Legislative Update Archives
CLICK ON THE ISSUE YOU WISH TO VIEW
ARCHIVE LIST
July - December 2004
December 8, 2004, November 4, 2004, August 18, 2004, July 30, 2004, July 20, 2004
Back to Legislative Update
Main Page
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
December 8, 2004
CAPITOL NEWS
1. Members of the state Legislature were officially sworn into office this week. Lawmakers took care of some housekeeping chores, before adjourning for the holidays until January 3, when the new Biennial 2005-06 Session will officially begin. As expected, Senator Don Perata (D - Oakland) was elected President pro temp of the Senate, the second most powerful position in the state, below the Governor. Perata replaces Senator John Burton (D - San Francisco), who was termed out of office at the end of the 2004 Session. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez will continue in his leadership post.
Perata announced plans to reorganize the Senate committee structure, consolidating some committees and eliminating others. The Transportation and Housing Committees will be combined, as will the Committees on Banking and Insurance. The Business and Professions Committee, on the other hand, will be abolished and its tasks assigned to other committees. Also eliminated is the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, whose oversight responsibilities will be transferred to the Committee on Elections and Reapportionment. The Committee on Health and Human Services will be separated into two committees.
Other actions taken that are of particular interest to universities and colleges: Senator Jack Scott (D - Pasadena) will replace John Vasconcellos (D - San Jose), who was termed out of office this year, as the new Chair of the Senate Education Committee. Five other members of the Committee were also termed out and won’t be returning next year: Bruce McPherson (R - Santa Cruz), Dede Alpert (D - San Diego), Betty Karnette (D - Long Beach), Byron Sher (D - Palo Alto), and Pete Knight (R - Palmdale), who died last spring, but would have been termed out at the end of 2004.
Senator Scott is particularly well-suited to his new position, given his past experience as the former president of Cypress College (1978 -1987) and Pasadena City College (1987 - 1995), and as a Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at Pepperdine University (1995 - present). The Senator also has both an earned Ph.D. in American History from Claremont University, and an honorary doctorate from Pepperdine.
Senator Scott begins his second and last term in the state Senate on January 3. Prior to his election to the upper house, he served four years in the state Assembly.
The 2005-06 class of legislators will include the first husband and wife team--George Runner (R - Lancaster), who was just elected to the Senate, and Sharon Runner (R - Lancaster), who was elected to the Assembly in 2002, replacing her termed out husband. Van Tran (R - Garden Grove) joins the Assembly as the first Vietnamese-American in the state Legislature.
These two historic milestones aside, legislators will be engaging in many same-old, same-old issues and arguments. Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles) is back with her bill to prohibit public schools from using racial names for athletic teams and mascots. Senator Gil Cedillo (D - Los Angeles) announced he will reintroduce his bill allowing illegal aliens to obtain California drivers licenses; likewise Assembly Member Sally Lieber (D - Mountain View), with a bill to increase the state’s minimum wage; and Assembly Member Cindy Montanez (D - San Fernando), with a bill to enact a Car Buyers Bill of Rights--all three bills of which were vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. And the tenacious Senator Tom McClintock (R - Simi Valley) is back with another budget reform proposal.
As in the film, “Groundhog Day,” where the protagonist relives the same day over and over again, several issues debated relentlessly in the last session will also be revisited. In the area of health care: A mandate for companies to provide health insurance coverage, a proposal for Single Payer Health Care, and a plan to provide consumers with website information and links to more affordable Canadian pharmacies. In the area of social issues: Benefits to illegal aliens and same sex marriages. State governance issues, term limits and redistricting, will also be re-reviewed.
We may only be able to distinguish between the last Legislative session and the one about to begin by the numerals in the years.
2. Controversial UC Regent declines to seek another 12-year term on the Board of Regents. Ward Connerly, was the principal architect of Proposition 209, which eliminated state and local government affirmative action programs in the areas of public employment, public education (including universities), and public contracting, was approved by voters in 1996. Critics accused Connerly of being an obstructionist and of using his position as a Regent to push personal causes, but supporters praised his willingness to take on politically unpopular issues, and his tenaciousness in pursuing them.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and Integration and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (known as BAMN) has been working for the past year to unseat Connerly. In announcing his decision not to seek a second term on the UC governing board, Connerly said the Coalition’s campaign did not influence him, and that he had earlier determined not to seek a second term.
3. Federal Appeals Court nullifies the Solomon Amendment which penalizes any university that refuses to allow military recruiters on its campus. Universities began barring military recruiters on their campuses a decade ago, on the grounds that the Defense Department’s policy of excluding openly gay men and women from the military services violated their anti-discrimination policies. The Solomon Amendment, which blocked Defense Department funds from any university that denied access to military recruiters, was enacted in response. In the ensuing years, there has been confusion over whether student financial aid funds could also be excluded, resulting in several interpretations.
As recently as October, yet another clarification of the Solomon Amendment was made when President Bush approved the National Defense Authorization Act of 2005: A new section of law assured that federal funding for student financial aid was not on the list of jeopardized funds. However, the new section also expanded the list of funds that could be denied to include those from the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security, the Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The decision handed down this week by a three-judge panel of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Solomon Amendment violated the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech by forcing universities to sanction a policy with which they disagreed. Warrington S. Parker III, counsel for a coalition of law schools challenging the Solomon Amendment, was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education as championing the court decision, saying that it “means that colleges can again follow their nondiscrimination policies.”
Harvard Law School has likewise returned to its policy of barring military recruitment on its premises. The Dean of the Law School, Elena Kagan, was quoted in an Associated Press interview that the “federal court decision allowing colleges and universities to bar recruiters without fear of losing federal money, has allowed Harvard to again enforce its nondiscrimination policy without exception.”
The ruling cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down in 2000, which allowed the Boy Scouts of America to bar an assistant scoutmaster from his post because his homosexuality was “inconsistent with the Scout oath.” The opinion concluded, “The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this ruling.”
The Court’s decision will almost assuredly be appealed, however. The Defense Department hasn’t determined yet whether it will ask for the full Appellate Court to review the decision or pursue a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4. Congress passes spending bill for FY 2005. Before breaking for the fall recess and election campaigning, Congress was able to pass only 4 of the 13 Appropriations bills. Members returned briefly on November 16 for a week to consolidate the remaining 9 bills into one Omnibus Appropriations bill, and are expected to pass the bill before adjourning Friday for the year. In most cases, the proposed funding levels for all federal agencies remain fairly static. Funding for Labor, Health & Human Services and Education will increase a very modest 2.79% over FY2004.
The U.S. Department of Education is slated to receive a total of $57 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion, with one of the largest increases going to special education (+$607 million, and +$500 million for Title I, grants to school districts). For Postsecondary Education, it’s so-so news and less-than-ok news. FIPSE (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) will see an increase of $6.2 million over FY2004. Given that the President had requested a decrease of over $125 million, the modest increase seems huge by contrast.
In the area of student financial aid, funding for the Pell Grant program will increase by $458 million over 2004, but the Pell Grant maximum will remain at $4,050 for the third straight year. TRIO and GEAR UP (outreach) programs will both be increased slightly, up $10.7 million over last year, to $843 million and $309 million respectively. College Work-Study will lose $.3 million. Aid to historically black colleges, to black graduate institutions, to Hispanic-serving institutions, and to tribal colleges, will increase in total by about $26 million. (CSUN is a designated Hispanic-serving institution.)
The biggest impact on student financial aid, however, will come not from a funding issue, but from a change in guidelines allowing the U.S. Department of Education to revise the formula used to determine how much families can afford to pay for college. The change, estimated to save the federal government about $300 million in FY2005, would replace the 1990 tax rates used to calculate the amount of financial aid for which a family can qualify, with 2000 tax rates. Although the 2000 rates are likely lower than those from 1990, as a result of Bush Administration tax cuts during his first four years in office, state tax rates have generally increased during the same time period--making the 1990 rates a more accurate indicator of a family’s spendable income.
The Department of Education has estimated that the formula change will reduce Pell Grants for about 1.2 million students and render an additional 90,000 students ineligible for these grants. While the poorest families will not be affected by the change, the lower-middle and middle class families will see fewer available dollars, even as universities across the country raise their tuition rates. Tuition rates at California higher education institutions rank among the lowest in the country--despite recent 8 and 10% increases for undergraduates and graduates respectively, approved by UC and CSU. The national average for public institutions is $5,132, and for private institutions, $20,082. Effective with the fall 2005 semester, UC’s rates will increase to $6,144 and $8,556 for undergraduates and graduates, about $1,100 lower than the comparison institutions, such as the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois, which have similar professional programs. CSU’s rates will rise to $2,520 for undergraduates and $3,102 for graduates in fall 2005.
5. New federal regulation requires educational institutions to offer an instructional program on the U.S. Constitution. Any educational institution in the country that receives federal aid--public and private, K - University--must spend part of the day on September 17 of each year, the anniversary of the signing of the document, educating students about the Constitution. The requirement was inserted into the Omnibus Appropriations bill by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, the upper house’s unofficial Constitutional scholar and champion.
The details of the program will be spelled out in regulations to be issued by the U.S. Department of Education. Providing such guidance to the country’s educational institutions may be easier said than done, given that the Department of Education is prohibited by law from establishing a national curriculum. As a pundit once said, “Democracy isn’t easy.”
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Senator Byrd’s reverence for the Constitution is well known on Capitol Hill. He habitually carries a copy of the document in an inside breast pocket of his suit, and he has been known to flourish it during heated arguments on the Senate floor.” The 87-year-old Senator has also written several histories of the U.S. Senate and the Roman Senate.
6. President Bush nominates new Secretary of Education. Margaret Spellings, who served the President as his chief education adviser when he was Governor of Texas, has been serving as the President’s top domestic policy advisor, a position to which she was appointed shortly after he was elected in 2000. Spellings, 46, will replace Rod Paige, who served as the Education Secretary for all four years of the President’s first term. Paige, who is retiring at age 71, had a reputation for making intemperate remarks. He once called the National Education Association a "terrorist organization" that uses "obstructionist scare tactics."
Spellings, who is said to be the behind-the-scenes architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, was praised by the President as “an energetic reformer,” and someone who had “dedicated herself to strengthening public schools” in Texas “with conviction and great results.”
Spellings also served six years as a lobbyist for the Texas Association of School Boards and advised two successive governors on school reform, before being tapped by the President to be his top domestic policy advisor. Reaction to her nomination has been positive from members of both political parties--including from Senator Edward Kennedy, who indicated he had “a lot of respect for Margaret’s abilities.” The Senate is expected to approve her appointment with no problems.
In a related development, Eugene W. Hickok, Deputy Secretary of Education, recently announced he would be leaving his number two position in the Department. Education association leaders speculate that Hickok resigned when he was not named the new Secretary. Politically conservative and a strong proponent of vouchers [allowing public school students to use federally-funded vouchers to attend private schools], Hickok was not a particularly popular figure.
*
NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *
Note:
Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.
AB 3 (Blakeslee) Income Tax: Deduction for Education Savings
Allows a deduction for contributions, not exceeding specified amounts, made by a taxpayer to a qualified tuition program and to a Coverdell education savings account. [Note: A Coverdell Education Savings Account allows contributions to be made to an account for a designated beneficiary, i.e., a child under the age of 18, exclusively for the purposes of paying the qualified education expenses on a tax-free basis.]
Introduced: December 6, 2004
AB 13 (Goldberg) Racial Athletic Team Names and Mascots
Establishes the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
[Note: This bill is Assembly Member Goldberg’s third attempt to pass legislation on this issue. AB 2115, introduced in the 2002-03 Session, failed passage in the state Assembly, and AB 858, introduced last year, was vetoed by the Governor. Goldberg called the Governor’s veto message silly and vowed to be back with another bill in 2005.
The Governor’s veto message stated that decisions regarding athletic teams and mascots were best determined at the local level. He also suggested that the focus of lawmakers should be on everyone working together to increase the academic achievement of all California students, rather than on a non-academic requirement.]
AB 23 (Liu) California Community Colleges: Funding Priorities
Essentially changes the funding mechanism for the state’s public community colleges from one that is program-based (the K-12 model) to one based on numbers of full-time-equivalent students (FTEs).
The bill also specifies and prioritizes, for funding purposes, the 3 primary missions of the community colleges: (1) lower-division instruction for students seeking to transfer to 4-year universities to complete a baccalaureate degree; (2) workforce training and preparation; and (3) adult literacy programs.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
AB 49 (Benoit) Contracting for Non-instructional Services
Repeals existing law that authorizes school districts and community college districts to contract for any non-instructional services. The bill also declares that existing law on employer-employee relations does not limit the authority of the UC, the Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University, to enter into contracts with third parties for non-instructional services.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
AB 58 (Nunez) K-University Facilities Bond Act
Enacts the K-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, which authorizes issuance of state general obligation bonds in an unspecified amount for the purpose of constructing new, and repairing and refurbishing existing, facilities at the state’s public schools, colleges and universities.
[Note: The amount will be added at a later date, when the state’s fiscal condition is better known. Given the amount of debt the state has incurred just in the past year, it may be easier to push an elephant through the eye of a needle than to obtain passage of an education bond act.]
Introduced: December 6, 2004
ACA 1 (Calderon) Two-Year Budget
Proposes to place before voters a Constitutional Amendment that expresses the Legislature’s intent to make statutory changes to enact a budget for a two-year fiscal period.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
ACA 5 (Richman) Public Employee Retirement System Reform
Proposes a Constitutional Amendment to change the state’s Public Employee Retirement Plan from one of Defined Benefit to one of Defined Contribution, effective for all new state employees hired on and after July 1, 2007.
A Defined Benefit plan is one where the benefit is determined by a formula based on age, service credit, and final salary. (Under PERS, both the state and the employee contribute to the plan.)
A Defined Contribution plan consists of combined employer and employee contributions which are invested, with the pension benefit based on the return on those investments.
[Note: The author of the bill states that this change will save the state a significant amount of money and address a growing pension debt. Conceding that the bill will have a tough time passing the Legislature, given Democratic majorities in both houses, the author has indicated he will also launch an initiative drive to put his proposal before voters.]
Introduced: December 6, 2004
ACA 6 (Wyland) Illegal Aliens: Benefits
Proposes a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the state from issuing any driver’s license or state identification card; providing in-state tuition or fees for postsecondary education; granting any voting privileges; or providing any health, social, or other state or local benefit to any person who is neither a citizen of the United States, nor an alien lawfully present in the United States, unless the privilege, service or benefit is required by federal law.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
SB 4 (Murray) Public Performance Facilities Authority Act
Enacts the California Public Performance Facilities Authority Act, which creates the CPPF Authority to acquire, construct, manage, maintain, or operate a facility, as defined, including, but not limited to, a coliseum, stadium, sports arena, theater, performance hall, or sports pavilion. The bill authorizes the Authority to sell premium seat licenses, naming and sponsorship rights, and to issue revenue bonds and other forms of indebtedness.
[Note: It is not clear from the definitions provided in the bill whether universities and colleges would qualify as eligible entities. CSU’s Office of Governmental Affairs is in the process of obtaining an interpretation.]
Introduced: December 6, 2004
SB 5 (Morrow) Student Bill of Rights
Requests the UC and directs the CSU and the California Community Colleges to develop guidelines and implement specified principles, relating to academic freedom, of a Student Bill of Rights.
[Note: This bill is a re-introduction of SB 1335, introduced by the author last year, and which failed passage in the Senate Education Committee. The bill stirred controversy because the impetus behind it was to rein in what supporters called “a liberal dominance in higher education.” Critics of the bill contended that its ultimate purpose was to rid campuses of liberal professors, and that, ironically, it was less about academic freedom than it was about imposing specific points of view in the classrooms.
SB 5 is essentially identical to the earlier bill, with the exception of the title: Student (rather than Academic) Bill of Rights.]
Introduced: December 6, 2004
SCR 2 (Scott) Arts Education Month
Proclaims March 2005 to be “Arts Education Month.”
This Senate Concurrent Resolution also states the Legislature’s support of the value that arts education brings to the pupils’ education and to the economic development within each community of this state, and requests that copies of the resolution be transmitted to every school district in the State, as well as to the arts education associations for their individual action in support of Arts Education Month.
Introduced: December 6, 2004
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
November 4, 2004
SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE
1. Bush wins second term, breaking the “Adams” curse (father and son serving one term in office and both being defeated for a second term). As of this date, Bush won the popular vote by some 3 million votes and garnered sufficient Electoral College votes, when the final tally in both Nevada (5) and Ohio (20) put him over the 270 votes needed for victory.
Although there were about 150,000 provisional ballots in Ohio yet to be counted, Kerry would need to have at least 93% of those ballots certified as eligible, and the entire lot voting for him. Because the chances of that happening were nil at best, Kerry made the decision to concede the election and avoid the protracted period of turbulence that followed the 2000 election.
Kerry phoned the President at 11 am on Wednesday to concede, and Bush, who was already marshaling thoughts for an address to the nation, indicated he would deliver it as early as Wednesday afternoon.
There were several unexpected factors that contributed to the outcome of this race. The economy did not resonate with voters to the extent that Democrats had hoped, and voters tended not associate the war in Iraq with terrorism. Polls consistently showed significant numbers of voters from both parties either opposed to the war itself or worried about the precedent of the pre-emptive action. Those same polls also showed terrorism as an important, but apparently separate concern. Voters may not have liked the President’s actions on Iraq, but their concerns about terrorism trumped those about the war. Exit interviews revealed that voters remembered Bush’s strength and leadership qualities immediately following 9/11, and perceived him as the more effective of the two candidates on addressing terrorism.
The issue of “family values,” represented in part by the “marriage” amendments appearing on ballots in 11 states, resulted in a heavy turnout of Christian Evangelicals. Some political observers believe that Michael Moore’s stumping the country with his “Fahrenheit 9/11” film served to further energize this block of voters.
Those worried about a Nader factor needn’t have. He collected 400,000 votes, or .03% of the votes cast.
Lastly, there was unease about the strength and appeal of the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Moderate Republicans who were lukewarm about supporting Bush had more doubts about voting for Kerry. Exit polls revealed that many Democrats voted more against Bush than for Kerry. In addition, John Edwards didn’t campaign with as much vigor as some had hoped, and he didn’t benefit the ticket in the South, which went totally for the President.
Although the election was as close as the one in 2000, the incidents of voter fraud and problems with voting machines which plagued the earlier race, did not surface with this one. Since Bush won both the popular and Electoral College vote, there is also no perception he stole the election.
The close outcome still points to a polarized country, however, and Bush will need to work quickly to unite the country--which will mean being open to compromise and appealing to the middle, something he didn’t do in his first term.
An immediate issue likely to face the President is the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s health is known to be precarious, and most people believe he will resign shortly after the President is inaugurated on January 20. There are expectations that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will also retire within the next year. Bush would do well to nominate moderate candidates to maintain balance on the high court, and avoid protracted enmity in the Senate and further polarization of the nation.
2. Republicans win key Senate races and boost their numbers in both Houses of Congress. The largest victory for Republicans occurred in South Dakota, when Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle--long a thorn in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s side--was defeated by Republican John Thune, in a very close 49% - 51% vote. Senator Harry Reid (D - Nevada) is expected to succeed Daschle as Senate Minority Leader.
With final results yet to be confirmed, it looks like the number of Republicans in the Senate will increase from 51 to 55 seats, only 5 shy of filibuster-proof control of the Floor. Democrats will retain 44 seats. There is one Independent, who usually votes with the Democrats. In the 435-seat House, Republicans look to gain 4 seats, bringing their numbers to 231. Democrats will occupy 201 seats, and there is one Independent, who, like his Senate counterpart, usually sides with the Democrats. There are 2 races undecided.
Louisiana elected its first Republican U.S. Senator since Reconstruction. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R - Alaska), appointed to fill her father’s Senate seat after he was elected Governor of Alaska, was able to overcome intense attacks of nepotism and defeat her popular Democratic challenger, former Governor Tony Knowles.
As mentioned above, in the Presidential race, Republicans swept the entire South and the Plains states, while Democrats captured the far West (California, Oregon and Washington) and the Northeast (11 states and D.C.). The Midwestern states were split between the two parties.
3. The Schwarzenegger Factor. Governor Schwarzenegger demonstrated influence with voters when they supported 11 of the 15 propositions on which he took positions, including 5 of 7 he identified as key. (The Governor took no position on Proposition 60A.) On those key measures, voters were in sync with him on opposing Propositions 68 and 70 (the Indian Gaming measures), Proposition 66 (changing the Three Strikes law), Proposition 67 (imposing a 3% surcharge on in-state phone calls to fund emergency services), and on supporting Proposition 1A (protecting local governments against state raids of their revenue).
Voters differed with him on Proposition 63 (taxing people with incomes over $1 million an additional 1% to finance mental health services)--he opposed the measure, while voters supported it--and on Proposition 62 (Open Primary), which he supported and voters rejected.
Voters also agreed with the Governor on Proposition 71, the stem-cell research measure that the Governor endorsed, but did not include in his key list of 7.
On the other hand, in seven targeted Assembly races where the Governor hoped to pick up or hold on to Republican seats, he scored only one victory: Incumbent Republican Shirley Horton managed to hold on to her San Diego seat by a slim margin (49.2% to 47.7%). Similarly, he campaigned to pick up one Republican seat and retain another in the Senate, but was successful in only one of the two races: Abel Maldonado won a sizable victory, 52.6% - 43.1%, over Democrat Peg Pinard in the 5th District (San Luis Obispo).
Nationally, the Governor’s one trip to Ohio on behalf of President Bush may have made the difference in that state’s razor thin support of the President.
4. California races generally predictable. John Kerry, as expected, won California by over 10 percentage points. Barbara Boxer kept her U.S. Senate seat, easily defeating Republican challenger Bill Jones by 20.3%. All 51 incumbent members of Congress won re-election by comfortable margins (60 to 70%).
Of the two open Congressional seats, Republican Dan Lungren won his seat by a 27% margin over his little known Democratic challenger, and Democrat Jim Costa defeated his Republican opponent, Roy Ashburn, in a tighter race by 7.4 percentage points. The composition of the state’s 53-member House delegation will remain unchanged, with 33 Democrats and 20 Republicans.
Term limits provided a large number of open seats in state legislative races, but thanks to a reapportionment plan that protected existing party occupants, agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats, Tuesday’s election produced no change in party configuration in either the state Assembly or Senate. The lower house will retain its 48 - 32 Democratic majority, and the Senate its 25 -15 Democratic majority.
5. Local Measures. Los Angeles City’s Measure O, a $500 million bond issue for storm-water cleanup, won by a huge margin, 75.8% to 24.2%. Los Angeles County’s Measure A, a ½ cent sales tax increase to fund public safety officers, didn’t fare as well, losing 60% to 40%. A two-thirds vote was required for both measures to pass.
In a news conference, LAPD Police Chief William Bratton and L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca both said they would pursue other avenues of funding to hire officers. Options mentioned include a quarter-cent sales tax with an equal match from cities within the county; an increase in real estate sales taxes; or funding within the county general fund allocation. The Daily News reported on Baca’s intent to ask the Board of Supervisors “to dedicate 40 percent of general fund revenue--up from the 28 percent he receives now.”
Baca was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News as saying he would try to “raise awareness about victims of crime by posting mini-biographies on the Web--like obituaries are run in local papers for military personnel in the Iraq war.”
The Mercury News noted that “The measure was a tough sell in Los Angeles, where violent crime was down 18.2 percent in the first half of 2004, following a 21 percent decrease the previous year.” It also didn’t help when, in late September, the County Supervisors “found” an unexpected surplus of more than $309 million for fiscal year 2004-05.
6. Voter turnout. An estimated 12 million of 16.5 million registered voters in California--or 73%--went to the polls on Tuesday. The previous record of 11.3 million voters was set in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected President. In Los Angeles County, Registrar-Recorder Conny McCormack estimated that 69.5% of Los Angeles County’s registered voters turned out to vote.
Nationwide, voter turnout was estimated at 59%--less than predicted, but the highest since 1968, when 62% cast ballots in the three-way Presidential race in which Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey and American Independent Party candidate George Wallace.
7. Voter exhaustion. More than a few voters expressed relief that the November 2, 2004 General Election was finally over.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
October 5, 2004
CAPITOL NEWS
1. Wrap-up Issue. This issue of Legislative Update contains the final action on bills followed within these pages over the past year. The next issue will cover the November 2 General Election results. The newsletter will then begin its fall hiatus, ending in January, when the Legislature convenes a new Biennial Legislative Session.
2. Election season reveals the one exception to the federal “Do Not Call” registry. Amid much fanfare, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the states began enforcing the National Do Not Call Registry on October 1, 2003. The law was enacted to provide citizens with relief from annoying telemarketer calls that always seem to be made during the dinner hour.
Although most people think that the law applied to all unsolicited calls, it actually made provision for one significant exception: Political calls. As the country moves closer to the November 2, 2004 General Election, the number of calls urging voters to support candidates and propositions grows exponentially.
The Congressional Quarterly cites Iowa as an example of a state that has experienced unusual activity. Quoting the Des Moines Register, at least 429 individuals have purchased voter registration information this year--“complete with names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses and voting history,” all of which is legally accessible.
3. Secretary of State Updates Voter Registration numbers. The latest report of voter registrants shows that 70.91% of California’s eligible voters have registered, up slightly from 2000, when 70.58% of those eligible had registered before the General Election in that year. Total registration is also up: 15,625,180 have registered 60 days before the Nov. 2, 2004 General Election, as opposed to 15,126,262, who registered 60 days before the November 8, 2000 General Election. As of September 3, registration by political party is as follows:
· Democrats: 43.2%
· Republicans: 35.0%
· Other: 4.7%
· Declined to state: 17.1%
Registration in the Democratic Party has declined from 45.5% to 43.2%, while registration in the Republican Party has remained the same at 35.0% The biggest change is in “Declined to State,” which jumped from 14.2% to 17.1%.
4. Funding for the arts continues to shrink in California. In her recent newsletter, Assembly Member Fran Pavley reported that California has fallen to last place in the nation for per capita arts funding. Hawaii ranks first at $5.25 arts funding per person, while California ranks dead last at 9 cents per person. Funding for the California Arts Council has dropped from $30 million in 2000-01 to $17 million in 2002-03 to $1 million in 2004-05. Pavley indicated that the Legislature increased funding for the Council to $2 million, but that the Governor had used his line-item veto to reduce it back to $1 million.
The impact of the reduction is immeasurable in terms of grants to local arts groups for such activities as children’s art workshops, community concerts, and local theater. Especially when coupled with reductions in arts and music programs in the public schools, and when non-profit organizations are also having a tough time attracting private donations for the arts.
5. Governor issues Executive Order establishing the California Service Corps (CSC), with his wife, Maria Shriver, serving as Honorary Chairwoman. The CSC will encourage volunteerism in the state, urging Californians to contribute both money and time to individual causes. The agency, which replaces former Governor Gray Davis’s GOSERV, will also promote more public-private partnerships, serve as a resource to assist citizens trying to connect with charitable groups in their areas, facilitate the expansion of community programs, and provide grants for a variety of organizations and citizen groups.
Marie Moretti, who was the executive director of GOSERV, will continue to serve in that capacity to the new organization. Moretti is the sister of former Assembly Speaker Bob Moretti and the founding director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs. She was appointed by the current Governor to serve as the head of his Office of Service and Volunteerism in March 2004.
The budget for the CSC will remain essentially the same as it was for GOSERV: About $1.8 million in federal and state funds.
6. Former state Senator Richard Mountjoy (R - Arcadia) and Assembly Member Mark Wyland (R - Del Mar) are two of five sponsors of an initiative seeking to curtail public benefits currently available to illegal immigrants. The initiative effort, launched on September 22, would amend the state Constitution “to prohibit aliens unlawfully in the United States from obtaining: a driver’s license or government identification card; a college fee or tuition exemption; a government grant, contract, or loan; a professional or commercial license; or any other public benefit not required by federal law.” The initiative would also make “any government official who willfully violates the prohibitions personally liable for litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and actual damages.”
Mountjoy and his co-sponsors have until March 4, 2005, to collect 598,105 signatures to qualify their initiative for the March 2006 ballot.
Mountjoy also co-authored Proposition 187, the controversial 1994 ballot measure that sought to deny illegal immigrants federally-mandated health and welfare benefits, as well as access to public schools. Although the measure won the popular vote, it was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. The current initiative addresses only state-mandated assistance. It would not prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving federally mandated benefits.
7. Despite critics’ skepticism, more states offered “state tax holidays” to taxpayers this fall for back-to-school purchases. According to StateNet Capitol Journal, 12 states provided the program as opposed to 9 last year. The nine include Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont and West Virginia. Florida discontinued its program in 2002 due to budget problems, but reinstated it this year, while Massachusetts and Missouri offered it for the first time.
The programs exempt from sales tax include certain purchases tied to back-to-school items, such as clothes, shoes and personal computers. Taxpayers like the programs for the perceived savings they offer, and legislators are also fond of them--Republicans because it reflects the party’s oft-stated priority for lowering taxes, and Democrats because it heralds that party’s interest in helping the working poor.
Skeptics note that many stores increase their prices. Capitol Journal cites tax analysts who say the tax breaks are only perceived, not real. Consumers turn out in large numbers and end up paying more for their purchases while “saving” the sales tax. The tax holiday is not such a good thing for state governments either, since the loss to the state treasury can be in the millions. Capitol Journal offers Massachusetts and Texas as two examples: The former estimates it will lose between $6 to 10 million, while the latter anticipates losing $36 million.
Former Governor Gray Davis proposed a similar “sales tax holiday” for California in his 2001-02 budget. His plan was to suspend the sales tax for 3 days in late August for back-to-school purchases under $200 for clothing or footwear, and for computer hardware priced under $1,000. (Since a portion of the sales tax is imposed by local governments, Davis’ plan gave local governments the option not to participate in the “tax holiday.”) Despite the limited applicability, the state Board of Equalization estimated the loss to the state would be $45.9 million. The Governor’s proposal was not pursued in the state Legislature, given the size of the state’s growing deficit.
8. California Secretary of Food and Agriculture provides briefing to congressional staffers on state’s specialty crops. Secretary A.G. Kawamura spoke in support of H.R. 3242, “The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2003,” which would authorize federal grants to be made to states to enhance specialty crop competitiveness. Since the grant amounts are based on the specialty crop production value, California would receive upwards of $500 million. The bill, authored by California Representatives Doug Ose (Sacramento) and Cal Dooley (Visalia), also provides money for specialty crop food safety programs and for K-12 school garden programs that permit children to learn about specialty crops’ dietary importance.
The act defines “specialty crop” as all agricultural crops, except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar and tobacco. H.R. 3242 has 120 co-sponsors, including 38 of the 53-member California House delegation.
According to Secretary Kawamura, as reported in California Capitol Hill Bulletin, “California is far and away the largest national and international supplier of specialty crops,” being the 4th largest agricultural market in the world. He also indicated that
· California produces half of the nation’s fruits, vegetables and nuts, and that “almonds, which nationally are only cultivated in California, may eclipse wheat as the largest value export for the U.S.”
· Specialty crops “generate greater net revenue for the United States than all commodity crops (grains and other subsidized crops).”
· “Salinas Valley cultivates 85 different specialty crops,” and that Monterey County, which encompasses Salinas Valley, “grows more types of crops than any other state.”
· “ In California, agriculture employs more than 1 million people and generates $28 billion in economic activity.”
Since being introduced, the bill has been amended significantly to reduce the amount of funding available to specialty crop producers from $500 million to $49 million. California Capitol Hill Bulletin reports that while Representatives lamented the inequity in funding between specialty crops and other crops, the consensus was not to “undo” the 2002 Farm bill, but wait until the bill is up for Reauthorization in 2007 to address the issue.
9. Public higher education in California. Capitol Hill Bulletin reports a startling statement made by UC President Robert Dynes at a California booster group luncheon last week. Dynes said that federal funding accounts for 27% of the UC budget, as opposed to 24% from the state of California, with the remaining 49% coming from private sources.
When the California Master Plan for Public Higher Education was adopted in 1960, the state’s vision was to ensure California’s future by making low cost higher education available to any student who wished to pursue it. In the last 4 decades, that vision deteriorated from state-supported to state-assisted, then sank to state-located, and finally, as a result of three years of enrollment and funding reductions, to state-impeded. Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, whose administration advanced a number of long-range initiatives to enhance the state’s wellbeing-- including the Master Plan, construction of a statewide freeway system, and the California Aqueduct--must be turning over in his grave.
10. The latest Schwarzenegger toy hits the market. Not too long ago, an enterprising firm developed a “bobblehead” doll in the image of the Governor. The doll was dressed in a business suit and was armed with an assault rifle and a shoulder ammunition belt. Arguing that the doll capitalized on his movie image, the Governor sued under the state’s “right of publicity” law, which protects a celebrity’s name and likeness from being used for commercial purposes without consent, and the doll was withdrawn from the market.
Another entrepreneur has developed still another “bobblehead” doll, this one modeled after the Governor as a “girlie man,” dressed in a hot pink dress and pink heels. Since this image is not based on Schwarzenegger the actor, but Schwarzenegger the Governor, and the phrase “girlie man” was created by him in that role, the consensus from legal quarters seems to be he wouldn’t prevail in a second lawsuit. As one attorney, who wrote an op/ed piece in the Times on this issue said, “Once you run for political office, it’s hasta la vista, baby, to your right of publicity when it comes to dolls, bumper stickers and T-shirts that sell your image along with some commentary.”
11. New design for the lowly nickel. The Congressional Quarterly reports that the U.S. mint is issuing two new designs for the nickel to honor the Lewis & Clark Expedition across America, and Thomas Jefferson who asked Congress to approve and fund it. According to CQ, a new likeness of Jefferson will appear on both versions of the coin, with different designs on the back. One version features an American bison on a grassy patch (“a design reminiscent of the buffalo nickel first issued in 1913”), and the other a view of the water from a rocky coastline dotted with trees--and the phrase, “Ocean in view! O! The joy!” The quote is from William Clark’s journal and marks the moment he first cast his eyes on the Pacific Ocean in 1805.
* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *
AB 858 (Goldberg) Athletic Team Names and Mascots
Establishes the California Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname, commencing January 1, 2006.
The ban would not affect schools in “Indian country.” Schools that purchased uniforms prior to January 2006 would be allowed to use them, so long as they have selected a replacement name for their teams.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 21. In his veto message, the Governor suggested the legislation wasn’t needed by pointing out that “existing statute already affords local school boards general control over all aspects of their interscholastic athletic policies, programs and activities. Decisions regarding athletic teams’ names, nicknames or mascots should be retained at the local level.”
The Governor pointedly added, “At a time when we should all be working together to increase the academic achievement of all California’s students, adding another non-academic state administrative requirement for schools to comply with takes more focus away from getting kids to learn at the highest levels.”
For Assembly Member Jackie Goldberg, this veto represents her second failed attempt to enact law to prohibit use of Native American tribal names as school mascots or nicknames. Her first bill on the issue, AB 2115, failed to pass the Assembly in 2002. Goldberg, who called the Governor’s veto message “silly,” said she would be back next January with her third attempt.
AB 1880 (Maze) Tuition Waivers for Veterans
Sought reduced tuition and fees for students serving in the armed forces who had exhausted their eligibility for any federal military educational benefits.
Status: The bill died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1893 (Haynes) California Master Plan for Higher Education
This was a “spot” bill, introduced by the author as a placeholder for content that will be inserted at a later date, relating to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California.
Status: The bill was never activated.
AB 1914 (Montanez) Education in State Prisons
Makes changes in the Prison Education Reform Act, with the goal of making every reasonable effort to provide every inmate, who has a realistic expectation of release, with the opportunity to achieve a specified level of functional literacy.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 30. In his veto message, the Governor said that while he “appreciated and shared” the author’s interest in improving correctional education programs,” he believed that her bill would “only hamper the improvements being planned and implemented” by the new Director, Jeanne Woodford, whom he recently appointed.
The Governor also noted several concerns: (1) The bill “eliminates accountability for the education programs by creating another layer of bureaucracy that is not directly answerable to the Director.” (2) The bill would replace an existing committee, which includes representatives from all three higher education systems and the Superintendent of Public Instruction, “with a 15-member Correctional Education Committee, appointed by 12 different appointing authorities,” thus further “hampering the Director’s ability to improve and expand education programs.”
AB 1958 (Frommer) PERS: Pharmaceutical Purchasing Consortiums
Authorizes PERS to establish or enter into a pharmaceutical consortium with group, individual, or institutional participants, all of whom, for enrollment in the consortium, would be required to pay an annual fee to cover the administrative costs of providing prescription drugs.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 30. In his veto message, the Governor stated that current law “already authorizes the Department of General Services to purchase pharmaceuticals on behalf of a number of State agencies…and also authorizes PERS to enter into joint purchasing arrangements, including prescription drug purchasing arrangements with public or private entities under certain conditions.”
Of more concern to the Governor was his belief that this bill “undermines efforts to develop and implement a California Pharmacy Assistance Program which is a proposed program to address the high cost of drugs for the uninsured.” The Governor said that the Department of Health Services has a “proven track record for obtaining discounts and supplemental rebates for pharmaceuticals, while the proposed Consortium would have competing interests and goals when purchasing and negotiating drugs for governmental entities and individual enrollees.”
AB 1969 (McLeod) CSU & UC: Course in Employee Ethics
This bill would require the CSU and urge the UC to offer, on at least a semiannual basis, to each member, officer, or designated employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests, an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of university administrators.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, August 23, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 264, Statutes of 2004]
AB 1973 (Nation) CSU: Employee Relations
Sought to provide that the CSU is authorized to agree, in an Memorandum of Understanding, to wage and benefit issues and to reallocate resources within its budget priorities to implement the agreement, if that reallocation is within its overall budget authority, as specified in the applicable annual Budget Act.
Status: The CSU and the Statewide University Police Association (SUPA) arrived at an agreement that allowed SUPA to drop its sponsorship of this bill and of SB 1445. [See SB 1445 below.]
AB 1997 (Committee on Higher Ed) Postsecondary Education: Student Financial Aid: National Guard
Makes changes in the recently enacted National Guard Assumption Program of Loans for Education, a program that provides eligible California National Guard members with a repayment of their loans for study at a college or university.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 16, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 549, Statutes of 2004]
AB 1999 (Committee on Higher Educ.) California State University TRUSTEE BILL
AB 1999 is an “omnibus” bill that contains essentially non-controversial items, including the repeal of obsolete provisions in the Codes. As an example, Education Code Section 90450 authorizes CSU, Chico to dispose of six houses located on the campus to parties willing to preserve and restore them. The transactions authorized by this Section have been completed, and thus the need for the provision has expired. This bill would repeal Section 90450.
Other provisions include (1) a proposal to conform sections of the CSU Contract Law to the State Contract Act to ensure that the minor contract limit for CSU is automatically adjusted to be consistent with the limit for state contracts identified by the Department of Finance; and (2) repeal of an outdated Education Code section relating to printing and binding services performed by the Department of General Services for CSU.
The bill does contain one controversial item, a proposal to appoint a non-faculty CSU employee for a two-year term on the CSU Board of Trustees. This provision will only take effect if AB 2849 is also enacted. (AB 2849 provides for the additional member, but restricts that individual from participating on any Trustee subcommittee responsible for collective bargaining negotiations.)
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 9, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 417, Statutes of 2004]
AB 2046 (Garcia) State computers: Prohibited use: Obscene matter
Sought to make it unlawful for any person to use a state-owned or state-leased computer to access, view, download or otherwise obtain obscene matter.
Status: The bill was not pursued by the author.
AB 2079 (Oropeza) Voter Information Privacy
Seeks to inform voters about the permissible uses of the personal information supplied by them when completing a voter registration form by requiring that the uses be posted on official election websites.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 27. The Governor noted in his veto message that the bill intended to address various recommendations of the Secretary of State’s Task Force on Voter Privacy, but that he believed “an open election process instills confidence in California’s voters and that any effort to protect a voter’s privacy must be weighed against the open elections process.” The Governor also identified provisions in the bill relating to the processing of provisional ballots, with which he disagreed.
AB 2207 (Levine) Statistical Districts: San Fernando Valley
This bill would require any state agency or department that develops and maintains data and statistics on the municipal level, to make a separate breakdown of the San Fernando Valley, in the preparation and maintenance of any statistical analyses by city.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, July 19, and Chaptered by the Secretary of State, July 20. [Chapter 181, Statutes of 2004]
AB 2245 (Parra) Interagency Task Force on Excellence in Economic Development
Sought to require the Governor to establish an Interagency Task Force on Excellence in Economic Development to study how to improve the state’s capacity to meet the regional needs of business and industry. (The Task Force would have included representation from each of the three segments of public higher education: UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges system.)
Status: The bill was not pursued by the author.
AB 2278 (Dymally) Community Colleges: Funding
Expressed legislative concern with the current method of funding community colleges and stated intent to base funding instead on full-time enrollment (the basis on which both the UC and CSU are funded), and on the national average of state financial support for community colleges.
Status: The bill was not pursued by the author.
AB 2339 (McLeod) California State University: Board of Trustees
Prohibits the UC Regents, CSU Trustees, and the State Board of Education from conducting their regular meetings on the same day.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 17. The Governor’s veto message was curt: “The bill is unnecessary. I see no reason why a bill needs to be enacted into law that dictates the coordination of meeting schedules.”
AB 2460 (Campbell) State Employees: Holidays
Sought to limit the number of holidays observed by state employees.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [1 - 8] in the Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee, April 21.
AB 2477 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Production and Pricing of College Textbooks
Urges textbook publishers to take specified actions to reduce the cost of college textbooks for both public and private university and college students. Requires the CSU and Community Colleges, and requests the UC, to work with their respective academic senates to encourage faculty to consider the least costly practices in assigning textbooks.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 16, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 556, Statutes of 2004]
AB 2574 (Diaz) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy
Expressed Legislative intent to develop a framework of policy principles for governing boards, the Legislature, and the administration to follow when taking action on the fees or fee policies of California’s public postsecondary educational institutions.
Status: The bill was not pursued by the author, when he and the Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee decided instead to work on consolidating several proposed student fee policy bills into one. [See AB 2710 below.]
AB 2615 (Committee on Higher Educ.) Cross-Enrollment Reporting
This bill would repeal obsolete reporting provisions in the law relating to students who cross-enroll (i.e., students who enroll, without formal admission and on a space-available basis, in a course at a campus of another public segment of higher education).
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, August 27, and Chaptered by the Secretary of State, August 30. [Chapter 349, Statutes of 2004]
AB 2637 (Diaz) CSU: Whistleblower Protection
Requires the CSU to employ an independent investigator on all complaints filed by employees who allege they have been retaliated against for having engaged in a protected disclosure.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 16. In his veto message, the Governor said in part, “The existing statutory and CSU Executive Order frameworks provide adequate protection for those that believe that they have been retaliated against for having reported improper activities. It is unclear how requiring CSU to employ an external investigator will provide a better process.”
AB 2662 (Jackson) Gender Discrimination
Sought to require the state to evaluate state agencies and departments to ensure that policies do not discriminate against women and girls. [As written, the bill did not specifically apply to the CSU as a “state agency.” Current law requires that any provision meant to apply to the CSU must specifically state so.]
Status: Died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2678 (Koretz) Textbook Rental Library Service
Authorizes postsecondary education institutions, under certain conditions, to establish textbook rental services for students.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 16. In his veto message, the Governor said that while he is “generally supportive of textbook rental programs,” he is opposed to allowing “additional fees to be assessed to all students, even those not using the program, in order to keep a textbook rental service financially self-sustaining.”
AB 2710 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy
Establishes state policies for mandatory systemwide student fees and financial aid for undergraduate students at public universities. [Note: Several bills were introduced addressing student fee increases--AB 2574, SB 786, SB 1329 and SB 1535. SB 786 was defeated in the Senate Education Committee, and the rest were dropped when it was agreed to make AB 2710 the sole vehicle for state policy governing the issue.]
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 18. In a short, succinct message, the Governor stated that he could not sign this bill because it “establishes a resident student fee policy that is inconsistent with the student fee policy provisions of the higher education Compact” that he reached with the UC and the CSU.
AB 2764 (Bates) Charter Schools: Alternative Authority
Sought to establish a pilot program that would allow the UC, CSU and the California Community Colleges to authorize no more than 10 campuses within their respective segments to approve and administer one charter school each.
Status: Died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2800 (Mountjoy) Academic Materials: Distribution of Academic Work
Sought to move sections from the Donahoe Act, relating to the prohibition against preparing, selling and distributing term papers on public and private higher education campuses, to the Education Code, making the provisions applicable to both post-secondary education institutions and public and private elementary and secondary schools. The bill also sought to make these prohibitions applicable to academic materials prepared, sold, or otherwise distributed for admissions purposes.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [18 - 3] in the Senate, August 5, and again [14 - 16] upon reconsideration, August 10. The bill, which needed a majority (21votes) to pass, was rejected because of concerns relating to enforcement issues.
AB 2833 (Plescia) Public Postsecondary Education: Dual Admissions
Sought to require the CSU and the UC to establish a dual admissions program with the community colleges.
Status: Died in the Assembly Higher Education Committee. [Note: While the CSU supported this bill, Mark Drummond, Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, expressed concerns that the funding proposed in the Governor’s Budget was inadequate to support the program. The Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges officially opposed the bill for the same reason.]
AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees
Increases the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term--but precluding the member from participating on any subcommittee of the Board responsible for collective bargaining negotiations. [Note: This bill is conjoined to AB 1999 above, meaning both bills must be enacted for either to take effect.]
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 10. In his veto message, the Governor said he found “no compelling reason” to increase the 24-member Board. He called the bill “unnecessary,” since, “Under current law, the Governor is authorized to appoint 16 at-large members to the Board, one of whom may be a non-faculty employee.”
AB 2912 (Goldberg) Interpreters and Transliterators for the Deaf
Sought to regulate sign language and sign language transliterators who offer services to the deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers for compensation.
Status: Died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2923 (Liu) Consolidation of Postsecondary Commissions
Recasts and revises provisions in the Donahoe Higher Education Act relating to the duties, membership, priorities, and policy responsibilities of the California Postsecondary Education Commission.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 15. In his veto message, the Governor made reference to the California Performance Review (CPR) Commission, which recently issued its report with over one thousand recommendations for streamlining state government.
He stated that while this bill “may have merit in its intent to basically revitalize the California Postsecondary Education Commission,” the CPR “advocates for a more comprehensive approach to higher education governance restructuring, [and] we need to continue the work begun by the CPR before enacting a measure like this.”
AB 2938 (Plescia) California State Lottery: Revenues
Sought to increase the percentage of lottery revenue allocated to prizes and decrease the percentage of revenue allocated to administrative expenses and to public education, on the theory that more people would buy lottery tickets if there were more prizes, and the increased revenue from lottery sales would ultimately increase the amount of money going to education.
Status: Died in the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization.
AB 3064 (Committee on Higher Educ.) Public Postsecondary Education: Group Purchasing
Sought to add a provision to the Donahoe Higher Education Act authorizing a public postsecondary educational institution to purchase goods and services through a group purchasing program under prescribed conditions.
Status: Died in the Senate Education Committee.
ACA 23 (Daucher) Open Primary
Sought to amend the State Constitution to require primary elections in which voters could vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration, with the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of party, advancing to the general election.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [1 - 2] in the Assembly Committee on Elections, Redistricting and Constitutional Amendments, May 4. [Note: While this measure failed, an initiative with the same content qualified, and will appear as Proposition 62 on the November 2 ballot.]
ACA 25 (Mullin) Elections: Voting Age
Sought to authorize a person who is at least 17 years of age and who will be 18 at the time of the next general election, to vote in that election and in any intervening local, state and federal election.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [46 - 32] in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, June 14. [Note: Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote for passage.]
ACA 31 (Canciamilla) Legislature: Redistricting Commission: Term Limits
Sought to amend the term limits law to lengthen Senate and Assembly terms to 3 four-year and 6 two-year terms, respectively. Also sought to create an independent commission to develop redistricting plans every ten years, giving the state Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction over any and all challenges to the plans.
Status: The measure was introduced late in the session, on June 30, 2004, and was never heard in any committee.
ACR 173 (McCarthy) California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Week
Proclaimed March 14 to March 20, 2004, California Nonprofits and Philanthropy Week.
Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State, March 16. [Res. Chapter 17, Statutes of 2004]
ACR 174 (Kehoe) Arts Education Month
Proclaimed the month of March 2004 as Arts Education Month, and encouraged all educational communities to celebrate the arts with meaningful pupil activities and programs that demonstrate learning and understanding in the visual and performing arts.
Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State, April 2. [Res. Chapter 27, Statutes of 2004]
ACR 195 (Yee) Literacy Instruction: Braille
Encouraged school districts, the State Department of Education, The California State University, and the United States Department of Education to generate greater efforts to fund literacy instruction for blind and visually impaired pupils. [The measure noted that only CSU, San Francisco and CSU, Los Angeles, currently offer visually impaired certification to graduate students.]
Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State, August 9. [Res. Chapter 134, Statutes of 2004.]
ACR 202 (Levine) Library Week
This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims April 18 to 24, 2004 as Library Week in California. [Note: Assembly Member Levine introduced this resolution on March 24 at CSUN’s request. National Library Week, already proclaimed, coincides with the state’s week.]
Status: Chaptered by the Secretary of State, May 3. [Resolution Chapter No. 49]
HR 40 (Diaz) The California State University: Presidential Searches
Urged the Trustees of the California State University to develop a more inclusive selection process for filling vacancies in campus presidencies, and to consider including public input from the communities that a prospective CSU president will represent.
Status: Referred to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, February 24, but the measure was never heard.
SB 74 (Torlakson) State Property: Vending Machines
Sought to authorize state agencies, including the CSU, to conduct surveys and provide information to users, upon request, on the nutritional values of the food and beverages offered in vending machines.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 5] in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, June 8.
SB 786 (Denham) Postsecondary Education Institutions: Policy re: Increases in Tuition
Expressed the intent of the Legislature that proposed increases in tuition be posted at least one full semester or quarter before being implemented.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [3 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, January 14. All six opposing votes were cast by Democrats, who questioned whether the one semester notice period was reasonable.
SB 790 (Morrow) Contracting for Non-instructional Services
Sought to repeal provisions in existing law that prohibit school and community college districts from entering into contracts for personal services customarily performed by classified employees, unless cost savings can be demonstrated.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, January 14, with all six opposing votes cast by Democrats.
SB 843 (Denham) Academic Leaves for Military Personnel
Initially introduced in 2003, this bill sought to make changes in existing law relating to academic leave, loan assumption programs, and enrollment fee waivers for certain members of the military when active duty interrupts undergraduate college attendance.
Status: Bill was referred to the Senate Education Committee on January 8 and subsequently amended, but it was never brought up for a vote.
SB 1161 (Alpert) Library Bond Act
Seeks to enact the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006, for submission to voters at the 2006 statewide primary election. The Act would authorize the sale of $1 billion in General Obligation bonds to finance library construction and renovation.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor on September 22 and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 698, Statutes of 2004]
SB 1175 (Denham) Construction Requirements: UC & CSU Classrooms in Community College Buildings
Sought to require buildings acquired after January 1, 2005, for community college use to meet the standards of either the Field Act (which governs K-12 public schools) or the 1976 Uniform Building Code (which governs state colleges and universities). [Note: generally, the Field Act contains more rigorous (and more costly) building standards than the California Building Standards Code.]
Status: FAILED PASSAGE TWICE in the Assembly Higher Education Committee, June 15 [3 - 3] and June 22 [3 - 0]. [Note: Seven votes were needed for passage.]
SB 1182 (Margett) California Master Plan for Higher Education
Introduced by the author as a “spot” bill, a placeholder for content that he intended to insert at a later date, relating to the Master Plan for Higher Education in California.
Status: Bill was never advanced by the author.
SB 1245 (Kuehl) CSU: Professional Nursing Programs Act
Relates to the establishment of entry-level Master’s programs in nursing at CSU campuses.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor on September 23 and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 718, Statutes of 2004]
SB 1261 (Vasconcellos) International Relations
Among other things, this bill sought to recognize the UC and the CSU as the primary state entities for the development and promotion of international education and student exchange programs, the establishment of overseas educational programs, cooperative international research, and the promotion of technology transfers and exchange.
Status: Died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1293 (Alarcon) Foster Children: Education
Sought to declare legislative intent to minimize the fragmentation of the education of pupils in foster care by reducing the time they spend waiting for their transcripts to reach their new schools. Also sought to encourage the 3 systems of public higher education to disseminate information to foster care agencies regarding admission requirements, access, and financial aid.
Status: Bill never pursued by the author.
SB 1322 (Denham) Veterans: Student Financial Aid
Makes changes in existing law relating to academic leave, loan assumption programs, and enrollment fee waivers for certain members of the military when active duty interrupts undergraduate college attendance. [Note: This bill is a re-introduction of last year’s SB 843, which died when it didn’t pass from its house of origin by the January 31 deadline. Part of the difficulty with this bill related to its high costs at a time when the state was experiencing severe fiscal constraints.]
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 16, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 554, Statutes of 2004]
SB 1329 (Denham) Public Postsecondary Education: Tuition Increases
Sought to enact the Student Protection Act of 2004, relating to the establishment of student fee policies.
Status: See note on AB 2710 above.
SB 1331 (Alpert) Postsecondary Education: Accountability
Establishes a California Postsecondary Education Accountability structure that provides an annual assessment of how California is meeting statewide public policy goals in higher education.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 16. The Governor cited two reasons for vetoing this legislation. He said that while he favors accountability, this bill “mainly establishes only a reporting structure for four broad policy goals rather than providing for outcomes, such as performance-based measures, historically associated with accountability systems.”
Secondly, he objected to the bill’s requirement that the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) collect and analyze data relating to the four broad policy goals, since CPEC is one of the higher education entities that the California Performance Review Commission has recommended be restructured. The Governor said, “It is premature to implement a new data collection system until the recommendations of the [CPR] are reviewed and more fully vetted for feasibility and efficiency.”
SB 1335 (Morrow) Public Postsecondary Education Standards: Academic Bill of Rights
Sought to request the UC, and direct the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to develop guidelines and implement an Academic Bill of Rights, relating to academic freedom.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 9] by the Senate Education Committee, April 21.
SB 1415 (Brulte) Postsecondary Education: Common Course Numbering System
In order to facilitate the transfer process, requires the CCC and the CSU, and authorizes the University of California (UC) and the state's private postsecondary institutions, to adopt a common course number system for their 20 majors in highest demand by June 1, 2006.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 24, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 737, Statutes of 2004]
SB 1418 (Vasconcellos) Articulation of Education Purpose and Policy
Declared the purposes of public education in California and set forth the principles that should guide the operation and future development of the public school system, from K-12 through the state colleges.
Status: VETOED by the Governor, August 27. In his veto message, the Governor said in part that the bill concerned him because it “creates expectations that the state will deliver an education system without providing specific programmatic changes needed to achieve the general goals and principles” embodied in the bill.
The Governor said he would be willing to work in collaboration with legislators and the education community to “revise specific educational programs to be more effective and find new ways to serve all students.” The Governor also indicated that while he thought the bill was well-meaning in its intent, he was concerned that it “could create grounds for litigation against the state in the future for failing to meet its ambiguous goals.”
SB 1445 (Dunn) California State University: Police
Sought to require the Trustees of the CSU to perform prescribed duties with respect to hiring campus police.
Status: The CSU and the Statewide University Police Association (SUPA) arrived at an agreement that allowed SUPA to drop its sponsorship of this bill and AB 1973.
SB 1502 (McClintock) Postsecondary Education: Veterans: Resident Classification
Sought to eliminate the one-year limitation on resident classification for active duty members of the U.S. armed forces who want to pursue graduate study--a benefit already provided to undergraduate students.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 1] in the Senate Education Committee, April 22. [Note: Seven votes were needed for passage. This bill triggered a debate on the resident and non-resident student policies governing public higher education in California, which ultimately led to the defeat of the bill.] The author did not request reconsideration.
SB 1503 (McClintock) Public Postsecondary Education: Nonresident Admissions Criteria
Sought to repeal provisions in existing law that require illegal aliens, who have attended high school in California for three or more years and graduated from a California high school, to be exempted from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the CSU.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [1 - 10] in the Senate Education Committee, March 31. The author did not request reconsideration.
SB 1535 (Karnette) CSU, UC: Student Fee Policies
Sought to require the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the California Postsecondary Education Commission, in consultation with the UC, the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to propose a statewide policy on the mandatory systemwide student fees.
Status: See note on AB 2710 above.
SB 1588 (Poochigian) UC, CSU, CCC: Volunteer Service
Sought to authorize any current or retired faculty member employed, or previously employed, by a CSU or California Community College campus, to volunteer to teach, without compensation, any for-credit course that would be applicable to unit, graduation, or grade-point average credit for students at those campuses.
Status: Bill was not pursued by the author.
SB 1727 (Scott) Community Colleges: Facilities
Sought to repeal the provisions of the Field Act that apply to community college facilities.
Status: Bill was not pursued by the author. [Note: See also SB 1175 above.]
SB 1760 (Perata) Sovereign Immunity: Waiver: Americans with Disability Act.
Adds a new section to the Government Code, declaring that the state consents to be sued in state or federal court if it is alleged to have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Status: VETOED by the Governor, September 29. In his veto message, the Governor stated that the bill was unnecessary because, “in many instances California disability laws provide more extensive remedies than those contained in federal law.”
The Governor said he also opposed expressly waiving the State’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to permit lawsuits for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
[Note: The Governor issued Executive Order 04-18 the day before he vetoed SB 1760. The EO affirms the State’s commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and also requires the California Health and Human Services Agency to assess various state abilities to accommodate the disabled population.
A copy of the Executive Order can be accessed through the Governor’s website: http://www.governor.ca.gov Click on Press Room, upper left, and then on Executive Orders on the next screen.]
SB 1785 (Scott/Alpert) Public Postsecondary Education: Transfer requirements
Establishes a transfer program with the purpose of ensuring that community college students who wish to earn baccalaureate degrees at a CSU campus are able to do so, and requires the CSU to carry out specified tasks in connection with the establishment of this program.
Status: APPROVED by the Governor, September 24, and chaptered by the Secretary of State on the same date. [Chapter 743, Statutes of 2004]
SCA 15 (McClintock) State Contracts: Contracting Out-of-State Services
Sought to place in the state Constitution a provision giving the Governor the authority to require any state agency to contract out for services that otherwise could be performed by the state civil service, if the Governor determines that terms more favorable to the state may be obtained.
Would also have required that any contracts entered into be awarded on a competitive bid basis.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 7] in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee, April 20.
SCA 19 (Vasconcellos) Minimum Voting Age
Sought to lower the voting age to 16 years in California and require the Legislature to develop programs that prepare persons 14 years of age and older to vote.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [3 - 5] in the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 12.
SR 32 (McPherson) Senate Rule: Consideration of Bills with Appropriations
Sought to amend Senate Rule 28.8 and provide that the Senate may not consider a bill that makes an appropriation unless the bill identifies a new or existing source of funding, and declares that sufficient monies are available from that source to fund the appropriation.
Status: Measure never pursued by the author.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
August 18, 2004
CAPITOL NEWS
1. Governor appoints CPR team. Shortly after the 275-member California Performance Review team submitted its 2547 page report on August 3, the Governor appointed a 21-member commission to conduct hearings around the state on the 1200 recommendations contained in the report. While the CPR team included state employees, outside consultants and top aides, the commission comprises legislators and public officials, business community leaders, higher education officials, and business executives. Two co-chairs will lead the commission in its work, Bill Hauck, President of the California Business Roundtable (and former member of the CSU Board of Trustees), and Joanne Kozberg, currently a member of the UC Board of Regents, and a partner in California Strategies, a public affairs consulting firm.
The schedule, which has been changed a number of times, currently includes 7 hearings, one of which was held last week, and two of which have sites yet to be determined:
August 13, 10 am to 3 pm – Site: UC, Riverside
Topic:
Infrastructure
August 20, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: UC, San Diego
Topic: Health & Human Services
August 27, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: San Jose State University
Topic:
General Government; Information Technology, Performance-based Mgmt,
Procurement & Personnel
September 9, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: To be determined
Topic:
Education, Training & Volunteerism
September 10, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: CSU, Long Beach
Topic:
Corrections Reform and Public Safety
September 17, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: CSU, Fresno
Topic:
Resource Conservation and Environmental Protection
September 24, 10 am to 4 pm – Site: Davis, with the specific site yet to be
determined
Topic:
Government Reorganization
It will be the Commission’s job to collect responses and organize them in a way that allows for prioritizing and developing feasible implementation plans. The Governor then has several options available to him. He could urge the Legislature to adopt the entire plan in one bill (about as likely as any of us winning the state lottery). Or he could take the recommendations to the voters in a single, omnibus initiative (which would not only kill a forest of trees, but would invite a court challenge since such a measure would violate the single subject rule, specified in the state Constitution). Or he could place multiple initiatives on the ballot (which voters, notoriously wary of proposition-laden ballots, might entirely reject).
Bruce Cain, Director of the Institute for Governmental Studies at UC, Berkeley, suggested to StateNet Capitol Journal that “the smart thing for Schwarzenegger to do would be to find out which proposals the Legislature is willing to adopt and get those out of the way, and then if there’s something that has no chance of going though the Legislature, if he really believes in it, and he polls it, and it would pass…do that through the initiative.” Recent indications signal that this route will be the one the Governor travels.
There has been an outpouring of responses about the CPR report already--ranging from negative and/or skeptical to positive and/or hopeful, with the champions of both extremes coming from predictable sources. The general public appears to be curious, but uncommitted. Whatever final plan emerges, following the hearings and the deliberations of the commission, will be clucked over like chickens over grain. The Governor will have to campaign hard to get it adopted.
What are the odds for success? StateNet Capitol Journal noted in a recent issue that, according to the Little Hoover Commission (an agency created in 1962, as a bipartisan, independent body to promote efficiency, effectiveness and economy in state programs), there have been 29 state reorganization plans proposed since 1968. Guess how many have been adopted?
2. More Ballot Measures. Two additional measures have been placed on the November 2, 2004 ballot, one as a result of a court case, and the other the consequence of budget negotiations between the Governor and the Legislature.
Proposition 60A: Surplus State Property Sales. As a result of a court ruling declaring Proposition 60 unconstitutional because it violates Article II, Section 8 (d) of the state Constitution barring initiatives that embrace more than one subject, the proposition has been split into two separate measures. Proposition 60 now relates only to the “open primary” (a misnomer, since the measure seeks to retain the current “closed primary” system), and a Proposition 60A, which addresses the issue of surplus state property sales.
Specifically, Proposition 60A is a Constitutional Amendment providing that the proceeds from the sale of surplus state property shall be used to pay the principal and interest on bonds issued as a result of voters approving Proposition 57 last March.
Proposition 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues. This Constitutional Amendment comes to the ballot as a result of a compromise reached by the Legislature and the Governor during Budget deliberations. The proposal agreed upon allows the Governor to borrow $2.6 million in local sales and property tax revenues over the next two years, with any future borrowing subject to a two-thirds vote of the Legislature (and only after the Governor has proclaimed a “significant state fiscal hardship”). Any future loan must be repaid with interest within 3 fiscal years; only two loans within a 10-year period would be allowed; and the second loan cannot be made until the first loan has been repaid. The amount of the loan cannot exceed 8% of the local government’s property tax revenue in the fiscal year preceding the loan.
The Governor has dropped his support of Proposition 65 and is now supporting Proposition 1A. The League of California Cities, which had drafted and qualified Proposition 65, is also on board with supporting Proposition 1A over Proposition 65. Important note: Proposition 65 has been pulled from the Voter Information Pamphlet and will appear with 1A in the Supplemental Information Pamphlet, so that clarifying information on them can be provided to voters.
3. Senate leadership battle brewing. Senate President Pro Tempore John Burton, a fixture in California politics, both at the state and national levels for well over 40 years, will be termed out of office at the end of December. He will be taking with him considerable institutional knowledge, along with negotiating skills and leadership abilities. All three of these qualities have become increasing rarities under the state’s term limits law, which has tended to produce legislators with short-term attention spans, pairing them not too successfully with long-term problems.
Next to the Governor, and subsequent to the departure of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, the Senate President Pro Tempore is the most powerful elected position in state government. Three Senators are vying to assume Burton’s mantle: Marsha Escutia (D - Whittier), Don Perata (D - Oakland), and Sheila Kuehl (D - Santa Monica).
Burton has not endorsed a successor. The vote by the Senate’s 25 Democrats will take place on August 24.
The Senate could elevate the first woman to this significant office by electing either Escutia or Kuehl. If Perata is not elected, it would be the first time in 30 years that both the Senate and Assembly leaders have not been from Northern California.
Perata, 59, and Escutia, 47, have both come under fire for outside business dealings, relating to fund-raising and use of campaign consultants. Kuehl, 63, was the first openly gay legislator when she was elected to the Assembly in 1994. She has also been the recipient of several of California Journal’s “Minnie” awards in the categories of “integrity,” “hard-working,” “quick-study,” and “problem-solving.”
4. Governor Schwarzenegger appears to be backing away from his proposal for a part-time legislature. On a recent Jay Leno show, the Governor said it was “just an idea,” and to reporters last week, he said the idea needs much more study and had no plans to get it on the ballot at the present time. Recent polls show that the public isn’t too keen on the idea either. According to a recent Field Poll, 52% oppose and 33% support the idea. Ted Costa, the man behind the initiative to recall former Governor Gray Davis, has launched a new initiative effort to downsize the legislature to a part-time body, convening for 90 days every two years, with lawmakers spending the rest of their time in their districts addressing constituent needs.
Costa needs 600,000 signatures to qualify his initiative for the next election (March 2006). Unlike his earlier drive, he will not have the financial backing of Rep. Darrell Issa (R - San Diego). (Issa supported the recall and was himself a candidate to replace the Governor.)
5. California has the most expensive state legislature in the country. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, California’s 120-member Legislature costs taxpayers $280 million annually to govern the state’s 35.4 million people. The average cost for the 50 state legislatures is $47.5 million. The state also pays the highest salary: $99,000 + $121 per diem for each day the Legislature is in session. (The average compensation for full-and part-time legislatures is $68,599 and $15,984, respectively.) California does not have the largest number of legislators, however. That honor goes to tiny New Hampshire which has a whopping 424 legislators serving in its part-time legislature. Nebraska, with its unicameral house, has 49.
Other trivia you can use at your next party, where politics or politicians are discussed: There are 7,382 state legislators in the 50 state legislatures--and 35,000 staff members serving them and their constituents. The average age of lawmakers serving in state legislatures: 53.
* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *
AB 858 (Goldberg) Athletic Team Names and Mascots
This bill, carried over from last year and dormant since last January, was resurrected and amended on June 30. As currently written, the bill establishes the California Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname, commencing January 1, 2006.
The ban would not affect schools in “Indian country.” Schools that purchased uniforms prior to January 2006 would be allowed to use them, so long as they have selected a replacement name for their teams.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [17 - 12] by the Senate, August 5. (A majority vote was required.) Senator Richard Alarcon (D - Van Nuys) made a motion to reconsider, which was granted. The bill was heard again on Aug. 16, and PASSED [22 - 11], and was sent back to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments.
AB 1969 (McLeod) CSU & UC: Course in Employee Ethics
This bill would require the CSU and urge the UC to offer, on at least a semiannual basis, to each member, officer, or designated employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests, an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of university officials.
Status: PASSED [23 - 8] by the Senate on August 5, and sent to the Governor on August 9. [Note: Both CSU and CSEA are on record as supporting this bill.]
AB 1999 (Committee on Higher Educ.) California State University TRUSTEE BILL
AB 1999 is an “omnibus” bill that contains non-controversial items, including the repeal of obsolete provisions in the Codes. As an example, Education Code Section 90450 authorizes CSU, Chico to dispose of six houses located on the campus to parties willing to preserve and restore them. The transactions authorized by this Section have been completed, and thus the need for the provision has expired. This bill would repeal Section 90450.
Other provisions include the following:
· A proposal to conform additional sections of the CSU Contract Law to the existing authority in the State Contract Act, to ensure that the minor contract limit for CSU is automatically adjusted to be consistent with the limit for state contracts identified by the Department of Finance.
(In 2001, the CSU successfully had three sections within the CSU Contract Law in the Public Contract Code amended to coincide with the increase of the Department of Finance’s minor capital outlay dollar limit from $250,000 to $400,000. This bill would make such adjustments automatic, without having to seek legislation to achieve conformity.)
· Repeals an outdated Education Code section relating to printing and binding services performed by the Department of General Services for CSU.
As amended on July 26, the bill was conjoined to AB 2849, which seeks to increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty CSU employee for a two-year term. The member would have voting privileges, but be restricted from participating on any subcommittee responsible for collective bargaining negotiations. Conjoining these two bills means that AB 1999 cannot take effect unless AB 2849 is also enacted.
Status: PASSED [25 – 10] by the Senate and sent back to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments. [Note: CSU is on record as opposing AB 2849, maintaining that it “represents a fundamental shift in the lay nature of the Board,” and that it’s important that “all board members feel a responsibility to serve the institution as a whole and not any particular constituency or segment of it.”]
AB 2339 (McLeod) California State University: Board of Trustees
As initially written, this bill would have authorized any trustee who is an ex officio member to designate a deputy to attend a meeting or meetings of the Board in his or her absence and to act in his or her stead, and would require the ex officio trustee to be responsible for the actions of the designated deputy. This provision [which CSU opposed] was deleted in a June 29 amendment.
The bill would also prohibit the Trustees from convening for a regular meeting on the same day the Regents of the University of California convene for a regular meeting.
As amended on July 20, the bill would also provide that to the extent possible the trustees shall not convene for a regular meeting on the same day on which the state Board of Education meets.
Status: PASSED [22 - 0] by the Senate on August 5, and sent back to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments.
AB 2477 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Production and Pricing of College Textbooks
This bill expresses various findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to the cost of college textbooks. The bill urges textbook publishers to take specified actions aimed at reducing the amounts that students currently pay for textbooks, including urging publishers to “unbundle” their textbooks (which would allow students to buy them “a la carte,” without additional materials) and specify all changes in a new edition.
The bill would also require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and request the UC, to work with their respective academic senates to encourage faculty to give consideration to the least costly practices in assigning textbooks.
The provisions of this bill are also applicable to private colleges and universities.
