Status:        PASSED [5 - 2] by the Assembly Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments on June 11, and referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee on the same date.

SB 1731                      (Alarcon)                      Pupils:  High School College Preparatory Program

As initially written, this bill, commencing with the 2006-07 school year, sought to require all students to take the A - G college preparatory curriculum, allowing them to “opt out” and pursue an alternative educational path only if their parents and the school agree to it.  

As amended on May 29, this bill instead would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, in consultation with school districts that include high schools, to develop a plan to better prepare pupils for life careers by providing them with a rigorous and high-level curriculum.  The bill would make legislature findings and declarations regarding the value of a rigorous high school curriculum.

[Note:  The original content of Senator Alarcon’s bill has been incorporated into the draft report of the Joint Committee on the Master Plan: K - University Education, which is currently being reviewed in public hearings held throughout the state this month.]

Status:        PASSED [7 - 1] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 3; PASSED [22 - 13] by the full Senate on June 10, and sent forward to the Assembly on the same date.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

5/31/2002

CAPITOL NEWS

1.    Budget Conference Committee to meet on Monday, June 3.  The Assembly and Senate both approved their respective versions of the 2002-03 budget this week, setting the stage for tough, nose to scowl debate among the conferees.  Although not 100% confirmed, the conferees are expected to be:

In the Senate:  Steve Peace (D - San Diego), Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee; Wes Chesbro (D - Arcata), Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #3 [which deals with health and human services, labor and veterans affairs]; and Dick Ackerman (R - Fullerton), Vice-chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. 

In the Assembly:  Jenny Oropeza (D - Long Beach), Chair, Assembly Budget Committee; John Campbell (R - Irvine), Vice Chair, Assembly Budget Committee; and Darrell Steinberg (D - Sacramento), Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee.

The Senate version was passed 27 - 11, with two Republicans, Jim Brulte (Riverside) and Dick Ackerman (Irvine) voting with Democrats to achieve a 2/3 vote.   To win those Republican votes, Democrats agreed to ask the conferees to eliminate some $3.5 billion of the Governor’s proposed tax increases.  In return, Republicans agreed to restore cuts in the health and social service programs--but these restorations were not offset by reductions in other areas.  Another piece of gristle for the conferees to chew on.

The Assembly version was approved on a strictly partisan vote:  49 - 28, all Democrats in favor and all Republicans against.  (Knowing it was not possible to achieve a 2/3 vote, the Assembly struck all of the spending provisions from the bill, which allowed it to be passed with a majority vote.)   The Assembly version restores $900 million in reductions to the health and social service programs.

The Conference Committee will be “open,” allowing any item in the spending plan to be changed and lawmakers not on the committee to propose amendments.  (Normally, only those items on which there is disagreement between the two houses are discussed.)  In essence, the entire $23.6 billion deficit will be on the table.

The $23.6 billion question:  Will the conferees pass a “pretend” budget by the Constitutional deadline, with the “real” budget deliberated in a Special Session called on Nov. 6?  Or will the conferees spend the summer nose-to-nose, ossified in their respective positions--debating the budget ad infinitum?

2.    Mea culpa.  The May 17 issue of Legislative Update contains an error in item 1, in the report on the May Revise. In the CSU’s first summary of the document, a “minus” sign was used as a “bullet designation” in describing the cuts to higher education.  While that symbol worked for the UC and CSU, it did not work for the Community Colleges system, which had its budget AUGMENTED by $115 million, not reduced by that amount. 

3.    CSU continues to produce the largest number of credentialed teachers in the state.  In its annual report to the state Legislature (“Teacher Supply in California: 2000-2001”), the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing reported that of the 77% of teachers prepared in the state’s universities, 55% attended CSU campuses, 41% studied at private institutions, and 4% chose UC institutions.   The report also showed an 8% increase in the number of teachers newly available to teach and a 5% decline in the number of emergency teaching permits issued.

The full report is available on the Commission’s website: www.ctc.ca.gov   (Click on Reports in the menu on the left-hand side of the screen.)

4.    Draft of K-University Master Plan released.  Attached to this issue of Legislative Update is a summary of the draft, which was developed by the Joint Legislative Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education: K - University, after two years of deliberations and public hearings.  A number of hearings have been scheduled to receive public comment.   The dates and locations can be viewed on-line at this address:

http://www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan/hearing.htp  

The full report can be read at the Master Plan website:  http://www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan  Electronic testimony may also be provided through this website.  In addition, during June 3 - 14, interested parties may participate in on-line dialogue at http://www.network-democracy.org/camp

It’s not known what view(s) the Governor may have on the Plan, but his adjusted budget plan (May Revise) may reflect more than coincidence with respect to one of the recommendations:  Elimination of the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC).  The May Revise proposes an elimination of 43.2 positions in the agency, which is responsible for the coordination of the 3 systems of public higher education and for conducting various studies relating to higher education issues.  If the cut is sustained by the Legislature, the agency will be left with 3 positions, two state-funded, and one federally-funded (to administer the Eisenhower projects).

The Master Plan draft recommends replacement of CPEC with a California Education Commission that would be responsible for planning at K - University institutions.  A separate organization would be given responsibility for the data collection and analysis functions performed by CPEC.  The recommendation to split these functions grows out of a concern that the agency responsible for critiquing existing institutions shouldn’t be the same one responsible for collecting their data.  (The Enron/Arthur Anderson troubles have far-reaching tentacles!)

Another recommendation in the draft Plan incorporates an idea advanced unsuccessfully thus far by Senator Richard Alarcon (D - Van Nuys):  To require all students to take college-prep courses, unless they “opted out,” with parental approval, for courses aimed at vocation or a community college technical degree.  (Currently, students wanting to take a college-prep course of study must “opt in” to it.)

5.    Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg saw two of her high priority bills bite the dust this week.  AB 2115, reported more fully below, sought to restrict the use of names, which might be construed as disrespectful, for school mascots.  AB 2160 sought initially to place textbook selection and curriculum matters in the collective bargaining arena.  It was subsequently amended to require instead the establishment of “academic partnerships”--comprised of members of the local school board and the teachers union--that would discuss and decide the selection of textbooks and instructional materials.   Same product, different wrapper.  AB 2115 was brought to a vote in the Assembly, where it was defeated. 

AB 2160 was not brought up for a vote when the author saw that, despite intense lobbying efforts, she could not secure sufficient numbers to ensure passage.  May 31 is the deadline by which same house bills must pass their house of origin; neither bill met this deadline, and both are considered dead.

6.    Initiative Update.  Five initiatives have qualified so far for the November 5 ballot.  Three are bond proposals:  $2.1 billion for housing and emergency shelters, $25.35 billion [over 4 years] for K-University construction, repair and refurbishment of facilities, and $3.44 billion for water projects.  The other two initiatives address after school programs (put on the ballot largely through the efforts of Arnold Schwarzenegger), and reallocation of sales and use tax revenue, raised from the sale or lease of motor vehicles, to the Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund.

7.    California’s Rank Rises in Per Pupil Spending.  The Census Bureau has released its “2000 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances School Systems,” which provides data on the amount of money each state spends on K-12 education.  According to Capitol Hill Bulletin, the report is an important source for the federal government in distributing Title I money, an $8 billion federal program that assists school districts to provide services to educationally disadvantaged children.  The program is formula-based, so the amount of money a state spends per pupil becomes significant, when money is distributed.

According to the report, California’s per pupil expenditures rose by $501, from $5,797 in 1998-99 to $6,298 in 1999-2000, raising the state’s ranking from 32 to 29.  The national average increase for this period is $377.  Capitol Hill Bulletin reports that “California’s ranking of 29^th is the state’s best showing since the 1992-93 school year, when the state also ranked 29^th and spent at 93.6% of the national average.  It is a significant improvement since the state’s relative low point in 1995-96, when the state ranked 35^th and spent at just 86.8% of the per pupil expenditure national average.”

The report is available on the Census Bureau’s website, which can be accessed at the following address:

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/school.html

8.    Pell Grant shortfall covered.  The U.S. House of Representatives approved an appropriations augmentation to the FY 2002 budget of $1 billion from the current year and $300 million from next year, to cover a $1.3 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program.  (The Senate Appropriations Committee earlier included $1 billion to cover the Pell Grant shortfall in its version of the emergency spending bill.)  

Last year, Congress included in the FY2002 Appropriations bill an increase of $250 in the Pell Grant maximum (raising it from $3750 to $4000), despite the President’s request that the increase be limited to $100.  At the time, the Pell Grant program had a surplus--which was subsequently depleted when more students applied for the grants than had been anticipated.  The Bush Administration then asked Congress to eliminate the $250 increase to help meet the shortfall, a request Congress also ignored. 

The White House responded with a demand that Congress rescind $1.3 billion in special earmarks (aka pork projects) that the body had already approved.  That request was not received well by Democrats or Republicans, since both had projects on the list, and the specter of broken promises with an election year looming around the corner was not a pleasant one to contemplate.

The Bush Administration later backed off that stance and proposed another, equally controversial proposal to cover the shortfall by restricting student loan borrowers from consolidating their loans at a low, fixed interest rate.  The outcry against this proposal was again bipartisan, and the proposal was retracted earlier this month. The White House is said to support the current proposals.

*  NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST  *

Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before they can be heard by a committee.

ACR 215                      (Aroner)                      Public Postsecondary Education:  Social Work

                                          This Assembly Concurrent Resolution urges the California Community Colleges, the CSU and the UC to expand their enrollment in social work preparation programs. 

