Sen. Steve Glazer

(1) Existing law, The Charter Schools Act of 1992, permits teachers and parents to petition the governing board of a school district to approve a charter school to operate independently from the existing school district structure as a method of accomplishing, among other things, improved pupil learning. This bill would authorize a school district, county office of education, or charter school to file a grievance with the State Board of Education alleging a violation of an obligation of a chartering authority, as provided. The bill would require the state board's Advisory Commission on Charter Schools to hold a public hearing on the grievance and, if it finds the complaint meritorious, make a specific recommendation to the state board, which may include specific corrective action or suspension or revocation of the chartering authority's authority to approve, oversee, renew, and revoke charters. (2) Existing law requires a charting authority to meet certain charter school authorizing, supervisorial, and oversight responsibilities. This bill would authorize the state board to approve a county office of education or a school district with demonstrated authorizing and oversight capacity to serve as an expanded authorizer of charter schools allowing that chartering entity to assume the charter school authorizing, supervisorial, and oversight responsibilities of another school district in certain situations, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, after receiving a charter petition, to hold a public hearing on the provisions of the charter and prohibits the governing board of a school district from denying a petition for the establishment of a charter school unless it makes written factual findings, specific to the particular petition, setting forth specific facts to support certain findings. This bill would require the governing board of the school district to base the specific facts on substantial evidence and provide the evidence to the petitioners and make it available to the public before the hearing. Existing law authorizes a charter school petitioner, if the governing board of a school district denies a petition, to submit the petition for the establishment of a charter school to the county board of education. Existing law also authorizes a charter school petitioner, if the county board of education denies a petition, to submit the petition for the establishment of a charter school to the state board. This bill would authorize a charter school petitioner to appeal to the county board of education if, after the petitioner submits a charter petition, the school district fails to act on the petition within required timelines or the governing board of a school district fails to adopt required findings to deny a petition. The bill would also permit a charter school petitioner to appeal to the state board if the county board of education fails to act on the petition within required timelines or the county board of education fails to adopt required findings to deny a petition. Existing law requires a charter petition that either the county board of education or the state board fails to act upon within 120 days of receipt to be subject to judicial review. This bill would, instead, require a charter petition that the state board fails to act upon within 120 days of receipt to be subject to judicial review. Existing law authorizes the state board, by mutual agreement, to designate its supervisorial and oversight responsibilities for a charter school approved by the state board to any local educational agency in the county in which the charter school is located or to the governing board of the school district that first denied the petition. This bill would also authorize the state board to designate its responsibilities to a county office of education. Existing law requires a charter school that is granted its charter through an appeal to the state board and elects to seek renewal of its charter, before expiration of the charter, to submit its petition for renewal to the governing board of the school district that initially denied the charter. This bill would, instead, authorize a charter school that is granted its charter through an appeal to the state board or a county board of education and elects to seek renewal of its charter, before expiration of the charter, to submit its petition for renewal to the governing board of the school district that initially denied the charter. Existing law authorizes a charter school, if the governing board of the school district denies the charter school's petition for renewal, to petition the state board for the renewal of its charter. This bill would authorize a charter school, if the governing board of the school district denies the charter school's petition for renewal, to petition the charter school's current chartering authority for the renewal of its charter. (4) Existing law authorizes a county board of education to approve a countywide charter only if it finds, in addition to other requirements, that the educational services to be provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services and that cannot be served as well by a charter school that operates in only one school district in the county. This bill would, instead, authorize a county board of education to approve a countywide charter only if it finds, in addition to other requirements, that the educational services to be provided by the charter school will offer services to a pupil population that will benefit from those services. Existing law authorizes a county board of education to grant a countywide charter only if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school has reasonable justification for why it could not be established by petition to a school district. This bill would, instead, authorize a county board of education to grant a countywide charter only if it is satisfied that granting the charter is consistent with sound educational practice and that the charter school petitioners have demonstrated that the charter school will provide a high-quality educational program. The bill would require the county board of education to also ensure that the charter school has described in the petition the manner in which the charter school will seek to share best and promising practices of the charter school with other traditional public schools and charter schools that have low academic performance. Existing law prohibits a charter school petitioner from submitting a petition for a countywide charter to the state board on appeal. This bill would authorize a charter school petitioner to submit a petition for a countywide charter to the state