Legislative Update

Legislative Update Archives

CLICK ON THE ISSUE YOU WISH TO VIEW

ARCHIVE LIST

July - December 2003

October 17, 2003, October 3, 2003, September 12, 2003, August 29, 2003, July 18, 2003, July 3, 2003

Back to Legislative Update Main Page

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

October 17, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1. The question of whether the California Recall has legs may soon be answered. Once California’s recall petitions had been certified and the date for the election set, other states were encouraged to use the same process to recall their Governors. Nevada was the first to begin circulating petitions to recall GOP Governor Kenny Guinn, who had lobbied for a budget that included $836 million in new taxes--the highest increase in the state’s history. Nevada, like California, has a Constitutional two-thirds vote requirement for passing the state budget. Nevada’s Constitution also specifies education as a top priority for funding. Governor Guinn noted that the Legislature had passed the budget with a majority vote, and he proclaimed that the Constitutional priority for education funding trumped the Constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote. The Nevada Supreme Court backed his claim on a 6 to 1 vote.

California’s recall law requires petitions signed by 12% of those who voted in the previous gubernatorial election (which translated into 897,158 signatures). Nevada’s law requires petitions signed by 25% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election (or 128,019 signatures). The deadline date by which petitions must be submitted is November 25, but supporters of the recall effort determined over the weekend to abandon the cause, since they had managed to collect only 12,000 signatures by October 10. Governor Guinn was elected to his second term last year with 68% of the vote. His popularity among voters is still generally high, and petitioners found themselves rebuffed more often than championed.

Alaska’s Governor Frank H. Murkowski was the second target of a recall effort, following California’s historic precedent. Murkowski triggered voter antipathy by eliminating the Longevity Bonus payments to seniors and by appointing his own daughter to his vacated U.S. Senate seat last year. Alaskan law, however, is more specific than California’s on grounds for recall. The state’s Constitution permits recall only for lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties or corruption.

Connecticut is the third state to weigh in on a recall. Governor John G. Rowland has been the target of a federal investigation into a failed $220 million deal between Enron and the state’s trash authority. He has also been fined by the state’s Ethics and Elections Enforcement Commissions for accepting questionable perks--use of vacation homes owned by state contractors, and use of a Republican Party credit card. Other sources of disgruntlement with the Rowland Administration include grievances emanating from the state employee unions and a state budget deficit. (On the last issue, Connecticut would stand out only if it wasn’t experiencing budget problems. Just three states, Arkansas, New Mexico and Wyoming, are not projecting deficits for 2004.)

Some of these allegations might suggest malfeasance, which would be grounds for recall in Alaska. However, Connecticut voters are out of luck. The Governor cannot be recalled because the state’s Constitution doesn’t provide for it. Petitions continue to circulate, though--as well as bumper stickers reading, “Shame on you Governor Rowland.”

2. Odds and Ends following the California Recall Election. Voter turnout was not as high as many projected. Fifty-five percent of the 15 million registered voters showed up in person to vote. Absentee and provisional ballots, still being counted, may bring the total to just under 60%. Early figures show Marin County with the largest turnout, at 71%. Imperial County with 39.4% going to the polls, had the lowest. Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack expects that once the remaining absentee and provisional ballots are counted, L.A. County’s turnout will be 54%.

An oddity reported by the Los Angeles Times came out of two studies that revealed close to one in 20 voters statewide and twice that number in Los Angeles County, skipped the Recall question altogether, moving directly to the list of candidates and the propositions. The studies speculated that voters were either confused by the way in which the ballot was arranged or deliberately skipped voting on the issue because they were “conflicted over the recall election.”

Allan Hoffenblum, co-author of the Target Book, which presents a comprehensive non-partisan, unbiased analysis of candidates and key races in elections, told the Times that he “came very close to doing the same thing. I was determined to vote for Arnold, No. 48, second page, third from the bottom. I almost walked out and forgot to vote on the recall.” Conny McCormack was quoted in the same article saying her husband was another voter who skipped the recall question. He felt conflicted over the issue--but not over the candidates. She declined to say for whom he voted.

Ward Connerly, the major force behind Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy Act that voters rejected 64% to 36%, said he’d be back with a similar initiative within the next couple of years. Despite the decisive numbers, Connerly believes that the short timeline of the recall election left little time to raise money to inform the public about his initiative. He conjectured that the vote would have been significantly different, if the measure had appeared on the March ballot.

3. Now that the results of the Recall Election are in, the Parade of Wish Lists begins. The business community, which has long felt both ignored and abused by the Davis Administration, probably has the longest list of topics. The consensus among Capitol watchers is that Governor-elect Schwarzenegger will be “business-friendly,” focusing on keeping jobs and companies in the state. Five priorities on the California Chamber of Commerce’s list:

· Enact real Workers Comp reform, as opposed to the “too-little-too-late” patchwork quilt recently passed by the Legislature and signed into law by Governor Davis.

· See business as an economic engine rather than as a deep pocket for funding social reform. (The cumulative costs of such successful legislative initiatives as the Paid Family Leave, the “Pay or Play” Healthcare Program, and increases in the unemployment insurance program, have led businesses to downsize, move out of the state, or file bankruptcy.)

· Fix the state’s inflexible overtime pay law. California law is at odds with 47 other states and with federal statute, by requiring overtime pay after eight hours in a day rather than 40 hours in a week.

· Pay more attention to controlling insurance costs and frivolous lawsuits. Businesses have had no success in pursuing reforms that would lead to lower insurance premiums and which would discourage frivolous lawsuits. A particularly loathed practice is the “legal shakedown,” where lawyers threaten small businesses with lawsuits over non-compliance with an obscure law, and then offer to settle for a few thousand dollars. The practice is widespread and lucrative.

· Get serious about providing greater incentives to keep the entertainment industry filming in California.

Topping the taxpayers’ list is repeal of the Vehicle License Fee. Local government, which derives major funding from the VLF to support law enforcement and other vital services, is quaking at the prospect. (According to CalPeek sources, as many as 12,000 police would be laid off statewide.) Not surprisingly, a stable source of revenue heads local government’s list.

On everyone’s list: An end to partisan bickering and gridlock. That’s one wish that doesn’t carry a price tag.

4. Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon finally introduces his bill addressing rising tuition fees. McKeon introduced HR 3311, the Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003, as part of the Reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act. He first announced his intention of introducing the legislation last March, and representatives from all of the major higher education associations have been trying to dissuade him from doing so ever since.

Essentially, the bill establishes a “College Affordability Index,” effective in 2008, which represents change in the Consumer Price Index over a three-year period multiplied by two. The percentage change in university and college tuition fees would be compared with the index over the same period. If the change exceeds the index, the institution would be required to develop and file a 2-year management plan with the Secretary of Education. If the institution failed to comply with its plan, sanctions would be imposed--including removal from eligibility for Title IV programs (excluding Pell Grant and student loan programs).

McKeon, in response to deep concerns expressed by members of higher educational institutions, provided for three exceptions from the management review and sanction component in his bill. A college or university would be exempt if (1) its change in tuition fees over the three-year period does not exceed the index; (2) its third-year tuition fees fall within the lowest quartile of institutions within its sector; and (3) its increase does not exceed its indexed increase by more than $500.

Higher education representatives from California have been greatly concerned about McKeon’s bill because it did not take into account the state’s history of low tuition, as compared with other states. Tuition and fees at California colleges and universities were actually reduced for one year and remained unchanged for 8 years--up until 2003, when the state’s $38 billion deficit forced severe budget reductions in the UC, CSU and California Community Colleges. Those reductions, in turn, resulted in significant increases in student fees: About 40% for both UC and CSU. The California Community Colleges saw fees rise from $11 to $18 per unit.

Despite the increases, however, student fees at California’s colleges and universities are still lower than fees charged at other higher education institutions in the country--a circumstance that would qualify the state for McKeon’s second exemption.

5. Latest U.S. Census Bureau Report on U.S. Poverty Rates holds some surprises. According to the Bureau’s Report, “Poverty in the United States: 2002,” the nation’s overall poverty rate rose not quite one percent, from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.1% in 2002. The number of children in poverty increased from 11.7 million in 2001 to 12.1 million in 2002.

States with the highest poverty rates are Arkansas (18%), New Mexico (17.8%), Mississippi (17.6%), Louisiana (17%), and the District of Columbia (16.8%). States with the lowest rates are New Hampshire (5.6%), Minnesota (6.5%), Maryland (7.3%), New Jersey (7.8%) and Connecticut (7.8%).

The poverty rates by region: The Midwest had the lowest rate, at 10.3%--but was the only region to experience an increase in its overall poverty rate, rising from 9.4% in 2001. The Northeast, at 10.9% and the West, at 12.4% remained unchanged from 2001 to 2002. The South, which also remained the same over the past two years, has the largest poverty rate at 13.8%.

The full report may be accessed from the Census Bureau’s website: www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty02.html

6. Mother avocado tree dies. Oddly, this report--which could also be filed under “Only in California”--comes from The Daily Recorder, the Sacramento-based legal newspaper:

“The Mother Tree, the one to which every Hass avocado in the world can trace its lineage, died of root rot last year in suburban La Habra Heights. It was 76.

It was chopped down last month and now lies lifeless in a Ventura nursery, while agricultural officials try to figure out what to do with it…. There has been talk of turning it into a bar, carving it up into clocks or perhaps commemorative plaques. Even of making it into avocado bowls, which might be its most fitting fate.

Ted Batkin, President of the California Citrus Research Board, said avocado and citrus growers tend to grow more attached to their trees than others, in part because the trees tend to last longer. ‘If you’re a tomato grower, the tomato tree lasts for 90 days. It dies. Who cares? But avocado and citrus trees--they last a long, long time.’”

On that note, Legislative Update closes the book on the 2003 Legislative Session and enters its fall hiatus.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 457 (Negrete McLeod) Early Retirement Incentive

Authorizes specified State, local and school employees, including State judicial and legislative and California State University employees to receive credit for up to 2 additional years of service or 2 additional years of age or both, if those employees retire within a designated period.

Status: VETOED by the Governor, October 12.

AB 593 (Ridley-Thomas) Voter Registration

This bill seeks to require the Secretary of State to perform certain administrative duties to facilitate voter registration--among which is to provide voter registration forms and information to students in all high schools, community colleges, and campuses of the California State University and the University of California.

The bill would also state the Legislature’s intent that every high school and college student receives a voter registration card with his or her diploma. Legislative intent is also expressed that every school do all in its power to ensure that students are provided the opportunity and means to register to vote, which may include providing voter registration forms at the start of the school year, including the forms with student orientation materials, placing forms at central locations, and including forms with graduation materials.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, October 10. [Chapter #819 - Statutes of 2003]

AB 833 (Steinberg) Gender Equity in Athletics

This bill expresses various findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to gender equity in athletics. It states that “full compliance with Title IX is nondiscretionary,” and sets forth standards by which to determine whether an educational institution has effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of both sexes in athletics.

The bill would prohibit the use of public funds in connection with an athletic program of a public postsecondary education institution that does not provide equivalent opportunity to both sexes for participation and use of facilities.

