Community News
Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.
Gillette: Issue #1 not heard on the campaign trail is criminal justice reform
Campaign 2012 has overtaken us. We are awash in messages approved
by candidates and flooded with others produced by political action
committees that are not. Think about those ads for a moment. Now,
consider the news reports you have heard, read and watched about the
candidates. Recall the convention speeches in Tampa and Charlotte. If
you subtract all of the talk about the economy, jobs, and health care,
you will find education gets mentioned occasionally, as do broad-brush
issues relating to energy, foreign policy and taxes. Missing is a
serious discussion about many of the significant issues standing in the
way of America’s future.
To make my point, let’s focus on just one painfully glaring omission from today’s political debate, criminal justice.
It’s easy to understand why campaign staffers hate the subject.
Prisons and crime never make the top ten list of hot-button issues as
determined by pollsters. For instance, the latest Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times
poll indicated the economy, health care, Medicare (how this differs
from health care baffles me), the budget deficit, taxes, foreign policy
and housing were the issues we the voters care about most. Campaign
strategists and special interest insurgents hired to craft messages and
make ads won’t touch criminal justice because the gospel according to
the polls says the topic doesn’t resonate. It should.
The United States is the most incarcerated country in the world. Our
failing criminal justice system is costing billions of dollars and
destroying lives. And, to top it off, instead of making our communities
safer, our lock ‘em up and lock ‘em out approach may actually be
exacerbating the problem by creating a permanent criminal class of
Americans.
According to the Pew Center, one in 31 American adults were in the
correction system in 2009. This means just over 3% of Americans were in
jail, prison, on probation or under supervision of some sort. This
figure has more than doubled over the last 25 years and nearly
quadrupled since 1980.
There are some 2.4 million people in jail and prison. Over the past
20 years, the fastest growing part of state budgets after healthcare is
criminal justice. State spending on criminal justice has increased more
than 300% during this time to an estimated $51.7 billion in 2008. Add in
what the federal and local governments spend and that figure is an
eye-popping $200 billion a year.
That’s real money and we aren’t getting much in return.
Let’s consider the social cost of our justice policies. Just over 9%
of black adults are in the correctional system, as are about 4% of
Hispanic adults, and 2% of white adults. The chasm between us grows.
Moreover, our system locks offenders away and strips them of their
rights while taking few steps to steer these offenders away from a life
of crime. The numbers above will not improve unless we change course.
Ponder this; some estimates show it costs $29,000 per year to house
an inmate and $9,000 a year to send a student to high school.
If a candidate for office were serious about making a difference, he
would be talking about criminal justice reform, not because the issue
polls well, but because it is an issue that almost more than any other
is significantly limiting our national progress.
Campaign 2012 is full of candidates willing to feed us soundbites
they have been told we want to hear. Sadly, this field of candidates is
lacking leaders willing to address difficult topics that aren’t popular.
If we hope to ever overcome the barriers blocking the way to a better
tomorrow, we will need to put people in office more interested in
solving problems than winning votes. Let’s start with criminal justice
reform.
###
By Steven Harmon and Katy Murphy
Staff writers
SACRAMENTO
-- As Gov. Jerry Brown and wealthy civil-rights attorney Molly Munger
brace for their fall showdown over their initiatives to raise taxes for
schools, educators are agonizing over picking sides.
The state's
two largest teachers unions -- the California Teachers' Association and
the California Federation of Teachers -- are putting their muscle behind
Brown's ballot measure, Proposition 30, while the less powerful state
PTA supports Proposition 38, bankrolled almost entirely by Munger.
But
across the Bay Area and throughout the state, teachers and school
boards are torn. Some like Proposition 38 better because they believe
it'll pump a greater and more stable stream of revenue into the state's
K-12 school system, but also believe it will most likely be defeated at
the polls. Many educators are walking on egg shells to avoid a bitter
ballot war, fearful it could doom both initiatives.
"It's in our
best interest to support both initiatives in hopes that one of them
passes," said Frank Biehl, president of the East Side Union High School
District in San Jose. "I'm just worried that we may not get anything
passed."
If both initiatives pass, the one with the most votes will take effect.
But
if neither does, districts face severe reductions in the length of the
school year -- perhaps by as much as three weeks. Brown in June signed a
budget that would trigger $5.9 billion in cuts -- mostly to schools --
if his measure fails.
Some school
districts, including Oakland, Los Angeles and San Diego, have hedged
their bets, endorsing both measures, as has the California School Boards
Association. Also supporting both propositions are the Palo Alto school
board, the San Francisco school board, the Santa Clara County Board of
Education and the San Mateo County Board of Education.
