GOOD AFTERNOON
EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC.
WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
RETIREMENT. BEFORE HE BEGAN TO
TAKE SEVERAL MINUTES TO MAKE
SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS. MINTS FOR
THIS HEARING OF THE STATE
CAPITALS OPENED THE PUBLIC AND
WEARING A MASK IS NO LONGER
REQUIRED. WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE
THE MASS BE WARNING ALL COMMON
AREAS IN SHARED SPACES IN THE
CAPITAL, INCLUDING THIS HEARING
ROOM. WE ALSO STILL ENCOURAGE
INDIVIDUALS TO CONTINUE
PRACTICING SOCIAL DISTANCING.
FOR THIS COMMITTEE WERE ONLY
PERMITTING IN PERSON
PARTICIPATION. THERE'S NO PHONE
OR ANY OTHER REMOTE OPTION
FILLED ATTENDING THE HEARING. IF
ANYONE IN THIS ROOM MUST TESTIFY
ON A BILL UNLESS YOU TO COME
FORWARD IF THE APPROPRIATE TIME
TO PROVIDE YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT
PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH THE
MICROPHONE FOR ALL TESTIMONY
WERE LIMITING SUBSTANTIALLY
TESTIMONY TO TWO WITNESSES ON
EACH SIDE OF THE BILL TO TWO
MINUTES. NEXT TO SPEAK EVERYONE
ELSE AFTER THOSE TWO ON EACH
SIDE STATE, THEIR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL. AFTER YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING
, YOU CONNECT TO THE ROOM OR
RETURN TO YOUR SEAT. EXPERIENCED
A NUMBER OF DISRUPTIONS TO
COMMITTEE AND FOR PROCEEDINGS IN
THE PAST FEW YEARS, SO EVERYONE
IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR IMPEDES
THE ORDERLY CONDUCT. THIS
HEARING IS PROHIBITED TO ADDRESS
A DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I WILL
DIRECT THEM TO STOP. AND WORN
INDIVIDUAL THAT IF THEY
CONTINUE, THEY MAY BE REMOVED
FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS
HEARING. TEMPORARILY RECESS THE
HEARING. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE.
FOR THIS HEARING. WE HAVE FOUR
ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, THEIR A B
551, BUT, SAYS A B 11 95 GARCIA
, MAYBE 2443 COOLEY. I'M PULLING
A B 15 77 STONE. ADMIT IT.
PARDON? THEY WERE HERE IN 18 86
AS WELL. EXCUSE ME, UM JUST
BRIEFLY BEEN A CHAMPION PUBLIC
UNIONS MY ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL
POLITICAL CAREER, AND I SAID,
THE BETTER PART OF MY
PROFESSIONAL CAREER AS A UNION
BOARD MEMBER. MY VOTING RECORD
ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ISSUE WITH
SOLID AND I'VE AUTHORED NUMEROUS
UNION SPONSORED BILLS. THIS BILL
HAS BEEN INTRODUCED THREE TIMES
IN THE SHORT PERIOD HAVE BEEN IN
OFFICE, AND MOST OF MY CONCERNS
HAVE NEVER BEEN KNOWLEDGE OR
ADDRESSED. I'VE BEEN ON PURSE
FOR EIGHT YEARS NOW. MY CONCERNS
WITH THIS BILL OR MAJOR AND I
CANNOT SUPPORT IT. THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A 40 PAGE ANALYSIS JUST
SPEAK TO HOW FAR THIS BILL. THE
FACT THERE'S A 40 PAGE ANALYSIS
SHE SPEAK TO HOW FAR THIS BILL
HAS TO GO TO BE WORKABLE, THEIR
PROCEDURAL, LEGAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE
FAR FROM BEING ANSWERED. I'M
ALSO A MEMBER. THAT DOESN'T
BELIEVE IN ROLLING OUT
LEGISLATION THAT IS MORE
PROBLEMS AND FIXES WITH PROMISES
OF FUTURE FIXES. I'VE DONE THAT
ONCE THE BILL IS PASSED, AND HE
FIXES ARE MINIMAL. IT MADE IT
ALL. MAYBE 15 77 IS ONE OF THOSE
BILLS THAT STARTS WITH MORE
PROBLEMS AND FIXES.
I'VE BEEN SHERIFF PURSE
COMMITTEE TWICE SAID EARLIER
THIS COMMITTEE FOR EIGHT YEARS.
NOW THE FIRST TIME THE
PROPONENTS THIS BILL, HAVE YOU
EVEN TALKED TO ME. WAS THIS
WEEK. NOT MADE TO BELIEVE. IF WE
JUST LET THIS BILL THROUGH
TODAY, IT WILL BE WORKED OUT
AFTER IT BECOMES LAW. ON TOP OF
THAT, IF YOU PAY ATTENTION TO
THE FOUR DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ONCE AGAIN,
LOOK AT THE FOUR DIFFERENT AND
INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
ON THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
THEY ALL PRESENT SERIOUS
CONCERNS THAT SHOULD HAVE
ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT IN THE
PAST FOUR YEARS, BUT THEY HAVE
NOT. I'M ASKING FOR THE
PROPONENTS ACTUALLY TAKE THE
TIME TO ENGAGE WITH THIS
COMMITTEE AND LISTEN TO THE
CONCERNS OF THE EXPERTS. THIS
BILL WAS A GUT UNDERMANNED IN
THE SENATE. THIS BUILDING HAVE A
HEARING IN ASSEMBLY PAIRS. THESE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE WERE
NEVER ALLOWED TO WEIGH IN ON THE
BILL. IT'S UP OR DOWN VOTE. AND
THAT'S NOT OKAY. YOU WANT TO FIX
IT? I BELIEVE IN HAVING UNIONS
BUT WITH THE LEGISLATURE IS
DIFFERENT WITH THOSE EMPLOYEES
AND HOW YOU GUIDE IT. UM THERE
ARE SO MANY MOVING PARTS TO THIS
AND REALLY THE BIG GLARING UM I
GUESS, UH, HEARING IS PROBABLY 1
40 ON THE TERM LIMITS
LEGISLATURA SET POT OF MONEY.
AND YOU'VE GOT TO WORK WITHIN
THAT MONEY. WE ALSO WANT
REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES THAT ARE
REPRESENTED IN THIS BILL. SO HOW
DO YOU BALANCE THAT POT OF MONEY
AND FOR ALL THE FOLKS THAT I
TALKED TO REGARDING THIS BILL?
WORK IT OUT LATER ON, WE'LL WORK
IT OUT TO BEGIN WITH EARLY ON.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE FOR GOOD
LEGISLATION. I DON'T BELIEVE IN
THAT. I'VE SEEN IT TOO MANY
TIMES. IN MY YEARS HERE, THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF PRESSURE, BUT I'M
NOT SURE THIS COMMITTEE AND
THAT'S MY DECISION, SO WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON AND GET STARTED
WITH OUR HEARING. BEFORE WE
BEGIN. UM I'M SORRY. I ALSO WANT
TO RECONCILE WELCOME
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MAKIN ER, WHO
IS APPOINTED BY THE SPEAKER AS A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BEFORE WE BEGIN
TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
THE ESTABLISHED QUORUM. COOPER
HERE HERE, VOEPEL. YO YO HERE,
CALDERON CALDERON HERE COOLY
COOLY. HEAR HIM, KINER. CAN YOU
HEAR? O'DONNELL O'DONNELL HERE?
CR TO CR TWO HERE. OKAY LET'S
START AT THE TOP OF THE FILE
ITEM ITEM NUMBER ONE A. B 551
REMEMBER RODRIGUEZ? GOOD
EVENING. AFTERNOON WHATEVER IT
IS. MM HMM.
PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. A YEAR AGO, THIS
COMMITTEE PASSED A B 8 45, WHICH
CREATED A PRESUMPTION FOR COVID
19 RELATED ILLNESS CONTRACTED ON
THE JOB SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR IN
SERVICE DISABILITY RETIREMENT.
THIS PROVISION EXPIRES IN
JANUARY. MAYBE 551 IS MEN IN THE
SENATE TO EXTEND THE INOPERATIVE
DATE TO JANUARY 24TH. THIS
EXTENSION WOULD FINANCIALLY
PROTECT THOSE WHO HAVE HELPED
KEEP OUR LIGHTS ON OUR WATER'S
RUNNING OUR FOOD STOCK AND TREAT
OUR ILLNESSES AS WELL AS OUR
LOVED ONES DURING THIS PANDEMIC.
THESE EMPLOYEES INCLUDE
HEALTHCARE WORKER PROVIDERS,
FIREFIGHTERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT
AND PUBLIC SERVANTS TO NAME A
FEW RESPECT YOU ASKED FOR. I
VOTE. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, TERRY
BRENNAN ON BEHALF OF CI YOU
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. THIS IS JUST AN
EXTENSION OF A BILL YOU'VE
ALREADY PASSED. UH WE'RE
EXTENDING IT TO THE SAME
EXTENSION THAT'S IN THE DAILY
BILL FOR WORKERS COMP AND HAS
THE EXACT SAME QUALIFICATIONS TO
QUALIFY FOR THE PRESUMPTIONS AND
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AS LONG AS THEY DON'T
COME FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
O'DONNELL, THE BILL, YOU'VE GOT
MOTION A SECOND. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL IN THE AUDIENCE? THANK YOU.
