Sen. Bob Wieckowski

This measure would proclaim June 2012 as Scleroderma Awareness Month.

The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws, including a credit for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, in the amount of $3,000 for each full-time employee hired by a qualified employer, with a maximum cumulative credit of $400,000,000 for all taxable years. Those laws define "qualified employer" as a taxpayer that employed 20 or fewer employees as of the last day of the preceding taxable year. This bill would, under both laws, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, redefine "qualified employer" to mean a disabled veteran business enterprise, a disadvantaged business enterprise, a microbusiness, or a small business, as defined. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, allow a credit in the amount of $4,500 for each net increase in full-time employees, who are paid qualified wages of less than $16 per hour and a credit in the amount of $9,100 for each net increase in full-time employees, who are paid qualified wages of $16 or more per hour, as provided. 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. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission Act creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission as a regional agency in the 9-county San Francisco Bay Area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law requires the commission to consist of 19 members, including 2 members each from the Counties of Alameda and Santa Clara, and one member appointed by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and establishes a 4-year term of office for members of the commission. This bill would, instead, require the commission to consist of 21 members, including one member appointed by the Mayor of the City of Oakland and one member appointed by the Mayor of the City of San Jose. The bill would require the initial term of those 2 members to end in February 2015. The bill would prohibit more than 3 members of the commission from being residents of the same county, as specified. The bill would require the member from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission to be a member of that commission, a resident of San Francisco, and to be approved by the Mayor of San Francisco. By imposing new requirements on a local agency, 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.

Existing law requires the county recorder, upon payment of proper fees and taxes, to record any document that is authorized or required by statute or court order to be recorded, provided that the document meets certain standards. This bill would additionally require the county recorder to record any document that is authorized or required by local ordinance adopted within that county to be recorded. Existing law sets forth the required form that a notice of intent to preserve an interest in real property must take. This bill would revise that form.

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.

Existing law provides that every dealer in or collector of junk, metals, or secondhand materials, or the agent, employee, or representative of that dealer or collector, who buys or receives any wire, cable, copper, lead, solder, mercury, iron, or brass which he or she knows or reasonably should know is ordinarily used by or ordinarily belongs to a railroad or other transportation, telephone, telegraph, gas, water, or electric light company or county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision of this state engaged in furnishing public utility service without using due diligence to ascertain that the person selling or delivering the same has a legal right to do so, is guilty of criminally receiving that property, and shall be punished by imprisonment as specified, by a fine of not more than $250, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would increase that maximum fine to an amount not to exceed $1,000. Existing law provides that a person commits the crime of vandalism when he or she defaces, damages, or destroys property that is not his or her own. Existing law provides that vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine, as specified, based on the amount of the defacement, damage, or destruction, or by both the fine and imprisonment. This bill would enact a clarifying statement relating to vandalism committed against public transit property and facilities, public parks property and facilities, and public utilities and water property and facilities, and would also express certain findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the theft of nonferrous materials.

Under existing law, a trust that is revocable by the settlor may be revoked in whole or in part by either compliance with any method of revocation provided in the trust instrument or by a writing, other than a will, signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during the settlor's lifetime, as specified. This bill would also allow revocation of a trust to be made by a writing signed by any other person holding the power of revocation and delivered to the trustee during the lifetime of the settlor or the person holding the power of revocation. Under existing law, if a trust is created by more than one settlor, each settlor may revoke the trust as to the portion of the trust contributed by that settlor, unless the trust instrument provides otherwise and except with respect to certain community property interests. This bill would, notwithstanding these provisions, specify that a settlor may grant to another person, including his or her spouse, a power to revoke all or part of that portion of the trust contributed by that settlor, regardless of whether that portion was separate property or community property of that settlor, and regardless of whether that power to revoke is exercisable during the lifetime of that settlor or continues after the death of that settlor, or both. Existing law establishes procedures governing the disposal of property when a trust is terminated. Under existing law, if a trust is revoked by the settlor, then the trust property is disposed of according to the directions of the settlor. This bill would instead specify that if a trust is revoked by the settlor, the trust property would be disposed of first as directed by the settlor, secondly, as provided in the trust instrument, and to the extent there is no direction by the settlor or in the trust instrument, to the settlor, or his or her estate, as specified. The bill would also specify that if a trust is revoked by any person holding a power of revocation other than the settlor, the trust property would first be disposed of as provided in the trust instrument, secondly as directed by the person exercising the power of revocation, and to the extent there is no direction in the trust instrument or by the person exercising the power of revocation, to the person exercising the power of revocation, or his or her estate. The bill would also make related conforming and nonsubstantive changes.

