GOOD. MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. HEARING
ITEM. EIGHT SB 4 59 RUBIO HAS
BEEN PULLED FROM THE HEARING 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 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
WITH THE GOAL OF HEARING AS MUCH
FROM THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF OUR TIME. 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. 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
. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT VIOLATION
OF THESE RULES MAY SUBJECT YOU
TO REMOVE ALL OR OTHER
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. WE DON'T
YET HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE START
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, WE WILL BEGIN
WITH ITEM NUMBER ONE SENATOR
LAIRD SP 2 80. HMM. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I I'D LIKE TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY OFFICE
ON THIS BILL AND WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS ON
PAGES SEVEN AND EIGHT OF THE
ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS THAT I WAS
GRATEFUL FOR SENATE BILL 2 80
WILL REQUIRE CONSERVATORS TO
SUBMIT A CARE PLAN TO THE COURT
THAT CONTAINS CERTAIN
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE
CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL. OF
THE CONSERVATIVE E SOCIETY HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR AND
PROTECT THE MOST VULNERABLE
AMONG US, AND NOWHERE IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT MORE
PARENT THAN WITH
CONSERVATORSHIPS. SB 2 80. ISN'T
AN OUTSTANDING ON ENACTED POLICY
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JUDICIAL
COUNCILS PROBATE, CONSERVATIVE
SHIP TASK FORCE, UH, 15 YEARS
AGO AND BUILDS UPON THE REFORM
EFFORTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE
THEN. THE BILL IS SIMILAR TO
SENATE BILL 602, WHICH I
AUTHORED LAST YEAR AND PASSED
THIS COMMITTEE WITH BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT AND NEVER RECEIVED A NO
VOTE. IT WAS UNFORTUNATELY HELD
AN ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS BUT
GIVEN THE OVERALL WELLNESS
BENEFIT FOR CONSERVATIVES, I
BROUGHT IT BACK AND I HAVE
WORKED REALLY HARD TO ADDRESS
THE CONCERNS THAT REMAINED ON
THE BILL. ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
TAKEN TODAY WILL EXEMPT CERTAIN
FAMILY MEMBER CONSERVATIVES FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, AND
THAT REMOVES ARC AND UNITED
CEREBRAL PALSY. CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATIONS OPPOSITION AND
THAT IS NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS.
OPPOSITION REMAINS FROM THE
PUBLIC FOOD ISHI ERI
FIDUCIARIES. WHO ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE CIVIL PENALTY AND THE
DUPLICATIVE WORK TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERN ABOUT THE PENALTY. IT
HAS BEEN REDUCED. THE PENALTY IS
AT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE,
SO IN THE EVENT TO JUDGE WAS
FIRM WITH FURTHER KEPT THE FEE
FROM $1000 TO $500 WHEN IT COMES
TO THE ISSUE OF DUPLICATIVE
WORK. ITEMS MENTIONED IN THEIR
OPPOSITION LETTER WERE ALREADY
REMOVED WHEN SB 2 80 WAS
INTRODUCED. THIS INCLUDES ITEMS
LIKE ASSETS TO BE SOLD IN THE
NEXT 12 MONTHS. UM THERE ARE FEW
REMAINING ISSUES THAT THEY TALK
ABOUT ABOUT IT BEING DUPLICATIVE
ONE ON A FORM, UH, GC 355 THAT'S
USED TO DETERMINE THE
CONSERVATIVES APPROPRIATE LEVEL
. WE BELIEVE THAT A CONSERVATIVE
PLAN GOES MUCH PAST WHAT IS IN
THAT FORM AND IT IS NOT
DUPLICATIVE. BUT THE ANALYSIS
SUGGESTS. THAT WE CONTINUE TO
WORK AND IF THERE IS GENUINE
DUPLICATION THAT EXISTS, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO ADDRESS IT. END
THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY MAIN
WITNESSES WITH ME DID RECEIVE
SUPPORT LETTERS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
AND PROTECT OUR LOVED ONES. THIS
BILL PASSED OUT OF THE SENATE,
UM. OVERWHELMINGLY WITH NO NO
VOTES HAS HAD NO NO VOTES IN THE
PROCESS, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN IPHONE. THANK YOU. BEFORE
WE TAKE WITNESSES. WE DO HAVE A
QUORUM. SO ASK THE CLERK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN ASILI. CONNOLLY
DIXON HERE. CHOLERA, PACHECO.
POPPING REYES RIVAS SANCHEZ.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NON WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
JORDAN'S LINDSAY WITH THE
ARCHITECTURE POLICY CALIFORNIA
COLLABORATION. WE REALLY
APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHORS OFFICE
, UM THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN TAKEN HAVE REMOVED ALL OF
OUR CONCERNS, AND SO WE REALLY
APPRECIATE AGAIN, UM, ALL THE
WORK IN THE EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF
THE ISSUES THAT REMAIN WITH
CONSERVATIVE SHIP AND THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TRENT
SMITH, REPRESENTING THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PUBLIC CONSERVATIVES, PUBLIC
GUARDIANS AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATORS. WE STILL ARE
OPPOSED AND HAVE A COUPLE OF
CONCERNS ALLUDED TO BY THE
SENATOR WITH REGARDS TO THE
DUPLICATIVE WORK. ALL WE'RE
SEEKING IS SOME LANGUAGE,
PROBABLY A SENTENCE OR TWO THAT
SAYS THAT ANYTHING IF WE USE
THIS CARE PLAN THAT WE'RE NOT
REQUIRED TO FILL OUT THE FIVE OR
SIX OTHER FORMS THAT WE
CURRENTLY FILL OUT THAT OVERLAP
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO FILL
OUT TWO FORMS, SO WE'RE NOT
LOOKING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, DO
AVOID ANY WORK THAT WE SHOULD WE
JUST DON'T WANT TO DO TWO FORMS
. UH WITH REGARDS TO THE FINE
JUST BY BACKGROUND, PUBLIC
CONSERVATIVES AND PUBLIC
GUARDIANS ARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES.
THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. THEY
DO NOT GET TO PICK THE CASES
THAT THEY TAKE ON THE COURT
ASSIGNS THOSE UNLIKE A PRIVATE
FIDUCIARY, WHICH GETS TO APPLY
AND CHERRY PICK THE CASES THEY
WANT. UNFORTUNATELY MOST OF THE
PUBLIC CONSERVATIVES AND PUBLIC
GUARDIANS AND THEIR COUNTIES ARE
OVERWORKED WITH WAY TOO MANY
CASES THAT THEY CAN HANDLE AND
THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. THIS
PROPOSAL COMES FROM A REPORT 15
YEARS AGO. ANOTHER
RECOMMENDATION IN THAT REPORT
WAS FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
CONSERVATIVES AND PUBLIC
GUARDIANS, AND THAT FUNDING
HASN'T BEEN IMPLEMENTED EITHER.
AND SO OUR CLAN HAS A HARD TIME
HAVING A FINE FOR PUBLIC
SERVANTS WHO ARE DOING THE WORK
FRANKLY THAT MOST PEOPLE
WOULDN'T WANT TO DO, UM AND
HAVING A FINE FOR A PUBLIC
SERVANT AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE
ISN'T SHIPPING IN ANY MONEY TO
HELP THEM. HIRE MORE PEOPLE
UNTIL LOWER THE CASEWORK. THAT'S
A DIFFICULT PILL FOR THEM TO
SWALLOW. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT
THE FINE ONLY APPLY FOR PRIVATE
FIDUCIARIES AGAIN, WHO MAKE A
PROFIT AND FROM THIS WORK,
WHEREAS WE ARE JUST DOING THE
WORK ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THAT ARE BEING
TAKEN WITH REGARDS TO FAMILY
MEMBERS. THOSE ARE GREAT
AMENDMENTS, AND IN FACT, WE
WOULD SUGGEST THOSE AMENDMENTS
APPLY. TO ALL FAMILY MEMBERS, OR
AT LEAST GIVE THE JUDGE THE
DISCRETION BECAUSE A FAMILY
MEMBER IS UNLIKELY TO TAKE ON
THIS TYPE OF WORK IF THEY ARE
FACED WITH A BIG REPORT, UM, AND
THE PROSPECT OF A FINE AND THEN
IF THEY DON'T TAKE IT ON, GUESS
WHO GETS TO DO IT? WE DO THE
PUBLIC CONSERVATIVES AND PUBLIC
GUARDIANS, WHICH EXACERBATES THE
PROBLEM WE ALREADY HAVE WITH AN
OVERBURDENED WORKLOAD. SO WE'RE
JUST SEEKING THOSE AMENDMENTS.
THOSE WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION? SEEN ON A TURN
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE, AND HE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR EMOTION.
EMOTION FROM MR KALRA. SECOND,
BUT I DO HAVE QUESTIONS SECOND
FROM MS POPPIN, MISS PAPIN. WHAT
DO YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE
AMENDMENTS? I MEAN, IT DOES SEEM
FAIRLY REASONABLE AS IT RELATES
TO THE PUBLIC FOLKS WILL KEEP
WORKING WITH THEM RIGHT NOW, UM
, THE BILL SAYS IN LEICESTER,
THE COURT CAN FIND GOOD CAUSE
NOT TO ASSESS THE PENALTY AND SO
THERE IS A WAY THAT THAT IS
ADDRESSED, BUT WE WILL LOOK AT
THAT AND WITH REGARD TO THE
FORMS SOME OF THE FORMS ARE
REALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THIS
IS, AND WE'LL JUST SEE IF THERE
IS A WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR
INTEREST AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
GREAT. YEAH DOUBLE THE WORK IS
WHEN I WAS MORE INTERESTED OR
WORRIED ABOUT, OKAY, MS DICKSON
, AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, UM,
THANK YOU FOR THIS, BUT I FELT
THAT THOSE REASONS WERE OF GOOD
CAUSE FOR CONSIDERATION. ALSO ON
THE CARE COURT IS THAT IN
REFERENCE TO THE NEW CARE COURTS
THAT ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, SO I JUST
WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WOULD BE
BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THERE
PROBABLY IS SOME CONSERVATORSHIP
OR PUBLIC CONSERVATORSHIP
ASPECTS TO IT, SO I JUST HOPE
JUST FOR EFFICIENCY SAKE THAT
THE EFFORT COULD BE COORDINATED
. I THINK THIS IS LIKE WOULD
APPLY EITHER WAY AND WOULD BE
INCORPORATED INTO THAT, BUT
WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND AS SEEN NO FURTHER
COMMENT. SENATOR ALREADY MADE
CLOTHES JUST I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE DEBATE AND WE WILL CONTINUE
TO LOOK AT SOME THINGS, ALTHOUGH
I THINK IT'S GOTTEN TO A REALLY
GOOD PLACE AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN IPHONE. OKAY WE HAVE
A MOTION. UH IN A SECOND, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AS
A CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
CONNOLLY. DIXON DIXON, I HANEY.
CHOLERA CHOLERA. I PACHECO I POP
REYES RIVAS SANCHEZ. YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NEXT IS ITEM TO SP 3,
43 SKINNER AND AS SENATOR
SKINNER APPROACHES, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION FOR MR KARAS, SECOND FROM
MS PAPIN. THE CONSISTENT CONSENT
AGENDA INCLUDES SB 21 HAMBURG SP
5 22 NEAR YELLOW. AND SB 7 27
LIMÓN WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND
ASK ALERT CALL ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN AYE ASILI CHI
CONNOLLY DICKSON DICKSON I HANEY
CORA CORA I PACHECO HØI PAPIN
HAPPENED, I RAISE REVERSE
SANCHEZ. CONSENT AGENDA PASSES.
WELCOME, SENATOR SKINNER. YOU
MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
UM MORNING, ALL. PLEASED TO
PRESENT SP 3 43 AND 2016, THE
FEDERAL OFFICE OF CHILD AND
FORCED CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
COMPLETED THE FIRST
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF CHILD
SUPPORT RULES AND DID REVISION
AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN 20
YEARS AND THEY CALLED IT THE
FINAL RULE. AND THAT, UH WHAT?
