Existing law provides that, one year prior to the minimum eligible parole release date of an inmate serving an indeterminate sentence, a panel of 2 or more commissioners or deputy commissioners of the Board of Parole Hearings shall meet with the inmate and set a parole release date, as specified. Existing law, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victim's Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, establishes procedures at all hearings for the purpose of reviewing a prisoner's parole suitability, or the setting, postponing, or rescinding of parole dates, and provides prisoners and victims specified rights at these hearings. This bill would require notification of the district attorney of the county in which the offense was committed, or his or her designee, to receive notification of specified parole proceedings. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3041.5 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 230 that would become operative if this bill and SB 230 are both chaptered and this bill is chaptered last.
Sponsored bills
Existing law provides for the regulation and licensure of various professions and vocations by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law establishes fees for initial licenses, initial temporary and permanent licenses, and original licenses for those various professions and vocations. Existing law requires that licenses issued to certain licensees, including, among others, architects, acupuncturists, dental hygienists, dentists, occupational therapists, osteopathic physicians and surgeons, registered veterinary technicians, and veterinarians, expire at 12 a.m. on either the last day of the birth month of the licensee or at 12 a.m. of the legal birth date of the licensee during the 2nd year of a 2-year term, if not renewed. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2017, require that the fees imposed on these licensees for an initial license or an original license be prorated on a monthly basis. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2017, require that the fee assessed an osteopathic physician and surgeon for license renewal be prorated on a monthly basis. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1724 of the Business and Professions Code, proposed by Assembly Bill 179, that would become operative only if this bill and Assembly Bill 179 are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 1944 of the Business and Professions Code, proposed by Senate Bill 800, that would become operative only if this bill and Senate Bill 800 are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2016, and this bill is chaptered last.
Existing law, the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, prohibits a person from introducing into interstate commerce any new drug unless the drug has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . Existing law requires the sponsor of a new drug to submit to the FDA an investigational new drug application and to then conduct a series of clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug in human populations and submit the results to the FDA in a new drug application. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, regulates the packaging, labeling, and advertising of drugs and devices and is administered by the State Department of Public Health. A violation of that law is a crime. The Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law prohibits, among other things, the sale, delivery, or giving away of a new drug or new device unless either the department has approved a new drug or device application for that new drug or new device and that approval has not been withdrawn, terminated, or suspended or the drug or device has been approved pursuant to specified provisions of federal law, including the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Medical Practice Act provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and requires the board to take action against a licensee who is charged with unprofessional conduct. The Osteopathic Act provides for the licensure and regulation of osteopathic physicians and surgeons by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and requires the board to enforce the Medical Practice Act with respect to its licensees. This bill would permit a manufacturer of an investigational drug, biological product, or device to make the product available to eligible patients with an immediately life-threatening disease or condition, as specified. The bill would authorize, but not require, a health benefit plan, as defined, to provide coverage for any investigational drug, biological product, or device made available pursuant to these provisions. The bill would prohibit the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California from taking any disciplinary action against the license of a physician based solely on the physician's recommendation to an eligible patient regarding, or prescription for or treatment with, an investigational drug, biological product, or device if the recommendation or prescription is consistent with protocol approved by the physician's institutional review board or an accredited institutional review board, and would require the institutional review board to biannually report specified information to the State Department of Public Health, among others. The bill would prohibit a state agency from altering any recommendation made to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regarding a health care provider's certification to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid program based solely on the recommendation from an individual health care provider that a patient have access to an investigational drug, biological product, or device.
Existing law provides for the regulation of various professions and vocations, including those of an athlete agent. This bill would make it unlawful for any person to hold himself or herself out as an athletic trainer, use the title of, among others, athletic trainer, or to use specified terms to imply or suggest that the person is an athletic trainer, unless he or she is certified by the Board of Certification, Inc., and has either graduated from a college or university, after completing an accredited athletic training education program, as specified, or completed eligibility requirements for certification by the Board of Certification, Inc., as specified. The bill would make it an unfair business practice to use the title "athletic trainer," "certified athletic trainer," or other specified terms that imply or suggest that the person is an athletic trainer if he or she does not meet the requirements described above. This bill, notwithstanding these provisions, would authorize a person who has worked as an athletic trainer in California for a period of 20 consecutive years prior to January 1, 2016, and who is not otherwise eligible to use the title "athletic trainer," to use that title.
(1) Existing law prescribes various requirements regarding the formation, content, and enforcement of state and local public contracts. Existing law applicable to state public contracts generally requires that the resolution of claims related to those contracts be subject to arbitration. Existing law applicable to local agency contracts prescribes a process for the resolution of claims related to those contracts of $375,000 or less. This bill would establish, for contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2016, a claim resolution process applicable to all claims by contractors in connection with public works. The bill would define a claim as a separate demand by the contractor for one or more of the following: a time extension for relief from damages or penalties for delay, payment of money or damages arising from work done pursuant to the contract for a public work, or payment of an amount disputed by the public entity, as specified. The bill would require a public entity, defined to exclude certain state entities, upon receipt of a claim sent by registered or certified mail, to review it and, within 45 days, provide a written statement identifying the disputed and undisputed portions of the claim. The 45-day period may be extended by mutual agreement. The bill would require any payment due on an undisputed portion of the claim to be processed within 60 days, as specified. The bill, if the public entity fails to issue the written statement, would require that the claim be deemed rejected in its entirety. The bill would authorize, if the claimant disputes the public entity's written response or if the public entity fails to respond to a claim within the time prescribed, the claimant to demand to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. The bill would require any disputed portion of the claim that remains in dispute after the meet and confer conference to be subject to nonbinding mediation, as specified. The bill would provide that unpaid claim amounts accrue interest at 7% per annum. The bill would prescribe a procedure by which a subcontractor or lower tier contractor may make a claim through the contractor. The bill would require the text of these provisions or a summary of them to be set forth in the plans or specifications for any public work which may give rise to a claim. The bill would specify that a waiver of the rights granted by its provisions is void and contrary to public policy, except as specified. The bill would also specify that it does not impose liability on a public entity that makes loans or grants available through a competitive application process, for the failure of an awardee to meet its contractual obligations. By increasing the duties of local agencies and officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on January 1, 2019, repeal the provision establishing the claim resolution process. (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, 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.
