GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE
COMMITTEE'S FIRST HEARING OF THE
YEAR, AT WHICH WE WILL HEAR NEW
AUDIT REQUESTS. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO A PRODUCTIVE HEARING TODAY.
SEEING THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNER HERE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNER HERE. HEART HERE.
HOOVER HERE. PATTERSON HERE.
QUIRK-SILVA HERE. RUBIO VALENCIA
. SENATOR. LAIRD. HERE CORTEZ.
HERE EGGMAN. GONZALEZ MIN. SATO.
HERE WILK. PRESENT. A QUORUM IS
ESTABLISHED. THANK YOU. MEMBERS
BEFORE WE TAKE UP ANY OTHER
ITEMS, WE HAVE A HOUSEKEEPING
ITEM TO TAKE CARE OF. THE
COMMITTEE NEEDS TO ELECT A
CHAIR. THIS TAKES A MAJORITY
VOTE OF THE JLAC MEMBERS IN EACH
HOUSE. IS THERE A MOTION I WOULD
MOVE THAT WE ELECT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GREG HART AS THE CHAIR
OF. THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD.
AND THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER, MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MOTION
TO ELECT ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART AS
CHAIR OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. BERNER AYE. BERNER I
HEART, I HEART I HOOVER. HOOVER
I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I QUIRK.
SILVA. QUIRK-SILVA I RUBIO I
RUBIO I VALENCIA. SENATOR. LAIRD
I. LAIRD I CORTEZ. CORTEZ I
EGGMAN. GONZALEZ MIN. SATO I
SATO I WILK I WILK I. THANK YOU
MEMBERS I LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH EACH OF YOU THIS
YEAR. UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS
. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE
STATE AUDITOR'S REPORT. PLEASE
STATE AUDITOR. PARKS. THANK YOU.
CHAIR HART AND. VICE CHAIR LAIRD
GRANT. PARKS. STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE. HAPPY TO BE WITH YOU
THIS AFTERNOON AND LOOK FORWARD
TO A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION ON
HEARING AUDITS, THROUGHOUT THE
DAY, BY WAY OF AN OVERVIEW OF
THE STATUS OF MY OFFICE'S WORK
IN PROGRESS, OUR ABILITY TO
START JLAC AUDITS IS REALLY
DEPENDENT ON OUR STATUTORY WORK
THAT WE HAVE GOING ON AT ANY
GIVEN POINT IN TIME. SO I START
WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE
STATUTORY WORK THAT WE HAVE IN
PROGRESS AT THE MOMENT. IN OUR
FINANCIAL AUDIT DIVISION, WE
HAVE SEVEN STATUTORY AUDITS IN
PROGRESS. MOST OF THAT PERTAINS
TO THE FINANCIAL AUDIT AND
RELATED PRODUCTS. BUT JUST AS
IMPORTANTLY, IN OUR PERFORMANCE
AUDIT DIVISION, WE HAVE THREE
STATUTORY AUDITS IN PROGRESS.
THAT'S CAMPUS CRIME REPORTING
UNDER THE CLERY ACT. IT'S THE
PROPOSITION 56 TOBACCO TAX
AUDIT, AND IT'S THE CANNABIS
GRANT PROGRAM AUDIT AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL.
THAT WAS AN OUTCOME OF THE
BUDGET ACT, I BELIEVE, OF 2021.
IN ADDITION TO THOSE THREE
AUDITS THAT ARE PERFORMANCE
AUDIT DIVISION HAS UNDERWAY,
WHICH AGAIN IMPACTS OUR ABILITY
TO DO JLAC WORK. WE HAVE SIX
ADDITIONAL STATUTORY AUDITS THAT
WE NEED TO START, IN THE FALL,
ONE OF THOSE INCLUDES, UPDATE OF
OUR LOCAL HIGH RISK PROGRAM WILL
BE VISITING A VARIETY OF CITIES,
LYNWOOD, WEST COVINA, EL CERRITO
, MONTEBELLO, BLYTHE, SAN
GABRIEL AND LINDSAY. WE'RE ALSO
EXPECTING TO START THIS FALL AT
THE UC SYSTEM AND AUDIT OF THEIR
NAGPRA PROGRAM. IT'S A AUDIT
THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE. WE HAVE OUR
STATE BAR AUDIT THAT'S COMING
UP. WE HAVE OUR JUDICIAL BRANCH
PROCUREMENT AUDIT THAT'S COMING
UP. WE HAVE A FISCAL, FISCAL
RATHER STATUS MONITORING REPORT
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE STARTING
THIS FALL. AND ANOTHER
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS AUDIT.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I WILL
ALSO MENTION FOR THE COMMITTEE
THAT ALL 13 AUDITS THAT WERE
APPROVED AT THE LAST JLAC
HEARING ARE UNDERWAY AND ARE IN
PROGRESS. I EXPECT MOST OF THOSE
AUDITS TO BE RELEASED THIS
SPRING AND INTO THE SUMMER. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE WAGE COMMISSIONER
AUDIT IS GOING TO BE RELEASED ON
MAY 29TH, AND THE èC
CONTRACTING AUDIT ON ONLINE
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IS SCHEDULED
TO BE RELEASED ON JUNE 6TH, WE
HAVE 12 AUDITS ON THE AGENDA
TODAY. MOST OF THEM ARE ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. AND BASED ON
OUR CURRENT WORKLOAD FORECASTS,
I ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO START
THE MAJORITY OF THEM BEFORE THE
END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. WITH
ALL OF THE AUDITS STARTED NO
LATER THAN MARCH. AND WITH THAT,
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. PARKS,
QUESTIONS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER. THANK YOU, I WANT TO GO
BACK TO ONE OF OUR LAST JLAC
MEETINGS WHERE WE, APPROVED THE
2023. I THINK IT'S 2020, 20
3-126. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
COLLEGES. INSTRUCTOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE, MINISTER, SPEND
THING. WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE
CATEGORIZATION OF COSTS AND
POSITIONS THAT ADDRESS STUDENT
SUPPORT, BUT NOT ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE 50. AND WE HAD
ASKED, LIKE, COULD WE INCLUDE
THAT INTO ITEM TEN? I THINK IT
WAS ITEM TEN OR ITEM 11. I THINK
IT'S ITEM TEN. SO COULD YOU GIVE
US AN UPDATE ON HOW YOU'VE
DECIDED TO APPROACH THAT SO THAT
THAT AUDIT IS UNDERWAY? I'M, I'M
RELUCTANT TO GO INTO THE
METHODOLOGY OF ANY AUDIT THAT WE
HAVE IN PROGRESS, BUT I KNOW WE
ARE WORKING CLOSELY, YOU KNOW,
WITH, WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S
OFFICE AND THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGES, BUT, AT THIS TIME,
I'M, I'M UNPREPARED TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. I'M
MORE THAN HAPPY. HOWEVER,
FOLLOWING THIS HEARING TO GET
BACK TO YOU IN YOUR OFFICE, IF I
HAVE A CHANCE TO CONSULT WITH MY
LEGAL COUNSEL, I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT VIOLATING
ANY AUDIT CONFIDENTIALITY RULES
ABOUT METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH.
AND THAT'S FINE. I THINK OUR
DISCUSSION HAD BEEN AROUND HOW
COULD WE INCLUDE THAT? AND WE
ASKED YOU TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO INCLUDE THAT. SO IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A SCOPE OF AUDIT
QUESTION, NOT A METHODOLOGY
QUESTION. MY UNDERSTANDING, MY
RECOLLECTION FROM OUR KICKOFF
MEETING ON THAT IS WE DID FIND A
WAY TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE
SCOPE OF THE AUDIT. IF WE COULD
FOLLOW UP, THAT WOULD BE
FANTASTIC. THANK YOU. OTHER
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE REPORT. YOU
HAVE A LOT ON YOUR, WORKLOAD,
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT AUDIT
REQUEST NUMBER 2020 4-118,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
AND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES. STATE TELEWORK
POLICIES BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOOVER HAS BEEN MOVED FOR THE
REGULAR CALENDAR TO THE PROPOSED
CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE 12
AUDIT REQUESTS TO CONSIDER THIS
AFTERNOON. NINE OF THESE AUDIT
REQUESTS ARE ON THE PROPOSED
CONSENT CALENDAR. THAT LEAVES US
THREE AUDITS FOR PRESENTATION
THIS AFTERNOON. THE NINE AUDITS
ON THE PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR
ARE NUMBER 2024. DASH 104.
ORANGE COUNTY BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA. NUMBER 2024 DASH
105. THE DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS
CONTROL BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER ERWIN
NUMBER 2024. DASH 106. TWIN
RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BY ASSEMBLY MURATSUCHI NUMBER
2024 DASH 108, ALAMEDA COUNTY BY
SENATOR WAHAB. NUMBER 2024 DASH
109 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY SENATOR
GLAZER. NUMBER 2024 DASH 111
CALIFORNIA COLLEGES BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HART. NUMBER 2020 4-114
CALIFORNIA STATE FACILITIES BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, LOWENTHAL.
NUMBER 2020 4-116, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH BY SENATOR LAIRD.
NUMBER 2020 4-118 STATE TELEWORK
POLICIES BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOOVER. ARE WE STILL IN
AGREEMENT? I MAKE A MOTION.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
RUBIO AND SECOND BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERNER, MADAM SECRETARY,
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR 2020 4-104
ORANGE COUNTY SECTION EIGHT
PROGRAM BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
QUIRK-SILVA 2020 4-105
DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS CONTROL
YOUTH ADVERTISING AND MARKETING
ENFORCEMENT BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ERWIN 2020 4-106 TWIN RIVERS
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHARTER
SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND OVERSIGHT BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, MURATSUCHI 2020
4-108 ALAMEDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
BY SENATOR WAHAB 2020 4-109
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOUSING
ELEMENT REVIEWS, PROCEDURES AND
OVERSIGHT BY SENATOR GLAZER 2020
4-111 CALIFORNIA COLLEGES
AFFORDABLE STUDENT HOUSING BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART 2020 4-114
CALIFORNIA STATE FACILITIES
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
STAFFING CONTRACTS BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWENTHAL, 2020 4-116,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
OFFICE OF AIDS BY SENATOR LAIRD,
2020 4-118, DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES. STATE
TELEWORK POLICIES BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOOVER. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HART. HART I BURNER I BERNER I
HOOVER. HOOVER I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON I VÌ. QUIRK-SILVA
RUBIO. RUBIO I VALENCIA.
