GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE WILL
START ON TIME REWARD ALL OF YOU
BEFORE HERE. UM. WE HAVE A LONG
AGENDA TODAY. THE OTHER REASON
FOR STARTING ON TIME, UH,
INCLUDING SEVERAL MORE
COMPLICATED AND CONTROVERSIAL
ITEMS, SO WE NEED TO BE
EFFICIENT WITH OUR TIME AS A
REMINDER EACH SIDE WILL BE
ALLOWED TO MAIN WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH. ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES, UH, SHOULD STATE
THEIR NAME AND ORGANIZATION ONLY
THIS ALLOWS ALL AUTHORS A FAIR
CHANCE TO PRESENT THEIR BILLS
AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
AND EQUAL CHANCE TO HAVE THEIR
POSITION REFLECTED IN THE RECORD
. AS WE PROCEED WITH OUR BILL
HEARING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS OUR
COMMITTEE RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER AND RUN A FAIR
AND EFFICIENT HEARING IN ORDER
TO FACILITATE THE GOAL OF
HEARING AS MUCH FROM THE PUBLIC
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR TIME,
WE WILL NOT PERMIT CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDE THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS. WE WILL
NOT ACCEPT DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR
OR BEHAVIOR THAT INCITES OR
THREATENS VIOLENCE, EVEN VEILED
THREATS. THE RULES OF CONDUCT BY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INCLUDE NO
TALKING OR LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE. PUBLIC COMMENT MAY BE
PROVIDED ONLY AT THE DESIGNATED
TIME AND MUST BE LIMITED TO YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT
OR OPPOSITION TO A BILL.
ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THE HEARING, NO ENGAGING IN
PERSONAL ATTACKS OF MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE AUTHORS OUR STAFF
AND PLEASE BE AWARE THAT
VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL OR OTHER
ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES. SO WITH
THAT WE WILL START WITH A
SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE WILL START
WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE. A. B 13.
OH, TWO, MR LACKEY.
YEAH. OPPOSITION. WE CAN START
WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE TO
SUPPORT WEB TO SUPPORT WITNESSES
CAN SIT WITH MR LACKEY. THE TWO
OPPOSITION WITNESSES CAN SIT
HERE. UH YEAH, YOU MAY.
APPRECIATE. OKAY, YOU CAN HAVE A
SEAT AND WE WILL GET STARTED. MR
LACKEY, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. THIS
IS FINE. IT SHOULD BE ON. SOUND
LIKE TRY AGAIN. HELLO? HELLO.
TRY AGAIN. OKAY. NOW THAT'S MUCH
BETTER. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT THIS BILL A B 13. OH,
TWO AND MANUELA WITH THE
COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE ON THIS VERY, VERY, UH,
PIVOTAL ISSUE, 13. OH, TWO,
STREAMLINES AND EXPANDS THE
ABILITY FOR ADULT ADOPTEES TO
ACCESS THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE BY CHANGING THE
PROCESS FOR HOW THESE VITAL
RECORDS ARE ACCESSED IN
CALIFORNIA. THE IDEA FOR THIS
BILL STEMS FROM A CONSTITUENT
WHO SPOKE OF THE HURDLES THAT
ADOPTED PERSON'S FACE IF THEIR
ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS WERE
SEALED AS A RESULT OF A CLOSED
ADOPTION, A PRACTICE THAT WAS
COMMONPLACE IN PREVIOUS DECADES
BUT NOW REPRESENTS AS FEW AS 5%
OF ADOPTIONS NATIONWIDE, AS HE
PUT IT. ADULT ADOPTEES IN A
CLOSED ADOPTION HAVE THEIR
ORIGINAL BIRTH RECORDS SEALED BY
A STATE LAW. AND THEREFORE THEY
HAVE NO BIRTH PARENTS OR
EXTENDED FAMILY TO ASK ABOUT
THEIR FAMILY MEDICAL HISTORY.
THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC HAS SHOWN
THE NEED TO BE AWARE OF ONE'S
UNDERLYING HEALTH ISSUES AND
FAMILY MEDICAL HISTORY. I'VE
ALSO HAVE A PERSONAL CONNECTION
TO THIS ISSUE. AS A FATHER OF
TWO CHILDREN WHO HAVE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY OF A CONTINUED
RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR BIRTH
MOTHERS. I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST
TO THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ABLE
TO FACILITATE THAT RELATIONSHIP
AN OPPORTUNITY MANY INDIVIDUALS
WHO ADOPTED UNDER CLOSED
ADOPTION CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT
HAVE UNDER CURRENT LAW.
REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS AND
ADOPTED INDIVIDUAL HAS FOR
SEEKING THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE THERE OFTEN UNABLE
TO ATTAIN THIS VITAL RECORD DUE
TO A MYRIAD OF OBSTACLES UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW. CURRENTLY AN
ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE MAY
ONLY BE UNSEALED IN THE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UPON A
PETITION TO HAVE SUPERIOR COURT
THAT DEMONSTRATES GOOD CAUSE.
THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH BURDEN. AND
IF THE SOLICITOR. HAS AN
UNWARRANTED AND POTENTIALLY
UNATTAINABLE STANDARD FOR MANY
ADOPTED INDIVIDUALS AS SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL DISCRETION. I DON'T
THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR. DOZENS
OF STATES IN RECENT YEARS HAVE
RECOGNIZED THE COMPELLING
INTEREST OF ADOPTED INDIVIDUALS
TO ACCESS THEIR BIRTH
CERTIFICATES FOR MEDICAL AND
PERSONAL REASONS. YET THE VERY
STRICT AND LIMITED AVENUES TO
REACHING THIS INFORMATION FOR
CALIFORNIA ADOPTEES HAS REMAINED
UNCHANGED SINCE 1995 MAYBE 13.
OH, TWO WILL REMEMBER. EXCUSE
ME. WE'LL REMOVE THE DECISION OF
WHETHER TO GRANT ACCESS TO
PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE FROM THE HANDS OF
THE COURT. THIS BILL WILL ALLOW
AN ADOPTEE UPON FILING A
VERIFICATION PETITION TO ACCESS
THEIR LONG FORM BIRTH
CERTIFICATE WITH REDACTIONS
BASED ON BIRTH. PARENTS
DISCLOSURE PREFERENCE IN ORDER
TO ASCERTAIN THE DISCLOSURE
PREFERENCE, THIS BILL WILL
ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO NOTIFY
THE BIRTH PARENTS. IF THE OFFICE
OF VITAL RECORDS KNOWS THE BIRTH
PARENTS ARE DECEASED. THE COURT
WILL FORGO THE NOTIFICATION
PROCESS AND RELEASE THE
UNREDACTED LONG FIRM, LONG FORM
BIRTH CERTIFICATE. THIS BILL
RECOGNIZES THE LONGSTANDING NEED
FOR ADOPTED INDIVIDUALS TO
RECEIVE ANSWERS ABOUT THEIR
IDENTITY AND BALANCE THE PRIVACY
OF CONCERNED PARENTS. BIRTH
PARENTS BY FACILITATING A CASE
BY CASE APPROACH THAT LEAVES THE
DECISION TO RELEASE THE ORIGINAL
BIRTH CERTIFICATE BETWEEN THE
TWO PARTIES MOST DIRECTLY
IMPACTED RATHER THAN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT THAT IS
UNABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE LIVED
EXPERIENCE OF EITHER PARTY. I'M
HONORED TO HAVE WITH ME, LANCE
HASTINGS TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH MR
HASTINGS AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION. BUT HE'S
HERE TODAY IN HIS CAPACITY AS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN TO SPEAK ABOUT
HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS ISSUE AND THE NEED FOR
GREATER ACCESS TO THESE VITAL
RECORDS FOR ADOPTED INDIVIDUALS
BEFORE THE WITNESS PROCEEDS, I'D
LIKE, ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL AND ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. MAIENSCHEIN CONNOLLY
DIXON? YES, ANY KALRA. PACHECO
PAPIN. GREAT PEPIN RAISE RIVAS
SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. SO WE DO
HAVE A QUORUM. AND MR HASTINGS,
YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN. IT'S GONNA BE
DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH MY
INTENT IN TWO MINUTES, BUT I'M
GOING TO MAKE MY LEVEL BEST
EFFORT TO DO SO. AND LATE 1960
FOR A WOMAN NAMED KATHERINE
CLARK STAHL LIVED IN MINNESOTA
FOUND OUT THAT SHE WAS PREGNANT
WITH A CHILD. SHE HAD AN AFFAIR
WITH A MARRIED MAN WHO HAD THREE
CHILDREN, SO SHE HAD TO LEAVE
THE STATE. TO PROTECT HER FAMILY
AND THE PERCEPTION OF HER FAMILY
. SO SHE CAME OUT TO CALIFORNIA
WITH HER SISTER AND HER ENLISTED
BROTHER IN LAW AND CAME TO
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA WAS BORN ON
JUNE 1ST 1965. I WENT HOME WITH
MY ADOPTED PARENTS ON JUNE 11TH
1965. SO FOR 10 DAYS, I WAS IN
THE ABYSS. I DO HAVE A BIRTH
CERTIFICATE AND THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, BUT I CAN'T ACCESS IT.
I STARTED MY SEARCH TO FIND MY
BIRTH PARENTS AT LEAST FIND OUT
MORE ABOUT MY BIRTH PARENTS. IN
UM 2005. AND IT WAS A VERY LONG
PROCESS. I APPROACHED ALAMEDA
COUNTY AND I WAS ABLE TO GET A
LOT OF REDACTED INFORMATION THAT
WAS HELPFUL IN IDENTIFYING WHO
NOT WHO BUT HOW MY BIRTH PARENTS
CAME TO BE THROUGH THE ADOPTION
REPORT, BUT I COULD NEVER ACCESS
THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE AT
THAT TIME THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED MY MOTHER
BY NAME. UM I DID A LOT OF
SEARCHING AND THROUGH ANCESTRY
.COM AND THE SALVATION ARMY,
WHICH RAN THE MATERNITY HOME FOR
UNWED MOTHERS WHERE I WAS BORN,
WAS ABLE TO HELP POTENTIALLY
IDENTIFY MY BIRTH MOTHER, AND
THEY DID SO BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
SIX MONTHS AFTER SHE HAD PASSED
AWAY SO THAT SEARCH ENDED IN
2011 WHEN I LEARNED THAT
INFORMATION I JOINED ANCESTRY
.COM, AND SEVEN YEARS LATER,
THEY WERE ABLE TO POSSIBLY
IDENTIFY WHO MY BIRTH FATHER WAS
THROUGH DNA TESTING OUTSIDE OF
ALL OF THE LAW, OF COURSE, AND
HE REMAINED IN MINNESOTA. THIS
MARCH WHEN I WAS GOOGLING HIS
NAME. I FOUND OUT THAT HE HAD
PASSED AWAY WITH ZERO CONTACT
WITH ME. WE DON'T KNOW IF HE
EVER WAS AWARE OF MY EXISTENCE.
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT KATHERINE
CLARK STAHL WAS BECAUSE SHE
DELIVERED ME ON JUNE 1ST 1965 I
AM CATHERINE CLUCK STYLES ONLY
CHILD. AND SHE'LL NEVER KNOW IN
MEET ME THROUGH THE PROCESS
BECAUSE OF THE HURDLES THAT
THERE NEEDED TO BE A POSITIVE
REQUEST FROM ME AT ALAMEDA
COUNTY, ASKING FOR BIRTH
INFORMATION AND THEN ALSO THE
POSITIVE FROM HER SAYING, YES,
I'VE MET ALL OF HER SIBLINGS. I
HAVE MET MY FOUR HALF SISTERS
THAT I NEVER KNEW EXISTED. AND
IN THREE WEEKS TIME I'M GOING TO
BE WITH THEM IN DENVER AT ONE OF
THEIR 60TH BIRTHDAY PARTIES. THE
MISSING LINK IN MY LIFE IS THAT
BIRTH CERTIFICATE. CATHERINE
SISTER TOLD ME THAT I WAS GIVEN
A NAME AND MY ADOPTION REPORT
FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY SAID. I WAS
GIVEN A NAME, BUT IT WAS A NAME
THAT'S NOT DISCLOSED. IN THE
END, REDACTED EXCUSE ME, THE
REDACTED REPORT. THE NAME I WAS
GIVEN A BIRTH IS DENNIS JAMES.
AND THAT WAS HER FATHER'S NAME
AND HER BROTHER'S NAME. I'D LIKE
TO SEE THAT AND IF THIS
LEGISLATION HELPS EXPOSE THE
DESIRE OF ADULT CHILDREN SADLY,
THEY BOTH PASSED, SO IT SHOULD
BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER. NOW I
THINK IT WOULD OPEN UP A LOT OF
OPPORTUNITIES. I APOLOGIZE FOR
THE RUN OVER, BUT IT'S A DEEPLY
PERSONAL STORY. I HAVE NEVER
SHARED THIS STORY PUBLICLY
BEFORE. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT
KNOW ME THAT HAVE GONE ALONG THE
JOURNEY WITH ME, BUT I WAS
CONVINCED THAT THIS JOURNEY WAS
SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE WHEN
ANCESTRY .COM LOCATED AND
IDENTIFIED MY BIRTH FATHER HE'S
LIVED IN MINNESOTA IN HIS TOWN,
CALLED HASTINGS, MINNESOTA. AND
I CAN'T MAKE THAT UP. IT'S A
VERY COMPELLING JOURNEY THAT
I'VE BEEN ON, AND I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MR LACKEY TO
CARRY THIS LEGISLATION AND FOR
THE COMMITTEE TO ALLOW ME TO
SHARE MY STORY TODAY. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND NO OTHER
MAIN WITNESSES SEEM NONE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SAYING NONE WITNESSES, MAIN
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION YOU MAY
PROCEED. MY NAME IS NINA GREELEY
. I AM ALSO A CALIFORNIA BORN
ADOPTED. UM AND I'M HERE WITH
JOE WOOD, WHO IS CO COUNSEL WITH
ME FOR CAL OPEN CALIFORNIA OPEN
AND I PREPARED TWO MINUTE
STATEMENT. IF I READ IT VERY
FAST, MAKE UP A LITTLE BIT OVER
TWO MINUTES, BUT I'M DOING MY
BEST BECAUSE I THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, MY
HEART GOES OUT TO MR HASTINGS,
BECAUSE I KNOW THE SAME. SEARCH
MYSELF. UM I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO
FIND MY BIRTH MOTHER BEFORE SHE
DIED. BUT NOW MY BIRTH FATHER
CALIFORNIA OPEN IS A GRASSROOTS
STATEWIDE MOVEMENT CONSIDERING
OF IT CONSISTING OF ADULT
ADOPTEES, ADOPTIVE PARENTS,
BIRTH PARENTS, ADOPTION AGENCIES
AND ADOPTION PROFESSIONALS, AND
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED A B 13.
OH, TWO. CALIFORNIA ADOPTEES
HAVE BEEN SEEKING UNRESTRICTED
ACCESS TO OUR ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATES OR OBESE ES THE
ONES THAT ARE SEALED FOR OVER 20
YEARS. WE BELIEVE THAT DENYING
ADULT ADOPTEES ACCESS TO THEIR
Ó BCS VIOLATES OUR RIGHT TO BE
TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN
OF THE STATE. WE BELIEVE
ALLOWING ADULT ADOPTEES ACCESS
TO THEIR OWN INFORMATION DOES
NOT VIOLATE BIRTH PARENT PRIVACY
FIRST, FOR MANY REASONS, WHICH
WE HAVE LISTED IN OUR
SUBMISSIONS TO THIS BODY, AND I
WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THEM. BUT
MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE DON'T THINK
THAT BIRTH PARENTS HAVE A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY IN THE FACT THAT THEY
GAVE BIRTH OR THAT THEY
RELINQUISHED A CHILD FOR
ADOPTION. AMONG THOSE REASONS
ARE THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE
NOT SEALED AT THE TIME OF
RELINQUISHMENT. BUT UNLESS AND
UNTIL THE CHILD IS ADOPTED THEIR
OUT THEIR DNA DATABASES ARE NOW
UBIQUITOUS AND PRE 2002. THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTUALLY
SOLD THE CALIFORNIA BIRTH INDEX
TO THE PUBLIC ON STEVIE RAIMES.
MOREOVER GRANTING ACCESS ONLY TO
THE ADULT ADOPTEE, AND NO ONE
ELSE IS NOT THE KIND OF
EGREGIOUS PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
OF PERSONAL INFORMATION THAT
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF
PRIVACY RIGHTS, NOR DOES IT
VIOLATE CURRENT SOCIETAL NORMS.
FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANT.
WHATEVER PRIVACY RIGHTS BIRTH
PARENTS MAY HAVE, THEY SHOULD
NOT BE ALLOWED TO OUTWEIGH AN
ADULT CITIZENS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
TO KNOW THEIR OWN ORIGINS. 12
STATES HAVE NOW PASSED LAWS
GRANTING ADULT ADOPTEES
UNFETTERED ACCESS TO THE
ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATES. NO
LEGAL CHALLENGE. THOSE LAWS HAS
YET BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND TO
ADDRESS BRIEFLY. THE OFTEN
EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT OPENING
RECORDS WILL LEAD TO INCREASE
INCREASE IN ABORTIONS. IN ALL OF
THOSE 12 STATES THAT HAVE OPEN
RECORDS. THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED
NO SUCH INCREASES. SO YOU MAY BE
WONDERING WHY, AS ADVOCATES FOR
ADOPTING WRITES, WE ARE HERE
OPPOSING A BILL THAT IS TRYING
TO VINDICATE THOSE RIGHTS AND WE
DEEPLY DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS OUR
CONCERNS. BUT THE UNFORTUNATE
FACT IS THAT THIS BILL, NO
MATTER HOW WELL MEANING PROPOSES
A NEW, UNWIELDY PROCESS FOR
ACCESS THAT REQUIRES COMPLICATED
AFFIRMATIVE STEPS BY THE STATE
AND THE BIRTH PARENTS ALL
OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE
ADOPTEE. NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE
ONLY ORGANIZATION ON RECORD THAT
SUPPORTS THIS BILL IS AN
ASSOCIATION OF INVESTIGATORS WHO
STAND TO PROFIT FROM COMPLICATED
AND COSTLY SEARCHES. AGAIN WE
COMMEND AND APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR'S INTENT, BUT THE ONEROUS
MECHANISM OF THIS BILL DOES NOT
MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS ADOPTEES
RIGHTS AND THE END OF THE DAY.
IT WILL SIMPLY REINFORCE OUR
CURRENT STATUS AS SECOND CLASS
CITIZENS. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH
THIS BILL IS THAT IT ONCE AGAIN
ENSHRINES THE PERNICIOUS
PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE AND
BIRTH PARENTS SHOULD HAVE VETO
POWER OVER THE RIGHT OF
CALIFORNIA CITIZENS TO KNOW WHO
THEY ARE, SO WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST A NO VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SAYING
NONE. UH ALTERNATE Tð. THE
COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
EMOTION FROM MISS DIXON. WE HAVE
A SECOND. THE SECOND FROM HIS
REYES. MS RACE. I REALLY
APPRECIATE THIS. I HAVE A NUMBER
OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO, UM,
WERE ADOPTED WHO? THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT. AND I RECOGNIZED THE
OPPOSITION. I'VE RECEIVED MANY
EMAILS. UM MESSAGES, SO IT'S NOT
SO MUCH AGAINST WHAT IS BEING
PROVIDED. IT'S JUST SAYING IT'S
NOT ENOUGH. AND I THINK THAT, UM
EVERY STEP THAT WE TAKE. WE WISH
WE COULD TAKE BIGGER STEPS. I
THINK WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT
BILLS WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO DO
EVEN MORE. BUT TO BE ABLE TO DO
TAKE A STEP STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION, I THINK IS A GOOD
THING. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING IT. I THINK
THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
PERHAPS IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE
MORE LEGISLATION THAT OPENS THIS
UP EVEN MORE BECAUSE THERE ARE
ADOPTEES WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
GREATER ACCESS, ESPECIALLY IF
THE BIRTH PARENTS DECIDE THAT
THEY DON'T WANT TO OPEN IT UP.
SO I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THIS IS A
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND
I THINK THAT EVEN IF IT'S FOR
SOME ADOPTEES THAT THEY WILL
FINALLY BE ABLE TO HAVE THIS
OPENED UP SO THAT THEY CAN GET
THE INFORMATION. FOR ME. IT WAS
A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
BUT THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING YOUR
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU, MR HANEY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR AND THE
WITNESSES. FOR TRYING TO ADDRESS
A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. UH YOU
KNOW, LEARNING ABOUT THIS ISSUE
, UH, AS PART OF REVIEWING THIS
BILL, I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO
HEAR HOW HARD IT IS FOR ADULT
ADOPTEES TO ACCESS THEIR BIRTH
CERTIFICATE AND THANK YOU. I
FOUND IT SHOCKING THAT THAT WAS
OUR CURRENT REALITY. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WAS
DONE TO TRY TO GET US TO A
BETTER PLACE ON IT. AH I
STRUGGLED WITH IT BECAUSE, AS I
READ ABOUT THE ISSUE, I FOUND
MYSELF FEELING THAT. FOR AN
ADULT IN OUR STATE TO NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO THEIR ORIGINAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE FEELS TO ME LIKE A
FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATION OF THEIR
HUMAN RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS
TO IT AS A RIGHT. AH SO, UH,
WHAT I WANTED TO ASK, AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THE COMMENTS OF
MS REYES IS. WHY IS THIS NOT A
STEP FORWARD? IF THROUGH THE
CHAIR I COULD ASK THE OPPOSITION
? WHY IN THE FACT THAT THIS IS
TRYING TO OPEN UP ACCESS A BIT
MORE? WHY IS THIS NOT AT LEAST A
STEP FORWARD? FOR ACCESS.
THROUGH THE CHAIR. UM THE
PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH US IS THAT
IT DOESN'T. IT IS, EVEN THOUGH
THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A FEW
ADOPTERS WHO WHO WHO DO MANAGE
TO GET SOMETHING THROUGH THIS?
WE BELIEVE THAT IT DOESN'T
FUNDAMENTALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
, WHICH IS THAT WE ARE CITIZENS
OF THIS STATE, AND WE DESERVE
OUR BIRTH CERTIFICATES, JUST
LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN, AND THE
PROBLEM IS, ONCE YOU PASSED YET
ANOTHER LAW THERE'S ALREADY WE
ALREADY HAVE LOTS. I'M SURE YOU
ALL KNOW LOTS AND LOTS OF LAWS
ON THE RECORD ALREADY ON THAT
ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THAT ARE
CONSTANTLY BEING BROUGHT UP TO
US. AS EXAMPLES OF WHY WE SHOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUR BIRTH
CERTIFICATES. BUT THERE'S ALL
THIS LAW. THERE'S CASE LAW.
THERE'S THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. THERE'S A CIVIL
CODE. THERE'S THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE. THERE'S A DISCO.
THERE'S THAT CODE. MY GOD, YOU
KNOW, IT'S BEEN ENSHRINED FOR
THIS LONG. HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT
WE CAN, YOU KNOW, NOW GO AND
VIOLATE BIRTH, PARENT RIGHTS AND
WHAT WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
IS EVERY SINGLE LAW THAT GETS
PASSED. THAT DOES NOT
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT
TO OUR OWN INFORMATION IS JUST
ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL. AS
FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, AND IT
JUST MAKES IT HARDER IN THE
FUTURE FOR US TO AFFECT ANY
CHANGE. APPRECIATE THAT, AND I
AND I APPRECIATED THE ANALYSIS
AND THE CHAIRS WORK TO TRY TO
GRAPPLE WITH THAT. THE OTHER
QUESTION I HAD. I KNOW THIS
BILL, UH, DEALS DIFFERENTLY. UH
IN IN THE RETROACTIVE SENSE AND
A PROACTIVE SENSE. AH AND A
QUESTION THAT I HAD FOR THE
AUTHOR OR OR SOMEONE WHO MAY BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS ARE FOR
PARENTS WHO GAVE A CHILD FOR
ADOPTION, UH, IN THE PAST WHERE
THEY TOLD OR IN SOME SORT OF
LEGAL SENSE THAT THE BIRTH
CERTIFICATE OR THEIR INFORMATION
WOULD NEVER BE PROVIDED TO THE
CHILD. IS THERE A LEGAL
COMMITMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO
THOSE PARENTS? UH, PREVIOUSLY
THAT THEY WOULD THEN NOT HAVE IN
OUR STATE MOVING FORWARD? IS
THAT WHY THE DIFFERENCES THERE
OR OR IS THAT JUST SIMPLY TRYING
TO GRAPPLE WITH WHAT IS FAIR?
I'M WONDERING. IS THERE A LEGAL
REASON WHY WE ARE WE ARE DEALING
WITH IT DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF
THE COMMITMENT WE'VE GIVEN TO
THOSE PARENTS NOW, JOE, PLEASE
STEP IN BECAUSE JOE KNOWS THE
STATUTES MUCH BETTER THAN I DO.
BUT FIRST OF ALL DEPENDS ON THE
TIMING. SO THAT PRIOR TO NINTH
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
CONSENT REGISTRY IN 1985, AND
THE REQUIREMENT THAT BIRTH
PARENTS BE TOLD THAT THEY COULD
CAN'T HAVE CONTACT WITH OR
EXCHANGE INFORMATION WITH THEIR
RELINQUISHED CHILDREN. THAT
WOULD BE THAT THAT THOSE LAWS
ONLY APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
ADOPTED AFTER 1985 PRIOR TO
1985, NO THERE WAS NO
REQUIREMENT FOR THE STATE TO
OFFER BIRTH. PARENTS PRIVACY.
THE ARGUMENT, UM, IS THAT IT WAS
ASSUMED, AND SO IT WAS KIND OF
AN ASSUMED PROMISED BY THE STATE
. BUT IT'S ONLY SINCE 1985 THAT
THE STATE HAS HAD TO
AFFIRMATIVELY AFFIRMATIVELY SAY
, UM, BY THE WAY, IF YOU GIVE US
YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION AND
YOUR LATER WHEN YOUR CHILD IS 21
, THEY WANT TO CONTACT YOU. WE
WILL WE IF YOU SAY IT'S OKAY,
WE'LL GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION.
SO IT'S IT GETS VERY COMPLICATED
BECAUSE HE'S WELL LAWS WERE
PASSED AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SO
I'M SORRY IF I MAY. HOLD ON. DO
YOU HAVE A DID THAT? ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, OR DO YOU HAVE FURTHER
NOT DO YOU NEED FURTHER
INFORMATION HAD ONE IMPORTANT.
UNDERSTAND HE LET HIM ASK HE'LL
ASK THE QUESTION. IF HE NEEDS AN
ANSWER FOR YOU. DO YOU NEED AN
ANSWER? OKAY. THANK YOU, UH, THE
POINT I WOULD MAKE BRINGING THE
LAWYER'S PERSPECTIVE IS THERE
WAS NO PROMISE PRIOR TO THE 1985
REDDIT THINGS BEING CREATED AS
YOU MENTIONED AFTER THAT TIME. I
THINK YOU CAN. YOU CAN FAIRLY
SAY THERE WAS AN IMPLIED
PROMISE. THEY DIDN'T SAY WE'LL
KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL, BUT THEY
SAID IF YOU DON'T WANT IT
CONFIDENTIAL, THEN SIGN UP HERE
WITH SO THAT DOES INVOLVE AN
IMPLIED PROMISE. GOT IT. THANK
YOU. AND AGAIN THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR AGAIN. I GRAPPLED WITH
THIS. AND UH, I FOUND MYSELF
MORE LEANING TOWARDS WHERE THOSE
OTHER STATES HAVE GONE AND I AND
I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT'S
THAT'S BEING DONE AND CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THESE ISSUES AS IT
LIKELY MOVES FORWARD TODAY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, MR CHOLERA.
THE. THE WAY THAT IT'S UM
WRITTEN. IT REQUIRES, UM.
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT FOR ADOPTION
BEFORE 2025, BUT THEN REQUIRES
EXPRESS REFUSAL FROM EITHER OR
BOTH. PARENTS OF ONE PARENT
REFUSES. JUST THEIR INFORMATION
WILL BE REDACTED THAN THAT. THAT
CORRECT. AND THEN IF AN ADOPTEE
WANTED TO GET UNREDACTED, THEY
WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH
LITIGATION. I IMAGINE IN ORDER
TO DO THAT EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO
THIS BILL BEING PASSED.
UNANSWERED QUESTION WAS THAT
THAT'S AN UNANSWERED QUESTION. I
IMAGINE THAT SINCE IT FALLS
SHORT OF WHAT SOME FOLKS IN, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
DIFFERENT OPINIONS, BUT WITH
SOME FOLKS IN THE ADOPTION
ADVOCACY REALM BEALL BALL SHORT
, THEN IT WOULD STILL NEED TO
LITIGATION BECAUSE THERE WILL BE
FOLKS THAT FEEL THAT THEY'RE NOT
GETTING THE COMPLETE ORIGINAL
BIRTH CERTIFICATE. UM I GUESS
I'M JUST TALKING HERE NOT ASKING
A QUESTION, BUT JUST TALKING
ABOUT MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR. IT'S
COMPLICATED. YEAH CLEAR ON ON
WHAT'S BEFORE US. AS OPPOSED TO
SO THERE ARE SOME STATES THAT
JUST ALLOW FOR COMPLETE ACCESS.