board on appeal. (5) Existing law authorizes the state board to approve a charter for the operation of a state charter school that may operate at multiple sites throughout the state. This bill would authorize the state board to approve a charter for the operation of a state charter school that may operate at one or multiple sites throughout the state. Existing law authorizes the state board to grant a petition for the operation of a state charter school only if it finds that the proposed state charter school would provide instructional services of statewide benefit that cannot be provided by a charter school operating in only one school district, or only in one county. This bill would instead authorize the state board to grant a petition for the operation of a state charter school only if it is satisfied that the charter school petitioners have demonstrated that the proposed state charter school will provide a high-quality educational program and it finds that the proposed state charter school will provide instructional services of statewide benefit. The bill would require the state board, as part of the determination of the statewide benefit, to ensure that the proposed charter school has described in the petition the manner in which the charter school will seek to share best and promising practices of the charter school with other traditional public schools and charter schools that have low academic performance. The bill would authorize the state board to establish other criteria or conditions to determine or define a statewide benefit. (6) Existing law authorizes a chartering authority that is given the responsibility for supervisorial oversight of a charter school approved by the state board to charge the charter school for the actual costs of supervisorial oversight. This bill would require that chartering authority to submit annually a financial statement to each charter school it oversees that accounts for the use of any oversight fees collected from the charter school. Existing law authorizes charter schools to separately purchase administrative or other services from the chartering authority. This bill would require the charter school governing body and the governing board of the chartering authority to each approve any services agreements between the charter school and the chartering authority in a public meeting and make a finding that documents the validity of the fair market value of the agreement. The bill would authorize a county superintendent of schools to, based upon a written complaint or other information that justifies an investigation, conduct an investigation, as specified, to determine whether the school district has used supervisorial oversight fees properly or has charged service fees far in excess of fair market value. The bill also authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to, based upon a written complaint or other information that justifies an investigation, conduct an investigation into a chartering county office of education's compliance with these provisions. Existing law defines "costs of supervisorial oversight" for the above purposes. This bill would require a school district to include charter school oversight fees in it's annual audit, as specified. (7) This bill would also correct cross-references, make conforming changes, and make other nonsubstantive changes. (8) To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on school districts and county offices of education, 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, 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 prohibits, subject to exceptions, specified acts of animal abuse including, among others, the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, or wounding of a living animal. Under existing law, a violation of those provisions is punishable as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or alternatively, as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than $20,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would require a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above to be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 for each violation, in addition to the fines described above. The bill would require those additional fines to be paid to the local public animal control agency that has jurisdiction over the location where the violation occurred. The bill would authorize the agency to use the moneys paid as a fine to compensate a person who incurs costs for the animal's medical care, rehabilitation, or recovery, if the owner or caretaker of the animal was the person who violated the animal abuse prohibitions described above. The bill would also require, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, a person who violates the animal abuse prohibitions described above in a rehabilitative facility for animals to pay for and successfully complete an appropriate counseling course, as determined by the court, designed to evaluate and treat behavior or conduct disorders. The bill would define "rehabilitative facility for animals" for these purposes as a facility at which medical care or rehabilitative services are provided to animals, including, but not limited to, an animal sanctuary, animal shelter, or aquarium. By increasing the penalties for existing crimes and increasing the duties of a public animal control agency relative to the use of the moneys paid as a fine, 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1) The California Public Records Act requires a state or local agency, as defined, to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. The act requires any agency that has any information that constitutes a public record not exempt from disclosure in an electronic format to make that public record available in an electronic format when requested by a person, and requires the agency to, among other things, make the information available in any electronic format in which the information is held. This bill, if a local agency, except a school district, maintains an Internet Resource, including, but not limited to an Internet Web site, Internet Web page, or Internet Web portal, which the local agency describes or titles as "open data," and the local agency voluntarily posts a public record on that Internet Resource, would require the local agency to post the public record in an open format that meets specified requirements, including, among others, that the format is able to be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched by a commonly used Internet search application. (2) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (3) 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.

