Legislative Update

1. The members of the Budget Conference Committee have been named. Members from the Senate include Wesley Chesbro (D - Arcata), Denise Ducheny (D - San Diego), and Dennis Hollingsworth (R - Murrieta). Chesbro and Hollingsworth are Chair and Vice-chair, respectively, of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. Ducheny chairs the Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services.

The three members from the Assembly include Judy Chu (D - Monterey Park), Rick Keene (R - Chico) and John Laird (D - Santa Cruz). Chu chairs the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Keene and Laird are the Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the Assembly Budget Committee.

Two major contentious issues between legislators and the Governor are education funding and taxes. Tied to both is the question of how to best utilize the $3.9 billion in new revenues, anticipated to flow into the state’s coffers as a result of a better-than-expected economy.

Education. The Democrats’ plan would add $3 billion to K-12 education, an amount that includes replacing $2 billion in base funding, which the Governor borrowed from the sector last year, promising to repay it in future years. It’s the term “future years” that has been in dispute. The education community heard “next year, if revenues improve,” while the Governor says he never made the pledge, since he didn’t know at the time how much money the state would have in the next fiscal year. He says his budget includes more money for education, and that the surplus has to be applied to other needs, such as transportation, and health and social service programs.

Transportation. Both the current governor and his predecessor diverted Prop. 42 money--revenue from a voter approved increase in the state’s gasoline tax to fund transportation projects. A total of $3.5 billion has been borrowed to date, resulting in the delay of highway and transit projects across the state--and earning the state the dubious honor of being home to 5 of the 10 worst regions in the country for substandard roads.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan for the surplus includes returning $1.3 billion to the transportation account, repaying cities and counties $600 million of the $1.2 billion owed to them from 2003 (when they didn’t receive their full share from the Vehicle License Fee), restoring some cuts proposed in his January budget (such as increasing the rates the state pays some health providers to treat the poor and reinstating the grants that assist senior citizens to pay their rent or property taxes), and applying the rest to paying down the state’s debt.

Taxes. Democrats are proposing to restore the Reagan-Wilson tax brackets of 10% and 11% for the state’s highest income earners. (Under this plan, single taxpayers earning $143,000 to $285,000 and married couples with taxable incomes of $285,000 - $569,999 would pay at the 10% rate. The 11% rate would apply to single taxpayers earning above $285,000 and to married couples earning more than $570,000.) The increased revenues would fund education, transportation, and restore funding to some health and social welfare programs. (The Democratic plan, for example, rejects reducing the salaries of home health care workers to the minimum wage level. It also provides the same tax relief for senior citizens that the Governor is proposing in his revised budget.)

Next step. The Constitutional deadline for approving the state budget is July 1--a deadline that has been met only 7 times in the last 25 years. (The budget has been approved on time 4 times and early 3 times. The longest period without a state budget occurred in 2003, when the document was finally approved on September 5--67 days past the start of the fiscal year.)

2. President Bush names California Congressman to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. Representative Christopher Cox (R - Newport Beach), 52, is in his ninth term in the lower house, and is characterized by his colleagues as having a cool intellect and a low-key, methodical style. Cox’s past experience includes a stint as Senior Associate Counsel in the Reagan White House (1986-88) and service as a securities lawyer. Cox describes himself as fiscally conservative. Friends and foes alike are fond of recounting the time he left his hospital bed following an appendectomy so that he could vote for a tax cut measure.

Reaction to the appointment was mixed, but appeared to be more positive than negative. Supporters champion Cox as a defender of America’s free enterprise system, while detractors worry that his rigid pro-business stands will result in a rolling back of regulations and consumer protections put into place after the collapse of Enron.

Both characterizations of the man have basis in fact: Backers point to Cox’s support of the tough new regulatory measures passed by Congress at the height of the Enron debacle. Critics counter that Cox also led the successful effort to override President Clinton’s veto of a law that enacted limits on securities fraud lawsuits.

Cox’s appointment requires Senate approval, which is anticipated. Governor Schwarzenegger will then set dates for the special election primary to fill the remainder of Cox’s Congressional term.

3. Important legislative deadline. Friday, June 3 was the deadline by which same house bills must pass their house of origin. Legislative Update delayed its scheduled hiatus in order to report on some of the key bills that met (or failed to meet) this significant deadline. The next issue will be published in July.

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *

Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

SB 522 (Torlakson) Vending Machines on State Property: Nutritional Content of Products Offered

As most recently amended, this bill seeks to require that by December 31, 2006, 25% of the products offered in vending machines located on state property--including the California State University--meet specified nutritional guidelines. By December 31, 2007, the percentage would increase to 50%.

The bill provides for an extension of the 50% deadline to December 31, 2009, if a survey of customers typically using the vending machines demonstrates that a majority would prefer that less than 50 percent of the food and beverages offered in the vending machines meet accepted nutritional guidelines.

Status: PASSED [6 - 3] by the Senate Committee on Governmental Organization, May 23. However, the author placed his bill in the inactive file on May 26--making it a two-year bill.

[Note: CSU has discussed two amendments with the author to allow for more flexibility in implementing it: (1) The phase-in should be lengthened. Three years rather than one year would be the more realistic timeframe to reach the 25% threshold; and (2) the percentage should apply to the site of the vending machines than to the individual machines. Vending machines are usually clustered, with one providing all fruit, another candy, and still another coffee or cold drinks. To apply the 25% to each machine is impractical and too restrictive.]

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill seeks to change the funding mechanism for the state’s public community colleges from one that is program-based (the K-12 model) to one based on numbers of full-time-equivalent students (FTEs), the UC and CSU model.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [44 -22] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

Existing law authorizes the CSU, until January 1, 2010, to establish an African American Political and Economic Institute at CSU, Dominguez Hills. Existing law also expresses legislative intent that the institute be funded by grants and contributions from private sources. Use of General Fund and Lottery monies, student fee revenues and other state resources, to support the institute is strictly prohibited. Existing law additionally specifies that if any state monies are utilized, they are to be fully reimbursed by the institute from grants or private sources.

