Existing law allows individuals charged with a specified crime to qualify for a pretrial diversion program based upon various circumstances and qualifications, including mental health disorders, military service, or drug addiction. Existing law generally requires, if the defendant performs satisfactorily in one of these diversion programs, that the court dismiss the defendant's criminal charges and seal the record of arrest, as specified. This bill would authorize the presiding judge of the superior court, in consultation with the presiding juvenile court judge and criminal court judges and together with the prosecuting entity and the public defender, to create a pretrial diversion program for defendants who are primary caregivers of a child under 18 years of age, as specified, who are charged with a misdemeanor or a nonserious, nonviolent felony, and who are not being placed into diversion for a crime alleged to have been committed against a person for whom the defendant is the primary caregiver. The bill would set the period of diversion at not less than 6 months, but not more than 24 months. The bill would require the defendant to participate in classes relating to subjects that may include parenting, anger management, and financial literacy, and to receive services relating to housing, employment, and drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment, among others.
Sponsored bills
Existing law authorizes a person who was arrested and has successfully completed a prefiling diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified drug diversion program, a person who has successfully completed a specified deferred entry of judgment program, and a person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction, under certain conditions, to petition the court to seal the person's arrest record. Under existing law, if a defendant successfully completes certain diversion programs, the arrest for the crime for which the defendant was diverted is deemed to have never occurred. Existing law authorizes a defendant to petition to withdraw the defendant's plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty, if the defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation, or if other specified circumstances are met, and the defendant is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense. If relief is granted, existing law requires the court to dismiss the accusation or information against the defendant and release the defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense, with exceptions. Existing law also authorizes a defendant to file a similar petition if the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation, was convicted of an infraction, or completed a sentence for certain felonies, and the defendant met specified conditions. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2021, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, require the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and to identify persons who are eligible for relief by having their arrest records, or their criminal conviction records, withheld from disclosure, as specified. The bill would require the department to grant relief to an eligible person, without requiring a petition or motion. The bill would not limit petitions, motions, or orders for relief, as required or authorized by any other law. The bill would require an update to the state summary criminal history information to document the relief granted. The bill would require the department, on a monthly basis, to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case, informing the court of all cases for which relief was granted. The bill would prohibit the court from disclosing information concerning an arrest or conviction granted relief, with exceptions. The bill would authorize the prosecuting attorney or probation department, no later than 90 calendar days before the date of a person's eligibility for relief, to file a petition to prohibit the department from granting automatic relief for criminal conviction records as described above. If the court grants that petition, the bill would prohibit the department from granting relief, but the person would continue to be eligible for relief through other existing procedures, including petitions to the court. The bill would require the Department of Justice to annually publish statistics regarding relief granted pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would require a court, at the time of sentencing, to advise each defendant of their right to conviction relief pursuant to the provisions of this bill, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 480 of the Business and Professions Code, as added by Section 4 of Chapter 995 of the Statutes of 2018, proposed by AB 1521 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1521 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law declares that timely DNA analysis of rape kit evidence is a core public safety issue affecting men, women, and children in the State of California. Existing law finds and declares that law enforcement agencies should either submit sexual assault forensic evidence received on or after January 1, 2016, to a crime lab within 20 days after it is booked into evidence or to ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified. Existing law also finds and declares that a crime lab that receives sexual assault forensic evidence on or after January 1, 2016, should either process the evidence, create DNA profiles when able, and upload qualifying DNA profiles into the Combined DNA Index System, as specified, or transmit the sexual assault forensic evidence to another crime lab as soon as practically possible, but no later than 30 days after receiving the evidence, for processing of the evidence for the presence of DNA. This bill would instead require a law enforcement agency to either submit sexual assault forensic evidence to a crime lab or ensure that a rapid turnaround DNA program is in place, as specified, and require a crime lab to either process the evidence or transmit the evidence to another crime lab for processing, as specified. Because this bill would impose a higher level of service on local law enforcement agencies in processing that evidence, 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, 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law prescribes various statutes of limitations for criminal acts, ranging from a requirement that prosecution commence within one year after commission of the offense to provisions authorizing prosecution to be commenced at any time for offenses punishable by death or imprisonment for life in the state prison. Existing law makes the infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition upon specified victims, including, among others, the offender's spouse or former spouse, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or a fine of up to $6,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would authorize prosecution for that crime to be commenced within 5 years. The bill would apply to crimes that are committed on or after January 1, 2020, and to crimes for which the statute of limitations that was in effect prior to January 1, 2020, has not run as of January 1, 2020. By extending the statute of limitations indefinitely, under certain circumstances, for a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement a training course for law enforcement officers in the handling of domestic violence complaints and to develop guidelines for officer response to domestic violence. Existing law requires the course to include instruction on specified procedures and techniques for responding to domestic violence, including techniques for handling incidents of domestic violence that minimize the likelihood of