BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 969 Page 1 GOVERNOR'S VETO AB 969 (Williams) As Enrolled August 25, 2016 2/3 vote -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: | |(May 18, 2015) |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 15, | | | | | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- (vote not relevant) -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |79-0 |(August 22, | | | | | | |2016) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED. SUMMARY: Requires annual reporting for sexual assault complaints received by California Community College districts (CCD), California State University (CSU), the University of AB 969 Page 2 California (UC) and independent postsecondary educational institutions. The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and instead: 1)Require, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each CCD, the Trustees of the CSU, the Regents of the UC, and the governing board of each independent postsecondary institution to report on or before October 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, all of the following information for the prior calendar year: a) The number of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking complaints that were received by the institution; b) The number of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking complaints that were investigated by the institution; c) The number of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking complaints that were not investigated by the institution; d) The number of investigations conducted in which the respondents were found responsible at the disciplinary proceedings of the institution; e) The number of investigations conducted in which the respondents were not found responsible at the disciplinary proceedings of the institution; f) The number of disciplinary sanctions imposed on respondents who were found responsible disaggregated by the AB 969 Page 3 type of discipline imposed in, at minimum, the following categories: i) Expulsion; ii) Suspension of at least two years; iii) Suspension of fewer than two years; or, iv) Probation; and, g) The number of cases that were closed for other reasons. 2)Requires the report to be posted on the institution's Internet Web site in a manner easily accessible to students. 3)Defines, for purposes of this section, "sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking" to refer to all of the categories of misconduct in the institution's policy adopted pursuant to Education Code (EDC) Section 67386. 4)Requires the information reported pursuant to this section to be reported in a manner that provides appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including, but not necessarily limited to, protection of the confidentiality of the alleged victim and of the alleged perpetrator, consistent with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. 5)Sunsets the provisions of this section on January 1, 2022. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires, under the Kristen Smart Campus Safety Act, UC Regents, CSU Trustees, CCD governing boards, and independent AB 969 Page 4 colleges that meet specified conditions to enter into specific written agreements with local law enforcement agencies regarding the coordination and responsibilities for investigating Part 1 violent crimes which occur on campus. (EDC Section 67381) 2)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. (EDC Section 67386) 3)Requires, under the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act), public and private postsecondary educational institutions that participate in the federal financial aid program to disclose information about crimes on and around campuses. (20 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1092(f)) 4)Requires, under federal Title IX (20 U.S.C. Sections 1681 to 1688), 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: Unknown with recent amendments. However, the provisions of this bill are similar to provisions contained in AB 967 (Williams) of 2015. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: AB 969 Page 5 1)The CCC Chancellor's Office anticipates a cost of $3,000 per CCD ($216,000 statewide costs) to establish new policies and report required data. 2)The CSU anticipates costs of around $100,000 attributable to the reporting requirements. 3)The UC indicates costs to be minor and absorbable. COMMENTS: Need for the bill. According to the author, "there is very little accountability for the outcome of adjudication proceedings for campus sexual assault cases. This bill provides for specified reporting on the number of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking complaints received, investigated, and not investigated by the institution, and the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings and investigations." Prior Legislation. As previously outlined, the reporting provisions of this bill are similar to reporting provisions that were contained in AB 967 (Williams) of 2015. AB 967 also contained requirements that the higher education segments adopt minimum sanctions for violations of sexual harassment policies. AB 967 was vetoed by the Governor; his veto message read: This bill would require public and independent postsecondary institutions that receive student financial aid from the state to adopt and implement uniform disciplinary processes for sexual assault and to apply consistent standards for expulsion, suspension, loss of institutional aid or scholarship, loss of privileges and removal from student housing. Additionally, this bill would require annual reporting of data and recommend a minimum period of suspension, or expulsion, for the most egregious violations of AB 969 Page 6 sexual assault policies. College campuses must deal with sexual assault fairly and with clear standards of process. It is eminently reasonable to expect that discipline shall not vary based on a student's status as an athlete or a declared area of study. This bill, however, could deprive professionals from using their better judgment to discipline according to relevant circumstances. Moreover, it creates an expectation that the state should recommend minimum penalties for violations of specific campus policies. Last year, I signed Senate Bill 967, making California the first state in the country to define the terms of sexual consent for college students, so that our higher education institutions could better prevent sexual violence on campuses. This year, I signed AB 913 to ensure that existing jurisdictional agreements between postsecondary institutions and local law enforcement include responsibility for investigating sexual assaults and hate crimes. Given these actions, I don't think it is necessary at this point for the state to directly insert itself into the disciplinary and governing processes of all private nonprofit and public colleges in California. This bill does not include the issues of concern raised in the Governor's veto message, and is limited only to the reporting provisions of AB 967. GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE: I am returning Assembly Bill 969 without my signature. AB 969 Page 7 This bill would require public and independent postsecondary governing boards to report campus adjudication outcomes of reported sexual assault cases. While this is a relatively common sense measure, the state shouldn't have to mandate follow-up reporting. Governing boards should seek this information on their own, and take actions to mitigate problems at their institutions. Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune / HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0005107