                                          The measure requests the California Association of Deans and Directors of Schools of Social Work and the California Social Work Education Center to collaborate with the California Community Colleges and other interested stakeholders, including employers and representatives of populations served by social workers, to develop a master plan for social work education in the state.

                                          The measure asks that the Plan for Social Work Education be submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2004.

Introduced:              May 28, 2002

*     STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION     *

AB 1747                      (Briggs)                CSU:  Location of New Campus

This bill would require the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to conduct a study of the statewide need for new higher education facilities.  The study must include, but not be limited to, an inquiry into the particular higher education needs of Tulare County.  [Specific reference to siting a CSU campus in Tulare County was deleted earlier.]

The bill also requires CPEC to submit a report to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2003, and appropriates $250,000 to the agency for expenditure, during the 2002-03 fiscal year, to accomplish the purposes specified.

As amended on May 23, the appropriation was reduced to $75,000.

Status:        PASSED [24 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 22; PASSED [73 - 1] by the Assembly, May 28, and sent over to the Senate on the same date.  [Note:  Assembly Member Joe Nation (D - Sonoma) cast the sole dissenting vote in the Assembly.]

AB 2001                      (Diaz)                      Ethnic Studies Programs and Standards

This bill would require the state Department of Education, in consultation with the UC and the CSU, to establish a task force to identify model programs, standards, and curricula relating to ethnic studies at the high school level.

The task force would be required to submit its report on or before January 1, 2004, to the Governor and the Legislature, and make it available on the Department of Education’s website.

A May 23 amendment deleted references to “an appropriation of an unspecified amount.” 

Status:        PASSED [17 - 7] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 22; PASSED [46 - 30] by the Assembly, May 29, and sent to the Senate on the same date.

AB 2115                      (Goldberg)                      Athletic Team Names and Mascots

This bill would impose restrictions on all public schools--K-12, the community colleges, CSU and UC--with respect to using any school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname that is derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group. 

Specifically, the bill would prohibit the use of any of the following school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames:  Redskins, Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Apaches, Comanches, or any other American Indian tribal name.

As initially written, the bill would also have required the State Board of Education and the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to jointly create, maintain, and annually augment the list of school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames that may be derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group.  A May 23 amendment deleted this provision.

The bill provides that the State Board of Education or CPEC may grant an exception to a school or campus if they can demonstrate that the term is not used in a manner that is derogatory or discriminatory.  As amended in April, the bill specified that no exception could be granted for any name specifically delineated in the bill, including any American Indian tribal name.  As amended on May 23, the bill now declares that its provisions would not apply to a Native American tribal school.

Status:        FAILED PASSAGE [29 - 35] in the Assembly, May 28.  The vote was 12 votes shy of the 41-vote majority the author needed to advance her bill to the Senate.

AB 2225                      (Lowenthal)          CSU:  Personal Services Contracting

An existing provision in the California Constitution excludes the officers and employees of the California State University from the state civil service.  This CSEA-sponsored bill would enact provisions in the Education Code establishing standards for the use of personal services contracts that are substantially similar to those in the State Civil Service Act, and make them applicable to the California State University.  Included in the State Civil Service Act are provisions that prohibit state agencies--and now the CSU--from contracting out for services, on or after January 1, 2003, if it results in displacement of CSU employees.

"Displacement" is defined as including layoff, demotion, involuntary transfer to a new class, involuntary transfer to a new location requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions. "Displacement" does not include changes in shifts, days off, or

reassignment to other positions within the same class and general location. 

The bill exempts the construction industry (including construction, reconstruction, alteration, renovation, demolition, installation, and other non-maintenance projects) from its provisions.

As amended on May 23, the bill would apply only to personal services contracts with consideration in amounts no less than $25,000 and no more than $300,000.

[Note:  The CSU opposes this bill, believing that it would “decrease the efficiency of the CSU, significantly increase administrative costs, and place in statute a process governing an issue which is already properly and legitimately addressed in state law governing higher education employer-employee relations.”  The Committee Analysis estimates costs to CSU in excess of $1 million; however, CSU estimates that the cost impact could exceed $3 million.

The bill is supported by the California State Employees Association and by the California School Employees Association.]

Status:        PASSED [17 - 7] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 22; PASSED [49 - 28] by the Assembly, May 29, and sent forward to the Senate on the same date.

AB 2604                      (Oropeza)                      Teacher Training:  Cultural Differences

This bill would require the California Research Bureau, in consultation with the State Department of Education, to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct a study of the availability and effectiveness of cross-cultural training for teachers.  The bill would require the study to focus on 10 school districts that reflect the diverse demography of California, would prescribe elements of the study, and would require the study to be submitted to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on or before July 1, 2003.

The bill states Legislative intent that funding for the study is to be provided from the increase in federal funds that the state is expected to receive in the 2002-03 fiscal year from the federal No Child Left Behind Act, in the section specifying funds for state-level activities and state administration.

A May 13 amendment adds an Urgency Clause to the bill [meaning it would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature, rather than on January 1].

Status:        PASSED [17 - 7] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 22; PASSED [57 - 16] by the Assembly, May 29, and sent forward to the Senate on the same date.

AB 2616                      (Lowenthal)          CSU:  Visually Impaired Pupils

This bill would appropriate $1,570,000 to the CSU for the purposes of funding

(1) interactive television, Web-based courses, and other off-campus options for providing instruction to persons studying in the field of teaching visually impaired pupils, and (2) other measures on the CSU campuses that will increase the number of these teachers.

A May 23 amendment reduced the appropriation to $486,000.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Educ. Committee, April 16; PASSED [22 - 1] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 22; PASSED [68 - 9] by the Assembly, May 29 and sent forward to the Senate on the same date.               

SB 1398                      (Murray)                      Institute for the Preservation of Jazz

Senator Murray has authored several bills seeking to establish an Institute for the Preservation of Jazz at California State University, Long Beach.  His first attempt in 1993-94, AB 188, was vetoed by then Governor Pete Wilson.  Subsequent bills (AB 554 in 1994-95 and AB 1785 in 1997-98, both signed by Governor Wilson) authorized establishment of the Institute for specified time periods, and also included language requiring that it be supported solely by private funds, and limiting campus administrative support to nonmonetary resources.

This bill expresses legislative intent that the General Fund may be used as a source of funds for the CSU Institute for the Preservation of Jazz, and extends indefinitely the period in which the Institute may be established.

Status:        PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 23; PASSED [27 - 7] by the Senate on May 28, and sent forward to the Assembly on the same date. 

SB 1412                      (Romero)               Voter Registration:  University Campuses

This bill would request the UC and would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges to implement a number of activities to encourage students to register to vote.  These institutions specifically would be required to do the following:

·         Distribute voter registration forms to students at the beginning of each term by any of the following means:  (1) during the issuance of student identification cards, (2) during student registration, (3) during student orientation, or (4) by establishing a link from the institution’s website to the California Secretary of State’s voter information site [where forms may be downloaded];

·         Provide information on how to obtain voter registration forms in any of the following:  (1) the published class schedule for each academic term, (2) the campus catalog, or in (3) materials distributed to students living in on-campus housing.

·         Make voter registration materials available at the following locations: bookstores, career centers, financial aid offices, and student union centers.

[Note:  This bill and others similar to it appear every election year.  Federal law already requires colleges and universities to disseminate voter registration forms, have forms available at central locations and to establish convenient polling places.]

Status:        RECONSIDERED AND PASSED [7 - 5] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 20; PASSED [22 - 15] by the Senate, May 28, and sent forward to the Assembly on the same date.  [Note:  Both votes were cast along partisan lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.]

ATTACHMENT

CSU Legislative Report
May 24, 2002

DRAFT EDUCATION MASTER PLAN RELEASED; HEARINGS SET

After more than two years of committee hearings and working group deliberations, the Joint Legislative Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education - K-University has released a draft Master Plan for Education for public review and comment.  The plan, which was released on May 7, will be the focus of a series of upcoming hearings in the Capitol and at various locations throughout the state.

The plan is designed to realize the vision that "California will develop and maintain a cohesive system of first-rate schools, colleges and universities that prepares all students for transition to and success in the next level of education, the workforce, and general society, and that is responsive to the changing needs of our state and our people," and is based on the fundamental principle that "an effective and accountable education system must focus first and foremost on the learner."

The report is organized around four broad themes:  access, achievement, accountability, and affordability.  Within each of these it contains a series of recommendations, among which are the following of particular interest to the California State University:

Access to a Qualified and Inspiring Teacher in the Classroom

•  The State should increase the capacity of California's postsecondary education systems to prepare larger numbers of qualified educators for our public schools and preschools, particularly in regions where there are large numbers of teachers serving on emergency permits or where projected shortages of teachers are greatest, and from among non-White racial and ethnic groups.

•  The State should require teacher preparation, teacher induction and ongoing professional development programs and activities to feature a focus on teaching children with diverse needs, races, nationalities, and languages; on teaching children who bring particular challenges to the learning process; and on teaching in urban settings.

•  The State should take action to increase the capability of California colleges and universities to attract, hire, and develop academically qualified teachers and faculty members who also have knowledge and understanding about teaching and learning.

•  The State should expand programs to attract talented individuals, especially from underrepresented groups, into P-12 teaching and postsecondary faculty careers through forgivable loans and teaching fellowships.

•  California colleges and universities should strive to ensure that schools of education have the resources needed to produce a substantial proportion of the teachers and faculty needed to staff our pre-schools, schools, colleges, and universities over the next decade and beyond.

•  The State should increase doctoral and master's degree production in areas of high need, drawing upon the combined resources of the UC and CSU, as well as the independent sector of postsecondary education.