SENATOR. LAIRD LAIRD I CORTEZ.
CORTEZ I. EGGMAN GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I MIN MIN I SATO. SATO
I WILK. HI. WILK I. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS. THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS
APPROVED, FOR THE AUDIT REQUEST
THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TODAY.
WILL FOLLOW THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE'S ESTABLISHED FORMAT,
WITH THE MEMBERS PRESENTING
THEIR AUDIT REQUESTS AND SIGN IN
ORDER. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
WILL PRESENT THEIR AUDIT
REQUESTS LAST. EACH MEMBER MAY
HAVE UP TO TWO WITNESSES TO MAKE
BRIEF COMMENTS DURING THEIR
PRESENTATION. THIS WILL BE
FOLLOWED BY THE STATE AUDITOR'S
PRESENTATION OF HIS ANALYSIS.
I'LL THEN INVITE THE AFFECTED
AGENCY TO COME FORWARD TO MAKE
BRIEF COMMENTS AND ANSWER
QUESTIONS. THIS WILL BE FOLLOWED
BY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE
INVITED TO COMMENT ON THEIR
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO EACH
AUDIT REQUEST. NEXT UP IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA'S AUDIT
REQUEST NUMBER. LET'S SEE WHERE
IS THAT NUMBER. 2024-115
DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH OVERSIGHT AND
ENFORCEMENT. ASSEMBLYMAN ORTEGA,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA, THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT
TO YOU MY REQUEST TO AUDIT CAL
OSHA, THE STATE'S AGENCY CHARGED
WITH PROTECTING THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY OF THE STATE'S
APPROXIMATELY 18 MILLION
WORKERS. WHILE IT IS WIDELY
KNOWN THAT CAL OSHA IS
UNDERSTAFFED, WE KNOW VERY
LITTLE ABOUT THE INSPECTION AND
CITATION PROCESS. MÁS, IN
REQUESTING THIS AUDIT, I AM NOT
LOOKING TO BLAME AN UNDERSTAFFED
OR OVERWORKED PUBLIC AGENCY.
INSTEAD I AM INTERESTED IN
UNDERSTANDING DEFICIENCIES IN
THE CURRENT INSPECTION AND
ENFORCEMENT MODELS IN ORDER TO
ENCOURAGE BETTER COMPLIANCE WITH
OUR WORKPLACE SAFETY LAWS AND A
RECENT HEARING THAT I CHAIRED ON
WORKPLACE CONDITIONS FOR FARM
WORKERS, I HEARD WORKER
TESTIMONY ABOUT UNSANITARY
WORKING CONDITIONS, DELAYS IN
RECEIVING RESPONSE RESPONSES TO
COMPLAINTS, LACK OF FOLLOW UP
AFTER AN INSPECTION, THÀNH AND
IF ONE WAS CONCLUDED AT ALL, AND
A LACK OF ENFORCEMENT AS
EVIDENCED BY THE REGULAR
PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATING DOWN
FINES. AS I NOTED IN MY LETTER,
IN 2021, CAL OSHA INSPECTORS
ORDERED $4.6 MILLION IN FINES
FOR COVID 19 SAFETY VIOLATION
FINES AND 200 WORKPLACES. BUT A
YEAR LATER, ONLY 3% OF THE TOTAL
FINES HAD BEEN PAID, AND FOUR
OUT OF THE FIVE CITED EMPLOYERS
WERE APPEALING THEIR FINES. THIS
SHOWS HOW EMPLOYERS FINED BY
OSHA CAN WAIT OUT THE APPEAL
PROCESS AND PAY NOTHING IN THE
INTERIM. THESE PROBLEMS WITHIN
CAL OSHA ENFORCEMENT DO NOT ONLY
AFFECT FARMWORKERS, BUT THEY ARE
SYSTEMIC AND PREVENT THE
DIVISION FROM ADEQUATELY
ENFORCING LABOR LAWS AND LEAVING
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS WITHOUT
THE SUPPORT THAT THEY NEED. THIS
AUDIT WILL PROVIDE THE DATA WE
AS LEGISLATORS NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THESE ISSUES SO THAT
WE CAN BEGIN TO ADDRESS THEM,
REFORM AND IMPROVE CAL OSHA AND
ENSURE THE SAFE WORKPLACE FOR
ALL. AGAIN, I AM NOT HERE TO
TALK ABOUT THE UNDERSTAFFING OF
CAL OSHA. THERE'S BEEN MANY
AUDITS. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THE FOCUS
OF MY AUDIT IS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT
AND CITATIONS. THANK YOU. TOLD
THE AUDIT. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER ORTEGA. MOTION
HAS BEEN MADE, MR. STATE AUDITOR
TIME IS NOW YOURS FOR YOUR
ANALYSIS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA
SEEKS AN AUDIT TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE CAUSES BEHIND CAL
OSHA'S CHALLENGES WHEN
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ENFORCE
HEALTH AND SAFETY LAWS TO
PROTECT WORKERS. WHEN WE LOOKED
AT THE AUDIT REQUEST, IT
BASICALLY INVOLVES FOUR MAIN
AREAS. THE FIRST AREA THAT I'LL
TALK ABOUT IS REALLY A DATA
ANALYSIS QUESTION, WHERE OVER A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD, WE'RE GOING TO
BE MAPPING THE COMPLAINTS THAT
COME IN TO CAL OSHA. OF THOSE
COMPLAINTS, UNDERSTANDING HOW
MANY OF THOSE WERE INVESTIGATED,
OF THOSE THAT WERE INVESTIGATED,
HOW MANY FOUND THAT THERE WERE
THERE WAS WRONGDOING. AND OF
THAT HOW WHAT WERE THE FINES
THAT WERE IMPOSED AND HOW MUCH
WAS ULTIMATELY PAID. SO THAT'S
KIND OF ITEM ONE. UNDERSTANDING
WHAT'S THE LIFE CYCLE FROM A
DATA PERSPECTIVE OF THE VOLUME
OF COMPLAINTS AND WHAT WAS DONE
WITH THOSE COMPLAINTS OVER A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD? THE SECOND
AREA WHERE WE'LL LOOK AT DURING
THE AUDIT IS REALLY TAKING A
HARD LOOK AT WHAT IS CAL OSHA
PROCESS FOR INVESTIGATING
COMPLAINTS. THAT'S GOING TO
INVOLVE BOTH LOOKING AT ITS
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, BUT
ALSO SELECTING A SAMPLE OF
COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS TO
UNDERSTAND ARE THEY FOLLOWING
THEIR POLICIES? TO WHAT DEGREE?
FOR EXAMPLE, WHY MIGHT WE SEE
INCONSISTENCIES IN THEIR
APPROACH, SO WE EXPECT A FAIR
AMOUNT OF WORK UNDERSTANDING
BOTH. WHAT'S THE EXPECTATION IN
TERMS OF HOW INVESTIGATIONS ARE
DONE? AND THEN FROM A PRACTICAL
MATTER, HOW ARE THEY ACTUALLY
PROCEEDING WITH CONDUCTING THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS AND WRAPPED IN
THAT IS UNDERSTANDING HOW DO
THEY DECIDE WHAT INVESTIGATIONS
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LAUNCH
VERSUS ONES THEY'RE GOING TO
DECIDE ISN'T WORTH THE EFFORT OR
PERHAPS AREN'T AS SEVERE, SO
WE'LL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH CAL
OSHA ON HOW THEY MAKE SOME OF
THOSE DECISIONS. THE THIRD AREA
WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK DURING
THE AUDIT IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ORTEGA SEEKS INFORMATION ON HOW
CAL OSHA DECIDES TO IMPOSE FINES
AND THEN REDUCES THOSE FINE
AMOUNTS. SO WE'LL BE HAVING
DISCUSSIONS WITH THEIR STAFF
ABOUT WHAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR
THE FINE SETTING PROCESS. WHEN
DO YOU OR WHEN DON'T YOU DECIDE
TO REDUCE THOSE FINES, AND ALSO
TAKING A LOOK AT, WELL, HOW MANY
EMPLOYERS HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN
FINED AND HOW MUCH HAVE THEY
BEEN PAID? AND THEN FOURTH, AND
FINALLY, THE LAST PART THAT THE
AUDIT IS GOING TO COVER REALLY
SEEKS INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER
OF VACANCIES AT CAL OSHA AND
WHAT THE AGENCY HAS DONE WITH
ANY SAVINGS THAT HAS RESULTED
FROM THOSE VACANCIES. HOW HAVE
THOSE SAVINGS BEEN USED, I'M
ANTICIPATING A FAIR AMOUNT OF
WORK FROM OUR INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY AUDITORS TO OBTAIN
THAT DATA SET THAT I TALKED
ABOUT AS THE FIRST OF THE FOUR
ITEMS, THE LIFE CYCLE OF, OF HOW
MUCH IS COMING INTO THE
ORGANIZATION. BUT OVERALL, IT'S
ROUGHLY 3500 HOURS TO COMPLETE.
AND WE HAVE THE RESOURCES TO
START IT. AND SO WITH THAT, I'D
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. DOCTOR
PARKS. SENATOR CORTESE, YOU HAVE
A QUESTION. THANK YOU. CHAIR,
LET ME JUST SAY, FIRST OF ALL,
I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE
AUDIT. AND I WAS HERE, IN ONE OF
THESE ROOMS, FOR THE
INFORMATIONAL HEARING, WHICH I
THINK LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
AN AUDIT LIKE THIS WOULD BE
NECESSARY. THAT SAID, I HAVE A
QUESTION THAT'S IN THE CONTEXT
OF BUDGET. AND I KNOW THE
AUDITORS NOT HERE FROM FINANCE
OR BUDGET, BUT GIVEN AT LEAST
THE PROPOSAL THAT'S ON THE
TABLE, THE MAY REVISE TO
PERMANENTLY ELIMINATE VACANT
POSITIONS. WILL THAT BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT IN THE AUDIT? IT
SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE BECAUSE
IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST IN THAT
FOURTH ITEM, YOU WOULD BE, YOU
KNOW, EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF
THOSE VACANCIES OR WHAT HAPPENS
TO THE MONEY. BUT IT I THINK IT
WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO US ALL, AS
YOU'RE DOING YOUR 3500 HOURS OF
WORK ON THIS IN THE BUDGET
CONTINUES TO UNFOLD, THAT IF
THERE'S SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS
LIKE THAT THAT ARE DOING MORE
THAN DELAYING, POSITIONS, BUT
ACTUALLY PERMANENTLY ELIMINATING
THEM, THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD GET
THAT BACK AS PART OF THE REPORT.
