IT'S CALL THIS HEARING TO ORDER
AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST --
WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET.
BUT SENATOR HILL IS ON A TIGHT
SCHEDULE AN OMINOUS SUGGEST WE
HEAR CENTER HILLS BILL WITH THE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
IF THAT SIR IF THAT WORKS FOR
YOU SENATOR.
THANK YOU THIS IS THE JULY TENTH
TWO THOUSAND NINETEEN HEARING OF
THE ASSEMBLY INSURANCE COMMITTEE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD SENATOR THANK
YOU VERY MUCH MISTER CHAIRMAN
AND COLLECTION OF THE IN THANK
YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT
SB FIVE THIRTY SEVEN IT'S A BILL
THAT SEEKS TO REDUCE MEDICAL
DISPUTES.
AN INCREASE TRANSPARENCY IN THE
OPERATION OF MEDICAL PROVIDER
NETWORKS FIRST LET ME BEGIN BY
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDED IN THE ANALYSIS.
AND AS DISCUSSED IN THE ANALYSIS
MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORKS OR MP
ENDS ARE A KEY TOOL IN OUR
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM TO
ENSURE THAT INJURED WORKERS GET
THE TREATMENT THEY NEED IN A
COST EFFECTIVE WAY.
MP AND ALSO ENSURE THAT WORKERS
HAVE ENOUGH CHOICE TO ACCESS
MEDICAL CARE WITH PROVIDERS THAT
THEY ARE COMFORTABLE SEEN.
HOWEVER MORE AND MORE
STAKEHOLDERS HAVE STEPPED
FORWARD WITH CONCERNS ON HOW
IMPIAN ARE OPERATING.
MEDICAL PROVIDERS HAVE
DOCUMENTED INSTANCES OF ALTERED
MEDICAL BILLS BEING SUBMITTED TO
EMPLOYERS BY IN PEONS.
EMPLOYERS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS
THAT THEY DO NOT ALWAYS KNOW.
WHAT THEM PEONS ARE DOING IN
THEIR NAME INCLUDING NEGOTIATING
REIMBURSEMENT RATES?
IS IT IS THE EMPLOYERS AND
MEDICAL PROVIDERS NOT THE MPA
ENDS WHO ARE LEGALLY LIABLE FOR
REIMBURSEMENT AND BILLION ISSUES
THIS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IS A
PROBLEM FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS.
SB FIVE THIRTY SEVEN ADDRESSES
THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY BY
REQUIRING THE MPA ENDS DISCUSS
ANY CHANGES TO MEDICAL BILLS
SUBMITTED TO AN EMPLOYER WITH
THE MEDICAL PROVIDER
ADDITIONALLY SB FIVE THIRTY
SEVEN WILL PROVIDE EMPLOYERS
WITH.
TRANSPARENCY SO THAT THEY WILL
NOTE THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES
RECEIVED BY THE PROVIDERS THAT
WORK WITHIN THEIR MPN.
IF THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES ARE
MORE THAN 15% BELOW THE OFFICIAL
MEDICAL FEE SCHEDULE.
NOW AS OF LAST FRIDAY I BELIEVE
THAT THIS BILL WAS UNOPPOSED.
BUT WE FOUND OUT FROM WORK YOU
FROM YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF THAT
THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.
I HAVE INSTRUCTED MY STAFF TO
WORK WITH ASSEMBLY INSURANCE --
COMMITTEE STAFF.
A VERY CAPABLE STAFF BY THE WAY
MISTER CHAIR.
AND THE OPPONENTS TO SEE IF
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS ARE NECESSARY
TO PERU TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC
RELEASE OF PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION.
AT THE IN THE AND MY GOAL IS IS
TRANSPARENCY EMPLOYERS A MEDICAL
PROVIDER SHOULD KNOW WHAT IT'S
DONE IN THEIR NAME -- AT THIS
TIME I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR --
RICK CATCH CHAIR OF THE PAYMENT
POLICY COMMITTEE FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PHYSICAL THERAPY
ASSOCIATION AND POLL GASPAR WITH
THE INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL
THERAPIST OF CALIFORNIA
DETENTIONS.
EDUCATION TO WHO'S HERE FOR AT
THE PORTENTS OF SB [inaudible]
FIVE THIRTY SEVEN THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT THANK YOU YEAH PLEASE
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT SIR
HI.
MORNING -- MY NAME IS RICK KATZ
Và DR PHYSICAL THERAPY TO SERVE
ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
THE CALIFORNIA PHYSICAL THERAPY
ASSOCIATION.
I'M ALSO BUSINESS OWNER PHYSICAL
THERAPY PRACTICES IN NORTHERN
AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
SB FIVE THREE SEVEN INCLUDES
ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS THAT
CORRECT LOOPHOLES IN EXISTING
LABOR CODE IN THE TWENTY
FOURTEEN SB EIGHT SIXTY THREE
WENT A LONG WAY AND CRACKING
ISSUES.
WITH CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL MEDICAL
FEE SCHEDULE WHICH ENCOURAGE
PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS AND
PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TO RE ENTER
THE MARKET AND PROVIDE CARE FOR
THE FOR THE INJURED WORKER.
CALIFORNIA ADOPTED THE WIDELY
USED OUR B. R. B. S. SYSTEM IN
ADDITION TO ADOPTING NATIONALLY
RECOGNIZED A CALM GUIDELINES.
WHICH ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS FOR
DETERMINE MEDICAL NECESSITY AND
APPROPRIATE TREATMENT
UTILIZATION HOWEVER OVER THE
PAST FEW YEARS HAS BEEN IN AN
ENTRANCE OF THIRD PARTY ENTITIES
IN CALIFORNIA THAT HAVE CREATED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO NARAL PROVIDER
NETWORKS.
WHICH IS LED TO CARE BEING
DRIVEN TO THE LOWEST COST
PROVIDER WITHOUT REGARD TO
QUALITY AND TREATMENT THESE
DISCOUNTS ARE DRIVEN THE MARKET
DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY. TOO AGAIN
DISCOURAGE PROVIDERS
PARTICIPATING IN THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION ARENA IN ADDITION
THESE ENTITIES WHICH ARE
REFERRED TO AS MIDDLEMAN
INTERFERE WITH THE TREATMENTS
PLAN.
PLAN DEVELOPED BY REFERRING
PHYSICIANS AND PHYSICAL
THERAPISTS AND THAT'S BASICALLY
SET ASIDE THE THE CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED A CALM GUIDELINES.
THESE MIDDLE MEN ENTITIES NAMES
ARE LISTED IN THE AM PM
DIRECTORIES INSTEAD OF THE
ACTUAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDER
THAT'S PROVIDING THE CARE.
THAT'S ELIMINATING THE ABILITY
FOR SAY REFERRING PHYSICIAN TO
SUBDUE SELECTOR DOWNSTREAM
PHYSICAL THERAPIST RATHER
PROVIDER.
NETWORK TRANSPARENCY MANDATES
EXIST IN THE PRIVATE AND
COMMERCIAL INSURANCE MARKETS AND
IS MANDATED IN CALIFORNIA STATE
LAW.
BUT SUCH REQUIREMENTS DID NOT
EXIST IN WORKERS COMP SO WE'RE
TRYING TO ADD BASICALLY PARITY
BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS.
LASTLY THESE NETWORKS HAVE BEEN
FOUND TO TAKE PROVIDER CLAIMS
SUBMITTED TO THE NETWORK BY
PRACTITIONERS EVERY PRICE THE
CLAIMS TO INCREASE THEIR OWN
PROFIT WHICH IS.
FRAUD.
THE PRACTICES OF THESE NETWORKS
HAVE GONE AS FAR AS TO PIT ONE
PROVIDER AGAINST ANOTHER WITH
THREATS THAT PATIENTS WILL BE RE
DIRECTED. TO A COMPETITOR IF
THEY DO NOT ACCEPT LOWER RATES
AND DECREASED TREATMENT
UTILIZATION.
THESE ACTIVITIES OCCUR WITHOUT
INVOLVEMENT FROM THE EMPLOYER
RESULTS IN DELAYED ACCESS TO
CARE FOR THE INJURED WORKER.
THE NETWORK NEGOTIATE THE PRICE
WITH THE CARRIER.
AND THEN DISCOUNTS THAT PRICE TO
THE PROVIDER AND KEEPS THE
REMAINING SAVINGS SUCH PRACTICES
DRIVE DOWN PRICING TO THE TO THE
PROVIDER THE ONLY BENEFITS THE
MIDDLE MAN AND ADDS NO VALUE TO
THE EMPLOYER OR THE INJURED
WORKER.
DELAYED ACCESS TO CARE IS PROVEN
TO RESULT IN HIGHER HEALTH CARE
IN EMPLOYER COSTS.
WELL THIS BILL DOESN'T DIRECTLY
CURTAIL THESE EGREGIOUS AND ANTI
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES.
IT BEGINS THE PROCESS OF ADDING
SOME TRANSPARENCY IN PRICING.
SO THAT THE EMPLOYER CAN SEE
WHERE THE DOLLARS ARE BEING
SPENT.
THIS SHOULD BE LITTLE CAUSE FOR
ARGUMENT AGAINST DISCLOSING THAT
A LARGE PART OF WORKERS
COMPENSATION DOLLARS ARE GOING
TO ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE LITTLE
MORE THAN NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND
PATIENT [inaudible]
STEERAGE.
THESE PRACTICES RESULT IN A
FEDERAL LAWSUIT BETWEEN
INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL THERAPISTS
REPRESENTED BY A DOCTOR PAUL
GASPAR.
AND ONE SUCH MIDDLEMAN ENTITIES
WHICH EXPOSED THE WEAKNESS IN
CALIFORNIA LAW THE LAWSUIT
RESULTED IN THE SETTLEMENT THAT
CURB SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES OF
ONE OF THESE ENTITIES. FOR TO
FIND PERIOD TIME BUT DID NOTHING
TO STOP OTHERS FROM FOLLOWING
THE SAME PRACTICES.
THE LAWSUIT IS ENFORCEABLE VIA
THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM BUT
DOES LITTLE TO CHANGE LONG TERM
PRACTICES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE PURPOSE OF SB FIVE THIRTY
SEVEN IS TO RESTRICT AND MONITOR
THESE BEHAVIORS ENTRY FORM
EXISTING LAW WHERE IT IS NEEDED.%
SB FIVE THIRTY SEVEN ALSO
PROMOTES THE ABILITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE OFF OF
THE DUST RELATIONS. TO EXERCISE
THEIR AUTHORITY FOR
INVESTIGATION AND FORSMAN WE
KINDLY ASK YOUR AYE VOTE TODAY
IN SB FIVE THIRTY SEVEN FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CALIFORNIA INJURED
WORKERS CALIFORNIA PROVIDERS AND
EMPLOYERS.
CAN THANK YOU TO SENATOR HILL
FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE FORWARD AND TAKE YOU TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS SIR BEFORE
WE PROCEED TO THE NEXT --
COMMENTER I'D LIKE TO ESTABLISH
A QUORUM LET'S TAKE ROLES SO WE
CAN BE OFFICIAL DAILY HERE MAYES
HERE.
BERMAN [inaudible]
BIGELOW.
CALDERON CHEN.
CHU.
COOLEY.
COOPER.
FRAZIER [inaudible]
GIPSON [inaudible]
GRAYSON [inaudible]
KAMLAGER-DOVE [inaudible]
VOEPEL.
ALL RIGHTS TO WE HAVE A QUORUM
OF PLEASE GO AHEAD SIR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME
TODAY MY NAME IS DOCTOR PAUL
GASPAR I'M PRESIDENT OF THE
INDEPENDENT PHYSICAL THERAPISTS
OF CALIFORNIA.
FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR
HILL FOR A BILL THAT HAS MANY
GOOD THINGS SENATE.
AS DR KATZ MENTIONED OUR
ORGANIZATION WAS THE PLAINTIFF.
IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
ONE OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE BILL.
AND THE CALIFORNIA CHIROPRACTIC
ASSOCIATION A YEAR LATER FILED A
SIMILAR LAWSUIT.
THAT WAS -- THANK YOU THE
INDEPENDENT OF KICKBACKS
EXTORTION SCHEME.
AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PATIENT DOCTOR RELATIONSHIP.
AMONG OTHER THINGS.
OUR VERY PLEASED WITH MANY
ASPECTS OF THIS BILL IT GOES A
LONG WAY TOWARDS.
REDUCING INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PATIENT DOCTOR RELATIONSHIP
[inaudible]
IT -- IT -- MANDATES THAT
PHYSICAL THERAPISTS AND THEIR
NAMES AND THEIR ADDRESSES AND
THEIR PHONE NUMBERS.
ARE LISTED IN THE EMPTY AND
PROVIDER DIRECTORY TO PREVENT
WHAT WE WOULD CALL ILLEGAL
STEERING TO THE CHEAPEST
PROVIDER WHICH WE DON'T THINK OF
THEM.
THE PATIENT'S BEST INTERESTS.
LOTS OF GOOD STUFF ON THIS BILL
WHAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO WITH
THE LAWSUIT WAS WE WEREN'T ABLE.
TO FORCE REASONABLE PAYMENT
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE
COURT WOULD DO FOR US.
HAVE.
YOU HAVE A LITTLE CHART THERE I
THINK AND IN SOME OF YOUR
INFORMATION THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT
PHYSICAL THERAPISTS ARE ACTUALLY
PAID TO TREAT WORKERS COMP
PATIENTS.
AND TO THE OPPONENTS AND OF THIS
BILL PAY PHYSICAL THERAPIST
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS AND
CHIROPRACTORS.
LESS THAN 50% OF THE FEE
SCHEDULE.
LESS THAN 50% IT SEEMS KIND OF
WEIRD [inaudible]
I HAVE.
IN.
PRIVATE INDEMNITY INSURANCE WE
HAVE RULES THAT.
MANDATE THAT 80% OF THE MONEY.
GOES TOWARDS THE PATIENT BUT
SOMEHOW.
INJURED WORKERS ONLY DESERVE 50%
OF THE MONEY GOING TOWARD THEIR
CARE.
IT SEEMS A LITTLE ODD.
AND THAT'S WHY A LOT OF PATIENTS
TRY TO AVOID THE WORKERS COMP
SYSTEM ALTOGETHER IN CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE THEY REALLY CAN'T GET
THE CARE THAT THEY DESERVE.
OBVIOUSLY OUR ORGANIZATION
WISHES THAT THE MEDICARE FLOOR
WITH STILL IN THEIR MEDICARE
PATIENTS ARE EXPENSIVE TO TREAT
BUT WORKERS COMP PATIENTS ARE
MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE TO TREAT
MUCH MORE PAPERWORK CAM.
A TOUGHER TOUGHER CASES THE DEAL
WITH IN GENERAL.
SO OUR POSITION ON THE BILL WERE
VERY THANKFUL THIS FOR THIS BILL
AND SENATOR HILL AND AND
GIDEON'S WORK OUR POSITION AS
SUPPORT IF AMENDED.
IF THE BILL OF AMENDED FURTHER.
WE WOULD HOPE THAT IT DOESN'T
DECREASE THE TRANSPARENCY
FURTHER I THINK IF PEOPLE REALLY
UNDERSTOOD.
THAT ONLY 50% OF THE MONEY WENT
THE PHYSICAL THERAPIST --
CHIROPRACTORS ARE -- TEAS AND
THE OTHER HALF WENT TO OUT OF
STATE MEGA CORPORATIONS WE GOT
TO KEEP OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA WE GOT A LOT
OF THINGS TO PAY.
FOR SO AGAIN THANK YOU SO MUCH
THIS BILL DOES A LOT OF
TREMENDOUS THINGS FOR OUR
PROFESSION AND MORE MORE
IMPORTANTLY. FOR THE PATIENTS IN
CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU SIR OF IN IS.
THIS FINE FELLOW PART OF YOUR IS
PRESENTATION GO AHEAD SIR I
SOMETIMES SUPPORT BILLS.
TO THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN FOR
THE ADJACENT SHELTER HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION ON WORKERS
COMPENSATION -- I LISTEN I I
CERTAINLY CAN ASSOCIATE MYSELF
WITH ALL THE COMMENTS OF THE
PRIOR TO WITNESSES BUT I DO
THINK IT'S INSTRUCTIVE.
THAT EMPLOYERS -- AT LEAST MY
NUMBERS ARE HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT OF A BILL THAT THE
PHYSICAL THERAPIST OR IN SUPPORT
OF I DON'T THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT
VERY OFTEN -- A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS VERY QUICKLY FROM AN
EMPLOYER PERSPECTIVE -- MEDICAL
PROVIDER NETWORKS AND
CONTRACTING AGENTS -- THAT ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE BILL ARE
IMPORTANT PLAYERS IN THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM IN A
PERFORMING PORTENT FUNCTIONS --
BUT THERE ARE TWO KEY PROVISIONS
IN THE BILL.
THE POLICEMAN EMPLOYER
PERSPECTIVE THAT ARE WORTHY OF
SUPPORT. ONE SECTION FOUR OF THE
BILL CLARIFIES I MEAN ISSUE
DEALING WITH A NORMAL DAYS OF
THE WEEK AND WHAT THAT MEANS YOU
YOU FIGURE YOU WOULD WE WOULD
ALL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BUT
SOMETIMES THE COURTS GET THINGS
MIXED UP.
THAT'S THAT'S INCREDIBLY
VALUABLE -- IN THAT SECTION NINE
OF THE BILL WHICH DEALS WITH THE
TRANSPARENCY THESE FOLKS HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT -- IS VERY
KEY I EMPLOYERS NEED TO
UNDERSTAND -- KIND OF THROUGH
ALL OF THESE CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIPS WHAT IS BEING PAID
TO THE PHYSICIAN I BECAUSE WHAT
WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO THE
POSITION IS IS VERY KEY -- IF
DOCTORS ARE GETTING TOO LITTLE --
FRANKLY THEY DON'T WANT TO BE IN
THE SYSTEM AND IT CAN DRIVE BAD
BEHAVIOR -- I I DON'T THINK
THERE'S A TON OF COST ASSOCIATED
WITH PROVIDING THAT TRANSPARENCY
I THINK THE AUTHOR -- IN THE YOU
KNOW THROUGH WORK WITH YOUR
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS IS HAS
FOUND A NICE.
BALANCE THERE AND FOR THOSE
REASONS WERE INSTRUCTS FOR THE
BILL TODAY.
ACCUSER.
BROTHER OTHER FOLKS HERE TO
SPEAK IN FAVORITE TO ADD ON IN
FAVOR OF THIS BILL.
PLEASE GO AHEAD GOOD MORNING
ALEXANDER THE ONE WITH THE WHITE
MAN GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHIROPRACTIC
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS CHRISTIE BELL ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU.
OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO SUPPORT
THE BILL.
OTHER PERSON SAID HERE WHO --
WOULD LIKE.
TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL.
ANYONE HERE AGAINST THIS BILL I
SEE SOME MOVEMENT BUT I DON'T
KNOW IF FOR OKAY THERE WE GO YOU
SEE SOME MOVEMENT.
LAURIE KAMMER AND I'M
REGRETTABLY UP WERE OPPOSING
UNLESS AMENDED I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PAYERS --
ADMINISTRATORS AND NETWORKS --
ANTHEM WORKERS COMPENSATION ONE
CALL CARE MANAGEMENT AND MEDICS
HEALTHCARE ALL OF WHOM ARE
MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORKS -- I
WANT TO THANK SENATOR ILL FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD THIS
IS A WORK IN PROGRESS.
I WANT IT THANK YOU DIEM BOMB
FOR WORKING WITH US -- GOING
BACK AND FORTH ON HOW TO MAKE
THIS BILL BETTER WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH YOU OVER THE
SUMMER RECESS -- TO ARE PERFECT
THE BILL THAT WE DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ON SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE'S NO UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF WITH THAT WE
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
OTHER PERSONS WISHING.
TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL YES
SIR THANK YOU VERY MUCH -- MY
NAME IS DOCTOR JAMES D'AGOSTINO.
DOCTOR PHYSICAL THERAPY.
AND THE CURRENT PRACTITIONER.
AND I RISE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL UNLESS
AMENDED.
WHEN THIS BILL STARTED OUT HAD
GREAT PROMISE COMING OUT OF THE
SENATE THIRTY EIGHT ALL?
BUT IT LOST ITS COURAGE WHEN IT
SLID OVER HERE TO THE HOUSE.
WITH THE STRIKING OF SECTION
EIGHT SECTION FIVE THREE OH
SEVEN ELEVEN LABOR CODE MIDDLE
MEN WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE 40% OF
THE FEE.
PAID TO AND THE SUPPOSED TO BE
PAID TO PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TO
TREAT WORKERS COMPENSATION
PATIENTS.
THIS FEE IS NOT EARNED BUT
GARNER FROM RACKETEERING
BEHAVIOR.
BASED ON THE RECENT CIVIL SUITS
IN CALIFORNIA THESE COMPANIES
THREATEN PHYSICAL THERAPIST FROM
LOS REFERRALS UNLESS THEY TAKE
THE BELOW COST FEES.
WITHOUT REINSERTION OF THIS
SECTION MANY PATIENTS WILL NOT
BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY AND
THE LUXURY OF WORKING WITH
PHYSICAL THERAPIST.
SO IN REALITY WHAT I'M SAYING IS
WHAT WE ALL DOING HERE IF WE ARE
GOING TO ATTACK THE PROBLEM
ITSELF.
IN MY COMMUNITY WORKERS
COMPENSATION IS A DIRTY WORD.
IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE SYSTEM
OF CARE ESPECIALLY IN MY
HISPANIC COMMUNITY IS SO POOR%
THAT NJURED WORKERS WILL DENY
BEING HURT ON THE JOB.
I'M A MEMBER OF A NIGHT PA THAT
IS CAPITATED TO TWENTY FIVE
THOUSAND LIVES.
AND IT'S BEEN WELL OVER TEN
YEARS SINCE MY PRIMARY CARE
DOCTORS HAVE REFERRED THE CASE
TO WORKERS COMPENSATION WHEN
THEIR PATIENTS ARE INJURED.
SO WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF
SECTION EIGHT YOU CAN BE
GUARANTEED THAT MY MEDICAL IN
LAKE COMMUNITY WILL WORK
DILIGENTLY TO STAY OUT OF THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN.
THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER PERSONS
WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE
BILL IF NOT -- SENATOR YOU'RE
WELCOME.
TO DO YOUR CLOTHES SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH MISTER CHAIR AND IT WE
DID REMOVE SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT SOME OF THE PARTS OF THE
BILL -- AS IT CAME TO THE
ASSEMBLY AND THE REASON WAS IT
IT JUST WOULD NOT WORK AND WE
FELT THAT IT WAS NOT A NOT
APPROPRIATE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THAT IN IN THE BILL EIGHT IN
PRINT TODAY -- SOLVES MANY OF
THE PROBLEMS AS YOU HEARD FROM
OTHER WITNESSES I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR I. BUT MEMBERS THANK
YOU.
THANK YOU SENATOR -- COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR
SENATOR HILL ON HIS BILL.
ALRIGHT THE WE HAVE THE STAFF
ANALYSIS THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENT SENATOR.
AND IS THERE A MOTION TO FOR
THIS BILL.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND MOTION A
SECOND THANK. ONE MORE
OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS IF NOT
LET'S VOTE.
IN THIS AS AN AYE RECOMMENDATION
FROM THE CHAIR BY THE WAY.
ON SB FIVE THIRTY SEVEN THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
DALY HI THEY THE AYE MAYES.
MAYES I BERMAN.
BIGELOW.
BIGELOW I'D CALLED RUNS.
CHEN. TO TO AYE COOLEY.
COOLEY AYE COOPER.
COOPER AYE FRAZIER FRAZIER AYE
GIPSON.
GRAYSON HI GRAYSON I COME WATER
DOES.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I VOEPEL.
VOEPEL I ATTENDED
ZERO ALL RIGHT.
WELL DONE SENATOR HILL IT LIKE
THAT MISTER CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES
THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH OKAY
AND NEXT UP IS APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THIS BILL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS LET'S ADOPT
THE CONSENT CALENDAR THERE THREE
ITEMS.
SB TWO FORTY BY DODD.
SB FIVE FORTY Y JONES AND SB
SEVEN FORTY BY SENATOR MITCHELL.
THE SECOND PROMOTION IN SECONDS
TO OPEN UP THE THREE ITEMS ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR ANY
QUESTIONS.
REALLY I THOUGHT THE RIGHT.
YOU CAN MAKE A MODEL IT'S FINE.
MR FRAZIER DID.
ALL RIGHT NOW WE'RE FINE WE'RE
FINE.
MOTION AND SECOND ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR DALY BY DALY AYE MAYES
AYE MAYES AYE BERMAN.
BIGELOW.
BIGELOW I CALDERON.
CHEN. TWO CHU AYE COOLEY AYE
COOLEY AYE COOPER.
COOPER I FRAZIER.
FRAZIER AYE GIPSON.
GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I COME WATER DOES.
COME.
AYE VOEPEL.
VOEPEL AYE.
GREAT THANK YOU TRACY AND I SEE
SENATOR HERTZBERG IN THE FRONT
ROW.
AND LET'S.
GO IT SB [inaudible]
THREE ONE EIGHT WELCOME. TO
ASSEMBLY INSURANCE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS BEING SO
GRACIOUS AND ON THIS IN EVERY
BILL WHETHER WE AGREE OR
DISAGREE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
WHO SUFFER MY LATE NIGHT CALLS.
I'VE BEEN SOMEWHAT INVOLVED IN A
FEW OTHER ISSUES AND SO OFTEN
HARD TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE
MEASLY EIGHTEEN HOURS OF MOST
PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK -- LET ME
TELL YOU WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT
AND I I I I WANT TO FRAME IT
INITIALLY IF I COULD FOR A
MOMENT.
ON TALK ABOUT WHY I'M DOING THIS
AND THEN SPECIFICALLY WHY IN
LARGE MEASURE I DON'T AGREE WITH
THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE
COMMITTEE IS PROPOSING AND I'M
REJECTING THEM.
AND WHY I'M STANDING HERE
BECAUSE I WOULD NORMALLY DO THAT
AND WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
STATEMENT OF WHO WE ARE AS A
LEGISLATURE.
AND HOW WE WANT TO PROTECT
[inaudible]
BOND.
CONSUMERS IN CALIFORNIA.
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT
ABOUT WHAT OUR CULTURE IS WHAT
OUR MORALITY IS AND WHO WE ARE.
AND LET ME START OUT WITH THE
STORY.
OF JIM MELA AND HER SON RICKY.
BECAUSE IT INFORMS THE CAGE THAT
IS BEING USED TO PULL THE WOOL
OVER THE EYES OF THIS COMMITTEE
AND I ASK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT.
DISTINCTION IN THE GAME THAT
GETS PLAYED OFTEN IN THIS
LEGISLATURE BASED UPON ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AND NOT PUBLIC POLICY.
HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS IT'S MAY TWO
THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN RICKY GETS
ARRESTED JIMMY LIZ'S MOTHER.
SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR
BOND -- IDENTITY THEFT AMONG
OTHER CHARGES AND SHE'S DOWN
THERE SHE'S HAVING A HEART
ATTACK THEIR SONS IN JAIL.
AND SHE SIGNS WHICH EVER PUT IN
FRONT OF FOR WHAT EVER IS PUT IN
FRONT OF HER AND PART OF THOSE
DOCUMENTS FROM BAD BOY A BAIL
BONDSMAN WAS BLANK DOCUMENTS.
AND SHE WASN'T TOLD WHAT THEY
MEANT SHE WASN'T ANYTHING SHE
JUST WANTED TO GET HER SON OUT
OF JAIL.
HER SON WAS RELEASED ADD BAIL
AND WAS NEVER CHARGED AND THE
MONEY WAS NEVER RETURNED.
SHE MADE WHICH HAPPENS TODAY A
DOWN PAYMENT.
AND SHE SIGNED A PAYMENT PLAN
SHE SIGNED A FINANCIAL DOCUMENT
THAT REQUIRED HER JUST LIKE IF
YOU BUY A REFRIGERATOR IF YOU
BUY ANYTHING ON TIME.
SHE SIGNED A PAYMENT PLAN THAT'S
WHAT SHE DID.
AND SO NOW SHE COMES ALONG AND
SAYS AND AND AND OBVIOUSLY
THEY'RE STILL COLLECTING THERE'S
NO BAIL THERE'S NO ANYTHING
THERE'S NO OBLIGATION.
LET'S STOP THERE FOR A MOMENT.
BECAUSE THAT INFORMS IN FRAMES
WHERE I'M AT AS I ENGAGE IN THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IN THIS
WHOLE ISSUE OF BAIL I CAN COVER
TO REPORT BY UCLA CALLED DEVIL'S
IN THE DETAILS LET ME DO WHAT
THEY DID.
THEY LOOKED AT FOUR HUNDRED BILL
CONTRACTS.
AND IN THOSE CONTRACTS I HAVE
COPIES OF THEM HERE DESPITE WHAT
YOU'RE TOLD OTHERWISE.
LET ME CHECK WHAT THEY SAY.
THEY SAY IF YOU THAT THAT YOU
WAVE YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS IF YOU SIGNED A BILL
CONTRACT.
IT NOT ONLY THAT THEY SAY I CAN
GIVE YOU THE EXACT COMPANIES THE
EXACT EXAMPLES HAVE COPIES OF
THOSE CONTRACTS THEY SAY THAT IF
YOU HAVE A ROOMMATE IF ANYBODY
ELSE IS LIVING WITH YOU.
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
THAT THEY TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS.
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW YOU SIGNED
IT THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU GOT
ARRESTED IT DOESN'T SAY A COSINE
E. IT'S AS ANYBODY COHABITATING
WITH YOU HAVE TO DO THIS.
THEY COULD PUT TRACKING DEVICES
ON YOUR CAR UNDER THEIR
AGREEMENT AND GUESS WHAT IF
YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER YOU TO
COURT ORDER TO DO THAT.
THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE IN
THESE CONTRACTS ARE NOTHING LESS
THAN A GREGIS.
AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IS IN THE
MEANTIME AS I WAS WORKING ON
THIS LAST YEAR.
THAT LITIGATION STARTED IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY JUDGE
FINSTER MARKER HAD A CASE I HAVE
THE COULD DOCUMENTS BEFORE US
TODAY THE COMPLAINT.
AND THE THE THE DIMMER WHICH A
BIT BUT PLEADINGS BY THE OTHER
SIDE BY THE BAIL INDUSTRY NOT
THE BILL WAS RECESS.
THE BILL MYSTERY SAYS IN THEIR
ARGUMENTS LISTEN TO THIS THIS IS
ON BELIEVABLE AND THEY HAD
TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.
THEY SAY IN THEIR IN THEIR
DOCUMENTS AND I'M GOING TO GIVE
YOU AN EXACT QUOTE WHICH OUT OF
THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY FILED
WITH THE COURT.
THERE IS NO CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY.
THERE IS NO CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY
MEMBERS OF THIS LEGISLATURE WHO.
IN THE END DOORS LAWS EVERY DAY
OF THE WEEK THAT HAS CONSTRUED
AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO A BAIL
BOND AS A CONSUMER CREDIT
CONTRACT.
THAT'S THE LEGAL POSITION.
THEY HAVE TAKEN A BAZAAR AN
UNBELIEVABLE APPROACH.
THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO US.
THAT THERE IS A CRAZY WITH THE
TIME THE JUDGE I MEAN WHAT'S HIS
NAME UP ROSENTHAL ENACTED THE
DEBT COLLECTION ACTED IN THE
SEVENTIES WELL DIDN'T SAY BAIL
BONDSMAN WILL ALSO DIDN'T SAY
ELECTRIC CARS AND OTHER THINGS
WHAT MAKES THE SEAT BELTS.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
AND SO WHAT I'M DOING.
AND WHAT HAPPENED BETH THIRTY
EIGHT TO VOTE IN THE SENATE.
WHAT HAPPENED WITH THIS ISSUE IS
ANALYZE NOT TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE
THAT INFORMS THE AMENDMENT?
IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT
WAS THOROUGHLY ADVISED BY PRETTY
SMART LAWYERS.
THEY CAME OUT TEND TO DO TO TO
NOT VOTING.
THERE'S BEEN NO NO VOTES ON THIS
BILL.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE CAN ARGUE
THAT WAS IN THE MEMBERS ON THE
SENATE AND APPROPRIATIONS THE
LIKE I GET IT.
BUT IT'S SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL
POSITION BASICALLY WHAT THIS
BILL SAYS WHAT THIS BILL SAYS IN
THE SIMPLEST TERMS.
IS THAT THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL
JURISPRUDENCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN
FORCED IN THIS STATE FOR MORE
THAN FIFTY YEARS APPLIES TO
EVERYBODY.
THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A
CONTRACT IT APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.
AND THERE CHIANG IT DOESN'T
APPLY TO THEM AND GUESS WHAT
JUDGE FINSTER MARKER SAID.
JUDGE FIXTURE MONSTER TOLD THEM
YOUR BOOK YOU KNOW WHAT AND HE
BASICALLY SAID IN THE COURT CASE
THAT HAPPENED SOME WEEKS AGO THE
PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE
PERSONAL FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD
PURPOSES UNAMBIGUOUS.
THE LANGUAGE IF THE LANGUAGE IS
CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS THERE'S NO
NEED FOR INSTRUCTION NOR IS IT
NECESSARY TO RESORT TO ADDITION
TO THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE
IN OTHER WORDS THEY SAID THE
ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE EXEMPT.
FROM THIS IS RIDICULOUS OKAY.
AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT AT AT
THIS THING THE THE ARE THE
ARGUMENT OF WHAT'S REALLY REALLY
HAPPENING IN THIS IN THIS
SITUATION WHY DO WE HAVE.
PARTICULARLY THE SECURITY
COMPANIES COMING AFTER US I'M
LET'S TAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT I
TOLD THE CHAIR.
RIGHT BEFORE THIS THIS HEARING
TO TO QUALIFY FOR THAT.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE REAL
WORLD IS THAT INPUT BILL AGENT
RELATIONSHIPS OKAY.
THERE'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE SURETY COMPANY INSURANCE
COMPANY THAT SELLS THE BOND TO
THE BILL AGENT.
AND THEN THERE'S THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BELL
AGENT AND THE CUSTOMER.
IN A NORMAL SITUATION LET'S
ASSUME IT'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS BAIL THE THAT THAT THEY
CHARGE 10% WHICH IS ALSO BEING
CHALLENGED.
THAT THE IS TAUGHT TOWARD --
TWENTY THREE BOOKS SO THE
INSURANCE COMPANY CHARGES TWENTY
THREE DOLLARS TO BAD BOY BAIL.
JACKSON NAME OF THE COMPANY IF
YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT.
AND SO BAD BOY BILLS RIGHT
TWENTY THREE ON A CHECK TO THE
INSURANCE COMPANY AND THEY'RE
DONE.
THEN THE BAD BOY BILL COMPANY
COMES ALONG AND ENTERS INTO A
FINANCING AGREEMENT BECAUSE MRS
ELITE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY
AND THEY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT
THAT SAYS WE CAN DO EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE.
THAT WE SEE IN ALL THE ISSUES TO
GO OUT AND COLLECT.
YOUR AVAILABLE BILL CONTACT
ANNIE HAVE YEAH MY I HAVE A YEAR
BUT IT SHOULD SAYS WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO GO OUT AND COLLECT AND
THEY GO OUT AND DO ALL THEIR
STUFF TO DO IT.
AND SO THERE'S A SEPARATION
BETWEEN THE SALE OF THIS THING
AND IN THE BAD BOY BILL CONTRACT
EVERY SINGLE INSTALLMENT
CONTRACT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS.
THAT.
THERE'S NO LIABILITY FOR THE
INSURANCE COMPANY IT IS CLEAR
WHY BECAUSE ANY LAWYER WOULD BE
DISBARRED WHO REPRESENT
INSURANCE COMPANY THAT LET THEM
BECOME LIABLE FOR THE ACTIVITY
OF A BILL COMPANY IT
SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN THE
INSTALLMENT CONTRACT.
THAT YOU ARE NOT LAW THAT WE ARE
NOT LIABLE THIS IS NOT A
CONTRACT WITH THE INSURANCE
COMPANY.
NOW WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON QUITE
FRANKLY.
IN THIS SITUATION IS THAT.
IS THAT THE SO THEY'RE NOT
LIABLE ANY THIRTY COMPANIES A
WORRIED ALL MY GOD IF WE APPLY
THIS IN THIS A CASE PENDING IN
THE CASE ALREADY WAS DISPOSED OF
THE ONLY QUESTION IS.
ARE THEY GOING TO APPEAL THEY'LL
BOTH BAD BAD BILL BOYS COMPANIES
LOST.
IN TERMS OF RETROACTIVITY TO THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE MAKING AND THESE
OTHER GUYS IS RETROACTIVITY.
THAT WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO
AND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH IN THE AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY
THAT THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE
WANTS ME TO TAKE THAT I WILL NOT.
OF THIS COUPLE MIGHT TAKE BUT I
DON'T WANT TO TAKE ON IS BECAUSE
THEY'RE SAYING THAT WHAT WE'RE
SAYING IN THE LAW IS THAT.
IS THAT THIS.
THIS IS NOT DISPOSITIVE UNDER
THE AMENDMENTS WHAT WE SAY IN
THE LAW.
IN WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE THAT
THEY WANT TO TAKE OUT IN THE
AMENDMENTS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT
SAYS THIS PARAGRAPH IS
DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW.
THIS PARAGRAPH IS DECLARED TO
EXISTING LAW.
BY ME SAYING THE DECLARATORY
DIGESTING LAW THAT THEY'RE
SAYING IS REPORTING A THUMB ON
THE SCALE IN THE EXISTING CASE
NOT TRUE.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT'S RETRO
ACTIVITY IS BEING APPLIED NOT
TRUE.
IF YOU WOULD MAKE A TELEPHONE
CALL AND DO THE RESEARCH AT THE
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
YEARS WHICH YOU WOULD LEARN.
YOU WOULD LEARN THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS THE RIGHT TO
CLARIFY THE LAW.
THAT THERE'S A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN CLARIFICATION
RETROACTIVITY.
THAT WHAT YOU WOULD LEARN IS
THAT IF YOU WANT RETRO ACTIVITY
THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE
TO WRITE AS WE HAVE DONE MANY
TIMES IN THE PAST.
YOU HAVE TO WRITE IN THE LAW
THAT THIS IS RETROACTIVE THAT'S
WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS
RETROACTIVE PERIOD END OF ISSUE.
THERE ARE CASES ALREADY
HISTORICALLY WE'VE SEEN I'VE
JUST PULLED UP ONE WITH JIMMY
GOMEZ DID A BILL IN TWO THOUSAND
FIFTEEN THE PEOPLE HERE VOTED ON
THE DEALT WITH IMMIGRATION
STATUS OF MINOR CHILD AND IT
SAYS IN THE PROVISION.
THE PROVISIONS THE SECTION --
DECLARATORY JESTING LOGS ACTED
WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
AND SO THE QUESTION BECOMES
UNDER THE LAW.
IS WHAT HAPPENS WE'RE WHAT
HAPPENS IF YOU'RE DOING THAT ALL
THAT HAPPENS IS WE AS A
LEGISLATURE WE AS A BODY ARE
SAYING AS A GROUP THAT WE
BELIEVE.
THAT THIS IS THE INTENT WHAT
HAPPENS THERE.
WHAT HAPPENS THERE IS THAT THE
COURT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION?
THE GENERAL RULE REGARDING
RETROACTIVITY IS THE TAX STATURE
TO PRESUME TO OPERATE
PROSPECTIVELY THAT ON MATTERS
OCCURRING AFTER THE STATUTE'S
ENACTMENT UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE
COULD CLEARLY INTENDS OTHERWISE.
WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH
AND I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION NINETEEN
NINETY ONE POINT ONE FOUR WHAT
ORDER TO HAVE RETROACTIVITY
HERE'S THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE TO
HAVE.
THIS SECTION APPLIES
RETROACTIVELY TO ANY EMPLOYEE
MAKES IT CLEAR WE DON'T SAY THAT
HISTORICALLY THIS INSTITUTION I
HAVE MANY OTHER EXAMPLES HAVE
DECLARED OF EXISTING LAW AND
BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT THE COURTS
SAY IN THOSE CASES WHEN YOU
DECLARE EXISTING LAW.
IS THAT IN THIS IS THAT THE CASE
THAT WAS GIVEN TO A LEDGE
COUNCIL MACLEOD VERSES IMPLEMENT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
IT IS TRUE THAT IF THE COURTS
HAVE NOT YET FINALLY
INCONCLUSIVELY INTERPRETED
STATUTE AND ARE IN THE PROCESS
OF DOING SO A DECLARATION BY THE
LEGISLATURE AS TO WHAT TO DO.
AS TO WHAT AND EARLIER
LEGISLATURE INTENDED IS
CONSIDERATION ALL WE'RE SAYING
IS A STATEMENT AS TO WHO WE ARE.
WITH WE DON'T SAY ANYTHING IF
WERE SILENT ON THE ISSUE AND WE
DON'T STEP UP THAT SAYS WE WANT
CONSUMER PROTECTION WE ARE
MAKING A STATEMENT TO EVERYBODY
AND TO THIS WORLD WE ARE.
NOT GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE
COURT WE ARE NOT BECAUSE WE DO
NOT USE THE WORD RIGHT TO
ACTIVITY WE ARE SIMPLY GIVING
GUIDANCE.
SO MY ARGUMENT TO YOU IS THE
COURTS ALREADY DECIDED THIS.
THAT IS PURE COMMON SENSE THAT
THE NATURE AND DEGREE JUST
NATURE OF THESE CONTRACTS AND
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT.
AND THE TOTAL STUFF I'M READING
PROVISIONS I CAN READ THOSE
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT EACH
COMPANY THERE'S FOUR HUNDRED OF
THEM AS TO WHAT THEY SAY.
AND SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHITE
THE BILL EVERYBODY LIKES BECAUSE
THEY SAY GOOD GOING FORWARD.
THE ISSUE IS WE NEED TO MAKE IT
THE DECLARATORY STATEMENT THE
PURCHASE DATE IS NOT
RETROACTIVITY AND I WOULD
SUGGEST -- HERE IT IS THE BILL
BOY CONTRACTORS TO BE CLEAR SAYS
JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS.
THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT A
PARTY TO ANY PREMIUM FINANCING.
ANY FINANCIAL AGREEMENT IS
STRICTLY BETWEEN THE BAIL AGENTS
WAS AGENCY IN THE AND THEN THE
DOOR THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY THAT'S
WHAT THEY ALL SAY.
SO WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING AND
WHY THE INSURANCE FRIENDS OF ALL
OF OURS ARE COMING HERE AND
SAYING TO US WE DON'T LIKE THIS
IS BECAUSE THEIR CUSTOMERS OF
THE BAIL AGENTS.
AND THEY HAVE TO SELL CONTRACTS
TO THE BAIL AGENTS AND THEY
DON'T WANT TO BE LIABLE FOR THE
ACTIVITY AND I'M TELLING YOU I
WILL GIVE YOU AN AMENDMENT THAT
SAYS.
SURE THE INSURANCE DIDN'T
NOTHING IN THIS BILL WILL
INCLUDE LIABILITY FOR SURETIES
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO
AND GAVE THE BAD BEHAVIOR.
THAT SOLVES IT BUT IT PUTS THE
SURETY COMPANIES IN A HORRIBLE
SITUATION WHERE NOT FOR LEGAL
REASONS.
NOT FOR ANY OTHER REASONS I'M
CLOSING NOW FOR ANY OTHER
REASONS THE BOTTOM LINE IS. FOR
BUSINESS REASONS BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T BE ADVERSE TO THEIR
CUSTOMER WHO'S THE BAIL AGENT
WHO ENGAGE IN THIS AGREE JUST
ACTIVITY AND FOR THOSE REASONS
THIS IS A GOOD BILL.
AND FOR THOSE REASONS THE
AMENDMENTS DO NOT PROMOTE
PROMOTE RETROACTIVITY AND FOR
THOSE REASONS IT'S IMPORTANT TO
POOL WE ARE AS A PEOPLE THAT WE
STAND TALL THAT WE NOW HAVE
KNOWLEDGE BEFORE US AS TO WHAT
HAS TRANSPIRED IN THIS INDUSTRY.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT
TO THE COURTS CAN IN THEIR
PARTICULAR JUDGMENT MAKE
CONSIDERATION.
SENATOR OF BEFORE THE YOUR
WITNESSES -- COMMENT I WANNA.
TRY TO CLARIFY A COUPLE POINTS
RIGHT NOW. FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE COMMITTEE -- YOU MENTIONED
ACCEPTING.
SOME AMENDMENTS YEAH I WANT TO
GET THAT ON THE TABLE WHICH
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
ARE YOU.
WE SPEAK I HAVE A DOCUMENT IN
FRONT OF ME THAT ISN'T PAGEANT
AIDED.
BUT YEAH I CAN GO THROUGH IT
WITH YOU.
THE FIRST ONE WELL NOT A FOOT
THERE ARE THREE AMENDMENTS
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE STAFF.
ANALYSIS.
ARE THESE IN THEIR A BC WELL LET
ME LOOK AT IT ARE THESE I'M JUST
LOOKING AT THE BILL.
ALRIGHT AND THEN THE THE SECOND
QUESTION IS YOU MENTIONED THAT
THE COURT HAS DECIDED.
AND I WANNA.
CLARIFY THAT POINT OKAY FROM.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S A
COURT CASE IN PROGRESS CORRECT
BUT WHEN YOU SAY HAS DECIDED --
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A
SECOND BECAUSE I HAD NOT HEARD
THAT BEFORE OKAY SO.
IF YOU COULD CLARIFY THAT POINT
AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE
AMENDMENTS PLEASE.
SHOW FOR THE ELITE FAMILY
BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST BAD
BOY RIGHT AND THE THEY SAID
YOU'RE VIOLATING THE THESE
CONTRACTS THE CONSUMER LAWS
BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW
TO PROVIDE IF YOU DIDN'T HEAR TO
IN YOUR CONTRACT DOESN'T HERE TO
IN YOUR PERFORMANCE DIDN'T HEAR
TO THE LAWS THAT ARE REQUIRED
FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION -- AND
THE VARIOUS CONTRACT THAT THE
SECTIONS THAT I'M REFERENCING
HERE THEY BROUGHT THAT LAWSUIT.
AND THEN THE THE THE BILL
INDUSTRY PREFER SPOTTED WITH
LEGAL DOCUMENTS SAYING SO WHAT
YOU CAN VIEW THE YOU THESE THESE.
ARE -- CONSUMER LAWS DON'T APPLY
TO US I READ YOU THE HEADLINE OF
THEIR BIRTH PLEADING BUT CENTER
HAVE HAD HAS THERE BEEN A
DECISION YET WERE SIMPLY OKAY NO
THAT DECISION.
THAT DECISION WAS THAT WAS IN A
TENTATIVE DECISION I JUST RIVER --
I CAN READ IT TO YOU AND THAT
TENDED DECISION HAS BEEN ADOPTED
THE QUESTION OF COURSE IS THAT
THE BAD BOY BELINSKY COULD
APPEAL OF COURSE AND TO GO ALL
THE WAY THE SUPREME COURT.
BUT THERE HAS BEEN DECISION THEY
CAN AND THERE THERE ARE
ARGUMENTS WERE DENIED.
AND THAT DECISION HAS BECOME
FINAL IS THE FINAL OF THE EDGE A
JUDGMENT THE LAWYER IN THE ROAD
RIGHT HERE WHO WHO'S REPRESENTS
THEM.
AND THAT'S BEEN FINAL THE ONLY
QUESTION IS THERE'S A SIXTY DAY
PERIOD.
BY WHICH THERE COULD BE AN
APPEAL AND THEY CAN APPEAL IF
THEY WANT TO APPEAL BUT RIGHT
NOW IT'S THE LAW OF THE CASE.
SO WE'RE IN THE APPEAL PERIOD
NOW IF THEY APPEAL WE DON'T KNOW
NO ONE STOLE THE SECOND ONE IS
ON NOTICE THE PLO FILED UNLESS
YOU GUYS ARE TALKING TO THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY THERE.
ARE THE BAD BOY THAT'S TRYING TO
APPEAL IS GOING TO BE I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY THE STATUS OF
THAT COURT CASE BECAUSE I HAD
NOT HEARD THE WORD.
DECIDED.
REGARDING IT IN A IF IF BY JUST
ONE OF WANT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS
[inaudible] TO TWO WERE. TO
KNOW.
THAT AND I'M GONNA ASK MARK
RAKISH TO COMMENT ON THAT ASPECT
OF THIS THEN WE'LL GO TO THE
AMENDMENTS CENTER.
GO AHEAD.
COUNSEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M
MISTAKEN BUT AT THIS STAGE OF
THE PENDING LITIGATION.
THE TRIAL COURT THE SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE GRANTED -- DENIED
DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER SO -- A
DIMMER IS AN APPEALABLE THING IT
CAN BE APPEALED FOR THE CASE CAN
SIMPLY GO TO THE NEXT STEP OF
ONGOING LITIGATION WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE.
THE PRESENTATION EVENT IN
EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE
AT CETERA THE THE RULING THAT
WAS DESCRIBED AS FINAL IS.
REALLY THE FIRST STEP IN ANY
LITIGATION WHERE THE DEFENDANT
COMES IN AND SAYS I DON'T REALLY
CARE WHAT YOU ACCUSE ME OF EVEN
IF IT'S ALL TRUE DOESN'T AMOUNT
TO A HILL OF BEANS -- AND THE
JUDGE REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT ALL
OTHER ISSUES ARE NOT FINAL AND
CONTINUING IN PENDING LITIGATION
I SEE COUNSEL NODDING.
HER HEAD SO I BELIEVE I'VE
ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE THE STE
CURRENT STATUS OF THE PENDING
LITIGATION WILK CAN I JUST PUT A
FINER POINT MISTER CHAIRMAN
COULD THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT I THINK THAT'S
MISLEADING.
BECAUSE THERE'S TWO ISSUES IN
ANY CASE.
ISSUE NUMBER ONE IS DOES THE LAW
APPLY.
AND ISSUE NUMBER TWO OR ONE OF
THE FAX.
DID THEY DO WITH THEIR CLAIM TO
DO.
THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS
DOES THE LAW APPLY.
THIS BODY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY VIOLATED
WHAT HAPPENED WHAT WAS
REPRESENTED WHAT THE CONTRACT
SAYS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE BALLOT
JUST BY BOY BAIL INDUSTRY
BASICALLY SAID TO THE COURT?
YOU'RE SUING ME FOR THIS AND YOU
CAN'T SUE ME FOR THIS BECAUSE
THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING WE'RE
DISCUSSING HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE IS DOES THE LAW APPLY?
AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS A BODY
IS TO SAY WE THINK IN GIVING
GUIDANCE TO COURTS NOT
RETROACTIVITY THAT WE THINK IT
DOES APPLY WITH WITH HIS
DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW.
AND COURTS CAN MAKE WHATEVER
DETERMINATION THEY WANT TO MAKE
BUT FOR US TO JUST SIMPLY KNOW
THESE FACTS AND TO IGNORE THEM
TO ME IS TO TO TO THUMB YOUR
NOSE.
AT THE INJUSTICE THAT IS ALL
BEFORE IN FRONT OF OUR FACE AND
WE NEED TO RE COULD BE A FIRM
THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE LAW
AND AND THE FACT THAT THAT THAT
WAS THE DETERMINATION WHO CARES
WHAT THE FACTS ARE IN THE CASE
FOR PURPOSES WHAT'S MATTER.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE COURT SAID
THAT WHAT THE BAIL INDUSTRY IS
SAYING THAT WE ARE EXEMPT AND WE
DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT CONSUMERS?
IS JUST RIDICULOUS.
LET SIR.
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THESE POINTS AT
THIS POINT ELEVEN THEIR
OPPORTUNITIES TO ASK QUESTIONS
BUT ON THE STATUS OF THE THE
LEGAL CASE WHICH IS.
WHICH SENATOR HAS REFERENCED ANY
QUESTIONS ON THAT POINT.
ALL RIGHT AND NOW LET'S GO TO
THE AMENDMENTS THAT.
TO YOU -- YEAH I WAS LOOK AT IT
YOU WOULD TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE
AMENDMENTS A MEMBER THEY KNOW
AMENDMENT BE YES AMENDMENT SEE
NO.
ALRIGHT.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THAT [inaudible]
POINT.
SENATOR HERTZBERG -- WILL ACCEPT
[inaudible]
AMENDMENT BE. ONE OF THE THREE
THAT ARE PROPOSED.
I'D LIKE TO ASK -- OURS.
PAGE THREE PAGE THREE PAGE THREE
OF THE NOVEL FELL.
THE LAST GARCIA AND I'M ALSO
WILLING TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO
THE EXTENT IT AFFECTS THE
CHARITES.
JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR BECAUSE I
THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE I'M NOT
GOING AFTER INSURANCE COMPANIES
I KNOW INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE
TO PROTECT.
THEIR CUSTOMER AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS ENGAGED IN BAD
ACTIVITY BAD BOY BALES THIS BILL
DOES NOT APPLY TO INSURANCE
SCORE SURETIES.
I AM WILLING TO TAKE THAT
AMENDMENT BECAUSE I HAVE NO
INTENTION I HEARD THAT ARGUMENT
LAST NIGHT FOR THE FIRST TIME
AND I'M LIKE THAT'S NOT WITH
THIS BILLS ABOUT.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO I'M JUST TRYING TO DEAL
WITH THE RELATIONSHIP.
BETWEEN THE AGENT AND THE
CONSUMER AND MAKING SURE THEY
TAKE.
TREAT CONSUMERS FAIRLY AND THE
REASON THIS IS SO IMPORTANT FOR
CONSIDERATION FOR THE COURTS.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE'S PRE TRIAL DETENTION
WORKING GROUP THAT HERE'S THE
REAL REASON BECAUSE WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA
HAPPEN WITH BAYLOR NOT WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN WITH BAIL BUT WE
SAW THE PRE TRIAL DETENTION
REPORT THAT WAS DONE IN MAY TWO
THOUSAND SEVENTEEN BY A GROUP OF
JUDGES APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE SAID THIS.
THAT THERE'S ABOUT TWO HUNDRED
AND FIVE THOUSAND BILL CONTRACTS
A YEAR THAT ARE SIGNED IN
CALIFORNIA HOW MANY ARE
OUTSTANDING WE DON'T KNOW.
EVERYONE OF THOSE FAMILIES
EVERYONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.
IF YOU TAKE THE VIEW THAT WE'RE
NOT GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT
THAT THIS PROTECTION APPLIES TO
THEM COULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS
EXTRAORDINARY BEHAVIOR.
THE BAIL INDUSTRY HAS
TRANSFORMED FROM BEING THE DAYS
WHEN MY DAD USED TO GO AND BE A
JAILHOUSE LAWYER.
ND THEY GIVE THE QUICKLY IS ONE
OF HIS CLIENTS WOULD GIVE THE
CLERK TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS AND
COME BACK AND GET THE TWO
HUNDRED BUCKS BACK FROM THE
CLERK. TO A SOPHISTICATED
FINNCIAL INDUSTRY THAT IS LIKE
THE PREDATORY LENDING BUSINESS
WITH A HUGE FEES AND COSTS WE'VE
ALL HEARD THE ANECDOTAL STORIES
ABOUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF A
SMALL BAIL.
FEE TURNING INTO TENS AND
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT SO IF
THE BILL IS TO CONTINUES OR NOT.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT PROSPECTIVELY
WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO ALL THE
PEOPLE AS A BODY COURTS WILL
DECIDE WOOD COURTS WILL DECIDE
AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO
SO WE'RE NOT ACTING DIRECTOR
ACTIVITY.
THERE'S NO RETROACTIVITY
LANGUAGE HERE ALL WE'RE DOING IS
IS DECLARING THE WHAT THE LAW IS
WE'VE DONE IT A HUNDRED TIMES
BEFORE.
MY ADVICE FROM COUNSEL IS THAT
CLEARLY THAT IS JUST
CONSIDERATION TO THE COURTS I
READ YOU THE CASE AND WE'RE
TELLING THEM THIS IS WHAT WE
BELIEVE CHIU IT DO THE SAME BUT
WE'RE MAKING A STATEMENT.
AND I CAN'T SIT HERE AND EXCLUDE
THAT BECAUSE EVERYONE OF THOSE
PEOPLE EVERY DAY BUT THIS THING
DOESN'T GET PAST HIS LIVES BEING
AFFECTED BY UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE
WHO SAY.
THE BAIL WELL I MEAN THE THE
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS LAWS DON'T
APPLY TO US THAT IS THE PROBLEM
WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
MRS LEACH SON AND MRS ELITE ARE
CONTINUALLY ABUSE GOING FORWARD
ON A TWENTY EIGHT MONTH CONTRACT
IN ALL OF THESE VERY LONG
CONTRACTS THAT EXIST.
THE YEAR THE BILL AS PROPOSED --
WOULD WOULD BE EFFECTIVE -- IN
APPROXIMATELY FIVE MONTHS -- IF
IF IT'S A PASSES THE FINAL STEPS
AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR -- I
WANT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE
AWARE OF THAT.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO STAFF TO
COMMENT ON SENATOR HERTZBERG'S
ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENT BE.
BUT NOT A AND C..
WHAT HOW WILL THIS AFFECT
[inaudible]
YEAH.
CENTERS FOR IT I DO HAVE TO SAY
I I HEAR LOUD INTERIOR.
THE ARGUMENT THAT TEARS OVER
REACHING GOING ON BUT AS A
LAWYER LOOKING AT THE BILL I
SORT OF FEEL THE PROPONENTS.
WHO ARE LOOKING AT THESE
EXISTING STATUTES AND JUST SAY
WELL THEY?
THEY APPLY THEY'VE ALWAYS SUPPLY
I AS A LAWYER ACTUALLY FEEL
THAT'S AN OVER REACH.
SO.
I I DON'T THINK.
THE ONE ISSUE.
JUSTIFIES THE OTHER ISSUE.
SOI ACTUALLY AM IN FAVOR OF
THAT AMENDMENT A I PERSONALLY.
THE BAIL SYSTEM GOES BACK TO
ENGLAND SAXON TIMES.
IT IT IS A PART OF OUR NATION'S
FOUNDING [inaudible]
EIGHTH AMENDMENT.
THERE IS A YOU KNOW A MULLIN THE
AND A HALF OF LAW.
AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENT TIED UP TO
BAIL SYSTEM.
SO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE COME TO
A STATE OF AFFAIRS WHERE THIS.
SYSTEM WHICH IS SO CLOSELY
INTERTWINED WITH THE COURTS.
HAS BEEN TREATED AS SORT OF
SEPARATE AND APART.
DOES NOT SHOCK ME I DON'T THINK
IT'S AN ERROR.
I THINK IS ROOTED IN THE
EVOLUTION OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
[inaudible]
SO.
I'M WITH YOU I'VE OFTEN.
LOOK AT BILLS ANALYZE BILLS
COURSE I DID CONSULTING WORK
DECLARATORY LAW WE SEE IT ALL
THE TIME.
BUT ALWAYS RAISE THE QUESTION
FOR ME WHEN I LOOK AS LIKE IS IT
FAIRLY STATED.
IS IT JUST A NEW WANTS IS IT
SOME GRADATION I JUST DON'T
THINK THE WHOLESALE ADVOCATES
THE STATUTES CAN FAIRLY BE SAID
IS IS TO CHARACTERS ASSAULT THAT
THEY ALWAYS APPLIED.
AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY.
SO I AM.
I MEAN I'VE.
LOOK AT YOUR BILL.
CAREFULLY STORE JUST TO THAT
LEGAL LANDS.
HAVING DONE.
YOU KNOW.
BUT LOOK AT IT BILLS FOR A LONG
TIME AS YOU HAVE.
SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF SAY
BEFORE STAFF JUMPS IN GENERALLY.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO DASH. TO A A
SENATE COMMITTEE.
BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT
TODAY I'M.
I'M.
I THINK I I WOULD BE AND I AM
YOUR BILL OF THAT FIRST
AMENDMENT WAS TAKEN.
I DON'T THINK I'M AND I ON THE
BILL OF ITS NOT BECAUSE THAT'S
HOW I DO THE LAW.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU MISTER COOLEY.
AND OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WERE ALSO GONNA HEAR
FROM -- PAUL AND OR MARK
[inaudible]
GO AHEAD.
CALDERON MAJORITY LEADER I
APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE I WAS
IN OUR APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
AND WE HAD A LOT OF FOLKS WANT
TO SPEAK ON A BILL -- ONE OF
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
ISSUE FOR I'M THERE WITH YOU.
ON THE POLICY -- I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE RETROACTIVITY WE LOOK
AT RETRO ACTIVITY -- AT CERTAIN
TIMES IN THE LEGISLATURE WHEN IT
IS WARRANTED I KNOW THAT THEIR
SOME PENDING.
A PENDING COURT CASE AND DEALING
WITH THIS MY ONLY CONCERN BOUT
RETROACTIVITY IS.
IT YOU KNOW ONE ONE WHEN YOU
HAVE BUSINESSES OR INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE.
THAT ARE PLAYING BY CERTAIN SET
OF RULES IN THE LEGISLATURE
LATER COMES AND SAYS.
NO YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT PLAYING
BY CERTAIN SET OF RULES THAT
JUST THAT SET THE PRESIDENT A
STANDARD THAT IT MAKES ME.
UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE IT'S KIND
OF WHERE DOES THAT STOP YOU KNOW
HOW MANY TIMES A HOW MANY
DIFFERENT ISSUES CAN WE CONTINUE
TO DO THAT [inaudible]
AND I I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE STEPPING
IN APPLYING RETROACTIVITY TO THE
SPECIFIC ISSUE UNTIL THE COURTS
HAVE.
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
DECISION.
ON THAT IF THERE'S A LEGAL
ARGUMENT TO MAKE THAT LEGAL
ARGUMENT SHOULD BE MADE.
AND THE COURTS NOT NECESSARILY
BE BROUGHT OUT AND ESTABLISHED
HERE WHILE THERE IS PENDING
LITIGATION -- AND THIS IS MY
OPINION -- HOWEVER I I'M OUT OF
POSITION RIGHT NOW -- WHERE I
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE?
AND I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE ISSUE TO YOU -- I AGAIN
I'M THERE ON THE POLICY SO TODAY
I'M GONNA BE SUPPORTING YOUR
BILL.
HOWEVER THAT I DO ASK THAT YOU
CONSIDER SERIOUSLY.
WHY IS THIS ITEM MOVES TO THE
FLOOR -- THE ISSUE OF
RETROACTIVITY IN WHETHER OR NOT.
IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO LEAVE
THAT IN THERE TO FACE A
SITUATION ON THE FLOOR THE BILL
MIGHT NOT BE PASSED OKAY
SOMETHING BETTER THAN NOTHING SO
I JUST ASK THAT IF THIS BILL
DOES MAKE IT TO THE FLOOR.
WE CAN HAVE A FURTHER
CONVERSATION RETROACTIVITY AGAIN
I APOLOGIZE THAT I WASN'T HERE
TO HEAR YOUR ARGUMENTS.
AS TO WHY YOU BELIEVE THAT IT
RETROACTIVELY WAS IMPORTANT HAVE
IN THIS BILL -- BUT I JUST I
SAYS IS MOVED TO THE FLOOR WE
CAN FOR THE CONVERSATION ABOUT
AND I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO
ADDRESS IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT
ON THE FLOOR -- THAT IF IT DOES
IF I MOVE THERE WON'T HAVE THE
SUPPORT THAT IT NEEDS WITH THAT
AND THANK YOU SIR I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT I I'D BE HAPPY OFF
LINE.
I KNOW YOU IT WERE OTHERWISE
VISIONS TO MAJORITY LEADER AND I
I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE EVEN
BECAUSE AND ARE TOUGH THAT JOB
IS.
I I CAN ADDRESS IT BECAUSE ALL I
CAN SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT.
WE LOOKED AT THE LAW THE LAW AND
AND EVEN THOUGH THE OUR OTHER
SIDES ARGUING RETROACTIVITY WHEN
YOU DECLARE THE INTENT IT'S NOT
RETROACTIVITY THE ONLY WAY TO
GET A RECTOR ACTIVITY AT ALL
SURE THIS OTHER MEMBERS TO DRESS
THE SENSITIVITY.
IS IF YOU SAY THIS IS
RETROACTIVE A DECLARATION IS
ONLY ADVICE TO COURTS TO FOR
CONSIDERATION AND THEY CAN
LISTEN OR NOT LISTEN AND IT'S A
STATEMENT ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO
COMPORT OURSELVES ALSO ALLEGES
THAT WOULD YOU OFF LINE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO THIS ISSUE
SPOTTER BUT APPENDED VOICE SIR
THANK YOU SO KINDLY SENT OUT.
AN ARM OF THE BILL.
WE HAVE -- OTHER MEMBERS WHO
LIKE TO QUESTION MISTER VOEPEL
[inaudible]
I AM.
NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT I DO HAVE AN
INSURANCE BACKGROUND NOW IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING.
THAT THE BAIL BOND.
AND THE IMMIGRATION BONDS ART
INSURANCE PRODUCT [inaudible]
DID [inaudible]
THE PLAINTIFFS.
PUT IN A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
I HAVE NO IDEA.
I DON'T KNOW THE FACTS OF THAT I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORK ON THE
QUESTION IS THIS IS NOT ABOUT
THE INSURANCE PART THAT'S THE
IMPORTANT POINT.
IS A MISTER VOEPEL IT DIDN'T
SOME OF A TELL THEM THE ISSUE IS
I DON'T I I'M I'M SAYING I'M
EXEMPTING THEM I'M SAYING THAT
I'M TAKING AN AMENDMENT WHATEVER
I JUST SAID.
BUT I'M WILLING TO TAKE THAT
WOULD BASICALLY EXEMPT THE
INSURANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT
LOOKING AT THE INSURANCE PRODUCT
AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY
SPECIFICALLY IN THEIR CONTRACTS
SAY.
DON'T COME BACK TO US IF YOU
GUYS WANT A PAYMENT PLAN YOU DO
THAT THAT'S A FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENT ONCE YOU GET TO A
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT.
YOU GET OUT OF THE RANGE OF BAIL
INDUSTRY IT'S NOT A BAIL IT'S
JUST A TYPICAL CONSUMER.
CONTRACT FOR FINANCING LIKE YOUR
FINANCING REFRIGERATOR AT SEARS
UNDERSTOOD AG SO IT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH IT AND I SAID THIS
DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM SO I'M NOT
EVEN GOING THERE.
LET'S SEE I GO WITH THEIR
ARGUMENT BECAUSE THIS IS AN
INSURANCE PRODUCT IT IS UNDER
THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
AND THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
HAS TO UP STRINGENTLY APPROVED
VARIOUS CONTRACTS ANY CONSUMER
THE COMPLAINTS TO THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER ABOUT A CONTRACT.
LET ME TELL YA THOSE THAT HOLD
LICENSE THEY QUIVER IN THEIR
SHOES BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO
CALIFORNIA INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER COMING IN ON YOU.
SO.
MAYBE IT'S MY MIND SET FROM THE
INDUSTRY BUT I'M LOOKING AT THIS
AS PURELY AN INSURANCE PRODUCT.
AND INSURANCE PRODUCTS ARE NOT
CONSIDERED -- GOODS OR SERVICES
THIS IS THE FINANCIAL SERVICES
PRODUCTS.
BECAUSE THERE'S BRINGING PEOPLE
OUT OF JAIL.
AND THAT IS A MONEY MATTER
THAT'S THE LOGIC IN THE THE THE
BUILD BUSINESS SO.
CALM I WAS PROBABLY GOING AYE
AYE IN A START OKAY SAY ONE
THING SO NOW LET'S ASSUME THAT
THERE'S A HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS BAIL.
LET'S ASSUME THAT -- ABC BILL
COMPANY COMES IN AND GIVES BAD
BOY UP UP THE SURETY BOND FOR
THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
AND THEY CHARGE THE BILL BAD BOY
A THE TEN THOUSAND RPM IN THE
TRUCK AND TWENTY THREE BOX.
NOW BAD BOY GOES OUT AND GET IN
ON THE GUY THERE TO TAKE IT OUT
MISTER HERTZBERG ENABLE PAYMENT
PLAN WITH ME.
IF I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
PAYMENT PLAN WITH BAD BOY AND
THE I'VE I'VE BEHIND ON MY
PAYMENTS.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I SKIP.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COURT AND THE INSURANCE PRODUCT
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY THAT.
THE ONLY THING I CARE ABOUT IS
WHETHER MR HERTZBERG IS MAKING
pENGAGE IN BEHAVIOR AND HOW I CAN
BREAK DOWN PEOPLE'S DOORS IF
YOU'RE IT SAYS IN HIS CONTRACT
IF YOU'RE COHABITATING WITH
SOMEBODY.
ANYBODY WHO COULD CAPITATED YOU
AGREES TO BE SEARCHED IN SEASON
HAVE THEIR PROPERTY SEIZED I
MEAN IT'S JUST VIOLATIVE OF
EVERY PRINCIPLE AND SO I ONLY
CARE ABOUT THAT PIECE SO YOU'RE
RIGHT ABOUT THE INSURANCE
PRODUCT.
BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES
INVOLVED THIS IS ABOUT IT
FINANCIAL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT
BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE SO
EXPENSIVE AND WE SEE THAT SHIFT.
AND SO WHAT I RESPECT YOUR
EXPERIENCE IN THE LIKE I JUST
WANTED TO PUT THAT FINER POINT
IF IT'S HELP JUNE CONSIDERATION.
TRAFFIC.
ALL RIGHT -- MISTER COOPER.
WAS NEXT.
THEN -- IN ORDER TO OF AND THEN
MISTER MAYES SURE SENATOR
ACTUALLY COLLEAGUES ISSUES OR
CONCERNS REGARDING RETROACTIVITY.
AND I THINK THE THE Y. L. FROM
THE ROOM WOMEN DISCUSSING BILL
FOR WHAT A YEAR YEAR AND A HALF
NOW WE'VE HAD SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS.
AND IS STILL COMES BACK TO THE
REASON WHEN THIS DILEMMA IS
BECAUSE THE JUDGES.
YOU FIFTY EIGHT COUNTIES FIFTY A
DIFFERENT BILL SCHEDULES DOES
MEET EVERY TWO YEARS.
THE CHARGER ROBBERY ONE COUNTY
IT'S TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
ANOTHER COUNTY IS TO A THOUSAND
DOLLARS THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE
BIG ISSUE IS THE JUDGES YOUR
PROPONENTS NEVER TALKED ABOUT
THAT AND THAT'S A THE COMMUTE
EASILY REMEDIED.
SO THAT THAT'S MY FRUSTRATION
THIS IS A SEPARATE BILL BUT THE
JUDGES IN ABOUT TWO THOUSAND ONE
OR TWO THOUSAND EIGHT THE BILL'S
DOUBLE. FOR LOVE THE BILL
SCHEDULE BECAUSE THE JUDGES.
THE JUDGES HAVE WITH IN THIS
DILEMMA.
THAT'S NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN A
HAS IMAGE I NEVER HEARD IT
MISSED FROM ANYBODY'S MOUTH IN
THE PORT IS THE MATERIAL THEIR
EMAILS.
THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS AND THAT'S
YOU KNOW WE REALLY NEED TO START
WITH A LOWER THESE BILLS THROUGH
THE JUDGES.
BUT IF THE CALIPHATE IS
SCHEDULES THAT THAT'S INSANE.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU KNOW THAT MY
BIG ISSUE TODAY IS THE RETRO.
WELL I WAS SAYING IS THAT I JUST
WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR AND I'M
HAPPY TO SHARE THE LANGUAGE OF
THE COMMITTEE FROM LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL AND I CAN GIVE YOU
EXAMPLES OF BILLS WHICH THEY
GAVE ME.
AND BASICALLY.
IT'S NOT RETRO IT'S NOT RETRO.
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SAYS IF
IT'S GOING TO BE RETRO IT HAS TO
SAY THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY
RETROACTIVELY THERE'S NO WORDS
IN THE BILL THAT'S A RETRO.
THE COURT CASES THAT I SAID IF
YOU MENTION DISPOSITIVE AS JIMMY
GOMEZ DID IN HIS BILL INVOLVING
IMMIGRANT KIDS ARE I DIDN'T
REPRESENTING AND WORKING ON
BEHALF OF THE UP.
AND A BILL I DIDN'T TWO THOUSAND
ONE IN THE TRIAL LAWYERS SAID --
YOU'RE GOING RETRO HEAR THIS ALL
THE TIME.
THE ABILITY IS TO GIVE GUIDANCE
AS TO WHAT THE CURRENT INTENTION
THE LEGISLATURE IS THE COURTS
AND COURTS CAN JUST TAKE IN THE
CONSIDERATION DECIDE OR NOT.
AND TO ME WHEN THESE KINDS OF
ISSUES ARE BEFORE YOU BY NOT
MAKING A STATEMENT AS TO THE AND
JUSTICE YOU ARE MAKING A
STATEMENT WHEN YOU LET IT PASS
YOUR YOUR FEET AND YOU SAY I'M
NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING THAT'S
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
I'M SORRY I THINK WE'VE GOT A
RESPONSIBILITY THAT'S WHY I'M
DOING THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF
THE MANSON FAMILY TAKING ARE UP
TO AYE DOING TO AMENDMENTS ONE
IS THE TAKING AMENDMENT.
TO BE THE AND SECONDLY I'M HAPPY
TO TAKE IT AMENDMENT THAT SAID
WHAT I SAY THIS BILL DOES NOT
APPLY TO INSURANCE SLASH
SURETIES SO BUT THE ISSUE IS A
WIN FOR TO REMEMBER SPEAK ON THE
ISSUE OF RETROACTIVE I DON'T
BECAUSE IT'S OLD TO ME IT'S JUST.
VERY TAKING HIM ON THAT OR NOT
I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT BECAUSE
BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE.
I CAN'T SUPPORT IT OKAY CAN I
GET IT BUT IT'S JUST NOT TRUE
IT'S JUST A SCAM BECAUSE THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE TO
PROTECT THEIR BILL PEOPLE AND
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING I JUST
CALL IT AS I SEE IT.
I'M GONNA BE ASKING THE STAFF TO
COMMENT ON THAT VERY POINT --
BECAUSE VIEW SENATOR HERTZBERG
DISAGREE WITH THE LOGIC
RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT A YOU --
AND I WANT BUT I WANT TO GIVE
THE STAFF WHO WROTE THE ANALYSIS
A CHANCE TO COMMENT.
AND IF WITH I KNOW COUPLER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD QUESTIONS
BUT WE AYE AIRED I SHOULD HAVE
ALLOWED THE SUPPORTERS TO SPEAK.
AND GIVE THEM THEIR SHOT AND
THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM OPPONENTS
THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO
COMMITTEE ALL RIGHT.
OKAY -- SO.
SENATOR IF YOU WANT YOUR
WITNESSES TO WAIT TO WEIGH IN
THIS IS THEIR OPPORTUNITY GO
AHEAD.
FINALLY -- MY NAME IS DAN
AYKROYD ARNELLE I AM AN ATTORNEY
AT LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS IN SAN FRANCISCO -- OF
WHERE WE STARTED THE FIRST FREE
LEGAL SEAT SERVICES CLINIC TO
HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE BAIL BONDS
THAT AND ARE EXPERIENCING ALL
KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES IN THEIR
LIVES BECAUSE OF THAT DEBT.
AND WE HAVE COUNCIL OVER A
HUNDRED PEOPLE IN THE LAST YEAR
ON EXACTLY THESE ISSUES.
HELPING THEM UNDERSTAND BOTH
THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THESE
CONTRACTS BUT THEIR RIGHTS THEIR
CONSUMER RIGHTS IN A SITUATION
WHERE THEY ARE THE CONSUMER OF A
SERVICE SO.
I I HEAR ALL OF THE CONCERNS AND
WITH REGARDS TO THIS BEING ABOUT
INSURANCE.
IT'S NOT THE ONLY ASPECT OF
THESE TRANSACTIONS THAT HAVE
BETTER INSURANCE ARE BETWEEN THE
BAIL COMPANIES AND THE COURTS
BETWEEN THE BILL COMPANY AND OUR
CLIENTS IT'S A SERVICE THEY'RE
PAYING FOR THE SERVICE OF THEM
POSTING THAT SURELY BOND.
WITH THE COURT.
AND SO [inaudible]
I GUESS.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS REALLY THAT
IF WE'RE TAKING THE POSITION
THAT THESE LAWS DON'T APPLY
TODAY.
THEN WE'RE TAKING THE POSITION
THAT NO AGE AND SPECIFIC CONDUCT
THAT THESE CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAWS SEEK TO REGULATE.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE INSURANCE
REGULATIONS ARE ENTIRELY SILENT
ON MANY OF THESE ISSUES THEY SAY
NOTHING ABOUT THE FINANCING OF
THE PREMIUMS.
ARE PAYMENT PLANS OR DEBT
COLLECTION SO IF THESE LAWS OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS
DON'T APPLY.
THEN NO LAWS APPLY THAT'S WHAT
WILL THAT'S WHAT THIS MEANS IF
WE IF WE DON'T THINK THESE LAWS
APPLY RIGHT NOW.
BEEN THERE'S NOTHING THAT
REGULATES THOSE ACTIVITIES WITH
EIGHT WHICH THEY ROUTINELY
ENGAGE CHEN -- SO.
THEY WILL GET TO EXTEND CREDIT
WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY OF THE
LAWS THAT REGULATE THE EXTENSION
OF CREDIT ISN'T IT A ISN'T THAT
EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LITIGATING
IN COURT ARE THOSE POINTS.
THE ONE ISSUE IN THE ELITE CASE
IN THAT HAS ANY OVERLAP WITH
THIS BILL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
PAYMENT PLAN COULD BE CONSIDERED
TO BE.
A CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT.
BAD JUDGE FOUND.
THAT IT DOES BUT WE'RE NOT
LITIGATING WHETHER OR NOT FAIR
NEXT THAT COLLECTION PRACTICES
ACT SUPPLY OR THE CONSUMER LEGAL
REMEDIES ACT OR THE CONTRACT
TRANSLATION ACT.
I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE BAIL BOND INDUSTRY THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS ABOUT THEIR
NEED TO FOLLOW THESE LAWS WHEN
THEY PROVIDE SERVICES TO LOW
INCOME CONSUMERS AND THEY EXTEND
CREDIT TO THEM.
AND THEY JUST ROUTINELY TELL ME
THEY DON'T HAVE TO FALL THOSE
LAWS.
BUT THERE'S NO OTHER LAWS THAT
REGULATE THAT BEHAVIOR.
SO.
WITH THAT I'D I URGE AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
IN THE MORNING DANIEL CANDOR
KAISER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION CLICK.
WE ARE ALL THE ALSO THE CO
SPONSORS OF THE BILL.
OUR OUR MEMBERS ARE MORE THAN A
DOZEN LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND WE WORK
WITH THOUSANDS OF LOW INCOME
CONSUMERS EVERY YEAR.
AND FAR TOO MANY OF OUR CLIENTS
HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES THE BAIL
BOND INDUSTRY -- THIS IS AN
INDUSTRY THAT SEEMS TO BELIEVE
THAT IT DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW.
THE RULES THAT EVERY OTHER
BUSINESS IN THE STATE NEEDS TO
FOLLOW -- SB. THREE EIGHTEEN OZ
THE SENATOR SAID IS NOT A RETRO
ACTIVE BILL -- I WISH THAT THIS
BILL WERE NOT NECESSARY IF THE
BILL BONDS COMPANIES WERE
ENGAGING IN BEHAVIOR THAT WAS
ILLEGAL.
THAT IS YOU THEY ARE ENGAGING IN
ILLEGAL CURRENT CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAW BEHAVIOR.
AND IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE THE
BILL WOULD NOT BE NEEDED IF THE
BOND COMPANIES WEREN'T CALLING
CONSUMERS AT ALL HOURS OF THE
NIGHT TO COLLECT DEBTS OR
NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS IN SPANISH.
BUT PROVIDING DIFFERENT TERMS IN
WRITTEN ENGLISH VERSION OR
REPRESENTING THE SERVICES TO
PROVIDE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH A SPELL.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH THIS BILL THE CLEAREST SIGN
THAT THE BILL IS NECESSARY IS
HOW HARD THE COMPANIES ARE
FIGHTING IT.
THIS IS A CLARIFICATION OF
EXISTING LAW WE URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND LET'S GO
TO THE AUDIENCE OTHER.
PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
JUST YOUR NAME AND YOUR POSITION
PLEASE MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS MIKE A DOCTOR OFF ON
BEHALF OF THE ACLU OF
CALIFORNIANS STRONG SUPPORT.
FOLLOWING WITH A ASIAN AMERICANS
ADVANCING JUSTICE CALIFORNIA AND
WE SUPPORT.
THE MORNING DEEPENING AGNETHA
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY
CENTER IN STRONG SUPPORT.
I KNOW YOU'RE A SCHOOL WHICH
ALLOWED THE COALITION FOR HUMANE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR [inaudible]
OF THEN LET'S GO TO OPPONENTS.
OF THE BILL.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN
[inaudible]
SO THESE.
THE OTHER TWO GENTLEMAN.
WE'LL BE HERE AT THE TABLE AND
THEN -- OR LOOKS LIKE A THIRD.
AND THEN WILL.
OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE
ELSE TO ADD ON AS AN OPPOSE.
GO AHEAD SIR MARK SEGMENT WITH
THE AMERICAN PROPERTY CASH
ANSWERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
SHIRT INFIDELITY ASSOCIATION --
I ALWAYS HATE TO OPPOSE A
HERTZBERG BILL BECAUSE I FIND IT
TO BE AN EXHAUSTING EXPERIENCE --
BUT LIKELY HE DOESN'T HAVE MY
CELL PHONE NUMBER SO WE COULD
NOT CALLED ME AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK
LAST NIGHT -- I THINK THE DEBATE
THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS HAD IN
THE DEBATE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE
LEGISLATURE I THINK IT'S VERY
CLEAR WHAT WE HAVE WE HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL GOING
FORWARD IF THESE ARE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
IMPOSED ON THEIR CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS THAT SHOULD BE.
IMPOSED.
AND THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
CONSIDER EACH ONE OF THEM
INDIVIDUALLY AS TO WHETHER NOT
THEY ARE APPROPRIATE WE DO
HOWEVER HAVE A HUGE ISSUE WITH
THE LANGUAGE THAT WE BELIEVE.
MAKES THIS RETROACTIVE BECAUSE
IF THE LAW PASSES ON JANUARY
FIRST TWENTY TWENTY AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE.
THAN ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED
BEFORE THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE
COMPLIED WITH THE LAWS THAT
NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT ARE
THERE.
THAT'S WHY WE FEELS RETROACTIVE
AS YOU KNOW.
BOTH THE SURETIES SIDE OF IT AND
THE BAILEY TO SIDE OF IT IS
HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE.
I USED TO LOVE THE DAVE JONES
USED TO BRAG THAT THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CHARTS WAS THE
LARGEST CONSUMER PROTECTION
AGENCY IN THE WORLD.
THEY HAVE NEVER IMPOSE THESE
REQUIREMENTS A BAIL AGENTS
BECAUSE I BELIEVE I'M NOT SPEAK
FOR THEM BUT I BELIEVE THEY
DON'T PUT THINK FACING SUPPLIES
SO.
IF THESE CONSERVE REDUCTIONS ARE
NECESSARY IN A BAIL CONTENTS
THAT'S FINE GOING FORWARD WE
MIGHT NEED A LITTLE DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION DATE SURE THAT
EVERYBODY HAS THE PROPER FORMS.
AND EVERYTHING THAT IS CORRECTLY
BUT TO INTERJECT.
THESE REQUIREMENTS AND MAKE THEM
IN ESSENCE RETROACTIVE SPECIALLY
WAS THE AS THE COMMITTEE HAS
NOTED THERE ARE SEVERAL PENDING
COURT CASES.
JUST DOES NOT SEEM TO BE
APPROPRIATE THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT A NEXT.
TO WITNESS.
MY NAME IS -- JOHN LARA BY MEN
ATTORNEY I'VE WORKED IN THE
DEFENDING BOTH BAIL AGENTS
CHARITIE AND TO THE INDEMNITY --
IS FOR TWENTY FIVE YEARS AND
COURT CASES REGARDING BAIL
FORFEITURES AND WHAT I THINK IS
OFTEN MISSED WHENEVER -- THIS --
MATTERS ARE LOOK AT IS THAT THE
ONLY WAY THE BAIL AGENTS OR
EFFECTIVE IS BEING COOPERATING
WITH THE INDEMNITY.
THE JOB THAT THEY'RE GIVEN IS TO
MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT GOES TO
COURT AND AND THE WAY THE BAY
ALLEGIANCE TO THAT IS THAT THERE.
DALY AGENT AND THE FAMILY ARE
BOTH OBLIGATED TO PAY A PENALTY
IF THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO GO TO
COURT AND THAT CAUSES BOTH THE
BAIL AGENT IN THE INDEMNITY --
TO BE IN A COOPERATIVE POSITION
TO GET THE DEFENDANTS TO COURT
AND THAT'S WHY BAIL BRING SO
MANY PEOPLE BACK -- IS THAT
COOPERATION THAT THEY HAVE IN
THE RELATIONSHIP NOW WHAT'S
HAPPENED AS BEEN DISCUSSED
EARLIER IS THAT THE BAIL RATES
HAVE BEEN INCREASED DRAMATICALLY.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE NEED TO
TO FINANCE THE PREMIUMS BAIL
AGENTS DON'T WANT TO FINANCE
PREMIUMS BAIL AGENTS HAVE ALWAYS
WHEN I STARTED IN THE EARLY
NINETIES CERTAINLY.
THEY GOT PAID THEIR PREMIUMS AND
THEN THEY WORRIED ABOUT TRYING
TO SECURE THE PENALTY IF THE
DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR.
BUT AS THE BAIL SCHEDULES OF
CONTINUE TO INCREASE PEOPLE
SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES TO PAY THESE PREMIUMS
AND THEREFORE THEY'VE HAD TO
COME UP WITH A FINANCING.
NOW AT THIS POINT THAT PROCESS
OF SETTING BAIL IS ALREADY BEEN
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE
STATE COURTS BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS AND BY AND AND ADMITTED
BUYER LAST TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S.
THAT PROCESS THE INJUNCTION IN
SAN FRANCISCO AGAINST THE
IMPOSITION OF AS THE FEDERAL
COURT FOUND PUTTING RANDOM
NUMBERS NEXT PENAL CODE SECTIONS
IS IS ALREADY UNDER WAY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WHEN THE WHEN
THAT IS RESOLVE THE AMOUNTS OF
BAIL WILL GO BACK TO A NORMAL
AMOUNT AND OF THE THE FINANCING
AND OTHER ISSUES.
ARE SIMPLY UNNECESSARY THE
SYSTEM THAT -- MISTER HERTZBERG.
RIFF Là REPLIED TO WITH HIS
FATHER WHERE YOU WOULD JUST POST
THE TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS -- I
DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL GET BACK
TO THAT BUT THE COURTS CAN ONLY
IMPOSE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
BAIL NECESSARY TO SIR LEGITIMATE
GOVERNMENT PURPOSES.
AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING
THAT STANDARD AND WHEN THEY DO A
LOT OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE SIMPLY
GOING TO DISAPPEAR.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN
CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP OF JUST
THE BAIL AGENTS AND TO THE
CONSUMER BAIL AGENTS CAN ONLY
WORK AS REPRESENTATIVES OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES UNDER
INSURANCE CODE SECTION. EIGHTEEN
HUNDRED AND THAT'S BEEN THE
CONSISTENT LAW THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT SINCE IN THE
NINETEEN FIFTIES AND THE GROWS
VERSE LOS ANGELES DECISION SO
THERE YOU YOU THAT THE IDEA OF
SEPARATING THESE TWO ENTITIES IS
NOT POSSIBLE THEY ARE THE SAME
ENTITY -- THE YEAH AND AND YOU
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND -- IN THE THE
CONTEXT OF THE BAIL CONTRACT IS
CUSTODIAL THE DEFENDANTS ARE ARE
BEING RELEASED FROM.
CUSTODY NOT ENOUGH OF THEM QUITE
FRANKLY THEY SHOULD BE MORE
RELEASE AND SO SOME OF THE THE
THE THE OBJECTIONS THAT MR
HERTZBERG CAST ON THE CUSTODIAL
NATURE OF SOME OF THESE
CONTRACTS.
THAT'S THE NECESSARY AT IT HELPS
THE INDEMNITY -- WHAT THE
INDEMNITY -- HAS TO AVOID
AMONGST ALL THINGS IS HAVING TO
PAY THE FORFEITURE FOR THE
DEFENDANT TO FAILING TO APPEAR.
AND THAT WHAT THAT RELATIONSHIP
IS THE CORE OF THE BAIL
AGREEMENT I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE BAILEY CHEN
INDEMNITY -- RELATIONSHIP
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT IS THE
REAL REASON THE BAILIFF SO
EFFECTIVE AT ITS THAT
COOPERATION BETWEEN BAIL AGENTS
ON THE INDEMNITY.
IN.
VERY MUCH THE THE IT'S VERY
CULTURALLY ORIENTED THE YOU TEND
TO HAVE BAIL AGENTS WORKING
WITHIN THEIR OWN CULTURES SO
THAT THEY DO UNDERSTAND.
AND THAT THE THE THE PROBLEMS
THAT -- HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN
RELATION TO THE CONSUMERS HAVE
TO DO WITH TRYING BOTH THE BAIL
AGENTS AND THE CONSUMERS TRYING
TO COMPLY WITH EXCESSIVE BAIL
THAT'S BEEN SET WITH THE COURTS
THANK YOU SIR FOR THAT.
INSIDE THE NEXT GO AHEAD SIR --
MIKE WHAT LUCK WITH AMERICAN
SURE TO COMPANY WERE ADMITTED
CARRIER YEAH IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I'M REALLY HERE FOR QUESTIONS
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT OUR OUR
FORMS ALL FORMS -- USED BY.
AGENT REPRESENTATIVES OF SURE TO
COMPANY ARE APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE.
EVERY AGENTS WHEN THEY'RE
APPOINTED THEY SIGNED A DOCUMENT
THAT SAYS I WILL USE THESE FORMS
ARE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT
INSURANCE SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE
WITH THE FORMS BEING USED BY
BILL AGENTS.
IN MY MIND THAT SHOULD BE IT IS
TO ADDRESS WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF INSURANCE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT THOSE -- FORMS
NEED TO BE CHANGED.
THANK YOU SIR -- IN.
WE'LL BE AVAILABLE -- TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS
OTHER PERSONS AGAINST THE BILL
GO AHEAD GOOD MORNING MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MANY CAPPING
LUNCH REPRESENTING GOLDEN STATE
BAIL AGENTS ASSOCIATION -- WERE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL AS
CURRENTLY DRAFTED WE WOULD BE
OKAY WITH THIS BILL BEING
PROSPECTIVE INCLUDING THOSE
LANGUAGES GOING FORWARD THANK
YOU.
WHEN IT WAS TERRIBLE BUT A
LITTLE BIT AVAIL AGENT FOR
THIRTY SIX YEARS MY FATHER GREG
PUT A LOT -- FOR FORTY I AM
AVAIL AGENT AND I AM THE
FURTHEST THING FROM A PREDATORY
LENDER.
WE WORK WITH FAMILIES WE WORK
THE DEFENDANTS TO GET PEOPLE OUT
OF JAIL SO THE WHOLE CONNOTATION
OF WHAT IS BEING REPRESENTED
HERE MAY BE REPRESENTATIVE OF
ONE CASE.
MAYBE TWO BUT THE FACT OF MATTER
AS IS ALLUDED TO EARLIER.
OUR INDUSTRY IS AN EFFECTIVE
INDUSTRY WE WORK WITH PEOPLE IN
THEIR FINANCIAL NEEDS SO I I DO
FIND GREAT.
FAULT IN THE ARGUMENT BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE IN THE OTHER
COMMITTEE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THIS HE
ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS NICE
BETWEEN SO I DO FIND GREAT FAULT
AND THE ARGUMENT IS BEING
PRESENTED TO THIS COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU SIR OTHER PERSONS
WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE
BILL.
I GUESS MY NAME IS GLORIA
MITCHELL -- MY OWN GLORY
MITCHELL BILL ONES I AM A SECOND
GENERATION AND MY FAMILY HAS
ALWAYS BEEN -- THEY'RE WILLING
TO ASSIST AND HELP ALL --
CLIENTS THAT COME IN AND GUIDE
THEM TO MAYBE EVEN A MORE
APPROPRIATE A DECISION IN BEFORE
MAKING THAT FINAL DECISION TO DO
BAIL.
I AM ALSO HERE REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA BAILEY GINS
ASSOCIATION AS OUR PRESIDENT AND
THAT WE STRONGLY OPPOSE.
AND HOPEFULLY SOME CHANGES COULD
BE MADE THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING -- I'M NOT OPPOSING
IT AS IT IS PRESENTED HERE --
I'M A A MOM AND POP.
OF STORE OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO.
AND THE LITIGATION THAT HAS BEEN --
IT HELD OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO THE
BAIL SCHEDULE WILK SILENTLY ALL
OF A SUDDEN ABOUT THREE MONTHS
AGO.
THE BAIL SCHEDULE DROPPED TO
ABOUT ONE THIRD SO THERE IS.
A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FINANCING
THAT HAS TO BE DONE AND IT'S NOT
A LOT OF HIGH HIGH BILLS AS IF
YOU COULD ADDRESS THE BILL
PLEASE AND THANK YOU.
SO YOU'RE AGAINST THE BILL JUST
TO CLARIFY I I USE THAT OPPOSED
THANK YOU GOOD THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL.
IF THERE COULD I MAKE ONE MORE
POINT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK NOW TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND PLEASE
GO AHEAD SIR IF YOU HAVE A POINT
I KEEP HEARING THE WORD
FINANCING WITH RELATED TO
PREMIUM REALLY AGENTS ARE NOT
ALLOWED FINANCING INDICATES --
ISN'T PRESENT AND AGENTS
CHARGING INTEREST ON THE BALLOT
SEWING AND THERE IS NO INTEREST
ON THE BALLOT SO IN PLEASE BILL
ONE FRAME INTO A SET HIM UP ON
PAYMENT TERMS.
THE ONLY TIME INTEREST REALLY
COMES INTO PLAY IS A BIG
DEFAULTED ON THE PAYMENT TERMS
THEY'VE GONE TO COURT ATTAINED A
JUDGMENT AND THE WHICH THEY CAN
CHARGE INTEREST AT THAT POINT SO
THERE IS NO INTEREST CHARGES.
CAN PAYMENT PLANS ON BUILT ON
PRESENT YOU SIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS -- Là
MISS COMMA GRID OF YOU WERE NEXT
IN THE QUEUE -- I WANTED TO
EARLIER JUST -- APPLAUD SENATOR
HERTZBERG FOR HIS -- SB ANNEKE
BACKBONE AS IT RELATES TO THIS --
ISSUE AND THIS BILL I AM -- I'VE
ENJOYED THIS CONVERSATION QUITE
THOROUGHLY.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I WILL BE --
SUPPORTING THIS -- BILL I THINK
THERE ARE LEGAL KIND OF
CONVERSATIONS AND DECISIONS AND
THERE ARE POLICY CONVERSATIONS
AND DECISIONS.
AND I AM CERTAINLY LOOKING AT
THIS THROUGH A POLICY LANDS -- I
ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS PART
OF YOU KNOW THE LARGER ARMADA
THAT YOU ARE LEADING -- IN THE
EFFORT TOWARDS BAIL REFORM INTO
HAVING A MORE EQUITABLE
CONVERSATION AS IT RELATES TO
YOU KNOW FINANCING -- THE
FREEDOM OF DEFENDANTS AND KIND
OF HOW WE PLACE THAT IN THE
LARGER CONVERSATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
IS IMPORTANT THIS MAY BE A
DOLLAR PART OF THAT LARGER
CONVERSATION BUT I DO BELIEVE
THAT IT'S IMPORTANT.
IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE LEGAL
ATTACKS.
LET THEM COME THAT IS WHY WE
HAVE A COURT SYSTEM THAT IS WHY
WE HAVE A STATE SUPREME COURT --
I AM SURE THAT THIS WILL NOT BE
THE INDUSTRY'S LAST BITE AT THIS
APPLE AND QUITE FRANKLY NOR
SHOULD IT BE THERE IS SO MUCH
MONEY.
EMBEDDED IN THIS INDUSTRY THAT
YOU SHOULDN'T STOP YOU SHOULD
NOT STOP ATTACKING THE INTEGRITY
AND THE ARGUMENTS IN THE BILL.
IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT IN THIS MOMENT IN
TIME BAIL BONDSMAN'S IN THE
AGENCIES IN THE INDUSTRIES DO
PLAY A ROLE THAT FOLKS DO STILL
NEED.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE
STATUS QUO IS WORKING FOR
EVERYONE AND TO A LARGE EXTENT
IT IS THEREFORE A CERTAIN
SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION.
THE JAMELLE AS THE REFUSE THE
HOBBY YEARS THE MISTER AND MRS
JONES SAYS MANY OF WHOM ARE
FOLKS THAT I KNOW.
I AM APPLAUDING YOUR PERSISTENCE
I THINK THERE CAN BE SOME YOU
KNOW ADDITIONAL TWEAKS I WOULD
LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION
WHY YOU'RE ADDED AMENDMENT OF
SORT OF CLARIFYING THAT THIS IS
NOT -- INVOLVING OR DOES NOT.
APPLY DO NOT TRY TO THE
INSURANCE AGENCIES IS ON
REASONABLE.
AND IF IT IS EITHER ON CLEAR OR
NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH -- IF
BECAUSE I'D FEEL LIKE MAYBE I
MISSED THE RESPONSE TO THAT --
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT -- I
WILL BE -- SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
THANK YOU A COMMITTEE MEMBERS
OTHER QUESTIONS.
ON THE SUBJECT MISTER GRAYSON DO
HAVE SOMETHING A YES I DO AND
JUST.
TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME --
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE BILL IS
NOT RETROACTIVE.
YES SIR IS IT POSSIBLE THEN --
TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH
SOMETHING WITHOUT SAYING.
IN OTHER WORDS CAN YOU WORD
THINGS IN A WAY THAT MAKE IT DO
THINGS THAT YOU DIDN'T COME
RIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT IT DOES
SURE.
ALL RIGHT I GOT A LOT TO DO THAT
A LOT OF YOUR ALL RIGHT -- SO I
JUST WANTED TO GO THERE I I DID
WANT TO ASK OF ONE OF YOUR
WITNESSES WHO HAD SAID THAT THEY
HAD HEARD SO OR THAT YOU WOULD
HELP OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE.
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME -- IF YOU
AS THE COURT AND THE JUDGE
RULING IN YOUR FAVOR AND THE
MAJORITY OF THOSE CASES.
SO TO BE CLEAR I LIKE THIS PART
OF MY JOB A LOT MORE THAN THE
COURT PART AND I DO NOT -- CAM
HAD WANDERED LITIGATE ANYTHING
RIGHT AND SO FOR THE BESIDES THE
CASE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN
DISCUSSED WHICH ACTUALLY STARTED
BECAUSE BAD BOYS BAIL BOND SUIT
ON THAT THAT WE DID NOT BRING
THAT CASE. TO A RICH ORIGINALLY --
I HAVE NOT FILED ANY OTHER CASE
AS WE HELP LOW INCOME CONSUMERS
WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
ATTORNEY IS WE SEND DEMAND
LETTERS TO BAIL BONDS INFORMING
THEM THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THEY
VIOLATED ALL OF THESE LAWS.
THEY GENERALLY.
CHOOSE TO SETTLE WITH US AND WE
DON'T WE'VE NEVER FILED ANYTHING
IN A COURT AFFIRMATIVE WAY OKAY
TO BEGIN WITH -- BUT THEN BUT
THEY RESPOND EVERY SINGLE TIME
SAYING THAT THESE LAWS DON'T
APPLY TO THEM.
OKAY I DO WANT TO SAY.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN INTEREST BEING
CHARGED SO I AGREE THE FINANCING
BUT THEY DO REFER TO IT AS
CREDIT BAIL.
SO IT IS THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU YOU ARE A HUMAN ERROR
OF OTHER QUESTIONS GO AHEAD IF I
MAY GO AHEAD -- INTO IT
INTERESTING THANK YOU FOR
HELPING MY PERSPECTIVE THERE IN
THE MOST RECENT COURT CASE THE
WORLD OF THAT WE ALL THAT HAS
BEEN MADE REFERENCE -- TO THE
JUDGE DID MAKE A RULING WAS THAT
RULING IN FAVOR OF YOUR CASE.
IN THE MIKE YEAH A LOT OF THE
THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THE PREMIUM.
FINANCING AGREEMENT THE CREDIT
BAIL AGREEMENT WAS A CONSUMER
CREDIT CONTRACT SO IS IT FAIR TO
SAY THAT THE THAT.
THE JUDGE -- IS SEEING THE
INTENT OF EXISTING LAW AND MADE
A RULING.
IN FAVOR OF WHAT MAYBE THIS BILL
IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN A
RETROACTIVE WAY.
THE JUDGE OF THE THE THE LAW WAS
CLEAR BUT THE POINT IS EVEN
THOUGH THE LAW IS CLEAR IF YOU
LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW PROHIBITS
AND YOU LOOK AT THE ACTIONS OF
THE BAIL BONDS INDUSTRY.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY ARE
VIOLATING THE LAWS WITH THE
SPECIFIC CONTACT WE'RE NOT
SAYING THAT THEY'VE ALWAYS
ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT SO
RETROACTIVITY IS NOT.
A PART OF THE DISCUSSION BUT
WHEN THEY ENGAGE IN SPECIFIC
CONDUCT THAT THESE LAWS
[inaudible]
OUTLAW.
BAY ARE SUBJECT TO THOSE LAWS
WHICH IS WHAT THE JUDGE SAID BUT
THE THE POINT IS THAT THE BAIL
BONDS INDUSTRY IS SAYING THAT
THE LAWS DON'T APPLY TO THEM.
ALRIGHT SO AS CENTER HERTZBERG --
IF I MAY ADD JUST AND I'LL TRY
TO WRAP IT UP HERE I KNOW TIME
IS OF THE ESSENCE -- CENTER
HERTZBERG.
IS THERE OF A POSSIBLE WAY
BECAUSE WE'RE HEARING
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WE'RE
HEARING YOU CLEARLY CLEARLY SAY.
THAT -- IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE
THAT LEAD COUNSEL ACTUALLY SAYS
THAT IN ORDER FOR TO BE
RETROACTIVE YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY
USE THE WORD DIRECTIVE AND THE
WORD CORRECT RESTAURANT IN YOUR
BILL.
SO WE HEAR THAT BEING SAID WE
ALSO HEAR OTHERS THAT ARE
TESTIFYING -- THAT -- THE THE
WORDING ITSELF IS IS MAKING IT
RETROACTIVE S THERE ANY WAY IF
THE COURTS ARE ALREADY SEEING IT.
THE WAY YOU'RE WANTING TO TO
MOVE THIS BILL FORD IS THERE
ANYWAY WE WE WE COULD DRAW A
LINE IN THE SAND.
AND MOVE YOUR EFFORTS GOING
FORWARD -- AND THEN LET THAT BE
THE MESSAGE.
TO JUDGES AND COURT CASES.
SAYING BY CODIFYING WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO IN LAW SAYING THIS
IS WHAT.
SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE WHOLE TIME.
AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CODIFYING
AS WE BELIEVE HAS EXISTED THE
WHOLE TIME YUP I COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH YOU I COMPLETELY
AGREE WITH GOOD SOUL HOWEVER TO
MAKE A COMMENT LET ME CHECK ONE
OF THE FOR THE FIGHT I'M HAVING
AND WHY I'M.
HERE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A
POLICY QUESTION THIS IS A
POLITICAL QUESTION.
THIS IS A BUSINESS QUESTION THIS
IS THE INSURANCE FOLKS WHO I'M
WILLING TO EXEMPT HAVE TO ALIGN
WITH THEIR CUSTOMERS.
THISIS GOOD PEOPLE COMING TO
TESTIFY THAT SAYS WE DON'T
ENGAGE IN THIS BEHAVIOR BUT YOU
HAVE BAD BOY PEOPLE FILING
DOCUMENTS SAYING THIS DOESN'T
APPLY.
YOU HAVE INDUSTRIES OF CONTRACTS
AND SO WHAT WHAT WE DO THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW I IS NEVER TO
HELP THE PEOPLE WHO ALWAYS DO
THE GOOD STUFF.
THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE
GOOD IT'S TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE
BAD STUFF LET ME JUST SHARE WITH
YOU AS TO WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
GET SPECIFIC TO THIS IS A
SEVENTEEN PAGE ANALYSIS.
IT PASSED OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TEN ZERO TWO
NOT VOTING OKAY.
IT YOU'RE NOW SAYS THREE PAGES
THAT ONE PAGE THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS THIS IS SEVENTEEN
PAGES THEY WANT A BUNCH OF SMART
LAWYERS WENT THROUGH ALL THE
ARGUMENTS THAT WERE MADE AND
SAID THIS IS BOGUS.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN OUR
BUSINESS THE GROUPS COME IN ALL
THE TIME TO PULL THE WOOL OVER
OUR EYES THEY COME UP WITH FANCY
WORDS THAT HAVE NO APPLICATION.
THAT MEAN NOTHING SO I'M TELLING
YOU YES I CAN WRITE IT BUT
THEY'RE GOING TO OBJECT TO IT
BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO PLAY
IT BOTH WAYS ON THE ONE HAND
THEY'RE TELLING US WE'RE GOOD
PEOPLE.
GREAT DOLLARS REPLIED YOU ON THE
OTHER HAND THE FILED DOCUMENTS
OTHERS JUST DOESN'T APPLY AND
PLAY THE DUPLICITOUS GAME
BECAUSE THEY WALK IN THIS
BUILDING.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS SO I
COULD DRAFT THAT I GUARANTEE YOU
BUT WHEN I DO IT BECAUSE LIKE I
TOOK OUT ALL THE INTENT LANGUAGE
THE STUFF I'M TAKING THAT IS A
STICKING A FINGER IN THE EYE THE
BILL MYSTERY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THIS COMMITTEE DOES TO ME EVERY.
TIME DON'T SAY ANYTHING BAD
ABOUT THE BILL INDUSTRY AND THEY
MAKE ME DO IT LAST YEAR THE
DOING IT NOW.
GREAT.
I COULD WRITE THAT YOU'RE RIGHT
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU WON'T GET
ACCEPTED BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT
WE'RE DISCUSSING.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE SO I AM IS
A TRUE ANNA MISTER CHAIR ALL IN
BUT THIS I DO SHARE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
WHY A STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR.
WOULD NOT WORK WHEN IT COMES --
TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT NOT
INVOLVING THE INSURERS OR THE
BILLS AND FOR THE ASSURE ANY
GROUPS OF BECAUSE THE STATE WAS
MADE YOU CAN'T SEPARATE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO
SOME OF OUR GREAT AND WE DON'T
WE THINK THAT THE RELATIONSHIP
AS IT IS WITH ANY INSURANCE
INDUSTRY.
AGENT AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY
THEY WORK FOR ITS TWO
INTERRELATED TO SEPARATE ONE
FROM THE OTHER.
BUT IF YOU SAY IT'S NOT AN APPLY
TO YOU IT MAY BE IN A RELATED
BUT YOU JUST ARE OUT OF THE DEAL.
THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE A
COMMERCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
CUSTOMER WHO'S THE BELLY CHEN
AND YOU GOT TO PROTECT WHICH I
UNDERSTAND I'M NOT OFFENDED BY
IT.
BUT I JUST THINK IT'S AN HONEST
ANALYSIS.
MISTER COOPER HAS ANOTHER POINT
WANTS TO MAKE AND THEN WE'LL GO
TO MR MAYES JR IS NEVER THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE NEVER STUCK MY
FINGER IN YOUR EYE CENTER WHICH
YOU KNOW THAT.
AND I THINK ALSO IF IT'S NOT
CLEAR AND TO FIND A POLICY USERS
OKAY.
IT'S A BIT TOO INTERPRETATION
THAT'S WE BIG ISSUE WITH THESE
LAWS WE PATH WORK IS NOT CLEARLY
DEFINED.
HE WAS MAKE.
CRAP UP.
IN THEIR OWN WAY AND JUDGES SO
MY BIG ISSUE IS KEEPING OVER
OVER AGAIN IS NOT REDFIELD AND
SPELL IT OUT AND THAT'S
ULTIMATELY COMES DOWN TO JUST
BUILD OUT YOU'RE NOT.
AND IN IN THE FORM IT IS THIS
SOLUTION TO PETITION BY JUDGES
AND LAWYERS.
SO -- MR CHU I THINK HAS TO
LEAVE SO HE WANTS TO MAKE A
QUICK COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO
TO MR MAYES THANK YOU.
THE TECHNICIAN THANK YOU VERY
MUCH -- MISTER CHAIR OF THE
WALLACE THANK THE CENTER
HERTZBERG FOR BRINGING THIS UP --
FOR I'M VERY CUMMINS -- THAT
NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM MALIK
THIS LAW TO BE READ RETROACTIVE.
AND MR HERTZBERG.
I AM VERY CONVINCED THAT --
THOUGH WHAT WAS THIS BILL MOVE
FULL WERE DEAD YOU MORE WORK
PLEASE STAY OPPOSITION TO MAKE
IT CLEAR TO TO EVERYBODY THAT.
WAS IN YOUR INTENT.
AND THIS BILL TO TO MAKE IT
RETROACTIVE AND ALSO I WOULD
JUST LIKE TO SAY.
I REALLY REALLY LOVE YOUR THE
THAT THE STATE WOULD REQUIRE THE
TRANSLATION THE LANGUAGE OF
SENSIBILITY.
IN THIS BILL SO -- I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU.
MR CHIU MISTER MAYES HAS BEEN
WAITING PATIENTLY PLEASE GO
AHEAD -- THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR --
IT.
AS WORD MOVING -- FOR WITH THIS --
I'VE ACTUALLY REALLY DO ENJOY
THIS DEBATE FACT I THINK THAT
THIS IS THE WAY THAT COMMITTEES
SHOULD BE -- I REALLY DO BELIEVE
THAT THANK YOU MISTER -- OF
COURSE I'VE GOT A GREAT
AFFECTION FOR THE AUTHOR HE'S MY
FRIEND -- AND OFTENTIMES WHEN --
FRIENDS COME BEFORE YOU YOU WANT
TO GIVE THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE
DOUBT -- BUT WE ALSO HAVE
COMMITTEE -- IN THE WORK THAT
THE COMMITTEES AND IS ALSO A
FRIEND AND THERE SEEMS TO BE
SOME DISAGREEMENT SO I WANT TO
TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY I AM NOT
AN ATTORNEY -- ABOUT 80% OF WHAT
YOU ALL OF SAID -- ABOUT FOLKS
UP HERE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND
THAT SO I WANT TO TRY TO BOIL IT
DOWN TO THE LOWEST COMMON
DENOMINATOR IF WE CAN POSSIBLY.
DO THAT I'M LOOKING AT THE
SUMMARY -- IN THE ANALYSIS THAT
WAS WRITTEN AND I ACTUALLY WANT
TO BRING IT TO THE CONSOLE HERE
IN A SECOND -- THERE ARE SEVEN
ITEMS LISTED HERE.
IN THE SUMMER WE CAN GO TO THE
BILL BUT I'M JUST GONNA LOOK AT
THE SUMMARY.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE'S
AGREEMENT ON NUMBER.
NUMBER FOUR NUMBER FIVE AND
THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT ON
GOING FORWARD ON THOSE ITEMS AT
TH POLICY BEFORE US.
IS A GOOD POLICY I THINK THAT'S
WHAT I'VE HEARD THAT TODAY --
ALSO HAVE HEARD THAT SEVEN THAT
YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE FIND
ELIMINATE NUMBER SEVEN SO WE'RE
REALLY TALKING ABOUT NUMBER SIX
IN THIS QUESTION OF WHAT IS.
A DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW
CORRECT WE HAD AN HEALTH
COMMITTEE -- THIS JUST YESTERDAY
AND IT MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME
IN MY FIVE YEARS THAT WE REALLY
FOCUSED ON THIS ISSUE DE
DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW.
I WHETHER IT'S RETROACTIVE OR
NOT THIS WAS IN REGARDS -- TO A
BILL.
I HAD DEFECTED HAVE ON HEALTH
PLANS -- AND THERE THE HEALTH
PLAN SAID IT WOULD THAT IS NOT
EXISTING LONG OTHER SAID IT IS
EXISTING LAW AND SO THERE IS A
BILL THAT SAID WE'RE GONNA MAKE
THIS EXISTING LAW OKAY -- IT'S
SEEN HAPPEN IT SEEMS TO BE WELL
I'D OF HAD HAVING TO LEAVE
BECAUSE I GOT CALLED DOWN --
DOWN BELOW OF COURSE -- WITH --
WITH YOU -- SO I DO ACTUALLY
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE END UP
HAPPENING I'M GUESSING.
WELL I'M GUESSING THE BILL MIGHT
HAVE MOVE MIGHT HAVE MOVED
FORWARD.
I THAT THAT SO THAT.
AND THE RIGHT WITH A GREAT DEAL
OF THAT.
WHICH IS OKAY BUT RIGHT SO THE
QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS THAT
OF WHAT IS RETROACTIVE AND IF
NOT IF THE LAW IS WHAT THE LAW
IS THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION
ABOUT IT.
SO WHY DO WE HAVE TO DECLARE
THAT IT'S EXISTING LAW AND I'D
ACTUALLY LIKE TO HEAR -- BECAUSE
I HAVE NOT HEARD THIS GENTLEMAN
IS THE ATTORNEY ARMS THE
OPPOSITION SEEMS TO BE VERY
KNOWLEDGEABLE OFTHIS I'D LIKE
TO HEAR FROM YOU I'D LIKE TO
HEAR FROM THE CONSULTANTS AND
I'D ALSO LIKE TO HEAR -- FROM
THE ATTORNEY ONE MORE TIME ON
WILL WHY ISN'T THE LAW CLEAR AND
WHY WOULD WE HAVE TO DECLARE IT
TO BE SO IF IT ISN'T CLEAR
ALREADY.
WHAT THE THE AS IT'S BEEN SAID
BAIL IS REGULATED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE THERE'S
REGULATIONS IT'S VERY SPECIFIC
AND THE BAIL AGENTS -- AND THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL
GENERALLY JUST LOOK TO THOSE
BECAUSE THE COURT CASES HAVE
BEEN CLEAR THAT THESE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS DON'T APPLY TO
INSURANCE PRODUCTS.
AND SO -- BAIL FINANCING ITSELF
WHICH IS REALLY THE CAUSE OF
THIS IS ONLY SOMETHING THAT'S
OCCURRED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS
BECAUSE IT'S IT'S BEEN NECESSARY
NOW THE RATES OF AND SO HIGHS OF
THIS IS KIND OF A PROBLEM.
THAT CONTINUES TO OCCUR BECAUSE
THEY'RE JUST MORE MONEY AT STAKE
THEY GET SOMEONE OUT OF JAIL
THEY STILL WANT TO GET THEM OUT
OF JAIL AND AND IT REALLY
COMPLICATES THAT COOPERATION
THAT THAT BAIL AGENTS NEED --
FROM THE INTENDED THERE'S TO GET
THE DEFENDANTS TO COURT WHEN
THEY HAVE THESE -- IF I CAN BE
CLEAR JUST TO BECAUSE A GUY
DIDN'T SO OF THESE ITEMS ONE TWO
THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE IS THAT
EXISTING LAW.
WELL THAT NOW I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THE APPLICATION OF ANY OF
THOSE ROLES IS EXISTING LAW
BECAUSE OF THE STRONG STATEMENTS
BY THE COURTS THAT INSURANCE
PRODUCTS ARE NOT CONTROLLED.
BY THOSE LAWS IN THE PALE AS
PRIMARY IS IS IS IS AN INSURANCE
BROCADE GREAT SO I DON'T THINK
THAT THE GREAT THANK YOU AND AND
MA'AM IF YOU CAN -- DRESS THOSE
FIVE ARE THOSE FIVE EAST OF
THOSE FIVE ITEMS BEFORE US IS
THAT A MATTER OF EXISTING LAW.
YEAH THE FIVE ITEMS ARE EXISTING
LAW WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
INSERT BUT THEY APPLIED TO THE
BAIL AND IMMIGRATION BONDS
INDUSTRIES.
I'M SORRY YOU JUST SAID THE WILL
IT WOULD SAY THAT THEY APPLY TO
HAVE THEM.
THAT WOULD THAT WOULD THEN I'D
HAVE TO STE TO THINK THAT IT
DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM TODAY.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE
AND HAVING TO SPEND THE TIME ON
THIS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING
THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY
ARE ENGAGING IN.
ACTIVITY IS THAT THOSE LAWS SEEK
TO REGULATE THAT THEY APPLY TO
SO I JUST WANT TO SAY.
AS AS WAS JUST MENTIONED THE
FINANCING OF PREMIUMS RIGHT
CREDIT BAIL IS SOMETHING THAT
ONLY STARTED HAPPENING OVER THE
LAST FEW YEARS AS NECESSARY.
DO I CREATE A SENSE ABOUT.
BECAUSE PEOPLE COULDN'T PAY THE
ENTIRE PREMIUMS UP FRONT AND I
HAVE HEARD AND READ THE BAIL
AGENTS DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO BE EXTENDING
CREDIT BUT THEY ARE AND WHEN
THEY STARTED DOING THAT THEY
OPEN THEMSELVES UP TO THE
APPLICATION OF A LOT MORE LAWS.
AND THEY SHOULD HAVE STARTED
LOOKING OUTSIDE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE IS
REGULATIONS WHEN THEY STARTED
ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT WAS NOT
REGULATED BY THOSE REGULATIONS
AND LOOK TO THE LAWS THAT DEAD
OKAY I'M GONNA GO TO A NEUTRAL
PARTY -- TO THE CONSULTANT -- IN
PARTICULAR AS APPLICATION OF THE
POINTS IN THE ANALYSIS THE BILL.
PROVIDE THEM OUT FOR DISTINCT
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS.
SHALL APPLY TO BAIL AND DECLARES
THAT TO BE EXISTING LAW.
SO. THREE OF THE FOUR ONE A
SEPARATED OUT THREE OF THOSE
FOUR LAWS GOVERN THE TRANSACTION
AT ITS INCEPTION.
THAT IS DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT
IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES IF OR IN A
DIFFERENT LANGUAGE OF THE PERSON
SPEAKS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE DO
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARTICULAR
NOTICE CONSUMER CREDIT THING SO.
AS TO THREE OF THE FOUR
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL.
THERE'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHAT
IT IS INSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS.
OF THE DOCUMENT THE BILL DOESN'T
REGULATE THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
DOCTRINE FOR INSTANCE.
THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE STUFF
THAT THE CENTER SPOKE ABOUT THE
BILL DOESN'T PURPORT. TO
REGULATE THAT STUFF IT SAYS AT
THE INCEPTION OF THE CONTRACT
YOU HAVE TO HAVE DONE CERTAIN
THINGS SO WHEN WE GET TO THE
DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW.
WHAT WAR PURPORTING TO DO WHEN
ALL ADDRESSED THAT RETROACTIVE
DECLARATORY NEW ONES IN A SECOND --
BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THINGS
THAT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY
HAPPENED NOBODY CAN GO BACK AND
CHANGE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN SO WE
DECLARED TO BE THE EXISTING LAW
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS.
THEY VIOLATED THE LAW BACK THEN.
IN THIS BUT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT
NOW TO CHANGE INTO WHETHER
THERE'S ONE LAWSUIT OR TWO
LAWSUITS.
EVERY TRANSACTION THAT WAS
CONSUMMATED IN THE PAST WILL BE
SUBJECT.
TO YOU DIDN'T DO THE THING AT
THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS
ENTERED INTO.
THE FOURTH ONE IS THE CAN IT IS
THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT -- AND
IF THE BILL WERE ENACTED WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS EVEN THOUGH THE
CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN THE
PAST.
THE BEHAVIOR OF DEBT COLLECTION
WOULD BE OCCURRING AFTER JANUARY
ONE TWENTY TWENTY AND SO THAT
WOULD APPLY TO CURRENT.
BAR SKEWS ME THAT WOULD APPLY TO
PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO
CONTRACTS -- STE SO THE QUESTION
THEN IS IT IS IF IT'S
RETROACTIVE A WE AUTOMATICALLY
SAYING GOTCHA TO TRANSACTIONS
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY CONSUMMATED
AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.
RETROACTIVE IN DECLARATORY OF
EXISTING LAW.
LAWYER GEEK NEW ONES.
IF I COULD SIT DOWN WITH LEAD
COUNSEL I COULD HAVE A DEBATE
ABOUT WHAT'S TECHNICALLY
RETROACTIVE AND WHAT'S
TECHNICALLY DECLARATORY OF
EXISTING LAW.
AS A PRACTICAL POLICY MATTER.
WE SAY DECLARATORY OF EXISTING
LAW TO TRY TO NEW WANTS
RETROACTIVITY AND THAT'S WHAT IT.
WOULD DO HERE -- IF IF IT WAS
LEFT IN THE BILL IN THE BILL
WERE ENACTED.
IN IF IS THAT ACCURATE.
I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY ACCURATE.
YES VERY.
CAN I ADD ONE THING THOUGH ABOUT
THAT CONCERNED WITH THE
AMENDMENT AROUND IT THE THIS
RETROACTIVITY CONVERSATION.
THAT IT SHOULD ONLY GO INTO
EFFECT FOR TRANSACTIONS AFTER.
JANUARY OF TWENTY TWENTY WHICH
IS THE SUGGEST THESE MAIN POINT
YOU MAKE YOUR POINT OKAY SO IF
THAT IS THE CASE IF WE WERE TO
TAKE THAT AMENDMENT AND SAY THAT
THESE ONLY APPLY GOING FORWARD
THEN THE BAIL BONDS AND
IMMIGRATION BONDS INDUSTRIES
FREE TO SUE.
EVERYBODY WHO HAS OUTSTANDING
DEBT WHO FALLS BEHIND ON
PAYMENTS AND THEY CAN NOT ASSERT
THOSE LAWS IN THEIR DEFENSE AS
WE HAVE DONE AND MISS ELITES
CASE THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF THOSE LAWS THAT IT
SAYS THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO
TRANSACTIONS.
PRIOR TO TWENTY BUT THAT IS
ARKAN MAJOR CONCERN.
ABOUT THAT AMENDMENT.
FIRST OF ALL THAT MEMBERS DON'T
SAY CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO ON OR
AFTER AND IF THAT IS IN FACT
YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT'S DRAFTING
ISSUE NOT POLICIES THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS WITHOUT A VERY THOROUGH
DISCUSSION.
MR COOLEY.
COME BACK I MEAN I ON POLICY.
I JUST KNOW WHAT ARE WE DOING ON
POLICY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
IN THEIR DIGEST GIVES US FIVE
PIECES.
SO THE FIRST PART OF THE BILL
DEALS WITH PERSONS TRANSACTION
BIZ WITH PURSES.
HISPANIC WHO SPEAK PRIMARILY
SPANISH CHINESE TACKLE
VIETNAMESE KOREAN.
AND WE ACTUALLY GOING TO THAT
BODY LONG WE CHANGE THE RULES
EXTENDED THE VEIL.
IT IS IN THE FORM OF CHANGE.
OTHER CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES
ACT AGAIN WE MAY CONFIRM OF
CHANGE.
TERRIFYING THE LAWS APPLICATION
WE HAVE WE'RE ADDING VERBIAGE TO
THAT STATUTE.
WE THEN HAVE THE THIRD POINT
ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION
PRACTICES ACT.
AND NEW HERSCHEL ROSENTHAL HIS
WIFE -- IN MY CAREER.
THEN WE HAVE THE CONSUMER CREDIT
CONTRACT LAW.
SO IN EACH OF THESE LAWS WE ARE
IN FACT MAKING SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES. TO WRITE THIS BUSINESS
AND DO IT.
AND I DON'T THINK I'M HERE IN AN
ARGUMENT WITH THOSE SUBS OF
CHANGES IN NORTH THOSE FOR LAWS.
THE REAL ISSUE IS THE FIFTH
PROVISION OF ALLEGED COUNCIL
DIED YES.
THE BILL WAS STATE THAT ALL THE
CHANGES SPECIFIED ABOVE ALL OF
THE CHANGES SPECIFIED ABOVE.
ARCTIC TERRITORY JUST IN LAW.
SO TO ME IT'S LIKE FOUR FIFTHS
OF THE BILL.
ARE NOT OBJECTIONABLE ON A GO
FORWARD BASIS WE ARE REWRITING
THE RULES THAT'S HOW IT'S
EXPLAINED IT'S ONLY THIS THE
CHARACTERIZATION LOS WHY.
I CONTINUE TO THINK THAT.
WE WE HAVE A BILL THAT.
IT CAN BE READILY PASSED IT'S
JUST THAT.
FINAL PROVISION.
IN THE DIGESTIVE TORTURES OF
FLAWS OVERREACH.
IN JUST A COOPER IS REAL QUICK
AND MEMBERS SB FOURTEEN TWENTY
ONE THE PEACE OFFICERS RECORDS
BILL.
NEVER SAID RETROACTIVITY IN
THERE WHATSOEVER.
WHAT THE COURT THE COURTS HAVE
DECLARED ITS RETRO?
NEVER SAID IN THE BILL.
SO IF WE DON'T SPECIFIED HERE.
IT'S OPEN TO DEBATE.
AND FOR FOR COURT FINDING.
AND THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE
FOURTEEN TWENTY ONE LAST YEAR
PEACE OFFICER RECORDS.
NEVER SAID RETRO BUT IT IS BEING
APPLIED RETROACTIVELY SO IT'S
GOING TO BE SPELLED OUT.
RIGHT CAN I JUST MAKE CLIP
OCCASIONS GERMAN IT MIGHT BE
VENTURE BECAUSE I HAVE THE
GREATEST CONFIDENCE IN YOU
PERSONALLY IN.
RELATIONSHIPS ARE IMPORTANT
ISSUES ARE TOUGH AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THIS ASSEMBLY --
MAYES ON THE NATURE THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE THIS IS
EXACTLY WHAT I LIKE TO DO TO IF
YOU COULD TELL.
SO I APPRECIATE AS WAS
LEGISLATIVE BODIES ARE ABOUT.
BUT IF AGE AS WAS INDICATED BY
YOUR CHIEF CONSULTANT THIS IS A
DRAFTING PART WHICH I THINK IT
IS QUITE FRANKLY I THINK THERE'S
A WAY AROUND THIS THAT UNDER THE
DEALS WITH IT I JUST DIDN'T LIKE
WHAT THEY DID AND YOU KNOW I'M.
WILLING TO YOU KNOW MAYBE.
THE GO FOR IT SO YOU KNOW MIKE
MY SENSE IS THIS GET STRICTLY
GIVEN THE GUIDANCE BY THE
MAJORITY LEADER IS THAT LOOK
LET'S THIS GOING APPROACH RIGHT.
NO.
IT DOESN'T OKAY WELL SO I LOOK
YOU KNOW MY VIEW IS LET'S LET'S
PULL MORE ELBOW GREASE I WAS A
LITTLE BIT OTHERWISE PREDISPOSE
BY THE WILD FIRES AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
CAN MR MAYS WAS AS WELL SO ON
LET'S POLITICAL ELBOW GREASE IN
THIS THING IF YOU CAN YOU TIENEN
FORTY TODAY'S THE FINAL DAY --
I'M HONORABLE PERSON I'M NOT
LOOKING TO TO BE A RAT FINK ON
THIS DEAL WHICH TO SIT DOWN AND
SEE WE CAN DO IT NOW PERSONALLY
ENGAGE IN THE DRAFTING.
AND SEE BECAUSE LIKE I'M
PARTICULARLY WOULD LIKE THE DEBT
COLLECTION THING FOR ME WHEN YOU
SAID THAT I DIDN'T READ HOW YOU
READ THIS.
CAUSED WHEN SOMEBODY GOES TO THE
DEBT COLLECTION IS ALL ABOUT YOU
CAN'T HARASS PEOPLE AND DO THE
KINDS OF THINGS THESE CONTRACTS
CONTRACT.
FOR AN HOUR TO MAKE SURE THE
APPLY NOW WHAT YOU SAY I'M
TELLING MY OPINIONS WE FINISH
ABOUT.
AND SO SOME OF THESE OTHER
PROVISIONS THE SAME THING I'M
NOT LOOKING TO TO RE TRANSLATE
DOCUMENTS THAT HAPPENED THREE
YEARS AGO.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO BUT HEAR ME
OUT ABOUT IT BUT I ALSO DON'T
WANT TO AFFECT THE COURT CASE
AND I BELIEVE YOU YOU SAY YOU BE
SILENT ON IT IN MY JUDGMENT IS
IF YOU'RE SILENT ON THE COURT?
IT'S SILENT YOU'RE ACTUALLY
MAKING A STATEMENT WHEN THERE'S
A JUSTICE AND YOU DON'T CALL IT
OUT YOU'RE MAKING A STATEMENT
WHAT BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU.
YOU SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT I
PROMISE YOU IN THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS LIKE I HAVE BEFORE
YOUR THE COMPLAINT THE LEGAL
DOCUMENTS THEY'RE GOING TO COME
IN AND USE EVERY ARGUMENT
THEY'RE GOING TO USE. TO
SUBSTANTIATE THEIR POSITION
THEY'RE GONNA SAY SEE THE
LEGISLATURE MADE NO COMMENT AND
HENCE THEY CLEARLY DOESN'T MEAN
BECAUSE THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO EXTEND THIS AND THEY DIDN'T
SO THE FACT THAT THIS BILL PUTS
US IN THAT POSITION.
SO I'M TRYING TO GET TIME WE CAN
GET PAST THIS AND WORK TOGETHER
WITH THE COMMITTEE TRY TO DRAFT
IT.
I THINK THE MAJORITY WHOSE POINT
PRETTY CLEAR.
WHY NOT THEN A SERVER EXCEPT TO
AMENDMENT SEE?
IT SAYS NO ACTIONS TAKEN ON THIS
BILL ARE INTENDED TO INFLUENCE
LITIGATION SEEKING TO APPLY
THESE CONSUMER PROTECTIONS TO
BAIL AND SO FORTH.
WHY IS THAT A?
WHY NOT ACCEPT THAT?
THIS IS A WELL I'M JUST LIMITING
THE BILL LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF A
SUMMARY HANG ON THE CHANGE WAS A
MEMBER.
WELL IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY THAT
WHAT IT SAYS THAT THAT'S A
SUMMARY THAT'SNOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE
AMENDMENT.
THE AMENDMENT SAYS SPECIFICALLY
THE OPPOSITE IN MY READING IT'S
A THE CHANGES MADE BY THIS ACT
DO NOT APPLY IN ANY MANNER AND
IN IS NOT THE INTENT THE
LEGISLATURE TO TO AFFECT THIS.
WE DON'T WANT TO OF WE WANT WHAT
THE COURT MOVE THE WAY THE COURT
MOVES.
THAT I WOULD I INTERPRET THAT
WHEN I READ IT THE REASON I SAID
NO IS WERE IN FACT BEING GIVEN A
LEG UP IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S
NEUTRAL BUT IT'S NOT.
BECAUSE IF I WAS A JUDGE IN OUR
MEETING A CASE WELL THE
LEGISLATURE CLEARLY DIDN'T HAVE
A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW DON'T FORGET THINK
ABOUT WERE ACT OKAY THESE PEOPLE
HERE TODAY ARE SAYING TO THEM
THE INDUSTRY WE'RE OK WITH THIS
BUT HISTORICALLY THEY SAID WE
NEVER WORLD QUE THEY'VE CHANGED
THEIR POSITION ON THE FIRST FIVE
POINTS.
THAT A GERMAN COOLEY MENTION
OKAY THEY'VE CHANGE YOUR
POSITION THERE'S NO QUESTION
ABOUT THE CHANGE OF POSITION IN
EVERY PROCEEDING WHEN I WAS
DOING THE OTHER BILL.
EVERYTHING THEY SAID WAS THIS
DOESN'T APPLY HERTZBERG YOU KNOW
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW THEY'RE FLIPPING IN SAYING
THEY DO BUT THEY'RE SCARED ABOUT
THIS NOTION OF RETROACTIVITY
OKAY GET IT.
SO THE DELICATE DANCE IS TO
BASICALLY MAKE SURE ADDS WERE
CONSIDERING THIS.
WE DON'T ADVERSITY CASE ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER AND I JUST SUGGEST
THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS HERE
SAYING THIS ISN'T THE INTENT.
THE INTENT LEGISLATURE IS THAT
THAT WE ALWAYS INTENDED THIS TO
BE THE CASE I DON'T THINK THAT'S
A QUESTION I THINK ANY MEMBER
HERE WANTS TO DEFRAUD PEOPLE OR
HAVE THEIR CONTRACTS AND THERE'S
A THERE'S A BLURRING BETWEEN THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
AND THE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS.
THOSE APPROVAL THOSE POINTS OF
THAT WHICH MADE EARLIER ABOUT
THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
HAVING APPROVE OF COURSE THE
APPROVED THE INSURANCE
RELATIONSHIP.
BUT THEN THERE'S A SUBSEQUENT
TRANSACTION WHICH IS THE
FINANCING SIDE AND THEY SAY THAT --
WHEN THERE'S NO INTEREST BUT
THERE'S SO MANY FEES AND SO MANY
CHARGES AND SO MANY THINGS THAT
THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY AND HOW
THE JURISPRUDENTIAL DYNAMIC OF
OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ARE
INFORMED TO BE?
CHARGES AND YOU HAVE SITUATIONS
WE HAVE CASE I CAN BRING THEM
BEFORE YOU WERE SEVEN FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THE PAYING
FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF THAT
WAS OTHERWISE INFORMED ABOUT IT
AND SO THAT THAT TO ME IS THE
QUESTION AND THEN WE'RE I THINK
WE'RE OBJECTIVE IS THE SAME I
THINK YOUR POINT IS CORRECT.
AND IF WE CAN GET THERE I'D BE
HAPPY TO DO IT LIKE TO MOVE IT
OUT OF THIS THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
AND COMMITTEE YOU THAT WILL GIVE
IT TO YOU GUYS AND YOU KNOW I
DON'T THINK IT PASSES I'M I'M
NOT GONNA TAKE IT UP IF IT
DIDN'T GET A PASS.
COURSE COURSE ONE APPROACH IS TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS.
AND THEN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE
LANGUAGE IN THE AMENDMENTS
THAT'S ONE APPROACH FOR MAKING
AMENDED THE FLOOR -- ALL.
THE TIMING MISTER CALDERON.
THANK YOU -- SO LOOK AT I I
THINK THAT THE IF THE ISSUE HERE
IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
LANGUAGE WHAT IT MEANS AND WHAT
IT DOES ME AS A RETROACTIVE IS
NOT WHAT RETROACTIVE WHAT'S
WHAT'S THAT GOING TO MEAN.
MOVING FORWARD NOW MAJORITY THAT
MAJORITY LEADER MAJORITY LEADER
I THINK THE POINT IS IS WE WANT
TO DO IS YOU WANT TO GET THIS
BILL OUT OF COMMITTEE WANT TO
GET IT TO THE FLOOR.
THEN YOU CAN HAVE SOME TIME TO
WORK ON IT WERE THE FIRST YEAR
OF TWO YEAR SESSION.
