Legislative Update

Legislative Update Archives

CLICK ON THE ISSUE YOU WISH TO VIEW

ARCHIVE LIST

January - June 2004

April 30, 2004, April 16, 2004, April 2, 2004, March 19, 2004, March 5, 2004, February 27, 2004, February 13, 2004, February 2, 2004, January 16, 2004

Back to Legislative Update Main Page

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

April 30, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Governor’s California Performance Review poised to make significant changes. Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order in mid February creating the California Performance Review, to be conducted by staff members (about 265 employees) within agencies and departments in state government. The purpose of the Review is to conduct a comprehensive examination of what government does and how it does it, with an eye to increasing productivity, improving services, and making government more responsive and accountable to the public.

Although the Executive Order gave the CPR team until June 30, 2004 to make its recommendations, the report is expected to be complete by April 30. Elements of the plan are beginning to leak to the press, and all signs indicate that the recommendations will be broad, comprehensive, and will include significant changes. As reported in the Orange County Register:

· Up to 200 state boards and commissions and 1,500 political appointees would be eliminated;

· Most energy regulation would be consolidated under a newly created energy secretary, selected by the Governor;

· A new Department of Public Health would be created to coordinate various prevention, advocacy and information programs (and the statewide health-planning department would be eliminated);

· The Department of Corrections and the California Youth Authority would be consolidated into a single prisons department, and several prisons [unspecified] would be closed.

Once the CPR plan is completed, it will be reviewed by the Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan, independent state body with 13 members that promotes efficiency and effectiveness in state programs. The Legislature would review it next and, by law, must act within 60 days, or the plan will go into effect automatically. Legislators are limited to approving or disapproving the plan; they may not amend it.

If adopted, the plan would constitute the largest reorganization of state government in California’s history. If Governor Schwarzenegger is able to achieve change of this magnitude, then there really is an S under his shirt.

2. Scofflaws bring significant revenue to the state. The very good news, reported in the San Jose Mercury-News this week: The four-and-a-half month long Voluntary Compliance Initiative--aka income tax amnesty program--has resulted in a whopping $1 billion in unexpected revenue to the state’s coffers. According to the paper, the program “surprised state leaders in a number of ways:

· It has raised more than twice as much money as any amnesty program in U.S. history;

· It is 12 times more than the state originally anticipated--and nearly four times the revised goal set just a week before the April 15 deadline; and

· Fewer than 900 taxpayers tried to protect their money from taxes, but that equaled roughly 2.5% of all the personal and corporate income taxes that the state will collect.”

According to the state Franchise Tax Board, the average check from individual taxpayers participating in the program was $1.2 million, and the average check from corporations was $1.3 million.

Best news of all: There are at least 50 returns to count, and an undetermined number sent via certified mail that also haven’t been counted yet. So the $1 billion already collected is really a sub-total, not the final amount.

3. May Revise to be released on May 13. Lawmakers, the Governor, business and education leaders--just about anybody with a stake in the outcome of the 2004-05 budget talks--are anxiously awaiting this document, which gives the updated estimate of revenues and expenditures as of the end of the third quarter. The May Revise replaces the estimates contained in the Governor’s Budget submitted in January and can either raise or lower the hopes of those whose programs are in jeopardy. Most bills having a cost factor are placed in Suspense files, pending release of the document, after which budget committees begin burning the midnight oil in earnest.

Not surprisingly, all eyes will be on the Governor and what path he takes to address the growing budget deficit. To paraphrase Hamlet, “To tax or not to tax, that is the question.”

4. Study of civic engagement in California reveals no surprises. The study, conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and released on April 21, reports that those who get involved in political activity--defined as voting, attending local meetings, signing petitions and writing to government officials--are most likely to be white, older, more affluent, homeowners, and more highly educated.

The study also examined voter turnout, and found that it is much lower in California than in the rest of the country. Interestingly, the state also falls behind in the rate of campaign contributions to state and national lawmakers. Not surprisingly, the San Francisco Bay Area logs in with the highest rate of political participation. The Central Valley area has the lowest.

The most interesting results reported are among immigrant generations. The study reveals that while 44% of first generation immigrants vote regularly, a much larger 57% of third generation descendants vote on a regular basis.

The complete study can be accessed at the PPIC website: http://www.ppic.org/main/home.asp Click on the report, “The Ties that Bind: Changing Demographics and Civic Engagement in CA.”

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 1973 (Nation) CSU: Employee Relations

As initially written, this bill sought to repeal those provisions of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act that (1) require CSU management and employee bargaining unit representatives to meet and confer prior to the adoption of the final state budget; (2) prohibit memoranda of understanding (MOU) requiring budgetary action by the Legislature from being effective until the Legislature, or other funding agencies, have acted; and (3) mandate referring the entire MOU back to parties for further meeting and conferring, when the Legislature or the Governor fails to fully fund the MOU.

As amended on April 12, this bill would provide that, notwithstanding the above provisions, the CSU is authorized to agree in an MOU to wage and benefit issues and to reallocate resources within its budget priorities to implement the agreement, if that reallocation is within its overall budget authority, as specified in the applicable annual Budget Act.

Status: PASSED [6 - 3] by the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, on April 21. [Notes: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill. The CSU is on record as opposing this bill.]

AB 2339 (McLeod) California State University: Board of Trustees

Initially introduced as a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content relating to the members of the Board of Trustees, recent amendments have provided the legislation with specificity:

As amended on March 25, April 13 and April 27, this bill would authorize any Trustee who is an ex officio member to designate a deputy to attend a meeting or meetings of the Board in his or her absence and to act in his or her stead, and would require the ex officio trustee to be responsible for the actions of the designated deputy.

The bill would also prohibit the Trustees from convening for a regular meeting on the same day the Regents of the University of California convene for a regular meeting.

Status: PASSED [5 - 2] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 20. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.

CSU is on record as opposing this bill. In a letter to the author, the CSU stated in part, “Because ex officio members serve on the Board of Trustees by virtue of their office, it would be highly inappropriate to allow a designated deputy to act on their behalf at meetings of the board. …In each instance, the perspective that these board members bring to the board is that of officials who have been elected by the public to serve in their office. No matter how well-intentioned and well-informed their designee, this perspective would be potentially lost with the passage of AB 2339.” ]

AB 2460 (Campbell) State Employees: Holidays

As initially written, this bill declared legislative intent to reduce the number of state holidays observed by state employees to 10 (from the current 12 specified in state law). The bill left the choice of which two to eliminate to the respective state agencies.

As amended on April 12, the bill would limit the number of holidays observed by state employees to 12, and would require the Governor and the head of each state agency, board, or commission to designate the 12 state holidays to be observed by employees.

As amended, the bill would apply its provisions to excluded employees, non-elected officers or employees of the executive branch who are not members of the civil service, and the Governor and his or her employees. The bill would allow the provisions of an existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to control the allocation of holidays, but would apply the 12 holiday limit to any MOU entered into on or after January 1, 2005.

Finally, the bill would encourage the Legislature and the judiciary to adopt rules for observance of state holidays that are consistent with the bill.

[Note: By law, in order for a bill to apply to the CSU, it must contain specific reference to the system. This bill lacks that reference. However, should the bill pass and be approved by the Governor, the CSU Board of Trustees will likely follow past practice and adopt a resolution applying the statute to the CSU.]

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [1 - 8] in the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee on April 21. The author requested and was granted reconsideration (but no date has been established yet for a re-hearing).

AB 2710 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy

This bill expresses legislative findings and intent with respect to the process of setting student fee levels. It also provides that the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees bear the primary responsibility for adjusting mandatory systemwide resident student fees at their respective system campuses, and requires these universities to develop methodologies for the adjustment of fees in accordance with a prescribed procedure.

An April 27 amendment consolidates another long-term student fee bill, AB 2574 (Diaz - D, Los Angeles) into AB 2710, adding such precepts as

· increases in fees should not be accompanied by a decline in academic quality and service;

· increases shall be coupled with corresponding increases in state and institutional student financial aid;

· undergraduate fees should not be increased by more than 8% in any academic year;

· revenues derived from student fees should remain within the budgets of the respective university systems in order to provide benefits to the students enrolled within a system;

· the State of California should maintain its primary responsibility to fund public postsecondary education in California, and, accordingly, should provide at least [unspecified] percent of the costs of education for each undergraduate student at the CSU; and

· student fee amounts, except in fiscal emergencies, should be adjusted annually by the changes in statewide per capita personal income, as compiled by the Department of Finance.

The bill would require the California Postsecondary Education Commission to review annually the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to the bill, and to report on them annually to the Legislature and the Director of Finance.

Finally, as amended on April 27, the bill would become operative on July 1, 2005.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 20.

AB 2764 (Bates) Charter Schools: Alternative Authority

As initially written, this bill sought to establish a pilot program that would allow the three systems to authorize no more than 20 campuses within their respective segments to approve and administer one charter school each. As amended on April 27, the number of campuses has been reduced to 10.

The bill would require the chartering authority to submit to the Legislature within 3 years of approving a charter school petition, and annually thereafter, a report regarding the effectiveness of that charter school in meeting specified requirements, including pupil performance objectives.

The bill requires a chartering authority to present the charter petition to the school district within whose attendance boundaries the school will be located. As amended on April 27, the bill specifies that the petition be presented at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the governing board of the school district. While the bill would require the chartering authority to supervise and oversee each charter school that it approves, it would also authorize those oversight duties to be delegated to a different campus of the higher education segment that is located within the county in which the charter school will operate. [As an example, there are three CSU campuses within Los Angeles County. One campus could transfer oversight duties of a charter school it supervised to one of the other two campuses.]

The bill contains a sunset clause, repealing its provisions on January 1, 2012.

Status: PASSED [4 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 20. [Note: The sole Nay vote was cast by Assembly Member Barbara Matthews (D - Merced).]

AB 2833 (Plescia) Public Postsecondary Education: Dual Admissions

This bill would require the CSU and the UC to establish a dual admissions program with the community colleges. Eligible applicants who are not directly admitted to either the CSU or the UC would be authorized to enter a dual admissions agreement with their community college and a CSU or UC campus. The bill would require the agreement to include a guarantee that the student will be admitted to the CSU or UC if the student completes specified courses at a community college. It would also require each community college to offer counseling services to each student participant to ensure that the student is informed of the program requirements.

As amended on April 13, the bill would specify that, in the 2004-05 academic year, participation in the CSU dual admissions program would be limited to 3,800 students and in the UC to 3,200 students. The bill would further provide that, beginning with the 2005-06 academic year, participation levels in both programs would be specified in the annual Budge Act.

Status: PASSED [5 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Rules Committee on April 20. [Note: The CSU is on record as supporting this legislation.]

AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees

Existing law provides for the membership of the Trustees of the California State University to include 5 specified ex officio members, 16 members appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate, one representative of the alumni associations, 2 student members appointed by the Governor, and a faculty member appointed by the Governor.

This bill would increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term.

Status: PASSED [16 - 4] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 28. [Note: The CSU opposes this bill, maintaining that it represents a fundamental shift in the lay nature of its governing board. In its letter of opposition, the CSU said, in part, “It’s important all board members feel a responsibility to serve the institution as a whole and not any particular constituency or segment of it.”]

AB 2912 (Goldberg) Deaf Interpreters and Transliterators

As initially written, this bill sought to provide for the licensing and regulation of interpreters and transliterators who offer interpreting and transliterating services for the deaf, hard of hearing, and other persons who require such services, as qualified interpreters.

As amended on April 1, the bill provides instead for the regulation of sign language interpreters and sign language transliterators who offer services to the deaf and hard of hearing to consumers for compensation.

As initially written, the bill provided that, effective January 1, 2006, a person must be a qualified interpreter in order to translate or interpret for a consumer and use the title “interpreter.” As amended on April 1, the effective date is January 1, 2009, and specifies the bill’s applicability to qualified sign language interpreters or transliterators.

While the bill is applicable to a broad range of categories of individuals providing interpreting services, it also includes a number of exemptions.

A person who interprets during a religious organization’s worship service, or who is working in an emergency situation would be exempted, for example. In addition, individuals who have graduated from an Interpreter Training Program with an associate’s degree or higher in interpreting and transliterating, who is supervised by a qualified interpreter, and who is within 5 years of graduating and obtains national credentials as a sign language interpreter or transliterator, would also be exempted.

The April 1 amendments add two additional exemptions: (1) Under certain conditions, a person who is licensed or certified in another state to engage in the practice of sign language interpreting, and (2) a person who occasionally engages in the practice of sign language interpreting in a social situation, that does not require a qualified interpreter under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Another April 1 amendment deletes a provision included in the original version requiring continuing education courses that must be completed every year in order for qualified interpreters to maintain their status.

As initially written, the bill created a new crime by providing that violation of its provisions is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $1000, or both. As amended on April 16, the bill would instead authorize the Department of Consumer Affairs to assess an administrative penalty of up to $1,000 against a referral agency or person who falsifies credentials.

Finally, as amended on April 16, the bill would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and request the UC, to issue a joint report to the Legislature by February 1, 2005, that evaluates standards for the hiring of sign language interpreters and offers recommendations for student access to qualified interpreters.

Status: PASSED [7 - 5] by the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 20. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

AB 2923 (Liu) Consolidation of Postsecondary Commissions

As initially written, this bill sought to consolidate the policy responsibilities of the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) into a new state entity, to be known as the California Postsecondary Education Policy and Finance Commission, effective July 1, 2005.

As amended on April 1, the bill now expresses legislative intent to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of CPEC. The bill would reconstitute CPEC as a commission with a membership of 11 members [down from the current 17].

As amended on April 27, the bill states legislative intent that student fee and financial aid policies be integrated with institutional funding and finance policies to ensure that all qualified Californians have access to education and that higher education is affordable for all students.

The Legislative Analyst would be required to submit a report to the chairs of the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2007, and periodically thereafter, on the effectiveness of the commission’s policy leadership, along with any recommendations to improve the commission’s ability to carry out its responsibilities.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 20.

AB 3010 (Laird) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings

Existing law requires the Department of General Services to supervise the design and construction of buildings on K-12 public school and community college sites, according to requirements specified in the Field Act. Buildings constructed on the campuses of the University of California and the California State University fall under the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). Generally, the Field Act contains more rigorous (and more costly) building standards than the CBSC.

As initially written, this bill sought to authorize certain school buildings, constructed after January 1, 2005, that are designed for community college purposes, but used to house classes of the CSU or the UC, to be built either to Field Act provisions, or according to the California Building Standards Code.

The bill also provided that a community college district governing board that proposes to construct a school building under this bill, that chooses not to comply with the Field Act, must provide appropriate public notice, including the holding of a public hearing.

As amended on April 12, these two provisions were deleted, and new language inserted that would require the Department of General Services to review, at appropriate stages, plans being prepared by the designers of community college facilities, and to determine the scope and related costs of these reviews.

