MORNING. WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR TUESDAY.
JUNE 14TH. WE. HAVE A COUPLE OF
AUTHORS, WHICH IS NICE, NO OTHER
MEMBERS, SO I'LL GIVE HIM A FEW
MINUTES BEFORE WE START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. BUT I DO WANT TO
MENTIONED A FEW TECHNICAL THINGS
FIRST. IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE
IS NO LONGER A MASK MANDATES AND
WE'RE SORT OF HOPEFULLY COMING
OUT OF THIS PANDEMIC SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER. MASTER STILL
ENCOURAGED AND DISTANT THING IS
ALSO ENCOURAGED. PLEASE WORK TO
BE SAFE IF YOU CAN. WE ALSO HAVE
A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR
WITNESSES. ONE IS HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM AND THE OTHER IS ON
THE PHONE LINES. WE ARE STILL
USING THE PHONE LINES. AND FOR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH
TO COMMENT. THE NUMBERS ON YOUR
SCREEN AT THIS POINT, BUT I WILL
ALSO TELL YOU THAT THE PUBLIC
TOLL FREE NUMBER 877692 8957
AGAIN. THAT'S 877692. 8957 AND
THE ACCESS CODE IS 131543. AGAIN
THAT'S 1315437. AND FOR
TESTIMONY, WITNESSES ARE WELCOME
TO COME UP TO THE TABLES. AND
FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND
THOSE WHO WOULD RATHER THERE
THERE IS A MICROPHONE HERE, BUT
WE JUST ASK THE FOLKS NOT TOUCH
THE MICROPHONE. IN THE INTEREST
OF SAFETY. SO WE WILL STILL GIVE
IT A FEW MINUTES TO SEE IF
ANYBODY ELSE OTHER MEMBERS COME
TO JOIN US AND WE WILL GET
STARTED. THANKS.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE
OTHER MEMBER WITH US. MISS
WILSON, WHO'S JOINING US AS
TEMPORARILY FOR TODAY. THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US. WE STILL DO HAVE
A VACANCY ON THE COMMITTEE AND
MISS WILSON IS FILLING IN FOR
THAT VACANCY. ALRIGHT, WE'RE
GONNA START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
JUST SO WE CAN GET THROUGH OUR
HEARING AND WE'RE GONNA START
WITH OUR ITEM NUMBER 11 84 21,
MR WARD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR. TERRAZZO
FOR THE COURTESY, UH, SHOULD BE
BRIEF. LAST YEAR, THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED 80 TO 18,
WHICH ALIGN THE PROCESS FOR
UPDATING TRANSGENDER MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES WITH THE EXISTING
PROCESS FOR UPDATING BIRTH
CERTIFICATES, HOWEVER, DURING
THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
EARLIER THIS YEAR, JUDICIAL
COUNCIL BECAME AWARE OF
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE. THIS BILL 84 21 SIMPLY
CORRECTS THAT STATUTORY LANGUAGE
TO INSERT THAT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
CAN IMPLEMENT THE A B 218
PROVISION BY ITS STATED
IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF JANUARY.
1ST OF 2023 AS WITNESSES. I HAVE
TOMMY MARTIN FROM EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA AND ANDY LEE BIRNBAUM
FROM THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR I VOTE WHEN THE
TIME COMES. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE
TO SUPPORT WITNESSES LISTED BOTH
ON THE TELEPHONE. TELL ME MARTIN
AND ANDY LINDENBAUM OR EITHER OF
YOU HERE WITH US. ON THE PHONES
. I'M LOOKING FOR TAMMY MARTIN
OR ANDY LINDENBAUM. CHECKING ONE
MOMENT. I DO NOT SHOW EITHER ONE
OF THOSE, UM THAT DIALED IN AS
WITNESSES TODAY YET OKAY, UM.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO TO THE ROOM.
ANY WITNESSES WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR A B 4 21?
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANY SUPPORT
FOR A B 4 21? THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
A B 4 21, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME.
18 T OPERATOR WILL QUICKLY GIVE
YOUR LINE NUMBER OFFLINE AND
THEN PLACE YOU RIGHT BACK IN THE
INTO THE KILL SO AGAIN FOR
SUPPORT ON A B 4 TO 1, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND
NOBODY IS QUEUING UP, MR CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO
TO OPPOSITION. IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM FOR 84
21? SEEING NON OPERATOR IF YOU
GO TO THE LINES FOR ANY
OPPOSITION TO A B FOR 21.
AND AGAIN FOR OPPOSITION, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO FOR
OPPOSITION TO A B 4 TO 1. MR
CHAIR. NOBODY DID QUEUE UP. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK
, THEN. PROPERTY MAY CLOSE THE
LINES. WE BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. MR. WARD YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST DRY ABOUT WHEN THE TIME
COMES. THANK YOU. ONCE WE GET A
QUORUM, WE WILL TAKE THE MEASURE
UP. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR. TERRAZZO ALRIGHT, UM,
NUMBER ONE A B 13 64. MORNING
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE S P 13. 64 IS ABOUT
CREATING A FAIR AND FORCE MINT
MECHANISM. A MECHANISM TO
ENFORCE WHAT IS ALREADY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S EQUAL
PAY FOR EQUAL WORK POLICY.
POLICY ALREADY EXISTS. WE'RE NOT
TOUCHING THAT THIS IS ABOUT
POLICY THAT'S ALREADY IN EFFECT.
AH THAT REQUIRES VENDOR
COMPANIES THAT HAVE ONE OF AN
ESTIMATED 400 SERVICE CONTRACTS
WITH US YOU SEE TO PAY THEIR
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES, WAGES AND
BENEFITS EQUAL. TO WHAT YOU SEE
PAYS ITS OWN SERVICE WORKERS WHO
WORK DIRECTLY WITH /C. SO YOU
SEE, CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATES
THESE VENDORS TO COMPLY WITH
THIS POLICY. FOR THE MOST PART,
THEY DO NOT ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. THE
BILL REQUIRES VENDORS TO SUPPLY
THE U. C AND THE APPROPRIATE
JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
, THE BASIC PAYROLL INFORMATION.
THAT'S NEEDED TO KNOW IF A
VENDOR IS ABIDING BY C POLICY.
THE BILL ALSO REQUIRES A VENDOR
TO SUPPLY A WRITTEN NOTICE TO
THEIR EMPLOYEES ABOUT THE
RELEVANT COMPENSATION RATES AND
WOULD ALLOW A CONTRACTING VENDOR
COMPANY AN OPPORTUNITY. TO CURE
ANY DISCREPANCIES BEFORE FACING
ANY CONSEQUENCE, REFUSAL TO
COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT
WOULD RESULT IN EMPLOYEES HAVING
THE RIGHT TO PURSUE A RECOVERY
OF LOST WAGES FROM THE
CONTRACTING VENDOR IN COURT. AND
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A
VIOLATING COMPANY FROM DOING
BUSINESS WITH YOU SEE, FOR A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD. THIS DOES NOT
PROVIDE A RIGHT JUST SUE THE U.
C. AND VENDORS CAN ONLY BE SUED
AFTER FAILING TO CURE THE
VIOLATIONS. MY WITNESS ON THE
PHONE TODAY IS KATHERINE LIKE
BURGER PRESIDENT OF ASKED ME 30
TO 99. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I DO HAVE THAT ONE
SUPPORT WITNESS LISTED ON THE
TELEPHONE. KATHERINE LAMBERG,
ARE YOU WITH US? I AM. THANK
YOU. GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR. SORRY GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KATHERINE LIMBURGER,
PRESIDENT OF ASKED ME 30 TO 99
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. SERVICE
WORKERS CLEANING TOILETS,
CUTTING GRASS. PICKING UP TRASH
, COOKING FOOD AND CLEANING
HOSPITAL BEDPANS ARE HELPING TO
MAKE YOU SEE ONE OF THE GREATEST
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS RUN AND SUCCEED.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR THOSE WHO
FEAR RETALIATION BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE THE PROTECTION THAT
YOU SEE EMPLOYEES HAVE. THESE
ARE OUR COLLEAGUES, SERVICE
WORKERS. WE WORK ALONGSIDE AT UC
BUT WHO WORK FOR THIRD PARTY
VENDORS AND COMPANIES DOING
BUSINESS WITH /C. YOU SEE, HAS
A POLICY TITLED EQUAL PAY FOR
EQUAL WORK? THAT MEANS FOR WORK
BEING PERFORMED AT UC BY OUTSIDE
VENDORS. THOSE WORKERS GET THE
SAME PAY AND BENEFITS THAT
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE HIRED DIRECTLY
BY C RECEIVED AND YOU SEE, HAS
MADE STRIDES IN IMPLEMENTING
THAT POLICY. WE APPLAUD THAT
PROGRESS. BUT YOU SEE,
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY ARE OFTEN
LEFT TO RELY ON VENDORS TO BE
TRUTHFUL ABOUT ACTUAL WAGES AND
BENEFITS BEING PAID. THIS BILL
WILL ENSURE IF YOU ARE A THIRD
PARTY VENDOR AND WANT TO DO
BUSINESS WITH YOU SEE, YOU MUST
ADHERE TO THEIR POLICY OF EQUAL
PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. IT DOES SO
BY MAKING THE APPROPRIATE
INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES AWARE
OF THE NECESSARY INFORMATION.
AND ALLOWING ANYONE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CURE AND CORRECT
WHICH THE BILL ALLOWS. IF THE
VENDOR REFUSES TO CURE AND
CORRECT THEN THEY CAN BE
SANCTIONED BY /C OR BROUGHT TO
COURT BY THE WORKERS WHO ARE
UNDERPAID. WE ASK FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP 13 64?
YOU COULD JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME
AND YOUR AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE
COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
EDUARDO MARTINEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING
AMERICA YOSHIHARA ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT? SEEING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN ALLIANCE FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR A B 13 64
AGAIN? WE'RE JUST TAKING NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF A
B 13 64, PLEASE PRESS ONE FALL
BY ZERO AT THIS TIME ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AND WE'LL BEGIN
NOW, MR. CHAIR WITH LANE 30.
ANYBODY ELSE? PLEASE? PRESS 10,
IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF A B 13
64, PLEASE GO AHEAD, 30. GOOD
MORNING SHANE DUSTBIN ON BEHALF
OF THE TEAMSTERS IN SUPPORT. AND
AS A FINAL REMINDER, PLEASE
PRESS 10 FOR SUPPORT ON A B 13
64. AND NOBODY IS QUEUING UP AT
THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED.
MICHAEL. BERNARD, ARE YOU WITH
US ON THE PHONE? I AM. MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, UM
MICHAEL MURDERED HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
/C RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES SP 13
64 BECAUSE IT WILL INHIBIT THE
UNIVERSITY'S ABILITY TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF PATIENTS, STUDENTS AND
CAMPUS COMMUNITIES. WHILE THEY
USED TO BE FULLY SUPPORTS, WAGE
AND BENEFIT PARODY FOR COVERED
SERVICES SERVICES PROVIDED BY
OUR VENDORS. IN FACT, IN 2019,
IT WAS B REGION TO APPROVE THE
POLICY THAT PROHIBITS
CONTRACTING RECOVERED SERVICES.
THAT POLICY REQUIRES CONTRACTING
IT C LOCATIONS ONLY IN A FEW
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS AN
OPTION OF LAST RESORT. PIN THOSE
RARE CIRCUMSTANCES, NEW C
REQUIRES VENDORS TO PAY WAGES
AND BENEFITS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL
TO THOSE DATES. /C EMPLOYEES
PERFORMING THE SAME OR SIMILAR
WORK, AS THE AUTHOR DESCRIBED
THIS POLICY IS ECHOED BY ARTICLE
FIVE OF OUR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH
ASKED ME RATIFIED IN 2020. SINCE
THAT TIME YOU SEE, HAS
RENEGOTIATED ALMOST 400
CONTRACTS, RECOVERED SERVICES TO
REQUIRE WAGE AND BENEFIT PARITY.
ALL NEW CONTRACTS ALSO INCLUDE
THIS PROVISION ALREADY. SOME
VENDORS CHOSE NOT TO COMPLY WITH
WAGE OF BENEFIT PARODY AND THE
/C TERMINATED RELATIONSHIPS AND
THOSE CONTRACTS. C ENFORCES
OUR POLICY. INCLUDING WHICH AND
BENEFIT PARODY TO MANDATORY
CLAUSES IN OUR CONTRACTS FOR
THOSE COVERED SERVICES.
INCLUDING THAT VENDORS ARE
SUBJECT TO AN AUDIT UPON USES
REQUEST. VENDORS KNOW THAT A
BREACH OF THE WAGE AND BENEFIT
REQUIREMENT IS A SERIOUS
VIOLATION IN GRANTS FOR CONTRACT
TERMINATION. FURTHERMORE THE
UNIVERSITY DEVELOPING A SYSTEM
WIDE AUDIT OF BOTH PROCESSES AND
VENDORS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
NEW POLICY. TIMING IS NOT YET
FINALIZED, AND ALTHOUGH THE
POLICY IS NEW, THE UNIVERSITY IS
FULLY COMMITTED TO WAGE AND
BENEFIT PARITY AND TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE LOCATIONS ARE
MOVING. TO OUR FULL COMPLIANCE.
HOWEVER SENATE BILL 13 64 WILL
NOT INCREASE TRANSPARENCY OR
ADVANCE THE WAGE AND BENEFIT
POLICY. RATHER THAN BUILD
NEGATIVELY IMPACT YOU SEIZE
ABILITY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
PATIENTS AND STUDENTS ON OUR
CAMPUS COMMUNITY. THAT'S BECAUSE
SENATE BILL 13 64 WILL ACT AS A
DAY FACTO BAN ON CONTRACTING AND
NOT JUST FOR ASKING ME COVERED
SERVICES. BUT FOR ANY AND ALL
CONTRACTS THAT YOU SEE. KENYANS
DESIGNERS, BUILDERS AND, YES,
GARDENERS AND FOOD SERVICE
WORKERS BUT ALSO RESPIRATORY
CARE, TAX AND SURGICAL
TECHNICIAN. VENDORS HAVE ALREADY
TOLD US THAT THE OPEN ENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS IN
THE BILL. COUPLED WITH THE
LITIGATION RISKS AND MASSIVE
COURT MANDATED PENALTIES FOR
EVEN MINOR OR TECHNICAL
VIOLATION WILL BE INSURMOUNTABLE
, AND THEY WILL NOT CONTRACT
EVEN IN EMERGENCY OR EXIGENT.
YEAH. BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT HAVE
VENDORS WILLING TO COMPLY WITH
THESE REQUIREMENTS IN SPEED, 13
64, WE WILL LOSE THE OPERATIONAL
FLEXIBILITY NECESSARY TO FULFILL
THE NEEDS OF OUR CAMPUSES AND
MED CENTER. EVEN IN AN EMERGENCY
, SUCH AS THOSE AGREED TO, AND
HE ASKED ME CONTRACT MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. THERE IS AN INITIAL
RETORTED THE UNIVERSITY HAS
OFFERED TO MEET ON RECRUITMENT
AND RETENTION TO ADDRESS
STAFFING SHORTAGES. BUT I'M TOLD
THERE'S STILL A 20% VACANCY RATE
IN SOME AREAS. WE'RE HAPPY TO
TALK ABOUT WAGE BENEFIT PARITY
IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE FIVE,
BUT WE STRONGLY OPPOSED SP 13 64
. IT IS UNNECESSARY AND WILL
NEGATIVELY IMPACT PATIENT CARE
AND CAMPUS OPERATIONS WITH NO
ADDED BENEFIT. IT IS REASONS YOU
SEE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS OR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SB? 13 64? MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
ALEX TORRES WITH THE BARRIER
COUNCIL AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION AT THIS TIME. KELLY
BROOKS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC
HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS, AS
WELL AS THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, SAYING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR OPPOSITION TO SB
13 64 AGAIN WE'LL TAKE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION. YOU,
MR. CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 13 64 PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY 01
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AND WE WILL GO
TO LINE 30, YOU ARE OPEN. LINE
30. THEY JUST TOOK THEMSELVES
OUT OF ANYBODY ELSE. THAT IS AN
OPPOSITION TO SB. 13 64, PLEASE
PRESS 10. WE DO HAVE ONE WITH AN
OPERATOR. ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
AND LINE 61. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
CINDY LEE WITH THE LOS ANGELES
AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
OPPOSITION TO SB 13 64. MR
CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE DID QUEUE UP.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATOR.
YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES WILL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY
CLOSE. I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL
THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO DO SO MUCH
FOR OUR STUDENTS AT UC SYSTEM.
UM AND THEY DESERVE TO HAVE THIS
POLICY. UM IMPLEMENTED IN A IN A
REAL WAY, AND ALL WERE CALLING
FOR IS ENFORCEMENT OF A POLICY
THAT ALREADY EXIST FOR THIS
HARDWORKING MEN AND WOMEN. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE WILL TAKE IT UP
ONCE WE HAVE QUORUM. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IF WE
COULD GET AUTHORS HERE AND MORE
MEMBERS WELL CONTINUE THROUGH
OUR DAY.
IT'S ANOTHER KAMLAGER, SO WE'LL
NOW MOVE TO OUR ITEM NUMBER FIVE
SB 10 85. WELCOME WELCOME GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM
PRESENTING. SB 10 85, WHICH
SEEKS TO PROTECT AND KEEP MORE
FAMILIES TOGETHER BY REDEFINING
NEGLECT, INDEPENDENCY COURTS. I
WANT TO BEGIN BY TURNING OFF MY
PHONE AND THANKING THE COMMITTEE
AND ITS CONSULTANT FOR WORKING
WITH ME ON THIS BILL, AND WITH
THAT I AM ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU WHEN DETERMINING CHILD
NEGLECT AND JUVENILE DEPENDENCY
COURT HEARINGS, THE CURRENT
OVERLY BROAD DEFINITION CAN PUT
FAMILIES AT RISK. THIS BILL WILL
PROVIDE CRITICAL PROTECTION FOR
CALIFORNIA'S FAMILIES.
VULNERABLE TO SEPARATION BASED
ON FACTORS SUCH AS POVERTY,
HOMELESSNESS AND LACK OF ACCESS
TO CERTAIN RESOURCES. SO IN
CASES OF ALLEGED NEGLECT, COUNTY
SOCIAL WORKERS INITIATE
PETITIONS THROUGH THE COURT. THE
COURT THEN RELIES ON THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOCIAL
WORKERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
NEGLECT OF A CHILD IS TAKING
PLACE. THE CURRENT BROAD
DEFINITION OF NEGLECT PROVIDES
AH! AND ALLOWS FOR REMOVAL TO BE
INITIATED FOR RELATIVELY MINOR
AND SOMETIMES TEMPORARY
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO POVERTY
. SO THE DEFINITION IN WI C
SHOULD BE REFINED. SO THAT
CONDITIONS SUCH AS A PARTIALLY
EMPTY REFRIGERATOR, DAMAGED
FURNITURE OR TEMPORARY INABILITY
TO AFFORD CHILDCARE WHILE
WORKING A LOW WAGE JOB WILL NOT
ALONE. WELL NOT ALONE RESULT IN
THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM
THEIR PARENTS. POVERTY AND A
LACK OF ACCESS TO RESOURCES,
ESPECIALLY FOR HISTORICALLY
MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS SHOULD
NOT BE FURTHER ADJUDICATED BY
OUR COURT. AND SEPARATING
FAMILIES FOR UNREASONABLE IN
ARBITRARY REASONS. CERTAIN
EXCEPTIONS ALREADY EXIST FOR
LACK OF EMERGENCY CELL SHELTER.
FAILURE OF PARENTS TO SEEK COURT
ORDERS FOR CUSTODY OF A CHILD
AND EVEN ADEQUATE MEDICAL
TREATMENT BASED ON RELIGIOUS OR
SPIRITUAL CONSIDERATIONS. THOSE
EXCEPTIONS ALREADY EXIST.
SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS SHOULD ALSO
BE INCLUDED TO CONSIDER
CONDITIONS OF POVERTY AND LACK
OF RESOURCES AS A PRESENT
REALITY FOR MANY PARENTS. THE
STATUTES IN PLACE THAT CREATED
THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS SECTION
300 OUTLINING THE DEFINITION OF
NEGLECT WERE CHAPTER IN 1976,
AND SINCE THEN THERE HAVE BEEN
MINOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE
LANGUAGE. HOWEVER NONE HAVE
ADDRESSED THE OVERARCHING
DEFINITION OF NEGLECT. SB 10 85
WILL ADDRESS THESE LONGSTANDING
ISSUES BY BOTH PROTECTING
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND
ALLOWING SOCIAL WORKERS TO MAKE
MORE INFORMED. REPORTING OF
NEGLECT. SO WITH ME HERE AND
SUPPORT IS ANDY MOZINGO, AN
ATTORNEY AND ORIC, RACIAL,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE,
FELLOW. AS WELL AS STEPHANIE
JEFFCOAT, A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER
AND IMPACTED MOTHER. BOTH ARE
WITH A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY
PROJECT, THE SPONSOR,
ORGANIZATION OF THE BILL, AND AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. I DO
HAVE THOSE TWO WITNESSES LISTED
AS WITH US ON THE TELEPHONE.
ANDREA MOZINGO. STEPHANIE
JEFFCOAT. ARE YOU WITH US? YES
THANK YOU, SENATOR KAMLAGER.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M ANDY
MOZINGO ATTORNEY AND ORAC RACIAL
JUSTICE FELLOW WITH A NEW WAY OF
LIFE, REENTRY PROJECT AND L. A
BASED NONPROFIT THAT PROVIDES
HOUSING AND SUPPORT TO FORMERLY
INCARCERATED WOMEN FOR COMMUNITY
REENTRY, INDIVIDUAL HEALING AND
EMPOWERMENT. WE PROVIDE HOLISTIC
FAMILY REUNIFICATION, LEGAL
SERVICES TO JUSTICE INVOLVED
PARENTS, INCLUDING SUPPORT
PERSON ADVOCACY AND CHILD
WELFARE INVESTIGATIONS, AND JUST
NOT DEPENDENCE, SEE COURT
PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR PRACTICE. WE
HAVE OBSERVED THAT IN ALL STAGES
OF DEPENDENCY CASES, POVERTY,
FACTS OUTCOMES. THE PROBLEM
PLAYS OUT IN COURTROOM HEARINGS
AND ORDERS AND ALSO WHEN
CONDITIONS OF POVERTY ARE
SPECIFIED IN SOCIAL WORKER
REPORTS TO SUBSTANTIATE CHILD
WELFARE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE COURT. INCLUDING TO
DETAIN A CHILD FROM THEIR
PARENT. OUR PRACTICE IS SEEN
SOCIAL WORKER REPORTS
REFERENCING. FAMILY HOMES BEING
IN UNSANITARY CONDITIONS. FAMILY
LIVING IN A SHELTER OR SOBER
LIVING PROGRAM OR NOT HAVING
STABLE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS. A
MOTHER RELYING ON AN OLDER
SIBLING FOR BABYSITTING. A
MOTHER NOT DRESSED IN NOT
DRESSING A CHILD IN WHETHER
APPROPRIATE CLEAN CLOTHES. A
HOME BEING HOME, NOT BEING WELL
STOCKED OR A CLOSET OBSERVED TO
BE BEAR WITH MINIMAL CLOTHING
HOME NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FOOD
AND APPLIANCES NOT BEING AND
WORKING CONDITIONS. MEANWHILE
OUR PRACTICE ALSO HAS OBSERVED
MANY COMMUNITY ORDERS, INCLUDING
ARTS FORTUNE PATHWAYS TO LIFT
FAMILIES OUT OF POVERTY AND KEEP
THEM TOGETHER, PARTICULARLY
FAMILIES AT RISK OF CHILD
WELFARE INVOLVEMENT. BECAUSE THE
CHILD BEING SEPARATED FROM A
PRIMARY GIVER HAS PRIMARY
CAREGIVER HAS PROFOUND, LASTING
IMPACTS ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND
MENTAL HEALTH. EVEN MORE RACIAL
JUSTICE REQUIRED SUPPORTING
RATHER THAN SEPARATING
STRUGGLING FAMILIES. AND OVER
BROAD DEFINITION OF NEGLECT,
FAMILIES VULNERABLE TO IMPLICIT.
IN CALIFORNIA. HALF OF ALL BLACK
CHILDREN WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF
A CHILD WELFARE INVESTIGATION
BEFORE THEY REACH ADULTHOOD. IN
2020 IN L. A COUNTY. THREE
QUARTERS OF CHILDREN WERE
REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES OR
HISPANIC OR BLACK. AND BLACK
CHILDREN WERE FIVE TIMES MORE
LIKELY THAN WHITE CHILDREN TO BE
THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD WELFARE
CASE. REDEFINING NEGLECT WILL
REDUCE THE RISK OF ARBITRARY
DECISION MAKING PERPETUATING
SYSTEMIC BIAS. WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR SB 10 85 BECAUSE
IT'S TIME TO HEAL AND NOT
PUNISHED. VULNERABLE FAMILIES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN
STEPHANIE JEFFCOAT. GOOD MORNING
. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE JEFFCOAT.
I'M A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AT A
NEW WAY OF LIFE. REENTRY
PROJECT. UM YOU HEARD FROM MY
COLLEAGUE ANDY ABOUT THE
CONDITIONS OF POVERTY THAT HAVE
BEEN USED TO SEPARATE CHILDREN
FROM THEIR PARENTS. I'M IN
SUPPORT OF SB 10 85 BECAUSE
POVERTY IS NOT NEGLECT. OVER 19
YEARS, I STRUGGLED WITH
ADDICTION AND CYCLED IN AND OUT
OF THE CAR. SARAY SHIN. I FOUND
MYSELF HOMELESS HAD LOST MY
CHILDREN AND WAS THE VICTIM OF A
SEXUAL RESULT. ASSAULT. AS A
RESULT, I BECAME PREGNANT AND
DURING THAT TIME I WAS SLEEPING
IN MY CAR. WHEN I GAVE BIRTH TO
MY DAUGHTER, SHE WAS DETAINED BY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES OF
ORANGE COUNTY FOR EXPOSURE IN
THE BOOM. MY DAUGHTER WAS TAKEN
RIGHT FROM MY ARMS AT THE TIME
SHE WAS NOT SHOWING ANY SIGNS OF
MALNOURISHMENT OR ANY MEDICAL
EMERGENCY. SHE HAD JUST BEEN
BORN AND HAD NOT PHYSICALLY BEEN
ABUSED, NOR DID SHE SHOW ANY
SIGNS OF EMOTIONAL DAMAGE. THE
ALLEGATIONS TOWARDS ME OR
FAILURE TO PROTECT THEY GAVE NO
OTHER REASON. BUT HOW DID I FAIL
TO PROTECT HER WHEN I WAS NEVER
EVEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO PROVIDE
HER WITH ANY ADEQUATE FOOD,
CLOTHING OR SHELTER? THEY NEVER
GAVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF MY
HOMELESSNESS AND INCARCERATION
IN A RACIALLY BIASED MANNER,
USING MY STRUGGLES AS A
CONVENIENCE. IT WAS A
CONVENIENCE BECAUSE LESS WORK IS
REQUIRED OF A SOCIAL WORKER WHEN
A MOTHER'S WHEREABOUTS ARE
UNKNOWN. OFTENTIMES TERMINATION
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND ADOPTION
HEARINGS ARE BASICALLY
UNCONTESTED IN A MOTHER'S
ABSENCE. MY CIRCUMSTANCES MADE
IT EASIER FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES TO ACHIEVE
ANOTHER ADOPTION TO BOLSTER
THEIR STATISTICS. FOR THEM. IT
WAS A CONVENIENCE, BUT FOR ME,
IT HAS ROBBED ME OF MY DIGNITY,
DUE PROCESS AND MY CIVIL RIGHT
TO PARENTHOOD. SB 10 85 WILL
HELP VULNERABLE FAMILIES WHO ARE
AT RISK OF BEING SEPARATED BY
ALLOWING SOCIAL WORKERS TO MAKE
MORE INFORMED DECISIONS ON
REPORTING NEGLECT. IT WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT DISADVANTAGED
FAMILIES PRIMARY EARLY FAMILIES
OF COLOR DO NOT CONTINUE TO BE
THE SUBJECT OF THESE HARMFUL
PETITIONS. I DO THIS WORK SO
THAT OTHER PARENTS OR MOTHERS
LIKE ME ARE GIVEN A CHANCE TO
PROVIDE FOR THEIR CHILDREN. MY
HOPE IS THAT FAMILIES WILL BE
PROVIDED WITH RESOURCES AND
SERVICES TO STAY TOGETHER
INSTEAD OF BEING TORN APART.