•  California colleges and universities should develop an infrastructure to support he ongoing professional development of faculty in order to improve the quality of teaching and promote student learning.  The components of this infrastructure should include:

- integration of teaching and learning curricula into master's and doctoral degree programs;

- inclusion of teaching expertise and experience criteria when hiring decisions are made;

- continuous development support throughout faculty careers, including focused support for each newly appointed faculty member during his or her first year;

- development of an organizational structure that supports and rewards teaching excellence and the scholarship of teaching throughout a faculty member's career;

- sustained efforts to make teaching and the scholarship of teaching more highly valued aspects of faculty culture;

- expansion and dissemination of the knowledge base about college teaching and learning, including establishment of a statewide center on postsecondary teaching and learning; and

- preparation of experts in the field of teaching and learning.

Ratio of Tenure and Tenure-Track Faculty to Part-Time Faculty

•  The Legislature should direct the California Community Colleges, California State University, and the University of California to adopt policies within one year of being directed to do so, regarding the appropriate balance of temporary and permanent/tenure-track faculty for their respective systems, and provide the rationale for the policies adopted.

•  Annually, the California Community Colleges, California State University and University of California shall report to the Legislature the ratio of permanent/tenure-track to temporary faculty employed by their respective system and how that ratio compares to systemwide policy.

•  The California Community Colleges, California State University and University of California shall report to the Legislature the set of activities reserved for permanent/tenure-track faculty and the rationale for why temporary faculty cannot be enlisted to assist in carrying out such activities.

Review of Promotion and Tenure Policies

•  The governing boards of all three public sectors of postsecondary education should direct an examination of faculty promotion, tenure, and review policies and practices, and revise them, as needed, to ensure that teaching excellence is given significant weight in decisions that affect the compensation awarded to faculty.

Access to a Rigorous Curriculum:  High School Course Program

•  The State should establish an academically rigorous course pattern as the standard curriculum for every high school student, and provide the learning support necessary to enable students to successfully complete this college readiness curriculum.  Students not wishing to participate in this rigorous curriculum should, with proper counseling and after parental consultation, be allowed to 'opt out' of this pattern of courses.  In such cases, students should be provided a personalized learning plan to ensure basic academic competencies are taught to them through a challenging curriculum which prepares them for community college or the workforce and is delivered through alternative avenues, including career technical education settings.

•  The State should ensure that all schools provide all students with curriculum and coursework that include the knowledge, skills, and experiences that enable them to attain mastery of oral and written expression in English and that establish a foundation for future mastery of a second language by the end of elementary school, and attain oral proficiency and full literacy in both English and at least one other language by the end of secondary school.

Community College Transfer Programs

•  The California Community Colleges, CSU, and UC should collaborate to strengthen the programs in community colleges that prepare students to transfer to CSU and UC and to ensure that those courses are acceptable for transfer credit at all campuses of CSU and UC.

Access to Participation in California's Universities

•  The California State University should continue selecting its freshman students from among the top one-third and the University of California should continue selecting its freshman students from among the top one-eighth of high school graduates throughout the state.

•  The California State University and the University of California should continue collaborating with K-12 schools to achieve the goals of reducing demand for remedial instruction among freshman students and eliminating the current practice of providing additional weight to honors and AP courses in admissions decisions.

•  The California State University and the University of California should authorize each of their campuses to consider both objective and subjective personal characteristics equally in assembling freshman classes annually from among the pool of eligible candidates.

Access to Qualified School and Campus Administrators:  Community Colleges

•  The State should take steps to ensure qualified leadership for California Community Colleges.

•  The CSU and UC should develop and offer preparation and professional development programs for community college leadership, including establishment of a state-level or campus-based center devoted to community college leadership development and leadership issues.

Course Alignment, Articulation and Transfer

•  Membership of the Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (ICAS) should be augmented with faculty from California's K-12 schools.  The resulting new K-12/postsecondary intersegmental faculty body should be charged with reviewing and recommending changes, if needed, in the alignment and coordination of curricula, assessment, admissions, and placement.

•  The Legislature should mandate the development of transparent and sustainable articulation and transfer processes to provide students with clear curriculum guidance on the transition between high school and college and between and among two- and four-year colleges and universities that avoids the complexity of campus-by-campus differentiation.

•  The governing boards of the University of California, California State University, and California Community College system should establish an intersegmental group of faculty to devise system-wide articulation agreements that will enable students to transfer units between and among public colleges and universities in California.

•  The University of California, California State University, and California Community College systems should establish an intersegmental group that includes faculty and students, to consider what steps need to be taken to establish a transfer Associate's degree, within the existing Associate degree unit requirements, the attainment of which will guarantee admission, and course transferability, to any CSU or UC campus for students successfully completing the transfer degree program.

•  Require the development of articulation processes to provide students with clear curricular and career guidance about the transition from high schools, colleges and universities to employment.

Postsecondary Education Accountability

•  The State should bring postsecondary education into an integrated accountability system by developing a set of accountability indicators that are consistent with state policy objectives and institutional missions and that would monitor quality and equity in access and achievement of all students in common academic content areas.  All public, independent, and private institutions should be required to participate in the reporting of these accountability indicators as a condition of receiving state monies either through direct appropriation or student financial aid.

•  The State's accountability framework for postsecondary education should be improved by modification and expansion of the 'partnership' budget approach, currently applied to UC and CSU, to include all postsecondary education, clarify the link between performance and funding, and adopt realistic alternatives for times of revenue downturns.

•  The State should specify the set of indicators of student and institutional performance on which public colleges and universities must provide data annually, along with an implementation timeline.

New K-University Education Commission

•  The Legislature should replace the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) with a new California Education Commission (CEC).  The CEC should have as its primary functions:

- Providing policy and fiscal advice, based on data analysis, that represents the public interest in California's education system, pre-kindergarten through university;

- Approving postsecondary education programs for public and state-approved private postsecondary degree-granting institutions; and

- Reviewing and approving new public campuses.

•   The membership of the California Education Commission should consist of nine lay representatives appointed equally by the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the President Pro-tempore of the Senate.

•  The California Education Commission should be vested with sufficient authority to obtain from all education and state entities the data necessary to perform short- and long-range planning to inform education policy and fiscal decision-making by the Legislature and the Governor.

Local Generation of Revenues:  K-12 and Community Colleges

•  The State should provide local school districts with options for generating revenue locally to supplement their adequate funding base, and should provide local community college districts the same options for generating revenue locally.

•  The Legislature should approve a ballot referendum to reduce the voter approval threshold for parcel taxes to 55 percent from the current two-thirds requirement.

•  The State should authorize school districts in counties where a majority of school districts wish to join together, to propose to the electorate a sales and use tax (SUT) increase, within the local option SUT levy limitation, to take effect with the approval of 55 percent of the voters in a countywide election.  Revenue would be divided among the schools on a population (per pupil) basis, or as delineated in the tax measure.  The State should provide for an equalization mechanism to enable a state-guaranteed tax yield that would ensure each county could raise the statewide average per-pupil amount that would be realized through the imposition of a given tax rate.

•  The Legislature should approve a ballot initiative to amend the constitutional provisions governing the property tax, to authorize school districts to propose for 55 percent approval by the electorate, a property tax override for the exclusive use of the public schools or community colleges.  The State should assure a minimum, state-guaranteed yield per pupil through a statewide equalization mechanism to provide state financial assistance to communities where a self-imposed tax rate does not yield the minimum state-determined per-pupil amount for that rate.

Affordability of Higher Education

•  The State should adopt policies to provide more stability for finance and dampen the 'boom and bust' swings of state appropriations for postsecondary education.

•  The State should establish the California Community Colleges' share of overall state revenues guaranteed by Proposition 98 to K-14 education at 10.93 percent.

•  The State should analyze the appropriateness of maintaining a 'marginal cost' approach for funding all additional enrollments in public colleges and universities.

•  The State should earmark a percentage of its annual investment in state-supported research by public postsecondary education institutions for applied research in areas of public priority as identified by the Legislature.

Student Fees and Financial Aid

•  The Legislature and the Governor should reform the State's approach to student charges in the public segments and maintain the Cal Grant need-based financial aid entitlement.

•  The State should adopt a student fee policy aimed at stabilizing student fees and should resist the pressure to buy out student fee increases or reduce student fees at CCC, CSU and UC during good economic times.

•  The State should continue to emphasize financial need in the award of state-supported student grants and should continue to fund the Cal Grant 'entitlement' as defined in SB 1644 (statutes of 2000).

•  State policy should be changed to allow additional fee revenue collected by community colleges to remain with each college, without a General Fund offset, whenever fiscal conditions compel fees to be increased.

Funding Postsecondary Education Facilities

•  The State should review its methodology for determining and funding facilities in California postsecondary education, and, as appropriate for each segment, make changes to emphasize multiple use facilities, comprehensive space planning, sharing of space among institutions, and incentives to maximize other sources of capitol outlay.

The committee has scheduled a series of hearings throughout the state to solicit public input on the draft report, and will hold hearings in Sacramento on the following dates and subjects (dates subject to change):  June 3 - Access in the Master Plan; June 5 - Achievement and Accountability in the Master Plan; June 18 - Affordability in the Master Plan; July 2 - General Responses to the Master Plan.

Upon completion of these hearings, it is expected that the committee will release a second draft report for final consideration.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

May 17, 2002

CAPITOL NEWS

1.    CSU spared from ruinous cuts in Governor’s May Revision of his January budget.  Issued on May 14, the “May Revise” provides an updated estimate of revenues and expenditures following third quarter results, and replaces the estimates contained in the Governor’s Budget submitted in January. 