[See also SB 1175 below.]

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 20.

AB 3064 (Committee on Higher Educ.) Public Postsecondary Education: Group Purchasing

This bill would add a provision to the Donahoe Higher Education Act authorizing a public postsecondary educational institution to make purchases of goods and services through a group purchasing program under prescribed conditions.

The bill defines such a program to mean any plan, program, or method that is intended to provide the opportunity to obtain goods or routine, nonprofessional services at a discount or savings not otherwise available through existing practices.

As initially written, the Director of Finance would be required to report to the Legislature, no later than July 1, 2007, with findings and recommendations regarding the group purchasing programs authorized by the bill. A March 23 amendment deletes this requirement.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 20.

SB 1175 (Denham) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings

As initially written, this bill would have authorized certain school buildings, constructed after January 1, 2005, that are designed for community college purposes, but used to house classes of the CSU or the UC, to be built either to Field Act provisions, or according to the California Building Standards Code.

The bill further provided that any community college district governing board that proposed to construct a school building under this bill, that chose not to comply with the Field Act, must provide appropriate public notice, including the holding of a public hearing.

An April 26 amendment deleted these two provisions. This bill now simply requires school buildings, newly constructed after January 1, 2005, on a community college campus, to be built either according to the Field Act or according to the California Building Standards Code (as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission for buildings constructed by the CSU or the UC).

[See also AB 3010 above.]

Status: PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 19, and placed on the Senate Special Consent Calendar on April 29.

SB 1245 (Kuehl) CSU: Professional Nursing Programs

As initially written, this bill simply expressed legislative intent to establish entry-level master’s degree programs within all CSU campuses that have professional nursing programs approved by the Board of Registered Nursing.

As amended on April 12, the bill would establish, until January 1, 2014, entry-level master’s programs for nursing at CSU campuses that have a nursing program approved by the Board of Registered Nursing, to determine which campuses are eligible for supplemental funds.

The bill also now states legislative intent that an unspecified amount of money be appropriated in the annual Budget Act to support a 3-year entry-level master’s degree program in nursing at the CSU. If no funding is provided in the annual Budget Act to fulfill the obligations of the bill, the CSU would be authorized to make entry-level master’s degree program courses available to students through self-supporting Cooperative Extension programs.

Included in the April 12 amendments is a reporting requirement: The Chancellor would be required, on or before January 1 of each year, to prepare and submit to the Legislature a report regarding the status of the CSU entry-level master’s programs.

Status: PASSED [11 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, April 22.

SB 1335 (Morrow) Public Postsecondary Education Standards: Academic Bill of Rights

Initially a “spot” bill--a placeholder for content to be added later by the author--this legislation was amended on April 12 to request the UC, and direct the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to develop guidelines and implement specified principles of an Academic Bill of Rights, relating to academic freedom.

The bill makes legislative declarations and findings of the value of free inquiry and free speech within the academic community, intellectual diversity that protects and fosters independence of thought and speech, and intellectual independence. The Academic Bill of Rights includes such principles as

· Grading students solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, and not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs;

· Requiring teachers to consider and make their students aware of the wide diversity of viewpoints;

· Prohibiting faculty from using their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination;

· Maintaining an environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas;

· Hiring (firing, promoting, granting tenure to) faculty solely on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise, and not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs; and

· Requiring academic institutions to maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within or outside their fields of inquiry.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 9] by the Senate Education Committee on April 21.

SB 1502 (McClintock) Postsecondary Education: Veterans: Resident Classification

Existing law entitles a graduate student at a CSU or UC campus to resident classification for the purpose of determining tuition and fees, for no more than one academic year, if that student is a member of the U.S. armed forces, stationed in California on active duty, or if that student is a child or spouse who is a dependent of an armed forces member stationed in the state.

This bill would eliminate the one-year limitation on resident classification for active duty members.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE in the Senate Education Committee on April 22. [The vote is not yet available.] The author did not request reconsideration.

SB 1535 (Karnette) CSU, UC: Student Fee Policies

As initially written, this bill provided that, beginning in the 2005-06 academic year, the Trustees, if they elect to increase undergraduate mandatory systemwide fees in the CSU system, could not increase those fees by a percentage exceeding the per capita growth rate in California in the most recent fiscal year for which complete data is available.

The bill would also have authorized the Trustees, upon a finding of unique fiscal circumstances, to increase undergraduate mandatory systemwide fees by an amount not to exceed 10%. Beginning in the 2004-05 academic year, the Trustees would have been authorized to increase fees for graduate students by whatever percentage they deemed appropriate, until the graduate fees were 50% higher than undergraduate fees.

The bill requested the Regents of the University of California to adopt these fee policies for that system’s undergraduate and graduate students.

As amended on April 27, all of the above provisions were deleted. The bill now requires instead the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the California Postsecondary Education Commission, in consultation with the UC, the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to propose a statewide policy, including specified principles, for the mandatory systemwide student fees of public higher education institutions. The bill would require this proposed policy to be presented in writing by February 1, 2005, to the Legislature, the Governor, and the Director of Finance.

The bill contains an urgency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

Status: PASSED [11 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 22, where it is scheduled to be heard on May 10.

SCA 15 (McClintock) State Contracts: Contracting Out-of-State Services

Authorizes the Governor to require any state agency to contract out the performance of state activities or tasks to the private sector that otherwise may be performed by state civil service employees, if the Governor determines that more favorable terms would result.

The bill also requires that contracts entered, pursuant to the provisions in this bill, be let or awarded on a competitive bid basis.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 7] in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee on April 20. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no date for a re-hearing has been established yet. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill.]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

April 16, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Bush proposes time limit on Pell Grants. Savings he believes will accrue as a result of the limits would be used to fund a program that would provide $5,000 grants to college students to study mathematics or science. Students pursuing baccalaureate degrees would be limited to eight years of Pell grants, and community college students to four years. While there are no limits currently, the Higher Education Act does require students to make steady and reasonable progress toward their degrees--which generally has been interpreted to mean 6 years for students pursuing 4-year degrees, and three years for community college students.

Under the President’s plan, students who are already eligible for Pell grants would receive an additional $5,000 to study math or science. The maximum Pell grant award per year is currently $4,050, an amount that has not changed over the past two years. Bipartisan Congressional efforts to raise the maximum have been unsuccessful, in part because of disagreement over the size of the increase, and the growing deficit in the Pell Grant program, which currently stands at $3.7 billion. The shortfall has accumulated over the past several years as a result of more students applying for Pell grants than the U.S. Department of Education anticipated.

Shortly after he took office, the President spoke of increasing the maximum to $5,100, while some members of Congress proposed a $7,000 level, arguing that the purchasing power of the Pell Grant had been seriously eroded as a result of student fee increases. Over the past two years, colleges and universities nationwide have seen their appropriations significantly reduced as state legislators grapple with budget deficits. Increases in student fees and tuition have been the inevitable result, as higher education institutions struggle to maintain quality and accessibility.

President Bush’s program to encourage math and science students is estimated to cost $100 million. Half of this amount would come from assumed savings from the Pell Grant Program limits and the other half from private sources. The White House did not specify the origin of the private money.

The Chronicle of Higher Education notes that former President Clinton had proposed a similar program that called for limiting Pell Grants. His proposal, offered in 1998, would have made the informal limits official--six years for baccalaureate-seeking students and three years for community college students. The Republican leadership in the House Education Committee rejected the proposal. Early reaction from both Republicans and Democrats suggest that Bush’s will meet the same fate.

2. Presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry proposes expansion of AmeriCorps public service program. Using savings he believes will result from making changes in the federal government’s Guaranteed Student Loan program, Kerry told an audience of New York City College students that he would expand the program from 75,000 to 500,000 student participants.

As outlined on his website, Kerry’s plan would engage 200,000 students full-time in two years of public service in exchange for four years of college aid. Seventy-five thousand would be involved in “helping educate children in troubled schools,” 25,000 in “improving our homeland security,” and 100,000 “serving in other critical areas, from building affordable housing to helping seniors to live independently, to keeping our water and parks more clean.”

Three hundred thousand part-time college students would serve part-time in such endeavors as “preparing toddlers for school and helping children learn to read.”

Kerry would fund the expansion of the program primarily by eliminating $12 billion in windfall profits that banks make from changing interest rates in the Guaranteed Student Loan program. Under the current system, the federal government guarantees lenders a certain interest rate on student loans. “When student interest payments fall short of this rate, the government makes up the difference. Currently, however, when student payments exceed this rate, lenders get to pocket the extra money. This is a windfall that creates excess profits for banks.”

Kerry proposes to replace the “political forces in Congress” with the “competitive forces in the marketplace by requiring banks to win student loan contracts by bidding at an auction…. Low costs and high-quality service will be rewarded; political clout will not be.” According to Kerry, other government agencies have successfully used auctions in similar situations.

The idea of a government-sponsored auction has been proposed before. The Chronicle of Higher Education notes that in 2001, Congress appointed a 27-member panel “to consider ways to inject market mechanisms into the federal-loan program.” The panel concluded that, “it was best to leave the system alone.” One of the pitfalls of the public marketplace would be the rise of differential interest rates; that is, charging students at one college a different rate than at another, based on the institution’s default rate.

While the higher education associations generally believe that lenders do make excess profits, there is skepticism that a government-sponsored auction would effectively address or improve the situation.

3. Harvard University study reveals California tops the nation in million dollar homes. The study, conducted by the University’s Joint Center for Housing, surveyed cities in the country with a population of 100,000 or more. Forty-one percent of homes priced at $1 million were located in California. Even more amazing: 31% of those purchasing million dollar homes paid in cash.

California did not have the city with the largest number of million dollar homes. That distinction belongs to Massachusetts, where Cambridge has 11% of its homes in the million-dollar-plus category. San Francisco was second with 7%, and Pasadena and Los Angeles were third and fourth, with 4.7% and 3.8% respectively.

4. The high costs of obesity. Earlier this month, Capitol Journal reported that the rate of obesity in this country had doubled in the last ten years. In a follow-up article in the current edition, the Journal reports that California leads the nation in the amount of medical costs incurred as a direct cause of obesity: $7.7 billion annually, with about $3.5 billion of that total coming in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. New York ranks second, with 6.08 billion; Texas, third, with $5.3 billion, and Pennsylvania and Florida, fourth and fifth, with $4.1 and $3.9 billion respectively.

The states with the lowest obesity-related medical costs: Wyoming at $87 million, followed by Montana ($175 million), Vermont ($141 million), and Alaska and South Dakota (tied for fourth place, with $195 million each).

5. Revered California State Librarian, Kevin Starr, retires. The highly regarded Starr had been the state’s chief librarian and resident expert on California history for ten years. Said to have the ability to expound indefinitely on any subject related to the state, the 63-year-old Starr will teach history full-time at the University of Southern California and continue writing books. He is the author of 14 books, including 6 in his “Americans and the California Dream” series, and is under contract for three more.

The Sacramento Bee once observed that, “Starr could turn a question about a mall closing into a passionate dissertation on all the ways California has etched itself into the American consciousness.”

When Starr was asked once by a Bee reporter why people outside of California viewed the state with both revulsion and admiration, his response was, “Let’s talk in Jungian terms. There is the animus and the anima. The left brain and the right brain. California is the anima--the great cultural unconsciousness of America. Ideas get formulated here. They are standardized back in the East.”

6. California hasn’t had an official residence for the Governor since 1967, when the Reagans vacated the Victorian Old Governor’s Mansion near downtown Sacramento, for safety reasons. The Old Mansion is a tourist site today, having been refurbished as a historical monument. Supporters built a house in Carmichael, a suburb of Sacramento, for the Reagans, but neither they nor subsequent governors ever lived in it. Subsequent Governors chose to live in other homes rented by supporters, or in the case of former Governor Jerry Brown, in a rented apartment. (Brown’s sparsely furnished flat had a mattress, but no bed--a visual reminder of his “Less is More” philosophy.)

California Journal reports that the Carmichael house was later sold, with the $3.5 million in proceeds deposited into an account for a future Official Residence. In 1999, the Legislature created a bipartisan commission to look at possible sites close to the Capitol. Arguments ensued over the size, floor plan, architecture, and amount of money to spend. (Nothing is ever easy in this state.) Eight months and 36 sites later, the commission dissolved with no action recommended or taken.

Nearly 40 years later, California is still without an official residence. The issue has resurfaced because of the cost of renting a suite, with room service, for the current Governor in the Hyatt Regency Hotel across the street from the Capitol building. [Corporate donors to his 2006 campaign account are currently paying for this cost.] The First Lady is said to be looking at several homes in the suburbs, but “downtown advocates” are pressing for a permanent official residence close to the Capitol. The Journal notes that, “Both sides are eagerly anticipating some signal from the Governor.”

The Journal echoes Charles Kuralt’s definition of the real purpose of a governor’s residence, which is “not to give the governors a place to lay their heads at night, but to give school children a place to visit.” (Along with Sutter’s Fort, where gold was discovered, and Folsom Prison, which sports a popular gift shop.)

7. Tax tidbits. The Good News: Those who ended up having to pay Uncle Sam on April 15 should take a modicum of comfort in the fact that California does not rank first, nor even in the top ten as the most burdensome tax state in the country. According to the Tax Foundation, which keeps tabs on such things, California ranks 26^th. New York and Maine are the top two tax behemoths, while Alaska and New Hampshire rank as the least onerous.

The Bad News: The Congressional Quarterly reports that the time required to prepare the 1040 federal income tax return has increased to 28.5 hours, an increase of 42 minutes over last year.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 1880 (Maze) Tuition Waivers for Veterans

Beginning with the 2006-07 academic year, this bill would require the CSU and the Community Colleges, and request the UC, to reduce by 50% the amount of mandatory systemwide tuition and fees charged to, and would require the waiver of community college enrollment fees for, a student who is a resident of the state, who served in the Armed Forces for at least 4 years and was honorably discharged, and who has exhausted his/her eligibility for any federal military educational benefits. An April 12 amendment adds to the eligibility requirements, a student whose annual income, including the value of any support received from a parent, does not exceed the national poverty level.

Status: PASSED [11 - 0] by the Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 13.

AB 2207 (Levine) Statistical Districts: San Fernando Valley

This bill would require any state agency or department that develops and maintains data and statistics on the municipal level, to make a separate breakdown of the San Fernando Valley, in the preparation and maintenance of any statistical analyses by city.

The bill also authorizes state agencies to require the City of Los Angeles to provide all necessary data.

[Note: On November 24, 2003, L.A. City Mayor James Hahn signed a resolution, approved by the City Council, requiring city departments to keep separate data for the San Fernando Valley, and calling on the U.S. Census Bureau to do the same. The resolution was initiated by the Valley Industry and Commerce Association.]

