GOOD MORNING ALL AND WELCOME TO
THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FOR TUESDAY. JUNE, 28 WE DO NOT
HAVE. QUORUM FOR ANY OTHER
MEMBERS AT THIS POINT SO I'M
GOING TO GIVE A FEW MORE
MINUTES, BUT I APPRECIATE
AUTHORS BEING HERE. ON TIME, AND
WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET A FEW
MORE MEMBERS. BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, WORLD. REMIND FOLKS
THAT WE ARE STILL IN A PANDEMIC
, THOUGH A LOT OF THE
RESTRICTIONS HAVE EASED, BUT
WE'RE ASKING THAT PEOPLE D.
HAVE SOME DISCRETION AROUND THE
DISEASE MASKS ARE APPRECIATED,
AS WELL AS SOME SOCIAL
DISTANCING. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF
OPTIONS FOR TESTIMONY TODAY.
CERTAINLY HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHEN WE HAVE THE MAIN
MICROPHONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
ROOM. AND WE ASK THAT FOLKS THAT
WHEN YOU'RE USING THE
MICROPHONE, PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH
IT. LET THE SERGEANT'S HANDLE
THAT WITNESSES. CERTAINLY FOR
THE PRIMARY WITNESSES MAY COME
UP TO THE TO THE DESK TO BE ABLE
TO TESTIFY. WE ALSO HAVE ABILITY
, THE ABILITY TO CALL INTO FREE
NUMBER WHICH SHOULD BE ON YOUR
SCREEN AT THIS POINT IS 877.
6928957. AGAIN THAT'S 877692895
. AND THE ACCESS CODE IS 1315437
. AGAIN THAT'S 1315437. RIGHT
WELL, WE DO. AT LEAST ONE MEMBER
HERE WILL HAVE TO START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE SINCE WE DON'T HAVE
A QUORUM, AND I SEE SENATOR
ARCHULETTA HERE, SO WE'LL START
WITH OUR FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE.
YES AND SO WE DO HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS FILLING
OUR VACANCY AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BONTA IS JOINING US. IN THE
PLACE OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER RIVAS.
SO OUR COMMITTEE WILL LOOK A
LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY TODAY,
AND I APPRECIATE THOSE TWO
MEMBERS BEING WILLING TO SERVE.
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR. THANK YOU
AND GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR, AND
, UH, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN, UH, AGAIN, I'M
SENATOR BOB ARCHULETTA AND
PRESENTED SENATE BILL 1323. I
WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE
CHAIR AND HIS STAFF FOR HIS WORK
ON THIS BILL AND ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS RIGHT OFF
THE BAT. TODAY I'M PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 13 TO 3 TO REQUIRE
IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, A
REAL ESTATE LICENSE C B HIRED TO
SELL THE SECURED PROPERTY FOR
ITS APPRAISED VALUE. ON MULTIPLE
LISTING SERVICE. THIS WOULD
ALLOW THE DEFAULTED HOMEOWNER TO
BE PAID OUT THEIR FULL SAVINGS
IN HOME EQUITY IN APPLICABLE FOR
CLOSURES. FORECLOSED HOMEOWNERS
ARE LOW INCOME, OFTEN ELDERLY,
IMMIGRANT OR DISABLED MEMBERS OF
CALIFORNIA MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. FOR MEMBERS OF
THESE COMMUNITIES. THEIR HOME IS
OFTEN THEIR ONLY ASSET. AND HOME
EQUITY IS THEIR ONLY LIFETIME
SAVINGS. THE LOSS OF THIS EQUITY
IS IRREPLACEABLE, PUTTING THE
FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER AT
INCREASED RISK OF POVERTY AND
HOMELESSNESS. HOME OWNERSHIP IS
A PRIMARY SAVINGS VEHICLE FOR
LOW AND MIDDLE CLASS HOMEOWNERS
IN THE UNITED STATES FOR A
FAMILY WITHOUT LIQUID FUNDS.
THEIR ACUTE HOME EQUITY IS THEIR
PROPERTY. MAYBE ONLY THE SAVINGS
THEY HAVE THAT THEY'VE ACQUIRED
IN THEIR LIFETIME. THE LOSS OF A
HOME IS A TRAUMATIC EVENT FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR FAMILY IN
THE UNFORTUNATE EVENT THAT HOUSE
GOES INTO FORECLOSURE. THE
HOMEOWNER SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED
FURTHER. BY THE HOUSE BEING SOLD
FOR WELL UNDER ITS APPRAISED
VALUE. APPROXIMATELY 7.4 BILLION
IS ACCRUED HOME EQUITY WAS TAKEN
FROM FORECLOSED CROP. CALIFORNIA
HOMEOWNERS OVER THE YEARS OF
2017 AND 2020 PERIOD RESEARCHERS
THAT U C. BERKELEY AND THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC
RESEARCH RECENTLY ANALYZED
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HOUSING
RETURNS AND FOUND THAT THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP IS DRIVEN
LARGELY BY DISPARITIES IN
HOUSING RETURNS. THIS IS DRIVEN
ALMOST ENTIRELY BY DIFFERENCES
IN DISTRESSED HOME SALES
SPECIFICALLY FOR CLOSED AND
SHORT SALES. IT IS NOTEWORTHY
THAT WHEN A BANK ACQUIRES THE
FORECLOSED PROPERTY. THEY WILL
THEN HIRE A REAL ESTATE LICENSE
C AND SELL THE PROPERTY ON THE
MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE WHEN
THEIR OWN FINANCIAL INTEREST IS
AT STAKE. THE SALE IS CONDUCTED
BY A LISTING NOT BY AUCTION.
THIS BILL REFORMS FORECLOSURE
PROVISIONS TO REQUIRE THAT AN
EQUITY SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER
THE POWER OF SALE OF A MORTGAGE
OR DEED OF TRUST BE MADE BY A
REAL ESTATE LICENSE C AND BY
PUBLICLY LISTING THE PROPERTY
FOR SALE ON THE MULTIPLE LISTING
SERVICE WITH AN INITIAL LISTING
PRICE. AT THE PROPERTY'S
APPRAISED VALUE IF THE HOUSE IS
UNABLE TO BE SOLD AT THE
APPRAISED VALUE, THE BILL WOULD
AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEE TO
PROGRESSIVELY REDUCE THE LISTED
PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IF THE
TRUSTEE DOES NOT RECEIVE A
QUALIFYING OFFER. THIS BILL
WOULD AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEE TO
SELL THE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC
AUCTION, AS THEY CURRENTLY DO IF
THE TRUSTEE DOES NOT RECEIVE
QUALIFYING OFFER AFTER PRICE
REDUCTIONS OR IF THE PRICE
DECREASE WILL RESULT IN THE
PROPERTIES LISTED PRICE. FALLING
BELOW THE EQUITY THRESHOLD
BECAUSE OF THIS LENDERS WILL
ALWAYS BE MADE WHOLE UNDER THIS
BILL. WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY
ON BEHALF OF THIS BILL IS, UH,
SHE'LL BOSS LOR, A LAWYER WITH
EXPERTISE IN FORECLOSURE FIELD
AND HIS AND HIS CLIENT, TERESA
PROBATE. WHO HAD HER SAN
FRANCISCO HOME SOLD AT AUCTION
FOR ONLY $50,000 STILL IS
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THE
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
BILL, AND ONCE AGAIN HER HOME
WAS VAUED. AH APPROXIMATELY
$700,000. BUT AGAIN, IT ONLY
SOLD FOR 50,000. AND THAT'S WHY
WE'RE BUILDING IS PUT TOGETHER.
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
RIGHT? HOW ARE YOU, MA'AM? FIRST
WITNESS, PLEASE. THIS PROPERTY
WILL BE SPEAKING FIRST. HERE WE
GO. WITH MORNING TO EVERYBODY.
MY NAME IS PROCEDURE, POBRE. I
BROUGHT MY SON PRISCO HOME. IN
1994. WITH THE MORTGAGE FROM
WELSH FARGO, MY HUSBAND, TIM,
YOU AND SET UP OUR MORTGAGE. AND
HE WAS AWAY THE NEXT YEAR, 1995.
BEFORE HE DIED. HE TOLD ME THIS
ONLY SHORT MY GIFT TO YOU. I
WORKED VERY HARD AS A MEME AS A
TEACHER'S AIDE. AND I DID NOT.
MISS ANY SINGLE MORTGAGE PAYMENT
FOR THE FOR THE OVER 20 YEARS,
BUT THERE I RETIRED IN 2014. I
STRUGGLED FINANCIALLY AND MISS
MY FIRST BAR GATES PAYMENT. AND
2018 AT 74 77 YEARS OLD. IN 2018
BY HOME. WHAT'S THE WORD? A TON
DID OUTSIDE, BUT WELLS FARGO. SO
IT SPORTS CRUTCHER. WE'RE ONLY
51,000 AUCTION. YEAH. I HAD 750
IN HOME EQUITY. IT WAS MY ONLY
LIFE SAVING. IN THE FIRST
CLOSURE THEY TOOK LOT FROM MY.
FROM ME. THEY TOOK MY HOME FROM
ME AND SOMEBODY WAS EVICTING ME
AND MY DAUGHTER. ALL DAY GAVE ME. WAS A CHECK OFF $1 FUNNY ONE
PENNY. THAT IS ALL WE HAD.
NOTHING LEFT. ATTORNEY ITSELF
WATCHER. TALK MIKE GATE AND
SETTLED FROM. THE WELL. IT'S
MARGO, OUTSIDE CARD. AND WHILE
SPARGO IT'S STILL SAYING THEY
DID NOTHING WRONG. REALLY?
PLEASE SAY YES TO THIS BILL. AND
DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN TO
ANYBODY ALSO, THANK YOU. VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
SILVA SLUR ON THE FOUNDER AND
PRINCIPAL OF THE VASCULAR LAW
FIRM AND I PRACTICE IN OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA, WHERE I LITIGATE
PREDATORY LENDING AND WRONGFUL
FORECLOSURE LAWSUITS. I'VE BEEN
WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. WHEN I MET HERESY
DEPOT BREAK SHE HAD JUST GONE
THROUGH FORECLOSURE. HER
$800,000 HOME WAS SOLD FOR
$50,000 AT A FORECLOSURE AUCTION
IN WELLS FARGO GAVE HER A CHECK
FOR ONE PENNY. EVEN THOUGH SHE
HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING, BUT A
HOME NEVER MISSED A MORTGAGE
PAYMENT FOR 24 YEARS AND BUILT
UP A SUBSTANTIAL LIFE SAVINGS IN
HOME EQUITY. THAT WAS ALL NIL.
IN THE FACE OF FORECLOSURE. SHE
LOST EVERYTHING. SHE LOST HER
LIFE SAVINGS. SHE LOST HER HOME
, AND SHE WAS BEING EVICTED FROM
HER OWN HOME. MEANWHILE, SOME
INVESTOR PURCHASED HER HOME FOR
ABOUT 7% OF ITS MARKET VALUE.
ESSENTIALLY THE EQUITY SHE HAD
BUILT UP OVER ALL THOSE YEARS
WAS ASSUMED BY THIS INVESTOR WHO
WAS ABLE TO GET US A REALLY
GREAT BARGAIN DEAL ON SOME
PROPERTY AT THIS AT HER PROPERTY
AT THIS AUCTION. HER CASE WHILE
EXTREME ISN'T THAT ISOLATED? I
HAVE ANOTHER CLIENT RIGHT NOW
WHO HAD $1.6 MILLION WORTH OF
PROPERTY THAT SHE BUILT UP OVER
40 YEARS WORKING AT THE U. S
POSTAL SERVICE. SHE BOUGHT
PROPERTY. SHE DID THE RIGHT
THING. SHE SAVED MONEY. SHE
BUILT HOME EQUITY FOR HER FAMILY
AND THEN IN FORECLOSURE, BOTH
HER PROPERTY. HER RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY. INTER VENTER PROPERTY
WERE SOLD FOR $205,000 OAKLAND
PROPERTIES WORTH 1.61 POINT
SEVEN MILLION. SHE LOST OVER A
MILLION DOLLARS IN EQUITY. NOW
THAT CLIENT AT 86 YEARS OLD, HER
SECURE RETIREMENT IS GONE, AND
SHE'S CLOSER TO PUSHING ALL OF
HER BELONGINGS DOWN THE STREET
AND A SHOPPING CART. LIKE SO
MANY PEOPLE IN OAKLAND. THIS
PROCESS TAKES PEOPLE WHO ARE
SECURE IN THEIR RETIREMENT. AND
IT RENDERS THEM FINANCIALLY
DESTITUTE. THIS BILL IS NOT SOME
ZEALOUS REFORM. IT'S A MARKET
BASED SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO HAVE A CHANCE AT
RECOVERING THEIR LIFE SAVINGS.
EVEN IF THEY GO THROUGH
FORECLOSURE, EVEN IF THEY CAN'T
CONTINUE TO MAKE THOSE MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY, IT
ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A CHANCE AT
SAVING THEIR LIFE SAVINGS. UM WE
BELIEVE THIS IS A COMMON SENSE
SOLUTION AND WE RECOMMEND AND WE
URGE YOU TO VOTE. AYE. ON THIS,
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL
RIGHT, OTHERS IN THE ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SB 13 23 WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
. ROBERT HORRELL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE
THE SPONSORS OF THE MEASURE I'M
ALSO AUTHORIZED THIS MORNING TO
INDICATE THE SUPPORT OF A NUMBER
OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. BED
CITIC, THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATES
FOR ADVOCATES FOR NURSING HOME
REFORM, THE CALIFORNIA ELDER
JUSTICE COALITION, THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION, THE CALIFORNIA
REINVESTMENT COALITION. CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA.
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA
THE LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON
VALLEY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONSUMER ADVOCATES NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, AND THERE'S
ABOUT 15 OTHER GROUPS THAT
SUPPORT THIS REFORM. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT. ALRIGHT.
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SP 13 23? HE WAS CHAIR IF
YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 13 23,
PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT
THIS TIME ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO.
FOR SP 13 23. AND OUR FIRST BUT
OUR FIRST TEST TESTIMONY WILL BE
FROM LINE 55, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
55, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 9 55. CAN
YOU HEAR US? YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
WE'LL MOVE ON. WE'LL TRY LINE.
18, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
JENNIFER SPEC ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING
THE SPONSORS AS WELL AS WITH
YOUR COMMITTEE STOPPED, AND
WE'RE VERY HOPEFUL THAT MOVING
FORWARD WILL BE ABLE TO SATISFY
CONCERNS THAT HAVE RECENTLY
RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE BILL.
BUT IN ITS CURRENT FORM WE ARE
HAPPY TO SEE THE BILL. MOVE
FORWARD AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFER
PROCESS CONTAINED WITHIN THE
BILL. THANK YOU. DON'T GIVE UP.
ONE MORE FINAL REMINDER IF YOU
ARE IN SUPPORT OF SP 13 23,
PLEASE PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY
ZERO AT THIS TIME. AND NOBODY
ELSE IS KILLING UP. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES LISTED MIKE
PULLOUT IN PERSON AND CRAIG PAGE
ON THE TELEPHONE. COULD YOU LET
THE WITNESS COME TO THE TABLE?
PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PARDON ME,
MR. CHAIR MIKE PULL OUT ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION. THE BILL IS WELL
INTENTIONED, AND SENATOR
ARCHULETTA IS A CARING ELECTED
OFFICIALS. BUT THE BILL CONTAINS
SEVERE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL
PROBLEMS. IN FACT, IT OVERTURNS
APPROXIMATELY 100 YEARS OF
NONJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE LAW AND
WOULD APPLY TO EVERY RESIDENT
AND NEARLY EVERY RESIDENTIAL
FORECLOSURE IN CALIFORNIA. FIRST
OF ALL, THE BILL ASKED THE
TRUSTEE TO CONVEY PROPERTY
WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY TO DO
THAT. THE AUTHORITY THE
AUTHORITY FOR A TRUSTEE TO SELL
A PROPERTY IS CONTAINED IN A
DEED OF TRUST, WHICH IS A
CONTRACT BETWEEN LENDER BORROWER
AND TRUSTEE. AND NOWHERE IN THAT
NEED OF TRUST. DOES IT SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT CONDUCTING A
VOLUNTARY SALE OF PROPERTY? IN
FACT, IN THE STANDARD FORM
FANNIE FREDDIE DEED OF TRUST? IT
SAYS THE TRUSTEE SHALL SELL THE
PROPERTY AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO
THE HIGHEST BIDDER AT THE TIME
AND PLACE DESIGNATED IN THE
NOTICE OF SALE. THAT IS A
CONTRACT WHICH THIS BILL WOULD
ABROGATE. SECOND IT ASKS US TO
CONDUCT THE SALE WITH NO REGARD
FOR THE WISHES OF THE OWNER, IN
FACT, IN POTENTIAL CONTRAVENTION
OF THE WISHES OF THE OWNER. THE
OWNER MAY WISH TO LIST THE
PROPERTY THEMSELVES, THEY MAY
WISH TO REFINANCE, GET MONEY
FROM RELATIVES OR FRIENDS. THEY
MAY WISH TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY.
ALL OF THOSE RIGHTS ACCRUE TO
THE OWNER UNTIL THEY NO LONGER
OWN THE PROPERTY. BUT THIS WOULD
HAVE THE TRUSTEE CONVEY THE
PROPERTY OUT FROM OUT OF, YOU
KNOW, BEFORE ALL OF THESE RIGHTS
COULD BE EXERCISED, SO IT
IGNORES THE RIGHTS OF THE
OWNERS. THIRD UH, WE APPRECIATE
THE WORK TO SORT OF MINISTERIAL
EYES THE PROCESS, BUT IT STILL
REQUIRES DISCRETION ON THE PART
OF THE TRUSTEE. THEY MUST GET AN
APPRAISAL UNLESS IT IS
UNREASONABLY LOW. THEY MUST
ENGAGE A REAL ESTATE AGENT AT A
REASONABLE COMMISSION. NOW
COMMISSIONS ARE FROM 1 TO 6. YOU
CAN WATCH TV AND SEE IT BUT THE
BUT THE PROCESS IN THE BILL OF
ENGAGING A REAL ESTATE AGENT IS
LITERALLY A LOTTERY. YOU WILL
TAKE EVERY REAL ESTATE AGENT IN
THAT ZIP CODE AND CONTACT THEM
SERIE A THEM UNTIL YOU FIND
SOMEBODY TO TAKE THE DEAL. EVERY
SINGLE AGENT AT FIVE DAYS EACH
AND EVERY AGENT IN ADJACENT ZIP
CODES, SO IT'S LITERALLY THE
WORST POSSIBLE WAY TO ENGAGE A
REAL ESTATE AGENT TO SELL
PROPERTY. NONE OF US WOULD WOULD
WOULD PICK NAMES OUT OF A HAT TO
SELL OUR HOUSE. FINALLY WE DON'T
THINK IT'S GOOD FOR PURCHASERS
THEY'RE GOING TO OBTAIN. TITLE
TO A PROPERTY THAT THEY LIKELY
HAVEN'T BEEN IN. THEY ARE LIKELY
TO GET CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY
THAT THEY HAVEN'T BARGAINED FOR,
AND COULD LOSE BADLY IN THE
PROCESS. REAL ESTATE INVESTORS
KNOW KNOW HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR
THAT RISK. BECAUSE YOU'LL HEAR
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
PROBLEMS WITH TITLE INSURANCE.
IN FACT, PEOPLE WHO NEED
FINANCING ARE GOING TO BE UNABLE
TO GET IT, WHICH IS GOING TO
ENCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF THESE
PROPERTIES BY INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT
TITLE INSURANCE OR FINANCING. SO
WE THINK IT'S A CREATIVE, WELL
INTENTIONED IDEA WITH VERY, VERY
DEEP AND SEVERE LEGAL AND
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. AND FOR THAT
REASON WE'RE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND THEN I HAVE CRAIG PAGE ON
THE PHONE. ARE YOU WITH US? AND
MR CHAIR. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS CRAIG PAGE EXECUTIVE
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
COUNSEL FOR THE CALIFORNIA LAND
TITLE ASSOCIATION. WE REPRESENT
THE TITLE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN
CALIFORNIA. WE OPERATE IN ALL 58
COUNTIES. AND WE HANDLE ABOUT
600,000 TRANSACTIONS A YEAR WE
WERE VERY CLOSELY WITH BUYERS,
SELLERS, REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND
LENDERS. IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THE
ARE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED IN A
SEPARATE LETTER HAVE NOT BEEN
RAISED UNTIL JUNE. 22ND I WOULD
TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. I THINK IF
YOU LOOK AT BACK TO THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MANY OF THE
ARGUMENTS THAT WE WERE RAISED
THAT WE RAISED WERE RAISED BY
SENATOR HERTZBERG AND COMMITTEE
WHERE HE WARNED. WE'RE
CONFLATING THE PROCESS OF A
VOLUNTARY SALE INTO A DISTRESS
SALE CONTEXT. WOULD CAUSE
PROBLEMS. AND WE HAVE REALLY
BUILT ON THAT AND KIND OF
HIGHLIGHTED THAT IN OUR LETTER.
WE WERE TYPICALLY IN A IN A IN
INDUSTRY AND THE VOLUNTARY SALES
TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE A LISTING
AGENT WHO COMES IN OPENS IN
ORDER WITH THE TITLE COMPANY.
HOMEOWNERS POLICY WILL
EVENTUALLY BE ISSUED BY THE
TITLE COMPANY. A LENDER'S POLICY
WILL BE ISSUED. GO WITH THE LAND
WITH A LOAN TO THE SECONDARY
MARKET. THE REAL ESTATE AGENT
WILL ALSO FILL OUT OF
RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
THAT HAS A NUMBER OF DISCLOSURES
AND INFORMATION IN THERE THAT
ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN THE AGENT
UNDERSTANDS THERE. ALSO THE
TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
WHICH A LOT OF DISCLOSURES WILL
BE GIVEN THE POTENTIAL BUYERS.
ESSENTIALLY WARNING HIM ABOUT
THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED OR
ISSUES THAT ARE WITH THE
PROPERTY. THESE ARE ON A
VOLUNTARY CONTEXT. AND THIS IS
THE WORLD THAT THE REAL ESTATE
AGENTS THAT WE WORK WITH
UNDERSTAND. IF WE GO TO THE
PROCESS IS OUTLINED IN THE BILL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FORCING A
VOLUNTARY SALES PROCESS INTO A
DISTRESS SALE CONTEXT. THE
BORROWER IS NOT IN THE POSITION
WHERE THERE'S NOT HAPPY BECAUSE
THEY'RE GOING TO BE FORCED OUT
OF THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO GIVE PROBABLY ACCESS TO
THE PROPERTY. THE LISTING AGENT
WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THEY
REALLY HAVE. THE ONLY APPRAISE
APPRAISAL THAT WILL THAT WILL BE
GIVEN WILL BE FROM THE STREET
AND SO YOU HAVE BUYERS COMING
IN. THAT WILL BE A GREAT RISK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY
TITLE POLICIES CAN'T BE ISSUED
IN A FORECLOSURE ENVIRONMENT AND
LET ME TELL YOU WHY. THE ISSUES
THAT WE HAVE WITH FORECLOSURE IS
THE BUYER. OR THE BORROWER IN
MANY CASES IS FACE IS NOW IN A
SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVEN'T
PAID MANY BILLS. STATE TAX LANES
OF FEDERAL TAX PLAN. OF MAYBE
EVEN PACE LOANS THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH SOME KIND OF
ENVIRONMENTAL UPGRADES TO THE
PROPERTY. ALL THOSE HAVE A SUPER
PRIORITY LANE STATUS ON THE
PROPERTY, SO IF A BUYER BUYS
THOSE AND THEY SHOW UP LATER,
GUESS WHAT THE BUYER IS NOW.
LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF
THOSE DEATHS THAT WERE THE
FORMER BORROWER'S DEBT. SO YOU
HAVE A SITUATION WHERE TITLE
COMPANIES USUALLY SIT BACK AND
WAIT UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE SALE
HAPPENS, AND THEN WE WILL ENSURE
THE NEXT TRANSACTION OUT. MANY
CASES AS HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER.
YOU'LL HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN
WITH AN ALL CASH OFFER BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T GET A LENDER TO
PROVIDE A PURCHASE MONEY
MORTGAGE BECAUSE NOBODY NO TITLE
POLICY ISSUED IN THAT CONTEXT.
WE THINK THE CURRENT VERSION OF
THE BILL BETWEEN TRYING HIS YOU
KNOW AS WELL INTENTIONED, BUT I
THINK YOU'RE GOING TO PUT AGENTS
HAD GREAT RISK. THEY ALL THEY
HAVE IS AREAS IN EMISSIONS
INSURANCE. THEY WON'T HAVE TITLE
COMPANIES HELPING THEM THE
CONSUMMATE THE DEAL. IT WON'T BE
AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY'RE
TRAINED AND USED TO OPERATING.
SO I NEED YOU TO WRAP IT WOULD
BE MUCH PARDON? I NEED YOU TO
WRAP UP, PLEASE. OKAY? WELL WE
WOULD LIKE, WOULD WE? THERE WAS
A COUNTER PROPOSAL THAT WE HAD
ALL OFFERED TO MAKE THIS
VOLUNTARY PROCESS WHERE WE STAND
PROPOSED PROPOSED POSTPONED THE
TRUSTEE SALE FOR 30 DAYS. LET
THEM LISTEN. LET THE BORROWER
LIST THERE. IT WASN'T LISTING
AGENT. 30 DAY EXTENSION AND GO
THROUGH THE MARKETING PROCESS
THAT WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH TO
RECOVER AS MUCH OF THE EQUITY AS
POSSIBLE. SO MUCH BETTER MODEL.
I NEED YOU TO WRAP UP, PLEASE.
WITH THAT WERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. THANK YOU. RIGHT
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION? TWO SB 13 23. WE
WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY
AT THIS POINT, JUST NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS KEVIN GOULD
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BANKERS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING, JOHN ROSS K P PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF THE
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CLIFF CASA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ESCROW ASSOCIATION,
CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
AND AUCTION .COM AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD MORNING, LINDSEY GOLD HORN
AT THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
BANKING NETWORK AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. ROBERT
MOOD TREE, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR. WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WILL
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SB 13 23 CAN WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION FOR
SP 13 23 GO AHEAD AND HIT ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME.
ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. WE DO HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUEUING UP AS THEY GET
THEIR LINE NUMBERS. AND OUR
FIRST. PERSON TESTIFYING WILL BE
LINED 69, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
REMEMBER CATALINA SANCHEZ, WITH
CORBYN AND KAISER APOLOGIES
WASN'T ABLE TO GET THROUGH. BUT
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME
CONSUMER COALITION, THANK YOU.
AND WE'LL GO TO LINE 19 FOR
ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO 13 23
GOING AT 10 BY 19. YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ROBERT WILSON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR. THERE'S NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP AT THIS
TIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATING MAY CLOSE THE LINES.
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
MR HANEY. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. I WANTED TO THANK
THE WITNESS AS WELL FOR COMING
FORWARD AND FOR AH, YOU KNOW,
APOLOGIZE TO HER FOR THE
INJUSTICE THAT SHE'S
EXPERIENCED. AND THANK HER FOR
COMING FORWARD AND SHARING HER
EXPERIENCE THAT THIS DOESN'T
HAPPEN TO PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE
AS I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SERVICE AS A TEACHER'S AIDE FOR
MANY YEARS. I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
IS THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO DO SERVE
THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE ABLE
TO OWN A HOME AND KEEP THEIR
HOME. AND SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS
OF COURSE, SOMETHING THAT WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN TO
ANYONE AGAIN. AND SO THANK YOU
TO THE SENATOR AND TO THE
SPONSOR FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP, I
UNDERSTAND. THE CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED AND I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
COMING FORWARD WITH SOME
AMENDMENTS AS WELL AND I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL WHEN IT
COMES UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHER COMMENTS MR BLOOM. I
APOLOGIZE FOR ARRIVING LATE, UH
, FOR THE HEARING THIS MORNING,
SO I DIDN'T HEAR THE
PRESENTATION. I'M WONDERING IF
YOU COULD RESPOND TO SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION. AND WE TURNED OVER
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS BUT ON AN
EMOTIONAL SIDE. I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU HEARD THE WITNESS HERSELF.
UNFORTUNATELY I DO UNDERSTAND
THE DISTRESS. UM PEOPLE CAN BE
AND THIS TYPE OF SITUATION WITH
HER FOR JUST A MINUTE. AH HERE
YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS WORKED
ALL HER LIFE, AND IT'S JUST A
VERY TYPICAL OF FORECLOSURE
AFTER FORECLOSURE AFTER FOR
CLOSURE HERE. SHE HAS WORKED ALL
HER LIFE. HER HUSBAND DIED LEFT
AT THE HOME. AH MAJOR PAYMENTS
RIGHT ON TIME. 20 YEARS LATER.
OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING HAPPENED, UH
AND AT THE END WHEN THE PROPERTY
WAS FOR CLOTHES. SHE WALKED AWAY
WITH A DOLLAR. AND THIS IS WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. AND, OF
COURSE, ALL THE OPPOSITION. YOU
KNOW THE BANKERS AND EVERYONE
ELSE. UH THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED
BECAUSE THIS BILL OBVIOUSLY
TOUCHES THE HEART OF SO MANY IN
CALIFORNIA. THE MARKET CHANGES
IT GOES UP AND DOWN. BUT WHEN
YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT LOSE THEIR
ENTIRE EQUITY WHEN YOU HAVE AH,
RACIAL THINGS TO TAKE INTO PLAY
THE MINORITIES. THE ELDERLY
VETERANS WHO ARE IN THE
SITUATION. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO
PROTECT THE CONSUMER, AND WHEN
IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE. THE
LENDER WILL ALWAYS RECEIVE THEIR
MONEY THAT HAS NEVER TAKEN FROM
THEM. BUT WE JUST WANT TO
PROTECT THE EQUITY. THAT'S THERE
FOR THAT HOMEOWNER, AND THIS IS
WHAT THE BILL DOES AND GRANTED.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE PUT
TOGETHER. WE'VE WORKED WITH BOTH
SIDES. WE'VE REACHED THIS POINT
IN TIME NOW, AND I THINK THAT AS
WE GO FORWARD, WE WILL CONTINUE
TO LOOK FOR FURTHER AMENDMENTS
BECAUSE WE WANT TO BRING THE
PEOPLE TOGETHER. AH I DON'T KNOW
. A SINGLE BANKER. I'M A REAL
ESTATE BROKER. I'VE BEEN A
BROKER FOR 30 YEARS. I DON'T
KNOW A SINGLE BANKER ESCROW
TITLE. ANYONE WHO HAS ANY
PUNITIVE AH, IDEAS IN THEIR
HEARTS AND THEIR MINDS TO HURT
ANYONE BUT THE WAY THE SITUATION
IS, IN SOME CASES, THEY HAVE NO
CHOICE. WE'RE TRYING TO TURN
THAT AROUND WHERE THE CONSUMER
IS TAKEN CARE OF, AND I BELIEVE
THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO
THAT. AND IF WE DON'T DO IT,
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO IT? AND
GRANTED, THERE'S BEEN LAWS THAT
BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR YEARS UPON
YEARS. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THEY'RE ALWAYS RIGHT. AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN THINGS CHANGE.
WE'VE JUST MENTIONED THE CHAIR
MENTIONED THE PANDEMIC EARLIER
HOW ALL OF US HAVE BEEN
AFFECTED? WELL, HOMEOWNERS ARE
BEING AFFECTED AS WELL. THEY
LOST THEIR JOBS. THEY LOST THEIR
HOMES. IN SOME CASES. WE JUST
WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE
TO PROTECT THAT EQUITY AND THIS
IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. AND THE
THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE THAT MR
BILL MUSIC U S A VERY BROAD
QUESTION. UNFORTUNATELY. AND I
THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOME
TECHNICAL RESPONSES. WHILE THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT
WERE RAISED BY THE BY THE
OPPOSITION AND PERHAPS TO
WITNESS WILL GIVE YOU SOME
DISCRETION, BUT THERE'S NOT AN
OPPORTUNITY. JUST YEAH, KATE ON
THE MAIN POINTS, THERE WERE A
LOT THAT WERE MADE. YEAH THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF SOME LATITUDE.
YEAH IF THERE'S ANYTHING
SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU'D LIKE ME
TO ADDRESS, BUT, UM, I WILL TAKE
SOME LATITUDE. SO 1ST 1ST THING
THAT WAS MENTIONED BY THE
OPPOSITION WAS THAT THIS IS
ESSENTIALLY A FORCED SALE. AND
THAT THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER
THE CURRENT STATUTE, AND I WOULD
JUST POINT OUT THAT THIS IS THIS
IS FORECLOSURE, RIGHT? THESE ARE
ALL FORCED SALES. NOBODY WANTS
TO GO THROUGH FORECLOSURE.
NOBODY'S COOPERATING WITH A
FORECLOSURE BY PUBLIC AUCTION
WHEN THE TRUSTEE FORCIBLY TAKES
THAT HOME AND SELLS IT AT A
PUBLIC AUCTION, THE HOMEOWNERS
NOT SITTING THERE COOPERATING
WITH THESE ARE ALL FORCED SALES
. ALL OF THE STATUTES ARE LISTED
OUT AND CIVIL CODE 2924, AND IT
BASICALLY GOVERNS HOW THESE
SALES ARE TO OCCUR. AND SO WE
CAN CHANGE THAT PROCESS. THAT'S
WHAT WE DO. AND SO WE CAN SAY
OKAY, INSTEAD OF A PUBLIC
AUCTION, OKAY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE
AN ATTEMPT. TO SELL IT WITH THE
HELP OF A REALTOR, AND IF IT
DOESN'T WORK, DECREASE THE
PRICES A FEW TIMES AND IF IT A
FEW MONTHS PASS AND YOU HAVEN'T
BEEN ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY
GO AND TAKE THE PROPERTY AND
CONDUCT THE AUCTION AS YOU
OTHERWISE WOULD. SO YOU'RE NOT
SITTING ON THIS PROPERTY FOR TOO
LONG. ESSENTIALLY WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S AN
ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE TO SELL THE
PROPERTY AT ITS MARKET VALUE,
AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK GO TO THE
AUCTION PROCESS. THAT'S FINE. UM
A FEW POINTS WERE RAISED ABOUT
OKAY. WHAT IF THE HOMEOWNER
WANTS TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY?
WHAT IF THEY WANT TO WORK WITH
THE FAMILY MEMBER OR DO SOME
OTHER LOSS MITIGATION OPTIONS
AND WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR.
THEY DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT AH
, STAT IN THE EXACT CODE NUMBER,
BUT WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR AND
WE'VE SAID OKAY. NOTHING IN THIS
BILL LIMITS OR OTHERWISE
PREVENTS THE HOMEOWNER FROM
ENGAGING IN LOSS MITIGATION. IF
SOMEBODY WANTS TO DECLARE
BANKRUPTCY, WHILE THEY STILL
HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO DO
THAT. AND IT'S THE SAME CUT OFF
AS WELL. AND ESSENTIALLY AFTER I
THINK IT WAS THE, UH, SENATE
ANALYSIS THAT SAID, IF ANYTHING
, THE HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE
BANKRUPTCY. AN ADDITIONAL TIME
TO WORK WITH THAT FAMILY MEMBERS
IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
UM INSOFAR AS THE TITLE ISSUE
WAS CONCERNED WHETHER TITLE
INSURANCE COULD BE OBTAINED ON
THESE KINDS OF CELLS. UM AS WAS
POINTED OUT IN THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. WE DID ONLY
JUST HEAR FROM THE TITLE
COMPANIES ON JUNE 22ND. WE'D
LOVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
INVESTIGATE THESE CONCERNS, AND
OBVIOUSLY WE WE'D WANT TO BE
ABLE TO DO OUR OWN INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS AND RESPOND TO
THEM. UM BUT THAT'S ENOUGH FOR
ME, MR. CHAIR. UM BAT ALONE, I
THINK IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
I'M GLAD THE CHILLED WORK WITH
THE TITLE INSURANCE, FOLKS. UM I
DO BELIEVE THERE'S A NUMBER OF
ISSUES. THAT REMAIN TO BE
RESOLVED TONIGHT WILL SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY TO MOVE IT
FORWARD. BUT RESERVE MY RIGHT ON
HOW I VOTE WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR. THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE TO
THE LAW IN THIS AREA. AND I AM
CONCERNED THAT IT'S GOING TO, UH
UH, CREATE A NUMBER OF ISSUES
THAT AREN'T BEING ADDRESSED BY
THE BILL. SO I HOPE YOU'LL WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND TRY TO
RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES AND
TEMPERATURES HAVE AND I KNOW YOU
WILL, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY FRIENDLY
RELATIONSHIP. HE'S BEEN IN MY
OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES. AND WE'VE
ACTUALLY EXPRESSED THAT THE 50
YARD LINE IS A GOOD PLACE TO BE.
AND SO WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER
AND GOING FORWARD. I KNOW WE'LL
BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH QUITE A
BIT. I'LL JUST CLOSE BY SAYING
THAT IN MY FAMILY LAW PRACTICE
OVER THE YEARS, I SAW MANY, MANY
VERY UNFORTUNATE SITUATIONS
INVOLVING FORECLOSURES, WHERE
PROPERTIES FELL INTO DISTRESS.
BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE PARTY PARTIES AND AH! THE
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT DEMANDS
SOME RESOLUTION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
FOR THE COMMITTEE. ONE THING I
WILL POINT OUT IS THAT GIVEN
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
RAISED, WE TURN THIS INTO A
MINISTERIAL PROCESS TO TRY AND
ADDRESS SOME OF IT. AND I WOULD
HOPE THAT IF THERE ARE
CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS THAT
YOU'RE CHECKING IN WITH THE
COMMITTEE POLICE SO THAT WE HAVE
AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THOSE
CHANGES ARE AND MAKE SURE THEY
ULTIMATELY MEET OUR STANDARDS AS
WE'RE MOVING THIS THIS BILL OUT.
BUT I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL
CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT IN A LOT
OF THESE CASES THE LENDER WANTS
TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK. AND AS
LONG AS THEY GET THEIR MONEY
BACK, THEY DON'T CARE WHAT
ULTIMATELY THE SALE PRICES AND
THAT'S WHY WE END UP WITH A
SITUATION WHERE $700,000 HOME
SELLS FOR $50,000. AND ALL OF
THE EQUITY THAT'S THEN LEFT AND
REPRESENTED IS I'M NOT SURE, ONE
SET OF DOLLAR ONE SIDE OF PENNY,
BUT ABSOLUTELY DO MINIMUS. AND
OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP REALLY? TO
DO THAT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO TURN
PROPERTY OVER. WE WANT TO PUT IN
SOMEBODY ELSE'S HAND. THEY'RE
GOING TO MAKE IT PRODUCTIVE, BUT
YET THEY'RE GETTING A WINDFALL.
AT SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPENSE.
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE HERE THAT
IS REALLY TRYING TO BE
ADDRESSED. AND I KNOW THIS BILL
DOES REPRESENT SOME CHANGE IN
THIS BILL DOES REPRESENT A SHIFT
AND WE HAVE TRIED TO MANAGE THAT
, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE
ANALYSIS TRIES TO EXPLAIN WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. BUT THE
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM REMAINS AND
THAT SENATOR I APPRECIATE YOUR
TRYING TO ADDRESS AND I
CERTAINLY HOPE WE CAN CAN MOVE
THIS TODAY. AND AS YOU CONTINUE
TO WORK ON IT PLEASE BE IN TOUCH
WITH OUR COMMITTEE. AND WITH
THAT, SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MR SHERIFF. AND AGAIN
, EVERYONE I RESPECT LAST YEAR
RIVAL. THANK YOU. WE WILL TAKE
THIS UP ONCE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
RIGHT ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 11 42
SENATOR CAVIAR Ó.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 11 42, A BILL THAT
WILL IMPROVE ACCESS TO SUPPORT
SERVICES. FOR PEOPLE SEEKING
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
INFORMATION AND SERVICES TO
ABORTION IN CALIFORNIA. FIRST I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR FOR
WORKING ON THE BILL WITH MY
STAFF, AND I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE DETAILED IN
THE ANALYSIS. THANK YOU.
BARRIERS TO ABORTION STILL EXIST
. EVEN IN CALIFORNIA PEOPLE WHO
SEEK HEALTHCARE SERVICES AND
CHOOSE TO ACCESS AN ABORTION DO
NOT DO SO LIGHTLY. THE DECISION
IS ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT,
COMPLICATED AND EMOTIONAL
DECISIONS THEY CAN MAKE.
ADDITIONALLY THE OBSTACLES MAY
BE SIGNIFICANT. THE LACK OF
RESOURCES TO PAY FOR
TRANSPORTATION LODGING, WAGE
SUPPORT, SICK LEAVE CHILDCARE OR
MEDICAL EXPENSES ARE SIGNIFICANT
BARRIERS. THIS YEAR, THE U. S
SUPREME COURT REVIEWED AND AS
YOU KNOW, UM, A DIRECT CHALLENGE
TO THE LANDMARK CASE OF ROE V.
WADE, AND THEY OVERRULED IT.
SHOULD THE THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY
WRITTEN BEFORE, BUT THEY DID
OVERRULE IT. UM LONGSTANDING
LEGAL PROTECTIONS. UH, OF
ABORTION SERVICES. AND THIS NEW. TREMENDOUSLY DISTRESSFUL
DECISION. HAS CAUSED 26 STATES
TO A BAN TO BAN ABORTION
IMPACTING AS MANY AS 36 MILLION
WOMEN AND PEOPLE WHO MAY BECOME
PREGNANT. ACCORDING TO OUR
RECENT GROUP MARKER INSTITUTE
REPORT. CALIFORNIA MACY AND
THEIR 3000% INCREASE IN PEOPLE
DRIVING TO CALIFORNIA FOR
ABORTION CARE IF A TOTAL BAN
WERE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE UNITED
STATES. IF THIS IS THE CASE,
PATIENTS WILL NEED SUPPORT. THEY
MAY NEED TO ACCESS
TRANSPORTATION, LODGING AND
CHILD CARE, AND ABORTION
PROVIDERS CAN EXPECT TO SEE A
RISE IN DEMAND AND IN OVERALL
OVERALL WORKLOAD. SB 11 42 WILL
IMPROVE ACCESS TO DIRECT AND
PRACTICAL SUPPORT FOR ABORTION
PATIENTS BY PROVIDING GRANTS TO
CALIFORNIA BASED ORGANIZATIONS
WHO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES TO
PATIENTS. DIRECT SUPPORT, SUCH
AS A RIDE TO THE HEALTHCARE
FACILITY IS SOMETIMES THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIVING
CARE AND NOT FOR DECADES,
ABORTION FUNDS LIKE ACCESS
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE,
INDEPENDENTLY FUNDRAISE TO
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY SUPPORT
CALLERS AND PATIENTS WITH THESE
NEEDS. SOME ABORTION CLINICS
ALSO ASSIST THEIR PATIENTS WITH
PRACTICAL SUPPORT. THE UNMET
NEED, HOWEVER, IS FAR GREATER
THAN THE RESOURCES CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE. SP 11 42 WILL CREATE
A WEBSITE WITH CENTRALIZED
INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE SEEKING
CARE IN CALIFORNIA. THIS WILL
COMBAT MISINFORMATION AND
PROVIDE PATIENTS ACCESS TO THE
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO HELP
THEM ACCESS ABORTION CARE. THE
SITE WILL INCLUDE COMPREHENSIVE
AND MEDICALLY ACCURATE
INFORMATION ABOUT ABORTION
PROVIDERS. PROCEDURAL SUPPORT
OPTIONS INFORMATION ON THE TYPES
OF SERVICES AVAILABLE. AND
INSURANCE INFORMATION, ALONG
WITH LANGUAGE SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE STATES OF WASHINGTON AND NEW
YORK ALREADY HAVE CREATED
LANDING PAGES THAT ARE SIMILAR
TO DIRECT INDIVIDUALS TO LINKS
FOR ABORTION CARE, POST OPERATE
OPERATION RESOURCES, ABORTION
FUNDS AND ASSISTANCE. THE GOAL
IS TO STRENGTHEN PRACTICAL
SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE. BY
PROVIDING ONE POINT OF ENTRY TO
CONNECT A PATIENT WITH THE
NEAREST OR MOST ACCESSIBLE
ABORTION PROVIDER, OBTAIN HEALTH
COVERAGE OR FINANCIAL SUPPORT
FOR THE CARE AND ASSISTANCE FOR
LOGICAL NEEDS. AS A REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM STATE. CALIFORNIA MUST
BE PREPARED TO TREAT PATIENTS
WHO ARE SEEKING CARE IN THE
STATE AND NAVIGATE THEM TO THE
BEST CARE POSSIBLE. SB 11 42 IS
JUST ONE OF THE MANY STEPS THE
STATE CAN TAKE TO HELP ACHIEVE
THE GOAL. MY CO AUTHOR, SENATOR
NANCY SKINNER HAS BEEN WITH ME
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, UM TIME
AND WOULD BE HERE TODAY, BUT
COULDN'T MAKE IT SO WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IS MOLLY ROPES
AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MOLLY ROBSON
, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA. WE REPRESENT THE
SEVEN AFFILIATES IN THE STATE
WHO OPERATE OVER 100 HEALTH
CENTERS IN CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
HERE AS A CO SPONSOR OF SB 11
42. AS A SENATOR MENTIONED,
THERE'S MANY BARRIERS THAT
PEOPLE FACE WHEN THEY'RE
ACCESSING ABORTION, AND THESE
BERRIES ARE NOT ARE NOT NEW, BUT
THEY ARE COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT
THAT ROBIE WADE WAS OVERTURNED
LAST WEEK. MAKING ABORTION,
ILLEGAL AND INACCESSIBLE IN 12
STATES ALREADY, AND IT'S
EXPECTED TO BE A TOTAL BAN IN 26
STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. TO
ADDRESS THESE BARRIERS.
PROVIDERS LIKE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD PROVIDES SUPPORT TO
PATIENTS THAT BE THAT IS BEYOND
JUST MEDICAL CARE AND HELP WITH
LOGISTICAL BARRIERS AND
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. WITH ROE
BEING OVERTURNED. IT IS EXPECTED
THAT CALIFORNIA WILL SEE SIX
TIMES AS MANY OUT OF STATE
PATIENTS TRAVELING HERE FOR
ABORTION CARE. AND PLANNED
PARENTHOOD HEALTH CENTERS HAVE
ALREADY SEEN THIS INCREASE SINCE
LAST SEPTEMBER, WHEN SB EIGHT
WENT INTO EFFECT IN TAXES. WE'VE
BEEN SEEING ON AVERAGE 1500 OUT
OF STATE PATIENTS EACH MONTH AT
OUR HEALTH CENTERS, PEOPLE NEED
SUPPORT. NOW, MORE THAN EVER. IN
CALIFORNIA IS ABLE TO PROVIDE
THAT SUPPORT. SB 11 42 WILL
ENSURE THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
HEALTH CENTERS AND OUR PARTNERS
ON THIS BELT ACCESS REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE CAN CONTINUE TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF PATIENTS IN CALIFORNIA
AND ALLEVIATE CONSTRAINTS
IMPOSED ON PATIENTS. NO TO
REMAIN TRUE TO CALIFORNIA BEING
A REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM STATE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE ON
THIS BILL TODAY. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
IN SUPPORT? SB 11 42. CINDY
HILLARY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. KAREN EVANS ON
BEHALF OF NARAL PRO CHOICE,
CALIFORNIA, PROUD CO SPONSOR OF
THIS MEASURE, AS WELL AS THE
CALIFORNIA NURSE, MIDWIVES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE?
