[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5979993,"mediaKeyId","5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40","parentId",5798404,"title","Counties ask BOE to clarify AB 1879 e‑signature rules and authentication thresholds","audioSeconds",1860,"startMs",13013000,"endMs",14873000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40&start=13013&end=14873","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40/thumbnail_13013000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5979993/California/Counties-ask-BOE-to-clarify-AB-1879-esignature-rules-and-authentication-thresholds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979993-ef84e8ed6bb374dc177fb21076a3745b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773533723&Signature=HWuuz4wo0Pl4xqpv5Xn8KC8R4va6tBe7G0RDjdKFClG2am-hdDh6eMQp-hnf6aS-zj9yBfLMXT1GiShybsaerJTJq-kvmBjEDqRC12yjNk-oXPkMBiZbzNmlHO5aToz6MDtqizKJOOldp-~cQ5ksnvZM5r3WLI9V33gM9EBWibw7-LESeTQDpOeWvniEAQXCY5G5oj85~XfeULJTcYdlM7YkEHmKUKPzVLbArQIpnmZ5LEt2tqEh2z2qczC6tbOynnv3o4JAnrdSm8FBEe2YhNApceKt0loxbncUI2eDT-IaexXgFS5ZArf7uxM2u8gGGJjthJWBsUBcM69mreREmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Board of Equalization","date","2025-09-17T23:50:09Z","article","County assessors, clerks and attorneys urged the State Board of Equalization on Sept. 16 to issue clearer guidance on implementing AB 1879 and on the authentication standards the Board will accept for assessment‑appeal filings and related documents.

Why it matters: AB 1879 (referred to in testimony as AB 18 79) gave assessors authority to accept electronic signatures for certain filings. Several counties told the work group they interpret the statute differently and said clerks and AABs need a clear, consistent statewide standard on what kinds of e‑signatures count and what the authentication threshold should be.

Key issues: participants distinguished ‘electronic signatures’ (a scanned signature or an image, or the typed name in a signature field) from ‘digital signatures’ — which typically rely on cryptographic certificates and provide a stronger audit trail. Matthew Herrera and Andrew Yim, LA County information staff, described LA’s e‑forms as using digital signatures that meet Government Code section 16.5 and include audit trails (signer ID, IP address, timestamps). LA County said that approach made more filings manageable and reduced phone and in‑person inquiries.

“Digital signatures provide additional certification and authentication — you can track transaction IDs, IP addresses and timestamps,” Andrew Yim said. LA County’s platform also offers two‑factor authentication and vendor‑provided certification of signature validity.

But smaller counties said stronger authentication methods impose cost and complexity that they cannot yet absorb. San Diego Assistant Clerk Anne Moore said San Diego’s counsel currently believes the combination of LTA guidance and AB 1879 is ambiguous and her county has not yet permitted e‑signatures for the statewide appeals application. Bridal Velhaquez (CCBSA) and Paul Waldman (taxpayer advocates) urged the BOE to adopt a baseline electronic‑signature standard that is not more burdensome than a wet signature and that preserves access for taxpayers.

Agent authorization forms: several speakers noted separate signature rules in other codes (for example references were made to Business and Professions Code provisions governing certain authorizations) and asked the BOE to review whether agent authorization requirements still require wet signatures or can be modernized to accept e‑signatures consistent with AB 1879.

What participants asked the BOE to do: issue an LTA or guidance that defines electronic vs. digital signatures, set minimum authentication standards that counties can adopt, clarify whether clerks and AABs may accept e‑signed applications, and specify a dispute/validity hearing process when a signature is contested.

Ending: BOE staff acknowledged competing county capacities and said staff would assemble the testimony and legal questions into a follow‑up package for the Board. Several counties recommended the BOE allow phased or voluntary adoption for counties ready to accept e‑filing and provide a recommended vendor list or interoperable portal model for others to consider.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","September 17,2025 BOE Board Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","After AB 1879 authorized new signature methods for assessors, county officials told the BOE on Sept. 16 they need clearer guidance on what counts as a valid e‑signature and what authentication threshold the Board will accept.","taxTitle","Board of Equalization, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",16214,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5979998,"Board work group examines delays: scheduling, information exchanges and 'good cause' for continuances",980,11212000,12192000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40&start=11212&end=12192","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40/thumbnail_11212000.jpg","/articles/5979998/California/Board-work-group-examines-delays-scheduling-information-exchanges-and-good-cause-for-continuances","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979998-9e319f54c4138de4496fb8f440642739/orig.mp4?Expires=1773533723&Signature=POwsDusrf9oRRXeYEO14or4OKD8eesh37YnKcurBmTUf--NItkjseOopwJrLcJgWfJzOSowC5L0MvicSOLM222KZOrY6NtAr2uOrlQOlIAYEnOj5WCcsNDeR16H9gbdpUEm-wq-pSTuaQJTvIDK5Pdihnetn-vTwcTHe~bV1jm2-BwKWtmZvMw4zfs6AnPC~GTLAOXBhnma5yvHsyn6-y0e1WOD84B~3gyrx7qcJOBFW8ImllEQMkWBIG0VNsmvqd1GZdlSuIGEJJmDRp9FEwW5orzblNpmv1gQYpRURcOwol~5aogzaL08n7xPxZRN~eKn-7tgwurYrrjciLPY85Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County officials and attorneys told the State Board of Equalization on Sept. 16 that inconsistencies in how parties exchange evidence and how appeals are scheduled are major drivers of continuances and delays, and that clearer guidance and procedural rules could reduce backlogs.

Most speakers said AABs have limited authority to compel discovery and that current statutory mechanisms do not give AABs the same enforcement tools courts possess. Santa Clara Deputy County Counsel Bhavita Madvani and LA County counsel Thomas Parker both described the multiple statutory pathways (for example, Revenue & Taxation Code sections 408, 441 and 1606 were referenced in testimony) that control information flow between assessor and taxpayer but noted the AAB’s limited enforcement role.

\"There is very little direct enforcement capability for AABs,\" Parker said. \"Pre‑hearing conferences can encourage parties to exchange information, but there is no explicit authority like civil discovery to force compliance.\" Parker and others recommended stronger guidance on how and when parties should exchange their valuation evidence so hearings are productive or so issues can settle before the hearing.

Good‑cause standards: speakers recommended BOE guidance that explains what ‘good cause’ for a continuance is — and what it is not — using practical examples. San Diego Assistant Clerk Anne Moore said board members without legal training often default to granting continuances rather than risk denying a request; that tendency, she said, leads to repeated postponements.

Chris O’Neil, an experienced property tax attorney, urged adoption of “large‑case” procedural rules or pre‑trial conferences for complex matters that require more than a few hours. He compared AAB practice to superior court trial calendars: judges set firm multi‑day trial dates when needed and expect parties to be ready. O’Neil said explicit large‑case procedures — for example a written pre‑hearing submission schedule, exhibit marking deadlines and a block of consecutive hearing days — would reduce serial continuances and make calendaring predictable.

Tom Parker and other presenters said Revenue & Taxation Code section 1606 authorizes a mutual exchange process (often called a 1606 exchange) that, when used properly, can provide a 30‑day window for parties to disclose evidence and avoid surprises at hearing. Several speakers warned, however, that statutory exchanges can be weaponized if used to demand excessive documents or delay hearings.

Practical scheduling ideas included: requiring parties to confirm attendance in advance for scheduled hearing slots, offering remote or hybrid status conferences to identify readiness early, and creating county‑level policies that factor assessor readiness into scheduling while preserving the clerk’s authority to set calendars. Speakers urged BOE to consolidate best practices into updated guidance and consider model large‑case rules that counties could adopt locally.

Ending: the work group asked BOE staff to draft recommendations on clarifying good‑cause criteria, model large‑case rules and best practices for early information exchange; those proposals will be compiled into a written report for the Board’s consideration.","County counsel, assessors and advocates told the BOE that inconsistent pre‑hearing exchanges, unclear standards for 'good cause' continuances and varied scheduling practices contribute to backlogs; speakers proposed clearer BOE guidance, large‑case procedural rules and pre‑hearing conferences to reduce postponements.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5980003,"Officials urge simpler appeals form, better plain‑language resources and multilingual materials",4263,6332000,10595000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40&start=6332&end=10595","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40/thumbnail_6332000.jpg","/articles/5980003/California/Officials-urge-simpler-appeals-form-better-plainlanguage-resources-and-multilingual-materials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980003-96e4ca1b460f2dea14e3ee0e696d67b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773533723&Signature=oDUrgkUDs6U2jCDXIikL1~UUKXg7wOFcfohku6gP50zHUlA7Cuhuv9W2-SuBZAhA03uWBLEaxTI5uwpzcr5KfavxlBJOR2HU7CtDF0BuaVBYRbsKPNZJ7zVpP9p9h-fur~q9q24EokywP72hrmZiYnCSxBsRSwknDESl7NNNIdBjRZSYs0ewFcyo3yvki3aPonior9Ze3ObuQKZgEFIb6Rj346syH3I2zSSwR5~HDyvoQAQwmXiBkxjkpxIkBeCmv015c3ZO-UKdN2k7iwjvjkJ6Y4-fJDJVbJ4si3~N899Ufqet3aMAQVMvQ3NjC30Mc7rZE~LwrUMPDeTgM9YE3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County clerks, assessors and taxpayer advocates told the State Board of Equalization on Sept. 16 that incomplete or improperly completed assessment appeal applications are a major source of delays and extra administrative work, and they urged the BOE to lead or convene a focused effort to simplify the form and accompanying instructions.

The issue: county clerks process tens of thousands of appeals and often field calls from self‑represented taxpayers who struggle to identify the correct appeal type or to explain the relief they seek on the standard form. Clerks said repeated amendment requests lead to “board consideration” hearings that slow case resolution and increase workload for both clerks and assessor offices.

Why it matters: incorrect or incomplete filings lengthen timelines for applicants and clog calendars. Several clerks warned that creating a second, “simplified” form would likely create more confusion and recommended improving the existing statewide application with clearer language, decision trees, and tutorials.

San Diego Assistant Clerk Anne Moore said many errors occur in sections 5 and 6 of the statewide form — the box where filers indicate appeal type and the text area for reasons. “Section 5 is just simply applicants knowing which type of appeal to select. And then section 6 … asks what did the assessor determine that you believe is wrong and what type of relief are you requesting? That language makes it inaccessible to the average filer,” Moore said.

CCBSA recommended the BOE convene focused work‑group sessions devoted solely to revising the application and instructions, produce plain‑language self‑help materials and decision trees, and consider whether key explanatory publications should be updated and translated. Bridal Velhaquez of CCBSA said the association opposes creating multiple distinct forms because that could lead filers to choose the wrong form and lose appeal rights inadvertently.

Santa Clara Deputy County Counsel Bhavita Madvani recommended short, targeted resources such as “tip sheets” for common property types (residential, commercial, agricultural, aviation, boating) that clerks and AAB members could consult during hearings to ensure consistent evaluation of common factors like zoning, topography and utility access.

LA County staff reported that their video tutorials, resource pages and monthly public education seminars have reduced in‑person and phone inquiries. Jennifer Tran said LA’s tutorials include closed captions and auto‑translate options; she encouraged the BOE to consider producing non‑county specific videos and a user‑friendly application that lets filers skip non‑applicable sections.

Language access: Santa Clara counsel and clerks said key BOE publications are not consistently available in updated translations; while some guidance exists in Spanish, Mandarin, Korean and Vietnamese, many translations trail the English versions by several years. Madvani urged the BOE to prioritize updated multi‑language publications for the appeals process and for applicants’ core guidance.

Ending: clerks and county counsel recommended a BOE‑led, focused revision process for the statewide assessment appeal application, accompanied by plain‑language guides, decision trees and updated translations. They asked the BOE to weigh whether minimal changes to the single statewide form could eliminate the majority of common filing errors.","Clerks and county staff told the BOE work group that confusing assessment appeal applications and limited multilingual and self‑help materials cause delays and extra workload; they urged a single simplified application, plain‑language guidance, translated materials and targeted tutorials rather than multiple overlapping forms.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5980009,"State work group hears calls for statewide AAB training, registry and clearer cross‑county rules",14921,1611000,16532000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40&start=1611&end=16532","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5798404-7d0a402e9c27519379fcea8db255af40/thumbnail_1611000.jpg","/articles/5980009/California/State-work-group-hears-calls-for-statewide-AAB-training-registry-and-clearer-crosscounty-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5980009-ff2d922e8446d4a0c9657598779ca105/orig.mp4?Expires=1773533723&Signature=SU6oanDL92xt948W2N6Pk0-eREFOWLgJ4dYjfJLxQyyGeZnqmXqULtPao41lquNJLOCKd0eU5cL479sI5iCfy4a1oz0yPJ0CLf4uAqCufaokLgI5~2IkYnInlOIMQUDrKnY7rJKcyXLdft4fSJMfkIXm-vw6LfLuYBxQveoPRq~Sppegb9NsUsF9SjukugaI1lOrjcUoFZVo2S8N9ezTD3nOY37ylWWbjPdSMCJmvOe1mymm~bKzWHPIfL7nUsPlZ6otbeYQUjv1mQei1bufGFZQ152Ae7jgXnXAsdRrFsRbhxTGnX1G7s5FMwyOyJSa38Pa3GbLPTgPZfVD3ShbKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The State Board of Equalization heard detailed proposals Sept. 16 aimed at easing chronic recruitment and training problems for county assessment appeals boards, with large counties offering templates smaller counties say they cannot yet operate alone.

