Legislative Update

1. The members of the Budget Conference Committee have been named. Members from the Senate include Wesley Chesbro (D - Arcata), Denise Ducheny (D - San Diego), and Dennis Hollingsworth (R - Murrieta). Chesbro and Hollingsworth are Chair and Vice-chair, respectively, of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Ducheny chairs the Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services.

The three members from the Assembly include Judy Chu (D - Monterey Park), Rick Keene (R - Chico) and John Laird (D - Santa Cruz). Chu chairs the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Keene and Laird are the Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the Assembly Budget Committee.

Two major contentious issues between legislators and the Governor are education funding and taxes. Tied to both is the question of how to best utilize the $3.9 billion in new revenues, anticipated to flow into the state’s coffers as a result of a better-than-expected economy.

Education. The Democrats’ plan would add $3 billion to K-12 education, an amount that includes replacing $2 billion in base funding, which the Governor borrowed from the sector last year, promising to repay it in future years. It’s the term “future years” that has been in dispute. The education community heard “next year, if revenues improve,” while the Governor says he never made the pledge, since he didn’t know at the time how much money the state would have in the next fiscal year. He says his budget includes more money for education, and that the surplus has to be applied to other needs, such as transportation, and health and social service programs.

Transportation. Both the current governor and his predecessor diverted Prop. 42 money--revenue from a voter approved increase in the state’s gasoline tax to fund transportation projects. A total of $3.5 billion has been borrowed to date, resulting in the delay of highway and transit projects across the state--and earning the state the dubious honor of being home to 5 of the 10 worst regions in the country for substandard roads.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for the surplus includes returning $1.3 billion to the transportation account, repaying cities and counties $600 million of the $1.2 billion owed to them from 2003 (when they didn’t receive their full share from the Vehicle License Fee), restoring some cuts proposed in his January budget (such as increasing the rates the state pays some health providers to treat the poor and reinstating the grants that assist senior citizens to pay their rent or property taxes), and applying the rest to paying down the state’s debt.

Taxes. Democrats are proposing to restore the Reagan-Wilson tax brackets of 10% and 11% for the state’s highest income earners. (Under this plan, single taxpayers earning $143,000 to $285,000 and married couples with taxable incomes of $285,000 - $569,999 would pay at the 10% rate. The 11% rate would apply to single taxpayers earning above $285,000 and to married couples earning more than $570,000.) The increased revenues would fund education, transportation, and restore funding to some health and social welfare programs. (The Democratic plan, for example, rejects reducing the salaries of home health care workers to the minimum wage level. It also provides the same tax relief for senior citizens that the Governor is proposing in his revised budget.)

Next step. The Constitutional deadline for approving the state budget is July 1--a deadline that has been met only 7 times in the last 25 years. (The budget has been approved on time 4 times and early 3 times. The longest period without a state budget occurred in 2003, when the document was finally approved on September 5--67 days past the start of the fiscal year.)

2. President Bush names California Congressman to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Representative Christopher Cox (R - Newport Beach), 52, is in his ninth term in the lower house, and is characterized by his colleagues as having a cool intellect and a low-key, methodical style. Cox’s past experience includes a stint as Senior Associate Counsel in the Reagan White House (1986-88) and service as a securities lawyer. Cox describes himself as fiscally conservative. Friends and foes alike are fond of recounting the time he left his hospital bed following an appendectomy so that he could vote for a tax cut measure.

Reaction to the appointment was mixed, but appeared to be more positive than negative. Supporters champion Cox as a defender of America’s free enterprise system, while detractors worry that his rigid pro-business stands will result in a rolling back of regulations and consumer protections put into place after the collapse of Enron.

Both characterizations of the man have basis in fact: Backers point to Cox’s support of the tough new regulatory measures passed by Congress at the height of the Enron debacle. Critics counter that Cox also led the successful effort to override President Clinton’s veto of a law that enacted limits on securities fraud lawsuits.

Cox’s appointment requires Senate approval, which is anticipated. Governor Schwarzenegger will then set dates for the special election primary to fill the remainder of Cox’s Congressional term.

3. Important legislative deadline. Friday, June 3 was the deadline by which same house bills must pass their house of origin. Legislative Update delayed its scheduled hiatus in order to report on some of the key bills that met (or failed to meet) this significant deadline. The next issue will be published in July.

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *

Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

SB 522 (Torlakson) Vending Machines on State Property: Nutritional Content of Products Offered

As most recently amended, this bill seeks to require that by December 31, 2006, 25% of the products offered in vending machines located on state property--including the California State University--meet specified nutritional guidelines. By December 31, 2007, the percentage would increase to 50%.

The bill provides for an extension of the 50% deadline to December 31, 2009, if a survey of customers typically using the vending machines demonstrates that a majority would prefer that less than 50 percent of the food and beverages offered in the vending machines meet accepted nutritional guidelines.

Status: PASSED [6 - 3] by the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization, May 23. However, the author placed his bill in the inactive file on May 26--making it a two-year bill.

[Note: CSU has discussed two amendments with the author to allow for more flexibility in implementing it: (1) The phase-in should be lengthened. Three years rather than one year would be the more realistic timeframe to reach the 25% threshold; and (2) the percentage should apply to the site of the vending machines than to the individual machines. Vending machines are usually clustered, with one providing all fruit, another candy, and still another coffee or cold drinks. To apply the 25% to each machine is impractical and too restrictive.]

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill seeks to change the funding mechanism for the state’s public community colleges from one that is program-based (the K-12 model) to one based on numbers of full-time-equivalent students (FTEs), the UC and CSU model.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [44 -22] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

Existing law authorizes the CSU, until January 1, 2010, to establish an African American Political and Economic Institute at CSU, Dominguez Hills. Existing law also expresses legislative intent that the institute be funded by grants and contributions from private sources. Use of General Fund and Lottery monies, student fee revenues and other state resources, to support the institute is strictly prohibited. Existing law additionally specifies that if any state monies are utilized, they are to be fully reimbursed by the institute from grants or private sources.

This bill would authorize the redirection of state funds to support the Institute, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act for that purpose.

Status: PASSED [48 - 30] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 31.

The bill would additionally require the California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC], in consultation with the segments of higher education, to develop and implement a system of accountability for postsecondary educational institutions that would measure specified outcomes.

Finally, the CSU and the California Community Colleges would be required, and the UC and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities would be urged, to provide biennial reports to the Legislature, CPEC, and the Governor by October 1 of each even-numbered year, commencing in 2006. These reports would become part of the state accountability record.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [52 - 26] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1.

This bill would implement state Treasurer Phil Angelides’ proposal for selling unneeded state property and depositing the proceeds into a trust, the revenue from which would be used to improve access to California’s public universities and colleges.

Status: PASSED [8 - 1] by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, April 12. [Note: The sole nay vote was cast by Assembly Member Bill Maze (R - Visalia).] PASSED [5 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

FAILED PASSAGE [47 - 32] in the Assembly, May 31. (A 2/3 vote was required. The bill was subsequently amended to delete reference to the Endowment Fund being “a continuously appropriated fund,” which removed the requirement for a 2/3 vote. As amended, the bill makes the Fund “subject to appropriation by the Legislature.”) The second Floor vote resulted in PASSAGE [46 - 31], and the bill was sent forward to the Senate.

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

This bill adds language to the Education Code that CSU employees be free to report on improper governmental activities to a designated CSU administrator with the same shield to identity protection and confidentiality that is afforded to those disclosing improprieties to the State Auditor.

Status: PASSED [78 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 2.

This bill, sponsored by the California State Employees Association, also relates to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, as it applies to the CSU. This bill would require the CSU to employ an independent investigator on all complaints.

[Note: A previous bill with this provision (AB 2637 - Diaz) passed the Legislature last year but was subsequently vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor stated, “The existing statutory and CSU Executive Order frameworks provide adequate protection for those that believe they have been retaliated against for having reported improper activities. It is unclear how requiring CSU to employ an external investigator will provide a better process.”]

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 6. PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [44 - 34] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In all 3 cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

This bill prohibits a state agency--including the CSU--from employing a primary care physician as an independent contractor when there is an unfilled, full-time primary care position available within the state agency, unless the state agency is unable to do so after a good faith effort.

As amended on May 27, the bill would not preclude a state agency from contracting for a physician on a temporary basis or in instances where an agency is unable to recruit a full-time physician.

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 6. PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [47 - 32] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In all 3 cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

This bill seeks to require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and to request the UC, in collaboration with campus and community-based victim advocacy organizations, to provide, as part of established campus orientations, educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Campuses without existing orientation programs would be required to post on their website educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Status: PASSED [48 - 30] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1.

This bill authorizes the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the CSU, to award grants to establish baccalaureate degree completion projects in rural counties. The bill requires the participating community college district and the participating CSU campus to jointly plan the new baccalaureate degree completion project, identify the resources necessary to offer the program over a 2-year period, and agree upon expected outcomes.

As most recently amended, the collaborative effort would have to take place in communities in which community colleges and CSU campuses are at least 50 miles apart.

If the bill is signed into law, the community colleges would be authorized to provide the classrooms and the CSU to furnish instructors and award bachelor’s degrees.

Status: PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 5; PASSED [18 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; and PASSED [72 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 27.

This bill would authorize the UC and the CSU to consider race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given when the university or other entity is attempting to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a multi-factored diverse student body.

Status: PASSED [5 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 5; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [48 - 28] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 2. [Note: The sole no vote in the Higher Education Committee was cast by Assembly Member Tim Leslie, the only Republican voting. The Appropriations Committee and Assembly Floor votes were similarly partisan, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

It is common practice throughout the country (and in California for private institutions) to offer benefits and services through affinity partnerships with commercial vendors to graduates and alumni members as a means of maintaining their connection to the University. A significant portion of alumni association revenues is generated through affinity programs.

SB 569 would amend the law to allow the UC and CSU alumni associations to implement affinity programs using student and alumni information consistent with private colleges and universities in California. The bill is co-sponsored by the UC and the CSU.

To address legislators’ concerns over privacy, the bill was amended to require the university campuses to notify alumni regarding their right to “opt out” (and not have their name and contact information shared with any third party).

The bill also now contains a sunset clause: Its provisions would be repealed as of January 1, 2011. The five-year period is intended to give the universities sufficient time to prove that an opt-out program can be successful.

Status: PASSED [36 - 4] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, June 2. [Note: The 4 nay votes were cast by Senators Sam Aanestad (R - Grass Valley), Roy Ashburn (R - Bakersfield), Debra Bowen (D - Marina del Rey), and Jackie Speier (D - San Francisco).]

This bill would establish a pilot program to monitor the academic progress of student athletes on 6 CSU campuses selected by the Trustees, commencing in 2006-07. The pilot program would include a maximum of 2 varsity sports teams per participating campus.

The Trustees would be required to report the results of the tracking, along with any findings and recommendations, to the Legislature on July 1, 2011.

The bill would require the Trustees to fund the pilot program with a combination of general purpose revenues, alumni donations, and the proceeds of any campus fees that the students on a participating campus may authorize for this purpose.

Status: PASSED [8 - 5] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26; PASSED [25 - 13] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 31. [Note: In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

As most recently amended, this bill would authorize the CSU to award in selected professional fields [physical therapy, audiology, education] the doctoral degree, but not the degree of doctor of philosophy, except as that degree would be awarded jointly with the University of California or with one or more independent institutions of higher education.

The bill would also prohibit the California State University from awarding doctoral degrees in law, medicine, dentistry, or veterinary medicine. The bill would require any proposals for new doctoral programs at the California State University to be reviewed, and approved, revised, or rejected, by the trustees in accordance with prescribed criteria.

Status: PASSED [34 - 3] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 31. [Note: The 3 nay votes were cast by Senators Elaine Alquist (D - Santa Clara), John Campbell (R - Irvine), and Tom McClintock (R - Thousands Oaks).]

As initially written, this bill sought to prohibit any state agency--including the University of California and the California State University--that accepts credit or debit cards, from charging a processing fee for the use of the card, that isn’t also imposed on those paying by cash or check.

As amended on May 31, the bill now specifically applies the prohibition only to the UC, CSU--and now the Community Colleges as well.

Status: PASSED [11 - 2] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26; PASSED [26 - 11] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, June 1. [Note: The vote in both cases was bipartisan.]

[Note: Both the UC and the CSU oppose this bill. If campuses are prohibited from charging a transaction fee for credit card payments, they may stop accepting payments by credit card because they cannot absorb the cost of the credit card fees. For CSU, the estimated cost to the system would be $7 million.]

1. The May Revise is released with mixed results. The document, which comprises the Governor’s January budget revised to reflect expenditures and revenue as of the end of the third quarter, was issued on May 13. The usual cacophony of screams was muted for some groups who fared better than they anticipated, and sharper for those that didn’t.

An improving economy brought nearly $4 billion extra dollars into the state’s coffers, cushioning the blow against deeper cuts. Public higher education was relieved to see the Compact Agreements the Governor made last year with the UC and CSU remain intact. In keeping with the Agreement, the Governor proposed to augment CSU’s budget by $212 million--the first increase in three years, a period of time that has seen the system’s budget shrink by some $524 million.

The increase will fund an additional 10,000 new students at CSU campuses, beginning next fall; fund an additional 2,700 State University Grants; and provide for a 3.5% salary increase for CSU employees, who have had no increases in the past three years. Given the ever escalating cost of living and especially of housing, static salaries have made recruitment of faculty exceeding difficult for both the UC and the CSU.

The Governor also provided the CSU with a $250,000 budget augmentation to help increase the number of students seeking a math or science teaching credential.

K-12 Education was disappointed and angry that the Governor did not use the additional dollars to repay at least part of the $2 billion in Prop. 98 money that the Education Coalition agreed to suspend last year to help the Governor with the budget deficit. Other groups, whose expectations also included restored or additional funds, were similarly unhappy with the Governor’s revised budget, which directed the bulk of the new revenues toward transportation and paying down the state’s debt. Earlier this week, the Sacramento Bee reported that “busloads of teachers, nurses, firefighters, prison guards and other union members [gathered at the Capitol] on a searing afternoon for a protest that ranked among the largest in recent years.”

Over the next two weeks, the Budget Dance will begin, with lobbyists and groups of interest, bobbing and weaving with budget committee members over which areas of the budget should be reduced so that their programs can be protected. The perennial question is whether the Legislature and Governor will meet their respective Constitutional deadlines for passing and adopting the 2005-06 state budget.

2. So how is the state government doing? Results of a survey conducted earlier this month by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reveal significant drops in public approval of the way in which Governor Schwarzenegger is handling his job: from 64% a year ago to 60% in January to 40% currently. The Legislature fares even worse. Only 26% of those polled believe legislators earn their salaries.

Other interesting results: The Governor may want to rethink his belief that a Special Election to accomplish his government reforms is supported by a majority of the people. According to the PPIC survey, 62% favor waiting until the next regularly scheduled election (June 2006) to decide on the Governor’s proposals. The drop in support crosses party lines: Since last January, Democratic support for a Special Election has dropped from 34% to 24%. Republican support has fallen from 58% to 46%, and among independents, the decline has been 47% to 37%.

The answer to the question of who should make the tough decisions about the budget and government reforms is perhaps the most revealing of the public’s view of the Legislature and the Governor: 72% responded that the voters should. Only 25% felt the responsibility would be best handled by the Legislature and Governor.

Finally, how would the public spend the close to $4 billion in extra revenue? Seventy-six percent would support K-12 education; 70% would choose reducing the state debt; and 53% would put more money back into transportation. Party preferences did surface with this question. Democrats and independents both favored education as their top priority (85% and 80% respectively), while Republicans supported reducing the state debt (78%).

3. Los Angeles has a new mayor. Is anyone still awake? In a city of 3.9 million people, 1.5 million of whom are registered to vote, just 448,857--or 30.55%--actually showed up at the polls to vote. Since only 26% voted in the March 8 Municipal Election, this slight improvement may be cause for celebration.

Part of the reason for the low turn-out may be Election Overload. The May 17 run-off was the third election vying for voter attention in 7 months. Since the Mayor-elect, Antonio Villaraigosa will be leaving his City Council seat, yet another election must be held to fill the remaining two years of his term. Governor Schwarzenegger has been threatening daily to call a special election for next November, which will be followed by the regularly scheduled Primary Election the following June. There doesn’t appear to be any end in sight. The elections keep coming, but unlike the mythical baseball field constructed in the middle of a corn field (“build it and they will come”), the voters aren’t coming. But the candidates are: Jose Huizar, president of the LAUSD School Board and former City Council Member Nick Pacheco (who was denied a second term when he was beaten by the Mayor-elect) are circling around the newly vacant City Council seat. Senator Gil Cedillo had also initially expressed some interest in running, but has since said he will stay with his state Senate seat.

