Existing law requires school districts to establish, maintain, and destroy pupil records according to regulations adopted by the State Board of Education. This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, require a school district, county office of education, or charter school that considers a program to gather or maintain in its records any information obtained from social media, as defined, of any pupil enrolled in the school district, county office of education, or charter school to first notify pupils and their parents or guardians about the proposed program, and to provide an opportunity for public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting before the adoption of the program. The bill would require a school district, county office of education, or charter school that adopts a program pursuant to these provisions to, among other things, gather and maintain only information that pertains directly to school safety or to pupil safety, provide a pupil with access to any information about the pupil obtained from social media, and destroy the information gathered from social media and maintained in its records, as provided. If a school district, county office of education, or charter school contracts with a 3rd party to gather information from social media on an enrolled pupil, the bill would prohibit the 3rd party from using the information for purposes other than to satisfy the terms of the contract, prohibit the 3rd party from selling or sharing the information with any person or entity, except as provided, and would provide additional restrictions on the destruction of the information by the 3rd party, as specified.
Sponsored bills
Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Existing law requires revenues equivalent to those that would have been allocated to each redevelopment agency, had the agency not been dissolved, to be allocated to the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund of each successor agency for making payments on the principal of and interest on loans, and moneys advanced to or indebtedness incurred by the dissolved redevelopment agencies. Existing law requires, from February 1, 2012, to July 1, 2012, inclusive, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the county auditor-controller, after deducting administrative costs, to allocate property tax revenues in each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund in a specified manner. This bill would authorize a city or county that levies a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city or county to make payments in support of pension programs and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, to make a request to an oversight board to prohibit revenues derived from that property tax rate from being deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Fund. This bill would authorize an oversight board to deny this request based on substantial evidence that a former redevelopment agency made a pledge of revenues that specifically included revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate. This bill, for the 2014–15 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, except to the extent an oversight board denies a request, would prohibit any revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate from being allocated to a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund and would, instead, require these revenues to be allocated to, and when collected to be paid into, the fund of the city or county whose voters approved the tax. The bill would require all allocations of revenues derived from the imposition of that property tax rate made by any county auditor-controller prior to July 1, 2014, to be deemed correct, and would prohibit any city, county, county auditor-controller, successor agency, or affected taxing entity from being subject to any claim, as specified. This bill would require, to the extent that revenues derived from the imposition of a property tax rate, approved by the voters of a city or county to make payments in support of pension programs and levied in addition to the general property tax rate, are deposited into a Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund, the county-auditor controller to allocate moneys from each Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund to a city or county that levies a property tax as so described after certain other allocations have been made. By adding to the duties of local government officials, 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, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, the Healthy Schools Act of 2000, requires each schoolsite to maintain records of all pesticide use at the schoolsite for a period of 4 years and to make these records available to the public upon request, as specified. Existing law authorizes a schoolsite to meet these requirements by retaining a copy of the warning sign posted for each pesticide application, as specified, and recording on the copy the amount of pesticide used. Existing law requires a schoolsite or school district to identify an individual, known as a school designee, to carry out the requirements of the act. This bill, if a schoolsite chooses to use certain pesticides, would require the school designee, at the end of each calendar year, or more often at his or her discretion, to submit to the Director of Pesticide Regulation a copy of the records, as specified, of all pesticide use at the schoolsite. The bill, if a schoolsite chooses to use certain pesticides, would require the school designee to develop and post on the Internet Web site of the schoolsite, or, if the schoolsite does not maintain an Internet Web site, the school district, an integrated pest management plan, as defined, for the schoolsite or school district, except if neither the schoolsite nor the school district maintains an Internet Web site, the school designee would be required to include the integrated pest management plan with a certain annual notification sent to staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at the schoolsite. The bill would authorize a school designee to do these things related to an integrated pest management plan if the schoolsite does not choose to use certain pesticides. (2) Existing law requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption of integrated pest management programs for schoolsites that voluntarily choose to do so, excluding privately operated child day care facilities. For these schoolsites, existing law requires the department to establish an integrated pest management program for schoolsites. Existing law, in establishing