Existing law regulates the payment of compensation to employees by employers and prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on requiring an employee to refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages, signing a waiver of the right to disclose the amount of those wages, or discriminating against an employee for making such a disclosure. Existing law generally prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Existing law establishes exceptions to that prohibition where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor other than sex. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with these provisions. This bill would revise that prohibition to eliminate the requirement that the wage differential be within the same establishment, and instead would prohibit an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, as specified. The bill would revise and recast the exceptions to require the employer to affirmatively demonstrate that a wage differential is based upon one or more specified factors, including a seniority system, a merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a bona fide factor other than sex, as specified. The bill would also require the employer to demonstrate that each factor relied upon is applied reasonably, and that the one or more factors relied upon account for the entire differential. The bill would prohibit an employer from discharging, or in any manner discriminating or retaliating against, any employee by reason of any action taken by the employee to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of these provisions. The bill would authorize an employee who has been discharged or discriminated or retaliated against, in the terms and conditions of his or her employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in these provisions, to recover in a civil action reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer, including interest thereon, as well as appropriate equitable relief. The bill would prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise his or her rights under these provisions. The bill would also increase the duration of employer recordkeeping requirements from 2 years to 3 years. By changing the definition of 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.

Existing law authorizes an adult to give an individual health care instruction and to appoint an attorney to make health care decisions for that individual in the event of his or her incapacity pursuant to a power of attorney for health care. This bill, until January 1, 2026, would enact the End of Life Option Act authorizing an adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, as defined, to make a request for a drug prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life. The bill would establish the procedures for making these requests. The bill would also establish specified forms to request an aid-in-dying drug, under specified circumstances, an interpreter declaration to be signed subject to penalty of perjury, thereby creating a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program, and a final attestation for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would require specified information to be documented in the individual's medical record, including, among other things, all oral and written requests for an aid-in-dying drug. This bill would prohibit a provision in a contract, will, or other agreement from being conditioned upon, or affected by, a person making or rescinding a request for the above-described drug. The bill would prohibit the sale, procurement, or issuance of any life, health, or annuity policy, health care service plan contract, or health benefit plan, or the rate charged for any policy or plan contract, from being conditioned upon or affected by the request. The bill would prohibit an insurance carrier from providing any information in communications made to an individual about the availability of an aid-in-dying drug absent a request by the individual or his or her attending physician at the behest of the individual. The bill would also prohibit any communication from containing both the denial of treatment and information as to the availability of aid-in-dying drug coverage. This bill would provide a person, except as provided, immunity from civil or criminal liability solely because the person was present when the qualified individual self-administered the drug, or the person assisted the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug so long as the person did not assist with the ingestion of the drug, and would specify that the immunities and prohibitions on sanctions of a health care provider are solely reserved for conduct of a health care provider provided for by the bill. The bill would make participation in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions voluntary, and would make health care providers immune from liability for refusing to engage in activities authorized pursuant to its provisions. The bill would also authorize a health care provider to prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, from participating in activities under the act while on the premises owned or under the management or direct control of that prohibiting health care provider, or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the prohibiting health care provider. This bill would make it a felony to knowingly alter or forge a request for drugs to end an individual's life without his or her authorization or to conceal or destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request for a drug, if it is done with the intent or effect of causing the individual's death. The bill would make it a felony to knowingly coerce or exert undue influence on an individual to request a drug for the purpose of ending his or her life, to destroy a withdrawal or rescission of a request, or to administer an aid-in-dying drug to an individual without their knowledge or consent. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that nothing in its provisions is to be construed to authorize ending a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia, and would provide that action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide. This bill would require physicians to submit specified forms and information to the State Department of Public Health after writing a prescription for an aid-in-dying drug and after the death of an individual who requested an aid-in-dying drug. The bill would authorize the Medical Board of California to update those forms and would require the State Department of Public Health to publish the forms on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the department to annually review a sample of certain information and records, make a statistical report of the information collected, and post that report to its Internet Web site. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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 proclaim April 12 through April 19, 2015, as California Holocaust Memorial Week and would urge Californians to observe these days of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust in an appropriate manner.

This measure would, among other things, memorialize the Congress of the United States to ban the sale or display of any Confederate flag, including the Confederate Battle Flag, on federal property and encourage states to ban the use of Confederate States of America symbolism from state flags, seals, and symbols, and would encourage the donation of Confederate artifacts to museums.

This measure would designate June 21, 2015, through July 21, 2015, as Fireworks Safety Month and would encourage the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and local fire protection agencies to educate members of the public about the risks of improperly using fireworks, including fireworks that have been approved as safe and sane.