Asm. Ash Kalra

Existing law makes it unlawful to produce, process, sell, offer to sell, or possess olive oil that indicates on its label "California Olive Oil," or uses similar words to indicate that California is the source of the oil, unless 100% of that oil is derived from olives grown in California. Existing law also requires that olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California, that indicates on its label that it is from a specific region of California, be made of oil at least 85% of which, by weight, is derived from olives grown in that region. Existing law makes a violation of the requirements relating to the manufacture and marketing of olive oil a misdemeanor. This bill would also require a container of olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California that includes "California" in any form on its principal display panel and contains olive oil derived from olives grown outside California to disclose the minimum percentage of olive oil in the container derived from olives grown in California. The bill would prescribe specific language to make the disclosure and require that it be in a font size that is no less than the largest used in the word "California." Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the California Marketing Act of 1937, authorizes the Department of Food and Agriculture to regulate the quality of commodities produced and handled in California by prohibiting the production and handling of commodities that fall below its minimum standards. Existing law makes a violation of a marketing order duly issued by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture pursuant to the act a misdemeanor. This bill would require any olive oil produced, processed, sold, offered for sale, given away, or possessed in California with a principal display panel that uses "California" to comply with the quality and purity standards published by the Department of Food and Agriculture, as specified. The bill would specify that this requirement is declaratory of existing law. 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 requires a hospital to maintain an understandable written policy regarding discount payments for financially qualified patients and an understandable written charity care policy. Existing law requires that uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 350% of the federal poverty level be eligible for charity care or discount payments from a hospital. Existing law defines "high medical costs" to mean, among other things, annual out-of-pocket costs at the hospital that exceed 10% of the patient's family income in the prior 12 months. Existing law authorizes a hospital to grant eligibility for charity care or discount payments to patients with incomes over 350% of the federal poverty level. Existing law requires a hospital to provide the Department of Health Care Access and Information with a copy of its discount payment policy and charity care policy, and requires the department to make the information public. Existing law requires a hospital to post notice of its policy for financially qualified and self-pay patients in designated locations that are visible to the public. This bill would instead require that uninsured patients or patients with high medical costs who are at or below 400% of the federal poverty level be eligible for charity care or discount payments from a hospital, and would authorize a hospital to grant eligibility for charity care or discount payments to patients with incomes over 400% of the federal poverty level. The bill would redefine "high medical costs" to include annual out-of-pocket costs at the hospital that exceed the lesser of 10% of the patient's current family income or family income in the prior 12 months. The bill would require a hospital to prominently display a notice of the hospital's policy for financially qualified and self-pay patients on the hospital's internet website with a link to the policy itself. The bill would also make related technical changes. Existing law requires a hospital to have a written policy about the advancing of patient debt to collection. Existing law requires the hospital, its assignee, or other owner of the patient debt to provide a patient with a clear and conspicuous notice with specified information about the debt before beginning collection activities against a patient, and prohibits a collection action before 150 days after the initial billing if the patient lacks coverage or may have high medical costs. Existing law requires a hospital to reimburse a patient for overpayments in excess of the amount due, including interest, and to give a patient a credit for the amount due at least 60 days from the date the amount is due. Existing law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering into and honoring those debts. A debt collector who violates the act is liable for specified damages and penalties to be paid to the debtor. Existing law prohibits a debt buyer from making a written statement to a debtor in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses specified information, including the date of default or the date of the last payment, and requires the debt buyer to include specified information in the written statement to the debtor. Existing law defines "debt buyer" to mean a person or entity that is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing charged-off consumer debt for collection purposes, whether it collects the debt itself, hires a third party for collection, or hires an attorney at law for collection litigation. This bill would prohibit a hospital from selling patient debt to a debt buyer, unless specified conditions are met, including that the hospital has found the patient ineligible for financial assistance or the patient has not responded to attempts to bill or offer financial assistance for 180 days. The bill would require a hospital to send a patient a notice with specified information, including an application for the hospital's charity care and financial