FOR THE CHAIR AND MEMBERS, SAID
BROWN WIG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES?
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE?
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE
. LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS IN THE
MEMBER'S O'DONNELL MR SARDO. I
THINK THIS BILL IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS
WHOLE COVID THING. IT SEEMS TO
CHANGE FACES A LOT, AND PART OF
THE ISSUE IS THE LONG COVID
ISSUES AND IT'S IMPORTANT
ESPECIALLY FOR RIGOROUS UM
EMPLOYMENT THAT WE CONTINUE TO
TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN EXPOSED, UH, COULDN'T AVOID
IT AND ARE ARE NOW DEALING WITH
THE AFTER EFFECTS OF THAT. SO I
APPRECIATE THE BILL AND LOOK
FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT. THANK
YOU. MR BALL. THANK YOU. JUST A
QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR. OR
MAYBE THE SPONSOR. DOES THIS
BILL INCLUDE TEACHERS? I SEE
FIREFIGHTERS, PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICERS AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS
. YET IF YOU LOOK AT IT OTHER
THAN PROBABLY HEALTHCARE WORKERS
ON THIS LIST, YOUR TEACHERS
INTERACT THE MOST WITH PEOPLE
EVERY DAY IN A CLASSROOM ABOUT
THE 3RD 3RD THE SIZE OF THIS
ROOM WITH PROBABLY ON AVERAGE 30
PLUS A STUDENTS. ARE THEY
INCLUDED IN THIS? THEY ARE. THIS
APPLIES TO ALL THE PENSION
SYSTEMS 37 ACT PERS. AND STIRS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH IMPACT
UNDER STIRS BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR
INDUSTRIAL AND NON INDUSTRIAL
DISABILITY, BUT THEY ARE
INCLUDED IN THIS AND THEN
APPLIES ACROSS ALL PENSION
SYSTEMS. GOOD ANSWER. OTHER
QUESTIONS. OKAY. WE GOT A FIRST
AND A SECOND. UH, REMEMBER THAT
CLOTHES CLASS DRIVER? MADAM
SECRETARY WILL CALL, PLEASE. THE
MOTION IS WITH RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE SENATE AMENDMENTS BE
CONCURRED IN COOPER COOPER, I
OPAL CALDERON CALDERON, I COOLLY
I AM KEPNER KEPNER. I O'DONNELL
O'DONNELL. I SAY OUR TOÀN TÔI.
SEVEN VOTES, SEVEN VOTES IN HIS
OUT. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS, UH
REMEMBER TO A B 8 26, MR IRWIN.
MOTHER. I WANT TO OKAY, TERRY.
I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE FOR A
WHILE BURIED. PLEASE PROCEED
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THIS BILL, SPONSORED BY STU,
CALIFORNIA IN THE COUNTY OF
VENTURA A B 20 SIXES, IT
NARROWLY CRAFTED BILL THAT WILL
ENSURE SPECIFIED PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES HIRED PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF PEPPER DO NOT HAVE
THEIR PENSIONS UNFAIRLY REDUCED.
THIS IS A DISTRICT BILL THAT
SEEKS TO ADDRESS A UNIQUE ISSUE
AFFECTING LEGACY EMPLOYEES IN
VENTURA COUNTY, WHO, WITHOUT
THIS BILL COULD SEE THEIR
PENSION BENEFITS REDUCED BY AS
MUCH AS 10% AND THAT WOULD
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT LOWER
WAGE WORKERS. IN VENTURA COUNTY
LEGACY MEMBERS EMPLOYEES WHO
STARTED PARTICIPATION IN THE
RETIREMENT PLAN PRIOR TO JANUARY
, 1ST 2013 RECEIVED THE FULL
VALUE OF A BI WEEKLY FLEXIBLE
BENEFIT ALLOWANCE AS PART OF
THEIR COMPREHENSIVE, UH
COMPENSATION OR ENABLE THE FDA
IS OFFERED AS A CAFETERIA PLAN.
BENEFIT AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 1
25 OF THE I. R S CODE, WHICH
HELPS COVER SOME OF THE COSTS
RELATEDTO PARTICIPATION IN THE
COUNTY'S HEALTH CARE PLAN. THE
BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE TO ALL
ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES AND IS A
FIXED AMOUNT SO IT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION OR ANY
FORM OF PENSION SPIKING. THIS
BILL DOES NOT CREATE NEW OR
ANTICIPATE UNANTICIPATED COSTS
AS BOTH EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS
HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO
MAKE THEIR PLANNED CONTRIBUTIONS
. A B A TO SIX APPLIES TO A
SMALL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND IS
CONSISTENT WITH LEGAL PRECEDENT
AND DOES NOT CREATE ANY AVENUES
FOR ABUSE OR MANIPULATION. THE
MOST RECENT VERSION OF THIS BILL
HAS NO OPPOSITION AND THE HOWARD
JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION IS
NEUTRAL WITH ME TODAY ON BEHALF
OFTHE COUNTY OF VENTURA IS JEAN
HURST AND TERRY BRENNAN. BREMER
BREMEN'S ON BEHALF OF S C I U
CALIFORNIA SORRY ABOUT THAT. I
MEAN, CALLED WORSE. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS JEAN HURST HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WERE
CO SPONSOR OF HB 8 26. AS MR
IRWIN INDICATED THIS IMPORTANT
CLARIFICATION IS CRITICALLY
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE VENTURA
COUNTY LEGACY EMPLOYEES WHO
EVERY LIGHT ON THIS COMPONENT OF
THEIR COMPENSATION TO BE
INCLUDED IN THEIR RETIREMENT
CALCULATIONS ARE NOT UNDULY
HARMED. WE ARE ORGANIZATIONS
COLLECTIVELY HAVE WORKED CLOSELY
WITH LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND WITH
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO ENSURE
THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PEPPER
AND ADDRESSES AND CERTAINTY THAT
HAS RESULTED FROM THE ALAMEDA
CASE, AS MR NGUYEN INDICATED.
IT'S A NARROWLY CRAFTED BILL. WE
WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR I VOTE. MRCHAIRMAN MEMBERS TERRY BRENNAN
ON BEHALF OF S C I U CALIFORNIA
. I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT
JOB OF PRESENTING IT. THE
ANALYSIS SPEAKS TO ALL THE
ISSUES AND CONCERNS IN THIS
BILL. WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID
CLAWING BACK MONEY FROM RETIREES
WHO PAID FOR IT AND EARNED THEIR
BENEFITS AND MAKE SURE THEY GET
WHAT THEY RELIED ON AND THAT
NOTHING LESS AND GOING FORWARD.
THIS PRACTICE WILL BE PHASED
OUT. FOR THAT REASON WE'RE DRIVE
UP. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM AND
SUPPORT MEMBERS MEGAN SUPERS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ANY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SECOND YOU'VE
GOT A MOTION A SECOND. UM.
NUMBER ONE WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE SO THAT THESE
PUBLIC SERVANTS DO NOT HAVE
THEIR RETIREMENTS UPENDED
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
IT'S A GREAT BILL AND MUCH LONG
OVERDUE PROMOTION. A SECOND.
MADAME SECRETARY. ROLL CALL,
PLEASE. THE MOTION IS WITH
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SENATE
AMENDMENTS BE CONCURRED IN
COOPER COOPER, I VOEPEL OPAL,
NOT VOTING, CALDERON. CALDERON
COOLEY MAKIN ER O'DONNELL
O'DONNELL. I SEYARTO TOÀN
SEYARTO I WE HAVE SIX VOTES THAT
FILLS OUT WHEN YOUR BILLS OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VERY MUCH.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER
THREE A B 11 95. MS TIMBER,
GARCIA. SEE YOU. I DON'T SEE HER
HERE. SO IN THAT CASE, WE'RE
GONNA MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
MR COOLEY. A B 24 43. HMM.
HELLO. PLEASE PROCEED. VERY GOOD
COLLEAGUES. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
A B 24 43. BRINGING IT BACK ON
CONCURRENCE. THIS IS A MEASURE
THAT ARISES OUT OF THE JUDICIAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. UM IT
BASICALLY PERMITS A JUDGE TO
RETIRE EARLY AS LONG AS CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. AND DEFER
THEIR COMPENSATION ON THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM UNTIL I
REACHED RETIREMENT AGE, SO I WAS
JURORS WHO HAVE HAD A LONG
SERVICE IN THAT ROLE, OPT TO
RETIRE EARLY BUT ACTUALLY DEFER
THE PAYMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THAT
IT DOES ALLOW THEM TO RETIRE,
BUT IT AVOIDS HAVING EXCESSIVE
COSTS IN RETIREMENT SYSTEM. THE
SENATE AMENDMENTS REFLECT
NEGOTIATES WITH THE DEPARTMENT
FINANCE AND THEY'RE JUST FOR
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, AN ACTUARY TO
ENSURE THERE IS NO ADVERSE
ECONOMIC EFFECT. AND THAT IS THE
ESSENCE OF IT. SO IT SUPPORTS
OUR JUDGES THAT HAVE REASON FOR
US TO RETIRE EARLY, BUT IT DOES
NOT UNDULY BURDEN A SYSTEM AND I
URGE CONCURRENCE IN THE SENATE
AMENDMENTS. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
MIKE BELOTE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION.