the program, requires the department to develop criteria for identifying least-hazardous pest control practices and encourage their adoption as part of an integrated pest management program at each schoolsite and develop a model program guidebook, as specified, that prescribes essential program elements for schoolsites that have adopted a least-hazardous integrated pest management program. Existing law provides that a violation of the laws, and the regulations adopted pursuant to those laws, relating to pesticides is generally a misdemeanor. This bill would require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to develop a training course to train any person who intends to apply pesticides on a schoolsite, and would require the training course to cover integrated pest management and the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of schoolsites and children's health. The bill would require the training course to be provided by the department or an agent authorized by the department. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2016, and except as provided, require a school designee, and any person who intends to apply a pesticide at a schoolsite subject to the act, to annually complete a training course provided by the department or an agent authorized by the department. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2016, require any person hired to apply a pesticide at a schoolsite subject to the act, to complete at least a one-hour training course in integrated pest management and the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of schoolsites and children's health before applying pesticides at such a schoolsite, and during each subsequent licensing period in which he or she applies a pesticide at a schoolsite subject to the act, and would provide that this training course may be applied to his or her professional continuing education requirements. The bill would require the one-hour training course to be developed by the department, would authorize a provider approved by the Structural Pest Control Board to also develop the one-hour training course if the training course has been approved by the department, and would require the department to ensure that the one-hour training course it develops or approves meets the requirements for continuing education credit required by the Structural Pest Control Board and the department. The bill would exclude the violation of the provisions requiring the completion of an annual training course from being a crime. (3) Existing law provides for the regulation of registered structural pest control companies by the Structural Pest Control Board. Existing law authorizes any individual 18 years of age or over to apply for a license as an operator, field representative, or applicator, as specified. Existing law requires the board to require as a condition of the renewal of an operator's, field representative's, or applicator's license that the licenseholder submit proof satisfactory to the board that he or she has completed courses of continuing education in pest control or pesticide application and use approved by the board or equivalent activity approved by the board. Existing law provides that any person who violates any provision related to structural pest control operators, or who conspires with another person to violate those provisions, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable, as specified. This bill, commencing July 1, 2016, would require a licensee to comply with the training requirements of the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 if the licensee intends to apply a pesticide at a schoolsite, as defined. The bill would provide that training courses completed in furtherance of the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 count toward the continuing education requirements of the board and qualify as continuing education in integrated pest management. By expanding the scope of a crime, the 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. (5) This bill would make conforming changes and various nonsubstantive changes.
(1) Existing law authorizes a county board of education to establish and maintain one or more community schools into which the county board of education may enroll specified pupils, including, but not limited to, pupils who are expelled for specified reasons, referred as the result of the recommendation by a school attendance review board, probation referred, or homeless children. This bill would revise the list of pupils who may be involuntarily enrolled in a county community school to limit the kind of probation referrals and remove homeless children. The bill, with regard to pupils referred as the result of a recommendation by the school attendance review board, would require that the school district and the county office of education determine that the county community school has space available to enroll the pupil, that the pupil's educational needs will be met by the county community school, and that the parent, guardian, or responsible adult of the pupil does not expressly object to the referral based on specified reasons. The bill would authorize the school district to either address the express objections or find an alternative placement in another comprehensive or continuation school within the school district, or, after offering the pupil all other options, refer the pupil to the county community school. The bill would require the school attendance review board to include a school option that is geographically accessible, as defined, to the pupil, if the county community school is not geographically accessible, as specified. The bill would also provide that the pupil has the right to return to his or her previous school, or other appropriate school, at the end of the semester following the semester when the acts leading to referral occurred. The bill would specify the period of time during which the pupil has the right to return. The bill would allow enrollment of certain other pupils in a county community school with the consent of the pupil's parent, guardian, or responsible adult. The bill would authorize, with respect to certain probation referrals to a county community school, certain persons, including the attorney for a pupil who is under the jurisdiction of a delinquency court, to take specified actions related to the enrollment of a pupil in a county community school. (2) Existing law requires a county community school to prescribe an individually planned educational program based on an educational assessment for each pupil. Existing law requires the course of study of a county community school to