YES I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I
THINK PART OF OUR ANALYSIS WOULD
INCLUDE NOT ONLY WHAT HAS BEEN
THE DEPARTMENT'S APPROACH, YOU
KNOW, PRIOR TO THE CURRENT
BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE FIND
OURSELVES IN. BUT GIVEN THE
BUDGET SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN
NOW, WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S
PLAN WITH THOSE VACANCIES? AND
ARE THEY ELIMINATING POSITIONS?
AND TO WHAT EXTENT YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL GO NOW TO
THE AFFECTED AGENCIES. PLEASE
MAKE A PRESENTATION. AND IF YOU
LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE
MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS KATIE HAGAN. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND, IN
EFFECT, THE STATE PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR FOR CAL OSHA.
THANK YOU. CHAIR HART. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE CAL
OSHA IS NOW AND WHERE IT'S
HEADED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK
BACK DURING COVID, OUR AGENCY
ROLLED OUT ACROSS THE STATE TO
PREVENT THE SPREAD. WE RESPONDED
TO A RECORD NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
AND REPORTS OF SERIOUS INJURIES,
EDUCATED EMPLOYERS ON HAZARD
REDUCTION STRATEGIES, DEVELOPED
EMERGENCY COVID 19 REGULATIONS
AND CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH
WORKERS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES TO
ENSURE THEY KNEW THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER THE LAW. THERE WERE TIMES
WHEN WE WERE EVEN ADDRESSING
COVID AND EXTREME HEAT HAZARDS
SIMULTANEOUSLY. OUR TEAM WAS
STRETCHED LIKE MOST EMPLOYERS
ACROSS THE NATION, WE SAW A
LARGE NUMBER OF SEPARATIONS AND
RETIREMENTS AS WE REDIRECTED
TEAM MEMBERS FROM OTHER
INSPECTION AND PERMITTING
FUNCTIONS, AND BORROWED STAFF
FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO
MAXIMIZE OUR IMPACT. WE SAW THE
CHALLENGES OF COLOMBIA'S
EXISTING PAPER BASED INSPECTION
AND CASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND
LIMITATIONS OF THE DIVISION'S
EXISTING OFFICE FOOTPRINT. I
SHARE THESE CHALLENGES TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED FOR
CAPACITY BUILDING WITHIN CAL
OSHA TO STRENGTHEN THEIR EFFORTS
TO SAFEGUARD CALIFORNIA WORKERS,
AND BY WALKING THROUGH RECENT
METRICS AND EFFORTS UNDERWAY.
BRIEFLY, I HOPE YOU WILL SEE OUR
PROGRESS. FIRST, I DO WANT TO
TAKE A MOMENT TO EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE TO THE CAL OSHA TEAM
ACROSS THE STATE, WHOSE
COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION TO THE
MISSION HAS NOT WAVERED. AND
WHILE ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA'S
AUDIT REQUEST LETTER STATES THAT
STAFFING IS NOT THE FOCUS OF
THIS REQUEST, THE FACT IS,
HISTORIC VACANCY CHALLENGES HAVE
IMPACTED CAL OSHA WORK. I'M
PROUD TO SAY THAT WE'VE MADE
SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN 2022.
CAL OSHA VACANCY RATE WAS 36.
TODAY, IT IS 29. THAT MEANS 62
MORE TEAM MEMBERS ON BOARD.
WE'VE ADDED MORE ADMINISTRATIVE
RESOURCES TO CAL OSHA AND DERS
HR SHOP TO SCALE OUR HIRING
EFFORTS, AND LAUNCHED A
NATIONWIDE RECRUITMENT CAMPAIGN
FOR ENFORCEMENT POSITIONS, WHICH
YOU CAN SEE AT DER CAREERS.COM.
WE'VE OPENED NEW OFFICES IN THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, THE CENTRAL
COAST AND INLAND EMPIRE. AFTER
HEARING FROM COMMUNITY PARTNERS
THAT THEY NEEDED A LARGER
PRESENCE TO BETTER SERVE
VULNERABLE WORKERS. WE'RE ALSO
IN THE MIDST OF STANDING UP AND
ENFORCING UNIT DEDICATED TO THE
UNIQUE HAZARDS AND WORKSITES OF
AGRICULTURE WORKERS. WE ARE
CURRENTLY MODERNIZING CAL OSHA
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM,
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGY TO BETTER
EQUIPPED OUR INSPECTORS IN THE
FIELD AND IN THE OFFICE, ALONG
WITH AN ONLINE PORTAL FOR THE
PUBLIC TO FILE COMPLAINTS AND
SEE THE STATUS REAL TIME. WE ARE
ALREADY SEEING AN IMPACT SINCE
2021, YEAR OVER YEAR, CAL OSHA
HAS PERFORMED MORE INSPECTIONS
FOR COMPARISON, IN FISCAL YEAR
2023, THE DIVISION CONDUCTED
1300 INSPECTIONS WHEN COMPARED
TO 2021, WE REPORT THESE
STATISTICS AS WELL AS OTHERS
ANNUALLY TO FEDERAL OSHA. I
SHARE YOUR DESIRE AND COMMITMENT
TO TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS WHY WE
PROVIDE MANY OF THE STATISTICS
REQUESTED IN THE AUDIT LETTER,
ON OUR WEBSITE AND AT OUR
REGULAR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETINGS, AND WHY WE ACTUALLY
INITIATED OUR OWN INTERNAL AUDIT
OF CAL OSHA'S ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY
AND ACCURACY ACROSS THE STATE.
THIS REQUEST WOULD TRIGGER DÍAS
SECOND JLAC AUDIT WITHIN A YEAR,
AS WE ARE STILL CONCLUDING AN
AUDIT INITIATED OVER EIGHT
MONTHS AGO IN THE LABOR
COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THE
ONGOING AUDIT HAS ENGAGED OVER
50 DER STAFF MEMBERS AND
NECESSITATED THE SUBMISSION OF
MORE THAN 200 DOCUMENTS AND
INVOLVED NUMEROUS WALKTHROUGHS
OF DER SYSTEMS OF SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS. WHILE WE WILL CERTAINLY
COMPLY IF THE AUDIT REQUEST IS
APPROVED, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
THE COMMITTEE TO UNDERSTAND THE
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ON BOTH
THE DER AND CAL OSHA TEAM,
PARTICULARLY AMIDST THE ONGOING
ORGANIZATIONAL INITIATIVES I'VE
HIGHLIGHTED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND ATTENTION. I'M
AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DIRECTOR
HAGEN. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FROM
THE DÍAS? I HAVE A QUESTION,
SENATOR. CIERTO THANK YOU AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE HERE
TO THE AUDIT. SO GIVEN THAT THE
AUDIT REQUEST SEEMS TO BE
REQUESTING INFORMATION THAT YOU
HAVE PRETTY MUCH TOLD US,
USUALLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE
AUDIT, AUDIT HEARINGS, THE
PEOPLE COME UP AND SAY, THAT'S
NOT HAPPENING. BUT IN THIS CASE,
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE
SOME SHORTCOMINGS AND THAT YOUR
AGENCY IS ALREADY, ADDRESSING
THEM, I'M NOT SURE. YOU KNOW,
PERHAPS LATER WE CAN ASK THE
OTHER QUESTION. WHAT MORE, DO
YOU THINK WOULD COME FROM THIS
AUDIT, FROM YOUR AGENCY, OTHER
THAN MAYBE THEY DECIDE HOW MANY
PEOPLE YOU SHOULD HAVE VERSUS
HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU DON'T HAVE,
OR THAT YOU HAVE NOW, DO YOU
THINK THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL IN
IDENTIFYING ANY OTHER ISSUES
THAT YOU'RE HAVING? IS THE
QUESTION ADDRESSED TO ME? YES,
IT'S ADDRESSED TO YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, I THINK THAT
ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR TRANSPARENCY
IS, IS A GOOD ONE IN GOVERNMENT.
I'VE BEEN IN THIS FIELD FOR
ALMOST 30 YEARS AND BEEN THROUGH
MY SHARE OF AUDITS. I THINK THIS
WOULD BE AN EASY LIFT FOR US
BECAUSE AS I INDICATED IN MY
LETTER TO YOU ALL YESTERDAY AND
TODAY, A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION
IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. I DO
THINK THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAISES
SOME GOOD QUESTIONS ABOUT
COLLECTIONS THAT THE APPEALS
PROCESS, BUT MUCH OF THAT IS DUE
PROCESS. AND IN LABOR CODE,
WHICH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE
DEPARTMENT HAS LITTLE IMPACT
OVER. SO I DO THINK THAT, AGAIN,
THERE'S SOME GOOD POLICY
QUESTIONS BEING POSED, BUT I
CAN'T I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S
WORTH THE COMMITTEE'S TIME WHEN
ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS, IS
AVAILABLE AND I'M I'M READY AND
WILLING AND ABLE TO MEET WITH
ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OFFLINE,
OUTSIDE OF THE AUDIT PROCESS AS
WELL. SENATOR MINH, THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I GUESS, THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT SET OF ISSUES, BUT I
JUST WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF
WITH THE COMMENTS OF MY
COLLEAGUE, SENATOR SUGIARTO. I
MEAN, I GUESS I'M WONDERING,
WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH
WITH THE AUDIT AND HAVE HAS THE,
DIRECTOR BEEN. I'M SORRY,
DIRECTOR OR SECRETARY? DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR BEEN UNCOOPERATIVE? IS
THERE A REASON THAT WE NEED AN
AUDIT AS OPPOSED TO JUST SEEKING
THESE ANSWERS VOLUNTARILY? WE
HAVE SEEK THE ANSWERS IN TERMS
OF THE. AGAIN, WE'VE WE HAVE A
LOT OF DATA ON THE VACANCY RATES
WE'VE RECEIVED REPORTS ON THE
PROGRESS THEY HAVE MADE. BUT TO
DATE, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN
ANSWER ON THE INVESTIGATIONS.
