ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY TODAY'S
TUESDAY.
APRIL SECOND WE DO NOT YET HAVE
A QUORUM.
BUT WE HAVE ENOUGH I THINK WE'RE
GONNA START AS A SUB COMMITTEE.
WE'LL START WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE
A. B. TWELVE I'M SORRY I DON'T
NUMBER SEVEN AB TWELVE FIFTY ONE
MISTER SANTIAGO.
LIKE THE LONGER THE SHORT
VERSION MISTER CHAIR.
YOU HAVE A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION ARE YOU ASKING TO
CHANGE THAT.
BUT THE FLOOR IS YOURS IN ALL
HONESTY THIS IS YOUR TIME SO.
THE POINT WAS TO TRIBES WANT TO
BE RESPECT FOR THE CHAIR THANKS --
AS A MINUTE AND THINK YOU FOR
THE AMENDMENTS WE OUT WE
ABSOLUTE TAKEN THANK YOU FOR
HELPING US TO MAKE THIS HEY -- A
BETTER BILL AS AMENDED AB TWELVE
FIFTY ONE WOULD HELP PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND THEIR RIGHTS WHEN
APPEALING CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS.
BY REQUIRING LOCAL AGENTS TO
DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF TIME --
DID THEY HAVE TO SEEK THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW -- MISTER CHAIR
HOWEVER HAVE ONE WITNESS WITH ME
HE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
PRIVATE.
THANK YOU FIRST WITNESS PLEASE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR A
DILUTION HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVELY --
IN STRONG SUPPORT -- I'M HERE IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BUT WE WE
SEE THIS AS A PRO WORKER BILL
THAT WILL HELP.
OUR MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE
RIGHTS AFFORDED BY EXISTING LAW --
WHEN THEY RECEIVE OF ADVERSITY
MINISTRY OF DECISIONS
[inaudible]
THANK YOU.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE OPPOSITION --
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
TILL GIVENS WITH CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION --
BELIEVE WITH THE AMENDMENTS --
THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REMOVE
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL SO
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR THANK
YOU AS SPONSORS WILL WORK WITH
US ON THIS AND THAT ONCE IT'S IN
PRINT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
FORMALLY REMOVE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION OR
WILLING TO REMOVE OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE OF BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
THIS IS SANTIAGO YOU MAY CLOSE
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR
RESPECTFULLY ASSN EITHER.
THANK YOU WE WILL TAKE HIS HELP
ONCE WE GET A QUORUM.
HE SAID THAT THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT ITEM NUMBER THREE AB
SEVEN HUNDRED IS.
FOR GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
AND MEMBERS.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO ACCEPT ALL THE
AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSED MOCK
UP OF AB SEVEN HUNDRED AS
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS THE
AMENDMENTS NARROW THE SCOPE OF
THE EXEMPTION PROPOSED FOR THE
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR THOROUGH ANALYSIS AND
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE AND
INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
AB SEVEN HUNDRED SIX TO PROTECT
ACADEMIC FREEDOM BY ESTABLISHING
A LIMITED VERY LIMITED SET OF
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ARE ACT FOR RESEARCH
RECORDS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES.
FIRST I BELIEVE THAT THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IS
A CRITICAL TOOL THAT ALLOWS
CALIFORNIANS TO HOLD THEIR
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE.
THE AXE SERVES AN IMPORTANT ROLE
IN PROVIDING PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF
YOU UNIVERSITIES FUND OF OUR
UNIVERSITIES FUNDING AND THEIR
ADMINISTRATION.
HOWEVER IDEOLOGICALLY DIVERSE
SPECIAL INTERESTS. FOR PROFIT
BUSINESSES AND ALSO INDIVIDUALS
ARE INCREASINGLY USING THE ACT
TO DISRUPT RESEARCH A PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES.
THE ACT IS BEING USED AS AN
INEXPENSIVE POLITICAL ADVOCACY
TOOL TO HARASS RESEARCHERS
EAVESDROP ON THE PROFESSIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES
AND DISCOURAGE RESEARCH ON HOT
TOPICS WITH SOCIAL RELEVANCE.
THESE RECORD REQUESTS ARE OFTEN
DIRECTED TO RESEARCHERS WORKING
ON AREAS SUCH AS ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE LABOR IMMIGRATION RACE
AND GENDER.
THEY AFFECT RESEARCH RANGING
FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED
ORGANISMS TO TAX POLICY AND
EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN.
WELL THE PERSONAL IMPACT THESE
REQUESTS HAVE ON RESEARCHERS IS
UNFORTUNATE THE ULTIMATE PUBLIC
POLICY CONCERNS THE IMPACT THIS
HAS ON THE PUBLIC RESEARCH AT
PUBLIC.
RESEARCH AND UNIVERSITIES
THEMSELVES.
ULTIMATELY ABUSIVE REQUEST TO
RESEARCHERS INTERFERE WITH THE
CENTRAL TASK OF KNOWLEDGE
PRODUCTIONACROSS CALIFORNIA'S
WORLD CLASS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES.
AB SEVEN HUNDRED PROVIDES FOR A
VERY LIMITED SET OF EXEMPTIONS
FROM THE ACT FOR RESEARCH
RATCHET RECORDS A PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES.
WITH THE AMENDMENTS WERE TAKING
TODAY THIS WOULD INCLUDE I'M
PUBLISHED DATA DRAFT DOCUMENTS
AND RESEARCH MESSAGE OF METHODS
RESEARCH CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN
PROFESSIONAL PEERS TRADE SECRETS
AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD
COMPROMISE.
THE PRIVACY OF HUMAN RESEARCH
SUBJECTS.
IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO HELP HIDE
OR CONCEAL IN ANY WAY ANY WRONG
DOING GOING ON A PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES WITH AB.
SEVEN HUNDRED THIS IS A WORK IN
PROGRESS MY OFFICE HAS BEEN
MEETING WITH IN SEEKING FEEDBACK
FROM THE ACLU AND THE CALIFORNIA
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS AN ANIMAL --
ON WELFARE ADVOCATES SINCE
BEFORE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED
AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH ALL INTERESTED
STAKEHOLDERS TO THE BILL GET OUT
OF COMMITTEE TODAY.
I BELIEVE THAT AB SEVEN HUNDRED
WILL STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN FOSTERING THE FIELD
LEADING RESEARCH THAT CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITIES ARE KNOWN.
FOR WHILE MAINTAINING
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
FOR THE PUBLIC.
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF AB SEVEN HUNDRED IS
CLAUDIA POLSKI ASSISTANT
CLINICAL PROFESSOR PROFESSOR OF
LAW AND DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL.
LAW CLINIC AT UC BERKELEY AND
DONALD SMITH PROFESSOR WITH THE
MICROBIOLOGY AN ENVIRONMENTAL
TOXICOLOGY TOXICOLOGY DEPARTMENT
AT UC SANTA CRUZ.
ALSO WITH ME IS JASON BARBERS
WITH THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS THE SPONSOR OF AB
SEVEN HUNDRED I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
PAUSE AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE HERE
GALLAGHER CHAO.
CHIU [inaudible]
GONZALEZ [inaudible]
HOLDEN.
KILEY MAIENSCHEIN OBERNOLTE
[inaudible]
PETRIE-NORRIS [inaudible]
REYES.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM RIGHT THE
FIRST WITNESS PLEASE.
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN STONE AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I'M
HERE TODAY AS AN ISSUE EXPERT
AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
I HAVE THREE POINTS FIRST THE
HARASSMENT OF ACADEMIC
RESEARCHERS THROUGH PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUESTS IT'S REAL AND
IT'S PERVASIVE.
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS AT UCLA
LAW PROFESSORS AT UC BERKELEY
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHERS AT UC
DAVIS AND ABORTION RESEARCHERS
AT UCSF.
HAVE ALL BEEN HARASSED BY
EXPANSIVE AND INTRUSIVE PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUESTS FROM
IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS OF THEIR
RESEARCH.
SMITH ALSO DETERS SCHOLARS FROM
PURSUING CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS I
RECENTLY HAD A UC BERKELEY
SCHOLAR TELL ME.
THAT SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT
ABANDONING RESEARCH ON TITLE
NINE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT BECAUSE
THE THOUGHT OF PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS SOUNDED QUOTE
UNBEARABLY AWFUL.
I'VE SPENT TWO YEARS RESEARCHING
THIS PHENOMENON OF SCHOLAR
HARASSMENT AND I'VE DOCUMENTED
MANY CASES IN AN ARTICLE IN THE
UCLA LAW REVIEW THAT'S AVAILABLE
FREE ONLINE.
SECOND THE SCHOLAR HARASSMENT
PROBLEM IS FIXABLE.
AB SEVEN HUNDRED IS A CAREFUL
SOLUTIONS THAT I'VE ENDORSED
ALONG WITH MORE THAN A HUNDRED
AND EIGHTY ACADEMICS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA IN EVERY ACADEMIC
DISCIPLINE.
THE BILL DOES WHAT MANY STATE
OPEN RECORDS LAWS ACTUALLY DID
FROM THE BEGINNING BUT
UNFORTUNATELY CALIFORNIA'S DID
NOT.
IT PROTECTS AN INTELLECTUAL
SPACE.
THE PROFESSORS NEED TO REFINE
THEIR IDEAS SUCH AS BY PRODUCING
ROUGH DRAFTS OF ARTICLES.
IT ALSO PROTECTS COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND THEIR
PROFESSIONAL PEERS THROUGH THE
FORMAL PEER REVIEW PROCESS BUT
ALSO ALSO THROUGH MUCH LESS
FORMAL EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS
THROUGH WHICH THEY TEST IDEAS.
IF THESE CHANNELS CAN'T BE
TRUSTED TO BE PRIVATE AND CANDID
SPACES.
RESEARCH COLLABORATION AND
CANDOR DISAPPEAR AND THAT'S BAD
FOR CALIFORNIA AND ITS BAD FOR
SOCIETY.
THIS LEADS ME TO MY THIRD AND
FINAL POINT.
THE EXISTING EXEMPTIONS IN OUR
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT HAVE PROVEN
WOEFULLY INADEQUATE TO PROTECT
RESEARCH.
THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR
PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND A CATCH
ALL EXEMPTION BUT THEY BOTH
CONVERGE IN A BALANCING TEST
THAT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES AN
INTENSIVE FACT SPECIFIC
SOMETIMES DOCUMENTS SPECIFIC
INQUIRY.
INTO WHETHER IT IS FOR OR
AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO
RELEASE THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT
AND THAT MEANS THAT RESEARCHERS
ARE PULLED OUT OF THEIR LABS AND
OUT OF THEIR OFFICES AND INTO
MULTI YEAR COURT BATTLES TO TRY
TO PROTECT RESEARCH.
YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS TODAY
FROM DOCTOR SMITH.
THIS WOULDN'T BE THE CASE IF WE
HAD A BRIGHT LINE RULE AS TO
WHICH TYPES OF RESEARCH LIMITED
TYPES OF RESEARCH RECORDS ARE
EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.
AND THESE CRITICISMS OF OUR
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ARE NOT JUST
MY OPINION.
THERE THE OPINION OF THE CLIMATE
SCIENCE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND WHICH
DID A SURVEY OF EVERY STATE
PUBLIC RECORDS LAW IN AMERICA.
AND GAVE CALIFORNIA'S A LETTER
GRADE OF C. FOR RESEARCHER
PROTECTION.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE WORLD'S
NUMBER ONE PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM IT SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT
GREAT ON ITS TRANSCRIPT.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT
FOR A BI SEVEN HUNDRED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THAT'S WITH US PLEASE
OKAY -- I'M DONALD SMITH AND I
WAS A GOOD MORNING TO EVERYONE
HERE -- AND I TOO AM HERE'S A
PRACTICES NOT AS AN EMPLOYEE OF
THE UC SYSTEM.
I'M OVER CAREER SPENDING ABOUT
TWENTY FIVE YEARS I'VE HELP
DEVELOPING APPLY SCIENTIFIC
METHODS TO IDENTIFY INFORMAL
SOURCES OF THE TOXIC METAL LEAD
AND WE'VE USE THAT METHOD AND IN
CASES OF LET A LEAD POISONING
CASES OF OF CHILDREN AND
WILDLIFE.
IN OUR WORK WITH ENDANGERED
CALIFORNIA CONDORS SHOW THAT
LEAD POISONING FROM INGESTION OF
LET FRAGMENTS IN ANIMAL SHOT
WOULD LEAD AMMUNITION WAS THE
MAIN SOURCE OF LEAD POISONING.
IT WAS PRECLUDING THE RECOVERY
OF WILD CONDORS IN CALIFORNIA.
THIS WORK PROVIDED IMPORTANT
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE HARM
OF LEAD AMMUNITION ON NON TARGET
WILDLIFE AND IT SUPPORT THE
PASSAGE OF TO ASSEMBLY BILLS
ULTIMATELY BANNED THE USE OF
LEAD AMMUNITION. FOR HUNTING IN
CALIFORNIA.
BECAUSE OF OUR RESEARCH WE
RECEIVED FIVE PUBLIC RECORD ACT
REQUESTS BETWEEN TWO THOUSAND
TEN IN TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
FROM THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION.
SEEKING IN SUMMARY ALL OF OUR
WRITINGS CORRESPONDENCE AND
ANALYTICAL DATA INCLUDING THE
RAW DATA WAS RELATED TO MY
RESEARCH ON LEAD SPENDING A SIX
YEAR PERIOD. ONE SCENE IN GOAL
OF THE GUN RIGHTS REQUESTING
GROUP WAS TO TARNISH OUR
REPUTATIONS AND THIS IS MADE
APPARENT UNAFFILIATED PRO
HUNTING WEBSITE.
THAT ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT OUR
PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED FINDINGS.
WHILE WE START TO COMPLY WITH
THE REQUEST WE INITIALLY
RESPONDED THAT WE WOULD NOT
RELEASE THE DATING
CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO OUR ON
PUBLISHED RESEARCH.
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
DISASSOCIATION FOUNDATION SUED
US IN SUPERIOR COURT AND THE
COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR BY
NARROWING THE SCOPE OF THE
REQUEST.
IN PART BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
RECORD ACT IS THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RECORD ACTED SO UNCLEAR
AS TO WHAT RESEARCH MATERIAL IS
AND IS NOT COVERED BY EXISTING
EXEMPTIONS I PERSONALLY HAVE
SPENT NEARLY TWO HUNDRED HOURS.
SEARCHING DOCUMENTS ELECTRONIC
FILES FOR POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE TURTLES.
MEETING WITH UNIVERSITY COUNCIL
STAFF PREPARING SITTING FOR
DEPOSITIONS COURT HEARINGS
ETCETERA.
IN OUR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
RESPONSIVE MATERIALS FOR THE
REQUEST OUR ON GOING.
THIS IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED
MY ABILITY TO FULFILL MY
RESEARCH AND TEACHING DUTIES AS
THE UC FACULTY.
IS INTERFERED BY ABILITY TO
PURSUE RESEARCH FUNDING TO
CONDUCT RESEARCH TO ANALYZE DATA
PUBLISHED BY RESEARCH FINDINGS.
ENDED IS CHILLED SCIENTIFIC
INQUIRY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
AND COLLABORATIONS WITH
COLLEAGUES ARE POTENTIAL
COLLEAGUES AND OTHER RESEARCH
INSTITUTIONS.
IN THIS IS BECAUSE OF MY AND OR
THEIR FEAR PROVOKING MORE
HARASSING PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
REQUESTS.
SO I SUPPORT AB SEVEN HUNDRED I
THINK IT STRIKES THE RIGHT
BALANCE BETWEEN PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY AND PRIVACY FOR
RESEARCH.
I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT EVERYONE
WILL BE BETTER SERVED WITH MORE
CLARITY ABOUT WHAT RESEARCH
INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT.
THANK YOU X. WITH US WITH.
JASON BARBERS FOR THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS WERE THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL AND JUST
HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT.
OF THIS BILL GO FORWARD TO GIVE
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE IS THEIR
OPPOSITION [inaudible]
CONSIDER
.
TO MORNING MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE PROUD
CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION.
FIRST I'D LIKE STATE THAT OUR
POSITION ON THIS BILLS OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED AND WE'D LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHORS WALLS
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL OF THE
WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE. TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS BILL.
AS THE AUTHOR NOTED THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT. TO ACCESS RECORDS IS
CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT IN FACT IT'S
SO IMPORTANT THAT IT'S IN TRYING --
TO STATE'S CONSTITUTION. FOR
JOURNALISTS WATCHDOG GROUPS AND
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CONCERNED
ABOUT WHAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS
DOING THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AS
A CRUCIAL AN INVALUABLE TOOL.
AGENCIES USE THAT VIEW THE TASK
OF RESPONDING TO PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUEST AS A NUISANCE RATHER
THAN AS PART OF THEIR IMPORTANT.
RATHER THAN AS PART OF THEIR
MISSION TO SERVE THE PUBLIC I
REGULARLY RECEIVE PHONE CALLS.
FROM JOURNALISTS.
WHO HAVE RECEIVED RESPONSES FROM
AGENCIES THAT REFUSE TO PROVIDE
RECORDS ARE ONLY PARTIALLY
RESPONSIVE? TOO MANY AGENCIES.
WILL FIND ANY EXCUSE NOT TO
DISCLOSE RECORDS AND IT'S FROM
THIS VANTAGE POINT THE REALITY
THAT ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT IS COMMITTED JUST AS
MUCH AND LIKELY MORE.
BY AGENCIES THEM BY REQUEST
STIRS THAT WE BELIEVE NEW
EXEMPTIONS TO DISCLOSURE SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED.
THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IS
DESIGNED TO BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
TO CONFORM TO SITUATIONS THAT
HAVE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED WHEN THE
LAW WAS ENACTED.
AND NOWHERE IS THIS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN IN THE CATCH ALL
EXEMPTION IN LIGHT OF THIS THE
DETERMINATION THAT SHOULD BE
MADE ANY TIME IN NEW EXEMPTION
TO DISCLOSURE IS CONSIDERED.
IS WHETHER SPECIFIC PROBLEM
EXISTS IN WHICH THE PUBLIC'S
INTEREST.
IS SERVED BY NON DISCLOSURE IS
AND IS NOT ALREADY COVERED BY AN
EXISTING EXEMPTION ONLY ONCE
THAT DETERMINATION IS MADE
SHOULD A NEW EXEMPTION BE
CONSIDERED AND THEN THE NEW
EXEMPTION SHOULD BE VERY
NARROWLY TAILORED.
UNFORTUNATELY AB SEVEN HUNDRED
DOES NOT YET PASSED THE
THRESHOLDS EVEN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN --
ACCEPTED TODAY WE BELIEVE THE
EXEMPTION PROVISIONS THE BILL
ARE STILL TOO BROAD AND WOULD
ALLOW CIRCUMSTANCES OF
RESEARCHER MISCONDUCT.
AN UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER RESEARCH
TO BE CONCEALED.
WE ARE ALSO CONCERNS THAT -- THE
APPROACH OF THE BILL OF
EXEMPTING THESE CATEGORIES AND
THEN BRINGING BACK IN CERTAIN
CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS THAT
WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT FROM
DISCLOSURE.
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS
GENERAL STRUCTURE OF HAVING
RECORDS BE TO SCHOOLS WILL IT
EXCEPT IN VERY NARROW
CIRCUMSTANCES. TO BE CLEAR WE
DON'T CONDONE HARASSMENT OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL AND WE CERTAINLY WANT
OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TO BE
COMPETITIVE WITH THEIR CAP --
PRIVATE COUNTERPARTS.
BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT GOING
DOWN THE ROAD OF SHIELDING
RECORDS FROM DISCLOSURE OVER
CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE WILL BE
CRITICIZES VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE.
AND THAT IT'S IMPORTANT REMEMBER
THAT FOR EVERY STORY OF A
RESEARCHER WHO HAS HAD A PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT.
QUOTE UNQUOTE WEAPONIZED AGAINST
THEM THERE'S ALSO A STORY OF
PUBLIC RECORDS BEING USED.
TO TO UNCOVER.
US STORIES OF MISCONDUCT
IMPROPER OVERSIGHT BY
UNIVERSITIES AND UNDUE INFLUENCE
IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS.
WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THE
EXEMPTION THIS BILL COULD ALSO
BE EXPLOITED BY THE VERY
INTEREST GROUPS AT WHICH THE
BILL IS AIMED AT ALLOWING THEM
TO EXERT GREATER CONTROL OVER
RESEARCH PROCESS SEES WITHOUT
FEAR OF EXPOSURE. TO BE SURE THE
TASK OF CRAFTING EXEMPTION
THAT'S NARROW ENOUGH TO PRODUCE
TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE
AUTHOR WHILE STILL NOT HARMING
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW IS A
VERY DIFFICULT TASK.
WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE
EFFORTS THAT HAVE MADE BEEN MADE
SO FAR WE BELIEVE NEED MORE WORK
IS NEEDED WE'RE COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR ON AMENDMENTS TO NARROW
DOWN THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THAT'S WITH A SPLIT.
GOOD MORNING MR TURN MEMBERS
KEVIN BAKER FROM AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF CALIFORNIA WE
ALSO APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF
THE AUTHOR TENET TO NARROW THE
BILL WE NEVER THE REMAINED.
CLOSED THE URINALYSIS DESCRIBES
THE AUTHOR'S INTENT TO MODERNIZE --
THE CPR A IF IF THIS IS
MODERNIZATION I THINK WE FIND
OURSELVES ON AS I HAVING TO
CHARACTERIZE OUR STUFF IS OLD
FASHIONED.
ON THIS ISSUE -- THE TESTIMONY
TODAY DESCRIBED EXISTING LAW IS
INSUFFICIENT -- BECAUSE IT
RELIES ON A CASE BY CASE
BALANCING TEST FOR EACH SPECIFIC
INSTANCE WE WE DON'T
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT RECORDS WE
LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S A
JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCLUSION IN
EACH PARTICULAR CASE WE THINK
THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH NOT
THE WRONG APPROACH AND IT SERVED
US WELL -- WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
YOU CAN TAKE THE IMPORTANT TOOL --
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT IN TOOL.
FOR ACCOUNTABILITY TRANSPARENCY
AND DEMOCRACY YOU CAN'T TAKE
THAT TOOL AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE
THAT YOU DON'T THINK ARE USING
IT APPROPRIATELY.
WITHOUT ALSO TAKING IT AWAY FROM
THOSE WHO USE IT FOR IMPORTANT
PURPOSES AND FOR THAT REASON WE
REMAIN OPPOSED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU THAT'S WHAT THIS PLACE.
HELLO -- MY NAME IS HEATHER
RALLY I'M A VETERINARIAN AND I
SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE
FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS PETA.
AND ARE SIX POINT FIVE MILLION
MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS EIGHT
HUNDRED THOUSAND OF WHOM LIVE IN
CALIFORNIA -- TO OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED HAVE THE ASSEMBLY BILL
SEVEN HUNDRED WE APPRECIATE THE
OFFICE SMILING THIS -- TO WORK
ON AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THESE
CONCERNS BUT I STILL WANT THOSE
CONCERNS BE ON THE RECORD HERE
TODAY -- OUR CONCERN IS THAT AB
SEVEN HUNDRED WOULD ADD BROAD
NEW EXEMPTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. TO CONCEAL
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS USED IN
EXPERIMENTS IN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY THESE EXPERIMENTS
ARE NEARLY ALWAYS FUNDED WITH
FEDERAL AND STATE TAX DOLLARS.
AS THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
MAKES CLEAR THE PEPLE
CALIFORNIA HAVE A RIGHT OF
ACCESS TO INFORMATION CONCERNING
THE CONDUCT OF PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.
AND THIS INCLUDES A RIGHT TO
KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO
ANIMALS IN LABORATORIES IN OUR
NAME AND WITH OUR MONEY --
EVIDENCE OBTAINED VIA OPEN
RECORDS LAWS HAS LED TO SOME OF
P. DOES MOST IMPACTFUL EFFORTS
TO EXPOSE ANIMAL ABUSE AND
VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND
LABORATORIES.
THIS INCLUDES HIDEOUSLY CRUEL
AND SCIENTIFICALLY WORTHLESS
CCAD EXPERIMENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON
AND BABY MONKEY EXPERIMENTS AT
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH.
BOTH OF THESE LABORATORIES WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED AFTER THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
RIGHT NOW THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA DAVIS WHICH HAS ONE
OF THE WORST TRACK RECORDS IN
THE COUNTRY FOR VIOLATIONS OF
FEDERAL ANIMAL WELFARE ACT.
IS FIGHTING PIZZA TO KEEP THE
PUBLIC FROM SEEING VIDEO TAPES
OF BABY MONKEYS WERE TAKEN FROM
THEIR MOTHERS TO BE
INTENTIONALLY FRIGHTENED.
THE LAB GAG BILL -- AS AB SEVEN
HUNDRED HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED
BECOME TO BE CALLED -- WOULD
ALLOW YOU TO DAVIS TO USE AT
SOME OF THESE X. NEW EXEMPTIONS
TO KEEP THESE RECORDS SECRET AND
THE PUBLIC WOULD NEVER LEARN THE
FULL EXTENT OF ABUSE -- AND
SHAME FOR THE SHAMEFUL ABUSE
BEING CARRIED OUT IN THESE
MONKEYS.
AND WE THINK THE AUTHOR AGAIN
FOR ENGAGING WITH THE OPPOSITION
IN MAKING AN ATTEMPT -- TO TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS
IN THE CURRENT BILL.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION WE'RE
DONE TAKING TESTIMONIES WILL
TAKE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
AFFILIATION PLEASE.
I AM DONE WITH ME I'M A CITIZEN
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA I'M
HERE TO OPPOSE THE LAMP GAG BILL
AB SEVEN HUNDRED TO THE EXTENT.
IT MAKE YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
THAT'S ALSO.
IS THAT -- WE CAN SET.
A KATHY GARCIA I'M A REGISTERED
NURSE IN SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA
I'M A MEMBER OF A PIZZA.
AND I ALSO OPPOSE AB SEVEN
HUNDRED THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS JOE BONNER ON A
CALIFORNIA LICENSE VETERINARY
TECHNICIAN A GRADUATE OF UC
DAVIS A RETIREE OF UC DAVIS AND
I HAVE DEALT FIRST HAND WITH
THESE ANIMALS.
IN THE THIRD AND WE'RE NOT ABLE
TO TAKE ADDITIONAL TESTS BUT
THIS POINT.
BUT JUST THE IDENTIFICATION IS
GREAT AND TO SAY THAT YOU OPPOSE
THANK YOU I OPPOSE THANK YOU.
I MAY HARMS FROM EL DORADO
COUNTY AND I OPPOSE THIS AND
I'VE BEEN DOING IT THANK YOU
THIRTY YEARS COMING AGAINST NEXT
PLEASE.
HI JUDY MAN CREW SO FOUNDER
PRESIDENT OF SOCIAL COMPASSION
IN LEGISLATION.
AND I'M ALSO HERE FOR THE
PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR
RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE AND WE ARE
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AND THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING WITH US
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
LESLEY GOLDBERG COMPASSIONATE
BAY ELSA RIDEAU AND I OPPOSE
THANK YOU.
MICHAEL GOLDBERG ALSO RIDEAU ON
BEHALF OF DIRECT ACTION
EVERYWHERE AND IT'S THOUSANDS OF
MEMBERS WE OPPOSE.
GOOD MORNING JOHN PERRY JAN
CARMICHAEL I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
ANIMALS THAT DON'T HAVE A VOICE
AND I OPPOSE A. B..
SEVEN HUNDRED THANK YOU ANYONE
ELSE IN OPPOSITION [inaudible]
RIGHT.
YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE
MICROPHONE IF YOU WANT EXPRESS
IN OPPOSITION [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible]
WELL.
I HAVE A GARAGE TO LINK FROM
DISTRICTS SIX ALSO POSING AB
SEVEN HUNDRED THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU ALL RIGHT WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
SO HERE'S WHAT I'VE BEEN
STRUGGLING WITH A FIRST OF ALL
IT'S IT'S A LITTLE HARD. TO
THINK OF SOMEONE WHO IS
EXERCISING A RIGHT THAT WE'VE
GIVEN THEM UNDER LAW AS
HARASSMENT AND AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT FEELS HARASSING BUT THAT'S
THAT'S SORT OF A HARD.
STEP TO TAKE [inaudible]
AND EVERY TIME WE TOUCH THE
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT THERE'S A TWO
EDGED SWORD THAT GOES ON HERE.
SO THE NOTION OF TRYING TO VERY
NARROWLY TAILOR SOMETHING. TO BE
ABLE TO PROTECT.
IN TERM THE BEGINNINGS OF
RESEARCH.
A IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THAT THE
ACADEMICS TO DO THE KINDS OF
PROBING THAT THEY NEED TO DO IN
THAT CONTEXT.
IS THERE'S A SOMETHING THERE
THAT THAT I THINK IS IS OF A
WORTHWHILE INQUIRY.
BUT THE AND I THINK THAT I'M
RECOMMENDING AN AYE VOTE AND I
THINK WE HAPPY TO MOVE THIS OUT
BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE KEEPING I
THINK PRETTY CLOSE WATCH.
ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE BROADER
IMPLICATIONS.
THAT.
IF THIS AT ALL HAS A CHILLING
EFFECT ON PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO
REACH IN AND UNDERSTAND THE
KINDS OF RESEARCH THAT ARE GOING
ON IN GENERAL CATEGORIES.
FOR UNDERSTANDS.
REALLY WHAT'S.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THAT
RESEARCH THESE ARE PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS THAT WHERE.
CLOSING THE DOOR TO AND I THINK
WE NEED TO BE TO TREAD VERY
CAREFULLY WHEN WE TRY TO DO THAT
[inaudible]
SO THE YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT THE
EVERY PUBLIC AGENCY DEALS WITH
THIS I THINK WE'VE HEARD
TESTIMONY WE CONSTANTLY HEAR
TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC AGENCIES AND
RIGHT NOW THERE'S A VERY.
PROMINENT CASE WHERE THERE'S A
LOT ABOUT DISCLOSURE THAT IS
PRETTY MUCH BEING NEGLECTED AND
AND ABUSE AND AND OVER WRITTEN
AND SO WITH.
AS WE TRY THESE DISTINCTIONS.
AT AND APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
WORKING WITH ON THIS TO TRY AND
MAKE THIS IS NARROWLY CRAFTED AS
POSSIBLE.
SO THAT WE ARE NOT.
ALLOWING.
ANY PUBLIC AGENCY UNIVERSITIES
ARE OTHERS TO HAVE ANY UNDUE
EXCUSE ULTIMATELY TO HIDE THINGS
THAT THEY KNOW WOULD BE
CONTROVERSIAL.
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE
CONTROVERSY ME HIDING JUST A
HIGH.
AS OPPOSED TO DISCLOSING
ELEMENTS OF THAT RESEARCH THAT
MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO GETTING
THAT RESEARCH DONE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO
ATTEMPT HERE I DON'T.
KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY
THREADED IT CORRECTLY BUT I
THINK WE'VE WE'VE WE'VE TRIED TO
GO DAY IN INTO THAT DIRECTION.
BUT THAT THE OF THE OPPOSITION
BRINGS GOOD POINTS IN WHAT WE'RE
CHANGING.
CHANGING SLIGHTLY THE PHILOSOPHY
WHERE WE HAD TRIED TO MAKE
EVERYTHING DISCLOSE A BALL.
OTHER THAN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
AND THERE IS A BIRD TO THAT ON
ANY AGENCY HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT
OF THESE I'VE BEEN IN AGENCIES
HAVE BEEN SUBJECT THESE.
THERE IS A BURDEN TO THAT THAT'S
BUILT INTO THE FACT THAT WE'RE A
PUBLIC AGENCY [inaudible]
AND THAT.
HAS TO BE THE CASE.
SO AS WE TRY AND NARROWLY TAILOR
THIS AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE STILL
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
I WOULD HOPE.
THAT IF YOU CAN'T.
THREAD THAT NEEDLE OR DEPENDING
ON HOW THIS.
WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AS IT MOVES
THROUGH WE MAY BE WANTING TO SEE
THIS AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
AGREE?
WITH HOW YOU THROW THAT NEEDLE
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE VERY
CAREFUL THAT WE ARE NOT.
SHUTTING DOWN THAT THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT. TO KNOW EITHER IN BROADER
CATEGORIES OR SORT OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE UNIVERSITIES
BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S GOOD
INFORMATION AND I JUST A WARNING
TO ALL OF US THAT I THINK TO
MYSELF AS WELL SINCE HER
RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE THIS
BILL HERE TODAY.
THAT I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO BE
DILIGENT THAT IF WE DO PASS
SOMETHING AND IT GOES TO THE
LEGISLATURE DOES GET SIDE BY THE
GOVERNOR.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
TESTING IT AND UNDERSTANDING HOW
IT GETS USED AND AND ACT QUICKLY
IF WE FEEL THAT THIS IS
UNNECESSARILY CLOSING OFF ACCESS
TO TO PUBLIC INFORMATION.
SO WITH THAT MISTER KALRA LIMóN
SERVICE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN -- FOR
FOR YOUR THOUGHTS BECAUSE I
THINK -- THE THEY'RE VERY
HELPFUL AND I THINK YOU IN YOUR
YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF TO WORK ON
THIS.
HAS BEEN EXCELLENT.
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR I
THINK THAT THERE'S A REASON WHY
ALL THE OPPOSITION IS.
IT WOULD A GROUP A POSITIVE IN
TERMS OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE
DONE WITH THE AUTHOR EVEN IF
THEY COULD PRINCIPALLY CAN'T BE
THERE AND I THINK THAT -- YOUR
YOUR REPUTATION PRECEDES YOU IN
A GOOD WAY IN TERMS OF BEING
WILLING TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION
IN GENERAL TO TRY TO RESOLVE
ISSUES.
AND I THINK THAT'S EXEMPLIFIED
BY QUITE A FEW PRETTY
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS -- AT
THIS STAGE AND OBVIOUSLY THIS
BILLS ON THE CONTINUE GOING
FORWARD AND I I WOULDN'T
ACTUALLY SAY THAT FOR EVERY
AUTHOR I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE.
THE FALL IN THE CAN THE THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION BUT IN
THIS CASE I WILL BECAUSE I
REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE IF
IT'S POSSIBLE.
AND A I THINK THE INCREASE
WORTHWHILE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
POSSIBLE I THINK THAT YOU YOU
AND THE OPPOSITE ARE GOING TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF IT IS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY WITH THEIR
THIS BUILDING WE DO HAVE
PRINCIPLE OBJECTIONS OF THINGS
THAT WE DO.
AND AND WE HAVE TO BE CUT WITH
THAT AT TIMES BUT I THINK GIVEN.
THE AMOUNT OF IMPORTANCE OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND I KNOW
THE THE THE CHAIR CERTAINLY IS
IS RIGHTFULLY PROTECTIVE OF IT.
AND I THINK WE ALL SHOULD BE I
THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT I THINK ALL OF US NEED TO
MONITOR CLOSELY AND I KNOW THAT
THE THE AUTHOR.
WILL.
BE SOMEONE THAT'S GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK REALLY HARD
WITH OPPOSITION TO TRY TO FIND A
WAY. TO AMELIORATE AS MANY
CONCERNS OF HOPEFULLY ALL THE
CONCERNS BUT I THINK ON
PRINCIPLE MAYBE NOT.
BE ABLE TO AND THAT'S A MILLION
ALL OF THEM BUT I THINK THAT TO
THE CHAIRS POINT.
THERE IS SOMETHING HERE THAT I
THINK A LEAD SINGER LEAD CIVIL
REQUIRES THAT INQUIRY.
AND I THINK THAT -- AND SO FOR
THE FACT ALONE I'M GRATEFUL THAT
THIS BILL IS HERE SO THAT WE
THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND THE
BOTH INTENDED AND UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS AND
SO -- HYPE I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS I THINK
THAT IF IT COMES BACK TO US
BASED UPON SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS --
THAT -- WILL PEOPLE LOOKING VERY
CLOSE AND EVEN AS IT GOES FOR
THE FOR I THINK ALL OF US KNOW
LOOK VERY CLOSELY TO SEE HOW
SOME OF THE CONCERNS BEEN
FURTHER ADDRESS BECAUSE I KNOW
YOU'VE ADDRESS A LOT OF THEM
ALREADY -- IT BUT THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY SUCH WANTED THANK YOU AND
I THINK THE OPPOSITION AS WELL
FOR YOUR VERY CLEAR.
ABOUT RESPECTFUL -- POINTS THAT
WERE MADE I THINK THEY ARE
THEY'RE ALL OF HER THE POINTS AS
MENTIONED BY THE CHAIR.
AND I I THINK THAT IT
DEMONSTRATES SOMETIMES A
DIFFICULT WORK THAT WE DO HERE --
IN IN IN TRYING.
TO DEAL WITH REAL LIFE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE LAW BUT
UNDERSTANDING THE PRE IT'S A
BOLD.
NEED FOR THE LAW TO BE THERE.
JUST WANT.
TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS IN.
SUPPORT OF THE AUTHOR -- AND AND
THE WAY THAT SHE APPROACHES
BILLS WHICH I THINK IS DIFFICULT
TO DEAL BUT I THINK THAT YOU
DON'T WELL.
THANK YOU MS REST.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHT I
THINK WHEN I SAW THE ACLU AND
PETER AGAINST THE BILL -- WHEN I
SAW THAT IT WAS AN EXEMPTION TO
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT I KNEW WHERE I WAS GOING TO
BE?
BUT I ALSO KNEW WHO THE AUTHOR
WAS AND YOU'RE RIGHT IT DOES
MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
FROM THE OPPOSITION THAT YOU
HAVE WORKED WITH THE AUTHOR -- I
IT'S A TOUGH.
ONE BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE
DO HAVE TO PROTECT -- THE
RESEARCHERS AND AT OUR
UNIVERSITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE DON'T HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT
ON THEIR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE WITH THE RESEARCH
BECAUSE IN THE END.
THE PUBLIC BENEFITS SO DOES. ONE
OF THE QUESTIONS IS IS A PUBLIC
SERVICE WITH THIS NEW EXEMPTION --
AND THAT IS GOING TO BE THE
QUESTION WILL CONTINUE TO ASK AS
IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IS THE PUBLIC GOING TO BE SERVED
BY THIS EXEMPTION AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT IT WILL BE AS
NARROWLY CRAFTED AS POSSIBLE.
AND I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S
COMMENTS THAT.
IF IT ISN'T.
THEY WILL BRING IT BACK AND IF
IT STILL ISN'T.
THEN THERE WILL BE A REQUEST OF
THE AUTHOR TO WITHDRAW IT -- I I
DO RESERVE THE RIGHT -- IF IT IS
IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH THAT
PROCESS. TO TO VOTE NO ON THE
FLOOR WE'LL RESERVE THE RIGHT --
BUT IT'S CLEAR.
BECAUSE OF THE PLAYERS HERE THAT
THIS IS ONE THAT WE WANT TO
WATCH AND AND IF IT CAN BE IF
THE NEEDLE CAN BE THREATENED.
IT WILL BE I'M SURE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THE SERVER NOTING.
I THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR SO I
THINK THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE
HEARD TODAY FROM THE RESEARCHERS
IS COMPELLING AND IT'S CLEAR
THAT THE CPR A CAN AND HAS BEEN
USED AND WEAPONIZED BY PEOPLE
WHO WANT TO STIFLE DEBATE ON
ISSUES -- BUT THAT IS ALSO TRUE
FOR A LOT OF FIELDS OUTSIDE THE
FIELD OF RESEARCH AND SO I'M
WONDERING WHY A FOR ALL OF
KNOWLEDGE IN WITH THIS IS A
PROBLEM.
WHY WERE NOT APPROACHING IT WITH
A SOLUTIONS TO THE CPR A RATHER
THAN A NARROW CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION FOR JUST -- ONE
CATEGORY OF OF INFORMATION
THAT'S BEING -- THIS BEING A
TARGET -- WELL.
OUR AYE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE QUESTION ARE YOU ASKING WHY
IT'S NOT A BROADER BILL WITH
LARGER EXEMPTIONS OR THAT
THERE'S MORE AREAS WHY ARE WE
TARGETING THE KIND OF ABUSIVE
BEHAVIOUR THAT'S RESULTED IN
THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS
PROBLEM EXISTS NOT JUST FOR
RESEARCHERS BUT ALSO FOR OTHER.
CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION WHERE
A GROUP THAT WANTS TO STIFLE
DEBATE ON AN ISSUE OF WEAPONIZED
AS THE CPR A TO TRY AND AND
ACCOMPLISH THAT SO WHY NOT GO
AFTER THAT BEHAVIOR.
INSTEAD OF CREATING A AN
OUTRIGHT EXEMPTION FOR JUST ONE
CLASS OF INFORMATION.
I DON'T KNOW I GUESS I'D HAVE TO
SEE KIND OF WHAT THAT WOULD.
WITH A BILL WOULD LOOK LIKE YOU
KNOW A WE WE WERE BROUGHT A
PROBLEM.
I'M HAVING TO DO WITH THE VERY
BEGINNINGS OF RESEARCH WITH THE
SCIENTIST FEELING THEY COULDN'T
HAVE THE THE BACK AND FORTH THAT
THEY NEEDED TO HAVE TO EVEN SORT
OF BEGIN.
THE RESEARCH PROCESS AND WE ARE
ALSO VERY MINDFUL OF ALL OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE
DIFFERENT GROUPS SO AGAIN WE ARE
TRYING TO TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE
OF PRESERVING THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT
TO KNOW INFORMATION THAT LEGALLY
THEY'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW AND I
BELIEVE MORALLY THEY'RE ENTITLED.
TO KNOW BUT ALSO -- TO NOT YOU
KNOW TO TO RELIEVE THE PROBLEM
THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM
RESEARCHERS OF HAVING THE PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST BEING USED TO
THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN'T.
EVEN BEGIN THAT RESEARCH SO
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT
BALANCE -- AND I GUESS I I DON'T
KNOW AND IF YOU HAD OTHER
LANGUAGE THAT YOU THINK WE
SHOULD LOOK AT I'M HAPPY TO LOOK
AT IT BUT I'M.
NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THAT THE
WOULD LOOK LIKE OKAY WELL
CERTAINLY COMPLEX PROBLEM BUT
THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY BLUNT
TOOL IT WOULD BE EASIER TO
SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT MORE
NARROWLY TARGETED THAT KIND OF
ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR THAT WE'RE
DISCUSSING.
YEAH IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC
SUGGESTIONS I'M MORE THAN HAPPY
TO TO HEAR THEM WOULD LOVE TO I
LOVE TO SIT DOWN AND YOU KNOW
HEAR MORE OF WHAT YOUR IDEAS ARE
ALL PUT MY THINKING CAP ON THANK
YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ISRAEL AS
A SECOND ROOM IS GONZALEZ MISTER
GALLAGHER.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN -- SO
THIS IS HOW I KNOW YOU'RE A GOOD
LEGISLATOR -- SUMMER FRIEDMAN IS
YOU KNOW LAST WEEK WE HAVE.
A BILL UP HERE IN THE VERY SAME
PEOPLE WHO ARE THEY HERE TO
SUPPORT IT.
YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL THIS WEEK
THAT NOW THEY'RE OPPOSED TO IT
AND SO -- ANYWAYS YOU KNOW THESE
ARE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES
THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH -- I
THINK THAT -- THE ISSUE HERE FOR
ME WAS I THINK THE POINT WAS
MADE VERY WELL BY THE GOOD
DOCTOR HERE FOR WHY THIS BILL
SHOULD BE OPPOSED.
BECAUSE IN FACT YOU ARE DOING A
LOT OF RESEARCH THAT HAS SERIOUS
IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY.
IN FACT THESE STUDIES ARE BEING
RELIED UPON. TO PASS LEGISLATION
THAT AFFECTS.
THE ENTIRE PUBLIC -- THESE THESE
FINDINGS -- ARE USED IN MANY
DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT AFFECT
THE PUBLIC AND SO.
I DON'T WANT.
TO I DON'T THINK WE CAN UNDER
SCORE THIS ENOUGH LIKE IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A
RIGHT TO KNOW.
ABOUT HOW THESE STUDIES ARE
BEING CONDUCTED ABOUT WHAT
WHAT'S BEHIND THE FINDINGS WHAT
WHAT CORRESPONDENCE.
WAS TAKING PLACE -- BETWEEN
THOSE WHO HAVE A STAKE.
IN THE ISSUE -- AND THOUGH.
I COULD MAYBE SEE THE ISSUE OF
WHY YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE
RESEARCH IT IT BECOMES HARASSING
AND YOU CAN'T COMPLETE THE
RESEARCH -- THEN MAYBE WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE THERE IS TO AT
LEAST ALLOW THE RESEARCH TO BE
COMPLETED AND THEN SOMEONE CAN
AT LEAST MAKE THE REQUEST TO
FIND OUT.
ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS AFTER --
THE RESEARCH DOCUMENT HAS BEEN
PUBLISHED BUT NOT TO HAVE A
COMPLETE SHIELD -- YOU KNOW OR
VERY BROAD SHIELD AND I THINK
THAT'S A PROBLEM OR EVEN WITH
THE AMENDMENTS WHAT WE HAVE HERE
IS A PRETTY BROAD SHIELD.
AND THEN I THINK THE OTHER
IMPORTANT POINT WAS MADE.
IS IT THIS IS OFTEN USED BY
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES -- AND THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S NOT
HAVE A GREAT RECORD.
OF YOU KNOW BASICALLY TRYING TO
PUSH OFF PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
YOU KNOW AS AS WE ARE LOOKING
INTO SOME OF THE WAYS THAT
THEY'RE USING PUBLIC FUNDING.
SOME OF THE WAYS THAT THEY'VE
HOARDED MONEY -- IN THE OFFICE
OF THE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT FOR EXAMPLE -- YOU
KNOW THE THEY SEEM TO
CONTINUALLY WANT.
TO NOT BE OPEN TO PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY --
AND HERE NOW ANOTHER INSTANCE
WHERE THEY WANT INTO A SHIELD.
ESSENTIALLY. FOR THEIR PURPOSES
FOR US TO NOT LOOK INTO AND FOR
THE PUBLIC TO NOT LOOK INTO --
HOW THEY'RE CONDUCTING SOME OF
THEIR RESEARCH -- AND THAT I
THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT YOU KNOW
NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF THE AISLE
YOU'RE ON WE WANT TO ENSURE AND
ESPECIALLY WHERE PUBLIC DOLLARS.
ARE BEING USE THAT YES WE HAVE A
RIGHT TO KNOW HOW THEY'RE BEING
USED AND HOW THAT RESEARCH IS
BEING CONDUCTED -- SO. FOR ME I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS REALLY
NARROW THIS MUCH MORE THAN WHAT
WE'VE GOT TODAY -- AND AND
REALLY TRY TO TELL AND I THINK
THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT'S KIND
OF OUR JOB -- YOU KNOW THAT IF
IF THERE IS SOME WAY TO HELP
PROTECT AGAINST THE HARASSMENT
THAT IS IMPEDING AND STOP BEING
GOOD RESEARCH FROM GOING FORWARD.
MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT
WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PUBLIC'S
RIGHT TO KNOW ULTIMATELY -- HOW
THAT RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND
TO BE ABLE TO SCRUTINIZE IT YOU
KNOW?
THAT'S PART OF THE DEAL TO IS
NOT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE FREE
FROM SCRUTINY -- AND THAT'S KIND
OF ALWAYS BEEN THE HISTORY OF OF
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS THAT
YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND
SOMEONE DOWN THE ROAD SAYS WELL
HEY.
YOU MISSED THIS.
AND AND WE IMPROVE BECAUSE OF
THAT PUBLIC SCRUTINY -- SO
PUBLIC SCRUTINY IS A GOOD THING
NOT A BAD THING AND SO BECAUSE
OF THAT I I HAVE TO OPPOSE AND I
WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD HOLD
THIS IN COMMITTEE -- TO REALLY
WORK ON THAT AND FINDING THAT
REALLY RIGHT BALLOTS.
THANK YOU -- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
AT C. NINE DID JUST BRIEFLY MS
FREEMAN I AM I TOO HAD SOME OF
THE ISSUES -- WHEN I FIRST READ
THIS THAT AS REYES BY -- MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE IN
FACT IN TO IT.
IT'S ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY
PARTIALLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE
BILL.
DEPENDING.
WITH A BILL THAT I HAVE --
HOWEVER I HAVE WORKED WITH YOU
ON A NUMBER OF BILLS IN THE PAST
I KNOW YOU'RE REALLY GOOD AT
WORKING WITH OPPONENTS -- AND
COMING TO SOME SOLUTION THIS IS
IT THIS IS A TOUGH ISSUE -- AND
CERTAINLY THAT THE VIEW BEHIND
IT I THINK IS GOOD BUT BUT AS
WITH ANYTHING THE DEVIL'S IN THE
DETAIL SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
THE AB.
BECAUSE OF YOU KNOW THE
EXPERIENCE I HAVE WORKING WITH
YOU -- BUT I DO THINK LIKE MY
OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT -- I THINK A
LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SOME RESERVE
BUT IT AT LEAST YOU KNOW SOME
LEVEL OF HEARTBURN OVER IS THIS
IS THIS MISS FORD SO WELL FORTY
WORKING WITH WITH EVERYBODY TO
KIND OF CLARIFY SOME OF THAT.
SO WITH THAT -- CENA MORE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MISS
FRIEDMAN YOU MAY CLOSE -- YEAH
THANK YOU I REALLY APPRECIATE
ALL THE COMMENTS AND ALL OF THE
OPINIONS -- FROM THE OPPONENTS
OF THE BILL -- AS WELL I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS
FIRST OF ALL THE BILL DID NOT
COME TO US FROM THE UNIVERSITY'S
IT CAME FROM THE SCIENTISTS
THEMSELVES.
WHO FELT THAT THEY WERE HAVING
TROUBLE LAUNCHING RESEARCH --
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE RECORDS
REQUEST WAS BEING USED -- AND I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WHEN IT
COMES -- TO THE METHODS THAT
WERE USED IN RESEARCH WHAT WAS
DONE ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE
DISCLOSED BOWL AND STILL IS
UNDER THE BILL.
WE BELIEVE THE THE BILL IS NOT
IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR BILL --
AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT HELPS
ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS
FROM PIZZA AND SOME OF THE OTHER
ANIMAL WELFARE GROUPS -- AND I
KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY FINE
NEEDLE AND WHEN WE HEAR YOU --
UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS FROM OUR
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES TELL US THAT
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO RESEARCH
THAT THEIR COLLEAGUES A PRIVATE
UNIVERSITIES ARE ABLE TO DO.
IN SOME CASES BECAUSE OF THE WAY
THAT THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
ARE BEING WEAPONIZED THROUGH
PROCESS ITSELF AND THROUGH
GETTING INFORMATION THAT PUTS
THEIR OWN SAFETY SOMETIMES IN
DANGER.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE
THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY.
TO DISCUSS AND TO SEE IF WE CAN
HELP ALLEVIATE AND THAT'S WHAT
I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO AND I KNOW
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW IS SO
IMPORTANT.
BUT THERE'S ALSO PUBLIC BENEFIT
TO MAKING SURE THAT WE ALLOW
RESEARCH TO MOVE FORWARD EVEN
WITH THE PUBLIC.
YOU KNOW GETTING TO UNDERSTAND A
LOT OF THOSE DETAILS AND SO
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT
BALANCE AND IF I END UP WITH A
BILL THAT CAN'T BE SUPPORTED BY
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES I KNOW
IT'S A BILL THAT I DON'T WANT TO
DO -- BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF
FAITH IN SO MANY OF THE CUT MY
COLLEAGUES TO SIT ON THIS
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS.
SO -- I AM COULDN'T GONNA I'M
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
THIS BILL IS GOING TO TAKE EXTRA
WORK THIS IS A BILL THAT IS NOT
AN EASY BILL AND NOT AN EASY FIX
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE STOP WHO GAVE US.
YOU KNOW AMAZINGLY THOUGHT FULL --
LANGUAGE AND WAYS OF OF REALLY
TRYING TO FOCUS THIS AND WORK
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO DO
THAT BECAUSE WE ABSOLUTELY DON'T
WANT TO HARM.
THE RIGHTS OF NEWSPAPERS TO KNOW
TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR
UNIVERSITIES TO HIDE -- ANY ON
MISS DOINGS THAT THEY MIGHT DO
OR THEIR PROFESSORS MIGHT DO WE
UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WHO
CONCERT ABOUT ANIMAL WELFARE
HAVE A A REAL -- YOU KNOW --
THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
WHEN RESEARCH IS GOING TO TO
BECOME IT IN ALL TO HAPPEN AND
AND HOUSE A LOT OF THAT RESEARCH
IS DONE SO WE THINK THAT THERE.
IS A SWEET SPOT THAT WE CAN FIND.
AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING TO WORK ON AND WHEN
MR STONE SAID THAT HE IS YOU
KNOW WOULD PULL THIS BULL BILL
BACK INTO THIS COMMITTEE IF YOU
DIDN'T FEEL WE GOT THERE.
I FIND THAT COMFORTING MYSELF
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE MY
NAME AND BE BEHIND SOMETHING
THAT THAT DOES THE KIND OF HARM
THAT I THINK THAT THE OPPONENTS
ARE WORRIED THAT IT WOULD DO.
SO I WOULD ASK COMMITTEE STAFF
PLEASE KEEP AN EYE AS BILL MOVES
TO THE PROCESS AND IF YOU FEEL
THAT IT NEEDS TO COME BACK HERE
BY ALL MEANS I WOULD NOT OBJECT
TO HAVING IT COME BACK TO THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ANOTHER HEARING
CHEST.
WITHOUT I DO RECALL TO HUMBLY
ASK FOR YOU TO ALLOW US TO
CONTINUE THIS WORK AND SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
OKAY SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND AND THAT MOTION.
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL THE ROLL PLEASE STONE BY
STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NO CHAU.
CHIU.
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN HOLDEN I KALRA.
KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS.
REYES [inaudible]
HI.
THE BILL NEEDS TO MORE VOTES
WERE GONNA PLACE IT ON CALL
[inaudible]
THANK YOU -- ALL RIGHT.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR IRWIN AB SEVEN
NINETY FIVE AND ISSUES COMING UP.
I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN A. B..
TWELVE FIFTY ONE WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND SECOND THAT MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL
PLEASE STONE BY STONE I
GALLAGHER [inaudible]
CHAU [inaudible]
CHIU [inaudible]
GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KILEY.
MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE
OBERNOLTE I PETRIE-NORRIS.
YES [inaudible]
YES I THAT BILL NEEDS ONE MORE
SO WE'RE GOING TO PLACE IT ON
CALL.
MISS IRWIN WELCOME.
THANK YOU CHAIR STONE AND
MEMBERS AB SEVEN NINE FIVE
ADDRESSES AN ISSUE THAT WAS LEFT
UNRESOLVED IN LEGISLATION THAT I
AUTHORED IN TWENTY SEVENTEEN
THAT PASSES COMMITTEE AND WAS
ENACTED INTO LAW.
THE ISSUE IS BACK FROM
COMPENSATION THAT COULD BE PAID
TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE CEMETERY
AND IN DOWN AND CARE FUND THAT
THE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM
THE CEMETERY AND FUNERAL.
BUREAU TO UTILIZE A UNIT TRUSTS
DISTRIBUTION METHOD FOR THE FUND
WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE THE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION LEVELS THAT
SHOULD BE PLACED AND TO LIVE
WITH ME TODAY IS.
A JURY DESMOND ON BEHALF THE
CEMETERY A MORTUARY ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND.
WITNESS PLEASE SURE JERRY
DESMOND ON BEHALF OF THE
CEMETERY A MORTUARY ASSOCIATION
OF CALIFORNIA APPRECIATE THE
WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE IS PUT
INTO DEVELOPING.
OF COMPENSATION IN STATUTE THAT
PROVIDES FOR ADEQUATE THE
TRUSTEE WORK WITH AND OCCUR
FUNDS AND INSURERS WITH
PROTECTIONS THAT THE FUNDS WILL
NOT BECOME INSOLVENT.
THE INDICTMENT HER FUNDS ARE
THERE FOR WHEN WE RUN OUT OF
SPACES IN THE CEMETERY TO TAKE
CARE OF THE PROPERTY -- IT LONG
TERM WE APPRECIATE THE WORK AND
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE AND HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MISTER WHEN YOU'RE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS YES
ENOUGH THIS THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
OF AB.
SEVEN NINETY FIVE ALL RIGHT SEE
NONE IS THEIR OPPOSITION.
SIGNUP BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
[inaudible]
SEEING NONE.
YOU MAY CLOSE THIS RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR I THOUGHT.
THANK YOU MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED CALL THE ROLL PLEASE
STONE BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
RIGHT GALLAGHER I CHAU CHIU.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ I HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA.
KILEY.
KILEY AYE MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
PETRIE-NORRIS REYES [inaudible]
REYES AYE.
THE BILL IS OUT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH THANK YOU VERY MUCH
[inaudible]
OKAY -- WE HAVE.
YEAH WE HAVE NEVER BILLS TO GO
TO AND THE CONSENT SO TAKE A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THANK YOU IT'S THEIR SECOND AND
THE SECOND CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
STONE BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER AYE CHAU CHIU GONZALEZ.
CONSULTS AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA KILEY.
KILEY AYE MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE
PETRIE-NORRIS REYES.
REYES I THANK YOU THOSE ARE OUT
THAT IS AB FIVE NINETY SIX
GRAYSON A. B. SIX EIGHTY FIVE
WRAY S..
A. B. SIX EIGHTY SIX WALDRON AB
SEVEN EIGHTEEN EGGMAN A. B.
SEVEN FORTY EIGHT GIPSON.
AB NINE FORTY ONE CUNNINGHAM AB
TWELVE HUNDRED PATTERSON.
AB TWELVE THIRTEEN CHEN AND AB
THIRTEEN FORTY NINE OBERNOLTE
[inaudible]
THIS KILEY -- YEAH.
ALL RIGHT THIS COMES OUT.
ARE YOU READY TO GO [inaudible]
ABOUT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
BEFORE THE AUTHOR EVEN SITS DOWN
WHY THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS -- THIS BILL IT IS
SIMPLE IT PASSED THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR AND WE'RE
HOPEFUL THIS YEAR THAT THE
GOVERNOR WILL GIVE IT A SECOND
LOOK.
IT BASICALLY IN SHORES -- THAT
EMPLOYERS CANNOT HOLD ON TO THE
DOCUMENTS OF A WORKER AS A WAY.
TO TO CONTROL -- CONTROL THEM IN
THEIR WORKPLACE SO RIGHT NOWONE
OF THE EASIEST WAYS. TO TO
ENSURE THAT THERE IS HUMAN
TRAFFICKING I GUESS THE
WORKPLACE IS THERE SOMETHING
CALLED DOCUMENT SERVITUDE AND
THAT'S WHEN -- THE EMPLOYER WAIT
WITHOUT THE WITHOUT RIGHTS TAKES
TAKES THE VISA PASSPORT -- OUR
DOCUMENTATION OF THE WORKER
WHICH PROVIDES A MISS SITUATION
TO BECOME MORE VULNERABLE -- AND
DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO MOVE
FREELY AROUND OUR OUR BILL WOULD
ADDRESS THAT IT WOULD ALSO
ENSURE THAT THE WORKERS
THEMSELVES UNDERSTAND.
THEIR RIGHTS -- TO LEAVE A
WORKPLACE AND TO TO MAINTAIN
THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS I
RESPECTFULLY IT'S SPONSORED BY
THE SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY --
AND WE HAVE A WITNESS HERE TODAY
FROM THE DA'S OFFICE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU THEIR FIRST WITNESS
PLEASE GOOD MORNING MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS -- MY NAME IS MARTIN
DOYLE I'M A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WITH THE SEX CRIMES AND
HUMAN TRAFFICKING DIVISION OF
THE SEND YOU A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I'M HERE ON THE OFF ON BEHALF OF
MY BOSS NUMBER SEVEN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN DIEGO.
AFTER I VOTE ON A. B. FIVE EIGHT
TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE
MICROPHONE SORRY THANKS ONLY
MAKE SURE YOU GET PICKED UP FOR
THE RECORD. EIGHTY FIVE EIGHTY
NINE WOULD BE A TOOL FOR
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND CITY
ATTORNEYS TO COMBAT AND
SCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS WOULD SEEK
TO BENEFIT FROM WITHHOLDING
IMMIGRATION DOCUMENTS.
THE COMMITTEES ANALYSIS DOES A
GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THAT
STATE AND FEDERAL LAW IN THIS
AREA. EIGHTY FIVE EIGHTY NINE
WITHHOLD WOULD PROHIBIT
WITHHOLDING OF IMMIGRATION
DOCUMENTS TO FURTHER VIOLATION
OF STATE LAW.
WELL WE ALREADY HAVE A LABOR
TRAFFICKING FELONY FOR SOMEBODY
WHO DEPRIVE SOMEONE OF THEIR
PERSONAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN
FORCED LABOR.
THIS BILL WOULD CREATE A
MISDEMEANOR FOR WITHHOLDING
DOCUMENTS DISCOURAGE SOMEONE.
FROM EXERCISING ANY OF THEIR
LABOR AN EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW.
IT WOULD ALSO INFORM EMPLOYEES
MANY OF WHOM COME FROM PLACES
WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE SUCH
RIGHTS -- OF THEIR RIGHTS WHEN
THEY WORK IN CALIFORNIA.
AS A PROSECUTOR I OFTEN FIND
THAT VICTIMS ARE RELUCTANT TO
COME FORWARD BECAUSE THEY DON'T
KNOW THEIR RIGHTS.
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW AND THEY'RE
AFRAID OF AUTHORITIES.
THE LEGISLATURE IN THE LAST FEW
YEARS HAS MADE STRIDES IN THIS
AREA -- AND I THINK THIS IS
ANOTHER STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF BRAMBLE HERE ABOUT
THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION -- MORE THAN THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND
EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THIS BILL PROMOTES
CALIFORNIA VALUES WE ARE AT YOUR
SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING TURN MEMBERS
DEEPENING AGNESE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER IN STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING GINGER SHOP
CALIFORNIA AGAINST SLAVERY IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF AB.
FIVE EIGHTY NINE THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE OPPOSITION.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE RATHER WALKING AROUND
THE THE BARRIER HERE AND SITTING
DOWN AND ALSO DO IT FROM RIGHT
HERE I THINK IT'S GONNA BE
PRETTY QUICK -- BRIAN LITTLE
CALIFORNIA FOR OF YOUR
FEDERATION OPPOSITION ON ONE
PERHAPS SEEMINGLY MINOR BUT
IMPORTANT POINT IN THAT IS THE
REQUIREMENT -- THAT THE BILL OF
RIGHTS THAT THIS BILL WOULD
REQUIRE WITH ONE OF THE RIGHTS
ENUMERATED IN THERE WOULD BE THE
RIGHT TO NOT BE.
DOES NOT TO LIVE IN A PLACE
DESIGNATED BY THE EMPLOYER.
THAT'S GONNA BE PROBLEMATIC IN A
LOT OF OUR CULTURAL OCCUPATIONS
PARTICULARLY INVOLVING ANIMALS.
WHERE YOU HAVE DAIRY OPERATIONS
EGG PRODUCTION OPERATIONS WHERE
THE HANDS IN THE COW IS NEED TO
BE ATTENDED TO TWENTY FOUR HOURS
A DAY?
THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY YOU
NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE LIVING ON
THAT PROPERTY.
AND ONE OF THE OCCUPATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THAT JOB SHOULD
BE THE ABILITY TO LIVE ON THAT
PROPERTY AND HOUSING PROVIDED.
BY THE FARM OPERATORS SO I'D BE
INTERESTED IF THE AUTHOR WOULD
BE INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT
THIS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY
TO SORT THAT OUT SO THAT WE
DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT --
BUT FOR THE MOMENT WE ARE
OPPOSED BUT OPEN TO TALKING AND
PLEASED THAT THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS THIS ISSUE
SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT SEE NONE OF BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEES TOGETHER --
SO I MEMBER GONZALEZ I'M GOING
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL AS I DID
LAST YEAR WHEN YOU HAD THE BILL --
BEFORE BEFORE US -- FOR THE
REASONS THAT YOU KIND OF ARE
LAID OUT I MEAN THIS THIS IS
HOUSTON.
AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING -- AND
HOLDING UP SOMEONE'S IMMIGRATION
DOCUMENTS ALSO MIR'S FEDERAL LAW.
WHICH REQUIRES THIS AS WELL -- I
JUST THINK. ONE IS THE ISSUE
ABOUT A BY FARM BUREAU BUT ALSO
LIKE AND I COULD SEE IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE SELF STORAGE.
UNITS WHERE YOU HAVE THE
MANAGERS OF APARTMENTS YEAH IN
MATTERS OF APARTMENTS ACCEPTED
TO WEAR MAY WORK ON THAT SO THAT --
OBVIOUSLY IN THOSE CASES SOMEONE
DOES NEED TO LIVE THERE.
IN ORDER TO DO THE JOB -- AND
AND THEN I KNOW THERE IS ALSO
CONCERN LIKE HEY IF.
YOU KNOW IF THE DOCUMENT ISN'T
GIVEN EVEN TO SOMEONE WHO'S A
CITIZEN -- YOU KNOW WORKING FOR
THE PERSON DOES THAT SUBJECT AND
THEN TO LIKE PAGO LAWSUITS AND
THAT WAS A CONCERN THAT'S RAISED
IN.
BY SOME -- OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T
WANT TO HAVE -- SOMEONE WHO IS
TRYING TO YOU KNOW ABIDE BY THE
LAW BUT MAYBE JUST DOESN'T DO
ONE THING AND THEN IS SUBJECTED.
TO YOU KNOW.
YOU KNOW A LAWSUIT THAT COULD
COST THEM YOU KNOW SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF MONEY SO.
IT IT IS OF COURSE AND PUBLIC
SAFETY COULD NOT THE LABOR CODE
SO -- I THINK WE SHOULD BE OKAY
ON THAT -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE
LABOR CODE NOW OKAY -- SO I'M
MORE THAN HAPPY TO TO INSURE
THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS.
ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL BUT I IT IS A
PUBLIC SAFETY -- ISSUE OKAY I'M
IF IF NOT WE CAN WORK ON IT
RIGHT HERE ON THIS -- THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT ABOUT.
WHERE YOU LIVE -- IS AN
IMPORTANT -- ONE BECAUSE IT IS
SO SENSITIVE WE SEE SO MANY
TIMES -- AND AM NOT EMPLOYERS I
GUESS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PAYING
THEIR WORKERS BUT AT FOLKS WHO
ARE FORESEEN LIVING SITUATIONS
SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK
WITH THE FARM BUREAU AND SOME
OTHERS.
AND I I APPRECIATE -- THE
COMMITTEES ANALYSIS OF THIS TO
TO GET SOME VERY SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE ON A CLEAR INDICATION
WHEN IT'S PART OF A A JOB
DESCRIPTION -- HOWEVER I I WANT
TO KNOW THAT WE DON'T WANT TO
COMPLETELY TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE
THAT THAT'S AN OBVIOUS -- RIGHT
WE THINK OF IT AS AN OBVIOUS
RIGHT YET YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE
AT YOUR JOB IF IT'S NOT A
CONDITION OF THE JOB -- BUT
THAT'S EIGHT AN INDICATION OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING THAT WE SEE
OFTEN IN MY COMMUNITY A LOT AND
SO -- WE JUST ARE TRYING TO
STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE OF THAT
BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE FARM
BUREAU -- AND OTHERS WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT -- IT BEING TOO
BROAD.
RIGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COVER.
RIGHT SEEING NONE AT THANK YOU
MS GONZALEZ AND YEAH THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT THAT.
THAT ISSUE ABOUT WORKPLACE BUT I
AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S
PROBABLY NOT QUITE AS SIMPLE AND
I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK ON IT.
WITH THAT IT IS IN THE LABOR
CODE I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW IN
MY MIND IT WAS OF ALL GET THE
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION I'M
SORRY I JUST REALIZED AS I SAID
THAT.
WE'LL FIX IT.
YOU MAY CLOSE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS KALRA PLEASE
STONE BY STONE I GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER I CHAO CHIU GONZALEZ I
CONSULT AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA KILEY.
NO MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE
PETRIE-NORRIS REYES [inaudible]
YES I ALL RIGHT NEEDS ONE MORE
SO AND PUT THAT ONE ON CALL AS
WELL. FIFTY I KNOW MR GREY'S
RUNNING LATE COULD SOMEONE REACH
OUT HIS OFFICE FIND OUT KIND OF
WHAT HIS.
ETA IS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT THIS
RACE.
MOVED ITEM NUMBER SIX AB.
ELEVEN TWENTY THREE THANK YOU
MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS TODAY
PRESENT YOU A AB ELEVEN TWENTY
THREE WHICH ENSURES THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
AND HIS OFFICE RECEIVED A NOTICE
OF PROP SIXTY FIVE APPEALS.
PROP SIXTY FIVE THE SAFE
DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF NINETEEN
EIGHTY SIX REQUIRES THAT A
BUSINESS EXPOSES CONSUMERS TO
CHEMICALS.
LISTED AS CARCINOGENS OR
PRODUCTIVE OR REPRODUCTIVE
TOXICANTS MUST FIRST PROVIDE
CLEAR AND REASONABLE WARNING.
CURRENTLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FORCES PROP SIXTY FIVE TO REDUCE
THE PUBLIC'S EXPOSURE TO TOXIC
CHEMICALS AND FOOD.
NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS INFANT
FORMULA FURNITURE AND A HOST OF
OTHER CONSUMER GOODS AND
PRODUCTS.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT THAT PRIVATE
ENFORCERS ARE DEFENDANTS
REPORTED ANY.
PROP SIXTY FIVE APPEALS TO THE
ATTORNEY CSUS.
IS ON AWARE OF PENDING APPEALS
IN THE COURTS FORTUNATELY.
OR UNFORTUNATELY -- A DO --
HOUSE THE OPINION.
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
THEY WANT THEIR INPUT BUT IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T KNOW
THAT THERE IS AN APPEAL PENDING
OFTENTIMES IT ISN'T UNTIL THE
REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THIS.
INFORMATION AND WE RUN THE RISK
OF SETTING PRECEDENT -- THE
COULD BE JEFF DAMAGING TO THE
AND TO MAKE.
IT COULD BE DAMAGING TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY TO
ENFORCE THE LAW HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS MUDDY
THE BERNARDO THE FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
MORNING MR CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MY NAME IS MARIO
DIBERNARDO I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HOBBY
OPPOSITE R..
THIS ERA WHO IS PROUD TO SPONSOR
THIS.
IMPORTANT BILL IT'S A SIMPLE
BILL IT REQUIRES OUT LITIGANTS
WHO FILE AN APPEAL IN A PROP
SIXTY FIVE CASE TO NOTIFY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THEY ARE
DOING THAT -- SO THAT THE AG CAN
MONITOR THESE CASES IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC --
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS IMPROPER --
SIXTY FIVE PROVIDE SEVERAL
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ON THE AG
BUT AT THE TRIAL LEVEL THERE'S A
PRE COMPLAINT NOTIFICATION
THERE'S A COMPLAINT NOTIFICATION.
AND THEN THERE'S A NOTIFICATION
THE AG'S OFFICE ONE OF
SETTLEMENTS FILED ALSO THAT THE
AG COULD MONITOR THESE CASES.
IN SOME CASES -- PINE ON WHETHER
THE PLAINTIFF IS BRINGING UP A
CLAIM WITH MERIT AND WHETHER OR
SETTLEMENT SERVES THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.
THERE'S NOT SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE APPELLATE PROCESS WE DO
OUR BEST TO TRACK THESE CASES
BUT THERE BEEN A COUPLE OF TIMES
WERE CASES HAVE FALLEN UNDER THE
RADAR.
AND AFTER THE FACT WHEN A COURT
OPINIONS ISSUED WE FIND OUT THAT
THE COURT -- ESTABLISHED A RULE
THAT IS COUNTER THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND NOT AN WE THEN HAVE
TO LATER OR AFTER THAT -- FILE
FOR D. PUBLICATION SO IT'S
ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WE GOT WE GOT THE D.
PUBLICATION IN THE LAST TWO
TIMES THAT THIS HAPPENED WHAT
WE'RE ASKING HERE IN THIS BILL
IS TO PROVIDE NOTICE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SO THAT IF APPROPRIATE A HE CAN
FILE A AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE
COURT -- TO TO PROVIDE THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE STATE SO THAT
THE COURT CAN MAKE AN INFORMED
DECISION.
THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER EXAMPLES
WHERE LITIGANTS HAVE TO GIVE A
PELLET NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
THIS IS -- FOR OF A FEW EXAMPLES
ARE THE CALIFORNIA DISABILITY
RIGHTS LAWS THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION AND FALSE CLAIMS AND
SEE CA.
SO THERE'S PRECEDENT FOR THIS
AGAIN A SIMPLE BILL IMPORTANT
BILL AND WE ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE CHRISTY VELMA HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
OF CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SPORTS.
SEEING NONE IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION.
RIGHT SIGNAL TO BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMMENTS
WAS GALLAGHER.
US SO FIRST YOU GOT A GREAT
WITNESS THERE WE WENT TO COLLEGE
TOGETHER -- SO IT'S GOOD IT'S
GOOD TO SEE YOU THERE MARIO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN COLLEGE
[inaudible]
THAT'S RIGHT.
YOU KNOW MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT
YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY THE THE
INTENT BEHIND PROPOSITION SIXTY
FIVE WAS A GOOD.
ONE OF WANTING TO HAVE CONSUMERS
KNOW.
OF THE POTENTIAL OF HARMFUL
CANCER CAUSING -- YORKERS
CARCINOGENS IN IN THE PRODUCTS
THAT THEY MIGHT USE -- BUT I
MEAN I THINK I'M FORTUNATE LIKE
THE LEGACY OF SIXTY FIVE NOW IS.
IS ALMOST LIKE NOTICE OVERLOAD
AND NECK HERE AGAIN AS ANOTHER
NOTICE -- BILL I MEAN I YOU KNOW
AS I THINK IT WAS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WEBER INTO OTHER
COMMITTEE JUST SAID YOU KNOW
IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU SEE THE
SIGN.
AND YOU ALMOST IGNORE THE SIDE
NOW BECAUSE THE SIGNS EVERYWHERE.
AND IT'S BEEN APPLIED TO
PRODUCTS.
I THINK IN.
IT YOU KNOW IT'S IS IT HAS BEEN
EXPANDED SO MUCH THAT APPLIES TO
PRODUCTS THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T
HAVE -- THIS REQUIREMENT --
WHERE I MEAN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE
LIKE A HUNDRED GALLONS OF THIS
THING A DAY?
YOU KNOW FOR THE NEXT HUNDRED
YEARS FOR IT TO EVER YOU HAVE A
POINT 5% CHANCE OF INCREASING
CANCER -- AND I'LL GET JUST ONE
QUICK EXAMPLE I KNOW IT'S
ANECDOTAL BUT I REPRESENT A A
BUSINESS THAT THEY'VE THEY MAKE
ORGANIC PRUNE JUICE -- AND NOT
ONLY ARE THE BENEFITS OF JEWS
YOU KNOW I THINK VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED BY OUR AGING
POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA -- BUT
ALSO ORGANIC YOU KNOW AND THAT
AND THEN AND THE NEED TO HAVE.
YOU KNOW PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED
ORGANICALLY AND PEOPLE WANT THAT
THE MARKET.
BUT IN THE PRODUCTION OF THAT
ORGANIC PRUNE JUICE OR SOME SORT
OF ELEMENT THAT HAS BEEN
IDENTIFIED BY -- YOU KNOW THE
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE -- REMIND ME
THE NAME WHO WHO WHO WHO WHO THE
TERM CASIO WE HAVE YEAH THE
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL HAS DETERMINED IS.
POTENTIALLY CARCINOGENESIS AND
SO THEY GET SUED.
RIGHT AND ARE FACING A LAWSUIT
WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE
ARE GONNA END UP PAYING.
THE MONEY OUT AND ALL THAT DOES
IS KEEP A GOOD PRODUCT.
FROM BEING AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD -- AND I
MEAN I THINK THE EVIDENCE BEARS
THAT OUT WE WE NOW HAVE SEEN
THAT THE LEGACY OF PROP SIXTY
FIVE IS THAT -- YOU KNOW PRIVATE
THE CIVIL THAT THE CIVIL
PENALTIES PALE IN COMPARISON TO
THE AMOUNTS AWARDED FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES COSTS. FOR THE
FOR THE THREE MILLION IN
PENALTIES COLLECTED IN TWO
THOUSAND AND TWELVE FOR EXAMPLE.
OVER FOURTEEN POINT FIVE EIGHT
MILLION AN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
COSTS WERE AWARDED.
ALONG WITH TWO POINT EIGHT FOUR
MILLION AND OTHER PENALTIES.
OVER 71% OF ALL AWARDS IN TWO
THOUSAND AND TWELVE WE'RE FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. FOR
THE PERIOD OF TWO THOUSAND TO
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRIVATE
SETTLEMENT ACTIONS RESULTED IN
ROUGHLY SIXTEEN MILLION CIVIL
PENALTIES.
THE PENALTY AGAINST THE COMPANY
FOR VIOLATING. THIRTY MILLION IN
OTHER WORDS AND A HUNDRED AND
SEVEN MILLION.
IN ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS -- SO
I MEAN LOOK AT THIS.
YOU KNOW THAT THE EVIDENCE HERE.
TO ME SEE IS LIKE THIS IS MORE
BENEFITING TRIAL ATTORNEYS.
I'M MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE --
THEY ALREADY SEEM TO GET A WHOLE
LOT OF BENEFIT OUT OF PROP SIXTY
FIVE I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY NEED
TO GIVE.
THEM ADDITIONAL BUT BENEFIT BY I
DON'T KNOW SOMEHOW GETTING DOJ
INVOLVED ON APPEALS -- THAT THEY
ALREADY HAVE NOTICE OF ANYWAY --
AND IF THEY WHEN AND QUITE
HONESTLY I THINK THIS MY LAST
THIS WILL BE MY LAST POINT IS
DOJ HAS A LOT OF THINGS AND HE'S
A FOCUS ON GETTING GUNS OUT OF
THE HANDS OF FELONS AND OTHER
PROHIBITED PERSONS THAT
SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM -- WERE
TASKING THEM WITH COMING UP
REGULATIONS FOR PRIVACY --
THAT'S GONNA TAKE UP A LOT OF
THEIR TIME AND ENERGY THAT I
THINK MOST CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS --
OTHER WEEK RIGHT WAITING BACK
QUITE A BIT OFF THEIR TOPIC OF
THE THE POINT BEING THERE'S SOME
REALLY IMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR
THE DOJ AND I DON'T THINK ADDING
THEM.
ATTY MORE PROP SIXTY FIVE CASES
TO THEIR DOCKET IS REALLY THE
PRIORITY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE YOU
KNOW AS AS A LEGISLATURE SO
THAT'S WHY I HAVE TO OPPOSE THIS
BILL.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THOSE
STATISTICS I THINK THE BOTTOM
LINE IS ALL THIS IS IS NOTICE
THERE'S AN APPEAL AND THE NOTICE
GOES TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL --
I THINK WHETHER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS A LOT OF THINGS TO
DEAL WITH THAT LITTLE BIT OF
THINGS TO DEAL WITH.
I WOULD LIKE MY ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
AND I'D LIKE FOR HIM TO HAVE.
NOTICE OF ANY APPEAL THAT HAS
GONE UP SO THAT HE CAN THEN MAKE
THAT DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT HE'S GOING.
TO FILE THE A MAKERS PREFER NOT.
SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND.
A FURTHER COMMENTS QUESTIONS.
SEEING NONE VISITORS TO MAKE
LOVE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
THE QUESTION IS DO PASS. TO
APPROPRIATIONS KALRA PLEASE
STONE BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NOTE CHAO CHIU.
AND SALAS.
CONSULT AYE HOLDEN.
HOLDEN AYE KALRA KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN AYE OBERNOLTE
PETRIE-NORRIS REYES HI RES I
IT'S TO MORE THAT BILLS ON CALLS
WE JUST HAVE A COUPLE THIS LEFT
MISTER KILEY.
ITEM NUMBER ONE AB.
FOR FIFTY FIVE COULD WE LET
MEMBERS KNOW THAT.
WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END.
COME BACK.
FOR COMPLETING HEARING BUSINESS.
A GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE I'D
LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS -- THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT AB.
FOR FIFTY FIVE VIOLENCE IS A
PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES AN
ESTIMATED 23% OF ADULT WOMEN AND
14% OF MEN AND EXPERIENCE AN
ACTIVE SEVERE PHYSICAL INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE WITHIN THEIR
LIFETIME.
IN CALIFORNIA THE NUMBERS ARE
EVEN HIGHER.
AT THE SAME TIME TECHNOLOGY IS
BECOMING AN INCREASINGLY
INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF EVERYDAY
LIFE.
INTERNET CONNECTED LOCK SPEAKERS
THERMOSTATS LIGHTS AND CAMERAS
THAT BEEN MARKETED AS THE NEWEST
CONVENIENCES THESE DEVICES ARE
TYPICALLY POSITIONED AS HELPFUL
LIFE COMPANIONS INCLUDING WHEN
PEOPLE ARE AT WORK.
OR ON VACATION AND WANTS
REMOTELY SUPERVISE THEIR HOMES.
DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS THEIR
LAWYERS SHELTER WORKERS AND
EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY ARE NOW DESCRIBING HOW
MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS BECOMING AN
ALARMING NEW TOOL FOR OF USERS.
ABUSERS ARE NOW USING APPS ON
THEIR SMARTPHONES WHICH ARE
CONNECTED TO THESE INTERNET
ENABLED DEVICES TO REMOTELY
CONTROL EVERYDAY OBJECTS IN THE
HOME.
THESE DEVICES ARE SOMETIMES USED
TO WATCH AND LISTEN OTHER TIMES
TO SCARE OR CHAU POWER.
EVEN AFTER A PARTNER HAS LEFT
THE HOME DEVICES OFFICE DEVICES
OFTEN STAY AND CONTINUE TO BE
USED AS A MEANS FOR HARASSMENT
MONITORING REVENGE.
AND CONTROL.
UNDER CURRENT LAW IN SECTION
SIXTY THREE TWENTY OF THE FAMILY
CO THE COURT MAY ISSUE AN EX
PARTE ORDER ENJOINING A PARTY
FROM TAKING A VARIETY OF ACTIONS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER INCLUDING
THE LASTING ATTACKING STRIKING
STOCKING THREATENING.