be adopted by the county board of education to enable each pupil to continue academic work leading to the completion of a regular high school program. This bill would require county boards of education operating county community schools to ensure, among other things, that appropriate services and programs specified in a pupil's individualized education program are provided. (3) This bill would provide a pupil who has been involuntarily enrolled in a county community school the right to reenroll in his or her former school or another comprehensive school immediately after being readmitted from an expulsion order or court-ordered placement. The bill would provide that only the governing board of the school district that issued the initial order or subsequent order to expel may extend the duration of an expelled pupil's placement in a county community school. (4) Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to establish rules and regulations governing procedures for the expulsion of pupils. Existing law requires the adopted rules and regulations to require, if a hearing officer or administrative panel decides not to recommend expulsion, the expulsion proceedings to be terminated and the pupil to be immediately reinstated and permitted to return to a classroom instructional program, any other instructional program, a rehabilitation program, or any combination of these programs. This bill would require the adopted rules and regulations to instead require that the pupil be permitted to return only to the classroom instructional program from which the expulsion referral was made, unless a parent, guardian, or responsible adult of the pupil requests another school placement in writing. The bill would, before the placement decision is made by the parent, guardian, or responsible adult, require the superintendent of schools or the superintendent's designee to consult with school district personnel, including the pupil's teachers, and the parent, guardian, or responsible adult regarding any other school placement options for the pupil in addition to the option to return to his or her classroom instructional program from which the expulsion referral was made. By requiring the governing board of a school district to establish or revise the rules and regulations governing procedures for the expulsion of pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (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 establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law requires the board of governors to appoint a chief executive officer, to be known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes community college districts, administered by governing boards, throughout the state, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction to students at the community college campuses maintained by the districts. Existing law requires community colleges to offer instruction through, but not beyond, the 2nd year of college and authorizes community colleges to grant associate degrees in arts and science. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, authorize the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program at not more than 15 community college districts, with one baccalaureate degree program each, to be determined by the chancellor and approved by the board of governors. The bill would prohibit each participating district from offering more than one baccalaureate degree program within the district, as specified. The bill would require a district baccalaureate degree pilot program to commence by the beginning of the 2017–18 academic year, and would require a student participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program to complete his or her degree by the end of the 2022–23 academic year. The bill would require participating community college districts to meet specified requirements, including, but not limited to, offering baccalaureate degree programs and program curricula not offered by the California State University or the University of California, and in subject areas with unmet workforce needs, as specified. This bill would also require the governing board of a participating community college district to submit certain items for review by the chancellor and approval by the board of governors, including, among other things, the administrative plan for the baccalaureate degree pilot program and documentation of consultation with the California State University and the University of California. The bill would provide that the Legislative Analyst's Office shall conduct both a statewide interim evaluation and a statewide final evaluation of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program implemented under this article, as specified, and report to the Legislature and Governor, in writing, the results of the interim evaluation on or before July 1, 2018, and the results of the final evaluation on or before July 1, 2022. The bill would provide that on or before March 31, 2015, the board of governors shall develop, and adopt by regulation, a funding model for the support of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2024.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs, among other licensing bodies. Existing law requires those licensing bodies to require a licensee, at the time of issuance of the license, to provide its federal employer identification number if the licensee is a partnership, or his or her social security number for all other licensees. Existing law requires those licensing bodies to report to the Franchise Tax Board any licensee who fails to provide the federal employer identification number or social security number, and subjects the licensee to a penalty for failing to provide the information after notification, as specified. This bill, no later than January 1, 2016, would require those licensing bodies to require an applicant to provide either an individual tax identification number or social security number if the applicant is an individual. The bill would require the licensing bodies to report to the Franchise Tax Board, and subject a licensee to a penalty, for failure to provide that information, as described above. The bill would prohibit, except as specified, any entity within the department from denying licensure to an applicant based on his or her citizenship status or immigration status. The bill would require every board within the department to implement regulatory and procedural changes necessary to implement these provisions no later than January 1, 2016, and would authorize implementation at any time prior to that date. The bill would make other conforming changes.
