The Beverly Hills City Council discussed Tuesday night whether to continue supporting Senate Bill (SB) 1387. While the contents of the bill itself were under scrutiny, the drastic changes to the bill and the philosophy behind that decision became the topic of discussion.

SB 1387 was originally supported by the council as it was initially written. However, it was almost completely retooled on July 1, turning it from a bill that classified retail theft crimes and established a CHP Task Force to help confront the recent rise in vehicle parts theft to a drug crime bill escalating penalties for fentanyl-related crimes.

The tactic that morphed this bill is nothing new to California politics. Known as “gut and amend,” completely changing a bill’s contents can be done to help get a scrutinized law passed easier and can also be used as a way to create emergency amendments for other laws as they are put into effect.

Another example is Senate Bill 1524 — signed by Gavin Newsom on June 28 — that was originally a bill to decrease the time the Governor could elect a Gambling Control Commissioner but was changed to a law that created exemptions in another law that mandates restaurants to list additional fees like service charges on menus and advertisements instead of including them in the price of items.

Senior Management Analyst Cindy Owens brought up Senate Bill 7, a bill that was brought to city council because it had been changed from a bill on horse racing to adding zoning control regulations, as an example of gut and amend being used in a manner that directly impacted Beverly Hills.

The dramatic changes to SB 1387 did not come without logistical consequences. Just two days after the changes were made, the bill was taken off the November 2024 ballot and is considered dead for this current legislative cycle.

Initially, the members of the city council were not emphatic in supporting this bill given the dramatic change and the strong possibility that the bill would die with these changes. But even beyond that, councilmember John Mirisch stated that he has considered opposing all bills that change through “gut and amend.”

In his remarks to the other council members, he explained that he understood the potential benefit of gut and amend, but felt it was a deceptive tactic. In the case of SB 1524, it provided exemptions to the previously passed SB 478 which received pushback from the restaurant industry.

He expressed his hope that the state would establish a different medium for emergency amendments in the future so that gut and amend would not have to be used.

“People need to understand that gut and amend is just a euphemism for bait and switch,” Mirisch said, “and our residents deserve better than that.” 

Vice Mayor Sharona Nazarian agreed with this sentiment, saying that she would remain neutral on the bill despite the positive things contained within it.

“We are all a little confused when we read this, Nazarian said, “and that’s by design.” 

Before Mayor Lester Friedman’s comments, council members expressed either neutrality or opposition unless amended. But Friedman implored action, arguing that the city still has the established position of supporting the bill even if the vote was taken before the changes.

“I think we have to clear up that we are supporting 1387,” Friedman said. “So I think we need to take some sort of action.”

Eventually, the council agreed to show support for the new SB 1387 if several pieces of the bill were amended. The first change the council required was to remove the language about the 2024 ballot in the bill. With the bill not being on the 2024 ballot, this amendment would allow the bill to be continued beyond this legislative session.

Secondly, the funding priority change would need to be reverted. The new bill also shifted funding from K-12 schools to mental health services, but the council members unanimously disagreed with this diversion. A consensus was reached that these two, though Mirisch was still uneasy about supporting a gut and amend bill.

The final vote to support the bill with these amendments passed 4-1, with Mirisch being the lone vote against it.

Photo by CorbalanStudio on iStockphoto.com