Under existing law, any taxing agency or instrumentality of the state may file a petition and prosecute to completion bankruptcy proceedings permitted under the laws of the United States. This bill would provide that a local public entity may only file under federal bankruptcy law with the approval of the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, except as specified. The bill would also provide an alternative procedure for a local entity to file under federal bankruptcy law by submitting specific analyses regarding its financial position to the State Auditor who would be required to audit the analyses and financial position of the local entity. The bill would make the local public entity responsible for the costs of the audit, as specified. The public entity would be authorized to file a petition under federal bankruptcy law after the State Auditor has notified the public entity of completion of its audit work and made public the findings of that audit.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the University of California, which is administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, which is administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, which is administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as the 3 segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law authorizes the regents, the trustees, and the board to employ officers and other employees. This bill would prohibit the trustees from increasing the monetary compensation, as defined, of, or approving a monetary bonus for, any executive officer, as defined, of the California State University in any fiscal year in which the General Fund appropriation to the California State University in the annual Budget Act is less than, or equal to, the General Fund appropriation to the university in the annual Budget Act for the immediately preceding fiscal year. The bill would request the regents to not increase the monetary compensation of, or approve a monetary bonus for, any executive officer, as defined, of the University of California, in any fiscal year in which the General Fund appropriation to the University of California in the annual Budget Act is less than, or equal to, the General Fund appropriation to the university in the annual Budget Act for the immediately preceding fiscal year.
(1) Existing law requires that a person, other than a nonimmigrant alien, as defined, who has attended high school in California for 3 or more years, who has graduated from a California high school or attained the equivalent thereof, who has registered at or attends an accredited institution of higher education in California not earlier than the fall semester or quarter of the 2001–02 academic year, and who, if he or she is an alien without lawful immigration status, has filed a prescribed affidavit, is exempt from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. This bill would enact the California Dream Act of 2010. The bill, as of July 1, 2011, would exempt a person who has attended, for 3 or more years, at least one of which shall have been in a high school, and graduated from, secondary school in California from paying nonresident tuition at the California Community Colleges and the California State University. Under the bill, persons attending and graduating from California technical schools and adult schools, as well as high schools, would be included within the scope of this provision. (2) The Donahoe Higher Education Act sets forth, among other things, the missions and functions of California's public and independent segments of higher education, and their respective institutions of higher education. Provisions of the act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, act to make a provision applicable. In any action in which a state court finds that a specified law, or any similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, existing law authorizes the court to order the administering entity that is the subject of the lawsuit to terminate any waiver awarded under that statute or action, as equitable relief, prohibits the award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief, and provides that the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California are immune from the imposition of any award of money damages, tuition refund or waiver, or other retroactive relief in a lawsuit. This bill would amend the Donahoe Higher Education Act, as of July 1, 2011, to require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and to request the regents, to establish procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs administered by these segments to the full extent permitted by federal law, except as provided. This provision would apply to the University of California only if the regents, by appropriate resolution, act to make it applicable. If a state court finds that this provision, or a similar provision adopted by the regents, is unlawful, this bill would provide that the same limitations described above would apply. This bill would further provide that, on and after January 1, 2011, a student attending the California State University, the California Community Colleges, or the University of California who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above would be eligible to receive a scholarship derived from nonstate funds received, for the purpose of scholarships, by the segment at which he or she is a student. Existing federal law requires that a state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any state or local public benefit for which that alien would otherwise be ineligible under a specified federal law only through enactment of a state law that affirmatively provides for that eligibility. This bill would find and declare that the amendments to the Donahoe Higher Education Act described above are state laws within the meaning of this federal provision. (3) Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of community college governing boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction, for prescribed fees, at community college campuses throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the waiver of these fees for, among others, students who are eligible under income standards established by the board of governors. This bill, as of July 1, 2011, would require community college districts to waive the fees of persons who are exempt from nonresident tuition under the provision described in (1) above, and who otherwise qualify for a waiver under this provision, under regulations and procedures adopted by the board of governors. Because the bill would impose new duties on community college districts with respect to determining eligibility for fee waivers, the bill would constitute 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, 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.