The analysis reveals a $23.6 billion deficit, which the Governor proposes to cover through tax increases (50 cent increase on a pack of cigarettes; returning the vehicle license fee to its 1998 level, which the Governor pointed out was still 25% lower than the original fee); borrowing and shifting funds among state departments; increased funding from the federal government (for health, security, education); program cuts (especially in health and human services, which were slashed 27.4%, the highest cut of any program); and by eliminating 4,000 state positions (mostly vacant jobs).

Education, in general, avoided harsh cuts suffered by other programs.  With respect to higher education, the University of California was reduced by $162.4 million, and the California State University by $50.4 million.  (The May Revise proposes a net $115 million General Fund increase for the California Community Colleges system.)  The specific reductions for the CSU are as follows:

·         $43 million to reduce funding, on a one-time basis, for Information Technology, Instructional Equipment, Library Materials, and Deferred Maintenance

·         $6 million to eliminate funding for the Education Technology Professional Development Program

·         $21 million to reflect proposed trailer bill language to convert the Governor’s Teaching Fellowships from scholarships to assumptions of loan repayments

The CSU also received 2 small augmentations:  (1)  $19.5 million to fully fund a projected enrollment increase of 3,008 FTE students, which brings the total budgeted enrollment growth, including summer enrollment, to 15,278 FTE students, and (2) $38,000 to address the increased cost of annuitant dental benefits.

In addition, the Governor proposed a technical change:  A $209,000 augmentation to address increased insurance costs related to lease-purchase payments.

While relieved that the cuts were not as deep as feared, the CSU still has unfunded costs such as health care, electricity, and long-term deficiencies to address.  Moreover, there is no guarantee that the deficit projections in the May Revise won’t deteriorate over the summer months.  As Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante warned CSU Trustees at their Board meeting this week, “By the end of June, July, August, we may have different consequences.”  There is also no assurance that lawmakers won’t consider further cuts in higher education, after hearing from all of the health and social services programs that were severely hit.

Next week, delegations from all 23 CSU campuses will be flying to the state Capitol to meet with their respective legislators in an effort to defend CSU against any such actions.

2.    CSU Trustees approve fee increase.  At the May 14-15 Board meeting, the Trustees approved a 15% increase in non-resident student fees, from $7,380 to $8,460, effective fall 2002.  Resident student fees were not changed.

Legislative approval is required for the increase, which is expected to be granted.  An estimated $11.7 million would be raised from the increase, the first imposed in non-resident student fees since 1991.  The revenue will be used to support essential programs that could not be funded in the state Budget because of the deficit.

The nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Analyst, in its Analysis of the 2002-03 Budget, commented on the lack of a “consistent fee policy for postsecondary education,” and recommended that the Legislature “enact in statute a consistent fee policy that provides for an appropriate sharing of educational costs between students and the state, and which preserves student access to higher education.”

Two pieces of legislation addressing the student fee issue were subsequently introduced:  (1) AB 1894 (Bogh - R, Riverside) sought to assign responsibility for annually setting undergraduate student fees, and justifying to the Legislature and Governor any increase or decrease in the level of these charges; and (2) SCR 49 (McPherson - R, Santa Cruz), which stated legislative intent to refrain from increasing, by statute, student fees charged by community college districts, and which requested the UC and CSU also to refrain from raising tuition charges at their respective institutions.  AB 1894 was referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, but never heard.  A special rule waiver would be required for this bill to be taken up by the Committee.  SCR 49 failed passage in the Senate Education Committee on May 8.  (See bill status below.)

3.    Ward Connerly Initiative on Racial Privacy favored by voters, according to a recent Field Poll.  As reported in CalPeek, the initiative, which would bar state and local governments from classifying individuals by race for purposes of education, contracting or employment, leads among likely voters by a 48% to 34% margin, with 18% undecided.  Among ethnic voters, 50% of the Latinos favor it while Black voters are split--41% in favor and 42% opposed.

Connerly hired National Petition Management to collect the 670,816 voter signatures needed to qualify his initiative. 980,000 signatures were submitted by the April 19 deadline to county registrar offices around the state in order to insure a yield of valid voter signatures that would meet the requirement.  CalPeek reports that the initial price to collect signatures started at $.75, but went to a high of $2.25.  The final tab to place the measure on the ballot: $2 million.

Connerly sits on the Board of Regents for the University of California, and was the architect behind Prop. 209, which banned affirmative action programs in the areas of government, public education and public contracting, approved by voters in November 1996.

4.    Stage set for U. S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of race-based college admission policies.  The U.S. 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the University of Michigan Law School’s admission policy, which used race as a factor in selecting students, was not unconstitutional.  The case involves a white mother of two who charged she had been denied admission as a result of preferential treatment given to less-qualified minority applicants.

The Appeals Court ruled that, as the University did not apply quotas in making its decisions and had made a compelling argument for the importance of achieving a diverse student body, the use of race as one of many factors was not discriminatory.  (A similar lawsuit was also filed against the University for giving preferential consideration in undergraduate admissions.  The Appeals Court determined it would decide that case at a later date.)

The U.S. Supreme Court has not considered the issue of race-based admissions policies at universities since 1978, when it banned use of racial quotas, but permitted consideration of race as one factor among many that could be utilized in making admissions decisions (Bakke v. University of California).

In subsequent years, several other race-based policies have been challenged--at the Universities of Texas, Washington, and Georgia, to cite three cases, with conflicting results.  While federal appeals courts in the Georgia and Texas cases repudiated Bakke, a third federal appeals court upheld it in the Washington case.  Indeed, the two Michigan cases resulted in two different rulings from lower courts.  One federal judge ruled that the Law School had discriminated in applying its race-based admission policy, while another federal judge ruled that the University’s undergraduate admissions policy was within Bakke and thus constitutional.

The Michigan ruling has been widely reported, with a number of constitutional law professors commenting that U.S. Supreme Court review is long overdue.   These two quotes appeared in a recent Los Angeles Times article:

Jesse Choper  (UC Berkeley): “The Supreme Court has an obligation to take the case [because] the issue is so important, affecting so many people and so many interests.”

Pamela Karlan (Stanford University):  “There may be a limit to how many times the Supreme Court can duck the issue.”

5.    The California Coalition for Adequate School Housing has released a report listing unfunded facilities’ projects at K-12 schools throughout the state.  As covered in this week’s Education Beat, the list includes 2,000 projects at a cost of $5 billion in the 54 school districts across California.  Los Angeles Unified School District has 65 unfunded projects at a cost of $914.5 million. 

The K-Higher Education Facilities Bond Act (AB 16, approved last month by Governor Davis) would eliminate the entire backlog of school projects that have been in the queue for funding over the past several years.  The Bond Act authorizes two ballot measures, one in November 2002, which would authorize $13.05 billion to be spent over a two-year period, and another in March 2004, for $12.3 billion.  Of the total $25.4 billion, $21.4 would go to K-12 for new schools and modernization of existing schools; $4 billion would be allocated to the state’s 3 higher education segments. The University of California and the California State University system would each receive 30% of the funds, and the California Community College system would receive the remaining 40%.

According to supporters, if the measures are approved by voters, an estimated 600,000 new jobs will be created.

*     STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION     *

AB 1756                      (Bogh)                      Higher Education:  Reporting Requirements to the INS

Existing federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General, in consultation with the U.S. Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education, to develop and conduct a program to collect from approved institutions of higher education, and designated exchange visitor programs in the United States, certain information with respect to aliens who have certain nonimmigrant status and are nationals of certain countries.

This bill seeks to reinforce the obligation of the state’s higher education institutions to report information on visa students to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.  Specifically, it would require institutions of higher education in California, and other educational and exchange visitor programs, to report to INS the name of any student-alien, subject to the above federal law, who fails to enroll or participate in classes or courses by the 30^th day following registration for the current academic term. 

Status:              PASSED [19 - 2] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 8.

AB 1759                      (Wesson)                      California Memorial License Plates

This bill provides for the issuance of California memorial license plates, the additional revenue from which would be deposited in the California Memorial Scholarship Fund, which this bill would create. 

The California Memorial Scholarship Fund would be administered under the existing Scholarshare Investment Board to award scholarships to surviving dependents of California residents killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

This bill contains an Urgency Clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

Status:               SIGNED by the Governor, May 13.  [Chapter 02-38]

AB 1863                      (Committee on Higher Educ.)     CSU Board of Trustees:  Omnibus Bill                      TRUSTEE BILL

As last amended, this bill retained only one provision from the original content:  To grant the CSU permanent authority to adopt, amend, and repeal CSU regulations.  Prior to January 1, 1997, all changes to CSU’s portion of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations required advance notice in the state Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) Notice Register.  In addition, OAL’s staff also had to review the proposed changes for “necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, reference, and non-duplication” of the regulation before the changes could be filed with the Secretary of State and published in Title 5.

                                          Legislation approved in 1996 eliminated for a period of 5 years the duplicative notice and review by OAL and allowed the Trustees to notice the rulemaking activity on its own, and to submit the adopted regulation immediately to the Secretary of State, thus ensuring an earlier effective date (and saving costs). 

                                          Legislation approved in 2001 extended this authority for one year; AB 1863, as initially written, would have granted this authority on a permanent basis.  As amended on May 6, the bill instead extends this authority for an additional 5 years, from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2008.

Status:        PASSED, on the Assembly Consent Calendar, on May 9, and sent forward to the Senate on the same date.

