If you're a public official in California, you aren't allowed to participate in or try to influence any government decision if you know you have a financial interest in the outcome. This means you shouldn't be making decisions that could personally benefit you financially.

This California law section clarifies when a professional engineer or land surveyor, who works as a consultant for state or local governments, is considered to have a financial interest in a governmental decision. If the consultant works independently, without the public agency's control or decision-making authority, they do not have a financial interest. However, this exception doesn't apply if the consultant is involved in recommending the formula for spreading costs in an assessment district where they have previously earned $250 or more from related work on the district's parcels within a year prior to the district's creation. This exclusion only covers formula recommendations and doesn't extend to site studies, engineering plans, or data collection.

This law states that a public official can be involved in making a government decision if their participation is legally necessary. However, just needing their vote to break a tie doesn't count as a legal necessity.

This law says that Section 87100's rules are extra on top of other specific rules for preventing conflicts of interest. They're meant to ensure elected state officials avoid conflicts when making decisions. However, certain remedies normally available under other parts of the law don’t apply to these officials if they violate this specific section, except for one exception noted elsewhere (Section 87102.5).

This law section restricts California legislators from using their position to influence government decisions if they have a financial interest. It outlines various scenarios where a conflict of interest may arise, such as involvement in state governmental decisions, legislative actions affecting contracts, and any votes or actions on 'nongeneral' legislation—that is, legislation not affecting the public broadly but impacting specific individuals or entities financially connected to the legislator.

The law details what constitutes a financial interest and nongeneral legislation, and defines actions before the Legislature. Additionally, it provides exceptions for certain types of votes, like the Budget Bill, and explains that legislators can rely on written advice from Legislative Counsel under certain conditions.

This law explains what 'nongeneral legislation' means in the context of California government. Such legislation is identified by having a clear financial impact on specific individuals or properties, rather than generally affecting the broader public. It further clarifies that a 'significant segment of the public' can be an industry, trade, profession, district, or geographic area. If a law impacts more than just a small number of people or properties in a unique way, it's considered nongeneral. The section also makes clear that the entire budget bill is not considered nongeneral legislation, but if a law contains any provisions that qualify as nongeneral, the entire law is deemed such. Legislations that have a similar impact on a group or an entire segment, even if individual effects differ, are not considered nongeneral.

If you're an elected state official in California, you can't be involved in or try to sway a government decision where you know you'll benefit financially. This also means you should stay out of decisions that will have a major financial impact on someone who paid you for services related to government work within the last year.

This applies even if the decision affects a lobbyist employer who has paid you any salary or wages in the past year, as long as the impact isn't on the general public. And, even if your relationship isn't with a lobbyist employer, but with anyone who paid you to advocate for them, you must steer clear of influencing actions that affect them more than the public generally.

The terms "public generally" and "significant segment of the public" have specific meanings, explained elsewhere in the law, and there are specific penalties in place for breaking these rules.

This law states that a public official has a financial interest in a decision if it's likely the decision will financially impact the official, their immediate family, or specific related entities. Key points include that this impact must be different from its effect on the public in general.

An official's financial interest is identified if they have investments of $2,000 or more in a business or real estate, receive income of $500 or more from a non-loan source, hold a managerial position in a business, or if they've received gifts valued at $250 or more within the last year. Indirect interests through family or associated entities are also considered.

This law explains when a retail customer won't be considered a source of income for an official who has a significant ownership in a retail business. Specifically, if the retail customers form a large part of the public and their transactions are indistinguishable from others, then they aren't counted as income.

In small jurisdictions with populations under 10,000 and few retail businesses, a retail customer is not an income source if their payments do not exceed one percent of the business's past year's sales. Population and the number of retail businesses are determined by specific government reports.

This law clarifies that if someone pays a state or local government agency to cover costs related to processing applications or other actions—like holding public hearings or preparing documents—that payment doesn't count as income for people working at the agency.

This law states that a public official working for a state agency can't, for pay, act as a lawyer or representative for another person in efforts to influence that agency's decisions on things like contracts, grants, or permits.

It covers any public official, including members and advisors of an agency, unless they are representing their own government agency.

If a public official has a financial interest that could affect their decision-making, they must take certain steps before discussing the matter. First, they need to clearly explain the financial interest to the public, without revealing their home's exact address. Then, they must not participate in discussing or voting on the issue, and must leave the room while it is being discussed, unless the issue is uncontested. They are allowed to speak during the public comment period. This rule does not apply to state legislators.