SEXUALLY ASSAULTING BATTERING
CREDIBLY IMPERSONATING FALSELY
PERSON EATING HARASSING
TELEPHONE IN DESTROYING PERSONAL
PROPERTY CONTACTING COMING
WITHIN A SPECIFIED DISTANCE OF
OR DISTURBING THE PEACE UP.
AB FORTY FIVE WITHOUT REMOTELY
CONTROLLING ANY CONNECTED DEVICE
IS THE HOME OF THE OTHER PARTY
TO THE LIST OF ACTIONS THAT
PARTY COULD BE ENJOINED FROM
TAKING.
IT WILL TRY TO DIGITAL SECURITY
THE VICTIMS PARTICULARLY OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY LIMITING
THE ABILITY OF THEIR ABUSER TO
CONTROL CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THEIR
LIFE.
AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT ARE -- LAWS KEEP
PACE WITH THE CHANGES VICTIMS OF
CRIMES LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
STALKING AND HARASSMENT
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FEAR BEING
TORMENTED ON A REGULAR BASIS THE
DEVICES THEY HAVE COME TO RELY
ON IN THE DAY TO DAY ROUTINES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASK
YOUR AYE VOTE -- I HAVE A
WITNESS WITH ME THEY'VE BEEN
SENT OUT WHERE MY JOB WITH THE
WHERE'S ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU CHRIS WITNESS PLEASE
GOOD MORNING THIS CHEN MEMBERS
VINCE OR AT MADRE WITH THAT
CALIFORNIA LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
THE FAMILY LAW EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE WHICH ONE TO EXPRESS
OUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL THIS IS
A REAL AND RISING PROBLEM AND
FOR THAT WORK THAT ARE LARGER
SAYING AND FOR THAT REASON WE
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION.
ALRIGHT SING NONE OF BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
THIS COMES UP SO I WILL FIRST
ONE THANK YOU FOR BEING A BILL
IT'S IMPORTANT -- IT DOES BRING
UP AN ISSUE THAT I A HAVE IN
GENERAL WITH -- NOT ONLY FAMILY
CODE BUT THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PREVENTION ACT AND THAT'S GIVEN --
A LOT OF THE RHETORIC.
BOTH AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL AND
WITHIN THE STATE HOUSE --
TARGETING IMMIGRANTS AND
DISCOURAGING IMMIGRANTS FROM
SINKING CRITICAL LEGAL
PROTECTIONS.
AT IT AND KIND OF CONFLATING --
THE RIGHTS OF OF IMMIGRANT
VICTIMS WITH.
NOW I WOULD LIKE.
AMNESTY -- SO WHAT I THINK IS
IMPORTANT IS THAT WE HAVE SOME
LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL THAT
INSURERS -- THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE
WHERE AND THAT THE THE FAMILY
CODE IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PREVENTION ACT IN PARTICULAR
APPLIES TO ALL IMMIGRANTS
REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS SO.
I AM GOING TO MOVE THE BILL WITH
AMENDMENTS -- TO CLARIFY THE
INTENT OF THE BILL AND ALL ALL
JUST READ YOU QUICKLY WHAT THOSE
ARE SO I'D LIKE THESE PUT INTO
THE BILL.
AND THAT'S THAT THE LEGISLATURE
FINDS IN THE PLAYERS AS FOLLOWS
THAT THE POLITICAL CLIMATE
RESULTING FROM FEDERAL POLICY
AND READ RHETORIC TARGETING
IMMIGRANTS HAS DISCOURAGED
IMMIGRANTS FROM SEEKING CRITICAL
LEGAL PROTECTIONS. FOR FEAR OF
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES STARTING
THEM OR THEIR FAMILIES.
THAT THE LEGAL PROTECTIONS
PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ARE INTENDED TO
PROTECT ALL RESIDENTS OF
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT REGARD TO
THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THREATENS
THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND
PROTECTIVE ORDERS ARE OFTEN
NECESSARY TO PROTECT VICTIMS
FROM THEIR ABUSERS REGARDLESS OF
THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE
VICTIM OR THE ABUSER.
AND THE D. THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PREVENTION ACT LIKE ALL THE
FAMILY CODE HAS ALWAYS APPLY TO
ALL CALIFORNIANS REGARDLESS OF
IMMIGRATION STATUS AND CONTINUES
TO DO SO.
SO WITH THAT AMENDMENT -- I'D
LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND AND MOVE
THE BILL WITH A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION
IS THEIR SECOND HAVE MISTER
CHAIR I I'M SORRY I THIS IS A
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE I DON'T I'M
NOT GOING TO TURN THIS INTO A
POLITICAL FOOTBALL -- I DO NOT
ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.
I'M NOT ASKING FIX AT THAT
MOMENT I MASS ONE THERE'S A
MOTION WITH AND AMEND THERE'S AN
EMOTION SO THE MOTION RIGHT NOW
THAT WAS PROPOSED.
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED ACCORDING
TO THE COMMITTEE ANALYSES.
AND THEN SOME AMERICAN SALAS IS
ADDING AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
OF THIS IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
INCLUDING THAT AMENDMENT.
THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE
IS THERE A SECOND MISTER
CHAIRMAN THERE IS NOW A SECOND.
I MEAN WHAT WHAT IS YOUR SO WE
HAVE NOT OCEAN I'M NOT PROPOSING
THAT THEY CAN'T BE AMENDED --
BUT I THINK WE DO HAVE SOME
RULES ON WHETHER NOT SOMETHING
AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR A
HOSTILE AMENDMENT THERE ARE NO
RULES HE'S DISTINGUISHING
AMENDMENTS THERE IS.
A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT HAS
THE SECURITY THE AMENDMENT NO
IT'S NOT COMMITTEE MEMBER OKAY
AS A MEMBER ASKING FOR AN
AMENDMENT.
IN DUE COURSE.
RIGHT SO THEN SHOULD WE VOTE ON
THE SHOULDN'T THE PROCESS BE TO
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.
ITSELF AS IT WAS PART OF THE
MOTION AND THEN THE AND THEN THE
BILL -- SELF WHICH PART OF THE
EMOTION THAT WAS MAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE
BILL HE CLEARLY DOESN'T WANT
THAT AMENDMENT.
SO IT IS KIND AND WE WOULDN'T DO
THAT WOULD RUN ABOUT.
MR KILEY IS WITHDRAWING THE OKAY.
ALL RIGHT SO IF WE COULD GET
COMMITTEE MEMBERS BACK SO THAT
WE COULD.
FINISH OUR BUSINESS.
IF MR GRAY IS HERE BY THE TIME
WE GET COMMITTEES MEMBERS BACK
AND FINISH OUR BUSINESS WE WILL
HEAR HIS BILL SO BE CAUTIOUS OF
THAT.
IF NOT THEN WE WILL TAKE HIS
ABSENCE AS A MEMBER POLL.
AND I HEAR THE BILL.
SO LET'S GO THROUGH FOR THE
MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE LET'S GO
THROUGH THE AGENDA WE HAVE
SEVERAL BILLS ON CALL PLUS
CONCERNS.
LET'S ROLL THROUGH.
THE AGENDA AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE
MEMBERS HERE. TO ADD ON
SEVEN
OKAY SO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
TWELVE FIFTY ONE SANTIAGO IS ON
CALL.
I'M GOING TO LIFT THE CALL CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
GALLAGHER GALLAGHER NOT VOTING.
CHAU CHIU.
KALRA KILEY AYE KILEY AYE
PETRIE-NORRIS.
THAT BILL IS OUT [inaudible]
OKAY.
I THINK WE HAVE EVERYBODY ELSE
WHO IS HERE [inaudible]
WILL BE [inaudible]
OKAY.
MR KILEY ITEM NUMBER.
THREE IS ON CALL.
I'M GONNA LIFT THE CALL CALL THE
OF THE MEMBERS CHAU CHIU KALRA
KILEY.
KILEY NOW.
PETRIE-NORRIS.
OKAY I'M GONNA REPLACE THE CALL
AN ITEM NUMBER.
THREE YES GOOD EVERYTHING ELSE
HERE OKAY.
YOU'RE ON EVERYTHING I THINK
[inaudible]
YEAH OKAY.
YEAH IF YOU'RE.
ARE YOU VOTER EVERYTHING YOU ARE.
TO GO WE'RE WAITING FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS SO THAT WE CAN WRAP UP
THE BUSINESS FOR THE DAY.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF THIS A
GREAT I DOUBT MISTER GREAT TO BE
BACK AT THIS POINT [inaudible]
SO [inaudible]
YEAH.
YEAH WELL WE'LL JUST DO ANOTHER
POSTER THAT MEMBERS CAN GO EVERY
GET OTHER MEMBERS BACK I HAVE A
BILL ANOTHER COMMITTEE THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO GO PRESENTS.
I'M SORRY I'M JUST GIVING AN
UPDATE GREAT MISTER GRAY WILL BE
HERE ABOUT TEN MINUTES.
SO [inaudible]
YEAH K.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE SO LET'S IT
IS NOW. 1-015- LET'S RECONVENE
LET'S TAKE A RECESS UNTIL TEN
THIRTY COULD WE GET MEMBERS BACK
AT TEN THIRTY WE CAN HERE MISTER
GRILL MISTER GRACE BILL.
AND THEN FINISH EVERYTHING UP SO
LET'S DO THAT
.
RIGHT IT IS A LITTLE BIT AFTER
TEN THIRTY WE'RE GOING TO
RECONVENE.
SO THAT WE CAN TAKE UP OUR FINAL
BILL ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB TEN
SIXTY MISTER GRAY.
AND HOPEFULLY.
FINISH UP OUR VOTING FOR THE DAY.
MISTER GREGG FLOORS YOURS THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
BY TO START -- BY COMMITTING TO
TAKE A MINOR CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT. TO CONFORM SECTION.
SIX ZERO THREE THREE WITH THE
INTENT OF THIS BILL THE WITH THE
DEAD SO I CLARIFIED THAT STATE
BAR MAY COLLECT VOLUNTARY AND
MANDATORY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
THAT PROVIDE FREE LEGAL SERVICES
TO PERSONS OF LIMITED MEANS.
THANK YOU THE COMMITTEE FOR
IDENTIFYING THIS NEED FOR
CLARIFICATION.
LAST YEAR AS MANY OF YOUR WHERE
MISTER CHAIRMAN I PURSUED
LEGISLATION PARTNERSHIP.
WITH YOU TO ENCOURAGE CURRENTLY
TUR TURNED IS TO CONTRIBUTE
ADDITIONAL PRO BONO HOURS BY
AUTHORIZING PRO **** TO COUNT
TOWARDS AND SHELLY.
THAT EFFORT TO NOT ALTERNATELY
REACH THE FINISH LINE SO I'M
BACK THIS YEAR WITH A MODEST BUT
IMPORTANT REFORM TO BOOST
FUNDING TO LEGAL AID
ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE.
LAW AUTHORIZES FORTY DOLLARS PER
YEAR SURCHARGE TO BE INCLUDED AS
PART OF THE ANNUAL LICENSE FEE
FOR ATTORNEYS.
WITH THIS FUNDING DEDICATED TO
NONPROFIT LEGAL AID
ORGANIZATIONS.
THIS CONTRIBUTIONS CURRENTLY
VOLUNTARY AND ATTORNEYS HAVE THE
OPTION OF OPTING OUT.
AB TEN SIXTY MAKE THIS
CONTRIBUTION MANDATORY FOR ALL
ATTORNEYS.
CALIFORNIA'S LONG RECOGNIZE THE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WORK OF
LEGAL.
AID ORGANIZATIONS AS PURSUED A
NUMBER OF EFFORTS TO GENERATE
FUNDING. TO SUPPORT THESE GROUPS.
RECENT STATE BUDGETS OF ADULT
HAVE DEVOTED AN ADDITIONAL TEN
MILLION PER YEAR TO LEGAL AID
BUT THE SAME TIME FEDERAL
FUNDING HAS BEEN JEOPARDIZED TO
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS PROPOSED. TO
COMPLETELY ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR
THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
IN THE TWENTY TWENTY BUDGET.
THE REALITY IS THAT THE DEMAND
FOR LEGAL AID SIGNIFICANTLY
OUTSTRIPS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
RESOURCES.
IN CALIFORNIA THERE SEVENTY FIVE
HUNDRED ELIGIBLE CALIFORNIANS
FOR EVERYONE LEGAL AID ATTORNEY
AND 86% OF CIVIL LEGAL PROBLEMS
EXPERIENCED BY LOW INCOME
AMERICANS RECEIVE LITTLE. TO NO
HELP.
CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY HAS TO
VOLUNTARY OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CONTRACT ATTORNEYS TO CONTRIBUTE
TO LEGAL AID.
ONLY ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF
PERCENT OF ATTORNEYS PARTICIPATE
IN THE JUSTICE GAP FUND WHILE
3240% OF ATTORNEYS CHOOSE TO OPT
OUT OF THE FORTY DOLLAR
CONTRIBUTION WHEN THEY RENEW
THEIR LICENSE.
BY MAKING THIS CONTRIBUTION
MANDATORY AB TEN SIXTY WILL
GENERATE BETWEEN THREE AND FOUR
MILLION -- FOR PER YEAR FOR
LEGAL AID.
IN COMPARISON TO OTHER STATES
CALIFORNIA LAGS FAR BEHIND
SUPPORT OF LEGAL SERVICES. FOR
MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS STATES
LIKE TEXAS MINNESOTA.
AND MISSOURI HAVE ALL HAD
MANDATORY CONTRIBUTIONS TO
ILLEGAL AID AND THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE ALL HIGHER
THAN THE FORTY DOLLARS.
THE NEW FUNDING CREATE BABY TEN
SIXTIES MEDLEY MODEST BUT IT
WILL PROVIDE A CONSISTENT AND
RELIABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE LEGAL
AID OF TIME THIS IS SIGNIFICANT.
FISCAL UNCERTAINTY.
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS I CAN BET
THAT NEARLY EVERY ONE OF OUR
DISTRICT OFFICES HAS HAD SOME
POINT.
NEEDED TO TURN TO LEGAL AID TO
ASSESS TO CONSTITUENT CASE WORK.
WITH THAT MIND MISTER CHAIRMAN I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY.
REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION AYE
VOTE -- TODAY.
THANK YOU.
FIRST WITH THE SWISS.
MISTER CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS
LAUREN KLEIN I AM THE DIRECTING
ATTORNEY AT THE LEGAL AID
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WE ARE
A STATEWIDE MEMBERSHIP
ASSOCIATION FOR CIVIL LEGAL AID
NONPROFITS.
OUR MEMBERS REPRESENT LOW INCOME
PEOPLE IN EVERY COUNTY ACROSS
THE STATE.
AS I KNOW ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE
YOU WILL BE PROVIDED AN ATTORNEY
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD ONE IN A
CRIMINAL CASE BUT THE SAME IS
NOT TRUE IN CIVIL COURT.
SO WHETHER YOU ARE FACING LOSING
YOUR HOME LOSING YOUR CHILDREN.
FIGHTING TO MAINTAIN YOUR HEALTH
OR YOUR SAFETY IF YOU CAN'T
AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER YOU WILL
BE FORCED TO NAVIGATE A COMPLEX
AND INTIMIDATING JUSTICE SYSTEM
ALONE.
AND ON REPRESENTED.
IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED
THAT WHEN YOU ARE ON REPRESENTED
YOU OUT ARE YOU ARE AT A
DISTINCT DISADVANTAGE WHAT
RESULTS IS NOT A SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE FOR ALL BUT RATHER A
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO
CAN AFFORD IT.
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAY
MENTIONED THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS
PROBLEM IS ENORMOUS.
THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
FOUNDED THAT 71% OF LOW INCOME
FAMILIES WILL EXPERIENCE AT
LEAST ONE CIVIL LEGAL PROBLEM IN
A GIVEN YEAR.
AND 86% OF THOSE PROBLEMS WILL
RECEIVE AN ADEQUATE FOR NO LEGAL
HELP.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA FOR EVERYONE
LEGAL AID LAWYER THERE IS ABOUT
SEVENTY FIVE HUNDRED LOW INCOME
PEOPLE.
LEGAL AID LAWYERS ARE VERY
RESOURCEFUL BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT ANYONE CAN CARRY THAT KIND
OF A CASELOAD.
LEGAL AID STEPS IN TO TRY TO
ADDRESS THESE INEQUITIES AND
REPRESENT THE PEOPLE THAT NEED
IT BUT WE NEED MORE FUNDING.
CURRENTLY THERE ARE NINETY SEVEN
LEGALLY NONPROFITS THAT ARE
FUNDED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. ELEVEN OF THE
LARGEST AND MOST FAR REACHING OF
THOSE ARE ALSO FUNDED BY THE
FEDERAL LEGAL SERVICES
CORPORATION.
