BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 288
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 288 (Fong) - As Amended: March 22, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:9-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the governing board of a community college
district to deny admission to someone expelled from another
district within the previous five years, under specified
circumstances. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows a district to deny enrollment upon a finding, through a
hearing, that an individual was expelled within the preceding
five years, or is undergoing expulsion procedures in another
district, for specified offenses and presents a continuing
danger to the physical safety of the district's students and
employees.
2)Requires a district, if requested by another district seeking
to make a determination per (1), to respond to an information
request within five working days.
3)Requires a student expelled for one of the specified actions
to inform the community college district of their prior
expulsion when seeking admission to the district. Failure of
the student to do so is to be considered by the district in
determining whether to grant admission.
4)Allows the governing board, upon making a determination
regarding a previously expelled student, to deny enrollment,
permit enrollment, or permit conditional enrollment.
5)Requires a district, prior to taking any action to deny
enrollment per the above, to establish an appeals process, and
allows a student denied enrollment per the above to appeal the
decision to the district governing board.
AB 288
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible reimbursable costs for districts to provide
information to other districts upon request within five
working days.
2)Minor nonreimbursable costs for legal services to districts
who, in electing to consider whether deny enrollment or permit
conditional to an individual, conduct the required hearings.
Assuming up to $5,000 per hearing, costs statewide would
probably not exceed $50,000 to $100,000. Districts may also
incur additional nonreimbursable costs to establish an appeals
process and to conduct appeals.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, the California Community
Colleges (CCCs) are the only public educational segment in
California without the ability to ensure campus safety at one
community college district by screening students who have been
expelled from another district. Currently, a student who is
expelled from one district for a violent offense can freely
enroll in another district without that district's knowledge
of his or her expulsion from the first district. In addition,
a CCC district that expels a student for a violent act is not
compelled to provide the information surrounding the expulsion
of the student even upon the request of the receiving CCC
district.
Finally, a CCC district may not conditionally enroll or deny
enrollment to a student based on a hearing that finds the
student poses a continuing threat to the students, faculty,
and staff on the campus. This bill is intended to address
these problems.
The bill applies to expulsions for the following offenses:
a) Murder or attempted murder.
b) Causing, attempting to cause, or threatening to cause
physical injury to another person.
c) Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault.
d) Committing or attempting to commit kidnapping.
AB 288
Page 3
e) Committing or attempting to commit robbery or extortion.
f) Committing stalking.
g) Possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a firearm,
knife, explosive, or other dangerous object.
2)Recent CCC expulsions . According to a survey of 55 CCC
campuses provided by the author, 29 individuals in the 2007-08
academic year and 17 in the 2009-10 academic year were
expelled from CCCs. Reasons identified for expulsion include
harassment of students and faculty, vandalism of school
property, and falsifying college transcripts and instructor
signatures, among other activities.
3)Prior Legislation . In 2010, AB 1400 (Fong), which was
substantially similar to this bill, was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who instead urged the CCC Chancellor and Board
of Governors to work on a policy to address this issue.
According to the CCC Chancellor's Office, such discussions
have occurred, but it appears a new statute would be required
for the Chancellor's Office to issue regulations on this
matter.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081