The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 authorizes counties and districts to establish retirement systems pursuant to its provisions in order to provide pension benefits to employees. The County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to provide any retirement benefits pursuant to that formula for some, but not all, general members or safety members of the county. Existing law further authorizes that county, by resolution, to require safety members to pay all or part of the contributions by a member or employer, or both, subject to certain limitations and conditions. This bill would authorize the Board of Supervisors of Marin County to provide a service retirement formula known as 3% at age 55 for safety members hired on or after January 1, 2013, as specified. The bill would authorize different retirement benefits pursuant to that formula for different bargaining units of safety members and the unrepresented groups of safety employees in similar job classifications and the supervisors and managers of those employees. The bill would also permit an ordinance or resolution adopted by the board to require safety members to pay part of the contributions by a member or employer, or both. The bill would require that the payment by a safety member become part of the accumulated contributions of the safety member. The bill would authorize the board, by means of a resolution, ordinance, contract, or contract amendment, to make the above-described provisions applicable to safety members in Marin County who are first hired on or after January 1, 2013.
Sponsored bills
This measure would commemorate the 40th anniversary of Title IX on June 23, 2012, commend the movement toward increased equality and fair treatment of female athletes, and praise the goal of greater opportunities in sports for girls and young women in California.
This measure would memorialize the Legislature's disagreement with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and would call upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
This measure would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to significantly increase federal funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund surplus for navigational improvements and continued operational and maintenance dredging in those federal channels that serve California's ports such that these expenditures equal the amounts contributed by California, to halt adding to the surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, and to recognize the role of California's ports in contributing the greatest share of the Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues. This measure would also memorialize the Legislature's support of efforts by California's congressional delegation to obtain an equitable share of all federal port and goods movement infrastructure funding and would encourage those representatives to support measures that will fund the security and facilitation of commercial activity at California's ports.
(1) Existing law provides for the regulation of franchises and establishes certain duties, obligations, and remedies for parties to a franchise agreement. The California Franchise Relations Act sets forth certain requirements related to the termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises, among other things. The Franchise Investment Law sets forth various powers of the Commissioner of Corporations relative to the registration of an offer or sale of a franchise, unless exempted, and prohibits certain fraudulent and unfair practices. This bill would revise both the California Franchise Relations Act and the Franchise Investment Law. (A) With respect to the California Franchise Relations Act, existing law generally prohibits a franchisor from terminating a franchise prior to expiration of its term except for good cause, which is defined to include the failure of a franchisee to comply with any lawful requirement of the franchise agreement after being given notice and a reasonable opportunity, which need not exceed 30 days, to cure the failure. This bill would provide that good cause in a termination case consists of a substantial and material breach of the franchise agreement after the franchisee is given written notice and 60 days to cure the failure. The bill would also require the termination to be in accordance with the current terms and standards equally applicable to all franchisees, with limited exceptions. Existing law provides that immediate termination of a franchise is deemed reasonable without an opportunity to cure upon the occurrence of certain events. One of those events is the failure by the franchisee to pay franchise fees or other amounts due with 5 days of receiving written notice that these amounts are overdue. This bill would exempt situations where the franchisee establishes that the event was caused in substantial manner by conduct of the franchisor. The bill would require certain noncompliance by the franchisee allowing immediate termination to be substantial and material. The bill would provide 60 rather than 5 days for the franchisee to pay overdue amounts. Existing law requires at least 180 days written notice to the franchisee of the franchisor's intention not to renew the franchise. Existing law imposes certain requirements on the franchisor in that regard relative to the franchisee's interests. This bill would delete these provisions and instead require a franchisor to renew a franchise unless the franchisee has substantially and materially breached the franchise agreement, and would require the renewal to be under the same terms as the existing agreement, or if the franchisee elects, under the franchise terms then being offered to new franchisees. The bill would continue to require 180 days' written notice if the franchisor has grounds not to renew the franchise. The bill would also prohibit a franchisor, upon termination or expiration of a franchise, from enforcing against the franchisee any covenant not to