Status: PASSED [13 - 0] by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 13.

AB 2678 (Koretz) Textbook Rental Library Service

As initially written, this bill sought to require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and urge the University of California, to set up a textbook rental service for their undergraduate students at each of their campuses, to be available at the start of the 2006-07 academic year.

As amended on April 12, the bill urges the three systems to establish a textbook rental service on their campuses, if the campus president or chancellor certifies that all of the following has occurred:

· The recognized student body organization has voted to request the service;

· The president or chancellor approves of the establishment of the service;

· Any existing contracts, or other established arrangements, with entities operating campus bookstores, permit (or which can be changed, cancelled, or renewed to accommodate) the establishment of the service; and

· In the case of the community college district, the governing board approves the establishment of the service.

The three systems are also urged to convene task forces to determine recommended procedures and policies for the establishment and operation of textbook rental services.

As amended, the bill further requires that the textbook rental program established at a CSU or community college campus after January 1, 2005, be funded by students and be financially self-sustaining; have a textbook rental cost for full-time students that does not exceed 50% of the average retail purchase cost of textbooks for full-time students; not limit the rights of faculty to select appropriate texts in accordance with established campus policies and procedures; and give students the option to purchase the textbooks they rent in a manner determined by the textbook rental service.

The bill also now provides that the textbook rental program can be disbanded with approval of the student body organization.

Finally, the April 12 amendments fine-tune the fee authorized to be charged to students. The governing boards of the three systems would be authorized to charge a campus-based rental fee to cover the rental services and to levy fines for late, lost, or damaged books.

Status: PASSED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 14. [Note: Assembly Member Robert Pacheco (R - Walnut) cast the sole Nay vote.]

AB 2764 (Bates) Charter Schools: Alternative Authority

As initially written, this bill sought to authorize the UC, CSU, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to submit an application to the State Board of Education to approve a petition submitted to establish a charter school.

As amended on April 13, the bill instead seeks to establish a pilot program that would allow the three systems to authorize no more than 20 campuses within their respective segments to approve and administer one charter school each.

The bill also now requires a chartering authority to present the charter petition to the school district within whose attendance boundaries the school will be located. While the bill would require the chartering authority to supervise and oversee each charter school that it approves, it would also authorize those oversight duties to be delegated to a different campus of the segment that is located within the county in which the charter school will operate. [As an example, there are three CSU campuses within Los Angeles County. One campus could transfer oversight duties of a charter school it supervised to one of the other two campuses.]

Finally, the April 13 amendments add a sunset clause, repealing the bill on January 1, 2012.

Status: PASSED [7 - 1] by the Assembly Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee on April 14. [Note: The sole Nay vote was cast by Assembly Member Gene Mullin (D - San Francisco).]

AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees

This bill would increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term.

Status: PASSED [5 - 1] by Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 14. [Note: Assembly Member Shirley Horton (R - Chula Vista) cast the sole Nay vote.]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

April 2, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Initiative Update. As of March 26, there are 39 initiatives in circulation; signatures are being counted for 3 others; and 6 initiatives are in the Attorney General’s office awaiting title and summary. Three initiatives have qualified thus far for the November 2, 2004 ballot, as follows:

· Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act of the 21^st Century. This initiative would provide for the sale of $9.95 billion in General Obligation bonds to construct a 700 mile high-speed train system, that would connect all of the state’s major population centers--Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego.

[Note: There are currently 2 bills in the Legislature that seek to postpone the Bond measure to the November 2006 and November 2010 elections, respectively (SB 1169: Murray, D - Los Angeles; SB 1483: Perata, D - Oakland). A third bill, SB 1256 (McClintock, R - Thousand Oaks) seeks to kill the measure altogether.]

· Access to Government Information. California already has numerous laws regulating the public’s access to government information (Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Brown Act, California Public Records Act, etc.). This measure would place the concept of open government--that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business--into the state Constitution.

· Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendments to the Health Care Coverage Requirements. The purpose of this California Chamber-sponsored referendum is to repeal SB 2 (Burton, D - San Francisco), enacted last year.

SB 2 creates a mandatory employee health care benefits program for employers with 20 or more employees. Beginning in 2006, businesses with 200 workers or more would have to provide coverage for employees and their dependents. Beginning in 2007, employers with 50 to 199 workers would pay for coverage for employees only. Businesses with 20-49 workers would pay for employee coverage when a tax credit is enacted. In all cases, the employer would pay 80% of the cost of the coverage, and the employee 20%.

2. Latest Census Bureau Report shows California continuing as the country’s most populous state. California’s population tops off at 35.5 million, followed by Texas (22.1 million), New York (19.2 million), Florida (17.0 million) and Illinois (12.7 million). Other numbers, which illustrate the state’s growing challenges in providing services and education:

· California has the highest total of elementary school-age children (4.8 million), followed by Texas (3.1 million), New York (2.3 million), Florida (2.0 million) and Illinois (1.6 million). Of the country’s 292 million people, 36.8 million children are in the 5 - 13 age group.

· California also has the highest number of high school-age children (14- to 17-year olds): 2.1 million. Texas (1.3 million), New York (1.0 million), Florida (900,000) and Illinois (714,000), followed. Nationally, 16.5 million children are in this age category.

· California has the highest number of adult residents (defined as 18 to 65 year-olds), with 26.1 million falling into this category. Texas is next with 15.9 million, followed by New York (14.7 million), Florida (13.1 million) and Pennsylvania (9.5 million).

· California has the highest number of people over the age of 65 (3.8 million), followed by Florida (2.9 million), New York (2.5 million), Texas (2.2 million) and Pennsylvania (1.9 million). California also added the highest number of people aged 65 and over (169,000) between 2000 and 2003.

One category in which California didn’t place first is the highest rate of growth over the period 2000 to 2003. Nevada ranks first at 12%, followed by Arizona (9%), Florida (7%), and Georgia and Texas, tied with 6% each. More information on population statistics contained in the Census Bureau’s March 10 Report can be accessed at the Bureau’s website: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population [Click on March 10, 2004: “Census Bureau Estimates Number of Adults, Older People and School-Age Children in States.”]

3. The California State University produced the largest number of teachers in its history, according to the results of a survey conducted by the system and presented to the Board of Trustees at the Board’s March 16-17 meeting. The period covered in the survey was 2001-02, the most recent for which complete data is available. The CSU produced 11,500 teachers, with 95% of the graduates working as full-time teachers during the first year after graduation. A distant second: Appalachian State University in North Carolina, where 67% of its graduates become teachers within one year.

4. Assembly Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles) warns educators that more budget cuts to K-12 education are coming. Goldberg, a former teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District, told a group of educators with whom she met recently that, while she would do everything possible to fend off deeper cuts in education funding, there was a point where cuts in the Health and Human Services budget would begin “causing people to die or be harmed.” At that point, she said, she’d rather exact further cuts in education “than put a cap on Healthy Families, cancel drug medication for HIV and AIDS, [and] cap prostate cancer and breast cancer treatment for the poor.”

A March poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California revealed that Democrats are much more worried than Republicans that the state’s poor fiscal condition will lead to severe cuts to K-12 education (Democrats 76%, Republicans 43%), and health and human services (Democrats 74%, Republicans 36%).

The poll also revealed that a majority of Democrats would support tax increases to maintain current funding in K-12 education (66%) and health and human services (56%), while a majority of Republicans would vote against raising taxes in these two areas (52% and 62%, respectively).

5. Oops. State Controller Steve Westley announced last week that he could save the state upwards of $400 million by conducting performance audits to illustrate how state programs could be operated more efficiently. His press release followed on the heels of the Governor’s recently launched program, California Performance Review, which seeks to do “a comprehensive examination of what government does and how it is done.”

The day after the Controller sent out his press release, the State Auditor, Elaine M. Howle, sent out hers--reminding everyone that conducting performance audits is the primary function of her agency…for the past 32 years.

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *
Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

AB 2460 (Campbell) State Employees: Holidays

This bill declares legislative intent to reduce the number of state holidays observed by state employees to 10 (from the current 12 specified in state law). As currently written, the bill leaves the choice of which two to eliminate to the respective state agencies.

Status: Assembly Desk, awaiting assignment to a policy committee.

[Notes: This bill is likely to generate a jurisdictional dispute, since holidays are benefits subject to collective bargaining. The state Legislature may not have the authority to delete holidays outside of that arena. On the other hand, the Legislature could decline to appropriate the money in the state budget for the two holidays.

By law, in order for a bill to apply to the CSU, it must contain specific reference to the system. This bill lacks that reference. However, should the bill pass and be approved by the Governor, the CSU Board of Trustees will likely follow past practice and adopt a resolution applying the statute to the CSU.]

AB 2912 (Goldberg) Deaf Interpreters and Transliterators

This bill would provide for the licensing and regulation of interpreters and transliterators who offer interpreting and transliterating services for the deaf, hard of hearing, and other persons who require such services, as qualified interpreters.

The bill provides that, effective January 1, 2006, a person must be a qualified interpreter in order to translate or interpret for a consumer and use the title “interpreter.” While the bill is applicable to a broad range of categories of individuals providing interpreting services, it also includes a number of exemptions.

The bill also includes continuing education requirements that must be completed every year in order for qualified interpreters to maintain their status.

Finally, the bill creates a new crime by providing that violation of its provisions is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $1000, or both.

Status: Scheduled to be heard on April 13 in the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions.

ACR 202 (Levine) Library Week

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims April 18 to 24, 2004 as Library Week.

[Note: Assembly Member Levine introduced this resolution on March 24 at CSUN’s request. National Library Week, already proclaimed, coincides with the state’s week.]

Status: PASSED [8 - 0] by the Assembly Rules Committee, April 1.

SB 1588 (Poochigian) UC, CSU, CCC: Volunteer Service

This bill would authorize any current or retired faculty member employed, or previously employed, by a CSU or California Community College campus, to volunteer to teach, without compensation, any for-credit course that would be applicable to unit, graduation, or grade-point average credit for students at those campuses.

The bill expresses legislative intent to encourage the UC to adopt a similar policy.

Status: Introduced on February 20. Scheduled to be heard in the Senate Education Committee on April 14.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 1880 (Maze) Tuition Waivers for Veterans

Beginning with the 2006-07 academic year, this bill would require the CSU and the Community Colleges, and request the UC, to reduce by 50% the amount of mandatory systemwide tuition and fees charged to, and would require the waiver of community college enrollment fees for, a student who signed up for service in the Armed Forces, who is a resident of the state, who served in the Armed Forces for at least 4 years and was honorably discharged, and who has exhausted his/her eligibility for any federal military educational benefits.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 30, and referred to the Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee on the same date.

AB 1914 (Montanez) Education in State Prisons

Existing law requires the Director of Corrections, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the heads of the 3 segments of public higher education in California, with the advice of the California Postsecondary Education Commission, to enter into interagency agreements to plan and develop prison-based educational programs.

The above named individuals are also required by existing law to appoint an advisory committee to make recommendations on the use of instructional television in these programs, and to review and make recommendations relating to any proposed budgets for them.

This bill, the Prison Education Reform Act, would rename the advisory committee the “Robert E. Burton Correctional Education Board.” It would also repeal the position of Superintendent of Correctional Education, which currently oversees and administers all prison education programs.

The bill would require instead that the advisory committee approve education programs in correctional institutions and adopt rules and regulations for the admission of inmate students to these programs. The advisory committee would also be required to provide every inmate, who has a reasonable expectation of release, with the opportunity to achieve a specified level of functional literacy.

Finally, this bill would require the advisory committee to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2006, with recommendations for further restructuring of correctional education in the state.

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 30. It will be heard in Appropriations on April 14.

AB 1969 (McLeod) CSU & UC: Course in Employee Ethics

This bill would require the CSU and urge the UC to offer, on at least a semiannual basis, to each member, officer, or designated employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests, an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of university officials.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 30, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date. The bill will be heard in Appropriations on April 14.

AB 1999 (Committee on Higher Educ.) California State University TRUSTEE BILL

AB 1999 is an “omnibus” bill that contains non-controversial items, including the repeal of obsolete provisions in the Codes. As an example, Education Code Section 90450 authorizes CSU, Chico to dispose of six houses located on the campus to parties willing to preserve and restore them. The transactions authorized by this Section have been completed, and thus the need for the provision has expired. This bill would repeal Section 90450.

As amended on March 23, other provisions include the following:

· A proposal to conform additional sections of the CSU Contract Law to the existing authority in the State Contract Act, to ensure that the minor contract limit for CSU is automatically adjusted to be consistent with the limit for state contracts identified by the Department of Finance.

(In 2001, the CSU successfully had three sections within the CSU Contract Law in the Public Contract Code amended to coincide with the increase of the Department of Finance’s minor capital outlay dollar limit from $250,000 to $400,000. This bill would make such adjustments automatic, without having to seek legislation to achieve conformity.)

· Notice of intention to make changes in the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees.

An exemption from the requirements of the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act was deleted by one of the March 23 amendments. (This Act provides that every state entity directly involved in furnishing information to the public shall employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public-contact positions to provide it. The Act includes exemptions for school districts, county boards of education, and county superintendents, and, as initially written, this bill would have included the CSU among the exemptions.)

[Note: Material in bold print reflects additions/deletions contained in the amendments.]

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 30, and referred to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on the same date.

AB 2477 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Production and Pricing of College Textbooks

This bill expresses various findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to the cost of college textbooks. The bill urges textbook publishers to take specified actions aimed at reducing the amounts that students currently pay for textbooks.

As initially written, the bill required the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and requested the University of California, to encourage faculty members, when assigning textbooks, to give preference to practices that are less costly to students and to encourage campuses to provide as many forums as possible for students to purchase used textbooks. As amended on March 23, the bill would require/request the respective systems to work with their respective academic senates to encourage faculty to give consideration to the least costly practices in assigning textbooks.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 30, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the same date.

AB 2764 (Bates) Charter Schools: Alternative Authority

This bill would authorize the UC, CSU, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to submit an application to the State Board of Education to approve a petition submitted to establish a charter school.

[Note: This bill is a reintroduction of the author’s AB 1464. That bill died in the Assembly Education Committee, pursuant to Joint Rule 62 (a), which provides that a bill may be set for hearing in a committee only three times. If the hearings are all cancelled, the bill is considered dead.]

Status: Referred on March 11 to the Assembly Education and the Assembly Higher Education Committees.

[Note: The bill was heard on March 31 in the Assembly Education Committee, but a vote on the bill was postponed, when several committee members expressed concerns about the bill.

Opponents said they were worried that the bill would weaken oversight of charter schools. Since public schools and both charter and traditional schools can currently partner with universities and colleges, opponents questioned the need for the bill.

The California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California School Boards Association both officially oppose the bill. School districts have also been less than supportive of charter schools, viewing them as competition, rather than as alternative options for parents. School districts currently receive 3% of the per-pupil funds allocated to charter schools to pay for their oversight and administration.