THERE ARE 12 STATES THAT HAVE
CHANGED THEIR LAWS IN THE LAST
25 YEARS IN THE TWO STATES OF
KANSAS IN ALASKA NEVER HAD
CLOSED RECORDS. SO YEAH. AND I
WANT TO THANK LANCE FOR SHARING
. UH IT'S VERY MEANINGFUL AND
DEEP FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SHARE
YOUR STORY. UM AND BUT BUT THIS
. YOU MENTIONED THAT THROUGH
ANCESTRY .COM. AND YOU LEARNED
ALL THE INFORMATION. ABOUT WHO
YOUR BIRTH PARENTS WERE. BUT IF
THIS WAS THE ONLY MANNER IN
WHICH SOMEONE COULD ACCESS THEIR
RECORDS THEY WOULDN'T HAVE FOUND
OUT. THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
NECESSARILY FIND OUT WHO BOTH OF
THEIR BIRTH PARENTS ARE. YOU
FEEL THAT THIS IS I IMAGINE FEEL
TO STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
BUT YOU FEEL FALL SHORT OF THE
ACCESS THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO
GAIN BY USING TECHNOLOGY, BUT I
HAD TO REVERSE ENGINEER THE
SITUATION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHEN I STARTED
MY SEARCH, SO I WAS REALLY
POKING AROUND IN THE DARK IN
EARLY TWO THOUSANDS. I'VE KNOWN
MY ENTIRE LIFE I WAS ADOPTED. MY
PARENTS ALWAYS SHARED THAT THEY
SHARED MOST OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ABOUT MY EXISTENCE, BUT NOT THE
PARTICULARITY. AND AS I GOT
OLDER AND WANTED TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT MY POTENTIAL HEALTH
HISTORY AS I HAD CHILDREN, IT
BECAME MORE IMPORTANT. THE OLDER
I GOT, AND I REALIZED THE DAY I
STARTED MY JOURNEY. IT WAS A
RACE AGAINST TIME. BECAUSE I
WASN'T BORN IN 1985, AND I JUST
DID SOME MATH AND REALIZED THAT
THEY WERE GETTING OLDER AND MY
BIRTH MOTHER PASSED AWAY AT 64.
MY BIRTH FATHER PASSED AWAY IN
MARCH AT 88, BUT WITH THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT EXISTS NOW UM.
IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT EXISTS GIVES
MORE. ACCESS IN A WAY THAN WHAT
THIS LEGISLATION. WOULD ALLOW
FOR A SENSE OF READ ACTS.
INFORMATION SO I DON'T I'M JUST
ALSO KIND OF SCRAPPING WITH THIS
AS TO WHETHER THIS IS A STEP
FORWARD OR NOT, UM, BUT
EVERYONE'S INTENTIONS. I BELIEVE
IN THE RIGHT PLACE. IT MAKES IT
A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING,
UM, TO KIND OF ARRIVE AT A
CONCLUSION ON THAT. I DON'T
THINK THERE'S NECESSARILY RIGHT
ANSWER HERE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
OFTENTIMES WHAT WE GET WE GET
FACED WITH WOMEN. WE HAVE TO
MAKE THESE DECISIONS, BUT I DO
BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE'S
INTENTIONS IN THE RIGHT PLACE,
BUT NOT SURE IF THIS IS A STEP
FORWARD OR NOT, THERE'S SOMEONE
GRAPPLING WITH THAT. OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. FROM THE
COMMITTEE. MS PAPIN. I THINK I
MAY HAVE MISSED IT. IT IS THAT
IF THE BIRTH PARENT YOU MAKE THE
REQUEST, AND ONE OF THEM SAYS
NO. IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER YOU
COULD GO TO A COURT AND STILL
GET RELIEF. OR YOU COULD AND TRY
TO OVERRIDE THAT DECLINATION IF
YOU WILL. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION
. I'M NOT A LAWYER. YOU GUYS,
MOST OF YOU GUYS ARE SURE.
PLEASE DO. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
SO IF THE BIRTH. ONE OF THE
BIRTH PARENTS SAYS NO. THEN BY
STATUTE, YOU CAN'T GET IT AND
YOU'RE LEFT WITH THE
NECESSITIES. AH IT'S A MEDICAL
EMERGENCY OR I CAN'T GET A
PASSPORT GROUND SPORE
PETITIONING IN COURT, THAT'S IT.
AND AS AS THE HONORABLE
GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER. THAT'S A
VERY HIGH BAR. YEAH THAT'S THE
ONLY CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE
ALLOWED MEDICAL EMERGENCY. YOU
NEED A PASSPORT TERM IS
NECESSITIES CAUSE WHICH IS WAY
ABOVE GOOD CAUSE, AND THE WAY
THAT'S BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE
COURTS IS IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT
YOU'VE GOT A STRONG MEDICAL
REASON TO FIND OUT WHAT WHAT
YOUR PARENTS MEDICAL HISTORY IS
, OR IF YOU NEED IT IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE SOME LEGAL STATUS, WHICH
IS ORDINARILY GETTING A
PASSPORT. PRETTY MUCH IT MISTAKE
, MISS DIXON. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
UM I REALLY LIKED WHAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RAISE, UH, WITH
CONTAINED, WHETHER IN OUR
COMMENTS THAT THIS IS REALLY AN
EMOTIONALLY FRAUGHT ISSUE. IT'S
LIKE LAWS GETTING IN THE WAY OF
WHAT CHILDREN AND PARENTS EACH.
IT MAY HAVE SEPARATE DESIRES. I
THINK GOING ONE STEP AT A TIME.
WE'LL SEE HOW THIS GOES. I ALSO
THINK THAT THERE'S A SAFETY
VALVE AND THAT THIS IS A GO
FORWARD FROM JANUARY 1ST 2025.
THIS LAW WOULD BE IN EFFECT, SO
GOING FORWARD, A BIRTH PARENT
WOULD KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS IN
TERMS OF DISCLOSURE, SO UP AND
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT
CORRECTLY, SO UNTIL JANUARY
UNTIL ALL BIRTHS AFTER JANUARY.
1ST 2025 THIS NEW LAW WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE. SO ANYTHING UP UNTIL
THAT POINT SADLY, YOUR YOUR
RECORDS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, UH
, AVAILED UNDER THIS LAW, BUT
IT'S CERTAINLY SERVES NOTICE
THAT THIS NEW PROCEDURE WOULD
TAKE EFFECT AND IT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN
ACCOMMODATE THEMSELVES TO. IN MY
BELIEF I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS, BUT I THINK IT IS FRAUGHT
WITH A LOT OF UNKNOWN QUESTIONS,
BUT ONE STEP AT A TIME. I THINK
IT'S A GOOD WAY TO GO. OKAY
THANK YOU. SEEN UH, NO FURTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. THIS IS THIS IS
WHAT'S DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS
COMMITTEE SOMETIMES IS THAT
WE'RE REALLY IN THE WEEDS ON
THIS. UM IT IS HARD. THIS IS
THIS IS COMPLICATED. WE I THINK
ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE'S THESE SORT OF EMOTIONAL
ISSUES THAT ARE AT STAKE HERE.
BUT HOW DOES THE LAW APPLY TO
THIS AND HOW DO WE ANALYZE? I
MEAN, THIS IS THIS IS ONE OF THE
MORE COMPLICATED ISSUES. I THINK
WE'VE HAD SO FAR THIS YEAR FROM
A LEGAL STANDPOINT. UM BUT.
THAT'S WHAT WE GET ON THIS
COMMITTEE. IT IS, IT IS WHAT IT
IS, AND WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED
TODAY WITH THIS. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MR LACKEY
MAY CLOSE. YEAH EVEN THOUGH
THERE'S BEEN SOME SOME POINTS
THAT ARE BEEN WELL STATED. AND
THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS IS, UH
THAT'S WHY WE PROBABLY HAVE THE
MORASS THAT WE HAVE NOW, BUT I
THINK WHAT'S INARGUABLE IS THAT
THE STATUS QUO IS SOMETHING THAT
HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF
ADOPTED INDIVIDUALS THAT CALL
OUR STATE HOME SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO ENDURE. AND I THINK THAT THIS
ACTUALLY IS A STEP AND AN
IMPORTANT STEP. IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. IT'S LONG OVERDUE
THAT WE RECOGNIZE THIS ISSUE AND
BEGIN TO IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS
THAT RESPECT THE DELICATE AND
COMPLEX NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.
AND I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT
. OKAY? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. UM THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
ASKED THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I, DICKSON DICKSON. I
HANEY CHOLERA. NOBODY. PACHECO
PACHECO, I PAPIN RAISE RAISE I
RIVAS. SANCHEZ. YOUR BILL IS
OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, UM NOT SEEING ANOTHER
AUTHOR HERE, MISS REYES, ARE YOU
READY TO PROCEED?
HI, DAVID. NICE TO SEE YOU. I
WAS GONNA SAY THAT I NOTICED THE
TRAILS. GLAD TO SEE THAT YOU.
YES GLAD YOU COULD RECOVER FROM
THE RECOVERY FROM THE EXPERIENCE
. YAHOO THERE. I'M THE ONE YOU
INSIST. WITH THE OTHER. WE HAVE
ITEM NUMBER THREE A. B FIVE. OH,
FOUR, MS RACE MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS A B
FIVE. OH, FOUR WILL PROTECT A
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO
HONORARY PICKET LINE WHEN THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN A
PRIMARY LABOR DISPUTE. LAST YEAR
, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ENGAGED IN THE LABOR DISPUTE
WITH GRADUATE WORKERS,
POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS AND
ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS REPRESENTED
BY THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS. THE
DISPUTE FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON LOW
WAGES AND UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
CONDUCTED BY THE YOU SEE, THE
DISPUTE CULMINATED INTO THE
LARGEST HIGHER EDUCATION STRIKE
IN THE NATION'S HISTORY. WHICH
LASTED SIX WEEKS. DURING THIS
STRIKE, YOU SEE WORKERS
REPRESENTED BY UNIONS SUCH AS
TEAMSTERS AND YOU SEE A FT WERE
UNABLE TO SUPPORT THEIR
COLLEAGUES DO TWO CLAUSES IN
THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS PREVENTING SYMPATHY
STRIKES. NON REPRESENTED WORKERS
WERE FORCED TO ENTER HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENTS AND WITHHOLD
SUPPORT FOR THEIR COLLEAGUES WHO
ARE FIGHTING FOR FAIR WAGES AND
JOB SECURITY ISSUES THAT
INHERENTLY AFFECT EVERY WORKER.
HAVING THE RIGHT TO STAND IN
SOLIDARITY WITH COLLEAGUES
ENGAGED IN A STRIKE SHOULD BE
PROTECTED. OUR WORKERS SHOULD
OUR WORKERS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO
FEAR LOSING THEIR JOB BECAUSE
THEY HAVE HONORED A PICKET LINE.
THEY OFTEN HAVE TO CONCEDE THESE
TYPES OF PROTECTIONS IN ORDER TO
ENSURE THEY RECEIVE ADEQUATE
WAGES AND CHILDCARE SUBSIDIES IN
CALIFORNIA WORKERS SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT IN
ORDER TO LIVE SUSTAINABLE LIVES
AND SUPPORT OTHERS FIGHTING FOR
THE SAME GOAL. 85 OH, FOUR WILL
ENSURE WORKERS HAVE THEIR RIGHTS
PROTECTED WHILE THEY CONTINUE
FIGHTING FOR EQUITY. HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE GUST. BUT TELL TUPPER
LECTURE AT UC BERKELEY AND YOU
SEE A F T REPRESENTATIVE AND
MATT BROAD REPRESENTING THE
TEAMSTERS. FIRST WITNESS TWO
MINUTES EACH. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
GAS. PATEL TUPPER, SUPERVISING.
I NEED YOU TO USE THE MIC FOR
THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WATCHING
AT HOME. MAKE SURE AT LEAST FOR
MY MOTHER. YES YOUR MOTHER WILL
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I USED
TO THINK IT WAS ONLY MY MOTHER
THAT WATCH, SO I'M GLAD TO HEAR
THAT. YOUR MOTHER IS ALSO WE'RE
UP TO VIEWERS, SO THAT'S GOOD.
CERTAINLY WORTH IT. UM GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS GUS PATEL. TUPPER I'M
A SUPERVISING ATTORNEY AND
LECTURER AT UC BERKELEY SCHOOL
OF LAW, AND I'M, A BOARD MEMBER
OF THE UCF BAY AREA CHAPTER. YOU
SEE A FT REPRESENTS
APPROXIMATELY 6000 FACULTY AND
350 RESEARCH LIBRARIANS IN THE
UC SYSTEM AND AS A PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF HB FIVE OH, FOUR. 85
OH, FOUR IS A SMALL STEP TOWARDS
FREEDOM FROM COERCION FOR PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HANEY MENTIONED IN THE LAST
HEARING BEING SHOCKED THAT WE
AREN'T ALREADY PROTECTED FROM
BEING FORCED TO CROSS PICKET
LINES. UM IT IS CONSCIENCE
SHOCKING AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT
IT'S ALSO UM IT FEELS PRETTY
TERRIBLE. DURING THE U. A W
STRIKE. I WAS ON THE PICKET LINE
EARLY EVERY MORNING WITH MY
HUSBAND, A POSTDOCTORAL
RESEARCHER AT BERKELEY, BUT AT
NINE AM I HAD TO BUST THROUGH
THE PICKET LINE AND TRIPS UP THE
HILL TO THE LAW SCHOOL. MY
PARENTS WERE BOTH UNION MEMBERS
FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS, AND I
COULD FEEL MY DAD ROLLING OVER
IN HIS GRAVE. EVERY TIME I BROKE
RANKS WITH W. MY STUDENTS AND
TENURED FACULTY COLLEAGUES COULD
ALMOST ALL RESPECT THE STRIKE.
UM BUT AS AN EARLY CAREER
LECTURER WITHOUT SECURITY OF
EMPLOYMENT, I FELT THE SQUEEZE
AND YOU SEE KNEW IT. OUR MEMBERS
WERE ASKED TO DO WORK AND SOME
SUBMIT LAST SEMESTER'S GRADES ON
BEHALF OF STRIKING WORKERS. MOST
LECTURERS LIKE ME OR ON FIXED
TERM RENEWABLE CONTRACTS AND
HAVE VALID FEARS THAT REFUSING
TO SUBMIT GRADES. UM OR PICK UP
STRUCK WORK COULD END OUR èC
APPOINTMENTS. UM, MAYBE FIVE.
OH, FOUR GIVES LECTURERS,
LIBRARIANS AND STAFF AT UC SOME
POWER TO RESIST SUCH COERCION BY
ELIMINATING OFFENSIVE, NO
SYMPATHY STRIKE CLAUSES FROM OUR
CONTRACTS. FINALLY AS I'VE SAID,
THIS IS ONLY A SMALL STEP. THE
LAST 70 YEARS HAVE WITNESSED THE
DECLINE OF THE U. S LABOR
MOVEMENT AT THE HANDS OF
ASCENDANT CORPORATE POWER IN
POLITICS IN THE COURTS, 85 OH,
FOUR WON'T TILT THE SCALE
TOWARDS WORKING PEOPLE
OVERNIGHT, BUT WE SAID AT THE
VERY LEAST BE ABLE TO STAND UP
FOR OUR HUSBANDS AND OUR DADS ON
THE PICKET LINE. THIS BILL WILL
ALLOW PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO SPEAK
. ASSEMBLE AND ASSOCIATE WITH
OUR UNION SIBLINGS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RAISE,
AND THE CO AUTHORS ARE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE
. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS. GREAT
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS MATT BROAD
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TEAMSTERS, WHO ARE PROUD TO CO
SPONSOR A B 504 AS YOU'VE ALL
HEARD. THIS BILL WAS REALLY BORN
OUT OF THE GRAD STUDENT STRIKE.
èC LATE LAST YEAR. THE
TEAMSTERS REPRESENT OVER 10,000
MEMBERS AT THE U. C SYSTEM,
PRIMARILY WORKING AS, UH, FOLKS
IN IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND SKILLED
TRADES POSITIONS. WE HAD SORT OF
A PARADOXICAL OR UNIQUE
SITUATION WHERE ON THE PRIVATE
SECTOR SIDE, THE TEAMSTERS WERE
ABLE TO SANCTION THE STRIKE UPS
WASN'T DELIVERING PACKAGES TO
CAMPUS. BUT ON THE PUBLIC SECTOR
STRIKE SIDE WHERE THOUSANDS OF
WORKERS TEAMSTER MEMBERS WORK AT
THE U. C UM THEY WERE REQUIRED
BY CONTRACT TO CROSS THE PICKET
LINE. UH FROM TALKING TO MEMBERS
. WE'VE HEARD THAT THIS CREATED
AN ENORMOUS SENSE OF HOSTILITY
IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH IS
SOMETHING THAT WE I THINK WE CAN
ALL AGREE SHOULD BE AVOIDED. AND
JUST AS A FINAL POINT, I WOULD
SAY THAT WE'VE WORKED ON
ADDRESSING THE LAST COMMITTEE'S
CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY WITH
RESPECT TO MAKING SURE THAT ALL
PUBLIC EMPLOYERS ARE COVERED.
AND WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY PLEASE. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS TRISTAN BROWN
WITH CFT UNION OF EDUCATORS AND
CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS JOINING
R A. F T AS CO SPONSORS AND
URGENTLY VOTE. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SCOTT BRENT WITH THE,
UH SMART TV DIVISION ON THE
ASSISTANT STATE DIRECTOR. AND WE
SUPPORT THIS. THANK YOU. SETH
BRAMBLE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING
MAVYNEE PRAYER ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT GOOD
MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS. JANICE
O'MALLEY WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND SUPPORT
GOOD MORNING, MARISA, WITH W
2065 PROUD TO CO SPONSOR AND
SUPPORT THIS BILL. NEIL SWEENEY,
PRESIDENT OF U A. W LOCAL 58 10
11,000 POSTDOCTORAL SCHOLARS IN
STRONG SUPPORT. TOM HENSKE ON
BEHALF OF A W IN SUPPORT.
BRENNAN GARNERING PROUD MEMBER
OF 28 65 SUPPORT. ELIAS BUNTING
, U W MEMBER AND GRADUATE
STUDENT AT U C. DAVIS AND
SUPPORT. TOBA VALENTINE W 28 65
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR, FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
, NEW CULTURE. HE ARRIVES ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TRADES
COUNCIL AND SUPPORT GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ALYSSA YOUNG ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEES UNION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JOHN
SHIBAN, CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. WILLIE GIBSON,
MEMBER OF U A W TWEET, 65 AND
SUPPORT GOOD MORNING GRACE
SPOON. REMEMBER OF 58 10 IN THE
UNIT CHAIR AT UC DAVIS IN
SUPPORT. MR CHAIR MEMBERS. SARAH
FLOCKS. CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION PROUD CO SPONSOR ALSO
HERE EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR S C
I U CALIFORNIA. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. HER NAME IS JONNY PENA
WITH THE LEGAL CALIFORNIA CITIES
HERE TODAY IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO 85. OH FOUR AGAIN
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR TAKING THE TIME TO WORK WITH
US AND TALK ABOUT OUR CONCERNS
THE BELL UH, STATE LAWS
GOVERNING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE A FAIR
PROCESS FOR BOTH THE UNIONS AND
PUBLIC ENTITIES. MAYBE FIVE. OH,
FOUR. OUR VIEW UPENDS THE
CURRENT BARGAINING PROCESS,
WHICH ALLOWS STRIKING ONLY IN
SPECIFIED LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS POSES A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR
PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT ARE
PROVIDING PUBLIC SERVICES ON A
LIMITED BUDGET AT A TIME WHEN
MANY CITIES ARE FACING
WORKFORCE. SHORTAGES. ALLOWING
FOR ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WITH
WITH VERY LIMITED EXCEPTION TO
JOIN US STRIKING BARGAINING UNIT
IN WHICH THAT EMPLOYEE IS NOT A
MEMBER COULD LEAD TO SEVERE WORK
STOPPAGE AND SEVERELY IMPACT
ESSENTIALS SERVICES THAT THAT'S
THAT THAT CITIES PROVIDE. THIS
BILL WOULD REMOVE THE AGENCY'S
ABILITY TO PLAN AND PROVIDE
SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AND
THE EVENT. ANY BARGAINING UNIT
DECIDES TO STRIKE LOCAL AGENCY
CANNOT MAKE CONTINGENCY PLANS
FOR AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE DECIDED TO
JOIN THAT STRIKE. THE BILL
DECLARES SYMPATHY, STRIKING
EIGHT A HUMAN RIGHTS BUT EXEMPTS
ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE WHO IS
SUBJECT TO SECTION 1962 OF THE
LABOR CODE FROM HAVING THAT
RIGHT. GIVEN THAT THIS BILL
WOULD AVOID LOCAL MOU NO
SYMPATHY STRIKE AGREEMENTS WHILE
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTING A
SPECIFIC JOB TYPE AT THE SAME
TIME. ALSO DECLARING HUMAN RIGHT
CREATES CONFUSION REGARDING
WHICH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CANNOT
ENGAGE IN SYMPATHY. STRIKING
WELL, WE'RE NOT DISPUTING THE
RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN THE
PROTECTED ACTIVITY OF STRIKING
85 OH FOUR WOULD AVOID LOCALLY
BARGAINED MOU S REGARDLESS OF
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE
EMPLOYEE'S ABILITY OF SYMPATHY
STRIKE AND INSERT THE ABILITY
FOR ANY REPUBLICAN POINT TO
ENGAGE IN SYMPATHY, STRIKING
AGAIN WITH VERY LIMITED
EXCEPTION. MHM NO STRAIGHT
PROVISIONS AND LOCAL CONTRACTS
HAVE BEEN AGREED TO BY BOTH
PARTIES AND GOOD FAITH, OFTEN
DUE TO THE CRITICAL NATURE. OF
THE EMPLOYEES. OF THE EMPLOYEE'S
JOB. DUTIES. TO CLOSE AS A LOCAL
AGENCIES. WE HAVE STATUTORY
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THIS BILL
JEOPARDIZES THE DELIVERY OF
THOSE SERVICES AND UNDERMINES
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESS. FOR THOSE REASONS. WE
WERE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED INNER
JERED NO, NO VOTE TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS
KAYLIN DEAN, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
REPRESENTING ALL 58 COUNTIES. C
SECTIONS RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO
ASSEMBLY BILL 504 AND FOR THE
SAKE OF TIME ALL ALIGN MY
COMMENTS WITH MY COLLEAGUE AT
CAL CITIES. I'LL JUST SAY THAT
PROHIBITING EMPLOYEES FROM
ENFORCING NO STRIKE PROVISIONS
IN CERTAIN INSTANCES,
EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING EMPLOYEES
TO ENGAGE IN SYMPATHY STRIKES
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR MOU
IS IN TERM AND CONTAINS A NO
STRIKE PROVISIONS. WOULD
UNDERMINE MANY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND IMPACT
OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE THE VITAL
SERVICES THAT ARE RESIDENTS
COUNT ON EACH DAY. LOCAL
AGENCIES PROVIDE CRITICAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING
EMERGENCY AND DISASTER RESPONSE
. DISPATCH MOBILE CRISIS
RESPONSE, HEALTHCARE, LAW
ENFORCEMENT, CORRECTIONS,
ELECTIONS AND ROAD MAINTENANCE.
LOCAL MOU PROVISIONS AROUND
STRIKING AND SYMPATHY STRIKING
ENSURE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THESE
CRITICAL SERVICES. IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, COUNTIES MUST
MEET MINIMUM STAFF REQUIREMENTS
, FOR EXAMPLE, IN JAILS AND
JUVENILE FACILITIES TO ENSURE
ADEQUATE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. 85
OH, FOUR OVERRIDES THE ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEE PROCESSING PURPOSE,
THEREBY CREATING A SYSTEM WHERE
AN EMPLOYEE CAN SYMPATHY STRIKE
WHICH WOULD RESULT IN WORKFORCE
SHORTAGES THAT JEOPARDIZE OUR
ABILITY TO OPERATE SAFELY AND
EFFICIENTLY. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE MUST EFFECTIVELY URGE YOUR NO
VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY PLEASE. SARAH
TICKET ON BEHALF OF THE RURAL
COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA, THE URBAN COUNTIES
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF JOINT POWERS
AUTHORITIES. THANK YOU. SARAH
BRIDGE ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS HERE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO 85. OH,
FOUR. THANK YOU. CHEN CHASE ON
BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? SEEN NONE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
MR CHOLERA. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORSHIP. BRING THIS FORWARD
LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL. UM QUITE
SIMPLY, SOME RIGHTS SHOULDN'T BE
SUBJECT TO BARGAINING. AND SO
I'D LOVE TO BE OUT OF HIS CO
AUTHOR AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SAYING NONE. MISS RICE. THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL. VERY
PLEASED TO HAVE A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION. APPRECIATE YOUR
WORK ON THIS ISSUE. I THINK IT'S
AN IMPORTANT ONE. SO PLEASE,
THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE IT
ALONG TODAY. HOPEFULLY WITH THAT
YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU. I
DO URGE YOU TO STAND WITH OUR
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE, DO
WE? WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.
OKAY GREAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND DO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED
CLARK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. I
REALLY, REALLY KNOW CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I DIXON HANEY, CORA
CORA. I PACHECO PACHECO, I PAPIN
HAPPENED. I REYES. I REALLY
THREE OF US. SANCHEZ YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU. UM. I WILL
ENCOURAGE AUTHORS TO COME HERE.
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RUNS ON
TIME IN CASE THAT HASN'T BEEN
PICKED PICKED UP ON YET. UH SO
URGE DEMAND? YEAH ANOTHER LEGAL
TERM. UM HUESO, WE'D ASK AUTHORS
TO PLEASE COME DOWN. WE ARE WE
HAVE A LONG AGENDA. WE'RE TRYING
TO GET THROUGH IT. WE DO RUN
THESE MEETINGS ON TIME. UH SO
I'D ASK. MR HANEY IS NEXT UP ON
THE COMMITTEE. AT LEAST, MR
HANEY. AND WHILE MR HANEY IS
GOING DOWN, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
ASK FOR A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA. MOTION MOTION FROM MR
CARLOS SECOND FROM MS REYES, THE
PRISON CONSENT AGENDA CONTAINS
ITEM 18, 83 12 RACE AND WARD.
ITEM 19 A B 11 54 WILSON ITEM 28
B 16 59 GABRIEL AND ITEM 21 A B
17 55 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE
HAVE A MOTION OF SECOND ASSET
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
AND THE CONSENT AGENDA
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI
CONNELLY CONNELLY I DIXON HANEY
CHOLERA. TÔI PACHECO HØI POPPIN
REYES I REVERSE SANCHEZ. AGENDA
PASSES, MR HANEY. HAS ITEM
NUMBER 14 A B 14 85. YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. A B 14 85 WOULD
STRENGTHEN CALIFORNIA'S ABILITY
TO ENFORCE EXISTING STATE
HOUSING LAW. IT DOES SO BY
GIVING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR H,
C D, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT THE
STATE'S INTERESTS AND THE PEOPLE
OF CALIFORNIA AND PENDING LEGAL
ACTIONS FILED BY THIRD PARTIES
TO ADDRESS VIOLATIONS OF STATE
HOUSING LAWS. RIGHT NOW
CALIFORNIANS ARE FACING A
HOUSING CRISIS OF EPIC
PROPORTION. WE NEED TO PRODUCE
ALMOST 2.5 MILLION HOUSING UNITS
OVER THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS. TO
KEEP UP WITH HOUSING DEMAND, BUT
WE ONLY CONSTRUCTING ABOUT
80,000 UNITS PER YEAR, SO WE
NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL TO
GUARANTEE WE MEET OUR HOUSING
GOALS AND TO ENSURE HOUSING IS
ACTUALLY BEING BUILT. IT JUST
SEEMS THAT EMPOWERS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO BRING SUIT FOR A
VIOLATION OF STATE HOUSING LAW.
