(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.
Sponsored bills
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.
Existing law sets forth the powers and duties of the Division of Juvenile Facilities in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to wards in its custody, including, but not limited to, the return of persons to the court of commitment for redisposition by the court, determination of offense category, and setting of parole consideration dates. Existing law requires the department to promulgate policies and regulations implementing a departmentwide system of graduated sanctions for addressing ward disciplinary matters, including extending a ward's parole consideration date, subject to appeal, from one to not more than 12 months, for a sustained serious misconduct violation, as specified. The department is also authorized to promulgate regulations to establish a process for granting wards who have successfully responded to disciplinary sanctions a reduction of up to 50% of any time acquired for disciplinary matters. This bill would prohibit the department from extending a ward's parole consideration date, and would require the department to promulgate regulations to establish a process for granting a ward whose parole consideration hearing date was delayed due to disciplinary sanctions prior to January 1, 2011, a reduction of up to 100% of any time acquired for disciplinary matters.
This measure would memorialize the Legislature's support of legislation currently pending in the United States Congress that would protect the Pacific Coast from new offshore oil drilling. This measure would also memorialize the Legislature's opposition to the proposed expansion of oil and gas drilling off the Pacific Coast and any federal energy policies and legislation that would weaken California's role in energy siting decisions due to those policies.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, restricts the employment of licensed physicians and surgeons and podiatrists by a corporation or other artificial legal entity, subject to specified exemptions, and makes it a crime to practice medicine without a license. Existing law establishes, until January 1, 2011, a pilot project to allow qualified district hospitals that, among other things, provide more than 50% of patient days to the care of Medicare, Medi-Cal, and uninsured patients, to employ a physician and surgeon, if the hospital does not interfere with, control, or otherwise direct the professional judgment of the physician and surgeon. The pilot project authorizes the direct employment of a total of 20 physicians and surgeons by those hospitals to provide medically necessary services in rural and medically underserved communities, and specifies that each qualified district hospital may employ up to 2 physicians and surgeons, subject to specified requirements. This bill would delete that pilot project and would instead, until January 1, 2021, authorize a health care district, as defined, and a clinic owned or operated by a health care district, as specified, to employ physicians and surgeons if the health care district's service area includes a Medically Underserved Area (MUA) or a Medically Underserved Population (MUP) , or has been federally designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) ; the district board conducts a public hearing and adopts a specified resolution declaring the need for the district to recruit and directly employ one or more physicians and surgeons; and the executive officer of the district provides specified documentation to the Medical Board of California. Upon receipt of that documentation, the bill would require the board to approve the employment of up to 5 primary or specialty care physicians and surgeons by the district, and, upon receipt of additional documentation after that employment, to approve an additional 5 primary or specialty care physicians and surgeons. The bill would provide that a district may, until December 31, 2020, enter into, renew, or extend any employment contract with a physician and surgeon for up to 10 years. The bill would require the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health and the board, to report to the Legislature by June 1, 2018, with regard to the efficacy of the employment of physicians and surgeons by health care districts, as specified.
