GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
UM WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START AS
A SUB COMMITTEE. I'D LIKE TO
START OFF. I KNOW THE A B 2282
HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THIS
MORNING'S HEARING THE RULES FOR
WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT EACH SIDE
WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAIN
WITNESSES. EACH AND WITNESSES
WILL HAVE, UM UP TO TWO MINUTES
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF HER
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES TO STATE
THEIR NAMES ORGANIZATION, IF ANY
, AND THEIR POSITION AS YOU
PERCEIVE WITH WITNESSES IN
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THE
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER. WHAT A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE GOAL OF A HEARING
AS OF HEARING AS MUCH OF THE
PUBLIC WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR
TIME WILL NOT PERMIT CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR
OTHERWISE IMPEDES THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF LEGISLATIVE
PROCEEDINGS. UM, LET'S GO AHEAD
AND BEGIN WITH ITEM ONE. A B
1899, SOME OF CERVANTES.
GOOD MORNING. OK? WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS A
LITTLE LIGHT THIS MORNING. I
WANNA THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME
TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 1899,
WHICH WILL MAKE JUROR
QUESTIONNAIRES IN CALIFORNIA.
MORE INCLUSIVE OF OUR L GB Tð Q
PLUS COMMUNITY. I WANT TO BEGIN
BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS ON PAGE
SEVEN AND EIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, AND I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THE
DILIGENT WORK ON THIS PARTICULAR
BILL. MOST CALIFORNIANS THE
PRIMARY WAY OF INTERACTING WITH
OUR STATE'S COURT SYSTEM IS
THROUGH THE JURY SUMMON PROCESS
WHILE THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS
VARIES CONSIDERABLY ACROSS
JURISDICTIONS PERSPECTIVE,
JURORS ARE COMMONLY ASKED TO
COMPLETE SEVERAL JUROR
QUESTIONNAIRES, INCLUDING UPON
INTAKE AND BEING SELECTED FOR
THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS. THEY
MAY ALSO BE ASKED TO COMPLETE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONNAIRES WITH
INQUIRIES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO
THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT.
UNFORTUNATELY MANY CURRENT JUROR
QUESTIONNAIRES ARE GENDERED OR
HETERONORMATIVE LANGUAGE THAT
CAN POTENTIALLY CAUSE DISCOMFORT
OR ALIENATION FROM MEMBERS OF
OUR L GB Tð Q PLUS COMMUNITY
DURING THE JURY SELECTION
PROCESS, ESPECIALLY GENDER, NON
CONFORMING OR NON BINARY
INDIVIDUALS. THIS INCLUDES
ASKING PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO
CHOOSE FROM GENDER TO SALUTATION
SUCH AS MISTER OR MISS. THE LACK
OF INCLUSIVITY IS INCREDIBLY
UNFORTUNATE AS THESE INDIVIDUALS
ARE MERE MERELY TRYING TO
FULFILL ONE OF THEIR LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS AS CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES. UNFORTUNATELY THE
L GB Tð Q COMMUNITY HAS TOO
OFTEN BEEN OTHERED BY THE REST
OF SOCIETY. THIS BILL WILL HELP
MAKE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRES MORE
INCLUSIVE OF OUR L GB Tð Q
COMMUNITY BY REQUIRING SUPERIOR
COURT TO ASK PROSPECTIVE JURORS
FOR THEIR PRONOUNS IN AN OPEN
ENDED FORMAT AND PROHIBIT THE
USE OF GENDERED SALUTATION. THIS
BILL WILL PROVIDE THREE OPTIONS
FOR PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO
INDICATE TO THE COURT AND COURT
PERSONNEL ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD
LIKE TO BE ADDRESSED. THE
OPTIONS WOULD BE JUROR NUMBER
ONLY, OR LAST NAME ONLY OR
PREFERRED FIRST NAME FOLLOWED BY
LAST NAME. IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE
THAT IF QUESTIONS ABOUT GENDER
ARE ASKED A PROSPECTIVE JURORS A
QUESTION IS ASKED IN AN OPEN
ENDED MANNER RATHER THAN
PROVIDING A LIST OF OPTIONS. A B
1899 WOULD REQUIRE THAT ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT RESPECTIVE
JURORS, FAMILY OR PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP, INCLUDING SPOUSE,
PARENTS OR CHILDREN ARE ASKED
USING GENDER NEUTRAL LANGUAGE.
FURTHERMORE THIS BILL REQUIRED
THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO PUBLISH
A TEMPLATE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
THAT WILL BE INCLUSIVE OR L GB
Tð Q PLUS COMMUNITY BY MEETING
ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, I
KNOW THAT THEY THEY JUST SO
COUNCIL SHARED SOME LOGICAL
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL.
LOGISTICAL CONCERNS ABOUT THIS
BILL, SPECIFICALLY THE
IMPLEMENTATION DATE AND MY TEAM
AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THEM AND HAVING
CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM TO
ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS AS THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD. MEMBERS OF
THE OCEAN THAT THE MEMBERS OF
THE L GB Tð Q COMMUNITY DESERVE
PROPER REPRESENTATION, RESPECT
AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS A
FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF OUR
CALIFORNIA VALUES. THEIR
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AN I VOTE
ON 1899. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE
ANY WITNESSES THIS MORNING?
RIGHT? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE
AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME
FORWARD AND EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
A B 1899? IP ON BEHALF OF
EQUALITY, CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO A B 1899. OK
UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS AS SOME BAR KHAN? GOOD
MORNING. I JUST WANNA THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR THIS HAVING BEEN
INVOLVED IN JURY SELECTION IN MY
PAST. IT IS SO CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT THAT OUR JURORS
REPRESENT CALIFORNIA AND EVERY
JURY HAS TO AND IF WE ALIENATE
PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS THEN
THAT'S LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
AND SO BOTH FOR THE REASONS YOU
MENTIONED OF INCLUSION, BUT ALSO
SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR
TRIAL. THIS IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT WORK YOU'RE DOING SO I
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AND I
LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING IT
WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE SHOWS UP.
THANK YOU. YES WELL, WELL, WE'LL
TAKE IT UP WITH THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. BUT I AGREE WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE, YOU KNOW? ALSO HAVING
BEEN INVOLVED A LOT OF DIFFERENT
JURY SELECTIONS. I THINK THAT
THERE'LL BE AN ADJUSTMENT PERIOD
. I THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE.
I THINK WHEN, UM WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT TO YOUR POINT THAT
EVERYONE'S INCLUDED, UH AND
EVERYONE'S REPRESENTED AND
ESPECIALLY SUCH AN IMPORTANT
PROCESS. UH, THE LAST THING WE
NEED TO DO IS ALIENATE EVEN MORE
PEOPLE FROM WANTING TO DO JURY
SELECTION. I THINK THIS WILL BE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO REALLY
MOVE THE COURTS, UM, IN IN IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, SO I
APPRECIATE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. LIKE TO
MAKE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS.
RESPECTFULLY AS FOR I VOTE THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.
OK?
OH,
RIGHT. WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM
THREE. A B 2190 THREE. SOME OF
HER HOLDING WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UM,
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT TODAY ON ASSEMBLY BILL
2190 THREE, DEALING WITH HAZING
ACCOUNTABILITY. I WOULD LIKE TO
START BY SAYING THAT AS A
LEGISLATOR AND A FORMER ATHLETE.
IN A STATE THAT TAKES HAZING
SERIOUSLY. I'M VERY PROUD TO BE
HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THIS BILL.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, CALIFORNIA
ALREADY CODIFIED LAWS IN 2006.
THAT MAKE ENGAGING AND HAZING
UNLAWFUL. DESPITE THIS, WE
CONTINUE TO SEE HAZING INCIDENTS
OCCUR AROUND EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS OFTEN TIMES PROVING
TO BE FATAL. IT IS CLEAR THAT
OUR LAWS ARE OVERLOOKING A KEY
PLAYER WHEN OUTLINING
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES. THE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
THEMSELVES. HOW IS IT THAT THESE
INSTITUTIONS CAN PROVIDE AND
PROFIT FROM STUDENTS
PARTICIPATING IN CERTAIN
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, BUT
NOT SHARE THE RESPONSIBILITY
WHEN TRAGEDY OCCURS? A B 2193
ADDRESSES THIS BY INCENTIVIZING
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO BE
MORE PROACTIVE IN ADDRESSING
HAZING INCIDENTS BEFORE THEY
HAPPEN. THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR A
CIVIL ACTION TO BE BROUGHT
AGAINST AN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION THAT KNEW OR SHOULD
HAVE KNOWN OF THE DANGEROUS
HAZING PRACTICES OF AN AFFILIATE
ORGANIZATION. ADDITIONALLY IT
ALLOWS COURTS TO TAKE
CONSIDERATION IF THE INSTITUTION
HAD RESPONSIBLE ANTI HAZING
PREVENTION PROCEDURES IN PLACE
PRIOR TO HAZING INCIDENT. IT'S
TIME WE HOLD ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE
TRAGEDIES IN THE HOPE THAT WE
CAN SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, IT IS
TIME THAT WE HOLD ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE
TRAGEDIES IN THE HOPE THAT WE
CAN COME TOGETHER TO PREVENT
THEM IN THE FUTURE HERE WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF A B
2190 THREE, OUR ATTORNEY AT LAW,
CHRIS RAMI, ALONG WITH FAMILY
MEMBERS OF A VICTIM OF HAZING,
MYESHA KIMBALL AND TYLER HILLARD
. I RESPECTFULLY ASK. THANK YOU.
SO THANK YOU, SENATOR. HOLD
HOLD. IF YOU CAN PAUSE FOR ONE
MOMENT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE
QUORUM SO WE CAN ACTUALLY START
VOTING ON SOME OF THESE BILLS,
INCLUDING YOUR IMPORTANT BILL
èC HERE. DIXON, BAUER KHAN,
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. PENNEY
MOONSHINE. MCKENNA. HERE PACHECO
, REYES SANCHEZ WALDRON. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND UM, WE
TYPICALLY ALLOW TWO WITNESSES UP
TO TWO MINUTES EACH, BUT, I. I
KNOW YOU GAVE US ADVANCE. UH,
NOTICE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH PARENT
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, SO ALL
THREE OF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO
GIVE GIVEN PERMISSION TO SPEAK
UP TO TWO MINUTES AND GO AHEAD
AND BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
GOOD MORNING. FIRST OF ALL, I'D
LIKE TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR
ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. UM SORRY.
AND THIS IS JUST VERY HARD. OUR
SON, TYLER HILLIARD. THEY WILL
HAVE TURNED 26 YEARS OLD. ON
MARCH 26TH. HE LOVES SPENDING
TIME WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS. HE
LOVED DANCING. HE STARTED
PLAYING LOVE BASEBALL, AND HE
STARTED PLAYING BASEBALL AT THE
AGE OF SEVEN. WE SEND OUR SON TO
SORRY. I'M I'M SO SORRY. IT'S
OK. UM, OUR SON HAD A PASSION
FOR LEARNING. WE SENT OUR SON TO
U èC RIVERSIDE TO GET AN
EDUCATION. AND ONLY TWO YEARS
INTO HIS COLLEGE EDUCATION. WHO
WOULD HAVE KNOWN WE'D HAD TO LAY
OUR SON TO REST. WHEN TYLER
DISCOVERED THAT ONE OF HIS ROLE
MODELS DR MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS
AN ALPHA ENTHUSIASTICALLY SOUGHT
OUT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE
ALPHAS. THE THOUGHT OF LOSING A
CHILD IS JUST HEART WRENCHING.
THE TREATMENT THAT HE RECEIVED
FROM AN ORGANIZATION THAT HE
HELD SO DEAR TO HIS HEART. IT'S
JUST SOMETIMES UNBEARABLE. WE
ARE FORCED TO RELIVE THE
NIGHTMARE. EVERY TIME WE SEE A
YOUNG MAN DANCING PLAYING
BASEBALL HOLIDAYS LIKE CHRISTMAS
THANKSGIVING FATHER'S DAY
MOTHER'S DAY, HIS BIRTHDAY EVEN
WHEN LOOKING AT OUR YOUNGEST
SON. IT IS A GUT WRENCHING PAIN
OF A NIGHTMARE THAT I CAN'T WAKE
UP FROM. THE PAIN IS JUST THAT
MUCH MORE UNBEARABLE. BECAUSE
THIS COULD HAVE ALL BEEN
PREVENTED. AND THIS BILL WOULD
HELP ACCOMPLISH THAT. THE
REGENTS SAY THEY DON'T HAVE A
DUTY TOWARDS OUR SON AND THE
FRATERNITY. THEY WON'T TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY, EITHER. WHO'S
LOOKING OUT FOR OUR CHILDREN.