WHAT YOU KNOW, FROM THE
BEGINNING TO END WHEN THE FINES
HAPPENED, WHAT IS THE DECISION
MAKING PROCESS AND THEN WHY ARE
WE SETTLING FOR SO MUCH LESS
THAT INFORMATION? I AND I HAVE
MY CONSULTANT FROM THE LABOR
COMMITTEE HERE WHO HAS DIGGED
INTO EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT
WE HAVE RECEIVED AND HAVE NOT
BEEN ABLE TO GET THAT
INFORMATION ON, WHICH IS WHY I
REQUESTED THE AUDIT AT THE
HEARING THAT SENATOR CORTEZ WAS
AT AS WELL. WE REPEATEDLY ASKED
THESE QUESTIONS AND I STILL
DON'T HAVE ANSWERS, SO MAYBE
I'LL JUST FLIP THAT TO THE
DIRECTOR THEN. IS THERE A REASON
THAT YOUR OFFICE IS NOT
RESPONSIVE ON THESE PARTICULAR
REQUESTS, I BELIEVE WE HAVE
BEEN. I MET WITH THE MEMBER
AFTER THE HEARING. I WAS NOT AT
THE LAST HEARING. MY TEAM WAS,
AND ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I COULD
PROVIDE. I DID WITH MY TEAM
ASSEMBLE A LIST OF LINKS TO
INFORMATION AND SENT IT ALL IN A
LETTER THAT I HOPE YOU ALL
RECEIVED YESTERDAY, WITH TRYING
TO GO LINE BY LINE, THROUGH THE
AUDIT, ASK TO SEE IF I COULD
POSSIBLY PROVIDE THE INFORMATION
THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED. I DID
ALSO NOTE THERE WAS TWO PIECES
IN THE LETTER OF INFORMATION
THAT I DO NOT HAVE BECAUSE WE
DON'T COLLECT IT, AND, AND, AND
HARASSMENT SPECIFICALLY IS NOT
COVERED UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.
THAT WOULD BE THE OFFICE OF
CIVIL RIGHTS. BUT OTHER THAN
THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS
OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RUBIO. YES A
QUESTION. SO WHAT YOU MEAN BY
PROVIDING LINKS? SO YOU SENT THE
LIST OF LINKS TO THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. YES AND THE COMMITTEE
LAST NIGHT. BUT LINKS. BUT SHE'S
NOT REQUESTING LINKS. SHE'S
REQUESTING THE INFORMATION FROM
YOU. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE
THE DISCREPANCY IS, AS YOU CAN
IMAGINE, WE ARE ALL BUSY, AND I
DOUBT THAT THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HAS TIME TO CLICK ON THE LINKS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUESTING
OR SHE'S REQUESTING THE
INFORMATION FROM YOU. AND THAT'S
PROBABLY WHY WE'RE HERE. IF YOU
SEND I SENT IT YESTERDAY AND IN
PREPARATION FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
BUT IF YOU SEND LINKS, I HOPE
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT
WHAT THE REQUEST IS. IT'S
ACTUALLY I UNDERSTAND. SO WHEN
YOU SAY YOU PROVIDED LINKS, IT
JUST SOUNDS VERY PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE. REPORTS FOR EXAMPLE,
FEDERAL OSHA AUDITS US ANNUALLY
AND THERE'S A LOT OF THIS
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
FEDERAL REPORTS AVAILABLE ON OUR
WEBSITE. THE REPORTS WERE
ACTUALLY PROVIDED TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. CORRECT YEAH.
WELL, THE LINKS TO THE REPORTS.
RIGHT. SEE, THAT'S THE
DISCREPANCY HERE, YOU'RE SENDING
LINKS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PRINT
OUT THE DOCUMENTS AND SEND THEM.
I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO
THAT OR NOT. OR WE CAN HAVE THE
AUDITOR, YOU KNOW, COLLECT THAT
INFORMATION FROM YOU. SO THAT'S
THE WHOLE POINT, RIGHT? IF SHE'S
NOT RECEIVING THE INFORMATION,
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. A LINK
DOESN'T HELP. AND YOU KNOW,
MAYBE COMMUNICATE WITH THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AS TO, YOU KNOW,
WHAT SPECIFICALLY? SHE'S LOOKING
FOR, BECAUSE I DOUBT I DID THAT,
MA'AM. I MET WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AFTER THE LAST HEARING
AND ASKED IF I COULD PROVIDE ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF SHE
WANTED TO ASK ME QUESTIONS. SO I
JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT TO
THE RECORD THAT I DID REACH OUT.
SO. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT HERE
BECAUSE ALL THE QUESTIONS WERE
ANSWERED, I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE
YOU KNOW, IT'S THE SEMANTICS.
AGAIN PROVIDING LINKS DOESN'T
HELP US. IT'S PROVIDING
INFORMATION. AND EVEN IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO PRINT THE REPORTS
THEN STATE, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU
LIKE ME TO PRINT ANY OF THESE
REPORTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST
SENDING A LETTER WITH LINKS? THE
COMMUNICATION IS KEY. THAT'S WHY
WE'RE HERE. I THINK IF AND YOU
USED THE WORD TRANSPARENT,
TRANSPARENCY WOULD BE WOULD YOU
LIKE ME TO PROVIDE THOSE
DOCUMENTS, IN THE EVENT THAT YOU
KNOW HOW MANY LINKS WERE
PROVIDED, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY
ON THE LIST? I BELIEVE THERE
WERE 8 OR 9. IT WAS AN ADDENDUM
TO MY LETTER, THAT WHERE I
DIRECTED FOLKS IF THEY WANTED
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. FOLKS,
YOU YOU ALL RECEIVED THE LETTER?
YES. NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WHEN YOU PROVIDED THOSE
LINKS, DID YOU SAY TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, HERE ARE THE
LINKS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO LOOK
AT THAT, I BELIEVE SHE WAS
COPIED ON THE MEMO. OKAY, SO
NOTHING WAS PROVIDED TO THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THE LINKS. I
PROVIDED A COPY OF THE LETTER
THAT I SENT TO THIS COMMITTEE.
RIGHT. BUT THE POINT IS THAT IF
WE'RE PROVIDING LINKS, THEN
THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE'S
REQUESTING. I, I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT ALL THE OTHER ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS OR SENATORS, BUT I DON'T
HAVE THAT KIND OF TIME TO SIT
THERE AND CLICK ON LINKS. IF
THERE'S I UNDERSTAND QUESTION,
THEN THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING
FOR. WE CAN AVOID ALL OF THIS BY
JUST BEING TRANSPARENT AND
PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION MORE
THAN HAPPY TO MEET OR PROVIDE
WHATEVER INFORMATION IS
REQUESTED BY THE MEMBER. WELL,
WE'RE HERE NOW, SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER. THANK YOU. IF THE
INFORMATION HAPPENS TO BE
EMBEDDED SOMEWHERE IN THOSE MANY
LINKS AND DOCUMENTS, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR POLICY OF
THE STATE AUDITOR AND THE STATE
AUDITOR CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THIS
BEST, THAT ALL THAT INFORMATION
THAT'S ALREADY REPORTED WOULD BE
USED IN THE AUDIT. AND THEREBY
IF ALL THE INFORMATION ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ORTEGA IS LOOKING FOR IS
ACTUALLY THERE, THAT WOULD
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF AUDIT
HOURS. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING?
IS THAT UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?
MAYBE THAT UNDERSTANDING IS
GENERALLY CORRECT. I WOULD
CAVEAT IT WAS SAYING THAT IT'S
NOT JUST PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
INFORMATION. WE WOULD DO SOME
DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE
WHAT'S PUBLICLY REPORTED IS, IN
FACT ACCURATE BASED ON THE
UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS. AND I
THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I
MEAN, I KNOW I'VE WORKED WITH
STATE AGENCIES AND I THINK THEIR
INTENTIONS CAN BE THE BEST, BUT
IF I DON'T HAVE MY QUESTIONS
ANSWERED AND I THINK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ORTEGA HAS BEEN CLEAR
ABOUT WHICH QUESTIONS ARE NOT
ANSWERED, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE
AN AUDIT BEFORE US TODAY. I
THINK IT'S, OUR LEGISLATIVE
OVERSIGHT REQUIREMENT TO GO AND
LOOK INTO THOSE THINGS TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THOSE
ANSWERS THAT REALLY AFFECT HOW
OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR REAL
PEOPLE. SENATOR SERRATO OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT
ON THIS ITEM? NOW IS YOUR TIME,
AND I JUST ASK THAT YOU KEEP
YOUR COMMENTS TO ONE MINUTE
EACH. I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING
FORWARD. SO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ORTEGA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE
SOME CLOSING REMARKS? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERNER. IS THERE A SECOND,
SECOND, SECOND BY, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER RUBIO, SECRETARY, COULD
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MOTION
TO APPROVE AUDIT REQUEST NUMBER
2024, DASH 115. DIVISION OF
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. HEART A HEART. AYE AYE.
BERNER AYE. BERNER AYE. HOOVER.
HOOVER. AYE. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. AYE. QUIRK-SILVA
RUBIO. RUBIO AYE. VALENCIA
SENATOR. LAIRD. LAIRD AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE EGGMAN.
GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE MIN.
MIN. AYE. SAY SATO. SATO. NOT
VOTING. WILK. AYE. WILK. AYE.
MEMBERS. THAT AUDIT IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP IS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZABIR AND HIS
AUDIT IS NUMBER 2024-107, THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT
IMPLEMENTATION
.
OKAY. WELCOME. ASSEMBLY MEMBERS.
