SB 1193 Passes California Senate 37-0

Wahab Accountability Bill Advances Despite Formal Supervisorial Opposition

Sacramento, CA — State Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab’s (D–Fremont) SB 1193, the Alameda County Discretionary Funds Transparency Act, passed the California State Senate with a unanimous 37-0 vote, earning bipartisan support and zero “no” votes despite a coordinated opposition effort by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, including a public press campaign, threats of litigation, and significant lobbying, particularly from Supervisors David Haubert and Nate Miley.

SB 1193 requires Alameda County supervisors to publicly vote on and disclose discretionary fund awards to community organizations, nonprofits, and private entities. The bill ensures public dollars serve a clear public purpose, are approved in public, and are reported online so residents can see where taxpayer money is going. It also requires whistleblower information to be made available so concerns can be reported safely.

The bill includes safeguards to ensure nonprofits receiving discretionary grants in good faith continue to receive them. SB 1193 does not cut nonprofit funding or stop community organizations from receiving support. It protects nonprofits and taxpayers by creating a fair, transparent process where funding decisions are based on public need, not political access.

Over the last decade, Alameda County has faced repeated scrutiny tied to governance, spending, services, and accountability, including 10 Civil Grand Jury annual reports, 30+ county-related Grand Jury chapters, one major State Auditor report, one major DOJ investigation, four or more major court cases or lawsuits, and multiple major media or internal investigations.

“That is not a one-time issue. That is a pattern. The California Senate stands with transparency and accountability,” said Senator Wahab. “SB 1193 is a simple standard: public money, public process, public trust.”

A 2016–2017 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury report found that the Board’s discretionary fund process “constitutes a failure of good governance practices.” The same report found a county employee was “wearing two hats” in transactions involving county funds — acting both as a county employee and as an advocate for an organization receiving funds.