ALRIGHT, SAYING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR SB 11 42. WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY AT
THIS POINT, BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 11 42, PLEASE PRESS 10 AT
THIS TIME. PUT YOURSELF IN. Q
AND WE WILL GO TO LINE 41 YOU
ARE OPEN. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
BRIAN SPENCER. I'M HAPPY THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF G Y N. NINE
IN SUPPORT. LINE SIX YEARS.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS CURTIS LANGUAGE THE
CALIFORNIA AND NURSES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. PLANE 80 TO YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS
PERSONALLY ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. 83, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, KAREN MEMBERS, GREGORY
CRAMER ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY
RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT.
AND IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL
PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORTIVE SP 11 42
GOING AT 109 87, YOU ARE OPEN.
GOOD MORNING, REBECCA GONZALEZ
FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND STRONG SUPPORT. MR
CHAIR. WE HAVE EXHAUSTED THE
QUÊ. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE
WILL MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE
ONE OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED ON
THE TELEPHONE. WE ALSO HAVE ONE.
OH, COME FORWARD, PLEASE. THEN.
SUSAN ARNELLE. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SUSAN
SWIFT ARNALL. I'M AN ATTORNEY
WITH THE RIGHT TO LIFE LEAGUE,
AMERICA'S FIRST PRO LIFE
ORGANIZATION. YOU ALREADY ARE
WELL AWARE THAT SB 11 40 TO
VIOLATE OUR CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT IS ONE
SIDED IN ITS FUNDING, MAKING NO
FUNDING ACCOMMODATION FOR
CHILDBIRTH SERVICES, AS REQUIRED
UNDER OUR STATE SUPREME COURT
RULING IN COMMITTEE TO DEFEND
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS VERSUS MYERS
THAT WAS DECIDED IN 1981. THE
WORD ABORTION APPEARS. MORE THAN
60 TIMES IN THIS BILL. THE WORD
CHILDBIRTH DOES NOT APPEAR AT
ALL. NOT EVEN ONCE. ALL THE
GRANTS THIS BILL ENVISIONS ARE
FOR ABORTIONS ONLY. NOT PRENATAL
CARE, NOT MATERNAL CARE, NOT
CHILDBIRTH, JUST ABORTIONS. SB
11 42. MAY CREATE A HUGE.
NATIONAL ABORTION TRAFFICKING
SYSTEM OPEN TO WIDESPREAD ABUSE
AND FRAUD ACROSS STATE LINES.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOW WILL
VERIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO
TRAVEL HERE BE DETERMINED? ONLY
PREGNANT PEOPLE WHO WISH TO
ABORT ARE ELIGIBLE TO TRAVEL
HERE UNDER THESE FUNDS, WHO IS
TO CONFIRM THE PREGNANCY BEFORE
THE PATIENT ARRIVES IN
CALIFORNIA. FOR THEIR FREE
ABORTION. WHAT RAMIFICATIONS
WILL CALIFORNIA FACE FOR
ENTICING UNDERAGE GIRLS HERE
FROM OTHER STATES TO PERFORM
PROCEDURES THAT MAY BE ILLEGAL
IN THOSE OTHER STATES? WILL SB
11 42 TRAFFIC UNDERAGE MINORS TO
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT PARENTS
KNOWLEDGE FOR ABORTION
PROCEDURES WILL ABUSERS AND SEX
TRAFFICKERS TRANSPORT UNDERAGE
GIRLS HERE? TO PROCURE SECRET
ABORTIONS ON THE TAXPAYER'S DIME
. AND WHAT IF WOMEN WHO COME
HERE CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND
WANT TO KEEP THEIR BABY? WILL
TAXPAYERS SIMPLY AVOID A ABSORB
THE COST? OR WILL WE TELL THOSE
WOMEN THAT THE STATE PROGRAMS
WON'T PAY FOR THEIR EXPENSES OF
FORM OF FINANCIAL COERCION,
FORCING WOMEN TO CLOSE THEIR
EYES AND SPREAD THEIR LEGS IN
STIRRUPS TO AVOID THE COSTS OF
TRAVEL, LODGING, LOST WAGES,
SICK PAY? AND CHILDCARE, WHICH
THE STATE'S GOING TO ADVANCE.
THIS ILL ADVISED PROGRAM TO
FAVOR ONE REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
OVER ANOTHER WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN 1981 AND
REMAINS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TODAY
FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. I
RECOMMEND A NO VOTE ON SB 11 42.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 11 42. SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR OPPOSITION TO SB?
11 42. THEN AGAIN, WE WILL TAKE
NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY. YOU MR CHAIR AS HE
STATED, IF YOU ARE AN OPPOSITION
TO SB 11 42, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND AGAIN JUST
PRESS OPPOSITION TO SB 11 42
PLEASE PRESS ONE FOLLOWED BY
ZERO. WE DO HAVE ONE GETTING
THEIR LINE NUMBER ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO
LINE 88, YOU ARE OPEN. 88 PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ON BEHALF OF ROCK CARPET CHURCH.
BAKERSFIELD COVERAGE CHAPEL,
VISALIA, EXETER, PORTERVILLE,
TULARE COUNTY COALITIONS FOR
FREEDOM AND CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOR THE UNBORN VICTIMS.
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. NOBODY ELSE DID
KILL IT, MR CHAIR. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. OPERATING CLOSE THE
LINE, SO I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. MR HANEY. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. THIS MAKES ME PROUD
TO BE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE WE ARE
STEPPING UP. NOT ONLY FOR PEOPLE
IN OUR STATE, BUT AROUND THE
COUNTRY WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE IN
AN UNPRECEDENTED WAY THEIR
HEALTH UNDER ATTACK THEIR LIVES
UNDER ATTACK. IN THIS WILL ALLOW
THEM NOT ONLY FOR US TO SAY THAT
WE'RE PROVIDING IT, BUT ACTUALLY
A TRUE MECHANISM FOR THEM TO BE
ABLE TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION.
THE POINT ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING
DECISIONS FOR WHAT IS BEST FOR
THEIR HEALTH. THIS IS WHAT WILL
HELP THEM DO THAT. THIS IS THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY CAN THEN
REVIEW THAT THEY CAN ALSO REVIEW
WITH THEIR DOCTORS WITH THEIR
FAMILIES TO MAKE THE BEST
DECISION FOR THEMSELVES. AND
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT FOR EVERYONE
. AND SO FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, FOR PEOPLE HERE AND ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND PUT DOLLARS
BEHIND IT AND OUR OWN, UH YOU
KNOW, ARE ARE WHAT WE HAVE
ACCESS TO HERE. I THINK IT'S
EXTRAORDINARY. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THIS, PARTICULARLY IN
LIGHT OF, I THINK FOR ALL OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS, THE JUST
INCREDIBLE DISTRESS AND ANXIETY
AND CONCERN AND FRUSTRATION AND
FEAR. THIS IS A REAL RESPONSE.
AND I HOPE THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ALSO DOES SIMILAR
THINGS WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY
HAVE UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY. SO
THANK YOU, AND I'LL BE VERY
PROUD TO SUPPORT THIS TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. IT IS INTERESTING
OPPOSITION TO THESE MEASURES
JUST CONTINUE TO BE HYPERBOLE
AND OBFUSCATION. SO THIS BILL
SHOULD SURVIVE THIS COMMITTEE
AND YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR CHAIR. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND, UM
AND. I DON'T I THINK DOESN'T
NEED TO BE SAID, BUT, UM THIS
REALLY HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE IN
INTRUDING ON PERSONAL PRIVATE
MEDICAL DECISIONS AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF HOW HEALTH CARE.
FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THAT.
AND UM, USING WORDS LIKE
ENTICING AND TRAFFICKING AND UM. COURSE OF PROCEDURES JUST
REALLY, AS YOU SAID, SAID. IT'S
OBVIOUS CATES THE ISSUE. UM AND
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. WE
WILL TAKE THIS UP ONCE WE HAVE A
QUORUM. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO
SENATOR NEWMAN. ALRIGHT UM,
NUMBER EIGHT SB 11 31.
MORNING GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MORNING MEMBERS. I AM PLEASED TO
PRESENT SB 11 31 BEFORE I BEGIN.
I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF. FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL
ANALYSIS AND WANT TO ALSO KNOW
CLEARLY THAT I'LL BE ACCEPTING
EACH OF THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THE APPLICATION
WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE
EXTENSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM TO ALL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN PUBLIC
CONTRACTORS. WHO FIND THEMSELVES
SUBJECT TO HARASSMENT, THREATS
OF VIOLENCE OR VIOLENCE DUE TO
THEIR CONDUCT OF THEIR PUBLIC
DUTIES NOW TO THE BILL, WHILE
PUBLIC SERVICE CAN OFTEN E
CHALLENGING AND AT TIMES,
UNAVOIDABLY LINKED TO THE
CONTROVERSIES OF THE DAY IS I
THINK YOU'VE JUST HEARD I THINK
IT WOULD ALL AGREE THAT NO
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE FORCED
TO WORRY ABOUT THREATS ARISING
FROM THEIR WORK, INVADING THEIR
PERSONAL LIFE OR DEPRIVING THEM
OF PEACE OF MIND. IN RECENT
YEARS, THOUGH, AN EVER
INCREASING NUMBER OF
CALIFORNIA'S DILIGENT AND
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANTS HAVE
BEEN SUBJECTED TO THREATS.
INTIMIDATION AND SOMETIMES
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AT POLLING
PLACES IN THEIR OFFICES AND EVEN
INCREASINGLY AT THEIR HOMES.
CONSIDER THE DISCONCERTING FACT
THAT SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2020 MORE
THAN 15% OF CALIFORNIA'S
ELECTION OFFICIALS HAVE LEFT
THEIR JOBS DUE IN NO SMALL PART.
TO THE MARKED INCREASE IN
AGGRESSIVE AND AUSIVE BEHAVIOR
DIRECTED TOWARD THEM. THIS
DISCONCERTING TREND HAS BEGUN TO
AFFECT THE ABILITY TO AFFECT THE
ADMINISTER ELECTIONS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, AS IT HAS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. CALIFORNIA HAS A
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED IN 1999 AND
ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY OF STATE. CAUGHT
SAFE AT HOME, WHICH AFFORDS
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS TO SURVIVORS
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND WORKERS
THAT REPRODUCTIVE CARE
FACILITIES AS AMENDED. SB 11 31
WILL EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR
INCLUSION IN THE SAFE AT HOME
PROGRAM. TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND
OTHERS PERFORMING GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTED WORK WHO FIND
THEMSELVES THE SUBJECT OF
CREDIBLE THREATS ARISING FROM
THAT WORK UNDER THE TERMS OF SB
11 31, THE MAILING ADDRESSES OF
PEOPLE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM
WILL BE SUBSTITUTED WITH A
MAILING ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE. WHERE A
LOCAL AGENCY SO THAT THE HOME
ADDRESSES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OR
CONTRACTORS WILL NOT BE INCLUDED
IN PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND
POSSIBLY PUBLICIZED AS A RESULT
UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE
BILL, SB 11 31 ALSO ELIMINATES
THE EXISTING STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT. FOR PUBLICLY
POSTING THE NAMES OF POLL
WORKERS AT POLLING PLACES ARE
REQUIREMENT, WHICH DATES BACK
MORE THAN A CENTURY AND TO A
TIME THAT WAS VERY DIFFERENT
THAN OUR OWN, THOUGH THE
REQUIREMENT TO POST THE
POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATIONS OF
POLL WORKERS AT POLLING
LOCATIONS WILL STILL REMAIN IN
PLACE. ALSO ONE OF THE
PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN 11 31, AN
ELECTION WORKER FEELS THAT THE
MECHANICS ARE SAFE AT HOME.
MAYBE TOO CUMBERSOME, MAY
INSTEAD CHOOSE TO BE ENROLLED IN
THE VOTER REGISTRATION ADDRESS
CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM.
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO PEACE
OFFICERS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
THEIR INCLUSION IN THIS PROGRAM
WILL ALLOW STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS
FOR PUBLIC RECORDS WITHOUT
HAVING TO DISCLOSE THE PRIVATE
ADDRESSES HAVE COVERED ELECTION
WORKERS OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS.
THIS LEGISLATION IS SADLY VERY
MUCH NEEDED TO PROTECT THE
CALIFORNIANS WHO DO THE LARGELY
THANKLESS BUT VERY ESSENTIAL
WORK SO CRITICAL TO SAFEGUARDING
AND IMPROVING HEALTH, SAFETY AND
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE NEARLY 40
MILLION CITIZENS. OF OUR STATE.
AS I'VE NOTED THIS BILL LIKE A
SIMILAR BILL FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DAILY THAT YOU
HEARD EARLIER THIS YEAR HAS BEEN
AMENDED IN RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE
CONCERNS FOR APPLYING THE SAME
PROTECTIONS BEING SOUGHT FOR
ELECTION WORKERS TO OTHER PUBLIC
SECTOR WORKERS WHO MIGHT FIND
THEMSELVES SIMILARLY IN NEED
WITH ME TO TESTIFY. IS FAITH
BORDERS FROM CALIFORNIA
ADVOCATES THEY ALSO HAVE ON THE
PHONE GARY RAMACHANDRAN FROM THE
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, AND
I'M RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR YOUR
VOTE THIS MORNING. THANK YOU,
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD AND FOR
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS WERE
TAKEN PRIOR TO THIS HEARING. SO
THERE RECOMMENDED MOTION WILL BE
TOO HAS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS ONCE WE GET THERE
, BUT JUST TO CLEAR THAT UP, ALL
RIGHT. FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
FAITH GORGEOUS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF JOINT
POWERS, AUTHORITIES AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BUT ALSO
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A BROADER
COALITION OF PUBLIC ENTITY,
EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING THE URBAN
COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA AND
OTHERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE
RECENTLY AMENDED VERSION OF THIS
BILL. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY
THANKING THE CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF AND SENATOR NEWMAN FOR
THIS LIFE SAVING MEASURE. SB 11
31 PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR
MEMBERS TO LIMIT THEIR EXPOSURE
TO HARASSMENT, THREATS AND ACTS
OF VIOLENCE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT
RESULT IN THEIR WORK OR
VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES. SERVING
THEIR COMMUNITIES AND OUR STATE
SINCE THE START OF THE COVID 19
PANDEMIC, HARASSMENT, THREATS
AND ACTS OF VIOLENCE TARGETING
OUR MEMBERS HAVE BECOME MORE
FREQUENT AND SERIOUS. IN SOME
INSTANCES, THE THREATS FOLLOW
THEM TO THEIR HOME AFTER WORKING
TO ENSURE FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS TO MAIN ST MAINTAIN
SAFE SCHOOL ZONES. CONFRONT
HUMAN TRAFFICKERS AND SLUMLORDS
OR THROUGH THEIR CONSTANT CIVIL
SERVICE WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
MENTALLY ILL. ARE MEMBERS HAVE
BEEN CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING
AND ENFORCING COVID RELATED
RULES AND UPHOLDING PUBLIC
HEALTH MANDATES, WHICH HAVE
CAUSED SIGNIFICANT HOSTILITY AND
THUS RISK. OUR MEMBERS AND
COALITION PARTNERS IN ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER RISK THEIR HEALTH AND
SAFETY AND AT TIMES EVEN THEIR
LIVES PROTECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES. THEIR WORK IS
CRITICAL TO IMPROVING THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE
FOR MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS.
AND WHILE WORK EXPOSURE IS A
KNOWN RISK, NO ONE SHOULD BE
FORCED TO WORRY ABOUT THE RISKS
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, THEIR
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING THEM
TO A PERSONAL RESIDENCE WHERE
CHILDREN AND LOVED ONES ARE
OFTEN PRESENT. DURING A TIME
WHEN THREATS AND ASSAULTS ARE ON
THE RISE. YOUR THIS BILL
PROVIDES A MEANINGFUL RESOURCE
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVANTS AND
THEIR FAMILIES WITH AN OPTION TO
FEEL SAFE AT HOME. FOR THESE
REASONS AND MORE. WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND WE ALSO HAVE LISTED
GALLERY RAMACHANDRAN WITH US ON
THE TELEPHONE. ARE YOU HERE? YES
THANK YOU. CHAIR STONE CHAIR
CUNNINGHAM AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M GARY RAMACHANDRAN
. AND I THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY O
BEHALF OF THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR
JUSTICE. WHERE I'M SENIOR
COUNSEL IN THE ELECTIONS AND
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. IN THE
SPRING OF 2021. WE COMMISSIONED
A SURVEY AND HELD INTERVIEWS
WITH NEARLY THREE DOZEN ELECTION
OFFICIALS AND OVER 30 EXPERTS.
ACCOMMODATING IN A REPORT THAT
WE PUBLISHED WITH THE BIPARTISAN
POLICY CENTER. IN FEBRUARY OF
THIS YEAR, WE COMMISSIONED AN
ADDITIONAL NATIONAL SURVEY OF
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS ARE CO
SPONSOR ON THIS BILL, CALIFORNIA
VOTER FOUNDATION LAST JUNE
RELEASED A REPORT DOCUMENTING
AND ADDRESSING HARASSMENT OF
ELECTION OFFICIALS. THROUGHOUT
THIS RESEARCH. WE'VE AFFORDED
THESE OFFICIALS ANONYMITY IF
THEY WISHED, BRINGING THEM TO
SPEAK UP OPENLY AND WHAT THEY
TOLD US WAS HEARTBREAKING. LOCAL
ELECTION OFFICIALS STILL UNSAFE
DUE TO HARASSMENT AND THREATS IN
THE WAKE OF THE 2020 ELECTION.
SEVERAL OF THE WORKERS WE
INTERVIEWED REPORTED THAT THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS, INCLUDING
ELDERLY, PARENTS AND CHILDREN
WERE HARASSED OR THREATENED, AND
MULTIPLE OFFICIALS TOLD US THAT
THEY WERE FORCED TO LEAVE THEIR
HOMES. LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS
IN THE UNITED STATES ARE 80%
FEMALE, AND MANY OF THESE
ATTACKS ARE GENDERED
MISOGYNISTIC ATTACKS. THERE WAS
GROWING CONCERN THAT IN THE
HOSTILE CLIMATE, PEOPLE WILL NOT
WANT TO REMAIN IN THESE
POSITIONS. OUR RECENT SURVEY IN
2022 FOUND THAT THREE IN FIVE
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS WORRY
THAT DRESS WILL MAKE RECRUITMENT
DIFFICULT AND ANECDOTALLY. MANY
ARE TELLING US THAT THEY ARE
ALREADY SEEING A NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON POLL WORKER RECRUITMENT AHEAD
OF THE NOVEMBER GENERAL
ELECTION. ENSURING THAT ELECTION
WORKERS FEEL CONFIDENT APPLYING
FOR PRIVACY AND THE VOTER FILE
AND THAT POLL WORKERS DO NOT
NEED TO HAVE THEIR FULL NAMES
POSTED PUBLICLY. IT'S THE KIND
OF MEASURE THAT PEOPLE OF ALL
POLITICAL VIEWS CAN GET BEHIND.
FOR INSTANCE, OREGON RECENTLY
PASSED A BILL WITH BROAD
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT ALLOWS
ELECTION WORKERS TO HAVE THEIR
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS MAPPED IN
THE VOTER FILE. THAT'S AGAINST
ELECTION WORKERS FOR DOING THEIR
JOB OR THREATS AGAINST DEMOCRACY
ITSELF. THIS BILL IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD IN
PROTECTING THESE WORKERS AND
DEMOCRACY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE HEARING
ROOM. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB? 11 31.
WE'LL TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, DOROTHY JOHNSON ON
BEHALF OF ACTS OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS. PLEASE SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU. MOLLY
ROBSON WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA WERE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS KARLIE HUSTLE. I'M A CITIZEN
AND I WORK IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK
YOU ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP 11
31? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. IF YOU
AREN'T SUPPORTIVE SB 11 31.
PLEASE GO AHEAD AND PRESS ONE
FOLLOWED BY 09 65 YOU ARE UP
KELLY BROOKS ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY HEALTH EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. WE
REPRESENT THE 61 LOCAL PUBLIC
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. 9 47, YOU
ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS JULIE SARCOPHAGUS WITH THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. 94. GOOD MORNING I LEFT
ITSELF I ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
CLERK'S ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND AS A FINAL
REMINDER, PLEASE PRESS 10 IF YOU
ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 11 31 BY
96, YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING.
KIM ALEXANDER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA VOTERS FOUNDATION.
WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO CO SPONSOR
THIS BILL AND URGE OR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND MR CHAIR. WE HAVE
EXHAUSTED THE QUÊ. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED SUSAN
ARNELLE.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
WERE I AM AGAIN SUSAN SWIFT
ARNOLIN WITH THE RIGHT TO LIFE
LEAGUE, AMERICA'S FIRST PRO LIFE
ORGANIZATION, AND WE ARE VERY
ENCOURAGED, AND WE WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR THE AMENDMENTS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THEY ARE
VERY ENCOURAGING TO US. AND THE
ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ASK IS
THAT THAT THE BILL INCLUDED
DEFINITION OF REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE THAT INCLUDES ALL
PROVIDERS. IT IS VERY NEUTRAL.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE
MADE ARE ALREADY VERY MUCH
IMPROVED, AND WE VERY MUCH WANT
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND ALL WE
WOULD ASK IS THAT TO CLARIFY SO
THAT PRO LIFE CLINICS WHO DON'T
PROVIDE ABORTION, BUT THEY ARE
ALSO MEDICALLY MEDICAL CLINICS
ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BILL.
SO THAT AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE
BEEN OVER 50 OR 50 ATTACKS.
NATIONWIDE ON PRO LIFE CLINICS,
VANDALISM, FIRE BOMBING THINGS
LIKE THAT AND MANY OF THE
CLINICS IN OUR STATE ARE RUN BY
VOLUNTEERS AND WOMEN, AND
THEY'RE AFRAID TO AND COULD WE
MAKE SURE THAT THIS KIND OF
PROTECTION ALSO EXTENDS TO
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO CHOOSE
NOT TO APPLY FOR, YOU KNOW
ABORTION. THAT'S THE ONLY THING
THAT WE WOULD ASK, AND WE WOULD
BE VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. IF THAT'S CLARIFIED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN OPPOSITION. THIS
IS A LOT SB 11 31. SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO SB? 11
31. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU
ARE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 11 31
PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME.
AND NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. MR.
CHAIR THANK YOU. OPERATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE THE LINES WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. LET'S SING
THEN, SENATOR THANK YOU FOR THE
FOR THE AMENDMENTS AS WE
DISCUSSED. WE SEE THESE BILLS
COME THROUGH ALL THE TIME WITH
JUST WITH ONE CATEGORY INDEX
CATEGORY, THE TEXT CATEGORY. IT
JUST SEEMS REASONABLE. TO BEALL
LOOK AT ANYONE WHO WAS UNDER A
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNDER POTENTIAL
THREAT, AND THAT'S THE STEP THAT
WE TALKED ABOUT. THAT'S A
SEPARATE TAKING. SO WITH THAT,
YOU MAKE CLOTHES AND I DO
APPRECIATE THAT. MR SAID THANK
YOU AND TO YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFFER WORKING WITH US. UM AS
YOU NOTED THE GENESIS OF THIS
BILL, UH, WAS, YOU KNOW THE
UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT
ELECTION WORKERS FIND THEMSELVES
IN. BUT TO MISS BORG DISAPPOINT.
THE SAME CONCERNS APPLY TO SO
MANY WORKERS AND HAVE MISSED
SWIFT KERNELS POINT. NOBODY
SHOULD DO WORK IN CALIFORNIA
UNDER THREAT OF VIOLENCE OR
INTIMIDATION, SO THIS IS NOT
ABOUT A POLICY. IT'S ABOUT
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO
A LABOR FORCE THAT CAN COME DO
THIS OFTEN THANKLESS WORK BUT
NECESSARY WORK IN WAYS THAT DO
NOT JEOPARDIZE THEIR SAFETY. OR
JEOPARDIZE THE ADMINISTRATION.
THIS PROCESS, SO WITH THAT I DO
APPRECIATE THE WORK WE'VE DONE.
THANK YOU TO MY WITNESS. THANK
YOU, ESPECIALLY TO KIM ALEXANDER
FROM THE CALIFORNIA VOTER
FOUNDATION AND THEIR WORK. AS WE
MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASTRONAUT GO. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. WE WILL TAKE IT UP
ONCE WE HAVE A QUORUM. ALRIGHT
WE WILL NOW MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER
THREE SP 10 35 SENATOR EGGMAN.
MORNING, EVERYBODY. NICE TO SEE
PEOPLE. UM I'M HERE AS THE CHAIR
SAID TO TALK ABOUT SP 10 35,
WHICH WILL HAVE TO DO WITH A O T
OR ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT
. LAURA'S LAW REFERRED TO AS
MANY WAYS ONE OF OUR OLDEST,
MOST EVIDENCE BASED PROGRAMS HAS
BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE A WHILE.
UM AND THIS WILL TAKE ANOTHER
STEP TOWARDS ENSURING COMPLIANCE
WITH MEDICATIONS JUST KIND OF
SAYING THAT MEDICATIONS CAN BE
PART OF A TREATMENT PLAN AGAIN.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUTFORCE
MEDICATIONS AND HAVE AMENDED THE
BILL. SO IT'S VERY NARROW IN THE
JUDGE BEING ABLE WHEN PERSON
GOES FOR THE REVIEW TO CHECK IN
WITH THEM. ABOUT THEIR, UM IF
IT'S PART OF THE TREATMENT PLAN
TO BE ABLE TO CHECK IN WITH THEM
ABOUT THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THAT
MEDICATION, WE KNOW THAT
MEDICATION COMPLIANCE IS
SOMETIMES A MAIN ISSUE THAT THAT
SENDS PEOPLE TO A LOWER LEVEL OR
HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE. AND SO
THIS IS JUST ONE MORE. CHECK ON
THE WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
ARE STAYING IN THE LOWEST LEVEL
OF CARE POSSIBLE WITH THE BEST
OUTCOMES FOR THEMSELVES. AND
WITH ME TODAY, I BELIEVE I HAVE
JUDGE THOMAS ANDERSON FROM A
JUDGE FROM NEVADA COUNTY AGAIN
ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS
PROGRAM. I HOPE HE'S HERE AND
THEN RANDALL HAGAR WITH THE
PSYCHIATRIC PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE
OF THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I DO HAVE THOSE TWO
WITNESSES LISTED JUDGE ANDERSON
AND RANDALL HAGAR. JUDGE
ANDERSON. ARE YOU WITH US? HMM.
I AM. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
INVITING ME TO ADDRESS THIS 10
35 AND HOW KOT WORKS IN
PRACTICE. NEVADA COUNTY SUPERIOR
, GORGEOUS AND CONDUCTING LORDS
, LÀ M
GHT. WE'VE BEEN FORTUNATE TO
HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM
THAT HAS A HIGH PARTICIPANT
APPROVAL RATING AND POSITIVE
OUTCOMES. AND WITH A LITTLE
PRIDE. OUR PROGRAM HAS BEEN
REFERRED TO AS THE GOLD STANDARD
FOR NEW T V PROGRAM. SUCCESS
COMES FROM THE DILIGENT EFFORTS
OF OUR TEAM, PUTTING IN THE HARD
WORK TO ESTABLISH TRUST. AND
RAPPORT WITH THE PARTICIPANT. WE
DO THIS BY HAVING SCATTERED
UPDATES FROM THE TREATMENT
PROVIDERS, FOLLOWED BY MEETINGS
WITH U L G TEAM CANS OF
PARTICIPANTS. USUALLY THESE
MEETINGS ARE HELD EVERY 1 TO 2
WEEKS IN COURT. THE FREQUENCY OF
THE IN PERSON MEETINGS OR
DEPENDING ON THE NEEDS OF THE
PARTICIPANTS. FREQUENT MEETINGS
ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT
TO BUILDING AND MAINTAINING
CONNECTION WITH THE PARTICIPANT
AND KEEPING THE OT TEAMS FOCUSED
ON PROVIDING THE SERVICES
NECESSARY FOR PROGRESS. IN THE
CLOCKS OFTEN REFERRED TO THE
BLACK ROBE EFFECT. THE PRIMARY
FACTOR SUCCESSFULLY M
AT IS TRUE. THERE'S ONLY COMES
INTO BEING WHEN A PARTICIPANT
HAS OPPORTUNITIES TO BE IN FRONT
OF THE JUDGE AND BUILD A
RELATIONSHIP THE NEED FOR IN
PERSON STATUS REVIEWS. THE MORE
FREQUENT THE BETTER, AND THAT IS
WHERE PARTICIPANTS IN THE T TEAM
AND THE JUDGE TO HAVE AN OPEN
EXCHANGE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
PARTICIPANTS PROVIDERS. WITH THE
COURT'S DIRECTION TO DISCUSS THE
EXTENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TREATMENT PLAN, WHICH PRIMARILY
INCLUDES MED COMPLIANT. AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES. SPANS ADDRESS
THE OBSTACLES THAT PARTICIPANT
FEELS RELATION TO THOSE THIS IS
THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THE
PARTICIPANTS. FOCUS. AND THE
FACT THAT THERE IS SUPERVISION
THAT HE OR SHE HAS A VOICE.
THAT'S THE FOCUS OF THE COURT IS
HIS OR HER SUCCESS. IT BUILDS A
SENSE OF SUPPORT THAT BUILDS
CONFIDENCE AND COMMITMENT
COMMITMENT BY THE PARTICIPANTS
AND BY THE PROVIDERS. I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY, A KEY ELEMENT OF
STATUS REPORTS MUST INCLUDE
MEDICATION COMPLIANCE. SUPPORT
AND OTHER PEOPLE LIKE AREAS
HOUSING FOOD ACTIVITIES,
ETCETERA. HAVING THIS
INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLIANCE
WITH THE TREATMENT PROGRAM.
PROVIDES THE COURT WITH REAL
TIME INFORMATION. RESULTS FROM
THIS MESSAGE LEADS TO MEETING
THE ESSENTIAL GOALS Mí
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION, FORCED
HOSPITALIZATIONS AND ARREST IF
YOUR ER VISIT LESS VIOLENCE AND
NAKED AND LESS NEGATIVE
COMMUNITY INTERACTIONS AND, MOST
IMPORTANTLY, INCREASED ABILITY.
INDEPENDENCE FOR THE
PARTICIPANT. THAT IS WHY THESE
ADDITIONS TO THE T LAW DESCRIBED
IN SP, TEMPORARY FIVE ARE
IMPORTANT. CODIFYING THE
ESSENTIAL NEEDS TO REQUIRE
FREQUENT UPDATES IN PERSON
STATUS HEARINGS. A LOT OF THE
COURT TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE
TEAM TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE AND
ABLE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL
DIRECTION AND INTERACTION WITH
THE PARTICIPANT. THIS IS THE
PROVEN PATH FOR SUCCESS AND
EMPTY PROGRAMS. IT WILL HELP
SECURE FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF
SO FRONT SIDE. UH INCREASING,
CODIFYING THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE
TO RECEIVE THESE UPDATES. IN THE
INFORMED OF MED COMPLIANCE AND
ANY OTHER PROBLEMS BY HAVING
REGULAR STATUS REPORTS. ACTUALLY
SAVED COURT TIME. IT DOESN'T
COST THE COURT ANYMORE USE CASES
FROM OTHER CALENDARS THAT ARE
MUCH MORE TIME CONSUMING AND
LESS EFFECTIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR
ADDING THIS TO THE T STATUTE AND
THANK YOU TO YOUR ATTACKER.
THANK YOU, JUDGE AND RANDALL
HAGAR. SURE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
. I AM RANDALL HAGAR,
REPRESENTING THE PSYCHIATRIC
PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND YOU KNOW, JUST A
COUPLE OF QUICK NOTES UNDERSCORE
THINGS THAT THE JUDGE AND
SENATOR HAVE HAVE INDICATED IS
THAT THE STATE AUDITOR'S
FINDINGS, YOU KNOW, OVER AND
OVER AGAIN FOUND THAT THE
PREVAILING FACTOR THAT
DETERMINES WHY INDIVIDUAL CYCLE
BACK INTO RESTRICTIVE SETTINGS
FROM A NUMBER OF SETTINGS IN THE
COMMUNITY HAS MEDICATION ON
DETERRENCE. AND THIS BILL, UM,
FINDS YOU KNOW ITSELF, YOU KNOW
, IN IN THE POSITION OF LOOKING
AT THE STATUTE AND SAYING, WELL,
THERE IS MEDICATION ADHERENCE.
AND, YES, IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT
THERE IS A WHOLE MEDICATION. UM
I'M SORRY. HOLD TREATMENT PLAN.
THERE IS THE INTERACTION WITH
THE COURT. AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO
MAKE THIS BETTER? AND OF COURSE,
WE TURN TO JUDGE ANDERSON, WHO
DOES REPRESENT A MODEL FOR
JUDGES. IN THE STATE AND DOES
GET EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS HERE.
SO JUST TO UNDERSCORE THE THIS
STATUTE, AS IT STANDS BEFORE
TODAY, DOES NOT EXPLICITLY
PERMIT COURTS CONVENED STATUS
HEARINGS. AND INQUIRE AFTER
THOSE TREATMENT PLANS OR
SPECIFICALLY INQUIRED ABOUT
MEDICATIONS. AS YOU SAID, YOU
KNOW, THE CONVENING OF THESE
HEARINGS UNDERSCORES THE COURT'S
ROLE IN SUPPORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR OWN
PERSONAL TREATMENT GOALS. AND I
THINK THAT'S THAT THAT CAN'T BE
EMPHASIZED TOO MUCH. UM IT'S A
COLLABORATIVE PROCESS IS THE
PROCESS OF BUILDING TRUST OVER
TIME AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH
THE TREATMENT TEAM IN THE COURT
AND THE INDIVIDUAL AND WE
ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL AT
THE END OF THE DAY TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT. THIS IS
SB 10 35 WILL TAKE NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT THEIR
MEMBERS PAUL YODA ON BEHALF OF
THE BIG CITY MAYORS COALITION,
SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR FIRM, THE
CITIES OF L. A. AND SAN
FRANCISCO CO SPONSORS ON THE
BILL AND ALSO THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS. CO SPONSOR
URGENT. I VOTE APPRECIATE YOU
SETTING THE BILL FOR HEARING MR
CHAIRMAN. PRISCILLA KUDOS HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT
PSYCHIATRY AND SUPPORT. MORNING
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS COREY
ASHIDA ON BEHALF OF THE
STEINBERG INSTITUTE AND SUPPORT
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT. OPERATOR
WE WILL GO TO THE PHONES FOR SB
10 35. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT WE WILL NOT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY, JUST
NAME AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU ARE
IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 35 GOING AT
10 AT THIS TIME. SO YOU CAN GET
YOURSELF IN Q LINE 1 14, YOU ARE
OPEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. THIS IS
BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF SACRAMENTO
ON THERE. JUST STANFORD AND
SUPPORT. 9 63, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KIRA ROSS ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF STOCKTON IN SUPPORT.
AND AS A REMINDER, 10 IF YOU'D
LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SB
10 35 LINE 1 20, YOU ARE OPEN.
HELLO CHAIR AND MEMBERS. CAROLYN
CIRINCIONE ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND
SUPPORT 1 18, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING SIMON ZOO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF
COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR, HEALTH
AGENCIES IN SUPPORT. AND MR
CHAIR. NO OTHER PARTICIPANTS ARE
QUEUED UP. THANK YOU. WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I DO NOT
HAVE ANY LISTED OPPOSITION. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? IT WAS TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF SB 10 35. GOOD
MORNING CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MATTHEW
GALLAGHER ON BEHALF OF COW
VOICES, AND WE RISE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL HERE TODAY. WELL, WE
APPRECIATE THAT THE BILL HAS
CHANGED OVER TIME AND AS MUCH
BETTER TODAY THAN IT WAS WHEN IT
WAS INTRODUCED. WE STILL HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL,
PRIMARILY THE FOCUS ON
MEDICATION, ADHERENCE AND
MEDICATION COMPLIANCE. WE'RE
AWARE THAT MEDICATION IS JUST
ONE PART OF THE TREATMENT PLAN.
AND THERE ARE VARIOUS REASONS
WHY INDIVIDUALS WOULD CHOOSE NOT
TO TAKE THEIR MEDICATION.
PERHAPS IT'S A DISTRESS BETWEEN
THEM AND THEIR PSYCHIATRIST. THE
SIDE EFFECTS OF THE MEDICATION.
OR VARIOUS OTHER CONCERNS THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE, AND I
JUST WANT TO REMIND THE
COMMITTEE THAT INDIVIDUALS AND A
OT ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE CAPACITY
, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CAPACITY
HEARING HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED
OR HEALTH. AND FOR THOSE REASONS
REMAINING RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? SEEING NONE. WE'RE GOING
TO PAUSE AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM BLOOM. DAVIES HANEY
CHOLERA KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN REYES.
PONTA WICKS. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A QUORUM UPGRADE. THANK YOU
. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND ON SB 10 35. SO OPERATOR
. WE WILL NOW GO TO THE PHONE
LINES FOR ANY INDICATED
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 35. WE'LL
TAKE NAME, AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY. IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO. MR CHAIR.
NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. ALL RIGHT
. THANK YOU. OPPORTUNITY MAY
CLOSE THE LINES WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS
COMMENTS, MR BLOOM. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR, AND THANK YOU, SENATOR
EDMUND FOR YOUR CONTINUING WORK
ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES. AH!
WHEN I THINK OF A IOT IT'S THE,
UH, SECOND WORD, THE MIDDLE
WORD. THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT
ONE OUTPATIENT BECAUSE WE WANT
TO BE TREATING. UM THESE
PATIENTS THIS POPULATION IN THE
COMMUNITY AND LESS RESTRICTIVE
AND ENVIRONMENT. THE PROGRAM IS
INTENDED TO HELP PEOPLE GET
BETTER. UM, AND IT HAS PROVEN
SUCCESSFUL AND I THINK JUDGE
ANDERSON IS CONSIDERED ONE OF
THE PREMIER PRACTITIONERS
JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THIS AREA
FOR GOOD REASON. BUT IN OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, LAURA'S LAW IS
NOT AS UTILIZED AS IT SHOULD BE.
UM AND I THINK THAT THIS WILL
HELP MOVE THAT ALONG. I ALSO
WANT TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THE
CARE COURT. YOU WERE,
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT ABLE TO
ATTEND THE HEARING THAT WE HAD A
WEEK AGO. UM AH. BUT THANK YOU
FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT AND ON
THIS BILL, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO
BE ACCEPTED AS A CO AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SIGNALS SENATOR YOU
MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. UM, YES, I THINK I THINK
SOMEBODY MEMBER BLOOM SUMMED IT
UP. UM THIS IS THIS IS INTENDED
AND HIS FOLKS KNOW IF I DIDN'T
START OFF BY SAYING I HAVEN'T
ATE BILL MENTAL HEALTH PACKAGE
THAT ADDRESSES THE ENTIRE
CONTINUUM OF CARE. I AM VERY
DISAPPOINTED THAT I CANNOT
PRESENT ALL OF THEM BEFORE OU
TODAY, BUT THIS IS ONE MORE
PIECE OF IT REALLY FOCUSES ON
THE OUTPATIENT PORTION AND
MAKING SURE PEOPLE STAY IN THE
LEAST RESTRICTIVE LEVEL OF CARE,
WHICH IS THE POINT. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PASS. COLORADO PLEASE. STONE
STONE I CUNNINGHAM BLOOM BLOOM.
I DAVIES HANEY. RIGHT. I KALRA.
CHOLERA I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN
RAISE RAISE I BUNTER TÔI WICKS.
THAT BILL IS OUT. RIGHT AND THEN
I REMEMBER FOUR SB 12 27 THANK
YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN. THIS IS
ANOTHER PIECE OF MY EIGHT BILL
PACKAGE. UM AND THIS HAS TO DO
WITH AGAIN TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE
IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE LEVEL
OF CARE. AND AS WE KNOW,
SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE ENTER THE
LPS PROCESS RIGHT THERE, 51 50.
FOR 72 HOURS AND THEN A TWO WEEK
POTENTIAL STAY OF THE COURT
STILL FINDS THAT PERSON NOT TO
BE STABLE. AND THEN THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A 30 DAY. STAY
AGAIN BEFORE SOMEONE NEEDS TO GO
FOR CONSERVATORSHIP HEARING THIS
PROVIDES FOR ONE MORE
OPPORTUNITY OF THAT PERSON. AND
AS WE KNOW, AS WE'VE ALL SEEN
WITH OUR EYES, PEOPLE HAVE WE
HAVE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO STAY ON
THE STREETS SO LONG THAT THEIR
LEVEL OF DETERIORATION IS
SUBSTANTIAL. CHRONIC UM,
SOMETIMES, AS WE KNOW, SOMETIMES
PEOPLE DIE AND END UP IN THE
HOSPITAL FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD
OF TIME OR PRISON BECAUSE OF THE
LACK OF CARE. AND SO SOMETIMES
WE KNOW THAT IT TAKES LONGER FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO GET
STABILIZED ON THEIR MEDICATION
ON THEIR TREATMENT PLAN, AND SO
THIS WOULD PROVIDE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE ADDITIONAL
30 DAY. STAY. BEFORE A
CONSERVATORSHIP PROCESS IF THE
IF THE PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN
THE JUDGE THINKS THAT THE EXTRA
ADDITIONAL 30 DAY WILL AGAIN
STABILIZE THAT PERSON BE ABLE TO
THEN GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE. UM
BEFORE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO FOR
A CONSERVATORSHIP PROCESS. WE
THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, JUST
AGAIN AN ADDITIONAL TOOL TO BE
ABLE TO GET PEOPLE SO THAT THEY
ARE ABLE TO STAY SAFELY IN THE
COMMUNITY AND CONTINUE TO MOVE
TO LOWER LEVELS OF CARE. AND
WITH ME TODAY AND PERSON I HAVE
MR PAUL YODER. AND WE ALSO HAVE
RANDALL HAGAR. I BELIEVE WITH US
TODAY. ALL RIGHT? WE'LL GO TO
THE WITNESS IN THE HEARING ROOM
FIRST. OKAY GOOD MORNING, AGAIN
. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS POLIO ON
BEHALF OF THE BIG CITY MAYORS
COALITION, THE CITIES OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES CO
SPONSORS ON THE BILL AND ALSO
THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION. PSYCHIATRIST
COSPONSORS AS WELL, THANK YOU
FOR SETTING THIS BILL FOR
HEARING MR CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT
TO BRIEFLY BEFORE I HANDED OVER
RANDALL ON PAGE 13 OF THE
ANALYSIS, IT SAYS THE BILL
PROVIDES NO BEDS OR SERVICES,
ESPECIALLY WORKFORCE. AND I MEAN
THAT WOULD BE QUITE A BILL. IF
ONE BILL DID ALL THAT, SO I JUST
I THINK THE MEMBERS ARE AWARE,
BUT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
LAST YEAR IN LAST YEAR'S STATE
BUDGET, YOU ALL VOTED FOR OVER
$2 BILLION TO INVEST. TO BUILD
OUT MORE BEDS IN CALIFORNIA. AND
THIS YEAR IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET
, YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO
THANK GOD APPROVED CLOSE TO A $2
BILLION WORKFORCE INVESTMENT,
AND SO THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
THINGS HAPPENING ACROSS THE
BOARD IN THIS ARENA. THANK
SENATOR EDMUND FOR ALL HER WORK
ON THIS BILL PACKAGE. UM I, TOO
WISH WE WERE. TALKING ABOUT MORE
OF THE BILLS TODAY BUT GRATEFUL
AGAIN FOR ALL THE BILLS THAT YOU
DID SET, MR CHAIR IN URGENT. I
VOTE THANK YOU NEXT. HAVE
RANDALL HAGAR ON WITH US ON THE
TELEPHONE. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. YES
THANKS. THANKS FOR THAT, PAUL.
THANKS SENATOR EGGMAN AGAIN.
RANDALL HAGER FROM THE
PSYCHIATRIC POSITIONS ALLIANCE.
YOU KNOW, ALL I CAN ADD, IS
REALLY SOME EMPHASIS AND TO
UNDERSCORE A COUPLE OF POINTS
HERE TWO DECADES AGO, THE NATURE
OF THE PATIENT POPULATION WAS
NOT HAS SOME BEER OR AS COMPLEX
AS IT IS TODAY. TODAYTHOSE
PATIENTS THAT WE ARE LETTING
LANGUISH LONGER ON THE STREETS
ARE SICKER. THEIR MENTAL HEALTH
CONDITIONS ARE MORE COMPLEX.
THEY'RE OFTEN UNTREATED OR
UNDERTREATED FOR HISTORICALLY
RECORD SETTING PERIODS OF TIME.
SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS ARE ALSO
MORE PREVALENT THERE MORE SEVERE
IN THE NATURE OF THE DRUGS
AVAILABLE OUT THERE ON THE
STREET. COOKERY IN MEDICAL
CONDITIONS CAN COMPLICATE THIS
AND MEDICATIONS TAKE TAKE A
WHILE TO TAKE EFFECT. UNDER
THOSE CONDITIONS, SIDE EFFECTS
HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED, SO IT'S
NOT REALLY SURPRISING THAT WORK.
HAVING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT
LONGER TO GET SOME PEOPLE
STABILIZE, AND THIS IS PROBABLY
FOR A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE
WHO DON'T REACH THE DESIRED
LEVELS, STABILITY SO THAT THEY
CAN BE SAFELY RELEASED. AND
AGAIN, YOU KNOW IT DOES PREVENT
OR MITIGATE AGAINST THE ROUTE
TOWARDS CONSERVATORSHIP, WHICH
IS MUCH MORE HIGHLY RESTRICTED.
WE RECOMMEND IT TO YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR S B 12 27 WILL NOT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
COREY HAS SHED ON BEHALF OF THE
STEINBERG INSTITUTE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? RIGHT
SEEING NINE OPERATOR WILL MOVE
TO THE PHONE LINES. ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR S B 12 27. PURE AND SUPPORT
OF SB 12 27 GO AHEAD. IT ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME
WHEN FOLLOWED BY ZERO WE'LL
BEGIN WITH LION 63, YOU ARE
OPEN. LINE 63. ARE YOU MUTED
WHILE YOU'RE NOT HERE THAT I CAN
HEAR AHEAD? WE'LL MOVE ON TO
LINE 1 20, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 91
20, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 20. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT?