AB 1908                      (Cohn)                      Public Employees:  Long-term Care Insurance

This bill would permit state employers to offer an enhanced benefit relating to long-term care insurance to employees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Existing law requires employees to pay the full cost of premiums for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan.  This bill would remove the current statutory restriction that requires employees to pay the full cost of long-term care insurance premiums, and would permit employers to contribute funds on behalf of their employees to the CalPERS program.

Two amendments were made in the bill on May 14 in the Senate Committee on Public Employment and Retirement:  (1) the bill is subject to approval by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, and (2) the bill includes authorization to enroll spouses, parents, siblings, and spouses parents in these long-term care plans.

Status:        PASSED [67 - 0] by the Assembly on May 2, and sent to the Senate on the same date. 

AB 2115                      (Goldberg)                      Athletic Team Names and Mascots

This bill would impose restrictions on all public schools--K-12, the community colleges, CSU and UC--with respect to using any school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname that is derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group. 

Specifically, the bill would prohibit the use of any of the following school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames:  Redskins, Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Apaches, Comanches, or any other American Indian tribal name.

The bill would also require the State Board of Education and the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to jointly create, maintain, and annually augment the list of school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames that may be derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group.

An April 15 amendment authorized the State Board of Education or CPEC to grant a nonrenewable, one-year extension to a school or campus to continue using the name if certain conditions are met--with one exception:  No extension could be granted for any name specifically delineated in the bill, including any American Indian tribal name.

As amended on May 1, the reference to a nonrenewable, one-year extension has been deleted.  The bill now provides that the State Board of Education or CEPC may grant an exception to a school or campus if they can demonstrate that the term is not used in a manner that is derogatory or discriminatory.  However, no exception can be granted for any name specifically delineated in the bill, including any American Indian tribal name.

Status:        PASSED [14 - 7] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 15. [Note:  The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting, and Republicans opposing the bill.]

AB 2153                      (Firebaugh)         CSU:  Admission, Recruitment, Retention and Remediation Policies

This bill was initially introduced as a “spot bill”--a placeholder for content to be added later.  As amended several times in April, this bill seeks to provide for greater local input when CSU campuses consider changes to its admission, recruitment, retention and remediation policies.  To this end, whenever a CSU campus proposes a change in these policies, it must publish a notice at least 2 times in a newspaper of general circulation, and post notices prominently on the campus.

The bill would also require each CSU campus to establish an advisory committee on admissions, enrollment, retention and outreach that would include faculty, staff, students, and members from the local community. 

[Note:  One of the April amendments deleted the University of California from the bill.]

Status:        PASSED [17 - 4] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 8;  PASSED [46 - 22] by the full Assembly on May 16, and sent to the Senate on the same date.  [Note:  In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

ACR 189                      (Longville)           CSU, San Bernardino:  Chicano Studies Department

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution urges the CSU Trustees to establish a Chicano Studies Department at California State University, San Bernardino.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 16; PASSED [22 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 8; PASSED [72 - 0] by the full Assembly, and sent to forward to the Senate on May 16.

                    [Note:  ACR 189 replaces AB 2026, also authored by Assembly Member John Longville (D - Rialto).  AB 2026 sought to authorize the CSU to establish a Chicano Studies Center, with nonpublic funds or with other funds that the University is authorized to expend and make available for this purpose, and specified that one of the purposes of the center would be to work toward the establishment of a Chicano Studies Department at CSU, San Bernardino.]

SB 1398                      (Murray)                      Institute for the Preservation of Jazz

Senator Murray has authored several bills seeking to establish an Institute for the Preservation of Jazz at California State University, Long Beach.  His first attempt in 1993-94, AB 188, was vetoed by then Governor Pete Wilson.  Subsequent bills (AB 554 in 1994-95 and AB 1785 in 1997-98, both signed by Governor Wilson) authorized establishment of the Institute for specified time periods, and also included language requiring that it be supported solely by private funds, and limiting campus administrative support to nonmonetary resources.

This bill expresses legislative intent that the General Fund may be used as a source of funds for the CSU Institute for the Preservation of Jazz, and extends indefinitely the period in which the Institute may be established.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 1] by the Senate Education Committee on May 1, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it was placed on the Suspense File.  Bills having significant cost factors have been placed on “suspense,” where they will be prioritized.  Given the state’s precarious financial situation, not many bills will likely leave the file with funding intact. [Note:  Senator Ray Haynes (R - Riverside) cast the sole dissenting vote in the Senate Education Committee.] 

SB 1412                      (Romero)               Voter Registration:  University Campuses

This bill would request the UC and would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges to implement a number of activities to encourage students to register to vote.  These institutions specifically would be required to do the following:

·         Distribute voter registration forms to students at the beginning of each term by any of the following means:  (1) during the issuance of student identification cards, (b) during student registration, (3) during student orientation, or (4) by establishing a link from the institution’s website to the California Secretary of State’s voter information site [where forms may be downloaded];

·         Provide information on how to obtain voter registration forms in any of the following:  (1) the published class schedule for each academic term, (2) the campus catalog, or in (3) materials distributed to students living in on-campus housing.

·         Make voter registration materials available at the following locations: bookstores, career centers, financial aid offices, and student union centers.

[Note:  This bill and others similar to it appear every election year.  Federal law already requires colleges and universities to disseminate voter registration forms, have forms available at central locations and to establish convenient polling places.]

Status:        FAILED PASSAGE [6 - 3] in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 13.  [Note:  The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.] The author requested and was granted reconsideration; the bill will be reheard on May 20. 

SB 1646                      (Alpert)                      Teacher Credentialing

Current law specifies that a baccalaureate degree or higher from a regionally accredited postsecondary institution, be required for students seeking a teaching credential.  It further specifies that the baccalaureate degree cannot be in professional education.

As amended in April and May, this bill would provide for an exception in the law, to allow a baccalaureate degree in elementary education.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee on May 1, and sent to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard on May 20.

SCR 49                      (McPherson)                      Public Postsecondary Education:  Student Fees

This Senate Concurrent Resolution expresses the intent of the Legislature to refrain from increasing, by statute, the fees charged by the community college districts.  The measure also requests the UC and the CSU to refrain from increasing the fees and tuition charges at their respective institutions.

Status:        FAILED PASSAGE [5 - 2] in the Senate Education Committee, May 8.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

May 3, 2002

CAPITOL NEWS

1.       The U.S. Senate has unanimously passed legislation relating to foreign students coming to the United States to study.  As the bill differs only slightly from legislation passed earlier by the House, a final version could be sent forward to the President very quickly--and he has said he would sign it.

HR 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, seeks to improve border security and federal screening of visas, and would also improve the pay and training of INS employees.  Students coming from countries identified as sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) would undergo new background checks before visas could be issued to them.  About 3,370 students currently come from these countries to study in the U.S.  Foreign students would also be required to provide much more detailed information about themselves--their home-country addresses; the names and addresses of spouses, children, parents, and siblings; the names of people in their home countries who could verify information about them; and any previous work history, including the names and addresses of employers.

The bill also requires the INS to set up a database of these students in order to track these students while they are in the U.S.  The agency was actually directed by Congress to implement an electronic tracking system for international students in 1996.  However, disputes on who would collect the fees ($95 per student) that would be assessed to cover the operational costs of the system, sidetracked its development.  Since 9/11, there has been renewed interest in creating the database, particularly after investigations conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Technology revealed how many institutions had no idea whether foreign students they had admitted were still enrolled.  The INS is currently working on the development of a new version of the tracking system proposed 6 years ago, now called the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).  The issue on fees has yet to be resolved, with several options under consideration--including having the fee collected by the State Department along with other immigration fees when students first enter the U.S., by the INS, or by the institutions of higher education.  Colleges and Universities have generally been resistant to becoming the collection agency, believing the responsibility belongs more appropriately with the federal government.

The data that would be recorded in SEVIS would include the date a foreign student is accepted to an accredited educational institution or exchange-visitor program; the date a student visa is issued; the date the individual enters the U.S. and the port of entry; the date a college or exchange-visitor program is notified that the student has entered the country; the date the student enrolls at the college or begins the program; the student’s degree program and field of study; and, the date the student graduates or leaves the institution or exchange program, whether to return to his/her home country or for another reason.            

Under the new law, universities and colleges would be required to notify the INS if a student accepts admission, but does not show up within 30 days of the deadline for registering for classes.  In insure compliance, the INS would be required every two years to conduct a review of all American institutions that are allowed to issue I-20 forms to foreign students.

2.       Bush Administration changes view on proposal to abolish the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  The White House has signaled it now supports H.R. 3231, which proposes to reorganize the INS into two new bureaus, one for enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, and one for services related to immigrants (residency and citizenship services).  Both would be administered by an Associate Attorney General, the third highest ranking position in the Department of Justice. 

The Administration was initially opposed to the bill, preferring to give the agency time to resolve its problems.  Given the strong bipartisan support, however, the Administration decided to support the proposal--with reservations, which President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft hope will be addressed in the House Judiciary Committee.

The reservations are (1) concerns that the bill would give the proposed new Associate Attorney General less authority over immigration policy and the INS’s budget than the current Immigration Commissioner (which the new position would replace); and (2) concerns about the qualifications for senior officials in the reorganized agency.

A rival bill, H.R. 4108, also seeks to abolish the INS and establish two separate units, one for enforcement and one for services.  The principal difference between the two proposals is that this bill would place responsibility for enforcement of immigration laws under the Department of Justice, and immigration services under the State Department.  H.R. 4108 remains in the House Judiciary Committee, and is unlikely to move forward.

3.       Facts you can use.  David Baltimore, President of Cal Tech, in a recent meeting with members of the California Congressional delegation, noted that California ranks first in the nation in academic and industrial research--and fourth largest in the world, following the United States, Japan and Germany.  That’s the good news.  Now the bad.

Six of the top 10 areas cited by the American Lung Association as having the worse ozone air pollution in the nation are in California, with 4 of those 6 occupying the top 4 on the list.  The other 4 areas in the country receiving  “Fs” for air quality on this list include those in Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and North/South Carolina.  To view the American Lung Association’s report, go to this website:  http://www.lungusa.org

Back to good news: however short-lived it may be, given the state’s projected $20 billion budget deficit:  California’s public higher education institutions have the lowest tuition in the country.  In a report released this week entitled Losing Ground, prepared by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, California is ranked 50^th in terms of higher education costs, with community college tuition at $330 per year, and UC/CSU tuition at an average $1,897 per year. 

Over the past 10 years, tuition at the state’s community colleges has risen 24% (from $265 to $330), and just 2% at the UC/CSU (from an average $1,858 to $1,897).   Tuition at the private four-year institutions, however, rose by 18% (from $15,301 to $18,091). During this same timeframe, appropriations per student increased 38% (from $5,916 to $8,156), and state grant aid per student increased 56% (from $190 to $295).  The past decade saw an increase of 7% in the median family income (from $60,650 to $65,005).   Losing Ground may be viewed in its entirety on this website:  http://www.highereducation.org

*     STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION     *

AB 1863        (Committee on Higher Educ.)    CSU Board of Trustees:  Omnibus Bill        TRUSTEE BILL

                                          As initially written, this Trustee-sponsored bill addressed two issues:

                                          (1)  Permanent authority to adopt, amend, and repeal CSU regulations.  Prior to January 1, 1997, all changes to CSU's portion of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations required advance notice in the state Office of Administrative Law's (OAL) Notice Register.  In addition, OAL's staff also had to review the proposed changes for "necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, reference, and non-duplication" of the regulation before the changes could be filed with the Secretary of State and published in Title 5.

                                          Legislation approved in 1996 eliminated for a period of 5 years the duplicative notice and review by OAL and allowed the Trustees to notice the rulemaking activity on itsown, and to submit the adopted regulation immediately to the Secretary of State, thus ensuring an earlier effective date (and saving costs).

                                          (2)  Information practices Act/FERPA Reconciliation.  The state Information Practices Act (IPA) prohibits state agencies, including the CSU, from disclosing personal information without the written consent of the subject in question.  The federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) contains similar prohibitions pertaining to students, but allows student directory information (student's home address and telephone number, both of which are considered personal information under the IPA) to be released without the written consent of the student.

                                          AB 1863 corrects a reference in the Civil Code to ensure that in instances regarding student recoreds, FERPA prevails over the state law--which is not currently the case.

                                          As amended on April 24, the provisions described in (2) have been deleted from the bill.

                                          Status:    PASSED [23 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 1, and sent to the Assembly Consent Calendar.

AB 2097          (Diaz)         CSU:  Expenditures for Administrators

This bill seeks to prohibit funding for CSU campus and Chancellor’s Office administrative and managerial positions from exceeding an unspecified percentage of the general purpose funds appropriated to the system.  [See also SB 1450 below.]

Status:       The author determined not to pursue this bill, as initially introduced. On May 1, the substance of the bill was replaced with new content unrelated to the CSU.

AB 2202          (Alquist)     Gerontology Programs

This bill seeks to require the CSU to provide academic courses and training in the field of gerontology for specified professional service delivery personnel [social workers, nurses, gerontologists, physical therapists, and mental health advocates for senior citizens], and, as initially written, would have required the CSU Trustees to designate two campuses for the creation of centers for this purpose. 

As amended on April 30 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the bill would instead impose requirements on the Academic Senate at each CSU campus that educates professional service delivery personnel, relating to curriculum standards and recruitment.

The bill would also require the CSU Trustees to submit a progress report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2004, on the establishment and implementation of a definable curriculum in gerontology.

Status:        PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-term Care on April 25, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

AB 2533          (Jackson)    Postsecondary Education:  Campus Crime Reporting

As initially written, this bill requested the UC, and required the CSU, to conduct systemwide investigations of their respective systems to determine how many crimes that are committed on and near their campuses are not reported pursuant to the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.

As amended on May 1 in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the bill would instead require that all institutions of higher education subject to the requirements contained in the Clery Act, to report to the California Postsecondary Education Commission when they have complied with those requirements.

As amended, the bill would also require CPEC to report annually to the Legislature on institutional compliance, and would further require CPEC, utilizing information from the National Center for Education Statistics, to make available to the public on its Internet Website, the criminal statistics information filed with the federal Secretary of Education.

Status:        PASSED [9 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 23, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2583           (Chu)         Postsecondary Education:  Sexual Assault

As initially written, this bill sought to require all public and private postsecondary institutions in the state to develop procedures to document and track any sexual assaults involving students of those institutions, and to provide information on sexual assault prevention, reporting, prosecution, and penalties to all prospective students.

As amended on April 15, the bill instead establishes a 15-member California Campus Sexual Assault Task Force to gather data about sexual assault issues from the various campuses of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges, and from a sample of the private institutions of higher education in the state.  The bill requires the Task Force to submit a report incorporating this data to the Legislature on or before April 1, 2004.

The Office of Criminal Justice Planning would be required to administer the task force and to administer the competitive bidding process used to select the nonprofit organization that would assist in gathering the data.

To carry out the provisions of the bill, an appropriation of $125,000 to the Office of Criminal Justice has now been included.

Status:        PASSED [9 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 23, and sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

AB 2604          (Oropeza)   Teacher Training:  Cultural Differences

As initially written, this bill stated the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would ensure that training in cultural differences and customs is available to all teachers.

As amended on April 29, the bill now would require the California Research Bureau, in consultation with the State Department of Education, to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct a study of the availability and effectiveness of cross-cultural training for teachers.  The bill would require the study to focus on 10 school districts that reflect the diverse demography of California, would prescribe elements of the study, and would require the study to be submitted to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on or before July 1, 2003.

The bill states Legislative intent that funding for the study is to be provided from the increase in federal funds that the state is expected to receive in the 2002-03 fiscal year from the federal No Child Left Behind Act, in the section specifying funds for state-level activities and state administration.

Status:        PASSED [15 - 0] by the Assembly Education Committee on May 1, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

SB 1412          (Romero)    Voter Registration:  University Campuses

This bill would request the UC and would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges to implement a number of activities to encourage students to register to vote.  As amended on April 18 [sections in boldface], these institutions specifically would be required to do the following:

·         Distribute voter registration forms to students at the beginning of each term by any of the following means:  (1) during the issuance of student identification cards, (b) during student registration, (3) during student orientation, or (4) by establishing a link from the institution’s website to the California Secretary of State’s voter information site [where forms may be downloaded];

·         Provide information on how to obtain voter registration forms in  (1) the published class schedule for each academic term, (2) the campus catalog, and (3) materials distributed to students living in on-campus housing.

·         Make voter registration materials available at the following locations: bookstores, career centers, financial aid offices, and student union centers.

[Note:  This bill and others similar to it appear every election year.  Federal law already requires colleges and universities to disseminate voter registration forms, have forms available at central locations and to establish convenient polling places.]

Status:        PASSED [3 - 2] by the Senate Committee on Elections and Reapportionment on May 1, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on the same date.  [Note:  The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

SB 1450          (Romero)    CSU:  Instructional Funding

This bill would require the CSU, for each fiscal year, to expend a minimum of 50% of the general purpose funds that are provided for the University and its ancillary programs, on the instructional program--including general purpose funds provided for the benefits and salaries of any officer or employee of the University. 

As amended on April 11, the bill would require the CSU Trustees and the president of each campus to achieve the 50% minimum by January 1, 2006, and would require the Trustees and each campus president to utilize existing audit procedures, including the use of independent auditors, to determine compliance with the requirement.

The bill also now requires annual reports from the Trustees and campuses by January 1 of each year to the Department of Finance, the Office of the Legislative Analyst, and to the appropriate legislative budget and policy committees.

Failure to meet the 50% instructional program funding level in any given fiscal year will result in redirection of funds from the budget year immediately following the fiscal year in which the funding deficiency occurred, to adjust for the shortfall as well as achieve compliance in the current fiscal year.

Status:        Held in the Senate Education Committee on May 1, and is considered dead, since the author could not secure the 8 votes needed for passage.  However, the Senate Office of Research has been asked to conduct a study on the issues raised in the bill.

SB 1731          (Alarcon)    Pupils:  High School College Preparatory Program

This bill seeks to strengthen the college preparatory curriculum in California’s high schools.  Currently, students who want to enroll in a college preparatory program may do so by “opting in”--taking courses in that program.  Commencing with the 2006-07 school year, this bill would instead require all students to take the A - G college preparatory curriculum, allowing them to “opt out” and pursue an alternative educational path only if their parents and the school agree to it.

Status:              FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 1] in the Senate Education Committee, May 1. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, and a second hearing date was set for May 8.

SB 1820           (Romero)   Collection of Data on Retention

As initially written, this bill sought to require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and request the UC and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, to collect data about retention and support systems in their respective segments and submit this information to the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC).

CPEC would be required to analyze the data and report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Legislature, the Governor, and the governing bodies of the segments “in a timely manner.”  Subsequent amendments (April 8, April 15) added requirements for significant reporting and comprehensive evaluation of data.

