SB 994 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Local agencies: nondisclosure agreements.

Summary

Existing law, the legislative code of ethics, prohibits Members of the Legislature from entering into, or requesting that another party enter into, a nondisclosure agreement relating to the drafting, negotiation, or discussion of proposed legislation. Existing law also makes any nondisclosure agreement relating to the drafting, negotiation, or discussion of proposed legislation entered into after January 1, 2026, void and unenforceable. Existing law provides an exception for nondisclosure agreements, or portions thereof, that prevent only the disclosure of trade secrets, financial information, or proprietary information, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency official, as defined, acting in their official capacity from entering into, or requesting that another individual enter into, a nondisclosure agreement relating to public business that precludes their ability to share information with fellow local agency officials serving on the same council, board, commission, district, or agency. The bill would require a local agency official in violation of that provision to, among other things, disclose the existence of the nondisclosure agreement, as specified, and would provide that these requirements imposed on a local agency official also apply to a local agency official acting in their official capacity who entered into, or requested that another individual enter into, a nondisclosure agreement described above before January 1, 2027. By imposing additional duties on local agency officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also make any nondisclosure agreement relating to public business that precludes the ability of a local agency official to share information with fellow local agency officials serving on the same council, board, commission, district, or agency and that is entered into after January 1, 2027, void and unenforceable. The bill would prohibit an employee of a local agency or a local agency official acting in their official capacity from entering into, or requesting that another individual enter into, a nondisclosure agreement relating to public business that precludes their ability to share information with the local agency official who they serve or the governing body of the local agency that employs them. The bill would also make any nondisclosure agreement relating to public business that precludes the ability of a local agency official acting in their official capacity to share information with the local agency official who they serve under or the governing body of the local agency that employs them, and that is entered into after January 1, 2027, void and unenforceable. The bill would provide that it does not apply in specified circumstances. The bill would require a local agency official in violation of a prescribed provision to, among other things, disclose the existence of the nondisclosure agreement, as specified, and would provide that these requirements imposed on a local agency official also apply to a local agency official acting in their official capacity who entered into, or requested that another individual enter into, a nondisclosure agreement described above before January 1, 2027. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill status passed both 4 of 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Feb 2026

Committee Review

Aug 2026

Senate Passage

May 2026

Assembly Passage

Aug 2026

Governor

Introduced Feb 5, 2026 Last action Aug 21, 2026

Maddy AI version diff · 5 comparisons

What changed between versions

08/19/26 - Enrolled → SB994 · 1 edit

MINOR

No substantive policy changes occurred between these two versions of SB 994. The legislative text, including all sections, definitions, and provisions regarding nondisclosure agreements for local agency officials, is identical in both versions. The differences are entirely formatting and presentation-related, reflecting a shift from a traditional enrolled bill layout to a web-based rendering with navigation elements.

TECHNICAL

The document was reformatted from a traditional enrolled bill layout (with page numbers, chapter heading, and signature block) to a web-based presentation format that includes site navigation links, a bill history timeline, and status indicators. No changes were made to the actual statutory language.

04/23/26 - Amended Senate → 06/22/26 - Amended Assembly · 6 edits · Jun 22, 2026

MODERATE

The Assembly amended SB 994 to broaden its scope significantly by replacing the term 'local government agency official' with 'local agency official,' which now includes any employee of a local agency rather than a limited list of specific positions. The bill removes the charter city and charter county exemption, adds a new exception for NDAs authorized by unanimous vote of the governing body before execution, and removes the explicit trade secrets/proprietary information carve-out from the operative text. These changes make the NDA prohibition more sweeping while providing a narrow procedural escape valve.

DEFINITION

The defined term changed from 'local government official' (a specific list of positions like mayor, city manager, planning commissioner, etc.) to 'local agency official,' which means any elected or appointed official of a local agency, any employee of a local agency, or any person serving on a board or commission. This dramatically expands who is covered.