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.

The Unfair Practices Act prohibits certain unfair trade practices. Under the act, it is unlawful for any person engaged in business to sell or use any article or product as a loss leader. Existing law defines "loss leader" as any article or product sold at less than cost where the purpose is to induce, promote, or encourage the purchase of other merchandise, where the effect is a tendency or capacity to mislead or deceive purchasers or prospective purchasers, or where the effect is to divert trade from or otherwise injure competitors. This bill, for purposes of determining whether an article or product is a loss leader, would provide that a person or related person, as defined, selling automotive fuel at the retail level does not sell below cost if a fuel price discount, concession, or reduction is provided in connection with the purchase of other articles or products and the total price of the fuel and the other articles or products equals or exceeds the total cost of the fuel and the other articles or products. The bill would define various terms for these purposes.

(1) Existing state and federal law regulate the practice of debt collection. Existing state law prohibits a debt collector from engaging in specified conduct, including the use of threats or causing a telephone to ring repeatedly to annoy the person called. Existing law prohibits a debt collector from obtaining an affirmation from a debtor of a consumer debt that has been discharged in bankruptcy, without clearly and conspicuously disclosing to the debtor, in writing, the fact that the debtor is not legally obligated to make such affirmation. This bill would enact the Fair Debt Buyers Practices Act, which would regulate the activities of a person or entity that has bought consumer debt and the circumstances in which the person may bring suit. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer, as defined, from making any written statement in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer possesses information that the debt buyer is the sole owner of the specific debt at issue, the debt balance, as specified, and the name and address of the creditor at the time the debt was charged off, among other things. The bill would require the debt buyer to make certain documents available to the debtor, without charge, upon receipt of a request, within 15 days. The bill would require that a specified notice be included with the debt buyer's first written communication with the debtor. The bill would require all settlement agreements between a debt buyer and a debtor to be documented in open court or otherwise in writing and would require a debt buyer who receives a payment on a debt to provide a receipt or statement containing certain information. The bill would prohibit a debt buyer from initiating a suit to collect a debt if the statute of limitations on the cause of action has expired. The bill would prescribe penalties for each violation of the act and would provide that its provisions may not be waived. The bill would require a debt buyer bringing an action on consumer debt to include certain information in his or her complaint. The bill would prohibit an entry of judgment in favor of a plaintiff debt buyer unless business records authenticated through a sworn declaration and relating to the debt and ownership of it, among other things, are submitted by the debt buyer to the court, and would permit a court to dismiss a debt buyer's action to collect with prejudice if this information is not provided or if the debt buyer fails to appear or is not prepared on the date scheduled for trial. (2) Existing law establishes a process for the enforcement of money judgments and requires a levying officer to provide certain documents and information to a judgment debtor and to a designated employer in connection with wage garnishment. Existing law permits a process server also to serve an earnings withholding order on an employer and requires that the process server also serve certain documents at this time. Existing law requires an employer who is served with an earnings withholding order to provide certain documents to an employee who is a judgment debtor. This bill would require, in the circumstances described above, that a copy of the form that the judgment debtor may use to make a claim of exemption and a copy of the form used to provide a financial statement also be provided.