Shortly after his victory was confirmed, Villaraigosa began a tour of the City, running on joy and enthusiasm, and the adrenalin those emotions generated. It was said that in two days he had had only 3 hours of sleep. One wonders when he finally did rest, if he awoke to the nightmare of actually being the Mayor of this City. Both candidates promised an impressive list of achievements if elected--roads paved, 1000 new police officers hired, L.A. schools fixed, and the inevitable, no new taxes.

It’s the area of transportation where the most ambitious plans were announced. Mayor-outbound Jim Hahn talked about adding 450 left-hand turn lanes and synchronizing signals throughout the City. Mayor-inbound Antonio Villaraigosa spoke of extending the Red Line north above the ground, from North Hollywood to the Sylmar Metrolink station, in order to improve access to Santa Clarita; and extending the Red Line south by subway to Santa Monica. Both men supported construction of a “people-mover” to link Los Angeles Airport with the Green Line.

The Green Line could be a metaphor for the City. Planned to serve the airport, the light rail service actually stops about one-and-a-half miles from the airport terminals.

According to the Los Angeles Almanac, the first person to serve as Mayor of the City of Los Angeles was Cristobal Aguilar, a 18-year-old Indian, appointed in 1786 to oversee the town. The population was about 100. Those were the good old days.

4. One more initiative is certified for the next statewide election; 6 more are in the process of signature verification. The qualifying initiative is a Constitutional Amendment, seeking to require parental notification on abortions for minors. Of the 6 in-process measures--all of which are expected to be verified--3 are backed by Governor Schwarzenegger. They include measures that would (1) lengthen the time-to-tenure for public school teachers from 2 to 5 years; (2) curb state spending and give the Governor budget-cutting authority; and (3) take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges. (This last measure calls for an immediate redrawing of district boundaries upon approval of the electorate.)

Two of the in-process measures are backed by the Legislature and include a measure to lower prescription drug prices and another to re-regulate the energy industry. (Both of these measures were contained in bills passed by the Legislature, but vetoed by the Governor last year.)

The last in-process measure was filed by Lewis Uhler, President of the National Tax-Limitation Committee, and seeks to prohibit public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless prior consent from the members is provided. The measure would require members to give consent annually on a specified written form.

5.       Initiative watch. As of May 26:
·           7 initiatives are pending approval from the Attorney General’s Office
·         62 initiatives are in circulation, gathering signatures
·           7 initiatives are pending signature verification
·           3 initiatives have been approved for the following ballots:
--June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot: A $600 million Library Bond measure
--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure
--Special Election Ballot, November 2005 (if called by the Governor) or June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot:   A Constitutional Amendment relating to a waiting period and parental notification prior to termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

6. Legislative Update goes on hiatus. The newsletter will be on vacation for the month of June, and will be back in July--when the Legislators and the Governor will likely still be clucking and picking over the state budget like so many chickens over grain. Enjoy the summer, folks!

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *

Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

Redefines “final compensation” to mean the highest annual compensation earnable by the PERS member during a consecutive 36-month period immediately preceding the date of retirement. [Currently, the term is defined as any 12-month period the member selects.]

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 882, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Provides that any amendment to existing formulas, and new retirement formulas, shall only apply to service performed by the member on and after January 1, 2006. The bill also provides that for contracts or amendments of contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2006, specified retirement formulas would apply only to service rendered on and after the effective date of the contract or the contract amendment.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 884, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Requires PERS and the retirement boards of city, county, city and county, and district retirement systems to create hybrid retirement programs for public employees hired on or after January 1, 2006. The hybrid would contain a defined benefit plan funded by employer contributions and a defined contribution plan funded by employee contributions.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 888, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Amends the Public Employees’ Retirement law that prescribes the retirement formulas applicable to specified members of PERS. Under this law, the benefit formula for specified local miscellaneous members, school members, state miscellaneous or industrial members, or university members, is 2% at age 55, and for other local miscellaneous members is 3% at age 60.

Specifically, this bill would provide that all employees hired after January 1, 2006 would be subject to a 2% at 60 retirement benefit formula.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 883, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill would authorize the redirection of state funds to support the Institute, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act for that purpose.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25.

Existing law prescribes the holidays--among them, Veterans Day--in this state for state agencies, public schools and the community colleges. Existing law authorizes the CSU Trustees to provide, by rule, for the holidays to be observed by CSU employees.

In the case of seven of these holidays, the Trustees are permitted to reschedule observance of the holiday to another day consistent with the needs of the campus or systemwide offices. Veterans Day is one of the holidays in this category.

This bill would remove Veterans Day from this category and require each CSU campus to observe it as a holiday by closing on that day--except when the holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, when it would then be observed on the preceding Friday or on the following Monday, respectively.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [17 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 4. PASSED [76 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 16.

Under existing law, local law enforcement is exempted from the prohibition against wiretapping, eavesdropping, and monitoring cordless or cellular phone transmissions, under specified conditions. AB 992 would add the campus police departments at UC and CSU campuses to this exemption.

This bill is co-sponsored by the UC and CSU systems, which believe that the authority is essential to the campus police departments in conducting investigations for such offenses as date rape and acquaintance abuse incidents.

Status: PASSED [65 - 3] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 19. [Note: Assembly Members Mervyn Dymally (D - Compton), Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles) and Leland Yee (D - San Francisco), cast the 3 nay votes.]

Campuses without existing orientation programs, would be required to provide written material providing educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Status: PASSED [5 - 2] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 15. [Note: In both committees, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

To address legislators’ concerns over privacy, the bill was amended on April 18 to require the university campuses to notify alumni regarding their right to “opt out” (and not have their name and contact information shared with any third party).

Status: Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on May 25 (which provides that bills that don’t appropriate money may go directly to the Floor for a vote). SB 569 will likely go to the Floor next week, where it is anticipated it will pass and be sent forward to the Assembly.

Status: PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26. The bill will go to a Floor vote next week, where it is expected to pass, and then be sent to the Assembly for action.

This bill would require an agency [including the CSU], person or business conducting business in California that possesses any data that includes the personal information of a California resident, to notify the resident of any breach of the security of the data.

As amended on April 18, the bill prescribes that a request by a law enforcement agency to delay notification must be in writing.

Status: PASSED [5 -2] by the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 19; PASSED [7 - 3] by the Senate Appropriations committee, May 16; and PASSED [25 - 13] by the full Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 26.

This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session, would establish defined contributions and hybrid plans for public employees hired on or after July 1, 2007.

This legislation corrects a problem in the author’s earlier bill, until recently supported by the Governor, to specifically provide death benefits to widows of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty.

The bill additionally specifies that contributions to the plans shall be shared equally by the employer and employees. [Currently, the total CalPERS contribution rate for miscellaneous members--which include state university and college employees--is 22%, with employees paying 5% and the State paying 17%. Language in the Governor’s Budget, proposed for 2005-06, which would apply to current employees, specifies that the contribution of the employees and the state each be 11%.]

Finally, the measure contains numerous provisions clarifying and specifying eligibility requirements for disability retirement benefits for local and state employees who are injured in the performance of their jobs.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on the Public Sector, May 25. The author did not request reconsideration.

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment would establish the California Public Employee Defined Contribution and Hybrid Plans, subject to approval by voters. The measure provides that any person hired by a public agency shall enroll only in a hybrid plan or in a defined contribution plan of a public pension or retirement system, and is prohibited from enrolling in a defined benefit plan.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on the Public Sector, May 25. The author did not request reconsideration.

1. U.S. Supreme Court to tackle issue of military recruiters on college campuses. This issue has been simmering in controversy for a decade-and-a half, gaining in intensity when the "don't ask, don't tell" personnel policy was established, with respect to gays in the military. Universities began barring military recruiters from their campuses to show support for gay rights. In 1994, Congress responded by approving the Solomon Amendment, which required withholding federal funds from any college or university that barred military recruiters. The Solomon Amendment was modified a few years later to exempt federal student financial aid funds from the funds withheld. For research institutions, however, the threat of losing grant money was a powerful incentive to allow recruiters back onto the campuses.

Last year a coalition of law schools across the country filed a lawsuit alleging that the Solomon Amendment worked to promote the military's message of disapproval of homosexuality, which was antithetical to the schools' commitment to nondiscrimination. The measure, in effect, required agreement with the message or the consequence of losing federal funds--and thus constituted a violation of the schools' First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed and issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the Solomon Amendment. However, the Court granted a stay of its order to allow the Bush Administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will be heard in the fall, and a decision is expected by June 2006.

2. Governor appoints Riordan successor. Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Alan Bersin, the controversial San Diego Superintendent of Schools, as his new Secretary of Education. The Governor also appointed Bersin to the state Board of Education, which will give him greater influence in the education arena than Richard Riordan, who did not enjoy a dual appointment.

Bersin was a federal prosecutor when he left that position in 1998 to head the San Diego schools. His five-year tenure in the job--he agreed to leave at the end of June, one year before his contract was set to expire--produced both controversy and results, the latter either constructive or disastrous, depending on who’s doing the talking.

Supporters, which include school administrators and some school board members, say that Bersin’s initiative, “Blueprint for Student Success,” substantively addressed academic deficiencies in the San Diego schools. By expanding and intensifying tutoring and other programs to help underperforming students, he significantly reduced the gap in learning and achievement among the different ethnic groups.

Teachers, on the other hand, criticized Bersin’s autocratic style, which they say included retaliatory actions against anyone disagreeing with him.

In the press conference where Governor Schwarzenegger announced Bersin’s appointment, Bersin said that he and the Governor are in agreement on what the education reform should encompass: “Getting the state’s fiscal house in order while demanding accountability from local school administrators; developing teachers with greater skill and knowledge; providing more intense instruction for students who need greater attention; and pursuing greater parental involvement in their children’s education.”

Bersin, 58, is a Democrat who worked in the Clinton Administration. According to an account in the Los Angeles Times, Bersin worked for former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, overseeing California/Mexico border issues--which the Times reports “earned him the moniker ‘border czar.’”

Bersin will start work at the end of June, when Secretary Riordan is slated to leave office. The appointment does not require Senate confirmation.

3. Rocky Young appointed Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District. After Young was passed over in his bid to become president at Santa Monica City College in 1995, he left that institution to assume the presidency at troubled Pierce College in Woodland Hills. Once the jewel in the LACCD crown, the campus had suffered through a revolving door of interim and short-lived presidents, declining enrollments, increasing debt, and a decaying physical plant that gave the campus the look of an abandoned town. Young transformed the college, revitalizing its capital outlay program and its instructional program; and built back its enrollment from 12,000 to 18,000 students.

In 2003, Young was promoted to Interim Senior Vice Chancellor of the LACCD. He faced two sitting chancellors, in vying for the top post: Stan Arterberry, Chancellor of the West Valley-Mission Community College district in Santa Clara County; and an out-of-state candidate, Irving McPhail, Chancellor of the Community College of Baltimore County in Maryland.

The Los Angeles Community College District is the largest in California and one of the largest in the nation. It comprises 9 colleges, has a total enrollment approaching 130,000 students, and a general fund budget of about $428 million.

4. Secretary of State releases “Odd-Numbered Year Report” of voter registration. As of February 10, party registration breaks down as follows:

[*Other includes these parties, in descending order of largest number of members: Green, American Independent Party, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Natural Law]

The following trends were reported, since the last report two years ago [February 10, 2003]:

Total registration has increased from 15,168,263 to 16,628,673.
The percentage number of total registered voters compared to eligible voters has also increased, from 70.3% to 73.9%.
The number of voters who have “Declined to State” their political party continues to increase: Over the last two years, from 15.3% to 17.9%.
The percentage registration in the Democratic Party declined from 44.4% to 43.0%.
The percentage registration in the Republican Party declined from 35.2% to 34.5%.

What we can glean from these numbers is that Declined to State may be the power party of the future.

5.       Initiative watch. As of May 5:
·           4 initiatives are pending approval from the Attorney General’s Office
·         68 initiatives are in circulation, gathering signatures
·           1 initiative is pending signature verification
·           2 initiatives have been approved for the following ballots:
--June 6, 2006 Primary Ballot: A $600 million Library Bond measure
--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: a $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure

6. Dealing with perpetual students, Texas-style. The Texas state Senate recently approved a bill that would allow public universities in that state to charge out-of-state tuition rates to students who have accumulated 30 units of coursework beyond what is required for graduation. The bill will be considered next by the Texas House of Representatives.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill would establish the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.

Status: PASSED [43 - 34] by the Assembly, and sent forward to the Senate, April 28. [Note: As with the Assembly Education and Appropriations Committees, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill. AB 13 passed through the Assembly with nearly the same division of votes as the author’s previous bill from last year. If the déjà vu prevails, the bill will trundle through the Senate as well, and then end up being skewered again by the Governor’s veto pen.]

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

Adds language to the Education Code that CSU employees be free to report on improper governmental activities to a designated CSU administrator with the same shield to identity protection and confidentiality that is afforded to those disclosing improprieties to the State Auditor.

Status: PASSED [17- 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and put on the Assembly Consent Calendar, May 4.

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19.
PASSED [16 - 1] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 11.
[Note: Assembly Member Leland Yee (D - San Francisco) cast the sole nay vote.]

As initially written, this Assembly Concurrent Resolution declared that current space utilization standards are obsolete and no longer relevant to the actual space needs of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

The Resolution proposed that the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) establish a limited set of contemporary space allocation policies for the three systems, based on national research, actual use patterns, and best practices. It further specified that these policies be used as guidelines, with the flexibility provided for institutions to plan and operate physical facilities in ways that are both cost-effective and student-centered.

As amended on April 28, this Resolution instead recommends that the space planning and utilization standards included in a 1990 CPEC report be used as the guidelines for the physical facilities development for the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

As amended, the Resolution also recommends that the three systems each provide a biennial report to the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst, and CPEC on the utilization of classrooms and teaching laboratories.

Finally, as amended, the measure recommends that CPEC establish and maintain a Space Planning Work Group to remain apprised of future developments in this area, and to inform legislative deliberations on planning issues for public higher education facilities.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Ed Committee and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 3.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution urges each CSU campus to provide a detailed accounting of budget allocations and expenditures of state General Fund monies in specified budget categories. It also urges the CSU to annually provide this information to the public upon request.

As amended on May 10, Assembly Member Judy Chu is the listed author of the bill, and Assembly Member Montanez is now the principal co-author.

In addition, the measure was amended to request each CSU campus to report on per student spending and costs by level of instruction: lower division, upper division and graduate level. The reports would be required annually, by April 1 of each year, to be sent to the Legislative Analyst and to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

Status: PASSED [5 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 3. [Note: Assembly Member Roger Niello (R - Fair Oaks) cast the single “no” vote.]

This bill would eliminate the existing California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) and its functions and responsibilities, and replace it with the Commission on Statewide Postsecondary Education Policy and Planning. The new commission would be required to develop and regularly assess a statewide public agenda for higher education, and be empowered to participate in the executive and legislative budget processes in an advisory capacity. It would have specified functions and duties as the statewide higher education policy and planning agency.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [5 - 4] in the Senate Education Committee, April 28. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no hearing date has been established yet. [Note: Assembly Member Carol Liu has a similar bill, AB 1072, which has been amended twice, but which remains in the Assembly Higher Education Committee (which she chairs). No hearing date has been established for her bill either. Many legislators are dissatisfied with CPEC, how it functions, its responsiveness, and its composition. There is no agreement, however, on if it should be replaced, or how a new panel ought to be structured and function.]

As initially written, this bill expressed the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require the CSU to offer 12-month, instead of 9-month, scholarships to its student athletes, and to offer an additional 12-month scholarship to a student athlete who has exhausted his or her athletic eligibility, but is within 20 semester units, or the equivalent number of quarter units, of qualifying for graduation.

As amended on April 6, the bill instead would establish a pilot program to monitor the academic progress of student athletes on 6 CSU campuses selected by the Trustees, commencing in 2006-07. The pilot program would include a maximum of 2 varsity sports teams per participating campus.

The Trustees would be required to report the results of the tracking, along with any findings and recommendations, to the Legislature on July 1, 2011.

Status: PASSED [8 - 2] by the Senate Education Committee and sent forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee, April 28.

This bill seeks to give colleges and universities the ability to authorize and oversee charter schools.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [6 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, April 27. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, and a subsequent vote was taken the following day. The bill again FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 6]. The bill is officially dead.

[Note: Two similar bills, one in 2003 and one in 2004, both authored by former Assembly Member Patricia Bates (R - Laguna Niguel) failed passage in the Assembly.]

