This measure would proclaim the period of October 23, 2017, to October 31, 2017, inclusive, as Red Ribbon Week and would encourage all Californians to help build drug-free communities and to participate in drug prevention activities.
Existing law provides specified requirements in awarding certain public contracts. This bill would authorize the Governor to execute games support contracts, not to exceed a specified amount, in connection with the site selection process for the City of Los Angeles to become the host for the 2028 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, that accept financial liability to provide the state security for amounts owed by the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (OCOG) , as specified, and for any financial deficit accruing to the OCOG as a result of the hosting of the games by the endorsing municipality, as defined. The bill would establish the Olympic Games Trust Fund in the State Treasury and would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, make the money in the fund available for these purposes, as specified. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations that, among other things, the endorsing municipality has developed a self-sufficient bid for financing the games.
Existing law makes it unlawful for a person, with intent to mislead, deceive, or defraud, to commit an act of political cyberfraud, as defined. Existing law defines the term "political cyberfraud" to include a knowing and willful act concerning a political Web site that is committed with the intent to deny a person access to a political Web site, deny a person the opportunity to register a domain name for a political Web site, or to cause a person reasonably to believe that a political Web site has been posted by a person other than the person who posted the Web site, and would cause a reasonable person, after reading the Web site, to believe the site actually represents the view of the proponent or opponent of a ballot measure. Existing law also defines the term "political Web site" to mean an Internet Web site that urges or appears to urge the support or opposition of a ballot measure. This bill would modify the definition of the terms "political cyberfraud" and "political Web site" to include Internet Web sites that urge or appear to urge the support or opposition of candidates for public office.
Existing law requires all new state fleet purchases made by the Department of General Services and other state entities of certain passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks to meet the fuel economy standard established by the department, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Existing law requires the Secretary of Government Operations, in consultation with the department and other state agencies, to develop and implement a plan to improve the overall state fleet's use of alternative fuels, synthetic lubricants, and fuel-efficient vehicles by reducing or displacing the consumption of petroleum products by the state fleet. This bill would, except as provided, require, beginning December 31, 2025, at least 15% of newly purchased vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 19,000 pounds or more purchased by the department and other state entities for the state fleet to be zero emission, and beginning December 31, 2030, at least 30% of those vehicles to be zero emission. The bill would require, if the department finds, in a public hearing on or after December 31, 2026, that it cannot meet the needs of the state while meeting this requirement, the department to disclose this finding at the hearing and to the Legislature. The bill would require, upon disclosure of this finding, the department to take certain steps to address the issues preventing the department and other state agencies from meeting this state fleet requirement. The bill would require, after a specified time period, if the department finds, in a public hearing, that it still cannot meet the needs of the state after taking those steps, the department to disclose this finding at the hearing and to the Legislature. The bill would provide that the requirement would be inoperative on the latter date on which the department notifies the Legislature.
(1) Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University; the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California; the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges; and independent institutions of higher education as the 4 segments of postsecondary education in this state. Existing provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act set forth the missions and functions of these 4 postsecondary educational segments. No provision of the Donahoe Higher Education Act applies to the University of California except to the extent that the regents, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable. This bill would express findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the possible impacts on public postsecondary educational institutions in this state of changes in federal immigration policies and enforcement. The bill would add to the Donahoe Higher Education Act provisions that would require the Trustees of the California State University, the governing boards of community college districts, and independent institutions of higher education that are qualifying institutions for purposes of the Cal Grant Program, and would request the regents, to the fullest extent consistent with state and federal law, to: refrain from disclosing personal information concerning students, faculty, and staff, except under specified circumstances; advise all students, faculty, and staff to notify the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, as soon as possible, if he or she is advised that an immigration officer, as defined, is expected to enter, or has entered, the campus to execute a federal immigration order; notify, as soon as possible, the emergency contact of a student, faculty, or staff person if there is reason to suspect that the person has been taken into custody as the result of an immigration enforcement action; comply with a request from an immigration officer for access to nonpublic areas of the campus only upon presentation of a judicial warrant, except as specified; advise all students, faculty, and staff responding to or having contact with an immigration officer executing a federal immigration order, to promptly refer the entity or individual to the office of the chancellor or president, or his or her designee, for purposes of verifying the legality of any warrant, court order, or subpoena; designate a staff person to serve as a point of contact for those who may be subject to immigration actions, as specified; maintain a contact list of legal services providers who provide legal immigration representation, and provide it free of charge to any and all students who request it; adopt and implement, by March 1, 2019, the model policy developed by the Attorney General or an equivalent policy pursuant to a specified statute, limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, as specified; post on its Internet Web site, and provide via email quarterly or each semester to all students, faculty, and staff, and update as often as is necessary, a copy of the policy referenced above, and guidance informing them of their rights under state and federal immigration laws and how to respond to a federal immigration action or order; and ensure that certain benefits and services provided to undocumented students are continued in the event that they are subject to a federal immigration order. Because this bill would create new duties for community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) 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.
