Existing law requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to disburse funds, appropriated to the department for the purpose of supporting county veterans service officers pursuant to the annual Budget Act, on a pro rata basis, to counties that comply with certain conditions. This bill would authorize the department, in conjunction with the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers, no later than July 1, 2015, to develop an allocation formula based upon performance standards that encourage innovation and reward outstanding service by county veterans service officers, and, if that allocation formula is developed, the bill would require those moneys appropriated for support of county veterans service offices in the annual Budget Act to be allocated in accordance with that formula, as specified.
Sponsored bills
This measure would commemorate the 5-year anniversary of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision and the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."
(1) Existing law, the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $11,140,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a safe drinking water and water supply reliability program. Existing law provides for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. This bill would repeal these provisions. (2) Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. This bill would enact the Clean, Safe, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2014, which, if adopted by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $8,700,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a clean, safe, and reliable drinking water supply program. This bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. Existing law establishes regulations related to numerous environmental issues. This bill would enact the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act and would specify that the environmental review of projects pursuant to CEQA is required to consider only specified environmental topic areas. The bill would prohibit a judicial action or proceeding challenging an action taken by a lead agency on the ground of noncompliance with CEQA, that (1) relates any topic area or criteria for which compliance obligations are identified or (2) challenges the environmental document if: (A) the environmental document discloses compliance with applicable environmental law, (B) the project conforms with the use designation, density, or building intensity in an applicable plan, as defined, and (C) the project approval incorporates applicable mitigation requirements into the environmental document. The bill would provide that the Sustainable Environmental Protection Act only applies if the lead agency or project applicant has agreed to provide to the public in a readily accessible electronic format an annual compliance report prepared pursuant to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, it would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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.
(1) Existing law requires the Controller, in consultation with the Department of Finance and the State Department of Education, to develop a plan to review and report on financial and compliance audits, and with representatives of other entities, to recommend the statements and other information to be included in the audit reports filed with the state by local educational agencies, and to propose the content of an audit guide. For these purposes, existing law defines "compliance audit" as an audit that ascertains and verifies whether or not specific funds provided have been properly disbursed and expended and includes the verification of specific information. This bill would additionally require a compliance audit to include the verification of cafeteria fund expenditures. The bill would also correct a reference to a certain federal document. (2) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to establish cafeterias in the schools under its jurisdiction and authorizes the moneys received for the sale of food or for any services performed by the cafeterias to be paid into the county treasury to the credit of the cafeteria fund of the particular school district. Existing law requires the cafeteria fund to be used only for those expenditures authorized by the governing board of the school district that are defined in the California School Accounting Manual. This bill would require the State Department of Education to assess its food services workload and staffing needs for purposes of carrying out the state's oversight responsibilities of cafeteria funds and to request sufficient federal funding to hire the appropriate number of staff based on that assessment. The bill would require the department to prepare simplified guidelines that address most of the common acceptable and unacceptable charges to cafeteria funds. The bill would require the department to post on its Internet Web site all enforcement actions for the misappropriation of cafeteria funds. The bill would require a school district to maintain all financial records related to its cafeteria fund for 5 years, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would prohibit a school district from withholding from its food service director any financial records involving school nutrition programs. (3) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district with an average daily attendance of over 100,000 to allow as an expenditure from its cafeteria fund a share of money agreed upon pursuant to a contract that is generated from the joint sale of items between the cafeteria and an associated student body student store. This bill would repeal that provision. (4) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district operating school cafeterias to establish and maintain a cafeteria fund reserve for the purchase, lease, maintenance, or replacement of cafeteria equipment, as specified. This bill would repeal that provision. (5) 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.
Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, including requiring the reporting of campaign contributions. The act imposes a contribution limit of $3,000 on contributions made to, and received by, candidates for elective state offices that are not statewide elective offices. The act is administered and enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is authorized to adjust the contribution limit to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, as specified. The act does not limit the amount of contributions that a person may make to a committee that is primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures. The act prohibits a candidate for elective state office or a committee controlled by that candidate from making a contribution to another candidate for elective state office in excess of the contribution limit for elective state offices. The act imposes various restrictions and reporting requirements on Members of the Legislature and candidates for either house of the Legislature, including prohibiting or restricting earned income from a lobbyist or lobbyist employer, restricting the receipt of gifts, and restricting the purposes for which campaign funds may be expended. This bill would prohibit a person from making to a committee controlled by a candidate for elective office that is primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures, and prohibit such a committee from receiving, a contribution in excess of the contribution limit for elective state offices, as specified. The bill would prohibit a candidate for any elective office, or the candidate's controlled committees, from making a contribution to another candidate for elective office or a committee controlled by a candidate that is primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures in excess of the contribution limit established for candidates for elective state office. This bill would prohibit a committee controlled by a candidate for elective office that is primarily formed to support or oppose one or more ballot measures from expending campaign funds to make a contribution or other transfer of campaign funds to a committee for a purpose other than supporting or opposing a ballot measure that the controlled committee was primarily formed to support or oppose. This bill would prohibit a lobbyist or lobbyist employer from providing any compensation to a spouse or dependent of a Member or candidate, except as specified. The bill would prohibit campaign funds from being used to compensate a spouse or dependent of a Member of the Legislature or of a candidate for either house of the Legislature. This bill would prohibit the expenditure of campaign funds for attorney's fees and other costs in connection with criminal litigation, and would limit the payment of criminal litigation attorney's fees and other related legal costs arising directly out of the conduct of an election campaign, the electoral process, or the performance of the officer's governmental activities or duties to funds deposited in a legal defense account created pursuant to other specified provisions of law. The bill would also prohibit a committee that is not a legal defense committee from making an expenditure of campaign funds to any legal defense account. This bill would require a Member of the Legislature or a candidate for either house of the Legislature to report to the Secretary of State a contribution of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or greater within three business days of receipt of the contribution. A violation of the act's provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law subjects any member of the Legislature or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, and every executive or ministerial officer, employee, or appointee of the state, a county or city, or political subdivision, who asks for or receives a bribe in exchange for influence over his or her official action to imprisonment in a state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, and imposes prescribed restitution fines based on whether a bribe has actually been received. This bill would increase the punishment to 4, 6, or 8 years in state prison and would increase the restitution fines to twice the original amount. 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 and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law generally grants state employees have 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. Existing law requires the Governor, or his or her representative, to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations. Existing law requires the Governor and a recognized employee organization, if agreement is reached, to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding that, if appropriate, shall be presented to the Legislature for approval. This bill would prohibit a bill presented to the Legislature for approval of a memorandum of understanding from providing for the approval of more than one memorandum of understanding.
Existing law prescribes procedures governing disputes between exclusive bargaining representatives of public transportation employees and local agencies, and authorizes the Governor, when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services and endanger public health, safety, and welfare, to appoint a board to investigate issues in connection with these labor negotiations and make a report. Existing law prohibits a strike during the period of investigation and permits the Governor, upon receiving a report from a board of investigation, to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions that authorize the Governor to appoint a board to investigate when it appears a strike will significantly disrupt transportation services, prohibit a strike during the period of investigation, and that authorize the Governor to request the Attorney General to petition a court to enjoin the strike. The bill would instead prohibit a state or local public transportation employee or public transportation employee organization from engaging in, causing, instigating, encouraging, or condoning a strike. The bill would also provide that a person who, on behalf of a public transportation employer, exercises authority, supervision, or direction over a public transportation employee shall not have the power to, and shall not purport to, authorize, approve, condone, or consent to a strike by a public transportation employee. The bill would establish a process for a public transportation employee to object to a determination by the chief executive officer of the public transportation employer that he or she violated these provisions by filing a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, thus expanding the definition of a crime. The bill would require the chief executive officer, if he or she determines that the objection raises a question of fact that if resolved in favor of the employee would establish that the employee did not commit the violation, to appoint an officer to conduct a hearing on the matter at which the employee would bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she did not commit the violation, as specified. The bill would require the Public Employment Relations Board to hold a hearing to determine whether an employee organization violated these provisions, and would require the employer and the employee organization to be permitted to be represented by counsel. The bill would provide that a public transportation employee who violates these provisions is subject to removal or other disciplinary action, and would authorize the chief financial officer of the employer to deduct from the compensation of a public transportation employee found to have violated these provisions an amount equal to twice his or her daily rate of pay for each day or part thereof that it was determined that he or she violated these provisions. The bill would also require the board, if it determines that an employee organization violated these provisions, to order forfeiture of specified rights granted by state law to recognized employee organizations. The bill would also require the chief executive officer of the employer, within 60 days of the end of a strike, to prepare a written report, to be made public, that contains specified information regarding the circumstances surrounding the strike, the names of those public transit employees who the chief executive officer has reason to believe were responsible for causing, instigating, or encouraging the strike, and the sanctions imposed or proceedings pending against those employees. Because the bill would expand the definition of a crime and require local officers to perform additional duties, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Personal Income Tax Law provides for various exclusions from gross income. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, and before January 1, 2022, also exclude from gross income the value of any medal given by the International Olympic Committee, and any prize money or honoraria received from the United States Olympic Committee, on account of either the Olympic games or the Paralympic games. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.