OH, HELLO. THAT'S YOU. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. HELLO CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CAROLINE FRANCIONI ON
BEHALF OF THE LEGAL CALIFORNIA
CITIES IN SUPPORT. LINE 1 14,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS ROSS PROPERLY ON BEHALF
OF WHEN I'M MARRIED DARRYL
STAMBERG AND SUPPORT BY 95. YOU
ARE OPEN. OPHELIA SPAGHETTI ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1227. WE'LL GET
ONE FINAL REMINDER TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF SB 12 27 PLEASE PRESS
10 LINE 63, YOU AREUP. 63,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 0.63. THERE'S
NOBODY ELSE QUEUED UP AT THIS
TIME, MR SHARE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED CAN
PETERSON WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE
WITH US ON THE PHONE? ARE YOU
WITH US? I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
YES, WE CAN GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
OKAY UM, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS KIM PETERSON AND I AM AN
ATTORNEY AT DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO TESTIFY TODAY AND
OPPOSITION TO SB 12 27. S B 12
27 IS AN EXPANSION OF THE
STATE'S ABILITY TO DETAIN PEOPLE
UNDER THE LANDERMAN PETRUS SHORT
ACT, AS THIS COMMITTEE LEARNED
DURING THE INFORMATIONAL HEARING
ON THE LPS ACT THAT WAS HELD IN
DECEMBER. THE STATE CURRENTLY
LACK SUFFICIENT DATA TO JUSTIFY
EXPANDING ITS REACH. THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT AUTHORIZE
ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPAND
INVOLUNTARY LPS COLD UNTIL IT
HAS THE DATA TO JUSTIFY DOING SO
. GOING ABOUT THIS IN REVERSE,
WILL NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS
THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO SOLVE.
EXPANDING THE STATE'S ABILITY TO
INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED PEOPLE IN
THE MOST RESTRICTIVE LOCKED
SETTINGS WILL DO NOTHING TO
ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING CAUSES OF
THE CYCLE OF HOMELESSNESS,
INCARCERATION AND
HOSPITALIZATION. THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS OF THIS BILL, WANT TO
STOP? WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
STATE AND COUNTIES TO ACTUALLY
MAKE AVAILABLE HOUSING AND
INTENSIVE SERVICES THAT PEOPLE
NEED UPON DISCHARGE FROM LPS
HOLDS AND CONSERVATORSHIPS CYCLE
WILL PERSIST. IT'S PAST 12 27
WILL ALLOW DETENTION BASED ON
GRADE DISABILITY FOR UP TO 77
DAYS. HOWEVER WHERE WILL PEOPLE
GO AFTER THEIR 77 DAYS ARE UP.
ITS HOUSING AND INTENSIVE
SERVICES ARE NOT GUARANTEED UPON
DISCHARGE. FROM MY WORK
REPRESENTING CLIENTS ON LPS
HOLDS. I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND
THAT HOSPITALS OFTEN STRUGGLE TO
FIND DISCHARGE PLACEMENTS FOR
PATIENTS WHO WERE UNHAPPY HOUSED
AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION. OFTEN
ANY AVAILABLE PLACEMENTS ARE
TIME LIMITED, LEAVING PATIENTS
VULNERABLE TO BECOMING UNHINGED
AGAIN AFTER THE TEMPORARY PERIOD
IS UP, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
PERMANENT OPTIONS AVAILABLE THAT
ARE AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE.
THE ONLY WAY TO MEANINGFULLY
ADDRESS OUR STATE'S CRISIS OF
HOMELESSNESS AMONGST PEOPLE
LIVING WITH MENTAL HEALTH
DISABILITIES IS TO FULLY FUND
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND
VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY BASED
SERVICES. AS SUCH, THE RC
OPPOSES THAT B 12 27, AND WE
URGE YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. RIGHT OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM
FOR ANY OPPOSITION. SB 12 27.
SEEING NON OPERATOR. WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE ELSE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 12 27. AND
WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY
AT THIS POINT, BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION SHOW
OPPOSITION FOR SB 12 27 PLEASE
PRESS 109 30, YOU ARE OPEN.
CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L
U COLLECTION AND OPPOSITION. AND
ONE MORE REMINDER TO TESTIFY,
NOT FISHING, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO ON BILL SB 12
27. AND WE DO HAVE ONE MORE
GOING UP ONE MOMENT, PLEASE.
PLANE. BE WITH US ANY SECOND.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
FIND 1 24, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI.
MY NAME IS, UH COURTLAND VERGES.
I'M WITH THE CHI ALICIA THOMAS
FOUNDATION. I OPPOSE THE BILL
BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE NOT
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. THANK
YOU REMIND COLORS THAT WE'RE
JUST TAKING NAME, AFFILIATION
AND OPPOSITION. NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY. AND THERE IS THERE
ARE NO OTHER PARTICIPANTS QUEUED
UP THIS TIME, MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU. OPERATOR. YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
MR HANEY. I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS BILL
AND SO MANY OTHER ISSUES. I HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND A LOT
OF TIME IN OUR PSYCHIATRIC
EMERGENCY SERVICES AT SF GENERAL
TALKING TO PRACTITIONERS THEY'RE
TALKING TO PATIENTS AND OTHERS.
AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT CAME UP A LOT OF WAYS IN
WHICH THE PARTICULAR TIME
PERIODS CONSTRAINED DECISIONS
THAT IN IN MANY CASES SHOULD BE
MEDICAL DECISIONS. I THINK ONE
OF THE MOST CONVINCING ARGUMENTS
THAT THAT I READ HERE IN THE
LETTERS AND SUPPORT THAT
SOMETIMES THE MEDICATIONS
THEMSELVES TAKE 3 TO 4 WEEKS AND
SO TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHETHER
CERTAIN MEDICATIONS LEAD TO A
DIFFERENT DIAGNOSIS OR A
DIFFERENT APPROACH. THAT WOULD
BE BEST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. I
THINK THAT ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS TO
MAKE THAT DECISION. AS
DETERMINED IN PROTECTED BY BY
THE COURT. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, OF
COURSE, OF COURSE, THE COURT HAS
TO ALLOW FOR THIS, BUT I THINK
THAT ACTUALLY FOR FOLKS WHO ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE BEING
REFERRED TO CONSERVATORSHIPS
WHEN THAT MAY NOT BE THE MOST
APPROPRIATE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD
. THIS ACTUALLY ALLOWS THEM TO
MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT AND A MUCH
MORE REASONABLE SET OF TIME. SO
I, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE
WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS. I
THINK THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGING
AREA AND I WOULD AGREE THAT, AS
OTHERS HAVE SAID THE QUESTIONS
AROUND HOUSING THE QUESTIONS
AROUND TREATMENT BEDS. ALL OF
THOSE THINGS ARE STILL THERE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME FOR OUR
ABILITY TO MAKE THE RIGHT
DETERMINATION AND NOT BE
CONSTRAINED BY A TIME PERIOD
THAT I THINK IS OFTEN TOO SHORT
AND PARTICULARLY WHEN WE HAVE TO
MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT
CONSERVATORSHIP WITHIN THAT TIME
PERIOD. SO I APPRECIATE THE
LEADERSHIP HERE. I THINK THIS IS
VERY THOUGHTFUL AND CERTAINLY AS
AS A SAN FRANCISCO AND THIS IS
ADDRESSING SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE IDENTIFIED AS AS A NEED FOR
US TO BETTER ACTUALLY BETTER
PLACE PEOPLE INTO TREATMENT AND
HOUSING. I MEAN, WE HAVE
TREATMENT BEDS AND HOUSING. WE
DON'T HAVE ENOUGH, BUT WE DO
HAVE THEM. AND I THINK THAT
RIGHT NOW, SOME OF THE LAWS ARE
GETTING IN THE WAY OF OUR
ABILITY TO DO THAT, IN THE MOST
EFFECTIVE, APPROPRIATE WAY
POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. MR KARA.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM, THIS
THIS ONE IS A LITTLE TOUGH FOR
ME. I FAMOUSLY DID NOT CARRY
CORPORATE. AS I STATED, THEN
IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE
THE INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHOR OR
ANYTHING BUT SENATOR AROUND
COMPASSION AND GREAT EXPERTISE.
UM AND YOU KNOW, I REALLY, UM I
DO ALIGN MYSELF WITH SOME OF THE
CONCERNS OF OPPOSITION, HAVING
REPRESENTED A NUMBER OF FOLKS,
UM, THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE. IN
DRUG TREATMENT SLASH MENTAL
HEALTH COURT IN SANTA CLARA
COUNTY. THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT
THERE ARE FOLKS THAT COME INTO
OUR COURT SYSTEM THAT THERE ARE
SEVERELY IMPAIRED. AND IT DOES
TAKE TIME TO GET THEM EVEN TO A
POINT WHERE THEY CAN EVEN START
TO ACCEPT TREATMENT OR TO HAVE A
APPROPRIATE PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATION. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
CERTAINLY PUT WITH A NUMBER OF
FOLKS THAT I HAD REPRESENTED, UM
, YOU KNOW, INTO AT LEAST 23
WEEKS. I DO THINK THAT I AGREE
WITH MY COLLEAGUES COMMENTS THAT
IT'S HARD TO PUT A TIMELINE ON
MEDICAL EVALUATION. BUT THAT HAS
TO BE COUNTERBALANCED WITH AND
THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN
EXTENSION OF THE DETENTION. UM I
THINK THIS UM KIND OF HITS MY
LIMIT AND WITH THE WITH THE
APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS, AS
OUTLINED VERY WELL BY THE STAFF
ANALYSIS. UM AND ALSO THE FACT
THAT I OFTENTIMES WOULD UM, I
THINK I FEEL VERY FRUSTRATED BY
THE FACT THAT A CONSERVATORSHIP
PROCESS WAS COMMENCED WHEN I
DIDN'T NECESSARILY FEEL, UM,
THAT MY CLIENT WAS AT A PLACE
YET WHERE THEY HAD THE BEACH.
THEIR FULL POTENTIAL, I GUESS
FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD OF
BEING EVALUATED OR EVEN HAVING
THE CAPACITY TO BE EVALUATED.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY
THE MOST THAT I WOULD, UH UM,
PERSONALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
UM, WITH THE WITH THE CAVEAT
THAT I THINK EVERYONE HAS STATED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS THAT WE
STILL HAVE TO DO MORE THAN WE
ARE INVESTING MORE IN HOUSING
AND OTHER ASPECTS OF TREATMENT
BEYOND WHAT WHAT? A, UH WHAT
HOLD WOULD WOULD ALLOW FOR AND
REQUIRE BUT THERE'S SO MANY
OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED. THAT
DOESN'T GO AWAY WITH OR WITHOUT
THIS BILL THAT THAT IS STILL A
FACTOR, AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY. UM TO HOPEFULLY
PREVENT SOME FOLKS FROM GOING
INTO CONSERVATORSHIP. I THINK
THAT'S THE DISTINCTION WITH THIS
, AND UH AND OTHER CONCERNS
CONCERNS. I HAVE ALWAYS HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT ANY BILLS THAT
THAT HOLD ANYONE AGAINST HER
WILL, REGARDLESS OF THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH CAPACITY, BUT I'M HOPEFUL
THAT THIS WILL AND BEING ABLE TO
GO TO A COURT BEING ABLE TO BE
ASSIGNED A PUBLIC DEFENDER. I
YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT EVERY
COUNTY HAS THE CAPACITY FOR IT
ALWAYS TO BE A PUBLIC DEFENDER.
BUT WHENEVER SOMEONE'S DETENTION
IS IN QUESTION, I WOULD ALWAYS
REFER THEM TO BE A PUBLIC
DEFENDER BECAUSE THEIR LIBERTY
IS AT STAKE. BUT THE FACT THAT
THEY'LL HAVE COUNSEL THERE AND
HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE
SOMEONE UM, YOU KNOW, ARGUE
AGAINST AN ADDITIONAL HOLD IS
ALSO NEEDS TO BE THERE BECAUSE
THERE WERE SITUATIONS WHERE I
WAS ABLE TO UM, CHANGED THE
COURSE OF ACTION OF A COURT
BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO REPRESENT
MY CLIENT IN THAT MANNER. AND
SO, UM, I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS
TODAY. I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
AND THE COMMITTEE FOR CONTINUING
TO WORK AND TRYING TO MAKE
RECOGNIZE THAT KIND OF THAT
BALANCE OF THAT IS NECESSARY AND
THESE REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT
SITUATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
MS REYES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE BILL'S LIKE THIS THAT
CAUSES PAUSE. AND I APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS COMMENTS
BECAUSE IT REMINDS US THAT WE
ARE TRYING TO FIND THIS BALANCE.
WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS A
STATE TO TRY TO DO THE BEST THAT
WE CAN FOR EVERYONE. THAT MAY
NEED EXTRA BUT ALSO MAKING SURE
THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THEIR
CIVIL LIBERTIES. AND UM IF THIS
WERE AN EASY ONE, I WONDER WHAT
COMMITTEE WAS ON. BUT THE FACT
THAT IT DOES CAUSE PAUSE. I'M
PROUD OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AND THE COMMENTS THAT THEY'VE
MADE. UM THE FACT THAT THERE IS
JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE THE
SECOND, UM. THE SECOND HOLD IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THOSE
ARE THE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE
NEEDED. UM AND I, UM WITH THAT I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? AND THE SECOND THANK YOU
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS THANK
YOU, SENATOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD IN AND FOR YOUR WORK IN
THIS AREA AND ONE OF THE THINGS,
MR YODER YOU MENTIONED THE
MONEY. YES BILLIONS THIS YEAR-BILLIONS LAST YEAR BILLIONS OF
PREVIOUS YEAR. BUDGETED. BUT NOT
NECESSARILY SPENDS AND IN FACT
, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE CARE
COURTS THAT THE HEARING WAS LAST
WEEK AND THE DAY BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS WELL, THAT COMES
FROM I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS
THIS. FISCAL YEAR ENDING OR THE
PREVIOUS ONE. THERE WAS HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS THERE TO BE ABLE
TO SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PLEDGE
TO THE TO SUPPORT THE CARE
COURTS, BUT THAT CAME FROM A
PRIOR BUDGET YEAR. NOT NEW MONEY
. SO THIS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES
I HAD. I THINK WE ARE. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT LOTS OF MONEY, BUT
IT'S NOT GETTING NECESSARY TO
THE RIGHT PLACE AND I COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND THE CITIES. AND THE
EFFORT TO WANT TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM, BUT THE LACK OF
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING THE LACK OF
ACTUALLY MONEY BEING SPENT TO ME
AS A CHALLENGE. WE DON'T HAVE
THE CONSERVATORS. WE DON'T HAVE
A LOT OF THOSE BACK IN PIECES
ARE NOT BEING FUNDED. AND WE'RE
CREATING MORE PATHWAYS IN BUT
NOT REALLY DEALING WITH THOSE
FOLKS ARE I JUST WANT TO MAKE
THAT'S NOT A CRITICISM HERE OR
OF THIS BILL OR ANYTHING, BUT
THAT'S WHERE THAT COMMENT IN THE
ANALYSIS COMES FROM. I THINK WE
HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB OF NOT
JUST BUDGETING MONEY. BUT
ENSURING THAT IT'S GETTING SPENT
SO THAT WE BUILD THAT CAPACITY
AND WITHOUT THAT CAPACITY. I
WORRY IN SOME COUNTIES, LARGER
COUNTIES. I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE
TO DEAL WITH IT AND HAVE THE
ABILITY. SOME OF THE SMALLER
COUNTIES WHO DON'T AND HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DETAIN AND CONTINUE
TO TENSIONS WITHOUT THE RIGHT
SUPPORTS WITHOUT THE HOUSING
WITHOUT THE RIGHTS. THERAPEUTIC
SUPPORTS WHETHER THEY'RE GOING
TO DO I DON'T KNOW. AND I PERISH
THE THOUGHT OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN
IN SOME OF THOSE COUNTIES. SO
ANYWAY, THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THAT
COMMENT COMES FROM ONE OF MY
CONTINUING FRUSTRATIONS, SENATOR
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR STONE. I'M LUCKY I WAS
BORN A WOMAN. I'M USED TO
JUGGLING AND DOING A LOT OF
THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. SO I
BELIEVE THAT WE CAN. WE CAN
ADDRESS MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT
WE'RE WORKING ON AT THE SAME
TIME. I KNOW IN MY COUNTY I JUST
ELEVATED A $16 MILLION REDO OF A
PSYCH FACILITY. AND I KNOW
STANISLAW COUNTY AND SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY ARE WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY FOR FOUR MORE
FACILITIES. I KNOW. LAST
THURSDAY, I WAS AT A HOUSING
THAT HEALS AND AS AN L. C S W
THEY WILL YOU KNOW THE LEADER
GROUP AND TALK WITH FOLKS WHO,
SOMEWHERE CONSERVED SOMEWHERE,
NOT CONSERVED. THEY HAD LIVED
THERE A LONG TIME. BUT
OVERWHELMINGLY PEOPLE TALKED
ABOUT THE TRAUMA OF LIVING ON
THE STREETS AND THE TRAUMA OF
LOT THE LONG TIME ISSUE. SOME
SOME PEOPLE COMING FROM FOSTER
CARE AND THEN NOT BEING ABLE TO
FIND THAT SUPPORT THEY NEED AND
THEN AGAIN WITH THE MIX OF
SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN THEIR PEOPLE
HAVE INCREDIBLY COMPLEX MEDICAL
, PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL NEEDS.
UM SO THE FUNDING IS COMING, AND
I AGREE. OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS
NEED MORE. UM BUT WE MUST BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WE
SEE BEFORE US TODAY. I THINK
THIS BILL IS ANOTHER STEP
TOWARDS BEING ABLE TO DO THAT.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PAST COLORADO. PLEASE. STONE
STONE. I CUNNINGHAM BLOOM BLOOM
I DAVIES HANEY. HANEY, I
CHOLERA. KALRA I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN REYES RAISE I BONTA
TÔI WICKS. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
SO WE WILL BE MOVING NOW TO ITEM
NUMBER SIX. SB 12 45 SENATOR
KAMLAGER.
THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. SEAT IS WARM.
I LOVE IT. I AM HERE TODAY TO
PRESENT SB 12 45, THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY ABORTION ACCESS
SAFE HAVEN PILOT PROGRAM. SENATE
BILL 12 45 WILL SUPPORT A FUNDED
PILOT PROGRAM IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY TO BUILD ON THE STATEWIDE
EFFORTS TO ADVANCED CALIFORNIA
HAS A REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
STATE. LAST FRIDAY, THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
ABORTION ESTABLISHED IN ROE V.
WADE IMMEDIATELY TRIGGERING LAWS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DENYING 36
MILLION WOMEN IN COUNTING.
ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE. THIS
BILL BUILDS UPON THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY'S BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION OF BUILDING A
COUNTYWIDE RESPONSE TO THE
OVERTURN OF ROE V. WADE I WANT
TO SAY THAT LOS ANGELES COUNTY
IS THE LARGEST COUNTY IN THE
COUNTRY. UM AND IT IS LARGER
THAN NORTH CAROLINA, WHICH IS
THE 10TH LARGEST STATE IN THE
NATION. THAT IS WHY THEY OFFERED
THEIR RESOLUTION WHICH PASSED
THAT IS ALSO WHY SB 12 45 IS
BEFORE YOU TO CODIFY WHAT LOS
ANGELES COUNTY IS TRYING TO DO
TO SUPPORT WOMEN AND PREGNANT
PEOPLE. SB 12 45 WOULD FUND AND
SUPPORT A PILOT ROGRAM APPROACH
TO CARE THAT IS RESPONSIVE TO
WHAT IS BEFORE US RIGHT NOW.
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE
SERVICES WILL BE OFFERED.
STREAMLINED AND SECURE
INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE OFFERED
ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL PATIENTS.
SERVICES WILL BE OFFERED, UM AND
HELPING PATIENTS IND THE KIND
OF RESOURCES THEY NEED THAT
OFTENTIMES PREVENT THEM FROM
RECEIVING THE CARE THAT THEY
NEED WITH ME AND SUPPORT IS
MOLLY ROBSON, LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU AND SENATOR
THERE ARE AMENDMENTS IN THE
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT, FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MOLLY ROBSON WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA, REPRESENTING THE
SEVEN AFFILIATES IN THE STATE,
TWO OF THE CALIFORNIA AFFILIATES
IN CALIFORNIA HAS SERVED
PATIENTS IN L. A COUNTY THAT'S
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, LOS ANGELES
AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD PASADENA
IN SAN GABRIEL VALLEY. TOGETHER
THESE AFFILIATES OPERATE 29
HEALTH CENTERS AND SERVED NEARLY
300,000 PATIENTS. AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED L. A COUNTY IS HOME TO
28% OF THE STATE'S POPULATION
AND ACCOUNTS FOR A THIRD OF
ABORTIONS IN THE STATE. UM, AND
AS YOU KNOW. LAST FRIDAY, ROW V.
WADE WAS OVERTURNED BY THE
SUPREME COURT. SO UM YOU KNOW
THE NEED FOR EXTRA SUPPORT AND
COORDINATION IS EXTREMELY
NECESSARY. BELLY COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS MADE THEIR
COMMITMENT TO REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE CLEAR WHEN THEY
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION EARLIER
THIS YEAR, DECLARING THEIR
INTENT TO PROTECT ACCESS TO
ABORTION. THE ABORTION ACCESS
SAFE HAVEN PILOT PROGRAM WILL
STRENGTHEN L. A COUNTY'S
ABORTION ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE,
EXPAND ACCESS TO SEXUAL AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND
IMPROVE PATIENT NAVIGATION IN
THE COUNTY IN A WAY THAT WE MAY
NOT BE ABLE TO DO ON A STATEWIDE
LEVEL IMMEDIATELY. L A COUNTY IS
COMMITTED TO IMPROVING ACCESS TO
ABORTION IN THIS PILOT PROGRAM
WILL ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO DO SO. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB? 12 45. WE'LL TAKE
NAME, AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M AARON
EVANS ON BEHALF OF NARAL PRO
CHOICE CALIFORNIA AND THE
CALIFORNIA NURSE MIDWIVES
ASSOCIATION BOTH IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. PURCELL KUDOS ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM?
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WE WILL
YOU OPEN THE LINES, PLEASE. FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT TO SP 12 45. WE
WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY
BUT NAME AFFILIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. IF
YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 12 45,
PLEASE PRESS 101 FALL BY ZERO
THIS TIME. AND WE WILL GO TO
LINE 1 27, YOU ARE OPEN. BRIAN
SPENCER ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF A B G. Y N
DISTRICT NINE AND SUPPORT FIND
76. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING MARQUIS CEDRONE,
REPRESENTING THE BOSS, ANGELES
COUNTY. PART OF SUPERVISORS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND LINE 1
24, YOU ARE UP. COURTLAND
BRIDGES, ALICIA THOMAS
FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT LINE 1
41, PLEASE GO AHEAD. UH YES.
THANK YOU, SIR. CHRISTINA
EISENACH ER WITH ME TO FAMILY
COURT AND SUPPORT. AND AS A
REMINDER, PLEASE PRESS 10 FOR
SUPPORT ON SB 12 45. LINE 1 44,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. TERRA MEMBERS,
CURTIS PLAYING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION,
AND SUPPORT THANK YOU. AND MR
CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE IS QUEUED UP
AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED SUSAN
OR NO.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS SUSAN SWIFT AREN'T ALL I
AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF LEGAL
AFFAIRS AT THE RIGHT TO LIFE
LEAGUE, AMERICA'S FIRST PRO LIFE
ORGANIZATION. WE ARE BASED IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND WE
REPRESENT 55 PRO LIFE
ORGANIZATIONS AND MILLIONS OF
PRO LIFE VOTERS ACROSS THE
STATE. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. YOU
ALREADY KNOW. THAT S B 12 45
VIOLATES OUR STATE CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE IT IS ONE SIDED AND IT'S
FUNDING, MAKING NO ACCOMMODATION
FOR FUNDING CHILDBIRTH SERVICES
. WHAT YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IS
THE DISPARATE RACIAL IMPACT OF
THE BILL. AND IT PAINS ME TO SAY
THAT SB 12 45 SHOULD BE CALLED
THE MARGARET SANGER RACIST
EUGENICS MEMORIAL ACT. MARGARET
SANGER WAS A PROUD WHITE
SUPREMACIST. SHE PROMOTED BIRTH
CONTROL AND ABORTION FOR LOW
INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR. SINGER
REFERRED TO THEM AND I QUOTE. AS
WEEDS, HUMAN BEINGS WHO NEVER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN BORN UNQUOTE.
SHE FOUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD
FOR THAT VERY REASON. SB 12 45
FOLLOWS SANGER'S EUGENICS DREAM
BY DIRECTING FUNDS EXCLUSIVELY
TO ABORTION FACILITIES IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, TARGETING
CHILDREN OF COLOR FOR
EXTERMINATION. AS THE BILL
ITSELF. STATES L. A COUNTY IS
HOME TO 28% OF THE STATE'S
POPULATION, BUT ALREADY ACCOUNTS
FOR MORE THAN ONE THIRD OF ALL
ABORTIONS IN CALIFORNIA. AS THE
BILL ITSELF. STATES MOST
ABORTION FACILITIES IN L. A
COUNTY ARE IN LOW INCOME
MINORITY AREAS, DIRECTING
FUNDING EXCLUSIVELY TO ABORTION
SERVICES, AND NOT PRENATAL AND
CHILDBIRTH SERVICES TARGETS POOR
MINORITIES FOR GENOCIDE FROM
ABORTION. IN YOUR ZEAL TO SERVE
THE ABORTION INDUSTRY. YOU HAVE
FORGOTTEN HISTORY OVER 100 AND
70. YEARS AGO, SLAVE OWNERS
JUSTIFIED THEIR RACISM WITH
FALSE NOTIONS. THEY SAID SLAVES
WEREN'T REALLY HUMAN BEINGS, SO
OWNING THEM WAS JUSTIFIED. TODAY
PRO ABORTS DENY THE HUMANITY OF
THE UNBORN TO JUSTIFY KILLING
THEM IN THE WOMB. THEY SAID
FREED SLAVES WOULD BE A BURDEN
ON SOCIETY UNABLE TO CARE FOR
THEMSELVES. TODAY PRO ABORTS SAY
IT IS A KINDNESS TO KILL AN
UNWANTED CHILD. THEY SAID SLAVES
WERE INHERENTLY DEPENDENT, AND,
IF FREED, COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF
THEMSELVES AND WOULD BE MUCH
WORSE OFF AND WOULD DIE IN
MISERY. TODAY PRO ABORTS JUSTIFY
A WOMAN'S CHOICE BY SAYING AN
UNPLANNED CHILD IS BETTER OFF
DEAD BECAUSE THEY WILL SUFFER A
LIFE NOT WORTH LIVING. AND OF
COURSE, THERE WAS THE UNSPOKEN
FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO SLAVE
OWNERS. THEY PROFITED FROM
SLAVERY TODAY, THE ABORTION
CARTEL PROFITS FROM TAXPAYER
FUNDING, WHICH THIS BILL SB. 12
45 WILL AUGMENT IT IS SHAMEFUL.
AND IF YOU PASS THIS BILL, YOU
ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF
HISTORY. INSTEAD OF FUNDING,
RACISM AND EUGENICS, LET'S LET'S
FUND MATERNAL CARE AND
CHILDBIRTH AND ADOPTION SERVICES
SO LOW INCOME MINORITY WOMEN
HAVE THE SAME OPTIONS AS WOMEN
OF PRIVILEGE AND WEALTH SO THEY
MAY HAVE THEIR BABIES. NOT JUST
ABORT THEM, URGING A NO VOTE ON
SB 12 45. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB 12 45. SEEING
NON OPERATOR. WOULD YOU GO TO
THE LINES? ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO SB 12
45 AGAIN WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND OPPOSITION. IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 12 45, PLEASE
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND PRESS
ONE, FOLLOWED BY A ZERO. AND
NOBODY IS QUEUING UP MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
BANTER. THE FIRST MOVE THE BILL
SECOND. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
EMOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? AND
A SECOND. I KNOW VERY CLEARLY,
SENATOR THAT YOU'RE BILL IS
FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT WE CAN
COUNTER MISINFORMATION
CAMPAIGNS. UH I'M LOOKING AT THE
LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW. AND IT
SAYS VERY CLEARLY THAT IT HEREBY
ESTABLISHES THE PURPOSE OF
EXPANDING AND IMPROVING ACCESS
TO THE FULL SPECTRUM. OF SEXUAL
AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE,
INCLUDING ABORTION IN THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. WOULD LOVE FOR
YOU TO BE ABLE TO JUST REITERATE
THE NATURE OF THIS BILL. YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, UM SO THE
FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT
WOMEN OF ALL RACES AND
ETHNICITIES, SEEK ABORTION AND
ALSO SEEK REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT
TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT, UM WOMEN.
WOMEN OF COLOR, PARTICULARLY
BLACK WOMEN. HAVE HIGHER RATES
OF COMPLICATIONS WITH THEIR
PREGNANCIES ARE OFTEN AT RISK OF
DYING DURING CHILDBIRTH. AND
WHILE THEY'RE TRYING TO CARRY
THEIR CHILD TO TERM THIS WOULD
ALSO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE TO THEM
SO THAT IF NEED BE, THEY CAN
MANAGE THEIR WAY THROUGH
PREGNANCY, AND IF IT BECOMES TOO
COMPLICATED IF THEY ARE AT RISK
OF DYING THEY ARE SAFELY AND
LEGALLY ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION
THAT WOULD HELP THEM AND OFTEN
TIMES THESE WOMEN THAT HAVE
THESE HIGHER RATES OF
COMPLICATED PREGNANCIES ALSO
HAVE OTHER CHILDREN. AND SO WHY
WOULD WE WANT THAT MOTHER TO DIE
? BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SHE
SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE
A DECISION ABOUT HER OWN LIFE.
AND THEN INADVERTENTLY THREW ALL
OF HER CHILDREN INTO A FOSTER
CARE SYSTM THAT NEVER REALLY
RECOGNIZED HER OR HER FAMILY AS
BEING WORTHY OF CARE AND
SUPPORT. SO THIS IS ABOUT ALL
KINDS OF CARE. WE KNOW THAT
BLACK AND BROWN WOMEN DIE TRYING
TO GIVE BIRTH. WE KNOW THAT
OFTEN TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A
MISCARRIAGE THAT IS ALSO
TECHNICALLY AND THE PROCEDURE.
THE NEXT STEP IS TECHNICALLY
CALLED AN ABORTION. AND SO WE
DON'T WANT THOSE TO BE
CRIMINALIZED. WE ALSO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT IF WOMEN ARE
TRYING TO NAVIGATE THEIR WAY
THROUGH THEIR PREGNANCY THAT
THEY ARE SUPPORTED, AND THEY ARE
EMBRACED, AND THAT THEY ARE
GIVING REAL INFORMATION THAT IS
ALSO ACCURATE TO HELP THEM
NAVIGATE. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN.
BECAUSE OF THE PROLIFERATION OF
SOCIAL MEDIA THAT WHEN YOUNG
WOMEN AND WOMEN OF COLOR ARE
PREGNANT, AND THEY ARE ON THEIR
FEEDS BECAUSE THEY ARE PREGNANT
, THEY ARE SEEKING INFORMATION
ABOUT PREGNANCY. AND THE
INFORMATION BEGINS TO SKEW
DRAMATICALLY TOWARDS
MISINFORMATION AND FEAR INDUCING
INFORMATION ABOUT THE PREGNANCY.
AND WE HAVE SEEN AS A RESULT,
UPTICK IN ANXIETIES AROUND THOSE
PREGNANCIES AND ALSO
COMPLICATIONS WITH THOSE
PREGNANCIES. SO THIS IS A FULL
AND COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN THIS SPACE
AROUND WOMEN WHO ARE PREGNANT.
UM THIS IS WHY IT ALSO COMES
WITH A FUNDING ALLOCATION
BECAUSE WHILE IT IS GREAT TO
HAVE POLICY, IT IS ALSO REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE FUNDING
THOSE KINDS OF VALUES TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO
PROVIDE WOMEN AND PEOPLE WHO ARE
PREGNANT WITH THE ACCESS THE
ACCURATE INFORMATION AND THE
RESOURCES THEY NEED TO MAKE
DECISIONS THAT WILL KEEP THEM
AND THEIR FAMILIES SAFE. THANK
YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
SEEING NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY
CLOSE. I JUST WANT TO THANK THIS
COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING US TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.
UM THIS BILL. YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS
QUESTION WHEN I HEAR THE
HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO PLANNED
PARENTHOOD. IF THOSE SAME
STATEMENTS WOULD BE SHARED IF I
WERE NOT A BLACK FEMALE AUTHOR I
CERTAINLY DO KNOW THE HISTORY OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD. I DO KNOW
THE HISTORY OF MARGARET SANGER
AND I DO KNOW THAT SHE WAS NOT
TALKING ABOUT AFRICAN AMERICANS.
THEN SHE WAS ACTUALLY TALKING
ABOUT OTHER ETHNIC WHITE
IMMIGRANTS. AND SO I MUST SAY, I
AM HIGHLY INSULTED BY THAT USE
OF RACIAL PROPAGANDA, AND I
CERTAINLY WISH THAT THE
OPPOSITION WOULD BE STANDING
WITH ME ON A C. A THREE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ABOUT
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE. USING SOME OF THOSE
STATEMENTS, AND YET THOSE VOICES
ARE SILENT WITH THAT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON SP 12 45. THANK YOU, SENATOR
. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL THE ROAD, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM BLOOM. DAVIES. KENNY.
HANEY KALRA OVER I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN REYES RAISE I BONTA
I WANT TO I WICKS. THAT NEEDS
ONE MORE. I WILL PUT THE BILL ON
CALL, REMEMBER? SO I BELIEVE
THAT TAKES US TO. IF I COULD,
I'D SB 12 45. YES NO, THANK YOU,
DAVIES. NO. THANK YOU. THIS
BRINGS US TO DR PAN ITEM NUMBER
NINE SB 10 18.
WE HAVE TWO BILLS, RIGHT? MM
HMM. MORNING. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. FIRST OF ALL I
WANT TO BEGIN BY, UH, START WITH
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF WERE WORKING
WITH MY STAFF ON THE ON THIS
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, AND I'M
PROUD TO PRESENT SB 10 18 THE
PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT. SOCIAL MEDIA
HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED THE WAY
WE SHARE AND CONSUME
INFORMATION. YET WE OFTEN KNOW
NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT HOW THIS
INFORMATION AND UNFORTUNATELY,
MISINFORMATION MAY BE PRESENTED
TO US AND HER CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY, FACEBOOK
WHISTLEBLOWER FRANCIS HOGAN
EXPLAINED HOW FACEBOOK KNOWINGLY
LEVERAGED THEIR PLATFORM TO
PRIORITIZE PROFITS AND
ENGAGEMENT OVER CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITY. SOCIAL MEDIA IS
ALSO A KEY DISTRIBUTOR OF PUBLIC
HEALTH MISINFORMATION. ONE STUDY
FOUND THAT A MERE 12 PEOPLE AND
THEIR ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR 65% OF VACCINE
MISINFORMATION ON TWITTER,
FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM, POSING
ENORMOUS DANGER TO PUBLIC
HEALTH. IN FACT, THE STUDY
RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN THE
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL NATURE, FOUND
THAT ONLINE MISINFORMATION IS
DIRECTLY LINKED TO COVID 19
VACCINE HASN'T SEEN REFUSAL.
MORE RECENTLY, OUR COUNTRY HAS
WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTIVE POWER
OF MISINFORMATION RACIST CONTENT
ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AS EXEMPLIFIED
BY THE BUFFALO GROCERY STORE
SHOOTING. TO QUOTE NEW YORK
ATTORNEY GENERAL LETICIA JAMES.
THE TERROR ATTACK IN BUFFALO HAS
ONCE AGAIN REVEALED THE DEPTHS
AND DANGERS OF THE ONLINE FORUMS
THAT SPREAD AND PROMOTE HATE. IS
CLEAR. THESE PLATFORMS HAVE A
PROPENSITY TO REINFORCE BIAS,
HATE AND MISINFORMATION. NOW
WHEN YOU'RE ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA
FEED. AH IT'S THE PLATFORMS HAVE
ENORMOUS POWER DEFECT. WHAT WE
SEE HOW WE FEEL WHAT WE BELIEVE.
AND YET WHAT THEY GET THE WAY
THEY OPERATE, REMAINS EXTREMELY
OPAQUE. AS I SAID, WHEN YOU LOOK
AT YOUR FACEBOOK FEED OR YOUR
TWITTER FEED OR YOUR OTHER, SO,
UM IT'S THE MEDIA COMPANY.
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES DECIDE
WHAT ACTUALLY SHOWS UP. AND YET
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. LIKE WHAT
ARE THEY FEEDING YOU? BUT WHY?
WHY WHY? WHY IS THIS THING FIRST
ON YOUR FEET AND SO FORTH?
THEREFORE TRANSPARENCY IS
ESSENTIAL AND UNDERSTANDING THE
SOCIAL IMPACT OF THESE PLATFORMS
AND SB 10 18 WILL GIVE THE
PUBLIC THE TOOLS WE NEED TO HELP
UNDERSTAND HOW THESE COMPANIES
ARE IMPACTING OUR LIVES. MORE
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES
ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO
MAKE ANNUAL PUBLIC DISCLOSURES
ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CONTENT THAT VIOLATES THE
PLATFORM'S POLICIES. SO I SHOULD
EMPHASIZE THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT
THE CONTENT. US THE SAME CONTENT
. IT'S THE PLATFORM'S POLICIES
THAT SO CONTENT THAT VIOLATES
THE PLATFORM'S POLICIES. IS
RECOMMENDED AMPLIFIED BY THE
PLATFORMS, VERY OWN ALGORITHMS.
SO UM, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE
NOTE THAT IN TERMS OF
TRANSPARENCY. IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ONE OF
OUR LARGEST SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES, FACEBOOK IS
ESSENTIALLY CONTROLLED BY ONE
MAN. AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
ANOTHER MAJOR SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANY TWITTER, MAYBE ALSO
CONTROLLED BY ONE MAN WHO'S HE'S
TRYING TO ATTEMPT TO TAKE IT,
PRIVATE. THEREFORE THESE
COMPANIES ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO
THE PUBLIC. THEY'RE NOT EVEN
NECESSARILY REALLY ACCOUNTABLE
TO SHAREHOLDERS AS WELL BECAUSE
THERE AGAIN UNDER CONTROL.
CONTROVERSIAL APPOINTMENT
PERSON. SO ULTIMATELY SB 10 18
IS NECESSARY STEPS TO ENSURE
THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS POWERFUL
AND BURGEONING INDUSTRY. THAT
REALLY IS AGAIN SHAPING HOW WE
WHAT WE THINK WHAT WE SEE AND
HOW WE FEEL SO WITH THAT
ESPECIALLY ASKED FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DO NOT
HAVE ANY WITNESSES LISTED IN
SUPPORT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 18.
MOLLY ROBSON WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA WERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
TO FOR S B 10 18. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 10 18 PLEASE PRESS ONE FILED
BY ZERO AT THIS TIME. AND AGAIN
IT SUPPORT OF SB 10 18 GO AHEAD
AND HIT ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO.
ONE MOMENT WE DO HAVE ONE
GETTING THEIR LINE NUMBER. THINK
THEY TOOK THEMSELVES OUT OF QUÊ
. MR. CHAIR. THERE ARE NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS QUEUING UP. ALRIGHT
WE WILL THEN MOVE TO OPPOSITION.
I HAVE ONE OPPOSITION WITNESS
LISTED DYLAN HOFFMAN. ARE YOU
WITH US ON THE TELEPHONE? DYLAN
HOFFMAN. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 18 HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM? SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR OPPOSITION TO SB? 10
18. SURE IN OPPOSITION O SB 10
18, PLEASE PRESS 10 AND 1 48,
YOU ARE OPEN. BY 1 48. OH, I
ACTUALLY HIT THE COUNT 10. TOO
LATE. IT WAS I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND WE
HAVE ANOTHER PARTICIPANT WITH AN
OPERATOR. ONE MOMENT ANYBODY
ELSE IF YOU EXPRESS OPPOSITION
TO 10 18 GOING AT 10 AND LIKE 1,
38, YOU ARE OPEN. THANK YOU.
RONALD BELLAMY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE ARE IN AN IMPOSED A LOT OF
MONEY POSITION ON A 10 18. THANK
YOU. AND NOBODY ELSE IS QUEUED
UP. MR CHAIR. WOULD YOU CHECK
AGAIN OPERATOR FOR DYLAN
HOFFMAN. WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO
CALL IN ON THE MOMENT. ON THE
WITNESS LINE. OKAY? TAKE A LOOK
HERE.
I DON'T SEE HIM ON ANY OF THE
WITNESSES THAT ARE ON FOR
TESTIMONY TODAY. OKAY, THAT ARE
CUTE. AND YOU HAVE OTHER. AND
YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE IN YOUR
QUEUE. THAT IS, IS THAT CORRECT?
THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I WILL THEN BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SIGNAL DOCTOR PLAN YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
YOUNG MEMBERS, YOU KNOW?
BASICALLY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO UNDERSTAND HOW SOCIAL MEDIA
IS A AFFECTING US AND OUR
SOCIETY AND AGAIN WE WANT TO
LOOK AT PARTICULARLY
AMPLIFICATION, NOT CONTENT
AMPLIFICATION. WITH THAT
RESPECT. WE ASKED FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. I WILL TAKE A MOTION
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CALL.
ROLL, PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM DAVIES
DAVIES, NO HANEY CHOLERA CHOLERA
I KYLIE KYLIE NO MAIENSCHEIN
REYES. RACE. I BANTA WEEKS. THAT
NEEDS ONE MORE. WE'LL PUT THE
BILL ON CALL. ALRIGHT THAT TAKES
US TO ITEM NUMBER 10 SB 11 72.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS. UM
FIRST OF ALL GET ALSO LIKE TO
THANK THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF ARE WORKING MY OFFICE ON
THIS BILL AS WELL AND I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE LAID OUT IN THE ANALYSIS
STARTING ON PAGE SIX. THANK YOU.
AMENDMENTS INCLUDE REMOVING THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IN THE
BILL IS THE COMMITMENT I MADE IN
THE LAST POLICY COMMITTEE. AND
WITH THESE AMENDMENTS, I'M PROUD
TO PRESENT SB 11 72, WHICH HOPES
TO CLOSE A LOOPHOLE CURRENTLY IN
CURRENT LAW THAT PUTS STUDENTS
PRIVACY AT RISK WHEN THEY TAKE
EXAMS REMOTELY. SINCE THE START
OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC
STUDENTS AND INDIVIDUALS
REQUIRED TO TAKE EXAMS REMOTELY
HAVE INCREASED BY ALMOST 500. BY
NATURE. REMOTE PARKING TOOLS CAN
COLLECT SENSITIVE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE STUDENTS HOME
ENVIRONMENT. SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS EVEN HAVE FULL
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS TO A
STUDENT'S COMPUTER. FURTHERMORE
REMOTE PRACTICE COMPANIES THAT
EXPLOIT A LOOPHOLE IN THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACTS
DEFINITIONS BY CLAIMING THEIR
SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WORK
THROUGH THE SCHOOLS AND NOT
WORKING DIRECTLY WITH THE
STUDENTS. SO THEY SAY THEIR
CONTRACTS ONLY WITH THE SCHOOL.
AS A RESULT, REMIT PRACTICE
COMPANIES COLLECT UNNECESSARY
BIOMETRIC DATA SUCH AS FINANCIAL
RECOGNITION TEMPLATES,
FINGERPRINTS, CITIZENSHIP DATA,
MEDICAL INFORMATION, BROWSING
HISTORY AND THE VIDEO AND AUDIO
OF THE USERS SURROUNDINGS.
CURRENT LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE
ENOUGH PROTECTION TO STUDENTS
WHO HAVE HAVE TO TAKE THESE
EXAMS THROUGH REMOTE PROXIMITY
COMPANIES. SB 11 70 TO PROTECT
THE PRIVACY OF OUR STUDENTS BY
LIMITING THE PERSONAL BIOMETRIC
INFORMATION THAT REMOTE PRACTICE
COMPANIES CAN COLLECT AND WILL
REQUIRE THESE PRACTICE COMPANIES
WOULD BE MORE TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THEIR PRACTICES. WITH ME HERE
TODAY TO SPEAK AND SUPPORT IS
MARVIN PANETTA, WHO REPRESENTS
PRACTICE OREO. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS, PLEASE MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, MARVIN PINEL ON BEHALF
OF PICTORIAL, UH, IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL VICTORIA PROVIDES
PROTECTING SERVICES TO OVER 2500
HIGHER EDUCATION, SKIP 12
SCHOOLS. BUSINESS AND THE INFLOW
INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.
AH WE CURRENTLY SERVED FOR A
MILLION ACTIVE WEEKLY USERS AND
PROCTER OVER 50 HAVE PRACTICED
OVER 50 MILLION EXAMS. THAT YOU
USE OF ONLINE PRACTICING
SERVICES CENTER. PEN MENTION
CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND, WELL,
WE HAVE PRACTICING TESTING HERE
TO STAY. UM AS A. AS PRACTICE AT
PICTORIAL IDENTIFY INFORMATION
IS NOT COLLECTED FROM TEST
TAKERS. BIOMETRICS ANY PERSONAL
INFORMATION? UM AND WE ALSO DO
NOT DISCLOSE OR CHAU INFORMATION
TO THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING DATA
BROKERS OR ADVERTISERS. UM SB 11
72 IS NEEDED BECAUSE SOME
PRACTICING COMPANIES DO SELL
PERSONAL INFORMATION FOR
MARKETING PURPOSES AND TO MAKE
PROFITS. UM AND IN CASE OF A
BREACH, WE DO NOT WANT ANY TEST
TAKERS INFORMATION TO BE
JEOPARDIZED. SB LET MYSTERION
TUESDAY BILL THAT WILL START TO
PLAY SOME PROTECTIONS FOR TEST
TAKERS. AND AS A LOT OF US IN
THE IN THE ROOM HAVE HAD TO TAKE
EITHER A BAR EXAM OR ANY OTHER
EXAM. WE DON'T WANT OUR PERSONAL
INFORMATION TO THE USE FOR
REASONS FOR PROFIT OR FOR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THERE ARE OTHERS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB 11 72. SEEING NON
OPERATING. WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY INDICATION OF
SUPPORT FOR SB 11 72. YOU MUST
CARE IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB
11 72 PRESS 10. LINE. 30 YOU ARE
OPEN ANYBODY ELSE, PLEASE? PRESS
10. LIKE A CREAMER MATTER ON
BEHALF OF FAILURE, CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
AND WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE
WITH OPERATORS. ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE. WE'LL GO TO 1 63. TONY
MORALES ON BEHALF OF THE
GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND STRONG
SPORTS. AND ONE FINAL REMINDER,
PLEASE PRESS 10 FEAR AND SUPPORT
TO SB 11 72. PLEASE GO AHEAD. 1
62. UM I'M SORRY. I NEED
CONFIRMATION THAT YOU WILL FOR,
UM, IF THIS FOR OR AGAINST THE
PRICE. THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF SB
11 72. WHAT IS FOR OR AGAINST
THE USE OF OTHER SERVICES. I'M
SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. BUT
BUT THIS IS IT. IT'S IN SUPPORT
OF. THE SYSTEM IN THE SCHOOLS OR
NOT. I CAME IN A LITTLE LATE
BEFORE. I'M SORRY FOR THAT, BUT
I DIDN'T GET THE FLOOR. UM
QUESTIONS SO. WELL, I GUESS I
SLEEP BUT NOT TO PUT I'M NOT IN
SUPPORT OF IT. I GUESS I SHOULD
WAIT FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THERE'S NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP MR CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE
ONE OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED
RUN ACT. DAYLAMI ARE YOU WITH US
IN THE HEARING ROOM? DON'T SEE
YOU. ARE YOU ON WITH US? ALL
RIGHT. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, SALAMI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE BASED ON THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS TAKEN IN THE PRIOR
COMMITTEE AND NOW THE AMENDMENT
TO REMOVE THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION BEING TAKEN TODAY, WE
WILL BE MOVING FROM OPPOSED TO
NEUTRAL ONCE THAT IS IN PRINT.
