GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING
TODAY AS A REMINDER EACH SIDE
WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAIN
WITNESSES TWO MINUTES EACH.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES 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 ON 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 MEETING
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 IMPEDES THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF LEGISLATIVE
PROCEEDINGS. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR OR BEHAVIOR
THAT INCITES OR THREATENS
VIOLENCE, EVEN FAILED 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, IT MUST BE LIMITED. TO
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A BILL.
NO ENGAGING IN CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THIS HEARING. NO ENGAGING IN
PERSONAL ATTACKS OF MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE AUTHORS OR STAFF
. AND PLEASE BE AWARE THAT
VIOLATION OF THESE RULES MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL OR OTHER
IN FORT SMITH PROCEDURES. WITH
THAT WE'LL GET STARTED
IMMEDIATELY. I SEE. ITEM NUMBER
ONE. WE HAVE OUR AUTHOR HERE,
SENATOR LAIRD. OKAY AND YOU HAVE
TWO BILLS, SO WE'LL PRESENT BOTH
OF THEM AND WE'LL START WITH SB.
80 SENATOR ALERT BEFORE WE HAVE
YOU GET STARTED. WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM. GREAT JOB. EVERYBODY UH
, SO LET'S CALL THE ROLL HERE.
MAIENSCHEIN HERE. AZALI CONNOLLY
, DIXON HANEY. CHOLERA HEINOUS
HERE. CHOLERA PACHECO, PAPIN
REYES RIVAS SANCHEZ. THANK YOU,
SENATOR LARRY, YOU MAY BEGIN.
MORNING MR CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. YOU'RE SETTING A
STANDARD OF A CORM AT THE START
OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THE
SENATORS YET TO MEET. WELL, I
WILL TELL YOU, SENATOR. THE
TRAIN RUNS ON TIME HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE, SO, YEAH. GOOD YES.
THANK YOU. THAT'S GOOD. YOU
SHOULD ADVISE INDIA WILL DO THAT
LATER TODAY, BUT IN THE
MEANTIME, GO AHEAD. UM YEAH,
SENATOR ROTH IS LIKE, REALLY OR
JUST TALKING ON AND ON AND ON
ABOUT YOUR BILL. UM SO SENATE
BILL 80 WILL HELP ALL PARTIES TO
BE AWARE OF AND MUTUALLY
AGREEABLE TO THE PROVISIONS
WITHIN RETAIL INSTALLMENT
CONTRACTS BY INCREASING THE FONT
SIZE. UM THE CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
WIRELESS INDUSTRY HAS SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. AND WE ARE WORKING.
AH WITH THEM IN THE HOPES THAT
WE CAN FIND SOME KIND OF
SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT AH! THAT
BRINGS ALONG THE CONSUMER GROUPS
THAT ARE THE SUPPORTERS. AND SO
THAT'S THE ONE OF REMAINING
ISSUE THAT'S OUT THERE. WE ARE
COMMITTED TO WORK ON IT. THIS
CAN BE THE FRONT SIZE CAN BE
PROBLEMATIC FOR CONSUMERS WHEN
THEY OVERLOOKING INACCURATELY
INTERPRETED ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS
UTILIZING A LARGER ONE WILL
ENSURE CONSUMERS AND PARTIES ARE
BETTER AWARE, UNLIKE LAST YEAR'S
BILL, WHICH WHICH MOVED THROUGH
THIS BILL HAS A SIX MONTH
DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION TO ENSURE
A SMOOTH TRANSITION TO
COMPLIANCE. THAT SUPPORT ON BOTH
SIDES, UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IN THE SENATE AND NO NO
VOTES, SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN IDEA. THANK YOU, UH,
DO YOU HAVE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? WE DON'T HAVE
DESIGNATED WITH GREAT. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. I CAN TAKE 30
SECONDS IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR THE SPILL IS VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD IN THE
DISCUSSIONS OF POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS IS JUST KEEP IN MIND
, BOTH AS A LONGTIME CONSUMER
ADVOCATE, IS AN ATTORNEY AND AS
THE PERSON THAT MY FAMILY AND
FRIENDS ALWAYS CALL WHEN THEY
WERE UNDER THESE KINDS OF
PROBLEMS. UM WHAT I FIND
COMMONLY IS THAT THEY SAY, WELL,
IT WAS DESCRIBED THIS WAY. THEY
ALWAYS TOLD THIS THERE'S A
SUMMARY HERE AND I ALWAYS START
OFF SAYING, WELL, WHAT DOES THE
CONTRACT SAY? LET'S LOOK AT THE
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SO HAVING
THE FONT SIZE LARGER FOR THE
CONTRACT IS CRITICAL. OFTENTIMES
WE WORKED ON BILLS WITH THE
OPPOSITION FOR MANY, MANY YEARS,
WE HIGHLIGHT THE KEY TERMS
WITHIN THE CONTRACT SO THAT THE
CONSUMER CAN TURN THEIR EYE TO
THAT AND ALWAYS KNOW THE KEY
TERMS ARE SO THAT'S VERY
DIFFERENT THAN A SUMMARY. AND SO
JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS THE
DISCUSSIONS GO FORWARD, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. EITHER ONE. IT'S
FINE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I FIND MYSELF IN THE
MARGARET GLASPY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
. I FIND MYSELF IN THE
UNFORTUNATE POSITION OF HAVING
TO PROVE, UH, OPPOSED ONE OF MY
FAVORITE SENATORS. UH BILLS, BUT
I AM HERE TODAY WITH CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS BILL. UM WE DID NOT.
WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGING WITH THE
SENATOR'S OFFICE, ACTUALLY,
SINCE HE HAD THE BILL LAST YEAR,
TRYING TO COME TO RESOLUTION
JUST FOR A BRIEF PRIMER FOR ALL
OF YOU THIS BILL. THIS LAW HAS
BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE 1959.
MANY OF YOU WERE PERHAPS YOUR
PARENTS PROBABLY BOUGHT THEIR
FIRST CULTURE STEREO USING A
RETAIL INSTALLMENT CONTRACT.
THEY'RE USED FAR LESS FREQUENTLY
THESE DAYS AS CREDIT CARDS AND
EVEN FINE. I'LL PAY LATER HAVE
SUPPLANTED THE USE OF THESE
CONTRACTS, BUT THERE ARE STILL A
FEW RETAILERS WHO USE THEM. WE
CERTAINLY SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY.
WANT TO BE SURE CONSUMERS ARE
AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE SIGNING IN
THE TERMS OF ANY CONTRACT THEY
MAY MAKE. FOR A RETAIL PURCHASE
. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE ARISEN WITH
THESE CONTRACTS SINCE 1959. I'M
SURE THERE'S BEEN A FEW BUT NO
RECENT PRESS ARTICLES THAT I
COULD FIND ANY PARTICULAR ISSUES
. WE HAVE GONE TO THE CHAIR TO
THE AUTHOR AND OFFERED A SET OF
AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD ENABLE,
WHICH WOULD GIVE OPTIONS TO THE
RETAILER TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF
THE KEY TERMS IN 12 POINT POT, A
NICE ONE PAGE SUMMARY, SO
THEY'RE REALLY AWARE OF THE
TERMS. OFFERED IN ELECTRONIC
FORMAT, WHICH WE THINK
MODERNIZES CONT THE STATUTE, UM
OR COMPLY WITH THE 12TH WITH THE
12 POINT FONT, WHICH WOULD
INCREASE THE PAPER USAGE BY 50%
SO, UM, FOR WE BELIEVED THAT
WE'VE OFFERED A VIABLE
ALTERNATIVE. WE CERTAINLY HOPE
WE CAN WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES
WITH THE SENATOR. BUT FOR NOW.
WE REMAIN OPPOSED. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
APOLOGIES I JUST DID ALSO WANT
TO ADD THAT CT CANNOT BE HERE
THIS MORNING. BUT THEY DID ASK
ME TO REPRESENT THEM AS WELL.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? SEEN NONE QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE,
MR HANEY. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR. I THINK THIS
IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEASURE. AND
DEFINITELY I LOVE IN THE
ANALYSIS. IT'S SHOWING THE 8.5
FIGHTING HOW SMALL IT IS, UM, I
DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOMETHING
TO THIS IDEA OF HAVING A SUMMARY
IN ADDITION TO IT FOR ME WHEN
YOU HAVE A LONG CONTRACT, IT'S
PEOPLE MIGHT NOT GO THROUGH IT.