THE FEDERAL OFFICE, UH THE
CHANGES THEY MADE. REQUIRES THE
ORDERS TO BE BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S
FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SCREENS
FOR ABILITY TO PAY BEFORE
INCARCERATING THE PARENT FOR
FAILURE TO PAY AND ENSURES THAT
INCARCERATED PARENTS ARE ABLE TO
ADJUST THEIR PAYMENT BASED ON
INCOME. CALIFORNIA HAS TO
IMPLEMENT THIS RULE BY SEPTEMBER
. 1ST 2024 SP 3 43 INSURERS
CALIFORNIA'S CONFORMITY WITH THE
FEDERAL RULE I DESCRIBED UM. SO
ALLOW ME TO HAVE MY WITNESS IN
SUPPORT. SPEAK TO IT, AND HE IS
STEVEN GOLDBERG FROM LEGAL
SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
. THANK YOU, UM SB 3. 43 HAS TWO
PRIMARY PURPOSES. THE FIRST IS
TO IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL FINAL
RULE WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS,
REQUIRES AN END TO ORDERS BASED
ON PRESUMED INCOME AND TO BASE
ORDERS ON THE FACTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CASE, AND THE BILL
PROPERLY DOES THAT THE SECOND IS
TO CHANGES TO RIGHT SIZE CHILD
SUPPORT ORDERS IN CALIFORNIA
ORDERS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN
UNAFFORDABLE FOR LOW INCOME OF
AL GORE'S AND THIS BILL ATTEMPTS
TO RIGHT SIZE THOSE ORDERS IN
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. THE FIRST IS
A CHANGE TO THE K FACTOR IN THE
CHILD SUPPORT FORMULA, WHICH HAS
NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE 1990 TO
HELP ORDERS REFLECT THE ACTUAL
ABILITY TO PAY FOR LOW INCOME.
OBEL. GORE'S THE SECOND CHANGES
AN INCREASE IN THE LOW INCOME
ADJUSTMENT TO FULL TIME MINIMUM
WAGE, WHICH IS AN ATTEMPT ANYWAY
TO REFLECT AN ORDER THAT IS
ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE AND
REALISTIC FOR LOW INCOME. ALLGOR
THESE ARE IMPORTANT CHANGES TO
COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL FINAL
RULE AND TO HELP RIGHT SIZE
ORDERS TO MAKE THEM AFFORDABLE
AND ALSO HELPFUL FOR CHILDREN
AND FOR THOSE REASONS. UH I
URGED THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT
IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? MARIKO YOSHIHARA ON
BEHALF OF THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE
AND CHILD SUPPORT, COALITION AND
GRACE AND CHILD POVERTY,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU
SEE NO FURTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE
ALTERNATE TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS MOTION. EVEN
THE MOTION FOR MR KARA SECOND
FROM HIS POP IN ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS SEEN NONE
. YOU MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU. I
WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF
AND THE STAFF FROM BOTH HOUSES
LEADERSHIP WHERE WHO WORKED ON
THIS OVER THE LAST YEAR TO COME
TOGETHER WITH HOW CALIFORNIA
COULD COMPLY. AND SO THEIR WORK
WAS VERY HELPFUL IN THIS BILL
REPRESENTS THAT. AND WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. OKAY WE
HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO HUMAN
SERVICES AS THE CLERK TO PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN AYE, ASTLEY CONNOLLY
DIXON HANEY CORA CORA I PACHECO
PACHECO I PAPIN HAPPENED AND I
REYES. REVERSE AND SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ, I YOUR BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. UH WE NEED MORE
AUTHORS HERE. SENATORS WIENER
ASHBY. AND THEN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWER. JACKSON ASKED THEM TO GET
HERE. QUICKLY.
IT'S ME OPEN THE DOOR OPENS.
YOU'RE LIKE, WAIT NOW. WE WERE
DISAPPOINTED TO SEIZE. NEVER.
YES, YES, THE OTHER ONES. YEAH.
COMPARE. GREAT TRAIL. HAVE YOU
EVER HOW MANY STEPS DONE? 900
IT'S JUST LIKE YOUR BUDDY. POINT
THAT YOU. JOHN. IMPACT. GOOD
MORNING. HOW YOU DOING? TERRIBLE
YEAH. BE INTERESTING. I DO.
CARNATION, WHICH IS. REALLY?
POSSIBLY MEANS THERE REALLY?
IF YOU RESPECT. FINALLY AFTER
THE CAMPAIGN.
OKAY GREAT. WE HAVE A MEMBER
HERE. ITEM. FOUR. SB. 8 24
ASHBY. HI. BY SO MUCH FOR HAVING
ME I AM SENATOR ASHBY. FOR THOSE
OF YOU THAT I HAVEN'T MET YET.
SO THANKS FOR HAVING ME AT YOUR
COMMITTEE HEARING AND I AM HERE
TO PRESENT TO YOU. HI. GOOD
MORNING. UH, SB 8 24. THIS IS A
CRUCIAL FOLLOW UP TO A SENATOR
SKINNER BILL, WHICH WAS CALLED
SP 354 IN 2021. CALIFORNIA'S
FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT PROCESS
HAVE BEEN IMPROVED IN RECENT
YEARS DUE LARGELY TO LEGISLATIVE
EFFORTS BY MANY OF YOU AND MY
COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE.
UNFORTUNATELY IT'S STILL
EXCLUDES. FAR TOO MANY
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BOTH FIT AND
WILLING TO FOSTER A CHILD BUT DO
NOT QUALIFY UNDER CURRENT LAW
DUE TO PREVIOUS CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS. SB 8 TO 4 GRANTS
COUNTIES AND COURTS THE ABILITY
TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE FAMILY
LIKE INDIVIDUALS. WITH CRIMINAL
HISTORIES AS POTENTIAL FOSTER
CAREGIVERS SO LONG AS THERE ARE
NO HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS TO
THE CHILD. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN
THAT FASTER CHILDREN AND KINSHIP
CARE MORE LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED
OR ENROLLED IN HIGHER EDUCATION
. THEY'RE ALSO LESS LIKELY TO
NEED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
EXPERIENCE HOMELESSNESS BE
INCARCERATED COMPARED TO
CHILDREN PLACED IN NON KINSHIP
CARE. I PROBABLY DON'T HAVE TO
TELL YOU THAT OVER 50% OF THE
PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
ON OUR STREETS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA, IDENTIFY AS FORMER
FOSTER YOUTH SO ANYTHING THAT WE
CAN DO TO INTERVENE EARLIER. IN
THE LIVES OF THESE CHILDREN,
IT'S HELPFUL KINSHIP CARE
PROMOTES SCHOOL STABILITY
INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF
SIBLINGS REMAINING TOGETHER AND
REDUCES RELIANCE ON CONGREGATE
CARE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS WORKED TO
ELIMINATE OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS. SB 8 24 WOULD ENSURE THAT
NON RELATIVE FAMILY MEMBERS AND
EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBERS AND
TRIBES WITH CRIMINAL HISTORIES
ARE NO LONGER AUTOMATICALLY
DISQUALIFIED FROM FOSTERING A
FIRE A CHILD. ADDITIONALLY THIS
BILL EXPANDS THE ELIGIBILITY FOR
KINSHIP, GUARDIANSHIP ASSISTANCE
PAYMENT PROGRAMS. FOR CAREGIVERS
WHO CHOOSE TO BECOME A GUARDIAN
OR TO ADOPT A CHILD. SENATOR
SKINNER'S BILL SB 354 HAD
ALREADY LED TO HEARTWARMING
STORIES ACROSS THE STATE OF
CHILDREN STAYING WITH FAMILY
MEMBERS AND RELATIVES THAT FELT
LIKE HOME INSTEAD OF FOSTER
CARE. IT'S CLEAR THAT KINSHIP
CARE PROVIDES A MORE STABLE AND
NURTURING ENVIRONMENT FOR FOSTER
YOUTH AND THAT WE SHOULD SEEK
THIS AT EVERY AVAILABLE
OPPORTUNITY. SB 8 TO 4 FURTHER
GUARANTEES THAT LOVED ONES CAN
FOSTER CHILD IN THEIR TIME OF
NEED, WHICH IS CRUCIAL FOR THE
CHILD'S SAFETY, STABILITY AND
WELL BEING. AND BEFORE I HAND
THIS TO MY WITNESSES, THE SPILL
REALLY DOES TWO THINGS, IT ADDS
ON TO SENATOR SKINNER'S WORK IN
TWO WAYS ONE IT EXTENDS THE
DEFINITION OF FAMILY TO INCLUDE
FAMILY LIKE RELATIVES. I DON'T
KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT IF SOMETHING
HAPPENED TO ME, THERE ARE SOME
OF MY RELATIVES THAT I MAY NOT
PREFER MY KIDS TO GO WITH, BUT
MY BEST FRIEND WOULD PROBABLY BE
A GREAT REPLACEMENT FOR ME. THIS
ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THAT
CONSIDERATION FOR THESE KIDDOS
WHO THEY'RE ACTUALLY ALREADY
SPENDING THEIR LIFE WITH AND THE
SECOND THING AND MOST IMPORTANT
THING THAT IT DOES. IS THAT IT
REMOVES THE EXISTING BAR OF A
CRIMINAL HISTORY FROM BEING A.
FEET FOR TOWEL FOR ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO STEP INTO THE LIFE
OF A CHILD AND HELP THEM. MANY
OF THE FAMILIES WHO WOULD LOVE
TO STEP IN AND HELP IN A KINSHIP
PLACEMENTS ARE BARRED FROM DOING
SO BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN PAST,
EVEN IF THEY HAVE OVERCOME THAT
PASSED PAID THEIR PRICE AND ARE
, YOU KNOW GOOD CITIZENS IN OUR
COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTING THEY
CAN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED, SO
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE
FORWARD IN THAT REGARD. I
BROUGHT WITH ME SUPPORT
WITNESSES. AMANDA KIRCHNER,
WHO'S THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY FOR THE
CALIFORNIA WELFARE DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION IN KRISTIN POWER.
WHO'S THE VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY
AND ADVOCACY FOR THE ALLIANCE
FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
AND WE'LL HAND IT OVER TO MY
WITNESSES. YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, AMANDA
KIRCHNER ON BEHALF OF COUNTY
WELFARE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION,
WE KNOW THAT CHILDREN WHO ARE
WITH THEIR CAREGIVERS, OR UM,
NON RELATED EXTENDED FAMILY
MEMBERS DO BETTER IN FOSTER CARE
. THEY HAVE BETTER CONNECTIONS.
THEY HAVE BETTER OVERALL
OUTCOMES. RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE
ABOUT 18,000 CHILDREN WHO ARE IN
THOSE TYPES OF FAMILY LIKE
PLACEMENTS. UM ADDITIONALLY,
THERE'S ABOUT 185 CHILDREN IN
TRIBALLY APPROVED HOMES UNDER
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE REFORM.
CALIFORNIA'S REALLY PRIOR TO
PRIORITIZE TRYING TO KEEP THESE
KIDS IN HOME BASED PLACEMENT,
BUT WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD
PARTICULAR PROBLEMS WITH KEEPING
CHILDREN WITH FAMILIES AND
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, WHERE
THERE'S BEEN OVER SURVEILLANCE
AND OVER POLICING. UM AND SO AS
A FOLLOW UP TO SP 3 54, WHICH
SENATOR SKINNER CARRIED, UM WE
ARE BRINGING IN SB 8 24 TO
ADDRESS SMOOTHIES. ADDITIONAL
GAPS. UM AND REALLY, WHAT WE
JUST WANT TO SAY IS, WE THINK IT
STRENGTHENS OUR COMMITMENT TO
FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
BY THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. AND
WE THINK THAT THESE CHANGES WILL
HELP US KEEP KIDS PLACED IN HOME
LIKE SETTINGS AND GIVE THOSE
FAMILIES THE RESOURCES AND
SUPPORT. THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE
OF THE CHILDREN. THANK YOU SAID
KIDDOS DO BETTER IN FOSTER CARE.
SHE MEANT KINSHIP CARE. GOOD
MORNING, KRISTIN POWER WITH THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
AND AS A CO SPONSOR OF THE
PREDECESSOR BILL SB 3, 54. I
JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU A QUICK
STORY ABOUT ONE OF THE FAMILIES
WAS IMPACTED BY THAT BILL AND
WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE IMPACTED
BY SENATOR ASHBY'S 8 TO 4 WHEN
SP 3 54 WENT INTO EFFECT IN
EARLY 2022 ARE ATTORNEYS WORKED
WITH L. A COUNTY CHILDREN'S
ATTORNEYS AND COURTS TO ASSIST
NUMEROUS RELATIVE CAREGIVERS IN
OBTAINING APPROVAL AND FUNDING
BASED ON THE NEW LAW, HERE IS
JUST ONE STORY. WELL SP 3 54 WAS
MOVING THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
A LITTLE GIRL WHO WILL CALL
SARAH WAS REMOVED FROM HER
MOTHER IN PLACE WITH HER AND
UNCLE. THE AUNT AND UNCLE HAD
ALWAYS BEEN A LOVING PRESENCE IN
SARAH'S LIFE, AND SHE THRIVED IN
THEIR CARE. BUT WHEN THE AUNT
AND UNCLE APPLIED FOR RESOURCE
FAMILY APPROVAL, THE UNCLES
FELONY CONVICTION FROM 30 YEARS
PRIOR RESURFACED. HE WAS HONEST
ABOUT THE SITUATION AND PROVIDED
ALL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE
COUNTY. BUT THE RESOURCE FAMILY
APPLICATION WAS DENIED. AND
WHILE SARAH STAYED IN THEIR CARE
, THEY HAD TO PAY ALL COSTS OUT
OF POCKET AND THEIR FUTURE WITH
SARAH REMAINED VERY UNCERTAIN.