(1) Existing law, as added by Proposition 227, a measure approved by the voters at the June 2, 1998, statewide primary election, requires, among other things, that all children in California public schools be taught English by being taught in English. Proposition 227 specifies that English learner pupils, as defined, be educated through sheltered English immersion, as defined, during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Proposition 227 further provides that its requirements relating to sheltered English immersion instruction may be waived with the prior written consent of a pupil's parent or legal guardian, as specified. Proposition 227 also encourages family members and others to provide personal English language tutoring to English learner pupils. This bill would amend and repeal various provisions of Proposition 227. The bill would, among other things, delete the sheltered English immersion requirement and waiver provisions, and would instead provide that school districts and county offices of education shall, at a minimum, provide English learners with a structured English immersion program, as specified. The bill would authorize parents or legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the school to choose a language acquisition program that best suits their child, as provided. (2) Existing law requires, on or before July 1, 2014, the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to adopt a local control and accountability plan and requires the governing board of each school district and each county board of education to update its plan on or before July 1 of each year. As part of the process for developing the local control and accountability plan, existing law requires the superintendent of the school district or the county superintendent of schools to both present the plan or annual update to the plan to a parent advisory committee and an English learner parent advisory committee for review and comment, and to respond, in writing, to comments received from the committees. Existing law also requires the superintendent of the school district and the county superintendent of schools to notify members of the public of the opportunity to submit written comments regarding the specific actions and expenditures proposed to be included in the local control and accountability plan or annual update to the plan. This bill would, as part of the parent and community engagement process required for the development of a local control and accountability plan, require school districts and county offices of education to solicit input on, and provide to pupils, effective and appropriate instructional methods, including, but not limited to, establishing language acquisition programs, as defined. (3) Proposition 227 also specifies that a pupil's parent or legal guardian has standing to sue for enforcement of its provisions and, if successful, to receive normal and customary attorney's fees and actual damages, but not punitive or consequential damages. Proposition 227 further provides that school board members, other elected officials, and public school teachers or administrators who willfully and repeatedly refuse to implement its provisions may be held personally liable for fees and actual damages by a pupil's parent or legal guardian. This bill would delete those provisions. (4) Proposition 227 provides that its provisions may be amended by a statute to further its purpose passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor. This bill would delete the requirement that the amendment further the purpose of Proposition 227, and would revise the vote threshold to a majority vote in each house of the Legislature. (5) This bill would make these provisions operative on July 1, 2017. (6) The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective when approved by the electors. This bill would provide that it would become effective only upon approval of the voters, and would require the Secretary of State to submit this measure to the voters for approval at the November 2016 statewide general election.
Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, and the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, as 2 of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law authorizes the regents and the trustees to require that mandatory systemwide fees and tuition, among other fees, be paid by students at campuses of the University of California and the California State University, respectively. This bill would establish the California DREAM Loan Program. The bill would provide that, commencing with the 2015–16 academic year, a student attending a participating campus of the University of California or California State University may receive a loan, referred to as a DREAM loan, through the program if the student satisfies specified requirements, including a requirement that the student be exempt from paying nonresident tuition or meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents. The bill would require the Student Aid Commission, in collaboration with the participating campus, to certify that the student satisfies these requirements. The bill would require the student to affirm in writing that he or she satisfies one of these requirements, and would require the student to authorize the commission to access any information pertinent to certify that the student satisfies these requirements. The bill would require a participating campus to determine the amount of the loan offered to an individual student by the campus, subject to enumerated specifications. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that funds shall be appropriated in the annual Budget Act each fiscal year, commencing with the 2015–16 fiscal year, to participating campuses based upon the number of eligible students attending each respective campus who submitted a specified financial aid application during the prior academic year. The bill would require a participating campus to deposit these funds in a DREAM revolving fund established by each campus, subject to specified exceptions. The bill would require each participating campus to contribute its discretionary funds into its DREAM revolving fund so that the sum of the campus' contribution of funds and its share of DREAM loan repayments equals or exceeds 50%, as specified, of all funds in the campus' DREAM revolving fund at the start of each academic year before DREAM loans are awarded for that academic year. The bill would require the California State University and the University of California to annually report to the Legislature as part of their respective annual financial aid reports the dollar amount of each DREAM loan awarded and number of students for whom a DREAM loan was awarded that academic year, and require each participating campus to annually report the total amount of funding in the institution's DREAM revolving fund, the annual amount contributed by the state, and the annual amount contributed by the institution to the institution's DREAM revolving fund, and the annual administrative costs of the DREAM Program at the institution. The bill would require a participating campus to determine a student's eligibility for a DREAM loan, award DREAM loans to students, and establish mechanisms for recording the annual amount of the DREAM loan borrowed by each recipient, and the aggregate amount of DREAM loans borrowed by each recipient. The bill would require the trustees and request the regents to adopt regulations providing for the withholding of institutional services from current and former students who have been notified in writing that they are in default on DREAM loans. The bill would provide that each participating campus is entitled to an administrative cost allowance to equal a specified amount for an award year if the campus advances funds through the DREAM Program to students that academic year. The bill would provide that, if a state court finds that a specified provision of this program or similar provision adopted by the Regents of the University of California is unlawful, the court may order, as equitable relief, that the participating campus subject to the lawsuit terminate all loans awarded pursuant to that provision without money damages, loans, or other retroactive relief being awarded, and that the California State University and the University of California are immune from any imposition of money damages, loans, or other retroactive relief for actions taken under this program.
Existing law provides that every person who possesses for sale or purchases for purposes of sale cocaine base is subject to imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 3, 4, or 5 years. This bill instead would provide that every person who possesses for sale or purchases for purposes of sale cocaine base is subject to imprisonment in a county jail for 2, 3, or 4 years. Existing law generally provides that the interest of any registered owner of a boat, airplane, or any vehicle, except as specified, that has been used to facilitate the manufacture of, or possession for sale or sale of, 14.25 grams or more of cocaine base or 28.5 grams or more of cocaine is subject to forfeiture, as specified. This bill would revise that provision to instead make property that has been used to facilitate the manufacture of, or possession for sale or sale of, 28.5 grams or more of cocaine base or cocaine subject to forfeiture. Existing law, except in unusual cases, prohibits granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of specified crimes relating to controlled substances, including possessing for sale a substance containing 57 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, 14.25 grams or more of cocaine base, or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine base, and transporting or importing for sale, selling, or offering to sell cocaine base. This bill would delete those provisions and would instead prohibit, except in unusual cases, granting probation or suspending a sentence for persons convicted of possessing for sale or selling a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of cocaine base or 57 grams or more of a substance containing at least 5 grams of cocaine or cocaine base. By making additional persons eligible for probation, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which is administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, requires each city, county, and regional agency, if any, to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan. With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling element of that plan is required to divert 50% of all solid waste, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. Existing law allows the 50% diversion requirement to include not more than 10% through transformation or "biomass conversion," as defined, if specified conditions are met. The act defines "biomass conversion," to mean the controlled combustion used for the production of heat or electricity of specified materials for the purposes of the act. This bill would revise the definition of the term "biomass conversion" to mean the production of heat, fuels, or electricity by the controlled combustion of, or the use of other noncombustion thermal technologies on, those specified materials. The bill would require a solid waste facility sending materials to a biomass conversion facility to ensure that the materials sent are limited to those specified materials. The bill would authorize the department of a local enforcement agency to inspect the solid waste facility, as specified. The bill would require the owner or operator of a biomass conversion facility to submit an annual report to the department, under the penalty of perjury, containing specified information for the preceding year. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, 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.