1. Governor Schwarzenegger appoints Valley charter school principal to state Board of Education. Yvonne Chan, principal of the nationally acclaimed Vaughn Next Century Learning Center in Pacoima, was appointed to fill one of the two vacancies on the Board. The school has continued to expand since gaining charter status in 1993. A pre-school was added in 2000, and middle school grades in 2001. An International Studies Academy High School will open in 2006. Chan earned her Master's degree at CSUN, and is a former adjunct professor in the University's Special Education Department. She is currently an adjunct professor at UCLA, and also serves as Mayor Hahn's appointee on the Los Angeles City Commission for Children Youth and Families.

The Governor visited Chan's school in late January and made no secret of his admiration for the campus and for charter schools in general. The campus is no stranger to political notables. During the Clinton Administration, both the former President and First Lady Hilary Clinton, individually, visited the school. Former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin was another visitor.

2. The Eli and Edythe Broad and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations fund new education website, “SchoolMatters.” The website is a service of Standard & Poor’s, provided by the National Education Data Partnership, which was created to “help transform the way education information is used by educators, policymakers, superintendents and parents.” The Partnership includes the Council of Chief State School Officers; Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services; Achieve, Inc.; and the CELT Corporation.

The data offered on the website is intended to provide tools and benchmarks for use by educators and policymakers in discussing, evaluating and comparing information to improve the quality of the nation’s schools. Since the data is collected by Standard & Poor’s, the website contains a cautionary message that the information is designed to help “education stakeholders understand the complexities surrounding public education,” and not intended as a vehicle to rank or rate individual schools or school districts.

The website lists 43 staff members at Standard & Poor’s who are involved with SchoolMatters.

Reaction to the new education data service has been mixed. A Pennsylvania school district president is quoted on the website as saying, “As a new board president, I could not imagine overseeing any $40 million operation with the analysis the S and P service provides….. It would be like managing in the dark.”

David Tokofsky, member of the LAUSD Board of Education, expressed lukewarm support in Education Beat, a newsletter devoted to K-University issues: “It’s a great idea to have this whole system. Some of this will take 5 to 20 years to be insightful, but it’s got to start somewhere. [However,] firms like Standard and Poor’s might not understand the challenges of public schools.”

3. Actor, director, activist--and some say possible gubernatorial candidate--Rob Reiner has introduced a new controversial proposal to provide statewide preschool programs for all 4-year-olds. The funding mechanism is an increase in the state income tax for the state’s wealthiest residents: from 9.3% to 11% for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making twice that amount. Reiner’s earlier proposals have also relied on the revenues from increasing taxes. In 1998, he proposed a successful ballot initiative (Prop. 10) that raised taxes on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, to fund healthcare services for children and anti-smoking education programs.

Last year, he launched his “Improving Classroom Education Act,” an initiative designed to bring additional funding to the state’s public schools and to lower class size. A split-roll property tax, where commercial property would be taxed at a higher rate than residential, was the funding mechanism. The California Teachers Association (CTA) was a key backer in this effort, which was later abandoned due to the intense opposition of business advocacy groups throughout the state.

Reiner’s current initiative, entitled the “Preschool for All Act,” is supported by a coalition of business leaders, educators and law enforcement officials. Former Mayor Riordan’s wife, Nancy, is also an active supporter. According to the Sacramento Bee, the Governor does not have a position on the initiative--yet.

The business community in general has adopted a wait-and-see stance, but appears less hostile to this proposal than to Reiner’s earlier ones. CTA has maintained a curious silence on it. Not surprisingly, the California Taxpayers’ Association is vocally opposed to it. In an editorial headlined, “The Preschool-Tax Folly,” the Los Angeles Times also urged opposition. The paper cited the value of preschool, but soundly rejected “tying the state budget into more knots” to provide it. “The last thing California needs right now is to raise another huge sum of money…that can’t be used to close existing gaps.”

The tax increase is estimated to generate $2.3 billion annually, with the revenue dedicated to providing for the preschools, training the teachers who work in them, and for constructing new facilities. Citing research conducted by the Rand Corporation, Reiner says that quality preschool programs can provide a solid foundation for a child’s success in later grades, reducing the need for remediation and improving high school graduation rates.

The Rand study, released in late March, reports the following key finding on its website:

“A one-year, universal, high-quality preschool program in California would, for a $4,300-per-child cost beyond current public preschool spending in the state, generate $11,400 in benefits per child for California society, a net benefit of over $7,000 per child, or $2.62 for every dollar expended under the baseline assumptions of the research.”

To determine costs and benefits, the Rand researchers assumed that the “universal preschool program would meet nationally recognized standards for class sizes, staff ratios, staff qualifications…, and would be a part-day, voluntary program that would enroll 70 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds.”

4. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) reintroduced. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) has introduced House Joint Resolution 37, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States stating that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The bill, which has 168 co-sponsors, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Thirty-two members of the 53-Member California House Delegation--all Democrats--signed on as co-authors. None of the 20 Republicans chose to co-author the measure. [One House seat was vacant at the time HJR 37 was introduced.]

The ERA has a long history. It was first introduced in 1923. It was finally passed by Congress in 1972, but was three states short of ratification by the established ten-year deadline (June 30, 1982), so never became law.

The American Association of University Women reported on the results of a recent poll in its current Action Alert newsletter, indicating that while “88% of Americans believe men and women should have equal rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution,” 72% of those polled “mistakenly believe that the Constitution already grants men and women these equal protections.”

5. The latest Census Bureau update notes that the nation’s population is increasingly shifting to the Sun Belt. Three states--California, Florida and Texas--will account for nearly half of the population growth in the U.S. over the next 25 years. California ranks first in population, followed by Texas, and New York, but Florida is expected to overtake New York by 2011 to occupy third place.

The concentration of people in these three states presents problems normally associated with large populations--stress on housing, transportation and the environment. But it also poses another significant issue: Increasing influence in the U.S. House of Representatives. The three states combined already occupy 25% of all seats in the House.

For more detailed information (including tables), please access the U.S. Census Bureau website at:

--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: a $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment seeks to authorize 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the next General Election, to register and vote in that election.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims May 11, 2005 as the Day of the Teacher and urges all Californians to observe it.

This Assembly Concurrent resolution urges each CSU campus to provide a detailed accounting of budget allocations and expenditures of state General Fund monies in specified budget categories. It also urges the CSU to annually provide this information to the public upon request.

[Note: Assembly Member Montanez authored a bill, AB 1185, with similar content in 2003. While it passed Assembly (45 - 24), it subsequently died in the Senate Education Committee, when it was placed on Suspense and never brought up for a vote.]

This Senate Joint Resolution urges Congress and the President to adopt the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 that institutes a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.

Establishes the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 13. [Note: As with the Assembly Education Committee, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

Essentially changes the funding mechanism for the state’s public community colleges from one that is program-based (the K-12 model) to one based on numbers of full-time-equivalent students (FTEs), the UC and CSU model.

As initially written, the bill also specified and prioritized, for funding purposes, the 3 primary missions of the community colleges: (1) lower-division instruction for students seeking to transfer to 4-year universities to complete a baccalaureate degree; (2) workforce training and preparation; and (3) adult literacy programs.

As amended on April 14, the references to the primary mission and priorities of the community colleges were deleted. The bill now addresses only the issue of the funding mechanism.

Status: PASSED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19. [Note: The sole nay vote was cast by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R - Tahoe City).]

This bill would require instead that any funds that are utilized for the initial start-up costs of the institute, or for support of the institute, be fully reimbursed by the institute within 3 years.

As amended on April 19, the bill would authorize the redirection of state funds, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act solely for that purpose

For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for state members, the Public Employees’ Retirement Law generally defines “final compensation” as the highest annual average compensation earnable by the member during a designated 12-month period.

This bill would define “final compensation” for any member of the Public Employees’ Retirement System who retires after January 1, 2006, as the average compensation earnable by the member during the final 3 years of employment immediately preceding the effective date of the member’s retirement.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 20. The author did not ask for reconsideration.

[Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill. In the debate on the bill, it was noted that the language of AB 214 could be subject to legal challenge regarding whether the one year final compensation calculation is a vested right. Case law has upheld the premise that a vested right can not be removed without equal compensation in return.

The legal question aside, concern was also expressed over changing a benefit that would adversely affect long-serving state employees, “particularly those who work in a challenging and often dangerous environment, such as prisons and firefighting.” Members also worried that the change would make recruitment and retention of a highly qualified workforce much more difficult.]

As initially written, this bill expressed the intent of the Legislature to add funding to the budgets of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges for additional slots in nursing education programs and for all state programs that educate entry-level, master’s, and doctoral program nursing students

As amended on April 4, the bill requires instead that the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development establish a statewide Registered Nurse Educator Scholarship Program to contract with colleges and universities to establish or expand related curriculum, and to provide educational loans to registered nurses who are seeking a master’s or doctorate degree in nursing. As a condition of receiving these loans, nurses would have to commit to serving as registered educators for a period of from 3 to 5 years upon completion of their studies.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19.

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

Status: PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 20.

Requests the UC, and directs the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to develop guidelines and implement specified principles relating to academic freedom that would be embodied in a Student Bill of Rights.

[Note: This bill is a re-introduction of SB 1335, introduced by the author last year, and which failed passage in the Senate Education Committee. The bill stirred controversy because the impetus behind it was to rein in what supporters called “a liberal dominance in higher education.” Critics of the bill contended that its ultimate purpose was to rid campuses of liberal professors, and that, ironically, it was less about academic freedom than it was about imposing specific points of view in the classrooms.

SB 5 is essentially identical to the earlier bill, with the exception of the title: Student (rather than Academic) Bill of Rights.]

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, April 20. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but a new hearing date has not been set yet.

Status: PASSED (6 - 0) by the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee, April 26.

This bill would authorize the CSU to independently award professional/clinical doctoral degrees, which the bill defines as degrees awarded as part of the post-master’s degree program that prepares students for entry to professional practice other than university faculty research and teaching. (CSU campuses would not be authorized to offer the Ph.D, which is currently the case as well.)

[The clinical doctorate is of particular interest to CSUN. The national accreditation standard for those higher education institutions that prepare audiologists will require a doctoral degree as the minimum standard for licensure, effective January 2007. The current minimum standard is the Master’s degree. A similar change is being discussed for physical therapists.

Currently, all audiology education in California exists within the CSU, on six CSU campuses--with CSUN’s program being by far the largest. Without the ability to award a clinical doctorate in audiology, graduates with only a master’s degree will not qualify for state licensure, state education credentials or national certification.

Currently, there are no AuD programs in California. With the exception of one joint program between San Diego State University and UC San Diego, none of the CSU campuses has been able to successfully negotiate a joint degree program with a UC or private university, despite more than a decade of effort.

Passage of SB 724 would allow CSUN to modify its existing baccalaureate and master’s degree programs to meet the new professional (clinical) doctoral degree standards.]

Status: PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Higher Education Committee, April 20. The bill was sent forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard on May 2.

[Note: Despite the unanimous vote, members of the Committee from both parties raised many questions and doubts during the discussion of this bill--particularly about costs. The UC has maintained that there would be significant start-up costs for the clinical/independent professional doctorates.

CSU has stated that start-up costs for the clinical/ independent professional doctorates will be covered within existing budgets for academic program support, without withdrawing funds from other academic programs, without raising student fess, and without diminishing the quality of program support offered to CSU undergraduate programs.

The CSU agreed to 2 amendments to get the bill out of the committee: (1) to provide a guarantee that the system would never ask for money associated with these programs, and (2) to limit the authority to only education (Ed.D), audiology and physical therapy (clinical doctorates).

The UC remains adamantly opposed and has launched a major effort to defeat it. The battle for votes in the Appropriations Committee is expected to be intense.]

1. Candidates announce for statewide offices. Just when you thought that election fever would finally be over after the May 17 Mayoral run-off, several candidates stepped forward to announce their candidacy for 2006 statewide elective offices.

Treasurer: Assembly Member Dario Frommer (D - Glendale) and Senator Joe Dunn (D - Santa Ana) are the first Democratic candidates to announce. Assembly Member Keith Richman (R - Simi Valley) is the announced Republican candidate, while the failed GOP candidate for Governor, Bill Simon, and Board of Equalization Member Claude Parrish are said to be testing the waters.

Attorney General: Former Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo are the Democratic hopefuls so far. On the Republican side, Senator Chuck Poochigian (R - Fresno) has tossed his hat into the ring.

Insurance Commissioner: No announced Democratic candidates, but Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante is said to be mulling over his chances. Businessman Gary Mendoza, who ran for this office in 2002, and Dr. Phil Kurzner, the former chair of the California Commission on Aging, are the two Republicans who have indicated an interest in running for this office.

Lt. Governor: Thus far, John Garamendi, the current Insurance Commissioner, is running on the Democratic ticket, and Senator Tom McClintock (R - Thousand Oaks) will carry the Republican banner.

Governor: State Treasurer Phil Angelides formally declared his candidacy last week. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer has all but officially declared, and state Controller Steve Westly, who has been vacillating for the past year, is said to be again testing the waters, in light of Governor Schwarzenegger’s continuing drop in approval ratings (from the high 60s to 48-49%).

2. Education is the prime driver in state politics. Those who have been following the Los Angeles Mayoral race know that education, and reform of the Los Angeles Unified School District in particular, has been a key plank in candidates’ platforms, despite the fact that the Mayor has no jurisdiction over the local school board or any other aspect of K-12 education. At the state level, as the two items below will illustrate, education again occupies center stage. Is there anyone left in the state who isn’t on an education panel?

The real question to ask is whether this interest and these august panels will actually produce any tangible improvements in the achievements and learning of California’s students.

3. Governor Schwarzenegger appoints an advisory committee on K - 12 education. The 16-member panel, to be called The Governor’s Advisory Committee on Education Excellence, will be chaired by Dr. Theodore R. Mitchell, President of Occidental College. The Committee will spend two years studying and providing recommendations on four major areas: Finance, governance, teacher recruitment and training, and the preparation and retention of school administrators.

As with the Governor’s past advisory committees, the group is widely diverse, in terms of professions, philosophies and ethnicities represented, and is bipartisan. In addition to Dr. Mitchell, the members include:

· Arlene Ackerman, Superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District

· Russlyn Ali, Executive Director of Ed Trust West, a non-profit organization established in 1990 by the American Association for Higher Education as a special project to encourage colleges and universities to support K-12 reform efforts;

· Ernesto Cortes, Southwest Regional Director of the Industrial Areas Foundation, which promotes “faith-based community organizing” coalitions. (Examples of past efforts include pursuing such issues as convincing local politicians to allocate funds for playgrounds at public schools, and to establish an initiative to create affordable housing);

· Dave Gordon, Superintendent of the Sacramento County Office of Education;

· Thomas Henry, Chief Executive Officer of the Fiscal Crisis Management and Assessment Team (one of the plaintiffs in the Williams lawsuit, mentioned below);

· Sherry Lansing, recently retired chief executive officer of Paramount Studios; member of the UC Board of Regents (appointed by former Governor Gray Davis in 1999);

· Mark Rosenbaum, an ACLU attorney who initiated (and helped settle) a class action lawsuit (Williams v State of California) against the state Department of Education on the issue of what comprises an adequate education for all pupils in the state’s school districts;

· Sau-Lim “Lance” Tsang, a board member of the Oakland Unity Charter High School;

· Randolph Ward, a state administrator overseeing the Oakland Unified School District; and

· Caprice Young, former member and president of the LAUSD Board of Education, and currently the head of the California Charter Schools Association.

4. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell appoints an advisory committee on education. Three days after the Governor announced his panel, O’Connell unveiled his. Barry Munitz, former Chancellor of the CSU, and currently the president and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust will chair the committee, which will be known as the P16 Council.

In his press release, O’Connell identified the primary purpose of the Council: To examine ways to better coordinate the different levels of education, from pre-kindergarten through college. The Council will also be concerned with ensuring that “all students have access to caring and qualified teachers,” and with increasing “public awareness of the link between an educated citizenry and a healthy economy.”

O’Connell’s panel includes 44 members, most of whom are directly tied to education--teachers, superintendents, school board members, college deans, and members of professional education associations. Some of the more prominent: Mark Drummond, Chancellor of the California Community Colleges system; former state Senator Gary Hart, who heads the CSU Institute for Education Reform, housed on the Sacramento State University campus; and Scott Plotkin, former head of CSU’s Governmental Affairs office, and now the Executive Director of the powerful California School Boards Association. The list also includes the top leaders of the Legislature: Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata.

5. High Speed Rail Initiative may be delayed again. Initially proposed for the November 2004 ballot, the measure was put forward to the November 2006 ballot, when its advocates thought chances of voter approval would be greater. The measure’s high cost ($9.95 billion), together with other competing bond initiatives and the state’s shaky fiscal condition, continue to make it a high risk proposition.

