BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 967
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB
967 (Williams)
As Enrolled September 11, 2015
2/3 vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |71-4 |(June 3, 2015) |SENATE: |37-1 |(September 8, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |68-4 |(September 9, | | | |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY: Requires the establishment of consistent disciplinary
standards and reporting for sexual assault complaints received
by California Community College districts (CCD), California
State University (CSU), the University of California (UC) and
AB 967
Page 2
independent postsecondary educational institutions.
The Senate amendments remove provisions that would have
established minimum disciplinary standards of suspension and
expulsion for specified sexual assault and instead require the
establishment of consistent disciplinary standards, and make
other clarifying changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires, under the Kristen Smart Campus Safety Act, UC
Regents, CSU Trustees, CCD governing boards, and independent
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.
(Education Code (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))
AB 967
Page 3
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: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, assuming average costs of around $3,000 per community
college district, statewide potential reimbursable state
mandated costs would be $216,000 (General Fund-Proposition 98
(1988)) annually. Any costs to UC and CSU will be absorbable.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "the state of California has
an obligation to provide a safe and secure learning environment
at our college and university campuses. Students, families, and
the general public need assurance that colleges and universities
take campus sexual assault seriously. The Washington Post
obtained data from approximately 100 institutions surveyed in
2012 and 2013; in regards to campus sanctions in sexual assault
cases they discovered that out of 478 sanctions for sexual
assault, only 12% resulted in expulsion and 28% resulted in
suspensions."
The author believes that in order to address rape culture on
college campuses, there needs to be meaningful sanctions that
truly serve as a deterrent. This bill is intended to provide
clear and consistent direction to colleges and universities on
imposing sanctions for sexual assault, and will require
reporting of adjudication outcome data to ensure compliance with
these standards.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:
This bill would require public and independent postsecondary
AB 967
Page 4
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 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.
Analysis Prepared by: Laura Metune /
AB 967
Page 5
HIGHER ED. / (916) 319-3960 FN: 0002525