Existing law, the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act) , governs collective bargaining between the state and recognized state public employee organizations. Existing law excludes certain employees from coverage under the Dills Act, including, among others, managerial employees, supervisory employees, and confidential employees, as defined. Existing law creates the Public Employment Relations Board and authorizes it, among other things, to determine appropriate state employee bargaining units, as specified. This bill would enact the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act, to provide employees of the Legislature, including some supervisory and managerial employees, the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations. The bill would prescribe rights, duties, and prohibitions in this context that parallel those in the Dills Act. The bill would prohibit the Public Employment Relations Board from including employees of the Legislature in a bargaining unit that includes employees other than those of the Legislature. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to willfully resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with any member of the board, or any of its agents, in the performance of duties pursuant to its provisions. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the provisions of the Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act are severable. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution and as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming in order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Existing law requires the state board to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions to ensure that the statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit, as defined, no later than December 31, 2030. On September 23, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order No. N-79-20 establishing a goal that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035. This bill would declare that, to help achieve the state's climate and air quality goals and mandates, it is the goal of the state, as established in Executive Order No. N-79-20, that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks be zero-emission by 2035. The bill would require the state board, to the extent consistent with state and federal law, to develop and adopt passenger vehicle and light-duty truck regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the state towards the target of 100% of in-state sales by 2035.
Existing federal law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) , requires each state to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange to facilitate the purchase of qualified health benefit plans by qualified individuals and qualified small employers. PPACA defines a "qualified health plan" as a plan that, among other requirements, provides an essential health benefits package. Existing state law creates the California Health Benefit Exchange, also known as Covered California, to facilitate the enrollment of qualified individuals and qualified small employers in qualified health plans as required under PPACA. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. This bill, the California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act, would create the California Guaranteed Health Care for All program, or CalCare, to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state. The bill, among other things, would provide that CalCare cover a wide range of medical benefits and other services and would incorporate the health care benefits and standards of other existing federal and state provisions, including the federal Children's Health Insurance Program, Medi-Cal, ancillary health care or social services covered by regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities, Knox-Keene, and the federal Medicare program. The bill would require the board to seek all necessary waivers, approvals, and agreements to allow various existing federal health care payments to be paid to CalCare, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. This bill would create the CalCare Board to govern CalCare, made up of 9 voting members with demonstrated and acknowledged expertise in health care, and appointed as provided, plus the Secretary of California Health and Human Services or their designee as a nonvoting, ex officio member. The bill would provide the board with all the powers and duties necessary to establish CalCare, including determining when individuals may start enrolling into CalCare, employing necessary staff, negotiating pricing for covered pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, establishing a prescription drug formulary, and negotiating and entering into necessary contracts. The bill would require the board, on or before July 1, 2024, to conduct and deliver a fiscal analysis to determine whether or not CalCare may be implemented and whether revenue is more likely than not to pay for program costs, as specified. The bill would require the board to convene a CalCare Public Advisory Committee with specified members to advise the board on all matters of policy for CalCare. The bill would establish an 11-member Advisory Commission on Long-Term Services and Supports to advise the board on matters of policy related to long-term services and supports. This bill would provide for the participation of health care providers in CalCare, including the requirements of a participation agreement between a health care provider and the board, provide for payment for health care items and services, and specify program participation standards. The bill would prohibit a participating provider from discriminating against a person by, among other things, reducing or denying a person's benefits under CalCare because of a specified characteristic, status, or condition of the person. This bill would prohibit a participating provider from billing or entering into a private contract with an individual eligible for CalCare benefits regarding a covered benefit, but would authorize contracting for a health care item or service that is not a covered benefit if specified criteria are met. The bill would authorize health care providers to collectively negotiate fee-for-service rates of payment for health care items and services using a 3rd-party representative, as provided. The bill would require the board to annually determine an institutional provider's global budget, to be used to cover operating expenses related to covered health care items and services for that fiscal year, and would authorize payments under the global budget. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would develop a revenue plan, taking into consideration anticipated federal revenue available for CalCare. The bill would create the CalCare Trust Fund in the State Treasury, as a continuously appropriated fund, consisting of any federal and state moneys received for the purposes of the act. Because the bill would create a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation. This bill would prohibit specified provisions of this act from becoming operative until the Secretary of California Health and Human Services gives written notice to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly that the CalCare Trust Fund has the revenues to fund the costs of implementing the act, the people of California have approved the necessary revenue mechanisms, and the Legislature has approved implementation of the CalCare by statute. The California Health and Human Services Agency would be required to publish a copy of the notice on its internet website. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The federal Higher Education Act of 1965 prohibits, as a condition of participating in federal student aid programs, a for-profit private postsecondary educational institution from deriving less than 10 percent of its revenues for each fiscal year from sources other than federal financial assistance, as defined. Under the federal act, if an institution fails to comply with the requirement for 2 consecutive fiscal years, it loses its eligibility to participate in federal financial assistance programs for at least two fiscal years. The California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 provides for the regulation of private postsecondary educational institutions by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education in the Department of Consumer Affairs. This bill would prohibit private postsecondary educational institutions, commencing with the 2023–24 academic year, from enrolling California residents if, pursuant to that federal law, for the previous 2 consecutive fiscal years or 2 out of the previous 3 fiscal years it derived less than 10 percent of its revenues from sources other than federal financial assistance.
