The Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977 requires the State Department of Education to prepare and distribute to school districts guidelines for the preparation of comprehensive health education plans and, in cooperation with county offices of education that desire to participate, to assist school districts in developing comprehensive health education plans and programs. This bill would require school districts that offer health classes to grade 9 or 10 pupils to provide at least 15 minutes of instruction on organ procurement and tissue donation that would be designed to develop a knowledge of the potentially lifesaving achievement involved in organ and tissue transplantation. The bill would require the State Board of Education and the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission to ensure that the health framework, evaluation criteria, and instructional materials adopted for pupils in grades 9 and 10 in the course of the next submission cycle following the date that this bill becomes effective include organ procurement and tissue donation.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified. Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions. This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms carried openly in belt holsters. The bill would also establish an exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm by members of specified organizations going directly to or from official parade duty or ceremonial occasions, as specified. The bill would provide other exemptions. By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry a loaded firearm in specified public areas. The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas. By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive technical changes. The bill would incorporate amendments to Section 12001 of the Penal Code, proposed by AB 1810, contingent on the prior enactment of that bill. 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 law establishes a statewide program to enable eligible low-income persons to receive food stamps under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , formerly the Food Stamp Program. Existing law requires counties to implement the program, including determining eligibility and distributing food stamps. Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income persons are provided with health care services. Under existing law, a recipient of aid, as defined, who is changing residence from one county to another within the state is required to promptly notify the county paying aid to the recipient of the move, and to apply for a redetermination of eligibility within the new county of residence. Existing law imposes various requirements on the relevant counties, including requiring the county to which the recipient has moved to determine the recipient's continued eligibility for payment of aid and, to the extent possible, the recipient's eligibility for the Medi-Cal program. This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2010, for households receiving benefits under SNAP and the CalWORKs program or the Medi-Cal program, or both, and on January 1, 2011, for all other households receiving benefits under SNAP, specify that aid, for purposes of the provisions relating to a recipient's change of residence, includes benefits under SNAP. To the extent that it would increase the duties of county officials that administer public aid programs, including the Medi-Cal program and the federal SNAP, 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.
This measure would commend the Girl Scouts for 98 years of service and for inspiring millions of girls with the highest ideals of confidence, courage, and character.
This measure would proclaim the month of May to be Women Veterans Recognition Month.
Existing state law provides that every person who possesses, sells, transports, or cultivates marijuana, concentrated cannabis, or derivatives of marijuana, except as authorized by law, is guilty of one or more crimes. This bill would remove marijuana and its derivatives from existing statutes defining and regulating controlled substances. It would instead provide for regulation by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the possession, sale, cultivation, and other conduct relating to marijuana and its derivatives, not including medical marijuana, by persons 21 years of age and older, for specified purposes. It would set up a wholesale and retail marijuana sales regulation program to be administered and enforced by the department, that imposes special fees to fund drug abuse prevention programs, as specified, to commence after regulations concerning the program have been issued by the department. It would ban local and state assistance in enforcing inconsistent federal and other laws relating to marijuana, and would provide specified infraction penalties for violations of these new marijuana laws and regulations, as specified. The bill would make existing prohibitions against the smoking of tobacco products in specified areas, including public offices and restaurants, applicable to the smoking of marijuana products. It would make other conforming changes. By creating various crimes for violations of regulations and laws created by this act, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. This bill would impose a tax on and after January 1, 2010, upon any producer for the privilege of severing oil from the earth or water in this state for sale, transport, consumption, storage, profit, or use, as provided, at the rate of 10% of the gross value of each barrel of oil severed. The tax would be administered by the State Board of Equalization and would be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to deposit all revenues, less refunds, collected pursuant to these provisions into the General Fund. Because this bill would expand the scope of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, it 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would result in a change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years, who is not otherwise exempt, to attend the public full-time day school in the school district in which his or her parent or guardian is a resident. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to accept interdistrict transfers by adopting a resolution to become a school district of choice, as defined, and authorizes the governing board to ensure, by resolution, that pupils accepted for transfer are selected through a random, unbiased process that prohibits an evaluation of whether or not the pupil should be enrolled based upon his or her academic or athletic performance. Existing law authorizes a school district of choice to reject the transfer of a pupil if the transfer of that pupil would require the district to create a new program to serve that pupil, except that a school district of choice is prohibited from rejecting the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs, and an English learner. Existing law requires a school district of choice to give priority for attendance to siblings of children already in attendance in that district and authorizes the district to give priority for attendance to children of military personnel. Existing law authorizes a school district of residence to limit the number of pupils transferring out each year, as specified. This bill would require a school district of choice to give priority to English learners, pupils who are individuals with exceptional needs, and pupils who are eligible for free and reduced price meals. The bill would make a legislative finding and declaration related to the fiscal responsibilities of the county superintendent of schools in implementing the limitation on the transfers out of a school district of residence. The bill would require a school district of choice to ensure that a pupil who transfers into the district is enrolled in a school with a higher Academic Performance Index score than the school in which the pupil was previously enrolled.
(1) Existing law requires that a person, other than a nonimmigrant alien, as defined, who has attended high school in California for 3 or more years, who has graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent thereof, who has registered at or attends an accredited institution of higher education in California not earlier than the fall semester or quarter of the 2001–02 academic year, and who, if he or she is an alien without lawful immigration status, has filed a prescribed affidavit, is exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. This bill would enact the California Dream Act of 2010. The bill, as of July 1, 2011, would exempt a person who has attended, for 3 or more years, at least one of which shall have been in a high school, and graduated from, secondary school in California from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. Under the bill, persons attending and graduating from California technical schools and adult schools, as well as high schools, would be included within the scope of this provision. (2) The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. In any action in which a state court finds that a specified law, or any similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, existing law authorizes the court to order the administering entity that is the subject of the lawsuit to terminate any waiver awarded under that statute or action, as equitable relief, prohibits the award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief, and provides that the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California are immune from the imposition of any award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief in a lawsuit. This bill would amend the Donahoe Higher Education Act, as of July 1, 2011, to require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and to request the regents, to establish procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs administered by these segments to the full extent permitted by federal law, except as provided. This provision would apply to the University of California only if the regents, by appropriate resolution, act to make it applicable. If a state court finds that this provision, or a similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, this bill would provide that the same limitations described above would apply. This bill would further provide that, on and after January 1, 2011, a student attending the California State University, the California Community Colleges, or the University of California who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above would be eligible to receive a scholarship derived from nonstate funds received, for the purpose of scholarships, by the segment at which he or she is a student. Existing federal law requires that a state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any state or local public benefit for which that alien would otherwise be ineligible under a specified federal law only through enactment of a state law that affirmatively provides for that eligibility. This bill would find and declare that the amendments to the Donahoe Higher Education Act described above are state laws within the meaning of this federal provision. (3) Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction, for prescribed fees, at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the waiver of these fees for, among others, students who are eligible under income standards established by the board of governors. This bill, as of July 1, 2011, would require community college districts to waive the fees of persons who are exempt from nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, and who otherwise qualify for a waiver under this provision, under regulations and procedures adopted by the board of governors. Because the bill would impose new duties on community college districts with respect to determining eligibility for fee waivers, the bill would constitute 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, 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 does not provide a system of universal health care coverage for California residents. Existing law provides for the creation of various programs to provide health care services to persons who have limited incomes and meet various eligibility requirements. These programs include the Healthy Families Program administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, and the Medi‑Cal program administered by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. This bill would establish the California Healthcare System to be administered by the newly created California Healthcare Agency under the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would make all California residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the California Healthcare System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services. The bill would provide that a resident of the state with a household income, as specified, at or below 200% of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the type of benefits provided under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the commissioner to seek all necessary waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation to allow various existing federal, state, and local health care payments to be paid to the California Healthcare System, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. The bill would create the Healthcare Policy Board to establish policy on medical issues and various other matters relating to the system. The bill would create the Office of Patient Advocacy within the agency to represent the interests of health care consumers relative to the system. The bill would create within the agency the Office of Health Planning to plan for the health care needs of the population, and the Office of Health Care Quality, headed by a chief medical officer, to support the delivery of high quality care and promote provider and patient satisfaction. The bill would create the Office of Inspector General for the California Healthcare System within the Attorney General's office, which would have various oversight powers. The bill would prohibit health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies from being issued for services covered by the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the Healthcare Fund and the Payments Board to administer the finances of the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the California Healthcare Premium Commission (Premium Commission) to determine the cost of the California Healthcare System and to develop a premium structure for the system that complies with specified standards. The bill would require the Premium Commission to recommend a premium structure to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2013, and to make a draft recommendation to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public 90 days before submitting its final premium structure recommendation. The bill would specify that only its provisions relating to the Premium Commission would become operative on January 1, 2011, with its remaining provisions becoming operative on the date the Secretary of California Health and Human Services notifies the Legislature, as specified, that sufficient funding exists to implement the California Healthcare System. The bill would require that system to be operative within 2 years of that date and would provide for various transition processes for that period. The bill would extend the application of certain insurance fraud laws to providers of services and products under the system, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by revising the definition of a crime. The bill would enact other related provisions relative to budgeting, regional entities, federal preemption, subrogation, collective bargaining agreements, compensation of health care providers, conflict of interest, patient grievances, independent medical review, and associated matters. 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.