AB 1291: University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2023-10-10
Current Status:
Passed
(2023-10-10: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 683, Statutes of 2023.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill creates a University of California Associate Degree for Transfer pilot that requires UCLA (and at least several other UC campuses) to declare specific majors as matching community college transfer pathways and to give admission priority to students who earn an associate degree for transfer (a community college degree meant to move students into a four‑year program) and meet those pathway requirements. If a student meets UC admission rules but is not admitted to the designated campus, that campus must try to redirect the student and offer admission to at least one other UC campus. The Legislative Analyst’s Office must review the pilot and report on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and completion with recommendations on expansion.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law, the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act, requires a student who earns an associate degree for transfer to be deemed eligible for transfer into a California State University baccalaureate degree program if the student meets certain requirements. The act also requires the California State University to guarantee admission with junior status to a community college student who meets those requirements, and provides that admission to the California State University under these provisions does not guarantee admission for specific majors or campuses. A student admitted to the California State University pursuant to the act is entitled to receive priority over all other community college transfer students, excluding community college students who have entered into a transfer agreement between a community college and the California State University before the fall term of the 201213 academic year.
Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.
This bill would create the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program in the Donahoe Higher Education Act. The bill would require the University of California, Los Angeles to declare at least 8 majors by the 202627 academic year, and at least 12 majors by the 202829 academic year, as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and would require, by the 202829 academic year, the University of California to designate at least 5 campuses to declare at least 12 majors as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the applicable campus, except that the 12 major minimum would not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated. The bill would require the applicable campus to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula and to determine the appropriate admissions preference. The bill would require, for a student who meets those requirements and other University of California admission requirements but is not granted admission to the applicable campus, that campus to redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student to be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to review the pilot program and submit an interim and final report on the pilot program, each with specified content, by February 1, 2027, and June 1, 2030, respectively, to certain legislative committees and subcommittees. The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to make the final report publicly available and would require the Regents of the University of California to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
Existing law, the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act, requires a student who earns an associate degree for transfer to be deemed eligible for transfer into a California State University baccalaureate degree program if the student meets certain requirements. The act also requires the California State University to guarantee admission with junior status to a community college student who meets those requirements, and provides that admission to the California State University under these provisions does not guarantee admission for specific majors or campuses. A student admitted to the California State University pursuant to the act is entitled to receive priority over all other community college transfer students, excluding community college students who have entered into a transfer agreement between a community college and the California State University before the fall term of the 201213 academic year.
Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.
This bill would create the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program in the Donahoe Higher Education Act. The bill would require the University of California, Los Angeles to declare at least 8 majors by the 202627 academic year, and at least 12 majors by the 202829 academic year, as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and would require, by the 202829 academic year, the University of California to designate at least 5 campuses to declare at least 12 majors as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the applicable campus, except that the 12 major minimum would not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated. The bill would require the applicable campus to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula and to determine the appropriate admissions preference. The bill would require, for a student who meets those requirements and other University of California admission requirements but is not granted admission to the applicable campus, that campus to redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student to be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to review the pilot program and submit an interim and final report on the pilot program, each with specified content, by February 1, 2027, and June 1, 2030, respectively, to certain legislative committees and subcommittees. The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to make the final report publicly available and would require the Regents of the University of California to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
Existing law, the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act, requires a student who earns an associate degree for transfer to be deemed eligible for transfer into a California State University baccalaureate degree program if the student meets certain requirements. The act also requires the California State University to guarantee admission with junior status to a community college student who meets those requirements, and provides that admission to the California State University under these provisions does not guarantee admission for specific majors or campuses. A student admitted to the California State University pursuant to the act is entitled to receive priority over all other community college transfer students, excluding community college students who have entered into a transfer agreement between a community college and the California State University before the fall term of the 201213 academic year.
Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California act, by resolution, to make them applicable.
This bill would create the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program in the Donahoe Higher Education Act. The bill would require the University of California, Los Angeles to declare at least 8 majors by the 202627 academic year, and at least 12 majors by the 202829 academic year, as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and would require, by the 202829 academic year, the University of California to designate at least 5 campuses to declare at least 12 majors as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the applicable campus, except that the 12 major minimum would not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated. The bill would require the applicable campus to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula and to determine the appropriate admissions preference. The bill would require, for a student who meets those requirements and other University of California admission requirements but is not granted admission to the applicable campus, that campus to redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student to be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to review the pilot program and submit an interim and final report on the pilot program, each with specified content, on February 1, 2027, and June 1, 2030, respectively, to certain legislative committees and subcommittees. The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to make the final report publicly available and would require the Regents of the University of California to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law also establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol within the Transportation Agency.This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The bill would also require municipalities to annually post additional information pertaining to settlements and judgments, as specified, irrespective of the amount paid. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law also establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol within the Transportation Agency.
This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The bill would also require municipalities to annually post additional information pertaining to settlements and judgments, as specified, irrespective of the amount paid. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law also establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol within the Transportation Agency.
This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The bill would also require municipalities to annually post additional information pertaining to settlements and judgments, as specified, irrespective of the amount paid. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law also establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol within the Transportation Agency.
This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $500,000 $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The bill would require the Transportation Agency to annually post the same information on its internet website regarding settlements and judgments of $500,000 or more against the Department of the California Highway Patrol. The bill would also require municipalities to annually post additional information pertaining to settlements and judgments, as specified, irrespective of the amount paid. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish specified information to the Department of Justice regarding the use of force by a peace officer. Existing law also establishes the Department of the California Highway Patrol within the Transportation Agency.
This bill would require municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments of $500,000 or more resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, among other information, amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The bill would require the Transportation Agency to annually post the same information on its internet website regarding settlements and judgments of $500,000 or more against the Department of the California Highway Patrol. By increasing requirements for local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would make legislative findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law establishes the Legislative Counsel Bureau within state government and specifies that the bureaus chief civil executive officer shall be known as the Legislative Counsel of California. Existing law requires the Legislative Counsel to be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the ground of fitness to perform the duties of the office.This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the latter provision.Existing law establishes the Legislative Counsel Bureau within state government and specifies that the bureaus chief civil executive officer shall be known as the Legislative Counsel of California. Existing law requires the Legislative Counsel to be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the ground of fitness to perform the duties of the office.
This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to the latter provision.
(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program.
(b)(1)The University of California, Los Angeles shall do both of the following:
(A)By the 202627 academic year, declare at least eight majors at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(B)(i)By the 202829 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4 of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(ii)The University of California, Los Angeles shall make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, the University of California, Los Angeles shall provide a written justification to the Legislature detailing what attempts were made to adhere to the limit and demonstrate how the transfer model curricula can be completed in no more than 66 semester units or the equivalent of two additional courses above 60 semester units.
(2)By the 202829 academic year, the University of California shall designate at least five campuses of the University of California to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by that campus, except that the 12 major minimum shall not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated, and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(c)The applicable campus of the University of California shall determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b).
(d)For a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b), in addition to other University of California admission requirements, but is not granted admission to the applicable campus of the University of California, that campus shall redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student shall be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
(e)(1)By February 1, 2027, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes.
(2)By June 1, 2030, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit a final report on the pilot program to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate. The Legislative Analysts Office shall make the final report publicly available and the Regents of the University of California shall consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents. The final report shall include additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, and recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. The recommendations shall take into consideration relevant information, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman to transfer student ratio, as determined by the University of California.
(B)The pilot programs impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students.
(C)Best practices from other similar programs, such as the University of California, Merced Transfer Project.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature that, by the 203132 academic year, each undergraduate campus of the University of California will declare at least 12 majors, and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors, at the respective campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the campus and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. However, these 12 and 16 major minimums do not apply to University of California, Merced.
(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program.
(b)(1)The University of California, Los Angeles shall do both of the following:
(A)By the 202627 academic year, declare at least eight majors at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(B)(i)By the 202829 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4 of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(ii)The University of California, Los Angeles shall make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, the University of California, Los Angeles shall provide a written justification to the Legislature detailing what attempts were made to adhere to the limit and demonstrate how the transfer model curricula can be completed in no more than 66 semester units or the equivalent of two additional courses above 60 semester units.
(2)By the 202829 academic year, the University of California shall designate at least five campuses of the University of California to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by that campus, except that the 12 major minimum shall not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated, and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(c)The applicable campus of the University of California shall determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b).
(d)For a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b), in addition to other University of California admission requirements, but is not granted admission to the applicable campus of the University of California, that campus shall redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student shall be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
(e)(1)By February 1, 2027, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes.
(2)By June 1, 2030, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit a final report on the pilot program to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate. The Legislative Analysts Office shall make the final report publicly available and the Regents of the University of California shall consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents. The final report shall include additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, and recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. The recommendations shall take into consideration relevant information, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman to transfer student ratio, as determined by the University of California.
(B)The pilot programs impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students.
(C)Best practices from other similar programs, such as the University of California, Merced Transfer Project.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature that, by the 203132 academic year, each undergraduate campus of the University of California will declare at least 12 majors, and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors, at the respective campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the campus and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. However, these 12 and 16 major minimums do not apply to University of California, Merced.
(a)This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program.
(b)(1)The University of California, Los Angeles shall do both of the following:
(A)By the 202627 academic year, declare at least eight majors at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(B)(i)By the 202829 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4 of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at the University of California, Los Angeles as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the University of California, Los Angeles and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(ii)The University of California, Los Angeles shall make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, the University of California, Los Angeles shall provide a written justification to the Legislature detailing what attempts were made to adhere to the limit and demonstrate how the transfer model curricula can be completed in no more than 66 semester units or the equivalent of two additional courses above 60 semester units.
(2)By the 202829 academic year, the University of California shall designate at least five campuses of the University of California to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by that campus, except that the 12 major minimum shall not apply to the University of California, Merced if designated, and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
(c)The applicable campus of the University of California shall determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b).
(d)For a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula described in subdivision (b), in addition to other University of California admission requirements, but is not granted admission to the applicable campus of the University of California, that campus shall redirect the student to other campuses of the University of California and the student shall be offered admission to at least one other campus of the University of California.
(e)(1)By February 1, 2027, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes.
(2)By June 1, 2030, the Legislative Analysts Office shall review the pilot program and submit a final report on the pilot program to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, the Senate Committee on Education, and the respective education finance budget subcommittees of the Assembly and the Senate. The Legislative Analysts Office shall make the final report publicly available and the Regents of the University of California shall consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents. The final report shall include additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, and recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. The recommendations shall take into consideration relevant information, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A)Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman to transfer student ratio, as determined by the University of California.
(B)The pilot programs impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students.
(C)Best practices from other similar programs, such as the University of California, Merced Transfer Project.
(f)It is the intent of the Legislature that, by the 203132 academic year, each undergraduate campus of the University of California will declare at least 12 majors, and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors, at the respective campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from select community colleges chosen by the campus and prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. However, these 12 and 16 major minimums do not apply to University of California, Merced.