IT ALSO ALLOWS THIRD PARTIES TO
FILE LAWSUITS TO ENFORCE STATE
HOUSING LAWS. BUT UNDER CURRENT
LAW WHEN A THIRD PARTY FILES A
LAWSUIT RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT
OF STATE HOUSING LAWS, THE
ATTORNEY'S GENERAL'S OFFICE CAN
ONLY BECOME A PARTY TO THE
LAWSUIT BY PETITIONING THE COURT
TO INTERVENE. THIS PARTICULAR
PROCEDURAL HURDLE DELAYS HOUSING
FROM BEING BUILT BECAUSE THE
COURTS CAN TAKE MONTHS TO
SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE
PETITION, EVEN ONCE A COURT
HEARING IS SCHEDULED, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO
INTERVENE IN THE CASE IS AT THE
COURT'S DISCRETION. AND WE JUST
LEARNED THAT A COURT IN
GRANDMA'S HOUSE OF HOPE VERSUS
CITY OF ANAHEIM TENTATIVELY
DENIED HZDS MOTION TO INTERVENE
SO THE JUDGE'S RULING WOULD KEEP
THE STATE OUT OF THE LAWSUIT AND
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA FROM
BEING AT THE TABLE. THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY
TO ENFORCE STATE HOUSING LAW AND
REPRESENT THE STATE'S INTEREST
IN HOUSING CASES, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL H
C, D, OR A PART PRIVATE PARTY
FILES. THE ACTION FIRST.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT WHILE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LACKS THE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE
IN THIRD PARTY SUITS ON HOUSING
LAW, THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT
STATUTORY RIGHT TO INTERVENE ON
OTHER ISSUES LIKE ENFORCING
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. HOUSING LAW
IS JUST AS IMPORTANT IN GRANTING
THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO INTERVENE
ONE SURE THAT WE ARE REPRESENTED
IN COURT AND HELP US REACH OUR
HOUSING GOALS. HERE TO TESTIFY
WITH ME AND SUPPORT IS JANICE
STANDIFORD FROM THE OFFICE OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TODD DAVID
FROM THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION. AND WE ALSO HAVE
DAVID PIE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HERE TO ANSWER
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU FIRST WITNESS, UM TODD DAVID
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HANEY DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF
KIND OF SUMMARIZING THE REASONS
FOR THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
UM I'M JUST I'M JUST GOING TO
EMPHASIZE A COUPLE OF PIECES. SO
ONE THING IS THAT FROM THE
HOUSING WORLD. YOU CAN ALMOST
THINK OF THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION IS A STREAMLINING
MEASURE RIGHT? IT IS NOT
GRANTING ANY NEW RIGHTS TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL H C D. IT'S
ONLY SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE
TO WAIT SIX MONTHS A YEAR OR
LIKE WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY FOR
A JUDGE TO SAY NO, YOU DON'T
HAVE A RIGHT TO INTERVENE WHEN
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE H C D
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES SO
THIS WOULD ELIMINATE A LOT OF
THE WAITING PERIODS FOR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HDD TO BE
ABLE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA ON AN IMPORTANT, UM,
HOUSING MATTERS. GOOD MORNING
CHAIRMAN, CHINA MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS JANICE STANDIFORD I'M A
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA. I WANT TO START BY
THINKING ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HANEY
FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT
MEASURE, WHICH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS PROUD TO SPONSOR.
CALIFORNIA IS FACING A SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED STRONG
LAWS IN RECENT YEARS TO ADDRESS
THAT CRISIS AND THOSE LAWS MUST
BE ENFORCED. VIOLATORS MUST BE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE. ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROB BONTA HAS MADE
ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING LAWS A
TOP PRIORITY AND WILL CONTINUE
TO EXERCISE HIS AUTHORITY TO
HOLD VIOLATORS ACCOUNTABLE. BUT
UNDER MANY OF THE STATE'S
HOUSING LAWS, THIRD PARTIES LIKE
HOUSING ADVOCATES AND DEVELOPERS
ARE ALSO EMPOWERED TO FILE THEIR
OWN LAWSUITS CHALLENGING LOCAL
LAND USE, PLANNING AND
PERMITTING DECISIONS. JUST FILL
WOULD ADDRESS A PROCEDURAL
HURDLE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FACES WHEN THE THIRD PARTY FILES
THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION FIRST.
UNDER EXISTING LAW, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS TO FORMALLY
PETITION THE COURT FOR
PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN
PENDING THIRD PARTY HOUSING
ENFORCEMENT CASES. THIS
REQUIREMENT CAUSES UNNECESSARY
DELAY AND ONE ONGOING CASE. WE
FILED OUR APPLICATION TO
INTERVENE WITH THE COURT ON
OCTOBER 3RD 2022. NOW OVER SIX
MONTHS LATER, THE COURT IS
FINALLY HOLDING A HEARING ON THE
MOTION THIS MORNING. THE
TENTATIVE RULING RELEASED
YESTERDAY INDICATES THAT THE
JUDGE PLANS TO DENY OUR MOTION
TO INTERVENE. WE DISAGREE WITH
THE BASIS FOR THAT RULING, AND
WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR CLIENT
HDD TO DETERMINE NEXT STEPS. THE
EFFECT OF THIS DENIAL WOULD BE
THAT THE PRIVATE LITIGANTS WOULD
BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED IN THE
CASE AND THE STATE'S INTEREST
THE PEOPLE'S INTERESTS WOULD NOT
BE REPRESENTED. THIS IS WHY BE
14 85 IS NEEDED. ÁP 14 85 WOULD
REMOVE THIS PROCEDURAL HURDLE BY
GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND UNCONDITIONAL STATUTORY
RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN PENDING
THIRD PARTY HOUSING CASES. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALREADY HAS
THIS RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN OTHER
CONTEXTS, INCLUDING AN
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES. WE
ROUTINELY USED THE STATUTORY
RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CASES. 80
14 85 WOULD GRANT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THE SAME RIGHT TO
INTERVENE TO ENFORCE STATE
HOUSING LAWS. CALIFORNIA'S
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE THE
RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE STATE'S
INTERESTS AND ENFORCED STATE
HOUSING LAWS, REGARDLESS OF
WHICH PARTY FILES THE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION FIRST. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION, MEMBERS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY, PLEASE. MICHAEL AMOS BURN
STRONG SUPPORT. MARK'S DIVERS
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP IN SUPPORT. I WOULD
LIKE TO BE WITH A SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SAYING
NON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE, MR CONNELL. THANK
YOU AND APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
AND WITNESSES. CERTAINLY
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING LAWS IS
IMPORTANT. SO FULLY UNDERSTAND
WHERE THIS BILL WAS COMING FROM.
I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS
UNDERCURRENT. UNDER THE CURRENT
SCENARIO, THE A G CAN APPLIED TO
INTERVENE IN A CASE. WHAT IS THE
STANDARD THAT THE COURT LOOKS AT
? UM MY ASSUMPTION IS, IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF SHOWING
HOW EVER PRO FORM AND THAT IS
THAT THERE IS A MATTER OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN. UM. THE
CONCERN HERE IS EFFECTIVELY YOU
WOULD BE INTERVENING IN A WHAT'S
EFFECTIVELY. A PRIVATE DISPUTE
BETWEEN A DEVELOPER. AND LET'S
SAY CITY OR COUNTY. UM. HOW DOES
THAT TRANSLATE IN TERMS OF THAT
SHOWING OR THRESHOLD STILL, THAT
IT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN, AS
OPPOSED TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
TO WHERE THERE'S OFTENTIMES
COMPETING. ARGUMENTS ON BOTH
SIDES, OKAY. THANK YOU, MR
CONNELLY. DAVID PIE FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. UM
IT'S THE CURRENT STANDARD WHEN
WE APPLY FOR OR MAKE A MOTION TO
INTERVENE. WE DO SO UNDER BOTH
MEDA TORREY AND PERMISSIVE
INTERVENTION STANDARDS. UH
SUFFICE TO SAY, EITHER ONE. IT'S
NOT A SHOWING OF STATEWIDE
CONCERNED THAT THE COURT IS
INTERESTED IN WHAT WE HAVE TO
SHOW IS THAT THE PARTY EITHER.
HDD ALREADY ATTORNEY GENERAL
CLAIMS IT INTERESTS RELATING TO
THE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT. AND
IN, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE
CAUSES OF ACTION DELINEATED
UNDER SUBDIVISION JF 655. OUR
POSITION IS WE ARE THE PRINCIPAL
FORCES OF THE STATE LAWS AND SO
WE HAVE A PER SE INTEREST IN
THIS ACTION AND ON THAT BASIS
AH, INTERVENTION SHOULD BE
GRANTED. COURTS SOMETIMES
DISAGREE AS WELL AS WE'VE SEEN.
AND WHAT? UH WELL INTERESTINGLY
ENOUGH IN THAT TENTATIVE RULING
IN THE GRANDMA'S HOUSE OF HOPE
ACTION, THE COURT NOTED THAT HAD
THIS BEEN COMPULSORY HAD THE
LEGISLATURE DEEMS THIS TO BE A
STATEWIDE INTERESTS AND GRANTED
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HDD,
STATUTORY RIGHT TO INTERVENE. IT
WOULD BE A NON ISSUE. AND SO
WE'VE ALWAYS TAKE. WE ALWAYS
TAKE THE POSITION THAT WHEN WE
LITIGATE, IT'S ALWAYS ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE'S INTEREST. SO IF
WE INTERVENE INTO A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION, WE'RE NOT
REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER.
WE'RE NOT REPRESENTING ANY
PRIVATE PARTY. WE'RE
REPRESENTING OURSELVES.
INTERVENTION WERE SEPARATE PARTY
AND WE'RE REPRESENTING THE
STATE'S INTEREST, AND WE ONLY DO
SO IN ACTIONS IN WHICH WE FEEL
LIKE THE STATE'S INTERESTS ARE
NOT BEING ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED. YEAH NO, I FULLY
APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, I GUESS
THE CONCERN IS, UM, AND IT'S
CLEAR. THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL IS,
UM LOOKING AT WAYS OF ENFORCING
HOUSING LAW, AND NO ONE'S
DISPUTING THAT LET'S SEE A
FUTURE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOUGH
FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COME TOO BAD FOR
A LARGE DEVELOPER. WHO SEEKING
TO DEVELOP A PROJECT AND
COMMUNITIES ARE RAISING CONCERNS
ABOUT IT. THERE WOULD BE NO
FILTER ON THAT IT'S SIMPLY WOULD
BE A MATTER OF RIGHT WHERE THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD INTERVENE
. THAT'S OF CONCERN. I WOULD
LOVE TO SEE SOME SORT OF NOD IN
THE BILL GIVEN TOWARD IN
INSTANCES OR IN CASES WHERE
THERE IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE
INTERESTS. CONVERSELY AND MAYBE
THIS IS A QUESTION. LET'S SAY
DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND ITSELF
FLOUTING. THE LAW THAT THAT IS
GOING TOO FAR ON THE DENSITY
BONUS OR MISINTERPRETING AS
SPEED 35 WOULD YOUR OFFICE AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT INTERVENED FOR
THE COMMUNITY. TO ENFORCE THE
LAW AND THAT CASE. I DON'T, UH,
WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SCENARIOS,
AYE. CANNOT FORESEE A SITUATION
IN WHICH IF THERE IS A STATE
INTERESTS EITHER TO SUPPORT A
PROJECT OR TO ENFORCE THE LAW,
SUCH THAT A CERTAIN PROJECT IS
MAYBE. GOING BEYOND THE AMBIT OF
STATE LAW. I DON'T I THINK THE
ANSWER ISN'T IS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL LOOKING AT IT FROM A PRO
HOUSING FOR PRO DEVELOPMENT OR
ANTI DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT.
STANDARD THE STANDARD WE'VE
ALWAYS APPLIED AND CONTINUE TO
APPLY IS HOW DO WE ENFORCE THE
STATE LAWS AND IF IT GOES
OUTSIDE OF THAT ENFORCEMENT? I
YOU KNOW, I COULD FORESEE.
INTERVENTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE
STATE LAWS ARE PROPERLY APPLIED.
I WOULD JUST WAS GOING TO ADD
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALREADY HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO
INTERVENE IN SECRET CASES AS
WELL. SO WE USED THIS SAME RIGHT
UNDER THE SAME CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE THAT WE WOULD BE THAT
THIS BILL REFERS TO, YOU KNOW,
STAND UP FOR COMMUNITIES AS
WELL. AND WE USE THAT FREQUENTLY
GET THAT. I MEAN POLLUTION. IT'S
PRETTY CLEAR CUT. UM, AND THAT
THAT'S A LONG STANDING RIGHT
BECAUSE WELL BEYOND THE EFFECT
THAT. COMMUNITY EVEN, UM, THE
DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, UH FIGHT
, SO TO SPEAK, ARE A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT. AT THE SAME TIME I
GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I
JUST WOULD LOVE TO SEE A LITTLE
BIT MORE WORK THAN ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
MISS REYES? I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUE, MR
CONNELLY THINK WE'RE LIVING IN
GREAT TIMES. WE HAVE A GREAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL. WHO CARES
ABOUT THE PEOPLE CARES ABOUT
PROTECTING OUR AIR CARES ABOUT
EVERYTHING THAT WE CARE ABOUT.
BY WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE
MIGHT HOLD. UM. SOMETHING TO
CONSIDER. UM, BUT WITH THAT I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL. SECOND
MOTION FROM ISRAEL'S SECOND FROM
MR KALRA, MR ASTLEY YES, I HAVE
A JUST TO ECHO MY COLLEAGUE'S
CONCERNS. I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE TO DETERMINES WHEN AN
ISSUE IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE
CONCERN. DO USE YOUR OFFICE
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CHARTER
CITIES IN GENERAL CHARTERED
CITIES. WE DO NOT. YOU DO NOT
DISTINGUISH YOU DO, UH, YOU DO
FOLLOWS THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION? CORRECT YES,
THAT'S CORRECT. CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION CHARTER CITIES ARE
EXEMPT FROM COMPLYING WITH
STATUTES THAT ARE NOT OF A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. YOU
DO THAT IS CORRECT AND ITS
LONGSTANDING FROM COURT
DECISIONS THAT HOUSING IS A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERNS.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
CASE THAT HELD THAT HOUSING IS A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN CAN
IMMEDIATE, UH, IN MY MIND ARE
SEVERAL CASES, NONE OF WHICH ARE
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
BUT THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE
COURTS. UH THE MOST RECENT OF
WHICH IS THE MARTINEZ VERSUS
CITY CLOVIS DECISION. UH ALSO
CALIFORNIA RENTERS FEDERATION
VERSUS CITY OF SAN MATEO, IN
WHICH WE INTERVENED. UM, THERE'S
ALSO ANDERSON VERSUS CITY OF SAN
JOSE IS SURPLUS LAND ACT CASES.
UH, SUFFICE TO SAY, SINCE THE
EIGHTIES, COURTS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT EIGHT U. LAWS
FAIR HOUSING ACT, ANTI DISK
STATE ANTI DISCRIMINATION LAWS
ON LAND USE AND HOUSING. ARE ALL
MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERNED
THAT APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD TO
CHARTER CITIES AND THE REASON
WHY IT NEEDS TO DO THIS IS RINA
IS ESSENTIALLY, UH, ARENA, THE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ACT AND
HOUSING ELEMENT LAW ARE
ESSENTIALLY WORKING IN CONCERT
WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IF WE IF
WE EXEMPT CHARTER CITIES IT DOES
NOT WORK. BUT CITIES HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN, UM, RESPONSIBLE FOR ZONING
FOR DETERMINING HOW THEY HOW
THEY WANT THEIR COMMUNITY TO
LOOK KIND OF PROJECTS TO DO SO,
INJECTING THE STATE INTO REALLY
LOCAL POLICY DECISION MAKING FOR
THE COUNCIL. IT JUST IT. IT
TAKES AWAY THE POWER OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, WHICH I'M REALLY
CONCERNED ABOUT. AND JUST TO BE
FAIR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT HAS NEVER RULED ON THIS
ISSUE. THERE IS CONFLICTING
SUPREME COURT RULINGS FROM THE
APPELLATE COURTS. I UNDERSTAND
THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RULED
IN, BUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT
HAS NOT. AND ANOTHER QUESTION I
HAVE IS HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DECIDES WHICH CITIES TO TARGET.
UM YOU FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST
HUNTINGTON'S BEACH, BUT THERE'S
OTHER CITIES THAT ARE BLATANTLY
NOT IN COMPLIANCE LIKE CORONADO
AND LA MESA. AND YOU HAVE NOT.
SOUGHT TO INTERVENE AND TO, UH
DO YOU ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THEM? WHY NOT? I CAN'T
COMMENT ON ON OUR ON OUR PENDING
INVESTIGATIONS AND DECISIONS. WE
WORK WITH HD. THESE ISSUES ARE
CLIENT AGENCY, AND SO ALL I CAN
SAY IS, UH, JUST IT'S. THE FACT
THAT WE HAVEN'T GONE AFTER
CORONADO DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T
OKAY. AND UM, YOU KNOW, WITH
RESPECT TO A NUMBER OF OTHER
CITIES THAT YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT
IT, PUTTING IN PARK, FOR EXAMPLE
, IT'S BECAUSE THE EVENT ARE
INTO MOU S AS SOON AS WE'VE
FILED LITIGATION, UH, TOWN OF
WOODSIDE, PASADENA. UH,
ENCINITAS. I CAN GO ON AND ON.
THESE ARE A NUMBER OF CITIES IN
WHICH WE DO INITIATE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION, BUT IT DOESN'T ARISE TO
THE LEVEL OF A LAWSUIT BECAUSE
HMM. IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES,
REASONABLE MINDS ARE ABLE TO PUT
TOGETHER AND SETTLE THOSE
DISPUTES OUT, HONEY, AND THE
BEACH IS AN OUTLIER. THEY'VE
OUTRIGHT REFUSED, SUED THE STATE
IN FEDERAL COURT TO CHALLENGE
THESE LAWS. THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY
BUT YOU SUED THEM FIRST.
ABSOLUTELY AND THAT LAWSUIT WAS
IN RESPONSE. I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS. I JUST THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT IF WE'RE GONNA
DOWN THIS RIGHT, YOU GOT TO HAVE
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT
YOU'RE APPLYING D¯ÚI FAIR FROM
THE OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT WAY. BUT UM, BUT I
APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS. AND UH
AND THANK YOU HAPPEN. SO I JUST
WANT TO SPEAK HAVING JUST COME
OUT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND YOU
MENTIONED THE CASE THAT INVOLVED
MY CITY. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW
THE BACKGROUND. YOU KNOW HOW
MANY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WERE
REJECTED BY MY CITY IN 30 YEARS?
ONE. ONE IN 30 YEARS AND THE
ONLY REASON WHY IT WAS REJECTED.
WAS TO REQUEST A FOUR FT
SETBACK. NOBODY ASKED FOR A
REDUCTION IN UNITS AND
ULTIMATELY, IT WAS THE SAME
AMOUNT OF UNITS. SO I HAVE
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE BILL AND
HOW IT'S AND HOW IT COULD BE
USED THE DISCRETION AS WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT WITH FUTURE
ATTORNEY GENERALS, AND EVEN TO A
CERTAIN DEGREE, WHAT HAPPENED TO
MY CITY, ONE REJECTION IN 30
YEARS. I THINK THAT'S PRETTY
REASONABLE. I THINK THAT THERE'S
A THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION IN OUR
HOUSING SHORTAGE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AREN'T WORKING LIKE
THE DICKENS. TO HELP SOLVE OUR
HOUSING SHORTAGE. AND, UM SO I
WELL, I WILL VOTE FOR THE BILL.
I AM UNCOMFORTABLE THAT WE GOT
CAUGHT UP IN A LOT OF HYPERBOLE
WITHOUT A LOT OF FACTS. SO THE
FACT THAT THE A G INTERVENED IN
THIS ONE IN MY CITY ONE PROJECT
NO OBJECTION TO THE NUMBER OF
UNITS JUST A FOUR FT SETBACK.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT GETS
TROUBLING. SO IN ANY EVENT, I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT A BIT
OF EQUITY AMITY AND LESS
HYPERBOLE MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO
WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS, SO THANK
YOU FOR HEARING ME OUT, NOT A
QUESTION. JUST A REAL LIFE
EXPERIENCE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
UH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEING NONE. MR. HANEY YOU MAKE
CLOTHES? YES, AND I APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS FROM MY COLLEAGUES,
AND WE'LL DEFINITELY CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THOSE ISSUES THAT THAT
WERE RAISED AND SEE IF WE CAN
CLARIFY FURTHER. I WILL JUST SAY
, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T DICTATE
ANY OUTCOMES. IN ANY CASES. IT
JUST SIMPLY ENSURES THAT THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA CAN BE AT
THE TABLE. THAT SHOULDN'T BE
BASED ON WHO GETS THERE FIRST.
UH AND I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF
SENSE. CONSIDERING HOW FOCUSED
WE ARE IN THIS BODY ON HOUSING
LAWS THAT, UH, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL REPRESENTING US HAS THAT
RIGHT? AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED, THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED
HER. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. I
REALLY KNOW CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
DIXON HANEY. CHOLERA TÔI PACHECO
PACHECO, I PAPIN RAISE RIVAS
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ KNOW YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU, MISS CARILLO
AND ITEM 12 A B 13 OH, SIX.
MM HMM. OH LEAST I'M MAKING
AGAIN. GOOD MORNING. IT'S CRAZY.
YOU MAY PROCEED. MM HMM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I AM PROUD TO PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 13. OH, SIX. THE
HOME ACT HARMONIZING OUR
MEASURES FOR EQUALITY. THIS BILL
WILL ENSURE THAT IMMIGRANT
CALIFORNIANS ARE NOT EXCLUDED
FROM RECENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE REFORMS
PASSED BY THIS VERY LEGISLATURE
IN RECENT YEARS, THE LEGISLATURE
HAD REC HAS RECOGNIZED THAT OVER
INCARCERATION. HURTS OUR STATE
AND OUR COMMUNITIES AND WE'VE
GIVEN INDIVIDUALS WITH WHO HAVE
RECEIVED HARSH SENTENCES AS
YOUNG PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
EARN PAROLE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE SHOULD BE
AVENUES FOR THOSE WHOSE
CONVICTIONS WERE TAINTED BY
RACIAL BIAS OR THOSE WHO WERE
CONVICTED UNDER STATUTES THAT WE
HAVE NOW REFORMED TO HAVE A NEW
DAY. THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO
RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO GIVE
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS THE
DIGNITY TO LIVE OUT THEIR FINAL
DAYS AND MONTHS WITH THEIR LOVED
ONES AND WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS TO
MEDICAL CARE. AS A STATE. WE
HAVE RECOGNIZED THOSE NEEDS, BUT
IMMIGRANT CALIFORNIANS ARE
ARBITRARILY LEFT OUT FOR NO
REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT
THEY WERE BORN OUTSIDE THIS
COUNTRY AS A STATE WE HAVE
RECOGNIZED THOSE NEEDS. BUT WHEN
IMMIGRANT CALIFORNIANS HAVE
EARNED RELEASE UNDER THESE NEW
REFORMS, RATHER THAN BE REUNITED
WITH THEIR FAMILIES ARE STATE
PRISON SYSTEM TURNS THEM OVER TO
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT FOR A DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT, INDEFINITE
INCARCERATION AND IMMIGRATION
DETENTION, WHICH IS A SENTENCE
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN HANDED DOWN
BY A CRIMINAL COURT OR A JUDGE.
THIS IS AN ARBITRARY SENTENCE
SERVED IN FACILITIES BEYOND
CALIFORNIA STATE OVERSIGHT WHERE
THESE ABUSES ARE VERY WELL
DOCUMENTED AND WHERE THERE IS NO
RIGHT TO LEGAL COUNSEL OR BAIL.
THE HOME ACT, 13. OH, SIX WILL
END THE DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF
IMMIGRANTS WHOSE CONVICTIONS ARE
THE SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORMS ALREADY SIGNED INTO LAW
HERE TO SPEAK MORE ON THE NEED
FOR THIS BILL IS PHIL MELINDA'S
SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR AT
SMART JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA AND
THE AND NORD, CO DIRECTOR OF
ASIAN PRISONER SUPPORT COMMITTEE
AND ANGELA CHAN IS HERE WITH THE
ASSISTANT CHIEF ATTORNEY OFFICE
OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDERS. OFFICE IS ALSO
AVAILABLE FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FIRST WITNESS. GOOD
MORNING, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FILMLAND THIS THAT
SHE MENTIONED ESPECIAL PRODUCTS
DIRECTOR FOR SMART JUSTICE,
CALIFORNIA AND I'M PROUD TO BE
HERE TODAY AND SUPPORT OF THE
13. OH, SIX. THE HOME ACT
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CARILLO
MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A TWO
TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT
TREATS YOU DIFFERENTLY BASED ON
WHERE YOU WERE BORN, AND THAT
GOES AGAINST EVERY FIBER OF WHO
WE ARE AS A STATE. AND IT'S TIME
THAT WE STOP THIS UNFAIR DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT AND LIVE UP TO OUR
SHARED VALUES OF EQUALITY,
FAIRNESS AND COMMON HUMANITY.
AND THE COMMON HUMANITY POINT IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO ME,
BECAUSE, UH, WHEN I WAS 19 YEARS
OLD, I WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IN
PRISON. AND AFTER NEARLY 20
YEARS OF INCARCERATION, I WAS
ABLE TO RETURN HOME TO MY KIDS
AND MY WIFE AND THANKS TO
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS PASSED
HERE IN THIS VERY BUILDING THAT
RECOGNIZED MY HUMANITY AND
POTENTIAL TO TRANSFORM MYSELF
AND CONTRIBUTE TO MY COMMUNITY
SPECIFICALLY HAVE BENEFITED FROM
A LAW THAT RECOGNIZED THAT
LONGER SENTENCES DON'T ACTUALLY
MAKE US SAFER AND GAVE PEOPLE
WHO RECEIVED CONVICTIONS AS
YOUTH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK
THEIR FREEDOM SOONER. BUT MY
STORY IS NOT UNIQUE. EARLIER
THIS YEAR, SMART JUSTICE VISITED
PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON UP IN
CRESCENT CITY, AND WE SPOKE WITH
MEN WHO WERE TAKING COLLEGE
COURSES TO NOURISH THEIR MINDS
AND, UH, PERSONAL GROWTH AND
ACCOUNTABILITY PROGRAMS TO HEAL,
HEAL THEIR SOULS AND HELP THEM
REDISCOVER THEIR OWN HUMANITY.
AND THESE MEN HAD TAKEN A DEEP
HARD LOOK AT THE HARM THEY HAVE
CAUSED AND WE'RE READY TO RETURN
AND GIVE BACK TO THEIR FAMILIES
AND COMMUNITIES. WE MET SEVERAL
MEN WHO WOULD SOON BE RELEASED,
BUT FOR SOME THAT JOY OF LEAVING
PRISON WAS DAMPENED BY THE
REALITY THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET
TO COME HOME TO THEIR LOVED
ONES. UH FOR EXAMPLE, WE SPOKE
WITH SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN A
CHILD SOLDIER IN LIBERIA HAD
BEEN SUBJECTED TO EXTREME TRAUMA
THAT MORPHED THE TRAJECTORY OF
HIS LIFE. AH WE MET 11 PERSON
WHO LEARNED TO BE A TALENTED
CODER THROUGH THE LAST MILE
PROGRAM, BUT WOULD SOON BE
DEPORTED TO MEXICO. AND I SAW SO
MUCH OF MYSELF AND MY JOURNEY IN
THEM. THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THE SAME EXACT JOURNEY AS
ME, INCLUDING SOME WHO QUALIFY
FOR THE EXACT SAME REFORMS THAT
LEAD TO MY FREEDOM. BUT THEY ARE
PUNISHED ONCE MORE AND CENTER
ICE DETENTION BECAUSE OF WHERE
THEY WERE BORN. SO I URGE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO VOTE
I FOR THE HOME ACT TO ENSURE
THAT EXISTING LAWS THAT THEY
WORKED HARD TO PASS THAT YOU ALL
WORKED HARD TO PASS TO REDUCE
MASS INCARCERATION AND ADDRESS
RACISM IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM ARE
APPLIED FAIRLY TO ALL
CALIFORNIANS, REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THEY WERE BORN. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. SECOND WITNESS.
HELLO CHAIRMAN. SURE,
MAIENSCHEIN. GOOD MORNING
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
NIA. NO, AND I WORK AS THE CO
DIRECTOR WITH THE ASIAN PRISONS
PARK COMMITTEE, AND I EXPRESSED
MY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE HOME
ACT LIKE PHIL. I ALSO QUALIFY
FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM
BILL. HOWEVER, I WROTE TO
FREEDOM WAS NOT THE SAME. GOT TO
WALK OUT OF PRISON TO WELCOME BY
HIS FAMILY. I GOT WELCOME WITH
LEG CHAINS. AND WASTE CHANGED BY
AN ICE AGENT. MY STORY MIRRORS
MANY IMMIGRANTS IN SOUTHEAST
ASIAN REFUGEES FROM LAOS,
VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA. IN FACT,
YESTERDAY, ASSEMBLY FLOOR
RECOGNIZED THE CAMBODIAN AND
JEWISH COMMUNITIES AND
REMEMBRANCE OF THE HOLOCAUST AND
EUROPE AND THE GENOCIDE IN
CAMBODIA. MY FAMILY AND I, LIKE
MANY SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES,
FAMILIES FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO
ASSEMBLY IN A COUNTRY WHERE WE
DO NOT FEEL WELCOMED WITHOUT
ADEQUATE RESOURCES, SUCH AS
CULTURALLY COMPETENT SERVICES.