Also working against the measure is the critical need for improvements of the state’s highway infrastructure, which have gone unaddressed as both the current and former Governors raided the Transportation Fund revenues to reduce the state deficit. Supporters of the High Speed Rail project fear that voters will see the measure as a nice item for a wish-list, but impractical and wasteful, in light of the freeways, roads and bridges in need of repair, and the need for improved local rapid transit.

Assembly Member Alberto Torrico (D - Fremont) is the author of AB 713, which would postpone the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21^st Century to the November 4, 2008 ballot. The bill had its first hearing this week in the Assembly Transportation Committee, where it passed on a 10 - 2 vote. The two nay votes were cast by Assembly Member Carol Liu (D - Pasadena) and Assembly Member Dennis Mountjoy (R -Monrovia).

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

This bill would establish within the California Health and Human Services agency the Office of Pharmaceutical Purchasing to serve as the purchasing agent for prescription drugs for the CSU, and for any other state agency as directed by the Governor, that may elect to participate in the purchasing program. The bill would also require that the Office submit a report on February 1, 2007, and annually thereafter, to certain committees of the Legislature regarding the program.

Status: PASSED [9 - 3] by the Assembly Health Committee and referred to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, April 13.

This bill seeks to eliminate the requirement that Cal Grant entitlement recipients enter college within a year of graduating from high school and the requirement that community college students seeking competitive grants be under 24 years of age.

Status: Referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee on March 3, where it is set to be heard on April 19.

Each legislative session, the CSU sponsors “omnibus legislation” containing non-controversial and/or technical changes to various California Codes of Law. As amended on March 29, this bill now contains three such proposals:

(1) Protection of Subcontractors in Design-Building Contracting. This provision seeks to conform the protections of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act to the “design-build” approach the CSU uses in its construction projects.

(2) Auxiliary Board Meetings. Under the California Corporations Code, the Board of Directors of a nonprofit organization is required to meet annually in every year in which directors are to be elected. However, the Education Code requires auxiliary organization governing boards of the CSU to meet at least quarterly. Since it is unclear which standard applies to CSU auxiliary organization governing boards, this provision seeks to amend the Education Code to require them to meet “at least annually.”

(3) Sale of Real Property: CSU Channel Islands Lemon Orchard. Prior legislation authorized the CSU to exchange a portion of the 258-acre lemon orchard parcel in Camarillo for a parcel of land adjacent to the CSU, CI campus. In this provision, CSU is seeking the authority to sell the property to assist the campus in constructing a better campus entrance as well as building athletic fields and parking lots for students, faculty, and staff.

Status: PASSED [6 - 0] as amended by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and sent to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 5.

AB 1072 (Liu) Postsecondary Education: Office of the Secretary for Higher Education

This bill would consolidate the degree-granting program approval responsibilities of the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education and the responsibilities of the California Postsecondary Education Commission into the Office of the Secretary for Higher Education, which the bill would establish on July 1, 2006.

Status: Referred to the Assembly Committees on Higher Education and Business and Professions. The bill is set to be heard first in the Higher Education Committee on April 19.

This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session, would establish defined contributions and hybrid plans for public employees hired on or after July 1, 2007.

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment, introduced in the Special Legislative Session, would establish the California Public Employee Defined Contribution and Hybrid Plans, subject to approval by voters.

This measure begins with a multi-clause resolution that generally criticizes the current public employee retirement system as being overgenerous and threatening to the “long-term investments California needs in education, infrastructure, health care, and public safety.”

Specifically, the measure seeks to limit any public employee hired after July 1, 2007 to enrollment in either a hybrid retirement plan or in a defined contribution plan. All new employees after this date would be prohibited from enrolling in a defined benefit plan.

The measure prescribes contribution rates and other requirements for both plans, capping the employer’s contribution to 14% for public safety employees who are excluded from coverage under Social Security, 10% of salary for teachers and other employees that are excluded from coverage under Social Security, and 7% of salary for all employees who are covered under Social Security.

The bill contains an exception for the University of California, but not for the CSU, that authorizes the UC Regents to increase the system’s contribution rate, if it becomes necessary for recruiting and retaining faculty and administrators.

A “hybrid plan” is defined in the bill as one that is “comprised of a defined benefit component that provides a pension benefit determined by a formula based on age, service credit, and salary, with a defined contribution component that provides a pension benefit equal to the contributions of both the employer and employee, plus interest and net investment earnings, less administrative expenses.”

The measure prohibits an employee from retiring under the “hybrid plan,” except for disability, or until the employee has attained normal retirement age. (“Normal retirement age” is not defined.)

The measure specifies that the defined benefits component of the retirement plan “shall be calculated based on the employee’s highest average salary over a period of three consecutive years.”

The measure also addresses health benefits for retirees. It specifies that an employee hired on or after July 1, 2007, “shall not be eligible for employer-paid retiree health benefits until he/she attains normal retirement age and retires.”

Finally, the measure specifies that once approved by voters, the law enacted by this measure can not be amended unless by a 2/3 roll call vote of both houses of the Legislature. Further, the provisions of the law enacted by this measure are severable, meaning that if any provision or its application is held invalid by the courts, other provisions would not be affected and would remain intact and enforceable.

Status: Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, where it will be heard on April 19.

This bill would prohibit any state agency--and, as amended on April 12, specifically the University of California and the California State University--that accepts credit or debit cards from charging a processing fee for the use of the card, that isn’t also imposed on those paying by cash or check.

Status: PASSED [4 - 1] by the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 5. [Note: The sole opposing vote was cast by Senator Dick Ackerman (R - Irvine). The other Republican members of the committee abstained.

The CSU opposes this bill. If campuses are prohibited from charging a transaction fee for credit card payments, they may stop accepting payments by credit card because they cannot absorb the cost of the credit card fees.]

Establishes the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.

Status: PASSED [6 - 3] by the Assembly Education Committee [which the author chairs] and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 6. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

This bill seeks to delete the prohibition against using state funds and authorize the redirection of CSU funds to support the Institute.

As amended on March 30, the bill would require that any funds that are utilized for the initial start-up costs of the institute, or for support of the institute, be fully reimbursed by the institute within 3 years.

Status: PASSED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, March 30.

SB 349 (McClintock) Public Postsecondary Education: Nonresident Admissions Criteria

Existing law sets down conditions under which an undocumented alien may be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at California Community College and CSU campuses.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 8] in the Senate Education Committee, April 6. The author has not asked for reconsideration. [Note: As with the prior vote, mentioned above, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill.]

The California Information Practices Act prohibits public institutions, including the UC and the CSU, from distributing the name and contact information of any individual to third parties. The law also expressly prohibits institutions from doing so even with the approval of the individual.

Campus alumni associations have been established at all 23 CSU campuses in order to maintain relationships and build long-term connections with recent graduates and alumni, the ultimate goal being to support the University in the form of donors, scholarships and mentors.

Status: PASSED [10 - 1] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 6.

[Note: The sole nay vote was cast by Senator Jackie Speier (D - San Francisco), who, two years ago, authored the bill creating the California Financial Information Privacy Act. That law established an “opt in” requirement of all financial institutions, prohibiting them from sharing or selling personally identifiable information unless the consumer authorized it. The Act also requires that consumers be given the opportunity to “opt out” of sharing private information with a financial institution’s affiliates.

Senator Speier opposed SB 569 because it contains only an “opt out” provision and not an “opt-in.” After further debate, SB 569 passed, but with the agreement that the bill would be amended to include a 5-year sunset on the law, to give the higher education institutions sufficient time to prove that an opt-out program can be successful. It was also agreed that the “opt-out” language would be tightened.]

1. The University of California continues to win more patents than any other higher education institution in the country. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2004 marks the eleventh straight year the UC system has occupied the top spot. The top 10:

2. House and Senate approve different Budget Resolutions for Education spending. With regard to Pell Grants and other student aid programs, the Senate approved a plan that asks Congress to raise the maximum Pell Grant by $450 to $4500 in 2006. (President Bush called for increasing the maximum $100 a year for each of the next 5 years to $4550.) The Senate’s plan also proposes to retain funding for several programs slated for elimination by President Bush--the Perkins Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans to the neediest students attending postsecondary education institutions, and three outreach programs, Upward Bound, Talent Search, and GEAR UP. (Cal State Northridge receives direct federal funding for one GEAR UP project, and is an active partner with the Los Angeles Unified School District in two others.)

The House version does not include increases in the Pell Grant maximum, nor does it provide any specific direction on any of the mandatory programs that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce oversees. Rather, it simply directs the Committee to review these programs and reduce funding for them by $21 billion over the next five years.

Both versions are vague on where “savings” achieved by cutting various student loan programs would be applied.

3. Pew Hispanic Center issues report on undocumented population in the U.S. Using data from the March 2004 Current Population Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Labor, the report cited its major findings as follows:

The report also notes that of the 35.7 million foreign born in the U.S. as of March 2004, 21.7 million (61%) are Legal Permanent Resident Arrivals, 10.3 million (29%) are Undocumented Migrants, 1.2 million (3%) are Temporary Legal Residents, and 2.5 million (7%) are Refugee Arrivals.

While the majority of the 10.3 million Undocumented Migrants are from Mexico (5.9 million or 57%), sizeable numbers also come from other parts of the world:

Other Latin American countries: 2.5 million (24%)
Asia: 1 million (9%)
Europe and Canada: 6 million (6%)
Africa & other countries: 4 million (4%)

The top 8 destination states, and the numbers of Undocumented Migrants for each, were reported as follows:

States with the fewest number of Undocumented Migrants--under 10,000--include New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont, North Dakota, and Montana.

The rising number of Undocumented Migrants coming to the United States will have increasingly profound social, political and economic impacts on the country. Just counting the numbers was never sufficient, and it's even less so now. The country's incoherent and conflicting policies serve more to exacerbate, than to address the problems of education, health care, wages and language barriers.

4. Schwarzenegger nominee for Secretary of State confirmed. Former state Senator Bruce McPherson, who was termed out of office at the end of December, was the Governor’s choice to replace Kevin Shelley, who resigned in early March amidst several looming investigations over alleged misuse of federal election funds, questions about his campaign monies, and allegations from his office staffers about abusive treatment.

McPherson was approved by the Assembly Rules Committee on Wednesday, and shortly thereafter by the full Assembly. The Committee vote was 7 - 1, with Assembly Member Mervyn Dymally (D - Compton) casting the sole nay vote. On the Assembly Floor, the vote was 71 - 0, with several abstentions--Lori Saldana (D - San Diego), Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles), Paul Koretz (D - West Hollywood), and Mervyn Dymally.

Dymally indicated he voted no in Committee to note his strong objection to the lack of diversity on McPherson’s transition team, which contained only one African-American and one Latino. Dymally abstained in the Floor vote because Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez had asked for a unanimous decision. “The Speaker thought we needed to send a message to the Governor that we disagree, but we’re not disagreeable,” Dymally told reporters after the vote had been tallied.

McPherson, who also served for six years in the Assembly and prior to that as a newspaper reporter and editor of the Santa Cruz Sentinel, was sworn into office immediately.

--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond Measure

6. Texas Legislature licks cupcake problem. Last week the Texas state Legislature took time our from budget negotiations to fix a problem caused by the state’s Agriculture Commissioner, when he outlawed junk food in the public schools--which included cupcakes. Elementary school children were reportedly unhappy when they were barred from bringing cupcakes to school to celebrate classmates’ birthdays. As reported in this week’s State Net Capitol Journal, things got tense when the parent of one of the students, Texas State Representative Jim Dunnam, came under fire. “The Waco Democrat complained that he was considered a villain in his daughter’s school because he serves in the Legislature, so he introduced a bill to legalize the treats.” The Agriculture Commissioner has indicated he won’t oppose the bill.

With resolution of the problem at hand, relieved state legislators can return to less sweet issues. Like the state budget.

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

This is a “spot” bill for content relating to the governance of CSU employees, to be inserted at a later date.

Passage of SB 724 would allow CSUN to modify its existing baccalaureate and master’s degree programs to meet the new professional (clinical) doctoral degree standards.]

This is a “spot” bill for content to be inserted at a later date, relating to the duties of CPEC, with regard to collection of data pertinent to the planning and coordination of the higher education system in California.

This bill will be the vehicle for implementing any of the recommendations contained in the California Performance Review report.

[Note: Governor Schwarzenegger created the CPR by Executive Order in February 2004 “to examine state government and recommend practical changes to agencies, programs and operations to reduce total costs, increase productivity, improve services, and make government more responsible and accountable to the public.” The CPR held a series of public hearings throughout the state to obtain feedback and comment on the recommendations it was formulating. The final report was submitted to the Governor on August 3, 2004.]

This bill establishes the Council on Education, Workforce and the Economy in the office of the Governor for the purpose of advising the Governor, the State Board of Education, the UC, the CSU and the California Community Colleges. All three systems of public higher education would have a seat on the Council.

The President of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities would not be a member of the Council, but the Council would be required to consult with that individual, as well as with the California Postsecondary Education Commission, the California Workforce Investment Board, and the State Board of Education.

This bill would add the California Postsecondary Accountability Act of 2005 to the Donahoe Higher Education Act. The bill would establish a statewide California Postsecondary Education Accountability structure that would annually provide an assessment of the progress made by the state’s system of postsecondary education in meeting the educational needs of Californians.

SB 871 would specify the information to be collected through a statewide reporting system that the bill would establish. The UC would be requested, and the CSU and the California Community Colleges would be required, to provide annual reports to the Legislature, the California Postsecondary Education Commission, and the Governor by October 1 of each year, starting with October 1, 2006.

SB 882 (Ashburn) Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS): Final Compensation

For the purposes of calculating retirement benefits, current Public Employees’ Retirement Law generally defines “final compensation” for state employee members (including the CSU) as the highest annual average compensation earnable by the member during a designated 12-month period. (There is no requirement that the one year period be the last one before retirement.)

This bill would define final compensation as the highest annual compensation earnable by a PERS member, during a consecutive 36-month period immediately preceding the effective date of the member’s retirement. The new requirement would apply to any member retiring after January 1, 2006.

This bill would amend the Public Employees’ Retirement law that prescribes the retirement formulas applicable to specified members of PERS. Under this law, the benefit formula for specified local miscellaneous members, school members, state miscellaneous or industrial members, or university members, is 2% at age 55, and for other local miscellaneous members is 3% at age 60.

Specifically, this bill would provide that all employees hired after January 1, 2006 would be subject to a 2% at 60 retirement benefit formula.

SB 884 (Ashburn) Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS): Retirement Increases

In 1999, changes were made in Public Employees’ Retirement Law that prescribes the retirement formulas applicable to specified members of PERS. The percentage was increased variously--from 2% at 60 for state miscellaneous employees, for example, to 2% at 55.

This bill would state legislative intent to change the law to return to the retirement formulas in place prior to 1999.

This bill states legislative intent to create a hybrid retirement program that contains a defined benefit plan funded by employer contributions and a defined contribution plan funded by employee contributions.

This House Resolution applauds the positive and vital impact of California’s public libraries, librarians, and all library workers during National Library Week [April 10 through April 16, 2005], and thanks them for enriching the lives of residents and helping to make our state an exceptional place to live, learn, and work.

1. City Election fails to ignite voters, as only 26.08% of the City’s 1.48 million registered voters turn up at the polls. Voter turnout falls even lower--to 22.42%--if the school and community college districts outside of the City are included. Political observers cite the number of races with no challengers (8, counting the Los Angeles Community College and LAUSD Board of Education races), and a crowded mayoral field, where all 5 of the major candidates espoused pretty much the same views.

The sole Republican in the race, Walter Moore, probably had the greatest impact on the outcome. Though he garnered only 2.75% of the vote, he siphoned enough votes away from Bob Hertzberg to deny him the coveted second place position, which would have guaranteed him a spot in the May 17 run-off. The final vote was 33.07% for Villaraigosa, 23.68% for incumbent Mayor Jim Hahn, and 22.15% for Bob Hertzberg. City Council Member and former police chief Bernard Parks came in fourth with 13.37%, and the other major challenger, state Senator Richard Alarcon, was a distant fifth, with 3.59% of the vote.

The labor vote in the Primary was curious. Although most of the unions endorsed Hahn, an L.A. Times exit poll revealed that only 27% of their members actually voted for him. The paper also reported that 35% of union members said they had voted for challenger Villaraigosa.

