Skip to content
Printer-friendly version

2002 Vetoed K-12 Education Legislation


Bill Number Author                                   

Subject
Summary

Governor's Veto Message

AB 164 Harman                                                     Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Special Education - Issue: dispute resolution
Existing law provides procedural safeguards, including due process hearings for the resolution of complaints regarding alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Existing law also authorizes parties to special education disputes to seek resolution through mediation prior to filing a request for a due process hearing. This bill would require the State Department of Education to establish and administer a statewide program of grant funding, with specified components, to support special education local plan areas (SELPAs) in conducting alternative dispute resolution programs for resolving special education disputes. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature, subject to the availability of federal funds, to make $300,000 available for purposes of the program, on an annual basis, would prescribe the allocation of funds under the program, and would require grant recipients to perform specified services related to alternative dispute resolution. The bill would prescribe other matters related to the grant program. The bill would become inoperative on July 1, 2008.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 164 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Department of Education (SDE) to establish and administer a statewide program of grant funding to establish alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs for special education. Although I support establishing ways to resolve disputes, current law already allows for the non-adversarial resolution of special education issues through mediation prior to filing for due process. This bill appropriates $300,000 to the SDE for administration of the ADR program and could result in local assistance costs between $17.8 and $13.1 million for three years and ongoing costs of between $3.3 million and $4.4 million annually. Since the proposed 2002-03 budget appropriates $8.9 million for dispute resolution services including mediation and fair hearing services, and this bill would redirect federal funds, which are necessary to provide essential services to students with disabilities, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 259 Chavez                                                     Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

ADA Audits - Issue: Adult Ed
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a high school district or unified school district to establish and maintain one or more adult schools by resolution of the governing board. Existing law sets forth formulas for the determination of the adult education revenue limit per unit of average daily attendance. Existing law authorizes the waiver of an average daily attendance audit adjustment for specific fiscal years by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the approval of the Department of Finance, if the superintendent determines that the audit exception was minor or inadvertent, or both. This bill would provide that any average daily attendance adjustment for the 1990-91, 1991-92, or 1992-93 fiscal years that has not been finally resolved by the effective date of the bill, as determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, would be required to be referred to the Education Audit Appeals Panel for resolution, in accordance with the procedures set forth in specified provisions. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 259 without my signature.

Unfortunately, the recently created Education Audit Appeals Panel is not staffed nor budgeted to address adult education audits. I am directing the Secretary of Education to work with the new Superintendent of Public Instruction to suggest a plan of action to address this issue.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 323 Pavley                                                      Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Longer School Year/Day - Issue: juvenile courts
Existing federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requires that all individuals with disabilities residing in the state, regardless of the severity of their disabilities, and who are in need of special education and related services, are to be identified, located, and assessed as required by federal law. Existing law requires special education programs to be provided for individuals with exceptional needs who have been adjudicated by the juvenile court for placement in a juvenile hall or juvenile home, day center, ranch or camp, or for individuals with exceptional needs placed in a county community school. This bill would require the State Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst, to conduct a specified study of counties with a specified average daily attendance regarding the special education needs of juveniles who are defined as individuals with exceptional needs and who are in the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The State Department of Education would be required to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on or before July 1, 2004. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 323 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Department of Education (SDE) in conjunction with the Department of Finance (DOF) and the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to conduct a study to examine and assess the special education and funding needs of students who are enrolled in juvenile court schools. I believe that current law affords the same access to special education services to students enrolled in juvenile court schools as those students enrolled in any other setting. Thus, I am concerned that this bill could inadvertently create a situation where students in juvenile court schools would receive benefits or services not available to students in other settings. I would also note that the revenue limit funding for juvenile court schools is already substantially higher than the amount provided for local district schools. Finally, I am concerned that this bill would result in the diversion of $200,000 of budgeted special education federal funds from local assistance needs to state operations. I believe priority should be placed on maximizing the amount of funding available for serving all special education students at the local level. For these reasons, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 481 Firebaugh                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Child Health - Issue: child diabetes
Existing law provides that any pupil who is required to take, during the regular school day, medication prescribed for him or her by a physician, may be assisted by the school nurse or other designated school personnel if the school district receives a written statement from the physician detailing the method, amount and time schedules by which the medication is to be taken and a written statement from the parent or guardian of the pupil indicating the desire that the school district assist the pupil in the matters set forth in the physician's statement. This bill would specifically make those provisions applicable to a pupil with diabetes, and would require a credentialed school nurse to provide assistance to pupils with diabetes pursuant to those provisions, in accordance with instructions set forth by the pupil's physician, if the pupil is unable to perform the tasks. The bill would provide for other designated school personnel, as defined, to administer assistance to pupils with diabetes in the absence of a credentialed school nurse or other licensed nurse, in accordance with guidelines for training the personnel established by the State Department of Health Services Diabetes Control Program, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would prohibit designated school personnel from being required to administer assistance to pupils with diabetes unless the parent or guardian of the pupil has signed a waiver of liability. The bill would permit certain pupils to test their blood glucose level and provide diabetes self-care in any area of the school or during any school-related activity upon the request of the pupil's parent or guardian and with physician authorization. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 481 without my signature.

This bill would require a credentialed school nurse or other licensed nurse, or in the absence of a nurse, teachers who have volunteered and school administrators with appropriate DHS-approved training, to administer insulin or glucagon and perform testing and monitoring of a pupil's blood glucose level in accordance with instructions set forth by the pupil's physician. Designated school personnel would be prohibited from being required to administer assistance to pupils with diabetes unless t he parent or guardian has signed a waiver of liability. In addition, pupils can test their blood glucose level and provide diabetes self-care in any area of the school or during school-related activities at the request of a parent or guardian and with physician authorization. Existing law already provides that any pupil who is required to take prescription medication during the regular school day may be assisted by school personnel if a written statement is obtained from a physician and a written request is made by the pupil's parent/guardian. This bill, while well intentioned, would create a costly new state reimbursable mandate estimated by the Department of Finance to be potentially tens of millions of dollars. Neither this bill, nor the 2002 Budget Act contains an appropriation for this purpose. In addition, I am advised by school district personnel that the immunity from liability language may protect neither the school district or school personnel from liability. For these reasons, I cannot sign this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 634 Wesson                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Ed Options
Under existing law, each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years is subject to compulsory full-time education unless exempted pursuant to prescribed provisions of law. This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, commencing July 1, 2004, make the compulsory education law apply to a child, and the parents or guardian of a child, between the ages of 5 and 6 who is enrolled in a public school kindergarten and attends the kindergarten This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 634 without my signature.

This bill, commencing July 1, 2004, makes the compulsory education law apply to a child (and the parents or guardian of the child) between the ages of 5 and 6 years, if the child is enrolled in a public school kindergarten that accepts children under six years of age, and attends the kindergarten for at least 30 days during the school year. I commend the author for his interest in early childhood education. However, I am concerned that this bill would unduly restrict a parent' s or guardian's education choices for their children, I believe parents should retain the right to choose an education program for their 5-year old children. Additionally, the state is already poised to study the effect of similar policy through AB 25, (Chapter 1022, Statutes of 2000). This bill creates the Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program, a voluntary project, to test the effectiveness of providing kindergarten-readiness programs and increasing the age of entry to kindergarten. AB 25 also requires an independent evaluator to submit a final report by January 1, 2008. Therefore, it would be premature to sign AB 634 prior to receiving the results of the evaluation.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 741 Firebaugh                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

English Language Learners (ELL)
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to establish procedures for the reclassification of a pupil from English learner to proficient in English and requires those procedures to use multiple criteria in determining whether to reclassify a pupil. Among those criteria is the comparison of the pupil's performance in basic skills against an empirically established range of performance in basic skills based on the performance of English proficient pupils of the same age that demonstrates whether the pupil is sufficiently proficient in English to participate effectively in the curriculum designed for pupils of the same age whose native language is English. This bill would include in the reclassification criteria an assessment of the pupil's mastery of academic content as measured by the California Standards Tests that are appropriate for the pupil's age or grade instead of the aforementioned comparison. To the extent that inclusion of this criteria with the other reclassification criteria imposes a new requirement on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 741 without my signature.

This bill would add new requirements on local education agencies and the State related to pupils of limited English language proficiency. The bill would change the criteria for reclassifying English learner pupils as English proficient. I believe that English literacy reclassification should continue to be based solely on students' English proficiency. With respect to instructional materials, the State Board of Education is already adopting instructional materials for English language arts and English language development that respond to the needs of English learners. Furthermore, development and purchase of separate materials would entail substantial costs beyond the State's current resources. Finally, I have concerns that the bill would threaten the credibility of the state's accountability system for schools. While I agree with the bill's intent to promote improved academic performance among English learners, the bill's proposal to compare year-to-year growth in the Academic Performance Index scores for English learners does not consider changes in the English learner population due to literacy reclassification, and thus would not measure and reward schools for actual improvement in pupil performance. Also and very importantly this measure according to the Department of Finance, would result in hundreds of millions of additional dollars for new instructional materials. For those reasons, I cannot support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 787 Hertzberg                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

CDE Admin/Governance
Existing law provides that the Office of Planning and Research serves as the state's comprehensive planning agency in the formation, evaluation, and updating of various factors that shape statewide development patterns and significantly influence the quality of the state's environment. This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the state departments, to evaluate the functions of each department and make recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2004, that will improve the delivery of state services, as specified. It would provide that the recommendations should include proposed realignments to their geographical organization that consider specified items.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 787 without my signature.

This bill would require the Office of Planning and Research to evaluate the function of each State department and make recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2004 regarding how to improve the delivery of State services. I agree with the author that there could be value in evaluating the functions of statewide agencies and departments. The authority to undertake this tremendous task already exists under the Statewide Government Strategic Planning and Performance Review Act. This existing law requires the Controller, Bureau of State Audits, and the Department of Finance, to develop a plan for performance reviews of state operations, in consultation with the Legislative Analyst. I commend the author for his interest in achieving better coordination between government agencies. The estimated cost for OPR to conduct this evaluation is $318,000; although a thorough top to bottom review could be much higher. Because the authority presently exists to accomplish the objectives of this bill, and because most departments and agencies, including OPR, have experienced significant budget reductions for 2002-03, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 818 Dutra                                                         Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

School Facilities
Existing law provides for certain incentives for school districts to provide a longer instructional day and year, and provides for withholding of the incentives for school districts that are unable to meet the prescribed minimums. The law authorizes the State Board of Education to grant a waiver from these penalty provisions if certain conditions are met. This bill would, notwithstanding other provisions of law, require the Fremont Unified School District to be deemed to have offered at least the minimum amount of required instructional time in the 2000-01 fiscal year, and would require the governing board of the district to adopt a resolution certifying that double the shortfall will be restored on or before the completion of the 2002-03 school year. By requiring the governing board to so certify, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 818 without my signature.

This bill deems that the Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) had met the specified minimum time incentives for the 2000-01 fiscal year, thereby avoiding any funding repayments on the condition that any instructional time deficit will be made up twofold before the completion of the 2002-03 school year. Last year, I signed legislation (SB 178, Costa) that significantly modified the minimum time incentive repayment provisions and waiver procedures statewide. I am unwilling to sign legislation that waives instructional time infractions on a district-by-district basis. This year's AB 1227 (Canciamilla) permits the waiver of any fiscal repayment for minimum instructional time infractions in the 2000-01 fiscal year and thereafter, in exchange for making up twice the instructional time lost. That bill would apply to all school districts. AB 1227 is a reasonable alternative to AB 818 and other bills that would only benefit individual districts. My signature on AB 1227 will achieve the intended objective of AB 818 on behalf of the Fremont Unified School District

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1100 Simitian                                                   Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Budget Trailer Bill School Finance
Existing law defines "sponsoring local educational agency" for purposes of provisions governing charter schools. This bill would include within that definition, only for the purpose of transferring amounts in lieu of property taxes and for pupils who reside in and are otherwise eligible to attend school in a basic aid school district, but who attend a charter school authorized by a non basic aid district or county office of education, the basic aid district, as defined. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1100 without my signature.

This bill would allow a basic aid district to retain a significant portion of funding for a pupil that is no longer served by that district. Specifically, it would reduce the transfer of funds required for each resident pupil that moves to a charter school approved by non-basic aid districts or county offices of education. This bill also makes various technical changes in an attempt to further clarify current law mechanisms for transfers of property taxes between applicable districts and charters. By limiting in-lieu property tax transfers by basic aid districts, this bill exposes the State to excessive General Fund costs for instruction of pupils residing in those districts. This is inconsistent with Chapter 586 of the Statutes of 2001 (SB 955, Alpert) which I signed last year and is inappropriate because the operation of charter schools is intended to be cost neutral to the State. By allowing basic aid districts to shift costs to the General Fund, this bill reduces the State's capacity to fund other education priorities. I believe that current law is reasonable and adequate, and can be implemented without further legislation. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill. Rather, I direct the State Department of Education to promptly implement existing law. This action will save the State an additional $700,000 in Proposition 98 General Fund in fiscal year 2002-03, $500,000 in fiscal year 2003-04, and $300,000 in 2004-05.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1422 Thomson                                                Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

Special Education
Existing law establishes various requirements with respect to the provision of treatment and other services to persons who are mentally ill. This bill, until January 1, 2008, would create the California Mental Health Advocacy Commission, composed of 13 members, and would require the commission to perform various duties regarding services for the mentally ill. It would be funded exclusively through private sources.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1422 without my signature.

This bill would create the California Mental Health Advocacy Commission, and require the commission to perform various duties regarding services for the mentally ill. I am supportive of the concepts embodied in this bill, especially to help remove the stigma associated with mental illness. I am proud of the efforts we've made in the past three years to expand services and strengthen the safety net for those suffering with mental illness. In 1999, I signed Assembly Bill 34 establishing a program to provide comprehensive, integrated services to the homeless mentally ill. Just recently, I also signed Assembly Bill 1421, known as 'Laura's Law', which allows for mandatory treatment of persons with severe mental illness who may be incapable of making informed treatment decisions. However, the Department of Mental Health's resources are stretched too thin to take on additional responsibilities at this time. It would be difficult to ask the Department to take on this task at the same time we are making significant budget reductions and eliminating 7,000 positions in state government. I would consider revisiting this issue when the State's fiscal health improves.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1462 Nakano                                                     Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Teachers/Teacher Credentialing
Existing law authorizes the county superintendent of schools of each county, with the consent of the State Board of Education, to establish and maintain, or with one or more counties to establish and maintain, at least one regional occupational center, or regional occupational program, in the county to provide education and training in career technical courses. Existing law requires the adopted course of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, to offer courses in career technical education. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to convene a committee of experts to determine programs and processes to increase the number and improve the quality of career technical education teachers. The bill would require an independent study to be completed that contains comprehensive data and would require a final report with recommendations to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Education and the Assembly Committee on Education on or before January 1, 2004. The bill would prescribe the membership of the committee and would provide that the study and final report shall be funded exclusively by available federal funds.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1462 without my signature.