NO MATTER WHAT THE FONT IS. IS
THERE ANY? UM DID I KNOW THE
OPPOSITION HAD SOME
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT? BUT IT
IS THERE ANY THOUGHT THAT YOU
HAVE TO THAT OF WHETHER THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE HELPFUL
FOR AH, FOR THEM FOR FOLKS TO BE
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE
HIGH LEVEL STUFF THAT THEY
SHOULD THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO KNOW ABOUT. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. I SUSPECT IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL. WE HAD NOT CONSIDERED
IT. YES, AND YET IN THIS PROCESS
, AND I KNOW I HAVE A LOT OF FUN
WITH ALL MY LEGISLATIVE STAFF AS
I BREAK THEM IN WHEN THEY WANT
TO WRITE A FIVE PAGE LETTER TO
THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN A BILL TO
TRY TO GET THEM TO DO ONE
PARAGRAPH AT THE BEGINNING THAT
JUST SUMMARIZES IT ALL AND GETS
IT DONE, SO I APPRECIATE THE
MERIT. WELL, LOOK AT THAT BILL
MOVES FORWARD. MISS DIXON. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. UM. WELL JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON THE COMMENTS THAT,
UH, SHE SPOKEN OPPOSITION. I'M
TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND
WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, AND TODAY
MANY AGREEMENTS CAN BE OBTAINED
DIGITALLY. AND SO WHEN YOU GET
IT DIGITALLY, THEN YOU COULD
EXPAND IT. UM SO I'M JUST TRYING
TO IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSE OF
THE PROBLEM. AND THEN YOU THINK
ABOUT ALL OF, UH FOR CAUSES US
ME TO THINK ABOUT ALL OTHER
DOCUMENTS THAT CONSUMERS SIGN. I
MEAN, THERE'S MORTGAGE LOANS, UH
, RENTAL AGREEMENTS. I AM REALLY
NOT ENTHUSIASTIC FOR THE STATE
TO MANDATE FONT SIZES TODAY WHEN
SO MANY DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY OR YOU COULD OBTAIN
ONE. IF SOMEBODY SAYS, SEND ME
THIS TO MY EMAIL. I'M I KNOW
THAT THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE, SO
I JUST HESITATE TO PUT THE STATE
IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE
REGULATING FUND SIZES. I THINK
IT'S KIND OF LUDICROUS. FRANKLY
UM, SO TELL ME WHAT'S REALLY
DRIVING THIS. I THINK WHAT'S
REALLY DRIVING THIS IS THAT
THERE STILL ARE MANY THAT ARE
DONE IN PERSON AND WHEN THEY'RE
DONE IN PERSON, THE PERSON THAT
IS SIGNING IT IS NOT THE PERSON
WITH THE LEVERAGE AND THE
SITUATION. AH IN TERMS OF
UNDERSTANDING IT AND A LOT OF
TIMES THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE THAT DO
THIS. ONLINE OR ANY WAY OTHER
THAN IN PERSON, AND IT'S MAKING
SURE THAT THEY'RE FAIRLY
REPRESENTED AND HAVE THE OPTION
TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT
THEY'RE ENTERING INTO. WELL, I
REALLY FULLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF
A SUMMARY EXECUTIVE PARAGRAPH.
IF YOU WILL THAT SUMMARIZES. I
THINK THAT WOULD BE A WHOLE
HARDLY SUFFICIENT AND THEN TO
PRINT OUT. I THINK THE PAPER
CONSUMPTION ISSUE IS NOT A MINOR
ONE. SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT
AMENDMENT. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
WORKING ON AS WELL. WE WOULD
LOOK AT THAT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE,
MS PACHECO, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
THINK THAT THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD
TRANSPARENCY IS VERY IMPORTANT,
BUT I HAVE ALSO THE SAME
CONCERNS. AND TODAY I WILL BE,
UM I WILL BE VOTING YES ON THIS
BILL, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
SEE IF YOU COULD WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND MAYBE, UM, WORK
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT THEY
HAVE OFFERED. UM BUT THANK YOU
FOR THIS BILL. AND AGAIN, I WILL
BE VOTING. YES, ON THIS ITEM
TODAY, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. UH, THANK
YOU, SENATOR. I WILL TELL YOU AS
MY STAFF WILL ALSO ATTEST. FONT
SIZE WAS NOT AN ISSUE THAT I HAD
REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT MUCH UNTIL
THE LAST YEAR OR TWO. SO UH,
IT'S BECOME MUCH MORE OF AN
ISSUE IN MY LIFE AS AN ASIDE TO,
UM I THINK I APPRECIATE YOU
DOING THIS. I THINK YOU HEAR THE
KIND OF CONSENSUS THE COMMITTEE
YOU YOU'RE KNOWN AS AN AUTHOR
CONTINUES TO WORK ON THESE, SO I
KNOW YOU WILL, AS IT CONTINUES
TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, SO
THANK YOU. PLEASED TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. IS DO WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM THE COMMITTEE MOTION FROM
MR HANEY? SECRETARY MR PACHECO?
THE MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. YOU MAKE CLOTHES
JUST I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH PEOPLE AND I APPRECIATE AN
IPHONE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
MOTION A SECOND S CLERK. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. I REALLY CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I, DICKSON DICKSON.
NO, HANEY. HANEY, I CALL LARA.
PACHECO PACHECO, I POP IN AND I
RAISE REVERSE. SANCHEZ. WE NEED
ONE MORE. YOUR BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU, AND WE'LL KEEP YOU
THERE AND MOVING ON TO ITEM
NUMBER FIVE SP 5 64 THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THIS BILL WILL
MODESTLY INCREASE IN CONFORM. 20
VARIOUS FEES THAT SHERIFF'S
OFFICERS ARE PERMITTED TO CHARGE
TO FULFILL THEIR LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO SERVE PROCESS TO
CLOSER MATCH THE COSTS OF
PROVIDING THAT SERVICE AND
REFLECT REFLECT INFLATION. THESE
FEES HAVE NOT BEEN A RACE SINCE
2015. EVEN THIS RACE DOES NOT
KEEP UP WITH INFLATION. UM, MY
OFFICE RECEIVED AN OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED LETTER FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
JUDGMENT PROFESSIONALS. WE HAVE
MET WITH THEM, AND THEY TAKE NO
ISSUE WITH THE OVERALL FEE
INCREASES. UM INSTEAD, THEY HAVE
CONCERNS THAT THE CODE SECTION
IS UNCLEAR, LEADING TO DOUBLE
CHARGING, UM, WE BELIEVE THEIR
PROPOSED CHANGES ARE BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL. AND WHILE THE
OPPOSITION HAS SHARED THEIR
PLANS TO RUN THEIR OWN BILL NEXT
YEAR, THEY REMAIN IN OPPOSITION.
AND SO WE FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE
TO MOVE AHEAD. THE BILL HAS HAD
NO NO VOTES, RECEIVED BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT, AND HERE TO SPEAK AND
SUPPORT IS COREY STOLL ZILLOW,
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. COREY SELLS VILLA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S WORK
HERE WOULD SIMPLY SAY HE'S VERY
CLEARLY ARTICULATED OUR GOAL
WITH SB 5 64 AND AS HE SAID TO
THE OPPOSITION, THE ANALYSIS
DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB LAYING OUT
THAT THE CONCERNS DON'T REALLY
RELATE TO THE THRUST OF THE
BILL, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO
INCREASE THE FEES AND RECOGNIZED
THE FUNDING SHORTFALLS THAT
SHERIFF'S OFFICES OR FACING WITH
THEIR STATUTORY DUTY TO
UNDERTAKE THIS SERVICE OF
PROCESS AND THE FEES THEY ARE
PERMITTED TO COLLECT. HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT WITH
THAT WOULD SIMPLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. NAME AND ORGANIZATION.
