BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                       AB 969


                                                                      Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          969 (Williams)


          As Amended  April 23, 2015


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes |Ayes                   |Noes               |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
          |----------------+------+-----------------------+-------------------|
          |Higher          |12-0  |Medina, Baker, Bloom,  |                   |
          |Education       |      |Harper, Irwin,         |                   |
          |                |      |Jones-Sawyer, Levine,  |                   |
          |                |      |Linder, Low, Santiago, |                   |
          |                |      |Weber, Williams        |                   |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
          |----------------+------+-----------------------+-------------------|
          |Appropriations  |15-2  |Gomez, Bigelow, Bloom, |Jones, Wagner      |
          |                |      |Bonta, Calderon,       |                   |
          |                |      |Chang, Daly, Eggman,   |                   |
          |                |      |Gallagher, Eduardo     |                   |
          |                |      |Garcia, Holden, Quirk, |                   |
          |                |      |Rendon, Weber, Wood    |                   |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
          |                |      |                       |                   |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          SUMMARY:  Authorizes a California Community College District (CCD)  
          to take specified action to remove, suspend, expel, or deny access  








                                                                       AB 969


                                                                      Page  2





          to a student found responsible for specified activities.   
          Specifically, this bill:  


          1)Allows a CCD to remove, suspend, or expel a student for conduct  
            that threatens the safety of students and the public, whether  
            that conduct occurs on or off campus. 


          2)Expands the circumstances under which the governing board of a  
            CCD can deny or permit conditional admission to an individual to  
            include an individual who has been suspended for a violation of  
            the CCD's sexual violence policy.


          3)Authorizes a CCD to require a student seeking admission who is  
            suspended from a CCD in this state a violation of the sexual  
            violence policy to inform the district of the suspension.   
            Provides that failure to do so may be considered by the CCD in  
            determining whether to grant admission, and a written record of  
            the fact may be maintained by the CCD with the applicant's file.


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Requires public and independent postsecondary institutions, as a  
            condition of receipt of student aid funds, to adopt a policy  
            concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating  
            violence, and stalking that includes specified components and  
            standards, including an "affirmative consent" standard for  
            determining whether consent was given by both parties to sexual  
            activity.  Establishes a preponderance of evidence as the  
            evidentiary standard for determining if sexual  
            violence/harassment occurred.  (Education Code Section 67386)
          2)Authorizes a CCC, the president of a CCC, or the president's  
            designee, or an instructor to suspend a student for good cause;  
            authorizes the governing board to expel a student for good cause  
            when other means of correction fail to bring about proper  








                                                                       AB 969


                                                                      Page  3





            conduct, or when the presence of the student causes a continuing  
            danger to the physical safety of the student or others; requires  
            the suspension or expulsion of a student to be accompanied by a  
            hearing as provided; and, authorizes a CCD to require a student  
            whom the district has a protective order against to apply for  
            reinstatement.  (Education Code Section 76030)


          3)Prohibits the removal suspension or expulsion of a community  
            college student unless the conduct resulting in the disciplinary  
            action is related to college activity or college attendance.   
            (Education Code Section 76034)


          4)Authorizes a governing board of a CCD to deny enrollment, permit  
            enrollment, or permit conditional enrollment to a student who  
            has been expelled or is being considered for expulsion from  
            another CCD within the preceding five years for specified  
            offenses, following a hearing and appeal process.  (Education  
            Code Section 76038)


          5)Requires, under federal Title IX (20 United States Code Sections  
            1681 to1688), public and private postsecondary educational  
            institutions that participate in the federal financial aid  
            program to establish certain rights for victims of sexual  
            assault.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, minor nonreimbursable costs for legal services to  
          districts who, in electing to consider whether to deny enrollment  
          or permit conditional enrollment to an individual, conduct the  
          required hearings and establish the required appeals process and  
          conduct appeals upon request.  Assuming up to $5,000 per hearing,  
          annual costs statewide would probably not exceed $50,000 to  
          $100,000. 










                                                                       AB 969


                                                                      Page  4





          COMMENTS:  Background.  On November 12, 2014, the author organized  
          a roundtable at University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) to  
          review the university's handling of sexual assault complaints.   
          Roundtable attendees included representatives of UCSB and Santa  
          Barbara Community College (SBCC).  According to testimony provided  
          by SBCC representatives, current law (Education Code Section  
          76034) has been interpreted to prohibit a CCD from taking action  
          to suspend or expel a student found to have violated a campus  
          misconduct policy, even in cases of rape, unless the misconduct  
          occurred on the college campus.     


          CCC Chancellor's Office opinion.  In 2007, the CCC Chancellor's  
          Office issued Legal Opinion L 07-07 to provide guidance to CCDs  
          regarding the authority to discipline a student.  The opinion  
          notes that Education Code Section 76034 imposes a significant  
          limitation on the ability of a CCD to impose discipline for  
          conduct even if that conduct is criminal in nature.  However, it  
          goes on to state that in 1966 the Attorney General indicated that  
          this language in a predecessor statute "should not be interpreted  
          to mean that school districts could only impose discipline for  
          conduct that actually occurred at school and during school hours.   
          Instead, the Attorney General determined that if a district could  
          identify a link between the conduct and school activities or  
          attendance, then conduct that occurred away from school could be  
          considered for disciplinary purposes."  The opinion notes that if  
          a student commits a crime that has nothing to do with a college  
          activity or with college attendance, the college will be  
          hard-pressed to suspend or expel for that conduct. 


          Purpose of this bill.  According to the author, about 70% of rape  
          and sexual assault victimizations occur either at the victim's  
          home or the home of another known person, meaning that most sexual  
          assault cases do not occur on campus or during campus related  
          events.  This bill makes three important changes to current law:   
          1) it clarifies current law to ensure that CCDs can take  
          appropriate action to suspend or expel students who pose a threat  
          to the campus community; 2) it would require a transfer student to  








                                                                       AB 969


                                                                      Page  5





          disclose whether they were dismissed previously from an  
          institution for sexual assault; and, 3) it would direct a local  
          CCD governing board to hold a hearing to determine whether to  
          enroll a student who has been suspended or expelled from another  
          CCD for sexual assault.


          UC and CSU Policies.  There is no similar statutory restriction on  
          the University of California  extension of its jurisdiction over  
          issues of student conduct beyond the campus.  The University of  
          California reports that its campuses have exercised this  
          discretion in the interpretation and application of student  
          conduct code expectations and discipline when it determines that  
          the conduct endangers the campus community.  According to the  
          California State University, Title V regulations specifically  
          state that conduct that threatens the safety or security of the  
          campus community, or substantially disrupts the functions or  
          operation of the University is within this jurisdiction whether it  
          occurs on or off campus.  




          Analysis Prepared by:                                               
                          Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960  FN:  
          0000315