injury to the officer and that promote the safety of the victim, and the assessment of lethality or signs of lethal violence in domestic violence situations. Existing law also requires the course of instruction, the learning and performance objectives, the standards for the training, and the guidelines to be developed by the commission in consultation with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of domestic violence, including 2 domestic violence experts. This bill would require those techniques for handling domestic violence to include methods for ensuring victim interviews occur in a venue separate from the alleged perpetrator, deescalation techniques, and specified questions for victims. The bill would require the course of training to include the signs of domestic violence and current and historical context on communities of color impacted by incarceration and violence. The bill would authorize the training experts to include victims of domestic violence and people who have committed domestic violence and have been or are in the process of being rehabilitated. The bill would also expand the groups and individuals with whom the commission is required to consult to include one representative of an organization working to advance criminal justice reform and one representative of an organization working to advance racial justice. The bill would include a statement of legislative findings and declarations. The bill would also delete obsolete provisions and make other technical changes. 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.
(1) Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district or community college district to order an election and submit to the electors of the district the question of whether the bonds of the district shall be issued and sold to raise money for specified purposes. Existing law generally requires, to pass a school bond measure, that either at least 23 of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds to pass the measure, or, if certain conditions are met, at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing bonds be in favor of issuing the bonds. Existing law prohibits the total amount of bonds issued by a school district or community college district from exceeding 1.25% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 2%. (2) Existing law also authorizes a unified school district to issue bonds receiving at least 55% of the votes cast on the proposition of issuing the bonds that, in aggregation with bonds issued with a 23 favorable vote, do not exceed 2.5% of the taxable property of the district, as provided. This bill would raise that limit to 4%. The bill would make a similar percentage increase for community college districts. (3) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities. This bill would, among other things, require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan or updated 5-year school facilities master plan, as provided, as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act, would require the school district to submit specified information in the school district's application for an apportionment of state funds, and would make other changes to requirements a school district is required to comply with before participating in programs under the act. The bill would require the department to process applications to participate in the program, as specified, and would make other changes to the method by which the board makes apportionments of moneys under the act. This bill would establish the 2020 State School Facilities Fund, and authorize the board to apportion, and make disbursements of, moneys in the fund, as provided. The bill would require, for bonds approved by voters in 2020 or thereafter, the board to adjust a school district's required local and state contribution, as specified. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes and, among other things, to establish schoolsite-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used, among other things, for the control, management, or abatement of lead and for the demolishment and construction of a building on an existing schoolsite that meets specified conditions. The bill would prohibit the use of new construction and modernization grants for the purchase of portable electronic devices with a useful life of less than 3 years. This bill would authorize funding for health and safety projects by a school district, as provided. This bill would authorize the board to provide a grant to test for lead in water outlets used for drinking or preparing food on schoolsites serving kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, as provided. The bill would specify procedures that small school districts, as defined, may use to obtain project and construction management, new construction grants, and modernization grants. The bill would also make conforming changes in, and remove inoperative provisions from, the act. (4) The act also requires the board to adopt regulations for determining the amount of funding and the eligibility and prioritization of funding that school districts with a financial hardship may receive from bond acts for construction, modernization, or relocation assistance. The act requires those regulations to include consideration of various factors, including whether the school district's total bonding capacity is $5,000,000 or less, in which case the school district shall be deemed eligible for financial hardship. This bill, for purposes of the regulations related to financial hardship eligibility, would increase the total bonding capacity cap to $15,000,000, to be adjusted as specified. (5) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (A) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (B) has been passed by a 23 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (C) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (D) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election. This bill would set forth the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $15,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election. The bill would also provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at that election. (6) Existing law establishes the California State University, which is administered by the Board of Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as segments of public postsecondary education in this state. This bill would require the Board of Trustees and the Regents to comply with certain conditions, as provided, before receiving funds from the 2020 University Capital Outlay Bond Fund established pursuant to the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020. (7) Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to impose, as specified, an alternative fee, charge, dedication, or requirement on developers to fund school facilities, until the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the Preschool-College Public Education Bond Act of 2016 are expended, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This bill would remove this authority beginning the earlier of January 1, 2021, or the date new construction bond proceeds authorized by the 2016 bond act are expended or apportioned, until January 1, 2028. The bill would also exempt multifamily housing developments that are located no further than 12 mile from a major transit stop, and reduce by 20% from specified amounts for any other multifamily housing developments, as specified, from any fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, as provided. (8) This bill, except for the provision making the provisions of the bill severable, would become effective upon the adoption of the Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020 by the voters at the March 3, 2020, statewide primary election.