SECTION 1.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(a)On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.(b)The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.(c)For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.(d)These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.(e)Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.(f)Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.(g)State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.(h)Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.(i)In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the citys largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.(j)In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.(k)During the 202122 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid $26,500,000 in judgments, with the two most costly judgments, $53,000,000 and $14,000,000, incurred against the Sheriffs Department for law enforcement conduct against a civilian. Additionally, the county paid $56,000,000 in settlement costs, for a total of $82,500,000 in settlements and judgments paid. The Sheriffs Department paid significantly higher than other County of Los Angeles departments in litigation expenses for the 202122 fiscal year, costing taxpayers $73,200,000.(l)In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.(m)In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.(n)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriffs departments.SEC. 2.Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.(a)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.(2)For each action posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:(A)The court in which the action was filed.(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.(D)The date the action was filed.(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct and the type of misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.(3)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website all of the following:(A)The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount.(B)The total amount of money paid for the cases identified in subparagraph (A).(C)The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipalitys budget.(D)The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year identified in subparagraph (C).(4)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.(5)The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.(b)This section shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).(c)For purposes of this section, municipality means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriffs department.SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
(b)The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
(c)For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
(d)These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
(e)Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
(f)Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
(g)State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
(h)Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
(i)In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the citys largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
(j)In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
(k)During the 201819 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid over $16,000,000 in judgments against the Sheriffs Department, another $30,000,000 in settlements against the department, and incurred an additional $80,000,000 in litigation expenses on behalf of the department. According to the countys annual report, six of the nine most expensive settlements in FY 201819 stemmed from Law Enforcement excessive-force shooting fatalities involving the Sheriffs Department.(k)During the 202122 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid $26,500,000 in judgments, with the two most costly judgments, $53,000,000 and $14,000,000, incurred against the Sheriffs Department for law enforcement conduct against a civilian. Additionally, the county paid $56,000,000 in settlement costs, for a total of $82,500,000 in settlements and judgments paid. The Sheriffs Department paid significantly higher than other County of Los Angeles departments in litigation expenses for the 202122 fiscal year, costing taxpayers $73,200,000.
(l)In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
(m)In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
(n)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriffs departments.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.(a)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
(2)For each action posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:
(A)The court in which the action was filed.
(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.
(D)The date the action was filed.
(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct and the type of misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
(3)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website all of the following:
(A)The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount.
(B)The total amount of money paid for the cases identified in subparagraph (A).
(C)The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipalitys budget.
(D)The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year identified in subparagraph (C).
(4)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(5)The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(b)This section shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
(c)For purposes of this section, municipality means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriffs department.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
(b)The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
(c)For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
(d)These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
(e)Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
(f)Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
(g)State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
(h)Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
(i)In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the citys largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
(j)In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
(k)During the 201819 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid over $16,000,000 in judgments against the Sheriffs Department, another $30,000,000 in settlements against the department, and incurred an additional $80,000,000 in litigation expenses on behalf of the department. According to the countys annual report, six of the nine most expensive settlements in FY 201819 stemmed from Law Enforcement excessive-force shooting fatalities involving the Sheriffs Department.
(l)In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
(m)In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
(n)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriffs departments.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.(a)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
(2)For each action posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:
(A)The court in which the action was filed.
(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.
(D)The date the action was filed.
(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, conduct and the type of misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
(3)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website all of the following:
(A)The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount.
(B)The total amount of money paid for the cases identified in subparagraph (A).
(C)The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipalitys budget.
(D)The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year identified in subparagraph (C).
(4)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(5)The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(b)This section shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
(c)For purposes of this section, municipality means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriffs department.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
(b)The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
(c)For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
(d)These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
(e)Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
(f)Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
(g)State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
(h)Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
(i)In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the citys largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
(j)In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
(k)During the 201819 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid over $16,000,000 in judgments against the Sheriffs Department, another $30,000,000 in settlements against the department, and incurred an additional $80,000,000 in litigation expenses on behalf of the department. According to the countys annual report, six of the nine most expensive settlements in FY 201819 stemmed from Law Enforcement excessive-force shooting fatalities involving the Sheriffs Department.
(l)In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
(m)In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
(n)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriffs departments and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. departments.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.(a)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of five hundred fifty thousand dollars ($500,000) ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
(2)For each action posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:
(A)The court in which the action was filed.
(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.
(D)The date the action was filed.
(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
(3)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website all of the following:
(A)The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount.
(B)The total amount of money paid for the cases identified in subparagraph (A).
(C)The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipalitys budget.
(D)The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year identified in subparagraph (C).
(3)(4)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(4)(5)The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(b)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, the Transportation Agency shall post on its internet website settlements and judgments of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more during the previous year obtained against the Department of the California Highway Patrol, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.(2)For each action posted, the agency shall include all of the following information:(A)The court in which the action was filed.(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.(D)The date the action was filed.(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff, and, if so, the amount of the payment.(3)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using bonds, the agency shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.(4)The agency shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) against the Department of the California Highway Patrol that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the agency or department for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.(b)This section shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).
(c)For purposes of this section, municipality means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriffs department.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
(b)The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
(c)For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
(d)These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
(e)Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
(f)Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
(g)State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
(h)Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
(i)In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the citys largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
(j)In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
(k)During the 201819 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid over $16,000,000 in judgments against the Sheriffs Department, another $30,000,000 in settlements against the department, and incurred an additional $80,000,000 in litigation expenses on behalf of the department. According to the countys annual report, six of the nine most expensive settlements in FY 201819 stemmed from Law Enforcement excessive-force shooting fatalities involving the Sheriffs Department.
(l)In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
(m)In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
(n)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriffs departments and the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.4 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.4.(a)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, each municipality shall post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
(2)For each action posted, the municipality shall include all of the following information:
(A)The court in which the action was filed.
(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.
(D)The date the action was filed.
(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
(3)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using municipal bonds, the municipality shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(4)The municipality shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(b)(1)On or before February 1 of each year, the Transportation Agency shall post on its internet website settlements and judgments of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more during the previous year obtained against the Department of the California Highway Patrol, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
(2)For each action posted, the agency shall include all of the following information:
(A)The court in which the action was filed.
(B)The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
(C)The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant.
(D)The date the action was filed.
(E)Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(F)If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
(3)If any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) are paid for using bonds, the agency shall post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
(4)The agency shall also post on its internet website any settlements or judgments identified in paragraph (1) against the Department of the California Highway Patrol that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the agency or department for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment.
(c)For purposes of this section, municipality means a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriffs department.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1.Section 10203 of the Government Code is amended to read:10203.The Legislative Counsel shall be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the ground of fitness to perform the duties of their office.The Legislative Counsel shall be chosen without reference to party affiliations and solely on the ground of fitness to perform the duties of his or her their office.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 10, 2023 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 683, Statutes of 2023. |
| Oct 10, 2023 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 21, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 3619.). |
| Sep 14, 2023 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3619.) |
| Sep 14, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2822.). |
| Sep 13, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (September 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (September 12). |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c). |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on ED. |
| Sep 11, 2023 | Joint Rules 61 and 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 31. Noes 8. Page 2545.) |
| Sep 8, 2023 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Sep 5, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 1, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (September 1). |
| Aug 21, 2023 | In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file. |
| Aug 14, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Aug 2, 2023 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jul 10, 2023 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jul 6, 2023 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (July 5). |
| Jun 20, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 20). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F. |
| May 31, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on PUB S. and GOV. & F. |
| May 18, 2023 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 18, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 1596.) |
| May 11, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| May 10, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 10). |
| Apr 26, 2023 | In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. |
| Apr 17, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. |
| Apr 12, 2023 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 11). Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 4, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Apr 3, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Mar 20, 2023 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 16, 2023 | Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and TRANS. |
| Mar 16, 2023 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 19. |
| Feb 16, 2023 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2023 | AB 1291 McCARTY Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 14, 2023 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB1291 McCarty By Newman | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2023 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 21, 2023 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 5, 2023 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance |
Passed |
|
| Jun 20, 2023 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Governance and Finance] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| May 18, 2023 | AB 1291 McCarty Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 10, 2023 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 11, 2023 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Transportation] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Aclu California Action | ** Support | |
| California Faculty Association | ** Support | |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles County | ** Support | |
| Placer County Democratic Central Committee Legislation Committee | ** Support | |
| Policing Project | ** Support | |
| Policing Project At NYU Law School | ** Support | |
| Prosecutors Alliance California | ** Support | |
| San Francisco Public Defender | ** Support |
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1291
Author:(McCarty)
As Amended Ver:September 8, 2023
Majority vote
SUMMARY
As it passed out of the Assembly:
This measure required each municipality to post on its website specified details about settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of police misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, false arrest, or false imprisonment.
Senate Amendments
Delete the Assembly version of this bill, and instead:
- Establish the University of California (UC) Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) Pilot Program.
For UCLA
- Require UCLA to do both of the following:
- By the 2026-27 academic year, dedicate at least eight majors at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
- By the 2028-29 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least four of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. The measure also requires UCLA to make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units, and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, UCLA is required to provide a written justification to the Legislature, as specified.
For other UCs
- Require, by the 2028-29 academic year, that the UC designate at least five campuses to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from campus-selected community colleges (12 major minimum does not apply to UC, Merced) and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
For UCLA and other UCs
- Require that the applicable campus of the UC determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an ADT and meets requirements of one of the transfer model curricula prescribed in the bill.
- Require a campus to redirect a student who otherwise meets the requirements of the pilot program but is not granted admission to other UC campuses, where the student is to be offered admission to at least one other campus.
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) review and reports
- Require, by February 1, 2027, the LAO to review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the legislature on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes.
- Require, by June 1, 2030, the LAO to review the pilot program, and submit a final report on the pilot program to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and make the final report publicly available that includes additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, as well as recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. These recommendations are to take into consideration relevant information, including but not limited to all of the following:
- Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman-to- transfer student ratio, as determined by the UC;
- The pilot program's impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students; and,
- Best practices from other similar programs, such as the UC, Merced Transfer Project.
- Require the UC Regents to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
- State that the intent of the Legislature is that, by the 2031-32 academic year, each undergraduate UC campus declare at least 12 majors and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors at the respective campus, as described.
COMMENTS
Gut and amend. While the contents of this measure were recently entirely deleted and amended to establish the UC ADT Pilot Program, commencing with UCLA, the subject matter contained in this measure, is similar in nature to AB 1749 (McCarty), which passed out of the Assembly on May 31, 2023, with a vote of 80-0. AB 1749 was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Establishment of ADTs. Enacted over a decade ago, the ADT was designed to simplify the transfer maze at the California Community Colleges (CCC). Since its enactment, the ADT has made significant strides in streamlining the transfer process for students, and has become a successful pathway to earning a bachelor's degree. The ADT is a two-year, 60 unit degree that guarantees admission to the California State University (CSU) and participating private institutions of higher education. Students who earn an ADT are automatically eligible to transfer as an upper-division student in a bachelor's degree program and need only complete two additional years (an additional 60 units) of coursework to earn a bachelor's degree.
Pursuant to existing law, the UC is not required to participate in the ADT program. While six of the nine undergraduate campuses of the UC participate in a transfer admission guarantee (TAG) program, there remains confusion for CCC students who choose to transfer to a UC campus.
Since developing the ADT, the CCC system has also entered into transfer agreements with private nonprofit universities, some of which now also guarantee admission and junior standing to students with an ADT.
As of October 2020, over 280,000 CCC students have earned an ADT and over 40 ADT (now 41) pathways exist at CCC. Since 2012, the percent of students transferring with the ADT has grown from 3% to 42%. In fall 2020, transfer students entering the CSU with an ADT represented nearly half of new community college transfers. More than half of ADT transfer students graduate from the CSU within two years and 83% within four years, compared to 76% who transferred with a traditional associate degree.
Master Plan for Higher Education. The original Master Plan for Higher Education was approved in principle by the Regents and the State Board of Education (which at that time governed the CSU and the Community Colleges) on December 18, 1959, and was submitted to the Legislature in February 1960.
A special session of the 1960 Legislature passed the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which included many of the Master Plan recommendations. Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown signed the Donahoe Act into law on April 26, 1960. For various reasons, many of the key aspects of the Master Plan were never enacted into law although agreed to by the segments and the state.
The major features of the Master Plan as adopted in 1960 and amended in subsequent legislative and governing board actions are as follows:
- The UC is designated as the state's primary academic research institution and is to provide undergraduate, graduate and professional education. UC is given exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education for doctoral degrees (with a few exceptions--see CSU below) and for instruction in law, medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine.