The Personal Income Tax Law authorizes various credits against the tax imposed by that law. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2016, authorize a credit against that tax for a person who is 55 years of age or older in an amount equal to the amount paid or incurred for that taxpayer's own medicines or drugs, as described, that is not reimbursable or payable by public or private health insurance plans or by any 3rd party. Existing law imposes various taxes, including taxes on the privilege of engaging in certain activities. The Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, provides procedures for the collection of certain fees and surcharges. Existing law also requires the Department of Justice to maintain the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) for the electronic monitoring of the prescribing and dispensing of Schedule II, Schedule III, and Schedule IV controlled substances by all practitioners authorized to prescribe or dispense these controlled substances. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2016, impose a tax upon every manufacturer and importer of a controlled substance classified as Schedule II, III, or IV upon the first sale of that substance at the rate of $0.0025 for each pill sold. The tax would be administered by the State Board of Equalization and would be collected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fee Collection Procedures Law. The bill would require the board to deposit all taxes, penalties, and interest collected, less refunds and administrative costs, in the CURES Fund, which this bill would create. This bill would require moneys in the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to be allocated to the Department of Justice for the cost of administration of the CURES program, as specified. This bill would also require a person that manufactures controlled substances classified in Schedule II, III, or IV in this state, or that imports controlled substances classified in Schedule II, III, or IV into this state, to register with the Department of Justice to enable the department to report specified information to the board for purposes of collecting a tax on those persons. Those provisions would remain in effect until January 1, 2016. Because this bill would expand the application of the Fee Collection Procedures Law, the violation of which is a crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
This measure would recognize the importance of celebrating the birth and independence of Mexico and honoring and invigorating the spirit of friendship, understanding, and cooperation that characterizes the California-Mexico relationship.
Existing law imposes various requirements with respect to contracting by state agencies. This bill would require a state agency that accepts bids or proposals for contracts for goods or services exceeding $1,000,000, or for the distribution of funds pursuant to the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, on or before July 1, 2011, to provide a 5% preference, as provided, to a business that directly provides the goods or services when 90% of the employees of the business performing work on the contract reside in the state. This bill would state that these bidding preferences are not applicable to contracts that are subject to the State Contract Act or to contracts for specified professional services.
(1) Under the existing California Constitution, the initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the state constitution and to adopt or reject them. This measure would require that an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs, other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds authorized by the measure, as jointly determined by the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs. The California Constitution generally vests the legislative power of the state in California State Legislature. This measure would make void a statute that would result either in a net increase in qualified state costs or a net decrease in state revenue in excess of $25,000,000 annually, as defined by statute and as adjusted for inflation, unless the statute also contains provisions that would result in state program reductions or additional state revenue as defined by statute in an amount that is equal to or greater than the net increase in qualified state costs or net decrease in state revenue subject to exceptions for the Budget Act, and statutes required to fund increased costs for education as required by the Constitution. The California Constitution provides that the Legislature may propose to the electors both amendments and revisions to the California Constitution, and may enact statutes by passing bills. This measure would prohibit a constitutional amendment or revision from being submitted to the electors or having any effect if that measure would create a new state program or agency or expand the scope of an existing state program or agency and cause either a net increase in state costs or a net decrease in state revenues in excess of $25,000,000 annually, as adjusted for inflation, unless the measure identifies additional revenue in an amount that is equal to or greater than the increased costs or decrease in revenue. (2) Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that if, following the enactment of a Budget Bill, the Governor determines that, for the fiscal year addressed by the Budget Bill, General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate of General Fund revenues upon which the Budget Bill was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially above that estimate of General Fund revenues, or both, the Governor may issue a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and cause the Legislature to assemble in special session. If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bill or adjourn for joint recess, until a bill or bills addressing the fiscal emergency has been passed and sent to the Governor. This measure additionally would provide that, if the Legislature has not passed and sent to the Governor a bill or bills addressing a fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the proclamation declaring the emergency, the Governor may, by executive order, reduce or eliminate any unexpended appropriation in the Budget Act for the fiscal year that is not required by the California Constitution or federal law, in an amount not exceeding the amount of the budget