CA Legislative Update

Here is the rundown on after-school related bills, now that the Governor’s deadline to sign bills has passed.

1. As expected, the Governor vetoed AB 1526, a measure that would have put the Proposition 49 after-school funding guarantee back on the ballot for voters to reconsider.  See the veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/AB1526_CommitteeonBudget_Veto_Message.pdf
   
   The concerns voiced by the after-school community helped ensure this outcome.  However, this year's experience teaches us that Proposition 49 can easily come under attack like all other programs, especially during a difficult budget year.  It is critical to keep reminding state legislators about the significant value of after-school programs.
   
   
2. The Governor unfortunately also vetoed SB 1674 (Torlakson), which would have clarified that (a) After School Education and Safety  (ASES) program grantees may operate on weekends with their base grants; and (b) ASES grantees must accommodate some administrative costs of subcontractors. See the veto message at http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/SB1674_Torlakson_Veto_Message.pdf
   
   
3. The Governor did sign into law Assembly Concurrent Resolution 134 (DeSaulnier), which will establish a Legislative Task Force on Summer and Intersession Enrichment.

In connection with the budget, the State Legislature passed by a large margin AB 1526, which, if signed into law by the Governor, would put an initiative on the ballot to repeal Proposition 49’s guarantee of after-school funding. Such a measure would give the legislature authority in future budgets to cut, or even eliminate, after-school funding.

This is a stand-alone measure that, while one of several budget “trailer” bills, is not technically linked to any other budget proposals.

Budget negotiators appear to be planning to insert the Budget Conference Committee language that would put an initiative on the ballot to give the legislature the authority to cut Proposition 49 funds into Assembly Bill 1526.

As a result, it appears that this proposed initiative is likely to be considered as a stand-alone bill, rather than as part of a broader budget "trailer" bill. This is relatively good news because the Governor can veto a stand-alone bill and would not be put in a position where he'd have to agree to put Prop. 49 on the ballot in order to get other reforms/measures he is seeking.

On July 28, 2008 Network Policy Committee Co-Chair Brian Lee, Deputy Director of the California offices of Fight Crime Invest In Kids offered a telephone workshop updating participants on the latest in California after school policy. In the workshop Mr.

The State Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee composed of  members or the California State Senate and Assembly, adopted language  for a budget trailer bill that attempts to repeal the guaranteed funding  allocation in Proposition 49, the After School Education and Safety  (ASES) program, which currently funds over 3,800 after school programs  statewide. This language goes further than originally proposed by  either house of the Legislature. It would submit an initiative to the voters that would give the Legislature the  authority to substantially reduce after school funding or eliminate  the state’s after school programs altogether, although the committee stated this was not the intent of the initiative. If placed on the November Ballot and passed by California voters, the initiative would end the guaranteed continuous appropriation for ASES programs, and funding levels would be set annually by the Legislature. In order to move any further, this measure would have to be part of a budget passed by  a two-thirds vote of the full Legislature, and be signed by the  Governor, before moving to the ballot.  If passed by voters in  November, this initiative could impact 2009-2010 after-school funding.

The Governor recently released the May revision of the proposed California budget. There was no update regarding After School Education and Safety (ASES) funds in this budget revision. However, it is assumed that the Governor is still actively pursuing an opportunity to put a proposal to the voters to cut $59.6 million, or roughly 10% of ASES funding. At this time no ballot initiatives have been introduced. The last day for a legislative measure to qualify for the November ballot is June 26, 2008.

AB 2890: New Proposed Legislation Allows Allocation of ASES Funds to other Categorical Programs

Senate Bill 1492 (McClintock), a bill seeking to require a state budget surplus with predicted future surplus in order to release After School Education and Safety (ASES) program funding, and sought to give the Legislature authority to set the annual funding level of the ASES program by repealing the portion of proposition 49 that requires voter approval to lower ASES funding was amended on April 14 to drop the stipulations requiring a budget surplus to trigger the appropriation, and focused solely on giving the Legislature the authority to set the annual appropriation level for ASES funding.

This bill has passed on the Senate Floor, passed the Assembly Education Committee and has been placed in suspense by the Assembly Appropriations Committee due to perceived cost pressures of the teacher pipeline project in subsequent years following the pilot year. The bill will be reviewed again in August, 2008. If passed this bill will:

• Expand opportunities for after school program staff to access the existing Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program; - Had to be eliminated due to perceived budget impacts.

• Clarify that ASES grantees using supplemental grants may use grant funds to operate on weekends in addition to inter- session, summer, and vacation periods with students who participate during the regular day program;
• Ensure that subcontractors of ASES grantees receive a reasonable amount of administrative funds to administer after school programs.

• Set a minimum grant amount for small schools with 60 students or less with 2/3 of the students attending the after school program in order to ensure that small programs receive enough grant funding to employ the staff necessary to run the program (This provision had to be released due to cost pressures in the current budget climate and will be pursued by Senator Toralkson in a different budget climate)