The Office of the Legislative Analyst supports AB 2764, believing that it would effectively address the problem of inadequate oversight of charter schools by some school districts, which can lead to fiscal mismanagement and/or lower academic success.]

SB 1161 (Alpert) Library Bond Act

This bill seeks to place on the November 2, 2004 ballot, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2004. If approved by voters, the Act would authorize the sale of General Obligation bonds in the amount of $2 billion for the purpose of financing library construction and renovation, pursuant to a program administered by the State Librarian.

The proceeds from the sale of the bonds would be deposited into the California Public Library Construction and Renovation Fund of 2004, which this bill would establish.

This money would be available for grants to any city, county, city and county, or library district able to meet a 35% matching funds requirement.

A CSU or UC campus would also be eligible to apply for grants from this fund, providing the campus is part of a joint-use project. The match requirement for the public education institution would be 50% of the 35% required of the local participating entity.

The bill contains an Urgency Clause, which means that after the bill passes the legislature, it would take effect immediately upon the signature of the Governor. Urgency bills require a two-thirds vote.

Status: PASSED [10 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee on March 24, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on the same date. The bill will be heard in Appropriations on April 19.

SB 1175 (Denham) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings

This bill would authorize certain school buildings, constructed after January 1, 2005, that are designed for community college purposes, but used to house classes of the CSU or the UC, to be built either to Field Act provisions, or according to the California Building Standards Code.

A community college district governing board that proposes to construct a school building under this bill, that chooses not to comply with the Field Act, must provide appropriate public notice, including the holding of a public hearing.

Status: PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee on March 24, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on the same date. The bill will be heard in Appropriations on April 19.

SB 1503 (McClintock) Public Postsecondary Education: Nonresident Admissions Criteria

Existing law requires illegal aliens, who have attended high school in California for three or more years and graduated from a California high school, to be exempted from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the CSU.

This bill would delete this provision from the law.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [1 - 10] in the Senate Education Committee, March 31. [Note: Senator Pete Knight (R - Lancaster) was the sole vote in favor of the bill. The author did not ask for reconsideration.]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

March 19, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Clarification. In the last issue of Legislative Update, there was an implication in the item on the March Election results that the Valley Industry and Commerce Association opposed Measure R, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s $3.8 billion school bond. While the organization rejected a motion to support the measure, it did not officially oppose it. VICA took no official position on Measure R or on Proposition 55, the statewide K-University bond initiative.

2. House Armed Services Committee approves legislation strengthening the Solomon Amendment. Long a flashpoint for controversy, the Solomon Amendment penalizes colleges and universities that bar ROTC recruiters from their campuses by denying them access to federal funds. Two Universities, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, have challenged the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, on the grounds that the Pentagon’s anti-gay policy is a violation of the Universities’ anti-discrimination policies.

HR 3966, the ROTC Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2002, would strengthen current law by expanding access to career services that are on a par with those provided to other employers, and by imposing stiffer penalties for non-compliance.

Current law denies funds from the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (excluding student financial aid). HR 3966 would add the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice and Transportation.

The bill, which passed yesterday on a voice vote, will be heard next in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

3. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security unanimously approved legislation this week to change the formulas by which states are funded for terrorism preparedness. HR 3266 would alter the current formula, which requires that every state receive at least .75% of the money appropriated for “state and local first responder” expenditures, to one that is based on state, regional, and local preparedness needs, population density, infrastructure assets to be protected, and level of threats.

Under current law, small states with less likelihood of being targeted by terrorists stand to receive significantly more money than large states with far greater susceptibility. The example most frequently cited is Wyoming, which has less than 1.7% of the country’s population and received $38 per capita in 2004. California, with 12.2% of the nation’s population, received $5 per capita.

The bill has been forwarded to the full Homeland Security Committee, and is also pending in the House Judiciary, Transportation & Infrastructure, and the Energy & Commerce Committees.

4. Viruses raise costs as well as tempers. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports this week on the astonishing costs associated with worms and viruses that have plagued colleges and universities during the past year. The paper highlights one study in particular, conducted during a 5-week period last summer, when the “Blaster worm” was rampant. Stanford University logged the highest number of computers infected--6,000, about 30% of the total number on the campus--and the hours to repair them (18,420), at the highest cost: a whopping $806,000.

Other campuses with significant numbers: The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor had 2,600 computers infected (about 7% of the total on the campus), and spent 16,100 hours to repair them at a total cost of $543,000.

Sixteen hundred computers (about 18% of the total number on campus) were infected at the University of Chicago. The University spent 9,000 hours to repair them at a cost of $377,000. Included in the cost was money to print posters and produce CDs with programs for plugging security holes. The Chronicle reports that the University “even rented a worm costume that a staff member wriggled around in, as students were welcomed to the campus last fall, to raise awareness about computer infestations.”

The problem is both severe and getting worse. Gregory A. Jackson, Vice President and Chief Information Officer at the University of Chicago told the Chronicle that just six and a half years ago, he had half of a position devoted to maintaining network security. Today he has seven.

While security engineers get more proficient in ways to block viruses and protect programs, the hackers get more creative in discovering how to thwart their efforts.

5. Only in California. Work on an environmental review of a proposed 2,700-bed dormitory at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, one of our sister campuses, was halted this week when 14 Morro shoulderband snails were found in a site inspection. The snails are on the federal endangered species list. According to the San Luis Obispo Tribune, campus officials are meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials to “explore options for dealing with the snails. One idea is to develop a habitat conservation plan that could move the snails.” While the article indicated campus officials would know more in the next couple of months, the problem is not expected to delay the dormitory project. In other words, the building will not proceed at a snail’s pace.

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *
Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

AB 2245 (Parra) Interagency Task Force on Excellence in Economic Development

This bill would require the Governor to establish, not later than March 1, 2005, an Interagency Task Force on Excellence in Economic Development, with two primary tasks:

· Improve the state’s capacity to identify, coordinate, and evaluate California’s immense investments in economic development in order to better meet the regional needs of business and industry;

· Develop strategies to ensure that the state’s investments are designed to meet current economic development needs and priorities, including, but not limited to, infrastructure and transportation investments, affordable housing, access to business capital, availability of quality education and workforce training, creation of a business friendly regulatory environment, and access to business capital.

The Task Force would include representation from each of the three segments of public higher education: UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges system.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

AB 2728 (Strickland) Charter Schools: Authorization

This bill would authorize a UC campus Chancellor, a CSU campus President, or the governing board of a community college district to approve a petition submitted to establish a charter school within the county in which that campus or community college district is located.

Introduced: February 20, 2004 [Note AB 2764 below, which has similar content.]

AB 2764 (Bates) Charter Schools: Alternative Authority

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2860 (Pavley) Pupil Assessment

This bill states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would (1) improve the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, and the pupil assessment data that it yields; (2) provide pupils enrolled in high school with early indication of the need for remedial coursework, and (3) encourage them to complete that coursework before beginning postsecondary education.

The bill would also encourage the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges to utilize STAR pupil assessment data for course placement decisions.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2923 (Liu) Consolidation of Postsecondary Commissions

This bill would consolidate the policy responsibilities of the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) into a new state entity, to be known as the California Postsecondary Education Policy and Finance Commission, effective July 1, 2005. The bill would provide for the appointment of the new Commission’s members and of an executive director.

The Legislative Analyst would be required to submit a report to the chairs of the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2007, on the effectiveness of the new commission’s policy leadership, along with any recommendations to improve the commission’s ability to carry out its responsibilities.

[Note: Through consolidation, the bill’s author is hoping to achieve a better integration of student fee and financial aid policies with institutional funding and finance policies. AB 2923 is a reintroduction of the author’s AB 655 from 2003, which died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.]

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2938 (Plescia) California State Lottery: Revenues

Until 2012, this bill would increase the percentage of lottery revenue allocated to prizes from 50% to no more than 62%, and would decrease the percentage of revenue allocated to public education from 34% to at least 25%. The bill would also decrease the amount of revenue allocated to the payment of lottery administrative expenses from 16% to 13%.

[Note: The author’s rationale is that more people will buy lottery tickets if there are more prizes, and the increased revenue from lottery sales will ultimately increase the amount of money going to education.]

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 3010 (Laird) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings

[Note: This bill is identical to SB 1175 (Denham - R, Salinas), reported in the February 13, 2004 Legislative Update. Senator Jack Scott’s bill, SB 1727, reported below, would place all facilities constructed on a community college campus under the California Building Standards Code.]

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 3064 (Committee on Higher Educ.) Public Postsecondary Education: Group Purchasing

The bill defines such as program to mean any plan, program, or method that is intended to provide the opportunity to obtain goods or routine, nonprofessional services at a discount or savings not otherwise available through existing practices.

The Director of Finance would be required to report to the Legislature, no later than July 1, 2007, with findings and recommendations regarding the group purchasing programs authorized by the bill.

Introduced: March 4, 2004

ACR 195 (Yee) Literacy Instruction: Braille

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution encourages school districts, the State Department of Education, The California State University, and the United States Department of Education to generate greater efforts to fund literacy instruction for blind and visually impaired pupils. [The measure notes that only CSU, San Francisco and CSU, Los Angeles, currently offer visually impaired certification to graduate students.]

Introduced: March 18, 2004

SB 1261 (Vasconcellos) International Relations

Among other things, this bill would recognize the UC and the CSU as the primary state entities for the development and promotion of international education and student exchange programs, the establishment of overseas educational programs, cooperative international research, and the promotion of technology transfers and exchange.

Introduced: February 13, 2004

SB 1703 (Alarcon) Statistical Districts: San Fernando Valley

The bill would require the City of Los Angeles to provide all necessary data to the state agencies and departments.

[Note: SB 1703 is nearly identical to AB 2207 (Levine - D, Van Nuys), reported in the February 26 issue of Legislative Update, which also seeks to require that data on the San Fernando Valley be maintained separately.]

Introduced: February 20, 2004

SB 1727 (Scott) Community Colleges: Facilities

This bill would repeal the provisions of the Field Act that apply to community college facilities. The bill would require that, on and after January 1, 2005, the Field Act does not apply to the design, construction, or use of any building leased or owned by a community college district for purposes of housing the operations of a community college, and that, instead, these facilities would be governed by appropriate provisions of the California Building Standards Code.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

SB 1760 (Perata) Sovereign Immunity: Waiver: Americans with Disability Act.

Under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states essentially can’t be sued in federal courts for noncompliance with federal laws--at least not without the states’ consent. No provision of existing state law expressly provides for consent by the state to be sued under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

This bill would expressly provide that California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

SB 1785 (Scott/Alpert) Public Postsecondary Education: Dual Admissions Programs

This bill would establish a program with the purpose of ensuring that community college students who wish to earn baccalaureate degrees at a CSU campus are able to do so, and require the CSU to carry out specified tasks in connection with the establishment of this program.

The bill would require the CSU to establish admissions requirements for community college transfer students in accordance with specified criteria, and require the CSU, in consultation with the Academic Senate of the CSU, to specify for each baccalaureate program major a model core lower-division transfer curriculum. Finally, the bill would require the CSU to guarantee that transfer students admitted under the bill will be able to complete the baccalaureate degree in the minimum number of course units required for that degree.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

SCA 19 (Vasconcellos) Minimum Voting Age

Existing law authorizes U.S. citizens 18 years of age and a resident of California t

This Senate Constitutional Amendment would lower the voting age to 14 years. Votes by persons age 14 and 15 would count as ¼ of a vote. Votes by persons age 16 and 17 would count as ½ of a vote.

[Notes: Calling his proposal “Training Wheels for Citizenship,” Senator Vasconcellos cited the Internet, cellular phones, multichannel television and a diverse society as making today’s youth better informed than earlier generations. In a press release from his office, the Senator stated he was “thrilled to propose a constitutional change that will truly serve to once again expand our democracy, and lead to an enormous broadening and deepening of engagement in our civic life and electoral processes.”

Constitutional Amendments require a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature to pass. County Registrars of Voters, who are trying, with various degrees of success, to effect a smooth transition from “chad” ballots to electronic voting machines, will no doubt have choice words to offer Senator Vasconcellos on the feasibility of counting fractional votes.]

Introduced: March 8, 2004

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

March 5, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. The Schwarzenegger phenomenon. The big news coming out of Tuesday’s Primary Election was not who won the Democratic Presidential nomination, but how the Governor’s economic recovery measures, Propositions 57 and 58, fared. In January, Proposition 57 registered only 40% support from voters, and Proposition 58, 49%. Once the Governor began heavily promoting the measures with personal appearances around the state, the numbers started to shift. When the results were tallied on March 3, Proposition 57 wound up with an astounding 63.3% and Proposition, 71%!

The Governor’s positive message and unwavering enthusiasm must have rubbed off on Los Angeles voters as well, because Measure R--the Los Angeles Unified School District’s $3.8 billion school bond--was approved by an incredible 63.1%. (A 55% vote was needed for passage.) Given the forceful opposition to the measure by the Valley’s primary business organizations, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and the United Chambers of Commerce, the results are even more surprising.

Proposition 55, the statewide K-University Facilities Bond Act also passed, but by a sliver: .6%! In a year when all of public higher education faces additional significant budget cuts, passage of Proposition 55 represents a rare bright spot. Over the past 3 fiscal years, the CSU alone has experienced $819 million in program reductions and unfunded mandatory costs. A net reduction of $195 million or 7.4% is currently being proposed for CSU in the Governor’s 2004-05 budget.

In other election news, former Secretary of State, Bill Jones, easily won the GOP election to face incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer in November. He received 44.6% of the vote, and his nearest opponent, former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, received 20.1%.

In the Democratic Presidential race, Senator John Kerry won by a landslide--64.5% to his nearest competitor, Senator John Edwards, who received 19.8%.

Voter turnout was low. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley predicted it would be 43%--and he may not have been far off. Preliminary figures show that just 38.8% of the electorate showed up at the polls or cast absentee ballots. The total will increase somewhat, after absentee ballots turned in on Election Day and provisional ballots are counted. (The counties have 28 days in which to count and certify the final votes.) The current record low was set in the March 1996 Primary election, when 41.88% of the voters cast ballots.

2. A California Business Roundtable study released at the end of February reveals that California is losing its competitive edge. The “California Competitiveness Project” [CCP] conducted by Bain & Company for the Roundtable, states that “a startling 100 percent of senior executives interviewed view the business climate in California less favorably than other states’.” Some of the more disturbing findings in the report include the following:

· Nearly 40% of the California companies participating in the survey plan to relocate jobs from California, with most of them planning to move to other Western states.

· 50% of the companies surveyed have explicit policies to halt employment growth in the state, and less than 5% have retention policies in place to keep jobs in California.

· The cost of doing business in California is 30% above the Western state average.