compete. Existing law provides that a franchisor, for a reasonable time after the death of the franchisee, may not deny the surviving spouse, heirs, or estate of the franchisee the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the franchise under the then-current qualifications and standards applicable to franchisees. This bill would require the qualifications and standards to be reasonable. Existing law requires a franchisor that terminates or fails to renew a franchise other than as permitted under the act to offer to repurchase the franchisee's resalable current inventory, as specified. This bill would instead require the franchisor to reinstate the franchisee and to pay all associated damages, or to pay to the franchisee the fair market value of the franchise or franchise assets. Existing law allows a franchisor and franchisee to agree to binding arbitration of claims arising under the act. This bill would require the arbitration procedures and costs to allow franchisees the opportunity to vindicate their rights under the act. This bill would also add new provisions to the California Franchise Relations Act. The bill would require the parties to a franchise agreement to deal with each other in good faith. The bill would provide that certain acts and practices by a franchisor or subfranchisor are unfair or deceptive acts or practices or an unfair method of competition. The bill would provide certain rights to a franchisee if the franchisor develops a new location or grants a new franchise in essentially the same market in unreasonable proximity to an existing franchise. The bill would provide that franchisors owe a duty of competence to franchisees. The bill would provide that a condition, stipulation, or provision in a franchise agreement requiring the application of the law of another state is void. The bill would provide additional remedies for violations of provisions governing actions of franchisors relative to termination, nonrenewal, and transfer of franchises, including specified damages in certain cases, injunctive relief, and an award of attorney's fees and costs to a franchisee prevailing in an action. (B) With respect to the Franchise Investment Law, existing law makes it unlawful for a person to offer or sell a franchise by means of a communication that includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order for the statements made to not be misleading. This bill would also make it unlawful for a person offering or selling a franchise to intentionally misrepresent certain matters, including the prospects or chances for success of a franchise, the known required total investment for a franchise, and efforts to sell or establish more franchises than a market or market area can sustain. Existing law provides that any person who willfully employs, directly or indirectly, any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise or who engages in other willful acts that operate as a fraud or deceit is guilty of a crime. This bill would allow these matters to also be the subject of civil litigation, as specified. Existing law imposes various duties on the Commissioner of Corporations with respect to franchise offers. This bill would prohibit the commissioners from registering any franchise offer that restricts venue for resolution of dispute solely to a forum outside this state. Existing law makes it unlawful for a franchisor to restrict or inhibit the right of franchisees to join a trade association or to prohibit the right of free association among franchisees for lawful purposes. A plaintiff may seek injunctive relief and damages for a violation of this provision. This bill would also make it unlawful for a franchisor to refuse to recognize and deal fairly and in good faith with an independent franchisee association. Existing law provides that a person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of specified provisions of the Franchise Investment Law shall be liable for damages to the franchisee or subfranchisor, with certain exceptions. Existing law also provides rescission as a remedy for willful violations of these provisions. This bill would extend civil liability for damages to any violation of the Franchise Investment Law. The bill, following purchase of a franchise, would allow a franchisee or subfranchisor to seek rescission, restitution, and ancillary damages without the requirement for the violation to be willful. The bill would extend liability for any violation of the Franchise Investment Law, on a joint and several basis, to various other parties associated with the franchisor. The bill would also provide for injunctive relief for any violation of the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law imposes time limits of one, 2, or 4 years for the bringing of an action to enforce specific liabilities under the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law provides that if the franchisor delivers a written notice to the franchisee disclosing a violation of certain disclosure provisions, an action must be brought within 90 days. This bill would require the written notice to include an offer of restitution of investment and ancillary damages and would extend the time for bringing an action to 180 days. The bill would allow 4 years to bring other actions to enforce liabilities under the Franchise Investment Law. Existing law provides that any condition, stipulation, or provision purporting to bind any person acquiring a franchise to waive compliance with the Franchise Investment Law is void. This bill would provide that certain other provisions, if included in the offer or sale of a franchise and associated documents, are also void. Existing law provides that a willful violation of any provision of the Franchise Investment Law is a crime, unless specifically excepted. Because the bill would change the definition of certain crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The bill would make other related changes. (3) 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.