WE THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION TO SB 11 72
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM.
BRITAIN TAP ON BEHALF OF EIGHT
COLLISION AND TECHNIQUE IN IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM? SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SB? 11 72. OKAY IF YOU ARE AN
OPPOSITION SP 11 72, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT
THIS TIME ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO.
WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE PERSON
YOU WERE LOOKING TO TESTIFY? MR
CHAIR? YOU REMEMBER THAT WAS ON
THE PREVIOUS BILL. RIGHT. OKAY
WE DID JUST HAVE A PERSON JOINED
LATE AND THEN WE'LL GO TO LINE 1
69, YOU ARE OPEN ANYBODY ELSE IF
YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 11
72, PLEASE PRESS 10. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS. JAMIE
HOP ON BEHALF OF THE JACK
ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS WITH THAT
OF THE CHAMBER AND APPRECIATE
YOUR AUTHORS. WILLINGNESS TO
AMEND. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND
NOBODY ELSE HAS QUEUED UP MR
CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
AND I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, MR CUNNINGHAM. THANK
YOU. SO I SAW THIS IN PRIVACY
UNDER THE PREVIOUS VERSION
SUPPORTED THE BUILD IN OBVIOUS
SUPPORTING TODAY. THANK YOU.
COULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN
WHAT THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
IS? AS THE BILL HAS BEEN
AMENDED? YEAH, SO AGAIN, WE
REMOVED THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. SO THE ENFORCEMENT IS
IT'S NOW IN THE BNP CODE. AND SO
THE FORCE MINT WOULD BE THROUGH
WHETHER IT'S THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR THE D. A S AS WELL.
SO APPRECIATE AGAIN. AMENDMENTS
FROM FROM THIS COMMITTEE,
JUDICIARY AND EXPANDING IN TERMS
OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
RIGHT, SEEING NONE. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND SO ONCE
AGAIN, I WAS JUST MEANT MAKE
NOTE THAT WHEN STUDENTS ARE
TAKING EXAM WITH THE PRACTICING
COMPANY, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE
MUCH OF A CHOICE ABOUT PROVIDING
WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY ASKED
FOR. BECAUSE OF THAT TEST IS
SOMETHING YOU NEED TO PASS TO
PASS YOUR COURSE TO GET YOUR BAR
EXAM. WHATEVER ELSE THAT'S WHY
IT'S SO IMPORTANT. WE CREATE
THESE PROTECTIONS EXPECTED TO
ASK FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. I
WILL TAKE A MOTION. THAT MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL
THE ROLL, PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM,
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM. DAVIES
DAVIES, I, HANEY HANEY I CHOLERA
. CHOLERA I KYLIE KYLIE! NO
MAIENSCHEIN REYES. RAISE I BONTA
WORKS. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR. MIN
WILL MOVE TO OUR ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN SB 975. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR BEFORE I BEGIN. I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK YOUR STAFF
FOR THEIR INCREDIBLE WORK ON THE
SPILL ON IT. WE WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS AS AUTHOR AMENDMENTS
. THANK YOU. SP 9 75 CREATES A
PROCESS WHEREBY A DEBTOR CAN
SECRETLY FROM PAYING FOR DEBTS
INCURRED THROUGH ECONOMIC
COERCION. THIS BILL SEEKS TO
ADDRESS VICTIMS OF ECONOMIC
COERCION, PROVIDING THEM WITH A
PATHWAY TO GETTING OUT OF
ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS. THIS IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT IS COMMONLY
KNOWN, BUT IT IS COMMON TO
RELATIONSHIPS WERE DOMESTIC
ABUSE HAPPENS. AH ALSO HAPPENS
WITH DEPENDENT ADULTS,
ESPECIALLY SENIORS AND FOSTER
YOUTH. ECONOMIC COERCION IS A
TACTIC COMMONLY USED BY ABUSERS
WERE IN THE COERCED THROUGH
THREATS, VIOLENCE, ANOTHER
MECHANISMS. THE ACCUMULATION OF
DEBT BY THE SURVIVOR OR VICTIM,
ACCORDING TO NATIONAL COALITION
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
BETWEEN 94 99% OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SURVIVORS EXPERIENCED
SOME FORM OF ECONOMIC ABUSE.
FURTHER RESEARCH SHOWS THAT
ACCESS TO ECONOMIC RESOURCES IS
THE MOST LIKELY PREDICTOR OF
WHETHER A SURVIVOR WILL BE ABLE
TO PERMANENTLY SEPARATE FROM
THEIR ABUSIVE PARTNER. IN OTHER
WORDS, ECONOMIC DEBT. AND
ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES CREATED
THROUGH THE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON THAT
THESE SURVIVORS OF DEVI AND
OTHER FORMS OF ABUSE CANNOT GET
OUT OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. SO
IT'S NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO SAY
THAT THIS BILL HAS PASSED AND
SIGNED INTO LAW. WILL SAVE
LIVES. SB 95 WOULD ALLOW
SURVIVORS OF ABUSE HAVE TAKEN ON
DEBTS AGAINST THEIR CONSENT TO
SEEK RELIEF FROM THIS
INSURMOUNTABLE BURDEN. NOW WHAT
I'LL POINT OUT IS THAT WE HAVE
SPENT TWO YEARS NOW TRYING TO
MAKE THIS A GOOD BILL. THE GOAL
HERE IS NOT TO CREATE EXCESSIVE
LOOPHOLES WHEREIN PEOPLE CAN
ABUSE THE SYSTEM. BUT RATHER TO
CREATING, NARROWLY TAILORED, UH
, MECHANISM BY WHICH SURVIVORS
OF ABUSE CAN GET OUT OF THOSE
RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT THE
CRIPPLING AMOUNTS OF DEBT. WHAT
YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS SOME OF
THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH
OPPOSITION AND STAKEHOLDERS
RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE
BANKING INDUSTRY. IN PARTICULAR,
WE HAVE AMENDED THE BILL TO
REMOVE ALL SECURED DEBTS FROM
THE SCOPE OF THE BILL. WE'VE
CREATED IN NON COURT BASED
REMEDY TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR SURVIVORS AND THE CREDITOR
TO RESOLVE THESE COERCED DEBT
CLAIMS OUTSIDE OF THE COURT
SYSTEM. WE'VE NARROWED THE
DEFINITION OF COURSE DEBT TO
BRING GREATER CLARITY TO THE
SCOPE OF WHAT'S CONSIDERED TO BE
COERCED DEBT AND MAKE IT
EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT, OF COURSE
, DEBT CLAIM CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT
BY SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. A SURVIVOR OF ELDER OR
DEPENDENT ADULTS, ABUSE OR
FASTER YOUTH, LIMITING THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD EVEN
BE ABLE TO BRING FORWARD A
CLAIM. OF COURSE, THAT WE'VE
ALSO UPDATED THE DOCUMENT
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
REQUIREMENTS IN TWO WAYS. FIRST
THE NEW LANGUAGE AS AN A LIST OF
DOCUMENTS THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED
WITH THE CLAIM THAT CONFORM WITH
SOME OF THE REGULATORY ITEMS THE
BANKING INDUSTRY REQUESTED BE
INCLUDED. SECOND AND PERHAPS
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE DEFINITION
OF ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION HAS
BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE A
REQUIREMENT THAT IT IDENTIFIED
THE PERSON WHO COERCED THE DEBT
UNLESS THE DEBTOR SUBMITS A
SWORN STATEMENT THAT DOING SO
WOULD JEOPARDIZE THEIR SAFETY OR
THAT OF THEIR LOVED ONES. NOW I
THINK THAT YOU'LL HEAR FROM
OPPOSITION. THAT THEY STILL HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL THAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MECHANISM
BY WHICH THEY CAN JOIN THE PARTY
INTO THIS PROCEEDING. AS YOUR
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS MAKES CLEAR,
THIS WOULD HAVE A VERY, VERY
SERIOUS JEOPARDY IS JEOPARDIZINGEFFECTS ON THE SAFETY OF MANY
SURVIVORS. IT WOULD PREVENT ME
SURVIVORS FROM BRINGING THESE
TYPES OF CLAIMS FORWARD, SO WE
HAVE NOT TAKEN THAT. BUT AS YOUR
ANALYSIS MAKES CLEAR, AS WELL.
LENDERS HAVE NUMEROUS AVENUES TO
PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST THOSE WHO
HAVE COERCED THIS DEBT. MY STAFF
AND I ARE COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING. OUR DISCUSSIONS ARE
EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THIS DIALOGUE AS THE
BILL MOVES FORWARD SP 9 75,
THOUGH, WOULD BE CRUCIAL. IT
WOULD BE SO IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE
TRAPPED IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS.
THEY CANNOT GET OUT OF ABUSIVE
RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE ACCESS TO FINANCIAL
RESOURCES. SO I WOULD URGE YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY WITH ME TO TESTIFY
AND SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. WE
HAVE LEAF AREN WITH THE PUBLIC
LAWCENTER AND ANDREW KANE WITH
THE LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON
VALLEY. THANK YOU. I HAVE BOTH
OF THOSE NAMES LISTED AS
SUPPORT. AND ON THE TELEPHONE
LEAF. AREN ARE YOU WITH US? UM
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LISA SHARON. I'M THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGAL SERVICES THAT THE PUBLIC
LAWCENTER ILLEGAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION THAT PROVIDES FREE
CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS OF ORANGE
COUNTY. SP 9 75 WILL PROVIDE
SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
ELDER ABUSE AND FORMER FOSTER
YOUTH WITH A VALID DEFENSE WHEN
THEY'RE BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR DEATHS THAT THEY WERE
COERCED INTO TAKING OUT. THIS
TYPE OF FINANCIAL CONTROL AS
SENATOR HMAN ARTICULATED AS A
PRIMARY COMPONENT OF ABUSIVE
RELATIONSHIP. THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF LAWS THAT PROTECT INDIVIDUALS
FACING THAT COLLECTION AND
PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.
HOWEVER WE HAVE SEEN THAT WELL.
SURVIVORS OF ABUSE ARE
INCREDIBLY DESERVING. THERE IS
NO LAW THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES
THEIR SITUATION. THE SURVIVOR
MAY KNOW A DEBT EXISTS, BUT THEY
MAY NOT KNOW THEIR NAME IS ON
IT. OR THEY MAY NOT HAVE
CONSENTED TO THE DEBT BEING IN
THEIR NAME FOR LEAVING DEATHS OF
A FEW $1000 ARE LIFE CHANGING
FOR SURVIVORS OF ABUSE OR FOSTER
YOUTH WHO ARE DOING EVERYTHING
THEY CAN TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES
FINANCIALLY. PREDATORS OFTEN DO
NOT TAKE THESE CLAIMS OF DIRECT
OR ABUSE SERIOUSLY. IN ONE CASE
OFFICE DRAFTED MULTIPLE LENGTHY
LETTERS WITH SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION OUTLINING THE
ABUSE, AND IN RESPONSE, THE
CREDITOR FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST
OUR SURVIVOR CLAIMS COMPLETELY
IGNORING THE ALLEGATIONS OF
ABUSE. SP 9 75 WILL CREATE A
PROCESS THAT WILL ENSURE THAT
THIS NARROW GROUP OF SURVIVORS
OF ABUSE TO DO NOT FIT WITHIN
THE DEFINITION OF IDENTITY SET.
KIND OF TAKING RELIEF FROM DEBT
AND BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
THEIR LIVES. 9 75 ALSO PROVIDES
A WAY FOR CREDITORS TO PURSUE
THE ALLEGED ABUSERS IF THEY SO
CHOOSE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS ON THE BILL. AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
THEN ANDREW KANE, ARE YOU WITH
US? YES GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ANDREW
CAME WITH THE LAW FOUNDATION OF
SILICON VALLEY. I AM THE
DIRECTING ATTORNEY OF OUR LEGAL
ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
PROGRAM WHERE WE REPRESENT ALL
OF THE MINORS AND YOUNG ADULTS
IN OUR COUNTY JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY CORD AS WELL AS
SUPPORT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE WHO ARE TEEN OR YOUNG
ADULT. SEEKING RESTRAINING
ORDERS IN OUR COURTS, DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CALENDAR. I AM
PROUD OF THE LAW FOUNDATION FOR
CO SPONSORING SP 9 75 DEVELOPING
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY IS
CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOUTH
AGING OUT OF FOSTER CARE, GIVEN
THEIR LACK OF CONNECTION WITH
TRADITIONAL SUPPORT. WHEN
COMPARED WITH THEIR PEERS WHO
WEREN'T INVOLVED WITH THE SYSTEM
FASTER. YOU ARE FAR LESS LIKELY
TO HAVE ACHIEVED KEY SKILLS SUCH
AS OPENING A CHECKING ACCOUNT,
BUILDING UP SAVINGS OR
ESTABLISHING A CREDIT HISTORY.
COURSE THAT SADDLES FOSTER YOUTH
WITH OFTEN INSURMOUNTABLE
BURDENS TO DEVELOPING THOSE
CAPABILITIES. AN ADDITIONAL
NOTABLE CHALLENGE FOR YOUTO
FOSTER CARE EXPERIENCE IS THE
HEIGHTENED RISK OF STOLEN ENTITY
AND CREDIT PROBLEMS DEVELOPING
BEFORE THEY'VE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS FINANCIAL
PRODUCT. MONSTER YOU THERE OFTEN
REQUIRED TO MOVE FROM ONE
PLACEMENT TO THE NEXT
EXPERIENCING MANY ADULTS WALKING
IN AND OUT OF THEIR LIVES AND
THEREFORE HEIGHTENING THEIR RISK
OF EXPOSURE TO UNSCRUPULOUS
ACTORS. FOR EXAMPLE, DATA SHOWS
THAT UP TO 60% OF CHILD SEX
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS HAVE
EXPERIENCED SOME CONTACT WITH A
LOCAL CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. SP 9
75 IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS
LEVELING THE ECONOMIC PLAYING
FIELD FOR FOSTER YOU DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS
OF ELDER OR DEPENDENT ABUSE. AND
THE CRUCIAL REALLY PROVIDED BY
THIS BILL HAS DONE SO IN A WAY
THAT LEADS TO FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY
TO USE THE LEGAL PROCESS TO MAKE
THEMSELVES WHOLE. THIS BALANCED
LEGISLATION DESERVES YOUR
SUPPORT. AND I URGE THIS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO CAST AN EYE
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ALRIGHT ARE THERE OTHERS IN
THE HEARING ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT TO SB? 9 75?
WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT MEMBERS CATALINA
SANCHEZ WITH CORBYN AND KAISER
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
CONSUMER LAW CENTER AND THE
CALIFORNIA A LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION AND SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. DANIEL
GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
OTHERS AND SUPPORT SP 975. RIGHT
OPERATOR. WOULD YOU GO TO THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP 975?
CERTAINLY THANK YOU AND YOU'LL
WANT TO PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME
AGAIN. IT'S 10. WE'LL GO FIRST
TO LINE 53. GOOD MORNING, CRISTA
CULLEN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
ISLANDS. CHILDCARE LAWCENTER
FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE
PROJECT GRAZE TRAUMA, INFORMED
CARE SERVICES CORPORATION. THE
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA AND THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION
OF CALIFORNIA ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND NEXT, WE
CAN GO TO LINE 1 80. HELLO THIS
IS MARISA MCGUINNESS, FOUNDER OF
THE HASHTAG METOO FAMILY COURT
MOVEMENT OR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROGRAM. WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF
THE FILM. LINE 37. CATHERINE
CAMPBELL WITH CALIFORNIA
PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION
WERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. LINE 1 67. 1 67, YOU'RE
OPEN. HI. IS THIS ME? YEP. SORRY
CAROL BLACK PRIVATE CITIZENS
FROM SANTA BARBARA IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. AND NEXT FORGOT 1 48.
RIGHT TO TELL REGISTERED NURSE
IN EL DORADO COUNTY STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND NEXT WE
HAVE LINE 1 41. CHRISTINA
EISENACH, ER ALSO IT'S HASHTAG
ME TO FAMILY COURT AND STRONG
SUPPORT. CAN. AT THIS POINT, WE
HAVE NONE FURTHER HOLDING IN
QUÊ. THANK YOU. OPERATOR WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE
TWO WITNESSES LISTED MELANIE
CUEVAS AND ROBERT WILSON. LOOKS
LIKE THEY'RE BOTH IN THE HEARING
ROOM. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. TO THE
MEASURE. I'LL START BY SAYING
THAT OUR MEMBERS TAKE FINANCIAL
CRIMES AND FINANCIAL ABUSE VERY
SERIOUSLY, AND CURRENT LAW
REFLECTS THE GRAVITY OF THESE
CRIMES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR GUILTY
PARTIES, WHICH HAS BEEN 975
NOTABLY LACKS. RECOGNIZING THE
NEED TO PROTECT VICTIMS. FOR THE
PAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE ENGAGED
WITH PROPONENTS TRYING TO FIND A
PATH FORWARD THAT GIVES REAL
RELIEF TO REAL VICTIMS WITHOUT
HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE
FINANCIAL MARKETPLACE, AND I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE PROPONENTS FOR
THE NUMEROUS LENGTHY MEETINGS
THAT WE HAVE HAD ON THIS MEASURE
AND FOR AMENDING THE MEASURE
INTO ITS CURRENT FORM.
UNFORTUNATELY THE YOU KNOW WE'RE
AT THE FINAL POLICY COMMITTEE
HEARING OF THIS MEASURE, AND
WE'RE STILL GRAPPLING WITH THE
QUESTION POSED IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND REALLY
THE BIGGEST FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF
THIS BILL, WHICH IS WILL THE
PERPETRATOR OF A COURSE THAT BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR AND ASSUME
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINANCIAL
OBLIGATION THAT THEY HAVE CAUSED
AND BENEFITED FROM? JUST AS A
VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED
TO THAT DEBT. A LENDER SHOULD
NOT HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL OF THE
CRIME. AND WHILE THE ANALYSIS
ACCURATELY STATES THAT CLAIMS
THAT IDENTITY THEFT DO NOT
ASSIGN LIABILITY TO A
PERPETRATOR, THAT IS BECAUSE THE
GUILTY PARTY IS TYPICALLY
UNKNOWN IN THE ACT OF COERCION
INDICATES THAT THERE IS A KNOWN
PERPETRATOR. I THINK THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF THIS BILL INDICATES
THAT IDENTITY THEFT IS
INHERENTLY DIFFERENT THAN A
COURSE DEBT. AND THE LAW AND THE
PROCESS SHOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF
THAT, INCLUDING PROVING THAT THE
COERCION DID INDEED OCCUR. IN
ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST
COLLUSION, EXPLOITATION AND
MERITORIOUS CLAIMS OR EVEN A
WEAPONIZATION OF THIS PROCESS. A
DEBTOR SEEKING RELIEF NEEDS TO
IDENTIFY AND SUPPLY INFORMATION
OF THE GUILTY PARTY, AND THAT'S
BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR A CREDITOR
TO COLLECT AGAINST THAT GUILTY
PARTY, WE NEED TO KNOW WHO THEY
ARE, AND WE NEED A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THEM, ESPECIALLY IN
SITUATIONS WHERE THE PERPETRATOR
IS NOT CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED.
TO THE DEBT. AND WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
IN 17 98.97 POINT THREE F THAT
CREDITORS MUST BE ABLE TO
COLLECT AGAINST WRONGDOERS AGAIN
. WE CANNOT DO SO WITHOUT A
JUDGMENT THAT CANNOT BE EXECUTED
WITHOUT A JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT
PARTY. NOTWITHSTANDING THE
NUMEROUS OTHER ISSUES, SP 975
STILL FAILS TO ADDRESS THOSE
CONCERNS AND TO ENSURE THAT THE
PERPETRATOR CANNOT DEBATE
RESPONSIBILITY, SO WE REMAIN
OPPOSED TO THE MEASURE AS VALID
DEBTS COULD BE INVALIDATED AT
ANY TIME WITH MINIMAL GUARDRAILS
AND ASSERT THAT ANY RELIEF
OFFERED TO DEBTORS MUST NOT BE
BALANCED ON THE BACKS OF LENDERS
BECAUSE THIS WILL HAVE A
CHILLING IMPACT ON THE
MARKETPLACE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND THEN ROBERT WILSON.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY THIS MORNING. ROB
WILSON, THE CALIFORNIA CREDIT
UNION LEAGUE AND REGRETFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 9 75. THE
CALIFORNIA CRATE UNIT LINKED
FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS BILL IS A
LAUDABLE GOAL AND WE ARE AND
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO PROVIDING
REAL RELIEF TO REAL VICTIMS THAT
STRIKES A BALANCE TO ENSURE
THERE ARE NOT MAJOR DISRUPTIONS
IN THE FINANCIAL MARKET PLACE.
I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T START
MY COMMENTS BY THANKING THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSOR FOR THE
AMENDMENTS THUS FAR, THE BILL IS
IN A BETTER PLACE, BUT WE ARE
STILL CONCERNED AND POSED TO THE
MEASURING PRINT. THE FUNDAMENTAL
ROOT OF OUR OPPOSITION IS THAT
THE BILL REMOVES THE BURDEN FROM
ONE INNOCENT THIRD PARTY, THE
VICTIM TO ANOTHER INNOCENT THIRD
PARTY, IN OUR CASE, THE CREDIT
UNION WHILE NOT HOLDING THE
ABUSER ACCOUNTABLE. IN SHORT, 9
75 TREATS THE CREDIT OR WORSE
THAN THE ABUSER. SP 9 75 OFFERS
RELEASED TO THE DEBTOR IN THE
FORM OF COMPLETE AND UNILATERAL
CANCELATION OF THE DEBT. WHILE
THAT SEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
VICTIM OF THE VICTIM, THIS BILL
EXPRESSLY STATES THE PERPETRATOR
OF THE CRIME DOES NOT NEED TO
IDENTIFY. THE PERPETRATOR, WHICH
IS CONCERNING THE VERY NATURE OF
COERCION INSINUATES THAT THERE
IS ONE PARTY THAT HAS CAUSED THE
VICTIM TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST
HIS OR HER WILL. WITH THE USE OF
THREATS OR FORCE THAT'S BENIGN.
75 APPEARS TO CREATE A NEW
CRIME, THE COERCION OF DEBT
WITHOUT ADDRESSING PENALTIES FOR
THE PERPETRATORS OF THAT CRIME.
OTHER FINANCIAL CRIMES, SUCH AS
FRAUD AND ELDER ABUSE. DO CARRY
PENALTIES. THE LACK OR EITHER
IDENTIFYING THE PERPETRATOR.
HOLDING THEM AT LEAST
ACCOUNTABLE COULD LEAD TO
COLLUSION AMONGST PARTIES TO GET
A SPECIFIC DIET ERASED. THE BILL
DOES NOT. THE BILL DOES STATE
THAT IT CLAIMED IT HAS THE RIGHT
TO COLLECT THE DEBT FROM THE
PERSON THAT COURSE THE DEBT.
HOWEVER WITH THAT, WITHOUT THAT
PERSON BEING IDENTIFIED AND A
JUDGMENT BEING PROVIDED AGAINST
THAT PERSON COLLECTION OF DEBT
WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE. HOW THE
CLAIMING IT KNOW WHO TO COLLECT
FROM WITH A PERSON'S NOT
IDENTIFIED. SP 9 75 IS A VERY
LAUDABLE GOAL AND WE ARE
COMMITTED TO REAL RELIEF FOR
REAL VICTIMS. HOWEVER THE CRIME,
OF COURSE DEBT SHOULD NOT BE
PAID FOR BY ANOTHER INNOCENT
THIRD PARTY. THE LENDERS THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE OTHERS IN THE ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 975 WILL TAKE
NAME, AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS CLIFF
COSTUME, A HALF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDITORS BAR ASSOCIATION. WE
APPRECIATE WORK THAT SENATORS
DOING AND BUT WE STILL REMAIN IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM? SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO
SB 975, AND WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR IF YOU ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 975 GO AHEAD
AND ONE FOLLOWED BY ZERO. AND WE
WILL GO TO LINE 1 81, YOU ARE
OPEN. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
LINDSEY GOLD HORN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA IN WORK RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. LINE 1 69, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS.
JAMIE HUFF. WESTIE JACK
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU. FIND 1 79, YOU
ARE OPEN. CLIFF BERG FOR THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
COLLECTORS WERE OPPOSED TO THE
BILL. AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
GIVE ONE MORE. REMINDER ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO IF YOU'RE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 975, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. 1 25. DAVID REED WITH THE
RECEIVABLES ANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE'S
QUEUED UP. THANK YOU PRETTY MAY
CLOSE THE LINES AND I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR
CUNNINGHAM. I HAD SOME QUESTIONS
FOR THE OPPOSITION WITNESSES RAN
AWAY. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND
COMING BACK UP. OKAY SO I DON'T
QUITE FOLLOW SOME OF THE
ARGUMENT AND ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT
CONFLICTED ON THE SPILL BECAUSE
THEY THE DEFINITION. OF COURSE,
THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. IT SEEMS
LIKE IT'S FAIRLY NARROWLY
CRAFTED. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
VICTIMS OF DV ELDER DEPENDENT
ADULT ABUSE. OR FOSTER YOUTH,
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DURESS,
INTIMIDATION, THREAT FORCE OR
FRAUD, RIGHT? SO IF IT SEEMS
LIKE YOU'RE ISSUE IS THAT THE
PERSON CAN FILE THIS AFFIDAVIT
SAVED THEIR VICTIM OF ONE OF THE
AFRO MENTIONED THINGS AND THEN
HAVE THE DEBT CANCELED WITHOUT
REVEALING THE PERSON THAT WAS
THE COARSER RIGHT? BUT. IT
OCCURS TO ME IN A CASE OF
ANYTHING THAT'S CO SIGNED ON,
YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW RIGHT, SO
THAT'S ONE CATEGORY WHERE YOU
COULD VERY READILY IDENTIFY THE
PERSON THAT VISA AND THEIR CO
SIGNERS SO YOU CAN YOU CAN TAKE
ACTION AGAINST THEM, RIGHT? AND
THEN IN ANY CASE THAT I MEAN,
THIS STUFF IS ALL PRETTY MUCH
COVERED UNDER EXISTING CRIMINAL
LAW. SO IF THERE'S A CRIMINAL
CASE FILED, THEN YOU CAN SEEK
FOR RESTITUTION IN THE CRIMINAL
PROCESS. I BELIEVE SO I GUESS MY
QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE UNIVERSE
OF PEOPLE THAT ARE COURSING.
THAT THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE
THERE GOING TO BE EFFECTIVELY
UNCOLLECTIBLE FROM I JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THAT'S
A GOOD QUESTION AND I GUESS, UM
IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNKNOWN
. I THINK THAT OUR CONCERNS ARE
AROUND SITUATIONS WHERE LET'S
SAY THAT YOU KNOW, IN THE
EXAMPLE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
THERE IS A PERSON AND THEIR
PARTNER. AND THAT PARTNER IS NOT
CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO THE
DUTCH. SO I THINK AN EXAMPLE
WOULD BE. YOU KNOW, I WAS FORCED
TO TAKE OUT THIS CREDIT CARD. MY
PARTNER RAN UP THE CREDIT CARD
IS ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
PRODUCTS THAT THEY PURCHASED. IS
NOT HELPING ME PAY THAT
OBLIGATION, WHICH IS IN MY NAME
, AND I MAY OR MAY NOT BE
BENEFITING FROM THOSE THOSE
ACTIVITIES A LENDER IS PROVIDING
IN GOOD FAITH. CREDIT TO THAT
CONSUMER WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF
THE RELATIONSHIP. THE NATURE OF
THE RELATIONSHIP, THE ABUSE, THE
NATURE OF THE ABUSE, AND NOR
SHOULD WE KNOW OR HAVE THAT
INFORMATION, SO IN SITUATIONS
WHERE SOMEBODY IS NOT
CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO THE
DEBT WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING
WHO THEY ARE OR COLLECTING
AGAINST THEM. IF THAT MAKES
SENSE. CAN I ASK ANOTHER
QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR THAN
WHAT'S YOUR SORT OF RESPONSE TO
THAT? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A
WAY TO POTENTIALLY AND WE TRIED
TO MAKE THIS NARROW AND WE DID
THIS IN CONSULTATION WITH
OPPOSITION WITH STAKEHOLDERS.
AND THEN YOU JUST LET ME TAKE A
STEP BACK AND SAY THE ELEPHANT
IN THE ROOM IS WHY NOT IN THE
ROOM IS WHY NOT JUST JOIN THE
PARTIES? I THINK THE OPPOSITION
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BE THE CASE.
AND I REMEMBER FIRST FLOATING.
THIS IS MY WIFE. MY WIFE WORKS
IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND SHE
SAID YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT.
BECAUSE BASICALLY WHEN YOU JOIN
ABUSED HER INTO THIS TYPE OF
PROCEEDING, YOU'RE CREATING
IMMINENT DANGER TO THE SURVIVOR
THERE COUNTLESS INSTANCES WHERE
A ABUSER AND SURVIVOR IN THE
SAME COURT SETTING HAS LED TO
DOUBT DEADLY OUTCOMES. AND SO WE
WANT TO AVOID THAT OUTCOME. IF
YOU TALKED, I'LL LET MY IF IT'S
OK, I CAN HAVE MY SPONSOR. SPEAK
TO THIS, BUT I THINK THAT IS A
NONSTARTER FROM OUR END BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE SUCH A DANGEROUS
MOVE. AND THERE'S INSTANCES AS I
UNDERSTAND IT AND HOW WE TREAT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. WHERE WE
SPECIFICALLY SAY YOU DON'T HAVE
TO BRING IN THE ABUSER BECAUSE
WE WANT TO AVOID THAT
CONFRONTATION OR POTENTIAL FOR
CONFRONTATION. THE QUESTION IS,
WHAT DO WE DO THEN? SO WE'VE
SAID THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AS
PART OF THE ADEQUATE
DOCUMENTATION THE IDENTITY OF
THE ABUSER UNLESS THEY SUBMIT A
SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE COURT
FINDS COMPELLING. THAT DOING SO
WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY. AND
SO AS HE ANALYSIS NOTES, AND I
THINK YOU ALLUDE TO THERE ARE
NUMEROUS PATHWAYS BY WHICH THE
LENDERS CAN FIND THE INANITY OF
THE ABUSER. AH THE STATUE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR THESE TYPES OF
CASES IS, UH, I THINK FIVE YEARS
YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS
LONGER THAN THE FOUR YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON MOST
DEBT COLLECTION CASES. AND SO
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS
CREATE A NARROWLY CRAFTED
EXCEPTION AND AS AS THE ANALYSIS
NOTES, UM THIS IS FAIRLY COMMON
IN ALL SORTS OF AREAS WHERE
PRIVACY IS WARRANTED, AND WE'RE
AGAIN WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CREATE
A MASSIVE LOOPHOLE THAT PEOPLE
CAN EXPLOIT AND WE TRIED TO
CRAFT THIS IN WAYS THAT WOULD BE
NARROWLY TAILORED TO ALLOW
VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS. TO ACCESS
RELIEF AGAINST DEBTS THAT WERE
WRONGFULLY AND HEARD WHILE
ALLOWING AND PROVIDING
INFORMATION FOR THE LENDERS TO
THEN FOLLOW UP AND GO AFTER THE
DEBTORS IN A COURSERS IN A
SEPARATE PROCEEDING, AND SO I
THINK IT'S THE ANALYSIS NOTES.
AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE SECRECY,
IT'S UP TO THE LEGISLATURE
DECIDE WHAT MATTERS MORE THE
INCONVENIENCE FOR BANK OR DEBT
COLLECTOR TO HAVE TO BRING A
FOLLOW UP SUIT. AGAINST A
PERPETRATOR OR A SURVIVOR,
REPAYING A DEBT THEY WERE
COERCED AND INCURRING BECAUSE
THEY FEARED BEING HARMED. OKAY
SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY
YOU DO GENERALLY, IF YOU'RE
PETITIONING FOR THIS, YOU DO
HAVE TO DISCLOSE UNLESS YOU'RE
WILLING TO SAY UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY. THIS WOULD PUT ME IN
DANGER. AND THEN THERE'S A COURT
REVIEW OF THAT. AFFIDAVIT OR
WHAT DECLARATION OR WHATEVER IT
IS. THAT THAT IS THE LANGUAGE.
YEAH, THAT AND IF I COULD
ACTUALLY HAVE MY SPONSORS FOLLOW
UP, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT UP TO
THE CHAIR. I'M GOOD, WELL IT IN
. AND I THINK THIS THIS QUESTION
IS ASKED AND PRETTY. THE
ANALYSIS GOES. THROUGH THE
PROCESS AND WHY THERE ARE
MULTIPLE AVENUES FOR IDENTIFYING
THEY REALLY THE PERPETRATOR IN
THIS CASE. OH, AND I ALSO FORGOT
TO MENTION THAT EVEN IF THE
DEBTOR DOES PROVIDE THAT SWORN
STATEMENT, THE SECRECY ONLY
REMAINS IN PLACE DURING THE
CLAIMANTS REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
THAT THE DEBT WAS COERCED. SO
ONCE THE DEBTOR FILE SUIT THEY
WILL HAVE OF NECESSITY.
NECESSITY PUT THE PERPETUATORS
IDENTITY AT ISSUE AND BE SUBJECT
TO DISCOVERY AND IF IT GOES TO
TRIAL CROSS EXAMINATION. SO
THERE IS NO SECRECY AT THE
LITIGATION BOARD. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CHOLERA. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN. THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BEING THIS SPORT AND CERTAINLY
SYMPATHIZE WITH WITH THOSE THAT
ARE TRYING TO SEEK THAT. I KNOW
THAT. YOU KNOW THE WHEN THERE'S
EXTRA BARRIERS THERE, THAT'S A
LEGITIMATE CONCERN OVER
LEGITIMATE CONCERN. BUT IN TERMS
OF AGAIN, THE BALANCING ACT HERE
, UM AND PROTECTING SURVIVORS OF
ABUSE, WHICH I KNOW THE
OPPOSITION DOES NOT OPPOSE THAT
INTENTION. UM THAT BEING SAID,
UM, THE REALITY IS THAT WE KNOW
THAT MANY SURVIVORS OF ABUSE
BECAUSE OF DEBTS INCURRED AND
FINANCES STAYING IN AN ABUSIVE
SITUATION, AND IT'S REALLY
DIFFICULT AND AS YOU MENTIONED
YOUR SPOUSE'S WORK, YOU KNOW
BETTER THAN I DO, SENATOR FROM
THAT FROM YOUR CONVERSATIONS
WITH YOUR WIFE, BUT THE REALITY
IS THAT THAT KEEPS PEOPLE LOCKED
IN ABUSIVE SITUATIONS. FINANCE
IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS.
UM WHY? WHY WHY VICTIMS STAY AND
IN THOSE SITUATIONS AND SO
SURVIVORS OF ABUSE WE NEED TO
GIVE THEM ALL THE TOOLS. AND ALL
OF THE SUPPORT TO GET OUT OF
THOSE SITUATIONS. AND SO I THINK
THIS IS NARROWLY CRAFTED
LEGISLATION WELL THOUGHT OUT, UM
AND CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT. AND
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT'S
FRANKLY LONG OVERDUE. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MISS REYES.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I THINK FOR
THE VERY COMMENTS FROM THE
OPPOSITION REAL RELIEF FOR REAL
VICTIMS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT IS THE WAY YOU STARTED. I
RECOGNIZE, AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS
SAID THAT THERETHERE IS ALSO
THE PART FOR THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, BUT I THINK I SEE
THIS AS REAL RELIEF FOR REAL
VICTIMS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING
PRIMARILY ABOUT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS. UM IN IN MY
WORK, I HAVE MET WITH MANY
FOSTER YOUTH. OR THAT WERE
ORGANIZED AND TALKED ABOUT THE
ISSUES THAT AFFECT THEM. THE
MOST HAVING A PERSON THAT THE
FAMILY THAT IS THAT THEY'RE
LIVING WITH. COERCE THEM TO GO
INTO DEBT. NOT ONLY CAUSES THEM
PROBLEMS WHILE THEY'RE THEY'RE
LIVING WITH THEM. BUT THEN ONCE
THEY AGE OUT, AND THEY TRY TO
RENT A PLACE THEY KNOW LONGER
HAVE GOOD CREDIT BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT RENT A PLACE BECAUSE OF
THIS DEBT THAT WAS COERCED ONTO
THEM. MAKING SURE THAT WE
PROTECT OUR FOSTER YOUTH AS WELL
AS OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
AND ARE THE ELDER THOSE WHO WHO
ARE VICTIMS OF ELDER ABUSE. IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK
THAT REMEMBERING THAT THE MAIN
REASON FOR THIS BILL IS REAL
RELIEF FOR REAL VICTIMS. AND I
THINK THAT AS YEAH. ONCE IT IS
IMPLEMENTED, ASSUMING IT IS
SIGNED INTO LAW, THEN WE'LL KNOW
HOW MANY PEOPLE REALLY ARE NOT.
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FIND BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT IDENTIFIED OR EVEN
IN DISCOVERY. IT BECOMES A REAL
ISSUE, AND THEN WE MAY BE BACK
HERE TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO FIX
THIS. BUT IT IS A LAUDABLE UM,
BILL, AND WITH THAT I WOULD MOVE
IT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE EMOTION.
IS THERE A SECOND? I'M STILL. I
STILL WANTED TO MAKE A QUESTION
JUST ASKING FOR A MOTION AND A
SECOND AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT, LET'S DAVIES THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. UM QUESTION. I KNOW
THAT IN THE ANALYSIS, I
MENTIONED THAT TEXAS AND MAIN
BOTH HAD LAWS FOR THESE TYPES OF
PROTECTIONS. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE
OPPOSITION. WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE WITH THOSE LAWS
COMPARED TO JUST SO I HAVE A
LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. THANK YOU
. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. UM
ANALYSIS, I THINK IS ACCURATE. I
WOULD SAY THAT MAIN DEALS ONLY
WITH DEBTS THAT ARE DELINQUENT,
WHEREAS SP 975 DEALS WITH BOTH
DOTS THAT MAY BE DELINQUENT AND
THOSE THAT ARE IN GOOD STANDING
, SO THE SCOPE OF 975 IS MUCH
GREATER THAN THAT IN MAINE. THE
LAW IN TEXAS REQUIRES A POLICE
REPORT. 975 POLICE REPORT IS ONE
PIECE OF ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION
THAT YOU MAKE PRESENT IN A CLAIM
, BUT 975 INCLUDES A LOT ARE
MUCH MORE BROAD SCOPE OF
INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN SUPPLY
TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM, WHICH
INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, NOTES FOR MY
COUNSELOR NOTES FROM A THERAPIST
NOTES FROM FOLKS WHO ARE
FINANCIALLY HAVE A RELATIONSHIP
ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE
VICTIM. SO IT'S WHILE THERE ARE
PROTECTIONS IN MAINE AND TEXAS,
I DON'T I'M NOT SURE IT'S AN
APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. UM
AND I WILL SAY IN THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT IDENTIFYING
THE PERPETRATOR, I THINK ONE OF
OUR CONCERNS TOO, IS HOW DO YOU
PRO SORRY THAT SHE WAS ASKING
YOU ABOUT THE OTHER LAWS? YOU'RE
GETTING A LITTLE OFF TOPIC.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM
COMMUNITY MEMBERS. SEEING NONE.
SENATOR YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. AND JUST IF I MIGHT TAKE A
MOMENT TO RESPOND IN MY CLOSE TO
THAT LAST QUESTION, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE MAIN
IN TEXAS LAWS ACTUALLY ARE MUCH
MORE FAST TRACKED. WE ACTUALLY
SLOWED THIS DOWN AND CREATING
MUCH MORE ABOUT THOROUGH PROCESS
TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
BANKS AND LENDERS THAN THE MAIN
IN TEXAS LAWS. SO I'M HAPPY TO
TALK WITH YOU OFFLINE ABOUT
THAT, BUT I RESPECTFULLY ASK
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM, I
BLOOM DAVIES. HANEY. HANEY, I
CHOLERA. COLD DRY. KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN RAISE PONTA WICKS.
THAT BILL IS ON CALL. IT NEEDS
TWO MORE VOTES. THANK YOU. IT'S
LIKE SENATOR RUBIO SO WE WILL
NOW MOVE TO OUR ITEM NUMBER 11
SB 616.
MORNING. GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY.
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT SB 616
PEAKY SLAW. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF MURDERED CHILDREN,
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SURVIVORS AND
PARENTS WHO HAVE SUFFERED
UNIMAGINABLE TRAGEDY. THEY HAVE
LOST THEIR CHILDREN TO AN
ABUSIVE PARENT. I WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THREE
MOTHERS WHO ARE STILL GRIEVING.
ILIANA GUTIERREZ, WHOSE THREE
DAUGHTERS AND MIA SAMANTHA. AND
10 YEAR OLD SAMARA, NINE YEARS
OLD, WERE BRUTALLY GUNNED DOWN
AT A CHURCH. IN SACRAMENTO AND
FEBRUARY DURING A COURT ORDERED
MANDATED VISIT. THEY DIED AT THE
HANDS OF THEIR FATHER. MARIA
VASQUEZ, WHOSE 23 YEAR OLD
DAUGHTER YES, LEAVE ALASKA'S
GONZALEZ ONLY 23 YEAR OLD AND
HER ONLY GRANDSON. ANGEL WERE
GUNNED DOWN BY HER BOYFRIEND AND
MY CITY TWO WEEKS AGO. ANGEL HAD
JUST TURNED SIX LAST MONTH IN
PROBABLY HELD HIS CERTIFICATE OF
GRADUATION FROM KINDERGARTEN AND
A SCHOOL WHERE I ONCE TAUGHT AND
I'M JOINED HERE TODAY BY ANNA S
. DAVIS, WHOSE FIVE YEAR OLD SON
PEAKY, WAS MURDERED BY HIS
FATHER. ANOTHER COURT MANDATED
VISIT. THIS BILL IS NAMED AFTER
HER SON PEAKY. A HORRIFIC FAMILY
COURT STORY THAT SHE WILL SHARE
WITH YOU IN A MOMENT. AS WE 616
IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL
MANDATE JUDGES AND EVERYONE
INVOLVED IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS TO
RECEIVE CRITICAL ONGOING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILD
ABUSE TRAINING. PEAKY. SLA WILL
ALLOW CALIFORNIA. TO USE FEDERAL
FUNDING THAT IS NOW AVAILABLE
FROM THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
ACT AS WELL. IT WILL PRIORITIZE
CHILD SAFETY BY CLARIFYING THAT
WE MUST PUT THE HEALTH SAFETY
AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN. FIRST.
AND WE'LL CLARIFY THAT FAMILY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES CAN'T BE
ORDERED. IT IS TOO IMPORTANT NOT
TO CHILDREN DESERVE BETTER.
THESE MOTHERS DESERVE BETTER.
AND THE 851 CHILDREN NOW
REPORTED MURDERED SINCE 2000 AND
EIGHT AT THE HANDS OF A
SEPARATING OR DIVORCE,
DIVORCING, ABUSIVE PARENT
DESSERT BETTER. TODAY HERE WITH
ME ARE TWO WITNESSES HONEST
DAVIS, A CHAMPION FOR VICTIMS
AND THE MOTHER OF PEAKY, AND I
HAVE WITH ME AS WELL. KATHERINE
RUSSELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
THE CENTER FOR JUDICIAL
EXCELLENCE. WHO HAS MY BILL
SPONSOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIRMAN STONE AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ANNA ESTEVEZ. AND I
WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY
EXPRESSING HOW HONORED I AM TO
BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY SON.
I SIT BEFORE YOU AS A
CONSTITUENT OF LONG BEACH, A
VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMY, A FORMER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY
AS A MOTHER AND ADVOCATE AN
ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN WHO SUFFER
AT THE HANDS. OF AN ABUSIVE. AND
CHILDREN WHO OFTEN FALL VICTIM
TO OUR FAMILY COURT. MY PURPOSE
HERE TODAY. IS TO SHARE MY
PERSONAL TESTIMONY. TO RECOGNIZE
THE CRITICAL ROLE. THAT YOU AS
THE AS CALIFORNIA'S LEADERS PLAY
IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS. AND TO
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU
TO REFLECT ON HOW THE MURDER OF
AN INNOCENT CHILD CAN INFLUENCE
THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE AND THE
WAY YOU CHOOSE TO SERVE YOUR
CONSTITUENTS IN THE FUTURE.
ACCORDING TO THE CENTER FOR
JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE SINCE 2000
AND EIGHT AT LEAST 84 CHILDREN
HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY A PARENT
IN CALIFORNIA. MOST OF WHOM WERE
DIVORCING INVOLVED IN A CUSTODY
DISPUTE OR EXPERIENCING SYSTEMIC
FAILURE. ONE VICTIM. A FIVE YEAR
OLD BOY. WAS SUFFOCATED TO DEATH
WHILE HE SLEPT IN THE BACK SEAT
OF HIS FATHER'S CAR. THAT FIVE
YEAR OLD BOY WAS MY SON.
ATOMIZED UNDRESSING ON THE
SECOND. LIVING ONLY KNOWN AS
SPEAKY. IN APRIL 2016. I TOLD MY
EX HUSBAND THAT I WANTED A
DIVORCE. AND ALTHOUGH HE
PRETENDED TO BE DISTRAUGHT, I
KNOW THAT MY EX HUSBAND ACTUALLY
BEGAN PLOTTING HOW HE WAS GOING
TO HURT MY SON AND ME.
ESPECIALLY AFTER HE ARTICULATED
THAT WE COULD DO THIS THE RIGHT
WAY OR I CAN GO FOR THE JUGULAR.
BOTH MY SON AND I BECAME HIS
TARGETS AND BECAUSE FAMILY COURT
DEFAULTS TO THE BELIEF THAT
CUSTODY SHOULD BE SHARED EQUALLY
AMONGST PARENTS. I COULD NO
LONGER PROTECT MY SON THE WAY HE
NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED. FIVE
MONTHS INTO OUR DIVORCE. MY EX
HUSBAND FILED FALSE ALLEGATIONS
WITH CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND COURSE MY SON INTO LYING TO
SOCIAL WORKERS. THE ALLEGATIONS
WERE INVESTIGATED BY TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF FORENSIC
CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST, A MENTAL
HEALTH CONSULTANT AND A MEDICAL
PROFESSIONAL. MY SON INFORMED
SUCH THE SOCIAL WORKER WHILE IN
THE PRESENCE OF TWO DETECTIVES.