BURKE MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS. THANK
YOU, THE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY
YOUTH ACT, OR CHIA, WAS ENACTED
IN 2016 TO PROVIDE EVERY STUDENT
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO
PROTECT THEIR SEXUAL AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH FROM
UNINTENDED PREGNANCY. HIV AND
STIS. CHIA REQUIRES STUDENTS IN
GRADES 7 TO 12 TO RECEIVE
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL HEALTH
EDUCATION AND HIV PREVENTION
EDUCATION AT LEAST ONCE IN
MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ONCE IN HIGH
SCHOOL. ALL THE CONTENT MUST BE
AGE APPROPRIATE MEDICALLY
ACCURATE, AND HELP TO PROMOTE
UNDERSTANDING OF SEXUAL OF
SEXUALLY K¾T AS A NORMAL PART OF
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, CHAI HAS A
STRONG EMPHASIS ON HEALTHY
RELATIONSHIPS, PROVIDING
STUDENTS WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
SKILLS THEY NEED TO BUILD AND
MAINTAIN HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS,
AND HOW TO AVOID UNHEALTHY
BEHAVIORS SUCH AS SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND INTIMATE PARTNER
VIOLENCE. INSTRUCTION MUST ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENT SEXUAL
ORIENTATIONS BE INCLUSIVE OF
SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS. WHEN
EXAMPLES OF RELATIONSHIPS ARE
DISCUSSED AND TEACH STUDENTS
ABOUT GENDER, GENDER EXPRESSION,
AND GENDER IDENTITY, RESEARCH
DEMONSTRATES THAT RECEIVING
COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL EDUCATION
RESULTS IN HEALTHIER BEHAVIORS
AND LOWER RATES OF UNPLANNED
TEEN PREGNANCY, HIV, AND STIS.
INSTRUCTION THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF
LGBTQ PLUS PEOPLE ALSO HAS
ENORMOUS POSITIVE BENEFITS ON
THE MENTAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
OF LGBTQ PLUS STUDENTS AND
LOWERS RATES OF BULLYING,
HARASSMENT, AND VIOLENCE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S EVIDENCE
THAT MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ACROSS THE STATE HAVE NOT FULLY
IMPLEMENTED KEY PROVISIONS OF
THE LAW. A 2022 REPORT FROM
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA AND ALLIES
SELF-REPORTED DATA FROM OVER 100
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
FOUND THAT 13% OF DISTRICTS DO
NOT PROVIDE SEXUAL HEALTH
EDUCATION AND 24% DO NOT PROVIDE
INSTRUCTION. THAT IS, LGBTQ PLUS
INCLUSIVE, AND THIS IS LIKELY A
SIGNIFICANT UNDERCOUNT COUNT,
GIVEN THAT THE THAT THESE DATA,
THAT THESE DATA ONLY INCLUDE
DISTRICTS THAT CHOSE TO RESPOND
TO THE SURVEY. RECENT NEWS
REPORTS HAVE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED
RESISTANCE TO IMPLEMENTING KEY
ASPECTS OF CHIA, PARTICULARLY
ITS MANDATE THAT SEXUAL HEALTH
EDUCATION INCORPORATE DISCUSSION
OF LGBTQ PLUS PEOPLE AND
RELATIONSHIPS. SHIPS. I'M
REQUESTING AN AUDIT OF HIGH
SCHOOL HIGH AND MIDDLE SCHOOL
AND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AND AT WHICH
GRADE LEVELS THEY PROVIDE CHIA
COMPLIANT INSTRUCTION. AN AUDIT
WILL PROVIDE INDEPENDENTLY
DEVELOPED AND VERIFIED
INFORMATION TO GAIN A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL CHIA
IMPLEMENTATION. IT WILL HELP US
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL ACTIONS THAT
CAN BE TAKEN TO SUPPORT SCHOOL
DISTRICTS STRUGGLING TO
IMPLEMENT THE LAW, AS WELL AS
ASSIST IN HOLDING INTENTIONALLY
NON-COMPLIANT DISTRICTS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT PROVIDING
STUDENTS THE EDUCATION THAT THEY
NEED AND DESERVE. IT IS THE
STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE
THAT ALL STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THEY'RE EDUCATED, RECEIVE
THE INSTRUCTION THEY NEED TO
LIVE HEALTHY AND PRODUCTIVE
LIVES. I ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME, AND WITH
ME TODAY IS CRAIG PULSIFER, THE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, AND MELODY
CRESPO. CRESPO DIN PREVENT THÀNH
SPECIALIST FOR CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. THEIR SPONSORS OF THE
AUDIT REQUEST TODAY TO HEATHER
HERE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION AND ASSIST WITH
QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S
APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THEM TO
SPEAK. FIRST WE'LL GO TO, STATE
AUDITOR PARKS. THANK YOU. SO
YEAH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER BURR IS
REQUESTING AN AUDIT TO EXAMINE
STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT AND
THE AUDIT REQUEST RAISES
CONCERNS OVER WHETHER DISTRICTS
HAVE FULLY IMPLEMENTED KEY
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING
CURRICULUM, WHETHER IT INCLUDES
INFORMATION ON LGBTQ PLUS PEOPLE
AND HOW TO MAINTAIN RESPECTFUL
AND HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS. THE
AUDIT SCOPE IS PRIMARILY IN TWO
PARTS THE FIRST PART IS GOING TO
ENTAIL A SURVEY OF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS THAT THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MENTIONED, AND IN THAT
SURVEY WILL BE ASKING AND
SEEKING INFORMATION. FOR
EXAMPLE, AT WHAT GRADE LEVELS DO
YOU PROVIDE THE INSTRUCTION?
WE'D BE ASKING FOR AN INVENTORY
OF THE TOPICS COVERED, DURING
THE INSTRUCTION, WE'D ALSO BE
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT DISTRICT
BY DISTRICT. WHAT PARTICULAR
BARRIERS YOU MAY HAVE FACED IN
IMPLEMENTING THE LAW. AND THE
SURVEY WOULD ALSO ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT, TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU
SEEING PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OPT
OUT, AND WHAT RATES, AND TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROPORTION OF
THE STUDENTS ARE COMPLETING THE
COURSES VERSUS THOSE THAT HAVE
BEEN EXEMPTED FROM IT, IN
ADDITION TO THE SURVEY, TO
UNDERSTAND HOW IMPLEMENTATION IS
GOING ON, THE AUDIT REQUEST ALSO
HAS A SELECT A SELECTION OF
SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ACTUALLY GO
VISIT. SO IT'S NOT JUST A SURVEY
THAT WE WOULD BE DOING. WE WOULD
BE ON THE GROUND AT A SELECTION
OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO TALK TO
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND SCHOOL
OFFICIALS, TO REVIEW THE
CURRICULUM IN PERSON, TO
UNDERSTAND HOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ARE IMPLEMENTING THE LAW, AND
HOPEFULLY TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROVIDE
USEFUL INFORMATION TO THE TO
POLICY OFFICIALS UP HERE SO THAT
YOU HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE ON
HOW THE ACT IS BEING IMPLEMENTED
ON THE GROUND. THE SECOND AREA
AND THE FINAL AREA THAT WE WOULD
LOOK AT REALLY DEALS WITH, HOW
THE DISTRICTS ARE PROVIDING
TRAINING TO EDUCATORS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY'RE QUALIFIED TO
PROVIDE THE TRAINING UNDER THE
HEALTHY YOUTH ACT AND TO WHAT
EXTENT APPLICABLE TEACHERS
RECEIVE THAT TRAINING, OVERALL,
IT'S A MEDIUM SIZED AUDIT. I
THINK A LOT OF OUR WORK IS GOING
TO BE ADMINISTERING THE SURVEY.
I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A
FAIR NUMBER OF DISTRICTS THAT
WILL HAVE TO HIT, BUT ALSO A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION IS GOING TO
BE DEALING ON THE GROUND AT THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT WE VISIT.
I ESTIMATE THE AUDIT WILL TAKE
JUST OVER 3700 HOURS TO
COMPLETE. THANK YOU. AUDITOR.
PARKS NOW, I'D LIKE TO INVITE
THE AFFECTED AGENCIES. WOULD YOU
PLEASE, LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO
THREE MINUTES EACH? THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. MEMBER FOR AGENCY.
CORRECT I MEANT THE MEMBER
WITNESSES. YOU FOLKS. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WRONG WORD. OKAY,
LET'S SEE. SO, THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR HAVING US HERE
TODAY. MY NAME IS MELODY CHRIS
BOWDEN. I'M A PREVENTION
SPECIALIST WITH THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. WE ARE CALIFORNIA'S
STATE RECOGNIZED DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE COALITION REPRESENTING,
CALIFORNIA SURVIVORS, ADVOCATES
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE STATE,
YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT,
CHIA'S A VITAL IMPORTANCE AND
THAT HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS AND
VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATION,
AS PART OF AB 329 AND 2015,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE LAW, ONE
OF THE PURPOSES IS TO INCLUDE
NEW LANGUAGE RELATING TO
ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIP USE AND
A REINFORCING OF FOCUS ON
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS. ACCORDING
TO THE CDC, 1 IN 3 ADOLESCENTS
REPORT VERBAL, EMOTIONAL,
PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL, DATING ABUSE
EACH YEAR, AND SURVIVORS OF TEEN
DATING VIOLENCE HAVE INCREASED
RISK FOR TRUANCY, DROPOUT, TEEN
PREGNANCY, AND SUICIDE.
EXPERIENCING EATING DISORDERS,
AND ENGAGING IN OTHER HARMFUL
BEHAVIORS SUCH AS USE OF
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND OTHER
DRUGS, AND YOUTH WHO ARE
SURVIVORS IN HIGH SCHOOL ARE AT
GREATER RISK OF VICTIMIZATION
DURING COLLEGE, AND ADOLESCENT
PERPETRATORS OF DATING VIOLENCE
ARE MORE LIKELY TO ABUSE THEIR
INTIMATE PARTNERS AS ADULTS.