The bill was amended on July 9 to prohibit a public postsecondary educational institution that is not in compliance with the provisions of the bill from disproportionately impacting its female athletic teams, if it is obliged to cut its athletic budget. However, this amendment was itself amended on July 22 to require an educational institution that is obliged to cut its athletic budget “to do so consistently with its legal obligation to comply with both state and federal gender equity laws.”

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, October 2. [Chapter #660 - Statutes of 2003]

AB 1051 (Goldberg) Capital Facilities Fees

This bill would allow utility districts to unilaterally impose capital facilities fees (fees applied to public and private users of public utility facilities) on public agencies--which would include educational institutions, counties, cities, and any of their subdivisions.

Current law provides that such fees must be mutually agreed upon. Under compromise legislation enacted in 1988, educational agencies agreed to pay any capital facilities fees they had been paying in the past and to allow those fees to increase automatically with inflation. In return, the utility districts agreed to limitations on new capital facilities fees, and fee increases above the inflation index. In addition, the fees had to be for facilities “actually serving” the affected agency, and they could be imposed only after negotiation and agreement between the assessing and the paying public agencies.

This bill would adversely affect the CSU and other public agencies by allowing utility districts to embed the full cost of their capital improvements for the infrastructure of their entire district into the CSU’s monthly bills, without regard to whether or not those facilities actually serve one of our campuses or facilities. It has been estimated that this legislation could result in $2.5 million in additional costs to the CSU each year.

Status: VETOED by the Governor, October 12.

AB 1219 (Montanez) Inmate Education

Existing law establishes the position of Superintendent of Correctional Education. This bill, entitled the “Prison Education Reform Act,” would eliminate this position and establish instead the Robert E. Burton Correctional Education Board within the Department of Corrections to approve education programs in prisons.

The Board, which would comprise 15 members, including one representative each from the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges system, would be required to approve the education programs, and to adopt rules and regulations for the admission of inmate students to them.

The bill would additionally require the Board to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2006, with recommendations for further reorganization of correctional education in California, focusing on attaining parallel education structures between correctional and public education, funding sources, and correctional educational curriculum.

Status: VETOED by the Governor, October 10.

SB 25 (Bowen) Personal Information: Security

This bill contains numerous provisions relating to “fraud alerts” placed in credit reports, when consumers suspect they may be victims of identity theft.

Of interest to the CSU are provisions in the bill that would extend to state and local government agencies--including public colleges and universities--a prohibition on the use of Social Security numbers as a personal identifier.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, October 12. [Chapter #907 - Statutes of 2003]

SB 41 (Bowen) Public Contracts

As initially written, this bill pertained to contract law and its application to the University of California. The bill was amended on June 4 to contain conflict of interest provisions applicable to the California State University:

· No officer or employee of the CSU shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise in which the officer or employee has a financial interest, if that employment, activity, or enterprise is sponsored or funded by any CSU department--unless the employment, activity or enterprise is within the course and scope of the officer’s or employee’s regular CSU employment.

· No officer or employee in the CSU shall contract on his/her own individual behalf as an independent contractor with any CSU department to provide services or goods. [Note: The bill specifies that this provision shall not apply to officers or employees of the CSU with teaching or research responsibilities.]

· No retired, dismissed, separated, or formerly employed individual of the CSU may enter into a contract in which he/she is engaged in any of the negotiations, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any CSU department. [Note: This prohibition applies only during the first two years following the retirement, dismissal or separation.]

· For a period of 12 months following the date of his/her retirement, dismissal or separation from the CSU, no employee may enter into a contract with any CSU department, if he/she was employed by that department in a policymaking position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract.

The bill does not prohibit the rehire or reappointment of CSU employees after retirement, consistent with CSU administrative policies, nor does the bill apply to inventors and authors of intellectual property licensed under technology transfer agreements.

Finally, the bill requires that each contractor who enters into a contract with a CSU campus for $10,000 or more, shall be assigned an identification number by the president of that campus, for tracking purposes.

An Urgency Clause (meaning the bill would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature) was amended out of the bill on September 11.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, October 8. [Chapter #699 - Statutes of 2003]

SB 302 (Kuehl) Discrimination: State Programs and Activities

Existing law prohibits discrimination against any person in any program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, or that is funded directly by the state, or that receives any financial assistance from the state.

Existing law also requires, with respect to disability, that these programs and activities meet the protections and prohibitions contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the implementing rules and regulations accompanying that Act. SB 302 would specifically apply these provisions to the California State University.

In making CSU subject to these provisions, the bill specifies that it is not the intent of the Legislature to increase the cost of developing or procuring electronic and information technology. The bill requires the CSU, however, in determining the cost of developing or procuring electronic or information technology, to consider whether this cost will reduce future costs incurred in providing access or accommodations as required by federal law.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, October 10. [Chapter #699 - Statutes of 2003]

SB 821 (Alarcon) Business Ethics Courses

This bill would mandate the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and would request the UC and accredited private and independent colleges and universities, to require students enrolled in MBA programs to successfully complete two courses in ethics in order to be eligible to receive the Golden State Business and Social Responsibility Award, which this bill would create.

Students would also be required to complete a minimum of 50 hours of community service. Upon completion of the courses and community service, students would have affixed to their diplomas the seal of the state Senate, the Assembly, or the Governor.

A September 3 amendment re-titles this bill the Social Responsibility Business Leadership Initiative Act of 2003. [Previously, it had been titled the Alarcon-Campbell Social Responsibility Business Graduate Initiative Act of 2003.]

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 28. [Chapter #599 - Statutes of 2003]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

October 3, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Surge of Absentee ballot requests. The application period for Absentee ballots began on September 8, and Los Angeles County Registrar Conny McCormack anticipated receiving 3,000 to 5,000 requests for the ballot. Instead she received 17,000 applications--and 28,100 more on the second day. By September 17, the day the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals called for a delay of the Recall Election, more than 2 million requests had been received statewide.

As of October 1, McCormack had mailed out 544,00 applications, and 238,000 absentee ballots had been returned. The Secretary of State’s office reported that 2.8 million applications had been requested and mailed out, and 1.14 million ballots have been returned statewide. In a normal state election, about 20% of the county’s 4 million registered voters vote by absentee ballot. The percentage is a bit higher statewide. In November 2002, 27.1% of those voting did so by Absentee ballot.

In a luncheon address McCormack gave this week, she described the large number of requests she had received from officials and members of the media to watch the counting of the votes. (She said she always sends out invitations, but few ever accept.) So far representatives from 25 countries have indicated they will be attending, as well as “half of Congress”--which may or may not have been an exaggeration!

The number of voting places is significantly less--1,786 vs. 5,000--than usual, due to the short time lines in which to establish and staff them. Because she is anticipating a record turn out, she’s placing additional staff at each voting place, who will have extra sample ballots in order to assist voters in navigating through the 135 names to find their candidate. The hope is to keep the lines moving and to avoid bottlenecks from developing.

Despite the anticipated record number of voters and absentee ballots, and an expected 75,000 provisions ballots (requiring verification of eligibility and of each signature), McCormack still believes that the County vote can be tallied and certified within a week, by the Tuesday following the election.

2. Higher Education funding will be the subject of four hearings that will be held during the fall Legislative Recess. Assembly Member Carol Liu (D - Pasadena), who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, organized the hearings to find new approaches to fund higher education following the significant budget cuts experienced by the University of California, the California State University and the California Community Colleges systems over the past three years.

Education Beat, a higher education newsletter published by Political Pulse, reports that several ideas have already been floated:

· Remove the community colleges from Prop. 98, the constitutional amendment that guarantees funding for K-14, and provide them with the same kind of discretionary funding that the UC and CSU are given. The community colleges would be less formula-driven, and have more control over how to spend their money. Student fees would be directly connected to the educational programs, unlike the present system where student fee revenue goes to the state General Fund, and comes back to the colleges in an abbreviated form.

· Establish a voucher plan, in which the state gives every student attending a UC or CSU campus a fixed amount of money to pay for all school costs. Under this plan, there wouldn’t be a standard fee or tuition rate charged; rather, the individual campuses would each set their own fee schedules. In the example cited in Education Beat, a campus such as UCLA, “with a higher cost-of-living and a national reputation for educational excellence,” might charge more than some of its sister campuses.

· Charge higher fees but expand financial aid programs to level the playing field between wealthier students who can afford to pay more, and poorer students who can’t.

· Implement a bolder scheme, proposed by Assembly Member Jenny Oropeza (D - Long Beach), who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee: Eliminate student fees and tuition, and require that students pay back the cost of their education, by taking a percentage of their income over the first ten years after they graduate.

Assembly Member Liu has established an ambitious calendar. The first hearing, to be held on September 23, will feature testimony from the financial administrators from all three systems of higher education. She expects to have at least 10 different financial proposals ready for review by the second hearing, set for October, and at the third hearing in November to have the ten whittled down to the best 3 or 4 ideas for further study. By December, she hopes to make several policy recommendations and be ready to introduce legislation to be considered in the new legislative session beginning on January 5.

3. Governor Davis names two more CSU Trustees. Milton M. Younger and Dr. Stanley Toy were appointed to the Board of Trustees on September 9. According to the Governor’s press release, Mr. Younger, 72, is a senior partner in the Bakersfield law firm of Chain, Younger, Cohn and Stiles. He is a member of the CSU, Bakersfield Foundation Board, has been a commencement speaker at the campus and has also been awarded an honorary doctorate by the institution. He earned his baccalaureate and juris doctorate degree from Stanford University.

Dr. Toy, 54, specializes in emergency medicine and is the Medical Director of the Emergency Department at the Garfield Medical Center in Monterey Park. He is also the Medical Director for Cal Western Emergency Medical Group and Inland Valley Emergency Medical Associates, Inc. Dr. Toy serves as an assistant clinical professor at Western University of Health Services, and previously served as medical director for 10 other emergency rooms at medical centers in California. His other interests are reflected by his service on the Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, and as Chair of the Advisory Council for the Performing Arts Foundation for Asian Americans. He is also a past president and current board member of the Los Angeles County Chinese American Sheriff’s Advisory Committee. Dr. Toy earned his baccalaureate degree from UC Berkeley and a medical doctorate degree from UC, San Francisco School of Medicine.

4. Congress rolls back visa cap for skilled foreign workers. H1-B visas were created in 1952 to permit foreigners with special expertise and/or skills to work in the United States for three years, with the opportunity for a three-year extension. A cap of 65,000 was placed on the number of these visas that could be issued. During the years of the dot com boom, when the U.S. could not provide enough Americans to serve the high tech industry or to teach the courses in U.S. universities, the need for these visas mushroomed.

As companies and universities began to rely on this workforce more and more, the program was expanded several times to the existing level of 195,000. Foreigners holding these visas, supported by their U.S. employers, began to apply for permanent status. Although Senator Dianne Feinstein had been a supporter of measures to increase the cap, she later began questioning whether the influx of foreign workers was denying job opportunities for Americans. The H1-B program has been the subject of contentious debate, with each bill proposing an expansion, subject to intense scrutiny.

When the bottom dropped out of the dot com industry, coupled with a downturn in the economy, the need for H1-B visa holders began to wane. This week Congress allowed the cap on the number of these visas to fall back to the 65,000 level. The controversy over jobs being filled by foreigners still smolders, however. While there may be fewer high tech jobs, companies are beginning to outsource them to foreign countries, where the wages are lower.

The demand for H1-B visas may yet exceed the number available, since other job sectors experiencing shortages have developed, where there are insufficient numbers of Americans available to fill the gap: Physicians in rural areas for example, and high school math and science teachers.

5. Wrap-up. Given the pressure of the Recall Election, there was hope that the Governor would be acting relatively swiftly on the bills reaching his desk. However, that hasn’t been the case, with more than 500 bills still waiting action. Should the Recall be successful next week, it may be several weeks before Governor Davis leaves office, depending on how many, if any, challenges to the election result emerge. By law, the Governor has until October 12 to approve or veto bills on his desk, so irrespective of how long he may remain in office, he cannot postpone action beyond the 12^th.

The next issue of Legislative Update will be published after October 12 and will contain the final actions on bills covered during the past year. Following the wrap-up, Legislative Update will go into its annual hibernation, until the Legislature reconvenes on January 5. Unless of course there are any news developments that merit reporting and comment!

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 46 (Simitian) Identity Theft

Prohibits any university or college located in the state from using a social security number as a student identifier. Prohibits any employer from requiring an employee to use his or her social security number for any purpose other than taxes.

The bill would permit the use of a student’s social security number for certain purposes, including, but not limited to, internal verification or nonpublic administration or identification for communication with a third party who is authorized by the student to receive it.

The bill also authorizes each university or college to develop a system of personal identifiers other than social security numbers for students. As amended on July 8, the bill would require that universities and colleges use existing resources to develop such a system.

Status: A hearing had been scheduled in the Senate Judiciary Committee for August 19, but was cancelled at the request of the author. AB 46 is dead for this year.

AB 1051 (Goldberg) Capital Facilities Fees

Current law provides that such fees must be mutually agreed upon. Under compromise legislation enacted in 1988, educational agencies agreed to pay any capital facilities fees they had been paying in the past and agreed to allow those fees to increase automatically with inflation. In return, the utility districts agreed to limitations on new capital facilities fees, and fee increases above the inflation index. In addition, the fees had to be for facilities “actually serving” the affected agency, and they could be imposed only after negotiation and agreement between the assessing and the paying public agencies.

Status: PASSED [24 - 12] by the Senate on September 10, and sent to the Assembly for concurrence in the amendments. The Assembly CONCURRED [55 - 13] on September 11, and the bill was ENROLLED on the same date. The bill has been on the Governor’s Desk since September 22.

[Note: The CSU was unsuccessful in stopping this costly bill, but was able to generate large numbers of legislators who either voted No or who were Present, but not voting. None of the votes on this bill, as it moved through the Legislature, was unanimous--effectively demonstrating the degree of uncertainty over the issues. On this basis, CSU is pursuing a veto from the Governor.]

AB 1250 (Laird) Teacher Development: Bias and Discrimination

As initially introduced, this bill sought to establish a program of ongoing professional instruction for teachers on the prevention of bias and discrimination in the public schools.

Existing law authorizes the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide school districts and charter schools with a staff development allowance for teachers who participate in staff development of instructional methods, including among other things, teaching strategies and other training designed to improve pupil performance.

This bill would additionally authorize the allowance to be used for training designed to improve the prevention of intolerance and hatred.

The bill specifies that its provisions be operative in any fiscal year only to the extent that funds are provided in the annual Budget.

Status: APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, September 11. [Chapter 346 - Statutes of 2003]

AB 1783 (Assm. Higher Educ. Com.) Public Postsecondary Education: Cross-Enrollment

A provision of the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which is in effect until January 1, 2004, authorizes any student who is enrolled at any campus of the California Community Colleges, the CSU or the UC, and who meets certain requirements, to enroll without formal admission into another of these institutions in a maximum of one course per academic term, on a space available basis, at the discretion of the appropriate campus authorities.

This bill would remove the sunshine date, thereby extending the program indefinitely.

Existing law authorizes a host campus to charge participating students an administration fee, not to exceed $10 per academic term. The bill would also authorize a host campus to charge participating students an administration fee that may not exceed an amount sufficient for the campus to recover the full amount of the administrative costs it incurs under this program, rather than the $10 limit in existing law.

Status: APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, September 20. [Chapter 457 - Statutes of 2003]

ACR 66 (Pavley) High School Exit Examination - Pupils with Disabilities

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution would urge the State Board of Education to continue to delay passage of the high school exit examination as a graduation requirement until issues are resolved regarding appropriate testing methods for pupils with disabilities.

The measure also encourages the State Department of Education to develop, and the State Board of Education to adopt, guidelines regarding the method and content of alternate assessments to the high school exit examination for pupils with disabilities who cannot participate in the examination, and for whom accommodations or modifications are not appropriate.

Status: ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, September 22. [Chapter 138 -Resolutions of 2003]

AJR 3 (Horton) Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965: Student Financial Aid

As initially written, this Assembly Joint Resolution sought to memorialize the Congress and the President of the United States to repeal a provision of the 1998 amendments to the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 that denies or delays access to financial aid based upon convictions for drug-related offenses.

The bill was amended on June 3 to change the provision to exempt individuals who have been convicted of minor drug possession offenses and have successfully completed rehabilitation programs. As amended, the measure would have additionally provided that a new section shall be included on the instruction page for the federal student financial aid application that explains and clarifies this issue.

Status: Sent to the Inactive File, September 12. [Note: In a July 16 amendment, the Senate put the original language of the Resolution back into the measure, and the June 3 amendment was deleted. As concurrence in the Senate amendment was apparently not forthcoming, the author of the Resolution asked that his measure be sent to the Inactive File.]

SB 41 (Bowen) Public Contracts

An Urgency Clause (meaning the bill would take effect immediately upon the Governor’s signature) was amended out of the bill on September 11.

Status: PASSED [75 - 0] by the Assembly and sent to the Senate for concurrence in the amendments, September 11. Senate CONCURRED [37 - 1] in the Assembly amendments on September 12, and the bill was enrolled on the same date. [Note: Senator Tom McClintock (R - Thousand Oaks) cast the sole dissenting vote.] The bill has been on the Governor’s Desk since September 18.

SB 728 (Scott) Student Financial Aid: Cal Grant Program

This bill provides that any applicant who qualifies to be considered under the simplified needs test, established by federal law for student assistance, shall be presumed to meet the asset level requirements established for the Cal Grant Program.

[Note: This bill would provide that Cal Grant applicants who file on-line and meet the federal criteria for the simplified needs test also be presumed to meet the asset ceiling criteria, thereby simplifying the application form in a small but significant way.]

Status: APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, September 6. [Chapter 339 - Statutes of 2003]

SB 777 (Escutia) Whistleblowers

This bill would extend whistleblower protections to employees who report a violation of a state or federal rule, or who refuse to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state or federal statute, or in noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.

The bill specifically includes the state “and any division thereof (including the CSU) and the University of California.”

Status: APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, September 22. [Chapter 484 - Statutes of 2003]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

September 12, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1. The other half of the October 7 ballot. In addition to the 135 gubernatorial candidates, there are two propositions for voters to decide on the October 7 ballot. A brief synopsis of both are provided below.

Proposition 53. Assembly Members Keith Richman (R - Northridge) and Joe Canciamilla (D - Contra Costa County) co-sponsored this legislative initiative, which seeks to provide a dedicated stream of funds to address critical infrastructure needs in California. Officially called the “California Twenty-First Century Infrastructure Investment Fund Resolution,” this measure proposes to set aside up to 3% of the state general fund every year to finance the construction, maintenance and repair of such things as bridges, highways, parks, school and university buildings, courthouses, prisons, crime labs, and water pipelines. The measure would allocate 50% for state-owned infrastructure and 50% for local government infrastructure.

Proponents of the measure emphasize the need for a reliable, consistent, and on-going source of funds to maintain the state’s infrastructure, and point to the high cost of using General Obligation bonds, the current method of financing infrastructure obligations, which are dependent on voter approval. The authors of the initiative state that in the 1960s, over 20% of the state budget was allocated toward infrastructure development. The California Aqueduct was constructed during those years, and the state also saw the largest expansion ever of campuses in the UC, CSU and California Community College systems. Today, less than one-half of one percent--.02%--of the state’s General Fund is spent on capital outlay.

Opponents decry “budgeting by ballot”--dedicating money for specific purposes--which leaves legislators with little flexibility in determining budget priorities or in dealing with emergencies, such as the Northridge Earthquake. Currently, only about 12% of the state’s General Fund is discretionary; the remainder is earmarked by mandate or statute. Opponents also say that the initiative only specifies the mechanism for creating the Infrastructure Fund, but not specifically how the money should be spent, leaving it vulnerable to “pork barrel” projects.

Proposition 54: The “Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin Constitutional Amendment,” or as it is more commonly known, the Racial Privacy Act, seeks to ban state and local governments from classifying or collecting information on a person’s race, ethnicity, color or national origin for the purposes of public education, contracting, and employment. The measure specifies several exemptions: The data could be collected if required by federal law or for federal grant eligibility; to comply with a court order; to allow law enforcement, in carrying out its lawful duties, to use racial information for descriptions of individuals; and to permit classification of medical research subjects and patients.

The measure also allows the ban to be suspended for “compelling state interest” with a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. If approved by voters, the ban would be effective on January 1, 2005. This initiative is sponsored by UC Regent Ward Connerly, who also authored Proposition 209, approved by voters in 1996, which banned affirmative action in public education, contracting, and employment.

Proponents of the measure believe that government-imposed collection of racial information is divisive, effectively focusing attention on the very elements that separate people. Moreover, they believe that, increasingly, the data is unreliable because more people, especially those of mixed race, are refusing to identify themselves by racial categories.

Opponents believe that the data collected is needed for minority groups to prove bias; that without numbers, it would be exceedingly difficult to prove discrimination by state and local entities. Others worry about the gray areas in the exemptions, particularly in regard to medical issues, believing that some of the data banned under the Proposition is critical for stopping preventable disease outbreaks. Still others are concerned about the exemption for law enforcement, which they believe sanctions racial profiling.

2. Speaking of the Recall Election. Hiram Johnson, the California Governor who introduced the initiative, the referendum, and the recall to the state, had this to say in 1911 before a crowd of 4,000 in San Francisco, “The recall will be a pistol in the hands of the people.” If he were alive today to see the fruit of his labors, I wonder if he would be in favor of gun control.

3. Governor Davis has appointed Leon Panetta to chair a task force to deal with the budget’s long-term structural problems. Panetta is well qualified for the job, having chaired the House Budget Committee for 6 years when he was a member of Congress, and having served two years as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Clinton Administration. Currently, Panetta directs the Leon and Sylvia Panetta Public Policy Institute, which was established in 1998 on the CSU, Monterey Bay campus. The Institute maintains archives (which focus principally on the federal budget process), organizes lecture series, and conducts surveys on public policy issues. Its primary purpose, though, is to train and inspire young people to enter careers in public service.