Under existing law, a person may not stop, park, or leave a vehicle standing alongside a curb space authorized for the loading or unloading of passengers of a bus engaged as a common carrier in local transportation when indicated by a sign or red paint on the curb, except that existing law allows local authorities to permit schoolbuses to stop alongside these curb spaces upon agreement between a transit system operating buses as common carriers in local transportation and a public school district or private school. This bill would also allow local authorities to permit shuttle service vehicles, as defined, to stop for the loading or unloading of passengers alongside these curb spaces upon agreement between a transit system operating buses engaged as common carriers in local transportation and a shuttle service provider, as defined. The bill would state that it is the intent of the Legislature to not replace public transit services.
(1) Article XIX of the California Constitution restricts the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles upon public streets and highways to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes, and restricts the expenditure of revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state upon vehicles or their use or operation to state administration and enforcement of laws regulating the use, operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the public streets and highways, as well as to street and highway and certain mass transit purposes. These restrictions do not apply to revenues from taxes or fees imposed under the Sales and Use Tax Law or the Vehicle License Fee Law. Article XIX prohibits the Legislature from borrowing revenues from taxes imposed by the state on fuels used in motor vehicles, and from using those revenues other than as specifically permitted by Article XIX. Article XIX provides that up to 25% of fuel tax revenues allocated to the state may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved transportation bonds issued for street and highway purposes on and after November 2, 2010, upon voter approval and appropriation by the Legislature. Article XIX provides that up to 25% of fuel tax revenues allocated to cities and counties may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on voter-approved transportation bonds issued for street and highway purposes. However, in counties where voters have approved the use of fuel tax revenues for certain mass transit purposes, Article XIX provides that the Legislature may authorize any fuel tax revenues allocated to mass transit purposes to be pledged or used for payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for those mass transit purposes. This measure would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the state on vehicles or their use or operation, and from using those revenues other than as specifically permitted by Article XIX. The measure would also provide that none of those revenues may be pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other indebtedness. The measure would delete the provision that provides for use of any fuel tax revenues allocated to mass transit purposes to be pledged or used for payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for those mass transit purposes, and would instead subject those expenditures to the existing 25% limitation applicable to the use of fuel tax revenues for street and highway bond purposes. This measure would also restrict the expenditure of revenues from taxes imposed by the state on motor vehicle fuels used in propelling water-borne vessels solely to purposes relating to boating facilities, safety, and boating-related activities, as specified, and would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing those revenues. (2) Article XI of the California Constitution requires the revenues derived under the Vehicle License Fee Law from a rate that does not exceed 0.65% of the market value of a vehicle to be allocated to cities and counties, and does not restrict expenditure of those revenues for a particular purpose. This measure would require revenues derived from that portion of the vehicle license fee rate that exceeds 0.65% of the market value of a vehicle to be used solely for street and highway purposes and would prohibit the Legislature from borrowing those revenues. The measure would also prohibit those revenues from being pledged or used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or other indebtedness. (3) This measure would make other conforming changes.
The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, in specified conformity with federal income tax laws regarding qualified tuition programs, provide that distributions from a qualified tuition program are generally not included in the income of the donor or the beneficiary, as specified. Existing federal law, the Stephen Beck Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2014 (ABLE Act) , for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, encourages and assists individuals and families to save private funds for the purpose of supporting persons with disabilities to maintain their health, independence, and quality of life by excluding from gross income distributions used for qualified disability expenses by a beneficiary of a Qualified ABLE Program established and maintained by a state, as specified. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, conform to these federal income tax law provisions relating to the ABLE Act under the Corporation Tax Law, as provided. The bill would also establish in state government the ABLE program trust for purposes of implementing the federal ABLE Act. The bill would authorize the ABLE Act Board to adopt regulations to implement the program. The bill would create the program fund, a continuously appropriated fund, thereby making an appropriation, and the administrative fund, as specified. The bill would require the board to administer the program in compliance with the requirements of the federal ABLE Act. This bill would become operative only if SB 324 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2016.
Existing law provides various programs to expand access to persons with disabilities and promote compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Existing law establishes the Capital Access Loan Program, which is administered by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority (authority) to assist small businesses to finance the costs of complying with environmental mandates and the remediation of contamination on their properties. This bill would establish the California Americans with Disabilities Act Small Business Capital Access Loan Program within the Capital Access Loan Program, to create a self-sustaining program to provide loans to assist small businesses in financing the costs of projects that alter or retrofit existing small business facilities, meeting specified criteria, to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. This bill would authorize the authority to administer the program, including adopting regulations, and controlling funds appropriated for the program, as specified. This bill would establish the California Americans with Disabilities Act Small Business Capital Access Loan Program Fund, as a continuously appropriated fund, and require the authority to use the fund for all its purposes. This bill would also transfer $10,000,000 from the General Fund to the California Americans with Disabilities Act Small Business Capital Access Loan Program Fund.
(1) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots. This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount. (2) Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election. This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election. (3) Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both. This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control. (4) Under existing law, a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. This bill would permit the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. (5) Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted. This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted. (6) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities. This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification. By imposing new duties on local elections 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.