IMAGINE SITTING AT THE SIDE OF
YOUR CHILD'S HOSPITAL BED WHILE
HE OR SHE IS ATTACHED TO A
VENTILATOR UNRESPONSIVE. BILLING
HELPLESS, BEGGING, PLEADING AND
NEGOTIATING WITH GOD TO SAVE
YOUR CHILD. TO TAKE YOU INSTEAD.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WITHOUT A
SECOND THOUGHT YOU WOULD TRADE
PLACES. WE HAD TO MAKE THE
DECISION TO REMOVE OUR CHILD
FROM LIFE SUPPORT BECAUSE THERE
WAS NOTHING ELSE THAT COULD BE
DONE. WE RECOGNIZE THAT AND WE
BEG YOU TODAY IN THE NAME OF
TYLER. AND OTHERS BEFORE HIM TO
PLEASE PASS THIS BILL SO THAT NÓ
OTHER FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO LOSE
A CHILD. AS A RESULT OF HAZING.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE POLICY
. ANYONE TRY ALONE IN MY
PRESENCE. YOU'RE FINE. DON'T
APOLOGIZE. I'M GOOD MORNING AND
THANK Y'ALL, UM, FOR ALLOWING ME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF OF A B 2193. MY NAME IS
CRYSTA. REMI AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF CONSUMER ATTORNEYS AT
CALIFORNIA. I'M A TRIAL LAWYER
AND I REPRESENT CHILDREN WHO ARE
THE VICTIMS OF HAZING ABUSE,
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND BE PEOPLE
CALL ME WHEN SCHOOLS FAIL THEIR
CHILDREN AND MY HEART BREAKS
WHEN I HEAR STORIES LIKE MYISHA,
KI¾M KIMBALL AND WILLIAM
HILLIARD THEIR CASE, THE REGENTS
HAS STATED THAT THEY OWE NÓ DUTY
TO PROTECT THEIR SON WHEN HE WAS
ENGAGED IN OFF CAMPUS, UM,
ACTIVITIES INVOLVING HIS
FRATERNITY. WHILE FRATERNITIES
EXIST MAINLY OFF CAMPUS, THEY
FIND THEIR MEMBERS AND RECRUIT
ON CAMPUS. THEY HAVE THE SCHOOL
SUPPORT IN DOING SO. IT'S NOT
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY JUST TO
TEACH OUR KIDS BUT TO KEEP THEM
SAFE. WE BELIEVE THAT WE MADE
THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO ADDRESS
THE GOVERNOR'S CONCERNS. AND
WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING SURE
THAT IT'S CLEAR WHEN LIABILITY
WILL ATTACH. THE BILL USES MORE
STANDARD LANGUAGE OF KNOWN OR
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN STANDARD,
WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL
GOVERNMENT LIABILITY CASES. AND
THIS IS, UM CODIFIED, UM IN
NUMEROUS LAWS AND IS IN THE JURY
INSTRUCTIONS. THE IDEA IF THE
LAW WOULD PASS SOME SORT OF
FLOODGATES OF LITIGATION WOULD
OCCUR IS NOT ACCURATE. NONE OF
THESE ITEMS IT WOULD IMPOSE ANY
MORE, UM, OF A BURDEN ON
UNIVERSITIES, AS THEY ALREADY
HAVE FOR THE UNIFORM COMPLAINT,
PROCEDURE OR TITLE. NINE, FOR
INSTANCE, AN INVESTIGATING
THINGS THAT OCCUR ON THEIR
CAMPUSES. UM IF THESE STEPS THAT
ARE OUTLINED IN THE LEGISLATION
ARE NOT FOLLOWED, UM IN A
REASONABLE MANNER. THEN I TRY A
FACT CANNOT HOLD THEM
RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO
EVERYTHING THAT THE LAW PROVIDES
, SO I WOULD SAY NÓ SAFE HARBOR
IS NEEDED BECAUSE ALL THEY NEED
TO DO IS FOLLOW. WHAT IT'S GOT
WITH THE GUIDELINES ARE AND IN
THAT CASE, THERE'S NÓ LIABILITY
THAT WOULD ATTACH. WE RECOGNIZE
THAT LAWSUITS CAN ONLY MAKE UP
FOR THE HARM. THEY DON'T PUT YOU
BACK INTO THE POSITION. YOU WERE
BEFORE THE HARM, BUT WE ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT LAWSUITS ALSO
HELP HOLD ACCOUNTABLE PEOPLE
THAT CAUSE HARM, AND THEY ALSO
CREATE CHANGES. UM TO HELP MAKE
SURE THAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE SAFER
FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND THERE
DOESN'T NEED TO BE ANY MORE.
TYLER HILLIARD'S, UM SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. UM, CHAIRMAN
CARLA FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.
UH, WE'LL WE'LL GO AHEAD THEN TO
THE, UH, PUBLIC. UH, IS THERE
ANYONE OH, I WASN'T SURE IF THE
GENTLEMAN WANTED TO ALSO, UH,
BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO PLEASE
WELL, WE'RE BOTH HONORED AND
BOTH SADDENED. BE SEATED HERE
BEFORE YOU TODAY AND, UH, WE'RE
HONORED THAT WE'RE CELEBRATING
OUR SON, TYLER. UH, AND
CELEBRATING HIS HIS MEMORY. AND
WE'RE ALSO SADDENED BECAUSE WE
HAVE TO BRING LIGHT TO THE
SENSELESS. IF IT HèA CHILDREN IN
SCHOOL, AND, UH, OUR HEART
HEARTFELT PRAYERS ARE GOING OUT
TO ANY PARENTS THAT MAY
EXPERIENCE CHILD GOING THROUGH.
THE HAZING PROCESSES AND DYING,
AND, UH ANYONE THAT'S PROBABLY
ENDURED THE, UH, TRAGIC LOSS OF
A FAMILY MEMBER DUE TO THAT. UM
BASICALLY, WE JUST HEAR THE SIGN
TO SHED LIGHT ON, UH, HAZING
AND, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE
HOPING THAT WE'LL HAVE STRICT
STRICTER. UH, SANCTIONS AND, UH,
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO
STOP. THE HAVEN PROCESSES. AND
SAVE LIVES. COLLECTIVELY THE
STUDENTS SHOULD BE, UM,
EMBARKING ON A NEW LIFE AND
ENJOYING, YOU KNOW CHALLENGES
AHEAD OF THEM. BUT HERE THEY ARE
UNTIMELY ON DEMISE, SO WE JUST
HOPE THAT THIS BILL PASS THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN THE AUDIENCE IN SUPPORT
OF A B 2193 NAME ORGANIZATION
AND YOUR POSITION, PLEASE? YES.
JAMES Dð. SIMONE I'M WITH A
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS IN CALIFORNIA
AND WE'RE HERE IN SUPPORT. TONY
HARIA, INHERIT SPORT. THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO A B 2193. I MEAN, THE ABOUT
OK? MOTION SECOND. SEE THAT? IF
ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN, IF IT'S OK
IF WE HAVE A COUPLE OF SYDNEY
AUDIENCE AND YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE
THEM COME BACK UP IF ANYONE HAS
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM.
AND SO WE'LL, UM, UP UP TO THREE
MINUTES EACH SINCE THE, UH THE
FOUR TESTIMONY WAS SIX MINUTES.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD
MORNING. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF THIS MORNING.
UH, I'M MAGGIE WHITE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY.
WHILE I'M HERE TODAY AN OPPOSES
U SHARES THE AUTHOR'S GOAL TO
WIPE OUT THESE PRACTICES AND
PROTECT OUR STUDENTS. UH OUR
UNIVERSITIES PROVIDE TRAINING
AND ORIENTATION FOR STUDENT
ORGANIZATIONS AND STUDENT
LEADERS OUTLINING THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT. THE
èC S¼ U IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE
STRATEGIES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL, AS WE BELIEVE THEY
STRENGTHEN OUR EXISTING
POLICIES. AS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, WE HAVE OFFERED SOME
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS, WHICH WE
BELIEVE WOULD PROVIDE CERTAINTY
IN THE EYES OF THE COURT BY
STATING THAT A UNIVERSITY SHALL
BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACTED
REASONABLY IF IT ADHERES TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE
BILL. WE INTEND TO CONTINUE
WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO FIND LANGUAGE
THAT WOULD BE AGREEABLE AND COME
TO THE MIDDLE. AT WHICH TIME WE
WILL BE VERY GLAD TO REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
ALEX GRAVES. THE ASSOCIATION OF
INDEPENDENT CALIFORNIA COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES REPRESENTING 90
OF OUR STATE'S PRIVATE NONPROFIT
COLLEGES. UH, I WOULD STRONGLY
ALIGN OUR OUR COMMENTS AND
PERSPECTIVE WITH MY COLLEAGUE
FROM THE èC S¼ U AND ALSO, UH,
AFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT TO WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, UM, TO
ENSURE THAT THE POLICIES AND
PRACTICES AND TRAININGS ON OUR
CAMPUSES ARE AS STRONG AS THEY
CAN BE IN ENSURING WE ARE, UM,
ELIMINATING AND PREVENTING AS
MANY OF THESE INSTANCES AS WE
CAN, UM AS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, THOUGH, WE ARE SIMILAR
TO LAST YEAR'S BILL CONTINUED TO
BE CONCERNED THAT THE SCOPE OF
LIABILITY UNDER THE BILL IS, UH,
BROAD. GIVEN THAT THIS IS NOT
JUST ABOUT, UH, GREEK
ORGANIZATIONS. THERE'S ALSO
HAZING THAT OCCURS WITH ATHLETIC
TEAMS AND OTHER STUDENT
ORGANIZATIONS. UM UH, WHAT HAVE
YOU AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IN
TALKING WITH MY GENERAL COUNSELS
AT SOME OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND
THAT THAT CONCERN REMAINS, UH,
CERTAINLY THERE'S A CONCERN
ABOUT, UH, IF IMPLEMENTED, WHAT
THAT WOULD MEAN FOR THE FORMAL
RECOGNITION, UH, THAT SOME OF
OUR UNIVERSITIES GRANT TO GREEK
ORGANIZATIONS, GIVEN THE SCOPE
OF LIABILITY AND THE FACT THAT
IT'S AT LEAST IN OUR VIEW, I'M
CLEAR IF THESE CLAIMS WOULD BE
COVERED BY OUR GENERAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE POLICIES, AND SO, UH,
WE ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE AND
APPRECIATIVE OF THE èC S¼ U FOR
THE LANGUAGE THEY HAVE PUT
FORWARD AND LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THAT DISCUSSION ON ON
HOW TO STRIKE THE APPROPRIATE
BALANCE. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO A B 2190 THREE. N A GROUP IN
ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION DUE TO THE
INCLUSION OF CHEM COLLEGES IN
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WELL, BRING IT BACK THE DAY
SOMETHING, BARAK. THANK YOU. UM
I WANT TO START BY THINKING AND
TYLER'S PARENTS FOR BEING HERE.
IT IS EVERY PARENT'S NIGHTMARE.
SO THE BRAVERY IT TAKES TO COME
AND TELL YOUR STORY. WE'RE SO
GRATEFUL. I WANT TO GO BACK TO
SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID EARLIER,
WHICH I AGREE WITH ON THE PART
OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, WHICH
IS THE REASONABLE STANDARD IN
THE BILL IS FAIRLY STANDARD
PRACTICE IN COURTS AND GENERALLY
SPEAKING, WE LEAVE IT TO COURTS
TO DO FACT SPECIFIC ANALYSIS TO
DECIDE WHETHER AN ENTITY A
PERSON ACTED REASONABLY AND SO
THEIR QUEST ON YOUR PART FOR US
AS A LEGISLATURE TO DEFINE THE
REASONABLENESS STANDARD WITH
SOME PARTICULARITY FEELS NOVEL
AND QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE WE
CANNOT, AS SORT OF STATED IN
YOUR TESTIMONY ANTICIPATE EVERY
FACTUAL SCENARIO THAT WOULD RISE
UNDER THIS BILL, AND SO I JUST
AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY YOU THINK
IT APPROPRIATE TO DO SOMETHING
DIFFERENT HERE THAN WE DO IN
MOST STANDARD LIABILITY
PRACTICE. SURE, THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION. I GUESS WHAT I
WOULD SAY IS A ADMITTEDLY NON
ATTORNEY IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO FIND, UH,
WHAT WE THINK IS AN APPROPRIATE
BALANCE BETWEEN THE EXPECTATIONS
IN TERMS OF LIKE I SAID, WHAT
ARE THE UH, PRACTICES,
UNIVERSITIES CAN REASONABLY BE
EXPECTED TO CARRY OUT TO, UH
EDUCATE, HAVE TRAINING HAVE
REPORTING AND CERTAINLY TO
RESPOND TO REPORTING ONCE IT IS,
UH UH, PUT FORWARD UM WHILE ALSO
TRYING TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME
STRONGER LANGUAGE. THAT'S THAT'S
MORE CLEARLY, I GUESS. DEFINING
WHAT? THAT UM, DELINEATION IS,
UH, IF THINGS DO MOVE FORWARD, I
KNOW IN IN LAST YEAR'S I BELIEVE
, UH, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING AND I BELIEVE IT'S NOT
IN THE ANALYSIS TO SOMETHING
ELSE THAT WAS DISCUSSED. WAS
THIS IDEA OF A, UM I THINK IT'S
A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION. UH,
WHICH WE'D ALSO, I THINK BE
INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING
FURTHER, BUT, UM YEAH. WELL, I
WILL JUST SAY I'M GONNA BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL BECAUSE WHEN
WE AS A STATE TAKE THESE
STUDENTS INTO OUR CARE AND WE
SANCTION ORGANIZATIONS OR DORMS
OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. I
ACTUALLY BELIEVE WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO KEEP PEOPLE'S
CHILDREN SAFE. AND SO AGAIN, I
THINK YOU CAN'T PREDICT
EVERYTHING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN,
SO I THINK A REASONABLE STANDARD
IS MAKES SENSE TO ME AS LONG AS
YOU'RE ACTING REASONABLY. AND
PROTECTING THE STUDENTS. AND I
THINK YOU WON'T BE HELD LIABLE.
UM, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE
EXPECT OUR UNIVERSITIES TO ACT
REASONABLY IN PREVENTING THESE
ACTS THAT ARE KILLING CALIFORNIA
STUDENTS. THANK YOU, SENATOR
MEREZ. THANK YOU, I. I ALSO WANT
TO THANK TYLER'S PARENTS FOR
SHARING THEIR STORY. I REMEMBER
WHEN THE BILL CAME UP LAST TIME,
I ALSO SUPPORTED IT. AND I THINK
THE GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE IS CLEAR
THAT HE WANTS TO DO SOMETHING
AGAINST HAZING AND WANTS TO FIND
SOME OTHER. FINE DETAILS, BUT
YOU'VE PROVIDED THEM. AND I
APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT LOTS OF
EXTRA EFFORT WAS DONE TO GIVE
THE STANDARD AS MY COLLEAGUE HAS
SAID OF NEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN
AND PROVIDES THE THREE STEPS
THAT THE UNIVERSITY CAN TAKE. I.
