(I mentioned AB 48 yesterday in the consumer diary. I thought it might be worthwhile to get Asm. Portantino’s take on his bill. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As Assembly Bill 48 moves closer to becoming law, it seems that many of its critics have forgotten the fact that today’s private post secondary students have absolutely no protections.  Despite the gridlock in Sacramento over almost everything, AB 48 has amassed significant bi-partisan support because both Democrats and Republicans recognize that the current system, without oversight and student protections, is unacceptable.  AB 48 seeks to establish a new State Bureau to regulate private colleges and protect the more than 400,000 students who attend these institutions.  The bill was recently labeled “anti-consumer” in an opinion piece which outlined grievances and shortcomings.  These critics failed, however, to offer a workable and reasonable alternative.  Absent constructive and reasonable suggestions, this heels-dug-in approach to government gives the appearance that these groups would prefer the “wild west” environment currently in place to the structure provided by AB 48.

Let’s be clear, what we have today is NO regulation.  There are NO protections for students and there are NO state guidelines for private colleges.  This is because in 2007, following a twenty-year history of fundamental problems with the former Bureau’s operations, the law governing private colleges was allowed to expire.  Since 2007, there have been numerous attempts to establish a new law.  The most recent, were SB 823 (Perata) and AB 2746 (Niello). Consumer groups supported the former and opposed the later and both bills ultimately failed to become law. With the Legislature and the Governor unable to find compromise, it is the very students these consumer groups claim to defend that have suffered the most.

In March of this year, we learned that promises to students were not being fulfilled by the Wounded Marine Careers Foundation, a Southern California film program charging up to $88,000 per student.  In July, a student’s pending lawsuit against DeVry University was not considered because the law on which the case was based was repealed. Earlier this month the Montecito Fine Arts College of Design abruptly shut its doors, leaving nearly 1,200 students without a degree, without their tuition and without recourse.  

Another year without legislative action will cause more problems for countless students. It is clear that the status quo is unacceptable. AB 48 may not be perfect, but it responds to the major problems with the former law and to the causes of failure in previous legislative attempts.  Rather than focus on what is not in the bill, consumer groups should be rallying behind the protections included in AB 48. The legislation requires all unaccredited colleges in California to be approved by the new Bureau, and all nationally accredited colleges to comply with numerous student protections; establishes prohibitions on false advertising and inappropriate recruiting; requires disclosure of critical information to students such as program outlines, graduation and job placement rates, and license examination information, while ensuring that colleges justify those figures; guarantees students can complete their educational objectives if their institution closes its doors; and, most importantly, gives the Bureau an array of enforcement tools to ensure that colleges comply with the law.  

AB 48 provides a solid foundation for a new oversight structure.  It represents our only chance at achieving resolution on the issue this year and, for this reason, has received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Legislature. Consumer groups appear to want their version of “perfect” legislation, which has already been vetoed by the Governor.  Their “perfect” solution is not a reality at this time.  The critical nature of this issue calls for legislators to lead and not to allow the “perfect” to get in the way of the “good”.

The good folks at the Consumer Federation of California have released their annual scorecard (PDF) on legislative votes.  Props go out to all the legislators who voted with consumers on every vote that came their way: Mark DeSaulnier, Christine Kehoe, Mark Leno, Carol Liu, Alan Lowenthal, Fran Pavley, Darrell Steinberg, Pat Wiggins and Lois Wolk.

Now, you could quibble with some of their selections of bills. Notably, AB 48, a bill introduced by Asm. Portantino to regulate private, unaccredited, for-profit post-secondary schools, was where most of the Assembly Dems stumbled on their way to perfection.  There were a slew of Dems who would have been perfect save the Consumer’s Fed position on AB 48. Now, the bill could definitely use some tightening up. It is still far too friendly to these institutions. Many of them are perfectly good institutions to help students find their way on their career path. Others are simply degree mills which don’t actually offer any help or real education to these students. The Senate have this bill coming to the floor soon, so we could see a number of those folks with perfect scores dropping out of the realm on that vote.

On the flip side, you really have too many perfect anti-consumer records to count, but it is worth noting that both the current Senate minority leader and the past minority leader went a solid 0-for-7, putting them squarely on the side of big business over the consumer.

And then looking at the rest of the Dems, there are a few that point out at you. First, Senator Ron Calderon voted 5 times out of 8 against the consumer position on the bill. That, however, isn’t that much of a surprise, considering Calderon’s past record. On the Assembly side, Asm. Alyson Huber stands out like a sore thumb.  She voted the wrong way on all of the noted bills that came to her for a vote, save for a very contentious bill on municipal bankruptcy proceedings, AB 155 by Asm. Mendoza.

It is profoundly disappointing to see some Democrats so opposed to Democratic values as to vote against the majority of the consumer friendly legislation. The Democratic Party has been traditionally known as the party that supports the rights of consumers. Hopefully, our legislators will remember the next time the vote comes up.

Because I’m dumb: corrected to Portantino from Portafino

Rep. Anthony Portantino got a fax last week informing him that he was no longer chairing the Education Committee.  Rep. Hector De La Torre lost his chairmanship of the Rules Committee and won’t even get to stay on the committee.  The LA Times and the Pasadena Star News, along with Capitol Weekly, paint the moves as some combination of retribution for running for Speaker (both ran against Karen Bass) and lining up Bass’ preferred leadership ahead of her taking over the Speakership.

Steve Maviglio, in his normally flowery language, said simply “it’s an internal caucus matter.”  Both Portantino and De La Torre have said they spoke to Bass and she told them she knew nothing about the demotions.  If you’ve been living under a rock lately, you may have missed that Education is rather a hot topic about now in the halls of the Capitol, so a shakeup at the top of the committee is notable.  And the Rules Committee is always a big deal, so swapping out a recent Bass (and Nunez) competitor for Ted Leiu (who’s long been in Nunez’s and Bass’ respective camps) and dropping De La Torre all the way off the committee, well…that’s also notable.

If anything, it brings into stark contrast two competing governing theories.  Some people want to govern surrounded by the folks who get to the top based entirely on their merits, some prefer to be surrounded by the folks they work best with.  Certainly this isn’t a cut-and-dried contrast between the two options, but I’m sure it sets (or reinforces more likely) a standard of discouraging people for aspiring to higher positions lest they be punished for it.