SB 994 prevents local government officials and their staff from entering into or requesting nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that stop them from sharing information about public business with their colleagues. The measure targets internal secrecy that can block oversight, while allowing confidentiality limited to narrow categories such as trade secrets and proprietary financial information.
For government lawyers, compliance officers, and elected officials, the bill forces a reassessment of settlement and confidentiality practices: routine NDA language that touches on public-business topics will need review, and agencies must put new procedures in place to avoid disqualification or invalidation of agreements.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill forbids NDAs that preclude a local official or their staff from sharing information about public business with fellow officials, and makes such agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2027 void and unenforceable. It also requires a local official who previously entered into such an agreement to disclose its existence (without revealing protected contents) and to recuse and be disqualified from related deliberations and votes.
Who It Affects
The rule reaches any public official or their staff serving cities, counties, special districts, local education agencies, and similar bodies (explicitly excluding charter cities and counties). Affected roles include council members, mayors, city managers, planning commissioners, county administrators, school superintendents, and their staff and counsel.
Why It Matters
SB 994 shifts the default toward intra-government transparency and limits confidentiality tools that have been used in governance matters. That alters how agencies handle settlements, HR cases, vendor negotiations, and privileged communications that touch on public business — with potential operational and legal fallout for local counsel and administrators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 994 focuses narrowly on NDAs tied to "public business" — that is, agreements that stop a local official or staff member from sharing information with fellow officials on the same body. For NDAs that create that sort of bar and were entered into or requested by an official or staff member on or after January 1, 2027, the bill declares the agreement void and unenforceable.
For officials who previously entered into such an agreement before that date, the bill does not automatically void the contract but requires disclosure of the agreement's existence (without revealing contents protected by the NDA) and bars the official from participating in, attempting to influence, or voting on matters related to the NDA's subject.
The bill treats staff and officials separately but symmetrically. It forbids staff from signing or seeking NDAs that prevent them from sharing information with the official they serve, and voids such staff NDAs created on or after January 1, 2027.
The measure explicitly preserves NDAs — or portions of NDAs — that only prevent disclosure of trade secrets, financial information, or proprietary information; those parts remain enforceable. Charter cities and charter counties are exempted entirely: SB 994 does not apply to officials serving on their behalf.Practically, the statute forces local governments to audit existing confidentiality practices and templates.
Counsel will need to identify clauses that could be interpreted as precluding intra-government sharing about public business and either remove or reframe them to rely on narrower secrecy tools (for example, redactions or trade-secret-specific provisions). Agencies should prepare conflict-management procedures for officials who must disclose an NDA's existence and recuse themselves, and revise settlement processes to anticipate that broad confidentiality promises about public-business topics will not survive after the effective date.
The Five Things You Need to Know
NDAs that prevent a local official from sharing information with fellow members of the same council, board, commission, district, or agency entered into or requested on or after January 1, 2027 are void and unenforceable.
An official who entered into or requested such an NDA before January 1, 2027 must disclose the existence of the NDA (but not contents that would violate it) and is disqualified from voting, participating in deliberations on, or attempting to influence related matters.
Staff NDAs that bar sharing with the official they serve are separately targeted: staff cannot enter into or request those NDAs, and staff NDAs entered or requested on or after January 1, 2027 are void and unenforceable.
The statute preserves confidentiality limited to trade secrets, financial information, or proprietary information — those narrow categories may remain protected and enforceable.
The law does not apply to local government officials serving on behalf of a charter city or charter county, creating a jurisdictional exemption.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on officials using NDAs to block intra-body sharing; disclosure and disqualification for pre-2027 agreements
This subsection bars a local government official, acting in an official capacity, from entering into or asking others to enter into an NDA that prevents sharing public-business information with fellow members of the same governing body. If an official violated that rule, the statute requires disclosure of the NDA's existence (but not its contents if disclosure would itself breach the agreement) and mandates disqualification from participating in or influencing matters tied to the NDA's subject. Importantly, those disclosure/disqualification rules apply to covered NDAs entered into before January 1, 2027; the bill does not automatically void pre-2027 agreements for officials, but it does limit officials' involvement in related matters.
Voidability of NDAs entered or requested by officials on or after January 1, 2027
This clause makes any NDA — entered into or requested by a local official in their official capacity on or after January 1, 2027 — unenforceable if it would prevent sharing with fellow officials. That is a bright-line temporal trigger: after the date, the NDA has no legal force insofar as it blocks intra-government communications about public business. Local counsel will need to change template settlement and confidentiality language to avoid triggering voidability.
Parallel rule for staff: prohibition, voidability, and who they may share with
Subdivision (b) mirrors (a) for staff members, prohibiting staff from signing or requesting NDAs that preclude sharing information with the official they serve. Any such staff NDA entered into or requested on or after January 1, 2027 is void and unenforceable. Practically, human resources, city attorneys, and departmental leaders must review employment agreements, severance documents, and settlement templates used with staff to remove or limit clauses that could be read to stop staff from communicating with their supervising official about public-business topics.
Carve-out for trade secrets, proprietary, and financial information
Subdivision (c) narrows the statute's reach by preserving confidentiality where it touches only trade secrets, financial data, or proprietary information. Both the prohibition and the voidability exceptions exclude NDAs (or portions of NDAs) that solely prevent disclosure of this narrowly defined category of information. The practical implication is that agencies can still protect commercially sensitive or proprietary material, but they must draft agreements to target that information precisely rather than using broad clauses that sweep in public-business communications.
Charter city and county exemption
Subdivision (d) exempts officials serving on behalf of charter cities and charter counties from the section. Because charter municipalities often claim different home-rule authority, this carve-out means the statute will apply unevenly across California jurisdictions and leaves those local governments free to continue using NDAs in the same ways they do today unless restrained by other law.
Definitions and covered positions
Subdivision (e) defines 'local government official' broadly to include city council members, mayors, city managers, planning commissioners, county administrators and boards of supervisors, local agency formation commissioners, members of special-district legislative bodies, superintendents of schools, school board members, and similar public officials. That definition clarifies the statutory universe and signals the range of positions whose NDAs and internal communications the measure governs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Fellow local officials tasked with oversight — they regain the ability to receive information from colleagues and staff without NDA-based barriers, improving internal checks and collective decision-making.
- Local residents and transparency advocates — by limiting secrecy around public-business topics, the bill reduces the use of confidentiality to shield matters from public scrutiny and administrative accountability.
- Municipal auditors and inspectors general — removing NDA-based walls should make audits and internal reviews more straightforward when officials and staff can share information across bodies.
- Whistleblowers within local agencies — the statute lowers the legal obstacles that NDAs can impose on employees or officials who want to disclose misconduct to other public officials (subject to carve-outs for trade secrets).
Who Bears the Cost
- Local counsel and city attorneys — they must rewrite settlement and employment templates, advise clients on disclosure and recusal obligations, and defend against potential litigation challenging voided NDAs.
- Officials and staff who relied on NDAs for confidentiality in sensitive matters — they face forced disclosures of an NDA's existence and potential loss of influence on related decisions, and some previously private settlement terms may be exposed or unenforceable.
- Small special districts and local agencies without robust legal teams — these entities will bear compliance costs to audit and update agreements and may struggle to craft narrowly tailored confidentiality provisions.
- Parties to pre-2027 settlements (complainants, contractors, or employees) — where agreements are declared unenforceable or where officials must disclose the existence of NDAs, third parties may find past expectations of secrecy altered, potentially prompting renegotiation or litigation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals against each other: maximizing transparency and collegial oversight inside local government versus preserving confidentiality where it is necessary for legitimate commercial, privacy, or settlement interests; the statute tries to thread that needle with narrow carve-outs, but enforcing that line will require judgment calls and may undercut either transparency (if courts uphold broad NDAs) or legitimate confidentiality (if courts read the ban narrowly).
SB 994 leaves several implementation and legal questions unresolved. The statute does not create an express private right of action or specify an enforcement agency; its principal remedies for officials are disqualification, recusal, and voidability of agreements.
That raises questions about who will monitor compliance and how courts will treat disputes over whether an NDA "precludes" sharing about "public business." The wording invites litigation over the factspecific boundary between permissible confidentiality and impermissible gagging of intra-government communications.
The carve-out for trade secrets, financial, and proprietary information narrows the statute, but it also creates drafting complexity. Agencies will need to craft confidentiality clauses that target only genuinely protectable commercial information; broad nondisclosure language used to protect reputations, privacy, or settlement considerations may be read as invalid.
The bill does not explicitly address personnel privacy or harassment settlements that protect victim identities; those contexts may produce difficult trade-offs between protecting individuals and preserving transparency about public-business matters. Finally, the charter-city exemption produces a patchwork regime across California that could incentivize forum-shopping or legal challenges to home-rule claims.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.