· Regulatory costs in California are 105% higher than in other Western states.

· Small businesses have been hit especially hard by higher costs. The CCP reports that, “a typical, small manufacturer in California with operating income of $200,000, would be earning more than $1 million, if it were located in a lower-cost state like Nevada, Georgia, or South Carolina.”

The CCP also contains a number of recommendations that will be shared with the Governor and the state Legislature in the coming weeks, for charting a new course that could restore the state’s competitive edge. A bold statement prefaces the recommendations, indicating that “…by closing just half of California’s competitiveness gap the state could--without requiring the expenditure of one tax dollar--add more than 173,000 additional jobs per year and collect an additional $35 billion in tax revenue over a ten year period.”

The full CCP can be accessed at the California Business Roundtable website: http://www.cbrt.org

3. Federal Court rules that universities may deny admission to illegal immigrants. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III ruled last week in a lawsuit challenging the admission policies of seven public colleges and universities in Virginia that, “states and their institutions do not overstep their authority or violate the rights of illegal immigrants under the U.S. Constitution by preventing them from enrolling.”

The judge cautioned, however, that the admissions policies could still be unconstitutional, if the institutions “fail to use federal standards for determining an applicant’s immigration status.” The plaintiffs in the case--a high school student in the country illegally who wants to attend college, and a recent high school graduate with temporary legal status who was rejected by two of the universities named in the lawsuit--claim that the institutions in fact did not follow appropriate standards. Judge Ellis allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with that part of the suit.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, what sparked the lawsuit was a memo sent by Virginia state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore to the state’s public colleges and universities, cautioning them against admitting illegal immigrants, and encouraging university officials to report them to federal authorities. After Judge Ellis rendered his decision, Kilgore issued a statement in which he said, in part, “I continue to believe that it is not too much to ask that people obey the laws of our society before they take advantage of what our society has to offer.”

The Virginia state legislature (General Assembly) is considering legislation that would put the court’s decision into state law. The lower house has already approved the bill, and it is currently pending in the upper house.

The Washington Post noted that the proposed legislation and Judge Ellis’s ruling “run counter to a recent national trend in which seven states have allowed illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges.” California is one of the seven states. However, Senator Tom McClintock (R - Thousand Oaks) has introduced a bill (SB 1503) that would repeal the law permitting illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at the CSU and the California Community Colleges.

4. Speculation begins on the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate. Now that the dust has settled on the Primary Election, political observers are calculating the odds of potential VP candidates, much like chickens clucking over grain. The current edition of StateNet’s Capitol Journal conveniently groups the front-runners:

Governors: Janet Napolitano (Arizona), Tom Vilsack (Iowa), Mark Warner (Virginia), Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania), Rod Blagojevich (Illinois), Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas) and Bill Richardson (New Mexico). If Governor Richardson were to be selected, he would become the first Latino Vice Presidential candidate in the nation’s history.

U. S. Senators: John Edwards (North Carolina) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York). (And I would add Senator Dianne Feinstein.)

Presidential candidates: In addition to Senator Edwards, already mentioned, General Wesley Clark and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt.

5. Security Hazard. According to the Sacramento-based legal newspaper, The Daily Recorder, thousands of dollars in nickels and dimes are left in plastic trays at the security checkpoints at Los Angeles International Airport each month. Absent-minded travelers empty their pockets of metal objects, keys and coins, as they pass through the screening devices--and inexplicably retrieve their keys, but not the coins.

According to the Recorder, “Suzan Robinson, a Transportation Security Administration financial specialist who operates the agency’s LAX Checkpoint Cash Currency Program, reported collecting a total of $7,600.42 for the combined months of November, December and January.” This is more lucrative than digging coins out from under sofa cushions. The question is, who gets the found money?

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

AB 1999 (Committee on Higher Educ.) California State University TRUSTEE BILL

Slightly more substantive provisions in this bill include the following:

· An exemption from the requirements of the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act.

(The Act provides that every state entity directly involved in furnishing information to the public shall employ a sufficient number of qualified bilingual persons in public-contact positions to provide it. The Act includes exemptions for school districts, county boards of education, and county superintendents. This bill would include the CSU among the exemptions.)

Introduced: February 26, 2004

AB 2574 (Diaz) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy

This bill expresses Legislative intent to develop a framework of policy principles for governing boards, the Legislature, and the administration to follow when taking action on the fees or fee policies of California’s public postsecondary educational institutions.

The bill requires that any increase in student fees result in a proportional improvement in academic quality and service, and that fee increases be coupled with corresponding increases in state and institutional student financial aid.

Finally, the bill requires that the price of mandatory student fees be set and adjusted “based only on what an average middle class family in California is able to pay without grants or loans.”

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2596 (Liu) Public Schools: Courses of Study

Existing law requires pupils to complete courses in certain subject matters in order to receive a diploma of graduation from high school.

This bill would add to the requirements, completion of two courses in applied arts--including, but not limited to, culinary arts, industrial arts, construction, automotive, general business education, or general agriculture education. For the purposes of satisfying this requirement, at least 20% of the total instruction time in each of these courses must be conducted in a laboratory setting, emphasizing the acquisition of hands-on skills.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2615 (Committee on Higher Educ.) Cross-Enrollment Reporting

This is a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content relating to provisions in existing law that authorize students who are enrolled at a UC, CSU or California Community College, and who meet certain requirements, to enroll, without formal admission, in a maximum of one course per academic term at a campus of either of the other public segments of higher education, on a space-available basis at the discretion of the appropriate campus authorities on both campuses.

As currently written, the bill would delete these provisions in the law.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2637 (Diaz) CSU: Whistleblower Protection

This bill would enact the Reporting by California State University Employees Act of Improper Governmental Activities. It would establish procedures for the investigation and determination of complaints of the State Personnel Board similar to those currently included in provisions of the California Whistleblower Protection Act [SB 777(Escutia - D, Whittier), and signed into law last year by former Governor Davis] that are not applicable to the CSU.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2678 (Koretz) Textbook Rental Library Service

This bill would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and urge the University of California, to set up a textbook rental service for their undergraduate students at each of their campuses, to be available at the start of the 2006-07 academic year.

The legislation would authorize the CSU, CCC and the UC to charge a “small annual fee” to students as part of their tuition to cover the costs of administering the rental library program on each campus and of maintaining current editions of books.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

[Note: This bill is one of two addressing the high cost of college textbooks. The other bill, AB 2477, introduced by Assembly Member Carol Liu, who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, was reported in the February 26 issue of Legislative Update.]

The author recently conducted an informal meeting on his bill. In preparation for this meeting, CSU asked campuses to provide reactions to the proposal. While no one refutes the increasingly high costs of college textbooks, concerns were expressed on whether a textbook lending library would successfully address the issue. The bill contains several contradictions: On the one hand, “faculty freedom to choose textbooks would be preserved,” but on the other, they would be required to commit to using their textbook selections over a minimum term of time--3 semesters to 2 years.

The bill requires the program to be self-supporting, but authorizes students to be charged a fee to fund it.

The bill suggests potential savings that could accrue from bulk purchasing, without considering the vast number of courses and diversity of faculty who teach them, in the 108 community colleges, the 23 CSU and 10 UC campuses. The bill also does not address the issue of adjunct and part-time faculty, many of whom are hired at the last minute to teach classes. Buying in bulk would not be feasible for these faculty members. Moreover, the frequent turnover in this pool of faculty results in frequent changes in the textbooks ordered for the courses they teach.

The issue of new editions is not addressed in the bill. If the textbook lending library buys a book to rent, and the faculty and/or the editions of their textbooks change, the lending library is left with a lot of “dead books” that won’t be rentable. Finally, there is the issue of spoilage. Students who write in their books and highlight passages make them unrentable to other students. The “small annual fee” charged to students could end up being substantial, if the costs of covering “dead books” and replacing spoiled books are figured into the equation.

CSU representatives who attended the author’s informal meeting on this bill report that his staff have become more aware of the obstacles that could thwart setting up a successful textbook lending library systemwide--or throughout the three segments of public higher education. CSU’s suggestions to devote time studying the issue to determine if there might be a better alternative, or to establish a pilot program first to test the feasibility of a textbook lending library, are currently under consideration.]

AB 2710 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy

[Note: This bill is a reintroduction of AB 843, “authored” last year by the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The bill died when it did not pass out of its house of origin by the January 31, 2004 deadline.]

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2800 (Mountjoy) Academic Materials: Distribution of Academic Work

This bill moves sections from the Donahoe Act, relating to the prohibition against preparing, selling and distributing term papers on public and private higher education campuses, to the Education Code, making the provisions applicable to both post-secondary education institutions and public and private elementary and secondary schools.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2833 (Plescia) Public Postsecondary Education: Dual Admissions

Introduced: February 20, 2004

AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees

This bill would increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term.

Introduced: February 20, 2004

SB 1293 (Alarcon) Foster Children: Education

This bill declares legislative intent to minimize the fragmentation of the education of pupils in foster care by reducing the time they spend waiting for their transcripts to reach their new schools.

The bill also adds to the Donahoe Higher Education Act a statement of intent that encourages the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges to disseminate information to foster care agencies regarding admission requirements, access, and financial aid.

Status: Introduced on February 17, 2004, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services on February 26.

SB 1491 (McPherson) Capital Facilities Fees

This is a “spot” bill, a placeholder to address the subject of capital facilities fees. Introduced at the behest of the University of California, the bill is intended to be a vehicle for a potential compromise on a very complicated and controversial issue: The desire of utilities to impose capital facilities fees on public agencies, including school districts, colleges and universities.

Existing law states that these fees must be negotiated between a utility and a public agency, and that increases in such fees are limited by a statutorily provided economic index.

There have been two past legislative attempts--SB 1132 (Costa - D, Bakersfield) in 1999, and AB 1051 (Goldberg - D, Los Angeles) in 2003--to allow utilities to embed the cost of capital improvements for the infrastructure of their district into the monthly bills of the public agencies, school districts, colleges and universities, irrespective of whether these entities are actually served by these capital repairs, new construction, maintenance or replacement of facilities. Both bills were opposed by a large coalition comprised of public educational agencies. SB 1132 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee; AB 1051 was passed by the Legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Davis.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

February 27, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. According to the Office of the Secretary of State, the amount of money spent by organizations on lobbying activity during 2003 was $209.2 million. The top 5 contributors:

· California Teachers Association: $3.9 million

· Pacific Telesis Group/SBC: $3.4 million

· California Chamber of Commerce: $2.6 million

· Western States Petroleum Association: $2.4 million

· Edison International & subsidiaries: $2 million

Proposition 55, the K - University Facilities Bond Act on the March 2 ballot, contains money for three CSUN projects: (1) to replace Science 1, (2) to purchase equipment (to complete the Engineering Renovation project, begun with Proposition 47 monies), and (3) to fund Phase one (Planning/Working Drawings/Design) of the Performing Arts Center. For $209.2 million, CSUN could build the equivalent of 4 ½ Science buildings. Or it could equip 61 ½ Engineering buildings. Or it could build two Performing Arts Centers.

2. Website for Candidate and Ballot Measure information. The California Voter Foundation, a non-partisan organization dedicated to analyzing ballot issues and providing information on candidates, has just uploaded its guide for the March 2 Election. The guide can be accessed at: www.calvoter.org

Information on judicial candidates can also be found at this website. Under What’s on the Ballot, click on “information on local candidates and ballot issues;” on the next screen, under Local Election Links, click on “Smartvoter;” on the following screen, under Upcoming Elections, click on “California” and then on “Los Angeles.” On the final screen, click on “Judicial.”

3. DON’T FORGET TO VOTE ON TUESDAY, MARCH 2. Voting is a precious right. If you don’t think your vote counts, recall the 1998 Primary election, when the race for the 20^th district state Senate seat was won by Richard Alarcon by a scant 29 votes.

4. Friday, February 20, was the last day for bills to be introduced. Because lawmakers are procrastinators by nature, most of the bills crossed the Assembly and state Senate Desks on Thursday (454) and Friday (809), for a total of 1263. While not an insignificant number, past years have seen over 3000 bills introduced in the final week before the deadline.

Most of the bills of interest that were introduced on Thursday, February 19, have been included in this Legislative Update. Friday’s bills of interest will be highlighted over the next few weeks.

5. The Oscar presence. In preparation for the Academy Awards show, Hollywood Blvd. is being shut down for six days before the February 29 ceremony in order to lay down the red carpet and make other preparations. In addition, the MTA will be rerouting its buses 5 days before the ceremony.

In addition to the street closures, access by the public to Orchid Alley behind the Kodak Theater was closed on February 8, twenty-one days prior to the Oscar show. Various public sidewalks adjacent to the theater were closed on February 15, fourteen days prior to the show. All of the closures are listed on the website of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

According to Times columnist Patt Morrison, officials did not block off streets around the Capitol building for President Bush’s first State of the Union address following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center until one hour before his speech. The House of Representatives wing of the Capitol building, the site of Bush’s address, wasn’t closed until 3 ½ hours before the President spoke.

Although the Los Angeles newspapers provide in-depth coverage of the President’s State of the Union addresses, articles on the Oscars land on the front pages in both the main and entertainment sections, along with several pages of photographs.

While it may be amusing to contrast treatment of a national political event with a local one, behind the humor is a significant economic engine for the state and the country. The importance of the motion picture industry to the City, the region and the state, is mirrored in the newspaper coverage.

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

AB 1958 (Frommer) PERS: Pharmaceutical Purchasing Consortiums

This bill would authorize the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to enter into pharmaceutical purchasing consortiums with private or public entities in order to obtain better prices through larger volume purchasing.

Introduced: February 12, 2004

AB 1969 (McLeod) CSU & UC: Course in Employee Ethics

Introduced: February 12, 2004

AB 1973 (Nation) CSU: Employee Relations

This bill seeks to repeal those provisions of the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act that (1) require CSU management and employee bargaining unit representatives to meet and confer prior to the adoption of the final state budget; (2) prohibit memoranda of understanding (MOU) requiring budgetary action by the Legislature from being effective until the Legislature, or other funding agencies, have acted; and (3) mandate referring the entire MOU back to parties for further meeting and conferring, when the Legislature or the Governor fails to fully fund the MOU.

Introduced: February 12, 2004

AB 1997 (Liu) Postsecondary Education: Student Financial Aid: National Guard

Existing law, until January 1, 2007, grants to qualifying members of the National Guard, the State Military Reserve, and the Naval Militia, an entitlement of academic leave when active duty interrupts undergraduate college attendance at a public college or university.

Existing law, commencing with 2004-05 and ending with 2006-07, establishes the National Guard Assumption Program of Loans for Education, for these military entities. Under this program, a qualifying member is eligible to receive up to $11,000 in loan assumption payments if he/she completes up to 4 years of qualifying service.