I WOULD ALSO HAVE THE SAME
QUESTION. BUT YOU'VE ALREADY
ANSWERED IT. MY QUESTION IS, WHY
ARE COMMUNITY COLLEGES INCLUDED?
AND I. I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION. THANK YOU. I, UH
COMMUNITY COLLEGES. WELL DON'T
HAVE TYPICAL GREEK LIFE ON
CAMPUSES. THEY STILL DO HAVE
ATHLETICS AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE STUDENT
ORGANIZED THAT DO HAZING
PRACTICES, SO YOU KNOW I THINK
FRATERNITIES ARE JUST THE
BIGGEST THING THAT WE THINK OF,
OR ATHLETICS. YOU KNOW, WE THINK
OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL AND HAZING
PRACTICES THAT OCCUR. WE THINK
CASES LIKE MODERN DAY AND OTHER
CASES THAT ARE REALLY WELL KNOWN
IN THE MEDIA. BUT UM, THAT'S NOT
TO SAY THESE PRACTICES DON'T
EXIST ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
CAMPUSES AND WHILE I APPRECIATE
THE OPPOSITION OF THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT
THEY'RE PROBABLY DOING THINGS
RIGHT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT.
ACTUALLY YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A
BIG SPOTLIGHT ON THEM, SHOWING
THAT THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF
THINGS WRONG. SO UM, I THINK
THAT YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO
INCLUDE A MALL BECAUSE IF IT'S
COLLEGE IS NEGLIGENT AND DOES
SOMETHING WRONG IN THE CARE AND
CUSTODY OF OUR CHILDREN AND THAT
HARM COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.
THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE,
JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE IS
ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY CAUSE THAT
HARM, SO FORTUNATELY, WE DON'T
SEE AS MANY PROBLEMS THERE. BUT
IF THERE ARE, THEY SHOULD NOT
GET A PASS. VERY GOOD. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR SENATOR
PACHECO? THANK YOU, UM, AND TO
TYLER'S PARENTS. UM THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. I KNOW IT'S
REALLY TOUGH SHARING YOUR STORY,
BUT I WE ALL REALLY APPRECIATE
YOU BOTH BEING HERE AND I KNOW
ALL OF US ARE SADDENED BY THE
DEATH OF YOUR YOUR SON. SO THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. UM
AND, UM I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. UM I KNOW I DIDN'T
SUPPORT THIS BILL. UH, LAST YEAR
. UH, BECAUSE OF CONCERNS THAT I
HAD, UM, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS.
UM, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN LAST YEAR'S BILL. AND
THIS BILL. I KNOW IT HAS TO DO
WITH LIABILITY. UH, WHAT? WHAT
WHAT DO YOU KNOW? OFFHAND WHAT
SPECIFIC LANGUAGES. THE
DIFFERENCE? SURE SO, UM,
SPECIFIC LANGUAGES DROPPED FROM
LAST YEAR'S LEGISLATION, AND
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO, UM
, FAILING TO REASONABLY STOP
HAZING PRACTICES, AND SO THAT
LANGUAGE IS NÓ LONGER INCLUDED.
UM WE ALSO ADDED, UM, A TEST OF
REASONABLENESS. UM, BEFORE. UM
UH, LIKE AND INVESTIGATIONS.
WHAT THE INTENT IS, IS THAT IF
YOU FOLLOW WHAT IS OUTLINED IN
SUBSECTION, UM èC OF THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
EDUCATION CODE, WHICH CLEARLY
OUTLINE ALL OF THE THINGS THAT
SHOULD BE DONE. IF THOSE ARE
DONE. THIS IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GRANTED ON BEHALF OF THE
UNIVERSITY IF THEY DON'T OR IF
IT'S UNREASONABLE IF THEY'RE
JUST GIVING LIP SERVICE TO THESE
POLICIES, SO THAT'S WHY WE ADDED
THOSE THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE IT
IS, YOU KNOW THAT GIVES THAT
STANDARD THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS
HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO. IF YOU LOOK
AT WHAT IS BEING ASKED OF
UNIVERSITIES WITH RESPECT TO
THIS LEGISLATION, IT REALLY IS
NÓ DIFFERENT AND ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY I MENTIONED THE
UNIFORM COMPLAINT PROCEDURE ACT
AND ALSO THE TITLE NINE THERE,
YOU KNOW THAT EACH OF THESE LAWS
HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU
FULFILL ALL OF THESE THINGS, AND
IF YOU DON'T, THEN A SCHOOL CAN
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. IT'S
IMPOSING A MANDATORY DUTY ON THE
SCHOOL TO DO THESE THINGS, AND I
THINK THAT SOMETIMES MANDATORY
DUTIES ARE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT CHANGE OCCURS. AND SO
IT'S IT. IT'S SOME OF THOSE
SUBTLE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE,
UM TO THE LEGISLATION TO
HOPEFULLY PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT
MORE CLARITY AND MAKING IT MORE
SIMPLE, JUST NEW OR SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN NOW IT'S NOT A BUNCH OF
OTHER A NECESSARY LANGUAGE. AND
I BELIEVE THE OPPOSITION DID
HAVE SOME, UM AND I COULD BE
WRONG, BUT I THINK IT WAS
MENTIONED RIGHT NOW THAT THERE
WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED,
UH, WAS I INCORRECT IN HEARING
THAT THAT'S CORRECT, MA'AM, AND
IT'S RELATED TO THE SAFE HARBOR
PROVISION. UH, ALEX, I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO INTO MORE
DETAIL. UM SORRY. IT'S ALWAYS
AWKWARD. WHEN BEHIND YOU. UM
YEAH, SO AGAIN, I KNOW THAT, UH,
THE èC S¼ U HAD WORKED WITH
THEIR COUNSEL IS MY
UNDERSTANDING ON SOME, UH,
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IT DID HAVE.
I THINK THE PROVISION THAT THAT
MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, BUT I
THINK THERE WERE ALSO SEVERAL
OTHER, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
THAT I THINK WE WOULD. WE WOULD
CHARACTERIZE AS KIND OF
TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION, WHICH
WE DID. WE DID WORK ON SEVERAL
ITERATIONS OF AMENDMENTS ON LAST
YEAR'S BILL THAT WERE ALSO SOME
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS. I THINK
SOME OF THOSE IN IN THE DRAFTING
SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE WE HAD
WORKED ON LAST YEAR. I THINK WE
KIND OF BACKTRACKED ON A FEW OF
THOSE TECHNICAL ISSUES. SO WE'D
LIKE TO CLEAN THAT UP AGAIN TO
TRY AND TIGHTEN UP THE LANGUAGE
AND MAKE IT MORE CLEAR. OK AND
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY LAST
YEAR, UM IT WAS IT WAS STRONGER
OPPOSITION. IT SEEMS LIKE THIS
YEAR, UM THERE'S MORE DIALOGUE
HAPPENING. UH, WITH RESPECT TO,
UM TO AMENDMENTS BEING PROPOSED.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THE
AUTHOR IS STILL WILLING TO
ACCEPT MORE AMENDMENTS. TO THIS
BILL. WELL WE'RE PREPARED TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
I THINK WE'RE ALSO RECOGNIZING
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS. A, UH
SUGGESTION AND EXPECTATION WHICH
WE ARE CLEARLY PREPARED TO DO IS
TO HAVE CONTINUED CONVERSATION.
I THINK THE SAFE HARBOR
PROVISION IS PROBABLY A BRIDGE
TOO FAR. BUT I THINK THAT THERE
MAY BE, UH BASED ON THE CURRENT,
UH, LANGUAGE IN THE BILL. UM UH,
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT A MIDDLE GROUND COULD
LOOK LIKE. UM SO WE'RE WE'RE
WE'RE REMAINING. OPEN TO HAVING
THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND
EVALUATING THE LANGUAGE AND
SEEING WHAT IT DOES TO THE BASIC
INTENT OF THE BILL IS IT'S UM
SAFE HARBOR LIGHT, THEN YOU
KNOW, I'M NOT SURE. BUT UM, BUT
I THINK THAT WE'RE WE UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE, BUT AT
THE SAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT IF THE UNIVERSITIES OR
IF THE UH, COMMUNITY COLLEGES OR
ANY, UM, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
THAT HAS THE CARE OF YOUNG
PEOPLE UNDER ITS JURISDICTION,
AND THERE ARE AFFILIATES THAT
ARE INVOLVED IN PARTICULAR
ACTIVITIES THAT CREATE HAZING
AND PUT A CHILD'S RISK AT A LIFE
AT RISK. WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
THE INSTITUTION HAS MORE THAN
JUST WELL, WE PUT UP A SIGN. WE
WANNA KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DONE
MORE. AND IF THEY'VE DONE MORE
THEN THAT CAN BE UNDER
CONSIDERATION FROM THE COURT AND
THE JUDGE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND
SAY OK, YOU'VE DONE ABOUT AS
MUCH AS YOU CAN TO BE, UM TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE BASED ON YOUR
UNDERSTANDING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF
WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO UM, LONG
ANSWER. UH, SHORT ANSWER IS THAT
WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU AND
I'LL I'LL CONTINUE TO KEEP MY
STANCE FROM LAST YEAR. I. I
WON'T BE VOTING FOR THE BILL
TODAY. UM BUT I THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU'RE STILL BRINGING THIS UP
THIS YEAR. UM BECAUSE THIS
DIALOGUE IS IMPORTANT. WE NEED
TO KEEP OUR OUR KIDS SAFE. AND
SO, UM, AS A BILL MOVES ALONG,
UM I'M WILLING TO CHANGE MY VOTE
. AND I'M I WOULD BE EXCITED TO
DO SO, UH, BUT SINCE I DIDN'T
VOTE FOR THIS BILL LAST YEAR.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND KEEP
MY STANCE LIKE LAST YEAR, BUT I
APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH, AND IT
LOOKS LIKE COMMUNITY COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES ARE WORKING,
UH, WITH YOU, AND SO I
APPRECIATE THIS AND THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND I THINK JUST I'LL
MAKE THIS PART OF MY CLOTHES. IF
THERE'S NÓ OTHER QUESTIONS. IF
THERE ARE I'LL I'LL MAKE THIS MY
CLOTHES. UM I THINK THAT WE ARE
BEING VERY COGNIZANT OF THE FACT
THAT THERE THAT THE GOVERNOR,
UH, APPRECIATED THE DIRECTION
THE BILL WAS GOING IN. UM, BUT
THEY STILL NEEDED TO BE SOME
ADDITIONAL CHANGES, AS HAS
ALREADY BEEN OUTLINED IN THE
PRESENTATION AND ALSO BY
RECOGNITION THAT MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, UH THAT WE HAVE MADE
SOME MOVEMENT IN THAT DIRECTION.
TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE
GOVERNOR'S CONCERNS. BUT WE ALSO
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A,
UM, A ROBUST AND INTENTIONAL
EFFORT ON BEHALF OF THE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO, UM
TO ADDRESS IT IN A MORE URGENT
WAY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH.
THANK YOU. I KENNER UM, I LIKE
THAT. SO THANK TYLER'S PARENTS,
UM, FOR COMING AND TESTIFYING
TODAY I HAVE A SON THAT WENT TO
PLAY SPORTS IN COLLEGE. HE WENT
TO MENLO PARK, AND THAT'S THE
SCARIEST THING JUST TO SEND THEM
HAVE THE GUTS TO JUST SEND THEM
OFF TO COLLEGE. UM BECAUSE
YOU'RE VERY TERRIFIED OF THINGS
THAT CAN HAPPEN. AND SO I'M
SORRY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO
YOUR SON. AND TO THE AUTHOR. I
WANNA THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL. I
WOULD LIKE TO BE A CO-AUTHOR,
PLEASE, UM THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS UP, AND THIS
IS IMPORTANT GUYS. THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT VOTE BECAUSE WE DO
HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP
OUR KIDS SAFE WHEN WE SEND THEM
OFF TO COLLEGE. LIKE I SAID,
IT'S THE HARDEST THING FOR A
PARENT TO DO. AND IT'S THE
INSTITUTIONS. UM, RESPONSIBILITY
TO HELP KEEP OUR, UM OUR KIDS
SAFE, SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
UM ANYONE ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER
MEMBERS? WELL I ALSO WANNA WANNA
THANK THE AUTHOR, IF YOU KNOW
THAT IF THERE'S DIALOGUE
OCCURRING, THAT SOME HOLDING IS
ALWAYS WON THAT ALWAYS WILLING
TO COME TO THE TABLE AND
CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE. UM I
WOULD SAY THAT YOU KNOW, IN WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
OPPOSITION, THAT SAFE HARBOR IS
GOES A LITTLE FURTHER THAN A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. IT'S A BIG
DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF, UH UM,
LEGAL LIABILITY AND THE ABILITY
FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SEEK RECOURSE
IN IN THE IN THE COURT. UM
ULTIMATELY, UM, LIKE MANY OTHER
ISSUES THAT WE FACE, YOU KNOW,
THIS COMES DOWN TO WHO'S IN THE
BEST POSITION TO TAKE ON THE
BURDEN WHEN THERE IS A TRAGEDY
IS THAT THE STUDENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES, THERE'S THE UNIVERSITY
AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT OF WHY
THESE ISSUES COME FORWARD. AND
FRANKLY, I THINK YOU KNOW WHEN
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE AS A
LEGISLATURE IS WHEN TRAGEDIES
LIKE THIS HAPPEN IN OUR
COMMUNITY TO TAKE ACTION AND TO
TRY TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING
IN THE FUTURE. THAT ONLY HAPPENS
WHEN YOU HAVE THE COURAGE OF A
FAMILY LIKE TYLER'S PARENTS THAT
ARE WILLING TO RELIVE THAT
TRAUMA. IN ORDER TO HOPE. THAT
OTHER FAMILIES DON'T GO THROUGH
THAT. IT'S AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT
OF COURAGE TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, AND IT TAKES THE COURAGE
OF A LEGISLATOR THAT'S WILLING
TO BE PERSISTENT, NOT GIVE UP
AND KEEP FIGHTING. AND I THINK
THAT THAT DEFINES YOU, SIR. AND
SO, UH, WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON
THE TABLE. UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE I THINK YOU DID A BETTER
JOB THAT I CAN DO. UM BUT I DO
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE TYLER'S
PARENTS. UM THERE ARE OTHER
PARENTS WHO ARE PROBABLY
WATCHING TODAY AND CHEERING THEM
ON AND HOPING THAT THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY CAN MOVE THIS
ISSUE FORWARD IN A IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY. THAT REALLY GOES
TO THE HEART OF WHY THEY'RE
SUFFERING NOW. AND SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. MADAM SECRETARY
CALLED THE ROLE ON THE MOTIONS
DO PASS TO HIGHER EDUCATION. èC
R èC I DIXON BOWER KHAN BARER
KHAN I BRIAN, BRIAN, I CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY I HAY HAY I MOS SHINE.
