual decision where the executive is on the board of directors of a business entity that is a party to the contract or receives compensation for consulting or advisory services from a business entity that is a party to the contract. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to recover attorney's fees if the civil action prevails. If a court finds in such a civil action that an executive has violated these provisions, the bill would require the court to void the affected contract. The bill would define "business entity," "contract," and "University of California executive" for its purposes.
Who sponsors CA SB 1141?
Wahab is the primary sponsor of CA SB 1141, joined by 3 cosponsors.
Description
The California Constitution provides that the University of California constitutes a public trust administered by the Regents of the University of California, a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of organization and government, subject to legislative control only for specified purposes, including, among others, as may be necessary to ensure the security of its funds. Existing law prohibits officers or employees of the University of California from engaging in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest if that employment, activity, or enterprise is sponsored or funded by a university department or contract, except as provided. This bill would require a University of California executive, within 60 days of accepting a board of director position with a business entity, to post on a University of California internet website a written recusal from involvement with any future university contract decisions where the business entity is a party, as provided. The bill would prohibit a University of California executive from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to influence a contractual decision where the executive is on the board of directors of a business entity that is a party to the contract or receives compensation for consulting or advisory services from a business entity that is a party to the contract. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to bring a civil action to enforce these provisions and to recover attorney's fees if the civil action prevails. If a court finds in such a civil action that an executive has violated these provisions, the bill would require the court to void the affected contract. The bill would define "business entity," "contract," and "University of California executive" for its purposes.
- Introduced
- 2026-02-18
- Latest action
- 2026-05-14 — May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Wahabauthor
- Archuletacoauthor
- Durazocoauthor
- Gonzalezcoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-05-14
May 14 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2026-05-12
Set for hearing May 14.
2026-05-11
May 11 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2026-05-04
Set for hearing May 11.
2026-04-27
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-04-23
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 3978.) (April 21).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-04-09
Set for hearing April 21.
2026-04-07
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-03-26
April 7 hearing postponed by committee.
2026-03-26
Set for hearing April 7.
2026-03-25
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 3688.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-12
Set for hearing March 25.
2026-02-26
Referred to Coms. on ED. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-02-19
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.
2026-02-18
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-03-25 · pass · 4-2
Member-level votes (7)
- Cortese: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: no
- Choi: no
- Cabaldon: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-21 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Reyes: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Laird: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Allen: yes
- Stern: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Niello: yes
- Valladares: yes
Placed on suspense file
2026-05-11 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Wahab: yes
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:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
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=SB 1141. 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.