This bill would authorize the redirection of state funds to support the Institute, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act for that purpose.

Status: PASSED [48 - 30] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 31.

This bill seeks to repeal the existing higher education accountability program. It would establish instead a statewide California Postsecondary Education Accountability structure that would assess the progress made by the state’s system of postsecondary education in meeting policy goals related to educational opportunity, participation student success, public benefits, and efficiency.

The bill would additionally require the California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC], in consultation with the segments of higher education, to develop and implement a system of accountability for postsecondary educational institutions that would measure specified outcomes.

Finally, the CSU and the California Community Colleges would be required, and the UC and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities would be urged, to provide biennial reports to the Legislature, CPEC, and the Governor by October 1 of each even-numbered year, commencing in 2006. These reports would become part of the state accountability record.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [52 - 26] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1.

This bill would implement state Treasurer Phil Angelides’ proposal for selling unneeded state property and depositing the proceeds into a trust, the revenue from which would be used to improve access to California’s public universities and colleges.

Status: PASSED [8 - 1] by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, April 12. [Note: The sole nay vote was cast by Assembly Member Bill Maze (R - Visalia).] PASSED [5 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25. [Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

FAILED PASSAGE [47 - 32] in the Assembly, May 31. (A 2/3 vote was required. The bill was subsequently amended to delete reference to the Endowment Fund being “a continuously appropriated fund,” which removed the requirement for a 2/3 vote. As amended, the bill makes the Fund “subject to appropriation by the Legislature.”) The second Floor vote resulted in PASSAGE [46 - 31], and the bill was sent forward to the Senate.

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

This bill adds language to the Education Code that CSU employees be free to report on improper governmental activities to a designated CSU administrator with the same shield to identity protection and confidentiality that is afforded to those disclosing improprieties to the State Auditor.

Status: PASSED [78 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 2.

This bill, sponsored by the California State Employees Association, also relates to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, as it applies to the CSU. This bill would require the CSU to employ an independent investigator on all complaints.

[Note: A previous bill with this provision (AB 2637 - Diaz) passed the Legislature last year but was subsequently vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor stated, “The existing statutory and CSU Executive Order frameworks provide adequate protection for those that believe they have been retaliated against for having reported improper activities. It is unclear how requiring CSU to employ an external investigator will provide a better process.”]

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 6. PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [44 - 34] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In all 3 cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

This bill prohibits a state agency--including the CSU--from employing a primary care physician as an independent contractor when there is an unfilled, full-time primary care position available within the state agency, unless the state agency is unable to do so after a good faith effort.

As amended on May 27, the bill would not preclude a state agency from contracting for a physician on a temporary basis or in instances where an agency is unable to recruit a full-time physician.

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 6. PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [47 - 32] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1. [Note: In all 3 cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

This bill seeks to require the CSU and the California Community Colleges, and to request the UC, in collaboration with campus and community-based victim advocacy organizations, to provide, as part of established campus orientations, educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Campuses without existing orientation programs would be required to post on their website educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Status: PASSED [48 - 30] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 1.

This bill authorizes the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the CSU, to award grants to establish baccalaureate degree completion projects in rural counties. The bill requires the participating community college district and the participating CSU campus to jointly plan the new baccalaureate degree completion project, identify the resources necessary to offer the program over a 2-year period, and agree upon expected outcomes.

As most recently amended, the collaborative effort would have to take place in communities in which community colleges and CSU campuses are at least 50 miles apart.

If the bill is signed into law, the community colleges would be authorized to provide the classrooms and the CSU to furnish instructors and award bachelor’s degrees.

Status: PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 5; PASSED [18 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; and PASSED [72 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 27.

This bill would authorize the UC and the CSU to consider race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, geographic origin, and household income, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, so long as no preference is given when the university or other entity is attempting to obtain educational benefit through the recruitment of a multi-factored diverse student body.

Status: PASSED [5 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 5; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25; PASSED [48 - 28] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, June 2. [Note: The sole no vote in the Higher Education Committee was cast by Assembly Member Tim Leslie, the only Republican voting. The Appropriations Committee and Assembly Floor votes were similarly partisan, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

It is common practice throughout the country (and in California for private institutions) to offer benefits and services through affinity partnerships with commercial vendors to graduates and alumni members as a means of maintaining their connection to the University. A significant portion of alumni association revenues is generated through affinity programs.

SB 569 would amend the law to allow the UC and CSU alumni associations to implement affinity programs using student and alumni information consistent with private colleges and universities in California. The bill is co-sponsored by the UC and the CSU.

To address legislators’ concerns over privacy, the bill was amended to require the university campuses to notify alumni regarding their right to “opt out” (and not have their name and contact information shared with any third party).

The bill also now contains a sunset clause: Its provisions would be repealed as of January 1, 2011. The five-year period is intended to give the universities sufficient time to prove that an opt-out program can be successful.

Status: PASSED [36 - 4] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, June 2. [Note: The 4 nay votes were cast by Senators Sam Aanestad (R - Grass Valley), Roy Ashburn (R - Bakersfield), Debra Bowen (D - Marina del Rey), and Jackie Speier (D - San Francisco).]

This bill would establish a pilot program to monitor the academic progress of student athletes on 6 CSU campuses selected by the Trustees, commencing in 2006-07. The pilot program would include a maximum of 2 varsity sports teams per participating campus.

The Trustees would be required to report the results of the tracking, along with any findings and recommendations, to the Legislature on July 1, 2011.

The bill would require the Trustees to fund the pilot program with a combination of general purpose revenues, alumni donations, and the proceeds of any campus fees that the students on a participating campus may authorize for this purpose.

Status: PASSED [8 - 5] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26; PASSED [25 - 13] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 31. [Note: In both cases, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

As most recently amended, this bill would authorize the CSU to award in selected professional fields [physical therapy, audiology, education] the doctoral degree, but not the degree of doctor of philosophy, except as that degree would be awarded jointly with the University of California or with one or more independent institutions of higher education.

