BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 795
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: April 28, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 15, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Public postsecondary education: smoke-free
campuses.
SUMMARY
This bill grants authority to the governing bodies of the
California Community Colleges, the California State
University, and the University of California to set smoking
and tobacco enforcement standards, impose fines, and post
signs stating the tobacco use policy on campus.
BACKGROUND
Current law:
Prohibits smoking inside a public building, or in an
outdoor area within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance or
window of a public building, or in a state-owned vehicle.
Authorizes a person to smoke in any other outdoor area of a
public building unless otherwise prohibited by state law or
local ordinance, and a sign describing the prohibition is
posted.
Specifies the prohibition does not preempt cities,
counties, and public colleges and universities to adopt and
enforce additional smoking and tobacco control ordinances,
regulation, or policies that are more restrictive.
(Government Code § 7596 et. seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill authorizes the California Community Colleges
(CCC), California State University (CSU), and University of
California (UC) governing bodies to set enforcement
standards for their local campus tobacco use policies.
AB 795
Page 2
Specifically, the bill
1) Authorizes a local campus to impose a fine for a
first, second, and third offense and for each
subsequent offence. The amount of fines is to be
determined by the local governing body and shall not
exceed $100. Funds shall be allocated to include, but
not be limited to, education and promotion of the
policy, and tobacco cessation treatment options.
2) Requires each CCC and CSU campus, and permits UC
campuses, that adopt enforcement and fine measures to
post signs stating their tobacco use policy on campus,
as follows:
a) The locations where smoking or tobacco use
is prohibited and permitted.
b) Inform employees and students of the tobacco
use policy and enforcement measures employed on
their campuses.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill. According to the author, existing
law authorizes public colleges and universities to
adopt and enforce smoking and tobacco control policies
but it is not specific on the type of enforcement. As
a result, many colleges have indicated that they are
hesitant to adopt stronger policies because they have
no way of enforcing the current policies. By adding
enforcement language, public colleges and universities
will have the authority to cite and collect revenue as
a form of enforcement. This measure would give
colleges the tools they need to reduce the exposure to
secondhand smoke among students thus lowering the
risks of coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
2) Additional background . While a cursory examination of
UC, CSU, and CCC campuses found that most campuses
have anti-smoking policies, few campuses have clear
enforcement mechanisms. Committee staff was able to
locate one smoking policy with a clear enforcement
mechanism:
AB 795
Page 3
a) Existing law provides the CSU Board of
Trustees broad authority to establish rules and
regulations governing campus grounds (Education
Code § 89031). The CSU Trustees have delegated
authority to regulate local campus smoking
policies to campus presidents (California Code of
Regulations § 42356). Citing this authority,
San Francisco State University President Robert
Corrigan directed the University Police
Department to begin issuing citations for
violations of the campus smoke-free policy on
April 12, 2010. The fine for each violation is
$58.
1) Governing body authority . The intent of the measure
is to provide local campuses with the authority to
enforce tobacco use policies. Typically, the CSU Board
of Trustees or the Regents of the University of
California delegate authority to campus leaders for
implementing policies, rules, and regulations where
appropriate. However, as this bill is drafted it may
be construed to give the statewide Board of Governors
of the California Community Colleges, rather than the
local community college governing boards, the
authority to set enforcement standards for campus
tobacco use. Consequently, staff recommends an
amendment to clarify that authority to set tobacco use
policies is provided to local community college
governing boards.
2) Prior legislation .
AB 2067 (Oropeza, Ch. 736, 2006). Prohibits smoking in
specified areas of covered parking lots and adds a
definition of enclosed spaces to current law that
already prohibits smoking in enclosed spaces of
employment to include areas such as lobbies, lounges,
waiting areas, elevators, stairwells and restrooms
that are a structural part of the building.
AB 846 (Vargas, Ch. 342, 2003). Prohibits smoking
inside public buildings and within 20 feet of a
doorway, entryway, window, or ventilation intake
system duct of a public building. Provides that this
prohibition does not preempt the authority of any
California Community College, California State
University, or University of California Campus to
AB 795
Page 4
adopt and enforce additional smoking and tobacco
control ordinances, regulations, or policies that are
more restrictive than the applicable standards
required by this bill.
SUPPORT
American Lung Association
American Heart Association
Breathe California
California Medical Association
California State Student Association
Glendale Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Mt. San Jacinto Community College District
Peralta Community College District
San Diego Community College District
San Diego Miramar College
OPPOSITION
None on file.