ONLY MR SHEA REMEMBERS BRANDED
UP ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. SHARON
MEMBERS, RYAN MORE MONEY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU KNOW, UH, FOR THE
WITNESSES OF SUPPORT ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION SAYING
THAT WE HAVE A MOTION FROM HIS
PAPIN. SECOND FROM MR CONNELLY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE? MS DIXON, UM,
HAVING COME FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT? I THINK IT'S
PROPOSITION TO 18 THAT LIMITS
FEES FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES
THAT HAVE TO BE 100% ASSOCIATED
WITH THE COST OF PERFORMING THAT
SERVICE DOES THAT AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
DOES THAT APPLY TO THE FEES THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN THIS
MATTER. THANK YOU, MA'AM THROUGH
THE CHAIR. UM THE I DON'T
BELIEVE PROP 2 18 IMPLICATES
THIS IN ANY WAY BECAUSE IT IS
SPECIFICALLY BASED ON THE
SERVICE. SO IT'S THESE ARE FEES
THAT ARE CHARGED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FILING OF CERTAIN LEGAL
DOCUMENTS, THE ACTUAL COST OF
THE PROVIDING THE SERVICE AND,
IN FACT TO THE TO THE AUTHORS
POINT THAT THE FEES THAT ARE
COLLECTED DON'T COVER THE COSTS
OF THE SERVICE IS BEING IF MY
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WAS BACK. A
LONG TIME OF 2 18 WAS AT THE NO
AGENCY CAN AND CHARGE A FEE
THAT'S OVER AND ABOVE THE COST
OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE AND IT
HAS TO BE AUDITED AND ASSURED
THAT THIS IS THE COST OF
PROVIDING THESE SERVICES THAT
ARE IDENTIFIED BY THIS FEE, SO
NO ONE'S MAKING ANY MONEY OFF OF
THIS. THIS IS THE ACTUAL COST OF
PROVIDING THE FEET. I JUST
WANTED TO ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY LESS
THAN THE COST OF PROVIDING THE
SERVICE AND I WOULD JUST NOTE
FOR
ORANGE-COUNTY-REGISTER-TOO-SOON-COUNTY-VOTE-CENTERS
. UM THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE COLLECTED $2.19 MILLION
IN REVENUE FOR THE CIVIL
PROCESSING FEES, BUT THE COST
FOR PROVIDING THE SERVICE WAS
8.52 MILLION. SO THERE WAS
ACTUALLY A $6.32 MILLION DEFICIT
BORNE BY THE COUNTY. SO WITH
THESE ADDITIONAL WITH THIS FEE
INCREASE, IT'S JUST AS YOU SAY
IT COULD EVEN BE UNDER THE TOTAL
COST OF THE FULL COST OF
PROVIDING THE SERVICE. IT'S
GETTING CLOSER FEELING THAT
CLOSING THAT GAP. ALRIGHT VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE SEEN NONE. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE
MOTION IS DO PASS. YOU MAY CLOSE
. JUST I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
NIGHT. THANK YOU. ESCORT TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIN CHINA IS SALLY
SALLY. I, CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DICKSON DICKSON. I HANEY PAINT
EI KALRA PACHECO PACHECO, I
PAPIN HAPPEN. I RAISE RIVAS
SANCHEZ. YOUR BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU. MR ROTH IS NEXT AS MR
SENATOR ROTH APPROACHES, DO WE
HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA MOTION FROM MR PAPIN,
SECOND FROM MR HANEY. THAT
CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDES SB 4, 39
SKINNER. SB 6 52 HAMBURG. SB 7,
48 ROTH. SB 7 90 PADILLA. SB 801
. ALAN H R 30 ASSAILANT. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA. ASK THE CLERK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I DAILY
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DICKSON
DICKSON. I HANEY HANEY I CHOLERA
CHECCO CHECKOUT, EYE POPPING
HAPPENED? I RAISE ON THE
CONSENT. RAISE I RIVERS SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. A CONSENT AGENDA IS
OUT. THANK YOU, SENATOR ROTH.
YOU MAY PROCEED. SP 95. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS TO
BILL UPDATES THE CALIFORNIA
COMMERCIAL CODE TO CONFORM WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE
UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION, FOCUSING
PRIMARILY ON THE TREATMENT OF
DIGITAL ASSETS. UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE AND THE
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE, HAVE
NOT BEEN UPDATED RECENTLY TO
KEEP PACE WITH THESE
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS,
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE FIELD OF
DIGITAL ASSETS. THE UNIFORM LAW
COMMISSION AND THE AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE UNDERTOOK A PROJECT TO
STUDY CONSIDER AND FORMULATE
AMENDMENTS TO THE UCC. TO
ADDRESS THESE EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS TO STUDY
IN THE DRAFTING COMMITTEES, AND
THEIR OBSERVERS INCLUDED LAWYERS
BUSINESS PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH
COMMERCIAL LAW, THE TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRY AND CONSUMER MATTERS,
AMONG OTHERS. THESE UCC
AMENDMENTS ADDRESS ISSUES
RELATED TO SALES OF AND SECURITY
INTERESTS IN A WIDE VARIETY OF
ELECTRONIC PAYMENT RIGHTS. THE
NEGOTIATE BILITY OF AND SECURITY
INTERESTS IN VIRTUAL CURRENCIES
AND SECURITY INTEREST IN
ELECTRONIC MONEY, SUCH AS
CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCIES
, GIVEN CALIFORNIA'S LEADING
ROLE IN TECHNOLOGY BASED
INDUSTRIES. THESE AMENDMENTS ARE
IMPORTANT TO CALIFORNIA
BUSINESSES AS THE AMENDMENTS
WILL GREATLY IMPROVE THE
PREDICTABILITY OF TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVING THESE DIGITAL ASSETS
AND ALLOW THEM TO BE USED. MORE
CONFIDENTLY AND EFFICIENTLY BY
THE BUSINESSES ARE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
HERE WITH ME TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL OR DIANE BORGER VINE
AND STEPHEN WEISS? WELCOME MISS.
FINE THANK YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS DIANE BOY IRVINE. AND I'M
HERE TODAY AS A COMMISSIONER ON
THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON
UNIFORM STATE LAWS, THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION IS THE
SPONSOR OF SENATE BILL 95, AND
THE COMMISSION IS PART OF THE
UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION, THE
SENATOR RUSS STATED IN 2022, THE
USC APPROVED THE 2022 UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE AMENDMENTS, AND
THESE AMENDMENTS WERE
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE
U. S C AND THE AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE. THE BILL WOULD
IMPLEMENT THOSE IN CALIFORNIA.
AS YOU KNOW, THE UNIFORM
COMMERCIAL CODE IS A SET OF
RULES GOVERNING A WIDE VARIETY
OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS, AND
THE UCC HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN
EVERY U. S JURISDICTION,
ENSURING THAT THE LAW GOVERNING
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS TO
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THE UCC
WAS ADOPTED IN CALIFORNIA
THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
COMMERCIAL CODE. A SENATOR ROSS
SAID. THE UCC AND THE CALIFORNIA
COMMERCIAL CODE HAVE NOT KEPT UP
TO DATE WITH TECHNOLOGY AND THE
MARKET CHOOSING AND TRADING AND
SOME OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES SUCH
AS DIGITAL ACT SETS WANT
DEFINITIVE COMMERCIAL LAW RULES
FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THOSE
ASSETS. THIS BILL THROUGH THE
INFLAMMATION STATION IN THE 2022
AMENDMENTS. WOULD UPDATE THAT
LAW AND WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF
SB 95. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
HERE, MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME'S STEVE
WISE. I'M IN PRIVATE PRACTICE IN
LOS ANGELES. I'VE PRACTICED IN
THIS AREA. FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER
. NOT QUITE 50 YEARS, AND I
TEACH THE SUBJECT AT U. C L. A
LAW SCHOOL. I WAS A MEMBER OF
THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE ON THIS
PROJECT DRAFTING COMMITTEE MET
MORE TIMES THAN I CAN REMEMBER
WAS A COMMITTEE MEETINGS WE HAD
OVER 350 OBSERVERS FROM
DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES. CONSUMER
INDUSTRIES, BORROWER GROUPS,
LENDER GROUPS. ARE THE EXISTING
COMMERCIAL CODES APPLICATION TO
THESE KINDS OF DIGITAL ASSETS IS
VERY INEFFICIENT. THESE KINDS OF
ASSETS ARE NOW USED WIDELY IN
COMMERCE, AND THOSE IN COMMERCE
ASKED THE UNIFORM LAW COMMISSION
IN THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE TO
UPDATE THE LAW. WE BELIEVE THIS
LAW IS VERY FAIR. IT'S
PROTECTIVE OF CONSUMER RIGHTS
THERE. IT WILL MAKE THESE
TRANSACTIONS FAR MORE EFFICIENT,
EFFECTIVE AND CERTAIN. THEREBY
REDUCING COSTS. WE BELIEVE FOR
BORROWERS AND LENDERS SO
STRONGLY URGE AND I AND I'D
CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
NAME AND ORGANIZATION, PLEASE.