AFTER 3 54 WENT INTO EFFECT,
THINGS CHANGED FOR SARAH AND HER
CAREGIVERS. THE ALLIANCE
ASSISTED THE FAMILY AND
REQUESTING THAT THAT THEY BE
GRANTED RESOURCE FAMILY APPROVAL
UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS UNDER
SP 3 54 5 DAYS AFTER THE LAW
WENT INTO EFFECT, THE UNCLES
CONVICTION WAS EXEMPTED IN THE
APPROVAL PROCESS WAS ABLE TO
MOVE FORWARD. WE CAN BRING THAT
KIND OF STABILITY AND SUPPORT TO
EVEN MORE CHILDREN IN FOSTER
CARE. WHO WOULD THRIVE IN THE
HOME OF A NON RELATIVE EXTENDED
FAMILY MEMBER OR EXTENDED FAMILY
MEMBER. WE CAN ALSO ENSURE THAT
IF SARAH'S AUNT AND UNCLE WANT
TO ADOPT HER TO BECOME A MORE
PERMANENT LEGAL, GUARDIAN OR
ADOPTIVE PARENT, THEY WILL
RECEIVE THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO
CONTINUE THE TO BE HER CAREGIVER
THAT THEY HAVE STEPPED UP TO BE
. WE APPRECIATE SENATOR ASHBY'S
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? NAME AND ORGANIZATION
ONLY PLEASE. NÓ BARTELT ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN SUPPORT. MICHELLE CASTINE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA TRIBAL
FAMILIES, COALITION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND QUIRK,
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER OF
CALIFORNIA, CO SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL, STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU
SEEING NO OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SAYING NOT ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE OR EMOTION. MOTION
FROM MR HANEY. SECOND FROM MS
REYES, I GUESS SOUNDS RIGHT. AH,
I SEE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS YOU MAY CLOSE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH DO PASS THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ESCORT
CALL ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE, SLE. CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I DIXON HIGH DIXON I
HANEY ANY I CORA CORA. I PACHECO
CHECCO I POP IN AND I RAISE I
RIVAS. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. AYE.
YOUR BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOW. A C A
FIVE.
WELCOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
SOFT, HAPPY PRIDE MONTH. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT ON ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FIVE.
UM. I HAVE NOTES, BUT I'M NOT
GOING TO USE ANY OF THE NOTES.
UM BECAUSE THIS IS VERY PERSONAL
, AS SOME MAY RECALL BACK IN
2008 VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA
ELIMINATED THE RIGHTS OF SAME
SEX COUPLES TO MARRY AND AS A 20
SOMETHING YEAR OLD DURING THAT
PERIOD OF TIME. I REMEMBER THE
PAINFUL EXPERIENCE THAT THAT HAS
CAUSED NOT JUST TO ME, BUT SO
MANY OTHERS. COUNTLESS
CALIFORNIANS WHO WERE LEFT
WONDERING WHAT DID WE DO WRONG?
WHY WOULD OUR RIGHTS BE
ELIMINATED? WHY WOULD THE
MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIANS VOTE TO
ELIMINATE A FUNDAMENTAL BASIC
HUMAN RIGHT? THIS PROPOSAL
BEFORE US HELPS TO ENSHRINE THAT
MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
, THAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU.
THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE
DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. THIS
FUNDAMENTALLY REMOVES
PROPOSITION EIGHT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ENSHRINES TO QUALITY PROTECTIONS
THAT WE ALL DESERVE. WE WANT
WHAT IS EQUAL. WHAT IS FAIR TO
DEMONSTRATE THE LOVE AND THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE
AND HAVE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
HERE IN SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK
YOU, MR LOWE. FIRST WITNESS
CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L
U CALIFORNIA ACTION SPONSORS OF
FIVE WHILE MARRIAGE EQUALITY IS
CURRENTLY THE LAW OF THE LAND,
THANKS TO PAST U. S. SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS, RECENT
DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE CURRENT
COURT DEMONSTRATE A WILLINGNESS
TO OVERRULE ITS OWN LONGSTANDING
PRECEDENTS PROTECTING CIVIL
RIGHTS. IF THE SUPREME COURT
WERE TO OVER OVERTURN ITS
MARRIAGE, EQUALITY DECISIONS.
MARRIAGE RIGHTS FOR CALIFORNIA
SAME SEX COUPLES WOULD BE IN
JEOPARDY DUE TO THE EXCLUSIONARY
LANGUAGE ADDED TO OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION BY PROP. EIGHT AND
28 2008. A C F FIVE WOULD PUT ON
THE BALLOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM TO MARRY AS
PART OF THE EXISTING RIGHTS TO
DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION,
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND LIBERTY
AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND
PRIVACY. THIS WILL HELP ENSURE
THAT EVERYONE IN CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE FREEDOM
TO MARRY THE PERSON THEY LOVE,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
SUPREME COURT REVISITS ITS
DECISIONS IN OBERGEFELL OR
LOVING A FIVE IS AN IMPORTANT
OPPORTUNITY TO REAFFIRM THE
FREEDOM TO MARRY AND PROTECT
LOVING COUPLES AND FAMILIES
ACROSS CALIFORNIA WHO DESERVE TO
HAVE THEIR MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED
AND RESPECTED UNDER THE LAW.
PROTECTING MARRIAGE. EQUALITY IS
CRITICAL FOR FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN WHO RELY ON THE
BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
MARRIAGE. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THAT IT WILL NOT END
ALL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT
Q. PLUS PEOPLE ACROSS THE
COUNTRY OR THE HATEFUL RHETORIC
FROM ANTI LGBTQ, PLUS
POLITICIANS AND EXTREMISTS,
ESPECIALLY THE GROWING ATTACKS
ON THE TRANS COMMUNITY. A C F
FIVE IS, HOWEVER, AN OPPORTUNITY
TO AFFIRM THAT WE ARE ALL
ENTITLED TO LIVE EQUALLY AND
WITH DIGNITY. CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROTECT
FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL
PEOPLE AND A C A FIVE WILL HELP
PROTECT THE FREEDOM TO MARRY FOR
SAME SEX COUPLES AS WELL AS FOR
INTERRACIAL COUPLES. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FAIR I VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS, MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS FRANCISCO
CASTILLO, FATHER OF TWO
BEAUTIFUL KIDS HUSBAND AND A
PROUD MEMBER OF EQUALITY.
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT
STANDARD FOR YOU TODAY WITH A
FIRE IN MY HEART AND A
RESOUNDING CALL FOR JUSTICE. I'M
HERE TO PASSIONATELY ADVOCATE
FOR CALIFORNIA'S A C FIVE. A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT
WE'RE NOT ONLY PROTECTING MY
MARRIAGE, BUT WE'RE ALSO
ERADICATE THE DISCRIMINATORY
LANGUAGE OF PROPOSITION EIGHT
FROM OUR STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
FOUR YEARS, I HAVE BEEN
FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE IN THE
SAME SEX INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE
HAS BEEN A JOURNEY OF LOVE,
STRENGTH AND RESILIENCE. BUT
THROUGHOUT THIS JOURNEY, THERE
HAS BEEN A CONSTANT REMINDER
THAT OUR LOVE IS NOT UNIVERSALLY
ACCEPTED. PROPOSITION EIGHT
DECLARATION THAT ONLY MARRIAGE
BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IS
VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN
CALIFORNIA FELT LIKE A DEEP
WOUND INFLICTED UPON OUR HEARTS.
LOVE KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES, NO
GENDER AND NO RACE. LOVE IS THE
MOST PROFOUND AND SACRED EMOTION
THAT TWO INDIVIDUALS CAN SHARE.
IT IS A FORCE THAT UNITES US
TRANSCENDING SOCIETAL
EXPECTATIONS AND PREJUDICES. AND
YET, DESPITE THE STRATEGY WE
HAVE MADE TOWARDS EQUALITY, THE
SHACKLES OF DISCRIMINATION STILL
PERSISTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION. WE
ARE AT A CRITICAL CROSSROADS.
TODAY WE HAVE THE CHANCE TO
RECTIFY THE WRONGS AND OF THE
PAST AND PAVE THE WAY FOR A
FUTURE WHERE LOVE TRIUMPHS OVER
OVER BIGOTRY. A C FIVE
REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT STEP
TOWARDS ACHIEVING TRUE EQUALITY
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS, REGARDLESS
OF THEIR RACE, GENDER AND SEXUAL
ORIENTATION. BY REMOVING
PROPOSITION EIGHT DISCRIMINATORY
LANGUAGE. WE HAVE THE POWER TO
RESTORE THE DIGNITY AND RIGHTS
THAT ALL LOVING COUPLES DESERVE.
MARRIAGE IS NOT JUST A LEGAL
CONTRACT. IT'S A CELEBRATION OF
LOVE AND COMMITMENT. IT'S A
PROMISE THAT MY PARTNER AND I
MADE TO STAND BY EACH OTHER'S
SIDE, DO THE TRIALS AND TRIUMPHS
OF LIFE. BY EMBRACING MARRIAGE
EQUALITY. WE DEMONSTRATE OUR
SOCIETY'S WILLINGNESS TO
RECOGNIZE AND CELEBRATE THE
DIVERSE EXPRESSIONS OF LOVE. WE
ENSURE EVERYONE HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A STABLE,
SECURE AND THEIR TURN
ENVIRONMENT TO OUR FAMILIES, AND
WE SHOW THAT CALIFORNIA STANDS
FIRMLY ON THE SIDE OF PROGRESS
AND THAT DISCRIMINATION HAS NO
PLACE WITHIN OUR BORDERS ARE
RICH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU
TO CONSIDER THE TREMENDOUS
IMPACT OF A C FIVE. THAT THAT IT
CAN HAVE ON THEIR LIVES.
ACCOUNTS OF CALIFORNIANS LIKE
MYSELF. THIS IS NOT JUST A
MATTER OF POLICY. IT'S A MATTER
OF HUMANITY. IT'S ABOUT
RECOGNIZING THE INHERENT WORTH
AND DIGNITY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO THEY ARE OR
WHO THEY LOVE. TODAY YOU CAN
CHOOSE TO EMBRACE THE PASSION
AND URGENCY OF THIS MOMENT.
STAND WITH US STAND FOR LOVE AND
STANFORD JUSTICE SUPPORT A C A
FIVE. AND LET CALIFORNIA SHINE
AS A BEACON OF HOPE. PROGRESS
AND INCLUSIVITY. THE TIME FOR
CHANGE IS NOW THE ROAD IS
WATCHING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME, YOUR COURAGE AND YOUR
DEDICATION FOR MORE EQUITABLE
FUTURE. THANK YOU WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. NAME AND ORGANIZATION.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
LEANNE TRATTNER ON BEHALF OF
BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING
SEMANA HARROW WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
MERGING FAMILY THERAPIST AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CRAIG
PULSE FOR ON BEHALF OF A QUALITY
CALIFORNIA, PROUD CO SPONSOR AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING.
NICK CRUZ, CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING. RYAN SUES ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO AIDS
FOUNDATION AND ESSENTIAL ACCESS,
HEALTH AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, JAMES MICHAEL PAOLO
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES. CALIFORNIA STRONG
SUPPORT GOOD MORNING. PRISCILLA
COULD ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION
IN THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD IN
SUPPORT. MARIKO YOSHIHARU ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. MICHELLE WARSAW ON
BEHALF OF STATE SUPERINTENDENT
OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TONY
THURMOND, PROUD CO SPONSOR AND
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. GENESIS
GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR, LENNY KUNO LAKIS AS A
PROUD CO SPONSOR AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, SERENA AND IRAN FROM
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT SIX IN STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MOLLY
ROBSON WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA AND
SHARK SPORT. MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, BRANDON MARCHI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
THROUGH THE BELT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. MOTION FROM MR KALRA. I
THINK SECOND FROM ISRAEL'S.
FIRST WITNESS TWO MINUTES EACH.
MY NAME IS PASTOR JIM DOMAN. I'M
MARRIED TO MY WIFE, AMANDA, AND
WE HAVE THREE CHILDREN. AND I'M,
THE FOUNDER OF CHURCH UNITED
.COM, BASED IN NEWPORT BEACH.
