The Public Sector Outreach Reform Act: How SB 44 Sought to Restore Outreach Programs After Proposition 209

In the late 1990s, the California state agency that was reaching out to the women-owned and minority-owned businesses for the public sector contracts was, in most cases, an agency that had been restricted by Proposition 209 (1996), which had banned the affirmative action in the California public sector. The agency was, in most cases, an agency that, in the words of the small business advocates, was the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that had been restricted by the Proposition 209 ban. The agency was, in most cases, an agency that was unable to use the race-conscious and the gender-conscious outreach methods that had been the foundation of the public sector outreach before 1996. The agency was, in plain language, facing the restriction. The restriction was, in the late 1990s, a documented barrier. The barrier was, in the words of the small business advocates, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that had been restricted by the Proposition 209 ban. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his second term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the public sector outreach framework the tools to work within the Proposition 209 restriction. The law was Senate Bill 44, the Public Sector Outreach Reform Act, and it was, by any measure, the most ambitious California public sector outreach reform framework of the 1990s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 1999. The veto message cited the Proposition 209 restriction. The restriction was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that did not have the statutory tools to work within the Proposition 209 ban. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the public sector outreach community. The setback was, in 1999, a documented event.

The Law

Senate Bill 44, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco in the 1999 to 2000 Regular Session, sought to restore the public sector outreach programs for the women and minority businesses that had been restricted by Proposition 209 (1996). The bill would have been codified in the Government Code, in the chapter governing public sector outreach. The operative provisions would have required the state agencies to use the race-neutral and the gender-neutral outreach methods to reach the women and minority businesses for the public sector contracts, even after the Proposition 209 ban. The bill was VETOED by Governor Gray Davis in September 1999. The veto message cited the Proposition 209 restriction. The restriction was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that did not have the statutory tools to work within the Proposition 209 ban. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the public sector outreach community. The setback was, in 1999, a documented event. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the state contracting outreach programs that came in the 2000s.

The California state agency reaching out to the women-owned and minority-owned businesses was, in 1999, in most cases, an agency that had been restricted by Proposition 209. The agency was, in the words of the small business advocates, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that had been restricted by the ban. SB 44 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the most ambitious California public sector outreach reform framework of the 1990s. The law was, however, VETOED by Governor Davis in September 1999.

The Problem

By 1999, the restriction of the public sector outreach programs in California was, by any measure, a problem. The Department of General Services, in its 1998 report, had documented that the women-owned and minority-owned businesses were, in the aggregate, receiving less than 5 percent of the state contracting dollars, and that the women-owned and minority-owned businesses were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that had been restricted by the Proposition 209 ban. The 5 percent figure was, in the words of the report, a significant underrepresentation. The report recommended that the state restore the outreach programs using the race-neutral and the gender-neutral methods, even after the Proposition 209 ban. The restoration had not, by 1999, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 44, a public sector outreach reform. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of the state agencies to implement. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of the state agencies to use the race-neutral and the gender-neutral outreach methods. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department of General Services to publish the outreach data. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the women-owned and minority-owned businesses required a statutory outreach reform. The statutory outreach reform was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the businesses to be reached even after the Proposition 209 ban. The second idea was that the reform required the race-neutral and the gender-neutral methods. The race-neutral and the gender-neutral methods were, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the reform to be consistent with the Proposition 209 restriction. The third idea was that the methods required the publication. The publication was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the reform to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 44 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 1999 to 2000, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the Proposition 209 advocates. The advocates argued that the bill would circumvent the Proposition 209 ban. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the race-neutral and the gender-neutral methods were, in fact, the kind of methods that the Proposition 209 ban allowed. The compromise was that the bill provided for the methods to be designed to comply with the Proposition 209 restriction. The second layer was the Governor. The Governor argued that the bill would create a legal challenge to the Proposition 209 ban. The veto was the outcome of the disagreement. The Senate passed the bill in May 1999. The Assembly passed the bill in August 1999. Governor Davis VETOED the bill in September 1999. The veto message cited the Proposition 209 restriction. The restriction was, in the words of the Governor, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that did not have the statutory tools to work within the Proposition 209 ban. The veto was, in plain language, a setback for the public sector outreach community. The setback was, in 1999, a documented event.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 1999 to 2000, in his second term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the Proposition 209 advocates. He did the floor work. He did not, in the 2021 oral history, describe the veto as a defeat. He described the veto as a setback. The setback was, in his view, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that did not have the statutory tools to work within the Proposition 209 ban. He did, in the 2021 oral history, describe the bill as a part of the larger civil rights advocacy that he had led. The advocacy was, in his view, the foundation of the state contracting outreach programs that came in the 2000s. The programs were, in the 2000s, the foundation of the state public sector outreach framework.

What Changed

SB 44 did not change California in the way that the other laws in this archive did. The bill was VETOED. The women-owned and minority-owned businesses did not, in 1999, receive the public sector outreach reform that the bill would have provided. The state agencies did not, in 1999, implement the race-neutral and the gender-neutral outreach methods. The public sector outreach community did, however, continue to advocate for the reform. The advocacy has, since 1999, been the foundation of the state-level public sector outreach framework. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the state contracting outreach programs that came in the 2000s. The framework has, since 2000, directed more than $5 billion in state contracts to the women-owned and minority-owned businesses.

The Legacy

SB 44 is on the record as a VETOED bill. The Public Sector Outreach Reform Act was not enacted. The women-owned and minority-owned businesses did not, in 1999, receive the public sector outreach reform that the bill would have provided. The veto was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the Proposition 209 restriction. The restriction was, in the words of the same analysis, the predictable outcome of a public sector outreach framework that did not have the statutory tools to work within the Proposition 209 ban. The framework was, however, partially enacted through the state contracting outreach programs that came in the 2000s. The legacy of SB 44 is the long-term advocacy for the reform, which has continued since 1999. The Public Sector Outreach Reform Act is the cleanest record of the post-Prop 209 California public sector outreach framework, and the cleanest record of the long-term advocacy for the reform that culminated in the state contracting outreach programs.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 44, 1999 to 2000 Regular Session.
2. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 44, May 1999.
3. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 44, August 1999.
4. Governors Office, Veto Message, SB 44, September 1999.
5. California Department of General Services, Contracting Statistics, 1998.
6. Proposition 209 (1996), California Civil Rights Initiative, Text and Legislative History.
7. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
8. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.