This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to convene a 15-member committee of experts to develop guidelines and topics needed for conducting an independent study to determine programs and processes that will increase the number of, and improve the quality of, career technical education teachers. While the study deserves merit, this bill fails to provide the State Board of Education with the opportunity to modify the parameters of questions that would be developed by the advisory committee created by this bill. I believe this bill misses an important step by not allowing the State Board to balance the desires of the committee with current policy direction and the needs of all students. I continue to support the need to provide high quality instruction and professional development to California's teachers. However, as the federal regulations for No Child Left Behind are not finalized, this bill is premature. In light of the State's current fiscal condition, I believe it is important to focus available funds on programs that have already been determined to be beneficial to our students in meeting their core academic needs. Therefore, I am unable to support this bill, which could direct funds away from these programs.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1789 Reyes                     Date Vetoed: 09/12/2002

School Finance
Existing law defines a necessary small school as an elementary school with an average daily attendance of less than 101, exclusive of pupils attending grades 7 and 8 of a junior high school, maintained by a school district that maintains 2 or more schools, that meets other criteria involving combinations of distance and average daily attendance. Existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to make computations for each elementary and secondary school district that has fewer than 2,501 units of second principal apportionment average daily attendance and maintains at least one school that meets the criteria for a necessary small school. This bill would deem the Sierra Elementary School of the Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District to be a necessary small school, and would make the Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District eligible to receive apportionments for that school pursuant to its status as a necessary small school. This bill would provide that if the average daily attendance of the Sierra Elementary School exceeds 26, then the school would no longer be eligible to receive apportionments as a necessary small school.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1789 without my signature.

This bill would provide create a special provision for Sierra Elementary School in the Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District, allowing the school to qualify for augmented funding through the necessary small school apportionment. State law regarding necessary small school funding is drafted to limit applicability to cases in which a small school district has no choice other than to operate a very small school. Cutler-Orosi Joint Unified School District does not meet the necessary small school funding criteria because it exceeds the maximum district size of 2,500 pupils. Allowing a special provision for this particular school, despite their ineligibility under the general law, would increase pressure to allow similar exemptions for other districts.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1794 Chavez                               Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Assessment
Existing law requires, commencing with the 2003-04 school year, each pupil completing grade 12 to successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school. This bill would state that the prohibition does not prevent a school district that offers adult education from offering a program, course, or class of supplemental instruction in preparation for the high school exit examination exclusively to persons who complete grade 11 and fail the high school exit examination. The bill would make a pupil who successfully passes the high school exit examination after completing the grade 12 curriculum eligible to receive a regular diploma of high school graduation. The bill would permit the pupil hours of supplemental instruction of a high school pupil or adult enrolled in an adult education program, course, or class of supplemental instruction in preparation for the high school exit examination to be used for purposes of reimbursement in accordance with specified provisions relating to supplemental instruction. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1794 without my signature.

This bill would: * Authorize an adult education program to offer supplemental instruction in preparation for the California high school exit examination (CAHSEE), notwithstanding any other provision of law, exclusively to a person who completed grade 11, and be reimbursed for instruction hours through the supplemental instruction program currently provided for pupils enrolled in grade 7 through 12. * Authorize reimbursements from supplemental instruction entitlements for pupil hours attributable to any adult or high school student enrolled in supplemental instruction in preparation for the CAHSEE. It is unclear whether the reimbursement could be claimed by the adult education program or the regular K-12 district. * Increase the percent of adult education funds that could be provided for alternative methods of delivery, such as distance education and independent study from 5 percent to 10 percent. * Require that any pupil who successfully passes the CAHSEE after completing grade 12 be eligible for a regular high school diploma. I am concerned that this bill would create Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually by allowing Adult Education programs to receive funding provided to the Supplemental Instruction Program. Furthermore, it appears that adult education programs would be authorized to receive both adult education funds and supplemental instruction funds for any adult, as well as grade 12 students enrolled in adult education courses designated as CAHSEE preparation. Such an incentive of double funding for the same student could lead to districts redefining related existing courses as CAHSEE preparation to gain additional funding for course that they already provide. Furthermore, by authorizing grade 11 completers to enroll in adult education programs for CAHSEE preparation notwithstanding any other provision of law, this bill appears to waive existing laws that cap the level of concurrently enrolled and funded high school students in adult education programs. This change would erode adult education reforms of the early 1990s, further increasing state costs per student. I would also note that by increasing the percentage of adult education funds that could be delivered through alternative instructional methods, this bill is inconsistent with recent policies governing independent study to reduce funding and discourage its expansion. I am not aware of any evidence demonstrating that alternative methods of delivering instruction are more effective than classroom instruction and therefore believe that the existing five percent cap is warranted. For these reasons, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1802 Nation                                       Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Employment Issues
Existing law precludes the amount deducted from the salary of a school district or community college district classified employee due to absence on account of illness or accident for a period of 5 school months or less from exceeding the sum actually paid to a substitute employee employed to fill his or her position. This bill would condition this provision on continued absence after the employee has exhausted all available sick leave. The bill would require that the 5-month period and the sick leave run consecutively and would limit an employee to one 5-month period per illness or accident.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1802 without my signature.

I have great respect for classified school employees. Without their outstanding efforts, we would not have clean, well-lit, well-run schools and community colleges. California citizens are all in their debt for their dedicated efforts. However, I am concerned that this bill may cause a significant increase in costs for local school and community college districts at a time of great financial stress. Therefore, I believe that this extended sick leave benefit is better dealt with through collective bargaining. In the bargaining process experienced negotiators can find savings to offset and balance out the cost. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1877 Maldonado                                Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

At-Risk Students
Existing law establishes, until July 1, 2002, the Turning Point Academy to provide a military academy experience as a rehabilitation program for eligible wards of the juvenile court. The provisions governing the Turning Point Academy become inoperative on July 1, 2002, and are repealed on January 1, 2003. This bill would authorize the Grizzly Youth Academy to use the Turning Point Academy facilities. This bill contains other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1877 without my signature.

This bill grants the Grizzly Challenge Youth Academy the right to use National Guard facilities that were built or purchased for Turning Point Academy, closed in August 2002. The Adjutant General currently has the authority and flexibility to make decisions regarding the use of National Guard facilities and resources. The Military Department's current plan designates these facilities for use by the California National Guard Youth Program's to serve both the Grizzly Challenge Program and the Angel Gate Academy Program. These two very successful programs currently serve over 200 at-risk youth. Prioritizing the use of these seventeen buildings for one specific program may impair the administrative and operational capabilities of the Adjutant General and the Military Department and could weaken the capability of the Military Department to meet the needs of all the youth they serve.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1879 Horton                                        Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

School District Management
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to subpoena witnesses to appear before it in certain circumstances, including circumstances relating to the expulsion of pupils and to ascertain damage due to an emergency. Existing law provides that a person who testifies falsely under oath is guilty of perjury. This bill would, until January 1, 2007, confer these authorizations and duties on the office of Inspector General of the Inglewood Unified School District. The bill would require the inspector general to submit interim reports to the Legislature. Any disclosure of information by the inspector general or that office that was acquired pursuant to a subpoena of the private books, documents, or papers of the person subpoenaed, would be punishable as a misdemeanor, thereby creating a state-mandated local program. The bill would also expand the class of people subject to the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would declare that, due to the unique circumstances applicable to the office of Inspector General within the Inglewood Unified School District, a statute of general applicability cannot be enacted within the meaning of subdivision (b) of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1879 without my signature.

This bill would provide the Inglewood Unified School District's (IUSD) Inspector General with enhanced investigative and subpoena powers. This authority would sunset in 2007. The bill would also require the submission of annual interim reports from 2003 to 2006. Authorizing investigative and subpoena powers by legislation is not a step that should be taken lightly. The Inspector General for Los Angeles Unified School District was created by legislation and initially did not include investigative and subpoena powers. Based on the progress of that Inspector General's investigation the Legislature subsequently granted such powers. If the investigation of the Inspector General at IUSD warrants the provision of subpoena powers, I would be pleased to consider appropriate legislation at a later time. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1904 Reyes                                        Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Ed Options
Existing law provides for emergency apportionments to school districts subject to specified conditions including, in certain circumstances, the repayment of an emergency loan over a period of no more than 10 years and the appointment by the Superintendent of Public Instruction of an administrator who would exercise the powers and responsibilities of the governing board of the school district. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to assume all the legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board of the West Fresno Elementary School District and would authorize the superintendent to appoint an administrator to act on its behalf in exercising this authority over the school district. The bill would require the governing board of the school district to serve as an advisory body to the administrator and not to be paid or entitled to any compensation. The bill would authorize the administrator to terminate the employment of certain district personnel, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1904 without my signature.

This bill directs the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to assume all legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board of the West Fresno Elementary School District (WFESD) until such time that certain conditions are met, including the elapse of two complete fiscal years. The bill further empowers the SPI with authority to appoint an administrator and any other necessary staff. The bill also authorizes the SPI to request an emergency loan of an unspecified amount, and specifies certain requirements and repayment provisions, including the requirement that WFESD bear 100 percent of all costs associated with implementing the bill. While I recognize that the West Fresno Elementary School District faces significant management and fiscal problems, I am concerned that this bill would establish a precedent by requiring the State to takeover a school district prior to a district becoming insolvent. I believe the County Superintendent of Schools should either select a neutral administrator or concur with the SPI in the selection of the administrator and exercise day-to-day supervision of his or her decisions. Additionally, I am advised that the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) is best qualified to initiate and complete comprehensive assessments and improvement plans to guide the district's recovery because it is already familiar with the detailed problems of the district. Further, I am concerned that this bill does not require appropriate authorities to take action and, where fraud is found, recover available assets that could be dedicated to repayment of any loan. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill. However, I will consider an urgency measure to aid this district that: a) includes a primary role for the County Superintendent in the selection and oversight of a neutral administrator; (b) assigns FCMAT with the responsibility of developing the recovery plans while specifying the content of those plans; (c) requires the County Superintendent to select a new certified public account to perform annual independent audits of the district; and (d) identifies a funding source for FCMAT to develop the recovery plans. In the meantime, I encourage the County Superintendent of Schools to exercise all existing legal authority to restore operational integrity to the district and to preempt potential fiscal insolvency. Further, the County Superintendent should consider FCMAT's continued assistance in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1905 Longville                                  Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Child Health
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to provide a scoliosis screening of every female pupil in grade 7 and every male pupil in grade 8, in accordance with specified guidelines. This bill would establish a 3-year pilot program whereby the State Department of Education would be required to select one school district each from Contra Costa County, Merced County, and San Bernardino County to participate in the program and would require those participating school districts, in conjunction with the scoliosis screening, to screen pupils for the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. The bill would specify individuals who may perform and supervise the screenings, and would prescribe procedures for the screening process. The bill would provide for parent or guardian notification of any pupil suspected of being at elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, as described in the bill. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1905 without my signature.

This bill would establish a three year pilot program whereby the State Department of Education would select one school district each from the counties of Contra Costa, Merced and San Bernardino to provide for the screening of 7th grade female and 8th grade male pupils for the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM II). A statewide program of this nature could result in Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the millions of dollars annually. Given the state's current fiscal situation, I believe that expansion of state-reimbursable local mandates should be held to a minimum. Further, as I have stated previously, governing boards of local educational agencies have a clear statutory responsibility to give diligent care to the health and physical development of pupils as well as the authority to determine their staffing needs consistent with fulfilling this obligation. I continue to believe that school health staffing needs are determined at the local level based on local priorities and should remain so. For these reasons, I cannot sign AB 1905.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1907 Dickerson                                        Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

School Finance
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine the amount of General Fund moneys that a special education local plan area may claim. This determination is based, in part, on the amount of federal funds allocated pursuant to the Budget Act. This bill would limit, in the fiscal year in which the provisions of this bill become operative and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount of federal funds that may be used in determining the amount of General Fund moneys that a special education local plan area may claim. The bill would limit that amount to the amount of federal funds used in the calculation for the fiscal year prior to the fiscal year in which the provisions of this bill become operative. The bill would authorize an exception to the limitation to be made if necessary to reflect the changes in the configuration of a special education local plan area. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1907 without my signature.

This bill would limit the amount of federal funds that may be applied towards funding requirements when determining the amount from the General Fund to be used for special education in California. The Department of Finance estimates that this measure could result in an ongoing General Fund cost of $132 million beginning in 2003-04. Over the last four years, I have signed budgets providing special education General Fund increases totaling $748.4 million, plus an additional pass through of more than $271 million in federal funds for California special education programs. Given the severe revenue shortfall California has faced, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1939 Daucher                                           Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

School Finance
Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, and generally requires that each jurisdiction be allocated an amount equal to the total of the amount of revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, subject to certain modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion of the annual tax increment, as defined. Existing property tax law also reduces the amounts of ad valorem property tax revenue that would otherwise be annually allocated to the county, cities, and special districts pursuant to these general allocation requirements by requiring, for purposes of determining property tax revenue allocations in each county for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years, that the amounts of property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year to the county, cities, and special districts be reduced in accordance with certain formulas. It requires that the revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in that county for allocation to school districts, community college districts, and the county office of education. This bill would require the Legislative Analyst's office to submit a report to the Legislature, on or before January 1, 2004, on the fiscal impact and other impacts on the state and local jurisdictions if a specified legislative measure relating to local government finance was enacted. This bill would also require that this report suggest possible criteria for a new state competitive grant program that would award state grant moneys to local jurisdictions that participate in a program identical to that outlined in this same legislative measure.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1939 without my signature.

This bill would require the Legislative Analysts' Office (LAO) to study a property tax shift mechanism, intended to provide relief to local governments and to incentivize the construction of affordable housing. While I share Assemblymember Daucher's concern with respect to both issues, AB 1939's proposal does not appear to be the answer. On its own, this proposal failed as a bill in the previous half of the session. Nothing the LAO could reveal would enhance its mechanisms. The LAO has a number of other local government financing proposals that it has developed for the Legislature to consider. Another study at this time would not be helpful as neither the LAO nor the State has the budgetary flexibility to undertake yet another study, nor finance the kind of relief local government is seeking. Nevertheless, I commend Assemblymember Daucher on her creative work on behalf of local governments and look forward to working with her.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1942 Chu                                                   Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Safe Schools/Violence Prevention
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten another person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, as specified, because of that person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics. This bill would require the Board of Corrections to establish and administer the Youth Anti-Bias Pilot Program for one year to be funded by a grant of not less than $142,500. The program would be a collaboration between county law enforcement, middle schools, and nonprofit community organizations which would develop and implement a comprehensive anti-bias program, containing specified components, for minors in custody or on probation, probation officers, correction officers, teachers, youth service providers, social workers, parents and community members. The goal of the program would be to reduce hate crimes by teaching the appreciation of cultural diversity and anger management. The grant for the program would be awarded on a competitive basis following guidelines established by the Board of Corrections with priority given to bid applications containing specified elements. In awarding grants, priority would be given to counties with an above average incidence of hate or bias crimes. The grantee would be required to produce a report within 18 months of receiving funding, as specified. The bill would make the program contingent upon the appropriation of specified funding, and would permit the board to use up to 5%, as specified, of its money for administration and evaluation of the program. The bill would require the board to report to the Legislature and the Governor on the efficiency of the program.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1942 without my signature.

