This measure would proclaim the month of September 2021 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in California and state the commitment of the Legislature to support efforts to find cures for, and achieve prevention of, childhood cancer.
The California Constitution prohibits the state, including any political subdivision or government instrumentality of or within the state, from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Existing law establishes in state government various commissions and committees, including, among others, the California Commission on Disability Access, the Healthy California for All Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to study and recommend reforms on certain topics, including issues related to equality and justice. This bill would establish in state government the California Commission on Human Rights, as an advisory commission, and would require it to, among other things, identify and evaluate California's successes and failures in protecting human rights of individuals living within the state, determine statutory, regulatory, or budgetary solutions to better protect human rights, and report, at least annually, on the status of human rights to the Legislature and the Governor with statutory and regulatory recommendations. The bill would require the commission to consist of 17 members, including, among others, Members of the Assembly and the Senate. The bill would also create the California Commission on Human Rights Fund in the General Fund to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, carry out these provisions and support the commission. The bill would make related findings and declarations. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2027.
Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, generally prohibits a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor from disclosing medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as otherwise specified. Existing law defines "medical information" for purposes of these provisions to mean certain individually identifiable health information in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, among others. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions that results in economic loss or personal injury to a patient punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would define "personal health record information" for purposes of the act to mean individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, about an individual's mental or physical condition that is collected by a commercial internet website, online service, or product that is used by an individual and that collects the individual's personal health record information through a direct measurement of an individual's mental or physical condition or through user input regarding an individual's mental or physical condition. The bill would provide that a business that offers personal health record software or hardware to a consumer, in order to make information available to an individual or provider of health care at the request of the individual or provider of health care, for purposes of allowing the individual to manage their information, or for the diagnosis, treatment, or management of a medical condition of the individual, shall be deemed to be a provider of health care subject to the requirements of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime, it 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 provides for the housing of juvenile wards of the court in juvenile facilities, including juvenile halls and forestry camps. Existing law requires the Board of State and Community Corrections to adopt minimum standards for the operation and maintenance of juvenile halls for the confinement of minors. Existing law requires the judge of the juvenile court of the county to annually inspect any jail or juvenile hall that was used for the confinement of any minor and to notify the operator of the jail or juvenile hall of any observed noncompliance with the minimum standards of the juvenile facility adopted by the board. This bill would prohibit the use or storage of a chemical agent, as defined, with the exception of oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray, inside, or on the grounds of, a juvenile facility. The bill would prohibit, commencing July 1, 2024, the use of a chemical agent against a juvenile who is under 18 years of age or in any space where a juvenile who is under 18 years of age is present. The bill would require an entity that manages, operates, or owns a juvenile facility to dispose of all chemical agents, with the exception of OC spray, in its possession on or before December 31, 2023, and to notify the board of that disposition. The bill would require the custodian of each juvenile facility to report quarterly to the board on the use of a chemical agent in the facility, as provided. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to submit to the Legislature a report on model practices and protocols for alternatives to the use of chemical agents in juvenile facilities, as specified. The bill would require the board to develop training, model practices, and regulations to implement the findings and recommendations of the report, as specified. By imposing new duties on local juvenile facilities, 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.
Existing law, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, approved by the voters as Proposition 24 at the November 3, 2020, statewide general election, establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency and vests it with full administrative power, authority, and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) . Proposition 24 requires the agency to be governed by a 5-member board appointed, as specified, and provides that those appointments should be made from among Californians with expertise in the areas of privacy, technology, and consumer rights. This bill would require those appointments to be made from among Californians with expertise in the areas of privacy, technology, and consumer rights. The California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act by a majority vote of both houses of the Legislature, as specified. This bill would declare that its provisions further the purposes and intent of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Existing law establishes the Office of Small Business Advocate (CalOSBA) within the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, also known as GO-Biz, to advocate for causes of small business and to provide small businesses with the information they need to survive in the marketplace. Existing law authorizes counties, cities, and other local agencies to impose various taxes and fees in connection with activity or property within those jurisdictions. This bill would enact the California Small Business Rent Relief Act, which would authorize a county to establish a local small business rent forgiveness and tax relief program, as provided, for the purpose of providing credits to qualified taxpayers, as defined, to be used against any tax or fee owed to the county by the qualified taxpayer, and for which the county has authority to collect a credit in lieu of cash. The bill would authorize CalOSBA to establish the California Small Business Rent Forgiveness and Tax Relief Program, as provided, for the purpose of allocating credit authority to qualified counties, as defined, to implement a small business rent forgiveness and tax relief program. The bill would create the Small Business Rent Forgiveness and Tax Relief Account within the California Economic Development Fund, for the purpose of receiving moneys transferred to the account, and would require all moneys in the account to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of implementing the California Small Business Rent Forgiveness and Tax Relief Program. The bill would require CalOSBA to submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature on program activities, as provided.