OLIVIA AND POOR HOUSING AND OVER
PLACE NEIGHBORHOOD, SOUTHEAST
ASIAN REFUGEES. CHILDREN LIKE
OTHER IMMIGRANTS FACE INTENSE
PULLING. AT THE SAME TIME, THIS
YOUTH, ALONG WITH BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITIES STRUGGLE TO
SURVIVE THE TOUGH PRIMARY IN THE
NINETIES. GROWING UP IN SAN
DIEGO, VIOLENCE STARTED IN MY
HOME FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES, I
WAS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
BETWEEN MY MOTHER AND
STEPFATHER. TODAY AFTER TIME AND
HEALING. I VISIT MY FAMILY IN
SAN DIEGO, OFTEN ON OUR
RELATIONSHIP HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
STRENGTHENED. TIME AND HEALING
HAS ALSO HELPED ME UNDERSTAND
WHY. AT 17 YEARS OLD, I BECAME A
SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC BALANCE.
ONE PRESIDENT, I LEARNED THAT MY
STORY WAS NOT EXCEPTIONAL.
ACCORDING TO THE L. SO YOU THE
VAST MAJORITY OF WOMEN IN PRISON
HAPPENED VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
BEFORE INCARCERATION AND 79%
WOMEN IN PRISONS REPORTED
PHYSICAL ABUSE. I'M GRATEFUL
THAT WHILE I WAS IN CARS, RIGHT,
I BUILT DEEP PRODUCTIONS WITH
OTHER SURVIVORS. THIS BRAZILIAN
WOMEN ARE ALSO HEALERS AND
MENTORS WHO HAVE DEFINED WHAT A
HEALTHY COMMUNITY LOOK LIKE
DESPITE BEING CONFINED. IN 2017
. I QUALIFIED FOR THESE PRO
HEARING THANKS TO SB 2 61 DURING
THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS COMMIT
ME FOR EARNING MY ASSOCIATES
DEGREE VARIOUS CERTIFICATIONS OF
VOCATIONS, INVOLVEMENT AND
MENTORSHIP IS PART GROUPS TAKING
RESPONSIBLE FOR MY FENCE AND HAD
A STRONG PROGRAM. DESPITE BEING
GROUNDED. I WAS TRANSFERRED TO
ICE AFTER SIX MONTHS AND I SAY
ATTENTION THANKS TO MY COMMUNITY
FOR HELPING TO FREE ME AND FOR
GOVERNOR NEWSOM GATAME APART IN
2020 TO START MY DEPORTATION.
TODAY I GET TO BE A PART OF THE
SOCIAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT THAT
CENTER SUPPORT ON UPLIFTING
EVERYONE'S HUMANITY AND WORKING
TO HELP KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER.
I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO EXPRESS
THEIR CROW INJUSTICE THAT
HAPPENED TO BE MEMBERS LIKE
GABBY SHELL OPPONENTS WHO ARE
TRANSFERRED TO ICELAND DEPORTED
, BUT THEY ALSO WOULD HAVE
QUALIFIED FOR THEM AT AND
CLOSING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE
URGED YOU JUST WRONG SUPPORT FOR
A B 13. OH, SIX. THE WHOLE MAP.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY. CRAMER MATTER
ON BEHALF OF A C L U CALIFORNIA
ACTION IN SUPPORT FAITHFULLY
WITH ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WHERE IN SUPPORT TO VISCONTI,
HALF OF THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER AND SUPPORT ARMAND
FELICIANO AND BEYOND WITH ASIAN
LAW CAUCUS AND SUPPORT. PROVIDED
CHUM FROM THE CENTER FOR
EMPOWERING REFUGEES AND
IMMIGRANTS WERE COSPONSORS AND
WE ARE IN SUPPORT. WHY, WITH THE
ASIAN PERSON SUPPORT COMMITTEE
AND WE SUPPORT MELANIE KIM SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, COSPONSOR IN SUPPORT AND
ON BEHALF OF THE FOLLOWING
ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT, 18
MILLION RISING ALL OF US OR NONE
ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND MEN OF
COLOR ALLIANCE. SAN DIEGO ÁP. I
RISE. ÁP AYE CIVIC EMPOWERMENT
EDUCATION FUND. BEND THE ARC
ENVIOUS, YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT
JUSTICE. CALIFORNIA COALITION
FOR WOMEN PRISONERS,
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE YOUTH JUSTICE CONTRA
COSTA IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ALLIANCE
COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC
RELATIONS. COURAGE CALIFORNIA
DROPPED ELOP COALITION FREEDOM
FOR IMMIGRANTS HARBOR INSTITUTE
FOR IMMIGRANTS AND ECONOMIC
JUSTICE. HOME RISE HOMIES UNIDOS
. HUMAN IMPACT PARTNERS
CATAMARAN INTERFAITH MOVEMENT
FOR HUMAN INTEGRITY. IN THE
IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES
IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER
THEY ALL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS
WITH CHILDREN WHO HERA'S
INDIRA'S ACTIVISTS
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
. RAPID RESPONSE NETWORK
PEOPLE'S BUDGET.
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
IRAQ FOR SOLIDARITY. THANK YOU.
NOW THAT WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE
GROUPS ALRIGHT. ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? SEEN ON QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE, MR
KALRA THAN MR CONNELLY. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I WANT TO
COMMEND THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM
THE SAMSUNG PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. OFFICIALLY THE LONGEST
LIST I'VE EVER HEARD BATTLED
OFF. SO UM CONGRATULATIONS. UM I
WANT TO ALSO COMMEND THE AUTHOR
FOR HER PERSISTENCE ON THIS
ISSUE. THIS IS INCREDIBLY UH,
IMPORTANT ISSUE. UM ONE THAT I
KNOW. UM NOT THE AUTHOR AND
ADVOCATES AND ORGANIZATIONS,
INCLUDING MANY THAT ARE HERE
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS. AND YOU KNOW,
THE FOLKS WHETHER IT'S.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT
FOLKS THAT REALLY ONLY KNOW
CALIFORNIA. I KNOW THIS COUNTRY
IS THEIR HOME AND TO THINK THAT,
UM, THEY MAY BE SENT SOMEWHERE.
UM THAT THEY DON'T KNOW. I MEAN
, THAT, IN ITSELF IS JUST A
SHOCKING SENTIMENT AND IT DOES
HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN OUR
COUNTRY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
SOMEONE IS ENGAGED IN THE OR IN
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, BUT
FRANKLY, WHETHER SOMEONE'S BEEN
HERE FOR THREE MONTHS OR THREE
DECADES. THE REALITY IS THAT
THIS POLICY IS UNJUST. UM FIRST
OF ALL, WE'RE NOT AN ARM OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ICE AND WE
SHOULDN'T ACT LIKE WE ARE. AND
WE SHOULDN'T FEEL COMPELLED THAT
WE NEED TO ENGAGE WITH ICE. UM,
WE TALKED ABOUT IT OFTEN TIMES.
UM ABOUT HOW OUR IN OUR
COMMUNITY AS YOU WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT YOU KNOW WHEN THEY'RE
ICE RAIDS. WHAT HAVE YOU WE ARE
IN SHOCK, AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE NOTIFY RESIDENTS
THAT THE OTHER I DON'T KNOW WHY.
WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE, WE
WOULD FEEL ANY LESS SHOCKED IN
TERMS OF OUR INTERACTIONS WITH
ICE, BUT SETTING THAT ASIDE AS
WELL. CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES
TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY UNDER THE
LAW, AND WE DON'T AND WE HAVEN'T
FOR A VERY LONG TIME. WE'RE
TRYING TO GET BETTER, WHETHER
IT'S COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
RACIAL JUSTICE ARGUMENT, A
NUMBER OF WAYS WE'RE MOVING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND THIS IS
A GAPING GAP, UH, OF INJUSTICE
THAT STILL EXISTS THAT WE NEED
TO CLOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE NOT DOUBLE PUNISHING FOLKS
THAT OTHERWISE ARE BOUND
SUITABLE FOR RELEASE. THEY'VE UM
, NOT ONLY DONE THEIR TIME, BUT
IN MANY CASES, AS EVIDENCED BY
THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED
TODAY HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES
DURING THE TIME THEY WERE
INCARCERATED DURING PROBATION,
PAROLE, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE A
ABOUT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND
SUITABLE, UM, TO GO BACK HOME.
AND BY NOT ALLOWING THEM THAT WE
ARE DENYING THEM THE SAME RIGHTS
THAT EVERY OTHER PERSON THAT IS
INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM ARE ENJOYING AND I SAY
ENJOYING BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THE
RIGHT THING BY ALLOWING FOLKS TO
GET HOME. ULTIMATELY THAT SHOULD
BE THE GOAL OF ANY JUSTICE
SYSTEM IS TO REHABILITATE. HE'LL
ALLOW FOLKS TO GET BACK HOME,
AND THAT'S WHY THE HOME ACT IS A
PERFECT NAME. FOR THIS BILL, AND
SO I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT
IT. I'M VERY HOPEFUL THAT WILL
HAVE A POSITIVE RESULT THIS YEAR
. I THINK UNDER THE AUTHOR'S
LEADERSHIP, I'M PROUD TO BE A
PRINCIPAL CO AUTHOR AND HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL. THANK MOTION FROM
MR CARLOS. SECOND FROM MS REYES,
MR CONNELLY. YEAH REAL QUICKLY.
JUST WANTED TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS BILL, AND
YOU'RE WORKING THIS SPACE OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. I THINK
IT'S BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT. THIS
IS A IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR FOLKS
IN MY LOCAL COMMUNITY IS REALLY
HAPPY TO SEE ISA TO MORAN AS A
CO SPONSOR. SOMEONE I'VE WORKED
CLOSELY WITH. UM I REALLY
APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS. I THINK YOU LAID OUT
THE CASE FOR IT, AND I WOULD
REQUEST TO BE A CO AUTHOR ON THE
BILL AS WELL. THANKS. THANK YOU,
MISS REYES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THE WORK YOU DO IN THIS
SPACE, YOU HAVE BECOME JUST A
LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO THIS
ISSUE, WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT TO
SO MANY IN OUR COMMUNITY. OUR
LEGISLATURE HAS DONE A WHOLE LOT
OF WORK AND REFORMING SOME OF
THE LAWS AND ONCE THEY'RE
REFORMED. IF WE ALLOW THOSE OLD
LAWS TO BE USED FOR THE DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT OR BACKGROUND
PUNISHMENT, THEN WE HAVEN'T
ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WE WERE TRYING
TO DO. UM I ONCE A SENTENCE HAS
BEEN COMPLETED. THAT SHOULD BE
THE END. OUR LAWS SAY THIS IS A
SENTENCE COMPLETED IT. AS MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID, YOU ARE
FREE TO GO HOME NOW AND NOW
WE'RE SAYING WELL, NO, IT
BECOMES A LIFE SENTENCE FOR YOU.
AND FOR YOU, AND FOR YOU, WE
SELECT WHO IT BECOMES A LIFE
SENTENCE FOR SO I APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK IN THIS SPACE AND THEN
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. OKAY WE
HAVE EMOTION, MR SALIH. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE
AUTHORS. HEART IS IN THE RIGHT
PLACE, BUT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS AS A PROSECUTOR AS A
FORMER PROSECUTOR. ARE THERE ANY
CRIMES THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM
SHIELDING ANY PARTICULAR
CONVICTIONS? UM EXEMPT FROM THE
SHIELDING OF THE PROTECTIONS
HERE? I CAN ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. UM THE A NUMBER OF THE
REFORMS THAT ARE LISTED HERE.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS
ALREADY HAVE, UM, LARGE
EXCEPTIONS BUILT IN THEIR
DIFFERENT EXCEPTIONS FOR EACH OF
THE DIFFERENT REFORMS IF THERE'S
A PARTICULAR ONE THAT YOU'RE
CURIOUS ABOUT, I CAN GIVE YOU
MORE INFORMATION, BUT JUST TO
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FOR THE
YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE UM,
REFORMS THAT ARE INCLUDED. SO
SOMEONE WHO HAS RECEIVED A
CONVICTION AT AGE 25 OR YOUNGER
, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAR FOR THE PAROLE BOARD NOT
GUARANTEED AT ALL THAT THEY
WOULD GET RELEASED. THAT'S THE
EXISTING REFORM THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE PASSED. THE
EXCLUSIONS FOR THEIR INCLUDE
PEOPLE WITH LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
SENTENCES FOR AN OFFENSE
COMMITTED TO AGE 18 OR OLDER
PEOPLE, WITH ONE STRIKE LIFE
SENTENCES FOR SEX OFFENSES.
PEOPLE ARE SECOND OR THIRD
STRIKE SENTENCES BASED ON A
PRIOR SERIOUS OR VIOLENT FELONY
PEOPLE WHO RECEIVED A LIFE
SENTENCE SENTENCE AFTER TURNING
AGE 26 PEOPLE WHO WERE CONVICTED
OF OFFENSE THAT WAS A MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT AS A NECESSARY
ELEMENT AFTER 20 TURNING 26 AS
YOU CAN SEE LOTS OF EXCEPTIONS
BAKED IN TO THESE EXISTING
REFORMS. IF THEY ARE SO IF THEY
ARE NOT COVERED BY ONE OF THOSE
EXEMPTIONS, THEN THEY WOULD NOT
BE PROTECTED. IF THEY ARE
COVERED BY ONE OF THOSE
EXCEPTIONS, THEY WOULD NOT BE
PROTECTED UNDER THIS LAW IF AN
INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR
ONE OF THESE REFORMS BECAUSE
THEY FALL UNDERNEATH THESE
EXCLUSIONS, THEY WOULD NOT GET
RELEASED, AND THEY WOULD NOT BE
COVERED BY ONE OF THESE BY THE
HOME ACT. BY THE HOME ACT, OKAY
, AND SO YOU MENTIONED YOU WERE
SENTENCED TO LIFE. WHAT WAS YOUR
CONVICTION FOR? I WAS COULD MAKE
IT A CONVICTED OF TWO SECOND
DEGREE MURDERS. OKAY YOU TALK A
LOT ABOUT RESTORING RESTORING
HUMANITY. MHM. WHERE DO YOUR
VICTIMS GET THEIR HUMANITY BACK
FROM? UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS NO
BRINGING THEM BACK. UM, WHAT I
DO IS LIKE PARTICIPATE IN MY
BASICALLY FOR THE REST OF MY
LIFE AND LIVING AMENDS HONORING
THEIR NAMES. UH I SUPPORT
SURVIVORS OF CRIME. I WORK ON
HEALING SPACES AND RESTORATIVE
CIRCLES. UM THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND, UM EVEN RECENTLY, UH. NOT
RECENTLY. ABOUT A YEAR AGO. ONE
OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, UM
ACTUALLY CALLED, UM, MESSAGED ME
AND COMMENDED ME. UM FOR THE
LIFE THAT I WAS LIVING, AND, UH
IT WAS A IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT
IT, AND I'M NERVOUS AND ALSO TO
IT'S A VERY EMOTIONAL THING,
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK
TAKING. LIKE YOUR YOUR STANCE OF
SAYING, LIKE, YOU KNOW. YOU
SPEAK FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILY?
I DON'T THINK THAT'S UM THE
RIGHT ATTACK OR THE QUESTION TO
BE ASKING. I THINK THE QUESTION
TO BE ASKING IS, YOU KNOW HOW DO
WE HEAL OUR COMMUNITIES AND
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WORK ON. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO
CLOSE WITH THESE REMARKS IS, UM
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME
SOME SOME SAD STORIES, BUT WE
CAN NEVER FORGET THE VICTIMS
BEHIND A LOT OF THESE CRIMES AND
THEIR LIVES ARE FOREVER.
PERMANENTLY CHANGED. IMPACTED
THEY'RE NEVER GETTING THEIR
LIVES BACK THERE NEVER GETTING
THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS BACK. AND
AS THE SON OF IMMIGRANTS, MY
PARENTS IMMIGRATED TO THIS
COUNTRY, UM I DON'T THINK IT'S
FIRST OF ALL. I DON'T THINK YOU
HAVE A RIGHT TO COME TO THIS
COUNTRY. I THINK IT'S A
PRIVILEGE. AND WHEN YOU'RE HERE,
YOU SHOULD BE ON YOUR BEST
BEHAVIOR. AND IF YOU COMMIT A
CRIME, YOU KILL SOMEONE. I DON'T
HAVE A RIGHT TO STAY IN THIS
COUNTRY. THAT'S FEDERAL LAW, SO
I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH DEPORTING PEOPLE HAVE
COMMITTED, REALLY, UH, CRIMES OR
BAD CRIMES. WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED
ON KEEPING OUR PUBLIC SAFE SO I
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT WHERE
YOU'RE COMING FROM. I JUST I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT SHIELDING
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY ARE A
DANGER IN SOCIETY. SO WITH THAT,
UM, THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THANK
YOU. UH MISS PACHECO. THANK YOU.
UH AND THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THIS BILL, AND I JUST
WANTED TO MY AND PRETTY MUCH
GONNA BE ASKING WHAT? WHAT WE
DISCUSSED. UM THIS BILL WOULD
ONLY BE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
ALREADY FINISHED PAROLE. CORRECT
SO THEY'VE ALREADY, UH, FINISHES
FINISH THEIR SENTENCES, AND THEY
HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE ABLE
TO BE RELEASED. CORRECT AND THEN
THE EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE THAT
WERE MENTIONED, SO WOULDN'T
APPLY TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS SO IT
WOULDN'T APPLY TO VIOLENT
FELONIES. CORRECT CORRECT. OKAY
IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO ANYONE
THAT'S NOT COVERED IN THE
ALREADY EXISTING AND PAST SIGNED
INTO LAW, CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORM POLICIES. HMM. AND THANK
YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING
MY QUESTIONS YESTERDAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SEEN NO MORE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE ASKED THE MISS CREOLE
IF YOU PLEASE CLOSE THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. IN THE LAST 10 YEARS,
THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE PAST TWO
PAROLE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO
RECEIVED CONVICTIONS AS YOUNG
PEOPLE OFFERED RE SENTENCING FOR
THOSE CONVICTED UNDER THE FELONY
MURDER RULE. CODIFIED AND
CREATED SEVERAL PATHS OF
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND
PROVIDED POST CONVICTION RELIEF
FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE PROSECUTED
WITH CLEAR RACIAL BIAS OR HAD NO
CONSIDERATION FOR THE STATUS OF
SURVIVORS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
AND PARTNERS ARE AND PARTNER
VIOLENCE, HOWEVER, SOLELY
BECAUSE OF THE PLACE OF THEIR
BIRTH AND INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD
OTHERWISE BENEFIT FROM POLICIES
MOVE FORWARD BY THE LEGISLATURE
WILL LIKELY FIND THEMSELVES
SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT
OF ICE DETENTION AND
DEPORTATION. THIS BILL WILL
CREATE PARITY FOR ALL FORNEY IN
IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO CONTINUE AN
ADVOCATE FOR A DUAL SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE THAT TREATS IMMIGRANTS
DIFFERENTLY. IT WAS NEVER THE
INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO
ENSURE A DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF
IMMIGRANTS ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN
PAROLED BY THE PAROLE BOARD, AND
THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD THAT WE
MUST REMEMBER IS REHABILITATION
THAT IS PART OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENTS OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. WE INVEST THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA INVEST SO
MUCH ON THE REHABILITATION
REHABILITATION PORTION. IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTINUE TO
ADVOCATE FOR EQUAL SYSTEMS OF
JUSTICE THAT TREATS EVERYONE THE
SAME REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY
WERE BORN. WE HAVE WORKED ON
THIS POLICY FOR THE PAST THREE
YEARS. WORKED WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHERE THE ADVOCATES
AND WORK TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
MOVING POLICIES FORWARD THAT AT
THE END OF THE DAY ALLOW FOR
INDIVIDUALS TO RETURN HOME. THIS
BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION AND I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE
. THANK THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. IT'S DO
PASS, THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ASKED CLERK CALL THE
ROLL MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN SLE
ACELINO CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON. HANEY. CHOLERA CHOLERA I
PACHECO PACHECO, I PAPIN
HAPPENED. I RAISE RAISE RIVAS.
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, NO. YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU. AS MISS
PETRIE-NORRIS APPROACHES, I WANT
TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE AND
MEMBERS EON. IT'S AN AUTHOR'S.
WE ARE AN HOUR AND A HALF INTO
OUR HEARING. WE'VE HEARD FOUR
ITEMS WE HAVE 30. WE HAVE AN
HOUR AND A HALF. WE HAVE AN HOUR
AND A HALF MORE, AND WE HAVE 13
MORE TO GO. JUST HAVE TO HAVE
ALREADY. SO THANKS TO YOU. JUST
THROWING THAT OUT THERE,
EVERYBODY YEAH. PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENT CHAIR. EXACTLY UM,
MISS PETRIE-NORRIS. YOU MAY
BEGIN. YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS ARE
YOU PRESENTING PRESENTING IN IT
WITHOUT WICKS HERE? YEAH, THAT'S
GREAT. SO WE'LL START WITH ITEM
NUMBER FIVE A B 5 71. GREAT GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT A B 5 71,
WHICH WILL REDUCE BARRIERS.
PEOPLE EXIT THE ROOM, PLEASE. WE
NEED TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THE
AUTHOR. THANK YOU. MR WILL
REDUCE BARRIERS THAT HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS FACE WHEN TRYING TO
OFFER REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
SERVICES HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
SINCE THE SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE
ONE IN THREE WOMEN IN AMERICA
HAS LOST ACCESS TO ABORTION
SERVICES. WE ALL KNOW THAT
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM IS UNDER
ASSAULT ALL ACROSS THIS COUNTRY
IN THE FACE OF THAT. OF RIGHTS,
BUT WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT
RIGHTS WITHOUT REAL ACCESS ARE
MEANINGLESS. AND RIGHT NOW, ONE
OF THE BARRIERS TO ACCESS IS THE
COST AND AVAILABILITY OF
LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE
PROVIDERS. PROVIDERS ARE REPORT
BEING CHARGED AND ARBITRARY
SURCHARGE OR EVEN DENIED
LIABILITY INSURANCE ALTOGETHER.
BECAUSE THEY OFFER ABORTIONS OR
GENDER FOR MEANS SERVICES. THIS
BILL SIMPLY PROHIBITS THAT
DISCRIMINATION AND WILL HELP TO
ENSURE THAT HEALTH PROVIDERS ARE
ABLE TO OBTAIN LIABILITY
INSURANCE AND SERVE THEIR
PATIENTS. PLEASED TO BE JOINED
TODAY BY TWO WITNESSES. JANICE
RAQQA FROM THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND DR SHIVA
YAZDANI FROM THE AMERICAN
COLLEGE OF GYNECOLOGISTS. FIRST
WITNESS. HI GOOD MORNING.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. UM THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION
TO THIS ISSUE TODAY. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR. SHE BEGINS. DONNY I
PRACTICED AS AN A B G. Y. N IN
SACRAMENTO AND ALSO A JUNIOR
FELLOW FOR THE AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS OF DISTRICT NINE
BECAUSE SPONSORS OF MAYBE 571 SO
ABORTION CARE IS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF MY PRACTICE. UM, DAY TO
DAY. I DO NOT PROVIDE GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE PERSONALLY, BUT
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES DO THIS
BILL AND PROTECTING THIS MEDICAL
CARE EFFECTS. EVERYONE NOT JUST
THOSE WHO NEED ABORTION OR
GENDER AFFIRMING SERVICES. IN
ITALIAN WHEN STATES ACROSS OUR
COUNTRY ARE BANNING EVIDENCE
BASED LIFESAVING ABORTION AND
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. I AM
PROUD THAT CALIFORNIA SEEKS TO
PROTECT ACCESS TO THIS CARE. WE
HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TO
ENSHRINE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION
IN OUR STATE CONSTITUTION AND
REDUCE BARRIERS FOR PATIENTS TO
RECEIVE THIS CARE HAND IN HAND
WITH THESE ACTIONS, WE SHOULD
ALSO FIND WAYS TO REDUCE
BARRIERS FOR PHYSICIANS AND
OTHER HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS TO
PROVIDE THIS CARE. THIS IS WHERE
A B 5771 PLAYS AN IMPORTANT
ROLE. OBSTETRICIANS ALREADY HAVE
HIGH COST MEDICAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE. THERE IS GROWING
CONCERN THAT PHYSICIANS NEED TO
PURCHASE COSTLY ABORTION WRITER
ON TOP OF THAT, UM, EVIDENCE
SUGGESTS THAT THE LARGE PREMIUMS
FOR ABORTION WRITERS ARE NOT
PROPORTIONAL TO THE ACTUAL TRUE
LIABILITY RISK THE MEDICINE WE
PRACTICE. IT'S EVIDENCE BASED,
BUT WITH ALL MEDICINE, IT'S
FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIAL RISK.
HOWEVER WHAT IS NOT RISKY IS
PROVIDING ABORTIONS. UM OR
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. ABORTIONS
ARE SAFE PROCEDURES. THE
MAJORITY OF THE ABORTION CARE
THAT I PROVIDE IS IN THE CLINIC
SETTING AND OFTEN IN PATIENTS
HOMES WHEN THEY CHOOSE
MEDICATION ABORTIONS. THEY ARE
LESS COMMONLY PERFORMED IN A
HOSPITAL OR AN OPERATING ROOM.
THE CURRENT DIFFICULTY, SOME
PHYSICIANS OR OTHER LICENSED
PROVIDERS HAVE INSECURITY.
PREFERENCE. PROFESSIONAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE HAS IMPACTED
THE NUMBER OF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE
PRACTITIONERS WHO COULD OFFER
THESE DESPERATELY NEEDED
SERVICES. THE AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF OBSTETRICIANS AND
GYNECOLOGISTS IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR A B 571 AND ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK YOU. NEXT
QUESTION, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
JANICE ROCCO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AND ARE ALMOST 50,000 MEMBERS.
WE ARE PROUD COSPONSORS OF MAYBE
5 71 AND THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
INTRODUCING THIS LEGISLATION.
THIS BILL WILL ENSURE THAT
LICENSED MEDICAL PROVIDERS WHO
OFFER ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION OR
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE ARE NOT
DENIED. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
INSURANCE COVERAGE OR CHARGED
AND UNFAIR PREMIUM BECAUSE
THEY'RE PROVIDING CARE THAT HAS
BEEN OUTLAWED IN SOME OTHER
STATES. SINCE THE DOBBS DECISION
WAS ISSUED, MANY STATES HAVE
IMPOSED BANS OR SEVERE
RESTRICTIONS THAT MAKE IT
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,
FOR PATIENTS TO RECEIVE CARE IN
THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES, WHICH
MEANS THAT CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS
AND OTHER PROVIDERS ARE BEING
CALLED UPON. TO TREAT NOT ONLY
CALIFORNIA PATIENTS BUT AN
INCREASING NUMBER OF PATIENTS
WHO TRAVEL ACROSS STATE LINES TO
SEEK BASIC HEALTHCARE SERVICES.
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
HAVE SUPPORTED A NUMBER OF BILLS
TO PROTECT PATIENTS AND
PROVIDERS FROM THE LAWS BEING
PASSED IN OTHER STATES. MAYBE 5
71 IS ONE OF THE FUTURE OF
ABORTION COUNCIL BILLS AND AS
NECESSARY TO HELP PROTECT
MEDICAL PROVIDERS. WHO MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE DENIED COVERAGE OR
CHARGED A HIGHER PREMIUM THAN IS
JUSTIFIED FOR THE PROFESSIONAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE
THEY NEED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO
PRACTICE MEDICINE. THIS BILL
WILL ENSURE THAT PATIENTS HAVE
TIMELY ACCESS TO CARE BECAUSE
THEIR G Y N OR FAMILY PHYSICIAN
OR OTHER LICENSED MEDICAL
PROVIDER WON'T HAVE A BARRIER TO
OBTAINING PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE COVERAGE. WE ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY PLEASE. AARON
EVANS HERE TO WORK ON BEHALF OF
THREE ADDITIONAL CO SPONSORS OF
THIS MEASURE. PRO CHOICE
CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA NURSE
MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS
TEACH THE TRAINING IN EARLY
ABORTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION SAYING
NONE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE MOTION FROM MR
CHOLERA, SECOND FROM MS PAPIN
SEEN NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. MEMBERS UM, I WILL
SIMPLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION. UH
THE MOTION IS DUE. PASTOR
APPROPRIATIONS ESCORT TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN, SLE SALINO CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I. DIXON CHENEY.
CHOLERA CHOLERA I, PACHECO
PACHECO, I PAPIN AND I RAISE MY
RIVAS SANCHEZ SANCHEZ KNOW YOUR
BILL IS OUT. AND THEIR NEXT ITEM
IS PETRIE-NORRIS, ABC. 7 43. AND
YOU MAY BEGIN. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
MORNING AGAIN. MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I AM HERE TO PRESENT A
B 7 43, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR
NOTARIES TO OPERATE ONLINE.