MCKENNA I PACHECO REYES. REYES
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I WALDRON.
WALTER AND I THANK YOU SO MUCH,
UH, THAT BILL IS OUT, AND WE'LL
KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS AND, UM LET'S MOVE ON TO
ITEM ONE. IF THERE'S IS THERE A
MOTION ON A B 1899. WE HAVE A
MOTION ON CERVANTES. IS THERE A
SECOND? THE MOTION IN A SECOND?
CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ON A 1899
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
PUBLIC SAFETY KRA CALON DIXON NÓ
BARER CAHAN BAR KHAN. I BÀN
BRIAN. I CONNOLLY CONNOLLY, I
HAY HAY I MAINS SHINE, MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. I, PACO PACHECO A REYES
REES I. SANCHEZ SAN HAS NÓ
WALDRON. WALDRON. HØI THAT BILL
IS OUT IF WE CAN TAKE, UH, GET A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND. ALL
THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, PLEASE. WE'VE GOT A B
2011 BAR AND DO PASS TWO
APPROPRIATIONS CONSENT. A B 2067
DIXON DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
CONSENT. A B 2225 RODRIGUEZ DU
PASS CONSENT. A B 2287 CHEN DO
PASS CONSENT. A B 20 THREE 06
MATHIS ST PASS IS AMENDED TO
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS.
CONSENT A B 2484 BRIAN DE PASS
CONSENT AND A B 2988 MCCARTHY DO
PASS APPROPRIATIONS CONSENT.
CARRA I DICKON DICKON I, BARACK
CAHAN BAR KHAN. I BRIAN BRIAN, I
CONNOLLY CONNOLLY, I HAY HAY I
MAINS SHINE. MCKENNA. PACHECO
PACHECO, I REYES REYES. I
SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, I WALDRON
WALDRON EYE. THANK YOU. I'M UP.
NEXT IN ORDER IS ITEM SIX A B 20
THREE 04 LEE. RIGHT MAY BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND COLLEAGUES UNDER CURRENT LAW
WHEN A LANDLORD TAKES TENANT
INTO THE EVICTION PROCESS. THE
COURT RECORD IS MASS UNLESS THE
LANDLORD PREVAILS WITHIN 60 DAYS
. IF THE TENANT PREVAILS OR THE
CASE IS WITHDRAWN, THEN THE
RECORD REMAINS MASS IF THE
LANDLORD PREVAILS IN THE RECORD
MAY BE RELEASED IN THE TENANT
WILL LIKELY END UP WITH A MARK
ON THEIR CREDIT SCORE THAT MAY
PREVENT THEM FOR FUTURE FOR
FUTURE HOME RENTALS OR OTHER
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. BUT AS I
SAID, IF THE TENANT PREVAILS,
THEN THE RECORD REMAINS MASS
BECAUSE SIMPLY BEING PULLED INTO
THE EVICTION PROCESS SHOULD NOT
PREJUDICE FUTURE RENTAL.
OPPORTUNITIES THAT IS THE THAT
IS THE PROTECTION UNDER CURRENT
LAW UNLESS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
EXCEEDS $35,000. THEN THE LAW
OFFERS NÓ PROTECTION FOR TENANT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TENANT
IS IN THE RIGHT. NORMALLY NOT
TOO MANY EVICTIONS ARE GOING TO
INVOLVE THAT SUM OF MONEY. BUT
WITH THIS THIS DELAYED EVICTIONS
COMING OUT OF THE PANDEMIC. MORE
CASES ARE BEING FILED AS
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES WITH NÓ
RECORD MASKING. SO A 23 OR FOUR
EXTENDS THIS TENANT PROTECTION
TO ALL EVICTION CASES, SO THAT
TENANT IS NOT IN THE WRONG SO
THAT THERE IS A TENANT THAT'S
NOT IN THE WRONG IS NOT DAMAGED
BY A COURT RECORD THAT ONLY
SHOWS AN EVICTION WAS FILED.
FINDING A HOME TO RENT CAN BE
DIFFICULT ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE WE
DON'T NEED TO MAKE IT HARDER
WHEN THE PERSON HAS DONE HASN'T
DONE ANYTHING TO WARRANT BEING
PUT ON A TENANT BLACKLIST WITH
ME IN SUPPORT IS TINA ROSALES
TORRES WITH THE WESTERN CENTER
ON LAW AND POVERTY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU UP TO TWO MINUTES.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS TINA ROSALES TORRES.
I USE SHE HER PRONOUNS AND I'M
WITH WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. WE ARE A PROUD CO
SPONSORS OF THIS BILL. UM I JUST
WANT TO BRING THAT I AM AN
ATTORNEY AND I PRACTICE IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY WHERE THIS IS A
VERY FREQUENT OCCURRENCE. RIGHT
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE
JUST APPLYING THE LAW EQUALLY TO
ALL TENANTS AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
INTENDED, AND WE ARE PREVENTING
ABUSE OF THE COURT SYSTEM, WHICH
HAPPENS FREQUENTLY IN LOS
ANGELES SALON. THERE ARE
LANDLORD ATTORNEY HE IS WHO
TEACH HOW TO AND ADVISE TO FILE
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASES BECAUSE
THEY KNOW THAT IT IS A WAY TO
GET AROUND THE MASKING STATUTE
AND FORCE TENANTS INTO
UNREASONABLE NEGOTIATIONS. AND I
ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT
IN CONTROVERSY FOR UNLIMITED
CIVIL CASES, THESE ARE JUST
ALLEGATIONS THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THE TENANT ACTUALLY OWNS THAT
AMOUNT. THE LANDLORD OR THE
LANDLORD'S ATTORNEY JUST HAS TO
ALLEGE THAT THAT AMOUNT IS IN
FACT OWED. WHILE THE TENANT IS
FIGHTING THIS CASE, THEIR
INFORMATION IS OUT THERE AND, AS
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER SAID THEY
ARE POTENTIALLY BLACKLISTED FOR
AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS, WHICH
PREVENTS THEM FROM ACCESSING
HOUSING. AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU
A STORY ABOUT A CASE THAT WAS IN
SANTA ANA FROM ONE OF THE LEGAL
SERVICES ATTORNEYS THAT WE WORK
WITH WHERE THE LANDLORD FILED AN
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE ALLEGING
THAT THE TENANT OWED 25 Kò. SO
THIS WAS LAST YEAR BEFORE THE,
UM INCREASE. AND ALL OF THAT WAS
COVID DEBT, WHICH THE TENANT HAD
PAID. SO THE LANDLORD USED IT
BECAUSE THIS WAS A RENT
CONTROLLED TENANT AND WANTED TO
GET THE TENANT OUT OF THE UNIT.
FORTUNATELY THEY WERE ABLE TO,
UM NEGOTIATE. BUT EVEN DURING
SETTLEMENTS, THE LANDLORD
REFUSED TO SEAL THE CASE. THE
WAY THAT THE LAW IS WRITTEN IS
THAT IF A LANDLORD WINS OR IF
THERE IS A SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR
OF THE LANDLORD THAN THE CASES
WILL BE UNSEALED. BUT UNTIL THAT
TIME, THE TENANT HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO FIGHT THEIR CASE,
KNOWING THAT THEIR INFORMATION
WILL BE PROTECTED, AND IF THEY
WIN, THEY WILL NOT HAVE FEAR OF
BEING BLACKLISTED AND
POTENTIALLY NOT ACCESSING ANY
HOUSING. THIS IS A COMMON SENSE
LAW. IT'S JUST EXTENDING THE LAW
AS WE'VE ALREADY WROTE IT TO
ENSURE THAT ALL TENANTS ARE
PROTECTED. AND KNOWING THAT THEY
CAN HAVE THEIR PRIVACY WHILE
FIGHTING FOR THEIR CASE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. UH GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AFTER MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS BRIAN AUGUSTA
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOUNDATION, ONE OF THE CO
SPONSORS OF THE MEASURE. JUST
WANNA PUT A FINE POINT ON ONE
ISSUE. THAT'S COME UP. UM BEEN
ALLUDED TO HERE. THE POLICY IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RIGHT
NOW IS NOT CHANGED BY THIS BILL.
AND THAT POLICY IS THAT IF THE
LANDLORD FILES AN EVICTION
ACTION AND WINS WITHIN 60 DAYS
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, THAT
CASE IS UNSEALED. IF NOT, IT
REMAINS SEALED. AND THAT HAS A
VERY IMPORTANT, UM, PUBLIC
POLICY PURPOSE, WHICH IS, AS MY
COLLEAGUE HAS ALLUDED TO, OR
JUST ILLUSTRATED, UM, PROTECTING
TENANT. FROM BEING ESSENTIALLY
BLACKLISTED FROM RENTING A NEW
UNIT. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT
POLICY. WHAT WE ARE DOING IS
SAYING THERE IS AN ANOMALOUS
SITUATION WHICH CERTAIN TENANTS
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE
CASE THAT WAS FILED OR BECAUSE
OF THE WAY IN WHICH, UH, THE
PLACE IN WHICH THEY LIVE, THEY
ARE NOT AFFORDED THOSE SAME
PROTECTIONS. THIS BILL WOULD
EXTEND THOSE PROTECTIONS TO THIS
WELL SETTLED POLICY. AND SO FOR
THOSE REASONS WE WOULD URGE AND
I VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF A
B 23 Ó FOUR. WHEN YOU IN
OPPOSITION A B 20 THREE 04.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS DEBORAH CARLETON, WITH
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. AS
YOU HEARD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
RENTS AND EXCESS OF $35,000. IF
THEY DIDN'T PAY DURING COVID,
AND THEY OWE THAT RENT. THAT'S
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T APPLY FOR
RENT RELIEF MONEY OR THEY WERE
DENIED, AND THEY STILL DIDN'T
PAY. UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE, UH
ATTORNEYS ON THE TENANT SIDE WHO
ALSO TEACH, UH HOW TO AVOID, UH,
AN EVICTION AND UNFORTUNATELY,
SMALL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS
FACE UNETHICAL ATTORNEYS WHO
REPRESENT TENANTS IN COURT,
DELAYING THE EVICTION FOR LONG
AS THEY CAN, SO THAT THERE IS AN
INCREASED AMOUNT OF DOLLARS AT
THIS SMALL RENTAL PROPERTY OWNER
HAS TO PAY. UH, FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NÓ VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU.
UH, ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO A 20 THREE 04.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CREME DRIES ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS AND OPPOSITION.
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NÓ VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING HER BACK TO THE
MEMBERS, SENATOR BARROW KHAN. I
JUST HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION,
WHICH IS, AS I READ THE BILL. IF
FOR THESE OVER $35,000 CASES IF
THE LANDLORD PREVAILS AFTER 60
DAYS, IT WILL NOT BE SEALED.
THAT'S HOW I READ IT. SO I'M A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY WHAT'S
BEEN SAID HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE
SAYING THAT IF THE LANDLORD
PREVAILS, IT'S ALWAYS UNSEALED.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I BELIEVE
THE BILL. UM THAT MAY WELL LET
ME JUST SAY WHERE THE LAW IS.
WHAT YOU SAID, IS CORRECT, IF,
AFTER IT'S AN AUTOMATIC THING,
BECAUSE THE COURTS WANT IT TO BE
A BRIGHT LINE. SO AT 60 DAYS,
WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE?
HAS IT BEEN RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF
THE LANDLORD UNSEALED? IF NOT
REMAIN SEALED? THANK YOU. SO I
THE BILL DOES TWO THINGS WHICH
IS EXTENDS THE PROTECTIONS TO
THOSE IN MOBILE HOMES. I BELIEVE
IT IS, WHICH I THINK IS
ABSOLUTELY FAIR. I DON'T THINK
THE NATURE OF THE DWELLING THAT
YOU'RE RENTING SHOULD MATTER AS
TO THE PROTECTIONS YOU RECEIVE.
