BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                  AB 2171|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  AB 2171
          Author:   Fong (D)
          Amended:  7/2/12 in Senate
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE  :  8-0, 6/13/12
          AYES:  Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Huff, Liu, Price, 
            Simitian, Vargas
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Runner, Blakeslee, Vacancy

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 4/26/12 (Consent) - See last page 
            for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Community colleges:  expulsion and enrollment

           SOURCE  :     Peralta Community College District


           DIGEST  :    This bill authorizes a community college 
          district to require a student seeking admission to disclose 
          his/her prior expulsion from another community college 
          district and authorizes the governing board of a community 
          college district to deny enrollment, permit enrollment, or 
          permit conditional enrollment to a student who has been 
          expelled, or is being considered for expulsion, from 
          another district for specified offenses within the 
          preceding five years.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law requires a California Community 
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          2

          College (CCC) district to admit any California resident and 
          may admit any nonresident, possessing a high school diploma 
          or the equivalent thereof.  CCC district governing boards 
          may admit persons who are over the age of 18 who do not 
          possess a high school diploma or its equivalent that are 
          capable of profiting from the instruction offered and are 
          also authorized to admit high school students if their high 
          school governing boards determine the student would benefit 
          from advanced scholastic or vocational work.  Under 
          existing law, the governing board of a CCC district may 
          only exclude "students of filthy or vicious habits, or 
          students suffering from contagious or infectious diseases" 
          and "may exclude from attendance in regular classes 
          students whose physical or mental disability is such as to 
          cause his or her attendance to be inimical to the welfare 
          of other students."

          Existing law authorizes a CCC to expel a student for good 
          cause when other means of correction fail to bring about 
          proper conduct, or when the presence of the student causes 
          a continuing danger to the physical safety of the student 
          or others.  The expulsion is required to be accompanied by 
          a hearing. 

          Existing federal law specifies that student disciplinary 
          records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and 
          Privacy Act (FERPA) and are subject to the general 
          requirement that records regarding identifiable students 
          cannot be shared without the student's consent or a court 
          order.  Current state law also provides these protections.  


          Existing law, the California Tort Claims Act, gives public 
          entities, including state and local governments, general 
          immunity from liability for injuries that may arise from an 
          act or an omission and extends that immunity to public 
          employees as specified. 

          This bill:

          1.Authorizes a governing board of a community college 
            district to deny enrollment, permit enrollment, or permit 
            conditional enrollment to a student who has been expelled 
            or is being considered for expulsion from another 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          3

            district within the preceding five years for specified 
            offenses.  Specifically, it:
           
             A.   Requires the governing board, prior to taking 
               action to deny or permit conditional enrollment, to 
               hold a hearing, as specified, to determine whether the 
               individual poses a continuing danger to the physical 
               safety of the students and employees in the district.

             B.   Authorizes a California Community College (CCC) 
               district to request information from another community 
               college district to determine whether an applicant 
               continues to pose a danger to the physical safety of 
               others. 

             C.   Requires the governing board to take into 
               consideration evidence of subsequent offenses and 
               rehabilitative efforts since the offense.

             D.   Authorizes a governing board to delegate authority 
               granted by this act to a district superintendent, 
               president or other designee, or a threat assessment 
               crisis response team, as specified.  

             E.   Requires the governing board to establish a formal 
               appeals process for students denied enrollment to 
               appeal the decision and grants a student who is denied 
               enrollment the right to appeal the decision to the 
               district governing board.  

          1.Defines "offense," for the bill's purposes, to mean:

             A.   Committed or attempted to commit murder;  

             B.   Caused, attempted to cause, or threatened to cause 
               physical injury to another person, including assault 
               or battery, as defined, except in self-defense; 

             C.   Committed or attempted to commit a sexual assault, 
               as defined, or committed sexual battery, as defined;  

             D.   Committed or attempted to commit kidnapping, or 
               seized, confined, inveigled, enticed, decoyed, 
               abducted, concealed, kidnapped, or carried away 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          4

               another person by any means with the intent to hold or 
               detain that person for ransom or reward;  

             E.   Committed or attempted to commit robbery;  

             F.   Committed stalking, as defined; and

             G.   Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, 
               knife, explosive, or other dangerous objects.  

          1.Authorizes a community college to requires a student 
            seeking admission and who was expelled from a community 
            college in the state for any of the specified actions to 
            inform the receiving district of his or her prior 
            expulsion and authorizes the receiving district to 
            maintain written record of a student's failure to make 
            such disclosure and consider such failure in determining 
            whether to grant admission. 

          2.Specifies that the measure does not impose a duty to 
            review applicants for admission or review previously 
            enrolled students, whether returning or continuing, or to 
            conduct a hearing in response to the receipt of any 
            information regarding a potential, former, or existing 
            student.  

          3.Specifies that a community college district, its 
            governing board members, district officers or employees, 
            including the superintendent, a college president, or 
            designees of those individuals, shall not be liable for 
            an injury as a result of exercising discretion pursuant 
            to this act, including the discretion not to conduct a 
            hearing.  

          4.Prohibits the application of the bill's provisions to 
            students that the district has the discretion to admit, 
            such as the nonresident and other transfer applicants, as 
            specified.

           Comments
          
           With very few exceptions, community colleges are required 
          by law to admit any California resident and do not have the 
          authority to restrict a student's admission based on past 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          5

          conduct, even if that conduct was for serious or violent 
          offenses while attending another community college 
          district.  The General Counsel for the California Community 
          Colleges Chancellor's Office has opined that "even if the 
          receiving college becomes aware of the expulsion, there is 
          no current authority to restrict a student admission based 
          on past conduct, even if that conduct occurred at another 
          community college district."  The sponsors of this bill 
          contend that the inability to deny admission to students 
          who have previously been expelled from other community 
          colleges for committing violent or dangerous acts poses a 
          threat to students, faculty, and staff.  This bill provides 
          local community college districts with another tool to 
          improve safety on their campuses.  