SCHOOLS ARE WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE
GO TO LEARN THE LIFE SKILLS THEY
NEED TO BE HEALTHY ADULTS, AND
IT'S AT THIS CRITICAL AGE THAT
THIS EDUCATION BE PROVIDED. MANY
YOUTH DO NOT LEARN WHAT IT MEANS
TO BE IN A HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP
AT HOME, AND OFTEN RECEIVE
UNHEALTHY MODELING, WHETHER THAT
BE FROM FAMILY, PEERS OR THE
MEDIA AND YOUTH NEED EDUCATION
ON HOW TO ADDRESS THIS IN THEIR
LIVES AND ON CAMPUS, BECAUSE
STUDENTS CAN'T LEARN IF THEY
DON'T FEEL SAFE, THIS EDUCATION
IS A REQUIRED PART OF CHIA, BUT
WE KNOW THAT IMPLEMENTATION HAS
BEEN UNEVEN ACROSS THE STATE,
TEEN DATING VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL
VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATORS
ARE DENIED ACCESS TO PROVIDE
THIS EDUCATION TO SCHOOLS, AND
TO STUDENTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICT
S WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS WHO PARTNER
WITH SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE HEALTHY
RELATIONSHIP AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE
EDUCATION AND HAVE HEARD THEIR
DIRECT FEEDBACK THAT MANY
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE
NOT OPEN TO RECEIVING THIS
SUPPORT, AND WHEN THE
ORGANIZATIONS COMMUNICATE TO
SCHOOLS THAT THIS EDUCATION WILL
HELP THEM COME INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH CHIA, THESE SCHOOLS AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS STILL TURN DOWN
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PARTNERSHIP. THOUGH THE SCHOOL
DOES NOT HAVE THEIR OWN
PRACTICES IN PLACE TO MEET THIS
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT, BY
PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WE
ALSO ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT LONG
TERM HEALTH IMPACTS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN ADULTHOOD. WE KNOW
THAT PEOPLE HAVE HEALTHIER LIVES
WHEN THEY'RE GIVEN THE KNOWLEDGE
AND SKILLS THEY NEED TO HAVE
POSITIVE AND SAFE RELATIONSHIPS
AND BEHAVIORS. DATING AND
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT
INEVITABLE AND CAN BE PREVENTED
BEFORE IT OCCURS, AND AN AUDIT
IS NECESSARY TO GAIN A DEEPER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES AND
DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION. THANK
YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, CRAIG PULSIPHER, ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA,
ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL
SPONSORS OF THIS AUDIT, OVER THE
PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE
SPONSORED NUMEROUS LAWS AIMED AT
SUPPORTING AND PROTECTING LGBTQ
STUDENTS, INCLUDING THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT, TO
ENSURE THAT STUDENTS IN
CALIFORNIA RECEIVE ACCURATE AND
INCLUSIVE HIV PREVENTION AND SEX
EDUCATION. IN CALIFORNIA,
ROUGHLY 10% OF MIDDLE AND HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS IDENTIFY AS
LGBTQ AND LGBTQ STUDENTS, TOO
OFTEN ARE MADE TO FEEL INVISIBLE
IN HEALTH CLASSES WHEN THEIR
SPECIFIC HEALTH CONCERNS ARE NOT
ADDRESSED. LGBTQ INCLUSIVE
EDUCATION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE
A POSITIVE IMPACT ON SCHOOL
CLIMATE AND MAKE LGBTQ YOUTH
FEEL SAFER AT SCHOOL.
COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED ALSO HAS
BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE HIV AND STI
DIAGNOSES AND LEAD TO BETTER
HEALTH OUTCOMES. OVERALL,
UNFORTUNATELY, WE KNOW THAT MANY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE NOT FULLY
IMPLEMENTED THE LAW FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS. IN 2022,
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA RELEASED THE
RESULTS OF A SURVEY THAT WE DO
ON A REGULAR BASIS. OUR SAFE AND
SUPPORTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY, WHICH
INCLUDED SELF-REPORTED RESPONSES
. IT'S AN OPTIONAL SURVEY OF 118
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS ABOUT
THEIR POLICIES CONCERNING A WIDE
RANGE OF ISSUES, INCLUDING,
LGBTQ INCLUSIVE CURRICULUM. THE
REPORT FOUND THAT 13% OF
DISTRICTS DO NOT OFFER MANDATORY
SEX EDUCATION, AND 24% DO NOT
OFFER INSTRUCTION THAT IS LGBTQ
INCLUSIVE, AND THESE DATA,
AGAIN, ARE LIKELY SIGNIFICANT.
UNDERESTIMATE CGRTS GIVEN THAT
IT IS OPTIONAL AND OVER HALF OF
SCHOOL DISTRICTS DID NOT RESPOND
TO THE SURVEY, THIS AUDIT IS AN
IMPORTANT NEXT STEP TO PROVIDE
REALLY MORE IN DEPTH INFORMATION
RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT,
INCLUDING WHETHER INSTRUCTION
INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT LGBTQ
BODIES AND RELATIONSHIPS, AND
WILL REALLY HELP US TO GET A
MORE IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF
BARRIERS THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS
ARE HAVING IN IMPLEMENTING THE
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT AND
ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CAN TAKE TO ENSURE
THAT ALL CALIFORNIA STUDENTS
RECEIVE THE EDUCATION THEY NEED,
AND RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS FROM THE DÍAS MOTION
HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED, IT
WAS MADE BY SENATOR GONZALEZ OR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERNER AND THEN
SECONDED BY SENATOR. I THINK IT
WAS SENATOR, SENATOR GONZALEZ. I
HAD A QUESTION. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL
FIGURE IT OUT. OKAY. YOU'RE YOUR
QUESTION, YES, WHAT IS THE
METHODOLOGY THAT YOU'RE
PROPOSING FOR WHICH SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WILL BE SELECTED? AND
THE, YOU KNOW, I THINK AT A HIGH
LEVEL, WE'D BE TAKING A LOOK AT
ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE THIS
ACT WOULD APPLY. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S ROUGHLY
345 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
THERE'S 76 HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS
THAT ARE EITHER 7 TO 12 OR 9 TO
12. AND THERE ARE ALSO 411
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT
GO UP TO K-8, SO THAT WOULD BE
THE MIDDLE SCHOOL COMPONENT OF
IT. SO MY INTENTION WOULD BE TO
SURVEY ALL OF THEM. Ó ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO
TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENTS.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ASK THAT YOU
KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO ONE
MINUTES EACH. I DON'T SEE
ANYONE, SO THAT BRINGS IT BACK
TO US, ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, DO YOU
HAVE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS YOU'D
LIKE TO MAKE? RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
GONZALEZ AND A SECOND BY SENATOR
MINH, SECRETARY, COULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? A MOTION
TO APPROVE AUDIT REQUEST NUMBER
2024, DASH 107 CALIFORNIA
HEALTHY YOUTH ACT IMPLEMENTATION
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER ZUBER.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. HEART A HEART.
AYE BERNER. AYE. BERNER. AYE
HOOVER. PATTERSON. PATTERSON NOT
VOTING. QUIRK-SILVA. QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA. SORRY, I.
QUIRK-SILVA. SO THIS IS AUDIT
REQUEST 2020 4-107 FOR VOTING.
WE SET OUT A PERFECT START.
APOLOGIES. THANK YOU.
QUIRK-SILVA. I RUBIO RUBIO I
VALENCIA. SENATOR LAIRD. LAIRD I
CORTEZ CORTEZ I EGGMAN GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I MIN MIN I SATO. SATO.
NO WILK I WILK I C¯. THE MOTION
OR THE AUDIT IS APPROVED. NEXT
UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. NEXT UP IS SENATOR MINH AND
HIS AUDIT IS NUMBER 2024, DASH
103. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH PACIFIC AIRSHOW SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT. NICE TO SEE YOU
AGAIN, MR. AUDITOR. SENATOR
MINH, WELCOME. AND WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. I APPRECIATE IT.
SO, THE AUDIT I'M REQUESTING IS
FOR ONE OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH'S SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC AIR SHOW,
LLC TO REVIEW THE USE OF PUBLIC
FUNDS TO COMPENSATE THE AIR SHOW
FOR REVENUES SUPPOSEDLY
SUPPOSEDLY LOST DUE TO THE
CANCELLATION OF ONE DAY OF THE
2021 AIR SHOW. FOLLOWING THE OIL
SPILL OFF THE COAST OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH. NOW, YOU MAY
REMEMBER BACK THEN THERE WAS A
MAJOR OIL SPILL OFF THE COAST OF
HB ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2021, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE, WITH
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE'S HEALTH CARE SERVICES
, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MADE THE DECISION TO CLOSE THE
BEACH FOR SUNDAY, THUS
EFFECTIVELY FORCING THE
CANCELLATION OF THE LAST OF A
FOUR DAY AIR SHOW IN 2021. I
WILL NOTE THAT THE STATE ITSELF,
AS WELL AS LAGUNA BEACH, ALSO
CLOSED THE BEACHES, AND THIS
DECISION WAS A COORDINATED ONE.
PACIFIC AIR SHOW SUBSEQUENTLY
SUED THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH TO RECOVER REVENUES IT
LOST DUE TO THE CANCELLATION OF
THE AIR SHOW. I WILL NOTE THAT
THE AIR SHOW DID NOT HAVE A
CONTRACT WITH THE CITY, BUT JUST
AN EVENT PERMIT GRANTED BY THE
CITY. WHILE THERE'S NO DISPUTE
THAT PACIFIC AIR SHOW LOST
REVENUES DUE TO THE CANCELLATION
OF THE 2021 EVENT, THE LAST DAY
OF THAT, THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE
PACIFIC AIR SHOW HAS NOT
PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION AS TO
HOW THE SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS WERE
CALCULATED OR IF THEY EXCEED
APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION, AND
THUS CONSTITUTE A GIFT OF PUBLIC
FUNDS. NUMEROUS REQUESTS HAVE
BEEN MADE FOR SUBSTANTIATING
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, BUT TO DATE,
NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVIDED, AND
IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE NEEDS TO
BE OVERSIGHT AS TO WHETHER THIS
DECISION TO ENTER INTO THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS A
MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR MINH, MR. STATE AUDITOR,
NOW, THE TIME IS YOURS FOR YOUR
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THE SENATOR MINH IS SEEKING
INFORMATION ON THE NATURE OF AND
THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING
INFORMATION ON THE AMOUNT THE
CITY WILL PAY. THE AUDIT IS
BASICALLY IN FOUR PARTS. THE
FIRST PART DEALS WITH HOW DID
THE CITY SELECT PACIFIC AIRSHOW
AS THE EVENT'S PRODUCER FOR, THE
SECOND AREA FOCUSES ON HOW MUCH
THE CITY HAS PAID TO THE TO THE
VENDOR FOR ANY AND ALL SERVICES
OVER A FOUR YEAR PERIOD FROM 20
1920 THROUGH 2022, 23. THIRD,
THE AUDIT ASKS US TO EVALUATE
WHAT WAS THE CITY'S RATIONALE
FOR ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT,
GIVEN THE PERMANENT THE
PERMANENT AGREEMENT, AND HOW
DOES THE AMOUNT THE CITY WILL
PAY COMPARE TO THE AMOUNT THE
CITY WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED
TO PAY HAD THE AIRSHOW NOT BEEN
CANCELED? AND FOURTH, AND
FINALLY, THE AUDIT REQUEST ASKS
US TO EVALUATE DOES THE CITY'S
EVENT PERMIT, REASONABLY PROTECT
THE CITY'S FINANCIAL INTERESTS
AND COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE
PROCUREMENT RULES AND CITY
POLICIES, OVERALL, IT'S A VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD, LIMITED AUDIT
REQUEST. WHAT I WILL SAY AT THE
OUTSET, HOWEVER, IS I UNDERSTAND
THERE IS SOME ONGOING LITIGATION
PERTAINING TO THIS AUDIT WITH
RESPECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT ITSELF AND WHETHER IT
CAN BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. SO
THAT MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON OUR
ABILITY TO BE AS SPECIFIC AS WE
WOULD OTHERWISE LIKE TO BE,
THOSE ARE ISSUES WE'LL HAVE TO
WORK OUT DURING THE AUDIT IN
COMBINATION, IN TALKING TO THE
CITY AND OUR OWN LEGAL ANALYSIS
OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE OBTAIN,
IT SHOULDN'T IMPACT OUR ABILITY
TO OBTAIN THE RECORDS WE NEED.
RATHER, IT MAY IMPACT THE LEVEL
OF SPECIFICITY THAT WE'RE ABLE
TO TALK IN A PUBLIC AUDIT
REPORT. BUT MY COMMITMENT TO THE
COMMITTEE AND TO THE REQUESTER
IS WE WILL BE AS SPECIFIC AS WE
CAN BE AS WE GO THROUGH THOSE
MATERIALS, OVERALL, I ESTIMATE
THE AUDIT WILL TAKE ROUGHLY 2300
HOURS TO COMPLETE. THANK YOU,
AUDITOR PARKS. NOW WE'LL GO TO
THE AFFECTED AGENCIES. AND IF
YOU WOULD, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS. IDENTIFY YOURSELVES
PLEASE. AND THEN LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ERIC PARRA, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
AND CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT,
THE AIR SHOW IS VITALLY
IMPORTANT TO THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH. THIS IS AN
EVENT THAT'S A ONCE IN A
LIFETIME EVENT FOR PEOPLE TO
SEE, DURING 21, AS YOU HEARD,
THEY HAD A CANCELLATION OF THE
AIR SHOW, WHICH RESULTED IN
LITIGATION FOR 2023. THE EVENT
PRODUCER MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE
AIR SHOW WOULD NOT OCCUR UNLESS
THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT, AND
THERE WAS NUMEROUS SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING IMPASSE.
A COUPLE OF TIMES, THE CITY
COUNCIL DECIDED TO THEY HAD
SEVERAL MEETINGS. THEY DECIDED
TO SETTLE THIS APPROPRIATELY.
AND AS A CHARTER CITY, THEY
THEY'RE NOT USING STATE FUNDS
FOR THIS. IT'S GENERAL FUND.
THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION
AFTER NUMEROUS MEETINGS. AND THE
CITY'S CONTENTION IS THAT IT WAS
AN APPROPRIATE SETTLEMENT. I'M
GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO CITY
ATTORNEY MICHAEL GATES FOR A FEW
MORE COMMENTS, THANK YOU, MR.
PARA. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND,
JOINT COMMITTEE FOR HEARING US
AND HAVING US HERE TODAY, MY
NAME IS MICHAEL GATES. I'M THE
CITY ATTORNEY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH. I DO HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A
UNIQUE VANTAGE POINT IN THAT I
WAS THERE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY
DURING THE CANCELLATION AND ALSO
THE LITIGATION AND THE
SETTLEMENT, IN THE JANUARY 3RD,
2024 LETTER TO CHAIR HART,
SENATOR DAVID MID REQUESTS AN
AUDIT OF THE 2023 PACIFIC AIR
SHOW SETTLEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH. YET THE LETTER
FAILS TO CITE ANY LEGAL
AUTHORITY FOR THIS REQUEST. AND
THE PREMISE, FOR THE REQUEST IS
IN FERM. SENATOR MIN SEEKS A
DETAILED FINANCIAL AND PROCESS
AUDIT OF THE PERMITTING OF THE
AIR SHOW AND THE 2023 SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AS A MISUSE OF PUBLIC
FUNDS, JUST A QUICK TIMELINE,
PACIFIC AIR SHOW LLC MADE IT
CLEAR IN 2022, AFTER 2021, THE
2021 CANCELLATION, AND IN EARLY
2023, THAT AS LONG AS PACIFIC
AIR SHOW WAS MIRED IN DISPUTES
WITH THE CITY OVER THE 2021 AIR
SHOW CANCELLATION, THE ANNUAL
AIR SHOW WAS NOT GOING TO OCCUR
AS USUAL. IN THE FALL OF 2023,
AN INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC IMPACT
STUDY FOR FROM 2022 REVEALED
THAT THE ANNUAL HUNTINGTON BEACH
AIR SHOW BROUGHT IN OVER $100
MILLION IN POSITIVE ECONOMIC
IMPACT TO THE REGION EACH YEAR.
HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS BENEFITED
FROM HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
VISITORS TO THIS ANNUAL EVENT,
AND MILLIONS AND ADDITIONAL TAX
AND PARKING REVENUE NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE CITY AND PACIFIC AIR
SHOW LLC OVER ITS LAWSUIT
SPANNED MANY MONTHS. THEY WERE
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT
NEGOTIATIONS. I WAS PERSONALLY
INVOLVED AND ON A COUPLE OF
OCCASIONS, SETTLEMENT
DISCUSSIONS BROKE DOWN WITH
TOTAL IMPASSE ON BOTH SIDES.
AFTER OVER FIVE MONTHS OF
NEGOTIATIONS, PACIFIC AIR CHAU
LLC AND THE CITY AGREED TO A
COMPROMISE IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CITY FROM THE
LAWSUIT. THE MATTER SETTLED WITH
THE CITY IN MAY OF 2023. THE
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SINCE HAVE
MADE IT CLEAR IN VARIOUS PUBLIC
STATEMENTS THAT THE COMPROMISE
OF $5 MILLION PAID OVER SIX
YEARS TO PACIFIC AIR SHOW WAS A
SMART BUSINESS DECISION FOR THE
CITY IN ORDER TO SECURE FUTURE
AIR SHOWS AND THE ATTENDANT
MILLIONS IN ECONOMIC BENEFIT,
AND ALSO TO ELIMINATE THE RISK
ASSOCIATED WITH PROCEEDING IN
THE LAWSUIT AND PROCEEDING TO
TRIAL. THE 5 MILLION TO BE PAID
OVER SIX YEARS COMES OUT OF THE
CITY'S GENERAL FUND, AND NOT
FROM ANY FUNDS LINKED TO STATE
FUNDING. HUNTINGTON BEACH IS A
CHARTER CITY, AS MR. PARA
MENTIONED, THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY
HELD AND INSTRUCTED THAT CHARTER
CITIES HAVE THE AUTONOMY TO
SPEND THEIR RESOURCES AS THEY
DEEM FIT WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR
OWN MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. THIS LIES
AT THE HEART OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL HOME RULE
DOCTRINE FOUND IN THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 11,
SECTION FIVE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN
JOHNSON V BRADLEY AT FOUR CAL
4389, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT UPHELD A LOCAL LAW THAT
ALLOWED FOR CITY FINANCING OF
ELECTION CAMPAIGNS DESPITE A
CONFLICTING STATE LAW. IN
REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, THE
SUPREME COURT SAID, WE CAN THINK
OF NOTHING THAT IS OF GREATER
MUNICIPAL CONCERN THAN HOW A
CITY'S TAX DOLLARS WILL BE
SPENT, NOR ANYTHING WHICH COULD
BE OF LESS INTEREST TO TAXPAYERS
OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS. AND
THAT'S FOUNDED PAGE 407 OF THE
OPINION. OTHER COURTS HAVE
LIKEWISE RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN A
PROJECT IS BEING FUNDED
EXCLUSIVELY BY LOCAL DOLLARS,
THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE FUNDS
ARE SPENT IS UNQUESTIONABLY A
MUNICIPAL AFFAIR. YOU CAN ALSO
REFER TO THE CASE CITY OF
PASADENA VERSUS CHARLIEVILLE 215
CAL 384. THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS
ALSO INSTRUCTED THE MONEY TO BE
EXPENDED, BELONGS TO THE CITY,
AND THE CONTROL OF ITS
EXPENDITURE IS A MUNICIPAL
AFFAIR. ALSO IN VALE V CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, 1223346. WE BELIEVE
THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE
REQUESTED AUDIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED
OR PROPER. AND AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE
2023 SETTLEMENT WITH PACIFIC AIR
SHOW WAS JUSTIFIED AND, AT LEAST
IN PUBLIC, COMMENTS BY THE CITY
COUNCIL AS A PRUDENT DECISION TO
ENSURE FUTURE AIR SHOWS AND THE
RELATED VAST ECONOMIC BENEFITS
TO THE CITY, AND, AS
IMPORTANTLY, TO AVOID ANY RISK
ASSOCIATED WITH PROCEEDING TO
TRIAL. AND WITH THAT CHAIR, I
HAVE CONCLUDED MY STATEMENT AND
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
COMMENTS, STATE AUDITOR PARKS,
COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE AUTHORITY
OF THE COMMITTEE AND YOUR OFFICE
TO AUDIT? SURE. AND I MAY HAVE
MY CHIEF COUNSEL COME TO THE
TABLE AS I MAKE SOME OPENING
REMARKS, UNDER THE GOVERNMENT
CODE, SECTION 85, 46.1 WERE
AUTHORIZED TO AUDIT ANY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AGENCY, INCLUDING ANY
CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL OR SPECIAL
DISTRICT, WE HAVE AUTHORITY, IN
OUR VIEW, TO AUDIT A CHARTER
CITY. I ALSO THINK OF OUR LOCAL
HIGH RISK PROGRAM, WHERE WE
FREQUENTLY GO OUT AND AUDIT
CITIES REPEATEDLY, AND THERE'S
NOTHING ABOUT OUR AUDIT WORK. IN
MY JUDGMENT, THAT WOULD BE A
THREAT TO HOME RULE. OUR AUDITS
PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY, AND WE
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITIES.