Panetta, who has already begun to assemble a bipartisan group of experts in the fields of budget, finance and the economy, indicated the real work wouldn’t begin until after October 7. No word from Republican legislators--or from any of the candidates--on whether the task force will be able to work at all, if someone other than Davis is sitting in the Governor’s seat on October 8.

4. CMS bills bite the dust. Two bills that sought to provide more oversight to the CSU in purchasing information technology systems, and in strengthening conflict of interest provisions applicable to the CSU, were derailed after both were conjoined this week (meaning each bill had to be approved for both to take effect). [See “Status of Previously Introduced Legislation” below for more details on the content of these bills.] The information technology bill, AB 491, was conjoined to SB 971, the conflict of interest bill. Both bills died when the author of SB 971, Senator John Burton, President pro Tempore of the upper house, declined to move it.

AB 491, as initially written, pertained only to the CSU, but the bill was amended this week to include the University of California in its provisions--generating opposition from that system, which objected to some of the acquisition provisions as overly restrictive.

The bills are dead for this year, but could be resurrected next January.

5. Fines for failure to vote. An initiative proposing to fine citizens eligible to vote, but who fail to register and vote, the sum of $50 has failed to qualify. Rev. Christopher Demars, the sponsor of the initiative, has not indicated whether he’ll try again.

6. The U. S. Senate approved its version of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill this week. Of the hundreds of amendments considered, two are of special significance to higher education. The first rejects the Bush Administration’s proposal to change the method of counting state and other taxes in determining eligibility for student financial aid. The plan, which threatened to render 84,000 students ineligible for Pell Grants, was vigorously opposed by all of the major higher education associations in the country.

The second amendment, introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd (D - Connecticut), increases funding for the Special Education-Grants to States program by $1.2 billion. As Capitol Hill Bulletin points out in this week’s issue, the appropriations bill already included a $1 billion increase for this program, so with Dodd’s amendment, funding for grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) increases from $8.9 billion to 11.1 billion over 2003.

The Senate version now moves to a conference committee, where the differences between the Senate and House versions will be ironed out. The House completed work on its Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill in mid-July.

7. Push-button bugle approved by the Pentagon. As reported in the Congressional Quarterly on September 4: “Chronically short of musicians for military funerals, the Pentagon has approved the use of a push-button bugle that plays Taps by itself as the operator holds it to his lips. Only some 500 buglers are on active duty on any one day, but about 1,800 people with military service die across the country each day and are eligible for honors ceremonies, Air Force Lt. Col. Cynthia Colin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told the Associated Press. So, the Defense Department worked with private industry to invent the $500 ‘ceremonial bugle,’ which has a small digital recording device. A member of the honor guard simply presses a button, and a five-second delay gives guards time to raise the instrument to their lips as if they are gong to play it. Congress passed a law that took effect in January 2000 allowing a recorded version of Taps, using audio equipment if a live horn player is not available. Officials say the push-button bugle is a dignified alternative to Taps being played on a stereo or compact disc player.”

A consequence, no doubt, of what happens when schools are forced by lack of funds to cut music and school band programs from their curriculum.

8. Wrap up. The deadline by which bills must be passed by the Legislature and sent to the Governor, to take effect next January 1, is midnight tonight. The Governor then has 30 days--or until October 12--to approve or veto the bills. The next issue of Legislative Update will report the final action of the Legislature on bills followed during this first year of the current two-year session.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 491 (Diaz) California State University: Information Technology

As currently written, this bill would enact a comprehensive statutory plan relating to implementing information technology projects at the CSU. Specifically, the bill would:

· Require that any CSU IT project that exceeds $1 million in costs be overseen by an auditor appointed by the Director of the Department of Finance;

· Require a systemwide IT project that is approved on or before June 30, 2009, and that exceeds $20 million in costs, to be submitted to the Governor for consideration and inclusion in the Governor’s Budget, and require the project to be reviewed through the annual budget process;

· Require CSU to take measures to analyze and justify IT project costs;

· Require CSU to disclose, prior to entering into a contract with a private vendor, any donations to the CSU made by that vendor for up to one year before the date on which the contract is to be executed;

· Require CSU to take prescribed actions to safeguard electronic records that contain confidential student information; and

· Require CSU to develop specified policies and procedures relating to the acquisition of IT goods or services.

As amended on September 8, this bill is now conjoined to SB 971, meaning that both bills must pass for either to take effect. [See SB 971 below.]

Status: PASSED [25 - 9] by the Senate, September 10.

AB 593 (Ridley-Thomas) Voter Registration

[Note: The Secretary of State already provides the forms and information to these entities. Cal State Northridge typically receives 5000 registration forms, which are distributed to students at Freshman Orientation, at campus voter registration drives, and stacked at sites on campus having heavy foot traffic--e.g., Student Union, University Library, Bookstore, and Student Housing.]

As amended on September 2, the bill is conjoined with AB 188, meaning both have to pass in order for either to take effect. AB 188 relates to absentee voting. Specifically, it provides that special absentee voters and overseas voters are permanent absentee voters, and that the county elections official must mail a ballot to all such voters as soon as possible or 60 days prior to the next election.

Status: PASSED [23 - 14] by the Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence in the amendments on September 3. The Assembly CONCURRED [47 - 32] on September 5, and the bill was ENROLLED on the same date.

AB 1219 (Montanez) Inmate Education

Existing law establishes the position of Superintendent of Correctional Education. This bill, titled the “Prison Education Reform Act” in a September 2 amendment, would eliminate this position and establish instead the Robert E. Burton Correctional Education Board within the Department of Corrections to approve education programs in prisons.

[Note: Two similar bills (SB 1845 in 1999-2000 and SB 404 in 2001-02), both authored by former Senator Richard Polanco, were vetoed by Governor Davis because both would have resulted in major General Fund costs that had not been included in the Budget Act for those respective years.]

Status: PASSED [7 - 5] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 29; PASSED [22 - 12] by the Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments, September 4.

AB 1465 (McLeod) CSU: Continuing Education

This bill seeks to require, as a part of the annual independent audit of the California State University system, that there be a full accounting of the funds related to the CSU’s continuing education program.

Status: Dropped by the author, pursuant to an agreement that a one-time systemwide independent audit of Continuing Education Revenue Funds will be conducted.

AB 1783 (Assm. Higher Educ. Com.) Public Postsecondary Education: Cross-Enrollment

This bill would remove the sunshine date, thereby extending the program indefinitely.

Existing law authorizes a host campus to charge participating students an administration fee, not to exceed $10 per academic term. As amended on August 18, the bill would instead authorize a host campus to charge participating students an administration fee that may not exceed an amount sufficient for the campus to recover the full amount of the administrative costs in incurs under this program.

Status: PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 29. PASSED [39 - 0] by the Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence, September 4.

ACR 66 (Pavley) High School Exit Examination - Pupils with Disabilities

Status: PASSED [23 - 13) by the Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence, September 3. The Assembly CONCURRED [50 - 26] on September 4, and the measure was ENROLLED on the same date.

AJR 3 (Horton) Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965: Student Financial Aid

As amended on July 16, the original language of the Resolution was put back into the measure, and the June 3 amendment was deleted.

Status: PASSED [23 - 12] by the Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence, September 4.

SB 971 (Burton) CSU: Outside Employment TRUSTEE BILL

This bill would require executive, Management Personnel Plan (MPP), and academic employees to report on outside employment and business activities to ensure that such activities do not constitute a conflict of interest with CSU employment or conflict with normal work assignments or the performance of duties.

The bill would also prohibit an employee of the CSU from being a consultant or an employee of a for-profit business entity that provides services to the university.

The bill would additionally require the CSU to offer ethics training to each employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests in accordance with current law. It would also require the university, before conducting each orientation course required by this legislation, to consult with staff of the Fair Political Practices Commission and the state Attorney General regarding appropriate course content.

As amended on September 9, the bill is now conjoined to AB 491, meaning that both bills must pass for either to take effect.

Status: PASSED [34 - 1] by the Senate on September 9. However, the author of the bill, Senator John Burton, pulled his bill. Since it was conjoined to AB 491, his action effectively pulled that one from further consideration as well.

SCR 12 (Alarcon) Master Plan to End Poverty in California

This Senate Concurrent Resolution establishes the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan to End Poverty in California, comprising 7 members each from the Senate and the Assembly, who would be required to report to the Legislature on the state of poverty in California.

The measure provides for the Joint Committee’s continued existence until December 31, 2005, and stipulates that the Senate Rules Committee may make money available from the Senate Operating Fund, as it deems necessary, for the expenses of the joint committee and its members.

The bill specifies that the Joint Committee shall be under the direction of a Senate chair and an Assembly chair, appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker, respectively. The Assembly Rules Committee may also make money available from the Assembly Operating Fund to share expenses of the Joint Committee and its members.

Introduced: CHAPTERED by the Secretary of State, September 2. [Resolution Chapter 117]

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

August 29, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1. Recall Update. California’s Three Ring Circus may have a positive effect: Increasing voter turn-out to unprecedented levels. Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, a nonpartisan analysis of the state’s legislative and congressional elections, is predicting that 12 million voters will show up at the polls, the highest in the state’s history, and significantly surpassing the 7.7 million Californians who voted last November (one of the lowest turn-outs).

Voters will be issued a ballot reminiscent of the telephone white pages, with a choice of 135 candidates listed in the no particular order. It’s the new search and punch--or if the voter is in a county using touchscreens--the search and touch game. The “winner” gets to resolve all of the state’s problems, chief among which is the $38 billion deficit--an amount that exceeds the state budgets of every state in the union except New York. Other interrelated issues include the state’s economy, which took another hit at the end of July when Standard and Poor’s lowered the state’s credit rating to BBB, a level just above junk bonds status. (The California State University System was also downgraded by Standard & Poor’s, from A to A- on revenue and housing-system bonds, and from A to BBB+ on bond issues for specific campuses. The reasons cited: The $345 million cut in the CSU’s budget and the near certainty that the system will be forced to curtail enrollment, thus reducing the revenue coming in.)

The Coalition for California Jobs is targeting the unfriendly business climate created by what the California Chamber calls “job killer bills,” with an ad that asks “What do Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Texas have in common?” and answers: “A lot of jobs that used to be in California.”

The business community will be looking for a candidate who can stave the mushrooming workers’ compensation premiums, the rising energy costs, the looming unemployment insurance tax increases--and, waiting in the wings, the weight of legislative “pay or play” health insurance plan proposals.

The education community will be looking for a candidate who will restore the $2 billion cuts in K-12 programs, and undo the deep cuts in higher ed that generated dramatic student fee increases. Other interests will be looking for restoration of arts program funding, virtually wiped out in the 2004 Budget, and still others will be hoping for someone who can put back money taken from critically needed transportation projects. And voters will be looking for someone who can do all of this without raising taxes or fees.