THAT HIS FATHER MADE HIM TELL
THE STORY. IN AN INTERVIEW WITH
THE POLICE OFFICER, MY SON
DESCRIBED THANK YOU. MY SON
DESCRIBED HOW HIS FATHER
PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY
ABUSED HIM. IN A REPORT TO CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, THE
FORENSIC THERAPIST INFORMED THE
SOCIAL WORKER THAT IT WAS HER
BELIEF THAT MY SON WAS BEING
COACHED AND THAT THEY WERE MAJOR
INCONSISTENCIES WITH HIS STORY.
THE MENTAL HEALTH CONSULTANT WHO
INTERVIEWED MY SON ASKED IF HE
WAS AFRAID OF HIS FATHER. HE
RESPONDED. I DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THAT. ALL OF THE ABOVE
REFERENCED EVIDENCE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGE. HE
IGNORED THE REPORTS AND ALLOWED
MY EX HUSBAND TO MAINTAIN JOINT
CUSTODY. IN DECEMBER OF 2016. I
FILED FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER
AGAINST MY EX HUSBAND. IN
ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE
PROVIDED I SUBPOENAED THREE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM
DIFFERENT AGENCIES TO TESTIFY.
UNDOCUMENTED LIES AND ABUSE
TOWARD MY SON. THE SAME FAMILY
COURT JUDGE DISREGARDED THE
EVIDENCE AND RULED AGAINST
ALLOWING TESTIMONY FROM THE
OFFICERS STATING THAT THEY WERE
THERE FOR CUSTODY REASONS, NOT
ABUSE. AND AT THE END OF THE
HEARING. THE JUDGE STATED THAT
A TESTIMONY THAT WAS WAS MORE
CREDIBLE THAN MINE AND DENIED MY
REQUEST ONCE AGAIN FOR A
RESTRAINING ORDER AND SUPERVISED
VISITS. IN APRIL OF 2017. WE
WERE RETURNED FOR THE FINAL TIME
TO COURT FOR A PARENT PARENTING
PLAN ASSESSMENT. DURING THE
INTERVIEW I SHARED WITH THE
EVALUATOR THAT MY SON WAS AFRAID
OF HIS FATHER ELABORATED ON THE
EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND TRIED TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE MY EX
HUSBAND'S LIES. THE EVALUATOR
STATED SHE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO
REVIEW WHAT I BROUGHT. NEEDED TO
COMPLETE THE EVALUATION REPORT
FOR THE JUDGE BY ONE P.M. ONCE
AGAIN THE EVIDENCE WAS IGNORED.
MY REQUEST FOR SOLE CUSTODY WITH
SUPERVISED VISITS WAS DENIED.
AND EIGHT DAYS LATER, MY SON WAS
MURDERED. ON APRIL 21ST OF 2017
, MY EX HUSBAND SUFFOCATED MY
SON IN THE BACKSEAT OF HIS
VEHICLE WHILE HE SLEPT. STRAPPED
IN HIS CAR SEAT AFTER A DAY LONG
TRIP TO DISNEYLAND. ACCORDING TO
HOMICIDE DETECTIVES. MY EX
HUSBAND THEN DROVE FOR TWO HOURS
WITH MY SON'S LIFELESS BODY IN
THE BACK SEAT OF HIS CAR. AND
PROCEEDED TO DUMP HIS BODY ON A
HEAVILY WOODED HILLSIDE IN SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY. DURING THE
HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION,
DETECTIVES SEIZED EVIDENCE AND
DISCOVERED THAT MY EX HUSBAND
BEGAN PLANNING MY SON'S MURDER
SHORTLY AFTER THE RESTRAINING
ORDER HEARING. MY EX HUSBAND
COMMITTED THESE HEINOUS CRIMES.
BECAUSE HE WANTED. BECAUSE OF ME
WANTING A DIVORCE AND TRYING TO
PROTECT MY SON. MY EX HUSBAND
TOOK THE ONLY THING THAT
MATTERED MOST TO ME IN THIS
WORLD. MY ONLY CHILD. IN JUNE OF
2018. I SAT AT THIS VERY TABLE
TO ADVOCATE FOR PIXIES
RESOLUTION, WHICH FOCUSED ON
CHILD SAFETY, JUDICIAL TRAINING
IN COURT REFORM. MANY OF YOU
WERE PRESENT DURING MY TESTIMONY
AND VOTED I IN SUPPORT OF THE
RESOLUTION. ON AUGUST 23RD
RESOLUTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY ON
THE ASSEMBLY FOR FLOOR WITH 78
76 CO AUTHORS. IT IS MY HOPE
TODAY AND EVERY DAY FORWARD THAT
YOU RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
PROTECTING CHILDREN AND MAINTAIN
A SENSE OF URGENCY WHEN IT COMES
TO CHILD SAFETY AND FAMILY
COURT. WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO
HERE TODAY WILL MAKE A
DIFFERENCE TO THOUSANDS. YOU CAN
CHOOSE TO SAVE INNOCENT LIVES,
PROTECT CHILDREN WHO SUFFER AT
THE HANDS OF AN ABUSIVE PARENT
AND BE THE VOICE OF 84 MURDERED
CHILDREN HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I
WHOLEHEARTEDLY ASK. YOU THE
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL
616, ALSO KNOWN AS PICKY AS LAW.
WITHOUT RESERVATION. I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR COMPASSION
AND LEADERSHIP THAT GUIDES YOU
TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE RIGHT
AND JUST. THANK YOU NEXT WITNESS
, GIVEN QUITE A BIT OF ATTITUDE
TO THE PREVIOUS WITNESS, I ASK
YOU TO BE BRIEF. SURE CHAIRMAN
STONE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
KATHLEEN RUSSELL, WITH THE
CENTER FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE.
WE ARE COMMITTED TO PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND CHILD ABUSE SURVIVORS AND
OUR STATES AND NATIONS, FAMILY
COURTS AND TO INCREASING
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
THROUGHOUT THE BRANCH. I'M GOING
TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS BRIEFLY ON
ANOTHER PORTION OF THE BILL,
WHICH IS THE BAN OF
REUNIFICATION PROGRAMS, WHICH
ARE COURT ORDERED. MANY PEOPLE
ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THESE
PROGRAMS. BUT THEY'RE INCREASING
IN TERMS OF COURTS ORDERING
THESE CHILDREN WHO ARE ABUSED
CHILDREN INTO MOTEL ROOMS FOR
FOUR DAYS AT TO THE TUNE OF
$40,000. THAT AN ABUSIVE PARENT
PAYS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE
CHILDREN THREATENED THAT THEY
WILL NEVER SEE THEIR SAFE PARENT
AGAIN UNLESS THEY COOPERATE.
THERE WITH HELD FOOD IS WITHHELD
FROM THE CHILDREN. MANY OF THEM
ARE YELLED AT ONE RECENTLY WAS
ASSAULTED. THESE PROGRAMS ARE
NOT REGISTERED OR LICENSED IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND YET
CHILDREN ARE BEING FLOWN FROM
OTHER STATES TO CALIFORNIA MOTEL
ROOMS TO BE THREATENED THAT THEY
HAVE TO RECANT THE PHYSICAL AND
SEXUAL ABUSE. THAT THEY'VE
EXPERIENCED AS CHILDREN, SO
THESE ARE INCREDIBLY DAMAGING.
WE HAVE FAMILY COULD SECTION 30
26, WHICH SAYS THAT THESE
PROGRAMS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
THERE WAS A RECENT COURT
DECISION. FUNK V. HARRIS THAT'S
SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE
LEGISLATURE TO CLARIFY WHICH
TYPES OF PROGRAMS THIS CODE
SECTION SHOULD UM, BAN AND SO
THIS BILL ADDRESSES THAT
STATUTORY AMBIVALENCE. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. OTHERS IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT OF SB
616. WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORTS. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS KARLIE HUSTLE. I COME TO
YOU AS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVOR AS WELL AS A MOTHER OF
TWO CHILDREN WHO ARE CURRENTLY
VICTIMS OF THE FAMILY COURT
SYSTEM. AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL.
MY NAME IS SANDY ROSS AND I'M A
PROTECTIVE PARENT OF A CHILD WHO
SURVIVED. BARELY THE COURT
SYSTEM SO I STRUGGLE SUPPORT
THIS BILL. I'M TANIA SACCO FROM
SACRAMENTO, AND I'M ALSO A
PROTECTIVE PARENT. MY NAME IS
DONNA ESTEVEZ AND I'M PINKY'S
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER. AND I'M
ASKING YOU PLEASE KNOW I'M
BEGGING YOU. PLEASE SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
CYNTHIA SNOOKS GRANADOS AND I
SUPPORT THIS BELT. SB 616.
SHEILA AND RODRIGUEZ FROM CHINO.
UM, MOTHER. FRIEND TEACHER AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
KIMBERLY ORTIZ, WEST COVINA
MOTHER FRIEND AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. SCOTT THOMAS, SON OF A
RETIRED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR
FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND I
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE SEEING NONE OPERATED
. WOULD YOU OPEN ALLIANCE FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT? FOR SP 616
AGAIN. WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND SUPPORT. CERTAINLY THANK
YOU. AND IT IS 10 AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL GO FIRST TO LINE 1 88.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. NAME IS
BRITTANY ELMORE, RESIDENT OF LOS
ANGELES, AND I SUPPORT SB 616. 1
58. GOOD MORNING. ANYA KAPLAN.
LADERA RANCH. I STRONGLY SUPPORT
SB 616. 2 18. HI MY NAME IS
LATINA CAROL PROTECTIVE PARENT
AND U. S. ARMY VETERAN JUST LIKE
ARMY VETERAN AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT PINKY'S LAW. SB 616.
LINE 86. HI MY NAME IS KAREN. HI
MY NAME IS HI. MY NAME IS HELEN
CHOICE. UM I'M A FRIEND. I'M A
MOTHER. I'M AN EDUCATOR. AND I
SUPPORT PICKY FLOSS. THANK YOU.
NEXT IS 1 48. HI. MY NAME IS
SORAYA SATO. I AM IN EL DORADO
COUNTY REGISTERED NURSE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE 616. 1 24. COURTLAND
BRIDGES WITH THE CHI ALICIA
THOMAS FOUNDATION, MOTHER OF A
MURDER VICTIM'S GRANDMOTHER. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. 37.
CATHERINE CAMPBELL WITH
CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE PARENTS
ASSOCIATION. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
PEAKY SLAW, SBS 616 THE LINE 90.
KRISTA GUERRERO, MOTHER AND
PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM LOS
ANGELES COUNTY STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. 1 99. HELLO IT'S
SUSAN STELLIN. VALENCIA FRIENDS
AND I HIGHLY STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL. LINE 54. GOOD MORNING
. KIM ROBINSON, FAMILY LAW
ATTORNEY FROM OAKLAND,
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL PINKY'S LAW. THANK
YOU. LINE 25. GOOD MORNING.
ELIZABETH DOTSON, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, SURVIVOR AND
PROTECTIVE PARENTS, AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. 1 78. TITUS IS DEVIN
CORMIER AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
VICKY'S SP 616. THANK YOU. 204.
GOOD MORNING. THIS IS DR BRENNAN
CAR FROM HUNTINGTON'S BEACH, AND
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. 1
83. HI MY NAME IS DAVID VILLA
ARAB ALSO ON BEHALF OF CHRISTINA
VELARDE. WE BOTH WHOLEHEARTEDLY
SUPPORT. THIS BILL. IF YOU WANT
EXCELLENT SIX. FIND 2 23. SORRY.
MY 20 AND. HI MY NAME IS ANNE
MCMULLIN. I'M AN RN AND EL
DORADO COUNTY AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. SB 616. LINE
TWO. OH, THREE. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS DANIEL BAG BEAT. BRAND
PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATOR, RETIRED
RESIDENTS AND BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALLING THEM STRONG SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL 616 LOVE. THANK YOU.
FIND 1 68. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS MARGARET HUSBAND. I'M AN
EDUCATOR, PARENTS COLLEAGUE OF
ANNA AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT. SB
ONE. SB 616 TICKETS LÀ. 9 23. MY
NAME IS ESPERANZA D. CORMACK AT
A HILLARY COUNTY. I AM INTO
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, PAPER AND
MOTHER OF A CHILD ABUSE
SURVIVOR. AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
PINKY'S LAW. THANK YOU. BLIND
57. HI. MY NAME IS AURORA
CARLOS. FROM WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA I AM A SURVIVOR OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I AM ALSO OF
A MOTHER ABOUT ADULT MURDERED
SON. AND A FRIEND. AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT. AS 616 KEYS
LOCK. 1 41. CHRISTINA EISENACH,
ER PROTECTIVE MOTHER VICTIM OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. MY DAUGHTER
IS A VICTIM OF CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE AND ALSO ON BEHALF OF ME
TO FAMILY COURT. WHERE CHAU
ZINDZI OF MOTHERS OVER
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA HAVE
CONTACTED US FACING THE SAME
SITUATION. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
SB 616. LINE 1 80. IS THAT ME?
YEP. MARISSA MCGUINNESS, FOUNDER
OF THE ME TO FAMILY COURT
MOVEMENT, AND WE THE HE MAINLY
APPROVED SENATE BILL 616. LINE
24. 24 YEAR LINES OPEN. OVER
LINE 205. VERSATILE CASTRO AZUSA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL. THE
LINE 74. HELLO I'M DR KIMBERLY
DUNBAR FROM THE LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND I
WHOLEHEARTEDLY STRONGLY SUPPORT
AS THE 616. AS AN EDUCATOR AND A
FORM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
SURVIVOR AND I AM THE BIG SISTER
OF AND NO, THANK YOU. 1 62. 91
62. LINE 34. MY NAME IS HARRY
KANE FROM MY BRAND AND NONPROFIT
DIRECTOR RIGHT NOW. UH LIBRARY
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT PIECEOF
PICKING UP. LYING TO 40. JUST
LET ME EAT IN HOOK CENTER. AND I
AM THE LAW INTERNET CALLING ON
BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, IRVINE SCHOOL OF
LAW'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CLINIC
CLIENTS. STRONG SUPPORTIVE XB
616. THANK YOU. 2 36. HELLO. MY
NAME IS JENNIFER HILTON. I AM A
CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY.
I'M A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR
AND I AM A PROTECTIVE PARENTS
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
BILL. ONLINE TO 16. HI MY NAME
IS LISA SALDIVAR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPAL IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 616 LOSS.
LINE 1 59. NOT TONIGHT. FINE
LEGISLATIVE COALITION TO PREVENT
CHILD ABUSE. IN STRONG SUPPORT.
LINE 1 86. HI. MY NAME IS BIANCA
BEALL FIRMANDO PROTECTIVE
MOTHER. AND FATHER. AND I,
GRANDMOTHER AS WELL AND I
STRONGLY SUPPORT OF SB 616. LINE
2 15. AND YOU, GAMBLER FRIEND OF
ANNA, STRONG SUPPORTER FOR SP
616. THANK YOU. IN 2 26. MY NAME
IS DENISE ROBERT. I AM A STRONG
SUPPORTER OF SP 616 29. MY NAME
IS DEREK RAMAGE, RETIRED LÀ, USD
ADMINISTRATOR, FORMER COLLEAGUE
AND FRIEND OF ANNA DAVIS
PASSIONATELY SUPPORT THE 616
KEITH LÀ. THANK YOU. 1 56. HI MY
NAME IS LAWANDA HAWKINS, LOS
ANGELES JUSTICE AND MURDERED
CHILDREN AND WE SUPPORT SP 616.
2 33. MY NAME IS DIMAS GONDOLAS
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT SB. LINE
2 20. HI MY NAME IS ROBERT YOUNG
BEFORE LOS ANGELES. FORMER
PROSECUTOR UM AND DOMESTIC
VICTIMS. VIOLENCE VICTIMS
ADVOCATE I STRONGLY SUPPORT SB
616. AND LINE 2 55. IT'S A
KELLENBERGER. I'M A STAY AT
HOME, MOM AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
SP 616. AND CURRENTLY NONE
FURTHER IN QUÊ. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES LISTED
PETRA DETER AND CLAUDIA OVALS.
ARE YOU WITH US ON THE
TELEPHONE? YES. GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. YEAH. UM OKAY, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS DR PETRA DATA. I'M
SPEAKING AS A CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUENTS, SURVIVAL OF CHILD
ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I'M
ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
HEROES CIRCLE. AN ORGANIZATION
THAT CONSISTS ENTIRELY OF THE
ADULT SURVIVORS OF CHILD
PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE BY ONE OF
OUR PARENTS. BUT WE GOT TO THE
SECTION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE
SECTION 30 TO 6 OF THE FAMILY
QUOTE REGARDING THE
REUNIFICATION, KATHY THIS CLAUSE
DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
PATHOGENIC ATTACHMENTS AND
NEGATIVE BONDING. SO, FOR
EXAMPLE, REACTIVE ATTACHMENT
DISORDER IS A DISORDER THAT
LISTED IN THE D S TO M FIVE.
PATHOGENIC ATTACHMENT AND
NEGATIVE BONDING US
PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSED IT AND
DAMAGING TO CHILDREN THAT HAVE
SHOWN THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE
IT'S JUST AS DAMAGING AS
PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ABUSE. EVEN
THOUGH IT DOES NOT LEAVE MARKS
OR BRUISES. WE WOULD NOT WANT A
CHILD TO BE WITH A SEXUALLY OR
PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE PARENTS. YES,
STARS PLACE THE PROHIBITING THE
COURT FROM BEING ABLE TO ALLOW
THERAPY WHILE RESTRICTING OR
REMOVING ACCESS OF A CHILD TO A
PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSIVE PARENTS.
IT'S BECAUSE OF LAW FAILED TO
ALLOW THIS TYPE OF REUNIFICATION
THERAPY FOR ME AND OTHER MEMBERS
OF MY ORGANIZATION THAT THE
DAMAGE CAUSED BY OUR ATTACHMENT
WITHOUT PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSIVE
PARENTS HAD AND CONTINUES TO
NEGATIVELY IMPACT OR LIKE OF MY
LIFE, AND THOSE SURVIVORS LIKE
THESE, YOU HAVE THE MONEY
PINKY'S MOTHER ABOUT EMOTIONAL
ABUSE AND HOW IN PICKING CASE
EMOTIONAL ABUSE LED TO MOTIVE.
THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO ARE
PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSED BY ONE
PARENT, WHILE PATHOGENIC LEA
ATTACHED OR NEGATIVELY MARKED
IT. THAT PARENT IS THREE TIMES
THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH
AUTISM. IN ADDITION, HOW WE'RE
CUTTING OUT THE INTERPRETED
BECAUSE, WELL, TEMPORARY, NO
ACCESS ORDER WITH A STEP UP
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VALIDITY OF
THESE PARENTS TRAINING AND GET
APPROVAL BEFORE WE'RE DOING
ACCESS. CONSIDER CUTTING OFF.
WELL SUPERVISED VISIT CONSIDERED
CUTTING OFF WHEN THE LANGUAGE IN
THE STATUE IS NOT CLEAR, IT WILL
CREATE A PROBLEM IN THE
PRACTICE. SO REGARDING THE
SECTION TWO ITEMS, THREE ABOUT
MAKING CALIFORNIA ELIGIBLE FOR
ADDITIONAL BRAND FUNDING FEDERAL
FUNDING. PLEASE PUT ON THE
RECORD THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT HERE IS THAT
THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE OF FEDERAL
LAW WE'RE GETTING THIS PROGRAM
IS NOT CONSIDER IMPLY TO BE
INCLUSIVE HERE IN THIS BILL.
BECAUSE IF IT IS THEN IT SHOULD
BE. THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE SHOULD
BE INCLUDED IN THE BILL ANALYSIS
AND BE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION
BEFORE VOTING FOR THIS AND MÀ.
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED THIS
BILL UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE
CLAUDIA VIOLENCE. HELLO MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CLAUDIO
OBVIOUS, AND I OPPOSE SB 616.
I'M A UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
VETERAN. ALSO SURVIVOR
ARRANGEMENT PARTNER VIOLIST
VIOLENCE AND I'M ADVOCATE FOR
VETERANS. MY CONCERN FOR SP 6166
IS THE IMPACT THAT WILL HAVE ON
MILITARY COMMUNITY. ESPECIALLY
DISABLED VETERANS THAT ARE
PROTECTED UNDER THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT, SECTION
FIVE BEFORE THE REHABILITATION
THAT'S ENTITLED TO WELL, I AGREE
WITH THE PROTECTIVE OF CHILDREN.
I ALSO AGREE WITH THE PROTECTION
OF RIGHTS. THE DINER SERVICE
MEMBER OR DISABLED, VETERAN
UNIFICATION TREATMENT TO PROMOTE
CONNECTION AND COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS IS UNFAIR
, UNITING OUR RIGHT OF SERVICE
TO REDEFINE WHAT THEIR CHILDREN
WILL CAUSE THEM MORE TRAUMA AND
HARM TO THE PARENT CHILD
RELATIONSHIP. OUR REQUEST. THAT
YOU DO NOT DENY MY FELLOW
MILITARY BROTHERS AND SISTERS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPAIR AN
ATTACHMENT BOND WITH THEIR
CHILDREN. THE BILL WOULD ALSO
HAVE JEOPARDIZING EFFECTS ON
TRAUMA RELATED DISABLED VETERANS
WHO ARE PARENTS. CURRENTLY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS OVER
150,000 ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE
MEMBERS AND 92,000 ACTIVE DUTY
CHILDREN. AND THAT WAS PULLED
FROM MILITARY ONCE ONE SOURCE.
IN ADDITION, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF THIS
BILL. ON FEBRUARY, 18 2021 ACT
WAS FILED TO MEN'S SECTIONS OF
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
RELATED TO HOUSING. SB 616, AS
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RUBIO FOR
AN EMERGENCY HOUSING AND
ASSISTANT PROGRAM. PROMOTES 3RD
2021 TO MAKE 10 2021. THE BILL
WENT THROUGH VARIOUS COMMITTEES
AND WAS ORDERED TO ASSEMBLY ON
MAY 10 2021. THEN I'LL MAKE 2020
21. IT WAS REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FOR OVER
13 MONTHS. THIS BILL STATON
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION ON JUNE
2ND. IT CAME FROM A COMMITTEE
WITH AUTHORS AMENDMENTS. WAS
READ A SECOND TIME AND AMENDED
AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION. ON THE SAME DAY, JUNE
2ND. THE BILL WAS AMENDED IN AND
AT THIS POINT THE ENTIRE
ORIGINAL SP 616 TITLE AND
LANGUAGE WERE REMOVED. EVERY
PLACE AND CO AUTHORS WERE ADDED.
THE SP 616 WAS NOW AN ACT AS AN
IMMENSE FAMILY CODE AND
GOVERNMENT CODE RELATED TO CHILD
CUSTODY. THERE WAS NO SENATE
READING DEBATE OR VOTE WHEN THIS
ENORMOUS CHANGE CHANGE OCCURRED
. THE BELL MOVED FORWARD ON SB
616, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD ABUSE
AND SAFETY PINKY'S LAW TO SAVE
CHILD ACT. IT WAS NEVER PROPERLY
INTRODUCED, NORTHERN BUILT EVER,
EVER WENT BACK BEFORE THE SENATE
COMMITTEE. IN ADDITION, THIS
BILL IS BEING ACTED UPON WITHIN
30 DAYS OF JUNE. 2ND BILL MAY
NOT BE HEARD BY COMMITTEE UNTIL
31ST DAY AFTER INTRODUCTION.
YOUR LEGISLATIVE RULES ALSO
STATE ABILITY, INTRODUCED OR
READ THE FIRST TIME WHEN THE
BILL NUMBER THE NAME OF THE
AUTHOR, AND THE DESCRIPTIVE
TITLE OF THE BILL IS RED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. AGAIN. SP
616 CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD ABUSE
AND SAFETY PEKING LAW, THE CHILD
ACT WAS NEVER INTRODUCED. THERE
WAS A BAIT AND SWITCH THAT
OCCURRED ON JUNE 2ND AND THERE
WAS NO SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING
AFTER THAT CHANGE ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF AND SERVICE MEMBERS AND
VETERANS FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS.
I HAVE OPPOSED THIS BILL
ENTIRELY BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION OF
SENATE STANDARD. OF CONDUCT AND
I WISH TO FILE A FORMAL
COMPLAINT. PERSUADE TO YOUR
SENATE RULE. TOP DOWN THREE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT
WE'RE STILL WITH OPPOSITION. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 616? WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY. BUT
NAME AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 616? NO
FURTHER TESTIMONY, BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. PLEASE PRESS 10 AT
THIS TIME. WILL GO FIRST TO LINE
2 28. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. GO
AHEAD, PLEASE. NAME IS ELIZABETH
US. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH
AUTHORITARIAN AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT SB 616 P KEYS LOSS.
WE'VE GOT A LINE TO 72. YES. MY
NAME IS WADE HAYASHIDA. I'M A
RETIRED LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
ADMINISTRATOR, AND I FIGURED WE
SUPPORT THESE LAW. SB 616. ALL
RIGHT. WE ARE ON OPPOSITION.
ANYONE OPPOSED TO SB 616. THAT'S
ONE AMONG THE PHONE. OKAY. OKAY.
YEAH. 71 HELLO. GO AHEAD. MY
NAME IS AM I ON? YES. OKAY HI,
I'M I AM MICHELLE MALCOLM SEUIN.
I'M A SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. AND MY AM A PRIMARY
CARE DOCTOR AND SAN FRANCISCO
WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. I HAVE
LEARNED FROM TAKING FURTHER
TESTIMONY. JUST NAME AFFILIATION
AND WE'RE ON OPPOSITION. SO
OPPOSITION TO SB 616. OKAY I
SUPPORT SB 166. LINE 1 77. HI MY
NAME IS PENTA AND I AM IN
OPPOSITION AND I'M REPRESENTING
MOTHERS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE. I
AM ALSO REPRESENTING 38 OTHER
COMMITTEES, KIDS HUGS COLORADO
COALITION FOR POISON MEN. KIDS
NEED BOTH FATHERS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION FAMILY AGAINST
FIGHTING FOR CHILDREN'SRIGHTS.
PS INTERVENTION CHICAGO. UNITED
PARENTS, NATIONAL PARENTS,
ORGANIZATION SERVICE MEMBERS AND
VETERANS FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS,
PARENTAL ALIENATION VIRTUAL
INSTITUTE PARENTAL ALIENATION
STUDY GROUP. INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL ON SHARED PARENTING,
FAMILY ADVOCATE NETWORK
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
ALLIANCE OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION
PRACTITIONERS. COALITION TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIND MY
PARENTS INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
NETWORK FOR ALIENATED PARENTS,
THE HEROES CIRCLE TOGETHER FOR
CHANGES VICTIMS TO HERO
INSTITUTE RESPECTFULLY PACK
ASSOCIATION OF THE PORTUGUESE
PARIS PARENTAL A D TORONTO'S
DOES PILLOWS. BOYS MENTORING
ADVOCACY NETWORK, KHALID BRIGHT
TALIA, MEANING MANY MONEY MO
FOUNDATION. GLOBAL INITIATIVE
FOR BOYS AND MEN, GOOD EGGS,
SAFETY HAPPY PARENTING MALTA.
CREDIBLE ALIENATION AWARENESS IN
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK. PARENTAL
ALIENATION. UK RECOVER OUR KIDS
FLIP. THE DIFFERENCE ARE NOT
BOND. OH MANGA. PARENTAL
ALIENATION EUROPE SO OUR GROUP
PLUS 38 ADDITIONAL GROUPS ARE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SIX. IS THAT ME? GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. UM I SOMEHOW COULDN'T
GET IN THE CURE. I WAS TOLD
THERE WAS IN THE CUBAN WASN'T
CALLED ON. I HEARTILY SUPPORT SP
616. I AM THE AUNT OF A MURDERED
CHILD DUE TO FAMILY COURT, AND
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR KIDS.
THANK YOU. 2 75. IS IT ME? YES.
GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR DOING THIS IS DR SHERRY
TOPICAL, ANONYMOUS VICTIM OF
FAMILY CALLED, AH, WITH FRAUD.
GO ON FROM JUDGES AND LAWYERS
WERE NOT TAKING FURTHER
TESTIMONY. NAME AFFILIATION AND
WE ARE ON OPPOSITION TO SB 616.
NO I'M STRONGLY SUPPORTED. THANK
YOU. IN LINE TWO. OH, EIGHT.
HELLO MY NAME IS ANGELA PORTUGAL
. I AM A MOTHER AND FRIENDS AND
I STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 616. THANK
YOU. AND 1 93. HELLO MY NAME IS
ELAINE FARRELL. I'M A
GRANDMOTHER AND REBECCA FARRELL
, SOCIAL WORKER WERE FROM ORANGE
COUNTY, AND WE'RE VERY STRONGLY
SUPPORT. SB 616 IS LOST. SO FOR
THOSE WATCHING WE'RE ON
OPPOSITION OPERATOR, DO YOU HAVE
ANY FURTHER OPPOSITION? I CAN
ASK THOSE THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE.
TOO MANY MORE DO YOU HAVE HERE
AGAIN? AH, WE'RE WE GOT SIX
MORE. OKAY? COLORS WE ARE ON
OPPOSITION TO A B 616. WE ARE NO
LONGER ON SUPPORT. AND YOU CAN
REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE CUBA
REPEATING THE 10 COMMAND LINE TO
11. HOW WE GOT A LINE TO 78. GOT
THAT REMOVE THEMSELVES ONE
MOMENT HERE. WE'LL GO TO LINE 1
72. HI. I'M MARCOS NOVICE IN
SUPPORT. LINE 1 62. MM. FOLDED.
NO RESPONSIBLE TO LINE 2 78. I'M
SORRY, MR SUPPORT JAMIE GROSS
AND SUPPORT OF SB 616. LINE TO
54. AND 2 54. WE'VE GOT A LINE
TO 31. THIS IS KATE KANE ALSO
MISSED THE SUPPORT. UH I AM A
TRAUMA, INFORMED DIVORCE COACH
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT BASICS.
ONE TICKS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR. THANK YOU SHOULD CLOSE
THE LINES AT THIS POINT. AND
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. MISS DAVIES. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. SENATOR. I WANT
TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR THE COURAGE TO
SPEAK ON BEHALF OF YOUR SON AND
ALL CHILDREN AND REALLY KIND OF
PULLING THIS CURTAIN BACK AND
SHINING A BRIGHT LIGHT. THESE
HORRIFIC ACTS, SO YOU DEFINITELY
MY SUPPORT, AND I WOULD BE
HONORED TO BE A CO AUTHOR ON
THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
HANEY. THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND MISS ESTEVEZ FOR
YOUR COURAGE. YEAH AND I KNOW
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY FOR
YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PREVENT
WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO PG AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT NO PARENT HAS TO GO
THROUGH THAT AND ALSO WANT TO
RECOGNIZE ALL OF THE PARENTS AND
MOTHERS, ESPECIALLY WHO WHO
CALLED IN AND WHO ARE HERE? FOR
THEIR LOSS. AH YOU KNOW, WHEN
YOU LOOK AT FAMILY COURT AND
WHAT HAPPENS THERE AH! THE
HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF A CHILD
. THE SAFETY OF A CHILD HAS TO
BE PUT FIRST. AND THERE ARE
CLEARLY WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THAT
BETTER THAN WE ARE NOW, AND I
THINK YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THEM IN
A VERY THOUGHTFUL WAY. THE
PRESUMPTIONS THE TRAINING THE
FUNDING THAT CAN GO INTO IT,
MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS PUTS
THE SAFETY OF A CHILD AT THE
FOREFRONT AND THAT WILL SAVE
LIVES. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF
THE WORK, THE MANY, MANY YEARS
OF LEADERSHIP TO GET TO THIS
POINT, AND I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO
BE ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR AND MOVE
THE BILL. IF THAT HASN'T ALREADY
BEEN DONE, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE IN YOUR
LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? AND THE SECOND THANK
YOU, MR VICE CHAIR. FURTHER
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS. SIGNAL
SENATOR HE MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU
, ALL OF YOU FOR LISTENING TO
THIS. THIS CELLS BECOME A
PERSONAL FIGHT FOR MYSELF. I'VE
KNOWN ANNA FOR SINCE HER CHILD
WAS MURDERED. SHE'S FROM MY
CITY. AND SHE CARRIES PEAKY.
EVERYWHERE SHE GOES, AND I
REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
THIS AND ALL THE OTHER MOTHERS
WHO ARE STILL TRYING TO HEAL.
AND OVERCOME SUCH TRAGEDY WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS CALLED THE
ROAD, PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM DAVIES
DAVIES, I HANEY. PENNY I CORA
WICKS. TO THAT BILL NEEDS TWO
MORE VOTES, SO I PUT IT ON CALL.
THANK YOU. SKINNER. THIS BRINGS
US TO ITEM NUMBER 12 SB 505.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
. I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT SP 505
AND I WOULD FIRST OPENED WITH I
WILL ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS HAPPILY TO REMOVE THE
PROVISION THAT REFERENCES AUTO
INSURANCE AND ALSO MODIFIES THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. AND
UM, I INTEND TO WORK WITH YOUR
STAFF OVER RECESS TO DISCUSS
WHAT MIGHT BE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS THAT WE COULD
UTILIZE. WHAT S B 505 DOES IS
REQUIRE THOSE WHO OWN A GUN TO
HOLD LIABILITY INSURANCE TODAY,
GUNS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN CARS
. YET IN ALL 50 STATES, WE
REQUIRE A CAR OWNER OR SOMEONE
WHO DRIVES A CAR TO HAVE
INSURANCE. WHY DO WE DO THAT? WE
DO THAT BECAUSE THEN IF THERE IS
HARM CAUSED BY THEIR CAR, THE
REST OF US MEANING SOCIETY WIDE
DOES NOT HAVE TO COVER THE COST
OF THAT HARM. RATHER THE OWNER
OF THE VEHICLE OR OPERATED
VEHICLE DOES THROUGH THEIR
INSURANCE. WHY WE WOULD HAVE A
SITUATION WHERE. SOMETHING THAT
IS MORE LETHAL THAN A CAR,
MEANING A GUN. IS NOT REQUIRED
TO HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER THOSE
COSTS. SO THAT INSTEAD OF US AS
THE SOCIETY COVERING THEM IS, I
THINK A LOOK VERY LEGITIMATE
QUESTION. THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
PASSED AN ORDINANCE RECENTLY
REQUIRING GUN OWNERS AND THEIR
JURISDICTION TO HAVE TO CARRY
INSURANCE. UM THE BILL WOULD
ONLY COVERED THE LIABILITY
INSURANCE COVERS THE HARM
RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENT OR
ACCIDENTAL USE OF THE FIREARM.
BUT SB 505 ALSO HOLDS GUN OWNERS
CIVILLY LIABLE FOR HARM CAUSED
BY ACCIDENTAL OR NEGLIGENT USE
OF THEIR FIREARM. NOW, YOU MIGHT
WONDER BESIDES WHAT I'VE JUST
DESCRIBED WHAT WOULD BE THE
MOTIVATION. THE REQUIREMENT OF
INSURANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CAR
OWNERS HAS LED TO CARS BEING
DEVELOPED. UH THEY SAFETY OF
VEHICLES HAS IMPROVED. OBVIOUSLY
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS A
INTEREST TO REDUCE THEIR
PAYOUTS. SO VEHICLES OVERALL ARE
MUCH IMPROVED IN TERMS OF SAFETY
. AND IF YOU ARE A VEHICLE
OPERATOR WITH A GOOD RECORD WITH
DEMONSTRATION OF HAD SAFE
DRIVING PRACTICES, YOU GET A
BETTER RATE ON YOUR INSURANCE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POSE
THIS AS A POTENTIAL EXAMPLE. IF
THIS IS SUCCESSFUL, AND WE
REQUIRE A GUN OWNER TO HOLD
INSURANCE WHEN THEY CALLED THEIR
INSURANCE CARRIER TO ARRANGE IT,
YOU WOULD LIKELY EXPECT THE
INSURER TO ASK SUCH QUESTIONS.
ASKED HOW MANY GUNS DO YOU OWN?
WHERE DO YOU STORE THEM? ARE
THEY STORED IN LOCKED CABINETS?
AS DOES THE STATE REQUIRES? DO
YOU HAVE TRIGGERS ON THE EARTH?
SORRY LOCKS ON THE TRIGGERS. DO
YOUR GUNS HAVE TRIGGER LOCKS? A
VARIETY OF QUESTIONS LIKE THAT
THAT WOULD HELP TO ENSURE
DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER. SO WHILE
I AM NOT NAIVE, THIS WILL NOT
STOP MASS SHOOTINGS, IT WILL
HOPEFULLY LEAD TO MORE
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP, MORE
SAFE GUN PRACTICES. HOPEFULLY
LESS SUICIDES, WHICH IS THE
NUMBER ONE THAN LEADING CAUSE OF
DEATH BY GUN AND A VARIETY OF
OTHER THINGS NOW WITH I'D LIKE
TO HAVE MY WITNESS AND SUPPORT
PRESENT I'VE GOT TRISTAN BROWN
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS AND THEN BY
TELECONFERENCE MARKET, MARGO
BENNETT, FROM WHO'S THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF WOMEN
AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE. THANK YOU
. I DO HAVE THOSE TWO WITNESSES
LISTED TRISTAN BROWN HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS TRISTAN,
BROWNWOOD CFT UNION OF EDUCATORS
AND CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS. WE
WERE VERY QUICK TO JUMP IN
SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION AS
IT IS NEW BEFORE ALL OF US.
SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD
ENOUGH OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OF,
UH, GUN OWNERSHIP AND LACKS
OWNERS WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FULLY FOR
THE OWNERSHIP OF HAVING A
FIREARM. AND SEEING THAT WHEN
THERE IS A STUDENT MISSING FROM
CAMPUS FOREVER, THAT IT IS A
DEVASTATING IMPACT TO THE
COMMUNITY DUE TO GUN VIOLENCE.
GUN VIOLENCE HAS BEEN RAPTUROUS
ITS WAY THROUGH HOUSEHOLDS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, IF NOT THE
COUNTRY, AND WE SEE THE EFFECTS
OF THOSE IN OUR CLASSROOMS EVERY
DAY WHEN WE LOSE A MEMBER OF OUR
COMMUNITY DUE TO GUN VIOLENCE,
EITHER. THROUGH AN ACT OF
ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING MORE
MALICIOUS THAN THAT. WE DO HOPE
THAT BY INSPIRING MORE
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP
THROUGH THE USE OF INSURANCE
POLICIES THAT WE CAN PREVENT
SOMEONE OBTAINING A FIREARM AND
BRINGING IT TO A CLASSROOM. UH
AS A GUN OWNER MYSELF,
EVERYTHING IS STORED IN A
BIOMETRIC SAFE. NO ONE CAN GET
AT IT, BUT MYSELF, AND I SLEEP
VERY WELL, KNOWING THAT,
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT EVERYBODY
DOES THAT IN. SOME FOLKS STILL
SLEEP WITH A GUN UNDER THEIR
PILLOW, WAITING FOR AN EIGHT
YEAR OLD OR WORSE TO COME FIND
IT AND DO WHO KNOWS WHAT WITH
IT. HAVING AN INSURANCE POLICY
THAT REQUIRES AND MANDATES
FOLLOWING OF THE LAW AND HAVING
A FINANCIAL IMPLICATION LIKE
THAT OF HOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED
GROWING UP IN A WORLD WHERE YOU
HAD TO HAVE CAR INSURANCE AND
MAKE YOURSELF ALL THE MORE AWARE
OF HOW THAT IMPACTS HOW THAT CAN
AFFECT YOUR LIFE. IS SOMETHING
THAT WE HOPE BRINGS ITS BRINGS
ALL OF THAT KNOWLEDGE AND
EXPERIENCE OVER TO THE FIREARM
OWNERSHIP COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHY
WE'RE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. AND WE URGE AND I VOTE
TODAY AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE TIME. THANK
YOU. AND THEN MARGO BENNETT. ARE
YOU WITH US ON THE PHONES? YES
MY NAME IS MARCO BENNETT. AND
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
WOMEN AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE. A 30
YEAR LOS ANGELES BASED NONPROFIT
WORKING TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE
THROUGH OUR PROGRAMS AND
LEGISLATIVE ACTION. WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT SB FIVE OF FIVE, A
REASONABLE EFFORT TO CLARIFY THE
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUN
OWNERS UNDER CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING LAWS AND FORMALLY
ESTABLISHES CIVIL LIABILITY ON A
GUN OWNER WHO ABUSES HIS OR HER
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER EXISTING
LAW. AND IT ALSO PROVIDES A
STANDARD MECHANISM INSURANCE TO
GUARANTEE PAYMENT FOR ANY INJURY
CAUSED BY THAT GUN AND ITS
OWNER. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WILL
DISCOURAGE STRAW PURCHASES AND
ENCOURAGE THE REPORTING OF
FIREARMS THEFT. INSURANCE IS A
COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD CONCEPT IN
CALIFORNIA. WE REQUIRE SOMEONE
USING A CAR TO HAVE INSURANCE IN
CASE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE OR EVEN
DEATH CAUSED BY THE OWNERS,
AUTOMOBILE THE PERSON WHO
SUFFERED THE LOSS CONSUME AND
OBTAIN AT LEAST SOME MONETARY
COMPENSATION. CAR INSURANCE ALSO
ENCOURAGES PAPER DRIVING TO
LOWER RATES AND OTHER BENEFITS.
WE APPLAUD SENATOR SKINNER'S
EFFORTS TO EXTEND THIS CONCEPT
TO FIREARM OWNERSHIP. WE ASKED
THIS COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT SB
505. IT WILL PROMOTE SAFE GUN
OWNERSHIP AND HELP PREVENT GUN
VIOLENCE IN ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. RIGHT OTHERS IN SUPPORT IN
THE HEARING ROOM IF ANYONE WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP
FIVE OH, FIVE. WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER. TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. NANCY
TRAVEL CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB 505?
THANK YOU IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT
OF A B 505 COIN HIT ONE FOLLOWED
BY ZERO AT THIS TIME 109 TO 95
YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING,
REBECCA GONZALEZ FOR THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL
WORKERS, CALIFORNIA CHAPTER AND
SUPPORT. LINE 2 94, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JIM
LINDBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GIVE ONE
MORE REMINDER IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 505 GO AND HIT ONE
FOLLOWED BY ZERO LINE 1 56,
YOU'RE UP. SO I HAD 1 56. HI
THIS IS LAWANDA WITH JUSTICE FOR
MURDERED CHILDREN, AND WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. FROM LOS ANGELES.
NOBODY ELSE WAS QUEUING UP, MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU. WE WILL THEN
MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED DAVID
MUSTAINE, YOU ARE YOU WITH US ON
THE TELEPHONE? HIM. GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO APPEAR TODAY ON
BEHALF OF POOR AC AND THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HIGHWAY PATROLMEN. MY LAW
ENFORCEMENT CLIENTS UNDERSTAND
FIRST HAND THE SCOURGE OF GUN
VIOLENCE. UNFORTUNATELY SP 505
WILL HAVE LITTLE IMPACT ON
INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMIT CRIMES
WITH GUNS. BUT IT WILL IMPOSE
SIGNIFICANT BURDENS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. OF LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS. THE BILL
CANNOT WITHSTAND THE STANDARDS
SET FORTH IN NEW YORK STATE
RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION.
THERE. THE COURT SAID THAT TO
SUSTAIN A REGULATION, THE
GOVERNMENT MAY NOT SIMPLY POSITS
THAT THE REGULATION PROMOTES AN
IMPORTANT INTEREST, BUT RATHER
THE GOVERNMENT MUST DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE REGULATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS NATION'S
HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM
REGULATIONS. THIS BUILDING
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSES STRICT
LIABILITY ON THE EXERCISE OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT, A RESTRICTION
FOR WHICH NO HISTORICAL
TRADITION EXISTS. TO THE
CONTRARY, CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY REJECTED THE STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARDS. FOR THE USE
OF A FIREARM. FURTHER OUR
SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT PRECLUDES
APPLICATION OF STRICT LIABILITY
TO DEFAMATION CASES. AS THE U.
S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT STANDARD
MIRRORS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
STRICT LIABILITY IS NOT AN
AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS. STRICT
LIABILITY ON THE USE OF FIREARMS
ALSO NECESSARILY EXTENDS STRICT
LIABILITY TO THE JUSTIFIED USE
OF A FIREARM IN SELF DEFENSE.
THIS VIOLATES BOTH THE INHERENT
RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. IN THE U
. S CONSTITUTION AND THE EXPRESS
RIGHT IN THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. FINALLY REGARD
REQUIRING INSURANCE IS PLAINLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BECAUSE NO
HISTORICAL TRADITION EXISTS. FOR
THIS FIRST IN THE NATION
REGULATIONS. THE FINANCIAL AND
REGULATORY BURDEN WILL
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LESS
AFFLUENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
AFFORD OR OBTAIN INSURANCE. AND
IT WILL HAVE A DISPARATE IMPACT.
UNDERREPRESENTED IN VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS. WE URGE YOU TO
RECONSIDER FIREARM LEGISLATION
IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S NEW
STANDARD, RATHER THAN INVITING
AN IMMEDIATE LEGAL CHALLENGE AND
TO FOCUS ON GUN LEGISLATION
EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE
SUPREME COURT. NAMELY KEEPING
GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF
PROHIBITED PERSONS. AND IMPOSING
CONSEQUENCES ON INDIVIDUALS WHO
COMMIT CRIMES WITH GUNS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE THAT'S THE MAIN
PRIMARY WITNESS WE HAVE IS
ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM THAT
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION
SP 505, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, SAM PAREDES,
REPRESENTING GUN ON HIS
CALIFORNIA, AS WAS POINTED OUT
IN THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY. THERE
REALLY IS NO INSURANCE COMPANY
IN THE COUNTRY THAT WILL OFFER A
POLICY THAT WOULD COVER
NEGLIGENT USE OF A FIREARM. IT
DOESN'T EXIST. UNLIKE.
AUTOMOBILES AH, OWNERSHIP AND
USE THAT IS NOT A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED,
RIGHT? YES WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL, BUT THE MODE OF TRAVEL
IS NOT PROTECTED IN THE CASE OF
THE SECOND AMENDMENT ARE USE.
STORAGE. ANY ANYTHING THAT WE
WANT TO DO WITH FIREARMS IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT
. THEREFORE YOU KNOW, GUN WAS
CALIFORNIA IS IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL
TREAT THAT AS THE SECOND OF
WITNESS EVERYONE ELSE. JUST NAME
ORGANIZATION POSITION, PLEASE
READ WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR
WITH THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BILL GAIN,
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION,
CALIFORNIA BUHMAN HUNTERS STATE
ARCHERY ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA DEAR ASSOCIATION, THE
WILD SHIP FOUNDATION THAT
HILLARY BASIN WETLANDS
ASSOCIATION. KELLER WETLANDS AND
WATERFOWL COUNCIL, SAN DIEGO
COUNTY WILDLIFE FEDERATION, THE
BLACK BRANT GROUP AND THIS SF
BAY AREA AND GOLDEN GATE.
CHAPTERS OF SORRY. COME
INTERNATIONAL AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. THIS BILL, THANK
YOU. THERE MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, MARK HENLEY WITH
CALIFORNIA WATERFALL ASSOCIATION
ON BEHALF OF OUR 20,000 MEMBERS
. WE ARE IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND NOW
WE'LL GO TO THE PHONE LINES FOR
THOSE IN OPPOSITION TO SP 505.
THANK YOU. IF YOU ARE AN
OPPOSITION TO SB 505, PLEASE
PRESS 1010 AND LINE 300. YOU ARE
OPEN. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
RECORD. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
FINLEY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL
SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION,
WHERE THE TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR
AMERICA'S FIREARM INDUSTRY AND
EMISSION MANUFACTURERS,
RETAILERS AND RANGES. WE ARE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL,
AND WE BELIEVE IT'S
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. I THINK ONE OF THE
WITNESSES PUT US ON HOLD. ONE
MOMENT IS IDENTIFY THAT LANE.
SORRY MR CHAIR. IT WORKED. IT
WAS I FOUND IT. ONE SECOND,
PLEASE. YEAH THANK YOU.
OPERATOR. YOU WANT ME? I JUST
MUTED HIM SO ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. LET'S GET BACK TO Q AND A
HERE ONE SECOND. OKAY WE'RE GOOD
LINE TO 96. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GET
MORNING. MY NAME IS STEVE ROD.
I'M A LIFE MEMBER OF THE NRA
MEMBER CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION AND THE U. S
NAVY VETERAN AND ON BEHALF OF
OVER 400, LEGAL GUN OWNERS AND
LAKE MENDOCINO COUNTIES. WE
STRONGLY URGED THE COMMITTEE TO
OPPOSE SB 505. THANK YOU. BUYING
306. YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD MORNING
, MRS JOHN HICKMAN. I AM THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE NEVADA COUNTY
GUN OWNERS, PRESIDENT GRASS
VALLEY, NEVADA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA THAT ON BEHALF OF OUR
MEMBERSHIP WERE STRONG
OPPOSITION. LINE 2 93, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THE SECOND ONE. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS CARLENE ELLIS.
AND I'M, A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND COMPETITIVE
SHOOTER. AND I'M IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO SB 505. THANK YOU.
FLYING TO 02. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
BLANK EXCUSE ME BY 302. PLEASE
GO AHEAD MY FAULT. 302 YEAR
OPEN. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
LIVINGSTON, CALIFORNIA NATIVE
I'M A RESIDENT OF MENDOCINO
COUNTY. I'M A PARENT. I'M A LIFE
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, A LIFE MEMBER OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION, A MEMBER OF THE
WELL ARMED WOMAN. I'M IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO SB 505. 2 92,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. TWO NAMES
BATHROOM TO 92 TO 92. 2 92.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TESTIFY? YES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? WE CAN.
OKAY THIS IS RORY HANLEY WITH
THE SACRAMENT NORTH SACRAMENTO
AND FOLSOM CHAPTER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
OPPOSITION IN SP 505. BUYING
THREE OH, THREE, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
MIKE ELLIOT'S RESIDENT OF
VENTURA COUNTY. I AM AN ACTIVE,
VERY RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER
MEMBER OF THE NRA, CALIFORNIA
RIFLE PISTOL ASSOCIATION. AND
IT'S BEEN TRUE OR A COUNTY GUN
OWNERS CHAPTER STRONGLY OPPOSED
THE 505. THANK YOU. PLANE TO 98,
YOU ARE UP. 2 98, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS BARRY
LUNDBERG. I AM A PRESIDENT OF
VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AND
A MEMBER OF THE RA. MEMBER OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION. ALSO PART OF THE
ORGANIZATION. I'M A RANGE SAFETY
OFFICER. UM LAW ABIDING CITIZEN
AND VERY SAFE. I DEFINITELY
OPPOSED THIS 505. THANK YOU.
1997 YOU'RE OPEN. YEAH. MY NAME
IS TAMMY VON BUCK. I'M AN L. A
COUNTY RESIDENT MEMBER OF
VENTURA COUNTY GUN OWNERS, AND I
OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION. THANK
YOU. 307, PLEASE GO AHEAD. JAMES
O'BRIEN, CALIFORNIA NATIVE.
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION, AND I AM
STRONGLY OPPOSED. SB 505. THANK
YOU. THREE. OH, FOUR. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, SIR. GOOD
MORNING, SIR. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, SIR. YES,
I AM A FORMER POLICE OFFICER OF
OVER 25 YEARS. ALSO A MEMBER OF
CHORAK. MY NAME IS T. J JUNIOR.
I LIVE IN THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AREA. NR A LIFE
MEMBER CRP MEMBER. I'M CALLING
TO STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 505 AND I
AGREE WITH MY COHORT. THANK YOU
FOR BEING IN PRESENT. LINE 301
YOU ARE OPEN. MY NAME IS DAN
CHARLES. I'M A MEMBER OF THE ER
PA NORTH SACRAMENTO CHAPTER AND
I AM IN STRONG OPPOSITION OF SB
505. THANK YOU. LINE 2 99,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME
IS MICHAEL LANE, BACK OF A
RESIDENT OF SECRETARY COUNTY AND
MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
ASSOCIATION. AND I OPPOSE THIS
LEGISLATION. WE'LL GO WITH THE
FINAL REMINDER FOR OPPOSITION TO
SB 505 PLEASE PRESS ONE FOLLOWED
BY 0 TO 22, YOU ARE OPEN. 2 22,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. CHAIR OF THIS
SYSTEMIC MAN. I'M THE CHAIR OF
THE SACRAMENTO OR SOUTH
SACRAMENTO CHAPTER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND REMEMBER AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. 3 10, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. LINE 3 10. ONE MORE
SHOT LINE. 3 10, YOU'RE OPEN. I
WILL MOVE ALONG TO LINE 3 11,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI GOOD MORNING
. THANKS TO MY NAME IS DARREN
BEDWELL. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION. AND A MEMBER OF THE
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA.
CALLING INTO URGE UP POSITION
HERE TO SP 505 THANKS AGAIN. AND
THERE ARE NO OTHER PARTICIPANTS
QUEUED UP FOR OPPOSITION AT THIS
TIME. THANK YOU. OPERATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE THE LINES. I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR HANEY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR SKINNER FOR
YOUR WORK ON THIS. I THINK THAT
IT IS A VERY NECESSARY AND
OVERDUE THING FOR US TO REQUIRE.
INSURANCE FOR FIREARM AS YOU
SAID, WE REQUIRE FOR CARS, UH,
FIREARMS OBVIOUSLY CAN CAUSE
TREMENDOUS HARM AND DAMAGE. AND
THE GOOD NEWS FOR ALL OF THE
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS, WHO
CALLED IN IS THAT THEY HAVE
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT HERE.
THIS ACTUALLY PROTECTS THEM IN
MANY WAYS. I YOU HAVE? YES YOU
CAN OWN A FIREARM, BUT THAT DOES
NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT FOR IT TO
BE USED IN PROPERTY DAMAGE,
BODILY INJURY OR DEATH. AND IF
SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH THE
FIREARM IF YOU LOSE IT, OR IF
IT'S STOLEN, YOU NOW HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY THAT CAN LEAD TO
LIABILITY TO REPORT THAT. AND
MANY, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT
THERE ARE FIREARMS THAT ARE
STOLEN OR KEPT INAPPROPRIATELY
OR DANGEROUSLY, THAT ARE USED
EITHER FOR SELF HARM OR TO HARM
OTHERS. AND NOW THERE'S GOING TO
BE STRICT LIABILITY TO ENSURE
THAT YOU'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR
THAT, OR ARE THE VERY LEAST THAT
YOU REPORTED AND I THINK THAT
THAT THAT PIECE OF IT ALONE, I
THINK IS A HUGE, UM HUGE CHANGE
THAT I THINK WILL CHANGE
BEHAVIOR. AND AS YOU SAID, WE'LL
ALSO, UH, POTENTIALLY CHANGED
THE WAY THAT THESE GUNS ARE
MANUFACTURED. UH AND WILL CHANGE
MORE BROADLY, THE WAY THAT WE
KEEP PEOPLE SAFE, SO I MEAN,
VERY STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS AND
THE INSURANCE ASPECT OF IT AS
WELL. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND I THINK THAT THIS
WILL ABSOLUTELY SAVE LIVES, AND
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A CO
AUTHOR OF IT, AND WE'LL MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE
EMOTION? IS THERE A SECOND AND
THE SECOND. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, SAYING
NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY CLOSE, UM
THANK YOU AND APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS BY THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FROM SAN FRANCISCO. UM I THINK
IN TERMS OF THE WE HEARD
TESTIMONY FROM THE CALIFORNIA
FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, WE KNOW
THAT THERE'S INCIDENTS OF KIDS
BRINGING GUNS TO SCHOOL AND, YOU
KNOW VERY COMMONLY. THOSE ARE
GUNS THEY TOOK FROM THE HOME.
THEY ARE NOT GUNS THAT THEY
PURCHASE OR GUNS THEY OWN OR
GUNS THEY BOUGHT ON THE STREET.
IT'S GUNS THAT WERE IN THEIR
HOME. AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT
THERE'S YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF
UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS WERE
CHILD. GETS ACCESS TO THE GUN IN
THE HOME AND SO AGAIN, MY
MOTIVATION FOR THIS IS TO
HOPEFULLY REDUCE SUCH THINGS AND
TO HAVE THE KINDS OF
CONSEQUENCES OR MORE RESPONSIBLE
OWNERSHIP THAT THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER FROM SAN FRANCISCO
DESCRIBED WITH THAT I ASK FOR
YOUR EYEBALL. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. NO BLOOM. BLEW MY
DAVIES HANEY, PENNY I CHOLERA.
KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN REYES PONTA
WICKS. THANK YOU. WE WILL PUT
THAT BILL ON CALL. IT NEEDS
THREE MORE VOTES. THEN YOUR
ITEM. ALRIGHT UM, NUMBER 13 YOUR
SP 1200. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. FIRST I AM
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, WHICH YOU CLOSE A
LOOPHOLE AND CURRENT LAW IN
REGARD TO THE COLLECTION
THAT HAPPILY. THE PURPOSE OF MY
BILL IS TO HELP ADDRESS THOSE
PEOPLE WITH. CONSUMER DEBT, AND
THIS CONSUMER DEBT THAT WE ARE
ADDRESSING IS KEPT. WHO MAY
RECEIVE A JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM
TO COLLECT THAT DEBT. AND THIS
BILL DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
POWERS OF THE OR THE AUTHORITY
THAT IF I AM A DEBT COLLECTOR,
AND I GET A JUDGMENT, THEN I AM
EMPOWERED TO DO SUCH THINGS AS
PUT A LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY IF
YOUR PROPERTY OWNER TAP WAGES.
UH DIRECTLY ACCESS YOUR BANK
ACCOUNT. SUCH ALL OF THOSE ARE
LEFT ALONE IN THIS BILL, BUT
WHAT IT DOES IS REDUCED WHAT
CALIFORNIA HAS REQUIRED AS A
COURT ORDERED INTEREST RATE. AND
THAT INTEREST RATE UNFORTUNATELY
PUTS THE FAMILY OR THE
INDIVIDUAL WITH CONSUMER DEBT
INTO A WHOLE SPIRAL OF BEING
VERY DIFFICULT TO GET OUT OF
THAT DEBT. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING
ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS MORE AND
MORE STATES ADDRESSING THIS
ISSUE AND ADJUSTING THEIR COURT
ORDERED INTEREST RATES. SO NEW
YORK, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW HAS IN
STATUTE REQUIREMENT THAT THAT
INTEREST RATE ONLY BE 2. AND
WHEN I FIRST INITIATED THIS
BILL, I WAS HOPING TO SET IT
LIKE NEW YORK'S. INSTEAD WE HAVE
SAID IT AT THE FEDERAL PRIME
RATE AND IT WOULD BE SET
ANNUALLY. SO WHATEVER FEDERAL
PRIME IS, THAT'S THE RATE THAT
WE WOULD USE. AND OUR CURRENT
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. THERE'S
ONLY EIGHT STATES IN ADDITION TO
CALIFORNIA WITH SUCH HIGH
STATUTORY REQUIRED COURT
INTEREST RATES. UM GIVEN THAT
61% OF AMERICANS LIVE PAYCHECK
TO PAYCHECK AND PERSONAL DEBT
HAS BEEN INCREASING ANNUALLY FOR
THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. WE
OBVIOUSLY WANT TO HELP PEOPLE
GET OUT OF DEBT, BUT WE ALSO
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
JUST NOT IN A SPIRAL. THE CAP.
THIS BILL PUTS THE CAP AT
PERSONAL DEBT OF 50,000, OR
UNDER AND MEDICAL DEBT OF 2000
AND UNDER AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE
MY AS MY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
DESIREE ORTH FROM THE EAST BAY
COMMUNITY, LAWCENTER AND NOAH'S
INNER FROM BAY AREA LEGAL AID.
THANK YOU. I DO HAVE THOSE TWO
WITNESSES LISTED DESIREE ORTH
AND NOAH'S INNER ARE YOU WITH US
ON THE TELEPHONE? BASKET
AFTERNOON. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR BY CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M DESIREE NGUYEN, NORTH,
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER JUSTICE
UNIT, AT LEAST A COMMUNITY
LAWCENTER. IMAGINE WORKING FOR A
DECADE TO BECOME FINANCIALLY AND
MENTALLY INDEPENDENT FROM AN
ABUSIVE PARTNER. AN ABUSIVE
PARTNER YOU ENDURED FOR YEARS
FINALLY HAD THE COURAGE TO LEAVE
WHEN HE STARTED TURNING HIS IRE
TOWARDS HER TODDLER SON. IMAGINE
THAT AFTER A DECADE OF PUTTING
THIS BEHIND YOU RECEIVED A
NOTICE OF RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT
FOR DEBT THAT YOUR ABUSER MADE
YOU INCUR. AND WHEN THE SUMMONS
CAME, HE HID THE FACT THAT YOU
WERE BEING SUED FROM YOU. THIS
IS NOT A CASE THAT IS UNIQUE TO
JUST ONE PERSON I'VE WORKED
WITH. I'VE WORKED WITH COUNTLESS
VICTIMS AND SIMILAR SITUATIONS.
THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS NOT
OUR CLIENTS, INABILITY OR
UNWILLINGNESS TO PAY. IT'S THE
FACT THAT THE CLIENT ONLY FOUND
OUT ABOUT THE LAWSUIT FOR THE
FIRST TIME, 10 YEARS AFTER IT
WAS INITIATED. IT'S THE FACT
THAT THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR WAS
ABLE TO LOCATE AND SERVING OF
RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT, BUT FAILED
TO ATTEMPT TO REACH OUT TO
COLLECT THE DEBT IN THE DECADE.
IT HAD BEFORE THE RING. YOU WILL
IT'S THE FACT THAT OUR EXISTING
10% INTEREST ON A JUDGMENT
OUTPACES ANY OTHER SOUND
INVESTMENT A PERSON CAN MAKE AND
THAT INCENTIVIZES DEBT
COLLECTORS TO ALLOW THE JUDGMENT
TO GROW. UNSURPRISINGLY EVIDENCE
RECEIPTS WITNESSES ARE LONG
GONE AFTER 10 YEARS AND SO AS A
CONSUMER DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES. B 1200 IS AN
ESSENTIAL MEASURE TOWARDS ENDING
SYSTEMIC AND LITERALLY LIFELONG
AND EQUITY. IF WE WANT TO SEE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES HAVE A
SHOT AT EXITING POVERTY, AND IF
WE WANT TO SEE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES TRYING TO BUILD
WEALTH INSTEAD OF TREAD WATER,
WE NEED TO ELIMINATE THE IRON
WEIGHT OF ENDLESS GROWING DEBT
CHANGE TO THEIR ANKLES.
INVESTING IN PERSONAL DEBT OF
HEART UP. CONSUMERS SHOULD NOT
BE A WINDFALL AND 10 YEARS AS
LONG ENOUGH TO TRY TO COLLECT
THE DEATH OF A PERSON. WOULD
THAT I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
I VOTE FOR S C 1200. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND THEN NOAH'S INNER. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
NOAH CENTER. I'M NOT MANAGING
ATTORNEY OF VERY ILLEGAL AID
CONSUMER UNITS, SPEAKING IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1200 OUR TEAMS
SERVES APPROXIMATELY 1000 LOW
INCOME CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS EACH
YEAR THROUGH SELF HEALTH CLINICS
AND REPRESENTATION. CONSUMER
DEBT COLLECTION JUDGMENTS,
CONVERT AN UNPAID AND SOMETIMES
UNKNOWN BILL INTO A COURT
SANCTIONED DEBT THAT UNDER
CURRENT LAW CAN LAST FOREVER.
DOUBLING AN AMOUNT EVERY 10
YEARS BECAUSE OF INTEREST. HIS
JUDGMENTS ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD BY
DEATH FIRES AND CAN BE SNATCHED
FROM WAGES OR SAVINGS. AS SOON
AS SOMEBODY TRIED TO CLIMB THEIR
WAY OUT OF POVERTY. AS ONE STUDY
EXPLAINED. THIS COLLECTION
JUDGMENTS HIT LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS LIKE A BOMB.
THE NUMBER OF CONSUMER
COLLECTION LAWSUITS FILED IN
STATE COURT HAS WRITTEN
EXPONENTIALLY OVER THE PAST TWO
DECADES. AND THESE LAWSUITS ARE
NOW ROUGHLY ONE HALF OF
CALIFORNIA'S GENERAL CIVIL
DOCKET. THEY'RE FLOODING OR
CORDS AND OUR COURTS ARE
STRUGGLING WITH THE BURDEN.
ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THESE
LAWSUITS RESULTS IN DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CONSUMER
AFTER A LITTLE ARE NO SCRUTINY
OF THE DEBT COLLECTORS CLAIM.
ONE OF OUR CLIENTS CAME TO US
THIS YEAR AFTER A DEATH FIRE
SUDDENLY EMPTIED THIS BANK
ACCOUNT, WHICH INCLUDED COVID
REALLY FUN. FOR 15 YEAR OLD
COLLECTION JUDGMENT. OUR CLIENT
DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT THE 2000 JETS
SEVEN JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS NEVER
SERVED ON HIM UNTIL AFTER IT WAS
RENEWED IN 2015. WHEN HE FINALLY
SAW THE LAWSUIT. HE DIDN'T
RECOGNIZE THE DEBT BUYER
PLAINTIFF AND THE COMPLAINT
DIDN'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE ACCOUNT. HE HAD BEEN
SUED ON LIKE 2022. THIS $4500
JUDGMENT HAD GROWN TO MORE THAN
$11,000. AND EVEN AFTER TAKING
EVERY PENNY AND OUR CLIENT'S
ACCOUNT, THE JUDGMENT BALANCE
WAS STILL LARGER THAN IT WAS
WHEN IT WAS ENTERED IN 2000 AND
SEVEN ELIMINATING THE COST AND
LENGTH OF TIME FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF CONSUMER COLLECTION. JUDGMENT
B 1200 WOULD NOT ADDRESS EVERY
INEQUITY AND ABUSE THAT ARE
FINANCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITY
SPACE AND DEBT COLLECTION
LAWSUIT. HOWEVER WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE BILL BECAUSE IT IS A
CRITICAL AND COMMON SENSE STEP.
TOWARDS PREVENTING THESE
JUDGMENTS FROM BEING A PERMANENT
BARRIER TO FINANCIAL WELL BEING
, FOR THOSE MANY OF US LIVING
PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND
STRUGGLING TO GET AHEAD. LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY 01 FOULED
BASIS FOR SP 1200. THANKS,
OPERATOR. YOU GOT A LITTLE BIT
AHEAD OF ME. BUT OKAY, WELL,
SINCE YOU MADE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT
WILL GO TO THE PHONE LINES.
THOSE IN THE HEARING ROOM JUST
HANG ON JUST A LITTLE BIT. I
APOLOGIZE. GO AHEAD. OKAY WE'LL
GO TO THE HEARING ROOM, SO THOSE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR S B 1200 IN THE
HEARING ROOM. HIS NAME,
AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS MIKE CARROLL WITH
THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MEMBERS CAROLINA SANCHEZ
WITH CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME
CONSUMER COALITION. AND THE
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW. CENTER.
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM?
SEEING THAT. ALRIGHT OPERATOR.
THANK YOU. YOU AND A MAIN NOW.
ASKED FOR ANYONE ON THE PHONE
LINES WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR S B 1200? THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. SORRY ABOUT THAT
AGAIN. IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE. OKAY THANK YOU. PRESS
ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO FOR SP
1200. AND WE ARE GETTING NOBODY
QUEUING UP ON THE PHONE LINE SER
OKAY? THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
MOVE TO OUR POSITION. I HAVE ONE
OPPOSITION WITNESS LISTED SONIA
GIBSON WITH US ON THE TELEPHONE.
ARE YOU WITH US? DETERMINE AM
ALRIGHT. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
DETERMINE AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE SONIA GIBSON ON BEHALF
OF UNCLE CAPITAL GROUP IN
OPPOSITION. BENDABLE 1200 WOULD
UNFAIRLY DEVALUE COURT AWARDED
JUDGMENT NEGATIVELY IMPACT SMALL
BUSINESSES AND IT'S CAL BANKERS
WILL MENTION DECREASE THE
AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE
CREDIT TO ALL CONSUMERS IN
CALIFORNIA. THE BILL SLASHES THE
INTEREST RATE BY 50% TO THE U. S
PRIME RATE, BUT ONLY FOR CERTAIN
JUDGMENTS AND TAKES AWAY THE
ABILITY TO RENEW THAT ONCE WHEN
WHICH MAKES JUDGMENTS
UNCOLLECTIBLE AFTER 10 YEARS. BY
COMPARISON, THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
IS 7.8. AND NEW YORK ALLOWS
JUDGMENTS TO LAST 20 YEARS BY
UNFAIRLY TARGETING JUDGMENTS
RELATED TO PERSONAL DEBT. THIS
UNREASONABLY IMPLIED THAT SOME
JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE LESS
VALUABLE OVER TIME IN COMPARISON
TO OTHERS. THE LATEST AMENDMENTS
DO NOT ADDRESS THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS THE BILL IMPACT STATUS
SO THAT SUCH AS THAT DENTISTS,
ELECTRICIAN'S AND LANDLORDS, THE
JUDGMENT INTEREST RATES PURPOSE
IS TO COMPENSATE THESE SMALL
BUSINESS PLAINTIFFS FOR HAVING
BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE VALUE OF
PRINCIPLE LOSSES OVER UNDER THE
STILL SMALL BUSINESSES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE DENIED THE
ABILITY TO RENEW VALID COURT
ORDER JUDGMENT AND WILL BE
LIMITED TO A MUCH LOWER INTEREST
RATES DESPITE PAYING HIGHER
INTEREST RATES THEMSELVES FOR
INCURRED LOANS. ADDITIONALLY AS
DRAFTED THE DEPENDENCY ON THE
VARIABLE U. S PRIME RATE WILL
CREATE A DIFFERENT INTEREST RATE
ACROSS DIFFERENT JUDGMENTS,
CREATING A NEAR IMPOSSIBILITY TO
IMPLEMENT. FOR THESE REASONS WE
STRONGLY OPPOSED AND ARGUE TO
PLEASE VOTE NOW. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. AND I GUESS WE HAVE
OTHER OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM. GO
AHEAD. PLEASE THINK WE'VE NEARLY
MADE IT TO THE AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS. UM AS
CREDITORS WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE CONSEQUENCES TO FUTURE
BORROWERS THAT THIS MEASURE
WOULD HAVE, UM POST JUDGMENT,
INTEREST RATE OR CRUEL AND THE
ABILITY TO RENEW JUDGMENTS ARE
VALID IN COURT APPROVED RIGHTS
OF CREDITORS. AS B 1200 VALUES,
CERTAIN COURT ORDERED JUDGMENTS
AND DECREASES THE AVAILABILITY
OF AFFORDABLE CREDIT TO FUTURE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS. IT'S WORTH
UNDERSCORING THAT MONEY
JUDGMENTS ARE DELINQUENT DEBTS
THAT A COURT HAS DEEMED VALID
MEETING. A DEBTOR HAS BENEFITED
FROM THE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OF
THAT DEBT. AND THEREFORE HAS
STATED THAT A PARTY IS ENTITLED
TO A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT,
TYING THE RENEWAL OF A MONEY
JUDGMENT TO A FLAT DOLLAR RATE,
PARTICULARLY THE REMAINING
BALANCE IS PROBLEMATIC. FOR
EXAMPLE, UNDER THIS RULE, WE
COULD HAVE A JUDGMENT FOR 50,000
AND $100, WHICH IS NOT AN
INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND IF A
CUSTOMER PAID $101 WE WOULD NOT
BE PERMITTED TO RENEW. WHEN A
JUDGMENT ISN'T RENEWED. THAT IS
THE END OF THE ROAD FOR
COLLECTION ON THAT DEBT. IN
OTHER WORDS, NEARLY $50,000
WOULD BE WRITTEN OFF. SEEMS
ARBITRARY TO US TO APPLY A
SINGLE THRESHOLD ACROSS
JUDGMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN SO
HIGH WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS
TOTALITY THE SITUATION OR THE
DEBTOR'S ABILITY TO PAY. THE
ABILITY TO RENEW A VALID COURT
ORDER JUDGMENT IS CRITICAL TO
ALLOW DEBTORS TO REPAY THEIR
OBLIGATIONS WHEN THEY ARE IN A
POSITION TO DO SO. RESTRICTING A
CREDITOR'S ABILITY TO COLLECT ON
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INHERENTLY
MAKES THE ACTIVITY OF LENDING
MORE RISKY, AND UNFORTUNATELY,
IT IS THE CUSTOMER, PARTICULARLY
THOSE WHO NEED ACCESS TO
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND CREDIT,
THE MOST WHO FEEL THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT RISK,
USUALLY IN THE FORM OF MORE
EXPENSIVE CREDIT OR RESTRICTIONS
ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ACCESS TO
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PRODUCTS.
SO FOR THE, UH WE REMAIN
CONCERNED DUE TO THE
CONSEQUENCES TO FUTURE BORROWERS
AND FIRMANDO POST. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OTHERS IN OPPOSITION
IN THE HEARING ROOM. NO FURTHER
TESTIMONY, PLEASE, BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION
COLONIES ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION.
ALLIANCE A GROUP OF JUDGMENT
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS AND
OPPOSITION. QUÊ GRETCHEN
LICHTENBERGER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
JUDGMENT PROFESSIONALS. WE
OPPOSED LAST MINUTE AMENDMENTS
THAT DONALD ALL PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU. ROBERT WILSON, THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
POSITION. THANK YOU. THIS CHAIR
AND MEMBERS CLIFF KOSTA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDITORS BAR ASSOCIATION IN
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 1200 AGAIN WE
WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY
BUT NAME AFFILIATION AND
OPPOSITION. YEAH IF YOU'RE AN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1200, PLEASE
PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME. AND WE'LL
GO TO LINE 1 16 YOU ARE OPEN. HE
GOT A HORN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY BANKING NETWORK IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. BUYING 3
22, PLEASE GO AHEAD. CLARKSBURG
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF COLLECTORS AND OPPOSITION.
PLANE. 313 YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD
MORNING, ASHLEIGH HOFFMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. 2 57. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. MM. BEHALF OF THE
RECEIVABLES AS MINISTERS,
INTERNATIONAL AND OPPOSITION.
WE'LL GET ONE FINAL REMINDER TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION FOR SP
1200, PLEASE PRESS 10 AND PLEASE
GO AHEAD. 1 94 TINA BRADY,
PRESIDENT OF JUDGMENT, RECOVERY
ASSISTANCE AND STRONG
OPPOSITION. AND THERE ARE NO
OTHERS QUEUED UP AT THIS TIME,
MR CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. SEEING NONE. SENATOR
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR, MEMBERS. UM, LET ME I MAY
HAVE NOT MADE THIS CLEAR IN MY
OPENING TESTIMONY, BUT UM.
WHATEVER DEBT THE CONSUMER HAS
IS, HAS OBVIOUSLY LET'S SAY IT'S
CREDIT CARD DEBT. THAT CREDIT
CARD HAD AN INTEREST RATE OR A
VARIETY OF OTHER DEBTS. OFTEN
GET LATE. UM EITHER INTEREST
RATES OR PENALTIES, LATE
PAYMENTS AND SUCH. THIS BILL
DOES NOT STRIP ANY OF THOSE THAT
IS PART OF YOUR DEBT. ALL THIS
BILL DOES IS CHANGE CALIFORNIA'S
STATUTORILY REQUIRED INTEREST
RATE AND IT ONLY CHANGES IT ON
CONSUMER DEBT. NOT OF THEIR
DEBT, NOT COMMERCIAL. AND ONLY
ON CONSUMER DEBT OF 50 K OR
LOWER 50,000, OR LOWER OR
MEDICAL DEBT OF 200,000 AND
LOWER AGAIN. THE PURPOSE IS TO
ADDRESS THIS CYCLE. OF. OF IN
EFFECT, POVERTY THAT OCCURS WHEN
SOME FAMILIES GET INTO DEBT AND
THEN ARE PUT IN THIS SITUATION
WITH RECEIVING A COURT ORDERED
JUDGMENT. AT A HIGH INTEREST
RATE AND HAVING A VERY DIFFICULT
TIME EVER GETTING OUT OF THAT
DEBT. AND AS I'M ALSO MENTIONED
IN MY OPENING, CALIFORNIA IS ONE
OF ONLY EIGHT STATES. WITH SUCH
A HIGH COURT ORDERED INTEREST
RATE, SO WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO
IS ALIGN. CALIFORNIA'S COURT
ORDERED INTEREST RATE WITH THAT
OF THE FEDERAL LAW, SO NOT ONLY
IS IT SETTING IT AT THE FEDERAL
PRIME RATE, IT IS ALSO IF YOU
ARE BROUGHT TO COURT AND THE
FEDERAL COURT. AND GIVEN A COURT
ORDERED JUDGMENT. IT IS THE YOU
WOULD. THE INTEREST RATE IS SET
AT PRIME. SO IN THAT RESPECT
THIS BILL ALIGNS AND WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I'M LOOKING FOR
EMOTION. THANK YOU. IS THERE
SECOND? THANK YOU. THAT MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED. CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM.
BLOOM BLOOM I DAVIES HANEY.
KENNY, I KALRA. COLOR I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN REYES. SERIOUS. I
BONTA WICKS. THAT NEEDS ONE MORE
. SO I PUT THE BILL ON CALL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
NEXT UP. WE HAVE OUR ITEM NUMBER
FIVE. SB 13 98. SENATOR GONZALEZ
IS NOT GOING TO BE WITH US, SO
SHE HAS ASKED MR KALRA TO
PRESENT AND AS HE'S GETTING
SETTLED, WILL TAKE A MOTION ON
THE CONSENT AGENDA. THANK YOU.
CONSENT AGENDA. CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM BLEW MY
DAVIES HANEY. HANEY I KALRA
KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN REYES RACE I
BANTA WICKS. THANK YOU. THOSE
ARE OUT THAT IS SB 49 HAMBURG.
SB 2 33 HAMBURG SP 9 26 DODD SP
10 40 RUBIO SB 10 65 EGGMAN SB
10 79 PORTANTINO SP 12 47 HUESO.
12 79 KOBO. HAD SP 14 OH, SIX
TERRAZZO. THANK YOU MEMBERS.
ALRIGHT MR COLORADO. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF
SENATOR GONZALEZ. I'M HERE TODAY
TO PRESENT SENATE BILL 13 98,
WHICH WILL HELP INCREASE
CONSUMER SAFETY WHEN IT COMES TO
PURCHASING AND USING VEHICLES
WITH THAT PARTIAL DRIVING
AUTOMATION FEATURE. SP 13 98
REQUIRES DEALERS AND
MANUFACTURERS THAT SELL NEW
VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH THE
PARTIAL DRIVING AUTOMATION
FEATURE OR PROVIDE ANY SOFTWARE
UPDATE OR VEHICLE UPGRADE THAT
ADDS A PARCEL DRIVING AUTOMATION
FEATURE TO GIVE DRIVERS
DISTINCT. DISTINCT DESCRIPTION
OF THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
OF THOSE FEATURES AND PROHIBITS
A MANUFACTURER OR DEALER FROM
DECEPTIVELY NAMING OR MARKETING.
THESE FEATURES. CURRENTLY THE
DMV REGULATES AUTONOMOUS DRIVING
SYSTEMS, MEANING THOSE THAT DO
NOT REQUIRE ACTIVE CONTROL OR
MONITORING BY HUMAN DRIVER.
HOWEVER THE DMV DOES NOT
REGULATE PARTIAL DRIVING
AUTOMATION FEATURES. THUS THE
DMV HAS LITTLE OVERSIGHT ON THE
NAMING OR MARKETING OF PERSONAL
DRIVING AUTOMATION FEATURES.
THIS GAP IN OVERSIGHT MEANS THAT
CONSUMERS CAN BE CONFUSED OR
PURPOSE. PURPOSEFULLY MISLED BY
THE DESCRIPTION OR NAMING OF
THOSE FEATURES. THE TRIPLE A
CONSUMER SURVEY IN 28 8 TRIPLE A
CONSUMER SURVEY IN 2018 FOUND
40% OF AMERICANS EXPECTED
MONITORED AUTOPILOT SYSTEMS WITH
NAMES LIKE AUTOPILOT, PRO PILOT
OR PILOT ASSIST. TO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO DRIVE THE CAR ON ITS
OWN. THE ATTENTIVE SP 13 98 IS
NOT TO REPLACE PROPRIETARY NAMES
CREATED BY THE AUTOMAKERS. NORTH
STIFLED INNOVATION OF NEW
FEATURES. RATHER IT IS TO HELP
IDENTIFY THE KEY FUNCTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS OF THE FEATURES SO
THEY COULDN'T CONSUMERS CAN USE
AND ENJOY THE FEATURES SAFELY.
AND AS INTENDED. TESTIFYING
SUPPORT THIS MEASURE. IS NANCY
TRAVEL WITH THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS AS WELL AS TIM CHANG
WITH TRIPLE A THANK YOU, SO
WE'LL GO TO THE HEARING ROOM
FIRST. THANK YOU, MR THERE.
THERE WERE AMENDMENTS, ASSUMING
THE SENATORS TAKING THOSE
AMENDMENTS, THAT IS GRACE.
ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. WE
ARE PLEASED TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. WE THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD
FIRST STEP TO GIVE CONSUMERS
MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION AS MR
COLLIER DESCRIBED.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS
DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING FOR SOME
OF THESE VEHICLES. THE D. M V IS
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO HAVE AN
INVESTIGATION BUT HAS NOT MADE A
FINAL DECISION. WE ARE HOPING
GOING FORWARD, THERE WILL BE
STRONGER MEASURES THAT ARE TAKEN
BY OUR DMV. DISPROPORTIONATE
NUMBER OF CRASHES THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN WITH TESLA VEHICLES
THAT ARE IN THE PARTIAL
AUTOMATION MODE. SO WE THINK
THIS IS A IMPORTANT BILL. UM AND
ALSO WE WERE PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED THAT AS CONSUMERS ARE
GIVEN THIS NEW DISCLOSURE THAT
THE DISCLOSURE INFORMATION IS
NOT USED AS SOME SORT OF EXCUSE
TO UNDER LAW. UNDERMINE ANY
LIABILITY THAT THE MANUFACTURER
MIGHT HAVE UNDER CURRENT LAW. SO
WE SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION
LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN WORKED
OUT WITH THE AUTO MANUFACTURERS
. THAT IS NOW IN THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN TIM
CHANGE FROM. TRIPLE A SWINE.
OKAY MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TIM CHANG WITH THE
AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
. I BELIEVE THE AUTHOR HAS DONE
A GREAT JOB OR SUBSTITUTE AUTHOR
HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF
SUMMARIZING THE BILL. I THINK I
CAN TRUNCATE MY TESTIMONY. YOU
KNOW, AUTOMATED DRIVER
ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS OR EIGHT
ASSES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND
THE CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY OF
DRIVING. UM IS GREATLY BENEFITED
. UM BUT OUR RESEARCH DOES SHOW
THAT EIGHT S FEATURES WHILE THEY
CAN ASSIST DRIVERS CAN'T BE
SOLELY RELIED UPON AND THIS IS
WHY THIS BILL IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE
CONSUMERS. WHO UTILIZE VEHICLES
WITH ADIDAS FEATURES WITH A
NOTICE THAT DESCRIBES THE
FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF
THOSE FEATURES, WHICH IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE
USING USING THE HIGHWAYS. WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE SENATOR, AND, UH
AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND WE
URGE YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU, BUT
THERE ARE OTHERS IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 13
98. RIGHT SAYING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SP 13 98?
QUÊ IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB
13 98, PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS
TIME TO PLACE YOURSELF IN. Q
140. AND WE WILL GO TO LINE 3
29, YOU ARE OPEN. 3 29. I'M
HERE. GO AHEAD. UM MY NAME IS
SUSAN STEVENSON. I AM WITH
AQUATIC PARK SCHOOL CHILDCARE
CENTER IN BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 976 AM
SORRY WE'RE ON A DIFFERENT BILL.
SB 13 98. OH, DO I CALL BACK?
NO, THE BILL IS ALREADY DONE.
OPERATOR, PLEASE. ASK FOR MORE
AND OTHER SUPPORT FOR SP 13 98.
AS MR CHAIR SAID, YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF SP 13 98, PLEASE
PRESS 10 AT THIS TIME. AND
NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION LISTED. BUT IT LOOKS
LIKE THERE IS PLEASE COME
FORWARD. IT IS AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE JOHN MOFFITT ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLIANCE FOR
AUTOMOTIVE INNOVATION. WE HAVE
ALWAYS AGREED WITH THE INTENT OF
THE AUTHOR ON THE BILL. UH WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK WITH THE
COMMITTEE WITH THE SPONSORS WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND HER
STAFF AND WITH THE. THE
AMENDMENTS COMMITTED TO TODAY
WHEN THEY GO INTO PRINT. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO MOVING FROM OUR
OPPOSING LESS AMENDED POSITION
TO NEUTRAL ON THE BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN
THE HEARING ROOM? SAYING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF SB? 13
98. THANK YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO
SHOW OPPOSITION TO SB 13 98 GO
AHEAD AND HIT 101 FOLLOWED BY
ZERO. WE HAVE NOBODY QUEUING UP
AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. SEEING NONE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YOU MAY CLOSE
VOTE. THANK YOU. I AM LOOKING
FOR EMOTION. THANK YOU AND A
SECOND, PLEASE. THANK YOU. WE DO
HAVE THE MOST IN A SECOND. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. I
BLOOM BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES. I
HANEY HANEY. I KALRA COBRA. I
KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN RAISE BONTA
WORKS. THAT BILL IS OUT. ALL
RIGHT. WE ARE LOOKING FOR
SENATORS HAMBURG, WIECKOWSKI AND
WIENER.
YEAH. HANG ON A SECOND. OKAY? SO
HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SENATORS
HERE SOON. IN THE MEANTIME,
LET'S GO THROUGH THE AGENDA FOR
ADD ONS. TO THE EXTENT WE CAN SO
CONSENT CALLED THE ABSENT
MEMBERS, DAVIES. DAVIES I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN MONTA WICKS. OKAY WE
ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF BILLS THAT
WE DO NOT YET HAVE MOTIONS FOR
SO STARTING WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE
SP 13 23 ARCHULETTA. I'LL TAKE A
MOTION. THANK YOU IN A SECOND.
THANK YOU. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM.
CUNNINGHAM NO BLOOM BLOOM I
DAVIES DAVIES NO, HANEY. HANEY,
I CHOLERA. CHOLERA I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN RAISED BONTA WICKS.
THAT BILL NEEDS TO MORE SO I'M
GOING TO PLACE THAT BILL ON CALL
NUMBER TWO SB 11 42 CABALLERO.
I'LL TAKE A MOTION. THANK YOU
AND A SECOND AND A SECOND. THANK
YOU. THAT BILL. THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM. BLOOM
BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES. NO,
HANEY. PENNY I CHOLERA. HOLERA
I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN RAISE BONTA
WICKS. OKAY THAT BILL NEEDS TO
MORE SO I'M GOING TO PLACE IT ON
CALL OUT IN NUMBER THREE IS OUT,
BUT CALLING YOU ABSENT MEMBERS.
CUNNINGHAM. HI CUNNINGHAM. I
DAVIES DAVIES, I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN WORKS. THANK YOU.
AND I'M SORRY THAT WAS SB 10 35
EGGMAN ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS OUT.
SP 12 27 EGGMAN CALLED THE
ABSENT MEMBERS CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM, I DAVIES DAVIES, I
KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN WIGS. THANK
YOU, AND WE JUST DISPOSED OF
ITEM NUMBER FIVE SP 13 98 SO SB
LET'S GO TO ITEM NUMBER SIX SP
12 45, WHICH IS ON CALL TO LIFT
THE CALL. CUNNINGHAM.
CUNNINGHAM. NO BLOOM. BLOOM I
KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN WICKS. ALRIGHT
THAT BILL IS OUT. SB 12 45 IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN SB 9 75
MEN IS ON CALL. I'M GOING TO
LIFT THE CALL. CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS BLOOM. BLEW MY KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN RAISED BONTA WICKS.
THAT'S STILL NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE
. I'M GOING TO REPLACE THE CALL
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SP 11 31.
NEWMAN. I NEED A MOTION, PLEASE.
THANK YOU AND A SECOND. THANK
YOU. THAT MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL THE ROLL.
STONE STONE. I CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM BLOOM I
DAVIES HANEY. HANEY, I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN
RAISED BANTA WICKS. THAT NEEDS
ONE MORE, SO I'M GOING TO PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. RIGHT? ITEM
NUMBER NINE IS SP 10 18 PAN. IT
IS ON CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT
THE CALL. BLOOM. BLOOM I
MAIENSCHEIN BONTA WEEKS. BILL IS
OUT. ITEM NUMBER 10 SB 11 72 PAN
IS OUT, BUT CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS BLOOM. I BLEW MY
MAIENSCHEIN BONTA WICKS. THANK
YOU. ITEM NUMBER 11 SP 616 RUBIO
IS ON CALL TO LIFT THE CALL.
BLOOM. BLEW MY KALRA TÔI KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN RAISED BANTA WICKS.
THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT ITEM
NUMBER 12 SP FIVE. OH FIVE.
SKINNER IS ON COLUMN AND LIFT
THE CALL. DAVIES DAVIES, NO,
KALRA. KALRA I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN
RAISE BANTER, WICKS. THAT STILL
NEEDS TO SO I WILL REPLACE THE
CALL ITEM NUMBER 1200 SKINNER IS
ON CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL DAVIES DAVIES. NO. COWLEY
MAIENSCHEIN BONTA WICKS. OKAY I
REMEMBER 13 SB 1200 IS GOING TO
REPLACE THE CALL THAT IS STILL
ON CALL. ALRIGHT. THAT'S ABOUT
AS FAR AS WE CAN GO AT THIS
POINT IF WE CAN GET SOME
AUTHORS. AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY
TO FINISH BUSINESS HERE WITHOUT
TAKING A BREAK BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK WE HAVE MANY OPTIONS. IN
THE AFTERNOON. IF WE DO NOT.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU WANT ME?
NOW IN. ARE NON CONTROVERSIAL
SECTION. I'M SORRY FOR THE DAY
WE ALL KNEW. MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER
16 SV 6 88 MR. WIECKOWSKI,
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI. SOMEONE
MEMBER STONE. FIRST OFF. LET ME
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS AND
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR US,
ALWAYS MAKING ONE OF MY GREAT
BILLS EVEN BETTER. UM A B. R S B
688 ELIMINATES THE USE OF
CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENTS AND
CONSUMER COMMERCIAL LOANS. I DID
RAN INTO THIS ONCE EARLY ON HIS
ATTORNEY. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW
THAT THEY EXISTED THAT SOMEBODY
WOULD AGREE TO, UH, WITHOUT EVEN
BREACHING THE CONTRACT TO, UH
ALLOW FURTHER ASSETS TO BE
SEIZED BY THE, UH, THE LENDER AT
THIS TIME. WELL IT'S NOT
COMMONPLACE. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S
688 WOULD DO AWAY WITH AN
ENFORCEABILITY OF AN ARCANE AND
PATENTLY UNFAIR LANGUAGE AND ALL
CONTRACTS. AND IRISH AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
WITNESSES LISTED. ARE THERE
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF SB 6 88.
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR. WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANY WOULDN'T
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB 6 88.
QUÊ IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF
BILL SB 6 88, PLEASE PRESS ONE,
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME
WHEN FOLLOWED BY ZERO. MR CHAIR.
WE HAVE NO PARTICIPANTS QUEUING
UP. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE TO
OUR POSITION. I DO NOT HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION LISTED. IS THERE ANY
OPPOSITION IN THE ROOM TO SB? 6
88. SEEING NONE OPERATED. WOULD
YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR ANY
OPPOSITION TO SB? 6 88. IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION
TO SB 6 88 688, PLEASE PRESS 10.
AND NOBODY IS QUEUING UP. THANK
YOU PRETTY MADE CLOSE THE LINES
. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. SAYING THANK YOU. WE
DO HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? THANK YOU. SENATOR YOU
MAY CLOSE. I THINK THE COMMITTEE
FOR DOING AWAY WITH KAGANOVICH
CLASSES AND I URGE AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. SO WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. I CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM.
I BLOOM BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES,
NO HANEY LARA. KALRA I KYLIE
MAIENSCHEIN RAISED BONTA WICKS
NEEDS TO MORE SO I WILL PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. ALRIGHT WE'RE
ON A ROLL. SB 10 99 SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI. MR CHAIR. I PROMISE
THAT THIS IS MY VERY LAST
BANKRUPTCY PILL THAT WILL COME
BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE. AND IT
MAKES THEM VERY MODEST BUT
IMPORTANT UPDATES OUR BANKRUPTCY
LAWS. AMONG THE UPDATES ARE
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE STAFF REPORT
IS THAT THE BILL ALLOWS FOR
DEBTOR TO KEEP A MODEST USED
VEHICLE AND PROHIBITS CREDITORS
FROM POSSESSING. THEY'RE
REPOSSESSING THEIR CARS WHEN
THEY'RE CURRENT ON THAT. I THINK
ALL OF US KNOW. SINCE THE
PANDEMIC USED CAR PRICES HAVE
GONE UP 31% IT'S JUST CRAZY. THE
BILL ALSO ENSURES THAT HOMES ARE
NOT FORCIBLY SOLD. MONTHS INTO
THE BANKRUPTCY CASE SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE HOME APPRECIATE IN
VALUE SINCE THE TIME OF FILING
AND AMENDMENTS TAKEN JUST LAST
WEEK ON THE ON THIS FURTHER
CLARIFIES THAT THE BILL IS
SEEKING TO PREVENT THE SURPRISE
SALES OF HOMES PEOPLE REASONABLY
BELIEVE WERE EXEMPT UNDER THE
CURRENT LAW. AND WITH ON THE
PHONE LINE I HAVE WITH THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION CONSUMER
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS, SHULMAN
AND JENNY DOLING WITH THE DOLING
LAW GROUP AND I TWO WORDS AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. SO I DO HAVE
THOSE TWO WITNESSES JAMES
SHULMAN AND ANY DOLING? ARE YOU
WITH US ON THE PHONE? YES
CHAIRMAN STONE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M COLEMAN AND I'M
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. OF
CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS.
SPONSORS OF SP 10 99. THIS
VILLAGE HAS SEVERAL IMPORTANT
PROTECTIONS FOR STRUGGLING
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES. MEETING
BANKRUPTCY RELIEF DUE TO THE
ECONOMIC UPHEAVAL CAUSED BY
COVID. AND NOW EXACERBATED BY
HIGH INFLATION AND LIVING CLUBS.
AMONG THE BILL'S PROVISIONS.OUR
FIXES THAT WILL ALLOW SEPARATED
SPOUSES. TO USE THE CALIFORNIA
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. SECTION
703.14 B. ONE FOR ALL BE SET OF
EXEMPTION. PROTECT THEIR
PERSONAL ASSETS. WHAT WERE THEY
ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A WAIVER
FROM A NON FILING SPOUSE. MANY
DEBTORS WHO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED
OR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
CURRENTLY HAVE NO WAY TO GET
THESE WAIVERS. ANOTHER PROVISION
PROTECT. NECESSARY CHILD SUPPORT
OR SPOUSAL SUPPORT ARREARS.
UNDER CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 70
TOUR IN THE SAME MANNER AS IS
CURRENTLY ALLOWED. UNDER SECTION
703. STILL ANOTHER PROVISION
PROTECTS SETTLEMENTS. DO AN
EMPLOYEE IN CONNECTION WITH HER
EMPLOYMENT. INCLUDING
SETTLEMENTS FOR SEXUAL
HARASSMENT. RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION. AND
WHISTLEBLOWER PUNISHMENT.
ANOTHER PROJECT PROVISION
PROTECTS VEHICLES. WHICH HAVE
BEEN MODIFIED FOR USE BY A
DISABLED PERSON. AND THESE AND
MANY OTHER WAYS. AS STATED BY
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI. MUST BE 10
99 STRENGTHENS THE SAFETY NET
FOR FINANCIALLY STRUGGLING
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. I'M
SORRY, THEN JENNY TOLAN. JENNY
DOLING AHEAD, PLEASE. GET UP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, JENNY DULLING. I
AM A CALIFORNIA CONSTITUENT AND
A CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED
BANKRUPTCY SPECIALISTS AND I
SERVE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF NEXT TO TESTIFYING IN FAVOR
OF SP 10 99 TODAY. SP 10 99 WAS
DRAFTED IN THE IMAGE OF
BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTION 5 TO 2.
WHICH STATES PROPERTY EXEMPTED
UNDER THIS SECTION IS NOT LIABLE
DURING OR AFTER A CASE FOR ANY
DEBT OF THE DEBTOR THAT AROSE
BEFORE FILING THE CASE. THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE
HERE. UNDER THIS BILL, THIS BILL
APPLIES TO ALL 40 MILLION
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS IF THEY
FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY. THERE ARE
ONLY 75 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES IN
CALIFORNIA WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO
BE NEUTRAL THIRD PARTIES
APPOINTED BY THE DOJ, ANOTHER
CHAPTER SEVEN TRUSTEES HANDBOOK.
THE WORDS DELAY IS USED SIX
TIMES TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE
OF RESOLVING CASES TIMELY. IN
FACT, THE HANDBOOK SPECIFICALLY
CONTEMPLATES THAT DELAYS ERODE
THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE IN THE
BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM. THE HANDBOOK
STATES, A TRUSTEE SHALL NOT
ADMINISTER IN A STATE OR
ANNOUNCE THAT IN AN ESTATE WHERE
THE PROCEEDS OF LIQUIDATION WILL
PRIMARILY BENEFIT THE TRUSTEE OR
THE PROFESSIONALS OF THE TRUSTEE
OR UNDULY DELAYED THE RESOLUTION
OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE TRUSTEE
MUST CONSIDER WHETHER SUFFICIENT
FUNDS WILL BE GENERATED BEFORE
THEY EVER MAKE A DETERMINATION
THAT ASSET NEEDS TO BE
LIQUIDATED. TRAGIC CAN SEE SP 10
99 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
BANKRUPTCY CODE. THE CZECH TEAM
IS NOT UNDULY DELAY THE
RESOLUTION F THE CASE BY
SITTING ON THE PROPERTY AND
WAITING FOR WAITING FOR IT TO
APPRECIATE AND VALUE. UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW, THERE IS NO
DISSENT DISINCENTIVE FOR A
TRUSTEE TO ABANDON AN EXEMPT
PROPERTY IN A RISING REAL ESTATE
MARKET. THIS CREATES UNCERTAINTY
FOR DEBTORS WHO PROPERTY SHOULD
HAVE BEEN FULLY EXEMPT WHEN THEY
FILED BANKRUPTCY. I HAVE
PERSONALLY TAKEN ON FOUR CASES
IN 2022 ALONE, AND IT'S ONLY
JUNE OR TRUSTEES WERE
ADMINISTRATING, ADMINISTERING
OTHER ASSETS THAT WERE NOT
EXEMPT. THE FAMILY HOMES WERE
EXEMPT IN THOSE CASES. CASE
NUMBERS FOR THOSE CASES ARE 2018
2019. AND TWO AND 2020. THAT
MEANS THOSE CASES HAVE BEEN HELD
OPEN BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR YEARS
. AND WITH OUR RISING REAL
ESTATEMARKET, THERE IS NOW
NONEXEMPT EQUITY AND THE
TRUSTEES ARE SELLING THOSE
FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE EXEMPT
THE DAY THEY FILED THEIR CASE.
WITH THE CURRENT NATIONAL
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS, THE LAG IN
NEW FAMILY SINGLE HOME
CONSTRUCTION THE PURCHASE OF
FAMILY HOMES BY CORPORATE
INVESTORS THAT SWORD 80% FROM
2020 TO 2021. AND NOW ACCOUNTS
FOR 18% OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME
SALES. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO
THESE HOMES TO BE IN JEOPARDY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING
POTENTIAL APPRECIATION. IT'S
ABOUT PROTECTING AND ALREADY
EXEMPT HOME. PLEASE DON'T FALL
FOR THE RED HERRING ARGUMENT TO
WRAP UP. I AM. WE ARE TRYING TO
INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO. HAD. WE WANTED TO DO
THAT. WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT IN
2020 WHEN WE UP THE CALIFORNIA
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. WE ARE
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
DEBTORS HAVE THAT CERTAINTY THAT
THE BANKRUPTCY CODE REQUIRES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT
OTHERS IN SUPPORT. WILL THAT
TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY, BUT YOU
GIVE US YOUR NAME YOUR
AFFILIATION AND THAT YOU SUPPORT
MEMBERS CATALINA SANCHEZ WITH
CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME
CONSUMER COALITION AND THE
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DANIEL
GUTIERREZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM? SEEING NONE. OPERATOR
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR S? B 10 99.
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR SP 10 99
PLEASE PRESS 10 THIS TIME ONE
FOLLOWED BY 03 46, YOU ARE OPEN.
3 46, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. SIR. WE CAN HEAR YOU.
THEY'RE NOT RESPONDING. I'LL GET
ONE MORE FINAL REMINDER, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO FOR
SUPPORT ON SP 10 99. AND NOBODY
IS QUEUING UP. THANK YOU. WE
WILL THEN MOVE TO OPPOSITION. I
HAVE TO WITNESSES LISTED IN
OPPOSITION DAVID GOODRICH AND
GRETCHEN LICHTENBERGER.
GRETCHEN. GOOD MORNING. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAVID
GOODRICH. I AM A CHAPTER SEVEN
TRUSTEE. I'VE BEEN A CHAPTER
SEVEN TRUSTEE FOR 11 YEARS.
THERE ARE 63 TRUSTEES IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOT 75. OF
THOSE TRUSTEES. I'VE SPOKEN TO
MANY OF THEM ABOUT SB 10, 99 AND
UNIFORMLY. THEY ALL OPPOSE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AS MOST OF
YOU PROBABLY ARE AWARE, AND IT
WAS ACTUALLY DISCUSSED TODAY.
THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WAS
AMENDED TWO YEARS AGO, AND IT
WAS ENACTED LAST YEAR, WHICH
ENLARGED THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
AVAILABLE TO DEBTORS IN
BANKRUPTCY. THE PREVIOUS
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WAS 75 1ST
SINGLE. PERSON 100 FOR MARY
FAMILY OR HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
150,004 DISABLED OR OLDER. STATE
CITIZENS, IT WAS INCREASED TO
$600,000 WHAT S B 10 99 INTENDS
TO DO IS TO ADD ON TO THAT
AMOUNT IN THE EVENT THAT A
BANKRUPTCY CASES FILED IN
CHAPTER SEVEN AND THE DEBTOR'S
FAILED TO ASK THAT THE COURT
ABANDONED THE PROPERTY BACK TO
THE DEBTORS, WHICH ISN'T
AVAILABLE REMEDY. IT HAS BEEN
AVAILABLE FOR MANY YEARS. WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN IN A SITUATION
WHERE PROPERTY IS IN BANKRUPTCY?
AND THERE'S MORE THAN $600,000
OF EQUITY. LET'S SAY THAT
THERE'S 700 AFTER THE CASES
FILED, BUT THERE WERE 600 WHEN
IT WAS FILED DURING THAT PERIOD
OF TIME,THE DEBTORS HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THAT THE
COURT TAKE THE PROPERTY OUT OF
BANKRUPTCY. SO THAT IT DOESN'T
GET ADMINISTERED BY A TRUSTEE,
WHICH MEANS SOUL. THAT
OPPORTUNITY STILL IS AVAILABLE,
AND THAT MAKES THIS BILL
UNNECESSARY. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT
THE APPRECIATION NOW BELONGS TO
THE DEBTOR, WHICH MEANS THAT THE
EXTRA $100,000 GOES ON TOP OF
THE $600,000. SO NOW THE
EXEMPTION IS $700,000 OR PERHAPS
$800,000 THIS UNLIKE WHAT WAS
TESTIFIED TO A FEW MINUTES AGO,
DOES ENLARGE THE EXEMPTION.
FURTHERMORE, ALSO, IT INVITES
LITIGATION. WHAT HAPPENS IN
BANKRUPTCY? UNFORTUNATELY IS
THAT WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE,
THERE ARE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS
AND TRIALS FOR BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE AND FOR A DEBTOR THERE
WILL HAVE TO BE EXPERT WITNESSES
TO TESTIFY. ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
EXEMPTION THAT HAS ACCRUED POST
BANKRUPTCY. THAT'S COSTLY. IT'S
EXPENSIVE. IT'S PROTRACTED
LITIGATION THAT WILL COST
EVERYONE INCLUDING CREDITORS,
AND, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFTEN IS A
CREDITOR IN BANKRUPTCY CASES.
AND AS TRUSTEES WE DO PAY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA FREQUENTLY.
MHM. THERE'S ALSO AN ISSUE WITH
WHO THAT EXEMPTION BENEFITS.
THIS EXEMPTION CHANGE WILL
BENEFIT THOSE WHO ARE A LITTLE
BIT MORE WEALTHY THAN THOSE WHO
ARE MORE HARD STRICKEN IN
BANKRUPTCY. AN EXEMPTION OF
$600,000 IS A VERY LARGE AMOUNT
OF EQUITY, AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THAT KIND OF EQUITY TEND TO
BE WEALTHY OR AT LEAST WEALTHY
ERROR AS THAT TERM WOULD BE USED
IN BANKRUPTCY. NOT EVERYBODY'S
WEALTHY AND BANKRUPTCY, OF
COURSE. WHAT HAPPENS IS THOSE
PEOPLE USUALLY HAVE ATTORNEYS.
THOSE ATTORNEYS CAN EASILY
HANDLE THE ISSUE BY FILING A
MOTION TO COMPEL THE ABANDONMENT
OF THE PROPERTY AGAIN. THIS IS A
TOOL THAT'S AVAILABLE. AND
FINALLY, WHAT REALLY IS A
PROBLEM IS THAT THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT WILL
CONFLICT WITH NINTH CIRCUIT LAW
. IT WILL ALSO CONFLICT WITH
THREE STATUTES IN THE BANKRUPTCY
CODE. 5 22 AND 5 41, A SO IT
PROBABLY WILL BE PREEMPTED AS A
MATTER OF LAW, AND EVENTUALLY%
THERE WILL BE A CHALLENGE TO
THIS. BILL IF IT IS AN ACTIVE
BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO
FEDERAL LAW, WHICH PREEMPTS
STATE LAW. ON BEHALF OF MY
FELLOW CALIFORNIA TRUSTEES AS A
TRUSTEE MYSELF, WE ALL OPPOSE SB
10 99. IT'S UNNECESSARY. IT'S
VIOLATIVE OF FEDERAL LAW. AS A
GATEWAY TO EXPENSIVE AND
PROTRACTED LITIGATION. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING
ME APPEAR TODAY. NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN
STONE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS GRETCHEN LICHTENBERGER,
AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT PRESERVATION
ALLIANCE. THIS MEASURE IS TITLED
AS A BANKRUPTCY BILL. HOWEVER IT
ALSO SEEKS TO CHANGE LAWS THAT
ARE APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT AS
WELL. MAJORITY OF MONEY
JUDGMENTS ARE ENTERED BECAUSE
THE DEBTORS HAVE DECEIVED
DEFRAUDED THE CREDITORS IN SOME
WAY. SO THOSE CREDITORS ALREADY
HAVE A PROVEN NEED FOR THE
MONEY. EXISTING LAWS IN STATE
COURT. FULLY PROTECT DEBTOR'S
RIGHTS. STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS
SHOULD NOT BE CREATED OR
ENLARGED BASED ON SOME RANDOM
UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL NEED THAT
APPLIES TO EVERY DEBTOR. WITHOUT
REQUIRING EACH DEBTOR TO PROVE
HIS OR HER NEEDS. CURRENTLY
DEBTORS SIMPLY FILE A FORM WITH
THE COURT ASKING TO KEEP OR
EXEMPT ANY MONEY OR PROPERTY
BASED ON NEED. COURTS ARE VERY
LIBERAL IN GRANTING THOSE
EXEMPTIONS I HAVE WITH ME A PILE
OF ACTUAL COURT ORDERS WHERE THE
DEBTORS HAVE BEEN GIVEN A GRANT
OF THEIR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION.
MOST TIMES, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T
EVEN SHOW UP IN COURT. THIS
MEASURE SEEKS TO TRIPLE THE
AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION FOR VEHICLES
IN STATE COURT. THAT'S THAT'S
APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT, NOT
BANKRUPTCY. CURRENTLY DEBTORS
CAN COME TO COURT IMPROVED IF
THEY NEED MORE THAN THE
EXEMPTION, THE COURTS WILL GIVE
IT TO THEM. THIS MEASURE IS
CREATING A NEW DUPLICATIVE
EXEMPTION FOR ALIMONY SUPPORT
AND SEPARATE MAINTENANCE. THE
WORD ALIMONY IS A TERM. NOT EVEN
DEFINED IN FAMILY LAW STATUTES
OR IN THE CIVIL CODE OF
PROCEDURE. IT SHOULDN'T BE AN
AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION. IT SHOULD
BE PROVEN. IT'S THE JOB OF THE
COURT OF LAW TO BALANCE THE
NEEDS OF THE DEBTOR'S VERSUS THE
NEEDS OF THE CREDITORS. THE
CREDITORS ALSO NEED TO BE PAID.
THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD NOT
PRESUME THE NEED WITH A BROAD
BRUSH. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING
OUR POINT OF VIEW, ALL JUDGMENT
. CREDITORS STAND OPPOSED TO SP
10 99. WE RESPECTFULLY AFTER
YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU. BUT
OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION. WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY, NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. ALEX ALLEN IS
ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEES FOR
REASONABLE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION
LIMITS IN OPPOSITION. MR CHAIR.
ROBERT WILSON, THE CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION LEAGUE HERE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THIS
CHAIR MEMBERS CLIFF COST ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CREDITORS. BAR ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. MELANIE
CUEVAS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BANKERS ALSO IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO SB? 10
99 AGAIN? WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
COMMISSION CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO, UH SP 10 99 GOING
AT ONE POLE BY ZERO AT THIS TIME
10 LINE 3 31, YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD
AFTERNOON. LINDSAY GO ALONG WITH
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BANKING
NETWORK RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
LINE TO 57. YOU ARE UP. TRYING
AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MR CHAIR
AND NUMBER. MY NAME IS JANET
SCHURICK, AND I AM ACCORDING TO
MADERA COUNTY COURT, AND I AM
ALSO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION
INTERPRETERS. UNFORTUNATELY,
FIVE I HAVE TO ASK YOU. 48 I'M
SORRY. WE'RE NOT ON THAT S P 99.
OKAY 3 62, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON. DAVID COMPTON. I'M A
DEBT COLLECTION, PROFESSIONAL
AND STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. PLAYING 1 94,
YOU ARE OPEN. TINA BRADY WITH
JUDGMENT, RECOVERY ASSISTANCE
AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. PLEASE GO AHEAD LINE 3 52.
SANDRA MACBETH TRUSTEE IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL 10 99. YOU ARE OFTEN LINE 3
57. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS LARRY
SIMMONS. I'M A DEBTOR'S COUNSEL
FILED CASES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
AND ALSO A CHAPTER SEVEN TRUSTEE
IN THE RIVERSIDE DIVISION OF THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT. I OPPOSE SB 10
99. NEXT WEEK. WE'LL GO TO LINE
3 56, PLEASE GO AHEAD. LINDA
BUOY THE CHAPTER SEVEN TRUSTEE
IN CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, AND I OPPOSE LINE 3
61, YOU ARE OPEN. KIMBERLY
HOUSTON TRUSTEE IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOR
CHAPTER SEVEN AND SOME 11TH I
OPPOSE SB ONE. OH, 99. FINAL
REMINDER TO TESTIFY IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 10 99 PLEASE
PRESS 10 AND LYING TO 57. YOU
ARE UP. WE'LL HEAD TO 57. 2 57.
AND NOBODY ELSE IS QUEUED UP, MR
CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE LINES
. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS ARE
COMMON. SAYING NONE. SENATOR YOU
MAKE LOVE. THANK YOU, UM. WHEN
PEOPLE SEEK BANKRUPTCY
PROTECTION. THE MANY OF THEM ARE
AT THE MERCY OF CHAPTER SEVEN
TRUSTEES WHO ARE ADMINISTERED
THEIR CASES. THE REASON THAT WE
WERE MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS IS
BECAUSE THIS THE WAY THE
PROPERTIES ARE RAISING ARE
RISING SO QUICKLY THAT THE
INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN
IS TRUSTEES OR UNNECESSARILY
KEEPING THESE CASES OPEN AS IT
EQUITY RISES, WE CHANGED THE
HOMESTEAD LAW. SO THAT WE WOULD
CREATE A SNAPSHOT. THAT WAS WHAT
THE LAW HAS ALWAYS BEEN. IS THAT
THE TIME THAT YOU FILED A CASE
THAT'S WHAT THE VALUE OF YOUR
PROPERTY IS AND IF IT IF IT
INCREASES DURING DEPENDENCY IN
AN IN A NURSE TO THE DEBTOR I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A
PREEMPTION PROBLEM BECAUSE WE
CAREFULLY ARE LOOKING AT THE
MOMENT THAT YOU FILED BEFORE YOU
FILE IT. THAT'S WHEN THE STATE
HAS CONTROL AND THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SET THE
PARAMETERS ON WHAT THE VALUE OF
IT IS. SO WE GIVE CLUES TO THE
FOLKS THAT WE GO BACK TO THAT
SNAPSHOT. UH IMAGE THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RICH PEOPLE,
FOLKS. HE'S ABOUT POOR PEOPLE
WHO HAVE EQUITY IN THEIR HOUSE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE AT THE
MERCY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.
AND IF THEY HAVE SOME SOME
EQUITY WE WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE IN
THEIR HOMES. WE DON'T WANT TO
SELL HOMES AND GIVE PEOPLE A
$600,000 CHECK. THAT'S NOT THE
GOAL HERE. THE GOAL HERE IS TO
KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOUSES.
WITH REGARD TO THE AUTOMOBILES.
THE AUTOMOBILE. WE'VE USED A 12
YEAR OLD HONDA CIVIC WITH
100,000 MILES ON IT. THAT CAR IS
WORTH 9500 BUCKS. THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS NOT
SOME LUXURY CAR THAT PEOPLE ARE
GETTING IN. AYE. UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD OPPOSITION TO
BILLS. I TRY TO HOPE THAT THE
TRUSTEES WHO ARE OBJECTING TO
THIS WILL BE NEUTRAL ARBITRATORS
BECAUSE BECAUSE IF YOU DO A
MOTION TO COMPEL IN BANKRUPTCY
COURT, THAT IS LITIGATION,
YOU'RE ASKING THE DEBTOR TO HIRE
AN ATTORNEY TO COMPEL. TO COMPEL
THE TRUSTEE TO ABANDON IT. WE'RE
SAYING NO, YOU CAN'T ABANDON IT
IN IT UNDER THE SNAPSHOT VERSION
OF THAT WITH THAT I WOULD URGE
EACH OF YOURS I VOTE. THANK YOU.
I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. THANK
YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? AND THE
SECOND. THAT MOTION IS TO PASS.
COLORADO, PLEASE. STONE
CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM.
BLEW MY DAVIES DAVIES, NO, HANEY
KALRA. KALRA I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN
RAISED BANTA WICKS. THERE NEEDS
TO MORE VOTES, SO I'M GOING TO
PUT THAT ON CALL. AND THEN ITEM
NUMBER 18 SP 12 56. MR CHERRY
WILL START BY ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE
COMMITTEE YOU AS WELL THE
CONSULTANT FOR THE WORK ON THIS
SO SB 12 53 WOULD TRANSITION OUR
STATE AWAY FROM SELLING SINGLE
USE £1 PROPANE CYLINDERS IN
CALIFORNIA BEGINNING IN JANUARY,
1 2028. THE BILL PROVIDES FOR
THIS FIVE YEAR DELAY
IMPLEMENTATION TO ALLOW
MANUFACTURERS CONSUMERS
RETAILERS. PROPANE CYLINDER
EXCHANGE PROGRAMS, TAKING MOVED
TO REFILLABLE CYLINDERS. IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO TELL IF A
PROPANE CYLINDER IS EMPTY AS THE
STAFF REPORT POINTS OUT, THOSE
THAT ARE NOT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE
COMMITTEE REPORT TALKS ABOUT
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO
FIND A HAZARDOUS HOUSEHOLD WASTE
PLACE OR JUST IS EASILY JUST PUT
THEM IN THE TRASH, AND THAT'S
THE REALITY. EVEN THOSE THAT ARE
PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ITS
SIGNIFICANT DIVERSION OF
FINANCIAL RESOURCES FROM
FACILITIES AND THESE ARE
TYPICALLY PAID BY OUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. SO THESE PRO PROPANE
CYLINDERS PLACED A GREAT BURDEN
ON OUR ENVIRONMENT. OUR
MUNICIPALITIES, UM PARK SYSTEMS
IN MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITIES.
IT ALLOWED. THIS BILL DOES ALLOW
CITY ATTORNEYS IN CITY COUNCILS
ACT AS THE ENFORCEMENT FOR THE
LAW BY PROVIDING THEM THE
ABILITY TO IMPOSE CIVIL
PENALTIES SINCE THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS AND THE COST OF
VIOLATIONS COULD FALL ON LOCAL
JURISDICTION. UM IT MOVES AWAY
FROM THE SINGLE USE PRODUCTS
THAT HARM THE ENVIRONMENT AND
POSES A THREAT TO LANDFILL. I
HAVE COLLEEN FOSTER, WHO'S AN
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER WITH THE
WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, WITH
THE CITY OF OCEAN SIDE ON THE
LINE, AND THEN PRISCILLA. QUIROZ
HERE WITH THE PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, AND THIS IS
DOUG. COBALT WHO HAS ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HE'S THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO OUR
WITNESSES HERE IN THE HEARING
ROOM FIRST. GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
HOPEFULLY THAT MISS FOSTER IS
GOING TO GO FIRST ON THE PHONE,
OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO? FIRST
GO FIRST. PRISCILLA KUDOS HERE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL,
REPRESENTING ALSO REPRESENTING
ALAMEDA, STOP WASTE WESTERN
PLASTER WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY WHO ARE ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
MONTHS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH OPPOSITION ON WHAT AN
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
MAY LOOK LIKE FOR THE CYLINDERS.
HOW, AFTER AFTER MANY
DISCUSSIONS, WE WERE UNABLE TO
COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON EQUALITY
NPR PROGRAM THAT WORKS HERE FOR
CALIFORNIA. SPECIFICALLY WE
BASED MODELS ON BILLS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. THE BATTERY
BILLS, UM BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO
COME TO A FULL AGREEMENT. AS FAR
AS THE RETAILER'S OPPOSITIONS
THERE. THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS
BILL THAT CURRENTLY OBLIGATES
THEM TO TAKE BACK THESE £1.1
PROPANE CYLINDERS. ADDITIONALLY
THEY STATE THAT THE MARKET IS
NOT THERE. BUT AS ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT. NOT ONLY DOES THIS
BILL HAVE A FIVE YEAR ON RAMP
BUT EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY TRYING TO
DESPITE THE DANGERS OF REFILLING
THESE DISPOSABLE CYLINDERS
ALREADY TRYING TO REFILL THEM,
SO IT APPEARS THAT CONSUMERS ARE
READY FOR THIS MARKET OF A
REFILLABLE £1 POUND PAINTINGS
LIKE THE £20 PROPANE PINK TANKS
THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE
MARKET. ADDITIONALLY OVER THE
LAST SIX YEARS, CPSC HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH COWER CYCLE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CALLED THE
REFILL YOUR FUN WHERE THEY'RE
PROMOTING THE SAFETY OF THESE
PROPANE CYLINDERS BY CHOOSING
REFILLABLE INSTEAD OF
DISPOSABLES. IN THAT SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME THERE IN THIS
PROGRAM HAS TAKEN EFFECT.
THERE'S BEEN OVER 400 LOCATIONS
IN THE STATE THAT CURRENTLY
REFILL, SELL OR EXCHANGE. THESE
£1 PROPANE, REUSABLE CYLINDERS
TRANSITIONING OUT THESE SINGLE
USE PRO PAINTINGS WILL MOVE
CONSUMERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE
OPTION. FROM A WASTE PERSPECTIVE
. THE BILL PROVIDES ACTUAL
SOURCE REDUCTIONS. AND THEN FROM
A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, THE
BILL, UM SAVES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MONEY BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE
MILLIONS OF DISPOSABLE
CONTAINERS AND TRAIN OUR WASTE
STREAM ANNUALLY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO
THE TELEPHONES. COLLEEN FOSTER.
HI THIS IS COLLEEN FOSTER,
ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER FOR THE
CITY OF OCEAN SIDE. I'M SPEAKING
IN SOME SORT OF A SPEECH. 12 56
36 IS CRITICAL AND ELIMINATING
DIFFICULT TO MANAGE MATERIALS.
SUCH AS SINGLE USE PROPANE
CYLINDERS. SINGLE USE PROPANE
CYLINDERS ARE A NUISANCE TO
LOCAL AGENCIES LIKE THE
COMMUNITY OF OCEAN SIDE.
OCEANSIDE BOTH MILES OF BEACHES
AND DAY CAMPAIGN OPPORTUNITIES
WITH THOSE ACTIVITIES COMES TO
PROLIFERATION OF SINGLE USE
CYLINDERS, WHICH ARE OFTEN
DISPOSED OF IMPROPERLY. POSED
SAFETY ISSUES TO SANITATION
WORKERS AND THE PUBLIC AND EVEN
WHEN DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND
ARE LIMITED H H W FACILITIES
EACH CYLINDER COST UPWARDS OF
$25 TO PROPERLY MANAGED. THE
COST OF THESE UNITS VERY PER
DISPOSAL, BUT FROM THIS SIZE,
SMALLER AGENCIES COSTS ARE
USUALLY HIGHER AS THERE ARE VERY
LIMITED OPTIONS FOR DISPOSAL. SO
FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN IN OCEANSIDE,
WE DO RECEIVE A SINGLE USE
PROPANE CYLINDER AT OUR AHH 70
FACILITY. WE HAVE TO USE A FORD
DISPOSAL DRUM 55 GALLON%
COLLECTION JUMP. IF WE DON'T
HAVE MULTIPLE CYLINDERS ARE JUST
A HANDFUL OF CYLINDERS. THE
PRICE GOES UP TO ACTUALLY
DISPOSE OF IT IN THE LARGE SCALE
DRUM. DUE TO THESE ISSUES, THE
CITY DID PARTICIPATE IN THE
LIMITED CALVARY CYCLE GRANT
PROGRAM RECENTLY, AND WE
DEDICATED THAT FUNDING TO
SUPPORT USE OF REFILLABLE
AND EXCHANGE EVENTS TO GET THE
SINGLE USES OUT OF THE ECONOMY
AND REFILLABLE BACK INTO THE
ECONOMY. THIS PROGRAM WAS
EXTREMELY POPULAR AND UTILIZED
BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
ACROSS ALL SOCIO ECONOMIC
BACKGROUNDS, THE COMMUNITIES
USED TO EXCHANGE IN THE LARGER,
REFILLABLE PREVENTING, AND MANY
COMMENTED ON WHY THIS IS NOT
EVOLVED FOR THE SMALLER UNIT. SP
12 56% AND OBVIOUS AND VIABLE
SOLUTION TO KEEPING THESE OUT OF
OUR LANDFILLS AND OUT OF OUR
DISPOSAL, CONTINUOUS AND KEEPING
LOCAL AGENCIES COSTS BELOW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RIGHT WE
WILL NOW GO TO ANYONE IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR S B 12 56. WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT
NAME AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT.
COULD YOU PUT SOMEBODY PUT THE
MICROPHONE UP FOR HIM, PLEASE?
IS TRYING NOT READ THE SIGN.
THERE WERE HOPING PEOPLE
WOULDN'T BE TOUCHING THAT. BUT
GO AHEAD PART FOR THE COURSE FOR
ME AROUND HERE, JONATHAN CLAY ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO, AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM?
SEEING NONE. OPERATOR WE WILL GO
TO THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SP 12 56. IF YOU IF YOU ARE
IN SUPPORT OF SP 12 56, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, FOLLOWED BY 01
FOLLOWED BY ZERO AT THIS TIME.
PLANE. 3 59, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
JORDAN'S ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP, ACTION
COUNCIL AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AND WE'LL GO TO LINE
TWO. OH, ONE YOU ARE OPEN.
CLAIRE OF HIS EXCELLENT BEHALF
OF CARE FRIENDS AGAINST WASTE IN
SUPPORTING WILL GIVE A FINAL
REMINDER HERE ONE FALL BY ZERO
IF YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF SB 12
56. LINE 3 70, YOU ARE OPEN. I'M
A PEDIATRICIAN AND. I STRONGLY
SUPPORT IF THE SB 8 16. THANK
YOU 6. MR. CHAIR THERE. NO
OTHER PARTICIPANTS QUEUED UP.
THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. BUT I DO NOT HAVE
OPPOSITION LISTED. BUT I KNOW
THAT THEY'RE HERE, SO PLEASE
COME FORWARD. UM. GOOD AFTERNOON
, MIKE ROBSON HERE ON BEHALF OF
WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES. UM THE
WORKING INDUSTRIES IS THE
MANUFACTURER OF THE £1 DISPOSAL
AND THAT SINGLE USE DISPOSABLE
PROPANE CYLINDERS THAT ARE THE
SUBJECT OF THIS BILL. I REALLY
JUST WANT TO START OFF BY JUST
APPRECIATING THE COMMUNITY
CONSULTANTS AND THOROUGH
ANALYSIS ON THOSE IT WAS REALLY
WELL DONE, AND I'LL PROBABLY
JUST USE IT AS MY GUIDE TO
TESTIMONY, BUT AS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, DISPOSABLE CYLINDERS
ARE VERY POPULAR WITH CONSUMERS
, AND I THINK THE AUTHOR MIGHT
HAVE EVEN SAID THAT IN A
STATEMENT, BUT I THINK THEY'RE
ESTIMATED AT AROUND FOUR MILLION
OF THESE SOLD A YEAR IN
CALIFORNIA. UM THEY'RE POPULAR
BECAUSE THEY'RE CONVENIENT.
THERE THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE
THEY'RE INEXPENSIVE AND PEOPLE
USE THEM PEOPLE LIKE THEM, AND
THEY THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO
BUY THEM. THIS BILL IS GOING TO
ELIMINATE THAT THAT CONSUMER
CONVENIENCE AND THAT THAT
CONSUMERS AND THAT AND THAT
PRICE POINT THE REFILLABLE
CYLINDER THAT WOULD REPLACE THE
DISPOSABLE CYLINDER IS
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE TO
PURCHASE. AND WHILE YOU CAN
REFILL IT ON RELATIVELY CHEAP,
THERE'S NO THERE'S NO. THERE'S
REALLY NO DEMONSTRATED. DESPITE
THE TESTIMONY, THERE'S REALLY NO
DEMONSTRATED NETWORK OF
REFILLING £1 CYLINDERS. THAT
THAT THAT THAT WE'RE AWARE OF
THEIR ACTUALLY GOING, IT'S GOING
ON, AND WE WE'VE. WE'VE SURVEYED
A LOT OF THE U HAUL STORES AND
THEY'RE NOT REFILLING THE £1
CYLINDERS. THEY CERTAINLY THERE
IS AN EXCHANGE PROGRAM FOR THE
BIG BARBECUE CYLINDERS AND I'LL
GET TO THAT. BUT JUST A AGAIN
GOING THROUGH THE ANALYSIS AND
JUST KIND OF USING THAT, AS THE
GUIDE. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT
A COUPLE OF THINGS ON PAGE FOUR,
AND THE CONSULTANT RIGHTLY NOTES
THAT A SOLUTION TO THE DISPOSED
TO DISPOSABLE CYLINDERS IS TO IS
TO MOVE THE REFILLABLE ZAND AND
I GUESS IS TO MOVE REFILLABLE,
BUT UM WEED SUGGESTED THAT'S THE
BETTER SOLUTION IS A PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM
WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES AS THE
PRODUCER OF THE £1 CYLINDERS AS
A PRODUCER OF £20, CYLINDERS OF
PRODUCER OF £5 CYLINDERS AS A
PRODUCER OF ICE, A BEAUTY IN
CYLINDERS, WHICH WOULD BE A
REPLACEMENT PRODUCT THAT PEOPLE
CAN'T FIND A £1 CYLINDER. OF THE
COMMON KIND OF £1 SOLDIERS. THEY
CAN GO TO ISIL, BUTANE CYLINDERS
AND PRODUCER OF SOLDIERS USED IN
THE IN THE CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY, WHICH ARE EXEMPTED
FROM THIS BILL. UM WORTHY NEWS
PREPARED TO BE THE PRODUCER THAT
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF ALL THESE
CYLINDERS IF THERE WAS AN NPR
PROGRAM, TO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD
OF THIS BAND, AND WE THINK
THAT'S A BETTER SOLUTION. THE
CONSULTANT ALSO NOTES ON PAGE
FOUR, HE ASKED RIGHTLY A GOOD
QUESTION. WILL WILL CONSUMERS
GRAVITATE TO RENEWABLES AND
NOTES THAT THERE YOU KNOW,
THERE'S NO MARKET RESEARCH IS
TO, UM, TO SUGGEST THAT THEY
WOULD BUT AS WELL AS THE
PROPONENTS NOTED, AND HE NOTED
IN HIS ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW WE
HAVE THESE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS FOR
THE BARBECUE CYLINDERS AND I
JUST RELEASED SUGGEST THAT THE
BARBECUE CYLINDERS HE'S £1
CYLINDERS ARE COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND IT
SHOULDN'T BE USED AS A MODEL FOR
GUESS WHAT CONSUMERS MAY OR MAY
NOT DO ON THIS. I'M CERTAIN THAT
WORTHINGTON AS A AS A PRODUCER
OF CYLINDERS, HAS LOOKED INTO
REFILLABLE. AND HAS COME TO SOME
CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NOT
THERE. THE CONSUMERS. THEY DON'T
HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS
OR THEY PROBABLY BE MAKING THEM
. UM BUT THE FACT IS BARBECUE
CYLINDERS. PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE
TESTIFYING HERE. YOU SURE? I'M
SURE. I APPRECIATE THAT. WELL,
JUST REALLY. UH HUH. HAD A LOT.
CONCERNED THAT A REALLY GOOD JOB
AND I JUST SO I'LL JUST I'LL
JUST POINT OUT. UM IT WAS
RIGHTLY POINTED OUT IN THE
ANALYSIS. THIS IS A BUSINESS
ISSUE. DID YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S A BUSINESS DISPUTE
ISSUE, BUT IT'S REALLY THE
POLICY QUESTION FOR THIS
COMMITTEE IS DO YOU GUYS WANT TO
USE YOUR AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS
TO TILT THE BALANCE FOR ONE
PRODUCT VERSUS ANOTHER PRODUCT
THAT CONSUMERS CURRENTLY ENJOY?
THAT'S THAT'S REALLY YOUR POLICY
CHOICE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE
ROLE THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD
PAY. I THINK THAT SHOULD PLAY. I
THINK THAT YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEES AND
IN THROUGH IT FOR A WHOLE LOT OF
OTHER PRODUCTS. THAT NPR IS A
SOLUTION FOR DIFFICULT TO
DISPOSE OF PRODUCTS. ALL THE
TESTIMONY TALKS ABOUT THIS BEING
A DISTANCE THIS DIFFICULT TO
DISPOSE OF PRODUCT. WE STAND
READY TO DO ANY PR PROGRAM. I'M
NOT SURE THAT CONSUMER BAN ON A
PRODUCT THAT REALLY IS POPULAR
AND DOESN'T KILL ANYBODY. I
MEAN, YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS,
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS AROUND
HERE IN THE STATE OF COUNCIL
FORMULA. KILL PEOPLE THAT YOU
DON'T BAN SO JUST YOU KNOW YOUR
POLICY CHOICE. THAT'S MY
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB? 12 56. SEEING
NONE OPERATED WITH YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO SB
12 56. WE WILL NOT TAKE FURTHER
TESTIMONY BUT NAME AFFILIATION
AND OPPOSITION. TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION FOR SP 12 56 PLEASE
PRESS 101 FALL BY 0.3 36 YOU ARE
OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR
THAT IS RYAN ELAINE, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. AND
ONE MORE REMINDER ONE FOLLOWED
BY ZERO FOR OPPOSITION TO 12 56.
NOBODY ELSE IS QUEUING UP. THANK
YOU. OPERATOR YOU MAY CLOSE THE
LINES. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS COMING.
SEEING NONE. SENATOR YOU MAY
CLOSE. I WOULD URGE AN IPHONE
JUST REMIND FOLKS THAT THIS THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HERE IS JANUARY.
1ST 2028 GIVES IF WHAT THIS IS
MY LAST TESTIMONY, MR CHAIR.
HAVE ENJOYED COMING BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE AND THE INTELLECTUAL
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE IF
SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO AN E P R
PROGRAM ON ON THESE CONTAINERS.
YOU'VE GOT FIVE YEARS TO PUT IT
TO PUT IT TOGETHER. THIS IS NOT
A CHOICE OF CHOOSING ONE OVER
THE OTHER. THIS IS TRYING TO
HELP OUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND GET
AND GET THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF
THIS. THERE ARE ONLY 400
LOCATIONS NOW THAT WILL REFILL
THEM, BUT I ANTICIPATE IN FIVE
YEARS, THEY'LL BE MANY MORE THAT
WILL BE UBIQUITOUS. THAT WILL
TAKE CARE OF THAT. AND WITH THAT
URGE, AND I VOTE THANK YOU. I'LL
TAKE A MOTION. THANK YOU. I DO
HAVE EMOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
AND THE SECOND THAT MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED. CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. STONE CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM, NO BLOOM. BOOM, I
DAVIES DAVIES, I HANEY LARA.
CHOLERA I KYLIE MAIENSCHEIN RACE
PONTA WICKS. THANK YOU. THAT
NEEDS TO MORE. SO PUT THAT BILL
ON CALL. MR CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE WILL MOVE
TO ITEM NUMBER 14 SP 8 48
SENATOR RAMBERG. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS I
WANT TO PARTICULARLY THANK YOU
AND YOUR STAFF NICK LEDECKY, UH
, FOR CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS
BILL. THIS SIMPLY EXTENDS THE
SUNSET. ON REMOTE DISSIPATION IN
COURTS. UM, IT IS IMPORTANT. FOR
PURPOSES OF COURT EFFICIENCY. IT
IS IMPORTANT FOR PURPOSES OF
RESOLVING SOME OF THE BACKLOG
THAT EXISTED OR WAS CREATED
DURING THE COVID CRISIS WITH ME
, OF COURSE, ARE NANCY DRIBBLE
OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. MR MIKE BELOTE,
REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA DEFENSE
COUNSEL AS THEY ARE USUALLY
ALIGNED. THEY ARE ALIGNED HERE
AGAIN TODAY. THANK YOU. MR
AMBER'S WITNESS, PLEASE. THANKS
WE WORKED VERY LONG AND HARD
DURING THE PANDEMIC TO MAKE SURE
THAT REMOTE PROCEEDINGS COULD
OCCUR. THEY'VE BEEN INCREDIBLY
USEFUL TO THE LAWYERS WHO ARE
TRYING TO PURSUE JUSTICE TO HAVE
HEARINGS TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT
TRIALS PARTIALLY REMOTE. UM AND
AS WE HOPEFULLY MOVE OUT OF THE
PANDEMIC, THEY REALLY ARE PART
OF THE NEW NORMAL IN COURTS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE
TO HAVE THAT OPTION, AND IT HAS
PROVEN JUST ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
AND WE FEEL IT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
POINT OUT, WAS A HIGH SCHOOL
CLASSMATE OF MINE, ALTHOUGH EVEN
THOUGH IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT,
HE IS FAR OLDER THAN I AM. MR
BELOW AND I CAN I CAN PRODUCE
THE YEARBOOK. IF ANYONE CANNOT,
UH, THANK YOU, MIKE BULLARD ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA DEFENSE
COUNSEL, AND REALLY ALSO THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION,
WHOSE WHOSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE.
EMERGENCE OF REMOTE APPEARANCES
ARE REMARKABLY SIMILAR, EVERYONE
SAYS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING
. THEY'RE GOOD, BUT GETTING
BETTER ALL THE TIME. THEY'RE
IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THE
DEFENSE COUNSEL ON THE GENERAL
CIVIL MATTERS, BUT THROUGHOUT
THE JUDGES ASSOCIATION. THE
STORIES ABOUT THE CONVENIENCE
FOR FAMILY LAW. LITIGANTS FOR
EXAMPLE, IT IS. THIS IS A HUGELY
IMPORTANT THING WE UNDERSTAND
AND EMPATHIZE, YOU KNOW, COURT
REPORTING AND COURT INTERPRETING
OUR HARD JOBS. AND THEY'RE HARD
, BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTE AND
JUDGES ARE SENSITIVE TO THE
NEEDS OF THAT, AND TO HAVE
PEOPLE REPEAT THEMSELVES WHEN
THEY CAN'T BE HEARD, BUT THIS IS
THIS IS GOOD AND GETTING BETTER
AND DESERVES THREE MORE YEARS,
SO WE'RE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT
FOR SB 8 48? SEE NONE OPERATED.
WOULD YOU OPEN THE LINES FOR
ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB 8 48?
QUÊ IF YOU AREN'T SUPPORTIVE SP
848 PLEASE PRESS 10. ONE FALL BY
ZERO. IN ONE MOMENT, MR. CHAIR.
WE HAVE ONE. GETTING THEIR LINE
NUMBER. ANYBODY ELSE. PLEASE
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND PRESS
ONE FALL BY ZERO. IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 848 AND LINE 3 79
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON, KATE
NIETO WITH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. MR
CHAIR. WE HAD NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS QUEUE UP. THANK YOU
. WE WILL THEN MOVE TO
OPPOSITION. I HAVE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES LISTED
MAUREEN PACHECO AND JANET
HOUDEK. ARE YOU WITH US ON THE
LINE? YES, I AM. THE CHECK OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND THE SUPPORT GO
AHEAD. WE CAN HEAR YOU. THANK
YOU AFTER THE SUPPORTERS FOR THE
NEGOTIATIONS, BUT REGRETTABLY,
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION WAS STRONGLY OPPOSED
AS THE 8 48 IN ITS CURRENT FORM
LAST YEAR, BUILDING OFF OF
EMERGENCY RULES ISSUED AT THE
HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC. EVERY 2
41 FORMALLY IMPLEMENTED THE USE
OF REMOTE TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIL
COURT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WE WERE
LED TO BELIEVE DID NOT INCLUDE
JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR CIVIL
COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS. SUCH AS
COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR GRAVELY
DISABLED PERSONS. NO ONE
ANTICIPATED THAT THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL WOULD BROADLY INTERPRET
THIS PROVISION. TO INCLUDE THOSE
PROCEEDINGS, WHICH INVOLVES
FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTERESTED
INTEREST. AS SO INTERPRETED AS
THE 8 48 WITH NOW CONTINUE THE
INJUSTICES THAT HAVE RESULTED
FROM THIS BROAD INTERPRETATION
YOUTH AND THOSE INVOLVED IN
CIVIL COMMITMENTS OFTEN
STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN COURT WHEN THEY ARE
PRESENT, BUT THIS STRUGGLE IS
EXACERBATED BY REMOTE OUR
MEMBERS HAVE SEEN USED IN
DETENTION, APPEARING ON VIDEO,
UNABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR
COUNSEL. WELL, MAYBE IN COURT
BUT MIGHT ALSO BE REMOTE. WE
HAVE SEEN YOU TO DO APPEAR IN
COURT BEWILDERED WHEN THEIR
COUNCIL APPEARS REMOTELY,
SOMETIMES A DISEMBODIED VOICE ON
THE PHONE, THE IMPORTANCE OF IN
PERSON CONTACT AND MEANINGFUL
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH
HIS CLIENT. EVEN IN ROUTINE
HEARINGS IN THESE CASES CANNOT
BE OVERSTATED. WE ALSO CANNOT
IGNORE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND
THE LACK OF EQUITY IN THE
AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
TO REMOTE TECHNOLOGY. WE HAVE
SEEN COURTS FRUSTRATED WHEN YOU
OR FAMILIES STRUGGLE WITH
TECHNOLOGIES AND AT TIMES
THROUGH THOSE DIFFICULTIES AS
DISRESPECTFUL OR INTENTIONAL
BEHAVIOR. AT THE SAME TIME. WE
DO BELIEVE THAT IN LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITH
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS, REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS MAY SERVE THE
INTERESTS OF THE COURT AND
PARTIES, INCLUDING YOUTH AND
THEIR FAMILIES. REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS MAY ALLOW CHILDREN
NOT TO MISS SCHOOL AND PARENTS
NOT MISS WORK AND AVOID HAVING
TO ARRANGE CHILDCARE OR BRINGING
YOUNG STUDENTS TO COURT.