I'M ALSO REPRESENTING OUR
NETWORK OF 2500 SPANISH,
SPEAKING IN ENGLISH SPEAKING
PASTORS. WAS ONE OF THE MAJORITY
OF CALIFORNIANS WHO VOTED TO ADD
ARTICLE ONE SECTION 7.5. THE
CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTION WERE
COMMONLY KNOWN AS PROPOSITION
PROPOSITION EIGHT. I'M ALSO A
FORMER HOMOSEXUAL WHEN I WAS GAY
, GAY MARRIAGE WAS NOT AN OPTION
FOR LGBTQ PEOPLE. MY PARTNER. I
WORE RINGS ON OUR LEFT HAND AS
STRAIGHT COUPLES DO, BUT I'M
SORRY. MY PARTNER AND I WROTE
WORE RINGS ON OUR RIGHT HAND,
LIKE OPPOSITE OF WHAT STRAIGHT
COUPLES DO TO SHOW WE WERE
COMMITTED TO EACH OTHER. ARE GAY
MARRIAGE TOOK NOTHING INTO
ACCOUNT EXCEPT OUR OWN SELFISH
DESIRES FOR PHYSICAL PLEASURE.
WHEN I MARRIED MY WIFE, AMANDA,
AND WE HAD THREE CHILDREN. I
LEARNED THAT MARRIAGE IS ABOUT
SELFLESSNESS, MARRIAGES ABOUT
FAMILY ABOUT MY WIFE AND
CHILDREN. IT'S NO LONGER ABOUT
ME. MARRIAGE IS THE BEDROCK OF
EVERY CULTURE AND RESPECTIVE
RELIGIONS. I CALLED EACH OF YOUR
OFFICES TO INQUIRE. IF YOU HAD A
FAITH RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND, ONLY
TWO STAFFERS WERE ABLE TO SHARE
THEIR MEMBER HAD TO FAITH
BACKGROUND NUMBER DAILY. THANK
YOU AS A MUSLIM AND MEMBER
SANCHEZ AS A CATHOLIC. SO I TOOK
A DIFFERENT APPROACH. THIS
COMMITTEE'S DIVERSE BACKGROUND
REPRESENTS COUNTRIES AND
MULTIPLE CONTINENTS ACROSS THE
GLOBE, AND EACH OF THOSE
COUNTRIES HAVE ONLY DEFINED
MARRIAGE AS A MAN AND A WOMAN.
WHEN A MAN CLEANS WITH THE WOMAN
, THE TWO BECOME ONE. THE
ABILITY TO NATURALLY PROCREATE
PRODUCERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE CHILDREN THIS FUNDAMENTAL
AND BIOLOGICAL OCCURRENCE
CREATES AN ENVIRONMENT FOR
CHILDREN TO THRIVE.
SOCIOLOGICALLY. CHILDREN ARE
LESS DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT
IF THEY HAVE A MOM AND A DAD AND
THEY EVEN EXCEL ACADEMICALLY IN
SCHOOLS. I SPOKE WITH THE
ARCHBISHOP. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN CALIFORNIA LAST WEEK, AND YOU
SHARED THAT THE CONFERENCE OF
CATHOLIC BISHOPS ALSO OPPOSED A
FIVE THAT'S 11 MILLION CATHOLICS
IN THE STATE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOW. I ASK THAT YOU WOULD
RECONSIDER, SIR. FIVE UP AND
WITH YOUR WITHDRAWAL AND
WITHDRAW YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT. YOUR 2018 BILL 29 43
WAS WITHDRAWN BY YOU ON AUGUST
31ST OF THAT SAME YEAR, SIR.
WHEN YOU ADVOCATED THAT, BILL, I
NEED YOU TO WRAP UP. OKAY
EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME SENTENCE.
LET'S GO. EVERYONE GETS YOU
WITHDREW. EXHORT YOU NOT TO
SCREW WITH GOD BECAUSE GOD WILL
NOT BE MARKED. THIS IS THE GOD
OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION
OF INDEPENDENCE WHO IS THE GOD
OF THE PREAMBLE OF CALIFORNIA'S
CONSTITUTION AND MR GLOW, MR.
LOAD THIS GOD LOVES YOU. OKAY
THANK YOU. YOU JUST BEHALF. SER.
THAT'S MORE THAN WE'VE WE HAVE
RULES THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD
GONE. I WENT OVER MY I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. I WENT
OVER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
MEETING. MAIN WITNESSES GET TWO
MINUTES. YOU ARE WELL OVER THAT.
I'VE ASKED YOU SEVERAL TIMES TO
POLICE CONCLUDE AND YOU STILL
HAVE NOT SO I WILL CONCLUDE
CONCLUDED. NEXT WITNESS. MY NAME
IS SARAH SUMNER, CALIFORNIA FOR
30 YEARS. I LOVE THIS STATE AND
THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE. I WAS
ASKED TO APPEAR TODAY BECAUSE I
WROTE A BOOK CALLED JUST HOW
MARRIED DO YOU WANT TO BE? PLUS
I HAVE TAUGHT TWO DIFFERENT
COURSES AT TRINITY LAW SCHOOL IN
SANTA ANA AND SERVED AS AN
APPELLATE JUDGE IN MOCK COURT. I
HAVE ALSO WORKED FULL TIME FOR
15 YEARS AND TO CALIFORNIA'S
UNIVERSITIES, I HOLD A PHD AND
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND
EXPANSIVE DISCIPLINE THAT
ADDRESSES THE SUBJECT OF HOW
EVERYTHING FITS WITH EVERYTHING.
SO HERE THE SUBJECT PERTAINS TO
HOW CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW ABOUT MARRIAGE FITS WITH
WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED GENERALLY
TO EVERYONE AT ALL TIMES IN ALL
PLACES. GOD HAS GENERALLY
REVEALED THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE
UNIQUE SPECIES. INTUITIVELY WE
ALL KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE
DISTINGUISHED FROM EVERY OTHER
CREATURE AND EVERY KIND OF
OBJECT. NO PERSON IS AN ANGEL OR
A DEMON OR A VEGETABLE OR A
BEAST OR MERE TISSUE OR A
MACHINE. NO PERSON IS AN OBJECT.
BECAUSE NO ONE IS AN OBJECT. IT
IS WRONG TO OBJECTIFY ANY PERSON
FOR ANY REASON ON THE BASIS OF
ANY ARGUMENT UNDER ANY
FRAMEWORK. MY ARGUMENT TODAY
RECOGNIZES EVERY PERSON AS A
SUBJECT, NOT AN OBJECT. THAT WE
ALL HAVE OUR SUBJECTIVE VIEWS
AND PREFER TO GET OUR OWN WAY AS
SOME LEVEL WE ALL KNOW THAT WE
ARE NOT GOD. PHILOSOPHERS IS
DIVERSE IS ARISTOTLE, RENE DAY
CART AND JACQUES DERRIDA ALL
AGREE THAT WE ARE NOT GOD. THE
GOD WHO IS HAS SPECIALLY
REVEALED THAT WHEN A HUSBAND AND
A WIFE ARE MARRIED, GOD JOINS
THEM TOGETHER. THROUGH THE
PHYSICAL CONSUMMATION OF THE
MALE ORGAN ENTERING INTO THE
FEMALE VAGINAL ORIFICE.
SOMETHING SPIRITUAL HAPPENS IN
THIS PHYSICAL UNION,
MYSTERIOUSLY, THE TWO BECOME ONE
FLESH. WHEN MARRIAGE IS DEFINED
AS NOT BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE
WOMAN, THE TO DO NOT BECOME
WONDERFUL SENTENCES TO WRAP UP.
THIS OBSERVATION THAT I'M
SAYING. ACCORDS WITH CALIFORNIA
LAW, FAMILY CODE SECTION 300
THAT SAYS MARRIAGE IS A PERSONAL
RELATION ARISING OUT OF A CIVIL
CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PERSONS TO
WHICH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
CAPABLE OF MAKING THAT CONTRACT
ISN'T NECESSARY. CONSENT ALONE
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MARRIAGE.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
EXCUSE ME IN OPPOSITION. NAME
AND ORGANIZATION ONLY. ROCHELLE
CONNOR ABOLITIONIST FREDERICK
DOUGLASS FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA
ON BEHALF OF DISENFRANCHISED
UNREPRESENTED FAMILIES AND
HUSBANDS AND WIVES OF COLOR IN
OPPOSITION, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
A NO VOTE. REVEREND GEORGE MCGEE
. OASIS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. I
STRONGLY STRONGLY OPPOSE. PASTOR
TIM BENEFIELD OF CORNERSTONE
BAPTIST CHURCH IN MODESTO,
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WITH STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS PASTOR DONNIE
WILSON LIGHTHOUSE BAPTIST CHURCH
. MARINO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA IN
STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS VOTE
BRANDON CAMPBELL, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL CONNECTION
FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES AND PASTOR
, THE FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH IN
WHEATLAND, CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. CHRIS GREGORY FROM
FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH IN
WHEATLAND IN OPPOSITION.
KAYLEIGH GREGORY FROM PAPER
BAPTIST CHURCH IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. CHRISTINE CAMPBELL
BAPTIST CHURCH AS WELL, UM,
STRONG OPPOSITION. PASTOR AJ
HAROLD, PASTOR AND REPRESENTING
SOLID ROCK BAPTIST TABERNACLE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY. ALSO
PROFESSOR AT PACIFIC BAPTIST
COLLEGE, ALSO IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, STRONGLY AN OPPOSITION.
RICH MILLER PASTOR VICTORY
BAPTIST CHURCH IN ATWATER,
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION. GREG
BURKE WITH THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY
COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION. ETHAN LI,
ALSO WITH THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY
COUNCIL, AND STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU SEEN NO FURTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. TURN
IT OVER TO THE COMMITTEE, MR
KALRA AND MISS PACHECO. THANK
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND THANK
YOU TO SOME REAL LOW. UM FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I ALSO,
UM RECALL. PROPOSITION EIGHT IN
THAT TIME PERIOD IS A VERY DARK
TIME IN THAT CLOUD STILL HOVERS
OVER OUR CONSTITUTION. UM I HAD
THE PLEASURE ON SUNDAY OF
OFFICIATING A WEDDING OF TWO
DEAR FRIENDS OF MINE. UM, BOTH
WOMEN. THAT WEDDING WAS. THERE
WAS A LOT OF LOVE AND LOVE AND
SUPPORT FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS
AND COMMUNITY. UM THAT EVERYONE
SHOULD HAVE THE NOT JUST
PRIVILEGED, BUT RIGHT TO BE ABLE
TO, UM SHARE THEIR LOVE WITH ONE
ANOTHER AND OUR STATE. SHOULD
ABSOLUTELY STAND WITH LOVE. UM
AND NOT WITH BIGOTRY, NOT WITH
THOSE THAT SEEK. TO UM, DIVIDE
BY THOSE THAT SEEK TO ACTUALLY
BRING BRING A LOVING COMMUNITY
TOGETHER. AND SO I'M GRATEFUL.
THAT THE VOTERS WILL HAVE A
CHANCE. UM, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHERE
CALIFORNIA AND STAND I BELIEVE
THAT THEY WILL STAND ON THE SIDE
OF LOVE. AND I'M GRATEFUL TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A
BOTH OF THIS. ACTUALLY I'D BE AS
A CO AUTHOR. I NOTICED IT WASN'T
AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY NAME
ON THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
PACHECO. SO I JUST WANT TO ALSO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS A C A FORWARD. I ALSO STAND
WITH LOVE. SO I WOULD BE HONORED
TO ALSO BE ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. I JUST LIKE
TO ECHO MISS PAPIN,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PACHECO. PLEASE
ADD MUSIC. OH, AUTHOR. THANK
YOU. SEEN MR SALIH. JUST A QUICK
QUESTION. MR LO. I READ. IT'S
ACTUALLY VERY SHORT, UM, TEXT I
NOTICED IN THERE IT DOESN'T
CONTAIN A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
. SO WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING
WHAT THE LEGAL DEFINITION WOULD
BE IF THIS WERE TO PASS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SOMETHING UM, AS
YOU MAY KNOW, THIS DOES NOT
CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF
MARRIAGE. IT SIMPLY HELPS TO
ENSHRINE THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY
PROTECTIONS THAT WERE AFFORDED
WITH RESPECT TO INTERRACIAL
MARRIAGE AND ALSO SAME SEX
MARRIAGE AS WELL. IS THAT YOUR
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT
THIS WOULD PROVIDE MARRIAGE
BETWEEN TWO ADULTS, WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LAW,
EXISTING LAW AND EXISTING LAW
DOESN'T PERMIT THINGS LIKE
POLYGAMY. CORRECT OKAY. JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF MARRIAGES.
THANK YOU. YES. MS RACE. THANK
YOU. LISTENING TO THE TESTIMONY
, UM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOW ON
MANY OCCASIONS YOU'VE SHARED ON
THE FLOOR WHAT YOU'VE GONE
THROUGH. AND. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU
FOR WHAT YOU HAVE. I WOULD YOU
HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH, UH,
THROUGH YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. UM UM
I WOULD ASSUME SOMETIMES BY WELL
MEANING PEOPLE BUT TO CONFUSE
CHRISTIANITY WITH THE KIND OF
BIGOTRY THAT WE SOMETIMES
EXPRESS. I THINK IT SHOULDN'T BE
IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I THINK
THERE ARE ASSUMPTIONS THAT SAME
SEX PARENTS CAN'T BE GOOD
PARENTS AND OUR WITNESS. UM I
APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY ABOUT
BEING THAT LOVING PARENT THAT
ASSUMES THAT YOU CAN'T BE LOVING
PARTNERS BEYOND JUST SELFISH
PLEASURES. UM AND I THINK THAT
ONCE WE GET OVER THESE
ASSUMPTIONS WE WILL RECOGNIZE
THAT LOVE IS LOVE. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. C NOTE
FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMUNITY, MR LOW, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS VERY PROUD TO BE A CO
AUTHOR OF THIS. THIS IS ANOTHER
STEP ON ON THE JOURNEY TO MAKE
SURE THAT ALL OF CALIFORNIA
CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS ARE
RECEIVE. AH TRUE EQUALITY UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR STATE.
AND SO THIS IMPORTANT, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE TO
SHOW THAT CERTAINLY IN OUR STATE
, AT LEAST, WHICH IS WHAT ALL OF
US UP HERE ARE ELECTED TO
REPRESENT. MARRIAGE EQUALITY
WILL BE RECOGNIZED, WILL BE
ACCEPTED. AND SO I THINK THIS
SENDS A HEARTENING MESSAGE TO A
LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE. UM, SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS. UH
AND WITH THAT, YOU MAY CLOSE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CAN BE
MEMBERS. UM IS A WELL RECOGNIZED
FOR YOUR GRACE AND EMPATHY.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE THINKING
ABOUT THE FUNDAMENTAL
PROTECTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE
AFFORDED FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS
BEING SUPER OF PUBLIC TRUST.
LISTENING TO TESTIMONY. YOU MAY
THINK THAT WE'RE THE CLOCK IS
BACKWARDS, AND WE'RE GOING
BACKWARDS IN TIME AND IN HISTORY
AS THE VICE CHAIR REFERENCE TO
BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
BEFORE YOU IS QUITE SIMPLE.
BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. DO WE BELIEVE
THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SHOULD PROVIDE FUNDAMENTAL
PROTECTIONS TO CALIFORNIA WITH
RESPECT TO INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE?
TO RESPECT THE SAME SEX COUPLES.
EVERYONE IN THIS COMMITTEE.
KNOWS SOMEONE I LOVED ONE, A
FAMILY MEMBER. WHO IS A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE BELIEVE
THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDED THE
SAME TYPE OF HUMAN DIGNITY. THEN
I WOULD JUST IMPLORE THOSE IN
OPPOSITION TO FIND IT IN YOUR
HEART. RECOGNIZING WHERE WE ARE
TODAY. AND HOW WE WILL HELP LEAD
WITH THE BASIC DIGNITY AND
HUMANITY THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE
AFFORDED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS A GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY, AND I ASKED THAT VERY
SINCERELY. AND WITH THAT
RESPECTFULLY ASKED RIVAL THANK
YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. THE MOTION IS TO BE
ADOPTED. TO THE APPROPRIATIONS.
COMMITTEE UM I'D ASK THE CLERK
TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN AYE
ASALI CONNELLY CONNELLY. I,
DICKSON DICKSON I HANEY HANEY, I
CORA CORA. I PACHECO PACHECO, I
PAPIN HAPPENED I RAISE IS I
REVERSE SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ? NO.
IT'S OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S JACKSON.
UM, ARE A C A SEVEN? YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR
CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I
PRESENT A C A SEVEN, WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO APPROVE
PROPOSITION 209 WAIVER
APPLICATIONS FROM STATE AND
LOCAL ENTITIES. TO USE STATE
FUNDS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
RESEARCH BASED OR RESEARCH,
INFORMED AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC
PROGRAMS OR INTERVENTIONS TO
INCREASE THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF
IMPROVE THE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
FOR OR LIFT OUT OF POVERTY,
SPECIFIC ETHNIC GROUPS OR
MARGINALIZED GENDERS. UM
PARTICULARLY, UM, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT I STATE THAT I ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. UM
AND THINK THE CHAIR AND HIS
STAFF WERE WORKING WITH OUR
OFFICE ON THIS MEASURE. UH
PROPOSITION 209. QUITE FRANKLY,
IT WAS A FAILED EXPERIMENT, AND
WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH THE
PREPONDERANCE OF THE RESEARCH.
THAT THE BEST WAY TO SERVE
SPECIFIC GROUPS IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE INTERVENTION IS
CULTURALLY INFORMED. UM
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE AND MEETS
THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS. AND TOO
OFTEN WHEN WE TRY TO LOOK AT, UM
WHEN RESEARCHERS AND
PRACTITIONERS TRY TO UTILIZE
STATE FUNDS FOR SPECIFIC
INTERVENTIONS THAT'S BEEN PROVEN
TO WORK TO SAVE LIVES, SUCH AS
DIABETES PREVENTION SUCH AS
HYPERTENSION. UM AND OTHER
THINGS. UNFORTUNATELY OUR
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ALLOW FOR
THAT BECAUSE IT'S DEEMED TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO SIMPLY, UH
, A C A 76 TO PROVIDE A BALANCED
APPROACH TO ENSURE THAT IF LOCAL
OR STATE AGENCIES WOULD LIKE TO
PROVIDE INTERVENTIONS TO MEET
SPECIFIC CULTURAL GROUPS THAT
THEY CAN APPLY FOR A WAIVER TO
BE ABLE TO DO SO, UM AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
MR CHAIRMAN. I'M BRIAN REVIS ON
BEHALF OF THE EDUCATION TRUST
WEST. HAPPY TO BE HERE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SEE NO
WITNESS FURTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SAYING NONE
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE MOTION. MOTION FROM
HIS REYES. SECOND FROM MR HANEY.
UH, WITH THAT. OH, SORRY, MR
ASTLEY. GOOD MORNING, MR JACKSON
. UM I KNOW I'VE EXPRESSED. I
HAVE A DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHY.
PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT ON THIS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UM IS
THE INTENT OF THE BILL TO CREATE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
MEMBERS OF SOCIETY. IS IT TO
GUARANTEE EQUAL OUTCOMES? UM IT
IS TO SAVE LIVES. UH UM,
SPECIFICALLY, THE LANGUAGE IS
VERY SPECIFIC. IT IS MEANT TO
INCREASE THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF
HER SPECIFIC GROUPS IS MEANT TO
IMPROVE THE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
OF SPECIFIC GROUPS AND LET'S
START LIFT OUT OF POVERTY
SPECIFIC GROUPS. TO ENSURE THAT
WE ARE SERVING ALL PEOPLE, UM,
WITH THE DIGNITY AND HUMANITY
THAT THEY DESERVE. AND WHY. WHY
DO YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THE GOVERNMENT CONSIDER PEOPLE'S
RACE WHEN PROVIDING THESE
SERVICES, AS OPPOSED TO JUST
PROVIDING SERVICES TO ALL
DISADVANTAGED CALIFORNIANS? UM
WELL, I THINK THAT STATEMENT IS
JUST SIMPLY FALSE NUMBER ONE. I
DON'T THINK UM, THE RESEARCH IS
CLEAR. AND WHEN I SAY RESEARCH,
I DON'T MEAN BLOGS. I DON'T MEAN
NEWS ARTICLES. I MEAN, UM, A
PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH ARTICLES
THAT HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY
VETTED. IT'S BEEN CLEAR AND THE
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
IS THAT THE BEST WAY? TO SERVE.
FOR INSTANCE. UM THE AFGHANISTAN
REFUGEES THAT ARE COMING TO
CALIFORNIA. IT WOULD BE NAIVE TO
THINK. THAT WE CAN SPEAK TO THEM
IN ENGLISH. THAT WE CAN NOT
UNDERSTAND THE CULTURAL NUANCES
ABOUT WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THEM
OR NOT. WHAT ARE THE BEST
PRACTICES FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO
SERVE THEM IN THE RIGHT WAY? UH
TO NOT TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT
WAS SIMPLY NOT BEING ABLE TO
SERVE THEM TO THE FULLEST
CAPACITY. UM AND SO I THINK FOR
ME, THIS IS NOT A THEO.
THEORETICAL THING. UM, THE
RESEARCH IS CLEAR ON IT, AND THE
QUESTION JUST BECOMES. DO YOU
BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO BE SERVED ACCORDING TO
THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS, HISTORICAL
, CULTURAL NEEDS, OR DO YOU JUST
BELIEVE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT
YOU HAVE THE BEST SOLUTION FOR
THEM? I THINK THAT'S THE
QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE
ANSWERED. WELL I APPRECIATE YOUR
PERSPECTIVE. I JUST
FUNDAMENTALLY PERSPECTIVE. THIS
IS A FACT. SO LET'S NOT LET'S
NOT GET IT TWISTED HERE. THIS IS
A FACT. THERE IS NO OPINION THAT
I AM EXERCISING. THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT, UM YOU KNOW THAT
I AM WILLING TO ENGAGE IN A
CULTURAL NARRATIVE OVER THE FACT
IS, IS THAT, UM THIS IS THE
RIGHT THING TO DO. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS THAT
CANNOT BE USED RIGHT NOW. THAT
IS PROVEN TO SAVE LIVES. I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I THINK
57% OF CALIFORNIANS DISAGREE,
BUT YOU'RE WRONG. EXCUSE ME. I'D
LIKE TO FINISH SPEAKING. 57% OF
CALIFORNIA'S DISAGREE WHO
APPROVED PROP 209. I BELIEVE IT
IS A MISTAKE IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO GO
BACKWARDS AND TO INJECT RACE
INTO GOVERNMENT POLICY. I THINK
ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL AND
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TREAT
PEOPLE EQUALLY, AND WE CAN
PROVIDE SERVICES TO
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
WITHOUT MAKING RACE A FACTOR,
AND I SUPPORT THAT. I THINK
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY. UNITED STATES I AM
A MINORITY. I CAME FROM MINORITY
BACKGROUND AND I DON'T WANT THE
GOVERNMENT TO, YOU KNOW, TREAT
ME DIFFERENTLY THAN ANYONE ELSE.
I WANT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY.
AND SO WITH THAT I RESPECT YOUR
VIEWPOINT BY RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SCENE? NO
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE. OH, MISS REYES.
DR JACKSON. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I THINK THAT IN A PERFECT
SOCIETY, EVERYBODY SHOULD BE
TREATED EQUALLY. BUT AS YOU HAVE
NOTED, STUDIES ARE CLEAR. PEOPLE
ARE NOT TREATED DIFFERENTLY. THE
HUE OF THE SKIN THE ACCENT OF
THEIR SPEECH CAUSES OTHERS TO
TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY, AND
SOMETIMES WE NEED TO BE REMINDED
THAT WE DO NEED TO BE TREATED
DIFFERENTLY, BUT EQUALITY IS NOT
NECESSARILY WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK
FOR. IT HAS TO BE EQUITY BECAUSE
MANY HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND. AND
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING
EVERYBODY UP AT THE SAME LEVEL.
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THOSE
THAT YOU HAVE. INTENTIONALLY OR
UNINTENTIONALLY LEFT BEHIND OR
PUSHED DOWN TO BRING THEM UP TO
THE SAME LEVEL BEFORE WE CAN
START SAYING WE'RE TREATING
EVERYBODY EQUALLY, SO WITH THAT
I WOULD MOVE THE SPILL. THAT'S
ALREADY BEEN MOVED. WE HAVE WE
ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND, UM WITH THAT SEE NO
FURTHER COMMENT. QUESTION
COMMENT, MR JACKSON, YOU MAKE
CLOTHES? SURE I WOULD JUST CLOSE
BY SAYING THAT, UM AT THE END OF
THE DAY AH! WHAT IS CLEAR? AND
WITH THE RESEARCH ALSO SHOWS UH
UM. IS THAT UM. EVEN WHEN AN
INTERVENTION IS WELL MEANING? IF
IT'S NOT THE PROPER
INTERVENTION. AND THE BEST
INTERVENTION FOR THEIR SPECIFIC
NEEDS. EVEN THAT INTERVENTION
CAN BE HARMFUL. UM AND SO THE
IDEA THAT, UM. ONE INTERVENTION
IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY IS SIMPLY
WRONG. THERE'S SIMPLY MISGUIDED.
UM AND, UH, THIS A C A S
DESIGNED TO GET IT RIGHT? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. THE MOTION AS TO BE
ADOPTED AS AMENDED, THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HAD
ASKED THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. I ESSENTIALLY NO
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I DIXON. PAY
ME ANY I KARA. CHICO CHICO, I
HAPPEN AND I RAISE RAISE I RIVAS
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ KNOW YOUR BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AND
OUR FINAL UH, BILL OF THE DAY IS
SP 3 65, SENATOR WEINER WELCOME.
YOU MAY BEGIN. WELCOME THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, UH, MR CHAIRMAN
AND COLLEAGUES AND THANK YOU TO
THE CHAIR AND TO THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE THOUGHTFUL AND
THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE BILL.
UM SP 3 65 WILL CREATE MORE
FAIRNESS AND OUR PROCEDURAL
APPROACH. TO APPEALS AND MOTIONS
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION THAT ARE
DENIED. IT'LL PREVENT TYPICALLY
LARGE CORPORATIONS FROM USING
DELAY TACTICS AND DELAYING
JUSTICE FOR CONSUMERS FOR PUBLIC
ENTITIES. AND FOR WORKERS. THE
BILL CLOSES A LEGAL LOOPHOLE
PROCEDURAL LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS
CORPORATIONS TO AUTOMATICALLY NO
MATTER WHAT DELAY POTENTIALLY
FOR YEARS. AH TRIAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS SIMPLY BY FILING A
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION,
EVEN IF THERE WAS NO ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS
FILE A MOTION. EVEN IF IT'S AN
INCREDIBLY ABSOLUTELY FRIVOLOUS
ARGUMENT, YOU JUST HAVE TO FILE
THE MOTION. THE COURT DENIES IT
. AH, AND YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY
ENTITLED TO AN APPEAL AND IT
AUTOMATICALLY PUTS ON ICE THAT
LAWSUIT POTENTIALLY FOR YEARS
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE
APPELLATE PROCESS IS TYPICALLY
NOT FAST. THIS BILL IS
INCREDIBLY REASONABLE AND BASED
ON AMENDMENTS THAT WE MADE AN
ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS, ALL IT DOES IS
PROVIDE THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
WITH THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO STAY THE CASE DURING
THE APPEAL, OR WHETHER OR NOT TO
STAY THE CASE. WHETHER TO HAVE A
PARTIAL STAY WHETHER TO LET IT
GO UP UNTIL TRIAL AND THEN STAY
AT DURING TRIAL WHETHER TO ALLOW
SOME DISCOVERY BUT NOT OTHERS.
IT IS UP TO THE SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGE BASED ON THE FACTS OF THAT
CASE, UM AND THAT IS AN
INCREDIBLY REASONABLE APPROACH.
THIS DOES NOT REGULATE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. IT IS
SIMPLY ABOUT CALIFORNIA'S
PROCEDURAL OR CODE OF OUR CIVIL
PROCEDURE. UM THERE ARE OTHER
STATES WHO GO WAY BEYOND WHAT
WE'RE DOING, INCLUDING, FOR
EXAMPLE, AS YOU I THINK IT'S IN
THE ANALYSIS IN THE STATE OF
GEORGIA, BUT DOESN'T LET YOU
EVEN HAVE AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL
FOR THE DENIAL OF EMOTION THAT
PAUL ARBITRATION UNLESS THIS
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE OR THE
TRIAL COURT JUDGE SAYS YOU CAN.
SO ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS ABOUT
PREEMPTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
ARBITRATION ACT RESPECTFULLY OR
SPACIOUS, THIS IS OUR APPROACH
TO CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CALIFORNIA
. WE DON'T HAVE TO EVEN ALLOW
INTERLOCUTORY REPEAT APPEAL. WE
DO. AND WE'RE NOT TAKING THAT
AWAY. WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING THAT
THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SHOULD
HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
DURING THAT APPEAL. UM I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY OUR
MATTHEW GOLDBERG, WHO IS THE
CHIEF ATTORNEY FOR THE WORKER
PROTECTION UNIT AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. AND SARAH LONDON AND
ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE BOARD
MEMBER OF CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU TO THE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I'M HERE REALLY?
ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENT, MAYA
CURTIS, WHO ASKED ME TO COME
HERE AND SHARE HER STORY AFTER
YEARS OF INTENSIVE, PAINFUL AND
EXPENSIVE PROCEDURES TO PRESERVE
HER FERTILITY OPTIONS. SHE WOKE
UP TO AN EMAIL, LETTING HER KNOW
THAT ALL OF THE EGGS SHE HAD
FROZEN AND STORED. AT A
FERTILITY CLINIC HAD BEEN
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY A TANK
FAILURE. SO IN AN INSTANT, HER
WELL LAID PLANS TO BUILD HER
FAMILY, UM, WERE DASHED. SHE
CONTACTED ME AND WANTED TO BE
VERY INVOLVED IN LITIGATION TO
UNCOVER THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED AND TRY TO MAKE CHANGE
SO THAT THIS WOULDN'T HAPPEN TO
ANYONE ELSE. MAYA WAS VERY
ACTIVE IN THE LITIGATION AND
REALLY SET OUT TO BE A
REPRESENTATIVE OF OTHERS WHO
COULD NOT COME FORWARD. BUT I
LEAVE A LOOPHOLE IN CALIFORNIA'S
PROCEDURAL LAW DERAILED HER CASE
NOW, EVEN THOUGH MAYA AND OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED HAD NO
CONTRACT AT ALL WITH THE TANK
MANUFACTURER. THE COMPANY MOVED
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION ANYWAY. TO
BE CLEAR MAYA. NEITHER MAYA NOR
THE COMPANY HAD SIGNED ANY
AGREEMENT WITH ONE ANOTHER OR AN
AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE. THE
TRIAL COURT DENIED THAT MOTION.
BUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
CALIFORNIA'S PROCEDURAL LOOPHOLE
, THE COMPANY APPEALED THAT
WHICH IMMEDIATELY PAUSED ALL OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL
COURT. FOR NEARLY FOUR YEARS,
WHILE THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS
PENDING IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
THE COURT OF APPEAL EVENTUALLY,
OF COURSE. UM UPHELD THE TRIAL
COURT DECISION, BUT IT WAS ONLY
THEN NEARLY FIVE YEARS AFTER THE
TANK FAILED THAT WE COULD EVEN
BEGIN DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE.
JUSTICE DELAYED REALLY MEANS
JUSTICE DENIED IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY THE
CASE LIKE THIS ONE, WHERE TIME
IS OF THE ESSENCE, FERTILITY
OPTIONS DWINDLE. EVERY MONTH.
AND EVEN THOUGH THE CASE WAS
PAUSED, SHE COULD NOT PAUSE HER
BIOLOGICAL CLOCK. IT DOES NOT
NEED TO BE THIS WAY IN
CALIFORNIA, AND WE CAN CHANGE
IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
MAIENSCHEIN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY. UM MY BOSS AND YOUR
FORMER COLLEAGUE, SAN FRANCISCO
CITY ATTORNEY DAVID SHOES SENDS
HIS REGARDS. UM THIS IS A VERY
MODEST BUT ESSENTIAL BILL THAT
IS GOING TO ADDRESS A GROWING
AND REAL WORLD PROBLEM. THE
IMPACT IS ON ALL CALIFORNIANS.
YOU JUST HEARD A VERY COMPELLING
SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. I'D LIKE TO
JUST HIGHLIGHT HOW THIS HAS
PLAYED OUT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
WHERE THE OUTCOMES HAVE BEEN
PARTICULARLY ABSURD AND IN MY
VIEW, PARTICULARLY DAMAGING HERE
IN CALIFORNIA, AS YOU ALL KNOW,
A WIDE RANGE OF GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES, CITIES COUNTIES, DHS
AND STATE AGENCIES FILE LAWSUITS
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC CASES
COMBATING CONSUMER FRAUD, WAGE
THEFT, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
AND SO ON. AND WHILE THESE CASES
ARE, OF COURSE DESIGNED TO
BENEFIT AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC,
THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES DO NOT
FORMALLY REPRESENT ANY VICTIMS.
THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, OF
COURSE, HAVE NOT SIGNED
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS, WHICH
IS, OF COURSE WHY THEY ARE NOT
BOUND BY ANY SUCH AGREEMENTS,
BUT INCREASINGLY CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS NONETHELESS, TO
COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT INTO
ARBITRATION THEY'VE DONE SO
SEVERAL TIMES IN RECENT YEARS.
IT'S A GROWING TREND. THIS IS
IMPACTED. CONSUMER AND WORKER
CASES WITH THE SAN DIEGO CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY. OUR
STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
RIGHTS AND A MULTI PUBLIC ENTITY
LITIGATION AGAINST UBER AND LYFT
FOR MISCLASSIFYING, THEIR
DRIVERS AND THE PROCESS AND THE
OUTCOME IS THE SAME. IN EVERY
CASE, DEFENDANTS FILE THESE
FRIVOLOUS OR THIN MOTIONS, THEY
LOSE. THEY APPEAL AND GET THEIR
AUTOMATIC STAY, AND THEN
EVENTUALLY THEY LOSE THEIR
APPEALS. BUT BY THAT POINT, THE
DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. THE
CASES HAVE BEEN DELAYED UPWARDS
OF A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND IT'S
PARTICULARLY AGREE JUST IN THESE
CASES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC OFTEN ARE
MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTS. A
FINAL POINT, JUST IN RESPONSE TO
ONE PIECE OF OPPOSITION. THIS
ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF
FEDERAL LAW OR IN ANYWAY
DISADVANTAGED ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS THAT ARE VALID. ALL
COURTS ARE OBLIGATED TO FIGURE
OUT WHETHER THERE IS A VALID
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT OR NOT,
AND YOU ALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURAL
RULES ABOUT HOW CALIFORNIA
COURTS ARE GOING TO HANDLE.
WHETHER OR NOT CASES ARE STATE
OR CAN PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS AND STAFF MITCH
STEIGER, WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, ALSO IN SUPPORT.
RICO YOSHIHARA BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO SPONSOR
AND TECH EQUITY, COLLABORATIVE
AND STRONG SUPPORT. SAVINA
ATTACK ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS, CONSUMERS FOR AUTO
RELIABILITY AND SAFETY AND THE
TEAMSTERS IN SUPPORT. JUSTIN
ROUSER OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROB BONTA. PROUD
COSPONSOR. THANK YOU. CRAIG
POSTER ON BEHALF OF QUALITY
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU SEEING NO FURTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. AND CAN I JUST ASK
YOU TO MOVE OVER ONE CHAIR? YOU
MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS COURTNEY JENSEN ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, RESPECTFULLY AND
OPPOSITION. CURRENTLY CALIFORNIA
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
916 APPLIES TO ARBITRATION AND
FAR MORE AND IT STAYS TRIAL
COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING AN
APPEAL OF A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION. LONGSTANDING INTENT
OF THIS IS TO PROTECT THE
APPELLATE COURT'S JURISDICTION
AND ENSURE THAT THE TRIAL COURT
IS NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD
DISRUPT THE APPEAL, WHICH
INCLUDES WHERE THE VERY PURPOSE
OF THE APPEAL IS TO HAVE. AVOID
THE NEED FOR THE PROCEEDING. SP
3 65 ALLOWS THE COURT TO
CONTINUE A CASE WHILE AN APPEAL
IS PENDING, ALLOWING A JUDGE TO
SPEND COURT TIME AND RESOURCES
AND PARTY TIME AND RESOURCE IS
GOING THROUGH A TRIAL THAT COULD
END UP BEING MOOTED BY THE
RESULT OF THE APPEAL. SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS DETERMINED THAT
THIS BILL COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT COURT WORKLOAD COST
PRESSURES IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE
CIVIL CASES THAT ULTIMATELY WILL
BE ORDERED TO ARBITRATION AFTER
A DECISION BY THE APPELLATE
COURT PROPONENTS PAINT THE
PICTURE THAT EVERY APPEAL OF A
DENIAL OF A MOTION TO COMPEL US
FRIVOLOUS OR FOR DELAY ONLY WE
STRONGLY DISPUTE THIS IN FACT, A
CASES PENDING BEFORE THE US
SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW IN WHICH
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS THE
DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO APPEAL
AND BOTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES
SAID THIS IS A VERY CLOSE CALL,
AND THEY WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED
IF THEY WERE OVER REVERSED ON
APPEAL. ONE OF THE AMI KI CITED
99 CASES IN WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAD OVERTURNED TRIAL
COURTS DENIALS OF A MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION. THE BRIEF
DICTATES ALL THE DISCOVERY AND
MOTION PRACTICE THAT THEY HAD TO
GO THROUGH UNNECESSARILY WHEN
ULTIMATELY THE TRIAL COURT
REVERSED A DECISION IN THE
PENDING CASES EXPECTED AS EARLY
AS THE END OF THIS MONTH. SO WE
CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THIS BILL IS
PREMATURE, PENDING THE OUTCOME
OF THAT CASE. ALSO IF THERE IS A
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL, THERE ARE
THREE DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL
MECHANISMS YOU CAN BRING FOR
MOTIONS TO GET SANCTIONS FEES
AND COSTS. PROPONENTS ALSO POINT
TO THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES
AND CONSUMERS CANNOT IMMEDIATELY
APPEAL IF A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION IS GRANTED. UM IF
THAT IS THE CONCERN, AND WHY NOT
PROPOSE A MUTUAL RIGHT TO
IMMEDIATELY APPEAL INSTEAD OF
FORCING COURTS AND PARTIES TO
PROCEED? THROUGH DISCOVERY AND
TRIAL IF THE APPEAL COULD RENDER
IT ALL MOOT. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. ALRIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR CHRIS MAKELELE ON
BEHALF OF THE HOLLYWOOD CHAMBER
IN THE L. A AREA CHAMBER AND
SORRY TO HAVE MY BACK TO SOME OF
THE MEMBERS. I WANTED TO MAKE
THREE QUICK POINTS. THE FIRST
STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT
FRIVOLOUS OR THAT THIS IS A
LOOPHOLE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
SHORT PROVISION OF CCP SECTION
916 WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT
THIS IS APPLICABLE TO APPEALS IN
CIVIL ACTIONS ACROSS THE BOARD
INVOLVING ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER
. IT'S VERY BROAD. EVERYONE IS
TREATED ALIKE, SO THERE IS NO
LOOPHOLE TO CLOSE THAT IS A
MATTER OF EXISTING LAW. THE
SECOND IS THIS CLAIM ABOUT
FRIVOLOUSNESS, ETCETERA. AND I
WOULD NOTE THAT IF THERE IS THIS
GREAT LITANY OF INTENTIONAL
DELAYS, AS WELL AS FRIVOLOUS
APPEALS, THEN I WOULD HOPE THAT
THERE'S A LITANY OF CASES THAT
CAN BE CITED IN WHICH THE
PARTIES AND THE ATTORNEYS
BRINGING THOSE INTENTIONALLY
DELAYING AND FRIVOLOUS APPEALS
HAVE BEEN RIGHTFULLY SANCTIONED
. THE THIRD AND RESPECTFULLY IS
THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL
IS CLEARLY PREEMPTED BY THE F A.