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. THE JUDGES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS UNIQUE IN
THE STATE IN THAT IT'S A DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION PLAN UNTIL YOU HIT
THE CLIFF AT AGE 65 WITH 20
YEARS OF SERVICE, AND THEN YOU
CAN QUALIFY FOR RETIREMENT
BENEFIT, BUT NOT BEFORE SO IF
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LEAVE EARLY,
THEY'RE SICK, THEIR SPOUSES SICK
AND THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF
THEM. THEY'RE BURNED OUT FROM
THE PANDEMIC. THEY CANNOT GET A
RETIREMENT BENEFIT. THIS UH,
BILL NEGOTIATED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE WHO IS
NEUTRAL, ALLOWS SOMEBODY TO
LEAVE EARLY AND LEAVE THEIR
MONEY ON DEPOSIT, JUST LIKE
STATE EMPLOYEES CAN AND TAKE THE
DEFINED BENEFIT WHEN THEY REACH
FULL RETIREMENT AGE. WE THINK
IT'S A WIN WIN BECAUSE IT GIVES
JUDGES OPTIONS, BUT IT ACTUALLY
SAVES THE STATE MONEY, SO THE
STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM WILL ACTUALLY
GO DOWN. THIS IS ACTUARIALLY
NEUTRAL. IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR
YEARS. WE APPRECIATE THE, UH
NEGOTIATION WITH THE O F. WE
APPRECIATE MR BOLDEN. HERE UH,
GOING THROUGH THE BILL WITH US.
WE THINK WE HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT
HERE AND WE'D ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. IN THE WITNESSES IN
THE ROOM AND SUPPORT. OKAY ABOUT
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. THE
COMMITTEE. GOTTA FIRST. THE
SECOND. UH, MR CLOONEY, DIRECTOR
CLOSE REQUEST YOUR I VOTE. THANK
YOU. MADAM SECRETARY WILL CALL,
PLEASE. YES I'M SORRY, MR
O'DONNELL. YES I'VE BEEN LOOKING
AT HER ABOUT THIS ISSUE FROM
SOMEONE IN MY DISTRICT RECENTLY
. I GUESS THE JUDGE WILL HIT
DOES THE IDEA UNDER CURRENT LAW
JUDGES CAN'T RETIRE TILL THEY'RE
65 HAVE 20YEARS OF SERVICE
RIGHT AT 3.75 FACTOR, THOUGH,
RIGHT? THAT'S PRETTY IT ISN'T
GOOD. HIGHEST, UM THE HIGHEST IN
THE LAND. I'D SAY IT'S DESIGNED
TO GET YOU TO THE 75% SO 20
YEARS TIMES, 3.75. AND THEN I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THEN WHY
COULDN'T THEY JUST QUIT NOW? AND
THEN FILED FOR RETIREMENT AT 65
1 OF MY MISSING IF YOU IF YOU
QUIT EARLY NOW, ALL YOU GET IS
YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND INTEREST
ON IT. YOU CAN'T GET A DEFINED
BENEFIT UNTIL YOU GET TO 65. OR
THAT'S WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE CLIFF
IN CLIFF VESTING. SO IF YOU QUIT
NOW, YOU GET A CHECK. RIGHT
QUICK SHORT, YOU GET A CHECK THE
ONLY PLAN OF IT OVER THE DEATH
OF TIME OF YOU GET A PENSION
UNTIL THE MOMENT UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTION. LARGE
THANK YOU. SO WE'VE GOT TO GET
YOUR CLOTHES CLOTHES. YES, SIR.
MADAME. SECRETARY. ROLL CALL,
PLEASE. MOTION IS WITH
RECOMMENDATION THAT SENATE
AMENDMENTS BE CONCURRED IN
COOPER COOPER, I'VE OPAL
CALDERON. I CALLY, I I'M MAKIN
ER MAKIN HER I O'DONNELL
O'DONNELL I SAY ARE TO SAY OUR
TÔI. WE HAVE SEVEN VOTES THAT
BUILDS OUT ALL YOUR BILLS OUT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU WANT ME TO TRY TO DO MR
GARCIA'S BILL? ALL WAITING FOR
THE UH OKAY, PERFECT. WE'RE
GONNA RECESS JUST FOR FIVE
MINUTES REAL QUICK, OKAY. HMM.
OKAY? YEAH, I'LL JOIN YOU. WHAT
IS THAT DOING?
TWO THINGS ONE. OKAY?
OKAY ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCKINNA IS
GOING TO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GARCIA ON A B
11 95. YES GOOD AFTERNOON, MISS
MCKENNA. BREATHS PRESENT 81 195
, WHICH HELP THEM PROVE THEIR
REPRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL
DISABILITY IN STATE WORKED FOR
THIS BILL AUTHORIZES DEPARTMENT
UPDATE QUALIFIED EXAMINATION. AN
APPOINTMENT PROGRAM. KIDS IN
ORDER TO SELECT GONNA HIRE
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL. THE
MEASURE HAS ENJOYED UNANIMOUS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. NO
OPPOSITION, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBER. IT'S GREAT.
SPONSORED MEASURE WITH THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES.
THIS BILL SIMPLY ALLOWS FOR
DEPARTMENTS TO REQUEST A
SEPARATE LIST OF LEAP ELIGIBLE
CANDIDATES IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY
AND RECRUIT AND RETAIN
ADDITIONAL WORKERS WITH
DISABILITIES IN THE STATE
WORKFORCE. RECENT AMENDMENTS HAD
FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS AND
OTHER CLARIFICATIONS FROM KELLY
, CHAR POPS AND OTHER ENTITIES
AS THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
MENTIONED THAT HAS ENJOYED
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL? OKAY. WE GOT A
FIRST AND A SECOND. ANYONE. THIS
IS AN OPPOSITION. I'LL TAKE IT
BACK. MISS MCKENNA WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE A CLOSE. YES I ASKED FOR
YOUR FULL SUPPORT OF A B 1195.
AND BEFORE I CLOSE, I LIKE TO
ALSO SAY, I'M A VERY
DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR
A B 15 77 TODAY, BUT IT'S OKAY.
I'LL BE HERE FOR 12 YEARS AND
I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THIS UP
FOR THE STAFF NEXT YEAR. WE'RE
GOING TO HEAR IT TODAY. SO YOUR
WISH IS GRANTED. SEE? THANK YOU.
CHRISTMAS. THANK YOU, UM, CALL
MADAM CHAIR, PLEASE. SECRETARY
MOTION IS WITH RECOMMENDATION
THAT SENATE AMENDMENTS BE
CONCURRED IN COOPER PELL
CALDERON CALDERON. I COOLLY I AM
KINER. MCKENNA. I O DONNELL.
WELL DONALD I CR TO CR TÔI. THAT
BILL HAS SEVEN VOTERS OUT. THANK
YOU. SO OBVIOUSLY WE WERE
CHANGING THE SCRIPT NOW.
WE'RE GONNA BE IN A BRIEF
RECESS. SO HOLD ON. MAYBE NOT.
YEAH.
INTERESTING PRIOR. WITH
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR ME HERE, MAYBE 15 77 BY
SEVEN MEMBER STONE AND REMOVE
THE PRIOR MOTION. IRIS I'M
SORRY. REMOVE THE PRIOR
RECISION. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S .
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS.
I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT A B 15 77
WHICH IS A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW
OUR OWN STAFF TO HAVE THE OPTION
OF CREATING A UNION. AMONG
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN CALIFORNIA.
UNIQUELY LEGISLATIVE STAFF ARE
THE ONLY GROUP THAT CANNOT SO
CHOOSE. AND THIS BILL LAYS THE
FOUNDATION TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
THAT STEP. AND IT IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP. WE STAND BY
LABOR PRINCIPLES IN THE
LEGISLATURE, AND MANY OF US HAVE
FOUGHT LOCAL BATTLES FOR VARIOUS
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND
EMPLOYEES. TO ENSURE THAT THEY
HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED
. THAT'S WHAT 15 77 DOES. I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT,
ESPECIALLY GIVEN A LOT OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN
THE LEGISLATURE LATELY, AND THE
NEED FOR EMPLOYEES TO COME
TOGETHER WITH REALLY A COMMON
VOICE. AND THAT IS THE NOTION OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS HAVING
THAT COLLECTIVE VOICE TO BE ABLE
TO BE HEARD DEALING WITH PAYING
EQUITIES DEALING WITH A NUMBER
OF THE WORKPLACE SITUATIONS THAT
OUR OWN EMPLOYEES HAVE FOUND
OURSELVES IN. MEMBERS THIS IS A
QUESTION FOR US AS LEGISLATORS
AS A HOUSE BECAUSE THE WAY THIS
BILL IS DESIGNED, IT WILL BE OUR
EMPLOYEES. AND SHOULD THEY
CHOOSE TO THEN BE ABLE TO
BARGAIN WITH OUR UNIT? WE'VE
TAKEN AMENDMENTS IN THE SENATE.
