(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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the state to have the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing fires in areas that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state responsibility areas, as defined. Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, by September 1, 2011, to adopt emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area. Existing law authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, on July 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, to adjust the fire prevention fee, as specified. Existing law requires the fire prevention fee to be collected annually by the State Board of Equalization, in accordance with specified procedures, and specifies that the annual fee shall be due and payable 30 days from the date of assessment by the state board. Existing law authorizes a petition for redetermination of the fee to be filed within 30 days after service of a notice of determination, as specified. This bill would require the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, by July 1, 2016, to amend those emergency regulations to establish a fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $152.33 and would authorize the board, on July 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, to adjust the fire prevention fee, as specified. The bill would extend the time when the fire prevention fee is due and payable from 30 to 60 days from the date of assessment by the State Board of Equalization and would authorize the petition for redetermination to be filed within 60 days after service of the notice of determination, as specified.
Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to adopt a local control and accountability plan and requires the governing board of a school district to update its local control and accountability plan before July 1 of each year. Existing law requires a local control and accountability plan to include, among other things, a description of the annual goals to be achieved for each state priority, as specified, for all pupils and certain subgroups of pupils. This bill would add to the enumerated state priorities the degree to which the certificated instructional personnel of the school district are offered opportunities for professional development and growth. By requiring the governing board of each school district to include additional information in the local control and accountability plan, 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.
In a fiscal year immediately after a fiscal year in which a transfer is made into the Public School System Stabilization Account, existing law prohibits a school district's adopted or revised budget from containing a combined assigned or unassigned ending fund balance that is in excess of either 2 or 3 times the minimum recommended reserve for economic uncertainties adopted by the State Board of Education, depending on the school district's units of average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes the county superintendent of schools to waive the prohibition, pursuant to specified conditions, for up to 2 consecutive fiscal years within a 3-year period if the school district provides documentation indicating that extraordinary fiscal circumstances substantiate the need for the balance. This bill would repeal those provisions. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to provide a ballot label and a ballot title for each measure to be submitted to the voters at a statewide election. Existing law requires the Attorney General to prepare a summary of the chief purposes and points of each statewide ballot measure as part of the ballot title. Existing law, including provisions of the Political Reform Act of 1974, requires that the ballot pamphlet contain, among other things, the official summary prepared by the Attorney General. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst, instead of the Attorney General, to prepare the ballot label and the ballot title and summary for all measures submitted to the voters of the state. The bill would also make conforming changes. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with specified powers and duties relating to the development and implementation of an intercity high-speed train system. Existing law authorizes the authority to acquire rights-of-way through purchase or eminent domain. Existing law sets forth the process for acquisition of property by eminent domain, including a requirement for adoption of a resolution of necessity. Existing law, pursuant to the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, authorizes $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for high-speed rail development and other related purposes. Existing law, for purposes of the bond act, defines "usable segment" as a portion of a corridor, as defined, that includes at least 2 stations. This bill would prohibit the authority, or the State Public Works Board acting on behalf of the authority, from adopting a resolution of necessity to commence an eminent domain proceeding to acquire a parcel of real property along a corridor, or usable segment thereof, for the high-speed train system unless the resolution identifies the sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor or usable segment and the anticipated time of receipt of those funds, and certifies that the authority has completed all necessary project level environmental clearances necessary to proceed to construction. The bill, for these purposes, would instead define "usable segment" as a portion of a corridor, as defined, that includes at least 2 stations and shall be used to operate high-speed train service, as specified.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing state board regulations require specified entities to comply with a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, and require additional specified entities to comply with that market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2015. This bill instead would exempt categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation, as defined, under a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, from being subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through December 31, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law states that the theft of a firearm is grand theft, punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, notwithstanding these provisions, instead requires the theft of property that does not exceed $950 to be considered petty theft, and makes the crime punishable as a misdemeanor, except in cases when the defendant has previously been convicted of one or more specified serious or violent felonies or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. This bill would make the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years. (2) Under existing law, every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen, knowing the property to be stolen, is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony, except that if the value of the property does not exceed $950, Proposition 47 makes the offense punishable as a misdemeanor if the defendant has not previously been convicted of one or more specified serious or violent felonies or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. This bill would make buying or receiving a stolen firearm a misdemeanor or a felony. (3) The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective when approved by the electors. This bill would provide that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters, and would provide for the submission of this measure to the voters for approval at the next statewide general election.
Existing law provides specified requirements in awarding certain public contracts. This bill would authorize the Governor to sign agreements required by the United States Olympic Committee as part of the bid process for the City of Los Angeles or the City and County of San Francisco to become the United States applicant city and candidate city for the 2024 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations that, among other things, the endorsing municipality, as defined, has developed a self-sufficient bid for financing the games. This bill would authorize the Governor to enter into an agreement for the state to be jointly liable, not to exceed a specified amount, with the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) , as specified, for obligations of the OCOG, and for any financial deficit relating to the games, as provided. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various deductions in computing income that is subject to tax under that law. This bill, for taxable years on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, would allow a deduction from adjusted gross income, not to exceed $2,500, for the cost of education-related expenses of the taxpayer's dependent child or children attending public or private school, as specified. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.