CONDITIONS OF POVERTY SHOULD NOT
ALONE BE THE REASON TO
PERMANENTLY SEPARATE APPARENT
FROM THEIR CHILD. IT'S TIME FOR
US TO WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE
POLICIES THAT FOCUS MORE ON
REUNIFICATION, NOT SEPARATION.
FOR THESE REASONS TODAY, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU'RE A
VOTE ON SB 10 85. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT WE'LL MOVE NOW TO OTHERS
IN SUPPORTERS ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR S? B 10 85.
ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE. I HAVE NO
OPPOSITION LISTED. SO IS THERE
ANY OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING
ROOM TO SB 10 85.
UM OKAY. SO NOW LET'S GO TO THE
PHONE LINES. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SB 10 85. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 10 85, PLEASE TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY AND PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY 01 FOLLOWED BY ZERO
AND WE WILL GO TO LINE 41 YOU
ARE OPEN. JOANN PARKS OR YOU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN SUPPORT OF
S BETWEEN 95. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IT! WE'RE NEXT. WE'RE GONNA
GO TO LINE 66, YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS DYLAN.
WE SHAVED FROM THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.
PROBABLY FUNNY A CHAPTER AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT AS AN 85. THANK
YOU. AND ITS FINAL REMINDER,
PLEASE PRESS 10 IF YOU ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 10 85, AND WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO LINE 85, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS BRIAN
TANNER. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH A
NEW WAY OF LIFE PROJECT SPONSOR
ON THE BILL PROBABLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL 10 85. THANK YOU. AND
WE DO HAVE ONE MORE. MR CARE ONE
MOMENT THERE WITH AN OPERATOR.
AND LINE 43. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SIMON
MARTINEZ AND CALLING ON BEHALF
OF HOMIES UNIDOS REPORT OF FIVE.
AND NOBODY ELSE DOES QUEUED UP
AT THIS TIME, MR CHAIR. OKAY
THANK YOU. GO BACK TO OPPOSITION
AGAIN. ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM OPPOSED TO SB 10 85. SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES, THEN FOR ANY
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 85. IF YOU
ARE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 10 85
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND WE DO HAVE
ONE QUEUING UP ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE. ANYBODY ELSE, PLEASE
PRESS ONE. FOULED BY ZERO IF
YOU'RE NOT POSITION TO SB 10 85.
WE DO HAVE ONE WITH AN OPERATOR.
IN LINE 88, YOU'RE OPEN. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. FIND MY NAME IS TIA
SUBTLE AND I'M CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF SB 10 85. THANK YOU.
MR CHAIRS. NOBODY ELSE QUEUED UP
AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES, SO I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. HIS RAISE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR BRINGING
THIS, AYE. WE HEAR ABOUT SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS ESPECIALLY WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POVERTY, AND
I APPRECIATED THE COMMENT OF ONE
OF THE WITNESSES. POVERTY IS NOT
NEGLECT. THE EXAMPLES WERE VERY
CLEAR. I THINK THE LETTER FROM
ONE OF YOUR SUPPORTERS OR
SUPPORTER OF THE OF THE BILL
FROM MY AREA. ALL OF US ARE
NONE. VERY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
THAT. WE SHOULD STOP PUNISHING
PARENTS FOR BEING POOR AND DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ASSIST THE
FAMILIES THAT FIND THEMSELVES
SUBJECT. TO THE SYSTEM. I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD AND WHEN THE TIME
IS APPROPRIATE LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. AT THE
COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US AND
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
YOU. POVERTY IS OT AND SHOULD
NOT BE A BASIS FOR REMOVING A
CHILD. BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED
TO BE CAREFUL HERE AND ENSURE
THAT WHEN A CHILD IS IN A
DANGEROUS, ACTUALLY DANGEROUS
SITUATION WHETHER THEIR PARENTS
ARE WEALTHIER WITH THE PARENTS
ARE POOR. WE NEED TO PROTECT THE
CHILD, AND THAT'S THAT'S REALLY
WHAT WE WORKED ON. BUT ANY TIME
WE'RE DEALING WITH INDICATORS
AROUND POVERTY SORT OF BUILT
THROUGHOUT. OUR CODES AND I KNOW
YOU'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO THIS,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. JUST BY
BEING ABLE TO TAKE AN ACTION
AGAINST THE FAMILY OR CHILD IN
THIS CASE BASED ON POVERTY. IS
IN FACT EITHER OVERTLY OR
COVERTLY RACIALLY MOTIVATED AND
THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT LEADS TO THE STATISTICS
THAT THAT WE HAVE FOR A LOT OF
THE REMOVALS OF CHILDREN AND A
LOT OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN
TRYING TO DO IN THE LEGISLATURE
AND I KNOW OU SHARE THAT IS TO
GIVE SUPPORT AND HELP FOR
FAMILIES EARLY ON, SO THAT WE
NEVER GET TO THE POINT OF BEING
REMOVED. IN THOSE COUNTIES THAT
HAVE DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE
PROGRAMS AND OTHERS. TO PROVIDE
THAT LEVEL OF SERVICES IS A MUCH
HEALTHIER WAY SO THAT WE'RE NOT
REMOVING JUST TO REMOVE OR
FINDING AN EXCUSE TO REMOVE
WE'RE HELPING THAT CHILD BY
HELPING THAT FAMILY BE
SUCCESSFUL AND WHETHER IT'S A
SINGLE MOM. OR ANY OTHER. MIX OF
PARENT OR PARENTS. DOESN'T
MATTER OR SHOULDN'T MATTER. IT'S
HELPED FOR THAT FAMILY UNIT AND
AVOID REMOVAL AND THAT'S I THINK
YOU'RE BUILT FURTHERS THAT
NOTION. AND WILL MAKE THE SYSTEM
WORK A LITTLE BIT HARDER FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THOSE CHILDREN, SO I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THIS. AND
WITH THAT, YOU MAY CLOSE. WELL
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL IS HOPING
TO ACHIEVE. I WILL SAY IT
STEMMED FROM AN INCIDENT IN MY
DISTRICT WHERE A COUPLE GAVE
BIRTH TO A CHILD AT HOME. AND A
SOCIAL WORKER WAS CALLED IN AND
IMMEDIATELY INITIATED THE
PROCESS OF REMOVING THAT CHILD
FROM THAT HOME. IT WAS ILL
INFORMED. IT WAS ARBITRARY. IT
WAS ITALIAN, TORY. THAT FAMILY
ACTUALLY HAD THE RESOURCES TO
CONTEST AND TO WORK WITH THE
SYSTEM, BUT WE KNOW ESPECIALLY
BASED ON THE STATISTICS SHARED
BY ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT
MANY FAMILIES MANY FAMILIES OF
COLOR DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE
KINDS OF RESOURCES. AND SO THIS
IS AN ATTEMPT TO REFINE WHAT THE
WORD NEGLECT MEANS. BECAUSE IT
IS HIGHLY INTERPRETIVE, AND WE
CERTAINLY DON'T WANT IT TO BE
INFUSED WITH PEOPLE'S BIASES OR
EVEN THEIR IGNORANCE WHEN IT
COMES TO WHAT FAMILIES NEED. UM
MANY OF US PROBABLY HAVE OUR OWN
STORIES OR HAVE STORIES OF FOLKS
THAT WE KNOW. WHO WERE POOR AND
WHO STRUGGLED AND THEIR PARENTS
WORKED AS HARD AS THEY COULD
WITH THE RESOURCES THAT THEY
HAVE. AND SO THIS IS TRYING TO
EXTEND THOSE STORIES. UM, YOU
KNOW, I WAS RAISED BY A SINGLE
MOM. I WAS A LATCHKEY KID, AND
IN TODAY'S TIME, I WOULD HATE UM
, TO HAVE HAD SOMEONE CALL
SOCIAL SERVICES AND TAKE ME AWAY
FROM MY MOTHER. BECAUSE OF THAT,
UM, THERE ARE CERTAINLY OTHER
WAYS TO SUPPORT AND EMBRACE AND
GUIDE. AND REDIRECT FAMILIES WHO
NEED HELP. AND SO THIS IS ONE
STEP. I HOPE IN THAT DIRECTION,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTES. THANK YOU. WE WILL
CERTAINLY TAKE IT UP WHEN WE GET
A QUORUM. SENATOR LABOR SO WE'LL
NOW MOVE TO OUR ITEM NUMBER SIX
SB 9 31. YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF
BILLS WITH US, D GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR. GOOD MORNING MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT SHALL I START WITH 9 31,
PLEASE DO ALL RIGHT. EXCELLENT.
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR. THE SENATE
BILL. SENATE BILL 9 31 IMPOSES
PENALTIES PUBLIC EMPLOYERS FOR
UNLAWFULLY ATTEMPTING TO DETER
OR DISCOURAGE EMPLOYEES FROM
JOINING OR PARTICIPATING IN THE
UNION. AS A LEGISLATURE. WE HAVE
ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM
DETERRING UNION MEMBERSHIP BY
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS
FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALSO
LARGELY ALREADY AUTHORIZED. TO
BRING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES YOU
LPS AT THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
RELATIONS BOARD, PERP PRECISELY
THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THOUGH
SOME PUBLIC EMPLOYERS HAVE SENT
OUT ANTI UNION COMMUNICATIONS
REPEATEDLY TO EXISTING
BARGAINING UNITS OR WORKERS
ATTEMPTING TO COLLECTIVELY
BARGAIN UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN AN
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION SUCCEEDS
IN PARTITIONING PURPOSE TO GRANT
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE
, PERP CAN ONLY ISSUE A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER REQUIRING THE
EMPLOYER TO POST A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION. SADLY BY THAT POINT,
THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. IT
IS CLEAR THAT SOME PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS ARE STILL WILLING TO
BREAK THE LAW AND WILL CONTINUE
TO VIOLATE THEIR EMPLOYEES RIGHT
TO ORGANIZE UNLESS RELIGION
LEGISLATURE ACTS BY PROVIDING
MEANINGFUL CONSEQUENCES. SP 9 31
WILL IMPOSE A $1000 PENALTY PER
VIOLATION PER AFFECTED EMPLOYEE
NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 BY
CREATING THIS FINANCIAL PENALTY.
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS WILL HOPEFULLY
THINK TWICE BEFORE PURPOSELY
DISCOURAGING UNION ACTIVITY IN
THE PUBLIC SECTOR ON THE PHONE
AND SUPPORTED THE BILL ARE TWO
OF THE CO SPONSORS. CHRISTOPHER
MAYER WITH AFSCME AND MICHELE
CASTRO WITH CI YOU AND AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN I VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, SO I DO HAVE TWO
WITNESSES LISTED ON THE
TELEPHONE, CHRISTOPHER MAYER AND
MICHELE CASTRO. CHRISTOPHER
MAYER. ARE YOU WITH US? GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR. STONE UM, I AM
HERE AHEAD, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT,
WELL, GOOD MORNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND STAFF AS WELL.
CHRISTOPH MAYER, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES OR
CALIFORNIA. WE ARE CO SPONSORING
SENATE BILL 9 31, WHICH BUILDS
UPON THE PREVIOUS WORK OF THE
STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE THAT
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS REMAIN NEUTRAL
ON WHETHER EMPLOYEES FORMER JOIN
A UNION. 2 2017 JANICE VERSUS
ABNEY SUPREME COURT DECISION
ESTABLISHED THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES DO NOT HAVE TO PAY
DUES TO THE UNIONS THAT
REPRESENT THEM. BUT THE UNIONS
MUST STILL REPRESENT ALL
BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS DURING
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. THIS WAS
A MAJOR LOSS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
UNION AS A KNEECAPPED OUR
ABILITY TO COVER COSTS AND
COMPREHENSIVELY REPRESENT OUR
WORKERS. THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE STEPPED UP AND
PASSED SEVERAL BILLS TO MITIGATE
THE DISADVANTAGE. THIS INCLUDED
REAFFIRMING THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS SHALL NOT DISCOURAGE
OR DETER CURRENT OR PROSPECTIVE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM JOINING A
UNION. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY
OF PUBLIC EMPLOYERS ABIDE BY
THIS LAW. HOWEVER SOME PUBLIC
EMPLOYERS CONTINUE TO VIOLATE
THE EXISTING LAW BECAUSE THERE
IS NO REAL DISINCENTIVE. I
SINCERELY HOPE THAT THE
PENALTIES ESTABLISHED BY SP 9 31
ARE SEVERE ENOUGH TO DETER C
AND OTHER BAD ACTORS FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS TO JOIN OR
FORMER UNION. THERE IS ZERO
PENALTY TO COMPLY WITH EXISTING
LAW. THANK YOU AND I AM I WILL
STAY ON THE LINE TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND THEN MICHELE CASTRO. HI
MICHELE CASTRO, THE SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION. I
THINK SENATOR LEYVA AND MY
COLLEAGUE FROM ASKED ME PRETTY
WELL COVERED THE POINT, SO I
JUST WANT TO ADD A FEW THINGS
HERE. EMPLOYERS HAVE HAD FIVE
YEARS TO UNDERSTAND AND COMPLY
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
355. AND THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE
HAD A SENATOR. LABOR HAS SAID A
FEW CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE LAW
. UM THE OPPOSITION WILL TELL
YOU THAT THIS BILL IS SO BROAD
THAT IT COULD LIMIT THEIR
ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH
EMPLOYEES. ABOUT ANY MATTERS
SUCH AS THOSE DEALING WITH
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
PROTRACTED CAMPAIGNS,
NEGOTIATIONS UNIT DETERMINATION
. UM, BUT I WANT TO BE VERY
CLEAR. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT
MATTERS UNRELATED TO THIS BILL.
THOSE MATTERS RESOLVED UNDER THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTES
AND THOSE REMEDIES. UM THERE'S
STILL VERY NARROW AND PERP HAS
EVEN, UM INTERPRETED GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 355. OH TO BE EVEN
MORE NARROW, ONLY TO WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION. SO FOR EXAMPLE,
IF THE MANAGER IS IN A NEW
EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION AND SAYS
SOMETHING THAT IS IN VIOLATION
OF THE LAW THAT WOULD NOT
TRIGGER A PENALTY UNDER THIS
BILL. AGAIN THE BILLS VERY
DISCREET TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 355. OH, UM HERB HAS
NARROWLY DEFINED THAT STATUTE.
SO WE THINK THAT THE BILL WILL
PRIMARILY SERVE AS A DETERRENT
BECAUSE MOST PUBLIC EMPLOYERS
AGAIN HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE
LAW. THERE ARE A FEW THAT
CONTINUALLY VIOLATE THE LAW. WE
HOPE THAT, UM THIS BILL WILL
SERVICE THE DETERRENT THEME
OPPOSITION WILL TELL YOU THAT
THE FINES ARE VERY STEEP IN THIS
BILL. UM, HOPEFULLY THAT
ENCOURAGES THEM TO DO THE RIGHT
THING BECAUSE OUR PREFERENCES
THAT THEIR RESOURCES BE USED FOR
PROGRAM AND EMPLOYEES. UM, THANK
YOU, AND I ASK FOR YOUR EYE
BOATS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO OTHERS IN
SUPPORT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT. JUST GIVE US
YOUR NAME YOUR AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR EDUARDO MARTINEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, LOUIS COST
SO WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
LEGISLATIVE BOARD OF THE SHEET
METAL, AIR, RAIL AND
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION SMART TV
IN SUPPORT THINGS. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS MIKE WEST ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL.
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT
IN THE HEARING ROOM. SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR. WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP
9 31 AGAIN. WE'LL TAKE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. MAKING
THIS CHAIR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SP 931
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AND OUR FIRST
PARTICIPANT IS LYING. 77 YOU ARE
OPEN. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBER SHANE GUSSMAN ON BEHALF
OF THE TEAMSTERS, UH, PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR. ARE YOU STILL WITH US?
YES I AM. AND LINE 96. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. SORRY WE WERE GETTING A
PARTICIPANT LINE 96, YOU ARE
ONLY. I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE
TAKEN YOURSELF OUT OF Q 96
PLEASE PRESS 10 WILL GIVE ONE
FINAL REMINDER IF YOU ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 931, PLEASE PRESS
ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS
TIME. IN LINE 96, PLEASE GO
AHEAD WITH THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND NOBODY ELSE DID
QUEUE UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE
WILL NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I
HAVE TWO OPPOSITION WITNESSES
LISTED MICHEL BEDARD. AND
DOROTHY JOHNSON, BOTH WITH US ON
THE TELEPHONE. MICHAEL BERNARD,
ARE YOU HERE? FAM. THANK YOU
AGAIN, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MICHEL BEDARD HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
/C RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES SENATE
BILL 9 31 UNLESS THE BILL IS
AMENDED. C HAS REQUESTED
AMENDMENTS WOULD CLARIFY THAT
THE PENALTIES IN THIS BILL TO
APPLY TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYERS MASS
COMMUNICATION AS DEFINED IN
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3553.
MASS COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDE ANY
KIND OF WRITTEN, VERBAL RECORDED
OR OTHER MESSAGE THAT IS
INTENDED FOR MORE THAN ONE
EMPLOYEE. CURRENT LAW REQUIRES
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS LIKE YOU SEE TO
MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO SENDING
OUT THOSE MESSAGES. IF THE
PARTIES CAN'T AGREE ON THE
CONTENT, THE EMPLOYER IS
REQUIRED TO INCLUDE A MESSAGE
FROM THE UNION AT THE SAME TIME
IN THE SAME WAY. WITHOUT
CLARIFYING WHAT CONSTITUTES A
VIOLATION OF THE DETERRENT
DISCOURAGED LANGUAGE. IT'S NOT
UNREASONABLE TO IMAGINE AND
OVERLY EXPENSIVE VIEW OF
ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING RESPECTFUL
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN LABOR AND
MANAGEMENT. BEING SUBJECT TO
PENALTIES. THERE IS A NATURAL
TENSION BETWEEN LABOR AND
MANAGEMENT. BUT NOT EVERY
DISAGREEMENT SHOULD BE SUBJECT
TO PUNISHMENT. AND PENALTIES CAN
ALL THESE WHICH TAKE PUBLIC
FUNDS INTENDED FOR STUDENTS,
FACULTY AND STAFF. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR NO VOTE ON SP 9 31 UNLESS
IT IS AMENDED TO CLEARLY DEFINED
WORK CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN
DOROTHY JOHNSON. YES THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR TORY MEMBERS,
DOROTHY JOHNSON WITH THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATORS WITHIN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PRESIDENT. WE WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE FIRST AND FOREMOST
THE DIALOGUE. WE'VE HAD TO SHARE
CONCERNS THAT THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS AND THEIR CONSIDERATION
OF SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED WE
ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW.
PROHIBITING EMPLOYERS FROM
DISSUADING OR DISCOURAGING UNION
PARTICIPATION, AND WE'RE ALSO
NOT SEEKING TO BLOCK THE
PROPOSED PENALTY. WE FULLY
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT AND THE
NOTION THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
PAY THE FINES DON'T BREAK THE
RULES. AND WHILE WE APPRECIATE
THE RECENT AMENDMENTS TO NOT
AWARD ATTORNEY FEES WHEN THERE
IS A TERMINATION, SCRUPULOUS OR
UNREASONABLE CLAIM EMPLOYERS ARE
STILL NOT ELIGIBLE TO COLLECT
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS WHEN
THEY ARE THE PREVAILING PARTY,
AND THIS CAN RANGE FROM AN
ESTIMATED 35 TO $50,000 A
SIGNIFICANT BUT, UM BY BY ALL
MEANS. AND WE HAVE REALLY NOT
HEARD SOUND JUSTIFICATION FOR
WHY WE SHOULD BE DENYING
ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TO THE
PREVAILING PARTY. BE AT THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT OR ANOTHER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ENTITY. AND SO FOR
THE REASONS REFLECTED IN THE
ANALYSIS AND THOSE HERE TODAY,
BUT REMAIN RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SB? 9 31? MORNING MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ERIN AVERY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED AND ALIGN
WITH MS JOHNSON'S COMMENTS.
THANK YOU. KELLY BROOKS ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA. WE WOULD ALSO ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS WITH DOROTHY
JOHNSON. WE HAVE AN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE?
ALRIGHT. SEEING NINE OPERATOR,
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE OPPOSITION TO SB? 9 31?
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU ARE
AN OPPOSITION TO SB 931, PLEASE
PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME LINE. 95,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
FAITH BOARD JUST ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
JOINT POWERS. AUTHORITIES
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED IN LINE WITH COMMENTS
FROM MS JOHNSON. NEXT WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO LINE 55, YOU ARE
OPEN. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR,
REMEMBERS THEIR BRIDGE ON BEHALF
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICT HERE AND
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED. DESIGNER COMMENTS MS
JOHNSON. THANK YOU. AND LINE 93.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. PAMPINEA WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ALSO RESPECTFUL AND POSITION OF
OPPOSING UNLOVING. THANK YOU. BY
97. YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
RONNIE VERTIGO HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, ONE OF THE CONCERNS
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AND RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING LESS SUBMITTED TO SP 9
31. THANK YOU. AND PLEASE GO
AHEAD LINE 98 AS A FINAL
REMINDER, PLEASE PRESS 10 IF YOU
ARE AN OPPOSITION TO SB 931. AND
YET YOU ARE THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS JEFF, AKA
REPRESENTING THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS. OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED.
RESPECTFULLY, THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR. THERE ARE NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE THE LINES. BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. SEEING NONE. SENATOR
YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIR MEMBERS WOULD MY
WITNESSES SAID IS EXACTLY RIGHT
. THIS BILL IS MEANT TO BE A
DETERRENT AND AS LONG AS THE
EMPLOYER ALLOWS EMPLOYEES TO
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT. TO
ORGANIZE. THIS WILL NOT BE A
PROBLEM. ONE OF THE I JUST WANT
TO ADDRESS WHAT ONE OF THE UM,
OBJECTIONS RAISED WAS, IS IT
RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENTS COULD
BE PROBLEMATIC AND BE SUBJECT TO
THIS BILL. THIS ISN'T ABOUT
RESPECTFUL OR EVEN DISRESPECTFUL
. UM DISAGREEMENTS. THIS IS
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT EMPLOYEES
CAN EXERCISE THEIR FEDERAL RIGHT
TO ORGANIZE AND IF THEY'RE
ALLOWED TO DO THAT, THERE WILL
BE NO PENALTIES AND I DO HOPE IT
SERVES AS A DETERRENT. WITH
THAT? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
I VOTE. THANK YOU. WE WILL TAKE
IT UP ONCE WE HAVE A QUARREL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO NOW YOUR
BILL. SB 11 49 OUR NUMBER SEVEN.
EXCELLENT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELL, HELLO, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
AGAIN. I WANT TO FIRST THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR WORK
WITH MY OFFICE ON THIS VERY
IMPORTANT BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I WILL ALSO BE TAKING
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS, AS DESCRIBED
ON PAGE 10 OF THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. BEFORE I
BEGIN. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS
QUESTION AS I PRESENT THIS BILL
IF IT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN COURT
THAT THE COFFEE YOU WERE
DRINKING NOW OR EARLIER THIS
MORNING WAS CONTAMINATED WITH
TOXIC CHEMICALS. WOULDN'T YOU
WANT TO KNOW THAT? SADLY IN MANY
INSTANCES THAT HAPPENS OFTEN
RELATED TO DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS DUE TO
COURTHOUSE SECRECY, AND THE
PUBLIC OFTENTIMES DOESN'T EVEN
FIND OUT UNTIL YEARS LATER, WHEN
MANY PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN
INJURED OR EVEN DIED. SENATE
BILL 11 49 ALSO KNOWN AS A
PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW ACT WOULD
PROHIBIT FACTUAL INFORMATION
ABOUT DANGEROUS PUBLIC HAZARDS
FROM BEING HIDDEN FROM THE
PUBLIC THROUGH OVERLY BROAD CORE
PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND AGREEMENTS
TO KEEP INFORMATION ABOUT
DANGERS A SECRET IN OPEN SOCIETY
. COURT RECORDS ARE
PRESUMPTIVELY OPEN TO PUBLIC
INSPECTION. EVEN IN A DISPUTE
BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES. COURT'S
RESOLUTION OF THAT DISPUTE IS A
MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST. THIS
IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN A CASE
INVOLVES A PUBLIC DANGER, SUCH
AS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD. BUT COURTS
REPEATEDLY ISSUED OVERBROAD
PROTECTIVE ORDERS THAT KEEP
DISCOVERY INFORMATION SECRET AND
PROTECT INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS
AND LAWYERS MUTUALLY AGREED TO
SETTLEMENTS AND STIPULATED OR
ORDERS. THAT PROHIBIT DISCLOSING
THE VERY FACT THAT EVEN PROMPTED
THE CASE. SECRECY IS SOMETIMES
NECESSARY TO PROTECT PERSONAL
INFORMATION OR LEGITIMATE TRADE
SECRETS, BUT HIS GROSSLY
INAPPROPRIATE WHEN IT CLEARLY
KEEPS INFORMATION ABOUT ONGOING
DANGERS FROM THE PUBLIC. IN VERY
REAL WAY IT CAN THREATEN THEIR
HEALTH SAFETY AND EVEN THEIR
LIVES. IF SIGNED, CALIFORNIA
WOULD JOIN SEVERAL OTHER STATES
THAT HAVE ENACTED SIMILAR ANTI
SECRECY LAWS, INCLUDING FLORIDA
, LOUISIANA, MONTANA, SOUTH
CAROLINA. IN WASHINGTON.