GOOD MORNING. I'M ARAMBULA
BECOME INCREDIBLY SUPPORTIVE.
THANK YOU SEE NO FURTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. SAYING NONE.
I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? MR
SALIH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM I
THIS IS A COMPLICATED ISSUE. UM,
THE UCC IS NOT A SIMPLE THING.
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT'S BEEN
RAISED AND I HAVE CONCERNS OF AS
WELL AS DOES THIS DO THESE
AMENDMENTS PAVED THE WAY FOR A
CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY?
THE WE'RE GOOD. THE. WELL, THEY
DO NOT BECAUSE OF COURSE, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS TO ESTABLISH A
CENTRAL BANK CURRENCY, AND THAT
WOULD BE THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. UNDER THE SUPREMACY
, CAUSE THAT'S HOW THAT WORKS OF
THESE AMENDMENTS. I WILL SAY
THAT THE AMENDMENTS DO ESTABLISH
A CATEGORY OF ELECTRONIC MONEY
BECAUSE SOME COUNTRIES. A FEW
ANYWAY HAVE DESIGNATED THIS
DIGITAL ASSET. THIS DIGITAL
CURRENCY AS THE NATIONAL
CURRENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE,
OBVIOUSLY, IN FACT DIGITAL
ASSETS UNDER THIS THESE SETS OF
AMENDMENTS ARE IN A NEW ARTICLE
ARTICLE 12 CARVED OUT FROM THE
DEFINITION OF MONEY AND THE
PROBLEM. I MEAN, I'M NOT A UCC
PERSON AND I DON'T INVITE
ANYBODY TO LOOK AT MY UCC GRADE
IN LAW SCHOOL. BUT I WILL TELL
YOU. THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT
THE TRADITIONAL RULES HAVING TO
DO WITH BANKING AND LENDING DO
NOT APPLY TO THESE DIGITAL
ASSETS, AND WE'VE SEEN IT IN THE
NEWSPAPER PARK. THE DIGITAL
REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSET IS
THE ASSET ITSELF. WHEN WE HAVE A
BANK ACCOUNT IN MONEY, THEIR
DIGITAL REPRESENTATIONS OF OUR
BANK ACCOUNT, BUT THE ASSET IS
STILL THE PHYSICAL ASSET. THAT'S
NOT TRUE IN THE CASE OF BITCOIN
AND SOME OF THESE OTHER DIGITAL
ASSET TYPES, AND SO THE QUESTION
IS, UM, WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT WHO
HAS THE CONTROL AND OWNERSHIP OF
THE DIGITAL ASSET BECAUSE THE
PLATFORMS OF THE WALLETS WHERE
THESE ASSETS WERE PLACE THOUGHT
THAT THEY HAD THE CONTROL AND IN
FACT, THERE'S A QUITE A NOTABLE
BANKRUPTCY, WHERE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT BECAUSE OF THE AMBIGUITY
AWARDED THE DIGITAL ASSET NOT TO
THE PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THEY
OWNED IT, BUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE,
THE BANKRUPT ENTITY. SO UM, WHAT
THIS? WHAT THESE SETS OF
AMENDMENTS DO, OF COURSE, IS TO
SAY THAT IN THE DIGITAL ARENA
THE PERSON WHO THINKS THEY HAVE
THE ASSET, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
PARKED ON A PLATFORM, IN FACT,
OWNS THE ASSET AND THE PLATFORM
HAS TO RETURN THE ASSET TO THE
OWNER, JUST LIKE A BANK HAS TO
RETURN THE MONEY TO THE
APPRECIATE I GET THE NEED TO
REGULATE. UM THE WILD WEST OF
DIGITAL CURRENCY OUT THERE. MY
CONCERN HAS TO DO IS WHETHER
THIS CREATES AVENUE OR PATHWAY
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
CREATE A DIGITAL CURRENCY. UM
THAT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE IF THE
GOVERNMENT STARTS GETTING INTO
THE DIGITAL CURRENCY BUSINESS,
IT MEANS THAT EVERY SINGLE
TRANSACTION WILL BE TRACEABLE.
THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO NOT ONLY TRACK BUT
CONTROL YOUR MONEY, AND THIS
RAISES LARGE ISSUES CONCERNING
PRIVACY INTERESTS. WHAT KIND OF
A WHAT KIND OF CONTROL THE
GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO EXERT OVER
OUR DAILY LIVES. SO MY QUESTION
IS. WHY NOT INCLUDE SOME
PROTECTIONS ARE RESTRICTIONS
PROHIBITING FEDERAL DIGITAL
CURRENCY IN HERE, I JUST THINK
CASH IS A BEDROCK COMPONENT OF
OUR AMERICAN SYSTEM. AND IF THE
GOVERNMENT HAS THE ABILITY TO
TRACE EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION
IT IS PROBLEMATIC. I WOULD SAY.
WELL YOU KNOW, AND WE DON'T
CONTROL WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DOES, AND I SUSPECT
I'LL DEFER TO THE EXPERTS. DO WE
NEED THIS? WHY DO WE NEED TO DO
THE UCC? IF IT DOESN'T MATTER
WITH THE GOAL OF THE UCC IS TO
IS TO STANDARDIZE COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTIONS ACROSS ALL THE
STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. AND
I SUSPECT THAT IF YOU HAVE
COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN AS A
GOVERNMENT AS THEIR GOVERNMENT
CURRENCY IF DID FORM OF DIGITAL
ASSETS. YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT
SOMEWHERE IN THE UCC IN ORDER TO
ALLOW COMMERCE TO PROCEED
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE TO
PROCEED INSIDE THE 50 STATES OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT'S
WHY THERE WAS A DEFINITION
INCLUDED OF ELECTRONIC MONEY TO
DEAL WITH THOSE NATIONS THAT
HAVE DECIDED TO ADOPT DIGITAL
CURRENCY OR A DIGITAL ASSET AS
THEIR GOVERNMENT CURRENCY THAT
IS NOT THE UNITED STATES AND
THAT'S UP TO CONGRESS. AND THE
PRESIDENT TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S
A LITTLE BIT OUT OF OUR CONTROL.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE TO
DEAL WITH THE ISSUES THAT WE
FACE WITH DIGITAL ASSETS TODAY.