I ACTUALLY DO THINK, THOUGH,
THAT IF SOMEONE PREVAILS IN AN
OVER $35,000 CASE THAT IS
INFORMATION THAT PERHAPS SHOULD
BE AVAILABLE. THAT IS A LOT OF
MONEY. UM AND YOU KNOW, WE TALK
ABOUT BIG LANDLORDS WHO CAN
ABSORB THAT. BUT THERE ARE ALSO
SMALL LANDLORDS WHO WILL BE
FORECLOSED ON IF THEY CAN'T PAY
THE MORTGAGE AND $35,000. IT'S A
LOT OF MONEY, SO I MEAN, I WOULD
SUPPORT A MUCH NARROWER BILL,
BUT I CAN'T YOU KNOW IF THE
LANDLORD PREVAILS, I DO THINK
THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE. ANY OTHER. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS PACHECO I ALSO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL. UM I
USED TO DO LANDLORD TENANCY AND,
UH, EAST REPRESENTS MY MOM AND
POP LANDLORDS. AND SO, I. I AM
CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL, UM
WOULD IMPACT SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS. A LOT OF MY CLIENTS
WERE SPANISH SPEAKING, UH,
CLIENTS WHO, UH, MAYBE HAD SAVED
UP TO BUY TWO PROPERTIES AND FOR
RENTING ONE AND WE'RE USING THAT
INCOME TO SURVIVE. UH, BECAUSE
THEY HAD LIMITED MEANS AND THEY
WOULD SOMETIMES EVEN HAVE TO
BORROW FROM THEIR CHILDREN. UH,
ESPECIALLY DURING TIMES WHEN
THEY HAD A TENANT THAT DIDN'T
PAY THE RENT. UH, SO I SEEN THE
BURDEN THAT IT HAD ON A SMALL
MOM AND POP LANDLORDS. AND SO
BECAUSE OF THAT, I WON'T BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND I
AGREE. I'VE SEEN, UH TENANTS,
ATTORNEYS, UH, OH, THEY TEACH
OTHER ATTORNEYS HOW TO, UH YOU
KNOW? KIND OF MILK THE SYSTEM TO
HELP OTHER TENANTS. I'M NOT
SAYING THAT LANDLORDS DON'T DO
THE SAME THING. UM BUT I'VE SEEN
THAT ON THE ON THE, UH TENANTS,
ATTORNEYS AS WELL. SO I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
UH, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
IT BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT THAT IT
WOULD PLACE ON SMALL MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS. SOME AREAS. HOUSING
THE LANDLORD. I THINK THAT THEY
DO HAVE TO BE MEASURES THAT
PROTECT OUR TENANTS. AND UH,
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME SOME,
UH, VALUABLE COMMENTS THAT ARE
BEING MADE, UH, THIS IS THE
BEGINNING. THIS IS THE FIRST
COMMITTEE AND I THINK THAT, UM,
UH, CLEARLY, UH, HAVING, UM
MOBILE HOME RESIDENTS INCLUDED
IN THE PROTECTIONS IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, AND I THINK THE
MASKING IS SOMETHING THAT, UM I
IT IF WE DON'T DO THE MASKING,
THEN THE MOMENT 60 DAYS HAVE
ARRIVED. UM UH, WE HAVE MANY
TENANTS WHO WILL NOT FIND
HOUSING, AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN. AND I
THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
UM THERE ARE DELAYS COST CAUSED
BY MANY REASONS, BUT I THINK THE
BILL IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I. I
WOULD MOVE THE BILL TO HAVE IT.
CONTINUE FORWARD AND CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATIONS. THE MOTIONS
ARE SECOND A QUESTION. SENATOR
BRIAN YEAH. UM THAT $35,000
JUDGMENT WHEN WAS THAT PUT INTO
LAW? LAST YEAR, AND IT BECAME AN
EFFECT THIS YEAR. OH YEAH? SORRY
MATH IS HARD. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
DOES IT GO UP 5% A YEAR? BECAUSE
MY RENT CERTAINLY DOES. UH AND
SO THE VALUE OF THAT 35 ALSO HAS
A DIMINISHING VALUE YEAR AFTER
YEAR, SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
AS WELL IF THERE ARE MORE
CONVERSATIONS, UM, ABOUT THIS
BILL 35 SOUNDS LIKE A LOT. UM AS
ONE OF THE TWO RENTERS UP HERE.
THAT'S NOT A YEAR. THAT'S A
LITTLE OVER SIX MONTHS. UM FOR
ME, AND I LIVE ON CRENSHAW. UH
AND SO, UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF
REASONS TENANTS CAN'T PAY THEIR
BILLS. THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS
THAT THESE SITUATIONS HAPPEN.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR MOM AND POP
LANDLORDS. ABSOLUTELY IT'S
UNFORTUNATE FOR THOSE TENANTS,
AND I ALSO THINK SETTING MARKS
ON FOLKS RECORDS THAT MAKE IT
HARDER FOR THEM TO THEN BECOME
HOUSE SHOULD THEIR ECONOMIC
SITUATION. CHANGE IS A DIFFICULT
PARADIGM, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE
ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE REASONS
THAT WE'RE, UH, ALL GATHERING IN
THIS BUILDING IS TO ADDRESS THE
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS ACROSS OUR
STATE, RIGHT? THESE THINGS ARE
INTERCONNECTED. AND SO, AS WAS
MENTIONED BY MY COLLEAGUE FROM
SAN BERNARDINO. THIS IS THE
FIRST COMMITTEE THIS IS THE
START OF A CONVERSATION AND I'M
HAPPY TO, UH TO SECOND THEM UP.
THANK YOU. ANOTHER QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. YEAH I APPRECIATE THE
DIALOGUE HERE AGAIN. THIS IS THE
FIRST POLICY COMMITTEE AS
SOMEONE THAT'S BEEN A RENTER.
BEEN A SO IN POP LANDLORD AND
REPRESENTED, AND I REPRESENTED
TENANTS IN LANDLORD TENANT
COURT. UM LET'S NOT FORGET THAT
THERE IS A BALANCE OF POWER HERE
THAT'S SHIFTED IN FAVOR OF THE
LANDLORD, WHETHER THEY'RE A MOM
AND POP OR OR A CORPORATE OR
INSTITUTIONAL. UH AND THAT'S WHY
THESE PROTECTIONS ARE IN PLACE
FOR THE TENANTS AND ANY
SUGGESTION THAT LAWYERS THAT
REPRESENT TENANTS ARE DOING
THINGS THAT ARE UNETHICAL
BECAUSE THEY'RE FIGHTING HARD,
UM, FOR THEIR CLIENTS WITHIN THE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE LAW I
WON'T ACCEPT, JUST LIKE I
WOULDN'T ACCEPT, UH, THE
CONTENTION THAT A LANDLORD'S
ATTORNEY IS DOING SOMETHING
THAT'S IMPROPER BECAUSE THEY'RE
THEY'RE WORKING WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE LAW. UH, TENANTS,
ATTORNEYS FIGHT VERY HARD,
BECAUSE IF THEY LOSE THEIR
TENANTS ARE ON THE STREET. UM
THAT BEING SAID I. I HOPE THAT
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE
THIS BILL FORWARD SO DIALOGUE
CAN CONTINUE. SOUNDS LIKE
THERE'S MORE CONVERSATION THAT
CAN CERTAINLY THAT THIS BILL CAN
BENEFIT FROM, BUT I THINK AT
THIS POINT, UM IT'S AN IMPORTANT
BILL TO EXTEND THE PROTECTIONS
AND, UM I'LL CERTAINLY BE
SUPPORTING IT. LIKE TO CLOSE.
YES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UM, HIGH
RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS BILL. I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BILL FOR
SEVERAL DIFFERENT REASONS. AND
AT FIRST I WANNA SAY IS THAT I
WELCOME ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT,
UM, SUGGESTIONS OR FEEDBACK TO
THE BILL, TOO? AS IT GOES, ALONG
WITH THE PROCESS, I THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT. AND AS WE, UH GO
ALONG THE PROCESS SINCE IT FIRST
COMMITTEE WOULD WELCOME ANY
FEEDBACK THAT MAKES IT MORE. UM
MORE PALATABLE IN THAT SENSE,
BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS BILL
IS ABOUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PLAYED AND
TALKED ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE.
THERE'S THE ISSUE OF A LANDLORD
RECOVERING THEIR RENTS. AND
THERE IS THE BLACK MARK ON A
TENANT. THOSE TWO THINGS ARE
ADJACENT TO ONE ANOTHER IN THIS
BILL, BUT THIS STILL DOES NOT
PREVENT A LANDLORD FROM BEING
VICTORIOUS IN COURT DOES NOT
PREVENT THEM FROM SETTLING DOES
NOT PREVENT THEM FROM GETTING
BACK THE DEBT THAT THEY ARE
SUPPOSEDLY RIGHTFULLY OWED. THIS
IS ABOUT THE ALLEGATION. SO
RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE TENANTS
BEING SUED BY THEIR LANDLORDS,
ALLEGEDLY FOR OVER $35,000.01
WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER THEY
ARE INNOCENT OR W OR FOUND TO BE
, UH, WRONG IN THAT SENSE, AND
THEY OWE THE MONEY THEY WILL
HAVE A BLACK MARK AND IN DURING
THE HOUSING CRISIS. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE THE RIGHT OPPORTUNITY WHO
HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO HOUSING
AND RIGHT YOU'RE SAYING IS TODAY
IF WE DO NOT CLOSE THAT BLACK
MARK IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
TOTALLY INNOCENT WHO HAVE JUST
BEEN WRONGFULLY ALLEGED AND SUED
FOR OVER $65,000 OF DAMAGES,
EVEN IF THEY TOTALLY PAID IT
OFF, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE
THEY COULD STILL HAVE THAT BLACK
MARK AND ESPECIALLY FOR FOLKS
WHO ARE RENTERS AND SPEAKING AS
A RENTER, AS ONE OF THE FEW
RENTERS IN THE ASSEMBLY RIGHT
HERE. WE'RE ALL HERE RIGHT NOW,
EXCEPT FOR ONE. ALMOST EXCEPT
FOR ONE IS THAT YOU THAT COULD
BE GAME OVER FOR YOU. ONCE YOU
HAVE THAT BLACK MARK YOU THE
OPTIONS ARE PROBABLY THE STREET
OR YOU HAVE TO GO. HOPEFULLY
FIND A FRIEND OR FAMILY. THAT'S
REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
RIGHT HERE. THERE IS A POWER
DYNAMIC AT PLAY HERE. AND SO
WHEN WE WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT
IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING THE
RECORDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE
INNOCENT, WHO HAVE BEEN ALLEGED
TO BE SUED DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THEY ACTUALLY ARE WRONG IN THE
WRONG HERE, SO LET THE COURTS
DECIDE WHO'S IN THE WRONG AND
LET'S FIGURE OUT WHO ACTUALLY
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE BLACK
MARK ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I
WOULD ARGUE THE PEOPLE THAT DID
EVERYTHING RIGHT? AND ARE JUST
WRONGFULLY SUED. THEY DON'T
DESERVE THAT MARK AT ALL, AND
THEY DESERVE TO GO FIND HOUSING
AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO I
WELCOME THE FEEDBACK MOVING
FORWARD. UH, BUT RESPECTFULLY AS
I VOTE TODAY, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ADAM SECRETARY. ROLL CALL
VOTE ON A B 23 OR FOUR MOTIONS
DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CæA
CæA I. DIXON DIXON, NÓ BARER
KHAN. BRIAN BRIAN I. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY, I HANEY. HANEY. I
MOONSHINE. MCKENNA. M OR I
PACHECO. REYES REYES, I SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ NÓ WALDRON. THAT BILL ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
FILE ORDER. ITEM FOUR. A B 2257
WILSON.
I THAT'S OK, WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. WONDERFUL THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. TODAY
I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE CRITICAL
IMPORTANCE OF A B 2257 A BILL
DESIGNED TO ENHANCE THE
TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY AND
FAIRNESS OF THE RATE SETTING
PROCESS FOR WATER AND SEWER
SERVICES IN CALIFORNIA AT ITS
CORE, A B 2257 IS ABOUT
FOSTERING A CONSTRUCTIVE
DIALOGUE BETWEEN PUBLIC AGENCIES
AND THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE BY
PROMOTING EARLY AND MEANINGFUL
DIALOGUE BETWEEN PUBLIC AGENCIES
AND RATEPAYERS. THIS LAYS THE
GROUNDWORK FOR MORE EQUITABLE
AND EFFECTIVE WATER AND SEWER
RATES IN CALIFORNIA. OUR STATE'S
WATER AND SEWER AGENCIES ARE AT
A CRITICAL JUNCTURE. THE
CHALLENGES POSED BY CLIMATE
CHANGE REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL
INVESTMENTS IN OUR WATER AND TO
OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENSURE
THAT PUBLIC AGENCIES CAN MAKE
THESE NECESSARY INVESTMENTS.
IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT THEY HAVE A
STABLE AND PREDICTABLE REVENUE
STREAM UNDER EXISTING LAW,
PROPOSITION 218 REQUIRES PUBLIC
AGENCIES TO PROVIDE ADVANCE
NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS. A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROTESTS AND
RESTRICTS THE IMPOSITION OF FEES
UNLESS THEY REPRESENT THE ACTUAL
COST OF SERVICES. HOWEVER THE
INCREASE IN PROPERTY PROPOSITION
218 LITIGATION CHALLENGES LOCAL
AGENCIES ABILITY TO SET FAIR
RATES TO COVER OPERATIONAL AND
INVESTMENT COSTS. OFTEN THESE WE
EXCUSE ME. OFTEN THESE LEGAL
CHALLENGES COME WITHOUT PRIOR
OBJECTIONS BEING RAISED DURING
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
LEADING TO COSTLY AND UNFORESEEN
LAWSUITS THAT STRAIN THE
FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THESE
AGENCIES. FOR THIS REASON, A B
2257 ESTABLISHES AN EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
PROCEDURE. THIS MEANS THAT FOR
SOMEONE TO CHALLENGE A COURT A
FEES IN COURT, THEY MUST FIRST
RAISE THEIR CONCERNS TO THE
PROCESS PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC
AGENCY. THIS REQUIREMENT AIMS TO
RESOLVE DISPUTES EARLY AND
REDUCE THE FREQUENCY OF
LITIGATION, WHICH CAN BE COSTLY
AND TIME CONSUMING FOR BOTH.
BOTH PARTIES. THIS PROACTIVE
ENGAGEMENT FACILITATES INFORMED
DECISION MAKING ENHANCED
TRANSPARENCY AND ULTIMATELY
FOSTERS TRUST BETWEEN AGENCIES
AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE.
MOREOVER IT MANDATES PUBLIC
AGENCIES TO RESPOND IN WRITING
TO ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED
FOSTERING A TRANSPARENT AND
INFORMED DIALOGUE BETWEEN
AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC. THEY
SERVE. IMPORTANTLY THIS BILL
STILL PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO
LITIGATE AGAINST ONGOING
FAILURES BY AN AGENCY TO
IMPLEMENT RATES AND COMPLIANCE
WITH SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROPOSITION 218. THIS ENSURES
THAT AGENCIES CANNOT MISUSE FEES
FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE
EXPLICITLY STATED. I HAVE HEARD
THAT FOLKS HAVE REACHED OUT TO
OUR OFFICE REGARDING THE MINIMUM
40 DAY NOTICE PERIOD FOR
RATEPAYERS TO REVIEW A PROPOSED
FEE OR ASSESSMENT AND FILING AN
OBJECTION TO BE CLEAR THIS BILL
MAINTAINS PROP 2 1845 DAY
MINIMUM TIMELINES. HOWEVER, WE
ARE ALWAYS OPEN TO CLARIFYING
THIS SECTION. IF IT IS NECESSARY
. A B 2257 REPRESENTS A BALANCED
APPROACH TO RATE SETTING. THIS
BILL IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST
PROCEDURAL ADJUSTMENTS. IT'S
ABOUT ENSURING OUR PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND OUR COMMUNITIES CAN
WORK TOGETHER TO EFFECTIVELY
TACKLE THE CHALLENGES WE FACE.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY
TESTIMONY ON THIS IMPORTANT
MATTER WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE TWO
WITNESSES I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE. FIRST WE HAVE
CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON, ESQUIRE,
THE SENIOR STATE RELATIONS
ADVOCATE AT THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER. AGENCIES
ACTUALLY KNOWN AS AQUA, AND
CAITLIN BERCY, A TURNER,
ATTORNEY AT BAKER, MANNO AND
JENSEN, P èC. THANK YOU. I UP
TO TWO MINUTES EACH. PLEASE UM,
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CHRIS ANDERSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES WERE
THE PROUD SPONSOR OF A B 2257
PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER AGENCIES
PROVIDE ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENT
SERVICES FOR THE BENEFIT OF
COMMUNITIES, AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
THESE AGENCIES ARE RESPONSIBLE
FOR ENSURING A CONSISTENT AND
RELIABLE WATER SUPPLY,
SAFEGUARDING THE QUALITY OF
DRINKING WATER PLANNING,
CONSTRUCTING MAINTAINING
ESSENTIAL AND MUCH MORE WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE, PRESENTING
UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES. THESE
AGENCIES MUST ALSO ADAPT AND
ENHANCE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE TO
MITIGATE IMPACTS OF INCREASINGLY
FREQUENT SEVERE CLIMATE RELATED
EVENTS. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ARE
NECESSARY TO ENSURE WATER SUPPLY
RELIABILITY FOR FUTURE
GENERATIONS. PROP TO 18 PLACES
STRICT LIMITATIONS ON HOW
AGENCIES CAN RAISE REVENUE AND
AS A RESULT, PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE
PRE PREDOMINANTLY RELY ON
SERVICE RATE. THE NEW UH, AND
ASSESSMENTS TO FINANCE THEIR
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS,
WHILE THESE AGENCIES REQUIRE
FINANCIAL STABILITY TO MEET
INCREASING DEMANDS, A RISE IN
PROP 218 LITIGATION IS MAKING IT
INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ENSURE
AGENCIES CAN PASS FAIR AND
REASONABLE RATES TO COVER THE
COST OF OPERATIONS AND
INVESTMENTS. OFTEN TIMES THESE
SUITS ARE FILED WITHOUT FIRST
HAVING RAISED THE CONCERNS
DURING THE RATE MAKING PROCESS,
AND THESE SURPRISE LAWSUITS
PREVENT PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM
ENDEAVORING TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
AND AVOIDING LITIGATION. AND
THEY ALSO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
UNDERMINE AN AGENCY'S ABILITY TO
MAIN MAINTAIN STABLE BUDGETS
NECESSARY TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY
. A B 2257 WOULD BOLSTER
EXISTING RATE MAKING PROCESS IN
ORDER TO ENHANCE DIALOGUE AND
TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS.
THE GOAL OF THIS LEGISLATION IS
TO SHINE SUNLIGHT ON POTENTIAL
OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED RATES AND
ASSESSMENTS WHEN AGENCIES
ACTUALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND AND ADDRESS THOSE
CONCERNS AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS NOTES, OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS HAVE
SIMILAR PROCESSES, INCLUDING SQ
WE'RE TRYING TO FOSTER BETTER
INFORMED ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS, ALLOWING AGENCIES TO
DEVELOP MORE DEFENSIBLE RATES,
BUILD RAPPORT AND BUILD RAPPORT
AND TRUST WITH THE RATEPAYERS. A
B 2257 ALSO PROMOTES FINANCIAL
STABILITY NECESSARY FOR AGENCIES
TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY AND
PREPARE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
THANK YOU AND HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CAITLIN
BURSEY, AND I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH
THE FRESNO BASED LAW FIRM OF
BAKER MANNEQUIN, JENSEN, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, I REPRESENT WATER
AND PUBLIC AGENCIES IN THE
PROPOSITION TO 18 RATE MAKING
PROCESS. PROPOSITION TO 18
IMPOSES BOTH PROCEDURAL
LIMITATIONS AND SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS ON PUBLIC AGENCIES
WHEN THEY ARE ADOPTING FEES OR
ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER SERVICE.
PUBLIC AGENCIES ARE ALREADY AT A
STEEP DISADVANTAGE IF THEY FIND
THEMSELVES IN COURT DEFENDING
THEIR RATES OR FEES FOR A FEW
REASONS. FIRST ONCE A PLAINTIFF
FILES A LAWSUIT TO CHALLENGE A
RATE OR FEE IN COURT, THE BURDEN
AUTOMATICALLY SHIFTS TO THE
PUBLIC AGENCY TO DEMONSTRATE HOW
ITS RATES COMPLY WITH PROPO. 218
SECOND IN REVIEWING AN AGENCY'S
RATE MAKING DECISION, A TRIAL
COURT WILL APPLY A DE NOVO OR
INDEPENDENT REVIEW STANDARD,
MEANING THE AGENCY'S DECISION IS
NOT ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE AND
THIRD IN LITIGATION IN
DEMONSTRATING HOW ITS RATES
COMPLY WITH PROPOSITION 218, THE
AGENCIES' EVIDENTIARY UNIVERSE
IS LIMITED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD, WHICH IS THE RECORD THAT
WAS BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY
WHILE IT WAS MAKING ITS
DECISION. IF A RATEPAYER DOES
NOT RAISE THE ISSUE IT HAS WITH
RATES DURING THE RATE MAKING
DECISION. IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE
DIFFICULT FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY TO
DEMONSTRATE HOW ITS RATES COMPLY
WITH PROPOSITION 218 OR DEFEND
THOSE RIGHTS IN LITIGATION. NOW.
THE GOAL HERE IS TO BOLSTER
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. DEVELOP
SOUND AND WELL INFORMED RATES OR
ASSESSMENTS AND PROMOTE
FINANCIAL STABILITY FOR AGENCIES
AND A B 2257 WILL HELP PUBLIC
AGENCIES ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. IT'S WILSON. DO YOU
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS?
YES I DO. THANK YOU FOR KNOWING
THAT YOU, UH, IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF A B
2057? NAME ORGANIZATION. YOUR
POSITION, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING,
MR CHAIR MEMBERS JULIE
MALINOWSKI BALL ON BEHALF OF THE
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CHRISTY
FOY HERE ON BEHALF OF THREE
VALLEYS, MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. RAQUEL AYALA WITH R
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS ON BEHALF
OF ELDORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
IN SUPPORT. CLIFTON WILSON. UH,
ON BEHALF OF SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN
IRRIGATION DISTRICT IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. PILAR TO QUINTANA
HERE FOR IRVINE RANCH WATER
DISTRICT AND EAST VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
NICHOLAS SCHNEIDER WITH
GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ALYSSA SO HØI ON
BEHALF OF THE CITIES OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA IN SANTA ROSA IN
SUPPORT ERIC LÀ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES REPRESENTING ALL 58
COUNTIES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. DENNIS MAYO FROM
MCKINLEY VILLE COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT, JUST NORTH OF
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA I'M ALSO THE
VICE PRESIDENT OF REGION ONE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER
AGENCIES FROM SANTA ROSA TO THE
OREGON BORDER, AND WE'RE IN
TOTAL SUPPORT OF THIS NECESSARY
CHANGE TO THE 218 PROCESS. I
DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS SOMETHING
NORTH TO EUREKA, BUT THANK YOU.
I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS
SOMETHING NORTH OF EUREKA, BUT
APPRECIATE WELL, EVERYTHING
SOUTH OF THAT SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. CAROLYN JENSEN ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS DON KEPKE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
BALANCE, SEE IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. RIGHT? IS EVERYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO A B 20,257. SCOTT
KOFFMAN HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION. UH, COMBATING
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LOT OF GOAL.
BUT CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT
EXCUSE OVERCHARGES OR ILLEGAL
WATER RATES, AND IT CERTAINLY
DOES NOT REQUIRE CLOSING THE
DOOR ON LEGITIMATE REFUND CLAIMS
. EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO
REPLACE OR UPDATE WATER AND
SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE ARE ALREADY
PERMITTED UNDER PROPOSITION 218.
THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT CLIMATE
CHANGE. IT IS ABOUT DENYING
ACCESS TO THE COURTS UNDER A B
2257, EVEN IF A REFUND CLAIM
WERE BASED ON AN INDEFENSIBLE
MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE, RATEPAYERS
WOULD NEVER GET THEIR DAY IN
COURT. PROPONENTS ARGUE THAT
AFTER A SERIES OF COURT CASES IN
RECENT YEARS, REPAIRS ON ARE
UNHAPPY WITH THEIR WATER RATES
AND CAN FILE SUIT TO CHALLENGE
THE LEGALITY OF A RATE STRUCTURE
EVEN IF THE RATES HAVE BEEN IN
PLACE FOR YEARS. BUT THERE IS NÓ
RECENT COURT DECISION ON THAT
ISSUE. IT'S SIMPLY A MATTER OF
DUE PROCESS AND THE TIME HONORED
DOCTRINE OF FOR EVERY RIGHT
THERE IS A LEGAL LEGAL REMEDY.
AND CIVIL CODE. 352 THREE SAYS.
FOR EVERY WRONG THERE IS A
REMEDY. THIS BILL FLIES IN THE
FACE OF THAT PRINCIPLE. THERE IS
NÓ EVIDENCE THAT LEGAL
UNCERTAINTY IS MAKING IT NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOCAL AGENCIES TO
MARKET THE GOVERNMENT BACKED
BONDS NEEDED TO FINANCE
INFRASTRUCTURE. IN FACT, THE NEW
120 DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WHICH ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS MUST BE
FILED WITHIN 75 DAYS OF
IMPLEMENTATION MAKES IT NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR EIGHT PAIRS TO
EVALUATE HIGHLY TECHNICAL RATE
STUDIES OR ENGAGE LEGAL COUNSEL.
THIS MEANS THAT THE CERTAINTY OF
REVENUE NEEDED TO BACK BONDS HAS
NEVER BEEN STRONGER. YET THIS
BILL WOULD GO EVEN FURTHER BY
DEMANDING DETAILED OBJECTIONS,
PRESUMABLY BASED ON ERRORS IN A
RATE STUDY EVEN BEFORE THE RATE
STUDY IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
REVIEW. UNLIKE THE NOTICE PERIOD
REQUIRED UNDER PROPOSITION 218,
WHICH IS 45 DAYS TO MAIL A
LETTER, CHECK A BOX AND SEND IT
BACK VERY DIFFERENT THAN
MOUNTING A LEGAL CHALLENGE. THIS
BILL WOULD REQUIRE ONLY
PUBLISHED NOTICE PROVIDED IN THE
LEGAL SECTION OF A NEWSPAPER. BY
THE TIME ACTUAL PROPOSITION TO
18 NOTICES ARE MAILED. THE TIME
PERIOD, WHICH IS SUBMIT
OBJECTIONS UNDER THIS BILL MAY
HAVE ALREADY CLOSED. GIVEN THAT
THERE IS NÓ INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF
ACTION RELATED TO THE ADEQUACY
OF AN AGENCY'S WRITTEN RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS. UNDER THIS BILL,
THAT RESPONSE CAN BE LIMITED TO
JUST A FEW WORDS OR SENTENCES TO
DO THAT DO NOT MEANINGFULLY
ADDRESS OBJECTIONS. NÓ MATTER
HOW CAREFULLY THESE OBJECTIONS
ARE FRAMED. IN OTHER WORDS, NÓ
TRANSPARENCY IS REQUIRED ON THE
PART OF THE WATER AGENCY, WHICH
IS NOT EVEN HAVE TO MAKE ITS
RATE STUDY AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
EVALUATION DURING THE TIME WHEN
IT'S OBJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED.
LASTLY IT IS ONLY AN OPTIONAL
PROCESS FROM THE LIGHT FROM THE
AGENCY'S PERSPECTIVE, AND WE ARE
OPPOSED AND ASK YOU TO VOTE NÓ.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, GOOD
MORNING, MISTER. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS CREAM ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS. UH, WE ARE IN A
TWEENER POSITION IN WHICH JUST
SINCERELY THANK THE AUTHOR AND
HER STAFF AS WELL AS THE
COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE STAFF,
UH, FOR WORKING THROUGH THE
CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE
BILL IN PRINT, UH, WE'RE
REVIEWING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND LOOK FORWARD TO
RESERVE FULLY RESOLVING OUR
CONCERNS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WANTS TO
IDENTIFY IN IN OPPOSITION? A
2057 NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS. PRESTON YOUNG FROM THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TO BE CLEAR. WE ARE NOT IN
OPPOSITION, BUT THIS IS A BILL
THAT IS OF CONCERN TO US. SO
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSOR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS MOTIONS SES. II. I DID
HAVE SOME CONCERNS. UM, ONE OF
THE THINGS WAS MENTIONED THAT
EVEN IF THE LAWSUIT CAN BE
FILED. EVEN IF THE RATES HAVE
BEEN IN PLACE FOR YEARS. IS
THERE NÓ STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY 100 AND 20
DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT
WAS ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE A
FEW YEARS BACK, UM, FOR
CHALLENGES TO WATER AND SEWER
RATES, SO 100 AND 20 DAYS AFTER
THE RATES TAKE EFFECT. OK, SO IF
THE RATES HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR
YEARS, THAT WOULD BE INACCURATE,
THEN. AGAIN THE LAWSUIT CAN ONLY
BE FILED WITHIN 100 AND 20. DAYS
OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE OF
THE RATES ARE ASSESSMENTS
BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMED KIND OF
WRONG. UM IT'S SOMETHING THAT
WAS THAT WAS MENTIONED IS ABOUT
SURPRISE LAWSUITS. UM HOW OFTEN
ARE THERE SURPRISE LAWSUITS
WHERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY
NOTICE BEFORE. UM WE CAN
CERTAINLY PROVIDE YOU A LIST WE
HAVE IDENTIFIED, UM UPWARDS OF
20 CASES. UM IN RECENT YEARS IN
IN WHICH, UH, NÓ NOTICE HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO THE UH, RATE MAKING
AGENCY DURING THE RATE MAKING
PROCESS. UM THIS ISSUE HAS GONE
ALL THE WAY UP TO THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT. AS RECENTLY AS
JUST THE LAST LAST FEW YEARS,
2019 2020 SOMETIME AROUND THEN,
UM, SO THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT.
ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED AND
ADDRESSED BY THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT RECENTLY. THANK
YOU IT AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS
IT WAS MADE IS THAT DUE PROCESS
AND I ABSOLUTELY AGREE, UM, ON
THE NEED FOR DUE PROCESS, BUT
HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THAT
THIS FIRST COMMITTEE AND I THINK
THAT THE BILL, UM DESERVES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD TO
CONTINUE WITH THE CONVERSATION.
BUT I THINK THESE ARE SERIOUS
CONCERNS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE
ADDRESSED. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
THEY'RE BEING ADDRESSED. I
CALLED ONE OF MY LOCAL WATER
AGENCIES THAT WAS LISTED AND ONE
OF MY OTHER ONES WAS HERE TOO.
UM, SO WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR
WATER. IS BUT ALSO WANT TO
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
RATEPAYERS WHO, IN THE END ARE
THE ONES WHO ARE PAYING AND TO
REMOVE ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS
IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR ME. BUT
NONETHELESS WITH THOSE CONCERNS,
KNOWING THAT THERE WILL BE
CONTINUED DIALOGUE, I WOULD MOVE
THE BILL, WE HAVE A MOTION. IS
THERE A SECOND? LIKE A MOTION IN
A SECOND, UH ANY OTHER COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE THE MAYOR WILSON? THANK
YOU. UM I APPRECIATE THE UH UH,
MY WITNESSES, UM IN SUPPORT, AND
THEN, UM, PROVIDING GREATER
CLARITY TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND I ALSO APPRECIATE
THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE HEARD
FROM VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS AS
WELL AS AS MEMBERS AND SEEKING
TO ADDRESS AND CLARIFY THOSE
THROUGH THE LANGUAGE. I THINK
WHAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IS
THAT, UM WE DON'T WANT TO
WEAPONIZE THE PROCESS THAT
ALLOWS PEOPLE TO, UH, SUBMIT
LAWSUITS TO DELAY WHEN THEY
COULD HAVE BROUGHT THOSE
CONCERNS. UM IN THE BEGINNING,
WHEN, UH, THE AGENCY HAD A TIME
TO ADDRESS THOSE PARTICULAR
ISSUES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
SOLVING, UM, TO AVOID. WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ANY OF OUR
RAPE PAYERS RIGHTS OR UM OR
INTERFERE WITH DUE PROCESS OR
ALLOW THEM NOT TO BE ABLE TO,
UH, SHARE THEIR CONCERNS OR TO
ADDRESS ISSUES WHEN YOU HAVE AN
AGENCY THAT IS DOING SOMETHING
INAPPROPRIATE OR IN CONTRARY TO
THEIR PROP 218 NOTICE, AND SO
WITH THAT I APPRECIATE THE TIME
OF THIS COMMITTEE FOR
CONSIDERING THIS BILL AND
RESPECTFULLY. FOR AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY COULD
TAKE THE ROLL CALL ON A B 2057
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. CORA, I DIXON.
OUR KHAN, BRIAN. CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY, I HAY MOONSHINE.
MCKENNA. MCKENNA I, PACHECO
PACHECO, I REYES REYES I SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ NÓ WALDRON. OK, WE'LL
PLACE THAT, UH, BILL ON CALL.
THANK YOU. I ITEM SEVEN. A B,
2400 AND 90 THREE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PELLERIN. MOVE THE BILL.
A MOTION IN A SECOND. REYES
MCKENNA. WE LIKE A SLUG THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW THAT
YOU'VE BEEN SITTING THERE PEOPLE
SHOW UP RIGHT BEFORE YOU LIKE. I
KNOW, I KNOW. YOU KNOW, YOU
ALWAYS HOPE, BUT THIS IS FINE.
THANK YOU. SO MUCH FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. GREAT TO SEE YOU ALL.
UH THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
24 A B 249 THREE. WHILE MANY
LANDLORDS ARE RUNNING ABOVE THE
BOARD, UM BUSINESSES
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING SUPPLY
CRISIS, COUPLED WITH THE LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT TENANTS' RIGHTS,
AMONG THE AVERAGE RENTER
PRESENTS THE PERFECT WINDOW FOR
BAD ACTORS. A B 2493 WOULD
PREVENT LANDLORDS OR PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT COMPANIES FROM
CHARGING A RENTAL APPLICANT, A
SCREENING AND APPLICATION FEE
MORE THAN ONCE, IF THE APPLICANT
HAS APPLIED TO RENT MORE THAN
ONE PROPERTY OWNED BY THAT
LANDLORD OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
COMPANY. THERE IS NÓ BUSINESS
REASON TO DUPLICATE THIS PROCESS
IF THE APPLICANTS WERE ALL
SUBMITTED AROUND THE SAME PERIOD
OF TIME. FURTHERMORE REPEATEDLY
POLLING CREDIT CHECKS CAN HARM
PROSPECTIVE TENANTS CREDIT,
MAKING IT HARDER FOR THEM TO
PASS CREDIT SCREENINGS. A B 2490
THREE WILL ALSO PREVENT A
LANDLORD OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
COMPANY FROM CHARGING A
POTENTIAL APPLICANT A FEE TO BE
ENTERED ONTO A WAITING LIST FOR
A RENTAL UNIT. IF NÓ RENTAL UNIT
IS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, OR
WILL BE AVAILABLE IN A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME. BY
PROHIBITING SUCH FEES. THE BILL
ENSURES TRANSPARENCY AND
PREVENTS APPLICANTS FROM BEING
FINANCIALLY EXPLOITED WHEN THERE
IS NÓ IMMEDIATE PROSPECT OF
SECURING A RENTAL UNIT, MANY
WAITLISTS ONLY SERVE TO NOTIFY
WAITLIST MEMBERS THAT THE UNIT
IS NOT AVAILABLE AND ALMOST
NEVER RESULT IN A GUARANTEE OF
THE TENANCY. ONCE A UNIT BECOMES
AVAILABLE, THE PROSPECTIVE
TENANTS ON THE WAITLIST MAYBE
EXPECTED TO PAY ANOTHER
APPLICATION FEE TO BE SCREENED,
ONLY ADDING TO THE FINANCIAL
BURDEN OF SECURING NEW RENTAL
HOUSING. OVERALL A B 2493 AIMS
TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF RENTAL
APPLICANTS PREVENT THEM FROM
BEING SUBJECTED TO UNNECESSARY
FINANCIAL BURDENS AND PROMOTE
FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE
RENTAL HOUSING MARKET. I AM
CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND I HOPE TO
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. I WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE MY TWO WITNESSES ON
A LUZ ACEVEDO AND CARLOS ROMERO
FROM COMMUNITIES ORGANIZED FOR
RELATIONAL POWER IN ACTION COPA
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL,
THANK YOU. HØI EVERYBODY. MY
NAME IS ANNA LUZ ACEVEDO, AND I
AM A LEADER WITH CAM. AT OUR
LADY OF REFUGE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN CASTROVILLE IN THE CENTRAL
PART OF CALIFORNIA BY THE COAST.
UH, KUMP IS A BROAD BASED
ORGANIZATION OF 27, LABOR, FAITH
BASED AND NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS AND SANTA CRUZ AND
MONTEREY COUNTY. TODAY I AM HERE
TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF A B 2490
THREE AS A YOUNG PROFESSIONAL
APPLICATION FEES WERE SOMETHING
I SPENT A LOT OF TIME THINKING
ABOUT. I REMEMBER WHEN I HAD
JUST GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE AND
I WAS MOVING INTO A NEW PLACE
AND TAKING OVER SOMEBODY ELSE'S
LEASE. AND THANK GOD LET ME TELL
YOU THAT THEY LEFT THE MATTRESS
IN THE APARTMENT. OTHERWISE I
WOULD HAVE BEEN SLEEPING ON THE
FLOOR BECAUSE AT THAT POINT I
HAD NÓ MONEY AND NÓ INCOME UNTIL
I GOT MY FIRST PAYCHECK. SO FOR
ME, THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO TAKE
OVER SOMEBODY ELSE'S LEASE.
BECAUSE I COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY
A SECURE DEPOSIT. FIRST MONTH'S
RENT AND APPLICATION FEES, AND
THIS STORY IS COMMON AMONG MY
PEERS. IN FACT, BECAUSE YOUNG
PROFESSIONALS MOVE AROUND SO
MUCH I KNOW THAT I'VE SPENT WELL
OVER $500 IN APPLICATION FEES.
ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE
IS THE ELIMINATION OF
APPLICATION FEES, BUT WE THINK
THIS IS A MAJOR STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION TOWARDS HELPING
PEOPLE GET OVER BARRIERS IN
SEARCH OF HOUSING. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. UM HELLO.
UH, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
CARLOS ROMERO. UM I'M LEADER
WITH COPA AND, UH, AT HOLY CROSS
CATHOLIC CHURCH IN SANTA CRUZ. I
AM HERE TO LET YOU KNOW. THE
STORIES OF MANY MEMBERS OF MY
CHURCH WHO SHARED WITH ME AGAIN
AND AGAIN ABOUT HOW EXPENSIVE
THEY IT IS TO APPLY TO OUR
APARTMENT. ELIZABETH CRUZ HAD TO
PAY $2400 JUST AN APPLICATION
FEES, INCLUDING THREE TIMES TO
ONE COMPANY FOR EACH UNIT SHE
APPLIED FOR UNDER THE SAME
MANAGEMENT COMPANY. FLOORS
CEILINGS TOLD ME THAT HER RENT
WENT UP BY $1200. MORE. POOR
MAN. NOW SHE'S THINKING ABOUT
MOVING AND SHE WORRY. WORRY
ABOUT WHERE SHE'S GOING TO GET
THE MONEY AND WE'LL LIKELY FACE
THE SAME EXPERIENCE. OF
ELIZABETH. EVEN IF. EVEN IF YOU
IF YOU HAVE A GOOD JOB IN A ARE
HIGHLY EDUCATED. THE APPLICATION
PROCESS IS A BIG CHALLENGE. MY
FRIEND KI¾M KENDALL IS A
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR. CHIEF
PAY A FEE TO BE ON A WAITING
LIST. AND THEN SHE REALIZED THAT
SHE WAS NUMBER 30 ON THE LIST.
MARIA LOPEZ, WHO LIVES BY THE
BOARDWALK. SO UH, HOUSE FOR RENT
THAT WAS LISTED FOR RENT FOR
OVER FIVE MONTHS. THEY WERE
CHEERING, CHARGING $200 FOR
EVERY ADULT JUST TO APPLY. OVER
FIVE MONTHS. THAT IS A LOT OF
MONEY TO COLLECT WITHOUT
PROVIDING HOUSING FOR ANYONE.
THESE STORIES OF MANY, UH OF MY
PARENTS COMMUNITY REPRESENT THE
UNJUST PRACTICES OF SOME
LANDLORDS THAT MUST BE STOPPING.
CO I ASKED YOU TO VOTE YES, ON A
B 2493. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER VETERAN FOR YOU
LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU. UH, IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF A B 2493? GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KAREN
STOUT HERE ON BEHALF OF POWER.
CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE ARE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
. I'M BARBARA MEISTER, ALSO FROM
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY IN COPA IN
SUPPORT OF A B 24 30 90 THREE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS FELIPE MORALES FROM UH, OUR
LADY OF REFUGEE CASTROVILLE AS
SUPPORTED THIS. THANK YOU. ELI
HOLIDAY ORGANIZING WITH COPA AND
SPEAKING FOR OUR OTHER 25 MEMBER
INSTITUTIONS. ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO A B 2490
THREE.
HELLO AGAIN. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS, DEBORAH CARLETON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. FIRST I WANNA SAY
TO THE AUTHOR WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO WITH THIS BILL. UM AND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE AND WE
AGREE WITH IT, UM, TO BE CLEAR
WE WERE OK WITH THE BILL, AS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED THAT WOULD
PROHIBIT A RENTAL PROPERTY OWNER
OR MANAGEMENT COMPANY FROM
CHARGING, UH, APPLICANT TO BE ON
A WAITING LIST. WE BELIEVE THAT
THE LAW NEVER INTENDED THAT. UM
AS FOR THE AMENDED VERSION OF
THE BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT
PROPERTY OWNERS OR MANAGEMENT
AND FROM CHARGING A FEE IF THEY
ALREADY DID AT THEIR OTHER
BUILDING. UM WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THAT RESOLVES THE ISSUE FOR
ALL TENANTS. UM OUT OF RESPECT.
WE'VE ASKED THE AUTHOR IF SHE
WOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING,
UH, PROPOSAL AND THAT IS, UH,
THAT LANDLORDS AND THIS IS A
COMMON PRACTICE IN ETHICAL
OWNERS IN THE INDUSTRY THAT THEY
ACCEPT APPLICATIONS ON A FIRST
COME FIRST QUALIFIED BASIS. THAT
MEANS THAT PEOPLE BEHIND THEM
ARE NOT CHARGED BECAUSE YOU
DON'T CHARGE FOR SOMEONE THAT
YOU HAVE NOT RUN A SCREEN FOR OR
THAT YOU ACCEPT A REUSABLE
SCREENING FEED THAT'S BEING
WORKED ON AND HAS BEEN WORKED ON
, UM, ALREADY IN THE INDUSTRY.
UM THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT
APPLICANTS ARE NOT CHARGED OVER
AND OVER AGAIN. AND WE AGREE
WITH YOU ON THAT CONCEPT. UM,
AND FOR THOSE REASONS WE'D LIKE
TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH, UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PELLERIN ON THIS
LEGISLATION. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION, A 2490
THREE. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
MEMBERS KATE BELL ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION. APOLOGIES WE JUST
TOOK A POSITION ON FRIDAY, BUT
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU
TO RESOLVE OUR POSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION
. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUES? ARE
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? SOMEWHERE, PAO. THANK
YOU. UM AND I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS. UH,
THIS BILL FORWARD. UM, THIS IS
IMPORTANT. PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE
CHARGED. UH AN APPLICATION FEE,
UH, TO BE PUT ON THE WAITLIST.
IT'S ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH AS
IT IS, UM, AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR
THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING.
UH, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL. BUT OF COURSE, I'LL BE
TRACKING IT TO SEE WHAT
AMENDMENTS ARE MADE. UM BUT I
THINK THE, UH THE HAVING THESE
DISCUSSIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I APPRECIATE, UM, YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND I KNOW
YOU'LL CONTINUE WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. YES, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M GLAD I AM HEARING UM,
BOTH SIDES TO THIS. I'M GLAD
YOU'RE WORKING. UH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. I'M GLAD YOU'RE WORKING
WITH BOTH SIDES BECAUSE I THINK
THERE'S A SOLUTION THERE
SOMEWHERE THAT CAN BENEFIT BOTH
PARTIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES I ALSO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND OPPOSITION
FOR WORKING TOGETHER AND IT
LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY HERE TO CONTINUE
THAT DIALOGUE. UH WHICH IS WHAT
WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE. UH, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
WITH 17 MILLION CALIFORNIANS
CONSTITUTING 44% OF OUR STATE'S
POPULATIONS THAT RENT THEIR
HOMES. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A
COMMON SENSE MEASURE. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM. SECRETARY
ROLL CALL VOTE MOTIONS DO PASS.
CORA CORA I DIXON BAR HAND.
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. ONLY I HANEY
MOONSHINE MOSH EYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I, PACHECO PACHECO, I
REYES REYES. I SANCHEZ. WALDRON.
THAT BILL WILL BE PLACED ON
CALL. THANK YOU. UM THE FINAL
ITEMS. ITEM TWO. MAYBE 2095 SOME
OF THE MOS SHINE. YEAH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR MORE THAN
100 YEARS, PUBLIC NOTICES HAVE
SERVED AS VITAL CHANNELS FOR
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, INFORMING
CITIZENS ABOUT CRUCIAL EVENTS
SHAPING OUR COMMUNITIES. PUBLIC
NOTICES HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN
PUBLISHED IN PAPER NEWSPAPERS.
HOWEVER AS THE DIGITAL AGE IS
HERE, IT'S CRUCIAL. WE ENSURE
EQUAL ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION
FOR ALL CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR PREFERRED MEDIUM. A B 2095
SEEKS TO ACHIEVE THIS BY
ESTABLISHING STANDARDIZED
PUBLICATION PROTOCOLS ACROSS
PRINT AND ONLINE PLATFORMS,
ELIMINATING ANY ADDITIONAL
CHARGES TO ACCESS PUBLIC NOTICES
ONLINE. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE
LEGAL NOTICES TO BE PUBLISHED IN
PRINT ON THE NEWSPAPER'S WEBSITE
AND ON A STATEWIDE WEBSITE
MAINTAINED AS THE CLEARING HOUSE
FOR NOTICES BY CALIFORNIA
NEWSPAPERS. THIS ENSURES EVERY
CITIZEN CAN STAY INFORMED ABOUT
IMPORTANT EVENTS WHETHER THEY
RELY ON NEWSPAPERS OR DIGITAL
SOURCES. THANK YOU, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
AND WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY. AND
SUPPORT. UH, IS BRITTANY
BARSOTTI FROM THE CALIFORNIA
NEWSPAPERS ASSOCIATION. I DO
WANT TO ADDRESS REAL QUICKLY.
THERE WAS A VERY LATE UM, I. I
GUESS SOME KIND OF OPPOSITION
LETTER RECEIVED. UM IT WAS DATED
MARCH 13TH. WE TOOK AMENDMENTS
ON MARCH 13TH THAT I BELIEVE
ADDRESSES TO THE EXTENT IT DID
NOT WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT,
BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN HANDLED.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
BRITTANY BARSOTTI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION. PROUD SPONSORS OF
THIS BILL. UM PUBLIC NOTICE IS
SOME BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO
COMMUNITIES FOR DECADES. THEY
COVER EVERYTHING FROM
FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO FICTITIOUS
BUSINESS NAMES AND EVERYTHING IN
BETWEEN. THERE ARE OVER 1700
STATUTES THAT DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS
. UH, THE OUR ASSOCIATION HAS
MAINTAINED A WEBSITE THE èC
PUBLIC KNOWS.COM, WHERE ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN ACCESS
FOR FREE AND SEE THE DIFFERENT
NOTICES THAT ARE POSTED ON IT AT
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF
DIGITAL AGE. WE HAVE ALSO
RECENTLY OUR MEMBERS TO PUBLISH
ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES AND TO THE
CENTRAL WEBSITE AS WELL. SO THAT
WAY, UM, WHETHER YOU ARE A PREP
PERSON OR A DIGITAL INDIVIDUAL
YOU CAN ACCESS THESE NOTICES FOR
FREE. OUR WEBSITE IS SEARCHABLE.
SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ISSUES OR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ISSUES. WHATEVER IT BE,
YOU CAN SEARCH BY TOPIC AND, UH,
WE'RE VERY PROUD TO HAVE THAT AS
AN OPTION. SO WE ARE SIMPLY
ASKING TO DO WHAT 12 OTHER
STATES HAVE DONE, WHICH IS
CREATE A SYSTEM. SO THAT WAY
THESE NOES MEAN PRESERVE PRINT
BUT ALSO EXPAND TO THOSE WHO ARE
IN NEED OF DIGITAL ACCESS. SO
THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY, G. I
VOTE THANK YOU. HAS ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF A B 2095.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION 2095.
GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
MATTHEW CLING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS
AND ELECTION OFFICIALS
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OUR LETTER DID
COME IN LATE AND WE APOLOGIZE
FOR THAT, SIR. AND WE PLAN ON
SITTING DOWN WITH èC N P AND
THEN THE MEMBER TO DISCUSS OUR
CONCERNS. WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED AT THIS TIME.
PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF THE
MANDATE TO INCLUDE A LINK TO A
PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCE ON A
PUBLIC WEBSITE. UH, WE HAVE A
STANDING POLICY IN MOST COUNTIES
AGAINST THIS PRACTICE AND WOULD
JUST LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH
THE AUTHOR AND SPONSORS MOVING
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HØI GOOD MORNING, ALYSSA. STILL
HØI ON BEHALF OF THE CITY CLERKS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA TO BE
CLEAR. WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL
LETTER IN OF OPPOSITION, BUT WE
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND HAVE SOME
CONCERNS THAT VERY MUCH MIRROR
WHAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST, UM
REFERENCED AND VERY MUCH LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS AND HOPE THAT WE
CAN GET THERE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHAIR AND MEMBERS MIKE BLO
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION. I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE BILL.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THERE
COULD BE INADVERTENT UPWARD
PRESSURE ON PUBLICATION FEES, A
SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF
PUBLICATION IN CALIFORNIA IS
FORECLOSURE NOTICES AS M,
BARSOTTI NOTED, AND THE WAY THE
SYSTEM WORKS NOW, THERE IS
RADICAL, UH, DIFFERENCES IN
PUBLICATION COSTS AROUND THE
STATE FOR THE SAME NOTICE. THESE
ARE NOTICES THAT ARE PAID FOR
ULTIMATELY BY HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE
TRYING TO KEEP THEIR HOMES, SO
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN
THIS BALANCE BETWEEN THE
IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC NOTICE AND
THE COST OF PUBLIC NOTICE. FOR
OUR PEOPLE. IT IS A PASS THROUGH
. THIS IS NOT A PROFIT ISSUE,
BUT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
VARIATIONS IN PUBLICATION COSTS
AROUND THE STATE, AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T
INADVERTENTLY RAISE COSTS. WE
TRUST MISTER MAINS. WE'RE
TALKING TO HIM AND THE SPONSORS,
UH, AND TRUST THAT THE ISSUE
WILL BE RESOLVE GOING FORWARD.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UH, ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
THE BILL. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A
SECOND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FOR
ANYONE? WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE
THERE'S SOME GENTLE, UNKIND
OPPOSITION THAT LOOKS LOOKS LIKE
THERE'S PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK ON. UH, GOING FORWARD. I
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YEAH
AND ON THAT NOTE, WE'LL WORK.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM
SPECIFICALLY TO MR BELO'S POINT,
AGREED. WE'RE NOT. IT'S NOT
TRYING TO BE FUNNY ISSUE. IT'S
REALLY JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
WE'RE NÓ LONGER. IN AN ERA WHERE
PEOPLE TAKE THE NEWSPAPER ONLY,
UH VIA HARD COPY. OBVIOUSLY MANY
MORE PEOPLE, UH, TEND TO TAKE
THEIR NEW THEIR NEWS ONLINE. AND
SO THIS IS TO ADDRESS NEW
TECHNOLOGY AND WITHOUT A RESPECT
, WE REQUEST AND I VOTE. OK,
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY. A
ROLL CALL VOTE ON A B 2095
MOTIONS DO PASS THROUGH
PRORATION CæA CæA I, DIXON
DIXON, I BARAKA BRIAN. CONNOLLY
CONNOLLY, I, HANEY HANEY. I
MAINS SHINE I MAINS SHINE I
MINNER MINNER. PACHECO PACHECO
REYES REYES, I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ,
I WALDRON. OK SO THAT DOOR IS
OUT. WE ALLOW OTHERS TO ADD ON
AND SO, UM, LET'S GO TO, UH, AND
CONSENT CALENDAR. I BELIEVE, UM
THAT MEMBER MAY SHINE AND
MCKINNA, UH, I BELIEVE NEED TO
ADD ON TO THE CONSENT COUNTER.
IF THEY SO CHOOSE FOR CONSENT.
MAINS SHINE, MAINS SHINE I
MINNER MCKENNA, I WE'LL GO
THROUGH THE ORDER. UH FILE ITEM
ONE A B 1899. REMAIN SHINE,
MAINS SHINE. ITEM ONE A B 1899
CERVANTES. MAIN SHINE EYE. UM
THEY'RE NOT SURE. UM, ITEM THREE
A B 2193. MOONSHINE. ME AND I
ITEM FOUR. WITH THE CALL. LIFT
THE CALL ON ITEM FOUR. BAR KHAN.
BRIAN TINY HèA I MOONSHINE MAINS
SHINE EYE, WALDRON. IT'S THAT
BILL IS OUT, AND WE'LL KEEP THE
ROLL. OPEN ITEM SIX A B 23 04.
MOVE THE CALL. BAR KHAN.
MOONSHINE. WALDRON. OK, SO PLACE
THAT BACK ON CALL. AND THEN.
ITEM SEVEN. A B 2490 THREE,
PELLERIN. LIFT THE CALL.
BARRICADE HAND, BRIAN. TINY,
TINY EYE, WALDRON. SO THAT BILL
IS OUT. UM, EVERYONE WE NEED
VOTES FROM IS NOT HERE. SO WELL,
JUST WAIT A FEW MORE MINUTES.
AT HOME. IDEA.
YEAH. HE HAS LIKE SOME.
I YOU ON.
HERE.
SORRY, GUYS. THEY THE OTHER. IT
WAS. IT WAS WATER FOR PREGNANT
IN JAIL. I WAS LIKE, WOW OK? I
RIGHT WATER AND NUTRITION FOR
PREGNANT PEOPLE IN JAIL. THOSE
ADD ONS. SO STARTING WITH ITEM 2
80 2095 MAINS SHINE. BE
BARRICADE AND I TORE IN 2257
WILSON. ITEM SIX IN 23 OR FOUR
LEAVES. 7490 THREE. ER AND I UM
CAN I NÓ. UM SO I ITEM SIX.
MAYBE 20 THREE 04 FAILS. HOW
WOULD YOU LIKE IT? YEAH, OK,
RECONSIDERATION AND WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND DO THAT. I, UH THANK
YOU, UH, WE'RE ADJOURNED.