SO WHAT.
SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WHEN
IT COMES TO MOVING FORWARD I
THINK WHAT THE MEMBERS HERE ARE
ASKING FOR IS AND A COMBAT
COMMITMENT FROM YOU TO WORK
SPECIFICALLY ON THIS.
THIS PIECE OF THE BILL ON THIS
LANGUAGE I THINK THAT YOU'VE
JUST INTIMATED AND UNDERSTANDING
TO WORK ON THAT.
BUT AT THIS POINT TIME WHEN IT
COMES TO COMMITTEES PERSPECTIVE
ONCE IT'S OUT OF THE COMMITTEES
HANDS.
IS IT IS A WAY TO BRING IT BACK
WELL THERE ARE WAYS TO BRING IT
BACK BECAUSE COMMITTEE AT ANY
POINT TIME.
I CAN DO MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND
AND THE BILL CAN BE RECALLED
BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE RIGHT
HOWEVER.
IF WE MOVE IT OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY WITH THE SUPPORT
OF THE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT
CURRENTLY IN SUPPORT BECAUSE OF
THE LANGUAGE WITHOUT SPECIFIC
CLARIFICATION -- OR THERE SEEMS
TO BE CONFUSION WOULD YOU COMMIT.
THAT A MOVES TO THE FLOOR YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THIS
COMMITTEE OVER THE BREAK.
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH MANY ONCE
WE GET BACK.
AS LONG AS THERE IS AN WORK TO
AN UNDERSTANDING AND UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE COMMITTEE AND A SIGN
OFF BY THIS CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
THAT ONCE THIS BILLS ON THE
FLOOR YOU WILL TAKE IT UP ONLY
IF YOU HAVE THE AGREEMENT.
BY THE CHAIR IF YOU DO NOT HAVE
THAT AGREEMENT WITH THE CHAIR
YOU WILL HOLD THE BILL ON THE
FLOOR.
AND WHAT WE CAN TAKE IT UP AT
ANY POINT TIME WHEN WE COME BACK
SPECIFICALLY IN JANUARY RATHER
THAN SAYING STOCKTON COMMITTEE
OR YOU CAN STAY.
IN THIS COMMITTEE IF YOU DON'T
END UP WITH THE VOTES BUT MOVING
IT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY
WITH A COMMITMENT TO NOT BRING
THE BILL UP.
I KNOW IT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE.
THE SIGN OFF FROM THE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT AS
LONG AS THERE'S THAT SIGN OFF
WILL TAKE THE BILL UP IF NOT.
THEN I WILL TAKE THE BILL UP.
THERE'S AND THERE'S A MALE TO
MILLIE WHERE YOU WANT TO SET.
THE I LIKE THE FIGHT -- IT'S MY
NATURE SORRY ABOUT THAT
EVERYBODY.
A AND I YOU KNOW I I JUST
BELIEVE THE ARGUMENTS ARE BOGUS
BUT BUT LOOK IT GIVEN THE THAT
WHERE WE ARE TODAY I I'M HAPPY.
I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT LOOK
THESE THESE ARE ALL ABOUT JUST
YOU KNOW YOU MAY HAVE PRETTY
FRANK AND THOUGHT THE THINK OUT
TAUGHT MY HEAD SOMETIMES TOO
MUCH SO SORRY BUT BROKEN IN THE
AYE.
STONE AYE COOPER -- BUT BUT YOU
KNOW I'M I'M HAPPY TO DO IT BUT
I WANT GUIDANCE FROM THE YOU
KNOW THE STAFF BASICALLY GAVE US
THE STUFF THEY GAVE US.
STUFF AGAIN I DON'T BELIEVE AT
THE STAFF LEVEL THAT I LOVE TO
WORK WITH THE CHAIRMAN THAT WE
REALLY GOT ANY RESPONSIVENESS I
I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE
IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME OF IN
THIS COMMITTEE.
THIS ENTIRE ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY WAS
COMPLETELY DISCUSSED LONGER NO
MORE PAGES JUST ON THIS ISSUE IN
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
AGAIN THIRTY EIGHT ZERO IN THE
SENATE IT'S GONE GONE GONE WE'VE
BEEN THROUGH THIS DANCE WE'VE
BEEN EVERYWHERE AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN HERE AND HIT A WALL. FOR
WHATEVER REASON I JUST I I JUST
WANT TO COPY I'M HAPPY TO DO
THAT BECAUSE IT'S HONOR IS
EVERYTHING TO ME.
AND AND I REALLY THINK THIS
NOTION OF RETROACTIVITY THE
LEDGE COUNCIL I WANT TO SHARE
THAT WITH YOU.
ME THIS IS NOT TRUE IT IS NOT
TRUE IT IS THE WAY IT IS NOT
COULD COURTS MAKE DECISIONS --
SIMILAR COOPER OF COURSE THEY
CAN'T NOBODY CAN STOP THAT ONCE
THEY MAKE THAT DECISION AND
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT IN
THIS CASE ONE OR THE OTHER BUT
YES I WILL MAKE THAT COMMITMENT.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT
THING TO DO AND WE'LL WE'LL
FIGURE IT OUT AND JUST TO BE
CLEAR HOUSE OF ORIGIN WE'RE
DEALING WITH THEIR OWN HOUSE OF
ORIGIN WE HAVE A LOT MORE TIME
TO GO THROUGH BILLS NOW IS A LOT
OF BILLS THAT WE HAVE TO GO.
THROUGH THAT PERIOD OF TIME
THERE'S LESS BILLS WHEN WE GET
YOUR BILLS ARE HERE FOR THE
STILL JUST A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
SO.
IT'S A TRUNCATED AMOUNT OF TIME
THEY'RE JUST NEEDS TO BE A
LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO WORK
THROUGH THE DETAILS NOW YOU IF
WE IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS IS
THAT YOU ARE COMMITTED COMMITTED
TO NOT TAKE THIS BILL UP UNLESS
THERE IS AN AGREEMENT BY THIS
COMMITTEE AND BY.
THIS CHAIR IF THERE IS NO
AGREEMENT THE BILL WILL NOT BE
TAKEN OUT.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
IT'S CLEAR WITH YOU BETWEEN YOU
AND I SO THAT WHEN THE BILLS ON
IF THE BILLS ON THE FLOOR
THERE'S NO CONFUSION ABOUT.
BY THE BILL MIGHT NOT BE COMING
UP IF I'M NOT GETTING OKAY FROM
MY CHAIRMAN BECAUSE WE COULD
ALSO PULL THE BILL BACK IN
COMMITTEE BUT I THINK AT THIS
POINT TIME.
THERE NEEDS TO BE CONFIDENCE
AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
BE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE
UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S GOOD IT'S
GOOD CAN IT CONTINUE TO ALLOW
YOU TO WORK.
ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE NEXT
MONTH MONTH TO MONTH POTENTIALLY.
GET THE BILL OUT GET ON TO THE
FLOOR IT'S A BETTER POSITION FOR
YOU TO BE IN THERE SOME
CONFIDENCE.
BY THE MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE
THAT THEY FEEL LIKE.
THERE'S GONNA BE SOME TYPE OF
RESOLUTION TO THE ISSUE OR NOT
IF THERE'S RESOLUTION THE BILL
COME UP THERE'S NO RESOLUTION
THE BILL WILL NOT COME UP.
THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD BUT
ULTIMATELY EVEN IF YOU DO NOT
COME. TO AN AGREEMENT YOUR BILL
STILL ON THE FLOOR.
AND CAN WE COME UP WE CAN COME
UP IN JANUARY GIVES YOU THE REST
OF THE YEAR. TO WORK ON IT IF
THAT IS NECESSARY WHICH I'M
HOPING IT'S NOT NECESSARY I'VE
HAD THOSE A COUPLE BILLS IN THE
SENATE BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE
ENOUGH TIME TO WORK ON IT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES
WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE
TIME.
WE WANT TO STAY ALIVE KEEP
FIGHTING FIGHT.
THERE WAS THAT THE UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT IS REMEMBER YOUR DADDY
THE ONLY QUESTION I ASK IS IF I
AND I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE
YOU KNOW I REALLY THINK THAT.
I THINK IT'LL SEND A BIG MESSAGE
TO THE INDUSTRY YES THE ANSWER
QUESTIONS YES WITH OR WITHOUT
GOOD OCCASIONALLY SHAKE YOUR
HAND -- ED AND BUT I JUST I
THINK THIS DISCUSSION SENDS A
BIG MESSAGE TO THE INDUSTRY AS
TO CLEAN IT UP AT LEAST THAT THE
BAIL AGENTS TO ENGAGE IN THIS
BEHAVIOR TO CLEAN UP THEIR ACS
THAT'S ALL I WANT TO DO AND I'M
DEEPLY AFRAID.
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS
THESE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
FINANCING CONTRACTS OUT THERE
AND PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CAN
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAT'S MY
CONCERN MISTER CHAIRMAN.
AND I THINK WE CAN GET AROUND
THAT IN THE DRAFTING OF THE
LANGUAGE TO ACHIEVE THE
OBJECTIVE SO WITH THAT.
I THINK I I GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF
THINGS TO SAY BUT I THINK THAT
MAKES MY CLOTHES BECAUSE YOU
HAVE BEEN QUITE GENEROUS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND MISTER
CHAIRMAN.
YOUR TIME IN DELIBERATING THIS
MATTER THANK YOU MISTER MAJORITY.
MR FRAZIER DID YOU HAVE A
QUESTION OR COMMENT JUST KIND OF
A MOMENT -- MISTER RECORD
THROUGH WEEK WE ARE.
AS LEGISLATORS -- IN CHARGE OF
DOING NO HARM. TO PROPONENTS AND
OPPONENTS [inaudible]
AND MY FORMER LIFE AS A BUSINESS
OWNER.
I AM VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THE WORD
RECTAL ACT RECTOR RETROACTIVE.
I CAN'T EVEN SAY IT CORRECTLY.
BECAUSE I HATE IT -- IF I'M
GOING OUT AND DOING BUSINESS AND
I HAVE ALWAYS HAVE THAT HAMMER
OVER ME.
OF MISTRUST OF GOVERNMENT YEAH.
WHY WOULD I EXTEND MYSELF FOR
OTHERS?
AND TRY TO HELP.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT'S A
SLIPPERY SLOPE.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
AND IF WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TO
CAUGHT AFIRE CLARIFY.
THEN SAY IN ITS ENTIRETY IT WILL
NOT BE RETROACTIVE SO NO JUDGE.
CAN MISINTERPRET.
GOING FORWARD BUT AS A FORMER
BUSINESS OWNER.
I WOULD BE OFFENDED IF EVERY
TIME THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
AS THE LEGISLATURE TO INCLUDE.
THE RETROACTIVE A COMPONENT.
BUT I WOULD BE VERY VERY -- RISK
ADVERSE TO DO ANYTHING THAT
WOULD ADVANCE [inaudible]
MY JEOPARDY.
SO I AM ASKING YOU TO MAKE SURE
THAT YOU.
BUT REST THAT YOU HAVE THAT
ASSURANCE OR GIVE ME THAT
ASSURANCE.
THAT YOU SAY IT'S NOT IN THERE.
THANK CLEARLY STATE THAT IT WILL
NOT BE IN THERE.
BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUT.
PEOPLE AT RISK FOR SOMETHING
THEY EXTENDED THEMSELVES FOR AND
I CAN'T SAY THAT EVERYBODY IN
THE BILL BONDS INDUSTRY.
IS BAD.
OF COURSE NOT.
BUT WE'RE WE'RE ASSUMING THEY
ARE BY SAYING THIS.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU
ARE CLEAR YEAH ABOUT PROTECTING
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
WELL IF I WOULD ADD ONE MORE
SENTENCE IN RESPONSE TO A GERMAN
FRASIER'S COMMENTS HERE THAT IS
IMPORTANT.
THE REAL IN ON MY SENSE OF THE
ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY.
IS IT'S ONE OF IT'S THE ISSUE OF
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO
EXCUSE.
AND WHAT HAPPENED IS THE LAW
EXISTS.
AND THE BILL INDUSTRY DIDN'T
REALLY REALIZE IT RIGHT NOW
THERE'S LITIGATION AGAINST THE
BILL AS YOU FAN I TRUSTED
REALIZED THE COLLUSION ON 10%
WHICH ISN'T IN THE LAW.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET NAILED
BECAUSE THEY JUST IGNORED ABOUT
THE LAW.
AND THEY MOVED FROM BEING AN
INSURANCE COMPANY TO A FINANCE
COMPANY AND DIDN'T REALIZE THE
LAWS APPLY.
IN THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROMISE OF
WE ALL KNOW IS IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW IS NO EXCUSE.
WE ALL COULD COME WITH EXAMPLES
TO THAT ANDTHAT'S REALLY WHAT'S
GOING ON AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING
WELL WE DID KNOW ABOUT IT
BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK IT REALLY
APPLY TO US IN TRYING TO
OBFUSCATE BECAUSE ARE WORRIED
ABOUT IT.
THE COURT ALREADY SAID IT
APPLIED TO THEM SO I DON'T WANT
RETROACTIVITY BUT THE FLIP SIDE
OF IT IS I COMPLETELY AGREE I'M
TO HAVE BEEN IN MANY BUSINESSES
AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAY.
MISTER CHAIRMAN THE THE OF A
DIFFERENT COMMITTEE BUT THE THE
THE POINT IS THAT.
THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT THAT'S
WHY THIS IS SUCH A DELICATE
CONVERSATION I WANT TO COME BACK
AND EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE AS WE
TALK WITH YOUR CHAIRMAN.
OF THIS COMMITTEE AND I ANALYZE
IT THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS AND
SO I DON'T WANT TO WITH AFFECTED
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER COURTS WILL
INTERPRET WHAT THEY'RE DOING WE
TAKE ACTION I DON'T WANT THEM TO
SAY -- BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN THEY'RE GOING TO
MAKE THE ARGUMENTS THAT -- WE
APPLIED FOR THIS IT CLEARLY
ISN'T IT'S AN ADVANTAGE AND WHEN
YOU SAY IT DOESN'T AFFECT EITHER
PERSON IT DOES WE CAN FIGURE IT
OUT I CAN TELL THE LANGUAGE IF
IT TO TO MAKE IT WORK I THINK.
WE'LL HAVE HONEST DISCUSSION
ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MY
COMMITMENT TO THE MAJORITY
LEADER.
FUTURE JUST ONE MORE COMMENT.
AND WHEN I US WHEN I TALK ABOUT
WE DO NO HARM.
MR IS VERY WE TALK ABOUT.
THEN THE INDUSTRY WILL BEING --
REMISS ARE NOT WANTING TO EXTEND
CREDIT FOR THE PEOPLE YOU'RE
TRYING TO PROTECT AND THEY END
UP STAYING IN JAIL BECAUSE NOW
THAT WE'VE HEAVY HANDED.
THIS PROCESS WE ACTUALLY HARM
MORE PEOPLE THAN WE ACTUALLY
HELP.
THAT'S MY CONCERN [inaudible]
WHITE.
THANK YOU ALRIGHT.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS -- CAN WE GET
SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE
CHAIR AND AND MAKE SURE STAFF.
ON THE COMMENTS IN AGREEMENT
THAT.
A MAJORITY LEADER PROPOSED AND
WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
HERE BECAUSE I'M A GET
CLARIFICATION ON THAT GOOD IDEA
I I THINK THAT.
HONESTLY IS ONE I THINK AT AND
TO THE AUTHOR QUITE A GREAT DEAL
OF RESPECT FOR I DO THINK THAT.
THE FIRST COMMENTS THAT WERE
MADE BY THE MAJORITY LEADER WAS
IT WOULD BE CSUS SIMPLER CLEANER
IF IF WEEK YOU ACCEPTED THE
AMENDMENTS AS A COMMITTEE STAFF.
PRESENTED HERE TODAY AND THEN
CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE IN THAT
CONTEXT AND THAT LEVEL BECAUSE
THAT WOULD CLEAR A LOT OF THE
DISCOMFORT THAT EXISTS AROUND
THE TABLE AND PROBABLY GET A LOT
OF AYE VOTES.
IF YOU ACCEPTED THOSE ARE AND IT
WOULD BE BIPARTISAN AT THAT
MOMENT I BELIEVE ARE AT LEAST
WITH.
ONE MISTER CHAIR BACK TO YOU
RIGHT RIGHT OLD MAYBE YOU CAN
GET THAT CLARIFICATION.
I THINK THE CHALLENGE OF WITH
MISTER CALDERON NOTION.
IS THAT IT WILL LEAD TO A DEBATE.
ON THE ESOTERIC MEANINGS OF
RETROACTIVITY.
THAT'S TRUE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
JAMMIN ENERGY DEBATE ON EXACTLY
WHAT LANGUAGE WE MAY ULTIMATELY
ADOPT IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE JUDGE
OR JUDGES IN THE CASE.
THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
WHICH GOES AGAIN TO
RETROACTIVITY -- AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THERE'S A A WISE PERSON
WHO CAN MAKE THAT CALL -- YOU
KNOW.
YOU WON'T ACCEPT AMENDMENTS THAT
CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT
RETROACTIVE.
AND YOU HAVE A REASON FOR THAT.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT.
IS YOU DON'T WANT. TO TELL THE
COURT THAT WE'VE DECIDED.
THAT IT SHALL NOT BE RETROACTIVE.
THE LAW YOU WANT TO GO INTO
EFFECT ON JANUARY FIRST OF
TWENTY TWENTY YOU DON'T WANT ANY
NOTION.
THAT SOMEHOW -- AFFECTS THAT
THAT CASE.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO IT WILL
AFFECT THAT CASE.
WE'LL TRY HONOR WHAT WE OFFER
SUGGESTION WOULD ADDRESS THAT.
BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE
HAD IN OUR CONVERSATIONS YOUR
OFFICE IT WITHIN THE EXACT
CONVERSATION TO CONSULT EXACTLY
WE'RE TRYING TO DO NOT AFFECT
THE CASE.
AND THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE ABOUT
OUR EARLIER BILL AND YOUR THEIR
DRAFT PASSED EVERYWHERE ELSE
THAT AFFECTED THE CASE SO YOU
SAID NOTHING YOU'RE CAN AFFECT
THE CASE.
YOU COULD WRITE THIS I THINK IN
A WAY THAT IN THAT BASICALLY
EXPRESSES THE DISCUSSION.
THAT ON THE ONE HAND YOU CAN
SIMPLY WRITE THIS THE INTENT
LANGUAGE AND GIVE GUIDANCE TO
THE COURT.
THAT WE DIDN'T THAT ONE WAY
THERE WAS THERE WAS A THERE WAS
A A COULD STRUGGLE THERE WAS
CONCERN ON THE ONE HAND WE ARGUE
THAT IF WE SAID SOMETHING IT
WOULD BE GREAT THIS ON THE OTHER
HAND WE ARE THIS WE DON'T WANT
TO SEND THIS THING COURT.
CAN MAKE WHATEVER DETERMINATION
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND THAT
COULD ACTUALLY ABOVE ACHIEVE THE
THE THIS IS KIND OF A CONUNDRUM.
BUT CONUNDRUMS ARE MADE TO BE
SOLVED I THINK WE GOT A SHOT AT
NIGHT CERTAINLY WOULD LOVE TO
SPEND A LITTLE TIME WITH YOU
MISTER DALY AND THAT'S TO GIVE
IT A SHOT.
IF WE GIVE IT A SHOT IN IT YOU
PASSED OUT HERE TODAY AND WE WE
GO AND WE DON'T GET IT I'M NOT
TAKING IT TO THE FLOOR IT'S JUST
MADE THAT COMMITMENT.
AND SO IT'S IT'S A IT'S A
SITUATION WHERE -- AND YOU KNOW
I I JUST THINK IT'S A IT'S A
FAIR OR THE APPROACH YOU KNOW
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS
IS NOT LIKE THIS THE FIRST TIME
IS ISSUES BUT ANALYZE WE'VE SEEN
IN A VERY EXTENSIVE DEAL AND
WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS
DISCUSSION.
WE'RE JUST INTO THIS DEBATE BUT
THAT'S WHAT WE GET TO DO AND WE
HAVE A LOT OF FUN DOING IT SIR.
YOU A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF
FUN THAN I DO.
ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT YOU AND
YOUR DISTRICT.
ALRIGHT ALL RIGHT -- ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MR BIGELOW
TO THAT HELP YOU.
I JUST WANT.
TO MAYBE HELP WITH.
WILL YOU BE SAYING AGAIN
DEFINITELY SET ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE.
NO I AM NOT YOU'RE NOT I AM NOT
ONLY A CERTAIN ONES THAT WE
DISCUSSED YOU'RE GIVING UP AND
I'M AND I'M AND I'M JUST AND I'M
COMMITTING TO HAVING A
DISCUSSION TO SOLVE THE OTHER
PROBLEMS WITH THE CHAIR AND I
WON'T BRING THE MATTER TO THE
FLOOR.
UNLESS WE SOLVE THAT.
ALL RIGHT THE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MISTER
CALDERON.
MADE A MOTION EARLIER ABOUT AN
HOUR AGO.
IN THE BUT WE'RE HOUR AND A HALF
AGO I THINK WE'RE ALMOST
FINISHED.
WITH THIS BILL SO ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR DESIRE
TO SECOND MISTER CALDERON MOTION
THERE'S A SECOND -- ANY
QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION.
ALRIGHT.
LET'S GO AHEAD VOTE THEN.
ON SB THREE EIGHTEEN ARE THE
MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED.
DALY NOT VOTING [inaudible]
MAYES [inaudible]
BERMAN.
LOW -- BUT CALDERON HI CALDERON
AYE CHEN.
CHIU HI.
CHU AYE COOLEY.
COOPER NO.
COOPER NOW FRAZIER.
FRAZIER NOW GIPSON.
GRAYSON.
COME ALIVE OR DEAD.
TOM LONGER THE AYE VOEPEL
[inaudible]
WELL NO. THREE TWO THREE THE
TALLY IS THREE YESES THREE KNOWS --
WE NEED EIGHT VOTES TO PASS
SOMETHING ABOUT OUR WORK OKAY
THANK YOU SIR OKAY [inaudible]
THANK YOU [inaudible] SIX ALL
RIGHTS -- WE HAVE NOW IS -- I
SAW.
SO I MISTER BRADFORD MR STERN
MISTER STEARNS HERE LET'S GO
AHEAD WITH MISTER STEARNS
SENATOR STERN'S BILL.
WELCOME SIR.
HOW MUCH OF THAT DID YOU YEAH?
YOU CUT THE LAST INNING OF THAT.
GAME -- DOUBLE OVERTIME.
WE ARGUED ABOUT THE DEFINITION
OF RETROACTIVITY.
CERTAIN IN YOUR VISION OF ANY
YOUR ATTORNEY SO YOU ENJOY THAT
RIGHT.
DID I'M REALLY GLAD WE TOOK THIS
AMENDMENT NOW ON RETROACTIVITY
SO.
I DON'T EVEN WANT TO SAY THAT
WERE.
WHAT'S THE ROLE.
YES EXACTLY AND THE WELCOME TO
THE COMMITTEE SENATOR STERN AND
THANK YOU FOR A WHAT I THINK IS
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE DISCUSSED YES SIR --
AS AMENDED.
YES SO AS AMENDED AND JUST TO BE
CLEAR WITH YOU MISTER CHAIR OUR
DISCUSSION THAT APPRECIATE
STAFF'S WORK ON THIS SO JUST
RUNNING THROUGH IT FOR CLARITY
FOR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF
CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE
BUT THERE'S A AND B. R. WE'RE
ACCEPTING.
THE SUNSET.
MARQUIS WILL FALL ALONG JUST ALL
RIGHTS ARE YOU CAN FLIP TO IT.
I DIDN'T KNOW.
THANK YOU.
YEAH -- SO IT'S ACCEPTING A AND
B..
AND THE SUN SET PIECE IF HE AND
WORKING ON THIS STUDY PIECE WITH.
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE -- ON
REQUIRING A STUDY BUT STILL
WORKING ON THE MECHANICS OF THAT.
AND THEN.
DECLINING.
STRIKING THE FINDINGS IN -- THE
D. AND THE POST SEPARATION AND
SEE.
SENATOR ONE CLARIFICATION YET WE
DID SOME PICKING AND CHOOSING
AMONG THE FINDINGS AND SO THAT
THE HALF AND HALF.
OKAY I BELIEVE WE HAVE A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN YOUR
STOCKTON OKAY IN ME OKAY.
SO THAT IS ACCEPTABLE.
I KNOW YOU ALL OF A LOT OF WORK
TO DO I WANT TO GIVE THESE
WITNESSES A CHANCE AT LEAST THEY
MADE A TRIP.
YOU ALL KNOW THIS IS HEAVY DUTY
STUFF -- I'M A GIVE THEM A
CHANCE TO SPEAK AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE. TO TO START.
TO GET PAST.
A STIGMA AROUND PTS SIDE THAT IS
TRULY -- INJURING -- THE BRAVE
MEN AND WOMEN WHO DO THE WORK TO
KEEP US SAFE EVERY DAY -- SO
I'LL TURN IT OVER. TO OUR
WITNESSES HERE I THINK WE WE'VE
GOT A DEREK ROBINSON'S BACK --
FIRE CAPTAIN WITH KERN -- KERN
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT -- AS WAS
BRIAN RICE Và CPF AND CHRISTY
AS STAFF MISTER THANK YOU AGAIN
SENATOR AND LET ME SAY OF VERY
VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT.
I SALUTE YOU FOR FOR ADDRESSING
IT.
AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHT FULL -- DISCUSSIONS WE
HAD AND THEN THE COMMITTEE STAFF
HAD WITH YOU AND YOUR STAFF.
FOR ON AMENDMENTS -- TO THE TO
MOVE THIS FORWARD AND I A I
EXPECT WILL BE ENGAGING ON THIS.
TO IN COMING YEARS AS WELL
BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S A MAJOR.
A MAJOR ISSUE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE -- ON A PERSONAL
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS
MORNING AND FOR HEARING THIS --
BILL ALSO HONEST THANK CENTER
STERN -- FOR TAKING THE LEAD ON
THIS IN RIGHT THIS BILL IS VERY
IMPORTANT TO ME AND THE REST MY
BROTHERS AND SISTERS.
MY NAME IS DEREK ROBINSON AS HE
MENTIONED A CAPTAIN WITH KERN
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH
EIGHTEEN PLUS YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE.
AS FIREFIGHTERS WERE EXPECTED TO
HAVE A NORMAL RESPONSE TO
ABNORMAL SITUATIONS ON A DAILY
BASIS WE SEE THE WORST MOMENTS
IN EVERYONE'S LIVES THAT'S WHY
THEY CALL US.
AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
NORMAL RESPONSE AND INTERNALIZE
THAT.
IT DOESN'T LEAD TO GOOD --
MENTAL HEALTH IT LEADS TO AN
INJURY.
IS OUR JOB TO BE THE HELPERS
WHEN A MASSIVE WILDFIRE DESTROYS.
AN ENTIRE TOWN OR WHEN A YOUNG
PERSON.
IT HAS THEIR LIFE CUT SHORT BY A
SENSELESS VIOLENCE.
IN KERN COUNTY FEW YEARS AGO WE
HAD -- SKIN FIRE THAT DESTROYED --
MAJOR COMMUNITY AND AND KERN
COUNTY.