AND THOSE INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE,
HOW TO TRANSFER A DIGITAL ASSET
. AND HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO
OWNS IT? AND THAT'S WHY THE
DEFINITION OF CONTROLLABLE
ELECTRONIC RECORDS WAS INCLUDED
NOT AS INCLUDED HIS MONEY, BUT
AS A DIGITAL ASSET TO ALLOW
PEOPLE TO TRANSFER THESE DIGITAL
ASSETS WITH RELIABILITY. SO IF
YOU HAVE CONTROL WHETHER IT'S A
DIGITAL KEY OR WHATEVER THE
EXPERTS TELL ME YOU USED TO
CONTROL A DIGITAL ASSET. YOU CAN
TRANSFER IT. I CAN TRANSFER IT
TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALIH WITH
CONFIDENCE IN A SIMILAR MEMBER
MEMBER OF SALAD CAN WITH
CONFIDENCE, ACCEPTED AND KNOW,
KNOW THAT YOU HAVE WHATEVER THAT
DIGITAL REPRESENTATION IS. THE
OTHER PROBLEM IS SECURITIZING A
DIGITAL ASSET HOW TO USE IF
YOU'RE GOING TO LEND AGAINST IT
. HOW DO YOU DO IT THE ONLY
BECAUSE WHAT ARE YOU? YOU'RE NOT
HOLDING IT, SO THE ONLY WAY TO
DO IT. PRIOR TO THESE AMENDMENTS
WAS TO FILE A FINANCING
STATEMENT. I BELIEVE WE'VE USED
TO FILE THEM WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE. AND THEN IF YOU AND
YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WHO HAS
PRIORITY THESE AMENDMENTS DEAL
WITH THAT AND PROVIDE A WAY. TO
SECURITIZE AN ASSET IF YOU HAVE
CONTROL OVER IT. YOU OWN IT. YOU
HAVE PRIORITY. I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. MY
CONCERN HAS TO DO IS WHETHER THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S GOING TO
GET INTO DEBT DIGITAL CURRENCY
SPACE AND I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
THINK ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, WE
PRIORITIZE PRIVACY IN A LOT OF
ISSUES. I KNOW A LOT OF YOU
CONCERNED WITH REPRODUCTIVE
RIGHTS, AND SO JUST THINK OF THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF EVERY
TRANSACTION. THE UNITED STATES
BEING RECORDABLE AND TRACEABLE
AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
THOSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE
OUTSOURCING. OUR DELIBERATION
WITH NO OFFENSE TO A THIRD PARTY
ORGANIZATION LIKE THE UCC AND I
WOULD SUPPORT THIS IF THERE WAS
AN EXPRESS PROHIBITION TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADOPTING A
CENTRAL DIGITAL CURRENCY, BUT
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU, SENATOR
, AND I APPRECIATE APPRECIATE
THE COMMENTS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
MS DICKSON PARTIALLY, JUST TO
FOLLOW UP ON MR SHELLEY. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I MEAN, WITH ALL
THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT BITCOIN
AND CONGRESS HAS BEEN HOLDING
HEARINGS ON DIGITAL CURRENCY, UH
, WHICH I'LL HAVE SHOWN THAT
THEY ARE REALLY ETHER, AND
THERE'S REALLY NO VALUE TO THAT.
SO IN THE MIDST OF CONGRESS,
STILL DETERMINING HOW SOMETHING
LIKE CRYPTO CONCERN. CURRENCY IS
REGULATED. HOW DO WE KNOW NOW
WHAT TO DO IN TERMS OF HOW IT
DEFINED BECAUSE IT ALL JUST WENT
POOF. AND ARE WE GETTING AHEAD
OF IT RIGHT NOW? WHERE DOES IT
IN TERMS OF CONGRESS? AS YOU SAY
CONGRESS MAKES THESE RULES
WHETHER IT'S A DIGITAL ASSET HAS
THAT BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A
CREDIBLE, SUBSTANTIVE ASSET IF
IT'S BASED ON CRYPTO CURRENCY? I
DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT EXISTS. I
DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER
THAT. OTHER THAN AS I UNDERSTAND
IT. THE ASSET IS THE DIGITAL
REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSETS. SO
YOU SAY IT IS WHAT IT IS, AND I
AGREE THAT IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT
THE REAL PROBLEM FROM A CONSUMER
PROTECTION IF YOU AS WE'VE SEEN
IN THE NEWS THAT IF WE DON'T
ADOPT SOME OF THESE RULES TO
DEFINE WHO CONTROLS AND WHO OWNS
THE DIGITAL ASSET AND WHETHER A
PLATFORM THAT'S HOLDING IT AND I
DONT PROFESS TO UNDERSTAND YOU
HAVE TO KNOW HOW OLD I AM. WHAT
A PLATFORM IS. BUT APPARENTLY
THERE ARE THESE THINGS OUT THERE
OR DIGITAL WALLETS WHERE YOU
HOLD THESE THINGS TO SAY THAT
THE HOLDER THAN THE WALLET, THE
WALLET HAS TO RETURN THE DIGITAL
ASSET TO THE PERSON WHO THINKS
THEY OWN IT. JUST LIKE A BANK
HAS TO RETURN YOUR MONEY TO YOU
REMEMBER, IF YOU SAY GIVE ME MY
MONEY, AND I UNDERSTAND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY'S ISSUES
ABOUT THE CENTRAL BANK AND
CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY
AND WHETHER CONGRESS IS GOING TO
ADOPT BITCOIN IS A NATIONAL
CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. I
HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA, BUT
THERE ARE THESE UNDERLYING
ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE THAT
WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. HOW DO YOU
HOW DO YOU GET A SECURITY
INTEREST IN A DIGITAL ASSET? HOW
CAN YOU TRANSFER IT WITH
RELIABILITY AND CONFIDENCE? SO
IF THE THING HAS BEEN STOLEN,
BUT YOU GET IT. THE RULES NOW
SAY WITH THIS, THAT IF YOU DON'T
KNOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S
STOLEN, IT'S YOURS. THESE BASIC
RULES THAT WE OPERATE IN IN THE
COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT TODAY
THAT ALLOW US TO OPERATE WITH
CONFIDENCE. WE NEED TO. WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE THOSE APPLY TO THE
DIGITAL ASSETS AND THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND I'M NOT
MINIMIZING THE ISSUES THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALIH RAISED.
BUT YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE A LITTLE
BIT OUT OF OUR CONTROL AND WHAT
WE CAN CONTROL THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION POINTS THE RHYTHM
EMBEDDED IN THESE UCC AMENDMENTS
. I AGREE. I THINK THAT THAT IS
COMMENDABLE. I'M JUST WONDERING
AS YOU'RE SPEAKING THAT THE
WORLD IS STILL ON SETTLED ABOUT
WHAT TO DO WITH CRYPTOCURRENCY
AND HOW TO REGULATE IT. AND IS
IT REAL? AND HERE WE ARE GOING
TO BE CODIFYING. REGULATIONS AND
LAWS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
, THEREFORE, GIVING IT THE
IMPRIMATUR THAT IT'S LEGITIMATE
AND THEN IT SOUND AND SOLID
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT AND IT'S IT
MAY BE DETERMINED OR IS IN THE
PROCESS OF BEING DETERMINED ALL
THAT MANY OF THESE FIRMS THAT
HAVE REPRESENTED THEMSELVES TO
BE PURVEYORS OF CRYPTO CURRENCY
NO LONGER EXISTS. SO I JUST
DON'T KNOW FOR AHEAD OF THE
GAME. I THINK IT'S COMMENDABLE
THAT IF THERE IS EVENTUALLY, UH
, CLARIFICATION ABOUT THAT AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL, I THINK, BUT
RIGHT NOW WE'RE LEGITIMIZING
CRYPTO DIGITAL TRANSACTIONS THAT
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE FEDERAL
OUT COVERS DO THAT. DOES THE
FEDERAL OUT COVER CRYPTO
TRANSACTIONS? NOT SURE I CAN
UNDERSTAND. I CAN ANSWER THAT. I
DO KNOW THAT, UM WE DO HAVE A
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE IN
THE UCC HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN
CALIFORNIA FOR DECADES. BUT
THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN OUR
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL CODE, AND
THAT'S WHAT ADOPTING THESE
AMENDMENTS WILL ATTEMPT TO CLEAR
UP. I PROBABLY SHOULD STOP
TALKING SINCE I'M SURE I'VE
EXHAUSTED MY KNOWLEDGE I THINK
WE'VE MADE THOUGH, ALRIGHT, I
THINK WE'VE KIND OF GOTTEN TO
THE POINT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS. I MEAN, WE'LL
GO TO MS REYES. I THINK WE'VE AT
THIS POINT, PROBABLY BEEN BEATEN
TO DEATH. SENATOR RALPH I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US
INTO THE 21ST CENTURY. YOU'RE
NOT CREATING A NEW CURRENCY.
YOU'RE JUST PROVIDING CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS FOR THIS CURRENCY.
AND I SINCERELY APPRECIATE THAT
. YOU'RE UPGRADING THIS. I THINK
THIS IS IMPORTANT EVER. UCC HAS
TO BE. WE HAVE TO AMEND IT TO
KEEP UP WITH WHATEVER IT IS.
IT'S HAPPENING. WHATEVER IS HAS
BEEN CREATED SO THAT WE PROVIDE
THOSE PROTECTIONS FOR THE
CONSUMER. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR PROVIDING THESE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS THROUGH THE THROUGH
THESE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. BUT
THANK YOU. WE HAVE MOTION FROM
HIS PATRONS, SECOND FROM MS
REYES SENIOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEEN NONE. HOPEFULLY A BRIEF
CLOSE BUT GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AT ESTÁ CLERK
TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALI.
