Existing law provides for protection, care, and assistance for people of the state, and the promotion of the welfare and happiness of all people in the state by providing appropriate aid and services to the needy and distressed. Programs established for this purpose include CalWORKs, which provides cash assistance and other social services to needy families, using federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, state, and county funds, and CalFresh, whereby nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Counties administer the CalWORKs and CalFresh programs. This bill, the Social Services Modernization Act of 2012, would require a final operational state plan submitted by any department administered by the Secretary of California Health and Human Services state agency to a federal agency in the context of providing public social services to be electronically available on the relevant department's Internet Web site, as specified. This bill would, pending approval of any necessary federal waivers, require the State Department of Social Services to promulgate regulations to authorize applicants for and recipients of aid to electronically access notices and communications pertaining to eligibility and benefit issuance, as specified. The bill would authorize applicants and recipients to opt out of receiving electronic notice, and would provide for the confidentiality of an applicant's or recipient's electronic information, as specified. This bill would prohibit a county from requiring an applicant or recipient for public benefits to verify information provided to the county, except when the verification is required by federal law, or is necessary to determine eligibility for aid or to compute the amount of aid. If the verification is inconsistent with other verified information, this bill would require a county eligibility worker to provide to the applicant or recipient a notice of action specifying the type of verification required to verify eligibility, as specified. This bill would require county human services departments to maximize use of electronic means of verifying applicant and recipient information, and would require the state to work with counties to develop a protocol enabling statewide use by applicants and recipients of public social services programs of a specified electronic database developed to verify eligibility information for the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. This bill would provide that the identity of, or certain information relating to, an applicant or recipient shall be considered to be verified under prescribed circumstances. This bill would revise procedures relating to public social services application and recertification interviews to require these interviews to be conducted in person, by telephone, or by other electronic means, to promote administrative efficiency and reduce costs to applicants and recipients. Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires every individual, as a condition of eligibility for aid under the CalWORKs program, to participate in welfare-to-work activities. This bill would deem an adult CalWORKs recipient to be in compliance with existing welfare-to-work requirements if he or she meets the minimum federal welfare-to-work requirements. The bill would provide that a person satisfying these requirements would be eligible for specified support services, and would not be subject to sanction for failure or refusal to comply with program requirements, as specified. Existing law prohibits an applicant from being granted public assistance, as specified, until he or she is personally interviewed by the county welfare department or state hospital staff. This bill would no longer require these interviews to be conducted personally, and would require the county to conduct the interview on the same day of the initial application, to the extent it is cost effective and administratively possible for the department. This bill would apply these provisions to applicants for CalFresh benefits. Existing law requires a county welfare department, to the extent provided by federal law, to provide CalFresh benefits on an expedited basis to certain households. This bill would require the department, to the extent allowed by federal law and any federal waivers secured by the department, to postpone expedited service interviews that have been attempted and require that the interviews be conducted at the same time as the interview for issuance of regular CalFresh benefits, as specified, and to issue expedited service to any applicant who meets expedited service eligibility requirements and whose identity has been verified, as specified. Existing law requires county welfare departments to provide transitional CalFresh benefits to households terminating their participation in the CalWORKs program, to the maximum extent allowable by federal law. This bill would require the State Department of Social Services to implement the above requirement so as to maximize continued enrollment of eligible recipients, pursuant to a specified federal regulation. This bill would authorize the State Department of Social Services to implement the bill by means of all-county letters or similar instructions, by January 1, 2013. Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would declare that no appropriation would be made for purposes of implementing the bill. Because this bill would increase duties of counties administering public social services programs, 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
(1) Existing state and federal laws, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965, require elections officials to provide language assistance to voters with limited English proficiency in order to access voting information and cast their votes at the polling place. Existing law also requires elections officials, under specified circumstances, to make reasonable efforts to recruit elections officials who are fluent in a language used by citizens who lack sufficient skill in English to vote without assistance. This bill would revise the recruitment provisions to apply to precincts in which the precinct board is required to post translated facsimile ballots and would require a county, not later than August 1, 2015, and not later than August 1 of each odd-numbered year thereafter, to submit a specified report to the Secretary of State describing the county's plan for compliance with state and federal laws enacted to assist voters with limited English proficiency. The bill would require the Secretary of State to post those reports on his or her Internet Web site not later than 90 days prior to each statewide election held in an even-numbered year, and would further require the Secretary of State to issue guidance for a uniform standard report format for this purpose that includes, at a minimum, specified information that sets forth the county's plan for protecting the rights of voters with limited English proficiency. By increasing the duties of local elections officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also require a county elections official to evaluate complaints filed against precinct board members and would require the Secretary of State to develop a list of the best practices for elections officials and for precinct board member training, as specified. The Secretary of State would also be required to consult with an advisory body composed of specified members for this purpose. (2) Under existing law, in counties where the Secretary of State has determined that it is appropriate, each precinct board is required to post, in a conspicuous location in the polling place, at least one facsimile copy of the ballot with the ballot measures and ballot instructions printed in Spanish. Existing law also requires the Secretary of State, in determining whether it is appropriate to post the election materials in Spanish or other languages, to determine the number of residents of voting age in each county and precinct who are members of a single language minority, and who lack sufficient skills in English to vote without assistance based on a specified formula or information provided by interested citizens or organizations. Existing law also requires the Secretary of State to make these determinations and findings by January 1 of each year in which the Governor is elected. This bill would provide that interested citizens or organizations may, alternatively, provide this information to the local elections official and would require the Secretary of State to make these determinations and findings not less frequently than by January 1 of each year in which the Governor is elected and each year following an adjustment of district boundary lines pursuant to Article XXI of the California Constitution and specified provisions of the Elections Code. The bill would apply these provisions to new precincts. (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, 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.
This measure would declare the Legislature's endorsement of S. 97 and H.R. 3034, and would urge the United States Congress to enact the San Francisco Bay Restoration Act at the earliest possible time.
This measure would recognize August 8, 2012, as "Are You Dense?" Day 2012, to raise awareness of the risks associated with breast density and the potential benefits of other screening tools to supplement mammography.
Existing law establishes several developmental centers within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Developmental Services. This bill would permit the real property within the grounds of a developmental center, as specified, that is determined to no longer meet the needs of the state for directly serving persons with developmental disabilities to be made available for lease and be leased, to generate revenue for deposit into the Californians with Developmental Disabilities Fund, which the bill would create. The bill would require moneys in this fund to be made available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the department for purposes of serving persons with developmental disabilities.
This measure would commemorate the 40th anniversary of Title IX on June 23, 2012, commend the movement toward increased equality and fair treatment of female athletes, and praise the goal of greater opportunities in sports for girls and young women in California.
(1) Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any large-capacity magazine. This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend, any device that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes a program of postrelease community supervision for certain persons who are released from prison or whose sentence has been deemed served after serving a prison term for a felony. Existing law requires that these persons enter into a postrelease community supervision agreement as a condition of their release, and that the agreement include certain conditions, including a requirement that the person shall not possess, use, or have access to specified weapons, including, among other things, a large-capacity magazine. This bill would also condition release on postrelease community supervision on the requirement that the person shall not possess, use, or have access to any device that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. (3) Existing law prohibits any person, corporation, or dealer from selling ammunition to a person under 18 years of age, selling ammunition designed for use in a handgun to a person under 21 years of age, or providing possession of any ammunition to any minor who the person, corporation, or dealer knows is prohibited from possessing that ammunition at that time. Existing law prohibits a person, corporation, or firm from giving possession or control of ammunition to any person who he or she knows is prohibited by law from possessing ammunition. Existing law also regulates handgun ammunition vendors and provides that a handgun ammunition vendor shall not permit any employee who the vendor knows or reasonably should know is a person who has been convicted of a felony or other specified crimes to handle, sell, or deliver handgun ammunition in the course and scope of employment. This bill would require a handgun ammunition vendor who sells, supplies, delivers, or gives possession of more than 1000 rounds of ammunition to an individual in any 5 consecutive day period to report the transaction to the local law enforcement agency where that individual resides within 24 hours, with exceptions as provided. The bill would make a failure to comply with this provision a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 requires specified candidates, committees, slate mailer organizations, and lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers to file campaign statements and reports online or electronically with the Secretary of State, as specified. The act requires certain of these entities to also file campaign statements and reports with local filing officers, as specified. This bill, with certain exceptions, would authorize a local government agency to require an elected officer, candidate, committee, or other person required to file specified statements, reports, or other documents to file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with a local filing officer. The bill would prescribe criteria that must be satisfied by a local government agency that requires online or electronic filing of statements, reports, or other documents, as specified, including, among others, that the system be available free of charge to filers and to the public for viewing filings, and that the system include a procedure for filers to comply with the requirement that they sign statements and reports under penalty of perjury. 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.
This measure would memorialize the Legislature's disagreement with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and would call upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
(1) Existing law provides for the regulation of franchises and establishes certain duties, obligations, and remedies for parties to a franchise agreement. The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises, among other things. The Franchise Investment Law sets forth various powers of the Commissioner of Corporations relative to the registration of an offer or sale of a franchise, unless exempted, and prohibits certain fraudulent and unfair practices. This bill would revise both the California Franchise Relations Act and the Franchise Investment Law. (A) With respect to the California Franchise Relations Act, existing law generally prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to expiration of its term except for good cause, which is defined to include the failure of a franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice and a reasonable opportunity, which need not exceed 30 days, to cure the failure. This bill would provide that good cause in a termination case consists of a substantial and material breach of the franchise agreement after the franchisee is given written notice and 60 days to cure the failure. The bill would also require the termination to be in accordance with the current terms and standards equally applicable to all franchisees, with limited exceptions. Existing law provides that immediate termination of a franchise is deemed reasonable without an opportunity to cure upon the occurrence of certain events. One of those events is the failure by the franchisee to pay franchise fees or other amounts due with 5 days of receiving written notice that these amounts are overdue. This bill would exempt situations where the franchisee establishes that the event was caused in substantial manner by conduct of the franchisor. The bill would require certain noncompliance by the franchisee allowing immediate termination to be substantial and material. The bill would provide 60 rather than 5 days for the franchisee to pay overdue amounts. Existing law requires at least 180 days written notice to the franchisee of the franchisor's intention not to renew the franchise. Existing law imposes certain requirements on the franchisor in that regard relative to the franchisee's interests. This bill would delete these provisions and instead require a franchisor to renew a franchise unless the franchisee has substantially and materially breached the franchise agreement, and would require the renewal to be under the same terms as the existing agreement, or if the franchisee elects, under the franchise terms then being offered to new franchisees. The bill would continue to require 180 days' written notice if the franchisor has grounds not to renew the franchise. The bill would also prohibit a franchisor, upon termination or expiration of a franchise, from enforcing against the franchisee any covenant not to compete. Existing law provides that a franchisor, for a reasonable time after the death of the franchisee, may not deny the surviving spouse, heirs, or estate of the franchisee the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the franchise under the then-current qualifications and standards applicable to franchisees. This bill would require the qualifications and standards to be reasonable. Existing law requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise other than as permitted under the act to offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would instead require the franchisor to reinstate the franchisee and to pay all associated damages, or to pay to the franchisee the fair market value of the franchise or franchise assets. Existing law allows a franchisor and franchisee to agree to binding arbitration of claims arising under the act. This bill would require the arbitration procedures and costs to allow franchisees the opportunity to vindicate their rights under the act. This bill would also add new provisions to the California Franchise Relations Act. The bill would require the parties to a franchise agreement to deal with each other in good faith. The bill would provide that certain acts and practices by a franchisor or subfranchisor are unfair or deceptive acts or practices or an unfair method of competition. The bill would provide certain rights to a franchisee if the franchisor develops a new location or grants a new franchise in essentially the same market in unreasonable proximity to an existing franchise. The bill would provide that franchisors owe a duty of competence to franchisees. The bill would provide that a condition, stipulation, or provision in a franchise agreement requiring the application of the law of another state is void. The bill would provide additional remedies for violations of provisions governing actions of franchisors relative to termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises, including specified damages in certain cases, injunctive relief, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to a franchisee prevailing in an action. (B) With respect to the Franchise Investment Law, existing law makes it unlawful for a person to offer or sell a franchise by means of a communication that includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order for the statements made to not be misleading. This bill would also make it unlawful for a person offering or selling a franchise to intentionally misrepresent certain matters, including the prospects or chances for success of a franchise, the known required total investment for a franchise, and efforts to sell or establish more franchises than a market or market area can sustain. Existing law provides that any person who willfully employs, directly or indirectly, any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise or who engages in other willful acts that operate as a fraud or deceit is guilty of a crime. This bill would allow these matters to also be the subject of civil litigation, as specified. Existing law imposes various duties on the Commissioner of Corporations with respect to franchise offers. This bill would prohibit the commissioners from registering any franchise offer that restricts venue for resolution of dispute solely to a forum outside this state. Existing law makes it unlawful for a franchisor to restrict or inhibit the right of franchisees to join a trade association or to prohibit the right of free association among franchisees for lawful purposes. A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief and damages for a violation of this provision. This bill would also make it unlawful for a franchisor to refuse to recognize and deal fairly and in good faith with an independent franchisee association. Existing law provides that a person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified provisions of the Franchise Investment Law shall be liable for damages to the franchisee or subfranchisor, with certain exceptions. Existing law also provides rescission as a remedy for willful violations of these provisions. This bill would extend civil liability for damages to any violation of the Franchise Investment Law. The bill, following purchase of a franchise, would allow a franchisee or subfranchisor to seek rescission, restitution, and ancillary damages without the requirement for the violation to be willful. The bill would extend liability for any violation of the Franchise Investment Law, on a joint and several basis, to various other parties associated with the franchisor. The bill would also provide for injunctive relief for any violation of the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law imposes time limits of one, 2, or 4 years for the bringing of an action to enforce specific liabilities under the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law provides that if the franchisor delivers a written notice to the franchisee disclosing a violation of certain disclosure provisions, an action must be brought within 90 days. This bill would require the written notice to include an offer of restitution of investment and ancillary damages and would extend the time for bringing an action to 180 days. The bill would allow 4 years to bring other actions to enforce liabilities under the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law provides that any condition, stipulation, or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring a franchise to waive compliance with the Franchise Investment Law is void. This bill would provide that certain other provisions, if included in the offer or sale of a franchise and associated documents, are also void. Existing law provides that a willful violation of any provision of the Franchise Investment Law is a crime, unless specifically excepted. Because the bill would change the definition of certain crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The bill would make other related changes. (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.