This bill would require the Board of Corrections to establish and administer a Youth Anti-Bias Pilot Program that would administer a $142,500 General Fund grant to reduce the incidence of hate crimes by youthful offenders. While I support the goal of this bill, there are existing revenues available to establish juvenile prevention programs through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. This bill would result in a General Fund pressure to fund a new program similar to juvenile crime prevention programs that currently exist. Two examples are the Crime and Violence Prevention Center, which creates and promotes policies and strategies for law enforcement and communities to stop hate crimes, and the Safe from the Start program, which works to educate local policymakers and community leaders to build or strengthen existing local violence prevention efforts. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1973 Richman                                           Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Longer School Year/Day
Existing law, with certain exceptions, provides for certain incentives for school districts to provide a longer instructional day and school year and provides for withholding of the incentives for school districts that are unable to meet the prescribed minimums. This bill would make the withholding provisions not applicable to kindergarten classes maintained by the Castaic Union School District, and would make certain findings and declarations regarding the inapplicability of a general statute within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1973 without my signature.

This bill would exempt kindergarten classes maintained by the Castaic Union School District from the provision of law that reduces a district's apportionment for providing fewer instructional minutes than was provided in the 1982-83 school year. The District seeks a reduction in kindergarten classroom time from 232 to 210 minutes per day but wants to retain the financial incentives provided for longer classroom time. I am very sympathetic to the overcrowding experienced by the District, and the resulting kindergarten overlap in the classroom. However I am concerned about the precedent and the pressure to exempt more districts that would be created by signing this bill. The cost to the state for this 10% reduction in classroom time would be $150,000 per year. Last year, I approved Senate Bill 178 (Chapter 573, Costa) that provided modifications to the instructional time penalties, in part, to also reduce requests for exemptions for districts that fail to maintain the base year instructional time. Considering the state's severe $24 billion shortfall, I believe those modifications were a reasonable step to assist school districts such as Castaic Union.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1975 Koretz                                               Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Employment Issues
Existing law requires the governing boards of school and community college districts to grant to their employees, upon request, leaves of absence without loss of compensation for the purposes of allowing those employees to serve as elected officers of public employee organizations with which the local organizations are affiliated. This bill would extend this requirement to employees of community college districts who serve as employees of public employee organizations. The bill would limit the total of annual time granted based on the employees' employment by public employee organizations for each campus to the annual time base of one full-time equivalent employee. The bill would require the employee to be granted service credit for the purposes of retirement for this service with a public employee organization if specified conditions are met. This bill contains other related provisions.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1975 without my signature.

This bill would require governing boards of community college districts to grant leaves of absence to their employees to allow them to work as employees of any public employee organization for up to eight years. Additionally, this bill would limit the total allowable leave time for each campus to the annual time base of one full-time equivalent employee and permit governing boards to deny requested leaves if they would reasonably result in an employee shortage or hardship to the district. Community college district employees are covered by the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), which allows them to bargain over matters including wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, the changes in leave of absence provisions sought by this bill are unnecessary and should be bargained rather than legislated.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 1986 Diaz                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Employment Issues
Existing law excludes from membership in the Public Employees' Retirement System, among others, any elective or appointive officers of a contracting agency who serve on specified legislative or administrative bodies and who are first elected or appointed on or after one of 2 specified dates. Other elective officers may elect to become members of the system and may elect to receive service credit for their prior excluded service, as specified. Contributions of members of the Public Employees' Retirement System are deposited in the Public Employees' Retirement Fund, a continuously appropriated special fund. This bill would eliminate that membership exclusion and thereby authorize those elective or appointive officers of a contracting agency to elect to become members of the system and to receive service credit for their prior excluded service, provided they meet specified conditions. By expanding the class of persons who may make contributions to a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1986 without my signature.

This bill would eliminate the prohibition of local agency elective or appointive officials from obtaining retirement coverage under the California Public Employees' Retirement System. I believe that this should be at the discretion of each local agency and not mandated. I would be willing to sign a bill once there has been either a vote of the people or the adoption of an appropriate resolution at a duly noticed public meeting by the governing body.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2001 Diaz                                                    Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Curriculum/Standards - Issue: high school ethnic studies
Existing law prescribes the required courses of study for grades 7 to 12, inclusive. This bill would require the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission within the State Department of Education to identify model programs, standards, and curricula relating to ethnic studies at the high school level. The bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2004, to submit the report to the Governor and the Legislature and to make the report available on the department's Internet Web site. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2001 without my signature.

This bill would require the Curriculum Development and Supplemental Materials Commission to (a) examine high school ethnic studies, (b) identify ways to train teachers to work effectively with diverse pupils and encourage respect for diversity in the classroom, and (c) submit a report with specified information (including recommendations for establishing a new ethnic studies course at the high school level) by January 1, 2004. While I support encouraging respect for diversity and educating children about the impact of California's different ethnic groups, this bill is duplicative of existing efforts. Current law specifically requires instruction about various ethnic groups and existing teacher training programs already train teachers in how to work with pupils from diverse backgrounds. In addition, existing state academic content standards and curriculum frameworks include substantial discussion of the history and contributions of various ethnic groups, and how to implement programs teaching this information.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2025 Corbett                                             Date Vetoed: 09/12/2002

Counseling/Guidance - Issue: Master Plan
Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to provide a comprehensive educational counseling program for all pupils enrolled in the schools of the district. This bill would require the State Department of Education to convene a voluntary working group, as prescribed, for the purpose of developing a master plan for pupil support services. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the working group, to perform specified duties, including, among others, developing a 5-year master plan for pupil support services, and would require the department to report on that master plan to the Legislature and the Governor by no later than January 1, 2004. The bill would provide that no more than $65,000 may be used to implement the bill's provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2025 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Department of Education to convene a working group to develop a five-year master plan for pupil support services, determine appropriate pupil-to-school counselor ratios for elementary, middle, and high schools, and design a plan for offering incentives to schools to meet pupil-to-school ratios by 2009. It would also require that a report on the master plan be provided by January 1, 2004. Less than a year ago, I signed AB 722 (Corbett), Chapter 250, Statutes of 2001, which appropriated $125,000 to study a number of pupil support issues, including some of those referenced in this bill. The results of that study are not due until January 2003, and it would be premature to commit to the development of a long-term master plan until the results of the study can be evaluated. In addition, while I realize the importance of pupil support services, this bill requires funding for a study that is not included in the pending budget bill. The master plan recommendations could create an expectation of substantial future funding that may not be available given the uncertainty in the availability of General Fund revenues for education. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2027 Goldberg                                        Date Vetoed: 09/19/2002

School Facilities
Existing law authorizes a school district to operate a program of year-round scheduling. Existing law permits that program to provide for as few as 163 days of instruction, in each fiscal year, so long as the number of annual instructional minutes is not less than that of schools of the same grade levels utilizing the traditional school calendar. This bill would continue to allow school districts to operate a program of multi-track year-round scheduling for as few as 163 days in each fiscal year only until July 1, 2008.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2027 without my signature.

Current law authorizes school districts to operate programs of multi-track year-round education (MTYRE) scheduling, including the Concept 6 MTYRE schedule, in which a district operates for as few as 163 days in each fiscal year. Effective July 1, 2008, this bill would eliminate only the option of Concept 6 MTYRE scheduling for school districts. This bill would result in significant cost pressure at the state and local level to fund the costs associated with consequences of eliminating Concept 6 MTYRE, including the costs associated with providing additional school facilities and the need for additional teachers. The Department of Finance estimates those costs could result in hundreds of millions in additional General Obligation bond dollars and General Fund costs. Moreover, this bill would result in a significant loss of local flexibility for school districts operating a Concept 6 MTYRE schedule. The State Department of Education has indicated that there are approximately 344,000 students attending school districts that operate Concept 6 MTYRE schedules. Given the fiscal and resource implications associated with eliminating Concept 6 MTYRE, and the increase in resources required to provide the same level of classroom availability, I believe that school districts should continue to have discretion in choosing their own education program schedule. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2068 Briggs                                              Date Vetoed: 09/11/2002

Higher Education - Issue: financial aid: APL
Existing law establishes the Assumption Program of Loans for Education, under which an applicant may enter into an agreement for loan assumption to be redeemed upon becoming employed as a teacher. To be eligible, an applicant must, among other things, agree to teach full time for at least 4 consecutive academic years after obtaining a teaching credential in a public elementary or secondary school in this state, in a subject area that is designated as a current or projected shortage area by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or at a school that, at the time that the teacher is hired, meets certain criteria. This bill would make an applicant who otherwise meets the program eligibility requirements and agrees to teach full time for at least 4 consecutive academic years after obtaining a special education credential in a child development program or early childhood education program that is coordinated by a school district or county office of education eligible to enter into an agreement for loan assumption. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2068 without my signature.

This bill would make early childhood development special education teachers eligible for the State's student loan forgiveness program, the Assumption Program of Loans for Education. While early childhood development programs for special needs students are an important component of the State's education policy, the bill could displace eligible teachers who are serving in our highest need communities and top priority subject areas such as science and math. In addition, expanding the APLE Program to pre-kindergarten programs could reduce the State's ability to meet its constitutional obligation to provide K-12 instruction. Lastly, given the State's current fiscal condition, it would be imprudent to enact a program that may create a General Fund cost pressure. In addition, California is currently undertaking the task of ensuring that all K-12 pupils have a highly qualified teacher, pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act. It would be untimely to make any changes to current law that may reduce the State's pool of K-12 teachers.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2069 Reyes                                                Date Vetoed: 09/19/2002

Curriculum/Standards - Issue: Social Studies
Existing law provides that the adopted course of study for grades 1 to 6, inclusive, and for grades 7 to 12, inclusive, shall both include instruction in specified areas of study, including, among others, social sciences, as specified. This bill would, until January 1, 2007, establish the Leadership Curriculum Pilot Project to require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to select 5 applicant school districts to receive grants of $20,000 to encourage instruction in social sciences provided in the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades to include an elective course in leadership that teaches pupils effective leadership skills. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2069 without my signature.

This bill would (a) require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to administer a pilot program for five schools to provide a course on leadership in grades 6 to 8 and (b) appropriate $100,000 (Proposition 98 General Fund) for that purpose. I share the author's belief in the value of teaching leadership skills to California's youth. However, school districts are already able to provide a leadership course at their discretion. I encourage them to do so. The state faces a severe fiscal shortfall of $24 billion and this bill seeks an unbudgeted General Fund appropriation. When our fiscal condition improves I would consider legislation establishing a pilot program on leadership skills.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2128 Ashburn                                           Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

School Finance
Existing law requires the county superintendent of schools to make certain computations for each necessary small school of school districts with fewer than 2,501 units of average daily attendance, as specified. This bill would, until July 1, 2007, deem Hot Springs Elementary School, which is within the Hot Springs Elementary School District, a necessary small school. The bill would, in lieu of the necessary small school apportionment, apportion $100,000 to the Hot Springs Elementary School District in addition to the amount per unit of average daily attendance received by the district and calculated as specified if the school does not exceed 28 units of average daily attendance in any fiscal year. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2128 without my signature.

This bill would provide the Hot Springs Elementary School District (HSESD) with $100,000 for the Hot Springs Elementary School in addition to the revenue limit funding generated by the school's average daily attendance (ADA), as long as the school's average daily attendance does not exceed 28. This district receives a necessary small school (NSS) apportionment, which provides it with greater levels of funding per ADA than districts normally receive. Because the district's enrollment declined to 23 students, their NSS apportionment declined by $95,000. The district's request to maintain the current revenue enhancement of $197,150 is certainly understandable, but I cannot justify amending current NSS funding provisions for the benefit of the district. The NSS funding levels increase annually by the statewide average growth in district revenue limits per unit of ADA, and the funding levels have kept pace with revenue limit augmentations. Further, the state is facing a $24 billion revenue shortfall. Providing enhanced funding for HSESD will create pressure to fund augmentations for other districts in similar circumstances.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2130 Simitian                                            Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Summer/After School Programs - Issue: supplemental instruction
Existing law, until January 1, 2003, requires a school district to offer programs of supplemental instruction to pupils in grades 2 to 9, inclusive, who are recommended for retention or who are retained in the same grade and authorizes a school district to offer supplemental instruction to pupils in grades 2 to 6, inclusive, who are at risk of retention. This bill would repeal the provision that would become operative on January 1, 2003. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2130 without my signature.

This bill, together with Senate Bill No. 1671, would extend indefinitely the waiver of a cap on state reimbursement to local education agencies for supplemental instruction provided to students in grades 2-6 who are at-risk of retention which would otherwise be reinstated January 1, 2003. Extension of this uncapped reimbursement could result in a Proposition 98 General Fund cost in the millions of dollars, at a time when the State is dealing with a $24 billion shortfall. In addition, the proposed provisions allowing the Superintendent of Public Instruction to transfer funds between supplemental instruction programs does not contain proper advance notice to maintain adequate fiscal oversight. For these reason, I cannot support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2136 Florez                                                Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Child Health - Issue: advisory council
Existing law establishes criteria for employment of school medical personnel, and declares the intent of the Legislature that adequate fundamental school health services be maintained. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to appoint a State School Health Advisory Council to make recommendations regarding model health services programs and practices by January 1, 2004. The bill would require the council to collaborate with the State Department of Education and the State Department of Health Services to develop school health services and school nursing services criteria. The bill would appropriate $144,000 from the General Fund to the superintendent for the costs of the advisory council.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2136 without my signature.

This bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to appoint a State School Health Advisory Council (SSHAC) to identify model school health services programs and practices that directly serve students by January 1, 2004. The bill appropriates $144,000 General Fund for this purpose. I signed SB 19 in 2001 which established the 'Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001,' to improve the nutrition and eating habits of California's school children. Furthermore, the state already provides school health services through a variety of programs including, Healthy Start, the Comprehensive School Health Program, the Child Health Disability Prevention Program, and the Offices of School Health Connections. The cost pressure associated with the council's required recommendations could easily reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Further, neither the bill's $144,000 non-Proposition 98 General Fund appropriation nor the cost of the additional workload at the SDE is included in the Budget totals. Given the State's fiscal condition, I cannot support legislation that creates expectations for significant future increases in funding.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2138 Firebaugh                                        Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Class-size Reduction - Issue: Fiscal Accountability
Existing law requires the county board of education and the governing board of a school district each to adopt an annual budget and to file it, respectively, with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the county superintendent of schools. Existing law requires the budget prepared by the county board of education to show a complete plan and itemized statement of proposed expenditures in each fund of the county office of education, of estimated cash balances, and of all estimated revenues for the budget year and to include an unaudited estimate of those figures for the prior fiscal year. Existing law requires the school district budget to be made in the format prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill would require the adopted budgets to be prepared in accordance with, respectively, the requirement of what the budget is required to show and include, and the format prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2138 without my signature.

