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