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY WILL
SHARE EXACTLY WHY THIS BILL IS
CRITICAL, BUT I WILL JUST
MENTION A COUPLE OF THE QUICK
EXAMPLES TO HIGHLIGHT THE NEED
FOR SB 11 49 IN THE CASE OF
PURDUE PHARMA, THE COMPANY TOLD
OUTRIGHT LIES FOR MANY YEARS
REGARDING THE SAFE DOSAGE LEVELS
AND LIKELIHOOD OF ADDICTION FROM
OXYCONTIN, WHICH ULTIMATELY
KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE. THESE TRAGEDIES THAT
TOUCHED FAR TOO MANY FAMILIES
ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND THE NATION
WAS LARGELY ENABLED THROUGH
COURTHOUSE SECRECY AND THE VERY
TACTICS THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO
ADDRESS IN THE CASE OF COOPER
TIRES. THE COMPANY KEPT
INFORMATION SECRET. REGARDING
THE TIRES, NOT MEETING INDUSTRY,
STANDARD SAFETY FEATURES AND
KEEPING BELTS FROM SEPARATING IN
THE TWO DECADES BEFORE 2000 AND
17. THERE WERE AT LEAST 362
DEATHS. 49 IN CALIFORNIA ALONE
AND SEVERAL DOZEN MORE PEOPLE
WITH PARALYSIS, BRAIN INJURIES
AND OTHER SERIOUS INJURIES LIKE
THE LOSS OF A LIMB. EVERYTHING
RELATED TO THESE DEFECTIVE TIRE
DANGERS WAS SHIELDED FROM PUBLIC
SCRUTINY FOR OVER 20 YEARS. TWO
FULL DECADES, MY OFFICE AND THE
BILL SPONSORS HAVE SHARED WITH
EACH OF YOUR OFFICE IS A
DANGEROUS INCIDENTS LIST. THE
SPREADSHEET DETAILS THESE AND
MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF COURT
HEALTH SECRECY THAT HAVE INJURED
AND TAKEN THE LIVES OF FAR TOO
MANY CALIFORNIANS. MEMBERS SO
THAT NO OTHER FAMILY EVER AGAIN
HAS TO BURY THEIR LOVED ONES AS
A RESULT OF THIS UNACCEPTABLE
COURTHOUSE SECRECY, I HOPE YOU
WILL SUPPORT 11 49 TODAY. I HAVE
TWO WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY THAT
WILL SPEAK ON THE NEED AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF SB FOR 11 49 THE
RIGHT PUBLIC RIGHT TO KNOW ACT.
RICHARD ZITTRAIN, PROFESSOR
EMERITUS AT C HATING HASTINGS.
APPEARING ON THE BEHALF OF
PUBLIC JUSTICE, AND LORI ANDREWS
, WHO SERVED IN LEADERSHIP TO
THE TO THE INSURER. LITIGATION
COORDINATED IN ALAMEDA COUNTY.
SUPER SUPERIOR COURT, AND I
BELIEVE THEY'RE BOTH CALLING IN
MR CHAIR. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE
THEM BOTH LISTED AS HERE ON THE
TELEPHONE, PROFESSOR ZITTRAIN.
ARE YOU WITH US? YES I AM SURE.
IF STONE CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE. OKAY GREAT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR STONE AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I'VE
THIS IS AN ISSUE I'VE BEEN
WORKING ON FOR A LONG TIME
BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND IN
LEGAL ETHICS. IT IS SIMPLY WRONG
FOR LAWYERS OR JUDGES. TO BE
COMPLICIT IN KEEPING THINGS
SECRET, WHERE THE PUBLIC DIOCESE
A RESULT THAT SENATOR LABOR
DESCRIBED OVER 12 JUDGES OVER
THE PERIOD OF 15 YEARS ENTERED
PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO KEEP
INFORMATION. IT WAS REVEALED
ABOUT OXYCONTIN SECRET IN THOSE
CORE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF
COOPER TIRES, THERE WAS A JOINT
COORDINATED PROCEEDING IN FRONT
OF ONE JUDGE IN L. A COUNTY. WHO
KEPT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOCUMENTS SECRET THAT CASES NOW
BEEN SETTLED, BUT THE DOCUMENTS
ARE STILL SECRET. IN THE CASE OF
ISSUER GLORY, ANDREWS HAS COME
TO SPEAK AFTER ME WILL TALK
ABOUT HER EXPERIENCE, BUT I DO
WANT TO MENTION A COUPLE OF
THINGS. BAYER KEPT THE BAYER,
THE COMPANY THAT BOUGHT HE SURE
KEPT THE DEFECT SECRET FOR 12
YEARS THERE WERE 67,000
COMPLAINTS MADE BY WOMEN. TO THE
FDA ABOUT THE HARM THAT HAD BEEN
DONE THEM AND ULTIMATELY, 27,000
LAWSUITS. ALL THOSE LAWSUITS
WILL CONDUCT CONSOLIDATED IN A
CASE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY THAT
ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWED AS MOST
OF THESE PROTECTED BORDERS, D.
ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT TO SELF
SELECT WHAT ITEMS COULD BE
CONFIDENTIAL AND IN THE CASE OF
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER THEIR THEIR
SELF SELECTED 97.7% OF ALL OF
THE 900,000 DOCUMENTS IN THIS
CASE TO BE CONFIDENTIAL WHEN IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED ONLY TO
THOSE THINGS THAT ARE CORPORATE,
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND
TRADE SECRETS, AND IT TOOK THE
PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS, MOSTYN TO
DEAL WITH INDIVIDUAL CASES OF
200 DOCUMENTS, ONE AT A TIME. IN
ORDER TO RELEASE THOSE DOCUMENTS
. THEY SUCCEEDED, BUT THE TIME
IT TOOK FOR THEM TO RELEASE
THOSE DOCUMENTS, CLUSTER PACKED
AND THEIR DUTY IS TO THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS IS SOMETHING
THAT SHOULDN'T BE A BURDEN ON
THE PROTECT ON PLAINTIFFS OR
THEIR LAWYERS. THAT SHOULD BE A
MATTER OF LAW. EVERYTHING AFTER
THE CASE. STILL REMAIN SECRET.
EXCEPT FOR THOSE APPROXIMATELY
200 DOCUMENTS. 11 49 IS A BIG
CHANGE IN THE LAW. THERE'S NO
QUESTION ABOUT IT, BUT IT IS
NECESSARY TO START SAVING LIVES
AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT
CORPORATE PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION AND TRADE SECRET.
YOU HAVE OUR RESPONSE FROM THE
PUBLIC JUSTICE AS TO THE
OPPOSITION, WHICH IS GOING TO
SPEAK UP TO ME. I WILL REMAIN ON
THE LINE FOR MORE QUESTIONS. IF
ANYONE HAS ANY THANK YOU. IT
WILL NOW MOVE TO LORI ANDREWS.
HI THERE. THANK YOU. MR CHAIR.
YES MY NAME IS LAURIE ANDREWS.
AND I AM TESTIFYING TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. ALSO
TO PUBLIC JUSTICE FOR INVITING
ME TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 11
49. FOR 20 YEARS I HAVE
REPRESENTED PEOPLE INJURED BY
DANGEROUS PHARMACEUTICALS AND
FLAWED MEDICAL DEVICES. I
REPRESENTED DOZENS OF WOMEN WHO
WERE IMPLANTED WITH THE ASSURED
BIRTH CONTROL DEVICE. MY CLIENTS
, ALONG WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER
WOMEN BROUGHT CIVIL LAWSUITS IN
CALIFORNIA'S COURTS BEGINNING I
2015, AND THEY ALLEGED THE
FOLLOWING THESE DEVICES WERE
MARKETED TO WOMEN WHO HAD
ALREADY HAD A FAMILY AND WE'RE
DONE HAVING CHILDREN. THE
DEVICES WERE BILLED AS SAFER AND
LESS INTRUSIVE THAN HAVING A
TUPLE LOCATIONS SURGERY, WHICH
IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO, OF
COURSE, AS HAVING YOUR TUBES
TIED THE DEVICES CONSISTED OF
TWO SMALL METAL COILS. ONE TO BE
PLACED IN EACH FALLOPIAN TUBE.
THE DEVICES WERE DESIGNED TO
CAUSE INFLAMMATION AND TO PROMPT
SCAR TISSUE TO FORM AROUND THE
COILS IN THE WOMAN'S ABDOMEN
THAT'S BLOCKING SPERM FROM
REACHING HER OVARIES. THE WOMEN
WHO FILED SUIT ALLEGED MULTIPLE
PROBLEMS WITH THESE DEVICES. THE
DEVICES COULD BREAK THEY COULD
PERFORATE THE FALLOPIAN TUBE
THEY COULD MIGRATE AROUND THE
ABDOMEN. THEY COULD PUNCTURE AND
BECOME LODGED IN NEARBY ORGANS.
THEY COULD ALSO RESULT INEPT
TOPIC. EXCUSE ME, ECTOPIC
PREGNANCIES AND ECTOPIC
PREGNANCY IS WHERE THE
FERTILIZED EGG GROWS OUTSIDE OF
THE UTERUS. THAT CAN CAUSE THE
DEATH OF THE MOTHER. IT'S A
TERRIBLE EVENT, AND IT SHOULD BE
AVOIDED. TERRIBLE PAIN AT THE
SITE WAS ANOTHER COMMON AFFECT
THAT THESE WOMEN ALLEGED IN
THEIR LAWSUITS AND ALSO PAIN
DURING INTERCOURSE. THEY ALLEGED
SKIN RASHES. LIKELY DUE TO THE
NICKEL. THAT WAS A COMPONENT IN
THE COILS. ROUGHLY 5% OF THE
POPULATION IS ALLERGIC TO
NICKEL. MANY OF THESE WOMEN ALSO
DOCUMENTED, HEAVY BLEEDING, SOME
SAID, LIKE A HORROR MOVIE. AND
SEVERE CRAMPING ON IN AN UNUSUAL
AND ABNORMAL ASPECTS. TO REMOVE
THESE DEVICES. MY CLIENTS AND
THESE OTHER WOMEN HAD TO UNDERGO
PARTIAL OR TOTAL HYSTERECTOMIES.
MANY OF THESE WOMEN WERE IN
THEIR EARLY THIRTIES, WHEN THEY
BEGAN TO EXPERIENCE MENOPAUSE
AFTER THESE PREMATURE
HYSTERECTOMY. I ENCOURAGE THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO VOTE YES.
ON SB 11 49, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANYONE IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB? 11
49? WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY. BUT JUST GIVE US YOUR
NAME YOUR AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. MARIKO YOSHIHARA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT EDUARDO MARTINEZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? ALRIGHT
SAYING NONE OPERATING. WOULD YOU
GO TO THE LINES AND SEE IF
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR SB 11 49 AGAIN? NO
FURTHER TESTIMONY, JUST NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SP 11 49, PLEASE
PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME. 9 35, YOU
ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING. MR CHAIR
REMEMBERS. THIS IS OSAMA
MCCLENDON CALLING ON BEHALF OF
PUBLIC ADVOCATE PUBLIC HEALTH
OUT OF GETTING SUPPORT. MIX HIS
LINE. 46, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
THIS IS STANDARD CUSHION ON
BEHALF OF CALPURNIA CALLING IN
SUPPORT. BUYING ONE. OH, FIVE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS IS
SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. PLANE. 68 YOU ARE
OPEN. THIS IS MICHAEL BROOKS
WITH THE CENTER, FRAUD OF SAFETY
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 11 49.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 83. JASON
SOLOMON STANFORD CENTER ON THE
LEGAL PROFESSION STRONG
SUPPORTER OF THE BILL. BY AN 18.
YOU ARE UP. HI WHERE YOU MENTION
, UH, POLICY COUNCIL OF CONSUMER
REPORTS, ALSO CO SPONSOR OF SB
11, 49 AND STRONG SUPPORT
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. FLYING ONE.
OH, SEVEN. PLEASE GO AND
AS A FINAL REMINDER, PLEASE
PRESS 10 FOR ANYBODY IN SUPPORT
FOR SB 1149107, YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. KIPP
MUELLER HERE, CIVIL RIGHTS
ATTORNEY BOARD MEMBER WITH THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL,
AS WELL, THANK YOU. UM MR CHAIR.
THERE'S NOBODY ELSE QUEUED UP AT
THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED CHRIS
MAKELELE HERE WITH US IN THE
ROOM. LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. COME
FORWARD, PLEASE. HI THERE. JAMIE
HAVE WHISKEY, JACK. SORRY. BYE.
THANK YOU ARE MY OKAY TO GO?
RIGHT THANK YOU. UM GOOD MORNING
, MR CHAIR MEMBERS JAMIE HAVE ON
BEHALF OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WHILE
WE APPRECIATE SENATOR LEVEL AND
HAVE NOTHING RESPECT FOR WHAT
SHE WANTS TO DO. WE HAVE
PROBLEMS OUTLINED WITH THIS BILL
UNDER SP 11 49 ANY INFORMATION
CONCERNING AN ALLEGED DEFECTIVE
PRODUCT OR ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD.
WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION
IS RELEVANT TO THE ACTION IS
PRESUMED PUBLIC AT BOTH THE
SETTLEMENT STAGE AND ALSO AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY TO THE
DISCOVERY STAGE. THIS BILL WOULD
MAKE ANY COMPANY DOING BUSINESS
IN CALIFORNIA. AT RISK. SORRY.
EXCUSE ME. AT RISK OF LOSING
VALUABLE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
, MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THEIR
COMPETITORS, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THERE'S ANY MERIT TO THE
SUIT, A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD DOESN'T
EXIST SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT
IS FILED, SAYING IT DOES. THE
FUNCTIONAL IMPACT OF THE BILL
WOULD BE TO RELEASE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE
INFORMATION EVER BEING PRESENTED
OR SUBSTANTIATED. IN COURT. WE
COULD SEE BUSINESSES PUT IN A
POSITION OF SETTLING FRIVOLOUS
CLAIMS. TO AVOID THE
DISSEMINATION OF PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION OR ENCOURAGING MORE
OF THOSE SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE OF
THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE COURT,
WHERE THERE'S ACTUALLY
ACCOUNTABILITY. WE CAN ALSO SEE
COURTS BOGGED DOWN. WITH A LOT
OF HEARINGS TO DETERMINE THE
CONFIDENTIALITY OF EACH PIECE OF
DISCOVERY, WHICH HAS THE LAWYERS
KNOW THERE IS A TON,
PARTICULARLY IN DEFECTIVE
PRODUCT IN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD
CASES. UM PROTECTIVE ORDERS ARE
VERY COMMON IN LITIGATION, AND
IT ALLOWS PARTIES TO FREELY
SHARE INFORMATION IN ORDER TO
REVIEW AND DETERMINE THE
RELEVANCE OF THEIR CASES WITHOUT
THE FEAR OF DISSEMINATION TO THE
PUBLIC. UM YOU KNOW, THIS IS
TODAY'S SYSTEM IF THERE IS
SOMETHING THAT MERITS PUBLIC AH!
PUBLIC. UH. YOU KNOW, RELEASE
YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PETITION
THE COURT TO DO SO IN THE JUDGE
CAN DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION
FOR INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES
AND INDUSTRIES IN CALIFORNIA
THAT RELY ON RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT IN PARTICULAR, THEIR
TRADE SECRETS ARE THE LIFEBLOOD
OF THEIR COMPANIES AND THE TWO
PART TEST. IN THIS BILL IS A
VERY HIGH LEVEL, IT WOULD BE
VERY HARD TO KEEP TRADE SECRETS
CONFIDENTIAL SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER THAN THE GOOD CAUSE SHOWN
STANDARD USED IN COURTS TODAY.
SO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WE
ARE RESPECTFULLY AND OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CHRIS MCKAY LI ON BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND
INDUSTRY ALLIANCE COPY, AS
OPPOSED PRIMARILY DUE TO THE
AMBIGUITY, IN ADDITION TO THE
COMMENTS MADE BY SEE JACK THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE, AND I
THINK THAT'S PARTICULARLY
EXACERBATED BY THE FACT THAT IN
SUBDIVISION F OF THE PROPOSED
NEW CCP SECTION, ANY PERSON WHO
IS NOT A LITIGANT TO OUR IS NOT
A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION CAN
CHALLENGE AND IN SUBDIVISION H.
THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
ALLOW STATE BAR ACTION AGAINST
AN ATTORNEY IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED
CIRCUMSTANCES, SO WE THINK THAT
WILL CAUSE EVEN BIGGER PROBLEMS.
WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES? IF YOU
LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE IF I CAN
BURDEN YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE FOUR
OF THE BILL, WHICH IS IN SECTION
THREE THE FIRST TERMINOLOGY IS
DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD. THEY USE
THE SAME WORDS TO DEFINE
THEMSELVES. IN OTHER WORDS, IT
SAYS DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD MEANS A
DEFECTIVE PRODUCT OR
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD. BLAH, BLAH
, BLAH. SO I LOOKED ELSEWHERE IN
THE STATUTES. THE TERM DEFECTIVE
PRODUCT IS USED IN ONE SINGLE
STATUTE IN CALIFORNIA AND
DEFINED SO NEITHER THE BILL NOR
OTHER STATUTES GIVE US A
DEFINITION. THE BILL WENT
INTRODUCED HAD THE TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION IN IT.
THAT WAS VIEWED AS TOO LARGE OR
EXCUSE ME TOO BROAD A DEFINITION
, SO IT WAS CHANGED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD.
NONETHELESS THE BILL CONTAINS NO
DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARD, EITHER. HOWEVER THAT
TERM IS USED IN 20 OTHER STATE
STATUTES, NONE OF WHICH PROVIDE
A CLEAR DEFINITION. BUT IN THE
BNP CODE, IT DOES GIVE EXAMPLES
, INCLUDING ASBESTOS, LEAD
PAINT. AND RAID ON GAS AS
EXAMPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZARD. AGAIN I THINK THERE'S
GOING TO BE TREMENDOUS
LITIGATION OVER WHAT FALLS INTO
THIS. I WOULD RAISE THE
FOLLOWING QUERY. SOME OF THE
EXAMPLES, INCLUDING THAT OF
OXYCONTIN, WOULD THEY EVEN FALL
INTO THE PARAMETERS OF THIS BILL
? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THAT CASE THAT
LITIGATION IS MAYBE THE CLAIM IS
THE BASIS OF DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISING OR DECEPTIVE
MARKETING, AS OPPOSED TO A
DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. IF YOU LOOK
AT THE SETTLEMENT LANGUAGE IN
SUBDIVISION BE AT THE BOTTOM OF
PAGE FOUR AND TOP OF FIVE IT
READS THAT IT APPLIES TO
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
TO RESTRICT RESTRICT THE
DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL
INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
ACTION. AH QUERY. WHAT DOES
PURPORT MEAN? DOES IT MEAN
ALLEGED OR TO CLAIM THOSE ARE
TERMS THAT WE USE ELSEWHERE? BUT
THAT'S NOT HERE. WHAT DO WE MEAN
BY RESTRICT? DO WE MEAN LIMIT?
DO WE NEED BAND? DO WE MEAN TO
BAN OR ACTUALLY PROHIBIT WHAT IS
RETRICT, MEAN? FACTUAL
INFORMATION. WHEN IS THAT PROVED
AND TO WHOM A JUDGE OR A JURY.
HOW ABOUT RELATED TO THE ACTION?
OFTEN WE USE THINGS LIKE
DIRECTLY RELATED OR REASONABLY
RELATED. WHAT IS RELATED TO THE
ACTUAL ACTION ACTUALLY MEAN? AND
ON THE EXEMPTION, LANGUAGE AND
SUBDIVISION D THAT MISS HUFF
REFERRED TO THEIR ONLY FOUR
NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO THE
PRESUMPTION THAT ALL OF THIS
FACTUAL INFORMATION PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE MEDICAL INFO OR P II
SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. CITIZENS
CITIZENSHIP STANDARD STATUS.
EXCUSE ME, AND THEN THE THIRD
ONE UNDER D THREE, IS
PROPRIETARY CUSTOMER LISTS VERY
NARROW OR TRADE SECRET. AND WHAT
AND WHAT WAS ALLUDED UP, PLEASE
, AND VERY BRIEFLY ON THAT LAST
ITEM. IT'S A VERY HIGH BURDEN
CONTAINED IN THREE D THREE. CAT
B. CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY
SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIAL
OVERRIDING CONFIDENTIALITY
INTERESTS. THE LITIGATORS WITH
WHOM I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THAT
LANGUAGE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A
VERY HIGH, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,
STANDARD TO MEET THEREFORE, IT'S
GIVETH WIH ONE HAND THE
EXCEPTION AND TAKE IT WITH THE
OTHER WITH THAT HIGH BURDEN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. THANK
YOU. RIGHT IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION? TWO
SB 11 49 AND WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
ACTUALLY HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MOIRA TOP HERE ON BEHALF
OF BOTH THE ORANGE COUNTY
BUSINESS COUNCIL AND BIO. COM
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS LARA
FITZGERALD ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES AND
RESPECTFUL POSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 11 49 AGAIN,
WE'LL TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. THE CHURCH. YOU ARE
AN OPPOSITION TO SB 11 49,
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME,
10. FOR TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1149 BY 94. YOU ARE OPEN.
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS MARK SMITH
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL MARINE
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND
OPPOSITION FOR THE REASONS
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. THANK YOU.
FIXED HIS LYING 91. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING TAYLOR OCEAN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
IN OPPOSITION. ONE. OH, THREE.
YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS LILY MARCHESI AND WITH
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION AND THE
OPPOSITION TO SB 11 49. THANK
YOU. AND WE'LL GO TO LINE 73.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBER,
VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ ON BEHALF OF
THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION AND OPPOSITION. AS A
FINAL REMINDER, PLEASE PRESS 10
FOR OPPOSITION TO SB 11 49. LINE
63 YOU ARE UP. GOOD MORNING
SARAH MEMBERS FOR THE UNDERLYING
ON BEHALF OF WESTERN STATES
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION AND
OPPOSITION. LYING. 40, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. CARE AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, MATTHEW ALLEN, WITH
WESTERN GROWERS ALSO OPPOSED.
AND MR CHAIR. WE HAVE EXHAUSTED
THE QUÊ. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
THAT WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
WAS REST. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
IN READING THROUGH THE
OPPOSITION AND HEARING THE
COMMENTS. I ONE OF THE THINGS,
OF COURSE, IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY
BUSINESS IS AS IS NOTED
LEGITIMATE TRADE SECRETS. I WILL
TELL YOU THAT. I SINCERELY
APPRECIATED THE RESPONSE FROM
PUBLIC JUSTICE REGARDING EACH OF
THOSE ITEMS. I THINK THAT, UM
WHAT'S IMPORTANT AS I UNDERSTAND
IT IS DISCLOSURE OF FACTUAL
INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO
ALLEGATIONS IS THAT CORRECT? AND
ON THE DEFINITION. UH, THAT WAS
, UM IT IN IN DETERMINING
DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IT IS THAT
CAN OR CANNOT BE DISCLOSED. I
WOULD IMAGINE THAT DURING
LITIGATION. THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE PART OF A
RESOLUTION TO DEFINE CERTAIN
ITEMS. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR. QUÊ
OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS.
ALRIGHT SAYING NONE. SENATOR
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. UH, WE'VE GONE
THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
UNFORTUNATELY NOT VERY
SUCCESSFULLY, AND IT'S
INTERESTING LISTENING TO THE
OPPOSITION. BECAUSE WHAT. THE
CASE THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO
MAKE IS THAT THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS ARE THERE TO
COMPENSATE FOR INJURY. WHICH
MEANS THAT THEY'RE NOT A
DETERRENCE, AND THEY'RE NOT
PREVENTATIVE OF INJURIES THAT IS
JUST INHUMANE. YES AND JUST AN
ASTONISHING INTERPRETATION OF
THE BODY OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAW. AND WHAT THE WHAT YOUR BILL
REALLY DOES IS SUNSHINE DEFECTS
SO THAT THEY CAN BE DEALT WITH.
NOT IN. 10 YEARS. 15 YEARS 20
YEARS WELL, PEOPLE GET INJURED,
BUT GET DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY
BECAUSE CONSUMERS ARE THEN
INFORMED YES, THE DANGER AND CAN
MAKE INFORMED CHOICES WHEN
THEY'RE IN THEIR MARKET. WE
ALREADY MARKET BASED SYSTEM.
IT'S ALSO INTERESTING. THE
OPPOSITION SEEMS TO KIND OF
GLOSS OVER THE FACT THAT MUCH OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE COMMON LAW, THEIR
JUDGMENT LAWS, SO I THINK THE
COURTS KNOW HOW TO HANDLE
DEFINITIONS KNOW HOW TO HANDLE
AND INTERPRET WHAT WE DO IN AND
FROM THIS COMMITTEE STANDPOINT,
THE WAY THAT YOU'VE CRAFTED THIS
LAW, I THINK NEEDS AN
APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR HOW
COURTS THEN COULD ADJUDICATE
WHAT IS BEFORE THEM AND DEAL
WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
AND IT'S JUST ASTONISHING TO ME
TO THINK OF DEFECTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS BEING
CONSIDERED TRADE SECRETS OF THE
COMPANIES I HAVE EVER WORKED
FOR, WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED SUCH
AS TRADE SECRETS, BUT YET IN
THIS CONTEXT, THE WHOLE CURRENT
WAY THAT THAT THE OPPOSITION
WANT TO CONSTRUCT THE ONSUMER
PROTECTION LAW WOULD MEAN THAT
DEFECTS ARE PART OF SOMEONE'S
TRADE SECRETS THAT THAT IS KIND
OF ASTONISHING TO ME. SO I
APPRECIATE THE EFFORT HERE AND I
WISH YOU THE BEST. AND WITH THAT
YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR CHAIR. I APPRECIATE ALL
THE WORK YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY
DONE IN THIS AREA. AND I THINK
ASTONISHING IS THE RIGHT WORD.
WHEN THIS BILL WAS I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CARRY THIS BILL.
I TOO, WAS ASTONISHED THAT SOME
OF THESE THINGS WERE HIDDEN AND
THERE WAS A SECRECY AROUND THESE
DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS AND PEOPLE
WERE MAIMED OR DIED. I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT THE OPPOSITION
TALKS ABOUT TRADE SECRETS AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
LEGISLATION, PERSON SPECIFICALLY
RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO PROTECT
TRADE SECRETS. AND THIS IS NOT
AS YOU EVEN NOTED WHAT THIS BILL
IS ABOUT. THE OPPOSITION ALSO
TALKS ABOUT A LOT OF WHAT IFS. I
THINK THEY TRY TO CONFUSE
EVERYONE WITH THEIR WHAT IFS. I
WILL LEAVE YOU WITH ONE. WHAT IF
WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR FAMILY? WHAT
IF IT WAS YOUR LOVED ONE? WHO
WAS MAIMED OR INJURED BY ONE OF
THESE DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS, AND
THEN I WOULD ALSO JUST ASK
EVERYONE TO PLEASE REVIEW THE
OPPOSITION DIDN'T SEEM TO LIKE
THE, UH, PURDUE PHARMA OXY
COTTON EXAMPLE. THAT'S OKAY.
