An act to amend Section 99522 of the Government Code, relating to state government.
Summary
AB 655 makes a narrow change to the membership of the California-Mexico Border Relations Council. Existing law already created the council to coordinate state agency efforts on cross-border programs, initiatives, projects, and partnerships affecting California and Mexico. This bill adds two new ex officio, nonvoting legislative members: one Assembly Member appointed by the Speaker and one Senator appointed by the President pro Tempore, with each appointee required to represent a district that borders Mexico.
The new legislative members may participate in council activities so long as that participation is compatible with their legislative office. The bill does not change the council’s core duties, voting structure, or chairmanship, which remains with the Secretary for Environmental Protection. It is a governance and representation measure rather than a programmatic or regulatory overhaul.
Impact
AB 655 amends Government Code Section 99522 to expand the California-Mexico Border Relations Council’s membership by adding two nonvoting legislative appointees from border districts. The bill affects state government structure by giving the Legislature a formal, though nonvoting, role in the council’s work. It does not create a new program, impose new duties on local governments, or appropriate funds, but it does alter the composition of a state advisory/coordinating body that addresses border-related policy issues.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It moved through committee and floor votes unanimously or near-unanimously, was placed on the consent calendar, and was ultimately chaptered without recorded opposition in the provided voting history. The lack of committee transcript discussion suggests the measure was viewed as a modest, procedural update to improve representation on an existing council.
Contention
No significant opposition is evident in the available record. The only potentially notable issue is the addition of legislative members to an executive-branch council, which could raise separation-of-powers or role-compatibility questions in other contexts, but the bill addresses this by making the members ex officio, nonvoting participants and limiting participation to what is compatible with legislative office. Because the bill is limited to membership changes and does not affect funding or regulatory authority, there is little sign of substantive policy contention.