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 (Proposition 65) , 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, existing law 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. Existing law 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, if the Attorney General believes there is no merit to the action after reviewing the factual information sufficient to establish the basis for the certificate of merit and meeting and conferring with the noticing party regarding the basis for the certificate of merit, the Attorney General to serve a letter to the noticing party and the alleged violator stating the Attorney General believes there is no merit to the action, as specified. Existing law authorizes the trial court, upon the motion of the alleged violator or the court's own motion, to review the basis for the certificate of merit upon conclusion of an action brought in the public interest and, as part of that review, requires the information in the certificate of merit to be disclosed to the court in an in-camera proceeding at which the moving party is not present. Existing law deems the action to be frivolous if the court finds in that review that there is no credible factual basis for the certified belief that an exposure to a listed chemical has occurred or was threatened. Existing law provides that, except when the trial court reviews the basis for the certificate of merit, the basis for the certificate is not discoverable. This bill would make the basis for the certificate of merit discoverable to the extent that the information is relevant to the subject matter of the action and not subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, or any other legal privilege. Existing law authorizes the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to provide various services and information to businesses relating to, among other things, business development, obtaining state and local permits, and other regulatory information pertinent to business operations in the state. This bill would require the office to post in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, and include with any informational materials provided to businesses relating to a business's obligations under state law, specified information relating to Proposition 65 requirements. 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.
This measure would recognize September 11, 2017, as a day of solemn commemoration and extend the Legislature's deepest sympathies to the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
This measure would urge the Congress of the United States to not enact S. 446, H.R. 38, or any other similar "concealed carry reciprocity" legislation that would require the State of California to recognize the concealed carry standards of every other state.
This measure would recognize the importance of civic engagement across the State of California.
Existing law authorizes a supervising law enforcement official with probable cause to believe that a person is holding hostages and is committing a crime, or is barricaded and is resisting apprehension through the use or threatened use of force, to order a telephone corporation security employee to arrange to cut, reroute, or divert telephone lines for the purpose of preventing telephone communication by the suspected person with any person other than a peace officer or person authorized by a peace officer. Existing law, until January 1, 2020, prohibits a governmental entity and a provider of communications service acting at the request of a governmental entity from interrupting communications service for the purpose of protecting public safety or preventing the use of communications service for an illegal purpose, except pursuant to an order signed by a judicial officer, as specified. Existing law allows the order to authorize an interruption of communications service only for as long as is reasonably necessary, requires that the interruption cease once the danger that justified the interruption is abated, and requires the order to specify a process to immediately serve notice on the communications service provider to cease the interruption. Existing law authorizes interruption of a communications service without first obtaining a court order under extreme emergency situations, as specified. This bill would repeal all of those provisions. This bill would instead prohibit any government entity, or service provider acting at the request of a government entity, from interrupting a communication service either to prevent the communications service from being used for an illegal purpose or to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The bill would authorize a government entity to interrupt a communications service for either of those purposes in an extreme emergency situation, as specified, or if the interruption is authorized by a court order. The bill would require the application for a court order under its provisions to require specified information, and would authorize the court to grant the order if specified conditions are met, including, among other things, there is probable cause that the communication is being or will be used for an unlawful purpose and that absent immediate and summary action to interrupt the communication service, serious, direct, and immediate danger to public health, safety, or welfare will result. The bill would require the order to contain specified information, including a statement of the duration of the authorized interruption. The bill would require a government entity interrupting a communications service due to an extreme emergency situation to apply for a court order without delay, and if possible, to file the application within 6 hours after commencement of interruption. The bill would require the government entity, if it does not apply for an application within 6 hours, to apply within 24 hours after commencement of the interruption and include a declaration under penalty of perjury stating the reason for the delay. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that good faith reliance by a service provider on a court order issued pursuant to these provisions is a defense for the service provider against any action brought as a result of the interruption of a communications service authorized by that order. The bill would allow a person whose communications service has been interrupted pursuant to these provisions to petition the superior court to contest the grounds for interruption and restore the interrupted service. 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.
