(1) Existing law requires, as a condition of parole, that a prisoner who has a severe mental disorder, as defined, be treated by the State Department of State Hospitals, and requires the State Department of State Hospitals to provide the necessary treatment. Existing law authorizes a prisoner to request a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of proving that the prisoner is subject to that parole condition. Existing law also authorizes a prisoner to request that the board appoint 2 independent professionals for that hearing. If it is determined that the prisoner is subject to the parole condition described above, existing law requires, prior to release on parole, that the person in charge of treating the prisoner and a practicing psychiatrist or psychologist from the State Department of State Hospitals evaluate the prisoner at a facility of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Existing law requires the Board of Parole Hearings to appoint 2 independent professionals to conduct an additional review in certain circumstances. Existing law imposes various requirements on the selection of the independent professionals described above, including, among other things, that they not be state government employees. This bill would additionally require those independent professionals, at the request of the prisoner, to consult with a prisoner's primary mental health clinician, as defined, and if any, before making a recommendation concerning that prisoner to the board. (2) Existing law specifies the applicable procedures for any hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings to set, postpone, or rescind a parole release date of a prisoner under a life sentence. Existing law also requires that those prisoners are entitled to be represented by counsel at those hearings, and that specified individuals be invited to those hearings. This bill would require the board, at the request of the prisoner, to consult with a prisoner's primary mental health clinician if the board considers a Psychological Risk Assessment, as those terms are defined, as part of the board's determination of whether to set, postpone, or rescind a parole release date of a prisoner under a life sentence.
Sponsored bills
(1) Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which 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 requires the department to develop and implement a Medi-Cal inpatient hospital reimbursement payment methodology based on diagnosis-related groups, subject to federal approval, that reflects the costs and staffing levels associated with quality of care for patients in all general acute care hospitals, as specified. Existing law generally requires the diagnosis-related group-based payments to apply to all claims. This bill would require claims for payments pursuant to the inpatient hospital reimbursement methodology described above to be increased by 16% for the 2015–16 fiscal year, and would require, commencing July 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, the department to increase each diagnosis-related group payment claim amount based, at a minimum, on increases in the medical component of the California Consumer Price Index. Commencing with the 2015–16 fiscal year, and annually thereafter, the bill would require managed care rates for Medi-Cal managed care health plans to be increased by a proportionately equal amount for increased payments for hospital services. (2) Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, Medi-Cal provider payments to be reduced by 1% or 5%, and provider payments for specified non-Medi-Cal programs to be reduced by 1%, for dates of service on and after March 1, 2009, and until June 1, 2011. Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, Medi-Cal provider payments and payments for specified non-Medi-Cal programs to be reduced by 10% for dates of service on and after June 1, 2011. This bill would, instead, prohibit the application of those reductions for payments to providers for dates of service on or after June 1, 2011. The bill would also require payments for managed care health plans for dates of service following the effective date of the bill to be determined without application of some of those reductions. The bill would require the Director of Health Care Services to implement this provision to the maximum extent permitted by federal law and for the maximum time period for which the director obtains federal approval for federal financial participation for those payments. (3) Prior law required, beginning January 1, 2013, through and including December 31, 2014, that payments for primary care services provided by specified physicians be no less than 100% of the payment rate that applies to those services and physicians as established by the Medicare program, for both fee-for-service and managed care plans. This bill, commencing January 1, 2016, would require payments for specified medical care services to not be less than 100% of the payment rate that applies to those services as established by the Medicare program for services rendered by fee-for-service providers, and would require rates paid to Medi-Cal managed care plans to be actuarially equivalent to payment rates established by the Medicare program. The bill, commencing January 1, 2016, would require rates paid to Denti-Cal providers for dental services provided to adults and children to be increased by the equivalent percentage as the percentage increase required for other fee-for-service Medi-Cal providers. The bill would require those provisions to be implemented only to the extent permitted by federal law and that federal financial participation is available. The bill would authorize the department to implement those provisions through provider bulletins without taking regulatory action until regulations are adopted, and would require the department to adopt those regulations by July 1, 2018. The bill would require, commencing July 1, 2016, the department to provide a status report to the Legislature on a semiannual basis until regulations have been adopted. (4) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, as amended by Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (Jessica's Law) , approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, makes a defendant punisable by imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life if convicted of certain crimes, including rape, sexual penetration, sodomy, oral copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, or rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration in concert, if certain circumstances were present, including, among other things, in the commission of that offense, any person kidnapped the victim, tortured the victim, or committed the offense during the commission of a burglary, as specified. Existing law also makes a defendant punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years to life if convicted of certain crimes, including rape, sexual penetration, sodomy, oral copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, or rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration in concert, if certain circumstances were present, including, among other things, in the commission of that offense any person, except as specified in the provisions above, kidnapped the victim, committed the offense during the commission of a burglary, or used a dangerous or deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. Proposition 83 provides that the Legislature may amend the provisions of the act to expand the scope of their application or increase the punishment or penalties by a statute passed by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature. This bill would add the crimes of rape, sexual penetration, sodomy, and oral copulation, perpetrated against a person who is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, to the above provisions, if the victim is developmentally disabled, as defined. By applying the above enhancements to these crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law makes a defendant punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life if convicted of certain crimes, including rape, spousal rape or sexual penetration in concert, sexual penetration, sodomy, or oral copulation if certain circumstances were present, including, among other things, in the commission of that offense any person