discrepancy identified by the Governor. The measure would authorize the Legislature to override those actions of the Governor by a 23 vote of the membership of each house. (3) The California Constitution requires the Governor to submit to the Legislature by January 10 of each year a budget for the ensuing fiscal year, accompanied by a Budget Bill itemizing recommended expenditures. The Legislature is required to pass the Budget Bill by June 15. The Constitution requires that specified bills, including bills making a change in state taxes for the purpose of raising revenue, bills containing an urgency clause, and bills, including the Budget Bill, that make certain appropriations from the General Fund, be passed in each house of the Legislature by a 23 vote. This measure would require the Governor to submit to the Legislature by January 10 of each year a budget for the ensuing fiscal year, known as the budget year, and for the succeeding fiscal year. The measure would require the budget to contain specified information, including performance measurement standards for state agencies and programs, and a projection for anticipated state revenues. The Governor would be required to include in the budget an estimate of the amount of state funds available for the proposed expenditures, and to include revenue and expenditure projections for 3 additional fiscal years. The Governor also would be required to provide a 5-year capital infrastructure and strategic growth plan as specified by statute. If the Governor proposes to create a new state program or agency, or to expand the scope of an existing state program or agency, which would increase state costs during the budget year or the succeeding fiscal year, or proposes to reduce a state tax the effect of which would reduce state revenue in the budget year or the succeeding fiscal year, the measure would require the Governor to identify state program reductions or additional revenues that is equal to or greater than the increase in costs or decrease in revenue. Under the measure, the Governor additionally would be required to provide the Legislature with updated projections of state revenue and expenditures for the budget and succeeding fiscal years at specified times during the budget process. This measure would require that each house of the Legislature, on or before May 1 of each year, refer the Budget Bill and bills implementing the Budget Bill to a joint committee of the Legislature, which must report recommendations to each house by June 20. This measure would require the Legislature, by June 25, to pass and present to the Governor the Budget Bill. The measure also would provide that, if a Budget Bill is not passed and presented to the Governor by June 25, Members of the Legislature would forfeit any salary and travel and living expenses from that date until the date the Budget Bill is passed and presented to the Governor. The measure also would limit the use of unanticipated revenues, as defined pursuant to annual determinations made by the Director of Finance, for specified purposes. Appropriations in a Budget Bill, as defined, would be exempted from the 23-vote requirement that applies to appropriations from the General Fund. A Budget Bill, and any budget implementation bills, would go into effect immediately upon their enactment. Under the existing California Constitution, the referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject statutes except urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual current expenses of the state. This measure would expressly include statutes enacting the Budget Bill among those exceptions to the power of referendum. (4) The existing California Constitution requires the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature to pass a bill that would make a change in state taxes for the purposes of increasing revenues derived from those taxes. This measure would further require that a bill imposing a fee that would fund a program, service, or activity previously funded by a tax, which was either repealed or reduced in the same fiscal year or a prior fiscal year, be passed by a 23 vote of both legislative houses. (5) The California Constitution authorizes the existence of local governments that can make and enforce ordinances and regulations that are not in conflict with general laws. The California Constitution also requires that general ad valorem property revenues be allocated to local jurisdictions in each county in the manner as provided in statute. This measure would authorize local government agencies, in the manner provided for by statute, to adopt and implement a Countywide Strategic Action Plan, and, upon adoption of the plan in a county, would authorize the county board of supervisors to place on the ballot a measure to impose an additional countywide sales and use tax, the revenues of which would be distributed as provided pursuant to statute and the Countywide Strategic Action Plan. This measure would prohibit the state from reallocating the proceeds of a non-ad valorem tax that is imposed by a local government agency, would specify that general ad valorem property tax revenues are required to be allocated to jurisdictions in the county in which those revenues are collected, and would prohibit the direction by statute of the expenditure of those revenues for any specific purpose or purposes. (6) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from modifying the manner in which ad valorem property tax revenues are allocated by law so as to reduce, for any fiscal year, the percentage of the total amount of property tax revenues in a county that is allocated among all of the local agencies in that county below the percentage of the total amount of those revenues that would be allocated among those agencies for the same fiscal year under the statutes in effect on November 3, 2004. This prohibition may be suspended for a fiscal year under specified conditions. This measure would limit the suspension authority to the 2009–10 fiscal year. The measure would, except for specified purposes, also prohibit the Legislature from reallocating or directing the expenditure of property tax revenues that are allocated to a community redevelopment agency under constitutional provisions that authorize the expenditure by the agency of incremental property tax revenues in a redevelopment project area. (7) This measure provides that it would become operative on January 1, 2011.