- The CSU's primary mission is undergraduate education and graduate education through the master's degree including professional and teacher education. Faculty research is authorized consistent with the primary function of instruction. CSU is authorized to independently award four specific doctoral degrees – the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership and doctoral degrees in Audiology (Au.D.), Physical Therapy (DPT), and Nursing Practice (DNP). Other doctorates can be awarded jointly with UC or an independent institution.
- The CCC's have as their primary mission providing academic and vocational instruction for older and younger students through the first two years of undergraduate education (lower division). In addition to this primary mission, the Community Colleges are authorized to provide remedial instruction, English as a Second Language courses, adult noncredit instruction, community service courses, and workforce training services.
Access guarantee. Subsequent policy has modified the Master Plan to provide that all California residents in the top one-eighth or top one-third of the statewide high school graduating class who apply on time be offered a place somewhere in the UC or CSU system, respectively, though not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first choice. State law affirms the state's commitment to fund all eligible California residents.
Community college transfer. The transfer function is an essential component of the commitment to access. The UC and CSU are to establish a lower division to upper division ratio of 40:60 in order to provide transfer opportunities into the upper division for community college students. The goal was that UC and CSU would enroll at least one community college transfer student for each two freshmen enrolled. All eligible CCC transfer students are to be provided a place in the upper division and are to be given priority over freshmen in the admissions process.
Pursuant to existing law (see the policy committee analysis of AB 1749 for discussion), the STAR Act of 2021 (pursuant to AB 928 (Berman), Chapter 566, Statutes of 2021), in part, required the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division GE pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also required the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major. Components of the STAR Act of 2021 remain in the early stages of the implementation process.
The intent of the STAR Act of 2021 is to simplify the transfer process for eligible CCC students seeking to transfer, by creating one pathway for transfer admission to both the CSU and UC; which should alleviate ongoing confusion CCC students' face when determining which campus to transfer while ensuring they are eligible to transfer to either segment.
The STAR Act of 2021, while not requiring the UC to establish an ADT, as aforementioned, does stipulate that CSU and UC collaboratively create a single transfer admission pathway for CCC students seeking to transfer.
According to the Author
"AB 1291 delivers on a long-standing goal in California: to simplify and streamline transfer paths for hardworking, qualified community college students wishing to attend a UC or a CSU. Creating a universal transfer path will increase economic opportunity and prosperity for all Californians and help our state economy thrive."
Arguments in Support
None on file based on the most recent version of this measure.
Arguments in Opposition
None on file based on the most recent version of this measure.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee (based on the September 8, 2023 version of this measure):
- The UC estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $1.5 million for 10 additional staff to support campus articulation officers. The UC also estimates one-time General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars for systemwide and campus policy updates and coordination, technology and systems upgrades, staff trainings, and communication and marketing strategy implementation.
- The California community colleges may incur additional one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to develop and implement the necessary revisions to transfer model curricula from UCLA and other participating UC campuses, and additional costs to update course catalogs and student advising practices and procedures. The extent of these costs is unknown and could be offset by reduced administrative burdens.
- The Chancellor's Office may incur one-time General Fund workload costs, likely to be minor, to make changes to the Program Course Approval Handbook and course inventory system and issue guidance. There could be also be ongoing General Fund workload costs potentially in the low tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide technical assistance and support implementation in coordination with the UC.
- Any costs for the LAO to comply with the bill's reporting requirements are likely to be minor and absorbable within existing resources.
VOTES:
ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0
YES: Jones-Sawyer, Alanis, Bonta, Jackson, Lackey, Ortega, Santiago, Zbur
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-2
YES: Holden, Megan Dahle, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Addis, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Sanchez, Weber, Wilson
ABS, ABST OR NV: Bryan, Mathis
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0-6
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
ABS, ABST OR NV: Cervantes, Vince Fong, Friedman, Villapudua, Waldron, Wilson
UPDATED
VERSION: September 8, 2023
CONSULTANT: Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0002445
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1291 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1291
Author: McCarty (D)
Amended: 9/8/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 5-0, 9/12/23
AYES: Newman, Ochoa Bogh, Cortese, McGuire, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Glazer, Smallwood-Cuevas
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/12/23
AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener
SUBJECT: University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill establishes the University of California (UC) Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program, commencing with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer (ADT) from selected community colleges and to redirect a student who meets those requirements but is denied admission to the applicable campus and offer admission to at least one other campus.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Establishes, under the California Constitution, the UC as a public trust to be administered by the UC Regents; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services. (Article IX, § (9)(a) of the California Constitution).
- States, under the California Constitution, that the university be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs. (Constitution of California, Article IX, § 9 (f))
- Provides that statutes related to UC (and most other aspects of the governance and operation of UC) are applicable only to the extent that the Regents of UC make such provisions applicable. (Education Code (EC) § 67400)
- Requires the segments of higher education to develop an intersegmental common core curriculum in general education for the purpose of transfer. This common core curriculum is known as the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). Any student who completes the IGETC course pattern is deemed to have completed the lower division coursework required for transfer to the UC or the California State University (CSU). (EC § 66720)
- Requests the UC to identify commonalities and differences in similar majors across all UC campuses and provide California Community College (CCC) students with the information in at least the top 20 majors. (EC § 66721.7)
- Requests the UC Regents, on or before March 1 in each year from 2017 to 2022, inclusive, to submit an annual report to the Legislature, on the UC’s data on student transfers and to beginning on or before March 1, 2019, in its report to include the same data points, on transfer students with a UC Transfer Pathway. (EC § 66721.9)
- Requires the governing board of each public postsecondary education segment to be accountable for the development and implementation of formal systemwide articulation agreements and transfer agreement programs, including those for general education or a transfer core curriculum, and other appropriate procedures to support and enhance the transfer function. (EC § 66738)
- Establishes the STAR Act, which, in part, requires, commencing with the fall term of the 2011-2012 academic year, a student that receives an ADT to be deemed eligible for transfer into a CSU baccalaureate degree program when the student meets specified requirements. Requires a granting of this degree when a student accomplishes both of the following:
- Completes 60 semester or 90 quarter units eligible for transfer to the CSU and that includes the CSU General Education Breadth program for IGETC, and a minimum of 18 semester or 27 quarter units in a major area of emphasis as determined by the district.
- Obtains a minimum grade point average of 2.0. (EC § 66745, et seq.)
- Requires the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division general education (GE) pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also requires the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major. Establishes the ADT intersegmental implementation committee to serve as the primary entity charged with oversight of the ADT. (EC § 66749.8)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
- Establishes the UC ADT Pilot Program and requires UCLA to do both of the following:
- By the 2026-27 academic year, dedicate at least eight majors at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
- By the 2028-29 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4 of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. The bill requires UCLA to make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units, and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, UCLA is required to provide a written justification to the legislature as specified.
- Requires, by the 2028-29 academic year, that the UC designate at least five campuses to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from campus-selected community colleges (does not apply to UC, Merced) and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
- Requires that the applicable campus of the UC determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an ADT and meets requirements of one of the transfer model curricula prescribed in the bill.
- Requires a campus to redirect a student who otherwise meets the requirements of the pilot program but is not granted admission to other UC campuses, where the student is to be offered admission to at least one other campus.
- Requires, by February 1, 2027, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the legislature on the pilot program, as specified.
- Requires, by June 1, 2030, the LAO to review the pilot program, and submit a final report on the pilot program to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and make the final report publicly available that includes the specified information, as well as recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. These recommendations are to take into consideration relevant information, including but not limited to all of the following:
- Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman-to- transfer student ratio, as determined by the UC.
- The pilot program’s impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students.
- Best practices from other similar programs, such as the UC, Merced Transfer Project.
- Requires the UC Regents to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
- States that it is the intent of the Legislature that, by 2031-32 academic year, each undergraduate UC campus declare at least 12 majors and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors at the respective campus as described.
Comments
- Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1291 delivers on a long-standing goal in California: to simplify and streamline transfer paths for hardworking, qualified community college students wishing to attend a UC or a CSU. Creating a universal transfer path will increase economic opportunity and prosperity for all Californians and help our state economy thrive.”
- ADT benefits for students. Since the enactment of SB 1440 (Padilla, Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010), the STAR Act, the ADT has made significant strides in streamlining the transfer process for students and has become a successful pathway to earning a bachelor’s degree. Specifically, the Act requires CCC districts to develop and grant a transfer associate degree that deems the student eligible for transfer into the CSU when the student meets certain course requirements. Completion of an ADT guarantees a student:
- Admission with junior status to a CSU campus but not to a specific campus or major.
- No additional lower-division CSU coursework.
- No more than 60-semester units of upper-division CSU coursework to complete a bachelor’s degree, in addition to the 60 units completed at community college, results in a 120-unit pathway to a bachelor’s degree.
- Priority admission at CSU.
On a lesser scale, this bill attempts to nudge UC in a similar direction. However, the California Constitution declares the UC an independent body governed by the UC Regents and retains the authority to manage all academic affairs (as noted in the background of this analysis). It is unclear to what extent UC can be compelled to comply with the provisions of this bill.
- ADT participation from other segments. Since developing the ADT, the CCC system has also entered into transfer agreements with private nonprofit universities, some of which now also guarantee admission and junior standing to students with an ADT. As of October 2020, over 280,000 CCC students have earned an ADT and 41 ADT pathways exist at CCC. Since 2012, the percent of students transferring with the ADT has grown from 3 percent to 42 percent. In fall 2020, transfer students entering the CSU with an ADT represented nearly half of new community college transfers. More than half of ADT transfer students graduate from the CSU within two years and 83 percent within four years, compared to 76 percent who transferred with a traditional associate degree.
- UC Transfer Admission Programs. UC has several transfer admission programs for CCC students, with more than 60 percent of transfer-students graduating from UC within two years and close to 90 percent in four years. This bill would presumably add to the list of UC transfer programs available to community college students. (See Senate Education Committee analysis for list of programs.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
- The UC estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $1.5 million for 10 additional staff to support campus articulation officers. The UC also estimates one-time General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars for systemwide and campus policy updates and coordination, technology and systems upgrades, staff trainings, and communication and marketing strategy implementation.
- The California community colleges may incur additional one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to develop and implement the necessary revisions to transfer model curricula from UCLA and other participating UC campuses, and additional costs to update course catalogs and student advising practices and procedures. The extent of these costs is unknown and could be offset by reduced administrative burdens.
- The Chancellor’s Office may incur one-time General Fund workload costs, likely to be minor, to make changes to the Program Course Approval Handbook and course inventory system and issue guidance. There could be also be ongoing General Fund workload costs potentially in the low tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide technical assistance and support implementation in coordination with the UC.
- Any costs for the LAO to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements are likely to be minor and absorbable within existing resources.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/13/23)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/13/23)
None received
Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105
9/13/23 18:28:18
**** END ****
1291
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1291 (McCarty) - University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program
Version: | Policy Vote: ED. 5 - 0 |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
This bill establishes the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program, commencing with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer (ADT) from selected community colleges and to redirect a student who meets those requirements but is denied admission to the applicable campus and offer admission to at least one other campus.
Fiscal Impact:
- The UC estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $1.5 million for 10 additional staff to support campus articulation officers. The UC also estimates one-time General Fund costs in the low millions of dollars for systemwide and campus policy updates and coordination, technology and systems upgrades, staff trainings, and communication and marketing strategy implementation.
- The California community colleges may incur additional one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs to develop and implement the necessary revisions to transfer model curricula from UCLA and other participating UC campuses, and additional costs to update course catalogs and student advising practices and procedures. The extent of these costs is unknown and could be offset by reduced administrative burdens.
- The Chancellor’s Office may incur one-time General Fund workload costs, likely to be minor, to make changes to the Program Course Approval Handbook and course inventory system and issue guidance. There could be also be ongoing General Fund workload costs potentially in the low tens of thousands of dollars each year to provide technical assistance and support implementation in coordination with the UC.