(1) The Charter Schools Act of 1992 authorizes the establishment and operation of charter schools. Existing law generally requires a petition to establish a charter school to be submitted to the governing board of a school district, and, under specified circumstances, authorizes a petition to be submitted to and approved by a county board of education or the State Board of Education. Existing law authorizes a county board of education to approve a petition for the operation of a charter school that operates at one or more sites within the geographic boundaries of the county and that provides instructional services that are not generally provided by a county office of education. Existing law also authorizes a petition for the operation of a state charter school to be submitted directly to the state board, and 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. Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from denying a petition to establish a charter school unless it makes written factual findings in support of one or more specific findings. Existing law authorizes a charter school to appeal a school district's decision to deny a petition for a charter to the county board of education and, if the county board of education upholds the decision, to appeal the county board of education's decision to the state board. Existing law authorizes a charter to be granted by a chartering authority under designated provisions for a period not to exceed 5 years. Existing law requires that charter renewals are for periods of 5 years. This bill would revise and recast numerous provisions relating to the submission of petitions to establish charter schools, the appeal to county boards of education and to the state board of decisions of the governing boards of school districts to deny approval or renewal of charter schools, and the revocation of charters by chartering authorities. The bill would specify criteria and procedures for the consideration and determination of these issues. The bill would require that a petition to establish a charter school be submitted only to the governing board of the school district or county office of education within the boundaries of which the charter school proposes to locate. The bill would authorize a chartering authority to deny renewal of a charter school upon a finding that the school is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition due to substantial fiscal or governance factors, or is not serving all pupils who wish to attend, as specified. The bill would prohibit, from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2022, inclusive, the approval of a petition for the establishment of a new charter school offering nonclassroom-based instruction and funded as specified. (2) Existing law requires teachers in charter schools to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to what a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. This bill would instead require teachers in charter schools to hold the Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document required for the teacher's certificated assignment, except that a person employed as a teacher in a charter school during the 2019–20 school year would have until July 1, 2025, to obtain that certificate, permit, or other document. The bill would require all teachers in charter schools to satisfy specified requirements for professional fitness by July 1, 2020. The bill would require the commission, by June 30, 2022, to conduct a comprehensive study to examine whether existing certificates, permits, or other documents adequately address the needs for noncore, noncollege preparatory courses in all schools and, if necessary, to make recommendations to appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. The bill would require the State Department of Education, in consultation with the State Board of Education, to collect data to track the implementation of the changes in law enacted by the bill. (3) This bill would prohibit certain provisions of the Education Code from being waived by the State Board of Education. The bill, except for the provisions (A) relating to prohibition of the approval of a petition for the establishment of certain new charter schools between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2022, as described above, and (B) relating to the reimbursement of state-mandated costs, would become operative on July 1, 2020. The bill would also make conforming and nonsubstantive changes. To the extent the bill would impose additional requirements on local educational agencies and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1507 and AB 1595, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1507 or AB 1595, or both, are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 47605.6 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1595, to be operative only if this bill and AB 1595 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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 the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California. Under the act, a physician and surgeon is required to demonstrate satisfaction of continuing