This bill would specify that the qualifying member be entitled to academic leave throughout the period that his/her loan payments are assumed under the National Guard Assumption Program of Loans for Education. The bill would also extend the entitlement to a qualifying member who attends a private institution of higher education in California, and would additionally authorize a qualifying member who has received an undergraduate degree to participate in this program.

Introduced: February 13, 2004

AB 2046 (Garcia) State computers: Prohibited use: Obscene matter

Existing law prohibits any elected state or local officer, appointee, employee, or consultant to use or permit others to use public resources for personal or other purposes that are not authorized by law. Violators are subject to civil penalties.

The bill seeks to make it unlawful for any person to use a state-owned or state-leased computer to access, view, download or otherwise obtain obscene matter. The bill would not apply to computers which, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, contain evidence to be used in a criminal case.

The bill specifically includes the California State University and the University of California--providing in the case of the latter that the Regents agree to make it applicable to the UC.

[Note to new readers: Because of its Constitutional status, the University of California, unlike the CSU, is not under the authority of the state Legislature, so cannot be required by that body to do anything without the approval of the UC Board of Regents. The CSU was created in state statute, which is under the authority of the Legislature, and thus subject to legislative requirements without the approval of the CSU Board of Trustees.]

Introduced: February 17, 2004

AB 2079 (Oropeza) Voter Information Privacy

This bill seeks to inform voters about the permissible uses of the personal information supplied by them when completing a voter registration form by requiring that the uses be posted on official election websites.

Introduced: February 17, 2004

AB 2196 (Garcia) Academic Improvement and Achievement Act

This bill states the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation amending the Academic Improvement and Achievement Act. [Note: This is a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content that will be inserted by the author at a later date.]

Introduced: February 18, 2004

AB 2207 (Levine) Statistical Districts: San Fernando Valley

The bill also authorizes state agencies to require the City of Los Angeles to provide all necessary data.

Introduced: February 18, 2004

AB 2278 (Dymally) Community Colleges: Funding

This bill expresses the finding and declaration of the Legislature that the existing funding scheme for community colleges is excessively complex and does not provide the community colleges with adequate resources.

The bill further declares the intent of the Legislature that funding for the community colleges should be based on full-time enrollment and that the amount of state funding for community colleges should be based on the national average of state financial support for community colleges.

The bill contains a sunset clause: Unless extended by a later enacted statute, this article would be inoperative on July 1, 2006, and repealed as of January 1, 2007.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

AB 2339 (McLeod) California State University: Board of Trustees

This is a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content relating to the terms of the student and faculty members of the Board of Trustees, which will be added by the author at a later date.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

AB 2477 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Production and Pricing of College Textbooks

The bill would require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and request the University of California, to encourage faculty members, when assigning textbooks, to give preference to practices that are less costly to students and to encourage campuses to prove as many forums as possible for students to purchase used textbooks.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

ACA 23 (Daucher) Open Primary

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment seeks to enact the Voter Choice Open Primary Act. It would require that all candidates be listed on a single voter choice open primary ballot for primary elections for Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Assembly Member, State Senator, Member of the State Board of Equalization, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Member of the United States Senate.

Specifically, the measure would require that the 2 candidates who receive the greatest number of votes for each office be listed on the General Election ballot, regardless of party registration.

The bill also provides for a separate ballot in presidential primary elections, where delegates to a national political party convention are selected.

Introduced: February 11, 2004

ACA 25 (Mullin) Elections: Voting Age

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment would authorize a person who is at least 17 years of age and who will be 18 at the time of the next general election, subject to compliance with the applicable registration requirements, to register and vote in that general election.

Introduced: February 17, 2004

SB 1245 (Kuehl) CSU: Professional Nursing Programs

This bill expresses the intent of the Legislature that an entry-level master’s degree program be established at all CSU campuses that have a professional nursing program approved by the Board of Registered Nursing.

[Note: The bill contains no appropriation. However, it is not expected that CSU would fund the program. The author is working on other sources of funding.]

Introduced: February 12, 2004

SB 1322 (Denham) Veterans: Student Financial Aid

This bill makes changes in existing law relating to academic leave, loan assumption programs, and enrollment fee waivers for certain members of the military when active duty interrupts undergraduate college attendance.

[Note: This bill is a re-introduction of last year’s SB 843,which died when it didn’t pass from its house of origin by the January 31deadline. Part of the difficulty with this bill relates to its high costs at a time when the state is experiencing severe fiscal constraints.]

Introduced: February 17, 2004

SB 1329 (Denham) Public Postsecondary Education: Tuition Increases

This bill enacts the Student Protection Act of 2004, which provides that when an increase in the tuition or mandatory systemwide fees charged to students attending public postsecondary institutions is enacted, there be a waiting period of at least 90 days between the adoption of the increase and the time when the student is assessed the increase.

The bill also provides that no increase in tuition or mandatory systemwide fees may exceed 10% of the previous fee or tuition levels in a year.

Introduced: February 18, 2004

SB 1331 (Alpert) Postsecondary Education: Accountability

This bill would add the California Postsecondary Accountability Act of 2004 to the Donahoe California Higher Education Act. The bill establishes a statewide postsecondary education accountability framework that would annually provide an assessment of the progress made by the state’s system of postsecondary education in meeting the educational needs of California.

Much of the substance of this proposed framework came out of recommendations made in a report jointly completed by the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Cal State Sacramento and the State Senate Office of Research. The proposal comprises a set of tools for using data to support statewide goals in good and bad times.

The data to be collected is organized into four broad categories:

· Educational Opportunity [College Readiness (of high school graduates and adults); Affordability]

· Participation [Postsecondary Enrollment, Capacity to Serve Eligible Students,Diversity of College Environment]

· Success [Completion, Learning, Satisfaction] and

· Public Benefits (Personal Income, State Economic Development, Social and Civic Life]

The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) would be required to administer the framework, and to provide an annual report that includes an analysis of the data collected pursuant to the bill, and an assessment of the progress the state is making within each of several specified policy areas. The reports must be submitted by October 1 of each year to the Legislature and the Governor.

The UC, CSU, California Community Colleges and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities would also each be required to submit annual reports by October 1 of each year to the Legislature and Governor, to become part of the state accountability record.

The bottom line objective of the legislation, according to the bill’s author, is to make statewide higher education more consistent and efficient.

Introduced: February 18, 2004

SB 1335 (Morrow) Public Postsecondary Education Standards

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish various standards to be met and maintained by the University of California and the California State University.

[Note: This is a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content relating to standards that will be inserted by the author at a later date.]

Introduced: February 18, 2004

SB 1415 (Brulte) Postsecondary Education: Common Course Numbering System

This bill would provide that, not later than January 1, 2006, each campus of the California Community Colleges and the California State University shall adopt--and each campus of the University of California may adopt--a common course numbering system.

The bill would require the California Articulation Number Board to adopt and maintain a statewide common course numbering system for the three public systems of higher education and participating private postsecondary educational institutions. The bill specifies that these numbers must be incorporated into the respective campus catalogs that are published after January 1, 2006.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1418 (Vasconcellos) Articulation of Education Purpose and Policy

This bill states the intent of the Legislature to recognize and promote various public policy statements relating to, among other things, the uniqueness of each child, the need for focusing on pupils as lifelong learners, and the desire for all California schools to be learner-centered and to help learners engage in strategic and critical thinking and reasoning strategies to solve problems and achieve complex learning goals.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1445 (Dunn) California State University: Police

This bill would require the Trustees of the CSU to perform prescribed duties with respect to hiring campus police, including filling police officer positions within six months, maintaining minimum police department staffing levels, identifying methods of using quasi-police officers, applying for funding for the benefit of police departments, and submitting an annual report regarding the implementation of those provisions with the Department of Finance, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1502 (McClintock) Postsecondary Education: Veterans: Resident Classification

This bill would eliminate the one-year limitation on resident classification for active duty members.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1503 (McClintock) Public Postsecondary Education: Nonresident Admissions Criteria

This bill would delete this provision from the law.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1535 (Karnette) CSU, UC: Student Fee Policies

This bill provides that, beginning in the 2005-06 academic year, the Trustees, if they elect to increase undergraduate mandatory systemwide fees in the CSU system, may not increase those fees by a percentage exceeding the per capita growth rate in California in the most recent fiscal year for which complete data is available.

The bill would authorize the Trustees, upon a finding of unique fiscal circumstances, to increase undergraduate mandatory systemwide fees by an amount not to exceed 10%. Beginning in the 2004-05 academic year, the Trustees would be authorized to increase fees for graduate students by whatever percentage they deem appropriate, until the graduate fees are 50% higher than undergraduate fees.

The bill requests the Regents of the University of California to adopt these fee policies for that system’s undergraduate and graduate students.

The bill contains an urgency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SB 1576 (Perata) CSU: Budget Reserve Requirements

This bill states intent to enact legislation relating to budget reserve requirements for the California State University.

Introduced: February 19, 2004

SR 32 (McPherson) Senate Rule: Consideration of Bills with Appropriations

This Senate Resolution would amend Senate Rule 28.8 and provide that the Senate may not consider a bill that makes an appropriation unless the bill identifies a new or existing source of funding, and declares that sufficient monies are available from that source to fund the appropriation.

Introduced: February 20, 2003

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

February 13, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. President Bush released his FY2005 budget proposal on February 2. The record $2.4 trillion budget projects halving the current--also record--$521 billion deficit within 5 years. Agencies experiencing the largest budget increases include the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, up 7% and 10%, respectively. The rest of the budget continues funding at FY2004 levels, with an overall increase of .05%. There were reductions in some agencies, and small increases in others; some programs were eliminated, and a few new ones launched. No cuts were proposed to the major entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all three of which are funded not by annual spending bills, but by congressionally mandated formulas.

The Department of Education received a 3% increase, the largest of any Cabinet-level agency not managing security issues. A snapshot of education funding:

· $1 billion increase in Title I funding (Education for the Disadvantaged), to $13.3 billion. Included under Title I are the State Agency Migrant Education Program, which assists 750,000 children of migrant agricultural workers meet state academic standards, and two similar programs for higher education students (the Migrant High School Equivalency Program and the College Assistance Migrant Program).

California receives about 14% of Title I funds.

· $1 billion increase for Special Education Grants to States under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), to $11.1 billion.

California’s share will be approximately 10.7%.

· A slight increase, from $3.01 billion to $3.05 billion, is proposed for Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research, the largest component of which is in the area of vocational rehabilitation state grants ($2.7 billion, up from $2.58 billion over FY2004).

California typically receives about 10% of the state grants.

· Student Financial Aid funding:

The Bush Budget proposes raising the annual borrowing maximum in first-year student loans by $375, from $2,625 to $3,000. It proposes more money for Pell Grants, but not in the ceiling, which will remain at a maximum of $4,050. The Budget does not include money to cover prior year shortfalls, which resulted from record numbers of students applying for Pell Grants--beyond the amount of money authorized. Perkins Loans, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), and College Work Study programs are funded at FY2004 levels. Funding for the TRIO and GEAR UP programs, both of which provide outreach and college preparation support for low income and disadvantaged students, are also funded at current year levels, $833 million and $298 million respectively.

One bright spot: Loan forgiveness for highly qualified math, science, and special education teachers who teach in low-income communities, is expanded from $5,000 to a maximum of $17,500.

· The sharpest decrease in funding award goes to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), which was reduced nearly 80%, from $157.7 million to $32 million.

The National Science Foundation continues to be treated generously by the Bush Administration, having increased 62% over the last 6 years. The FY2005 Budget proposes a 3% increase over current year funding to $5.745 billion. Among the programmatic increases reported in Capitol Hill Bulletin: The number of fellowships for graduate education programs will increase by 500, from 5,000 to 5,500, for such programs as the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT), Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF), and Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12).

The National Institutes for Health received a 2.7% increase in its budget, a small amount compared to the double digit increases the agency enjoyed from 1998 - 2003, a period of time during which its budget nearly doubled.

The National Endowment for the Arts saw its budget increased by $18 million, from $121 million to $239.4 million, a modest amount, but one that nonetheless angered some GOP conservatives, who argue that the federal government ought not be in the business of funding “culture.” The NEA has weathered numerous attempts in the past to severely limit its funding or eliminate it altogether, from a small group of conservative lawmakers who objected to grants given for works that they found offensive. Of the $18 million increase, $15 million will go toward funding a major new initiative, “American Masterpieces, Three Centuries of Artistic Genius.” According to the NEA, “This ambitious three-year program will combine arts presentations with education programming to introduce Americans to the best of their cultural and artistic legacy. ‘American Masterpieces’ will sponsor presentations of the great American works across all art forms, and will reach large and small communities in all 50 states.”

The budget for the National Endowment for the Humanities was increased by $26.8 million, from $135.2 to $162 million. The bulk of the increase will fund the agency’s “We the People” initiative, which was launched by President Bush on Constitution Day, September 17, 2002. The initiative is designed to increase young Americans’ knowledge of the nation’s history and principles of democratic government.

The 401-page Budget document held a mixture of disappointing and encouraging news for California. A $1 billion increase for NASA could benefit the state’s economy by generating more jobs. Three of NASA’s 12 main sites are located in California: Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and Moffett Air Field in Mountain View.

The Budget also includes $23 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to deepen the main channel at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Another $14 million is earmarked to establish an FBI facility in Los Angeles, which would be dedicated to fighting computer and other high-tech crimes. The Budget also proposes an increase of $9 million to $15 million to fund CalFed, a state program designed to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and to solve water problems from the San Francisco bay area to Southern California. While the boost is encouraging, the amount does not approach the level the state needs. Moreover, since the 2004 level of funding has never been fully authorized, it is not certain how much of the money will actually come to the water program.

Most significantly, the Budget proposes to change the formula by which Homeland Security grants are disbursed to the states. The new formula, which would be based on population density, terrorist threats, and critical infrastructure, would significantly increase the amount of money coming to California. (The prior formula, contained in the USA Patriot Act, is not based on the actual terrorist threat faced by each state. Small states are favored over larger states, with Wyoming, as an example, receiving $38 per capita, and California, just $5 per capita, the least amount of any state.) The discouraging news is that the amount of money proposed for Homeland Security formula funding was reduced from $2.2 billion to $1.25 billion.

Probably the biggest disappointment for the state was the lack of funding provided in the Bush Budget for the costs of incarcerating illegal criminal aliens. Congress has acted in the past to provide partial funding for the State

2/11/2004Criminal Alien Assistance Program; Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the California Congressional delegation, is certain to lobby vigorously for full funding.

There is one other item in President Bush’s Budget that will definitely be contested. It was mentioned in commentator Patt Morrison’s Los Angeles Times column this week: The Budget proposes a raise in the rent that San Francisco pays for its Hetch Hetchy reservoir--from $30,000 a year to $8 million. Morrison points out that the rent on the reservoir hasn’t been raised for 70 years, so an increase may not be out of line. On the other hand, she observes that fees under the federal Mining Act haven’t gone up since Ulysses S. Grant signed the law in 1872. So there’s precedent for keeping fees flat for at least 132 years.