Status: PASSED [25 - 6] on August 11, and sent back to the Assembly for concurrence in the Senate’s amendments. [Notes: The Senate vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing. CSU’s position of record on this bill is Neutral.]
AB 2678 (Koretz) Textbook Rental Library Service
This bill would authorize public postsecondary education institutions to establish textbook rental services for students if the president or chancellor of the campus certifies that specified conditions have been met, including a recognized student body organization of the campus voting to request the establishment of a rental service; and an appropriate mechanism for shared governance, such as an academic senate, approving the establishment of the rental service.
This bill applies only to undergraduate students, and, as with AB 2477 above, is applicable to private colleges and universities.
As amended on August 10, the bill would prohibit the redirection of either General Fund monies or mandatory systemwide fee revenues to support a textbook rental service under the bill.
Status: PASSED [9 - 0] on August 10 by the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Note: CSU’s position of record on this bill is Neutral.]
AB 2710 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy
This bill expresses legislative findings and intent with respect to the process of setting student fee levels. It also provides that the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees bear the primary responsibility for adjusting mandatory systemwide resident student fees at their respective system campuses, and requires these universities to develop methodologies for the adjustment of fees in accordance with a prescribed procedure.
The bill states these precepts:
· Increases in fees should not be accompanied by a decline in academic quality and service;
· Increases shall be coupled with corresponding increases in state and institutional student financial aid;
· Undergraduate fees should not be increased by more than 8% in any academic year;
· Revenues derived from student fees should remain within the budgets of the respective university systems in order to provide benefits to the students enrolled within a system;
· The State of California should maintain its primary responsibility to fund public postsecondary education in California;
· Student fee amounts, except in fiscal emergencies, should be adjusted annually by the changes in statewide per capita personal income, as compiled by the Department of Finance.
The bill would require the California Postsecondary Education Commission to review annually the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to the bill, and to report on them annually to the Legislature and the Director of Finance. The bill would become operative on July 1, 2005.
Status: PASSED [7 - 3] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 12. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]
AB 2800 (Mountjoy) Academic Materials: Distribution of Academic Work
This bill moves sections from the Donahoe Act, relating to the prohibition against preparing, selling and distributing term papers on public and private higher education campuses, to the Education Code, making the provisions applicable to both post-secondary education institutions and public and private elementary and secondary schools. The bill would also make these prohibitions applicable to academic materials prepared, sold, or otherwise distributed for admissions purposes.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [18 - 3] in the Senate, August 5. Senator Bruce McPherson (R - Santa Cruz) made a motion to reconsider, which was granted. The bill was heard again on August 10 and FAILED PASSAGE AGAIN [14 -16]. The bill, which needed a majority (21votes) to pass, was rejected because of concerns relating to enforcement issues.
AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees
Existing law provides for the membership of the Trustees of the California State University to include 5 specified ex officio members, 16 members appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate, one representative of the alumni associations, 2 student members appointed by the Governor, and a faculty member appointed by the Governor.
This bill would increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term.
Status: PASSED [23 - 14] by the Senate on August 10. [Notes: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill. See note above on AB 1999.]
SB 1161 (Alpert) Library Bond Act
This bill seeks to enact the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006, for submission to voters at the 2006 statewide primary election. The Act would authorize the sale of $1 billion, rather than $2 billion in General Obligation bonds.
Status: PASSED [15 - 2] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, Aug. 12. [Note: The two opposing votes were cast by Assembly Members Ray Haynes (R - Riverside) and Rick Keene (R - Chico).]
SB 1418 (Vasconcellos) Articulation of Education Purpose and Policy
This bill declares the purposes of public education in California and sets forth the principles that should guide the operation and future development of the public school system, from K-12 through the state colleges.
Existing law declares that each child is a unique person, with unique needs, and that the purpose of the educational system of this state is to enable each child to develop all of his or her own potential.
This bill would instead declare the purposes of education in California to be to promote and encourage the general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence; appreciate each pupil’s innate instinct for learning; provide each pupil the basic opportunity and support to enable the pupil to realize his/her potential, and enable Californians to realize the promise of our multicultural democracy.
The bill mentions “the six Rs,” which are “necessary for a child of today to become a truly educated person of the 21st Century: Reading, ‘Riting, ‘Rithmetic, self-Respect, personal Responsibility, and human Relations.”
Status: PASSED [25 - 7] by the Senate on May 17, and sent forward to the Assembly on the same date. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]
PASSED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Education Committee, June 6. [Note: Assembly Member Bonnie Garcia (R - Cathedral City) cast the sole nay vote.]
PASSED [47 - 27] by the Assembly, August 12, and enrolled on the same date. [Note: The vote was bipartisan, with Republicans and Democrats both supporting and opposing the bill.]
SCA 19 (Vasconcellos) Minimum Voting Age
Existing law authorizes U.S. citizens 18 years of age and a resident of California to vote.
As initially written, this Senate Constitutional Amendment sought to lower the voting age to 14 years. Votes by persons age 14 and 15 would count as ¼ of a vote. Votes by persons age 16 and 17 would count as ½ of a vote.
As amended on July 26, the measure would lower the voting age to 16 (with each vote having full, not partial value). In addition, the Legislature would be required to develop programs to prepare minors age 14 and older to become responsible voters.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [3 - 5] in the Senate Appropriations Committee, August 12. The author asked for and was granted reconsideration, but no hearing date has been established yet.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
July 30, 2004
CAPITOL NEWS
1. We have a budget! Although it feels like we’re still using the same mirrors and breathing the same stale smoke. The Assembly finally approved the $105.3 billion budget plan on July 28. The vote was 69 - 11, with 26 Republicans voting in support. The Senate approved the budget the next day on a tighter vote: 28 - 11. Four Republicans voted for it; one Democrat (Debra Bowen - Marina del Rey) voted against it. The Governor is expected to sign the budget on Saturday--31 days past the Constitutional deadline.
In a nutshell, the budget is balanced (at least for the time being), calls for no new taxes (but retains the significant increases in student fees at all three of the state’s higher education systems), and does include a reserve (which, at $410 million, is pretty meager).
Higher education will see some restoration of funds. The Governor’s proposal to redirect 7,000 eligible freshman applicants from UC and CSU to the California Community Colleges was rejected, which restores $21 million to the CSU, and provides another $12.2 million for enrollment growth (to fund an additional 2,155 FTEs). The budget also does not include the Governor’s proposal to reduce the Cal Grant income ceilings and the number of new competitive grants, resulting in a $16.6 million restoration. (The Legislature also lessened the reduction of the private university Cal Grant to 14% from the Governor’s proposed 44%.)
An additional $36 million was restored to support outreach --$29.3 million for UC and $7 million for CSU. (In CSU’s compact with the Governor, the system agreed to redirect $45 million internally for outreach. The $7 million would be in addition to this amount.)
Student fee increases remain intact, as mentioned above. The budget includes an $8 per unit fee increase at the California Community Colleges (bringing the total to $26 per unit); a 14% increase for undergraduate students at UC and CSU; a 20% increase for credential students, and 30% for all other graduate students at these systems.
Day of Reckoning. What the 2004-05 budget does not do is eliminate a projected $10 billion deficit. Future borrowing is not an option, given the passage of Propositions 57 and 58 last March. This time next year, the structural problems inherent in the state budget must be finally addressed, or new sources of revenue (taxes) identified--or significant cuts in spending made. I wonder how many legislators leaving office at the end of December are grateful for term limits.
2. More ballot measures. Since the last Legislative Update, two local measures have qualified for the November 2, 2004 General Election ballot:
· 1/2 cent sales tax increase for law enforcement. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved Sheriff Baca’s proposal for a ½ cent increase to support (1) hiring more officers for the police and sheriff’s departments; (2) providing additional money for county jails, the District Attorney’s office, Probation Department, and the Public Defender’s office, and (3) purchase of a new communications system that would allow police and fire agencies to communicate on one frequency. The increase is expected to generate $560 million annually. If adopted by voters, the sales tax would rise [in Los Angeles County] from 8.25% to 8.75%, the highest allowed by state law, and tying Alameda County for the highest sales tax rate in the state. (Last March, voters in Alameda County approved a ½ cent sales tax to underwrite health care programs.)
The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (a non-profit organization that promotes local businesses) estimates that an average resident would pay an additional $41.70 in sales taxes per year. The Sheriff’s Department estimates a higher figure, $65 per average resident.
· $500 million bond for water quality improvements. The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to place a $500 million water bond on the November ballot to help the city meet federal Clean Water Act requirements. The Act includes more than 60 mandates to reduce pollutants in the waterways that flow through the city and out to sea. The City has battled with the federal government over these mandates, including suing (unsuccessfully) in the courts.
The $500 million from the bond would be spent as follows: $250 million to clean rivers, lakes, beaches, bays and the ocean; $100 million to improve water quality and stop polluted runoff; $75 million for water conservation projects; and $75 million to clean and reuse storm water.
The analysis on the measure, prepared for the Board, estimates that the bond would cost an owner of a $350,000 home about $56 annually for 20 years.
Another statewide ballot measure, resulting from the compromise agreement the Governor made with the Legislature to protect local governments against future raids on their revenues, will be added to the existing 14 Propositions on the November 2 General Election ballot. The proposal agreed upon allows the Governor to borrow $2.6 billion in local sales and property tax revenues over the next two years, with any future borrowing subject to a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The Governor also agreed that such loans be limited to twice every 10 years and only when all previous loans have been repaid.
Pending agreement between the Legislature and the Secretary of State, the proposed Constitutional Amendment will either carry the number 73, or 1-A if a Supplemental Ballot Pamphlet is made necessary.
3. Preview of California Performance Review Commission (“CPR”) recommendations. Last February, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Executive Order creating the California Performance Review Commission, charging it to conduct “a comprehensive review of the methods and practices of government,” with an eye to achieving efficiencies that might do more things better for the state and its citizens--at less cost, of course. The CPR actually completed its report two weeks ago, but the Governor indicated he would not release it until a Budget is enacted in order to “avoid any derailment of a budget agreement.”
Now that the budget has been passed by the Legislature, the report will be formally released next week. Early leaks reveal some remarkably sweeping proposals for change. Of special interest to public higher education is a proposal to combine the California community colleges with the state’s K-12 system and place the new organization under the control of the Governor’s Education Secretary, former Mayor Dick Riordan. A Department of Education and Work Force Preparation would be created to set education policy for the new system. A new Education and Work Force Council would also be established for the purpose of refocusing schools on work force preparation. These two agencies would not replace the current Board of Education, whose members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the state Senate.
It’s not clear how the current Department of Education--with its elected head, the Superintendent of Public Instruction--would function. It appears that both the department and the superintendent would carry out policies set by the Governor’s new agency. Also unclear is how the superintendent would function with the Governor’s education secretary.
Other eduation proposals include abolishing county superintendents of schools and county education boards, and consolidating four agencies that relate to higher education--the Community College Chancellor’s office, the California Postsecondary Education Commission, the Student Aid Commission and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education--into a single Higher Education Division. The CPR would also replace the student financial aid Cal Grant Award with a fee waiver.
Two other potentially controversial consolidations include one to establish a new Department of Environmental Protection that would assume the powers held by several legislatively created boards, including the Air Resources Board and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, both of which would be abolished. Another would combine the Departments of Finance, General Services and the State Personnel Board into a new Office of Management and Budget, under a single director.
The CPR also recommends eliminating more than 1,150 appointed positions in state government, abolishing 118 of the state’s 339 boards and commissions, and reducing a third of the state workforce through attrition.
In addition to the cost savings of some $32 billion that the CPR envisions over the next five years, the Commission proposes to bring in additional revenue by having California join a multi-state lottery.
Overall, the CPR proposals give the executive branch of state government much more power and authority than is presently the case. Reaction from legislators at this early point is not unexpected.
· From Senator John Vasconcellos (D - San Jose), as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle: “It sounds like real crap. It’s part of an effort to have the Governor become God.”
· From Assembly Member Alan Nakanishi (R - Lodi), as also reported in the Chronicle: “It empowers the people when the Governor can appoint the head of a Department of Education that would oversee education in California. This is very good. The people vote for the Governor, and if they don’t like the Governor, they can take him out.”
Next steps. Public hearings on the CPR proposals will be conducted by a commission appointed by the Governor. Public comment will be taken this summer and next fall, and a final document prepared and submitted to the Little Hoover Commission for review. [Created in 1962, the Little Hoover Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy is a bipartisan, independent body whose function is to promote efficiency, effectiveness and economy in state programs.] If the Commission approves it, the plan will go to the Legislature, which could overturn it with a two-thirds vote. However, knowing the Governor’s penchant for going to the public when the Legislature thwarts his wishes, the Legislature will likely try to influence, if not shape, the final document into a palatable “approvable” plan.
4. Part-time Legislature. It started out as a humorous aside when, last April, Governor Schwarzenegger suggested that serving in the California Legislature should not be a full-time job. But as the Governor’s frustration grew over the lack of agreement on a state budget, speculation grew that he might call a special election next year to consider an initiative making the Legislature a part-time body. That speculation has not abated, even now that a budget has been adopted.
Meanwhile, the Governor has also come up with a new plan to unsettle Democrats: Prepare a mass mailing to the electorate before the November election of Report Cards on Democrats in competitive districts.
5. California near the bottom in percentage of high school graduates. A recent U.S. Census Bureau report, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003,” reveals that 85% of all adults 25 years or older have completed at least high school, a record number. In the state rankings, New Hampshire is at the top with 92.1%, followed by Minnesota (91.6%), Wyoming (90.9%), Nebraska (90.8%), and Alaska (90.6%). California ranked 9th from the bottom at 81.1%. Texas is dead last at 77.2%.
The Census Bureau report also shows that 27% have attained at least a baccalaureate degree, another record. California ranked better in this category. The state ranked 11th with 29.8% earning the undergraduate degree. Washington, D.C. ranked at the top with 46.4%, followed by Massachusetts (37.6%), Maryland (37.2%), Colorado (36%), and New Jersey (33.4%). West Virginia had the dubious honor of ranking last at 15.3%.
The complete rankings and the report can be accessed at various locations within the Census Bureau’s site: http://www.census.gov
6. New Hampshire to begin tracking students’ academic career. StateNet Capitol Journal reports that the state’s Department of Education will begin next fall to build a universal student database that will assign each child a confidential ID number, allowing the state to track that student’s individual performance over his/her academic career. According to the Journal, the system is also designed to produce demographic data that will allow school officials to analyze school quality. The database is estimated to cost $200,000. Federal grants will cover the entire cost.
New Hampshire education officials indicate that more frequent testing of children, required under the federal Let No Child Be Left Behind Act, is the impetus for the new system. The expectation is that the new system will record gradual changes in student performance, allowing schools to pinpoint what they’re doing right and what they’re doing wrong. Parents, teachers, and anyone else who is interested, will be able to look at the database over the Internet.
7. Those t-shirts. Within a few days after the Governor hurled the epithet “girliemen” at recalcitrant legislators, a
T-shirt with “Sacramento Girliemen” emblazoned on it appeared on the market. For $24 you could--and still can--order one--and, at the same time benefit the California Democratic Party, since 20% of the proceeds are earmarked for that purpose. Unfortunately, now that the budget has been passed, the Governor and legislative leadership are all smiles--which may make the “girliemen” epithet look a little like yesterday’s yellowing newspaper.
In case there are any parties still interested, the website for the T-shirt is: www.sacramentogirliemen.com
8. No Status Report on bills this issue. A mountain of bills, put on hold while both houses concentrated on the budget, will be awaiting lawmakers when they reconvene from their Summer Recess next Monday, August 2. The Status Report on bills, normally a staple of Legislative Update, will resume with the next issue.
The 2002-04 Biennial Session will conclude when the Legislature adjourns on August 31. The Governor will have 30 days in which to act on bills sent to him. The next Biennial Session will begin on January 3, 2005.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
July 20, 2004
CAPITOL NEWS
1. Budget Playpen. Based on Governor Schwarzenegger’s optimism over the past several months that a budget would be passed on time, or failing that, within a few days of the deadline, I’ve been holding up Legislative Update to report on the “bottom lines” for the three higher education systems. Three weeks past the deadline, we still do not have a budget. We have sandbox name-calling, righteous indignation, and undoubtedly slamming doors and plenty of pouts from all quarters. If I hold up Legislative Update any longer, it will grow a beard.
I used to have a theory that the only sure way to assure food would be brought to the table in any restaurant would be to light up a cigarette. I’m publishing this edition of Legislative Update, hoping that as soon as it hits the post office, the Legislature and Governor will have approved a budget.
2. Fourteen initiatives have qualified for the November 2, 2004 General Election, and have been assigned numbers by the Secretary of State:
· Proposition 59: Access to Government Information. This Legislative Constitutional Amendment adds the Right of Access to Information to the list of California’s constitutional rights. Currently, people who want access to government documents or closed-door meetings must demonstrate why they have a right to the information. Proposition 59 would shift the burden onto the government to show why the access should be denied. State lawmakers are exempt.
· Proposition 60: Primary Elections/Surplus State Property. This measure--which cleared four committees and both houses of the Legislature within 72 hours via several rule waivers--pairs two disparate issues. The first essentially maintains the status quo in how the state conducts Primary Elections. The second issue provides that any proceeds from the sale of surplus state property be used to help pay down the $15 billion in budget bailout bonds, approved by voters last March.
· Proposition 61: Children’s Hospital Projects: This bond measure authorizes the sale of $750 million in General Obligation bonds to fund grants to eligible children’s hospitals for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, and furnishing and equipping of facilities. (Twenty percent of the bond revenue would be earmarked for certain University of California general acute care hospitals, and 80% would be available for grants to other general acute care hospitals whose missions focus on children with such illnesses as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.)
· Proposition 62: Open Primary. This measure, backed by state Controller Steve Westly and state Secretary of Education (and former L.A. Mayor) Dick Riordan, would amend the state Constitution to allow voters to choose any candidate regardless of party affiliation in primary (but not presidential) elections. Voters would choose from the two top vote-getters, regardless of party, in the General Election.
· Proposition 63: Mental Health Services Expansion and Funding. This initiative statute would impose an additional 1% tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. (The initiative specifies that current funding for mental health programs cannot be reduced because of funding from the new tax.)
· Proposition 64: “Stop Shakedown Lawsuits” Initiative. This measure would amend the state’s unfair competition law, Business and Professions Code, Section 17200, so that private lawyers could no longer file lawsuits without a client or proof of financial loss. (Through a loophole in Section 17200, lawyers are currently able to file lawsuits and demand fees with no real client or proof of harm.) In addition, this initiative specifies that representative claims must comply with the procedural requirements applicable to class action lawsuits, and further, that only the California Attorney General or public officials are authorized to enforce such laws.
· Proposition 65: Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act. This measure seeks to make it harder for the state to raid local government revenues in order to address state budget deficits or other fiscal problems. If approved by voters (by a majority vote), this measure would require voter approval of any legislation that provides for any reduction, based on January 1, 2003 levels, of local governments’ vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues.
· Proposition 66: Limitations on Three Strikes Law. This measure seeks to amend the Three Strikes law to require increased sentences only when the current conviction is for specified violent or serious felonies. The measure also provides that only prior convictions for specified violent or serious felonies, brought and tried separately, qualify for second and third strike sentence increases.
· Proposition 67: Telephone Surcharge to Help Fund Emergency and Medical Services. This Constitutional amendment proposes to provide funding for emergency personnel training and equipment, reimbursement for uncompensated emergency physician care, uncompensated community clinic care, emergency telephone system improvements, and for hospital emergency services. The funding would come from a 3% surcharge on intrastate telephone use, portions of tobacco taxes, and criminal and traffic penalties. The measure provides for a monthly cap of 50 cents on the surcharge collected by residential service providers, but not cell phone or business lines.
· Proposition 68: Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation. This Constitutional amendment, one of two that will appear on the November 2 ballot, proposes the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, which would authorize the Governor to renegotiate tribal state compacts to require that tribes pay 25% of their slot machine revenues to a government fund, comply with multiple state laws and accept state court jurisdiction.
This measure, co-sponsored by L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and Sacramento County Sheriff Lou Blanas (and supported by racetracks and card rooms), requires Indian tribes that own casinos to contribute 25% of their slot machine revenue to state and local governments. If they refuse, card rooms and horseracing tracks would be authorized to operate 30,000 slot machines, paying 33% of the revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, and social programs.
· Proposition 69: Collection of DNA Samples. This initiative proposes the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act. It would require collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for or charged with specific crimes, for submission to the state DNA database. The measure authorizes local law enforcement labs to perform analyses for the state database and to maintain a local database. The measure also specifies procedures for confidentiality and for removing samples from databases.
· Proposition 70: Tribal Gaming Compact: Exclusive Gaming Rights. This Constitutional amendment, supported by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of Paul Springs, proposes the Indian Gaming Fair-Share Revenue Act of 2004. It would require the Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to federally recognized Indian tribes, providing exclusive gaming rights on Indian land, with no limits on number of machines, facilities and types of games. The measure would require that 8.84% of the net tribal gaming income be contributed to the state over the next 99 years. (The contributions would be in lieu of any other fees, taxes, or levies. The measure also specifies that the money would be made available for appropriation by the Legislature for any purpose.)
The measure additionally specifies that the contributions would terminate if the state permits non-tribal casino-type gaming.
[Note: Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed new Indian gambling compacts with representatives of five California tribes, which are estimated to produce at least $1 billion for the current budget and subsequent annual payments of at least $250 million a year. The agreement allows the tribes to increase their number of slot machines beyond the current 2,000-per-tribe cap. The Governor has indicated he will oppose both of the gaming measures on the November 2 ballot.]
· Proposition 71: Stem Cell Research. This Constitutional amendment would establish the Institute for Regenerative Medicine to regulate stem cell research and provide funding through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities. The measure would also establish a constitutional right to conduct stem cell research, create an oversight committee, and authorize issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $3 billion to finance the Institute’s activities. Royalties from such research would be used to repay the bond.
· Proposition 72: Referendum on adoption or repeal of SB 2 (Burton). The intent of this referendum, which is sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, is to repeal SB 2, approved last year by former Governor Gray Davis, which requires employers to provide health insurance for their employees, or pay into a state health insurance pool, which would offer the coverage. The language is very likely to cause confusion, however. A “no” vote on the initiative means you want the SB 2 to be repealed; a “yes” vote means you want it to be enacted, as written.
The high-speed passenger rail proposal, previously approved for the November 2 ballot, was recently postponed by the Legislature to the November 7, 2006 ballot.
There are several proposals for a local ballot measure seeking to increase the sales tax in Los Angeles County by ½ cent, from 8.25% to 8.75% in order to fund public safety needs. The first, an initiative petition sponsored by Sheriff Lee Baca, would have provided money to the Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, and to the 87 city police departments within the County, to hire more officers. Baca turned in 173,000 signatures to qualify his measure, but the number was insufficient to meet the requirement for 171,000 verified signatures.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is looking at two proposals, one which would increase the sales tax by ½ cent to fund hiring of additional officers, and one which would increase the sales tax by ¼ cent, with the entities to be funded providing a matching ¼ cent from their respective general fund budgets. [Note: The Board must approve one of these proposals no later than August 8 in order to qualify a measure for the November 2 ballot. Four votes are required for passage. The deadline has already passed for petition-generated initiatives.]
The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously last Friday (July 16) to place a ½ cent sales tax proposal on the November ballot to help hire more LAPD officers and fund city crime-prevention programs--if the County Board of Supervisors doesn’t act to place its measure on the ballot.
3. Governor Schwarzenegger appoints eight new Trustees to the CSU Board. Last November, the Governor withdrew the nominations of five Trustees who had been named by former Governor Davis and who were awaiting Senate confirmation: Maria Contreras-Sweet; Alice A. Huffman; Stanley M. Toy, Jr., M.D.; Daniel Weinstein; and Milton M Younger. Three other terms have since expired, bringing the total to eight. All but one appointment (the student) requires Senate confirmation. No problems are anticipated with confirming the eight, who are briefly profiled below:
Jeffrey Bleich is a civil rights attorney, who helped defend remaining affirmative action laws in court after the passage of Proposition 209 and who has been involved in efforts to promote diversity in higher education. Bleich is a partner in the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson, as well as an adjunct professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at UC, Berkeley He is a past president of the San Francisco Bar Association and serves on the Board of Trustees for Boalt Hall. He earned a Juris Doctorate from the Boalt Hall of Law, a Master of Arts degree from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Amherst College. Bleich, 43, resides in Piedmont. He is a Democrat.
Herbert Carter is the past president of CSU, Dominguez Hills and most recently served as a special consultant to the CSU. He holds a Doctorate of Public Administration from USC and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas. Carter, 70, resides in Los Angeles. He is a Democrat.
Carol Chandler is a partner in Chandler Farms and was an instructor at Fresno City College. She previously served on the UC Board of Regents, has been involved for over 25 years in California Women for Agriculture, and was a member of the Governor’s transition team. She holds a Master of Arts degree from CSU, Fresno, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from UC, Davis. Chandler, 59, resides in Selma. She is a Republican.
Moctesuma Esparza is a filmmaker, currently the executive producer of Esparza/Katz Productions. Among the films he’s produced are “Selena” and “Gods and Generals.” He served as president of Buenavision Telecommunications, Inc., for over 20 years, and is now the chief executive officer of MAYA Cinemas of North America, Inc. He earned a Master of Fine Arts and a Bachelor of Arts degree from UCLA. Esparza, 55, resides in Los Angeles. He is a Democrat.
George Gowgani is the past associate dean of the College of Agriculture at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. He has over 35 years of experience in higher education, serving as a professor and department head of crop science at the university. He earned a Doctorate and a Master of Science degree from the University of Nevada, and a Master of Arts and a Bachelor of Science degree from Cal Poly, SLO. Gowgani, 69, resides in San Luis Obispo County. He is a Republican.
Melinda Guzman-Moore is a partner in the law firm of Goldsberry, Freeman, Guzman & Ditora, where she practices business, tort, labor, and employment law. She is a member of the California State Bar, and chair of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. She earned a Juris Doctorate and a Bachelor of Arts degree from UC, Davis. Guzman-Moore resides in Fair Oaks. She is a Democrat.
Raymond Holdsworth is the past president of the California Chamber of Commerce and oversees AECOM’s worldwide companies. He is also involved in the Friends of Community Colleges in Los Angeles. He holds a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Lake Forest College. Holdsworth resides in Palos Verdes Estates. He is a Republican.
The student member of the Board is Corey Jackson, a junior at CSU, San Bernardino. He is majoring in political science and pursuing a minor in public administration. Jackson serves as a member of the Student Union Board of Directors and is the legislative coordinator for the CSU, San Bernardino Lobby Corp. He is also the chair of the City of Rialto Housing Redevelopment and Beautification Commission. His previous community involvement includes: State President of the California State NAACP Youth and College Division, founder of the Future Professional Leaders Organization, and student board member of the Rialto Unified School District Board of Education. Jackson, 22, is a Democrat from Bloomington.
4. And you thought California didn’t have its act together. From StateNet Capitol Journal comes this reassuring piece of news about state government in Pennsylvania:
“Turnpike officials in Pennsylvania were a bit red-faced when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that more than half of the $22 million collected in tolls was ‘eaten up by expenses.’ Among the more embarrassing revelations: $850,000 went for overtime, maintenance and toll collection at 12 interchanges and a mainline barrier. What’s wrong with this picture? The named collection spots are all automated.”
* NEW
LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *
Note: Bills
must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.
ACA 31 Canciamilla Legislature: Redistricting Commission: Term Limits
This Assembly Constitutional Amendment provides that members of the Senate may serve up to 3 four-year terms and Members of the Assembly may serve up to 6 two-year terms, lengthening terms of office from eight and six years to twelve years for members of both Houses.
The bill also creates an Independent Redistricting Commission, comprised of five members--with method and length of appointment and criteria for service specified-- which would be charged with establishing congressional, Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state.
The measure requires the Commission to display draft maps of redrawn districts in a manner to achieve the widest public dissemination, and to take public comment for a period of 30 days.
The measure also grants the California Supreme Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over all challenges to a restricting plan adopted by the commission.
Introduced: June 30, 2004 [Note: Constitutional Amendments and Resolutions may be introduced at any time the Legislature is in session--unlike Senate and Assembly Bills, which are subject to deadlines.]
* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *
AB 858 (Goldberg) Athletic Team Names and Mascots
This bill, carried over from last year and dormant since last January, was resurrected and amended on June 30. As currently written, the bill establishes the California Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname, commencing January 1, 2006.
The bill provides that a school may continue to use uniforms or other materials bearing the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname, if they were purchased before January 1, 2006, providing all of the following requirements are met:
· The school selects a new school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname
· The school refrains from purchasing or acquiring, for the purpose of distribution or sale to pupils or school employees, any uniform that includes or bears the term Redskins. [The bill does permit, prior to January 1, 2008, replacement of damaged or lost uniforms if they do not exceed 20% of the total number of uniforms used by a team or band during the 2005-06 school year.]
The bill makes an exception for schools located in “Indian country, as defined in Section 1151 of Title 18 of the United States Code,” specifying that the terms of this bill do not apply to them.
Status: PASSED [7 - 1] by the Senate Education Committee, June 9. Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on June 29 [enabling it to bypass the Senate Appropriations Committee]. The bill will be heard next by the full Senate, when the Legislature reconvenes on August 2.
AB 1969 (McLeod) CSU & UC: Course in Employee Ethics
This bill would require the CSU and urge the UC to offer, on at least a semiannual basis, to each member, officer, or designated employee who is required to file a Statement of Economic Interests, an orientation course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of university officials.
Status: PASSED [11 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 23. Pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, which specifies that bills not appropriating money may go directly to the Senate Floor, the bill will be heard next by the full Senate. [Note: Both CSU and CSEA are on record as supporting this bill.]
AB 1999 (Committee on Higher Educ.) California State University TRUSTEE BILL
AB 1999 is an “omnibus” bill that contains non-controversial items, including the repeal of obsolete provisions in the Codes. As an example, Education Code Section 90450 authorizes CSU, Chico to dispose of six houses located on the campus to parties willing to preserve and restore them. The transactions authorized by this Section have been completed, and thus the need for the provision has expired. This bill would repeal Section 90450.
Other provisions include the following:
· A proposal to conform additional sections of the CSU Contract Law to the existing authority in the State Contract Act, to ensure that the minor contract limit for CSU is automatically adjusted to be consistent with the limit for state contracts identified by the Department of Finance.
(In 2001, the CSU successfully had three sections within the CSU Contract Law in the Public Contract Code amended to coincide with the increase of the Department of Finance’s minor capital outlay dollar limit from $250,000 to $400,000. This bill would make such adjustments automatic, without having to seek legislation to achieve conformity.)
· Notice of intention to make changes in the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees.
Status: PASSED [11 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16. Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on June 28, so the bill will next be heard by the full Senate.
[Note: On July 7, the bill was amended to conjoin it to AB 2339 and AB 2849, specifying that one or both of these bills must be passed in order for AB 1999 to be enacted. Both bills, which CSU is on record as opposing, are highlighted below.]
AB 2207 (Levine) Statistical Districts: San Fernando Valley
This bill would require any state agency or department that develops and maintains data and statistics on the municipal level, to make a separate breakdown of the San Fernando Valley, in the preparation and maintenance of any statistical analyses by city.
The bill also authorizes state agencies to require the City of Los Angeles to provide all necessary data.
[Note: On November 24, 2003, L.A. City Mayor James Hahn signed a resolution, approved by the City Council, requiring city departments to keep separate data for the San Fernando Valley, and calling on the U.S. Census Bureau to do the same. The resolution was initiated by the Valley Industry and Commerce Association. VICA is also the sponsor of AB 2207.]
Status: ENROLLED and SENT TO THE GOVERNOR, July 8.
AB 2339 (McLeod) California State University: Board of Trustees
This bill would authorize any trustee who is an ex officio member to designate a deputy to attend a meeting or meetings of the Board in his or her absence and to act in his or her stead, and would require the ex officio trustee to be responsible for the actions of the designated deputy.
The bill would also prohibit the Trustees from convening for a regular meeting on the same day the Regents of the University of California convene for a regular meeting.
As amended on June 29, the bill is conjoined to AB 1999 and AB 2849, meaning it cannot be enacted unless one or both of the other two bills are enacted. [See note on AB 1999 above.]
Status: PASSED [6 - 4] by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, June 23. Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on June 29, so the bill will be heard next by the full Senate.
[Note: As indicated above, CSU is on record as opposing AB 2339. In a letter to the author, the CSU stated in part, “Because ex officio members serve on the Board of Trustees by virtue of their office, it would be highly inappropriate to allow a designated deputy to act on their behalf at meetings of the board. …In each instance, the perspective that these board members bring to the board is that of officials who have been elected by the public to serve in their office. No matter how well-intentioned and well-informed their designee, this perspective would be potentially lost with the passage of AB 2339.” ]
AB 2477 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Production and Pricing of College Textbooks
Expresses various findings and declarations of the Legislature with respect to the cost of college textbooks. The bill urges textbook publishers to take specified actions aimed at reducing the amounts that students currently pay for textbooks, including urging publishers to “unbundle” their textbooks [which would allow students to buy them “a la carte,” without additional materials] and specify all changes in a new edition.
The bill would also require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and request the UC, to work with their respective academic senates to encourage faculty to give consideration to the least costly practices in assigning textbooks.
A July 1 amendment makes the bill applicable to private colleges and universities.
Status: PASSED [11 - 0] on June 23 by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on August 2. [Note: CSU’s position of record on this bill is Neutral.]
AB 2637 (Diaz) CSU: Whistleblower Protection
As initially written, this bill would enact the Reporting by California State University Employees Act of Improper Governmental Activities. It would establish for CSU employees procedures for the investigation and determination by the State Personnel Board of complaints of retaliation for engaging in whistleblower activity.
As amended on July 7, this bill instead requires the CSU to establish a grievance procedure to determine whether or not an employee has suffered a reprisal, retaliation, threat, coercion, or similar improper act by another employee after filing a written complaint. The procedure includes an employee’s right to be represented. The bill also now provides that if the grievance is still unresolved at the end of the process, either party can request an arbitrator from a list provided by the American Arbitrators Association (or a similar referral source).
Status: PASSED [4 - 2] on July 1 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on August 2.
[Note: CSU is on record as opposing this bill as duplicative of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, signed into law last year by former Governor Davis, which applies to the CSU.
Upon enactment of the law, Chancellor Reed issued Executive Order 822, which established a process for responding to complaints filed by employees who allege they have been retaliated against for having engaged in a protected disclosure. In addition, existing law also allows CSU employees to file complaints of retaliation with the Bureau of State Audits, and report and seek damages against persons who retaliate against whistleblowers.
When the bill was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the chair, Senator Martha Escutia (D - Whittier), did not allow the CSU portion of the California Whistleblower Protection Act to be put under the purview of the State Personnel Board, favoring the amendments instead.
However, CSU continues to oppose the bill, believing that the existing law “provides wide-sweeping and adequate protection for employees,” and further, that, “Establishing a grievance and arbitration process--which can be proposed within the collective bargaining process--is redundant, may lead to conflicting opinions on the same set of facts, and would significantly increase costs.”]
AB 2678 (Koretz) Textbook Rental Library Service
This bill urges the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges to establish a textbook rental service on their campuses, if the campus president or chancellor certifies that all of the following has occurred:
· The recognized student body organization has voted to request the service;
· The president or chancellor approves of the establishment of the service;
· Any existing contracts, or other established arrangements, with entities operating campus bookstores, permit the establishment of the service; and
· In the case of the community college district, the governing board approves the establishment of the service.
The three systems are also urged to convene task forces to determine recommended procedures and policies for the establishment and operation of textbook rental services.
The bill further requires that the textbook rental program established at a CSU or community college campus after January 1, 2005, be funded by students and be financially self-sustaining; have a textbook rental cost for full-time students that does not exceed 50% of the average annual retail purchase cost of textbooks for full-time students; not limit the rights of faculty to select appropriate texts in accordance with established campus policies and procedures; and give students the option to purchase the textbooks they rent in a manner determined by the textbook rental service.
The bill specifies that the “average annual retail purchase cost of textbooks for full-time students,” is to be calculated by the California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC]. [Note: The bill includes a complicated formula for CPEC to use in making the calculation. Several lobbyists are working with the author to simplify the calculation method.]
The bill authorizes a program to be disbanded either by action of the campus student body organization or by the governing board of the community college district, upon a determination that the service is levying fees or charges at the maximum allowable level and is not financially self-sustaining
Finally, the bill authorizes the governing boards of the three systems to charge a campus-based rental fee to cover the rental services and to levy fines for late, lost, or damaged books.
As amended on June 30, the bill now applies only to undergraduate students, and, as with AB 2477 above, is also applicable now to private colleges and universities.
Status: PASSED [9 - 2] on June 23 by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard on August 2. [Note: CSU’s position of record on this bill is Neutral.]
AB 2710 (Liu) Public Postsecondary Education: Student Fee Policy
This bill expresses legislative findings and intent with respect to the process of setting student fee levels. It also provides that the UC Regents and the CSU Trustees bear the primary responsibility for adjusting mandatory systemwide resident student fees at their respective system campuses, and requires these universities to develop methodologies for the adjustment of fees in accordance with a prescribed procedure.
The bill states these precepts:
· Increases in fees should not be accompanied by a decline in academic quality and service;
· Increases shall be coupled with corresponding increases in state and institutional student financial aid;
· Undergraduate fees should not be increased by more than 8% in any academic year;
· Revenues derived from student fees should remain within the budgets of the respective university systems in order to provide benefits to the students enrolled within a system;
· The State of California should maintain its primary responsibility to fund public postsecondary education in California;
· Student fee amounts, except in fiscal emergencies, should be adjusted annually by the changes in statewide per capita personal income, as compiled by the Department of Finance.
The bill would require the California Postsecondary Education Commission to review annually the policies and procedures adopted pursuant to the bill, and to report on them annually to the Legislature and the Director of Finance.
The bill would become operative on July 1, 2005.
Status: PASSED [7 - 1] on June 23 by the Senate Education Committee and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard on August 2.
AB 2800 (Mountjoy) Academic Materials: Distribution of Academic Work
This bill moves sections from the Donahoe Act, relating to the prohibition against preparing, selling and distributing term papers on public and private higher education campuses, to the Education Code, making the provisions applicable to both post-secondary education institutions and public and private elementary and secondary schools.
As amended on June 8, the bill would also make these prohibitions applicable to academic materials prepared, sold, or otherwise distributed for admissions purposes.
Status: PASSED [9 - 0] by the Senate Education Committee, June 23. The bill will be heard next by the full Senate, when the Legislature reconvenes on August 2.
AB 2849 (Lowenthal) CSU: Board of Trustees
Existing law provides for the membership of the Trustees of the California State University to include 5 specified ex officio members, 16 members appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate, one representative of the alumni associations, 2 student members appointed by the Governor, and a faculty member appointed by the Governor.
This bill would increase the membership of the CSU Board of Trustees by requiring the Governor to appoint a non-faculty employee of the university for a two-year term.
Status: PASSED [8 - 2] by the Senate Education Committee on June 9 and referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on July 6, so this bill will be heard next by the full Senate.
[Note: See notes on AB 1999 and AB 2339 above. As indicated, CSU opposes this bill, maintaining that it “represents a fundamental shift in the lay nature of the Board,” and that it’s important that “all board members feel a responsibility to serve the institution as a whole and not any particular constituency or segment of it.”]
SB 74 (Torlakson) State Property: Vending Machines
As initially written, this bill sought to require each vendor that operates or maintains vending machines on any state property, including the California State University, to satisfy the requirement that at least 50% of the food and beverages offered in the machines meet accepted nutritional guidelines, as defined.
As amended on June 21, the bill instead authorizes each state agency and each CSU campus to survey users of vending machines as to their interest in the inclusion of food or beverages that meet accepted nutritional guidelines, as defined, in those machines. If the majority of respondents indicate a preference for nutritional food and beverages, state agencies and campuses would be authorized to require that 50% of the food and beverages meet accepted nutritional guidelines, as defined.
The bill would additionally require vendors who operate or maintain vending machines on state property to provide information to users, upon request, on the nutritional values of the food and beverages offered in the machines.
Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 5] in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, June 8. Reconsideration was requested and granted, and a subsequent hearing date was established--and then postponed. There is currently no hearing date set for this bill.
SB 1161 (Alpert) Library Bond Act
As initially written this bill sought to place on the November 2, 2004 ballot, the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2004. If approved by voters, the Act would have authorized the sale of General Obligation bonds in the amount of $2 billion for the purpose of financing library construction and renovation, pursuant to a program administered by the State Librarian.
As amended on June 21, the bill would instead enact the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006, for submission to voters at the 2006 statewide primary election. The Act would authorize the sale of $1 billion, rather than $2 billion in General Obligation bonds.
Status: PASSED [7 - 0] on June 23 by the Assembly Local Government Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on August 4.
SB 1760 (Perata) Sovereign Immunity: Waiver: Americans with Disability Act.
Under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states essentially can’t be sued in federal courts for noncompliance with federal laws--at least not without the states’ consent. No provision of existing state law expressly provides for consent by the state to be sued under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
This bill would expressly provide that California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Status: PASSED [23 -12] by the Senate on May 24, and PASSED [8 - 3] by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 15. [Note: In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and the Republicans opposing the bill.] The bill is currently on Suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1785 (Scott/Alpert) Public Postsecondary Education: Dual Admissions Programs
This bill would establish a program with the purpose of ensuring that community college students who wish to earn baccalaureate degrees at a CSU campus are able to do so, and require the CSU to carry out specified tasks in connection with the establishment of this program.
As amended on June 30, the bill would require the CSU to establish admissions requirements for community college transfer students in accordance with specified criteria, and require the CSU, in consultation with the Academic Senate of the CSU, to specify for each high-demand baccalaureate program major a lower-division transfer curriculum. The bill would require each CSU campus, as allowed by enrollment demand and available space, to develop a transfer admission agreement with each student who intends to meet the requirements of the bill.
The bill would require this transfer admission agreement to guarantee admission to the campus and major identified in that agreement and the full transfer of 60 semester units creditable to the baccalaureate degree, subject to the student’s meeting of specified criteria.
The bill would also require the CSU to guarantee that transfer students admitted under the bill will be able to complete the baccalaureate degree in the minimum number of course units required for that degree.
Status: PASSED [7 - 0] on June 22 by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it is scheduled to be heard on August 4.
Return to Archive List