Though
Munger has touted Proposition 38 as the superior measure, she supports a
"yes-yes" voting strategy. But she also welcomes voters who prefer to
vote yes on 38 and no on 30.
Both sides have made peace offerings
to each other to avoid a campaign bloodletting that could turn off
voters, but grenades continue to get lobbed between the two campaigns.
Last
month, supporters of Brown's measure, including U.S. Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, asked Munger's campaign to stop criticizing Proposition 30,
proposing that the two campaigns pledge to refrain from attacking each
other. But the idea went nowhere.
PTA President Carol Kocivar
complained that allies of Proposition 30 had written ballot arguments
against Proposition 38. And now both campaigns are ramping up for a
televised air war.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association, is delighted. "When your adversaries are engaged
in a battle, the best thing to do is step out of the way," Coupal said.
"We've seen some pretty aggressive posturing between the two, and I
don't see that letting up between now and November."
The
association this week began running a statewide radio ad targeting
Brown's measure. Coupal said his group is less worried about Proposition
38, which he views as less viable.
The governor argues that
Proposition 30 is the better because, at least in the short term, it
fends off billions in devastating cuts to schools. But Munger argues
that her initiative provides an unprecedented infusion of money into a
moribund school system for 12 years.
"What else can we do?'' she asked this newspaper's editorial board this week. "Let's make it happen for our kids."
The
full effect of her measure won't be felt for the first four years, when
schools would get about 60 percent of the $10 billion in yearly taxes
through 2016-17 -- with the rest going to early-childhood care and
paying off state debt.
Proposition 30 has consistently had higher
popular support in polls, probably because most of the tax hikes would
fall on the wealthy.
Munger's measure tests voters' willingness to
dig into their own pockets because the tax burden would be distributed
among almost all income groups.
Hoi-Yung Poon, a Cupertino parent
and activist, said she's supporting Proposition 30 and hasn't decided
whether she'll also vote for Proposition 38.
"Everyone seems to be
confused about the two propositions," said Poon, executive director of
the education-advocacy group Parents for Great Education.
Tom
Lynch, who serves on the executive board of Alameda County's Peralta
District PTA, has been -- along with his organization -- campaigning for
Munger's "Our Children, Our Future" initiative. But Lynch knows
Munger's measure is the underdog. "I, myself, favor Prop. 38, but I'm
also realistic that we can't afford for both of them to lose," he said.
"When people ask me, I say, 'Vote for both.'"
Dan Reynolds, an
English and film studies teacher at Mt. Diablo High School in Concord,
said it was important to him that Proposition 30 would raise income
taxes on only the wealthiest Californians, "those who can most afford to
pay."
Sam Davis, an Oakland parent, is worried sick about more
potential cuts. A former adult education teacher who lost his job when
the school district closed all of its adult schools in 2010, he said
he's hoping to dispel a sense of complacency among parents at the
high-performing language immersion school, Manzanita SEED.
"I think there's this feeling that things are going great," Davis said. But "a big cut could totally destroy our program."
Like
Reynolds, Davis prefers Proposition 30 because "that's where the
excitement is." And that's the only measure he discusses with the voters
he's called.
Still, a competing tax measure on the November ballot is the least of his concerns.
Said
Davis: "I'm more worried about the anti-tax campaign that'll twist the
language and try to pit the propositions against each other."
COMPARISON OF PROPS. 30 AND 38
Taxes
Prop. 30:
Raises
income taxes by 1 percentage point on individual income exceeding
$250,000, 2 percentage points on income between $300,000 and $500,000,
and 3 points on income of more than $500,000. Extra tax would be in
effect from 2012 to 2018.
Raises state sales tax by a quarter cent from 2013 to 2016.
Prop. 38
Raises
income tax, progressively, starting with a 0.4 percentage point hike on
those with taxable income of more than $7,316, with the highest boost
-- 2.2 percentage points -- on those making more than $2.5 million. Tax
hike would be in effect from 2013 to 2024.
Revenues raised
Prop. 30
An
average of $6 billion annually when both the sales and income tax are
in effect through 2016, with revenues dropping slightly in the final two
years.
Prop. 38
An average of $10 billion annually.
Incidentals
Prop. 30
Revenues
would raise the Prop. 98 guarantee, which means more money for schools,
but revenues would also be used to balance the budget.