This bill would amend current law as it pertains to school districts audit and county office of education budget procedures. The provisions of this bill would weaken the state's fiscal accountability measures for schools by making it more difficult for the state to enforce current budget reporting requirements for county offices of education. Moreover, sections of this bill conflict with Assembly Bill 2834, which I have already signed. Given the state's current fiscal challenges, it is critical to ensure the fiscal accountability of our schools.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2188 Liu                                                  Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Career/TechEd - Issue: Regional high schools
Existing law provides for the establishment of various programs for vocational and career technical education in the public schools. Existing law authorizes any business, trade or professional association, union, or state or local government agency to establish and operate a career preparatory program under the auspices of the local school district, and authorizes any pupil who has successfully completed his or her education through grade 10, with the written consent of his or her parent or guardian, to choose to follow either a traditional college preparatory curriculum or the career preparatory program established pursuant to these provisions. This bill would establish a pilot program to allow the establishment of regional career technical high schools as comprehensive high schools, in the same manner as regional occupational centers, as prescribed. This bill would establish funding criteria, would provide for termination of pilot program high schools that do not meet performance targets, and would require the department to report its findings and recommendations by August 1, 2005. The bill would require the State Department of Education, exclusively using available federal funds identified by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, to administer the program and to provide technical assistance to high school districts, unified school districts, county offices of education and regional occupational centers and programs forming career technical high schools.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2188 without my signature.

This bill would create a pilot program that would authorize the State Department of Education (SDE) to establish up to five regional career technical high schools (RCTs), by combining existing Regional Occupational Center/Programs (ROC/P) with an academically comprehensive high school. The bill envisions a new program, which may well be meritorious, but the State is not in a position to expand services and programs given our efforts to address a $24 billion deficit. This bill would require the State Department of Education to redirect available Federal funding to administer and provide technical assistance for a new program at a time when the Administration is required to eliminate 7,000 positions and prepare for additional budget reductions.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2212 Alquist                                              Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Pupil Data/Privacy - Issue: data portfolios
Existing law provides for various instructional improvement programs for public schools, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding the formation, development, and implementation of school improvement plans. This bill would authorize the Santa Cruz County Office of Education to establish and administer the Pupil Data Portfolio Pilot Program to provide grants to 12 applicant schools to operate 3-year pilot programs to train educators in the development and use of individualized pupil data portfolios, based on Baldrige criteria and principles, as prescribed. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2212 without my signature.

This bill would authorize the Santa Cruz County Office of Education, in collaboration with the California Center for Baldrige in Education, to establish a pilot program for twelve schools to train educators in the development and use of individualized pupil data portfolios. This bill would appropriate $165,000 in federal Title II funds to conduct the pilot. I am in agreement with the author on the need to train educators in the use of assessment data to assist students in meeting academic achievement goals. To that end, I am supportive of the State Board of Education's initiative to use $1.3 million in funding to provide statewide staff training on the use of student performance data through the Standardized Testing and Reporting program. I believe that it is more prudent to provide an opportunity to establish that program which would benefit all local education agencies, rather then to redirect federal funds away from other staff development priorities for a pilot that appears to be duplicative of existing efforts. In addition, while this pilot program would be funded by redirecting federal funds from existing programs, the bill creates future General Fund (Prop 98) pressures of nearly $100 million to provide this training statewide. Given the State's severe financial shortfall, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2254 Salinas                                             Date Vetoed: 09/15/2002

School District Management
Existing law provides for the organization and reorganization of school districts, and provides for a county committee to approve or disapprove various aspects of the reorganization. This bill would, in addition, authorize a county committee on school district organization to abolish a common governing board for a high school district and an elementary school district within the boundaries of the high school district by presenting the issue to the qualified registered voters within those boundaries, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To The Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill No. 2254 without my signature.

This bill would make various clarifications, changes, and adjustments to current laws governing school district reorganizations. Among the more significant changes, the bill would: require county committees on school district reorganizations to hold public hearings on reorganization proposals from school boards; permit mail ballots for reorganization elections; and provide county committees with expanded authority to approve specified reorganization proposals. By increasing the responsibilities of county committees, this bill could create new Proposition 98 General Fund costs through the imposition of reimbursable mandates. In this regard, I am particularly concerned by the provision that would expand the circumstances in which county committees must hold public hearings to consider reorganization proposals. Lastly, by providing county committees discretion to approve certain reorganizations, this bill may result in local entities using this authority to take actions that would not incorporate a statewide perspective on the funding and other ramifications of a reorganization. These decisions should be left to the State Board of Education, as it would provide a broader perspective on these matters. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2268 Horton                                               Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

Employment Issues
Existing law provides that every applicant for an examination for a civil service position shall file a formal signed application with specified information. Existing law provides that the State Personnel Board may refuse to examine, or after examination, may refuse to declare as eligible, or may withhold or withdraw from certification, prior to appointment, persons within specified categories, including persons who have been dismissed from civil service. This bill would require that the civil service application form include a statement, as specified, that a person dismissed from state civil service is required to request and receive permission from the executive officer of the board prior to submitting the application. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2268 without my signature.

I value the hard work of every employee in State Government and I strongly support the rights of California's state employees to fair and speedy review of disciplinary appeals. However, rather than assist state employees, this bill would add time and confusion to the already lengthy state disciplinary process. I believe that State employees are already guaranteed a fair hearing for their disciplinary appeals at the State Personnel Board. By requiring a Skelly officer from another State department to hold a hearing on imposed discipline and issue written findings, all prior to SPB involvement, this bill adds further delay and uncertainty to the process. For these reasons I must veto this bill. However, I am directing all department Directors to review those procedures, and if they feel an appointee from another Agency holding the Skelly hearing is more appropriate, they should see to it that such a process is followed.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2269 Horton                                               Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Teachers/Teacher Credentialing - Issue: substitute teacher training
Existing law provides various opportunities for a teacher to receive staff development or in-service training, including the Instructional Time and Staff Development Reform Program that provides an eligible school district with a staff development allowance of $270 for up to 3 days for each certificated classroom teacher who participates in staff development instructional methods. This bill would, until July 1, 2006, commencing with the 2003-04 school year, establish in a participating school district with an enrollment of 500,000 or more an optional substitute teacher training pilot project whereby each new substitute teacher, who will provide services in a low-performing school, would be provided with a minimum of 2 days of training before the teacher begins to provide services as a substitute teacher. The bill would require that the Los Angeles Unified School District administer the project, thus imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would require participating school districts to implement a training curriculum developed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The bill would require participating school districts to employ an assessment program for the project developed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, to be completed and reported to the Legislature no later than January 31, 2006. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2269 without my signature.

This bill would require the Los Angeles Unified School District to provide two days of training for up to 1,000 of its substitute teachers. This bill would require the State to provide qualifying districts with $150 per day for the training and additional funding for the costs of modifying training curriculum that has been designed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Additionally, by requiring the Los Angeles Unified School District to administer this program and by stating that the State will provide reimbursement for the curriculum modification costs, this bill creates a reimbursable State mandate, that would result in significant General Fund costs. I believe the role of substitute teachers is important, and I would be willing to consider a bill in which the Commission on Teacher Credentialing develops an appropriate curricula for training substitutes.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2363 Firebaugh                                         Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

SBE Governance
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to provide for the appointment or election of the State Board of Education. Under existing statutory law, the Governor, with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, appoints the 10 members of the state board. This bill would prescribe qualifications for 4 members of the state board and would require all of the board's members to be drawn from and represent distinct geographical regions of the state. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2363 without my signature.

This bill would require four members of the State Board of Education (SBE) to meet specified qualifications and require the SBE to comply with certain notice requirements regarding its public meetings. This bill would reduce the flexibility of a Governor to appoint members that are highly qualified and have diverse experience and insight and are dedicated to improving student achievement, but do not meet the criteria specified in the bill. Moreover, I am proud of the world-class academic standards adopted by the current Board.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2367 Correa                                            Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

STRS/PERS
Existing law requires that, upon legal separation or dissolution of marriage of a member of the Public Employees' Retirement System, the court shall divide the accumulated contributions and service credit attributable to periods of service during the marriage into separate accounts between the member and the spouse and shall, among other things, address the rights of the spouse to redeposit previously withdrawn contributions and to purchase service credit for specified periods. Following that division of accounts, existing law authorizes the former spouse to withdraw his or her share of accumulated contributions and thereby waive his or her rights under the system and, in turn, authorizes the member to redeposit, for the member's account, accumulated contributions withdrawn by his or her former spouse. If the former spouse does not withdraw his or her share of accumulated contributions, existing law prescribes the method for calculating the retirement allowance of the former spouse. This bill would additionally authorize a member, whose former spouse has waived his or her rights under the system, to redeposit the amount of previously withdrawn contributions that could have been redeposited by the former spouse and to purchase the same amount and type of service credit that the former spouse had the right to purchase, as specified. The bill would also prescribe a method for calculating the retirement allowance of a member who retires on or after January 1, 2003, and whose former spouse is eligible to retire, as specified.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2367 without my signature.

This bill would allow members of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) whose retirement accounts have been separated due to a community property settlement to purchase retirement service credit awarded by re-depositing retirement contributions previously withdrawn from the member's account. This bill is identical to AB 199 (2001), which I vetoed last year. This bill would change the method of calculating retirement benefits for divorced CalPERS members. It could result in a higher total benefit being paid to divorced members than for members who do not divorce. The value of the retirement benefits paid to a divorced member should be the same as for members who do not divorce. Furthermore, this bill would increase retirement liabilities of State and local contracting agencies during a difficult financial environment.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2386 Keeley                                               Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

CalWORKS - Issue: eligibility
Existing federal law provides for allocation of federal funds through the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program to eligible states. Existing law provides for the CalWORKs program for the allocation of federal funds received through the TANF program, under which each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families. This bill would require that the 18-month and 24-month limitations shall be extended for a maximum period of 12 months in certain exceptional circumstances. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2386 without my signature.

This bill would create an exemption from the CalWORKs work participation requirement for recipients who are enrolled in an educational, vocational, or job training program and have been diagnosed with a physical, mental, or emotional condition or learning disability that prevents full-time participation in or completion of the program. This bill would expand the CalWORKs program by allowing certain CalWORKs recipients to remain on aid for longer periods of time than they would under current law. It could also hinder the ability of the State to meet the federally required work participation rate. Because the budget allocates the entire amount of available federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant and State maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds for support of the CalWORKs program, this bill would result in General Fund costs above the federally required MOE level. Given the significant reduction in General Fund revenues, I cannot support an expansion of the CalWORKs program.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2395 Goldberg                                          Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Child Nutrition - Issue: school breakfast programs
Existing law requires the State Department of Education to provide information and financial assistance to schools to encourage participation in the federal School Breakfast Program. Existing law requires the department to award grants of up to $15,000 per school site for nonrecurring expenses incurred in initiating or expanding a school breakfast program. Existing law requires the department, in making grants, to give preference to school districts and county superintendents of schools that meet specified criteria. This bill would require a school district with a school site that meets specified requirements, including that the school be one at which 20% or more of the school enrollment consists of children who have applied and qualified for free and reduced-price meals, to hold a public hearing to discuss the nutritional needs of the school's pupils and whether or not a breakfast program may be maintained at the school within existing resources, as provided, thereby imposing a state-mandated program. The bill would authorize priority for existing state grant money to school districts and county superintendents of schools that hold a hearing pursuant to the bill, in addition to meeting other specified requirements. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2395 without my signature.

This bill would require a school district that (1) hasn't met its Academic Performance Index (API) growth target, (2) has an API rating at or below 700, (3) has 20% or more low income students and (4) doesn't offer breakfast through the federal school breakfast program, to hold a public hearing at a regularly scheduled meeting to discuss student nutritional needs, the impact of poor nutrition on scholastic achievement and the cost of starting a federal School Breakfast Program, potentially with in existing resources. The bill also requires the Department of Education to give priority in any start-up grants for a school breakfast program to these same schools. I strongly support the school breakfast program, which is currently targeted towards low-income students. Start-up funds for good nutritional breakfast should be made available to schools based on the need of their students, not academic performance measures. I'd be pleased to revisit a way to maximize participation by low-income students in the federal school breakfast program unrelated to API scores. For this reason I cannot sign AB 2395.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2403 Steinberg                                       Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Accountability - Issue: API
Existing law provides that the function of the California Education Information System is to establish, conduct, and keep up to date a basic, integrated statewide information system for education and defines the California Basic Educational Data System report as the report transmitted by public educational agencies to the State Department of Education for purposes of the California Education Information System. This bill would require the California Basic Educational Data System report to include the number of foster children enrolled in education programs maintained by county superintendents of schools and school districts. The bill would require collection of this information to comply with specified privacy provisions. By requiring school districts and county superintendents of schools to report this information to the State Department of Education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2403 without my signature.

This bill would require county offices of education and school districts to report the number of foster children enrolled in education programs as part of the reporting requirements for the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) and the California School Information Services (CSIS). California already accounts for the number of foster children through existing programs in the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education. Mandating this data collection would create a reimbursable state mandated local program, putting additional pressure on an already severely strained state budget. Now is not the time to fund new programs that may be worthwhile but compete with existing programs for scarce financial resources.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2424 Goldberg                                       Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

School Facilities
Existing law, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, requires the State Allocation Board to allocate to applicant school districts prescribed per-unhoused-pupil state funding for construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition. This bill would authorize a school district, as defined, to form a district wide local school construction authority to perform the school construction duties of the school district, as prescribed, and would require the State Allocation Board to adopt regulations for expedited release of funds for approved projects administered by a local school construction authority.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2424 without my signature.

This bill would authorize a school district to establish a local school construction authority (LSCA) and delegate to the authority all of the school facilities construction duties relating to that school district. This bill would also require the State Allocation Board (SAB) to adopt regulations to expedite the release of state bond funds for projects administered by a LSCA, even if the district has not entered into a binding contract for completion of the approved project. This bill would dilute accountability for providing adequate school facilities. Local school boards are the appropriate entity to be fully responsible and accountable for providing school facilities for their students, and they should not be able to pass this responsibility on to another public entity. Additionally, this bill is not necessary since local boards can already establish informal working groups to advise them on site acquisition and other school construction matters. Finally, by requiring the SAB to expedite the release of funds for LSCA projects, this bill would give these projects favorable treatment over all other projects participating in the School Facilities Program, effectively allowing LSCA projects to receive their funding ahead of other equally qualified projects. This alternate and inequitable funding mechanism is a departure from what was agreed to during the development of the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Acts of 20 02 and 2004 (AB 16 (Hertzberg), Chapter 33, Statutes of 2002).