IN ORDER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT HAD COME UP
BEFORE CREATING A CLASS. THAT
WOULD BE A CONFIDENTIAL CLASS TO
BE A LIAISON BETWEEN WHATEVER
LEGISLATIVE UNIT THAT IS AND THE
MANAGEMENT. WE HAVE TAKEN OUT
THE PART WHERE THE GOVERNOR
WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO
APPROVE AS AS HAD BEEN IN SOME
OF THE ORIGINAL BILLS, BECAUSE,
BUT THIS JUST MEANS MAKES SENSE
THAT THAT WE BARGAIN ULTIMATELY
THAT THAT THE HOUSES BARGAIN
WITH THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES AND
THEN TRUE TO WE CREATED, WE
ENSURE THAT EACH HOUSE BECAUSE
THERE ARE DIFFERENT EMPLOYEE
RULES BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE
ASSEMBLY BE ABLE TO CREATE THEIR
OWN. UNIT THAT'S WHAT THE BILL
IS. THAT'S THE BILL BEFORE US
TODAY, AND I ASKED FOR YOUR I
VOTE AND WITH ME, I HAVE A
COUPLE OF WITNESSES. I THINK
SHEBANG TO MARCUS IS HERE AND
THEN GREGORY CRAMER IF HE CAME
BACK OKAY, ALSO AS WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS STEPHEN G.
DEMARCO'S I'M CHIEF OF STAFF AT
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
. WE ARE PROUD SPONSORS OF MAYBE
15 77 FOR ONE REASON. THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR MOVEMENT
BELIEVE FIRMLY BELIEVES THAT
EVERY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE, EVERY
WORKER IN THE STATE DESERVES THE
RIGHT TO JOIN A UNION IF THEY
CHOOSE. AND LEGISLATIVE
EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE NO
EXCEPTION. THE LABOR FED HAS
COME BEFORE YOU ALL COUNTLESS
TIMES ON BEHALF OF OUR
AFFILIATES TO ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF TEACHERS. OF STAGE
WORKERS, BUS DRIVERS, NURSES,
FIREFIGHTERS, FARMWORKERS AND SO
MANY OTHERS EXERCISING THEIR
RIGHTS TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN
AND TODAY WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
ASKING THAT YOU EXTEND THIS
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO YOUR OWN
STAFF. THESE CHALLENGING LAST
FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN A TESTAMENT
TO THE PURE DEDICATION THAT
LEGISLATIVE STAFF HAVE HAD TO
THIS WORK. THEY'RE INTERESTED
WITH SUCH IMMENSE
RESPONSIBILITIES BUT DO NOT HAVE
A MEANINGFUL WAY TO PROVIDE
INPUT IN HOW THE LEGISLATURE
DEALS WITH MATTERS OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROTOCOLS AND SO MANY OTHER
WORKPLACE ISSUES THAT IMPACT
STAFF THE MOST AS YOU ALL KNOW,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR
EVERY OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY HAVE
THE RIGHT TO UNIONIZE, AND
THEY'VE TACKLED SIMILAR ISSUES
AT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
TABLE. WHICH ALLOWED THEM THE
FLEXIBILITY TO WORK THESE ISSUES
OUT WITH THEIR EMPLOYER AND
TAILOR SOLUTIONS THAT FIT THE
NATURE OF THEIR WORKPLACE. JUST
A FEW MONTHS AGO, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES GRANTED THEIR
OWN STAFF PROTECTIONS TO
UNIONIZE BILLS LIKE MAYBE 15 77
ARE COMING UP AND MOVING AND
PASSING IN STATE LEGISLATURES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THIS BILL
COMES DOWN TO ONE THING AND THAT
IS RESPECTING AND TRUSTING STAFF
ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS DECISION FOR
THEMSELVESWHETHER TO EXERCISE
THESE RIGHTS AND HAVE THE
DECISION TO JOIN A UNION IF THEY
CHOOSE. IT IS PAST TIME THAT
LEGISLATIVE STAFF HAVE THE SAME
OPPORTUNITY THAT'S AFFORDED TO
EVERY OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. IN
CALIFORNIA. THEY DESERVE THAT
MUCH. THANK YOU. AND WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR I VOTE ON
A B 15 77. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
GREGORY CRAMER REPRESENTING
MYSELF. I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT I SERVED AS A LEGISLATIVE
STAFFER FOR TWO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
AND ONE SENATOR FROM 2010 TO
2019. I ENTERED THE CAPITAL
THROUGH THE SACRAMENTO SEMESTER
INTERNSHIP PROGRAM, WHICH I
CREDIT FOR GETTING MY FOOT IN
THE DOOR HERE AS A LEGISLATIVE
AIDE. AND I KNEW THAT
MAINTAINING EMPLOYMENT IN THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD REQUIRE ME TO
PERFORM DUTIES OUTSIDE OF MY JOB
, BUT LINES WERE CONSTANTLY
BLURRED. DO THIS CHRONIC STAFF
TURNOVER IN MY ASSEMBLY OFFICE.
I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING
OUT MY JOB DUTIES AND OTHER
DUTIES NORMALLY RESERVED FOR
CHIEFS OF STAFF AND LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTORS WITHOUT BEING
COMPENSATED OR RECLASSIFIED
APPROPRIATELY. THAT'S INCLUDED
APPROVING PAYROLL, SUBMITTING
FINANCIAL REQUESTS IN DEVELOPING
LEGISLATIVE PACKAGES. IN
ADDITION, I WAS REQUIRED TO PICK
UP THE MEMBERS DRY CLEANING,
ASSEMBLE HIS FURNITURE AND IT'S
SACRAMENTO APARTMENT. AND ATTEND
CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISERS AFTER HOURS
OFTEN AFTER ALREADY PUT IN 10 OR
11 HOUR DAYS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE. AND ON DAYS WHEN I
CALLED OUT SICK, I RECEIVED
HARASSING PHONE CALLS FROM THE
MEMBER DEMANDING ME TO WORK. IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN GOOD STANDING
AS A LEGISLATIVE STAFFER, I WAS
OFTEN VOLUNTEER TOLD THE
CAMPAIGN FOR LEGISLATORS ON MY
OWN TIME AND ON MY OWN DIME.
VACATION TIME WAS PRACTICALLY
NON EXISTENT, GIVEN THE RIGOROUS
LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR AND CHRONIC
STAFF TURNOVER, AND A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION WAS
DEDICATED TO CAMPAIGNS HUNDREDS
OF MILES AWAY. DURING MY TENURE
IN THE CAPITAL, IT WAS COMMON
FOR GRIEVANCES TO BE DISMISSED
OR WORSE, EMPLOYEES BEING
TERMINATED FOR COMING FORWARD.
IN MY CIRCUMSTANCE, INTERNAL
INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED,
BUT NO COURSE CORRECTIONS
RESULTED. ULTIMATELY STRUCTURES
IN PLACE OR DESERVE THE
REPUTATION OF THE LEGISLATURE
AND NOT TO SINCERELY ADDRESS
WORKER ISSUES. WRAP UP HERE
SOON. I SHARED THE DETAILS OF MY
EXPERIENCE, NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE
UNIQUE. RATHER MY EXPERIENCES
ARE SHARED AMONGST SO MANY
LEGISLATIVE STAFF HERE IN THE
CAPITAL. I'M NOT 1 DEGREES OF
STAFFER SUBJECT TO A
PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ABOUT MY EXPERIENCES ARE
A DIRECT RESULT OF THE LACK OF
TANGIBLE PROTECTIONS AND UNIFORM
WORKPLACE STANDARDS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR RECONSIDERING THIS
BILL AND STRONGLY URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
AND THE WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
JUST STATE YOUR NAME. UH AND
YOUR SUPPORTER OPPOSED. SO WHEN
IS THE SUPPORT ONLY THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS TERRY
SHAWN'S CHIEF OF STAFF TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TINA, MAKIN. ER
APPRECIATE THAT MS MCKENNA'S
SUPPORT AND SPEAKERS SUPPORT.