kidnapped the victim, committed the offense during the commission of a burglary, or used a dangerous or deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, or under other specified circumstances, and the crime was committed against a minor 14 years of age or older. This bill would add the crimes of rape, sexual penetration, sodomy, and oral copulation, perpetrated against a person who is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, to the above provisions, if the victim is developmentally disabled, as defined. By applying the above enhancements to these crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law requires that a person who commits certain enumerated crimes, including rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration, against a person who is 65 years of age or older, or against a person who is blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, a paraplegic, or a quadriplegic, or against a person who is under 14 years of age, receive a one-year sentence enhancement and requires that any person having a prior conviction for any of the enumerated offenses receive a 2-year sentence enhancement. This bill would add to the enumerated list of crimes rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration, perpetrated against a person who is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent. By applying the above enhancements to these crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (Jessica's Law) , approved by the voters at the November 7, 2006, statewide general election, provides that a defendant shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years to life if convicted of certain crimes, including rape, sexual penetration, sodomy, oral copulation, continuous sexual abuse of a child, or rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration in concert, if certain circumstances were present, including, among other things, if the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified offense. Proposition 83 provides that the Legislature may amend the provisions of the act to expand the scope of their application or increase the punishment or penalties by a statute passed by a majority vote of each house. This bill would specify that the prison term of 25 years to life applies if the defendant has been convicted of more than one specified offense on charges brought and tried separately, irrespective of the order in which the offenses were committed or the convictions obtained.
The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, allow a credit under the Personal Income Tax Law in an amount equal to 20% of the monetary contributions made to one or more qualified tuition programs, as defined, by a qualified taxpayer, as defined, during the taxable year, not to exceed $500. This bill would include findings and declarations regarding the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to provide that the credit amount in excess of tax liability is refundable in those years in which an appropriation for that purpose is made by the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing state board regulations require specified entities to comply with a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, and require additional specified entities to comply with that market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2015. This bill instead would exempt categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation, as defined, under a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, from being subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through December 31, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
This measure would proclaim January 26, 2016, as India Republic Day, and would urge all Californians to join in celebrating India Republic Day.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The state board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing state board regulations require specified entities to comply with a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, and require additional specified entities to comply with that market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2015. This bill would instead exempt those categories of persons or entities that did not have a compliance obligation, as defined, under a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2013, from being subject to that market-based compliance mechanism through December 31, 2020. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to license and regulate transitional housing placement providers. Existing law requires transitional housing providers to provide supervised transitional housing services to foster children who are at least 16 years of age and not more than 18 years of age, nonminor dependents, or both. Existing law provides that transitional housing includes, among others, programs in which a participant lives independently in certain types of housing owned or leased by the provider either with an adult employee of the provider or in a building in which one or more adult employees of the provider reside and provide supervision. Transitional housing may, if the State Department of Social Services provides approval, include programs in which a participant lives independently in certain types of housing owned or leased by provider under the supervision of the provider. This bill would delete the requirement that the housing be owned or leased by the provider and would instead require that a provider be responsible for the payment of any contracted rental fees and any penalties for late payment to the property owner. The bill would also, with regards to the latter program described above, delete the requirement that the department provide approval for the program and delete the requirement that participants live under the supervision of the provider.
(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, and the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law appropriates funding, in the annual Budget Act and in other statutes, from the state General Fund for the support of these segments. Existing law also authorizes these segments to require their students to pay mandatory systemwide fees and tuition, among other costs, for matriculation at these institutions. Proposition 30, known as the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012, was approved by the voters at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election and, among other things, increases personal income tax and sales and use tax rates and provides revenue for public elementary and secondary schools and community colleges. This bill would express a finding and declaration of the Legislature, and express the intent of the Legislature, relating to the enactment of Proposition 30 by the voters and to the provision of funding to the California State University, the University of California, and the California Community Colleges. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the California State University for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges from increasing beyond the level of the mandatory systemwide fees charged to students of the California Community Colleges for the 2014–15 fiscal year. The bill, from the 2015–16 fiscal year to the 2018–19 fiscal year, inclusive, would prohibit the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California from exceeding the level of the mandatory systemwide fees or tuition charged to students of the University of California for the 2014–15 fiscal year. (2) Existing law prohibits a campus of the California State University, or the Chancellor of the California State University, or both, from approving a student success fee before January 1, 2016. Existing law requires, during the 2014–15 fiscal year, the chancellor to conduct a review of the California State University Student Fee Policy relating to student success fees and to recommend to the Trustees of the California State University changes to the fee policy. This bill, commencing with the 2015–16 fiscal year, would prohibit the imposition of a student success fee at a campus of a segment of public postsecondary education unless the student success fee is approved by a favorable vote of 2 3 "?> a majority of those students voting at an election of the student body held at that campus within the preceding 48 months. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.