>> WELL GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
UM, AND WE WILL NOTE THAT AB 2377
PREVIOUSLY ON CONSENT WILL BE
PRESENTED TODAY AND AB 2677 HAS
BEEN PULLED FROM THE HEARING.
THE RULES OF WITNESS TESTIMONY ARE THAT
EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TWO MINUTES.
TWO MAIN WITNESSES.
EACH WITNESS WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD STATE THEIR NAMES,
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND THEIR POSITION.
UM, WE WILL BE HAVING A SUMMER TING UH,
SUBBING IN TODAY.
UM, AS WE PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND PUBLIC COMMENT,
I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE MAINTAIN
ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND EFFICIENT HEARING,
IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE GOAL OF HEARING AS MUCH
FROM THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR TIME.
UM, THERE ARE SOME RULES FOR TODAY'S HEARINGS.
I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM UNLESS I HAVE TO,
AND SO HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WILL BEHAVE THEMSELVES.
AND, UM, SINCE WE ONLY HAVE TWO OF US HERE NOW,
WE'LL START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND I DO HAVE A COMMITTEE BILL TO PRESENT.
SO I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND START THAT,
AND WE CAN HAVE OUR VICE CHAIR PRESIDE.
>> ITEM 12.
OH.
>> YEAH.
YOU'RE THE BOSS.
PLEASE PROCEED.
UH OH.
WE ARE DOING.
TURN THIS ON.
>> WE ARE DOING AB 3281.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER AN OPENING
STATEMENT AS THE AUTHOR, PLEASE?
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
ASSEMBLY BILL 3281 IS THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE CIVIL LAW OMNIBUS BILL.
THIS BILL CONTAINS NUMEROUS MINOR
UPDATES TO VARIOUS CODE
SECTIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMITTEE,
THUS SAVING US FROM HEARING AT
LEAST A DOZEN OTHER BILLS.
AMONG THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL,
IT RENAMES THE CONSUMER LAW SECTION.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION SECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE CLARIFIES JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUES RELATED TO DIVORCE CASES
WHEN PARTIES MOVE COUNTIES.
CLARIFIES SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF
LAW TO PROHIBIT CONTRACTUAL
WAIVER OF IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVELY CONFERRED RIGHTS.
UM UPDATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR
CORRECTING MINOR ERRORS IN VITAL RECORDS,
AND IT FIXES TWO TYPOS IN EXISTING LAW.
I ALSO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
THAT I FORCED ON MYSELF.
UM, TO CLARIFY THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT CAN
SETTLE AGE RELATED DISCRIMINATION CASES AGAIN,
WHEN ALL THE CHANGES IN THE BILL ARE FAIRLY
MINOR AND GENERALLY CLARIFYING IN NATURE,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN EYE VOTE
WHEN AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
ANY WITNESSES WITH YOU TODAY?
NO.
THANK YOU.
UH, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?
ANYONE SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION.
AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
YES.
>> ARE THERE IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON
THAT NOBODY SUPPORTS THIS BILL?
IT MAY BE THE IT MAY BE THE AUTHOR PROBLEM.
I HAVE A QUESTION.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE CLARIFY FOR ME.
SO DO I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THAT, UH,
THE RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO PERMIT
RECUSALS BY THE APPELLATE,
UH, JUDGES WHEN THEY'RE REVIEWING A CASE?
PARDON ME?
OH, IT'S A DIFFERENT WRONG, BILL.
I APOLOGIZE.
OKAY.
SORRY.
I APOLOGIZE.
ALL RIGHT.
WHERE'S MY PIECE OF PAPER?
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
NOT YET.
WE'LL GET IT LATER.
WE'RE NOT.
DOING THAT.
SO WE CAN'T CALL THE ROLL?
NO.
WOULD YOU LIKE A CLOSING STATEMENT?
UH, RESPECTFULLY.
ESTHER AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
YOU'RE THE WRONG BILL.
>> YEAH.
ALL RIGHTY.
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO AB 1950.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CARRILLO.
YOU DON'T HAVE.
AND YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
>> WHERE IS YOUR COMMITTEE THIS MORNING, MR..
CHAIR?
UH, YEAH.
THEY MUST HAVE A LONG NIGHT LAST NIGHT, I GUESS.
UH, WELL, AGAIN, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
AND I THANK THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL TODAY.
I AM VERY PROUD TO PRESENT AB 1950,
THE CHAVEZ RAVINE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
THIS BILL ACKNOWLEDGES THE HISTORICAL DISPLACEMENT
OF THE COMMUNITIES OF PALO VERDE,
LA LOMA, AND BISHOP, KNOWN TODAY AS CHAVEZ RAVINE.
THIS POLICY IS SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA,
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
AND OUR INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, RICARDO LARA.
AB 1950 IS A CRITICAL STEP FORWARD AND AIMS TO
CORRECT AN INJUSTICE THAT DISPLACED FAMILIES
AND HAS LINGERED IN THE SHADOWS OF LOS ANGELES
EAST SIDE HISTORY FOR FAR TOO LONG.
AMID THE 1950S, THE VIBRANT COMMUNITIES
OF PALO VERDE, LA LOMA AND BISHOP,
HOME TO MOSTLY MEXICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES AS WELL
AS ITALIAN AMERICAN AND CHINESE AMERICAN,
SAW AN UPHEAVAL AS FAMILIES WERE UPROOTED
AND DISPLACED IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS.
FAMILIES WERE PROMISED A RETURN TO BETTER HOUSING,
BUT INSTEAD THEY WERE LEFT DESTITUTE.
THE PROMISE OF HOUSING WAS ACTUALLY NEVER FULFILLED.
DURING THIS TIME, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
EMPLOYED VARIOUS TACTICS TO PRESSURE
HOMEOWNERS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTIES,
INCLUDING THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
SPECIFICALLY, AB 1950 WILL RESULT IN HISTORICAL
ACCOUNTABILITY BY CREATING A PUBLIC
AND SEARCHABLE DATABASE DETAILING EVENTS
SURROUNDING LAND ACQUISITION.
THIS WILL FOSTER TRANSPARENCY
AND EDUCATION ON THIS PIVOTAL MOMENT.
REPARATIVE MEASURES BY PROPOSING
VARIOUS FORMS OF COMPENSATION,
INCLUDING OFFERING CITY OWNED
REAL ESTATE COMPARABLE TO
THE ORIGINAL UM CHAVEZ RAVINE
LANDOWNERS AND PROVIDING,
UH, COMPARABLE TO THE ORIGINAL
CHAVEZ RAVINE LANDOWNERS,
AND PROVIDING FAIR MARKET VALUE
COMPENSATION ADJUSTED FOR
INFLATION AND LASTLY ESTABLISHING
A PERMANENT MEMORIAL.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A MEMORIAL ON CHAVEZ RAVINE, UH,
OR ADJOINING PROPERTY TO HONOR THE DISPLACED
RESIDENTS AND THEIR LEGACY.
FOR GENERATIONS, CHAVEZ RAVINE STOOD
AS A BEACON OF HOPE AND RESILIENCE,
EMBODYING THE DREAMS AND ASPIRATIONS OF FAMILIES
WHO BUILT THEIR LIVES WITHIN ITS EMBRACE.
WITH THIS LEGISLATION, WE ARE ADDRESSING THE PAST,
GIVING VOICE TO THIS INJUSTICE,
ACKNOWLEDGING THE PAIN
AND TRAUMA OF THOSE DISPLACED,
OFFERING REPARATIVE MEASURES AND ENSURING
THAT WE HONOR AND REMEMBER
THE LEGACY OF THE PEOPLE OF PALO VERDE,
LA LOMA, AND BISHOP.
AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I URGE YOU
TO LEND YOUR SUPPORT AS
WE ESTABLISH THE HEALING FOR ALL OF THE DESCENDANTS,
SOME OF WHOM ACTUALLY WERE YOUNG CHILDREN,
WHERE THEY WERE DISPLACED AND ARE STILL ALIVE TODAY,
ONE OF WHOM IS ONE OF MY MENTORS, CAROL HOTCHKISS,
WHO IS IN HER LATE 80S AND WAS DISPLACED
AS A YOUNG FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL VICIOUSLY
AND VIOLENTLY TAKEN OUT OF HER HOME.
THIS BILL HAS NO OPPOSITION.
WE ARE IN REALLY GREAT COMMUNICATIONS
WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS HISTORY IN OUR CITY
THAT MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT,
BUT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT.
THERE ARE BOOKS WRITTEN ABOUT IT,
BUT AS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT
AND PASSED AB 101 ETHNIC STUDIES
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
WE HOPE THAT THE HISTORY OF
THIS COMMUNITY IS INCLUDED,
AS IT IS SUCH A VIBRANT AND IMPORTANT
PART OF THE CHICANO
AND MEXICAN AMERICAN IDENTITY IN LOS ANGELES.
UH, WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
IS JOSEPHINE FIGUEROA,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICY AND LEGISLATION
AT THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE,
AND ALFRED TREJO,
FOUNDER AND CEO OF THE SOMOS GROUP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
UH, GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, JOSEPHINE FIGUEROA,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER RICARDO LARA.
I FIRST WANT TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARRILLO FOR CARRYING THIS
IMPORTANT AND AUTHORING THIS IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
THROUGHOUT INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
LARA'S CAREER AND PUBLIC SERVICE,
HIS FOCUS HAS BEEN ON SERVING THOSE THAT
HAVE BEEN UNDERSERVED FROM THE HEALTH,
FROM HEALTH CARE TO ALL PROMOTING
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
AS PART OF THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE.
HIS GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN,
AND CONTINUES TO BE TO CONFRONT INJUSTICES,
TO BUILD A FAIRER SOCIETY FOR US ALL.
WHAT WE ARE SEEKING WITH AB 1950 IS KNOWLEDGE,
UNDERSTANDING AND HEALING.
THE PALO VERDE, LA LOMA AND BISHOP
NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES STOOD AS SOME OF
THE VERY FEW AREAS ACCESSIBLE
TO HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED
POPULATIONS SEEKING HOUSING
SECURITY IN THE FACE OF SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION.
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW?
BASICALLY, IT IS PAST TIME FOR THE FAMILIES
WHO HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THE TRAUMA
OF BEING DISPLACED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED
AND REDRESS THIS INJUSTICE.
THE LONG STANDING RESIDENTS
OF THESE COMMUNITIES WERE
NEVER ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR THEIR PROPERTY,
BOTH LANDOWNER AND TENANT,
SOME OF WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR DECADES.
WERE GIVEN NO CHOICE ABOUT LEAVING
THEIR HOMES, AND MANY RESISTED,
BUT EVENTUALLY ALL WERE FORCED TO RELOCATE.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS,
AND WE SHOULD.
WE BELIEVE THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
NOT ONLY PROVIDE LONG OVERDUE
COMPENSATION FOR RESIDENTS OF
THESE THREE COMMUNITIES,
BUT IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR
RECONCILIATION AND HEALING FOR ALL.
AB 1950 PAVES THE WAY FOR A MORE
EQUITABLE LOS ANGELES BY
ADDRESSING PAST WRONGS AND PROMOTING RECONCILIATION.
IT WILL HELP EDUCATE ANGELENOS ABOUT
WHAT WHAT WE NOW CALL CHAVEZ
RABIN'S TRUE HISTORY FORCING TRANSPARENCY
AND UNDERSTANDING.
NOTHING CAN BRING BACK WHAT THEY ONCE HAD.
WE UNDERSTAND THEIR ANGER AND FRUSTRATION.
AB 1950 IS THE NEXT STEP IN THIS JOURNEY OF FINDING
SOME MEASURE OF JUSTICE FOR THESE FAMILIES.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET THERE IS
TO LISTEN TO ALL VOICES,
LISTEN WITH COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING.
WE AIM TO ADDRESS THIS ERASURE OF THEIR
HOMES AND THEIR IDENTITY FROM THE LAND,
AND WRITE A NEW CHAPTER IN
THE HISTORY OF LOS ANGELES,
ONE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THIS INJUSTICE,
REMEMBERS THEIR LEGACY WITH A MEMORIAL
IN THE LAND THEY ONCE CALLED HOME.
ON BEHALF OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
RICARDO LARA, I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ALFRED FRAIJO.
I'M THE CEO OF SOMOS GROUP.
I'M A LAND USE LAWYER AND HAVE LECTURED
EXTENSIVELY ON THE SUBJECT OF REDLINING
AND EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS THAT HAVE
THEIR ORIGIN IN SYSTEMIC RACISM.
MY FIRM IS ASSISTING WITH COMMUNITY
AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ON THIS LEGISLATION.
I'M HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF AB 1950,
AND TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THAT THIS BILL
IS GROUNDED IN SONG AND SOUND.
LEGAL PRECEDENT.
SINCE THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST CENTURY,
THERE HAVE BEEN
A NUMBER OF GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS
FOR REDRESSING SOME OF
THE HISTORIC LAND SEIZURES
PERPETRATED AGAINST PEOPLE
OF COLOR AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES IN THIS COUNTRY.
THOSE EFFORTS, WHERE THERE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN,
PROVIDE IMPORTANT PRECEDENT FOR THE GROWING
RESTORATIVE LAND MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA.
THE INDIAN CLAIMS ACT OF 1946,
THE JAPANESE-AMERICAN CLAIM ACT OF 1948,
THE CIVIL LIBERTIES ACT OF 1988,
AND THE ROSEWOOD COMPENSATION BILL
PASSED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
ALL SOUGHT TO DEAL WITH THE SOME ASPECTS
OF LAND THAT WAS ILLEGALLY
TAKEN FROM PEOPLE OF COLOR
AND INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS.
MOST RECENTLY, THROUGH THE SUPPORT
OF THIS LEGISLATURE,
THE BRUCE FAMILY IN MANHATTAN
BEACH WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE
THEIR LAND BACK AFTER AN UNJUST
GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURE.
AND AS WE MEET TODAY, PALM SPRINGS OFFICIALS
ARE CONSIDERING A SETTLEMENT WITH AROUND
300 SURVIVORS AND DESCENDANTS OF WHAT
IS KNOWN AS PALM SPRINGS SECTION 14,
WHERE THE CITY DISPLACED AND DESTROYED THE HOMES
OF THOUSANDS OF LATINO AND BLACK RESIDENTS.
WE HAVE HANDOUTS WITH MORE INFORMATION
ON THESE LEGAL PRECEDENTS
THAT INFORM THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THIS BILL.
AB 1950 TAKES THE MOST EFFECTIVE ASPECTS
OF THESE LEGAL PRECEDENTS
AND CREATES A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLECTING
AND SHARING DATA,
MANDATES THE FORMATION OF A TASK FORCE
TO DEFINE AND OVERSEE COMPENSATION,
AND CALLS FOR A GROUNDBREAKING TOOL FOR
PUBLIC HEALING AND EDUCATION THROUGH
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY BASED
MEMORIAL THAT RECOGNIZES THE LA LOMA,
BISHOP AND PALO VERDE NEIGHBORHOODS
AS THRIVING COMMUNITIES
INHABITED BY HARD WORKING CALIFORNIANS.
I'M HOLDING IN MY HAND LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL FROM RESIDENTS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS,
WHOSE LIVES WERE UPENDED AND WHOSE
HUMANITY WAS DISREGARDED.
THEY ARE ASKING THAT YOU PROVIDE A MEASURE
OF JUSTICE AND PUBLIC RECOGNITION.
OF THE WRONGS DONE TO THEM.
WE BELIEVE THIS BILL WILL BEGIN
THAT PROCESS OF HEALING.
THANK YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 1950?
>> UH, GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS CHRISTOPHER SANCHEZ WITH
THE MESA VERDE GROUP REPRESENTING
INCLUSIVE ACTION FOR THE CITY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS.
JERONIMO AGUILAR HERE.
ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US HERE AT TODOS
HONORED SACRAMENTO CHAPTER.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1950?
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM FOR A VOTE QUITE YET,
BUT WE DO HAVE OPEN UP FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
SO MEMBER BRIAN.
YEAH.
THANK YOU.
UM, ALFRED, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU.
UM, INCLUSIVE ACTION.
A LOT OF A LOT OF FRIENDS HERE.
UM, THERE'S DEFINITELY PRECEDENT
FOR TRYING TO SECURE BACK,
UM, WHAT WAS TAKEN THROUGH LAND TAKINGS.
I'M THINKING OF BRUCE'S BEACH.
I'M THINKING OF SECTION 14.
UM, I THINK THAT THE STORIES
OF CHAVEZ RAVINE HAVE BEEN
ECHOED ACROSS LOS ANGELES FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
AND SO, UM, THIS IS THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I AM A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS, THOUGH,
IF THERE WAS LIKE A,
AN INSURANCE COMPONENT HERE FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OR IF THE COMMISSIONER
IS JUST PERSONALLY VESTED IN DOING WHAT'S RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
I'LL SAY THIS.
THE COMMISSION IS ALWAYS VESTED
IN DOING WHAT'S RIGHT.
THANK YOU SIR.
UM, YEAH.
HISTORICALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT
HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN INVOLVED IN,
IN RIGHTING WRONGS AND GOING AFTER
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN INJUSTICE
HISTORICALLY AND CONTINUES TO DO SO
NOW AS INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
HE ALSO REPRESENTED THE AREA WHEN
HE SERVED IN THE SENATE.
SO WE HAVE OVERLAPPED IN THE JURISDICTION.
THANK YOU.
MADAM VICE CHAIR.
CHAIR.
UM, I'M.
I TAKE YOUR YOUR COMMENTS AND THE HISTORY
AND THE RECITATION OF THE HISTORY.
VERY HEARTFELT WORDS AND I AGREE THAT
THIS NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED.
MY QUESTION REALLY IS A FOLLOW
UP TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
BRIAN'S COMMENT IS FOR THE STATE TO BE PASSING
LEGISLATION OR CONSIDERING LEGISLATION,
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?
SOME, UH, REPARATION FROM THE STATE
OR COMPENSATION FROM THE STATE,
OR JUST RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF
SUPPORT FOR YOUR GOOD EFFORTS?
WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE?
THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY THAT DEMANDS THAT
THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COMPENSATION.
THE WRONGDOING WAS DONE BY THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
BUT THE STATE DOES NEED TO SET, UM,
THE PRECEDENT FOR THE NINE MEMBER TASK
COMMITTEE THAT WILL BE ESTABLISHED
IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO MOVE
POTENTIAL COMPENSATION FORWARD.
SO THERE IS THERE IS NO, UM,
FUNDING REQUIRED FROM THE STATE.
OKAY, THEN THAT BEGS ANOTHER QUESTION.
WHY WOULDN'T THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL
OR THE BOARD OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INITIATE
AND CREATE THAT TASK FORCE?
WHY DOES IT REQUIRE THE STATE OR.
I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS, I GUESS.
BUT WHY DOES THE STATE NEED TO CREATE A TASK FORCE?
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ALFRED FARRELL.
FOR THE RECORD, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THIS IS A HISTORIC INJUSTICE THAT OCCURRED,
THAT THERE BE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK AT
THE STATE LEVEL THAT GRANTS AUTHORITY TO
THE CITY OF LA TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED
WITH THE CREATION OF THE TASK FORCE.
WE SEE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WHO HAS INDICATED SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL AND WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AROUND IT,
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO HAVE THIS STATE TOOL TO
BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS
AND THE CREATION OF THE TASK FORCE TO INVESTIGATE
THE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS THAT WERE HISTORIC.
OKAY.
NOW IN THE SUMMARY, THE BACKGROUND.
SO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES APPROVED,
UH, EFFORTS.
I GUESS THIS WAS ALL ABOUT THE DODGERS,
THE BROOKLYN DODGERS COMING
AND BUILDING DODGER STADIUM.
SO THAT EFFORT, OBVIOUSLY NONE
OF US WERE THERE THEN.
I KNOW IT WAS A MAJOR EFFORT
IN THE CITY HISTORICALLY
TO AND THE CITY VOTERS APPROVED THAT.
AND WE KNOW WHAT TODAY IS.
I MEAN, WAS THERE ANY RECOGNITION
AT THAT TIME OF I MEAN,
THERE WAS THAT TRANSACTION BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSED
TO BE HOUSING AND THEN IT NEVER HAPPENED.
AND THEN IT BECAME A BASEBALL STADIUM.
ANY RECOGNITION BY THE CITY OR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
TO ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE ISSUES AT THE TIME,
BECAUSE THE VOTERS DID APPROVE DODGER
STADIUM AND THE REST IS HISTORY.
I'M HAPPY TO SEND YOU SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
INFORMATION ON STATE POLICIES AT THE TIME
RELATED TO HOUSING THAT THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
USED IN AN EFFORT TO ACTUALLY USE UM,
UM, EMINENT DOMAIN AS WELL AS WE ALL KNOW
THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PLACE WHEN
THE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS
AND ACTUALLY THE TRUMAN'S ADMINISTRATION,
FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THE ELYSIAN VALLEY HOUSING
PROJECT WAS ALREADY FEDERALLY FUNDED.
SO THERE WAS A HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED AND HAD
FEDERAL FUNDS TO ACTUALLY MOVE IT FORWARD.
IT WAS DURING THE MCCARTHY ERA.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF, UM, UH,
FEAR RELATED TO SOCIAL HOUSING.
AN ELECTION HAPPENED.
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
THE NEW LEGISLATIVE BODY IN THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES DECIDED TO UNDO THE WORK THAT HAD
ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THE PREVIOUS
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION,
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
AND THEY DECIDED TO VOTE AGAINST
A POLICY FOR HOUSING
THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND IN DOING SO,
YEARS LATER, BROUGHT IN THE DODGERS.
SO IT'S NOT AS IF IT HAPPENED OVERNIGHT.
IT TOOK MANY YEARS FOR THOSE
FAMILIES TO BE DISPLACED.
IT TOOK AN ELECTION FOR THE CITY
TO DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT HAD ORIGINALLY PROMISED.
AND IN DOING SO, THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES
WERE LEFT IN THE DARK.
AND THEY WERE NOT COMPENSATED.
NO.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I IT IS A TRAVESTY.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH IT.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING,
UH, LEGALLY BINDING ON A FORMATION
OF A TASK FORCE OR A COMMITTEE,
AND THEN THEREFORE, THE STATE IS SOMEHOW GOING TO
BE CONNECTED TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE.
DO YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING?
CAN YOU FORESEE THAT?
IS THAT AN ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE.
THAT ALFRED, AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD,
UM, THE THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
UM, WE SAW, UH, THE THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP
AND THE CONSCIENTIOUS, UM,
ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN BY THIS
BODY AS IT RELATES TO BRUCE,
THE BRUCE'S FAMILY,
THAT WHAT WE NEEDED WAS THE LEGAL MECHANISM TO
BE ABLE TO CREATE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION
AND THE COMPENSATION THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY
A TOOL THAT'S AVAILABLE.
WHAT WE HAVE, UM,
PROVIDED FOR IN THE PROVISIONS WITH
THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS TO ENSURE
THAT THE LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC TO THAT AUTHORITY
THAT WOULD BE IMBUED ON THE LOCAL TASK FORCE,
AS OPPOSED TO CREATING ANY LEGAL
MECHANISM TO ENFORCE THE STATE
IN ANY WAY OR CREATE LIABILITY
FOR THE STATE IN ANY WAY.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A GAP IN THAT,
UH, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS,
WHICH IS THE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY
THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, UM,
FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PROCEED WITH THE UM,
PROPOSED INVESTIGATION AND ULTIMATE
PROPOSAL ON COMPENSATION,
WHICH DOESN'T EXIST.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MADAM SECRETARY.
IF YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL TO ESTABLISH QUORUM,
PLEASE CALL TO HEAR DIXON.
YES, YES, HERE I AM, TIM.
>> BRYAN.
PRESENT.
CONNOLLY.
HERE.
HANEY.
YOUR MAIN SHINE.
MACKENNA PACHECO, PRESIDENT.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A QUORUM.
SENATOR O'BRIEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION?
SO MOVED.
SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER COMMENT OR QUESTIONS?
UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
ALSO THANKS TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER AS WELL.
IT'S ALWAYS, UH, INTERESTING WHEN WE
HAVE THESE KIND OF WALKS THROUGH
HISTORY TO THAT THAT AREN'T ALWAYS
PLEASANT BUT ARE IMPORTANT.
AND SO I PERSONALLY LIKE THIS TREND OF US,
UM, GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HEALING,
OF RESTORATION AND ULTIMATELY JUSTICE.
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
AND QUESTIONS ON THE POLICY.
AB 1950, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
AIMS TO ULTIMATELY GIVE VOICE
AND HAVE THE COMMUNITIES OF LA LOMA,
PALO VERDE AND BISHOP BE SEEN.
THOSE FAMILIES AND THOSE PHOTOS
THAT YOU SEE IN HISTORICAL
ARCHIVES OF WOMEN BEING DRAGGED OUT OF THEIR HOMES,
OF CHILDREN CRYING BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING DISPLACED,
THEY'RE ALL BLACK AND WHITE ARCHIVAL PHOTOS.
BUT THOSE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT ARE ABSTRACT.
THOSE ARE REAL HUMAN BEINGS THAT LIVE IN
THE COMMUNITY THAT I REPRESENT NOW,
AND WHO WERE UNJUSTLY DISPLACED FROM
THEIR HOMES, NEVER COMPENSATED.
AND THAT ACTION HAS ROBBED THESE FAMILIES OF
GENERATIONAL WEALTH THROUGH HOME OWNERSHIP.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE, VALUABLE PIECE OF LAND.
NOW IN LOS ANGELES THAT WASN'T ALWAYS LIKE THAT.
AND BECAUSE OF SITUATIONS LIKE REDLINING
AND THE HOUSING ACT OF THE 1960S,
WE HAVE SEEN MANY CHANGES SINCE.
BUT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND WE HAVE TO MAKE
THINGS RIGHT WHERE WE HAVE FAILED,
UH, FAMILIES ACROSS THE STATE.
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF HISTORY AND LEGACY
FOR MY DISTRICT AND FOR THE COMMUNITIES
OF LOS ANGELES AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF
LOS ANGELES THAT WERE DISPLACED.
AND THIS IS ONE STEP FORWARD, UM,
AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY FEEL HEARD,
THEY FEEL SEEN.
AND WE BRING JUSTICE TO SOMETHING
THAT WAS DONE TO THEM.
SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
ROLL CALL ON AB 1950, PLEASE.
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CALL.
I CALL I DIXON TING BRIAN I BRIAN, I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY, I.
HANEY.
I.
MAINCHAIN.
MAINCHAIN I.
MCKINNON.
PACHECO.
I.
PACHECO.
I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
I.
AND THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU.
UM.
NO.
NEXT IN FILE ORDER IS VOLUME 3AB 2125.
GARCIA.
AND YOU MAY BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
>> THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
UH, HERE TO PRESENT AB 2125 RELATED
TO APPELLATE PANELS.
THIS BILL.
UH, I'LL START BY ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
COME OUT OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE
CONSULTANTS AND REALLY BASED OUT OF SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
UH, THOSE AMENDMENTS, UH,
FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON A SUNSET
AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE CALIFORNIA
LAW REVISION COMMISSION.
UM, SPECIFICALLY THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE,
UH, LOOKING AT, UH, STUDYING, UH,
SOME OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO BE, UH,
FOCUSED ON THE RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION
OF JUDGES.
UH, THIS BILL, UH, FILLS A HOLE IN
THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE,
ENSURING THAT ONCE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
REVERSES THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION,
THE APPEAL IS DECIDED BY
AN UNBIASED APPELLATE PANEL.
CURRENTLY, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROTECTS
LITIGANTS FROM TRIAL COURT JUDGES WHO MAY
BE BIASED AGAINST A PARTY WHO SUCCESSFULLY
APPEALED THE JUDGE'S ERRONEOUS DECISION,
BUT FAILS TO SIMILARLY PROTECT AGAINST APPELLATE
COURT JUSTICES IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD REDUCE DELAYS IN THE COURT
SYSTEM AND BENEFIT THE LITIGANTS IN THE PUBLIC.
THE CHANGE WILL HELP RESTORE PUBLIC
TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM,
WHICH IS NOTED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS AT ALL TIME.
UM LOW BY ELIMINATING THE POTENTIAL
FOR BIASED APPELLATE JUDGES.
THE LEGISLATION ALSO ENSURES THAT CASES ARE NOT
BOUNCED AROUND BETWEEN THREE LEVELS OF COURTS,
AS HAS OCCURRED IN PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
VERSUS CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
A CASE DEALING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
I WILL DEFER NOW TO OUR TWO WITNESSES
WHO WILL BE BRIEF AND TO THE POINT.
AND AGAIN, JUST THANK YOU FOR
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS.
RESPECTFULLY, WE'LL BE ASKING FOR AN EYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS YOU.
I COME BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING ON BEHALF OF BOTH
LULAC AND THE WILLIAM VELASQUEZ INSTITUTE,
WHICH HAVE BOTH FILED LETTERS
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
UH, VERY QUICKLY, FOR NEARLY 40 YEARS
IN CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS,
A LITIGANT WHO HAS SUCCESSFULLY
REVERSED A TRIAL JUDGE'S
DECISION ON APPEAL CAN HAVE
THE REST OF THE CASE DECIDED
BY A NEW JUDGE THAT AVOIDS
THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING THE CASE
DECIDED BY A JUDGE WHO IS RESENTFUL OF THE LITIGANT,
OR WHO GOT A PARTICULAR, UH,
JUDGE DECISION REVERSED.
THIS IS A COMMON SENSE APPROACH.
THE RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO TRIAL JUDGES
WHOSE RULINGS HAVE BEEN REVERSED,
BUT NOT THE APPELLATE JUDGES.
THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES THAT
REACHED THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
THIS BILL WILL ONLY DO WHAT IS APPLICABLE
TODAY AT THE TRIAL LEVEL.
BY ENSURING THAT THIS PROBLEM, UH,
GETS RESOLVED IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THAT OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY
WITH OUR TRIAL COURT SYSTEM.
WE'D ASKED FOR AN I VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
YEAH.
CHAIR MEMBERS, UH, MARVIN PINEDA,
ON BEHALF OF THE ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2125.
UM, I'LL SKIP THE INTRO AND PARAGRAPH
ABOUT WHAT THE ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE IS,
BUT, UH, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE SUPPORT.
UH, ON AB 2125, AS IT WAS MENTIONED,
IT ENSURES THAT THERE ARE NO BIASES.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH,
I THINK THAT THE OPPOSITION, UH,
CONTINUE HAS STATED IN THEIR LETTERS THAT, YOU KNOW,
THERE THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF THIS.
UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL EXAMPLES THAT EXIST.
UM, AND THAT'S, AS I MENTIONED, PICO NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION VERSUS CITY OF SANTA MONICA.
JUDGE JOHN WILEY, THE APPELLATE JUDGE THAT DECIDED
NOT TO FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT'S UH,
DIRECTION, CLERKED FOR JUSTICE POWELL,
WHO WAS AN ANTI VOTING RIGHTS ACT, UH, JUDGE,
AND VOTED AGAINST VOTING RIGHTS ACT CASES.
THE SECOND JUDGE IN THAT PANEL IS ELIZABETH GRIMES,
UM, WHO CONCURRED WITH HIM,
AND SHE WAS A PARTNER AT GIBSON, DUNN CRUTCHER,
WHO IS THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
SO THAT WHILE THE CURRENT,
UH, CODE OF ETHICS DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY,
UH, DISQUALIFY THEM IT AGAIN,
IT THEY DON'T HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST,
BUT THE DECISION THAT THEY MADE TO SEND THE CASE
BACK TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AND NOT FOLLOW
THE SUPREME COURT NOW WILL COST MORE MONEY,
UH, IN HAVING THE CASE RELITIGATED AND BACK
ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT.
UH, WE'VE, UH, AGAIN,
THIS IS JUST A MOTION TO PETITION,
UH, THAT THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED.
AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL CAUSE FOR,
UH, JUDGE SHOPPING AGAIN.
UH, IT'S A PANEL OF THREE, UH.
AND AGAIN, IF THAT PANEL DECIDED
TO NOT FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT,
THEY WOULD HAVE TO.
THEY HAVE TO DO MORE RESEARCH
AND DO ALL THE WORK AGAIN.
SO IF IT'S ASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT PANEL, AGAIN,
THAT PANEL IS GOING TO BE DOING THE WORK
WITH RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR THE NIGHT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2125?
>> YES.
UH, MY NAME IS MARCO LIZARRAGA OR MARCO LUZARRAGA.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PARTIDO CAMPESINA
DE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION,
SERVING THE FARMWORKERS ON BEHALF OF MY MEMBERS.
CENTER, CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,
CENTRAL VALLEY OPPORTUNITY CENTER, PROTEUS.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE UH INLAND
COALITION FOR IMMIGRANTS.
WE ARE ALL IN SUPPORT.
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS ALEJANDRO SOLIS
ON BEHALF OF LOS AMIGOS DE LA COMUNIDAD.
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
AND LAWYERS COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIA, ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2125?
FEEL FREE TO COME UP HERE.
THERE'S.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF SEATS UP HERE.
IN MY KITCHEN.
GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS LORI EARLE.
I'M THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRESIDING JUSTICE
OF THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
JUST ACROSS THE STREET HERE.
I WAS CONFIRMED TO THAT POSITION
IN JULY OF LAST YEAR.
UM, THE THIRD DISTRICT PROCESS APPEALS
FROM SUPERIOR COURTS IN 23 COUNTIES,
FROM OUR NEIGHBORS IN SAN JOAQUIN
UP TO AND INCLUDING
MODOC COUNTY AT THE OREGON BORDER.
PRIOR TO SERVING AS AN APPELLATE JUSTICE,
I SERVED FOR 16 YEARS AS A TRIAL JUDGE
ON THE SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT,
INCLUDING TWO YEARS AS ITS PRESIDING JUDGE,
AND BEFORE THAT, LONG AGO AS A LAWYER.
I SERVED AS BOTH A DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER
AND A DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
TODAY, I TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF
BOTH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRESIDING
JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA'S SIXTH DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEAL IN ITS OPPOSITION TO AB 2125,
HAVING SERVED AS A JUDGE FOR ALMOST
20 YEARS NOW AND A LAWYER FOR 16,
I WELL UNDERSTAND THE INTEREST OF PARTIES
IN ASSURING THAT THE JUDGES
AND JUSTICES WHO HEAR THEIR CASES
ARE IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED.
I ALSO FULLY APPRECIATE THE NEED
FOR PROMPT RESOLUTION OF CASES,
BUT AB 2125 IS NOT THE ANSWER.
CONTRARY TO THE APPARENT INTENT OF THE BILL,
THE EFFECT OF AB 2125 WOULD
RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT DELAYS IN APPELLATE
AND TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.
APPELLATE COURTS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN
EXEMPT FROM THE DISQUALIFICATION
PROVISIONS IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
BOTH BECAUSE THEY PLAY A DIFFERENT ROLE THAN
THE TRIAL COURTS IN OUR LEGAL PROCESS,
AND APPELLATE COURTS ARE STRUCTURED
TO ABATE JUDICIAL BIAS.
APPELLATE COURTS SERVE A DIFFERENT ROLE BECAUSE,
UNLIKE TRIAL COURTS,
WHICH ARE FINDERS OF FACT, APPELLATE COURTS LIKE
THE SUPREME COURT ARE COURTS OF REVIEW.
APPELLATE COURTS DO NOT DECIDE
CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT.
WE DO NOT RECEIVE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE.
WE REVIEW THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS AND ARE FOCUSED ON
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY
INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE LAW,
AND WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS
WERE FAIR IN ORDER TO ENSURE
OUR REVIEW OF TRIAL COURT DECISIONS
ARE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
APPELLATE COURTS SIT IN THREE
JUDGE PANELS AND REQUIRE
A MAJORITY TO AGREE ON ANY DECISION WE REACH.
SO THE RATIONALE THAT ANIMATES SECTION ONE 70.6,
NAMELY AVOIDING INDIVIDUAL BIAS,
ISN'T PRESENT IN THE COURTS OF APPEAL OR
APPELLATE PANELS IN SUPERIOR COURTS.
APPELLATE COURTS ALSO INTERNALLY ASSESS POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON EVERY CASE.
OUR COURTS MAINTAIN A NON-PARTICIPATION
LIST FOR EACH OF OUR JUDGES,
A LIST OF PARTIES, ATTORNEYS, LAW FIRMS,
OR LOWER COURT JUDGES WHO ARE JUDGES
HAVE AN EXISTING OR FORMER
RELATIONSHIP WITH AND WHOSE CASE THEY DO NOT SIT ON.
WE ARE NOT LIKE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
CALIFORNIA HAS A CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS FOR OUR JUDGES.
THAT CODE REQUIRES A JUSTICE TO DISQUALIFY
THEMSELVES IF THEY HAVE A PERSONAL
OR FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CASE,
OR BELIEVE THEY CANNOT BE IMPARTIAL.
YOUR HONOR, I REALLY HATE TO CUT YOU OFF,
BUT WE HAVE TO TRY TO KEEP THE TIME LIMITS HERE.
SO IF YOU WANT TO WRAP UP REALLY QUICKLY,
I APPRECIATE IT.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT NOT ONLY ARE
WE DIFFERENT THAN TRIAL COURTS,
UH, BUT THE, UH,
IMPLEMENTING AB 20 2025 WOULD LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT
DELAYS IN TERMS OF GETTING
NEW JUDGES ASSIGNED TO THOSE CASES
AND DELAYING NOT ONLY OUR PROCEEDINGS,
BUT THE PROCEEDINGS OF OTHER CASES
THAT ARE WITHIN OUR DISTRICT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MIKE PAULO, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION.
I'LL BE QUITE BRIEF.
HERE'S WHAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT.
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SHIELDING
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH FROM BIAS.
WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO ROOT OUT BIAS.
AND A LOT HAS BEEN DONE AND MORE CAN BE DONE.
AND WE'RE ALL FOR A STUDY OF HOW TO AVOID
BIAS IN THE APPELLATE PROCESS.
BUT ALL LAWYERS IN CALIFORNIA WHO PRACTICE
KNOW THAT WHAT SECTION ONE 70.6
CHALLENGES HAVE BECOME IS A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE OF JUDGES.
THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
EXISTING IN CALIFORNIA LAW,
APPLICABLE HERE SINCE 1938,
REQUIRES A BIAS ALLEGATION.
AND EVERY DAY IN CALIFORNIA, HUNDREDS OF TIMES,
LAWYERS ARE MAKING BIAS ALLEGATIONS
BECAUSE THEY MUST WHEN
THEY KNOW THAT NO BIAS EXISTS
IN THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE.
SO THIS HAS BECOME A SIMPLE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE,
A CAUSE, A CHALLENGE FOR NO CAUSE.
USUALLY IT EXISTS FOR BIAS, BUT USUALLY IT IS DONE
FOR FORUM SHOPPING TO GET A DIFFERENT JUDGE.
SO I ASK YOU THIS WHAT WHAT WOULD WHAT
WOULD HAPPEN HERE IF A LOBBYIST
GOT A FREE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE PER BILL,
EACH LOBBYIST CAN CHALLENGE ONE
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A FINITE NUMBER
OF LEGISLATORS IN THE BUILDING.
THERE ARE FINITE NUMBER OF JUDGES IN CALIFORNIA,
AND THERE'S A FINITE EVEN LESS, A MORE.
NUMBER OF APPELLATE JUSTICES, IT WOULDN'T WORK.
SO WE ARE OPPOSED TO EXPANDING PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES TO THE APPELLATE PROCESS,
BUT WE ARE FOR STUDYING THE ISSUE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION
COMMISSION AND BRING IN THE COMMISSION
ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE.
AND LET'S GET DOWN TO THE PROBLEM HERE,
WHICH IS WE'VE CREATED A SIMPLE
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE OF JUDGES.
AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2125?
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR EMOTIONS.
SO MEMBER PACHECO.
OKAY.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UH, MY FIRST QUESTION, IT HAS TO DO WITH
THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN.
UH, I BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT IS TO HAVE A SUNSET.
CORRECT.
AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM OPPOSITION
TO SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS
ARE ON ON THESE AMENDMENTS,
BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS A SUNSET.
UH, TO HAVE A STUDY DONE BY THE CALIFORNIA
LAW REVISION COMMISSION.
THROUGH THE CHAIR.
UH, MR.
CHAIR, UH, PLEASE.
WE'RE FINE WITH THE STUDY.
WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE 1938.
UH, BUT WE'RE NOT FINE WITH IMPLEMENTING
THIS CHANGE WHILE THE STUDY GOES ON.
SO DO THE STUDY.
FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS BIAS, ROOT AND BRANCH,
AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGES NECESSARY.
SO IF IT WAS THE STUDY, WE'D SUPPORT THE BILL.
OKAY.
AND I'M CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM THE AUTHOR
OR WITNESSES AS TO WHY NOT
JUST DO THE STUDY FIRST INSTEAD OF IMPLEMENTING,
UH, THIS PROCESS?
YES, SIR.
YEAH.
MR.
CHAIR, IF I MAY.
YEAH.
UH, THANK YOU.
UH, SENATOR PACHECO, ON THAT QUESTION,
I THINK, UH, THIS THIS, UH,
PROCESS HAS, UH, REALLY HURT
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN CALIFORNIA.
SO THEREFORE WE ARE BEING MEASURED IN
AND WE AGREE WITH THE CHAIR ON THE,
ON THE SUNSET SO THAT AS OTHER CASES MOVE THROUGH
THE PROCESS AND POTENTIALLY
REACHED THE SUPREME COURT,
THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE,
UM, AGAIN, IT'S FIVE YEARS,
WE THINK THAT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT,
UH, LITIGATION WILL BE SOLVED.
WE DON'T WANT TO END UP IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE
AN APPELLATE JUDGE DECIDES TO DO THE SAME THING,
WHERE THIS CASE HAS BEEN LITIGATED FOR EIGHT YEARS,
AND FOR AN APPELLATE JUDGE TO JUST SEND
IT BACK TO THE SUPERIOR COURT.
AND NOW WE HAVE TO START ALL OVER.
AND THAT, I THINK, SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE
ACROSS CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY
MINORITY DISTRICT.
SO, UH, WE WE THINK THAT THE THE MEASURE
HAS BEEN WATERED DOWN AND,
UH, AND WE, WE REQUEST YOUR SUPPORT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SAMIRA REYES.
>> WHEN I FIRST READ THIS, I THOUGHT, WELL, YES,
WE NEED TO HAVE SOMEBODY TAKE
A LOOK WITH FRESH EYES.
BUT WHEN I LISTEN TO THE OPPOSITION
ABOUT THE COST AND THE TIME
THAT'S GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS,
IT CAUSES GREAT CONCERN.
UM, IT IT IT DOES SOUND LIKE A PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE OF A JUDGE.
AND THAT CAUSES CONCERN.
UM, WHEN YOU HAVE SMALLER PANELS,
UM, THAT CAUSES CONCERN.
BUT I ALSO RECOGNIZE AND IT'S THE FACT
THAT WE HAVE LATINO ORGANIZATIONS,
LATINO LEGAL AID,
THE THE ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE WRITING IN FAVOR OF
THIS AND NOTING THAT THE BIAS THAT THEY SEE.
UM, IT ALSO CAUSES ME TO THINK THAT THERE
ARE SOME GROUPS THAT RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE IS THIS THIS BIAS OR THIS POTENTIAL
BIAS OR THIS PERCEIVED BIAS.
AND THE LAST THING THAT I WANT AS
AN ATTORNEY IS FOR ANYONE THAT'S GOING
THROUGH A LITIGATION PROCESS TO FEEL
THAT THEY WERE NOT TREATED EQUALLY.
UH, THEY WERE NOT PROTECTED AS EVERYBODY ELSE WAS.
BUT THE I WILL TELL YOU,
THE CONCERNS THAT ARE VOICED
BY THE OPPOSITION ARE REAL.
UM, THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED,
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S
SUFFICIENT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS TAKEN.
UM, I AM GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS
TO GET THIS THROUGH COMMITTEE TODAY,
BUT I DO RESERVE MY RIGHT TO TO REVISIT THIS.
I DO WANT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IN THE VERY LEAST, THERE HAS TO BE A STUDY.
BECAUSE IF OUR MINORITY, UM,
GROUPS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE FEELING MOST, UM,
OPPRESSED OR FEEL THE BIAS OF
THE JUSTICES WHO HAVE BEEN OVERTURNED
AND NOW ARE ANGRY BECAUSE NOW THEY
HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE GIVE THAT COMMENT.
ANOTHER.
YES.
ALSO, ONE MORE QUESTION.
UH, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THOSE.
UH, I KNOW IT WASN'T MENTIONED BY THE OPPOSITION,
BUT IT'S IN THE LETTER WITH RESPECT
TO THE SMALLER, UH, COURTS.
UH, WHAT IS THE AUTHOR OR THE WITNESSES, UH,
THOUGHTS ABOUT CAUSING DELAYS
BECAUSE OF SMALLER COURTS?
YEAH.
MR.
CHAIR, IF I MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
YES.
YEAH.
SO TO THAT, TO THAT QUESTION, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, UM,
WE GO BACK TO PICO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
AND I'LL GET TO YOUR TO THAT QUESTION.
BUT THE DELAY THAT HAS BEEN
CAUSED BY THESE TWO JUDGES
IS VERY SIGNIFICANT BY NOT HAVING SOMETHING THAT,
UH, DISQUALIFIES THEM FOR BIAS
AS FAR AS THOSE SMALL,
UH, DISTRICTS, UH, THAT ALREADY HAPPENS RIGHT NOW,
WHERE IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY,
SOME OF THOSE CASES ARE SENT TO OTHER DISTRICTS.
NOW, I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CHALLENGE,
NOT A SUPERIOR AT THE AT THE SUPERIOR COURT
LEVEL THAT GOES ON ALL THE TIME.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE ABUSE HAPPENS
AND THAT'S WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUPERIOR
COURT DECISION THAT OVERTURNS
AN APPELLATE COURT JUDGE, WHICH IS VERY LIMITED.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE DECISIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURT HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
A LOT OF TIMES THOSE DECISIONS ARE FOR PEOPLE.
THEY'RE FOR IMMIGRANTS, THEY'RE FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT FOR THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
SO THAT'S WHY WE THINK THAT BY
NOT HAVING THIS IN PLACE,
IT ACTUALLY DELAYS JUSTICE FOR ALL THOSE FOLKS.
>> YES, SIR, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
AS THE AUTHOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE,
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN
THE SUPREME COURT RULED,
UH, IT, UH, WITHIN 48 HOURS, IT WAS, UH.
THE APPELLATE COURT.
THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE APPELLATE COURT,
THE APPELLATE COURT INSTEAD OF.
LOOKING AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF WHAT
WAS TO HAPPEN, THEY SEND IT BACK.
TO THE TRIAL COURT.
AND IF YOU TALK ABOUT, UH,
TIME AND ENERGY AND RESOURCES,
UH, THE CURRENT SYSTEM, ALBEIT, UH, I BELIEVE, UH,
IS A SYSTEM THAT NEEDS IN THIS GIVEN POINT
IN TIME OF WHERE WE ARE AS A SOCIETY,
GIVEN ALL THE QUESTION THAT GOES ON WITH REGARDS TO.
JUSTICE.
THIS IS.
A NEW ELEMENT TO A PROCESS THAT
HAS NOT CHANGED FOR DECADES.
AND AS.
THE WITNESS MARVIN MENTIONED MAJORITY
OF THESE CASES ARE COMING.
UH, AND THE SUPPORT COME FROM
CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS.
UH, WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS BEING, UH,
APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
THE ASIAN LATINO AFRICAN AMERICAN CAUCUS SEND
A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF HAVING THE CASE HEARD.
AND THERE IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY HERE.
TO WIPE CLEAN A PROCESS THAT HAS.
FOR IN THE EYES OF SOME NOT WORK
IN THE EYES OF OTHERS HAS.
AND SO WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT, UH, THIS, UH.
THIS BILL BE SUPPORTED I THINK
IN THESE IN THESE TIMES,
IT'S NEEDED.
UH, IT'S FAIR.
IT'S JUST IT'S NOT OVERBURDENING.
THE CASES ARE LIMITED.
AND WE WOULD ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
AND WITH THE AMENDMENTS, IT DOES ALLOW FOR
THE STUDY OF THE USAGE OF THE ONE 70.6 CHALLENGES.
I THINK WE WILL GET SOME MORE INFORMATION
AS TO WHAT MAY BE DONE.
IF THERE IS ABUSE GOING ON.
I WILL SAY FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE,
WHEN I WAS IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE,
WE TOOK A DEEP CARE AND ANALYSIS BEFORE THERE
WAS EVER EVEN A THOUGHT OF USING A ONE 70.6.
UM, AND UM, IT WAS TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY.
UH, IT WAS NOT TREATED LIKE OR
LIKE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.
IT'S NOT A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.
UM, IT IS A CHALLENGE THAT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT,
UM, FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUSTICE.
AND SO, UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME
SITUATIONS WHERE IT MAY BE ABUSED OR,
UM, OFTENTIMES WHEN A CHALLENGE IS MADE,
IT'S THE JUDGES JUST SWITCHED BECAUSE THE,
BECAUSE OF THE COURT PROCESS
RATHER THAN THE COURTS CHALLENGING
IT OR DIVING DEEPER INTO IT.
IT CAN BE JUST EASIER JUST, OKAY,
WE'LL JUST MOVE THE CASE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT, UM, THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE USED
SIMPLY FOR FORUM SHOPPING, UH,
IS NOT, IN MY EXPERIENCE, ACCURATE,
ALTHOUGH I KNOW IT DOES HAPPEN.
UH, AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUGGEST
THAT THERE AREN'T SITUATIONS.
AND THAT'S WHY THE STUDY IS
GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR
THE OVERALL SYSTEM IN TERMS
OF THE USAGE OF ONE 70.6,
BUT THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WILL THAT THERE
ARE NO REASONS OR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR,
UM, HAVING THIS AS A TOOL AVAILABLE
AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL,
UM, BECAUSE THERE'S NO BIAS THERE.
I DON'T BUY THAT.
AND SO I THINK THAT THIS WILL GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY
TO REALLY WE'RE HEARING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES.
IT'LL GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY,
OKAY, WELL LET'S SEE HOW IT'S USED.
LET'S SEE HOW HOW IT'S USED AT THE TRIAL LEVEL.
LET'S SEE HOW IT'S USED AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL.
AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY
A SENSE THAT'S PUT IN THERE,
WE'LL COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT.
UM, IT'S HAVING THESE IT'S HAVING
CERTAIN IMPACTS ON WORKLOAD.
ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY IF IT'S
IF IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT'S
THERE IN ORDER TO EXERCISE JUSTICE
WORKLOAD BY ITSELF,
UH, IF AT ALL, SHOULD NOT BE USED
AS A REASON NOT TO DO IT,
IF THAT IF WE NEED MORE RESOURCES OR WHAT HAVE YOU,
THEN THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR US TO DEAL WITH IN TERMS OF
MAKING SURE WE ARE BRINGING
THE RESOURCES TO THE COURT,
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT LEVEL.
BUT IT IS STILL SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.
IF THERE IS ACTUAL WORKLOAD ISSUE,
NO DOUBT WHETHER IT'S A TRIAL
OR APPELLATE COURT LEVEL.
SO I YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I HAVE AN I RECOMMENDATION
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I HOPE WE'LL BE ABLE
TO PUT THE MOVE THIS FORWARD TODAY.
UM, AND APPRECIATE ALL THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.
ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR EMOTION?
I JUST WANT TO YES.
>> I WILL BE, UH, SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY,
BUT I DO RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CHANGE MY VOTE.
UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE FLOOR,
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS,
BUT I WHAT I MAKES ME MORE COMFORTABLE IS THAT THIS
STUDY IS BEING DONE AND THAT THERE IS A SUNSET.
SO I AM MORE COMFORTABLE BECAUSE OF THAT.
UM, BUT, UM, I FEEL LIKE MORE CONVERSATIONS
STILL NEED TO BE HAD BETWEEN, UH,
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND THE AUTHOR, UM,
TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY, ANY ELSE THAT CAN BE DONE.
UH, BECAUSE I ALSO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS,
BUT I AM MORE COMFORTABLE HAVING THAT SUNSET,
HAVING THAT THAT STUDY BEING DONE AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM VICE CHAIR.
AND THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
SO THE STUDY IS IN HAS BEEN AMENDED.
YES.
IT WILL BE YES AND NO TO AND THE SUNSET IS INCLUDED.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY AND I'M READING FROM
THE WONDERFUL STAFF ANALYSIS HERE,
BUT THE ACTUAL AMENDMENTS UM,
ARE THAT IT INCLUDES THAT THE UM, STUDY SHALL,
AT A MINIMUM, INCLUDE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ONE 70.6
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ELIMINATING
BIAS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
THE PREVALENCE OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS
HEARING MATTERS IN WHICH
THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL ETHICS SHOULD HAVE WARRANTED,
AND RECUSAL THE IMPACT ON CASE HEARING
TIMES OF JUDICIAL RECUSALS,
AND THE COST OF THE COURTS,
AND TO LITIGANTS OF JUDICIAL RECUSAL.
SO WE WILL LOOK AT THE IMPACTS
ON THE COURTS AND WORKLOAD,
AS WELL AS THE EFFICACY OF
THE ACTUAL CHALLENGES THEMSELVES.
QUESTION LOOKING AT THIS AMENDMENT 2027,
I GUESS THAT'S THREE YEARS OUT.
DOES IT TAKE THAT LONG TO DO THAT?
I THINK IT'S PRETTY STANDARD.
YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW,
IF THIS LEGISLATION GOES THROUGH,
WON'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL 25.
AND SO YOU NEED, I THINK, A COUPLE AT LEAST A COUPLE
YEARS OF SOME RAW DATA TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK
AND THEN TO HAVE A STUDY DONE
OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS
AFTER THAT AND COME BACK TO US IN SEPTEMBER.
SO BASICALLY TWO YEARS OF DATA DO THE STUDY.
I THINK THAT'S CUTTING.
I THINK THAT'S THE BARE MINIMUM
OF WHAT WOULD PROBABLY
BE NECESSARY TO GIVE US HELPFUL INFORMATION.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS OR ANY MOTIONS ON THIS?
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, UM, I'VE SAID ENOUGH, SO I'LL ASK.
I'LL ASK, UH, SENATOR GARCIA,
IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, FOR THE QUESTIONS.
I THINK THE WITNESSES AND THE OPPOSITION
REALLY HELPED KIND OF SHED LIGHT ON WHAT
THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US IS THAT THERE'S
QUESTIONS THAT REMAIN TO BE WORKED ON.
LOOK, I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUDICIAL PROCEDURE,
BUT REALLY, AT THE CORE.
AND WHAT'S TRIGGERED THIS CONVERSATION
IS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
AND THE DECISION ALONG THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS THAT'S BEEN QUESTIONED.
UH, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS REALLY
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO VERY TAKE
A SERIOUS LOOK AT THE OUTCOME OF
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN CALIFORNIA.
I THINK WE CAN ATTRIBUTE TO WHAT HAS
CHANGED THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
OF REFLECTIVE REPRESENTATION
AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
AND IF THE CHANGE, UH,
AND THE POLITICIZATION OF THAT
IN THE COURT SYSTEM IS, UH,
BEING KIND OF PLAYED WITH THEN THERE HAS TO BE SOME
TYPE OF WORK DONE IN STATUTE TO ADDRESS THAT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE
US AND BEFORE YOU IN THIS BILL,
WE COMMIT TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS MATTER AND,
UH, APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION.
SO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
IF YOU CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL ON
THE VOTE FOR AB 2125, PLEASE.
>> MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL.
I CALL I DIXON.
TING.
BRIAN.
BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY.
I HANEY.
HANEY.
I MANCINI.
MCKENNA.
PACHECO.
I.
PACHECO.
I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
NO.
WALDRON.
NO.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
WE'LL PUT WE'LL PLACE THAT VOTE ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
CAN I GET A SUMMARY?
REBUS, UM, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR WAY UP TO THE,
UH, THE DESK HERE.
IN THE MEANTIME, IS THERE A MOTION
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
SO MOVE MOTION SECOND.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU TAKE ROLL
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE.
BILLS ARE AB 1876 JACKSON TO APPROPRIATIONS,
AB 2337 DIXON TO APPROPRIATIONS AB 2397.
MAIN LINE TO THE FLOOR AB 2455 GABRIEL
TO PER AB 2628 HART TO APPROPRIATIONS
AB 2759 PETRIE-NORRIS AS AMENDED AB 2763
STALEY TO PUBLIC SAFETY AB 2985,
HART AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS,
AND AB 3982 ORTEGA TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CORRE A CALLER I DIXON I DIXON
I CHING BRIAN A BRIAN I CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I HANEY.
HANEY, I MANCINI.
MCKINNON.
PACHECO.
MCKINNON.
I PACHECO.
I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
I OKAY, SO THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT.
UM.
AND THERE'S ONE LESS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR TODAY,
BECAUSE I THINK SENATOR RIVAS, UH,
HAS TO PRESENT TWICE TO US.
SO WE GET THE PLEASURE OF HEARING
TWO BILLS FROM THE SUMMER.
RIVAS.
WHICH ONE ARE YOU STARTING WITH?
>> UH, AB 2377.
OKAY.
ITEM 16.
OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU.
UM, GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I WANT TO START
BY THANKING YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY OFFICE ON THIS BILL.
UM, AB 2377 SEEKS TO PROVIDE
AN ACCOMMODATION FOR K THROUGH
12 STUDENTS PRACTICING RELIGIOUS
FASTING BY OFFERING THEM
A MODIFIED EXERCISE REGIMEN OR
PROVIDING THEM WITH ACADEMIC
ASSIGNMENTS RELATING TO PHYSICAL EDUCATION OR PE.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL REQUIRES WRITTEN PERMISSION
FROM PARENTS FOR STUDENTS UNDER 18 TO REQUEST PE.
ACCOMMODATIONS.
FASTING IS THE ACT OF REFRAINING COMPLETELY
OR PARTIALLY FROM CONSUMING
ANYTHING OF SUSTENANCE DURING RAMADAN,
WHICH WE ARE CURRENTLY IN.
UH, MUSLIMS FAST EVERY DAY FOR 30
DAYS FROM SUNRISE TO SUNSET.
AS A SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE, PEOPLE IN
THE JEWISH COMMUNITY WHO OBSERVE YOM KIPPUR,
THE HOLIEST DAY OF THE YEAR IN JUDAISM,
PRACTICE A DAY LONG, FAST AND INTENSIVE PRAYER THAT
REQUIRES FULL ABSTENTION FROM FOOD AND LIQUIDS.
ADDITIONALLY, SEVERAL CHRISTIAN
DENOMINATIONS PRACTICE FULL
OR PARTIAL FASTING ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS,
INCLUDING LENT.
OTHER STATES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE NEED
TO PROVIDE PROPER ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR STUDENTS OBSERVING RELIGIOUS FASTING,
WITH ILLINOIS PASSING HOUSE BILL 160,
WHICH PERMITS STUDENTS TO AVOID
RIGOROUS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY DURING
PERIODS OF RELIGIOUS FASTING.
CURRENTLY, STUDENTS FROM GRADES
ONE THROUGH EIGHT ARE REQUIRED
TO COMPLETE 200 MINUTES EVERY TEN SCHOOL DAYS,
AND STUDENTS FROM GRADES NINE THROUGH
12 ARE REQUIRED 400 MINUTES
EVERY TEN SCHOOL DAYS TO FULFILL
THEIR PE REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE NO GUIDELINES WITHIN THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM THAT PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE FASTING DURING
THE PE PORTION OF THE DAY.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF FASTING IN SUMMER
DAYS ARE EVEN MORE DANGEROUS,
AS FACTORS LIKE SWELTERING HEAT CAN CREATE
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS FOR STUDENTS,
SUCH AS HEADACHES AND DEHYDRATION,
WHICH MAY LEAD TO FAINTING DURING EXERCISE.
TODAY I HAVE WITH ME TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY,
UH, ROZA HAIDARI,
PRESIDENT OF THE AFGHAN STUDENT ASSOCIATION
FROM LAGUNA CREEK HIGH SCHOOL,
AND FAUZIA FAROOQ, POLICY AND ADVOCACY COORDINATOR
OF CARE OF THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY.
THANK YOU.
TWO MINUTES EACH, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ROSA HAIDARI, AND I'M A STUDENT AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE AFGHAN STUDENT ASSOCIATION
AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE MUSLIM STUDENT
ASSOCIATION AT LAGUNA CREEK HIGH SCHOOL.
AS A STUDENT, AB 2377 IS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE
IT IT ALLOWS ME TO FEEL INCLUDED AND VALUED.
IT AMPLIFIES SCHOOL CULTURE,
MAKING IT KNOWN THAT WHO I AM AND APPRECIATE
WHO I AM AND MY MORALS.
BEING ONE OF THE TOP 20 MOST DIVERSE
HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE NATION,
WITH LAGUNA CREEK SPECIFICALLY RANKING NUMBER 19
AND NUMBER ONE IN THE ELK GROVE
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
IT IS CRUCIAL TO MAKE SURE THAT
ALL PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES,
ETHNICITIES, AND RELIGIONS ARE TAKEN TO ACCOUNT.
AB 2377 ALLOWS US TO BE ENSURED
THAT WE AREN'T JUST A NUMBER,
A PART OF A STATISTIC, BUT WE ARE.
RATHER, WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGED AS INDIVIDUALS
FOR OBTAINING DIFFERENT BELIEFS,
MORALS AND VALUES, MAKING SURE THAT
WE ARE HEARD AND RECOGNIZED,
ENSURING THAT WE ARE INVOLVED
IN A PART OF A COMMUNITY
WHERE WE KNOW OUR PERSPECTIVE IS ESTEEMED,
WHICH PROMOTES EQUITY FOR STUDENTS TO
BE HEARD AND VALUED FOR WHO THEY ARE.
BELIEFS INCLUDED AB 2377 ALLOWS
STUDENTS TO BE COGNIZED
AND ADMIRED FOR THEIR IDENTITY AND BELIEFS,
ALLOWING THERE TO BE PRIDE FOR HAVING MANY OF
THE MOST DIVERSE SCHOOLS HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
I RESPECT THE COMMITTEE'S YES VOTE AND THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS FOZIA FAROOQ AND CURRENTLY
I SERVE AS THE POLICY AND ADVOCACY
COORDINATOR AT THE COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS.
TODAY, I AM NOT ONLY REPRESENTING OUR ORGANIZATION,
WHICH PROUDLY SPONSORS AB 2377,
BUT I ALSO STAND BEFORE YOU AS AN ENGAGED
AND CONCERNED MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY.
REFLECTING ON MY OWN EDUCATIONAL JOURNEY.
SPECIFICALLY, THIS BILL HOLDS PROFOUND
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE TO ME,
STEMMING FROM A SERIES OF CHALLENGING SCENARIOS
I INCURRED I ENCOUNTERED DURING PE SESSIONS.
ONE MEMORY THAT REALLY HIGHLIGHTS WHY AB 2077 IS SO
IMPORTANT HAPPENED BACK IN MY SIXTH GRADE PE CLASS.
OUR CURRICULUM REQUIRED REQUIRED
US TO RUN MILES REGULARLY,
SOMETHING THAT BECAME QUITE CHALLENGING
FOR ME DURING RAMADAN.
THIS IS A MONTH WHEN I,
ALONG WITH MANY OTHER MUSLIMS,
FAST FROM DAWN UNTIL DUSK DUE TO FASTING.
I FOUND MYSELF TRAILING BEHIND MY CLASSMATES
AND IT WASN'T THAT I COULDN'T PHYSICALLY RUN.
THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE FASTING HAD
LEFT ME THIRSTY AND TOO TIRED
TO KEEP PUSHING MYSELF TO JUST
TO MEET THE MILE TIME.
MOREOVER, I RECALL, I RECALL A PARTICULAR
ARDUOUS DAY WHEN TEMPERATURES
SOARED AND WE WERE TASKED WITH RUNNING PACERS.
THE COMBINATION OF THE HEAT AND MY THIRST PRESENTED
AN ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE CHALLENGE.
DESPITE MY COMMITMENT TO BOTH MY FAITH
AND EDUCATIONAL OBLIGATIONS,
I FOUND MYSELF IN A PREDICAMENT THAT
NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO NAVIGATE.
THE DILEMMA OF HONORING MY SPIRITUAL
PRACTICES WHILE ALSO TRYING TO
MEET THE PHYSICAL EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS
SET FORTH BY MY SCHOOL.
IT'S CRUCIAL TO NOTE THAT WHILE ACCOMMODATIONS
WERE AVAILABLE FOR
STUDENTS WITH HEALTH CONDITIONS,
AS EVIDENCED BY DOCTOR'S NOTES,
THERE SEEMED TO BE A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
OR PROVISIONS FOR THOSE WHO OF US,
WHO OF THOSE WHOSE CHALLENGES STEMMED
FROM RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
THIS OVERSIGHT NOT ONLY IMPACTED
MY PHYSICAL WELL-BEING,
BUT ALSO PLACED UNDUE STRESS
ON MY EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE
IN BRINGING THESE EXPERIENCES TO LIGHT.
MY AIM IS NOT MERELY TO HIGHLIGHT
PERSONAL HARDSHIPS,
BUT TO UNDERSCORE THE BROADER
IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES
FACED BY STUDENTS WHO OBSERVE RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
AB 2377 REPRESENTS A CRITICAL
STEP FORWARD IN ENSURING
OUR EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS ARE INCLUSIVE,
ACCOMMODATING AND RESPECTFUL OF ALL STUDENTS NEEDS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS.
THEREFORE, I HUMBLY REQUEST THE COMMITTEE'S
SUPPORT FOR AB 2377.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2377?
DOES ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2377.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRIAN.
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT,
IMPORTANT BILL FOR FOR MANY YEARS
I LIVED WITH ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS,
RAHEEM, AND OUR LEASE ALWAYS ENDED DURING
RAMADAN AND WE WOULD MOVE THEN,
AND HE WOULD ALWAYS EXPLAIN TO ME
JUST HOW HARD IT WAS TO MOVE OUR
FURNITURE AND MOVE TO A NEW APARTMENT
IN THE MIDDLE OF FASTING.
I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT'S LIKE FOR OUR YOUNG
STUDENTS BEING FORCED TO PARTICIPATE
IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION WHILE OBSERVING
THIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.
THIS IS SMART AND COMMON SENSE.
UM, THANK YOU FOR THIS AND HAPPY
TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT.
IS THERE A SECOND?
SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
YEAH.
VICE CHAIR.
I, I'M CERTAINLY INCLINED TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE
IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO,
CERTAINLY ONE'S RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
AND HOW THEY PERFORM.
BUT DOESN'T THE FIRST AMENDMENT
ALREADY COVER ALL THIS OR WHY?
I'M JUST SURPRISED THAT FREEDOM OF RELIGION
DOESN'T PERMIT IN THE US CONSTITUTION,
DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO EXPERIENCE FASTING
AND THEREFORE DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE
IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION ACTIVITIES,
WHICH IS TOTALLY APPROPRIATE.
SO WHY DO WE NEED TO DO THIS?
YEAH, OF COURSE I CAN ANSWER THAT.
>> OKAY.
FOR ME SPECIFICALLY, I HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SIT
OUT FOR MANY OF THE ACTIVITIES GROWING UP.
SO FOR PACERS, FOR, UM, FOR THOSE,
FOR THOSE MILE RUNS RIGHT ON THE,
ON THESE VERY HOT DAYS.
RIGHT.
I'D ASK THE TEACHERS, YOU KNOW,
HEY, CAN I PLEASE SIT OUT?
AND THEY WOULD SAY TO ME, UH, NO, YOU CAN,
YOU CAN JUST WALK OR, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WALK, RIGHT?
THE REST OF THEM.
BUT WE'LL MARK YOU DOWN BECAUSE OF YOUR,
YOUR MILE TIME BEING SLOWER THAN OTHERS.
SO THAT REFLECTED UPON MY GRADES AND THAT
THAT IN ITSELF ISN'T SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, REFLECTS ON ME.
WELL, I'M VERY SYMPATHETIC.
I'M SORRY THAT THAT HAPPENED, FRANKLY.
I MEAN, IT VIOLATES THE US CONSTITUTION
NOT TO RECOGNIZE YOUR FREEDOM.
SO I WILL SUPPORT THIS, BUT IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.
WHY DO WHY I'M SORRY AND IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
I HOPE EVERY TEACHER UNDERSTANDS
THAT THEY CANNOT DO THAT
KIND OF AND AFFECT YOUR GRADES
AND PARTICIPATION LEVEL.
I JUST IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT WE NEED
A LAW TO DO TO RESPECT THE US CONSTITUTION.
BUT ANYWAY, I WISH YOU GOOD HEALTH
AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS.
I MEAN, IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR, I THINK,
THAT THE ANALYSIS INDICATES,
UM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MINUTES,
YOU KNOW, FOR EVERY TEN DAYS OF INSTRUCTION
IN PE TO GET CREDIT.
AND SO IT'S JUST MAKING IT VERY CLEAR, UM,
TO GIVE A VERY CLEAR EXEMPTION FOR THOSE THAT
ARE FASTING DUE TO RELIGIOUS REASONS,
UM, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET
MARKED DOWN BECAUSE OF IT.
AND SO I'M, I WOULD HOPE THAT MOST TEACHERS
ARE ALREADY RECOGNIZING IT.
BUT JUST IN CASE WE ALREADY KNOW EXAMPLES
THAT THERE ARE SOME THAT AREN'T.
AND SO IT JUST MAKES IT VERY CLEAR
AND CODIFIES IT IN STATE LAW.
AND SO I DO APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING
UP FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
UM, TO TAKE THE TIME TO YOU'RE
LITERALLY REPRESENTING
THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS BY BEING HERE TODAY.
SO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
UM, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FOR PROVIDING COMMENTS
AND SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
I AGREE, THIS IS THIS IS COMMON SENSE.
IT SHOULD ALREADY BE THERE.
BUT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW,
THESE YOUNG STUDENTS ARE REQUIRED
TO CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE,
UM, IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, UM, DURING,
UH, RELIGIOUS FASTING DAYS.
UH, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THAT TODAY, UH,
IS THE LAST DAY OF RAMADAN,
UM, A MONTH THAT MY STAFF,
OMAR, WHICH, UM, STAFF ME ON THIS BILL
AND ALSO WHICH THIS BILL WAS HIS IDEA, UM, UH,
YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW,
HE CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA AND,
YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID,
THIS IS THE LAST DAY OF RAMADAN,
AND MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE CALIFORNIA
AND THE WORLD HAVE OBSERVED THIS MONTH.
UM, SO THANK YOU.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE RAMADAN MUBARAK.
AND, UH, I'D ASK MADAM SECRETARY IF WE
COULD TAKE A ROLL CALL ON AB 2377.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
KALRA.
I.
DIXON.
I.
CHING, BRYAN.
BRIAN I.
CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I.
HANEY.
HANEY I.
MANCINI.
MCKENNA.
I.
PACHECO.
PACHECO, I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY, SO THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU.
AND, UM, WE'LL ALLOW YOU TO REARRANGE
THE THE CHAIRS THERE TO ALLOW YOUR OTHER,
UM, WITNESSES UP FOR ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS AB 2738.
AND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
UM, I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY THANKING YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH MY TEAM ON THIS BILL.
UM, I TOOK COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TO ADDRESS THE PRIVACY
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE
AND THE OPPOSITION.
UH, MY STAFF AND SPONSOR HAS
ALSO MET WITH THE OPPOSITION
REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS OVER LABOR ENFORCEMENT.
UH, AB 2738 INCREASES ENFORCEMENT OF
EXISTING LABOR LAWS IN SEVERAL WAYS.
FIRST, IT MAKES SMALL CHANGES TO A BILL FROM LAST
YEAR THAT GRANTED LOCAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
LIKE CITY ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY COUNSEL,
THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE STATE LABOR LAW.
SECOND, IT ALLOWS THOSE LOCAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS TO ALSO
ENFORCE THE LIVE EVENT WORKER SAFETY LAW AUTHORED
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD BY EXPANDING
THEIR AUTHORITY TO
THAT SECTION OF THAT LABOR CODE OF THE LABOR CODE.
LASTLY, IT INCREASES THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE LIVE EVENT WORKER SAFETY
LAW BY INCREASING THE TRANSPARENCY
OF CONTRACT AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN ENTERTAINMENT VENDORS
AND PUBLIC VENUES TO ENSURE
THAT STAGE CREWS BEING HIRED ARE PROPERLY TRAINED.
STAGE PRODUCTION WORKERS WHO SET UP,
OPERATE AND TEAR DOWN LIVE EVENTS
FACE SERIOUS WORKPLACE HAZARDS.
THEY WORK WITH COMPLEX SYSTEMS
AND ALL TYPES OF WEATHER CONDITIONS.
THERE'S A HISTORY OF ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND EVEN
FATALITIES OF WORKERS PERFORMING SUCH WORK,
OFTEN DUE TO A LACK OF TRAINING OR KNOWLEDGE
OF BEST SAFETY PRACTICES.
THE LACK OF LACK OF SAFETY TRAINING AND ENFORCEMENT
IS DANGEROUS FOR WORKERS AND EVENT ATTENDEES.
IN 2022, AB 1775 SET AN INDUSTRY WIDE SAFETY
STANDARD FOR STAGING AND LIVE EVENTS
PRODUCTION BY REQUIRING ENTERTAINMENT
VENDORS THAT PRODUCE EVENTS SUCH
AS CONCERTS AT STATE OWNED OR OPERATED
OPERATED FACILITIES TO CERTIFY THAT
ALL ENTERTAINMENT WORKERS HAVE ADEQUATE
AND APPROPRIATE SAFETY TRAINING.
HOWEVER, AB 1775 PUT THE ONUS
ON ENTERTAINMENT VENDORS
TO CERTIFY THAT WORKERS MET THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF SETTING UP
LIVE EVENTS LIKE CONCERTS, UH,
MAKE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW CHALLENGING
FOR STATEWIDE ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES THAT HAVE THOUSANDS
OF WORKPLACES TO INSPECT.
AB 2738 STRENGTHENS THE ENFORCEMENT
TO PROTECT STAGE PRODUCTION
WORKERS BY HOLDING PUBLIC VENUES ACCOUNTABLE
AND INCREASING TRANSPARENCY
IN CONTRACTS TO VERIFY THAT
PRODUCTION COMPANIES ARE USING TRAINED WORKERS.
TODAY, I HAVE SARAH FLAX,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
AS MY WITNESS IN SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR.
MEMBERS SARA FLOCKS, CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION.
WE'RE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR THIS BILL
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL.
WE WERE BOTH WE WERE ALSO THE SPONSOR
OF BOTH OF THE BILLS REFERENCED, UM,
AB 1775, THE LIVE EVENT SAFETY BILL,
AND AB 5994 THAT WAS AUTHORED BY MR.
MANCINI, WHICH WAS A BILL THAT
SUPPLEMENTED STATEWIDE
LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BY ALLOWING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO ENFORCE PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE THROUGH
DA CITY ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY COUNCILS.
UM, I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON A SMALL PART OF THE BILL,
UM, THAT'S RELEVANT, RELEVANT TO JUDICIARY.
UM, AND IT'S ALSO A PIECE THAT THE OPPOSITION
IS GOING TO COME AND TALK ABOUT,
UH, THAT WE ARE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM ABOUT.
AND THIS IS A VERY SMALL CHANGE.
IT IS A CHANGE FROM MAY TO SHALL.
THAT COURT SHALL AWARD ATTORNEY'S
FEES TO LOCAL PUBLIC PROSECUTORS.
I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT.
IT'S ONE WORD, BUT IT REALLY
MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
UM, FIRST IS THAT LOCAL COUNTY COUNCILS,
CITY ATTORNEYS,
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE NOT
BEEN ENFORCING LABOR LAW.
THIS IS SOMETHING NEW FOR THEM.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET,
THEY DON'T HAVE THE STAFF.
SO THEY NEED SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY'LL
BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR COSTS COVERED.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT
BECAUSE AFTER 594 PASSED,
CITY OF FRESNO ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO OPEN AN OFFICE TO START DOING THIS.
THEY NEVER HAVE BEFORE.
THEY NEED THAT SECURITY.
SECOND, IT'S AN EQUITY ISSUE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE TAKING
ON ALL CASES AND NOT JUST THE BIG DOLLAR ONES.
UM, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GOING
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SO THAT, UM,
LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS ARE CORRECTED
BECAUSE THAT THE BOTTOM
LINE IS WE WANT THE EMPLOYERS TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
UM, AND THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON.
THE LABOR COMMISSIONER, IN MANY CASES
IS AWARDED MANDATORY ATTORNEY'S FEES.
UM, IN OAKLAND AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS,
THEY ARE AS WELL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
SO WE WOULD URGE YOUR I SUPPORT ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2738?
>> MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS MATT BROUGHT HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
TEAMSTERS UNITE HERE,
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION ENGINEERS
AND SCIENTISTS OF CALIFORNIA,
UH, AND THE UTILITY WORKERS UNION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> I'LL BE FASTER.
KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY,
DAVID CHU, IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2738?
>> HI.
GOOD MORNING, ASHLEY HOFFMAN.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
I DO WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE SPONSOR
AND THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE
SURROUNDING THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.
UM, THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS.
UM, YES.
WE ARE JUST OPPOSED TO
THE ONE PROVISION IN THE BILL.
UM, AND I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW,
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE BILL,
WHICH WAS FROM LAST YEAR, DOES, YOU KNOW,
COVER THE SITUATIONS THAT WAS RAISED BY THE SPONSOR,
SITUATIONS IN WHICH PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
YOU KNOW, ARE, WITH GOOD MOTIVATION,
GOING AFTER BAD EMPLOYERS WHO ARE BEING BAD ACTORS?
I THINK OUR CONCERN IS WHEN YOU HAVE
A MANDATE ON A COURT AND IT TAKES AWAY
THE DISCRETION REGARDING THE ABILITY
TO AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS.
UM, THERE THEN LEADS TO SOME QUESTIONS
ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND WE DO KNOW SOMETIMES, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT PROSECUTORS WILL CONTRACT THESE
CASES OUT TO PRIVATE FIRMS, UM,
AND HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOME
OF THE MOTIVATIONS THERE,
AND THAT THIS COULD BE USED TO
LEVERAGE LARGE SETTLEMENTS.
UM, REALLY, REGARDLESS OF THE MERIT
AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING,
YOU KNOW, TO BE A PREVAILING PARTY,
IT OFTENTIMES MEANS YOU JUST HAVE
TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF RECOVERY.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU NEED
TO BE COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW,
PREVAIL ON EVERY CLAIM OR RECOVER A LARGE AMOUNT.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE OUR CONCERN COMES FROM.
UM, AND AGAIN, YES, WE ARE HAVING CONVERSATIONS
AND HAPPY TO CONTINUE THOSE.
SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2738.
>> THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS AND LEE AUGUSTINE,
ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
ECHOING CAL CHAMBER'S THANKS
AND STILL RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, BRIAN LITTLE, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU,
FOR THE REASONS IN OPPOSITION,
FOR THE REASONS ARTICULATED BY CALCHAMBER.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS.
MOTIONS.
VERY QUIET.
EVERYONE'S VERY QUIET THIS MORNING.
IT'S NOT A BAD THING, THOUGH.
OKAY.
SORRY, MCKINNON.
>> SEE, YOU ALMOST GOT AWAY WITH ME.
NOT TANNING.
BUT AS YOU GUYS KNOW,
MOST PEOPLE KNOW I LOVE CONCERTS.
AND I LOVE LIVE EVENTS.
AND SO IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR THE WORKERS
TO BE SAFE AND ALSO THE PARTICIPANTS TO BE SAFE.
YOU KNOW, THE ENFORCEMENT IS VERY DIFFICULT
BECAUSE AFTER THE LIVE SHOW IS OVER,
THE SHOW USUALLY LASTS A DAY
OR TWO AND THEN EVERYBODY
PACK UP AND LEAVES RIGHT TO GO TO THEIR NEXT GIG.
SO ENFORCEMENT IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR MAKING SURE
THE SHOW COMES IN SO THAT OUR
LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE ABLE TO
TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE,
BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, A LOT OF
OUR LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES
ARE STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY AS WELL.
AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE ENFORCEMENT IS THERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION.
MOTION A SECOND.
THANK YOU.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, THANK YOU, SENATOR RIVAS,
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I THINK AS, UH, AS MENTIONED,
THE CAPACITY ISSUE FROM SOME OF
THE LOCAL PROSECUTORS IS CHALLENGED
BECAUSE OF FISCAL RESTRAINTS.
SO THIS GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY,
UM, PURSUE SOME OF THESE,
THESE CASES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC
AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND WORKER SAFETY.
IT'S A GOOD THING.
SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN EYE VOTE.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU TAKE ROLL CALL ON AB 2738.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL, I CALL I.
DIXON.
NO.
TING.
BRYAN.
I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY.
I HANEY.
HANEY.
I.
MANCINI.
MCKENNA.
I PACHECO.
I REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
WE'LL PLACE THAT, UH, BILL ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK.
YEAH.
UP NEXT IS ITEM SIX AB 2352 ERWIN.
>> UH, GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT AB 2352,
WHICH SEEKS TO CREATE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK
FOR PSYCHIATRIC ADVANCE DIRECTIVES,
REFERRED TO AS PEDS, BY AMENDING PROVISIONS RELATED
TO THE ADVANCED HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES.
IN SIMPLE TERMS, PADS ARE DOCUMENTS
COMPLETED BY INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CHALLENGES
THAT ALLOW THEM TO COMMUNICATE PREFERENCES
ABOUT THEIR CARE AND INTERACTIONS.
UH, DURING A FUTURE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CRISIS IN WHICH
THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.
EXAMPLES OF INFORMATION INCLUDED IN PAD IN A PAD
INCLUDE PREFERRED DE-ESCALATION TECHNIQUES
TO AVOID A MORE RESTRICTIVE LEVEL OF CARE,
AND NAMING A TRUSTED SUPPORT PERSON.
A PAD, IMPORTANTLY, DOES NOT CONFER
POWER OF ATTORNEY LIKE
AN ADVANCE DIRECTIVE HEALTH ADVANCED
HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE,
AND IS MEANT TO BETTER INFORM INTERACTIONS
AND CARE DECISIONS BASED
ON THE INDIVIDUAL'S PREFERENCE
AND NOT DICTATE SPECIFIC OUTCOMES.
THIS BILL HAS BEEN CRAFTED IN COLLABORATION WITH
THE PROJECT TEAM BEHIND THE MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION'S
INNOVATION PROJECT ON PADS,
WHICH INVOLVES SIX DIFFERENT COUNTIES
AND ONE REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY.
THE INNOVATIVE PROJECT UH THE INNOVATION
PROJECT PROJECTS PROJECT'S
GOAL IS TO EXPAND THE USE OF
PADS IN THEIR JURISDICTION,
PRESERVING INDIVIDUAL SELF-DETERMINATION
AND IMPROVING POSITIVE
OUTCOMES FOR PEOPLE AT RISK OF INVOLUNTARY CARE.
THE GOAL OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO CREATE A STATUTE
WHICH BOLSTERS CLIENT CONFIDENCE IN PADS,
AND ENSURES FIRST RESPONDERS AND BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS HAVE ACCESS
TO PADS IN THE MOMENT WHEN THEY CAN
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN CLIENTS CARE.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SCOPE OF THIS BILL.
AS THE COMMITTEE PUT IT, AMBITIOUS AND FAR REACHING.
OUR INTENT IS TO ENSURE THAT
PADS ARE WIDELY RECOGNIZED.
I REMAIN OPEN TO FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS
AND WILL WORK TO AVOID
ANY UNINTENDED IMPACTS FROM
THE CHANGES MADE BY THIS BILL.
AS NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS, I'VE ALREADY ACCEPTED
A NUMBER OF CHANGES AND ANTICIPATE
MAKING MORE AS OPPONENTS IDENTIFY
AND EXPLAIN THEIR CONCERNS.
NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
MY TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES,
KAREN SAHOTA OF CONCEPTS FORWARD CONSULTING,
THE PROJECT LEAD FOR THE PADS INNOVATION PROJECT,
AND TOBY EWING,
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION,
WHO IS HERE TO SHARE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE COMMISSION'S
ROLE WITHIN THE INNOVATION PROJECT.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
AGAIN.
MY NAME IS KIERAN SAHOTA AND I AM THE PRESIDENT
OF CONCEPTS FORWARD CONSULTING,
AND I AM ALSO THE LEAD PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE,
UH, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACT.
MULTI-COUNTY INNOVATIONS, UH,
PSYCHIATRIC ADVANCE DIRECTIVE PROJECT.
TRADITIONALLY, PSYCHIATRIC ADVANCE DIRECTIVES,
OR PADS HAVE BEEN HIDDEN IN THE MORE COMMON ADVANCED
HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE AND CAN ONLY BE ENACTED BASED
ON INCAPACITY AND INCLUDE A POWER OF ATTORNEY.
PADS HAVE REMAINED A RELATIVELY UNKNOWN
TOOL FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FOR DECADES.
THE VOICES OF OUR FAMILY MEMBERS,
PEER COMMUNITY, FIRST RESPONDERS,
AND HOSPITAL STAFF PARTICIPATING IN
THE PADS PROJECT SEEK TO CHANGE HOW
WE VIEW BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS
AND RECIDIVISM IN HOSPITALS AND JAILS.
THE PROJECT'S DIGITAL PLATFORM WILL
HOUSE INVOLUNTARY EXCUSE ME.
THE PROJECT'S PLATFORM WILL HOUSE VOLUNTARY
PADS BASED ON FULL CONSENT,
FOLLOW THE INDIVIDUAL, AND BE ACCESSED
ONLY BY AUTHORIZED USERS IN A CRISIS.
THE PLATFORM BEING DEVELOPED IS A PRODUCT THAT
IS ONE OF A KIND ANYWHERE, EVEN GLOBALLY.
AB 2352 SEEKS TO REDUCE STIGMA BY CREATING
ACCESSIBILITY OF A STANDALONE
PAD AS A LEAST RESTRICTIVE DOCUMENT
FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS,
INCLUDING HOUSING INSECURE OR THOSE LIVING
WITH A CO-OCCURRING CONDITION.
A 19 YEAR OLD WITH THEIR FIRST PSYCHOTIC BREAK
IS NOT LOOKING FOR AN END OF LIFE DOCUMENT,
BUT INSTEAD A DOCUMENT THAT WILL FOLLOW
THEM THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFESPAN.
A TRUSTED CLINICIAN OR OUTREACH
WORKER OR A PEER SUPPORT
SPECIALIST MAY ASSIST IN FACILITATING THIS DOCUMENT.
THESE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE WITNESS
SIGNATURES AS THEY ARE NOT ATTESTING TO CAPACITY,
BUT INSTEAD TO WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL
IS WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE.
WE BELIEVE A PAD SHOULD BE
A LEAST RESTRICTIVE OPTION,
AND THAT IS EASY TO USE AND ACCESS
IN A BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISIS,
AND TO APPOINT AN ADVOCATE FOR PREFERENCES IN
THE MOMENT OF A CRISIS WHERE A SITUATION, UM,
A SITUATION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT
FOR LOST CAPACITY TO HAVE THEIR
PREFERENCES FOLLOWED.
WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLYWOMAN
IRWIN AND HER OFFICE
FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND EFFORTS
ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT.
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB 2352.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS.
TOBY EWING, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE'S MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION,
SOON TO BE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES OVERSIGHT
AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMISSION.
I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO JOIN YOU.
UM, THE GOALS OF THIS PROJECT ARE REALLY
SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IS, UM, THE INTENT HERE WAS TO
CAPTURE THE WISHES AND DESIRES
OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHEN THEY WEREN'T IN A CRISIS,
AND TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THOSE DESIRES AND WISHES.
WHEN SOMEONE IS IN A CRISIS, AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE
THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT CRISIS ESCALATING,
TO REDUCE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT,
AND TO SPEED THE PACE WITH WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE
SERVICES THAT ARE TAILORED TO INDIVIDUAL NEEDS.
THE COMMISSION RECENTLY HOSTED A SITE
VISIT TO NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE HOSPITALS,
TO TALK ABOUT THE WAIT LIST TO GET INTO THOSE
PROGRAMS WHERE MOST OF THOSE FOLKS ARE
THERE BECAUSE OF FELONY CHARGES AND AN INCOMPETENT
TO STAND TRIAL DESIGNATION.
THE STATE HAS INCREASED FUNDING
BY MORE THAN $1 BILLION A YEAR
TO DEAL WITH THE BACKLOG OF FOLKS
WHO ARE JUSTICE INVOLVED.
THE COMMISSION SAW AN OPPORTUNITY
SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO WORK
WITH COUNTIES TO EXPLORE HOW PSYCHIATRIC
ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
CAN REALLY DE-ESCALATE A CRISIS
VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS,
AS OUTLINED BY THE BILL IMPLEMENTING THAT.
I SAID SORRY, BY THE ANALYSIS,
IMPLEMENTING THAT RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD,
SIMPLE GOAL IS COMPLICATED, AND WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS AND THE WORK.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF, ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION
WAS UNABLE TO TAKE A FORMAL
POSITION ON THE BILL BECAUSE WE
WERE UNABLE TO MEET LAST MONTH,
OUR CHAIR HAS AUTHORIZED US TO ASK
THE COMMITTEE TO MOVE THE BILL FORWARD
SO THAT WE CAN WORK WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THE OPPONENTS AND IDEALLY,
THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
WHAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE THROUGH
THE PARTNERSHIP WITH
THESE MULTIPLE LOCAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AGENCIES,
IS THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TRY SOMETHING,
TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS A PROFOUNDLY
TROUBLING PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA.
IT'S THE LARGE NUMBERS OF FOLKS WHO
DO END UP IN OUR STATE PSYCHIATRIC
HOSPITALS WHERE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.
AND SO WE SEE THIS LEGISLATION AS
KEY TO REALLY PUTTING IN PLACE
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES
FOR CLIENTS ACROSS THE STATE.
AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS
THAT HAVE CONCERNS TO HELP ANY WAY WE CAN.
WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTHOR,
FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS,
TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
THANK YOU.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 20 2352?
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2352.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KAREN VICARI,
AND I'M THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
POLICY FOR MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA,
OR MHAC, A PEER RUN ORGANIZATION.
I AM A PERSON WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE
AND BOTH A PARENT
AND A FAMILY MEMBER OF PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE.
MHAC WAS A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF AB 1029,
WHICH WAS LAST YEAR'S PADS BILL.
WE WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT PSYCHIATRIC
ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.
HOWEVER, THE REACH OF AB 20 2352
EXTENDS FAR BEYOND PADS.
WELL, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS WITH THE BILL,
SOME OF WHICH DRC WILL ADDRESS.
UM, OUR GREATEST CONCERN AT THIS POINT LIES
WITH THE CHANGE WITHIN THE BILL OF
THE TERME MENTAL HEALTH OVER TO BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH THROUGHOUT VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS,
INCLUDING INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT
STATUTE AND ASSISTED
OUTPATIENT TREATMENT STATUTE, OR LAURA'S LAW.
THE TERME BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IS A VERY BROAD
TERME WITH A WIDE RANGE OF DEFINITIONS.
WHILE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH GENERALLY
REFERS TO SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER AND OR A MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGE,
THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION SAYS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH REFERS TO MENTAL HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE USE, LIFE STRESSORS AND CRISES,
AND STRESS RELATED PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS.
MY POINT IS THAT THE TERME BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH IS ILL, ILL DEFINED,
AND CAN BE VERY BROAD OR VERY NARROW IN FACT.
AB 2352 WITHIN THE 82 PAGES DEFINES BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH THREE DIFFERENT WAYS,
BUT THEY DEFINE IT BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AS MENTAL HEALTH.
HOWEVER, WE KNOW THAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INCLUDES
SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES BY CHANGING
THE WORDS MENTAL HEALTH TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
IN ASSISTED OUTPATIENT TREATMENT,
OR LAURA'S LAW STATUTE, THE BILL MAKES
EXPANSIVE CHANGES TO AOT BY OPENING
AOT UP TO INDIVIDUALS WITH STANDALONE
SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES.
LAURA'S LAW HAS GONE THROUGH
EXTENSIVE PUBLIC DEBATE.
IS MY TIME UP?
YOU CAN GO.
AHEAD AND WRAP UP.
OKAY.
LAURA'S LAW HAS GONE THROUGH
EXTENSIVE PUBLIC DEBATE,
AND IT HAS NEVER INCLUDED SUBSTANCE USE.
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY CHANGES LIKE THAT
THROUGHOUT INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT
LAW ARE MADE IN THIS BILL,
WHICH GREATLY CHANGES CURRENT LAW.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UM,
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE.
WE ARE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO
GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, DEB ROTH WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA.
UH, WE ARE THE STATE'S FEDERALLY MANDATED
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY.
I WORK AT DRC, BUT I AM ALSO A MENTAL HEALTH PEER,
AND I WORK DIRECTLY WITH MANY, MANY PEERS,
SOME OF WHOM HAVE PSYCHIATRIC ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
OR ARE THINKING ABOUT COMPLETING ONE.
WE WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND YOUR STAFF,
UH, FOR WORKING WITH US.
AND I CALLED YOU THE SPONSOR.
I GUESS YOU'RE NOT FORMALLY THE SPONSOR, BUT, UH,
KAREN HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THIS TOPIC,
AND WE APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO WORK WITH HER.
I AM HERE IN REGRETFUL OPPOSITION.
OUR TWO ORGANIZATIONS, MHK AND DRC,
SPONSORED AB 1029 LAST YEAR
TO BEGIN THE CONVERSATION
ON HOW TO INCREASE THE USE OF PADS.
TO DE-ESCALATE A CRISIS WITH TOOLS DETERMINED IN
ADVANCE OF A CRISIS BY THE PERSON IN THE CRISIS.
THIS MAY INCLUDE MEDICATION ALLERGIES,
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT MAY BE HELPFUL,
AND ESPECIALLY ABOUT WHAT MAY NOT BE HELPFUL.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL
ARE PART OF A SEVEN COUNTY
INNOVATION PROJECT TO TEST A DIGITAL PLATFORM.
THE AUTHOR SAID THE BILL IS
AMBITIOUS AND SHE IS RIGHT.
I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE OF
A CHOICE IN THE BILL WITH WHICH WE DISAGREE.
SHE MENTIONED THAT THE CHANGES WILL ELIMINATE
THE RIGHT TO GIVE SOMEONE POWER OF ATTORNEY.
CURRENTLY, A PAD PROVIDES THAT
AS AN OPTION FOR SOMEONE,
SAME AS AN ADVANCED HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE
FOR ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL ISSUES.
AND YOU CAN PICK AN AGENT OR NOT PICK AN AGENT.
UM, WE THINK IT'S A IT'S A TERRIBLE CHOICE.
BUT EVEN IF IT HAS MERIT,
IT SHOULDN'T BE DROPPED INTO THIS BIG,
AMBITIOUS BILL THAT IS TESTING
AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH.
AND AT THIS TIME, WE THINK THE BILL SHOULD INCLUDE
JUST WHAT IT NEEDS IN ORDER TO DO THAT TESTING.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHO COMPLETED
A PAD AFTER AN INVOLUNTARY HOSPITALIZATION,
AND THEY WERE ANGRY THAT A FAMILY
MEMBER WAS EXCLUDED.
SO THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS
CREATE A PAD TO ADDRESS THAT.
WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS DOCUMENT DIFFERENT FROM
ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVES IN SO MANY WAYS?
A PAT IS A FORM OF ADVANCE HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE.
THE ANSWER ISN'T TO ELIMINATE THE AGENT,
IT'S TO MAKE IT OPTIONAL,
WHICH IS HOW CURRENT LAW WORKS AND MAKES SURE
PROTECTIONS ARE BUILT IN AGAINST ABUSE.
THANK YOU.
I WANT TO DO ANY WRAPPING COMMENT,
WRAPPING UP, WRAP UP COMMENT.
UM, I COULD GO ON AND ON.
UH, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED WITH HOW HOW THIS
BILL IS DEVELOPING AS IT MOVES.
WE HOPE TO FORM A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE AUTHOR AND SPONSOR.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION?
OKAY, BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
SENATOR O'BRIEN.
UM.
ONE THING.
THE AUTHOR AND YOU KNOW EVERYONE WHO'S COME HERE
FOR THIS ROBUST CONVERSATION, I THINK HOW WE,
UM, CONTINUE TO TO REFINE
AND BUILD UP OUR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS.
UM, REQUIRE ALL IMPACTED VOICES.
I WAS ONE OF THE THE HANDFUL OF PEOPLE,
LESS THAN A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE,
INCLUDING, I BELIEVE,
THE CHAIR WHO DID NOT SUPPORT CARE COURT.
UH, EVEN ON THE FLOOR.
AND SO I HAVE CONCERNS THAT, UM,
I THINK THE OPPOSITION HAS RAISED.
WELL, I'M ENCOURAGED BY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE,
OUR CONVERSATIONS AND A WILLINGNESS TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
SO, UM, WILLING TO TO SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE
HERE IN THIS FIRST COMMITTEE,
BUT REALLY HOPEFUL THAT THOSE
CONVERSATIONS WILL CONTINUE.
THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR DIXON.
I SENSE AND I HAVE NO, UH,
EXPERTISE IN BEHAVIORAL MENTAL HEALTH
OTHER THAN BEING A CITIZEN OF
OF OUR STATE AND COMMUNITIES,
KNOWING THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
I HONESTLY COULDN'T TELL YOU
THE RIGHT OR WRONG REASONS
TO GO FROM A MENTAL HEALTH TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.
AND YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE DRUG ADDICTIONS
AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
I KNOW THAT CAME FORWARD IN
THE CARE COURT DISCUSSIONS AND,
AND THE DEBATES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
I CAN'T EVALUATE WHICH IS BETTER.
IF THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMUNITIES FEEL THAT THOSE
PATIENTS ARE NOT BEING ADEQUATELY SERVED,
OR IF INCLUDING BEHAVIORAL WEAKENS IN ANY WAY.
SO I REALLY I GUESS I SHOULD
LOOK AT YOU, ASSEMBLYWOMAN.
UM, I THINK THE, UH, PSYCHIATRIC ADVANCE DIRECTIVES,
JUST LIKE A HEALTH CARE DIRECTIVE,
I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT.
I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE CONCEPT.
AND I SENSE THAT THIS IS REALLY IN
IMPORTANT WEEDS OF THESE ISSUES
TO REALLY FULLY UNDERSTAND
THE IMPACT AND RAMIFICATIONS.
SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS OF
CONSOLIDATING MENTAL HEALTH UNDER BEHAVIORAL,
AND HOW THAT WILL CHANGE THE DELIVERY OF
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN CALIFORNIA?
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AGAIN.
TOBY EWING WITH THE SOON TO BE RENAMED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COMMISSION.
I THINK THERE ARE, UM, LAYERS TO YOUR QUESTION.
AND SOME OF THOSE LAYERS COME UP INTO THIS QUESTION
OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENCE.
UM, ADDICTION HAS BEEN INCLUDED UNDER
THE TERMS MENTAL HEALTH FOR, FOR DECADES.
BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY IN
TERMS OF DEFINITIONAL RULES
COMING FROM THE THE DIAGNOSTIC
AND STATISTICAL MANUAL.
BUT IN PRACTICE WE HAVE OFTEN DIFFERENTIATED
AND I THINK THE OPPOSITION
IS RAISING FUNDAMENTAL CONCERNS
ABOUT CLARITY OF INTENT HERE.
RIGHT.
SO THERE HAS BEEN VAGUENESS IN WHAT
THE LAW HAS ALLOWED VERSUS WHAT
THE LAW HAS REQUIRED OR PROHIBITED
IN TERMS OF THAT INTERSECTION.
THE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE
ACTUALLY ISN'T STATUTORY, IT'S PRACTICE.
UM, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT ADDICTION
IS IN THE BRAIN, AS IS DEPRESSION.
AND SO THESE DISTINCTIONS, UM,
SOMETIMES ARE PRACTICE DISTINCTIONS,
SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT.
WE HAVE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO ACTUALLY
INTEGRATE THEIR BEHAVIORAL,
THEIR THEIR SUBSTANCE USE WORK AND THEIR
TRADITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH WORK.
WE HAVE OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES THAT DON'T.
WE HAVE SYSTEMS THAT ONLY DEAL WITH ADDICTION.
UM, THE ADMINISTRATION, THROUGH
REFORMS UNDER PROP ONE,
HAS REALLY BEEN PUSHING TO ACTUALLY
DO A BETTER JOB OF INTEGRATING.
AND SO I DON'T THINK THE CONCERN IS SO
MUCH AROUND THE CLARITY OF THE TERMS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND WHAT IT MEANS
IN TERMS OF THE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
I MY UNDERSTANDING AND WE'VE COMMITTED TO
ENGAGE MORE IS ARE THERE SOME UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES THAT COULD CREATE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS IN TERMS OF INVOLUNTARY CARE?
WE THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME STRAIGHTFORWARD
WAYS TO FIX THAT.
SO THERE COULD BE IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THE POTENTIAL COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND ARE YOU ALL WORKING TOGETHER
AND TALKING TOGETHER TO SEE
IF YOU COULD GET ON TO THE SAME
PAGE OF UNDERSTANDING?
GINA?
UH, ONE THING I DID WANT TO MENTION
WHEN WE LOOK AT PADS FOR
THIS PROJECT ALSO IS REALLY LOOKING
AT THE WHOLE PERSON,
AND OFTEN AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS
DEALING WITH A MENTAL HEALTH
CONDITION MAY ALSO HAVE A SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER.
AND SO REALLY LOOKING AT THAT PAD TO BE ABLE
TO ANSWER BOTH OF THOSE IN THAT MOMENT,
BUT AGAIN, NOT WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE
THE IMPLICATIONS THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE.
SO WE ARE ACTUALLY WORKING AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUING OUR CONVERSATIONS TOGETHER.
BUT, UM, IN THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE,
IS IT NOW WE DON'T TALK ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH.
WE TALK ABOUT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.
IS THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING?
OR WHY CAN'T YOUR NEW AGENCY,
IF THAT'S GOING TO BE THE KIND OF THE DETERMINANT
FACTOR OR BE CALLED THE BEHAVIORAL
AND MENTAL HEALTH, SUCH AND SUCH.
UM, UH, I LOOK FORWARD TO SPENDING LOTS OF
TIME WITH YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY.
IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE A LONG CONVERSATION.
YEAH.
SO.
SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE
WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS,
UM, SORT OF, YOU KNOW,
TRENDS IN THE FIELD, SOCIAL TRENDS,
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH TRENDS.
IN FACT, THERE ARE TRENDS THAT ARE EVEN MOVING
AWAY FROM THE TURN, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
BECAUSE IT OFTEN IMPLIES THAT BEHAVIOR IS
THE ISSUE RATHER THAN THE INTEGRATION
OF SORT OF CLASSIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
AND CLASSIC STUDY SERVICES.
UM, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN
THE SERVICE DELIVERY SIDE IS,
IS THAT IT IS OFTEN INAPPROPRIATE,
JUST LIKE WE WOULDN'T SEPARATE TREATMENT OF A HEART
CONDITION FROM TREATMENT OF A LUNG CONDITION.
RIGHT.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
THE AN INTEGRATED STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THAT.
THE THERE'S THERE ARE MOVEMENTS IN THIS SPACE
WHO ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT BRAIN HEALTH,
BECAUSE WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE
THE INTERSECTION OF DEVELOPMENTAL
DISORDERS AND DEPRESSION OR ANXIETY,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE'VE SORT OF
DIVIDED THE BRAIN INTO THESE CLASSIC AREAS OF
STUDY OR WORK OR SERVICES THAT ISN'T ACTUALLY
DRIVEN BY THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN ITSELF.
AND SO, SO WHAT'S I THINK WHAT'S THE LAW IS SORT OF
CATCHING UP WITH CONVERSATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY,
WHILE THE CONVERSATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY
ARE ACTUALLY CONTINUING TO MOVE.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING.
SO YOU'LL GET IS YOUR INTENT TO
GET EVERYONE TO AGREE HERE
ON GOING A PATH GOING FORWARD
AND DEFINITIONAL TERMS.
AND I JUST, I JUST UM, YES,
THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS.
THE DISABILITY RIGHTS HAS BEEN PART
OF THE WORKGROUP ALL ALONG.
WE WE HEARD OF THESE OF THE THE CURRENT OPPOSITION
LAST WEEK AND ADOPTED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE STAFF.
I THINK, UH, DEALT WITH ABOUT
HALF OF THE OPPOSITION OR SO.
AND WE ARE CERTAINLY WE HAVE TO
CONTINUE THESE CONVERSATIONS
AND GET TO A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY'S
ON THE SAME PAGE.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
THEY ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I LOOK FORWARD TO OUR FUTURE CONVERSATION.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
THE MOVES.
GIVE A SECOND.
SECOND.
OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, SAMIR IRWIN, UM,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I KNOW HOW CHALLENGING AND COMPLICATED,
BUT IMPORTANT IT IS.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION,
UM, FOR THEIR, UM, COMMENTS.
I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH MUCH
OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY.
HOWEVER, I ALSO KNOW THE WAY YOU OPERATE IN
TRYING TO BRING EVERYONE TO THE TABLE.
AND SO I ABSOLUTELY WANT THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR EVERYONE TO CONTINUE
TO WORK TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH SOME
OF THE REMAINING CONCERNS.
I THINK THERE'S THERE'S STILL TIME TO DO THAT.
UH, THIS IS THE STILL EARLIER IN THE PROCESS.
BUT AS WE KNOW, TIME STARTS MOVING VERY QUICKLY.
AND SO I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE AND RESOLVE
SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES
TO THE BEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.
AND PLEASE KEEP, UM, THE COMMITTEE STAFF APPRISED
AS THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE CONTINUING.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
MADAM SECRETARY CAN TAKE ROLL CALL ON AB 2352.
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO HEALTH COMMITTEE CALL.
I CALL I DIXON.
TING.
BRIAN.
BRIAN I.
CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I.
HANEY.
HANEY I.
MAIN CHAIN.
MAIN CHAIN I.
MCKINNON.
PACHECO I.
PACHECO, I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
SO THAT BILL WILL BE PLACED ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
UH, CAN WE GET A MOTION ON ITEM 12 AB 3281?
THAT'S THE COMMITTEE BILL.
IS THERE A SECOND?
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
CAN YOU ROLL CALL ON AB 3081?
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BILL.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CALL FOR A CALL BY DICKSON.
THIS IS 32.
81.
YES.
UH, NO.
DICKSON.
NO.
TING.
BRIAN.
BRIAN, I.
CONNOLLY.
I.
HANEY.
I.
MAIN.
SHINE.
MAIN.
SHINE.
I.
MCKINNON.
PACHECO.
I.
PACHECO, I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
SO THAT BILL WILL BE ON CALL,
AND I HAVE TO GO PRESENT IN BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONS AS THEY'RE WRAPPING
UP VERY SOON, I BELIEVE.
AND SO I'M GOING TO HAND THE GAVEL
OVER TO THE VICE CHAIR.
AND I THINK UP NEXT WOULD THEN BE SENATOR HANEY.
ITEM.
OH, THESE OH, THESE.
HERE.
MY APOLOGIES.
SO ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEE AND I'LL.
I'LL BE BACK.
YOU COME BACK BECAUSE THEN I GO I GO BACK
TO THE SAME PLACE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU BOTH GO.
WALKING.
NO.
ALL RIGHT.
ITEM SEVEN.
LET ME GET MY NOTES.
25, 84.
OKAY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE, THIS IS, UH, AB 2584.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE.
>> YES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'VE JUST CONFIRMING THAT WE
HAVE ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE REFLECTIVE IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS.
AND BY THE WAY, IS AN EXCELLENT COMMITTEE ANALYSIS.
BY THE WAY, UH, AB 2584 WILL
PROTECT THE LIMITED STOCK
OF OF HOMES FOR WORKING FAMILIES BY BANNING LARGE
MEGA CORPORATIONS THAT ALREADY
OWN 1000 HOMES OR MORE
FROM PURCHASING ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FACES
A SEVERE HOUSING SHORTAGE.
TO MEET THE STATE'S HOUSING TARGETS,
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO BE BUILDING AROUND 300,000
HOMES PER YEAR, BUT AT PRESENT
WE BARELY BUILD 100,000
HOMES A YEAR.
PRICES REFLECT THE SHORTAGE IN SPITE OF THE MORTGAGE
INTEREST RATES REACHING MULTI-DECADE HIGHS,
HOME PRICES CONTINUE TO CLIMB.
A RECENT REPORT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS STATES THAT
ONLY 15% OF CALIFORNIANS CAN AFFORD
TO BUY A HOME AT THE CURRENT COST.
SO AT A TIME WHEN FOR SALE HOMES
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE SCARCE,
IT HAS NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT
TO PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF HOMES.
LARGE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRMS AND HEDGE FUNDS
HAVE GONE ON A BUYING SPREE AMIDST THE SHORTAGE.
FIRMS THAT CAN HAVE THAT CAN
BE BEST DESCRIBED AS HOUSING
SHORTAGE PROFITEERS HAVE TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF THE LACK OF
NEW SUPPLY BY BUYING SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES IN AN EFFORT TO
CASH IN ON RISING RENTS
AND THEIR OWN INVESTOR REPORTS.
INVITATION HOMES HAS TOLD THEIR SHAREHOLDERS.
INVITATION HOMES, BY THE WAY, WHICH OWNS 15,000
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN CALIFORNIA ALONE
AND IS A SPIN OFF OF BLACKROCK,
HAS TOLD SHAREHOLDERS THAT WE OPERATE IN
MARKETS WITH STRONG DEMAND DRIVERS,
HIGH BARRIERS TO ENTRY AND HIGH
RENT GROWTH POTENTIAL.
THESE FIRMS AREN'T DRIVING DOWN COSTS,
THEY'RE HOPING TO CASH IN ON THESE COSTS.
AND AS THE ANALYSIS POINTED OUT ON PAGE SIX,
THESE CORPORATIONS TEND TO CONCENTRATE THEIR
PURCHASES AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL,
PRIMARILY IN LOW INCOME, HISTORICALLY
NON-WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT HAVE SUFFERED FROM DISINVESTMENT.
BUT WHERE GENTRIFICATION ON REAL ESTATE,
GENTRIFICATION OR REAL ESTATE CYCLE DYNAMICS
PREDICT MEDIUM FIRM PRICE INCREASES.
AND IN SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
1333 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHRIS
WARD THAT WE PASSED OUT OF
THE ASSEMBLY EARLIER THIS YEAR,
WHICH DOES A VERY SIMILAR THING,
WHICH BANS THE SAME PRACTICE BUT ON NEW BUILD HOMES.
SO THIS BILL, MY BILL DOES ON EXISTING HOMES,
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
THEY STATE IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR FAMILIES
TO COMPETE WITH THESE LARGE SCALE INVESTORS,
AND THAT THESE INVESTORS ARE A NEW THREAT
TO FAMILIAL HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES.
AS MANY MARKETS,
ESPECIALLY LARGE METROPOLITAN MARKETS,
THERE IS LITTLE AVAILABLE UNDER $500,000.
THAT'S LITERALLY THEIR WORDS.
AB 2584 WILL GIVE HOME BUYERS A FAIRER PLAYING FIELD
AND BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR FAMILIES
TO BUY THEIR FIRST HOME,
BUILDING THE STABILITY AND GENERATIONAL GENERATIONAL
WEALTH THAT OWNERSHIP CAN PROVIDE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES?
OKAY.
ANY, UH, ONE INTERESTED IN SUPPORT?
ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT?
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS BRYANT MIRAMONTEZ
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND STRONG SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION?
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
AND STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JIM LITES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
RENTAL HOME COUNCIL THAT REPRESENTS
THE NATIONAL COMPANIES THAT OWN
SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOMES.
APPRECIATE THE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD
WITH THE AUTHOR AND HIS OFFICE ABOUT THIS BILL,
BUT WE THINK THE PERCEPTION
DOESN'T QUITE MEET REALITY.
THE ANALYSIS NOTES THAT THE INSTITUTIONAL
PRESENCE IN CALIFORNIA IS TINY,
AND THERE'S ONLY TWO COMPANIES THAT WE'RE AWARE
OF THAT HAVE A THOUSAND UNITS OR MORE,
THAT THIS BILL WOULD APPLY TO.
THOSE COMPANIES OWN COLLECTIVELY ABOUT 13,000
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA.
THAT AMOUNTS TO 0.15 OF 1%.
IF I MAY REPEAT THAT .15 OF 1%.
WE DON'T THINK THERE'S A MARKET PRESENCE
THAT ACTUALLY IS SQUEEZING ANYONE OUT.
THERE'S 8.5 MILLION SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES IN THE STATE.
THE TWO COMPANIES THAT THIS BILL WOULD
APPLY TO HAVE PURCHASED TWO HOMES,
TWO EXISTING HOMES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
SO WE REALLY THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE
IN THE BILL IS LEGISLATING
AGAINST A PERCEPTION THAT DOES NOT ACTUALLY
MEET THE REALITY OF THE STATISTICS
OF OF INSTITUTIONAL
OWNERSHIP IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS?
YEAH.
>> NICK CAMMARATA, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
OUR POSITION IS OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED.
I THINK THAT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT THE AUTHOR TOOK TODAY
ARE HELPFUL IN MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION FOR US.
THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I WOULD
MAKE IS THAT THE ADDITION OF
OF PUTTING A TIME LIMIT OF FIVE
YEARS AFTER A BUILDER,
WE REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING
TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOMES.
WE BUILD NEW HOMES FOR CALIFORNIA
IN A VARIETY OF PLACES,
SOMETIMES ACQUIRING EXISTING HOUSING UNITS.
AND AND UNFORTUNATELY, IN CALIFORNIA,
WE CAN'T GET WITHIN FIVE YEARS.
WE CAN'T GET THE APPROVALS NECESSARY,
LAND USE, ENVIRONMENTAL.
AND IN ORDER TO PULL A BUILDING
PERMIT IN THAT TIME FRAME.
AND FRANKLY, OUR SALES PACE RIGHT
NOW ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO
GET US TO SELL OUT OF A PROJECT
WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION AND APPRECIATE
THE DIRECTION THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE MOVING US IN.
VERY GOOD.
UH, ANY COMMENTS IN, UH, UH, MORE OPPOSITION, BUT.
UH, THANK YOU.
UH, GOOD MORNING.
DEBORAH CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
>> UH, GOOD MORNING.
UH, KAREEM DRISSI ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, KATE BELL.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
AND APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER L.A..
IN OPPOSITION.
THANKS.
>> CHAIR AND MEMBERS PAT MORAN WITH
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU.
>> NATALIE BOUST ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE.
IN OPPOSITION.
ANY MORE.
UH, COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION.
ALL RIGHT.
BRINGING IT UP TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH.
UM, A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
ONE FOR THE AUTHOR.
I WAS READING THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION'S
LETTER AND THEY MENTIONED, YOU KNOW,
THERE MIGHT BE A NEED TO THINK ABOUT
ALSO THINKING ABOUT TENANTS,
UH, FOR THOSE GIANT COMPANIES WHO DO OWN IT,
THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIRST WRITE OF OF BUYING,
IF THEY EVER DO DECIDE TO SELL.
CURIOUS WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT?
AND THEN ALSO FOR THE OPPOSITION WHO
MENTIONED THAT THIS ISN'T HAPPENING.
THEN WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
PUTTING GUARDRAILS TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
I JUST I FIND THAT TO BE AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT,
TO SAY THAT THIS THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.
AND I GET THAT.
UM, BUT IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY,
THEN THIS SEEMS PREVENTATIVE
IN CASE IT EVER SHOULD BECOME NECESSARY
AND SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY ADVERSE EFFECT
ON ANYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY HAPPENING.
IS THAT A FAIR INTERPRETATION?
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, RYAN.
UM, JUST TO POINT OUT TWO THINGS TOO, IS, YOU KNOW,
I AS MEMBERS OF THE RENTERS CAUCUS,
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION SUPPORTIVE
OF TENANT OPPORTUNITY FIRST RIGHT TO PURCHASE.
SO THAT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT KIND OF THING.
UM, I THINK THAT OF COURSE THOSE
POLICIES ARE GOOD TO HAVE,
BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM
THAT OPERATES IN A LARGER SCOPE, RIGHT?
50% OF CALIFORNIANS OWN ZERO HOMES.
SO WHEN A COUPLE ACTORS,
COUPLE COMPANIES CAN OWN 15,000
HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT PRICES IN MY AREA,
AVERAGE ABOUT $1 MILLION A PIECE,
THAT'S $15,000 MILLION ASSETS AT ONE TIME.
AND YES, THEIR PURCHASING POWER RIGHT
NOW IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN RELATIVELY
SMALL RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF HIGH
PRICES AND HIGH INTEREST RATES.
BUT THEY CLIMB TO 15,000
IN A VERY SHORT TIME BECAUSE
OF THE HOUSING CRASH IN THE RECESSION FROM 2008.
SO THAT'S HOW THEY GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND THAT'S ALSO TO NOTE, TOO,
IS THAT THE BILL IS ABOUT, UM,
CORPORATIONS THAT OWN A THOUSAND HOMES OR MORE,
NOT JUST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THESE CORPORATIONS ARE
ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN THE SUN BELTS IN GEORGIA,
IN THE CAROLINAS RIGHT NOW, AND THEY OWN A NATIONAL
PORTFOLIO OF EXERTING THAT KIND OF INFLUENCE.
SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT
TO THE NUMBERS IS, YES,
IT SEEMS SMALL WHEN YOU TAKE THE INDEPENDENT SLICE,
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EQUITY OF
OWNERS ACROSS THE STATE, RIGHT,
MOST PEOPLE HAVE ONE HOME AT BEST,
MOST A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY.
RIGHT.
AND SO WHEN A COUPLE ACTORS CAN
OWN THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS,
WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN.
UM, FIRST, THESE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN NET SELLERS
OF HOMES IN CALIFORNIA FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
THEY'VE REDUCED THEIR HOLDINGS BY ABOUT 28%,
GOING FROM 18,000
DOWN TO ABOUT 13 BETWEEN BOTH COMPANIES.
UM, THEY ALSO BOTH HAVE WHAT
WE CALL FIRST LOOK PROGRAMS.
SO IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT,
YOU ARE OFFERED THE FIRST RIGHT
OF REFUSAL TO PURCHASE A HOME
IF THEY DECIDE TO SELL IT.
ONE OF THE COMPANIES, IF YOU HAVE
LIVED WITH THEM FOR FIVE YEARS,
WILL GIVE YOU A $5,000
PAYMENT TOWARDS YOUR DOWN PAYMENT,
WHETHER OR NOT YOU BUY THEIR HOME OR NOT.
YOU COULD BUY A HOME ANYWHERE IN
THE COUNTRY AND THEY GIVE YOU THE 5000.
SO THEY DO THINGS THAT THE THE AVERAGE
LANDLORD MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT.
THEY ALSO DO WHAT, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY'S BILL
THAT'S BEFORE YOU LATER TODAY WOULD ALSO REQUIRE.
AND THAT IS THEY ALREADY REPORT POSITIVE CREDIT
INFORMATION TO THE CREDIT BUREAUS.
THEY DO NOT REPORT NEGATIVE INFORMATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SHANE AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO WHEN
I HEAR ABOUT THESE HOUSING SHORTAGES,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THERE'S JUST SO MANY ISSUES.
BUT REALLY THE BIG ISSUE IS YOU MENTIONED SORT
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER ISSUES
THAT REALLY IMPEDE DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVALS
AND RAPID PERMITTING OF DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF UNITS
OF HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION
IN CALIFORNIA ARE PLANNING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
THAT CANNOT BE BUILT BECAUSE OF CEQA
AND OTHER IMPEDIMENTS TO EFFICIENT,
UH, CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES.
AND THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM.
I AND I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST
THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS
IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRAINT ON THE MARKETPLACE.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A CLOSING STATEMENT?
ABSOLUTELY.
I THIS IS A NATIONAL ISSUE.
YOU'RE SEEING NOT JUST IN CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW IS IN A VERY COSTLY
PLACE TO BUY UP HOUSES AND STUFF.
BUT IF THE MARKET WERE TO CHANGE AND WE HAD
A STRUCTURAL HOUSING BUBBLE, ONCE AGAIN,
WE COULD BE WITH CAROLINAS
AND GEORGIA AND THE SUNBELT ARE
RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU DO SEE
A MONUMENTAL SHIFT IN BUYING.
AND EVEN IN THE ANALYSIS AS YOU SEE IT,
THERE WAS A BIG BUYING SPREE AFTER THE HOUSING
BUBBLE IN 2008 DURING THE PANDEMIC.
THERE WAS ANOTHER BUYING BUBBLE.
AND YOU'RE SEEING THIS THIS PLAY
ACROSS THIS STORY PLAY ACROSS,
UM, ACROSS THE NATION.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE LEGISLATURES THAT ARE REPUBLICAN
AND DEMOCRAT BRINGING THIS BILL,
TYPES OF BILLS FORWARD.
AND TO JUST REMIND US THAT THIS HOUSE
PASSED A BILL ON NEW BUILD HOUSING.
THIS IS ABOUT THE EXISTING STOCK, RIGHT?
SO THIS IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THERE'S OPPORTUNITY
FOR HARD WORKING FAMILIES TO COMPETE,
AS MANY FOLKS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT,
IT'S VERY HARD FOR THE AVERAGE
FAMILY TO COMPETE WITH
A PERHAPS INTERNATIONAL HEDGE FUND AND TRYING
TO BUY UP THE ONE HOUSE WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO
HAVE THEIR FIRST HOME BUYING OPPORTUNITY.
SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
HAVE THESE SAFEGUARDS IN HERE.
YES, THEIR PROPORTION MIGHT BE SMALL RIGHT NOW,
BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE TALKING TO YOU AT A DAY WHEN
THEY OWN 50% OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME STOCK,
AND THEY TURNED THEM ALL INTO RENTALS EITHER.
SO IF I CAN BORROW A PHRASE FROM THE ANALYSIS ON
PAGE 62 IS IN A ZERO SUM HOUSING ENVIRONMENT,
CORPORATE WINNERS MEAN INDIVIDUAL LOSERS.
RESPECTFULLY ASK.
BRAVO.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE.
OH, I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IN A SECOND.
MR.
HANEY.
OKAY.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CORA.
DIXON.
NO.
DIXON.
NO.
KING.
BRYAN.
BRYANT I.
CONNELLY.
CONNELLY I.
HANEY.
HANEY I.
MOONSHINE.
MOONSHINE I.
MCKINNON.
PACHECO.
GRACE SANCHEZ WALTON.
THAT'S ON CALL.
SO THANK YOU.
SO WHO?
WHO'S NEXT?
UM, WE HAVE A BILL TO VOTE ON.
OH.
MR.
LEE.
OH!
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.
WHO DO WE HAVE NEXT?
ITEM ONE.
OH.
MR..
ASSEMBLYMAN ALVAREZ.
NUMBER ONE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
STILL?
YES.
THIS MORNING IT'S STILL MORNING.
IT'S GOOD MORNING.
WE'RE ON NUMBER ONE.
THANK YOU.
UH, MADAM VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY JUDICIAL ASSEMBLY BILL, 18 MAY 11TH.
THE JURY DUTY FOR ALL BASIS.
ALL.
I ALSO OF THOSE THANK STAFF TO
WORK NOT ONLY WITH MY APPEAR,
BUT ALSO THE CHAIR AND MY COLLEAGUE PERSONALLY.
UH, WE WALK THROUGH THIS AND, UH,
YOU HAVE A WELL WRITTEN ANALYSIS WITH ALSO WHAT
I THINK IS AN FAIR ANALOG WAS OF OF OUR VITAL HERE.
UM, EVERY TRIAL DEFENDANT,
HE GOING TO BE JUDGED BY A LOG OF THEIR PEERS.
SO BY MAKING LEGAL A HIGH RESIDENTS
ON SERVE AS JURIES.
CALIFORNIA CAN TAKE ONES ARE CLOSER
TOWARDS JOINING THAT GOAL.
CALIFORNIA IS HOME TO AND THREE MEN
PROVEN LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS,
WHICH IS ABOUT 8% OF OUR STATE'S POPULATION.
THEY LIVE AMONG ALL COMMUNITY WORK
IN OUR I KNOW WE PAY TAXES
SUBJECT TO AND ENJOY HATS
AND THE PROTECTIONS OF OUR LAWS.
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT WITNESSES IN COURT
GOING TO GET THEY WORK AS AN THE BACKS.
UH, AND JUDGES AND IN OTHER POSITIONS
WITHIN THE COURT ITSELF.
THE ONLY ROLE FROM WHICH SOMEONE WHO IS
A LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT CANNOT SERVE IN,
AND ARE EXCLUDED FROM IS FROM BEING A JUROR,
MEANING THAT THEY HAVE NO ROLE
IN RESOLVING LEGAL DISPUTES.
AB 1811 SEEKS TO RESOLVE THIS EXCLUSION,
AS IT HAS NO HISTORICAL BASIS IN LAW OR LOGIC,
AGAIN AS PRESENTED IN YOUR ANALYSIS BEFORE YOU.
ACCORDING TO COUNSEL, THE COURT'S JURY DOUBT
ABOUT $10 MILLION BAIL SUMMONS ON
AN ANNUAL WANT TWO AND 3 MILLION WHO ARE
NOT RESPONDING OR THEY FAIL TO SELF.
OF THE DOZEN DIFFERENT REASONS INDIVIDUALS
CAN BE EXEMPT FROM JURY SERVICE,
NOT BEING A CITIZEN IS ONE OF THE MOST
IS THE MOST FREQUENT, WITH 500,000
OR HALF A MILLION OF THOSE USING THE EXEMPTION
OF OF NOT BEING A CITIZEN AS THE EXEMPTION
EVERY YEAR IN PASSING AB 1811 TO MAKE
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE,
WE CAN IMPROVE THE COURTS IN MEETING
THEIR JURY NEEDS WHILE
ALSO IMPROVING THEIR REPRESENTATION
WITHIN OUR JURIES.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THE INITIAL CONCERNS HIGHLIGHTED
BY THE COMMITTEE AND HAVE
OFFERED THAT HAVE OFFERED AMENDMENTS
THAT ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
AB 1811 IS SUPPORTED BY THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION,
THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
CHINESE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION,
AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE DEAN OF
THE UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW, DEAN KEVIN JOHNSON,
WHO CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAILS
AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT AS HE'S
BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE FAR LONGER THAN I HAVE.
UH, HE'LL SHARE HIS TESTIMONY NOW.
DEAN.
>> THANK YOU.
UH, AND THANK YOU, COMMITTEE,
FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE
AND SHARE SOME VIEWS TODAY.
UH, AS WAS MENTIONED, I'M THE DEAN
OF UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW.
BUT I ALSO TEACH CIVIL PROCEDURE,
COMPLEX LITIGATION,
AND IMMIGRATION LAW.
SO I TALK A LOT ABOUT THE JURY SYSTEM AND HOW
IT REPRESENTS THE BEST IN OUR DEMOCRACY.
AB 1811 WOULD ALLOW LEGAL IMMIGRANTS,
AS WELL AS US CITIZENS TO SERVE ON JURIES.
IN MY VIEW, IT'S A MOST APPROPRIATE
CHANGE IN THE LAW IN A SOCIETY THAT
SEEKS TO TO HAVE JURIES REPRESENT
A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY,
AND IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC
VALUES AND THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
AB 1811 WILL EXTEND ELIGIBILITY
FOR JURY SERVICE TO LAWFUL
PERMANENT RESIDENTS WHO
THE US IMMIGRATION LAWS DEFINE
TO BE IMMIGRANT IMMIGRANTS LAWFULLY
ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES,
WHO MAY REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY INDEFINITELY.
THE BILL WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY VISITORS
OR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TO SERVE ON JURIES.
IT WAS MENTIONED BY ASSEMBLYMAN ALVAREZ.
LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS LIVE
AND WORK IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
THEY PAY TAXES.
THEY ATTEND OUR SCHOOLS.
THEY ATTEND OUR CHURCHES.
THEY SERVE IN THE MILITARY.
MANY HAVE LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES
FOR MANY YEARS, IF NOT DECADES.
MANY HAVE CHILDREN WHO ARE U.S.
CITIZENS BY VIRTUE OF BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES,
MANY EVENTUALLY NATURALIZED UNDER
FEDERAL LAW AND BECOME U.S.
CITIZENS.
PUT SIMPLY, LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS
ARE PART OF OUR COMMUNITIES,
BUT CURRENT LAW DENIES THEM
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE ON JURIES.
NOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION OR IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
THAT BARS NON-CITIZENS FROM SERVING ON JURIES.
IN.
HISTORICALLY, NON-CITIZENS WERE
PERMITTED TO SERVE ON JURIES.
THEY SERVED ON JURIES.
IN ENGLAND, THE JURY PRACTICED THAT
WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE COLONIES,
ALLOWED NON-CITIZENS TO SERVE
ON JURIES IN THE COLONIES
OF THE THAT LATER BECAME THE UNITED STATES.
SOME STATES ALSO ALLOWED NON-CITIZENS
TO SERVE ON JURIES AS WELL,
SO NON-CITIZEN JURY SERVICE IS NOT IMPRESSED IN IT.
UH, I WANT TO JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING, UH.
WELL, IMMIGRANTS COMPRISE A LARGE
PERCENT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
ABOUT 27% OF THE STATE'S FOREIGN BORN.
I SPOKE SACRILEGE, I PIERCE.
UM.
>> UM.
UH.
WELL, THIS WAS A GOOD MEETING.
IN ABOUT A THIRD OF ALAMEDA, LOS ANGELES, SAN MATEO,
SAN FRANCISCO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES
ARE FOREIGN BORN AS WELL.
SO THIS THIS BILL WOULD EXTEND AND MAKE MORE
DEMOCRATIC JURY SERVICE AND ALLOW JURIES
TO BETTER REPRESENT A CROSS-SECTION OF
THE COMMUNITIES THAT THEY WOULD SERVE.
THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE?
OH, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO COME TO THE TABLE?
NO.
YOU COULD JUST ASK FOR.
OKAY.
UH, ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
ALL RIGHT.
PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> SANDRA BORRERO ON BEHALF OF
SEIU CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
>> SRI DAYMORE ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS
FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
OKAY, NOW FOR WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION,
IF YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
BRIAN.
I'VE NEVER SEEN A TESTIMONY SO GOOD AT.
SHUT THE LIGHTS OUT.
UM, I THINK IT.
WE'VE WE'VE LEARNED TIME AND TIME AGAIN
THAT WHEN JURIES AREN'T REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH
THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM,
THE IMPACTS TO THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT
JUSTICE AND THEY ARE NOT FAIR.
UM, THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF EVEN
THE BEST INTENTIONS OF THAT PROCESS.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD,
AND HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT.
ANY SECOND.
ANY OTHER COMMITTEE COMMENTS?
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO AS AS VICE CHAIR,
MAKE A COMMENT.
UH, I RESPECT, UH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER ALVAREZ
WHILE YOU'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD,
BUT I GUESS I DO WANT TO GET BACK
TO SOME FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES.
OUR EXISTING LAWS RECOGNIZE TRIAL BY JURY
IS A CHERISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,
AS YOU SAY, AND JURY SERVICE IS
AN OBLIGATION OF CITIZENSHIP.
LAWFUL IMMIGRANTS HAVE EVERY RIGHT,
AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT THEY LIVE
AND WORK AND BE PART OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN RIGHTS AND DUTIES,
SUCH AS VOTING AND JURY DUTY,
THAT ARE RIGHTFULLY RESERVED ONLY FOR CITIZENS.
EVEN FORMER GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN RECOGNIZED
THIS IN 2013 WHEN HE VETOED A SIMILAR BILL.
HE WROTE JURY SERVICE AND HE SAYS IT.
VERY EXCELLENT WORDS THAT I AGREE WITH.
JURY SERVICE, LIKE VOTING, IS QUINTESSENTIALLY
A PREROGATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY
OF CITIZENSHIP.
THIS BILL WOULD PERMIT LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS
WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS, TO SERVE ON A JURY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
END QUOTE.
AND ACTUALLY, ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE BILL
WOULD CONFER A RIGHT ON IMMIGRANTS THAT U.S.
CITIZENS DO NOT ENJOY.
WHEN A CITIZEN IS SUMMONED FOR JURY SERVICE,
THAT IS A DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP
AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SERVE.
AND THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR HEALTH
RELATED REASONS AND OTHER REASONS
THAT ARE GRANTED UNLESS THE COURT
EXCUSES THEM FOR HARDSHIP.
BUT THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS FOR
AB 1811 WOULD ALLOW IMMIGRANTS
TO DECLINE JURY SERVICE FOR NO REASON AT ALL,
WHICH GIVES THEM A RIGHT THAT CITIZENS DO NOT ENJOY.
AND FOR THESE REASONS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS BILL.
SO WE SHALL HAVE A VOTE.
OH.
CLOSING COMMENT EXCUSE ME, ASSEMBLY.
MEMBER THANK.
YOU.
I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND CERTAINLY
UPLIFT THE, UH, UH,
THE MANY MILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS
WHO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
UM, CERTAINLY MY MY PERSONAL
STORY IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT.
AND I KNOW THAT WHEN MY PARENTS
DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO GO FROM BEING UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS TO,
UH, BECOMING DOCUMENTED, UH,
THANKS TO THE ACTION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TOOK NOW ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO,
AND IT'S BEEN NEGLIGENT IN NOT
TAKING IMMIGRATION REFORM,
UM, THEY BECAME LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
AND, UM, I WOULD SAY EVEN BEFORE BECOMING
LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS,
EVEN AS UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS,
THEY WERE FULLY PARTICIPATING
MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY,
AS STATED, EVEN IN OUR MILITARY,
SERVING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF AND
THE PRIVILEGES THAT WE ALL ENJOY FROM.
UM, AND THAT IS WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND THAT WE, UH,
RECOGNIZE THAT BY FULLY ALLOWING THEM
TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR I VOTE
TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S CALL FOR THE VOTE.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL.
I CALL I DIXON.
NO.
DIXON.
NO.
CHING.
BRIAN.
BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY.
I HANEY.
HANEY.
I MAINCHAIN.
MAINCHAIN.
I MOCINHA.
PACHECO.
I.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
WALDRON.
>> OKAY.
PLACE THAT.
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY.
HE'S HE'S BEEN HE'S BEEN READY.
HE'S BEEN READY.
>> OUR DOGS AND CATS ALLOWED IN THE CHAMBER.
I WAS GOING TO BRING THE COMMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE WE'RE DOING FIRST.
WHICH.
OH YEAH THE RIGHT NOW THE 2216
THE HOUSEHOLD PETS TENANCY.
SURE.
YES.
THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
UH, WE DID NOT BRING A DOG OR CAT WITH US TODAY,
BUT THEY ARE HERE IN SPIRIT.
UM, AS THEY SHOULD BE.
UH, AB 2216 WILL ENSURE ACCESS
TO HOUSING FOR ALL CALIFORNIA
RENTERS BY PROHIBITING BLANKET PET BANS,
AND WILL REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO HAVE
REASONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS
FOR NOT ALLOWING PETS IN A RENTAL UNIT.
IT WILL DO A NUMBER OF THINGS
THAT WILL HELP TO ENSURE THAT
ALL CALIFORNIA RENTERS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO HOUSING.
CALIFORNIA HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST
NUMBER OF TENANTS IN THE COUNTRY,
AND OUT OF THOSE 17 MILLION FAMILIES
AND INDIVIDUALS RENTING CLOSE TO 12 MILLION,
NEARLY 70% OF THESE RENTERS ARE PET OWNERS.
UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY 30% OF AVAILABLE RENTALS
IN ANY GIVEN CITY ARE PET FRIENDLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK ONLINE, ONLY 21% OF
THE AVAILABLE RENTALS IN SAN FRANCISCO ALLOW PETS.
SIMILARLY, DESPITE HAVING CLOSE TO
3 MILLION PET OWNING RENTERS,
INCLUDING SOME FOLKS WHO ARE HERE, UH,
ONLY 26% OF LOS ANGELES RENTALS ALLOW PETS.
THAT MEANS THAT THE MAJORITY
OF RENTALS ARE INACCESSIBLE
TO THE MAJORITY OF RENTERS WHO ARE PET OWNERS.
HUMANS HAVE OWNED PETS FOR ALL RECORDED HISTORY,
AND MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER PETS
TO BE PART OF THEIR FAMILIES.
LIKE IT OR NOT, A PET OWNERSHIP
IS NOT GOING AWAY ANYTIME SOON.
ONE OF THE MAIN STRATEGIES
THE STATE HAS USED TO ADDRESS
OUR HOUSING CRISIS IS TO BUILD MORE HOUSING.
BUT RESTRICTIVE PET POLICIES END
UP EXCLUDING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
ACROSS THE STATE FROM THIS HOUSING
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PET.
ADDITIONALLY, BLANKET PET POLICIES.
NO PET POLICIES ARE CAUSING LANDLORDS
TO MISS OUT ON GOOD TENANTS WHO GET
REJECTED WITHOUT EVEN HAVING A CHANCE
TO APPLY FOR A PLACE TO LIVE.
THE LACK OF PET FRIENDLY HOUSING IS
ALSO CAUSING MORE THAN 800,000
TENANTS TO HAVE PETS IN THEIR UNITS,
WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR LANDLORD.
THIS LEAVES LANDLORDS WITHOUT ADEQUATE COVERAGE
FOR POTENTIAL DAMAGES THAT COULD BE MITIGATED
IF THEY KNEW THEIR TENANTS HAD A PET,
SUCH AS PET INSURANCE OR REASONABLE
PET RESTRICTIONS.
WHEN LEFT WITHOUT A CHOICE,
MANY TENANTS ARE BEING FORCED TO SURRENDER
THEIR PETS IN OVERCROWDED
AND UNDER-RESOURCED SHELTERS.
A SURVEY OF 240 CALIFORNIA BASED SHELTERS
REVEALED THAT OVER 67,000
PETS WERE SURRENDERED BY THEIR OWNERS,
WITH A TOP REASON BEING A LACK OF
ACCESS TO PET FRIENDLY HOUSING.
AB 2216 MAKES IT SURE A TENANT IS NOT
DENIED SOLELY FOR OWNING A PET,
AND WILL REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO HAVE
REASONABLE JUSTIFICATIONS.
IT ALSO MAKES CHANGES AROUND DEPOSITS
AND PET RENT TO ENSURE
THAT THE BURDEN ON PET OWNERS IS NOT UNDULY HEAVY.
I WANT TO ADD THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH OPPOSITION, UH,
AND I REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE
THE DIALOGUE THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY WANT TO ALSO
HELP TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AND OF COURSE, THERE ARE MANY LANDLORDS
WHO DO ALLOW PETS, WHO WANT PETS,
WHO ARE PET OWNERS, AND WE WANT TO MAKE
THAT POSSIBLE TO THEM, FOR THEM,
AND HAVE A BALANCED AND FAIR POLICY THAT WORKS
TO ENSURE ACCESS TO HOUSING FOR ALL, UH,
AND REFLECTS THE NEEDS THAT LANDLORDS MAY HAVE,
PARTICULARLY RELATED TO DAMAGE TO THEIR UNITS.
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
I HAVE JENNY BERG FROM THE HUMANE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND JULIE LIU,
A SACRAMENTO TENANT AND HOPEFUL PET OWNER.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JENNY BERG,
AND I'M THE CALIFORNIA STATE DIRECTOR
FOR THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND WE ARE PROUD TO SPONSOR AB 2216.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER HAYNIE FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH
HIM ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL.
THE LACK OF PET FRIENDLY HOUSING
POSES A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER
FOR MANY IN FINDING AND SECURING RENTAL UNITS.
ACCORDING TO A 2021 STUDY,
72% OF RESIDENTS SURVEYED SAID THAT PET
FRIENDLY HOUSING IS HARD TO FIND,
AND 59% SAY IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT
DO ALLOW PETS IMPOSE ARBITRARY RESTRICTIONS
ON BREED OR WEIGHT OF THE COMPANION ANIMAL,
AND CHARGE EXORBITANT AND NON-REFUNDABLE FEES.
ON AVERAGE, PET OWNING RESIDENTS PAY
AN ADDITIONAL $864 IN DEPOSITS,
WHICH INCLUDES SECURITY, PET AND ONE TIME FEES,
PLUS AN AVERAGE OF $600 OVER THE COURSE OF
THE YEAR AND MONTHLY PET FEES, INCLUDING PET RENT.
THESE ARBITRARY COSTS ADD TO THE ALREADY
HIGH MONTHLY RENTS IN CALIFORNIA,
AND THIS ONLY FURTHER EXACERBATES
THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS.
MANY OF THESE POLICIES ARE BASED ON MISINFORMATION
AND MYTHS RATHER THAN DATA.
YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR THE BELIEF THAT ANIMALS
CAUSE EXCESSIVE DAMAGE TO APARTMENT UNITS.
A STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE MICHELSON
FOUND ANIMAL FOUNDATION DISCOVERED
THAT LESS THAN 10% OF PETS CAUSE
ANY DAMAGE OF ANY KIND.
THE AVERAGE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR REPAIR
OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY PETS IS $210.
THIS IS FAR LESS THAN THE REFUNDABLE
SECURITY DEPOSIT OF $625.
STATISTICS SHOW THAT ONLY 2% OF PETS CAUSE DAMAGE,
REQUIRING A SECURITY DEPOSIT DEDUCTION.
CALIFORNIA HAS TAKEN SOME EXCEPTIONAL STEPS TO
PROTECT THE BOND BETWEEN A PERSON AND PET.
WE MUST DO MORE TO KEEP FAMILIES WITH THEIR PETS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
>> JULIE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
HELLO, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JULIE LIU.
I LIVE IN SACRAMENTO AND WORK AS A PHARMACIST,
AS A RESPONSIBLE TENANT SHARING
A RENTAL HOME WITH ROOMMATES.
I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION ADVOCATING
FOR THE RIGHTS OF RENTERS TO
HAVE PETS IN CALIFORNIA.
I'VE ALWAYS LOVED ANIMALS AND CONSIDERED
HAVING A PET PART OF MY FUTURE PLANS.
I'VE ALSO LIVED WITH MY SISTER AND HER
TWO RESCUE DOGS FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS.
ONE OF THEM CAME FROM AN ABUSIVE HOME, AND I SAW
THE POSITIVE IMPACT FROM NOURISHING
A BOND WITH A PET.
AFTER GETTING INVOLVED IN ANIMAL WELFARE,
I SAW THE PRESSING NEED FOR AN INCREASE
IN FOSTERING AND ADOPTING.
THE AMOUNT OF STRAY AND ABANDONED
PETS IS STAGGERING,
AND SHELTERS ARE AT CAPACITY,
WHICH MEANS MORE EUTHANASIA OR STRAYS
LEFT TO FEND FOR THEMSELVES,
MANY OF WHOM WILL STARVE OR DIE DUE TO A LACK OF
SURVIVAL SKILLS FROM GROWING UP DOMESTICATED.
WHEN I ASKED MY LANDLORD IF I CAN
BRING A PET IN, I WAS DENIED.
DESPITE BEING A GOOD TENANT WHO ALWAYS PAYS ON
TIME AND ADDRESSES ISSUES WITH TRANSPARENCY,
I'VE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN FINDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS IN MY VICINITY THAT ALLOW PETS.
APARTMENTS WITH ADEQUATE SAFETY, I FOUND,
ARE OVER $2,000 PER MONTH, PLUS UTILITIES,
WHICH WOULD FORCE ME TO LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK
AND SEVERELY LIMIT MY ABILITY TO SAVE
FOR A HOUSE AND ACHIEVE RESIDENTIAL INDEPENDENCE,
TRAPPING MYSELF IN A RENTING LOOP.
THIS EXPERIENCE REFLECTS A BROADER
TREND OF TENANTS LIKE MYSELF,
WHO FACE LIMITED HOUSING OPTIONS THAT ACCOMMODATE
OUR DESIRE TO PROVIDE A LOVING HOME FOR A PET,
WHILE ALSO MEETING PRACTICAL NEEDS
SUCH AS PROXIMITY TO WORK.
I'VE HAD TO PASS UP MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO FOSTER
AND ADOPT DUE TO LANDLORD RESTRICTIONS,
AND MANY OTHERS SHARE THE SAME CHALLENGE.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE ALSO HAD TO GIVE UP THEIR PETS,
WHOM THEY CONSIDER FAMILY OR RISK BEING HOMELESS.
WE NEED MORE RENTALS THAT ALLOW PETS,
AND I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL,
WHICH WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT FOR
PET OWNERS ACROSS THE STATE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2216?
>> GOOD MORNING, BRITTANY BENNETT,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS IN
SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS BILL FORWARD.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> LIZZIE KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY
VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, BARBARA SCHMITZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FRANCISCO SPCA,
AND WE'RE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, DAVID RAMIREZ ON BEHALF OF
THE UC STUDENT ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2216?
>> GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS, FIRST OF ALL,
DEBORAH CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION.
WE'RE NOT HERE OPPOSING PETS.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU.
UM, MR..
UH, UH, HANEY, FOR LISTENING TO OUR CONCERNS.
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CONCERNS
IS ABOUT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT.
WE KNOW WE'RE LIMITED TO ONE MONTH'S RENT.
UM, AND SO I THINK WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERING,
UH, CHANGES TO THAT.
I'M A PET OWNER.
I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE ANIMALS,
AND I LOVE MY ANIMALS.
UM, BUT I, AS THE HOMEOWNER, HAVE PAID FOR CHANGE.
CARPETS, THE PETS WHO HAVE CHEWED UP MY BASEBOARDS
AND CHEWED UP THE BACKYARD PLANTS LOVE THEM STILL.
BUT, UH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS AT LEAST
SOME CONSIDERATION THAT THERE IS A COST.
UM, AND THAT CURRENTLY UNDER
OUR SECURITY DEPOSIT LAW,
THE TENANT CAN USE THAT ONE MONTH SECURITY TO
PAY FOR THE RENT ON THE WAY OUT THE DOOR.
THAT LEAVES US NOTHING, UH, FOR REPAIRS TO THE UNIT.
AND I KNOW THAT YOU CAN POTENTIALLY
SUE THE TENANT IN COURT,
BUT YOU DON'T FIND THEM AFTERWARDS.
SO WITH THAT, UH, WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY,
ON AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
>> UH, GOOD MORNING, UH, MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
UH, KAREEM DRISSI,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
UH, IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2216.
UM, UNLIKE EXISTING LAW, UH, WHICH ALLOWS UM,
UH, DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN CONDOS, UH,
TO BE REGULATED SO THAT, UH, UH,
THERE CAN BE ONE DOMESTICATED ANIMAL PER UNIT,
UM, AB 2216 UH, WILL ALLOW FOR
MULTIPLE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
IN RENTAL UNITS AND UNDER THE BILL,
UM, UNDER AB 2216.
UM, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW,
MULTIPLE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RENTAL HOUSING
UNITS AND HOUSING PROVIDERS WILL HAVE
TO NAVIGATE A COMPLEX WEB OF LOCAL
ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
THE NUMBER OF PETS THAT THEY MUST
ALLOW IN THEIR RENTAL UNITS.
SO, FOR INSTANCE, IN UNINCORPORATED
SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
IT'S CURRENTLY FOUR DOGS,
FOUR CATS, ONE PIG, UH, AMONG OTHER ANIMALS.
UM, AND THAT COULD, UM, POTENTIALLY CAUSE
A SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE DWELLING UNIT.
AND SO UNFORTUNATELY, UH, DUE TO THE AUTHORS BILL
FROM LAST YEAR REGARDING SECURITY DEPOSITS,
YOU CAN HAVE AN INSTANCE WHERE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE, UH,
SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR A TENANT WITH ZERO
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN THE UNIT
AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE SECURITY
DEPOSIT FOR A TENANT WITH NINE,
UH, DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN THE UNIT,
PER THE AFOREMENTIONED EXAMPLE,
UH, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SECURITY
DEPOSIT IS THE SAME.
UH, AND SO, UNFORTUNATELY,
THE BILL IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
UH, IS NOT, UH, RESPECTFULLY, UH,
COULD BE MORE THOUGHTFUL, UM,
AND DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE NEEDS OF HOUSING PROVIDERS.
AND AS A RESULT, WE DO RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
UH, ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2216?
>> MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS.
PAT MORAN, WITH AARON READING ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
RENTAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION,
OPPOSED TO THE BILL FOR THE REASONS STATED.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, KATE BELL ON BEHALF
OF KALRA AND ALLIED OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
>> I.
I TOO LOVE MY PETS.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION
WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY.
UM, THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE OPPOSITION
MUST BE ADDRESSED.
UM, IF THERE IS A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT THAT CAN BE,
UM, REQUESTED OR REQUIRED OF A DEPOSIT,
IT IS VERY DIFFERENT WHEN THERE IS A PET,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
ONLY 2%.
UM, THERE'S ONLY 2% INCREASE IN DAMAGE OR FORGET
WHAT THE STATISTIC WAS, BUT, UM, I,
I CAN TELL YOU LANDLORDS WOULD TELL YOU OTHERWISE,
BUT I DON'T HAVE A STATISTIC.
UM, BUT NONETHELESS, THOSE ARE ISSUES,
SERIOUS ISSUES.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE
STILL CONVERSATION HAPPENING.
UM, BUT THEY MUST BE ADDRESSED.
THANK YOU.
SENATOR BRYANT.
>> YEAH.
I WANT TO THANK THE OPPOSITION AND THE AUTHOR,
UM, FOR COMING TODAY.
AND I THINK AS WAS MENTIONED BY MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE INLAND EMPIRE,
I'M GLAD CONVERSATION IS TAKING PLACE.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT ADDRESSING,
YOU KNOW, THOSE CONCERNS,
IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING AFTER
SOMEBODY IS ALREADY IN A PLACE,
AND WE FORGET THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A BARRIER
TO GETTING HOUSING FOR SO MANY.
UM.
I AM THE PROUD DOG FATHER OF
A GREAT NAME NAMED DARIUS, UM,
WHO FREQUENTS THE SWING SPACE
AND HAS BEEN UP HERE MANY TIMES AND.
HE'S ACTUALLY AT HOME WITH MY FIANCE RIGHT NOW,
AND WE WOULDN'T LIVE WITHOUT DARIUS.
WE ALSO ARE RENTERS.
UM, TENANTS WHO HAVE MOVED AT LEAST FOUR
TIMES SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE.
OUR MOST RECENT MOVE.
UH, WE'RE COMING UP ON A YEAR TO THIS APRIL.
WE WERE TURNED DOWN FROM OVER SIX DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS BECAUSE OF DARIUS.
UH, MY FIANCE IS A TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY.
UH, AND AT THE TIME, I WAS THE MAJORITY LEADER
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY,
AND WE WERE DENIED HOUSING BECAUSE WE HAD
AN INCREDIBLY WELL TRAINED SWEET DOG.
IN FACT, IN ONE INSTANCE, UH,
WE IT FELT LIKE WE WERE
CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AND THEN ASKED ABOUT,
UH, IT WASN'T LIKE A FORMAL APPROVAL PROCESS,
BUT ASKED ABOUT DARIUS AND HOW BIG HE WAS,
WHICH IS A FUNNY QUESTION,
BECAUSE EVERYBODY WHO OWNS DOGS KNOW IT'S
THE SMALL ONES THAT ARE THE PROBLEM.
UH.
UH, AND AFTER AFTER TELLING HIM HE'S A,
HE'S A GREAT DANE AND HE'S TRAINED
AND HE'S INCREDIBLE.
UM, WE WERE ASKED TO PAY A, UM,
A NON-REFUNDABLE ONE TIME CLEANING FEE,
AN INCREASE IN RENT AND A PET DEPOSIT.
AND WE ASK FOR A SECOND TO CONSIDER THIS FIRST
TO CONSIDER IS THIS LEGAL FOR YOU TO ASK THIS,
BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, ARE WE WILLING TO IT
DOESN'T SOMETHING DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT.
AND BEFORE WE COULD EVEN RESPOND.
UM, JUST ASKING FOR MORE TIME,
THEY CHOSE A DIFFERENT APPLICANT.
UM, AND THAT WAS KIND OF OUR EXPERIENCE.
IT WAS ACTUALLY WE GOT NERVOUS
AT A CERTAIN POINT THAT
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIND
A PLACE BECAUSE OF DARIUS.
UM, THANKFULLY WE DID,
AND WE SIGNED A MULTI YEAR LEASE
SO THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS AGAIN.
BUT I THINK IT'S THOSE KINDS OF STORIES WHICH
ARE NOT UNIQUE TO JUST TENANTS LIKE ME.
THAT LIKELY INSPIRED MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SAN FRANCISCO.
UM, AND SO I'M GLAD THAT THIS BILL IS HERE,
BUT I'M ALSO GLAD THAT YOU'RE HAVING THOUGHTFUL
AND PRAGMATIC CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS PROPERLY.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SHOULD
BE PREVENTED FROM HAVING
HOUSING AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT SOLELY BECAUSE,
UH, THEY HAVE AN ANIMAL WHO THEY
RELY ON VERY SERIOUSLY.
I MEAN, I COULDN'T IMAGINE LEAVING
MY FIANCE AT HOME WHILE
I'M UP HERE WITHOUT DARIUS, UM, TO BE WITH HER.
SO I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY HERE.
HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION.
PROUD CO-AUTHOR OF THE BILL.
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING IT PROGRESS.
IS THERE A SECOND?
OKAY, SO A SECOND.
SECOND.
ALL RIGHT.
AND I'VE ACTUALLY MET DARIUS.
HE'S VERY WELL BEHAVED.
I THOUGHT HE HAD A 9 TO 5 HIMSELF.
UH, ASSEMBLYMEMBER CONLEY YEAH.
>> LOOKING FORWARD TO MEETING, UH, HIM.
YEAH.
NO, I LIKE THE DIRECTION OF THE BILL.
I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PET OWNERSHIP SHOULD
BE A BARRIER TO SECURING HOUSING.
I FIND MYSELF NOW IN A SITUATION.
SO IN ADDITION TO MY WIFE AND TWO DAUGHTERS,
WE HAVE THREE FEMALE CATS.
UH, SO THAT'S.
WELL, THAT'S A LONGER CONVERSATION WE SHOULD HAVE,
BUT CERTAINLY UNDERSCORES THAT, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS A DIFFERENT DYNAMIC IN TERMS OF POSSIBLE
PHYSICAL ISSUES WITH THE PREMISES AND STUFF.
THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, I AGREE THERE SHOULD
NOT NECESSARILY BE ADDITIONAL PET RENT,
BUT THERE SHOULD BE FLEXIBILITY AROUND ADDITIONAL
SECURITY DEPOSIT TIED TO ACTUAL DAMAGE, THOUGH.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THOSE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS.
WELL, SENATOR CONNOLLY, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE
WHEN I PRESENTED THE CAT NEUTERING BILL AND BNP.
ANYWAY, UH, WE'LL BRING IT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK OVER HERE.
AND I DID SPEAK WITH THE AUTHOR
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION, AND,
UH, HIS INDICATED THAT THERE
IS ONGOING CONVERSATIONS.
AND SO THIS IS THE BEGINNING, I THINK,
OF A PROCESS WHERE WE'RE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO FIND A GOOD
LANDING SPOT FOR THIS THAT RESPECTS KIND OF
BOTH SIDES THE CHALLENGES FROM OPPOSITION,
BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING
SURE THAT FOLKS AREN'T LIMITED
BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO OWN A PET
OR WANT TO OWN A PET WITH THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE THE SENATE?
YES.
NO.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE CONVERSATION
AND THE FEEDBACK.
UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A REAL CHALLENGE FOR FOLKS.
IF YOU HAVE A COMPANION ANIMAL BEING
ABLE TO FIND HOUSING, KEEP HOUSING.
AND I THINK WHERE WE WHERE WE ARE NOW,
WHERE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE EITHER NOT DISCLOSING
THEY HAVE AN ANIMAL AND HIDING IT IS NOT
A GOOD THING GIVING UP AN ANIMAL,
CREATING A CRISIS OF IN OUR SHELTERS
AND IN OUR STREETS IS ALSO NOT A GOOD THING.
SO I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION
AND CERTAINLY ON THE DEPOSIT PIECE,
UH, I'M VERY OPEN TO THAT.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
AND I JUST REALLY WANT TO APPRECIATE
THE DIALOGUE FROM THE OPPOSITION.
I'M ALSO WILLING TO CLARIFY THAT
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE PIGS.
UH, AND THAT WAS NEWS TO ME.
UM, BUT SOME OF THE PIECES AROUND, UH,
HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL.
CERTAINLY WE WANT TO CONTINUE
TO ALLOW FOR REASONABLE,
UM, RESTRICTIONS,
WHICH COULD ABSOLUTELY INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF,
OF ANIMALS AND SHOULDN'T REQUIRE
ANYONE TO ACCEPT NINE ANIMALS.
THAT'S, UH, CERTAINLY NOT THE INTENTION.
SO HAPPY TO CHAT ABOUT THAT AS WELL AND APPRECIATE,
UH, EVERYONE AND APPRECIATE THE SPONSORS.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO,
TO, TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD
ULTIMATELY THAT THAT INCREASES SOME ACCESS FOR,
UH, RENTERS WITH PETS AND ALSO
IS FAIR TO, OF COURSE,
THE LANDLORDS WHO ARE ALLOWING THEM WITH THAT.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
UH, THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
MADAM SECRETARY, IF WE CAN TAKE
THE ROLL CALL FOR AB 2216.
MOTIONS DO PASS CALL, I CALL I DIXON
TING BRIAN I BRIAN, I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY, I HANEY, I HANEY I MEAN SHANE MCKENNA.
PACHECO.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL WILL BE PLACED ON CALL AND ASSEMBLY.
AND HANEY, IF YOU COULD RETURN
TO THE DAIS FOR A MOMENT,
WE HAVE A NON-COMMITTEE MEMBER
HERE TO PRESENT A BILL,
IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.
THANK YOU.
THAT WAS ENTERTAINING.
DARIUS.
UH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CALDERON.
ITEM TEN AB 2752.
REALLY THAT WAS A WE HAD WE HAD AN ECLIPSE
IN THE ROOM WHEN I WAS GONE.
ALL RIGHT.
ITEM TEN AB 2752.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF ON THIS BILL,
AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS.
SO APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
ASSEMBLY BILL 2752 WOULD REQUIRE
THE JUVENILE COURT TO SET THE FREQUENCY
AND DURATION OF FAMILY VISITATION
AT THE INITIAL PETITION HEARING.
WHEN A CHILD IS FIRST PLACED
IN THE CALIFORNIA WELFARE
SERVICES SYSTEM AT SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS,
THE BILL REQUIRES A COURT TO ORDER UNSUPERVISED
FAMILY VISITS UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT
UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WILL HARM THE PHYSICAL
OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH OF THE CHILD.
WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF AB 2752 IS BROOKE
HOOLEY ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPENDENCY LAWYERS AND DAVE SCHUSTER,
A MENTOR PROGRAM MANAGER.
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
>> I'M BROOKE HOOLEY, A SUPERVISING ATTORNEY
FOR LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY LAWYERS,
WHERE I'VE ADVOCATED FOR FAMILIES
FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS.
I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE
OF AB 2752 REGARDING
FAMILY TIME AND JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASES.
MANY FAMILIES COME INTO THE DEPENDENCY
SYSTEM FOR CIRCUMSTANCES
RELATED TO POVERTY AND GENERATIONAL STRUGGLE.
PLACING A CHILD IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
CAN CAUSE EXTRAORDINARY DAMAGE
TO THE CHILD AND TO THE BROADER
FAMILY UNIT AND ATTACHMENT
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT EMOTIONAL
AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
OF CHILD REMOVAL OCCUR,
EVEN IF THE REMOVALS ARE BRIEF.
FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, FAMILY TIME IS CRITICAL
IN REDUCING THE TRAUMA CAUSED BY FAMILY SEPARATION,
AS IT PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY TO
FORM AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE,
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND FACILITATE HEALING.
UNFORTUNATELY, QUALITY FAMILY TIME SIMPLY IS
NOT HAPPENING FOR MANY CHILDREN IN FOSTER
CARE IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THE COURT
HAS ALMOST NO GUIDANCE IN THIS AREA.
THIS LACK OF GUIDANCE OFTEN LEADS COURTS TO
DEFAULTING TO ORDERS FOR SUPERVISED VISITS,
EVEN WHEN THIS IS NOT NECESSARY
FOR THE CHILD'S SAFETY.
IN PRACTICE, SUPERVISED VISITS ARE
INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO SCHEDULE,
MONITORS FOR VISITS CAN BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND,
AND CHILDREN ARE OFTEN FORCED TO VISIT IN SMALL
OFFICES THAT MAKE THEM VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
IN 2020, THE US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN,
YOUTH AND FAMILIES PUBLISHED
AN OFFICIAL GUIDANCE STATING THAT
IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT FAMILY
TIME SHOULD BE UNSUPERVISED,
ABSENT AN IDENTIFIED PRESENT DANGER OF HARM
FOR THE BENEFIT OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN.
IT'S TIME FOR CALIFORNIA LAW
TO FOLLOW THIS GUIDANCE,
AND FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR.
I VOTE ON AB 2752 TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DAVE SHUSTER.
I'M A FORMER PARENT IN THE DEPENDENCY
SYSTEM AND CURRENTLY EMPLOYED
AT DEPENDENCY ADVOCACY CENTERS
MENTOR PARENT PROGRAM.
I'M THE MANAGER OF THAT PROGRAM.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
WITH VISITATION AND ITS IMPACT ON MY FAMILY,
WHICH UNDERSCORES WHY VOTING
I ON AB 2752 IS SO IMPORTANT.
WE WERE TOLD VISITS WOULD BE MONITORED FOR
A TIME AND FOR THE SAFETY OF MY DAUGHTER.
THIS WAS COMPLETELY UNWARRANTED AND THE TRAUMA
FROM THIS EXPERIENCE STILL HAUNTS HER.
OUR VISITS WERE DONE IN AN OLD OFFICE BUILDING WITH
OLD BROKEN TOYS AND BOOKS WITH PAGES MISSING.
WE FELT WE COULDN'T COMPLAIN.
WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO HUG OUR CHILD
AND DIDN'T WANT TO RISK THIS IN ANY WAY.
SOME OF THE OFFICES HAD WINDOWS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A GOOD THING,
BECAUSE IT WAS A CONSTANT REMINDER OF WHAT
WE USED TO DO AS A FAMILY AND FEARED
WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO DO AGAIN.
I WOULD VISIT WITH MY SEVEN
YEAR OLD DAUGHTER TWO TIMES
A WEEK FOR TWO HOURS, AND
THE MOTHER VISITED THE SAME,
KEEPING A VERY ACTIVE SEVEN YEAR OLD
CHILD OCCUPIED FOR FOUR HOURS
A VISIT WAS AN UNFAIR AND RIDICULOUS
TEST OF PARENTING,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE LIMITED SPACE AND ACTIVITIES.
NOT TO MENTION, WHATEVER WE BROUGHT TO
THE VISIT WAS INSPECTED AND SCRUTINIZED.
MY DAUGHTER WAS MOST UNCOMFORTABLE
WITH THE MONITORS OF THE VISIT.
THEY WOULD SIT IN THE DOORWAY WITH THE COMPUTER,
TYPING EVERY WORD THAT WAS SAID BETWEEN US.
THIS MADE MY DAUGHTER UNCOMFORTABLE
AND HELPED HER TO WITHDRAW.
SHE WOULD WHISPER TO ME,
JUST BE TOLD, YOU CANNOT WHISPER.
YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP.
I NEVER FELT SO POWERLESS AND SHAMEFUL
AND RIDDLED WITH GUILT
SINCE WE WERE THERE BECAUSE OF
OUR ACTIONS AND OUR ADDICTION.
ULTIMATELY, MY CHILD PAID THE PRICE
FOR THIS AND CONTINUES TODAY
DESPITE TESTING CLEAN AND COMPLYING
WITH OUR CASE PLAN.
SUPERVISED VISITS CONTINUED FOR
SEVEN MONTHS AT ANY POINT.
MY PARENTS, WHOM MY DAUGHTER WAS WITH,
COULD HAVE SUPERVISED OUR VISITS
IN THEIR HOME OR A NEARBY PARK.
THESE SUGGESTIONS WERE ALWAYS DISREGARDED
AND TOLD THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT TIME.
LET'S CHANGE THAT.
CHANGE THAT.
VOTE YES ON 2752 AND PROTECT OUR
CHILD'S RIGHT TO FAMILY TIME.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2752?
>> HELLO CHARREN MEMBERS.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF LEGAL SERVICES
FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN.
A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU.
>> JULIA HANNIGAN, POLICY DIRECTOR
FOR DEPENDENCY LEGAL SERVICES,
A PROUD CO-SPONSOR AS WELL, AND HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION?
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2752?
>> GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS.
AMANDA KIRSHNER WITH SWRDA.
UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL, AS IN PRINT.
UM, APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS AMENDMENTS
AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ANALYSIS.
OUR LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WILL BE
TAKING A LOOK AT THAT NEXT WEEK.
UM, WE THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
BUT MAYBE NOT QUITE THERE YET.
UM, I DO WANT TO NOTE FOR THE COMMITTEE,
WE OFTEN USE SUPERVISED VISITATION
AS A TOOL TO EVALUATE PARENTS.
UM, BOTH IN THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH THEIR CHILDREN,
BUT ALSO TO SEE HOW THEY'RE
DOING WITH THEIR CASE PLANS
AND IF THEY'RE BENEFITING FROM THEIR SERVICES.
RIGHT.
SO ARE WE ABLE TO SEE IDENTIFIED
BEHAVIORS BASED ON THE PARENTING
CLASSES THAT THEY'RE DOING BETTER
INTERACTIONS WITH THEIR KIDS?
UM, THE OTHER PIECE FOR THE BILL THAT
WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH IS, UM,
LIMITING THE COUNTY USE OF BUILDINGS
FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DOES PRESENT A PROBLEM
FOR A LOT OF OUR SOCIAL WORKERS.
WE DO TRY AND LIBERALIZE AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE TO LET THIRD PARTIES, UM,
OBSERVE OR LIKE A RELATIVE CAREGIVER,
BE THE PERSON SUPERVISING.
OUR SOCIAL WORKERS WILL ALSO DO VISITATIONS
AT PARKS AND OTHER PLACES.
BUT IF IT'S NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ACTUALLY GET THE VISIT TO HAPPEN,
SOMETIMES THOSE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDINGS
ARE THE ONLY PLACES,
AND WE WORK REALLY HARD TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
FAMILY FRIENDLY AND CHILD FRIENDLY.
UM, VISITATION ROOMS WITH GAMES
AND LOTS OF STUFF TO DO.
SO WE JUST LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
TO WORK WITH YOUR OFFICE.
UM, AS THE BILL MOVES FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
UH, YEAH.
AND I WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION
FOR OPPOSITION.
I KNOW THE WORK THAT YOU DO EVERY
DAY IS SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR
STATE THAT THE THE WELFARE OF OUR CHILDREN,
UM, IS FOREMOST.
AND SO I DO APPRECIATE CERTAINLY, UM,
THE WORK THAT'S DONE EVERY SINGLE
DAY BY THE SOCIAL WORKERS THAT
ARE PART OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.
AND I THINK EVERYBODY DOES.
I ALSO WANT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR
THE AUTHOR AND THOSE THAT SPOKE IN SUPPORT, UH,
AND THE AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS AND ENGAGEMENT WITH,
WITH OUR COMMITTEE,
UH, AND TAKING A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS.
UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I THINK IT REALLY SHOWS THE WILLINGNESS,
UM, TO TRY TO FIND A BALANCE HERE.
I THINK ULTIMATELY, THE THE UNDERLYING
INTENTIONS OF THE BILL,
UH, ARE IMPORTANT AND WORTHY OF SUPPORT.
UM, AND I AND KNOWING THE AUTHOR
AND KNOWING THE OPPOSITION,
I KNOW THEY'LL BE CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS
ON SOME OF THOSE OTHER DETAILS.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT, UM,
RESPECTING THE OR FINDING A PATH WHERE TOWARDS
UNIFICATION AND CREATING ENVIRONMENTS
WHERE THERE CAN ACTUALLY BE,
UM, GENUINE MOMENTS OF REUNIFICATION
IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS IN HERE,
UM, THAT ALLOW, UM,
FOR SITUATIONS WHERE THERE NEEDS TO BE,
UM, SUPERVISION AND MONITORING.
AND THERE DEFINITELY ARE SITUATIONS
WHERE THAT IS NECESSARY.
I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.
UH, AND SO I APPRECIATE THE BILL.
I THINK IT'S WITH THE, WITH THE AMENDMENTS.
IT'S IN A, IT'S IN A REALLY GOOD PLACE
AND WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE CONTINUED
DIALOGUE ON SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING,
OUTSTANDING ITEMS.
UM, ANY COMMENT OR QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUE?
UH, IS THERE A MOTION?
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
UH, AND IT'S A VERY BUSY DAY.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS GOING ON,
SO IT'S NOT FOR A LACK OF INTEREST.
UH, IT'S A MEMBERS ARE GOING AND VOTING
AND APPEARING IN OTHER COMMITTEES.
UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, MADAM SECRETARY,
CAN WE TAKE THE ROLL?
OH, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.
UM, PLEASE.
SENATOR CALDERON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YES.
THANK YOU, UM, MR.
CHAIR, AND YES, WE DO, UH,
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO
WORK THROUGH THIS BILL AND,
UH, APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION AND SUPPORT.
UM, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU.
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO HUMAN SERVICES.
CALL.
I CALL I DIXON.
TING.
BRIAN.
CONNELLY.
I HANEY.
MANCINI.
MCKENNA.
PACHECO.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL IS ON CALL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
NOW WE NEED, UH.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THE ONLY AUTHORS LEFT ARE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
AND I THINK, SENATOR CONNOLLY,
I THINK YOU VOTED ON EVERYTHING.
IF YOU HAVEN'T, LET ME KNOW SO
WE CAN GET YOU CAUGHT UP ON.
OH, WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.
SO WE'LL WAIT FOR EVERYBODY ON THAT ONE.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WE ALL THAT THAT'S
IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ITEMS TO BE HEARD.
>> YOU DIDN'T VOTE ON.
LIFT THE CALL ON ITEM AB 2584.
CALLER I.
RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT.
SO WE HAVE ITEM FIVE AB 2282 MCKINNON.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY YOU MAY PROCEED.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB 2282.
MANY PARENTS IN THE FAMILY REGULATION SYSTEM HAVE
SUFFERED FROM THE MASS INCARCERATION TREND.
THE STATISTICS SHOW THAT 11.4% OF AFRICAN
AMERICAN CHILDREN AND 3.5%
OF HISPANIC CHILDREN HAVE AN INCARCERATED PARENT.
IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY
COURT TO HAVE A CONVICTION CONVICTION
FOR OFFENSES DEFINED AS A VIOLENT FELONY,
WHICH INCLUDE ROBBERY AND CARJACKING.
HOWEVER, MANY TIMES A PARENT'S
CRIMINAL HISTORY HAS NOT HAS
NO CURRENT BEARING ON CHILD SAFETY
OR PARENTING ABILITY.
I BELIEVE THAT AFTER WE SENTENCE
PEOPLE TO GO TO PRISON,
THEY'VE PAID THEIR DUES, THEY'VE SERVED THEIR TIME.
AND THAT IS WHAT THAT THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE REHABILITATED.
SO WHEN THEY GET OUT OF PRISON,
WE SHOULD WE SHOULD ENABLE THEM TO GO TO THE COURTS,
GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND UM,
AND REQUEST AND TRY TO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
UM, LAST YEAR I PASSED AB 937,
WHICH GIVES A PERSON 24 MONTHS
TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM
AND TO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE
COMING OUT OF JAILS, COMING OUT OF PRISON,
TO GO THROUGH THE SAME SYSTEM,
TO GET THE 24 MONTHS TO GET THEIR
GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
AND WE SHOULD ALLOW THE JUDGE TO SAY IF THEY
CAN HAVE THEIR CHILDREN BACK OR NOT,
WE SHOULD NOT LIMIT THEM FROM
FROM SEEKING THEIR CHILDREN.
SO AB 2282 WOULD LIMIT LIMIT CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
USED TO DENY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES TO FAMILIES IN
THE FAMILY REGULATION SYSTEM.
IT WOULD AMEND THE LAW TO DENY
SERVICES ONLY TO THE MOST
SERIOUS AND VIOLENT FELONS WHO'VE
ENDANGERED CHILDREN.
THIS REFLECTS THE SAFEGUARDS TAKEN BY ALMOST
EVERY OTHER STATE REGARDING REUNIFICATION.
FOR A PARENT WITH A VIOLENT
CRIMINAL HISTORY PRESERVING
THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD AND THE FAMILY UNIT.
HERE WITH ME TODAY IS JULIA HANNIGAN,
WITH DEPENDENCY LEGAL SERVICES AND FIDEL CHAGOYA.
THANK YOU.
HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
MY NAME IS JULIA HANNIGAN AND I AM THE POLICY
DIRECTOR AT DEPENDENCY LEGAL SERVICES.
WE REPRESENT PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN CHILD WELFARE
PROCEEDINGS IN NORTHERN AND CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.
WE ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT AMENDING
THE FELONY BYPASS STATUTE STATUTE
TO ENCOMPASS ONLY VIOLENT FELONIES
THAT INVOLVE A CHILD.
IN TERMS OF CHILD WELFARE, THE TERMINATION OF
PARENTAL RIGHTS IS OFTEN DESCRIBED IN CASE
LAW AS THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR
PARENTS IN DEPENDENCY COURT,
AND IN THAT CONTEXT,
THE BYPASS STATUTES OFTEN MANDATE THAT PARENTS
ARE SWIFTLY SENT TO THIS DEATH SENTENCE
WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THEY CAN
SAFELY CREATE A HOME FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
IT MEANS FAMILIES ARE IMMEDIATELY PUT IN
A POSITION TO BE PERMANENTLY SEPARATED.
THIS BILL LIMITS THE FAMILIES THAT WILL
BE FORCED INTO THAT PREDICAMENT.
IT FOCUSES ON BYPASSING ONLY PARENTS WHO
HAVE CONVICTIONS THAT INVOLVE A CHILD.
THAT WOULD PUT CALIFORNIA IN LINE WITH
WHAT MUCH OF THE COUNTRY ALREADY DOES.
WE BELIEVE IN NARROWING THAT FOCUS MAKES
SENSE IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM,
WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE FOCUSED ON
THE RISK OF HARM TO THE CHILD.
WE DO WANT TO BE CLEAR THIS BILL
DOES NOT MANDATE RETURN
TO PARENTS WHO ARE STILL A DANGER TO THEIR CHILDREN,
NOR DOES IT REQUIRE IMMEDIATE PLACEMENT WITH
PARENTS WITH THESE SERIOUS CONVICTIONS.
INSTEAD, IT REQUIRES THE COURT TO
GIVE PARENTS THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN MAKE A SAFE
HOME FOR THEIR FAMILIES.
WE BELIEVE THIS CHANGE BENEFITS BOTH
OUR MINOR AND OUR PARENT CLIENTS.
IT GIVES OUR CHILD CLIENTS THE FULL
AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO GROW
UP IN HOMES WITH THEIR PARENTS,
IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.
IT ALSO ALLOWS OUR PARENT CLIENTS
THE CHANCE TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN
THEIR LIVES AND BECOME THE PARENTS
THAT THEIR CHILDREN RESERVE.
AS A RESULT, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
>> UH, GOOD MORNING, UH, HONORABLE CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS FIDEL CHAGOLLA.
UH, I CURRENTLY WORK WITH STARTING OVER,
INC., WHICH IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION,
AS AN ORGANIZER FOR RIVERSIDE.
ALL OF US ARE NONE THAT WORKS ON HELPING FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE OBTAIN HOUSING,
EMPLOYMENT, AND GETTING RECORD EXPUNGEMENTS AS WELL.
I ALSO I'M ALSO A GRAD STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
REDLANDS AND CLINICAL MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING,
FINISHING UP MY MY MASTER'S PROGRAM.
UM, I'M SPEAKING WITH YOU TODAY BECAUSE
I'M A FORMERLY INCARCERATED PERSON,
UH, THAT HAS BEEN OUT FOR ALREADY OVER 14 YEARS.
I GOT A CERTIFICATE OF REHABILITATION
THROUGH MY TRANSITION.
MY DAUGHTER, ZOE WAS BORN IN 2016,
WHEN I WAS 39 YEARS OLD.
AT THAT TIME, I HAD BEEN OUT OF PRISON FOR
SIX YEARS AND OFF PAROLE FOR FOUR YEARS,
AND HAD MANAGED TO FIND STEADY WORK,
HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION DURING CHILDBIRTH.
ZOE'S MOTHER TESTED POSITIVE FOR
OPIATES THAT WAS PRESCRIBED
FOR TYLENOL WITH CODEINE THAT
A DENTIST PRESCRIBED HER.
UH.
THIS TRIGGERED THE INVOLVEMENT OF SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY'S CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
WHO LOOKED AT MY PAST CRIMINAL RECORD
AND SAID I SHOULD NOT HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN REUNIFY
WITH MY CHILD DUE TO WELFARE.
INSTITUTION CODE SECTION 3.61.5 B 12,
WHICH IS THE BYPASS PROVISIONS.
MY PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED AND IN 2019,
MY DAUGHTER ZOE WAS ADOPTED OUT WITH 119
OTHER CHILDREN IN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
UM, BECAUSE OF MY PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY,
HAD NO BEARING ON WHETHER I WOULD
BE A GOOD PARENT OR NOT.
IF THIS CHANGE IN LAW PROPOSED BY AB
2282 EXISTED AT THE TIME OF MY CASE,
I WOULD HAVE HAD A FAIR CHANCE.
A REUNIFIED WHEN MY DAUGHTER.
I AM HERE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER MAKING
SURE THAT PARENTS LIKE ME,
WHO HAVE FELONIES UNRELATED TO THEIR ABILITY
TO BE A PARENT, AND IN MANY CASES.
HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY.
A FAIR CHANCE OF GETTING THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
FOR THESE REASONS, I EXPRESSED
MY SUPPORT FOR AB 2282.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR.
MEMBERS.
THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2282?
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS.
UH, HEAD ON OUT HERE.
POLICY ANALYST WITH LEGAL SERVICES
FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN.
UH, PROUD CO-SPONSOR IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
ALSO, ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US HERE IN OUR,
UH, STATEWIDE,
UH, CHAPTERS, UH, MUCH LOVED BROTHER FIDEL.
THANK YOU FOR THIS.
THANK YOU.
BROOKE HOOLEY, LOS ANGELES DEPENDENCY
LAWYERS PROUD CO-SPONSOR.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2282?
SEEING NONE.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS?
MOTIONS?
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
VICE CHAIR.
DIXON.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR.
I REALLY, UM, HEAR YOUR YOUR COMMENTS
AND HAVE GREAT SYMPATHY AND SADNESS FOR YOU.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY,
NOT TO JUST APART FROM THE EMOTIONAL,
BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
BUT WILL THE JUDGE STILL HAVE WILL
THE COURT STILL HAVE DISCRETION?
COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME?
YES, THE JUDGE WILL STILL HAVE DISCRETION,
AND THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH
WHAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH
TO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE 24 MONTHS,
UM, WITH THE SOCIAL WORKER.
AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE JUDGE
SO THEY WOULDN'T JUST GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK,
BUT THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE
AS WE AS WE KNOW, WHEN WE SEND PEOPLE,
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WHAT
THE LAW IS SAYING AND IS WHAT
WE WHAT WE THINK IN CALIFORNIA AND IN THIS COUNTRY,
AS WE SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON,
WE SEND THEM THERE TO REHABILITATE.
WHEN THEY COME OUT, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE SAME
OPPORTUNITIES AS THE REST OF US HAVE.
AND SO THIS WOULD ONLY GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY
TO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK.
THEY WOULDN'T BE HANDED THE CHILDREN.
OKAY.
AND DID I READ SOMEWHERE IN
THE BILL OR IN THE ANALYSIS THAT,
UH, WHEN THE CHILD WELFARE.
WHAT IS THE POSITION OF
THE CHILD WELFARE ORGANIZATION?
HAVE THEY TAKEN A POSITION SUPPORTIVE?
THEY'RE NEUTRAL.
YEAH.
I THOUGHT I READ IN SOME ANALYSIS, UM, THAT THE,
THE REUNIFICATION DURING THE REUNIFICATION
PROCESS AND THE INTERVIEW PROCESS,
THAT THE MEETING BETWEEN THE CHILD AND THE PARENT
CANNOT TAKE PLACE UNDER SUPERVISION.
THAT WAS A PRIOR BILL.
BUT YEAH, THAT WAS THE BILL PRIOR
TO THIS FROM SOMEONE CALLED BILL.
IT'S A DIFFERENT BILL.
YEAH.
IF THERE'S THEY HAVE SIMILAR IDEAS IN THERE.
SO OKAY.
MY APOLOGIES OKAY.
NO PROBLEM.
NO MORE.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
AND THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
ACTUALLY, IN A SIMILAR VEIN TO THE PRIOR BILL,
WE HEARD LIKE OUR GOAL SHOULD
ALWAYS BE REUNIFICATION AND WHAT'S
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD,
AS LONG AS THERE ARE SAFEGUARDS
FOR WHEN IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
WE HAVE A JUDGE THAT'S GOING TO MAKE
THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION.
BUT IF WE BELIEVE IN HEALING,
IF WE BELIEVE IN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE,
IF WE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T DEFINED BY THE
THE WORST THING THEY MAY HAVE DONE IN THEIR LIFE,
WE SHOULD ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THAT CHILDREN ARE
BEST OFF WHEN THEY'RE WITH THEIR PARENTS,
AND PARENTS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO AT LEAST MAKE THE CASE, ESPECIALLY,
UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE SAME UNDER
THE SAME RULES AND UNDER THE SAME,
UM, GUIDANCE AND PROTECTIONS THAT ALL PARENTS THAT,
THAT ARE TRYING TO REUNIFY HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK IT'S IT'S A BILL THAT HAS
THE APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS,
BUT ULTIMATELY LEADS US WHERE I THINK EVERYONE
THAT SUPPORTS FAMILIES SHOULD BE,
WHICH IS HAVING CHILDREN BE WITH THEIR PARENTS.
UH, WITH THAT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK FIDEL FOR SHARING HIS STORY
AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE SO VERY PROUD OF YOU.
UM.
UM, THIS WILL HELP FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PARENTS RETAIN
THE POSITIVE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
THAT REDUCES RECIDIVISM.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR.
I VOTE, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE TEARS,
BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
SORRY, I WAS I WAS ONCE, UM,
CRYING IN CHAMBERS WHEN I WAS A PUBLIC DEFENDER AND,
UH, BECAUSE OF CLIENT OF MINE WAS GOING
TO GET A PRETTY HEAVY SENTENCE.
AND, UH, I WAS APOLOGIZING TO THE JUDGES.
I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO THE JUDGE
AS TO WHY THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE.
AND THE JUDGE SAID TO ME,
YOU SHOULD NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR BEING HUMAN.
SO THANK YOU.
UM, MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU CAN
TAKE ROLL ON AB 2282 MOTIONS.
DO PASS TO HUMAN SERVICES CALL.
I CALL I DIXON TING BRIAN I BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY I HANEY I MANCINI
MCKENNA I MCKENNA I PACHECO.
REYES.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO THAT BILL IS ALSO ON CALL.
THANK YOU.
UM, UP NEXT SUMMER, HANEY CAN RETURN.
HIS TRIUMPHANT RETURN.
ITEM NINE AB 2747.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
UH, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF,
AND I WANT TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
UH, THIS BILL IS, UH, PRETTY SIMPLE.
UH, ALL OF US, UH,
NEED TO HAVE A A CREDIT SCORE IF WE WANT TO,
UH, BUY THINGS AND QUALIFY FOR THINGS.
AND YET THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT INDICATORS
OF CREDIT THAT ARE CURRENTLY NOT
INCLUDED IN YOUR CREDIT SCORE AND SHOULD
BE INCLUDED IN ESPECIALLY, UH,
FOR FOLKS WHO WHO MAY NOT HAVE CREDIT
SCORES CURRENTLY OR MAY,
UH, NOT HAVE STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS OR CREDIT CARDS,
UH, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT WAY FOR THEM
TO BUILD THEIR CREDIT SCORE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL
ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH
BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
SENATOR BRADFORD HAD A BILL WHICH
NOW HE'S HE'S RE-UPPING,
WHICH I FULLY SUPPORT, WHICH IS, UH,
HAVING THIS PRACTICE BE IN, IN, IN PLACE FOR, UH,
HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE OR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING.
THIS WOULD EXTEND THE PRACTICE
OF LANDLORDS REPORTING
ON TIME RENT PAYMENTS TO CREDIT BUREAU AGENCIES,
UH, TO PRIVATE HOUSING AS WELL.
UM, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UH,
THERE ARE 1 IN 10 AMERICANS
WHO DO NOT HAVE A CREDIT SCORE AT ALL.
AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CREDIT SCORES,
MILLIONS OF THEM MAY HAVE POOR CREDIT
BECAUSE ONLY THEIR SECONDARY BILLS,
LIKE CREDIT CARDS AND STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS,
ARE BEING REPORTED.
NONE OF THE ON TIME RENT PAYMENTS
THAT THE 17 MILLION RENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA PRIORITIZE EVERY MONTH
ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED.
THERE ARE NOW MUCH MORE EFFICIENT
AND EFFECTIVE WAYS TO REPORT, UH,
RENT PAYMENTS TO CREDIT SCORES,
WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO LANDLORDS AND TO RENTERS.
AND WE ARE NOW IN A PLACE WHERE
WE CAN ACTUALLY EXTEND THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO THE LARGE MAJORITY
OF RENTERS IN OUR STATE.
UM, THIS IS ONLY FOR POSITIVE RENT REPORTING.
SO, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS ALREADY THE CASE THAT
IF YOU HAVE A MISSED PAYMENTS
OR YOU HAVE AN EVICTION,
THESE KIND OF THINGS, THESE WERE ALREADY CURRENTLY.
SO THE NEGATIVE IS ALREADY IN MANY CASES
BEING REPORTED UH, TO CREDIT BUREAUS.
UH, BUT THE POSITIVE, UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT UH,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE
TO WORK CLOSELY ALSO CLOSELY WITH UH,
THE UH, PREVIOUS OPPOSITION, I THINK FOR UH,
AT LEAST FOR, UH, SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION THAT YOU MAY
HEAR FROM TODAY BECAUSE WE'VE
TAKEN THEIR AMENDMENTS,
UH, THEY'RE NOW REMOVING THEIR OPPOSITION.
UH, THIS IS A GOOD THING.
ALSO, I WILL SAY, FOR, UH, FOR LANDLORDS,
BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAS A MORE
ACCURATE WAY OF UNDERSTANDING,
UH, WHAT SOMEBODY'S HISTORY IS
IN TERMS OF PAYING THEIR RENT,
IF IT IS INCLUDED IN THEIR CREDIT SCORE,
AND IF YOU'RE TAKING THEIR
CREDIT SCORE INTO CONSIDERATION
IN QUALIFYING AN APPLICANT.
SO SO THIS WILL HELP A LOT OF CALIFORNIANS,
INCLUDING YOUNG CALIFORNIANS,
UH, BUILD THEIR, THEIR CREDIT SCORE.
UH, IT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE,
WOULD HAVE HELPED ME OVER THE YEARS.
AND, UH, AND, UH, WE HAVE, UH,
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
DAVID RAMIREZ, WHO'S THE GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS COMMITTEE
CHAIR FOR THE UC STUDENT ASSOCIATION,
WHERE I USED TO BE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE KNOWS.
I REMEMBER THAT, YEAH.
UH, YES, PLEASE.
WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT.
UM, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALRA
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
UM, AS MENTIONED, I'M DAVID RAMIREZ.
I'M.
I SERVE AS THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS CHAIR
FOR THE UC STUDENT ASSOCIATION,
WHICH IS THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY FOR OVER 230,000
UNDERGRADS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
I'M ALSO A STUDENT AT UCLA.
UH, WE'RE THE SURROUNDING RENTAL MARKET IS ONE
OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
UM, AND I KNOW FIRSTHAND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR
STUDENTS LIKE MYSELF WHEN APPLYING FOR HOUSING.
I CURRENTLY LIVE IN AN OFF CAMPUS APARTMENT
AND WITHOUT A COSIGNER FOR MY LEASE.
IT SIMPLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO APPLY
FOR IT FOR ANY OFF CAMPUS UNITS.
UM, AROUND MY CAMPUS.
UM, MY ONLY OTHER OPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO
COMMUTE OVER THREE HOURS EVERY SINGLE DAY,
UM, TO CAMPUS TO GET TO CLASS.
COLLEGE STUDENTS OFTEN HAVE LOWER NONEXISTENT
CREDIT SCORES AND ARE DENIED
HOUSING DUE TO THEIR LACK OF RENTAL
HISTORY AND CREDIT SCORES.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPACTFUL.
THIS IS MOST IMPACTFUL FOR OUR
MOST VULNERABLE STUDENTS.
LIKE FIRST GENERATION, LOW INCOME STUDENTS WHO OFTEN
CANNOT RELY ON THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS
TO SERVE AS COSIGNERS OR GUARANTEED OR GUARANTORS
FOR THEIR RENTAL APPLICATIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, I COULD NOT AFFORD MY APARTMENT
WITHOUT MY SCHOLARSHIP BECAUSE
THE RENT IS OVER HALF MY YEARLY INCOME,
AND YET I ALSO COULD NOT HAVE APPLIED.
OR YEAH, I ALSO COULD HAVE NOT APPLIED
WITHOUT MY PARENTS SIGNATURE,
DESPITE HAVING THE FUNDS TO PAY FOR IT.
AT THE UC ALONE, WE ALREADY HAVE
AN ALARMING RATE OF HOMELESSNESS
AND HOUSING INSECURITY AMONG OUR STUDENTS,
WITH 8% OF UC UNDERGRADS CURRENTLY
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
AND FAR MORE EXPERIENCING HOUSING INSECURITY.
WE KNOW THESE NUMBERS PALE IN COMPARISON TO.
THE STUDENTS AT THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITIES.
ADDITIONALLY, MANY COLLEGE STUDENTS
HAVE NO WAY TO BUILD THEIR CREDIT
WHILE IN COLLEGE OTHER THAN THEIR
ON TIME RENTAL PAYMENTS,
WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY MAKING DUE
TO THEIR AGE AND LACK OF CREDIT.
HISTORY.
COLLEGE STUDENTS TEND TO HAVE LOWER CREDIT SCORES,
WHICH ARE MORE, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO BUILD.
MANY PEOPLE DO NOT TAKE OUT THEIR
FIRST CREDIT CARD UNTIL AFTER
COLLEGE DUE TO THE FEAR OF RUINING
THEIR CREDIT HISTORY,
BUT ALL THEIR ON TIME RENT PAYMENTS
THROUGHOUT THEIR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE
ARE CURRENTLY DOING NOTHING TO
BUILD THEIR CREDIT SCORES.
THIS IS WHY UCSB IS PROUD TO SUPPORT AB 2747,
WHICH WOULD ALLOW CALIFORNIANS,
INCLUDING COLLEGE STUDENTS,
TO BUILD THEIR CREDIT THE CREDIT SCORE
USING PAYMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY ALREADY
MAKING AND HELP COLLEGE STUDENTS ACCESS
HOUSING THROUGH THOSE CREDIT SCORES.
ON BEHALF OF UC STUDENTS,
I URGE YOU TO VOTE ON AB 2747.
THANK YOU.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 2747?
>> JIM LITES, FORMER BOARD MEMBER
OF THE UC STUDENT ASSOCIATION.
BUT HERE TODAY, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL RENTAL HOME COUNCIL,
WE DO NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL POSITION YET,
BUT WE KIND OF LIKE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CASSIE MANCINI
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 2747?
UH, GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS AGAIN.
UH, KAREEM TRACY, ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
UH, BASED ON THE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED THE ANALYSIS,
WE DO ANTICIPATE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION
ONCE THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE IN PRINT,
AND REALLY WANT TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS MEASURE,
WHICH EXPANDS EXISTING LAW WHILE
PRESERVING KEY ASPECTS OF
THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT THAT WAS
REACHED ON SB 1157 BACK IN 2020,
AND WISH TO ALSO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR DILIGENT WORK ON THE BILL AS WELL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
DEBORAH CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION.
WE ALSO APPRECIATE SOME MEMBER HAYNIE
TAKING THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL BE MOVING
TO A NEUTRAL POSITION.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ABOUT A DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION.
IF THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THIS, WE HAVE TO GET
FORMS READY AND ALL THAT FUN STUFF.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN.
OPPOSITION.
OKAY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
IT'S A MOTION OR COMMENTS, RIGHT?
WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
UH, VICE CHAIR DIXON.
THANK YOU.
CHAIR.
UM, NOT TO GO BACK INTO ANCIENT HISTORY OF MY LIFE,
BUT WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE AND AFTER COLLEGE,
AND I LIVED IN WESTWOOD AND
AND ATTENDED SOME CLASSES AT UCLA.
POST GRADUATE.
AND I HAD FOUR ROOMMATES THAT BROUGHT THE RENT DOWN.
UM, IN THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS,
WHICH ARE VERY COMMON,
I MEAN, THAT HAPPENS ACROSS ALL GENERATIONS.
UH, HOW WOULD THAT REPORTING SYSTEM TAKE PLACE
FOR ALL OF THE RENT PAYERS OF THE DEPARTMENT?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MAKES THAT'S
WHAT MADE IT AFFORDABLE
FOR ME TO LIVE IN WESTWOOD AND WALK TO CAMPUS.
SO I JUST WONDER HOW THAT CIRCUMSTANCE,
BECAUSE IT IS VERY COMMON.
HOW WOULD THAT WORK?
THAT IS THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD BE FROM
THE THE PERSON WHO IS ON THE LEASE AND,
AND WHO'S MAKING THE PAYMENTS.
UH, SO, UH UH, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I GUESS IF ALL FOUR PEOPLE WERE ON THE LEASE
AND WERE MAKING PAYMENTS DIRECTLY,
UH, TO THE, TO THE LANDLORD,
AND IT WAS ARRANGED THAT WAY,
THEN THEY ALL COULD BENEFIT FROM THIS,
BUT IT WOULD BE WHOEVER'S,
UH, MAKING WHOEVER'S NAMED
THE PAYMENTS ARE BEING MADE IN.
THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME LANDLORDS MAY ALLOW THAT KIND
OF SPLITTING UP AND DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THEM,
WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW THEM ALL TO.
MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT.
I THINK THAT'S VERY COMMON.
I MEAN, MY DAUGHTER'S LIVED WITH ROOMMATES
THROUGH HER COLLEGE YEARS AS WELL.
I MEAN, AND THAT LOWERS THE RENT.
I WAS VERY PLEASED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE SHE WAS
WORKING AND WE WERE HELPING WITH THE RENT,
BUT SHE HAD THREE OTHER ROOMMATES AND THAT HELPS.
>> YEAH.
NO, SHE WAS LIVING IN BERKELEY.
SO IN THE UC SYSTEM.
SO EVERYBODY SHARES APARTMENTS AND LOWERS
THE RENT TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE.
SO I WOULD LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE
THAT WOULD BE AN ENHANCEMENT
TO HELP YOUNG PEOPLE BUILD THEIR CREDIT.
ABSOLUTELY.
NO.
IT'S GREAT.
AND I'LL DEFINITELY, UH, TALK WITH UH, UH,
SOME OF THE FOLKS HERE ABOUT THAT AND HOW WE COULD,
UH, CLARIFY THAT IF THEY ARE
MAKING PAYMENTS DIRECTLY,
THEY SHOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS AS WELL.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THEM.
THANK YOU.
YEAH.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HANGING,
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF YOU HERE ARE
MEMBERS OF THE RENTERS CAUCUS,
AND WE KNOW THAT RENT CAN BE MORE THAN
THE MORE THAN A MORTGAGE THESE DAYS.
SO GETTING SOME RECOGNITION TO BE ABLE TO
BUILD CREDIT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YES, I THINK THIS IS A WIN WIN AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THE FORMER OPPOSITION WHO HAVE
WORKED WITH US ON THIS AND WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE SENATOR BRADFORD,
WHO'S LED ON THIS.
AND THIS IS AN EXTENSION, CERTAINLY OF HIS WORK.
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM SECRETARY.
ROLL CALL ON AB 2747.
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED.
CHOLERA A CHOLERA I DICKSON TING.
BRIAN I BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY I HANEY.
I MAINCHAIN.
MAINCHAIN.
I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA.
I PACHECO.
REYES.
I SANCHEZ.
SCARED ME.
WALDRON.
OKAY, THAT BILL IS OUT.
AND THEN, UM, OUR FINAL BILL TO BE HEARD
WILL BE ITEM 11 AB 3013 MAINCHAIN.
AND WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL ITEM FOR VOTE ONLY.
THAT'S AFTER THAT.
AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH ALL THE BILLS.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING.
>> THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED IN THE ANALYSIS,
AB 3013 AUTHORIZES A ONE YEAR
PILOT PROGRAM IN 11 COUNTIES
TO STUDY THE USE OF REMOTE COURT REPORTING.
ACCURATE COURT RECORDS ARE CRITICAL
TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM,
YET THERE IS A GROWING SHORTAGE OF COURT REPORTERS.
WHILE MANY COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE REMOTELY,
COURT REPORTERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PHYSICALLY
PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM
IN ORDER TO HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY NEEDED
TO PRODUCE AN ACCURATE RECORD.
AB 3013 ALLOWS COURTS TO STUDY THE USE
OF REMOTE COURT REPORTING AND REPORT
FINDINGS BACK TO THE LEGISLATOR TO
INFORM FUTURE POLICY DECISIONS.
THANK YOU, AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN EYE VOTE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
SANDRA BORRERO, ON BEHALF OF SEIU CALIFORNIA,
WE ARE THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL,
AND I'D LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FEINSTEIN FOR AUTHORING.
I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE CURRENT
PROCEDURES FOR REMOTE
PROCEEDINGS ALLOW FOR PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY,
BUT OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS MUST
BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COURT.
THIS PILOT PROGRAM WOULD ALLOW
FOR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
TO TAKE THE RECORD REMOTELY IN SPECIFIED INSTANCES.
OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT ACCURATE,
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS CAN BE MAINTAINED REMOTELY, UM,
TO HOPEFULLY INFORM A STATEWIDE
MODEL THAT WOULD PROVIDE
COURTS AND EMPLOYEES MORE SCHEDULING FLEXIBILITY.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 3013?
>> MR.
CHAIR MEMBERS SARA FLOCKS,
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
MR.
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS PAT MORAN,
WITH AARON REID AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING
THE ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 3013?
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
SOME AREAS.
I JUST APPRECIATE THAT THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY DOING
THE WORK ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
IN FACT, SPONSORING IT.
IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
IT MEANS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER LEGISLATION
THAT PROTECTS OUR WORKERS, TOO.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UH, YES.
AND THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I KNOW THAT, UM, OVER THE YEARS,
SPONSORS HAVE KIND OF BEEN
A GUARDING THE SANCTITY OF,
FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF PUTTING IT,
OF THE RECORDS AND THE COURTS.
AND SO THE FACT THAT THE WERE VENTURING
IN AND DOING IT IN A CAUTIOUS WAY,
I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE.
AND WE'LL BE WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW TO TAKE
A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE,
WHILE ENSURING THAT THE COURT RECORD
IS IS CREDIBLE AND PROTECTED.
BUT THAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU.
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL.
I CALL I DIXON DIXON I TING
BRIAN I BRIAN I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I HANEY I HANEY I MAINCHAIN
I MAINCHAIN I MCKINNON.
MCKINNON I.
PACHECO.
REYES.
REYES, I.
SANCHEZ.
I.
WALDRON.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
WE NOW HAVE THREE BILLS OUT, SO,
YOU KNOW WE'RE GETTING THERE.
UM, AND SO UP NEXT IS ITEM 13 FOR VOTE ONLY AB 2304.
LEE.
IT WAS UM, HE HAD ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION.
AND SO WE ARE NOW RECONSIDERING IT.
SECOND OKAY, SO THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.
UM, MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU CAN
HAVE A VOTE ON AB 2304, PLEASE.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
KALRA A, KALRA I DIXON.
DIXON.
NO.
TING, BRIAN.
HI, BRIAN.
I CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY.
I HANEY.
HANEY.
I MANCINI.
NOT VOTING MCKINLEY HIGH.
MCKINNON.
I PACHECO.
REYES.
I SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
THAT'LL BE PLACED ON CALL.
NEEDS ONE MORE VOTE.
AND SO NOW LET'S GO FROM THE TOP.
UH, LET'S GO THROUGH OUR ON CALL BILLS FIRST.
WAS THAT CONSENT?
LET'S DO CONSENT FIRST.
UM, SO IF WE CAN GET THE VOTES ON CONSENT, PLEASE.
TING MAIN SHINE, A MAIN.
SHINE I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
CONSENT CALENDAR.
DONE.
UM.
ITEM ONE AB 1811.
ALVAREZ.
TING.
MCKENNA.
I REYES.
REYES I WALDRON.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM THREE AB 2125 IS ON CALL.
GARCIA.
YOU DON'T CALL FIRST.
TING.
MAIN CHINE A MAIN CHINE I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA, I.
REYES.
REYES, I.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
OKAY.
THAT BILL.
IS OUT.
ON CALL AB FOR AB 2216.
HANEY.
DIXON.
NO.
TING.
MANE.
SHINE A MANE.
SHINE I MCKENNA.
MCKENNA.
I.
PACHECO.
REYES.
I SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
AB 2282.
MCKENNA.
NO.
TING.
MANE.
SHINE.
I HAVE EYE FOR MCKENNA.
ALREADY ON THAT ONE.
PACHECO.
REYES.
REYES I.
WALDRON.
AND SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ WAS NOT.
VOTING.
OH, SHE.
ALREADY WAS NOT VOTING.
OKAY.
OKAY, SO WE THAT'S STILL.
WE'LL PLACE THAT BACK ON CALL.
IT NEEDS ONE MORE.
AND THEN, UM, ON CALL.
AB 2352 ERWIN TING MCKENNA.
PAM MCINERNEY.
REYES.
I.
REYES, I.
SANCHEZ.
I.
WALDRON.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM SEVEN AB 2584.
LEE TING MCKENNA.
MCKENNA I REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ.
NO.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
WALDRON.
MY BILL IS OUT.
MAYBE 2738.
RIVAS.
LOOSE.
RIVAS.
TING.
MAIN.
CHINE.
MAIN CHINE I.
REYES.
REYES I.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
WALDRON.
RIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT.
AB 2747 HANEY OH NO, THAT'S ADD ON.
SORRY.
NEXT ONE AB 2752 CALDERON.
DIXON.
NO.
TING.
BRIAN.
BRIAN I HANEY I HANEY I MAINCHAIN.
I MCKENNA.
MCKINNON.
I PACHECO.
REYES.
REYES I SANCHEZ.
NO.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
WALDRON.
THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM 12 THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
OMNIBUS BILL.
KEATING.
MCKENNA.
MCKENNA, I.
REYES.
REYES, I.
SANCHEZ.
WALDRON.
OKAY, SO THAT BILL IS OUT.
UM.
ITEM 13.
LEE AB AB 2304.
DO YOU HAVE ANYONE NEW?
DO WE?
IS ANYBODY HERE?
NO ONE HERE HAS CAN VOTE FOR THAT BECAUSE
EVERYONE HERE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT OKAY.
AND THEN.
SO WE'LL GO NOW WE'LL GO TO ADD ON UM ITEM TWO.
THREE, SEVEN, SEVEN, WHICH WAS THAT HE.
JUST DID I DID WE DID CONSENT ITEMS.
ITEM TWO AND AB 1950 TO ADD ON.
WHATEVER.
TING.
MCKENNA.
REYES.
REYES, I.
SANCHEZ.
I'M SO SORRY.
UM.
A.B.
1950 IS ITEM TWO.
ITEM TWO.
UH 1877.
1950.
SANCHEZ.
NO.
OKAY.
THAT ONE.
THAT ONE'S JUST ADD ON TO THE PAST.
WE'RE GOING TO GET TO ADAM.
YEAH.
OKAY, SO THAT'S ITEM TWO.
ITEM THREE.
UM.
OH, NO.
PHIL'S NOT HERE.
UM, HE'S NOT HERE.
UM.
UM, UM, UM, WHO ELSE NEEDS TO ADD ON ITEM?
THEY'RE NOT HERE.
ITEM 16 AB 2377, LUIS RIVAS.
CHING.
MAIN.
SHINE.
MAIN.
SHINE.
EYE.
REYES.
EYE.
SANCHEZ.
EYE.
WALDRON.
OKAY.
I THINK EVERYONE THAT'S HERE IS CAUGHT UP.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU'RE NOT OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SURE.
SO.
CHING.
47 FROM NOT.
>> VOTING TO OPPOSE NUMBER NINE.
NUMBER NINE AB 2747.
SANCHEZ NOT VOTING TO.
NO.
NO THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO WE'LL WE'LL HANG AROUND FOR A MOMENT
FOR A SUMMARY RATING AND A SUMMARY.
PACHECO.
THANK YOU.
THAT WAS.
27.
I WANT TO KNOW.
YOU ARE NOT VOTING ON.
AB 2747 DICKSON NOT VOTING TO KNOW.
THAT BILL IS STILL OUT, RIGHT?
YEAH.
IT WILL BE.
IF THERE'S NOTHING.
SEPARATE.
YEAH.
THERE'S ONE DOOR.
THANK YOU.
I DIDN'T HEAR THE CALL ON 22.
82 TO GET THROUGH.
WE'RE NOT DONE.
THAT ONE.
THAT ONE WENT THROUGH.
NO BEGINNER.
BUT THAT'S ON CALL.
YEAH.
GOTCHA.
THANKS.
YEAH.
THANK YOU.
YEAH.
ALL RIGHT.
I WANT TO.
PEOPLE WANT.
ALL RIGHT, WE CAN DO THAT SET.
SO I JUST WANT.
I JUST SIT HERE?
THE WHOLE THING.
YEAH, BUT DO CONSENT.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR FOR SUBBING IN TODAY.
UM, WE'LL START WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
TING TING I.
ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN ON TO ITEM AB 1811 AS AN ADD ON.
TING TING I.
AB H NUMBER TWO AB 1950 TO ADD ON TING.
TING.
I.
AB 2125 TO ADD ON.
TING TING I.
ITEM FOUR 2216 TO ADD ON.
TING.
TING, I.
MOVE THE CALL ON AB 2282.
MOCINHA TING.
TING.
I THAT BILL IS OUT AB 2352.
TING TING I.
ALL RIGHT UM AB 2584 LI.
TING TING I.
AB 2738 LUIS RIVAS TING I.
AB 2747.
HANEY TING.
TING I.
AB 2752 CALDERON.
TING TING I.
AB 2013 MAINE.
SHINE TING.
TING I.
AB 3281 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BILL TING.
TING I.
MOVE TO CALL ON AB AB 2304 LI.
TING.
TING I THAT BILL IS OUT AB 2377 LUIS RIVAS.
TING.
TING I.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU.
WE ALWAYS TALK.
>> HERE.
THIS IS YOUR.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THEY'RE JUST, UH.
THERE'S FIVE ITEMS, SO WE'LL GO FIRST.
AB 2216 HANEY.
I.
PACHECO I.
AB 2282 MCKENNA.
PACHECO I PACHECO I.
AB 2747 HANEY.
WHICH ITEM THAT ITEM NINE.
PACHECO I PACHECO I.
ITEM TEN AB 2752 CALDERON.
PACHECO I PACHECO.
I.
ITEM 11 AB 3013 MOONSHINE.
PACHECO I PACHECO.
I.
ITEM 13 AB 2304.
LEE PACHECO NOT VOTING.
NOT VOTING.
ALL RIGHT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.