A THERE IS A LARGE GROUP OF
COURT CASES, PRIMARILY STARTING
IN CALIFORNIA WITH CONCEPTUAL 80
T MOBILITY VERSUS CONCEPCION.
AND SINCE THAT CASE, THERE'S
BEEN REPEATED EFFORTS OVER THE
LAST DECADE TO UNDERMINE
ARBITRATION, THE MOST RECENT
THAT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ABOUT
FIVE YEARS AGO, WAS STRUCK DOWN
BY THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN A VERY,
UH WELL REASONED DECISION. WHY
IS IT PREEMPTED? LOOK, STATES
CAN REGULATE ARBITRATION, BUT
THEY HAVE TO DO SO UNDER GENERAL
CONTRACT PRINCIPLES. FOR EXAMPLE
, THE FEDERAL COURTS IN SATURN
SAID THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON
WHETHER THE STATUTE EITHER ON
ITS FACE OR AS APPLIED, IMPOSES
BURDENS ON ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO
CONTRACTS GENERALLY. AS YOU CAN
SEE HERE BY ADDING THIS
SUBDIVISION IN 12 94 SUBDIVISION
, A OF THE CCP, I NEED YOU TO
WRAP UP. SORRY YOU'RE SINGLING
OUT ARBITRATION. THE OTHER THING
IS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
UNDERMINED. AND JUST ONE LAST
FINAL QUOTE IF I CAN MR CHAIR IN
CONCEPCION, THE COURT SAID, WE
HAVE A LIBERAL FEDERAL POLICY
FAVORING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATE
SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL
POLICIES TO THE COUNTRY. YOU YOU
OVERSOLD YOUR THREE QUICK
POINTS. MR MCFEELY APOLOGIZE. MR
CHAIRMAN COMMENTARY FOR YOU WITH
THAT ANY OTHER, UH WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. JAMIE HAVE WITH THE
CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA STRONGLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, KATIE
DAVEY, WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION WERE
OPPOSED AS WELL. GOOD MORNING,
MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
ALSO IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. RYAN, ALONG WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MATTHEW ALLEN WITH
WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION ALSO
OPPOSED. GOOD MORNING, BRIAN
LITTLE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SEE NO FURTHER WITNESSES.
OPPOSITION ALTERNATIVE COMMITTEE
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS MOTION?
OKAY. OKAY SO WE HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS MOTION FROM IS REYES.
DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? 2ND 2ND
FROM MR CONNELLY. I'LL START
WITH MR ASTLEY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. UM QUESTION FOR THE
OPPOSITION. HAVE YOU GUYS
PROPOSED ANY, UM, OFFERED ANY
AMENDMENTS? I CAN SPEAK. UM YES
. IN THE SENATE. WE DID PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE
ALLOWED LIMITED DISCOVERY TO
CONTINUE WHEN A CASE IS STAYED
IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE DISCOVERY
PROCESS AND LIMITED CASE, UM, TO
START THE PROCESS, AS WAS
DISCUSSED BY THE PROPONENTS.
THERE'S I THINK THERE WAS SOME
CONCERN AROUND LOSING EVIDENCE
OR LOSING WITNESSES. IF THE CASE
DID DID GET KICKED BACK TO THE
TRIAL COURT, SO WE HAD PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AROUND THAT AND TO MY
UNDERSTANDING THOSE WERE NOT
ACCEPTED, YOU KNOW, BY THE, UH
BY THE SPONSORS OR THE AUTHOR OF
THE BILL, BUT WE DID PROPOSE
THOSE AMENDMENTS IN THE SENATE
AND SENATOR. UM I SEE YOUR POINT
ABOUT HOW THIS COULD BE. UM
MISUSED OR ABUSED IN THE
AUTOMATIC STATE IS PRETTY
POWERFUL. UM, BUT MY CONCERN IS
THAT IF THERE'S JUST A BLANKET
POLICY THAT THERE IS NO STATE,
IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE OTHER
EXTREME NOW WHERE PEOPLE WITH
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS ARE GOING
TO BE FORCED TO INCUR. UM A LOT
OF EXPENSES AND DISCOVERY, WHICH
IS THE PURPOSE OF ARBITRATIONS
TO LIMIT EXPENSES. SO THERE'S
SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN
THE TWO. WE HAVE LIMIT DISCOVERY
OR SOME SORT OF PROCESS TO GET
RELIEF FROM THE STAY IF IT TRULY
IS A FRIVOLOUS, UH, FRIVOLOUS
APPEAL. YES, THANK YOU. FOR THAT
QUESTION. THERE IS SOMETHING IN
THE MIDDLE, AND THAT IS THE BILL
IMPRINT BECAUSE THE WAY YOU
DESCRIBE THE BILL AT THE
BEGINNING IS THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF THE BILL, BUT NOT THE
VERSION. THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY
WHEN I FIRST INTRODUCED THE BILL
IT ELIMINATED THE POSSIBILITY OF
A SET ESTATE SIMPLY SAID NO
STAY. UH AND SO IT TOOK IT FROM
THE ONE AND TO THE OTHER END, IT
JUST ELIMINATED THAT POSSIBILITY
ENTIRELY. ALRIGHT. WE THEN
COMING OFF OF APPROACH. THIS IS
AN AUTHOR AMENDMENT. THIS IS NOT
IMPOSED ON ME BY THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. WE
TOOK ALL THE FEEDBACK, INCLUDING
FROM SHERIFF, SENATE JUDICIARY
AND OTHERS. AND WE SIMPLY THE
BILL NOW SIMPLY PROVIDES THE
SUPERIOR COURT THE DISCRETION.
TO DECIDE WHETHER TO STAY OR NOT
. A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE COULD
SAY I'M STILL I THINK THAT THIS
IS A CLOSE CALL. I DENIED THE
MOTION TO APPEAL TO CLOSE CALL.
I'M STAYING THIS ON APPEAL. OR
I'M GOING TO SAY I'M GOING TO
LET OR I'M GOING TO LET YOU DO
DISCOVERY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
LET YOU GO TO TRIAL UNTIL THE
APPEAL IS OVER. THE JUDGE CAN
LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF
STRENGTH OF THE MOTION, WHETHER
IT WAS A CLOSE CALL ALL OF THOSE
OTHER FACTORS, UM AND THEY CAN
JUST DECIDE SO THAT I THINK THE
BILL RIGHT NOW IS VERY, VERY
MUCH IN THE MIDDLE CONCERN WITH
THAT IS BY ALLOWING THE SAME
JUDGE THAT RULED THAT THE
ARBITRATION IS UNENFORCEABLE TO
HAVE THE THAT THE DISCRETION
WHETHER TO DO THIS STAY OR NOT.
MOST JUDGES, IN MY EXPERIENCE
ARE NOT GOING TO WANT TO STAY
THEIR OWN RULINGS. THERE ARE
SOME THAT MIGHT, BUT I THINK THE
OPPOSITION HERE IS CONCERNED
WITH FORM SHOPPING. THERE ARE
SOME JUDGES ARE VERY HOSTILE TO
ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.
CALIFORNIA'S BEEN ROUTINELY
OVERTURNED FOR HOSTILE JUDGMENTS
ON THAT. WHY NOT ALLOW THE COURT
OF APPEAL TO MAKE THE DECISION
ON? UM THIS DAY OR NOT HAVE AN
EXPEDITED PROCESS. FIRST OF ALL,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE COURT OF
APPEAL. ALWAYS HAS THAT ABILITY
. UM BUT I THINK YOU KNOW I HAVE
SEEN HAVING ALSO PRACTICED LAW
FOR LOT LONGER THAN I CARE TO
ADMIT, BEFORE RUNNING FOR OFFICE
THAT THE JUDGES DO STAY THEIR
OWN ROLLING. THERE ARE PLENTY OF
TIMES YOU JUST HEARD FROM SOME
OF THEM WERE JUDGE WILL ISSUE A
RULING ON ARBITRATION AND SAY, I
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A CLOSE
CALL. AND SO I DON'T I DON'T
THINK IT'S THE CASE THAT JUDGES
ARE ARE SO OBTUSE THAT THEY'RE
NOT HE OUGHT TO BE SELF AWARE
ABOUT. YOU KNOW WHAT COULD
HAPPEN ON APPEAL? SO I DO THINK
THAT THIS IS A VERY RIGHT DOWN
THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD APPROACH
THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE
CONCERNS OF BOTH SIDES. I
APPRECIATE RESPONSE. I JUST WANT
TO FINAL COMMENT. MR CHAIR, I
THINK ALSO WHAT'S BEING
HIGHLIGHTED? I THINK HERE TOO,
IS WE DO HAVE, UH, INJUSTICE
GOING ON OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT
IS TAKING WAY TOO LONG TO
RESOLVE CASES. AND I HOPE THAT
MAYBE AS A BODY WE CAN LOOK AT
MAKING THE SYSTEM BETTER. UM I
DO THINK JUSTICE DELAYED IS
JUSTICE DENIED AND WE SHOULD
TREAT THE JUDICIARY AS A THIRD
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. AND SO
THAT IS JUST AN OVERALL COMMENT
THAT I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS
THERE. THERE'S BROAD BASED
AGREEMENT THERE. THANK YOU, MS
DICKSON. THANK YOU. CHAIR. I'M
TRYING TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED
AROUND FOR TRYING FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL AGGRIEVED PARTY SUCH
AS YOUR WITNESS. PRESENTED
ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE ARE OTHER
ALTERNATIVES AND WAITING FIVE
YEARS TO RESOLVE THAT PERSONAL
CONFLICT OR TRAGEDY. I WOULD
THINK THAT FORCING THIS A MATTER
LIKE THIS INTO THE JUDICIAL, THE
COURT PROCESS. I MEAN, THAT'S
JUST THE OPPOSITE. OF WHAT I
WHAT I ARBITRATE. THE WHOLE
ARBITRATION PROCEDURE WAS
ESTABLISHED IS TO EXPEDITE
RESOLUTION THROUGH THE COURT
PROCESS AND TO THROW EVERYTHING
INTO THE COURT PROCESS JUST
COULD BE ANOTHER SERIES OF I
MEAN, THE BACKUP IN COURTS, WE
KNOW GOES ON FOR A LONG TIME. I
BELIEVE THAT THE ARBITRATION
PROCESS IF IT IS FLAWED, CAN BE
FAR BEYOND ME TO COME UP WITH
THAT FACT IT'S SOMETHING THAT
OTHERS CAN CREATE. BUT IT COULD
BE A WAY TO ENHANCE THE
PROTECTION SUCH AS HAS ALREADY
BEEN DISCUSSED. BUT WHY THROW
EVERYTHING INTO THE COURT
PROCESS WHICH TO ME WOULD BE
MIRED IN LONGER DELAYS, AND IT
ONLY JUST FURTHER BENEFITS
LAWYERS. WHY NOT GET THIS
RESOLVED? AND I'M MARRIED TO A
LAWYER, SO I'M NOT AGAINST
WIRES. BUT WHY NOT GET THIS
RESOLVED AT THE ARBITRATION
LEVEL? IF THERE ARE FLAWS,
WHICH, OF COURSE, APPARENTLY
DON'T DISAGREE THAT THERE ARE
TRY TO FIX THEM, BUT TO ME
AUTOMATICALLY DISCARDING THE
ARBITRATION PROCESS AND THROWING
THIS IN THE COURT SYSTEM IS MORE
TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE
PLAINTIFF IN MY OPINION. I DON'T
. THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING
HERE. THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE
A COURT HAS RULED THAT THERE
THAT IT IS NOT AN ARBITRATION
AND ARBITRAL CASE, AND IT'S
BEING APPEALED TO THE COURTS
ALREADY MADE THAT RULING. AND
THESE APPEALS ABSOLUTELY PROLONG
THE PROCESS DOESN'T RESULT IN A
FAST RESOLUTION. WELL ALRIGHT
THEN MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER FIX
WITHIN THAT. I MEAN THAT WORK IT
OUT AND NOT AUTOMATICALLY DENY
THAT ARBITRATION AND WORK IT
OUT. I MEAN, I JUST THINK THIS
IS A DRACONIAN CHANGED TOO.
FORCE EVERYBODY FORCE ALL
PARTIES INTO, UH, THE COURT
PROCESS. THAT'S MY OPINION.
THANK YOU, MISS PACHECO. THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR. I KNOW WE HAD
SOME CONVERSATION YESTERDAY. I
JUST HAD SOME QUESTIONS. UM AND
IT I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF
THIS BILL, AND, UH, I LIKE THE
FACT THAT THERE'S A JUDICIAL
DISCRETION INVOLVED IN THIS. AH
AND MY QUESTION IS, UM, IS THERE
ANY WAY TO MAYBE WORK WITH
OPPOSITION OF TWO, MAYBE FINE
TUNE THE LANGUAGE AS TOO LIMITED
DISCOVERY. LIKE WHAT WAS
MENTIONED, UH, IS THERE ANY
CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING WITH
RESPECT TO THAT, OR IS THERE IS
IT NOW? JUST HARDLINE. NO I'M
NOT GOING TO WORK WITH CONTINUE
WORKING WITH OPPOSITION. I'M
JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW THE
CONVERSATIONS ARE CONTINUING
JUST THROUGH AS A CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. I THINK AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I WORK WITH THE
CHAMBER. PRETTY REGULAR, ANOTHER
BIG BILL THAT I THINK IS NOT
GOING TO COME TO THIS COMMITTEE.
WE THOUGHT IT WOULD. BUT IT'S
NOT THAT YOU AND I ALSO
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY THAT WE HAVE
WORKED FOR TWO YEARS OF THE
CHAMBER ON WE STILL HAVE A
DISAGREEMENT. BUT WE I'M ALWAYS
OPEN TO FOLKS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO
MY BILL. I DON'T I DON'T I AM
NOT. I DON'T HAVE A MY
PHILOSOPHY IS THAT EVEN IF
SOMEONE IS FIGHTING ME HARD ON
MY BILL IF THEY RAISE VALID
POINTS I WANT MY BILL TO BE AS
GOOD AS IT CAN BE. AND SO I
MUSLIMS ACCEPT AMENDMENTS FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL GOING TO
FIGHT ME EVEN AFTER THAT,
BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE GOOD IDEAS,
AND SO BE IT, UM HERE. I MEAN,
IT'S VERY, VERY LATE IN THE
PROCESS. WE LOOKED AT THE
CHAMBERS AMENDMENTS IN GOOD
FAITH, AND WE JUST DON'T THINK
THAT THEY THAT THEY CUT IT JUST
TO BE FRANK. AND I HAVING
ACCEPTED CHAMBER AMENDMENTS ON
OTHER BILLS. YOU KNOW, I DO TAKE
THOSE AMENDMENTS. SERIOUSLY WE
JUST HAVE A DISAGREEMENT AND
AGAIN, I VOLUNTARILY MEAN AUTHOR
AMENDMENT AND SENATOR PROBES TO
MOVE THIS FROM BANNING THE STATE
AND ORIGINAL. THE VERSION OF THE
BILL SAID NO STAY, PERIOD. NO
DISCRETION, AND I VOLUNTARILY
MOVED IT TO THE MIDDLE TO SAY
THE COURT NOW HAS DISCRETION AND
THE COURT CAN SAY I'M ONLY GOING
TO ALLOW LTD. DISCOVERY THE
COURT HAS BROAD DISCRETION AS WE
REGULARLY GIVE JUDGES ON THE A
LOT OF THESE PROCEDURAL MATTERS
. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY
MIDDLE OF THE ROAD APPROACH AND
SO THAT THAT'S SORT OF WHERE WE
WHERE WE ARE. AND I'M CURIOUS AS
TO OPPOSITION. ARE THERE ANY
FURTHER AMENDMENTS BESIDES THE
ONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED THAT, UM, WOULD MAKE
THIS FEEL BETTER IN YOUR EYES?
UM YOU KNOW, I. WERE YOU? AS THE
SENATOR SAID, WE WORK WITH THE
SENATOR, OFTEN ON ISSUES. UM YOU
KNOW, WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN AND
WILLING TO HAVE MORE
CONVERSATIONS. OBVIOUSLY THIS
BILL IS MOVING VERY QUICKLY.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY
GOING TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE OBVIOUS STRAIGHT ON
THE FLOOR. UM YOU KNOW IF
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A
LITTLE TIME AND LET IT, YOU
KNOW, SIT ON THE FLOOR FOR US TO
HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I
THINK YOU KNOW WE COULD COME UM
AND SEE IF THERE'S YOU KNOW, A
ANOTHER SET OF AMENDMENTS THAT
MAYBE, UM UH, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE THAT TYPE OF CONVERSATION
RIGHT NOW. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS CURRENTLY
DIRECTED AND I'M CURIOUS, UM,
MAYBE HAVING LIKE A CERTAIN SET
OF CRITERIA AS TO WHAT A JUDGE
LOOK INTO, UM UH, BEFORE
DECIDING HOW TO PROCEED IN TRIAL
COURT PROCEEDING WITH THAT BE
HELPFUL. I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW IF
THERE'S DISCRETION, BUT IS THERE
ANY KIND OF CRITERIA THAT WOULD
BE HELPFUL? SO THAT WAY A JUDGE
CAN DECIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE PARTIES. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
UM YEAH. MR. MCFEELY FEEL FAIR
TO JUMP IN HERE TOO. BUT UM, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE TO GO BACK AND HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. UM YOU
KNOW, RIGHT NOW, I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING ON THE TABLE TO WORK
THROUGH TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU
KNOW A DETAILED CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT MAY HELP IN THIS
SITUATION. YOU KNOW, WE REALLY
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT UM, YOU KNOW
, LITIGATING ON TWO FRONTS WHILE
THE APPEAL IS PENDING AND HAVING
ALL OF THOSE RESOURCES ALL OF
THAT COURT TIME ALL OF THAT
PARTY TIME TAKEN WITH SOMETHING
THAT IS GOING TO END UP, YOU
KNOW, AND NOT, UH, BEING A VALID
PROCESS OR BEING MOOTED ANYWAY,
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT MAKES THAT BETTER
RIGHT NOW, UM, TO GIVE YOU THAT
, BUT AGAIN, WE ARE ALWAYS
WILLING AND HAPPY TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS AND APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR SAYING THAT WE HAVEN'T
OPEN DOOR AND WE WERE INFORMED,
YES. TODAY WITH THE BILL IS
GOING TO APPROACH IT IS, UM SO
MOTION IS THE RECORD THE MOTION
IS TO IS DO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS GOING THERE ON
FISCAL BILL GOING TO APPROACH
BUT AH, SO YEAH, WE ALL CONTINUE
TO HAVE AN OPEN DOOR AS ALWAYS,
BUT AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT AMENDMENT WAS TAKEN TO AT
LEAST HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR
DISCRETION. AH I'M JUST CURIOUS
IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO MAKE A
LITTLE BETTER, SO THAT WAY WE
DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION WHERE
WE HAVE A TRIAL COURT PROCEEDING
AND THEN YOU HAVEN'T APPEAL
HAPPENING AND THE TIME OF
RESOURCES SPENT IN HAVING BOTH
PROCEEDINGS HAPPENING AT THE
SAME TIME, SO I DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. BUT AGAIN,
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE TO ADD
THAT, UM, JUDICIAL DISCRETION SO
HOPEFULLY MORE CONVERSATIONS
HAPPEN, BUT I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL TODAY, MISS ROSS.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, ARBITRATION
USES AND ABUSES HAVE BEEN THE
SUBJECT HERE OF OUR JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. I'M SURE BEFORE I
STARTED, BUT FOR THE SIX YEARS
THAT I'VE BEEN HERE IN THIS
COMMITTEE, UM THERE HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT WAYS TO TRY TO ADDRESS
THIS AND I THINK THAT I LIKE
LIKE THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALSO
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT WAS
AMENDED. EVEN IN ITS INITIAL
FORM. THERE WERE THERE WAS LOTS
OF POSITIVE TO THE WAY IT WAS
WAS ALREADY WRITTEN, BUT TO
PROVIDE AND AS THE ANALYSIS
INDICATES THAT THE BILL
PROHIBITS CIVIL LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS FROM AUTOMATICALLY
BEING STAYED OR DELAYED DURING
THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL. UM
WHEREAS BEFORE IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN, UM, THAT THEY JUST
COULDN'T BE, UM, BUT NOW THE
WITH THIS JUDICIAL DISCRETION,
UM I THINK IT MAKES IT STRONGER
, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
WORK IN THIS SPACE BECAUSE THE
TRUTH IS, WE DO NEED TO PROTECT
THE CONSUMERS. WE DO NEED TO
PROTECT THE WORKERS, UM, AND
FINDING THE BALANCE. IT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU FOUND THAT BALANCE. UM
AND I'M SURE THAT THE
CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE, BUT
I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR
EFFORTS, UM, SPECIFICALLY HAVING
TO DO WITH ARBITRATIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND. THE
MOTION IS DO PASS THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. UH
WITH THAT, YOU MAY CLOSE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. THE CLERK. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS DUE
PAST TWO APPROPRIATIONS
MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN. AYE SLE
SALINO CONNELLY CONNELLY I
DICKSON DICKSON NO, HANEY.
HANEY, I CHOLERA. THE CHICO
CHICO, I HAPPEN. I RAISE I RIVAS
RIVAS, I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ KNOW
YOUR BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE
ITEMS WE NEED TO HEAR. TODAY WE
WILL DO ADD ONS. SO WE WILL
START WITH THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL, CONNELLY CONNELLY. I HANEY
. HANEY I RAISE IS I REVERSE
REVERSE I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ. AYE.
NEXT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 2 80 ASK THE CLERK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. CONNELLY.
ALL RIGHT. CONNOLLY I DICKED
SORRY, HANEY. HANEY I RAISE I
RIVAS RIVAS. I SANCHEZ SANCHEZ.
AYE. ID IT NUMBER TWO SB 3 43 S
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I. HANEY
HANEY. I RAISE RAISE I REVERSE.
HI RIVERS. AYE. ITEM NUMBER.
THREE WIENER. WE HAVE EVERYBODY
CALL THEM. UH SORRY. ESCORT
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. CORA CORA
. I AM NUMBER FOUR SB 8 24 ASK
CLERK. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
REVERSE. RIVAS? AYE. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE A. C A FIVE ASKED CLARK TO
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. REVERSE
REPOS? AYE. ITEM NUMBER 67 S
CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CORA CORA, I REVERSE PRIVATE
SIDE. THANK YOU. YEAH AND I WILL
ENTERTAIN VOTE CHANGES. MISS
DIXON, SEVEN. OKAY A C A
REMEMBER SIX A. C A SEVEN. MS.
DICKSON CHANGES HER VOTES ABOUT
FROM A NO VOTE, NOT VOTING TO
KNOW. WITH THAT. SEE NO OTHER
BOAT CHANGES. UM THAT IN
CONCLUDES THIS MEETING OF THE
JUDICIAL COMMUNITY. THANK YOU
ALL VERY MUCH. OH, RIGHT NOW.
YES, RIGHT. YES, YEAH. NO
WORRIES. WELCOME WATER. YEAH IT
WAS COMING.
YEAH. YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE IT.
YEAH. EXCEPT YOU. I'M HAPPY TO
CARRY IT BACK. WE HAVE. YEAH, I
KNOW. HE HAS. I GUESS I YEAH. I
JUST GOT MY UNDERLINES AND
STUFF. SHE'S THE ONE SECURITY
BRIEFING.