SCOPE

The exemption for officials serving on behalf of a charter city or charter county was deleted entirely. Charter cities and counties are now fully subject to the NDA prohibition.

The explicit exception for NDAs that prevent only the disclosure of trade secrets, financial information, or proprietary information was removed from the operative text (though the legislative digest still references it, suggesting a possible drafting inconsistency).

The prohibition on staff/employees was broadened. The old version covered 'staff of a local government agency official.' The new version covers 'an employee of a local agency or a local agency official acting in their official capacity,' which is much broader and includes all agency employees, not just those attached to a specific official.

ELIGIBILITY

A new exception was added: the article does not apply to a nondisclosure agreement that has been authorized by vote of the local agency's governing body, with all members concurring, before the agreement's execution. This provides a narrow path for an NDA to be valid if the full governing body unanimously approves it in advance.

ENFORCEMENT

New explicit consequences were added for employees who violate the prohibition: they must disclose the existence of the NDA (but not its contents if that would violate the agreement) and recuse themselves from related matters. The old version did not specify these consequences for staff.

02/05/26 - Introduced → 04/23/26 - Amended Senate · 7 edits · Apr 23, 2026

MODERATE

The amended version broadens the bill's scope by replacing 'local government official' with 'local government agency official,' adding new definitions for 'local agency' and 'local agency official,' and expanding the staff/employee NDA prohibition to cover any employee of a local agency (not just staff of an official) and to require information sharing with the governing body, not just the individual official they serve. Two coauthors were also added.

SCOPE

The term 'local government official' is replaced throughout with 'local government agency official,' shifting the bill's framing from individual officials to agency-level officials.

The staff/employee NDA prohibition is expanded from 'staff of a local government official' to 'an employee of a local government agency or a local agency official,' broadening who is covered.

DEFINITION

New definitions are added: 'local agency' (city, county, city and county, local agency formation commission, special district, school district, county office of education, or charter school) and 'local agency official' (any elected or appointed official, any employee, or any person serving on a board or commission of a local agency).

REQUIREMENT

The information-sharing requirement for employees/staff is expanded: they must be able to share information not only with the official they serve under but also with 'the governing body of the local agency that employs them.'

ENFORCEMENT

A new paragraph (3) is added requiring a local agency official in violation of the NDA prohibition to disclose the existence of the agreement and recuse from related matters, with retroactive application to agreements entered before January 1, 2027.

TECHNICAL

A savings clause is added stating the article shall not be construed to imply that local agency officials are authorized or advised to enter into NDAs precluding information from the public.

Two coauthors (Senator Caballero and Assembly Member Patterson) are added to the bill.

Floor votes · Senate May 19, 2026 · Assembly Aug 17, 2026

How they voted

39–0

Passed · 1 other

Total votes 40

May 19, 2026

D Democratic30

30 Yea

100% Yea

R Republican10

9 Yea 1

90% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Amendments

Aug 18, 2026

Upper · Passed

Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

upper

Aug 18, 2026

Introduced

In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

upper

Aug 17, 2026

Lower · Passed

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate.

lower

Aug 13, 2026

Lower · Passed

Read third time and amended.

lower

Aug 5, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 5).

lower

Jul 2, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

lower

Jun 22, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

lower

Jun 9, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 9). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

lower

May 26, 2026

Committee

Referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. GOV.

lower

May 19, 2026

Upper · Passed

Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 4363.) Ordered to the Assembly.

upper

May 14, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

upper

May 11, 2026

Upper · Passed

May 11 hearing postponed by committee.

upper

Apr 23, 2026

Upper · Passed

Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

upper

Apr 22, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 4013.) (April 22).

upper

Mar 24, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 3659.) (March 24). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

upper

Feb 18, 2026

Committee

Referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. GOV.

upper

Feb 5, 2026

Introduced

Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

upper

1 primary · 2 co-sponsors