(1) Existing law provides for licensing and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. A willful violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Insurance Commissioner. Existing law requires health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of severe mental illnesses, including pervasive developmental disorder or autism, under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions, as specified. Commencing July 1, 2012, and until July 1, 2014, existing law requires health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies to provide coverage for behavioral health treatment, as defined, for pervasive developmental disorder or autism. This bill would require health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies to provide coverage for the screening, diagnosis, and treatment, other than behavioral health treatment, of pervasive developmental disorder or autism. The bill would, however, provide that no benefits are required to be provided that exceed the essential health benefits that will be required under specified federal law. The bill would prohibit health care service plans and health insurers from denying, terminating, or refusing to renew coverage solely because the individual is diagnosed with or has received treatment for pervasive developmental disorder or autism. Because the bill would change the definition of a crime with respect to health care service plans, it would thereby impose 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
This measure would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to immediately enact the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2011.
(1) Existing law provides that qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards who associate within the State of California in order to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, collectively or cooperatively, shall not, solely on that basis, be subject to state criminal sanctions for the possession, sale, transport, or other proscribed acts relating to marijuana. This bill instead authorizes qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, to associate within the State of California as collectives, cooperatives, and other business entities to cultivate, acquire, process, possess, transport, test, sell, and distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The bill would provide that these persons shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or specified sanctions for possessing, selling, transporting, or engaging in other proscribed acts relating to marijuana, unless they are not in compliance with the registration requirements described in this bill. (2) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card. This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician's recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure, prohibits prosecution for the possession or cultivation of marijuana of a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. Existing law, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, exempts qualified patients who hold an identification card issued pursuant to the program, and the caregivers of those persons, from certain state criminal sanctions related to the possession, cultivation, transportation, processing, or use of limited amounts of marijuana, as specified. This bill would establish the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Control Act for the purposes of regulating and controlling medical marijuana activities. The bill would establish the Board of Medical Marijuana Enforcement in the Department of Consumer Affairs, and require the board to perform specified duties relating to the regulation of medical marijuana facilities, as defined. The governing body of the board would consist of 9 members, appointed by the Governor, the Senate Committee on Rules, and the Speaker of the Assembly. The duties of the board would include, but not be limited to, issuing or denying registration applications, establishing fees for administering these provisions, adopting regulations in connection with these provisions, and issuing fines and penalties for the violation of these provisions. The bill would preempt local laws regarding the regulation and control of medical marijuana and would prohibit a medical marijuana facility, as defined, from operating without state-approved registration, except as specified. The bill would generally require a city or county to permit no fewer than one medical marijuana dispensary, as defined, per 50,000 residents, provided that a city or county would be permitted to opt out of this requirement, pursuant to certain procedures. The bill would exempt from the bill's provisions individual patients and caregivers cultivating marijuana at their residences who do not sell or charge for the cultivation. The bill would require the board to make available mandatory registration application forms no later than July 1, 2013, and to make a thorough investigation to determine whether the applicant meets specified criteria. The bill would require that all registration applications be approved unless the applicant fails to meet the criteria. The bill would require a registration application to be approved or denied no later than 180 days after the application is filed with the board, and, if the board fails to act within this time, would require that the application be deemed approved. The bill would require a person applying for the renewal of an existing registration to apply no less than 60 days prior to the expiration, and would require the board to act upon a timely filed registration renewal application no later than 10 days prior to the expiration of the registration. This bill would create the Medical Marijuana Fund and would require that all moneys collected pursuant to the act be deposited into the Medical Marijuana Fund and would, except for moneys derived from penalties, continuously appropriate moneys in the fund for the purposes of implementing, enforcing, and administering the program. (4) Existing law authorizes the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, at a combined rate not to exceed 2% if approved by the required vote of the board or governing body and the required vote of qualified voters. This bill would additionally authorize the board of supervisors of a county and the governing body of a city to levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax on the retail sale of or storage, use, or other consumption of, medical marijuana or medical marijuana-infused products for general and specified purposes, as provided, at a combined rate not to exceed 5%. 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 measure would designate November 2012 as California Sikh American Awareness and Appreciation Month. It would recognize and acknowledge the significant contributions made by Californians of Sikh heritage to the state and afford all Californians the opportunity to understand, recognize, and appreciate the rich history and shared principles of Sikh Americans.