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:

1. Kansas
2. Mississippi
3. North Carolina
4. Tennessee

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

These restrictions are in place effective Jan 1st, 2017.

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.

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).

What are the various exceptions where state-funded travel will be allowed to states that are otherwise barred?
  1. Enforcement of California law, including auditing and revenue collection.
  2. Litigation.
  3. To meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017.
  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.
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 January 1, 2017) 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 January 1, 2017), 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 are athletic competitions scheduled in one of these identified states handled?

If the contract to participate was entered into before January 1, 2017 then the travel to participate in a bowl game or other type of sporting competition is not prohibited under this law.

How are research grants in one of the identified states handled?

If the travel is required to participate in meetings or training required by a grant or required to maintain grant funding, or if the grant was entered into before January 1, 2017 then reimbursement with state funds is permitted.

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 may be reimbursed?

UC has no obligation to find out any other states affected by this legislation if the Attorney General’s office does not define and post these states on the AG website. There are no penalties specified in the bill.

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 2 of this FAQ, and it occurred after January 1, 2017, then it can’t be reimbursed with state funds.


Supplemental content

Travel & Entertainment Menu