MOST ORGANIZATIONS THOUGH COBBLE
TOGETHER A WIDE VARIETY OF
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SOURCES AND
STILL STRUGGLE TO ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS THE NEEDS IN THEIR
COMMUNITY IT'S SOMETHING I'D
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU THIS
MORNING IS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST
FUNDER OF LEGAL AID.
IN CALIFORNIA.
IN ADDITION TO THE LEGAL
SERVICES CORPORATION FUNDING
MANY ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVE
FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH OTHER
MECHANISMS SUCH AS THE OLDER
AMERICANS ACT OR THE VICTIMS OF
CRIME ACT.
THIS IS VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE
FEDERAL FUNDING IS BOTH
THREATENED AND IT IS
FUNCTIONALLY LIMITED.
AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER GREAT
MENTIONED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
LEGAL AID IS AT RISK.
FROM THREATS TO ZERO FIND LSE TO
OTHER BUDGET CUTS TWO SENSES
THREE ALLOCATION TO
SEQUESTRATION WE BOTH
POTENTIALLY FACE SIGNIFICANT
LOSSES IN FEDERAL FUNDING.
THE FUNDING THAT DOES MAKE IT TO
CALIFORNIA IS LIMITED AND HOW IT
CAN BE YOU STE.
EVERY FUNDING SOURCE COMES WITH
ITS OWN RESTRICTIONS BUT LEGAL
SERVICES CORPORATION FUNDING THE
LARGEST FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE.
DOES NOT ALLOW ITS USE TO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO UNDOCUMENTED
PEOPLE.
SO TO REITERATE ONE OF THE
LARGEST SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR
LEGAL AID IN CALIFORNIA CANNOT
BE USED TO SERVE A SIGNIFICANT
AND IMPORTANT PART OF OUR
POPULATION.
THIS IS WHY IT'S ALL THE MORE
IMPORTANT FOR CALIFORNIA TO STEP
UP AND FIND WAYS TO FILL THE
GAPS.
WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT
LEGISLATORS LIKE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STONE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER GRAY
ARE SEEKING WAYS TO FIND THOSE
ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES AND AB.
TEN SIXTY IS ONE OF THOSE WAYS.
THE LEGISLATURE CREATED OPT IN
AN OPT OUT CONTRIBUTIONS ON
ATTORNEY DO STATEMENTS IN TWO
THOUSAND SEVEN AND TWO THOUSAND
TEN RESPECTIVELY.
AND CURRENTLY THAT BRINGS ABOUT
SIX MILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING
TO LEGAL AID EVERY YEAR.
ACCORDING TO THE STATE BAR 40%
OF PEOPLE OPT OUT OF THEIR FORTY
DOLLAR CONTRIBUTION RESULTING IN
A LOSS OF ABOUT THREE MILLION
DOLLARS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY
GOING TO LEGAL SERVICES.
IN WITH A. B. TEN SIXTY THAT
THREE MILLION DOLLARS WILL MAKE
IT TO LEGAL AID WHICH WILL HAVE
A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OUR
ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO
PEOPLE IN NEED.
CALIFORNIA HAS THE LARGEST
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY IN
THE COUNTRY AND THE STATE HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WHAT THEY
NEED TO STEP UP AND PROVIDE HELP.
OF FOR THATREASON I WOULD
STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF AB.
TEN SIXTY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
MY NAME IS ERIC HARRIS AND WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT.
ALL RIGHT SEE NINE IS THEIR
OPPOSITION.
SAY NOT A RING BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE.
AND MEMBERS THIS THIS BILL IS A
BIT AND I'M US.
NORMALLY I WOULD INSIST THAT.
BILLS HAVING TO DO WITH THE BARD
DUES BILL THAT SHOULD BE PUT IN
THAT BILL WOULD GO THROUGH THE
BAR TO SPELL.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WILL INSIST ON
IN THE FUTURE HOWEVER THIS WHOLE
THIS ISSUE HAS SOME HISTORY.
MR GRAY AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THIS FOR QUITE SOMETIME.
HERE PROPOSED A BILL LAST YEAR
THAT.
I GET PUT IN THE BAR DUES BILL.
TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE GOT SLICED
OUT IN SENATE JUDICIARY WITHOUT.
I THINK A REAL UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT'S TRYING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
IN THE NEED THAT I DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM.
WITH TAKING THIS VOLUNTARY
MAKING IT MANDATORY AS MISTER
GRAY AND I HAVE.
DISCUSSED THAT THE TOUGH PART
THIS YEAR IS THAT WE KNOW THE
BAR DUES BILL IS GOING TO BE
INCLUDING.
SOME INCREASES IN THE IN THE BAR
DUES BUT I WANT TO SEPARATE THAT
OUT AND ALSO NOTE.
THE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING LEGAL
SERVICES FUNDING EVERY SINGLE
YEAR AND AGAIN ARE SEEKING THAT
IN BUDGET SUB FIVE AGAIN FOR
ADDITIONAL LEGAL SERVICES
BECAUSE AS DESCRIBED LEGAL
SERVICES CORPORATION LOSING ITS
FEDERAL FUNDING.
BUT ALSO WITH MORE MORE
CALIFORNIANS HAVING THE NEED WE
NEED TO BE SEEKING.
FUNDS EVERYWHERE WE CAN AND I
THINK IT MISTER GRACE TO CERTAIN
OTHERS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
THEIR LACK OF ATTORNEYS THERE
THAT ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES.
BECAUSE THERE'S A LACK OF
FUNDING THERE AND I'M HOPEFUL
THAT IF WE CAN.
MAKE MORE STABLE THIS FUNDING WE
COULD THEN ATTRACT ATTORNEYS AS
WELL AS WE'RE LOOKING AT
RECIPROCITY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE
CUT SCORE WE'RE LOOKING AT
DIVERSIFYING.
THE ENTIRE THOSE THAT'S A
HEARING THAT WILL BE YOUR MAY
FOURTEENTH.
WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT
DIVERSIFYING THE BENCH IN THE
BAR AND ALL OF THAT ENTAILS THIS
TO ME IS A PIECE OF THAT AND
THAT'S WHY IT'S FINE WITH ME
THAT WERE MOVING THIS OUTSIDE
THE BAR DUES BILL?
I THINK THIS NEEDS ITS OWN
SPOTLIGHT A LITTLE BIT AND I AM
HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL PASS IT
HERE.
SEND THIS OFF TO THE SENATE WHO
WILL TAKE THIS AS SERIOUSLY
BECAUSE THIS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE
FOR ALL OF US.
SO WITH THAT OTHER QUESTIONS
COMMON BUSINESS HOURS.
I'M IN THE MISTER CHIU.
SO I'M GONNA HAVE TO NOT SUPPORT
THIS BILL TODAY AND AND I HAVE
TO TELL YOU WHY -- THERE IS A
HUGE DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT
ATTORNEYS TO IN THE STATE.
AND IT SEEMS -- LIKE A AT FEET
THAT IS APPLIED TO EVERY
ATTORNEY.
EVEN THOSE PROVIDING THE VERY
SERVICES WERE TALKING ABOUT
FUNDING WHO AREN'T NEARLY PAID
THE SAME.
AS LIKE THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT
ATTORNEYS ARE MAKING.
AN AS AN EXAMPLE TO IF IF YOU
ARE -- EITHER I THEIR SOLE
PROPRIETOR YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE
SERVING -- ALONE CAN COMMUNITY
LIKE MINE OR YOU'RE DOING LEGAL
AID OR A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS
IN YOUR PAYING YOUR OWN.
JUICE IF YOU WORK FOR A LARGE
FIRM.
THE FIRM IS PAYING YOUR DUES IN
THIS FORTY DOLLARS DOES NOT
MATTER.
SO THE ACROSS THE BOARD FORTY
DOLLARS.
I THINK.
WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IS A
LARGER INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT
THAT -- LARGE FIRMS THAT ARE
PROVIDING THE PRO BONO SERVICES
THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDING
ANYWAY BUT THAT THE LARGE FIRMS
WERE PAIN FOR CORPORATE CHINESE
WHO.
WHO MAKE THIS MUCH IN AN HOUR?
RIGHT -- CAN SHOULDER AND THAT
WE'RE NOT HURTING THE VERY LEGAL
PROVIDERS WHO ARE DOING IT FOR
FOR VERY LITTLE NOT THIS IDEA
THAT ALL ATTORNEYS ARE WEALTHY.
IS WRONG RIGHT ALL ATTORNEYS
CAN'T AFFORD THIS -- I ALSO AM
OPPOSED TO ADDING IT TO THE FEE
FOR INACTIVE ATTORNEYS --
BECAUSE HAVING GONE THROUGH IT
APPEARED OF TIME WHEN I WAS IN
AN ACTIVE ATTORNEY BECAUSE I WAS
NOT PRACTICING LAW IN THE ONLY
WAY YOU CAN CONTINUE TO HOLD
YOUR YOUR ABILITY. TO TO HAVE A
LOT LICENSE IS TO MAKE AN
INACTIVE YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING
IT WILL IN VERY FEW PROFESSIONS
DO YOU PAY. FOR SOMETHING YOU'VE
ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE WAY PAID
TO GO TO SCHOOL.
TOOK THE BAR PAID MY DUES AND I
HAVE TO PAY TO REMAIN AN
INACTIVE ATTORNEY IN EVER IF I
WANT TO A PRACTICE THAT WHICH I
PAID.
FOR I'M TO NOW BE PAIN TO
SUPPLEMENT AT SOMETHING THAT
OTHERS ARE IN MUCH BETTER
SITUATION TO PAY FOR EXAMPLE IF
YOU'RE A A MOM WHO IS NOT
PRACTICING BECAUSE YOUR HOME
WITH YOUR CHILD YOU'RE STILL
PAYING THAT EXTRA FORTY DOLLARS --
SO.
OR MANNER OR A FATHER I'M SORRY
IT WOULD BE GENDER SPECIFIC ON
THAT SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MR GREY IF YOU'RE WILLING TO
WORK WITH ME.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S LESS
REGRESSIVE.
AND ACTUALLY COULD BRING IN MORE
MONEY TOWARDS -- THIS VERY NOBLE
CAUSE BUT WOULDN'T HURT THE VERY
PEOPLE WHO ARE PROVIDING THESE --
SERVICES AT A LOW COST.
MR MODIFY -- RECYCLING I MAY
RESPOND.
MEMBERS COMMENTS I THANK YOU
FIRST OFF THE EXPLANATION.
OF YOUR VOTE.
AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE IS A
PROMINENT CHAIR PERSON IN THIS
HOUSE -- THIS IS A PROCESS OF
COMPROMISE I'VE BEEN BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND I DON'T RECALL
FORGIVE ME HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN
ON THE COMMITTEE.
BUT I'VE BEEN BEFORE BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. FOR THREE YEARS
WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE
CHAIRMAN ON A VARIETY OF IDEAS --
THE GENESIS OF THIS AND I HAD A
A CONVERSATION SIDEBAR
CONVERSATION WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SAM CISCO WHO HAD INQUIRED
ON MY INTEREST ON THE UBJECTS
OF WALKED.
COME FROM OBVIOUSLY A VERY.
A RURAL COMMUNITY -- WAS SOME OF
THE HIGHEST POVERTY -- IN IN THE
STATE AND IN THE COUNTRY.
AND I AM A DEVOUT -- CASE WORKER --
WITH MY HISTORY WITH MY OFFICE
AND AND THIS INSTITUTION I THINK
THE WORK WE DO WITH OUR
CONSTITUENTS BACK HOME IS.
PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
NEW LAWS THAT WE PUT ON THE
BOOKS.
AND IN THAT.
EFFORT TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN THE
COMMUNITY -- NUMEROUS TIMES OVER
THE COURSE PAST SEVEN YEARS I'VE
COME ACROSS -- CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE WE NEED LEGAL HELP AND WE
WENT TO THE LOCAL LEGAL AID AND
IT WAS -- EXTRAORDINARILY
INADEQUATE.
DEL WELL YOU REPRESENT A
DISTRICT -- VERY SIMILAR TO MINE --
DEMOGRAPHICALLY YOU ALSO.
YOUR DISTRICT HAS THE BENEFIT OF
BEING VERY CLOSE TO A RICH URBAN
AREA.
WITH A LOT OF GUILTY LIBERALS IN
THE ATTORNEY PROFESSION WHO LIKE
TO WRITE BIG CHECKS AND GO TO
BIG FUNDRAISERS FOR LEGAL AID WE
DON'T.
HAVE THAT IN MY DISTRICT OR
MISTER GALLAGHER'S DISTRICT --
THEREFORE THERE SET BY A
DISPROPORTIONATE PROBLEM HERE
THAT EXISTS IN RURAL CALIFORNIA.
MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS TO LOOK
TO THE BAR ITSELF.
AND NOTE THAT I I THINK THE BAR
RECOMMENDS FIFTY HOURS.
OF PRO BONO FOR ALL ATTORNEYS I
THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENT --
LEE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THAT'S
NOT MANDATORY THAT'S A VOLUNTARY
RECOMMENDATION -- AND I AND SO
MY FIRST EFFORT IN THIS IS A ONE
WE TAKE HALF OF THAT TWENTY FIVE
HOURS.
AND MAKE IT MANDATORY EVERY
ATTORNEY HAS TO DO TWENTY FIVE
HOURS OF PRO BONO [inaudible]
OR PAY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS INTO
A FUND THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL AND IN THAT PROPOSAL --
TWO EIGHT TWO CAN RESPOND YOUR
QUESTION WE EXEMPTED -- FOLKS
THAT ROAD ENGAGED IN THAT WORK
WE ALSO MADE SOME INCOME --
CONSIDERATIONS OF YOUR MAKING
UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY
OR YOU WERE A NEW ATTORNEY IN
YOUR FIRST TWO YEARS OF SERVICE
PERHAPS DEALING WITH STUDENT
LOAN DEBT WE MADE IT.
WE GOT A BUNCH OF CARVE OUTS
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE REYES WHICH
I THINK ARE.
EXTRAORDINARILY VALID CONCERNS
NOW IF YOU'RE MAKING SEVEN HER
FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS YEAR.
I KNOW THAT SOME OF THE RIVER
COMMUNITIES YOU GUYS CALL THAT
LOW INCOME BUT DON'T YOU CAN
CERTAINLY AFFORD THE FIVE HER
DOLLARS OR THE TWENTY FIVE HOURS.
AND AND AGAIN I WANT TO POINT
OUT.
IT IS THE PROXIMITY TO WEALTHY
FIRMS THAT DO A LOT OF GIVING
THAT CAN MAKE THOSE URBAN LEGAL
AID ORGANIZATIONS IN A BETTER
POSITION IN THE WORLD.
AND AGAIN THIS BILL APPLIES
ACROSS THE BOARD EVERYBODY AND I
APPRECIATE -- CHAIRMAN STARS
BEEN JUST ABSOLUTELY --
EXTRAORDINARILY HELPFUL IN
TRYING TO FIND A LANDING SPOT --
TO MOVE US FORWARD TO GET SOME
ADDITIONAL FUNDS BUT I AGREE
WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAID -- I
WOULD -- IN A PERFECT WORLD
PROBABLY HAVE A BILL BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE THAT WAS SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT BUT WE HAVE A BILL
THAT MOVE THINGS FORWARD THAT
WOULD IN FACT.
GIVE US MORE FUNDING THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE TODAY AND BENEFIT
ALL CALIFORNIA ALBEIT -- IN
PERFECT IN THIS -- SAUSAGE
MAKING PROCESS.
AND AND I WILL GO BACK AND FORTH
I JUST -- CAN I GET IT. TO BE
VERY CLEAR LEGAL AID IN MY
COMMUNITY IS UNDER FUNDED AS
WELL AND WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL --
NEED FOR IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS
AND THOSE FOR PRACTICING IN THAT
FIELD.
AT ARE BY NO MEANS MAKING SEVEN
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A
YEAR.
OR EVEN SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS A YEAR SO -- I JUST
WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND
THAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS NOT
A AS I SUPPOSE THE STEREO
TYPICAL [inaudible]
FIRM.
JOB AND WE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE WE
I HAVE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE AND WANT
TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ENGAGE.
IN LEGAL WORK THAT IS OUTSIDE OF
CORPORATE LAW IF YOU WELL.
I'M I JUST I I I DON'T WANT TO
HURT PEOPLE IN THAT POSITION --
ADDITIONALLY I ALREADY THINK THE
BARGES I MEAN ARE EXTREMELY HIGH.
IT'S IT'S EXTREMELY ONEROUS --
AND QUITE FRANKLY I IT I
ANTICIPATE THEY'LL BE GOING UP
THIS YEAR.
BUT YOU KNOW WHETHER I LIKE THAT
OR NOT I CAN I CAN AFFORD TO PAY
THIS FORTY DOLLARS.
BUT I I KNOW OTHER ATTORNEYS WHO
AS WE CONTINUE TO ADD COST AND
FEES IN ESPECIALLY THOSE
ATTORNEYS WHO WHO ARE INACTIVE.
BUT IT IS IT'S VERY UNFAIR TO
ATTACH ADDITIONAL -- COST ON TO
THEM SO I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF
A MUCH MORE -- A WAY THAT TAKES
MONEY FROM OUR OUR CORPORATE
FIRMS IN OUR BIG LAW FIRMS--
FOR PAINT WHO ARE ACTUALLY
PAYING THESE FEES ON BEHALF OF
THEIR ATTORNEYS TO TAKE THAT
MONEY AND RE DISTRIBUTED SUPPORT
AREAS IN RURAL AREAS LIKE YOURS.
YEAH WE'RE BOTH A LITTLE
SOCIALIST -- I I'M TOTALLY FOR
THAT AND WOULD WOULD WOULD LOVE
TO WORK WITH YOU ON A BILL THAT
WOULD BE I THINK.
MORE FAIR IN CLEAR IN THAT WAY
AND I THINK YOU'RE ON TO
SOMETHING -- IF WE COULD
ACTUALLY FORCE THE
REDISTRIBUTION INTO AREAS WHERE
CURRENTLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO RAISE MONEY FOR LEGAL
AID -- I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU ON THIS I'M GONNA STAY
OFF AND I CAN VOTE GETS I JUST
CAN'T SUPPORT THIS IN ITS
CURRENT FORM AS A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL BECAUSE IT DOES HURT.
THOSE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE DOING
THE WORK EVEN YOUR ATTORNEY HERE
I AM SURE YOU GOT SOME OUT THERE
WHO ARE YOU KNOW.
LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY AND AND
AND DOING THEIR BEST AND AND
PAIN.
WHEN THIS FEAT COMES UP EVERY
YEAR IS LIKE?
TRYING TO VESTED TO GET BY SO I
I DON'T WANT -- TO ADD TO THE
BURDEN.
A MISTER CHIU ANIMUS READ.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN -- LET
ME START BY SAYING FIRST I AGREE
WITH THE COMMENTS OF OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO ABOUT
THE REGRESSIVITY OF OUR STATE
BAR DO STRUCTURE -- AND WOULD
ASK OUR CHAIRMAN AS WE START
LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE OF OF BAR
FEES IF THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING
FOR US TO CONSIDER -- MY WIFE
AND I BOTH GOT OUR STARTS AS AS
PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS IN THIS
VERY WORLD IN THE FACT THAT WHEN
I WAS MAKING IN THE THIRTIES AND
SAN FRANCISCO.
I WAS PAYING THE SAME BAR DUES
AS MY LAW FIRM PARTNER FRIENDS
WHO WERE MAKING MANY MANY TIMES
THAT THAT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE
SENSE TO ME -- BUT ALL THAT
BEING SAID I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE WHAT THE AUTHORS
DOING HERE I COME TO A VERY
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ABOUT WHY I
NOT ONLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO MOVE MAKE A
MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD --
WE HAVE HEARD THE VERY STRONG
CASE AND WHY THIS IS SO
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND I WILL
SAY REPRESENTING -- A HIGH
CUSTER BEEN AREA WHY WE WHILE WE
DO HAVE A NUMBER OF LEGAL AID
SOCIETY ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS
THAT ARE SERVING -- POPULATIONS
THAT ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF
LEGAL AID WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH
AND I KNOW FOR A FACT BECAUSE MY
WIFE USED TO RUN A PROGRAM.
BRINGING PRIVATE SECTOR
ATTORNEYS TO RURAL PARTS OF
CALIFORNIA JUST HOW INCREDIBLY
DIRE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT
YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH AND
RURAL DISTRICTS.
AROUND THE STATE THE NEEDS ARE
INTENSE EVERYWHERE BUT
PARTICULARLY.
IN UNDERSERVED PLACES WITHIN OUR
COMMUNITIES AND YOU KNOW I OFTEN
WILL SAY THAT IF YOU GET.
IF YOU'RE ARRESTED FOR
SHOPLIFTING TOOTHPASTE AT
WALGREENS YOU WILL HAVE SOMEONE
OF THE CALIBER OF FORMER PUBLIC
DEFENDER ARCH KALRA DEFENDING
YOU IN COURT.
BUT IF YOUR KIDS ARE ABOUT TO TO
BE DEPRIVE FROM YOU IN A CUSTODY
PROCEEDING IF ABOUT TO BE
EVICTED FROM YOUR HOME AND MADE
HOMELESS IF YOU'RE ABOUT TO BE
DEPORTED AND RIPPED AWAY FROM
YOUR FAMILY.
IN AN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDING YOU
DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO AN
ATTORNEY AND I DO HOPE THAT THIS
IS A COMMITTEE THAT AT SOME
POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE WILL
CONSIDER WHETHER.
CIVIL GETTING IN AND OTHER
THINGS THAT WE SHOULD DO TO
WRITE THIS.
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BUT LET ME
JUST END WITH ONE POINT WHICH IS
I DO HAVE -- ONE MY ONLY CONCERN
ABOUT THIS BILL IT IT IS IS BY
NO MEANS ENOUGH.
THIS BILL WILL HOPEFULLY BRING
THREE TO FOUR MILLION DOLLARS OF
ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND THAT IS
WHAT.
THE THE THE SMALL PRO BONO
CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUR LARGEST LAW
FIRMS ARE. FORTY DOLLARS IS AS
MR CAR AND I WERE JUST TALKING
ABOUT REPRESENTS ABOUT SIX
MINUTES OF WORK FOR YOUR AVERAGE
BIG FROM ATTORNEY.
AND EVEN TWENTY TO TWENTY FIVE
HOURS THAT REFLECTS AS I JUST TO
THE CALCULATION 122% OF THE TIME
A BREAK FROM ATTORNEYS.
AND SO THE REALITY IS -- 90%
BALL TOURNEY'S WORK FOR THE TOP
10% OF AMERICA.
WHICH MEANS THAT -- 10% WILL
TOURNEY'S REPRESENTS EVERYONE
ELSE AND THAT'S JUST NOT A
SITUATION THAT IS TERRIBLE SO.
I HOPE THAT WE WILL MOVE THIS
FOR I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
MOVE THIS.
LEGISLATION FOR TO KEEP THE
CONVERSATION GOING I DO HOPE IF
THIS PASSES WE CAN KEEP BUILDING
ON IT -- BECAUSE WE ARE BY NO
MEANS DONE IN ENSURING THAT WE
HAVE TO JUSTICE AND AMERICA.
SO I THINK THAT IS A MOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND AND THE SECOND
THANK YOU MISS REST.
THANK YOU MISTER SHARON THANK
YOU MISTER GRAY FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
I DO AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE
SPECIFICALLY ON THE INACTIVE
MEMBERS.
I AS A VOLUNTEER WITH LEGAL AID
FOR THIRTY PLUS YEARS AND AS A
BOARD MEMBER WITH OUR LEGAL AID
KNOWING WHAT IT IS.
DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY
OUR STAFF.
I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS I I
ABSOLUTELY WELL SUPPORTED I DO
WANT SOMETHING TO BE LOOKED AT
REGARDING ARENA IN ACTIVE
MEMBERS.
AND THEN FOR FINDING OUT HOW WE
INCREASE THE FEES FOR SOME OF
THE OTHERS WHO CAN ABSOLUTELY
AFFORD IT -- BUT I THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND THANK
YOU MISTER CHAIR FOR SEPARATING
THIS FROM EVERYTHING ELSE
RELATED TO BAR DUES I THINK THIS
ONE DESERVES ITS OWN BILL
[inaudible]
THIS GALLAGHER.
OF MR GREY'S AS AS TEMPTING AS
WEALTHIEST REDISTRIBUTION IS
INVOLVING INTERNEES -- AND CRABS
ATTACKS AGAINST ATTORNEYS MIGHT
BE SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I DO HAVE TO AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO THAT
YOU KNOW NOT ALL ATTORNEYS OR
ARE THE SAME WE CAN ALL BE PROP
SIXTY FIVE ATTORNEYS.
AND GET THOSE BIG ATTORNEY FEES
AWARDS -- AND LOOK I I I DO WANT
TO SEE AFTER LOOKING AT THIS AND
AND LOOKING AT MY OWN COMMUNITY
I I DO SEE THAT.
THIS ISN'T AS BIG OF A PROBLEM
BECAUSE ACTUALLY 70% OF
ATTORNEYS CHECK THE BOX -- TO
GIVE TO LEGAL AID IN THIS IN
THIS STATE SO THERE'S A LOT OF
MONEY THAT PEOPLE VOLUNTARILY
SAY YES I WILL AND IN MY OWN
COMMUNITY WE HAVE.
LEGAL AID PROGRAMS THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE GET TOGETHER WE HAVE A
FUNDRAISER EVERY YEAR.
FOR SO THERE IS A LOT I MEAN
MAYBE IT'S NOT EVERY COMMUNITY
BUT I I'VE I PERSONALLY SEE A
LOT OF A VOLUNTARY SUPPORT GOING
THERE THERE'S SOME GREAT
ORGANIZATIONS DOING THIS WORK.
AND SO I I DON'T KNOW THAT
MAKING IT MANDATORY IS REALLY
NECESSARY AT THIS TIME SO.
CAN'T SUPPORTED TODAY I I DO
APPRECIATE -- WHERE THAT IS
COMING FROM THE -- FROM YOU AND
AND YOUR INTENT BEHIND THE BILL.
NO ONE ELSE ALL RIGHT SO MEMBERS
WHAT WOULD ASKS I'M HOPING THAT
THIS WILL PASS HERE TODAY AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A
SIMPLISTIC LOOK AT IT BUT IT'S A
SMALL AMOUNT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING
AT THE BIG PICTURE.
HOWEVER WE ALSO KNOW IN THE
SENATE WORKING OUR WAY IS THE
BAR DUES BILL.
AND THE BAR IS ASKING FOR A
SUBSTANTIAL CHUNK OF MONEY THIS
IS I THINK IF WE'RE CLEAR.
OUR OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SOME OF
THE REGRESSIVE NATURE OF THAT
FEE STRUCTURE OUT AND STILL
ALLOWING THE BAR. TO RAISE THE
MONEY THAT IT NEEDS TO OPERATE
ALTHOUGH THEY I WILL ADMIT THEY
STILL HAVE TO PROVE AND
ESTABLISHED.
THAT NEED I WOULD THINK.
THAT'S WHERE WE COULD HAVE THE
BIGGEST EFFECT ON ATTORNEYS WHO
ARE AT THE LOW END OF THE THE
WAGE SCALE BECAUSE NOT ALL THE
TREES ARE MAKING.
AS MUCH MONEY AND ESPECIALLY
THOSE ATTORNEYS WHERE THOSE
FIRMS ARE VERY LARGE AND
EXPENSIVE IN THE FIRM'S PAY FOR
THE FEES ANYWAY.
I THINK THERE'S SHOULD BE A LACK
OF SYMPATHY. TO THE THE BURDEN
THAT THAT PROVIDES.
SO I'M HOPING WE CAN MOVE THIS
AND IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO MR
GRAY AND AND WORK THIS THROUGH
THAT'S FINE.
BUT I WILL POINT OUT OUR
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE BIGGEST
DENT IN THIS IS AS THE BAR DUES.
BILL COMES OVER.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
PUSH BACK IN THIS COMMITTEE TO
THIS NOTION OF INCREASING DUES
ANYWAY SO IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO
RESTRUCTURE IT.
THAT I AM GOING TO NEED YOUR
HELP WITH AS A COMMITTEE AND I'M
HOPING WE CAN COME UP WITH.
AT APPROACH THAT ALL OF US CAN
STAND TOGETHER WE'VE MADE SOME
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE IN
THE BAR OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS BY STANDING TOGETHER SO
BUT THAT'S COMING LATER.
THIS AGREEMENT CLOSE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK
YOU MEMBERS -- I APPRECIATE ALL
THE THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.
THANK QUESTIONS ON THE BILL AT
THE END THE SENTIMENT WHAT I DO
HERE FOR EVERYONE -- IT IS A
SENTIMENT THAT THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE -- WHETHER OR
NOT THIS PROPOSAL IS THE PERFECT
PROPOSAL -- OR WHETHER IS
BEGINNING OF A A LONGER
DISCUSSION I APPRECIATE THE
OPTIMIST CHAIRMAN TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION ON ITS OWN --
SEPARATE SO THANK YOU -- FOR
BRING IT FOR BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE AND THAT -- THEN THAT
PROCESS.
WHICH GALLAGHER APPRECIATE --
YOUR GET YOUR COMMENTS I'M NOT
SURE I'M GONNA CALL IT WEALTH
REDISTRIBUTION MAYBE ATTACKS ON
ATTORNEYS I THINK I AGREE WITH A
LITTLE BIT MORE.
BUT I'M GLAD I COULD -- THROUGH
THIS BILL BRING PEOPLE LIKE YOU
AND MISS CONSOLS TOGETHER.
ON SOME COMMON.
IN.
AND EVEN FURTHER I APPRECIATE
EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU -- A
YOUR SUGGESTIONS -- I HOPE THAT
I CAN REACH OUT TO I KNOW IF I
CAN FIND ANY ATTORNEYS WHO MAY
BE SAID ON THIS COMMITTEE BUT
ALL CERTAINLY.
SEE IF I CAN FIND SOME AND GET
YOUR EXPERTISE AND MOVING THIS
ISSUE FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY AT
THE END OF THE DAY -- WE CAN
REMEMBER THAT OUR COURT SYSTEM
TOP ON TERRY.
AND SO PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO
PARTICIPATE THAT AND WE NEED TO
HAVE SOME RESOURCES -- FOR THOSE
THAT DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES
SUPPORT THEMSELVES MOST MUSIC
THANK YOU WITH THAT ARE
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE BOAT --
HERE THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND THE MOTIONS TO PASS
AS AMENDED CALL THE ROLL PLEASE
STONE BY STONE AYE GALLAGHER.
GALLAGHER NO CHOW.
CHAO AYE CHU.
CHU AYE GONZALEZ [inaudible]
HOLDEN.
KALRA.
CALL WHERE I KILEY.
KILEY NO MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN I OBERNOLTE.
RONA TINO PETRIE-NORRIS.
NORRIS I RADIUS.
REYES HI.
THAT BILL IS OUT HEY LET'S GO
BACK THROUGH THE FILE AND MAKE
SURE WE GET ADDITIONS START WITH
THE CONSENT AGENDA CALL THE UP
TO MEMBERS.
CHOW CHOW I CHU.
CHU AYE KALRA.
KALRA I'D OBERNOLTE OBERNOLTE.
FIVE NORRIS PETRIE-NORRIS I
THANK YOU ITEM NUMBER ONE AB FOR
FIFTY FIVE KILEY WAS TOLD BY THE
AUTHOR.
ADD ITEM NUMBER TWO IS AB FIVE
EIGHTY NINE GONZALEZ CALL THE UP
TO MEMBERS CHAO.
I'M SURE THAT WAS ON CALL
SOMEONE A LIFT THE CALL CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS.
CHAO I CHU.
CHU AYE KALRA.
KALRA I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS
[inaudible]
PETRIE-NORRIS I THAT BILL IS OUT
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ON CALL
THIS IS AB SEVEN HUNDRED
FRIEDMAN ON THE LIST TO CALL
COLLEAGUES MEMBERS CHAO.
OUT I CHU.
CHU AYE KALRA.
KALRA I PETRIE-NORRIS.
THANK YOU WATCH THIS PLACE.
WE WILL BE WATCHING THIS
PETRIE-NORRIS I THAT BILL IS OUT
ITEM NUMBER. FOUR A. B. SEVEN
NINETY FIVE IRWIN.
CHECK OUT THE NUMBERS CHAO AYE
CHU.
CHU AYE KALRA.
KALRA I'M OBERNOLTE OBERNOLTE I
PETRIE-NORRIS PETRIE-NORRIS I
HEY ADAM NUMBER.
FIVE WE'VE HAVE EVERYBODY ON
JUST HOLDEN ITEM NUMBER SIX IS
ON CALL I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL THIS IS AB ELEVEN TWENTY
THREE REYES CHOW.
CHOW I CHIU. TWO I KALRA.
KALRA I OBERNOLTE.
OBERNOLTE NO PETRIE-NORRIS.
NORTH SIDE.
THAT BILL IS ADDS FINAL ITEM
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN A. B. TWELVE
FIFTY ONE SANTIAGO.
CHAO.
SHALL I CHU.
CHU AYE KALRA.
KALRA AYE PETRIE-NORRIS.
PETRIE-NORRIS
-- ALL RIGHT THANK
YOU MEMBERS WITHOUT WE ARE
ADJOURNED