AND AT THE TIME I BELIEVE WAS
THE BIGGEST FIRE IN THE HISTORY
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
FOLLOWED SHORTLY BY THE THOMAS
FIRE THE CAR FIRE AND OTHERS
THAT DESTROYED COMMUNITIES UP
AND DOWN THE STATE.
WHAT'S LEFT IN THE AFTERMATH OF
A PATH OF A WILDFIRE IS PURE
DEVASTATION.
I'VE HAD THE LOOK OF SOMEONE IN
THE EYES.
AND TRY TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY
THEIR HOUSE BURNED DOWN AND
THEIR NEIGHBOR WHO'S TEN FEET
AWAY.
HOUSE IS STILL STANDING.
THERE IS NO EXPLANATION THERE IS
NO WAY -- TO JUSTIFY THAT --
EGGS THAT.
TRAVESTY TO AN INDIVIDUAL.
WE'RE TRYING TO THINK THAT ANY
CALL WE RETURN FROM SAFELY IS A
GOOD CALL.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
WE MAY WALK AWAY FROM AN
INCIDENT BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
WE WALKED AWAY IN ONE PIECE.
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS IT IS AN
INJURY.
EVERY BIT AS REAL AS A BROKEN
ARM OR BLOWN OUT KNEE.
AND LIKE VISIT A LIKE A PHYSICAL
INJURY IT ONLY GETS WORSE IF WE
DON'T TAKE CARE OF IT.
OR WORSE ACT LIKE IT ISN'T THERE.
FOR TOO LONG WE AS FIREFIGHTERS
HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR LOOKING
AWAY FROM POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS
INJURY.
AND UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE STARTING
TO SEE THE EFFECTS.
AS WE SIT HERE TODAY MORE
FIREFIGHTERS.
DIE BY THEIR OWN HAND THAN IN
THE LINE OF DUTY.
BY SOME COUNTS AS MANY AS A
THIRD OF ALL FIREFIGHTERS
CONSIDER SUICIDE [inaudible]
I KNOW.
BECAUSE OF ONE OF THOSE THAT
HAVE THOSE THOUGHTS.
LUCKILY FOR ME ON DECEMBER FIRST.
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN I SUMMON
THE COURAGE TO ASK FOR HELP.
SB HERE'S A FIREFIGHTER PLAYING
THE TOUGH GUY ROLE.
IT'S A HARD JOB SUCK IT UP
BUTTERCUP.
IT ALMOST KILLED ME.
EVERY FIREFIGHT WITH BLOOD IN
THEIR VEINS.
KNOWS HIS FEELINGS.
THERE'S AN FIREFIGHTER ANYWHERE.
HE DOESN'T HAVE THE CALL THAT
STICK WITH THEM.
THE SMELLS THE SOUNDS THAT HAUNT
THEM.
REGULARLY THEY'VE.
BURN A HOLE IN YOUR SOUL AND
YOUR HEART AND YOUR YOUR MIND
THAT CAN'T BE TAKEN CARE.
I THINK IT WAS SAID BEST WHEN
SOMEONE.
SAID I WISH THAT MY BRAIN COULD.
AND SEE THE THINGS THAT MY EYES
HAVE SEEN.
IF EVER THERE WAS A JOB RELATED
INJURY FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND
FIRST RESPONDERS.
IT IS POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS.
SENATE BILL FIVE FORTY TWO
SIMPLY RECOGNIZES THIS REALITY
AND CREATES A PATH FORWARD FOR
HEALING.
FIREFIGHTERS AREN'T LOOKING FOR
A WAY OUT. FOR ALL ITS
DIFFICULTIES WE LOVE OUR JOB AND
CAN'T IMAGINE DOING ANYTHING
ELSE.
BUT IS JOB THAT PUTS US AT RISK.
OUR BODIES AND OUR MINDS.
THE WORKERS COMPENSATION WAS
BUILT TO HELP EMPLOYEES HILL
FROM THEIR JOB RELATED INJURIES
SO THEY CAN GO BACK TO WORK.
SB FIVE FORTY TWO ASKS.
IS THAT FIREFIGHTERS HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY HAD HEALED THE
WOUNDS OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS.
SO THEY CAN GET BACK TO THE JOB
THEY LOVE.
I BELIEVE THAT IF WE RECOGNIZE
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS INJURY FOR
WHAT IT IS.
WITHOUT SUSPICION A REJECTION.
WE WILL HAVE A HEALTHIER
PROFESSION.
AND THAT MAKES US BETTER ABLE TO
DO OUR JOBS PROTECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES AND OUR STATE.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU
SUPPORT SB FIVE FORTY TWO NICE
AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU SIR.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SIR ARE YOU.
BUT WILL COMMITTEE CHAIR IN THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MY
NAME'S BROWN RICE I AM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS.
IN A THIRTY ONE YEAR FIRE FOR
FIRE SERVICE VETERAN RIGHT HERE
IN SACRAMENTO I SERVED AS SERVED
IN THAT SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
FIRE DEPARTMENT RISING TO THE
RANK OF DEPUTY CHIEF OF
OPERATIONS I'M GONNA BE REALLY
BRIEF.
THIS WAS A A TEXT MESSAGE I
RECEIVED YESTERDAY MORNING.
AT TEN ELEVEN I AND I NEED YOU
TO CALL ME NOW FIREFIGHTER SO
AND SO HAS SAID SOME STUFF THAT
IS VERY INDICATIVE OF THEM
KILLING HIMSELF I'M DOING
EVERYTHING I KNOW BUT I'M VERY
WORRIED.
YOU KNOW ME I'M NOT HIGH ON
DRAMA BUT THE **** IS SCARED ME.
THIS IS NOT A PERSON THIS THE
FIREFIGHTER THAT REACHED OUT TO
ME IS A TRAINED SUPPORTER WITH
MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HAS
TESTIFIED IN THIS CAPITAL BEFORE.
SINCE JUNE FIRST THREE ACTIVE
DUTY FIREFIGHTERS IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA HAVE TAKEN THEIR
LIVES BY THEIR OWN HAND IT IS
BECOMING A REGULAR OCCURRENCE
FOR US.
IN I BELIEVE IN THE THE BREAKING
THE STIGMA AND I SAT HERE TRYING
TO THINK OF THE ADJECTIVES VERBS.
THAT I COULD PUT THE FOR YOU.
AND I I'M KIND OF AT A LOSS FOR
WORDS BREAKING THE STIGMA IS NOT
ENOUGH.
I'M ASKING YOU. TO HAVE OUR
BACKS THERE ARE THIRTY THOUSAND
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS MEN
AND WOMEN.
NOT JUST ASKING YOUR REQUEST TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL BUT CHAMPION
THIS BILL.
HAVE OUR BACKS WE NEED YOUR HELP
WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN IN
AND WE ARE LITERALLY DROWNING
THIS IS THE NEXT PIECE THIS IS
THE NEXT PIECE THAT REALLY
BRINGS THIS.
INTO THE LIGHT.
AND AND OUT OF THE THE REALM OF
SHANE.
AND I WOULD REALLY WANT YOU TO
THINK ABOUT THIS POST TRAUMATIC
STRESS INJURY IT'S AN INJURY IT
IS RECOVERABLE AND THAT IS THE
WHOLE GOAL TO PUT PEOPLE IN A
POSITION WHERE THEY CAN SEEK
HELP.
AND AND THEY'RE IN A SAFE
DEPOSIT SAFE POSITION SO.
THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
PLEASE HAVE OUR BACKS.
I JUST EMPLOYEE TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL MOVING FORWARD THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER REISS.
IS BLOOM ANY COMMENTS OKAY OF
YOU BETCHA -- OTHER OTHER
PERSONS HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR
OF THIS BILL.
GOOD MORNING MR MEMBERS RAIN
SHERMAN WITH RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION BRIEFLY IN TWENTY
EIGHTEEN A HUNDRED FIFTY ONE
PEACE OFFICERS.
THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY DIED IN
THE LINE OF DUTY.
HOWEVER TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX
OFFICERS DURING THAT SAME YEAR
DIED FROM SUICIDE.
INCIDENTS OF P. DECIPHER PEACE
OFFICERS IS BETWEEN FIVE AND TEN
PART TIMES HIGHER.
THAN THAT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK HER AYE
VOTE THANK YOU THANK YOU.
A GOOD MORNING MISTER CHAIR
MEMBERS MATTHEW STIFLING A
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR
LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS IN
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
PROTECTIVELY IN STRONG SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
CORNEA PJ WEB Mà REPRESENTING A
PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA
CORRECT AND WE FULLY SUPPORT IS
VERY IMPORTANT BILL.
THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER PERSONS.
WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR THE
BILL.
NOW WILL GO TO ANY OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL.
THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY THANK
YOU. TO THE WITNESSES WHO SPOKE
IN FAVOR THANK YOU.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN VERS
ADJACENT SMELTER HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COALITION ON
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND SEE SEX
AS INSURANCE WITH ALREADY.
HI I WANNA SAY A COUPLE THINGS
BEFORE I GET INTO THE MEAT OF
OUR REASONS FOR BEING OPPOSED TO
THE BILL -- ONE I I HOPE -- THAT
EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT
EMPLOYERS COMPLETELY AGREE THAT
A PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AS A REAL
INJURY -- ANY ANY IDEA TO THE
CONTRARY IS JUST PLAIN WRONG --
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE FOLKS
THAT ARE AS BRAVE AS THE
GENTLEMAN THAT YOU JUST HEARD
DOING THE THINGS.
THAT THEY DO -- UP MY OWN
BROTHER IS A VOLUNTEER
FIREFIGHTER UP IN LASSEN COUNTY --
WE ALL I THINK WE ALL KNOW THESE
FOLKS AND SEE FIRSTHAND OF THESE
ARE REAL INJURIES THAT SHOULD BE
DEALT WITH BY THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM -- I ALSO
WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE JUST TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE THE STAFF --
ESPECIALLY CENTER STERN AND HIS
STAFF -- THERE'RE ON REAL AMOUNT
OF TIME THAT WORKING THAT WERE --
SPENT TALKING TO US IN REAL
DETAIL ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES
RELATED TO THIS BILL THAT
SENATOR STERN SELF SPENT ABOUT
AN HOUR AND A HALF WITH US --
GOING THROUGH THE STUFF HIS TO
HIS STAFF IN TOTAL PROBABLY FOUR
PLUS HOURS IN YOUR COMMITTEE
SIMILAR AMOUNTS OF TIME.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE DEPTH
OF THE POLICY DISCUSSION OTHER
WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE SO THANK YOU
CENTER -- THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS DO SUBSTANTIALLY
ALTER THE BILL I DON'T PRETEND
LIKE THEY DOUBT -- WE ARE STILL
OPPOSED TO THE BILL I AND AND
IT'S FOR ONE MAJOR REASON -- AND
THAT IS THAT WE JUST DON'T SEE
HOW THE BILL.
ADDRESSES THE ISSUES THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED THERE'S A LOT OF
TALK ABOUT THE STIGMA OF FILING
THESE TYPES OF CLAIMS ARE
SEEKING THIS TYPE OF OF INJURY
AND CENTER I'VE HAVE HAVE SPOKEN
ABOUT THIS.
IN THE ANALYSIS IT SAYS THAT
THERE'S A 26% RATE THE DATA THAT
THE SPONSORS POINT TO THAT
THERE'S A 26% RATE OF CLINICAL
DEPRESSION.
BUT WE ONLY SEE ABOUT ONE POINT
THREE ONE POINT 4% OF
FIREFIGHTERS FILING CLAIMS.
SO IF YOU CHANGE THE PRESUMPTION
WHICH IS BASICALLY HOW THE
OPERATION OF OF THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM EXISTS WHAT
THE STANDARD IS FOR ACCEPTING A
CLAIM.
IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THOSE
25% OF FIREFIGHTERS WHO AND
POLICE OFFICERS WHO SIMPLY ARE
NOT FILING THE CLAIMS.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A
DISCONNECT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE
BETWEEN THE PROBLEM THAT'S BEING
DESCRIBED AND ULTIMATELY THE
SOLUTION THAT'S CONTAINED WITHIN
THE BILL.
AND THAT'S A MAJOR REASON FOR
OPPOSITION HERE I'M GONNA DO AND
MAKE A COUPLE MORE OBSERVATIONS
ABOUT WHAT IS IN THE ACTUAL
ANALYSIS.
AND THE REASONS FOR OPPOSITION
THE ANALYSIS DESCRIBES
PRESUMPTIONS IS A KIND OF A
FUNDAMENTAL DEVIATION FROM THE
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN EMPLOYEES
AND EMPLOYERS IT REALLY IS THE
LEGISLATURE.
PUTTING ALL OF THEIR WEIGHT ON
THE SCALE -- TO MAKE SURE THAT
AN INJURY IS ACCEPTED IN IT IT
IS VERY HARD -- FOR EMPLOYERS TO
OVERCOME THAT PRESUMPTION
SECONDARILY THE ANALYSIS POINTS
OUT THAT WERE ONLY SUPPOSED TO
REALLY DO THIS IN UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT'S THE
OPERATION OF THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
AND THEN THE ANALYSIS GOES ON TO
POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO DATA
THERE IS NO DATA THAT SUGGESTS
THAT THE WORKERS COMPENSATION
SYSTEM IS DYSFUNCTIONAL IN
DEALING WITH THESE PARTICULAR
CLAIMS -- AND THAT JUST LEAVES
US BECAUSE OF THAT WEIGHT PUT ON
THE SCALE IF THERE'S NO DATA AND
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE BILL'S
ACTUALLY RESOLVING THE PROBLEM
IS EXTRAORDINARILY PROBLEMATIC
FOR US ON A ON A POLICY LEVEL TO
MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF A
PRESUMPTION.
I WITH THAT BEING SAID OBVIOUSLY
UNDERSTAND THAT AMENDMENTS HAVE
BEEN TAKEN THERE'S AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN.
THE SENATOR -- AND THE COMMITTEE --
AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL
BUT AGAIN WE TALKED BEFORE THE
HEARING -- AND EVEN THOUGH THE
BILL'S MOVING OUT OF COMMITTEE
WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE
CONVERSATION ALIVE AND KEEP THE
DISCUSSION ALIVE AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
THAT SO.
THANK YOU AND HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS GOOD THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS STATE FOR JUST ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY IS FOR
LOOKING FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE
BILL AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
AND YOU BELIEVE THAT THE AND
THEN MET SUGGESTED IN THE
ANALYSIS ARE A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND STAFF AS
WELL AS THE SENATOR AND HIS
STAFF FOR BEING VERY GENEROUS
WITH THEIR TINY MEETING WITH US.
THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS TO DISCUSS THESE
IMPORTANT POLICY MATTERS.
WE REMAIN COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH HIS OFFICE AND TO REACH THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE DRESSING
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND TIMELY
AND EFFECTIVE MEDICAL CARE.
AND OUR GOAL IS PUBLIC EMPLOYERS
IS ALWAYS TO HELP INJURED
WORKERS RECEIVE APPROPRIATE
EVIDENCE BASED CARE AND TO HELP
THEM RETURN TO WORK AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TAKE EMPLOYERS
EXCUSE ME TAKE THAT DUTY VERY
SERIOUSLY TO ENSURE THAT ALL
WORKERS HAVE APPROPRIATE
BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION AND WE
DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S EVIDENCE
THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE BEING
TREATED UNFAIRLY OR OUT OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LABOR CODE.
WE WELCOME THE ADDITIONAL REVIEW
BY CHANCE MAKE AND WE'D BE HAPPY
TO PARTNER WITH THE AUTHOR IN
THE COMMITTEE ON A BROADER
CONVERSATION ABOUT PRESUMPTION
ELIGIBILITY.
THAT EXAMINES THE IMPACT THAT
THAT HAS ON INJURED WORKERS AND
ON LOCAL BUDGETS PRIOR TO
FURTHER EXPANSION OF THESE
BENEFITS THANK YOU.
THANK YOU OTHER PERSONS --
OPPOSED TO OR A OR A TWEETERS
GOES AS CHAIR MEMBERS JR MEMBERS
ABOUT THE A ERICA PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THE
COMMITTEES DONE THE AMENDMENTS
THE AUTHORS TAKE AND WE
ASSOCIATE OUR COMMENTS WITH --
MISTER SCHMELZER MS LANE THANK
YOU.
DAN HUTCHINGS WITH THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES -- ALSO
OPPOSITION MINOR KHAMIS'S TCWC
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING CARE ROSS ON BEHALF
OF THE CITIES OF BURBANK
GLENDALE IN MARIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBER STILL
OPPOSE WITH ASSOCIATED COMMENTS.
SURE MEMBERS STILL GIVE IS THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN OPPOSITION
MICROLINER COMMENTS.
JOSH DUGGAR REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES OPPOSE BUT ONE ECHO THE
APPRECIATION FOR THE MOVEMENT ON
THE AMENDMENTS THINKS.
PHIL VERMAELEN REPRESENTING --
ALLIED MANAGE CARE AN
ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES -- WE TO BELIEVE IT'S
GETTING CLOSER BUT WE STILL HAVE
SOME MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL -- AND LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING ON TRYING TO COME UP
WITH SOME AMENDMENTS THANK YOU.
OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ANY
QUESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR OR FOR
THE WITNESSES MISTER FRAZIER.
YOU KNOW I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE
WE'VE HAD PUBLIC SAFETY UP
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
UNLESS YOU'VE BEEN A BENEFACTOR
FROM PUBLIC SAFETY OR OR FIRE.
YOU DON'T REALLY GET IT -- WHAT
THEY GO THROUGH I'VE GONE ON
TWENTY FOUR HOUR RIDE ALONGS
WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS?
OF SEEING WHAT HAS.
AN AFFECT ON THEIR MENTAL HEALTH
IS ACTUALLY DEVASTATING WHEN
THEY REACH.
THESE TERMINAL CANCER PATIENTS
WHO HAVE A DNR AND AND THEIR
WHOLE FIRST INSTINCT IS TO SAY
THAT INDIVIDUAL AND THEY CAN'T.
OR THAT CHILD THEY COME ON ON
THE ACCIDENT SCENE.
THAT IS IS DECEASED.
UNLESS YOU'RE THERE YOU CANNOT
UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GOING
THROUGH.
AND WITH THAT'LL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS MISTER
GRAYSON JUST QUICKLY COMMENT --
SERVING AS A CRITICAL RESPONSE
CHAPLAIN I WILL CONCUR WITH MY
COLLEAGUE FROM OAKLEY THAT --
THE THE EFFECTS AND THE TRAUMA
THAT IS -- THAT IS IMPACTFUL ON
A FIRST RESPONDERS LIFE IS BUT
AND DESCRIBABLE SO -- I WILL BE
DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL TODAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR
GOOD WORK AND APPLAUD THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU AND MISTER BIGELOW HAS
A COMMON.
YEAH MAYBE THAT'S WHAT IT IS
IT'S MORE COMMON THAN A THAN A
QUESTION MISTER STEARNS I WANNA.
FIRST OF ALL.
TAKE THE LEAP OUT HERE AND JUST
SAY THANK YOU A GREAT DEAL BUT I
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR HAVING
THE WITNESS THAT CAME UP TODAY
TO SPEAK HIS HEART AND HIS MIND.
AND KIND OF CONTESTED.
BEFORE ALL OF US THE TRAUMA AND
THE ISSUES THAT HE'S FACING AND
HE WILL CONTINUE TO FACE AS HE
MOVES FORWARD.
I UNDERSTAND THOSE ON A MORE
PERSONAL LEVEL THAN PROBABLY
MOST ARE AROUND THIS TABLE.
BECAUSE AS A FORTY SEVEN YEAR
MEMBER OF A A FIRE DEPARTMENT
AND HAVING SERVED IN ALMOST
EVERY. TO PASS TO YOU THAT THERE
IS AND SEEN EVERYTHING AND THERE
IS.
NO INTO THAT EVERYTHING -- I'VE
WITNESSED FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT -- ADDED VEHICLE
ACCIDENT ACTUALLY.
TAKE OFF THEIR GEAR AND LEAVE
BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE IT
WAS SO VIOLENT.
IT WAS SO TERRIFIC -- IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH.
AND THE ONLY ONE LEFT TO DEAL
WITH IT WAS MYSELF.
AND IT'S BEEN THE CASE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN BECAUSE I WAS ONE OF
THOSE TYPE.
THEY COULD TAKE THAT.
TYPE OF ISSUE AND AND AND
ADDRESS IT.
WHEN YOU FACE?
THE ISSUE OF A A FIREMAN WHO
HAVE TO GO OVER A CLIFF THAT'S
FULL OF RATTLE SNAKES. TO TAKE
AND REMOVE THE BODY.
ONLY TO FIND OUT.
THAT THE FATHER WAS MORE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOG AND HIS
WIFE.
AND I DID NOT MENTION THE FACT
THAT IS NEW INFANT IS NEWBORN
INFANT WAS IN THE ROCKS THANK
GOD.
THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE IN GOD SO
MUCH.
THAT BABY SURVIVED.
BECAUSE WE WENT BACK WE FOUND IT
[inaudible]
NOT HURT.
AND EVEN MORE OF A BLESSING WAS
A GRANDMOTHER THAT SHOWED UP.
AND SHE WAS ABLE TO GIVE THAT
NURTURING CARE UNTIL WE HAD
MEDICAL SERVICES A RIDE BECAUSE
IN A RURAL AREA.
SOMETIMES IT TAKES FORTY FIVE
MINUTES TO AN HOUR BEFORE THAT
AMBULANCE GET THEIR AND WE
NEEDED TO TRANSPORT.
NOW UNFORTUNATELY.
THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY TIME
CASE WHERE I LOST MY TEMPER AT
AN INCIDENT.
EVEN THE ONE WHERE THE GUY THAT
ALMOST HIT ME.
THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY --
IN COMMITTEE WHEN I WAS CAMARO
CARRYING A BILL.
THAT ALMOST RAN OVER ME AS A A
TRAFFIC -- MANAGER -- THAT ONE
DIDN'T BOTHER ME.
BUT THE GUY THAT ASKED ABOUT HIS
DOG AND HIS WIFE AND KID.
I TOLD THE OFFICER TAKEN AWAY IS
ABOUT TO BECOME A WERE STATE
FORM.
I TELL YOU.
THERE IS THOSE CASES WHERE THERE
ARE THERE ARE THE OTHER CASES.
THE CASES THAT WE DON'T SEE.
OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AT
HOME DWELLING.
PONDERING AND GOING THROUGH THAT
TRAUMATIC ISSUE AND DON'T ASK
FOR HELP.
THAT IS THE STATEMENT THAT WAS
MADE HERE THAT EVERY MEMBER
SHOULD LISTEN TO AND HERE.
AND RALLY AROUND THIS BILL.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE LIVES.
THAT.
WHILE WE'RE DEALING WITH THE
TRAUMA DRAMATIC ISSUES OF LIVES.
THOSE ARE THE FOLKS WHO AS A
RESIDUAL AND IT DOESN'T
MATERIALIZE SOMETIMES UNTIL DAYS
OR YEARS.
LATER.
SO I THINK WE ALL SHOULD TAKE A
MOMENT TO REALLY PONDER ON THIS
BILL.
I KNOW THAT -- YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN
EVERY -- A MEMBER TO EVERYONE'S
SATISFACTION -- CERTAINLY BUT
FOR ME TODAY IF I CAN HELP THE
THE MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE.
GET THE HELP AND GET THE NEEDS
THAT THIS BILL WILL PROVIDE.
I WOULD LIKE TO STAND WITH YOU
AND AND SUPPORT THIS BILL SO
MEMBERS I WOULD ENCOURAGE AN AYE
VOTE ON THIS AND I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE MYSTICAL.
AND AND FOR YOU AS WELL -- AND
AND I KNOW SOME OF THE FOLKS OUT
IN AND THAT'S SPOKE UP HERE.
I KNOW IDEA WHAT THE FOLKS IN
THE COUNTY LAND FOR A LONG TIME --
BUT THIS IS THIS IS ONE WHERE WE
NEED TO STICK TOGETHER AND STAND
UP AND REACH OUT FOR THE THE
FOLKS WHO ARE ARE IMPACTED.
SO I APPRECIATE MISTER CHAIR
THANK YOU.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
SIR WITH YOUR PROFESSIONAL
BACKGROUND -- I'M RECOMMENDING
SUPPORT OF THE BILL -- BASED ON
MANY MANY FACTORS INCLUDING THE
AUTHORS.
TO WORK WITH US -- TO TO SHAPE
THE BILL IN A WAY THAT WHERE WE
CAN MOVE FORWARD -- THE AUTHOR
AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT --
LAUNCHING IT -- A THOROUGH --
RESEARCH INTO ALL THE DATA --
THERE ARE A LOT OF THAT THERE'S
A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE
BUT MAYBE NOT COMPREHENSIVE.
STATEWIDE DATA -- WE HEARD SOME
OF IT IN THE TESTIMONY -- HERE
OF SOME OF THE THE FIGURES BUT A
A CRUCIAL CRUCIAL SITUATION SO
IT NEEDS ACTION AND SO IT'S A
VERY TIMELY BILL.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
MEMBERS.
IF NOT SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND
CLOSE SENATOR AND WILL VOTE.
THANK YOU.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION MISTER
CHAIR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS FOR
YOUR SERVICE SIR.
THE THINGS YOU CAN'T UNSEE.
YOUR EFFORTS.
ON MENTAL HEALTH AND PTS AYE AND
GETTING IT TOO AND I NOT A DE.
YOUR INJURIES THAT CAN BE HEALED
FROM THINGS CAN'T BE ON SCENE
[inaudible]
BUT IT'S TIME TO TAKE AWAY THAT
STIGMA.
AND REALIZE THAT THESE ARE
INJURIES.
I WOULDN'T TO MY A WHOLE
COMMUNITY JUST BURNED DOWN.
AND I'M WALKING THROUGH THE
RUBBLE.
PEOPLE LOST IT ALL WHO'S THERE
[inaudible]
FIREFIGHTERS.
OUR FIRST RESPONDERS THEIR BACKS
SO.
IN THE LAW ITSELF I THINK IT'S
TIME WE GET THEIRS.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
GOOD THANK YOU SIR ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IF NOT
LET'S -- WAS ARMED THERE'S A
MOTION AND A SECOND BEAUTIFUL --
THAT'S RIGHT MISTER FRAZIER.
AND SO FORTH A ROLL CALL VOTE.
ON SB FIVE FORTY TWO THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS DALY AYE DALY AYE
MAYES AYE MAYES AYE BERMAN.
BIGELOW HI BIGELOW I CALDERON
CALDERON AYE CHAN.
CAN I CHU.
COOLEY HI COOLEY AYE COOPER
COOPER I FRAZIER.
FRAZIER I GIPSON.
GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I COM LAGERTHA.
COME LONGER DOUBLE AYE VOEPEL.
TEN AYE VOTES THANK YOU WELL
DONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH MEMBERS.
SEE MY JUST MISSED.
ONE SOMEWHERE OKAY.
WHAT CUSTOMER BACK?
TWENTY HELLO ALL WE CAN COME
BACK.
ALL RIGHT SO WE HAVE A MISTER
BRADFORD'S BILL AND MISTER VOICE
THOSE BILL.
THAT'S WHAT REMAINS.
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEES --
PATIENCE AND ENDURANCE THIS
MORNING -- WE NEED.
HE NEEDS TO SAY IT HERE AT THE
COMMITTEE HEARING.
BRADFORD'S BILL HAS NO
AMENDMENTS [inaudible]
NECESSARY [inaudible]
SO.
MR MAYES WILL BE BACK.
MAYBE WE CAN ADD ONS ABOUT
[inaudible]
RIGHT IDEA [inaudible]
LET SIR.
TAKE THE ROLE FOR THE FOR THE
THOSE MEMBERS WHO MISSED THE
PREVIOUS VOTES TRACY.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
[inaudible]
BERMAN.
CALDERON HI CALDERON I CHEN.
CHEN I GIPSON. TWELVE TO ZERO
THIS IS CONSENT CALENDAR MISTER
COOL. TWELVE TO ZERO WHO WAS
MISSING -- ON THE BERMAN.
BERMAN AND GET THEM BERMAN
GIPSON OKAY.
ON SB [inaudible]
THREE EIGHTEEN MAYES
[inaudible]
BERMAN.
IN CONNECTION COOLEY
[inaudible]
COOLEY NOW [inaudible]
GIPSON REALLY.
GRAYSON UPSIDE DOWN.
THE BILL HAS.
THREE TO FOUR AB ONE I MEAN I'M
SORRY SB [inaudible]
FIVE THIRTY SEVEN BERMAN
[inaudible]
CALDERON.
BY CALLING ONE I CHAN.
CHAN I GIPSON.
SACRAMENTO HAS.
TWELVE TO ZERO WELL ANY
INDICATION ABOUT MR VOICE OVER
MISTER BRADFORD.
MISTER BRADFORD WAS HERE EARLIER.
DURING THAT MARATHON DISCUSSION
ON SENATOR HERTZBERG BILL.
SO HE MADE THE EFFORT
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
CALISTHENICS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE WORK
.
THIS IS A LIMITED [inaudible]
YEAH
.
ON THE OTHER [inaudible]
YEAH
.
AND HE'S STILL OF MICHAEL.
FIND THEM IN THE FIRST YEAR
[inaudible]
RETIRED.
BECAUSE YOU.
ALWAYS.
HOURS.
RIGHT.
RIGHT WITH THIS -- MAKE
STATEMENTS OR TO MY WHEN THIS --
MICHAEL MARTINEZ WITH -- THE
PART IN INSURANCE -- LET'S
RECTOR FAR FROM A COLLEAGUE --
THE CAR -- RICARDO LARA WELCOME
MISTER MARTINEZ THANK YOU SIR
MICHAEL MARTINEZ HERE BEHALF OF
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER RECORD A
LOT AND CALIFORNIA.
INSURANCE RESPONSE FOR THIS
MEASURE.
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE.
AND WE'RE ANSWERING A QUESTION
GOOD GOOD WE ALSO A J. GREEN.
RIGHT YES GET OFF A BOARD MEMBER
THE CODING -- BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION GOLDEN GATE BUSINESS
SEARCHES IMPRISONED BURKE --
GREEN LAW FIRM ALSO HERE THUS
FAR MICHAEL.
GOOD MORNING -- CHAIR DALY AND
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
INSURANCE COMMITTEE I WANT TO
THANK SENATOR BRADFORD FOR
AUTHORING SB.
FIVE THIRTY FOUR AND TO
COMMISSIONER LARK FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP AND SPONSORSHIP OF
THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION.
MY NAME IS JAY GREEN ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE GREEN LAW FIRM
THE GREEN LAW FIRMS A CERTIFIED
L. G. B. T. BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.
I'MA MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE GOLDEN GATE
BUSINESS ASSOCIATION.
THE WORLD'S OLDEST L. G. B. T.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SAN
FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA.
I'M ALSO PROUD MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE IS INSURANCE DIVERSITY
TASK FORCE.
I'M LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN
CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA AND
SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH ALABAMA.
ANY OF YOUR ANCESTORS.
ROLL TIDE RIGHT OUT OF I DO NOT
SECOND THAT.
I LIKE MANY OF YOUR ANCESTORS
CAME TO CALIFORNIA IN HOPES THAT
BAG GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR
GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
CALIFORNIA'S BEEN A STATE WHERE
PEOPLE ARE FREE TO BE THEMSELVES.
AND THEY SUCCEED BECAUSE OF THAT
DIVERSITY.
CALIFORNIA'S INSURANCE DIVERSITY
INITIATIVE HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL
IN INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL MEMBERS OF CALIFORNIA'S
DIVERSE COMMUNITIES.
SINCE THE INITIATIVE REPORTING
STARTED IN TWENTY TWELVE LGBT
OWN DIVERSE SPAN IN CALIFORNIA
HAS INCREASED FROM A HUNDRED AND
FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS.
THE NINE POINT NINE MILLION
DOLLARS.
THIS IS AN INCREASE OF 95% JUST
FROM THE FACT THAT WE ARE
TRACKING RESULTS.
THIS IS BEEN AN IMPACT OF TWENTY
THREE POINT SEVEN MILLION
DOLLARS IN -- TWENTY SEVENTEEN
NATIONAL DIVERSE L. G. B. T.
SPAN WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF
THREE TIME SINCE REPORTING WITH
STARTED IN.
TWENTY TWELVE THE INFORMATION
GATHERED BY THE DEPARTMENT THREE
INITIATIVE HAS ALLOWED OUR
CHAMBER TO PINPOINT AND
RECOGNIZE THE COMPANIES WITH
SIGNIFICANT.
L. G. B. T. SPAN AND TARGET
OTHER COMPANIES WHERE THEIR L.
G. B. T. SPAN CAN BE INCREASED.
THE CATEGORY LEVEL OF DETAIL IN
REPORTING FIRSTHAND ALLOWS US AT
THE CHAMBER THE PINPOINT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEMBERS.
AND TO MAKE INTRODUCTIONS TO
CORPORATE TREASURER MATT
PROFESSIONALS AT BOTH COMPANIES.
WE CAN'T OFFER THIS LEVEL OF
SERVICE TO OUR CHAMBER MEMBER
COMPANIES WITHOUT THE LEVEL OF
DETAIL INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE
PROVIDING THE DEPARTMENT. THREE
THE INSURANCE DIVERSITY
INITIATIVE.
BROUGH THE WORK IN THE INSURANCE
DIVERSITY INITIATIVE AND OTHER
SUPPLIER DIVERSITY INITIATIVES.
MODEL LAW FIRM HAS HAD MEETINGS
WITH SOME OF THE LARGEST FORTUNE
FIVE HUNDRED COMPANIES IN THE
COUNTRY.
THESE MEETINGS WOULD NEVER BEEN
A POSSIBILITY FOR MY LAW FIRM IN
ALABAMA.
CALIFORNIANS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY HAVE
ALLOWED ME TO REACH HIGHER AND
PURSUE DURING FAR GREATER THAN I
COULD HAVE IMAGINED.
MY MOTHER LOWER GRAINS ALSO
VISITING WITH US AND BECAUSE SHE
IS HELP ME ACHIEVE MY DREAMS I
WANT TO MAKE SURE RECOGNIZED HER
AT THIS THAT COMMITTEE HEARING.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON
THE INSURANCE DIVERSITY TASK
FORCE IN THE FUTURE.
AND I'M ALONG WITH THAT YOU TO
BE A AND MY MOTHER ASK YOUR
COMMITTEE FOR YOUR OB VOTE IN
FAVOR OF SB. FIVE THIRTY FOUR TO
MAKE SURE THESE OPPORTUNITIES IS
THIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND
WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF SHAMELESS
PITCHES OF I MUST AGREE WHAT ARE
I DON'T.
NO IT'S OKAY GOOD FOR YOU IN.
AND GREETINGS TO YOUR MOM
WHEREVER SHE IS A SHE OKAY COOL.
OKAY SHE IS NOT SHY.
THIS IS HER FIFTEEN MINUTES THE
CELEBRITY WRITER RIGHT HERE SO
THANK YOU MISTER GREEN FOR YOUR
COMMENTS THANK YOU THE BILL HAS
A MOTION AND SECOND IT HAS A
PASSED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
CHAIR -- ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
ANYONE HERE TO SUPPORT THE BILL
BESIDES.
MARGARET MAMA GREEN.
BACK TO FOLLOW JERRY MCCUE --
PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING CSA INSURANCE GROUP
IN SUPPORT THE BILL THANK YOU.
ACTING GLOSSY WITH THE GREEN
LINING INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
TAMMY MARTIN ON BEHALF OF
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL.
THERE'S NO ONE NO OPPOSITION.
THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL THING.
WERE READY TO VOTE THERE'S A
MOTION AND SECOND RIGHT.
OKAY ROLL CALL VOTE.
ON SB DINA CALLS.
NO.
I DID NOW WITH.
I COULD TELL BY THE LOOK ON YOUR
FACE WE'RE VOTE.
I'M SB FIVE THIRTY FOUR THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS DALY AYE DALY AYE
MAYES.
BERMAN.
BERMAN AYE BIGELOW.
AND NOW LET'S THINK ABOUT IT FOR
A ONE YOU KNOW I'M A GREEN
[inaudible]
AND I WELL I CALL THE ONE HI ALL
THE ONE I CHEN.
CAN I CHU.
CHU AYE COOLEY AYE COOLEY AYE
COOPER.
COOPER I FRAZIER FRAZIER I
GIPSON.
GRAYSON.
GRAYSON I COME LONGER DUFF.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I VOEPEL. ELEVEN
TWO ZERO GOOD MORNING.
THE MOTION AND SECOND SO THE
THERE'S THERE'S ONE AMENDMENT
SENATOR AND ARE YOU OKAY WITH
THAT YEAH I'M I'M GOO WITH HIM
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH GOOD.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND
TO ON YOUR BILL PLEASE GO AHEAD
SIR AND AND SO PLEASE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANK YOU
FOR THOSE AMENDMENTS.
THIS BILL -- CORRECTS OF AN
INJUSTICE IN HOW WE TREAT OUR
POLICE OFFICERS TO THEIR WORKERS
COMPENSATION IF THEY WORK.
WERE WITH WITH ONE AGENCY THEY
GET A SPECIFIC BENEFIT IF THEY
DO WORK FOR ANOTHER THEY DON'T.
THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS
AFFORDED TO ALL OFFICER STATE
WIDE AND IN PARTICULAR THIS BILL --
WOULD CORRECT -- PRESUMPTIONS
THAT ARE MADE WERE SPECIFIC
INJURIES OR ILLNESSES ARE.
LOGICALLY WORK RELATED BUT
GENERALLY AFFORDED OF
PRESUMPTIONS TO PEACE OFFICERS
BASED ON THEIR WE WHERE THEY
WORK MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE AND
AND THEN AGAIN THIS THIS BILL
WOULD WOULD CORRECT THAT TO
OFFER THIS.
IS A BENEFIT TO ALL PEACE
OFFICERS IN STATE [inaudible]
OF THEY DESERVE TO BE OF
AFFORDED OF THESE IMPORTANT
PRESUMPTIONS CONCERNING.
INJURIES ON THE JOB.
AND THIS WILL MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE NOT PAYING OUT OF POCKET
EXPENSES TO GO THROUGH.
A TREATMENT AND AND GETTING
ACCESS TO THE SERVICES THEY NEED.
TO BE FULLY -- HEALED UP FROM
THESE INJURIES SO.
AND THESE OF ILLNESSES.
SO WE HAVE -- TODAY PJ WEB HE IS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL POLICE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION HERE TO TESTIFY --
IT'S FOR THE BILL.
THANK YOU GO HEAD TO MISTER WEBB.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE -- YES
I AM PJ WEB I DO -- I AM THE
PRESIDENT OF THE LA SCHOOL
POLICE MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATION
AND I DO REPRESENT -- THE PEACE
OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AS WELL -- I JUST
REAL QUICKLY ADD THE THESE ARE
ARE ARE -- LIFE CHANGING EVENTS
THAT HAPPEN TO TO POLICE
OFFICERS THESE ARE THESE ARE
REALLY SERIOUS -- AND WE WERE
DAY IS VERY SO MUCH OF THE PTS I
DISCUSSION OF WE JUST SAT --
THEY'VE BEEN IN STATUTE FOR
DECADES -- BUT THEY HAVEN'T
EVOLVED TO INCLUDE THE
SPECIALIZED POLICE ASSOCIATIONS
THAT HAVE -- HAVE EVOLVED WITH
YOU KNOW WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
OVER THE YEARS [inaudible]
SO -- COUPLE THINGS ONE
ADDRESSES IS IS -- 115% OF THE
CLAIMS OF THAT ARE FILED FOR
THESE CONDITIONS THAT ARE
COVERED BY THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE
DENIED. 15% AND THOSE 15%
TYPICALLY WILL THEY THEY MAKE UP
THE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE --
CUMULATIVE THEY DEVELOP OVER THE
YEARS WHETHER IT'S A A LOWER
BACK PROBLEM BECAUSE OF THE GUN
BELT -- THAT YOU HAVE TO WEAR --
HEART CONDITIONS -- AT
HYPERTENSION TO DEVELOP -- THOSE
TYPES OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS
THAT THAT TAKE AWHILE TO DEVELOP
IF THEY CAN TIED TO SPECIFIC
INJURY THERE ALREADY THERE
ALREADY PROVED -- FOR THE MOST
PART ANYWAY -- BUT THE THE 15%
THAT ARE LEFT OUT TO HANG I CAN
PERSONALLY TELL YOU OF THEN YOU
KNOW STORIES ANDCOLLEAGUES --
WHO HAVE PASSED AWAY -- FOR SOME
OF THESE PRESUMPTIVE INJURIES --
AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE LEFT
YEARS -- WAITING FOR APPEALS
PROCESS TO GO THROUGH ON A TO
GET ANY BENEFITS THAT THEY HAVE
AND WILL WE EIGHT WE ALSO HAVE
FOLKS THAT.
DELAY GETTING TREATMENT.
DELAY GETTING TREATMENT BECAUSE
THEY ARE THERE FOR THE GOING TO
RUN OUT OF THEIR PERSONAL LEAVE
TIME AND RUN OUT OF HEALTH
BENEFITS AND BE SEPARATED.
AND NOT ONLY HAVE THESE INJURIES
AND ILLNESSES A DEAL WITH BUT NO
INCOME OR HEALTH BENEFITS TO
TAKE CARE FROM AT SOME POINT.
I URGE AYE OR DO SUPPORT IN AN
IT ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER BE
HAPPY ALWAYS WILL THANK YOU
MISTER WEBB AND WE'LL SEE IF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
ANY OTHER PERSONS WISHING TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS I'VE BEEN
ALL TOMORROW ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION -- WE
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMITTEE THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSORS FOR WORKING
WITH US ON AMENDMENTS ON THE
BILL THANK YOU.
AS CHAIR MEMBERS RYAN SHERMAN
WITH THE RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION ALSO IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
MATTHEW CYBERLINK I'LL BE OUT
THE LOS ANGELES PROBATION
OFFICERS UNION ASK ME LOCAL SIX
EIGHTY FIVE IN SUPPORT THANK YOU.
HI MY NAME IS -- SERGEANT ELMER
MARS AND RETIRED SERGEANT IN
SECOND PLACE APARTMENT -- THIRTY
TWO YEARS OF SERVICE --
CURRENTLY WITH THE SEGMENT
COUNTY PARK RANGER -- RECREATION
DIVISION.
AND WHEN I WENT FOR RETIRED FROM
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
WITH THE NORMAL WORKMAN'S COMP.
PRESUMPTION -- SUPPORT I GUESS.
AND THEN WENT TO THE COUNTY
RANGERS AND STUFF FOUND OUT THAT
THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT PEACE
OFFICER CLASSIFICATIONS.
AND THE ASSUMPTION THAT I MADE
WAS THAT I WAS COVERED IN CASE I
GOT INJURED AND STUFF ON THE JOB
AND STEP AND APPARENTLY I WASN'T.
AND THIS BILL CORRECTS THAT AND
WE'RE DEFINITELY STRONG SUPPORT.
MY NAME'S A LAUNDRY ON THE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY PARK RANGERS
AND A STRONG SUPPORT
[inaudible]
YEAH.
ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER PERSONS --
HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE BILL
[inaudible]
ALL RIGHT.
I SEE.
TO PLEASE GO AHEAD SIR.
JOSH DUGGAR REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES -- SO I WANT TO START
BY SAYING WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT
FOR THE PEACE OFFICERS COVERED
BY THIS BILL THAT ARE DEFINITELY
DOING IMPORTANT WORK.
AS EMPLOYERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED -- IN A PRIOR
DISCUSSION OUR GOALS HELP
WORKERS OBTAIN APPROPRIATE
MEDICAL TREATMENT AND RETURNED
TO WORK.
OUR OPPOSITION ON THIS BILL IS
REALLY CENTERED UPON THE SIMPLE
FACT THAT A PRESUMPTION IS NOT
REQUIRED OR NECESSARY FOR
INJURED WORKERS TO HAVE A
SUCCESSFUL WORKERS COMP CLAIM.
CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT WORKERS
COMP SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO FAVOR
INJURED WORKERS IF THERE'S A
DISPUTE REGARDING A CLAIM AND
CONNECTION OF THE INJURY TO WORK.
AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
FOLLOWS LABOR CODE THIRTY TWO OH
TWO WHICH STATE STATUTE SHALL BE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED WITH THE
PURPOSE OF EXTENDING BENEFITS TO
THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
THIS IS NOT JUST TECHNICAL CLEAN
UP OF INADVERTENTLY OMITTED
PEACE OFFICERS.
CURRENT LAW INCLUDES AND EXCLUDE
CERTAIN PEACE OFFICERS FROM
PRESUMPTIONS BASED ON PRIOR
LEGISLATION AND AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT THIS BILL
ALSO CHOOSES TO CONTINUE TO
EXCLUDE CERTAIN PEACE OFFICERS.
SO THIS IS NOT TECHNICAL CLEAN
UP IT'S A COSTLY EXPANSION OF
PRESUMPTIONS TO ADDITIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS OF OFFICERS
WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS OF
THE SIMILARITIES OR DIFFERENCES
OF THE JOB DUTIES OR RATES OF
THE ILES UNDER THE EXISTING
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM.
WHEN IT COMES TO PRESUMPTIONS WE
THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO STUDY
THE DATA INJURY RATES OF DENIAL
HOW ARE THINGS OCCURRING WITHIN
THE EXISTING SYSTEM BEFORE
CHANGING A SYSTEM?
SO WE WOULD WELCOME THAT KIND OF
STUDY OR REVIEW BUT UNTIL THAT.
TIME WE WOULD REMAIN OPPOSED TO
THE COST AN INVESTIGATIVE DUTIES
THIS WOULD CAUSE FOR EMPLOYERS.
THANK YOU GO HEAD MISTER
SCHMELZER.
ADDRESS CHAIR MEMBERS AT JASON
SHELTER HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION ON WORKERS
COMPENSATION ADDS ONE ADDRESS
ONE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE -- THE
GENTLEMAN ASSERTED THAT FOLKS
ARE COVERED BY THE WORKERS
COMPENSATION SYSTEM I I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM WHAT
THIS BILL DOES AND WHAT IT WOULD
CORRECT IN A SENSE -- IS IT PUTS
THE WEIGHT ON THE SCALE AGAIN IT
CHANGES THE BURDEN OF PROOF --
FROM AN EMPLOYEE HAVING TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WERE HEARD
IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THEIR
JOB.
A TO ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING THE
EMPLOYER TO PROVE THAT THEY
WORKED AT THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
HERE -- BUT AS FAR AS COVERAGE
GOES -- ALL EMPLOYEES ARE
COVERED -- I'LL BE VERY BRIEF
AFTER THAT I DON'T REPEAT MYSELF
TOO MUCH AND IN ONE DAY.
AT THE END OF THE POLICY
COMMITTEE PROCESS BUT I GO BACK
TO THE ANALYSIS AGAIN -- YOU
KNOW TALKING ABOUT HOW
PRESUMPTIONS -- ARE A DEVIATION
FROM KIND OF THIS GRAND BARGAIN
THAT EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
HAVE -- BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT
THAT IT'S PUTTING ON THE SCALE
THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE ONLY
UNDER UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
IT'S DEMONSTRATED THAT THE
WORKERS COMPENSATION SYSTEM
ISN'T WORKING.
AND IT SHOULD BE BASED ON DATA
AND THEN AGAIN THE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT THAT THERE IS REALLY
NO DATA HERE -- STORE OPPOSE FOR
THOSE REASONS I AND WE ARE YOU
KNOW VOTE TODAY THE HAPPY
ANSWERING QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU OTHER PERSONS AGAINST
THE BILL.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS YOUR
MEMBERS ABOUT THE AMERICAN
PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
ASSOCIATION SO THEATER COMMENTS
WITH THE COUNTIES IN C. CWC.
SELECT US HERE ON BEHALF OF C.
SACK ACCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY --
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THANK YOU.
STATE BORDERS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITIES WITH A LINER
COMMENTS WITH US JUST SHARED
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER PERSONS
WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE
BILL -- THERE ARE NONE NO MORE
NO ADDITIONAL -- COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE
AUTHOR OR FOR THE WITNESSES.
IF NOT SENATOR YOU CAN CLOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVIDENCE
SHOWS THAT WERE OF WORKERS
COMPENSATION CLAIMS FILED BY
PEACE OFFICERS.
NOT CURLY AFFORDED THESE
PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT 15% OF THOSE
CLAIMS ARE DENIED FOR THESE
SPECIFIC OFFICERS ASSISTANCE NOT
WORKING THIS IS THE ONE THIS
BILL -- IS SIX TWO CORRECT.
AND YOU KNOW JUST GENERALLY A
LOT OF THESE -- CLASSIFICATIONS.
I HAVE EVOLVED OVER TIME WERE
ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF
PEACEKEEPING DUTIES HAVE BEEN
GIVEN TO THESE CLASSIFICATIONS
SO THEY'RE IN ESSENCE POLICE
OFFICERS WHO ARE BE PICKED.
BECAUSE OF A SIMPLE LOOPHOLE ARE
NOT BEING DIVIDE -- PROVIDED --
THE THE SAME -- PROVISIONS OF US
SUPPORT THAN OTHER POLICE
OFFICERS OF OTHER
CLASSIFICATIONS I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU SENATOR ANY. ONE MORE
CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
IF NOT TO DID WE HAVE A MOTION
AND SECOND I THINK WE DID --
MISTER CALDERON MADE THE MOTION.
A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.
SB FOR SIXTEEN THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
DALY HI DALY AYE MAYES.
BERMAN HI BERMAN AYE BIGELOW.
CALDERON HI CALDERON AYE CHAN.
CHAN I TO WRITE TO AYE COOLEY.
HI COOLEY AYE COOPER.
COOPER I FRAZIER.
FRAZIER I GIPSON.
GRAYSON.
MASON I'D CALL LONGER DEATH.
KAMLAGER-DOVE I VOEPEL.
ALL RIGHT THAT IT PASSED WITH
THE TEN ZERO THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN WITH.
BETCHA MISTER HUESO.
THE ONE EXCEPTION [inaudible]
ONE ONE OF THE WORST AND
UNDERSTAND.
HOW WITH --
YEAH YEAH.
YEAH.
YEAH MAKE SURE THAT
.
LOOKING. FOR I'M GONNA TRY TO
GET IT RIGHT NOW WITH.
YEAH -- BUT THE ADDRESS -- KIND
OF WANT TO START.
A COMPANY -- AND FOR COME TO
SOME KIND OF YOUR OWN
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
LEADERSHIP [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
OF COURSE.
HOW IS YOUR QUESTION?
YEAH.
AFTER FOUR SO.
ALSO.
I THOUGHT ABOUT IN HIGH SIX HAS
NO YOU DON'T HAVE SPEAKER RULES
[inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible]
SENATE [inaudible]
WITH.
ONE RIGHT WE HAD A OKAY -- WE
NEED TO DO AN AD ON ON SENATOR
STARNES BILL.
SB.
FIVE FOUR TWO SB FIVE FOUR TWO
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROACH [inaudible] TWO TWO
I ALL RIGHT.
SO WERE.
WERE WAITING FOR A MISTER GIBSON.
AS EVERYBODY ADDED ON TO EVERY
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
SO [inaudible]
YEAH.
SURE SURE.
SURE SURE -- THAT GIVES.
CONSTRUCTION ALL THE CHANGES I
DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING ON A
SINGLE. FOR AN HOUR.
DEFINING.
IF WE SAY NO TO THAT
[inaudible]
RIGHT RIGHT.
AND IF IT WERE NOT.
WELL THE SOONER WE CLOSE WILL
SOON TURN THE BETTER.
TELLING ME TO LEAVE IT OPEN.
THE MORE WE GOT EVERYBODY AROUND.
I MEAN FIVE MINUTES [inaudible]
OKAY YEAH.
YOU CAN'T AND ALL RIGHT.
ON EVERYTHING OKAY.
WHAT I SAID ON THE TWENTY FOUR
YEAR [inaudible]
CONTACT ME.
I AGREE.
ON EVERYTHING.
THE TAXI.
PASSAGE ON THE WAY OKAY.
YEAH YEAH.
ALL OF THE GEN JOHN
.
YEAH BUT THAT'S YEAH AFTER
TAKING
[inaudible]
THE
OKAY.
SO WE'LL DO THE THE ADD ONS NOW --
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
IF YOU WANT.
TO JUST WRITE DOWN.
LET'S DO -- AND CAL [inaudible]
CONSENT.
YEAH CONSENT CALENDAR.
I'M CONSENT -- BERMAN
[inaudible]
BERMAN I UPSET BY GIVES THEM I
FOURTEEN ZERO AND NOW LET'S GO
TO SENATOR STERN'S BILL. FIVE
FOUR TWO FIND SB BY POOR TO
BERMAN.
BERMAN I GET SENT.
HI GIPSON I VOEPEL. FOURTEEN
THIRTEEN ZERO LET'S GO TO
SENATOR HILLS BILL. FIVE THIRTY
SEVEN FIVE THIRTY SEVEN BERMAN.
BERMAN I GIPSON AYE GIPSON AYE.
FOURTEEN TO ZERO SENATOR
BRADFORD'S BILL SB.
FIVE THREE FOUR SB FIVE THREE
FOUR MAYES.
GIPSON HI GIPSON I VOEPEL --
WELL.
TO OTHER.
SENATOR VOICE THOSE BILL SB.
FOUR ONE SIX FOUR ONE SIX MAYES
[inaudible]
BIGELOW [inaudible]
GIPSON.
THIS IS BIG THIS IS HORRIBLE
HUESO WHY SIDE CENTER WHICH WAS
GIVEN I KNOW PAL. ELEVEN TO ZERO
AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE SENDER
HURTS BIRDS BILL SB.
THREE ONE EIGHT SHE WANTED. TO
FIVE TO FOUR FIVE FIVE TO FOUR
YES SIR -- BIGELOW [inaudible]
OKAY.
OKAY OKAY.
THERE'S NO OTHER ADD ONS.
MR CHAN YOU WANNA [inaudible]
HI KERR.
ON SB.
THREE EIGHTEEN ALL RIGHT CHANGES
HI THE OTHERS ARE NOT RETURNING.
AT SIX TO FOUR THE HEARINGS
CLOSE.
WHAT -- A CENTER HERTZBERG BILL
FAILS PASSAGE.
HEARINGS OVER NOW THANK YOU