Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The California Constitution grants to the regents all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of this public trust. Pursuant to the California Constitution, there are 7 ex officio members of the regents and 18 appointive members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring. The members of the regents appointed on and after March 1, 1976, serve 12-year terms. This measure would require, on or before October 1 of each year, the Office of the President of the University of California to submit a written report to the regents, the Governor, and the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature specifying its receipts and expenditures for the immediately preceding fiscal year. The measure would also require that an appropriation for the Office of the President of the University of California be made only pursuant to an item in the annual Budget Bill relating solely to that office, as specified. The measure would also add the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to the regents as a voting ex officio member, and would provide that the President of the University of California would be a nonvoting, rather than a voting, ex officio member. The measure would prohibit the reappointment of members appointed to the board before June 6, 2018, to additional terms after the completion of their current terms, and would further require that members of the regents appointed on and after June 6, 2018, would serve 4-year terms, with the exception of 7 appointive seats on the board that would be filled, through appointments by the Governor, by faculty, students, and classified employees of the university for 2-year terms, as specified. The measure would specify the qualifications required of these faculty, student, and classified employee appointees to the board, whose 2-year terms would commence with the expiration of 12-year terms on March 1 of 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2024, as prescribed. The measure would delete, after June 5, 2018, the authority of the members of board to appoint a member of the faculty of the university or a student of the university, or both, to the board.
Sponsored bills
(1) The California Constitution and existing statutory law provide for the electors to propose statutes or amendments to the Constitution by initiative. Existing law authorizes a person who is a voter or who is qualified to register to vote in California to circulate an initiative or referendum petition anywhere within the state. Existing law requires that each section of a petition for an initiative or referendum measure have attached thereto the declaration of the person soliciting the signatures that includes specified information. This bill would require a person who solicits signatures for a proposed initiative measure and does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors to make additional declarations, as specified. (2) Existing law requires local elections officials to perform various duties with respect to statewide initiative petitions including, within 8 days after the filing of a petition, determining the total number of signatures affixed to the petition. Existing law also requires an elections official, within 30 days of notification from the Secretary of State that a petition has received 100% or more of the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient, to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition. Upon order of the Secretary of State, existing law requires an elections official, within 30 days, to verify each signature on a petition, as specified. This bill would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the total number of signatures affixed to a petition to 10 days, and would extend the time a local elections official is required to determine the number of qualified voters who signed the petition to 35 days after receiving notice from the Secretary of State that the petition has received the signatures needed to declare the petition sufficient. The bill also would extend the time that an elections official is required to verify the signatures on a petition to 35 days. This bill would require at least 5% of the signatures that are required to qualify an initiative measure to be solicited by a person who does not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, and would require that the declaration of such a person include additional content, as specified. The bill would require an elections official who determines the total number of signatures affixed to a petition and an elections official or registrar of voters who verifies signatures on petitions to also determine the total number of signatures submitted by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, as specified. The bill would include specified findings and declarations of the Legislature in support of these policies. (3) Existing law requires that, if the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures on a petition is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures of qualified voters needed to declare the petition sufficient, the Secretary of State shall order the examination and verification of each signature filed, and shall so notify the elections officials. This bill, with regard to an initiative petition for which the statistical sampling shows that the number of valid signatures for all signatures submitted is more than 110% of the number of qualified voters needed to find the petition sufficient, but the number of valid signatures submitted for purposes of the 5% requirement described above is within 95 to 110% of the number of signatures needed to satisfy that requirement, would require the Secretary of State to only order an examination and verification of each signature filed that would satisfy the 5% requirement. (4) Existing law requires every proposed initiative measure, prior to circulation, to include on the petition, among other things, the circulating title and summary prepared by the Attorney General and a heading for the initiative measure, as specified. Existing law also requires a petition for a proposed initiative or referendum measure to be presented in sections, as specified. This bill would provide that its provisions do not apply to any initiative petition for which the Attorney General issued a circulating title and summary before January 1, 2017, and would require a petition for a proposed initiative measure to have printed in the one-inch space across the top of the first page of each section of the petition, in 18-point roman boldface type, the circulating title for the measure prepared by the Attorney General. The bill would additionally require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do not receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on white paper in a contrasting color ink. The bill also would require a petition for a proposed initiative measure that is circulated by persons who do receive money or other valuable consideration for the purpose of obtaining signatures of electors to be printed on paper of a color other than white in a contrasting color ink. (5) Under existing law, an initiative petition must contain specified language advising the public of its right to ask whether the person circulating the petition is a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. This bill would additionally require a statewide initiative, referendum, or recall petition to include a disclosure, as specified, notifying the public that the petition circulator is receiving money or other valuable consideration for the specific purpose of soliciting signatures of electors, or is a volunteer or employee of a nonprofit organization. (6) Existing law provides that a person who engages in specified conduct in connection with the collection of signatures on any statewide initiative or referendum petition is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require a statewide initiative or referendum petition section to be deemed invalid, and would prohibit use of the petition section for the purpose of determining whether the initiative or referendum measure qualifies for the ballot, if the signatures are solicited and submitted by a person who engages in fraud, misrepresentation, or any of the specified conduct for which he or she may be found guilty of a misdemeanor. The bill would authorize specified persons to enforce this provision by a civil action upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. (7) Because this bill would impose new requirements on local elections officials relative to calculating and verifying signatures on a petition, it 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 these statutory provisions. (8) This bill would provide that specified provisions shall become operative only if the Secretary of State certifies that the state has a statewide voter registration database that complies with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 20901 et seq.) .
Existing law requires the electronic recording of the entire custodial interrogation of a minor who is in a fixed place of detention, as defined, and who, at the time of the interrogation, is suspected of committing or accused of committing murder. Existing law sets forth various exceptions from this requirement, including if the law enforcement officer conducting the interrogation or his or her superior reasonably believes that electronic recording would disclose the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of an officer, the individual being interrogated, or another individual. Existing law requires the prosecution to show by clear and convincing evidence that an exception applies to justify the failure to make that electronic recording. Existing law requires the interrogating entity to maintain the original or an exact copy of an electronic recording made of the interrogation until the final conclusion of the proceedings, as specified. Existing law additionally requires the court to provide jury instructions developed by the Judicial Council if the court finds that a defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of the above-mentioned provisions. This bill would make this electronic recording requirement applicable to the custodial interrogation of any person suspected of committing murder. By imposing new requirements on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exempt from the electronic recording requirement the interrogation of a person who is in custody on a charge of murder if the interrogation is not related to the commission of murder, as specified. Existing law defines "electronic recording" for these provisions as a video recording that accurately records a custodial interrogation. This bill would specify that the above definition applies only to the custodial interrogation of a minor. The bill would expand the definition to include a video or audio recording in the case of the custodial interrogation of an adult and would express the Legislature's encouragement that law enforcement agencies use video recording when available. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the above 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, 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 these statutory provisions.