CONNELLY. CONNOLLY. I DIXON.
HANEY HANEY, I CHOLERA. CHICO
CHICO, EYE POPPING, I RAISE MY
RIVAS. SANCHEZ. YOUR BILL IS OUT
. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS NEXT UP IS SENATOR
MENJIVAR. SB 4 57.
I USED TO SITTING WELCOME. YOU
MAY PROCEED. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HERE TO TALK
ABOUT SB 457, WHICH IS LOOKING
TO JUST DO A TECHNICAL CLEANUP
CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW,
UNACCOMPANIED HOMELESS YOUTH ARE
ABLE TO CONSENT TO MEDICAL CARE
AND, UM, DENTAL CARE AGAIN.
THESE ARE UNACCOMPANIED HOMELESS
YOUTH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONLY
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM
THE TOOTH FROM THE 2022 POINT IN
TIME COUNT, THERE'S
APPROXIMATELY 540 FOR
UNACCOMPANIED HOMELESS YOUTH IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND
THAT'S THE GROUP WE'RE LOOKING
TO, UM, PROVIDE VISION CARE WITH
SB 457. SO SB 457 IS JUST
LOOKING TO DO THIS TECHNICAL FIX
TO ALLOW 15 AND OLDER,
UNACCOMPANIED HOMELESS YOUTH TO
BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO VISION
CARE. RIGHT NOW. THERE'S
AMBIGUITY AROUND THIS, UM
UNACCOMPANIED HOMELESS YOUTH ARE
BEING TURNED AWAY, AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE
NOT ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERY SINGLE
VISION CARE THAT THEY NEED. UH
STUDY FROM 2017 HAS STATES THAT
SCHOOL I CARE EXAMS ARE ONLY
COVERING ONLY CATCHING 4. OF THE
EYE TEST NEEDED FOR CHILDREN AND
THEY'RE MISSING UP TO 75% OF
CHILDREN WITH VISION PROBLEMS,
AND WE ALL KNOW IF YOU CAN'T SEE
I SEE INDIVIDUALS HERE WITH
GLASSES. IF YOU CAN'T SEE YOU
WON'T BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL,
ESPECIALLY IN SCHOOL, AND THAT
CAN IN TURN, PERHAPS THAT CHILD
CAN BE DEEMED AS HAVING
BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS, BUT WHEN,
IN FACT THEY JUST NEED THE
PROPER VISION CARE. SO I'M
ASKING FOR SP 457 TO BE ON THE
BOOKS TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO
ARE 15 IN ORDER WHO ARE HOMELESS
AND UNACCOMPANIED AND I REPEAT
THAT BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY ABOUT
THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A GUIDE.
UM PARENTAL GUIDANCE OUR
GUARDIAN TO TURN TO WITH THAT,
SIR. CHAIR I'D LIKE TO TURN TO
MY WITNESSES. YOU WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM ISRAEL'S SECOND FROM
HIS PAPIN. THANK YOU MAY PROCEED
. GOOD MORNING, KIM LEWIS,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR YOUTH AND POLICE
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL AND THINK
THAT COMMITTEE AND THEN ANALYSIS
FOR ITS ANALYSIS. UM LAST FALL.
WE WERE DOING A TRAINING WITH
OUR LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS WHERE
THIS ISSUE CAME UP AS A REALLY A
CONCERN AROUND THE AMBIGUITY IN
THE LAW AND THE LACK OF CLARITY
FOR OUR LEGAL AID ATTORNEYS AND
WORKING WITH GETTING ABLE BEING
ABLE TO PROVIDE VISION SERVICES
FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, SO
THIS IS REALLY JUST TRYING TO
CLARIFY THAT WE CAN DO THIS, AS
A SENATOR NOTED, AND REALLY,
IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE KNOW
THE DROPOUT RATES FOR OUR
HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
ACTUALLY 17.4% WHICH IS MUCH
HIGHER THAN OUR GENERAL
POPULATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE. SO
JUST ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.
THANK YOU. CHRISTINE SCHULTZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA OPTOMETRIC
ASSOCIATION HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL, YOU KNOW THE ONLY
INSTANCE THAT I'M AWARE OF THIS
OCCURRING R REFERRALS FROM
HOMELESS SHELTERS DIRECTLY, SO
WE KNOW THESE CHILDREN ARE
HOMELESS. APPRECIATE ANY
QUESTIONS. YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? NICOLE WARD ULLMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN'S
PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU SEE NO OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SEEN ON QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SEE, MR SALIH. AH! I'M REALLY
TROUBLED BY WHAT I HEAR. ARE YOU
SAYING THEY'RE HOMELESS KIDS
THAT GO TO SCHOOL AND HOMELESS
SHELTERS AND THE GOVERNMENT
ALLOWS THIS. THEY'RE NOT
PROVIDING THEM SERVICES OR
GETTING HIM INTO FOSTER CARE OR
PROVIDING THEM WITH
GUARDIANSHIPS LIKE I. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND. IS THIS LIKE A THING
LIKE WE ALLOW TEACHERS AND
SCHOOLS? NO KIDS ARE HOMELESS,
AND THEY ALLOW THEM ALLOW THIS
TO CONTINUE. WELL I MEAN, I KNOW
IT'S NOT. THIS ISN'T A SURPRISE
WE HAVE ON HOUSED INDIVIDUALS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THAT
WE DO HAVE A HUNTING HOUSED
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS. 544 AS I
MENTIONED WAS THE LAST POINT
ACCOUNT. WE HAVE YOUTH WERE BEEN
EMANCIPATED AS WELL. WHO THIS
WOULD ALSO COVER. UM THERE. I
THINK IF YOUR QUESTION WAS IF
THEY'RE GOING TO SCHOOL IN IN,
MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY'RE
EMANCIPATED, THEY HAVE THE LEGAL
RIGHT TO DO THIS BY QUESTION. IS
THERE MINERS, SO THE GOVERNMENT
HAS AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE CARE
OF THEM. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND
HOW A SCHOOL KNOWING THAT A KID
IS HOMELESS ALLOWS THAT TO
CONTINUE WITHOUT ENGAGING, SEE,
UM CPS OR COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
TO GET THEM OFF THE STREET. I
MEAN, I'M JUST I'M A LITTLE
TROUBLE WITH THE COMPLACENCY
THAT IT'S OKAY TO HAVE KIDS ON
THE STREET AND WE'RE MORE
WORRIED ABOUT GETTING THEM
GLASSES. THEN GETTING THEM OFF
THE STREETS. YEAH. COMPLACENCY
JUST BECAUSE THE BILL IS BEING
INTRODUCED BY ONE OF OUR
COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE. SHE'S
TALKING ABOUT AN ISSUE AND I
THINK THAT FOR YEAH, TO SAY THAT
THERE'S A COMPLACENCY BY THE
SENATOR WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF
THIS BILL, I THINK IS OUT OF
ORDER. MR SILLY HOLD ON. I THE
POINT OF ORDER AS WELL TAKEN, MR
ASTLEY. THE TOPIC OF THIS BILL
IS HAS BEEN STATED CLEARLY BOTH
BY THE AUTHOR AND IN THE
MATERIALS. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING ON
HOMELESSNESS IN GENERAL, THAT'S
NOT THE TOPIC OF THE BILL.
PROPER TOPIC FOR YOU TO BRING UP
DURING BUDGETARY HEARING A WHOLE
LOT OF OTHER HEARINGS, BUT I
JUST ASK CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS
AN EFFECTIVE COMMITTEE THAT YOU
WOULD STICK TO THE MERITS OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
MY COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED IN OUR
POLICY MAKING IN GENERAL. IT
WASN'T DIRECTED AT THE SENATOR,
AND I DO APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS
OF VISION INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR
A SECOND THERE TO THE POINT OF
THIS COMMITTEE HEARING WITH
THESE BILLS IS TO TALK ABOUT
THIS BILL. SO WHILE YOU MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN DIRECTING IT DIRECTLY
AT HER AS A CRITICISM OF HER,
IT'S STILL IS OFF TOPIC TO THE
TOPIC OF THIS BILL. SO JUST ASK
YOU, YOU KNOW YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN
GIVEN WIDELY WAY. BUT JUST ASK
YOU TO STICK TO THE TOPIC OF
THIS. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. WE'RE
HERE TO DISCUSS POLICY. SO I
GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE
GOING TO ALLOW MY MINERS TO SEEK
VISION CARE. SHOULD WE NOT HAVE
A REQUIREMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
THE PROVIDING DOCTOR MAKE A
REPORT BEING MANDATED REPORTER
TO REPORT THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY
GET INTO CARE? MY PROBLEM ISN'T
WITH THE BILL. I DON'T MIND
GETTING VISION CARE TO MINORS,
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH, I
GUESS IS MY CONCERN AND MR CHAIR
WITH ALL RESPECT, I MEAN, WE ARE
POLICY COMMITTEE. WE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO ENGAGE IN AND IDEAS AND
HOW TO IMPROVE THIS. AND SO I
GUESS THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.