BEAUTIFUL STRUGGLE WITH
TRANSPORTATION MAY AVOID
WARRANTS ISSUED FOR THEIR ARREST
IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO APPEAR
REMOTELY. AND FOR OUR CLIENTS
SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT.
MANY ARE CONFINED AND FACILITIES
SEVERAL HOURS FROM THE COUNTY OF
COMMITMENT. APPEARANCES IN COURT
CAN BE DOCUMENTED TO THE HEALTH
AND WELL BEING OF THE
INDIVIDUAL. DISRUPTING ROUTINES
AND MISSING SCHEDULED MEDICATION
BECAUSE OF THIS, WE WORKED
DILIGENTLY WITH THE PACIFIC
JUVENILE DEFENDER CENTER AND THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL ASKED THE
AUTHORS INVITATION TO CONSTRUCT
AMENDMENTS THAT LIMIT THE USE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS TO ENSURE FAIR
AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR
CLIENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY RIGHT. RIGHT NOW. THE
OPTIONS APPEAR BEFORE ACTIONS
BEFORE YOU APPEAR TO BE TOO BAD
CHOICES LEAD AT THE 8 48 AS IT
IS REQUIRING US TO CHALLENGE
DEFECTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
OR AS IT HAS THE ANALYSIS POINTS
OUT TO EXEMPT JUVENILE AND CIVIL
COMMITMENT TO SHOOTING
ALTOGETHER, THEREBY DENYING THE
COURTS AND TARGET THE ABILITY TO
PARTICIPATE FROM WHAT ABOUT ME
WHEN I WOULD BENEFIT WE BELIEVE
, HOWEVER, THAT THE
COLLABORATIVE AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PROPOSED STRIKE A
BALANCE THAT IS THE BEST CHOICE
URGE A NO VOTE UNLESS THE
AMENDMENTS ARE ACCEPTED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JANET
COURIC. IAM A COURT INTERPRETER
FROM MADERA COUNTY COURT, ALSO
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
INTERPRETERS. UNFORTUNATELY I AS
OPPOSED TO SB 8 48 DRAFTED AND
LET ME SHARE A FEW REASONS WHY I
RECEIVED REPORTS WEEKLY FROM
COURT INTERPRETERS AROUND THE
STATE DETAILING PROBLEMS WITH
REMOTE COURT PROCEEDINGS. AND
THAT THESE PROBLEMS
SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH
LANGUAGE ACCESS. IT SEEMS AS
THOUGH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND
MANY COURT LOCAL COURT LEADERS
DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH
AND LIKELY ARE SHARING. THESE
ARE NOT SHARING THESE PROBLEMS
WITH YOU ARE THIS BILL DOES NOT
ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS. THERE IS
A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE THIS
WEEK. THE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE
IS NOW EXTENDING REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES,
CASES SUFFER FROM THE SAME
TECHNOLOGY PROBLEMS HAVE SEVERAL
AND THE PROBLEMS HAVE NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED LAST YEAR, SP 2 41
PASSED WITHOUT A CRIMINAL TABLE
BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL.
THESE CHANGES ARE TOO MUCH TOO
SOON. IN THE FAILED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE ONGOING
PROBLEMS WE AS INTERPRETERS IN
THOSE CALIFORNIANS SPEAK SPANISH
MONTHS FOLLOW ETCETERA INTO
CONSIDERATION BY HAS MANY
AMENDMENTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE.
LET ME HIGHLIGHT THREE LTD.
STILL ONLY FOR GENERAL CIVIL
CASES AND IS POSSIBLE ONLY TO A
FEW COUNTIES SO THAT IT CAN BE
STUDIED MORE IN DEPTH BY THE NEW
JUDICIAL COUNCIL WORKING GROUP.
REQUIRES ACCORD INTERPRETER TO
BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITHTHE
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT COURT
USER. IN THE COURTROOM DO NOT
FORCE REMOTE ON INTERPRETERS,
EVERY í
HIS OR HER INTERPRETER. UM ALSO
WANT TO SEPARATE VIDEO VIDEO
REMOTE FROM THE JUDGE. THIS
DOUBLE VIDEO IS AN ABSOLUTE
NIGHTMARE. 40% OF COURT USERS
HAVE ALREADY EXPRESSED THEIR
DISSATISFACTION WITH
INTERPRETERS APPEARING REMOTELY.
INTERPRETERS CLAIMED THAT AT
BEST THEY CAN HEAR ABOUT 70% OF
ALL THE PROCEEDINGS. PROTECT
INTERPRETERS FROM RETALIATION
FROM RAISING AND PEDIMENT. THE
RETALIATION FOR RAISING
IMPAIRMENTS TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
WITH JUDGES, LOCAL COURT AND
OTHER JUDICIAL COUNCIL. IT'S
ALREADY HAPPENING GIVEN MORE
TIME I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE
WITH YOU. THE MANY PROBLEMS ARE
INTERPRETERS ARE EXPERIENCING
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
OPPOSITION TO SB 8 48? GOOD
AFTERNOON, IGNACIO HERNANDEZ,
AND WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA COURT
REPORTERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
UNITED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION OR UNION IN
OPPOSITION. WE DO HAVE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE? ALRIGHT SEEING NONE.
OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANY THEIR OPPOSITION
TO SB 8 48. WE WILL NOT TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY, JUST NAME
AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 848, PLEASE
PRESS ONE. FALL BY 01 FALL BY
ZERO. 93 30, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HE
JUST TOOK THEMSELVES OUT. AND
I'M SORRY. ONE FALL BY 0.3 30.
WE'LL TRY AGAIN. GO AHEAD. THANK
YOU. I'M JONATHAN LABOR WITH THE
PACIFIC JUVENILE DEFENDER CENTER
, AS EXPRESSED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
UNLESS OUR CONSENSUS AMENDMENTS
WITH THE JUDICIAL COUNSELOR
ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. AND NOBODY
ELSE HAS QUEUED UP. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. OPERATOR. YOU MAY
CLOSE THE LINES WITH. OKAY UM,
I'M SORRY. I UM WE MISSED OUR
OPPORTUNITY BUT WANTED TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB FOR IT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT
OPERATING MAY CLOSE THE LINES
WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS. COMMENTS MR
CARRY ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS A
WITNESS. THEY DIDN'T CLOSE THEIR
LINE OR THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T
YOU UP? THEY JUST SORRY. NO
WORRIES. THIS COLLAR. THANK YOU
, MR SHARON. THANK YOU, SENATOR
FOR BEING THIS FORWARD. UM AND
I'D SUPPORTED THE DURING THE
HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC. THE
ORIGINAL ITERATION OF THIS BILL
BECAUSE OF THE EXTENUATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. OF THE PANDEMIC,
BUT EVEN THEN HAD CONCERNS
REGARDING HAVING REPRESENTED
INDIVIDUALS IN JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY AND COMPETENCY
HEARINGS. UM THEY DEFINITELY A
DIFFERENT TYPE OF CIVIL
PROCEEDING. UM AND THERE'S
REFERENCE TO KIND OF THE
CONSENSUS AMENDMENTS AND THAT
HAD BEEN PROPOSED, UM I MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE
UM AMENDMENTS. THAT HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED OR DISCUSSED REGARDING
EXEMPTING SOME OF THOSE
PARTICULAR HEARINGS THAT ARE
KIND OF IN THE CRIMINAL. PURVIEW
ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE A CIVIL
TYPE HEARING. BUT THEN THERE'S
SOME COMMENT THAT MAYBE THERE
MIGHT BE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE
IT CAN BE. I DON'T KNOW. I
HAVEN'T SEEN THE CONSENSUS
AMENDMENTS. IT WASN'T ANALYSIS.
I MISSED IT. AND SO WHAT? WHAT
ARE WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND
THAT THE FOLKS ARE SEEKING AND
IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET THERE?
BUT UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH MORE
CALLED UP HERE. HERE'S THE
CHALLENGE, AS WAS ILLUSTRATED BY
ONE OF THE WITNESSES, IS IT
REMOTE ACCESS PROVIDES
TREMENDOUS BENEFITS TO MOST
FOLKS. NOTHING IS REQUIRED.
THESE ARE PERMISSIVE. SO IN
OTHER WORDS, IF YOU CHOOSE IF
YOU'RE AN INTERPRETER, AND
YOU'RE THE PARTY CHOOSES TO HAVE
YOU THERE YOU CAN BE THERE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS
YOU FROM ACTUALLY HAVING AN IN
PERSON HEARING JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY HEARINGS, WHERE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH FOLKS TO
SEE IF WE CAN'T REACH SOME
CONSENSUS, BUT AGAIN, LET ME
UNDERLINE THIS. THIS THIS IS ALL
PERMISSIVE. SO IF YOU WANT TO
HAVE A COURT REPORTER PRESENT,
YOU CAN HAVE A COURT REPORTER
PRESIDENT. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE
AN INTERPRETER PRESENT, YOU CAN
HAVE AN INTERPRET PRISON. IF YOU
WANT TO BE PRESENT FOR
DEPENDENCE HEARING YOU CAN BE
PRESENT. SO UM, WE HAVE WORKED
WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS. I'M ACTUALLY WANT
TO UNDERLINE THE EFFORTS IN THE
FLEXIBILITY OF SC, I YOU ASKED
ME THE LABOR FED TO DEAL WITH
SOME OF THE LABOR CHALLENGES.
THEY'VE BEEN, UM I THINK VERY,
UM BOTH FRANK BUT ALSO VERY
PRAGMATIC AND HOW WE HANDLE THE
SITUATION. YEAH IN I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE PREMISE OF
NATURE. ALSO UNDERSTANDING ONE
OF THE PRAGMATICALLY WHAT
HAPPENS ON THE GROUND AND, UM
KNOW THAT IN CERTAINLY TO MAKE
IT ALL AGREE THAT INTERPRETERS
AND COURT REPORTERS DO A VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT JOB. HOWEVER
OFTEN TIMES, PARTICULARLY IN
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. IT IS YOU
KNOW THAT THE INTERPRETER COULD
BE SECURED IN MANY DIFFERENT
WAYS, AND THAT THERE'S
INTERPRETERS THAT ARE WILLING TO
PROVIDE THE SURFACES. UM
REMOTELY. THERE MAY BE AN
INCLINATION TO START TO CHOOSE
THOSE INTERPRETERS FOR THE EASE
OF THE COURT PROCESS. IT MAY NOT
BE DONE NECESSARILY
INTENTIONALLY. BUT EVENTUALLY I
CAN SEE THAT TREND MOVING IN
THAT DIRECTION, AND I DO THINK
IT'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
ABILITY TO ACCURATELY INTERPRET
FOR A PARTY RATHER THAN HAVING
SOMEONE PRESENT AND THE SAME
GOES TO COURT REPORTERS, BUT
I'VE DEFINITELY SEEN THERE WITH
INTERPRETERS IN PARTICULAR BEING
PRESENT WITH THE PERSON DOES.
PLAY PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ROLE AND
SO I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND
THE PREMISE OF NATURE OF IT. I
THINK THAT THE REPORTING PIECE
WILL HOPEFULLY HELP ILLUMINATE
WHETHER YOU KNOW, APPEARS I
MIGHT HAVE AND WHAT HAPPENS ON
THE GROUND ACTUALLY COME TO
FRUITION OR NOT? I'LL SUPPORT
THE BILL. AND JUST, YOU KNOW, AS
YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH SOME
OF THE OPPOSITION ON SOME OF THE
CONCERNS, AND PARTICULARLY IN
REGARDS TO SOME OF THOSE QUASI
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE IN
THE PURVIEW OF THE CIVIL COURT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. SAYING THAT
SENATOR YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU THIS COMMITTEE
FOR, UM, PASSING TO 41 LAST
YEAR. I THINK WE'VE HAD LARGELY
FAVORABLE EXPERIENCES WITH
REMOTE ACCESS. THERE'S STILL
SOME CHALLENGES. BUT THOSE
CHALLENGES I THINK ARE BEING
MET. WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO SEE IF WE
CAN'T, UM, CREATE THE BEST
SITUATION POSSIBLE WITHOUT
URGENT. I VOTE THANK YOU. I WILL
TAKE A MOTION. MUCH. LIKE HE WAS
THEIR SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
COLORADO, PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM I BLOOM. BLEW MY
DAVIES DAVIES, I HANEY CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I KYLIE KYLIE, I
MAIENSCHEIN RAISE PUNTER WICKS.
THAT BUILDS OUT THANK YOU. SO
ITEM NUMBER 15 SB 10 56. THINK
IT WAS CHAIR MEMBERS. SB 10 56,
THE ONLINE VIOLENCE PREVENTION
ACT DEALS WITH THE SITUATION
WHERE SOMEONE POSTS. UM IN
ESSENCE, AN INVITATION TO COMMIT
VIOLENCE. EVERYBODY SHOW UP AT
THE SENATOR, UM BERG'S OFFICE
WITH BASEBALL BATS TOMORROW WILL
TEACH HIM A LESSON. WHEN THAT'S
POSTED ONLINE. CURRENTLY IT'S
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE THAT
FORCIBLY BASICALLY REMOVED. WHAT
THIS DOES IS. IT SIMPLY CREATES
A REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS WITH USERS IN
CALIFORNIA OF AT LEAST ONE
MILLION DISCREET MONTHLY VIEWERS
TO POST AN ACCESSIBLE LOCATION
WHERE YOU CAN REPORT THAT THREAT
. SO WHEN SOMEONE SAYS EVERYBODY
SHOW UP AT SENATOR HAMBURG'S
OFFICE WITH BASEBALL BETS WILL
TEACH HIM A LESSON. I CAN ASK
THE SOCIAL I CAN ACCESS THE
PORTAL ASKED THE MEDIA PLATFORM
TO REMOVE THAT POST. IF THEY
DON'T REMOVE THAT POST, THEN I
CAN GO TO COURT AND SIMPLY ASK A
COURT TO EVALUATE THAT THREAT.
UNDER THE RUBRIC WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AND REMOVE IT IF THE COURT
ORDERS IT REMOVED AND THEY DO
NOT. THEN ALL THE TOOLS ALL THE
SANCTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO
A COURT FOR CONTEMPT WOULD BE
AVAILABLE IS AGAINST THAT MEDIA
PLATFORM THAT REFUSED TO TAKE IT
DOWN AFTER THE COURT ORDERS
ISSUED IT'S RELATIVELY SIMPLE,
BILL. UM AND I'D URGE AND I
VOTE. BILL SECOND. THANK YOU. WE
DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I
DO NOT HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. LISTED, BUT ARE THERE
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? I'M SORRY.
THERE ARE AMENDMENTS MEMBERS.
YES WE DO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR NOT DOING THAT RIGHT OFF THE
BAT. NO WORRIES. NO WORRIES.
THANK YOU. OKAY NO WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IN THE HEARING ROOM
OPERATOR, WOULD YOU OPEN THE
LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 56.
QUÊ MR. CHAIR IF YOU ARE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 10 56 PLEASE PRESS
101, FOLLOWED BY. ZERO AND WE
HAVE NOBODY QUEUING UP AT THIS
TIME. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW
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 56. SEEING
NONE OPERATING. WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANY OPPOSITION TO
SB? 10 56. I WOULD LIKE TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO SB 10 56,
PLEASE PRESS 10101 MOMENT.
THERE'S ONE IT'S AN OPERATOR AND
WE'LL GO TO LINE 3 87, YOU ARE
OPEN. HELLO AHEAD, PLEASE. NAME
IS JIM. MY NAME IS JILL MURPHY
AND I WAS LIKE TO LEND MY
SUPPORT STRONG SUPPORT TO THIS
BILL. I AM CALLING IN FROM SAN
MATEO COUNTY. ONE MORE REMINDER
ONE FOLLOWED BY ZERO IF YOU'RE
IN OPPOSITION TO 10 56. NOBODY
ELSE HAS QUEUED UP. MR. CHAIR
THANK YOU. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE OPERATING MAY
CLOSE THE LINES. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS MR CUNNINGHAM? I JUST
LIKE TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR. I
THINK IT'S SIMPLE BILL, BUT
PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT ONE AS WE
WRESTLE AS SOCIETY AND POLICY
MAKERS WITH KEEPING UP WITH THE
INCREDIBLE CHANGES TO SOCIETY
THAT HAVE FLOWED FROM AND SOCIAL
MEDIA USE MANY OF WHAT YOUR
POSITIVE AND SOME OF WHICH ARE
NOT POSITIVE, AND I APPRECIATE
IN PARTICULAR YOUR UH, WORKING
ON THIS BILL AND CRAFTING IN A
WAY THAT YEAH, I THINK IT REALLY
MEETS ALL FIRST AMENDMENT MUSTER
SO AND IF YOU'RE IN THE MARKET
FOR CO AUTHORS, PLEASE PLEASE
HAVE ME. THANK YOU ALWAYS IN THE
MARKET. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMENTS
SIGNAL, SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND THANK
YOU, ESPECIALLY MANUELA BUTCHER
FOR FROM YOUR STAFF FOR BEING SO
HELPFUL AND CONTINUE TO CRAFT
THIS BILL, TOO. FOLLOW THE
CONFINES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
, BUT BEING EFFECTIVE TOOL TO
REMOVE VIOLENT THREATS. URGENT.
I VOTE THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. STONE STONE. I
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. I BLOOM
BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES I HANEY
CHOLERA. KALRA I KYLIE.
MAIENSCHEIN. PRAYERS BANTER
WICKS THAT NEEDS ONE MORE. SO
I'M GOING TO PUT THAT BILL ON
CALL. MR. CHAIRMAN THIS MAY BE
THE LAST TIME I APPEAR IN THIS
COMMITTEE WHILE YOUR CHAIR AND I
JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY
APPRECIATION. FOR YOU, YOUR
STAFF AND FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS, DILIGENCE,
DEDICATION TO BOTH THE
PROFESSION. THE RULE OF LAW
COURTS. I JUST REALLY ENJOYED
WORKING WITH YOU AND WE'LL MISS
YOU. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THIS IS NOT OUR LAST
HEARING, BUT BUT WE'LL TAKE IT
MAY BE FOR YOU. YES. AND I WILL
SEE YOU IN YOUR COMMITTEE. IN A
LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN. ALRIGHT OUR LAST ITEM
IS ITEM NUMBER 19 SB 11 86
SENATOR WIENER AND I WOULD PUT A
CALL OUT TO ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. IF YOU COULD COME
BACK. WE WANT TO FINISH THIS
BILL. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
BILLS STILL ON CALL. WE HAVE
BUSINESS TO WRAP UP. SENATOR.
WELCOME SO AS I REMEMBER 19 SB
11 86.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN
. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
ALSO FOR WORKING WITH US ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL, AND WE
ARE GOING TO BE AMENDING THE
BILL WITH THE SEQUEL. CHANGE
THAT WE WORKED OUT WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS IS LISTED,
AND THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THAT. SO COLLEAGUES,
UM I'M SORRY. SP 11 86 IS THE
BILL TO ENSURE AS A VERY FRANKLY
AND NARROW BILL TO ENSURE THAT,
UH, CALIFORNIANS HAVE ACCESS TO
MEDICAL CANNABIS. JUST TO BE
CRYSTAL CLEAR. THE BILL IS
LIMITED TO MEDICAL CANNABIS ONLY
DELIVERY ONLY IS NOT IMPLICATE
ADULT USE CANNABIS, WHICH IS
GOVERNED BY PROP 64. IT DOES NOT
IMPLICATE OR REQUIRE CITIES TO
ALLOW SETTING UP STOREFRONTS.
DISPENSARIES THIS IS ABOUT
MEDICAL CANNABIS FOR DELIVERY.
UM THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA MORE
THAN 25 YEARS AGO INDICATED THAT
THEY WANTED PEOPLE TO HAVE
ACCESS TO MEDICAL CANNABIS,
WHETHER FOR THEIR HIV OR CANCER
OR THROW ITIS OR ANY OTHER
NUMBER OF MEDICAL CONDITIONS
WHERE CANNABIS CAN BE
BENEFICIAL. WHEN THE VOTERS
LEGALIZED ADULT USE VIA PROP 64
. THE VOTERS GRANTED BROAD LOCAL
CONTROL TWO CITIES SO THAT EACH
CITY COULD DECIDE WHETHER THEY
WANT TO ALLOW LEGAL SALES.
WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITIES. WE CAN
DEBATE WHETHER THAT WAS A WISE
CHOICE OR NOT. SOME WILL ARGUE,
AND I AGREE IT HAS HELPED FUEL
THE ILLICIT MARKET. BUT THAT'S
NOT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY
IS NOT IN THIS BILL. THAT'S WHAT
THE VOTERS DECIDED, AND THAT'S A
LOT OF CALIFORNIA. NOTHING IN
PROP 64 GRANTED CITIES THE
ABILITY TO BAN MEDICAL CANNABIS
SALES. THE LEGISLATURE DID THAT
THE NEXT YEAR WE EXPANDED PROPS
, PROPS 64 IS GRANT OF LOCAL
CONTROL TO MEDICAL CANNABIS AS
WELL. AND THE RESULT
UNFORTUNATELY, HAS BEEN THAT 62.
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES HAVE
CATEGORICALLY BANNED ANY AND ALL
SALE OF CANNABIS, INCLUDING
MEDICAL CANNABIS. AND WHAT THAT
MEANS IS THAT FOR A LARGE NUMBER%
OF CALIFORNIANS, THE CITY IN
WHICH THEY LIVE IN THEY CAN
SIMPLY CANNOT PURCHASE LEGAL
MEDICAL CANNABIS. AND THERE'S
NOT EVEN ANYTHING CLOSE BY AND
SO FOR PEOPLE WHO USE MEDICAL
CANNABIS FOR ANY OF THESE NUMBER
OF CONDITIONS WHERE IT CAN BE
HELPFUL. THEY HAVE ONE OF TWO
CHOICES, EITHER TO TRAVEL
SOMETIMES A LONG DISTANCE TO
PURCHASE LEGAL, MEDICAL CANNABIS
OR MUCH MORE LIKELY TO PURCHASE
FROM THE ILLICIT MARKET. SO
WE'RE FORCING PATIENTS.
EFFECTIVELY PARTICULARLY THOSE
THAT ARE NOT MOBILE. TO PURCHASE
ILLEGAL CANNABIS BECAUSE LET'S
BE CLEAR. PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING
TO OBTAIN CANNABIS. IF THEY
REALLY WANT IT. SOMEONE WILL
DELIVER IT TO THEM. AND THE
QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT IT TO BE
LEGAL TESTED? SAFE CANNABIS OR
JUST WHO KNOWS? UM, BECAUSE
THEY'RE GETTING IT FROM THE
ILLICIT MARKET. AND SO WHAT THE
BILL DOES IS IT REQUIRES CITIES
, UM, TO ALLOW SOME FORM OF
DELIVERY OF MEDICAL CANNABIS.
THE BILL GRANTS CITIES BROAD
LATITUDE AND CRAFTING WHAT THAT
PROGRAM IS, THEY CAN LIMIT HOURS
. THEY CAN, UM RESTRICT WHERE IT
CAN BE DELIVERED SO THAT IT
CAN'T BE DELIVERED, FOR EXAMPLE,
TO A COMMUNITY CENTER OR REC
CENTER. UM THEY CAN LIMIT THE
NUMBER OF OPERATORS THAT DON'T
HAVE TO JUST OPEN THE DOORS WIDE
AND THEY CAN. THEY CAN SAY WE'RE
ONLY GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDERS
THAT ARE ALLOWED. THEY CAN
CONTINUE TO HAVE A LOCAL
PERMITTING PROCESS. INCLUDING
CONDITIONAL USE, THEY CAN DO ALL
OF THESE THINGS. AS LONG AS THE
RESTRICTIONS DON'T INDIVIDUALLY
OR IN COMBINATION EFFECTIVELY
BAN IT. SO IT'S ONE THING IF YOU
WANT TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO
LET ANYONE DELIVER PAST NINE PM
AT NIGHT. IT'S ANOTHER THING TO
SAY YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DELIVER
BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE PM THREE.
YOU KNOW, THREE DAYS A MONTH,
ONE WOULD PROBABLY REASONABLE
ONE WOULD PROBABLY BE
UNREASONABLE. THEY CAN HAVE A
CONDITIONAL USE, BUT EVERY
SINGLE CONDITIONAL USE IS
REJECTED. THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY
BE A BAND SO WE DO WE WORKED
HARD TO TRY TO GIVE CITIES
CONTINUED FLEXIBILITY. UM SO
COLLEAGUES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. AND WITH ME
TODAY TESTIFY HIS AMY JENKINS
FROM THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, AND PAMELA
LOPEZ FROM CAL NORMAL. THANK YOU
. FIRST WITNESS, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, AMY JENKINS ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA CANNABIS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, PROUD
SPONSORS OF SB 11 86. I WANT TO
BEGIN BY FIRST THINKING THE
AUTHOR FOR WORKING ON THIS
CRITICAL LEGISLATION, WHICH WILL
RESTORE MUCH NEEDED ACCESS TO
MEDICINAL CANNABIS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. UM AS AS NOTED, PROP
16 ALLOWED FOR THE USE OF
MEDICINAL CANNABIS A DECADE
LATER, PERHAPS 64 PUT A LOT OF
SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTIONS, AND SO
AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS NOTED
MEDICAL CANNABIS IS MORE
DIFFICULT TO ACCESS THAN IT WAS
BEFORE A RECENT STUDY CONDUCTED
BY THE REASON FOUNDATION
VALIDATED PREVIOUS REPORTS. THAT
CALIFORNIA'S LEGAL INDUSTRY
REPRESENTS APPROXIMATELY ONE
THIRD OF THE SIZE. IT SHOULD BE
, AND THIS WAS BASED ON THE
STATE'S POPULATION AND ESTIMATED
ADULT USE RATES. THE STUDY
FURTHER FOUND SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
WITH RESPECT TO LACK OF ACCESS.
IN FACT, MORE THAN HALF THE
STATE'S LEGAL RETAILERS ARE
LOCATED IN JUST 18 CITIES. SO
THIS IS NOT REALLY A THEORETICAL
ISSUE. THIS IS A HUMAN ONE.
CANNABIS IS EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE
AT TREATING SERIOUSLY ILL
PATIENTS CANCER PATIENTS LOOKING
FOR RELIEF FROM PAINFUL SYMPTOMS
AND TREATMENT VETERANS LOOKING
FOR NONE. PHARMACEUTICAL
ALTERNATIVES TO PTSD RELATED
SLEEP ISSUES, ETCETERA. AS
PREVIOUSLY NOTED, UM THIS IS
THIS DOES NOT SEEK TO OVERTURN
LOCAL CONTROL BUT PREVENT LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS FROM JUST SAYING
NO TO, UM TO MEDICINAL ACCESS.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE
PROUD TO SPONSOR THIS BILL TODAY
AND ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS,
PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. UM CALIFORNIA NORMAL IS
PLEASED TO SUPPORT SB 11 86,
CALIFORNIA NORMAL IS THRILLED
THAT CALIFORNIA VOTERS PASSED
PROPOSITION 64. ADULT USE IN
2016, BUT WE ARE ALSO SEEING
PROP 64 CREATE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES FOR PROP 2 15,
WHICH MADE A PROMISE TO
MEDICINAL CANNABIS USERS TO HAVE
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF CANNABIS. TO ALL PATIENTS IN
MEDICAL NEED. AS LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS WRANGLE WITH
IMPLEMENTING PROPOSITION 64, AS
THE AUTHOR MENTIONED, SOME ARE
CHOOSING TO ADOPT BANS ON
DELIVERY OF CANNABIS THAT IS
LEGAL FOR ADULT USE UNDER PROP
64. THIS INADVERTENTLY ALSO BANS
MEDICAL PATIENTS ACCESS TO THEIR
MEDICINAL CANNABIS. AND IN FACT
, AS MISS JENKINS AND THE AUTHOR
OF MENTIONED SINCE PROPOSITION
64 WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2000 AND
18. THE STATE NOW HAS FEWER THAN
HALF AS MANY LICENSED CANNIBAL
CANNABIS RETAILERS AS THERE WERE
MEDICAL COLLECTIVES PRIOR TO
2018. BY CALIFORNIA, UH NORMAL'S
DATA AND ESTIMATES AS MANY AS 2
TO 4% OF CALIFORNIANS HAVE USED
CANNABIS MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED BY
A DOCTOR FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES,
INCLUDING FOR CHRONIC PAIN.
NAUSEA APPETITE, LOSS, PTSD,
INSOMNIA, ARTHRITIS, SEIZURES,
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES AND OTHER
DISORDERS. YET IN SOME AREAS,
PATIENTS MUST TRAVEL FOR HOURS
TO REACH THE NEAREST DISPENSARY.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE NO
MORE ALLOWED TO BE ON THE
DELIVERY OF MEDICINAL CANNABIS
THAN THE DELIVERY OF OTHER
MEDICATIONS, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
SUPPORT. SB 11 86. WHICH WILL
REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
ALLOW THE DELIVERY OF MEDICINAL
CANNABIS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE
SUPPORT FOR SB? 11 86. SEEING
NONE. OPERATOR WOULD YOU OPEN
THE LINES FOR ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO INDICATE SUPPORT FOR SB?
11 86. AT THIS POINT, WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT
NAME AFFILIATION AND SUPPORT. IF
YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF S, PLEASE
GO AHEAD AND HIT ONE, FOLLOWED
BY 01 FOLLOWED BY ZERO. 11-3 95,
YOU ARE OPEN. I THINK THEY TOOK
THEMSELVES OUT ACCUSING. WE'LL
TRY LINE. 405, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MY NAME IS DHARMA CALCULABLE
COMPASS, CLARA HOUSE CHILDREN,
HELEN CHILDREN'S CENTER. I'M A
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 9 76. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE ARE ON 86. MR
CHAIR STATED. IF YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT OF 11 86, PLEASE PRESS
ONE, FOLLOWED BY ZERO. LINE
FORWARD TO PLEASE GO AHEAD. SARA
ARMSTRONG, REPRESENTING
AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS WORTHY,
BILL. THANK YOU. BUYING 3 94 YOU
ARE OPEN. MR CHAIRMAN, SAM
RODRIGUEZ ON BEHALF OF GOOD
FARMERS, GREAT NEIGHBORS BASED
IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY,
REPRESENTING OUTDOOR SUN GROWN
CANNABIS FARMERS IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF SB 11 86. THINK OF
ONE FINAL REMAINDER TO SHOW
SUPPORT FOR SB 11 86 PLEASE
PRESS 10. 94 OH, THREE. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. NAZARIAN BASCO
CONSORTIUM FOR LEARNING SERVICES
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 9 76.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR SB 11 86 MR.
CHAIR THERE'S NO OTHER
PARTICIPANTS, PSEUDO. THANK YOU
. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO OPPOSITION
. I HAVE TWO OPPOSITION
WITNESSES LISTED AT LISA ARE
QADEER CANO FROM THE LEAGUE OF
CITIES AND ADA. WELDER BOTH ON
THE TELEPHONE. ARE YOU WITH US?
YES. COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS TODD, A WELDER AND I AM HERE
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,
THE RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND OPPOSITION TO SB
11 86. THIS BILL WOULD SEVERELY
UNDERMINE LOCAL DECISION MAKING
IS ESTABLISHED IN THEIR CURRENT
LOSS. THE ABILITY OF LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO REGULATE LOCAL
CANNABIS ACTIVITIES IS CENTRAL
TO THE HEART OF LEGALIZATION IN
THE STATE, AND IT'S CRITICAL
THAT IT BE PRESERVED SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF PROP 64 EACH YEAR,
MORE AND MORE CITIES AND
COUNTIES HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP
THEIR OWN REGULATIONS AND ALLOW
CANNABIS BUSINESSES TO OPERATE
WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. WHILE
THE STATE SETS SETS FORTH MANY
REGULATIONS ON CANNABIS, LOCAL
CONTROL ALLOWED CITIES AND
COUNTIES TO SET LAND USE
REGULATIONS TAILORED TO THE
NEEDS OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITIES. WE APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE
EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION FOR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO LIMIT
STOREFRONT OPERATIONS. BUT WHILE
DELIVERY SERVICES CAN HELP
INCREASE ACCESS, THEY'RE OFTEN
MUCH HARDER TO REGULATE AND ARE
NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL
JURISDICTIONS. THE BILL STILL
INCLUDE THE PROVISION THAT WOULD
PROHIBIT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
FROM RESTRICTING PHYSICAL
PREMISES FROM WHICH TO CONDUCT
DELIVERY. THIS WOULD PRESUMABLY
REQUIRE CITIES AND COUNTIES TO
LICENSE FOR NON RETAIL
STOREFRONT OPERATORS LIMITING
OUR LOCAL LAND USE AUTHORITY.
LEGAL ACTION IN THE FRESNO
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT HAS
CLARIFIED THAT LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS CURRENTLY HAVE THE
ABILITY TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT
CANNABIS DELIVERY TRANSACTIONS,
AND THE BILLS ATTEMPT TO REMOVE
THAT TOOL FROM COMMUNITIES.
REGULATORY TOOLBOX SHOULD BE
REJECTED. DEVELOPING THESE
REGULATIONS TAKES TIME AND COSTS
, MONEY AND SMALLER
JURISDICTIONS. ONE OR TWO
RETAILERS ARE DELIVERY SERVICES
CANNOT FINANCE ENTIRE REGULATORY
STRUCTURE. THE FORECAST OF
REGULARLY RECOVERY THROUGH
PERMITS AND FEES WILL BE WHOLLY
UNAFFORDABLE FOR CANNABIS
BUSINESSES. TO BE CLEAR. WE ARE
NOT OPPOSED TO MEDICINAL
CANNABIS ACCESS OR ADULT USE
CANNABIS. FOR THAT MATTER.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPACT THIS
BILL WILL HAVE ON COUNTIES AND
CITIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
ELISA ARCIDIACONO WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AS
MY COLLEAGUE STATED FOR OUR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COALITION, THIS
COMES DOWN TO AN ISSUE OF LOCAL
CONTROL THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT
TOOK PLACE WITH THE ORIGINAL
CRAFTERS OF THE MEDICINAL
FRAMEWORK. EXPLICITLY ENSURED
OUR RETENTION OF LOCAL DECISION
MAKING AUTHORITY AND THIS BILL
DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THOSE
AGREEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY AS WE
STATED IN OUR LETTER DELIVERY
ACTIVITIES HAVE ALREADY PROVEN
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE AND
REGULATE TO RECONCILE THAT
ISSUE. OUR COALITION IS
INTERESTED IN REQUIREMENTS FOR
DELIVERY LICENSES. TO SHARE
INFORMATION REGARDING THE
JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE
DELIVERING. THIS WILL NOT ONLY
INCREASED TRANSPARENCY FOR STATE
AND LOCAL REGULATORS TO BETTER
TRACK THE ACTIVITY LEVELS OF
MEDICINAL AND ADULT EAST
DELIVERY, BUT IMPROVED THE TAX
COLLECTION FROM LICENSED
OPERATORS. DUE TO THE ALL CASH
NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE
NEED FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS TO
TAKE PLACE AT THE LOCATION OF
THE DELIVERY. WE'D LIKE TO
ENSURE THAT ALL APPLICABLE TAXES
AND FEES ARE BEING COLLECTED AND
REMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
ENTITIES. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
CONCLUDE MY STATEMENT BY STATING
THAT THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES HOSTED A CANNABIS
ROUNDTABLE THIS MONTH WHERE CITY
OFFICIALS COULD JUMP ON THE LINE
AND ASK QUESTIONS, INQUIRE ON
LESSONS LEARNED AND OBTAIN
INFORMATION ON RESOURCES AND
OPPORTUNITIES FROM
JURISDICTIONS. THAT ARE ALREADY
OPERATING IN THE REGULATED
SPACE. FOLLOWING THAT MEETING WE
RECEIVED INCREASED FROM SEVERAL
CITIES THAT ARE NOW
CONTEMPLATING ORDINANCE CHANGES.
WE HAD ABOUT 100 FOLKS REGISTER
AND PARTICIPATE IN THAT
DISCUSSION AND BECAUSE OF ITS
OVERWHELMING SUCCESS, OUR
MEMBERSHIP HAS REQUESTED AN
ADDITIONAL CANNABIS ROUNDTABLE
IN THE FALL. I SAY THIS TO
ILLUSTRATE THAT WE ARE DOING OUR
PART TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND
ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE STATE
THROUGH INCREASED EDUCATION,
WHICH IS HOW YOU BUILD LONG,
LASTING, WILLING PARTNERSHIP. AS
THE DRAFTERS OF THE CANNABIS
FRAMEWORK INTENDED FOR THE
REASONS, STATED. CAL CITIES
OPPOSES SB 11 86TH. AND WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NO
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE
THERE OTHERS IN OPPOSITION TO SB
11 86 HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM.
SEEING NON OPERATOR WOULD YOU
OPEN THE LINES FOR ANY
OPPOSITION TO SB? 11? 86 WE WILL
NOT TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY BUT
NAME AFFILIATION AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR IF YOU ARE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 11 86, PLEASE
PRESS 10. 3 58, YOU ARE UP.
ANDREW ANTWI ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS IN
OPPOSITION. 11-3 84, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. BY THE SPAWN HERMOSA
COALITION FOR DRUG FREE KIDS. WE
ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED. L DEVANEY
SIX. LINE 3 95, YOU ARE OPEN. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS THAT LEFT TO
SELL HIGH ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD. ALSO AN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. IN 3 92. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON SHARED
MEMBERS, THEIR TURNAROUND BEHALF
OF THE CITY, DOWNEY AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LINE 407
YOU ARE OPEN. GOOD AFTERNOON
MARQUEE. SEE JOE, REPRESENTING
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND OPPOSITION.
PLANE FOR 21 THIS GO AHEAD.
MORE. BEFORE 21. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO TESTIFY? HI MY NAME IS BEN.
YOU COBRA. I'M LARGE LICENSED
FAMILY CHILD CARE BUT WIDER IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. I'M ALSO
THE PRESIDENT OF BARRY, A
PROFESSIONAL FAMILY CHILDCARE
NETWORK, AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF
HAS BEEN 967. WE ARE ON SB 11
86. OKAY. SORRY. AND AS A FINAL
REMINDER TO TESTIFY AND. FOR 11
86 PLEASE PRESS 10 AND WE'LL GO
TO LINE 4 22. 4 22, YOU ARE
OPEN. ONE MORE CHILD LINE 4 22.
MR CHAIR. NOBODY ELSE QUEUED UP
. THANK YOU. OPERATOR REMAKE
CLOSE THE LINES WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MR
COLORADO. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD WHEN I WAS
ON THE CITY COUNCIL SOUNDS THAT
WE WORKED FOR YEARS. TO PUT IN A
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR
MEDICINAL CANNABIS. THAT REALLY
HELPED US WHEN, UM WHEN
RECREATIONAL BECAME LEGALIZED,
AND WE WERE ABLE TO EXPAND
INAPPROPRIATE WAY, BUT STILL HAD
A RECOGNITION OF MEDICINAL WAS
DIFFERENT THAT THAT THAT ACCESS
IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
UNFORTUNATELY DURING THAT TIME,
A LOT OF THE JURISDICTIONS
AROUND US REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING
. THEY EITHER IGNORED IT, OR
THEY JUST OUTRIGHT BANNED ANY
DISPENSARIES, MEDICINAL OR
OTHERWISE. UM, WHICH MEANT THAT
A LOT OF THAT THE COMMUNITY
SURROUNDING OUR CITY HAD TO COME
INTO SAN JOSE TO ACCESS
MEDICINAL CANNABIS. WELL, IT'S
MEDICINAL, WHICH MEANS A LOT OF
THE PATIENTS DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE TO
THE TOWN OVER A COUPLE TOWNS
OVER THE COUNTY OVER WHATEVER IT
MIGHT BE, THEY MAY BE STRICKEN
WITH CANCER ANXIETY INJURIES. UM
AND SO I THINK IT'S CRUEL. TO
PREVENT ACCESS TO SOMETHING THAT
THE VOTERS, UM, HAVE VOTED FOR
THAT MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS HAVE
LEGITIMIZED AND THAT BRINGS
RELIEF TO SO MANY. I DON'T THINK
THIS IS A LOCAL CONTROL ISSUE.
THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER PRODUCTS
OR BUSINESSES OR COMPANIES
COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT MAY
NOT EXIST IN ONE JURISDICTION.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T
DELIVER THEIR PRODUCTS OR
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS CAN BE MAILED
IN FROM EVERYWHERE DOESN'T MEAN
THEY'RE NECESSARILY SWORD IN
PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS.
WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, I THINK
THE FACT THAT MEDICINAL CANNABIS
GETS TREATED DIFFERENTLY IS
STILL A STIGMA THAT HAS EXISTED
FOR FAR TOO LONG. UM AND VERY BE
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL AND
SUPPORT IT AND WOULD LIKE TO BE
ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR. THANK YOU.
THAT IS THE MOTION. IS THERE
SECONDS AND A SECOND. THANK YOU,
MR BLOOM. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU, SENATOR. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL. TODAY I AM
TAKING NOTES SO THAT THE COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES HAS SUBMITTED
LATE OPPOSITION. JUST WANT TO
KNOW THAT YOU'LL BE WORKING WITH
THEM TO RESOLVE THAT UP. YES
THANK YOU. REMEMBER WEDID
RECEIVE A LETTER. WE'VE ALREADY
MET WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE COUNTY. UM WE THINK
THAT THE CONCERNS ARE RAISING
ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED AND IN THE
BILL, AND WE'VE INVITED THEM IF
THEY NEED CLARIFYING LANGUAGE,
PROVIDE THAT TO US, SO WE'LL
CONTINUE TO TALK TO THEM AND
HOPEFULLY RESOLVE IT. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, SENATOR YOU MAY CLOSE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. THAT MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALLED THE ROLL,
PLEASE. CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. I
BLOOM BLOOM I DAVIES DAVIES. NO,
HANEY. PENNY I CHOLERA TÔI
KYLIE. KYLIE. NO MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE RAISE I
BANTER. BOND TÔI WICKS WEEKS. I
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE
GONNA ROLL QUICKLY THROUGH THE
AGENDA SO THAT YOU CAN GET OUT
OF HERE FOR HUMAN SERVICES.
THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT. ALL
RIGHT, LET'S START WITH THE
CONSENT AGENDA. KYLIE. KYLIE I
MAIENSCHEIN MINE. MAIENSCHEIN
AYE BONTA TÔI WIX WIX. AYE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM
NUMBER ONE SB 13 23 ARCH LED IS
ON CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL. KYLIE KYLIE, NO
MAIENSCHEIN. REYES. BANTA. BAN
TúI WIX WIX? AYE. THANK YOU.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER
TWO IS SB 11 42 CABALLERO. I'M
GONNA LIFT THE CALL KYLIE. KYLIE
NO MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
RAISE RAISE I BONTA BYE BYE, WIX
. WIX, I THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS
OUT. I DON'T NUMBER THREE SB 10
35 IS OUT, BUT CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. KYLIE I MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE WICKS, ALEXEI.
THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER FOUR SB
12 27 EGGMAN IS OUT, BUT I'M
CALLING ABSENT MEMBERS, KYLIE.
KYLIE I MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
. AYE WIX. WIX I THANK YOU. ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SP 13 98 GONZALES IS
OUT. BUT CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. KYLIE NO MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, REYES. RAISE
BANTER. HIæN TO:I WIX WIX, I
THANK YOU, ADAM. NUMBER SIX SB
12 45 KAMLAGER IS OUT. BUT
COLLEAGUES AND MEMBERS KYLIE, NO
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE
WICKS. WEBSITE THANK YOU. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN SP 975 MEN IS ON
CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL. KYLIE NO MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN RAISE RAISE HIGH
BONTA TÔI WIX WIX, I THANK YOU.
THAT BILL IS OUT. SB 11 31
NEWMAN IS ON COLUMN GOING TO
LIFT THE CALL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE BANTA TÔI
WICKS WORKS. I THANK YOU. THAT
BILL IS OUT AND NUMBER NINE IS
SP 10 18 PAN IS OUT, BUT CALLED
THE ABSENT MEMBERS MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN AYE, BANTER. BY ONE
TÔI WICKS EXCITED THANK YOU.
ADAM. NUMBER 10. SB 11 72 PAN IS
OUT BUT CALLING UP SOME MEMBERS.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN AYE
BONTA TÔI WICKS EXCITED THANK
YOU. ITEM NUMBER 11. SB 616
RUBIO IS OUT BUT CALLING UP SOME
MEMBERS. KYLIE I'M MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. I RAISE RAISE
IPHONE TO TÔI WIX WIX. I THANK
YOU NUMBER 12. SB FIVE. OH,
FIVE. SKINNER IS ON CALL. I'M
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL. KYLIE
NO. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE, REYES. PONTA. HÌNH TÔI WIX
WIX? AYE. THANK YOU. THAT BILL
IS OUT NUMBER 13 SP 1200 SKINNER
IS ON CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT
THE CALL KYLIE. KYLIE NO.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE
BANTA. AYE WICKS WORKS. I THANK
YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT OUT OF
NUMBER 14. SB 8 48 HAMBURG IS
OUT, BUT I'M GOING TO CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. HANEY. HANEY I
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I RAISE
RAISE I BONTA. AYE. WICKS WORKS
. I THANK YOU, ADAM. NUMBER 15
SB 10 56 AM BERG IS ON CALL. I'M
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL. PENNY.
HANEY I MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
. AYE. REYES REYES? AYE BONTA
TÔI WICKS WORKSITE. THANK YOU.
ITEM NUMBER 16 SB 6 88
WIECKOWSKI IS ON CALL. I'M GOING
TO LIFT THE CALL HANEY. HANEY,
I, KYLIE. KYLIE NO MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE REYES RACE I
BONTA TÔI WIX WIX I THANK YOU
ITEM 17 SP 10 99 WIECKOWSKI IS
ON CALL. I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL. HANEY. HANEY I KYLIE KYLIE
. NO. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE REYES RACE I BONTA WICKS
WORKS THANK YOU OUT OF NUMBER 18
SB 12 56 WIECKOWSKI IS ON CALL.
I'M GOING TO LIFT THE CALL.
HANEY. HANEY I KYLIE KYLIE. NO
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN REYES.
AYE BONTA TÔI WICKS WEEKS I
THANK YOU. THAT IS OUT. AND I
THINK WE HAVE EVERYBODY ON THAT,
UM 19. WE DO. THANK YOU MEMBERS
. WE DO HAVE ONE. WE HAVE AT
LEAST ONE MORE HEARING IN
AUGUST. SO HANG ON. BUT FOR THAT
, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, AND
WE ARE ADJOURNED. OH, SORRY.
THAT'S RIGHT. OH, ITEM ONE SP 13
23 ARCHULETTA. RACE. I. SURE AND
SKINNER ITEM 12 SB FIVE. OH,
FIVE. WE HAVE YOU. OR OH, I'M
SORRY. RAISE I ON SB 505 OKAY?
AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 13. I MEAN,
I HAVE WE HAVE YOU ON 13 IS A
NINE. AS AN EYE. NO. ALL RIGHT.
ALRIGHT WITH THAT. THANK YOU ALL
WE ARE ADJOURNED.