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2451 Salinas                                           Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

STRS/PERS - Issue: State Special Schools
The Teachers' Retirement Law provides that a person employed to perform creditable service, as defined, on a part-time basis may become a member of the Cash Balance Benefit Program of the State Teachers' Retirement Plan or an alternative retirement plan, if offered by the employer. Existing law prescribes employer contribution rates under the Cash Balance Benefit Program. Employer and employee contributions under that program are deposited in the Teachers' Retirement Fund, a continuously appropriated fund special. This bill would provide that a part-time adjunct temporary faculty member of a community college district who retires on or after January 1, 2004, and who is a participant in the Cash Balance Benefit Program, or an alternative retirement plan offered by the district, would receive an additional employer contribution, as specified, on account of his or her accumulated, unused sick leave at the time of retirement. By increasing employer contributions to the Teachers' Retirement Fund, the bill would make an appropriation.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2451 without my signature.

This bill would provide retirement service credit for unused sick leave to adjunct temporary faculty members of community college districts who retire on or after January 1, 2004. The benefit would be limited to those community college districts that participate in the California State Teachers' Retirement System's Cash Balance Benefit Program or an alternative retirement plan. Unfortunately, due to the current fiscal limitations facing the State, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2466 Firebaugh                                       Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

School Facilities
Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to furnish, repair, and insure school property. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a district deferred maintenance fund, provides for deposit of prescribed local funds, and provides for the deposit of matching state funds. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district to discuss proposals and plans for expenditure of the funds at a regularly scheduled public hearing. This bill would, also, require the governing board to discuss the condition of the deferred maintenance fund at a regularly scheduled public hearing and to discuss a related report to the Legislature, if any, at the next regularly scheduled public hearing after issuance of the report. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2466 without my signature.

This bill would allow school districts to use general obligation bond monies provided by the State for school facility construction to fund deferred maintenance programs. School districts have an obligation to ensure that local resources are directed to maintaining school facilities, and, in fact, are required to provide a dollar-for-dollar local match to access State monies. Allowing districts to use bonds approved by the voters for this purpose undermines that obligation. In addition, given the State's limited capital outlay resources, allowing these funds to be diverted for other purposes is not appropriate. By allowing school districts to utilize bond fund savings for deferred maintenance purposes, this bill would represent a significant departure from the original intent of the School Facilities Program. As such, it would likely be found unconstitutional and threaten the tax-exempt status of the bonds. Moreover, I believe that these bond fund savings should continue to be used only for high priority capital outlay purposes. This bill would result in the State subsidy of what is intended to be a local commitment to facilities maintenance required as a condition of program participation.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2507 Pacheco, Rod                                   Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Special Education - Issue: State Special Schools
Existing law establishes the California School for the Deaf and the California School for the Blind, known as the state special schools. Existing law requires that pupils be maintained at the expense of the state, except that the school district of residence of a parent or guardian of a pupil attending a special state school, except day pupils, is required to pay the school of attendance 10% of the average cost of education per pupil. This bill would make state special schools eligible to apply for and to receive categorical education funds, unless otherwise prohibited by law. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2507 without my signature.

This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to implement a School Accountability Report Card for the State Special Schools for the Deaf and the School for the Blind. Among other provisions, the bill would also require all certificated employees to satisfactorily complete the American Sign Language Proficiency Index test every three years, with exceptions. I am greatly concerned with the proficiency levels of the staff and pupils attending the state's schools for the blind and deaf. However, given the current shortage of teachers serving the deaf and blind in these schools, this bill would exacerbate the shortage of qualified teachers. This bill would also result in General Fund costs of $500,000 for additional testing of pupils, training of employees, the establishment of a School Accountability Report Card, and state operations costs for the State Department of Education when the State has just faced a $24 billion shortfall. This bill contains many good things for both the State Special Schools for the Deaf and the School for the Blind. However, in this time of extreme financial austerity, AB 2507 would siphon off existing resources and therefore have a detrimental effect on the schools' budgets and the education of the students attending these schools. For these reasons, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2540 Steinberg                                       Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Staff Development - Issue: superintendent training
Existing law presently contains numerous provisions that specifically prescribe the duties and authority of any county superintendent of schools to act in initiating and carrying on certain programs or activities or taking other actions. This bill would create the Superintendent Training Program for the training of county and school district superintendents, upon application.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2540 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Superintendent Training Program to provide specific training and instruction to school superintendents. This Administration-sponsored bill was substantially amended by the Legislature in a manner that drastically deviates from the negotiated agreement reached by the Administration and relevant stakeholders. The Administration pursued and received funding from the Gates Foundation for the Principal Training Program and the Superintendent Training Program. The amendments taken by the Legislature remove the role of the Administration in implementing the Superintendent Training Program. I would welcome urgency legislation next year that carries out the negotiated agreement for the Superintendent Training Program. For this reason, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2575 Leach                                                Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Teachers/Teacher Credentialing - Issue: credentialing
Existing law sets forth minimum requirements for a preliminary multiple or single subject teaching credential which require, among other things, completion of a subject matter program approved by the commission or passage of a subject matter examination. This bill would permit that subject matter requirement to also be satisfied by obtaining approval of a commission-approved evaluation agency of the candidate's undergraduate coursework and graduate degree from a regionally accredited institution of higher education in the subject or in a closely related subject, as determined by the commission. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2575 without my signature.

This bill is inconsistent with federal law, which requires that new elementary teachers pass a 'rigorous State test' on subject knowledge and teaching skills.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2588 Hertzberg                                       Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

School Facilities - Issue: collaborative community planning
Existing law, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, establishes a program in which the State Allocation Board is required to provide state per-pupil funding, including hardship funding, for new school facilities construction and school facilities modernization to applicant school districts. The act authorizes a school district to enter into a joint venture relationship for the purposes of school facilities construction. The act requires a school district, as part of its application for funding under that act, to certify that it has considered the feasibility of the joint use of land and facilities with other government entities to minimize school facilities costs, and authorizes funds provided under the act for growth and modernization to be used for the school portion of joint-use facilities. The act authorizes the use of prescribed funds for grants to fund joint-use projects in K-12 school sites. This bill would authorize use of 20% of those funds for prescribed costs associated with planning the joint-use projects, and would establish a 6-member School Facilities Collaborative Implementation Advisory Commission to determine the "best practices" to ensure an optimum school-community collaborative effort to produce high performance schools, as defined, and to advise the State Allocation Board regarding adoption of those practices. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2588 without my signature.

This bill would establish the School Facilities Collaborative Implementation Advisory Commission (Commission) to review and consider best practices on strategic planning for school facilities, facility planning and architectural design, and joint-use facility planning. This bill would also amend the Joint-Use Facilities Program to authorize the use of available funds as provided by Chapter 33, Statutes of 2002 (AB 16) to fund the local planning costs associated with collaboration between school districts and their joint-use partners engaged in the development of joint-use facilities. While I am supportive of cooperation between the local governmental jurisdictions, I am opposed to this bill for several reasons. First, requiring that at least twenty percent ($10 million) of the funds available for joint-use projects be used to pay for the planning costs associated with the development of K-12 joint-use projects would result in fewer resources for joint-use construction and more funding for program administration. Second, many of the duties proposed for the new Commission a re either already performed by existing state and private agencies, or could easily be incorporated into the duties of existing agencies. For example, as staff to the SAB, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) implements and administers the State School Facilities Program (SFP), which includes the New Construction and Modernization grant programs. OPSC possesses extensive programmatic knowledge on school facilities and school site experience. To the extent that additional review and recommendations of best practices for school facilities are needed, it would seem reasonable to maximize the provision of services through existing agencies and departments, such as OPSC, prior to establishing new service providers. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2600 Pavley                                               Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Assessment - Issue: HSEE
Existing law requires, commencing with the 2003-04 school year, each pupil completing 12th grade to successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation or a condition of graduation from high school. Existing federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), generally requires that children with disabilities be included in general state and district wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary. The IDEA requires the state or local education agency, as appropriate, to develop guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in those assessment programs and to develop and conduct those alternate assessments beginning not later than July 1, 2000. This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the advisory committee established by the bill to develop, and the State Board of Education to adopt, guidelines regarding the method and content of alternate assessments to the high school exit examination for those individuals with disabilities who cannot participate in the high school exit examination regardless of accommodation or modification, as prescribed. The bill would require the State Board of Education based on the guidelines to adopt alternate assessments for the high school exit examination for those pupils for use beginning in the 2003-04 school year. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to establish a High School Exit Examination Alternate Assessment Advisory Panel, as specified, to assist in the design and composition of the alternate assessment. The bill would require the advisory panel to provide its recommendations to the State Department of Education within one year of the effective date of the bill. The bill would include a statement that all costs associated with implementing the alternate assessments required by the bill be funded solely from federal funds received by the state for purposes of educating individuals with special needs. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2600 without my signature.

This bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction and an associated advisory committee to develop guidelines regarding the method and content of an assessment alternative to the high school exit examination (HSEE) for individuals with exceptional needs who cannot participate in the examination regardless of accommodations or modifications. The State Board of Education (SBE) would be required to adopt the standards effective for the 2003-04 school year. These assessments are now required to come into compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Detailed federal guidelines for this purpose are expected to be provided to states soon, and the 2002 Budget Act provides $3.5 million for the State Department of Education to develop alternate assessments aligned with those guidelines for pupils who cannot participate in the HSEE with accommodations or modifications. In addition, the SBE is already required to study the appropriateness of other criteria by which high school pupils, who are regarded as highly proficient but unable to pass the HSEE, can demonstrate their competency and receive a high school diploma. The SBE is required, if it determines that other criteria are appropriate and do not undermine the intent of the HSEE, to forward its recommendations to the Legislature for enactment. Finally, this bill would cost $150,000 in state and $1 million in federal funds. For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2604 Oropeza                                            Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Staff Development
Existing law establishes various training and development programs for teachers. This bill would require the California Research Bureau, in consultation with the State Department of Education and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, to contract with an independent evaluator, with proven expertise in educational research design and methodology, to conduct a study of the availability and effectiveness of cross-cultural professional development programs for teachers and administrators in culturally diverse public schools. The bill would require the study to identify and compare the cross-cultural professional development programs of 2 types of culturally diverse schools, those low-performing schools, as defined, that have shown significant progress in their Academic Performance Index scores and those that have not, would prescribe elements of the study, would require certain recommendations to be included with the study, and would require the study to be submitted in a report to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature and the Governor on or before July 1, 2004. The bill would require the report to be submitted to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing at least 30 days before the report is submitted to the Legislature and the Governor and would require that the commission be given an opportunity to attach a response to the report's findings and a summary of actions already initiated to improve cross-cultural training for teachers. The bill would require the California Research Bureau to establish an advisory committee, composed of specified representatives, to assist in research planning. This bill contains other related provisions.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2604 without my signature.

This bill would require the California Research Bureau (CRB), in consultation with the State Department of Education (SDE) and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), to contract with an independent evaluator to conduct a study of the availability and effectiveness of the cross-cultural professional development programs for teachers and administrators in culturally diverse schools. The results of the study would be submitted to the Legislature and Governor by July 1, 2004. I continue to support the need to provide high quality instruction and professional development to California's teachers. However, in light of the State's current fiscal condition, I do not believe it is prudent to invest in a study focused on the past cross cultural training that teachers have received and in a manner which may not produce valid and reliable recommendations. The CTC has already studied past Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD) requirements, made any necessary revisions and has developed a new protocol for such training which embeds cultural sensitivity within all courses in teacher preparation programs. Furthermore, this study could be used as the basis for supporting new cross-cultural training programs, which could cost $100 million Proposition 98 General Fund to establish, at a time when the new requirements have not had the opportunity to demonstrate their efficacy. I believe it is important to first focus available funds on teacher training programs that have already been determined to be beneficial to our students in meeting their core academic needs. Therefore, I am unable to support this bill, which could direct funds away from these programs.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2607 Leach                                                Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Ed Options - Issue: gifted kids
Existing law authorizes any person 16 years of age or older, and who has been enrolled in or will complete 10th grade, as specified, to have his or her proficiency in basic skills taught in public high schools verified by a test administered by the State Department of Education, and be awarded a "certificate of proficiency" that is equivalent to a high school diploma. This bill would, in addition, authorize exceptionally gifted pupils, as defined, to have their proficiency in basic skills verified by a test administered by the State Department of Education. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2607 without my signature.

This bill would allow highly gifted pupils to have their proficiency in basic skills verified according to criteria established by the State Department of Education (SDE) and to receive a certificate of proficiency equivalent to a high school diploma. The basic skills included in the old State proficiency test are not aligned to California standards, therefore these students would not be required to meet the rigorous standards California is requiring for all other students. Current law already allows the governing board of any school district to authorize pupils to attend a community college as special part-time students and provides for the authorization of a student's attendance at a community college as a special full-time student. For these reasons, I am unable to support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2616 Lowenthal                                       Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Special Education
Existing law establishes the California State University, and provides for its administration by the Trustees of the California State University. This bill would require the Trustees of the California State University to assess the current status of the university's credential programs that prepare teachers to work with the blind and visually impaired pupil population in California. The bill would express the intent of the Legislature that the trustees fund programs and other measures, including interactive television, Web-based courses, and other off-campus options, for providing instruction that will increase the number of teachers whose professional preparation and credential authorization are specific to pupils who are visually impaired. The bill would require the Trustees of the California State University to report, in writing, to the Legislature, on or before April 1, 2003, concerning the status of these programs and other similar measures. This bill contains other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2616 without my signature.

This bill would state legislative intent that the Trustees of the California State University (CSU) fund programs to increase the number of teachers qualified to serve blind and visually impaired pupils, through means that include the delivery of off-campus instruction through interactive television and the internet. This bill's goal of encouraging the California State University to increase the number of preparation programs for teachers who serve blind and visually impaired pupils is meritorious. However, enactment of this bill would create a General Fund cost pressure in excess of $1.5 million for CSU that is not included in the 2002-03 State budget, and that CSU indicates is not absorbable. In view of the State's current fiscal situation, I am unable to support this otherwise worthy legislation that would create a cost pressure of this magnitude.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2626 La Suer                                            Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Education Programs - Issue: GATE
Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or county office of education to offer independent study to meet the educational needs of pupils, including, special assignments, special study during travel, and volunteer community service activities. This bill, commencing with the 2002-03 school year, would authorize a school district to offer independent study to meet the educational needs of exceptionally gifted pupils and to arrange for the enrollment of gifted pupils in community college courses. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2626 without my signature.

This bill would authorize K-12 school districts to meet the educational needs of 'exceptionally gifted pupils' by allowing independent study programs to include enrollment in community college courses. This bill authorizes K-12 governing boards to pay for these students' fees, tuition, instructional materials, and other supplies. Finally, it provides that the average daily attendance apportionments for this population of students, goes to school districts, but not to community college district s. This bill creates additional General Fund pressures of more than $1 million a year. Moreover, it requires the State for the first time to pay more than is required by current law to educate a student at the California Community Colleges. Given the State's current fiscal situation, I cannot sign this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2651 Chu                                                Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

Ed Options - Issue: foster youth
Existing law provides for the placement of certain youth in foster care, and provides for child welfare services for, among other purposes, the protection and promotion of the welfare of all youth, including those in foster care. This bill would declare legislative intent and state policy, as specified, regarding the rights of youth who are in foster care. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California Legislature:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2651 without my signature.