The California Constitution provides that the electors may propose statutes or amendments to the state constitution through the initiative process by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by a certain number of electors. This measure would prohibit an initiative measure that would result in a net increase in state or local government costs other than costs attributable to the issuance, sale, or repayment of bonds, from being submitted to the electors or having any effect unless and until the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance jointly determine that the initiative measure provides for additional revenues in an amount that meets or exceeds the net increase in costs.
Existing law does not provide a system of universal health care coverage for California residents. Existing law provides for the creation of various programs to provide health care services to persons who have limited incomes and meet various eligibility requirements. These programs include the Healthy Families Program administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, and the Medi‑Cal program administered by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. This bill would establish the California Healthcare System to be administered by the newly created California Healthcare Agency under the control of a Healthcare Commissioner appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would make all California residents eligible for specified health care benefits under the California Healthcare System, which would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate for or set fees for health care services provided through the system and pay claims for those services. The bill would provide that a resident of the state with a household income, as specified, at or below 200% of the federal poverty level would be eligible for the type of benefits provided under the Medi-Cal program. The bill would require the commissioner to seek all necessary waivers, exemptions, agreements, or legislation to allow various existing federal, state, and local health care payments to be paid to the California Healthcare System, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. The bill would create the Healthcare Policy Board to establish policy on medical issues and various other matters relating to the system. The bill would create the Office of Patient Advocacy within the agency to represent the interests of health care consumers relative to the system. The bill would create within the agency the Office of Health Planning to plan for the health care needs of the population, and the Office of Health Care Quality, headed by a chief medical officer, to support the delivery of high quality care and promote provider and patient satisfaction. The bill would create the Office of Inspector General for the California Healthcare System within the Attorney General's office, which would have various oversight powers. The bill would prohibit health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies from being issued for services covered by the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the Healthcare Fund and the Payments Board to administer the finances of the California Healthcare System. The bill would create the California Healthcare Premium Commission (Premium Commission) to determine the cost of the California Healthcare System and to develop a premium structure for the system that complies with specified standards. The bill would require the Premium Commission to recommend a premium structure to the Governor and the Legislature on or before January 1, 2013, and to make a draft recommendation to the Governor, the Legislature, and the public 90 days before submitting its final premium structure recommendation. The bill would specify that only its provisions relating to the Premium Commission would become operative on January 1, 2011, with its remaining provisions becoming operative on the date the Secretary of California Health and Human Services notifies the Legislature, as specified, that sufficient funding exists to implement the California Healthcare System. The bill would require that system to be operative within 2 years of that date and would provide for various transition processes for that period. The bill would extend the application of certain insurance fraud laws to providers of services and products under the system, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by revising the definition of a crime. The bill would enact other related provisions relative to budgeting, regional entities, federal preemption, subrogation, collective bargaining agreements, compensation of health care providers, conflict of interest, patient grievances, independent medical review, and associated matters. 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.
This measure would urge the President and the Congress of the United States to consider the removal of commercial, economic, and financial restrictions relating to agricultural sales to Cuba.