Perhaps St. Francis of Assisi is among those 135 candidates.

2. The Legislature finally passed a Budget--some six weeks past the Constitutional deadline, but earlier than had been expected, due in large part to the pressures caused by the looming Recall Election. The 2004 Budget doesn’t differ much from the 2003 budget, in that the state’s fiscal morass was not alleviated, let alone eliminated. Spending cuts were approved--mostly in education and health care--decried by Democrats as too deep and derided by Republicans as not extensive enough. The only tax included was the tripling of the Vehicle License Fee, which resulted from an automatic trigger pulled by the Department of Finance, rather than by any overt action taken by the Legislature. The anticipated $4 billion in revenue from this tax may end up being the lottery prize we all hope to win, as Democrats are now repudiating the VLF, and it is also the subject of a lawsuit launched by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

One time fixes and heavy borrowing, that led to the above mentioned lowering of the state’s credit rating, completed the Legislature’s Budget plan.

Ignoring fundamental structural problems inherent in the state Budget and failing to address the skyrocketing costs to conduct business in the state, which is forcing increasing numbers of businesses to downsize, dissolve or move out of the state, guarantees that the fiscal crisis will be back next year. The only difference will be a dearth of band-aids.

The final Budget approved by the Governor exacted significant reductions to all three segments of public higher education.

The University of California suffered a $410 million reduction in state funding, affecting all of its non-instructional programs, including administration, libraries, research, student services, K-12 outreach, teacher professional development, Cooperative Extension, and many others. The UC website mentions elimination of employee positions, including layoffs, are being planned or implemented in most of these areas. In addition, the opening of UC, Merced, the system’s 10^th campus, has been delayed by a year. Cuts in the instructional program were essentially averted by increasing student fees. The Regents approved an increase of 30%.

Overall, UC’s budget is 8% less than last year’s.

The California State University system was hit with an additional $15 million in cuts, bringing the CSU’s total net reduction to $345.2 million, or about 13% of its $2.6 billion General Fund budget.

Overall, CSU’s budget is also about 8% lower than last year’s.

The Community Colleges saw their budget reduced by $250 million, less of a bite than what had been proposed in the Governor’s January budget. The reductions were made mostly in the area of part-time faculty compensation and in two categorical programs that fund Instructional Equipment and Scheduled Maintenance. The earlier proposal sought to reduce overall funding by $530 million and raise student fees from the current $11 per unit to $24. The approved budget increases student fees from $11 to $18 per unit.

Overall, the Community Colleges’ budget is 1.7% less than last year’s.

All three systems were provided with additional enrollment funding, but at a steeply reduced level, and offset by the aforementioned budget reductions.

3. Initiative lowering the budget approval threshold is submitted to the Secretary of State. The “Budget Accountability Act--promoted by several organizations, including the League of Women Voters, the California PTA, the California Association of Counties, the Sierra Club and the American Association of Retired Persons, to cite five--seeks to change the Constitutional 2/3 vote requirement to 55% for approving the state’s budget. The measure would also (1) prevent legislators and the Governor from collecting their salaries and other expenses each day the state is without a budget, beyond the June 15 Constitutional deadline; (2) require a 5% budget reserve; and (3) require that the Voter Information pamphlet, mailed to voters prior to an election, contain information on the budget and how the legislators voted.

Opposition to the measure is expressed by the California Taxpayers Association, whose members believe that an important safeguard against increased spending would be lost without the 2/3 majority mandate.

Following certification of the number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative (598,105), the measure will be placed on the March 2, 2004 ballot. If the measure passes, only two states, Arkansas and Rhode Island, would maintain a constitutional 2/3 vote requirement for approving budgets.

4. Governor Davis appoints three new members to CSU Board of Trustees. Kathleen E. Kaiser, 57, is a professor of sociology at CSU, Chico, and will serve as the faculty representative on the Board. Dr. Kaiser also directs the Applied Sociology Internship at the University, and has had an active career in faculty governance, both at the campus and statewide. She is a former member of the Senate Executive Committee and Vice Chair of the CSU, Chico Faculty Senate, and has been elected four times to the Statewide Senate. She earned her undergraduate degree from Florida State University, and her master’s and doctorate from Duke University. Kaiser will serve a two-year term; her position does not require Senate confirmation.

Eric Guerra was appointed as a student member of the Board. Guerra, 25, is a student at CSU, Sacramento, majoring in electrical engineering. He has served as Associated Students Vice President, and just completed a term as President. He is a member of the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, the California State Student Association and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. This appointment does not require Senate confirmation. There are two student Trustee positions on the Board, serving staggered two-year terms, the first year of which the student serves as a non-voting member. Guerra will thus be a non-voting member in 2003-04, moving to the voting position the following year.

Dan Weinstein, 44, was appointed as a community member to the Board. He lives in Los Angeles, and has been a Managing Partner since 1999 of Wetherly Capital Group. According to the Governor’s press release, the firm specializes in raising capital from institutional sources, primarily public pension funds and Taft-Hartley jointly managed trusts. Before joining this firm, Weinstein served as a Senior Advisor to former state Treasurer Kathleen Brown, and as Political Director of United Food and Commercial Workers, Region 8. Weinstein is of particular interest to CSUN because he’s one of our alums, having received his Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing in 1984. Weinstein’s term is for 8 years and does require Senate confirmation. (All community member appointments require Senate approval.)

5. Governor Davis’ appointments held up by Republican members. Another consequence of the Recall is the reluctance of Republicans to vote to confirm the Governor’s appointments, assuming that his successor, should the Recall be approved by voters, will want to select his or her own team.

One of the appointments caught in limbo is Alice A. Huffman, a long-time union lobbyist, whom the Governor appointed recently to the CSU Board of Trustees. If the Governor is not recalled from office, he can resubmit the names of those individuals whose appointments are being held up. Huffman can stay in office for one year without being confirmed--unless Governor Davis is recalled and his successor subsequently submits another name.

Three appointees to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges system have similarly been stalled.

6. Tidbits:

· The initiative we all fantasize about: Efforts were launched recently for an initiative that would eliminate fines for parking violations and most Vehicle Code infractions. The number of signatures required to qualify the measure is 373,816, which must be collected by December 29, 2003. The Director of Finance estimates a significant loss of revenues to state and local governments, totaling in excess of $1 billion annually.

· Senator Richard Alarcon (D - Van Nuys) has established a campaign committee to run for the Assembly when his term expires in 2006. The district he is seeking to occupy is not in the San Fernando Valley, but in the high desert: Assembly District 36--currently occupied by Assembly Member Sharon Runner (R - Lancaster), who would not be termed out until 2008. Senator Alarcon did not take the usual route to the upper house. He ran for the Senate in 1998 while serving on the Los Angeles City Council.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

AB 60 (Dymally) CSU: African American Political Institute

This bill changes the name of the African American Political Institute at Cal State Northridge to the African American Political and Economic Institute, and authorizes the CSU Trustees to establish the Institute at the Dominguez Hills campus instead of the Northridge campus.

The bill states legislative intent that the institute be funded solely by grants and contributions from private sources. The bill specifically prohibits use of state funds, or resources supported by state funds, from being redirected to support the Institute. “State funds” is defined as General Fund monies, funds from the California State Lottery Education Fund, student fee revenues, and reimbursements and other income that otherwise would be available for support of the educational mission of the CSU.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, August 11. [Chapter 201 - Statutes of 2003]

AB 833 (Steinberg) Gender Equity in Athletics

Status: PASSED [5 - 2] by the Senate Judiciary Committee, August 21; PASSED by the Senate [24 -12] and sent to the Assembly for concurrence in the amendments on August 28.

AB 908 (Chan) CSU: Disability Retirement

Existing law generally requires that, when a state employer has determined that an employee is unable to perform the work of his/her present position, or any other position in the agency, the employer may remove the employee from the job and place him/her on involuntary leave and apply on the employee’s behalf for disability retirement.

Existing law also generally requires that, while the application for disability retirement is pending, the state employer must permit the employee to use leave credits or, if the leave credits have been exhausted, pay the employee a sufficient temporary allowance so that the employee receives payment equal to the estimated retirement allowance.

This latter provision in the law is not currently applicable to the CSU; AB 908 would make it applicable.

Status: APPROVED by the Governor, August 11. [Chapter #213 - Statutes of 2003]

AB 1368 (Kehoe) Accountability in State Bonds

As initially introduced, this bill would have required any statewide bond measure to contain specified accountability actions relating to the purposes of the measure and the projects to be funded, and would have additionally required that a specified annual report be provided to the Legislature and the Department of Finance.

Since statewide bonds are already subject to accountability requirements, the purpose of this legislation was puzzling. Perhaps to others as well, since the bill was subsequently amended to require instead that the head of the lead state agency administering the bond proceeds, report annually to the Legislature and the Department of Finance on the projects funded by any statewide initiative.

As amended on August 21, the bill specifies that any state bond measure approved by the voters on or after January 1, 2004, shall be subject to the annual reporting process, which includes a report of the list of all projects and their geographical location, the amount of funds allocated for each, and the status of each project. The bill also specifies that the costs of the report may be included in the cost of administering the bond measure, unless the measure specifically prohibits those expenses.

Status: PASSED on Consent [38 - 0] by the Senate, August 25; the Assembly CONCURRED in the Senate amendments [75 - 0] on August 28, and the bill was ENROLLED on the same date.

AB 1778 (Committee on Higher Educ.) CSU: Omnibus Bill TRUSTEE BILL

This CSU sponsored “omnibus” bill contains a number of non-controversial and/or technical changes to the various codes. Should any matter covered in the bill garner any formal opposition, legislative policy dictates that it be removed from the bill.

The following proposals are included in the legislation:

· Repeal Government Code Section Pertaining to Lottery Payments. This proposal would delete an obsolete reference in the Code to the California Maritime Academy (CMA) Board of Governors, which no longer applies, given the CMA’s formal inclusion in the CSU.

·         Amend Government Code Section Pertaining to CSU Lottery Education Fund to Reflect CSU Authority. This proposal would amend Government Code Section 8880.5 to conform to authority in the Education Code, which allows CSU discretion to deposit lottery funds in local trust accounts.

·         Repeal Education Code Section Pertaining to Auxiliary Organization Obligations. Education Code Section 89911 was added to the Code by CSU-sponsored legislation in 1988 to enable favorable tax treatment of auxiliary organization revenue bonds. Since that time the IRS has issued a revenue ruling that assures favorable treatment, and this section is no longer necessary. It is therefore proposed that it be repealed.

·         Amend Education Code Section to Update Internal Citation. This proposal would update an internal citation in Education Code Section 90404 pertaining to the CSU’s mission, which is located in a different code section than it was at the time that Section 90404 was adopted.

None of the above proposals should result in a fiscal impact--cost or savings--to the CSU or the state.

Status:        APPROVED by the Governor, August 3. [Chapter 187 - Statutes of 2003]

SB 279                      (Chesbro)                      Student Fee Waivers - Extension of Sunset Date

Existing law requires CSU and UC tuition and fees to be waived for surviving children of firefighters and law enforcement personnel employed by public agencies, or who were employed as a contractor or as an employee of a contractor, performing services for a public agency, who have been killed in the performance of duty.

As initially written, in a bill authored by Senator Chesbro in 1999, the law is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2004. This bill would extend the benefit indefinitely.

On May 15, SB 279 was amended to limit its provisions to undergraduate students and to provide that the annual income of any children, including the value of any support received from a parent, does not exceed the national poverty level, as defined in the Education Code.

Status:        PASSED [23 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 20, and placed on the Assembly Consent Calendar on the same date.

SB 302                      (Kuehl)                      Discrimination: State Programs and Activities

Existing law prohibits discrimination against any person in any program or activity conducted, operated, or administered by the state or by any state agency, or that is funded directly by the state, or that receives any financial assistance from the state.

Existing law also requires, with respect to disability, that these programs and activities meet the protections and prohibitions contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the implementing rules and regulations accompanying that Act.

SB 302 would specifically apply these provisions to the California State University.

In making CSU subject to these provisions, the bill specifies that it is not the intent of the Legislature to increase the cost of developing or procuring electronic and information technology.   The bill requires the CSU, however, in determining the cost of developing or procuring electronic or information technology, to consider whether this cost will reduce future costs incurred in providing access or accommodations as required by the federal law.

Status:        PASSED [23 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 20; PASSED on Consent [75 - 0] by the Assembly on August 28, and sent to the Senate for concurrence in the amendments on the same date.



SCR 12                      (Alarcon)                      Master Plan to End Poverty in California

This Senate Concurrent Resolution establishes the Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan to End Poverty in California, comprising 7 members each from the Senate and the Assembly, which would be required to report to the Legislature on the state of poverty in California.

The measure provides for the Joint Committee’s continued existence until December 31, 2005, and stipulates that the Senate Rules Committee may make money available from the Senate Operating Fund, as it deems necessary, for the expenses of the joint committee and its members.

As amended on August 19, the bill specifies that the Joint Committee shall be under the direction of a Senate chair and an Assembly chair, appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker, respectively. A second amendment specifies that the Assembly Rules Committee may also make money available from the Assembly Operating Fund to share expenses of the Joint Committee and its members.

Introduced:    ADOPTED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Rules Committee, August     21; ADOPTED [52 - 21] by the Assembly, August 25; Senate     CONCURRED in the Assembly amendments [24 - 13] on August     27 and the bill was ENROLLED on the same date.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

July 18, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1.       Legislative Update goes on hiatus. This issue of Legislative Update will be the last one of the summer. Publication will resume at the end of August.

2.       Recall Update. The petition drive to call for an election to recall the Governor was ended this week, when supporters turned in over 1.6 million signatures for verification by County Registrars.

Lawsuit # 1. Shortly after the petitions were submitted, foes of the Recall filed a lawsuit alleging that out-of-state help had been used to gather signatures (state law requires paid signature-gatherers to be residents), and further, that two convicted felons had been among the signature collectors. Supporters of the Recall responded that records were checked prior to submitting the signatures to verify that each paid circulator was a registered voter--and that when the circulators arrived and registered is irrelevant. The allegation about the two felons is viewed suspiciously as a “dirty trick,” because the two individuals worked only briefly on the recall before they began working for the Davis camp--becoming key witnesses in the lawsuit against the Recall.

Verification process. Signatures must be verified by July 23. At that point, the spotlight moves to the Secretary of State, who must certify that there are 897,158 valid signatures. In order to have a fall election, certification must occur by September 3. (Otherwise the election will be held on March 2, 2004, the same day as the Presidential Primary Election.) The Lt. Governor has 60 - 80 days to call a special election, after certification has taken place. It’s probable that the Lt. Governor would select November 4, since there are several cities and counties around the state holding elections on that date.

Lawsuit #2. Supporters of the Recall have also filed a lawsuit--alleging that County Registrars are working in slow motion to verify signatures, in order to pass the July 23 deadline and push the special election to March. The Registrars responded that they are short staffed to begin with, and that the onslaught of hundreds of thousands of petitions presents a workload problem of immense proportions--but that they were committed to meeting the deadline nonetheless.

Regarding the ballot itself: Candidates wishing to have their names on the Recall ballot to replace Governor Davis, should the vote to recall him be successful, need only be a registered voter, pay a $3,500 filing fee, and obtain 65 valid signatures (or pay no fee and submit 10,000 valid signatures). Once the date of the special election is called, candidates will have 21 days in which to file their intent to run. Whoever receives the most votes--even if just 2% of the electorate turns out--wins the Governor’s seat.

Voter turnout. The speculation has always been that an October or November date for the Special Election would result in a low voter turnout, while putting the election on March 2, the Presidential Primary, would produce a far greater number of voters (particularly Democrats). However, there may be a potent draw of voters to an October/November date: Ward Connerly’s Racial Privacy Initiative. The measure has qualified for the March 2 ballot, but state law requires that it be put on any earlier statewide election that arises--including special elections such as the Recall.

The cost issue. The Secretary of State has estimated the cost of holding a special election at $25 - $30 million. Rep. Darrell Issa, who has already declared his candidacy, has spent $1.2 million so far in support of the recall effort. David Gilliard, Director of Rescue California, the GOP-backed committee organizing the recall, has set a $15 million budget for the election campaign. Steve Smith, campaign manager for Taxpayers Against the Governor’s Recall, has also said his group is prepared to spend $15 million. Given the possibility of two other deep-pocketed candidates running, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bill Simon, and the $2 million the Governor has in his war chest, the recall effort could top $100 million, after all of the dust settles.

How times change: This week’s issue of Political Pulse reprints quotes about the Governor that appeared in the famous Time Magazine article (October 11, 1999 issue), that profiled Gray Davis, calling him “the most fearless governor in America,” because he had defied so many of his supporters--particularly the education unions. Some of the funnier quotes:

·         You can work with him, oh, absolutely,” says Republican state senator Jim Brulte. “On fiscal issues, he’s closer to us than to the Democrats.’ ”

·         And considering that Democrats now monopolize state government, it could have been worse,” says Assembly Minority Leader Scott Baugh. “He has tempered the insatiable appetite of the liberals.’ ”

·         When actor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently told Talk magazine he could be interested in running for governor in three years, Davis’ communications director, Phil Trounstine, said, ‘That’s fine. The governor is thinking about starring in Terminator 3.’ ”

3.       Budget Update. Lots of posturing. No real movement. Republicans submit proposals to cut deeper into state programs and eliminate waste. (The Senate defeated a Republican budget plan this week that proposed Draconian cuts--but which still did not balance the budget.) Democrats argue the necessity of levying new or increased taxes/fees to avoid punishing the school children, the poor and the disabled. Compromise is not a word in the lexicon of either party. Some lawmakers have expressed concern about not finishing a budget in time to begin Summer Recess, which normally would begin at the end of business on July 18--providing a budget is in place.

That about covers it.

4.       Following Nevada’s example, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell announced that he would ask the state Supreme Court to set aside the two-thirds vote requirement for approving the state budget. When faced with a similar stalemate over the state budget, Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn filed a petition with the Nevada Supreme Court asking that the two-thirds rule be set aside to allow passage of the spending plan, so that the state’s public schools would not be irreparably harmed. The High Court subsequently determined that the state’s constitutional requirement to fund schools trumped the constitutional procedural requirement for a two-thirds vote.

Governor Davis expressed support of O’Connell’s action. As quoted in the Oakland Tribune, Davis said, “…I think it is perfectly appropriate for you as superintendent of public instruction to seek a Supreme Court order to protect our school children. Let me be clear--if a responsible budget is not on my desk in the near future, I will join you in that lawsuit.” Many legislators nodded that the Nevada case held promise for a resolution to California’s budget gridlock.

Not so fast: Nine Nevada GOP senators and 15 GOP assembly members opposing the Nevada Supreme Court ruling went to the 7^th District Federal Court to ask for a permanent restraining order to prevent the Legislature from moving ahead with anything other than a two-thirds vote on the spending plan. A temporary injunction was granted, and the seven federal district court judges heard arguments on Monday, July 16. The federal court could send the issue back to the state Supreme Court, in which case the opposition could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.   If the injunction is made permanent, Governor Guinn will also likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Nevada’s budget impasse remains unresolved--like California’s.

5.       UC Regents and CSU Trustees raise tuition fees. The inevitability of severe budget reductions led both higher education systems to vote for tuition increases this week. The University of California Regents voted 13 to 3 to raise undergraduate fees by 25%, or $960, to $4,794 annually, effective with the fall 2003 semester. Graduate fees will increase by $1,205 to $5,019 a year. The Regents also gave UC President Richard C. Atkinson the authority to raise fees an additional 5%, if the reductions in the final state budget warrant it.

On an 11 to 2 vote, the California State University Board of Trustees moved to raise fees by 30% annually. Effective with the fall 2003 semester, undergraduate fees will increase by $474 to $2,046, and graduate fees by $522 to $2,256. As with past fee increases, one third of the revenue will be set aside for student financial aid. Should the final state Budget present even steeper cuts than currently anticipated, both systems will consider adopting enrollment restrictions.

Enrollment management measures are already in place at several CSU campuses, including Northridge. Early application deadlines have been imposed for the last several years. With respect to transfer students, the University no longer accepts lower division transfer students, only upper division, or students with 56 transferable units with a grade point average of 2.0 or better (2.4 for non-residents). With the exception of Master’s degree candidates, admission to the fall 2003 semester is already closed, and the University is admitting only upper division transfers, Masters’ and Credential candidates for spring 2004. No freshmen will be admitted for that semester.

6.       A new Field Poll was released this week reflecting that public opinion of the Governor and legislators has dropped to an all-time low.   The poll was conducted during the period of July 1 - 13. The sample included 1500 adults, of whom 1,040 were registered voters.

Is anyone doing a good job? Overall, 67% disapproved of the job state legislators were doing, while 66% expressed that view about the Governor. With specific reference to resolving the state’s budget deficit, only 14% of the voters believe the Governor is providing the necessary leadership, and just 17% feel the legislators are working effectively.

Taxes. More voters believe that tax increases are needed than had expressed that opinion last April. Unpopular tax proposals include the temporary ½ cent sales tax (opposed by 57%) and the Motor Vehicle License fee (67%). A more palatable tax plan: 52% support raising the top tax rate paid by the top wage earners.

Program cuts. Reductions in K-12 schools topped the list of concerns expressed by voters (69%). Other concerns, in descending order, include: Health care services and programs (62%), police and law enforcement (61%), higher education (51%), mental health programs (50%), public assistance programs for low income families and the disabled (47%), state road and highway building and repair (26%), and state corrections and prisons (26%).

7.       Punny Arnold. Commenting on the Recall effort--without revealing whether he would add his name along with other Republican hopefuls on the recall ballot--Arnold Schwarzenegger told reporters just before the July 4 holiday, “This is really embarrassing. I just forgot our state governor’s name--but I know that you will help me recall him.”

*     STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION     *

AB 60                      (Dymally)              CSU: African American Political Institute

Changes the name of the African American Political Institute at Cal State Northridge to the African American Political and Economic Institute. Authorizes the CSU Trustees to establish the Institute at the Dominguez Hills campus instead of the Northridge campus.

The bill states legislative intent that the institute be funded solely by grants and contributions from private sources. The bill specifically prohibits use of state funds, or resources supported by state funds, from being redirected to support the Institute. “State funds” is defined as General Fund monies, funds from the California State Lottery Education Fund, student fee revenues, and reimbursements and other income that otherwise would be available for support of the educational mission of the CSU.

Status:        PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee, July 9, and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it has been placed on the Consent Calendar.

AB 78                      (Reyes)                 K-12 Curriculum

As initially written, this bill expressed the encouragement of the Legislature for K-12 curriculum to contain instruction on the Vietnam War, including the “Secret War” in Laos, and the role of the Hmong and other Southeast Asians in that war. It additionally expressed the encouragement of the Legislature that the instruction include a component drawn from personal testimony of Hmong and other Southeast Asians who were involved in the Vietnam War and of those who contributed to the war effort on the homefront.

In June, specific references to the Hmong were deleted, changing the focus of the bill to Southeast Asians in general. The bill passed the Senate as amended, and the Assembly concurred in the amendment, despite vigorous opposition from the Hmong community.

The bill specifies that the instruction “be carried out in a manner that does not result in any duties or programs being imposed on school districts, nor mandating any additional costs.”

Status:        APPROVED by the Governor, July 10. [Chapter 44, Statutes of 2003]

AB 153                      (Calderon)                      Student Financial Aid: Eligibility

In 2001 the Legislature proposed and the Governor approved AB 540, which, under certain conditions, exempted undocumented alien students from paying nonresident tuition at the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges.

To qualify, the students must have attended high school in California for 3 or more years, graduated from a California high school (or the equivalent), registered at or attended an accredited institution of higher education in California not earlier than the fall semester/quarter of the 2001-02 academic year, and must file an affidavit with the higher education institution stating they have filed an application to legalize their immigration status. Under AB 540, these students were not eligible for financial aid, including federal and state aid or work-study.

AB 153 would make these students eligible to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs.

An April 24 amendment closed a “504 loophole,” to eliminate an unintended consequence.   Because of federal restrictions and the strategy to provide in-state tuition to undocumented students based on high school attendance, AB 540 has qualified students who are not immigrants but also not California residents for in-state tuition. So long as a student attended a California high school for three years and graduated from a California high school, he or she is eligible under AB 540. That provision has created a loophole for non-California residents to receive tuition breaks. Because AB 153 is based on AB 540, those same non-California residents would be eligible for state-provided financial aid. As amended on April 24, the bill attempts to close this loophole and prevent these students from receiving state financial aid until undocumented students are eligible under federal law to receive financial aid.

Status:        PASSED [8 - 3] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, July 10. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

AB 491                      (Diaz)                      California State University: Information Technology

This bill relates to the recent CMS Audit Report, which was critical of the way in which the CSU system acquired and implemented a comprehensive information management technology system linking all 23 campuses and the Chancellor’s Office together.

CSU opposed this bill, as initially written, because of concerns about the multiple layers of costly bureaucracy it would add for the state and the university, requiring significant additional staff at CSU and the Department of Finance.   Moreover, the bill seemed overly punitive. The CSU has complied with, or is in the process of complying with, all 30 of the recommendations contained in the CMS Audit. Senator John Burton is carrying legislation sponsored by the Trustees that specifically addresses conflict-of-interest and ethics training issues, and Chancellor Reed has issued Executive Order 862 to establish feasibility study requirements for IT projects exceeding $500,000. The legislation did not acknowledge or take into consideration any of these efforts.

CSU believed that AB 491 removed the system’s ability to independently manage its policies and practices related to IT project management and would add considerable costs and lead times to projects--adding from 6 to 7 months to average project cycles.

As the bill has proceeded through the legislative process, CSU continued to argue for amendments that would not impose layers of process in the name of efficiency and effectiveness.

On July 17, the bill was significantly amended to address all but one of CSU’s concerns. As currently written, the legislation improves reporting on IT projects, confirms CSU’s commitment to implement all 30 recommendations of the CMS audit report, requires the Department of Finance to support an independent auditor to oversee CSU’s compliance with statutes, policies and regulations regarding IT procurement and contracting, deletes any other state agency or outside consultant role in approval and implementation of IT projects, and urges CSU to evaluate [rather than mandate] risk sharing with vendors for these projects. As amended, the bill also includes a five-year Sunset Clause, which means the bill’s provisions would drop from the codes after that period of time.

Only one issue remains with which CSU remains in contention: As currently written, the bill would require all IT projects costing more than $20 million to be put into the annual budget act for review and approval. Since CSU believes that this provision duplicates assistance the system will receive from the Department of Finance auditor, and would result in lengthy delays, CSU will argue for its deletion when the bill is heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Status:        PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 10.

AB 1185                       (Montanez)           CSU: Administrative Costs

This bill would require the Chancellor’s Office of the California State University, and each of the 23 campuses within the system, to provide annual reports, by January 1 of each year, to the Department of Finance, the Office of the Legislative Analyst, and the appropriate legislative budget and policy committees, providing the following information:

·         A detailed analysis of the administrative costs incurred in the previous fiscal year;

·         The percentage of general purpose funds devoted to administrative costs in the previous fiscal year; and

·         The percent increase or decrease in total administrative costs from the year prior to the previous fiscal year.

The bill requires that these annual reports be prepared within existing resources by the system and the campuses.

The bill defines “administrative costs” as general purpose funds expended for (1) salaries and benefits of executive management, administrators, supervisors, and managers of the Chancellor’s Office and of each campus of the CSU, who are not represented by a union; and (2) administrative overhead costs incurred to support administrative functions and administrative positions not represented by a union, including, but not limited to the following: Car and housing allowances, travel, supplies and equipment, leases, computing support, contractual services, public relations and communications, information technology, consulting fees, and conference, training and seminar attendance.

Status:        Put on Suspense in the Senate Education Committee, July 10. The bill is dead for this year. [Note: Committee members expressed concern about the costs of the bill (estimated at $300,000 per year) when the system is facing hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts.   Members also expressed their frustration and concern about being pulled into collective bargaining issues.

                    CSU’s Governmental Affairs Office in Sacramento reported that Senator Vasconcellos was particularly clear that these kinds of bills discourage him, since “we all could be using our time and talents better, together advocating and supporting the CSU in this budget mess.”]



AJR 9                      (Firebaugh)                      Undocumented Students

This Assembly Joint Resolution seeks to memorialize the President and Congress of the United States to enact legislation to reform the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to allow states to set appropriate residency requirements and tuition policies for undocumented students.

Status:        PASSED [22 - 12] by the Senate and ENROLLED with the Secretary of State on July 7. The measure was CHAPTERED by the Secretary of State on July 11. [Resolution Chapter No. 95]

SB 193                      (Murray)                      Student Athlete Rights

This bill seeks to enact the Student Athletes’ Bill of Rights, which, in essence, removes NCAA authority over California student athletes.

As most recently amended, the bill addresses the issue of penalizing student athletes for actions of a coach or institution that has broken NCAA rules. The amendment would prohibit penalties or sanctions against a student athlete for actions he/she did not specifically commit.

Status:        Put on Suspense until next January, by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, July 8.

                    [Note: SB 193 was discussed and debated at length in the Higher Education Committee. The bill’s author argued that prohibiting any California higher education institution from being a member of the NCAA would force the Association to deal with several reforms for student athletes. Several committee members, however, expressed concerns about the impact the prohibition would have on athletic programs for both men and women.

                    The bill’s author was persuaded to turn SB 193 into a two-year bill so that an identified group of NCAA-involved athletic directors could meet, discuss reforms and consider working together to move NCAA forward on key reforms--or lobby the NCAA to undertake such reforms itself in the next few months.]

SB 821                      (Alarcon)                      Business Ethics Courses

This bill would mandate the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and would request the UC and accredited private and independent colleges and universities, to require students enrolled in MBA programs to successfully complete two courses in ethics in order to be eligible to receive the Golden State Business and Social Responsibility Award, which this bill would create.

Students would also be required to complete a minimum of 50 hours of community service. Upon completion of the courses and community service, students would have affixed to their diplomas the seal of the state Senate, the Assembly, or the Governor.

Status:        PASSED [8 - 2] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, July 8. The bill was placed on Suspense in that Committee on July 16. [Note: As was the case in the Senate, the vote was cast along partisan lines. Democrats supported the bill. Republicans opposed it generally for two reasons:

                    (1) the costs to students in lengthening the time to degree, and (2) CSU already incorporates ethics components in existing business courses.]

SB 971                      (Burton)                CSU: Outside Employment                      TRUSTEE BILL

This bill would require executive, Management Personnel Plan (MPP), and academic employees to report on outside employment and business activities to ensure that such activities do not constitute a conflict of interest with CSU employment or conflict with normal work assignments or the performance of duties.

The bill would also prohibit an employee of the CSU from being a consultant or an employee of a for-profit business entity that provides services to the university. It would additionally require the CSU to offer ethics training to each employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests in accordance with current law.

As amended on July 1, the bill would require the university, before conducting each orientation course required by this legislation, to consult with staff of the Fair Political Practices Commission and the state Attorney General regarding appropriate course content.

Status:        PASSED [6 - 2] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 8.

Return to Archive List

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

July 3, 2003

CAPITOL NEWS

1.       The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a number of significant rulings as it neared the end of its term last week. Two of the decisions have relevance for higher education:

Split Decision on Affirmative Action. The decision on the first case--actually two, involving affirmative action in undergraduate admissions at the University of Michigan and at the University’s Law School--had been hungrily awaited for months. Proponents and opponents of affirmative action drew a line in the sand on the issue, with proponents arguing to maintain the policy, and opponents hoping the more conservative-leaning court would eliminate it once and for all. Neither side achieved all that it wanted.

The High Court issued a split decision, striking down the point system the University used to give members of protected classes an advantage in undergraduate admissions. The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist writing the majority opinion, which was signed by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that, “The University’s policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity,” that the University had argued justified its policy. The three dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In the University of Michigan Law School case, the Court ruled 5 to 4 to uphold the admissions policy that used race as one factor among many in determining which applicants to admit. Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, stated that, “The Constitution does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, signed on to the majority opinion; Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas provided the four dissenting votes.

The Bush Administration, which had submitted a Brief arguing to overturn the admission policies in both of the Michigan cases, issued a statement that read in part, “Today’s decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.”

The High Court’s decision will not affect California universities and colleges, since Proposition 209, passed by voters in 1996, banned use of affirmative action in public employment, contracts and education.   University of California Regent Ward Connerly, who authored and led the campaign for Proposition 209, was unhappy with the Supreme Court decision. As quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Connerly said, “If I didn’t have a commitment tomorrow, I’d be in Michigan to see what it takes to get a referendum banning affirmative action on the ballot there.” Proposition 209 was immediately challenged in the California courts as unconstitutional, but the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the measure, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the case.

Connerly has launched another controversial initiative that will ask voters to prohibit the state from collecting data by race, ethnicity, color or national origin, and using that data in public education, employment, or contracting. The measure, known unofficially as the “Racial Privacy Initiative,” has qualified for the March 2, 2004 ballot.

Libraries seeking federal grants must use Internet filters. The second decision issued by the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which would require public and school libraries that receive federal monies to use anti-pornography filtering software. Opponents of the CIPA argued that First Amendment rights would be compromised if the law were to be implemented. The American Library Association expressed concern that such software might also block medical information and avant-garde art.

The High Court ruled 6 to 3 that the law was not unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that, “While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review.   Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead to exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments….” Siding with the majority were Justices O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. Justices Kennedy and Breyer, who wrote separate opinions explaining their decision, cast the remaining votes that formed the majority opinion.

Justice Breyer stressed in his opinion that he joined the majority ruling only because “the [Children’s Internet Protection] Act allows libraries to permit any adult patron access to an ‘overblocked’ Web site; the adult patron need only ask a librarian to unblock the specific Web site, or, alternatively, ask the librarian, ‘Please disable the entire filter.’”

Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. In writing the minority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote that the amount of pornography available on the Internet, and the number of ever-changing websites offering free access, is so large that no system would ever be able to block all of it. “Because of this, the statute will provide parents with a false sense of security without really solving the problem that motivated its enactment.” On the other hand, he worried that the filters would block access to legal and sexually innocuous information. “In my judgment, a statutory blunderbuss that mandates this vast amount of ‘overblocking’ abridges the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”

According to the Daily Recorder, a Sacramento-based legal newspaper, “At least one big city library, San Francisco’s, said it would eschew federal funding instead of placing filters on its computers.”

2.       Rumors of retirement of one or more Justices persist. Speculation that one or both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 78, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, 73, would retire at the conclusion of the current session continues, despite denials from both.

The Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R - Tenn.), in anticipation of an imminent vacancy on the High Court, “outlined an ambitious schedule for the Senate’s consideration of any Supreme Court nomination that President Bush might submit if a justice resigns.” Frist said his “speedy schedule was essential to perform our obligations to the Supreme Court and the American people.” Democrats decried the plan as “overly ambitious,” and promised that any Bush nominee would be not be rushed through, but rather subject to painstaking, methodical scrutiny.

When he convened the Court on its last day of session, Chief Justice Rehnquist caused a brief stir, which quickly turned to laughter, when he announced a retirement was forthcoming. It turned out to be the court’s librarian, who was retiring after 15 years of service.

3.       Still no budget--and none in sight. Like a speeding train, July 1 came and went, and the state of California is still sitting at the train station. Both the Senate and the Assembly offered spending plans to their respective members, but neither chamber could muster the required two-thirds vote.

Meanwhile state Controller Steve Westly warned lawmakers anew of the consequences of their inaction: Vendors won’t get paid; monthly payments to the state’s public schools and community colleges will cease; certain categories of state employees would receive only the federal minimum wage, rather than their regular paychecks-- and legislators’ salaries would be withheld.

In an effort to address one issue that does have bipartisan support--the need to bring sense to the way in which operations are funded --Senate President pro Tempore John Burton (D - San Francisco) introduced Senate Resolution 24, which creates a Senate Select Committee on Fiscal Restructuring. The 10-person bipartisan committee will be appointed by the Senate Rules Committee and will be charged with the following:

·         Reviewing and assessing the existing state and local governmental structure and the revenue sources pertaining thereto;

·         Considering alternative or restructured revenue sources that might provide more reliable funding at the state and local level;

·         Identifying constitutional and statutory mandates that might be modified to increase financial flexibility at the state and local level;

·         Considering ways and means to improve the evaluation of program performance at the state and local level; and

·         Recommending policy initiatives that will resolve the structure deficit.

The measure requires the committee to submit a report, including its recommendations for appropriate legislation, no later than August 18, 2003, after which date the committee will sunset.

4.       Alice Huffman appointed to the Board of Trustees of the California State University. Governor Davis appointed the long-time union lobbyist to a term that will expire in 2010. She replaces Laurence Gould, Jr., who had served as Chair of the Board of Trustees, whose term expired in 2002. Huffman, 67, served as the Associate Executive Director for Politics for the California Teachers Association, and as the President of the Black American Political Association of California from 1984 to 1998. She currently serves as the President of the California State Conference of the NAACP and as a member on the NAACP National Board of Directors. Huffman received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Trustees do not receive any monetary compensation, and all appointments require Senate confirmation.

5.       The Country isn’t the only entity celebrating a birthday this week. The Zip code celebrated its 40^th anniversary on July 1: The U. S. Post Office put the first Zip codes into use on July 1, 1963--when the cost of stamps was 5 cents.

*     STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION     *

AB 46                      (Simitian)                      Identity Theft

Prohibits any university or college located in the state from using a social security number as a student identifier. Prohibits any employer from requiring an employee to use his or her social security number for any purpose other than taxes.

The bill would permit the use of a student’s social security number for certain purposes, including, but not limited to, internal verification or nonpublic administration or identification for communication with a third party who is authorized by the student to receive it.

The bill also authorizes each university or college to develop a system of personal identifiers other than social security numbers for students.

Status:        PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 2.

AB 78                      (Reyes)                 K-12 Curriculum

As initially written, this bill expressed the encouragement of the Legislature for K-12 curriculum to contain instruction on the Vietnam War, including the “Secret War” in Laos, and the role of the Hmong and other Southeast Asians in that war. It additionally expressed the encouragement of the Legislature that the instruction include a component drawn from personal testimony of Hmong and other Southeast Asians who were involved in the Vietnam War and of those who contributed to the war effort on the homefront.   As amended on June 17, specific references to the Hmong have been deleted, and the focus of the bill is now on Southeast Asians.

The bill specifies that “this instruction be carried out in a manner that does not result in any duties or programs being imposed on school districts, nor mandating any additional costs.”

Status:        PASSED [9 - 1] by the Senate Education Committee, June 11. [Note: Senator Jeffrey Denham (R - Salinas) cast the sole dissenting vote.]

                   PASSED [25 - 11] by the full Senate and sent to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments, June 26. [Note: With one exception, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill. The one exception: Senator Bruce McPherson (R - Santa Cruz) voted for the bill.]

                   The Assembly CONCURRED in the Senate amendments, and the bill was enrolled and sent to the Governor on June 30.

AB 593                      (Ridley-Thomas) Voter Registration

This bill seeks to require the Secretary of State to perform certain administrative duties to facilitate voter registration--among which is to provide voter registration forms and information to students in all high schools, community colleges, and campuses of the California State University and the University of California.

As amended on June 27, the bill would also state the Legislature’s intent that high schools and colleges provide students with voter registration forms.

[Note: The Secretary of State already provides the forms and information to these entities. Cal State Northridge typically receives 5000 registration forms, which are distributed to students at Freshman Orientation, at campus voter registration drives, and stacked at sites on campus having heavy foot traffic--e.g., Student Union, University Library, Bookstore, and Student Housing.]

Status:        PASSED [3 - 0] by the Senate Committee on Elections and Reapportionment and referred back to the Senate Rules Committee, July 2.

AB 833                      (Steinberg)                      Gender Equity in Athletics

This bill expresses various findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to gender equity in athletics. It states that “full compliance with Title IX is nondiscretionary,” and sets forth standards by which to determine whether an educational institution has effectively accommodated the interests and abilities of both sexes in athletics.

The bill would prohibit the use of public funds in connection with an athletic program of a public postsecondary education institution that does not provide equivalent opportunity to both sexes for participation and use of facilities.

Status:        PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, July 2.

AB 1219                      (Montanez)                      Inmate Education

Existing law establishes the position of Superintendent of Correctional Education. This bill would eliminate this position and establish instead the Robert E. Burton Correctional Education Board within the Department of Corrections to approve education programs in prisons.

The Board, which would comprise 15 members, including one representative each from the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges system, would be required to approve the education programs, and to adopt rules and regulations for the admission of inmate students to them.

The bill would additionally require the Board to submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2006, with recommendations for further reorganization of correctional education in California, focusing on attaining parallel education structures between correctional and public education, funding sources, and correctional student rights.

[Note: Two similar bills (SB 1845 in 1999-2000 and SB 404 in 2001-02), both authored by former Senator Richard Polanco, were vetoed by Governor Davis because both would have resulted in major General Fund costs that had not been included in the Budget Act for those respective years.]

Status:        PASSED [4 - 0] by the Senate Public Safety Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, July 1.

AB 1583                      (Koretz)                      Primary Care Physicians

This bill would prohibit a state agency, including the California State University, from employing a primary care physician as an independent contractor when there is an unfilled, full-time primary care physician position available within the state agency. A June 2 amendment added the caveat, “unless the state agency is unable to do so after a good faith effort.”

Status:         PASSED [3 - 2] by the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 30.

SB 25                      (Bowen)                      Personal Information: Security

This bill contains numerous provisions relating to “fraud alerts” placed in credit reports, when consumers suspect they may be victims of identity theft.

Of interest to the CSU are provisions in the bill that would extend to state and local government agencies--including public colleges and universities--a prohibition on the use of Social Security numbers as a personal identifier. In this one regard, SB 25 is similar to Assembly Member Joseph Simitian’s AB 46, which also seeks to prohibit any public college or university located in California from using a social security number as a student identifier.

Status:        PASSED [10 - 3] by the Assembly Judiciary Committee and referred to the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee, June 17, where it will be heard on July 7.

SB 41                      (Bowen)                      Public Contracts

As initially written, this bill pertained to contract law and its application to the University of California. The bill was amended on June 4 to contain conflict of interest provisions applicable to the California State University:

·         No officer or employee of the CSU shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise in which the officer or employee has a financial interest, if that employment, activity, or enterprise is sponsored or funded by any CSU department--unless the employment, activity or enterprise is within the course and scope of the officer’s or employee’s regular CSU employment.

·         No officer or employee in the CSU shall contract on his/her own individual behalf as an independent contractor with any CSU department to provide services or goods. [Note: The bill specifies that this provision shall not apply to officers or employees of the CSU with teaching or research responsibilities.]

·         No retired, dismissed, separated, or formerly employed individual of the CSU may enter into a contract in which he/she is engaged in any of the negotiations, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any CSU department. [Note: This prohibition applies only during the first two years following the retirement, dismissal or separation.]

·         For a period of 12 months following the date of his/her retirement, dismissal or separation from the CSU, no employee may enter into a contract with any CSU department, if he/she was employed by that department in a policymaking position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract.

The bill does not prohibit the rehire or reappointment of CSU employees after retirement, consistent with CSU administrative policies, nor does the bill apply to inventors and authors of intellectual property licensed under technology transfer agreements.

Finally, the bill requires each contractor who enters into a contract with a CSU campus for $10,000 or more, shall be assigned an identification number by the president of that campus, for tracking purposes.

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

Status:        PASSED [13 - 0] by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee and referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, July 1.

Return to Archive List