BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2609
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2609 (Chau) - As Amended May 10, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Privacy and Consumer |Vote:|9 - 0 |
|Committee: |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Education | |7 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires for-profit educational conference
organizations (ECOs) that provide solicitation materials
directly to a school for purposes of distribution to a student
to include specified disclosures with the materials, to provide
those disclosures to the school and specified school employees,
and to provide the materials in a sealed envelope addressed to
the parent or guardian of the student.
AB 2609
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor, non-reimbursable local costs due to the creation of a
misdemeanor, offset to some extent by potential fine revenue.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill is intended to better protect students from
questionable marketing practices for educational conferences
by prohibiting for-profit ECOs from distributing solicitation
materials for educational conferences directly to students at
school, and by requiring certain disclosures to be included
with the solicitation.
According to the author, "While some for-profit youth
leadership camps may provide a worthwhile enrichment
experience for children who participate, the misleading and
manipulative nature of a solicitation that appears to be an
honor, and the fact that the pitch is directly and publicly
aimed at the student and communicated through a teacher,
raises serious questions of student privacy and consumer
protection. Young students are particularly vulnerable to
manipulative solicitations that appear to be a competitive
award or honor because of their perceived value in applying
for college, because a respected teacher delivered the
materials, or perhaps because the 'nomination' was announced
publicly before the student's peers."
2)Background. Educational conferences go by a variety of
different names: youth leadership camps, experiential learning
programs, and prestige conferences, but they all seek
school-aged children who are seeking extra-curricular
AB 2609
Page 3
activities for personal enrichment, civic engagement or even
an advantage with future college admissions. However, these
programs vary widely from one another in their marketing,
admissions criteria, selection processes, and costs to
participate.
Two well-known examples of education conference providers are
the American Legion and Rotary programs which are organized as
non-profits. These programs select their participants based on
recommended guidelines and in most cases, individual expenses
are paid by sponsoring posts or local clubs or businesses.
However, there are also programs offered by for-profit
companies, such as the Junior National Young Leaders
Conference, the National Youth Leadership Forum, or the Global
Young Leaders Conference. These programs solicit their
participants through a "nomination" process that relies on
teachers to identify potential participants from among their
own students, and can cost hundreds or even thousands of
dollars to participate.
3)Consumer protection concerns about the "nomination" process.
According to a 2009 New York Times article, ("Congratulations!
You are Nominated. It's an Honor [It's a Sales Pitch]" New
York Times, April 13, 2009) students are receiving conference
solicitations that "looked and sounded more like an Academy
Award than a sales pitch. In fancy script, on weighty card
stock adorned by a giant gold seal . . .[it] promised a
'lifetime advantage' and 'valuable addition' to her resume.
It used words like 'elite,' distinguished,' 'select.'"
Students who receive these offers may be led to believe that
attendance at these conferences is a highly selective honor
because of statements in the solicitation materials that call
AB 2609
Page 4
nominees "the nation's most highly acclaimed students" and
"most promising young leaders of tomorrow." However,
according to the article, "there are no hard and fast criteria
for nominators. . . .The nomination form asks for nothing
beyond the student's name, address, school year and sex."
Eligibility criteria may also be vague, or even non-existent.
For example, the website of one ECO (Envision EMI) suggests
that educators nominate students who "show special academic
promise, aspirations, and leadership potential, can meet the
challenges of the program's rigorous curriculum, and will be
mature and confident contributors to group and program
activities." However, no quantifiable criteria, such as grade
point average, are provided, and the nomination process
(requiring the student's name and address) can be completed
online. Once a nomination is made, marketing materials
designed to look like award letters will be delivered to the
student's school, addressed directly to the student, or to the
address provided in the nomination.
In order to better protect students from potentially
misleading advertising, this bill would require ECO's to
address sealed solicitations to the parents or guardians of
the student instead of the student and include key disclosures
with those materials to make clear that it is a solicitation
and not an award. By allowing parents to see the materials
first, with the added context provided by the new disclosures,
this bill attempts to put parents in a better position to
understand and explain the nature of the solicitation to the
student, thereby allowing the family to make a more informed
decision as to whether or not to participate.
4)Prior Legislation. SB 142 (Boatwright), Chapter 772, Statutes
of 1995, established consumer protection guidelines for
AB 2609
Page 5
educational travel organizations (ETOs).
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081