Existing law establishes a process in which the county superintendent of schools proposes remedial actions necessary to ensure that those school districts showing fiscal distress can meet their financial obligations. Existing law establishes that if, after taking the remedial actions, the county superintendent determines that a school district will be unable to meet its financial obligations for the current or subsequent fiscal year, the county superintendent must notify specified parties. Existing law provides appeal rights for school districts to challenge a determination that they will be unable to meet their financial obligations. If an appeal by a school district is denied or not filed, or if the school district has a negative financial certification, existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to take one or more specified remedial actions, and all actions necessary to ensure that the school district meets its financial obligations. Existing law specifies that one of the remedial actions the county superintendent of schools may take is to stay or rescind any action determined to be inconsistent with the school district's ability to meet its financial obligations. Existing law also authorizes the county superintendent of schools to assist in developing a multiyear financial recovery plan that will enable the school district to meet its future obligations. Existing law requires the school district to pay 75% and the county office of education to pay 25% of administrative expenses incurred in taking certain remedial actions or costs associated with improving the school district's financial management practices. This bill also would authorize the county superintendent of schools to stay or rescind any action of a personnel commission for classified school employees. If a school district's subsequent year's budget is disapproved by the county superintendent of schools, the bill would specify that the county superintendent of schools' authority to stay or rescind actions continues without interruption until the next subsequent year's budget is approved. If the governing board of a school district fails to adopt or implement a multiyear financial recovery plan, the bill would authorize the county superintendent of schools to impose or implement the multiyear financial recovery plan. If the county superintendent of schools prepares a multiyear financial recovery plan for the school district, the bill would require the county superintendent to consult certain documents and entities, and to hold at least 2 public hearings to receive stakeholder input. The bill would authorize a school district to appeal to the Superintendent a county superintendent of schools' decision to prepare, adopt, or implement a multiyear financial recovery plan. To the extent the bill would impose additional obligations on school districts and county superintendents of schools, the 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 Mental Health Services Act, an initiative statute enacted by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 2, 2004, statewide general election, funds a system of county mental health plans for the provision of mental health services, as specified. Existing law establishes the continuously appropriated Mental Health Services Fund. Existing law requires the Controller, prior to distributing the balance of the funds to the counties, as specified, to reserve up to 5% of the total annual revenues of the fund for the costs for the State Department of Health Care Services, the California Behavioral Health Planning Council, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, the State Department of Public Health, and any other state agency to implement all duties pursuant to the programs set forth in the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 by appropriating $20,000,000 annually from the administrative account of the Mental Health Services Fund to the University of California, if the University of California chooses to accept the moneys, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, as specified, to implement the College Mental Health Services Program. The bill would require those funds to be used for the purpose of funding programs to increase campus student mental health services and mental health-related education and training. The bill would require campuses that participate in the program to report on the use of those grant funds, as specified, and to post that information on their internet websites.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 imposes various limitations on contributions that may be made to, or accepted by, candidates for elective office. A violation of the act's provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties. This bill, the Corporate-Free Elections Act, would prohibit a candidate for elective office from receiving a contribution from a business entity, and a business entity from making a contribution to a candidate for elective office, and would make related findings and declarations. By expanding the scope of existing crimes with regard to contribution limitations, 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. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Existing law establishes the California Kids Investment and Development Savings Program, which is administered by the Scholarshare Investment Board, for the purpose of expanding access to higher education through savings. Existing law establishes the California Kids Investment and Development Savings Program Fund, the moneys in which are continuously appropriated to the board for the program. Existing law requires implementation of the program before January 1, 2021, subject to the availability of funding. This bill would require a financial institution that does business in California to pay a fee in the amount of 1% of the amount of each educational loan made to a private person for purposes of financing study in California. The bill would specify that the fee does not apply to subsidized loans made through educational institutions. The bill would require that the fees be remitted to the State Treasury for deposit into the California Kids Investment and Development Savings Program Fund. By providing for additional moneys to be deposited into a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
Existing law authorizes the formation of the Sacramento Regional Transit District with various powers and duties with respect to transportation planning, programming, construction, and operations. Existing law requires that the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) be the long-range planning agency advising the district. This bill would require SACOG, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to develop and administer the Green Means Go Grant and Loan Program to award competitive grants and revolving loans to cities, counties, and special districts within the Sacramento region for qualifying projects within and benefitting green zones, as defined. The bill would require SACOG, on or before November 1, 2023, and annually thereafter, to submit a report to the Legislature describing the development and administration of that program, amount of moneys awarded pursuant to that program, and status of projects for which that program's moneys were awarded. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 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 authorizes the Department of Transportation to contract with Amtrak for intercity rail passenger services and provides funding for these services from the Public Transportation Account. Existing law authorizes the department, subject to approval of the Secretary of Transportation, to enter into an interagency transfer agreement under which a joint powers board assumes responsibility for administering the state-funded intercity rail service in a particular corridor and associated feeder bus services. Existing law creates the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Board, which is the governing board of the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority and is responsible for administering the Colfax-Sacramento-Suisun City-Oakland-San Jose rail corridor, which is defined as the Capital Corridor. This bill would appropriate an unspecified amount from the General Fund without regard to fiscal years to the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority to invest in capital improvements for the Capitol Corridor.