• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Governor Brown Submits Agency M&A Proposal

By Keith Paul Bishop on April 3, 2012 in Department of Corporations, Financial Institutions

Article V, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that the legislature may provide by statute for the Governor to “assign and reorganize functions among executive officers and agencies and their employees, other than elective officers and agencies administered by elective officers.”  Pursuant to this authority, Government Code Section 8523 provides for a 60 day review of gubernatorial reorganization plans by the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. 

Last week, Governor Brown started the clock ticking by submitting his proposal to replace five current state agencies with three.  The business and housing departments within the current Business, Transportation & Housing Agency would be shifted into a new Business and Consumer Services Agency which would also inherit the consumer services responsibilities of the current State & Consumer Services Agency. 

I previously served as the Deputy Secretary for Business Regulation and General Counsel to the BTH Agency.  The business regulatory responsibilities of the BTH Agency currently include the Departments of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Corporations, Financial Institutions and Real Estate.  Each of these departments is headed by a commissioner or director and is focused on business regulation.  In contrast, the State & Consumer Services Agency oversees through the Department of Consumer Affairs more than two dozen professional boards and bureaus – everything from the Board of Accountancy to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians.  In my view, there is very little to be gained, and much that could be lost, by the marriage of these two very different agencies.

For those not familiar with the Little Hoover Commission, the Legislature created the commission in 1962 to promote efficiency, economy and improved service on the part of the government.  The Commission issues reports and recommendations.  For example, it issued this report last October on California’s rule making procedures.  

The Commission will receive public comments and hold hearings on the Governor’s reorganization proposal.  (You can obtain information about submitting comments or testifying here.)  The Commission is required to submit a report to the Legislature with its recommendations within 30 days. 

Interestingly, this process does not require the affirmative vote of the legislature for the plan to be effective.  If neither the Assembly nor Senate adopts by majority vote a resolution rejecting the Governor’s plan, the plan will take effect on the 61st day after it has been given to the legislature.

While this may seem as just a bureaucratic exercise, I believe that the reorganization will have, as M&A lawyers like to say, a material adverse effect on the business regulatory departments within the Business, Transportation & Housing Agency.  I encourage those with an interest in the work of these departments to review the Governor’s proposal and submit comments to the Little Hoover Commission.  Here is the Governor’s summary and the complete proposal.

BusinessDepartment of Consumer AffairsGovernors Reorganization planLittle Hoover CommissionState and Consumer ServicesTransportation & Housing
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Supreme Court To Decide If It Will Decide Whether Section 16 Plaintiff Has Constitutional Standing
  • But Wait, California May Require Even More In Annual Reports To Shareholders
  • California Requires Many Foreign Corporations To Send Annual Financial Statements To Shareholders
  • The Salon Sub Rosa And Nevada Corporate Law
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

April 2012
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me