The bill would also prohibit the California State University from awarding doctoral degrees in law, medicine, dentistry, or veterinary medicine. The bill would require any proposals for new doctoral programs at the California State University to be reviewed, and approved, revised, or rejected, by the trustees in accordance with prescribed criteria.

Status: PASSED [34 - 3] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 31. [Note: The 3 nay votes were cast by Senators Elaine Alquist (D - Santa Clara), John Campbell (R - Irvine), and Tom McClintock (R - Thousands Oaks).]

As initially written, this bill sought to prohibit any state agency--including the University of California and the California State University--that accepts credit or debit cards, from charging a processing fee for the use of the card, that isn’t also imposed on those paying by cash or check.

As amended on May 31, the bill now specifically applies the prohibition only to the UC, CSU--and now the Community Colleges as well.

Status: PASSED [11 - 2] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26; PASSED [26 - 11] by the Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, June 1. [Note: The vote in both cases was bipartisan.]

[Note: Both the UC and the CSU oppose this bill. If campuses are prohibited from charging a transaction fee for credit card payments, they may stop accepting payments by credit card because they cannot absorb the cost of the credit card fees. For CSU, the estimated cost to the system would be $7 million.]

1. The May Revise is released with mixed results. The document, which comprises the Governor’s January budget revised to reflect expenditures and revenue as of the end of the third quarter, was issued on May 13. The usual cacophony of screams was muted for some groups who fared better than they anticipated, and sharper for those that didn’t.

An improving economy brought nearly $4 billion extra dollars into the state’s coffers, cushioning the blow against deeper cuts. Public higher education was relieved to see the Compact Agreements the Governor made last year with the UC and CSU remain intact. In keeping with the Agreement, the Governor proposed to augment CSU’s budget by $212 million--the first increase in three years, a period of time that has seen the system’s budget shrink by some $524 million.

The increase will fund an additional 10,000 new students at CSU campuses, beginning next fall; fund an additional 2,700 State University Grants; and provide for a 3.5% salary increase for CSU employees, who have had no increases in the past three years. Given the ever escalating cost of living and especially of housing, static salaries have made recruitment of faculty exceeding difficult for both the UC and the CSU.

The Governor also provided the CSU with a $250,000 budget augmentation to help increase the number of students seeking a math or science teaching credential.

K-12 Education was disappointed and angry that the Governor did not use the additional dollars to repay at least part of the $2 billion in Prop. 98 money that the Education Coalition agreed to suspend last year to help the Governor with the budget deficit. Other groups, whose expectations also included restored or additional funds, were similarly unhappy with the Governor’s revised budget, which directed the bulk of the new revenues toward transportation and paying down the state’s debt. Earlier this week, the Sacramento Bee reported that “busloads of teachers, nurses, firefighters, prison guards and other union members [gathered at the Capitol] on a searing afternoon for a protest that ranked among the largest in recent years.”

Over the next two weeks, the Budget Dance will begin, with lobbyists and groups of interest, bobbing and weaving with budget committee members over which areas of the budget should be reduced so that their programs can be protected. The perennial question is whether the Legislature and Governor will meet their respective Constitutional deadlines for passing and adopting the 2005-06 state budget.

2. So how is the state government doing? Results of a survey conducted earlier this month by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reveal significant drops in public approval of the way in which Governor Schwarzenegger is handling his job: from 64% a year ago to 60% in January to 40% currently. The Legislature fares even worse. Only 26% of those polled believe legislators earn their salaries.

Other interesting results: The Governor may want to rethink his belief that a Special Election to accomplish his government reforms is supported by a majority of the people. According to the PPIC survey, 62% favor waiting until the next regularly scheduled election (June 2006) to decide on the Governor’s proposals. The drop in support crosses party lines: Since last January, Democratic support for a Special Election has dropped from 34% to 24%. Republican support has fallen from 58% to 46%, and among independents, the decline has been 47% to 37%.

The answer to the question of who should make the tough decisions about the budget and government reforms is perhaps the most revealing of the public’s view of the Legislature and the Governor: 72% responded that the voters should. Only 25% felt the responsibility would be best handled by the Legislature and Governor.

Finally, how would the public spend the close to $4 billion in extra revenue? Seventy-six percent would support K-12 education; 70% would choose reducing the state debt; and 53% would put more money back into transportation. Party preferences did surface with this question. Democrats and independents both favored education as their top priority (85% and 80% respectively), while Republicans supported reducing the state debt (78%).

3. Los Angeles has a new mayor. Is anyone still awake? In a city of 3.9 million people, 1.5 million of whom are registered to vote, just 448,857--or 30.55%--actually showed up at the polls to vote. Since only 26% voted in the March 8 Municipal Election, this slight improvement may be cause for celebration.

Part of the reason for the low turn-out may be Election Overload. The May 17 run-off was the third election vying for voter attention in 7 months. Since the Mayor-elect, Antonio Villaraigosa will be leaving his City Council seat, yet another election must be held to fill the remaining two years of his term. Governor Schwarzenegger has been threatening daily to call a special election for next November, which will be followed by the regularly scheduled Primary Election the following June. There doesn’t appear to be any end in sight. The elections keep coming, but unlike the mythical baseball field constructed in the middle of a corn field (“build it and they will come”), the voters aren’t coming. But the candidates are: Jose Huizar, president of the LAUSD School Board and former City Council Member Nick Pacheco (who was denied a second term when he was beaten by the Mayor-elect) are circling around the newly vacant City Council seat. Senator Gil Cedillo had also initially expressed some interest in running, but has since said he will stay with his state Senate seat.

