Existing law, the Ortiz-Pacheco-Poochigian-Vasconcellos Cal Grant Program, establishes the Cal Grant A and B Entitlement Awards, the California Community College Transfer Entitlement Awards, the Competitive Cal Grant A and B Awards, the Cal Grant C Awards, and the Cal Grant T Awards under the administration of the Student Aid Commission, and establishes eligibility requirements for awards under these programs for participating students attending qualifying institutions. Existing law specifies the amounts of the maximum Cal Grant A and B awards for students attending private nonprofit postsecondary institutions of higher education and private for-profit postsecondary educational institutions that are regionally accredited, as specified. Beginning with the 2020–21 award year, the maximum tuition award is either $9,084 or $8,056, depending upon whether the number of new unduplicated transfer students accepted by private nonprofit postsecondary educational institutions who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments, as defined, in the prior award year meet and exceed specified targets. This bill would change, in accordance with a prescribed formula, the maximum Cal Grant award for tuition for a new recipient attending an independent institution of higher education, commencing with the 2020–21 award year. This bill would provide that the award amount for a student attending an independent institution of higher education may be determined in the annual Budget Act if the independent institutions of higher education, as a group, do not accept the specified number of transfer students who have been given associate degree for transfer commitments.
Sponsored bills
The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose a local sales and use tax in accordance with that law for tangible personal property sold at retail in the county or city, or purchased for storage, use, or other consumption in the county or city. That law requires the county or city to contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration for the administration of the taxes and requires the department to transmit those taxes to the city or county. That law provides that for the purpose of a local sales tax adopted pursuant to that law, all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless otherwise specified. Existing law prohibits a local agency, defined to mean all cities and counties, from entering into any form of agreement that would result, directly or indirectly, in the payment, transfer, diversion, or rebate of Bradley-Burns local tax revenues to any person, as defined, for any purpose, if the agreement results in a reduction in the amount of Bradley-Burns local tax revenues that, in the absence of the agreement, would be received by another local agency and the retailer continues to maintain a physical presence within the territorial jurisdiction of that other local agency, with specified exceptions. This bill would additionally prohibit, on or after January 1, 2020, a local agency from entering into any form of agreement that would result, directly or indirectly, in the payment, transfer, diversion, or rebate of Bradley-Burns local tax revenues to any retailer, as defined, in exchange for the retailer locating or continuing to maintain a place of business that serves as the place of sale, as defined, within the territorial jurisdiction of the local agency if that place of business would generate revenue, from the sale of tangible property delivered to and received by the purchaser in the territorial jurisdiction of another local agency, for the local agency under the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
Existing law authorizes a local jurisdiction, defined as including a county, general law city, school district, community college district, or special district, to establish an independent redistricting commission, a hybrid redistricting commission, or an advisory redistricting commission to change, or recommend changes to, the district boundaries of the legislative body of the local jurisdiction. Existing law provides for the establishment of the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission and the County of San Diego Independent Redistricting Commission. This bill would, with certain exceptions, require a county with more than 400,000 residents on and after January 1, 2019, and on and after January 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number 9, to establish by March 1, 2021, and by March 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number one, either a 9-member or 12-member independent redistricting commission to adopt the county's supervisorial districts after each federal decennial census pursuant to a specified procedure. The bill would require a county that does not pass an ordinance to establish a commission by March 1, 2020, and by March 1 of every subsequent year ending in the number zero to establish a 12-member commission pursuant to those procedures. The bill would require a commission established pursuant to those procedures to take steps to encourage county residents to participate in the redistricting process, and would specify certain procedures for the commission's hearing process relating to notice, the number of hearings, and translation of hearings. The bill would require the county to provide for reasonable funding and staffing of the commission. The bill would require the board of supervisors of a county to petition the superior court of the county for an order establishing supervisorial district boundaries if the independent redistricting commission does not adopt supervisorial district boundaries by a specified deadline. The bill would require the County of Los Angeles or the County of San Diego to establish 12-member independent redistricting commissions pursuant to these procedures if existing laws providing for the establishment of County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission and the County of San Diego Independent Redistricting Commission are invalidated by a court. By increasing the duties of counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would clarify that a local jurisdiction that is partially or wholly located in the County of Los Angeles or the County of San Diego may contract with the County of Los Angeles Citizens Redistricting Commission and the County of San Diego Independent Redistricting Commission to adopt the local jurisdiction's election district boundaries. 