IT IS TUESDAY MARCH NINETEENTH
WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
WE'RE GOING TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE.
NORMALLY I WOULD NOT DO THAT
WITHOUT AT LEAST ONE REPUBLICAN
MEMBER BUT WE SEEM TO BE.
LACKING THEM THIS MORNING WE
NEED TO GET THIS MEETING GOING
WE'RE GONNA TAKE MISTER TO FIRST
SO WE'LL START WITH.
ITEM NUMBER TWO AB TWO OF SIX
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
THIS BILL CONCERNS THE SUBJECT
OF A LANDMARK JUDGMENT THAT
DEFINITIVELY HELD LEAD PAINT
MANUFACTURERS TO HAVE KNOWINGLY
SOLD A PRODUCT THAT THEY KNEW
WAS HARMFUL TO PROPERTY OWNERS --
THEY'RE FOUND GUILTY BECAUSE OF
THEIR ADVERTISING IN THE FACE OF
THIS KNOWLEDGE VERTICALLY AROUND
HEALTH RISKS THERE WERE
DOCUMENTED INVOLVING BRAIN
DAMAGE KIDNEY DAMAGE INFERTILITY
AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS IN
CHILDREN. TEN CITIES AND
COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA
SUCCESSFULLY SUED THREE LEAD
PAINT COMPANIES AND PROVE THAT
THE COMPANY'S NEGLIGENCE CREATED
A WIDESPREAD PUBLIC NUISANCE
WHICH THE COMPANIES MUST PAY TO
ABATE.
OUR BILL AB TWO OH SIX WOULD
PROTECT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS THAT HAVE
BEEN THREATENED BY THE PAIN
COMPANIES IF.
A HOMEOWNER OR A PROPERTY OWNER
PARTICIPATES IN A LEAD PAINT
ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
ANY OWNER WHO DOES THE RIGHT
THING AND REMOVES LED FROM THEIR
HOME SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT THE THREAT OF MERITLESS
LAWSUITS FROM THESE PAIN
COMPANIES.
BEYOND THE THREAT OF LAWSUITS
NUMEROUS MULTI FAMILY DWELLING
OWNERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA WOULD
NOT HAVE TO CSUS SEEK TO HAVE
NOT MAY NOT BE SEEKING TO HAVE
KNOWN LEAD PAINT DEBATED. TO
ENSURE THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS
WITH POTENTIAL HAZARDS
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM THIS
BILL NARROWLY PROVIDES THAT
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROGRAM ALONE CANNOT BE USED TO
PROVE THAT A PROPERTY IS A
NUISANCE OR OTHERWISE UNTENABLE.
WE WANT AS MANY HOMEOWNERS AS
POSSIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE
PROGRAMS AND GET LET OUT OF
THEIR HOMES THIS IS A BILL
THAT'S NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
THE COURT'S JUDGMENT EFFECTIVELY.
AND MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THESE
PROGRAMS WITHOUT FEELING DELAY
WHO IS A DEPUTY ATTORNEY WITH
THE SAN FRANCISCO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS WELL AS
DIFFICULT AND WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION.
FIRST WITH US PLEASE.
HELLO THANK YOU AND CHAIRMAN
STONE FOR HANG US TODAY.
AB TWO OH SIX IS VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THE LEAD PAINT
LITIGATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
LITIGATING FOR NEARLY TWO
DECADES HAS RESULTED IN A FOUR
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT
THE PROVIDES A ONCE IN A
GENERATION OPPORTUNITY. FOR TEN
JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA TO REMOVE THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE OF INTERIOR RESIDENTIAL
LEAD PAINT FROM HOMES LEAD PAINT
THE CONTINUES TO POISON
THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIANS
CHILDREN EVERY YEAR. ONE OF THE
UNIQUE ASPECTS OF OUR JUDGMENT
HOWEVER IS THAT WE HAVE ONLY
FOUR YEARS IN ORDER TO GET THIS
FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF
ABATEMENT COMPLETED.
AND THAT ANY MONEY THAT REMAINS
IN THE FUND THAT THE LEAD PAINT
COMPANIES HAVE TO PAY INTO WILL
REVERT BACK TO THEM AT THE END
OF FOUR YEARS.
THIS PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE TO
THE LEAD PAINT COMPANIES --
TO DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM
PARTICIPATING IN THE VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM AND THEY'VE MADE VERY
CLEAR ON THE RECORD IN OPEN
COURT THAT THEY PLAN. TO SCARE
PEOPLE OFF FROM PARTICIPATING IN
THIS VOLUNTARY PROGRAM BY
THREATENING TO SUE THEM EVEN
THOUGH THOSE CLAIMS IT MAY NOT
BE PARTICULARLY STRONG.
OR HAVE ANY MERIT AT ALL.
IN ORDER TO PROTECT HOMEOWNERS
TO GIVE THEM THE COMFORT THAT
THEY NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
PROGRAM TO TAKE THE ACTION
THAT'S BEST FOR THEIR FAMILIES
TO REMOVE LEAD PAINT.
AND PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN AND
CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN IN OUR
HOUSING STOCK GOING FORWARD WE
NEED TO ASSURE THEM THAT THEY
WILL NOT FACE THESE MERITLESS
BUT NEVER THE LESS SCARY AND
EXPENSIVE LAWSUITS IF THEY DO
PARTICIPATE.
SIMILARLY WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT.
HARTMAN THE OWNERS AND OWNERS OF
MULTI UNIT DWELLINGS WILL FEEL
COMFORTABLE PARTICIPATING IN THE
PROGRAM.
KNOWING THAT THEIR MERE
PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAM
WON'T.
BE EVIDENCE OF A NEW SENSE IN
AND OF ITSELF --
THAT THEY WILL ONLY BE
RESPONSIVE.
ANY PROBLEMS THAT THEY DON'T FIX
RATHER THAN FOR TAKING THESE
POSITIVE ACTIONS TO FIX.
A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN PLAGUING
CALIFORNIA FOR GENERATIONS THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU THAT'S WITH US PLEASE
GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
I DEBRA CARLTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
WE REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY FIFTY
THOUSAND RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
TOGETHER THEY OPERATE ABOUT TWO
MILLION RENTAL UNITS THE
PROTECTIONS OFFERED HERE UNDER
AB TWO OH SIX WELL ENCOURAGE
PROPERTY OWNERS TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROGRAM.
YOU KNOW IT'S UNLIKELY THAT
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO PURCHASED
AND APPLIED LEAD PAINT IN THE
NINETEEN FIFTIES OR EVEN A LIVE
TODAY -- AND
YET THE OWNERS THAT OWN THE
HOUSING NOW ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTAINING AND OR ABATING THE
LEADPAINT.
WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOWEVER
THAT THE BILL DOES NOT CHANGE
THE EXISTING LAW AS IT RELATES
TO MAINTENANCE AND HABITABILITY
AND SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS --
PROPERTY OWNERS OF COURSE --
FACE INCREASED A MAINTENANCE
COSTS FOR MAINTAINING LEAD PAINT
IN PLACE --
BUT THEY WILL.
STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUB
STANDARD CONDITIONS THIS BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE THAT IT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE LAW AS IT RELATES --
TO IF A CHILD IS POISONED THE
RENTAL PROPERTY OWNER WOULD
STILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE SO FOR
THAT -- WE
ENCOURAGE YOUR THANK YOU WE'RE
GOING TO PAUSE AND ESTABLISH A
QUORUM CALL THE ROLL PLEASE
STONE HERE GALLAGHER.
CHAU.
CHIU.
CAN SALAS HOLDEN KALRA.
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN OBERNOLTE
[inaudible]
NORRIS PRESS.
WE DO HAVE A CORE.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME
AND YOUR AFFILIATION PLEASE.
AND A BUCK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS IN SUPPORT WE LIKE TO
THINK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR
HIS TENACITY IN BRINGING BACK
THIS BILL IDEA THIS YEAR.
AND ALSO THE FURTHER REFINEMENTS
TO LANGUAGE THAT ARE BENEFICIAL
TO HOMEOWNERS THANK YOU.
MORNING A COMING WITH LA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND STRONG
SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MR TEAR MEMBERS
JEAN HEARST HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF THE VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT --
MICHAEL RIGHT AGAIN ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SANTA
CLARA COUNTY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
I'D SAY NOT AS OUR OPPOSITION
.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE JOHN
MOFFITT ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING --
WHICH IS A PROJECT OF CONAGRA
ENSURE WILLIAMS TO THE THREE
DEFENDANTS IN THE UNDERLYING
CASE.
AS OUR LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE
NOTED WERE WERE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL AND I THINK FOR THE THE
PURPOSES OF OF TODAY'S
DISCUSSION TODAY I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS TO KNOW WHO IS BEING
PROTECTED HERE.
WHO THIS BILL SEEKS TO PROTECT
AGAINST LAWSUITS BY US?
AND WHO IT SEEKS TO REMOVE.
FROM FOR THE PURPOSES OF TENANTS
RIGHTS IN THERE AT THE VEIL
ABILITY TO EVIDENCE IN BRINGING
THEIR OWN LAWSUITS.
YOU KNOW THE THE SECTION EIGHT
OF THE BILL IS IS ABOUT LAWSUITS
BY MY CLIENTS --
THAT WERE GRANTED IN THE
APPELLATE COURT DECISION
EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN THAT
DECISION AND AFTER TWENTY YEARS
OF LITIGATION.
THE COURT WENT THROUGH AND
EXERCISED ITS JUDGMENT IN
BALANCING THE EQUITIES AS WHAT
IS WHAT HAPPENS IN.
IN EQUITY CASES IN TORT CASES
AND THEY SAID LOOK.
MY CLIENTS ARE LIABLE AND
THEY'REGOING TO PAY MONEY INTO
A FUND.
BUT THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED
EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW.
AND THIS IS LAW THAT SEPARATE
FROM THIS CASE EXISTING
CALIFORNIA LAW ON THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE.
REQUIRES A A HOMEOWNER AND A
LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THEIR HOMES.
IN IN IN AN APPROPRIATE
CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO LEAD
BASED PAINT IF IT'S INTACT IT'S
NOT A LEAD HAZARD.
IF IT'S DETERIORATED IT'S A LEAD
HAZARD AND THEY HAVE AN EXISTING
OBLIGATION RIGHT NOW ASIDE FROM
THIS CASE AND THIS PROGRAM. TO
FIX IT AND CLEAN IT UP
[inaudible]
THIS BILL.
AND THE COURT IN THE APPELLATE
COURT DECISION BASICALLY SAID.
WHEN WE RAISED AN ISSUE WITH
RESPECT TO OUR DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS IN THE TRIAL COURT?
SAID YOU'RE DUE PROCESS HAS NOT
BEEN VIOLATED BECAUSE AT THE END
OF THIS PROCESS.
YES THERE'S GOING TO BE A
BALANCING HERE.
AND A LANDLORD WHO HAS NOT
FOLLOWED CALIFORNIA LAW WHO IS
NOT MAINTAINED LEAD PAINT HOME
WHO IS LET IT DETERIORATE MIGHT
ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE.
AND YOU GET TO BRING A LAWSUIT
TO SEE CONTRIBUTION.
THIS BILL TAKES THAT AWAY IN
DOING SO IT CLEARLY VIOLATES OUR
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS GRANTED BY
THE APPELLATE COURT.
AND THE EFFECT OF THAT COULD
RESULT IN A RE OPENING OF THE
CASE BECAUSE THE CASE WAS BUILT
ON A BALANCING OF NOW THE
EQUITIES OF THIS BILL WERE TO
BECOME LAW ARE OFF.
WITH RESPECT TO TENANTS.
THIS BILL TAKES AWAY THEIR RIGHT
TO A KEY PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
THAT THEY MIGHT USE TO BRING --
A A A LAWSUIT AGAINST A LANDLORD
WHO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE LAW.
IN BOTH OF THESE CASES IN THE
LAWSUITS BY MY CLIENTS IN A
LAWSUIT BY A TENANT.
LANDLORDS AND HOMEOWNERS WHO
HAVE FOLLOWED THE LAW HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
THEY DON'T NEED THIS BILL.
THIS BILL IS NEEDED BY LANDLORDS.
WHO HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE LAW
AND MY GUESS IS THAT'S PROBABLY
A PRETTY SMALL CHUNK OF THE
FOLKS WHO WHO THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTS?
BUT THESE ARE THE WORST OF THE
WORST.
ACTION A REMOVES THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE
AFTER COLLECTING.
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RENT. FOR
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY YEARS.
IT REMOVES THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
TO CONTRIBUTE TO CLEANING UP
LEAD BASED PAINT.
AND THEN IT REMOVES THE TENANTS
ABILITY TO ACCESS WHAT MIGHT BE
THE ONLY EVIDENCE LEFT.
IF THEY WANT TO BRING A LAWSUIT
AGAINST THEIR LANDLORD BECAUSE
THE LANDLORD BROKE EXISTING
CALIFORNIA LAW. FOR ALL OF THESE
REASONS WE WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL.
AND WE ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT SING NONE I'M GONNA
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
THE CITY ON A THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD I THINK
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
LEARNED.
LAST YEAR THROUGH THE BALLOT
INITIATIVE PROCESS THE HEARINGS
YOUR COMMITTEE AND THIS
COMMITTEE WERE A PART OF WAS
THAT THAT PAIN COMPANIES.
HAVE THIS.
INCLINATION TO WANT TO PASS
BLAME AND PASS RESPONSIBILITY
THEY TRY TO PASS IT LAST YEAR.