Shortly after his victory was confirmed, Villaraigosa began a tour of the City, running on joy and enthusiasm, and the adrenalin those emotions generated. It was said that in two days he had had only 3 hours of sleep. One wonders when he finally did rest, if he awoke to the nightmare of actually being the Mayor of this City. Both candidates promised an impressive list of achievements if elected--roads paved, 1000 new police officers hired, L.A. schools fixed, and the inevitable, no new taxes.

It’s the area of transportation where the most ambitious plans were announced. Mayor-outbound Jim Hahn talked about adding 450 left-hand turn lanes and synchronizing signals throughout the City. Mayor-inbound Antonio Villaraigosa spoke of extending the Red Line north above the ground, from North Hollywood to the Sylmar Metrolink station, in order to improve access to Santa Clarita; and extending the Red Line south by subway to Santa Monica. Both men supported construction of a “people-mover” to link Los Angeles Airport with the Green Line.

The Green Line could be a metaphor for the City. Planned to serve the airport, the light rail service actually stops about one-and-a-half miles from the airport terminals.

According to the Los Angeles Almanac, the first person to serve as Mayor of the City of Los Angeles was Cristobal Aguilar, a 18-year-old Indian, appointed in 1786 to oversee the town. The population was about 100. Those were the good old days.

4. One more initiative is certified for the next statewide election; 6 more are in the process of signature verification. The qualifying initiative is a Constitutional Amendment, seeking to require parental notification on abortions for minors. Of the 6 in-process measures--all of which are expected to be verified--3 are backed by Governor Schwarzenegger. They include measures that would (1) lengthen the time-to-tenure for public school teachers from 2 to 5 years; (2) curb state spending and give the Governor budget-cutting authority; and (3) take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges. (This last measure calls for an immediate redrawing of district boundaries upon approval of the electorate.)

Two of the in-process measures are backed by the Legislature and include a measure to lower prescription drug prices and another to re-regulate the energy industry. (Both of these measures were contained in bills passed by the Legislature, but vetoed by the Governor last year.)

The last in-process measure was filed by Lewis Uhler, President of the National Tax-Limitation Committee, and seeks to prohibit public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless prior consent from the members is provided. The measure would require members to give consent annually on a specified written form.

5.       Initiative watch. As of May 26:
·           7 initiatives are pending approval from the Attorney General’s Office
·         62 initiatives are in circulation, gathering signatures
·           7 initiatives are pending signature verification
·           3 initiatives have been approved for the following ballots:
--June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot: A $600 million Library Bond measure
--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: A $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure
--Special Election Ballot, November 2005 (if called by the Governor) or June 6, 2006 Primary Election Ballot:   A Constitutional Amendment relating to a waiting period and parental notification prior to termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

6. Legislative Update goes on hiatus. The newsletter will be on vacation for the month of June, and will be back in July--when the Legislators and the Governor will likely still be clucking and picking over the state budget like so many chickens over grain. Enjoy the summer, folks!

* NEW LEGISLATION OF INTEREST *

Note: Bills must be in print for 30 days before a committee may hear them.

Redefines “final compensation” to mean the highest annual compensation earnable by the PERS member during a consecutive 36-month period immediately preceding the date of retirement. [Currently, the term is defined as any 12-month period the member selects.]

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 882, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Provides that any amendment to existing formulas, and new retirement formulas, shall only apply to service performed by the member on and after January 1, 2006. The bill also provides that for contracts or amendments of contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2006, specified retirement formulas would apply only to service rendered on and after the effective date of the contract or the contract amendment.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 884, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Requires PERS and the retirement boards of city, county, city and county, and district retirement systems to create hybrid retirement programs for public employees hired on or after January 1, 2006. The hybrid would contain a defined benefit plan funded by employer contributions and a defined contribution plan funded by employee contributions.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 888, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

Amends the Public Employees’ Retirement law that prescribes the retirement formulas applicable to specified members of PERS. Under this law, the benefit formula for specified local miscellaneous members, school members, state miscellaneous or industrial members, or university members, is 2% at age 55, and for other local miscellaneous members is 3% at age 60.

Specifically, this bill would provide that all employees hired after January 1, 2006 would be subject to a 2% at 60 retirement benefit formula.

Status: Introduced May 19 and referred to the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, where it FAILED Passage [2 - 2] on May 23. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no rehearing date has been established yet. [Note: This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session on the Budget, is identical to SB 883, which was heard on May 9 and remains in the same committee.]

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill would authorize the redirection of state funds to support the Institute, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act for that purpose.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 25.

Existing law prescribes the holidays--among them, Veterans Day--in this state for state agencies, public schools and the community colleges. Existing law authorizes the CSU Trustees to provide, by rule, for the holidays to be observed by CSU employees.

In the case of seven of these holidays, the Trustees are permitted to reschedule observance of the holiday to another day consistent with the needs of the campus or systemwide offices. Veterans Day is one of the holidays in this category.

This bill would remove Veterans Day from this category and require each CSU campus to observe it as a holiday by closing on that day--except when the holiday falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, when it would then be observed on the preceding Friday or on the following Monday, respectively.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [17 - 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 4. PASSED [76 - 0] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 16.

Under existing law, local law enforcement is exempted from the prohibition against wiretapping, eavesdropping, and monitoring cordless or cellular phone transmissions, under specified conditions. AB 992 would add the campus police departments at UC and CSU campuses to this exemption.

This bill is co-sponsored by the UC and CSU systems, which believe that the authority is essential to the campus police departments in conducting investigations for such offenses as date rape and acquaintance abuse incidents.

Status: PASSED [65 - 3] by the Assembly and sent forward to the Senate, May 19. [Note: Assembly Members Mervyn Dymally (D - Compton), Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles) and Leland Yee (D - San Francisco), cast the 3 nay votes.]

Campuses without existing orientation programs, would be required to provide written material providing educational and preventive information about sexual violence to all incoming students.

Status: PASSED [5 - 2] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee, April 19; PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 15. [Note: In both committees, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

To address legislators’ concerns over privacy, the bill was amended on April 18 to require the university campuses to notify alumni regarding their right to “opt out” (and not have their name and contact information shared with any third party).

Status: Senate Rule 28.8 was invoked on May 25 (which provides that bills that don’t appropriate money may go directly to the Floor for a vote). SB 569 will likely go to the Floor next week, where it is anticipated it will pass and be sent forward to the Assembly.

Status: PASSED [12 - 0] by the Senate Appropriations Committee, May 26. The bill will go to a Floor vote next week, where it is expected to pass, and then be sent to the Assembly for action.

This bill would require an agency [including the CSU], person or business conducting business in California that possesses any data that includes the personal information of a California resident, to notify the resident of any breach of the security of the data.

As amended on April 18, the bill prescribes that a request by a law enforcement agency to delay notification must be in writing.

Status: PASSED [5 -2] by the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 19; PASSED [7 - 3] by the Senate Appropriations committee, May 16; and PASSED [25 - 13] by the full Senate and sent forward to the Assembly, May 26.

This bill, introduced in the Special Legislative Session, would establish defined contributions and hybrid plans for public employees hired on or after July 1, 2007.

This legislation corrects a problem in the author’s earlier bill, until recently supported by the Governor, to specifically provide death benefits to widows of firefighters and police officers killed in the line of duty.

The bill additionally specifies that contributions to the plans shall be shared equally by the employer and employees. [Currently, the total CalPERS contribution rate for miscellaneous members--which include state university and college employees--is 22%, with employees paying 5% and the State paying 17%. Language in the Governor’s Budget, proposed for 2005-06, which would apply to current employees, specifies that the contribution of the employees and the state each be 11%.]

Finally, the measure contains numerous provisions clarifying and specifying eligibility requirements for disability retirement benefits for local and state employees who are injured in the performance of their jobs.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on the Public Sector, May 25. The author did not request reconsideration.

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment would establish the California Public Employee Defined Contribution and Hybrid Plans, subject to approval by voters. The measure provides that any person hired by a public agency shall enroll only in a hybrid plan or in a defined contribution plan of a public pension or retirement system, and is prohibited from enrolling in a defined benefit plan.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on the Public Sector, May 25. The author did not request reconsideration.

1. U.S. Supreme Court to tackle issue of military recruiters on college campuses. This issue has been simmering in controversy for a decade-and-a half, gaining in intensity when the "don't ask, don't tell" personnel policy was established, with respect to gays in the military. Universities began barring military recruiters from their campuses to show support for gay rights. In 1994, Congress responded by approving the Solomon Amendment, which required withholding federal funds from any college or university that barred military recruiters. The Solomon Amendment was modified a few years later to exempt federal student financial aid funds from the funds withheld. For research institutions, however, the threat of losing grant money was a powerful incentive to allow recruiters back onto the campuses.

Last year a coalition of law schools across the country filed a lawsuit alleging that the Solomon Amendment worked to promote the military's message of disapproval of homosexuality, which was antithetical to the schools' commitment to nondiscrimination. The measure, in effect, required agreement with the message or the consequence of losing federal funds--and thus constituted a violation of the schools' First Amendment rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed and issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the Solomon Amendment. However, the Court granted a stay of its order to allow the Bush Administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will be heard in the fall, and a decision is expected by June 2006.

2. Governor appoints Riordan successor. Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Alan Bersin, the controversial San Diego Superintendent of Schools, as his new Secretary of Education. The Governor also appointed Bersin to the state Board of Education, which will give him greater influence in the education arena than Richard Riordan, who did not enjoy a dual appointment.

Bersin was a federal prosecutor when he left that position in 1998 to head the San Diego schools. His five-year tenure in the job--he agreed to leave at the end of June, one year before his contract was set to expire--produced both controversy and results, the latter either constructive or disastrous, depending on who’s doing the talking.

Supporters, which include school administrators and some school board members, say that Bersin’s initiative, “Blueprint for Student Success,” substantively addressed academic deficiencies in the San Diego schools. By expanding and intensifying tutoring and other programs to help underperforming students, he significantly reduced the gap in learning and achievement among the different ethnic groups.

Teachers, on the other hand, criticized Bersin’s autocratic style, which they say included retaliatory actions against anyone disagreeing with him.

In the press conference where Governor Schwarzenegger announced Bersin’s appointment, Bersin said that he and the Governor are in agreement on what the education reform should encompass: “Getting the state’s fiscal house in order while demanding accountability from local school administrators; developing teachers with greater skill and knowledge; providing more intense instruction for students who need greater attention; and pursuing greater parental involvement in their children’s education.”

Bersin, 58, is a Democrat who worked in the Clinton Administration. According to an account in the Los Angeles Times, Bersin worked for former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, overseeing California/Mexico border issues--which the Times reports “earned him the moniker ‘border czar.’”

Bersin will start work at the end of June, when Secretary Riordan is slated to leave office. The appointment does not require Senate confirmation.

3. Rocky Young appointed Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District. After Young was passed over in his bid to become president at Santa Monica City College in 1995, he left that institution to assume the presidency at troubled Pierce College in Woodland Hills. Once the jewel in the LACCD crown, the campus had suffered through a revolving door of interim and short-lived presidents, declining enrollments, increasing debt, and a decaying physical plant that gave the campus the look of an abandoned town. Young transformed the college, revitalizing its capital outlay program and its instructional program; and built back its enrollment from 12,000 to 18,000 students.

In 2003, Young was promoted to Interim Senior Vice Chancellor of the LACCD. He faced two sitting chancellors, in vying for the top post: Stan Arterberry, Chancellor of the West Valley-Mission Community College district in Santa Clara County; and an out-of-state candidate, Irving McPhail, Chancellor of the Community College of Baltimore County in Maryland.

The Los Angeles Community College District is the largest in California and one of the largest in the nation. It comprises 9 colleges, has a total enrollment approaching 130,000 students, and a general fund budget of about $428 million.

4. Secretary of State releases “Odd-Numbered Year Report” of voter registration. As of February 10, party registration breaks down as follows:

[*Other includes these parties, in descending order of largest number of members: Green, American Independent Party, Peace & Freedom, Libertarian, and Natural Law]

The following trends were reported, since the last report two years ago [February 10, 2003]:

Total registration has increased from 15,168,263 to 16,628,673.
The percentage number of total registered voters compared to eligible voters has also increased, from 70.3% to 73.9%.
The number of voters who have “Declined to State” their political party continues to increase: Over the last two years, from 15.3% to 17.9%.
The percentage registration in the Democratic Party declined from 44.4% to 43.0%.
The percentage registration in the Republican Party declined from 35.2% to 34.5%.

What we can glean from these numbers is that Declined to State may be the power party of the future.

5.       Initiative watch. As of May 5:
·           4 initiatives are pending approval from the Attorney General’s Office
·         68 initiatives are in circulation, gathering signatures
·           1 initiative is pending signature verification
·           2 initiatives have been approved for the following ballots:
--June 6, 2006 Primary Ballot: A $600 million Library Bond measure
--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: a $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure

6. Dealing with perpetual students, Texas-style. The Texas state Senate recently approved a bill that would allow public universities in that state to charge out-of-state tuition rates to students who have accumulated 30 units of coursework beyond what is required for graduation. The bill will be considered next by the Texas House of Representatives.

* STATUS OF PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED LEGISLATION *

This bill would establish the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.

Status: PASSED [43 - 34] by the Assembly, and sent forward to the Senate, April 28. [Note: As with the Assembly Education and Appropriations Committees, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill. AB 13 passed through the Assembly with nearly the same division of votes as the author’s previous bill from last year. If the déjà vu prevails, the bill will trundle through the Senate as well, and then end up being skewered again by the Governor’s veto pen.]

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

Adds language to the Education Code that CSU employees be free to report on improper governmental activities to a designated CSU administrator with the same shield to identity protection and confidentiality that is afforded to those disclosing improprieties to the State Auditor.

Status: PASSED [17- 0] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee and put on the Assembly Consent Calendar, May 4.

Status: PASSED [4 - 2] by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19.
PASSED [16 - 1] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 11.
[Note: Assembly Member Leland Yee (D - San Francisco) cast the sole nay vote.]

As initially written, this Assembly Concurrent Resolution declared that current space utilization standards are obsolete and no longer relevant to the actual space needs of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

The Resolution proposed that the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) establish a limited set of contemporary space allocation policies for the three systems, based on national research, actual use patterns, and best practices. It further specified that these policies be used as guidelines, with the flexibility provided for institutions to plan and operate physical facilities in ways that are both cost-effective and student-centered.

As amended on April 28, this Resolution instead recommends that the space planning and utilization standards included in a 1990 CPEC report be used as the guidelines for the physical facilities development for the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges.

As amended, the Resolution also recommends that the three systems each provide a biennial report to the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst, and CPEC on the utilization of classrooms and teaching laboratories.

Finally, as amended, the measure recommends that CPEC establish and maintain a Space Planning Work Group to remain apprised of future developments in this area, and to inform legislative deliberations on planning issues for public higher education facilities.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Ed Committee and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 3.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution urges each CSU campus to provide a detailed accounting of budget allocations and expenditures of state General Fund monies in specified budget categories. It also urges the CSU to annually provide this information to the public upon request.

As amended on May 10, Assembly Member Judy Chu is the listed author of the bill, and Assembly Member Montanez is now the principal co-author.

In addition, the measure was amended to request each CSU campus to report on per student spending and costs by level of instruction: lower division, upper division and graduate level. The reports would be required annually, by April 1 of each year, to be sent to the Legislative Analyst and to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature.

Status: PASSED [5 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, May 3. [Note: Assembly Member Roger Niello (R - Fair Oaks) cast the single “no” vote.]

This bill would eliminate the existing California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) and its functions and responsibilities, and replace it with the Commission on Statewide Postsecondary Education Policy and Planning. The new commission would be required to develop and regularly assess a statewide public agenda for higher education, and be empowered to participate in the executive and legislative budget processes in an advisory capacity. It would have specified functions and duties as the statewide higher education policy and planning agency.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [5 - 4] in the Senate Education Committee, April 28. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but no hearing date has been established yet. [Note: Assembly Member Carol Liu has a similar bill, AB 1072, which has been amended twice, but which remains in the Assembly Higher Education Committee (which she chairs). No hearing date has been established for her bill either. Many legislators are dissatisfied with CPEC, how it functions, its responsiveness, and its composition. There is no agreement, however, on if it should be replaced, or how a new panel ought to be structured and function.]

As initially written, this bill expressed the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require the CSU to offer 12-month, instead of 9-month, scholarships to its student athletes, and to offer an additional 12-month scholarship to a student athlete who has exhausted his or her athletic eligibility, but is within 20 semester units, or the equivalent number of quarter units, of qualifying for graduation.

As amended on April 6, the bill instead would establish a pilot program to monitor the academic progress of student athletes on 6 CSU campuses selected by the Trustees, commencing in 2006-07. The pilot program would include a maximum of 2 varsity sports teams per participating campus.

The Trustees would be required to report the results of the tracking, along with any findings and recommendations, to the Legislature on July 1, 2011.

Status: PASSED [8 - 2] by the Senate Education Committee and sent forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee, April 28.

This bill seeks to give colleges and universities the ability to authorize and oversee charter schools.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [6 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, April 27. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, and a subsequent vote was taken the following day. The bill again FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 6]. The bill is officially dead.

[Note: Two similar bills, one in 2003 and one in 2004, both authored by former Assembly Member Patricia Bates (R - Laguna Niguel) failed passage in the Assembly.]

1. Governor Schwarzenegger appoints Valley charter school principal to state Board of Education. Yvonne Chan, principal of the nationally acclaimed Vaughn Next Century Learning Center in Pacoima, was appointed to fill one of the two vacancies on the Board. The school has continued to expand since gaining charter status in 1993. A pre-school was added in 2000, and middle school grades in 2001. An International Studies Academy High School will open in 2006. Chan earned her Master's degree at CSUN, and is a former adjunct professor in the University's Special Education Department. She is currently an adjunct professor at UCLA, and also serves as Mayor Hahn's appointee on the Los Angeles City Commission for Children Youth and Families.

The Governor visited Chan's school in late January and made no secret of his admiration for the campus and for charter schools in general. The campus is no stranger to political notables. During the Clinton Administration, both the former President and First Lady Hilary Clinton, individually, visited the school. Former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin was another visitor.

2. The Eli and Edythe Broad and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations fund new education website, “SchoolMatters.” The website is a service of Standard & Poor’s, provided by the National Education Data Partnership, which was created to “help transform the way education information is used by educators, policymakers, superintendents and parents.” The Partnership includes the Council of Chief State School Officers; Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services; Achieve, Inc.; and the CELT Corporation.

The data offered on the website is intended to provide tools and benchmarks for use by educators and policymakers in discussing, evaluating and comparing information to improve the quality of the nation’s schools. Since the data is collected by Standard & Poor’s, the website contains a cautionary message that the information is designed to help “education stakeholders understand the complexities surrounding public education,” and not intended as a vehicle to rank or rate individual schools or school districts.

The website lists 43 staff members at Standard & Poor’s who are involved with SchoolMatters.

Reaction to the new education data service has been mixed. A Pennsylvania school district president is quoted on the website as saying, “As a new board president, I could not imagine overseeing any $40 million operation with the analysis the S and P service provides….. It would be like managing in the dark.”

David Tokofsky, member of the LAUSD Board of Education, expressed lukewarm support in Education Beat, a newsletter devoted to K-University issues: “It’s a great idea to have this whole system. Some of this will take 5 to 20 years to be insightful, but it’s got to start somewhere. [However,] firms like Standard and Poor’s might not understand the challenges of public schools.”

3. Actor, director, activist--and some say possible gubernatorial candidate--Rob Reiner has introduced a new controversial proposal to provide statewide preschool programs for all 4-year-olds. The funding mechanism is an increase in the state income tax for the state’s wealthiest residents: from 9.3% to 11% for individuals making more than $400,000 and couples making twice that amount. Reiner’s earlier proposals have also relied on the revenues from increasing taxes. In 1998, he proposed a successful ballot initiative (Prop. 10) that raised taxes on cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, to fund healthcare services for children and anti-smoking education programs.

Last year, he launched his “Improving Classroom Education Act,” an initiative designed to bring additional funding to the state’s public schools and to lower class size. A split-roll property tax, where commercial property would be taxed at a higher rate than residential, was the funding mechanism. The California Teachers Association (CTA) was a key backer in this effort, which was later abandoned due to the intense opposition of business advocacy groups throughout the state.

Reiner’s current initiative, entitled the “Preschool for All Act,” is supported by a coalition of business leaders, educators and law enforcement officials. Former Mayor Riordan’s wife, Nancy, is also an active supporter. According to the Sacramento Bee, the Governor does not have a position on the initiative--yet.

The business community in general has adopted a wait-and-see stance, but appears less hostile to this proposal than to Reiner’s earlier ones. CTA has maintained a curious silence on it. Not surprisingly, the California Taxpayers’ Association is vocally opposed to it. In an editorial headlined, “The Preschool-Tax Folly,” the Los Angeles Times also urged opposition. The paper cited the value of preschool, but soundly rejected “tying the state budget into more knots” to provide it. “The last thing California needs right now is to raise another huge sum of money…that can’t be used to close existing gaps.”

The tax increase is estimated to generate $2.3 billion annually, with the revenue dedicated to providing for the preschools, training the teachers who work in them, and for constructing new facilities. Citing research conducted by the Rand Corporation, Reiner says that quality preschool programs can provide a solid foundation for a child’s success in later grades, reducing the need for remediation and improving high school graduation rates.

The Rand study, released in late March, reports the following key finding on its website:

“A one-year, universal, high-quality preschool program in California would, for a $4,300-per-child cost beyond current public preschool spending in the state, generate $11,400 in benefits per child for California society, a net benefit of over $7,000 per child, or $2.62 for every dollar expended under the baseline assumptions of the research.”

To determine costs and benefits, the Rand researchers assumed that the “universal preschool program would meet nationally recognized standards for class sizes, staff ratios, staff qualifications…, and would be a part-day, voluntary program that would enroll 70 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds.”

4. Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) reintroduced. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D - NY) has introduced House Joint Resolution 37, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States stating that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The bill, which has 168 co-sponsors, was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Thirty-two members of the 53-Member California House Delegation--all Democrats--signed on as co-authors. None of the 20 Republicans chose to co-author the measure. [One House seat was vacant at the time HJR 37 was introduced.]

The ERA has a long history. It was first introduced in 1923. It was finally passed by Congress in 1972, but was three states short of ratification by the established ten-year deadline (June 30, 1982), so never became law.

The American Association of University Women reported on the results of a recent poll in its current Action Alert newsletter, indicating that while “88% of Americans believe men and women should have equal rights guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution,” 72% of those polled “mistakenly believe that the Constitution already grants men and women these equal protections.”

5. The latest Census Bureau update notes that the nation’s population is increasingly shifting to the Sun Belt. Three states--California, Florida and Texas--will account for nearly half of the population growth in the U.S. over the next 25 years. California ranks first in population, followed by Texas, and New York, but Florida is expected to overtake New York by 2011 to occupy third place.

The concentration of people in these three states presents problems normally associated with large populations--stress on housing, transportation and the environment. But it also poses another significant issue: Increasing influence in the U.S. House of Representatives. The three states combined already occupy 25% of all seats in the House.