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 regulates arbitrations conducted pursuant to an agreement, as specified. (1) In an employment or consumer arbitration in which the drafting party, as defined, is required to pay certain fees and costs before the arbitration can proceed, this bill would provide that if the fees or costs to initiate an arbitration proceeding are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration. If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default of the arbitration, the bill would authorize the employee or consumer to either withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, or to compel arbitration in which the drafting party is required to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs related to the arbitration. If the employee or consumer proceeds with an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the bill would provide that the statute of limitations with regard to all claims brought or that relate back to any claim brought in arbitration are tolled, as specified. The bill would further require the court to impose a monetary sanction on the drafting party who materially breaches an arbitration agreement, and would authorize the court to impose other sanctions, as specified. (2) In an employment or consumer arbitration in which the drafting party, as defined, is required to pay certain fees and costs during the pendency of an arbitration proceeding, this bill would provide that if those fees or costs are not paid within 30 days after the due date, the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration, and waives its right to compel arbitration. If the drafting party materially breaches the arbitration agreement and is in default of the arbitration, the bill would authorize the employee or consumer to unilaterally withdraw the claim from arbitration and proceed in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, or to compel arbitration, as specified. If the employee or consumer proceeds with an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, the bill would provide that the statute of limitations with regard to all claims brought or that relate back to any claim brought in arbitration are tolled, as specified. The bill would require the court to impose a monetary sanction on the drafting party who materially breaches an arbitration agreement, and would authorize the court to impose other sanctions, as specified. If the employee or consumer compels arbitration, the bill would require the arbitrator to impose appropriate sanctions on the drafting party, including monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions. (3) Existing law requires a private arbitration company involved in consumer arbitration cases to collect and make certain information regarding those cases available to the public, as specified. This bill would additionally require a private arbitration company to collect and report demographic data in the aggregate relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation of all arbitrators, as specified. (4) The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations, and would provide that if any provision or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
(1) Proposition 6, an initiative measure approved by the electors at the November 3, 1998, general election, enacted the Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption Act of 1998. The act makes it unlawful, and punishable as a felony, for any person to possess, to import into or export from the state, or to sell, buy, give away, hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that horse, if that person knows or should have known that any part of that horse will be used for human consumption. The act also makes it unlawful to offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption. The Equine Protection Act of 1991 creates a program of equine protection and identification in the Department of Food and Agriculture. The act prohibits any person from purchasing, consigning, selling, or accepting the donation of an animal, defined as a horse, pony, mule, or burro, that is destined for slaughter unless a written bill of sale or any written instrument containing specified information is provided, as prescribed. The act makes it a misdemeanor if any person does not keep the necessary written records with respect to these transactions and other transactions subject to the act, refuses to show the records to a peace officer or to allow copies to be made of the record, or destroys the record within a specified period of time. This bill would instead require a written bill of sale or written instrument to be provided when any person purchases, consigns, sells, or accepts the donation of an animal, as defined in the act, at a public or private auction, as prescribed. The bill would require a person who purchases an animal in these circumstances to sign a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging and agreeing to comply with Proposition 6. The bill would require, before any animal could be sold at an auction, the operator of the auction yard to determine whether the animal has an implanted microchip or has been tattooed or branded with an identifying mark. If the animal has an implanted microchip, a tattoo, or a brand, the bill would require the operator of the auction yard to post, on its internet website and through any active social media in which the operator of the auction yard participates, all identifying information, as provided, for at least 24 hours. The bill would also require, for a minimum of one year following the date of sale of each animal sold at auction, the operator of the auction yard to maintain specified records that document compliance with the above provisions. The bill would require the operator of the auction yard to provide access to these records upon the request of the Department of Food and Agriculture, a law enforcement officer, an animal control agency, or a humane officer, as provided. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and by expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, in addition to any other penalties available under law, a person who violates these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for the first offense and $2,000 for the 2nd and each subsequent offense. (2) Existing law requires that, at any public auction or sale where equines are sold, a specified notice be posted conspicuously or inserted into the consignment agreement, as specified, by the management of the auction or sale warning buyers and sellers that horses sold there may be purchased for slaughter and that, as a possible safeguard, the seller can set the minimum bid above current slaughter prices. Existing law requires the management of the auction or sale to post current slaughter prices or to make them available to sellers upon request. This bill would instead require that notice or agreement to warn buyers that the sale of horses in California for slaughter for human consumption is a felony and would make a conforming change. (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.