I'M A VICTIM OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE BY A
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY
CHIEF OF STAFF AND I'M NOT
IMPACTED BY THIS BILL, BUT I DO
NAME AND WHO YOU WORK FOR, OR
OTHER MEMBERS. OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE STATE ASSEMBLY FAMILY. THANK
YOU. PLEASE WRAP IT UP. MR CHAIR
MEMBER SARAH FLOCKS REPRESENTING
AFSCME, THE CALIFORNIA IATSE
COUNCIL, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
FEDERATION OF LABOR, UNITED FOOD
AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNITE
HERE LOCAL 11 AND ALSO A PROUD
FORMER MEMBER OF THE PACIFIC
MEDIA GUILD, WHILE I WAS ON THE
LEGISLATIVE STAFF AT THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS MEGAN SUPERS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
SUPPORT MR CHAIR. REMEMBER SHANE
GUSSMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS, THE MACHINISTS UNION
, THE EU, THE UTILITY WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA AND UNITE HERE
ALL IN SUPPORT. MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS EVAN MENTIONED I'M THE
FIRST OPENLY TRANSGENDER PERSON
WHO WORKED AT THE CAPITOL
TRANSITION GENDERS HERE. UM I
WAS BULLIED AND THE RESTROOMS,
UM BY REPUBLICAN SENATORS. I'M
LUCKY THAT I WAS ABLE TO THRIVE
DESPITE THAT. BUT BECAUSE OF
OTHERS WEREN'T. AND THAT'S WHY
I'M STANDING HERE IN SUPPORT OF
LGBT Q. STAFF MEMBERS, PLEASE
SUPPORT THIS BILL. HI RAQUEL
MASON. FORMER STAFFER, UM, HERE
TO ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIR MEMBERS, MICHAEL
YOUNG WITH CALIFORNIA FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SETH BRAMBLE HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. TO SEE MARK ON BEHALF
OF CFT AND AS A FORMER STAFF
MEMBER IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MR CHAIR, REMEMBERS
BEVERLY. YOU ON BEHALF OF YOU.
TW ASKED ME LOCAL 39 30 AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE, JEREMY SMITH HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AND
A PROUD MEMBER OF A LOCAL 447
AND SUPPORT MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
MATT BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE
ENGINEERS, A SCIENTIST OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. ANYONE WHO SAYS OPPOSITION.
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS? GOD.
SURE, MR VOEPEL. I'M INCLINED TO
VOTE FOR THIS. EVEN TOLD THE
AUTHOR, I WOULD, BUT WE'VE GOT A
LOT OF CONFUSION HERE. IT'S
PULLED, IT COMES BACK. THE CHAIR
MADE VERY GOOD POINTS. WHY HE
PULLED IT. MY COLLEAGUE AND
AUTHOR MAKES GOOD POINTS. WHY I
SHOULD VOTE FOR IT. SO THIS IS
VERY DIFFICULT. EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT. SO THAT'S MY COMMENT.
THANK YOU. THANK THE BIG ISSUE
HERE IS YOU, YOU VET BILLS, AND
THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE COMMITTEES
TO GO THROUGH THE COMMITTEE
PROCESS, SOMETIMES MULTIPLE
COMMITTEES. TO DO THINGS AND
THAT'S REALLY BEEN THE BIG WELL,
FIRST OF LIKE YOU MUST WANT TO
COMMENT. I'LL LET YOU GO FIRST.
YES MR CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL BACK. UM I
JUST AND I ALSO THINK THE AUTHOR
AS A FORMER STAFFER. I
DEFINITELY SUPPORT THIS BILL AND
I WOULD BE VERY PROUD OF THE
LEGISLATURE FOR SUPPORTING OUR
STAFF. THANK YOU. HMM. MR
STARTLE YOU. SO IS, UH, SOMEONE
WHO HAS BEEN IN PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT FOR 35 YEARS. THEN
HAD MORE. UM. SERVING IN THE
CAPACITY OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.
FOR ANOTHER 13 PLUS ANOTHER TWO.
TWO OF THEM THE TWO LAST TWO OF
THEM BEING UP HERE. AND YOU
KNOW? YOU LOOK AT THE MECHANICS
OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH
THIS. AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT
DOESN'T WORK. YOU UNDERSTAND WHY
? I MEAN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE
ONE THAT LIMITS THE PAY. SO
THERE'S NO BARGAINING FOR PAY
HERE. UM WHAT COMES DOWN TO IS
UM, THE TREATMENT OF THE STAFF.
AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT
THEY'VE HAD AND THAT IS. FOR ME,
THAT IS APPALLING. THAT THAT HAS
BEEN SOMETHING IN THE STATE. AT
THIS LEVEL. THAT ARE OUR PEOPLE
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE PEOPLE
THAT WE DEPEND ON. THAT THEY
HAVE TO ENDURE CONDITIONED ARE
THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
BECAUSE THIS SHOULD BE. WHERE WE
SET THE EXAMPLE FOR EVERYBODY
ELSE AND EVERY TYPE OF LABOR
ENVIRONMENT IN OTHER WORDS, THEY
SHOULDN'T NEED TO FEEL LIKE THEY
HAVE TO FORM A UNION. TO ADDRESS
ISSUES LIKE THAT. WE SHOULD BE
ADDRESSING ISSUES LIKE THAT. AND
IF WE HAVE LEGISLATORS WHO CAN'T
BEHAVE. WHO CAN'T ASSEMBLE THE
STAFF AND TAKE CARE OF THEM. AND
TREAT THEM WITH RESPECT. WELL,
THEY SHOULDN'T BE HERE.
SHOULDN'T BE SWEPT UNDER A RUG.
THEY JUST SHOULDN'T BE HERE.
BECAUSE WHAT THIS DOES IF YOU'RE
THE UNION ACTIVITY, NORMAL UNION
ACTIVITIES WHEN I WAS WHEN I WAS
IN A UNION UM. IT INVOLVES
POLITICAL ACTION. YOU'RE GOING
OUT AND SUPPORTING AND NOT
SUPPORTING. DIFFERENT. UH,
DIFFERENT CANDIDATES. AND
PUTTING OUR EMPLOYEES AND THAT
SITUATION UP HERE. TO ME, IT'S A
HUGE CONFLICT. I MEAN, WE WATCH
A LITTLE BIT OF IT AS THEY WERE
LEAVING. THE CHAIR HAD MADE A
DECISION. AND PEOPLE WERE MAKING
COMMENTS AND MAKING GESTURES. IS
THERE A WALKING OUT? AND THAT'S
INAPPROPRIATE. IT REALLY IS. SO
BUT BUT I DON'T THINK THE
UNIONIZATION PART OF IT. IT'S
WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. WHAT
NEEDS TO BE FIXED? IS THE
LEADERSHIP. IN THIS BUILDING HAS
TO TAKE CONTROL OF WHAT'S GOING
ON. AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS
ADJUDICATED. THE RIGHT WAY AND
THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE TREATED
THE WAY THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
TREATED. THEY'RE COMPENSATED.
THAT THEY'RE NOT ABUSED. I MEAN,
IT'S JUST SHOCKING TO ME. IN THE
TWO YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.
SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD
SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE SEEN.
THE WAY PEOPLE ARE TREATED. WE
SHOULDN'T BE TREATING PEOPLE
LIKE THAT. THERE'S A STAFF
TURNOVER AND A LOT OF OFFICES. A
LOT OF THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE WAY
THESE PEOPLE ARE. PEOPLE ARE
TREATED. SO THAT'S REALLY ON US
TO FIX. AND IT'S ON AND IT'S
INCUMBENT ON US. POLICE EACH
OTHER FOR PETE'S SAKE. AND NOT
ALLOW THAT KIND AND B THE B THE
EXAMPLE SETTERS FOR THE STATE B
THE EXAMPLE SETTERS. I MEAN, WE
TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME.
EQUITY FAIRNESS ALL THESE
THINGS. YET WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
PAY PAY DISPARITIES WHEN YOU
LOOK AT SOME OF THESE OTHER
ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON THOSE
SHOULDN'T EXIST. THAT'S NOT
THERE'S NOT EQUITY WHEN ONE
GROUP GETS PAID THIS BECAUSE
THEY BELONG TO A CERTAIN CERTAIN
POLITICAL FACTION, AND ANOTHER
ONE BELONG, YOU KNOW, THEY GET
PAID AND THEY DON'T GET PAID AS
WELL. OR THEY DON'T HAVE THE
STAFFERS THEY NEED. THAT'S
RIDICULOUS. AND YET, THAT'S WHAT
GOES ON HERE. AND THAT'S WHY ALL
THESE FOLKS WANT TO JOIN A
UNION. AND PUT THEMSELVES IN
THIS POSITION OF CREATING EVEN
MORE DIVISION. THEN WE HAVE UP
HERE ALREADY. BUT IT WILL BE AT
A STAFF LEVEL. OUR STAFF HAVE TO
WORK TOGETHER. IF WE'RE EVER
GOING TO PASS LEGISLATION, THEY
HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PACE AND
IF THERE'S ANIMOSITY BECAUSE
PEOPLE ARE UPSET BECAUSE PEOPLE
DIDN'T YOU KNOW THEY THEY DIDN'T
GET THE PERSON THEY WANTED TO
GET ELECTED. I JUST CAN'T
IMAGINE THAT BEING CONDUCIVE TO
US GETTING STATE BUSINESS DONE.
SO THERE'S SOME WORK TO BE DONE
HERE. AND THERE'S THE WORK THAT
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
LEADERSHIP HAVE TO REALLY TAKE
SERIOUSLY. SO THAT THE EMPLOYEES
DO HAVE A VOICE. THEY SHOULD
HAVE A VOICE. SHOULDN'T BE SHUT
OUT. IT SHOULDN'T BE JUST TOLD.
HEY YOU KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS DON'T
GET TO TALK TO US WILL WILL
DECIDE EVERYTHING. THEY NEED TO
BE ABLE TO INTERACT WITH OUR
LEADERS. IF THEY'RE NOT DOING
THAT. THEN IT NEEDS TO START
BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE UP HERE IN
THE WAY WE LEAD CALIFORNIA. WE
HAVE TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE. RIGHT
NOW. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. IT'S
OBVIOUS. BY THE STORIES YOU HEAR
FROM PEOPLE. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S
HARD FOR ME TO GET BEHIND THIS.
BECAUSE THE FIXES REALLY WHAT I
WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT.
UNIONIZATION IS THIS GOING TO
CREATE THIS DIVISION? THAT'S
EVEN MORE THAN IT IS NOW. AND I
DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. I THINK
PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF
THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP HERE, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN A
POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE PEOPLE
THAT ARE WORKING WITH THEM.
THEIR TEAM. THAT THEY UNDERSTAND
WHAT THAT IS, AND IF THEY DON'T
WE BETTER START TRAINING THEM.
BECAUSE I KNOW WE CAN'T. WE
CAN'T ALWAYS DECIDE WHO GETS
ELECTED AND WHO DOESN'T. BUT, UH
ONCE YOU GET UP HERE WELL, THEN
MAYBE WE BETTER SIT DOWN WITH
SOME PEOPLE AND START GIVING
THEM SOME LEADERSHIP TRAINING.
BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT TAKING
CARE OF PEOPLE, THEN THEY'RE NOT
LEADERS AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE
HERE. AND IF THEY'RE WILLING TO
ACCEPT THE HELP, AND THEY'RE
WILLING TO BE CHANGED, THAT'S
GREAT. BUT THIS NONSENSE OF
TELLING STAFFERS HEY, YOU KNOW,
GO PICK UP MY STUFF, YOU KNOW,
YOU KNOW, GO MOVE MY FURNITURE.
THAT'S THAT'S RIDICULOUS. FOR
THEM TO BE PUT IN THAT POSITION.
SO ANYWAY. BOTTOM LINE IS I'M
NOT A BIG FAN OF THIS IDEA, NOT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY
SHOULD BE UNIONIZED. IT'S
BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL CREATE
MORE DIVISION AND I DON'T THINK
IT'S GOING TO SOLVE THEIR
PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY IF THEIR
PROBLEMS ARE RELATED TO HOW
THEY'RE BEING TREATED. BY
LEGISLATORS. THAT'S BAD. SO
THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK
YOU, KATE. YOU'RE GIVING ME A
FEW MINUTES TO EXPRESS MYSELF ON
THIS BECAUSE IT REALLY BOTHERS
ME. ABSOLUTELY. REALLY. DOES, MR
COOLEY THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM.
YEAH I'VE HAD CONCERNS WITH THIS
BILL BEFORE. AS YOU KNOW, UH, MR
STONE. UM THIS IS THE ONLY
INSTITUTION STATE GOVERNMENT
THAT IS POPULATED BY 120
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS. ALL THE
MEMBERS HAVE EQUAL STANDING.
AYE. I FREQUENTLY AND FRUSTRATED
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK THAT
THE DOMINANT PARTY DOES NOT
TREAT THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS
WITH RESPECT. THE RESPECT THEY
DESERVE ON THE CONSTITUTION. BUT
I ACTUALLY FEEL THAT THAT IS THE
LENS. TO WHICH I LOOK AT THIS
ISSUE. WE HAVE TAKEN SORT OF A
PHOTOCOPY OR TAKING A BUNCH OF
PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW FOR
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
THEMSELVES LONG TERM
ORGANIZATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE
BRANCH LEADERSHIP, PRIMARILY
WHERE THEY JUST GO ON AND ON,
AND WE HAVE 120 INDIVIDUALS WITH
THE RESET EVERY TWO YEARS. ALL
OF THEM WAS CONSCIOUSNESS
STANDING. THERE IS NOBODY LIKE
THIS. TO WHICH THESE RULES APPLY
THEIR KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONGRESS.
THEY'RE STARTING TO EXTEND THAT
WASHINGTON STATE IS TRYING TO DO
SOME OF THIS ACTUALLY IN NORTH
DAKOTA. I'VE HAD CONFIDENCE
LAWMAKERS NORTH DAKOTA BECAUSE
THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS WELL.
UM BUT SO IT IS NOT AS IF THIS
ORGANIZATION IS LIKE ALL THESE
OTHERS. AND. YOU KNOW IF I'VE
HEARD IT ONCE I'VE HEARD IT
10,000 TIMES THAT I'M THE
HISTORIAN THAT I BLOB, BLOB,
BLOB, BLOB, BLOB BLOB LÀ! BUT
ACTUALLY MY VIEW IS MORE FORWARD
LOOKING YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T GET
MY OFFICE. FROM MY PREDECESSOR.
ACTUALLY HOLD THIS OFFICE FROM
MY SUCCESSOR. AND I'M VERY
INTERESTED IN HOW THE
INSTITUTIONAL WORKS. T SUPPORT
THOSE MEMBERS. BECAUSE THE
PEOPLE'S HOUSE. IS ABOUT THE 120
COMING UP HERE, FULFILLING THEIR
OATH OF OFFICE, TAKING THEIR OWN
PERSONAL ENERGY VISION, DYNAMIC
AND PUT IN THEIR IMPRESS ON THE
FUTURE. THAT IS THE ALL
IMPORTANT THING WE HAVE SEEN
THAT DEGRADED OVER THE YEARS BY
PROP 1 40. REMOVING PENSIONS.
THERE'S ALL MANNER OF THINGS
THAT HAVE BEEN DONE THE
LEGISLATURE'S INSTITUTION TO
WEAKEN IT. AND I LOOK AT THIS AS
THE PHOTOCOPY APPROACH TO
INSTITUTE 120 JUST DOES NOT WORK
. PROP 1 40 IS A REAL PROBLEM IN
MY CAREER. I'VE SEEN LAYOFFS.
BECAUSE REVENUES WENT DOWN. AH!
THE TYPICAL SCENARIO IS THAT YOU
HAVE THESE NEGOTIATIONS REACHED
AN MOU YOU YOU DECIDE WHAT THE
NUMBER IS. YOU BRING IT THE
LEGISLATURE WE HAD WE APPROVED
THAT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. WE
DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT
FLEXBILITY HERE. AND FROM AN
INSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT. THE
LEGISLATURE HAS VERY OFTEN
REINVENTED ITSELF IN THE FACE OF
NEED, YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS MUCH
MORE COMMONPLACE TO PAST THAT WE
ACTUALLY SPENT RESOURCES TO SEND
OUR SENIOR STAFF OUT TO TRAINING
AROUND THE NATION. AND THAT
COULD INCLUDE PERSONAL STAFF. TO
DEVELOP AN EXPERTISE TO BRING
BACK HER THAT COSTS MONEY. AND
SO A STRATEGY THAT STARTS
LOCKING IN HOW WE SPEND OUR
MONEY UNDER A PROP 1 40 CAP
ACTUALLY STARTS HOLDING BACK THE
INSTITUTION. AH WE'VE DONE MUCH
MORE IN THE WAY OF FIELD
HERRINGS. WHERE WE'RE SELLING
PEOPLE AROUND THE STATE TO
CONDUCT HEARINGS TO GET OUT
THERE. THIS IS, I THINK VERY
APPROPRIATELY, THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE THAT ALSO COSTS MONEY, SO
IT'S NOT A ZERO SUM GAME. I
THINK THAT THIS ISSUE TO ME IT
IS. IT IS INCOMPLETE IDEA. IT IS
NOT FOUNDED UPON REALLY ASSESS
THE NEEDS OF 120 COSTUMES, LAW
OFFICERS, THE PEOPLE'S BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT. HOW IT CONNECTS WITH
PEOPLE. DOES IT WORK? HOW WE
SUPPORT THE LIMITED TIME MEMBERS
HAVE HERE TO BE EFFECTIVE. AND,
UM. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ISSUES
HERE OF EXACTLY I CAN GET DOWN
THE LAWYER. AND HOW DOES THIS
EXACTLY WORK RULES? ACTUALLY
DOES THE HIRING FIRING? HOW DOES
THAT WORK WITH SOME OF THE
TERMINOLOGY OF THE BILL? I THINK
THOSE ARE THINGS WE COULD TALK
ABOUT, AND FASHION HIM AGAIN
APPROPRIATE INSTITUTION, BUT WE
CAN'T DO THAT THIS JUNCTURE. UM
SO I'M. I HEARD I WILL BE
KNOWING THIS BILL TODAY, BUT I
FEEL, UH DEFINITELY IT WAS NOT
DRAFTED WITH A VIEW TO AN
INSTITUTION HAS 120
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, ALL
WITH AN OATH OF OFFICE. AND WHO
HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME TO
MAKE THEIR IMPACT. AND I DO
BELIEVE THAT, HOWEVER
RESTRUCTURE LEGISLATURE, IT HAS
TO BE DONE TO MAGNIFY THE IMPACT
OF THOSE 120. AND, UM. I
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT, UH,
INDIVIDUALS WILL COME HERE AND
INVENT THEMSELVES AND SHOW NEW
WAYS. THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN. SOMEONE IN LARGELY
INSTITUTION BY THE UNDERSTANDING
WHAT THE CAPACITY INHERENT IN
THE OFFICES, BUT THAT VERY OFTEN
REQUIRES RESOURCES, SO I SORT OF
FEEL AS CANNIBALIZING
INSTITUTION WITH A MOVE LIKE
THIS. THANK YOU, MR COOLEY. UM.