As amended on April 24, all of these requirements were deleted.  As currently written, the bill now requires the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and requests the UC and the Independent California Colleges and Universities, to collect graduation attrition rate and persistence rate data based on, but not limited to, gender, ethnicity, age, full-time or part-time student status, and income, when this data is available, for each campus, and to report this data to CPEC.  Also dropped from the bill is the requirement that CPEC submit reports in a timely manner to the Legislature and Governor.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee on May 1, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on the same date.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

April 19, 2002

CAPITOL NEWS

1.       Governor Gray Davis has appointed Alex Padilla, President of the Los Angeles City Council, to the California Film Commission (4/12/02).

2.       This month’s California Journal reports the final figures on voter turnout for the Primary Election held on March 5.  Los Angeles County wins the dubious honor of having the largest population in the state and the lowest turnout:  25%.  The second and third largest counties, San Diego and Orange, sent 33% and 37%, respectively, to the polls.

The county with the highest number of voters was tiny Alpine, with 70% casting their votes. The five counties with the largest turnout were also among the state’s smallest:  The aforementioned Alpine, followed by Sierra (66%), Modoc (66%), Trinity (64%), and Colusa (58%), for a total 14,632 ballots cast.

3.       Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D - Conn.) provided students at Allen University and Benedict College in North Carolina with a preview of the issues he will pursue when the Higher Education Act comes up for reauthorization next year.   The top theme will be improving graduation rates.  His voice will be persuasive for two reasons:  He has national visibility as the former Vice Presidential candidate and a possible Presidential candidate in 2004, and he played a key role in helping to resolve partisan differences over the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

In the Chronicle of Higher Education’s account of his address to the students, Lieberman praised colleges and universities for “enabling us as Americans to pursue our dreams”--but he saw colleges and universities doing much more to make certain “more students finish the schooling they start and to link more graduates to the good jobs they need to fully achieve the American dream.”

Lieberman’s expectation is that 90% of the nation’s college students ought to be earning their degrees within 6 years by 2020.  Pointing to the disparity in the percentage of higher income students who currently earn their degrees within 6 years (48%) and lower income students (7%), he has also called for an increase in the Pell Grant maximum, from the current $4000 to $5800 a year.

Reaction from the national higher education associations to Lieberman’s comments has been mixed.  While educators applaud his recognition of the need for increasing aid to students coming from the lowest income families, they are dismayed with his view of the “traditional student” being one who has just graduated from high school, entering college at age 18.  Today’s students are anything but traditional, coming to universities at all ages, as single parents and as heads of households, most holding half- or full-time jobs, some coming to retrain in other fields of employment, others coming back to update skills or pursue a higher degree to progress higher in their chosen careers.  A recent study  (“1999-2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study”), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, reports that 80% of undergraduates work while enrolled and 60% attend classes on less than a full-time/full-year basis. 

4.       Rep. Brad Sherman (D - Woodland Hills) has introduced a second bill relating to Daylight Saving Time.  The new legislation, H.R. 4212, directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of the effects of year-round daylight saving time on fossil fuel usage.

Last year, Sherman authored H.R. 704 to permit the states in the Pacific time zone to temporarily adjust the standard time in response to the energy crisis.  That bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on March 14, 2001, where it still resides.  

During the height of California’s energy crisis, State Senator Betty Karnette (D - Long Beach) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 1b, which memorializes the Congress to approve legislation allowing a state to uniformly apply daylight saving time year-round.  The Resolution was approved by the state Legislature and chaptered on June 27, 2001. 

5.       The California Institute issued its latest report on California’s balance of payments with the Federal Treasury this week.  For the 14^th straight year, the state sent more money to Washington than it received back in federal government expenditures--88 cents for every dollar, to be exact.  Highlights of the report:

·         The $29.3 billion in federal taxes that California sent to the federal government in 2000 was the “all-time record for any state, surpassing the previous mark--also set by California in 1999--of $23.1 billion.”

·         California enjoyed a half-dozen years of federal spending surpluses in the early 1980s, during the defense buildup that occurred in former President Ronald Reagan’s first term of office.

·         California ranks 40^th in the balance of payments equation.  Connecticut ranks 50^th, getting back 62 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington.  New Mexico ranks 1^st, receiving $2.03 for every dollar paid to the federal government.

Let’s all move to New Mexico.

*   NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST   *

Note:  Bills must be in print for 30 days before they can be heard by a committee.

ACR 189                      (Longville)           CSU, San Bernardino:  Chicano Studies Department

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution urges the CSU Trustees to establish a Chicano Studies Department at California State University, San Bernardino.

Introduced:              March 9, 2002

*   STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION   *

AB 1746       (Liu)                      Postsecondary Education:  Tuition and Fees

This bill would prohibit the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges from collecting any fees or tuition of any kind from any person who is the surviving spouse or child, natural or adopted, of any individual killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C., or the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in southwestern Pennsylvania, if the surviving spouse or child was a resident of California on September 11, 2001.

An April 10 amendment added a notification requirement:  The state Treasurer would be required to identify all persons who are eligible for tuition and fee waivers pursuant to the bill, to notify these persons or their parents or guardians of their eligibility, and to submit the names of these persons to the governing bodies of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

Status:        PASSED [11 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 2, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

AB 1747                      (Briggs)                CSU:  Location of New Campus

As initially written, this bill sought to designate Tulare County as the location of an institution of higher education to be included in the California State University system, thereby increasing the number of institutions so designated to 26.  [Note:  There are currently 23 campuses in the CSU.  However, locations for 25 are currently included in the Education Code; this bill would add a 26^th authorized location.]

An April 10 amendment deleted specific reference to a CSU campus in Tulare County.  Instead, the bill now requires the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to conduct a study of the statewide need for new higher education facilities.  The study must include, but not be limited to, an inquiry into the particular higher education needs of Tulare County.  The bill also requires CPEC to submit a report to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2003, and appropriates $250,000 to the agency for expenditure during the 2002-03 fiscal year to accomplish the purposes specified.

Status:        PASSED [11 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 2.

AB 1863                      (Committee on Higher Educ.)     CSU Board of Trustees:  Omnibus Bill                      TRUSTEE BILL

                              This Trustee-sponsored bill addresses two issues:

                              (1) Permanent Authority to Adopt, Amend, Repeal CSU Regulations.  Prior to January 1, 1997, all changes to CSU’s portion of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations required advance notice in the state Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) Notice Register.  In addition, OAL’s staff also had to review the proposed changes for “necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, reference, and non-duplication” of the regulation before the changes could be filed with the Secretary of State and published in Title 5.

                                          Legislation approved in 1996 eliminated for a period of 5 years the duplicative notice and review by OAL and allowed the Trustees to notice the rulemaking activity on its own, and to submit the adopted regulation immediately to the Secretary of State, thus ensuring an earlier effective date (and saving costs). 

                                          Legislation approved in 2001 extended this authority for one year; AB 1863 would grant this authority on a permanent basis.

                              (2) Information Practices Act/FERPA Reconciliation.  The state Information Practices Act (IPA) prohibits state agencies, including the CSU, from disclosing personal information without the written consent of the subject in question.  The federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) contains similar prohibitions pertaining to students, but allows student directory information (student’s home address and telephone number, both of which are considered personal information under the IPA) to be released without the written consent of the student.

                                          AB 1863 corrects a reference in the Civil Code to ensure that in instances regarding student records, FERPA prevails over the state law--which is not currently the case.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 16, and put on the Consent Calendar in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

AB 2115                      (Goldberg)                      Athletic Team Names and Mascots

As initially written, this bill sought to prohibit all public schools--K-12, the community colleges, CSU and UC--from using any school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname that is derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group.  It also specified that this prohibition could not be waived by the state Board of Education.

As amended on April 15, the bill now specificially prohibits the use of any of the following school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames:  Redskins, Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Apaches, Comanches, or any other American Indian tribal name.

As amended, the bill also requires the State Board of Education and the California Postsecondary Education Commission to jointly create, maintain, and annually update the list of school or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames that may be derogatory or discriminatory against any race, ethnicity, nationality, or tribal group.

As amended, the State Board of Education and CPEC would be authorized to grant a nonrenewable, one-year extension to a school or campus if certain conditions are met--with one exception:  No extension may be granted for any name specifically delineated in the bill, including any American Indian tribal name.

Status:        PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Education Committee on April 2.  In its amended form, the bill will be heard in that Committee on April 24.

AB 2202                      (Alquist)                      Gerontology Programs

This bill declares the intent of the Legislature that the UC provide academic courses and training in the field of geriatrics for medical students and existing internists and family physicians.

The bill would also require the CSU to provide academic courses and training in the field of gerontology for specified professional service delivery personnel [social workers, nurses, gerontologists, physical therapists, and mental health advocates for senior citizens], and would require the CSU Trustees to designate two campuses for the creation of centers for this purpose. 

Finally, the bill would require the CSU Trustees to submit a progress report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2004, on the establishment and implementation of a definable curriculum in gerontology.

Status:        PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 16, and referred to the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-term Care on the same date. 

                    [Note:  One of Assembly Member Alquist’s special interests is in the area of senior citizen issues. In her second term of office, she chaired the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care, and currently chairs the Assembly Select Committee on the Aging of Baby Boomers.  Her husband, whom she married in 1993, is former state Senator Alfred Alquist, a greatly respected legislator, who was termed out of office in 1996 at the age of 88.]

