BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 969
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
969 (Williams)
As Amended June 24, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |59-11 |(May 18, 2015) |SENATE: | 35-0 | (August 20, |
| | | | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY: Authorizes a California Community College District
(CCD) to take specified action to deny or permit conditional
access to a student found responsible for specified activities.
Specifically, this bill:
1)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 expelled for a violation
of the CCD's sexual assault, domestic violence, dating
violence and stalking policy.
2)Authorizes a CCD to require a student seeking admission who is
expelled from a CCD in this state for a violation of the
sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and
stalking policy to inform the district of the expulsion.
Provides that failure to do so may be considered by the CCD in
AB 969
Page 2
determining whether to grant admission, and a written record
of the fact may be maintained by the CCD with the applicant's
file.
The Senate amendments delete provisions that would have
clarified that CCDs could remove students for conduct that
occurs off campus and provisions that would have allowed a CCD
to deny or permit conditional enrollment following a student's
suspension from another CCD.
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 (EDC) Section
67386)
2)Authorizes a California community college (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 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. (EDC Section 76030)
3)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
AB 969
Page 3
specified offenses, following a hearing and appeal process.
(EDC Section 76038)
4)Requires, under federal Title IX (20 United States Code
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 Senate 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.
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 (EDC
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.
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 would require a transfer
student to disclose whether they were dismissed previously from
an institution for sexual assault; and, it would direct a local
CCD governing board to hold a hearing to determine whether to
enroll a student who has been expelled from another CCD for
AB 969
Page 4
sexual assault.
University of California and CSU Policies. There is no similar
statutory restriction on the University of California (UC)
extension of its jurisdiction over issues of student conduct
beyond the campus. The UC 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 (CSU), 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:
0001241