THERE'S SO MANY OTHERS DEFECTIVE
PRODUCTS THAT HAVE MAIMED AND
KILLED PEOPLE SO WE CAN LOOK AT
THESE. MR CHAIR AGAIN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK IN THIS AREA.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I
VOTE. THANK YOU. FIRST WE DO
HAVE A QUORUM. LET'S ESTABLISH
THE QUORUM. STONE CUNNINGHAM.
BLOOM DAVIES. HANEY CHOLERA
MAIENSCHEIN REYES. RIVAS WILSON.
THANK YOU AND I WILL TAKE A
MOTION THAT MOTION WOULD BE DUE
PAST AS AMENDED. THANK YOU. ZERO
SECONDS. I WILL. SECOND THAT.
AGAIN THAT MOTIONS DO PASSES.
AMENDMENT ALL THE ROLL, PLEASE
. STONE I CUNNINGHAM BLOOM
DAVIES. DAVIES. NO, HANEY.
HANEY, I CHOLERA. THIS IS ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN SB 11 49. HI.
COBRA. I MAIENSCHEIN RAISE.
PRAISE I. RIVAS WILSON WILSON.
AYE. THAT NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE.
I'LL PUT THE BILL ON CALL. VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU MEMBERS. AND IF I COULD TAKE
A MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE,
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME MS WILSON TO
THE LEGISLATURE AND TO THE
LEGISLATIVE WOMEN'S CAUCUS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR
HERTZBERG. WILL NOT GO TO OUR
ITEM NUMBER TWO SP 13 27.
MY MEMBERS. I'M GONNA SHARE. I
MAKE IT. MY I GET IT. READY. GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
PRESENTATIONS ON SB 13 27. ON
DECEMBER 10TH. UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT RULED IN WHOLE
WOMAN'S HEALTH VERSUS JACKSON.
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS
BEHAVIOR. THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THAT WAS ON DECEMBER 10TH OF
2021. ON DECEMBER 11TH OF 2021,
THE GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE. MADE
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT. IF
STATES CAN NOW SHIELD THEIR LAWS
FROM REVIEW BY FEDERAL COURTS
THAT COMPARE BECAUSE ASSAULT
WEAPONS TO SWISS ARMY KNIVES,
THEN CALIFORNIA WILL USE THE
AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE
PEOPLE'S LIVES WERE TEXAS USED
IT TO PROTECT. TO PUT WOMEN IN
HARM'S WAY. I'VE DIRECTED MY
STAFF TO WORK WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ON A BILL THAT WOULD
CREATE THE RIGHT OF ACTION.
ALLOWING PRIVATE CITIZENS
SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
STATUTORY DAMAGES OF AT LEAST
$10,000 PER VIOLATIONS, PLUS
COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.
BECAUSE ANYONE WHO MANUFACTURES
DISTRIBUTES YOURSELVES AN
ASSAULT WEAPON OR GHOST GUN KITS
OR PARTS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IF THE MOST
EFFICIENT WAY TO KEEP THESE
DEVASTATING WEAPONS OFF OUR
STREETS IS TO ADD THE THREAT OF
PRIVATE LAWSUITS. WE SHOULD DO
JUST THAT. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE
YOU TODAY IS THE GOVERNOR'S BILL
. I AM THE VESSEL ALONG WITH THE
VARIOUS JOINT AND OTHER CO
AUTHORS AND AN IMPORTANT TINO
APPROPRIATION SHARING OTHERS. IN
PASSING IN PUTTING TOGETHER THIS
LEGISLATION. WE HAVE WORKED VERY
CLOSELY WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
OFFICE AND ITS DRAFT, AND I,
PARTICULARLY IN MY LEGAL
EXPERIENCE, HAVE WORKED VERY
CLOSELY AND READING THE LAW AND
, IN PARTICULAR REVIEWING THE
BRIEF OF THE FIREARMS POLICY
COALITION THAT WATER RAMEKINS
BRIEF IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT LOOKING FOR THE
SOCIAL ERA IN WHICH THEY MADE
THE ARGUMENT THAT IF THIS
MEASURE IS IF THE SUPREME COURT
MADE THE DECISION THAT IT MADE
WITH RESPECT TO WOMEN'S RIGHT TO
CHOOSE THAT THE NEXT WOULD BE
FIREARMS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE
WE ARE. AND THE REASON I
REVIEWED THIS SO CLOSELY AS I
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE LAWS YOU
JUST WON THE LAST COMMITTEE.
IT'S PRETTY GOOD. WE WERE THAT
THE LAWS THAT WE PASS AS WE
DRAFT THIS IS INFORMED BY WHAT
WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SO
THAT IF THIS DOES GET BACK TO
THE SUPREME COURT, WE HAVE THE
GREATEST AND BEST CHANCE. OF
PASSING THIS MEASURE OF GETTING
AN UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT.
APPARENTLY I'M TOLD I HAVEN'T
EXAMINED THIS PERSONALLY. BUT
THERE'S 107 LAWS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA DEALING WITH GUN.
RESTRICTIONS OF VARIOUS SORTS.
AND THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS ASKED
WHAT WE HAVE SO MANY SO MANY
LAWS ON GUN RESTRICTIONS. WHY
WHY DO WE STILL HAVE SO MUCH GUN
VIOLENCE? WELL, THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER IS THE LAST 30 YEARS. GUN
VIOLENCE IS DOWN BY 50% IN
CALIFORNIA, ONE OF THE LOWEST IN
THE COUNTRY BASED UPON THE LAWS,
SO IT HASN'T STOPPED EVERYTHING,
BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS HAD AN
IMPACT. AND THE GOVERNOR POSED
AND I SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT
LOOK, THIS IS INDEED A STRETCH
AT SOME LEVELS. IT IS INDEED
DIFFERENT AT SOME LEVELS IN
TERMS OF A REMEDY, BUT IT IS A
NEW TOOL, AND IF IT STOPS ONE
FURTHER DEATH, IT'S THE RIGHT
THING TO DO. IT'S THE RIGHT
THING TO DO. AND SO WE'RE
OFFERING THIS PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN
ILLEGAL WEAPON TO A 50 CALIBER
MACHINE GUN TO AN ASSAULT WEAPON
OR TO FILE OFF THE SERIAL NUMBER
OFF OF THE WEAPON THAT YOU NEED
TO GO DEER HUNTING OR THEY USED
TO PROTECT YOUR STORY, YOUR
FAMILY OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY
BE. IT IS A NARROW CONSTRICTION
AND IT IS WRITTEN. I THINK
OBVIOUSLY THE ANALYSIS IS DONE
IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT LOOKS
EVERY POINTING GIVE YOU A LOT OF
I THINK THAT, UH, THAT IT IS
MAKING A DIFFERENT POINT. IT IS
MAKING A DIFFERENT POINT. WE'RE
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO TAKE
AS AUTHORS AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU
, AND WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE WE'VE
BEEN PRETTY STRICT WITH RESPECT
TO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE IN
HARMONY WITH THE GOVERNOR. IN
THAT REGARD. SO LOOK, THE BOTTOM
LINE IS, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY
WITH THESE GHOST GUNS AND THE
LIKE THE LOST ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT DECLARED AN EPIDEMIC
THAT GHOST GUNS SINCE LAST 5
400% INCREASE IN GHOST GUN
SEIZURES SINCE 2000 AND SEVEN
AND 300% IN 2020 IN THE BAY
AREA. ACCORDING TO 20% OF ALL
GUNS, SEIZURES IN SAN FRANCISCO
IN 2020, AND NEARLY A QUARTER OF
THOSE IN OAKLAND GHOST GUNS SO
WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT WE HAVE
A NEW KIND OF WEAPON, A NEW KIND
OF A USE THAT ARE IN THESE KINDS
OF GUN VIOLENCE. EXTRAORDINARY
CATASTROPHES THAT WE'RE FACING
OVER AND OVER AGAIN. SO THIS
DOES PROVIDE THE PRIVATE OF
ACTION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THE
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT
TO IT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE
NEED TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE
TO USE EVERY TOOL AVAILABLE AT
THE SUPREME COURT MADE A
DECISION. YOU KNOW, MUSICIANS
ARE MADE ALL THE TIME THAT
WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE
WITH THOSE DECISIONS, BUT IF
THEY HAVE SAID THAT THIS IS THE
LAW, AND THE SUPREME COURT TELLS
US WITH THE LIES PLESSY VERSUS
FERGUSON ON SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
WAS THE LAW BEFORE MAY, 30TH
1954 AND BURN WERE VOTED OF
EDUCATION BECAME THE LAW.
EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES THE LAW, THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY AND GRISWOLD VERSUS
CONNECTICUT, 1963 DIDN'T EXIST.
MIRANDA RIGHT WARNINGS SO WE NOW
HAVE THE LAW. DO WE LIKE IT? I
DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T THINK
IT'S THE RIGHT THING. BUT THE
QUESTION IS, CAN WE USE IT TO
THE ADVANTAGE TO PROTECT PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA?THE GOVERNOR OF
CORRECTLY ARTICULATES AND I SAY
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS
YES. AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
OF THIS MEASURE. AND WE HAVE
WITH US TODAY, A NUMBER OF
WITNESSES THAT ARE GOING TO HEAR
AND TALK TO US, AND I WOULD
APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD LISTEN
TO THEM. I KNOW WE HAVE THE
WOMEN AGAINST WITNESSES. ONE
WITNESS LISTED HERE IN PERSON,
CRYSTAL LOPATTO, RIGHT, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS CRYSTAL LOPA LOTTO AND
MY MOM LIVING IN THE BAY AREA,
AND I'M, A VOLUNTEER LEADER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF MOMS
DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE. IN
THAT ROLE. I CONNECT WITH GUN
VIOLENCE. SURVIVORS PARENTS,
STUDENTS, COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND
PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE STATE WHO
WANT TO SEE CALIFORNIA LEAD THE
WAY ON GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION.
I PERSONALLY STARTED
VOLUNTEERING WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION BECAUSE I WAS SICK OF
FEELING HELPLESS EVERY TIME I
SAW NEWS OF A SCHOOL SHOOTING OR
MASS SHOOTING. AND EVERY TIME I
TALK TO GRIEVING FRIENDS OR
FAMILIES WHOSE LOVED ONES WERE
TAKEN BY GUN VIOLENCE. EVERY DAY
IN THIS COUNTRY. 110 PEOPLE ARE
KILLED BY GUNS AND TWICE AS MANY
ARE WOUNDED. OF COURSE, THOSE
NUMBERS DON'T EVEN BEGIN TO
CAPTURE THE ONGOING TRAUMA
EXPERIENCED BY FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY GUN
VIOLENCE. WHICH WE KNOW
MANIFESTS IN SO MANY DIFFERENT
WAYS. I KNOW YOU'VE ALL SEEN OR
EXPERIENCED THE IMPACT OF GUN
VIOLENCE IN YOUR DISTRICTS. WERE
TURNED ON THE NEWS TO HEAR OF
YET ANOTHER TRAGEDY. AND YOU'VE
PROBABLY FELT THAT SINKING
FEELING OF WHAT CAN WE POSSIBLY
DO TO STOP THIS? AND THE ANSWER
IS WE HAVE TO USE EVERY TOOL WE
CAN'T AND GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR
STATE. SP 13 27 BRINGS US A NEW
TOOL IN THIS FIGHT THE ABILITY
OF INDIVIDUALS TO BRING CIVIL
LAWSUITS TO RID OUR COMMUNITIES
OF ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
GHOST GUNS. THIS BILL FOCUSES ON
GUN MANUFACTURERS, IMPORTERS AND
DEALERS TO HAVE A BROADER IMPACT
AND DOESN'T CREATE A PRIVATE
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE
PURCHASING OR ATTEMPTING TO
PURCHASE THESE WEAPONS. WE KNOW
THAT GUN VIOLENCE IS ON THE RISE
IN CITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA, AND
THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF ITS TRAUMA
AS WIDE AS WE WATCH FAMILIES
BEING TORN APART BY GRIEF AND
FEAR. WE CAN'T SIT BACK AND HOPE
THAT THE PEOPLE BRINGING THESE
WEAPONS OF WAR INTO OUR STATE
WILL SUDDENLY CHOOSE TO STOP.
THIS BILL OPENS UP ANOTHER LANE
TO PROACTIVELY ENFORCE
PROHIBITIONS ON ILLEGAL ASSAULT
, WEAPONS AND GHOST GUNS BEFORE
THEY CAUSE INJURY, DEATH OR
TRAUMA IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
CALIFORNIA LAW ALREADY MAKES IT
A FELONY TO MANUFACTURE
DISTRIBUTOR IMPORT ASSAULT
WEAPONS. WE'VE ALREADY BEGUN TO
REGULATE GHOSTS, CANS WITH
FURTHER LEGISLATION TO TIGHTEN
THOSE REGULATIONS MOVING THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT NOW. BUT
EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THOSE STRONG
LAWS, WE NEED BOLDER ACTION AND
NEW APPROACHES TO TRULY END THE
PROLIFERATION OF THESE WEAPONS.
THIS BILL GIVES US ANOTHER WAY.
TO BE SURE THE INDIVIDUALS AND
COMPANIES WHO CONTINUE TO DEFY
OUR LAWS. BY BRINGING THESE
WEAPONS INTO OUR STATE ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. WE ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE ON SB 13 27. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB? 13
27?
MARY LOU ROSETTA. VOLUNTEER MOMS
DEMAND ACTION, YOU LOOK COUNTY
RESIDENT AND GUN OWNER AND
FORMER POLICE OFFICER. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
SHARON ZAMAN ZIEMANN. I'M A MOM
AND A VOLUNTEER HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. HERE TO RUN MY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 13 27. GOOD
MORNING, ALYSSA, STILL HIGH ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN
VIEW AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT SEEING THAT
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY SUPPORT FOR SP 13
27? WILL THAT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT. YOU, MR CHAIR IF
YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 13 27
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME ONE
FOLLOWED BY 09 77 YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD MORNING, SHANE GUSSMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT. AND WE'LL GO TO LINE
25. PLEASE GO AHEAD. VOLUNTEER
FOR MOMS DEMAND ACTION AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF A B 13 27 R S
B SORRY. 9 73, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
0.73 PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. ARE YOU MUTED 73? WE'LL
MOVE ALONG TO LINE 1 17, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HI PETER STEIN FROM
WOMEN FOR AMERICAN VALUES AND
ETHICS AND SUPPORT. LINE 66 YOU
ARE OPEN. 9 66, PLEASE A MUTE.
HELLO. YOU'RE OPEN. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS DYLAN FROM THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT AS THE PERSON
27. THANK YOU. 2092, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
JULIET. I'M LOW AND I AM THE GUN
SAFETY. UM WORKING ACTION GROUP
CHAIR OF WAVES, WOMEN'S WOMEN
FOR AMERICAN VALUES AND ETHICS
OVER 3000 STRONG I'M ALSO A GUN
OWNER, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY,
YOUR MOTHER. AND WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT B 13 27. THANK YOU.
WINE. 1 18, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
MY NAME IS KAREN ZANOTTO. I'M A
VOLUNTEER WITH MONSTER MAN
ACTION FROM WEST SACRAMENTO AND
THE MOTHER AND I'M CALLING IN
SUPPORT OF SB 13 27. 74 YOU ARE
OPEN AND IT'S A FINAL REMINDER,
PLEASE PRESS 10 FOR SUPPORT ON
SB 13 27, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 74.
HI MY NAME IS JULIE HANNIGAN.
I'M A VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION FOR GUN SENSE CALLING AND
SUPPORT OF SB 13 27. MR CHAIR.
WE DID EXHAUST ACCU. ALRIGHT
THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES LISTED.
SHE'LL BE AGARWAL WITH THE BLUE
AND ROY GRIFFITH. WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION. SHE'LL BE AGARWAL,
ARE YOU WITH US? YES GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SHELBY
AGARWAL. I AM THE LEGAL DIRECTOR
AT THE VALUE OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, SPEAKING ON BEHALF
OF A C L U CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 13 27. WE VERY
MUCH UNDERSTAND THE GOALS OF SP
13 27 AND BELIEVE THAT CURBING
GUN VIOLENCE IS A CRITICAL AND
URGENT ISSUE. WE ARE HERE TODAY
BECAUSE THE OPPOSES THE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM USED IN
THIS LAW. THE BILL IS EXPLICITLY
MODELED AFTER SB EIGHT TEXAS'S
ABORTION BAN A LAW THAT
ENCOURAGES THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
BRING CRIPPLING LAWSUITS AGAINST
ABORTION PROVIDERS AND ANYONE
WHO SUPPORTS THEM. BUT TEXAS
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IS
DESIGNED TO ONE CHILL PEOPLE'S
ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
CARE AND TO FRUSTRATE THE
COURT'S ABILITY TO SERVE AS A
CHECK ON THE LAW BY RELYING ONLY
ON PRIVATE RATHER THAN STATE
ENFORCEMENT. IT IS AN END RUN
AROUND THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND
BALANCES THAT WE GENERALLY RELY
ON TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. SP 13 27 NOW REPLICATES
THAT SYSTEM AND EVEN IF IT IS
DOING SO, FOR NOBLE ENDS, THE
FACT REMAINS THAT REPLICATING
THE TEXAS MODEL ONLY SERVES TO
LEGITIMIZE AND PROMOTE IT.
ERODING COURT OVERSIGHT OVER
LAWS WILL EMPOWER OTHER STATES
TO CHERRY PICK THE HOT BUTTON
POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE DAY AND
PASSED THEIR OWN S B, A COPY
CAPITAL TO ADDRESS THEM. STATES
HAVE ALREADY BEGUN TO CONSIDER
THESE BILLS TO CHILL ABORTION
RIGHTS, TRANSGENDER RIGHTS AND
SPEECH RIGHTS. WITH THIS BILL,
CALIFORNIA IS NOW ENDORSING AND
PARTICIPATING IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL ARMS RACE WHERE
THE RIGHTS THAT A PERSON CAN
ENJOY DIFFER FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER. WE SHARE THE
COMMITTEE'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE
DEADLY PROLIFERATION OF ILLEGAL
GUNS. OUR ORGANIZATION HAS
EXPRESSLY VOICED SUPPORT FOR GUN
CONTROL MEASURES IN THE PAST,
THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION. BUT SB 13 27 IS
NOT THE LAW THAT THE CRITICAL
ISSUE OF GUN CONTROL DESERVES.
THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, RIGHT. ROY
GRIFFITH. ARE YOU WITH US? THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS FOR THE
RECORD LORD, LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE CALIFORNIA
RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION OR
HAVE HALF OF OUR MEMBERS SHOT
CALIFORNIA WERE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 13 27.
SB 13 27 SO BROADLY WRITTEN, ANY
PERSON COULD BRING CIVIL ACTION
AGAINST THE FOREIGN MINISTRY.
IT'S AN ATTACK ON THE LAWFUL
COMMERCE OF FIREARMS THAT
ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THEIR
AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS. IT'S
ANOTHER MISGUIDED BILL THAT
SPEAKS TO SQUASH AND
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THOSE WHO
WRITES ENGAGED IN LAWFUL
COMMERCE TO RESTRICT LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS ACCESS TO FIREARMS
INSTEAD OF HOLDING ACCOUNTABLE
THOSE WHO MISUSE FIREARM.
FIREARMS ARE INHERENTLY SAFE.
THEY ARE INANIMATE TOOL. IT'S
THE OFFER THAT SOME KINDS CAN BE
UNSAFE, EITHER BY ACTION OR
MALICIOUS CRIMINAL INTENT. WE
MUST INSTEAD FOCUS OUR RESOURCES
ON THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE FOR
IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES. LÀ
PREVENTS FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS
BEING SUED. PROTECTION OF LAWFUL
COMMERCE ACT PROTECTS
MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS FROM
BEING SUED. WHEN A FIREARM IS
USED IN A CRIME. THE ACT WAS
PASSED BY THE U. S SENATE IN
2000 AND FIVE AND THE LAW
PROHIBITS VICTIMS. OF A PERSON,
MISUSING A FIRE IN THE PRODUCTS
AND SEEKING DAMAGES OR
INJUNCTION, RATHER RELIEF. THIS
RULING. WE'LL DETERMINE
BUSINESSES. UNITED STATES THAT
ARE LEGALLY ENGAGING IN COMMERCE
CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE
FOR THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF
OTHERS. THE POSSIBILITY OF
IMPOSING LIABILITY ON ENTIRE
INDUSTRY FOR THE HARM THAT IS
SOLELY CAUSED BY OTHERS IS AN
ABUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM ERODES
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR
NATIONAL LAWS. THREATENS THE
ELIMINATION OF BASIC
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES. INVITES THE
DISASSEMBLY AND DESTABILIZATION
OF OTHER INDUSTRIES AND ECONOMIC
SECTORS LAWFULLY COMPETING IN
THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM,
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
UNREASONABLE BURDEN. ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
IN THE UNITED STATES. I WILL NOT
GO INTO NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF
CASE LAW ACROSS THE NATION THAT
SUPPORTS THIS RULING, BUT IT
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT SP 13 27
CLEARLY IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT
WITH FEDERAL LAW THAT HAS BEEN
TRIED AND TESTED. CLEARLY
VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT,
WHICH STATES NO STATE SHALL MAKE
OR ENFORCE ANY LAW, WHICH WILL
BRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS, UNITED
STATES IF PASSED, IT WILL RESULT
IN DISTRACTION LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND WASTED TAX DOLLARS. IT WILL
BE CHALLENGED. IT WILL BE
REPEALED FARMS OR TOOLS. YOU
CANNOT HOLD MANUFACTURERS LIABLE
FOR THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO IN
AN UNSTABLE CRIMINAL MANNER.
WHAT'S NEXT DOING FORWARD OR
GENERAL MOTORS WHEN AN
INDIVIDUAL GETS BEHIND THE WHEEL
AND DRIVE INTOXICATED TAKES HIM
ALIVE. THEY SHOW YOU WAS ALREADY
CLEARLY COVERED. WHY WE SHOULD
NOT MODEL THIS AFTER WHAT IS
GOING ON IN TEXAS. I MEAN, WE'RE
CALIFORNIA. WE SHOULD LEAD THE
WAY AND NOT FOLLOW OTHER STATES
AND THEIR MISS GUIDED USE AN
INAPPROPRIATE USE OF LEGISLATION
AND YOUR TIME. SO I WILL NOT
EVEN GO INTO WHAT I WAS GOING TO
SAY ON THAT. AND AGAIN. I KEPT
MY HAT THE AIR SHOW YOU FOR
HOPE. BEAUTIFULLY. THEY COVERED
THAT. THE STAGE OF CALIFORNIA'S
IS THE FOUNDATION OF
ORGANIZATION AND HAS BEEN OUR
CONSTANT GOAL TO WORK TOWARDS
COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS REGARDING
ISSUE OF CRIME AND FIREARM
OWNERSHIP. THIS CAN BE DONE,
HOWEVER, WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS PROTECT THEIR
FAMILIES ENJOY COMPETITIVE
SHOOTING EVENTS. TO WRAP UP TO
RECOGNIZE. YES SIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I RECOGNIZE THE
SENATOR SAYING THAT WE'VE DONE
GREAT STRIDES IN CALIFORNIA,
REDUCING CRIME AND AGAIN. WE
JUST NEED TO FOCUS. OUR EFFORTS
ON CRIMINALS NOT LIE BY THE
CITIZENS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT WELL NOW MOVE TO ANY
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM.
AND WELL, THIS TIME WILL NOT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY. BUT YOUR
NAME YOUR AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION TO SB 13 27 MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD
, DAN REED, WESTERN REGIONAL
DIRECTOR WITH THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS,
SAM PARET IS REPRESENTING GUN
OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
CALIFORNIANS WHO REGULARLY USE
FIREARMS TO SUCCESS SUCCESSFULLY
KEEP FROM BEING VICTIMS. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? ALRIGHT OPERATOR. WOULD
YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 13 27 WILL
TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
IF YOU ARE AN OPPOSITION TO SB
13 27, PLEASE TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY AND PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO. WE'LL START
WITH FLYING 73 YOU ARE OPEN. 9
73 YOU MUTED. ONE MORE SHOT 73.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY? I
WILL MOVE ALONG TO LINE 1 20,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF 20. THE
RECORD MY NAME IS MICHAEL
FINLEY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL SHOOTING
SPORTS FOUNDATION, WHERE THE
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THEM
MANUFACTURERS AND FACTORIES,
RETAILERS AND RANGES IN A STRONG
OPPOSITION OF THIS, BILL. THANK
YOU. AND AS A FINAL REMINDER,
PLEASE PRESS 10 IF YOU'RE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 13 TO 7 AND MR
CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE HAS QUEUED
UP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SEEING NONE. SENATOR
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MEMBERS AND MADAM CHAIR.
COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT, UNDERSTAND, AND I GET
THE CONCERN OF GUN OWNERS AND
THE LIKE, AND I'M NOT
DISRESPECTFUL OF THAT. BUT WE'RE
ONLY TALKING ABOUT THREE KINDS
OF WEAPONS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
GHOST GUNS, 50 CALIBER MACHINE
GUNS AND ASSAULT WEAPONS.
THERE'S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
FOR AN ILLEGAL WEAPON. ANYBODY
WHO HAS LEGITIMATE WEAPON AND
PROTECT THEIR HOME, THEIR FAMILY
, THEIR BUSINESS OR THE LIKE,
HAS A RIGHT TO A WEAPON. THAT'S
WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS.
NUMBER TWO SECTION 2 22 9 49.71
OF THE MEASURE, GOVERNOR
NILSON'S MEASURE SAYS. IT'S A
SUPREME COURT DECISION CHANGES
THIS BECOMES INOPERATIVE. SO
WHAT HE SAID IN HIS STATEMENT ON
DECEMBER 11TH, 2000 AND 21 WAS
HE WANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THIS TO PROTECT LIVES OF PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA FROM GUN VIOLENCE
. DO WE KNOW WHETHER IT WORKS?