The run-off will pit Villaraigosa against Hahn for the second time. Four years ago, Villaraigosa beat Hahn in the Primary by 5%, (30% to 25%), but in the succeeding run-off election, Hahn bested Villaraigosa by 8 percentage points to win the Mayor’s seat (53.54% to 46.6%). Five years later, will history repeat itself? It will be a very difficult race for the incumbent Mayor to achieve victory this time around. In the March 8 Primary, Villaraigosa’s margin of victory over Hahn was higher than in 2001: 10 percentage points vs. 7 four years ago. Moreover, neither the labor nor the black vote is assured, and his administration has suffered numerous scandals--which was not the case in 2001.

In Villaraigosa’s favor is the relatively positive race he ran in this Primary. Particularly in the waning days before the election, the campaigns of the four other major candidates became more strident and abrasive--a significant turn-off to voters. One hopes that in the run-off, both candidates will take the high road and focus on the issues. One hopes.

In other races, the only contest of note among the City Council seats occurred in the 11^th district, currently occupied by Cindy Miscikowski, who will be termed out at the end of June. Since none of the three candidates running garnered 50% of the vote, the May 17 run-off election will pit Bill Rosendahl, a former cable executive and political forum host, against Flora Gil Krisiloff, a community activist and West L.A. Area Planning Commission member. Rosendahl received 44.70% of the vote on Tuesday, and Krisiloff, 44.70%. The third challenger, Angela Reddock, received 13.80%. Both Rosendahl and Krisiloff will be wooing her support in the weeks ahead.

2. Governor’s nominee for Secretary of State passes first hurdle. Former state Senator Bruce McPherson, a moderate Republican who represented Santa Cruz, was nominated last month by Governor Schwarzenegger to complete the term of Kevin Shelley, who resigned in a cloud of investigations for alleged wrong-doing--including how his office distributed federal funds meant to improve the election process. McPherson won unanimous approval by both the Senate Rules Committee and the full Senate, actions anticipated given McPherson’s popularity among his former Senate colleagues.

The Assembly Rules Committee will review the nomination next. While approval is anticipated, the road getting there will be far bumpier. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez expressed concerns over the advisors McPherson selected to transition him into the position. A spokesman for Nunez told reporters that “There seems to be too close ties there to the Governor’s office. You have to remember this is a separate constitutional office, not another member of his administration.” The advisors included individuals who are actively involved in moving the Governor’s reform proposals to the ballot.

3. The maximum Pell grant will continue to cover less of a student’s college tuition costs over the next five years. According to a recent study released last week by the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting access and opportunity, the “Pell Grants will cover only slightly more than one quarter (25.7%) of the cost of attending a four-year public college by the 2010-2011 school year.” This conclusion assumes that the cost of living will continue to rise at the same rate as it has over the last four years. The decrease in purchasing power will occur despite the Bush Administration’s proposed increase in the maximum Pell Grant of $100 a year for each of the next five years.

The current maximum is $4050 annually, which would rise to $4550 by 2010, under the Bush proposal. The $500 increase, however, is funded in part by the President’s proposed elimination of the Perkins Loan Program, which provides loans to the neediest students.

The cost issue will thus be intensified, as more students, who would turn to the Perkins Loan program to help cover the cost of their education, find that it’s no longer an option.

The 23 campuses of the California State University will be participating in a “Federal Relations Day” program in Washington, D.C., on April 6, where these issues will receive focus and attention in visits with our respective Congressional Members.

--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond Measure

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

This bill seeks to abolish the Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Board, the Hearing Aid Dispensers Advisory Committee, the Architects Board, the Landscape Architects Technical Committee, the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, the Contractors’ State License Board, and the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and transfers their responsibilities to the Department of Consumer Affairs.

This bill seeks to require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and to request the UC, to include prescribed data about crimes involving violence against women in a mandatory prevention and education program for all incoming students.

An existing provision of the Donahoe Higher Education Act requires the CSU and requests the UC to establish a dual admissions program, beginning with the 2004-05 academic year, in which eligible freshman applicants are offered the opportunity to enter into a dual admissions agreement with a campus in one of these two systems.

If the participating students successfully complete lower division coursework at a community college, they will be guaranteed admission to the CSU or UC campus.

Currently, participating students enrolling in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 academic years would have their fees waived by the community college. This bill seeks to require that any student who participates in the dual admissions program will have his or her community college fees waived for up to 2 academic years (not tied to the specified two years), and irrespective of financial need.

AB 1445 (Umberg) UC, CSU, CCC: Tuition and Fee Waivers for Members of the Armed Forces

This bill seeks to prohibit any UC, CSU or California Community College from charging any mandatory systemwide tuition or fees, differential fees, or incidental fees, to qualifying members of the California Army National Guard, the California Guard, or the State Military Reserve. The bill requires the military department to determine the eligibility of any applicant for a fee or tuition waiver.

This bill would authorize the UC and the CSU to consider culture, race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given when the university or other entity is attempting to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a multi-factored diverse student body.

This bill states the intent of the Legislature to enact the statutory changes necessary to ensure that public employee retirement systems operate in a manner that provides state and local government fiscal stability, while safeguarding their ability to attract and retain the highest caliber of employee.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution declares that current space utilization standards are obsolete and are no longer relevant to the actual space needs of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

The Resolution proposes that the California Postsecondary Education Commission establish a limited set of contemporary space allocation policies for the three systems, based on national research, actual use patterns, and best practices. It further specifies that these policies be used as guidelines, with the flexibility provided for institutions to plan and operate physical facilities in ways that are both cost-effective and student-centered.

This bill would require the CSU, the California Community Colleges, the Student Aid Commission, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Secretary of Education, and would request the UC, to jointly establish the Education Empowerment Zone Authority.

The Authority would have the power to designate various areas around the state as education empowerment zones. The bill would authorize the UC to grant preferences in undergraduate, graduate, and professional school admissions to the full extent permitted by the U.S. and California Constitutions, to pupils and graduates of schools located in the education empowerment zones.

The bill would authorize the CSU to use existing retention and graduate programs to ensure that students from education empowerment zones, who attend institutions within the CSU system, remain in good standing and graduate in a timely manner.

[Note: As worded, this bill appears to be an effort to establish an economic-based, rather than a race-based preference policy.]

This bill expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require the CSU to offer 12-month, instead of 9-month, scholarships to its student athletes, and to offer an additional 12-month scholarship to a student athlete who has exhausted his or her athletic eligibility, but is within 20 semester units, or the equivalent number of quarter units, of qualifying for graduation.

This Senate Concurrent Resolution also states the Legislature’s support of the value that arts education brings to the pupils’ education and to the economic development within each community of this state. It also requests that copies of the resolution be transmitted to every school district in the State, as well as to the arts education associations for their individual action in support of Arts Education Month.

Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State, March 7. Resolution Chapter No. 5.

This Senate Concurrent Resolution makes permanent the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Education. As initially written, the measure required the joint committee to submit a report on its activities to the Legislature at the end of each regular session of the Legislature.

As amended on March 14, the measure would require instead that the committee submit a report on its activities to the Legislature at the end of the 2005-06 Regular Session, and would terminate the joint committee on November 30, 2006.

Status: Adopted [3 - 0] by the Senate Rules Committee, March 16. Adopted [21 - 12] by the full Senate, March 17, and referred to the Assembly on the same date. (The vote was cast on a partisan basis, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the measure.)

1. State Senate and Assembly extend deadline date for introducing bills. Both houses of the Legislature got off to a slow start in January, causing the February 18 deadline by which to introduce bills to come sooner than expected. Both houses voted to extend the deadline to February 22, 2005. Over 1200 bills were introduced on the last day. I’ll be reviewing those of interest over the next few weeks.

2. Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, in her recent analysis of the state budget, had harsh words for the Compact Agreement between the Governor and the two systems of public higher education. Hill noted in general that the Governor’s “budget reform proposals would put more future state spending on ‘cruise control’ and hamper the ability of future policy makers to establish budget priorities.” With specific reference to the Compact Agreements with the UC and with the CSU, she faulted them for placing funding of the two systems on “autopilot” for the next 6 years. Hill advised the Legislature “to enact a budget for higher education as it normally does, by examining each of the Governor's proposals on its own merits.”

Under the Compact, funding for the UC and the CSU would increase by 3% over the next two years and by 4% from 2007-08 through 2010-11, in exchange for budget cuts in the current 2004-05 fiscal year. The Compact also included student fee increases, with the Governor’s pledge that they would not exceed an average of 10% in the next three years, and more money for enrollment growth (2.5% per year through the end of the decade).

3. Confirmation hearing set for six CSU Trustees appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The Senate Rules committee will discuss the appointments of the following individuals on April 13:

Each of these appointees was profiled in an earlier Legislative Update (July 20), when they were initially appointed by the Governor. (Nothing moves fast in State government. Or in any level of government, probably.)

4. Bits and Pieces. Former Clinton HUD Secretary, Henry Cisneros, whom Democrats had been wooing to run for the U.S. Senate from Texas in 2006, told the Dallas Morning News this week that he “has ruled out a bid” for the seat, deciding instead to stay in the private business sector. As reported in the Congressional Quarterly, Democrats hoping to appeal to the large bloc of Hispanic voters in Texas, were decidedly disappointed, noting that “The charismatic Mr. Cisneros is an icon to many Hispanic voters.”

The Senate Rules Committee has set March 16 as the hearing date for former state Senator Bruce McPherson’s confirmation as Secretary of State.

Pundits and political chess players are already ruminating over possible gubernatorial candidates in 2006. One scenario has actor-director Rob Reiner running on the Democrat ticket opposite Governor Schwarzenegger--a contest about which the political newsletter, CalPeek, has asked, “Who can resist the Terminator vs. Meathead comparison?!”

5. California fact you can use to enliven a dinner party: According to the Federal Highway Administration, the country currently has 127,000 hybrid automobiles on the road--80,000 of them sold in 2004. Of this number 29,000 or 23% are traveling California’s streets and highways. California also has 40% of the country’s HOVs (high occupancy vehicle lanes).

--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond Measure

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

This bill establishes a pilot program that would authorize the UC, CSU, or the California Community Colleges to sanction no more than 10 campuses within their respective segments to approve and administer one charter school each.

[Note: This bill is a reintroduction of one authored last year by Assembly Member Patricia Bates (R - Laguna Niguel), which the CSU opposed. The bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Assembly Member Mimi Walters, author of the current bill, succeeded Bates, who was termed out of office at the end of December.]

Introduced: December 6, 2004; referred to the Assembly Committees on Education and Higher Education on January 6.

Specifically, the bill would establish the California Hope Public Trust in state government, to be governed and administered by a 7-member board consisting of 4 appointees from the Governor, the Secretary of State and Consumer Services, the Treasurer and the Controller.

The Department of General Services would be required, by March 31, 2006, to submit to the trust a complete and thorough inventory of all state-owned real estate and property and all lease agreements between any state agency, and private or nonpublic management groups. The Trust, in turn, would be required by January 1, 2007, to review and recommend to the Legislature all real property owned by the State that should be transferred to the Trust.

The bill would also add provisions to the Donahoe Higher Education Act establishing the California Hope Endowment, with a mission of increasing the number of Californians who attend colleges and universities and receive degrees.

The bill would require the Endowment to be governed by a 7-member board, consisting of 4 gubernatorial appointees and one member each appointed by the UC, the CSU and the California Community Colleges.

The Endowment Board would be required to develop guidelines and criteria for the awarding of grants for promising and innovative approaches leading to the improvement of access to California’s public colleges and universities.

The bill specifically requires that funding from the Endowment is to supplement, not replace, General Fund investment in public higher education.

This bill would require the California Performance Review to examine and assess the operations of the California State Assembly and State Senate, and to report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature no later than December 31, 2005.

This bill expresses findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding the current shortage of registered nurses in California. It expresses the intent of the Legislature to add funding to the budgets of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges for additional slots in nursing education programs and for all state programs that educate entry-level, master’s, and doctoral program nursing students.

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

The California Whistleblower Protection Act stipulates that that identity of a “whistleblower” shall not be disclosed without the written permission of the person providing the information, unless the disclosure is to a law enforcement agency that is conducting a criminal investigation.

CSU policy states that care shall be taken to keep confidential the identity of whistleblowers. However, because whistleblower complaints filed by CSU employees to designated system administrators are subject to the Public Records Act, the CSU cannot shield the whistleblower’s identity or keep every investigative audit confidential, as can the State Auditor.

This bill would add language to the Education Code that CSU employees be free to report on improper governmental activities to a designated CSU administrator with the same shield to identity protection and confidentiality that is protected by disclosure to the State Auditor.

This bill would require the CSU to provide an employee, upon request, with four hours of time off with pay, following a disclosure by the system that there is, or could have been a breach of security of employee personal information data. The time off is to allow the employee to take all necessary steps to minimize damages resulting, or that could result, from that breach, and to contact law enforcement agencies, as provided by the Penal Code.

This bill provides that any person who is honorably serving in, or has been honorably discharged from, the armed forces of the United States, would not be subject to tuition or fees at any campus of the UC, CSU, or the California Community Colleges, if he or she is a California resident. [The provisions of this bill would apply to the UC to the extent the Board of Regents makes them applicable by resolution.]

This bill provides that, beginning with the 2005-06 fiscal year, tuition and mandatory systemwide fees charged to students at the UC and the CSU shall not increase by more than 2% above the level charged in the immediately preceding fiscal year, unless at least one-third of the revenue that accrues from the increase is applied to fund student financial aid programs at the respective systems. [The provisions of this bill would apply to the UC to the extent that the Board of Regents makes them applicable by resolution.]

This would require all CSU campuses to recognize, for the purpose of admissions and grade point average calculations, career technical education courses in those subject matter areas in which majors are offered within the State University system, provided that these career technical education courses meet or exceed the relevant state approved standards.

Beginning with the 2006-07 fiscal year, this bill would require the level of mandatory systemwide fees for resident undergraduate students at the UC, the CSU and any campus of the California Community Colleges to be set as an unspecified percentage of the total cost of instruction.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to establish a program pursuant to which foreign-educated physicians may obtain a bachelor of science degree in nursing. The bill would require the CSU, and request the UC, to establish a nursing education program designed to allow foreign-educated physicians, and other qualified persons with a significant background of health care knowledge, to obtain bachelor of science degrees in nursing as a gateway to becoming registered nurses.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims the month of March 2005 as Arts Education Month and would encourage all educational communities to celebrate the arts and urge all residents to become interested in and give full support to quality school arts programs for children and youth.

This bill would replace the existing California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) and its functions and responsibilities, and replace it with the Commission on Statewide Postsecondary Education Policy and Planning. The new commission would be required to develop and regularly assess a statewide public agenda for higher education, and be empowered to participate in the executive and legislative budget processes in an advisory capacity. It would have specified functions and duties as the statewide higher education policy and planning agency.

The California Information Practices Act prohibits public institutions, including the UC and the CSU from distributing the name and contact information of any individual to third parties. The law also expressly prohibits institutions from doing so even with the approval of the individual.

SB 569 would amend the Education Code to authorize CSU and UC alumni associations, as with private colleges and universities in California, to implement affinity programs for recent graduates and members of alumni associations. The bill is co-sponsored by the UC and the CSU.

1. Governor Schwarzenegger appoints interim Secretary of State. In somewhat of a surprise action, the Governor picked a moderate Republican, former state Senator Bruce McPherson (R - Santa Cruz), 61, whom many feel will not run for election to the office in 2006, but who will use his time in the post to restore the public’s confidence in the important functions performed by the Secretary. McPherson, when asked about running for the office, said only that he would “keep his options open.”

McPherson, who was termed out of office at the end of December, is widely respected by members of both parties, and has a reputation for integrity and fair-mindedness. As a member of the state Senate, he voted on the merits of issues, even if his own caucus held an opposing view.

McPherson was a vigorous champion of education, voting to support legislation for K - University Facilities Bond Acts, smaller class sizes, and tougher graduation standards. As the former chair of the Assembly Elections Committee, when he served in the lower chamber, he comes well-qualified for his new post.

In accepting the appointment, McPherson said at the joint press conference held last Friday morning, “I pledge to the people of California to bring trust, confidence and efficiency to the office of Secretary of State. And at the same time I want to make it clear to all Californians that they should feel confident that the dedicated staffs of the Secretary of State’s office and the county registrars of voters throughout this great state are ready to carry out their important duties in a professional manner, just as they have in the past.”

2. Governor changes his mind about eliminating 88 regulatory boards and commissions. As reported in an earlier Legislative Update, among the boards he had proposed eliminating were 11 that license medical professions. Others set rules for engineers, contractors and accountants. The outcry was thunderous from consumer organizations, which argued that eliminating these boards would not save the state money, since they are funded by the license fees paid by members of the respective professions seeking licensure. Consumer advocates also argued that state bureaucrats would take over the functions of these boards, making regulation less democratic, since deliberations would no longer be held in a public setting (or subject to open meeting laws).

The abrupt about face is being attributed by political commentators to the Governor’s reluctance to get into a battle over these boards at the same time he is fighting for pension reform, changes in Prop. 98 funding, redistricting, and spending controls.

3. Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata (D - Oakland) surprised members of his party this week when he announced support of modifying Prop. 98. Passed by voters in 1988, the measure specifies that 40% of the state’s revenues go to school and community college districts, and through a complicated formula also determines and guarantees a base level of funding--which must be met, even in down years, when revenues decrease. In flush years, when revenues are up, the base is increased.

Perata criticized the measure as being “an escalator without pause.” While the measure protects school funding, he said it also “leaves the state short of cash for health care programs for the poor.” Governor Schwarzenegger has spoken publicly of amending Prop. 98, and privately of repealing it.

Perata’s remarks provoked an immediate reaction from his Democratic colleagues and education groups around the state--none of it positive. Perata later said he planned to formulate several ideas for funding education and seek reaction from parents, teachers and school administrators. The political newsletter, Education Beat reports that his initial plans include “loosening class-size requirements, shifting money from wealthier districts, and relaxing requirements for some categorical programs, such as bilingual education.”

Education Beat also noted that Senator Jack Scott (D - Pasadena), who chairs the Senate Education Committee and the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education, will be holding public hearings on these and other plans throughout February in Fresno, Salinas and San Diego.

4. President Bush unveiled his FY2006 Budget last week to mixed reactions from both Democrats and members of his own party. Republicans complained that it didn’t rein in spending enough, while Democrats criticized the deep cuts it exacted in social programs. Generally, however, there was plenty in the President’s Budget proposal for members of both parties to grumble over. Some Republicans expressed concerns about cuts made in farm subsidies, and others drew the line on cuts in federal aid to the states, cities and counties. Democrats condemned reductions in Medicaid and social programs, and members of both parties criticized elimination of funding for 48 education-related programs (out of 150). Members of both parties, albeit in varying degrees, were also disturbed that more wasn’t done to address the growing deficit and national debt.

The President’s $2.57 trillion budget plan does not include costs of the war in Iraq or costs to implement his plan for privatizing Social Security--another sore spot for Democrats. Republicans, who support the President’s efforts to pull back on the reins on spending, said it would be tough to hold the line on program reductions/eliminations, and that ultimately he may have to wield his veto pen. Doing so would be a departure for the President, as he did not veto any bills during his first term.

Of interest to the education community, the President’s Budget proposed the following augmentations, cuts, and eliminations:

· Pell Grants - Increased to $18 billion (about 45%) to raise the maximum award from $4050 to $4150 (part of a 5-year plan to raise the cap to $4550), and address the $4.3 billion in prior year shortfalls (owing to more students applying for the grants than Congress appropriated money for).

· Supplemental Grants (SEOG) and Federal Work Study - No change in funding levels over FY2005.

· Aid to historically black colleges and to Hispanic-serving institutions - Both increased 0.8%.

· Upward Bound, Talent Search, Educational Opportunity Centers, Upward Bound Math/Science, and Dissemination Partnership Projects - Funding eliminated.

· GEAR UP - Funding eliminated. (California currently receives 14.9% of GEAR UP funds.)

· Perkins Loans - Funding eliminated. (California’s current share of these monies is about 9.8%.)

· Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) - Funding eliminated. (LEAP grants are formula-based and require a one-to-one match from the states. California currently receives a generous portion of these funds--15.4%)

· Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE): Reduced 86.3% from $163 million to $22 million (largely because of the elimination of funding for one-time projects).

· Community College Access - A new program, with proposed funding of $125 million, to promote “dual-enrollment” programs through which high school students could take college level courses and receive both high school and college credit.

· Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act: Funding eliminated. (The community colleges are the primary recipients of funds, via formula grants, under this Act. The money supports efforts to improve programs in vocational education.)

· National Endowment for the Humanities - Remains at FY2004 level ($138 million).

As the various Congressional committees begin dissecting the President’s proposed budget, the debate is expected to be strident and partisan. Currently, about the only point on which both sides agree is that the final document passed by the Congress won’t look anything like the one the President has proposed.

Recently appointed Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings, had some strong words for community college officials who are upset over the cuts in the adult-education programs and over the elimination of funds for the Vocational and Technical Education Act. As quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Spellings told them they should come up with data that “prove up the value of these programs,” if they wanted funding restored.

5. Assembly Member Lloyd Levine announces he won’t run for state Senate in 2006, when Senator Richard Alarcon (D - Van Nuys) is termed out of office. Alarcon’s district overlaps both Levine’s and Assembly Member Cindy Montanez’ districts. As reported in last week’s Political Pulse newsletter, Levine has endorsed Montanez, saying in an e-mail that was widely circulated in the state Capitol, “I cannot think of a finer, more qualified person to serve the people of the 20^th Senate district. Having worked with Assembly Member Montanez for the past two years, I have seen firsthand her intelligence, commitment, integrity, dedication and passion. I will be strongly supporting her and I hope you will as well.”

Levine is not retiring from politics when he’s termed out of office in 2006. In the same e-mail, he announced that in 2008, he would run for state Senator Sheila Kuehl’s seat--which includes Santa Monica and which overlaps his Assembly District. Kuehl is termed out of office in 2008. Levine said in his e-mail that, “Serving in the Legislature is an honor and a privilege, and I would very much like to continue my public service as the Senator from the 23^rd District.”

Running for this Senate seat won’t be a free ride, however, since it’s expected that Assembly Member Fran Pavley (D - Agoura Hills), whose Assembly District also overlaps Kuehl’s, will be running for the seat as well.

November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond Measure

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

Film California First was established in 2001 by the California Film Commission to help stem the tide of “runaway film companies,” which were taking their productions to Canada and Australia, where tax and labor incentives were too enticing to ignore. The program was established within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, and was funded with money appropriated primarily by the Legislature.

The program offered reimbursement of certain film-related costs incurred by qualified production companies when shooting on local, state or federal public property in California. The bill that created the program approved it for a period of three years, with annual funding of $15 million. The second and third years, however, were made dependent on the annual state budget-approval process.

By 2003, the program--which had been funded at half the level envisioned by lawmakers--fell victim to the state’s $38 billion deficit. Funding ceased, and the program existed in name only.

AB 261 states the intent of the Legislature to restore state funding to the program.

Existing law sets forth minimum requirements for the single subject or multiple subject teaching credential, including that the applicant hold a baccalaureate or higher degree from a regionally accredited institution of postsecondary education, pass the state basic skills examination, and satisfactorily complete a program of professional preparation.

This bill would require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to conduct a study to determine whether a positive correlation exists between the employment of credentialed teachers and pupil achievement.

This bill would require the study to compare achievement of pupils taught by teachers who received their teaching credentials from the California State University in the years 2001 to 2003, with achievement of pupils taught by teachers working under emergency permits.

The bill would require the CTC to submit a report of its findings and conclusions to the Legislature on or before November 1, 2006.

Existing federal law establishes the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to fund workforce investment activities. This act authorizes the Governor to reserve up to 15% of the funds allotted to California for these activities statewide.

This bill would establish the Education and Workforce Council within state government, with specified membership--including the President of the UC, the Chancellor of the CSU, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges--to be chaired by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The Council would be required to develop a workforce preparation and strategic plan by December 31, 2006, to update the plan biennially thereafter, and to provide policy guidance to the Legislature and Governor on emerging issues of workforce development. The Council would also be charged with recommending workforce investment activities that should receive funding from the state’s allotment of federal funds for this purpose.

AB 412 (Goldberg) Clarifying the Function and Role of the State’s Education Entities

Currently, there are three major entities with responsibilities regarding K-12 and higher education: The elected Superintendent of Public Instruction; the 11-member State Board of Education appointed by the Governor; and the Secretary of Education, also appointed by the Governor. These entities more often than not work at cross purposes with one another.

In an effort to eliminate redundancy of responsibility and minimize conflicts among these entities, this bill declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that will clearly define the role, responsibilities and scope of authority of the state in the public education system, and of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, the Governor and the Legislature.

This bill, on and after July 1, 2007, would prohibit public agency contributions to a defined contribution plan for those employees covered by Social Security, from exceeding 6% of an employee’s base salary. (The bill provides an exception for sworn police officers and full-time firefighters, for whom contributions of up to 9% from the public agency would be allowed.)

The bill would additionally require matching employee contributions to a defined contribution plan in excess of 3% (or 4.5% for sworn police officers and full-time firefighters).

This bill is conditioned on the approval of the author’s proposed Constitutional Amendment (ACA 5 or ACA 1a), which permits new employees to enroll only in defined contribution plans on and after July 1, 2007.

[Note: The purpose of AB 511 is to prevent state employees from collecting both Social Security benefits and full retirement benefits. Under AB 511, the employee would receive a total benefit which the author believes would be more in line with what most public sector employees would receive from Social Security and their company retirement plan.]

Existing law requires the CSU Trustees to provide disability retirement or, in certain cases of involuntary leave pending retirement, temporary disability allowances for qualified University employees.

This bill would authorize an employee who alleges that the Trustees have not complied with this requirement to request a hearing by the State Personnel Board, which this bill would authorize to render a decision in the matter.

Existing provisions in the state Constitution exempts officers and employees of the CSU from state civil service. Existing law provides civil service employees with certain procedural rights, including a right for those with disabilities to have reasonable accommodations made by their employer.

This bill would provide CSU employees who have disabilities, who are challenging denials of requests for reasonable accommodation, with similar procedural rights to those granted to civil service employees under the State Civil Service Act.

This bill would limit the number of state holidays observed by state employees to 12, including the personal holiday.

The provisions of the bill would apply to all state employees, including (1) non-elected officers or employees of the executive branch who are not members of the civil service, (2) the Governor and his or her employees, and (3) excluded employees.

The Governor and the head of each state agency, board, or commission would be required to designate the 12 state holidays to be observed.

[Note: State employees currently observe 15 holidays, 10 of which are also federal holidays.]

This bill would add a provision to the Donahoe Higher Education Act to require the governing board of a community college district and the CSU, and request the UC, to immediately dismiss, from any institution within their jurisdiction, any student who is convicted of an offense requiring the student to register as a sex offender under the Penal Code.

The bill would also add to the Act a provision that would allow a student so dismissed, to reapply for admission after a lapse of one year.

This bill also would prohibit a person who has been convicted of any of several offenses, including sexual battery, rape and riot, among several others, from being eligible for a Cal Grant award unless, and until, at least two years have elapsed from the time the person applied for admission.

SB 349 (McClintock) Public Postsecondary Education: Nonresident Admissions Criteria

Existing law sets down conditions under which an undocumented alien may be exempt from paying nonresident tuition at California Community College and CSU campuses.

[Note: This bill is identical to one Senator McClintock introduced last year, SB 1503. That bill failed passage (1 - 10) in the Senate Education Committee on March 31. The Senator did not request reconsideration.]

1. The Big News this week is the resignation of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. For months Shelley has seen federal and state probes increase in intensity, developing finally into a tidal wave that literally pushed him from office. A federal grand jury and the state Attorney General were looking into his political fundraising and the hiring of a political supporter’s son. A state Personnel Board audit found that he had created an “abusive” work environment, and the bipartisan Joint Legislative Audit Committee is currently investigating the results of a recent state audit report accusing Shelley’s office of mishandling some $47 million of the $81 million California received from the federal government under the 2002 Help America Vote Act. The money was intended to modernize voting equipment and increase the state’s voter registration numbers, but auditors found that some of this money ended up in his campaign coffers.

Shelley’s resignation is effective March 1, but the Governor can nominate a replacement before that date. The Legislature has 90 days to confirm or reject the nominee. Names that are circulating as possible nominees include former state Senator and Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte (R - San Bernardino), who was termed out of office at the end of last year; former state Senator Bruce McPherson (R - Santa Cruz), a moderate Republican well-liked by both parties, who also was termed out last December; and former Secretary of State Bill Jones, the only Republican to be elected to a statewide office before Gov. Schwarzenegger was elected. Jones was termed out of office two years ago, after serving the maximum two terms. If he is appointed, he would not be able to run for this office in 2006. Former state Senator Ross Johnson (R - Irvine), still another termed out legislator in 2004, has also been rumored to be interested in the job--but at age 65, is not considered likely to run for election in 2006.

2. Battle Royal of the Initiatives! First it was a war of words between the Democratic leadership of the Legislature and the Governor, with each side alleging that the other refused to talk, negotiate or compromise. The Governor’s threats to take issues to the voters has resulted in supporters of both sides preparing ballot initiatives. According to last week’s political newsletter, CalPeek, there were 3 - 5 proposals the first week in January, in circulation or waiting review by the Attorney General. By January 19, the number had risen to 36, and by January 27, to 53. As of February 4, the number is 66!

It’s estimated that the cost to put an initiative on the ballot is $3 million. That brings the amount needed for the War Chest close to $200 million! The cost to the State of California to print out ballots containing all of these measures and their analyses could be staggering, if all 66 (or more) make it to the ballot.

The subject matter of these initiatives seem to coalesce around the following issues:

There are also 8 initiatives with the title, “California Live Within Our Means Act,” which seek variously to enact or cancel the Governor’s proposals relating to the budget.

Still in the mumble-grumble stage, but not yet in a form to be submitted to the Attorney General: A proposal to protect the Transportation Budget [gas tax revenues] which has been raided by both the former and current Governors.

The Governor has until June 15 to call a special election that would be held on November 8--the most likely target for the majority of the above proposed initiatives.

3. President Bush offers hope and dismay on federal student financial aid programs. It was welcome news to public higher education associations, universities and students across the country when President Bush announced in his State of the Union address that he would push for an increase in the Pell Grant maximum. Currently, the maximum annual amount of the award is capped at $4,050, where it’s been for the past three years.

President Bush is supporting incremental increases over a five-year period, raising the maximum by a total of $500 to $4,550. The President added he would also support elimination of the $4.3 billion shortfall that has beset the Pell Grant program over the past decade, as a result of more student applicants than money authorized by Congress for the program.

The dismaying news is the President’s announced source for these two initiatives: Savings generated by changes made in the federal guaranteed-student-loan program, and by reducing or eliminating 150 government programs--including Upward Bound and Talent Search, programs that help prepare needy students for college. According to the U.S. Office of Education, these two programs had a combined FY2005 budget of $460 million and serve about 455,000 students nationwide.

The President is also expected to end the Perkins Loan Program, which provides low-interest loans to the neediest students attending postsecondary education institutions. According to the Committee for Education Funding, 25% of these loans goes to students with family incomes of $18,000 or less, and 83% goes to students with family incomes at or below $30,000. Given the decline in purchasing power of federal student grant programs in recent years, more students have relied on the Perkins Loan Program to supplement their student financial aid packages.

The Perkins Loan Program was cut substantially from FY2004 to FY2005. As enacted in FY2004, the program received $165.4 million; in FY2005, it was cut by 60% to $66.1 million.

4. Rep. John A. Boehner (R - Ohio) has reintroduced a bill to Reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Reauthorization takes place every five years, and was to have occurred last year. However, last year’s bill died when agreement couldn’t be reached on a provision seeking to change how the interest rate is calculated for borrowers who consolidate federal student loans. The issue centered on whether the current practice of allowing borrowers to consolidate their loans, locking them into a low fixed interest rate, should be continued. Essentially a partisan issue, the Republicans wanted to prevent locking in fixed interest rates, while Democrats wanted to preserve the practice.

As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Boehner’s new bill again proposes to eliminate the fixed-rate consolidation loans. Boehner believes that “the billions of dollars that the government provides in subsidies each year to keep the costs of fixed-rate consolidation loans cheaper for borrowers would be better spent giving more benefits to current and future students.” Rep. George Miller (D - California), on the other hand, believes the Republican proposal “would make college even more expensive for students.”

· Make Pell Grants available to students year-round, rather than only over the nine months of a traditional academic year.

· Keep the authorized level for the maximum Pell Grant, set by Congress in 1998, at $5,800 over the next six years. (The figure is a ceiling that appropriators cannot exceed when setting actual grant levels each year. The current maximum grant is $4,050.)

· Gradually phase out a part of the formula that the government uses to divvy up funds from three programs--College Work-Study, Perkins Loans, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants--that essentially guarantees colleges the same share of money that they have received since the 1970s.

· Place colleges that consistently raise their tuition and other costs of attendance by more than twice the rate of inflation on a government watch list, and require them to provide a detailed accounting of all of their costs and expenditures.

· Eliminate a provision in the law that requires for-profit institutions to earn at least 10% of their revenue from sources other than federal student-aid funds.

· Clarify that student-aid applicants who have been convicted of drug-related offenses are ineligible for federal student aid only if the offenses were committed while they were attending college.

Hearings on Boehner’s bill will begin soon after President Bush has formally presented his FY2006 budget to the Congress--expected to happen on February 7. According to the Chronicle, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce hopes to have the bill ready for a House Floor vote by this spring.

5. Governor planning trip to Washington to push for more federal dollars for California. Already disgruntled by the state’s status as a “donor” state--giving more to the federal government than it receives back in services--and smarting from the federal government’s slow motion response to the recent flooding in California--Governor Schwarzenegger and California’s top Congressional leaders will be flying to Washington on February 17 for a summit meeting with the state’s 53 House members and its two Democratic U.S. Senators.

The purpose of the meeting is threefold: to protect the state’s interests in light of the President’s pledge to constrain federal spending; to obtain a fairer share of federal dollars for the state’s Medi-Cal program and recover more of the cost for illegal aliens serving time in the state’s prisons; and to protect the state from any further military base closures. Regarding the last issue, the Pentagon has set a goal of closing 25% of the country’s military bases this year. California has had the lion’s share of base closures in the nation. Since 1988, 97 major military installations have been shut down nationwide. Twenty-nine were in California, including the China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and Edwards Air Force Base in Kern County, Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara, and Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station in Ventura. Closure of these bases resulted in a loss of 44,000 civilian jobs. The state has some 60 military bases left.

6. Former legislators announce interest in statewide offices. Former state Senate President pro Tempore John Burton announced this week that he might run for Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2010. Jack O’Connell, the current Superintendent, is midway through his first term, and plans on running for a second in 2006. Burton, who indicated he wouldn’t challenge the incumbent, said he had received lots of encouragement from friends and colleagues to run for the office, despite the lack of any official power in the position. Burton said a lot can be accomplished by exercising his vocal cords: “You can set a tone. There’s a bully pulpit. You can be a force for true education reform.”

Former Assembly Speaker and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has expressed interest in running for Insurance Commissioner in 2006. Skeptics questioned his commitment however, and Brown later admitted, in a San Francisco Chronicle article, that he opened an account to run for the office “to avoid having to give up campaign cash he accumulated as he considered a run for the state Senate” last year.

7. If a budget gap appears between spending and revenue, and the Governor moves forward with his plan to make across-the-board cuts, he may run into a buzz saw. Tom Campbell, the new Director of Finance appointed by the Governor last December 1, stated in a recent interview with a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, that “…it’s unclear whether the state could cut payments to vendors or reduce paychecks for state employees because both are bound by contracts.” Other areas presenting problems include (1) reducing programs that require matching federal funds; (2) cutting resources in such departments as the Board of Equalization, which brings money into the state; and (3) making cuts in educational programs, which would violate the education funding guarantees of Prop. 98.

Lawsuits resulting from an “across-the-board” approach could work to increase any gap occurring between revenue and spending.

An unexpected response from Senator Tom McClintock (R - Thousand Oaks), a conservative who generally is a hard-liner on budget issues: “This [across-the-board cuts] treats the highest priority the same as the lowest. That’s not rational budgeting.”

8. In the farewell issue of California Journal, an article written by a former editor of CJ, David Lesher, highlighted what makes California so special:

“ ‘There is a risk-taking side to Californians that is unique,’ said Republican consultant Sal Russo. ‘Americans are all that way [compared] to Europeans, but California is that way compared to America.’

In many ways, it is the single trait that binds a disparate state. By 2000, a quarter of Californians were foreign born and there were sizable communities from more than 60 countries, arguably making it the most diverse population in the world. California has four of the largest 15 cities in America, each much different than the other. Its regional economies are also so distinct they often move in opposite directions simultaneously.

When asked 25 years ago to describe the state’s common ground, California magazine editor William Broyles Jr. explained, ‘Most cultures are united by their pasts. Californians have in common a belief in the future, a sense that anything is possible.’ ”

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

This bill seeks to repeal the existing higher education accountability program. It would establish instead a statewide California Postsecondary Education Accountability structure that would assess the progress made by the state’s system of postsecondary education in meeting policy goals related to educational opportunity, preparation, student success, public benefits, and cost-effectiveness. It would additionally require the California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC] to develop and implement a system of accountability for postsecondary educational institutions that would measure specified outcomes.

[Note: A similar bill, SB 1331 [Alpert - D, San Diego] was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last year--in part because CPEC was one of the commissions that the California Performance Review Team had targeted for restructuring. In the Governor’s 2005-06 Budget, he listed 88 boards for elimination or consolidation. CPEC was one on the list for consolidation.]

Last November 2, voters approved Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, which imposes a 1% surcharge on taxpayers with an annual taxable income over $1 million, with the proceeds to be earmarked for expansion of mental health services and development of innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors.

Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Tax and Revenue, January 27, 2005

1. Register to vote in the March 8 City Election. March 8 is the date of the Los Angeles City Election, where the Mayor’s race will be decided, along with the City Attorney and City Controller positions, the odd-numbered City Council Districts (#s 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15), the even-numbered LAUSD Board of Education seats (#s 2, 4, and 6), and the even-numbered Los Angeles Community College District seats (#s 2, 4, and 6).

January 26 is the deadline by which measures can be placed on the March 8 ballot. So far, two ballot initiatives have been proposed, but neither has been approved yet : (1) City Council Member Martin Ludlow has suggested one which would increase property taxes by $40 a year, raising about $30 million, to fund after-school programs to deter children from joining gangs; and (2) Mayor Hahn would like to attempt another ½ cent sales tax, imposed only by and within the City of Los Angeles, to fund 1200 additional police officers. Should either or both measures be approved for the ballot, a two-thirds vote would be required for passage. The full City Council is expected to vote on these two measures next week.

Members of the City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee and Public Safety Committee, in a joint meeting, rejected Member Alex Padilla’s proposal for funding more police. His controversial plan involved placing two measures on the ballot, one a general half-cent sales tax increase, and the other an “advisory” measure asking voters if the revenue from the tax should be spent on public safety. Splitting the issue in this manner would have allowed passage with a simple majority, rather than a 2/3 vote of the electorate.

Council Member Greig Smith’s proposal (to borrow $30 million against the $66 million the City expects to receive back from the State of California over the next two years, as a result of the passage of Prop. 1A on last November’s ballot) was approved by the Joint Committee, and will also go before the full Council next week.

If you’re not already registered to vote, the deadline in order to vote in this election is February 22. Voter registration forms are available in my office, in post offices and in libraries, or by calling (800) 481-8683. Forms can also be downloaded at the Secretary of State’s website at www.ss.ca.gov

Absentee ballots may be requested from the City Clerk by calling (213) 978-0444. The application period to vote absentee in this election is February 7 - March 7.

Sample Ballot Booklets will be mailed to registered voters between January 27 - February 15.

2. Governor Schwarzenegger delivered his budget to the Legislature last week, declaring, “I do not like this budget at all.” The Governor criticized his $111.7 billion spending plan as not solving the state’s perennial structural problem because the deficit will get worse next year, when it could reach $10 billion.

The Governor’s 2005-06 proposal, which does not call for any new or increased taxes, attempts to deal with the current $8.1 billion deficit through savings achieved by reorganizing state government, borrowing again from the state’s transportation revenues, suspending Proposition 98 for another year, and cutting the budgets of various health care and welfare programs.

Although the Budget proposes significant program cuts, particularly in K-12 education and in the healthcare and social service areas, overall spending would actually increase by 4.2%. The Governor said the increase was unavoidable, due to the state’s formula funding--the “automatic pilots” that mandate increases in state spending. The Governor mentioned as an example, Proposition 98, passed by voters in 1988, which established a minimum level of state funding for public schools and community colleges, including a requirement that excess state revenues be given to the schools rather than refunded to taxpayers.

He might also have cited Proposition 49--his own proposal for after school programs, approved by voters in 2002--which required a specific spending level each year, up to $550 million annually, depending on growth in the General Fund spending outside of Proposition 98. The Governor’s measure specified that funding for this program would be “continuously appropriated”--or, in the words of the Legislative Analyst who prepared the analysis for the Official Voter Information Guide mailed to all registered voters, “…appropriated automatically each year without further legislative action.” The measure further stipulated that “the statutes authorizing the continuous appropriation may not be amended by the Legislature.”

The cuts in K-12 education are in the revenues guaranteed by Prop. 98, and not reductions in existing programs. Last year, in the deal he brokered with the state’s education coalition, the public schools agreed to forego $2.2 billion in Prop. 98 funding in exchange for no additional budget reductions and if the money was returned in 2005. The Governor’s Budget not only didn’t return the $2.2 billion, as agreed, but also withholds $1.4 billion in Prop. 98 funding for 2005-06 as well.

While the Governor believes his proposal may have ruffled just the unions and some of the educational associations that lobby on behalf of public education, the education coalition also includes parents and school PTA organizations throughout the state--many of whom expressed dismay that the Governor would break his word with the education community, and many of whom are galvanized to organize in opposition to his education budget proposal.

Transportation also took a significant hit in the Governor’s Budget, despite his intention to see that “the government builds the roads that Californians need,” in his State of the State Address. For the second consecutive year, the Governor has taken a major gulp from the state highway fund, $1.3 billion last year and $1.4 billion this year from Prop. 42 gasoline sales tax revenues, that were intended to fund new highway construction, repair existing roads, and fund transit projects. [Note: Former Governor Gray Davis also partially suspended Prop. 42 revenues--$500 million--during his last year in office.]

Unfortunately for voters, Prop. 42 contained a provision allowing it to be suspended in years of financial exigency. The Governor told the transportation community that he intends to continue diverting revenues from this source for the next two years--but pledged that if they supported this needed action, he would promise to push for future Constitutional protection of these revenues from similar raids by future lawmakers and governors.

Public higher education essentially escaped the Governor’s budget knife, and received funding in keeping with the compact agreements reached by UC and CSU with the Governor last year. Under the compact, and in the Governor’s Budget, state funding for UC, CSU, and the community colleges would increase between 5 - 5.5%. Funding for all three segments includes money for new students:

· For UC: Proposes a funding level of $4.8 billion ($2.8 billion General Fund), an overall increase of 3.6% or $97.5 million over 2004-05. The Budget supports a 2.5% increase for enrollment growth (5,000 new students at existing campuses and $24 million to open the system’s new Merced campus with 1,000 students); a 3% increase for basic budget support to cover such expenses as faculty and staff salaries, health benefits (which have had double digit increases in each of the last three years), maintenance, and inflation and other cost increases. The Budget also includes an 8% increase in undergraduate fees and a 10% increase in graduate fees.

With regard to the Merced campus, over 9,000 undergraduate and graduate applications have been received so far for fall 2005, when the campus is scheduled to open.

· For CSU: Proposes an appropriation of $3.8 billion ($2.6 billion General Fund), an overall increase of $111million or 4.4%. The Budget provides for a 2.5% increase for enrollment growth (8,103 additional students), and a 3% increase for basic budget support--the same as for the UC system. It also includes the same increases in student fees--8% for undergraduates and 10% for graduates.

· For the Community Colleges: Proposes a funding level of $7.9 billion ($5.4 billion General Fund), which includes money to support a 3% increase for enrollment growth, and a 3.93% increase for Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) for general apportionment and some categorical funds. The Governor’s Budget does not include any increase in student fees.

· Student Financial Aid: The Governor’s Budget proposes a funding level of $793 million ($745.5 million General Fund)--a 6% increase in total funds, and 26.5% increase in the General Fund over previous year levels for State-authorized student financial aid.

Whether the proposed funding levels will be sustained will depend on how successful all of the other agencies and program advocates are in persuading the Governor and/or the Legislature to restore their budget reductions.

The Governor’s Budget also includes a plan to abolish 88 state boards and commissions--some of which were not on the hit list of the California Performance Review (CPR) panel, including 11 regulatory Boards that license medical professions. A host of consumer groups has stirred to action, arguing that eliminating these boards will make regulation less democratic, since they operate with private citizen appointees deliberating in public meetings. Power would be placed solely in the hands of the Governor and his appointees, operating under the closed state bureaucracy. These consumer groups also argue that eliminating these boards would not save the state money, since they are funded by the license fees paid by members of the medical professions.

These groups note that the Governor did not include the California Film Commission in his list of boards to be eliminated. (However, it wasn’t on CPR’s list either.)

According to the Tax Foundation, California has dropped further in its ranking as a burdensome tax state--from 4^th to 16^th place, from 2000 to 2004. (The ranking is based on the combined local, state and federal taxes paid as a percentage of personal income.) The Governor’s Budget reflects his pledge not to increase taxes and, as he stated this week, his desire to “starve the public sector because we don’t want to feed the monster.”

While the Governor’s Budget does not include any private sector tax increases, there are at least two segments of the public sector that will be subjected to substantial “tax” increases: Students, who continue to be hit with fee increases, and State employees, whose benefits have been significantly targeted. The Governor’s Budget proposes that state employees contribute 11% rather than 5% of their salaries to their retirement fund, and that the state’s contribution towards employee health benefits be changed to a fixed dollar amount from the current percentage rate. New employees would have to pay the entire cost of their health care benefit until they pass their probation period (one year in most cases). The Governor’s Budget proposal would additionally give the Governor the authority to furlough state employees for up to 5 days in a year in which a fiscal crisis exists (which is every year, these days). Finally, the Governor proposes to reduce the number of paid holidays by two. (He does not specify which two, but since all but three--personal holiday, Admissions Day and Cesar Chavez Day--are federal holidays, the choice is fairly limited.)

If I may be permitted an editorial comment: Every resident in California, state employees included, recognizes the problems caused by continuing to operate in the red, by growing the state deficit rather than eliminating it. The rhetoric accompanying the Governor’s proposals as they relate to state employees, and of some of the legislators who have introduced bills to enact them, is needlessly harsh, and serves only to perpetuate the erroneous image of the state employee “leaning on his state shovel.” (Drive by the University’s parking lots on any weekend day and note how many faculty and administrators are here!)

Likewise, the name-calling exchange currently going on between the Governor and state Legislators is sophomoric and perpetuates their image of the self-serving politician, as opposed to the statesman we all idealized in our grade school civics classes. All of the state’s elected officials need to stop the posturing, cease thinking in the short term of their next elected office, and start working together to address the critical problems facing California in the long term.

Reactions to the Governor’s Budget, predictably, represent polar opposites. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D - Oakland), commented, “2005 sure seems like a bad time to be old, middle class or disabled or commuting or going to school.” The California Chamber of Commerce, on the other hand, applauded the Governor’s reform proposals, stating on its website, “The agenda encompasses issues of high concern to the business community, including fixing the state’s chronic budget deficits…. The Governor has taken a courageous stand to finally bring the budget under control….”

3. Coalition of business groups formed to place Governor’s reform proposal on the ballot. Allan Zaremberg, President of the California Chamber of Commerce, and Joel Fox, past president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, have formed Citizens to Save California, to raise funds to qualify initiatives for the Special Election ballot the Governor threatened to call, if the Legislature doesn’t support his reform agenda. The Coalition, which includes former CSU Trustee Bill Hauck on its advisory board, has hired Rick Claussen to help manage its campaign. Claussen managed the campaigns for the Governor’s two ballot initiatives, Propositions 57 and 58, the $15 billion bond issue and the balanced budget measure, respectively, both approved by voters last March.

The Coalition intends to mount a significant fund-raising program, a necessary if not daunting endeavor, since the average cost to place an initiative on the ballot is $3 million.

4. An attorney who works with the California Teachers Association files two initiatives to aid school funding. One of the initiatives proposes a split roll property tax, which would leave the Prop. 13 property tax on homes intact, but would allow taxes on commercial property to increase by one-third or one-half to fund schools. The second initiative seeks to prevent any new state spending cap from being imposed until certain funding and class-size goals have been met for schools. Supporters of this effort will face the same fund-raising challenge as the Citizens to Save California.

5. Governor Schwarzenegger offers to trade on term limits and redistricting issues. The Governor announced last week that he was open to relaxing the current term limits on state legislators in return for their support of his redistricting proposal (to transfer responsibility for drawing new district boundaries following census from the Legislature to an independent panel). Commenting that current limits are too short and work to deprive the Legislature of experience and knowledge, he added that, “We never really create someone that is an expert in anything in Sacramento because before you become an expert, you are out.”

The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce voted on November 11 “to support elimination of term limits and support placing the responsibility for redistricting with an independent body.” Both the United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association are considering similar motions.

6. Senate Rules Committee rejects reappointment of education activist to the state Board of Education. Reed Hastings, a wealthy Silicon Valley businessman, who has donated $14.7 million to state campaigns supporting various education initiatives between 2001 and 2004 (and who also gave $1 million to buy textbooks and other materials for Oakland schools) was rejected for a second term on the Board.

