Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Esignatures Ab1879 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Counties ask BOE to clarify AB 1879 e‑signature rules and authentication thresholds
Summary
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.
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.