          According to the Senate Education Committee analysis, this 
          bill does not pertain to students expelled for academic 
          related offenses such as plagiarism or transcript forgery.  
          The bill only addresses students expelled from another 
          community college for specified violent or serious 
          offenses.  Under the provisions of this bill, a student 
          expelled from the California State University (CSU) or the 
          University of California (UC) for committing these same 
          offenses would still be eligible (as they are today) to 
          enroll in a community college.  

           Discipline and expulsion from a CCC  .  Existing law requires 
          the CCCs to adopt rules for student conduct standards and 
          related penalties for violating those standards.  A CCC 
          district is authorized to expel a student for good cause, 
          which may include assault, battery, or any threat of force 
          or violence upon a student or college personnel, willful 
          misconduct that results in injury or death to a student or 
          college personnel, or defacing district property, or the 
          use, sale, or possession on campus of controlled substance 
          or specified poisons.  According to the author's office, 
          there are relatively few students expelled each year for 
          violent and criminal offenses; data from a survey of 55 CCC 
          campuses indicated that 29 students were expelled in the 
          2007-08 academic year for violent or serious offenses and 
          17 students were expelled in 2008-09.

           Practices of other systems  .  Unlike California's other 
          postsecondary education systems, community colleges do not 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          6

          have an established authority or process for denying 
          admission to individuals who have been expelled from 
          another college within the system.  

           UC:  According to the UC, a student who is expelled from 
            a campus within the UC system may be considered for 
            readmission only under exceptional circumstances.  The 
            student may not be admitted to a different UC campus 
            without the express approval of the Chancellor of the 
            campus to which the expelled student has applied.  

           CSU:  A student who is expelled from a CSU campus is 
            expelled from the entire system.  Admission or 
            readmission to the CSU may be qualified, revoked, or 
            denied to any person found to have violated the Student 
            Conduct Code.  The Student Conduct Procedures for the CSU 
            afford students due process in discipline proceedings and 
            provide guidance to campuses to address student 
            misconduct.  

          In the state's K-12 system, a pupil who is expelled from a 
          school district may be enrolled in another district during 
          or after the period of expulsion only after the second 
          school district holds a hearing to determine whether the 
          individual poses a continuing danger either to the pupils 
          or employees of the district.  This bill establishes a 
          process that is similar to that used in the K-12 system.  

          According to Legislative Counsel Opinion #1207924, prior 
          versions of this bill which would have required districts 
          to hold a hearing before taking action to deny or permit 
          conditional enrollment of any student (including 
          nonresident students who are already admitted at the 
          discretion of the district), would have created a state 
          mandate, since the CCC already have the ability to deny 
          admission for any reason to these "discretionary" students 
          without a hearing.  This bill has been amended to clarify 
          that its provisions do not apply to these "discretionary 
          admit" students, thereby eliminating the mandate.

           Prior Legislation  

          AB 288 (Fong, 2011) was almost identical to this bill and 
          was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown whose veto message 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          7

          read in part:

               Requiring every community college to follow a uniform 
               process for evaluating a student expulsion taken by 
               another district adds unnecessary burdens and costs 
               that the state will have to reimburse.

               I invite Chancellor Scott and the California Community 
               Colleges Board of Governors to work with local 
               districts to craft a more flexible and cost-effective 
               approach to enable districts to share critical 
               information about student expulsions.
          
          AB 1400 (Fong, 2010) was substantially similar to this bill 
          and was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger who also 
          requested that the Board of Governors work with the 
          Chancellor develop a policy to most effectively address 
          this issue for the campuses. 

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  Yes

          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee 
          analysis, there would be minor nonreimbursable costs for 
          legal services to districts who conduct the specified 
          hearings.  Assuming up to $5,000 per hearing, costs 
          statewide would probably not exceed $50,000 to $100,000.  
          In addition, this bill will have mandated and probably 
          minor costs associated with districts responding to 
          requests for information.  

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  7/2/12)

          Peralta Community College District (source) 
          California Communities United Institute
          California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office
          Community College League of California
          Kern Community College District
          Rio Hondo Community College District
          San Diego Community College District
          San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
          West Kern Community College District

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    Supporters argue, "AB 2171 







                                                               AB 2171
                                                                Page 
          8

          requires the governing board of a community college, or its 
          designee to hold a hearing prior to taking action to deny, 
          permit, or place conditions on the enrollment of an 
          individual who pose a risk to the safety of others. This 
          includes students who have been expelled from a community 
          college within the preceding five years or are undergoing 
          expulsion for violent acts specified in the bill.  AB 2171 
          would also grant community colleges additional tools to 
          ensure the safety of students and employees. A community 
          college may request information from another district to 
          determine if the student continues to pose a threat to the 
          safety of others. AB 2171 contains meaningful oversight of 
          this sensitive process by requiring the governing board of 
          a district to hold a hearing to decide such matters."


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  74-0, 4/26/12
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, 
            Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, 
            Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, 
            Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, 
            Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Beth 
            Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove, 
            Hagman, Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, 
            Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie 
            Lowenthal, Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, 
            Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, 
            Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, 
            Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, 
            Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cedillo, Furutani, Halderman, Harkey, 
            Jones, Smyth


          PQ:n  7/3/12   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****