This measure adds gay and lesbian families to the existing list of minority families for targeted outreach efforts within existing resources and adds optional foster parent training on sensitivity to sexual orientation and gender identity issues. AB 2651 also prohibits discrimination in foster care delivery of benefits, services, licensing, approval, and placement decisions. The Department of Social Services' (DSS) resources are stretched too thin to ask the Department to take on a new priority outreach task at the same time we are making significant budget reductions and eliminating 7,000 positions in state government. In addition, the DSS already conducts outreach for gay and lesbian foster parents as part of its general foster care recruitment and this would have the unintended consequence of diluting the priority recruitment efforts on behalf of minority children who represent an overwhelming 2/3rds of children in the child welfare system.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2676 Wyland                                              Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Assessment - Issue: STAR test
Existing law requires each school district, charter school, and county office of education to administer to each of its pupils in grades 2 to 11, inclusive, designated achievement tests. This bill would require the governing board of a school district also to discuss STAR test scores, the English language development test, and local assessments. The bill would require the agenda for that public meeting to specifically include a discussion of the results of the STAR test. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that any new requirements imposed by the bill should be met using existing resources. To the extent the bill imposes a new requirement on school districts or requires school districts to provide a higher level of service, it would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2676 without my signature.

This bill would require the governing board of each school district to discuss, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the Academic Performance Index (API) ranking and scores on the STAR, English Language Development, and local assessments for every school in the district's jurisdiction. This bill also would require the agenda for that meeting to include a discussion of STAR test results for each school by grade level. I am supportive of providing information to parents and the general public regarding a school's academic performance, which is why the State's assessment and accountability systems provide a great deal of information regarding performance at the school, district, and state levels. Additionally, the governing boards of school districts are currently required to discuss a school's API ranking. The structure and content of those discussions is left for local districts to decide so that they may focus on issues that are specific to them. As such, the need for this bill is unclear. I also am concerned that this bill constitutes a state mandate for activities the District already performs, with a cost estimated by the Department of Finance to be in excess of $800,000 per year.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2740 Chan                                                 Date Vetoed: 09/15/2002

Special Education
Existing law, the Bronzan-McCorquodale Act, establishes provisions for the purpose of organizing and financing community mental health services for persons with mental disorders in every county through locally administered and locally controlled community mental health programs. This bill would require the State Department of Mental Health to develop and implement a grant program, as specified, to encourage each county to voluntarily develop a plan to identify and address children's mental health services that are needed in that county. This bill would require the department to award grants on a competitive basis, and each county recipient of a grant to develop a mental health plan for children. This bill would establish specified goals for this plan. This bill would provide that the implementation of the provisions of the bill is contingent on an appropriation in the annual Budget Act of $150,000 from the General Fund for the purposes of the program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2740 without my signature.

This bill requires the Department of Mental Health (DMH) to develop and implement a grant program to encourage each county to voluntarily develop a plan which identifies and addresses any mental health services needed for children in that county. This bill requires DMH to award grants on a competitive basis, and each county recipient of a grant to develop a mental health plan for children. This bill establishes specified goals for this plan. The bill also provides that implementation of the provisions of the bill is contingent on an appropriation in the annual Budget Act of $150,000 from the General Fund for the purposes of the program. The $150,000 General Fund contained in the 2002-03 budget for the purpose of this bill was vetoed because counties are already required to assess mental health needs and develop plans to meet those needs. Section 5772 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requires local mental health boards at the county level to complete these responsibilities. Since these bodies already exist and have the responsibility for developing plans to meet mental health needs and given the difficult fiscal situation of the state, I did not support the augmentation. Because implementation of this bill was contingent upon funding that has been vetoed, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2741 Chan                                                Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Child Care/Child Development - Issue: Dept. of Children's Services
Existing law provides for various programs and services for children in the state. This bill would create the Children's School Readiness and Health Council in the California Health and Human Services Agency, with the responsibility to, among other things, promote policy development in regard to, and coordinate programs that address, children's school readiness and health. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2741 without my signature.

This bill establishes the Children's School Readiness and Health Council (CSRHC) within the California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) to promote policy and coordinate programs that address children's school readiness and health. I am supportive of coordinating school readiness and health services and state departments participate in a variety of these efforts including the California Children and Families Commission, the Office of School Health Connections, the Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Intervention and the Head Start-State Collaboration Office. However, this bill would result in a cost of at least three positions and $270,000 ($140,000 General Fund) for affected departments to support the Council and related Advisory Committee activities, not including the cost of the required coordination study. State budget reductions of 7,000 positions will severely limit the affected state departments' abilities to take on new activities at this time and these positions cannot be funded by private dollars. The California Health and Human Service s Agency will be reviewing its options to better coordinate school readiness and health programs within existing resources and structures. Therefore, I am unable to support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2759 Shelley                                              Date Vetoed: 09/19/2002

Curriculum/Standards
Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that voter registration be maintained at the highest possible level and requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations requiring each county to design and implement programs to identify qualified electors who are not registered voters, and attempt to register those persons to vote. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to encourage schools that require students to perform community service to consider giving students community service credit for participating in elections-related events such as being a poll worker, participating in mock elections, working voter registration drives, serving in student government organizations, and similar civic functions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2759 without my signature.

This bill would require each school district serving grade 12 to (1) annually request county election officials to furnish schools with a voter registration card for every graduating senior; (2) distribute voter registration cards with each pupil's diploma; (3) establish procedures for handling the cards; and (4) provide a written notice informing students about eligibility and processing. In addition, the bill would encourage schools requiring students to perform community service to allow participation in elections-related events to fulfill those service requirements. While I support the author's efforts to encourage voter registration among graduating seniors, this bill would impose state-mandated costs on school districts of at least $500,000. In addition, the Secretary of State currently provides a voting information curriculum to California high schools. Furthermore, I believe student groups or other civic groups should undertake voter registration activities instead of the State mandating this activity. Because of the unbudgeted costs of this well-intentioned bill, and because of the current fiscal condition of the state, I am unable to sign AB 2759.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2803 Cogdill                                       Date Vetoed: 09/12/2002

Transportation
Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school, whenever in the judgment of the board, the transportation is advisable and there are good reasons for providing the transportation. This bill would state the legislative intent to define the requirements for a new pupil transportation funding formula that will optimize the distribution and use of the funds currently spent for pupil transportation services provided by school districts. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct a study to review the strengths and limitations of the present pupil transportation system, to consider alternative ways transportation funding can be allocated among school districts, to develop options for the Legislature to consider regarding changes in the current transportation funding formula, and to submit a report on its findings and recommendations to the Legislature. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct the study and to prepare the report using only its existing funding resources. The bill would require the State Department of Education to provide assistance to the Legislative Analyst in obtaining existing data on the pupil transportation program.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2803 without my signature.

This bill makes various findings and declarations suggesting inadequate state funding for pupil transportation and would require the Legislative Analyst Office to conduct a study on the current home to school transportation funding formula. This bill would likely create significant pressure to increase state funding for pupil transportation, a discretionary program, during a period of significant budget uncertainty. No information has been provided suggesting that the current funding formula does not optimize the distribution and use of funds for pupil transportation, and the current proposed budget includes $524 million for home to school transportation. School districts also have the option of using discretionary funding to provide transportation to students. For these reasons, I am unable to support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2827 Diaz                                                    Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Career/TechEd - Issue: apprenticeship
Existing law establishes apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Industrial Relations. This bill would require the Department of Industrial Relations to conduct a study on graduation rates from joint labor management apprenticeship programs, independent, nonaffiliated apprenticeship programs, and all other apprenticeship programs administered by the department, report the results to the Legislature by December 1, 2003, and post the results on the department's Internet Web site. This bill would also require the Department of Industrial Relations to conduct a 5-year graduation study of all construction-related apprenticeship programs, report the results to the Legislature by December 1, 2003, and post the results on the department's Internet Web site.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2827 without my signature.

This bill would require the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to conduct a study of the graduation rates of various kinds of apprenticeship programs administered by the Department. It is my understanding that DIR already has this data. Under the current budgetary constraints facing the State, undertaking a study of existing data can take resources away from other priority programs within DIR. Therefore, in place of signing this bill, I am directing DIR to release this data in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2839 Kehoe                                               Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

CDE Admin/Governance
Existing law, known as the Bill of Rights for State Excluded Employees, among other things, requires the state to meet and confer, as defined, with verified supervisory employee organizations representing supervisory employees. Existing law defines "excluded employee" for these purposes to mean all managerial employees, confidential employees, supervisory employees, and specified employees of the Department of Personnel Administration, the Department of Finance, the Controller's office, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Bureau of State Audits, the Public Employment Relations Board, the Department of Industrial Relations, and the State Athletic Commission. This bill would revise the definition of "meet and confer" for the purpose of that law, and would require the state to meet and confer with employee organizations representing excluded employees. The bill would also make other conforming changes. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2839 without my signature.

Currently, the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) meets and confers with supervisory organizations and considers their presentations prior to reaching a decision on any matter relating to wages, hours, or conditions of employment. Additionally, excluded employees have the right to file grievances up to and including DPA for review and determination. This bill would dilute the management structure of the State by including managers and confidential employees with supervisors in determining wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. It would also extend arbitration to excluded employees who are responsible for implementing State policy. This could lead to independent arbitrators determining State policy and usurping the Executive and Legislative intent with respect to various regulations and government codes.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2874 Florez                                               Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Child Care/Child Development
Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, states the intent of the Legislature that all families have access to childcare and development services. The act authorizes funds appropriated for purposes of the act to be used for alternative payment programs to allow for maximum parental choice in childcare, including, among others, family daycare homes. The act also establishes a system of childcare services through which a recipient of aid under the CalWORKs program or any successor program will pass. This bill would require that any license-exempt family daycare home, and any license-exempt family relative, that provides care for children under those provisions of the act, be restricted to six children at any one time who are receiving state or federal subsidies, except as specified.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2874 without my signature.

This bill would prohibit a license-exempt family day care provider from caring for more than six, state or federally subsidized, children at a time. While low provider-to-child ratios are clearly desirable, this bill could lead to situations where a large family would have to receive childcare from more than one provider. For these reasons, I am returning AB 2874 without my signature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2886 Wiggins                                       Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Career/TechEd
The Planning and Zoning Law requires the planning agency, after a legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report, on or before October 1 of each year, to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the general plan and progress in meeting the community's share of regional housing needs. The report is required to be prepared through forms and definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The bill would require the report to include the degree to which the approved general plan complies with specified guidelines for the preparation of the mandatory elements of the general plan, and the date of the last revision to the general plan. By imposing new duties on planning agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2886 without my signature.

This bill would increase from three percent to ten percent the maximum percentage of students under the age of 16 that Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROC/Ps) may claim for State funding. Although I recognize the potential benefit of offering ROC/P instruction to younger students, I have concerns with this measure. This bill could result in the displacement of thousands of adult CalWORKs recipients who attend ROC/Ps to learn occupational skills necessary to compete for new and emerging careers that lead to high wage, high skill employment opportunities. This could result in a substantial cost pressure to provide equivalent services to displaced CalWORKs recipients. Given the state's current fiscal constraints, I believe current law, which allows the State Board of Education to increase the cap above three percent when beneficial, provides ample opportunity for younger students to be served in ROC/P's, without excessively reducing services to CalWORKs recipients.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2887 Koretz                                               Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

Curriculum/Standards - Issue: collective bargaining
Existing law provides that it is unlawful to commit various acts related to the operation of a motor vehicle, including, driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour, driving recklessly, engaging in or aiding any motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition of speed, and driving under the influence of alcohol, as specified, and imposes various terms of imprisonment and fines for the commission of these offenses. SB 807, as amended August 29, 2002, would provide that any person convicted of a violation of these provisions, in addition to other applicable fines and assessments imposed, whether or not probation is granted, would pay an additional $200 assessment that would be deposited into the county Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund. This bill would repeal the changes proposed by SB 807 on January 1, 2005. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2887 without my signature.

This bill is a companion to Senate Bill 807. I have vetoed SB 807 thereby making this bill unnecessary.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2892 Horton                                               Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

General Government - Issue: State employees: discrimination action
The California Civil Service Act authorizes an appointing power to take adverse action against an employee for specified causes for discipline and establishes administrative procedures for review of an adverse action by the State Personnel Board. Existing law provides for a party in an administrative proceeding under these provisions to seek court review of any final administrative order or decision. This bill would provide that, under the California Civil Service Act, a person's failure to exhaust his or her judicial remedies in an appeal from an adverse action before the State Personnel Board, or its authorized representative, may not preclude a separate or subsequent discrimination action, between the individual and the appointing power brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States, regardless of whether the prior action was between the same or related parties or involved the same facts, unless the issue of discrimination was expressly raised by the person appealing the adverse action, and was addressed and decided by the adjudicator, in the prior proceeding. This section would further declare that such a discrimination action may not be barred on grounds that the aggrieved person failed to exhaust his or her state civil service administrative remedies. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that its provisions overrule specified decisions. This bill contains other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2892 without my signature.

This bill would nullify a California Supreme Court decision that requires public employees to exhaust judicial remedies from an adverse administrative finding on a discrimination claim before filing a civil lawsuit arising out of the same claim. It would also nullify an appellate court decision that requires exhaustion of any internal public employer administrative process, as well as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing's administrative process before public employees could file a civil lawsuit against the same claim. While I fully support the right of employees to a full and fair review of discrimination claims, I do not want to sign a bill that would foster duplicative and conflicting litigation. Such a result runs counter to the State's strong public policy in favor of judicial economy, and serves neither the interests of employees nor their employers.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2894 Strom-Martin                                   Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

School Finance - Issue: instructional day
Existing law sets forth the minimum number of minutes of instruction per grade level that a school district is required to offer to receive incentive funding for a longer instructional day and adjusts that number for school districts that offered a greater number of minutes in the 1982-83 fiscal year. This bill would exempt the Manchester Union Elementary School District from the provision adjusting the number of minutes of instruction required to be offered by school districts that offered a greater number of minutes in the 1982-83 fiscal year than they would otherwise be required to offer and would also exempt the school district from related fiscal penalties. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2894 without my signature.

This bill would exempt the Manchester Union Elementary School District (MUESD) from the provision of law requiring a district to continue offering the number of instructional minutes it provided in 1982-83 and allow the MUESD to retain its incentive funding. Last year, I signed legislation (SB 178, Costa, Chapter 573, Statutes of 2001) to address this type of issue related to the Longer Day and Year Incentive Program by allowing a district to only lose revenue limit funding in proportion to the percentage of unoffered time. Prior to SB 178, districts would have lost their incentive funding and all cost of living adjustments since the initial receipt of the incentive funding. This bill would unfairly reward the MUESD for failing to meet its commitment to provide additional instructional time. While I am sympathetic to the MUESD's desire for flexibility, the state cannot continue to pay incentive funding, if the district does not meet the criteria for longer instructional time. Additionally, it would be unfair to those districts that chose not to participate in the incentive funding in 1982-83, because they wanted to retain their flexibility. Moreover, at a time when teachers are using every minute of instructional time to teach students to meet the state standards, I am unable to support decreasing instructional time.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2903 Kehoe                                               Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

School District Management
Existing law provides that school district and community college district employee organizations, as defined, have the right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes, and other means of communication, subject to reasonable regulation. Other existing law prohibits the use of school district or community college district funds, services, supplies, or equipment for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate. This bill would provide that the prohibitions relating to the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate do not apply to an employee organization that exercises its right to use institutional bulletin boards, mailboxes, and other means of communication. The bill would require an employee organization that uses the bulletin boards, mailboxes, or other means of communication for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate to reimburse the public school employer for the direct costs attributable to that use.

To Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2903 without my signature.

I have no problem with employee organizations disseminating their own political recommendations through all appropriate private vehicles, such as employee lockers, mailboxes, and electronic mail. However, I object to postings on billboards or other places that may be seen by members of the public as opposed to just members of the employee organization.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2922 Simitian                                            Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

General Government - Issue: agency records
Existing law establishes the Office of Privacy Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the purpose of which is to protect the privacy of individuals' personal information, as specified. This bill would require each state agency, no later than January 1, 2004, to provide to the Office of Privacy Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs a description of the general categories or classes of records containing personal information contained in its system of records, as prescribed. The bill would require the office, no later than July 1, 2003, to develop the process and format for the reporting by state agencies of categories of records containing personal information to the office to be included in the State Personal Information Inventory, which the office would be required to create. The bill would require that each state agency provide annual updates no later than January 1 to the office specifying any changes in the information contained in its records, and would require the office to make the inventory available to the public no later than March 1, 2004. This bill contains other existing laws.

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2922 without my signature.

AB 2922 requires state agencies to provide to the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP) descriptions of the categories of personal information contained in their systems of records, and requires the OPP to create the State Personal Information Inventory. While I support the goals of this bill, I am concerned about the potential costs to State agencies to comply with the provisions of this bill. For example, the Department of Health Services alone estimates complying with this bill would cost almost $4.4 million. At a time of a $24 billion budget deficit, and when the Legislature has asked agencies to reduce budgets by 20%, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

AB 2998 Committee on Budget               Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Budget Trailer Bill Instructional Materials
Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction annually to compute a categorical block grant amount for each charter school and enumerates the categorical programs upon which the block grant amount is computed. This bill would include the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program in the categorical programs upon which the above computation is based and provide that a charter school is not required to apply separately for funds provided pursuant to the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program. This bill contains other related provisions.

To the Members of the California Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2998 without my signature.

This bill would allow charter schools to receive funding from the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program directly through the charter school categorical block grant, thereby exempting them from the requirement that the funds be used to purchase standards-aligned instructional materials. I believe that student access to quality instructional materials that are aligned with state standards is critical to their educational success. That is why I proposed the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program to provide funding for standards-aligned quality instructional materials. I cannot support a measure that would fail to hold all schools accountable for using these resources to purchase standards-aligned instructional materials. I would encourage charter schools to participate in the Instructional Materials Funding Realignment Program so that all of California's school children can benefit from quality instructional materials in their education.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 240 Morrow                                               Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

School Finance
Existing law establishes the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 under which an Academic Performance Index (API) is required to be developed to measure the performance of schools. Existing law requires that schools be ranked by the value of the API in decile categories. This bill would state the legislative finding and declaration that the Capistrano Unified School District is a high performing school as evidenced by its score on the Academic Performance Index, and would establish the Capistrano Unified School District Categorical Program Funding Flexibility Pilot Project until July 1, 2006. Under this program, the Capistrano Unified School District would receive categorical block grant funding in the same manner, as does a charter school. If certain performance levels relating to the Academic Performance Index were not met, the Capistrano Unified School District would be required to submit a plan for improvement to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. If the plan is not submitted, the bill would authorize the Superintendent of Public Instruction to withdraw from the district the right to receive a categorical block grant under this bill. The bill would require the district to report to the State Department of Education assessment data regarding certain pupils, provide for a competitively bid independent evaluation of the pilot project, at the direction and oversight of the State Department of Education, and to submit the results of that evaluation, by July 1, 2005, to specified legislative committees, the Governor, the State Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst. These new duties would constitute a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 240 without my signature.

This bill would establish the Capistrano Unified School District Categorical Funding Flexibility Pilot Project to allow the district to receive state categorical funding in the same manner as the categorical block grant provided to charter schools. While I believe that school districts should have the necessary flexibility to meet the particular needs of students in their districts within the policy objectives established by the State and the districts themselves, the bill's proposed block grant is too broad. It would include funding for programs that promote high priority state program objectives such as training teachers that I believe should remain a distinct categorical program, not subject to the expenditure flexibility proposed in the measure. This broad flexibility could compromise state policies to increase accountability and improve student performance. Furthermore, while I share the author's belief that schools should be given every opportunity to advance quality education, current law already establishes the Categorical Education Program (Pilot Project) under which a school district would have flexibility in the expenditure of categorical funds in three areas: school improvement and staff development; alternative and compensatory education; and school district improvement. The program allows for the first 75 districts that meet the size criteria to participate in the program and permits participating districts a minimum of five years of funding flexibility. The Capistrano Unified School District could apply to participate in this program. Finally, this bill would create an unfavorable precedent and could prompt other school districts to request similar pilot project authorizations.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 390 Escutia                                               Date Vetoed: 09/22/2002

Child Care/Child Development
Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop standards for the implementation of quality programs and to ensure that related contracts provide support to the public school system through the delivery of appropriate educational services. Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to develop the state plan for child care and development services in collaboration with prescribed agencies and requires the State Department of Education to coordinate the state plan required under federal law with the state's master plan for child care and development. This bill would, instead, require the State Department of Education to develop the state master plan for childcare and development in consultation and collaboration with an oversight task force, which the bill would require to be established, comprised of prescribed members. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 390 without my signature.

This bill requires the State Department of Education to establish an oversight task force to develop a California Child Care and Development Master Plan, through public input, and submit an interim plan to the Governor and the Legislature by March 31, 2003. The final plan would be completed and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 2004, with updates required at least every five years. The bill sets forth extensive and specific goals for the master plan which include: 1) high quality universal child care and development services, 2) comprehensive services including nutrition, violence prevention, health care services and other family support programs, 3) strategies to address turnover in child care staff, and 4) methods of financing the plan. Development of a Master Plan as required by this bill would create unsustainable Proposition 98 General Fund and non-Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressures of several hundred million annually, according to the Department of Finance at a time when resources are limited. Furthermore, until resolution is reached with the Legislature and stakeholders regarding reforms to the State's childcare policy, a bill of this nature is premature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 572 O'Connell                                            Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Teachers/Teacher Credentialing
Existing law, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, establishes a program for allocation by the State Allocation Board of state per-pupil funding to school districts for new construction and modernization of school facilities, including hardship funding, and supplemental funding for site development and acquisition. Existing law authorizes school districts to obtain grants for costs associated with the new construction or modernization of school buildings. This bill would, in addition, and until January 1, 2005, permit school districts that qualify for hardship assistance to use these funds for the costs of loan origination fees if the applications have been approved on or after July 1, 2000, and if prescribed conditions are met. This bill contains other related provisions.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 572 without my signature.

This bill would allow school districts to use state bond funds to pay for loan origination fees, which is not an advisable use of those funds.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 737 Alarcon                                               Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Statewide Budget Issues - Issue: augmentation of the Budget Act
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. This bill would require the board of governors to develop recommendations to provide funding in the annual Budget Act for community college enrollment growth to ensure that students have access to higher education opportunities, as specified. The bill would require the board of governors to report those recommendations to the chairs and vice chairs of specified legislative committees and the Governor on or before December 1, 2002. This bill contains other related provisions.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 737 without my signature.

This bill would require the Board of Governors (BOG) of the California Community Colleges (CCC) to develop enrollment growth funding recommendations, and report those recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature. I am aware of the significant growth the CCC system has seen in the last few years and know that the CCC will continue to face significant demand in coming years. Given these pressures, it is important that we continue to fund enrollment growth at appropriate levels for districts with documented demand. It is equally vital that the CCC system appropriately targets enrollment growth funding to ensure that the highest priority courses-those related to transfer, basic skills, and vocational training-are the first to be provided. I am a strong supporter of increased access to higher education for all Californians, and I am proud of the fact that the community colleges have received growth in excess of demographic projections during every year I have been in office. However, starting with the 2003-04 fiscal year, this bill could impose an annual Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressure of up to $120 million to fund higher levels of enrollment growth. Consequently, I direct the Secretary for Education, the Director of the Department of Finance, and the Executive Director of the California Postsecondary Education Commission to participate in a working group with the BOG to examine these matters.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 987 Escutia                                               Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

General Government
The Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act requires a state agency that serves a substantial number of non-English-speaking people and that provides materials in English explaining services to provide the same materials in any non-English language spoken by a substantial number of the public served by the agency. This bill would revise the act's criteria for what constitutes a "substantial number of non-English-speaking people," and require the Department of Finance to provide population data for this purpose. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 987 without my signature.

This bill would expand the authority of the State Personnel Board to ensure compliance by State agencies with the Dymally-Alatorre Bilingual Services Act of 1973 (Act). The bill would expand the Act' s definition of a 'substantial number' of non-English speaking people and would require State agencies to provide additional translated written materials. This bill would also require additional information to be included in each agency's biannual survey of compliance with the Act, and would require agencies to develop implementation plans, as specified. While I support the intent of this legislation. I cannot ask State agencies to absorb the implementation costs of this bill at this time. Additionally, because of the State's fiscal situation, the funds are not available from the General Fund or Special Funds to augment the departments' budgets for the purposes of this bill. However, I believe that government has an obligation to meet the changing needs of its citizenry. Our State offices must be able to serve Californians whose primary language is not English. With that in mind, I am directing the State agencies to phase in policies, as time and resources permit, that contain the spirit and intent of this legislation.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1250 Vincent                                             Date Vetoed: 08/28/2002

Teachers/Teacher Credentialing
Existing law prohibits the governing board of a school district from initially hiring on a permanent, temporary, or substitute basis a certificated person unless that person has demonstrated basic skills proficiency or unless the person is exempted from the requirement. Existing law exempts, among others, a certificated person who has been employed in a position requiring certification in any school district within 39 months prior to employment with the district. This bill would also exempt a retired certificated employee who has taught 15 years or more in a California public school and who meets other specified requirements.

To the Members of the California Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1250 without my signature.

This bill would exempt retired certified teachers who have taught for at least 15 years from taking the state basic skills proficiency test to be eligible for employment by a school district. California is currently undertaking the task of ensuring that all pupils have a highly qualified teacher, pursuant to the federal No Child Left Behind Act. It would be untimely to make any changes to current law that may be seen as weakening California's rigorous standards for teachers. Additionally, teachers who have been out of the classroom for many years may not have had the benefit of receiving professional development that is aligned to academic content standards and relative to statewide pupil assessments. The refresher course offered pursuant to this bill may not meet federal requirements relative to highly qualified teachers. I would be open to revisiting this issue once federal regulations are developed and California has a clear understanding of how to meet federal requirements.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1289 Haynes                                              Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Child Health
Existing law authorizes the State Board of Education to waive all or part of any section of the Education Code, except, among listed exceptions, the sections relating to computing average daily attendance. This bill would authorize the State Board of Education to waive, for the 2001-02 fiscal year only, the above apportionment requirements for computing average daily attendance for the Riverside Unified School District and Alvord Unified School District. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1289 without my signature.

SB 1289 would specify that for the 2001-02 fiscal year only, for the contract between Alvord Unified School District and Riverside Unified School District to provide adult education services, the State Board of Education (SBE) would be authorized to allocate average daily attendance (ADA) for apportionment to the district contracting for the education services (Alvord) rather than the district providing the services (Riverside). I am pleased that the Riverside Unified School District is operating a successful adult education course. In these difficult times, we are unable to provide more reimbursement than current law allows. For this reason, I am unable to support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1308 Alpert                                               Date Vetoed: 07/10/2002

School District Management
Under existing law, every school district is required to be under the control of a board of school trustees or a board of education. Existing law establishes the California Community College system, under which community college districts throughout the state are administered by governing boards. Existing law establishes the amount of compensation a member of a county board of education and a member of a governing board of a school district or community college district may receive for attending board meetings. For a member of a county board of education, the maximum amount of compensation varies according to the classification of the county based on its average daily attendance. For a member of a school district or community college governing board, the amount varies based on the average daily attendance of the school district for the prior school year. This bill would increase the maximum amount of compensation that a county board of education, the governing board of a school district, or the governing board of a community college district would be authorized to compensate a member of a county board of education, a governing board of a school district, and a governing board of a community college district, respectively, for attending board meetings. The bill would delete those provisions that authorize an action to increase the compensation of a board member pursuant to those provisions to be rejected by a majority of the voters in that school district, county, or community college district, as the case may be, in a referendum established for that purpose. This bill contains other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1308 without my signature.

This bill would authorize retroactive increases of up to 60 percent in the compensation levels currently applicable to governing board members of school districts, county offices of education, and community college districts. I greatly appreciate the important role of governing boards and recognize the many demands placed upon their members. That is why I signed legislation last year authorizing prospective compensation increases of up to five percent per year (Chapter 401, Statutes 2001). However, given the current fiscal situation facing many school districts throughout the state, I am not able to support the significant retroactive compensation increases proposed in this bill. These increases could shift funding away from the classroom. Therefore, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1367 Karnette                                            Date Vetoed: 09/26/2002

Curriculum/Standards - Issue: content standards
Existing law requires the State Board of Education to adopt statewide curriculum content standards and to review the existing curriculum frameworks for conformity to those standards, and align them as necessary. This bill would, commencing in 2010, require the board to provide for periodic review of the content standards and a revision of the content standards, after prescribed regional public hearings, to be timed to coincide with and provide a foundation for the periodic review of statewide curriculum frameworks and instructional materials. The bill would require adoption of conforming changes in performance standards, as necessary.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1367 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Board of Education, commencing in 2010, to (a) periodically review and adopt changes to the State's academic content standards, (b) hold specific regional hearings as part of the review and adoption process, and (c) time the review to coincide with and provide a foundation for the adoption of curriculum frameworks and instructional materials. California has adopted world-class academic content standards as an essential part of its school accountability system. The review process specified in this bill is unnecessary and could result in administrative activities that yield no improvement to the academic content standards. In addition, this statutory process and timeline eliminates flexibility that would otherwise allow the Board to adopt changes to these standards as it deems necessary.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1408 Vasconcellos                                   Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

Safe Schools/Violence Prevention - Issue: pupil safety
Under existing law, commencing in the 2003-04 school year and each year thereafter, each pupil completing grade 12 is required to successfully pass the high school exit examination as a condition of receiving a diploma of graduation from high school. This bill would require the governing board of each school district that grants a diploma of graduation from high school annually to compile the number of pupils who participate in specified programs, by grade level, who attempted and failed any part of the high school exit examination and who meet specified criteria. The bill also would require the governing board of any school district in which at least 5% of examined pupils failed any part of the examination to ensure that the action plan prepared by a school that participates in those programs identifies barriers to achievement and specifies the actions that will be taken by the school district to ensure that pupils will have access to specified school resources. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1408 without my signature.

This well intended bill would require school districts to compile information related to those pupils who failed any portion of the High School Exit Exam and that participate in the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, High Priority Schools Grant Program, or the federal Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program. This bill contains costs of over one million dollars and could potentially cost the State much more. Furthermore, any information gained through this process would likely detail the same information that the State is already receiving through the existing evaluation of the High School Exit Exam. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1554 Battin                                               Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Ed Tech - Issue: web based science
Existing law establishes the California Science Project, encompassing science projects submitted for the purpose of training teachers and pupils. This bill would create the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) pilot project for the purpose of providing a web-based learning environment for middle and high school inquiry science projects. Under the bill, a school district could apply for a grant to participate in the WISE pilot project, and up to 4 middle schools and one high school would be chosen to participate by experts in web-based inquiry programs at the University of California, pursuant to specified criteria. The bill would establish a schedule regarding the amounts and purposes for which grants would be made. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1554 without my signature.

This urgency measure would establish a pilot program to set up laptop computer labs accessing the University of California's Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) at up to four middle schools and one high school and require the Legislative Analyst's Office to evaluate and report on the program's effectiveness. While I support the appropriate use of technology in education, my educational priority is core standards-aligned instruction. Although the WISE program may be worthwhile, the projects are designed as supplemental capstone activities and do not constitute a full yearlong curriculum. I believe the State should focus its efforts on effective basic standards-aligned instruction before supplemental programs. Schools that wish to access the supplemental WISE program can already do so, using existing technology or local resources to obtain the technology. In addition, the bill may partially duplicate existing programs, as the State has already provided over $700 million through the Digital High School and Education Technology Grant programs to provide computers to California's high schools, and middle/junior high schools are eligible to compete for state and federal technology funds. Finally, the bill would result in a significant cost pressure of at least $250,000 per year, which the state cannot afford in these difficult financial times. For these reasons, I cannot support this measure.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1665 Polanco                                             Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

English Language Learners (ELL)
Existing law relating to English language education for immigrant children, with certain exceptions, requires that all children in California public schools be taught English by being taught in English and requires that all children be placed in English language classrooms. Existing law requires that children who are English learners be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period, not normally intended to exceed one year. Each school district is required to assess the English language development of each pupil to determine the level of proficiency. The State Department of Education is required to establish procedures for conducting the assessment and for the reclassification of a pupil from English learner to proficient in English. The assessment is required to be conducted upon initial enrollment, and annually thereafter, until the pupil is designated as English proficient. Existing law requires the assessment to primarily utilize the English language development test. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations regarding limited-English-proficient pupils and would state the intent of the Legislature to integrate and restate the most basic protections in state and federal law for these pupils and their parents and to ensure sustained achievement for these pupils in the public schools. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1665 without my signature.

This bill would add new requirements on local education agencies and the State related to English learners. These requirements could generate costs potentially exceeding $100 million for local education agencies at a time when the State has faced a $24 billion shortfall. In terms of instructional materials, the State continues to recognize the needs of English learners through the development of instructional materials for English language arts/English language development for all students and the adoption of English language development standards. This bill would create separate expectations for instruction of English learners, which are inconsistent with current state policies governing English language immersion instruction. The creation of separate expectations for English learners would jeopardize the cohesiveness of the current system, which sets forth rigorous academic standards that all children must meet.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1671 Escutia                                             Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Summer/After School Programs - Issue: supplemental instruction
Existing law, until January 1, 2003, requires a school district to offer programs of supplemental instruction to pupils in grades 2 to 9, inclusive, who are recommended for retention or who are retained in the same grade and authorizes a school district to offer supplemental instruction to pupils in grades 2 to 6, inclusive, who are at risk of retention. This bill would delete the repeal of that provision, thereby resulting in the continuation of that program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1671 without my signature.

This bill, together with Assembly Bill No. 2130, would eliminate an existing cap on state reimbursement to local education agencies for supplemental instruction provided to students in grades 2-6 who are at-risk of retention. Elimination of the cap would limit the State's flexibility to establish fiscal and policy priorities for future years. Given the existing economic uncertainty currently facing California, retaining the maximum flexibility is necessary. In addition, the proposed provisions allowing the Superintendent of Public Instruction to transfer funds between supplemental instruction programs does not contain proper advance notice to maintain adequate fiscal oversight. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1673 McPherson                                      Date Vetoed: 09/29/2002

School Facilities
Existing law, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, requires the State Allocation Board to provide a supplemental grant for 50 percent of the replacement cost of a single story building when a school district proposes to demolish the building and replace it with a multistory building on the same site, if certain conditions are met, including, but not limited to, a condition that the school is operating on a multi-track year-round education schedule. This bill would delete this condition from the requirements to qualify for the supplemental grant.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1673 without my signature.

This bill would delete the requirement in current law for school districts to operate on a multi-track year round education (MTYRE) schedule as a condition of receiving state supplemental grant funding for 50 percent of the replacement cost of demolishing a single story building and replacing it with a multistory building on the same site. This bill is counter to the original intent of the multi-story supplemental grant program previously signed into law, which is available to provide severely overcrowded school districts, that have limited space and experience difficulty in acquiring new sites for school construction, and that are as a result operating a MTYRE program. Additionally, by deleting this MTYRE requirement, this bill would allow school districts that are not severely overcrowded to compete equally with severely overcrowded school districts for supplemental grant funding. We need to address the problems experienced by MTYRE schools. Once this is done, I would be open to revisiting this issue.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1731 Polanco                                             Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Curriculum/Standards - Issue: graduation requirements
Under existing law, various federal, state, and local agencies regulate activities relating to providing the infrastructure for coordinating economic development between California and Mexico. This bill would establish the California and Mexico Border Economic Infrastructure Financing Authority, also known as the CalMex Border Economic Infrastructure Financing Authority, as a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to be composed of a specified membership. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1731 without my signature.

This bill would establish the California and Mexico Border Economic Infrastructure Financing Authority to issue revenue bonds for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of infrastructure projects along a 100-kilometer band on either side of the California-Mexico border. Although it is widely known that the California-Mexico border areas need economic infrastructure financing, California already has a program through Senate Bill 207 (Peace) that I signed into law in 1999. That program authorizes California counties and cities to create infrastructure financing districts within three miles of the California-Mexico border to finance public works that provide significant benefits to the border development zone. Those public works include but are not limited to: highways; roads; facilities for sewage collection, flood control, childcare, and waste disposal; libraries and parks. In addition, Mexico and the United States participate as equal partners in the North American Development (NAD) Bank, a bilaterally funded, international financial institution, created for the purpose of financing environmental infrastructure projects on both sides of the United States-Mexico border. The authorized capital of NAD Bank totals $3 billion. Furthermore, this bill does not provide Mexican government officials and the community with equal participation in decision-making processes. This difference may pose troublesome questions regarding California's right to approve and fund infrastructure projects in Mexico without Mexico's equal participation and approval of these projects. While the goals of Senate Bill 1731 are praiseworthy, numerous state, federal, and bi-national programs are currently addressing the border region's significant infrastructure needs.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1789 Poochigian                                       Date Vetoed: 09/15/2002

School Finance
Existing law requires the Controller to annually compile and publish specified reports of the financial transactions of each county, city, and school district that include appropriation limits and the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the counties, cities, and school districts. This bill would additionally require the Controller to annually collect data regarding the total assessed valuation of all taxable property in each school district in the state and report the findings for each school district, compiled on a county basis. The bill would require that this data be available on the Internet by June 1 of each year. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1789 without my signature.

This bill would require the State Controller to compile data regarding the total assessed valuation of all taxable property in each school district in the state and to post the findings on a county basis on the Internet by June 1 of each year. Although I recognize the intent of this measure is to provide a tool for comparing individual school districts' financial circumstances, I am obligated to evaluate the bill within the overall context of its effect on the State General Fund during these uncertain fiscal times. Therefore, I am vetoing this bill because it could result in a reimbursable State mandated cost because local tax officials would have to compile and report assessed valuation information to the State Controller's Office.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1813 Alarcon                                             Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Accountability - Issue: API
Existing law establishes the Public School Performance Accountability Program consisting of an Academic Performance Index, an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program, and a High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. The Public School Performance Accountability Program requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, with the approval of the State Board of Education, to develop the Academic Performance Index (API), consisting of a variety of indicators, to be used to measure the performance of schools. Existing law requires schools to be ranked by the value of the API when compared to schools with similar characteristics, and defines similar characteristics, for that purpose, to include various characteristics, such as whether the schools operate multi-track year-round educational programs. This bill would require, for purposes of making that comparison, that schools that operate on the traditional calendar be compared with other schools on the traditional calendar, schools that operate single-track year-round educational programs be compared with other schools on single-track year-round programs, and schools that operate multi-track year-round educational programs be compared with multi-track year-round programs that offer the same number of tracks, to allow for a more meaningful comparison of pupil achievement among similar educational programs.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1813 without my signature.

This bill would require schools' Academic Performance Index (API) scores at schools operating on a single track, traditional, or multi-track year round education program to be compared to the scores of other schools operating on the same type of calendar. Schools are already ranked by API score among schools that are most similar to them in the following categories: pupil mobility, pupil ethnicity, pupil socioeconomic status percentage of teachers who are fully credentialed percentage of teachers who hold emergency credentials percentage of pupils who are English language learners average class size per grade level whether the schools operate multi-track year round educational programs. The additional comparisons required by this bill would make the API reports more complex, with little value added. For this reason I cannot sign SB 1813.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1835 Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review                                                                                                            Date Vetoed: 09/28/2002

Statewide Budget Issues
(1) This bill would amend and supplement the Budget Act of 2002 by providing for various reductions in appropriations contained in that act. (2) Existing law, with certain exceptions, requires the Controller, commencing July 1, 2001, to abolish any state position that was vacant continuously for 6 consecutive monthly pay periods during the period between July 1 and June 30 of the preceding fiscal year. Existing law also requires that positions that were continuously vacant for 6 consecutive monthly pay periods during a fiscal year because of a hiring freeze in effect during part or all of that period be abolished unless the Director of Finance is notified of the need for, and approves of, the continuance of the positions. This bill contains other related provisions.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1835 without my signature.

SB 1835 would amend and supplement the Budget Act of 2002 by providing for various reductions in appropriations. This bill would become operative only if both AB 425 and SB 1849 are enacted and take effect prior to this bill. This bill could not become operative because it is co-joined with SB 1849, which did not pass out of the Legislature. In addition, this bill is not needed, as it has identical provisions to AB 593, which I have signed.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 1988 Polanco                                             Date Vetoed: 09/27/2002

Environmental Ed. - Issue: environmental education fund
Existing law contains various provisions regarding environmental education, including a grant program that funds programs in public schools, community colleges, and regional conservation education centers for the purpose of conservation education. This bill would create an Environmental Education Fund in which contributions made pursuant to the settlement of a state or federal lawsuit involving an environmental violation, a grant from the federal government or a local governmental agency, or a contribution from a private organization or individual may be deposited to fund environmental education. The bill would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, each fiscal year, to allocate 60% of the funds for environmental education in the public schools. The bill would require the remaining 40% of the funds to be allocated to a nonprofit organization or organizations that serves to educate city attorneys, district attorneys, and their deputies and investigators on the fair and uniform enforcement of environmental laws and the advancement of environmental justice, as provided.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 1988 without my signature.

This bill would create an Environmental Education Fund for the purpose of providing grants to public schools for environmental education and funding to non-profits for training district attorneys and others on the enforcement of environmental laws and the advancement of environmental justice. While I support environmental education, I cannot support this measure. The State Department of Education (SDE) already receives funding from the California Environmental License Plate Fund to promote students' understanding of and responsibility for the environment. Also, this bill creates a presumption that environmental education and environmental justice is a priority use of funds over other vital uses, such as environmental cleanups. I believe it is imperative that any new efforts are coordinated with existing State programs to ensure cost efficiency, particularly when the state is dealing with a $24 billion shortfall. Last year, I signed legislation that created the Office of Integrated Environmental Education at the Integrated Waste Management Board to create a unified environmental education strategy for all State departments. I have also just signed two bills creating programs within the California Environmental Protection Agency; AB 2312 establishes an environmental justice grant program and AB 2486 funds local environmental enforcement and training. SB 1988 is not consistent with these programs. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 2017 Karnette                                            Date Vetoed: 09/18/2002

Miscellaneous - Issue: school supplies
Existing law authorizes a school district to purchase perishable foodstuffs and seasonal commodities needed in the operation of cafeterias in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the governing board of the school district. This bill, in addition, would authorize the school district to purchase other supplies, equipment, and materiel, used in school cafeterias, that could affect the health and safety of children, through direct contact, in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the governing board.

To the Members of the California Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 2017 without my signature.

This bill would authorize districts to contract with other than the lowest bidder for the purchase of cafeteria supplies, equipment and materials that could affect the health and safety of children. Public Contract Code Section 20111 specifies that a contract shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder. This gives local school districts enough flexibility to ensure high quality bids. I believe that school districts should address health and safety concerns in the bidding process to ensure that potential vendors are responsible and aware of the high standards to which they should be held.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

SB 2064 Burton                                            Date Vetoed: 09/30/2002

Employment Issues - Issue: collective bargaining
Existing law requires an employer, upon receiving notice from the exclusive representative of a public school employee who is in a unit for which an exclusive representative has been selected, to deduct the amount of the fair share service fee from the wages and salary of the employee and pay that amount to the employee organization. Existing law requires the employee, thereafter, as a condition of employment, to either join the employee organization or pay the fair share service fee. Existing law provides that the fee shall not exceed the dues that are payable by members of the employee organization, and shall cover the cost of negotiation, contract administration, and other activities of the employee organization that are germane to its function. This bill, in requiring the employer to provide the exclusive representative with the home address of each member so that the representative may comply with the notifications set forth in Chicago This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

To Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 2064 without my signature.

A school employer should be required to expeditiously transmit membership dues and agency fees to an exclusive representative. However, this bill imposes penalties for delays that are far too severe and may jeopardize the financial security of school districts.

Sincerely,

GRAY DAVIS

Questions: Legislative Affairs Division | BShotts@cde.ca.gov | 916-319-0821 
Download Free Readers