County officials, clerks and taxpayer advocates told the Board’s work group that a mix of statewide training, plain‑language materials and clearer interpretations of existing law could increase the pool of qualified volunteers and reduce inconsistent decisions.

Why it matters: assessment appeals boards (AABs) decide disputes over property assessments that affect tax bills for homeowners, businesses and public agencies. Several counties said they lack a steady pool of willing, qualified members — and when panels are incomplete or inexperienced, cases can be delayed or produce decisions that invite litigation.

Los Angeles County representatives described an extensive local program that county officials and outside groups said could serve as a model. Jennifer Tran, director for the LA County board executive office, said LA expanded virtual hearings in 2021 and grew daily board capacity from five to eight panels. The county runs a two‑part onboarding curriculum, mandatory quarterly legal briefings led by County Counsel Thomas Parker, job shadowing and continuing education workshops. Tran said the county also posts tutorial videos and a resource center; last year the AAB resource pages received “nearly 53,000” visits and the video library drew “nearly 21,000” viewers, with several thousand using language translation features.

“An annual BOE conference for networking and training purposes, and an AAB registry that would let interested members temporarily assist other counties, would help,” Tran said. “Clear communication standards between counties when coordinating availability will be essential.”

County counsel and clerks emphasized the legal and operational gaps. Thomas Parker, Los Angeles County Deputy County Counsel, told the work group that recent state statutes expanding eligibility (Revenue and Taxation Code sections 1624.1 and 1624.05 were cited in testimony) have helped larger counties recruit. But he and others said many smaller counties still struggle to fill panels and would benefit if the State Board issued a clear interpretive opinion (an LTA) on whether and how counties may use out‑of‑county AAB members temporarily.

“Rule 308.6 allows borrowing under narrow conflict rules, and the statute authorizes multi‑county boards, but many counties have not used that statutory scheme,” Parker said. “An LTA clarifying the Board’s interpretation of existing law on whether county A can call county B’s member to sit on a county A panel would be helpful.”

San Diego Assistant Clerk Anne Moore echoed the training gap, saying many appointees lack legal background to apply concepts such as “good cause” and evidentiary standards. “Board members quickly realize the complexity of the quasi‑judicial determinations they face,” Moore said. She recommended statewide plain‑language modules plus annual case‑law briefings led by BOE attorneys so non‑attorney members can make legally defensible determinations.

The California Clerks of the Board of Supervisors Association (CCBSA) called for BOE‑authored statewide modules, plain‑language guidance on complex rules (for example, what “good cause” for continuance is), annual case‑law briefings and an LTA clarifying cross‑county appointment authority. Bridal Velhaquez, representing CCBSA, also urged BOE guidance to broaden categories of eligible appointees where appropriate so counties can expand their candidate pools.

Practical concerns arose repeatedly: training time and costs, limits on county staff capacity to recruit and support appointees, and whether the BOE should standardize or only recommend best practices. David Young, Deputy Director of the BOE’s Property Tax Department, told the panel that BOE classes and the self‑study assessment appeals manual are available statewide, and the agency opened classes to all AAB members on Aug. 1. He noted the certification exam can be taken as a self‑study over a year and estimated a committed person could complete the material in about 40 hours.

Several presenters urged the BOE to make its materials easier to find on county sites and to sponsor mechanisms for inter‑county sharing of training resources and speakers. John Tudor, representing the California County Assessors’ IT Authority and a former local board member, suggested exploring a joint powers approach for a statewide portal model (already funded for other assessor functions) that could host shared training materials and operational tools for clerks and AAB members.

Ending note: speakers recommended a multipronged approach — short, plain‑language modules for new members; annual advanced briefings on recent case law; a voluntary statewide registry of available AAB members; and an interpretive LTA clarifying cross‑county appointment options. The work group will collect recommendations for a written report to the Board for consideration in the coming months.","County officials and advocacy groups at a State Board of Equalization work group on Sept. 16 urged the Board to sponsor statewide training, create an AAB registry, and clarify rules for borrowing assessment appeals board members across counties to address recruitment and retention problems, particularly in small and rural counties.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Counties ask BOE to clarify AB 1879 e‑signature rules and authentication thresholds

Board work group examines delays: scheduling, information exchanges and 'good cause' for continuances

Officials urge simpler appeals form, better plain‑language resources and multilingual materials

State work group hears calls for statewide AAB training, registry and clearer cross‑county rules