assistance, before assigning a bill to collections, or selling patient debt to a debt buyer. The bill would prohibit a debt collector or debt buyer from collecting consumer debt that originated with a hospital without including in the first written communication to the debtor specified information, including a copy of the above-described notice sent by the hospital. The bill would prohibit debt collection before 180 days after the initial billing, regardless of the patient's financial status. The bill would require a hospital to provide the Department of Health Care Access and Information with a copy of its debt collection policy. The bill would require the department to review a hospital's policy for compliance with the law by January 1, 2023, and whenever a significant change is made and submitted to the department, and make this policy, as well as the hospital's discount payment policy and charity care policy, available on the department's internet website. The bill would require the department, commencing on January 1, 2024, to impose an administrative penalty against a hospital that improperly bills a patient, as specified, and to establish an appeals process by regulation. The bill would require a complaint in an action brought by a debt collector for a general acute care hospital debt to allege specified facts and to be accompanied by copies of the application for, and notice from the hospital regarding, financial assistance. The bill would require a hospital to refund a patient any overpayments within 30 days. Existing law requires a hospital to comply with the above provisions as a condition of licensure. This bill would delete the provision making compliance a condition of licensure. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 127410 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by AB 532 to be operative only if this bill and AB 532 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

The Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973 generally requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate long-term health care facilities and to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. The term "long-term health care facility" includes, among other types of facilities, a skilled nursing facility and intermediate care facility. The act defines a class "A" violation as a violation that the department determines presents either (1) imminent danger that death or serious harm to the patients or residents of the long-term health care facility would result therefrom, or (2) substantial probability that death or serious physical harm to patients or residents of the long-term health care facility would result therefrom. The act defines a class "AA" violation as a class "A" violation that the department determines to have been a direct proximate cause of death of a patient or resident of the facility. The act defines a class "B" violation as a violation that the department determines has a direct or immediate relationship to the health, safety, or security of long-term health care facility patients or residents, other than class "AA" or "A" violations. Class "B" violations are also, unless otherwise determined by the department to be a class "A" violation, any violation of a patient's rights as set forth in specified regulations that is determined by the department to cause, or under circumstances likely to cause, significant humiliation, indignity, anxiety, or other emotional trauma to a patient. The act requires the department to prove specific elements to enforce a citation for a class "AA" violation, including the element that death resulted from an occurrence of a nature that the regulation was designed to prevent. This bill would redefine a class "AA" violation as a class "A" violation that the department determines to have been a substantial factor, as described, in the death of a resident of a long-term health care facility. The bill would increase the civil penalties for a class "A," "AA," or "B" violation by a skilled nursing facility or intermediate care facility, as specified. The bill would delete numerous references to the "patients" of a long-term health care facility.

Existing law, the CalSavers Retirement Savings Trust Act, creates in state government the CalSavers Retirement Savings Board and requires the board to, among other things, design and implement the CalSavers Retirement Savings Program. This bill, the California Public Banking Option Act, until January 1, 2032, would require the Treasurer to convene, on or before September 1, 2022, the CalAccount Blue Ribbon Commission to be composed of certain members, including the Treasurer or the Treasurer's designee. The act would require the commission to, on or before July 1, 2024, conduct, by contracting with one or more entities with appropriate expertise, and deliver, as prescribed, a market analysis to determine if it is feasible to implement a "CalAccount Program," which, if implemented, would have certain characteristics, including that it would be a program established by the state for the purpose of protecting consumers who lack access to traditional banking services from predatory, discriminatory, and costly alternatives, which offers Californians access to a voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account, known as a CalAccount, and related payment services at no cost to accountholders, including robust and geographically diverse mechanisms for accessing account funds and account management tools that facilitate the automation of basic financial transactions designed to serve the needs of individuals with low or fluctuating income. The bill would require the commission to hold a public hearing to review the market analysis and, after holding that hearing, would authorize the commission to issue a report to accompany the market analysis, as prescribed. The bill would make the operation of the act contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in the Budget Act or another statute for its purposes.

(1) Under existing law, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, if a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interferes or attempts to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the people of the State of California, in order to protect the exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Existing law also authorizes an action brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, to seek a civil penalty of $25,000. Existing law also allows an individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights has been interfered with to prosecute a civil action for damages on their own behalf. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under the act. (2) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain minimum training requirements for peace officers including the completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed as a peace officer, including a felony conviction. This bill would prohibit a person who has been convicted of a felony, as specified, from regaining eligibility for peace officer employment based upon any later order of the court setting aside, vacating, withdrawing, expunging or otherwise dismissing or reversing the conviction, unless the court finds the person to be factually innocent of the crime for which they were convicted at the time of entry of the order. The bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated in an administrative, military, or civil judicial process as having committed, a violation of certain specified crimes against public justice, including the falsification of records, bribery, or perjury. The bill would also disqualify any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by the commission, or has been denied certification. The bill would disqualify any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government, whose name is listed in the national decertification index, or any other database designated by the federal government, or who engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked in this state. The bill would require a law enforcement agency employing certain peace officers to employ only individuals with a current, valid certification or pending certification. (3) Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization, education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly been issued. This bill would require the Department of Justice to provide the commission with necessary disqualifying felony and misdemeanor conviction data for all persons known by the department to be current or former peace officers, as specified. The bill would grant the commission the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in the state. The bill would direct the commission to issue or deny certification, which includes a basic certificate or proof of eligibility, to a peace officer in accordance with specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate, as specified, to certain persons employed as a peace officer on January 1, 2022, who do not otherwise possess a certificate. The bill would declare certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by the commission to be property of the commission and would authorize the commission to suspend or revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on specified grounds, including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a law enforcement gang, as defined. The bill would create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within the commission to review investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and to conduct additional investigations into serious misconduct that may provide grounds for suspension or revocation of a peace officer's certification, as specified. The bill would require the division to review grounds for decertification and make findings as to whether grounds for action against an officer's certification exist. The bill would require the division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and allow the officer to request review. The bill would also create the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 9 members to be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to hold public meetings to review the findings after an investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the commission to review the recommendation made by the board based on whether there is evidence that reasonably supports the board's conclusion that misconduct has been established and, if action is to be taken against an officer's certification, return the determination to the division to commence formal proceedings consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would require the commission to notify the employing agency and the district attorney of the county in which the officer is employed of this determination, as specified. The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace officer's certification public and would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years. The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report to the commission the employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer, any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that could render the officer subject to suspension or revocation, findings by civil oversight entities, and civil judgements that could affect the officer's certification. In case of a separation from employment or appointment, the bill would require each agency to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by the commission describing the reason for separation. The bill would require the affidavit to be signed under penalty of perjury. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the board to report annually on the activities of the division, board, and commission, relating to the certification program, including the number of applications for certification, the events reported, the number of investigations conducted, and the number of certificates surrendered or revoked. By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 832.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 16 to be operative only if this bill and SB 16 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1) Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to maintain a policy on the use of force, as specified. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. This bill would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration, except in compliance with specified standards set by the bill, and would prohibit their use solely due to a violation of an imposed curfew, verbal threat, or noncompliance with a law enforcement directive. The bill would include in the standards for the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents to disperse gatherings the requirement that, among other things, those weapons only be used to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including a peace officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control. The bill would define chemical agents to include, among other substances, chloroacetophenone tear gas or 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas. The bill would make these provisions inapplicable within a county jail or state prison facility. This bill would also require each law enforcement agency, within a specified timeframe, to post on their internet website a summary, as described, of any incident in which a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent is deployed by that agency for the purpose of crowd control. The bill would require the Department of Justice to provide a compiled list of links to these reports on its internet website. (2) Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually report specified use of force incidents to the Department of Justice and requires the Department of Justice to annually publish a summary of those incidents, as specified. This bill would require these reports to be made monthly. By imposing new duties on law enforcement agencies, this bill would create 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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law makes garment manufacturers liable for guaranteeing payment of wages to employees of their contractors. This bill would expand the definition of garment manufacturing to include dyeing, altering a garment's design, and affixing a label to a garment. The bill would prohibit any employee engaged in the performance of garment manufacturing to be paid by the piece or unit, or by the piece rate, except as specified. The bill would impose compensatory damages of $200 per employee against a garment manufacturer or contractor, payable to the employee, for each pay period in which each employee is paid by the piece rate. This bill would define "brand guarantor" for purposes of these provisions as a person contracting for the performance of garment manufacturing, as specified, regardless of whether the person with whom they contract performs manufacturing operations or hires a contractor or subcontractor to perform manufacturing operations. This bill would specify that a garment manufacturer, contractor, or brand guarantor who contracts with another person for the performance of garment manufacturing operations shares joint and several liability with any manufacturer and contractor for the full amount of unpaid wages, and any other compensation, including interest, due to any and all employees who performed manufacturing operations for any violation, attorney's fees, and civil penalties, as specified. The bill would also make garment manufacturers and contractors liable for the full amount of damages and penalties for any violation, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in a claim filed with the Labor Commissioner to recover unpaid wages and associated penalties, if an employee has provided the Labor Commissioner with labels or other information that the commissioner finds credible relating to the identity of any brand guarantor or garment manufacturer that the brand guarantor or garment manufacturer is liable with the contractor for any amounts found to be due to the employee. The bill would also give the Labor Commissioner authority to enforce these provisions by issuing a stop order or a citation. Existing law requires every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing to keep certain records for 3 years, including, among other things, contract worksheets indicating the price per unit agreed to between the contractor and manufacturer. This bill would also require every employer engaged in the business of garment manufacturing and brand guarantors to keep all contracts, invoices, purchase orders, work orders, style or cut sheets, and any other documentation pursuant to which garment manufacturing work was, or is being, performed for 4 years. Existing law requires the commissioner to deposit $75 of each garment manufacturer's registration fee into one separate account to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, contractor, or subcontractor. This bill would instead require these funds to be disbursed by the commissioner only to persons determined by the commissioner to have been damaged by the failure to pay wages and benefits by a garment manufacturer, brand guarantor, or contractor. Existing law precludes any employer, or other person or entity, who may be liable for a violation of any provision of the Labor Code from introducing as evidence, in an administrative proceeding contesting a citation or writ proceeding under specified provisions, books, documents, or records that are not provided pursuant to a duly served written request by the Labor Commissioner within the time the Labor Commissioner requests those books, documents, or records be produced, as specified. This bill would expand those provisions to also preclude the introduction of records not provided to the Labor Commissioner, as specified, in an administrative proceeding under the provisions described above relating to the payment of wages for the performance of garment manufacturing.

Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, requires employers to comply with certain standards ensuring healthy and safe working conditions, as specified. Existing law charges the Division of Occupational Safety and Health within the Department of Industrial Relations with enforcement of the act, subject to oversight by the Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (chief) . This bill would require the chief or a representative of the chief to convene an advisory committee, comprised of no fewer than 13 and no more than 18 individuals, including representatives from specified groups, to make recommendations, in consultation with other specified divisions and entities, to the department or Legislature to protect the health and safety of household domestic service employees, and develop voluntary industry-specific occupational health and safety guidance for the purpose of educating household domestic service employees and employers, as specified. The bill would require the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to post the report to its internet website and submit a copy to the Legislature, as specified, no later than January 1, 2023.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, including requiring elected officials, candidates for elective office, committees formed primarily to support or oppose a candidate for public office or a ballot measure, and other entities to file periodic campaign statements and reports concerning campaign finances. This bill would require a limited liability company that qualifies as a committee or a sponsor of a committee under the act, as specified, to file a statement of members with the Secretary of State. The bill would require the statement of members to include certain information about the limited liability company, including a list of all persons who have a membership interest in the limited liability company of at least 10% or who made a cumulative capital contribution of at least $10,000 to the limited liability company after it qualified as a committee or sponsor of a committee, or within the 12 months before it qualified. Existing law makes a knowing or willful violation of the Political Reform Act of 1974 a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, 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. 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 of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

Existing law requires county elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter for all elections proclaimed or conducted prior to January 1, 2022. Existing law requires county elections officials to use a specified Secretary of State vote by mail tracking system or a system that meets the same specifications. This bill would extend the requirements to mail a ballot to every registered voter to all elections and apply them to all local elections officials. This bill would require a vote by mail tracking system to be accessible to voters with disabilities. The bill would also make various conforming and technical changes. Existing law requires county elections officials to permit voters with a disability, and military or overseas voters, to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system, and required county elections officials to permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system for the November 3, 2020, statewide general election. This bill would require county elections officials to permit any voter to cast a ballot using a certified remote accessible vote by mail system for any election. Under existing law, a vote by mail ballot is timely cast if it is voted on or before election day and, if returned by mail, received by the voter's elections official via the United States Postal Service, or a bona fide private mail delivery company, no later than 3 days after election day. This bill would provide instead that a vote by mail ballot is timely cast if it is voted on or before election day and, if returned by mail, received no later than 7 days after election day. This bill would authorize an elections official to consider any information from the United States Postal Service or a bona fide private mail delivery company that indicates the date on which the ballot was mailed, in order to determine whether a vote by mail ballot was timely cast. Existing law authorizes a jurisdiction in which vote by mail ballots are cast to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes 29 days before the election. Existing law authorizes a jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability to start processing vote by mail ballots on the 15th business day before the election, except, for the statewide general election held on November 3, 2020, these jurisdictions were authorized to start processing the ballots on the 29th day before the election. Existing law authorizes all other jurisdictions to start processing vote by mail ballots at 5 p.m. on the day before the election. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to establish vote by mail ballot drop-off locations, as defined. Existing law authorizes a county to conduct any election as an all-mailed ballot election under certain specified conditions. This bill would require any county that does not conduct an all-mailed ballot election to provide at least two vote by mail ballot drop-off locations within the jurisdiction where the election is held, or at least one vote by mail ballot drop-off location for every 30,000 registered voters within the jurisdiction where the election is held, whichever results in more vote by mail ballot drop-off locations. In a jurisdiction with fewer than 30,000 registered voters, the bill would require at least one vote by mail ballot drop-off location, and would require the elections official to make a reasonable effort to provide a ballot drop-off location in the jurisdiction where the election is held. This bill would require the operation of vote by mail ballot drop-off locations to meet certain specified criteria. This bill would authorize a jurisdiction having the necessary computer capability to start processing vote by mail ballots the 29th day before any election. By requiring local elections officials to mail a ballot to every registered voter, and to take other actions, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.