I BELIEVE IN UNIONS. LIKE I SAID
, I WAS A UNION MEMBER FOR 30
YEARS I WAS A BOARD MEMBER ON
TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS FOR UNION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO HAVE EVERYBODY
WANTS TO PAY RAISE EVERY ONCE A
GOOD RATE OF PAY. I AGREE WITH
THAT ISSUE IS WE HAVE A PROCESS.
IT'S A COMMITTEE PROCESS THAT
CAN BE HERE'S AND THAT'S THE
BILL. AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
HERE WAS A GOVERNMENT IN THE
SENATE. IT WAS BOUGHT BACK OVER
HERE. IT'S UP OR DOWN VOTE.
THAT'S NOT OKAY. THAT'S NOT GOOD
LEGISLATION. YOU WORK FOR A
CRAPPY MEMBER 120 LIST. NOT
EVERY MEMBER IS A CRAPPY MEMBER
. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. I'VE
NEVER HAD. MY EMPLOYEES DO SOME
OF THOSE THINGS. MOST OF MY
STAFF HAS BEEN WITH ME EIGHT
YEARS, THE ONES THAT HAVE LEFT
HAVE GONE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING
FOR EMPLOYMENT. MOSTLY FOLKS UP
HERE. THEY'VE BEEN HERE. ANYTIME
I HAVE HAD THE EMPLOYEES WORK
FOR THEM. SO WHAT HAPPENS? WE
HAVE A WC UNIT NOW THAT WORKS.
IT HAPPENS. AND IT'S LIKE PROP
ONE FORTIES. LIKE WHAT WILL
FIGURE OUT LATER ON WELL
IMPLEMENTED A YEAR FROM NOW.
THAT'S NOT OKAY. WE SEE THAT ALL
THE TIME WE PUSHED LEGISLATION
FORWARD BECAUSE ALL OF US HAVE
GREAT VOTING RECORDS OUT HERE
FOR LABOR. NOBODY HAS A HORRIBLE
VOTING RECORD. WE SUPPORT LABOR
, BUT AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO
BE THE ADULT IN THE ROOM AND BE
RESPONSIBLE SAID HEY, LOOK, WE
WANT TO DO IT. WE SUPPORT IT,
BUT DO IT RIGHT. I'VE GOTTEN A
LOT OF TEXT FROM SENATORS AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. THAT'S IT.
YEAH, I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. UM I THOUGHT WE WERE
STRONG CHAIRS IN THE ASSEMBLY,
BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT. THAT'S WHY
I'M HEARING THIS. I HAD MY
CHOICE. I DIDN'T HEAR THIS BILL
AT ALL, BECAUSE IT WASN'T
PROCESSED PROPERTY. IT WASN'T
VETTED. BOTTOM LINE. I'VE BEEN
ON THIS COMMITTEE FOR EIGHT
YEARS. AND MR COOLEY HAS
MITCHELL DONALD HAS WE'VE HEARD
PLENTY OF BILLS ON THIS. THIS
BILLS COME BACK THREE TIMES.
OKAY, ONCE MR KELLY HELD IN
RULES IT'S THE SAME STUFF. THE
PROPONENTS NEVER TALKED TO ME.
TALK TO MY STAFF ON THIS TIME,
BUT THEY NEVER TALKED TO ME
ABOUT THE BILL AND NEVER FIXED
THE ISSUES. AND YOU CAN'T GET
AROUND THAT ON PROP 1 40. THE
STATE IS SCREWED UP, KELLY CHAR.
I RUN UP A EQUITY BILL EVERY
YEAR ON PAY EQUITY KELLY HR
BECAUSE WOMEN CHIEFS MAKE MORE
LESS THAN MELT CHEESE OVER HERE,
KELLY CHART TELLS ME IT'S 10
YEARS TO FIX THAT. THAT'S THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I WORKED
FOR A COUNTY FOR 30 YEARS,
CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS, GET THE
SAME AMOUNT OF PAY. THEY SHOULD
GET IT FOR EVERYBODY.
REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS. I WORK
FOR A CITY FOR 15 YEARS, THE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER JOB
CLASSIFICATION. SAME PAY. IT
SHOULD BE THAT WAY. IT NEEDS TO
BE FIXED HERE. SO THERE ARE SOME
THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FIXED IN
THE LEGISLATURE THAT HAVE GONE
ON FOR A LONG TIME, BUT THAT'S
SYSTEMIC. AND IT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. BUT YOU DON'T ADDRESS
IT BY GEMINI BILL THROUGH LIKE
THIS ON A GUT AND AMEND IT. DOES
EVERYBODY A DISSERVICE HERE?
100% AND SOME MEMBERS ARE AFRAID
TO SPEAK UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T
WANT TO BE SEEN AS I'M GOING TO
GO AGAINST THE UNIONS OR ANTI
UNION NO ONE'S ANTI UNION.
PEOPLE JUST PRO PROCESS. YOU
HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLETE PROCESS
WITH THIS. YOU KNOW, SO, UM AND
I'VE MANAGED 500 PEOPLE I'M
ABOUT TO THE SHERIFF AND MANAGED
2000 PEOPLE. I GET IT. YOU TREAT
YOUR EMPLOYEES GOOD. YOU SHOULD
MOST PEOPLE SHOULD DO THAT.
EVERYONE DOESN'T. SO I THINK
WE'RE GETTING THERE. BUT IT HAS
TO BE VETTED PROPERLY. MR
COOLIES. HE'S GONNA BE HERE AT
THE CHAIR OF RULES. HE WANTS TO
FIX IT. BUT YOU KNOW, AND ONE OF
THE REASONS I HELD. THIS IS
BECAUSE NOT TO MAKE THESE FOLKS
TAKE A HARD VOTE. YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. I
BELIEVE IN PROTECTING MY
MEMBERS. ON THE COMMITTEE 100.
THAT'S WHAT LEADERS DO. SO YOU
CAN GET ON TWITTER. I DON'T
CARE. YOU KNOW FACEBOOK? I DON'T
CARE. IT'S DOING WHAT'S RIGHT.
LIKE I SAID, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE ISSUES WITH THIS WITH THE
PROP 1 40, THERE'S SO MANY OTHER
ISSUES ABOUT IT. JUST DON'T FIX
IT DOWN THE ROAD AS KICKING THE
CAN DOWN THE ROAD. THAT'S
IRRESPONSIBLE. SO LIKE I SAID,
I'M PRO UNION HAVE A GOOD VOTING
RECORD. SO THE REASON I'M NOT
GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS BILL
TODAY IS BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GO
THROUGH PROPER VETTING PROCESS
WILL PROBABLY BEFORE AND YOU
KNOW WHAT? THERE'S PLENTY OF
TIME TO FIX THIS BILL OVER THE
YEARS AND WORK ON IT FOR YEARS
AND WORK WITH HIM. MY
CONSULTANT, DID A 40 PAGE REPORT
ON THIS. OTHER COMMITTEES THAT
REPORTS ON THIS WITH THE REPORT.
42 IT IS PROBLEMATIC. IT IS
PROBLEMATIC. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
HERE. SO AT THE END OF DAY, LIKE
I SAID, I HAVE NOT HEARD THIS
BILL, BUT YOU KNOW? THINGS
HAPPEN. SO WE'RE HERE TO HEAR
THE BILL. SO, UM, MR STILL WOULD
LIKE TO CLOSE I WOULD. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. AND IN A LOT OF
WAYS YOU'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT
FOR THIS BECAUSE YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT VARIOUS
INSTITUTIONS. ALL OF WHOM WERE
ALREADY UNIONIZED. AND MR SARAH
. I APPRECIATE YOUR POINTS AND I
DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT
HOW THIS INSTITUTION FUNCTIONS.
BUT IT HAS NOT CHANGED. OVER
DECADES, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO IS GIVE A VOICE TO THE
EMPLOYEES TO FIX WHAT HAS NOT
AND IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. THIS
IS A COMPLEX INSTITUTION, AND
PART OF IT IS BECAUSE ALL THE
STAFF TECHNICALLY DO WORK FOR
RULES, NOT FOR US. SHOULD WE BE
ABLE TO HIRE AND FIRE?
TECHNICALLY? NO, THAT DOES
HAPPEN, THOUGH. AND SO WE HAVE A
VERY CONFUSING STRUCTURE THAT WE
BRING EMPLOYEES INTO WHO FEEL
LIKE THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO
NAVIGATE THAT SYSTEM. SO THE
PART THAT I POSITIVE TO YOU. IS
THAT. I KNOW YOU'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THIS. SHOULD IT PASSED
CREATING DIVISIONS. I ACTUALLY
THINK IT'S GOING TO CREATE SOME
OF THE UNITY YOU WERE TALKING
ABOUT, AMONG AND BETWEEN STAFF.
BECAUSE WE WON'T GET THE
SITUATION WHERE THERE IS EQUITY
AMONG EMPLOYEES, SAME PAY FOR
THE SAME WORK. WITHOUT SOMETHING
CHANGING. AND THAT IS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. AND THAT IS A UNION
BECAUSE A UNION WILL REPRESENT
EMPLOYEES, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
THEIR THEIR MEMBERS, THEY WILL
BE OBLIGATED TO STAND UP FOR
THEIR MEMBERS. SHOULD THIS
INSTITUTION HAVE CHANGED A WHILE
AGO? YES THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF
OPPORTUNITY, BUT IT NEVER HAS
HAPPENED. SO THIS IS A CLASSIC
CASE. WHEN EMPLOYEES GET
FRUSTRATED AND WANT TO CREATE A
UNION. AS THEY COULD DO IN ANY
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY OR PRIVATE
ORGANIZATION. UNDER THE LAW.
JUST NOT OUR EMPLOYEES. I WAS A
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR A NUMBER
OF YEARS ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS FOR NINE. WE HAD
SPENDING CAPS. WE HAD SPENDING
CAPS DICTATED BY THE STATE. ON
THE SCHOOL BOARD. WE DIDN'T EVEN
KNOW YEAR TO YEAR HOW MUCH MONEY
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE. WE STILL
NEGOTIATED WITH OUR UNION
MEMBERS. AND WE CAME TO
EQUITABLE AGREEMENT. SO YES,
PROP 1 40 IS A COW. AND THE
BARGAINING WILL HAVE TO HAPPEN
UNDERNEATH THAT CAP. BUT WITHIN
THAT CAP, IT WILL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH HOUSE AND
THE UNIT TO RECOGNIZE THE
LIMITATIONS THAT ARE THERE. THIS
HAPPENS IN EVERY BARGAINING
SITUATION, SO IT REALLY IS ABOUT
PAY. AS WELL AS WORKING
CONDITIONS AND ESPECIALLY EQUITY
OF PAY ACROSS THE BOARD. GIVEN
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.
THAT'S JUST NORMAL FOR MAYBE NOT
STATE AGENCIES BECAUSE THEY'RE
THE ONES WHO WHO ULTIMATELY SET
THE BUDGET. BUT ALL OF THIS, THE
LOCAL AGENCIES, CITIES AND
COUNTIES AND WATER DISTRICTS AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AND ALL THE
SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT ARE OUT
THERE. THEY'RE HAVING TO DEAL
WITH THE CAPS THAT WE AS A
LEGISLATURE PUT ON THEM AND THE
LIMITATIONS ON THEIR ABILITY TO
RAISE REVENUES AND BE ABLE TO
MANAGE SO THAT PROP 1 40 IS NOT
A LIMITATION. IT IS A
CONSIDERATION AND HOW ULTIMATELY
THIS HAPPENS. AND I READ THROUGH
THE REPORT AND IN IN FAIRNESS,
MR CHAIR. I TRIED TO TALK TO YOU
IN JULY AND I ASKED YOU AND YOU
SENT ME TO YOUR STAFF AND YOUR
STAFF NEVER RESPONDED TO MY
STAFF. WE WERE LOOKING FOR
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN A CHAIR
HERE FOR 10 YEARS NOW. AND WHEN
THERE'S A GUN AMEND, WHICH
HAPPENS FAIRLY REGULARLY, MY
STAFF IS WORKING WITH THE SENATE
STAFF IN THE APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE OUR
ISSUES ARE MET SO THAT WHEN THE
BILL COMES BACK FOR CONCURRENCE
, AND WE, IT ISN'T UP AND DOWN
VOTE. WE HAVE CRAFTED SOMETHING.
THAT MEETS OUR STANDARD. SO THIS
BILL IS A FRAMEWORK. AND THE
SENATE ASKED US TO EXTEND IT SO
IT'LL BE A TWO YEAR DELAYED
IMPLEMENTATION. SO THERE IS
THERE ARE CHANCES TO ADDRESS
SOME OF THE ISSUES. I'M NOT SURE
THERE AS MANY ISSUES AS BEING
DESCRIBED. I DON'T THINK THERE
ARE BUT EVEN STILL, THERE'S
PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
AND HOW THAT CAN COME TOGETHER
BEFORE THIS ULTIMATELY GETS
IMPLEMENTED, AND THEN IT WILL BE
UP TO THE EMPLOYEES TO DECIDE
FOR THEMSELVES. WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WANT TO. CREATED UNION.
JOIN THE UNION. WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE AND THEN DECIDE FOR
THEMSELVES WHAT THEY THINK. THE
ISSUES ARE THAT THEY WANT TO
BARGAIN. THAT'S PART AND PARCEL
TO THIS. THAT IS HOW THIS IS
BEING SET UP. IT IS LONG PAST
TIME WE TOOK THIS STEP. IS LONG
PAST TIME. WE DO SOMETHING FOR
OUR EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY CAN
COME TOGETHER AND HAVE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AMONG THEMSELVES
ON HOW THEY WANT TO SEE THIS
INSTITUTION LAST A LOT OF MY
STAFF HAS BEEN HERE LONG BEFORE
I CAME. THEY WILL BE HERE LONG
AFTER I CAME. THEY ARE BECAUSE
OF TERM LIMITS THEIR LONGEVITY
OF THE HOUSE. THEY ARE THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THIS HOUSE. A LOT
OF MEMBERS ARE FORMER STAFFERS.
BUT THE MEMBERS COME AND GO. AND
MEMBERS. SARAH, I WOULD AGREE.
WE DON'T GET TO CHOOSE WHO GETS
ELECTED HERE. AND NOTEVERYONE
TREATS STAFF APPROPRIATELY. THAT
IS AND SHOULD BE THE JOB OF THE
INSTITUTION. NEGOTIATING WITH
THE BARGAINING UNIT. AND SETTING
THAT STANDARD. THAT'S THE
OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW
BEFORE US. THAT IS WHY I'M
ASKING FOR YOUR I VOTE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR SONG. WE DID TALK
IN JULY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE
TALKED AFTER IT CAME BACK. IT
WAS ALREADY ABILITY THAT HURT IN
THE SENATE BILL WAS HAD NOT BEEN
HEARD IN THE SENATE. OKAY I'M
NOT OTHER COMMITTEES. IT WAS
STILL WHAT THE DATE WAS. BUT
ANYWAYS, UM LIKE I SAID EARLIER
. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT WHEN I
SAID EARLIER, UM IT NEEDS TO BE
DONE. AND THE THING IS THAT SAD
IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE.
AND I HAD ONE MEMBER. TELL ME
SOME, UM BECAUSE A LOT OF FOLKS
DON'T KNOW INTRODUCING THIS
BILL. BUT I WON'T EVEN GET INTO
THAT. BUT HERE'S THE BOTTOM
LINE. I APPRECIATE YOUR
STATEMENT, THE WITNESSES COMING
FORWARD AND THE FOLKS THAT CAME
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BILL. UM
SO IS THERE. IS THERE A MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL. CANES ARE
SECOND. OKAY, A SECOND.
SECRETARY WILL CALL PLEASE AND
THE CHAIRS RECOMMENDATION ON
THIS BILL IS NO. THE MOTION IS
WITH RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S AN
AMENDMENT SPEAKING CURTIN COOPER
VOEPEL. NOT VOTING, NOT VOTING.
HOW'S IT ON? AYE COOLY COOLY. NO
BEGINNER. MCKENNA, I, O DONNELL.
O'DONNELL NOT VOTING. SEYARTO
TOÀN TELL. NO BILL HAS 22 VOTES
I THREE VOTES NO TO NOT VOTING
BILL DIES. THANK YOU. MEMBERS
ARE HEARING CONSIDERATION.
NOTICE RECONSIDERATION. THANK
YOU. NO, NO. WE'RE GOING TO
RECONSIDER THREE IN THE MORNING.
OH HOLD ON BEFORE YOU LEAVE.
OOPS. IN MY HEART. STILL, OKAY.
DOES ANY MEMBER OBJECT TO
RECONSIDERATION? I OBJECT ALSO.
SECRETARY, COLORADO AND
RECONSIDERATION. THE
RECOMMENDATION IS NO. FOR
RECONSIDERATION. COOPER MR
DONALD, WE'RE VOTING. COOPER NO
, COOPER. NO VOEPEL. NO, NO
CALDERON. GATHERED ON I COOLLY.
NÓ COOLEY. NO MAKIN, ER WE CAN,
ER I O DONNELL, OLD DONALD. NO
CR TO CR TWO NÓ. BILL HAS FIVE
TO RECONSIDER DIES. OH, WELL. A
STRANGER.