- Any costs for the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to comply with the bill’s reporting requirements are likely to be minor and absorbable within existing resources.
Background:
Existing law establishes the STAR Act, which, in part, requires, commencing with the fall term of the 2011-2012 academic year, a student that receives an ADT to be deemed eligible for transfer into a CSU baccalaureate degree program when the student meets specified requirements. The law requires a granting of this degree when a student accomplishes both of the following:
- Completes 60 semester or 90 quarter units eligible for transfer to the CSU and that includes the CSU General Education Breadth program for IGETC, and a minimum of 18 semester or 27 quarter units in a major area of emphasis as determined by the district.
- Obtains a minimum grade point average of 2.0.
Existing law requires the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division general education pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also requires the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major. It also establishes the ADT intersegmental implementation committee to serve as the primary entity charged with oversight of the ADT.
Existing law requires the CSU Chancellor's Office to implement articulated nursing degree transfer pathways for Associates Degree in Nursing students at community colleges seeking a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing at CSU.
Proposed Law:
This bill establishes the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program, and requires UCLA to do both of the following:
- By the 2026-27 academic year, dedicate at least eight majors at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
- By the 2028-29 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4 of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. UCLA would be required to make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units, and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, UCLA is required to provide a written justification to the Legislature as specified.
This bill requires, by the 2028-29 academic year, that the UC designate at least five campuses to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from campus-selected community colleges (12 major minimum does not apply to UC, Merced) and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
This bill requires that the applicable campus of the UC determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an ADT and meets requirements of one of the transfer model curricula prescribed in the bill. It also requires a campus to redirect a student who otherwise meets the requirements of the pilot program but is not granted admission to other UC campuses, where the student is to be offered admission to at least one other campus.
This bill requires, by February 1, 2027, the LAO to review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the legislature on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes. The bill also requires, by June 1, 2030, the LAO to review the pilot program, and submit a final report on the pilot program to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and make the final report publicly available that includes additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, as well as recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. These recommendations are to take into consideration relevant information, including but not limited to all of the following:
- Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman-to- transfer student ratio, as determined by the UC.
- The pilot program’s impact on streamlining transfer pathways for community college students.
- Best practices from other similar programs, such as the UC, Merced Transfer Project.
This bill requires the UC Regents to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents. It also states that it is the intent of the Legislature that, by 2031-32 academic year, each undergraduate UC campus declare at least 12 majors and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors at the respective campus as described.
Related Legislation:
AB 1749 (McCarty, 2023), similar to this bill, would have expanded provisions of the STAR Act to additionally require that a student who earns an ADT be deemed eligible for transfer into a UC baccalaureate degree program if they meet certain requirements. AB 1749 was held on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 928 (Berman, Chapter 566, Statutes of 2021) required the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division GE pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also required the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major.
SB 440 (Padilla, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2013), required, prior to 2014-2015, a CCC to create an ADT in every major that has an existing transfer model curricula.
SB 1440 (Padilla, Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010) sought to improve transfer between the CCCs and CSU and created the ADT pathway. The ADT is a set of classes in a specific discipline that guarantees certain undergraduate status and entry into a CSU for a CCC student who completes the sequence.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Josh Newman, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: September 12, 2023
Author: | McCarty | ||
Version: |
| ||
Urgency: | Fiscal: | ||
Consultant: | |||
Subject:
NOTE: This bill has been amended to replace its contents and this is the first time the bill is being heard in its current form.
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program commencing with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and phases-in an expansion of the pilot program to no less than five additional campuses by the 2028-29 academic year. The bill requires UCLA and selected University of California (UC) campuses to prioritize admission of a student who earns an associate degree for transfer (ADT) from selected community colleges and to redirect a student who meets those requirements but is denied admission to the applicable campus and offer admission to at least one other campus. Lastly, the bill requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to review the pilot program and submit an interim and final report on the pilot program, each with specified content, on February 1, 2027, and June 1, 2030, respectively, to the Legislature
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1) Under the California Constitution, establishes the UC as a public trust to be administered by the UC Regents; and, grants the Regents full powers of organization and government, subject only to such legislative control as may be necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the purchase of materials, goods and services. (Article IX, Section (9)(a) of the California Constitution).
2) Under the California Constitution, states that the university be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs. (Constitution of California, Article IX, Section 9 (f))
3) Provides that statutes related to UC (and most other aspects of the governance and operation of UC) are applicable only to the extent that the Regents of UC make such provisions applicable. (Education Code (EC) § 67400)
4) Declares the UC as the primary state-supported academic agency for research. (EC § 66010.4 (c))
5) Requires the segments of higher education to develop an intersegmental common core curriculum in general education for the purpose of transfer. This common core curriculum is known as the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). Any student who completes the IGETC course pattern is deemed to have completed the lower division coursework required for transfer to the UC or the California State University (CSU). (EC § 66720)
6) Requests the UC to identify commonalities and differences in similar majors across all UC campuses and provide California Community College (CCC) students with the information in at least the top 20 majors. (EC § 66721.7)
7) Requests the UC Regents, on or before March 1 in each year from 2017 to 2022, inclusive, to submit an annual report to the Legislature, on the UC’s data on student transfers and to beginning on or before March 1, 2019, in its report to include the same data points, on transfer students with a UC Transfer Pathway. (EC § 66721.9)
8) Requires the governing board of each public postsecondary education segment to be accountable for the development and implementation of formal systemwide articulation agreements and transfer agreement programs, including those for general education or a transfer core curriculum, and other appropriate procedures to support and enhance the transfer function. (EC § 66738)
9) Requires the Chancellor of CSU, in consultation with the Academic Senate of the CSU, to establish specified components necessary for a clear degree path for transfer students, including specification of a systemwide lower division transfer curriculum for each high-demand baccalaureate major. (EC § 66739.5)
10) Establishes the STAR Act, which, in part, requires, commencing with the fall term of the 2011-2012 academic year, a student that receives an ADT to be deemed eligible for transfer into a CSU baccalaureate degree program when the student meets specified requirements. Requires a granting of this degree when a student accomplishes both of the following:
a) Completes 60 semester or 90 quarter units eligible for transfer to the CSU and that includes the CSU General Education Breadth program for IGETC, and a minimum of 18 semester or 27 quarter units in a major area of emphasis as determined by the district.
b) Obtains a minimum grade point average of 2.0. (EC § 66745, et seq.)
11) Requires the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division general education (GE) pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also requires the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major. Establishes the ADT intersegmental implementation committee to serve as the primary entity charged with oversight of the ADT [also referred to as the STAR Act of 2021]. (EC § 66749.8)
12) Requires the CSU Chancellor's Office to implement articulated nursing degree transfer pathways for Associates Degree in Nursing (ADN) students at CCCs seeking a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing (BSN) at CSU prior to the 2012-2013 academic year. (EC § 89267.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
- Establishes the University of California Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program.
For UCLA
- Requires UCLA to do both of the following:
- By the 2026-27 academic year, dedicate at least eight majors at
UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
- By the 2028-29 academic year, declare at least 12 majors, with at least 4
of those 12 majors in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, at UCLA as similar to the transfer model curricula from UCLA-selected community colleges and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula. The bill requires UCLA to make every effort to ensure that the transfer model curricula declared similar to the STEM majors do not require the completion of more than 60 semester units, and if one or more of the transfer model curricula do not meet this limit, UCLA is required to provide a written justification to the legislature as specified.
For other UCs
- Requires, by the 2028-29 academic year, that the UC designate at least five campuses to declare at least 12 majors at the applicable campus as similar to the transfer model curricula from campus-selected community colleges (12 major minimum does not apply to UC, Merced) and prioritize admission of a student who earns an ADT and meets the requirements of one of the transfer model curricula.
For UCLA and other UCs
- Requires that the applicable campus of the UC determine the appropriate admissions preference for a student who earns an ADT and meets requirements of one of the transfer model curricula prescribed in the bill.
- Requires a campus to redirect a student who otherwise meets the requirements of the pilot program but is not granted admission to other UC campuses, where the student is to be offered admission to at least one other campus.
LAO review and reports
- Requires, by February 1, 2027, the LAO to review the pilot program and submit an interim report to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the legislature on the pilot program that includes relevant information on admissions and redirection outcomes.
- Requires, by June 1, 2030, the LAO to review the pilot program, and submit a final report on the pilot program to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and make the final report publicly available that includes additional information on admissions, redirection, student demographics, and student completion outcomes, as well as recommendations on whether and how the pilot program can or should be extended or expanded. These recommendations are to take into consideration relevant information, including but not limited to all of the following:
- Factors such as negative impacts on student diversity or the freshman-to-
transfer student ratio, as determined by the UC.
- The pilot program’s impact on streamlining transfer pathways for
community college students.
- Best practices from other similar programs, such as the UC, Merced
Transfer Project.
- Requires the UC Regents to consider and discuss the final report during an open session of a regularly scheduled meeting of the regents.
- States that it is the intent of the Legislature that, by 2031-32 academic year, each undergraduate UC campus declare at least 12 majors and evaluate the possibility of declaring at least 16 majors at the respective campus as described.
STAFF COMMENTS
- Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1291 delivers on a long-standing goal in California: to simplify and streamline transfer paths for hardworking, qualified community college students wishing to attend a UC or a CSU. Creating a universal transfer path will increase economic opportunity and prosperity for all Californians and help our state economy thrive.”
- How would it work? Implementation of the proposed pilot program would commence at UCLA and grow to five other UC campuses over a period of three years for the purposes of extending priority admissions for students who have earned a community college ADT degree. UC campuses would select which majors (no less than 12) align with transfer model curricula from select community colleges. UCLA is additionally required to declare at least four of the 12 STEM majors required. Students who are not granted admission will be redirected to other UC campuses and offered admission to at least one of those campuses. Students are subject to meeting other admission requirements. The bill limits the pilot program to majors that fit with transfer model curricula from UC-selected community colleges. It is unclear how students will learn about the pilot program, the selected community colleges or the participating UCs in order for them to take advantage of it. The LAO is tasked with the responsibility of conducting a comprehensive review and offering informed recommendations to the legislature in order to guide subsequent actions on the policy.
- ADT benefits for students. Since the enactment of SB 1440 (Padilla, Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010), the STAR Act, the ADT has made significant strides in streamlining the transfer process for students and has become a successful pathway to earning a bachelor’s degree. Specifically, the Act requires CCC districts to develop and grant a transfer associate degree that deems the student eligible for transfer into the CSU when the student meets certain course requirements. Completion of an ADT guarantees a student:
- Admission with junior status to a CSU campus but not to a specific campus or major.
- No additional lower-division CSU coursework.
- No more than 60-semester units of upper-division CSU coursework to complete a bachelor’s degree, in addition to the 60 units completed at community college, results in a 120-unit pathway to a bachelor’s degree.
- Priority admission at CSU.
On a lesser scale, this bill attempts to nudge UC in a similar direction. However, the California Constitution declares the UC an independent body governed by the UC Regents and retains the authority to manage all academic affairs (as noted in the background of this analysis). It’s unclear to what extent UC can be compelled to comply with the provisions of this bill.
- ADT participation. Since developing the ADT, the CCC system has also entered into transfer agreements with private nonprofit universities, some of which now also guarantee admission and junior standing to students with an ADT.
As of October 2020, over 280,000 CCC students have earned an ADT and over 40 ADT (now 41) pathways exist at CCC. Since 2012, the percent of students transferring with the ADT has grown from 3 percent to 42 percent. In fall 2020, transfer students entering the CSU with an ADT represented nearly half of new community college transfers. More than half of ADT transfer students graduate from the CSU within two years and 83 percent within four years, compared to 76 percent who transferred with a traditional associate degree.
