Introduced.
This measure would acknowledge that the State of California engaged in atrocities against Native Americans within the state and would profusely apologize to Native Americans in California for these inexcusable actions.
Introduced.
This measure would urge the United States Congress to pass a law to reinstate the arms embargo against Vietnam until such time that human rights in that country significantly improve.
This measure would commend Muslim Americans for their economic, political, and cultural impact on California and the United States. This measure would call upon Members of the United States Congress to respect the First Amendment, and to speak out against and reject efforts to monitor mosques, efforts to police and profile Muslim Americans, and efforts to prohibit Muslims from immigrating to the United States, and to speak out against and reject any efforts to pursue an immigration policy based on religion.
The measure would urge the Members of Congress to work to recognize Mexican American families' needs to visit family members in Mexico and increase commerce between our nations by reducing border delays through a more open border and to speak out against and to reject efforts to build a wall along the United States-Mexico border.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 110 in the County of Los Angeles as the Vin Scully Highway. The measure would also request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering the cost, to erect those signs.
This measure would designate a specified portion of Interstate 5 in the County of Los Angeles as the Vin Scully Highway. The measure would also request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering the cost, to erect those signs.
(1) Existing law, The Charter Schools Act of 1992, permits teachers and parents to petition the governing board of a school district to approve a charter school to operate independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing, among other things, improved pupil learning. This bill would authorize a school district, county office of education, or charter school to file a grievance with the State Board of Education alleging a violation of an obligation of a chartering authority, as provided. The bill would require the state board's Advisory Commission on Charter Schools to hold a public hearing on the grievance and, if it finds the complaint meritorious, make a specific recommendation to the state board, which may include specific corrective action or suspension or revocation of the chartering authority's authority to approve, oversee, renew, and revoke charters. (2) Existing law requires a charting authority to meet certain charter school authorizing, supervisorial, and oversight responsibilities. This bill would authorize the state board to approve a county office of education or a school district with demonstrated authorizing and oversight capacity to serve as an expanded authorizer of charter schools allowing that chartering entity to assume the charter school authorizing, supervisorial, and oversight responsibilities of another school district in certain situations, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, after receiving a charter petition, to hold a public hearing on the provisions of the charter and prohibits the governing board of a school district from denying a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support certain findings. This bill would require the governing board of the school district to base the specific facts on substantial evidence and provide the evidence to the petitioners and make it available to the public before the hearing. Existing law authorizes a charter school petitioner, if the governing board of a school district denies a petition, to submit the petition for the establishment of a charter school to the county board of education. Existing law also authorizes a charter school petitioner, if the county board of education denies a petition, to submit the petition for the establishment of a charter school to the state board. This bill would authorize a charter school petitioner to appeal to the county board of education if, after the petitioner submits a charter petition, the school district fails to act on the petition within required timelines or the governing board of a school district fails to adopt required findings to deny a petition. The bill would also permit a charter school petitioner to appeal to the state board if the county board of education fails to act on the petition within required timelines or the county board of education fails to adopt required findings to deny a petition. Existing law requires a charter petition that either the county board of education or the state board fails to act upon within 120 days of receipt to be subject to judicial review. This bill would, instead, require a charter petition that the state board fails to act upon within 120 days of receipt to be subject to judicial review. Existing law authorizes the state board, by mutual agreement, to designate its supervisorial and oversight responsibilities for a charter school approved by the state board to any local educational agency in the county in which the charter school is located or to the governing board of the school district that first denied the petition. This bill would also authorize the state board to designate its responsibilities to a county office of education. Existing law requires a charter school that is granted its charter through an appeal to the state board and elects to seek renewal of its charter, before expiration of the charter, to submit its petition for renewal to the governing board of the school district that initially denied the charter. This bill would, instead, authorize a charter school that is granted its charter through an appeal to the state board or a county board of education and elects to seek renewal of its charter, before expiration of the charter, to submit its petition for renewal to the governing board of the school district that initially denied the charter. Existing law authorizes a charter school, if the governing board of the school district denies the charter school's petition for renewal, to petition the state board for the renewal of its charter. This bill would authorize a charter school, if the governing board of the school district denies the charter school's petition for renewal, to petition the charter school's current chartering authority for the renewal of its charter. (4) Existing law authorizes a county board of education to approve a countywide charter only if it finds, in addition to other requirements, that the educational services to be provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county. This bill would, instead, authorize a county board of education to approve a countywide charter only if it finds, in addition to other requirements, that the educational services to be provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services. Existing law authorizes a county board of education to grant a countywide charter only if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school has reasonable justification for why it could not be established by petition to a school district. This bill would, instead, authorize a county board of education to grant a countywide charter only if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school petitioners have demonstrated that the charter school will provide a high-quality educational program. The bill would require the county board of education to also ensure that the charter school has described in the petition the manner in which the charter school will seek to share best and promising practices of the charter school with other traditional public schools and charter schools that have low academic performance. Existing law prohibits a charter school petitioner from submitting a petition for a countywide charter to the state board on appeal. This bill would authorize a charter school petitioner to submit a petition for a countywide charter to the state board on appeal. (5) Existing law authorizes the state board to approve a charter for the operation of a state charter school that may operate at multiple sites throughout the state. This bill would authorize the state board to approve a charter for the operation of a state charter school that may operate at one or multiple sites throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the state board to grant a petition for the operation of a state charter school only if it finds that the proposed state charter school would provide instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be provided by a charter school operating in only one school district, or only in one county. This bill would instead authorize the state board to grant a petition for the operation of a state charter school only if it is satisfied that the charter school petitioners have demonstrated that the proposed state charter school will provide a high-quality educational program and it finds that the proposed state charter school will provide instructional services of statewide benefit. The bill would require the state board, as part of the determination of the statewide benefit, to ensure that the proposed charter school has described in the petition the manner in which the charter school will seek to share best and promising practices of the charter school with other traditional public schools and charter schools that have low academic performance. The bill would authorize the state board to establish other criteria or conditions to determine or define a statewide benefit. (6) Existing law authorizes a chartering authority that is given the responsibility for supervisorial oversight of a charter school approved by the state board to charge the charter school for the actual costs of supervisorial oversight. This bill would require that chartering authority to submit annually a financial statement to each charter school it oversees that accounts for the use of any oversight fees collected from the charter school. Existing law authorizes charter schools to separately purchase administrative or other services from the chartering authority. This bill would require the charter school governing body and the governing board of the chartering authority to each approve any services agreements between the charter school and the chartering authority in a public meeting and make a finding that documents the validity of the fair market value of the agreement. The bill would authorize a county superintendent of schools to, based upon a written complaint or other information that justifies an investigation, conduct an investigation, as specified, to determine whether the school district has used supervisorial oversight fees properly or has charged service fees far in excess of fair market value. The bill also authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to, based upon a written complaint or other information that justifies an investigation, conduct an investigation into a chartering county office of education's compliance with these provisions. Existing law defines "costs of supervisorial oversight" for the above purposes. This bill would require a school district to include charter school oversight fees in it's annual audit, as specified. (7) This bill would also correct cross-references, make conforming changes, and make other nonsubstantive changes. (8) To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on school districts and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Under existing law, a person may not stop, park, or leave a vehicle standing alongside a curb space authorized for the loading or unloading of passengers of a bus engaged as a common carrier in local transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb, except that existing law allows local authorities to permit schoolbuses to stop alongside these curb spaces upon agreement between a transit system operating buses as common carriers in local transportation and a public school district or private school. This bill would also allow local authorities to permit shuttle service vehicles, as defined, to stop for the loading or unloading of passengers alongside these curb spaces upon agreement between a transit system operating buses engaged as common carriers in local transportation and a shuttle service provider, as defined. The bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to not replace public transit services. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law designates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay area, with various powers and duties with respect to transportation planning and programming, as specified, in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area region. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority, governed by the same board as the commission, but created as a separate entity, with specified powers and duties relative to the administration of certain toll revenues from state-owned toll bridges within the geographic jurisdiction of the commission. Under existing law, the commission is comprised of 21 appointed members, as specified. This bill, effective January 1, 2017, would redesignate the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as the Bay Area Transportation Commission. The bill would require commissioners to be elected by districts comprised of approximately 750,000 residents. The bill would require each district to elect one commissioner, except that a district with a toll bridge, as defined, within the boundaries of the district would elect 2 commissioners. The bill would require commissioner elections to occur in 2016, with new commissioners to take office on January 1, 2017. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature for district boundaries to be drawn by a citizens' redistricting commission and campaigns for commissioners to be publicly financed. This bill, effective January 1, 2017, would delete the Bay Area Toll Authority's status as a separate entity from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and merge the authority into the Bay Area Transportation Commission. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a State Highway Operation and Protection Program every other year for the expenditure of transportation capital improvement funds for projects that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system, excluding projects that add new traffic lanes. Existing law provides for the programming of transportation capital improvement funds for other objectives through the State Transportation Improvement Program administered by the California Transportation Commission, which includes projects recommended by regional transportation planning agencies through adoption of a regional transportation improvement program and projects recommended by the department through adoption of an interregional transportation improvement program, as specified. This bill, by January 1, 2017, would require the California Transportation Commission to establish a process whereby the department and local agencies receiving funding for highway capital improvements from the State Highway Operation and Protection Program or the State Transportation Improvement Program prioritize projects that provide meaningful benefits to the mobility and safety needs of disadvantaged community residents, as specified. (2) Existing law creates the Active Transportation Program in the Department of Transportation for the purpose of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, with specified available funds to be awarded to eligible projects by the California Transportation Commission and regional transportation agencies, as specified. This bill would specifically require $125,000,000 to be appropriated annually from the State Highway Account to the Active Transportation Program, with these additional funds to be used for network grants that prioritize projects in underserved areas, as specified.
