Travel & Entertainment

Restricted Travel Law

The CA Attorney General office has published the list of states which are subject to AB 1887’s travel prohibitions, as follows:

State
Effective Date
Alabama June 23, 2017
Kansas January 1, 2017
Kentucky June 23, 2017
Mississippi January 1, 2017
North Carolina January 1, 2017
South Dakota June 23, 2017
Tennessee January 1, 2017
Texas  June 23, 2017

Complete information is available at their website: https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887

Overview

On September 27, 2016, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1887 (Low). Effective January 1, 2017, this law prohibits state-funded travel to any states that have enacted a law that voids or repeals any existing state or local protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression or have the enacted laws that have the effect of voiding or repealing any of these protections. In addition, UC cannot require employees to travel to these states, regardless of funding source. Therefore, there can be no repercussions if an employee declines to travel to any state that is on the Attorney General’s list of states where state-funded travel is prohibited.

The State Attorney General is directed to develop, maintain, and post online the current list of states where travel restrictions would apply. 

Alternative funding sources should be located for travel planned after January 1, 2017, that has already been committed.

Frequently Asked Questions

AB 1887 has various exceptions where state-funded travel will be allowed to states that are otherwise barred.

Does AB 1887 prohibit all travel to states on the Attorney General’s list?

No. AB 1887 prohibits the use of state funds to pay for travel to a state on the Attorney General’s (AG) list, except where one of the statutory exceptions applies. It does not affect travel that is paid for or reimbursed using non-state funds.

What are the states that the California Attorney General Identified as Subject to the Travel Prohibition?

The Attorney General lists the states impacted by this legislation on their website, whose office is responsible for updates as necessary: https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887.

These states were on the initial list posted when the law was published (1/1/17):

  • Kansas
  • Mississippi
  • North Carolina
  • Tennessee

 On June 23, 2017 the Attorney General published four additional states to the list: 

  • Alabama
  • Kentucky
  • South Dakota
  • Texas
How are “state funds” defined?

State funds have been identified by the system-wide budget office as encompassing all State General Funds and State Special Fund appropriations to a campus. This includes all of the 199XX funds except those that are classified as UC General Funds (i.e.; 199331, 19933, 19934, 19940, 19941, and 19942).

Approximately 45% of fund group 69085 assessments are from non-state funds; therefore, Fund group 69085 may be used to reimburse otherwise allowed to travel to one of these states as long as the expenditures for the travel do not exceed 55% of the location’s total 69085 fund allocation.

Funds from the State of California provided via contracts and grants are also “state funds” subject to the restrictions set out by AB 1887.

What does it mean for travel to be “state funded”?

The statute does not define the term “state funded.” OGC has interpreted the restriction on the use of state funds to apply to direct expenditures for travel-related costs (e.g., hotel and transportation) but not to the salaries or time spent by employees who travel to one of the identified states.

What are the exceptions where state-funded travel will be allowed to states on the Attorney General’s list?
The law does not apply to travel that is required for any of the following purposes:
  1. Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
  2. Litigation.
  3. To meet contractual obligations incurred before the state's effective date as noted by the AG.
  4. To comply with requests by the federal government to appear before committees.
  5. To participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding.
  6. To complete job-required training necessary to maintain licensure or similar standards required for holding a position, in the event that comparable training cannot be obtained in California or a different state not affected by subdivision (b).
  7. For the protection of public health, welfare, or safety, as determined by the affected agency, department, board, authority, or commission, or by the affected legislative office.
What if an athletic team has committed to participate in a bowl game or other competition in an affected state?

If a contract to participate in an event was entered into before the state's effective date as noted by the AG, then it would be permissible to use state funds to travel to participate in a bowl game or other type of sporting competition. If the contract was entered into on or after the state's effective date as noted by the AG, then state funds should not be used for the travel.

Does the law prohibit travel to an affected state for research purposes?

If the travel is necessary to participate in meetings or training required by a grant, or required to maintain grant funding, then reimbursement with state funds is permitted. Otherwise, non-state funds should be used to pay for or reimburse the travel expenses.

Does the law prohibit admissions or athletics recruiters from traveling to states on the Attorney General’s list?

No. Non-state funds should be used to pay for the travel expenses.

Does UC have a responsibility to continue to monitor the Attorney General’s website for additional states that are added to the list of those where state-funded travel is prohibited?

Yes. UC has the responsibility to consult the list on the Attorney General’s website in order to comply with the travel and funding restrictions imposed by the law. However, UC has no obligation to make a determination about whether a state that is not included on the Attorney General list should be.

How is travel that is reimbursed after it occurred handled under this new law?

If travel occurring after the state's effective date as noted by the AG does not meet one of the exceptions noted above, then it should not be reimbursed with state funds.

May state funds be used for reimbursement of travel to contractors?

Yes. But not for travel expenses to or within the prohibited state if such travel reimbursement is not covered in a contract entered into prior to the state's effective date as noted by the AG. Reimbursement for travel from the prohibited state may be reimbursed in all instances. Travel from a prohibited state, including the return flight back, shall be construed as travel “to” the original destination.

May state funds be used for reimbursement of travel to recruits regarding faculty and staff appointments?

Yes, as long as the travel expenses were not incurred for travel to and within the prohibited state. Reimbursement for travel from the prohibited state may be reimbursed in all instances. Travel from a prohibited state, including the return flight back, shall be construed as travel “to” the original destination.

How to interpret these potential exceptions to the state-funded travel ban?

According to the Office of General Counsel, exceptions three (to enforce contractual obligations that occurred before the state's effective date as noted by the AG) and five (to participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding) seem most relevant since they allow for continued travel where required by existing contracts (but not contracts entered into after the state's effective date as noted by the AG), and existing grant requirements.

Note that salaries or partial salaries of employees who travel to one of the identified states are not impacted by AB 1887 (i.e.; state funds may be used to pay salaries just not the travel expenses).

How is travel that is reimbursed after it occurred handled under this new law?

If the travel did not meet one of the exceptions noted in question 5 of this FAQ, and it occurred after the state's effective date as noted by the AG, then it can’t be reimbursed with state funds.


Supplemental content

Travel & Entertainment Menu