The federal fiscal year runs October 1 to September 30. In the 8 to 9 months ahead, debate on the President’s Budget promises to be more contentious and divisive, given the looming General Election next November. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are predicting major changes will take place in the document before it is enacted.

Websites for those desiring more information and analysis:

Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office of the President:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/overview.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/education.htm

California Institute for Federal Policy Research:

http://www.calinst.org

American Council on Education:

http://www.acenet.edu/hena/pdf/Fy2005_Approp.pdf

2. Assembly Member Fabian Nunez (D - Los Angeles) was sworn in this week as the new Speaker of the Assembly. At age 37, and with just 14 months experience in the Assembly, Nunez is one of the youngest and most inexperienced Speakers in the Legislature’s history. Given the California term limits law for members of the California Legislature, Nunez could conceivably remain as Assembly Speaker for the next five years, when he would be termed out of the Assembly.

Before being elected to the state Assembly, Nunez was the Political Director for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and Director of Governmental Affairs for the Los Angeles Unified School District. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and education from Pitzer College in Claremont.

In his inaugural address to the Assembly, Nunez pledged to approach his new responsibilities in a bipartisan manner, and called upon his colleagues “not to let the tunnel vision of ideology keep us from seeing what’s best.”

Nunez also announced a series of appointments, continuing a majority of committee chairs appointed by his predecessor, Herb Wesson. Two notable exceptions:

· Assembly Member Jenny Oropeza (D - Long Beach), who chaired the Budget Committee, has been replaced by Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg (D - Sacramento). Oropeza will chair the Transportation Committee instead.

· Assembly Member Cindy Montanez (D - San Fernando) replaced Assembly Member Joe Nation (D - San Rafael) as chair of the powerful Rules Committee, a body which determines the path bills will take in the legislative process.

Both Oropeza and Nation had competed with Nunez for the Speaker’s job.

The new Speaker also named the two most powerful positions in the Democratic leadership (after the Speaker): Assembly Members Dario Frommer (D - Glendale) and Lloyd Levine (D - Van Nuys), were appointed Majority Floor Leader and Majority Whip, respectively.

The new Speaker also established a new Assembly Fiscal Team to assist the Democratic Caucus with strategizing in crafting a budget. Assembly Members Darrell Steinberg, Judy Chu (D - Monterey Park), and John Dutra (D - Fremont) will lead the team.

3. Governor Schwarzenegger made news this week when he announced his goal to have a budget approved by the state Legislature by the end of May. (The state Constitution mandates a deadline of June 30, which rarely is met.) The Governor said his push to accelerate the budget process was an attempt to send a positive signal to Wall Street that the state is in charge of its destiny again.

While Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez used the occasion of his inaugural address to call the Assembly Budget Committee immediately into session to review the Governor’s Budget, he was cautious about meeting the Governor’s early deadline. He told his colleagues he supported efforts to develop a responsible budget, on time, but with careful thought: “…acting swiftly does not mean acting carelessly. The actions we take to balance our budget today should not dash our hopes for tomorrow.”

4. Important deadlines approaching:

· February 20 is the last day for bills to be introduced. If past practice is a yardstick, the Assembly Desk will be crushed by as many as 3,000 bills introduced during the last week leading up to the deadline.

· For those wanting to vote in the March 2 Primary Election: February 17 is the last day to register.

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

AB 1880 (Maze) Tuition Waivers for Veterans

This bill seeks to require the campuses of the UC, CSU, and the Community Colleges, to reduce by 50% the amount of mandatory systemwide tuition and fees charged to a student who signed up for service in the Armed Forces, who is a resident of the state for the purposes of determining student residency, who served in the Armed Forces for at least 4 years and was honorably discharged, and who has exhausted his/her eligibility for educational benefits.

Introduced: February 4, 2004

AB 1893 (Haynes) California Master Plan for Higher Education

This is a “spot” bill, introduced by the author as a placeholder for content that will be inserted at a later date, relating to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California.

Introduced: February 5, 2004

AB 1914 (Montanez) Education in State Prisons

Introduced: February 9, 2004

[Note: This bill is a re-introduction of a similar bill, AB 1219, introduced by the author last year. AB 1219 was vetoed by former Governor Gray Davis because of major General Funds costs, “potentially in excess of $200 million annually.” Although he conceded that the program might result in overall prison population declines due to the success of the expanded educational programs, the Governor said he could not “support a bill that increases State spending in situations where declining caseloads should produce General Fund savings.”

The former Governor also objected to other provisions in the bill that he believed would impair the Department of Correction’s ability to manage its resources.

Known for his hardliner views on prison and prisoner-related issues, the former Governor noted he had also vetoed two prior bills (by other authors) in 2000 and 2001 for the same reasons. Assembly Member Montanez has re-introduced her bill, hoping for a more amenable point of view from the new governor.]

ACR 173 McCarthy) California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Week

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims March 14 to March 20, 2004, California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Week.

Introduced: February 9, 2004

ACR 174 (Kehoe) Arts Education Month

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims the month of March 2004 as Arts Education Month, and encourages all educational communities to celebrate the arts with meaningful pupil activities and programs that demonstrate learning and understanding in the visual and performing arts.

Introduced: February 9, 2004

HR 40 (Diaz) The California State University: Presidential Searches

This House Resolution urges the Trustees of the California State University to develop a more inclusive selection process for filling vacancies in campus presidencies, and to consider including public input from the communities that a prospective CSU president will represent.

[Note: This bill is the result of Assembly Member Diaz’ displeasure with the way in which the presidential selection process was implemented at San Jose State University last year. The search was launched when Robert Caret, the former president, resigned to assume the presidency of Towson University. Diaz, whose district includes the campus, complained that the search was too narrow and did not include enough representation from the Asian community. Forty percent of the student body at SJSU is Asian. The CSU Board of Trustees reviewed three finalists last November, but none was selected. The search was subsequently extended.

Assembly Member Diaz had persuaded 41 other members of the state Assembly to sign a petition opposing the composition of the search committee and calling for more diversity. HR 40 was introduced because CSU Chancellor Charles Reed has refused to make any changes to the committee.]

Introduced: January 29, 2004

SB 1161 (Alpert) Library Bond Act

The proceeds from the sale of the bonds would be deposited into the California Public Library Construction and Renovation Fund of 2004, which this bill would establish.

This money would be available for grants to any city, county, city and county, or library district able to meet a 35% matching funds requirement.

Introduced: February 2, 2004

SB 1175 (Denham) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings

[Note: According to CSU’s Office of Governmental Affairs, SB 1175 makes the fourth go-around on this issue: “The motivation behind the bill is that if a facility is built on a CSU campus or “neutral” site (or even a community college site intended for joint use, funded by CSU), it has to be built to Field Act standards even though it might be paid for with CSU dollars.”

CSU will support this bill, as it has the prior bills. Both Senators John Vasconcellos (chair of the Senate Education Committee) and Dede Alpert (chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a member of the Education Committee) have always been very supportive. Former Governor Davis, however, has consistently vetoed prior bills, on the grounds that community college facilities are expected to serve as emergency shelters following a disaster, and an exemption, no matter how limited, would be inconsistent with the State’s policy of ensuring structural safety.]

Introduced: February 5, 2004

SB 1182 (Margett) California Master Plan for Higher Education

As with AB 1893 above, this legislation is a “spot” bill, introduced by the author as a placeholder for content that will be inserted at a later date, relating to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California.

Introduced: February 9, 2004

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

February 2, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. President Bush’s State of the Union Address didn’t include any big surprises. The address was divided equally between foreign and domestic issues. In the area of foreign affairs, the President defended and supported actions taken with respect to the Iraqi war, expanding democracy in the area, and encouraging other nations to follow Libya’s example in renouncing weapons of mass destruction. The President also urged Congress to renew portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire next year, stating, “Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens.”

One issue relating to the Patriot Act that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will pursue is the state and local homeland security grant funding formulas that were established within it. The formulas favor small states over large states and do not recognize the presence of high profile targets that would be more likely to attract terrorists, nor consider population levels. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has been arguing for a change in the formulas ever since the Patriot Act was first enacted in 2001. One example the PPIC cites to illustrate the disparity in funding: In FY 2004, California will receive $5 per capita from the largest of the formulas--the least amount of any state--whereas Wyoming will receive $38 per capita.

On the domestic side, the President focused primarily on health care (100% deductibility for catastrophic health care for individuals purchasing the coverage as part of their new health savings accounts); social security (begin privatization); jobs and the economy (including asking Congress to make earlier tax cuts permanent); and immigration--a proposal to alter the current laws to allow undocumented immigrant workers to fill U.S. jobs on a temporary basis--easily the most controversial one he offered in his address.

The President did not signal much in the way of budget enhancements or reductions with respect to higher education. He did propose increasing support for community colleges for job training programs, and in a later statement from the White House, the President indicated a specific amount--$250 million to fund partnerships between the nation’s 1100 community colleges and employers in high-demand sectors. He also proposed larger Pell Grants (but not more money for the program), specifically for high school students “who prepare for college with demanding courses in high school.”

In the area of K-12 education, the President proposed initiatives to improve reading, math and science skills of middle- and high-school students ($220 million), and a new “Adjunct Teacher Corps” program to bring professionals with subject matter knowledge and experience into middle and high schools ($40 million). He also proposed increased funding for the Advanced Placement program to ensure that teachers in low-income schools are well-trained to teach AP courses ($28 million), and $12 million to support the State Scholars program, to help states develop and promote “strong courses of study.”

More detail on funding these and other education initiatives and programs will be provided in the FY2005 budget, which President Bush will release on February 2.

2. Valley Congressmen offer mixed reviews of the President’s State of the Union Address. Predictably, Republicans praised the President on several points. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R - Thousand Oaks) thought the President was “on point [for putting] a significant amount of emphasis on the issue of terrorism and what we’re doing and what we’re going to continue to do.” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R - Santa Clarita) said he “was glad [the President] talked about higher education and the things we needed to do for job creation.” Just as predictably, Democrats were critical of what the President had to say. Rep. Brad Sherman noted that, in his speech, “The President forgot to mention the moon, Mars and the federal deficit, all of which are sky high.”

3. Speaking of the Space Program. It was music to the ears of California aerospace firms when President Bush unveiled his goals for expanding the nation’s space program earlier this month. The President’s proposal includes completing the International Space Station, from which research will begin on the long-term effects of extended space travel; developing a “crew exploration vehicle” by 2008 and conducting its first manned mission by 2014; and beginning lunar missions between 2015 - 2020 and journeys to Mars from the moon by 2030. The President will ask Congress for a $1 billion budget increase to fund the space program. As noted in last week’s edition of California Capitol Hill Bulletin, California represents more than one quarter of the nation’s space research, industry and scientific base. Expansion of the space program would provide a boost to California’s economy.

4. Initiative Watch. Two weeks ago I reported 20 initiatives were at the Attorney-General’s office awaiting title and summary, with another 23 in circulation--all seeking placement on the November 2 General Election ballot. Those numbers have increased to 26 and 26, respectively! The state may have to kill a forest in order to print the ballots and Voter Information Guides.

5. Governor Schwarzenegger makes 7 appointments to the state Board of Education, naming 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans, reflecting his bipartisan approach to government. Two of the Democrats are reappointments: Silicon Valley entrepreneur Reed Hastings, a strong supporter of charter schools, who is the current president of the board, and Bonnie Reiss, a former Hollywood attorney and Senior Advisor to the Governor. The two other Democrats include Ruth Bloom, a longtime advocate for the arts in the public schools, and Ruth Green, a member of the Board of Trustees for the Santa Barbara Elementary and High School districts, who served as a member of the state’s Instructional Materials Advisory Panel for Reading/Language Arts in 2002.

The two Republican appointees included Glee Johnson, who served as Undersecretary of the Office of Child Development and Education and as Chief Deputy Legislative Secretary, in the Wilson Administration, and Jeannine Martineau, immediate past president of the California School Boards Association, and a school board member in the Lake Elsinore Unified School District in Riverside County.

The seventh appointee, Johnathan Williams, is the founder and co-director of the Accelerated School, a charter school in South Central Los Angeles, named by Time magazine as the Elementary School of the Year in 2001. Williams declined to state a political party affiliation.

Conspicuous by omission: Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Shortly after the Governor appointed him to be his education secretary, Riordan announced he would also like to serve concurrently as the president of the Board of Education. (Even if the Governor had appointed him to the Board, there was no guarantee that Riordan would be president, since that position is elected by and among the Board members.)

Hastings and Reiss were appointed to two-year terms; Bloom and Williams to three-year terms; and Green, Johnson, and Martineau to four-year terms. The state Board of Education is an 11-member board, including one student, who serves a one-year term. The Board functions as the governing and policy-making body of the California Department of Education. The state Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, heads the Department and serves as the executive officer and secretary of the Board.

6. College freshmen are exhibiting more political awareness. According to the results of UCLA’s annual survey of the nation’s entering undergraduate students, “interest in politics is on the rise.” Highlights:

· Freshmen who discuss politics on a frequent basis increased from 19.4% in 2002 to 22.5% in 2003, the highest level since 1993.

· Freshmen also show a slight shift to the political right: 22.7% identified themselves as “conservative” or “far right,” compared with 21.3% in 2002.

· Although the popularity of “far left” increased, from 2.5% to 2.8%, the “liberal” designation declined by a larger margin, from 25.3% to 24.2%.

· One-half (50.3%) of the freshmen self-identified as “middle-of-the-road,” a figure that has remained consistent over the past several years.

Despite the increased interest among freshmen in politics, the numbers don’t come near those reported in the 1960s, when 60.3% of the 1966 freshmen valued keeping up with politics, and 33% of those surveyed in 1968 said they discussed politics frequently.

The survey also revealed a strong interest in volunteerism among freshmen: 83.1% reported participating in volunteer work during their last year of high school, compared to 82.6% in 2002, and 66% in 1989 (the lowest point reported in the 38 years the survey has been conducted).

7. The March 2 Primary Election is just 4 weeks away. The Secretary of State’s office began mailing out Voter Information Guides this week. (Note: Because the Governor’s economic recovery initiatives didn’t qualify in time to be included in the Guides, a separate pamphlet will be mailed out to voters within the next two weeks.)

Read the information in the Guides carefully; visit websites; attend forums; get informed.

One upcoming non-partisan, informational event is the Community Forum on the 4 ballot propositions that is being sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The Forum will take place on Thursday, February 19, 10 a.m. - noon, at Platt Library in Woodland Hills. (The library is located at 23600 Victory Blvd.)