- UC Transfer Admission Programs. UC has several transfer admission programs for CCC students, with more than 60 percent of transfer-students graduating from UC within two years and close to 90 percent in four years. These programs include:
- Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG). The TAG program guarantees CCC students admission to a specific major at the UC campus of their choice, provided they meet certain course and GPA requirements. Campuses offering TAG agreements are Davis, Irvine, Merced, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz. By submitting a TAG agreement, students can confirm their admission to a particular UC campus and may receive an early review of their academic records, early admission notification, and individual guidance about major preparation and general education coursework. The conditions for a TAG often include major preparation requirements and a requisite GPA in those courses.
- UC Transfer Pathways. The Transfer Pathways are a common set of major-based preparatory courses offered across all nine UC undergraduate campuses for twenty of the majors most sought-after by CCC transfer applicants. As a clear roadmap for prospective transfers, a Transfer Pathway guides CCC students by identifying a single set of CCC courses aligned with their chosen major that will transfer to UC campuses. CCC students can follow one of UC’s Transfer Pathways to start preparing for their major at a community college and keep their UC campus options open.
- Pathways+. Pathways+ is the most recent transfer guarantee policy based on the UC Transfer Pathway majors. CCC students complete one of the UC Transfer Pathways, which includes major-preparatory coursework accepted across all nine UC campuses, as well as a TAG for the major. By completing a UC Transfer Pathway and a campus-based TAG in the same major, Pathways+ students are prepared for competitive admission across all nine of UC’s undergraduate campuses, while simultaneously securing guaranteed admission to one of the TAG campuses.
- UC Transfer Pathway (UCTP) Degrees. The UCTP Associate Degrees in Chemistry and Physics are pilot community college degree programs that build on UC’s Pathways+ program.
- Associate Degree for Transfer. Students who complete an ADT are eligible for transfer admission to UC and are admitted provided they meet other UC admission criteria and GPA requirements.
- Other local transfer agreements.
This bill would presumably add to the list of programs.
- Promising UC Merced pathway aligned with ADT. The collaboration among regional leaders in the CCC, CSU, and UC systems has resulted in a streamlined pathway to a bachelor's degree for students in the Central Valley. This initiative is led by the Central Valley Higher Education Consortium (CVHEC) and is aimed at simplifying and streamlining transfer pathways between community colleges and universities. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to create 2+2 pathways that builds upon the ADT. This will enable students at any CCC in the region to prepare for transfer and complete a bachelor's degree at either UC Merced or one of the three CSU campuses in the Valley (Stanislaus, Fresno, and Bakersfield). This development is expected to have a positive impact on the educational attainment of students in the region. The proposed reporting criteria provides a chance to highlight lessons learned from programs like the UC Merced Transfer project and perhaps apply them to future ADT pilot expansions.
- Prior and related legislation
AB 1749 (McCarty, 2023) would have expanded, commencing with the 2025–2026 academic year, provisions the STAR Act to additionally require that a student who earns an ADT be deemed eligible for transfer into a UC baccalaureate degree program if they meet certain requirements; requires the UC to guarantee admission with junior status to a CCC student who has earned an ADT, as specified; and, provides that a student admitted to the UC pursuant to this Act is entitled to receive priority over all other CCC transfer students, excluding CCC students who have entered into a transfer agreement between a CCC and the UC before the fall term of the 2025–2026 AY. AB 1749 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.
AB 928 (Berman, Chapter 566, Statutes of 2021), the STAR Act of 2021, in part, required the CSU and UC to jointly establish a singular lower division GE pathway for transfer admission into both segments, and also required the CCC to place students who declare a goal of transfer on an ADT pathway for their intended major.
SB 440 (Padilla, Chapter 720, Statutes of 2013), required, prior to the 2014-2015 AY, a CCC create an ADT in every major that has an existing transfer model curricula (TMC). Specifies that once a TMC is approved by faculty, community colleges use it to design an ADT in that particular major.
AB 2302 (Paul Fong, Chapter 427, Statutes of 2010), made changes to existing law regarding transfer admissions to support the transfer pathway proposed by SB 1440 (Padilla) (as described below).
SB 1440 (Padilla, Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010) created the STAR Act, which, in part, created the ADT; a two-year 60-unit associate degrees for transfer that are fully transferable to CSU. These degrees require completion of: (1) a minimum of 18 units in a major or area of emphasis, as determined by each community college; and, (2) an approved set of general education requirements. Students who earn such a degree are automatically eligible to transfer to the CSU system as an upper-division student in a bachelor’s degree program and need only complete two additional years (an additional 60 units) of coursework to earn a bachelor’s degree.
SUPPORT
None received.
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1291 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1291
Author: McCarty (D), et al.
Amended: 8/14/23 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/20/23
AYES: Wahab, Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 8-0, 7/5/23
AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Blakespear, Dahle, Durazo, Glazer, Skinner, Wiener
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/23
AYES: Portantino, Jones, Ashby, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab, Wiener
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/18/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, to annually post specified information on their websites regarding settlements and judgments resulting from allegation of improper police conduct.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)
- Defines “public records” to include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 7920.530.)
- States that the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.)
- Provides general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code, § 7930.100 et seq.)
- Does not require, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), disclosure of investigations conducted by the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)
- Requires an agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the CPRA, or that on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code, § 7922.000.)
- Requires the public agency, when a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
- Assists the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
- Describes the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
- Provides suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. (Gov. Code, § 7922.600, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
- Provides that, unless otherwise specified, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state, or local agency or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)
- Provides that specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency are not confidential and must be made available for public inspection under the CPRA. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Authorizes an agency to redact a record of police misconduct, including personal identifying information, where on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest serve by disclosure of the information. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(7).)
- Provides that an agency may withhold a record of an incident otherwise subject to disclosure if there is an active criminal or administrative investigation, as specified. (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(8).)
- Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures and education training materials that would otherwise be available if a public request was made pursuant to the CPRA. (Pen. Code § 13650.)
- Requires each law enforcement agency, within 60 days of each incident, to publish a summary on its internet website of all instances in which a peace officer employed by that agency uses a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent. (Pen. Code § 13652.1)
This bill:
- Sets forth various legislative findings and declarations.
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
- Requires the municipality to include all of the following information for each action posted:
- The court in which the action was filed;
- The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff;
- The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant;
- The date the action was filed;
- Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment; and,
- If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website all of the following:
- The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount;
- The total amount of money paid for cases of improper police conduct;
- The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipality’s budget; and,
- The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgements in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year.
- Requires the municipality, if any such settlements or judgments are paid for using municipal bonds, to post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
- Requires the municipality to post on its internet website any such settlements or judgments that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, as specified.
- Provides that its provisions shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents under the CPRA.
- Defines “municipality” as a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriff’s department.
Comments
Recent years have seen an increase in legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to collect and report specific data and disclose various records and policies to the public. In 2015, AB 953 (Weber, Chapter 466, Statutes of 2015) and AB 71 (Rodriguez, Chapter 462, Statutes of 2015) generally required law enforcement to report data on police stops and use of force incidents, respectively. In 2018, the Legislature adopted SB 1421 (Skinner, Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018), which required that certain records relating to police misconduct and serious uses of force be made publicly available under the CPRA. In 2021, the Legislature passed SB 16 (Skinner, Chapter 402, Statutes of 2021), which expanded the applicability of SB 1421 by exempting four additional categories of peace officer records from existing confidentiality requirements. This bill builds upon these recent efforts by ensuring the public’s access to information relating to settlements with and judgements against local law enforcement agencies arising out of allegations of improper police conduct.
This is not the author’s first attempt at advancing this type of legislation. A substantially similar bill was introduced by the author in 2020 (AB 1314 (McCarty, 2020)), although it never received a hearing in this committee. In 2021, however, the Legislature passed AB 603 (McCarty, 2021), which was similar to this bill. AB 603 passed this committee by a vote of 5-0. Despite near unanimous support in the Legislature, the Governor vetoed the measure.
While similar, there are several important differences between AB 603 and this bill. First, while AB 603 would have required municipalities to post on their websites information about settlements or judgments for police misconduct in any amount, this bill requires disclosure of only those settlements or judgments that exceed $50,000. Second, this bill requires municipalities to post information on the previous year’s settlements and judgements, the total amount paid for those actions, the estimated costs of police misconduct budgeted for in the municipality’s current budget, and the actual amount of money spent from the previous budget on misconduct settlements and judgments. AB 603 would not require municipalities to post this information. Finally, this bill eliminates the provision in AB 603 requiring the California State Transportation Agency to post information on settlements and judgments against the California Highway Patrol. It should be noted that the differences between this measure and its predecessor do not really address the substance of the concerns raised by the Governor in his AB 603 veto message.
According to the author,
For far too long, cities and counties have spent taxpayer dollars on settlements in police misconduct and excessive use of force cases without proper public disclosure. Many of these settlements are paid through “police brutality bonds” by Wall Street firms that profit from the harmful and tragic experiences of civilians. Shining a light on all government spending is not only the right thing to do, it is critical to increasing public understanding about law enforcement practices and improving police accountability.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
- Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to city, county, or city and county governments to track, collect and publish specific court and financial details about lawsuits resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment (local funds, General Fund). General Fund costs will depend on whether this bill imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/23)
ACLU California Action
California Faculty Association
California Public Defenders Association
Los Angeles County
Placer County Democratic Central Committee Legislation Committee
Policing Project
Prosecutors Alliance California
San Francisco Public Defender
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/23)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 5/18/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cervantes, Vince Fong, Friedman, Villapudua, Waldron, Wilson
Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /
9/4/23 9:40:16
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 1291 (McCarty) - Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting
Version: July 10, 2023 | Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 0, GOV. & F. 8 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 | Consultant: Matthew Fleming |
Bill Summary:
AB 1291 would require each municipality in the state to publish law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown, potentially reimbursable costs to city, county, or city and county governments to track, collect and publish specific court and financial details about lawsuits resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment (local funds, General Fund). General Fund costs will depend on whether this bill imposes a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
Background:
The California Department of Justice collects information on use of force incidents that result in serious bodily injury or death or involved the discharge of a firearm. According to the 2021 use of force incident reporting, there were 660 civilians involved in police use of force incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. Of those, 349 resulted in serious bodily injury and 149 resulted in death. The report revealed that 1,462 officers were involved in the use of force incidents. Of the 1,462 officers, 43.6 percent (638) did not receive force from a civilian, 18.9 percent (277) received force during physical contact with a civilian, and 17.5 percent (256) received force by the discharge of a firearm from a civilian. Demographics of officers were 49.6 percent (725) white, 38.3 percent (560) Hispanic, 6.0 percent (88) Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4.0 percent (58) black.
In a 2021 report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), researchers examining multiple sources and years of data note nearly 200 people die every year from interactions with California law enforcement, and pedestrian and vehicle stops account for about 1 in 6 of the encounters in which a civilian is killed or seriously injured. The report also notes “Black Californians are about three times more likely to be seriously injured, shot, or killed by the police relative to their share of the population.” A policy brief based on the same data, further states that “Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans and, multiracial Californians also see disparities in certain kinds of police use of force, such as when an officer uses a weapon.”
Recently, the Yuba City Police Department settled a lawsuit with a man who was left paralyzed after he was slammed to the ground during a traffic stop. According to reporting by the Associated Press, the man was left with a broken neck, and he underwent two surgeries to fuse his spine. His lawsuit was settlted for $20 million (Nguyen, AP News, July 11, 2023, available at: https://apnews.com/article/paralyzed-man-police-california-lawsuit-43cd3b316da99f502d16091330803028.) According to another report by the AP, the State has agreed to pay $24 million as part of a civil rights settlement to the family of a man who died in police custody after screaming “I can’t breathe” as multiple officers restrained him while trying to take a blood sample (AP News, May 9, 2023, available at: https://apnews.com/article/california-highway-patrol-police-custody-death-edward-bronstein-c07d84921cd09c8f576b877b5f133d79.)
Proposed Law:
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
- Requires the municipality to include all of the following information for each action posted:
- The court in which the action was filed;
- The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff;
- The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant;
- The date the action was filed;
- Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment; and,
- If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website all of the following:
- The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount;
- The total amount of money paid for cases of improper police conduct;
- The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipality’s budget; and,
- The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgements in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year.
- This bill requires the municipality, if any such settlements or judgments are paid for using municipal bonds, to post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
- This bill requires the municipality to post on its internet website any such settlements or judgments that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, as specified.
- This bill provides that its provisions shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents under the CPRA.
- This bill defines “municipality” as a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriff’s department.
Related Legislation:
AB 603 (McCarty) was substantially similar to this bill. The Governor vetoed AB 603, citing fiscal concerns.
Staff Comments:
This bill requires municipalities, as defined, to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The information will include amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments, and premiums paid for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. Some of the information covered by this bill is likely already available either through a Public Records Act request, at the courthouse, or online. Other information may be subject to confidentiality either as part of a settlement agreement or due to insurance confidentiality provisions.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Anna M. Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: | AB 1291 | Hearing Date: | 7/5/23 |
Author: | McCarty | Tax Levy: | No |
Version: | 4/3/23 | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Rounds | ||
Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting
Requires cities and counties to post financial details pertaining to police misconduct settlements and judgments as well as information about local budget monies, municipal bonds, and insurance policies used to pay for police misconduct settlements and judgments.
Background
Police Use of Force. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) collects and analyzes data on use of force incidents in California. According to the DOJ, in 2021 there were 660 civilians involved in police use of force incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or other use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. Of those, 349 resulted in serious bodily injury and 149 resulted in death. The demographic breakdown of the civilians involved was 50.6%(334) who were Hispanic, 25.5% (168) who were white, and 16.7% (110) who were black. DOJ use of force data also show that 1,462 officers were involved in the use of force incidents in 2021. Demographics of the officers involved: 49.6% (725) were white; 38.3% (560) were Hispanic; 6% (88) were Asian/Pacific Islander; and, 4% (58) were black.
In a 2021 report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), researchers examining multiple sources and years of data note nearly 200 people die every year from interactions with California law enforcement, and pedestrian and vehicle stops account for about 1 in 6 of the encounters in which a civilian is killed or seriously injured. The report also notes “Black Californians are about three times more likely to be seriously injured, shot, or killed by the police relative to their share of the population.” A policy brief based on the same data, further states that “Latinos, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans and, multiracial Californians also see disparities in certain kinds of police use of force, such as when an officer uses a weapon.”[1]
Police Misconduct. According to PPIC, about 80 officers are placed under arrest every year for potential violations of criminal law. Assault tops the list of reasons for arrest. Often (40% of the time) arrests are made for alleged conduct that occurred while the officer was working.
Municipal Records, Confidentiality, and Public Disclosure. The California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires government agencies to make public records available to the public upon request, unless the records are exempt from disclosure due to state or federal law, or the agency can show the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. CPRA also enumerates general categories of documents or information that are exempt from public disclosure requirements, essentially due to the confidential nature of the information in question. With respect to these exemptions, unless it can be shown the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure, the exempt information may be withheld. State law contains the following specific provisions relating to police officers:
- The law does not require disclosure of government records related to investigations conducted by the office of the Attorney General and the DOJ, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.
- The personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state, or local agency or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as specified (relevant details below).
- Agencies can redact a record of police misconduct, including personal identifying information, where on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information.
- Agencies can withhold a record of an incident otherwise subject to disclosure if there is an active criminal or administrative investigation.
In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 1421 (Skinner) eliminating an exemption from disclosure for certain records of police use of force and misconduct. Previously, most records relating to use-of-force incidents and officer misconduct were considered confidential officer personnel files and were not subject to disclosure to the public under the CPRA.
Under SB 1421, agencies must release records related to officer-involved shootings, use-of-force incidents resulting in death or great bodily injury, and any incident in which a sustained finding was made regarding an officer’s dishonesty or sexual assault against a member of the public. In 2021, the Legislature also passed SB 16 (Skinner) which required disclosure of records related to additional types of officer misconduct, including records related to:
- Every incident involving unreasonable uses of force, or excessive uses of force
- Sustained findings that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using unreasonable or excessive force.
- Sustained findings of unlawful arrests and unlawful searches.
- Sustained findings of officers engaged in conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes.
Currently, each law enforcement agency must, within 60 days of each incident, publish a summary on its internet website of all instances in which a peace officer employed by that agency used a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent.
Websites. As technology advances, the Legislature often amends statutes to capture these advancements and take advantage of any potential public benefits. For example, the Brown Act requires all local agencies to post the agenda for any regular meeting 72 hours in advance in a location that is freely accessible to the public. The agenda must clearly specify the meeting’s time, location, and the topics that will be deliberated. Despite this requirement, a local agency’s constituents still have to know when the agency plans to meet, where the agenda is posted, and physically travel to the location where the agenda is posted or contact the agency directly to discover what topics the agency is planning to discuss. With the proliferation of internet access and local agencies utilizing this tool to communicate with its constituents, AB 1344 (Feuer, 2011) required all local agencies that have a website to post its meeting agendas on the website 72 hours in advance, effectively making the agenda more accessible to the public by taking advantage of advancements in technology. Additionally, SB 272 (Hertzberg, 2015) and AB 2040 (Garcia, 2014) required local agencies to post on their websites a list of the agency’s enterprise systems and the agency’s employee compensation report, respectively.
The author wants to shed greater light on the public costs of alleged police misconduct by requiring local municipalities to post on their websites specified financial information about settlements and judgments arising from such claims.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 1291 requires cities and counties, on or before February 1 of each year, to post information pertaining to law enforcement settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more on their internet websites when these settlements and judgments result from allegations of police misconduct. The information would be disaggregated by settlement and would be required to include all of the following details:
- The court in which legal action was filed.
- The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff.
- The name of the law firm representing each defendant.
- The date the action was filed.
- Whether the plaintiff alleged police misconduct.
- Whether the claims had been resolved, the manner of resolution, whether there was a payment, and if so, the amount paid.
The bill requires municipalities, on or before February 1 of each year, to post the total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct irrespective of the settlement amount, the total money paid for these cases, as well as the amounts the municipality’s budget set aside for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments. The relevant information posted would also include the actual amount of money paid for settlements and judgments in the prior fiscal year.
For settlements of judgments of $50,000 or more, the bill requires the municipality to post information pertaining to:
- Any municipal bonds used to cover the costs of those settlements, including information about the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
- Any insurance policies used to cover the costs of those settlements and judgments, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, including information about the amount of premiums paid for those insurance policies.
The bill further states it shall not be construed to interfere with or restrict a person’s ability to seek documents under the Public Records Act, and defines a municipality as a city or county or city and county with a police or sheriff’s department.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “For far too long, cities and counties have spent taxpayer dollars on settlements in police misconduct and excessive use of force cases without proper public disclosure. Many of these settlements are paid through “police brutality bonds” by Wall Street firms that profit from the harmful and tragic experiences of civilians. Shining a light on all government spending is not only the right thing to do, it is critical to increasing public understanding about law enforcement practices and improving police accountability.”
2. Related legislation. In 2021 lawmakers passed AB 603 (McCarty) which contained similar disclosure and posting requirements as AB 1291. However, the Governor vetoed the measure, writing:
I am returning Assembly Bill 603 without my signature.
This bill would require municipalities to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The information will include amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, and information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments.
The vast majority of the information that this legislation would require to be posted on department websites is already available through a Public Records Act request or in court records. Given this, I am concerned that this legislation is not only unnecessary, but that it will also have potentially significant General Fund costs associated with the imposition of a state-reimbursable mandate on local law enforcement agencies.
While similar, there are differences between AB 603 and AB 1291. AB 603 required municipalities to post on their websites information about settlements or judgments for police misconduct in any amount; this bill would only require disclosure of settlements or judgments that exceed $50,000.
This bill further requires municipalities to post information on the previous year’s settlements and judgements, the total amount paid for those actions, the estimated costs of police misconduct budgeted for in the municipality’s current budget, and the actual amount of money spent from the previous budget on misconduct settlements and judgments. AB 603 did not require that this information be posted.
Finally, this bill does not contain a provision found in AB 603 requiring the California State Transportation Agency to post information on settlements and judgments against the California Highway Patrol.
The Committee may want to consider whether AB 1291 achieves the right balance between publicizing information and the costs for local agencies to publish that information.
3. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because the bill increases requirements for local governments, Legislative Counsel says that the bill imposes a new state mandate. The bill requires the state to reimburse local agencies if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate
4. Double referral. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double-referral of AB 1291, first to the Senate Public Safety Committee where it passed 5-0 and second to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee.
5. Technical. Committee staff recommends a technical and clarifying amendment to render bill language consistent with author’s intent. On Page 5, Line 1, insert after “conduct” the words “and the type of misconduct.”
Assembly Actions
Assembly Public Safety Committee: 8-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 14-0
Assembly Floor: 74-0
Support and Opposition
(6/30/23)
Support: ACLU California Action
California Public Defenders Association
Policing Project At Nyu Law School
Prosecutors Alliance California
San Francisco Public Defender Office
Opposition: None received.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 1291 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023
Author: | McCarty | ||
Version: | April 3, 2023 | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | AB | ||
Subject: Law enforcement settlements and judgments: reporting
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 603 (McCarty, 2021), vetoed by the Governor
SB 16 (Skinner, Ch. 402, Stats. of 2021)
AB 48 (Lorena Gonzalez, Ch. 404, Stats. of 2021)
AB 1314 (McCarty, 2020), not heard in Senate Public Safety
SB 978 (Bradford, Ch. 978, Stats. of 2018)
SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats of 2018)
Support: ACLU California Action; California Public Defenders Association; Policing Project; Prosecutors Alliance California; San Francisco Public Defender
Opposition: None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 74 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require law enforcement agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, to annually post specified information on their websites regarding settlements and judgments resulting from allegation of improper police conduct.
Existing law provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law defines “public records” to include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 7920.530.)
Existing law states that the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.)
Existing law provides general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code, § 7930.100 et seq.)
Existing law does not require, under the CPRA, disclosure of investigations conducted by the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)
Existing law requires an agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the CPRA, or that on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code, § 7922.000.)
Existing law requires the public agency, when a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
- Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
- Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
- Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. (Gov. Code, § 7922.600, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
- Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
Existing law provides that, unless otherwise specified, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state, or local agency or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)
Existing law provides that specified peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency are not confidential and must be made available for public inspection under the CPRA. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).)
Existing law authorizes an agency to redact a record of police misconduct, including personal identifying information, where on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest serve by disclosure of the information. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(7).)
Existing law provides that an agency may withhold a record of an incident otherwise subject to disclosure if there is an active criminal or administrative investigation, as specified. (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(8).)
Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their internet websites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures and education training materials that would otherwise be available if a public request was made pursuant to the CPRA. (Pen. Code § 13650.)
Existing law requires each law enforcement agency, within 60 days of each incident, to publish a summary on its internet website of all instances in which a peace officer employed by that agency uses a kinetic energy projectile or chemical agent. (Pen. Code § 13652.1)
This bill establishes various legislative findings and declarations as follows:
- On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police when an officer held his knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, resulting in his death.
- The outcry over this murder has resulted in demands for police reform across the state and the nation.
- For decades, Californians have experienced horrific civil rights violations, injuries, and death at the hands of peace officers.
- These incidents often result in civil lawsuits and payouts made by cities, counties, and the state to the civilians harmed by the actions of police officers, sheriffs’ deputies, and other peace officers. These settlements and judgments are often agreed to in closed sessions at city council and board of supervisors meetings, and settlements can range from thousands to millions of dollars.
- Despite the burden these payouts have on local jurisdictions, there is little publicly available information about the costs to taxpayers of law enforcement liability, the manner in which governments budget for and pay lawsuits involving law enforcement, and the financial impact of these arrangements on law enforcement agency budgets.
- Throughout the country, municipalities with the 20 largest police departments have paid over $2 billion since 2015 in misconduct claims. Of those 20 municipalities, four are located in California. The County of Los Angeles paid $238,300,000, the City of Los Angeles paid $172,200,000, the City and County of San Francisco paid $22,000,000, and the City of San Diego paid $12,500,000.
- State law stipulates that individual officers do not pay towards these settlements. Instead, these settlements typically come from the general fund of the municipality involved, or if the law enforcement agency itself pays, then it is part of a specific budget line item set aside for settling officer misconduct litigation. Municipal budgets allocate funds to their law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they will be financially liable for their wrongdoing, year over year.
- Cities and counties typically use liability insurance or general obligation bonds procured by the municipality or state to pay for police settlements. Cities and counties pay annually for liability insurance, which is also used to cover trip-and-fall injuries and workers’ compensation claims, to cover the costs of settlements involving police misconduct, brutality, or death of a civilian by a peace officer.
- In 2019, the City of Sacramento paid an insurance company $2,000,000 in taxpayer dollars to secure up to $35,000,000 for settlements and judgments. Among the payouts made in 2019 was the city’s largest ever settlement, involving $5,200,000 for a man who was so brutally beaten by a police officer that he requires intensive, lifelong medical care.
- In 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department cost taxpayers $80,000,000 settling lawsuits involving officer misconduct. Similarly, the County of Los Angeles paid out over $50,000,000 in misconduct claims from 2015 to 2016, inclusive, the majority of which were excessive force claims. Shootings alone cost the County of Los Angeles $60,000,000 between 2011 to 2016, inclusive.
- During the 2018–19 fiscal year, the County of Los Angeles paid over $16,000,000 in judgments against the Sheriff’s Department, another $30,000,000 in settlements against the department, and incurred an additional $80,000,000 in litigation expenses on behalf of the department. According to the county’s annual report, “six of the nine most expensive settlements in FY 2018–19 stemmed from Law Enforcement excessive-force shooting fatalities involving the Sheriff’s Department.”
- In addition to liability insurance, the board of supervisors or city council can authorize a general obligation bond to pay for these incidents of police misconduct and brutality. These types of general obligation bonds are so common that they are called Police Brutality Bonds by the Wall Street firms who profit from them. These bonds are paid for by taxpayers and take years to pay off due to additional fees and high interest rates.
- In 2009 and 2010, the City of Los Angeles issued $71,400,000 in Police Brutality Bonds. Banks and other private firms collected more than $1,000,000 in issuance fees on these two bonds. By the time these bonds are paid off, taxpayers will have handed over more than $18,000,000 to investors, allowing Wall Street to profit from the death or serious injury of a civilian at the hands of a police officer.
- It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to establish transparency requirements surrounding police use of force settlements and judgments against police and sheriff’s departments.
This bill requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more during the previous year, resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
This bill requires the municipality to include all of the following information for each action posted:
- The court in which the action was filed;
- The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff;
- The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant;
- The date the action was filed;
- Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment; and,
- If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
This bill requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website all of the following:
- The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount;
- The total amount of money paid for cases of improper police conduct;
- The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipality’s budget; and,
- The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgements in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year.
This bill requires the municipality, if any such settlements or judgments are paid for using municipal bonds, to post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
This bill requires the municipality to post on its internet website any such settlements or judgments that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, as specified.
This bill provides that its provisions shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents under the CPRA.
This bill defines “municipality” as a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriff’s department.
COMMENTS
- Need for This Bill
According to the Author:
For far too long, cities and counties have spent taxpayer dollars on settlements in police misconduct and excessive use of force cases without proper public disclosure. Many of these settlements are paid through “police brutality bonds” by Wall Street firms that profit from the harmful and tragic experiences of civilians. Shining a light on all government spending is not only the right thing to do, it is critical to increasing public understanding about law enforcement practices and improving police accountability.
- Public Access to Police Records Generally
In 1968, the Legislature passed the California Public Records Act (CPRA), declaring that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state.”[1] The purpose of the CPRA is to prevent secrecy in government and to contribute significantly to the public understanding of government activities.[2] Under the law, virtually all public records are open to public inspection unless express exempted in statute. However, even if a record is not expressly exempted, an agency may refuse to disclose records if on balance, the interest of nondisclosure outweighs disclosure. Generally, “records should be withheld from disclosure only where the public interest served by not making a record public outweighs the public interest served by the general policy of disclosure.”[3]
In the context of peace officer records, the CPRA contains several relevant exemptions to the general policy requiring disclosure, namely 1) records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by any state or local police agency, 2) personnel records, if disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and 3) records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including records deemed confidential under state law.[4] The California Supreme Court has reinforced that the fundamental right to public records access is especially important in the context of law enforcement officers and agencies:
“The public's interest in the qualifications and conduct of peace officers is substantial […] Peace officers hold one of the most powerful positions in our society; our dependence on them is high and the potential for abuse of power is far from insignificant. A police officer possesses both the authority and the ability to exercise force. Misuse of his authority can result in significant deprivation of constitutional rights and personal freedoms, not to mention bodily injury and financial loss. The public has a legitimate interest not only in the conduct of individual officers, but also in how […] local law enforcement agencies conduct the public's business.”[5]
Recent years have seen an increase in legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to collect and report specific data and disclose various records and policies to the public. In 2015, AB 953 (Weber, Ch. 466, Stats. of 2015) and AB 71 (Rodriguez, Ch. 462, Stats. of 2015) generally required law enforcement to report data on police stops and use of force incidents, respectively. In 2018, the Legislature adopted SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats. of 2018), required that certain records relating to police misconduct and serious uses of force be made publicly available under the CPRA. In 2021, the Legislature passed SB 16 (Skinner, Ch. 402, Stats. of 2021), which expanded the applicability of SB 1421 by exempting four additional categories of peace officer records from existing confidentiality requirements.[6] This bill seeks to build upon these recent efforts by ensuring the public’s access to information relating to settlements with and judgements against local law enforcement agencies arising out of allegations of improper police conduct.
- Recent Veto of Similar Legislation – AB 603 (McCarty, 2021)
This is not the Author’s first attempt at advancing this legislation. A substantially similar bill was introduced by the Author in 2020 (AB 1314, McCarty, 2020), although it never received a hearing in this committee. In 2021, however, the Legislature passed AB 603 (McCarty), which was similar to this bill. AB 603 passed this committee by a vote of 5-0. Despite near unanimous support in the Legislature, the Governor vetoed the measure, writing:
I am returning Assembly Bill 603 without my signature.
This bill would require municipalities to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The information will include amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, and information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments.
The vast majority of the information that this legislation would require to be posted on department websites is already available through a Public Records Act request or in court records. Given this, I am concerned that this legislation is not only unnecessary, but that it will also have potentially significant General Fund costs associated with the imposition of a state-reimbursable mandate on local law enforcement agencies.
While similar, there are several important differences between AB 603 and this bill. First, while AB 603 required municipalities to post on their websites information about settlements or judgments for police misconduct in any amount, this bill would require disclosure of only those settlements or judgments that exceed $50,000. Second, this bill would require municipalities to post information on the previous year’s settlements and judgements, the total amount paid for those actions, the estimated costs of police misconduct budgeted for in the municipality’s current budget, and the actual amount of money spent from the previous budget on misconduct settlements and judgments. AB 603 did not require municipalities to post this information. Finally, this bill would eliminate the provision in AB 603 requiring the California State Transportation Agency to post information on settlements and judgments against the California Highway Patrol. It should be noted that the differences between this measure and its predecessor do not really address the substance of the concerns raised by the Governor in his AB 603 veto message.
- Argument in Support
According to ACLU California Action, which writes in support:
Current law allows individuals to file civil suits or claims against police and sheriffs for use of force misconduct that results in death or serious bodily injury. These lawsuits are filed against local governments to recoup damages for injuries or loss of life. Law enforcement officers are not responsible for the economic damages of lawsuits. Instead, settlements typically come from the city or county’s general fund. The damages awarded to victims in these cases can become costly. Municipalities often settle claims out of court to avoid further scrutiny, and almost always in closed City Council or Board of Supervisors meetings. While taxpayers pay for settlements, the public will often only learn about them from news outlets. Detailed information about the financial implications of police misconduct settlements is neither uniformly collected, routinely reported, easy to find, or always provided in response to Public Records Act (PRA) requests.
Because these settlements are paid by tax dollars, Californians have the right, and the understandable desire to know how cities and counties are spending hard-earned tax dollars. Furthermore, law enforcement misconduct settlements result in cities and counties hemorrhaging fiscal and other resources that could be used for more productive, critical projects like parks, infrastructure, or libraries. By requiring municipalities to publicly post financial details of law enforcement use-of-force settlements, AB 1291 is a step towards ensuring transparency and accountability of government spending and law enforcement practices.
-- END –
California Government Code §7921.000 ↑
City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016-1017. ↑
Gov. Code, § 7922.000 ↑
Gov. Code, §§ 7923.600; 7927.700, 7927.705 ↑
Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 278 (2007), at 299-300. ↑
See Penal Code §832.7 ↑
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Chris Holden, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1291
Author:(McCarty) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2023
Policy Committee: | Public Safety | Vote: | 8 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires each municipality to post on its website specified details about settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more resulting from allegations of police misconduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, false arrest, or false imprisonment.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Potentially non-reimbursable costs to cities and counties to annually publish police misconduct settlements and judgments on their websites. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.
COMMENTS:
- Author’s Statement. According to the author:
For far too long, cities and counties have spent taxpayer dollars on settlements in police misconduct and excessive use of force cases without public disclosure. In order for the public to obtain information about these law enforcement cases, they must file public records act requests. The onus should not be on citizens to get this information. Shining a light on all government spending is not only the right thing to do, it is critical to increase public understanding about law enforcement practices, will improve police accountability for misconduct, and outcomes.
- Background. The California Public Records Act (PRA) requires government agencies to make public records available to the public upon request, unless the records are exempt from disclosure due to state or federal law, or the agency can show that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1421 (Skinner), Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018, which eliminated an exemption from disclosure for certain records of police use of force and misconduct. Previously, most records relating to use-of-force incidents and officer misconduct were considered confidential officer personnel files and were not subject to disclosure to the public under the PRA. Under SB 1421, agencies are required to release records related to officer-involved shootings, use-of-force incidents resulting in death or great bodily injury, and any incident in which a sustained finding was made regarding an officer’s dishonesty or sexual assault against a member of the public. In 2021, the Legislature passed SB 16 (Skinner), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2021, which required disclosure of records related to additional types of officer misconduct.
This bill would require a municipality to post on its website specified information about settlements and judgments above $50,000 that arose out of allegations of “improper police conduct.” Some of the settlement information included in this bill must already be disclosed by an agency in response to a PRA request. By requiring municipalities to preemptively post settlement information online, this bill places the onus for disclosure of officer misconduct settlements on the municipality, rather than requiring a member of the public to submit a PRA request for the information.
- Prior Legislation. AB 603 (McCarty), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, also would have required municipalities to post information about police settlements online. AB 603 was vetoed by Governor Newsom, who wrote:
The vast majority of the information that this legislation would require to be posted on department websites is already available through a Public Records Act request or in court records. Given this, I am concerned that this legislation is not only unnecessary, but that it will also have potentially significant General Fund costs associated with the imposition of a state-reimbursable mandate on local law enforcement agencies.
Although AB 1291 is similar to AB 603, some provisions of the bill have been updated. AB 1291 requires municipalities to post only settlements and judgments above $50,000, while AB 603 required all settlements and judgments to be posted. AB 1291 requires municipalities to post more types of information than AB 603 would have required. And, unlike AB 603, this bill does not require publication of settlement and judgments against the California Highway Patrol. That said, these are relatively minor changes to the scope of the bill, while the core requirement – that municipalities proactively publish key details about police misconduct that resulted in settlements – remains the same.
Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2023
Counsel: Andrew Ironside
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:
Author:() – As Ver:
SUMMARY:
Requires cities and counties to post financial details about law enforcement use-of-force settlements and judgments on their internet websites, including how much each settlement cost and how the state and municipalities will pay for each settlement. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1 of each year, to post on its internet website law enforcement settlements and judgments of $50,000 or more during the previous year resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving the use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment, broken down by individual settlement or judgment.
- Requires the municipality to post all of the following information:
- The court in which the action was filed;
- The name of the law firm representing the plaintiff;
- The name of the law firm or agency representing each defendant;
- The date the action was filed;
- Whether the plaintiff alleged improper police conduct, including, but not limited to, claims involving use of force, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, or false arrest or imprisonment; and,
- If the action has been resolved, the date on which it was resolved, the manner in which it was resolved, and whether the resolution included a payment to the plaintiff by the city, and, if so, the amount of the payment.
- The court in which the action was filed;
- Requires each municipality, on or before February 1, of each year, to post on its internet website all of the following:
- The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount;
- The total amount of money paid for cases of improper police conduct;
- The estimated costs budgeted in the current budget for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgments, if these costs are included in the municipality’s budget; and,
- The actual amount of money paid for law enforcement misconduct settlements and judgements in the fiscal year immediately prior to the budget year.
- The total number of settlements and judgments related to improper police conduct during the previous year irrespective of the settlement or judgment amount;
- Requires the municipality, if any such settlements or judgments are paid for using municipal bonds, to post on its internet website the amount of the bond, the time it will take the bond to mature, interest and fees paid on the bond, and the total future cost of the bond.
- Requires the municipality to post on its internet website any such settlements or judgments that were paid by insurance, broken down by individual settlement or judgment, and the amount of any premiums paid by the municipality for insurance against settlements or judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct, as specified.
- Provides that posting requirements shall not be construed to prohibit or interfere with a person from obtaining documents under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
- Defines “municipality” as a city, county, or city and county with a police department or a sheriff’s department.
- Includes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides that the people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)
- Defines “public records” to include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business, prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 7920.530.)
- States that the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.)
- Provides general categories of documents or information that are exempt from disclosure, essentially due to the character of the information, and unless it is shown that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the information, the exempt information may be withheld by the public agency with custody of the information. (Gov. Code, § 7930.100 et seq.)
- Does not require, under the CPRA, disclosure of investigations conducted by the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)
- Requires an agency to justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the CPRA, or that on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Gov. Code, § 7922.000.)
- Requires the public agency, when a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances:
- Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
- Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist.
- Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. (Gov. Code, § 7922.600, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
- Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated.
- Provides that, unless otherwise specified, the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by a state, or local agency or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as specified. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)
- Provides that peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by a state or local agency are not confidential and must be made available for public inspection under the CPRA. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Provides that a record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following are discoverable under the CPRA:
- An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer;
- An incident involving the use of force against a person by a peace officer or custodial officer that resulted in death or in great bodily injury;
- A sustained finding involving a complaint that alleges unreasonable or excessive force; and,
- A sustained finding that an officer failed to intervene against another officer using force that is clearly unreasonable or excessive. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1)(A).)
- An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer;
- Authorizes an agency to redact a record of police misconduct, including personal identifying information, where on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest serve by disclosure of the information. (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(7).)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
- Author's Statement: According to the author, “For far too long, cities and counties have spent taxpayer dollars on settlements in police misconduct and excessive use of force cases without public disclosure. In order for the public to obtain information about these law enforcement cases, they must file public records act requests. The onus should not be on citizens to get this information. Shining a light on all government spending is not only the right thing to do, it is critical to increase public understanding about law enforcement practices, will improve police accountability for misconduct, and outcomes.”
- Governor’s Veto Message to AB 603 (McCarty): In 2021, the legislature passed AB 603 (McCarty), which was similar to this bill. Despite near unanimous legislative support, the Governor vetoed it. His veto message said:
I am returning Assembly Bill 603 without my signature.
This bill would require municipalities to annually post on their internet websites specified information relating to settlements and judgments resulting from allegations of improper police conduct. The information will include amounts paid, broken down by individual settlement and judgment, and information on bonds used to finance use of force settlement and judgment payments.
The vast majority of the information that this legislation would require to be posted on department websites is already available through a Public Records Act request or in court records. Given this, I am concerned that this legislation is not only unnecessary, but that it will also have potentially significant General Fund costs associated with the imposition of a state-reimbursable mandate on local law enforcement agencies.
There are several important differences between AB 603 and this bill. First, while AB 603 required municipalities to post on their websites information about settlements or judgments for police misconduct in any amount, this bill would require disclosure of only those settlements or judgments that exceed $50,000. Second, this bill would require municipalities to post information on the previous year’s settlements and judgements, the total amount paid for those actions, the estimated costs of police misconduct budgeted for in the municipality’s current budget, and the actual amount of money spent from the previous budget on misconduct settlements and judgments. AB 603 did not require municipalities to post this information. Finally, this bill would eliminate the provision in AB 603 requiring the California State Transportation Agency to post information on settlements and judgments against the California Highway Patrol. However, these differences do not really address the crux of the Governor’s veto message.
- Background on the CPRA: Under the CPRA, the public is granted access to public records held by state and local agencies. (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.) “Modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.), the [CPRA] was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of state and local agencies. Such ‘access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business,’ the Legislature declared, ‘is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.’” (Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 290 [internal citations omitted].) The purpose of the CPRA is to prevent secrecy in government and to contribute significantly to the public understanding of government activities. (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1016-1017.)
In light of these dual concerns of privacy and disclosure, the CPRA includes a number of disclosure exemptions. (Gov. Code, § 7930.100 et seq.) Agencies may refuse to disclose records that are exempted or prohibited from public disclosure pursuant to federal or state law. This includes Evidence Code provisions relating to privilege. (Ibid.) But, even if a specific exception does not exist, an agency may refuse to disclose records if on balance, the interest of nondisclosure outweighs disclosure. (Govt. Code, § 7922.000.) “The specific exceptions of section [7930.100, et seq.] should be viewed with the general philosophy of section [7922.000] in mind; that is, that records should be withheld from disclosure only where the public interest served by not making a record public outweighs the public interest served by the general policy of disclosure.” (53 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136 (1970).)
The California Supreme Court has found a policy favoring disclosure especially salient when the subject is law enforcement. (See Long Beach Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59, 74, see also Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 297.) In Commission on Peace Officer Standards, the Supreme Court observed:
The public’s legitimate interest in the identity and activities of peace officers is even greater than its interest in those of the average public servant. “Law enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers.” [Citation.] “It is indisputable that law enforcement is a primary function of local government and that the public has a far greater interest in the qualifications and conduct of law enforcement officers, even at, and perhaps especially at, an ‘on the street’ level than in the qualifications and conduct of other comparably low-ranking government employees performing more proprietary functions. The abuse of a patrolman’s office can have great potentiality for social harm ….”
(Commission on Police Officer Standards, at pp. 297–298, fn. Omitted; cf. Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (b)(1) [authorizing disclosure of reports, investigations, and findings that contain peace officer personnel records if they pertain to use of force incidents].)
The disclosures required under this bill are narrower than those that have found general support by the Supreme Court and the legislature. This bill would require municipalities to post on their websites information about the where and when an action alleging law enforcement misconduct was filed, the type of misconduct alleged, and information relating to the resolution of the action. Municipalities would also have to post information about the number of settlements and judgments related to police misconduct in the previous year and the costs of those actions.
- Police Use of Force Statistics: The California Department of Justice collects information on use of force incidents that result in serious bodily injury or death or involved the discharge of a firearm. According to the 2021 use of force incident reporting, there were 660 civilians involved in police use of force incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. (DOJ, 2021 Use of Force Incident Reporting (2022), p. 2, see https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/USE%20OF%20FORCE%202021.pdf [as of Mar. 16, 2023].) Of those, 349 resulted in serious bodily injury and 149 resulted in death. (Id. at p. 43.) Demographics of the civilians were 50.6 percent (334) Hispanic, 25.5 percent (168) white, and 16.7 percent (110) black. (Id. at p. 2.)
The report showed that 1,462 officers were involved in the use of force incidents. (Id. at p. 3.) Of the 1,462 officers, 43.6 percent (638) did not receive force from a civilian, 18.9 percent (277) received force during physical contact with a civilian, and 17.5 percent (256) received force by the discharge of a firearm from a civilian. (Ibid.) Demographics of officers were 49.6 percent (725) white, 38.3 percent (560) Hispanic, 6.0 percent (88) Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4.0 percent (58) black. (Ibid.) - Argument in Support: According to the Prosecutors Alliance of California, “Each year tens of millions of dollars are awarded to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits that allege misconduct by our law enforcement officers. These awards and settlements result in significant expenditures of taxpayer dollars. Although these settlements and awards are public records, it is often difficult for the public to find out about these payments.
“AB 1291 would require local jurisdictions to post financial details about police misconduct settlements and judgments on their websites, including how much each settlement cost and how the municipalities will pay for each settlement. This information will provide for more transparency surrounding allegations of misconduct by our law enforcement agencies.” - Argument in Opposition: None submitted.
- Related Legislation:
- AB 807 (McCarty), would require a state prosecutor to investigate incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer results in the death of a civilian. AB 807 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- SB 400 (Wahab), would provide that a law enforcement agency that formerly employed a peace officer or custodial officer is not prohibited from disclosing to the public the termination for cause of that officer. AB 400 will be heard today in the Senate Public Committee.
- SB 838 (Menjivar), would revise the definition of “crime” for purposes of the Victim Compensation Program to include an incident in which an individual sustains serious bodily injury or death as the result of a law enforcement officer’s use of force and make changes to eligibility factors as they would apply to these types of claims. SB 838 is pending hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 807 (McCarty), would require a state prosecutor to investigate incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer results in the death of a civilian. AB 807 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
- Prior Legislation:
- AB 603 (McCarty), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, was identical to this bill. The Governor vetoed AB 603.
- AB 1314 (McCarty), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 1314 did not receive a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
- SB 16 (Skinner), Chapter 402, Statutes of 2021, expands the categories of personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers that are subject to disclosure under the CPRA, imposes certain requirements regarding the time frames and costs associated with CPRA requests, and prohibits assertion of the attorney-client privilege to limit disclosure of factual information and billing records.
- SB 978 (Bradford), Chapter 978, Statutes of 2018, required law enforcement agencies to post online all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials that would otherwise be available to the public if a request was made pursuant to the CPRA.
- SB 1421 (Skinner), Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018, subjects specified personnel records of peace officers and correctional officers to disclosure under the CPRA.
- SB 1286 (Leno), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, would have provided greater public access to peace officer and custodial officer personnel records and other records maintained by a state or local agency related to complaints against those officers. SB 1286 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
- AB 1648 (Leno), 2007 of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, as introduced, would have overturned the California Supreme Court decision in Copley-Press, Inv. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, and restored public access to peace officer records. AB 1648 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
- AB 603 (McCarty), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, was identical to this bill. The Governor vetoed AB 603.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
Prosecutors Alliance California
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by:
Discussed in Hearing
4MIN
Senate Floor
7MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Education
3MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
1MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
8MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance
Bill Author
