Existing law requires a trial court to provide written notification to the public by conspicuous posting within or about its facilities, on its public Internet Web site, and to the Judicial Council, not less than 60 days prior to closing any courtroom, or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices during regular business hours on any day, except as specified. This bill would require a trial court to also provide notification by electronic distribution to individuals who have subscribed to the court's electronic distribution service. The bill would require those required notifications to include information on how the public may provide written comments during the 60-day period on the court's plan for closing a courtroom, or closing or reducing the hours of clerks' offices. The bill would require the court to review and consider all public comments received and immediately provide notice to the public and to the Judicial Council if the court's plan changes as a result of the comments received or for any other reason. Existing law authorizes the Judicial Council, as part of its trial court budget process, to seek input from groups and individuals as it deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, advisory committees and the Administrative Director of the Courts. The trial court budget process may include other considerations, including the receipt of budget requests from the trial courts. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules providing for notice to the public and for public input to decisions concerning administrative and financial functions of a trial court, including, but not limited to, decisions relating to the budget of the trial court prior to submittal to the Judicial Council and subsequent to budget approval. Existing law also requires the Judicial Council to adopt rules requiring trial courts to give notice to the public of other decisions concerning the administrative and financial functions of the trial courts. This bill, until January 1, 2017, would require each trial court, prior to adopting a baseline budget plan for the fiscal year, to provide the public notice of, and an opportunity for input on, the trial court's proposed budget plan, as specified. Among other things, the bill would require the court to allow public input by the submission of written comments or by holding a public hearing on the trial court's proposed baseline budget plan. The bill also would require the court, prior to conducting a public hearing, to make the proposed baseline budget plan available to the public and to provide notice of the hearing date, time, and location, and the opportunity to submit written comments.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law requires the Legislature to provide for a system of common schools by which a free school is required to be kept up and supported in each district. Existing law prohibits a pupil enrolled in school from being required to pay a fee, deposit, or other charge not specifically authorized by law. This bill would prohibit a pupil enrolled in a public school from being required to pay a pupil fee, as defined, for participation in an educational activity, as defined, as specified. The bill would provide that this prohibition is not to be interpreted to prohibit solicitation of voluntary donations, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or school districts, schools, and other entities from providing pupils prizes or other recognition for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities. The bill would specify that these provisions apply to all public schools, including, but not limited to, charter schools and alternative schools, are declarative of existing law, and should not be interpreted to prohibit the imposition of a fee, deposit, or other charge otherwise allowed by law. The bill would require a superintendent of a school district, county superintendent of schools, or chief executive officer, or a person in the equivalent position, of a charter school, commencing with the 2011–12 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, to determine, within the first 8 weeks after the first day pupils attend school for that school year, or during a specified time period for the 2011–12 fiscal year, whether an unlawful pupil fee has been, or is being, charged in the current fiscal year, or on or after January 1, 2012, for the 2011–12 fiscal year. If the superintendent of a school district, county superintendent of schools, or chief executive officer, or a person in the equivalent position, of a charter school makes this determination, the bill would require him or her to present the determination at a public hearing or meeting of the applicable governing board or body at which the governing board or body would be required to identify the nature of the violation and take action to provide full reimbursements to all affected pupils, parents, or guardians within a specified time period. The bill would require the hearing or meeting to meet specified requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the Controller, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Department of Education, to develop a plan to review and report on financial and compliance audits, and with representatives of other entities, to recommend the statements and other information to be included in the audit reports filed with the state by local educational agencies, and to propose the content of an audit guide. This bill would require a compliance audit, commencing with audits of the 2011–12 fiscal year, to include the verification of compliance with the prohibition against the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities in violation of specified law. Notwithstanding specified law, the bill would require this verification to be added to the audit guide commencing with audits of the 2011–12 fiscal year. The bill also would allow for the adoption of emergency regulations to achieve this goal and would require charter schools to be subject to those audits to ensure compliance with the prohibition against the imposition of unlawful pupil fees. (3) Existing law requires a school district to use its uniform complaint process to help identify and resolve any deficiencies related to instructional materials, emergency or urgent facilities conditions that pose a threat to the health and safety of pupils or staff, teacher vacancy or misassignment, and intensive instruction and services provided to pupils who have not passed one or both parts of the high school exit examination after the completion of grade 12. Existing law provides certain complainants the right to file an appeal to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is required to provide a written report to the State Board of Education that describes the basis for the complaint and, as appropriate, proposes a remedy. A notice regarding the appropriate subjects of a complaint is required to be posted in each classroom in each school in the school district and a complaint regarding those deficiencies is required to be filed with the principal of the school or his or her designee, except as specified. This bill also would require a school district and a charter school to use its uniform complaint process to help identify and resolve any deficiencies related to the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities, as those terms are defined. The bill also would provide persons with a complaint regarding the imposition of pupil fees the right to file an appeal to the Superintendent and would require the Superintendent to provide the written report to the state board and the complainant no later than 30 working days after the appeal was received by the Superintendent. If the report finds a violation, the bill would require the Superintendent to require the offending school district, charter school, or school to fully reimburse all affected pupils, parents, or guardians. The bill also would require the classroom notice to include certain information about the prohibition against charging pupil fees for participation in educational activities. The bill would require a school district, county office of education, and charter school to establish local policies and procedures, post notices, and implement the uniform complaint process provisions regarding the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities by March 1, 2012. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law requires a county superintendent of schools to provide for an audit of all funds under his or her jurisdiction and requires the governing board of a local educational agency to either provide for an audit of the books and accounts of the local educational agency or make arrangements with the county superintendent of schools having jurisdiction over the local educational agency to provide for that auditing. Existing law requires a county superintendent of schools to be responsible for reviewing the audit exceptions contained in an audit of a local educational agency under his or her jurisdiction related to specified topics, and determining whether the exceptions were either corrected or an acceptable plan of correction was developed. Existing law requires the county office of education to review certain audit exceptions upon submission and receipt of a final audit report. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to be responsible for ensuring that local educational agencies have either corrected or developed plans of correction for specified audit exceptions. This bill, commencing with the 2011–12 audit of local educational agencies, would require the county superintendent of schools to also include in the review of audit exceptions those audit exceptions related to the imposition of pupil fees for participation in educational activities in violation of specified law, and to determine whether the exceptions are either corrected or an acceptable plan of correction is developed. The bill would prohibit an audit exception related to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees from being deemed corrected until the school district, county office of education, or charter school fully reimburses all affected parents, guardians, and pupils. The bill also would require the county office of education to review audit exceptions relating to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees. If, in an audit for a subsequent year, the auditor finds an uncorrected or new audit exception related to the imposition of unlawful pupil fees, the bill would require the auditor to make a specified disclosure and would require the Superintendent to withhold certain payments to the school district, county office of education, or charter school until they provide reimbursement, as specified. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law excepts certain claims from the requirement that all claims for money or damages against local public entities be presented in accordance with specified law. This bill would additionally except specified claims for reimbursement of pupil fees for participation in educational activities. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
(1) 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. Existing law requires that a student, 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 amend the Donahoe Higher Education Act, as of January 1, 2013, 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 students who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the above-described provision, 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. This bill would provide that students who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the above provision, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, are eligible to apply for, and participate in, any student financial aid program administered by the State of California to the full extent permitted by federal law. This bill would require the Student Aid Commission to establish procedures and forms that enable those students who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the above provision to apply for, and participate in, all student financial aid programs administered by the State of California to the full extent permitted by federal law. This bill would prohibit students who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above from being eligible for Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards unless specified conditions are met. The bill would make these provisions operative as of January 1, 2013. (2) 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 January 1, 2013, would require community college districts to waive the fees of students 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 requires the Department of Food and Agriculture, headed by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture, to promote and protect the agricultural industry of the state. This bill would, until July 1, 2017, create the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative. It would require, by July 1, 2012, the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to prepare recommendations, to be presented upon request to the Legislature, regarding actions that need to be taken to promote food access in the state. The bill would establish the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative Council and would require the council to implement the initiative, as specified. The bill would require the department to establish an advisory group, as specified. The bill would create the California Healthy Food Financing Initiative Fund in the State Treasury, to be comprised of federal, state, philanthropic, and private funds, for the purpose of expanding access to healthy foods in underserved communities and, to the extent practicable, to leverage other funding, as specified. Moneys in the fund would be expended upon appropriation by the Legislature.
Existing law, part of the hazardous waste control law, requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to adopt regulations to establish a process by which chemicals or chemical ingredients in products may be identified and prioritized for consideration as being chemicals of concern and to adopt regulations to establish a process by which chemicals of concern may be evaluated. The department is prohibited from duplicating or adopting conflicting regulations for regulated product categories. A violation of the hazardous waste control law is a crime. The bill would enact the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act, which would, except as specified, prohibit, on and after July 1, 2013, the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb) , if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption by children 3 years of age or younger. This prohibition would not apply to a product subject to a regulatory response by the department, on the date that a prescribed notice is posted regarding the department's adoption of the regulatory response. The bill would also require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing bisphenolA in containers in accordance with this bill.
This measure would recognize October 2011 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and urge all Californians to take a stand against domestic violence.
This measure would urge the United States government to consider the California jobs and economic stimulus provided by the California floriculture industry when advancing free trade agreements, specifically with Colombia.
This measure would honor and recognize the service and sacrifice made by members of the Armed Forces and their families on the occasion of Armed Forces Day on May 21, 2011.
This measure would express the Legislature's apology, on behalf of the people of the state, for violations of the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Filipino Americans caused by antimiscegenation laws that precluded marriage between Filipinos and Caucasians, and its regret, on behalf of the people of the state, for the suffering and hardship endured by Filipino Americans as a result of governmental actions taken because of various policies and laws it enacted.
This resolution would recognize the contributions of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities to California, and would also recognize the importance of preserving Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander communities and their traditions.