AB 2225                      (Lowenthal)          CSU:  Personal Services Contracting

This bill would enact provisions, applicable to the California State University, in the Education Code that are substantially similar to the provisions of the State Civil Service Act that establish standards for the use of personal services contracts.  Included in the State Civil Service Act are provisions that prohibit state agencies--and now the CSU-- from contracting out for services, on or after January 1, 2003, if it results in displacement of CSU employees.

"Displacement" is defined as including layoff, demotion, involuntary transfer to a new class, involuntary transfer to a new location requiring a change of residence, and time base reductions. "Displacement" does not include changes in shifts, days off, or

reassignment to other positions within the same class and general location. 

[Note:  The CSU opposes this bill, believing that it would “decrease the efficiency of the CSU, significantly increase administrative costs, and place in statute a process governing an issue which is already properly and legitimately addressed in state law governing higher education employer-employee relations.”

The bill is supported by the California State Employees Association and by the California School Employees Association.]

Status:        PASSED [7 - 3] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 16.

AB 2497                      (McLeod)              CSU:  Probationary Employees

Existing law allows an employee that is dismissed, suspended, or demoted for cause to request a hearing by the State Personnel Board.  This bill would additionally authorize a probationary employee of the California State University, who is rejected during the probationary period, to file a request for a hearing with the State Personnel Board.

The hearing conducted by the Board is required to follow the same procedure as in state civil service proceedings, including but not limited to, the discovery procedure.

[Note:  The CSU opposes this bill, believing it is unnecessary in light of existing protections for CSU probationary employees.  These employees may challenge rejection during the probationary period through several state and federal agencies.  In addition, with regard to allegations of fraud and discrimination, these employees also have access to internal administrative appeals proceedings.

The bill is supported by the California State Employees Association and by the California School Employees Association.]

Status:        PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 16, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

ACR 159                      (Aroner)                      Public Higher Education:  Student Housing

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution expresses the Legislature’s recognition that the UC and the CSU have an obligation to provide adequate housing for their students.  The resolution urges those institutions to accept their obligation to support these efforts, and would urge businesses, local communities, and the UC and the CSU to finance and encourage student housing development.

An April 10 amendment notes that “public-private partnerships cost the UC and the CSU a fraction of the cost of constructing housing through solely a public university venture,” and urges campuses to pursue such partnerships, “since public university housing is considered an auxiliary enterprise, is required to be self-supporting, and cannot receive a direct or indirect subsidy from the state.”

Status:        PASSED [10-1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 2.  Assembly Member Sally Havice (D - Cerritos) casr the sole dissenting vote.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

April 5, 2002

CAPITOL NEWS

1.       The big news this week:  The Senate passed AB 16, which proposes the largest educational facilities bond act in the state’s history.  The legislation provides a total of $25.3 billion for school construction, which will be placed before voters in two separate initiatives, one for $13 billion in November 2002, and the second for $12.3 billion in March 2004.  The measure covers K - University, with higher education receiving approximately $2 billion in the first measure, and approximately $2.3 billion in the second.  For the first time, the split between the three segments will not be the traditional 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but 40% for the Community Colleges, and 30% each for the University of California and the California State University systems, recognizing both the size and the need of the community college system, whose recent budgets have been underfunded.

The measure will provide $21.4 billion to K - 12, with $4 billion specifically earmarked for new school construction to relieve critically overcrowded schools.  The Los Angeles Unified School District would be eligible to apply for about $1.8 billion of this money.

Cal State Northridge is scheduled to receive $14,739,000 from the first initiative, if it is approved by voters, to cover the costs of the Phase II Renovation of the Engineering Building.

The Governor is expected to sign the bill this week--and may already have done so by the time you receive this newsletter.

2.       Surprising news was announced recently by the Rand Corporation Council for Aid to Education.  According to Rand’s news release, a study of private contributions to American colleges and universities showed a record high for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2001.  “Giving to institutions of higher education by foundations, individuals and corporations increased by $1 billion in the year [that ended on June 30], to $24.2 billion, confounding Rand researchers and others who had worried that philanthropy had slowed sharply.”   

According to the study, foundation giving in particular rose 18.1% to $6 billion.  The study was based on returns from 85 % of U.S. colleges and universities.   The three top fund-raisers for the year were Harvard, Stanford and Columbia, which took in $683 million, $469 million, and $359 million respectively.

3.       Update on the war between the University and the state of Wisconsin.  The Board of Regents of the University voted at the end of March to lift the freeze on undergraduate admissions established two weeks earlier, in response to sharp budget reductions that had been proposed by state legislators.  Both the Governor and Democratic lawmakers pledged not to cut the University’s budget at the deep levels that had been proposed by Republican legislators.  (Democrats control the state Senate in Wisconsin, while Republicans control the state Assembly.)

As quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the President of the Board of Regents, Jay L. Smith, said, “The suspension of any further undergraduate admissions was the right thing to do given the uncertainty of the state budget process. But with the funding assurances we have received, we can get back to the business of admitting and educating students and maintaining the quality of the UW system.”

California may be having similar discussions if the May Revise (report of third quarter revenues and expenditures) paints as dire a picture as everyone fears.  Most of the state’s budget is already committed by statute to specific uses (e.g., Prop. 98 largely protects K-12).  Unfortunately, one of the few sources of discretionary money is in public higher education.  If the deficit expands beyond the already incredible $15 - 17 billion level, higher education budgets will be highly vulnerable to the Legislature’s knife.

4.       Finally, an item for the “too much time on their hands” file.  Last week the Tennessee Supreme Court declared a new standard for legal pads:  They will henceforth be letter-sized.  The change, which StateNet reports was seven years in the making, will facilitate new scanning technology.  In banning the old, longer sized standard, one unidentified judge is quoted in the newsletter as commenting,  “…civilization as we know it [is] not going to end if we all started using shorter paper.”

*    NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST    *
Note:  Bills must be in print for 30 days before they can be heard by a committee.

AB 1908                      (Cohn)                      Public Employees:  Long-term Care Insurance

This bill would permit state employers to offer an enhanced benefit relating to long-term care insurance to employees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Existing law requires employees to pay the full cost of premiums for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan.  This bill would remove the current statutory restriction that requires employees to pay the full cost of long-term care insurance premiums, and would permit employers to contribute funds on behalf of their employees to the CalPERS program.

Status:        Introduced on February 7, heard and PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, on April 3.  The bill has been forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, with a recommendation that it be placed on the Committee’s Consent Calendar.

AB 2425                      (Richman)                      LAUSD:  Oversight of Construction Projects

This bill seeks to expand the role of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Inspector General in overseeing bond-funded construction projects.

Introduced:        February 21, 2002

*    STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION    *

AB 1756                      (Bogh)                      Higher Education:  Reporting Requirements to the INS

Existing federal law requires the U.S. Attorney General, in consultation with the U.S. Secretary of State and the Secretary of Education, to develop and conduct a program to collect from approved institutions of higher education, and designated exchange visitor programs in the United States, certain information with respect to aliens who have certain nonimmigrant status and are nationals of certain countries.

This bill would require institutions of higher education in California, and other educational and exchange visitor programs, to report to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service the name of any student-alien, subject to the above federal law, who fails to enroll or participate in classes or courses by the 30^th day following registration for the current academic term.  [Wording in boldface added to the bill in an April 1 amendment.]

Status:        PASSED [11 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 2.

AB 1766                      (Committee on Higher Ed)                     Higher Education:  Student Cal Grant A and B Awards

Existing law, known as the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Act, establishes a number of entitlement programs and eligibility requirements for awards of grants to students under these programs.  Among other things, the Act requires that a total of 22,500 Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards be granted annually.

This bill would instead require that a maximum of, rather than a total of, 22,500 Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards be funded, rather than granted annually.  A March 18 amendment includes Cal Grant C awards.

Status:        PASSED [11 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 2.

AB 1841                      (Hollingsworth)                      Public Postsecondary Education:  Resident Classification

Existing law exempts undergraduate students at a California Community College or a CSU campus from the one-year residency requirement for the purposes of determining tuition and fees, if these students are members of the armed forces stationed in California on active duty.

Graduate students under current law are provided the same exemption, but only for one year.

This bill would eliminate the one-year limitation to resident classification for graduate students and would additionally entitle members of the military reserves and military veterans--as well as members of the immediate families of those persons--to resident classification.  The bill notes one exception, applied to both undergraduate and graduate students:  Members of the armed forces assigned for educational purposes to a state-supported institution of higher education, are entitled to resident classification only for the purpose of determining the amount of tuition and fees.

Finally, the bill requests that the University of California provide the same residency requirements as those established by this bill for students enrolled at its campuses.  [Wording in boldface added in an April 1 amendment.]

Status:        PASSED [9 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 2.

AB 1904                      (Reyes)                      Entertainment Industry Minority Representation

As initially written, this bill expressed the intent of the Legislature that a responsible entity, such as a state or private licensing agency or an institute of higher education,  conduct a study on the representation of minorities in the entertainment industry.

As amended on April 4, the bill now specifically requests the University of California to prepare a report to be submitted to the Governor and the Legislature no later than January 1, 2004, that identifies and reports the hiring trends, employment patterns, and procurement practices within the motion picture studios and television networks.

The bill also now contains a sunset date of January 1, 2005.

Status:        In its amended form, AB 1904 will be heard in the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 16.

AB 2001                      (Diaz)                      Ethnic Studies Programs and Standards

This bill would require the state Department of Education, in consultation with the UC and the CSU, to establish a task force to identify model programs, standards, and curricula relating to ethnic studies at the high school level.

The task force would be required to submit its report on or before January 1, 2004, to the Governor and the Legislature, and make it available on the Department of Education’s website.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 4] by the Assembly Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 3.  The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.