Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E Signatures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workgroup urges BOE to clarify AB 1879 and set statewide e-signature standards
Summary
County assessors, clerks and advocates told the Board of Equalization workgroup that AB 1879’s promise of electronic filing is stalled by inconsistent county practices, ambiguous terminology, and uncertainty about authentication. Speakers urged BOE guidance defining electronic vs. digital signatures, baseline authentication standards, and a validity-hearing process for disputed signatures.
Members of the Board of Equalization workgroup were told that counties are taking divergent approaches to AB 1879 and that clear BOE guidance is needed before electronic filing can be adopted statewide.
Matthew Herrera of the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office described LA County’s e-forms rollout and recommended digital signatures as the default for higher-security filings, saying they “meet all of the qualifications under government code section 16.5.” IT manager Andrew Yim demonstrated audit trails available with vendor-based digital signatures and told the board that, after vetting certified vendors, “so far, we don’t have any particular problem” with their systems.
But several county clerks and counsel said the statute and existing LTAs leave unresolved questions about whether AB 1879 applies to assessment appeal applications and what kind of authentication clerks should require. Anne Moore of San Diego said her county’s counsel has interpreted guidance and AB 1879 so ambiguously that San Diego currently does not accept electronic signatures for assessment-appeal applications, a position that differs from Los Angeles.
Clerks of the Board representatives urged the board to adopt plain statutory definitions and baseline authentication criteria for two reasons: to avoid imposing cost-prohibitive digital-signature requirements on counties with limited budgets, and to permit a lower-authentication ‘electronic signature’ option for clerks that still preserves a clear validation path for disputed filings. As their recommendation put it, the board should clarify “authority, terminology, and authentication of electronic signatures” and outline a process for disputed-signature validity hearings.
Paul Waldman, a longtime property-tax practitioner, argued for practical parity with paper filings: he urged the BOE to treat an electronic signature as evidence of intent to sign and to rely on targeted validation hearings only when there is reason to question authenticity. “If there’s reason to believe there’s a problem,” he said, “there should be a process to validate it,” but otherwise lower-bar e-signatures should be accepted to reduce paperwork burdens and penalties tied to format differences.
Board staff acknowledged the tensions between security and access. The workgroup asked staff to draft recommendations and legal analysis for the board to consider in the fall, including (1) precise terminology distinguishing electronic and digital signatures; (2) baseline technical and authentication standards; (3) guidance on whether and how AB 1879 applies to clerks of the board and assessment-appeal filings; and (4) procedures for disputed-signature validity hearings.
Next steps: staff will prepare a report with recommended LTAs and, if necessary, proposed rulemaking. The board signaled an intent to return to the issues in November/December with draft guidance for public comment.
