Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to allow pupils whom the district has determined would benefit from advanced scholastic or vocational work to attend community college as special part-time or full-time students, subject to parental permission. Existing law requires credit to be awarded to these pupils, as specified, authorizes a school principal to recommend a pupil for community college summer session if the pupil meets specified criteria, and prohibits the principal from recommending more than 5% of the total number of pupils from any particular grade level who completed that grade immediately before the time of recommendation for summer session attendance. This bill would authorize the governing board of a community college district to enter into a College and Career Access Pathways partnership with the governing board of a school district with the goal of developing seamless pathways from high school to community college for career technical education or preparation for transfer, improving high school graduation rates, or helping high school pupils achieve college and career readiness. The bill would require the partnership agreement to outline the terms of the partnership, as specified, and to establish protocols for information sharing, joint facilities use, and parental consent for high school pupils to enroll in community college courses. The bill would authorize specified high school pupils to enroll in up to 15 units per term if those units are required for these pupils' partnership programs and specified conditions are satisfied, and would authorize a community college district to exempt special part-time and full-time students taking up to a maximum of 15 units per term from specified fee requirements. The bill would prohibit a district from receiving a state allowance or apportionment for an instructional activity for which the partnering district has been, or will be, paid an allowance or apportionment under a concurrent enrollment partnership agreement. The bill would require, for each partnership agreement entered into under the bill, the affected community college district and school district to provide an annual report, containing specified data, to the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. The bill would require the chancellor to prepare a summary report, no later than January 1, 2021, that includes an evaluation of the partnerships, as specified. The bill's provisions would be repealed on January 1, 2022.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes a workers' compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of Workers' Compensation, to compensate an employee for injuries sustained in the course of his or her employment. Existing law establishes, in the Department of Industrial Relations, a Division of Workers' Compensation to administer those provisions. In administering and enforcing those provisions, existing law requires the division to protect the interests of injured workers and requires all forms and notices to be given to employees by the division to be in English and Spanish. This bill would require the Department of Industrial Relations and the Division of Workers' Compensation to make specified forms, notices, and fact sheets available in Chinese, Tagalog, Korean, and Vietnamese. The bill would also require the Administrative Director to make recommendations regarding any other documents that should be translated into languages other than English, as specified, and require the department and the division to submit the recommendations and any translated documents to the Legislature, as specified.
Existing law authorizes an adult to give an individual health care instruction and to appoint an attorney to make health care decisions for that individual in the event of his or her incapacity pursuant to a power of attorney for health care. This bill, until January 1, 2026, would enact the End of Life Option Act authorizing an adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined, to make a request for a drug prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life. The bill would establish the procedures for making these requests. The bill would also establish specified forms to request an aid-in-dying drug, under specified circumstances, an interpreter declaration to be signed subject to penalty of perjury, thereby creating a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program, and a final attestation for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would require specified information to be documented in the individual's medical record, including, among other things, all oral and written requests for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would prohibit a provision in a contract, will, or other agreement from being conditioned upon, or affected by, a person making or rescinding a request for the above-described drug. The bill would prohibit the sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or annuity policy, health care service plan contract, or health benefit plan, or the rate charged for any policy or plan contract, from being conditioned upon or affected by the request. The bill would prohibit an insurance carrier from providing any information in communications made to an individual about the availability of an aid-in-dying drug absent a request by the individual or his or her attending physician at the behest of the individual. The bill would also prohibit any communication from containing both the denial of treatment and information as to the availability of aid-in-dying drug coverage. This bill would provide a person, except as provided, immunity from civil or criminal liability solely because the person was present when the qualified individual self-administered the drug, or the person assisted the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug so long as the person did not assist with the ingestion of the drug, and would specify that the immunities and prohibitions on sanctions of a health care provider are solely reserved for conduct of a health care provider provided for by the bill. The bill would make participation in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions voluntary, and would make health care providers immune from liability for refusing to engage in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions. The bill would also authorize a health care provider to prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, from participating in activities under the act while on the premises owned or under the management or direct control of that prohibiting health care provider, or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the prohibiting health care provider. This bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for drugs to end an individual's life without his or her authorization or to conceal or destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request for a drug, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individual's death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request a drug for the purpose of ending his or her life, to destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request, or to administer an aid-in-dying drug to an individual without their knowledge or consent. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that nothing in its provisions is to be construed to authorize ending a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia, and would provide that action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide. This bill would require physicians to submit specified forms and information to the State Department of Public Health after writing a prescription for an aid-in-dying drug and after the death of an individual who requested an aid-in-dying drug. The bill would authorize the Medical Board of California to update those forms and would require the State Department of Public Health to publish the forms on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the department to annually review a sample of certain information and records, make a statistical report of the information collected, and post that report to its Internet Web site. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation. Existing law requires an attorney or law firm that receives or disburses trust funds to establish an interest-bearing demand trust account and to deposit in the account all client deposits that are nominal in amount or are on deposit for a short period of time. Existing law creates the Public Interest Attorney Loan Repayment Program, which is administered by the Student Aid Commission, to provide loan repayment assistance for licensed attorneys who practice or agree to practice in public interest areas of the law in California. Existing law provides for the escheat of property to the state. Existing law requires all property that escheats to the state to be deposited into the Abandoned Property Account in the Unclaimed Property Fund, which is continuously appropriated for specified purposes. Existing law establishes procedures for submitting a claim for property that has escheated. This bill would require funds in Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) that escheat to the state to be deposited into the Abandoned IOLTA Property Account, which would be established within the Unclaimed Property Fund. The bill would establish the IOLTA Claims Reserve Subaccount within the account and would require that 25% of IOLTA escheated funds be deposited into the subaccount to be used by the Controller, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes of paying refunds, claims, and costs associated with escheated IOLTA funds. The bill would require the balance of the escheated IOLTA funds to be transferred annually into the Public Interest Attorney Loan Repayment Account to be established by this bill within the State Treasury for the purposes of providing, upon appropriation by the Legislature, additional funding to the Student Aid Commission for the administration of, and provision of loan assistance pursuant to, the Public Interest Attorney Loan Repayment Program.
(1) The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulates the use and disposal of hazardous waste and authorizes the Department of Toxic Substances Control to deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, registration, or certificate applied for, or issued to, a person or entity if that person or entity engaged in specified activities in violation of the Hazardous Waste Control Law or other laws. This bill would require the department to consider, except under specified circumstances, 3 or more violations of, or noncompliance with, specified provisions for which a person or entity has been found liable or has been convicted, with respect to a single hazardous waste facility within a 5-year period, as compelling cause to deny, suspend, or revoke a permit, registration, or certificate applied for by, or issued to, that person or entity. (2) Existing law authorizes the department to temporarily suspend any permit, registration, or certificate prior to a hearing if the department determines that action is necessary to prevent or mitigate an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or safety or the environment. Existing law requires the department, upon receipt of a notice of defense to the accusation from the holder of the permit, registration, or certificate, to set the matter for hearing within 15 days and to hold the hearing as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after receipt of the notice. Existing law requires the hearing to be held without delay and completed as soon as possible. This bill would instead authorize the department to temporarily suspend any permit, registration, or certificate prior to a hearing if the department determines that conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or safety or the environment. The bill would repeal the requirement that the hearing be held without delay and completed as soon as possible. (3) Existing law provides for the imposition of civil and criminal penalties upon persons who violate the requirements of the hazardous waste control law or take other actions with regard to the handling of hazardous waste. This bill would impose, upon a person who is subject to the imposition of those civil or criminal penalties, an additional civil penalty of not less than $5,000 or more than $50,000 for each day of each violation, if the person has been found liable for, or been convicted of, 2 or more previous violations of certain of these hazardous waste-related provisions within any consecutive 60 months.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provides for the issuance of licenses for which various annual fees are charged depending upon the type of license issued. The act authorizes the issuance of a veterans' club license authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption within the licensed establishment only to members of the veterans' organization and their guests. This bill would additionally authorize a holder of a veterans' club license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for consumption within the licensed establishment to members of other veterans' organizations, active duty or reserve members of the Armed Forces, or veterans, as well as to the members of the veterans' organization and their guests.
Existing law prohibits a licensed optometrist and a registered dispensing optician from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form, directly or indirectly, with each other. Existing law prohibits a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form, directly or indirectly, either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, trust deed, or otherwise with any person who is engaged in the manufacture, sale, or distribution to physicians and surgeons, optometrists, or dispensing opticians of lenses, frames, optical supplies, optometric appliances or devices or kindred products. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions by a licensed optometrist and any other persons, whether or not a healing arts licensee, who participates with a licensed optometrist, subject to a crime. Under existing law, the Medical Board of California is responsible for the registration and regulation of nonresident contact lens sellers and dispensing opticians. Existing law requires fees collected from nonresident contact lens sellers to be deposited in the Dispensing Opticians Fund, and to be available, upon appropriation, to the Medical Board of California. Existing law requires fees collected from registered dispensing optician to be paid into the Contingent Fund of the Medical Board of California. Existing law makes a violation of the registered dispensing optician provisions a crime. Existing law, the Optometry Practice Act, makes the State Board of Optometry responsible for the licensure and regulation of optometrists. A violation of the Optometry Practice Act is a crime. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. This bill would repeal those prohibitions. The bill would prohibit a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, or any profit-sharing arrangement, either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, or trust deed, with any registered dispensing optician or any optical company, as defined, except as otherwise authorized. The bill would authorize a registered dispensing optician or optical company to operate, own, or have an ownership interest in a health plan, defined as a licensed health care service plan, if the health plan does not directly employ optometrists to provide optometric services directly to enrollees of the health plan, and would also provide for the direct or indirect provision of products and services to the health plan or its contracted providers or enrollees or to other optometrists, as specified. The bill would authorize an optometrist, a registered dispensing optician, an optical company, or a health plan to execute a lease or other written agreement giving rise to a direct or indirect landlord-tenant relationship with an optometrist if specified conditions are contained in a written agreement, as provided. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry, to inspect, upon request, an individual lease agreement, and the bill would require the landlord or tenant to comply. Because the failure to comply with that request would be a crime under specified acts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would prohibit a registered dispensing optician from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, or profit sharing arrangement either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, or trust deed, with an optometrist, except as authorized. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a crime. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would instead make the State Board of Optometry responsible for the registration and regulation of nonresident contact lens sellers and dispensing opticians. The bill would direct fees collected from registered dispensing opticians and persons seeking registration as a dispensing optician to be paid into the Dispensing Opticians Fund, and to be available, upon appropriation, to the State Board of Optometry. The bill would make various conforming changes in that regard. Existing law requires each registered dispensing optician to conspicuously and prominently display at each registered location the name of the registrant's employee who is currently designated to handle customer inquiries and complaints and the telephone number where he or she may be reached during business hours. This bill would instead require specified consumer information to be displayed. Because a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes it unlawful to, among other things, advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of a refractionist, an optometrist, or a physician and surgeon, or to directly or indirectly employ or maintain on or near the premises used for optical dispensing, a refractionist, an optometrist, a physician and surgeon, or a practitioner of any other profession for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes. This bill, except as specified, would make it unlawful for a registered dispensing optician to, among other things, advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of an optometrist or a physician and surgeon or to directly employ an optometrist or physician and surgeon for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry, by regulation, to impose and issue administrative fines and citations for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require all licensed optometrists in a setting with a registered dispensing optician to report the business relationship to the State Board of Optometry. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry to inspect any premises at which the business of a registered dispensing optician is co-located with the practice of an optometrist for the purposes of determining compliance with the aforementioned written lease agreement provisions. The bill would also authorize the State Board of Optometry to take disciplinary action against a party who fails to comply with the inspection and would require the State Board of Optometry to provide specified copies of the inspection results. Because would be a crime a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program This bill, until January 1, 2019, would prohibit an individual, corporation, or firm operating as a registered dispensing optician before the effective date of the bill, or an employee of such an entity, from being subject to any action for engaging in that aforementioned unlawful conduct. Because a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any health plan subject to these provisions to report to the State Board of Optometry in writing that certain percentages of its locations no longer employ an optometrist by specified dates. The bill would require the State Board of Optometry to provide those reports to the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Legislature. Under existing law, the State Board of Optometry consists of 11 members, 6 licensee members and 5 public members. This bill would require one of the nonpublic members to be a registered dispensing optician and would require the Governor to make that appointment. The bill would establish a dispensing optician committee to advise and make recommendations to the board regarding the regulation of dispensing opticians, as provided. The bill would require the advisory committee to consist of 5 members, including 2 registered dispensing opticians, 2 public members, and a member of the State Board of Optometry. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 procedures for conducting expedited jury trials in civil cases where the parties sign a consent order to stipulate that those procedures apply. Pursuant to these procedures, all parties agree that each side has up to 3 hours to present its case and agree to waive all rights to appeal and to move for a directed verdict or to make any posttrial motions, except as provided. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2016. This bill would modify procedures to provide that each party would have up to 5 hours to complete voir dire and present its case. The bill would require the Judicial Council to update rules and forms relating to these procedures by July 1, 2016. The bill would also delete the January 1, 2016, repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely. Existing law requires that a designated action or special proceeding meeting certain conditions be treated as a limited civil case. Existing law authorizes a limited civil case to be brought in the small claims division if the case is within the jurisdiction of the small claims division as otherwise provided by statute. The bill would establish procedures for conducting mandatory expedited jury trials in limited civil cases, including provisions for a jury of 8 or few members, with one alternate, and a limit of 5 hours for each side to complete voir dire and to present its case. The bill would authorize either party to opt out of the expedited jury trial procedures if certain requirements are met. The bill would provide that the verdict in an expedited jury trial case may be appealed and is subject to any written high/low agreement, as defined. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt additional rules and uniform procedures, as provided, by July 1, 2016. The bill would delay the operative date of specified provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials until July 1, 2016. The bill would also repeal the provisions relating to mandatory expedited jury trials on July 1, 2019.
(1) Existing law governs the contracts between a rental car company and its customer and defines terms for its purposes. Existing law governs how a rental car company is authorized to advertise its rates and provide quotes. Existing law limits how a rental car company is authorized to charge a customer based on those advertisements and quotes and further limits how a rental car company may separately charge specific types of rates. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to provide how a rental car company is authorized to provide a quote and charge a customer based on that quote, including, among other provisions, requirements for imposing additional mandatory charges. The bill would further revise and recast these provisions to provide how a rental car company is authorized to advertise its rates, including, among other provisions, a requirement that an advertisement include a specific disclaimer that additional mandatory charges may be imposed. The bill would define new terms for these purposes, including, among others terms, vehicle license fee, vehicle registration fee, vehicle license recovery fee, and additional mandatory charges. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions. (2) Existing law, until January 1, 2020, requires a rental car company or its registered agent to accept service of a summons and complaint and any other required documents against a renter who resides out of this country for an accident or collision resulting from the operation of the rental vehicle in this state, if the rental car company provides liability insurance coverage as part of, or associated with, the rental agreement. Existing law requires any plaintiff who elects to serve the foreign renter by delivering the summons and complaint and any other required documents to the rental car company pursuant to these provisions to agree to limit his or her recovery against the foreign renter and rental car company to the limits of the protection of the liability insurance. This bill would remove the repeal of these requirements on January 1, 2020, thus making these requirements apply indefinitely. (3) This bill would also make other technical, nonsubstantive changes by reorganizing several provisions and repealing obsolete provisions.
This measure would proclaim April 12 through April 19, 2015, as California Holocaust Memorial Week and would urge Californians to observe these days of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.