GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO CALL
THE APRIL 25TH, 2024 FOR HEARING
OF THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE TO ORDER. DO WE HAVE A
QUORUM? YES, WE HAVE A QUORUM
PRESENT. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND
CALL THE ROLL. PELLERIN. HERE.
PELLERIN HERE. LACKEY. HERE.
LACKEY. HERE. BENNETT. BENNETT.
HERE. BERMAN. HANEY AZALI.
AZALI. HERE. LOW WEBER. WEBER.
HERE WE HAVE A QUORUM. I LIKE TO
WELCOME EVERYONE WHO'S HERE IN
THE HEARING ROOM TODAY. AND
WHO'S WATCHING THE HEARING
ONLINE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
HEARING, WE ARE ACCEPTING
WITNESS TESTIMONY IN PERSON. AND
WE ARE ALSO ACCEPTING WRITTEN
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE
LEGISLATURE'S POSITION LETTER
PORTAL. THAT PORTAL CAN BE
ACCESSED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE AT ELC DOT ASSEMBLY DOT
K.GOV. THE COMMITTEE HAS ONE
BILL ON THE AGENDA TODAY, AND
WHEN WE HEAR THE BILL ON THE
AGENDA, WE'LL HEAR FROM A
MAXIMUM OF TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT AND TWO PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. THE
BILL, WITH A LIMIT OF TWO
MINUTES PER WITNESS. OTHER
WITNESSES ARE LIMITED TO
PROVIDING THEIR NAME, THE
ORGANIZATION THEY REPRESENT, IF
ANY, AND THEIR POSITION ON THE
BILL. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL
BE RULED OUT OF ORDER,
ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TODAY. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CERVANTES WAS NOT FEELING
WELL AND HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MATT HANEY,
WHICH IS WHY HE WAS ON THE ROLL
CALL TODAY. AND WE HAVE A LETTER
FROM THE SPEAKER ACCEPTING THAT
REPLACEMENT. AND IT WAS FOR
TODAY'S HEARING. ONLY WITH THOSE
ANNOUNCEMENTS OUT OF THE WAY, WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
COMMITTEE'S AGENDA. THE ONLY
ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS AB 2654 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER VINCE FONG.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US TODAY. AND YOU MAY
PRESENT YOUR BILL SECOND. AYE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I SINCERELY THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
HOLDING THIS HEARING. WE ARE IN
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE DOING THE
WORK ON BEHALF OF ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AS A LIFELONG
ADVOCATE OF TRANSPARENCY IN
GOVERNMENT, SPECIFICALLY THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE, IT HAS BEEN
TROUBLING TO LEARN ABOUT THE USE
OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS
WHEN DRAFTING LEGISLATION IN MY
TWO DECADES WORKING AT BOTH THE
STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS, I HAVE
NEVER HEARD OF THE USE OF NDAS
IN THE NEGOTIATION OF
LEGISLATION. WE WERE DULY
ELECTED AS A DELIBERATIVE BODY,
WE ARE TRUSTED BY OUR
CONSTITUENTS TO REPRESENT THEM.
THE PUBLIC'S TRUST ERODES WHEN
LAWS ARE CONDUCTED IN SECRECY
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, UNDER A
LEGALLY BINDING CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS. NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS CERTAINLY HAVE THEIR
PLACE TO PROTECT BUSINESSES.
PROPRIETARY AND FINANCIAL
INFORMATION, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT
BE USED IN THE CRAFTING AND
NEGOTIATION NEGOTIATIONS, IN THE
CRAFTING AND NEGOTIATING OF LAWS
THAT AFFECT THE DAILY LIVES OF
OUR CONSTITUENTS UNDER AB 2654
AND OTHERWISE LEGALLY VALID NDA
THAT IS PROPERLY DRAFTED HAS A
REASONABLE SCOPE, LEGITIMATE
INTEREST TO PROTECT FINANCIAL OR
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION, AND
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT FROM THE
PARTIES WOULD STILL BE
ENFORCEABLE. HOWEVER,
NEGOTIATING AND DRAFTING
LEGISLATION DOES NOT NEED TO AND
SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED TO THE
SAME DEGREE AS PRIVATE BUSINESS
INFORMATION. AFTER ALL, IT'S THE
PEOPLE'S BUSINESS THAT WE DO AND
CONDUCT HERE IN THE STATE
CAPITOL. THE PUBLIC ALREADY HAS
A POOR PERCEPTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. ALLOWING
FOR THE USE OF NDAS WILL SURELY
WILL FURTHER ERODE AND CORRODE
THEIR TRUST IN GOVERNMENT. AS
FOR THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO
GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE VARIOUS
EXEMPTIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND
LEGISLATIVE OPEN RECORDS ACT
THAT LIMIT DISCLOSURES TO THE
PUBLIC. NDA Ã ARE ANOTHER TOOL
USED TO KEEP INFORMATION FROM
THE PUBLIC. IT'S IN THEIR NAME
NON-DISCLOSURE, BUT ALSO MEMBERS
OF THE LEGISLATURE. HOW CAN WE
CREATE NUANCED, EFFECTIVE POLICY
WHEN WE, AS MEMBERS ARE UNABLE
TO OBTAIN ESSENTIAL INFORMATION
DUE TO CERTAIN PARTIES SIGNING
NDAS? THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
POINTS OUT ONE PROVISION OF THE
CPRA THAT PROHIBITS A PUBLIC
AGENCY FROM ALLOWING ANOTHER
PARTY TO CONTROL THE DISCLOSURE
OF INFORMATION THAT IS OTHERWISE
SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE
CPRA QUOTE. GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF
AN EXPRESS PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC
OFFICIALS ABILITY TO ENTER INTO
AN NDA IN CONNECTION WITH
LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATIONS,
HOWEVER, IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER A
COURT WOULD FIND SUCH AN NDA TO
BE ENFORCEABLE TO BE
ENFORCEABLE. THIS BILL CREATES
THAT EXPRESS PROHIBITION THAT
SUCH AN NDA IS UNENFORCEABLE,
FURTHERING THE INTENT OF THE
CPRA. I'M JOINED TODAY BY ROB
LAPSLEY WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE AND BRITTANY
BARSOTTI WITH THE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NEWS PUBLISHERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. AND WHEN
THE TIME COMES, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS ROB LAPSLEY. I'M
PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB
2654. THIS BILL MARKS A CRUCIAL
STEP TO HELP ENSURE TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. THE BILL
ISN'T ABOUT GOOD GOVERNANCE.
IT'S ABOUT UPHOLDING THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
DEMOCRACY THAT VOTERS HAVE
SUPPORTED, ESPECIALLY AT THE
BALLOT BOX. IN 2004, CALIFORNIA
VOTERS PASSED PROP 59, CALLED
THE SUNSHINE AMENDMENT, WHICH
MADE ACCESS TO PUBLIC
INFORMATION AN A CIVIL RIGHT. IT
PASSED WITH 83.4% OF THE VOTE,
YET THE LEGISLATURE EXCLUDED
ITSELF FROM THESE PROVISIONS,
LEAVING A GAP THAT THE BILL ALSO
SEEKS TO CLOSE. IN 2016, VOTERS
OVERWHELMINGLY PASSED. PROP 54
REINFORCED THE PEOPLE'S DEMAND
FOR TRANSPARENCY BY REQUIRING
LEGISLATION TO BE AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC 72 72 HOURS BEFORE A
VOTE. THIS BILL BUILDS UPON THAT
FOUNDATION BY ENSURING THAT
LEGISLATORS, LOBBYISTS AND
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS CONDUCT
THEIR WORK IN AN OPEN AND
TRANSPARENT MANNER. THE BILL IS
NOT A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A
PROBLEM. IT'S A NECESSARY
SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE EROSION OF
TRANSPARENCY IN OUR STATE
GOVERNMENT. THERE HAS BEEN SOME
DISCUSSION THAT THIS BILL WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECT PRIVATE
PARTIES PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. HOWEVER,
IT'S CRUCIAL TO RECOGNIZE THE
EXTENSIVE SAFEGUARDS ALREADY IN
PLACE UNDER CURRENT LAW. THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
INCLUDES NEARLY 80 EXEMPTIONS TO
ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, INCLUDING
TRADE SECRETS AND PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATIONS, FROM BEING
DISCLOSED AS PART OF THE
LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATIONS. WE AND
MANY OTHERS, DISAGREE THAT THIS
BILL WOULD EXPOSE PRIVATE
PARTIES SENSITIVE INFORMATION.
NDAS CREATE A BARRIER TO
PARTICIPATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS AS EFFECTIVELY
ESTABLISHING A SIGNED TO PLAY
STANDARD THAT CONTRADICTS THE
PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY AND
FAIRNESS ABOUT UPON WHICH OUR
SYSTEM IS BUILT. THIS BILL IS A
LOGICAL PROTECTION OF THE
REPEATED WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND I JUST WANT TO
ADD THAT I'VE TALKED TO FOUR
PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, HAVING
BEEN IN SUM, MYSELF AT THE
HIGHEST LEVELS OF WHETHER THEY
HAVE EVER EMPLOYED OR WHETHER
THERE WAS EVER A NEED FOR NDAS
IN ANY OF THEIR LEGISLATION OF
POLICY NEGOTIATIONS. NOT ONE HAS
EMPLOYED NDAS. AND IT WAS
INTERESTING IN THE RESPONSE THAT
I GOT, BECAUSE NEVER HAD THEY
EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT USING NDAS IN
THEIR PROCESS. SO I WOULD ASK, I
BELIEVE THIS IS A KEY QUESTION
OR KEY ISSUE, AND I WOULD ASK
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THAT
MOVING FORWARD. WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY THIS MORNING
. AND YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, BRITTANY BARSOTTI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2654, WE REPRESENT
OVER 450 PUBLICATIONS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. VÀ. I
ALSO OPERATE A LEGAL HELPLINE
FOR OUR MEMBERS TO CALL INTO,
AND I CAN SAY THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THE LEGAL HELP LINE QUESTIONS
THAT WE RECEIVE ARE PUBLIC
RECORDS, ACT RELATED, AS WAS
ALREADY NOTED, THIS BILL DOESN'T
COMPEL DISCLOSURE. IT SIMPLY
ALLOWS OR PROHIBITS THE USE OF
NDAS. THERE ARE SEVERAL
EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. I'VE
ACTUALLY NEVER COUNTED BEFORE,
BUT I BELIEVE 80 IS ABOUT RIGHT
AND THEY ARE ALREADY DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THE TYPE OF INFORMATION
THAT NDAS PROTECT. ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE, TRADE SECRETS,
AND FREQUENTLY USED AND MOST
LIKELY ABUSED IS THE
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS EXEMPTION,
WHICH IS BASED HAS BEEN USED TO
CLAIM CALENDARS SHOULDN'T BE
SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT. BASIC THINGS LIKE WHO
LEGISLATOR OR THE GOVERNOR'S
MEETING WITH, I'D ALSO LIKE TO
POINT OUT THAT THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT DOES, HAVE A
BALANCING PROVISION. SO IF THERE
IS INFORMATION THAT'S REQUESTED,
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD
BE BETTER SERVED IN
NON-DISCLOSURE RATHER THAN
DISCLOSURE, COURTS ARE FREE TO
CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. AND WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR
AYE VOTE ON AB 2654. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
ROOM WHO WANTS TO REGISTER THEIR
NAME AND ORGANIZATION IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL? PLEASE STEP UP TO
THE MIC. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
MATTHEW HARGROVE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. SCOTT KAUFMAN,
HOWARD JARVIS, TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT, MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS TIM TAYLOR WITH
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS IN SUPPORT.
IS THERE ANY PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL TODAY?
STEP ON UP TO THE TABLE. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES EACH. IT'S COZY
TABLE, VERY COZY TABLE. BOTH
SIDES. THIS IS WEIRD, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS BEN GOLOMBEK
FOR THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
2654. I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM
THE OUTSET, WE DO HAVE AN
IMMENSE AMOUNT OF RESPECT FOR
THE AUTHOR AND CONSIDER HIM ONE
OF THE CHAMPIONS FOR THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY HERE, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, WE DO DISAGREE ON
THIS BILL, WE'RE STRONGLY
COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY IN
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE
DID HELP LEAD THE EFFORT TO PASS
PROP 54 THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED
IN 2016. HOWEVER, OUR OPPOSITION
TO THIS BILL IS BOTH FOCUSED ON
AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR LONG
STANDING POLICY OF OPPOSING
LEGISLATION THAT LIMITS THE USE
OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS
AMONG PRIVATE PARTIES, WHICH IS
ENSHRINED IN EXISTING CALIFORNIA
AND FEDERAL LAW. A COUPLE OF
RECENT EXAMPLES OF BILLS THAT WE
OPPOSE THAT ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT
THESE CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS
INCLUDE SB 331 BY FORMER SENATOR
CONNIE LEYVA. SB 1300 FROM
SENATOR HANNAH-BETH JACKSON, AND
AB 89 FROM FORMER ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MARK STONE. WE BELIEVE
THESE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES ARE IMPORTANT TO PROMOTE
CANDID DISCUSSIONS ON
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. WITHOUT
THE CONCERN THAT PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION WILL BE DISCLOSED.
THIS COMES UP IN A RANGE OF
CONTEXTS, INCLUDING LEGAL
SETTLEMENTS, DISCUSSIONS AROUND
PROPRIETARY OR TRADE SECRETS,
AND FOR THE SAME UNDERLYING
REASONS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES
AS IT RELATES TO LEGISLATIVE
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN
BUSINESSES, NONPROFITS AND THEIR
PAID ADVOCATES. NOTHING IN THESE
AGREEMENTS LIMITS LEGISLATORS
FROM DEBATING BILLS, PROPOSING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COURSE OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. IN FACT,
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS PROVIDES
MEMBERS WITH AN OPEN FORUM TO
ASK QUESTIONS AND EXPRESS YOUR
OPINIONS AND THAT THE PUBLIC CAN
WITNESS AND PARTICIPATE IN. OUR
OPPOSITION ALSO STEMS FROM THE
FACT THAT THE BILL IS INCREDIBLY
BROAD AND DOES NOT DEFINE A
NUMBER OF VERY IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS. FOR INSTANCE,
THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR WHAT
CONSTITUTES A NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT, AND THERE ARE NO
EXEMPTIONS FOR EXAMPLES.
ATTORNEYS ARE OFTEN CONSULTED IN
THE ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION. SO
FOR LOBBYISTS RETAINS AN
ATTORNEY TO ANALYZE LEGISLATION
WOULD AB 2654 INTERFERE WITH THE
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE?
ADDITIONALLY, THE BILL PRECLUDES
LOBBYISTS FROM QUOTE UNQUOTE
DISCUSSING LEGISLATION IF
THEY'RE UNDER AN NDA. PLEASE
WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS. YEAH,
THERE ARE COUNTLESS SCENARIOS IN
THE POLICY AND POLITICAL ARENA
WHERE TWO PARTIES ENTER INTO A
LEGAL BUSINESS CONTRACT. THE
CHAMBER HAS LONG DEFENDED
EMPLOYERS AND PRIVATE PARTIES
ABILITY TO USE CONFIDENTIALITY
AGREEMENTS. AND WE SEE THIS BILL
AS INFRINGING ON THAT RIGHT.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
AUTHOR, WE ARE OPPOSED TO AB
2654 TODAY. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS TWO MINUTES, PLEASE, I'M
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE
CAN ABOUT PRE OR LARA ON THAT
FRONT, ONE POINT I DO WANT TO
FLAG THAT BEN DIDN'T QUITE TIME
TO GET TO. I'VE SPOKEN TO
MULTIPLE LOBBYISTS IN JUST THE
LAST FEW DAYS, AND IT'S ACTUALLY
QUITE COMMON FOR INTERNAL
IN-HOUSE LOBBYISTS AND FOR
CONTRACT LOBBYISTS TO USE NDAS
IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND
THEIR CLIENTS MATERIALS. RIGHT.
IF YOU ARE A COMPANY AND YOU
HAVE SOMETHING WHICH IS
PROPRIETARY TO YOU IN A SPECIAL,
YOUR LOBBYIST CAN'T WATCH FOR
LEGISLATION THAT MIGHT AFFECT IT
WITHOUT KNOWING IT. BUT IF YOU
CAN'T HAVE AN NDA WITH THAT
LOBBYIST TO MAKE SURE THAT
LOBBYIST, THEN WHEN THEY LEAVE,
CAN'T GO TELL EVERYONE ELSE THAT
MAKES IT HARD TO WORK WITH YOUR
LOBBYIST HONESTLY AROUND
LEGISLATION. AND WE SEE THAT AS
COVERED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS
BILL. SO THAT'S A REAL CONCERN
FOR US THAT BEN DIDN'T QUITE GET
TIME TO GET TO. THANK YOU. OH,
SORRY. MY MANNERS. ROBERT
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE I
WAS JUST GOING TO ASK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. SO SORRY. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYBODY IN
THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, PLEASE STEP UP TO THE
MIC. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MATT SUTTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION. WE TOO,
UNFORTUNATELY, ARE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. I WASN'T PLANNING ON
THE CHAMBER HAVING BOTH SLOTS.
MAY I SAY A FEW WORDS OR WOULD
YOU PREFER ME JUST TO MOVE ON?
JUST YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION?
GOT IT. WE ARE OPPOSED. WE
APOLOGIZE TO THE AUTHOR FOR THE
LATE OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM? WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. VICE CHAIR
LACKEY, PLEASE GO AHEAD. I JUST
HAVE A BRIEF QUESTION FOR
SOMEONE FROM THE CHAMBER. HAS
CAL CHAMBER EVER USED OR HEARD
OF NDAS BEING USED IN ANY
LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATION BEFORE
KCRA'S REPORT, THANK YOU, SIR.
YOU KNOW, WE TAKE POSITIONS AND
NEGOTIATE ON HUNDREDS OF BILLS
EVERY SINGLE YEAR, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T REALLY COMMENT ON SPECIFIC
NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE PARTICIPATE
IN OR HAPPEN BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES, AGAIN, WE'RE HERE
FOCUSED ON THE LEGISLATION, THE
BILL BEFORE US. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. SALIH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I DO HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS. I'LL START WITH THE
OPPOSITION, JUST TO TEASE OUT
THAT LAST POINT YOU MADE THERE,
I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO INTERFERE
WITH YOUR ABILITY TO ENGAGE WITH
COUNSEL AND HOUSE COUNSEL OR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO GET LEGAL
OPINIONS ON THERE. SO IF THE
BILL WERE CLARIFIED, TO MAKE
THAT CLEAR, THAT THIS DOES NOT
INFRINGE ON TRADITIONAL ATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGES, DOES THAT
RELIEVE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE
LEGISLATION? I THINK THERE'S
STILL A NUMBER OF INCREDIBLY
BROAD AND VAGUE PROVISIONS IN
THE BILL, I'VE GOT IT HERE WHERE
IT TALKS ABOUT DRAFTING,
NEGOTIATION, DISCUSSION OR
CREATION OF LEGISLATION. AND IT
ALSO DOESN'T DEFINE NDA. SO I
THINK THE ATTORNEY CLIENT
PRIVILEGE EXAMPLE THAT I BROUGHT
UP AND THAT YOU'RE RAISING IS
CERTAINLY ONE OF THE POTENTIAL
EXAMPLES, THAT WE THINK WOULD BE
PROBLEMATIC. BUT THERE ARE STILL
A NUMBER OF OTHER POTENTIAL.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER
VAGUE TERMS IN THE BILL RIGHT
NOW THAT WOULD MAKE IT
PROBLEMATIC. WHAT IS YOUR
CONCERN? I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT YOU ENGAGING IN PRIVATE
DISPUTES OR NEGOTIATIONS WITH
PARTIES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
DRAFTING LEGISLATION,
LEGISLATION IS THE WORK OF THIS
HOUSE, THE STATE ASSEMBLY. IT'S
THE PEOPLE'S WORK. SO, YOU KNOW,
IT'S NOT UNCOMMON IN SACRAMENTO
TO HAVE WHAT'S CALLED SPONSORED
LEGISLATION. YOU'RE FAMILIAR
WITH THAT TERM, RIGHT, IN FACT,
CAL CHAMBER IS OFTEN SPONSORED
LEGISLATION IN THE STATE
ASSEMBLY. CORRECT. WE HAVE
SPONSORED BILLS IN THE ASSEMBLY.
AND WHAT OFTEN HOW DO YOU
DESCRIBE WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE
THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL FROM
YOUR POINT OF VIEW? WHAT DUTIES
DOES THAT INVOLVE THAT THAT
YOU'RE CONCERNED? MIGHT IMPACT
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHEN
YOU'RE THE SPONSOR OF A BILL OR
YOU'RE NEGOTIATING ON A, ON A
BILL, OKAY. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE
ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP HERE TO
THE BILL, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING
OF SPONSORING LEGISLATION
GENERALLY INVOLVES, SORT OF
BRINGING A BILL IDEA TO A
LEGISLATURE FOR, AND THEN AND
OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTING THAT
LEGISLATION, CERTAINLY AT THE
BEGINNING AND GENERALLY ALL THE
WAY THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS. SO YOU'RE INVOLVED IN
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. I THINK
YOU'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THE
LEGISLATION. AND YOU WILL IT
DEPENDS ON WHO IT IS. AND I
MEAN, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR DO YOU
HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION TO THE
BILL, ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALLY?
YEAH, MY POINT ON THE BILL IS
THAT YOU YOU SAID IN YOUR
ARGUMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW,
PRIVATE PARTIES SHOULD BE ABLE
TO SHOULD BE FREE TO ENTER AN
NDAS. BUT MY POINT IS, YOU'RE
NOT A PRIVATE PARTY WHEN YOU'RE
SPONSORING A BILL, YOU'RE
NEGOTIATING A BILL. YOU ARE
ACTING AS AN AUXILIARY TO THE
LEGISLATURE. YOU ARE PROVIDING
KING LANGUAGE. YOU'RE
NEGOTIATING LANGUAGE ON BEHALF
OF LEGISLATORS OR THE GOVERNOR.
SO MY, MY POINT IS, YOU'RE NOT
REALLY A PRIVATE ACTOR. YOU'RE
AN AUXILIARY OF THE LEGISLATURE.
AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE
GOING TO ENGAGE IN LEGISLATIVE
ACTIVITIES, WHY SHOULD YOU NOT
BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SUNSHINE
SHINE TRANSPARENCY RULES AS
LEGISLATORS? I CAN'T ENTER INTO
AN NDA. I WOULDN'T WANT TO, BUT
WHY? WHY SHOULD YOU NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE TO THE
TRANSPARENCY RULES THAT WE ARE?
WELL, LET ME JUST. I'VE NEVER
HEARD OF ANYBODY BEING REFERRED
TO AS THE AN AUXILIARY AUXILIARY
TO THE LEGISLATURE. YEAH, IT'S A
VERY IT'S A VERY COMMON TERM
AUXILIARY. YOU PROVIDE SUPPORT
TO THE LEGISLATURE MEANS I JUST
HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANYBODY.
DESCRIBE SOMEBODY SPONSORING
LEGISLATION AS AN AUXILIARY TO
THE LEGISLATURE. SO, I'M NOT
SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT
SORT OF DESCRIPTION OF IT,
AGAIN, OUR LONG STANDING WE HAVE
A LONG STANDING POLICY. THERE
HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF BILLS
ATTEMPTED TO SORT OF LIMIT
CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
PRIVATE PARTIES. WE HAVE HAD A
LONG STANDING HISTORY OF
OPPOSING THOSE BILLS. I LISTED A
FEW EXAMPLES FROM THE PAST, FROM
RECENT YEARS. YOU KNOW, OUR READ
AND INTERPRETATION OF THE BILL
IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT WOULD DO
SO, THAT THIS WOULD LIMIT THE
ABILITY FOR CONFIDENTIAL
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES, AND THAT IS GOING TO BE
SOMETHING THAT WE OPPOSE. OKAY
LET ME MOVE ON TO. OKAY. YES,
PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO
MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION, CAN
YOU GIVE ME SOME SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT YOU BELIEVE
NEEDS TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL
DURING THESE LEGISLATIVE
DRAFTING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
PARTIES? WHAT'S THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE WORRIED
THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED
THROUGH AN NDA? EITHER OF YOU
CAN ANSWER, THANK YOU. AND I'M
SORRY TO KEEP STEALING THE MIC.
ROBERT MURRAY, CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE I MEAN, TO
THE POINT I MADE EARLIER ABOUT.
RIGHT. YOU ARE LIMITING YOUR
QUESTIONS TO SPONSORSHIP, RIGHT?
BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY BROADER
THAN SPONSORSHIP. THE BILL
DOESN'T SAY THAT. RIGHT THE BILL
IS ANY DISCUSSION OR DRAFTING
AROUND LEGISLATION. SO AS I
SAID, IF YOU ARE, LET'S IMAGINE
THAT I'M A FOOD CHAIN WHO HAS A
PARTICULAR RECIPE THAT INVOLVES
CERTAIN CHEMICALS. RIGHT. AND
IT'S THIS IS MY THIS IS MY MOST
IMPORTANT RECIPE. WHEN
LEGISLATION COMES UP AROUND
THOSE TOPICS, I NEED TO HAVE
TOLD MY LOBBYISTS, HEY,
SPECIFICALLY, WE ACTUALLY USE
EXACTLY THESE THINGS, RIGHT? AND
THAT'S THE KIND OF TRADE SECRET
THAT I NEED TO BE ABLE TO LIMIT
WITH THEM. OTHERWISE IF THEY
QUIT NEXT YEAR AND GO TO ANOTHER
FOOD CHAIN OR ANOTHER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY OR OTHERS,
RIGHT? THAT FORMULA IS NOW OUT
THERE. I NEED TO BE ABLE TO
LIMIT THAT FOR THEM. AND THAT
INVOLVES DISCUSSIONS AROUND
LEGISLATION WITH MY TRADE
SECRETS. SO I THINK THAT'S THE
KIND OF INFORMATION THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO US. AND I THINK
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU
KNOW, LOBBYISTS HAVE TO KNOW
ABOUT IN ORDER TO DO THEIR JOB.
BUT I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THIS. SO YOU ARE A
FOOD MAKER. AND SO YOU TELL YOUR
LOBBYISTS, LOBBYIST WORKS FOR
YOU. IT'S NOT A THIRD PARTY,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN THIRD PARTIES IN THE
NEGOTIATION OF LEGISLATIVE
TERMS. SO WHY DOES THE THIRD
PARTY NEED TO KNOW YOUR RECIPE?
THEY WOULD JUST NEED TO KNOW
THAT. LOOK, I USE THIS
INGREDIENT AND I DON'T WANT IT
IN THE BILL. WHY DOES THAT
REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF TRADE
SECRETS OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION? WELL, I THINK
YOU'RE I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU'RE BLENDING TWO THINGS THAT
I DON'T. I DON'T THINK THE BILL
IS ACTUALLY LIMITED IN THE WAY
YOU'RE DISCUSSING IT. THIS WOULD
DEAL WITH ANY AGREEMENT AMONGST
LOBBYISTS AROUND LEGISLATION. SO
YOU WE'RE USING A TERM AROUND
THIRD PARTY VERSUS IN-HOUSE
LOBBYISTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT
THAT DISTINCTION IS ACTUALLY IN
THE BILL. AND SECOND, AGAIN, YOU
KNOW, I AM MUCH OF WHAT
LOBBYISTS DO, RIGHT, IS WE ARE
IN THIS BUILDING LISTENING AND
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW
WHAT'S COMING. AND SO THEN WE
CAN GO BACK AND ASK OUR CLIENTS,
DOES THIS AFFECT YOU? IS THIS
PART OF IT? RIGHT. AND AS PART
OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, I DON'T
EVEN OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT IN-HOUSE.
I'M A TRADE ASSOCIATION. BUT FOR
IN-HOUSE FOLKS, I DON'T EVEN
KNOW WHAT TO WATCH FOR SECURITY
CONCERNS, PROPRIETARY CONCERNS.
I DON'T NEED TO KNOW. I DON'T
EVEN KNOW WHAT TO WATCH UNLESS I
CAN BE BRIEFED ON THOSE THINGS.
AND SO THAT IMMEDIATELY IS ME
KNOWING A TRADE SECRET, NEEDING
AN NDA THAT IS GOING TO BE
AROUND LEGISLATION. AND UNDER
THIS BILL, WE DON'T SEE THOSE
NDAS AS POSSIBLE, WHICH MEANS I
CAN'T BRIEF MY LOBBYISTS FULLY.
I DON'T READ THE BILL THAT WAY.
BUT AGAIN, IF WE WERE TO
CLARIFY, THIS BILL DOES NOT
APPLY TO THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A LOBBYIST AND THEIR
CLIENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
THIRD PARTIES TALKING TO EACH
OTHER, ONE LOBBYIST TALKING TO
ANOTHER LOBBYIST OR ONE LABOR
UNION TALKING TO ANOTHER TRADE
UNION. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN YOU AND
YOUR CLIENT. I THINK YOU'RE
CONFLATING THE TWO ON PURPOSE.
SO WHY DOES A THIRD PARTY NOT
YOUR CLIENT? WHY DOES ANOTHER
PARTY AT THE NEGOTIATION TABLE
NEED ANY TRADE SECRETS? WHY DO
THEY NEED ANY CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION WHEN WE'RE CRAFTING
LEGISLATION? WHY IS THAT? YEAH,
I DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CAN I
THAT IS A SPECIFIC QUESTION.
LET'S OKAY. LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO THE OFFICE. ANY SECRETS THAT
NEED TO BE KEPT? WE HAVE THE
AUTHOR WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
LET HIM SPEAK. LET ME LET ME
JUST FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THIS
BILL, UNTIL ALL THE MEMBERS THIS
BILL DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE
NORMAL USE OF NDAS TO PROTECT
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, WHAT IS
NOT SENSITIVE OR PRIVATE
INFORMATION, HOWEVER, IS
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE. AND THAT
IS THIS IS WHAT OUR BILL IS
TRYING TO FOCUS ON. IS THAT THE
USE OF NDAS IN TERMS OF CRAFTING
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE, CURRENT
LAW ALREADY PROHIBITS SENSITIVE
INFORMATION FROM BEING RELEASED.
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS
ACT ALREADY EXEMPTS TRADE
SECRETS AND OTHER PROTECTED
INFORMATION. THIS IS WHY, WHERE
I DISAGREE WITH THE OPPONENTS
AND THE OTHER POINT I JUST WANT
TO MAKE IS THAT YES, THERE ARE
HEARINGS. WE'RE HERE IN A
COMMITTEE HEARING, AND THERE
MEMBERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS IN
RESPONSE TO THE OPPOSITION. BUT
BUT WHAT I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT
IS THE IS ACTUALLY THE ASKING
QUESTIONS. WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT IS THE ANSWERS. SO IF WE
ARE NOT ABLE, AS LEGISLATORS OR
THE PUBLIC, TO GET ANSWERS OR TO
GET A FULL PICTURE OF HOW
PROVISIONS OR LAWS ARE BEING
CRAFTED, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO GET AT WITH THIS BILL.
IT'S NARROWLY FOCUSED. WE'RE NOT
DEALING WITH PROPRIETARY
INFORMATION OR SENSITIVE
INFORMATION AMONGST PRIVATE
PARTIES OR WITHIN, AN ADVOCATE
AND THEIR CLIENT. WE'RE TRYING
TO GET TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, THE VERY THING THAT ALL
OF US AS MEMBERS WHO I ALL
RESPECT, ALL OF YOU DEARLY, IS
THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THIS
INSTITUTION. AND THAT'S THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THIS
BILL, IS THAT IF AN NDA IS BEING
USED TO SHIELD INFORMATION TO
LEGISLATORS OR THE PUBLIC ON HOW
A BILL WAS DRAFTED OR MADE, WE
CAN ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS WE
WANT. BUT THE ANSWERS ARE WHAT
WE WANT, AND THE ANSWERS ARE NOT
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IF THE
NDAS ARE ALLOWED TO BE USED, CAN
I ACCEPT THAT AS YOU'RE CLOSE?
NO I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M NOT DONE WITH MY
QUESTIONING. I'D LIKE TO ASK
SPECIFICALLY. I KNOW IT'S. WE
TALK IN THE BROAD, BUT LET'S
TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS
FAST FOOD BILL. THERE WAS. YOU
DON'T DENY AN NDA WAS USED
BETWEEN SEIU AND THE FRANCHISEE
ASSOCIATION IN IN THAT CONTEXT,
CORRECT? I HAVE NO IDEA. NO, NO,
YOU'RE HERE TO DEFEND THIS, TO
OPPOSE THIS BILL. YOU'RE NOT
AWARE. EXCUSE ME ABOUT THAT. ARE
YOU AWARE THAT AN NDA HAPPENED?
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
HAPPENED IN ANOTHER BILL. I I'M
ASKING YOU WHERE THAT AN NDA WAS
USED IN THAT CONTEXT. I AM NOT
AWARE. I'VE OBVIOUSLY SEEN NEWS
REPORTS THAT I THINK EVERYBODY
LET'S ASSUME IT WAS NOT AWARE.
LET'S ASSUME IT WAS AWARE. OKAY.
YOU'RE SAYING I WOULD STILL BE
ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS ON THAT
BILL AND HOW THAT LANGUAGE GOT
IN THERE. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING
AT THE PANERA, MAYBE THERE WILL
BE EXAMPLES OF YOU WILL HAVE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS, YOU'LL HAVE
OPPORTUNITIES ON THE FLOOR. YOU
WILL HAVE A NUMBER OF
OPPORTUNITIES. SO I WANT I WANT
TO PLAY THAT OUT. SO I SEE
THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR A BREAD
MAKER IN FAST FOOD WHO HAPPENS
TO BE PANERA IN THERE. AND I
WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT GOT
IN THERE. SO I WILL ASK THE
AUTHOR, HOW DID PANERA GET AN
EXEMPTION IN THE BILL? AND THE
AUTHOR IS GOING TO SAY HE
DOESN'T KNOW BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
NEGOTIATE IT. SO HOW WILL I GET
THE ANSWER TO THAT IF THERE'S AN
NDA BETWEEN THE PARTIES? WHO
WROTE THAT LANGUAGE? CAN I ASK A
POINT OF CLARIFICATION? POINT OF
ORDER, MADAM CHAIR. NO EXCUSE
ME, EXCUSE ME. YOU'VE BEEN
TAKING UP A LOT OF TIME. WE HAVE
ANOTHER QUESTION HERE. WELL, MY
QUESTION IS. I SAID EXCUSE ME.
POINT OF ORDER. EXCUSE ME. POINT
OF ORDER. MR. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERMAN, PLEASE PROCEED. POINT OF
ORDER. THE ISSUE THAT WAS JUST
GOT BROUGHT UP IS, IS THE PANERA
GATE LANGUAGE. THE OR THE WHAT
WAS POINTED OUT BY THE NEWS WAS
THAT THERE ARE NDAS BETWEEN THE
FOLLOW ON BILL THAT HAPPENED IN,
I THINK, 2023 LAST YEAR. RIGHT.
DID THAT BILL HAVE THE PANERA
GATE LANGUAGE IN IT? WAS THAT
THE BILL THAT HAD THE ISSUE OF A
BREAD EXEMPTION, OR WAS THAT THE
PRIOR BILL THAT WAS FIRST PASSED
THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA. THERE'S NO
THERE'S BEEN NO, ACCUSATION, I
GUESS YOU COULD SAY THAT THERE
WAS AN NDA USED FOR THE PRIOR
BILL. SO THE PANERA LANGUAGE OR
THE AND, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE
THAT BILL DIDN'T APPLY TO
PANERA, BUT THE BREAD EXEMPTION
LANGUAGE WASN'T IN THE BILL THAT
HAD AN NDA. THE BREAD EXEMPTION
LANGUAGE WAS IN THE PRIOR BILL
THAT WAS PASSED BEFORE THEN,
THAT THERE'S NO INDICATION
WHATSOEVER THAT THERE WAS AN
NDA, NDA IN. SO LET'S GET THE
FACTS RIGHT. ARE YOU TALKING TO
ME OR ARE YOU ASKING QUESTIONS
TO THE WITNESSES? I'M TALKING TO
YOU. OKAY WELL, EITHER WE'RE
GOING TO FOLLOW PROPER DECORUM
HERE OR NOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE. EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WEBER. PLEASE PROCEED. BUT,
MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW IN THAT CONTEXT
. EXCUSE ME. IT IS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WEBBER'S TIME RIGHT NOW
TO BE ABLE TO RUN THE MEETING.
BUT I HAVE TO. GOOD MORNING,
GOOD MORNING, GOOD MORNING, GOOD
MORNING. OKAY, LET'S. LET'S ALL
CALM DOWN. WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD, THANK THOSE WHO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, COME TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT
FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG, I THINK,
ALL OF US IN THE LEGISLATURE ARE
WANT TRANSPARENCY AND ENSURE
THAT THE INFORMATION IS ABLE TO
GET OUT, NOT ONLY TO US, BUT
ALSO TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS AN
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BILL THAT
DEALS WITH A VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE. WHAT I'M HEARING WITH
SOME OF THE BACK AND FORTH, AS
FAR AS WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS
SAYING VERSUS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
VERSUS WHAT SOME OF THE OTHER
MEMBERS ARE SAYING TO ME, REALLY
GETS DOWN TO THE POINT THAT
THEY'RE PROBABLY NEEDED TO BE
MORE TIME IN DRAFTING THIS BILL,
SO THAT YOU COULD REALLY SIT
DOWN WITH SOME OF THE OPPOSITION
AND HASH OUT SOME OF THESE
POINTS, ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE
BILL IS TOO BROAD, WHERE SOME OF
THE THINGS COULD BE TWEAKED A
LITTLE BIT TO ENSURE THAT, THAT
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF TRADE SECRET
TRADE SECRETS. EXCUSE ME TO BE
EXPOSED, THE FACT THAT THIS BILL
JUST CAME FORWARD A WEEK AGO,
DOES NOT OFTENTIMES ALLOW FOR
THOSE KIND OF CONVERSATIONS. AND
SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS
THAT IF THIS BILL DOES NOT MAKE
IT OUT OF COMMITTEE, THAT YOU
CONTINUE TO WORK OR, YOU KNOW,
TAP SOMEONE TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS ISSUE, SO THAT SOMETHING
COULD BE BROUGHT BACK THAT
EVERYONE IS KIND OF IN AGREEMENT
WITH. AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. SO
I CERTAINLY HAVE TREMENDOUS
RESPECT FOR YOU AND THE
QUESTIONS, THE TIMELINE IS
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I'M
VERY SENSITIVE TO, THE REASON
WHY THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED, WE
LEARNED OF, OF THE USE OF NDAS
AFTER THE BILL DEADLINE, THAT
THAT WAS WHAT SPURRED THIS, THIS
BILL AND WHY THE TIMELINE HAS
BEEN HAS BEEN SHRUNK, AND SO
THIS IS THE IMPETUS OF, OF THIS,
OF THIS HEARING AND EVERYTHING
THAT'S TRANSPIRED. WE, OF
COURSE, HAVE BEEN IN
CONVERSATIONS WITH WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WE HAVE OFFERED,
CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION. WE DID NOT COME TO
AN AGREEMENT. AND SO THIS IS WHY
THE BILL HAS MOVED FORWARD. I
WILL JUST LIKE TO SAY, JUST IN
RESPECT TO THIS COMMITTEE, IS
THAT BILLS HAVE MOVED THROUGH
COMMITTEES, IN OTHER COMMITTEES,
AND WHERE WE WERE GIVEN TIME TO
WORK OUT THIS LANGUAGE, IF THERE
WERE AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY THE
THIRD PARTY RULES AND TO AND TO
ENSURE OTHER GUARDRAILS WERE
HAPPILY, WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO DO THAT. WE WERE
NOT PRESENTED ANY ANY AMENDMENTS
AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE
SUGGESTED OURSELVES, WERE WERE
NOT ACCEPTED. AND SO LOOK, AS
THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, WE SEE BUDGET BILLS,
BUDGET JUNIORS, TRAILER BILLS
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
VERY LITTLE TIME TO REVIEW OR
ANALYZE. AND SO I DO UNDERSTAND
THE TIMELINE. PERSPECTIVE. BUT
YOU AND I AND ALL OF US HAVE
BEEN HERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME,
UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN MOVE
LEGISLATION VERY RAPIDLY. THIS
MORNING WAS A GUT AND AMEND ON A
BILL THAT THE GOVERNOR WANTED.
THAT WAS DONE IN A MATTER OF
DAYS. AND SO, SO I JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS BILL,
WHEN IT IS IN THE IMPORTANCE OF
PRESERVING THE LAW MAKING
PROCESS OF THIS INSTITUTION,
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD
TO PRESERVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE
PEOPLE EXPECT US TO DO WHEN WE
WORK ON BEHALF ON THEIR BEHALF.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WEBER. YES THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
THAT. AND, I DO REMEMBER YOU ARE
ONE OF THE MAIN PEOPLE THAT
ALWAYS SPEAKS UP AND SPEAKS IN
OPPOSITION WHEN WE'RE MOVING TOO
FAST ON A BILL. SO, THANK YOU
FOR THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE BILL? I HAVE A
COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS, MADAM
CHAIR, I STILL WOULD LIKE AN
ANSWER TO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF
THERE IS AN NDA IN PLACE, THE
PARTIES TO THE NDA NEGOTIATED
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT GOES INTO
A BILL, AND I ASK THE AUTHOR OF
THE BILL ABOUT HOW THAT LANGUAGE
CAME TO BE, AND THE AUTHOR SAYS,
I DON'T KNOW. YOU NEED TO GO
TALK TO THE PEOPLE THAT
NEGOTIATED IT. HOW AM I GOING TO
GET THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTION?
IF THERE'S AN NDA IN PLACE TO
PREVENT THE DISCLOSURE OF THAT
INFORMATION? SO I AGAIN, I THINK
YOU WERE THE ORIGINAL QUESTION
WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SORT OF
SAGA OF AB 1228 LAST YEAR, AND
THEN I THINK IT WAS AB 257
BEFORE THAT. AND THEN THE
PROVISION YOU WERE ALLUDING TO
THAT MIGHT MEMORY WAS I DON'T
HAVE IT PULLED UP IN FRONT OF
ME, BUT MY MEMORY WAS THAT, THE,
THE SORT OF BREAD PROVISION THAT
YOU WERE ALLUDING TO WAS IN THE
BILL THAT WAS VOTED ON IN 2022,
WHEN I BELIEVE EVERYBODY IN THIS
COMMITTEE WAS IN THE, STILL IN
THE ASSEMBLY, AND I DON'T
REMEMBER. AND THAT WAS CERTAINLY
BEFORE, AS IT'S BEEN REPORTED.
YOU JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION,
PLEASE. WELL, YOU'RE ASKING A
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT HE WAS NOT EVEN
IN THE ROOM ABOUT. SO I THINK
THIS IS GETTING A LITTLE ABSURD.
SO WHAT IS YOUR OTHER QUESTION?
I STILL WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER.
HOW AM I, AS A LEGISLATOR, GOING
TO FIND OUT HOW THIS TEXT CAME
TO BE? IF THERE'S AN NDA IN
PLACE THAT PREVENTS THE
INFORMATION FROM GETTING TO ME,
I NEED TO KNOW WHAT IF YOU WERE
IN A ROOM, YOU SAID, YOU KNOW
WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAS AN
IMPORTANT DONOR. WE NEED THIS
EXEMPTION. HOW AM I GOING TO
FIND THAT OUT? YOU KNOW THAT'S
NOT THE CASE. WE DON'T KNOW,
MADAM CHAIR. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY
HEARINGS. WHAT YOU SEE IS THE
BILL. YOU SEE THE BILL IN PRINT.
YOU SEE THE AMENDMENTS IN PRINT.
AND IF YOU READ THAT BILL
CAREFULLY, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT DOES. THERE WAS
CORRUPTION INVOLVED IN DRAFTING
THE BILL. SO WE'RE NOT TURNING
THIS INTO THIS. IF YOU HAVE
ANOTHER SPECIFIC QUESTION,
PLEASE ASK IT. OTHERWISE WE ARE
GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING. LAST
QUESTION.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FONG? YOU MAY CLOSE. AT THE
HEART OF THIS BILL IS OUR
TRANSPARENCY. AND IN RESPONSE TO
THE BROAD. OH, SORRY. LET ME
START AGAIN. AT THE HEART OF
THIS BILL HIT THE WRONG BUTTON.
IS OUR. IS OUR DUTY TO BE
TRANSPARENT, IN RESPONSE TO THE
OVERLY BROAD DEFINITION OF
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS, THERE
HAVE BEEN LEGISLATION. THERE ARE
BILLS MOVING THROUGH THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT USE THE
EXACT DEFINITION OF
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS. SO IF
THERE IS A CONCERN OF THE
NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
DEFINITION BEING TOO BROAD, THEN
I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY THOSE
OTHER BILLS THAT USE IT AS WELL.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE
AMENDMENTS AND MAKE CHANGES. IF
THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD AS AS
THE OPPOSITION STATES, NOTHING
PREVENTS US FROM ASKING
QUESTIONS IN COMMITTEE MEETINGS
OR ON THE FLOOR. IT'S NOT ABOUT
THE QUESTIONS. IT'S THE ANSWERS
WE'RE TRYING TO GET. WE AND OUR
CONSTITUENTS DESERVE TO KNOW THE
BACKGROUND AND THE TRUTH OF WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN BILLS ARE BEING
DRAFTED. AND THIS IS WHY THIS
BILL IS NARROWLY FOCUSED ON
THAT. WHO WANTED A PROVISION?
WHAT ORGANIZATION? WHO LAWS? I
MEAN, LAWS DON'T MAGICALLY
APPEAR IN THIS BUILDING. AND
SOMEONE DRAFTED IT, SOMEONE
ASKED FOR IT AND SO WHEN AS
LEGISLATORS, WE DESERVE TO KNOW
HOW THOSE HOW THE LEGISLATIVE
SAUSAGE WAS MADE. AND SO NDAS
PREVENT THE TRANSPARENCY AND
DISCLOSURE OF THOSE ANSWERS TO
OUR QUESTIONS. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT. I
DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE CHAIR'S
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND
THE TIMELINESS OF THESE
AMENDMENTS. AND THIS WAS OUR
ONLY OPTION. AS I SAID BEFORE,
THE NDAS THAT THAT CAME OUT IN
IN, IN THE REPORTING AND IN, IN
THE MEDIA AND HOW IT WAS, HOW
THOSE HOW THAT INFORMATION WAS
REVEALED WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE
PUBLIC UNTIL THE DEADLINE TO
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION HAD
PASSED. AND THAT IS WHY, WHILE
I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE
PROCESS AND TRYING TO SLOW
THINGS DOWN, THIS WAS WHY THIS
LEGISLATION WAS CRAFTED IN THE
WAY IT WAS. AND AS I SAID
BEFORE, AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
BUDGET COMMITTEE, WE'VE HAD
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BILLS THAT
HAVE MOVED VERY RAPIDLY. AND
YES, I CAUTION AGAINST MOVING
QUICKLY FOR, FOR THOSE BILLS.
THIS IS THE FIRST COMMITTEE TO
TRY TO GET THE CONVERSATION
STARTED SO THEY CAN GET IT OVER
THE SENATE AND HAVE A, A LONGER
DISCUSSION AS, AS A LEGISLATOR.
AND I KNOW ALL OF YOU UNDERSTAND
THIS. WE ARE TRYING TO PULL THE
CURTAIN BACK AND ALLOW
LEGISLATORS AND THE PUBLIC TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING WHEN
LAWS ARE BEING MADE. IT IS NOT
IT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WE
ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SHIELD
THE PUBLIC FROM INFORMATION AND
FROM LEGISLATORS AS WELL, THAT
IS CRITICAL TO OUR VOTES AND TO
HOW LAWS ARE BEING MADE. AND SO,
I MEAN, THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
ME AND THIS IS A CORE PRINCIPLE
AS A AS A LEGISLATOR. AND I KNOW
THAT ALL OF YOU SHARE THIS
CONCERN, AND WANT TO MAKE THE
BEST LAWS POSSIBLE, BUT TO
ENSURE THAT WE MAKE THE BEST
LAWS POSSIBLE IS TO ENSURE THAT
WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION
BEING MADE AND NDAS BEING USED
IN THE LAW MAKING OR CRAFTING OF
LAWS THAT THAT PROCESS HAS TO BE
DISCOURAGED AND ELIMINATED. SO
TO THAT END, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR IVO. THANK YOU. AND I JUST
HAVE ONE QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND
THAT YOU FIRST CAME UP WITH THIS
IDEA ON MARCH 8TH, AND WE'RE NOW
LOOKING AT IT WAS AMENDED APRIL
18TH. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT
WAS HAPPENING DURING THAT TIME
PROCESS. IT TOOK TIME TO FOR
THOSE AMENDMENTS TO CROSS. SO
THE WAY THAT THE AMENDMENT
PROCESS WORKS ONCE WE INDICATED
THAT IT HAD TO TAKE IT TOOK THAT
TIME TO OKAY, THOSE AMENDMENTS.
JUST CURIOUS. OKAY SO I MEAN, WE
WORKED WITH THE GEO COMMITTEE,
EVERYTHING HAS BEEN, AS I SAID
BEFORE, FULLY TRANSPARENT IN
TERMS OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE DRAFTED, A GHUTNE AMEND.
OKAY. SO, WE HAVE A MOTION, BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH, A SECOND
BY VICE CHAIR LACKEY.
TRANSPARENCY AND GOVERNMENT IS
PARAMOUNT. AND IT BUILDS TRUST
AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR ELECTED
OFFICIALS. AND WHEN LEGISLATORS
VOTE ON BILLS, WE DO SO IN A
PUBLICLY NOTICED HEARINGS AND
FLOOR SESSIONS AND DO SO WITH
THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC INPUT AND
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, BILL
ANALYZES AND SCRUTINIZE THE
POLICIES PROPOSED IN THOSE
BILLS. TO BE CLEAR, I AM NOT
AWARE OF ANY REPORTING, AND THE
AUTHOR HAS NOT POINTED TO ANY
THAT SUGGESTS THAT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS SIGNED NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS OR ASKED ANYONE ELSE
TO DO SO AS PART OF LEGISLATIVE
NEGOTIATIONS. SO THE CRUX OF
WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS
ARE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN
PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT LEGISLATIVE
NEGOTIATIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC
OFFICIALS. AND WE'VE HEARD FROM
MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS TODAY
ABOUT WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD BE REGULATING DISCUSSIONS
BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES ABOUT
LEGISLATION. THAT'S A
COMPLICATED ISSUE. AND THIS
COMMITTEE'S ABILITY TO
APPROPRIATELY CONSIDER THAT
ISSUE HAS BEEN HAMPERED BY THE
FACT THAT THE AUTHOR WAITED TO
AMEND THIS BILL UNTIL THE WEEK
BEFORE THE RELEVANT COMMITTEE
DEADLINE BECAUSE OF THAT DELAY,
THE BILL ONLY REFERRED TO THE
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE ON MONDAY
AFTERNOON. THIS RUSHED PROCESS,
WHICH NECESSITATED AN EXPEDITED
HEARING BY THIS COMMITTEE,
PREVENTED THIS BILL FROM
RECEIVING THE LEVEL OF SCRUTINY
AND THE ANALYSIS THAT BILLS
NORMALLY RECEIVE BEFORE BEING
HEARD. IT IS ALSO RESTRICTED THE
PUBLIC'S ABILITY TO REVIEW AND
ANALYZE THIS BILL AND TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC COMMENTS. SO WHILE I TAKE
THE AUTHOR AT HIS WORD THAT HE
INTRODUCED THIS BILL IN AN
EFFORT TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY
IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FOR THIS
BILL HAS NOT LIVED UP TO THAT
STANDARD OF TRANSPARENCY AND I
THINK WE ALL WANT AND DESERVE
FOR THAT REASON, I WILL NOT BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. I
ENCOURAGE YOU, THOUGH, TO BRING
IT BACK NEXT TIME FOR A FULL
DISCUSSION. SO, MADAM CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION, IF I
MAY. I MADE A MOTION TO PASS THE
BILL. I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO MAKE
A MOTION TO PASS THE BILL AND
MAKE IT SUBJECT TO RECALL THIS
TO THIS COMMITTEE HERE. SO THAT
WAY THE BILL DOES NOT DIE TODAY,
BUT WE CAN BRING IT BACK AND
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. SO MY I
AMEND MY MOTION. I WANT TO PASS
THE BILL AND MAKE IT SUBJECT TO
RECALL TO THIS POLICY COMMITTEE,
MR. LACKEY, IF YOU'D BE WILLING
TO SECOND THAT. THANK YOU.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON
WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THE
SUBSTITUTE MOTION. OKAY? OKAY.
OKAY. MADAM SECRETARY, CALL THE
ROLL. PELLERIN. NØ. PELLERIN. NØ
LACKEY A LACKEY I, BENNETT.
BENNETT NOT VOTING. BERMAN.
BERMAN. NOT VOTING. HANEY. NOT
VOTING. NOT VOTING A SALLY A
SALLY I LOW. WEBER WEBER NOT
VOTING ON THE MOTION. MOTION SO
THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION HAS FAILED
. ARE WE BACK TO THE ANOTHER
MOTION TO PASS THE BILL OUT? I
THINK IT JUST STANDS RIGHT. OKAY
SO THE MOTION TO MOVE THE BILL
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBERS SALLY,
SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR LACKEY.
MADAM SECRETARY, CALL THE ROLL
ON AB 2654 BY VINCE FONG. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND BE RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN. NO.
PELLERIN NO. LACKEY. LACKEY I
BENNETT, BEN. NOT VOTING.
BERMAN. NOT. BERMAN, NOT VOTING.
HANEY. HANEY. NOT VOTING. ASAHI.
ASAHI. I LOW. WEBER. WEBER. NOT
VOTING. THAT FAILS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
RECONSIDERATION I'LL SECOND IT.
WITHOUT WITHOUT OBJECTION. OKAY.
OKAY THAT MIGHT. YEAH. I'M NOT
SURE HOW THIS WORKS. HANG ON ONE
SECOND. WITHOUT OBJECTION,
RECONSIDERATION CAN BE GRANTED.
THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SURE
. OH. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. VERY NICE.
YEAH.
MEETING'S ADJOURNED