The Gambling Control Act provides for the licensure of certain individuals and establishments involved in various gambling activities, and for the regulation of those activities, by the California Gambling Control Commission. For purposes of the act, existing law defines key employee as any natural person employed in the operation of a gambling enterprise in a supervisory capacity or empowered to make discretionary decisions that regulate gambling operations, including, among others, pit bosses, shift bosses, credit executives, cashier operations supervisors, gambling operation managers and assistant managers, and other managers, as specified. This bill would revise the definition of key employee to mean any natural person employed in the operation of a gambling enterprise in a supervisory capacity or empowered to make discretionary decisions with regard to gambling operations, including, shift managers, credit executives, cashier operations supervisors, gambling operation managers and assistant managers, managers or supervisors of security employees, surveillance managers or supervisors, or any other natural person designated as a key employee, as specified.
Existing law prohibits the sale of various types of products that are determined to be unsafe for the public, including, among others, specified bunk beds, infant cribs, and toys. Existing state regulations require certain types of table saws to be guarded by a hood and to contain various safety features to prevent injury. This bill would prohibit a seller, on or after January 1, 2016, from selling a new table saw in this state unless that table saw is equipped with injury mitigation technology, as defined.
Existing law governs contracts between rental car companies and their customers. Those provisions, among other things, require a rental company to disclose specified information to a potential renter, set forth a renter's responsibilities and liabilities, and impose certain requirements on advertising. This bill would require the California Law Revision Commission to study whether the laws regulating vehicle rental companies and their consumers would benefit from greater clarity and concision, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature on or before December 31, 2012.
Existing law authorizes various state entities to promulgate and implement administrative regulations, subject to specified criteria. This bill would require, no later than December 31, 2013, each state entity that promulgates regulations to review those regulations, and repeal or report to the Legislature those identified as duplicative, archaic, or inconsistent with statute or other regulations. The bill would also require these entities to report to the Legislature by that date on regulations deemed to inhibit economic growth in the state.
Existing law provides that an injury of an employee arising out of and in the course of employment is generally compensable through the workers' compensation system. Existing law provides that, in the case of certain public employees, the term "injury" includes heart trouble, hernia, pneumonia, meningitis, lower back impairment, and other injuries and diseases. This bill would provide, with respect to hospital employees who provide direct patient care in an acute care hospital, that the term "injury" includes methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infection (MRSA skin infection) that develops or manifests itself during the period of the person's employment with the hospital. This bill would create a presumption that MRSA skin infection arises out of and in the course of the person's employment if MRSA skin infection develops or manifests as specified. This bill would prohibit attributing MRSA skin infection that develops or manifests in those cases to any disease or skin infection existing prior to that development or manifestation.
(1) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, as defined. Existing law authorizes the commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law requires the commission to designate a baseline quantity of electricity and gas necessary to supply a significant portion of the reasonable energy needs of the average residential customer and requires that electrical and gas corporations file rates and charges, to be approved by the commission, providing baseline rates. Existing law requires the commission, in establishing the baseline rates, to avoid excessive rate increases for residential customers. Existing law requires the commission to establish a program of assistance to specified low-income electric and gas customers, referred to as the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. Existing law revises certain prohibitions upon raising residential electrical rates adopted during the energy crisis of 2000–01, to authorize the commission to increase the rates charged residential customers for electricity usage up to 130% of the baseline quantities by the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index from the prior year plus 1%, but not less than 3% and not more than 5% per year. Existing law additionally authorizes the commission to increase the rates in effect for CARE program participants for electricity usage up to 130% of baseline quantities by the annual percentage increase in benefits under the CalWORKs program, as defined, not to exceed 3%, and subject to the limitation that the CARE rates not exceed 80% of the corresponding rates charged to residential customers not participating in the CARE program. This bill would authorize the commission to approve a fixed per-customer charge not based upon usage that applies to all residential customers of an electrical corporation, including CARE program participants, to recover fixed costs of providing service, if the commission finds that the charge is just and reasonable. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that any fixed per-customer charge be used to decrease the rates paid by residential customers for usage in excess of 130% of baseline amounts. The bill would require the commission to ensure that electricity rates are affordable for qualified low-income ratepayers and would require electrical corporations to offer discounts or other ratepayer subsidies to ensure safe, reliable, and affordable electricity to these customers so that these customers are not at risk of service disconnections that would cause them to sacrifice electricity service. (2) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime. Because the provisions of this bill would be a part of the act and because a violation of an order or decision of the commission implementing its requirements would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. (3) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts between the State of California and specified Indian tribes. Existing law creates in the State Treasury the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund and the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund for the receipt and deposit of moneys received by the state from Indian tribes pursuant to the terms of gaming compacts entered into with the state, and authorizes moneys in those funds to be used for certain purposes. Existing law, until January 1, 2021, establishes the method of calculating the distribution of appropriations from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund for grants to local government agencies impacted by tribal gaming. This bill would reorganize and make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, as specified, after a public hearing on the matter, to request the State Board of Education to waive all or part of any section of the Education Code or any regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of the Education Code that may be waived, except for specified provisions. This bill would include additional specified provisions of the Education Code, relating to teacher evaluation and the Quality Education Investment Act of 2006, that may not be waived. (2) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that governing boards of school districts establish a uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of all certificated personnel within each school district of the state. Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish standards of expected pupil achievement at each grade level in each area of study and to evaluate and assess certificated employee performance on a continuing basis as it reasonably relates to the progress of pupils toward the established standards and, if applicable, the state adopted academic content standards as measured by state adopted criterion referenced assessments, the instructional techniques and strategies used by the employee, the employee's adherence to curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of a suitable learning environment, within the scope of the employee's responsibilities. This bill would provide that the provisions described above would become inoperative on July 1, 2014. The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding the nature of effective teachers and of the teaching profession. Commencing on July 1, 2014, the bill would require the governing board of each school district to adopt and implement a locally negotiated best practices teacher evaluation system, described as one in which each teacher is evaluated on a continuing basis on the degree to which he or she accomplishes specific objectives and multiple observations of instructional and other professional practices that are conducted by trained evaluators. The bill would authorize the state board, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and appropriate education stakeholder groups, to adopt nonregulatory guidance to support the implementation of a best practices teacher evaluation system by school districts, as specified. The bill would, on or before May 1, 2013, require the governing board of each school district, at a regularly scheduled public hearing, to seek comment on the development and implementation of the best practices teacher evaluation system, and, on or before May 1 of each year prior to local negotiations required by law, to seek comment on the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would require the governing board of each school district to disclose the provisions of the best practices teaching evaluation system at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The bill would also require the governing board of each school district to establish and define job responsibilities for certificated, noninstructional employees and evaluate and assess their performance in relation to those responsibilities. The bill would provide that these provisions do not apply to certificated personnel who are employed on an hourly basis in adult education classes. The bill would require that funds appropriated pursuant to a provision of law for the 2013–14 fiscal year be distributed to school districts, as specified, for the purpose of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system, and would require these school districts to use the funds, as specified. The bill would also provide that the provisions of the best practices teacher evaluation system do not supersede or invalidate a teacher evaluation system that is locally negotiated and that is in effect at the time the best practices teacher evaluation system becomes operative. (3) Existing law requires that an evaluation and assessment of the performance of a certificated employee be made on a continuing basis, as provided, including at least every 5 years for personnel with permanent status who have been employed at least 10 years with the school district, are highly qualified, as specified, and whose previous evaluation rated the employee as meeting or exceeding standards. This bill would require the evaluation and assessment of the above personnel at least every 3 years, except as locally negotiated and provided in the best practices teacher evaluation system. (4) The existing Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 effectuates the intent of the Legislature to implement the terms of the proposed settlement agreement of a specified legal action, to provide for the discharge of the minimum state educational funding requirement, to improve the quality of academic instruction and the level of pupil achievement in schools whose pupils have high levels of poverty and complex educational needs, to develop exemplary school district and school practices to create working conditions to attract and retain well-qualified teachers and administrators, and to focus school resources solely on instructional improvement and pupil services. The act requires county superintendents of schools to annually review participant schools and their data to determine compliance with the program requirements, including, among others, specified class size requirements. The act requires, among other things, $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09, 2011–12, and 2014–15 fiscal years, inclusive, and requires those funds to be allocated, as specified, to Sections A and B of the State School Fund. A provision of the act appropriates $218,322,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent, as specified, from the General Fund. This bill would revise the class size requirement for kindergarten and grades 1 to 3, inclusive, to be no more than an average of 20 pupils per class in each grade level at each schoolsite, provided that any grade 1 to 3 classroom at that schoolsite has no more than 22 pupils. The bill would instead require $450,000,000 per fiscal year to be appropriated from the General Fund for specified purposes for each of the 2008–09 and 2011–12 fiscal years, and would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year, appropriate $89,000,000 to the Superintendent, as specified, for purposes of the act. The bill would, commencing with the 2013–14 fiscal year and continuing annually thereafter, require the Superintendent to allocate, as specified, certain appropriated funds that are not allocated to schools with kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in a fiscal year due to program termination or otherwise, except funds allocated in the 2013–14 fiscal year for purposes of implementing the best practices teacher evaluation system. The bill also would instead appropriate $361,000,000 for the 2013–14 fiscal year, for allocation, as specified, from the General Fund, including $313,000,000 for transfer by the Controller to Section A of the State School Fund for allocation by the Superintendent. (5) Under the California Constitution, whenever the Legislature or a state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, including a school district and a community college district, the state is required to provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government, with specified exceptions. Existing law, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, requires certain funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for reimbursement of the cost of a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by statute or executive order to be available as a block grant to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to support specified state-mandated local programs and permits those entities to elect to receive that block grant funding in lieu of claiming mandated costs pursuant to the state claims process. This bill would, as of July 1, 2014, add specified mandated programs, including the best practices teacher evaluation system, to the state-mandated local programs supported by the block grant funding. (6) By requiring school districts to perform additional duties, this 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. (7) Funds appropriated by this bill would be applied toward the minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts imposed by Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries sustained in the course of his or her employment. Existing law requires the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation to undertake a specified study examining the causes of the number of insolvencies among workers' compensation insurers between the calendar years of 1998 and 2008, to be conducted by an independent research organization, and requires the commission and the Department of Industrial Relations, no later than July 1, 2009, to publish the report of the study on its Internet Web site and to inform the Legislature and the Governor of the availability of the report. Existing law requires the administrative director to begin a study, on or before July 1, 2003, of medical treatment provided to workers who have sustained industrial injuries and illnesses, and to report and make recommendations, based on the results of the study, to the Legislature, on or before July 1, 2004. Existing law requires the administrative director, after consultation with the Insurance Commissioner, to contract with a qualified organization to study the effects of the 2003 and 2004 legislative reforms on workers' compensation insurance rates, and requires the administrative director to submit the final study on or before January 1, 2006. This bill would repeal these workers' compensation study requirements.
(1) Existing law authorizes a public credit provider, as defined, to require a participating party, with regard to providing credit enhancement for bonds, notes, certificates of participation, or other evidences of indebtedness of a participating party, to agree to specified conditions, including allowing the Controller to allocate specified school district, county office of education, or charter school apportionments to public credit providers if the public credit provider is required to make principal or interest payments, or both, pursuant to the credit enhancement agreement. Existing law imposes those same conditions on securing financing or refinancing for projects or working capital from the California School Finance Authority, in which case the Controller allocates apportionments to an identified trustee when a participating party will not make a payment to the authority at the time the payment is required. This bill would authorize these payments to a public credit provider or a trustee, as applicable, to be made from specified funds if the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 (Attorney General reference number 12-0009) is approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election. (2) The Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 effectuates the intent of the Legislature to implement the terms of the proposed settlement agreement of a specified legal action, to provide for the discharge of the minimum state educational funding requirement, and to improve the quality of academic instruction and the level of pupil achievement in schools whose pupils have high levels of poverty and complex educational needs, among other things. A provision of the act appropriates $218,322,000 from the General Fund for the 2013–14 fiscal year, of which $170,322,000 is for transfer by the Controller to Section A of the State School Fund for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction pursuant to the act. This bill would instead require, for the 2013–14 fiscal year, that $361,000,000 be appropriated from the General Fund, of which $313,000,000 would be for transfer by the Controller to Section A of the State School Fund for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction pursuant to the act. (3) Existing regulations of the State Department of Education, among other things, prohibit the authorization, order, consent to, or payment for specified interventions, or interventions similar to the prohibited interventions and require nonpublic schools and agencies to develop policies consistent with regulations related to emergency interventions. Existing department regulations also provide that emergency interventions, among other things, may be used only to control unpredictable, spontaneous behavior which poses a clear and present danger of serious physical harm to the individual or others, require that emergency interventions be employed for no longer than necessary to contain the behavior, and prohibit emergency interventions from including specified interventions. Existing regulations of the United States Department of Education require the individualized education program (IEP) team to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behavior of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning and the learning of others. Existing regulations of the United States Department of Education provide the procedures for evaluations related to behavioral needs. This bill would codify a portion of those federal regulations related to emergency interventions and prohibited interventions consistent with certain requirements. The bill generally would codify the portion of the federal regulations that require the IEP team to consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address the behavior of an individual whose behavior impedes his or her learning and the learning of others, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program, and require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to issue nonmandatory program guidelines regarding the systematic use of behavioral interventions, and provide related training, as specified. (4) Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop and the State Board of Education to adopt regulations governing the use of behavioral interventions with individuals with exceptional needs receiving special education and related services. This bill would require the state board to repeal those regulations. (5) Existing law provides a person recognized by the national Behavior Analyst Certification Board as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst qualifies as a behavioral intervention case manager of a school district, special education local plan area, or county office of education and may conduct behavior assessments and provide behavioral intervention services for individuals with exceptional needs. Existing law provides that a school district, special education local plan area, or county office of education is not required to use a Board Certified Behavior Analyst as a behavioral intervention case manager. This bill would instead provide that a person recognized by the national Behavior Analyst Certification Board as a Board Certified Behavior Analyst may conduct behavior assessments and provide behavioral intervention services for individuals with exceptional needs. The bill would provide that a school district, special education local plan area, or county office of education is not required to use a Board Certified Behavior Analyst to conduct behavior assessments and provide behavioral intervention services for individuals with exceptional needs. (6) Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program (Cal Grant Program) , establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B awards, the Cal Grant C awards, and the Cal Grant T awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission (commission) , and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions, as defined. Existing law requires the commission to certify by October 1 of each year a qualifying institution's latest 3-year cohort default rate as most recently reported by the United States Department of Education. Existing law provides that, for purposes of the 2012–13 academic year, and every academic year thereafter, an otherwise qualifying institution with a 3-year cohort default rate that is equal to or greater than 15.5% is ineligible for initial and renewal Cal Grant awards at the institution. Existing law also requires that an otherwise qualifying institution is ineligible for an initial or renewal Cal Grant award at the institution if the institution has a graduation rate of 30% or less for students taking 150% or less of the expected time to complete degree requirements, as specified, with certain exceptions. Existing law also requires that an otherwise qualifying institution that becomes ineligible under these provisions for initial and renewal Cal Grant awards may regain its eligibility for the academic year following an academic year in which it satisfies the requirements relating to the cohort default rate and the graduation rate. This bill would instead require that an otherwise qualifying institution that becomes ineligible under these provisions for initial and renewal Cal Grant awards shall regain its eligibility for the academic year for which it satisfies these requirements. (7) Provisions of law that became inoperative on July 1, 2003, and that were repealed on January 1, 2004, established the Governor's Scholarship Programs under the administration of the Scholarshare Investment Board. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature to provide explicit authority to the board to continue to administer accounts for, and to make awards to, persons who qualified for awards under the provisions of the Governor's Scholarship Programs as those provisions existed on January 1, 2003, and to provide for the management and disbursement of funds previously set aside for the Governor's Scholarship Programs. Existing law provides that the amount remaining in the Golden State Scholarshare Trust following a specified transfer is available as a reserve for funding claims for awards. Existing law additionally states the intent of the Legislature to provide a guarantee should additional funds be needed to cover awards authorized and made pursuant to the program. Existing law also requires the board to negotiate with the current manager of the program to execute an amended or new management and funding agreement, which would be required to include specified terms, including, but not limited to, terms that provide for the return to the General Fund of specified moneys appropriated to the Governor's Scholarship Programs. Of those funds transferred to the General Fund, this bill would appropriate $5,000,000 to the Chancellor of the California State University, without regard to fiscal years, to fund specified purposes relating to open education resources pursuant to legislation enacted in the 2011—12 Regular Session of the Legislature. The bill would prohibit all, or a portion, of that $5,000,000 from being