TO THE TAXPAYERS A CALIFORNIA.
NOW I AM CONCERNED AND I SHARE
YOUR CONCERN THAT THEY'RE TRYING
TO PASS IT OFF TO OTHER FOLKS
AND GIVE AND DISINGENUOUS
PROPAGANDA.
THAT WAS.
SENT AROUND LAST YEAR ABOUT WHAT
THE ACTIONS THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE WAS TRYING TO DO.
I THINK THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
PAIN COMPANIES HERE AND THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE PROCESS AND TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DAMAGE TO
THE BECAUSE THE CERTAINLY IN
QUESTION.
SO THAT'S WHY THIS BILL.
ENJOY THE AND I RECOMMENDATION
OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
SCOUTER.
SOME I GUESS I DO KIND OF
STRUGGLE AT THIS BILL LITTLE BIT
AYE AYE.
ON THE ONE HAND.
FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD LEAD --
TO INCENTIVIZE MORE CLEAN UP
WHICH I KNOW WE WE DO NEED AND
YOU KNOW THIS.
HAVING THIS IN PLACE WOULD.
I THINK INCENTIVIZE A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE DO HAVE ISSUES
WITH LEAD PAINT OR POTENTIALLY
COULD HAVE ISSUES WITH LEAD
PAINT.
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
PROGRAM DO ABATEMENT AND THEN
ALSO GET SOME LIABILITY
PROTECTION --
IN THE PROCESS --
I ALSO THINK THAT YOU KNOW.
PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE WHO APPLIED
LEAD LEAD BASED PAINT IN THEIR
APARTMENTS --
PROBABLY AT THE TIME HAD NO IDEA
THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT.
COULD BE HARMFUL AT THE TIME AND
PROBABLY THE MANUFACTURE WAS IN
A BETTER PLACE. TO BE THE
DETERMINER OR MAYBE HAVE THE
KNOWLEDGE.
OF THOSE TYPE OF OF OF THE FAX
SO.
YOU KNOW IT.
IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT YOU YOU
KNOW YOU'D PUT MORE
RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE
MANUFACTURE AND THOSE TYPE OF
SITUATIONS --
HOWEVER I MEAN I DO THINK MISTER
MOFFETT MAKES A GOOD POINT THAT --
YOU KNOW THERE IS EXISTING LAW.
WITH REGARD TO LEAD BASED PAINT
THAT EVERYBODY AT LEAST NOW AND
IN MODERN TIMES KNOWS ABOUT THAT
YOU DO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT.
A DETERIORATING --
PAINT -- AND
ARE WE BY THIS BILL --
SOMEHOW KIND OF RELIEVING THEM
OF THE OF THE LANDLORD OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY TO DEAL WITH
THOSE --
TYPE OF ISSUES EVEN THOUGH THAT
THEY PROBABLY DID NOT KNOW OF IT
WHEN THE PAINT WAS APPLIED AND
YOU KNOW MANY YEARS LATER.
ARE ARE NOW HAVING TO DEAL WITH
THIS ISSUE.
THERE STILL IS A LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY CAN YOU MAYBE
SPEAK TO THAT MR CHIU AND LIKE.
I MEAN DO YOU BELIEVE IT IS.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT I
GUESS PROJECT?
PROJECT THE QUESTION AND I KNOW
MISTER GALLAGHER YOU ARE NOT ON
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR WHEN THIS
COMMITTEE CONSIDER THIS NOW JUST
NOTE.
THIS COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THIS
BILL.
TEND.
TO ZERO IN A BIPARTISAN FASHION
AFTER HEARING A WAY IN ALL THE
ARGUMENTS AND IT ACTUALLY WENT
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE WENT TO
THE ASSEMBLY --
IT WAS VOTED ON UNANIMOUSLY IN A
BIPARTISAN WAY OFF THE SOME AND
I THINK YOU REMEMBER THAT.
AND I WILL MENTION THAT LAST
FROM COMMITTEE THE OPPOSITION
DID NOT RAISE ANY OF THESE
ISSUES AS THIS BILL WENT THROUGH --
BUT TAKE TO GET YOUR POINT AS
THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOW DURING
TWENTY YEARS OF LITIGATION --
CONSUMERS TO HAD NO IDEA WHAT
WAS THE MANUFACTURERS WHO HID
THAT EVIDENCE FOR MANY MANY
DECADES AND IT FINALLY ALL CAME
TO LIGHT BECAUSE OF THIS LAWSUIT.
I ALSO WOULD POINT TO THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS WHICH IS VERY
THOROUGH WHICH STATES.
THAT PROTECTING PROPERTY OWNERS
FROM LIABILITY DOESN'T LIMIT
LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
PAIN COMPANIES TO SEEK
MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE
CREATION OF A NUISANCE.
SO THAT IS PERMITTED IN I THINK
THE LANGUAGE THAT IS RELIED ON
BY THE OPPOSITION --
IS IS BEING READ IN A VERY
NARROW WAY NOT IN THE CONTEXT --
WITHIN THIS DECISION ALSO
MENTIONED BECAUSE I HAD NOT
HEARD THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE BUT
THE IDEA THAT SOMEHOW THIS WOULD
IMPACT TENANTS IN A NEGATIVE WAY.
WE HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL
FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
TENANTS COMMUNITY.
AND WE ARE CONCERNED HERE THE
REASON WE NEED TO MOVE FOR WITH
THIS BILL.
IS IF THE LEAD PAINT COMPANIES
ARE ALLOWED TO SUE EVEN ONE
HOMEOWNER.
THAT WILL CREATE AN ENORMOUS
CHALLENGE AFFECT THAT DETERS
OTHER HOME OWNERS AND THEIR
TENANTS FROM BEING ABLE TO
BENEFIT FROM LEAD PAINT Là
PAINT ABATEMENT PROGRAMS WHICH
WILL FURTHER LEAD TO THE
POISONING OF NEW GENERATIONS OF
KIDS AND FAMILIES SO THAT IS
WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT.
THE REAL QUICK IS IT JUST A IS
IT A SHE'LL JUST FROM
CONTRIBUTION IS THAT REALLY WHAT
THE SHIELD JUST FROM
CONTRIBUTION ACTIONS.
IS THAT RIGHT.
YES IT IS IT'S FOR CONTRIBUTION
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THIS
IS SO NARROW IS THAT AND
TYPICALLY THERE REALLY.
THESE THREATS OF CONTRIBUTION
LAWSUITS DON'T HAVE ANY MERIT
THE COURT OF APPEALS IN OUR
LAWSUIT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY
HAVE A RIGHT OR DUE PROCESS
RIGHT. TO BRING.
ADDITIONAL CASES IT WAS DICK
DATA AS INDICATED ON PAGE SEVEN
OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS AND IN
ORDER TO BE IT CODE PORT FEES
ARE OR TO BE LIABLE FOR
CONTRIBUTION YOU HAVE TO HAVE
CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC
NUISANCE.
HERE THE PUBLIC NUISANCE WAS THE
MANUFACTURE DISTRIBUTION AND
PROMOTION VIA ADVERTISEMENTS OF
LEAD PAINT NO INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNER PARTICIPATED IN.
BUT ANY RATIONAL HOMEOWNER WHO'S
AFRAID OF BEING SUED BY LEAD
PAINT COMPANY WOULD PROBABLY.
TAKE A STEP BACK AND HAVE A
SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT
PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROGRAM IF
THAT'S WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS
GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE CAN'T LET
THAT HAPPEN THIS IS BASICALLY.
THE LEAD PAINT COMPANY IS TRYING
TO GET OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AFTER
THEY'VE ALREADY LOST APPEALS AT
THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT.
BY TRYING TO GET THEIR MONEY
BACK ON THE BACK AND BY SCARING
PEOPLE FROM TAKING IT.
WILL BUT THE COURT DID SAY.
YOU KNOW IN THE END THE DECISION
FOR THE MORE NOTHING PRECLUDES A
DEFENDANT FROM TESTING THE LEAD
PAINT AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
DURING THE REMEDIATION PROCESS
AND SEEKING TO HOLD A FELLOW
DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR A GREATER
SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY.
RIGHT WAS IN THE COURT SORT OF
OPENING THAT UP THAT.
THAT THAT COULD BE THE CASE ALL
OF FELLOW DEFENDANT WOULD BE
ANOTHER LEAD PAINT COMPANY IT
WOULD NOT BE A HOMEOWNER.
AND THEN THE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS
COULD BE BROUGHT AGAINST
HOMEOWNERS INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS
AS WELL AS YOU KNOW WE SEEM TO
BE FOCUSED ON APARTMENTS RIGHT
AND YOU KNOW LARGE TENET
COMPLEXES BUT THIS.
THIS WOULD ALSO BE A SHIELD FOR
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS WHO
APPLIED TO LEAD PAINT CRACKED
WITHOUT A. B. TWO OH SIX TO
PROTECT ALL HOMEOWNERS THE LEAD
PAINT COMPANIES COULD SUE ANY
HOMEOWNER INCLUDING.
AN INDIVIDUAL IN THEIR SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND THEN JUST TO MISTER MOFFETT
I'D I WOULD BE HAPPY MAYBE
RESPOND A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS --
BUT SPECIFICALLY YOU SAID THAT
THEY COULD USE THIS TO COVER UP
EVIDENCE.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW.
HOW WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT
LIKE WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT
WHEN YOU'RE SAYING?
NO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION I
DID NOT SAY COVER UP EVIDENCE.
ONE OF THE VERY PLEASED PLEASE
CLICK ON THE THE YOU KNOW IT AND
AND AND ADDRESSING THE THE
EARLIER ISSUE I MEAN.
THE THE THE QUOTE YOU READ FROM
THE APPELLATE COURT IS CORRECT
BUT YOU LEFT OFF THE LAST
SENTENCE WHICH IS.
YOU KNOW THE THE COURT TALKED
ABOUT THEY'RE LIABLE PAINT
COMPANIES THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO
SEE CONTRIBUTION FROM.
BUT THEN THE COURT WENT ON TO
SAVE IN THIS SENSE DIRECTLY
AFTER THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF
EVIDENCE THAT THE HAZARDOUS
CONDITION.
IS THE OWNER'S FAULT OR THAT IT
IS NOT HAZARDOUS I DO SEE THAT
IT SAYS THAT AND SO YOU KNOW
THAT IS THAT'S I THINK THE KEY
POINT OF OF THAT DECISION AGAIN
IT ALL COMES BACK.
TO DID THE HOMEOWNER FOLLOW
EXISTING LAW THIS IS SEPARATE
AND ASIDE FROM THIS CASE
EXISTING LAW.
PUTS LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ON A
LANDLORD ON A HOMEOWNER TO
MAINTAIN LEAD BASED PAINT IF
IT'S INTACT THEY HAVE NOTHING TO
WORRY ABOUT IF THEY HAVE
MAINTAIN THEIR HOME THEY HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
IF THEY HAVE NOT IF IT IS
DETERIORATED THERE MIGHT BE SOME
SOME CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
SINCE SOME COMPARATIVE FAULT.
SOME CONTRIBUTIONS THAT IS DUE
TO THE FUND BECAUSE THEY FAILED
TO FOLLOW.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE LAW FOR THE
LAST TWENTY YEARS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA?
ALL OF THESE FOLKS CAN CLEAN
THIS STUFF UP TODAY AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND
POWER IN LAW TO FORCE.
HOMEOWNERS WITH DETERIORATED
DETERIORATED LEAD PAINT TO FORCE
THEM TO CLEAN IT UP.
TODAY.
AND IF THEY WOULD DO THAT TODAY.
THEY DON'T EVER NEED TO WORRY
ABOUT THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE
EVIDENCE QUESTION --
YOU KNOW SECTION B. E. OF THE
BILL DEALS WITH PARTICIPATION IN
THE REMEDIATION PROGRAM AND
WHETHER THAT CAN BE USED AS
EVIDENCE. FOR IMMUNITY FROM
EXISTING OR OTHER PORTIONS OF
EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW.
AGAIN YOU KNOW IS THAT OUR
LAWSUIT I DON'T KNOW I DON'T
THINK SO THAT'S POTENTIALLY
ATTENDANCE LAWSUIT.
AND AT TEN IT MIGHT LOOK AT THAT
AND SAY WELL LOOK YOU KNOW I
DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE I WAS BEING
BECAUSE THIS HARM.
BECAUSE THE HOME WAS IN A LEAD
PAINT WAS IN A DETERIORATED
CONDITION BECAUSE THE LANDLORD.
FAILED TO MAINTAIN IT
[inaudible]
BUT THE ONLY EVIDENCE I HAVE
BECAUSE I'M LIVING IN MY HOME
I'M NOT WROTE RUNNING AROUND
COLLECTING EVIDENCE FOR FUTURE
THAT THIS EXISTED.
ARE THE INSPECTION RECORDS AND
EVERYTHING THAT WENT ALONG WITH
PARTICIPATION THE REMEDIATION
PROGRAM.
AND SO IN SOME WAYS I DON'T
BELIEVE IT'S A COVER UP OF
EVIDENCE BUT THE BILL IS A BAR.
OF WHAT COULD BE A KEY PIECE OF
EVIDENCE FOR A TENANT IN
BRINGING A FUTURE LAWSUIT
AGAINST A A RECALCITRANT LAND
LAND LANDLORDS WHO ISN'T
FOLLOWING EXISTING CALIFORNIA
LAW ASIDE FROM THE CASE MAYBE
JUST TO CLEAR SO WHAT ARE YOU
SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT
DURING IF SOMEONE.
