Existing law, known as 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 do not apply to the University of California unless the regents of the university act, by resolution, to make them applicable. Among other things, the act provides that the University of California has exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education to award the doctoral degree in all fields of learning, except that it may agree with the California State University to award joint doctoral degrees in selected fields. With respect to doctoral degrees, the act limits the California State University to awarding these degrees jointly with the University of California, as described above, or jointly with independent institutions of higher education, provided that the proposed doctoral program is approved by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. This bill would instead authorize the California State University to award the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree. This bill would require the degree to be distinguished from doctoral degree programs at the University of California. The bill would require that the Doctor of Physical Therapy degree offered by the California State University be focused on preparing physical therapists to provide health care services and shall be consistent with meeting requirements of the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. The bill would require that each student in the programs authorized by the bill be charged fees no higher than the rate charged for students in state-supported programs in physical therapy at the University of California. The bill would require the California State University, the Department of Finance, and the Legislative Analyst's Office to jointly conduct a statewide evaluation of the new programs implemented under the bill. The bill would specify topics to be included in this evaluation, and would require that the evaluation be submitted to the Legislature and the Governor on or before January 1, 2015. This provision would be repealed on January 1, 2019.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law subjects violators of air pollution laws to specified civil and administrative penalties. Existing law imposes various duties on the State Air Resources Board relative to the reduction of air pollution. This bill would require a written communication from the state board alleging that an administrative or civil penalty will be, or could be, imposed either by the state board or another party, including the Attorney General, for a violation of air pollution law, to contain specified information. The bill would require this information and final mutual settlement agreements reached between the state board and a person alleged to have violated air pollution laws to be made available to the public. The bill would require the state board to prepare and submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report summarizing the motor vehicle pollution administrative penalties imposed by the state board for calendar year 2011, and annually thereafter, and would require the state board to publish a penalty policy for motor vehicle pollution laws that is based on specified criteria. (2) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 2009 (GRP No. 1) , transferred all the duties, functions, employees, property, and related funding of the Division of Telecommunications in the Department of General Services to the office of the State Chief Information Officer. The plan also renamed and transferred the Department of Technology Services in the State and Consumer Services Agency to the Office of the Department of Technology Services within the office of the State Chief Information Officer, renamed the Department of Technology Services Revolving Fund the Technology Services Revolving Fund, and made conforming changes. The plan eliminated the Office of Information Security and Privacy Protection, and instead created the Office of Information Security within the office of the State Chief Information Officer, and the Office of Privacy Protection within the State and Consumer Services Agency, with a division of the duties, personnel, property, and funding of the Office of Information Security and Privacy Protection between the 2 offices. The plan also transferred duties relating to the state's procurement of information technology from the Department of Finance, the Department of General Services, and the Department of Information Technology to the office of the State Chief Information Officer. Existing law requires the Legislative Counsel to prepare for introduction not later than the next regular session of the Legislature occurring more than 90 days after the effective date of GRP No. 1, a bill effecting these changes in the statutes to reflect the changes made by the plan. This bill would make the statutory codification changes made necessary by the plan. (2) Existing law, until January 1, 2013, creates the office of the State Chief Information Officer, within the Governor's cabinet, with a State Chief Information Officer having specified duties in creating and managing the technology policy of the state. Existing law requires the Department of General Services to perform certain duties related to state information technology. This bill would extend the repeal of the provisions establishing the office of the State Chief Information Officer to January 1, 2015. This bill would rename the office of the State Chief Information Officer as the California Technology Agency and the position of the State Chief Information Officer as the Secretary of California Technology and impose additional duties on both regarding state information technology governance and implementation. The bill would also transfer specified state information technology-related duties from the Department of General Services to the California Technology Agency and create the positions of chief information officer and information security officer in specified state agencies and state entities, as defined. This bill would also make technical and conforming statutory changes.
(1) Existing law requires, if a person is convicted of a specified driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense and the offense occurred within 10 years of 2, or 3 or more, prior specified DUI offenses that resulted in a conviction, that the person be punished by enhanced penalties, and that the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle be revoked by the department for a period of 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, as applicable. Existing law authorizes the court to impose specified additional orders on a person when the person is convicted of a driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense, depending on the circumstances. This bill would, beginning January 1, 2012, authorize the court to order a 10-year revocation of the driver's license of a person who has been convicted of 3 or more specified DUI offenses if the court considers certain factors, including, but not limited to, the period of time that has elapsed since his or her previous DUI convictions. The bill would also authorize a person who had his or her driver's license revoked for 10 years to apply to the Department of Motor Vehicles, 5 years from the date of the last DUI conviction, to have his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle reinstated subject to certain conditions, including, among other things, the condition that the person was not convicted of any other drug- or alcohol-related offenses, under state law, during the driver's license revocation period. (2) Existing law requires that a person, convicted of driving under the influence, without bodily injury to another, within 10 years of being convicted of a separate violation of one or more specified DUI offenses, be punished by his or her driving privilege being suspended or revoked for a period of 2 or more years. Existing law requires, among other things, the Department of Motor Vehicles to advise a person, who was only under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at the time of the violation, that he or she may apply for a restricted driver's license after completion of 90 days, 6 months, or 12 months, of the suspension or revocation period, or if the person was under the influence of any drug or the combination of any drug and alcohol, or if the person concurrently did any act forbidden by law or neglected any duty imposed by law that proximately caused bodily injury to another person other than the driver, then after completion of 12 months of the revocation period, which may include credit for a specified concurrent suspension, subject to specified conditions. This bill would revise and recast the above provisions to make technical and nonsubstantive, as well as conforming, changes as a result of the changes made by Chapter 193 of the Statutes of 2009 (SB 598) .
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully manufacture, intentionally sell, or knowingly possess for sale any counterfeit mark registered with the Secretary of State or registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Existing law imposes specified imprisonment and fines based upon the number of counterfeit marks involved in the offense and if the person is an individual or a business entity. Existing law also specifies certain imprisonment and fines for a subsequent conviction of this offense and provides other specified penalties if the conduct that was the basis of the conviction has directly and foreseeably caused death or great bodily injury to another through reliance on the counterfeited item for its intended purpose. Existing law makes it a crime for a person to knowingly and willfully transfer or cause to be transferred any sounds that have been recorded on a phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film, or other article on which sounds are recorded, with intent to sell or cause to be sold, or to use or cause to be used for commercial advantage or private financial gain through public performance, the article on which the sounds are so transferred, without the consent of the owner. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions, and certain other provisions regarding the transportation of an article with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been so transferred without the consent of the owner, if the offense involves the transfer or transportation, or conduct causing that transfer or transportation, of not less than 1,000 of the articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to transport or cause to be transported for monetary or other consideration within the state, any article containing sounds of a live performance with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been recorded or mastered without the consent of the owner of the sounds of the live performance. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions if the offense involves transporting or causing to be transported not less than 1,000 articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law makes it a crime for any person to record or master or cause to be recorded or mastered on any article, with the intent to sell for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the sounds of a live performance with the knowledge that the sounds thereon have been recorded or mastered without the consent of the owner of the sounds of the live performance. Existing law specifies certain penalties for a violation of these provisions if the offense involves the recording, mastering, or causing the recording or mastering of at least 1,000 articles. Existing law also specifies certain other penalties for any other violation of these provisions and for a 2nd or subsequent conviction. Existing law provides that a person is guilty of failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work if, for commercial advantage or private financial gain, he or she knowingly advertises, sells, rents, manufactures, or possesses for those purposes, a recording or audiovisual work that does not disclose the name of the manufacturer, author, artist, performer, or producer, as specified. Failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, imprisonment in the state prison, or a fine, or by both imprisonment and a fine, as specified, depending on the number of articles of audio recordings or audiovisual works involved, and whether the offense is a first offense, or 2nd or subsequent offense. Existing law provides that every person who operates a recording device in a motion picture theater while a motion picture is being exhibited, for the purpose of recording a theatrical motion picture and without the express written authority of the owner of the motion picture theater, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would double the fines that may be imposed for a violation of any of the above provisions. Statutory law that became inoperative on January 1, 2010, provided that it was a crime, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment for a person located in California who knew that a particular recording or audiovisual work was commercial, to knowingly electronically disseminate all or substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work. That statutory law also provided that a minor who violated these provisions was punishable by a fine not exceeding $250 for a first or 2nd offense and by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail, or by both that fine and imprisonment for a 3rd or subsequent violation. This bill would again make operative those provisions and would double the fines that may be imposed for a violation of those provisions. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides that, in addition to any other penalty or fine, a court shall order any person who has been convicted of any violation of certain provisions of law relating to the transfer or transportation of misappropriated recorded music, the transportation of an article containing unauthorized recordation of sounds of live performances, the unauthorized recording of sounds of live performances, or the failure to disclose the origin of a recording or audiovisual work to make restitution to the owner or lawful producer, or trade association acting on behalf of the owner or lawful producer, of the phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film, or other device or article from which the sound or visual images were derived that suffered economic loss resulting from the violation. Existing law provides how value is to be determined for the purpose of calculating restitution. This bill would also require a court to order restitution when the person has been convicted of violating certain other provisions of law relating to the manufacture or sale of a counterfeit registered mark and the electronic transmission of all or substantially all of a commercial recording or audiovisual work. This bill would incorporate changes to Section 653w of the Penal Code proposed by SB 830, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides that any person who, orally, in writing, or by wearing any military decoration, falsely represents himself or herself to have been awarded any military decoration, as specified, with the intent to defraud, is guilty of an infraction. This bill would instead provide that the offense is a misdemeanor, or in the case where the person committing the offense is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified, and would exempt face-to-face solicitations involving less than $10. The bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 19.8 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 451 and AB 1675, to be operative only if this bill and one or both of the other bills are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, and this bill is chaptered last. By increasing the penalty for an existing offense, 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, until January 1, 2014, allows certain state and local transportation entities, if authorized by the California Transportation Commission, to use a design‑build process for contracting on transportation projects, as specified. This bill would authorize the Riverside County Transportation Commission, if authorized by the commission, to utilize this design-build procurement process for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvements Project on the state highway system. The bill would make the Department of Transportation responsible for the performance of construction inspection services for the project, as specified, and would require the commission to report on the progress of the project and related matters to specified legislative committees. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provides for specified labeling requirements for containers of alcoholic beverages sold within this state. This bill would require any wine bottled on or after January 1, 2014, labeled with an American Viticultural Area established pursuant to federal law that is located entirely within a county of the 19th class, to bear the designation "Sonoma County" on the label in specified type size as determined by the size of the wine container, as prescribed. The bill would authorize the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to suspend or revoke the license of any person who violates those provisions. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provides that a violation of its provisions is a misdemeanor, unless otherwise specified. This bill, by creating a new crime, imposes 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 provides for the regulation of various professions and vocations, including those of an athlete agent. This bill would make it unlawful for any person to hold himself or herself out as a certified athletic trainer unless he or she has been certified by the Board of Certification, Inc., and has either graduated from a college or university, after completing an accredited athletic training education program, as specified, or completed requirements for certification by the Board of Certification, Inc., prior to January 1, 2004. The bill would make it an unfair business practice to violate these provisions.
This measure would recognize May 2010 as Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month.