education requirements, including cultural and linguistic competency in the practice of medicine, as specified. This bill, by January 1, 2022, would require all continuing education courses for a physician and surgeon to contain curriculum that includes specified instruction in the understanding of implicit bias in medical treatment. The bill, by January 1, 2022, would require associations that accredit these continuing education courses to develop standards to comply with these provisions. Existing law, the Nursing Practice Act, regulates the practice of nursing by the Board of Registered Nursing. The act requires persons licensed by the board to complete specified courses of instruction, including instruction regarding alcoholism and substance dependency and spousal abuse. This bill would require the Board of Registered Nursing, by January 1, 2022, to adopt regulations requiring all continuing education courses for its licensees to contain curriculum that includes specified instruction in the understanding of implicit bias in treatment. Beginning January 1, 2023, the bill would require continuing education providers to comply with these provisions and would require the board to audit education providers for compliance with these provisions, as specified. Existing law, the Physician Assistant Practice Act, authorizes the Physician Assistant Board to require a licensee to complete not more than 50 hours of continuing education every two years as a condition of license renewal. This bill would require the Physician Assistant Board, by January 1, 2022, to adopt regulations requiring all continuing education courses for its licensees to contain curriculum that includes specified instruction in the understanding of implicit bias in treatment. Beginning January 1, 2023, the bill would require continuing education providers to comply with these provisions and would require the board to audit continuing education providers for compliance with these provisions.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities are under the direction of their governing boards. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , the State Air Resources Board, electrical corporations, and the motor vehicle industry, to evaluate policies to develop infrastructure sufficient to overcome any barriers to the widespread deployment and use of plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles. Existing law requires the PUC, in consultation with the Energy Commission and the State Air Resources Board, to direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate widespread transportation electrification to achieve specified results. Existing law requires the PUC to approve, or modify and approve, programs and investments in transportation electrification, including those that deploy charging infrastructure, through a reasonable cost recovery mechanism, under certain circumstances. Existing law requires the PUC to consider facilitating the development of technologies that promote grid integration. This bill would require the PUC, by December 31, 2020, in an existing proceeding, to establish strategies and quantifiable metrics to maximize the use of feasible and cost-effective electric vehicle grid integration by January 1, 2030, as specified. The bill would require the PUC to reference the electric vehicle grid integration strategies in relevant ongoing and subsequent proceedings that address issues of transportation electrification in any part and to identify how programs and investments that the PUC may approve will advance the achievement of the strategies. The bill would require the PUC, when executing its transportation electrification responsibilities, to consider how, or if, electric vehicle grid integration can mitigate any generation, transmission, or distribution costs, or increase the economic, social, or environmental benefits associated with transportation electrification, and to not foreclose future utilization of electric vehicle grid integration. The bill would require electrical corporations and community choice aggregators to provide to the PUC certain information relating to the electric vehicle integration strategies. The bill would require each local publicly owned electric utility serving more than 700 gigawatthours of annual electrical demand, in each integrated resource plan update adopted on and after January 1, 2020, to consider establishing electric vehicle grid integration strategies and evaluating how its existing and planned programs further those strategies. Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or any order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the PUC is a crime. Because the above provisions amend the Public Utilities Act, and the PUC would be required to issue an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement to implement those provisions, a violation of any of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Further, because the bill would impose additional duties on local publicly owned electric utilities and community choice aggregators, which are local agencies, 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 specified reasons.
Existing law, the Financial Institutions Law, regulates the activities of various financial entities, including commercial banks, industrial banks, trust companies, credit unions, and savings associations. The Banking Law defines and regulates state banks and commits the enforcement of banking laws to the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Existing law prohibits a county from giving or loaning its credit to, or in aid of, any person or corporation. Existing law requires a local agency, as defined, to deposit all money belonging to, or in the custody of, that local agency into specified state or national banks, as defined. Existing law regulates the investment of public funds by local agencies. Existing law, the Nonprofit Corporation Law, regulates the formation and conduct of a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation and a nonprofit public benefit corporation. This bill would define the term "bank" for purposes of the Financial Institutions Law and the Banking Law to include a public bank. The bill would define the term "public bank" to mean a corporation, organized as either a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation or a nonprofit public benefit corporation for the purpose of engaging in the commercial banking business or industrial banking business, that is wholly owned by a local agency, as specified, local agencies, or a joint powers authority. The bill would require a public bank to obtain a certificate of authorization to transact business as a bank from the commissioner and to obtain and maintain insurance, subject to specified requirements. The bill would prohibit the commissioner from issuing more than 2 public bank licenses, as defined, in a calendar year and would prohibit the commissioner from authorizing more than 10 public banks at one time. The bill would require a public bank to include a specified purpose statement in its articles of incorporation and make conforming changes. The bill would require a local agency to conduct and approve, as specified, a study of the viability of a public bank containing specified elements before submitting an application to the commissioner to organize and establish a public bank and would require the local agency to include a copy of that study in the application submitted to the commissioner. The bill would require a local agency that is not a charter city to obtain voter approval of a motion to submit an application to the commissioner, as specified. The bill would authorize a county to lend its available funds to a public bank. The bill also would authorize a local agency to deposit funds in a public bank, and to invest in a public bank, subject to certain requirements. The bill would authorize a public bank to make distributions to its members. The bill would require, as specified, a public bank to conduct retail activities in partnership with local financial institutions and would prohibit a public bank from competing with local financial institutions. The Corporation Tax Law imposes a franchise tax on financial corporations, but provides that the tax is in lieu of all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. That law also exempts specified classes of entities from the franchise and income taxes imposed by that law, including state-chartered credit unions. This bill would additionally exempt from those franchise and income taxes any public bank. This bill would also exempt a public bank from all other state and local taxes and licenses, with certain exceptions. Existing law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires that all meetings of the legislative body, as defined, of a local agency be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend unless a closed session is authorized. This bill would authorize the governing board of a public bank or a committee of that governing board to meet in a closed session to consider and take action on matters pertaining to a loan or investment decision, a decision of the internal audit committee, the compliance committee, or the governance committee, and a meeting with a state or federal regulator. The bill would authorize a public bank to make all information received by a shareholder, member, or owner of a public bank confidential, as specified. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would exempt specified information and records of a public bank, and related decisions of the directors, officers, and managers of the public bank, from the disclosure requirements of the act, including, among others, records related to alternative investments of the bank, as specified, meeting materials of any closed session, a record containing information regarding a portfolio position in which the public bank invests, information related to a specific account in the bank, and specified correspondence related to meetings with, or a memorandum or letter received from, state and federal banking regulators. 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 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.
Existing law, known as the Student Athlete Bill of Rights, requires intercollegiate athletic programs at 4-year private universities or campuses of the University of California or the California State University that receive, as an average, $10,000,000 or more in annual revenue derived from media rights for intercollegiate athletics to comply with prescribed requirements relating to student athlete rights. This bill would prohibit California postsecondary educational institutions except community colleges, and every athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, from providing a prospective intercollegiate student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete's name, image, or likeness, or preventing a student participating in intercollegiate athletics from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student's name, image, or likeness or obtaining professional representation relating to the student's participation in intercollegiate athletics. The bill also would prohibit an athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from preventing a postsecondary educational institution other than a community college from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of the compensation of a student athlete for the use of the student's name, image, or likeness. The bill would require professional representation obtained by student athletes to be from persons licensed by the state. The bill would specify that athlete agents shall comply with federal law in their relationships with student athletes. The bill would prohibit the revocation of a student's scholarship as a result of earning compensation or obtaining legal representation as authorized under these provisions. The bill would prohibit a student athlete from entering into a contract providing compensation to the athlete for use of the athlete's name, image, or likeness if a provision of the contract is in conflict with a provision of the athlete's team contract. The bill would prohibit a team contract from preventing a student athlete from using the athlete's name, image, or likeness for a commercial purpose when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities, as specified. These provisions would become operative on January 1, 2023. This bill would require the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to convene a community college athlete name, image, and likeness working group composed of individuals appointed on or before July 1, 2020, as specified. The bill would require the working group to review various athletic association bylaws and state and federal laws regarding a college athlete's use of the athlete's name, image, and likeness for compensation and, on or before July 1, 2021, submit to the Legislature and the California Community College Athletic Association a report containing its findings and policy recommendations in connection with this review.