PARTICIPATES IN THE REMEDIATION
PROCESS.
AND AS MAYBE THERE'S PICTURES OR
SOMETHING AS A RESULT OF THAT
REMEDIATION PROCESS THAT SHOWS
THAT WAS IN A DETERIORATED
CONDITION --
THAT UNDER THIS BILL --
BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE
REMEDIATION PROCESS IT CAN'T BE
USED AS EVIDENCE BY.
OTHERS BRING IN AN ACTION THE
REMEDIATION PROGRAM OUTLINED BY
THE COURT.
REQUIRES AN INSPECTION.
BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR OTHER
OFFICIAL CHARGED YOU KNOW THAT
THEY DID THE JURISDICTIONS
DECIDE SHOULD.
CONDUCT THOSE INSPECTIONS AND
THEN GO THROUGH AND DO THE
REMEDIATION.
AND SO WHATEVER EVIDENCE IS
GATHERED AS PART OF THAT
INSPECTION.
THAT IS USED TO DETERMINE WHAT
LEVEL OF REMEDIATION IS DED
IN THAT HOME.
OUR READ OF THE BILL IS THAT
NONE OF THAT USED.
AS EVIDENCE THAT THE HOME WAS A
NUISANCE WAS THAT STANDARD
VIOLATED EXISTING HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE IS UNTENABLE.
AND AND A HOME BEING UNTENABLE
BRINGS ALONG WITH THAT RIGHTS.
FOR TENANTS [inaudible]
LAUREN.
THANK YOU YOU HAVE A MOTION AS
THEIR SECONDS.
I HAD TO SECONDS BY MR CHILD.
THANK YOU.
I JUST FIND THIS DISCUSSION KIND
OF ASTONISHING AFTER LAST YEAR
WHEN AGAIN IT WAS THE PAIN
COMPANIES TRY TO FOIST OFF ON
THE VOTERS.
THEIR LIABILITY AND THEY CREATED
THIS VAST PROPAGANDA MACHINE
LAST YEAR AS WELL TRYING TO
SCARE HOMEOWNERS INTO THINKING
THAT THE COURT.
HAD HELD THAT THE HOMES
THEMSELVES WERE THE NUISANCE
WHEN IT WAS IN FACT.
THE SALE OF THE LEAD PAINT THAT
WAS THE NEW SINCE I THINK THE
COURT WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT
[inaudible]
AND AGAIN.
THE ARGUMENTS DEPEND ON OF THE
ARGUMENTS OPPOSITION REALLY
DEPEND ON THAT OBFUSCATION AND
THAT SAME.
DESIRE TO PASS THE BUCK.
BECAUSE THERE'S THE COURT
DECIDED TO PUT A LIMITED TIME
FRAME.
THAT'S WHAT'S AT RISK HERE IF WE
HAD MUCH LONGER TO DEAL WITH I
THINK WE WE COULD START TO PARTS
OF THESE ARGUMENTS MORE FINELY
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WORTH
IT.
AT THE END IN ANY CASE BUT NOW
THE SPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE
SHORT TIME I'M TO GET THE MONEY
SPENT ANYTHING THAT WILL DELAY
THAT MONEY.
BEING SPENT AND GET ACTUAL
REMEDIATION ARE COMMUNITIES.
IS HARM TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND
THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD BE
STANDING UP FOR THAT'S THE
PURPOSE OF THE OF THIS BILL.
HE WAS A TWO YOU MAY CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO THE MOTION IS DO
PASS CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE
BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER I CHAO.
CHAO I'D SHOOT BY CHIU AYE
GONZALEZ.
CONSOLES I HOLDEN KALRA KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE I'M PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS I REYES.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU WELL WILL MOVE TO MISS
GONZALEZ I'M NUMBER ONE A. B..
FIFTY ONE IN THE MEANTIME I WILL
TAKE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA BUT I WILL NOTE THAT ITEM
NUMBER FIVE HAS BEEN PULLED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MR KYLIE'S AB FIFTY FOUR FIFTY
FIVE THAT BILL WILL BE HEARD
NEXT WEEK [inaudible]
SO EMOTIONALLY.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
STONE BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER
GALLAGHER I CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU.
GONZALEZ I GONZALEZ I HOLDEN
KALRA -- I
KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE
OBERNOLTE I PETRIE-NORRIS
PETRIE-NORRIS I REYES.
IS IT IS IT IS OUT THAT IS AB
FOR SIXTY FIVE BY EGGMAN THE
BILL IS ON ITS WAY TO HUMAN
SERVICES.
THIS GONZALEZ AB.
FIFTY ONE THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS --
ONCE AGAIN I BRING BACK A BILL --
THAT WAS PASSED OF THIS
LEGISLATURE ROUND TWO LIKE MANY
PEOPLE ARE AT THIS POINT.
OUR LEGISLATURE PASSES SOME OF
THE STRONGEST WORKER PROTECTIONS
IN THE COUNTRY BUT THOSE LAWS
ARE WORTHLESS IF THEY CAN'T BE
ENFORCING COURT OR BY THE STATE
AGENCIES BECAUSE EMPLOYER HAS
FORCED THEIR WORKERS TO SIGN
AWAY THEIR RIGHTS IN AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
THIS INCLUDES VIOLATION SUCH AS
PAY INEQUITY SEXUAL HARASSMENT
DISCRIMINATION RETALIATION AND
AGREE JUST LABOR VIOLATIONS LIKE
WAGE THEFT.
MANDATING THAT EMPLOYEES GO TO
ARBITRATION IS A PRACTICE THAT
ALLOWS COMPANIES TO FORCE
EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS INTO
SECRETIVE HEARINGS WHICH HIGH
LABOR VIOLATIONS FROM PUBLIC
SILENCE VICTIMS WITH NON
DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS AND OFTEN
PROTECT SERIAL OFFENDERS.
ARBITRATION CAN BE A HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
METHOD WHEN BOTH PARTIES CHOOSE
IT FREELY IS FAR LESS SUCCESSFUL
WHEN THE MORE POWERFUL PARTY
FORCES THE OTHER TAKES UP TO THE
TERMS.
THAT IS WHY AB FIFTY ONE DOES
NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYERS FROM
USING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS TO
RESOLVE WORKPLACE DISPUTES
INSTEAD IT SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT
EMPLOYEES CHOOSE TO SIGN SUCH
AGREEMENTS WITHOUT THE THREAT OF
JOB LOSS OR OTHER RETALIATORY
ACTIONS.
AB FIFTY ONE DOES NOT SEEK TO
RENDER SUCH AGREEMENTS
UNENFORCEABLE IT SIMPLY PROVIDES
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WHEN
EMPLOYERS ARE FORCING WORKERS TO
WAIVE RIGHTS IN ORDER TO PURSUE
OR KEEP A JOB AND EMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS.
ALL CONTRACTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY
AND NOT THE RESULTS OF COURSE IN
TWO NINE A WORKER A LIVELIHOOD
IF THEY DO NOT SIGN A WAIVER OF
THE RIGHT IS ANYTHING BUT
VOLUNTARY.
THIS BILL TAKES THE NECESSARY
STEPS TOWARDS PROTECTING AND
EMPOWERING VICTIMS IN THE
WORKPLACE FROM PORTION
HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION WE
MADE AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
OPPOSITIONS CONCERN AROUND THE
PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT
PROHIBITS THE WAIVER OF
EMPLOYEES RIGHTS.
AS A CONDITION OF CONTRACTUAL
AGREEMENT THEY BELIEVE IT WOULD
PROHIBIT POST DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATE
SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS THIS WAS
NEVER THE INTENTION OF OUR BILL
AND WE MADE AMENDMENTS
ACCORDINGLY TO CLARIFY
WE'VE ALSO MADE ADDITIONAL
MEMBERS TO CLARIFY THAT AB FIFTY
ONE IS IN NO WAY INTENDED TO
INVALIDATE OR INTERFERE WITH
EXISTING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
OTHER TECHNICAL MEHMET'S PER.
REMOTE PROVISIONS THAT WERE
PASSED IN CENTER JACKSON'S SB
THIRTEEN HUNDRED LAST YEAR.
I TO NOT WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT.
MICHAEL YOUNGER THE CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION AND JACQUI
CERTAIN OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS.
THANK YOU FIRST WITNESS PLEASE
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS
MIKE WE OWE THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION WHEN THE CO SPONSORED
THE BILL WHEN I THINK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS LEGISLATION
BECAUSE OF FORCED ARBITRATION IS
AN AREA THAT AFFECTS SO MANY
WORKERS ACROSS --
SO MANY DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES --
IT BACK ARBITRATION WAS ONLY IN
ABOUT 16% OF WORKPLACES --
BUT TODAY WE KNOW THE FORCE
ARBITRATION COVERS ABOUT 68% OF
CALIFORNIA WORKERS --
MAY AND WE KNOW THE REASON WHY
IS BECAUSE THEY EMPLOYERS DO
BETTER IN THIS FORUM WE KNOW
THAT FEWER WORKERS TAKE CLAIMS
ARBITRATION WE KNOW THAT THE FEW
WORKERS WHO DO TAKE THOSE CLAIMS.
TO ARBITRATION ARE LESS LIKELY
TO WIN WE KNOW THAT THE FEW
WORKERS WHO DO WIN WIN
SUBSTANTIALLY LAST LESS IN
DAMAGES --
SO THE SYSTEMS CLEARLY BROKEN
AND WILD --
STATES ARE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY
CAN DO IN THIS SPACE WE BELIEVE
THAT WE'VE CRAFTED A NEARLY
TAYLOR BILL THAT AVOIDS ANY
FEDERAL PREEMPTION ISSUES --
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A SPACE WHERE
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO LEAD WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
COMPANIES THAT ARE ALREADY SORT
OF WALKING BACK FROM THIS SORT
OF FORCED ARBITRATION POLICY
AMBLIN THINGS DIFFERENT
PROPOSALS --
AND AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT IF
YOU CONTINUE WITH SYSTEM WHERE
EMPLOYERS CAN PAY A PRIVATE
PARTY TO INTERPRET THE LAW IN A
WAY THAT THE BENEFITS THEM.
AND THEM FORCE WORKERS TO BE
STUCK WITH THAT RULING --
PROHIBIT THEM FROM GOING FROM
GETTING AN APPEAL EVEN IF THE
RULING IS WRONG AND INTO THE
WORKER THEY CAN'T TALK TO
ANYBODY ABOUT IT THAT THEY
SYSTEMS COULD BE BROKE IT MAKES
A LOS WE PASS YOUR MEANINGLESS
IT MAKES ALL THE WORK
PROTECTIONS OF RIGHTS
PROTECTIONS.
THE PASS IF YOU HEARD THAT WE
PASSING LABOR COLD MEANINGLESS
IF THOSE RIGHTS CAN BE A FORCE
SO FOR THOSE REASONS WE ARE
TONIGHT.
THANK YOU EXPERTS.
GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
MY NAME IS JACKIE CERNAN I'M
HERE ON THE BEHALF THAT CONSUMER
TRAINEES OF CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT
OF AB.
FIFTY ONE TODAY CLOSE 270% OF
CALIFORNIA'S WORKFORCE IS BOUND
BY THESE AGREEMENTS.
NATIONWIDE IT'S MORE THAN SIXTY
MILLION WORKERS.
ARBITRATIONS CAN BE FAIR LIKE
MENTIONED BEFORE WHEN IT'S
BETWEEN PEOPLE WITH EQUAL --
BARGAINING POWER BUT THE REALITY
IS THAT IF A WAS SINGLE WORKERS
FORCED AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER
INTO ARBITRATION THE REAL RESULT
IS CLAIM SUPPRESSION IN MANY
INSTANCES.
ESPECIALLY AMONG LOW WAGE WORK
OF LOW WAGE WORKERS.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT ONE THIRD
OF OUR NATION --
IN THE SERVICE INDUSTRY AND
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY AND SO FOR
THEM MOST OF THEM WILL NEVER
BRING THEIR CLAIMS --
IT'S ALSO UNFAIR AND ONE SIDED
WHILE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSES
TAKE AWAY THE CONSUMER AND
EMPLOYERS RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR
CLAIMS HEARD BEFORE A JUDGE OR
JURY --
THAT'S NOT THE SAME FOR THE
CORPORATION THE CORPORATION IS
STILL OUT TO SUE IN COURT.
I'M IT ALSO PROHIBITS CONSUMERS
AND EMPLOYEES FIRST PURSUING A
COMPANY EVEN IF THEY CAUGHT EVEN
IF THE COMPANY BROKE FEDERAL OR
STATE LAWS.
THAT REGULATE DISCRIMINATION
BASED ON GENDER RACE OR
DISABILITY.
THE RESULT OF DOING NOTHING IS
THAT THIS PUBLIC SYSTEM OF
PUBLIC JUSTICE IS RESULTING IN
CLAIMS NEVER COMING FORWARD.
SOME COMPANIES ARE FINALLY
STARTING TO DO THE RIGHT THING
AFTER BEING --
FORCED BY SOME OTHER WORKERS WE
SELL GOOGLE JUST A FEW MONTHS
AGO ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE NO
LONGER GOING TO BE REQUIRING
THEIR WORK FORCE. TO SIGN THESE
TYPES OF AGREEMENTS BUT THE
REALITY IS THAT MUCH WORK NEEDS
TO BE DONE IN AB FIFTY ONE IS
ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS THAT WE
NEED TO TAKE IN CALIFORNIA --
WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WORKERS
HAVE A CHOICE BEFORE HAVING TO
SIGN THESE CAUSES.
AND WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT THANK
YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THIS IS AS YOU MENTIONED THE
AMENDMENTS WE ARE TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN THE
ANALYSIS.
ABSOLUTELY I WANT TO THANK YOUR
STAFF FOR PROVIDING I'D TALK
THEM THROUGH I'M SORRY IF I IT
WASN'T CLEAR THAT WE ARE
ABSOLUTE ACCEPTING YOUR
COMMITTEE THANK YOU VERY THOSE
RESUME BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE
CLEAR ON THE RECORD SO THANK YOU.
FOR THOSE IN SUPPORT IF YOU GIVE
US YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION PLEASE.
RIGHT NOW FROM WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES STRONG AS IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
VERY GOOD YES YOU ARE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PLANET LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION ALSO ON BEHALF OF
THE EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES IN
SUPPORT.
SHANE GUSMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS SAG AFTRA --
THEM OUT A BIT TRINITY IN THE
MACHINISTS AND UTILITY WORKERS
UNION LOCAL. ONE THIRTY TWO IN
SUPPORT.
REBEKAH GONZALEZ NATIONALIZATION
OF SOCIAL WORKERS CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MIKE MONEY GOING TO
BE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS THE CALIFORNIA STATE
PARTRIDGE COUNCIL IN THE WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL
WORKERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN BIRDS
MAY CONSUMERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND THE WRITERS
GUILD OF AMERICA WEST IN SUPPORT.
MORNING THIS GERMAN MEMBERS OVER
A TRICK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA APTLY TERRY SO SHE
SHOULD.
AND UNITED FOR COMMERCIAL
WORKERS STATES COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
RIGHT SIGNAL IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS --
JENNIFER BROWN WE HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO AB FIFTY
WHEN I DO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
TO CLEAR UP THE ISSUE WITH
REGARD TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS --
WE DEFINITELY ARE ARE PLEASED
WITH THAT AMENDMENT ARE ARE
GRATEFUL THAT THAT IS --
CLARIFIED [inaudible]
HOWEVER I THE ISSUE OF
ARBITRATION THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT THEY FEEL IS A
DEBATE THAT WE HAVE ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS HERE IN THIS COMMITTEE AND
NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED FROM LAST
YEAR WHEN WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION
EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE'S
BEEN MORE CASES ISSUED BY THE
UNITED.
STATES SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZING
THE STRENGTH AND BRIGHTNESS OF
THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT IN
ITS PREEMPTION --
THE REFERENCE IN THE ANALYSIS BY
THE SUPPORTERS THAT THE ISSUE
WITH REGARDS THE FORMATION OF
CONTRACT BEAN AND UNSETTLED OR
NOT -- CLEAR
ISSUE WITH REGARDS THE APPLE I
FEEL WAS CLEARED UP IN THE
KINDRED NURSING CASE BY JUSTICE
KAGAN WHEN SHE SAID.
THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT
NOT ONLY APPLIES TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF A CONTRACT
ONCE FORMED BUT ALSO APPLIES TO
FORMATION OF CONTRACT AND IF YOU
PUT A SET A SPECIAL RESTRICTION.
ON THE FORMATION OF AN
ARBITRATION A CONTRACT THAT IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL CONTRACTS
THEN IT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT AND IT IS
PREEMPTED.
IT'S THE SAME REASON WHY IN --
THE SECURELY CASE WHITE MEMORIAL
VERSUS THE HILLY AB TWO SIX ONE
SEVEN BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER
WAS STRUCK DOWN AS PRINTED IN
THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AS
WELL BECAUSE IT ALSO PUT A
SPONSOR A SPECIAL RESTRICTION.
ON THE FORMATION OF AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN A
CONSUMER CONTRACT JUST LIKE AB
FIFTY ONE IT SAID.
THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THAT'S
REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF
SIGNING A CONSUMER CONTRACT THE
COURT THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF
APPEALS SAID THAT'S PRINTED IN
THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT
BECAUSE IT PUTS A SPECIAL
RESTRICTION.
ON THE FORMATION OF AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THAT IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL THE
CONTRACTS SEEM ISSUE APPLIES
HERE WITH REGARDS TO A. B. FIFTY
ONE IT BASICALLY SAYS YOU CANNOT
HAVE AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
THAT'S MADE AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT SO WE FEEL
LIKE IT'S LIKELY TO BE PRINTED
AND THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT
AND WE BELIEVE IT'S THE SAME
REASON WHY GOVERNR BROWN SAID
LAST YEAR.
THAT THIS BILL PLAINLY VIOLATES
FEDERAL LAW I DID IT REFERENCE
THE AMENDMENT IN THE ANALYSIS TO
SAY THAT NOTHING BASICALLY IS
MEANT -- TO
RENDER AN AGREEMENT OTHERWISE
UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE FAA IT
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SAVES
IT FROM THE PREEMPTION OF THE
FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT YES ONCE
AN AGREEMENT AS FOR FORMED.
THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT WILL
APPLY BUT IT ALSO A CONTRACTS IS
NOT NEW ARENA IN THE ARMY THERE
IS CASE WITH REGARDS TO THIS --
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IT WAS
IN AN HUSING CONTRACT IN THE
COURT DIDN'T STRIKE DOWN THE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ON THAT
BASIS IT JUST SAID IF YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE ANY HUSING
CONTRACT.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INCLUDED IN
THAT PROCEDURAL SO IT'S
CONSTABLE --
I ALSO HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS
DEBATE LONG ENOUGH TO REALIZE
THAT MY AB PERSPECTIVE ON THE
FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT MAY NOT
BE THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
COMMITTEE --
AND THAT THIS BILL MAY MAKE IT
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE LIKE IT
DID LAST YEAR AND MAYBE IT IS
ULTIMATELY SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
NEWSOME WE'RE NOT SURE
NECESSARILY OBVIOUSLY ABOUT THAT
WILL GO.
BUT IF IT IS I'M ALSO QUITE
CONFIDENT THAT JUST LIKE AB
TWENTY SIX SEVENTEEN IT WILL BE
IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGED AND
BECAUSE OF HOW BROAD THIS BILL
IS WITH RESPECT TO IT SPLIT
APPLICATION. TO ALL LABOR CO
CLAIMS AND ALL CLAIMS UNDER THE
FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT IT WILL BE
IMMEDIATELY CHALLENGED ON THE
BASIS OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION.
IF THAT'S THE CASE --
I FULLY BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT
OF THE AUTHOR IS TO PROTECT
EMPLOYEES BUT I DON'T SEE HOW
THAT PROVIDES ANY ADDITIONAL
PROTECTION TO EMPLOYEES IT'S
GOING TO ADD ANOTHER LAYER OF
LITIGATION IT'S GOING.
TO COST AND IT'S GOING TO ADD
DELAY TO THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION
OF THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE THAT
DOESN'T BENEFIT EMPLOYEES WITH
REGARDS TEMP UNCERTAINTY
CERTAINLY DOESN'T --
BENEFIT EMPLOYERS --
THE THE CHALLENGE ON AB TWENTY
SIX SEVENTEEN TOOK APPROXIMATELY
TWO TO THREE YEARS THE CHALLENGE --
THAT I JUST REFERENCE WITH THE
CAN --
NURSING CASE WITH REGARDS TO
INFORMATION CONTRACT THE SUPREME
COURT TYPE OF LITIGATION --
TO LAYERED ON TOP OF AN IS
SOMETHING AND IF IT'S EITHER THE
EMPLOYER AT OR THE EMPLOYEE AND
FOR THOSE REASONS WE ARE.
THANK YOU EXCEPT THIS WITH GOOD
MORNING CAN STONE OF STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE CIVIL
JUSTICE ASSOCIATION CALIFORNIA
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION --
WE ALSO APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE
IN THE AUTHORS AMENDMENTS --
FOR REGARDING --
CLARIFYING THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS --
BUT REALLY --
SEE JACK TAKES ISSUE WITH THE
PREMISE THAT ARBITRATION IS LESS
TRUST THAN GOING TO COURT --
ARBITRATION IS A FAIR OF FISH
AND AND JUST METHOD OF RESOLVING
DISPUTES WHEN PEOPLE ARE WRONG --
TO THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT
TO SUE THEY WANT TO SOLVE THEIR
PROBLEM --
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS RECOGNIZE
THAT --
ARBITRATION IS A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT MEANS OF RESOLVING
DISPUTE LAST YEAR THEY SPONSORED
LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE RELIEF
FROM PAGO LAWSUITS TO EMPLOYERS
OF REPRESENTED UNION.
MEMBERS WHO HAD ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS AS PART OF THEIR
COLLECTIVE.
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS CHOOSING
TO IS A VALID CHOICE A RATIONAL
CHOICE A SENSIBLE CHOICE
COMPANIES CHOOSE TO USE THESE
BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THEM FROM.
A RUNAWAY VERDICT THAT WOULD
ACOSTA TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF
MONEY AND BY --
USING THEM WITH ALL OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES THAT ALLOWS THEM TO
PROVIDE GREATER --
WAGES AND BENEFITS TO THOSE
EMPLOYEES.
PARTICULARLY LOWER INCOME
WORKERS ARE UNLIKELY TO FIND A
LAWYER WHO WILL BRING.
A LAWSUIT AGAINST A AN EMPLOYER
BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
ARE NOT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENTLY
HIGH. TO MAKE IT WORTH IT TO
TAKE A THIRD OF THAT AWARD.
AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS WHICH
ARE BY THE ARBITRATION PROCESS
IS PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYER.
PROPONENTS TRIED TO MAKE IT
SOUND LIKE THAT WAS SOMETHING
NEFARIOUS THAT'S ACTUALLY A
WORKER BENEFIT THEY DON'T HAVE
TO PAY.
OUT TO GO THROUGH ARBITRATION --
THAT PROCESS IS PAID --
FOR BY THE EMPLOYER.
THAT STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU
SOMETHING FROM THAT THE
COALITION LETTER.
EMPLOYEES ARE MORE LIKELY TO
HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT AN
ARBITRATION THEN IN LITIGATION
AND ARE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE
JUSTICE WHEN THE DAY IS OR OVER.
EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION NEEDS TO
BE PRESERVED IMPROVE NOT
ABANDONED --
AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER.
A STUDY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN.
THAT SAID THE VAST MAJORITY OF
WERE IN MIDDLE INCOME EMPLOYEES
ESSENTIALLY THOSE MAKING LESS
THAN SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A
YEAR.
CANNOT GET ACCESS TO THE COURTS
TO VINDICATE THEIR CONTRACTUAL
AND STATUTORY RIGHTS MOST
LAWYERS WILL NOT FIND THEIR
CASES WERE SPARE TIME AND
EXPENSE THEY'RE ONLY PRACTICAL
HOPE IS THE GENERALLY CHEAPER
FASTER.
AND MORE INFORMAL PROCESS OF
ARBITRATION.
IF THAT IS SO CALLED MANDATORY
ARBITRATION SO BE IT THERE IS NO
VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SO WE JUST
TAKE --
ISSUE WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS IS
SOMEHOW SUB STANDARD JUSTICE IT
IS NOT IT IS ANOTHER FOR I'M.
VALID LEGITIMATE --
RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT
AND CALIFORNIA COURTS AS AS
LEGITIMATE.
WE ARE JUNE ABOUT.
THANK YOU OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION PLEASE.
MR TURN MEMBERS MIKE BELOW
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW
COUNCIL OPPOSE THANK YOU.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS CHRISTMAS
KAYLEE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AMBULANCE ASSOCIATION
IN THE CALIFORNIA FORESTRY
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MR TURN MEMBERS
MATTHEW WELL WITH WESTERN
GROWERS ARE ALSO OPPOSED.
GOOD MORNING BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION FOR THE REASONS
PREVIOUSLY STATED OPPOSED THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SEE NONE OF BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE MISTER KALRA
[inaudible]
THANK YOU --
DOES.
IF THERE WERE NOT ABLE FAN OF IT
IF WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN IN
OUR GROUP TO ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT --
BUT I WHICH I SHOULD BE OFF THE
TABLE.
IT WAS JUST.
SO I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR.
YOU KNOW WE OBVIOUSLY IN THIS
BILL HAVE HAVE POINTED OUT SOME
OF THE SHORTCOMINGS OF
ARBITRATION I COME FROM THE
LABOR MOVEMENT WE WE BELIEVE IN
BINDING ARBITRATION WHEN PARTY'S
VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO IT AND
THERE IS SOME EQUITY IN POWER --
THAT'S MISSING HERE AND SO IN WE
THINK EVEN WITH THE NATIONAL
ARBITRATION ACT WHAT'S MISSING
IS THE COERCION PIECE.
CONSENT TO GO INTERPRETATION
SHOULD ALWAYS BE ON THE TABLE IN
EVEN AND DISPUTES IT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT A WORKER CAN
ENTER INTO IF THEY DON'T WANT TO
SO IF THEY HAVE AN EMPLOYER WHO
ACTUALLY WILL.
ARBITRATE SOMETHING A TIMELY
MATTER WERE SEEN THAT THAT'S NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE --
YOU KNOW THAT THE ARBITRATORS
ACTUALLY GOING TO BE PAID FOR
THERE ARE A LOT OF CONDITIONS
THAT I THINK --
ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT TO BE A A
GOOD CHOICE FOR A WORKER THE
TRUTH IS RIGHT NOW THAT THERE IS
NO CHOICE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO ADD
WE WANT TO ADD SOME PRETTY
CHOICE FOR THE EMPLOYER WHICH
ALREADY EXIST AND WILL CONTINUE
TO EXIST BUT THAT THERE'S A
CHOICE AS WELL FOR THE WORKER
AND THAT'S WHETHER OR NOT THERE
THEIR COURSE TO SIGN IT AS A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MY
POINT IS WELL TAKEN BECAUSE NOT
ARBITRATION OR LITIGATION AS THE
AS THE OPTIONS THE CHOICE AND I
DO THINK THAT.
IN ALSO --
BUT SOMEONE THAT BELIEVES THAT
THE ARBITRATION ABSOLUTE PLAYS
WELL AS A REASON WHY IT DOES
EXIST.
IT IN OUR SYSTEM IN AN
OFTENTIMES RESOLVES ISSUES IN A
MORE EFFICIENT CLASS C..
UP MORE OR A COST EFFECTIVE
MANNER.
BUT TO SAY IT SHOULD BE THE IT
IS THE ONLY WAY OR SHOULD OR
MUST BE THE ONLY WAY AS A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT I THINK
THAT.
CITING AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
IT CERTAINLY COULD BE A VALID
AND REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE
CHOICE WAS GONNA BE A CHOICE I
THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT
COMES DOWN TO IS THE CHOICE THAT.
MAKES SENSE IN ORDER TO RESOLVE
DISPUTES BUT MAKING SURE THAT
WORKERS BUT I'M PUT IN A
POSITION --
NUMBER DAY ONE OR FOR THE FOR
THE FOUR DAY ONE OF EMPLOYMENT.
THAT THEY'RE OUT THERE MAKING A
CHOICE ON SOMETHING WHEN IT'S
REALLY NOT A CHOICE BECAUSE THEY
CAN SAY NO I WON'T SIGN IT AND
THEN THEY DON'T HAVE A JOB.
AND SO THAT'S A REALLY FALSE
CHOICE I THINK HAVING THE
OPPORTUNITY. TO RESOLVE ISSUES
IN THE WAY THAT MAKE.
RESOLVING A RESOLVING ISSUES
RESOLVING CONFLICT IN A WAY THAT
MAKES SENSE AND HAVING ALL
OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.
ACTUALLY --
THIS THIS BILL IS DOES THAT
BECAUSE IT ALLOWS ALL OPTIONS ON
THE TABLE NOT JUST ONE OPTION --
THAT THE EMPLOYER CHOOSES AND
THEN SO I THINK IT'S IT'S
REASONABLE AND AND THERE'S NO
DOUBT LOOK ON ON ON BIG ISSUES
LIKE THIS CERTAINLY.
THE MAYBE LITIGATION AND AND ALL
THAT THE COURTS DECIDE --
BUT I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE THAT --
THAT SHOULD BE DECIDED AT THAT
THAT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME BY
ANALOGY AT SOME POINT BECAUSE
THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS BACK
AND FORTH.
BUT THAT THAT'S GOING TO
CONTINUE TO A CAR UNTIL THERE'S
SOME CERTAINTY AND I THINK THAT
AT SOME POINT SOME ISSUES AS ARE
SOME CERTAINTY AT THIS IS ONE OF
THEM SOME OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION IS
THERE SECONDS.
AND A SECOND THANK YOU.
OTHER MEMBERS TOGETHER --
YEAH WE'LL JUST. ONE OF THE
THINGS HERE THAT I THINK IS AN
ISSUE IS THAT ACTUALLY IT HAS
BEEN DECIDED.
THE COURTS HAVE DECIDED THESE
CASES TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT
ONE IS PREEMPTED BY --
THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT AND
THEN ALSO THAT THESE AREN'T.
CONSIDERED CAUGHT CONTRACTS OF
ADHESION --
SO THERE HAS BEEN RULINGS ON
THIS WHERE COURTS HAVE
CONSIDERED A LOT OF THE THINGS
THAT.
ARE BEING BROUGHT UP AND HAVE
DECIDED DIFFERENTLY --
WHICH IS I SUPPOSE WHEN YOU KNOW
THE WHY THIS BILLS PAIN BROUGHT
RIGHT TO TRY AND CODIFY
SOMETHING IN SORT OF FORCE.
THE ISSUE THAT WAY --
BUT NONE THE LESS I THINK YOU
KNOW WE'RE WE'RE CONTAINER RIGHT
INTO.
FEDERAL PREEMPTION ISSUES YOU
KNOW WHICH YOU KNOW I THINK WAS
POINTED OUT AS AS ONE OF THE
YEAH LOOK WE'VE WE'VE ALREADY
HAD LAWS OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF
IT YOU KNOW WHY WOULD THIS.
BE ANY DIFFERENT --
THE OTHER THING THE OTHER ASPECT
ON IF THERE WAS A WAGE AN HOUR
VIOLATION RAY --
OR IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF
SAY OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
HAZARD --
EMPLOYEES WOULD STILL HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF GOING TO GOING TO THE
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
FOR PENALTIES AND FINES IS NOT
CORRECT NO THAT'S NOT TRUE IN
FACT THE LABOR COMMISSIONER
WON'T TAKE AT THE CLAIMS IF
THERE IS AN ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT.
SO THEY WOULD NOT IT IS SO UNDER
THESE UNDER THESE --
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS THEY
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO BEFORE
LABOR COMMISSIONER'S SALE OR GO
THROUGH THE THE YOU KNOW CAL
OSHA --
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCESS IS
THAT YOUR AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT
COLD CALLOUS I KNOW THEY CAN'T
GO TO THE LABOR --
COMMISSIONER AND AS I IN ALL OF
MY BILLS I I I PROBABLY SOUND A
LITTLE SCHIZOPHRENIC RIGHT
BECAUSE I OF BILLS THAT SAY I
DON'T LIKE FEE HOW WE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO THE LABOR COMMISSIONER'S
WHILE.
MEN LIKE FIA I'D LIKE THE LAID I
LIKE THE LABOR CODE WE ARE LIKE
ARE ONES THAT YOU LIKE BETTER
THAN BUT THE POINT WELL THE
POINT IS IT DEPENDS ON THE
SITUATION AND THAT IS A PERFECT
EXAMPLE THE FACT THAT.
YOU KNOW IF I'M BEING CHEATED
OUT OF WAGE IN OUR ISSUES AND I
GO REPORT TO THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER THEY'RE GOING TO
SEND ME BACK TO MY EMPLOYER AND
I HAVE TO WAIT ON HIM OR HER. TO
TO HIRE AN ARBITRATOR TO GO I
DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO WHAT'S
THE WHAT'S.
WHAT WHAT'S THE THE PRODUCT
THERE'S ALSO NO APPEALS PROCESS
WITH AN ARBITRATION SO IF YOU GO
THROUGH ARBITRATION VOLUNTARILY
THAT'S ONE THING BUT EVEN IF THE
ARBITRATOR GETS THE WALL WRONG
BLATANTLY WRONG?
THERE'S NO SENSE THERE'S NO WAY
TO FIX THAT --
THERE'S NO.
KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COULD BE
GOING IF IF YOU'RE CHEATING ME
OUT OF WAGES AND WORKING
CONDITIONS IF YOU'RE CHEATING ME
OUT OF A SAFE WORKING
ENVIRONMENT YOU'RE PROBABLY
DOING A TO A LOT OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES AS WELL.
THERE'S NO WAY TO ADDRESS EIGHT
A FIX IN A BROADER WAY THROUGH
ARBITRATION SO THAT'S WHY I
THINK -- YOU
KNOW AND AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD
SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER
INTO IT WITHOUT COERCION AND I
THINK THAT YOU KNOW LOOK I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BILLS WE
WE ARE A LOT OF COURT CASES WE
READ THEM ALL.
THIS WE THINK IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO ADDRESS THE THINGS
THT THE COURT HAS SAID AND AND
YOU KNOW.
I I I DON'T HAVE A MAGIC EIGHT
BALL I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE
COURT IS GOING TO SAY BUT WE
KNOW THAT WE TOOK ALL THESE
CASES AND THINGS THAT HAD BEEN
REJECTED.
AND WROTE A BILL --
THAT THAT WE THOUGHT ALLOWED A
NARROW PATH TO SAY HEY LET'S
JUST MAKE SURE WORKERS
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE WHAT
THEY'RE SIGNING ON TO AND
THEY'RE WILLING TO SIGN ON TO
THAT.
SO IT'S A VALID I THINK APPROACH
BUT YEAH IT TAKES AWAY NOT JUST
COURT BUT WHAT I FIND TO BE --
MY PREFERRED AT COMMISSIONER.
RIGHT NOW I MEAN AND I THINK
THAT GOES TO SOME OF THIS TOO IS
I THINK A LOT OF EMPLOYERS FEEL
LIKE WHEN THEY GO.
YOU KNOW TO THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER FOR EXAMPLE AND
HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
WHO'S.
WHO'S EMPLOYED BY AND PAID BY
THE SAME VERY SAME AGENCY --
THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING NAY IT
NECESSARILY A FAIR FORM THIS
THEIR ISER RIGHT.
YOU KNOW AND ALL JUDGES ARE PAID
I'M I'M SORRY MR GALLAGHER BUT
LIKE WHO PAYS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGES IT'S THIS WAY.
A LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC I MEAN
I'M NOT SAYING I'M SAYING LIKE
SO PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OF JUDGES
WERE.
THEIR PREFERRED FORUMS I'M NOT
SAYING ALL JUDGE I'M SAYING THE
VERY SAME AGENCY THAT IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT IS
ALSO EMPLOYING THE JUDGE SO
THERE IS.
OFTEN CONCERNS ABOUT THE
NEUTRALITY IN AN EIGHT AND
SECOND WERE A LITTLE OFF.
THE BILL --
MIGHT THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME
TOPIC BUT SO WE CAN DEBATE THE
PRODUCTIVITY OF THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND THESE
AGREEMENTS.
CLUED AN EMPLOYEE FROM GOING TO
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER.
SO THE OR OR CAL OSHA BECAUSE
I'M NOT SURE THAT I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT THE SHOT THAT THAT THAT
THE QUESTION IS.
OF A WORKER WHO WAS NOT PAID
WAGES ARE TREATED UNFAIRLY WOULD
STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM RESOLVED
IT WOULD JUST BE THROUGH
ARBITRATION RATHER THAN BY
BRINGING A LAWSUIT OR BRINGING A
CLAIM TO THE BUT LABOR.
COMMISSIONER AND IF SO FOR TEN
THIRTY ONE OUT JENNIFER IF IF
I'D JUST AT THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER PIECES ACTUALLY
ACCURATE THERE WAS A CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT CASE THE SONIC
CALABASAS CASE SAYING THAT AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT COULD
PREVENT --
IT AS A GOING TO THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER HEARING TO HAVE AN
ADMINISTRATOR JUDICATA
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE
EMPLOYER COMMUNITY WOULD BE FINE
ST YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN THAT
GREAT LET THEM GO TO THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE IS JUST
IT'S AGAIN PREEMPTED RATE YOU
CAN'T.
HAVE THE SPECIAL RESTRICTION AND
IDENTIFY CLAIMS THAT CAN GO TO
ARBITRATION AND ONES THAT CAN'T
BY STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THAT'S
INTERFERING WITH ARBITRATION SO
IT IS IT AN AMENDMENT THAT WE
WOULD LOVE TO OFFER UP AND SAY
HEY WE BECAUSE WE WE THINK THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER I HEARING
PROCESS.
VERY EFFICIENT PROCESS --
AND IT IS ONE THAT GETS THE
RESOLUTION RESOLVED QUICKLY
HOWEVER WE WOULD BE DISINGENUOUS
AND OFFERING UP SOMETHING LIKE
THAT IN A MINUTE BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE PRINTED UNDER FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT AS DECIDED BY
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN
THE SAUNA CALABASAS CASE.
OCEANS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OSHA IS
AN AGENCY ENFORCEMENT AND
THERE'S NO REAL --
ABILITY FOR A PRIVATE EMPLOYER
TO BUYING ARE BOUND.
DID I SAY THAT RIGHT PROPER
ENGLISH BIND --
I CAN'T DO THAT THE COURTS HAVE
ALREADY HELD THAT THAT IS NOT --
ALLOWED SO YOU CAN'T HAVE A
MANDATORY ARBITRATION FOR OSHA
AGREEMENTS BUT THERE IS FOR
LABOR COMMISSION AGREEMENTS.
AND THEN I MEAN DO YOU BELIEVE
THAT ARBITRATORS AREN'T NEUTRAL.
ARE YOU ASKING ME THEM.
AN ARBITRATOR IS PAID FOR BY THE
EMPLOYER --
I I THINK THAT TIPS IN FAVOR OF
ONE OVER THE OTHER I'M AND I
THINK ARBITRATORS LIKE JUDGES
CAN GET THINGS WRONG AND THAT
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN APPEAL
PROCESS BUT THERE'S NO APPEAL
PROCESS THERE IS A NOTATION BUT
THAT ACTUALLY IS IT CORRECT
RIGHT BECAUSE YOU CAN.
TAKE AN ARBITRATION AWARD BUT
AND AND PETITION --
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT NOW THAT
OVER TURNED OUT IF IF IF THAT
SUCH A LAW WAS IF THE LAW WAS
IMPROPERLY APPLIED THAT'S NOT
TRUE I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CARE
IS NO APPEAL PROCESS AND USE SO
IF IF YOU IF.
THEY'RE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL
THINGS THAT IF THEY DON'T TO
ARBITRATION ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
APPEAL BUT FOR EXAMPLE BASIC
RULES OF EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN
THINGS THE ARBITER IT IS FREE.
TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH IN MANY
CASES THIS ACCRUES TO THE BENTON
BENEFITS OF PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE
WHERE BLACK LETTER LAW MIGHT.
WARRANT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION RIGHT DISCOVERY ANY OTHER.
STATE DIFFERENT YEAH BUT GIVEN
THE MERITS I WANT TO GIVE SOME
TO THIS PLAINTIFF ANYWAY BUT
APPLICATION OF THE LAW IF IT WAS
IF IF.
THE LAW WAS INCORRECTLY APPLIED
TO THE FACTS THERE IS THE
ABILITY TO PETITIONS TO SUPERIOR
COURT TO OVERTURN I WOULD LET
KNOW THAT THAT IS THAT NOT
INCORRECT.
STATEMENT LAW THAT IS AN
INCORRECT STATEMENT HOW OLD.
WE WOULD LIKE.
THOSE CASES I'D LOVE TO SEE THEM
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT MY
UNDERSTANDING A LOT WELL IF I
HAD THE STATUE IN FRONT OF ME I
WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU BUT YET
YEAH.
THERE ARE LIMITED GROUNDS FOR AN
APPEAL --
IT'S IN THAT COULD SILVER
PROCEDURE UPON THE GROUNDS OF
WHICH YOU CAN VACATE AN
ARBITRATION AWARDS THERE ARE
LIMITED GROUNDS THERE'S A COURT
CASE CALL PEARSON DENTAL AND
WHICH THEY SAID IF THE JUDGE HAS
ARE EXCUSE ME THE ARBITRATOR HAS
APPLIED THE LAW IN A WAY WHICH
DENIES AT INDIVIDUAL.
THEIR SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WAS
DEALING WITH THE FOR ALL THAT TO
SUPERIOR COURT IT'S PAST THERE
HAS TO BE SOME BASIS TO APPEAL
AN ARBITRATION AWARD OTHERWISE
WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THIS
JURISPRUDENCE OUT THERE WITH
REGARD STARBIRD REACHING
AGREEMENTS.
AND ARBITRATION WORDS THAT HAVE
BEEN ISSUED SO THERE ARE LIMITED
GROUNDS IT'S NOT AS BROAD AS A
CIVIL COURT CASE BUT THERE ARE
GRANTS.
TO SO ONCE AGAIN THERE IS THE
LAW AND YES YOU CAN APPEAL --
BUT YOU KNOW I MEAN I LOVE THE
STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE WITHOUT
ANY BACKUP OR ANY SUPPORT FOR
THEM BUT CLEARLY THERE IS THE
ABILITY TO APPEAL.
AS I JUST STATED PREVIOUSLY WELL
EXCEPT THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT
STATEMENT BECAUSE BE ABLE TO
APPEAL.
A WHAT A ARBITRATOR GETS LAW
WRONG THERE ARE CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES TO APPEAL.
JUST AN INCORRECT APPLICATION A
LAW.
IS IT SO DID YOU JUST SAY THERE
ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO
APPEAL VERY LIMITED THAT ARE
MOSTLY AROUND DAY THANK YOU
MISTER SANDERS OF THAT OF THE
ARBITRATION BUT THE BROAD
STATEMENT THAT YOU MAKE THAT.
IF A ARBITRATOR GETS THE LAW
WRONG THAT IS APPEALABLE TO THE
COURT IS NOT CORRECT.
THIS PETRIE-NORRIS JUST SO I CAN
CAN CLARIFY SO.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE POINT IS
THIS LEGISLATION FROM THE AUTHOR
IS NOT TO CHALLENGE WHETHER
ARBITRATION IS IN FACT A FAIR
EFFICIENT AND JUST MEANS OF
RESOLVING DISPUTES IT'S SIMPLY.
TO STATE THAT THAT HAS TO BE A A
CONSENSUAL ARBITRATION RATHER
THAN.
MANDATORY CORRECT THE RIGHT NOT
TO HAVE WHEN I ENTERED EIGHTY
MONETARILY WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY
GET BEATING THE MERITS OR
ARBITRATION.
IN THIS BOOK CORRECT THAT'S
THAT'S CORRECT ABSOLUTELY.
OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD I THINK THAT THERE ARE
CLEARLY SOME FLAWS IN.
THE WAY THAT THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR FEDERAL
CHASE ACT IS WRITTEN AND IT ENDS
UP WITH VERY UNFAIR APPLICATION
THAT WE HAVE POINTED OUT HERE
AND I THINK IT'S OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO FIND THOSE
THERE IS A CONTINUE TO PUSH. TO
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE THE AS
POSSIBLE AND THE FACT THAT THESE
THE POWER DIFFERENTIALS ARE SO
STARK.
THE FACT THAT.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF CASES WHERE
EMPLOYERS WILL REFUSE TO PAY AN
ARBITRATOR OR DRAG THAT PROCESS
OUT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT A AN
EXPEDIA PROCESS IT IS NOT A
QUICK PROCESS AND IT IS PART OF
THE PRESSURE THAT EMPLOYERS SEEM
TO BE PUTTING VERY WILLING TO
PUT ON EMPLOYEES. TO NOT HAVE.
CASES HEARD AND TO IT TO
INTERFERE WITH WITH QUICK AND
APPROPRIATE JUSTICE IN BECAUSE
ARBITRATION CASES ARE REALLY NOT
APPEALABLE IN.
THE BROADER SENSE WHAT WE
NORMALLY SEE AN APPEAL I THINK
IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE.
TO PUSH THE LAW AND SEE MAKE
SURE THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE
ARE.
PROTECTING THE PEOPLE WHO NEED
US TO PROTECT THE MOST THAT'S
HOW I READ THIS BILL AND I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT
IT FORWARD THANK YOU YOU MAY
CLOSE MISTER.
THANK YOU AND I AM I JUST WANNA
CLOSE BY FIRST OF ALL ONCE AGAIN
THINKING YOUR STAFF WHO DID AN
INCREDIBLE JOB IN HELPING US
CLEAN UP LANGUAGE --
AND IT WAS MUCH APPRECIATED I AM
I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT LIKE
AGAIN THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER
ARBITRATION IS A GOOD VENUE I AM
I'M A BELIEVER IN ARBITRATION IF
IT'S ENTERED INTO VOLUNTARILY
AND THERE'S SOME --
POWER BALANCE I I THINK IT'S A
GOOD METHOD --
BUT I THINK ALL METHOD SHOULD BE
ON THE TABLE WE WRITE --
CODE IT TO TO GO TO GOVERNMENT
CUT IF HE HAD IT IS AN IMPORTANT
FEATURE IN AND THAT THERE'S A
REASON BEHIND THAT IN IN SHORING
THAT WORKERS --
WHEN THEY ARE TAKING A JOB
AREN'T TOLD BASICALLY YOUR
LIVELIHOOD OR SIGNING AWAY THESE
RIGHTS --
THAT THAT WE NEED TO EXAMINE
THAT I THINK IT'S VERY NARROW
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO UNDO ANY
EXISTING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO UNDO ANY
FUTURE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
PROVIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. TO
KEEP EMPLOYERS FROM FORCING AN
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I THANK
YOU THERE IS A MOTION TO SECOND
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE I
GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NO CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU.
GONZALEZ I CONSULT AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE KNOWN PETRIE-NORRIS
THIS OUT THANK YOU STILL DON'T
SEE.
MR MAIENSCHEIN CHECKS PERCENT.
WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER
.
FOUR EIGHTY FOUR SEVENTY THREE
GOOD MORNING THANK YOU VERY MUCH
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS UNDER
CURRENT LAW INDIVIDUALS WHO
INHERIT PROPERTY BECOME LIABLE
FOR THE DECEDENT'S DAT TO THE
EXTENT TO THE PROPERTY'S VALUE
IN INTEREST ON THE PROPERTY
VALUE.
THE 10% INTEREST RATE ON THE
VALUE IMPOSES AN EXCESSIVELY
HIGH LIABILITY ON THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
AB FOR SEVENTY THREE WILL LOWER
THE INTEREST RATE 27% AND WILL
ALSO GRANT A COURT DISCRETION TO
EXCUSE INTEREST LIABILITY WANNA
BE EQUITABLE EQUITABLE TO DO SO.
ADDITIONALLY CALIFORNIA USES A
FIXED DOLLAR AMOUNT TO DETERMINE
IF AN INDIVIDUAL THE STATE CAN
QUALIFY FOR A PROBATE.
AVOIDANCE PROCEDURE HOWEVER IT'S
COST OF LIVING INCREASES FEWER
ESTATES AND ASSETS WILL QUALIFY
TO USE THE PROBATE AVOIDANCE
PROCEDURES AB FOR SEVENTY THREE
WILL ALSO A JUST A FIXED DOLLAR
AMOUNT EVERY THREE YEARS. TO
ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION TO HELP
DECREASE THE VOLUME.
OF NECESSARY JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
THANK YOU AND THAT.
OKAY WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND QUESTIONS COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT SING NONE WAS TO
MAINTAIN A CLOSE I THANK YOU I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE AYE
GALLAGHER.
CHOW CHOW I CHIU.
GONZALEZ THOSE AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY MULTI.
OBERNOLTE I PETRIE-NORRIS
[inaudible]
YES [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
BODY CAN WE POLICY SANTIAGO
PLEASE [inaudible]
YEAH.
YES WE WILL DO ADD ONS.
ON CAN THE CONSENT AGENDA.
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS PLEASE
[inaudible]
CHIU HOLDEN [inaudible]
HOLDEN I KILEY.
RADIUS.
REYES AYE.
NOW I HAVE.
TO FIRST YEARS --
BUT YOU CAN SET THE AGENDA.
COOLEY OF THE MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT CHU.
CHU AYE KILEY.
ITEM NUMBER ONE AB FIFTY ONE
GONZALEZ.
CHU.
CHU AYE KILEY.
ITEM NUMBER TWO A. B.
[inaudible]
TWO OH SIX TWO HOLDEN
[inaudible]
HOLDEN I KILEY REYES.
REYES AYE.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR A. B. FOR
SEVENTY THREE MAIENSCHEIN CHIU --
I GALLAGHER KILEY PETRIE-NORRIS.
RIGHT MR SANTIAGO.
TEXAS TO ITEM NUMBER THREE A. B.
THREE TED.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
APPRECIATE THE THE OPPORTUNITY
PRESENT BEFORE YOU IN THE
COMMITTEES WORK IN HELPING US TO
CREATE AMENDMENTS TO MAKE THIS
BILL A BETTER BILL.
HI A. B. I THREE THREE TEN WOULD
EXEMPT A PROBATION PAROLE
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS FROM ANY
DUTY IN CRIMINAL MATT.
ANY DUTY --
CHOI CHU YOU.
CAN COME PEACE OFFICERS AT THE
C. H. P. --
LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS AND COUNTY
DEPUTIES.
THIS BILL BEEN PASSES COMMITTEE
SEVERAL TIMES I APPRECIATE AN
AYE VOTE AND WE HAVE A COUPLE
WITNESSES HERE AS WELL THANK YOU
AND YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS AND THAT'S WHAT
STARTED WITH.
THANK YOU I STAYED HERE YOU THAT
YOU ARE ACCEPTING THEM THANK YOU
FIRST WITNESS PLEASE SOME
MARKETING AND THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICER WITH AMADOR
COUNTY AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME HERE TO TODAY TO TESTIFY.
AND THEY THANK YOU TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SANTIAGO FOR ASKING.
ME TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AB.
THREE TEN AS YOU'VE HEARD AB
THREE TEN WOULD CHANGE CURRENT
STATUTE. TO EXEMPT PROBATION
OFFICER FROM JURY DUTY IN
CRIMINAL MATTERS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT AS AN ARM OF
THE COURT PROBATION OFFICERS
HAVE PRE CONVICTION
RESPONSIBILITIES SUCH AS
OPERATING PRE TRIAL PROGRAMS.
CONDUCTING RISK ASSESSMENTS AS
WELL AS PREPARING REPORTS MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BENCH
REGARDING SUITABILITY IN
ELIGIBILITY FOR PRE TRIAL
MONITORING.
THIS MAY INVOLVE TALKING TO
DEFENDANTS THE VICTIMS AND OTHER
IMPACTED PARTIES.
FURTHER PROBATION OFFICERS ALSO
HAVE SIGNIFICANT POST CONVICTION
RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING
SUPERVISION PROGRAMMING A
PERSON'S A PROBATION MANDATORY
SUPERVISION P. R. C. S..
JUST POST RELEASE CAN COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION.
AND SERVING OVER THIRTY NINE
THOUSAND IS THAT THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
THIS ROLE PUTS OFFICERS OFFICERS
IN A POSITION WHERE THE
DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS
LIKELY TO BE UNDER OUR
JURISDICTION FOR SUPERVISION AS
WELL.
WHICH CLEARLY CREATES AN
INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO
HAVE OUR DEPARTMENTS COMPLETING
REPORTS TO THE COURT.
WHILE ALSO ULTIMATELY BEING
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUPERVISION.
AND REHABILITATION OF THOSE
UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
ADDITIONALLY THERE HAVE BEEN
INSTANCES WHERE APPEALS HAVE
BEEN SOUGHT IN CRIMINAL CASES
DUE TO HAVING PEACE OFFICERS
PARTICULARLY A PROBATION OFFICER
ON THE JURY.
THIS IS THIS NOT ONLY DELAYS THE
COURT PROCEEDINGS THE CAN BE
EXTREMELY ONEROUS AND COSTLY FOR
COURTS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
AB THREE TEN WILL FIX THIS ISSUE.
AND REMOVE THE INHERENT CONFLICT
OF INTEREST IN OUR ROLE IN THE
COURT TO ENSURE WE CAN CONTINUE
TO BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THOSE
UNDER OUR CARE.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HAVING ME
HERE TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO
PARTICULARLY THANK.
THE CHAIR ASSEMBLY MEMBER STONE --
FOR WORKING WITH US ON
AMENDMENTS.
DIALOGUE WITH YOUR OFFICE I
HEARD YOU TO SUPPORT AB.
THREE TEN THANK YOU THAT'S WHAT
DISPLACING.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIRMAN
COMMITTEE MEMBERS MY NAME IS
GREG STUPOR AND I'M THE
LEGISLATIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF
STATE COALITION INFORMATION
ORGANIZATIONS COPO.
A CO SPONSORS OF AB THREE TEN
I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT SEGMENT
ACCOUNT INFORMATION ASSOCIATION.
ONE OF THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
SANTIAGO FOR CARRYING THIS
LEGISLATION.
AND THINK THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE
FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL.
WE UNDERSTAND THE JURY DUTY
EXEMPTIONS ARE LIMITED VERY
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN LIGHT OF OUR CRITICAL ROLE IN
PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT WE
BELIEVE THAT PROBATION OFFICERS
MEET THIS VERY HIGH BURDEN.
FIRST AS PROBATION OFFICERS WE
ON THE FRONTLINE OF REALIGNMENTS
IMPLEMENTATION --
TASK WITH THE COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION OF SERIOUS PROBLEMS
YOU'VE BEEN SENTENCED TO
PROBATION FOR THEIR CRIMES.
ON A DAILY BASIS WE CONDUCT
UNANNOUNCED HOME OR WORK VISIT
SOME PROBATIONERS TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH A COURT
ORDERS.
THEY ARE FOUND TO BE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE OCCUR RESULT ARRESTOR
REVOCATION OF PROBATION AND
RETURN TO CUSTODY.
WE ALSO CONDUCT PRE SENTENCING
INVESTIGATIONS AND PREPARE
PERCENT SING REPORTS FOR THE
COURTS WHICH WILL MAKE SYNCING
AND RESTITUTION RECOMMENDATIONS.
IN SHORT WE ARE INVOLVED WITH
THE FENDERS IN EVERY ASPECT OF
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FROM
ARREST.
THE COURT PROCEDURES TO
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
AS A RESULT WE BELIEVE THAT OUR
PERSONAL SAFETY MAY BE
COMPROMISED BY REQUIRING US TO
SERVE IN CRIMINAL JURIES. TO
SERVE AS A JUROR IN A CRIMINAL
TRIAL WERE FORCED TO DISCLOSE
YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
WE THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO
SUPERVISE IN THE COMMUNITY THE
VERY SAME DEFENDANT WE FOUND
GUILTY AND SENTENCED.
SAME DANGERS ARISE FOR REQUIRED
TO SERVE ON JURIES INVOLVING
CLOSE ASSOCIATES A PROBATIONERS.
WE HAVE ARRESTED OR HAD TO
VIOLATED PROBATION SOME BACK TO
CUSTODY.
THESE REASONS SCOPE OF
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF AB THREE TEN THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU.
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
BRIAN NELSON ABOUT THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ALSO A IN
SUPPORT --
ON BEHALF OF OUR PROBATION
DEPARTMENT WORKERS IN LOS
ANGELES AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RESPECTIVELY.
LIKE THAT FOR YOUR STRONG
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR ANDY
LEVON BOMB ON BEHALF OF THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL REGRETFULLY
MUST OPPOSE AB --
THREE TEN I THINK IS THIS
COMMITTEE HAS HEARD BEFORE
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.
ARE VERY HARD ON THE JUDICIAL
BRANCH REDUCES THE NUMBER OF
AVAILABLE JURORS MAKES IT MORE
DIFFICULT TO SELECT
REPRESENTATIVE JURIES.
AND UNFAIRLY INCREASES THE
BURDEN OF JURY SERVICE ON OTHER
SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION.
THE COURTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT JURY
POOLS ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMMUNITIES THAT THEY SERVE.
AND THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH
PERSPECTIVE JURORS IN THE
COURTHOUSE EACH DAY TO AVOID
HAVING TO DISMISS.
EXCUSE ME DISMISS LAST DAY
CRIMINAL TO FOR LACK OF JURORS.
EXISTING LAW AND THE CALIFORNIA
RULES OF COURT MAKE CATEGORICAL
LOOKS EXCEPTIONS UNNECESSARY
BECAUSE BOTH AUTHORIZED COURTS
TO GRANT A HARDSHIP EXCUSE IN
APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND TO MAKE SCHEDULING
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHOUT REQUIRING
A COURT APPEARANCE INCLUDING
WANTED JURORS SERVICES ARE
IMMEDIATELY NEEDED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
AND SAFETY THAT.
STATEMENT IS EMBODIED IN
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT TWO
POINT.
ONE ZERO ZERO EIGHT ALSO MANY
CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS DESIGNED
SPECIFICALLY TO LESSEN THE
BURDEN OF JURY DUTY ON CITIZENS
ALSO RENDER CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS UNNECESSARY.
SUCH CHANGES INCLUDE CREATION OF
A ONE DAY ONE TRIAL SYSTEM THAT
IS STATEWIDE NOW.
IMPROVING SOMEONE'S PROCESS TO
ALLOW REQUESTS FOR EXCUSES TO BE
MADE AND ADOPTION OF A RULE OF
COURT TO ENSURE THAT JURORS CAN
REQUEST GOD WILLING
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHOUT NEEDING
TO APPEAR IN COURT.
COURTS MUST CONSTANTLY BALANCE
THE NEED TO ENSURE ACCESS TO THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM WITH THE NEED TO
RESPECT JURORS TIMES.
HOWEVER WHAT JURY SERVICE
REQUIRE SACRIFICE ON THE PART OF
CITIZENS.
EXEMPTING CERTAIN CLASSES OF
INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF THE
BURDEN IT MIGHT PUT ON THEM
UNFAIRLY INCREASES THE BURDEN ON
OTHERS.
NOW WITH REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS ARE POLICY COMMITTEE
HAS NOT YET HAD A TIME TO REVIEW
THEM AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
REVIEWING THEM WE MIGHT ALSO
RECOMMEND.
THAT IF THERE IS REPORTING TO BE
DONE THAT PERHAPS THAT REPORTING
SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION BEING PUT
INTO PLACE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MY NAME IS ERIN RAY
BURKE AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB.
THREE TEN I WOULD SECOND --
THE COMMENTS MADE FROM OUR
PARTNERS AT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
AN AD THAT CJ HAS HAD IT HAS
HELD A HISTORIC.
OPPOSITION RIGHT LINE OPPOSITION
HIS FROM JURY SERVICE.
PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS POSITION
AS ONE OF OPPOSITION TO OUR
CORRECTIONAL AND PAROLE PARTNERS
IT IS NOT WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY
BILL THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE
DIVERSE AND REPRESENTATIVE
NATURE OF JURY POLLS.
AS IF THIS BILL WERE TO PASS.
THE LEGISLATURE IS INVITING A
TREMENDOUS EROSION IN TO THE
RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL BECAUSE OF
THE SHRINKAGE OF THE JURY
AVAILABLE JURY PAUL.
AND AS THAT SHIP IN THAT
SHRINKAGE WILL GROW AS OTHER
POWERFUL GROUPS LOBBY FOR FOR
EQUAL TREATMENT. FOR THOSE
REASONS AND MORE CJ RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSES AB.
THREE TEN THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL I'M GONNA BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SO I HAVE LONG BEEN OPPOSED.
TO THESE EXEMPTIONS TO JURY
SERVICE JURY DUTY IS ONE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL OBLIGATIONS THAT WE
SERVE.
AS CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY AND
IF WE'RE GOING TO WHICH WE HAVE
AS OF LEGISLATIVE BODY WE HAVE
EXEMPTED CERTAIN FOLKS BECAUSE
OF POLITICAL PRESSURE BECAUSE OF
ANY.
A NUMBER OF OTHER REASONS AND
FOR ME LAST YEAR WE SAW THIS
BILL AND WE EXEMPTED.
OR WE WE CARVED OUT.
THE CIVIL TRIALS BECAUSE THE THE
ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE REALLY
DO NOT APPLY TO CIVIL TRIALS.
AND THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE TAKEN
UP LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN
IT WAS IN PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE.
BUT IT WASN'T AND IT PASSED BUT
MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN STILL
REMAIN.
AND EVEN IF ULTIMATELY THIS IS A
PILOT PROGRAM AND IT REQUIRES
SOME REPORTING BACK.
BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO
SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PROBATION
OFFICERS AND I DO DISAGREE WITH
SOME OF THE PROMISE OF WHY
BECAUSE PROBATION OFFICERS WORK.
AFTER THE FACT NOT BEFORE THE
FACT AND SO THAT DOES BEFORE
THAT THAT CONNECTION THAT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THERE'S
NECESSARILY A CONFLICT WHEN A
PROBATION OFFICER IS.
CALLED WHO CAN BE FAIR.
IN A JURY GETS AT LEAST --
CONVICTION THEY MAY HAVE
INTERACTIONS WITH THOSE PEOPLE
OR PEOPLE OF SIR SIMILAR CLASS
LATER ON BUT THAT'S DURING THE
PROBATION PERIOD THAT'S NOT.
AT THE TRIAL BECAUSE BE IN.
BEING A PROBATIONARY PERIOD
MEANS THAT THAT THERE IS A
CONVICTION [inaudible]
SO THAT.
THE THIS AROSE IN THIS KIND OF
CONSTANT AND WE GET THIS REQUEST
ALL THE TIME WHERE PEOPLE WANT
TO BE EXEMPTED FROM JURY SERVICE
BECAUSE IT'S IN CAN BE IN IT'S
DIFFICULT TO DO.
AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO STOP
THE REQUEST SO IF WE'RE GOING TO
CONSIDER.
PROBATION OFFICERS WHICH I TAKE
IT AS A AS A VALID.
REQUEST THAT I THINK EVEN THE
JUDICIAL COUNCILS CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED IN THE AND THE
PROCESSES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE
THERE ARE MORE.
THAT PROTECT AGAINST BIAS SO IF
THE IF A PROBATION OFFICER DOES
HAVE IN EXHIBITS THE BIAS OR A
CONNECTS TO THE CASE THEY COULD
BE REMOVED FOR COST BY THE JUDGE
SO THERE ARE OTHER.
MECHANISMS THAT THE COURTS HAVE
IN PLACE.
BUT IF WE DON'T IF WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE ANY STEPS LIKE THIS WE
HAVE TO START TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE DATA BECAUSE SO
FAR GROUPS TO COME FORWARD AND
ASKING THE GIVE US ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE THEY GIVE US.
A MOTIONAL PEELS THEY SAY WE
SHOULD BE EXEMPTED BECAUSE
WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY DATA
WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT THE IMPACT
IS ON THE COURTS OR WHAT THE
NECESSITY IS.
SO WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED AS
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL IS A
PILOT PROGRAM.
AND REPORTING BACK SO THAT WE
REALLY GET OUR HANDS AROUND
WHETHER THIS WOULD BE WHAT THE
IMPACT OF REMOVING PROBATION
OFFICERS FROM JURY POOLS WOULD
BE.
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IT'S
ULTIMATELY NECESSARY AND IF ALSO
SETS A PROCESS WITH THE WHICH
I'M HOPING THAT IF THERE ARE
OTHER GROUPS TO COME FORWARD TO
MAKE THIS REQUEST EVEN.
IF ULTIMATELY PROBATION OFFICERS
GET THEIR WISH THAT ARE ALLOWED
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM JURY POOLS.
THEN WE HAVE A PROCESS BY WHICH
WE CAN ASK OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
TO COME FORWARD AND ESTABLISH
FOR US WHY THEY SHOULD BE
REMOVED WHAT THE IMPACT IS.
AND THAT GIVES US I HOPE THE
BETTER ABILITY TO SAY NO OR IF
THEY CAN ESTABLISH THE REASON
FOR BEING REMOVED FOR JURY POOLS.
WE KNOW EXACTLY WHY RATHER THAN
SPECULATION.
EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT BECAUSE A LOT
OF IT GETS DOWN TO THE FACT THAT
PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SERVE ON
JURIES.
AND THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME
AND IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO
THIS COMMITTEE SO WHAT WE'RE
REALLY TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE IS
A BIT OF PROCESS BY WHICH WE CAN
TEST THE PROMISE.
GET SOME INFORMATION BACK AND
HOPEFULLY BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE IMPLICATIONS ARETHAT'S
REALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING IF
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD
AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD TO THE
POINT.
NOT ALLOW.
THIS EXEMPTION UNTIL WE COLLECT
THE DATA BUT BECAUSE A PROBATION
OFFICERS HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR
THAT.
THAT THEIR INVOLVEMENT THERE IS
THERE IS SOME CREDIBLE ARGUMENT
TO IT I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY
BY ALL THE ARGUMENTS BUT AT
LEAST ENOUGH OF A CREDIBLE
ARGUMENT.
THAT'S LET'S.
ALLOW A PILOT PERIOD TO REALLY
STUDY THIS TO LOOK AT THIS THEN
WE'LL KNOW BETTER WHAT WE'RE
DEALING WITH THAT'S WHAT I'M
ASKING I NOTICE OR SANTIAGO IS
NOT HAPPY WITH THIS PROCESS.
BUT I REALLY HOPE THAT WE CAN
MAKE SURE.
THAT THIS THIS MOVES FOR THAT
THIS MOVES THROUGH.
BECAUSE YOU DO THAT WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT I APPRECIATE
THAT BUT THAT I DO HOPE THAT
THIS MOVES FOR THROUGH THAT THAT
GIVES US SOME TANGIBLE.
EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN WORK WITH
WHETHER WHETHER IT'S AROUND
PROBATION OFFICERS OR OTHERS.
AS WE GET THIS REQUEST BECAUSE I
PROMISE YOU IF WE GRANT THIS
REQUEST WE WILL START GETTING
MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
AND THAT GETS HARDER AND HARDER
AND HARDER FOR ME IT IS
SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD
DEFINITELY TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY.
BUT THE CAR.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND I DO
APPRECIATE --
YOU'RE SAFEGUARDING HUH --
OF THE IT IN MANY WAYS THE
TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY
OF THE SYSTEM INTEGRITY OF THE
JURY SELECTION PROCESS KNOWING
THAT OFTENTIMES.
IT'S IT'S A CHALLENGE TO GET
PEOPLE EVEN WANT PARTICIPATE IN
AND IN INJURIES AND I KNOW
SUPPORT FROM FOLKS OF OF THOSE
OF US THAT HAVE.
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN JURY SELECTION IN.
HERE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
EXCUSES PEOPLE.
PRESUMABLY IS WILL OF ALL ASSUME
THAT THEY'RE ALL --
OF THE UTMOST INTEGRITY BUT THE
REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE.
OFTENTIMES EFFORTS TO TRY TO GET
OUT OF SERVING ON JURIES AND I
KNOW THAT IT'S ALWAYS A
CHALLENGE FOR JUDGES --
TO BE ABLE TO EMPANEL A JURY I
WILL SAY --
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE REPORT
AND AND TRYING TO AT LEAST GET A
GRASS GONNA HANDLE.
OF WHAT KIND OF IMPACT OF THESE
KINDS OF EXEMPTIONS HAVE ON THE
SYSTEM.
AND I'LL SAY AS A A FORMER --
Là DEBBIE PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT
WHO HAD A FRANKLY A GREAT
RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PROBATION
APARTMENT PROBATION OFFICERS.
I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE
ALLOWED A PROBATION OFFICER.
NOW WHAT IS THAT BECAUSE OF MY
OWN BIASES OR BECAUSE OF IT'S
PRIDE MORE ANECDOTAL THAN IT IS
STATISTICAL --
IN TERMS OF BIASES AND IT'S NOT
THAT THE PROBATION OFFICERS WERE
BIASED PER SE.
I JUST THINK THAT HAVING SUCH AN
IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF THE THE
CASES OF THE COME A JUST SYSTEM
OF OUR CLIENTS --
BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER TRIAL
INCLUDING.
THEIR THEIR SLIP UPS AT TIMES --
I I JUST THINK IT'S AN INTIMATE
KNOWLEDGE OF OF THE SYSTEM THAT
AND THAT I BELIEVE WARRANTS.
THAT EXEMPTION BUT I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN BECAUSE
I THINK IT'S A REAL ONE THAT.
THERE IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE WORRY
HERE THAT --
YOU CAN KIND OF MAKE THAT
ARGUMENT AND AND PROBABLY A LOT
OF OTHER AREAS AS WELL ALTHOUGH
I DO THINK WITH PROBATION.
THAT IT'S WITH ITS --
THE THE BASE OFFICER SO
INTIMATELY INVOLVED --
BUT THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF
I THINK IT'S FAIR TO AT LEAST --
HAVE SOME KIND OF FOLLOW UP --
THE TO THE TO THE TO THIS BILL
IF IT DOES MAKE IT ALL THE WAY --
TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK ASSIGNED --
RATHER THAN JUST CREATING AN
EXEMPTION AND KIND OF JUST NOT
NOT LOOKING BACK AND SO I LOOK
FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT THE
RESULTS OF A OF A SUBSEQUENT
REPORT WOULD BE.
AND I KNOW THAT I HAVE A A LOT
OF FORMER COLLEAGUES MOTHER
HAPPY THAT WE JUST SAY TO MUCH
PRESS THREE CHALLENGES.
WELL A AND THE THE PROPERTY
CHALLENGE IS PART OF THIS
BECAUSE THIS COMMITTEES ALWAYS
PUSH BACK ON REDUCTION APPROACH
TO CHALLENGES THAT WAS PUT IN
BUDGET TRAILER LANGUAGE IN THERE
NOW OR LIMITATIONS ON IT.
IN THE PAST THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS
AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN COURT
WERE OPPOSED TO THESE TWO OF MY
THREE PROBATION OFFICERS IN THE
COUNTIES THAT I REPRESENT OR
HAVE BEEN OPPOSED.
BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW
BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATION OF
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.
IS THAT PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND
OTHERS DON'T WANT TO USE THOSE
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THAT'S
WHY.
LET'S GET SOME DATA LET'S FIGURE
OUT WHAT'S REAL AND THEN SEE
WHAT WHAT THE LANDSCAPE LOOKS
LIKE AND AGAIN.
I'M WILL IF THIS IS GOING TO BE
APPROVED AND SPECIFICALLY FOR
PROBATION OFFICERS I'M LESS
CONCERNED BUT I'M MORE CONCERNED
WITH THE NEXT GROUP THAT ASKS
AND THE NEXT GROUP THAT ASKS AND
THE NEXT GROUP THAT ASKS BECAUSE
THEY WELL.
AND AT SOME POINT I WON
AFFIRMATIVELY STOP THAT SLIDE.
MR.
TO AND THEN MISTER GALLAGHER.
THIS GONZALEZ I JUST WANT TO
BRIEFLY SAY I PROBABLY EIGHT
APSLEY GROWTH OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
SAN JOSE THAT --
THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S
WANT TO EXPAND --
THE CATEGORIES THAT ARE ALLOWED
TO BE EXEMPTED BUT I THINK FOR
MANY THE SAME REASONS --
I AM -- I'D
I DO THINK THIS MAKES SENSE AND
WITH THAT I AM HAPPY TO AS HAPPY
AMENDED.
THANK YOU THERE'S A MOTION AS
THEIR SECOND AND THE SECOND
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT --
MISTER GALLAGHER.
YEAH I DO THINK IN THIS SPECIFIC
SITUATION --
IT MAKES SENSE THE ONE I MEAN
BECAUSE OUR PROBATION OFFICERS
HAVE HUGE CASELOADS ESPECIALLY
NOW IN THE AFTERMATH OF AB --
ONE OH NINE AND THERE HAVE THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES OF GREATLY
INCREASED IN TERMS OF MONITORING
AND AND YOU KNOW THOSE ON ON
YOUR EARLY RELEASE --
SO YOU KNOW TO TAKE THEM OFF OF
THOSE DUTIES YOU KNOWIS.
YOU KNOW IS POTENTIALLY A PUBLIC
SAFETY THREAT I THINK AND SO.
I THINK THERE'S A SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE IN THAT RESPECT AND
EVEN THOUGH THEIR DUTIES DO
USUALLY COME AND POST CONVICTION.
ESPECIALLY IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE WORLD MANY OF THESE
FOLKS THIS ISN'T THEIR FIRST
RODEO -- AND
SO YOU KNOW AT THAT TERMINAL.
THE JURY SYSTEM YOU KNOW THERE
IS THAT.
THAT GREAT POTENTIAL THAT
THEY'VE SEEN MANY THESE PEOPLE
ANOTHER OTHER CONTEXTS --
BEFORE SO. FOR THOSE FOR THOSE
SPECIFIC REASONS I THINK IT IS
WARRANTED.
THANK YOU THIS GONZALEZ.
I AM I AM.
CONFLICTED ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS.
WELL HOPEFULLY OF THE CAN THAT
GO SOLVE SOME OF THAT PROBLEM
WITH THE WITH THE BUDGET OUT
OKAY THAT I JUST WANTED TO TO
MAKE SURE AT THIS ENTIRE BILL
I'M CONFLICTED AYE AYE.
EIGHT TEND TO AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES --
FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ABOUT
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A
PROBATION OFFICER SIT ON JURIES
AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF A AT
WHAT.
I MEAN I DON'T KNOW I'D LIKE TO
KNOW HOW MANY HAVE EVER BEEN
EVEN CHOSEN TO BE SEATED ON A
JURY ONCE THEY SHOW UP AND THAT
WOULD BE INTERESTING.
INFORMATION TO ME THAT BEING
SAID I ALSO AGREE WITH THE CHAIR
THAT THIS IS A SPIRAL THAT WE
CAN GET INTO AND WE SEE IT WITH
JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
AND WE NEED JERRY SO AYE AYE.
CONFLICTED IN GENERAL I JUST
WANT WE HAVE A TENDENCY AT AND
TO NOT -- TO
NOT MOVE REPORT BILLS --
THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SO AT IN
THAT'S NOT JUST ON THE SIDE OF
THE HOUSE BUT THE OTHER SIDE AS
WELL SO.
THAT THE DESIRE TO GO SEEK
BUDGET LANGUAGE AND AND A BUDGET
REQUEST WOULD BE --
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
I'LL BE VOTING FOR THIS TODAY
[inaudible]
THIS RARE.
CLEARLY AFFECT IT SEEMS LIKE ALL
THE ATTORNEYS ARE SPEAKING UP --
I I WOULD TEND TO AGREE.
I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT
WITH THE COMMENTS MADE I THINK
THAT THE THE THE ONLY.
GOOD THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT
THEY CAN STILL SERVE ON CIVIL
TRIAL CIVIL MATTERS.
SO THAT THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY
EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE AND
IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE
PROBABLY ONE TIRED --
IN MOST CRIMINAL CASES.
BUT I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR --
THIS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.
I WILL BE VOTING ON THIS TODAY --
BECAUSE THEY CANCER OF ON CIVIL
MATTERS.
THANK YOU OTHER QUESTIONS COVER.
RIGHT.
THIS WHOLE.
WE'LL HEAR FROM A NON ATTORNEY
THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA.
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AS A
NON ATTORNEY.
ALL RIGHT WE CHECK THAT BOX.
ALL RIGHT THAT WAS SUCH A
AGREEMENT CLOSE.
THANK YOU ALSO THE NON ATTORNEY.
WELL LOOK I MEAN LOOK REAL ONE
ARE BILLS TO GET THERE AND
THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART BUT WE
ALSO APPRECIATE A GOOD
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH AND
DISCUSSION --
SO LOOK I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THE
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH AND THE SHOW
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WORKS --
AND I JUST WANTED TO COUPLE
THINGS THOUGH I MEAN IN TERMS OF
I DO AGREE THAT THERE IS A
PLAYED A CASELOAD AND A PUBLIC
GOOD TO HAVING PEOPLE AT THEIR
DESKS --
WORKING AS MUCH AS THEY CAN'T
PARTICULARLY OVER IN A
CONVERSATION ABOUT RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE PARTICULARLY WHEN WE
WANT PEOPLE TO GET ON A BETTER
PATH -- AND
THAT'S ONE REASON THAT THE BILL
AN OFFICER --
DEPENDS ON WHETHER YOU LIKE THE
PRO TO THE PROBATION OFFICER
DURING --
DURING A JURY --
PROCEEDING MAY HELP YOU IF YOU
DON'T LIKE THE APPROACH OF A
POLICE OFFICER MAY MAY HURT YOU
BUT THEY KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE.
ABOUT IT'S THAT JUST DEPENDS ON
WHAT YOUR APPROACHES AND SO I
DECIDED THAT.
THAT'S ABOUT IT POINT AND THEN I
WOULD ARGUE THAT IN SOME CASES
THEY DO HAVE --
THEY MAY KNOW THE THE PARTICULAR --
DEFENDANT --
BECAUSE YOU YOU WE TALKED ABOUT
THEM -- THAT
THERE'S A CONVICTION AFTER THE
TRIAL BUT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE
MAY BE ON PROBATION WHEN THEY'RE
GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS
LIMITED AMOUNT BUT THIS IS WHAT
WILL HAPPEN DURING THE A STUDY
IN WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF
THAT -- I'M
REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THE GETTING
THIS BILL OUT HOPEFULLY AND SO
HIGH I APPRECIATE THE THE TOP
APPROACH THAT MR.
THANK YOU MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO PUBLIC SAFETY CALL
THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY STONE
AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE CHAU.
CHU CHU AYE GONZALEZ.
I CONSULT AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KALRA AYE KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
IN CHINA I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE INDO PETRIE-NORRIS.
NORRIS I GRACE [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THANK YOU THE BILL IS OUT LET'S
GO BACK THROUGH.
THE AGENDA TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO
ADD ON STARTING WITH THE CONSENT
AGENDA.
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
[inaudible]
KILEY [inaudible]
KILEY AYE.
I DON'T NUMBER ONE AB FIFTY ONE
GONZALEZ KILEY [inaudible]
KILEY NOW.
ITEM NUMBER TWO A. B. TWO OH SIX
TWO KILEY.
KILEY AYE.
ITEM NUMBER THREE AB THREE TEN
SANTIAGO CHAU [inaudible]
CHAO I ITEM NUMBER FOUR EIGHTY
FOUR SEVENTY THREE MAIN SIDE.
GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE KILEY KILEY AYE
PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS HI.
THANK YOU ALL THAT COMPLETES OUR
BUSINESS FOR TODAY WE ARE
ADJOURNED