For more detailed information (including tables), please access the U.S. Census Bureau website at:

--November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot: a $9.95 billion High Speed Train Bond measure

This Assembly Constitutional Amendment seeks to authorize 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the next General Election, to register and vote in that election.

This Assembly Concurrent Resolution proclaims May 11, 2005 as the Day of the Teacher and urges all Californians to observe it.

This Assembly Concurrent resolution urges each CSU campus to provide a detailed accounting of budget allocations and expenditures of state General Fund monies in specified budget categories. It also urges the CSU to annually provide this information to the public upon request.

[Note: Assembly Member Montanez authored a bill, AB 1185, with similar content in 2003. While it passed Assembly (45 - 24), it subsequently died in the Senate Education Committee, when it was placed on Suspense and never brought up for a vote.]

This Senate Joint Resolution urges Congress and the President to adopt the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 that institutes a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.

Establishes the Racial Mascots Act, which would prohibit public schools from using the term Redskins as a school or athletic team name, mascot, or nickname.

Status: PASSED [13 - 5] by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 13. [Note: As with the Assembly Education Committee, the vote was cast along partisan lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.]

Essentially changes the funding mechanism for the state’s public community colleges from one that is program-based (the K-12 model) to one based on numbers of full-time-equivalent students (FTEs), the UC and CSU model.

As initially written, the bill also specified and prioritized, for funding purposes, the 3 primary missions of the community colleges: (1) lower-division instruction for students seeking to transfer to 4-year universities to complete a baccalaureate degree; (2) workforce training and preparation; and (3) adult literacy programs.

As amended on April 14, the references to the primary mission and priorities of the community colleges were deleted. The bill now addresses only the issue of the funding mechanism.

Status: PASSED [6 - 1] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19. [Note: The sole nay vote was cast by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R - Tahoe City).]

This bill would require instead that any funds that are utilized for the initial start-up costs of the institute, or for support of the institute, be fully reimbursed by the institute within 3 years.

As amended on April 19, the bill would authorize the redirection of state funds, if they are appropriated in the annual Budget Act solely for that purpose

For purposes of calculating retirement benefits for state members, the Public Employees’ Retirement Law generally defines “final compensation” as the highest annual average compensation earnable by the member during a designated 12-month period.

This bill would define “final compensation” for any member of the Public Employees’ Retirement System who retires after January 1, 2006, as the average compensation earnable by the member during the final 3 years of employment immediately preceding the effective date of the member’s retirement.

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [2 - 4] in the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security, April 20. The author did not ask for reconsideration.

[Note: The vote was cast along partisan lines, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing the bill. In the debate on the bill, it was noted that the language of AB 214 could be subject to legal challenge regarding whether the one year final compensation calculation is a vested right. Case law has upheld the premise that a vested right can not be removed without equal compensation in return.

The legal question aside, concern was also expressed over changing a benefit that would adversely affect long-serving state employees, “particularly those who work in a challenging and often dangerous environment, such as prisons and firefighting.” Members also worried that the change would make recruitment and retention of a highly qualified workforce much more difficult.]

As initially written, this bill expressed the intent of the Legislature to add funding to the budgets of the UC, CSU, and the California Community Colleges for additional slots in nursing education programs and for all state programs that educate entry-level, master’s, and doctoral program nursing students

As amended on April 4, the bill requires instead that the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development establish a statewide Registered Nurse Educator Scholarship Program to contract with colleges and universities to establish or expand related curriculum, and to provide educational loans to registered nurses who are seeking a master’s or doctorate degree in nursing. As a condition of receiving these loans, nurses would have to commit to serving as registered educators for a period of from 3 to 5 years upon completion of their studies.

Status: PASSED [7 - 0] by the Assembly Higher Education Committee and forwarded to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 19.

AB 706 (Parra) CSU: Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities TRUSTEE BILL

Status: PASSED [6 - 0] by the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement & Social Security and sent forward to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, April 20.

Requests the UC, and directs the CSU and the California Community Colleges, to develop guidelines and implement specified principles relating to academic freedom that would be embodied in a Student Bill of Rights.

[Note: This bill is a re-introduction of SB 1335, introduced by the author last year, and which failed passage in the Senate Education Committee. The bill stirred controversy because the impetus behind it was to rein in what supporters called “a liberal dominance in higher education.” Critics of the bill contended that its ultimate purpose was to rid campuses of liberal professors, and that, ironically, it was less about academic freedom than it was about imposing specific points of view in the classrooms.

SB 5 is essentially identical to the earlier bill, with the exception of the title: Student (rather than Academic) Bill of Rights.]

Status: FAILED PASSAGE [4 - 6] in the Senate Education Committee, April 20. The author requested and was granted reconsideration, but a new hearing date has not been set yet.

Status: PASSED (6 - 0) by the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent forward to the Senate Appropriations Committee, April 26.

This bill would authorize the CSU to independently award professional/clinical doctoral degrees, which the bill defines as degrees awarded as part of the post-master’s degree program that prepares students for entry to professional practice other than university faculty research and teaching. (CSU campuses would not be authorized to offer the Ph.D, which is currently the case as well.)

[The clinical doctorate is of particular interest to CSUN. The national accreditation standard for those higher education institutions that prepare audiologists will require a doctoral degree as the minimum standard for licensure, effective January 2007. The current minimum standard is the Master’s degree. A similar change is being discussed for physical therapists.

Currently, all audiology education in California exists within the CSU, on six CSU campuses--with CSUN’s program being by far the largest. Without the ability to award a clinical doctorate in audiology, graduates with only a master’s degree will not qualify for state licensure, state education credentials or national certification.

Currently, there are no AuD programs in California. With the exception of one joint program between San Diego State University and UC San Diego, none of the CSU campuses has been able to successfully negotiate a joint degree program with a UC or private university, despite more than a decade of effort.

Passage of SB 724 would allow CSUN to modify its existing baccalaureate and master’s degree programs to meet the new professional (clinical) doctoral degree standards.]