CALIFORNIA IS ACTUALLY QUITE AN
OUTLIER IN THE FACT THAT WE ONLY
ALLOW IN PERSON NOTARIZATION, UM
IN FACT, WE ARE ONE OF ONLY FIVE
STATES THAT DO NOT PERMIT SOME
KIND OF ONLINE NOTARY SERVICE. A
B 7 43 WILL HELP BRING
CALIFORNIA'S NOTARY SERVICES
INTO THE 21ST CENTURY BY
PERMITTING A NOTARY PUBLIC TO
REGISTER WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE'S OFFICE AND THEN PERFORM
THEIR DUTIES ONLINE WOULD NOW
LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY TWO
WITNESSES AND A BACK FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND ANTHONY HILTON FROM
THE CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU AND DO
YOU ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS? YES AND YES, WHEN I
THANK YOU, UH, MR VICE CHAIR, MR
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS BILL. AND
YES, I'VE CERTAINLY WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS HAS TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU, MR VICE CHAIR MEMBERS AND A
BUCK ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. WE'RE
REALLY PLEASED TO BE THE
SPONSORS TODAY OF A B 7 43,
WHICH WILL BRING NOTARIZATION IN
CALIFORNIA INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE FOR THE BETTER PART OF A
DECADE. UM SO WE'RE REALLY
EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, A SIGNER MUST
APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE NOTARY
IN CALIFORNIA TO OBTAIN MATERIAL
SERVICES FOR DOCUMENTS SUCH AS
DEEDS OF TRUST, POWER OF
ATTORNEY AND ANY DOCUMENT
AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY. I'D
LIKE YOU TO NOW THINK BACK TO
THE LAST TIME YOU HAD TO HAVE A
DOCUMENT NOTARIZED. YOUR LIFE IS
ANYTHING LIKE MINE? I'M A
WORKING MOM WITH THREE LITTLE
KIDS. UM PRETTY MUCH FELT LIKE
MOVING HEAVEN AND EARTH. IT WAS
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ARRANGE MY
LIFE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THE
FACT IS, IT'S INCREASINGLY
DIFFICULT. UM AND TODAY'S DAY
AND AGE TO FIND THE TIME TO SIT
DOWN WITH THE NECESSARY PARTIES,
UM TO DOCUMENT AND IT HAS BECOME
A TRUE BURDEN. TOO MANY
CALIFORNIANS SUCH AS PARENTS
LIKE MYSELF, ACTIVE DUTY
MILITARY, THE DISABLED AND
OTHERS. TECHNOLOGY AND THE
INTERNET HAVE SIMPLIFIED
ELECTRONIC REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS NOW TO THE POINT
WHERE HOME BUYERS AND SELLERS
CAN SECURELY SIGN DOCUMENTS AND
CONTRACTS ONLINE, APPLY FOR
MORTGAGES AND SUBMIT ANY NEEDED
DOCUMENTATION STRAIGHT FROM
THEIR SMARTPHONES. THE ONE
MISSING PIECE STILL IS ONLINE
NOTARIZATION, UM, AS IT'S NOTED
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, THIS
BILL TODAY BEFORE YOU IS THE
MOST COMPREHENSIVE ATTEMPT, UH,
YET AND AT AN ACTING ONLINE
NOTARIZATION IT ADDRESSES AND
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT MANY OF THE
SECURITY, PRIVACY AND LIABILITY
CONCERNS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
RAISED BY THIS COMMITTEE. UM SO
WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO BE HERE
AND WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU A SECOND
WITNESS. SURE THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, ANTHONY HILTON
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION. NOTARIAL ACTS
PLAYED IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE
SERVICES PROVIDED BY OUR MEMBERS
IN FACILITATING MILLIONS OF REAL
ESTATE TRANSACTIONS EVERY YEAR
BY GIVING THE PARTIES TO THOSE
TRANSACTIONS, CONFIDENCE THAT
SIGN DOCUMENTS ARE LEGITIMATE
AND CAN BE RELIED UPON THIS
CONFIDENCE, WHICH HELPS
ESTABLISH THE VIDEO VALIDITY OF
REAL PROPERTY RECORDS IS ONE OF
THE CORNERSTONES ON WHICH
CALIFORNIA'S REAL ESTATE ECONOMY
IS BUILT. AS AN ORGANIZATION
WHOSE MEMBERS HAVE A VESTED
INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE
INTEGRITY OF REAL PROPERTY
RECORDS. WE ARE PLEASED TO
SUPPORT A B 7 43, WHICH
RECOGNIZES BOTH THE PRACTICAL
CHANGES TO IN TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCEMENTS WITHIN THE REAL
ESTATE INDUSTRY. SINCE
CALIFORNIA'S KNOW TERRIO LAWS
WERE FIRST ENACTED AND WOULD
ALLOW ALLOW CALIFORNIA NOTARIES
TO JOIN THE NATION AND PROVIDING
SAFE, SECURE AND FLEXIBLE
NOTARIZATION SERVICES REMOTELY.
THIS BILL IS A PRODUCT OF YEARS
WORTH OF DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE
MANY STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS ISSUE
AND REFLECTS THOUGHTFUL
DELIBERATION INTENDED TO ENSURE
THAT A CALIFORNIA RON POLICY IS
FUNCTIONAL, SECURE AND EFFECTIVE
. WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
WILLINGNESS TO CARRY THIS
IMPORTANT MEASURE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
NAME AND ORGANIZATION ONLY. GOOD
MORNING, EMILY DEAL WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT, NEW LEAGUE
AND SUPPORT MORNING RON
KINGSTON, REPRESENTING THE
ESCROW INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MATT
MILLER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF INDEPENDENT NOTARIES
IN SUPPORT. I SEE NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SEE NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. SURE MR ASTLEY, THANK
YOU TEND TO SUPPORT THE BILL. I
IN MY LAW PRACTICE. WE DO A LOT
OF NOTARY STUFF. AND SO I JUST
HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW DO YOU
ON THE SECURITY SIDE. HOW DO YOU
CHECK THE I D S AND STUFF
ONLINE? OH, GREAT. WELL, YES.
SO, UM YOU PROBABLY ACTUALLY
ALREADY DONE THIS IN SOME FORM
OR FASHION OR ANOTHER, UM, THE
SECURITY QUESTIONS. IT'S
MULTIFACTOR VERIFICATION SYSTEM.
WHERE, UM THE. PLATFORM ITSELF,
AND I'M NOT A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PLATFORMS. I DON'T WORK FOR
THE PLATFORMS, SO I DON'T
NECESSARILY WANT TO SPEAK ON
THEIR BEHALF. BUT IT GOES
THROUGH A SYSTEM OF QUESTIONS.
UM OKAY, SO YOU'RE NOT JUST
LOOKING AT IT ONLINE, THERE'S
ACTUALLY LIKE A YOU HAVE TO
CONFIRM YOUR IDENTITY USING
CORRECT. OKAY, SO THERE IS.
THERE'S A SERIES OF QUESTIONS
THAT YOU WOULD ONLY KNOW THE
ANSWER TO AND THEN, UM THE
NOTARY WHO YOU'RE COMMUNICATING
WITH VIA THE INTERNET ACTUALLY
CAN VIEW YOUR ID AND SEE YOUR
PERSON THROUGH THE AUDIO VISUAL
VISUAL TECHNOLOGY. AND THEN
YOU'RE NOT SAVING ANY OF THE
DOCUMENTS RIGHT? LIKE THAT ARE
BEING NOTARIZED. THOSE
DOCUMENTS. DON'T GET, UM BECAUSE
SOME DOCUMENTS TO THE BILL SO
THE BILL DIRECTS THE SECRETARY
OF STATE DEVELOP A SYSTEM SO
THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WILL
THEN SERVE AS THE REPOSITORY OF
LAST RESORT FOR THE DIGITAL
ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH SO THAT'S
ALL GOING TO BE WORKED OUT. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
THINK THIS IS A IMPORTANT
MODERATE AND MODERNIZATION. SO
THANK YOU BRINGING BRINGING
CALIFORNIA INTO THE 21ST CENTURY
. HERE WE GO. WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM MS REYES A SECOND FROM MR
KALRA. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE SEEN
MISS PETRIE-NORRIS? MIKLOS.
WELL, THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
ON A B 7 43. THANK YOU. SO WE
HAVE MOTION IS DUE PAST AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ASKED THE CLERK TO
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN IAS AILEY CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I DIXON HANEY. CHOLERA
CHOLERA I PACHECO CHECCO. I
PAPIN HAPPENED. I RAISE RIVAS
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I BILL PASSES.
THANK YOU. YOUR BILL IS OUT.
REMEMBER NEXT, MISS PACHECO, YOU
MAY PRESENT SO.
MY WITNESSES, ACTUALLY, NOT HERE
WALKING OVER FOOD, SWEET SPACE.
OKAY, UM. OKAY THAT'S IT. THAT
MIGHT BE A SUBTLE HINT OR NOT SO
SUBTLE. MISS REYES. MOVE THE
ITEM, MR KALRA, SECONDS IT,
MAYBE JUST GO AHEAD. AND IF THEY
GET HERE, GREAT, OKAY. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'LL
TAKE MY TIME. UH, SO THAT MY
WITNESS CAN ARRIVED, BUT I AM
PLEASED TO PRESENT A B 17 OH,
SEVEN. WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT
ALL PROVIDERS UNDER THE HEALING
ARTS LICENSE OR PROTECTED FROM
HOSTILE LAWS IN OTHER STATES
WITH REGARD TO THEIR LIGHTS,
ENSURE AND PROTECTS PROVIDERS,
STAFFING STAFF PRIVILEGING IN
THE HOSPITAL SETTING ABORTION
PROVIDERS AND THOSE WHO SEEK
ABORTION OR UNDER ATTACK, AND WE
KNOW OTHER SERVICES ARE ALSO
BEING ATTACKED. LIKE GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE, ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT THINGS WE CAN DO TO
ENSURE THAT THESE SERVICES ARE
ACCESSIBLE HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVIDERS
OFFERING THIS CARE CAN CONTINUE
TO OFFER IT WITHOUT FEAR. AH!
WITH ME TODAY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
MOLLY ROBSON, VP OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA. THIS
IS A FAB COUNCIL BILL, AND THIS
BILL HAS RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ALEXIS
RODRIGUEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
AARON EVANS ON BEHALF OF NARAL
PRO CHOICE CALIFORNIA AND THE
CALIFORNIA NURSE MIDWIVES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, SAYING NONE WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION SAYING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE. SAYING NONE. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND IS
PARTICULARLY MAKE CLOTHES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. UM THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CLERK.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I S ALY
SALINO CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON HANEY. CHOLERA CHOLERA I
PACHECO PACHECO, EYE POPPING
RAISE A REBUS. SANCHEZ. NO
SANCHEZ. NO IS OUT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. IT'S ON
CALL. IT NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SEE NO OTHER
AUTHORS HERE. I WILL PRESENT
MINE MR SAILING. THANK YOU,
JOHN. NOW CALLING ITEM NUMBER
SIX, UH, ASSEMBLY BILL 594. BYE,
MR MANCHIN. GOOD. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS A B 5
94 WILL EXPAND AND STRENGTHEN
THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO PROTECT
WORKERS FROM LABOR LAW
VIOLATIONS AND PROTECT
RESPONSIBLE EMPLOYERS FROM
UNFAIR COMPETITION. DESPITE THE
BEST EFFECT, EFFORTS OF THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER AND LOCAL
AGENCIES, ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR
LAW VIOLATIONS IS INADEQUATE TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF CALIFORNIA'S
IMMENSE WORKFORCE. WAGE THEFT IS
WIDESPREAD IN CALIFORNIA AND IS
PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS AND LOW
WAGE INDUSTRIES IN 2021, ALMOST
19,000 WORKERS FILED CLAIMS WITH
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER, ENDING
UP TO MORE THAN $338 MILLION IN
LOST WAGES. COMPANIES CONTINUE
TO DEVELOP MORE SOPHISTICATED
WAYS TO EVADE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS. THESE
TECHNIQUES MAKE THE ALREADY
BACKLOGGED WAGE CLAIM PROCESS
EVEN MORE COMPLICATED AND TIME
INTENSIVE. IT'S ESSENTIAL WE
MAXIMIZE THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO
PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO
GIVE WORKERS ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
AND HOLD COMPANIES THAT BREAK
THE LAW ACCOUNTABLE. MAYBE 5 94
EXPANDS PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT IN
THE FOLLOWING WAYS BRONZE, THE
AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT AND CITY
ATTORNEYS TO ENFORCE LABOR LAWS
AND SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
STOP VIOLATIONS. MR GIBSON
MOVING AWAY. YAHOO WELL, I
APPRECIATE THE EXTRA EFFORT MR
GIBSON IS GIVING THAT'S GREAT.
SORT OF AS THAT. PUBLIC
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE NOT
BOUND BY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
SIGNED BY INDIVIDUAL WORKERS AND
AUTHORIZES THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE PENALTIES
FOR WILLFUL MISCLASSIFICATION IN
THE WAGE CLAIM PROCESS. RECENT
AMENDMENTS ADDRESS CONCERNS BY
THE OPPOSITION AND NARROW THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL TO REMOVE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND CAL
OSHA LABOR CODE DIVISIONS. THIS
IS AN IMPORTANT MEASURE TO
PROTECT WORKERS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. WITH ME TO TESTIFY AND
SUPPORTER CAITLIN VEGA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION AND
MATT BROAD ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS CAITLIN VEGA FOR THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION. WE
ARE PROUD TO SPONSOR THIS BILL.
I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR VERY
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS. UH
CALIFORNIA HAS MANY OF THE
STRONGEST AND BEST LABOR LAWS ON
THE BOOKS. AND YET IN PRACTICE,
WE KNOW THAT UM, WAGE THEFT
MISCLASSIFICATION RETALIATION.
THESE KINDS OF LABOR LAW
VIOLATIONS ARE INCREDIBLY
WIDESPREAD AND PERVASIVE,
ESPECIALLY IN LOW WAGE
INDUSTRIES, MEANING THAT WORKERS
WHO EARN THE LEAST HAVE THE
RIGHTS VIOLATED THE MOST AND
HAVE THE HARDEST TIME HOLDING
THEIR EMPLOYERS ACCOUNTABLE. WE
KNOW THAT STATE AGENCIES ARE
DRASTICALLY UNDERFUNDED AND
UNDERSTAFFED. TO BE ABLE TO
SERVE THE NEEDS OF OUR DIVERSE
WORKFORCE WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE
PAST FEW DECADES THAT COMPANIES
HAVE MOVED TOWARD MODELS OF
CONTRACTING OUT USING LABOR
CONTRACTORS TO SHIELD THEMSELVES
FROM LIABILITY, MAKING IT MUCH
MORE WORK IN 10 TIME INTENSIVE,
UM ON ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO
TRY TO ENFORCE STATE LAWS, AND,
OF COURSE, IT'S NOT JUST WORKERS
WHO ARE HARMED. THE VAST
MAJORITY OF EMPLOYERS FOLLOW THE
LAW. THEY DON'T COMMIT WAGE
THEFT, AND YET THEY HAVE TO
COMPETE AGAINST COMPANIES THAT
USE THAT AS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL
, SO IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
AS WELL AS FOR STATE REVENUE
THAT RELIES ON EMPLOYERS PAYING
TAXES AND PAYING WORKERS SO THAT
WORKERS CAN PAY THEIR TAXES. WE
ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN
IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S
ALL THIS BILL DOES CREATES
ADDITIONAL, UM, OPTIONS FOR
WORKERS TO HAVE LAWS ENFORCED
AND TELLS COMPANIES THAT ARE
VIOLATING THE LAW THAT THERE
WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR THESE
REASONS WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. SO YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS,
MATT BROAD HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS. I'M
THRILLED TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT
OF 85 94, WHICH ADDRESSES A
FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN OUR LABOR
LAW REGIME IN A LOT OF WAYS.
IT'S EITHER UNDER ENFORCEABLE OR
UNENFORCEABLE. UM AS AS MY CO
WITNESS SAID, YOU CAN HAVE THE
BEST LABOR LAWS IN THE COUNTRY.
BUT IF THEY'RE UNENFORCEABLE
THERE, THE PROVERBIAL PAPER
TIGER THIS BILL SIMPLY EXPANDS
PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR LAW
VIOLATIONS, WHICH BRINGS OUR
ABILITY TO COMBAT WAGE STAFF AND
MISCLASSIFICATION IN LINE WITH
OUR STATE'S VALUES. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD URGE YOUR I VOTE
ON A B 5 94. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT PLEASE
STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION AND
ORGANIZATIONS AND I'M THE
ASSISTANT STATE DIRECTOR, SMART
TV AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT.
CULTURE HERE. RICE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING,
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL AND
SUPPORT JOHN SHOVEN, CALIFORNIA
NURSES ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, ACTUALLY HALF
PHENOMENA, HALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION, AND
WE DO APPRECIATE OUR
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE TAKEN TO NARROW THE
SCOPE OF THE LABOR CODE THAT
SUPPLIES TO SOME OF OUR CONCERNS
ALSO RELATE TO AND CAN SIT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR LEVEL DID WANT TO
ALSO TALK ABOUT CONCERNS ABOUT
POSSIBLE LAWSUITS THAT COULD
COME OUT OF THIS. IF A PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR WAS TO BRING A CLAIM
, AND THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT
EMPLOYEES DID RECEIVE SOME SORT
OF RECOVERY FROM THAT. THAT DOES
NOT STOP A SUBSEQUENT POSSIBLE
LAWSUIT UNDER THE CASE CAN BE
RAINS. EVEN IF AN INDIVIDUAL
SETTLES THEIR OWN CLAIM. THEY
ARE STILL CONSIDERED AN
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE UNDER PRAGA
AND CAN PURSUE A POCKET ACTION
SO FOR PRIVATE ATTORNEY SEES
THAT A COMPANY HAS SETTLED IF
THESE CASES ARE IN THE NEWS,
IT'S VERY EASY FOR THEM, THEN TO
GO OUT AND FIND IT A PLAINTIFF
TO SERVE FOR A POCKET CASE. ONCE
YOU FILE A POCKET PLACE YOU CAN
THEN ADD IN ANY CLAIM UNDER THE
LABOR CODE. IT DOES NOT MATTER
IF THE ALLEGED EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY
SUFFERED THAT HARM, SO YOU CAN
ACTUALLY GREATLY EXPAND BEYOND
WHAT THE ORIGINAL CASE WAS AND
SEEK PENALTIES IN ADDITIONAL
RELIEF UNDER PARAGRAPH FOR THOSE
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. ATTORNEYS
REALLY NGUYEN UNDERPAID? A. IT'S
NOT THE STATE OR THE EMPLOYEE.
THE L W. D A ITSELF HAS
ACKNOWLEDGED THE VAST MAJORITY
OF POCKET LAWSUITS DO NOT TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF WORKERS OR THE
STATE ANNOUNCES SUGGESTS, YOU
KNOW, POTENTIALLY AMENDING PAGA
AND MY DREAM WOULD BE TO AMEND
THE POCKET AND TOPOGRAPHY FORM.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN REALLY
ADVERSE TO THAT IT HAS REJECTED
MULTIPLE PROPOSALS BY MULTIPLE
DIFFERENT GOVERNORS, DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNORS REGARDING POGO REFORM,
SO WE REALLY DO THINK THAT THIS
BILL SHOULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE
IN AN AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? HELLO GOOD MORNING.
MATTHEW ALLEN WITH WESTERN
GROWERS ALSO OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, NICK CHAPPY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TRUCKING ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, KATIE DAVEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. HAVE BEEN COMING AFTER
THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL FOOD
PRODUCERS ALSO IN OPPOSITION,
SAYING NO OTHER SPEAKERS OR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE
COMMITTEE. YES, MR CARL CHOLERA
. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD HAS MENTIONED
IN THE PRIOR COMMITTEE. UM THIS
IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
OUR STATE DOESN'T HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO
ADJUDICATE. THESE CLAIMS QUICKLY
. NOW WE ARE TRYING TO DO THINGS
THAT MORE RESOURCES AND ALL
THAT. BUT AT THE END OF THAT,
THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. THE MORE
PARTNERS WE HAVE ON THE GROUND
THAT, UM, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
BE ABLE TO BRING JUSTICE TO
WORKERS AND BE ABLE TO RESOLVE
THESE ISSUES. WHOEVER SIDE THE
RESOLVING OF FOUR YOU KNOW THEY
CAN GET THESE CLAIMS RESOLVED
QUICKLY. UM, YOU KNOW AT LOCAL
OF A COUNTY CITY LEVELS UM, IT'S
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND I THINK
IT'S ONE OF THE IT'S A CRITICAL
TOOL FOR US TO PLAY CATCH UP ON
THESE CLAIMS THAT TAKE SOME
CASES, YEARS TO RESOLVE AND
EMPLOYERS KNOW IT. THEY LIKE THE
STATUS QUO, AT LEAST AT LEAST
SOME OF THEM, NOT THE ONES THAT
ARE ABIDING BY THE LAW, BUT THE
ONES THAT ARE COMMITTING THESE
KINDS OF EGREGIOUS ACTS LIKE
THIS AT HIS QUOTE BECAUSE THEY
KNOW AT THE END OF THE DAY, MOST
EMPLOYEES ARE JUST GOING TO
THROW THEIR HANDS UP AND MOVE ON
AND NOT GET THE JUSTICE THEY
DESERVE. AND SO, UM IS THERE. IF
THERE'S AN EMOTION LIKE TO MAKE
EMOTIONAL I BELIEVE MR IS MOVED
. DO YOU WANT A SECOND? YEAH,
THAT'S RIGHT. I'LL SECOND IT AND
I'D LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A CO
AUTHOR. THANK YOU AND MISS PAPIN
, ONE JUDGMENT RULE THAT WOULD
OVERCOME THE PARKER. EXPLAINS SO
I, UM. FIRST OF ALL THE WHAT
ALLOWS YOU TO DO IS RECOVER
PENALTIES, MOST OF WHICH GO TO
THE STATE, SO IF A WORKER WERE
TO RECOVER BECAUSE OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR IS SAYING YOU WERE
OWED BACK WAGES. IT ACTUALLY
WOULDN'T BE A DOUBLE RECOVERY
BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT THINGS
FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF
VIOLATIONS, AS THE CHAMBER
MENTIONED UPON CLAIM COULD ADD
IN ADDITIONAL CLAIMS THAT WERE
NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.
IN NONE OF THOSE CASES, WITH THE
RECOVERY BE THE SAME. THOSE
WOULD BE DIFFERENT KINDS OF
RECOVERY AND 75. PERCENT OF
POLKA PENALTIES. GO TO THE STATE
NOT TO THE WORKER ANYWAY. SO
THERE REALLY ISN'T AN INCENTIVE
FOR WORKERS TO, UH COME UP WITH
FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS TO GO AFTER AN
EMPLOYER THAT THEY'VE ALREADY
BEEN ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC
ENFORCEMENT. AND AGAIN. OUR
POSITION IS THIS BILL IS ABOUT
PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT. WE
UNDERSTAND THE CHAMBER DOESN'T
LIKE YOGA. THEY RAISED THAT ON
EVERY BILL. THIS BILL SIMPLY
ABOUT PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT, WHICH
WERE WE DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND
WHY THEY WOULD OBJECT TO GREAT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMITTEE
COMMENTS SEEING NONE. MR. MANN
CHEUNG, YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IMPORTANT
BILL. THIS WILL GIVE US A HUGE
ADDED RESOURCE TO GET IT.
COMPANIES AND EMPLOYERS WHO
DON'T PAY PROPERLY PAY THE
WAGES. I MEAN, IT'S THE VAST
MAJORITY OF COMPANIES ARE
OBEYING THE LAW AND DOING THE
RIGHT THING, AND THIS WILL HAVE
NO IMPACT ON THEM. BUT THE ONES
WHO AREN'T UM, THIS WILL HELP
MAKE SURE THOSE EMPLOYEES GET
PAID. AND WITH THAT, I ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION A SECOND WITH ME. CALL
THE ROLL MOTIONS DO PASS THROUGH
PREPARATIONS. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN SALIH SALINO
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I DIXON
HANEY. CHOLERA CHOLERA. PACHECO
PACHECO, I POP IN AND I RAISE
REVERSE. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. NO
IT'S OK. IT'S ON CALL THERE. MR
GIBSON. THE ENTHUSIASTIC MR
GIBSON APPROACHES. THE BILL. WE
HAVE EMOTION FROM MS PAPIN.
SECOND FROM MR CHOLERA. THANK
YOU. WE APPRECIATE, UH, THE BOOT
THE BILL BEING MOVED AND THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. MR CHAIRMAN AND
SPEAKER. I WILL BE BRIEF UNLESS
THERE'S QUESTIONS BY THE
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY
BILL 10 89, WHICH SEEKS TO BAN
THE SELL THE PURCHASE AND
POSSESSION OF AND RECEIVING OF
GHOST GUN TECHNOLOGY BY LIMITING
UM, THE USE OF THREE D PRINTERS
AND COMPUTERIZED NUMBERS, UM,
CONTROLLED MILLING MACHINES ONLY
TO THOSE WHO ARE LICENSED WHO
ARE STATE LICENSED FIREARM
MATTER OF FACTORS. UH, THIS BILL
, UM YOU KNOW, CONTINUES TO
BUILD UPON THE BILLS THAT I
BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BODY OR
PREVIOUS BODIES IN THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE AND OTHERS.
ASSEMBLY BILL. UM 2016 21. WE
BAND GHOST GUN KITS. AND ALSO,
UM OTHER BILLS 78, 79 AND 2019
ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS AND
PURCHASING A FIREARMS FRAMES AND
RECEIVERS. UM I JUST WANT TO
CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION OF
SOMETHING THAT TRAGIC THAT
HAPPENED, UM, IN HERE IN
SACRAMENTO, NOT FAR AWAY FROM
WHERE WE ARE TODAY, UH, DUE TO
THE WORK THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE
BODY HAS DONE WHEN THERE IS A
DOMESTIC DISPUTE GOING ON AT THE
HOME AND THAT THERE'S A GUN TO
REGISTER PERSON THAT GUN IS
REMOVED. THE WORK THAT WE DID,
UM, CERTAINLY VALIDATE THAT, UM
, HUSBAND AND WIFE DISPUTE
DIVORCE. THE WIFE GOT FULL
CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. THREE
BEAUTIFUL DAUGHTERS. THE FATHER
HAD SUPERVISED VISITATION
RIGHTS. I WANT TO UNDERSCORE
SUPERVISED VISITATION RIGHTS. AS
A RESULT, UM THE FATHER, UM,
MADE A GUN AND A R 15. UM WENT
TO THE LOCAL SACRAMENTO CHURCH
WHERE HIS DAUGHTERS WERE WAITING
FOR HIM WHERE HE WANTED TO VISIT
THEM WITH A SOCIAL WORKER. HE
USED AN AR 15 AND KILLED HIS OWN
THREE DAUGHTERS, THE SOCIAL
WORKER, AND THEN HE TURNED THE
GUN ON HIMSELF, AND THAT WAS
USED BY A THREE D PRINTER. THAT
HE TOOK HIS BABIES LIVES AWAY,
INCLUDING HIMSELF. THIS BILL 10
89 6 TO PREVENT THAT AND FOCUS
ON LICENSED MANUFACTURERS. BUT
ALSO IT PUT A LIABILITY PIECE IN
THERE, UM, THAT A CODE CANNOT BE
USED TO PRODUCE A ANY KIND OF
GHOST GUNS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL SEEKS TO DO. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK, BUT I VOTE
HERE TO, UM TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. WE HAVE REBECCA
MARCUS REPRESENTING GIFFORD. AND
MR GIBSON, YOU TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS. I DO. TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
AND THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR HARD
WORK AND HELPING ME WITH THIS
BILL. FIRST WITNESS, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS ERIN IMOLA, REPRESENTING
THE GIFFORDS LAW CENTER TO
PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE FOR THE
SPONSORS OF 10 89. IN THE
INTEREST OF KEEPING YOU ON TRACK
, WE WILL BE REALLY FAST.
BASICALLY THIS LEGISLATION JUST
BUILDS ON CALIFORNIA'S RECENT
GHOST GUN LAW, AS THE AUTHOR
ARTICULATED. UM AND ONE OF THE
BIG PROBLEMS NOW IS THAT
BLUEPRINTS ARE BEING SOLD. UM SO
WE WANT TO PUT A STOP TO THAT TO
MAKE IT EASIER TO CREATE
LIABILITY AND A DISINCENTIVE FOR
THAT TO HAPPEN. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
REBECCA MARCUS OF REPRESENTING
THE BRADY CAMPAIGN WILL ALSO BE
BRIEF. LAST YEAR. YOU ALL SAID
ENOUGH AND PAST TWO OF THE
STRONGEST LAWS REGULATING GHOST
GUNS, WHOEVER, DESPITE THE
IMMEDIATE AND LIFE SAVING IMPACT
OF THE PASSAGE AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE BILLS,
CERTAIN INDUSTRY MEMBERS HAVE
WORKED DILIGENTLY TO FIND WAYS
TO CIRCUMVENT THOSE LAWS. SO
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE URGE ARRIVE
OUT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY. JOHN SHOVEN,
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION.
KELLY HIT ON BEHALF OF EVERY
EVERY TOWN FOR GUN SAFETY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALEXIS
RODRIGUEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, UH, SEE NO OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE.
MISS HAPPENED. JUST REQUEST TO
BE A CO AUTHOR. I BELIEVE IN
THIS BILL 100,000% SO THANK YOU
FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON IT. THANK
YOU, AND WE'LL ADD YOU AS A CO
AUTHOR. ALSO TAKE THAT AS A
MOTION FROM MS PEPIN. DO WE HAVE
TO HAVE ONE? OKAY THEN I WON'T.
UM AND I ALSO WAS A REALLY
IMPORTANT BILL. UM AND I
WOULDN'T SAY GETTING AHEAD OF
THE TECHNOLOGY. THE TECHNOLOGY
IS ALREADY HERE, AND WE REALLY
HAVE TO RAMP UP EFFORTS ON THIS
, SO I APPRECIATE IT AND LOVE TO
BE AT HIS CO AUTHOR AS WELL VERY
MUCH. IN A SECOND SCENE. NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. MR GIBSON,
YOU MAY CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASKED
WHAT I VOTE THANK YOU. VERY MUCH
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
ASKED CLARK, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
SLE CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I DIXON,
HANEY, CORA. RIGHT NOW. I
PACHECO PACHECO, I POP IN AND I
REYES REVERSE. SANCHEZ. YOUR
BILL IS ON CALL NEEDS ANOTHER
VOTE. UH, MR HART. THE THIRD
ITEM 13 A B 13 45.
TWO YEARS. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I
SAID. IS THAT A MOTION? PROCEED.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M PLEASED
TO PRESENT A B 13 45 A BILL TO
ENACT STRONG CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS AGAINST PREDATORY
REAL ESTATE LISTING AGREEMENTS
IN A RECENT DISTURBING TREND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, UNSUSPECTING
HOMEOWNERS, INCLUDING SENIORS,
AND THOSE WITH LIMITED FINANCIAL
RESOURCES, ARE OFFERED CASH
UPFRONT TO ENTER INTO DECADES
LONG, EXCLUSIVE REAL ESTATE
LISTING AGREEMENTS. WELL UNDER
OWNERS ARE UNDER NO IMMEDIATE
OBLIGATION TO SELL THEIR HOME IN
THESE SCHEMES. CONSUMERS ARE
UNAWARE THAT THESE PREDATORY
CONTRACTS ARE BINDING AND RESULT
IN A LIEN PLACED ON THE HOME.
THE PENALTY TO CANCEL. THE
CONTRACT IS OFTEN CALCULATED
USING A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR
HOMES APPRECIATED EQUITY,
ULTIMATELY COSTING HOMEOWNERS
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WHEN THEY
WANT TO GET OUT OF THIS
CONTRACT, MAYBE 13 45 WILL
PROHIBIT LENGTHY LISTING
AGREEMENTS AND MAKE IT UNLAWFUL
TO PRESENT THEM FOR RECREATION.
THE MEASURE ENSURES CALIFORNIA
TAKES URGENT PREVENTATIVE ACTION
TO PROTECT VULNERABLE HOMEOWNERS
AGAINST THESE ABUSIVE SALES
PRACTICES. I WANT TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON FOR
JOINT AUTHORING THIS EFFORT. THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND I HAVE ENGAGED IN A
VERY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS ON
THIS BILL, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE WORKING TOGETHER ON
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. TESTIFYING
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL ARE
ANTHONY LIU WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.
GABRIEL SCHAFER, ALSO WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, IS
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS, AND LORI MAZZELLA,
REPRESENTING SOLANO COUNTY IS
ALSO HERE TO OFFER HER
TESTIMONY. FIRST WITNESS. HI
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. LAURIE
MOZZARELLA, DEPUTY KAREN COUNCIL
COUNCIL COUNTY OF SOLANO, THIS
IS YOUR FIRST CAME TO MY
ATTENTION FROM OUR RECORDING
OPERATIONS MANAGER WHO HAD OVER
20 YEARS EXPERIENCE AND HAD
REJECTED TO A MEMORANDUM OF
THESE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO LISTEN.
SELL AGREEMENTS. UH I TOOK A
LOOK AT IT AGREED WITH HER THAT
THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27 TO 80
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT AFFECT TITLE
OR POSSESSION OF PROPERTY. SO
DISCUSSIONS ENSUED BETWEEN US
AND THE REALTY ATTORNEYS AND
BETWEEN US AMONGST US AND OUR
COLLEAGUES AND WE FOUND OUT IS
THAT MANY COUNTIES HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED WITH THESE DOCUMENTS
TO RECORD 17 COUNTIES ABOUT HOW
RECORDED THEM. INCLUDING
UNFORTUNATELY ONE OR TWO THAT
SLIPPED THROUGH OUR ELECTRONIC
RECORDING SYSTEM. DESPITE OUR
BEST EFFORTS, UM MY COLLEAGUES
IN THE COUNTY COUNCILS
ASSOCIATION AGREE WITH OUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.
NONETHELESS I'VE HAD A FEW PHONE
CALLS FROM COLLEAGUES WHO SAID
THAT THE RECORDERS ARE FEELING
PRESSURE. THERE'S THREATS OF
LITIGATION, AND THEY'RE INCLINED
TO RECORD THEM. IF THEY'RE
SIGNED AND NOTARIZED, SO THAT
RATCHETED UP THE CONCERN FOR THE
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND OUR OFFICE
A GREAT DEAL, AND WE REALLY FEEL
LIKE A LEGISLATIVE FIX IS
NECESSARY, SO WE RESPECT FOR
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU SECOND WITNESS
. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
ANTHONY LIU, DEPUTY, A G, UH,
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
OFFICE FOR BOB AGENT ROB BONTA.
THE A G SUPPORTS. MAYBE 13 45,
AND WE THANK OUR TWO AUTHORS FOR
WORKING WITH OUR OFFICE TO
INTRODUCE THIS BILL AND FURTHER
EFFORTS TO MAKE CALIFORNIA ONE
OF THE FIRST STATES TO ENACT A
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION TO THIS
EMERGING PROBLEM. SO AS YOU
HEARD THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
DESCRIBING DETAIL, THIS IS A
PREDATORY PRACTICE THAT IS
EMPLOYED BY SOME REALTY
COMPANIES TO USE EXCLUDE
EXCLUSIVE LISTING AGREEMENTS IN
AN ANTI COMPETITIVE MANNER. AND
IT IS INCREASINGLY HARMING
CONSUMERS AND OTHER REALTY
COMPANIES TRYING TO COMPETE FOR
BUSINESS FAIRLY. UM MAYBE 13 45
IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT
VULNERABLE LOW INCOME AND
ELDERLY HOMEOWNERS WERE THE MOST
FREQUENTLY TARGETED BY THIS
PRACTICE ARE NOT BEING TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF FINANCIALLY AND NOT
BEING TRAPPED IN LONG TERM
EXCLUSIVE LISTING AGREEMENTS
RECORDED AS LEANS AGAINST THEIR
HOME. THE BILLS NEEDED TO COMBAT
THIS PRACTICE BEFORE IT GETS A
STRONGER FOOTHOLD IN CALIFORNIA
, IT BECOMES HARDER TO MITIGATE
IN FUTURE YEARS. WE'LL ALSO
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD SO THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF REAL ESTATE
AGENTS WERE NOT ENGAGING IN THIS
PRACTICE. CAN CONTINUE TO
COMPETE FOR BUSINESS AND ARE NOT
FROZEN OUT OF REPRESENTING
POTENTIAL CLIENTS BY THOSE WHO
ARE EXPLOITING EXCLUSIVE LISTING
AGREEMENTS. SO WE'RE COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH OPPOSITION AND
FOLLOWING THE AUTHORS LEAD AND
DISCUSSIONS AS THE GOVERNMENT'S
FORWARD. I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT THE
AUTHORS WILL FINEST SWEET SPOT
ON THIS. AND FOR THESE REASONS,
WEEKS RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO
VOTE I AND MAYBE 30 45 TODAY.
THANK YOU AND WELCOME BACK FIRST
WITNESS AND SUPPORT. MCLOVIN
SEEN IN CALIFORNIA ADVISORS ON
BEHALF OF ZILLOW AND SPORT.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
ANTHONY HILTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. MR
CHAIRMAN, RON KINGSTON ESCROW
INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
GOING TO BE TALKING TO THE
AUTHOR ABOUT ONE AMENDMENT, SO
TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T
INVALIDATE TRANSFERS OF TITLE
DURING THE RIGHT TERM OF THAT,
MR HART IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT SEEING
NONE. WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
MAYBE. UM. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS AND A BLACK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. I WANT
TO START OFF BY SAYING THANK YOU
TO THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. WE'VE
HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS.
UM, THE ONLY REASON THAT I'M
SITTING ON THIS SIDE OF THE
AISLE TODAY, UH, IS THAT
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS? ESSENTIALLY DOES NOT
CURRENTLY HAVE POLICY ON THIS
ISSUE. UM AND SO WE'RE WORKING
TOWARDS THAT POLICY DECISION,
WHICH WILL COME THE FIRST WEEK
OF MAY AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE SPONSOR AND THE AUTHOR
ON THIS REALLY IMPORTANT, BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION? SEEN
ON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. MS PACHECO. SO I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
THIS BILL. UM BECAUSE 40 YEAR
LISTING AGREEMENTS ARE
OUTRAGEOUS. UM BUT I DO HAVE
SOME OTHER CONCERNS THAT THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS HAS, UH, I'M ALSO A
REAL ESTATE BROKER. UH AND SO
SOMETIMES HAVING A LISTING
AGREEMENT FOR OVER A YEAR OVER
12 MONTHS MAY BE IMPORTANT AND I
CAN LIST ONE EXAMPLE. UH PROBATE
CASES. SOMETIMES THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOESN'T HAVE FULL
AUTHORITY. WHAT THAT MEANS IS
YOU HAVE TO GET COURT APPROVAL
BEFORE A SALE CAN ACTUALLY
HAPPEN, AND SOMETIMES SITTING
COURT HEARINGS CAN BE DIFFICULT.
SOMETIMES UM, UH, YOU KNOW,
PROBABLY HEARINGS CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC. AS SO. THAT'S JUST
ONE EXAMPLE. SO I'M HAPPY TO
HEAR THAT, UM, THAT YOU'RE
WORKING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. UM,
SURE, SOMETHING WILL BE FIGURED
OUT, BUT THAT WAS MY ONLY
CONCERN, RECORDING LISTING
AGREEMENTS. I HAVE NEVER DONE
IT. MY FAMILY HAS NEVER DONE IT,
WHO ARE ALSO REAL ESTATE
BROKERS. SO I DON'T I DON'T HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST
THE 12 MONTH LISTING AGREEMENTS
IS WHAT WHAT I HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT BECAUSE EVERY SALE IS
DIFFERENT. SO I APPRECIATE THE
DIALOGUE AND I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR BECAUSE AGAIN
40 YEAR LISTING AGREEMENTS IS
IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. SO THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, AND THAT'S EXACTLY
THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE WORKING
TOGETHER ON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEE? NONE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
HMM. MOTION FOR MR KALRA. SECOND
FROM MR ASTLEY. UH MR ART, NIKOS
. I RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE
MOTION IS PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED
CLARK TO CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN AYE
ASILI. SALEI CONNELLY CONNELLY I
DIXON HANEY. CHOLERA CHOLERA I,
PACHECO PACHECO I POP IN.
HAPPENED I RAISE REVERSE
SANCHEZ. YOUR BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU, MR GABRIEL. YOU HAVE TWO
BILLS ITEM NUMBER 10 89 24. I
HAVE NEVER 15 15 46. WOULD YOU
LIKE THEM IN MR LET'S START WITH
A B 9 24. YEAH.
YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS AND I WANT TO
FIRST THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK AND
ASSISTANCE ON THE BILL AND
CONFIRM THAT WE WILL BE TAKING
THE AMENDMENTS TODAY AND I'M
PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU A B 9
TO 4, WHICH WILL ESTABLISH
ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS AND
TRANSPARENCY TO HELP PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS WHO RELY ON PRIVATE
JUDGES TO MEDIATE DISPUTES. IN
DECEMBER OF 2020 MEDIA OUTLETS
BROKE THE STORY OF HOW RENOWNED
CONSUMER ATTORNEY TOM GIRARDI
HAD LIKELY STONES. MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS FROM HINKLE'S CLIENTS,
INCLUDING CHILDREN ORPHANED BY A
PLANE CRASH VICTIMS OF A
PIPELINE EXPLOSION AND ELDERLY
CANCER PATIENTS. LATER ON THE
ROLE OF PRIVATE JUDGES AND
DISPUTE RESOLUTION, NEUTRALS AND
GIRARDI SCANDAL CAME TO LIGHT.
OFTEN TIMES HIS SCHEMES RELIED
ON PRIVATE JUDGES THAT HE
SELECTED AND PAID FOR, AND WHO
APPEARED TO DISREGARD THE
MANAGEMENT OF CLIENT FUNDS OR
LOOK THE OTHER WAY AT BLATANT
ETHICAL CONCERNS. IN SHORT, THE
GIRARDI STORY HAS EXPOSED THE
ROLE THAT PRIVATE JUDGES CAN
PLAY IN ENABLING CORRUPTION AND
MALFEASANCE IN THE LEGAL
PROFESSION. DESPITE THE WIDE
POWER PRIVATE JUDGES IN THE
LEGAL SYSTEM, NO GOVERNMENT
AGENCY. SPECIFICALLY MONITORS
ARE POLICES THEIR CONDUCT TO
PREVENT THIS TYPE OF
MALFEASANCE. MR JARDINES
RELIANCE ON THEM RACIST
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE
ARE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN THIS
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL AND LARGELY
UNREGULATED INDUSTRY TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC. A B 9 TO 4 WILL HELP
TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BY
REQUIRING THAT A PRIVATE JUDGE
OR DISPUTE RESOLUTION NEUTRAL,
STREAMLINED, MORE WRITTEN
COMPLAINTS DIRECTLY TO THE STATE
BAR. IN SO DOING THIS BILL FILLS
A CURRENT GAP IN CALIFORNIA LAW
HIGHLIGHTED BY GIRARDI SCANDAL
AND BY THE LACK OF OVERSIGHT OF
DILUTE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
NEUTRALS WITH THAT I APPRECIATE
YOUR FEEDBACK AND WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT SEEN NONE. WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SAYING NONE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. DO WE HAVE? DO WE
HAVE MOTION MOTION FROM MR
KALRA. 2ND 2ND, MR PACHECO. MR
GABRIEL MCLOVIN, RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTING I VOTE NOW THIS IS
HOW IT'S DONE. MR. HERE. THERE
THERE WE GO. THERE WE GO. UH THE
MOTION IS PASSED THROUGH PROBES
AS AMENDED, UM, ESCORT KARL ROVE
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DICKSON
DICKSON I HANEY CHOLERA. CHOLERA
I PACHECO PACHECO EYE POPPING
AND I RAISE RIVAS. SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ, A BILL IS OUT. LET'S
SEE IF YOU CAN DO AS WELL ON THE
SECOND ONE WALK AWAY AT THIS
POINT, MAYBE 15 46 ITEM 15. YOU
MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND COLLEAGUES. I AM PROUD TO
AUTHOR THIS BILL, WHICH WOULD
ENSURE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT OF
TIME TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO
ENFORCE THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER
PRIVACY ACT. THE CCP A THAT THE
CALIFORNIA PRIVACY PROTECTION
AGENCY HAS TO BRING IN
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION. UNDER THAT SAME LAW, AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
BECAME THE NATIONAL LEADER IN
ENSURING CONSUMER PRIVACY
PROTECTION FOR ALL OF ITS
RESIDENTS. FIRST WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE ENACTED THE CCP IN
2018, AND NEXT WHEN VOTERS
PASSED PROPOSITION 20 FOR THE
CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT IN
2020 UNDER THE CCP, A ONLY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORIZED TO
BRING A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
WITH A NARROW EXCEPTION FOR
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR
THOSE INJURED BY DATA BREACHES
PROPOSITION, 24 CREATED THE
PRIVACY AGENCY AND GAVE IT A
FIVE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
TO BRING AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO A DRAFTING
OVERSIGHT PROPOSITION, 24 DOZEN
SPECIFY THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALSO HAS FIVE YEARS TO
BRING A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
ACTION. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IF
THERE'S NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN LAW,
THE A G HAS ONLY ONE YEAR TO
INITIATE A LAWSUIT FOR CIVIL
PENALTIES. ONE YEAR IS FAR TOO
SHORT A TIME TO DEVELOP A CASE
UNDER A LAW AS COMPLEX AS THE
CCP. A ALTERNATIVE TO PASSING
THIS BILL IS TO LEAVE THE ONE
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN
PLACE, WHICH MEANS ONE OF TWO
THINGS WILL HAPPEN EITHER. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL QUICKLY
FILE SUIT BEFORE THE ONE YEAR
PERIOD EXPIRES IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUE.
MEANING THAT BUSINESSES WILL
HAVE TO QUICKLY DEFEND
THEMSELVES IN COURT, EVEN THOUGH
FURTHER INVESTIGATION MIGHT HAVE
SHOWN THAT NO LAWSUIT WAS
NECESSARY. OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE
WILL FILE SUIT ALLEGING NON CCP
PRIVACY VIOLATIONS, AND THE
PRIVACY AGENCY WILL BRING A
PARALLEL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FOR CCP VIOLATIONS, MEANING THAT
BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO DEFEND
AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ACTIONS IN
TWO DIFFERENT VENUES AT THE SAME
TIME, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
OPPOSITION CLAIMS THIS BILL
WOULD ADD NO NEW ADDITIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND CREATE
NO NEW RISK OF DATA BREACHES FOR
BUSINESSES. COMPANIES COVERED BY
THE CCP ALREADY HAVE TO PRESERVE
RECORDS AND DATA FOR FIVE YEARS
IN CASE THE PRIVACY AGENCY
BRINGS AN INVESTIGATIVE OR
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING IN THAT
TIME. TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT. I
HAVE TWO WITNESSES FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
. STACY SENSOR IS THE
SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN THE PRIVACY UNIT, AND
ANTHONY LIU IS THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE OFFICE
OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS. THANK
YOU AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING, ANTHONY
LEE, WITH THE EGGS LAUGHS AGAIN,
AND 80 BAND IS THE PROUD SPONSOR
OF THIS LEGISLATION. WE WANT TO
THANK THAT SOME OF THE MEMBER
GABRIEL FOR HIS LEADERSHIP
DURING THIS BILL, AND THAT
PRESENTATION THAT HE JUST GAVE
ABSOLUTELY SUMS UP EVERYTHING
YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE
SPILL, SO I'M GONNA KEEP IT REAL
SHORT. UM THIS IS A BILL THAT
REALLY ENHANCED THE O'JAYS
ABILITY. TO CARRY OUT ITS DUTY
TO ENFORCE THE C P A. AND AGAIN
THE CONSPICUOUS DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT BY DOJ AND THE FIVE
YEAR STATUTE LIMITATIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY
THE PRIVACY AGENCY. IT MAKES
LITTLE SENSE AS PUBLIC POLICY AS
DESCRIBED IN THE FINE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS ON PAGE FOUR, AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
TODAY WHEN IT TURNED OVER TO
STACEY CHESTER, AND FOR FURTHER
REMARKS ON THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS STACY
CHESSER. I AM THE SUPERVISING
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
PRIVACY UNIT IN THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION SECTION OF DOJ. MY
JOB INCLUDES SUPERVISING THE
TEAM OF ATTORNEYS TASKED WITH
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF C CPA,
WHICH WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE
SINCE INCEPTION IN 2020. THE
CURRENT ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IS INSUFFICIENT
PRIVACY FOR ENFORCEMENT CASES
ARE COMPLEX AND PRESENT NEW AND
NUANCED, LEGAL AND FACTUAL
ISSUES THAT REQUIRE AN
UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYSIS OF
TECHNICAL ISSUES TO DETERMINE IF
THE LAW IS BEING VIOLATED. WE
TYPICALLY EXAMINE AND TEST DATA
FLOWS WORK WITH EXPERT
TECHNOLOGISTS, INTERVIEW KEY
WITNESSES AND REVIEW LEGAL AND
BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS. GOVERNED
BY STATUTE, REGULATION CONTRACTS
, PRIVACY POLICIES AND TERMS OF
USE. IF WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A
FORMAL INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS, WHICH MAY BE
LITIGATED IN COURT IF TARGETS DO
NOT COMPLY, THEREBY ADDING
FURTHER TIME TO OUR
INVESTIGATIONS. IN ADDITION TO
THE PRACTICAL REALITY OF CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT, THE VOTERS APPROVED
THE CPR, WHICH CREATED A KEY
DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE PRIVACY
AGENCY. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
. THE INTENT WAS TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF A COMPANY WAS FACING AN
ENFORCEMENT ACTION, ONLY ONE
REGULATOR WOULD BE BRINGING THAT
CASE. IT WAS TO CREATE A SINGLE
LANE ROAD FOR EITHER THE A G OR
THE AGENCY TO DIRECTLY ENFORCE
THE LAW. NOT BOTH OF US. THIS IS
ALSO WHY IT INCLUDES EXPRESS
LANGUAGE THAT REINFORCES THE A G
S CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AS THE
CHIEF LAW ENFORCER WHO CAN
REQUEST THAT THE AGENCY STAY ITS
ENFORCEMENT ACTION. MAINTAINING
THIS CRITICAL DYNAMIC BETWEEN
THE AGENCY AND THE A G AVOIDS
FORCING US TO JAM THAT SINGLE
LANE ROAD BY INVESTIGATING OR
ENFORCING THE LAW LIMITING THE
AGES. DIRECT ENFORCEMENT OF CCP
A IMPACTS THE AMOUNT OF CIVIL
PENALTIES EARMARKED FOR THE
CONSUMER PRIVACY FUND, WHICH
AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES
GRANTS TO EDUCATION TO EDUCATE
CHILDREN IN THE AREA OF ONLINE
PRIVACY. WITHOUT LONGER TIME FOR
A DIRECT ENFORCEMENT THE AGE
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN
HEIGHTENED PENALTIES FOR
INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS AND
VIOLATIONS THAT INVOLVED MINOR
CHILDREN. OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT
EXTENDING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS INCREASES RISK OR
GIVES A G OR THAT BY GIVING THE
A G THE SAME FIVE YEAR PERIOD
CONTRAVENES PRO PRIVACY AND DATA
MINIMIZATION PRINCIPLES. SHOULD
I STOP? CAN YOU JUST IF YOU
COULD WRAP IT UP IN IT. UM THESE
ARGUMENTS MAKE NO SENSE.
BUSINESSES ALREADY FACED THAT
SAME RISK BY MAINTAINING THEIR
THERE'S THE SAME DATA FOR UP TO
FIVE YEARS IN CASE THEY'RE
INVESTIGATED BY THE AGENCY.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? REBECCA CRAMER MATTER
ON BEHALF OF A SALE YOU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN LATE BUT
STILL ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT. I'LL
TAKE IT. AND LOU WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND SUPPORT. ROBERT CARROLL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA WITH LATE AND ALSO
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
SEEN NONE. WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION EXCEPT ENTHUSIASTIC.
I NEED. TO YEAH, YOU CAN COME
UP. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
. ROANOKE DAYLAMI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION TO HB
15 46. FUNDAMENTALLY I THINK WE
HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
HERE BOTH AND INTERPRETING THE
VOTER'S INTENT AS WELL AS THE
NEED FOR THE BILL. FIRST WE
BELIEVE THE VOTERS SILENCE ON
THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS COULD
BE READ TO BE INTENTIONAL,
INTENTIONALLY DIVIDED
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND
SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS MUST BE
COMMENCED WITHIN FIVE YEARS. TO
US. IT IS NOT INDICATIVE OF AN
OVERSIGHT OR DRAFTING ERROR.
SECOND WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE
BILLS UNNECESSARY, UNTIMELY
FOCUSING ON ENFORCEMENT ON THE
BACK END WHEN WE ARE STILL
AWAITING PRIVACY AGENCY AGENCY
REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY FOR US
TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO COMPLY ON
THE FRONT END. FURTHERMORE WERE
UNAWARE OF ANY ACTUAL CASES
WHERE THE WAS TIME BARRED FROM
PURSUING ACTIONS FOR VIOLATION
OF THE CCP. A. TO THE CONTRARY,
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN
ROBUST ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW
WITH THE EXISTING STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AND WE WORRY THAT
THE EXTENSION WILL MERELY ALLOW
PENALTIES TO PROVE FOR FIVE
YEARS BEFORE AND ACTIONS
COMMENCED, EVEN IF IT COULD HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT IN YEAR ONE. PARODY
IS THE GOAL HERE. WE ALSO URGE
YOU TO CONCERN THAT BILL DOES
NOT PROVIDE PARITY FOR
BUSINESSES SPECIFICALLY IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT. THERE'S
AN ABILITY TO CURE NO SUCH RIGHT
EXISTS AND ACTIONS BROUGHT BY
THE A G. ON TOP OF THIS
PROPOSITION. 24 DELETED THE CCP
, A PROVISION THAT ALLOWED
BUSINESSES TO SEEK GUIDANCE FROM
THE A G. ON COMPLIANCE PLAINLY
PUT GIVING THEM THE BILL IS
ABOUT FAIRNESS. WE FEEL THIS IS
PATENTLY UNFAIR TO BUSINESSES
DOING THEIR BEST TO COMPLY
WITHOUT EVEN A FULL SET OF
REGULATIONS AND WITHOUT THE
ABILITY TO SEEK GUIDANCE.
ULTIMATELY WE FEEL TIMELY
ACTIONS BETTER SERVE ALL PARTIES
PLACES BUSINESSES ON NOTICE OF A
POTENTIAL VIOLATION, WHICH CAN
INTERMITTENT GATE POTENTIAL
HARMS TO CONSUMERS AND CLOSE
WILL JUST SAY IF ONE YEAR IS
DEEMED TOO SHORT HERE. WE JUST
SIMPLY CONTEND THAT FIVE YEARS
IS TOO LONG. WITHOUT WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSING BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. THEY
JUST STAND THERE ARE YOU ARE I
MEAN, HE THAT YOU CAN BE IN A
SECOND WITNESS? OKAY? YEAH,
THAT'D BE GREAT. PEOPLE LIKE.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
JAMIE HALF ON BEHALF OF THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS PREMATURE AT THIS POINT
. UM YOU KNOW THE CCP AH IS IN
ITS INFANCY. THE ENFORCEMENT IS
AN SYMPATHY AND WE BELIEVE THAT
WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME
TO SEE HOW THIS THING IS GOING
TO SHAKE OUT. THE A G HAS
PUBLICLY STATED THAT HE'S GOING
TO VIGOROUSLY AND QUICKLY AND
FORCE THE CCP. A WHICH, AS HE
SHOULD, UM, THAT THIS IS, YOU
KNOW, PARTICULARLY TRUE
EXTENDING THIS OUT FOR A YEAR IN
LIGHT OF AS THE SUPPORT
MENTIONED ARE PRO PRIVACY AND
DATA MINIMIZATION PRINCIPLES AS
A STATE. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE
. THE LONGER YOU HOLD ONTO DATA
, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT
SOMETHING CAN GO WRONG, WHICH,
OF COURSE, WHEN BUSINESSES HOLD
ONTO THAT DATA, THEY COULD BE
SUBJECT TO LIABILITY. RISK CLASS
ACTION, SO IT'S A PROBLEM, SO WE
WOULD JUST SAY. MAYBE MAYBE FIVE
YEARS. MAYBE ONE YEAR IS TOO
SHORT AS THE CHAMBER SAID, BUT
WE THINK FIVE YEARS IS A LITTLE
TOO LONG AND UNLESS IT UNTIL WE
SEE EVIDENCE THAT LET THIS THIS
THING, PLAY OUT, LET THE
ENFORCEMENT PLAY OUT AND LET'S
SEE WHERE WE STAND LATER ON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION NAME AND
ORGANIZATION ONLY. DYLAN HOFFMAN
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET,
RESPECTFULLY POSITIVE. AND HAVE
BEEN COMING HALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS AT THE NATIONAL
PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM IN
OPPOSITION. HMM. MARGARET
GLADSTEIN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, IN THAT CHOICE IN
OPPOSITION. ASHLEY HONG ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTIVELY, A
POST WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
SEEN ON QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. SEEN
UNDERWAY OF EMOTION MOTION FROM
MR KALRA. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?
UM. WE'RE NOT. WE DON'T HAVE A
SECOND MISHAP IN SECOND THE
MOTION. UM, ANY UH, ANY NOTICE,
SEE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO
THE AUTHOR, MR GABRIEL, YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. DISRESPECTFUL QUESTION
ABOUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED
THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I SALI
SALI. NO, CONNELLY CONNELLY I
DICKSON DICKSON NO, HANEY.
CHOLERA. KALRA I PACHECO PACHECO
, EYE POPPING AND I RAISE RIVAS.
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, NO. YOUR BILL
NEEDS ONE MORE. IT'S ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS BONTA.
MS BONTA IS PRESENTING ITEM
EIGHT A B 7 93, YOU MAY BEGIN.
GOOD AFTERNOON SHARON MEMBERS AS
A MEMBER WHO HAS LED ON
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LEGISLATION
. I AM PROUD OUR STATE IS A SAFE
HAVEN FOR THOSE SEEKING
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE, BUT OUR JOB IS
NOT DONE BECAUSE OF THE WIDE USE
OF REVERSE DEMANDS BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES. PEOPLE WHO NEED
REPRODUCTIVE OR GENDER AFFIRMING
CARE ARE VULNERABLE TO DIGITAL
SURVEILLANCE APPARATUS THAT
COULD BE USED AGAINST THEM. LET
ME GO INTO WHAT REVERSE DEMANDS
ARE AND WHY THEY ARE SO
DANGEROUS IN A POST ROE ERA.
NORMAL WARRANTS THAT COMPLY WITH
OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS
SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT A
PARTICULAR PERSON THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS PROBABLE CAUSE
TO BELIEVE MERITS INVESTIGATION
. A REVERSE WARRANT, ON THE
OTHER HAND, SEEKS THE OPPOSITE
THE IDENTITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO
WERE PRESENT AT A PARTICULAR
LOCATION THAT'S GEO FENCE
DEMANDS OR WHO LOOKED UP A
PARTICULAR TERM IN A SEARCH
ENGINE. THOSE ARE KEY WORD
DEMANDS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHERE
THEY WERE OR WHAT THEY SEARCHED
FOR. TO MAKE THIS CLEARER. A GEO
FENCE DEMAND CAN COMPEL THE
DISCLOSURE OF MULTIPLE PEOPLE'S
IDENTITIES JUST BECAUSE THEY
WERE AT A PARTICULAR PLACE
DURING A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME,
LIKE NEAR A REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
CLINIC. KEYWORD DEMAND CAN
COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF THE
IDENTITY OF ANYONE WHO HAS
ENTERED CERTAIN KEYWORD SEARCHES
INTO A SEARCH ENGINE LIKE
TRANSGENDER WOMEN HORMONES OR
THE DRUG PROFESSOR PRODUCT. IF A
CRIME OCCURRED IN THIS AREA
AROUND THE CAPITAL RIGHT NOW,
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SOUGHT A GEO
FENCE WARRANTS OUR PHONES. OUR
DATA PRIVACY COULD BE AT RISK.
WHY BECAUSE WE HAPPEN TO BE IN
AN AREA WHERE A CRIME OCCURRED.
THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE DID. A
SINGLE REQUEST CAN COVER
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN ONE SWEEP
ONE DEMAND ISSUED IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, ASKED FOR
THE INFORMATION OF EVERYONE
WITHIN THE EQUIVALENT OF 24
FOOTBALL FIELDS FOR SEVERAL
HOURS DURING A FRIDAY MORNING
COMMUTE. LEAVING OVER 1000
PHONES ELIGIBLE TO BE SWEPT UP
IN THAT PARTICULAR SEARCH. THIS
TYPE OF DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE IS
A THREAT TO OUR REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOMS AND TO PEOPLE AND TO
OUR PRIVACY. SINCE THE REPEAL OF
ROE, WE HAVE SEEN ANTI ABORTION
STATES USE DIGITAL DATA TO
INCLUDING FACEBOOK MESSAGES TO
PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR HAVING
ABORTIONS OR HELPING OTHERS
OBTAIN REPRODUCTIVE CARE. GEO
FENCE DEMANDS HAVE ALSO BEEN
USED TO TRACK THE LOCATION AND
IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE PROTESTING
POLICE VIOLENCE AND COULD BE
USED TO TRACK THE LOCATION AND
IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE VISITING
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS AS
WELL. PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA HAVE
A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. BUT FISHING
EXPOSITIONS FROM REVERSE GEO
FENCE AND REVERSE KEYWORD
DEMANDS UNDERMINE THAT RIGHT
REVERSE WARRANTS CAN ALSO CHILL
THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH ASSOCIATION, RELIGION,
ASSEMBLY MOVEMENT AND THE PRESS.
IT IS TIME WE TAKE THESE TYPES
OF WARRANTS COMPLETELY OFF THE
TABLE. MAYBE 7 93 DOES JUST THAT
. THANK YOU. AND AS A WITNESS
TODAY, I HAVE JAKE SNOW FROM A C
L U THANK YOU. FIRST WITNESS.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JACOB
SNOW. I'M A SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY AT THE VALUE OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, WHERE I
WORK ON PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE
ISSUES. I URGE AND I VOTE ON 87
93 TODAY BECAUSE REVERSE DEMANDS
ARE AN EXTREMELY TROUBLING 21ST
CENTURY VERSION OF A GENERAL
WARRANT THE INSTRUMENT THAT
INSPIRED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH ALLOWED THE BRITISH KING
TO RUMMAGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S
PERSONAL, UH, FILES AND WIVES
AND FIND OUT INFORMATION ABOUT
THEM THAT HAD NO JUSTIFICATION.
MUCH LIKE GENERAL WARRANTS
AUTHORIZED THAT UNRESTRICTED
RUMMAGING. REVERSE DEMANDS. GIVE
THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO FIND
OUT EVERYONE WHO IS IN A
PARTICULAR PLACE. PARTICULAR
TIME OR EVERYONE WHO SEARCHED
FOR A CERTAIN PHRASE THAT ALLOWS
THE GOVERNMENT TO TRACK PEOPLE
AS THEY GO ABOUT THEIR LIVES,
INCLUDING AS THEY SEEK
REPRODUCTIVE OR GENDER AFFIRMING
CARE. AND WHILE REVERSE DEMANDS
FOLK THREATENED EVERYONE'S
PRIVACY. THEY PRODUCE INCREASED
RISKS FOR PARTICULAR
POPULATIONS. EVERY PERSON HAS A
PRIVACY INTEREST IN THEIR
PHYSICAL LOCATION AND THEIR
SEARCHES ONLINE, AND THAT MEANS
EVERY TIME REVERSE DEMAND IS
USED. THE PRIVACY OF
CALIFORNIANS IS VIOLATED. ONCE A
PERSON IS IDENTIFIED THROUGH A
REVERSE DEMAND, THEIR PRIVACY
COULD BE FURTHER VIOLATED, AS
THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINES
WHETHER TO PUSH FORWARD WITH AN
INVESTIGATION. BUT THE PEOPLE
WHO FALL UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF
CRIMINAL SUSPICION IN THESE
INSTANCES AREN'T IMPACTED IN THE
SAME WAY FOR PEOPLE OF COLOR
LGBT Q. PLUS PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF
CERTAIN ETHNICITIES AND
RELIGIONS, PEOPLE, LOW INCOMES
AND PEOPLE SEEKING ABORTIONS.
THIS UNFOUNDED SUSPICION NOT
ONLY THREATENS THEIR PRIVACY,
BUT IT COULD PUT THEM IN IN
CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT,
WHICH CAN TURN HARMFUL OR EVEN
DEADLY. REVERSE DEMANDS ARE ALSO
INEFFECTIVE AND RISKY
SURVEILLANCE TOOL WHEN IT COMES
TO IDENTIFYING CRIMINALS.
REVERSE DEMANDS ARE GOOD AT
INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE
HAYSTACK. VERY POOR AT FINDING
THE NEEDLE. FOR EXAMPLE. REVERSE
DONATION LOCATION DEMAND SENT TO
GOOGLE. UH MY IDENTIFY 150
POTENTIAL SUSPECTS, BUT NOT THE
ACTUAL SUSPECT BECAUSE THAT
PERSON MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN
CARRYING AN ANDROID PHONE. THAT
MEANS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
CHASING DOWN 150 LEADS THAT GO
NOWHERE AND I VOTE. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SEEN ON WITNESSES AND OPPOSITE
WEIGHT SUPPORT, OKAY? I AGREE.
MONEY STRICT. ENJOYING THE
VISCONTI BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY.
RIGHT? ROBERT HOTEL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. CHARGING THE ON BEHALF
OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION, OAKLAND PRIVACY
MEDIA ALLIANCE, CALIFORNIA LGBTQ
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
NETWORK. GREENLINING INSTITUTE,
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN
PRISONERS AS A HERO, JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. BECCA CRAMER MATTER ON
BEHALF OF ABSOLUTE CATTLE
ACTION, PROUD SPONSORS. DON'T
HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF TECHNO AND
SUPPORT ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. SAYING NONE WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SEEN ON
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE, MR CHOLERA THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR, AND I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR IN THIS BEFORE. IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT BILL, AND I
THINK IT HAS IMPLICATIONS THAT
THAT ARE CERTAINLY, UM, FAR
REACHING NOT JUST FOR FOLKS THAT
ARE TRYING TO SEEK REPRODUCTIVE
SERVICES, GENDER AFFIRMING CARE,
BUT THE REALITY IS SHOULD THE
GOVERNMENT. I THINK THE BIGGER
QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE
GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS
IN GENERAL, REGARDLESS OF WHY
THEY'RE DOING IT, AND I THINK
THAT THAT'S THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS
NO, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT,
AND IT'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE
LIBERAL ISSUE IS THIS IS A
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ISSUE, AND
I THINK, UM EVERYONE THAT
BELIEVES IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
, EVERYONE THAT BELIEVES IN OUR
OWN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION
SHOULD SUPPORT THIS BILL AND I
WOULD LOVE TO BE AT IT AS A CO
AUTHOR SO AND MOVED THE BILL.
THANK YOU. EMOTION FOR MR KALRA.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND
FROM MR CONNELLY AND MISS MONTE.
YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS TO I
KNOW. YES OKAY. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE, MR ASTLEY JUST TO
QUESTION I DO HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE CIVIL LIBERTY
IMPLICATIONS OF THESE WARRANTS
AS WELL. I AGREE. GENERAL
WARRANTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
UM WHAT ABOUT CELL SITE DATA?
WOULD THAT BE IMPLICATED BY THIS
BILL? BECAUSE GENERALLY, THAT'S
NOT SEEN AS A PRIVACY THAT YOU
HAVE A PRIVACY INTEREST IN IT.
SO UM, THERE'S CERTAINLY
MECHANISMS FOR GETTING CELL SITE
LOCATION INFORMATION THAT STILL
EXISTS DESPITE THIS BILL, SO AS
AN EXAMPLE, UM WHEN THERE'S
PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUSPECT THAT A
PARTICULAR PERSON WAS IN A
PARTICULAR PLACE IN PARTICULAR
TIME, THAT PERSON CAN BE THE
SUBJECT OF, UM, SUBSCRIBER
INFORMATION WARRANT THAT CAN GO
TO A SERVICE PROVIDER LIKE
GOOGLE. AH OR AND THEN THAT
SERVICE ABOUT TO HAND OVER THE
CELL SITE, LOCATION, INFORMATION
OR MORE DETAILED, GEOLOCATION.
INFORMATION FOR THAT PERSON IN
THIS BILL DOESN'T DISRUPT THAT.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF TELECOM
SERVICE PROVIDERS WHO HAVE THE
CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHO
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FIRST, SO I
JUST REAL QUICK, THEY WOULD NEED
PROBABLE CAUSE TO DO SO. UM
THERE ARE BUT I BELIEVE RIGHT
NOW. SOUTH SITE. I GUESS I'VE
DONE THIS BOTH ON THE LOCAL AND
FEDERAL LEVEL. IT'S A LITTLE
DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE THEY CAN
USE SUBPOENA POWER TO GET THE
CELL SITE DATA STUFF. BUT JUST A
QUICK EXAMPLE WHERE I HAD A CASE
WHERE POSTAL TRUCKS ARE BEING
ROBBED IN TRANSIT. AND WE KNEW
THE TRUCKS THAT WERE ROBBED AND
WE KNEW WHERE THEY WERE ROBBED.
BUT WE HAD NO LEADS ON WHO THE
PEOPLE WERE. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS, WE COULD DO
A CELL SITE DATA DUMP. AND TRY
AND FIND THE COMMON NUMBER AT
EACH LOCATION. AND BECAUSE OF
THAT IT LED TO THE TO THE
SUSPECT. SO WOULD WE NOT BE ABLE
TO DO THAT? UNDER IF THIS BILL
WERE TO PASS, WE'LL SEE YOU NEED
PROBABLE CAUSE TO KNOW THAT YOU
KNOW THAT PERSON WAS IN THE
RELEVANT PLACE. AND THE PROBLEM
IS THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE A SET
OF LOCATIONS, INCLUDING WHERE A
POSTAL TRUCK WENT, FOR EXAMPLE,
OR WHERE CRIME WAS COMMITTED,
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT WHO HAVE
DONE NOTHING WRONG OR JUST IN
THAT PLACE AT A PARTICULAR TIME
OF THE SAME PERSON BEING AT ALL
THREE PLACES WHEN IT HAPPENED IS
VERY LOW. WELL IN THAT, WOULDN'T
YOU BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH
PROBABLE CAUSE IN ORDER TO BE
ABLE TO GET A WARRANT THAT WOULD
ALLOW YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT
SELL SIDE DATA? I THINK IN MY
CASE, WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO
THEY WERE. WE HAD NO LEADS ON
WHO THE PEOPLE WERE. IT'S JUST
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. NO,
THIS IS A REALLY NUANCED,
COMPLICATED ISSUE. I KNOW THE
SAME STUFF WAS USED ON JANUARY
SIX DEFENDANTS THEY PULLED
EVERYONE'S DATA THAT WAS AT THE
CAPITAL, SO IT HAS DIFFERENT
CONTEXTS. UM, BUT OKAY. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING
MY QUESTIONS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEN NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
WE HAVE A SECOND. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSES AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ASKED
THE CLERK TO PLEASE OH, I PLUS
HAS MS VAN TO MAKE CLOTHES?
THANK YOU. CHAIR I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST URIBE. THANK YOU. AS A
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN IAS ALY.
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DIXON.
QUOTING ME. CHOLERA PACHECO
CHECCO I POP IN AND I RAISE
RAISE I REVERSE. SANCHEZ. YOUR
BILL IS OUT, MR BERMAN.
REMEMBER? FOR A B 5 37. WE HAVE
A MOTION FROM MR KALRA, SECOND
FROM MS REYES. APPRECIATE THE
QUICK MOTION AND SECOND WILL
KEEP THIS SHORT. I'D LIKE TO
BEGIN BY THANKING COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL. I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THE
ANALYSIS THAT CLARIFY THE BILLS,
MEANING AND FOR PARITY TO
INCLUDE COUNTY COUNCIL AS IT
RELATES TO ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE
5 37 IS A COMMON SENSE CONSUMER
PROTECTION BILL THAT CRACKS DOWN
ON SHORT TERM LODGING, HIDDEN
FEES. THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN
ISSUE, NEBRASKA'S ATTORNEY
GENERAL REPUBLICAN FILED SUIT
OVER RESORT FEES. PENNSYLVANIA'S
ATTORNEY GENERAL, A DEMOCRAT,
ALSO FILED SUIT OVER RESORT FEES
. IT'S TIME TO TAKE ACTION ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS
AND TO PUT AN END TO THIS
DECEPTIVE PRACTICE. MAYBE 5 37
WOULD PROHIBIT HIDDEN FEES BY
ENSURING THAT THE ADVERTISED OR
OFFERED COST OF THE STATE BE
DISCLOSED IN THE UP FRONT PRICE,
INCLUDING ALL TAXES AND FEES
REQUIRED TO STAY AT THE SHORT
TERM LODGING. CALIFORNIANS ARE
FRANKLY SICK AND TIRED OF BEING
MISLED. THE ADVERTISER OFFERED
PRICE OF YOUR STAY SHOULD BE THE
REAL PRICE THAT YOU PAY. THE
BILL IS SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS
CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS IN MY
STAFF HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION
WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN OPPOSITION,
INCLUDING MYSELF AN HOUR AGO IN
THE HALLWAY, UH AND WILL
CONTINUE TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
THESE CONVERSATIONS ON THE BILL
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AND I
VOTE WITH ME IS ROBERT HARRELL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. COMPRESSING GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. ROBERT RAOUL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR CONSUMER FEDERATION,
CALIFORNIA WE ARE THE SPONSORS
OF THIS MEASURE. THIS IS REALLY
COMMON SENSE. LET PEOPLE KNOW
HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO PAY
AND MAKE LET THEM MAKE CONSUMERS
MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION HERE.
UM FOR THE REPUBLICANS ON
COMMITTEE, I WOULD NOTE THAT J
OBERNOLTE, NOW IN CONGRESS HAD
PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED ACTIVELY,
UH, JUST SUCH AN APPROACH, SO
THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.
THIS IS A BIPARTISAN ISSUE. DATA
SHOWS THAT 85% OF AMERICANS HAVE
BEEN IMPACTED BY THIS ISSUE IN
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WE ARE THE
THREAD BETWEEN A SIX BILL
PACKAGE ON JUNK AND HIDDEN FEES,
AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
COMPONENT OF THAT, UH, SINCE, UH
, YOU WANT TO HIT YOUR NOON
DEADLINE, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL
KEEP IT SHORT ANSWER, AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE
THAT FOR ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. OH, MARCUS ON BEHALF OF
COPPER AGAINST SUPPORT.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. JUST
TRYING TO KEEP IT. YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE IT'S APPRECIATED,
APPRECIATED. ROBERT NUTRI,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. 85
53 1ST. I WANNA SAY AGREE WITH
THE GOAL. WE'RE NOT HERE IN
DEFENSE OF THE DESTINATION FEES.
RESORT FEE ISSUES HAVE SPOKEN TO
THE MEMBER OF STAFF, INCLUDING
AN HOUR AGO IN THE HALLWAY. UM
OUR CONCERN REALLY IS A
COLLATERAL DAMAGE ISSUE AROUND
EFFECTS ON COMPETITION. AND IF
YOU START INCLUDING, FOR
EXAMPLE, ALL TAXES, T O T E S T
I D S AND THE AMOUNTS DISPLAYED
ON IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A
BOOKING IN CALIF. ORANJE HOW
THEY WILL LOOK VERSUS BOOKINGS
OTHER STATES. I DO WANT TO
COMMENT ON THE ANALYSIS AND
THANK THEM FOR THE THOROUGH
ANALYSIS ON IT. ONE POINT I WANT
TO FLAG IS THE ANALYSIS NOTES
THAT ONE THIRD OF VISITORS ARE
IN STATE. AND SO THIS WON'T
CHANGE THEIR ACTIVITIES IS THAT
IS THE ARGUMENT I WOULD FLAG
THAT MEANS TWO THIRDS OF
VISITORS ARE OUT OF STATE WHO DO
ARE LOOKING AT CHOICES AND WHERE
THEY TRAVEL AND THOSE PRICES WE
THINK WILL HAVE AN EFFECT. THE
ANALYSIS, I THINK LEANS ON PRICE
PRICE IN ELASTICITY, MEANING
CONSUMERS WON'T IT WON'T MATTER
EVERYTHING. CALIFORNIA'S MORE
EXPENSIVE OR LOOKS THAT WAY.
THAT'S NOT OUR EXPERIENCE, SO WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
APPEARANCE OF A HIGHER PRICE.
AH! UH IN THE INTEREST OF NOON,
AS YOU SAID, I WOULD JUST SAY
THANK YOU UNDERSTAND THE GOAL,
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR, AND,
UM, BUT STILL ARE OPPOSED TO
THIS POINT. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? AMELIA
ZAMANI, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TRAVEL ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED FOR NOW. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
SEEN NINE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE? MISS DIXON.
JUST CURIOUS KIND OF A TECHNICAL
POINT. WHY DO YOU CALL IT THE
BILL? SHORT TERM LODGING WHEN IT
REALLY AFFECTS ALL OF
HOSPITALITY, HOTELS, MOTELS,
ETCETERA. IT'S I THINK IT'S A
TECHNICAL TERM AN INDUSTRY TERM.
AND SO IT'S A CONSTRUCT OF THE
EXISTING CODE BASICALLY
CONSTRUCT OF THE EXISTING CODE.
THERE YOU GO. BECAUSE I JUST
WONDER IF HOTELS ARE REALIZING
THIS. UM I DON'T DISPUTE YOUR
ULTIMATE. I'M TOTALLY AGREE WITH
TRANSPARENCY. I'M A BIG
TRANSPARENCY PERSON. HOWEVER I'M
MINDFUL OF WHAT THE GENTLEMAN
JUST SAID ABOUT JUST APPLES TO
APPLES AND COMPARING PRICES. UM
DO YOU ENVISION WHETHER IT'S
SHORT TERM LODGING OR A HOTEL
RATE THAT IT WOULD LIST THE
TOTAL BUT ALSO THE BREAKDOWN ON
THAT HOMEPAGE? SO IT'S ALL THEIR
COMPOSITION THAT ACCUMULATED
NUMBER OR OR THE AGGREGATE OF
ALL THE NUMBERS THAT'S LISTED IN
THAT SAME SPACE. DO IT. DO YOU
ENVISION THAT MY PRIORITY? UM
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU
JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE TOTAL
NUMBER. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A
CLICK DOWN THAT SAYS, KIND OF
BREAK IT DOWN. THEN YOU CAN HAVE
THAT. AND I IMAGINE THAT WOULD
BE AT THE AT THE, UM, CHOICE OF
THE ESTABLISHMENT. UM BUT FOR ME
, THE IMPORTANT THING IS MAKING
SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE TOTAL
COST PER ROOM, INCLUDING ALL
DESTINATION FEES. CLEANING FEES
, RESULTING IN PARENTHESES WOULD
SAY THAT UNDER THAT $650
INCLUDES ALL TAXES, FEES,
ETCETERA, ETCETERA, EXACTLY. OH,
THAT WOULD BE A FULL DISCLOSURE.
YEAH THE IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT
YOU DO THE FULL BREAKDOWN. SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF WHAT I
REFER TO AS THE CONSOLIDATOR
SITES OF SOME REMEMBER USED TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE A LITTLE LINK
WHERE IT SAYS TAXES AND FEES AND
YOU CLICK ON THAT, AND THEN IT
WOULD BREAK DOWN WHICH TAXES AND
FEES THAT'S NOT HAPPENING AS
MUCH NOW. I THINK, PARTLY
BECAUSE SOME OF THE
CONSOLIDATORS DON'T WANT TO
REVEAL HOW MANY PROFIT FEES
THEY'VE EMBEDDED IN THAT SO IT'S
THE TOP LINE NUMBER. THAT IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT. IN SOME CASES,
CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN FORCED TO
PAY DESTINATION CHARGES, RESORT
FEES, THINGS LIKE THAT AT THE
END OF THEIR STAY, AND THEY
NEVER EVEN KNEW THAT THAT WAS
GOING TO BE PART OF THE COST
UNTIL SORT OF AFTER THE FACT. SO
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PENNSYLVANIA
SETTLEMENT WITH MARRIOTT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT HAS DIRECTLY LED
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE BON VOY
MEMBERS, I HAVE THE APP IN THE
CARD AND THEY'VE GOT ME, RIGHT.
YOU CAN TOGGLE A LITTLE BUTTON
THAT SAYS PRICE INCLUDES ALL
TAXES AND FEES. THAT AND OTHER
CHANGES WERE PART OF THAT
SETTLEMENT. SO YOU'RE STARTING
TO SEE SOME OF THE INDUSTRY
LEADERS MODIFY THEIR BEHAVIOR.
UM BUT WE JUST THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW WHETHER
THAT AND PER YOUR OTHER QUESTION
WHETHER IT'S A HOTEL MOTEL AN
AIRBNB VÀ RUBIO, WHATEVER
THAT'S. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT,
AS THE BILL HAS STRUCTURED BY
THE AUTHOR TO INCLUDE ON THE V R
B O AIRBNB SIDE. YOU'RE SEEING
THESE MASSIVE CLEANING FEES, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT SOMETIMES DWARF
THE NIGHTLY STAY COST, SO WE
JUST WANT CONSUMERS TO KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE GETTING AT. IS THERE ANY
WAY YOU COULD CHANGE THE TITLE
OF THAT CODE? BECAUSE HOTELS
WERE HERE BEFORE SHORT TERM
RENTALS. REALLY? YEAH I JUST
THINK WOULD BE MORE TRANSPARENT
. WHO IS IMPACTED BY THIS WILL
TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AS
SOMETHING MEMBER. I THINK IT'S A
GOOD BILL FOR NEXT YEAR. ALRIGHT
ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE DO WE HAVE DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? YES WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. MR BERMAN.
THANK YOU FOR THIS. I THINK WE
WANT TRANSPARENCY WE WANT
HONESTLY, ALL OF US HAVE GONE
THROUGH THE FRUSTRATION OF GOING
ON SEEING UPRIGHT GOING ON ONE
OF THESE SITES SEEN A PRICE. WE
THOUGHT WE WERE PAYING THE
CLEANING FEES, THE RESORT FEES
ALL THESE ADDITIONAL FEES THAT
MAY OR MAY NOT, EVEN IN FACT, BE
SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT ACTUALLY
BE A RESORT. ALL THE TIMES I'VE
BEEN CHARGED A RESORT FEE. FOR
YOU KNOW, GOING TO MY DAUGHTER'S
SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT IN A PLACE
THAT WAS FAR FROM A RESORT. H UH
YOU HAD A BATHTUB, THOUGH. MAYBE
THAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE SPOT
HAVING A FUNCTIONING BATHROOMS,
THE RESORT MOST OF THE TIME
FUNCTIONING SO I APPRECIATE THIS
BILL VERY MUCH. AND WITH THAT
AND ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. YOU MAKE CLOTHES.
GOOD. THANKS. YEP I ASKED HER TO
PLEASE CALL THE BALL.
MAIENSCHEIN AYE, MAIENSCHEIN.
AYE, SLE. CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON, I'M NOT VOTING. HANEY
CHOLERA ALRIGHT PACHECO PACHECO,
I POP IN AND I RAISE RAISE I
REVERSE SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO,
IT'S OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SZABO. I APPRECIATE. HELLO.
WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. STILL,
MORNING. UM MOTION FROM MS REYES
. WE HAVE A 2ND 2ND FROM THIS
POP IN. I WOULD BE VERY FAST AS
SUPER SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD
. 89 11 IS A CLEAN UP MEASURES
TO A B 7 21 BY BLOOM IN 2021
PROVIDES CONFIDENCE TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
WHO WANT TO PURCHASE REAL ESTATE
FOR 100% AFFORDABLE
DEVELOPMENTS. SOME PROPERTIES
MAY HAVE RESTRICTED DENSITY
REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRE ONLY
OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY TO REMOVE
THEM. UNFORTUNATELY FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE IN THE
PROCESS OF PURCHASING REAL
ESTATE, THEY'RE UNABLE TO REMOVE
THOSE COVENANTS UNTIL AFTER THEY
HAVE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND
ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE REAL
ESTATE IN QUESTION. MAYBE 9 11
STREAMLINES THE COVENANT REMOVAL
PROCESS BY ALLOWING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO REMOVE THE
RESTRICTIVE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY. UM PURCHASING THE
PROPERTY, ALLOWING FOR FASTER
DELIVERY OF AFFORDABLE HOMES AND
CONFIDENCE IN FINANCING OF
ADDITIONAL HOMES THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. THIS LEGISLATION NOT
ONLY HELPS MY DISTRICT BUT
EVERYONE'S DISTRICT IN
CALIFORNIA TO HAVE AN EFFICIENT
PROCESS FOR HAVING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOMES IN THEIR
DISTRICTS. JOINING ME TODAY IS
MICHAEL LANE, THE STATE POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR SPUR WHO ALSO
TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT. HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
. WELL DONE, UH WITNESSES AND
OTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT THE
LOSS SEEN NON WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. PARDON? I'M IN
SUPPORT. OKAY? ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING CONSORTIUM,
JENNIFER ARE MAINTAINED SUPPORT
THANK YOU. SEEN NORTHERN
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SAYING
NINE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. AH! MS SHAVING
CLOSE. RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED,
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
ASKED. CALL ROLL MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, ASILI. YEAH NO
, CONNOLLY, DICKSON DICKSON. NO
HANEY. KALRA TÔI PACHECO PACHECO
EYE POPPING UP AND I RAISE RIVAS
RIVAS SANCHEZ SANCHEZ KNOW YOUR
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU, MISS
MCKENNA. ITEMS 16 A B 15 47. IT
WAS LIKE. FAST. MISS MCKINNEY,
YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM HERE TO
PRESENT A B 15 47, WHICH WOULD
EXTEND THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS
FOR CIVIL CASES ON CHILDHOOD
SEXUAL ASSAULT. DURING THE TOUGH
ON CRIME ERA CALIFORNIA HAD OVER
130,000 YOUTH DETAINED ACROSS
292 LOCAL JAILS AND LOCKUPS. NOW
THESE YOUTH HAVE GROWN UP TO BE
ADULTS. THEY HAVE HAD TIME TO
PROCESS THAT THEY WERE SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED WHILE INCARCERATED
RECENTLY, NEARLY 300 FORMERLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS HAVE
COME FOR IT. WITH SEXUAL ASSAULT
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST EMPLOYEES
WHO WORKED AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT
, UM, JUVENILE DETENTION
FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA IN 2010
L. A COUNTY CONDUCTED AN
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION. THAT
REVEALED THE REPORT OF ABUSE BY
31 OFFICERS, 18 OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN CHARGED IN 10 HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED. THE ECSTASY THE
EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATION
FOR CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ASSAULT
REQUIRES THAT VICTIMS FILED
ACTION FOR DAMAGES BY BY THE AGE
OF 40, OR WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF
THE DATE THE VICTIM DISCOVERS
THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED
PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES OR
ILLNESSES FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT.