Hastings, a Democrat, was rejected by Democrats in a partisan 2-2 Rules Committee vote. (Senator Debra Bowen - D, Marina del Rey, abstained; three aye votes were needed for confirmation.) The Governor supported his reappointment, although he did not lobby lawmakers for it. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, Silicon Valley business leaders, the California Teachers Federation and charter school representatives all vigorously testified in support of the reappointment. In the end, however, it was Hastings’ efforts opposing bilingual education that determined the vote against him. Hastings supported more emphasis on English instruction in the public schools, including a requirement that students in grades kindergarten to third grade receive at least 2 ½ hours of daily instruction in English. He was also a strong proponent of integrating English language development standards for English learners into mainstream English Language Arts textbooks, rather than “ghettoizing” them in separate textbooks.

Hastings was also a vigorous advocate for charter schools, and of Prop. 39, the successful initiative which lowered the voter approval threshold for statewide facilities bond acts. Rejection by the Senate Rules Committee means his reappointment won’t move forward to the full Senate, where he might have garnered enough votes to remain in office.

Hastings served as a Peace Corps Volunteer, teaching mathematics in Swaziland from 1983 - 86. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Bowdoin College in Maine, and a master’s degree in computer science from Stanford.

7. Governor Schwarzenegger sets date for special election to name successor to Rep. Robert Matsui (D -Sacramento). The 63-year-old Matsui, who was in his 26^th year as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, died on January 1 of a rare form of bone marrow cancer.

Several sitting and former elected officials expressed interest in running to complete his term. However, the field emptied substantially when his wife Doris, a deputy director of public liaison in the Clinton White House, recently announced that she would run for the seat.

The Governor set the special election for May 3. The filing period for the 5^th District seat began on January 11, and will run through January 24.

8. Good news and bad news on Pell Grants. President Bush announced last week that he will seek an incremental increase in the maximum Pell Grant award by $500 over the next five years. The current annual maximum is $4050. The President also pledged to support funds to eliminate a shortfall in the program that has mushroomed to $4.3 billion in recent years, as a result of underfunding (i.e., insufficient appropriation to cover the increasing numbers of Pell Grant applicants).

The bad news is the President’s clarification that he would not be seeking new or additional money to cover these proposals, but rather to “reform” the existing federal guaranteed student-loan program, and use savings he anticipates will accrue from making it “more effective and efficient.” The President has not provided any details yet on the changes he will be seeking in the loan program, which relies on banks and other types of lenders to provide money to students.

Reaction to the President’s announcement had mixed results. As quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, American Council of Education president, David Ward, described it as “extraordinary news for the nation’s students and families. While we still must learn the specific details of the President’s proposal, I applaud the President for his strong commitment to our nation’s neediest students and families.”

In the same Chronicle article, Democratic lawmakers and student advocates expressed skepticism, noting “that a $500 increase in the maximum award over five years would not significantly improve the purchasing power of the grants, given that college prices are projected to continue to rise by two to three times the rate of inflation.” They also expressed concern that the President might propose cuts in other student aid programs in order to cover his Pell Grant initiatives.

Senator Edward Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said, “I welcome the President’s new proposal, but urge American families with kids applying to college not to count their chickens before they hatch. We’ve been down this road before.”

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

This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the Postsecondary Education Commission to make recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor regarding reports required by existing law that, in the opinion of the respective agency, are unnecessary or duplicative and should be eliminated.

This bill seeks to delete the prohibition against using state funds and authorize the redirection of CSU funds to support the institute.

This Constitutional Amendment essentially carries the Governor’s reapportionment plan. It would place the responsibility for redrawing district boundaries after each census in the hands of a panel of 3 retired judges, rather than the state Legislature.

The measure is written to allow a redrawing of district lines next year, effecting a “mid-decade” redistricting; thereafter, lines would be redrawn each decade, following census. The measure additionally provides that the panel would hold public hearings regarding the redistricting plans.

This Senate Constitutional Amendment essentially carries the Governor’s teacher accountability proposal, mentioned in his State of the State Address on January 5.

The bill would require that any teacher employment decision made by a school district, including a county office of education or charter school, be based solely on the teacher’s performance, as assessed annually, and on the needs of the district and pupils. The bill specifies that seniority may not be considered in making an employment decision, and it provides that any teacher hired after the effective date of this bill may be granted tenure only under specified conditions.

This Senate Constitutional Amendment makes various changes in the budget process that were proposed by the Governor in his State of the State address--including one that wasn’t mentioned: Changing the requirement to approve the state budget from a 2/3 to a majority vote.

This Senate Constitutional Amendment seeks to eliminate various requirements that currently limit the Governor’s actions during a budget crisis. Specifically, this measure would authorize the Governor, following the enactment of the Budget Bill, to issue a proclamation to reduce or eliminate one or more items of appropriation from the General Fund for a fiscal year when expenditures exceed the estimate of General Fund revenues for that year.

This measure would also allow the Governor to suspend for that fiscal year the operation of any statute, to the extent that reduction or elimination of an item of appropriation renders infeasible the operation of that statute.

Finally, this measure would provide that the Legislature may override or amend an action of the Governor, as permitted by this statute, with a resolution passed by each house--by roll call vote, with 2/3 of the membership concurring, within 30 days of the Governor’s action.

1. The state Legislature officially gaveled the 2005 Biennial Session to order this week, and the Governor delivered his State of the State Address. Matters got off to a quiet start, with relatively few bills introduced. Committees won’t begin meeting in earnest until the bills--which must be in print for 30 days before being heard--are referred to them.

Then the Governor gave his State of the State Address and provided a preview of his proposed 2005 Budget to the Legislature--and the calm was broken. The conciliatory tone and offers to work cooperatively with the Democratic leaders that characterized the Governor’s speech a year ago were replaced with resolute purpose: Lawmakers were invited to buy into his priority initiatives--or face them in ballot initiatives.

· Permanently eliminating the budget deficit (without raising taxes) by working to reform the current budget system (which would involve eliminating formulas that automatically increase spending, by requiring across-the-board cuts when expenditures exceed revenues);

· Reforming reapportionment by creating an independent panel of judges to draw new district boundaries following census;

· Streamlining state government by consolidating and/or eliminating “nearly 100 state boards and commissions, abolishing more than 1,000 political appointments (gubernatorial and legislative) in the process;”

· Requiring more accountability in education to improve student performance (“by tying teacher pay to merit, not tenure,” and “teacher employment to performance, not to just showing up”); and

· Overhauling the “out-of-control” state pension system by replacing the current “defined benefit” plan with a “defined contribution” one (similar to the 401(k) used by private industry).

The Governor also mentioned plans (1) to create a prescription drug discount card that would make medications more accessible to the state’s poorest residents; (2) to reorganize the troubled Youth and Adult Correctional Agency; and (3) to eliminate the “regulatory and legal hurdles that delay construction and increase the costs of new housing.” He also mentioned his intention to “build the roads that Californians need,” but did not specify the means to achieve this goal or include any details on a plan to improve transportation in the state.

In order to accomplish his agenda, the Governor called for a Special Session of the Legislature to begin on Thursday [January 6], so that proposed reforms could be placed before voters in a special election in July. If legislators drag their feet, both the Governor and advocates of certain of his initiatives have vowed to circulate petitions to qualify their measures for a special election the Governor would call for next November. [The measures would face a mid-May deadline in order to qualify for a November ballot.]

The Governor has enjoyed significant success with his prior initiatives by taking issues directly to the voters--a move that caught lawmakers off guard, the first time it was tried. However, there being no copyright on ideas, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez recently announced that Democrats will also prepare to take their arguments directly to the voters. Here’s a thought: Why don't we save even more money by dissolving the state Legislature and the Office of Governor, and just let the voters decide everything?

The California Chamber of Commerce (several of whose former executives are now serving on the Governor’s staff) applauded the Governor’s reform agenda. Editorial comments in the state’s major newspapers ranged from enthusiasm to skepticism. Reaction from the legislators also ranged from support to resistance.

Republicans lauded the Governor’s commitment not to raise taxes, while Democrats were critical of the Governor for breaking the budget agreement he made last year with the education coalition. The schools had agreed to allow the state to suspend Proposition 98 for one year and forgo $2 billion owed to them in exchange for the Governor’s promise to protect the schools against further cuts and to restore the lost money in the 2005 budget. The Democrats also disparaged the Governor’s proposal to alter Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988 to ensure that schools and community colleges receive at least 40% of state spending each year.

Both Republicans and Democrats expressed reluctance to tamper with the current system of redistricting.

Next Week: The Governor’s budget will be delivered to the state Legislature, and more details will be presented on his plans for reorganizing state government.

2. It’s official: Voter turnout for the November 2 Presidential Election breaks two California records. According to the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office, 12.5 million (76%) of the state’s 16.5 million registered voters voted in the November 2 election, breaking the numerical record set in 1992 and the percentage record established in 1980. The turnout was almost double the number of voters who turned out for the March Primary (6.6 million).

California’s highest recorded turnout occurred in 1964, when 88.3% of the state’s voters sent Lyndon Johnson to the White House over U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Republican challenger.

The SOS’s office noted that slightly more than a million new voter registrations were recorded in September and October, significantly taxing county election officials throughout the state. Despite the crush of new voters, though, widespread problems with voting machines were low. According to the SOS, about one in three voters used the 28,000 electronic (touch screen) voting machines, and 4.3 million voters requested absentee ballots, including thousands of military personnel who cast their votes from Iraq.

Marin and Sonoma Counties recorded the highest turnout in the state, with 89.4% and 89.3% voters casting ballots, respectively. Imperial County, at 47.9%, had the lowest turnout. Los Angeles County, which has the distinction of having the largest number of registered voters of any of the 58 counties, sent 3 million or 77.6% to the polls.

The final California figures for the President and U.S. Senator races are as follows:

3. Composition of the new Legislature. The state will continue to have Democrat majorities in both the Assembly and Senate, one of 19 states with this configuration. (Republicans control 20 state legislatures, and in 10 other states, power is divided between the upper and lower houses. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.) Democrats are short the 2/3 vote needed to exert control over the budget and other money bills:

In terms of gender and ethnicity, the 120-member Legislature includes 37 women, 29 Hispanics, 6 blacks, and 8 Asian-Americans. Six members are openly gay.

4. Important Dates for Los Angeles City Election. The hotly contested race for Mayor of Los Angeles will be held on Tuesday, March 8. The City Election will also determine 8 City Council seats, 3 members of the Los Angeles Board of Education, and 3 members of the Los Angeles Community College District’s Board of Trustees.

Should a run-off election be necessary in any of these races, it will be held on Tuesday, May 17.

The deadline for placing measures before voters on the March 8 ballot is January 26.

5. City Council President Alex Padilla proposes novel tax plan to expand the LAPD. In November voters rejected county-wide Measure A, which sought to raise the sales tax a half-cent in order to fund more law enforcement officers, on a 60%-40% vote. A two-thirds vote was required for passage. Both Sheriff Lee Baca and Police Chief William Bratton lamented the loss and have been thinking of ways to get the measure back before voters. Members of the Los Angeles City Council and several of the Mayoral candidates have also been advancing ideas for producing the needed revenue to fund more officers.

This week Alex Padilla proposed placing a measure on the ballot for a general half-cent increase in the city’s sales tax, accompanied by a separate “advisory” measure that, if approved by voters, would direct the money from the tax to be used to hire more police. A majority vote would be required for passage.

Under the provisions of Proposition 218, approved by voters in 1996, increases in general taxes require a majority vote, while any new special tax or fee must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. City Council members are split on the idea, with some arguing that if it’s legal, it should be implemented, and others concerned that the money could end up being misspent on other things.

Padilla believes his proposal is legal and that it does “not violate the spirit or letter of Proposition 218. It’s certain that the measure will be challenged. Legal tests aside, voters may see the proposal as not passing the “smell test” and defeat it on that basis.

City Council Members Greig Smith and Antonio Villaraigosa have suggested another approach to fund additional officers: Borrowing against the $66 million they believe the City will receive back from the State of California over the next two years, as a result of the passage of Proposition 1A on last November’s ballot. (That measure ensured that local property and sales tax revenues will remain with local government, essentially protecting local revenues from being raided by the state.) The proposal is to borrow $30 million to fund 250 more police officers.

6. Education Secretary Nominee, Margaret Spellings, wins unanimous confirmation by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The full Senate is expected to follow suit later this month. During the committee hearing, Spellings expressed the Bush Administration’s support for providing additional money to the nation’s community colleges and for Pell Grants--but she skirted the controversy caused last month when the U.S. Department of Education proposed changes in the formula used to determine eligibility for Pell Grants. Those changes are estimated to lock some 90,000 students out of Pell Grant aid. Spellings did say that the Administration would be looking to the committee to increase funds for the Pell Grant Program, which currently has a $4 billion shortfall.

With respect to the continuing deliberations over the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Spellings said she saw them as “a great opportunity to meet the needs of older students and adults.” It was in that context that she expressed support for increasing resources for the community colleges.

7. California Congressman Jerry Lewis (R - Redlands) has been chosen by Republican leaders to chair the House Appropriations Committee. The good news is that Rep. Lewis is from California, which should benefit California programs, if not address the perennial complaint that the state receives only 77 cents back on each dollar it sends in taxes to Washington. The bad news is that the record budget deficit and national debt leave little room for improving California’s lot.

Following his appointment, Rep. Lewis indicated he would begin talks with his Senate counterpart, Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R - Miss), to discuss reducing the number of subcommittees and changing their jurisdictions. In the House, it might mean reducing the number of subcommittees from 13 to 10 or fewer--which would mean removing some Republicans from their positions of power.

Rep. Lewis has served 26 years in the House of Representatives and has chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense for the last 6 years. He won his appointment over two other aspirants, including Rep. Regula (R -Ohio), who had more seniority. However, Rep. Lewis’ success in raising money for the party was seen as “trumping” Rep. Regula’s senior rank.

8. Rep. Robert Matsui (D - Sacramento) dies on New Year’s night of rare blood disorder. The California Congressman was 63 and had served in the House for 26 years. He was the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, where he intended to lead a vigorous fight against President Bush’s proposal for privatizing Social Security.

Governor Schwarzenegger has two weeks to call a special election to replace Matsui. It’s expected that he will set the election for March 8, to coincide with several municipal elections (including the City of Los Angeles) occurring in the state on that date. The fifth Congressional District is heavily Democratic in registration, so it’s likely Matsui’s replacement will also be a Democrat. Likely candidates include the congressman’s wife, Doris, who served as Deputy Assistant to former President Bill Clinton, and currently works as a DC lobbyist; state Senator Deborah Ortiz and former Assembly Member Darrell Steinberg (termed out of office in December).

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

This Constitutional Amendment, introduced in the Special Legislative Session called by the Governor, seeks to establish the California Public Employee Defined Contribution Plan, providing that on and after July 1, 2007, any person hired by a public agency may enroll only in a defined contribution plan of a public pension or retirement system, and is prohibited from enrolling in a defined benefit plan.

The measure permits an active member of a defined benefit plan, during the period of July 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008, to transfer a sum equal to the member’s interest in the defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.

Introduced: January 6, 2005 [Note: Assembly Member Richman’s earlier measure, ACA 5, addresses only the state Public Employee Retirement System. ACA 1 a pertains to all public employee retirement systems, city and county, in the state.]

Rank in 2004	Institution	# patents 2004	# patents 2003	Rank in 2003
1	Univ. of California	424	439	1
2	Cal Tech	135	139	2
3	Mass. Institute of Tech	132	127	3
4	Univ. of Texas	101	96	4
5	Johns Hopkins	94	70	7
6	Stanford	75	85	5
7	Univ. of Michigan	67	63	8
8	Univ. of Wisconsin	64	84	6
9	University of Illinois	58	39	20
10	Columbia University	52	61	9

California:	2,400,000
Texas:	1,400,000
Florida:	850,000
New York:	650,000
Arizona:	500,000
Illinois:	400,000
New Jersey:	350,000
North Carolina:	300,000
All other states:	3,150,000

	# of votes:	% of the vote:
President:
John F. Kerry, Democrat	6,745,485	54.4
George W. Bush, Republican	5,509, 826	44.4
David Cobb, Green Party	40,771	.3
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian	50,165	.4
Leonard Peltier, Peace & Freedom	27,607	.2
Ralph Nader, Independent	19,218	.1

U.S. Senator:
Barbara Boxer, Democrat	6,955,728	57.8
Bill Jones, Republican	4,555,922	37.8

	# Democrats:	# Republicans:	# short of 2/3:
Assembly:	48	32	6
Senate:	25	15	2