WE DO NOT. WE DO NOT. BUT WHILE
WE KNOW IS WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN EVERY
WAY POSSIBLE. AND THEN WE HAVE
TO INVOKE EVERY POSSIBLE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, AND I
DON'T LIKE IT, AND I THINK
THERE'S SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT
PROBLEMS WITH IT. BUT IN IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
FIVE JUSTICES SAY THAT THIS IS
THE RULE OF LAW THAT BECOMES THE
RULE OF LAW. SO WE HAVE TAKEN
THE POSITION THAT WE ARE GOING
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT IT
BECOMES AN OPERATIVE AT THE LAW
CHANGES OR IF THEIR SON DECISION
THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT US
IN THAT WAY, I HAVE SPENT SOME
TIME TALKING TO THE EU'S
LEADERSHIP IN THIS REGARD, AND
I'M SENSITIVE TO THEIR POINTS OF
VIEW. AND I GET THE PURITY OF
THEIR VIEW. BUT I THINK THAT THE
OBLIGATION OF US TO PROTECT
PEOPLE FROM GUN VIOLENCE IS A
GREATER OBLIGATION IS THE
HIGHEST OBLIGATION OF ANYBODY IN
GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC SAFETY OF FOLKS AND ANY
TOOL THAT WE CAN USE. TO PROTECT
US IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND
FOR THAT I ASKED HERE I VOTE.
THANK YOU. RIGHT. I AM. LOOKING
FOR A MOTION. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED.
COLORADO PLEASE. STONE STONE. I
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. NO BLOOM
. DAVIES DAVIES NO, HANEY HANEY,
I CHOLERA. COLOR I MAIENSCHEIN
RAISE RAISE I REVERSE WILSON.
WILSON. I. THAT BILL WAS IT
NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE, SO I'LL PUT
IT ON CALL. THANK YOU MEMBERS.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU.
RIGHT SENATOR TATO WILL NOW MOVE
TO ITEM NUMBER THREE SP 8 47.
MORNING MORNING. WILL THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? AND THE SECOND. THANK
YOU. SP 8 47. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST
START BY ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
OUR OFFICE AS OF JULY 2021 MORE
THAN 1.8 MILLION HOMEOWNERS WERE
BEHIND ON THEIR MORTGAGES. MANY
OF THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE OWNERS
OF RENTAL PROPERTY WHEN FEDERAL
MORTGAGE FORBEARANCE AND THEY
MAY BE FORCED TO REMOVE THE
RENTAL UNITS FROM THE MARKET AND
SELL THEM IN ORDER TO AVOID
FORECLOSURE. SB EIGHT PORTS
SEVEN ESTABLISHES A GRANT
PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT
ALLOWS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
TO HOMEOWNER APPLICANTS UPON AN
APPROPRIATION BY THE
LEGISLATURE. UM THE CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE RELIEF PROGRAM USES
FEDERAL HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE
FUNDS TO HELP HOMEOWNERS GET
CAUGHT UP ON THEIR HOUSING
PAYMENTS. BUT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE
HOMEOWNERS WHO HAVE RENTAL
PROPERTIES. THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM PROVIDED 5.2 BILLION TO
CALIFORNIA TO PAY RENT FOR SOME
LOW INCOME TENANTS WHO HAVE BEEN
UNABLE TO PAY THEIR RENT DUE TO
THE PANDEMIC, BUT IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ALL RENTERS. WE DO HAVE
TENANTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO ARE
BEHIND ON THEIR RENT BUT WILL
NOT RECEIVE GOVERNMENT AS THIS
IS BECAUSEWHAT THEY MAKE FALLS
JUST ABOVE THE EXISTING
THRESHOLD FOR THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. THIS LEAVES
THE HOMEOWNERS. OF THE RENTAL
PROPERTY, WHO SOMETIMES ARE
STILL PAYING OFF THE MORTGAGE ON
THEIR PROPERTY, STRUGGLING
THEMSELVES. SB 847 CLOSES A GAP
FOR TENANTS AND HOMEOWNERS WHO
HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN REJECTED.
FROM THE STATE RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, ENSURING NEEDED RENTAL
UNITS STAY IN THE MARKET, AND
PEOPLE DO NOT LOSE THE ROOFS
OVER THEIR HEADS. HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HERE. WITH ME TODAY,
JOINING US AND IN THIS ROOM WE
HAVE DEBORAH CARLTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. AND THEN THE OTHER
ONE IS FAMILY EMERGENCY. AND
SHE'S NOT WITH US TODAY. OKAY SO
WE JUST HAVE ONE. SORRY ABOUT
THAT CONFUSION. WITNESS, PLEASE
. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS DEBORAH CARLSON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
. UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO A FAMILY
EMERGENCY, WE DO NOT HAVE THE
SMALL OWNER WHO PLANNED TO
TESTIFY TODAY. IF SHE WERE HERE,
SHE WOULD TELL YOU THAT SHE DID
HAVE A HOME AND FOR TWO YEARS
ATTENDANT DID NOT PAY THE RENT,
IN FACT, REFUSED TO PAY THE RENT
AND REFUSED TO APPLY FOR
FUNDING. THE TENANT FINALLY
ABANDONED THE HOME WITHOUT
PAYING BUT LEFT ALSO $50,000 IN
DAMAGES TO THE HOME. THE
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY
TO MAKE THOSE REPAIRS AND
EVENTUALLY LOST HER HOME. THIS
IS UNFORTUNATELY THE STORY OF
MANY SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN
CALIFORNIA AND INTERNAL SURVEY
OF OUR OWNERS. SMALL OWNERS
REVEALED THAT OVER $100 MILLION
IN UNPAID RENT IS STILL OWED.
THIS BILL DOES TARGET THOSE
SMALL OWNERS BY ALLOWING THEM TO
APPLY FIRST FOR ANY FUNDING THAT
IS AVAILABLE. UH SP FOR SEVEN
WILL ASSIST THOSE OWNERS AND
EVEN THOSE TENANTS WHO MAY NOT
HAVE UNDERSTOOD HOW TO APPLY FOR
FUNDING. AND FOR THOSE REASONS
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB 847? MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, PAT MORAN WITH
AARON READING ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE IN
THE HEARING? ALRIGHT SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANY SUPPORT FOR SB
8 47? WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT TAKE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SB 847
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME ONE
POWERED BY ZERO. AND LION 1 16,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 1 16, YOU ARE
OPEN. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS BRIAN KINGSTON AND
MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN
REPRESENT EAST PAIN RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION. THE
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. AH!
PROVIDING HOUSING TO THE VERY
LOW INCOME HOUSE HOLDS IT
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT AND URGED THE COMMITTEE
TO VOTE ON THANK YOU. AND NEXT
WE'LL GO TO LINE 58. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. 58. YES HI. GOOD MORNING
. INTERN MEMBERS. THIS IS EDWIN
BARBONE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
AND AS A FINAL REMINDER IF YOU
ARE IN SUPPORT FOR SB 847,
PLEASE PRESS 10. CAN WE GO TO
LINE 73? GOOD MORNING, RICHARD.
SHARING MEMBERS OF VICTORIA
RODRIGUEZ SOMETHING ELSE
UNMARKED TOMORROW BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY IN CONTRA COSTA AND
SUPPORT MR CHAIR. THERE ARE NO
OTHER PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP AT
THIS TIME. THANK YOU. I DO NOT
HAVE ANY OPPOSITION LISTED. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF SB 847? SEEING
NONE OPERATED WITH YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO SB
847. DO IT TO TESTIFY. AN
OPPOSITION TO SB 847 PLEASE
PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND ONE
MOMENT, MR CHAIR. WE DO HAVE ONE
DOING UP ANYBODY ELSE. UH PLEASE
GO AHEAD AND HIT 10 TO TESTIFY
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 847 AND 102.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING,
SARAH MEMBERS. MRS PENA RESULTS
WITH THE WESTERN CENTER ONLINE
POVERTY AND UNFORTUNATE
OPPOSITION. UNLESS THE BILL IS,
UM, THAT DID THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE DID QUEUE UP.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATOR
YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES. I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MS RACE AND
THEN MISS DAVIES. SENATOR TODD.
OH I NOTICED ALL THE LETTERS IN
IN, UM IN FAVOR. CLEARLY YOU
REPRESENT YOUR COMMUNITY VERY
WELL. THEY ALL HAVE SENT THE
LETTERS. IT'S HARD TO GET TO ALL
OF OUR COMMUNITIES TO DO THAT
ALL THE TIME. T
CONGRATULATIONS ON THAT. IT'S
CLEAR THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR
THIS. UM AND I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
UM LANDLORDS WHO FOLLOWED ALL
THE RULES, MANY OF THEM DID NOT
GET PAID THE RENT THAT THAT WAS
DUE TO THEM. I UM I ONLY HAD ONE
COMMENT IN THAT REGARD, THOUGH,
IS THE PROTECTION FOR THE
RENTERS AS WELL, UM, IN IN THE
BILL, THERE WERE THERE'S GREAT
PROTECTION FOR LANDLORDS. AND AS
A LANDLORD. I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT DURING THIS
PANDEMIC THERE HAS BEEN LOT
SAID, AND LOTS REVIEWED ABOUT
THE NEED TO PROTECT THE RENTERS
. AND I SUPPOSE WE CAN SAY THAT
BY PAYING THE RENT TO THE
LANDLORDS WERE HELPING THE
RENTERS. UM THEY, THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED AND I WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT. AND I JUST ASKED
THAT, UM IF THERE COULD BE
LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSES THE NEEDS OF THE
RENTER THAT THAT BE CONSIDERED
BEFORE IT COMES TO THE FLOOR.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THIS,
UM, TO PROVIDE THAT THAT HELP
THAT IS NEEDED, ESPECIALLY FOR
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN MOST
AFFECTED BY THE PANDEMIC. THANK
YOU. QUÊ MISS DAVIES TITLES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL UP. UM I CAN TELL YOU
THE LAST TWO YEARS SOME OF THE
MAIN CAUSE THAT WE HAVE OUR
SMALL MOM AND POPS THAT THIS IS
THIS IS THE RETIREMENT AND THAT
THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE ANY
FUNDING. AND IF THEY ARE, IT'S
NOT THAT EASY TO GET RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A LOT OF
HOOPS. JUST TRYING TO GET THIS
SO AGAIN. THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. AND WE'VE WORKED WITH
THE RENTERS AND I'M REALLY GLAD
TO SEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO THE
OTHER SIDE. IT REALLY HAS TO BE
A FULL CIRCLE THAT WE'RE HELPING
BOTH SIDES. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS. QUÊ OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. SEEING
NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AND I VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. WE DO HAVE EMOTION A
SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM DAVIES. TV'S
I. HANEY. ANY I CHOLERA. CHOLERA
I MAIENSCHEIN RAISE RAISE I
REVERSE. RIVAS. I WILSON. LISTEN
I FIRST WEEK YOU THAT BILL IS AT
ONCE AND THEN WE HAVE YOUR SB 10
84 HOUR ITEM NUMBER FOUR. SO, MR
CHAIR I DO HAVE THAT USED
ARTICLE TO SHARE WITH MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. IF IT'S OKAY WITH
YOU, I'D LIKE TO GIVE TO THE
SERGEANT'S ON THIS THAT'S FINE.
SO I'D LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS NOTED IN THE BILL
ANALYSIS. I ALSO LIKE TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING
WITH MY OFFICE ON THESE
AMENDMENTS. RECENT GLOBAL EVENTS
HAVE SHOWN HOW INTERCONNECTED WE
ALL ARE. AND HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE
IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING
EXACTLY WHO IS IN CONTROL OF THE
RESOURCES WE DEPEND ON,
INCLUDING OUR OWN. THE RUSSIAN
INVASION OF UKRAINE HAS
TRIGGERED UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE
WORLD. ANY MULTITUDE OF WAYS,
INCLUDING GLOBAL PHYSICAL
SECURITY AS WELL AS IN FOOD
SECURITY. THERE ARE LOOMING
CONCERNS THAT THE CONFLICT IN
UKRAINE COULD DRAMATICALLY
INCREASED FOOD INSECURITY,
PARTICULARLY FOR NATIONS IN
NEED. AND IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT
FOOD CAN BE USED AS A WEAPON OF
WAR. AND THAT FOOD IS BEING USED
AS A WEAPON OF WAR. BUT BETWEEN
THEM UKRAINE AND RUSSIA PRODUCED
30% OF THE WORLD'S WHEAT SUPPLY
20% OF ITS CORN SUPPLY AND 75 TO
80% OF THE WORLD'S SUNFLOWER
SEED OIL. THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAM
BUYS 50% OF ITS GRAIN FROM
UKRAINE. CALIFORNIA'S
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY PRODUCES
ONE THIRD OF OUR COUNTRY'S
VEGETABLES AND TWO THIRDS OF OUR
COUNTRY'S FRUITS AND NUTS AND
ALSO PROVIDES FOOD TO THOSE IN
NEED ALL OVER THE WORLD. ON
AVERAGE 40% OF CALIFORNIA'S
AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT IS EXPORTED
GLOBALLY. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND
TO PRODUCE THESE CROPS IS
INVALUABLE TO OUR STATE GDP AS
WELL AS TO FEEDING THE STATE AND
THE NATION. IN THE PAST FEW
YEARS. FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF
CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL LAND
HAS STEADILY INCREASED BETWEEN
2019 AND 2020 FOREIGN OWNERS
PURCHASED OVER 40,000 ACRES OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CALIFORNIA.
IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
SPECIFICALLY OVER 150,000 ACRES
OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS HELD IN
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP. THESE LAND
PURCHASES PUT CALIFORNIA'S FOOD
SECURITY AT RISK EXTENDING NOT
ONLY TO DOMESTIC USE BUT ALSO TO
OUR EXPORTS. IN 2019,
CALIFORNIA'S AGRICULTURAL
EXPORTS WERE MEASURED AT 21.7
BILLION IN VALUE. SB 10 84
PREVENTS FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
FROM PURCHASING AGRICULTURAL
LAND IN CALIFORNIA. ADDITIONALLY
SB 10 84 DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT
OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE TO
COMPILE AN ANNUAL REPORT
HIGHLIGHTING VARIOUS TRENDS
RELATING TO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP ON
AGRICULTURE ON AGRICULTURAL
LAND, WATER RIGHTS, WATER
DESALINATION FACILITIES AND
ENERGY FACILITIES. THIS WILL
ENSURE CALIFORNIA HAS UP TO DATE
INFORMATION ON TRENDS ON FOREIGN
OWNERSHIP OF MANY OF
CALIFORNIA'S IMPORTANT NATURAL
RESOURCES. THE FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
OF THESE RESOURCES FUNDAMENTALLY
GOES BACK TO CALIFORNIA'S FOOD
SUPPLY CHAIN, AND THAT IS WHY I
BELIEVE C D. C D. F A IS BEST
POSITIONED TO COMPILE THIS
REPORT. WE HAVE ALSO WORKED WITH
TRIBAL GROUPS TO ENSURE
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES ARE
EXEMPTED FROM THIS BILL, AND
THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL
HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THESE
GROUPS. AND WITH ME TODAY I HAVE
ONE WITNESS JOINING US REMOTELY
. JOHN WARNER OF OWNER OF WARNER
FARMS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO
I DO HAVE THAT ONE WITNESS
LISTED ON THE TELEPHONE. JOHN
WARNER. ARE YOU WITH US? YES,
SIR. I AM. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE FOR PROVIDING ME TIME
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 84
TODAY. MY NAME IS JOHN WARNER.
I'M A SMALL FAMILY FARMER FROM
CLERIC COUNTY. I FORM
APPROXIMATELY 58 ACRES. IN A
LOCALIZED CONTACT. FOREIGN
OWNERSHIP OF HAGLUND THREATENS
OUR WATER SECURITY AS LARGE HORN
INVESTORS ENGAGED IN LAND
GRABBING TO GAIN CONTROL AND
ACCESS TO THE ALREADY LIMITED
SUPPLY OF WATER UNDER CURRENT
CALIFORNIA LAW S G N A STIGMA
LARGE AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES HAVE
AN ADVANTAGE OVER SMALLER
GROWERS LIKE MYSELF WITH REGARDS
TO INPUT AND USE BALANCES IN OUR
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES OR D F A
WELL FUNDED FOREIGN ENTITIES CAN
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL
STRUCTURES FOR BOTH TRUMP AND
MOVE WATER FROM REGION TO
REGION. FURTHERMORE THEY CAN
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT THE
WATER USED IN A SPECIFIC
WATERSHED. BECAUSE THEY WERE
ABLE TO PURCHASE LARGE SWATHS OF
LAND TO GAIN GREATER ACCESS TO
THE ALLOCATED NATIVE WATER UNDER
STIGMA. OUR RURAL SMALL FARMERS
SIMPLY CANNOT COMPETE WITH THE
POWER OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
INVESTMENT DOLLARS. THIS IS A
WATER ALLOCATION AND SCARCITY
ISSUE FOR SMALL GROWERS LIKE
MYSELF. THE FINAL COST THAT I'D
LIKE TO LEAVE YOU WITH TODAY. AS
I KNOW MY TIME IS VERY SHORT.
CALIFORNIA GROWERS LIKE ME
PRODUCE THE SAFEST HIGHEST
QUALITY FOOD IN THE WORLD. WE DO
IT RIGHT HERE AND IN OUR OWN
STATE. WE SHOULD BE DOING
EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO
ENSURE THAT COUNTRIES THAT THAT
CONTINUES AND THAT IT IS DONE BY
CALIFORNIANS LIKE ME WHO ARE
INVESTED IN ENSURING THE ONGOING
SUCCESS OF OUR FAMILIES. OUR
COMMUNITIES AND OUR STATES. FEW
FOOD SECURITY IS AN ANGRY NEED
FOR ANY COMMUNITY AND FOOD
SECURITY STARTS WITH
AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP,
SECURITY AND RESOURCE
ACQUISITION SECURITY. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND SUPPORT.
CALIFORNIA FAMILY FARMERS. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB?
10 84. SEEING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR ANY
SUPPORT FOR SB 10? 84 WILL NOT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. SORRY,
MR CHAIR WAS MUTED THERE FOR A
SECOND. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 10 84 PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY 01 FOLLOWED BY ZERO. NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE
TO OPPOSITION. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION LISTED. IS THERE
ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF SB? 10 84. SEEING
NONE OPERATING. WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LIGHTS FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO
SB? 10 84. TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION
TO SB 10 84 PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME.
AGAIN. NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE THE LINE, SO I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH MY TEAM AND
MAKING THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS
TO MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS. I
ALSO PROVIDED YOU WITH A ARTICLE
ON KIND OF. THE TOPIC OF THE
ISSUE THAT WE'RE KIND OF FACING
HERE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GROW
IN TERMS OF SECURING OUR OWN
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN FOOD SUPPLY
HERE IN THIS IN THE UNITED
STATES, UM WITH THAT I WANTED TO
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AN I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'M
LOOKING FOR A MOTION THAT MOTION
WOULD BE, BUT WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE. CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM DAVIES
DAVIES, I HANEY PENNY I CHOLERA
. CHOLERA. I MAIENSCHEIN RAISE.
RIVAS RIVAS. I WILSON. WILSON. I. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU.
AND AS WE WAIT FOR SENATORS,
LEMON AND WIECKOWSKI TO JOIN US
, I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL
THE ROLL, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM
DAVIES. DAVIES. I HANEY HANEY, I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I MAIENSCHEIN
REYES REVERSE. REVERSE. I
WILSON. WILSON I THANK YOU. THAT
IS SB 8 79 WIENER. SB 10 37
HAMBURG. SB11 82 EGGMAN SP 12
OH, TWO, LIMÓN AND SB 14. OH,
FIVE KOBO. ALRIGHT BACK TO THE
TOP OF THE AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 13 64. I NEED EMOTION.
THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO LABOR CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM.
CUNNINGHAM NO BLOOM. DAVIES
DAVIES NO, HANEY PENNY I CHOLERA
, CHOLERA. MAIENSCHEIN REYES
RIVAS. RIVERSIDE. WILSON WILSON.
AYE. THAT NEEDS ONE MORE, SO I'M
GOING TO PUT THAT BILL ON CALL.
LET'S JUST ROLL THROUGH THE LIST
AND SEE IF WE HAVE ABSENT
MEMBERS. SO ITEM NUMBER TWO SB
13 27. HERTZBERG IS ON CALL. IT
NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE. I'M GOING
TO LIFT THE CALL. BOOM.
MAIENSCHEIN RIVAS. BREATHE A
SIGH. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THAT
BILL IS OUT. I THINK EVERYBODY
WAS HERE FOR ITEMS THREE AND
FOUR. ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 10 85
KAMLAGER. I NEED EMOTION. THANK
YOU. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO HUMAN SERVICES CALLED THE
ROAD, PLEASE. STONE. I
CUNNINGHAM BLOOM. DAVIES DAVIES,
NO, HANEY PENNY. I KALRA. KALRA
I MAIENSCHEIN REYES REVERSE.
RIVERSIDE. WILSON WILSON. AYE.
THAT NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE, SO I'M
GOING TO PUT THAT BILL ON CALL.
ITEM NUMBER SIX. SB 9 31 BY
SENATOR LEYVA, I NEED A MOTION.
THANK YOU. AND THE SECOND WE
HAVE A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO PURSE COMMITTEE
CALLED THE ROLL, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM. BLOOM DAVIES DAVIES.
NO HANEY HANEY I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I MAIENSCHEIN REYES
RIVAS. THREE OF US. AYE, WILSON.
WILSON. I. THANK YOU. BILL NEEDS
ONE MORE, SO I'M GOING TO PUT IT
ON CALL. THANK YOU. AND THEN
FINALLY THERE, BILL THAT WE
HEARD IS ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 4 21
BY WARD I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
THANK YOU MOST IN THE SECOND,
AND THAT MOTION IS CONCURRENCE
IN SENATE AMENDMENTS. STONE
CUNNINGHAM. REMEMBER 11 84 21.
T CONCURRENCE ITEM. CUNNINGHAM.
NO BLOOM. DAVIES DAVIES. NO,
HANEY HANEY I KALRA CHOLERA. I
MAIENSCHEIN RAISE REVERSE.
REVERSE. I WILSON. WILSON. I
NEEDS ONE MORE. SO I'M GONNA PUT
THAT BILL ON CALL AS WELL.
ROADS. SO WE'RE WAITING ON
SENATORS LIMÓN AND WIECKOWSKI
AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. OH, OKAY. HANG ON
JUST SECOND, SO SB 11 49. OKAY
SO LET'S UM SORRY. SP 11 49 2ND
JORDAN'S IS. I'M NUMBER SEVEN,
CALLED THE ABSENT MEMBERS. IT'S
ON CALLING. I'M GONNA LIFT THE
CALL BLOOM MAIENSCHEIN REVERSE.
RIVERS I THANK YOU. SO THAT BILL
IS NOW OUT. ALRIGHT, MR
CUNNINGHAM. OKAY SO, MR
CUNNINGHAM ON A B 14 4 84 21
ITEM NUMBER. 11 IS MOVING HIS
VOTE FROM NO TO I. SO THANK YOU.
THAT BILL IS NOW OUT. ALL RIGHT.
I THINK WE ARE UP TO DATE. AS
FAR AS IT GOES. I UNDERSTAND MR
WIECKOWSKI IS IN ROUTE SO
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET TO THOSE
QUICKLY.
AS WE WAIT. IT'S UH. KIT MEMBERS
TO ADD ON STARTING WITH THE
CONSENT AGENDA. THIS IS FOR
CONSENT BLOOM. AYE. BLEW MY
MAIENSCHEIN RAISE. THANK YOU.
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER ONE SP 13
64 TERRAZZO IS ON CALL. I'M
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL. BLOOM.
BYE BYE, MAIENSCHEIN. REYES
THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 13 27
HERTZBERG IS OUT, BUT I'M
CALLING ABSENT MEMBERS. BLOOM
BLOOM I MAIENSCHEIN. THANK YOU,
ADAM. NUMBER THREE SP 8 47 HER
DAUGHTER IS OUT. CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. BLOOM BLOOM I
MAIENSCHEIN QUÊ ITEM NUMBER FOUR
SB 10 84 TITLE IS OUT, BUT CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS BLUE MY
MAIENSCHEIN REYES. I HAVE NEVER
SIX SB 10 85 KAMLAGER IS ON
CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT THE CALL
BLOOM BLOOM I MAIENSCHEIN REYES
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. ITEM NUMBER SIX. LABOR SB 9
31 IS ON CALL. I'M GONNA LIFT
THE CALL BLOOM BLOOM I MAINTAIN
RACE. THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS OUT,
BUT I'LL LIFT THE CALL OR CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS. BLOOM BLOOM
I MAIENSCHEIN THANK YOU AND THEN
ITEM NUMBER 11 A B 4 21. IS OUT
, BUT I'LL CALL THE MEMBERS
BLOOM BLOOM I MAINTAIN RAISE.
THANK YOU. WE ARE UP TO DATE. WE
HAVE THREE MORE BILLS TO HEAR
THIS LIMÓN AND TFROM MR
WIECKOWSKI.
MISS THEM OUT. WELCOME THANK
YOU, SO WE'LL MOVE TO OUR ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT SP 11 62 THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. ACCORDING
TO A RECENT AND TERESA ANALYSIS
OF PAY DATA. CALIFORNIA WOMEN IN
2020 LOST $46 BILLION DUE TO THE
GENDER PAY GAP AND PEOPLE OF
COLOR IN THE STATE LOST 61
BILLION DUE TO THE RACE PAY GAP.
THE WAGE GAP PERSISTS ACROSS
INDUSTRIES, OCCUPATIONS AND
EDUCATION LEVELS AND EXACT A
HEAVY TOLL NOT ONLY ON WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR, BUT ALSO ON THE
FAMILIES THEY SUPPORT AND THE
ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. SB 11 62
WILL HELP IDENTIFY THE GENDER
AND RACE BASED PAY DISPARITIES
BY REQUIRING PAY TRANSPARENCY AT
EVERY STAGE OF EMPLOYMENT. THIS
BILL ACCOMPLISHES TWO MAJOR
POLICY OBJECTIVES. FIRST IT WILL
HELP NARROW THE WAGE GAP BY
REQUIRING EMPLOYERS WITH 15 OR
MORE EMPLOYEES TO INCLUDE SALARY
RANGES ON ALL JOB POSTING. THIS
REQUIREMENT MODELS WASHINGTON
STATE COLORADO, NEW YORK CITY
AND SOON TO BE THE STATE OF NEW
YORK. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT WHEN
JOB APPLICANTS ARE CLEARLY
INFORMED ABOUT THE CONTEXT FOR
THEIR NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING
SALARY RANGE, WOMEN ARE MORE
WILLING TO NEGOTIATE MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATION MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AND
THE GENDER WAGE GAP NARROWS.
EMPLOYERS ARE ALSO RECOGNIZING
THIS IS AN INDUSTRY BEST
PRACTICE. JUST LAST WEEK,
MICROSOFT ANNOUNCED IT WOULD
INCLUDE PAY RANGES IN ALL OF ITS
U. S JOB POSTINGS. INCLUDING THE
MINIMUM MAXIMUM SALARY RANGES ON
JOB POSTING PROVIDES JOB SEEKERS
WITH THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO
NEGOTIATE FAIR SALARIES AND
HELPS BUSINESSES EFFICIENTLY
HIRE AND RETAIN THE BEST TALENT
THAT MATCHES THEIR NEEDS.
SECONDLY THIS BILL BUILDS UPON
EXISTING DATA REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS BY MAKING AGGREGATE
PAY DATA BROKEN DOWN BY RACE,
ETHNICITY AND SEX PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE FOR COMPANIES WITH 250
, OR MORE EMPLOYEES BY 2027. IT
ALSO ENSURES WE ARE COLLECTING
PAY DATA. ON THE GROWING
WORKFORCE HIGHER THROUGH THIRD
PARTY STAFFING AGENCIES. MANY
MAJOR COMPANIES ARE ALREADY
DISCLOSING THEIR WORK FIRST DATA
AS PART OF THEIR COMMITMENT TO
DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
INITIATIVES AND RACIAL JUSTICE,
INCLUDING HALF OF THE TOP 100
PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES IN THE
US ON THE ISSUES OF LAWSUITS.
THIS BILL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
ANY LAWSUIT BASED ON THE
CONTENTS OF THIS AGGREGATE PAY
DATA WILL BE THROWN OUT. IN
ORDER FOR LAWSUIT UNDER THE
EQUAL PAY ACT TO PROCEED, AN
EMPLOYEE WOULD NEED TO PRODUCE
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED
DISCRIMINATION OR UNEQUAL PAY IN
ORDER TO PROCEED. WHEN THE
LEGISLATION PASSED THE FEET WHEN
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE FAIR
ACT IN 20, THE FAIR PAY ACT IN
2015. THERE WAS A SIMILAR
PREDICTION OF A SPIKE IN
LAWSUITS. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
ADDITIONALLY A SUBSTANTIAL
MAJORITY OF PRIVATE SECTOR NON
UNION WORKERS AT THESE LARGE
COMPANIES ARE BOUND BY FORCED
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS WHICH
PREVENT THEM FROM SUING. THIS IS
NOT ABOUT LITIGATION OR PUBLIC
SHAMING. IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY
. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
COMPANIES THAT ALREADY DISCLOSED
WORKFORCE DATA, INCLUDING HALF
OF THE TOP 100, PUBLICLY TRADED
COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
OUTPERFORM THEIR PEERS IN THE
STOCK MARKET. THESE COMPANIES
SUCH AS INTEL, SALESFORCE,
CITIGROUP AND NOW MICROSOFT.
HAVE NOT FACED LAWSUITS AND
INSTEAD ARE LAUDED FOR THEIR
PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO EQUITY. I
ASKED THAT WE INCREASED
TRANSPARENCY IN ORDER TO NARROW
THE GENDER AND RACIAL WAGE GAP,
WHICH PREVENTS WOMEN
PARTICULARLY WOMEN OF COLOR FROM
ACHIEVING ECONOMIC SECURITY.
THANK YOU, AND WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
WITNESSES AND SUPPORTS GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. CHAIR STONE
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS SAMANTHA GORDON AND I'M
WITH TECH EQUITY COLLABORATIVE
AND WE ARE PROUD TO COSPONSOR SB
11 62. AS YOU KNOW. SB 11 62
CLOSES CRITICAL LOOPHOLES IN OUR
EXISTING PAY DATA REPORTING LAWS
THAT ALLOW A SIZABLE PORTION OF
CALIFORNIA WORKERS TO GO
UNCOUNTED THE EMPLOYEES OF LABOR
CONTRACTORS. WHILE CURRENT PAY
DATA REPORTING CAPTURES
APPROXIMATELY SIX MILLION
CALIFORNIA WORKERS AND
UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT COUNT THE
1.9 MILLION WORKERS WHO ARE
EMPLOYED WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA
STAFFING INDUSTRY. RESULTING IN
A SIGNIFICANT GAP IN OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF EQUAL PAY FOR A
LARGE PORTION OF CALIFORNIA'S
WORKFORCE AT TECH EQUITY. WE'VE
CONDUCTED RESEARCH ON
CONTRACTING PRACTICES WITHIN THE
TECH INDUSTRY. AND FOUND THAT
THESE WORKERS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY LIKELY TO BE
WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR AND NON
BINARY AS COMPARED TO THE DIRECT
WORKFORCE AND TO EARN A FRACTION
OF THE PAY EVEN WHEN PERFORMING
THE SAME ROLE. IN 2017,
ILLINOIS, PASSED A TRANSPARENCY
BILL EXAMINING THE TEMPORARY
WORKFORCE. SINCE THEN, THE
STAFFING INDUSTRY IN ILLINOIS
HAS INCREASED REVENUE BY 32% AND
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY NEARLY 8.
THE LION CLAIMS THAT
TRANSPARENCY EFFORTS WILL HAMPER
ECONOMIC GROWTH OR BUSINESS
COMPETITIVENESS. OVER THE LAST
DECADE, TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT HAS
INCREASED 75% COMPARED TO 19% IN
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT. AND IN
CALIFORNIA THAT IS MEANT THAT
WORKERS BROUGHT IN $35.1 BILLION
FOR THE STAFFING INDUSTRY IN
2020 ALONE. EMPLOYEES OF LABOR
CONTRACTORS ARE A SIGNIFICANT
PART OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND
REVENUE AND OF THE STATE
WORKFORCE OVERALL TO GET AN
ACCURATE PICTURE OF THAT
WORKFORCE, SB 11 62 WOULD
INCLUDE THESE EMPLOYEES OF LABOR
CONTRACTORS IN THE PAY
TRANSPARENCY, REPORTS. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ENCOURAGE YOUR I
VOTE AND I YIELD THE REMAINDER
OF MY TIME. THANK YOU. WE DON'T
ACTUALLY SHARE TIME HERE, BUT I
TAKE YOUR POINT. NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, MARIKO YOSHIHARA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
WHAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT
TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT CLOSING
THE WAGE GAP IS NOT JUST ABOUT
ENSURING EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL
WORK. IT'S ALSO ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF
COLOR ARE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED
IN HIGHER PAYING JOBS AND NOT
CONCENTRATED AND OVERREPRESENTED
STUCK IN THE LOWER PAYING JOBS.
WHICH IS WHAT THIS BILL IS
DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SO A COMPANY
CAN LOOK AT HOW MUCH THEY'RE
PAYING THEIR MALE EXECUTIVES
VERSUS THEIR FEMALE EXECUTIVES
TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO GENDER
OR RACE BASED PAY DISPARITY. BUT
IF YOU HAVE 40 MALE EXECUTIVES
AND JUST ONE FEMALE EXECUTIVE,
YOU STILL HAVE A PAY GAP
PROBLEM. SIMILARLY IF A COMPANY
LOOKS AT THEIR LOWEST PAYING
JOBS AND FINDS AGAIN, THERE'S NO
PAY DISPARITIES BASED ON GENDER
A RACE BUT THERE ARE JUST
PROPORTIONATELY MORE WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR DOING THOSE
LOWER PAYING JOBS. YOU STILL
HAVE A PAY GAP PROBLEM. SO THESE
PAY DATA REPORTS ARE NOT ABOUT
ASSESSING OR COMPARING
INDIVIDUALIZED PAY DATA. THESE
ARE BIG PICTURE REPORTS THAT
ALLOW YOU TO ASSESS AGAIN WHERE
WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE
OVER REPRESENTED OR
UNDERREPRESENTED WITHIN A
COMPANY'S. JOB PAY BANDS AND JOB
CATEGORIES, AND THIS IS BASED ON
JOB CLASSIFICATION AND AGGREGATE
PAID DATA. UM EARLIER THIS MONTH
OR EARLIER THIS YEAR, SOME OF
OUR ATTORNEYS ALONG WITH THE DF,
VH SETTLED ONE OF THE LARGEST
PAY DISCRIMINATION CASES IN THE
HISTORY OF THE STATE, AND PART
OF THAT SETTLEMENT WAS A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYER
PROVIDE THE SAME PAY DATA
REPORTS TO THEIR WORKERS.
BECAUSE IT SHOWS ACCOUNTABILITY
NOT JUST TO PAY EQUAL PAY FOR
EQUAL WORK, BUT ALSO THAT THESE
WOMEN WERE MOVING INTO THE
HIGHER PAYING JOBS. AND WHAT
WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THIS KIND OF
ACCOUNTABILITY WORKS. THERE ARE
COMPANIES THAT ARE VOLUNTARILY
DISCLOSING THIS TYPE OF PAY
DATA. AND SAYING THAT THERE ARE
THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO FIX AND
AGAIN. THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT
DISCLOSING THIS DATA IN SHAME.
THEY'RE NOT DISCLOSING THIS DATA
AND GETTING SUED BECAUSE THEY'RE
THEY'RE COMMITTING TO DOING
BETTER. SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT
FILING LAWSUITS, AND FRANKLY,
THE VAST MAJORITY OF WORKERS ARE
BOUND BY FORCED ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS SO THEY WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO FILE A CLAIM IN COURT
ANYWAY, AND FORCED ARBITRATION,
ACTUALLY, AS PART OF THE REASON
WHY IT'S BEEN SO HARD TO CLOSE
THE WAGE GAP BECAUSE WHEN
WORKERS ARE FORCED TO
INDIVIDUALLY GO INTO PRIVATE
ARBITRATION YOU JUST CAN'T SEE
AND YOU CAN'T ADDRESS THESE MORE
SYSTEMIC PAY EQUITY ISSUES. AND
SO THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL SHINE
A LIGHT ON THOSE MORE SYSTEMIC
PAY INEQUITY SO THAT WE CAN
ADDRESS THE WHOLE PROBLEM. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE STRONGLY
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. BUT IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SB 11? 62 WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY, BUT JUST AN
INDICATION NAME, AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
EDUARDO MARTINEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION IN
STRONG SUPPORT. MELANIE
MURILLO'S ON BEHALF OF THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE?
ALRIGHT SEEING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB 11 62?
WE'LL TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. YOU MR.
CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 11 62, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME
ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO FOR
SUPPORT ON SB 11 60 TO 1 OF
FOUR. YOU ARE OPEN. TOMMY MARTIN
ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. AND NEXT
WE'LL GO TO LINE 1 32, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. OH, GOOD. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KATHY VAN
OSTEN, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN,
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORTED THE
BILL. NEXT IS LYING. 84. 84,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. ISABELLA OR
GLENDA WAS LIKE PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF NARAL PRO
CHOICE CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. 1 40, YOU ARE UP.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. UM MY NAME IS ROUGH
SCHOOL. QUÊ YOUNG YOUNG. FROM
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT 14. THE STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
AND NEXT HIS LINE 1 29, YOU ARE
OPEN. SLOW MEGHAN EVIL ON BEHALF
OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
JEWISH WOMEN, CALIFORNIA AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 66. YELLOW ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.
CHAPTER STRONGLY SUPPORT AS 11
TEACHERS. THANK YOU. LINE 1 10,
YOU ARE OPEN. THE FACT WITH TEMP
WORKER JUSTICE AND WE SUPPORT 11
62. THANK YOU. IN LINE 1 42,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. K DUISBURG
WITH THE CALIFORNIA WORKING
FAMILY COALITION AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 11 62. THANK YOU.
I'LL GIVE ONE MORE FINAL
REMINDER TESTIFY IN SUPPORT FOR
SB 11 62 PLEASE PRESS 10 86,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GREEK KOLINSKY
ON BEHALF OF EQUAL RIGHTS
ADVOCATES SUPPORT 91 44, YOU ARE
OPEN. HELLO JENNY CONDO KAISER
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT.
AND MR CHAIR. THERE ARE NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS IN SUPPORT OF 11 62
AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE
TWO WITNESSES LISTED ONE HERE IN
PERSON. ACTUALLY, HOFFMAN AND
THEN NEXT WILL BE A NET TIME AND
ON THE TELEPHONE. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS ACTUALLY
HAVE BEEN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
UM I'M REALLY JUST HERE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR IF THIS TIME MAN
HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THE PHONE
LINES, SO WITH THAT I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO MISS AND TIMING.
THANK YOU AND THAT TIME AND ARE
YOU WITH US? I'M HERE. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM A PARTNER AT
THE LAW FIRM OF MY FIRST SHOT,
AND THEY'RE A CHAIR ARE PAY
EQUITY PRACTICE GROUP. I OVERSEE
A TEAM THAT ASSISTS HUNDREDS OF
EMPLOYERS THAT WAS KEENLY
EVALUATE THEIR COMPENSATION TO
ENSURE EQUAL PAY PRINCIPLES. AND
GIVEN THAT EXPERIENCE THAT I
WANTED TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING
KEY CONCERNS THE NFL 1162 AT A
FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, THERE ARE KEY
FLAWS BUT THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE FLAWS
ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WOULD ADD MEAN AND MEDIAN WAGE
INFORMATION. MAKE THE PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE PORTION OF THE BILL
EXCEEDINGLY UNWORKABLE. UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW, EQUAL PAY IS
REQUIRED FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TO
PERFORM SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
WORK. AND YET, DESPITE THAT
LEGAL STANDARDS THAT DATA AT
ISSUE GROUPS COMPENSATION FOR
ALL WORKERS OF THE BUSINESS INTO
ONE OF 10 VERY BROAD JOB
CATEGORIES. ARE TO BE TO CONDUCT
ANY ANALYSIS OF PAY. THE
STARTING POINT MUST BE COMPARING
PAY FOR JOBS THAT ARE SIMILAR
ENOUGH UNDER THE LAW. HOWEVER TO
USE A HOSPITAL AND AS AN EXAMPLE
DOCTORS, LAWYERS, NURSES,
DIETITIANS, ACCOUNTANTS,
PHARMACISTS AND EVEN COMPUTER
PROGRAMMERS HOLD VASTLY
DIFFERENT POSITIONS. BUT ARE
STILL GROUPED TOGETHER IN A
SINGLE CATEGORY OF PROFESSIONALS
UNDER THE REPORT, THAT WOULD BE
AN ISSUE THE EXPANDED
REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 1162
WOULD THEN CALL FOR A SINGLE
AVERAGE AND SINGLE MEDIUM PAID
DATA POINT. FOR THAT OVERALL
PROFESSIONALS CATEGORY AND THEN
THE REPORTS WOULD BE PUBLISHED
BECAUSE OF THE INHERENTLY FLAWED
NATURE OF THE REPORT, THE
EXPANDED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
AND IN PARTICULAR THE
REQUIREMENT TO PUBLICIZE THESE
REPORTS. WE ONLY NEED THE
MISINFORMATION REGARDING EQUAL
PAY. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE
MISINFORMATION WOULD BE BROADLY
AVAILABLE TO EMPLOYEES,
CUSTOMERS, REPORTERS AND
EMPLOYERS AN COMPETITORS. AS A
RESULT, EMPLOYERS WILL BE FORCED
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND DEFEND
AGAINST BURDENSOME PAY
LITIGATION BASED ON PUBLICIZED
DATA THAT SIMPLY DOES NOT ALIGN
WITH CALIFORNIA LAW. FINALLY THE
PROVISION THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THAT EMPLOYERS PROVIDE SIMILAR
DATA ON LABOR CONTRACTORS IS
VERY PROBLEMATIC. EMPLOYERS
SIMPLY DO NOT CONTROL THE PAY
FOR THESE WORKERS. NOR DO THEY
HAVE ACCESS TO DATA OR
INFORMATION REGARDING RACE,
ETHNICITY, GENDER W TWO OR MEAN
AND MEDIAN PAY RATES OF WORKERS
OF THOSE WORKERS SO IT'S
REQUIREMENTS WOULD CREATE
SIGNIFICANT AND ONEROUS BURDENS
ON EMPLOYERS TO COLLECT
GOVERNMENT PRODUCED DATA THAT
THEY NEVER CONNECT, COLLECT NOR
CONTROL. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS
TESTIMONY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW GO TO OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION. WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY, BUT TAKE
NAME. AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION
OF THE BILL. SO IN THE HEARING
ROOM, SO MR CHAIR MICROBES AND
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STAFFING PROFESSIONALS IN THE
AMERICAN STAFFING ASSOCIATION,
WHICH IS THE TEMPORARY STAFFING
INDUSTRY, AND IF I COULD ADDRESS
SOME OF THE POINTS ON THAT ARE
SPECIFIC TO THIS NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY. IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. KOURTNEY CHEN ZOMBIE HALF
OF C JACK AND OPPOSITION. CHAIR
MEMBERS CLIFF COST ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW
COUNCIL AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE. WE WILL GO TO THE
PHONE LINES. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 11 62. WE'LL
TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
. IF YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
11 62 PLEASE PRESS ONE FOLLOWED
BY 01 38 YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
NAOMI ADRIN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
AND OPPOSITION. 1 37, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. LINE 1 37, YOU ARE OPEN.
MORE SHOT LINE. 1 37. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO TESTIFY? LEE AND YOU
TALK IT ON BEHALF OF TECHNET AND
OPPOSITION. LINE 1 31, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MOIRA TOP ON BEHALF OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION. 1 34,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY IN HER ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA TRAVEL
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION. 1
36. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. GOOD
MORNING, MICHAEL MILLER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS HAVE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. 9 61, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. 61 PLEASE A MUTE.
0.61. WOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY?
MOVING ALONG. WE'LL GO TO LINE 1
43. THIS IS JAMIE CON ON BEHALF
OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS AND OPPOSITION TO SB
11 62. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M
100. YOU ARE OPEN. THIS IS DAVID
DRY ON BEHALF OF TRI COUNTY
CHAMBER ALLIANCE REPRESENTING
SHAMELESS DISPOSED TO BARBARA
VENTURA COUNTIES AND OPPOSITION.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MIND 40. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MATTHEW WELL THAT
THE WESTERN GROWERS ALSO
OPPOSED. 1 41, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS LILY
OBSESSION WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO SB
11, 62. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. LINE 1 35, YOU ARE
UP. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS KATIE
HANSEN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION. WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
WE'LL GET ONE MORE FINAL
REMINDER THE TESTIFYING
OPPOSITION TO SB 1162, PLEASE
PRESS 1091 23, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THIS IS SUSAN RANT. ON BEHALF OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT
CALIFORNIA COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES. WITH AN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION AS
STATED IN THE BILL. ANALYSIS.
THANK YOU. 91 30, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, JAMES
VICTOR ON BEHALF OF THE SIMI
VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
OPPOSITION TO SPD 11 62. THANK
YOU. LINE. 61, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THE ONE YOU ARE OPEN. IN 61.
HELLO. YOU'RE OPEN. CINDY LEE
WITH THE LOS ANGELES AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. AND MR CHAIR. THERE ARE
NO OTHER PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP
AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. OPERATOR. YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES AND I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR CHOLERA. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. UM AND I WANT TO THANK
SENATOR LIMÓN FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. I'M PROUD TO BE A
PRINCIPAL CO AUTHOR. AND HAVE
DONE LEGISLATION IN THIS SPACE.
I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT IT IS. AND
YOUR COMMITMENT AND PERSISTENCE
IN CAN I CONTINUE TO PUSH THIS
BOULDER UP THE HILL IS
ADMIRABLE. AND YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENT SAN JOSE, THE CAPITAL
OF SILICON VALLEY. AND WE'RE D E
I, YOU KNOW, ALMOST EVERY
COMPANY NOW HAS A DIVERSITY
EQUITY AND INCLUSION OFFICER AND
IN SOME CASES, IT IS
PERFORMATIVE ECAUSE I'VE HEARD
FROM COMPANIES AND I'VE BEEN IN
ELECTED OFFICE NOW 14 YEARS THAT
TIME AND AGAIN HAVE SAID, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE WORKING ON IT. WE'RE
DOING STEM FOR WOMEN'S
TEMPERATURE. WE'RE DOING ALL
THESE THINGS AND YET VERY LITTLE
PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, UH,
PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO
THE GENDER WAGE GAP IN IT, AND
WE KNOW IT'S A DRAMATIC DRAMATIC
WHEN IT COMES TO LATINOS AND
BLACK WOMEN. AH AND I AM
GRATEFUL THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF COMPANIES THAT ARE NOW
PUTTING UP THAT MIRROR TO
THEMSELVES, AND WE'RE DOING THE
RIGHT THING, AND IT'S WONDERFUL
TO SEE THAT. BUT THE REALITY IS
THAT UM, IT I THINK OF WE NEED
THIS ACTION. UM IN ORDER TO
TRULY HAVE THE KIND OF SYSTEMIC
CHANGE BECAUSE THIS IS A
SYSTEMIC ISSUE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. SYSTEMIC OF GENDER AND
RACIAL BIASES THAT HAVE EXISTED
THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT TIME THAT
WE HAVE TO, UM YOU KNOW, BUT
REALLY WORK HARD AND COME TO
TERMS WITH AND SO UM, I THINK
THAT THIS THE LEGISLATION HAS
ITS DRAFTED WITH THE AMENDMENTS
MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE
GOAL AND THE OUTCOME IS NOT
GOING TO BE THE LITIGATION THAT
IS OFTENTIMES USED TO KIND OF
SCARE US FROM DOING THE RIGHT
THING. UM IN I APPRECIATE THE
CHAIR AND THE STAFF AND MOVING
IT IN THAT CONTINUING TO MOVE IN
THAT DIRECTION. I KNOW THAT'S
NEVER BEEN THE ATTEMPT FROM YOU,
SENATOR AND I KNOW THAT'S ALWAYS
THE FEAR THAT'S USED. BUT THE
REALITY IS THAT WE NEED WE NEED
TO CHANGE. AND I THINK THAT THIS
LEGISLATION GOES UP FAR AWAY AND
TAKING THOSE INITIAL STEPS SO
THAT COMPANIES WILL HAVE THE
DATA AND THE TOOLS AND
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE
THE DATA TO ACTUALLY. TO
ACTUALLY MAKE STRUCTURAL CHANGES
AT THE COMPANY LEVEL. UM AND SO
OBVIOUSLY VERY STRONGLY SUPORTS
LEGISLATION. APPRECIATE YOU.
THANK YOU. IT HAS NOT BEEN
MOVING HAS NOW BEEN MOVED. IS
THERE A SECOND AND THE SECOND?
THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. THANK
YOU, SENATOR LAMONT FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. UM IT'S ONE OF
THE THINGS AS A MY PROFESSION
WAS IN FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
AND DID THIS AND UM AND MOSTLY
CORPORATE SPACE, AND IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO HAVE, UM, PAY
EQUITY. I KNOW AS A MEMBER OF
THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH MY POSITION WAS
ONE OF THE FEW POSITIONS OUTSIDE
OF H R THAT SAW EVERYONE'S
SALARY, WHETHER IT WAS THE
ENTIRE COMPANY OR A PARTICULAR
DIVISION THAT I WORKED FOR, AND
WITHIN THAT, UM A LOT OF TIMES I
COULD SEE TRENDS HAPPENING AND
WAS ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES THAT
GIVE ADVICE IN THAT REGARD AND
SEE CHANGES OCCUR, AND THAT'S UM
I FELT HONORED TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT. BUT I ALSO KNEW THAT THERE
WAS NOT EVERYBODY IN A POSITION
OF MINE. WHO WOULD DO THE SAME
THING. SO THAT'S WHY LEGISLATION
LIKE THIS IS IMPORTANT AS I WENT
THROUGH, THERE WERE JUST ONE
ASPECT OF IT. THAT WAS CONCERNED
TO ME BECAUSE I WAS A
PRACTITIONER AND WOULD PUT IT AN
UNDUE BURDEN ON ME, AND THAT'S
THE PORTION RELATED. TO CONTRACT
LABOR AS IN TERMS OF DIRECT.
SOMETIMES WE HIRE DIRECT TEMPTS
VERSUS INDIRECT TEMPSWHEN IT'S
INDIRECT AND USING A LABOR
CONTRACTOR, IT IS DIFFICULT IN
TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO GET THAT
INFORMATION BECAUSE YOU'RE
PAYING FOR A PARTICULAR SERVICE
AND I SAW WITHIN THE LEGISLATION
, THE D F E H BEING ABLE TO SEE
COURT ORDER FOR MONETARY
PENALTIES IF THEY SUBMIT, BUT I
WASN'T SURE OF THE COMPLETION OF
THAT, BECAUSE THAT COULD BE
INFORMATION THAT'S DIFFICULT TO
OBTAIN AS WELL AS, UM, I THINK
THERE WAS SOME VIOLATIONS, BUT
IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS
RELATED TO THAT PARTICULAR
PORTION. AND SO I WONDERED MORE
ABOUT THAT IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN
THAT PORTION OF THE MONETARY
PENALTIES IS THAT FOR A COMPLETE
REPORT VERSUS JUST SUBMITTING
THE REPORT, AND THEN ALSO HAD
YOU THOUGHT OF HAVING THE LABOR
CONTRACTORS SUBMIT THAT REPORT
TO THE EMPLOYER. TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY
WOULDN'T HAVE ALL OF THAT DATA
AND IT WOULD BE, I WOULD THINK
BECAUSE OF MY DEPARTMENT WOULD
HAVE HANDLED THAT. SO THAT WOULD
BE A DIFFICULT THING TO COMPLY
WITH, AND A DIFFICULT LIABILITY
THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON A
COMPANY. SO I'M GONNA HAVE
MARIKO COMMENT ON THIS. I'LL
LEAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY TO
COMMENT ON THIS, BUT I THINK YOU
KNOW WE HAVE CERTAINLY IN THE
PROCESS. THIS BILL HAS TAKEN
AMENDMENTS EVERY SINGLE STEP OF
THE PROCESS. UM AND SO WE'VE
CERTAINLY TRIED TO NAVIGATE SOME
OF THIS. WE DO FEEL INCLUDING
CONTRACT WORK, AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR. THIS IS NOT A B FIVE
BECAUSE I THINK PEOPLE HAVE
GOTTEN THAT CONFUSED. UM IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE 73% ARE FULL
TIME AND SO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT
DATA AS WELL. BUT I WILL HAVE
MARIKO COMMENT ON THE REPORTING
AND YEAH, WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY
IN TERMS OF THE PENALTY
STRUCTURE, IT'S IF THE EMPLOYER
DOES NOT SUBMIT THE REPORT. AND
THEN IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT. HOW WOULD THE
CLIENT EMPLOYER BE ABLE TO GET
THE CONTRACTOR DATA AND THAT
THAT IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE
INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY'RE TALKING TO EACH OTHER SO
THAT THEY KNOW HOW MUCH THOSE
CONTRACT WORKERS ARE, IN FACT
BEING PAID THERE IS NO EXPLICIT
REQUIREMENT THAT THE STAFFING
AGENCY PROVIDED THAT PAY DATA
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT
WEEKEND. CONSIDER BUT I THINK
ULTIMATELY IF THE CLIENT
EMPLOYERS SAY IT'S GOOGLE IS
ASKING THE STAFFING AGENCY HOW
MUCH WE NEED TO HAVE THIS PAY
DATA IN ORDER TO FILE A REPORT
AND THE STAFFING AGENCY DOESN'T
REPORT IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT
TO THE CLIENT EMPLOYER, THEN I
THINK AT THAT POINT IT'S YOU
KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
CONTINUE ON WITH THESE
CONTRACTS. IF YOU'RE NOT ALSO
PROVIDING THIS PAY DATA FOR US
BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S IT.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT INFORMATION
EXCHANGE THAT SHOULD BE
HAPPENING BETWEEN THE CLIENT
EMPLOYER AND THE STAFFING
AGENCY. OKAY SO I JUST SORRY. I
UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S
NOTHING WITHIN THE LEGISLATION,
LEGISLATION OR EXISTS WITHIN
EXISTING LAW THAT'S NOTED IN THE
REPORT THAT EXPLICITLY REQUIRES
THE CONTRACTING AGENCY TO
PROVIDE THAT DATA. TO THE
EMPLOYER. BUT THE EMPLOYER IS
BOUND TO REPORT THAT DATA TO D F
E H, OKAY. BUT WOULDN'T
NECESSARILY BE PENALIZED BECAUSE
THEY DIDN'T SO IS THE
PENALIZATION RELATED TO THE
COMPLETION OF THE REPORT OR
SUBMITTING REPORTS SO THIS
REPORT CAN BE SUBMITTED
INCOMPLETE AND THERE'S NO
PENALTY. RELATED TO THAT, AND
THERE IS NO VIOLATION AND THE
REST OF THE SECTION, WHICH I
THINK DOESN'T APPLY, BUT THERE'S
NO OTHER VIOLATION OR SO THERE'S
NO TEETH TO THAT PARTICULAR
PORTION. YEAH OKAY, AND THAT
CERTAINLY WAS THE INTENT. IT'S
LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
EMPLOYERS ARE SUBMITTING THE
REPORT. I THINK AT THAT POINT,
THE DFE H CAN GO IN AND SAY
THESE ARE THE PORTIONS THAT
STILL NEED TO BE FILLED OUT, BUT
THAT WE'VE KIND OF GIVEN THE
DISCRETION TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT
THEIR ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE FOR
THAT. OKAY, SO IT'S SO THERE'S
IS OR IS NOT MONETARY, BUT, UH,
PENALTIES RELATED TO THAT
PARTICULAR PORTION. ONLY FOR
SUBMISSION ONLY FOR SUBMISSION
FOR QUALITY OF REPORT. HOWEVER
WE ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, OF COURSE
COMPLETED REPORT. THAT'S YOU
KNOW, REFLECTIVE OF THE ACCURATE
DATA. YES BUT NOT ONLY ITS
SUBMISSION ONLY THANK YOU TO THE
CHAIR. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENT ALRIGHT
SIGNAL. SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE.