Existing law regulates the sale, possession, and disposal of hypodermic needles and syringes, and requires, with certain exceptions, a prescription to purchase a hypodermic needle or syringe for human use. Existing law prohibits any person from possessing or having under his or her control any hypodermic needle or syringe, except in accordance with those regulatory provisions. This bill would delete the prohibition against any person possessing or having under his or her control any hypodermic needle or syringe, except in accordance with the aforementioned regulatory provisions. Existing law, until December 31, 2010, authorizes a county or city to authorize a licensed pharmacist to sell or furnish 10 or fewer hypodermic needles or syringes to a person 18 years of age or older for human use without a prescription if the pharmacist works for a pharmacy that is registered with a local health department in the Disease Prevention Demonstration Project, established by law to evaluate the long-term desirability of allowing licensed pharmacies to sell or furnish nonprescription hypodermic needles or syringes to prevent the spread of bloodborne pathogens, including HIV and hepatitis C. This bill would, instead, for the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending December 31, 2018, permit a physician or pharmacist, without a prescription or a permit, to furnish 30 or fewer hypodermic needles and syringes for human use to a person 18 years of age or older and would permit a person 18 years of age or older, without a prescription or license, to obtain 30 or fewer hypodermic needles and syringes solely for personal use from a physician or pharmacist. This bill would make conforming changes, including the elimination of the Disease Prevention Demonstration Project. Under existing law, it is unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully injecting or smoking specified controlled substances. Existing law, until December 31, 2010, provides that the above-described provisions, pursuant to authorization from a city or county, shall not apply to the possession solely for personal use of 10 or fewer hypodermic needles or syringes. This bill would, instead, provide that the above-described provisions making it unlawful to possess an opium pipe or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia for unlawfully injecting or smoking certain controlled substances shall not apply for the period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending December 31, 2018, to possession solely for personal use of 30 or fewer hypodermic needles or syringes if acquired from a physician, pharmacist, hypodermic needle and syringe exchange program, or any other source that is authorized by law to provide sterile syringes or hypodermic needles without a prescription. This bill would require the state Office of AIDS to develop and maintain information on its Internet Web site to educate consumers at risk of bloodborne infections of opportunities to improve and protect the consumer's health, and to protect the public health and would also require the California State Board of Pharmacy to post, or post a link to, this information on its Internet Web site. The Pharmacy Law requires a pharmacist to keep detailed records of nonprescription sales of hypodermic needles and syringes. Existing law makes it a crime to knowingly violate any provision relating to the Pharmacy Law. This bill would amend the Pharmacy Law to require pharmacies that furnish nonprescription hypodermic needles and syringes to store the hypodermic needles and syringes in a manner that ensures that they are not accessible to unauthorized persons, and would require pharmacies to provide consumers with prescribed options for consumer disposal of hypodermic needles and syringes. This bill would also require the pharmacies to provide written information or verbal counseling at the time of furnishing or sale of nonprescription hypodermic needles or syringes, as specified. By changing the definition of an existing 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.
The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a city, county, or special district upon the approval of 23 of the voters of the city, county, or special district voting on that tax, and prohibits these entities from imposing an ad valorem tax on real property or a transactions or sales tax on the sale of real property. This measure would alternatively condition the imposition, extension, or increase of a parcel tax, as defined, by a school district, community college district, or county office of education upon the approval of 55% of its voters voting on the proposition, if the proposition meets specified requirements. This measure would also make conforming changes to related provisions.
Existing law requires the court, in every case in which a person is convicted of a crime, to impose a separate and additional restitution fine, except under a specified circumstance. Restitution fines are deposited in the Restitution Fund in the State Treasury, and are continuously appropriated to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board for specified purposes. Existing law requires the restitution fine to be not less than $200 if the person is convicted of a felony, and not less than $100 if the person is convicted of a misdemeanor. This bill would increase the minimum restitution fine to $300 if the person is convicted of a felony. By increasing moneys deposited in a continuously appropriated fund, this bill would make an appropriation.
This measure would urge various state and private entities to withhold financial support of Arizona businesses in response to recent Arizona state laws relating to illegal immigration.
Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation with a child in contested proceedings. Existing law provides for the use of court-appointed investigators, as defined, including court-appointed evaluators directed by the court to conduct a child custody investigation in those proceedings. Existing law authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator if the court determines it is in the best interest of the child. If directed by the court, the evaluator is required to file a written confidential report on his or her evaluation. The report may be received in evidence on stipulation of all interested parties and is competent evidence as to all matters contained in the report. Existing law requires all child custody evaluators to have completed specified training relating to domestic violence and child abuse. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt standards for court-connected evaluations, investigations, and assessments related to child custody. Existing law also requires the Judicial Council to formulate rules of court that establish education, experience, and training requirements for child custody evaluators and to establish related forms, as specified. This bill would provide that allegations of physical or sexual abuse against a child are to be investigated using specified methods of data collection and analysis. The bill would provide that the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings shall apply whenever the court considers an allegation of physical or sexual abuse against a child in a custody proceeding. The bill would also provide that unproven, nonscientific theories, including, but not limited to, alienation theories, as specified, are not consistent with generally accepted clinical, forensic, scientific, diagnostic, or medical standards. The bill would prohibit a court from relying upon an unproven, unscientific theory and from accepting into evidence any finding provided by an expert witness or court appointed professional who has relied on an unproven, nonscientific theory that is a basis for that finding. The bill would require the Judicial Council to provide training consistent with these provisions. The bill would include a statement of legislative intent.