If you are not registered to vote, contact my office and I will send out a Voter Registration form. Or you can download a form from the website of the Secretary of State: www.ss.ca.gov The last day to register to vote is February 17.

Your vote is precious: If you don’t exercise it, democracy atrophies.

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

SCA 15 (McClintock) State Contracts: Contracting Out-of-State Services

The bill also requires that contracts entered, pursuant to the provisions in this bill, be let or awarded on a competitive bid basis.

Introduced: January 26, 2004

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 858 (Goldberg) Athletic Team Names and Mascots

This bill sought to establish the California Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using certain specified terms relating to Native American tribal names, as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname; and additionally states that the State Board of Education may not waive the prohibition.

Included in the list of names that would be prohibited: Redskins, Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Apaches, Comanches, Papooses, and, if accompanied by Native American imagery, Warriors and Sentinels.

In this form, the bill failed passage on a fairly close vote (31 yes, 37 no) by the full Assembly on June 5. On January 29, the author significantly amended her bill to narrow its scope. Public schools would be prohibited only from using the term “Redskins” as a mascot or name of a sports team.

Status: PASSED [43 - 23] by the full Assembly, January 29, and referred to the Senate on the same date. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats voting for the bill and Republicans voting against it. There was one notable exception: Assembly Member Carol Liu (D - Pasadena), who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, voted with the Republicans against the bill.]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

January 16, 2004

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Welcome to 2004! The California Legislature reconvened the second half of the 2002-04 Legislative Session on January 5 and welcomed newly elected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s State of the State Address the next day. Predictably, the Democrats gave a lukewarm reception to the Governor’s first major address--high on eloquence and low on substance--while Republicans gave him high marks on both. The week concluded with the Governor’s presentation of his proposed Budget for 2004-05--which produced a mixed response from both parties.

Republicans are chary about the amount of borrowing, and hoped for more cuts. Democrats are alarmed about the cuts in essential services for California’s poor and sick residents. Policy wonks and fiscal experts are disappointed that the Budget relies on too much borrowing and deferral of costs to the following fiscal year, and doesn’t contain structural changes that would address the imbalance between what the state collects and what it spends in revenues.

Addressing the imbalance is far more complicated and difficult than it might seem at first glance: Voter initiatives, constitutional mandates and contractual obligations have severely limited the options available for restoring the state’s fiscal health. Approximately three-fourths of the revenue the state collects is “spoken for,” leaving very little flexibility or choice for a governor to effect change. The only areas of the budget where money is not restricted are health and welfare, prisons--and higher education.

With the release of the Governor’s Budget on January 9, the traditional Budget Minuet begins. The Assembly and Senate Budget Committees will begin meeting and conducting hearings, and the parade of those most affected by program cuts will be set in motion--with the media photographing and recording every word and gesture. The only question is whether deep partisanship will also be on the dance card. One advantage Governor Schwarzenegger has over his predecessor is personal charisma and the willingness to bypass recalcitrant legislators and go directly to the people, whether they are represented by an organization (as in the case of the CTA, with whom the Governor struck a deal regarding Prop. 98 funding for K-12), or by initiative (which the Governor is threatening to do with workers comp reform).

2. Higher Education will be affected significantly if the Governor’s Budget is adopted as currently proposed. The Budget challenges some sacred cows embodied in the California Master Plan for Higher Education--access, affordability, and small class size, to cite three examples.

Under the Master Plan heading, the Governor proposed redirecting 10% of the freshman class from the UC and CSU to the community colleges, and increasing funding for the community colleges by 3% in order to accommodate the influx.

The steep hike in student fees challenges affordability--the Master Plan promises that a college education be affordable and accessible to any student wanting to pursue a higher education. At UC campuses, undergraduate fees would rise from $4,984 to $5,530. Graduate fees would increase from $5,219 to $7,307. However, students attending UC professional degree programs--law, medicine and business--would see increases from $17,011 to $23,815. Out-of-state undergraduate tuition would increase 20% to an average $24,672 for undergraduates and to $23,968 for academic [non-professional school] graduate students.

At CSU, base fees for resident undergraduates would increase from $2,046 to 2,251, and graduate fees from $2,256 to $3,156. (Added to these fees are the campus-based fees, which amount to $386 annually at CSUN.) Non-resident student fees would increase by $492 for both undergraduate and graduate students, bringing those (base fee) totals to $2792 and $3697, respectively. California Community College students would see their fees rise from $18 to $26 per unit--a whopping 44% increase.

The significant increase proposed in graduate student fees (20% on top of previous increases of 40% since 2002) is apparently predicated on the assumption that students entering the law or medical profession would earn substantial salaries and could afford to pay back the cost of their education. This assumption doesn’t take into consideration that at the state universities, which don’t offer professional degrees, a sizeable number of graduate students are in teacher preparation programs--getting ready to enter a noble, but far less richly compensated profession. At CSUN, 37% of the campus’s 7,517 graduate students are in teacher preparation programs.

Access, another cornerstone in the California Master Plan, would be significantly compromised by the Governor’s proposed elimination of the CSU General Fund Outreach and EOP Program.

Other cuts proposed in the Governor’s Budget include a 7.5% decrease in Academic and Institutional Support; elimination of the General Fund subsidy for excess course units (by requiring students to pay the full cost of units that exceed 10% of what is needed for graduation); a 20%, rather than a 33 1/3% set-aside in student fee revenue for financial aid (State University Grants); and an unallocated budget reduction of $23 million.

Unfunded mandatory costs--including such items as new space, workers compensation, property insurance, energy cost increases, and a 15% health benefits rate increase--add $57.5 million to the debit side of CSU’s budget. In all, if the Governor’s Budget is approved as submitted, CSU will experience a reduction of $240 million--on top of the 2003-04 General Fund budget cut of $531 million, which brings the two-year total to $771 million.

Given that the Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, the debate on these issues will be long and harried, and there will likely be many changes made in the Governor's Budget proposal before it's finalized next summer. The Governor’s approach so far has been to open with a bold move and then back off, applying a philosophy akin to raising horrifying specters so that when actual, lesser frights are implemented, they will look less ghastly.

Let the Budget Dance begin.

3. Adding to the uncertainty of the state’s Budget picture: The results of the PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) and Field Polls this week. The Governor’s budget recovery plan is dependent on voters approving Proposition 57, the $15 billion Economic Recovery Bond Act, and Proposition 58, the California Balanced Budget Act on the March 2 ballot. (Both must be passed for either to take effect.)

The PPIC poll revealed that 35% of all likely voters support Proposition 57, 44% oppose it, and 21% are undecided. Similar results were shown in the Field Poll: 33% of all likely voters support the measure, 40% oppose it, and 27% are undecided.

Proposition 58, on the other hand, enjoys considerably more voter support. In the PPIC poll, 57% support it, 22% oppose it, and 21% are undecided. The Field Poll revealed slightly less support: 49% favor the measure, while 22% oppose it and 29% are undecided.

Both polls also tested the waters with respect to tax hikes--revealing a surprising number of voters who would support increased taxes, if mixed with spending cuts--in order to protect valued programs and address the state’s fiscal crisis.

In the PPIC poll, 53% of likely voters support a mix of taxes and cuts. Increasing taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages was the number one choice (76%) among voters. Second most popular: Raising the income tax for the state’s wealthiest residents (71%). The Field Poll shows 59% of registered voters believing the state’s budget deficit can only be resolved by raising taxes, with 61% of those favoring an increase in the state income tax for high income taxpayers, and 60% supporting a temporary ½% increase in the state sales tax.

4. Proposition 55--the $12.3 billion K-University Facilities Bond Act--will face voters on the March 2 ballot. In 2001, the California Legislature approved AB 16, authored by former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D - Van Nuys), which proposed placing before voters two separate statewide ballot measures to fund capital outlay projects for the state’s public schools and higher education institutions.

The first of these measures, Proposition 47, was approved by voters (57% - 41%) on the November 5, 2002 General Election ballot. Proposition 55 represents the second half of the 2002-04 school bond package. It seeks to authorize the sale of General Obligation bonds in the amount of $12.3 billion, to be allocated as follows:

· K-12: $10 billion (with specific amounts earmarked for new school construction related to growth, modernization of older schools, critically overcrowded schools, and joint-use facilities)

· Higher Education: $2.3 billion (with $690 million each for the UC and CSU, and $920 million for the California Community Colleges)

California State University, Northridge is slated to receive $50.5 million of the $690 million earmarked for the CSU system: $3,429,000 for equipment (to complete the Engineering Renovation project, begun with Proposition 47 monies); $46,193,000 in construction funds to replace Science 1, the fourth oldest instructional facility on the campus; and $1,168,000 for planning and working drawings to help fund phase one of the campus’ proposed Performing Arts Center.

The Valley’s three community colleges, Mission, Valley and Pierce, will also receive money for projects on their respective campuses. Voter approval of Proposition 55 would give Pierce $2,451,000 for a Child Development Center and $615,000 for infrastructure repairs. Waiting for final approval from the Los Angeles Community College District are $13,644,983 for a Health & Wellness Center at Mission College, and $15,748,468 for a Learning Resource Center at Valley College.

While Proposition 55 faces a challenge being on the same ballot with the Governor’s Economic Recovery Bond, a near majority of voters in the recent PPIC poll and a majority in the Field poll favor the measure:

Yes No Undecided

PPIC Poll: 50% 38% 12%

Field Poll: 52% 36% 12%

5. November ballot bulking up. Two initiatives have qualified for the November 2, 2004 ballot--but 20 more are at the Attorney General’s office awaiting title and summary, and another 23 are in circulation! There is a potential for breaking the state’s record for the largest number of initiatives appearing on a statewide ballot. The three lengthiest ballots include one in 1914, with 48 measures; another in 1922, with 30; and most recently in 1988, with 29. The number of voters approving ballot initiatives is inversely proportionate to the length of the ballot--a sobering thought to groups pushing to place their issue on the November 2, 2004 ballot.

6. A Los Angeles freshman legislator, Fabian Nunez (D - Huntington Park), will be the next Assembly Speaker. Nunez will replace Herb Wesson (D - Culver City), who is completing the last of his three terms in the Assembly and is scheduled to be termed out of office at the end of the year. With the recall of former Governor Gray Davis, and the election of a Republican to replace him, the Democratic leadership did not want a “lame duck” leading the lower house. The decision to nominate freshman Nunez over more experienced lawmakers was made to bring stable leadership. Nunez could remain in the Speaker’s office until he is termed out of office in 2008.

Wesson has indicated plans to run for Lt. Governor in 2006, or for the state Senate seat now occupied by Kevin Murray (D - Culver City), who will be termed out in 2006.

7. President Bush is scheduled to give his State of the Union Address on January 20, the same day Congress reconvenes. The President is expected to indicate his budget priorities in the address, but will not issue his budget until February 2. Congress will state its priorities in a Budget Resolution that will be released on April 15, although the lengthy appropriations process will begin in early March. The Senate and the House will try to pass their budgets over the summer, reconcile differences in the fall, and hope to finish their work in early October--so that members can get back to their districts and campaign for the November 2 General Election.

Bush has provided some advance notice of his funding priorities in education. He’s indicated his FY 2005 budget would include a $1 billion increase in education aid for low-income children and another $1 billion for special education. In a press release issued on January 9, the White House announced that the President would ask for 48% more in annual dollars [over 2001] for elementary and secondary education, from $24.8 billion to $36.7 billion.

Democrats have expressed a number of concerns--over the level of funding, which they believe reflects an inadequate commitment to the nation’s public schools, and about problems inherent in the President’s No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Edward Kennedy (D - Mass) stated in a press release that the president’s proposed funding for Title I, the primary program for public schools serving low-income children, is “nearly $7.2 billion less than the roughly $20.5 billion Congress has authorized in earlier, multiyear legislation.”

Let the federal Budget Dance begin!

8. The Census Bureau has released its latest projections on population growth in the nation. The Bureau estimates a 1.0% increase as of January 1, 2004, over January 1 a year ago--or a numerical increase of 2,816,586, bringing the country’s population to 292,287,454.

The Bureau’s report also includes the expectation that the U.S. will register one birth every 8 seconds, and one death every 13 seconds, and net immigration to add one person every 25 seconds. The net result prediction: An increase in the total population of one person every 12 seconds.

More information is available at the Census Bureau’s website: http://www.census.gov

To access the Bureau’s POPClock Projections, go to: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/popclock

9. What will all of these new people be eating? Cheese from California! The state, which is already the country’s largest producer of milk, will soon pass Wisconsin to become the top cheese maker as well, according to the California Milk Advisory Board.

Pretty soon the state’s moniker, The Golden State, will refer to something other than ore. As Los Angeles Times reporter Jerry Hirsch recently opined: Think Cheddar.

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

SB 786 (Denham) Postsecondary Education Institutions: Policy re: Increases in Tuition

As gutted and amended on January 5, 2004, this bill expresses the intent of the Legislature that proposed increases in tuition be posted at least one full semester or quarter before being implemented.

As the legislative session progresses, this bill will likely be amended to reflect the Governor’s call, in his State of the State Address, for a “predictable, capped fee policy for college students and their parents.” [Note: The higher education community has repeatedly called for just this kind of policy.]

Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Education, January 8, and was heard in that committee on January 14. The bill failed passage on a 3 to 6 vote, with all six opposing votes cast by Democrats, who questioned whether the one semester notice period was reasonable. As of this date, the author has not requested reconsideration.

[Note: In introducing the revised content of this bill, Senator Denham (R - Salinas) said, “I don’t agree with the fee increases in the first place, but if the Legislature as a whole is going to approve those increases, then I think that students and parents should have the opportunity to plan for that.” The Governor’s Budget proposes a 10% increase in CSU and UC undergraduate fees, 40% increase in graduate fees, and 20% for out-of-state students. Community College fees would rise 44%, from $18 to $26 per unit. Students who already possess a bachelor’s degree would pay $50 per unit.]

SB 790 (Morrow) Contracting for Non-instructional Services

As gutted and amended on January 5, this bill declares that the provisions in law relating to employer-employee relations in higher education, do not limit the authority of the UC, Hastings College of the Law, and the CSU, to enter into contracts with third parties for non-instructional services.

The bill would repeal provisions in existing law that prohibit school districts and community college districts from entering into contracts for personal services customarily performed by classified employees, unless cost savings can be demonstrated. This bill would authorize school and community college districts to contract for any non-instructional services, without any limitation.

Status: Failed passage [4 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, January 14, with all six votes cast by Democrats. As of this date, the author has not requested reconsideration.

SB 843 (Denham) Academic Leaves for Military Personnel

As gutted and amended on January 5, this bill makes changes in existing law relating to academic leave, loan assumption programs, and enrollment fee waivers for certain members of the military when active duty interrupts undergraduate college attendance.

Status: Scheduled to be heard on January 15. [Action on the bill hasn’t been posted yet.]

Return to Archive List