WHY NOT HAVE SOME SOME
SAFEGUARDS SOME SOME MECHANISM
IN THERE TO HELP THESE KIDS GET
OFF THE STREET. YOU KNOW, WHEN
THEY'RE SEEKING THESE SERVICES,
I WOULD SAY THAT'S A GREAT IDEA
FOR YOURSELF IF YOU WANT TO WORK
ON IT IN THE FALL. BUT RIGHT
NOW, MY BILLS JUST FOCUS ON
VISION CARE. UM, THERE, THE
CHAIR MENTIONED. IT IS A GRANDER
SCHEME. THIS IS A BIGGER PICTURE
IDEA. YOU KNOW, WITH EACH YEAR
WE ALL INTRODUCE LEGISLATION
THAT ATTACKS AN ISSUE LITTLE BY
LITTLE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER
BARRIER THAT ARE ON HOUSED YOUTH
ARE FACING AND YOU KNOW, I
WELCOME ANY SINGLE MEMBER TO
INTRODUCE MORE LEGISLATION TO
UPLIFT OUR HOMELESS YOUTH. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU,
MISS PACHECO. I HAVE A QUESTION
TO THE AUTHOR. UH SO MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BILL I
KNOW, HOMELESS UM MINERS WAS
MENTIONED, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THE BILL IS FOR ALL THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UM 59 TONER
OLDER AND WHO ARE MAYBE MANAGING
THEIR OWN FINANCES? SO THERE
WOULD BE FOR NO EMANCIPATED? UM
MINERS, SO MY UNDERSTANDING AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IS THAT
IT WOULD OF COURSE BEFORE
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS, BUT IT
WOULD BE IN OVERALL FOR ALL
MINORS WHO ARE PRETTY MUCH
HANDLING THEIR OWN AFFAIRS MAY
BE EMANCIPATED, UH AND NOW NEED
TO GET VISION CARE AND THEY
DON'T HAVE A PARENTAL AUTHORITY.
TO GRANT THAT PERMISSION. AM I
UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY? THAT
IS CORRECT. SO YOU KNOW, I
DIDN'T MENTION, UM AND YOU YOU
POINTED THAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS
THE THERE IS THIS WILL ALSO
BENEFIT ARE EMANCIPATED YOUTH AS
WELL. UM AND I TURNED TO MY
EXPERT FOR ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS THERE. KIM LEWIS
THROUGH THE CHAIR. I WOULD JUST
SAY THAT IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT
THE YOUNG PERSON IS LIVING
SEPARATE AND APART FROM THEIR
PARENTS, SO THERE'S A SECOND
QUALIFIER ON THAT AS WELL. OKAY
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR OF FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEN NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
. YOU MAY CLOSE, MAYBE TO
LIGHTING SOMETHING ELSE. I JUST
RESPECTIVELY. ASPIRIN I VOTE
DESPITE YOUR ATTEMPT AT HUMOR,
WE WILL STILL STILL ENJOYS A
RECOMMENDATION AT S A CLERK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN, AYE.
SALLY. CONNELLY. CONNOLLY I,
DICKSON DICKSON. I HANEY HANEY I
CHOLERA. PACHECO HØI PAPIN
HAPPENED. I RAISE MY RIVAS
SANCHEZ. GRADUATIONS YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU. NEXT STEP,
SENATOR WAHAB. AND I WOULD ASK
WHERE, UH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BOERNER TWO WE'RE UP TO THE
FINAL ITEM ASKED HER TO PLEASE
MAKE HER WAY OVER HERE AND ANY
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO ARE
NOT HERE TO PLEASE COME OVER
BECAUSE WE'RE RAPIDLY
APPROACHING OUR LAST ITEM.
SENATOR ROB. WELCOME, LONG TIME
NO SEE RIGHT ON CAMERA. READY.
ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SB 463, WHICH REMOVES THE
AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION THAT
INABILITY OF A PARENT
PARTICIPATE REGULARLY IN COURT
ORDERED TREATMENT PROGRAMS IS
SUFFICIENT TO DENY REUNIFICATION
OF PARENT AND CHILD UNDER THE
CURRENT LAW, A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN'S FAILURE TO
PARTICIPATE REGULARLY AND MAKE
PROGRESS IN COURT ORDERED
TREATMENT PROGRAMS IS USED AS A
BASELINE EVIDENCE OF UNFITNESS,
OFTEN DENYING FAMILY
REUNIFICATION. UNLESS THE PARENT
OR GUARDIAN CAN PRODUCE
EVIDENCE. TO THE CONTRARY, THE
COURT MUST ASSUME THAT THE
PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS UNFIT
SOLELY BASED ON THEIR
PERFORMANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN
TREATMENT PROGRAMS. LACK OF
COMPLIANCE, MAYBE A RED FLAG,
BUT THERE ARE MANY REASONS
UNRELATED TO FITNESS THAT A
PARENT OR GUARDIAN MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN A
TREATMENT PROGRAM, SUCH AS THE
INABILITY TO TAKE TIME OFF WORK.
THE LACK OF AN AVAILABILITY OF
TREATMENT PROGRAMS, LONG,
WEIGHTLESS ILLNESS AND THE
INABILITY TO AFFORD THE PROGRAM.
CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH AND
RECENT LEGISLATION. LEGISLATIVE
TRENDS SUGGEST CURRENT RISK TO A
CHILD SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE
ANALYSIS, NOT A PARENT'S LEVEL
OF COMPLIANCE. ADDITIONALLY MANY
MARGINALIZED GROUPS HAVE FEAR
AND GENERATIONAL TRAUMA AROUND
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM, MAKING
THEM LESS LIKELY TO BE COMPLIANT
OR COOPERATIVE. SB 463
ELIMINATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR
COURTS TO BEGIN WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE PARENT IS
UNFIT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK
OF PARTICIPATION OR PROGRESS IN
A TREATMENT PROGRAM. IT
STRENGTHENS THE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION AND ALLOWS THE COURT
TO MAKE MORE HOLISTIC
DETERMINATIONS. ONE DECIDING
FAMILY REUNIFICATIONS,
TESTIFYING TODAY AS HILLARY
KERRIGAN, THE LEAD DEPUTY
COUNSEL COUNTY COUNCIL FOR SANTA
CLARA COUNTY'S CHILD WELFARE
UNIT. THANK YOU. YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS AND STAFF AND THANK YOU
TO SENATOR ROUHANI FOR CARRYING
AT SB 4 63, THE COUNTY OF SANTA
CLARA IS VERY PROUD TO BE CO
SPONSORING THIS BILL WHEN A
CHILD HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
THEIR HOME REVIEW HEARINGS ARE
HELD EVERY SIX MONTHS, AND THE
COURT MUST RETURN THE CHILD TO
THE HOME UNLESS IT'S SHOWING IS
MADE THAT DOING SO POSES A
SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DETRIMENT TO
THE CHILD. UNDER CURRENT LAW IF
THE GOVERNMENT SHOWS THAT THE
PARENT FAILED TO ATTEND REQUIRED
CLASSES, FACIALLY SUFFICIENT
CASE HAS BEEN MADE THAT
REUNIFICATION WOULD BE UNSAFE.
