SB 76 Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

SB 76 - Term Paper Example The law establishes the MHSO and Accountability Commission. Significantly, the commission is mandated to conduct annual review and approve mental health programs at county level for expenditures such as innovative programs, prevention and early mitigation programs. Moreover, the law authorizes the SDMH to enhance technical assistance to mental health initiatives at county levels, as specified. The bill would terminate the requirement for such annual reviews and authorize the commission, to offer technical expertise to mental health initiatives in the counties (Base, 2012). Currently the law requires health programs in the counties to produce a project that would serve three years to be updated annually and seek the approval of the department after its review and the commission’s comments. The bill would terminate the annual requirement for updating the 3-year initiatives and the requirement for approval by the department preceded by review and commission’s comments. The act restricts funds from the MHSF from supplanting the state funds used to provide psychological services. In addition, it requires financial support of the state for mental health activities with hardly the same entitlements, allocations from the GF. The bill shall order the state to administer the fund as opposed to the department. Additionally, it would authorize for a continued financial support for mental health initiatives from the collection of local revenue. The Treasury of the state would, require the Controller to disseminate to the counties all unutilized and unreserved funds in the MHSF monthly (Hall, 2009). Under the law, money in the MHSF may be utilized only for recognized purposes, including 5% for innovative initiatives, as stipulated and 5% for departments administrative costs, the CMHPC. The bill, 2012, would allocate certain funds in the MHSF to cater for Medical specialty in the mental health services. For instance, through those funds for special pupils and th e Periodic Screening, and Treatment program. Consequently, the allocation of funds in the MHSF for other purposes would make the bill an appropriation (Keithly, 2012). The act demands the department to establish regulations, which may serve as crisis solvers and the designated local agencies to execute the enacted act. However, the bill would declare its consistency with the act; hence, it furthers the purpose. The Constitution in California has authorized the administrator to announce a monetary emergency and call the Legislature into a special session for the above purpose. Significantly, Governor Schwarzenegger produced a proclamation ordering a fiscal emergency, and that necessitated a critical session for the same purpose. Additionally, in December 2010. Governor Brown produced a proclamation in January 2011, as declaration, a reaffirmation that a fiscal emergency disappears, and postulating that his proclamation had superseded the earlier proclamation on the provision of the c onstitution. However, the bill would postulate that it handles the fiscal emergency as declared by the reaffirmation of the Governor by his proclamation produced in January 2011, pursuant to the constitution of California. Arguments for the SB. 76 In conclusion, it is significant to highlight the numerous arguments for the support of the SB. 76. According, to a legislation committee in California referred to as Friend’