WAS IN SET UP PUBLIC SAFETY AND
TOOK A LITTLE LONGER THAN I HAD
HOPED.
SO WE'RE GONNA ROLL RIGHT IN AS
A SUB COMMITTEE LOOKS LIKE WE DO
NOT YET HAVE A QUORUM.
AND WE'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER
THREE SB TWO TWENTY NINE SENATOR
HERTZBERG.
I'LL MAKE IT.
EVEN THOUGH I GOT A LONG STORY
ITSELF.
WAY.
STUFF AGAIN.
CONTEXT CONTEXT WERE LAWMAKERS.
THANK YOU MEMBERS IN THE
GEMSTONE -- WE WENT ALONG LAWS.
THIS YEAR IS A THOUSAND SEVENTY
THREE BILLS IN THE SENATE TO BE
CONSIDERED.
OF ASSEMBLY BILLS AND FIVE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY SENATE BILLS
TO BE CONSIDERED.
AND STE HOWEVER MANY COME OUT
AND GO TO THE GOVERNOR THE
GOVERNOR SIGNS IN THE FILLER
TWENTY NINE CODE BOOKS FULL OF
LOS.
LOTS OF TIMES TAKES A LONG TIME
TO DIG THROUGH AND FIND THOSE
LAWS AND THAT'S WHY PELLA HIGH
PRICE LAWYERS TO FIGURE THAT
STUFF OUT MOST OF THE TIME.
IN THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
THERE'S CERTAIN AREAS OF PUBLIC
POLICY THERE PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT.
AND THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN
EVERYBODY'S OFFICE AS IS
REQUIRED.
THIS POSTER.
MAY BE PREPARED BY THE CHAMBER I
DON'T KNOW WHO ACTUALLY JUDGES
BUT THIS IS WHAT'S IN
EVERYBODY'S OFFICE.
OF EVERY BUSINESS THAT IS A
BUSINESS LICENSE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND PART OF THAT WHICH IS SO
IMPORTANT IS WHISTLEBLOWERS.
THE RIGHTS OF WHISTLE BLOWERS
THE OPENING SENTENCE I'M ONLY
GOING TO READ THAT SAYS. TO PUT
MY GLASSES ON IT IS THE PUBLIC
POLICY.
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO NOTIFY
THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT OR
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHEN THEY
HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THEIR
EMPLOYER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATE OR FEDERAL STATURE OR
VIOLENT OR NOT COMPLYING WITH
STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS OR RULES.
AND FURTHER EXPLAINS WHAT IS IT.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT AREA PUBLIC
POLICY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. TWO YEARS AGO.
I INTRODUCED IN THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED IN THE LAST GOVERNOR
SIGNED A PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE
REFORM OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW.
THIS IS A FOLLOW ON TO THAT LAW.
AND PROVIDES A EXPEDITING BASIS
WHERE THE LABOR COMMISSIONER CAN
ON THE DEFAULT BASIS IS SIMPLY
FILE THE THE CITATION AND MOVE
FORWARD IT'S A SMALL CHANGE AN
IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE SENSE OF
WHAT WE'VE LEARNED NOW AS A
RESULT OF THE CHANGE THAT WE
MADE.
IN THE PROCESS OF FIXING THE
WHISTLEBLOWER LAW IN CALIFORNIA
WITH THAT.
GOT MY STAR WITNESS.
THANK YOU MISTER TO REMEMBER
SUICIDE OR WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL -- WE'RE ALSO PROUD TO
WORK WITH HER HERTZBERG ON SB
THREE OH SIX AND TWENTY
SEVENTEEN TO BETTER PROTECT
WORKERS FROM ILLEGAL EMPLOYER
RETALIATION -- THE BILL WAS
PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND
SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR BUT IN
THE TIME SINCE WE'VE LEARNED OF
SOME AREAS THAT WOULD BENEFIT
FROM GREATER CLARIFICATION.
AS MENTIONED BY THE SENATOR VERY
IMPORTANT ONE IS MAKING SURE
THAT FINAL ORDERS OR CITATIONS
CAN BE.
JUST IMPLEMENTED BY THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE RATHER
THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH
ANOTHER LAWSUIT THE BILL IS
SILENT ON SB THREE OF SIX WAS
SILENT ON THAT POINT OF WHAT
HAPPENS AFTER THE FINAL ORDER
AND SO.
THE CONSENSUS IS THAT ANOTHER
LAWSUIT WOULD BE NECESSARY WHICH
IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH SB THREE
OF SIX AND SO.
THIS BILL HELPS MAKE THAT PART
OF THE PROCESS WORK BETTER IT
ALSO ALLOWS FOR INFORMAL
HEARINGS TO BE CONDUCTED BY
DEPUTY LABOR COMMISSIONER'S
RATHER THAN.
FORMAL ONES CONDUCTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES SO
THAT THIS PROCESS LOOKS MORE
LIKE OTHER ONES CONDUCTED BY
DEAL I SEE AND SO IT'S ONE THAT.
EVERYONE INVOLVED FROM THE
EMPLOYERS TO THE AGENCY ARE MORE
FAMILIAR WITH AND WE THINK THAT
THOSE TWO IN ADDITION A FEW
OTHER TWEAKS WILL HELP MAKE SB
THREE OF SIX WORK MUCH BETTER
AND WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU -- BEFORE WE GO
FURTHER LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE HERE
GALLAGHER CHAU CHIU.
AND SALAS [inaudible]
HOLDEN KALRA [inaudible]
KILEY [inaudible]
MAIENSCHEIN [inaudible]
OBERNOLTE.
PETRIE-NORRIS.
REYES.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND AND A CORE OF THANK
YOU ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
ALRIGHT SING THAT IS THEIR
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE CELERY MAKE LOVE
SESSION I BILL THANK YOU THANK
YOU VERY MUCH THE MOTION IS TO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE
ROLL PLEASE STONE BY STONE AYE
GALLAGHER.
CHAU CHIU GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS REYES
[inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THAT NEEDS TO MORE SO WE WILL
PUT IT ON CALL.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS ALL RIGHT --
THIS TAKES US TO ITEM NUMBER.
TWO SENATE BILL TWO TWENTY THREE
SENATOR HEALTH.
WELCOME WELL THANK YOU AND GOOD
MORNING MISTER CHAIR AND AND
COLLEAGUES SB TWO TWENTY THREE
IS A REPEAT OF SB ELEVEN TWENTY
SEVEN WHICH PASSED OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE LAST SESSION.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEES AMENDMENTS WHICH
REINFORCED THE CONFIDENTIAL
NATURE OF MEDICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE RIGHTS
OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AS SPECIFIED
IN THE BROWN IT.
SB TWO TWENTY THREE JUDGES ACT
WILL HELP STUDENTS WITH SEVERE
MEDICAL DISABILITIES ATTEND
SCHOOL.
THE ONLY MEDICATION THAT WORKS
FOR SOME OF THE STUDENTS IS
MEDICAL CANNABIS.
THIS BILL WILL ALLOW A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN TO COME ON CAMPUS TO
ADMINISTER MEDICAL CANNABIS TO
THEM.
IN NON SMOKING AND NON VAPING
FORMS.
MANY OF THE STUDENTS NEED TO
TAKE A DOSE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS
AT REGULAR INTERVALS WHICH OFTEN
INCLUDE DURING SCHOOL HOURS.
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT ALLOW ANY
FORM OF CANNABIS ON SCHOOL
GROUNDS THE STUDENTS MUST BE
PICKED UP BY THEIR PARENTS AND
TAKEN OFF CAMPUS BY LAW IT'S ONE
THOUSAND FEET OFF CAMPUS.
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THEIR
MEDICINE WHICH IS VERY
DISRUPTIVE TO THEIR LEARNING.
SB TWO TWENTY THREE WILL ALLOW
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF A K.
TWELVE SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION OR A CHARTER
SCHOOL TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO
ADOPT THIS POLICY.
IT IS NOT A STATE MANDATE
DISTRICTS AND COUNTIES THAT OPT
IN CAN OPT OUT FOR ANY REASON
INCLUDING.
IF FEDERAL FUNDING IS PUT AT
RISK AS A RESULT OF THIS POLICY
SB TWO TWENTY THREE REQUIRES THE
STUDENT TO BE QUALIFIED. TO BE A
QUALIFIED MEDICAL CANNABIS
PATIENT WITH A DOCTOR'S
RECOMMENDATION.
TYPICALLY THE MEDICINE IS
ADMINISTERED AS OIL CAPSULES
DENTURES LIQUIDS OR TOPICAL
CREAMS THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES
THAT A PARENT MUST.
GIVE THE SCHOOL A COPY OF THEIR
TRIALS MEDICAL CANNABIS
RECOMMENDATION TO KEEP ON FILE
SIGN IN WHEN THEY COME ON CAMPUS
NOT DISRUPT THE EDUCATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT AND TAKE ALL
CANNABIS FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS
AFTER ADMINISTRATION.
WASHINGTON COLORADO FLORIDA
MAINE AND NEW JERSEY HAVE ALL
PASSED LEGISLATION ALLOWING
STUDENTS TO USE MEDICAL CANNABIS
ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES.
AT WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND THE
I APPRECIATE THAT THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR AND CENTER THERE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE MADE BY ANY
THANK YOU AND THERE ARE ELSE.
OTHER AMENDMENTS BESIDES WAS WE
TALKED ABOUT IN CONVERSATION
WITH MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE --
WE LIKE TO ADD THAT -- A PARENT
OR GUARDIAN WHEN THEY GIVE THE
SCHOOL THAT THEY WOULD GIVE THE
SCHOOL AT THE TIME.
THAT THEY NOTIFY THE SCHOOL OF
THE NEED FOR THE MEDICAL
CANNABIS.
THAT THE THE GIVE THE SCHOOL AN
AFFIDAVIT THAT'S CONFIRMING THAT
THEY ARE WORKING WITH A
PEDIATRICIAN OR A SPECIALIST OF
OF OF SOME KIND THAT IS --
WORKING WITH THEM IN DETERMINING
THE OF THE MEDICAL USE OF THE
CANNABIS SO THAT THAT WOULD BE
PART OF THE THE BILL WE WILL ADD
THAT TO THE BILL OKAY AND THEN
THERE ARE AMENDMENTS LISTED IN
THE ANNOUNCES THAT YES.
THERE'S A MEMBERS THANK YOU
PERFECT ACTION THANK YOU FOR
THIS PLACE.
THE MORNING SENATORS MY NAME IS
KARENA MCCAIN I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT JOBS ARE WHICH IS THIS
IS THE ASSEMBLY USER ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS [inaudible]
SO JUST. FOR THE BILL MORNING
ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
EXCUSE ME BY ANY THAT DAY.
MY NAME IS KARENA MCCAIN I'M
HERE TO SUPPORT JUDGES ACT SB.
TWO TO THREE MY SON GIOVANNI
JUDGE -- HE MENACE HAS USE
CANNABIS IN TINCTURES CBT AND
TEACH THE FOR THE PAST FIVE
YEARS.
SINCE THE AGE OF THREE MONTHS
OLD HE HAS BEEN PLAGUED WITH
EPILEPSY IN TWO THOUSAND AND
THIRTEEN HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH
LENNIX GUSTO SYNDROME.
THIS KIND OF EPILEPSY IS VERY
RARE.
AND VERY HARD TO CONTROL.
JUDGE JOE WITH MEDICAID AT THE
VERY HIGH DOSES OF
PHARMACEUTICALS AND ALSO FITTED
WITH A DEVICE CALLED THE VAGUS
NERVE STIMULATOR.
ALL WITH NO SUCCESS I WAS
WATCHING MY SON DIE RIGHT BEFORE
MY EYES.
I KNEW THERE HAD TO BE A BETTER
WAY.
I BEGAN RESEARCHING CANNABIS AND
THE EFFECTS OF IT TO TREAT
EPILEPSY.
AND CHOSE TO TRY IT AS OUR LAST
RESORT.
WE HAD TO GET A WRITTEN APPROVAL
FROM OUR NEUROLOGISTS PRIOR TO
SPEAKING AT IS SEEKING A MEDICAL
MARIJUANA DOCTOR THAT TREATED
MINERS NOT ALL DO.
FEBRUARY TWENTY FOURTEEN WAS THE
FIRST TIME WE TRIED CANNABIS AND
IT SEEM VERY HOPEFUL.
DAY BY DAY I SEE THEM EMERGE
FROM IS MEDICATED STATE AND
STARTING GAUGING AGAIN.
CAESAR'S WERE DECREASED
IMMEDIATELY.
I SUPPORT THIS BILL DUE TO JO JO
NEEDING A DOES THAT SCHOOL
TWELVE PM DAILY.
I ASK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY
HEART TO GIVE A YES VOTE TODAY
AND BE THE VOICE MY SON AND SO
MANY OTHERS WE NEED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR
COMPASSION.
THANK YOU LISTEN THIS PLEASE
GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO
SPEAK TO YOU TODAY MY NAME IS
JENNIFER COMMISSION I'M A WIFE A
MOM TO A BEAUTIFUL SIX YEAR OLD
BOY NAMED ZACHARY.
AND I'M ALSO AND I SEE INTEREST
AT A LEVEL TWO TRAUMA CENTER IN
SAN JOSE.
I SPOKE BEFORE YOU LAST YEAR
ABOUT MY SON ZACHARY.
AT FIVE MONTHS HE BEGAN HAVING
SEIZURES THAT COULD NOT BE
CONTROLLED WE WERE TOLD HE WOULD
NEVER WALK TALK AND WERE SENT
AWAY WITH HOSPICE PAPERWORK. TO
BE HONEST I NEVER EVER THOUGHT I
WOULD BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE CANNABIS BILL.
BEFORE WITNESSING THE CHANGES TO
ZACHARY SEIZURES I WAS VERY
PREJUDICED AGAINST CANNABIS AND
I WAS COMPLETELY AN EDUCATED
ABOUT ITS MEDICAL FACTS.
I UNDERSTAND THOSE OF YOU WHO
HAVE CONCERNS.
I TRULY WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO BE
HERE SPEAKING TO YOU TODAY I
WISH THE MEDICATIONS THE DIETS
THE TREATMENTS AND ALL THE
SPECIALIST HAD WORKED FOR
ZACHARY.
AND THAT IS THE USERS HAVE
RESOLVED WITHOUT THE USE OF
CANNABIS OR PHARMACEUTICALS BUT
THAT IS NOT MY REALITY.
MY REALITY IS THAT WE EXHAUSTED
EVERY TREATMENT AND MEDICATIONS
WITH NO SUCCESS.
MY REALITY IS OUT OF DESPERATION
BEFORE TRYING CANNABIS I CHOSE A
DRUG THAT COULD CAUSE PARTIAL OR
TOTAL BLINDNESS AND 70% OF
PATIENTS.
AND IT ACTUALLY MADE THESE
SEIZURES WORST.
I REALITY IS THAT WITH THE
ASSISTANCE OF CANNABIS WE WENT
FROM BEING ON SEVEN MEDICATIONS
AND HAVING ABOUT SIXTY SEIZURES
A DAY. TO CURRENTLY ONLY BEING
ON ONE MEDICATION.
AND CANNABIS AND ITS LAST
GRANDMA SEIZURE WAS ALMOST TWO
YEARS AGO.
MY REALITY IS THAT MY SON THIS
YEAR LOSS NINETY HOURS OF
LEARNING IN HIS KINDERGARTEN
YEAR SO WE COULD PULL HIM OFF
CAMPUS TO ADMINISTER MEDICATIONS
TO KEEP A SEIZURES AT BAY.
MY REALITY IS IT IS TEACHERS MAY
RETURN DESPITE THE PROGRESS THAT
WE HAVE MADE.
BUT ALL THIS NOISE SHOULD NOT BE
ZACHARY'S REALITY.
SACRAMENTO RIGHT TO FATE FREE
FROM DESTRUCTION -- DISRUPTIONS
DESPITE HIS MEDICAL CONDITIONS
AND REQUIRE TREATMENT.
HE HAS A RIGHT TO RECEIVE HIS
MEDICATIONS JUST LIKE EVERY
OTHER PEOPLE IN SCHOOL NOT DOWN
THE STREET FROM THE SCHOOL.
DESPITE THE DIFFICULTIES IS
ACREE IS FACED IN HIS SHORT LIFE
MY REALITY IS THAT I WILL
CONTINUE TO FIGHT ANY BATTLE. TO
MAKE HIS JOURNEY A LITTLE EASIER.
THE PRIVILEGE OF GAINING BACK
THOSE NINETY HOURS OF LOS
LEARNING IS WHY I AM HERE TO SEE
YOU TODAY. TO SHARE MY REALITY
IN HOPES THAT YOU WILL CHANGE
DOCKERY'S REALITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I
STRONGLY URGE A YES VOTE ON THIS
BILL.
THANK YOU OTHER OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE IS THEIR
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL BRING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
[inaudible]
ADDRESS.
FIRST I DO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
REGARDING THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE
PEDIATRICIAN.
I DO THINK THAT -- THAT IS
IMPORTANT.
AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH.
HOW MANY CHILDREN?
ARE IMPACTED BY THIS DO WE KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW BUT WE HAD THAT
CONVERSATION BEFORE IT I DON'T
THINK THAT MANY BUT THOSE THAT
DO.
DEFINITELY DO NEED THEM.
I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT
CHILDREN HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT TO
RECEIVE MEDICATION THAT'S NEEDED
FOR THEM THAT IS PRESCRIBED.
PROPERLY PRESCRIBED BY THEIR
PEDIATRICIAN I THINK IS.
IS IS IS WRONG -- AND BECAUSE OF
THAT I WOULD MOVE TO SPEND.
SEC.
THANK YOU SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND WAS GONZALEZ.
I WANT -- TO THANK YOU FOR THE
AMENDMENT IT I I AM TO BE VERY
HONEST IT DOESN'T SATISFY I
THINK MISS AS THEY DID MISS
RATES IT DOESN'T SATISFY MY
CONCERNS -- WE HEARD THIS BILL
LAST YEAR I THINK I SAID I WOULD
VOTE FOR AND I DID -- REALLY
GOOD AT COUNTING VOTES I DON'T
WANT THIS BILL TO FAIL IN THIS
COMMITTEE.
I JUST WANT TO SO I I WILL BE
VOTING FOR TODAY -- I THINK THAT.
YOUR STORIES ARE SO COMPELLING
IN ANYTHING ABOUT TO SAY IS IN
NO WAY A REFLECTION ON ON THE
TWO OF YOU AS MOTHERS AND WHAT
YOU'VE DONE AND AND THE STEPS
YOU'VE TAKEN.
I STILL AM VERY CONCERNED THAT
WE DON'T HAVE TRUE PROTOCOLS.
ON HOW.
PARENTS SHOULD BE WORKING WITH
PEDIATRICIANS -- DIRECTLY.
WHEN THEIR -- THEY'RE TRYING TO
CREATE SOME SORT OF TREATMENT
FOR THEIR CHILD -- OF MEDICINAL
MARIJUANA DOCTOR WHO OFFERS A
PRESCRIPTION ONCE A YEAR.
AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
IS NOW.
DOESN'T MAKE ME FEEL LIKE
ESPECIALLY WITH.
EXTREME HEALTH CONDITIONS BUT
ALSO WHAT COULD BE MINOR HEALTH
CONDITIONS RIGHT IT DOESN'T KEEP
A PARENT FROM SAME MIGHT MY
CHILD HAS.
A MIGRAINES AND I'M PLAYING WITH
THE DOSAGES AND SO YOU KNOW THIS
IS WHAT I'VE DECIDED FOR MY
CHILD IF IF I OFTEN ON THE
MARIJUANA DEBATE IT'S NOT THE
SAME WITH MEDICINAL BUT LIKE YOU
I I I'M NOT ANTI CANNABIS BUT I
OFTEN.
JUST TAKE THE WORD CANNABIS
REPLACE IT WITH LIKE WHISKEY.
RIGHT AND YOU'RE LIKE ARE WE
DOING THINGS THAT MAKES SENSE --
MEDICINALS A LITTLE DIFFERENT
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT YOU
KNOW THERE WAS A TIME WHEN
PARENTS THOUGHT A LITTLE WHISKEY
IN A BOTTLE WOULD HELP A CHILD
SLEEP OR WOULD HELP WITH TV
RIGHT.
WE WILL NOW TAKE YOUR CHILD IF
YOU DID THAT -- SO.
I I'M NOT WORRIED AT ALL ABOUT
THE TWO OF YOU AND IN THE STEPS
YOU'VE TAKEN I'M WORRIED ABOUT
THE LAW IN THE STATE OF THE LAW
THAT ALLOWS -- SUCH FLEXIBILITY --
WITH LITTLE HUMAN BEINGS -- AND
SO I'M I'M GONNA GO ON THE VOTE
FOR IT TODAY -- I WON'T LET IT
FAIL ON THE FLOOR I WOULD VOTE
FOR IF NECESSARY BUT IF I DON'T
VOTE FOR ON FLOOR THAT'S WHY
IT'S JUST A STATEMENT THAT I
REALLY THINK WE'VE GOT TO GET TO
A POINT.
WHERE -- PEDIATRICIANS CAN WRITE
AN ACTUAL PRESCRIPTION YOU KNOW --
FOR THE THE PROTOCOL THAT IF WE
HAD A PEDIATRICIAN NOT JUST AN
AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PARENT BUT A
PIC PEDIATRICIAN PRESCRIPTION.
I'D BE FINE WITH THIS A
SPECIALIST PRESCRIPTION I'D BE
FINE I JUST WANT.
MORE STEPS THAN THE MEDICINAL
MARIJUANA CARD. FOR ME TO FEEL
LIKE WE'RE PROTECTING ALL
CHILDREN SO I'M I'M A VOTE FOR
TODAY BUT THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.
OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT CENTER YOU MAY CLOSE
THANK THANK YOU DEAR THANK YOU
FOR THE CONVERSATION THANK YOU
FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO KEEP THIS
MOVING AND THE CONVERSATION THAT
I THINK.
OF IT AND I AGREE WITH WITH
EVERYTHING THAT THE THAT YOU
SAID ASSEMBLYMEMBER GONZALEZ THE
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT.
THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE
DON'T LOOK AT THE ABUSES AND
FRANKLY IS WITH.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
VACCINATIONS THIS YEAR A LOT AND
PHYSICIANS THAT ARE MAYBE A
LITTLE RECKLESS AND HOW THEY DO
THEIR JOB AND SO I THINK WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT IN.
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION OVER THE NEXT
FEW WEEKS TO SEE IF WE CAN DO
THAT THANK YOU I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR LIVE -- COLLEAGUES THANK
YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY
STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NO CHAU.
CHIU.
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN
[inaudible]
OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS
[inaudible]
REYES [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THAT WILL NEED THREE MORE SCHOOL
PROTOCOL THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THE FUTURE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
NUMBER SIX THANK YOU AND THE
SUPPORT.
RIGHT CENTER Y. KOWSKI SECURE UP
THAT WILL BE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT
SB.
SIX ONE SIX MISTER CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES SIDE THANK YOU.
FOR AN EXCELLENT -- STAFF REPORT
ON SIX ONE SIX AND AS DETAILED
IN THIS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THIS BILL TAKES AN OVERLOOK STEP
TOWARD STEMMING ARE HOMELESS
EPIDEMIC IN PREVENTING EVEN MORE
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA FROM BEING
PUSHED INTO POVERTY.
SENATE FLOOR AMENDMENTS HOT
REMOVE THE CALIFORNIA BANKERS
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BANK NETWORKS --
OPPOSITION ALL FINANCES ALL
FINANCIALS.
TO ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
ARE NOW NEUTRAL ON THIS BILL.
SB SIX ONE SIX WOULD PROTECT TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN A PERSON'S
CHECKING ACCOUNT FROM BEING
SEIZED BY DEBT COLLECTORS.
WE KNOW THAT MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS TO LIVING.
ON THE EDGE BARELY COVERING
THEIR BASIC NEEDS STEP FOUR
POINTS OUT THE PERCENTAGE OF
PEOPLE THAT CAN'T EVEN AFFORD A
SUDDEN FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR
CHARGE A SUDDEN WIPING OUT OF A
CHECKING ACCOUNT.
PUSHES PEOPLE OVER THAT EDGE.
NOTHING IN SENATE BILL.
SIX ONE SIX A RACE IS THE DEBT
OR STOPS THE DEBT COLLECTOR FROM
SEEKING REPAYMENT THIS BILL WILL
KEEP A ROOF OVER THE HEADS.
OF THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS WHO
MIGHT OTHERWISE BE THROWN OUT
INTO THE STREET.
BECAUSE THE RENT.
PAYMENT HAS BEEN LEVY.
WITH ME I HAVE THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY AND
THE CALIFORNIA ASSET BILL WITH
ALLEGE.
IN SUPPORT AND I WOULD URGE AN
AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
FIRST WITH US PLEASE THANK YOU
HI GOOD MORNING EVERYONE --
THANK YOU I CHAIRPERSON MARK
STONE AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY -- MY
NAME IS TO BRING A HAM AND THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING COALITION C.
A. B. C. SUPPORT OVER AT SPURS
ARE EXCUSE ME REPRESENTS OVER
TWO HUNDRED ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA.
AND WE WORK TO SUPPORT POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS TO HELP LOW TO
MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES BECOME
MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE AND
ACHIEVE ECONOMIC MOBILITY.
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB
SIX ONE SIX AS IT WOULD PROTECT
BANK ACCOUNTS FROM BEING LEVY
DOWN.
TO ZERO WE UNDERSTAND THAT
PEOPLE MUST MANAGE TO PAY DOWN
THEIR DEBTS BUT HARSH DOUBLE
DECK COLLECTION.
PRACTICES PURCHASE PURCHASE
FAMILIES.
INTO GREATER FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY.
FAMILIES MUST BE ALLOWED A
MINIMUM LEVEL OF RESOURCES TO
PAY THEIR BILLS MAKE GRANT AND
PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.
SB.
SIX ONE SIX WILL ALLOW FAMILIES
THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO WHILE
THEY MANAGE PAIN DOWN THERE
DEBTS WE UNDERSTAND THAT CURRENT
REGULATIONS.
HAVE CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS BUT
EVEN IF NOT CHALLENGED BY THE
DEBT COLLECTOR.
ARE AND ARE AWARDED THEY ARE NOT.
ONLY WITH THE ONLY AWARDED AFTER
THE FACT MEANWHILE THAT THE
MONEY IS TAKEN FROM THE ACCOUNT.
AND THEN THE PERSON.
HAS TO WIN THE CLAIM IN ORDER TO
GET THE MONEY BACK.
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE ONE STORY
IT RECENTLY RECEIVED FROM THE
BAY AREA.
I CLIENTS RECEIVING SSI AND WAS
THE SST I PAY FOR HER DAUGHTER
NIECE AND NEPHEW ALL OF WHOM ARE
DEPENDENT ON HER.
A LADY WAS PLACE IN HER ACCOUNT
FOR TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
JUDGMENT FROM TWENTY ONE YEARS
AGO SO THAT WAS TWENTY ONE YEARS
AGO.
AN ELDERLY WOMAN SHE DID NOT
KNOW HOW TO SET UP.
SET UP.
A DIRECT DEPOSIT INTO OUR
COUNSELORS SO SHE RECEIVED SSI.
BENEFITS IT ONTO A DIRECT.
DEPOSIT EXPRESSCARD.
AND THEN DEPOSIT THE MONEY INTO
YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT BECAUSE
THERE WERE NO DIRECT DEPOSIT
INTO OUR CHECKING ACCOUNT BOTH
THE BANK AND THE COLLECTION.
LAW FIRM REFUSED TO STOP OR
DELAY LEVY ON YOUR ACCOUNT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT ESTA SIDE.
TI ARE LEGALLY PROTECTED FROM
COLLECTIONS ACTIVITY.
EVEN AFTER STANDING AND PROOF OF
THE FUNDS CAME FROM A SOCIAL
SECURITY THE BANK WOULD NOT
COMMIT TO HALTING THE LEVEES.
WELL WE BELIEVE HE SHE WILL
EVENTUALLY WON HER CASE IT WON'T
BE UNTIL AFTER THE FAMILY.
FACES -- BANK FEES LATE FEES ON
RENTON OTHER BILLS AND OTHER
ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS WHILE WAITING
FOR THIS.
WE NEED DEBT COLLECTOR DEBT
COLLECTION PRACTICES THAT
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS FROM
UNEXPECTED SHOCKS THAT CAN LEAVE
CAN LEAD TO HOMELESSNESS AND
OTHER BASIC NEEDS DEPRIVATIONS
AND ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN STABLE
WHILE PAYING THEIR BILLS.
SB SIX WEEKS.
SIX AND DOES SYSTEM PREVENTS
PEOPLE FROM REMAINING ARE
BECOMING UNBANKED AS RESULT OF
DEBT -- SOMETHING THAT IS
EXPECTING PART TO CBC.
AND SO MUCH OF OUR AT THE
BUILDING WORK.
HOW MANY THINK THE SENATOR
KOWSKI FOR HIS CONTINUED
COMMITMENT AND LEADERSHIP ON
THIS AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE
COMMITTEE FOR AN AYE VOTE ON SB
SIX ONE SIX THANK YOU?
THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS WITH
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE JESSICA
BARTLETT WITH WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY -- WE ARE
SPONSORED SUPPORTED THIS BILL --
WE WANT TO THANK THE BANKING
ASSOCIATION WHO WORKED WITH US
IN THE AUTHOR TO TAKE AMENDMENTS
WHICH HELPTHEM AND ALL OTHER
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COME OFF
OF THE BILL AND THEY ARE OF NO
NEUTRAL.
THE ONLY -- AND THE OPPOSITION
AS OPPOSED TO HEAR FROM LATER
ARE THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE MONEY
FROM DOING LEVEES -- WE WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE CURRENT LAW --
LEAVES OUT PROTECTIONS FOR
PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY -- WHO ARE
FARM LABORS PEOPLE HAVE SEASONAL
WORK?
SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS PEOPLE WHO
ARE TREATED AS CONTRACTORS EVEN
WHEN THEY'RE NOT ANYBODY WHO
GETS MONEY.
OTHER THAN A WAGE.
AT THEIR MONEY GOES STRAIGHT
INTO THE ACCOUNT OR IF THERE FOR
EXAMPLE WITH THIS CLIENT -- SHE
HAD A EXEMPTS PAYMENT BUT IT GOT
I WENT INTO HER CHECKING ACCOUNT
IN A WAY THAT WAS -- NOT A
DIRECT DEPOSIT.
ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ARE
VULNERABLE TO HAVE A LEVY THAT
GOES NOT JUST DOWN.
TO ZERO BUT BEYOND ZERO BECAUSE
IT IT THE BANK THEN CHARGES A
FEE.
AND THEN THEY GET BOUNCED CHECKS
ARE BOUNCE PAYMENTS -- AND THESE
CLIENTS COME INTO OUR EVICTION
CLINICS THEY COME INTO OUR
CONSUMER CLINICS ACROSS THE
STATE AND LEGAL SERVICES ACROSS
THE STATE.
AND IF THEY GET HELP.
AND THEY WHEN THEY'RE KIND OF
EXEMPTIONS THE GET THE MONEY
BACK BUT ONLY AFTER THE THEY'VE
LOST EVERYTHING AND MANY TIMES
THEY WALK AWAY FROM THE BANK
ACCOUNT.
I'M ONE THING WE DO KNOW IT
WESTERN CENTER IS THAT PEOPLE
ARE RARELY LEAVE POVERTY WITHOUT
DEBT -- AND THEY DEFINITELY HAVE
A HARD TIME DOING SO IF THEY
DON'T HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT.
THIS BILL HELPS PREVENT --
PEOPLE FROM HAVING THEIR PATH
OUT OF POVERTY FOR EVER
TRUNCATED -- AND FOR THAT WE'RE
PROUD TO SUPPORT IT AND SPONSOR
AND THANK YOU -- FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU THANK GOODNESS WITH.
GOOD MORNING DANIEL KENDO
BECAUSE OUR BEHALF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION WE ALSO ARE CO
SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
WE THINK SENATOR WITH HOUSE KEY
FOR THIS BILL WHICH CLARIFIES
THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION PROCESS
IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS DEBTORS TO
MORE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND BOWL FOR
THEIR RIGHTS AND THEIR
OBLIGATIONS AND FURTHERMORE WE
POINT OUT THAT THE BILL FOLLOWS
POLICY.
WHICH IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN
SIXTEEN OTHER STATES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
THAT -- IN THIS IS POLICY THAT
IS EFFECTIVELY PROTECTING LOW
INCOME CONSUMERS AROUND THE
COUNTRY -- WE THINK THE SENATOR
FOR HIS AUTHORSHIP AND WE URGE
YOUR AYE THE THANK YOU ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND
YOUR AFFILIATION PLEASE.
HI SEVEN MIN TEN WITH VOICES FOR
PROGRESS WHERE THE ONE
PERCENTERS WHO WILL AFFECT FOR
THE 99% WERE IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING KAREN LAYING ON TOP
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING JOE RIGHT OUT ON
BEHALF CONSUMER ACTION IN
SUPPORT.
HER CHILD DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT.
GIVE ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
I'D SAY NOT AS THEIR OPPOSITION
.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN --
CLIFF BURKE HERE IN BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COLLECTORS -- WANT TO MAKE A FEW
POINTS REGARDING THIS BILL -- WE
ARE OPPOSE WE BELIEVE IN IT IT
EFFECTIVELY BANS BANK LEVEES AND
ELIMINATES BANK LEVEES AS A TOOL
FOR COLLECTION OF LEGITIMATELY --
DEBT IN CALIFORNIA.
BOB I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE
COMMITTEE THAT A BANK LEVY IS
NOTHING MORE THAN A HOST
JUDGMENT TOOL.
USED TO COLLECT UNDISPUTED DEBT
OWED BY THE DEBTOR TO A CREDITOR.
AS A POST JUDGMENT TOOL THE
SCENARIO THAT.
KEEPS BEING.
EXPLAIN BY THE PROPONENTS ABOUT
PEOPLE WAKING UP AND FINDING
THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS EMPTIED JUST
MAKES NO SENSE IN EFFECT THE
POST JUDGMENT TOOL MEANS THAT
THE DEBT HAS BEEN IN COLLECTION
FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS.
THE CREDITOR THEN MADE THE
DECISION TO GO TO COURT.
THEY MADE A DECISION TO GO TO
COURT TO GET A JUDGMENT AND SUE
THE DEBTOR BEGINS THE DAY IT WAS
NOT IN DISPUTE.
AND BECAUSE THAT WE BELIEVE
THERE IS AN ABILITY TO PAY.
OR ELSE WHY WOULD THEY INCUR THE
COST OF AN ATTORNEY GOING TO
COURT AND COURT FEES. TO SUE THE
DEBTOR SO THEY WENT TO COURT THE
DEBTOR GOT NOTICE THAT THE ITEM
WAS IN COURT.
A JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED IT WENT
BACK TO COLLECTION IT'S IN
COLLECTION AGAIN FOR ANOTHER
YEAR AT THAT POINT THE CREDITOR
GOES BACK TO COURT A SECOND TIME
TO GET A RICH. TO EXECUTE.
ALL ON THE BANK ACCOUNT.
THE PROBLEM WITH ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS WITH HIS BILL IS THAT
WELL YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT LOW
INCOME DEBTORS WAKING UP WITH NO
MONEY IN THEIR ACCOUNT.
IN PRACTICALITY THIS BILL HAS NO
CONNECTION TO LOW INCOME.
OUT ALL IT APPLIES ALL DEBTORS
WITH THEIR HIGH INCOME MIDDLE
INCOME.
ARM OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE
WORKED ON IN THIS AREA WE HAVE
BEEN WILLING TO LIMIT.
COLLECTION ACTIVITIES WHEN IT
SPECIFICALLY TARGETS LOW ACTUAL
LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS THE
EXAMPLES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
GIVEN WE CAN GIVE DOZENS AND
DOZENS OF EXAMPLES OF HIGH
INCOME INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE
PROTECTED BY THIS BILL.
ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS IS
BILL IS THAT WE HAVE AN EXISTING
PROCESS IN LAW.
SO THE EXISTING PROCESS IS
CALLED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
PROCESS WHICH WAS SET UP TO
PROTECT LOW INCOME PEOPLE TRULY
LOW INCOME PEOPLE.
THE BENEFIT OF THAT PROCESS IS
THAT HAS JUDICIAL REVIEW TO
ENSURE THATYOU'RE ACTUALLY
PROTECTING LOW INCOME PEOPLE
UNDER THAT PROCESS SOCIAL
SECURITY SS I SS BE UNEMPLOYMENT
WELFARE ALL.
AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPTED THIS IS
THE NEW AUTOMATIC TWO THOUSAND
DOLLAR EXEMPTION ON TOP OF ALL
THOSE EXISTING EXEMPTIONS.
WILL TRULY LOW INCOME PEOPLE
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A
CLAIM.
OF EXEMPTION FOR NECESSARIES OF
LIFE WHICH COVER RENT UTILITIES
FOOD.
ALL OF THE THINGS THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DEFINED IN THIS
LEGISLATURE IS EXPANDED IN TERMS
OF THE EXEMPTION.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL IS
THE AUTOMATIC NATURE THE FACT
THAT IT PROTECTS ALL DEBTORS NO
MATTER THEIR ECONOMIC STATUS
IT'S OVER BALK BROAD AND IT'S
UNCLEAR WE TALK ABOUT.
IT APPLIES TO A DAD OR NOT TWO
ACCOUNTS THERE'S NO WAY THE
CREDITOR KNOWS WHAT ACCOUNTS THE
DEBTOR HAS THE BANKS GOT OFF THE
BILL BECAUSE THEY GOT OFF THE
HOOK OF HAVING TO MAKE THAT
DECISION BY THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT IN ESSENCE THE UNDERLYING
PROBLEM WAS MADE WORSE BY ADDING
ANOTHER WHO PREFER IN ESSENCE
THE CREDITOR TO JUMP THROUGH.
SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS WE ARE
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL THANK YOU.
THANKS WITH US PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS SONYA
GIPSON HERE ON BEHALF OF ON
COURT CAPITAL GROUP IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL -- I JUST
WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT
WERE VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE
STORIES DESCRIBED IN TESTIMONY
AS WELL AS TO LOW INCOME DEBTORS.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS BILL CAST A
WIDER NET THAN JUST LOW INCOME
DEBTORS IT IS AN AUTOMATIC TWO
THOUSAND DOLLAR EXEMPTION.
FROM A LAST RESORT COLLECTIONS
PROCESS FOR ALL DEBTORS AND THE
AUTOMATIC NATURE IS THE EXACT
REASON WE ARE CONCERNED -- DEBT
BANK LEVEES ARE A LAST RESORT IN
IN OUR ONE IN FIVE CONSUMERS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE AN
ACCOUNT WITH US AND WHAT WE FIND
IS THAT BANK LEVEES.
ARE THE LAST RESORT AFTER
SEVENTEEN NOTICES SEVENTEEN
ATTEMPTS TO WORK WITH THE
CONSUMER IT HAPPENS TO A TWO
THREE YEAR CYCLE AND OF TWO TO
THREE YEAR PROCESS.
THE OTHER MISSTATEMENT AYE I
BELIEVE IS THAT -- THE BANK
ACCOUNT IS ENTIRELY EMPTIED THIS
IS JUST NOT TRUE IT'S NOT TRUE
BECAUSE THERE'S BOTH FEDERAL AS
WELL STATE LAWS THAT PREVENT THE
BANK ACCOUNT FROM BEING LET
EMPTIED ENTIRELY.
LET'S START WITH THE FACT THAT
WHEN YOU GO TO ISSUE A BANK LEVY
ICE I SUBMITTED TO THE BANK.
THE BANK THAT'S OR THE CREDIT
UNION FOR THE CONSUMER IS
REQUIRED UNDER FEDERAL TREASURY
LAWS TO LOOK BACK TO TWO MONTHS
OF ACTIVITY IN THE CONSUMERS
BANK ACCOUNT.
AND AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCT THE
EXEMPTIONS THAT INCLUDE 75% OF
WAGES THAT I'VE MET THAT MAY
HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE BANK
ACCOUNT.
THINGS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME
FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND CIVIL
SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS AS
WELL AS VETERANS BENEFITS SO
THAT'S STEP ONE THAT'S AN
AUTOMATIC PROCESS DONE BY THE
BANK ACCOUNT.
THEN FROM THERE ON THEY RESPOND
TO THE AMOUNT OF THE BANK LEVY
AND IF THE CONSUMER AT THAT
POINT FEELS LIKE SOMETHING MAY
HAVE BEEN MISSED OR THAT THEY DO
NEED ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR
FOOD RENT.
CAR PAYMENTS AT CETERA THAT IS
WHERE THEY CAN FILE THE CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION FORM.
AS A CREDITOR WE HAVE TEN DAYS
TO RESPOND TO THAT FORM.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING UNUSUAL ON
THE FORM THAT IS WHEN WE WOULD
OBJECT OTHERWISE THERE'S NO
REASON TO PROLONG THE PROCESS
WITH A LOW INCOME DEBTOR AND
OBJECT. TO A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
PROCESS SO THAT THE CLAIM IS
PROCESSED WITHIN TEN DAYS IT IS
ONLY WHEN SOMETHING LIKE A BMW
AND MERCEDES BENZ IS BEING
CLAIMED AS AN EXEMPTION.
THAT WE WOULD THEN OBJECT AND IT
GOES FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE IN
THIRTY DAYS.
SO AGAIN I JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT WHAT THIS IS
DOING IS TAKING AWAY THIS
PROCESS WHERE THERE'S A REVIEW
DONE TO SAY DOES SOMEONE NEED
THE HELP OR ARE THEY GOING TO
JUST BE.
GIVEN A TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR OUT
FROM DEBT -- FINALLY I I I THINK
THAT DOES IMPLY THAT SIXTEEN
OTHER STATES HAVE THIS EXACT
THING UNDER CURRENT LAW IS JUST
NOT TRUE.
THE VAST MAJORITY THERE'S ONLY A
COUPLE THAT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC
NATURE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
STATES HAVE A PROCESS WHAT
CONSUMER MUST APPLY FOR THE
CLAIM.
JUST AS IT EXISTS IN CALIFORNIA
UNDER CURRENT LAW.
I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
OVERALL AS A PICTURE.
IS GOING TO CAUSE LESS ACCESS TO
CREDIT FOR CONSUMERS HIGHER
INTEREST RATES I DON'T THINK
THAT THE RECENT AMENDMENTS HAVE
DONE ANYTHING FOR THE BANKING
INDUSTRY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BANKS
WILL TRULY BUFFER THEIR LOSSES
ON A TWO THOUSAND DOLLAR DEBT
FOR OTHER CONSUMERS BY
INCREASING INTEREST RATES.
AND AND GRANTING LESS CREDIT TO
LOW INCOME BORROWERS SO WE HAVE
TO LOOK AT THE LONG TERM.
ALBUMS THAT WILL.
ACTUALLY GO TO THE LOW INCOME
CONSUMERS FROM THIS THANK YOU
VERY MUCH I UP PLEASE I ASK YOU
TO OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION IF YOU GIVE US YOUR
NAME AND YOUR AFFILIATION PLEASE
[inaudible]
WE'RE ALSO.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE OF BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS.
CENTER PERHAPS YOU COULD ADDRESS
THERE WERE.
A COUPLE OF YEAH I MEAN I THINK
ISSUES WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE
OPPOSITION YEAH I THINK PAGE
NINE TALKS AND ISSUE NUMBER TWO
IDENTIFIED IN THE ALSO TALKS
ABOUT THIS THIS MEANT THAT IT'S
GOING TO TRY A CREDIT.
THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE TO FOLKS
SAY -- PROFESSOR KRISHNAMOORTHY
FROM UC BERKELEY HAS.
HAS WRITTEN EXACTLY ON POINT
THAT THIS IS A FALLACY THAT IT'S
NOT POINTED THAT THE CREDITS NOT
TO BE AVAILABLE HASN'T HAPPENED
IN YOUR CAPS AT HAVE HASN'T
HAPPENED IN DELAWARE.
I GUESS WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH --
MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS IS THAT
THIS IS THE LAW I DON'T EXPECT
THE DEATH CULT.
THAT COLLECTORS NOT TO ENFORCE
THE LAW TO THE FULLEST EXTENT AN
EMPTY ALL PEOPLES BANK ACCOUNTS
I MEAN THIS SORT OF IDEA THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO BE.
LIGHT FOOTED AND AND WE'RE NOT
AND AND BE FAIR.
TO LOW INCOME -- DEBTORS IS JUST
NOT TRUE I MEAN I PRACTICE
BANKRUPTCY LAW FOR THIRTY YEARS
THEY WILL EMPTY OUT THAT ACCOUNT
THE THE BANKS EITHER ARE DOING A
POOR JOB.
OF PROTECTING PEOPLE SO SECURITY
CHECKS OR THERE ARE 75% THEIR
INCOME EVEN THOUGH THAT'S THAT'S
THE LAW.
THE IN FACT THEY'RE SEIZING ALL
THE MONEY THAT'S IN THE BANK AND
AS THE STAFF IS A STAFF REPORT
TALKS ABOUT.
TALKS OUT OR EXPLAINS THE CLAIM
OF EXEMPTION IS UNWORKABLE
UNWORKABLE ON ON PAPER SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE GOING WITH AN
AUTOMATIC -- EXEMPTION WE'RE
SAYING YOU GET TO PROTECT THAT
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT'S NOT
THAT MUCH I MEAN IT WILL APPLY
TO ALL THAT IS NOT JUST LOW
INCOME DEBTORS.
TO PROVIDE THEM IF OF EIGHT
APPLIES TO EVERYBODY I'M IN
THAT'S THE CHANGE A LAW THAT WE
HAVEN'T CHANGED WE HAVE A LOOK
AT THIS.
OF LAW FOR FIFTY YEARS SINCE WE
CREATE A BANK LEVEES SINCE WE'VE
BEEN IN SAID WHAT'S THE EFFECT
ON ON HUMAN LIVES AND I'VE.
AND I'VE SPENT THIRTY YEARS IN
THIS AREA AND I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY INTO.
EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS NOT THAT --
BIG OF AFFECT ON THE INDUSTRY AS
IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE
INDIVIDUAL -- CONSUMERS WHO WHO
ARE DEVASTATED BY HAVING NO
MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT.
YEAH BUT I DON'T I MEAN WHAT
THEY SAID THAT THAT THE PRICE
ALL BETTER SISTER YOU KNOW AND
CIARA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK
YOU SENATOR -- YOU KNOW THAT I
THINK THAT.
WE WE KNOW THE NUMBERS SHOW --
EARLY STUDIES SHOW THAT ABOUT.
40% OF AMERICANS SHUT WITH EVEN
A FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR EMERGENCY
AND I THINK THAT IN CALIFORNIA --
GIVEN THE COST LIVING THE TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ISN'T A WHOLE
LOT IF THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE --
IT'S NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE OF THE DEBT COLLECTOR -- TO
ENSURE THAT OUR OF OUR LOW
INCOME AND AND DOES IT ARE
STRUGGLING TO GET BY.
CAN CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE TO GET
BY WITH TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
THAT'S WHAT I THAT'S OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S JUST.
A BASE AMOUNT THAT THEY CAN LIVE
ON AND YOU KNOW IF SOMEONE IS
MIDDLE INCOME MORE HIGHER INCOME.
AND HAS MORE ON THEIR ACCOUNT
MORE THAN THEY CAN.
TAKE IT ALL EXCEPT THE FOUNTAIN
OF THE LAST TWO THOUSAND I THINK
THAT'S ACTUALLY MUCH SIMPLER WAY
OF DOING IT.
THEN ALL DID THIS OTHER PROCESS
OF DETERMINING WHAT MEANS THEY
HAVE BEEN -- AND I THINK THAT I
THINK THE TWO THOUSAND IS THE IT
IS THE LEAST THAT WE CAN DO TO
ENSURE THAT THOSE THAT ARE
REALLY AT THE AT THE CUSP OF ON
THE EDGE I DON'T.
WE DON'T FALL OVER THAT CLIFF
AND SO WITH THAT I'D BE HAPPY TO
MOVE THE MOVE THIS.
THANK YOU THERE'S A MOTION IS
OUR SECOND.
I WILL SECOND THAT [inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
WITH US I'M GONNA VOTE FOR THIS
TODAY -- I THINK I FEEL LIKE
WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION LIKE
YOU'RE IN.
AN AND YOU'RE OUT I DON'T REALLY
UNDERSTAND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND I
I ALSO FEEL LIKE I'M NOT SURE --
I'VE EVER GOTTEN TO THE CORE OF
OF THE DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT
PEOPLE SAY THIS BILL DOES --
IT'S NOT LIKE SOME OF OUR OTHER
PREDATORY LENDING BILLS THAT I
REALLY UNDERSTAND.
NUMBER ONE I THINK TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY LIKE
MY CONSTITUENTS DON'T HAVE TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THE BANK
ACCOUNT SO WHEN IT'S PRESENTED
AS SOME SORT OF WORKING FAMILIES
ISSUE -- THAT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T
FEEL RIGHT TO ME AND I KNOW THAT
THAT'S PERHAPS WRONG I I
REPRESENT OF MAY BE.
SUBSTANTIALLY POOR COMMUNITY BUT
VERY FEW PEOPLE I KNOW HAVE TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THE BANK
ACCOUNT.
AND SO WHEN I HEAR THEN IT'S NOT
MEANS TESTED.
I DO WORRY HOW THIS CAN BE A
BUTTE.
I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I DON'T
KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS IS HOW I
FEEL ABOUT THIS BILL IS LIKE.
TWO THOUSAND FEELS LIKE TOO MUCH --
WHEN PEOPLE HAVE REAL REAL
OBLIGATIONS THAT THEY NEED TO
PAY NOW I DO UNDERSTAND LIKE
THEY MIGHT HAVE IT FOR A MINUTE?
AND AND THAT'S COME THROUGH AND
MAYBE IT'S FOR OVER THREE MONTHS
AND YOU KNOW IT IT AT THAT.
THAT MOMENT BUT THEN I'M HEARING
THERE'S A LOOK BACK -- TIME
PERIOD SO I WOULD LIKE BOTH OF
THE AYE I'M GONNA VOTE FOR TODAY.
I WOULD AGAIN LIKE YOU TO COME
IN AND LIKE LITERALLY.
I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE THIS IS
GOING TO KEEP COMING UP OFF
MISTER ACCOUNTS YOU JUST NEVER
STOP WHICH IS WHAT I LOVE ABOUT
YOU YOU KNOW.
I'M SO I WANT TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TWO OF YOU
ARE SAYING THAT DON'T MATCH UP
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE -- SO.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING%
TO BE RESOLVED FOR ME HERE TODAY
AND I I HAVE COMMITTED TO VOTING
FOR IT.
BUT I I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE --
SOME OF THE RHETORIC DOESN'T
MATCH UP WITH THE THE KIND OF
EXPERIENCES THAT MY CONSTITUENTS
HAVE SO I'M I'M UNCOMFORTABLE.
IF THAT MAKES SENSE MISTER CHAIR
YOU'VE YOU'VE TOUCHED ON YOU
KNOW I MEAN BRIEFLY PLEASE THANK
LEVEES ARE A MOMENT IN TIME IT'S
AT THIS MOMENT SO SO WE KNOW
THAT A LOT OF LEVY SICKER ON
APRIL SIXTEENTH.
WHEN PEOPLE GET THEIR INCOME TAX
RETURN BECAUSE THAT'S AT THAT
MOMENT IT'S NOT IT'S IT'S THE
TOP THE MOMENT THAT THE THE
BANKS GET IT SO YOU CAN IMAGINE
IF YOU JUST DEPOSIT YOUR
PAYCHECK AND YOU ONLY GET?
FIFTEEN HUNDRED BUCKS THAT WHOLE
THING IS GONE IT'S NOT A PER
PERCENTAGE YOU DON'T GET YOU
DON'T IT'S IT'S HELD SO THAT'S
THE PROBLEM THE OTHER AS FAR AS
THE NUMBERS AGO YOU CAN GET THIS
A STAFF REPORT POINTS OUT.
YOU CAN GET FOOD STAMPS AND HAVE
TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS
IN YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT THAT'S
THE POVERTY LEVEL THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES SO
WE'RE BELOW THAT NUMBER AS FAR
AS WHAT PEOPLE WOULD.
RETAIN IN THEIR CHECKING
ACCOUNTS SO THAT'S IT OF THE
NUMBERED I MEAN I START OFF WITH
FORTY EIGHT HUNDRED LAST YEAR
WHEN I WAS IN THIS COMMITTEE SO
I'VE I'VE.
I'VE.
TRIED THE COMPROMISED THE THIS
IS THE THIS IS A COLLECTION TOOL
THAT THE INDUSTRY HAS THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO USE UNTIL WE
MODIFY IT.
THANK THANK YOU NO THERE WAS NOT
REALLY A QUESTION A QUESTION
THERE I THINK THE ASK OF MS
GONZALEZ.
WE HAVE THE VOTES.
HOPEFULLY TO MOVE IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE BUT SOME MEMBERS HAVE
SOME INITIAL QUESTION AND I
THINK THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY
OUTSIDE OF THIS COMMITTEE GO
WORK ON THOSE THIS FEATURE
NORRIS.
SEC I TO WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS
BILL TODAY BUT AND I THINK.
YOU KNOW I THINK WE WOULD ALL
AGREE THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE
HERE EVEN IN THE SERVICE OF
COLLECTING A LEGITIMATE THAT WE
DON'T WANT.
SOMEONE'S LAST DOLLAR TO BE
TAKEN AND AND PEOPLE BE LEFT
DESTITUTE.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BUT I
ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT
KIND OF BLANKET NO QUESTIONS
ASKED NATURE.
OF THE EXEMPTION BASE I THINK
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT.
WELL STE WE MOVE LEGISLATION
THAT'S PROTECTING THOSE FOLKS
THAT THE RIGHT ON THE EDGE.
THAT FOR PEOPLE THAT DO YOU HAVE
THE RESOURCES TO PAY A DEBT.
THAT IS LEGITIMATE.
THAT WE'RE NOT USING THAT YOU
KNOW THEY'RE NOT BEING PROTECTED
BY THIS.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO FOCUS ON
THAT AS WELL AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
THANK YOU THE QUESTIONS HOUSE
WAS OVERLOOKED.
I THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
IF I UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION'S
ARGUMENT.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THIS.
COULD END THE PRACTICE OF LIVING
BANK ACCOUNTS ESSENTIALLY FOR
THEM BECAUSE TO THE EXTENT THAT
A DEBTOR NEVER HAS MORE THAN TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THEIR BANK
ACCOUNT.
THE LEVY WILL NEVER BE EFFECTIVE.
IT IS THAT IS THAT UNDERSTANDING
CORRECT.
WELL THAT THAT. TO THE EXTENT
THAT YOU KNOW LEVY SIR.
ONE MOMENT IN TIME.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY LEVY
TODAY AND SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT
THE LEVY DOESN'T RECEIVE ANY
MONEY SO.
I WOULD SAY.
TRUE I MEAN IT'S JUST MEMBER
BANK LEVEES ARE ONE TOOL TO DEBT
COLLECTORS HAVE TO COLLECT ON
THE DEBT.
IT'S JUST IT'S JUST ONE TOOL
THEY CAN GARNISH PEOPLE PEOPLE'S
WAGES THAT SEE.
A POPULAR IN -- WILL USE WAY TO
COLLECT THAT WE PASS LEGISLATION
HERE TO CURB THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT CAN BE TAKEN OUT OF
PEOPLE'S PAYCHECKS BECAUSE IT
REFLECTS TODAY'S VALUE.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE -- NOT EXISTENT JUST
AS I DON'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE INCOME WHO ARE REALLY
YOU KNOW THERE'S THIS IDEA THAT
THE PEOPLE ARE HI INCOME LEARN
WAGER WAGER INNER CENTER.
NOT GOING -- TO BE AFFECT IF YOU
HAVE SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
YOUR BANK UNDER THIS BILL. TWO
THOUSAND REMAINS THERE BEFORE
THOUSAND GETS PAID TO THE
CREDITOR I MEAN IF YOU IF.
YOU KNOW PEOPLE HAVE SIX
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THE BANK SO
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE.
YOU KNOW TOTALLY DESTROYED OKAY
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS
UNDERSTANDING RIGHT SO IF YOU IF
THE CONSUMER.
NEVER HAS MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT
THEIR BAG OUT COULD NEVER BE
LEVIED CORRECT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW WHAT PERCENTAGE
OF DEBTORS THAT HAVE THESE ARE
THESE JUDGMENTS.
HAVE MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS THEIR BANK ACCOUNT
BECAUSE I MEAN I WOULD GUESS
JUST NAIVELY THAT THAT THAT IS
NOT VERY MANY WELL AGAIN IT'S
IT'S A MOMENT IN TIME SO YOU CAN
YOU CAN SAY AFTER YOU PAID ALL
YOUR BILLS.
THAT'S TRUE BUT THIS IS YOUR
YOUR YOUR CHECKS DON'T GET TO BE
PROCESS WITH THE PAYMENT OF
BILLS.
THE LA COUNTY SHARE OF INDICATED
THAT OVER A THREE YEAR PERIOD
JUST IN LA COUNTY THEY HAD THREE
HUNDRED THIRTY ONE THOUSAND
LEVEES WHICH IS LIKE A HUNDRED
AND TEN THOUSAND PER.
PER YEAR IN LA THAT'S WHAT 25%
POPULATION.
A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO IT SAY IT AFFECTS A LOT OF
PEOPLE.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.
THE QUESTIONS COMMENTS ALL RIGHT
SEEING NONE CENTER. TO BRIEFLY
CLOSE I'M I WOULD URGE AN AYE
VOTE ON THIS THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S NEEDED -- FOR THE WORKING
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA IT AND IT.
MODIFIES EXISTING TOOL THAT THE
DEBT COLLECTORS HAVE IN ORDER TO
COLLECTED THAT AND ONCE AGAIN IT
DOESN'T MAKE ANY DEBT GOAL
WEIGHT A DEBTOR STILL.
OWES IT IT JUST HELPS THEM
MANAGE THEIR FUNDS AND I URGE.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND THAT MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS SO YOU MAY WANT
TO BE TALKING TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS HER.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY
STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NO CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU GONZALEZ.
CONSULT AYE HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN OBERNOLTE
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS
[inaudible]
PETRIE-NORRIS IRIS.
IT'S TWO MORE VOTES WITH OUR
CALL.
SO.
SENATOR HUESO.
WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER THREE
FIVE SENATE BILL.
THREE THIRTEEN WELCOME.
WELCOME GOOD MORNING ARMS
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS [inaudible]
THIS YEAR.
YOU KNOW UNFORTUNATELY THIS YEAR --
THERE HAVE BEEN.
TWO HUNDRED SPECIES ADDED TO THE
ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST IN THE
WORLD.
WHICH BRINGS THAT NUMBER UP TO
ABOUT.
FORTY ONE THOUSAND DIFFERENT
SPECIES IN OUR COUNTRY ARE BEING
THREATENED WITH EXTINCTION.
AN AND THIS REQUIRES US TO
REALLY STEP UP MANY EFFORTS TO
BRICK BUILT CONSCIOUSNESS AND
ALSO CHANGE OF ATTITUDE.
ON HOW WE TREAT ANIMALS AND HOW
WE INTERACT WITH MINERALS AND
WHAT HOW WE GO ABOUT.
SAVING A LOT OF THE SPECIES.
I'M POSEEN SB. THREE ONE
THIRTEEN WHICH WOULD PREVENT --
THE TREATMENT OF OF WILD ANIMALS
IN CIRCUSES -- WOULD WOULD BAN.
THE USE OF WILD ANIMALS IN
CIRCUSES FOR ACCENT.
FOR OF PEOPLE'S AMUSEMENT.
THIS IS ONE VERY SMALL STEP IN
AND NOT ONLY BUILDING A
CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT.
HOW TO BETTER TREAT ANIMALS HOW
TO INTERACT WITH THEM HOW -- TO
OF CO EXIST WITH THEM ON THIS
PLANET AND WHICH THEIR NUMBERS
ARE DRASTICALLY BEING REDUCED
AND MANY OF THEM ARE BEING
PUSHED.
INTO EXTINCTION.
SO BEFORE.
I CONTINUE I I WANT TO JUST
BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS IS.
ON PAGE EIGHT AND NINE THANK YOU
AND AND SIMPLY ASK YOU TO JOIN
ME IN THIS EFFORT -- TO CONTINUE.
A TREND IN OUR IN OUR
COMMUNITIES TO PREVENT CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS TO ENCOURAGE THE THE
THE ABUSE OF ANIMALS FOR OUR A
PERSONAL ENJOYMENT AND AMUSEMENT
AND AND RE.
CREATE A SOCIETY IN WHICH WE
TEACH OUR KIDS AND ANIMALS ARE
TO BE APPRECIATED NOT TO BE --
NOT TO BE EXPLOITED SO UP TO
DATE.
I HAVE A THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND I HAVE ALSO --
MEMBERS BURKE BEER TO THEIR HERE
TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE BILL
THANK YOU FOR MISSION FIRST
WITNESS PLEASE THANK CHAIRMAN
I'LL BE BRIEF DAVID KING TAUGHT
ON BEHALF OF SOCIAL COMPASSION
AND LEGISLATION THE SPONSORS OF
THIS BILL.
CALIFORNIA HAS REPEATEDLY
WITNESSEDTHE FAILURE OF OUR
EXISTING LAWS TO PROTECT ANIMALS
IN CIRCUSES -- CLYDE THE LION
WAS BEING TRACKED BY TRAIN
THROUGH THE MOJAVE DESERT WITH
TEMPERATURES OVER A HUNDRED
DEGREES IN THE CIRCUIT FOUND IT
MORE IMPORTANT TO REACH THEIR
SCHEDULE.
THEN TO STOP AND CHECK ON THE
LINE THAT LION DIED IN
HUNTINGTON PARK A TIGER WAS
FOUND DECAPITATED BECAUSE IT THE
CIRCUIT SHOVED IT INTO A CAGE
WITH FIVE OTHER LARGE CATS.
HEAVY THE ELEPHANT WAS FORCED TO
PERFORM A CHILD RIDES THOUGH SHE
WAS VISIBLY STARVING SHE FELL
OVER DEAD THREE DAYS BEFORE THAT
ANOTHER -- ELEPHANT CHOICE IT
FALLING OVER DEAD TOO IT'S TIME
TO BRING THIS TO A STOP IN
CALIFORNIA TO BECOME --
CIVILIZED IN OUR IN OUR CIRCUSES
JOIN THE OTHER STATES THAT HAVE
DONE SO AND WE'RE PROUD TO BE
THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU THAT'S WITH US PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING CHECK MANY MEMBERS --
MY NAME IS HEATHER RALLY I'M THE
SUPERVISING VETERINARIAN AT THE
FOUNDATION AND ALSO ADJUNCT
FACULTY AT VERMONT LAW SCHOOL
WHERE I CO TEACH ANIMAL WELFARE
LAW.
ON MY WORK FOCUSES ACTUALLY
EXCLUSIVELY ALMOST ON PUTTING AN
END TO THE SUFFERING OF THE USE
OF CAPTIVE WILD ANIMALS IN
CIRCUSES ANOTHER TRAVELING ACTS.
AND CIRCUSES THE INSULTS TO
ANIMAL WELFARE ARE NUMEROUS
THEIR FREQUENT AND THEY ARE
EXTREME INTENSIVE CONFINEMENT
FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME
EXPOSURE TO STRESSFUL AND
UNFAMILIAR ENVIRONMENTS AND
ABUSE OF TRAINING TECHNIQUES ALL
MAKE THE CIRCUS A MISERABLE
PLACE FOR ANIMALS.
THESE ANIMALS DON'T PERFORM
TRICKS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO
THEY ARE THEY DO SO BECAUSE
THEY'RE AFRAID OF THE
CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DO NOT.
AS PETER HAS REPEATEDLY
DOCUMENTED ANIMALS IN THE CIRCUS
HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THROUGH VICIOUS
BEATINGS BEHIND THE SCENES THAT
WE DON'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF
SEEING ON THE STAGE.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM IF THEY
DO NOT OBEY?
AND THEY SPEND MUCH OF THEIR
LIVES EVEN DAYS ON END
LANGUISHING IN DARK BERENDT
TRAILERS.
AS A RESULT OF THIS TREATMENT
ANIMALS OFTEN LASH OUT.
IN FRUSTRATION AND MANY OF THEM
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN HUMAN
INJURIES AND EVEN HUMAN DEATHS.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON SB THREE ONE
THREE TO PROTECT ANIMALS AND TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE AND
SUPPORTS.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND
YOUR AFFILIATION PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING MR TURN MEMBERS
CAROLING UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ANIMAL WELFARE CESSATION SUPPORT.
HI I'M LESLIE MCCABE WITH ANIMAL
DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL I'M WE
AND THOUSANDS -- FOUND SUPPORT
TO SUPPORT THE BILL THANKS.
JIM MEMBERS FRANKLY IN ON BEHALF
VISUAL LOGICAL SOCIAL JUST
AMERICA AND MODERATES WHO
LOGICAL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE AND
SUPPORTS.
SEEING NONE IS THERE OPPOSITION.
CENA BRING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS COMMENTS MISTER.
THIS GONZALEZ THE MISTER KALRA
I'M OBSESSED ON THE DEFINITION
OF CIRCUS -- MIGHT.
AT THEME PARK THAT ENGAGES IN
[inaudible]
PRIMARILY -- ANIMAL SHOWS.
FALL UNDER THE AYE I'M OKAY WITH
THAT I JUST WANNA KNOW OBVIOUSLY
I'M.
BUT JUST KIND OF CURIOUS BECAUSE
I'VE REREAD THAT DEFINITION IN
THE BILL A FEW TIMES NOW AND
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE THOUGHTS
OF THE AUTHOR.
NOW WHAT'S QUESTION.
THE DEFINITION CIRCUSES
INTERESTING AND WHEN I HAVE GONE
TO MAYBE A MAMMAL.
PARK WHAT TO THE CALL.
AS C. PARK WILD ANIMAL NOW AND
I'M THINKING WHAT.
BUT I'M GONNA SEE WORLDS.
I'M AND I THINK THERE'S LIKE ONE
OF NORTH TOO RIGHT -- THEY
PRIMARILY ARE THERE'S A LIVE
AUDIENCE.
THEY HAVE JUGGLERS AND ACROBATS
AND AND ANIMALS BEING USED FOR
ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES SUCH AS A
SUPPLY.
COULD THE SUPPLY.
THE WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN
RIGHT NOW I DON'T BELIEVE IT
DOES.
I THINK IT'S ONLY LIMITED TO
CIRCUSES UNDER.
THE THE WAY IT TO FIND.
AND THAT'S MY AYE BUT I BELIEVE
THAT TRAVELING AXE I BELIEVE AYE
AYE DADDY TOOK AMENDMENT
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THAT --
ALL RIGHT DISCOVER.
THANK YOU STRENGTHENED AND THANK
YOU SENATOR I I AGREE THAT I
THINK THE TIME IS PASS FOR THIS
KIND OF PRACTICE LEADING
DEFINITIONS CHANGE.
THAT IS AS WE CHANGES SOCIETY
CHANGES.
OF I THINK IS A REASON WHY WOMEN
BROTHERS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS
WASN'T JUST.
BECAUSE OF FOLKS THAT OF A
PROTEST NEWS ADAMS I THINK THAT
CONSUMER PREFERENCE ALSO VEERED
AWAY FROM THAT MAKES HIM MOST OF
THE SERVICES THAT HAVE GREAT
SUCCESS ARE.
STRICTLY HUMAN ACTS -- NOWADAYS
ALTHOUGH I FINANCING ONE OF THE
EXEMPTIONS AS DOMESTICATED CATS
A GOOD LUCK.
A PRESS CIRCUS TRYING TO FIND A
WAY TO HAVE CATS AS PART OF THE
PROPOSAL.
BUT IN ANY CASE -- OF A HAPPY
SUPPORT THE BILL AS IT IS OUR
MISSION.
YES YES YES WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND ON THE RIGHT.
OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE CENTER YOU
MAY CLOSE THANK YOU SIMPLY ASK
FOR YOU YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE AYE
GALLAGHER.
pCHOW.
CHOW I CHIU GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY [inaudible]
MAIENSCHEIN.
OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I REYES.
IT NEEDS TO MORE VOTES WILL
THERE ARE CLICK YOU VERY MUCH
THANK YOU.
AND WE SEEM TO BE OUT OF
SENATORS FOR THE MOMENT WE COULD.
SEE IF THEY'RE MORE AUTHORS ON
THEIR WAY THAT WOULD BE
[inaudible]
SENATOR MITCHELL.
WILL TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER SIX SB.
THREE TWENTY NINE GOOD MORNING
GOOD MORNING
.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
[inaudible]
GOOD MORNING.
HOW ARE YOU THIS FINE DAY WE'RE
GOOD?
OUR COLLEAGUES I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL THREE TWO
NINE THE BILL MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT LANDLORDS COULD NOT REJECT
A TENET SOLELY BASED ON THEIR
SOURCE OF INCOME.
THIS FUNDAMENTALLY IS AN ANTI
DISCRIMINATION MEASURE.
IT IS NOT A MANDATE AS REFLECTED
IN YOUR COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON
PAGE.
SIX OUR STATE CALIFORNIANS
RECEIVING HOUSING ASSISTANCE ARE
STRUGGLING TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY
DO THE BLANCA POLICIES BY
LANDLORDS WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT
IT.
AT THE SAME TIME LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE INCREASINGLY
TURNING TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE AS
A WAY OF SHIELDING TENANTS FROM
HIGH HOUSING COSTS.
AND PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS.
CITIES AND COUNTIES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES ALL
OVER THE NATION HAVE IMPLEMENTED
SOURCE OF INCOME PROTECTION FOR
ASSISTED FAMILIES WITH GREAT
SUCCESS.
BERKELEY SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO
IN SANTA MONICA ALL HAVE SOURCE
OF INCOME PROTECTIONS AND THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES HAS DRAFTED
AN ORDINANCE TO DO THE SAME.
UNDER THIS BILL LANDLORDS WOULD
STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SCREEN
VOUCHER HOLDING APPLICANTS USING
THE SAME CRITERIA THEY USE FOR
ANY OTHER POTENTIAL APPLICANTS.
THIS BILL WOULD ONLY BAR THEM
FROM REFUSING SOMEONE'S
APPLICATION JUST BECAUSE THEY
GET HELP PAYING THEIR RENT.
YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE
ADVERTISEMENTS TWO BEDROOM ONE
APARTMENT NELL SECTION. EIGHT
TWO BEDROOM ONE BATH NO SECTION
EIGHT THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS
ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PUBLISHED REPORTS THAT LOOK AT
THE ACCESSIBILITY OF HOUSING FOR
FAMILIES WITH SECTION EIGHT
VOUCHERS.
THAT STUDY FOUND THAT FOR EVERY
THIRTY NINE RENTAL
ADVERTISEMENTS FOR APARTMENTS
THAT A FAMILY WITH THE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE ABOUT YOUR COULD
AFFORD.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT DID NOT
WE'RE SOURCE OF INCOME
PROTECTIONS WERE NOT IN PLACE
DENIAL RATES FOR ASSISTED
FAMILIES WERE AS HIGH AS 75% OR
MORE.
IN JURISDICTIONS WITH SERVICE OF
INCOME PROTECTIONS THIS DID NOT
ALL RIGHT WAS ALMOST CUT IN HALF.
THIS SITUATION IS THAT
ACCEPTABLE.
IF WE FOUND OURSELVES FACING
DATA THAT 75% OF GROCERY STORES
REFUSE FOOD STAMPS AND PEOPLE
CAN USE IT TO BUY FOOD WE WOULD
CRY FILE.
IN THIS INSTANCE WITH REGARD TO
SECTION EIGHT VOUCHERS -- CRY
CRYING FOUL.
WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE
SITUATION FOR THE HOUSING
ASSISTANCE WE GIVE STRUGGLING
RESIDENTS.
EITHER ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S A
PROVEN POLICY AVAILABLE TO
CORRECT IT.
THE HOUSING CRISIS AS HIT
HARDEST LOW INCOME RENTERS
RISING RENTS LACK OF AVAILABLE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STAGNANT
INCOMES MAKE THIS POPULATION THE
MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO FALLING INTO
HOMELESSNESS.
MEMBERS THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE
IN AREAS THAT HAD BEEN
DEVASTATED BY NATURAL DISASTERS.
SUCH AS THE RECENT WILDFIRES
WHICH PUT US A FURTHER IN A
HOUSING DEFICIT.
WE'VE HEARD NUMEROUS CONCERNS
THE BILL'S BEEN DOUBLE REFERRED
IN BOTH HOUSES AND SO WE'VE
ENGAGE WITH THE OPPOSITION ON
ANY NUMBER OF OCCASIONS AND I
JUST LIKE.
TO ON THE FRONT AND ADDRESS SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD.
WE'VE HEARD EVERYTHING FROM OF
THE BURDEN SOME PROCESS TO
INSPECTION TIMES ADDITIONAL
COSTS AND WHETHER IT RESTRICTS
THE LANDLORDS ABILITY TO RAISE
THE RENT AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS
THOSE.
WITH REGARD TO BEING A BURDEN
SOME PROCESS THE INSPECTION
SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED AS A BURDEN
SINCE THEY ARE PERFORMED TO
ENSURE THAT TAXPAYER MONEY IS
USED APPROPRIATELY.
BY ENSURING THAT THE UNIT MEETS
EXISTING SAFETY AND BUILDING
STANDARDS.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES
TO ENSURE THAT CURRENT STANDARDS
ARE MET BUT THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE OBLIGATIONS OF A VOUCHER
EXCEPT LANDLORD AND A NON
VOUCHER ACCEPTING LANDLORDS.
WITH REGARD TO INSPECTION TIME.
FLIGHT DELAYS EXISTS WITH THE
LANDLORD BEGIN TO PARTICIPATE IN
A PROGRAM FOR THE FIRST TIME DUE
TO THE NEED TO COMPLETE ROUTINE
PAPERWORK AND HAVE A BASE
EXPECTS AND PERFORM.
AND THESE DELAYS VERY COUNTY BY
COUNTY CITY BY CITY.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE THE
PRE INSPECTION AW -- THEY HAVE A
PRE INSPECTION POLICY THAT'S ONE
BUSINESS DAY AFTER RECEIVING THE
REQUEST.
ORANGE COUNTY THE TURN AROUND
TIME AN ORANGE COUNTY IS QUICKEN
OFTEN DOES NOT EXTEND MORE THAN
TEN DAYS IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE
COMMON FOR NEW CONTRACT
INSPECTED TO HAPPEN WITHIN ONE
BUSINESS WEEK.
AS THEY PRIORITIZE NEW CONTRACTS
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FOR EXAMPLE
THEY HAVE A TRUCK THERE TURN
AROUND IS VERY QUICK THEY
INSPECT UNITS WITHIN THE SAME
DAY OR THE NEXT DAY.
DEPEND UPON THE THE AVAILABILITY
OF THE LANDLORD.
LA COUNTY MOUNT HOME COUNTY --
TENDS TO HAVE.
WE HAVE THE MOST CHALLENGES AS
WE LEARNED IN DOING THIS WORK --
BUT EVEN LOS ANGELES COUNTY THE
MAJORITY OF INSPECTIONS ARE
FINALIZED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS.
WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL COST
YOU TO REPAIRS TO ENSURE THAT
IT'S UP TO HEALTH AND SAFETY
STANDARDS ARE BASICALLY THE
COSTS THE LANDLORD HAVE -- TO
EXPERIENCE.
WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERN THAT
IT RESTRICTS THE LANDLORDS
ABILITY TO RAISE RENTS I WANT TO
CLARIFY VAL JEWS DO NOT LIMIT
THE AMOUNT THAT LANDLORDS CHOOSE
TO CHARGE FOR RENT.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE
TO APPROVE AN INCREASE ONCE SAID
ABOUT YOUR EIGHTEEN IT IS IS IS
A TENANT -- IF IT'S NOT APPROVED
IN THE TEN IT WOULD HAVE TO MOVE.
THE LANDLORD WOULDN'T BE
PROHIBITED FROM INCREASING THE
RANT THEY JUST MIGHT LOSE THAT
SECTION EIGHT TENANT IF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY.
BOB DOES NOT APPROVE THE
INCREASE.
THERE BEEN EXPRESSED CONCERNS
WITH REGARD TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF
INCREASED -- LAWSUITS.
AND THE REALITY IS FEE HOP
PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
VARIOUS CLASSES OF PEOPLE BUT
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A
LANDLORD WHO RECEIVED AN
APPLICATION FROM A QUALIFIED
TENANT WHO IS ALSO A MEMBER OF A
PROTECTED CLASS MUST ACCEPT THAT
PERSON.
IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM.
THE SAME IS TRUE WITH THIS BILL
AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE IT
REQUIRES LANDLORDS TO TREAT
FAMILIES WITH ASSISTANCE FAIRLY
AGAIN IT DOES NOT REQUIRE.
THAT LANDLORDS EXCEPT THE
SECTION EIGHT TENANT.
AGAIN BOTH THE SENATE JUDICIARY
IN THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY --
ANALYSES ARE QUITE CLEAR THAT
THE BILL IS NOT A MANDATE.
WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR
YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF
THIS MEASURE AND INTRODUCE YOU
TO LATOYA MCNEIL WHO IS AFFECTED
RESIDENT.
AND BILL SPONSORED SASHA HARMED
IN REPRESENTING THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY.
THANK YOU FIRST WITNESS PLEASE --
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
HI MY NAME IS LATOYA MAKE MALE
AND I REPRESENT FAITH IN THE
VALLEY.
OF SAN JOAQUIN AND PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA.
I'M HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF SENATE BILL.
THREE TWO THREE TWO NINE WHAT'S
WILL HELP TENANTS WITH HOUSING
ASSISTANCE BY REQUIRING
LANDLORDS TO LET THEM.
APPLY FOR HOUSING JUST LIKE
ANYONE ELSE.
I PREVIOUSLY HAVE SECTION EIGHT
TO HELP ME PAY MY RENT.
I WAS EXTREMELY GRATEFUL WHEN I
RECEIVED MY SECTION.
EIGHT I MY HOPE WAS THAT IT
WOULD PROVIDE.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO CREATE
STABILITY FOR MY SON SO THAT HE
WOULD NOT BECOME ANOTHER
STATISTIC.
HOUSING STABILITY ALLOWS KIDS TO
FOCUS ON WHAT THEY SHOULD FOCUS
ON THEIR EDUCATION -- WHEN I
FIRST GOT MY VOUCHER I ONLY HAD
TWO MONTHS TO LOOK FOR AN
APARTMENT THAT INCLUDED THE ONLY
ACCEPTING IT AND ME MOVING IN?
I ENDED UP LOOKING AT ABOUT
THIRTY TO FORTY APARTMENTS.
AFTER I GOT MY VOUCHER I HAVE TO
REQUEST AN EXTENSION SO THAT IT
WOULD EXPIRE.
I FOUND A PLACE BECAUSE NONE OF
THE APARTMENTS.
I COULD AFFORD.
WOULD LET ME APPLY WITH MY
VOUCHER.
KNOWING THAT THE VOUCHER WAS
GETTING READY TO EXPIRE I WAS
STRESSED SICK TO MY STOMACH I
WAS HAVING A HARD TIME SLEEPING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS WHAT SEEM
TO BE A REALLY GREAT OPPORTUNITY.
I FINALLY DID FIND AN APARTMENT
THAT WOULD ACCEPT MY VOUCHER ON
THE LAST DAY BEFORE IT EXPIRED.
EVEN AFTER GIVEN THE EXTENSION I
CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO EXPRESS HOW
OVER WITH JULY I FELT.
I HAD FINALLY SECURED A PLACE
THAT I COULD AFFORD AND WE WERE
NO LONGER HOMELESS.
HOWEVER ABOUT SIX MONTHS.
AFTER MOVING IN WI EXPERIENCE
MULTIPLE HOME INVASIONS.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED BUT I REALIZE
THAT.
I NEEDED TO MOVE. TO A DIFFERENT
HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD TO ENSURE
THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY
UNFORTUNATELY I COULDN'T FIND A
NEW PLACE THAT WOULD ACCEPT THE
VOUCHER.
SO I GAVE UP MY HOUSING
ASSISTANCE BECAUSE I WASN'T
COMFORTABLE STAYING IN ANOTHER.
DANGEROUS SITUATION IN ORDER TO
USE IT.
NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO GIVE
UP THEIR HOUSING ASSISTANCE
AFTER SPENDING YEARS WAITING --
JUST BECAUSE A LANDLORD WON'T
TAKE IT OR WON'T EVEN LET ME
APPLY.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON SB.
THREE TWO NINE THANK YOU THAT'S
WHAT THIS PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS I'M
SUCH A HARD TIME WITH THE
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY.
PROUD TO CO SPONSOR SENATE BILL
THREE TWENTY NINE WHICH IS
CRITICAL TO EFFORTS TO ADDRESS --
RISING HOMELESSNESS WE RECENTLY
SAW A DOUBLE DIGIT INCREASES
ACROSS THE STATE AND ARE
HOMELESS POPULATION.
THE BILL INSTITUTES A PROVEN
SOLUTION BUT JUST -- PROHIBITING
DISCRIMINATION AND BLANKET BANS
AGAINST RENTERS WHO RECEIVE
HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO HELP PAY
THE RENT.
AND WHILE IT APPLIES TO ALL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
DISCRIMINATION THE BIGGEST
IMPACT IS FOR THE APPROXIMATELY
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND FAMILIES
IN CALIFORNIA WHO RECEIVE --
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER ALSO
KNOWN AS SECTION.
EIGHT THE BILL STILL ALLOWS
LANDLORDS TO SCREEN APPLICANTS
FOR CREDIT HISTORY RENTAL
HISTORY ON THE LIKE A BUT SIMPLY
REQUIRES THAT THESE CRITERIA BE
EVENLY APPLIED EQUALLY TO
VOUCHER HOLDERS AND NON VOUCHER
HOLDERS ALIKE.
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA -- LIKE WE
HEARD AFTER WAITING YEARS TO
RECEIVE IT FAMILIES ARE
INCREASINGLY FINDING THEMSELVES
UNABLE TO USE THEIR HOUSING
ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OF THESE
BLANKET BANS.
HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS
REPORT THIS IS FRUSTRATING THEIR
EFFORTS TO EXPAND RAPIDLY
HOUSING DOLLARS AND KEEP
FAMILIES -- OFF OF THE STREETS
AND AND STABLE A HOUSE -- THIS
ASSISTANCE GIVES OUR LOWEST
INCOME FAMILIES THE CHANCE TO
LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS OF
OPPORTUNITY BY ALLOWING THEM TO
SHOP FOR AN APARTMENT ON THE
PRIVATE MARKET.
THE FAMILY PAYS 30% OF THEIR
INCOME TOWARDS THEIR RENT AND
THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE REST
DIRECTLY TO THEIR LANDLORD --
WHAT LANDLORDS CAN SET THE RENT
OUT IS NOT DICTATED BY THE
PROGRAM BUT FAMILIES SIMPLY NEED
TO SHOP FOR AN APARTMENT THAT
MEETS THE PAYMENT STANDARD ON
THEIR VOUCHER -- MUCH OF OUR
OPPOSITION HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON
THE INITIAL INSPECTION PROCESS
WHEN A TENANT MOVES AND WHICH IS
PERFORMED TO MAKE SURE THE UNIT
MAKES BASIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
STANDARDS.
AND EVEN IF THERE ARE
DEFICIENCIES TENANTS CAN STILL
MOVE AND AS LONGAS THOSE
CONDITIONS ARE LIFE THREATENING.
AND LANDLORDS HAVE THE ABILITY
TO ESSENTIALLY GET BACK PAY ONCE
THOSE DEFICIENCIES ARE RESOLVED --
THE BILL WOULD BE ENFORCED
PRIMARILY THROUGH THE D. FH
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCESS
WHICH IS GEARED TOWARDS
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT.
AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN LITIGATION
AROUND SOURCE OF INCOME
PROTECTIONS IT'S TYPICALLY BEEN
DONE BY PUBLIC INTEREST
ORGANIZATIONS OR CITY IS SEEKING
TO ADDRESS REPEATED VIOLATIONS
AND BAD ACTORS -- SO WE DON'T
EXPECT A HUGE INCREASE IN
LITIGATION FROM THIS BILL.
GIVEN THE RELATIVELY MINIMAL
BURDEN FOR LANDLORDS AND A HUGE
BENEFIT TO STRUGGLING FAMILIES
WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE WE
RESPECTFULLY RICHER IPHONE THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU GO FOR GIVE US YOUR NAME
AND YOUR ORGANIZATION PLEASE.
HI MY NAME IS SEVEN MEN TEN I'M
WITH VOICES FOR PROGRESS MANY OF
OUR MEMBERS ARE REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPERS AND ALSO MANY OWN
RENTAL UNITS WHO RAN TO SECTION.
EIGHT VOUCHER HOLDERS THAT
POSITIVE EXPERIENCES -- THEY
VIEW THIS BILL AS A MORAL ISSUE
AND HAVE IT PRIORITY
RECOMMENDATION ON IT THANK YOU.
BRIAN A GUEST ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION PLEASE TO
CO SPONSOR THE BILL URGENT OUR
VOTE.
RACHEL WALLACE WITH THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIA IN STRONG SUPPORT.
MORNING LA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HERE AS A CO SPONSOR.
MICHAEL MCNULTY STATE COUNSELING
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND
SUPPORT.
CHRIS MARTIN AND WE HAVE A
HOUSING CALIFORNIA COSPONSORED
SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING SHARON REPORT WITH
THE CORPORATION FOR SUPPORT OF
HOUSING AND SUPPORT -- MICHAEL
RIGHT AGAIN ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SANTA CLARA
COUNTY IN SUPPORT.
THIS CHAIR MEMBERS AS ARE THE
OTHER HALF THE STATE BUILDING
AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
STRONG SUPPORT.
MR CHEN MEMBERS CAITLIN VEGA FOR
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
ALSO HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT.
MARILYN CHE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING
AUTHORITIES POWER CO SPONSOR
THIS BILL.
IN SUPPORT.
CAN LOW'S REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR YOUTH
IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING JACKIE ALONG WITH
AND TELL PARTING CALIFORNIA AND
AND ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILIES
LIKE MYSELF WHO ACTUALLY
BENEFITTED FROM.
HOUSING SUBSIDIES AND NOW
OTHERWISE WITHOUT THOSE
SUBSIDIES WOULD'VE BEEN HOMELESS
AND NOW WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PAY FOR EXAMPLE.
HI LAURIE FURSTENFELD CHILD CARE
LAWCENTER IN SUPPORT.
LOUIS BROWN DOING WITH POLICY WE
CAN SUPPORT.
LOUIS MANTE WITH CALIFORNIA BE
IN SUPPORT.
WEST ON WHEN WE HAVE A SPARE IN
A IN SUPPORT.
SYLVIA SOLUTION ON BEHALF OF
CITY OFLOS ANGELES MAYOR ERIC
GARCETTI IN SUPPORT AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA THANK YOU.
RAIN ESPINOSA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND SUPPORT.
KERR CHILD DISABILITY RIGHTS
CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT.
JOE RIGHT OUT WITH CONSUMER
ACTION ALSO IN SUPPORT.
MY NAME IS KATIE DIXON I'M A
SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER RESIDENT A
SUPPORT THIS BILL.
RESIDENTS ALSO BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING -- CAM CORDER FROM
TIME WHICH I FOUNDATION HOW.
WAKE UP.
BY HOUSING HOUSING IS NOW ONE
THING YOU NEED WAKE UP IN THE
MORNING I WANT TO SAY THAT
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND COMING
FROM A PERSON WHO HAD OUT CHAIR
FOR YOU TO MAKE SURE HOUSING
BUBBLE.
THANK YOU MISTER STONE THANK YOU.
WHERE SHE SAID NAM THEIR
SEPARATION AND ARE?
A STRONG SUPPORT THIS BILL THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND THANK YOU.
SEEING NO FURTHER SUPPORT IS
THEIR OPPOSITION.
SELECT IF THEY CAN DO THAT.
I WOULD LOOK UP AND SEE OUT OF
WELCOME TO COME UP TO THE TABLE
IF YOU AYE.
GOOD MORNING THE CHAIRMAN THEN
MEMBERS MY NAME IS DEBORAH CARL
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION.
YOU KNOW WE CONTINUE TO PROMOTE
THAT IT'S NOT THE VOUCHER HOLDER
IT'S A PROGRAM.
IF THIS WAS JUST ABOUT
ADVERTISEMENTS OR APPLICATION.
WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS
BILL BUT IT'S MUCH MORE THAN
THAT.
BUT SOME RENTAL PROPERTY UNDER
SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE WHERE
WITH ALL TO PARTICIPATE
FINANCIALLY OR OTHERWISE IN THE
PROGRAM THE PROGRAM REQUIRES
JUST CAUSING FICTION IN ORDER TO
TERMINATE BAD ACTING TENANTS.
AND THERE ARE DELAYS AS A RESULT
OF INSPECTIONS AGAIN WE DON'T
DISAGREE WITH INSPECTIONS THAT
HAPPENS IN ALMOST ALL CITIES
TODAY.
IT'S THE DELAY THAT WE OBJECT.
TO YOU'RE NOW ALSO CITES A CASE
IN WHICH THE VOUCHER HOLDER
RAISE THE ISSUE OF STIGMA.
WE DON'T AGREE HOWEVER THAT
STIGMA EQUATES TO THE TRUTH
ABOUT SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER
HOLDERS BUT IT DOES EQUATE
UNFORTUNATELY. TO INCREASED
INSURANCE COST WE TRIED TO MOVE
A BILL -- MISTER MAIENSCHEIN HAD
YEARS AGO THAT WOULD STOP THIS
PRACTICE -- ABOUT THE PROVISIONS
THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE
INCREASE -- INSURANCE COSTS WAS
REMOVED SOMETIMES WE SEE AS MUCH
AS 20% INCREASES IN THE
INSURANCE COSTS -- AND
ESPECIALLY ALSO WHEN IT COMES TO
TERMINATING A TENDENCY THERE'S
INCREASED COSTS WHEN IT COMES.
TO LEGAL FEES -- WE DISAGREE
THAT THIS IS NOT A MANDATE.
IF THE ONLY APPLICANT THAT COMES
TO YOU IS A SECTION.
EIGHT RECIPIENT.
WE WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OR THE
OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SIGN.
A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS OR FACE LEGAL
CHALLENGES THAT HAS BEEN THE
CASE IN THE PAST.
AND SUCCESSFULLY HOWEVER BUT
WITH THIS BILL -- THERE WOULD BE
INCREASED A MANDATE AND THERE
WOULD BE INCREASED COSTS AS IT
RELATES TO LEGAL FEES OF DEFENSE
SO WITH THAT WE ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE.
THANK YOU EXODUS BUT THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIRMAN -- RUN KINGSTON
REPRESENTING THREE REGIONAL
APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS ORANGE
COUNTY EAST BAY RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION.
AND THE APARTMENT SO SHE XIN
CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CITIES WE TO
JOIN -- THE OPPOSITION -- THIS
BILL -- WE HAVE ASKED FOR AN
AMENDMENT -- FROM THE AUTHOR.
THAT THE REAL ESSENTIAL POINT
HERE IS WE ARE NOT VILIFYING THE
TENANT APPLICANT.
IT IS THE PROGRAM THAT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY PROGRAM A CALL IT
DOES CAUSE DELAYS WE'VE
DOCUMENTED IT. TO THE DEGREE
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS STATED AND
THE PROPONENTS OF STATED THAT
THERE ARE VERY FEW DELAYS LET ME
WALK THROUGH AND THEN PROPOSED
AN AMENDMENT -- THE AUTHOR HAS
SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS EITHER
ZERO DAYS OR ONE DAY TO INSPECT.
IT IS THE INSPECTION ONCE THE
APPLICANT HAS -- APPEAR BEFORE
THE PERSPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNER
OR MANAGER -- IT IS THE THEN THE
PROCESS BEGINS THE PROCESS DOES
RESULT IN AN INSPECTION IF THERE
ARE ANY CORRECTIONS AT ALL IT IS
DONE INSTANTANEOUSLY.
IT DOES TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS. TO
GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IN MANY MANY JURISDICTIONS TO
THAT A CELL.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING
AND REQUESTING OF THE AUTHOR AND
THE PROPONENTS.
THAT IF IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS
VERY LITTLE DELAY ONE DAY TWO
DAYS.
FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETED
APPLICATION THEN PERHAPS WE
SHOULD MEMORIALIZE THAT IN THE
BILL.
AND WHAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR IS AT
THE VERY END OF THE BILL ON PAGE
SEVEN LINES.
NINE IS JUST SAY THAT IF AN
APPLICANT -- IS ABLE TO OCCUPY
THE HOUSING WITHIN THREE
BUSINESS DAYS OF OF AND OFFERED
TO RENT.
THEN -- THE PROCESS SHOULD ALLOW
A SECTION EIGHT APPLICANT TO DO
SO.
DAD IT WOULD REALLY HELP IN
SANTA BARBARA IT WOULD REALLY
HELP AND ORANGE COUNTY IT WOULD
REALLY HELP IN MANY
JURISDICTIONS THAT CAN ALMOST
INSTANTANEOUSLY TURN THIS AROUND.
BUT WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT IT
REALLY PUTS THE HOUSING%
AUTHORITY AND THE INSPECTION
PROCESS.
AS A HIGH PRIORITY -- FOR FOR
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IF THEY
REALLY TRULY WANT TO GET THE
APPLICANT SECTION EIGHT
APPLICANTS IN THAT HOUSING --
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT REALLY
DOES SOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM
WITH THE BILL AND IF THE
AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTED.
THEN WE WOULD DROP OUR
OPPOSITION THANK YOU THANK YOU
NEXT WITNESS PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING -- MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS CREAM THREE CM BEHALF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND STRONG ADAM IN
OPPOSITION TO WHAT GOVERNOR
BROWN CALLED A MANDATE NOW WHEN
HE VETOED SB FOURTEEN TWENTY
SEVEN LAST YEAR -- HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY HAVE
REGARDING OUR POSITION AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NO VOTE
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION PLEASE GIVE US YOUR
NAME AND YOUR AFFILIATION
INTERFERE WITH CAL CALIFORNIA
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION.
ALSO IN OPPOSING ESTIMATED
POSITION PRECIADO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR STAFF AS WELL AS
COMMITTEE STAFF ON A PROPOSED
AMENDED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
MR MEMBERS PAT RIGHT WITH THEIR
IN READING ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
JUST KILEY.
A CRISIS FOR CARBOCATIONS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT -- AT HOW CAN
THAT WE UNDERSTATE Là GIVE
FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES A
DEADLINE.
FOR INSPECTIONS.
THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY.
A HALF HOUR.
IS THE ADMINISTRATOR AND ONCE IT
IS HANDED OVER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.
THAT THEY SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED
THE PROGRAM.
AT SO CONSEQUENTLY JUST LIKE
TODAY -- WHAT?
REGARDLESS OF JURISDICTION LET'S
PICK ON SACRAMENTO OR ORANGE
COUNTY EAST -- SAN DIEGO IT
DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE
ONCE THEY HAVE WITH THE BECOME
ADMINISTRATOR.
THEY DECIDE HOW FAST TO MOVE THE
PROGRAM THEY ADMINISTER THE
INSPECTION PROGRAM THEY SIGNED
THE CONTRACT THEY DO EVERYTHING --
ADD TO THAT IS THAT SEEMS TO BE
THE SOLUTION. TO THE BIGGEST
PROBLEM OF THE BILL.
AND SO.
MR KILEY WE HAVE.
WRITTEN AMENDMENTS WE'VE
SUBMITTED THEM TO THE AUTHOR OF
THAT IS NOT TRUE I HAVE NOT
RECEIVED THOSE WITH THE MEMORY
SAID MA'AM AND I RECEIVED AT
FIVE TWENTY FOUR THIS MORNING IS
NOT THE MEAN THAT YOU JUST
RATTLE MY OFFICE NOR I HAVE
RIGHT WE THAT WE ARE.
NOT CURRENTLY CONTEMPLATING
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS SO IF I IF
IF YOU DO WANT TO MAKE
AMENDMENTS OR TALK TO THE AUTHOR.
VIEW YOU'VE REGISTERED YOUR
OPPOSITION YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE
BUT WAIT IN DUE RESPECT WE DID
DROP OFF THE AMENDMENTS WE LEFT
HIM. TO YOUR STAFF.
BY AND IT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU TO CRAFT THE
APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT SO THE
LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY THE
ADMINISTRATOR JUMP ON THE ISSUE
AND GET THE PROBLEM SOLVED.
ALL RIGHT.
POINTS BEEN MADE THOSE LIMITS
ARE NOT CURRENTLY FOR THE
COMMITTEE.
THIS GALLAGHER [inaudible]
SO -- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
HOW THIS WOULD WORK.
YEAH ON THE HYPOTHETICAL.
I'M SORRY YOU SAY I'M YOU LOOK
LIKE YOU'RE DONE I APOLOGIZE FOR
STEPPING IN SO THIS KAYLEE
FINISH AND THEN WE'LL GO TO
GALLAGHER WAS THE ONE THAT I
CONCERN I HAD IS THAT.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WILL
REJECT THE USE OF A VOUCHER OF
THE RENT IS DEEMED UNREASONABLY
HIGH CORRECT SO.
IN THE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE
ADOPTED THE SORT OF POLICY
LOCALLY HAVE YOU SEEN YOU KNOW
UNSCRUPULOUS LANDLORDS WHO IN
ORDER TO AVOID TAKING -- SECTION
EIGHT TENANTS WILL RAISE THE
RENT IN ORDER TO MAKE -- THOSE
UNITS NOT ELIGIBLE.
WE HAVE NOT AND AGAIN THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY TAKE
SECTION EIGHT TENANT SO IT
WOULDN'T AT AN UNSCRUPULOUS
LANDLORD WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO
THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT
CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO ACCEPT
SECTION.
EIGHT BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT
WE'VE SEEN -- IT AND IN AND
IGNORED NUMBER OF HOUSING
AUTHORITIES THAT HAVE DENIED
RENTAL INCREASES COULD YOU SPEAK
TO THAT THE WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANY
REPORTS LIKE THAT OF MY
ORGANIZATIONS BEEN INVOLVED IN
SOME OF THE SORT OF DEFENDING
SOME OF THE LOCAL POLICIES
AGAINST CHALLENGES WHICH HAVE
BEEN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED.
AS WELL AS IMPLEMENTING SOME OF
THESE LOCAL POLICIES AND WE
HAVEN'T HEARD REPORTS FROM THE
LEAGUE LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS
THAT WE SUPPORT ABOUT THAT
PROBLEM.
SORRY THIS GALLAGHER -- SO I'M
JUST TRYING TO THINK LIKE HOW
THIS.
NOW THE SKIN SUPPLEMENTED I MEAN
IN THE IN THE LET'S SAY
HYPOTHETICALLY -- YOU KNOW.
THE LANDLORD PUTS OUT
APPLICATIONS.
BUNCH PEOPLE THOUGHT THE
APPLICATION NOT AN AD FEES
APPLICATION RIGHT WELL LET'S SAY
THEY DON'T DO ANALYSIS AT THE
PUT APPLICATIONS IN.
OUT FRONT.
THIS RIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF THEIR
RENTAL FOR RENT RIGHT AND THEN
PEOPLE COME BY AND FILL OUT AN
APPLICATION RIGHT IN THAT IN
THAT SITUATION.
AND AND IF SOMEBODY PUTS ON
THERE WELL I AM GOING TO ON THE
APPLICATION I AM GONNA USE
SECTION EIGHT HOUSING.
WOULD A LANDLORDS A WALL I
REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO SECTION
EIGHT SO I'M NOT GOING TO CHOOSE.
THIS APPLICANT I'M GONNA CHOOSE
SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD THAT BE
PROHIBITED UNDER THIS BILL.
WHAT THIS BILL WOULD SAY IS THAT
IF -- MY VOUCHER IS -- A SOURCE
OF INCOME.
AND IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE
APPLICANTS AND BY CREDIT CHECK --
IS EQUAL TO OTHER APPLICANTS MY
INCOME INCLUDING THE VOUCHER IS
EQUAL TO OTHER APPLICANTS THAT
YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO CONSIDER MY
APPLICATION AS YOU DO OTHER
APPLICANTS WITH WITH WITH EQUAL.
OF RELEVANT BACKGROUND SOLID
BACKGROUND CREDIT HISTORY INCOME
ALL IT SAYS IS THAT YOU MUST
CONSIDER MY APPLICATION AS WELL
THAT YOU CAN'T SIMPLY -- DENY MY
APPLICATION BASED SOLELY ON THE
SOURCE OF MY INCOME.
SO WHAT IF ALL THINGS WERE EQUAL
LET'S SAY ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL
BUT USUALLY HAS YOUR TENANT YOU
HAD. ONE ONE APPLICANT WHO IS
SECTION A AND ONE WHO IS NOT.
YOU CHOOSE YOUR TENANT.
AND THEN I CAN CHU I COULD
CHOOSE THAT TENET DOES NOT A
SECTION EIGHT BECAUSE MAYBE I
JUST.
I THINK A LOT OF LANDLORDS
ACTUALLY CHOOSE SECTION A
BECAUSE IT'S GUARANTEED INCOME
LIKE IT'S GET GOING TO GET PAID
FOR IT RIGHT SO I THINK I'LL AND
I THINK THE CONTENTION THAT
SOMEBODY WOULD NEVER WANT TO
SECTION EIGHT IS NOT REALLY TRUE.
BUT BUT IF I CHOSE SOMEONE IS
NOT SECTION.
EIGHT IN MY OPENING THE DOOR TO
LIABILITY OR AT LEAST SOMEONE
BRINGING A LAWSUIT AGAINST ME.
BECAUSE AS YOU SAID YOU DON'T
WANT.
TO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE INTENT
AS YOU WANT LANDLORDS TO BE ABLE
TO CHOOSE WHETHER NOT THEY WANT
TO PARTICIPATE IN SECTION EIGHT
OR NOT MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT -- SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER
HOLDERS LIKE OUR WITNESS.
HAS A FAIR SHOT AT FINDING A
HOUSING SUITABLE FOR HER.
MY INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT I
AM NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
SOLELY BASED ON THE SOURCE OF MY
INCOME -- ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS
SCAN -- ADS -- THAT THAT I THINK
WOULD CHALLENGE YOUR ASSUMPTION
THAT PEOPLE DON'T ACCEPT SECTION
EIGHT IT IS A COMMON THING TO
SEE AN AD. TWO BEDROOM ONE BATH
NO SECTION EIGHT YOU SEE IT ON
SIGNS POSTED AS YOU SUGGESTED.
ON APARTMENTS AND HOMES FOR RENT --
AND SO I I CHALLENGE AT THAT
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE
BLANKET POLICY THAT THEY DO NOT
ACCEPT SECTION.
EIGHT AGAIN WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS
IF YOU HAVE -- MULTIPLE
APPLICANTS AND LORD KNOWS TODAY
THIS IS NOT A RENTER'S MARKET
THERE MORE WINTERS LOOKING FOR
UNITS IN THERE ARE AVAILABLE
UNITS SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
MULTIPLE APPLICANTS.
ALL WE'RE ASKING IS THAT I'M NOT
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED ON
MY SOURCE OF INCOME THAT YOU.
INCLUDE ME IN YOUR DECISION
MAKING PROCESS.
YOUR ANALYSIS.
CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS NOT A
MANDATE YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO
TAKE ME AS YOUR TENANT WE'RE
SIMPLY ASKING THAT YOU INCLUDE
ME IN YOUR OPTIONS OF PEOPLE
YOU'RE GONNA MAKE YOUR SELECTION
FROM.
READ BUT IF.
IF LIKE WE SAID IN A HYPO IF
EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT OTHERWISE AND
I'D AND I DON'T USE THE SECTION
8%.
AM I NOT DISCRIMINATING AS A
SECTION EIGHT PERSON BECAUSE I
AM LOOK AT THE ONLY REASON I'M
NOT CHOOSING THAT PERSON.
IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN SECTION.
EIGHT RIGHT ON RIGHT I'M NOT
SURE THAT YOUR ONLY REASONABLE
IF WE HADN'T RAM IF YOU READ
THEM IS IT A HYPOTHETICALLY OKAY.
ALL RIGHT I THINK IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO POINT OUT THAT WE
HAVE EXISTING SOURCE OF INCOME
PROTECTIONS RIGHT NOW -- THAT
APPLY TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF OF
INCOME WE JUST HAVE A SPECIFIC
CARVE OUT FOR HOUSING ASSISTANCE
SO FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU GET AN
APPLICANT.
WHO INTENDS TO PAY WITH WAGES
FROM A JOB AND ANOTHER APPLICANT
WHO INTENDS TO PAY WITH SOCIAL
SECURITY?
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT
AS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION.
BUT YOU ARE STILL FREE TO CHOOSE
AMONG QUALIFIED APPLICANTS AND
DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF
LIABILITY CREATED BY YOU KNOW
THOSE PROTECTIONS -- AND THEN I
THINK THE OTHER IMPORTANT POINT
ON THE LIABILITY QUESTION IS
THERE IS THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINT PROCESS -- AND SO EVEN
IF SOMEBODY IS MAKING THE CLAIM
THAT THAT WAS THE REASON FOR
YOUR DECISION -- IT TYPICALLY
GETS RESOLVED THROUGH.
MEDIATION AND AND SORT OF AN
INVESTIGATION PROCESS AT THE
IDEA OF THE H. IT RARELY GOES TO
LITIGATION.
RIGHT -- MULLIN ALL THAT I MEAN
OPPOSITION IF YOU WANTED TO
RESPOND ANY OF THOSE POOR THINK
THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD
IS THAT -- IF THE ONLY APPLICANT
AS I STATED EARLIER WERE THE
SECTION EIGHT APPLICATION YET
THE OWNER HAD NOT SIGNED A
CONTRACT WITH YOUR LOCAL HOUSING
AUTHORITY.
THERE PROBABLY WOULD BE A
MANDATE THAT YOU GO DOWN TO SIGN
THE CONTRACT I THINK THAT'S
WHERE WE'RE KIND OF DIFFERING.
YES IF THERE'S AN THE ONLY
APPLICANT AND THE ONLY AFRICAN
IS SECTION EIGHT AND YET I
HAVEN'T SIGNED A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT DO I HAVE TO SIGN A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
IF YOU SAY NO.
WE'RE GOOD TO GO I'M A LANDLORD.
AND WHEN I POST.
A UNIT THAT'S OPEN THERE'S NO
CUT OFF TIME AND SO I HAVE
APPLICANTS THAT COME IN IN THE
BUNDLE I HAVE MAY HAVE ONE THAT
ARRIVES ON MONDAY.
I MAY HAVE TEN THAT ARRIVE
TUESDAY WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY SO
THERE'S NO CUT OFF TIME SO WHEN
YOU SAY YOU RECEIVED ONE
APPLICATION.
I CAN'T IMAGINE A SCENARIO IN
THIS MARKET WHERE FOR RENTAL
UNIT.
THAT YOU GO TO RECEIVE ONE
APPLICANT PERIOD SO WE'RE NOT
SAYING.
THERE'S NO CUT OFF TIME IF I UP
LIST ON CRAIG'S LIST OR
APARTMENTS DOT COM.
MY UNIT.
APPLICATIONS ROLAND CONSISTENTLY
AND THEN I AS A LANDLORD MAKE MY
DECISION ABOUT WHEN I WANT TO
MAKE MY DECISION.
AND SO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT
THE ONE APPLICATION EXAMPLE I
JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS
IT IS NOT LIKELY THE FIRST.
IN THE DOOR THE FIRST QUALIFIED
IS THE ONE YOU SHOULD ACCEPT IF
YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE THE
DISCRIMINATION CLAIM.
SO THAT'S MY POINT IS THE FIRST
IN FIRST QUALIFIED IF YOU'RE
GONNA LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN FOR
WEEKS.
FINE BUT I THINK THAT THE
QUESTION BECOMES WHERE IS THE
LINE IT WHICH YOU FACE
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DIDN'T
ACCEPT THE FIRST INCOME THE
FIRST QUALIFY AND I'M GONNA STOP
THE BACK AND FORTH.
GRANDSON QUESTIONS FROM FROM
MEMBERS RIGHT I THINK IT HAS A
POINT AND THAT THAT THAT IS A
HYPOTHETICAL YOU CAN ANSWER THE
THE SITE AND I THINK THE POINT
IS.
IT SEEMS TO ME IS THIS THE IT IT
IT IT POTENTIALLY OPENS THE DOOR
FOR MORE LITIGATION.
FIRST IN FOR SOMEONE TO SAY WELL
HEY I THINK YOU DIDN'T.
ADD THAT THINK YOU DIDN'T READ
TO ME BECAUSE OF THAT NOW THIS
REASON.
RIGHT.
AND MAYBE YOU DIDN'T WRITE LIKE
YOUR YOUR LANDLORD MAYBE YOU
JUST SAID HEY I'VE LOOKED AT ALL
THINGS BEING EQUAL I DON'T
REALLY WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN
SECTION EIGHT SO.
I'M CHOOSING THIS APPLICANT
RIGHT BUT IF YOU GET SUED IT
REALLY DOESN'T MATTER YOU GOT
OFFENDED.
RIGHT [inaudible]
I DISAGREE.
CHUCK.
PUMP I JUST WANNA GET A
CLARIFICATION WHETHER OR NOT --
THE LANDLORDS ARE REQUIRED TO
SIGN THAT THE SIGNED CONTRACT
WITH LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY I'M
GONNA BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY BUT I JUST WANT TO GET IT.
IN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND
AND AND A CLARIFICATION WHETHER
OR NOT.
THE THE LANGUAGE ARE REQUIRED TO
DO.
YOU KNOW ARE MANDATED TO SIGN A
CONTRACT WITH THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY.
RIGHT SO IF THE LANDLORD DOES
CHOOSE TO RENT TO A SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER HOLDER THEY WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO SIGN A CONTRACT
WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY -- A
CONTRACT THAT SAYS THEY'RE GOING
TO RESPECT TENNIS GREATS
MAINTAIN THEIR UNITS SO WHAT DO
THE TYPICAL THINGS THAT THAT
LANDLORDS ARE ALREADY REQUIRED
TO DO ON THE OTHER HAND IF
DELYLAH DOES NOT TILL WISH.
TO OUR RENT THAT PLACE TO TO
THAT PARTICULAR POTENTIAL TEN
AND THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO DO
SO.
RIGHT.
YEAH IT'S ONLY ONCE ONCE THEY
HAVE ACCEPTED A SPECIFIC TENANT
THEN THERE IS A CONTRACT THAT
GOES ALONG WITH THAT PERSON'S
LEAKS.
THE QUESTION THIS FEATURE NORTH.
SORRY JUST TO PICK UP ON THAT
QUESTION IS THAT HOW IS THAT
ALSO YOUR INTERPRETATION.
THAT IS NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION.
OKAY SIR.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING
MY HEAD AROUND SOME OF THIS
BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A
FUNDAMENTAL DISCONNECT IN TERMS
OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS CREATES A
MANDATE SO.
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEES
ANALYSIS SAYS THIS DOES NOT
CREATE A MANDATE DEPOSITIONS
INTERPRETATION AND INDEED JERRY
BROWN'S INTERPRETATION OF A
SIMILAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
LAST YEAR WAS THAT IT CREATED A
MANDATE.
HI I'M TRYING REALLY HARD TO
RECONCILE THAT PERHAPS IF YOU
COULD TELL ME WHY YOU THINK IT
DOES CREATE A MANDATE.
AND THEN THE AUTHOR CAN TELL US
WHY SHE PLEASE IT DOES NOT
CREATE A MANDATE.
AGAIN ON ON A HYPOTHETICAL.
NOT SAYING THAT WE WOULD ALWAYS
ONLY HAVE ONE APPLICANT BUT IF
WE DO HAVE ONE APPLICANT.
AND I'M WILLING TO SAY EXCEPT
SECTION NAY BUT I HAVE NOT
SIGNED A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT NOR
DO I WANT TO SIGN A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT.
THERE WILL BE A LAWSUIT.
THAT'S WHAT OUR CONCERN IS SO WE
SAY THAT IS A MANDATE.
DOES THAT HELP.
SO THERE'S ONLY AND I MANDATE
EXISTS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT
THERE'S A SINGLE APPLICANT OR
AMENDED EXISTS IN OTHER AGAIN WE
WOULD STAND FIRST QUALIFIED EVEN
IF YOU'RE GOING TO WAIT AND HOLD
THE DOOR OPEN FOREVER.
IF YOU'RE GONNA WAIT AND HOLD
THE DOOR OPEN FOREVER I WOULD
ARGUE AGAIN THERE'S LEGAL
LIABILITY BECAUSE YOU WAITED.
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT EXCEPT
THAT FIRST APPLICANT BECAUSE YOU
DIDN'T WANT TO GO SIGN THE
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
I WOULD HAVE YOU MIGHT HAVE
THREE COMING IN BEHIND IT BUT IF
YOU'RE GONNA LEAVE IT OPEN UNTIL
THERE IS NO SECTION EIGHT
APPLICANTS.
THERE'S GONNA BE LEGAL LIABILITY.
NUYS CA ARE AGREES WITH THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GALLAGHER'S
ASSESSMENT NOW WE'VE HEARD FROM
OUR MEMBERS ON THIS ISSUE -- AN
INTERESTING FACT FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE OF THE
COMMITTEE -- IS THAT -- A LOT OF
PEOPLE FORGET THIS YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A REAL ESTATE LICENSE TO
PERFORM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES OR OR MEMBERS DEAL WITH
THIS ON A DAILY BASIS -- AND
WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US THE
FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM
THEM IS THAT EVEN IF YOU GET
MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS.
YOU STILL HAVE TO PICK THAT
OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE SECTION EIGHT
APPLICANT OR RISK FACING
LITIGATION AND SO THIS IS GOING
TO CREATE A VERY MURKY WORLD --
IN THE LANDLORD TENANT SPACE --
AND WE BELIEVE THAT'S WHY
GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO IT LAST
YEAR [inaudible]
OKAY.
THEN MAY I RESPOND YEAH.
FIRST OF ALL I SB FOURTEEN
TWENTY SEVEN IT WAS RAISED BY
THE OPPOSITION THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE AND AND I BROUGHT TO
THEIR ATTENTION AND THAT THAT
WAS NOT A BILL THEY SUPPORTED.
EITHER SO I'M NOT SURE WHY IT'S
BEING REFERENCED -- TODAY -- IN
REFERENCING YOUR COMMITTEE NOW
WITH THIS PAID SIX SB THREE TWO
NINE WOULD NOT FORCE IN THE
LANDLORD THE CONTRACT WITH THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY.
IT IS NOT A MANDATE -- I MEAN I
DON'T KNOW WE'VE HAD THE
ANALYSIS IN INTO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HEARINGS -- OUR OUR
SPONSORS ARE CO SPONSORS -- FEAR
LA AND LISTINGS THERE ALONG
POVERTY -- HELPED DRAFT THE
LANGUAGE OF WHO APPLYING THE
SAME IT IS NOT OUR INTENT.
TO CREATE A MANDATE IT IS NOT
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT ABOUT
SPRING TOLD HOLD ON HOLD ON
WE'RE NOT GOING BACK AND FORTH
HERE.
THIS REGION OR DID YOU GET YOUR
AND YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED.
YES THANK YOU AND I JUST DON'T
WANT ONE OTHER QUESTION
REGARDING.
AT THE INSURANCE ELEMENT ZERO
THAT'S A GOOD IN TWENTY FIFTEEN
AS I SOMEBODY MAN MENTIONED.
OUR COLLEAGUE MR MAN SHINE.
POSSIBLE AND THERE IS A PEACE
THERE THAT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY
PROHIBITED INSURANCE COMPANIES.
FROM.
JEAN HIGHER RATES TO PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO ACCEPTED SECTION
EIGHT NOT.
PIECE ACTUALLY FELL OUT OF THAT
LEGISLATION SO.
NOW IN SHORT WHILE STE WE'RE
SAYING WE DON'T WANT PROPERTY
OWNERS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
SECTION [inaudible]
EIGHT APPLICANTS WHO.
INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE ACTUALLY
ABLE TO OFFER HIGHER RATES ARE --
DEMAND HIGHER RATES A SECTION.
EIGHT PRINTER I'VE PROPERTY
OWNERS FIRST OF ALL AS IT
LANDLORDS I'VE NEVER BEEN ASKED
BY MY INSURER YOU HAVE IF I HAVE
SECTION EIGHT TENANTS.
THAT'S DELIVERED IN MY
EXPERIENCE AND IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING.
AND A BEFORE.
FOR SEVEN THAT INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE CURRENTLY BARRED
FROM ASKING FOR INFORMATION
ABOUT WHETHER HOUSING ASSISTANCE
IS ACCEPTED BY A PROPERTY OWNER.
SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE
INFERENCE COMES THAT YOU HAVE
INCREASED INSURANCE UNLESS
THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT.
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE UNIT IS --
VACATED OR OR DAMAGE IN THE UNIT
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT.
WHY THEY FEEL YOUR INSURANCE
RATES WOULD BE INCREASE BASED ON
A BEFORE?
FOR SEVEN GOT IT AND JUST
QUICKLY THE OPPOSITION.
WHY DO YOU AND YOUR MEMBERS?
THINK THAT YOU'RE GETTING CHARGE
HIGHER INSURANCE RATES.
UP BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY ARE
BECAUSE THEY GO TO OUR WEBSITE
AND THEY LOOK AT OUR WEBSITES
DECEIVE SECTION EIGHT IS ALLOWED
THEY OFFER COPIES OF CONTRACTS.
THEY MAY NOT INSURANCE INSURANCE
COMPANIES ABSOLUTELY IT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT MAY BE ON A ONE ON ONE
BASIS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THEY
DON'T BUT THE LARGE COMPLEXES
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO.
THE NEARBY.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE VIOLATING
THE LAW.
THANK YOU MISTER HOLDEN.
SO I I'M A LITTLE IT SEEMS LIKE
A REALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD BUILD
ME -- AND AS I AM.
IT HAS A MISTER GALLAGHER VICE
CHAIR POINTED OUT.
OUGHT TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT
STAND BEHIND IT SEEMS LIKE A
GOOD THING -- AND I'M THINKING
IN TERMS OF TENANTS WHO NEED
GUARANTEES.
SO YOU HAVE A TENANT.
MAYBE IT'S YOUNG PERSON OUT THE
GATE THEY ARE JUST STARTED
WORKING GOOD JOB.
BUT THEY NEED -- THEIR PARENTS
TO A SIGN ON AS GUARANTORS TO
THE LEASE BEING PAID HOUSE.
THAT MAY BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE THE SECTION EIGHT IS A
IS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS%
BASICALLY STANDING BEHIND
[inaudible]
THE TENET.
AT ENSURING THAT THE LANDLORD
WILL BE PAY -- IF I'M A LANDLORD
AND I'VE GOT A TWENTY FIVE YEAR
OLD WHO.
SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PERSON GOOD
CANDID -- HAS A GOOD INCOME AS A
MAYBE WORK LONG ENOUGH HASN'T
ESTABLISHED ENOUGH CREDIT.
MAYBE I DESIRE.
TO HAVE A PARENT AND IS A REAL
LIFE SITUATION MY DAD JUST.
THIS LAST YEAR SO ONCE THE
PARENTS SIGNED ON HE WAS GOOD TO
GO.
SO I'M I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY.
THIS IS BEING VIEWED A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN HOW YOU
WOULD PROBABLY INTERPRET -- THAT
THAT SITUATION TO ALL THE OTHER
DAY.
SHIPS THAT THIS WHOLE BILL IS
TURNING.
NUMBER ONE IT'S NOT A MANDATE.
THEN WE WOULD SUGGEST.
AMEND THE BILL. TWO SO STATE THE
SECOND PART IS NOT ANSWERING
THIS HOLDEN'S QUESTION.
I THINK THE QUESTION WE HAVE IS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
GUARANTOR AS A PARENT.
OF THE GOVERNMENT ISSUE WHERE'S
THERE'S EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES OF
REGULATIONS INVOLVED THERE'S
JUST BECAUSE EVICTION AND YOUR
YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE MUCH
DIFFERENT.
YOUR PARENTS NOT GOING TO GET
INVOLVED IN THE JUST CAUSE
EVICTION REQUIREMENTS -- AND
RIGHT EIGHT HUNDRED PAGES OF THE
GUARANTOR RIGHT SO I THINK
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE --
UNFORTUNATELY -- AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT ARE OUR PROBLEM IS
YOUR PARENTS ON TO COME WELL
MAYBE THEY DO THOSE THOSE
HELICOPTER PARENTS MAY COME AND
INSPECT THE THE PROPERTY BUT YOU
STILL DO HAVE THE INSPECTION
REQUIREMENTS THE DELAY
REQUIREMENTS SIX ADDRESS AND I
THINK.
AGAIN IT'S NOT THE APPLICANT
IT'S NOT THE HIGH SCHOOL OR THE
COLLEGE STUDENT IT'S THE PROCESS.
MISTER CHAIR IF I MIGHT. TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR YOU
MAY THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I THINK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR FOR
YOUR QUESTION ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ONE THING THAT WE WOULD SAY WITH
RESPECT YOUR QUESTION IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN -- SECTION
EIGHT OTHER PROGRAMS AND WE
ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TING ON AB
TWENTY TWO NINETEEN LAST YEAR --
AND LANDLORDS NOW HAVE TO TAKE
CASH EQUIVALENT VOUCHERS FROM
THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF
ATTENDANCE WE'RE ABLE TO CLOSE
THAT LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CASH WHEN
WITH VOUCHERS AND SECTION.
EIGHT IS THAT SECTION EIGHT DOES
COME WITH A CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION WITH THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY AND OTHER OWNERS
REQUIREMENTS -- INSPECTION
REQUIREMENTS - THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY -- GETS DETERMINE THE
THE RENT INCREASES EVERYTHING
HAS TO BE PASSED THROUGH THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY.
WHICH FOR SOME LANDLORDS AS YOU
INDICATE IT'S GUARANTEED INCOME
SO FOR SOME LANDLORDS THEY LOOK
AT THAT IS A BENEFIT IN THE
CHOOSE TO VOLUNTARILY
PARTICIPATE MARKET IS A MARKET
RATE THAT THEY WOULD BE PAYING.
NOW.
NO.
A HOUSING AUTHORITY -- TYPICALLY
IT WITH RESPECT TO RENT
INCREASES IN THIS IS SOMETHING%
THAT WE ACTUALLY SEE IS
PROBLEMATIC GOING FORWARD WITH
RESPECT AB FOURTEEN EIGHTY TWO
WHICH ARE NEUTRAL ON BECAUSE WE
SEE AB FOURTEEN EIGHTY TWO IS A
BALANCE BETWEEN. TEN PROTECTIONS
AND ALSO ALLOWING THE LANDLORD A
FAIR RATE OF RETURN IF THIS BILL
WERE ALSO TO GO THROUGH -- AND
THEN EFFECTIVELY FORCE IN OUR
ESTIMATION EFFECTIVELYFORCE
PROPERTY OWNERS PARTICIPATE IN
SECTION EIGHT YOU COULD HAVE AN
INSTANCE WHERE YOU HAVE A SMALL
PROPERTY OWNERS.
YOU KNOW AN ELDERLY COUPLE DOWN
ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND THEY GET AN OTHERWISE
ELIGIBLE SUCH NEED APPLICANT
THEY HAD TO TAKE THAT APPLICANT
THEREFORE SEND THE CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION WITH THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY.
AND IT HERE TO ALL THOSE OWNERS
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING PASSING
THROUGH ALL RENT INCREASES AND
SO WHILE AB FOURTEEN EIGHTY TWO
IS CURRENTLY SET AT 7% PLUS CPI.
HE COULD HAVE AN INSTANCE WHERE
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY SAYS NO.
WE'RE JUST GOT WHICH HAVE CPI OR
CPI PLUS ONE AND THAT COULD BE
EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC FOR SMALL
PROPERTY OWNERS -- AND SO WE SEE
THAT IS SORT OF CREATING A
DOUBLE STANDARD IN THE
MARKETPLACE -- WHICH IS WHY IN
OUR ESTIMATION ASECTION IT
SHOULD REMAIN VOLUNTARY BECAUSE
WAS DESIGNED TO BE VOLUNTARY
THAT'S WHETHER IS THAT
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
[inaudible]
WHAT DO?
FIRST I I MEAN THIS BILL HAS
DOES NOTHING TO IMPACT WHETHER
NOT THIS IS A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM
OR NOT.
IT IS NOT A MANDATE.
NOT ONE SPEAK TO THE ELEMENTS OF
THE OTHER BILL THAT'S NOT MY
BILL AT THE BILL THAT'S ON THE
TABLE TODAY -- THE BILL IN CHIEF
IS CLEAR AS REFERENCE BY TWO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS I AM
NOT WILLING TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE THAT YOU
PROPOSALS AND SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE BECAUSE
IT IS -- WE INTERPRET THAT AS A
POISON PILL I DON'T HAVE TO PUT
INTO IT LANGUAGE IN THE BILL
WHEN THE BILL ALREADY IS NOT A
MANDATE SO IT'S NOT NECESSARY
THAT'S WHY AS I'VE SAID BEFORE
I'M NOT ACCEPTING THAT AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE.
NOT THE MINUTE LANGUAGE YOU READ
TODAY WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN BUT
THE ADDITIONAL A LANGUAGE YOU --
FOR SUGGESTED WE INTERPRET THAT
AS A POISON PILL.
THE BILL IN CHIEF IS NOT A
MANDATE [inaudible]
WITH THE SO AND I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND -- THIS DISCUSSION ON
MANDATE WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE
OPPOSITION IS SAYING.
IT.
WHETHER IT SAYS IT'S A MANDATE
OR NOT -- YOU WOULD ADVISE AS
RENTER LANDLORDS. TO TREAT IT
LIKE A MANDATE -- TO AVOID LEGAL
LIABILITY.
THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING SO THAT
IS A DECISION AS LEGAL ADVICE
THAT SHE WOULD GIVE TO LANDLORDS
TO TREAT IT LIKE A MANDATE BUT
IT'S NOT A MANDATE.
NOW HOUSING DISCRIMINATION LAWS
SO -- YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO
TAKE THE FIRST APPLICANT RIGHT
YOU'RE JUST NOT YOU'RE REQUIRED
TO NOT VIOLATE.
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS CRACKED.
WELL AGAIN THE ARGUMENT COMES
BACK DOWN TO LEGAL LIABILITY
FIRST IN FIRST QUALIFIED IS THE
LEGAL -- TO AVOID A LEGAL
CHALLENGE YOU'RE RIGHT
[inaudible]
BUT I MEAN I DON'T ITEM PRACTICE
AND THAT'S THE MODEL LANDLORD
WAS A TENANT FOR A LONG TIME --
THERE.
YOU CAN MAKE CHOICES BETWEEN
MULTIPLE APPLICANTS.
CRACKED I MEAN IF YOU.
YOU DON'T LITERALLY I MEAN IT'S
NOT LIKE WHICH ONE CAME OVER THE
FAX MACHINE FIRST STORE WHICH
EMAIL CAN I DON'T KNOW HOW.
YOU KNOW.
I MEAN THERE'S THERE'S DECISIONS
THAT ARE MADE OF IF IT'S LIKE IN
MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE GET FIVE OR SIX APPLICATIONS
ALL ON THE SAME DAY RIGHT.
AND YOU MAKE A DECISION.
AND IT JUST CAN'T BE.
BIASED BY CERTAIN FACTORS THAT
ARE YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM USING
AGAINST AN APPLICANT
[inaudible]
OKAY.
SO IF A LANDLORDS NOT
DISCRIMINATE DEAN ON THOSE
FACTORS THEN -- THAN THEIR LEGAL
LIABILITY IS IS NONEXISTENT.
IS THAT CORRECT UNLESS I REFUSED
TO SIGN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
WHERE ARE WE THEN.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
STRUGGLING WITH I REFUSED TO
SIGN THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
THIS BILL DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT THAT PART OF THE MANDATE
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAD ASKED.
FOR OKAY AND THAT'S THE
ADDITIONAL.
IS THAT DIFFERENT OKAY.
I SEE THIS BILL THIS AND I AND
THIS IS WHY I UNDERSTAND YOUR
CONCERNS BUT I SEE THE BILLS
THIS.
I THINK SECTION EIGHT IS CODE
FOR SOMETHING ELSE RIGHT SO WHEN
I SEE A TIME TO BE REALLY HONEST
WHEN I SEE A SIGN SAYS NO
SECTION -- EIGHT YOU DON'T SEE
THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE
EVERYBODY WHO'S RENTERS BLACK OR
BROWN RIGHT.
YOU SEE IT IN NEIGHBORHOODS
WHERE -- I'M SORRY I THINK IT'S
KIND OF LIKE.
WHAT PEOPLE THE LANDLORDS
ASSUMPTION IS ABOUT SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER HOLDERS SO I'M
DOING THIS BILL AND I COULD BE
WRONG I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE
INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR?
AS A WAY TO TO AVOID THAT IN
GIVE.
OPPORTUNITY TO A VOUCHER HOLDER
TO PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE
LANDLORD GIVE THEM ALL THE
REASONS I HAVE I HAVE INCOME AND
AND PERHAPS BREAKDOWN SOME.
PEOPLE'S VIEWS ABOUT WHO.
WHO HAS TO RELY ON SECTION --
EIGHT THIS MANDATE PART I I
UNDERSTAND.
FEELING LIKE YOU DON'T WANT
PEOPLE TO ASSUME YOU'RE MAKING
DISCRIMINATORY DECISIONS IT'S
LIKE WELL THEN DON'T MAKE
DISCRIMINATORY DECISIONS.
BUT I'M I'M I'M CONFUSED --
WHITE IT'S CALLED A BEING CALLED
A MANDATE.
WHEN IT'S NOT A MANDATE IT'S
JUST MORE BREAKING DOWN THAT --
YOU CAN'T HAVE THE EXCLUSION OF
IT MIGHT DOT.
IS THAT HOW THE AUTHOR SEES THE
BILL I'M KIND I'M JUST KIND OF
CONFUSED AT THAT I THINK THAT'S
EXACTLY OKAY POINTS IN THE THE
OPPOSITION.
IS CHARACTERIZING IT IN A NARROW.
AS A POTENTIAL MANDATE UNDER
HYPOTHETICAL AND WHAT THE AUTHOR
IS SAYING.
IS SORT OF IN THE REAL WORLD
THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE
APPLICATIONS AND TO MR
GALLAGHER'S POINT.
IF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF A
LANDLORD AND LANDLORDS SAYS I AM
NOT RENTING TO THIS PERSON
SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEY HAD THEIR
BRINGING SECTION.
EIGHT THEN THAT WOULD BE A
VIOLATION OF LAW UNDER THIS BILL.
IF EVERYONE ELSE IS BEING
TREATED EQUALLY.
WHETHER THEY'RE BLACK BROWN
WHETHER THEIR PARENTS ARE
FINDING IT OR SEX IT IS FINDING
IT.
AND THEY THEIR AGNOSTIC TO ALL
OF THOSE DISCRIMINATORY FACTORS.
THE CORRECT OR PICK A TENANT AND
THAT TED IS QUALIFIED THAN.
THEY'RE DONE.
AND ALSO I WILL POINT OUT THAT
THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.
THAT AT THE IF THE H. FOR
VIOLATIONS WHICH IS A FIRST STEP
FOR ANY DISPUTE AND THAT'S ONE
OF THE REASONS THAT WE THAT WE
PROBABLY DON'T SEE A LOT OF
LITIGATION THERE'S A LOT OF FEAR
OF LITIGATION THERE'S A LOT OF
FEAR FOR THESE DECISIONS BUT THE
REALITY.
IS THIS IS A COMPLEX WORLD AND
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WITH THE BILL IS TRYING TO MAKE
SURE WHICH I AGREE WITH THAT I
AGREE THAT IT IS NOT A MANDATE.
BECAUSE THAT.
LANDLORD HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE
SOME FLEXIBILITY IN AND TO TO
MAKE DECISIONS BUT IF THAT
DECISION IS MADE.
EXPRESSLY BECAUSE OF A SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER UNDER THIS BILL
THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL OTHER THAN
THAT THEY HAVE [inaudible]
BROAD DISCRETION.
THIS GALLAGHER AND HOW IT IS A
VERY QUICK I THINK THAT'S THE
PROBLEM.
WITH THE BILL THOUGH RIGHT IS IT
FOR SAYING THAT.
WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THE CHOICE
TO PARTICIPATE IN SECTION EIGHT
OR NOT.
AND YET ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL
YOU DECIDE -- I'M NOT GONNA GO
THERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROGRAM.
AND WORSE AND WE'RE SAYING HEY
IF YOU DON'T MAKE THAT CHOICE.
YOU KNOW YOU'RE.
LIABLE.
THEN THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE RIGHT
OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT THEMSELVES
LIABILITY THAT'S I THINK THAT'S
THE PROBLEM.
THAT'S NOT THE BILL SAYS THE
BILL SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T DENY ME
FROM APPLYING THE BILL DOESN'T
GO SO FAR AS TO SAY.
YOU MUST SELECT ME THE BILL
THANK YOU COULD NOT DENY MY
APPLICATION.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A SIGN THAT SAYS
NO SECTION.
EIGHT AND IT SIMPLY SAYS THAT IF
YOU HAVE TWO APPLICANTS THREE
APPLICANTS.
WHATEVER [inaudible]
THAT.
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL IN TERMS
OF BACKGROUND CHECK RENTAL
HISTORY WHAT EVER YOUR CRITERIA
IS AS A LANDLORD TO MAKE YOUR
DECISION.
THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T GIVE ME A
DEMERIT BECAUSE OF THE SOURCE OF
MY INCOME.
AND THAT I'D BE.
INCLUDED IN YOUR POLL FROM WHICH
TO SELECT FROM.
MISTER JARRETT CLUB PLEASE THERE
WAS NOT A QUESTION ASK NO.
BOB MS RESTED YOUR QUESTION
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
NOT TO LONG AGO IN THIS
COMMITTEE WE TALKED ABOUT THE
VETERANS HOUSING VOUCHERS I
THINK MOST OR DISCUSSION TODAY
HAS BEEN ON SECTION EIGHT THIS
ALSO INCLUDES A VETERANS HOUSING
VOUCHERS.
AND WE HEARD THE SAME DISCUSSION --
WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
VETERANS?
VOUCHERS THAT.
THE MANY LANDLORDS DON'T WANT TO
ACCEPT THOSE BECAUSE AGAIN OF
THE THE THE THE ALL THE THE THE
CONTRACTS AND ALL THE THE
ADDITIONAL.
INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE
[inaudible]
CONSIDERED.
IF THE ANALYSIS AND I AGREE WITH
THEM IS GONZALEZ.
I MEAN I I'VE BEEN A LANDLORD
FOR DECADES -- AND WHAT.
IN MY COMMUNITY THERE ARE THERE
ARE RIGHT I DON'T THINK I'VE
EVER SEEN THE SIGN NO SECTION.
EIGHT BUT I CAN SEE HOW IT WOULD
BE.
PUT IN FROM ELSE'S. SIX
SUSPECTED TIME WHAT'S IS NO
MEXICANS OR NO BLACKS ARE NO NO
WELL FOR NOW I SOCIETY.
I THINK THIS THIS BILL IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF
THAT I THINK IT CHANGES.
HOW WE VIEW PEOPLE IF WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODYFROM SO
THAT THE HAS A SECTION EIGHT
VOUCHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOMEONE WHO WITH LIMITED INCOME?
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A POOR PERSON WHO
AT THIS TIME NEEDS TO HAVE THE
SYSTEMS AND THANK GOODNESS WE
HAVE A SYSTEM.
THAT ALLOWS IT WE'VE A WAITING
LIST FOR SECTION. EIGHT FOR FIVE
YEARS BEFORE YOU WILL FINALLY
GET THAT SECTION EIGHT VOUCHER.
THE FACT THAT WE ARE SAYING
LANDLORDS.
WE CAN'T PUT THAT SIGN UP
ANYMORE.
YOU CANNOT ALREADY BEFORE YOU
EVER YOU VALUE WAITED ANYBODY
YOU CAN'T SAY I'M NOT GOING TO
TAKE A SECTION A PERSON.
BECAUSE GOING BACK TO WHAT MS
GONZALEZ SAID YOU KNOW WHAT A
SECTION EIGHT THE EVERYBODY HAS
A VISION OF WHAT SECTION EIGHT
MEANS.
AND I DARE SAY THAT WHATEVER WE
THINK OF SECTION.
EIGHT IF WE HAVE A
GENERALIZATION IT'S NOT A GOOD.
ONE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD
ONE SO WE'RE WE IF WE ALLOW
PEOPLE TO CONTINUE AS LANDLORDS
TO SAY.
YOU CAN STILL SAY TO START OFF
THE TOP NEVER WILL ACCEPT
SECTION.
EIGHT WE'RE ALLOWING THEM. TO
DISCRIMINATE.
AGAINST SOMEONE WITH A SECTION
EIGHT VOUCHER.
OR A VETERANS HOUSING BELCHER
OUR VETERANS WITH THOSE VOUCHERS
THOSE ARE COVETED VOUCHERS FOR
VETERANS AND THEY ALSO HAVE.
A VERY DIFFICULT TIME GETTING
SOMEBODY TO RENT TO THEM.
PERSONALLY AS A LANDLORD OF
YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.
I LOVE IT WHEN WE HAVE A SECTION
EIGHT TENANT BECAUSE OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM PASADENA SAID
IT'S A GUARANTEE YES THERE CUT
THE GORE THEY'RE GOING TO COME
IN YES THEY'RE GOING TO INSPECT.
YES THEY MAY HELP US FIX A FEW
THINGS.
BUT IT IS A GUARANTEE ON THAT
RENT [inaudible]
I I APPRECIATE THE SENATOR
BRINGING THIS THIS BILL FORWARD.
NOT ONLY FOR THE SECTION EIGHT
VOUCHER HOLDERS BUT ALSO FOR OUR
VETERANS WITH A HOUSING VOUCHERS
WHO. TOO OFTEN FIND THAT.
THE HOUSING THAT IS ALREADY
LIMITED IS NOW EVEN MORE LIMITED
TO THEM.
I MOVE THIS BILL AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU WE ALREADY DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND.
SENATOR.
YOU MAY CLOSE I ASK FOR LIVE OUT.
THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION A SECOND THE
MOTION IS DO PATHS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE I
GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NOTE CHAO.
CHIU.
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KILEY.
HEY WE KNOW MAIENSCHEIN
OBERNOLTE.
PETRIE-NORRIS [inaudible]
RACE FIVE REYES I THE BILL NEEDS
THREE MORE WHEN WE GET MEMBERS
AXEL PUT IT ON CALL THANK YOU
VERY MUCH I APPRECIATE THAT.
DEBATE.
SENATOR BRADFORD SO ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB [inaudible]
FIVE THIRTY FOUR YEAH.
WELCOME THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN I'M HERE TO PRESENT.
SB FIVE THREE FOUR AND I'LL BE
VERY BRIEF -- THIS BILL HAS
THREE COMPONENTS FIRST
REESTABLISHED INSURANCE PART OF
VERSE YOU SURVEY WHICH WHICH
DOLLARS IN TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
AND IT'S AT SATURDAY JANUARY OF
THIS YEAR.
SECOND -- IT CODIFIES THE
GOVERNOR'S GOVERNING BOARD
DIVERSITY SURVEY DESIGNED TO
IMPROVE DIVERSITY AT THE HIGHEST
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
AN INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
AND THIRD IT CODIFIES YOUR
INSURANCE DIVERSITY TASK FORCE
WHICH ADVISES AND PROVIDES
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE ON HOW THEY WILL PASS
ACHIEVE THEIR DIVERSITY GOES
WELL WORD TO SERVING THOSE
CUSTOMERS THAT DO A HUNDRED
MILLION DOLLARS PLUS A YEAR
THEY'RE CURRENTLY ABOUT YOU WHEN
YOU'RE FORTY COMPANIES THAT.
FALL IN THAT CATEGORY.
AND WE HAVE SEEN SINCE WE'VE HAD
THE SURVEY.
SINCE TWO THOUSAND TWELVE THAT --
MINORITY PARTICIPATION IN
CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT HAS
INCREASED 93% FROM.
OUR NINE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION
AND TWO THOUSAND TWELVE TO ONE
POINT EIGHT BILLION IN TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN WE'VE SEEN
SIMILAR RESULTS OF THE LAST
THIRTY YEARS IN INSURANCE
INDUSTRY UNDER GENERAL ORDER.
ONE FIFTY SIX HERE WITH ME THAT
DAY IS MICHAEL MARTINEZ FROM THE
THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FIRST ONENESS WITH
LARA AND THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
THINK OF SENATOR BRADFORD FOR
HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS MEASURE
THIS DOES CONTINUE AN ONGOING A
SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AT THE
DEPARTMENT REGARDING SUPPLIER
DIVERSITY IN THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY AND BOARD MEMBER
DIVERSITY ON GOVERNING BOARDS
AND IT'S AGAIN A LONG STANDING.
SEVERAL YEARS IN THE MAKING AND
WE BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL ALLOW
CALIFORNIA TO CONTINUE TO ASSESS.
AND LEVERAGE THE RAPID GROWTH OF
THE INSURANCE SECTORS ROLE IN
CONTRIBUTING TO VIBRANT LOCAL
ECONOMIES.
WE'VE WORKED WITH INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS MEASURE IN
THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND WE
BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED ALL
CONCERNS -- ANY REMAINING
CONCERNS REGARDING PRIVACY OF
SELF REPORTED VOLUNTARY
INFORMATION IN AGGREGATED NATURE
OF THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
TO ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO
ATTEND CONTINUOUS US IN LEVERAGE
THE SOME.
OF THE ROLE OF THE OF THIS
INDUSTRY AND EXPANDING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE STATE'S
SMALL BUSINESSES AND GOVERNING
BOARD OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS WITH US FOR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
THANK YOU ANYWAY THIS IS IN
SUPPORT GOOD MORNING SHERRY
MCCUE ON BEHALF OF CSA INSURANCE
GROUP IN SUPPORT THE BILL THANK
YOU.
GOOD MORNING PRETTY PUT IT WON'T
BE OUT FOR THE QUALITY
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
THE SHEPHERD REPRESENTING THE
CAL ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE BRING BACK TO
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
THREATS.
I REMEMBER WHEN THEN --
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
JONES HAD PROPOSED THIS HE SAID
I CAN'T FORCE ANYONE.
TO GIVE CONTRACTS. TO MINORITY
OWNED A SMALL BUSINESSES.
BUT I CAN ASK THEM TO GIVE ME A
REPORT.
AND A WHAT I APPRECIATED MOST IS
THAT TO THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY'S
STEP UP.
OF THOSE WHO REALIZE THEY DID
NOT HAVE DIVERSE CITY REALIZE
THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT NOW YOU'RE
ADDING THE GOVERNING BOARDS TO
THAT -- THANK YOU SO MUCH THANK
YOU.
VIEW OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
SAY NONE CENTER YOU MAY CLOSE.
I THANK YOU DON'T THINK THE
MEMBERS ON FOR THEIR SUPPORT ON
THIS MEASURE AHA AS WE KNOW 80%
OF ALL INSURANCE COMPANY.
COMING BOARD CHEATER HELD BY MEN
WITH ONLY 12% A BY MINORITIES
IT'S BEEN PROVEN THAT.
YOU CAN BEST SERVE THE CUSTOMERS
THAT YOU SERVE I SHOULD SAY WHEN
A DIVERSITY IS INVOLVED WHEN IT
LOOKS LIKE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SO THIS IS A
COMMONSENSE MEASURE TO ALLOW.
THOSE DIVERSE -- BUSINESSES BE A
WOMEN OWNED DISABLED VETERANS
LGBT TO OPPORTUNITY AT THIS HOUR
MARKET IN A RESPECT WESTERGAARD
BOOK.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND THAT MOTION IS DUE PASSED
TO INSURANCE CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE AYE STONE AYE
GALLAGHER CHAU.
CHIU GONZALEZ HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN.
OBERNOLTE PETRIE-NORRIS. THREE
NORTH IRIS. THREE FIVE THREE
THESE THREE MORE WE WILL PUT THE
BILL ON CALL THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN [inaudible]
SENATOR WILK.
ITEM NUMBER ONE SB
.
TWO OH TWO MORNING GOOD MORNING
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS I WANT TO BEGIN BY
THANKING YOU MISTER CHAIR IN
YOUR IN YOUR FIND COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH ME MY
OFFICE AND ALL THE INTERESTED
PARTIES.
ON A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS AND WE
ARE HAPPY TO ACCEPT ALL THE
AMENDMENTS.
PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE WHICH
I BELIEVE ACTUALLY STRENGTH AND
THE INTENDED FOCUS OF THE BILL
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT APPRECIATE
IT.
I. S. B. TWO OH TWO IS A MUCH
NEEDED MEASURE TO PROVIDE
STABILITY TO THE VETERINARY
MEDICAL WORLD.
CALIFORNIA ALONG WITH THE REST
OF THE NATION IS CURRENTLY
SUFFERING FROM A SHORTAGE OF
ANIMAL BLOOD PRODUCTS.
WHEN A DOG IS GRAVELY INJURED OR
SUFFERING FROM A LIFE
THREATENING ILLNESS THEY OFTEN
NEED EMERGENCY BLOOD FOR
TRANSFUSIONS?
BUT THE BLOOD SHORTAGES
ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF ANIMALS
EVERYWHERE IN FACT I NOTICE
COMMUNITY BY MANY PEOPLE IS A
ROBIN BLACK.
WHOSE DOG NEED A TRANSFUSION AND
SHE WAS HERE IN SACRAMENTO AND
THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH PLASMA
AND HER DOG DIED ON THE ON THE
DRIVE OUT TO DAVIS. TO TO TO TO
SAVOR DOG SO WITHOUT A HEALTHY
BLOOD SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR SICK
OR INJURED ANIMALS MANY OF OUR
DOGS CATS AND OTHER BELOVED PETS.
MAY DIE RATHER THAN TO GET THE
TREATMENT THAT THEY NEED.
THIS IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND
WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE
SO SB TO A TO PROVIDE AN EASY
FIRST STEP TOWARDS FIXING THIS
PROBLEM.
BUY A BUY OUT BY ALLOWING FOR
COMMERCIAL LICENSE YEARS OF
COMMIT A COMMUNITY SOURCED
ANIMAL BLOOD BANKS.
THIS MEAN ANIMAL OWNERS WILL BE
ALLOWED TO VOLUNTEER THEIR PETS
TO GIVE BLOOD AND I'M LIKE YEAH
JUST LIKE THE WAY.
PEOPLE GET A VOLUNTEER TO GIVE
BLOOD EVERY OTHER STATE
CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR COMMUNITY
BLOOD BANKING AND HAS BEEN
PROVEN TO BE SAFE AND HEALTHY A
METHOD. TO GUARANTEE SAFETY FOR
ALL ANIMALS AS BE TWO OH TWO
WOULD ENSURE THAT BLOOD
COLLECTIONS HAPPEN UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF A VETERINARIAN
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
CURRENTLY CALIFORNIA ONLY
LICENSES CLOSED COLONIES BLOOD
BANKS WHICH KEEP ANIMALS CAGE ON
THEIR PREMISE FOR FOR YEARS ON
END AND THEY'RE ONLY TO THESE
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA.
GIVEN OUR SHORTAGE OF BLOOD
PRODUCTS IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE
MODEL IS CRITICAL THAT WE EXPAND
DOG PLASMA BY ADDING COMMUNITY
BLOOD BANKING TO ENSURE.
WE HAVE AHEAD THAT WE HAVE HAPPY
DONORS AN ADEQUATE BLOOD SUPPLY
FOR DOGS IN NEED.
HOW WITH ME I HAVE A COUPLE
WITNESSES IN?
BECAUSE THE TIME I KNOW YOU'VE
HAD A LONG MORNING I'LL LET THEM
SELF IDENTIFY AS HE TESTIFIED.
WILL BE BUT WILL BE VERY VISIBLE
OUT THANK YOU CHAIR STONE.
HELLO MY NAME IS JUDY MAY
INCLUDES ON THE FOUNDER AND
PRESIDENT OF SOCIAL COMPASSION
AND LEGISLATION PROUD SPONSOR OF
SB TWO OH TWO WE THANK SENATOR
WOKE FOR CARRYING THIS
LIFESAVING BILL.
I SERVED ON THE CALIFORNIA
VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD FOR
OVER EIGHT YEARS AND I'M PROUD
TO SAY THAT WE ALONG WITH
SENATOR WILK STAFF AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF WITH INPUT FROM
BOTH BLOOD BANKING VETS AT UC
DAVIS AND PROFESSIONALS FROM THE
VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD.
AND THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION HAVE WORKED HARD TO
MAKE THIS BILL GOOD FOR ALL
PARTIES. FOR THE BLOOD BANKS FOR
THE CALIFORNIA VETS AND FOR THE
DONOR AND THE RECIPIENT ANIMALS
COMMUNITY BLOOD BANKS WILL ADD
TO THE MUCH NEEDED ANIMAL BLOOD
SUPPLY IN THE STATE.
AS WELL AS MATCHING OTHER STATES
BY NOT KEEPING ANIMALS IN CAGES
JUST TO BELIEVE THEM IT OPENS UP
A REVENUE SOURCE FOR
VETERINARIANS AROUND THE STATE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS HUMANE TYPE OF PRACTICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND WE WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THIS WITNESS PLEASE.
THANK YOU CHAIR COMMITTEE --
AGAIN MY NAME IS DOCTOR HOW THE
RALLY I AM THE SUPERVISING
VETERINARIAN AT A FOUNDATION --
AS WELL AS ADJUNCT FACULTY
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL.
CALIFORNIA IS THE ONLY STATE
CURRENTLY WHERE IT'S LEGAL FOR
VETERINARIANS TO OBTAIN ANIMAL
BLOOD PRODUCTS FROM COMMUNITY
BASED ON OUR PROGRAMS.
IN ORDER TO SELL THAT BLOOD TO
OTHER VETERINARIANS.
STATE SENATE BILL TWO OH TWO
WOULD CHANGE THAT IT WOULD
CREATE A LARGER MORE RELIABLE
SUPPLY OF THESE LIFESAVING BLOOD
PRODUCTS FOR DOGS IN CALIFORNIA
AND BEYOND.
THIS BILL IS A WIN FOR
VETERINARIANS FOR PATIENTS ALSO
FOR CITIZENS WHO WANT THE BEST
CARE POSSIBLE FOR THEIR BELOVED
PETS AND FOR THE DONOR ANIMALS
THEMSELVES.
COMMUNITY BLOOD BANKS ARE ARE
THRIVING ACROSS THE COUNTRY
WHERE THEY ARE THE NORM RATHER
THAN THE EXCEPTION OWNERS
VOLUNTEER THEIR DOGS WHO LIVE IN
LOVING HOMES WERE SCREENED FOR
DISEASES AND OTHER HEALTH.
AILMENTS -- TO HELP OTHER DOGS
REQUIRING BUT PRODUCTS DUE TO
TRAUMA SURGERY ANEMIA OR OTHER
DISEASE.
RECIPIENT WATSON VETERINARIANS
BENEFIT FROM THE SAFE SUPPLY OF
BLOOD PRODUCTS WHICH THERE'S A
CHRONIC SHORTAGE OF IN
CALIFORNIA.
EVERY SINGLE DOG DESERVES TO
LIVE IN A LOVING HOME AND
DESERVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO
LIFESAVING VETERINARY CARE IT'S
THAT SIMPLE AND IT IS ACHIEVABLE
WITH SB TWO OH TWO THIS BILL
WOULD ALSO UPDATE CURRENT LAW.
BY ALLOWING CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
IN VETERINARIANS AND THE
LEGISLATURE TO SEE THE
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE'S INSPECTION REPORTS
FOR THESE BLOOD BANKS BE UP
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.
PLEASE WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT
PRESS BE TWO OH TWO THANK YOU
THANK YOU AND ALSO IN SUPPORT
USE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MIKE DILLON REPRESENT
THE CALIFORNIA VETERINARY
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION SUPPORT AND
ALSO LIKE TO THANK YOU AND YOUR
STAFF FOR THE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU.
WOULD BE PROUD CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION OUR
INTEREST IS REALLY LIMITED TO
THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT PIECE OF
THIS BILL BECAUSE THAT WE ARE IN
SUPPORT THANK YOU THANK YOU.
LISA AVERY FROM LAGUNA BEACH IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL THANKS THANK
YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
CNN IS THEIR OPPOSITION
.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SEPARATELY ****
GREENBERG TRAURIG ON BEHALF OF
ANIMAL BLOOD BANK.
ARE THE OPPOSITION NOTES THAT
ANIMAL BLOOD BANK HAD CONCERNS
WITH THE BILL UNFORTUNATELY WITH
THE AMENDMENTS TODAY WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO OPPOSE -- WE
HAD A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH
ALL ALL SPEAK JUST TO TWO OF
THEM TODAY.
THE FIRST IS THAT BORE THE
THIRTY SOMETHING ODD YEARS THAT.
ANIMAL BLOOD BANKS HAVE BEEN
LICENSED IN CALIFORNIA THE
LICENSING LAWS REQUIRED A
QUALIFIED PERSON IN ORDER TO
RECEIVE A LICENSE THIS BILL.
WOULD CHANGE THAT TO A LICENSED
VETERINARIAN NEITHER OF THE TWO
BANKS THAT HAVE BEEN LICENSED IN
CALIFORNIA -- THE ONLY TWO THAT
HAVE BEEN LICENSED OF EVER BEEN
OPERATED BY LICENSED
VETERINARIAN IT'S NOT NECESSARY
ALLOWED COST.
IN ADDITION THE AMENDMENTS TAKEN
TODAY REQUIRE THE DIRECT
SUPERVISION OF THAT LICENSED
VETERINARIAN.
WHICH IT IS A LITTLE VAGUE I
WOULD SAY BECAUSE IT SIDES TO
ALL OF THE VETERINARY PRACTICES
ACT WHICH USES THAT WORD.
THROUGHOUT -- BUT IT DOES SEEM
TO REQUIRE -- PRESENTS -- AND
AND RATTLED READY AVAILABILITY --
TO DRAW BLOOD FROM AN ANIMAL
THAT'S NOT NECESSARY YOU DON'T
NEED A DOCTOR TO TAKE BLOOD FROM
THE HUMAN THEN YOU DON'T NEED OF
THAT TO TAKE BLOOD FROM.
AN ANIMAL.
THE SECOND CONCERN WE HAVE HAS
TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT -- FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT --
THE CHAIR OF OF I THINK IT WAS
THIS COMMITTEE IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SENATE JUTISH -- ALMOST
TWENTY YEARS AGO EXEMPTED ALL
RECORDS FROM DISCLOSURE -- THERE
IS THE SAME NEED TODAY TO
PROTECT -- THE IDENTITY OF FOLKS
WHO.
WORK WITH BLOOD BANKS BECAUSE
NOT ALL BUT SOME IN THE ANIMAL
RIGHTS COMMUNITY -- RESORT TO
LEGAL MEASURES.
NO NO LESS RECENTLY THAN A FEW
WEEKS AGO SIX HUNDRED ACTIVISTS
STORMED A DUCK FARM AND SAID NO
MY HUNDRED WERE ARRESTED.
THAT'S THE KIND OF INTIMIDATION
THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE
PAST AND THAT WE HAVEN'T
EXPERIENCED BECAUSE THE RECORDS
HAVE BEEN PROTECTED.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT CDFA
SHOULDN'T BE PROVIDING
INFORMATION ABOUT BLOOD BANKING
ON THE PROGRAMS BUT THERE ARE
SPECIFIC THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
PROTECTED WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR.
TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THESE
CONCERNS AND OTHERS AS THE BILL
GO FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING AGAIN MR TEAR KERN
A CAROLING OTHER THAT THE
CALIFORNIA LAW FOR SUFFICIENT
THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTABLE.
THE ASSOCIATION WHICH REPRESENTS
ANIMAL SHELTERS IN CALIFORNIA
TOOK THE POSITION OF OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED JUST BECAUSE THIS
IS NEW AND THEY WERE REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING IT RIGHT
FROM THE BEGINNING.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOUR STAFF
SO KILEY WALKED US THROUGH ONE
BY ONE LAST WEEK I BELIEVE MOST
OF THE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED
HERE.
AND THE REST WILL HOPEFULLY BE
ADDRESSING AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE.
AGAINST SUPPORTABLE CONCEPT THAT
THIS IS A VERY TOUGH SUBJECT
MATTER FOR ANYBODY WHO LOVES
THEIR DOG -- BUT WE ARE HOPING
TO GET TO A NEUTRAL OR SUPPORT
POSITION ONCE WE GET THERE
ASSEMBLY OUR CULTURE WHEN I
THINK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
SCOUTER [inaudible]
YES SO.
WE DO NOT.
THANK YOU WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND.
SO I MEAN THESE ANIMAL BLOOD
BANKS OR I THINK VITALLY
IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY IF YOU EVER
HAVE -- A PROBLEM WITH YOUR PET --
AND THEY AND THEY NEED BLOOD --
AND RIGHT NOW CALIFORNIA'S ONLY
HAVE TWO OF THESE.
IN THE STATE.
I A I AM SUPPORTIVE OF OF THE
CONCEPT OF OPENNESS UP ALLOWING
FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AT ANIMAL BLOOD BANKS AS WELL I
THINK THAT THAT'S THANK YOU THAT
COULD HELP EXPAND MORE.
OPPORTUNITIES -- OBVIOUSLY TO
HAVE THIS RESOURCE -- BUT THE
ONES THAT ARE HERE RIGHT NOW
PROVIDE A VERY VITAL RESOURCE.
THAT ALL OF US WOULD WANT TO
HAVE IF OUR PET [inaudible]
NEEDED.
YEAH IT WAS IN THAT DIRE
SITUATION -- SO.
I I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING.
TO YUP UNDULY INTERFERE WITH.
YOU KNOW.
THE INDUSTRY THAT WE HAVE -- IN
THE STATE RIGHT NOW -- AND I
GUESS MAYBE IF YOU COULD JUST
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE BROUGHT UP -- BY THE
OPPOSITION IT SOUNDS LIKE
THEY'RE OPEN TO THIS CONCEPT A
WITH AS WELL BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE
THEIR ISSUES ARE.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE DIRECT
[inaudible]
VETERINARY SUPERVISION.
I MEAN I THINK AS HE SAID YOU
KNOW ME WHEN I GO AND GET MY
BLOOD DRAWN I'D I DON'T HAVE TO
HAVE A DOCTOR SUPERVISING ME --
AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER ISSUE
WAS ABOUT ALL THE CRACKERS AND
PUBLIC RECORD ME AND I GUESS MY
QUESTION NOW BE I MEAN DO WE DO
THIS AND OTHER.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE OPEN UP.
WHAT IS OTHERWISE A PRIVATE
BUSINESS?
TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REVIEW AND
I GUESS MAYBE IT IS ONLY A
PUBLIC ACT RECORDS ACT REVIEW
FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
RIGHT THE PUBLIC DEPARTMENT THAT
HOLDS THESE RECORDS ARE AT RIGHT
CORRECT GO AHEAD.
SENATOR SO THE FIRST ONE WE'VE
BEEN HAVING -- DIALOGUE THE
WHOLE TIME WITH MISTER LEE ****
AND FRANKLY HIS CONCERNS THEY
LAID OUT ON ISSUE ONE WE'RE
GONNA BE ADDRESSING IN THE AG
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE WAS NOT
APPROPRIATE. TO DO IT IN THIS
COMMITTEE AND I RESPECT THE
CHAIR FOR YOU KNOW JUST.
WORKING IN HIS AREA OF
JURISDICTION A LINE THAT TO THE
AG COMMITTEE SO I'M ASSUMING
WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT RESOLVED
AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD TERMS
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE AND
ONLY HAS TO DO WITH THE HEALTH
OF THE ANIMALS -- THERE'S A LOT
OF POTENTIALLY MISINFORMATION
ABOUT THIS INDUSTRY OUT THERE
AND THE REASON WHY THEY'RE SO --
THERE'S A LOT OF STORIES IS
BECAUSE THERE THERE IS NO
TRANSPARENCY AND SO WE'RE JUST.
MAKING ADVANCE WOULD BE MADE
AVAILABLE -- INFORMATION ON THAT
THE HEALTH OF THE ANIMALS AND
FRANKLY I THINK MORE
TRANSPARENCY ACTUALLY HELPS TO
SEND INDUSTRY DOES NOT HINDER IT
SO.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND THIS
IS TOUGH.
I HAVE A VERY BRIEFLY I I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT -- IT'S NOT
TYPICAL TO EXPOSE -- LICENSING
AND INSPECTION RECORDS -- AND IT
IS TYPICAL -- TO PROVIDE
AGGREGATED DATA BUT THAT'S A
LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE IN THIS
INDUSTRY WHERE THERE ARE ONLY
TWO COMPETITORS -- AND FINALLY I
I WOULD SAY THAT THE IN ORDER TO
BE LICENSED AN APPLICANT HAS TO
PROVIDE THE PROTOCOLS WHICH IS
BASICALLY THE STEP BY STEP EVERY
ASPECT OF THE BUSINESS IT'S A
ROAD MAP FOR COMPETITORS AND
OTHERS -- TO COMPETE WITH THEM
AND WE THINK THAT'S NOT
APPROPRIATE TO BE DISCLOSED
EITHER SO THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC
THINGS WE WANT TO PROTECT
OTHERWISE -- I I THINK WE'RE
VERY CLOSE TO AGREEMENT ON THAT
OKAY WELL I MEAN I THINK THERE
ARE LEGITIMATE ISSUES.
THIS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS I
MEAN OBVIOUSLY AND WE DID NOT
HAVE THOSE BUT THOSE P. R. A.
PROVISIONS IN THE REGINALD
VERSION OF THE BILL -- SENATOR
JACKSON CHAIR OF THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE --
IMPOSE THEM.
I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH IT -- BUT IF WE CAN
REACH AN ACCOMMODATION AS WE
MOVE FORWARD AND YOU KNOW I'M
HAPPY TO HAPPY TO DO THAT MY
POINT IS THIS IS THAT WE WANT TO
IT IF.
WE WANT EXPAND.
THE BLOOD SUPPLY AND WE WANT TO
DO IT IN A LOVING AND YOU CAN
MORE HUMANE WAY AND AND AGAIN
FORTY NINE OTHER STATES HAVE
THIS.
METHOD WHO ARE THE ONLY ONE WE
ALWAYS BRAG IN THIS IN THIS
BUILDING ABOUT HOW WE'RE THE
FIRST WELL WE'RE THE LAST ON
THIS.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S LONG
OVERDUE THIS REFORM.
BOB SUPPORT YOUR BILL TODAY I
JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS KIND
OF WORK THROUGH SOME OF THESE
ISSUES OR TALK THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMENTS CNN SATURDAY MAY CLOSE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE COMMUNITY
AGRICULTURE.
OVERALL PLEASE STONE BY STONE
AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER I CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU.
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY I'D MENTION.
I MENTIONED I OBERNOLTE.
PETRIE-NORRIS.
NORRIS IRIS.
REYES AYE.
THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
I WILL TAKE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS SOMEONE
WANTS TO REMOVE AN ITEM.
THANK YOU.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY
STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER I CHOW CHOW I CHIU AND
SALAS.
AND ALSO I HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA KILEY.
KILEY AYE MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE
PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETER NORTH IRIS.
REYES AYE.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA IS OUT
THAT IS SB EIGHTEEN SKINNER SB
TWO THIRTY FOUR SKINNER SB THREE
THIRTY SEVEN ALSO SKINNER.
SB THREE NINETY EIGHT TERRAZZO
AND SB FIVE A SIX HUESO -- OKAY
WHILE WE WAIT [inaudible]
FOR SENATORS.
SENATORS GALGIANI.
ALLEN AND SKINNER. TWENTY FOUR
FOR THE VOTES YEAH.
THAT'S WE HAVE ALMOST EVERY BILL
IS ON CALL.
SO THIS IS ROLL THROUGH THAT
WHILE WE WAIT FOR SENATORS AT
THIS POINT I'VE NEVER TO IS SB
TWO TWENTY THREE A MIDDLE IF THE
CALL [inaudible]
CHAO.
CHAO AYE CHIU [inaudible]
HOLDEN.
OKAY THE BILL STILL ON CALL.
ITEM NUMBER THREE SB TWO TWENTY
NINE HERTZBERG OF THE LIFT THE
CALL.
CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU HOLDEN [inaudible]
PETRIE-NORRIS [inaudible]
NORRIS I RIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB THREE
THIRTEEN HUESO IS ON CALL IT
WOULD LIFT THE CALL.
GALLAGHER [inaudible] TWO HOLDEN.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I REYES [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THE BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS ON CALL SB
THREE TWENTY NINE MITCHELL OF
ANALYSTS THE CALL.
CHAO.
CHEN AYE CHIU [inaudible]
KALRA.
KALRA AYE MAIENSCHEIN
[inaudible]
OBERNOLTE.
IS ONE MORE MINUTE REPLACE THE
CALL.
I'VE NEVER SEVEN SB FIVE THIRTY
FOUR BRADFORD IS A COLUMN LIFT
THE CALL.
GALLAGHER.
CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU.
GONZALEZ.
THEMSELVES I KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS ALSO A CALL
SB SIX ONE SIX WIECKOWSKI AYE
MIDDLE IF THE CALL.
CHIU [inaudible]
HOLDEN [inaudible]
MAIENSCHEIN [inaudible]
REYES [inaudible]
REYES I MAIENSCHEIN I THAT BILL
IS ALSO OUT IT'S MAKING PROGRESS.
RIGHT.
SO WE'RE STILL WAITING ON SOME
SENATORS.
AWAITING OUR AND SENATORS
SKINNER ALLEN AND GALGIANI
[inaudible]
SHE WAS [inaudible]
SO SHE YEAH.
ARE ANY ADDITIONAL.
PLEASE SEND FOR THAT
[inaudible]
AFTER [inaudible]
THE THING.
WE GET THE EXTENT [inaudible]
THE UNITED [inaudible]
WHICH IS.
THEY WANTED ME [inaudible]
I WOULD [inaudible]
WITH.
ONE THAT'S A GOOD WITH THE
WITHOUT CONSENT.
NUMBER NINE SO [inaudible] THREE
YEAH.
RIGHT IS THAT THE VEHICLE THIS
IS.
A TWENTY NINE HE'S GONNA TAKE --
THAT THE CONTRACT WAS OKAY.
OKAY YEAH THIS IS NOT IT.
I WAS GOING [inaudible]
WHICH YEAH GETTING MORE EVEY IS
ON THE ROADS WE WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT IT'S EASIER FOR THOSE
FOLKS WHO ARE RENTING. TO BE
ABLE TO TO CHARGE THEIR THEIR
CARS AND AND WITHOUT A
PROFESSIONAL VOTE AND THERE ARE
AMENDMENTS WE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENT YES I'VE SEEN ELSE'S
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT IS THERE ANY WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MR CHURCH ON THE
CLAIM THAT THE COUNTY SAN DIEGO
IN SUPPORT THANK YOU.
MR TURN MEMBER SYLVIA'S ALICIA
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA AND SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING HECTOR FERNANDES ON
BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON IN SUPPORT.
HELLO GELLER ROBINSON ON BEHALF
OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT THANKS.
DAN CHAU WITH TESLA IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION.
SAY NONE OF BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE SENATOR YOU MAY
CLOSE APPRECIATE THE STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE COMMITTEE AND AND
TO ASK FOR EVER.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND THAT MOTION AND A SECOND
MOTIONS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE AYE
GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE CHAU CHOW I CHIU
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY KILEY AYE
MAIENSCHEIN.
MENTION I OBERNOLTE
PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS IRIS.
RITA THANK YOU MEMBERS THAT
PHYLLIS OUT THANK YOU CENTER
GALGIANI.
ITEM NUMBER TEN SB.
SEVEN FORTY ONE THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND.
CURRENT LAW ALLOWS TRANSGENDER
CALIFORNIA'S TO PETITION COURTS
TO CHANGE THEIR NAME AND GENDER
TO CONFORM TO THEIR GENDER
GENDER IDENTITY.
THE LAW THAT ALLOWS THAT
PERSON'S OLD BIRTH CERTIFICATE
TO BE SEALED AND A NEW ONE
ISSUED AS AN ORIGINAL TO BOTH
PROTECT THAT PERSON'S PRIVACY.
AND RESPECT THEIR IDENTITY
HOWEVER THERE'S NO PROVISION A
LOT AS TO THE TREATMENT OF
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE'S MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES AND THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATES OF THEIR CHILDREN.
SB SEVEN FORTY ONE WOULD SIMPLY
ONLINE THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE'S MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES AND THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATES OF THEIR CHILDREN
WITH THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING
THEIR OWN BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
HERE TEST TO TESTIFY WITH ME IS
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK GOODNESS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS HI MY NAME IS PUNIT PER
WALL ONCE AGAIN HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE QUALITY CALIFORNIA PROUD
SPONSORS OF SB.
SEVEN FORTY ONE AM BUT IS FOR
THIS BILL CAME FROM AMIRA HASS
AND BUSH WHO RUN THE LAW FIRM IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY THAT FOCUSES
SPECIFICALLY ON LGBT Q.
INDIVIDUALS.
AND FAMILIES AMIR WAS UNABLE TO
ATTEND TODAY BUT THE US THAT I
SHARE A FEW POINTS WITH THE
COMMITTEE REGARDING THE NEED FOR
THIS BILL.
IN THE LAST YEAR AMIR WORKED
WITH THE CLIENT TO AUST IF SHE
COULD MODIFYHER CHILD'S BIRTH
CERTIFICATE TO REFLECT HER
HUSBAND'S GENDER HE HAD RECENTLY
TRANSITION TO MAIL.
ALL AMERICAN TELLER CLIENT WAS
THAT IT WOULD COST MORE MONEY
AND YOU CAN GUARANTEE AN OUTCOME
THE COUPLE CHOSE NOT TO MAKE THE
CHANGE AT ALL.
AND SO THE FATHER IS STILL
LISTED ON THE CHILD'S MOTHER ON
THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
A YEAR AGO ANOTHER CLIENT TIRED
AMIRA TO COMPLETE HER NAME AND
GENDER CHANGE.
AMIR A FINALLY RECEIVED
CONFIRMATION THAT THE CLIENT
RECEIVED HER AMENDED MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATE ELEVEN MONTHS LATER
IN ORDER TO GET HER CLIENT A NEW
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE WITH THE
OLD ONE SEALED AND WITHOUT
IDENTIFICATIONS OVER FORMER NAME.
AMIRA DRAFTED AND SUBMITTED A
LEGAL MEMO TO THE COURT HAD A
FORMAL HEARING BEFORE A JUDGE
FILED A SEPARATE MOTION BOB
THOUGHT ORDER -- FOR PARTIALLY
APPROVED SENT THIRTY EMAILS BACK
AND FORTH WITH VITAL RECORDS
MADE COUNTLESS PHONE CALLS AND
TOWED A VERY CAREFUL LINE
BETWEEN BACKING AND INSISTING.
ULTIMATELY SUCCEEDED ON BEHALF
OF OUR CLIENT BUT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE
DO NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL
RESERVOIR RESERVOIRS TO HIRE
PRIVATE COUNSEL IN A MERE
DOESN'T THINK THAT HER CLIENT
OUTCOME.
COULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED WITHOUT
THE ADVOCACY OF A LAWYER.
FRANKLY AMIR NOTES.
SHE WASN'T EVEN INITIALLY SURE
THAT SHE COULD DO IT.
AND SHE'S NOT SURE THAT EVERY
LAWYER -- COULD EVER LAWYER
COULD GET THE SAME OUTCOME.
THIS PROP THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE
PROCESS THE CHANGE A SMALL.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT IN THE FIX
IS VERY SIMPLE.
CALIFORNIANS OF TRANS EXPERIENCE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR
LEGAL NAME AND GENDER FLECKED
ACCURATELY ON OLDER
ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS.
WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL TO SENATOR
GALGIANI FOR HER ATTENTION TO
THIS ISSUE AND RESPECTFULLY URGE
THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SB
SEVEN FORTY ONE AS WELL.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING ANDY LEAVE INVOLVED
FROM THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
UNFORTUNATELY THE BILL IS
OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW WE CAN'T
SUPPORT IT BUT WE WANT TO THANK
THE SENATOR VERY MUCH FOR THE
LANES SHE'S GOING TO TO WORK ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL THAT WILL
ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROCEDURES
WORKABLE IN THE COURTS.
SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT
OR SORT OF IN SUPPORT SEEING
NONE IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION.
SAY NONE OF BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
[inaudible]
SEEING NONE.
SENATOR YOU MAY CLOSE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK PRIVATE THANK
YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION A SECOND
THAT MOTION IS TO PASS TO HEALTH
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY
STONE AYE GALLAGHER CHOW.
CHOW I CHOOSE GONZALEZ.
CONSULT AYE HOLDEN KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEYNO MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I REYES.
REYES AYE.
THAT BILLS OUT THANK YOU THANK
YOU.
ALL RIGHT WE'RE WAITING FOR
SENATOR SKINNER WHO'S PROBABLY
IN THE MIDST OF A LONG COMMITTEE
HEARING.
THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN EXPECT HER
SOON
-- AND MITCHELL IS ALSO
COMMON TO LIFT THE CALL
[inaudible]
CHIU.
OBERNOLTE NO OBERNOLTE NO.
OKAY THAT IS -- TO KHôNG GOING
TO REPLACE THE CALL -- SINCE
WE'RE WAITING FOR CENTER SKINNER.
WITH.
YEAH LET'S GO BACK THROUGH.
SO THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THE
ABSENT MEMBERS CALL THE OF THE
MEMBERS TO HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE OBERNOLTE OBERNOLTE
AYE.
WE NEED THEM.
ITEM NUMBER ONE SB TWO OH TWO
WILK CALLED UP TO MEMBERS CHIU.
HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE OBERNOLTE THE REBEL
TI.
ITEM NUMBER THREE HERTZBERG SB
TWO TWENTY NINE CALL THE
OBSERVERS.
CHIU HOLDEN [inaudible]
THEN I ROSARIO [inaudible] FIVE
I DON'T NUMBER FIVE SB THREE ONE
THREE HUESO CHIU.
HOLDEN [inaudible]
HOLDEN AYE.
OKAY ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB FIVE
THIRTY FOUR BRADFORD KALI OF
SOME MEMBERS [inaudible]
CHIEF AVAIL. TO OBERNOLTE
OBERNOLTE NO.
ITEM NUMBER. EIGHT SEE IT'S SB
SIX ONE SIX WHAT CASKEY COLLAPSE
OF MEMBERS.
TO HOLDEN [inaudible]
HOLDEN AYE.
ITEM NUMBER NINE SB SIX THIRTY
EIGHT ALLEN CALLED THE OF THE
MEMBERS CHIU HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE OBERNOLTE OBERNOLTE
AYE.
OKAY SO ITEM NUMBER TEN SB SEVEN
FORTY ONE GALGIANI.
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
GALLAGHER CHIU HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
TO SO LET'S LIFT THE CALL ON
ITEM NUMBER TWO SB TWO TWENTY
THREE HELL [inaudible] TWO TWO I
THAT BILL IS OUT.
AND LET'S LIFT THE CALL AN ITEM
NUMBER SIX SB THREE TWENTY NINE
MITCHELL.
CHU.
CHU ARE.
THAT BILL IS ALSO OUT.
THANK YOU.
DO I HAVE. TO I JUST ROLL
THROUGH OKAY LET'S ROLL THROUGH
AS WE WAIT FOR SENATOR SKINNER
SO CONSENT.
TO CHIU I'M CONSENT.
OKAY THE REST OF THE BILLS ARE
OUT BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO
THROUGH AN AD ABSENT MEMBERS
ITEM NUMBER ONE SB TWO OH TWO
WILK.
CHU.
CHU I ITEM NUMBER TWO SB TWO
TWENTY THREE HELL.
HEY WE JUST DID THAT SORRY ITEM
TO TWENTY ITEM NUMBER THREE SB
TWO TWENTY NINE HERTZBERG CHU.
CHU AYE OKAY CENTER SKINNER IS
HERE LET'S.
TAKE CENTER SKINNER.
AND THEN WE WILL.
BISHOP SO I REMEMBER FOR SB
THREE TED SENATOR WELCOME
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
WE'LL SEE HOW GOOD I AM WITH MY
GOOD MEMORY ON MY OWN BILLS
SINCE MY STAFF BERNERO MY NOTES
ANYWAY [inaudible]
WHAT?
TO THANK YOU I CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
PRESENTING.
SB THREE TEN HI ASK YOU.
WHAT [inaudible]
TO TIM ALLEN.
MARTHA STEWART.
AND LARRY KING HAVE IN COMMON.
IN CALIFORNIA THEY WOULD NEVER
BE ABLE TO SERVE ON A JURY.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
THEY COULD BE A MEMBER OF THE
BAR IF THEY WERE -- TO SO
FORTUNATE.
TO PASS THE BAR.
THEY COULD PRACTICE AS LAWYERS
THEY COULD DO ALMOST MOST.
MOST THINGS.
IN OUR STATE EXCEPT THEY HAVE A
LIFETIME BAN ON SERVING ON A
JURY WHY.
BECAUSE EACH OF THEM.
WAS AT ONE POINT IN THEIR LIVES.
SIR HAD A FELONY CONVICTION.
WHAT IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE
THIS LIFETIME BEYOND?
WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON
CALIFORNIANS. 30% OF
CALIFORNIA'S BLACK.
MEN RESIDENTS.
ARE NOW EXCLUDED FROM EVER
SERVING ON A JURY DUE TO THIS
LAW.
THE VERY PRINCIPLE.
OF JURY SERVICE.
IS A JURY OF YOUR PEERS.
IF WE ABSOLUTELY. FOR A LIFETIME.
EXCLUDES 30%.
OF THE BLACK MAN WHO LIVE IN
CALIFORNIA.
HOW IS IT THAT WE WOULD EXPECT
THERE TO BE A JURY OF THEIR
PEERS?
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE PROFILE
[inaudible]
OF WHO IS USUALLY IN COURT.
AS THE DEFENDANT.
I'M NOW ALLOWS ME WITNESSES TO A
I'VE GOT A PROFESSORS DONE A
GREAT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON THIS
SUBJECT PAULA CHEESE -- IF YOU
DON'T MIND WANT TO BEGIN AND
THEN WILL.
USERS.
THAT'S RIGHT THE FIRST FIRST
WITNESS PLEASE.
IN A SHIRT UP MORNING MY NAME IS
DOCTOR JAMES BUT ALL.
IT STILL SOUNDS LITTLE
PRETENTIOUS WHEN I SAY THAT SO I
APOLOGIZE -- TO START I JUST
WANT THINK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TAKE PART IN THIS
VERY IMPORTANT HEARING THE
EXCLUSION OF CONVICTED FELONS
FROM JURY SERVICE IS A TOPIC I
THINK IT WARRANTS THIS FORUM AND
I APPRECIATE OBVIOUSLY BEING
PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO I'M CURRENTLY A TENURED
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW
CRIMINOLOGY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT
CAL STATE LONG BEACH.
I'M ALSO PRACTICING ATTORNEY --
IN A CONVICTED FELON.
IN NINETEEN NINETY NINE A
BECAUSE THE D. Y. ACCIDENT THE
CLEAN THE LIFE MY PASSENGER WHO
IS MY BEST FRIEND.
I SUBSEQUENTLY SPENT FOUR YEARS
ONE MONTH SIXTIES INTO MAXIMUM
SECURITY PRISONS.
WHILE INSIDE I TOOK MY LSAT FROM
MY PRISON CELL IN THE HOPE OF
ONE DAY GOING TO LAW SCHOOL.
BUT MY RELEASED TWO THOUSAND
FOUR BEGIN MY LEGAL STUDIES FOUR
YEARS LATER IN TWO THOUSAND
EIGHT I WAS AMID THE CALIFORNIA
STATE BAR EMBARKED ON A LEGAL
CAREER.
AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY
ALL WHILE PURSUING MY PHD.
THAT SENIOR WAS SOME TO JURY
DUTY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
CALIFORNIA WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE
COURTHOUSE IN THE DAY MY SERVICE
I PASSED THROUGH SECURITY USING
THE DESIGNATED ENTRANCE FOR
ATTORNEYS.
I FELT A STRANGE SENSE OF PRIDE
IN PRIVILEGE AT THAT TIME.
SOON THEREAFTER COURTHOUSE
PERSONAL STRUCK ME TO COMPLETE A
JUROR QUALIFICATION
QUESTIONNAIRE IT USED TO BE
NUMBER SEVEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT
NUMBER IS NOW.
ON THAT QUESTION THERE WAS AN
INCREASE REGARDING CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS -- WHETHER I'VE BEEN
CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE I ANSWERED
YES.
WHAT'S UP TURNING IN THE
QUESTIONNAIRE WAS CALLED FOR THE
JURY Là ANDREAS STRUCKER BY THE
JURY COMMISSIONER.
THAT WAS PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE
FOR JURY DUTY AND I WOULD NEVER
BE CALLED AGAIN.
I PROTESTED MILEY EXPLAINING I
WAS AN ATTORNEY HAD USED THE
SPECIAL ENTRANCE OUT AND WAS
TOLD THAT I SHOULD WRITE MY
REPRESENTATIVE IF I WAS NOT
HAPPY ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S JR
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.
STATE OF READING MY
REPRESENTATIVE I EMBARKED ON A
TEN YEAR RESEARCH AGENDA FOCUSED
ON THIS TOPIC.
I OFFICE BACKGROUND BY WAY OF
EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW WHY SPENT
THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE
STUDYING A TOPIC.
THERE WAS HE'S VERY LITTLE
SCHOLARLY LEGISLATIVE ATTENTION
I ALSO OFFICE BACKGROUND TO
ILLUSTRATE THE FIRST OF SEVERAL
CONTRADICTIONS AND
INCONSISTENCIES THAT PLAY A
PRACTICE.
KNOWN AS FELLOW INJURE EXCLUSION.
AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE
CALIFORNIA'S ONE TWENTY A
JURISDICTIONS THE BAND CONVICTED
FELONS FROM JURY SERVICE
PERMANENTLY CALIFORNIA'S FELON
JR EXCLUSION STATUTE IS
CATEGORICAL.
BARRING ALL CONVICTED FELONS
REGARDLESS OF OFFENSE TYPE FROM
BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES.
JUSTIFYING THE STATUTE COURTS IN
LAWMAKERS ALLEGE THE CONVICTED
FELONS.
THOSE LIKE ME WOULD JEOPARDIZE
THE JURY PROCESS BECAUSE WE
PURPORTEDLY LACK CHARACTER.
IN HARBOR INHERENT BIAS MAKING
US ADVERSARIAL TOWARD THE STATE
IN ON TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS.
IN MY RESEARCH I HAVE EXPLORED
FOR THE FIRST TIME TO LEAD THESE
RATIONALES FOR FALL INJURE
EXCLUSION.
I'VE ALSO EXAMINE THE IMPACTS OF
THE PRACTICE SPECIFICALLY I'VE
ANALYZED HELPFUL INJURE
EXCLUSION INFLUENCES COMMUNITIES.
AND HOW IT INFLUENCES THOSE
SYSTEM IMPACT AND CITIZENS TO
FALL PREY TO THE EXCLUSION. ONE
ONE OF MY RESEARCH FOCUSES ON
THIS IDEA OF CHARACTER AND THE
CLAIM THE CONVICTED FELONS OF
ALLOWED TO SERVE WOULD SOMEHOW
TATE THE DELIVERED OF PROCESS.
TO DO SO I CONDUCTED THE FIRST
MOCK JURY STUDY EVER INCLUDED
FELLING JURORS AND NON FELL
INJURES RESULTS INDICATE THE
CONVICTED FELONS APPROACH
DELIBERATIONS THOUGHTFULLY AND
ENTHUSIASTICALLY.
ON TO THEORETICALLY DERIVED
MEASURES OF DELIBERATION QUALITY
TIME SPOKEN AND RECOLLECTING HER
RECOLLECTION OF CASE FACTS
EXCUSE ME FILLING JURORS
OUTSCORED THEIR NON FILLING
COUNTERPARTS.
WHEN ALL THE MEASURES OF
DELIBERATION QUALITY FOLGERS IN
NON FELL INJURES DID NOT DIFFER
STATISTICALLY?
THESE FINDINGS SUGGEST THE
CONVICTED FELONS AT A MINIMUM DO
NOT UNDERMINE IN MAY IN FACT
ENHANCE JURY DELIBERATIONS.
ACCORDINGLY JURISDICTIONS A BAR
US FROM JURY SERVICE MAY I
NECESSARILY DISCARDED VALUABLE
VIEWPOINT IN THE JURY'S QUEST
FOR JUSTICE.
THE CHARACTER RATIONALE ALSO
FACES THE CONTEXTUAL CHALLENGE
AS I ALLUDED TO THE START OF MY
TESTIMONY CALIFORNIA IS ONE OF
TWENTY NINE JURISDICTIONS WHICH
A CONVICTED FELON CAN
SUCCESSFULLY BECOME A MEMBER OF
STATE BAR.
BUT IS FOREVER EXCLUDED FROM THE
JURY POOL.
THIS IN MY OPINION STRETHES THE
BOUNDS OF LOGIC.
WHILE BOTH LEGAL ROLES REQUIRE
UP STANDING MORAL CHARACTER
CALIFORNIA ALLOWS FOR THE
PROSPECT OF REDEMPTION IN THE
CONTEXT OF ENTRY TO THE LEGAL
PROFESSION.
GET IGNORES THAT POSSIBILITY
WHEN IT COMES TO JURY SERVICE A
CRUCIAL CIVIC COMMITMENT.
SO AS A PRACTICAL MATTER WELL I
CAN DEFEND A CITIZEN FACING THE
ULTIMATE PENALTY DEATH.
I AM NOT PERMITTED NOT TRUSTED
ENOUGH BY THIS STATE TO DECIDE
EXAMPLE IN THIS PLACE FENCE.
OR IMPROPER EASEMENT.
SIR I DO NEED TO WRAP UP PLEASE
SURE.
I WANNA SAY ONE THING ABOUT
CRIMINALS ASSISTANCE IF I MIGHT
IN INTERVIEWS WITH SALINGER'S IN
THE ONLY JURISDICTION THAT
ALLOWS CONVICTED FELONS TO SERVE
STATE OF MAINE.
WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT SUBJECT
SPOKE OF THEIR INCLUSION IN JURY
SELECTION AS CORROBORATION OF
THE REFORMATION?
BOASTING ABOUT THEIR VALUES
POTENTIAL JURORS THE STROKE TO
LIVE UP TO THE IDEAL JUROR ROLE.
THESE THINGS THIS INCLUSION
TRIGGERED CRIMINALS ASSISTANCE
MECHANISMS.
I'LL CLOSE WITH THAT I SAW THANK
YOU AGAIN FOR RECOGNIZING WHAT I
CONSIDER REALLY INVISIBLE FORM
OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT -- AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT MY RESEARCH THEN THERE'S A
LOT MORE OF IT.
THANK YOU THIS SERVICE PLEASE
GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS OSCAR
BOB WROTE I AM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION HAS APPROXIMATELY
FOUR THOUSAND CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS IN ITS MEMBERSHIP.
I'VE BEEN A PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR
THIRTY FOUR YEARS.
I'VE TRIED CLOSE TO TWO HUNDRED
JURY TRIALS.
AND I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU A
PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE IN
THE TRENCHES -- IN DEFENDING
CLIENTS.
IN OUR CURRENT JURY SYSTEM. FOR
THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES I AND
MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WITNESSED THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
DISPROPORTIONATELY PROSECUTE IN
OUR COURTS.
MEMBERS OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN
AND HISPANIC COMMUNITIES.
IN THE POPULATIONS IN
POPULATIONS OF OUR STATE.
DISPROPORTIONATELY.
THE CONVERSE OF THAT IS
OBVIOUSLY TRUE IF YOU WALK IN
ANY CRIMINAL COURT.
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SUMMONED TO
SERVE AS JURORS
DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTS
CAUCASIAN RESIDENTS IN ALMOST
EVERY COMMUNITY AND UNDER
REPRESENTS WITH -- CLEAR
CONSISTENCY THE SAME POPULATIONS
OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CRIMINAL
DEFENDANTS.
DESPITE THIS.
EXISTING FOR DECADES AND THIS
PHENOMENA BEING EXPOSED IN OUR
TRIAL COURTS IN IN OUR PELA
COURTS AND DECISIONS ABOUT IT.
NOTHING'S BEEN DONE TO CHANGE IT
AND IT'S MOSTLY BECAUSE WE USED
TO LIST ONLY TO LIST --
CURRENTLY THE DEPARTMENT MOTOR
VEHICLES WHICH REQUIRES A OF
EVERY TEN YEAR.
RE DOING OF OF YOUR LICENSE
STATUS OR YOUR IDENTIFICATION
STATUS AND REGISTER VOTERS WHICH
DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO REGISTER
THOSE ARE THE LIST.
THAT WE SUMMON JURORS FROM.
AND THE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN OVER
AND OVER AGAIN THAT THOSE LISTS
UNDER REPRESENT.
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN AND
HISPANIC POPULATIONS IN THE
STATE IN THE JURY POOLS. THIRTY
THREE OTHER STATES IN THE UNITED
STATES USE LISTS IN ADDITION TO
THOSE TWO LISTS.
CALIFORNIA IS WAY BEHIND THE
TIMES IN REGARD -- TO WHERE WE
ARE IN OUR JURY SELECTION
PROCESS -- I I CANNOT EXPRESS TO
YOU HOW DISHEARTENING IT IS TO
WALK INTO A COURTROOM WITH A
CLIENT WHO HAS PROFESSED HIS
INNOCENCE AND AGAIN I WOULD
REMIND THAT THE THE GROUP HERE
THAT.
A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE
CASES THAT ARE FILED END UP
BEING JURY TRIAL IT'S A IT'S
AROUND 223% STATE WIDE.
BUT THOSE CLIENTS THAT DO
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO TRIAL IN --
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC DEFENDERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND OTHER
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS.
WHEN THEY WALK INTO A COURTROOM
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO A JURY OF
THEIR PEERS AND TO SIT DOWN AT
COUNSEL TABLE AND SEE THAT PANEL
COME INTO THE COURTROOM AND I
DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE
HAD THE EXPERIENCE TO BE?
OF JURORS OR TO BE A PART OF
THAT ROOM AND TO LOOK AROUND AND
SEE ONE TWO OR NO FACES THAT
MATCH THE FACE OF YOUR CLIENT.
IT'S DEVASTATING FOR YOUR CASE
IT'S DEVASTATING FOR YOUR CLIENT
AND IT DESTROYS THE MEANING OF A
JURY OF ONE PEER ONE'S PEERS.
SO I ASK YOU AS THE THE COAST
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL TO SUPPORT
SB THREE TEN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE
STATE TAX FILERS WOULD INCLUDE --
FELONS TO SERVE.
AND AND TO SUPPORT SKINNER
CENTER SKINNER'S COURAGEOUS
EFFORT TO CHANGE THE WAY WE SOME
INJURES IN OUR STATE.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT.
RACHEL WELLS ON BEHALF OF THE
ACLU OF CALIFORNIA PART CO
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU -- DER CYPRIAN SENOR
GUNNERS WERE ALL OF US KNOWN AS
STRONG SUPPORTER SB THREE TEN
THANK.
AARON HANEY ON BEHALF OF CUT
FIFTY IN STRONG SUPPORT.
LONDON CROWDED WITH LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH
CHILDREN STRONG SUPPORT.
ASHLEY CARTER ON BEHALF OF KERR
FIFTY AND ALL OF US ARE NOT IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
MICHAEL MENDOZA WITH THE ANTI
RECIDIVISM COLLISION STRONG
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE OPPOSITION
.
GOOD MORNING MR AND MEMBERS
COMMITTEE LARRY MORSE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION --
WE ARE CURRENTLY OPPOSED TO THIS
BILL AS DRAFTED WE HAVE BEEN IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SENATOR'S
OFFICE.
BUT THE BILL AS CURRENTLY
CONSTITUTED WOULD REPLICATE ONE
STATE IN ONE STATE ONLY WHICH IS
THE STATE OF MAINE WHICH
CURRENTLY ALLOWS -- FELONS
WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS TO
SERVE ON JURIES -- THAT MEANS
THAT PAROLEES.
PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL ON
PROBATION OR HAVE SOME SORT OF A
TAIL ATTACHED TO THEIR RELEASE --
TO NINETY REGISTRANTS -- YOU
COULD CONCEIVABLY UNDER THE THE
TERMS OF THIS BILL HAVE A PERSON
ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON JURY WHO IS
RECENTLY PAROLED FOR CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN AND IS SERVING --
OR IS OF REGISTERED -- TO NINETY
DEFENDANT.
WE ARE CITY A A IS WILLING -- TO
BRING CALIFORNIA INTO THE NUMBER
OF STATES THAT DO ALLOW --
FELONS TO SERVE CURRENTLY IN
MORE THAN HALF THE COUNTRY RIGHT
AT ABOUT HALF THE COUNTRY FELONS
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE.
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM FELONS ARE
NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE -- WE
RECOGNIZE AND APPLAUD SENATOR
SKINNER FOR BRINGING CALIFORNIA
INTO THE LIST OF STATES THAT --
WILL ALLOW FELONS TO SERVE WHAT
WE HAVE PROPOSED ARE WHAT WE
CONSIDER TO BE REASONABLE AND
APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON THAT
SERVICE AS OR IN PLACE IN ALMOST
EVERY STATE THAT ALLOWS FELONS
TO SERVE. FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE
PROPOSED THAT -- NO FELON WHO
WAS ON PAROLE.
BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ON A JURY --
FOR THE VERY SIMPLE REASON YOU
COULD LITERALLY BE IN THE MIDDLE
OF A JURY TRIAL I LIKE MY
COUNCIL OVER HERE IS PROSECUTOR
AND TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR TWENTY
SIX YEARS.
YOU COULD HAVE A PERSON --
LITERALLY ON A ON A JURY BE
VIOLATED FOR A PAROLE VIOLATION
DURING THE MIDDLE OF A TRIAL --
FOR EITHER A PAROLE VIOLATION OR
PROBATION -- WE WE WOULD ASK
THAT THE BILL -- NOT PERMIT
PAROLEES OR ANYONE WITH THE TAIL
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN FACT
FREED FROM CUSTODY FROM COMPLETE
CUSTODY THE STATE STILL HAS --
AUTHORITY OVER OVER THESE PEOPLE
WE'VE ALSO ASKED FOR A FIVE YEAR
WASHOUT PERIOD WHICH WOULD BE IN
THE FIGHT FOR FIVE YEARS PRIOR
TO THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS
JURORS.
THAT THEY REMAIN FREE FROM --
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AND WE HAVE
ASKED THAT -- TO NINETY
REGISTRANTS -- NOT BE ELIGIBLE
TO SERVE AS WELL -- MOST OF
THESE.
DISCUSSIONS WILL IN THE WAY
JURIES TRIALS WORK -- WHEN YOU?
COME IN THE JURY COMES IN AND
THE JUDGE ALMOST ALWAYS WILL
TELL THE PROSPECTIVE JURY IF
THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU YOU
WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT OUTSIDE THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY.
PLEASE LET THE COURT KNOW AND WE
WILL ADJOURN INTO CHAMBERS AND
THEN YOU CAN TELL OFTENTIMES.
IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE OR A
RAPE CASE ONE OF THE JURORS HAS
BEEN A VICTIM.
HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR HAS A
CLOSE CONNECTION TO IT -- SO WE
WOULD EXPECT THAT.
OF SOME OF THESE FOLKS WHO ARE
FELONS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE WOULD
WANT TO DISCUSS THAT IN THE
PRIVACY OF CHAMBERS WITH THE
JUDGE -- HOWEVER NONE OF THE
OTHER JURORS ARE GOING TO KNOW
THAT THEY'RE SITTING THERE ARE
SPENDING WEEKS AND POSSIBLY
MONTHS NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO MAY
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A SERIOUS.
CRIME OF VIOLENCE -- THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO BE AWARE OF ANY.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR REASONABLE.
ACCOMMODATIONS REASONABLE
RESTRICTIONS WE ARE NOT OPPOSED --
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE SENATORS
BILL WE APPLAUD HER -- FOR
INITIATING THIS DIALOGUE BUT WE
THINK THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE
AND APPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS
THAT SHOULD BE ADOPTED -- IN
ORDER -- TO PURSUE THIS.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
THIS WITNESS WITH.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN BURST
RAIN SHERMAN WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION LIKE TO
CONCURRENT COMMENTS.
MADE BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE
DISK TURNS SO SEE XIN AND ALSO
NOTE THAT PROPER COURT SECURITY
REQUIRES CONSTANT MONITORING OF
THE ACCUSED.
THE WITNESSES THE EMPLOYEES AND
ALL VISITORS MEMBERS OF THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
OF SWORN TO PROTECT AND SERVE
ALL WHO COME TO COURT.
SB.
THREE TEN WILL MAKE OUR MEMBERS
JOB MUCH MORE DIFFICULT BY
MIXING VIOLENT FELONS ON PAROLE
WITH DUTIFUL CITIZENS WHO HAVE
WILLINGLY CHOSEN TO PARTICIPATE
IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT OUR CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS ARE NOT
PERFECT.
BUT HAVING CONVICTED FELONS AND
PAROLEES SERVICE JURORS.
WILL FURTHER UNDERMINE THE
PUBLIC SAFETY INTEREST IN OUR
COURTS AND WE RESPECTFULLY URGE
IN THE NOTEBOOK THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS COME ASSIST KALRA.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK
YOU CENTER FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD FIRST OF ALL ON THE
THE TAX FILING.
THE INCREASE IN THE POOL AT NOTS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
AS WE KNOW AND IS INDICATED TO A
VERY WELL IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS
THAT USING JUST THE DMV AND
VOTER ROLLS EXCLUDES.
A LARGE SWATH OF OUR POPULATION
VERTICALLY LOWER INCOME PEOPLE
OF COLOR AND AGAIN I THINK THE
GOAL IS TO HAVE.
A JURY THAT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE COMMUNITY -- IT INTO WHICH
ARE BEING IMPANELED -- AND WE
KNOW THAT OF HISTORICALLY THAT'S
REALLY NEVER BEEN THE CASE
ALTHOUGH THAT THINK WE'RE ALWAYS
TRYING TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION
I THINK HAVING THE TAX FILING
STATUS IS DEFINITELY A MOVE.
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION -- TO
INCREASE APPLE AND YOU KNOW
HAVING WORKS ADOPTED PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THAT IN YEARS AND
IN PANEL DANGER IS MYSELF -- I
WILL SAY THAT -- FIRST OF ALL --
BUT ANYONE THAT IS ON PAROLE OR
PROBATION -- THAT SHOWS UP FOR
JURY SERVICE AND IS WILLING TO
DO THEIR CIVIC DUTY AS CITIZENS --
WE SHOULD APPLAUD THAT WE SUPPLY
THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO BE BE
INTEGRATED AND REHABILITATED IN
SUCH A WAY THAT THEY ACTUALLY
WANT TO PARTICIPATE.
EVEN IN THE SYSTEM ITSELF.
THAT LED THEM TO THE CONVICTION.
I THAT'S IN SOME WAYS A TRUST IN
THE SYSTEM THAT MANY OF US DON'T
EVEN HAVE.
THAT THAT MAY NOT HAVE TONY
CONVICTIONS.
LET'S ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT
SOMEONE COULD BE EXCUSED -- BUT
IT'S THERE -- A PART OF THE JURY
POOL -- CERTAINLY FOR BIAS --
BUT IF HE IF A FABLE UP.
IS ONE THAT HAS A FELONY
CONVICTION -- BUT CHOOSES TO
REVEAL BY S. CLEARLY -- THEY'LL
BE EXCUSE JUST LIKE A VICTIM OF
A CRIME ALTHOUGH I WILL TELL YOU
ABOUT VICTIM OF CRIMES IMPANELED.
AS A AS PART OF A JURY BECAUSE
THEY'VE INDICATED THEY THEY
DON'T THEY THEY DON'T HAVE ANY
BIAS THAT THEY CAN BE FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL AND IF THE ONE THAT
HAS A CONVICTION CAN INDICATE
THAT THEY'LL BE FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL.
THEY SHOULD BE IN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE NOW THEY
CAN STILL BE EXCUSED -- BUT YOU
KNOW BY A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE --
AND ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS I
KNOW WASN'T NESTLE DISCUSSED
YOUR BILL WAS REFERRED TO IN THE
STAFF ANALYSIS IS HARDSHIPS --
MANY MANY JURORS ESPECIALLY LOW
INCOM JURORS DO NOT SERVE
BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
AND I THINK THAT BY EXPANDING
THE POOLOF THOSE THAT
PRESUMABLY.
WOULD BE LOWER INCOME BUT BUT
THE SERVING JURORS ESPECIALLY
THOSE THAT MAY HAPPEN ANY
CONVICTIONS ARE EXPANDING -- THE
ABILITY TO HAVE A JURY THAT
ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE COMMUNITY
IN WHICH A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS
ON TRIAL.
AND SO I I THINK THAT YES YOU
KNOW THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT OF
FEAR THAT COULD BE SEWN INTO
THIS BUT THE REALITY IS.
THAT -- IF WE TRULY WANT TO
BELIEVE -- AND ONE DOES THAT GET
RELEASED TO BE SUCCESSFUL UPON
GETTING RELEASED THEN WE SHOULD
OPEN UP OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE.
IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WE DO SO
MANY OTHERS AND SO I'M VERY
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL AND I
THINK THAT IT'S IT'S ABSOLUTELY
THE RIGHT STEP PRESS THE TAKEN
CALIFORNIA'S BEEN BEHIND.
I THINK IT'S OKAY IF WE TAKE A
STEP IN ACTUALLY BEING A
LEADERSHIP ROLE OF IT AT THIS
TIME AS WELL.
THANK YOU OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMENTS.
THIS CHIP.
FIRST I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BEING SUCH A STALWART
CHAMPION FOR PROGRESSIVE COLONEL
JUSTICE REFORM I THINK OF
SUPPORTING YOU AND EVERYTHING --
THAT YOU HAVE PUT FORTH I WILL
SAY AS YOU AND I DISCUSSED AS A
FORMER DA THIS BILL DOES GIVE ME
A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN --
WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS SET
THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF THIS BILL
DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S WRITTEN IS
THAT -- PROSECUTORS WILL USE
THEIR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES --
TO STRIKE -- FELONS WHO ARE IN
THE JURY POOL I AND AT SOME
LEVELS -- IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY
DISADVANTAGE -- THE D. A.'S AND
SO -- AS WE DISCUSSED I'M
WILLING TO PROVIDE YOUR COURTESY
VOTE TODAY MY HOPE IS THAT THE
TWO PARTIES WILL CONTINUE TO TO
DISCUSS THIS I KNOW.
THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION AROUND --
POTENTIALLY ALIGNING -- THE
REQUIREMENTS HERE WITH VOTING
REQUIREMENTS I THINK THAT IS --
AN INTERESTING PATH TO CONSIDER --
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
ABOUT THE DISCUSSION I THINK
THERE'S SOMETHING HERE -- BUT I
I DEFINITELY HOPE THAT WE CAN
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE CONCERNS AND REYES TO
MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT WE DON'T
HAVE THE THE IMMEDIATE
HANDICAPPING OF THE PEOPLE STATE
A CALIFORNIA WHEN IT COMES -- TO
SELECTING JURORS [inaudible]
THIS FEATURE.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY AS WELL -- BUT I I DO WANT
TO ENCOURAGE THE ARE THE SENATOR
TO CONSIDER SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS AT THAT WE HEARD
TODAY I THINK SOME OF THEM ARE
KIND OF EXPENSIVE.
THANKS MUCH.
THANK YOU I DON'T KNOW. FIVE MEN
MIGHT RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THOSE
COMMENTS AROUND THE AMENDMENTS --
WELL IT'S STRUCTURE CLOSER YES
YOU MAY [inaudible]
OKAY.
I'M AS MISTER MORRISON MORSE
FROM THE DA ASSOCIATIONS
INDICATED MY OFFICE SANDAY
ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN IN
DISCUSSION -- WE CALIFORNIA.
VOTING RIGHTS.
BUT EXTEND.
TO PERSONS WHO ARE FORMERLY
CONVICTED OF A FELONY BUT WHO
ARE NO LONGER ON ROLL.
ON NOT SURE IF IT'S ALSO PRO OR
PROBATION OR PURCHASE ONE BUT
WHAT I AM WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING
IS AND I'M VERY OPEN TO
POTENTIALLY.
MODIFYING THE BILL SO THAT IT
REFLECTS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH
OUR VOTING RIGHTS.
NOW THE OTHER ISSUES AROUND --
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES
OF OF PEOPLE I THINK IT'S MUCH
MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IF WE
RAISE FOR EXAMPLE.
THE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
CONCERNED THAT YOU KNOW WE HAVE
IF WE HAVE A PERSON WHO WAS --
HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT
FELONY WE COULD HAVE VIOLENCE IN
THE COURT ROOM.
DID THE REALITY IS THAT -- NOT
ALL VIOLENT PEOPLE.
ARE ARRESTED OR CONVICTED -- AND
STEW. FOR US TO ASSUME THAT
EXCLUDING ONE CATEGORY WOULD
SOMEHOW GUARANTEE THAT WE DID
NOT HAVE PEOPLE ON JURIES THAT
HAVE A TENDENCY TOWARDS VIOLENCE
IS A VERY INACCURATE NOTION --
ALL THAT THE FELONY CONVICTION
REPRESENTS IS THAT THAT PERSON
WAS ACTUALLY -- CONVICTED -- WE
KNOW THAT THERE'S IF THERE'S
MUCH VIOLENCE THAT NEVER EVEN
GETS REPORTED AS A CRIME SO --
AND ADDITIONALLY IF WE TAKE THE
THE THE REFERENCE -- TO IT'S THE
REGISTRY OF SEX OFFENDERS.
WE COULD HAVE MANY RAPISTS THAT
ARE SITTING ON A JURY POOL
BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF REPORTED
RAPES IS SO TINY.
AS TO BE ABSURD NOW I DON'T
BRING THAT UP TO SAY THAT I
WELCOME A RAPIST ON A JURY POOL
NO.
BUT I'M BRING IT UP BECAUSE OF
THE ABSURDITY THAT BY EXCLUDING
PEOPLE THAT WERE CONVICTED OF A
FELONY WE ARE PROTECTING IN
ENSURING THAT OUR JURY POOL IS --
ONLY REPRESENTS PRISTINE LAW
ABIDING RESIDENTS WHICH OR
CITIZENS WHICH WE KNOW IT DOES
NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
NEVER REPORTED AND NEVER
CONVICTED SO I JUST RAISE IT
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR US TO JUST LOOK ACCEPT THE
REALITY OF OUR SOCIETY AND
CULTURE -- NOW THE BILL DOES AS
WAS MENTIONED EXPANDS THE LISTS
SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A BETTER
OPPORTUNITY FOR A WIDER JURY
POOL BUT I WILL COMMIT. TO THE
COMMITTEE THAT I WILL CONTINUE
MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DA
ASSOCIATION I AM SURE THERE ARE
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I WILL BE
WILLING IN MY SPONSORS WOULD BE
WILLING TO TAKE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL BE --
ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE
DA'S CONCERNS BUT I WILL
DEFINITELY -- IN GATE CONTINUE
TO ENGAGE AND TAKE THOSE THAT I
THINK HAVE HAVE A STRONG PUBLIC
SAFETY RATIONALE.
AND WITH THAT I ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE AYE
GALLAGHER CHOW.
CHOW I CHU.
CHU AYE GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS
[inaudible]
REYES [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT LET'S GO BACK TO WE
STILL NEED TO GO BACK TO OUR
LIST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS
ADDED ON THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU
. FOUR THREE GALLAGHER
IN THE NATION [inaudible]
OKAY.
AND SHE WAS.
OKAY SO ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB
THREE THIRTEEN HUESO CALL THE US
MEMBERS CHU.
CHU I I REMEMBER SIX SB THREE
TWENTY NINE MITCHELL.
WE GOT EVERYONE OKAY SB I
REMEMBER SEVEN SB FIVE THIRTY
FOUR BRADFORD.
CHIU [inaudible] TWO I ALL RIGHT
WITH THAT.
I'M SORRY I THINK YOU'RE.
I THINK ON EVERYTHING WOULD JUST
DOUBLE CHECK
[inaudible]
YEAH.
OKAY THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH
WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED