BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1400
AUTHOR: Hancock
INTRODUCED: February 21, 2014
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: April 9, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Community College expulsions.
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes a community college governing board to
expel a student without further proceedings if a
restraining order has been issued by a court against the
student after an evidentiary hearing.
BACKGROUND
The Regents of the University of California, the Trustees
of the California State University, and the governing board
of every community college district, are required to adopt
or provide for the adoption of specific rules and
regulations governing student behavior along with
applicable penalties for violation of the rules and
regulations. The institutions are also required to adopt
procedures by which all students are informed of such rules
and regulations, with applicable penalties, and any
revisions thereof. (Education Code � 66300)
Current law requires the respective governing boards of the
California Community Colleges, the California State
University, or the University of California to adopt
appropriate procedures and designate appropriate persons to
take disciplinary action against any student, member of the
faculty, member of the support staff, or member of the
administration of the community college, state college, or
state university who, after a prompt hearing by a campus
body, has been found to have willfully disrupted the
orderly operation of the campus. Current law provides that
this requirement should not be construed to prohibit
immediate suspension in order to protect lives or property
and to ensure the maintenance of order, provided that a
SB 1400
Page 2
reasonable opportunity be afforded the suspended person for
a hearing within 10 days. Current law authorizes the
disciplinary action to include, but not be limited to,
suspension, dismissal, or expulsion. (EC � 66017)
Current law authorizes the governing board of a community
college district 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. The expulsion of a student is required to be
accompanied by a hearing conducted pursuant to the
requirements of Section 66017. (EC � 76030)
Current law provides that nothing in the provisions
authorizing the suspension or expulsion of a community
college student shall be construed to limit the authority
of a governing board to adopt additional rules and
regulations which are not inconsistent with these
provisions. These rules may, among other things, prescribe
specific rules and regulations governing student behavior,
along with applicable penalties for violation of adopted
rules and regulations, and may prescribe appropriate due
process procedures, including procedures by which students
are to be informed of these rules and regulations. (EC �
76037)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Expands the authority of a local community college
governing board to expel a student.
2) Authorizes the board to expel a student without
further proceedings under two circumstances:
a) If good cause for the issuance of
an order protecting a campus of the district is
issued by a court against the student after an
evidentiary hearing.
b) If good cause for the issuance of
an order protecting any person regularly present
on the campus of the district is issued by a
court against the student after an evidentiary
hearing.
SB 1400
Page 3
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, current
law requires a community college district to undertake
a second due process if it wishes to expel a student
for the same activity that resulted in a protective
order against a student who is considered an imminent
threat of bodily harm to a student or an employee of
the district. According to the author, the standard
of proof for a protective order is higher than that
required for expulsion. This bill would streamline
the process for expulsion by authorizing district
expulsion of a student without having to take further
action.
2) Elimination of due process ? This bill would allow for
a protection order issued by a court, to be sufficient
for the purposes of expulsion. Notwithstanding the
need to ensure the safety of the campus, employees,
and other students, should a local governing board be
authorized to deny a student the opportunity for a
hearing prior to expulsion? Once expelled, current
law would authorize any other community college
district, under specified conditions, to deny or
permit the student conditional enrollment (EC �
76038). Should the due process followed by a court
for the issuance of a protective order substitute for
the due process that would affect and potentially
determine the student's future access to a California
community college?
3) Other options ? According to the sponsor, the
expulsion process requires the district to offer the
restrained student the opportunity to meet with staff,
officials, and the accuser in locations specifically
barred by the protective order. According to the
California State University, their campuses exercise
the flexibility to handle hearings with dangerous
people in various ways, including the conduct of
hearings off campus, via video, with certain parties
excluded, or with police present.
Current law provides that the provisions on the
suspension and expulsion of students should not be
construed to limit the authority of a governing board
SB 1400
Page 4
to adopt additional rules and regulations which are
not inconsistent with these provisions, and
specifically cites that these rules may prescribe
appropriate due process procedures. Could community
college campuses prescribe due process procedures
similar to those employed by the CSU when dealing with
a student against whom a protective order has been
issued?
4) Broad language . As currently drafted, the bill
appears to authorize expulsion of a student in any
instance in which a protective order has been issued
against a student, whether by the district, an
individual student, or an employee. According to the
sponsor, the intent is to apply its provisions only to
a situation where the district has pursued and
successfully obtained issuance of an order protecting
a campus or person of the district. If the committee
chooses to advance this bill, it should be amended to
make this clarification.
SUPPORT
Los Angeles Community College District
Los Rios Community College District
Peralta Community College District
San Diego Community College District
South Orange County Community College District
West Kern Community College District
Yosemite Community College District
OPPOSITION
None received.