The Child Hunger Prevention and Fair Treatment Act of 2017, among other things, requires certain local educational agencies, as defined, that provide school meals through the federal National School Lunch Program or the federal School Breakfast Program to ensure that a pupil whose parent or guardian has unpaid school meal fees is not shamed, treated differently, or served a meal that differs from what a pupil whose parent or guardian does not have unpaid school meal fees would receive under that local educational agency's policy. This bill instead would require those local educational agencies to ensure that a pupil whose parent or guardian has unpaid school meal fees is not denied a reimbursable meal of the pupil's choice because of the fact that the pupil's parent or guardian has unpaid meal fees and ensure that the pupil is not shamed or treated differently from other pupils. To the extent the bill would impose a higher level of service on school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law establishes the Office of Emergency Services within the office of the Governor and under the supervision of the Director of Emergency Services and makes the Office of Emergency Services responsible for the state's emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies. This bill would establish the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program under the administration of the director to improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of violent attacks or hate crimes due to ideology, beliefs, or mission, as specified. The bill would make the operation of the program contingent upon an appropriation in the annual Budget Act for these purposes. The bill would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2025. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, beginning January 1, 2020, grants consumers various rights with regard to their personal information held by businesses, including the right to request a business to disclose specific pieces of personal information it has collected and to have information held by that business deleted, as specified. The act requires a business to disclose and deliver the required information to a consumer free of charge within 45 days of receiving a verifiable consumer request from the consumer. The act prohibits a business from requiring a consumer to create an account with the business in order to make a verifiable consumer request. This bill would provide an exception to that prohibition by authorizing a business to require authentication of the consumer that is reasonable in light of the nature of the personal information requested in order to make a verifiable consumer request. However, the bill would authorize a business to require a consumer to submit a verifiable consumer request through an account that the consumer maintains with the business if the consumer maintains an account with that business. (2) The act also authorizes a consumer to bring a private civil action, as specified, against a business that violates its duty to implement reasonable security procedures and practices if that failure results in a consumer's personal information being subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure. The act also requires a business that collects a consumer's personal information to, at or before the point of collection, inform consumers as to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information shall be used. This bill would exempt, until January 1, 2021, from all provisions of the act, except the private civil action provision and the obligation to inform the consumer as to the categories of personal information to be collected as described above, information collected from a natural person by a business in the course of the natural person acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, owner of, director of, officer of, medical staff member of, or contractor of that business, as specified. This bill would make various other nonsubstantive changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.130 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1355 and AB 1564 to be operative only if either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1798.145 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1146 and AB 1355 to be operative only if either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law prohibits a person from discharging or otherwise discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in specified protected conduct. Existing law authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue citations to persons determined to be responsible for violations. Existing law authorizes a person issued a citation to obtain review of the citation through various procedures, including requesting a hearing before a hearing officer for the commissioner and through a petition for a writ of mandate. Existing law requires a petitioner seeking a writ of mandate to first post a bond equal to the total amount of any minimum wages, liquidated damages, and overtime compensation. Existing law requires an employer who willfully refuses to comply with a final order pursuant to these provisions to pay prescribed civil penalties directly to the affected employee. This bill, among other things, would require the commissioner, within 10 days, to file a certified copy of a final citation, with the superior court for judicial enforcement in any county in which the person assessed the penalty has or had property or a place of business, unless the person cited requests an informal hearing to challenge the citation, as specified. The bill would require the clerk of the court to immediately enter judgment for the amount in the citation. The bill would authorize the commissioner to file a petition with the court for an order to show cause why injunctive and nonmonetary relief should not be ordered and to schedule a hearing, as specified. The bill would specify procedures for a person who does not contest the citation to transmit to the office of the Labor Commissioner the amount specified on the citation and to provide certification of compliance to the office that any other remedies ordered have been complied with. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also require that the amount of the bond required to challenge a decision and order of the commissioner via a writ of mandate also include the amount of penalties and other monetary relief, as specified. The bill would authorize the commissioner to provide judicial enforcement by the same means as described above when the bond is not filed, when no mandate petition is filed or such a petition is dismissed or withdrawn, or when an employer refuses to comply with a final order issued pursuant to these provisions. 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.