Existing law requires the adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to include, among other subjects, the social sciences. Existing law requires the State Board of Education, with the assistance of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to establish a list of textbooks and other instructional materials that highlight the contributions of minorities in the development of California and the United States. This bill would require the Superintendent to oversee the development of, and the state board to adopt, a model curriculum to ensure quality courses in ethnic studies. The bill would require the Superintendent to establish an Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee and would require the committee to advise, assist, and make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development of the model curriculum. The bill would, beginning the school year following the adoption of the model curriculum, authorize each school district maintaining any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer, as an elective in the social sciences, a course of study in ethnic studies based on the model curriculum.
Sponsored bills
Existing law sets forth the order of precedence of offices and measures on the ballot and, among other things, requires the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to be listed on the ballot under the heading, SCHOOL. This bill would instead require the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to be listed under the heading, STATEWIDE EDUCATION, and it would move the location of this office on the ballot, thus changing the order of precedence. This bill would also remove other instructions relating to the placement of this office on the ballot.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various healing arts practitioners by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law defines "unfair competition" to mean and include any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. Under existing law, a person who engages in unfair competition is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for each violation. Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health and sets forth its powers and duties over the regulation of health facilities and adult day health care centers, including, but not limited to, adopting regulations setting forth applicable staffing standards. Existing regulations of the department applicable to intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled and for adult day health care centers define "music therapist" as a person who has a bachelor's degree in music therapy and who is registered or eligible for registration by the National Association for Music Therapy, now known as the American Music Therapy Association. This bill would prohibit a person who provides music therapy, as defined, from using the title of "Board Certified Music Therapist" unless the person has completed specified education and clinical training requirements. The bill would also establish that it is an unfair business practice for a person to use the title "Board Certified Music Therapist" if he or she does not meet those requirements. The bill would prohibit its provisions from being construed to authorize a person engaged in music therapy to state or imply that he or she provides mental health counseling, psychotherapy, or occupational therapy for which a license is required and provide that use of music therapy shall not imply or suggest that the person is a Board Certified Music Therapist, if he or she does not meet specified criteria.
The California Constitution and existing property tax law authorize taxpayers to transfer the base year value, as defined, of property to replacement property, if certain conditions are met, including, among others, that the claimant has not previously been granted, as a claimant, this property tax relief. For purposes of this property tax relief, existing law defines a "claimant" as any person claiming the property tax relief provided by this section, and provides that if a spouse of the claimant is a record owner of the replacement dwelling, the spouse is also considered a claimant for purposes of determining whether, in any future claim filed by the spouse this condition of eligibility has been met. This bill would eliminate the requirement that, if a spouse of the claimant is a record owner of the replacement dwelling, the spouse also be considered a claimant for purposes of determining whether, in any future claim filed by the spouse, the condition of eligibility has been met, and would also make conforming changes to that provision. This bill would provide that this property tax relief applies only to persons who file a claim on or after January 1, 2016, and who have not been previously granted this property tax relief, as specified. Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires the Legislature to reimburse local agencies annually for certain property tax revenues lost as a result of any exemption or classification of property for purposes of ad valorem property taxation. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2229 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse local agencies for property tax revenues lost by them pursuant to the bill. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which basic health care services are provided to qualified low-income persons. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid provisions. Existing law provides for a schedule of benefits under the Medi-Cal program. Existing law requires that preventive services assigned a grade of A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force be provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries without any cost sharing by the beneficiary in order for the state to receive increased federal contributions for those services, as specified. This bill would provide that, only to the extent that federal financial participation is available and not otherwise jeopardized, and any necessary federal approvals have been obtained, tobacco cessation services are covered benefits, subject to utilization controls, under the Medi-Cal program, and would require those services to include all intervention recommendations, as periodically updated, assigned a grade A or B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force, and, at a minimum, 4 quit attempts per year. The bill would also require, only to the extent consistent with the recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, tobacco cessation services to include at least 4 counseling sessions per quit attempt and a 12-week treatment regimen of any medication approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for tobacco cessation. The bill would require the department to seek any federal approvals necessary to implement those provisions.
Under the Sales and Use Tax Law, the Use Fuel Tax Law, the Alcoholic Beverage Tax Law, the Energy Resources Surcharge Law, the Emergency Telephone Users Surcharge Act, the Hazardous Substances Tax Law, the Integrated Waste Management Fee Law, the Oil Spill Response, Prevention, and Administration Fees Law, the Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee Law, and the Diesel Fuel Tax Law, the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate is authorized to order, within 90 days of the receipt of funds pursuant to a levy or notice to withhold, the return of any amount not exceeding $1,500, upon a finding that the levy or notice to withhold threatens the health or welfare of the taxpayer, or his or her spouse and dependents or family. Under those laws, if the State Board of Equalization believes that the collection of any amount of tax imposed by those laws will be jeopardized by delay, the board is required to make a determination of the amount of tax, which is immediately due and payable. This bill would increase, under each of those laws the amount the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate is authorized to order returned to a taxpayer to $2,300 in any monthly period, and would authorize this amount to be adjusted for inflation, as provided. This bill would also authorize the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate to order amounts returned in the case of a seizure of property as a result of a jeopardy determination, as specified. Under the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Law and the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate is authorized to order the release of a levy or notice to withhold upon his or her finding that the levy or notice to withhold threatens the health or welfare of the taxpayer, or his or her spouse and dependents or family. Under those laws, if the State Board of Equalization believes that the collection of any amount of tax imposed by those laws will be jeopardized by delay, the board is required to make a determination of the amount of tax, which is immediately due and payable. This bill would additionally authorize the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate to order, within 90 days of the receipt of funds pursuant to a levy or notice to withhold, the return of any amount not exceeding $2,300 in any monthly period, upon a finding that the levy or notice to withhold threatens the health or welfare of the taxpayer, or his or her spouse and dependents or family, and would authorize this amount to be adjusted for inflation, as provided. This bill would also authorize the Taxpayers' Rights Advocate to order amounts returned in the case of a seizure of property as a result of a jeopardy determination, as specified.
The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises between a franchisor, subfranchisor, and franchisee, as those terms are defined. That act, except as otherwise provided, prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to the expiration of its term, except for good cause, which includes, but is not limited to, the failure of the franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure within 30 days. This bill would instead limit good cause to the failure of the franchisee to substantially comply with the lawful requirements of the franchise agreement imposed on the franchisee after being given notice at least 60 days in advance and would require that the period for a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure be no less than 60 days from the date of the notice of noncompliance. The bill would prohibit the period for curing the failure from exceeding 75 days, except as specified. The bill also would allow immediate termination of a specified separate motor vehicle franchise under specified circumstances. This bill would make it unlawful for a franchise agreement to prevent a franchisee from selling or transferring a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of the franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, provided that the person is qualified under the franchisor's then-existing and reasonable standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified, and the parties comply with specified transfer provisions. The bill would prohibit a sale, transfer, or assignment of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, without the franchisor's written consent, but would prohibit that consent from being withheld unless the buyer, transferee, or assignor does not meet standards for new or renewing franchisees or the parties fail to meet specified transfer provisions. This bill would require the franchisee, prior to the sale, assignment, or transfer of a franchise, all or substantially all of the assets of a franchise business, as defined, or a controlling or noncontrolling interest in the franchise business, to another person, to notify the franchisor of the franchisee's intent to sell, transfer, or assign the franchise or its assets or interest, as specified, and would require the notice to be in writing and include specified information. The bill would require the franchisor, within a specified period, to notify the franchisee of the approval or disapproval of the proposed sale, assignment, or transfer of the franchise, and would require the notice to be in writing and be delivered by courier to the franchisee or sent by receipted mail. The bill would require the franchisor to communicate the franchisor's standards for approval of new or renewing franchisees, as specified. The bill would deem a proposed sale, assignment, or transfer approved, unless disapproved by the franchisor, as specified. The act requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise, other than in accordance with specified provisions of law, to offer to repurchase from the franchisee the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions and would, with certain exceptions, require the franchisor, upon a lawful termination or nonrenewal of a franchisee, to purchase from the franchisee at the value of price paid, minus depreciation, all inventory, supplies, equipment, fixtures, and furnishings purchased or paid for under the franchise agreement, as specified. The bill would not require a franchisor to purchase assets to which the franchisee cannot or does not provide clear title and possession. This bill would entitle a franchisee to receive from the franchisor the fair market value of the franchise business and assets, as well as resulting damages, if a franchisor terminates or fails to renew a franchise in violation of the act. The bill would provide for injunctive relief in the event of a violation or threatened violation of these provisions. The bill would limit its application to a franchise agreement entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2016, or to franchises of an indefinite duration that may be terminated without cause.
Under existing law, a mutual water company is defined as a corporation organized for or engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, or delivering water for irrigation or domestic purposes that provides in its articles or bylaws that the water shall be sold, distributed, supplied, or delivered only to owners of its shares, as specified. A mutual water company may be organized under the General Corporation Law or the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law. The Mutual Water Company Open Meeting Act authorizes an eligible person, upon 24 hours advance written notice, to attend meetings of the board of directors of a mutual water company that operates a public water system, except when the board adjourns to, or meets solely in, executive session. This bill would prohibit a mutual water company from meeting solely in an executive session without holding a meeting. The bill would require notice of a meeting to be given to an eligible person at least 4 days prior to the meetings. The bill would require a board of directors of a mutual water company to allow an eligible person to personally attend a meeting of the board, if the eligible person gave the board at least 24 hours advance written notice of his or her intent to personally attend the meeting. The bill would authorize the board to allow an eligible person who was denied attendance at a meeting for failure to provide this notice, or because the number of eligible persons having already provided notice of attendance exceeds the room capacity of the place of the meeting, to attend the meeting by teleconference, and would further require the board to provide to an eligible person attending a meeting by teleconference a copy of the documents to be discussed at the meeting, as specified.
Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law authorizes the trustees by rule to require all persons to pay fees, rents, deposits, and charges for services, facilities, or materials provided by the trustees to those persons. Existing law prohibits specified California State University campus-based mandatory fees from being reallocated without an affirmative vote of the majority of the members of either the student body or a specified campus fee advisory committee voting on the fee reallocation, unless the vote that established the fee authorizes an alternative or automatic reallocation mechanism for that fee. Existing law prohibits a campus or the Chancellor of the California State University from approving a student success fee, as defined, before January 1, 2016. Existing law requires the chancellor to conduct a review of the trustees' fee policy related to student success fees, submit recommended changes to the fee policy to the trustees, consider specified information in conducting that review and in preparing his or her recommended changes to the policy, and to submit a report regarding those proposed changes to the Department of Finance and the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, on or before February 1, 2015. This bill would revise and recast the requirements related to student success fees. The bill would prohibit a campus of the California State University, or the Chancellor of the California State University, from imposing a student success fee, as defined, unless certain requirements are met. The bill would establish procedures for campus elections for the adoption or rescission of student success fees. The bill would require the chancellor to report a summary of the fees adopted or rescinded in the prior academic year, and the uses of proposed and currently implemented fees, annually to the Department of Finance and the Legislature.
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.