MEMBERS YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE I
KNOW THAT A LOT OF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ABOUT
THIS BILL IN BOTH IN SUPPORT,
AND ALSO IN OPPOSITION. YOU
KNOW, ONE OF MY REASONS FOR
BRINGING THEM FORWARD IS ONE
RECOGNIZING THAT OTHER STATES
ARE DOING THIS AND THEY HAVE NOT
GONE. THEY STILL THEY HAVE NOT
GONE TO THE WAYSIDE. THEY STILL
HAVE COMPANIES THAT ARE THRIVING
. I'VE LISTED A NUMBER OF BIG
COMPANIES. WHO ARE ALREADY DOING
THIS WORK ON THEIR OWN. THE
PEACE RELATED TO SALARY RANGE
YOU KNOW, HAVING SOMEONE SAY
THIS IS HOW MUCH A JOB PAYS IS
SOMETHING THAT MOST OF US ARE
VERY FAMILIAR WITH, BECAUSE WE
OURSELVES HAVE APPLIED. FOR JOBS
WHERE WE SEE A SALARY POSTING,
AND WE KNOW THAT THAT IN IT OF
ITSELF IS NOT AN ISSUE THAT IS
GOING TO CREATE LAWSUITS OR
SHAMING. I REGRET THAT THERE HAS
BEEN, YOU KNOW SOME NARRATIVE
AROUND SHAMING AND WHAT THAT
MEANS, BECAUSE I AM A FIRM
BELIEVER THAT PRESENTING
ACCURATE AND CLEAR DATA TO THE
PUBLIC IS NOT AN ACTIVE SHAMING
. THAT IN ITSELF IS PART OF HOW
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN
A DECADES LONG PROBLEM. IF THIS
WAS GOING TO BE SOLVED ON THEIR
ON ITS OWN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
DONE 40 50 YEARS AGO, AND IT
HASN'T SO HERE WE ARE PIECING
THIS TOGETHER. I BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS ONE PIECE OF A GREATER
PEACE. I THINK THIS BILL ALONE
WILL NOT SOLVE THE GENDER AND
RACE PAY GAP. BUT THIS IS PART
OF THE TOOLKIT THAT WE NEED TO
USE TALK. IT'S THAT OTHER STATES
ARE USING AT THIS TIME, PART OF
A TOOLKIT THAT I THINK WILL HELP
US HAVE MORE INFORMATION. WE
CANNOT SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT WE
CANNOT SEE. WE NEED TO SEE WHAT
THE DATA SAYS, IN ORDER TO
UNDERSTAND BEST PRACTICES AND
ALSO LIMITATIONS OF THE BILL, OR
OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON
IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE
ARE GETTING PAID THE SAME AMOUNT
NO MATTER IF THEY'RE A WOMAN, NO
MATTER IF THEY'RE BLACK. THAT
THEY GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT
FOR THE SAME WORK. ADDITIONALLY
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THIS
IS AGGREGATE DATA, NOT
INDIVIDUAL DATA AND COMPANIES
WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALSO
EXPLAIN THEIR DATA. SO THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT PIECE FOR THOSE OF
US THAT ARE LOOKING AT AGGREGATE
DATA TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT
PEOPLE AND ENTITIES ARE DOING.
SO WITH THAT I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN I VOTE. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE.
COLORADO, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. NO BLOOM.
BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES, NO,
HANEY. PENNY I CHOLERA. CHOLERA.
I MAIENSCHEIN RAISE RAISE I
REVERSE RIVAS. I WILSON. WILSON.
I BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. BRINGS US TO STANDARD
WIECKOWSKI. ITEM NUMBER NINE SB
10 26. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. UM I'LL START OFF BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. SB 10 26 CONSULTANT
FOR THE WORK WITH MY OFFICE. SO
WHEN CONSUMERS ARE SEEKING OUT
NEW RENTAL HOUSING, THEY DO SO
WHEN THEY HAVE A FIXED BUDGET.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S ONE
COST THAT THEY DON'T FULLY
ACCOUNT FOR, AND THAT'S THE
ENERGY USE. UNDER CURRENT LAW,
CONSUMERS GENERALLY DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT MUCH ABOUT THE EFFICIENCY
OF THE RENTAL UNIT UNTIL AFTER
THEY'VE COMMITTED TO THE UNIT.
THE APPLIANCES COULD BE OLD AND
OUTDATED AND MORE SO THE
BUILDING COULD LACK INSULATION
AND HAVE SINGLE PANE WINDOWS, SO
RENTERS MAY QUICKLY DISCOVERED
THE ENERGY BILLS EXCEED THEIR
BUDGETS. UM, BASICALLY THROUGH
NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. AND
BECAUSE LANDLORDS DON'T PAY THE
POWER BILLS. THERE'S NO
INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO MAKE
ENERGY AND MONEY SAVING A FISH
EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES.
WHILE THE TENANTS HAVE NO
INCENTIVE TO UPGRADE, THE
WINDOWS ARE REPLACED AN OLD
REFRIGERATOR CAN SINCE THEY
CAN'T TAKE THEM. TAKE THOSE
APPLIANCES ARE THOSE WINDOWS
WITH THEM WHEN THEY MOVE OUT,
AND THIS IS KNOWN AS THE SPLIT
INCENTIVE PROBLEM. AND WHAT WE
THE REASON WE HAVE AUTHORED 10
26 IS TO EMPOWER CONSUMERS WITH
THE BASELINE OF INFORMATION
ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY. OF THE
POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO LEASE. THE BILL
REQUIRES A BASIC ENERGY
EFFICIENCY DISCLOSURE FORM BY
THE LANDLORD AT THE TIME OF THE
SIGNING OF THE LEASE, SIMILAR TO
THE REQUIREMENT OF ALL RENTAL
LEASES IN THE STATE OF MAINE. I
HAVE THE MAIN ONE PAGER RIGHT
NOW. THAT'S EASY TO, UH, FILL
OUT. AND IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
QUESTIONS, I WOULD OBVIOUSLY USE
THAT AS MY TEMPLATE. IT WOULD
FURTHER ENCOURAGE THE CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION TO CREATE A
READING OR LABELING. A SYSTEM BY
WHICH THE CONSUMERS WOULD KNOW
IF THE RENTAL UNIT MEETS OR
EXCEEDS OR FAILS THE BASIC
TENETS OF MODERN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY. I BELIEVE THIS WILL
HELP ALL RENTERS TO MAKE BETTER
DECISIONS AND WHERE TO LIVE. AND
HOPEFULLY ENCOURAGE LANDLORDS TO
SEEK OUT CALIFORNIA'S NUMEROUS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, UPGRADE
GRANTS AND PROGRAMS AND CHANGING
THE LIVES OF THEIR TENANTS WITH
WITH ME. I HAVE THE DIRECTOR OF
THE B BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN
DIMENSIONS OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCIES FOR THE CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENT
ECONOMY AS WELL AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND.
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL URGED AND I
WON'T VOTE. THANK YOU. I HAVE
TWO WITNESSES LISTED IN SUPPORT,
BOTH ON THE TELEPHONE FIRST.
REUVEN SUSSMAN, ARE YOU WITH US?
I'M HERE AND I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF 10 26. MY
NAME IS DR REUVEN SUSSMAN AND I
DIRECT THE BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN
DIMENSIONS PROGRAM AT THE
AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENT ECONOMY OR TRIPOLI. A
STABILITY IS A NONPROFIT
RESEARCH ORGANIZATION TAUNTED IN
1980 INCORPORATED IN CALIFORNIA
. WE CONDUCT RESEARCH ON
EDUCATION ADVOCACY ON ENERGY
SAVING TECHNOLOGIES, PROGRAMS
AND POLICIES. I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 26.
ENERGY CAN BE A MAJOR COST OF
RENTAL UNITS. TRIPOLI RESEARCH
HAS FOUND THAT RENTERS SPEND ON
AVERAGE 13% MORE OF THEIR INCOME
ON ENERGY THAN HOMEOWNERS. THE
AVERAGE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD
PAYS 8.1% OF THEIR INCOME ON
HOME ENERGY BILLS. MOREOVER ME
AND MY TEAM JUST COMPLETED A
STUDY ON RENTERS REACTIONS TO
VARIOUS ENERGY LABEL DESIGNS,
AND WE PUBLISHED IT LAST MONTH.
WE FOUND THAT RENTERS DO VALUE
ENERGY INFORMATION WHEN LOOKING
FOR THEIR NEXT DEPARTMENT, AND
THEY'LL FACTOR THAT ENERGY INTO
THEIR DECISION MAKING WHEN THE
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED FOR ALL
THE LISTINGS. WE ALSO FOUND THAT
ENERGY LABELS HELP TENANTS
IDENTIFY MORE EFFICIENT
APARTMENTS. AND THAT THEY'RE
WILLING TO SPEND MORE IN RENT AN
APARTMENT WILL HELP REDUCE THEIR
ENERGY BILLS THAT WE CONCLUDE.
THAT THE INFORMATION AS 10 26
WILL PROVIDE ATTENDANTS WILL BE
USEFUL. BASED ON OTHER RESEARCH.
WE THINK THE BILL WILL ENCOURAGE
SOME LANDLORDS TO IMPROVE THEIR
RENTAL UNITS TO HELP ATTRACT
TENANTS, PARTICULARLY SINCE
UTILITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY
INCENTIVES ARE PROVIDED BY MOST
CALIFORNIA UTILITIES. I FURTHER
NOTE THAT OUR RESEARCH INDICATES
THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE ENERGY
LABELS PROVIDE CONTEXT AND ARE
INTUITIVE. SO OUT OF THE OPTIONS
WE LOOKED AT. WE FOUND THAT
RENTERS ARE MOST MOTIVATED BY A
1 TO 10 SCALE EFFICIENCY RATING
WHERE YOU CAN SEE HOW YOUR HOME
FRANK'S RELATIVE TO THE MAXIMUM.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY DIRECT THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION TO
LOOK AT THIS AND OTHER OPTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY. THANK
YOU. AND THEN GREG WIKLER, ARE
YOU WITH US? YES, I AM. MEMBERS
MY NAME IS GREG WIKLER, AND I'M,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
DEMAND MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. I'M
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL
10 26. THE COUNCILS AND NON
UTILITY TRADE ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING MORE THAN 50
COMPANIES THAT DESIGN IMPLEMENT
, MAINTAIN AND EVALUATE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND RESPONSE
PROGRAMS AND EMPLOY THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE WHO PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY.
RECENT ESTIMATES PUT THAT NUMBER
AND MORE THAN 300,000
CALIFORNIANS THAT ARE EMPLOYED
IN THE INDUSTRY THAT WE
REPRESENT. SENATE BILL 10 26
WOULD CONTINUE CALIFORNIA'S
LEADERSHIP AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
BY GIVING PERSPECTIVE
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING RENTERS
USEFUL INFORMATION ON THE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND POTENTIAL. ENERGY
COSTS OF A PROPERTY BEFORE
SIGNING A LEASE. THE BILL WOULD
REQUIRE THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY
COMMISSION TO CREATE AN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY DISCLOSURE FORM FOR
RENTAL UNITS REQUIRED AT THE
TIME OF SIGNING A LEASE AND
ESTABLISH AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STANDARD TO FURTHER INFORMED
RENTERS AS THEY MAKE HOUSING
CHOICES. THESE ACTIONS WILL HELP
MOVE THE RENTAL MARKET SEGMENT
TOWARD GREATER LEVELS OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, LOWERING THEIR
ENERGY BILLS AND FURTHERING THE
STATE'S CLEAN ENERGY GOALS. THIS
IS A GOOD THING, GIVEN THAT THIS
SEGMENT HAS HISTORICALLY NOT
ACHIEVED ITS SIGNIFICANT ENERGY
EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL. I'LL JUST
SAY THAT THE RENTAL MARKET HAS
HISTORICALLY BEEN DISADVANTAGED
IN ACHIEVING SIGNIFICANT ENERGY
EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL, AND WE
CERTAINLY APPLAUD SENATOR
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI AND HIS TEAM
FOR RECOGNIZING THIS CONCERN.
AND MOVING THIS IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SB 10 26. WILL HELP TO OPEN THE
RENTAL MARKET TO GREATER ENERGY
EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BY
INCREASING TENANTS ACCESS TO
ENERGY EFFICIENCY INFORMATION.
WE THINK THIS BILL WILL GO A
LONG WAY TOWARD REALIZING MUCH
OF THIS POTENTIAL AND THUS
HELPING CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE ITS
AMBITIOUS GOALS. FOR THESE
REASONS I SUPPORT ENCOURAGE YOUR
VOTES AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 26.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. WE'LL MOVE TO OTHER SUPPORT IN
THE HEARING ROOM. WE WILL NOT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY, BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORTERS
THERE. ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT
SB 10 26. ALRIGHT SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY SUPPORT FOR S B 10
26 WILL TAKE NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT ONLY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 10 26, PLEASE TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY AND PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY 01 FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND ONE MOMENT, MR CHAIR. WE
DO HAVE ONE PARTICIPANT QUEUING
UP. ANYBODY ELSE? GO AHEAD HIT
10 JUST TO PUT YOURSELF ON CUE
FOR SB 10, 26 AND SUPPORT. AND
LINE 1 47, YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ELENA ORTIZ ON BEHALF OF NRDC
ACTION FUND IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. AND NOBODY ELSE DID QUEUE
UP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR WILL MOVE TO OPPOSITION
. I HAVE ONE OPPOSITION WITNESS
HERE IN THE ROOM. AND THEN ONE
ON THE TELEPHONE WILL START IN
THE HEARING ROOM. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS DEBORAH
CARLTON WITH A CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. YOU KNOW
, UNFORTUNATELY, WE SEE VERY
LITTLE THAT ATTENDANT COULD DO
TO ADDRESS OR SOLVE ANY OF THE
STATED ENERGY GOALS BY REQUIRING
THE LANDLORD TO PROVIDE THE
ENERGY DISCLOSURE. SADLY WE JUST
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HOUSING IN
CALIFORNIA. I SUPPOSE THE TENANT
CAN CHOOSE TO GO ELSEWHERE
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF HOUSING
THAT'S PROBABLY NOT APPLICABLE.
WE DO APPRECIATE THAT A TENANT
MAY WANT TO PLAN FOR THE ENERGY
, BUT BECAUSE OF THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS THAT REMOVED THE
UTILITY COMPANIES MANDATE TO
PROVIDE THE COST OF UTILITIES.
THE REMAINING DISCLOSURE WE
DON'T BELIEVE IS USEFUL. WELL IT
MAY NOT BE TECHNICALLY A BURDEN
TO PROVIDE THE DISCLOSURE. SB 10
26 SETS ABOUT WHAT WE CALL A
GOTCHA OPPORTUNITY IF THE OWNER
DOESN'T KNOW TO PROVIDE THE
DISCLOSURE. IT GIVES THE TENANT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUSE TO PAY
THE RENT BECAUSE THEY'VE MOVED
IN, AND THEY DID NOT GET THE
NOTICE. I KNOW OF NO OTHER
DISCLOSURE THAT GIVES A TENANT
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUT OF
THEIR OBLIGATIONS OR HOLDS UP.
ANY OTHER PAYMENT. IF THEY
DIDN'T RECEIVE THE NOTICE. IT'S
IMPORTANT ALSO TO POINT OUT THAT
NEWER CONSTRUCTION ALREADY HAS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, APPLIANCES,
WINDOWS AND THE LIKE. THERE IS
NO POINT IN REQUIRING THIS
DISCLOSURE FOR NEWER PROPERTIES.
WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE
MORE APPROPRIATE FOR AN OWNER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO AN
APPLICANT IF THEY REQUESTED.
BECAUSE MANY OWNERS WITH OLDER
PROPERTIES HAVEN'T RECEIVED RENT
IN MANY CASES FOR OVER TWO YEARS
. WE DON'T SEE THAT THE OWNERS
HAVE THE ACTUAL DOLLARS TO DO
SOME OF THESE UPGRADES. MANY OF
THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ARE
AVAILABLE TO HOMEOWNERS AND MANY
CASES, LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS. SO
FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE TODAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE CREAM
GREASY ON THE TELEPHONE. ARE YOU
WITH US? YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR. GO
AHEAD, PLEASE. THANK YOU, SIR.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KAREEM GREASY ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS HERE TODAY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 26
WIECKOWSKI, UM, TYPICALLY WHEN
THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT CREATES
NEW DISCLOSURE AUDIT THE BILL
TAKES ONE OF TWO ROUTES ABILITY
, EITHER PRESCRIPTIVE AND
INCLUDES THE LANGUAGE OF THE
FORM AND THE BILL ITSELF. OR IF
THE BILL IS NOT PRESCRIPTIVE IN
THIS REGARD, IT AT LEAST PUT
PARAMETERS INTO THE BILL, SUCH
AS SPECIFYING THAT THE
REGULATORY AGENCY HAS TO SOLICIT
FEEDBACK FROM SPECIFIED
STAKEHOLDERS. SB 10 26 DOES
NEITHER OF THESE THINGS. THE
BILL IS BASICALLY ONE BIG
QUESTION MARK, AND THAT IS WHY
IT IS SO CONCERNING THE SMALL
HOUSING PROVIDERS. EVERY DETAIL
OF THE ENERGY AUDIT FORM CREATED
BY THE BILL IS TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE C E. C AND THE C E C IS
NOT REQUIRED TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK
FROM INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS. NOR
ARE SOLID PARAMETERS INCLUDED IN
THE MEASURE TO GUIDE THE C E. C
AND ITS EFFORTS. AN EXAMPLE OF
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES BUT THIS
BILL IS AS FOLLOWS. SB 10 26
PROHIBIT THE HOUSING PROVIDERS
FROM ACCEPTING AN APPLICATION
FEE UNTIL THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE
UNIT SPECIFIC ENERGY AUDIT FORM
IMPOSED BY THE BILL. THE
QUESTION THEN BECOMES HOW DOES
THAT WORK? IF A PERSPECTIVE
TENANT IS APPLYING ONLINE, AND
THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH UNITS ARE
AVAILABLE YET? HOW DOES THAT
WORK AT THE PERSPECTIVE TENANT
WANTS TO START THE APPLICATION
PROCESS TO SECURE THEIR PLACE IN
LINE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T DECIDED
IF THEY WANT A STUDIO OR ONE
BEDROOM. REQUIRING A UNIT
SPECIFIC ENERGY AUDITS, ONE TO
BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN AH, PRIOR
TO ENTERING INTO A RENTAL
AGREEMENT IS ONE THING BUT
REQUIRING AN ENERGY AUDIT TO BE
GIVEN PRIOR TO PROCESSING AN
APPLICATION ISN'T PRACTICAL.
THIS IS, UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF
THE CHALLENGES THAT OCCURS WHEN
FEEDBACK FROM PRACTITIONERS
ISN'T HEATED. WE POTENTIALLY GET
A NEW LAW THAT WILL MAKE IT EVEN
MORE DIFFICULT FOR TENANTS TO
SECURE HOUSING. FOR THESE AND
OTHER REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED NO VOTE ON SB 10 26
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE TO OTHERS
IN OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING
ROOM. WE'LL TAKE NAME
AFFILIATION. AND OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, PAT RAN WITH
AARON READING ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU. RIGHT. THANK
YOU. OPERATOR, WOULD YOU OH,
SORRY. WE DO HAVE ONE MORE. MR
CHAIR MEMBERS DON RAFAEL ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA RENTAL
HOUSING ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 26. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OPERATOR WOULD
YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
OPPOSITION TO SB? 10 26 AGAIN?
WE'LL TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION ONLY NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. IF YOU ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 10 26 PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO THIS
TIME ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO. MR
CHAIR. NOBODY HAS QUEUED UP. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATING MAY
CLOSE THE LINES. I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ALRIGHT.
SEEING NAN SENATOR, YOU MAY
CLOSE AND I VOTE. WE DID TAKE
OUT THE YOUTUBE REQUIRING THE
UTILITIES TO DISCLOSE THE
INFORMATION BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE
STATE OF MAINE, IT'S UNLAWFUL IN
CALIFORNIA TO INVASION OF
PEOPLE'S PRIVACY IF YOU ACTUALLY
REQUIRED TO UTILITIES TO GET
THAT INFORMATION, THEY CONTACTED
US ON THAT, AND I WOULD IMAGINE
THAT THE RENTAL. UH AND REALTORS
COMMUNITY WILL ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATE WITH ENERGY
COMMISSION IN THE IN THE
PREPARATION OF THIS ONE PAGE
DISCLOSURE THAT IDEA THAT THEY
WOUL BE LEFT OUT AND NOT
PARTICIPATING IN THAT THE
CREATION OF IT IS JUST NOT, UH,
WELL FOUNDED, SO I URGE AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. I AM LOOKING
FOR EMOTION. THANK YOU AND A
SECOND. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
EMOTION. SECOND THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
UTILITY. GEATS AND ENERGY DO
PASS AS AMENDED TO UTILITIES
COMMITTEE CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM. BOOM
BLEW MY DAVIES DAVIES NO, HANEY.
HANEY I KALRA CALL HER. I
MAIENSCHEIN REYES. PRESS I,
RIVAS WILSON. WILSON. I. THAT
BUILDS OUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU
AND ITEM NUMBER 10 SP 14 77 THIS
MR CHAIR MEMBERS, MOST OF YOU
ARE CLEAN, KEENLY AWARE THAT
DURING MY TIME IN THE
LEGISLATURE, WE HAVE MADE
SIGNIFICANT, ALBEIT MODEST
IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE YEARS TO
PROTECT UH, WORKERS WHOSE
INCOMES HOVER NEAR THE STATE'S
MINIMUM WAGE FROM DAMAGING WAGE
GARNISHMENT, BUT WE HAVE NOT YET
ENSURED THAT CALIFORNIA WORKERS
WHO ARE TRYING TO BALANCE
TODAY'S NEEDS WHAT YESTERDAY'S
DEBTS ALREADY ARE ABLE TO TAKE
HOME A LIVING WAGE. TO SUPPORT
THEMSELVES AND THEIR BILL, WHICH
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AND S B 14
77. ATTEMPTS TO DO THAT LAYERED
ON TOP OF THE CHALLENGES THAT
PEOPLE HAVE IS DEPEND EMMICK,
WHICH IS NOT AFFECTED EVERYONE
EVENLY, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE.
THOSE WHO ARE HAVE THE LEAST
RESOURCES AND ABILITY TO STAY
AFLOAT WILL CONTINUE TO BE HIT
HARDEST FOR THE YEARS TO COME.
SO S P 14 77 ACKNOWLEDGES BOTH
OF THESE REALITIES BY FINALLY
PROTECTING A LIVING WAGE FOR
CALIFORNIA WORKERS BY REDUCING
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TAKEN
DIRECTLY FROM THEIR PAYCHECK.
THE BILL WILL LIFT PEOPLE OUT OF
THE CYCLE OF DEBT AND ALLOW THEM
TO REPAY ON TERMS THAT THEY CAN
MANAGE WITH ME AND SUPPORT ON
THE PHONE LINES IS EMMA
ELIZABETH GONZALEZ WITH PUBLIC
COUNSEL AND I HAVE A LATE MINUTE
CHANGE. I HAVE DESIRE, EATING
THE WIND WITH THE EAST BAY
COMMUNITY. LAWCENTER IS ALSO AH!
ON THE LINE. IF THAT'S OKAY WITH
THE CHAIR THAT IS FINE. ALRIGHT,
FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS EMMA
ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, AND I AM A
SUPERVISING STAFF ATTORNEY WITH
PUBLIC COUNCILS, CONSUMER RIGHTS
AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE PROJECT.
TODAY I WANT TO SHARE MICHAEL'S
STORY AND HOPES OF URGING ME TO
SUPPORT SB 14 77. AND THIS IS
NOT HIS REAL NAME. OUR CLIENTS.
MICHAEL CAME TO PUBLIC COUNCIL
EARLIER THIS YEAR. HIS EMPLOYER
TOLD HIM THEY WOULD BE
GARNISHING HIS PAYCHECK AND HE
CAME TO US FOR FREE LEGAL
ASSISTANCE. WE HAD TO INFORM
MICHAEL THAT A JUDGMENT HAD BEEN
ENTERED IN AGAINST HIM. HE HAD
ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA ABOUT THAT.
WE ALSO HAD TO INFORM MICHAEL
THAT HE RISKED LOSING ABOUT $300
1800 DOLLARS BI WEEKLY TAKE HOME
PAY BECAUSE OF THIS JUDGMENT, HE
COULD NOT AFFORD THAT, GIVEN THE
HIGH COST OF RENT, FOOD AND GAS.
COMPARE WITH ONLY AUTOMATICALLY
PROTECTED UP TO $1200. WE HELPED
MICHAEL FILES A CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION. GOING UP. THE
REQUIRED FINANCIAL STATEMENT
PROVED TO US THAT MICHAEL WAS
ALREADY RUNNING A NEGATIVE EACH
MONTH, $600 PER MONTH TO A
GARNISHMENT WOULD BE DEVASTATING
, LOSING EVEN $50 A MONTH FROM
THE DEVASTATING FOR HIM. YOU
WOULD THINK THAT CREDITOR WOULD
SEE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND
AGREED TO STOP THE GARNISHMENT.
IT DID NOT. INSTEAD, THE
CREDITOR OBJECTED TO MICHAEL'S
MONTHLY RENT AMOUNT OF LESS THAN
$1100 A MONTH. ANSWER HIS
MONTHLY FOOD AND HOUSEHOLD
SUPPLIES OF LESS THAN $500 PER
MONTH. THE CREDITOR, ARGUED
MICHAEL HAD NOT SHOWN HIS
EXPENSES RECORD UNQUOTE
NECESSARY. YOU WOULD THINK THAT
JUDGE WOULD SEE THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENT AND GRANT THE CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION IS FULL. HE DID NOT.
MICHAEL WALKED AWAY FROM THE
HEARING ON HIS CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION FORCED TO GIVE UP OVER
$300 EACH MONTH FOR A JUDGMENT
HE HAD NO IDEA EXISTED. THAT'S
$300 IS LESS THAN TWO WEEKS
WORTH OF GAS FEED BIG. THAT'S
$300 MEANS MICHAEL IS NOW
RUNNING EVEN MORE OF A NEGATIVE
AND BELIEVES BANKRUPTCY IS HIS
ONLY OPTION TO ENABLE HIM TO
SURVIVE. SADLY MICHAEL'S
EXPERIENCE IS NOT UNCOMMON
ACROSS THE STATE, LOW INCOME
DEBTORS FACED THE SAME REALITY
ORDER TO PAY MONEY. THEY CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY AND ARE LEFT TO GO
WITHOUT FOOD OR TO FALL BEHIND
ON RENT. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO
STOP THIS BY GUARANTEEING
MICHAEL AND OTHERS LIKE HIM TAKE
HOME ENOUGH MONEY TO SURVIVE
CALIFORNIA. COST OF LIVING,
PLEASE SUPPORT SB 14 77 AND I
WILL SAY ON AND IF ANYONE HAS
QUESTIONS ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
AND THE NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR, VICE CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I
AM DESIREE NGUYEN, OR DIRECTOR
OF THE CONSUMER JUSTICE UNIT AT
EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAWCENTER.
WHILE CONSUMER CLIENT WAS
SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY TODAY, WORK
OUT IN THE WAY OF MY CLIENT HAD
TO MAKE A TOUGH CHOICE BETWEEN
HER LIVELIHOOD AND SPEAKING FOR
OTHERS IMPACTED FOR OTHER
IMPACTED FAMILIES. THIS CLIENT
WHOM I'LL CALL SARAH JONES HAD
SIMILAR TOUGH CHOICE WHEN SHE
HAD TO ATTEND A CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION HEARING IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE WORKDAY FOR JUDGMENT ON A
DEBT THAT TURNED OUT THE
INCORRECTLY ENFORCED AGAINST
HER. LET'S PUT ASIDE THE FACT
THAT THE DEBT WAS UNDENIABLY NOT
MISS JONES'S DEATH TO BEGIN
WITH. BURNING ONLY $3400 A MONTH
AS A SINGLE MATTER, MOTHER THE
GOVERNMENT WHAT'S YOUR INCOME TO
ONLY $2600 A MONTH, LOSING $800
AMONGST DUE TO RELAX OF LEGAL
SUPPORT. AT THE TIME. MISS JONES
FILED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AND
ATTENDED THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING.
THE JUDGE RULED AGAINST HER
BECAUSE HER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SHOWED THAT SHE WAS PAYING
ANOTHER CREDITOR. THE OTHER
CREDITOR IN QUESTION WAS FOR
CARLY'S. THEIR CAR THAT SHE
NEEDED IN ORDER TO GET TO WORK
AND SUSTAIN A LIVING. THIS
EXAMPLE IS ROCKED THE MAJOR
ISSUES IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM
AND THE LACK OF ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. IT'S SADLY NOT IN
COMMON, BUT THE ONE THING WE CAN
CORRECT HERE IS THE
MODERNIZATION OF WEIGHT. CHINA'S
BEEN PROTECTION. NO FAMILIES CAN
AFFORD TO LIVE ON THE CURRENT
PERCENTAGE WAGE GARNISHMENT
PROTECTION. C 14 77 WILL HELP
STRUGGLING FAMILIES, MANY OF
WHOM ARE STILL CLIMBING OUT OF
COVID RELATED DEBT. GET BY WITH
MINIMAL SAVINGS ON A
GARNISHMENT. HAS BEEN THE 14 77
WILL SAVE THE COURT'S TIME BY
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF NECESSARY
CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION HEARING. SB
14 77 IS THE MINIMUM THE STATE
CAN DO FOR DISTRUST FAMILIES
TAKING BLOW AT THE BLOW OF
FINANCIAL STRESS OVER THE LAST
TWO YEARS, THE MOST RECENT BEING
THE DOUBLING OF GAS AND
NECESSITY FOR MOST FAMILIES. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
RIGHT WE WILL NOW GO TO OTHERS
IN SUPPORT IN THE HEARING ROOM.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR SB 10 26. I'M SORRY.
14 77. RIGHT SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR S B? 14
77 WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 14
77, PLEASE PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED
BY ZERO THIS TIME. ONE FALL BY
ZERO. 1 21, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
LISA LEWIS, CALLING ON BEHALF OF
SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS SO
ALLIANCE CALIFORNIANS FOR
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT.
CALIFORNIA LOWER INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION COMMUNITY LEGAL
SERVICES, AND YOU ALSO CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY
AND SAFETY. FIRST CALIFORNIA
DRUG COLOR FEELING AND ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND STRONG SUPPORT. AND FOR
ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS IN
SUPPORT FOR S B 14 77, PLEASE
PRESS 101 22, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
TIME IN A MASSIVE POLICY INTERN
WITH THE WESTERN CENTER ONLINE
POVERTY AND WE STAND IN SUPPORT
OF THIS FILM. THANK YOU. AND 1
11, YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON
. THIS IS LISA AND THE DIRECTOR
OF LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE
PUBLIC LAWCENTER. WE ARE A PROUD
CO SPONSOR OF THE BILL, AND I'M
ALSO GOING TO LIST A COUPLE OF
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE. FREEDOM
FOR YOU. GRACE AND CHILD POVERTY
IN CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND
ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA INSIGHT
CENTER LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS, LEGAL AID WORK
POLICY LINK AND ROOT AND
REBOUNDS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND
MR CHAIR. WE HAVE ONE MORE LOOKS
LIKE 1 44 JUST QUEUED UP. 1 44,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE. I THINK THEY ARE BACK
WITH AN OPERATOR. 1 44, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YES SORRY. TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES. DANNY CONDO,
KAISER ON BEHALF OF PROUD CO
SPONSORS. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
CENTER. THANK YOU. AND NOBODY
ELSE HAS QUEUED UP MR CHAIR. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION LISTED IN THE ROOM,
ONE ON THE TELEPHONE AND A THIRD
ON STANDBY ON THE PHONE FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. IT LOOKS
THAT WE HAVE TWO IN THE HEARING
ROOM, ALRIGHT.
UM GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. I AM ACTUALLY HAPPEN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE. I'M FILLING IN
TODAY FOR MY COLLEAGUE GRAEME
MITRI, WHO UNEXPECTEDLY COULD
NOT BE HERE THIS MORNING. UM SO
WE ARE RESPECTIVELY OPPOSED TO
SP 14 77 AND I DID WANT TO
PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT HERE. JUST
A FEW YEARS AGO, SENATOR
RAKOWSKI WAS SUCCESSFUL IN
REWRITING CALIFORNIA'S WAGE
GOVERNMENT GARNISHMENT LAW. 2015
SP FIVE. OH, ONE GREATLY REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF WAGES THAT CAN BE
GARNISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL AND
DEBT AND WAS DESIGNED TO SCALE
WITH MINIMUM WAGE CHANGES,
MEANING IT'S FORMULA HAS
CONTINUED TO SCALE UP AND BE
MORE PRODUCTIVE WITH THE
INTERCEDING MINIMUM WAGE
CHANGES. THIS BILL WOULD AGAIN
REWRITE THE FORMULA TO THE POINT
OF ABSURDITY IN SOME CASES
BEFORE I GO FURTHER. I JUST WANT
TO FLAG WHO THIS AFFECTS. THERE
ARE TWO SIDES TO EVERY CIVIL
JUDGMENT THAT RESULTS IN WAGE
GARNISHMENT. THERE'S A PERSON IN
DEBT AND THE PERSON THAT THEY
HARMED OR OWN MONEY TO THE DEBT
MAY BE THE RESULT OF A BUSINESS
TRANSACTION. A CIVIL JUDGMENT
AND WAGE GARNISHMENT MIGHT ALSO
RESULT AFTER A CRIME IF THE
PERPETRATOR HARMED THE PROPERTY
OF THE VICTIM OR HAS BEEN
ORDERED TO PAY RESTITUTION. OR A
TORCH JUDGMENT WHERE THE
PLAINTIFF WIN AT TRIAL BUT HAS
BEEN UNABLE TO RECOVER. THERE
ARE MYRIAD OF CIRCUMSTANCES, SO
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REWRITING THE
FORMULA FOR WAGE GARNISHMENT, WE
HAVE TO KEEP BOTH SIDES OF THAT
IN MIND. IT'S ALSO VERY
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WAGE
GARNISHMENT IS OFTEN TIMES THE
LAST OPTION FOR METHOD OF
RECOVERY. SUBSTANTIVELY THIS
REVISION WILL REDUCE POTENTIAL
PAYMENTS BY IN SOME CASES, 100%
FOR EVEN INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BY
NO MEANS NO INCOME EXAMPLE BY
OUR ESTIMATES WOULD BE AN
INDIVIDUAL MAKING $36 AN HOUR.
OR $75,000 A YEAR AND A $15 OR
IN OUR AREA, OR $41 AN HOUR,
85,000 YEAR AND A $17 AN HOUR
AREA WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM WAGE
GARNISHMENT. IN ADDITION, THE
BILL REDUCES THE ALLOWABLE
GARNISHMENT FOR OTHER WELL OFF
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING THOSE
MAKING $120 AN HOUR FOR $259,000
A YEAR WHO WILL GET A 10%
REDUCTION. PUT SIMPLY, WE DO NOT
SEE THOSE AS INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
MOST IN NEED. UM OUR BIGGEST
DISAGREEMENT WITH PROPONENTS IS
THAT THE BILL APPLIES TO ANYONE
AND EVERYONE RATHER THAN BEING
NEED BASED. OUR COALITION IS
WORKING ON A FRAMEWORK OF
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD EXPAND THE
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FOR HARDSHIP.
INDIVIDUALS WHO TRULY DO NEED
RELIEF. CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION ARE
ALREADY SOMETHING THAT IS USED
BY THOSE TRULY IN NEED. SO WE
SEE. IMPROVING THIS MECHANISM IS
A MORE TARGETED SOLUTION FOR
THOSE REASONS. WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO SB 14
77. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU AGAIN
. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS EBORAH CARLTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
OR OPPOSITION SURROUNDS THE FACT
THAT IN GOOD FAITH, WE WORKED
WITH THE LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT
TENANTS FROM EVICTION OVER THE
LAST TWO YEARS. AND THEN WE
WORKED AGAIN TWO ADDITIONAL
TIMES TO PROTECT TENANTS FROM
EVICTION. WE'RE NOW FACING
SENATE BILL 14 77, WHICH LIMITS
A RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS ABILITY
TO COLLECT PAST DUE RENT WHEN WE
WORKED ON THE STATE LEGISLATION
, WE AGREED NOT TO EVICT TENANTS
FOR UNPAID RENT, UH, FOR THE
DEFINED PERIOD OF COVID DEBT
PERIOD. INSTEAD THE RENT WAS
TURNED INTO WHAT WE CALL RENTAL
DEBT THAT OWNERS COULD COLLECT
AT A LATER TIME LATER TIME
MEANING TWO YEARS LATER, NOW
WITH SENATE BILL 14 77. THEY MAY
NEVER BE ABLE TO COLLECT THAT.
THE SMALL CLAIMS PROCESS, UM AND
POTENTIALLY WAGE GARNISHMENT.
GARNISHMENT IS ONE OF THE WAYS
THAT A RENTAL PROPERTY OWNER HAS
TO COLLECT FROM TENANTS WHO HAVE
REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN A
REPAYMENT PLAN. WHILE THE STATE
HAS STEPPED UP TO PROVIDE RENTAL
DOLLARS. FOR SOME OWNERS,
THERE'S MANY TENANTS WHO HAVE
REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE. MANY ARE
LIVING TILL RENT FREE AND IN
FACT IN AREAS LIKE ALAMEDA
COUNTY TENANTS CANNOT BE EVICTED
FOR NON PAYMENT OF RENT AND NOW
OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE,
AND MANY HAVE NOT PAID THEIR
RENT AND CONTINUE TO LIVE. IN
THEIR HOMES RENT FREE AT THE
SAME TIME, THEY REFUSED TO
COOPERATE IN THE APPLICATION OF
THE STATE DOLLARS NOW TO TAKE
AWAY ONE OF THE PRIMARY WAYS IN
WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS AND
WAS PROMISED. THAT THEY COULD
COLLECT IS TRULY BAD FAITH AS
STATED BY THE PREVIOUS WITNESS,
ACTUALLY, HOFFMAN THE WITH THE
CHAMBER S P. 14 77 PROVIDES
PROTECTIONS FOR MANY TENANTS,
WHO BY NO MEANS ARE CONSIDERED
LOW INCOME. AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE TODAY. RIGHT. THANK
YOU. SO LOOK FOR OTHER
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM
TO SB 14 77 WILL TAKE NAME,
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
AFTERNOON MR CHAIR MEMBERS, ALEX
ALLEN IS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT PRESERVATION
ALLIANCE IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON, STEVE CRUZ ON BEHALF
OF ENCORE CAPITAL AND
OPPOSITION. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
CLIFF QASEM BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDITORS, BAR
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO SB?
14 77? WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND OPPOSITION. AND AS MR CHAIR
SAID AT THIS TIME, IF YOU ARE AN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1477, PLEASE
PRESS 101 48, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION LEAGUE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. AND
MOVING ON, WILL GO TO LINE 1 49,
YOU ARE OPEN. THANK YOU. CLIFF
BERG ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF COLLECTORS
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. AND WE DO
HAVE SOME ARE QUEUING UP ONE
MOMENT, MR CHAIR. WE'VE GOT A
LINE 49, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS GRETCHEN
LICHTENBERGER AND I AM CALLING
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF JUDGMENT
PROFESSIONALS. AND WE STRONGLY
OPPOSED. SB 14 77. THANK YOU.
69, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
TINA BRADY. I'M CALLING ON
BEHALF OF JUDGMENT, RECOVERY
ASSISTANCE AND NUMEROUS VICTIMS
WITH CRIMINAL RESTITUTION
JUDGMENTS, MANY OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN LEFT DISABLED AND COUNT ON
THESE WAGE GARNISHMENT. PAYMENTS
IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR
OBLIGATIONS WERE ALL ADAMANTLY
OPPOSED. TWO SB 14 77. 1 58,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON
. MY NAME IS DAVID COMPTON. I'M
A JUDGMENT COLLECTION
PROFESSIONAL, AND I'M IN STRONG
OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL. 0.27
YOU ARE OPEN. 1 27, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. ANTHONY O'NEILL WITH
WOLVERINE VENTURES, JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL, STRONG
AND STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS
BILL. DEBTORS HAVE THE ABILITY
TO FILE BANKRUPTCY AT ANY POINT,
IF THEIR WAGE GARNISHMENT TO
EXCESSIVE OR THEY CAN HANDLE IT.
THANK YOU WELL AS A FINAL
REMINDER ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO
TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO SB
14 77. PLEASE GO AHEAD 1 55.
THAT AFTERNOON. MR. TURN NUMBER
IS MELANIE EQUATED WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN RESPECTABLE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. 1 50, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON, TIM LYNCH
ON BEHALF OF THE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL IN OPPOSITION,
THOUGH WE LOOK FORWARD TO AN
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE
SPONSORS TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT
WORKS. MR CHAIR. WE DID EXHAUST
THE QUEUE AT THIS TIME. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. OPERATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE THE LINES AND I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR
CHOLERA. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS
INDICATED BY THE SENATOR AND THE
WITNESSES AS WELL AS IN THE
ANALYSIS. THIS IS NOT THIS IS
NOT FORGIVING OR STRIKING THE
DEBT. THE DEBT IS STILL THERE.
UH AND READING FROM THE ANALYSIS
. LARGEST BENEFICIARIES ARE
ACTUALLY MIDDLE INCOME DEBTORS
WOULD STILL PAY SMALL AMOUNTS
TOWARDS THEIR DEBT. AND IT DOES
COME DOWN TO THE POLICY CHOICE
OF ENSURING THAT THEY CAN
MAINTAIN THEIR STABILITY, WHICH
YOU KNOW AND THERE ARE STILL
OTHER CONSEQUENCES TO HAVING
DEBT. IT'S NOT LIKE OH, GREAT.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GETTING MY
WAGE GARNISHED HERE, SO I WAS
JUST NOT PAY THE DEBT THERE,
ESPECIALLY FOR MIDDLE INCOME.
THEY HAVE PLENTY OF INCENTIVES.
TO PAY THE DEBT AND IT COMES
DOWN TO WHAT IS A GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY. I DON'T THINK A GOOD
PUBLIC POLICIES HAVE SAID THEY
CAN JUST FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY. UM
I THINK A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY IS
MAKING SURE FAMILIES CAN STAY IN
THEIR HOME. THEY CAN ACTUALLY
AFFORD TO LIVE IN PLACES
FRANKLY, EVERY CORNER OF
CALIFORNIA BUT CERTAINLY IN
PLACES LIKE THE BAY AREA. UM
WHERE IT'S YOU KNOW, A
GARNISHMENT CAN HAVE DEVASTATING
IMPACTS ON THEIR ABILITY TO BE
ABLE TO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES. UM
THE THOSE THAT THE CREDITORS
WILL STILL GET PAID THROUGH THE
GARNISHMENT ALLOTMENTS AND AGAIN
AS I INDICATED, EVEN THERE ARE
STILL OTHER INCENTIVES FOR
DEBTORS TO PAY AND SO I LIKE TO
MOVE THE BILL AND I WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR FOR YOUR
CAREER IN THE LEGISLATURE OF
ALWAYS DOING WHAT YOU CAN TO
HELP FAMILIES THAT ARE
STRUGGLING, HELP MIDDLE INCOME
FAMILIES HELP LOW WAGE FAMILIES
WHEN IT COMES TO DEBT AND
ENSURING THAT YOU'RE DOING YOUR
PART AND WE'RE DOING OUR PART TO
LIFT SOME OF THAT BURDEN OFF OF
THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
DO HAVE EMOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? GREAT I WILL SECOND THAT
. OKAY THANK YOU, MISS REYES.
SECONDS THAT AND THEN WE GO TO
MS REYES.
SAID THAT THERE. AND I'LL TALK
AGAIN. NO I SAID ALL THE
WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT YOU,
SENATOR. UM THAT'S WHAT MIKE WAS
TO HEAR THE QUESTIONS THAT I
HAVE TO ASK. BUT YOU HAVE BEEN A
CHAMPION. YOU HAVE PROTECTED
CONSUMERS, AND YOU'VE DONE THIS
THROUGHOUT YOUR CAREER. SINCE
I'VE BEEN HERE FOR FIVE YEARS,
AND YOU'VE PRESENTED MANY BILLS
AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF YOUR BILLS. UM
THIS THIS PARTICULAR ONE. I KNOW
THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE WAS ABOUT THE WHO IT
IS THAT WE'RE PROTECTING, AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU KNOW, A LOT
OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH OUR
MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES. SO
CHANGES IT'S A BIT BIT OF A
SHIFT HERE RECOGNIZING JUST AS
MY COLLEAGUE FROM SAN JOSE HAS
MENTIONED. IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT SOMEBODY AT 7800 OR LET'S
SAY THE 7800 MONTHLY. OR TAKING
THE 1800. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
SOMEBODY EARNING $45 AN HOUR. IN
SO WHEN, WHEN I SEE THAT THEN
I'M I IT WOULD HAVE TO QUESTION
WHERE, WHERE THE WHERE THE RIGHT
NUMBER SHOULD BE. UM IN PRIOR
LEGISLATION, WHICH TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION THE MINIMUM WAGE
EARNERS AND ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED
THEM, AND, UM, AS WE SHOULD. I
THINK THAT AS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HIGHER INCOME WITH WITH
ANYONE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
NEEDS. OF THE PARTICULAR PERSON
ASKING FOR AN EXEMPTION. UM, I
THINK PERHAPS FINDING A BALANCE
IN THAT REGARD. UM I THINK IT
WOULD BE IMPORTANT. UM AND I SO
IN THAT REGARD, I KNOW THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH
THE OPPOSITION THAT HAS SPOKEN
HERE TODAY. UM. MY QUESTION S,
WILL YOU CONTINUE TO DISCUSS
THIS WITH THEM? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM UH ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YOU KNOW,
WE WHAT WE STARTED WITH IS THAT
WE LOOKED AT AS OUTLINED ON PAGE
EIGHT IS $80,000 NOW IN THE
UNITED STATES IS LOW INCOME. I
MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S THE
THRESHOLD. IF YOU'RE MAKING LESS
THAN $80,000, YOU'RE LOW INCOME
. I REPRESENT ALAMEDA COUNTY IF
YOU'RE MAKING LESS THAN $101,000
ALAMEDA COUNTY, A FAMILY OF FOUR
YOU'RE LOW INCOME. I MEAN,
THAT'S THAT'S THE SHOCKING THING
. I DON'T THINK THAT WE
UNDERSTAND MANY OF US THE
GRAVITY OF YOU'RE MAKING 100
GRAND AND YOU'RE LIVING IN
NEWARK, CALIFORNIA AND YOU'RE IN
POVERTY. YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT
MAKING YOUR BASIC NEEDS, SO
THAT'S SORT OF THE MINDSET WHEN
WE LOOK AT THE LIVING LIVING
WAGE AND TRYING TO YOU KNOW, WE
STILL HAVE THE TIER SYSTEM, BUT
I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM.
I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THIS IS A
TOUGH BILL. ONE OF THE OTHER
THINGS ANOTHER TOOL THAT WE HAVE
THAT WE HAVE THAT THE CREDITORS
HAVEN'T USED. BUT WE ALL OF US
WHO PRACTICED LAW. IT DOES. IT'S
A SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT, AND
I BELIEVE THAT WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THE SATISFACTORY JUDGMENT WILL
REMEMBER THOSE. LET'S MAKE A
DEAL. MONTY HALL IS THAT ONCE
YOU HAVE THE JUDGMENT, AND YOU
HAVE THE WAGE GARNISHMENT AND
I'M IN THIS PROTECTED CLASS.
LET'S SAY THEN YOU CAN SIT DOWN
WITH THE CREDITOR AND HAVE A
VOLUNTARY WAGE ORDER. WHERE YOU
BACK OUT. ALL THESE RIDICULOUS
INTEREST RATES IN THE PENALTY
FEES AND ALL THAT YOU SAY,
LISTEN, MY CREDIT CARD WAS THAT
15,000. I'LL PAY YOU THE 15,000
AND I'LL VOLUNTARILYAGREED TO
WAGE ASSIGNMENT OF 300 BUCKS.
AND THEN I GET THE SATISFACTION
JUDGMENT ON MY CREDIT REPORT.
YOU GET SOME MONEY, SO I THINK
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THIS. AREA OF THE LAW
PROGRESSED TO WHERE WE GET
PEOPLE COMPLAIN TOGETHER AN
UNBELIEVABLE DEBT THAT YOU GET A
JUDGMENT ON AND HALF OF IT IS A
PENALTIES AND INTEREST AND IT'S
JUST IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS AND
PEOPLE ARE PLUMMETED, SO I WILL
CONTINUE. THEY ALL HAVE MY CELL
PHONE ON SPEED DIAL, SO I WILL
CONTINUE TO TALK WITH THE
OPPOSITION IN THIS AREA. THANK
YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
ALRIGHT. SEEING NED SENATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE. IT'S A TOUGH AREA,
BUT I WOULD URGE AND I VOTE AND
I VOTE TO HELP OUT THE MIDDLE
CLASS. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
EMOTIONAL SECOND. THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASS. COLORADO PLEASE. STONE
STONE. I CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM.
NO BLOOM BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES.
NO HANEY HANEY I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE RAISE I
RIVAS RIVAS WILSON. WILSON.
THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. ALRIGHT SO MEMBERS
LET'S ROLL THROUGH IF YOU VOTED
EVERYTHING FINE. BUT IF YOU
HAVEN'T STICK AROUND AND LET'S
ROLL THROUGH THE AGENDA,
STARTING WITH CONSENT CONSENT
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN I RACED
RACE? AYE. THANK YOU, ADAM
NUMBER ONE BECAUSE ALL THE BILLS
ARE OUT, SO WE'RE JUST ADDING ON
ABSENT MEMBERS. ITEM NUMBER ONE
SB 13 64 DURAZO MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, REYES. RACE I
ITEM NUMBER TWO. SB 13 27
HERTZBERG. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN, AYE. ITEM NUMBER
THREE SB 8 47 HER DOT OH,
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I ITEM
NUMBER FOUR SB 10 80 FOR TAITO
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN AREAS.
REYES? AYE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB
10 85 KAMLAGER MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE RAISE AYE.
ITEM NUMBER SIX SB 9 31 LEVA
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE
RAISE I NUMBER SEVEN SB 11 49
LABOR MAIENSCHEIN. ITEM NUMBER
EIGHT SP 11 62 LIMÓN.
MAIENSCHEIN. ITEM NUMBER NINE SB
10 26 WIECKOWSKI MAIENSCHEIN.
RIVAS. RIVERSIDE NUMBER 10 SP 14
77 WIECKOWSKI. WE HAVE EVERYBODY
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 11 84 21
WARD MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE REYES. RAISE I COMPLETES OUR
BUSINESS FOR TODAY. THANKS
EVERYBODY AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.