(1) The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, an initiative measure approved by the voters as Proposition 65 at the November 4, 1986, statewide general election, prohibits a person, in the course of doing business, from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without giving a specified warning, or from knowingly discharging or releasing such a chemical into water, or into or onto land and passing into any source of drinking water, except as specified. The act imposes civil penalties upon persons who violate those prohibitions, and provides for the enforcement of those prohibitions by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or specified city attorneys or prosecutors. The act also provides for enforcement by an action brought by any person in the public interest, if that private action is commenced more than 60 days after the person has given notice of the violation that is the subject of the action to the Attorney General and the district attorney, the city attorney, or the prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator. If the notice made by a person bringing an action in the public interest alleges a violation of the act's warning requirement, the act requires that the notice include a certificate of merit stating that the person executing the certificate has consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action. The act requires factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on the Attorney General. This bill would require the same factual information sufficient to establish the basis of the certificate of merit to be attached to the certificate of merit that is served on each alleged violator. (2) The act requires, if there is a settlement of an action brought by a person in the public interest, the plaintiff to submit the settlement, other than a voluntary dismissal in which no consideration is received from the defendant, to the court for approval upon noticed motion, and authorizes the court to approve the settlement only if the court makes specified findings. This bill would require, for all settlements generated by alleging a violation of or threatening to allege a violation of the act, the plaintiff or person acting in the public interest to submit those settlements to the court, and would additionally require the court, in order to approve the settlement, to find that neither the plaintiff nor the attorney representing the plaintiff has received any compensation from the alleged violator unless that compensation is disclosed in the settlement or in a prior court-approved settlement and is authorized by applicable law. (3) The act requires a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for certain specified exposures to provide a notice to the alleged violator in a specified proof of compliance form, and prohibits an enforcement action from being filed by that person, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, if the notice to the alleged violator alleges a failure to provide a clear and reasonable warning for those specified exposures and, within 14 days after receiving the notice, the alleged violator corrects the alleged violation, pays a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per facility or premises, and notifies the person bringing the action that the violation has been corrected. This bill would prohibit an enforcement action from being filed, and the recovery of certain payments or reimbursements from the alleged violator, by a person filing an enforcement action in the public interest for an exposure in a food product by a supplier or distributor of the food product if the supplier or distributor, among other things, labels the food product with the warning required by the act and submits an affidavit to the Attorney General stating that the food product was labeled with the warning, within 14 days after service of notice. (4) Proposition 65 provides that it may be amended by a statute, passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature, to further its purposes. This bill would find and declare that it furthers the purposes of Proposition 65.
Existing law defines "hate crime" as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law provides that the punishment for misdemeanor hate crimes is imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or a fine of up to $5,000, or both imprisonment and that fine. Under existing law, hate crimes with specified underlying acts or other circumstances are punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more then one year or for 18 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine of up to $10,000, or by both imprisonment and that fine. This bill would increase the fines for a person who is convicted of a hate crime by $2,500 and would require those funds to be used, upon appropriation, to fund classes or programs on racial or ethnic sensitivity, or other similar training in the area of civil rights, as specified.
Existing state law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, grants a consumer various rights with respect to personal information, as defined, that is collected or sold by a business, as defined. This bill would authorize an unmanned aircraft system, as defined, that is used by a business to deliver consumer products to a person in this state to be used by a business to collect, use, and retain audio, geolocation, and visual information only when reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve the delivery purposes for which the information was collected or processed. Except as provided, the bill would require the business to destroy that information upon completion or realization of those purposes. The bill would define terms for its purposes.
(1) Existing law, notwithstanding the requirement that each person between 6 and 18 years of age who is not otherwise exempted is subject to compulsory full-time education, requires a pupil to be excused from school for specified types of absences, including, among others, if the absence was due to the pupil's illness. This bill would include, within the meaning of an absence due to a pupil's illness, an absence for the benefit of the pupil's mental or behavioral health. The bill would require the State Board of Education to update its illness verification regulations, as necessary, to account for including a pupil's absence for the benefit of the pupil's mental or behavioral health within the scope of this provision. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local educational entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to give diligent care to the health and physical development of pupils and authorizes the governing board of a school district to employ properly certified persons for the work. Existing law requires a school of a school district or county office of education and a charter school to notify pupils and parents or guardians of pupils no less than twice during the school year on how to initiate access to available pupil mental health services on campus or in the community, or both, as provided. This bill, contingent on an appropriation made for these purposes, would require the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2023, to recommend best practices and identify evidence-based, as defined, and evidence-informed, as defined, training programs for schools to address youth behavioral health, including, but not necessarily limited to, staff and pupil training, as specified. The bill would define a local educational agency for purposes of these provisions to mean a county office of education, school district, state special school, or charter school that serves pupils in any of grades 7 to 12, inclusive. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 48205 of the Education Code proposed by AB 516 to be operative only if this bill and AB 516 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (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 the statutory provisions noted above. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