IT'S THEN THE PARENTS BURDEN TO
REBUT THAT PRESUMPTION, WHICH
CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH
WITH THE LIMITED RESOURCES OF
COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL. AS THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS NOTES, THE
PRESUMPTION IS OUTDATED AND
SIMPLISTIC. IT'S OUTDATED THAT
IN THAT IT TRACES BACK TO THE 19
EIGHTIES, WHEN PROBATION
OFFICERS, NOT SOCIAL WORKER,
WORKERS, SUPERVISED FAMILIES,
AND THE FOCUS THEN WAS ON
PUNISHING PARENTS RATHER THAN ON
PROTECTING THE CHILDREN AND THE
CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM HAS SINCE
BEEN OVERHAULED TO PRIORITIZE
THE WELL BEING OF CHILDREN AND
TO ENCOURAGE REUNIFICATION WHEN
YOU CAN SAFELY BE ACCOMPLISHED
THE PRESUMPTION IS ALSO
SIMPLISTIC AND THAT CONFLATES
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DANGER.
ULTIMATELY COMPLIANCE CAN ONLY
TELL US SO MUCH ABOUT SAFETY,
JUST AS IT WOULD BE FAST SELL TO
PRESUME THE HOME IS UNSAFE
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PARENT
ATTENDED EVERY CLASS. SO TOO, IS
IT OVERLY SIMPLISTIC TO EQUATE
THE PARENTS INSUFFICIENT
PARTICIPATION WITH THE RISK OF
DETRIMENT TO THE CHILD? DOING SO
OVERLOOKS THE POSSIBILITY OF
VALID EXPLANATIONS AND DISCOUNTS
THE PARENTS, OTHER EFFORTS WITH
PERMANENT SEPARATION OF FAMILIES
AT STAKE. WE SHOULD NOT BE
CONTENT TO RELY ON SUCH
INTELLECTUAL SHORTCUTS. THE
RESULTS ARE INEQUITABLE. LOW
INCOME FAMILIES AND FAMILIES OF
COLOR ARE OVER REPRESENTED IN
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. IN
SOME COUNTIES, THE PARENT MUST
PAY FOR SERVICES THEMSELVES OR
THE CLASSES MAY OFF THE OFFERED
ONLY DURING THE ORDINARY WORK
WEEK. THIS PUTS FINANCIAL
STRUGGLES. PARENTS STRUGGLING
PARENTS IN THE PREDICAMENT OF
HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MAKING
ENDS MEET AND COMPLYING WITH
THEIR CASE PLAN. ELIMINATING THE
PRESUMPTION REMOVES A THUMB ON
THE SCALE AGAINST THE MOST
DISADVANTAGED FAMILIES AND
RESTORES THE COURT'S DISCRETION
TO ENGAGE IN A HOLISTIC ANALYSIS
. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS
BILL, I'M HAPPY, HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR EYE BOAT. THANK YOU
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SEEN NONE. WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SAYING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. MR CONNELLY? YEAH
APPRECIATE THIS SPILL AND WOULD
BE HONORED TO BE A CO AUTHOR.
THANK YOU, MS DICKSON. I THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. HELP ME
UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE
OF REHABILITATION BY THE PARENTS
WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN LIEU OF
INSTEAD OF THE PARENTS
PARTICIPATING IN ANY PROGRAM.
THANK YOU. UM YOU KNOW, THE
GENUINE TRUTH IS THAT THIS WILL
BE FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION. ONE
OF THE CONCERNS IS THAT YOU KNOW
, A PARENT CAN ACTUALLY STATE
THAT YOU KNOW ONE. THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE PROGRAM IS
NOT REGULARLY AVAILABLE. WE KNOW
THAT IN SOME PARTS OF CALIFORNIA
CERTAIN PROGRAMS ARE NOT
AVAILABLE. UM THE COST OR THE
ATTEMPT IS ANOTHER. BUT ONE OF
THE CONCERNS WITH WITH HAVING
THIS CURRENTLY AS THE AUTOMATIC
PRESUMPTION THAT THE PARENT IS
UNFIT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
TARGET. UM AND THE JUDGE WOULD
BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS THE
EFFORT THAT THE PARENT IS MAKING
ALSO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
SOCIAL WORKERS AND OTHER
INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE FACTORS
BROUGHT INTO THAT DECISION. ALL
RIGHT. I MEAN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
WE ALL CARE, ULTIMATELY, AT THE
WELFARE OF THE CHILD AND
SOMETIMES THE PARENTS, MAYBE NOT
BE THE BEST PLACE FOR THE CHILD.
SO THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT
JUDICIAL DISCRETION WOULD
DETERMINE. OKAY ALRIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS, MR KALRA? THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, AND THANK YOU,
SENATOR FOR BEING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK THIS IS A MUCH MORE REAL
WORLD. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS IN
REALITY AND NO ONE ELSE PARTY
VENDOR HAD A LOT OF CLIENTS THAT
HAD A LOT OF THEY HAD 10
DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY HAVE TO
DO IT ONE TIME AND SOMETIMES, UM
, THERE WAS NOT A GREAT
EXPLANATION. BUT OFTENTIMES
THERE WAS, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE
THESE KINDS OF VERY KIND OF
BLACK AND WHITE WARS UM, THAT
PREJUDICE PARENTS. I THINK IT IT
JUST FURTHER LEADS TO, UM THE
DELAY OR OUTRIGHT REFUSAL TO
KIND OF UNIFIED, WHICH IS
ULTIMATELY THE GOLD. SO
APPRECIATE IT. ALSO LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY JOINING US CO AUTHOR
AS WELL, THANK YOU ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? MOTION FROM MR KALRA
SECOND FROM MS REYES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. SENATOR, YOU MAY
CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO HUMAN SERVICES ASKED
THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. I
REALLY KNOW CONNELLY CONNELLY. I
DIXON DIXON, I, HANEY HANEY. I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA I PACHECO
PACHECO, EYE POPPING PEP AND I
RAISE MY RIVAS RIVAS SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ. NO. YOUR BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
LIGHTEM WELCOME, MISS BOERNER.
HELLO. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. HR 37 WERE RECOGNIZED
THE 51ST ANNIVERSARY OF TITLE
NINE PROTECTIONS AGAINST SEX
BASED DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS
AND WHAT URGED CALIFORNIA TO
CONTINUE TO WORK TOGETHER TO
ACHIEVE ITS GOALS OF MORE EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR YOUTH? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. UH WELL DONE. DO WE
HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
SAYING NONE WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION SAYING NONE HAVE
EMOTION FROM HIS PAPIN. SECOND
FROM MR CARTER ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEING NONE. THANK YOU FOR THIS
GREAT BILL AS SOMEONE WHO RAISED
TWO DAUGHTERS, A SINGLE DATA
PARTICULARLY PLEASED TO SUPPORT
THIS TODAY. SO WITH THAT I'D ASK
THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. THE MOTION IS BE ADOPTED.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I, SALLY
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DICKSON
DICKSON. I HANEY HANEY. I KALRA
TÔI PACHECO PACHECO I POP IN
AREAS I RIVAS RIVAS SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ EYES IS OUT.
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. WELL
DONE TO THIS COMMITTEE AND UNDER
AN HOUR. GREAT JOB, EVERYBODY.
SO YOU HAVE THE REST OF YOUR
MORNING TO YOURSELF. WE HAVE AN
ITEM ON CALL. LET'S DO THAT. AND
THEN WE'LL DO ADD ONS. ADAM ON
CALL IS ITEM NUMBER. ONE SB 80 S
A CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CALL RA RA. I RAISE RAISE. RIVAS
RIVAS I THAT BILL IS OUT NOW WE
WILL GO THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS IF
YOU NEED TO ADD ON IF NOT, YOU
FEEL FREE TO LEAVE. UM THE
CONSENT AGENDA. ASK THE CLERK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL CHOLERA.
RIGHT NOW. I RIVAS RIVAS. AYE.
NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER TWO. SB 95
ROTH. CLICK KALRA I. RIVAS
RIVERSIDE. NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER
THREE SB 4 57 ASKED THE CLERK TO
CALL THE ROLL. HIÂU AYE RIVAS
RIVAS SIDE ITEM NUMBER FIVE SB 5
64 ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE
ROLL. CHOLERA CHOLERA I REYES
THREE OF US ASIDE, WE HAVE
EVERYBODY ON ITEM NUMBER SIX. SO
WE HAVE EVERYBODY.
CONGRATULATIONS EVERYBODY.
TODAY'S MEETING, THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED.