Existing law provides that the parents and guardians of pupils enrolled in public schools have the right and should have the opportunity, as mutually supportive and respectful partners in the education of their children within the public schools, to be informed by the school, and to participate in the education of their children, as specified, except to the extent that informing a parent or guardian or permitting participation by a parent or guardian in the education of a child conflicts with a valid restraining order, protective order, or order for custody or visitation issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Existing law requires a school district to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all parents and guardians of pupils who speak a language other than English are properly notified in English and in their home language of these rights and opportunities. This bill would authorize parents and guardians of English learners to bring an oral language interpreter to all conferences, meetings, or proceedings held at a school district building or schoolsite or sponsored by the school district or school, except when prohibited by state or federal law.
Sponsored bills
The California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act prohibits, on and after January 1, 2010, except for certain specified circumstances, a person from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale in the state specified general purpose lights that contain levels of hazardous substances prohibited by the European Union pursuant to the RoHS Directive, as specified. This bill, on and after January 1, 2011, would prohibit the sale or offering for sale in this state of luminaires and lighting fixtures that are intended for general lighting purposes and contain preheat ballasts for operation of preheat linear fluorescent lamps. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, requires reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible in an efficient, cost-effective manner to conserve water, energy, and other natural resources. This bill would prohibit the distribution of moneys from energy efficiency investment funds or any other funds generated from usage-based charges on electricity distribution that are provided by California's retail sellers of electricity to any manufacturer for the purchase and distribution of compact fluorescent lamps, unless the compact fluorescent lamps meet certain specifications, and the manufacturer of the compact fluorescent lamps, individually, collectively with other manufacturers, or through a stewardship organization, has implemented a residential fluorescent lamp recycling program for each residential fluorescent lamp, as defined, sold by retailers selling the manufacturer's subsidized lamps. The bill would prohibit the distribution of moneys from funds generated from usage-based charges on electricity distribution that are provided by California's retail sellers of electricity to a retailer, except moneys provided to a retailer through a manufacturer, unless the retailer has agreed to provide the public an in-store collection opportunity for the recycling of residential fluorescent lamps. The bill would prohibit manufacturers and retailers from using funds generated from usage-based charges on electricity distribution that are provided by California's retail sellers of electricity for recycling activities. The bill would require the manufacturers of residential fluorescent lamps sold in this state, individually, collectively with other manufacturers, or through a stewardship organization, to establish and maintain a residential fluorescent lamp recycling program containing specified elements within 90 days of receiving the funds generated from usage-based charges. The bill would require a manufacturer, individually, collectively with other manufacturers, or through a stewardship organization, to submit an annual report on the implementation of the residential fluorescent lamp recycling program. The bill would require the board to establish an administrative fee, not to exceed $5,000 per manufacturer and bearing a reasonable relationship to actual costs, to be paid by the manufacturers to cover the cost of reviewing and approving the annual report and of oversight and enforcement of the program.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law establishes the Hastings College of the Law, under the governance of the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, within the University of California. Existing law prescribes criteria for the disclosure of the names and addresses of alumni of the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law. Existing law requires that the names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses of alumni be disclosed only to provide those persons with informational materials relating to the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law, and its programs and activities; to provide those persons, or the trustees, auxiliary organizations of the California State University, as defined, or the Regents of the University of California, the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, or the alumni associations with beneficial commercial opportunities; or to promote and support the educational mission of the California State University, the University of California, the trustees, the regents, the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of the Law, or the alumni associations. Existing law authorizes this disclosure only if the trustees, auxiliary organizations, or the alumni associations, in the case of the California State University, or the regents, the board of directors, or the alumni associations, in the case of the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law, have a written agreement with a business, as defined, that maintains control over this data that requires the business to maintain the confidentiality of the names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses of the alumni, that requires that the university or the college retain the right to approve or reject any purpose for which the private information is to be used by the business and to review and approve the text of mailings sent to alumni, and that prohibits the business from using the information for any purposes other than those described, and the disclosure of alumni names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses does not include the names and addresses of alumni who have directed the trustees, the regents, the board of directors, or an alumni association or auxiliary organization, not to disclose their names, addresses, or electronic mail addresses. Existing law requires the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law to make available to its alumni a specified form or an alternative notice, including specified information, in a mailing or in an Internet posting, as prescribed, before alumni names, addresses, and electronic mail addresses may be disclosed. This bill would require the form to be provided to alumni through a link on the homepage of the Internet Web site of the alumni association or in the alumni association's privacy policy. The bill would also express the intent of the Legislature that, by July 1, 2014, the California State University, the University of California, and the Hastings College of the Law submit reports to the Legislature regarding compliance with these provisions. (2) Under existing law, these provisions are applicable to the University of California and the Hastings College of the Law only to the extent that the regents or the board of directors act, by resolution, to make them applicable. Existing law specifies that these provisions are repealed as of January 1, 2011. This bill would extend those repeal dates to January 1, 2016.
Existing law establishes the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (the STAR Program) pursuant to which school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education are required to administer achievement tests to each of their pupils in grades 2 to 11, inclusive. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, on or before April 1, 2010, to contract with an independent evaluator for evaluation of the STAR Program, as specified. The bill would require the independent evaluator to complete a report containing the findings of his or her evaluation. The Superintendent would be required to provide this evaluation to the Legislature, the Governor, and the State Board of Education on or before November 1, 2010. The bill would require an existing advisory committee to advise the Superintendent on the independent evaluation of the STAR Program, including making recommendations regarding the selection of the independent evaluator and the evaluation parameters. The bill would require the Superintendent to appoint 4 additional members to the advisory committee for these purposes. The bill would require the State Department of Education to use specified federal funds, not exceeding the amount of $150,000, for the purpose of contracting for this evaluation.
Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Under existing law, a health insurer that provides maternity coverage may not restrict inpatient hospital benefits, as specified, and is required to provide notice of the maternity services coverage. This bill would require new forms for health insurance policies submitted to the department after January 1, 2010, to provide coverage for maternity services, as defined. With respect to policy forms on file with the department as of January 1, 2010, the bill would require health insurers to submit to the department, on or before March 1, 2010, revised policy forms that provide coverage for maternity services and would require insurers to include that coverage in the corresponding policies that are issued, amended, or renewed following the department's approval of the revised forms, as specified.
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish an advisory committee to advise on all appropriate matters relative to the creation of the Academic Performance Index and the implementation of the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program and the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. Existing law requires the committee to make recommendations to the Superintendent on the appropriateness and feasibility of a methodology for generating a measurement of academic performance by using unique pupil identifiers and annual academic achievement growth to provide a more accurate measure of a school's academic achievement growth over time. This bill would require the committee, by January 1, 2011, to make recommendations to the Superintendent for the establishment of a methodology for measuring a school's academic achievement growth and a pupil's academic achievement growth more accurately and validly over time. This bill would require the committee to consider a specified pilot study of academic growth measures in making its recommendations to the Superintendent, and that the recommendations be consistent with specified federal laws. The Superintendent would be required to immediately forward the committee's recommendations to specified state entities. This bill would provide that specific provisions of the bill would not be implemented unless and until funds are appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute.
Existing law allows any school district to impose qualified special taxes, as defined, within the district pursuant to specified procedures. This bill would authorize school districts, under certain conditions, to create an education finance district that may impose, within the education finance district, a qualified special tax pursuant to specified procedures.
(1) The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes any one or more persons to submit a petition to the governing board of a school district to establish a charter school that operates independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing specified goals. The act limits the maximum number of charter schools authorized to operate in the state each year, as specified. This bill would delete that limitation. (2) The Charter Schools Act specifies the procedures for the submission, review, and approval or denial of a petition to establish a standard or countywide charter school. The act authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education to deny a charter petition if the board makes written factual findings that demonstrate that the petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive descriptions of the measurable pupil outcomes identified for use by the charter school. This bill, commencing January 1, 2010, or the effective date of the bill, whichever date is later, would require a standard or countywide charter school petition to contain a comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes selected by the applicant school that are consistent with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes identified as goals in the school's educational program and include specified components, and would authorize the denial of a charter petition if the measurable pupil outcomes described in the petition are not in compliance with these requirements. By January 1, 2012, the bill would require all charter schools authorized prior to January 1, 2010, or the effective date of the bill, whichever date is later, to submit to the authorizing school district or agency a comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes selected by the school pursuant to these provisions. The bill also would require a charter school that has selected measurable pupil outcomes pursuant to these provisions to use the measurable pupil outcomes for purposes of annual assessment of pupil performance and annually to submit the outcomes to the authorizing school district or agency, the Superintendent, and the State Board of Education. By requiring charter schools to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The Charter Schools Act limits the duration of charters to a period not to exceed 5 years and authorizes the chartering authority to grant one or more subsequent renewals for an additional period of 5 years. The act specifies the criteria a charter school is required to meet in order to receive a renewal of its charter. This bill, commencing January 1, 2011, or the effective date of the bill, whichever date is later, would require all charter renewals to contain a comprehensive description of measurable pupil outcomes selected by the school that are consistent with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes identified as goals in the school's educational program and include specified components. The bill would require a charter school that receives a renewal of its charter to use the measurable pupil outcomes for purposes of annual assessment of pupil performance and annually to submit the outcomes to the authorizing district or agency and the state board. By requiring charter schools to perform additional duties in order to obtain a charter renewal, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The Charter Schools Act authorizes a chartering authority to revoke a charter if the authority finds, through a showing of substantial evidence, that the charter school commits one of several specified acts or failures to act, including, among others, the failure to meet or pursue any of the pupil outcomes identified in the charter. This bill would clarify that provision to authorize the revocation of a charter if the charter school fails to meet or pursue any of the pupil outcomes identified in the charter pursuant to the provisions of the bill discussed in paragraph (2) above. (5) 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) The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) , provides $4.3 billion for the State Incentive Grant Fund (Race to the Top Fund) , which is a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that are implementing specified educational objectives. The ARRA requires a Governor to apply on behalf of a state seeking a Race to the Top grant, and requires the application to include specified information. The United States Secretary of Education has issued regulations and guidelines regarding state eligibility under the Race to the Top program. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature, as well as findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the Race to the Top program. This bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to enter into a memorandum of understanding with a local educational agency that is consistent with the requirements established by the bill and the regulations and guidelines for the Race to the Top program. This bill would require the state plan or plans submitted to the United States Secretary of Education for the Race to the Top program to meet specified substantive and procedural requirements. The bill would also require the Department of Finance to provide appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature with a copy of the plan or plans within 10 days of submission to the United States Secretary of Education for the Race to the Top program. The Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Superintendent, would, within 30 days of receipt of any federal Race to the Top program funds, and prior to their allocation, be required to develop and submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature an expenditure plan, as specified. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before January 1, 2011, to contract with an independent evaluator relating to the implementation of the state plan to be submitted in application for a Race to the Top Fund competitive grant award. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before September 1, 2010, to convene a working group consisting of specified members to develop parameters of the evaluation and make specified recommendations relating to the selection of the independent evaluator. This bill would require the Superintendent, on or before June 1, 2014, to provide the final evaluation to the Legislature, the Governor, and the state board, and authorize the department to use federal Race to the Top program funds for this evaluation. This bill would provide that the evaluation provisions shall become inoperative on July 1, 2014, and as of January 1, 2015, are repealed unless a later enacted statute becomes operative, as specified. (2) The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires the Superintendent, with approval of the state board, to develop the Academic Performance Index (API) , consisting of a variety of indicators, to be used to measure the performance of schools. Existing law requires the Superintendent to develop, and the state board to adopt, expected annual percentage growth targets for all schools based on their API baseline score and prescribes a minimum percentage growth target of 5% annually. The act also establishes the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (IIUSP) . Schools that score below the 50th percentile on certain achievement tests are invited to participate in the program and are provided program funding. Twenty-four months after receiving IIUSP funding, a school that fails to meet its growth targets each year, but demonstrates significant growth, as determined by the state board, continues to participate in the program for an additional year and to receive funding. If a school fails to meet its growth targets each year and does not demonstrate significant growth, it is deemed a state-monitored school and the Superintendent is required to take specified actions with regard to the school. This bill would require the Superintendent to apportion federal Race to the Top program funds pursuant to a specified expenditure plan for low-achieving schools. The bill, commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year, would require the Superintendent to apportion block grant funds based on the number of certificated personnel employed in eligible school districts that have one or more schools under their jurisdiction and charter schools, that are low-achieving, as defined. School districts and charter schools that receive funds pursuant to these provisions would be required to expend the funds for specified purposes relating to professional development for teachers, administrators, and schoolsite staff. School districts and charter schools receiving funds also would be required to annually report specified information to the State Department of Education relating to the expenditure of these funds. This bill would require the Superintendent to establish a list of persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined, according to specified criteria. The bill, except as specified, would require the governing board of a school district, county office of education, or charter school to implement, for any school identified by the Superintendent as persistently lowest-achieving, one of four interventions for turning around lowest-achieving schools described in federal regulations and guidelines for the Race to the Top program, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize a persistently lowest-achieving school implementing specified intervention models to participate in a school-to-school partnership program by working with a mentor school that has successfully transitioned from a low-achieving school to a higher-achieving school. The regional consortia authorized under a specified statute would, using specified federal funds, be required to provide, in collaboration with the department, at a minimum, technical assistance and support to local educational agencies with one or more persistently lowest-achieving schools to assist with the implementation of the duties specified for any of the 4 interventions. This bill would require the governing board of a local educational agency, with regard to any school identified as low-achieving, as defined, but not identified as persistently lowest-achieving, as defined, which continues to fail to make adequate yearly progress under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act after one full school year, and where at least one-half of the parents or guardians of pupils attending the school and the elementary or middle schools that normally matriculate into a middle or high school, as applicable, sign a petition requesting the local educational agency to implement a strategy to reform that school, to (a) place that request as an item on the agenda of a regularly scheduled public hearing no later than 90 days following receipt of that request, (b) hear that agenda item at that regularly scheduled meeting, and (c) allow public testimony and comment on that agenda item. (3) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to develop and adopt objective evaluation and assessment guidelines for certificated employees. This bill would require each participating local educational agency that executes a memorandum of understanding with the State of California pursuant to the federal Race to the Top program to have in place or establish a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system for its school principals. (4) Existing law requires the Controller, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Department of Education, to develop a plan to review and report on financial and compliance audits. Existing law requires the Controller to propose the content of an audit guide and authorizes a supplement to the audit guide to be suggested in the audit year to address issues resulting from new legislation in that year that changes the conditions of apportionment. Existing law requires the Controller to submit the proposed content of the audit guide and any supplement to the Education Audits Appeal Panel for review and possible amendment, and requires the Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt the audit guide and any supplement pursuant to the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. This bill would require the Controller to propose, and the Education Audits Appeal Panel to adopt, a charter school supplement to the audit guide in order to provide guidance to auditors regarding which sections of the school district and county office audit guide apply to charter schools and to create specific guidance related to the unique nature of charter schools. The bill also would make conforming changes. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (Charter Schools Act) authorizes any one or more persons to submit a petition to the governing board of a school district to establish a charter school that operates independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing specified goals. The act limits the maximum number of charter schools authorized to operate in the state each year, as specified. This bill would delete that numerical limitation. The Charter Schools Act specifies the procedures for the submission, review, and approval or denial of a petition to establish a standard or countywide charter school. The act authorizes the governing board of a school district to deny a charter petition only if the board makes written factual findings that support certain facts regarding the petition. This bill, in addition, would authorize a governing board to deny a petition to establish a standard or countywide charter school if it makes a written factual finding that other charter schools in operation for at least 3 consecutive years and operated by the petitioner have met any of the following criteria: (A) the charter school has demonstrated academic achievement equivalent to a persistently lowest-achieving school, as specified; (B) the charter schoolcompleted its first renewal cycle and was not renewed by the authorizing entity, the county board of education, or the state board, as applicable; or C) the school has had its charter revoked, and the charter was not restored by the county board of education or the state board, as applicable. The Charter Schools Act limits the duration of charters to a period not to exceed 5 years and authorizes the chartering authority to grant one or more subsequent renewals for an additional period of 5 years. The act specifies the criteria a charter school is required to meet in order to receive a renewal of its charter. Commencing January 1, 2005, or after a charter school has been in operation for 4 years, whichever date occurs later, the act requires a charter school to meet at least one of several specified criteria prior to receiving a charter renewal, including a determination by the entity that granted the charter that the academic performance of the charter school is at least equal to the academic performance of the public schools that the charter school pupils would otherwise have been required to attend, as well as the academic performance of the schools in the school district in which the charter school is located, taking into account the composition of the pupil population that is served at the charter school. This bill would delete that criterion and replace it with a criterion relating to attaining positive growth on the charter school's API score. The bill would require a chartering authority, consistent with the federal Race to the Top guidelines, to consider the degree to which a charter school serves pupil populations that are similar to local district pupil populations, especially relative to high-need pupils. The bill would prohibit a chartering authority from granting a renewal of a charter school for longer than a 3-year period if that charter school is in program improvement or if a charter school is in year 5 of program improvement, except as specified. The Charter Schools Act requires a charter petition to include a reasonably comprehensive description of the manner in which annual, independent financial audits will be conducted. The act requires a charter school to transmit a copy of its annual, independent financial audit report for the preceding fiscal year to its chartering entity, the Controller, the county superintendent of schools of the county in which the charter school is sited, except as specified, and the department by December 15 of each year. This bill would require the Controller, by December 31 of each fiscal year, to publish a directory of certified public accountants and public accountants deemed by the Controller to be qualified to conduct audits of charter schools. The bill would require each audit of a charter school to be conducted by a certified public accountant or public accountant selected by the charter school from the directory. The bill would specify that it is unlawful for a public accounting firm to provide audit services to a charter school if the lead audit partner, or coordinating audit partner, having primary responsibility for the audit, or the audit partner responsible for reviewing the audit, has performed audit services for that charter school in each of the 6 previous fiscal years, except as provided. (5) Existing law, the Leroy Greene California Assessment of Academic Achievement Act (hereafter the Greene Act) , requires the Superintendent to design and implement a statewide pupil assessment program, and requires school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education to administer to each of its pupils in grades 2 to 11, inclusive, certain achievement tests, including a standards-based achievement test pursuant to the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program. This bill would require the Superintendent to develop recommendations for the reauthorization of the statewide pupil assessment program that include a plan for transitioning to a system of high-quality assessments, as defined. This bill would require the advisory committee that is established to advise the Superintendent and the state board on specified matters relating to the Public School Performance Accountability Program to make recommendations by January 1, 2011, to the Legislature, the Governor, and the state board on, among other things, the establishment of a methodology of generating a measurement of group and individual academic performance growth by utilizing individual pupil results from a longitudinally valid achievement assessment system, as specified. The Greene Act requires the Superintendent to adopt statewide content and performance standards in the core curriculum areas of reading, writing, mathematics, history/social science, and science, as specified. The Greene Act authorizes the state board to modify any proposed content standards or performance standards prior to adoption, and to adopt content and performance standards in individual core curriculum areas as those standards are submitted to the state board. This bill would eliminate this authority and instead require the Superintendent, to develop a set of academic content standards in language arts and mathematics. The standards would be required to meet specified criteria. The Superintendent, on or before August 2, 2010, would be required to present these standards to the state board, and to present to the Governor, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, specified information relating to these standards. The state board, on or before September 1, 2010, would be required to adopt or reject the standards, as specified. The bill would require the Superintendent to participate in the Common Core State Standards Initiative consortium sponsored by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers or any associated or related interstate collaboration to jointly develop common high-quality standards or assessments aligned with the common set of standards. The bill also would make conforming changes. Existing law makes certain provisions of that act inoperative on July 1, 2011, and repeals all of the act's provisions on January 1, 2012. The bill would make the act inoperative on July 1, 2012, and would repeal the act as of January 1, 2013, except specified provisions, which would become inoperative on July 1, 2016, and would be repealed as of January 1, 2017. By extending the time period during which school districts are required to perform various duties related to the administration of achievement tests, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) 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.
Existing law, the Unclaimed Property Law, governs the disposition of unclaimed property, including the escheat of certain property to the state. Those provisions require a person holding funds or other property escheated to the state to report to the Controller certain information regarding the property and the owner. Existing law regulates the sale of gift certificates, as defined, and excludes unredeemed gift certificates from the unclaimed property law. This bill would, instead, include gift certificates within the unclaimed property law and would require the full value of a gift certificate issued commencing July 1, 2006, or portion thereof that has not been redeemed within 3 years after issuance of the gift certificate to escheat to the state and be forwarded to the Controller. The bill would provide that it does not alter the rights and responsibilities of the seller and buyer under the terms of the gift certificate and would authorize a seller to claim the value of a subsequently redeemed gift certificate as a credit against the seller's next payment to the Controller. Pursuant to the Emergency Medical Services System and Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act (EMS Act) , the Emergency Medical Services Authority (the authority) is established within the California Health and Human Services Agency to administer the emergency medical services system to coordinate and integrate effective and efficient emergency medical services throughout the 58 counties of the state. The EMS Act requires the authority to establish minimum standards for poison control centers, to designate poison control centers, and to establish their geographical service areas. The EMS Act authorizes a county to establish an emergency medical services fund for reimbursement of certain EMS-related costs, including, but not limited to, the funding of poison control centers. This bill would establish the Escheated Gift Certificate/Poison Control Center Funding Account within the State Treasury and would require deposit of the funds collected pursuant to this bill into the account for the purposes of funding poison control centers, upon appropriation by the Legislature, and would require the transfer of excess funds to the General Fund. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and to call the Legislature into special session for that purpose. The Governor issued a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency, and calling a special session for this purpose, on December 19, 2008. This bill would state that it addresses the fiscal emergency declared by the Governor by proclamation issued on December 19, 2008, pursuant to the California Constitution.