encumbered unless at least 100% of that amount encumbered is matched by private funds, and would require the amount of the $5,000,000 that is not matched by private funds to revert to the Golden State Scholarshare Trust for purposes of the Governor's Scholarship Programs. (8) Under the California Constitution, whenever the Legislature or a state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, including a school district and a community college district, the state is required to provide a subvention of funds to reimburse the local government, with specified exceptions. Existing law, commencing with the 2012–13 fiscal year, requires that certain funds appropriated in the annual Budget Act for reimbursement of the cost of a new program or increased level of service of an existing program mandated by statute or executive order be available as a block grant to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to support specified state-mandated local programs and permits those entities to elect to receive that block grant funding in lieu of claiming mandated costs pursuant to the state claims procedure. This bill would add specified state-mandated local programs to the set of programs for which a school district, charter school, or county office of education may elect to receive a block grant, including, among others, the inter district attendance permits program. (9) The Budget Act of 2011 made numerous appropriations for the support of public education in this state. Existing law establishes the Proposition 98 Reversion Account in the General Fund, and requires that the Legislature, from time to time, transfer into this account moneys previously appropriated in satisfaction of the constitutional minimum funding requirements that have not been disbursed or otherwise encumbered for the purposes for which they were appropriated. The Budget Act of 2011 reappropriated $6,824,000 from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account, of which $6,594,000 was for allocation by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for apportionment for special education programs, as specified. This bill would reappropriate an additional $10,335,000 from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account for allocation by the Superintendent to support special education, as specified. (10) The Budget Act of 2011, as amended, reappropriated $220,137,000 from the General Fund to the State Department of Education for apportionment for special education programs. This bill would reduce this reappropriation to the department for those purposes by $10,335,000 to $209,802,000. (11) Existing law establishes the 2006 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund in the State Treasury for deposit of funds from the proceeds of bonds issued and sold for the purpose of providing funds to aid the University of California, the Hastings College of the Law, and the California State University. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2012 by appropriating $4,750,000 from the 2006 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund to the University of California for the purpose of funding preliminary plans and working drawings for the Classroom and Academic Office Building at the Merced campus. The bill would require that contractors and subcontractors of the University of California be required to pay prevailing wages, as specified, as a condition of the availability of these funds. The bill would also authorize the use of the 2006 bond funds remaining at the end of capital outlay projects for specified purposes. (12) The Budget Act of 2012 appropriated $2,053,750,000 for the support of the University of California. This bill would require the University of California, as a condition of receipt of those funds, to report to the Legislature by May 1, 2013, on whether it has met an enrollment goal for the 2012–13 academic year. (13) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (14) This bill would appropriate $230,000 from federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act carryover funds to the State Department of Education to, among other things, provide oversight of, and technical assistance and monitoring to, local educational agencies regarding changes to the requirements related to the identification and provision of behavior intervention services made pursuant to this act. (15) This bill would require the State Board of Education and the Health and Human Services Agency to repeal regulations related to mental health services provided by county mental health agencies that are no longer supported by statute, including specified regulations. (16) Funds appropriated by this bill would be applied toward the minimum funding requirements for school districts and community college districts imposed by Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. (17) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a bill providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.
Existing law contains various provisions relating to contracts for the performance of private works of improvement, including provisions for the withholding and disbursement of retention proceeds. Existing law provides that, with respect to those contracts for works of improvement, the retention proceeds withheld from any payment may not exceed 150% of the disputed amount. This bill would increase the amount that may be withheld from progress payments or final payments, depending on the circumstances, to a sum of various amounts and percentages, as specified.
The Williamson Act authorizes a landowner to petition the board or council of a city or county to cancel a contract entered into under the act, and requires the landowner to pay a cancellation fee, as specified. A board or council is authorized to grant tentative approval of the cancellation after the county assessor of the county in which the land is located has determined the current fair market value of the land as though it were free of the contractual restriction, and the board or council calculates the cancellation fee. Existing law sets the cancellation fee at 12.5% of the cancellation value of the property. This bill would require a landowner that has petitioned the board or council of a city or county to cancel a contract to pay 5% of the total cancellation fee within 30 days of the board's or council's decision to grant tentative approval of the cancellation. The bill would require the payment to be applied toward the total cancellation fee, as specified. The bill would require the payment to be returned to the landowner if the contract is not canceled.