BECAUSE MANY VICTIMS WERE DENIED
LEGAL REPRESENTATION DUE TO THE
EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LORENA GONZALEZ RAN A B 218 AND
2019, WHICH PROVIDED A THREE
YEAR EXTENSION. TWO CASES THAT
HAD EXPIRED. UNFORTUNATELY THIS
THREE YEAR EXTENSION JUST
EXPIRED ON JANUARY 1ST 2023.
MANY VICTIMS STILL WOULD LIKE TO
COME FORWARD AND REPORT THEIR
ABUSE. MAYBE 15 47 WILL EXTEND A
B 218 FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR.
GIVING VICTIMS OF CHILDHOOD
SEXUAL ASSAULT A CHANCE TO BRING
THEIR ABUSERS TO JUSTICE. MY
WITNESSES WITH ME TODAY ARE
KASHIMA RASPBERRY AND AKILAH
JEFFERSON. THANK YOU. FIRST
WITNESS. HI. MY NAME IS AKILA
JEFFERSON. I LIVE IN VICTORY IN
CALIFORNIA. I AM CURRENTLY
WORKING INTERVENTION SERVICES
HAVE ADVOCATES FOR PEACE AND
URBAN UNITY IN SOUTH CENTRAL L.
A. I WANT TO THANK THIS YEAR AND
THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY
FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE
TODAY. I'M TRULY HONORED. RIGHT
WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AS A CHILD
IN THE CUSTODY OF L. A COUNTY
PROBATION SYSTEM IS SAD AND
DISTURBING. SINCE COMING FORWARD
, I HAVE LEARNED IT IS NOT
UNUSUAL. AND I'M NOT THE ONLY
ONE. I WAS BORN TO TWO TEENAGE
PARENTS. MY MOTHER IS ALSO A
SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR. SHE
ABANDONED ME LEAVING ME LEAVING
MY GRANDMOTHER TO RAISE ME. AS A
TEENAGER. I BEGAN SKIPPING
SCHOOL AND THIS LANDED ME IN
CAMP JOSEPH SCOTT CAM SCOTT WAS
BUILT AS A BOOT CAMP DESIGNED TO
REHABILITATE PAPER TEENS THROUGH
A COMBINATION OF MILITARY STYLE
DISCIPLINE, EDUCATION AND TOUGH
LOVE. I DIDN'T FIND MUCH LITTLE
BIT CAM SKY INSTEAD, I FOUND
YEARS OF SEXUAL ABUSE. IT BEGAN
THAT BEGAN AT 16. WHEN I WAS
SERVING FOUR MONTHS SINCE SINCE
FOR TRUANCY, DEPUTY PROBATION
OFFICER BEGAN PAYING ME SPECIAL
ATTENTION. BEING THAT I DIDN'T
GET VISITS. I REALLY DIDN'T
SPEAK TO MY FAMILY. SO HE BEGAN
SHOWERING ME WITH GIFTS. FOOD
COMPLEMENTS. HE QUICKLY
PROGRESSED TO A ROUTINE AND
FREQUENT SEXUAL ABUSE AND
LAUNDRY ROOMS. THE OFFICE, THE
GUARD SHACK, ANY OTHER SECLUDED
LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CAMP.
HE THREATENED ME THAT IF I TOLD
ANYONE I WAS NEVER CONSEQUENCES,
I BELIEVED HIM. NO. HE WORE THE
UNIFORM HE WAS IN CHARGE. SO UM
. RIGHT BECAUSE HE WAS MY
PROBATION OFFICER. I FELT I HAD
TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING HE DID
. SO IT CONTINUED AFTER I LEFT,
SCOTT UM EVERYTHING THE ABUSE
THE CONTROL. YOU KNOW, IN A WAY.
I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE. I WAS
ABLE TO DEAL WITH MY EMOTIONAL
TRAUMA AND SEEK LEGAL ASSISTANCE
BEFORE THE WINDOW OF CALIFORNIA
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOSED IN
JANUARY. OTHERS HAVEN'T BEEN
FORTUNATE. YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW
SEXUAL ABUSE, SEES NO AGE,
GENDER TAX BRACKET OR RACE, A B
15 47 WILL OPEN A WINDOW FOR
ADDITIONAL YEAR TO GIVE VICTIMS
OF JUVENILE COURT AERATION. AND
OTHER PLACES THE CHANCE TO ANA
SAY BASED THEIR ABUSERS. IN THE
SYSTEM. I'M HOPING THAT YOU GUYS
GIVE US APPROVAL TODAY. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS. MY NAME IS
OSHIMA RASPBERRY. UM SORRY. I'M
NERVOUS. UM I WAS A CHILD RAISED
IN THE SYSTEM GOD SENT WENT TO
CAMP SCOTT. I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
PLACED THERE. TO GET THAT
STRAIGHT. I WAS SUPPOSED TO
PLACE BE TREATED WITH RESPECT,
LEARN HOW TO OBEY THE LAW. THE
OFFICERS. THE OFFICERS WERE
THERE TO TEACH ME DISCIPLINE OF
FORCED THE RULES AND KEEP US
SAFE. THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
NOT LONG AFTER I GOT THAT GOT TO
CAMP SCOTT. I NOTICED ONE OF THE
PROBATION OFFICERS PAYING
ATTENTION TO ME WATCHING US IN
THE SHOWERS. ONE MORE, UH. I SAW
HIM RUBBING HERSELF TOUCHING
HIMSELF. HE'S STILL BEGUN TO
MASTURBATE. IN THE LAUNDRY ROOM.
HE WAS AN ADULT MAN IN UNIFORM.
I WAS A SCARED 15 YEAR OLD GIRL.
UNDER HIS CONTROL IDEA WHAT HE
TOLD ME TO DO HE THREATENING ME.
TOLD. HONEY THREATENING THAT IF
I TOLD ANYONE ABOUT HIS SEXUAL
ABUSE, YOUR LIFE WILL BE
MISERABLE AND YOU WILL BE LOCKED
UP FOR MORE MONTHS. I THOUGHT
MAYBE I WAS THE ONLY ONE. I
TRIED TO FORGET ABOUT IT. I
SPOKE WITH MY SISTER. HMM AND
OTHER GIRLS ABOUT SMALLER
EXPERIENCE, AND WE'RE AH! AH!
FINALLY LOST THOSE I CONTACTED A
LAWYER ONLY TO LEARN THAT I
COULD BE TOO LATE. LUCKILY FOR
ME, IT WAS LUCKILY FOR ME, IT
WASN'T BUT FOR MORE BUT FOR SO
MANY OTHERS THAT WAS NOTHING.
HEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SHARING.
BOTH OF YOU. THANK YOU FOR
SHARING YOUR STORIES, ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. REBECCA
MARCUS ON BEHALF OF MY
COLLEAGUES THAT THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? SEEN
NONE. WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
SEEING NONE, MR KALRA. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR NOW, AND I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. IT'S AN IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BRING JUSTICE. TO
THE TWO SURVIVORS,
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SOME
SEMBLANCE OF HEALING, AND I JUST
WANT TO THANK THESE VERY
COURAGEOUS SURVIVORS ARE COMING
FORWARD. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO
HEAR. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE
DIFFICULT TO HERE, AND WE SHOULD
BE HEARING YOUR STORIES. I'M
GLAD THAT YOU HAVE AN AUTHOR
THAT IS LISTENING AND BRING YOUR
STORIES TO US SO WE CAN MAKE
SURE THAT THERE'S MORE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND THAT FOLKS
AREN'T LOCKED OUT OF SEEKING
THEIR JUSTICE AS WELL. SO THANK
YOU BOTH SO MUCH. AND YET THIS
RACE. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. AND
I'M GLAD THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO
GET IN UNDER THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AND I APPRECIATE SO
MUCH THAT YOU'RE HERE FOR THE
REST OF THE VICTIMS. YOU WERE
OKAY, BUT THE OTHERS ARE NOT ALL
RIGHT. SO YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS,
BUT IT WAS NOT YOUR FAULT. WE
HAVE HORRIBLE PEOPLE THAT TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF SO MANY OF OUR
YOUTH AND THE REPORTS THAT CAME
OUT ABOUT THE JUVENILE. JUVENILE
DETENTION CENTER IN LOS ANGELES
. IT'S JUST ONE OF THE DETENTION
CENTERS. BUT YOU ARE SURVIVORS.
AND I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU'RE HERE
WITH US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR SALIH. I JUST WANT
TO SAY, UM I JUST WANT TO KNOW
HOW INCREDIBLY BRAVE YOU TWO
LADIES ARE AND I'M INSPIRED BY
YOUR COURAGE. AND I KNOW THAT
YOU BIÂU SPEAKING OUT YOUR
HELPING OTHERS. IT'S NOT EASY.
I'VE WORKED A LOT OF VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS AND I AM INSPIRED. SO
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WE HAVE
A MOTION. SECRETARY. MOTION FROM
MR CORA SECOND FROM MS POPPIN. I
TOO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU IN
PARTICULAR. THANK YOU, THE
AUTHOR BUT IN PARTICULAR THANK
YOU TO THE TWO WITNESSES. IT'S
HARD TO COME UP HERE AND TALK
ABOUT ANYTHING. IT'S HARD TO SIT
AT THAT TABLE AND THESE LIGHTS
AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING BASIC
AND NON PERSONAL, BUT THIS IS
HIGHLY PERSONAL. SO FOR YOU TO
HAVE THE COURAGE TO COME UP HERE
AND SAY A STORY THAT I THINK ALL
OF US NEED TO HEAR AS MUCH AS IT
IT'S ALMOST PHYSICALLY PAINFUL
TO HEAR THE STORIES. I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU TOOK THE
TIME TO COME HERE AND SHARE
STORIES THAT YOUR STORIES WITH
ON A TOPIC IN AN AREA WHERE WE
CAN NOW START MAKING A
DIFFERENCE, SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THAT WITHOUT AN ESSAY
AUTHOR IF SHE'D LIKE TO CLOSE,
YES. I THINK I THINK THESE TWO
BRAVE WOMEN FOR STANDING UP AND
SPEAKING THEIR TRUTH AND SEEKING
THEIR JUSTICE, AND WE OWE THEM.
WE OWE THEM SAFETY. WE OWE THE
CHILDREN THAT ARE IN THE CUSTODY
OF THIS CITY AND THE STATE AND
THE COUNTY. WE OWE THEM A SAFE A
SAFE TIME. AND WE OWE THEM
JUSTICE. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND TO PAST THE
APPROPRIATION. COMMITTEE ESCORT
CALL ROLL MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I DICKSON DICKSON I
HANEY MANY I KALRA TÔI, CHICO!
CHICO I HAPPEN I RAISE RAISE I
RIVAS RIVAS I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I
YOUR BILL IS OUT. WE ARE ON OUR
LAST BILL COMMITTEE. WELL DONE.
THAT WAS THE ONLY UNANIMOUS VOTE
OF THE DAY. YEAH. SO TWO? YEAH.
AND THAT WAS. BAUER-KAHAN ITEM
TO A B 3 31. YOU HAVE TO. IS
THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YEAH ITEM TO
ITEM TWO. I WAS LIKE, I DON'T
HAVE TO BELL'S THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. I'M HERE TO PRESENT A B 3
31 1ST. I'M HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
CLARIFY THE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM WITH THE BILL. YOU
ACCEPT THE CORRECTED AMENDMENT
CORRECTED AMENDMENTS. YES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING. UM WITH THAT PROUD
TO PRESENT A B 3 31, WHICH IS
MODELED AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN'S
AI BILL OF RIGHTS. A B 3 31
PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS FROM
ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION BY
REQUIRING DEVELOPER PERSON USERS
TO ASSESS AUTOMATED DECISION
TOOLS FOR DISCRIMINATORY BIAS
AND MITIGATE ACCORDINGLY.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN A TTS
HAVE YIELDED ASTONISHING
INSIGHTS, AND THE BILL IS NOT TO
HINDER INNOVATION. AND IN FACT,
I'M A BELIEVER THAT IF WE DO
THIS RIGHT AUTOMATED DECISION
SYSTEMS CAN TAKE BIAS OUT OF THE
SYSTEMS THAT ALREADY EXIST WHEN
HUMANS ARE MAKING THOSE
DECISIONS. UM BUT WE'VE SEEN
EXAMPLE, AFTER EXAMPLE OF
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS THAT
HAVE BIAS BUILT INTO THEM
BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN DEVELOPERS
WHO DEVELOPED THEM, AND WE NEED
TO BE CHECKING FOR THAT,
CORRECTING FOR IT AND ENSURING
THAT WHEN WE'RE MAKING HIGH RISK
DECISIONS THAT THOSE DO NOT
CONTAIN BIAS, ALMOST 50. PERCENT
OF DECISIONS TODAY. UNDER THIS
BILL THAT RELATE TO HOUSING AND
LENDING AND EMPLOYMENT AND
HEALTHCARE. SOME OF THE MOST
CRITICAL DECISIONS ARE BEING
MADE BY THESE TOOLS, AND IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE PUT INTO PLACE
A SYSTEM THAT ENSURES THERE IS
NOT BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION IN
THAT DECISION MAKING, AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS BILL DOES, UM, WITH
ME TODAY IN SUPPORT IS TUNISIA
HERRING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HAWAII STATE CONFERENCE OF THE
CPI. HELLO GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR
REMEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
HAVING ME THE CALIFORNIA, HAWAII
AND CPS PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE IS
TO ENSURE THE POLITICAL,
EDUCATIONAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
EQUALITY OF MIRROR CITIZEN
MINORITY CITIZENS IN CALIFORNIA
AND ELIMINATE RACE PREJUDICE. WE
ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT MAYBE 3 31
BECAUSE IT STANDS TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUALS FROM ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION BY REQUIRING
DEVELOPERS AND USERS TO MITIGATE
AND ASSESS AUTOMATED DECISION.
DECISION TOOLS OR A TTS THAT
MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS. 80
TSR PROMINENT ALMOST EVERY FACET
OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE AND IT
IS IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WHEN
THEY ARE DEPLOYED THAT THEY'RE
USING A SAFE MANNER THAT WILL
NOT RESULT IN DISCRIMINATORY
HARM. ONE WIDELY USED CRIMINAL
RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL IS A
CORRECTIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
PROFILING FOR ALTERNATIVE
SANCTIONS AGAINST COMPASS. IT'S
USED WITHIN 47 STATES, INCLUDING
CALIFORNIA. THE PROGRAM IS USED
TO IDENTIFY HIGH RISK FOR
VIOLENCE, HIGH RISK FOR
RECIDIVISM AND A HIGH PRE CHILD
FLIGHT RISK. ANY JUDGE SEEKING
TO USE COMPASS AS A JUDICIAL AID
CANNOT AT THIS MOMENT,
UNDERSTAND FULLY HOW COMPASS
RISK ASSESSMENT SCORE IS
DEVELOPED. NOR HOW FACTORS ABOUT
THE DEFENDANT'S PROFILE WERE
WEIGHTED TO ARRIVE AT THE GIVEN
RISK SCORE. NOT ONLY DOES THIS
PROHIBIT JUDGES FROM PROPERLY
UNDERSTANDING AS JUDICIAL TOOL
MEANT TO ASSIST THEIR PROCESS,
BUT IT MIGHT ALSO DENIED THE
DEFENDANT THE ABILITY TO
IDENTIFY A FAIR TRIAL OUTCOME.
THE JUDGE BASED THEIR FINAL
RULING IN ANY WAY UPON A SCORE
THAT THEY BOTH CANNOT FULLY
COMPREHEND. IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
PROVIDE A SENSE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY THAT CAN MAKE IT
THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR
THOSE WHO USE A TTS TO USE THEM
AS TOOLS OR DISCRIMINATION AND
OPPRESSION, WHETHER IN
EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OR ANY
OTHER FACET OF LIFE. IF THE
LIVELIHOOD OF CITIZENS IT'S
GOING THROUGH PLACES IN THE
HANDS OF TECHNOLOGY, IT IS
IMPAIRED OF THAT. DEVELOPERS AND
EMPLOYERS ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THE IMPACT OF THAT, SAID
TECHNOLOGY. WITHOUT IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS, THERE IS REASON TO
EXPECT THAT MORE DISCRIMINATED
MORE DISCRIMINATING INCIDENTS.
WHETHER DELIBERATE OR NOT, WILL
OCCUR. WE THINK IT'S REMEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN FOR WRITING THIS
CRITICAL AND CRUCIAL LEGISLATION
, AND WE HOPE THAT A B 3 31 WILL
BE A STARTING POINT FOR THE OH,
SORRY, WILL BE THE STARTING
POINT FOR THE MARATHON AHEAD OF
US TO END DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES THROUGH THE USE OF
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WITNESS.
OKAY. GOOD GOOD OPPOSITION, SIR
. YEAH YEAH, NOT GOOD. I JUST
MEAN ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. THANKS SEEN NONE.
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS, RONALD DELA ME WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WELL WE ARE RESPECTFULLY AND
STRONG OPPOSITION TO 83 THROUGH
ONE AS IT'S CURRENTLY IN PRINT,
AND AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
TODAY WE ARE LARGELY ALIGNED
WITH THE AUTHOR AND PRINCIPAL
BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION ARE
SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN OUR SOCIETY
AND OUR MEMBERS WANT TO BE PART
OF THE SOLUTION. BUT WE FEEL A
MEASURED APPROACH IS NEEDED,
GIVEN THE COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED
WITH A DTS AND THAT THIS MUST BE
DONE IN CONCERT WITH THE HALF
DOZEN BILLS AND RULEMAKING
ACTIVITIES THAT ARE
SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERWAY ON THE
TOPICS OF AUTOMATE DECISION
MAKING A. I AM BIAS.
UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL WILL ONLY
BE FURTHER EXACERBATED BY THE
AMENDMENTS TAKEN TODAY. FIRST
THE AMENDMENTS ALLOW LOCAL
ORDINANCES TO BE PASSED ON THIS
ISSUE, WHICH WILL LEAD TO A
PATCHWORK OF DIFFERENT RULES
FROM ONE LOCALITY TO THE NEXT,
RENDERING COMPLIANCE
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT.
THESE TOOLS ARE INCREDIBLY
COMPLEX, AND THEY ARE USED
GLOBALLY, ANY COMPANY THAT
OPERATES ACROSS THE STATE WOULD
FACE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,
DEPENDING ON WHEN THAT, WHERE
THE TOOL WOULD BE USED IN
CONSUMERS WOULD BE SUBJECT. TWO
DIFFERENT PROTECTIONS BY NATURE
OF WHERE THEY LIVE. SECOND THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS VERY
PROBLEMATIC. GIVEN THAT THESE
TOOLS ARE CONSTANTLY EVOLVING
WITH THESE AMENDMENTS ARE NOW
THREE SEPARATE ENFORCEMENT
AVENUES, CREATING ADDITIONAL
UNCERTAINTY FOR BUSINESSES. WE
APPRECIATE THAT THE AMENDMENTS
MAKE THE G AND OTHER PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
FORCING THE BILL. AND LIMIT
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, BUT THE
BILL STILL ALLOWS THE CIVIL
RIGHTS DEPARTMENT TO SEPARATELY
ASSESS A $10,000 ADMINISTRATIVE
FINES FOR EACH VIOLATION.
WITHOUT ANY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE
ACTUAL HARM AND WITHOUT CLARITY
AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A SINGLE
VIOLATION FOR THE MORE WE FIND,
BOTH CONCERNING IT UNNECESSARY
TO ADD A WHOLE NEW PRIVATE RIGHT
OF ACTION HERE WHEN UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION, UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION STILL ALREADY
ACTIONABLE UNDER FIFA AND UNTRUE
. IN FACT, WE BELIEVE THE
EXAMPLE AND THE ANALYSIS IS
ACTUALLY ALREADY COVERED IN IF
YOU HA COMBINED WITH AN OVERLY
NARROW, ILLUSORY RIGHT TO CURE
THAT APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS
BROUGHT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
AND THAT REQUIRE BUSINESSES TO
MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE STATEMENT
UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. THESE
CHANGES ARE UNDER THE BILL
UNTENABLE FOR OUR MEMBERS.
NONETHELESS WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR AND WE ARE COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH HER AS A BILL.
BILL MOVES FORWARD. THANK YOU.
EXCUSE ME NEXT WITNESS. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS DYLAN
HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF TECHNET. WE
TOO GREATLY APPRECIATE THE
WILLINGNESS OF THE AUTHOR TO
WORK WITH US IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME ALL ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH
WITH THE CHAMBER LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THE CONVERSATIONS. I
THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
POLICY ISSUE AND ONE THAT WE
DESPERATELY NEED TO GET RIGHT.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
NAME AND ORGANIZATION. ONLY MR
CHAIR RUN KINGSTON, REPRESENTING
SEVERAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS.
I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE BRIEF
COMMENT TO THIS. I APOLOGIZE TO
THE AUTHOR THAT WE JUST GOT
DIRECTION ON THIS, BUT WE USE
THE TOOLS AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT
BECAUSE WE DON'T SET THE POLICY
. WE DON'T SET THE TECHNOLOGY WE
DON'T SET. THE DESIGN THE NAME
OF THE ORGANIZATION SO THAT YOUR
MOVED YOU'VE MOVED PAST BRIEF,
SO NAME AN ORGANIZATION KINGSTON
AGAIN, THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
. THE ESCROW INSTITUTE IN
CALIFORNIA AND THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CREAM GREASY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, WITH AN OPPOSING LESS
AMENDED POSITION. ALSO HERE THIS
AFTERNOON, CIA IS ASKED ME. THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
HAS ASKED ME TO REGISTER THEIR
OPPOSITION AS WELL, HOWEVER, IS
CURRENTLY DRAFTED. WE MUST
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED NO VOTE,
BUT WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. HAVING COME AFTER
THE CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD
PRODUCERS IN THE NATIONAL
PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM,
BOTH RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. JAMIE
HAVE YOU SEE JACK? RESPECTFUL
PERSON THINKS. COLLECTING WITH
THE SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP
GROUP. WE ALSO REMAIN
RESPECTIVELY POSTED A BILL.
MARGARET BLOOD, YOU KNOW, BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION AND NET TWICE,
RESPECTIVE POST. NAOMI PADRONE
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
INDIRA MCDONALD ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION, ALSO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. ASHLEY HONG ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING
AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION WITH
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSES. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY APOLOGIES FOR THE
DELAY. MICHELLE TERAN WOLF FORK
WITH THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION
ON THE STATUS, WOMEN AND GIRLS
IN STRONG SUPPORT ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SEEN
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE, MR PACHECO I AM
MINDFUL OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS, SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT
THE AUTHOR WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION TO ALLEVIATE ANY
OF THE CONCERNS. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY, BUT
I'M HOPING THAT THERE'S DIALOGUE
TO ALLEVIATE SOME OTHER CONCERNS
THAT OPPOSITION HAS. YEAH THANK
YOU, AND WE ARE IN CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS, I THINK, AS NOTED
BY BOTH MEMBERS OF THE
OPPOSITION HERE, BUT MANY OF
THEM FOLKS BACK THERE IN THAT,
TOO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE
MOTION FROM ISRAEL'S SECOND, MR
HANEY. UM AND I WOULD JUST
REMIND THE COMMITTEE AND OTHERS
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
ISSUES THAT ARE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUES MAYBE
THAT WERE BEING RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION, PROBABLY ISSUES THAT
ARE OF A MORE SUBSTANTIVE, MAYBE
LESS LEGAL INTERPRETATION MIGHT
BE SERVED OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THIS
COMMITTEE WITH THAT, MISS
BARKING AND I TRUST IN YOUR THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS AS IT WAS FORWARD. AND
SO WITH THAT YOU MAKE CLOTHES.
THANK YOU AND JUST WANT TO
CONTINUE AND REITERATE THAT YOU
KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THIS. WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT.
THE OPPOSITION WANTS US TO GET
IT RIGHT OF BELIEVE WE ALL WANT
TO ENSURE THAT THESE DECISIONS
SYSTEMS ARE A PATH OUT OF BIAS
IN THESE CRITICAL DECISION
MAKING, AND I THINK WE CAN COME
TO A PLACE WHERE WE SUCCEED IN
DOING SO, ENSURING THAT
ENFORCEMENT WORKS FOR OUR
BUSINESSES. WE INNOVATE. WE ARE
THE AMAZING STATE. WE CAN BE AND
WE DON'T HAVE DISCRIMINATION IN
CRITICAL DECISION MAKING. THANK
YOU. SO THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. WE HAVE EMOTIONAL
SECOND CALL ROLL MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN IA SALI SALI. NO
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DIXON DIXON
. NO HANEY. HANEY I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA I PACHECO PACHECO EYE
POPPING UP AND I RAISE RAISE I
RIVAS RIVAS, I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
NO. YOUR BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU.
GREAT JOB COMMITTEE. YEAH THAT
WAS PRETTY DARN CLOSE MARGIN OF
ERROR, PROBABLY TO 12. WE WILL
DO ADD ONS RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE
EVERYBODY HERE. I BELIEVE MR
CARLOS LEFT, BUT HE WAS HERE FOR
ALL OF THEM. WE WILL START WITH
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND ASKED THE
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CONSENT, DIXON. DIXON. DIXON, I
RIVAS RIVAS. I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
I UM THEN ITEM NUMBER ONE, BABY
13. OH, TWO. LACKEY S ALY DÍAS.
NOT LU T. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I
ITEM NUMBER TWO. WE HAVE
EVERYBODY ITEM NUMBER THREE,
MAYBE FIVE. OH, FOUR REYES.
DIXON OPPOSE NO DIXON. NO. RIVAS
RIVAS. I, SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. NO.
ITEM NUMBER CORE. MAYBE 5, 37
BERMAN ANY ANY? AYE. NUMBER 5 85
, 71 PETRIE-NORRIS AND WICKS.
DICKSON DICKSON. NO HANEY, I
RIVAS. HIÂU THIS I ITEM NUMBER
SIX IS ON CALL A B 5 94, MAIN
CHINA'S CLERK TO PLEASE OPEN THE
ROLE. DICKSON DICKSON. NO HANEY
! HANEY I REYES REYES. AYE RIVAS
RIVAS SIDE THAT'S OUT. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN A B 7 43
PETRIE-NORRIS DIXON HANEY. HEY,
ME, I RIVAS. REVIS I ITEM 8 87
93 BONTA. HANEY ANY I RIVAS
RIVAS SIDE. ITEM. 9 89 11 SZABO.
HANEY HANEY, I ITEM NUMBER 10
MAYBE 9 24 GABRIEL. LEÓN REYES
REYES RIVAS. HIÂU BESIDE ITEM
NUMBER 11 IS ON CALL A B 10 89
GIBSON S A CLERK TO PLEASE OPEN
THE ROLE, DIXON. THIS IS NUMBER
11. YES, NOT VOTING. HANEY HANEY
, I RAISE REYES. AYE RIVAS RIVAS
ON BILL IS OUT ITEM 12, MAYBE.
13 OH, SIX. KOREA. DIXON KNOW
DIXON? NO, HANEY. HANEY I RIVAS
RIVAS HIGH ITEM 13 13 45 HEART.
DIXON I HANEY. AYE, REYES.
REYES. AYE, RIVAS. OUTSIDE ITEM.
14 14 85 HANEY. DICKSON DICKSON.
NO, RIVAS. RIVAS TILL THE END.
RIVAS I ITEM 15 IS ON CALL A B
15 46 GABRIEL ASKED THE CLIP TO
OPEN THE ROLE. HANEY HANEY, I.
REYES REYES RIVAS RIVAS I BILL
IS OUT ITEM 16 EVERYBODY. WE
HAVE EVERYBODY ON ITEM 16 ITEMS
. 17 IS A B 17 OH, SEVEN PACHECO
. IT IS ON CALL AS CLERK TO OPEN
THE ROLE. DIXON. THEY'RE NOT
VOTING. HANEY I HAPPEN HAPPEN. I
RIVAS RIVAS. I MISS SANCHEZ. DID
YOU WANT TO CHANGE A VOTE? OKAY
OKAY. THANK YOU. MHM UH, THE
MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU
ALL VERY MUCH GREAT JOB TODAY.
NICE WE GOT DONE. WE DID IT.