Prop. 38
For
the first four years, $6 billion would be used for schools, $1 billion
for child care and preschool and $3 billion for debt payments. From 2018
to 2025, larger shares go to schools, child care and preschool -- and
debt payments would decline.
If both initiatives pass, the one with the most votes will take effect.
Source: Legislative Analyst's Office
California reached an unfortunate budget benchmark in June -- for the
fourth consecutive fiscal year, the state ended with a deficit.
Now the question is whether California can break that streak with the new budget signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The Legislative Analyst's Office released a new report on Thursday reviewing much of the state's spending plan.
Brown's budget leaves a nearly $1-billion cushion in case tax revenue dips or the state spends more than expected.
Of course, that won't come close to covering the gap if voters in
November reject Brown's push for tax hikes. The governor's plan would
raise $8.5 billion by raising the sales tax by a quarter of a cent and
increasing levies on the wealthiest.
Without the taxes, almost $5.5 billion would be cut from public schools.
Via LA Times
Imagine a state that generates a gross domestic product (GDP) that
would make it the 9th largest economy in the world. A state that has
seen tremendous population growth in the last 25 years, skyrocketing
property values and is home to some of the best known tech firms and
entertainment celebrities. Now imagine that this state has a crumbling
higher education system, which was recently the topic of a Chronicle of
Higher Education article. This higher education system was the envy of
the nation but according to a recent report
by the California Competes Council, it now needs to produce 2.3 million
more adults with a post secondary credential by 2025 in order for the
state to meet its workforce demand. The workhorse of this higher
education system, the state's community college system, is educating
over 2.5 million highly diverse students but is faced with tremendous
challenges in improving its completion rate. This community college
system has been the gateway to higher education for the majority of
citizens but today is turning away hundreds of thousands of students.
This state is not imaginary this is California. And what is happening in
California community colleges is not only important to Californians but
also to the entire country.
Like many other state community college systems, California's 112
community college system has been wrestling with huge demographic shifts
along with a major contraction of its state support. Add to this the
need to significantly improve the number of students that successfully
complete a certificate, associate degree or are prepared to transfer.
According to the 2012 Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges
(ARCC) report,
53.6 percent of community college students were completing one of these
key academic milestones. With only 38 percent of adults (age 25-64)
having obtained at least an associates degree, the need to scale up
credential attainment is made clear. More concerning is the same data
broken down by ethnicity that highlights the achievement lag that exists
for Latino's and African Americans. This is troublesome for
California's economy since by 2040 more than 60 percent of the workforce
will be adults of color.
Why should it matter to the U.S. that California community colleges
are successfully meeting this challenge? The Obama Administration has
made it a goal to make the U.S. the world leader in the percentage of
citizens with a college education by 2020. According to the Lumina Foundation's Goal 2025,
the U.S. must increase degree attainment among adults 60 percent by
2025 in order for it to remain globally competitive. The Gates
Foundation has made increasing post secondary credential attainment
among working age adults a top priority. Given the sheer size of
California, the large number of community college students (nearly a
quarter of the total U.S. community college enrollment) and the
increasing percentage of students of color enrolling in community
colleges it becomes apparent that in order for the U.S. to meet the
challenge of significantly increasing the number of working age adults
with a post secondary credential California must be successful.
How is the California community college system responding? In typical
California fashion, community college leaders where slow to respond to
these challenges. Then in 2010 a major shift occurred with the
introduction of Senate Bill (SB) 1143.
SB 1143, authored by California State Senator Carol Liu, became a flash
point for the debate on improving community college outcomes. The bill
would have implemented a community college funding formula based in
large part on performance. The debate over the bill resulted in
compromise legislation that required the California community college
system to identify ways to improve student success. In response state
chancellor Jack Scott formed a 20-member Student Success Taskforce made
up of faculty, administrators researches and business and civic leaders.
They met for a year and published 22 recommendations.
The
recommendations encompassed both policy changes and regulatory changes
and sparked deep divisions among many community college advocates over
the impact these changes would have on California students. What is
notable is that unlike many other states that have had the executive or
legislative branch dictate reforms, in California the college system
generated the recommendations.
The recommended reforms include improving
the admissions and registration process, requiring students to make
academic progress in order to maintain eligibility for a fee waiver and
requiring that all students be assessed, oriented and develop an
education plan. One hotly debated recommendation would require that
every community college publish a "score card" that shows how students
are performing broken down by race and ethnicity. The California
Community College Board of Governor's is acting on most of the
regulatory changes. The bulk of the legislative changes are being
carried in SB 1456 authored by California State Senator Alan Lowenthal.
SB 1456 is now on Governor Brown's desk. This gives the governor an
opportunity to significantly improve the ability of California's
community colleges to prepare a competitive workforce. Signing this bill
will also go a long way to helping the U.S. reach the goals set by the
President and become a more competitive nation globally.
Via Huffington Post
Fight to Stop San Mateo County Jail Heats Up
Residents Demand Supervisors Cut Jail Spending from Budget, Call for Hearing on Population Reduction Measures
Press Contact: Isaac Ontiveros
Californians United for a Responsible Budget, 510-517-6612
What: Press Conference and Board of Supervisors Meeting
When: Tuesday September 11th, 2012, 8:15am
Where: 400 County Center, Redwood City
Redwood City—This Tuesday residents from across San Mateo County are expected to pack the Board of Supervisors’ meeting, demanding the Board strike $44.2 million from the county’s 2012-2013 budget slated for a new jail, and hold a hearing on strategies to reduce the jail population. Supervisors will vote on the final budget on September 25th.
“This budget is a plan for the future of our county. Right now the Board is following the Sheriff’s lead in allocating more and more money on cages and less and less on the health and wellbeing of our residents,” says Manuel LaFontaine of All of Us or None, one of the organizations opposing the jail. “We are demanding that the Board make another plan: to reduce our jail population by investing in alternatives to imprisonment as well as strong re-entry programs and services that will keep people in their communities where they belong.”
Two of the county’s financial officers, the County Manager and the County Controller voiced strong concerns about the cost of the jail, as have thousands of county residents. A 2011 report from the County Manager indicates that if the new jail is built “the magnitude of cuts necessary to re-balance the General Fund budget… would be $118 million, or 26% of Net County Cost.” The Manager’s report affirms an American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California finding that “money spent for jail construction and maintenance will inevitably require cuts in county spending on housing, education, healthcare, transit infrastructure, and other more urgently-needed services for San Mateo residents.” Widespread opposition to the jail project has steadily mounted during the county’s budget crisis as $70 million in cuts have left hundreds unemployed and thousands with reduced access to vital services.
The same report from the County Manager outlines many less expensive and more humane alternatives to imprisonment recommended by the County’s Health System, including expanding short-term residential treatment for mental illness and drug detox, expanding the number of people served through alternative sentencing, expanding the Pathways program, and expanding re-entry services. The Health System’s recommendations would take 3-6 months to get up and running, serve 2,100 residents and cost the county $8.38 million a year. By comparison, the new jail would not open until 2015 and will cost $160 million to build and at least $30 million a year to operate.
“The Board of Supervisors is claiming it doesn’t have any other options in the face of alternative recommendations from countless experts,” says Emily Harris, of Californians United for a Responsible Budget. “San Mateo County is surrounded by counties that have decided not to expand their jail systems. Just this week, Contra Costa County rejected a plan to build a new jail because of widespread opposition, joining Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Alameda Counties. It’s not too late to stop this jail.”
“This hits home for so many of us. I am fighting so that my children aren’t pushed into cages. We are fighting for a change in priorities,” says LaFontaine. “It has been poor and working communities of color that have been hit hardest by both budget cuts and imprisonment for way too long. And people are sick and tired and are standing up and saying, ‘we want something different, we are going to stop this’.”
Tuesday morning, community organizations and residents will hold a lively press conference at 8:15am and will then pack the Supervisors’ meeting to speak during public comment at 9am.
###
A spokesman for Sheriff Lee Baca rejected some of the criticism in a blue-ribbon commission report that accused Baca and others of fostering a culture in which deputies were permitted to beat and humiliate inmates and cover up misconduct. The report was released Friday.
Baca was described as an out-of-touch boss who was "insulated … from force issues and other bad news" by his underlings. Members of his command staff, investigators said, tolerated a "code of silence" and failed to control and thoroughly investigate deputies' use of force against inmates.
Some department leaders "had a lax attitude toward deputy aggression and discouraged deputy discipline," the investigators said.
There was no evidence, investigators said, that Baca had tried to hold members of his senior management team accountable for their failures after he learned of the problems late last year, even though he has publicly faulted them for not alerting him to abuse in the jails. Baca's second-in-command, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, came under harsh criticism from investigators for allegedly helping promote the corrosive culture that contributed to many of the jails' problems.
Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore denied that Baca was out of touch, saying the sheriff responded aggressively last year when he first learned about the jail problems. "This is the man who responds immediately to things," Whitmore said. "He should have received more information than he did. But for a man that is out of touch, why didn't he just ignore it? Why did he respond? Because he is in touch."
Whitmore also defended Tanaka, saying the undersheriff did not foster a culture of violence but one of "creativity and accomplishment." Baca, he said, would wait to read the commission's final recommendations before deciding whether to implement them.
Though investigators said the majority of deputies were hard-working and ethical, they concluded that others preferred using force quickly during encounters with inmates, rather than as a last resort. Some deputies used strip searches to harass and humiliate inmates, they said. There was also evidence that deputies allowed inmates to attack one another and intentionally endangered high-security prisoners by putting them in the jails' general population and announcing their crimes to other inmates.
"These deputies are reflective of a disturbing mind-set that promotes a lack of respect for inmates … and a disdain for those supervisors who have endeavored to assert contrary principles," Douglas A. Axel, one of the investigators, told the commission.
The investigators, who are prominent attorneys volunteering their services, presented their findings at a public hearing of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence. Commissioners are expected to review those findings and publish a report with recommendations to improve the jails in three weeks. The panel was formed by the county Board of Supervisors in October after it was revealed that federal authorities were investigating allegations of deputies abusing inmates.
"These findings are both serious and troubling," said Commissioner Robert C. Bonner, a retired federal judge. Another commissioner described the conclusions as "blistering."
The FBI's secret investigation of the jails was revealed last year when The Times reported that the bureau had smuggled a cellphone through a corrupt jailer to an inmate working as a confidential federal informant inside Men's Central Jail. Since then, public scrutiny of the jails has intensified. Among the revelations was that top sheriff's officials had raised alarms in internal memos about jailers crafting narratives "dramatized to justify" force and supervisors allowing the behavior to go unchecked by conducting shoddy investigations. A retired jail commander told The Times that he had tried to take his warnings about gang-like deputy cliques to Baca but was ignored.
In recent months, the county commission has heard testimony from current and former sheriff's supervisors who have publicly alleged that top managers condoned a culture of abuse inside the jails. Many more sheriff's employees have spoken to the commission privately. In addition, investigators have reviewed thousands of documents and spoken to custody experts from around the country. The commission's investigators, however, have not presented much of the evidence behind their findings.
The investigators concluded that jailers used force against inmates more often, and more aggressively, than justified. Some inmates were the victims of force even when they were restrained or confined to a cell, the investigators said.
The recent drop in force incidents since the department came under scrutiny suggests that some of the force used in the past was unnecessary, said Maurice Suh, one of the investigators. Between January and September of last year, jailers were involved in an average of 53 force incidents per month. From October through June, that number had dropped to 38.
Suh also questioned how the department imposed discipline for using unreasonable force in less than 1% of force incidents from 2007 to 2011. "This figure either means that the department is basically perfect, which the evidence does not support, or that the discipline investigations system is broken," he told commissioners.
Investigators called for more in-depth training of jail deputies, additional supervisors to monitor jailers, and a change in attitude within the department toward the custody division, which is often viewed as a "second-class" section of the department. They suggested that the department would benefit from an oversight body that has similar powers and responsibilities as the inspector general who monitors the Los Angeles Police Department.
Investigators faulted Baca for allowing his undersheriff to run the jails without effective oversight. Tanaka, they said, "failed to uphold the department's goals and values," urging deputies to be aggressive and "work in the gray area," referring to police work that blurs the lines of legality. The undersheriff recently sent a department-wide email explaining that he had not meant to condone wrongdoing. Investigators said Tanaka also made comments undermining the credibility of internal affairs investigators and discouraged supervisors from investigating misconduct.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/sheriff-baca-not-out-of-touch-on-jail-violence-spokesman-says.html
-
-
Written by Imperial Valley News
Sacramento, California - Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that he has signed the following bills:
· AB 233 by Assemblymember Isadore Hall (D-Los Angeles) –
Personal income taxes: voluntary contributions: California YMCA Youth
and Government Fund.
· AB 432 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Transit: Sacramento County.
· AB 812 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) – Solid waste: recycled asphalt.
· AB 1345 by Assemblymember Ricardo Lara (D-South Gate) – Local government: audits.
· AB 1354 by Assemblymember Alyson Huber (D-El Dorado Hill) – Civil procedure: discovery: objections.
· AB 1445 by Assemblymember Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) – Jails: county inmate welfare funds.
· AB 1623 by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis) – Weights and measures: inspection fees.
· AB 1624 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Multiple-party accounts.
· AB 1708 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) –
Vehicles: electronic verification of financial responsibility and
insurance.
· AB 1715 by Assemblymember Cameron Smyth (R-Santa Clarita) – Underground storage tanks: tank case closure.
· AB 1724 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Mountain View) – Voting: polling place procedures.
· AB 1839 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) – Veterinary medicine: veterinary assistants.
· AB 1851 by Assemblymember Michael Allen (D-Santa Rosa) – County, city, and district initiative petitions.
· AB 1865 by Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas) – Residential tenancies: eviction: notices.
· AB 1922 by Assemblymember Ricardo Lara (D-South Gate) – Heavy-duty vehicles: smoke emissions.
· AB 1925 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) – Real property: rent control.
· AB 1927 by Assemblymember Brian Jones (R-La Mesa) – Easements: maintenance: arbitration
· AB 1998 by Assemblymember Katcho Achadijian (R-San Luis Obispo) – County surplus property.
· AB 2006 by Assemblymember John A. Perez (D-Los Angeles) – Credit union services.
· AB 2082 by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) – Public lands: State Lands Commission: violations.
· AB 2126 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) – California State University: regulations.
· AB 2140 by Assemblymember Ricardo Lara (D-South Gate) –
Public employees' retirement: State Bargaining Unit 5: contribution
rates.
· AB 2161 by Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian (R-San Luis Obispo) – Energy: renewable energy resources.
· AB 2167 by Assemblymember Jerry Hill (D-South San
Francisco) – Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency: financial
matters.
· AB 2169 by Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro (D-Eureka) – Property Acquisition Law: conservation easements.
· AB 2205 by Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez (D-Cathedral City) – Hazardous waste: ores and minerals: geothermal waste.
· AB 2212 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Human trafficking: civil penalties.
· AB 2273 by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) – Common interest developments: required documents.
· AB 2343 by Assemblymember Norma Torres (D-Pomona) – Criminal history information.
· AB 2354 by Assemblymember Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) – Travel insurance.
· AB 2365 by Assemblymember Brian Nestande (R-Gerber) – Family law: child custody.
· AB 2388 by Assemblymember Jim Beall (D-San Jose) – Santa Clara County Open-Space Authority: authorization to contract.
· AB 2396 by the Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism – Employment of infants: entertainment industry.
· AB 2464 by Assemblymember Mike Gatto (D-Burbank) – Professional sports facilities: safety.
· AB 2584 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Inglewood) – Electrical corporations: investigations.
· AB 2654 by Assemblymember Mike Morrell (R-Redlands) – Mining liens: definitions.
· AB 2666 by the Committee on Banking and Finance – Mortgage loan originators.
· SB 192 by the Committee on Governance and Finance – Validations.
· SB 615 by Senator Ronald Calderon (D-Montebello) – Multiple employer welfare arrangements: benefits.
· SB 659 by Senator Gloria Negrete Mcleod (D-Chino) – Immunizations: disclosure of information: tuberculosis screening.
· SB 1055 by Senator Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) – Landlord and tenant: payments.
· SB 1067 by Senate Doug La Malfa (R-Butte) – Peace officers: mutual aid.
· SB 1082 by Senator Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro) – Protection of victims: address confidentiality.
· SB 1096 by Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendment – Citizens Redistricting Commission.
· SB 1102 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – State transportation improvement program.
· SB 1103 by Senator Roderick Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Cal Grant Program: annual report.
· SB 1116 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – California
Pollution Control Financing Authority: Capital Access Loan Program.
· SB 1169 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) – Natural community conservation planning.
· SB 1206 by Senator Mimi Walters (R-Laguna Niguel) – Child abduction prevention.
· SB 1216 by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) – Reinsurance: professional reinsurers.
· SB 1291 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) – Unemployment benefits: training: teacher credentialing.
· SB 1360 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) – Vessels.
· SB 1370 by Senator Tom Berryhill (R-Stanislaus) – Prevailing wages: public works: director: code list.
· SB 1395 by Senator Michael Rubio (D-Bakersfield) – State Auditor.
· SB 1448 by Senator Ronald Calderon (D-Montebello) – Insurance.
· SB 1489 by Senator Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) – Courts: management and destruction of trial court exhibits.
· SB 1544 by Senator Ed Hernandez (D-Los Angeles) – Income
taxes: disaster losses: Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino.
· SB 1548 by Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) – State Board of Equalization: offer in compromise.
· SB 1577 by the Committee on Natural Resources and Water – Resources: public trust lands: City of Newport Beach.