WE DON'T MANDATE AND REQUIRE
CITIES TO IMPLEMENT OUR
RECOMMENDATIONS. SO NOTHING THAT
WE WOULD DO WOULD REQUIRE
THROUGH A MANDATE THAT THE THAT
THE CITY TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW, MY CHIEF
COUNSEL, STEPHANIE RAMIREZ
RIDGEWAY, IS HERE. IF SHE WANTED
TO EXPAND ON MY REMARKS. THANK
YOU. MR. STATE AUDITOR, YOUR
ANSWER WAS THOROUGH AND CORRECT.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THERE IS
ABSOLUTELY NO CALIFORNIA CASE
THAT PROHIBITS THE CALIFORNIA
STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE FROM
AUDITING PUBLICLY CREATED
ENTITIES. THAT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE.
IN THE STATUTE YOU ALL WROTE AND
ENACTED. THANK YOU, SENATOR
WILKES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO
BEFORE GETTING HERE, I WAS ON A
COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD, AND
THERE'S MANY TIMES WE SET Ã
LAWSUITS. OFTENTIMES, I DID NOT
WANT TO SETTLE THEM BECAUSE I
KNEW THAT WE WERE IN THE RIGHT,
BUT WE SETTLED IT ANYWAY BECAUSE
IT WAS GOING TO BE CHEAPER IN
THE LONG RUN. SO MY QUESTION IS,
I'M NOT SURE WHO'S THE PROPER
PERSON TO ASK THIS, BECAUSE IN
THERE IT SAYS GIFT OF PUBLIC
FUNDS. WHO DETERMINES IF IT IS A
GIFT? IS THERE SOME, STATUTORY
THRESHOLD FOR THAT OR IS IT SO
THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING
SOME CONFUSION ON. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. AND I THINK THE ANSWER
IS WE ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA AS
FAR AS THE THRESHOLD. LIKE,
LOOK, WE GET INTO GRAY AREAS IN
THE LAW ALL THE TIME. AND I
WOULD JUST REBUT ONE ASPECT. I
THINK THE AUDITOR DID A GOOD JOB
OF REBUTTING THE IDEA THAT
CHARTER CITIES ARE SOMEHOW
EXEMPT FROM THE AUTHORITY OF
THIS BODY. I WOULD ALSO MAKE THE
CONTENTION THAT, HOME RULE DOES
NOT PROTECT LAWBREAKING, THAT
THE RULE OF LAW APPLIES TO
EVERYBODY, INCLUDING CITY
OFFICIALS, FOR CHARTER CITIES
THAT NO ONE IS EXEMPT FROM STATE
OF CALIFORNIA'S GENERALLY
APPLICABLE LAWS. AS FAR AS YOU
KNOW, AS WE KNOW, SOMETIMES THE
LAW IS GOING TO HAVE GRAY AREAS
THAT ARE HARD TO DISSECT
SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
CLEAR. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NO NO
FACTS EVER PRESENTED TO THE
PUBLIC AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR
THIS LAWSUIT. AND I WILL JUST
SAY NO OTHER CITY OR THE COUNTY
WAS SETTLED SIMILARLY, ALONG
THESE LINES, NOW WE KNOW THAT
THE STATE WAS MANDATED, I
BELIEVE, A SHUTDOWN OF THIS
PARTICULAR BEACH, HUNTINGTON
BEACH, WENT ALONG WITH THAT. WE
KNOW THAT I THINK 7 OR $8
MILLION WAS WHAT THE AIR SHOW
ASKED FOR AND WHAT THE CITY
COUNCIL DECIDED WAS TO GIVE THEM
PA EXACTLY WHAT THEY'D ASKED FOR
WITH. NO, THIS WASN'T A
SETTLEMENT, I BELIEVE, SO MUCH
AS IT WAS JUST A CAPITULATION TO
THE DEMANDS. BUT I DON'T HAVE
THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY
INFORMATION. SO I THINK WHAT WE
ARE TRYING TO GET HERE IS SOME
TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHY WAS THIS
LAWSUIT SETTLED WHEN IT LOOKED,
FRANKLY, LIKE A MERITLESS
LAWSUIT FROM THE OUTSIDE? WHAT
WERE THE MERITS OF IT? WHAT WAS
THE JUSTIFICATION? WHAT WERE THE
CALCULATIONS THAT WENT INTO
THIS? AND WHAT I'VE HEARD A LOT
OF IS, HEY, THE AIR SHOW WAS
GOING TO PROVIDE LOTS OF FUTURE
BENEFITS. THAT MAY BE TRUE.
AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA ON
THAT EITHER, BUT THAT'S NOT
REALLY WHAT A LAWSUIT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. IT'S
SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT THE COST
BENEFIT OF THE LEGAL CLAIMS
INVOLVED, NOT ABOUT POTENTIAL
FUTURE REVENUES FROM DOING
BUSINESS WITH THE SAME ACTOR
HERE. I THINK YOU HAVE A
FIDUCIARY DUTY AND AN OBLIGATION
TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS THAT MAY OR
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE GOAL OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY HERE, IN FORGING THIS
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. BUT AGAIN,
WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR ANSWERS.
SO WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN A
BAD DECISION AND SOME ILLEGAL
ACT? BECAUSE YOU JUST SO AND I
SAY THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING.
I MEAN, I'LL PUT IT TO YOU,
THIS, THIS WAY. IF LIKE THE
LEGAL ANALYSTS DETERMINED THAT
THIS CASE WAS WORTHLESS AND THAT
THE AIR SHOW, LET'S JUST SAY, AS
A HYPOTHETICAL WAS ONLY ABLE TO
SHOW $50,000 IN DAMAGES AND YET
THE CITY WERE TO SETTLE FOR
SEVEN, $8 MILLION, AS WAS THE
CASE HERE, 5 MILLION PLUS A
NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT ADD
UP TO 7 MILLION IN TOTAL. I
THINK YOU'D SAY THAT PROBABLY
CROSSED THE LINE RIGHT NOW.
AGAIN, YOU GET IN THOSE GRAY
AREAS. I'M NOT MAKING ANY
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE
CITY THIS WAS A PUBLIC GIFT. WE
WOULD JUST LIKE INFORMATION TO
START MAKING THAT DETERMINATION
OURSELVES. OKAY. AND THE
QUESTION FOR THE AUDITOR, ARE
YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE THAT? SO WHEN WE LOOK
AT OBJECTIVE FOUR IN THE AUDIT
REQUEST, IT REALLY GETS AT HOW
DID THE CITY GO ABOUT
CALCULATING THE AMOUNTS TO BE
PAID UNDER THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT? AND WHAT WAS THE
RATIONALE. SO THE FOCUS OF THE
AUDIT AGAIN TO THE EXTENT THAT I
CAN BE AS SPECIFIC AS I CAN IN A
PUBLIC REPORT, TRYING TO PROVIDE
SOME TRANSPARENCY ABOUT HOW THE
CITY REACHED THOSE AMOUNTS SO
THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY
AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, CAN
UNDERSTAND THE THOUGHT PROCESS
BEHIND THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE
PAID. OKAY. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON. I'M I'M
TROUBLED BY THIS, I'M A FORMER
MAYOR OF A CHARTER CITY, FRESNO,
CALIFORNIA. AT THE HEART OF
THIS, I THINK, IS AN ALLEGATION
OF ILLEGALITY. AND YOU WANT THE
AUDITOR TO GO IN AND EITHER
DISPROVE IT OR PROVE IT. HOW DO
YOU HAVE JURISDICTION IN ORDER
TO ENTER INTO THAT KIND OF AN
AUDIT? IF I MIGHT ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, I'M ASKING THE
AUDITOR. IT'S MY AUDIT, AND I
THINK I'M ASKING THE AUDITOR IF
YOU MIGHT, SIR, I THINK YOU KNOW
WHAT I ASKED IF. NO, I'M TAKING
PRIVILEGE OF THIS SEAT. THE
AUDITOR IS THE ONE THAT NEEDS TO
BE ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS,
MR. PARKS. SO UNDER OBJECTIVE
FOUR, WHEN WE APPROACH THIS
AUDIT, OUR FOCUS WILL BE TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY
CALCULATED THE AMOUNTS THAT IT
PAID TO PACIFIC AIR SHOW. I
DON'T ENVISION US MAKING ANY
CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT
WAS AN APPROPRIATE OR
INAPPROPRIATE DECISION. THIS IS
PURELY ABOUT THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS THAT WENT INTO THAT
PAYMENT. AND AGAIN, I WOULD
CAVEAT IT WITH THE SPECIFICITY
THAT WE HAVE. OUR ABILITY TO BE
SPECIFIC IN A PUBLIC REPORT
WOULD BE POTENTIALLY LIMITED BY
BY ANY LAWSUITS THAT'S ONGOING.
CURRENTLY BUT TO ALSO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, WHAT AUTHORITY DO
WE HAVE TO AUDIT A CITY
GOVERNMENT CODE? 8,546.1 GRANTS
US THE AUTHORITY TO AUDIT ALL
CITIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT
YOU WERE BEING PUT IN THE PLACE
OF A JUDGE AND JURY. WE WOULD
NOT BE PASSING A LEGAL JUDGMENT.
WE ARE NOT A LEGAL BODY. YOU,
YOU, YOU YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO
DETERMINE HOW DID THEY GET IT.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE FINDINGS
, WHO IS GOING TO ASSESS OR MAKE
A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER, WHETHER THIS WAS
SATISFACTORY OR WHETHER THIS WAS
SOMEHOW LAWLESSNESS? THE PUBLIC
I JUST SAY, IF I COULD ADD ON TO
THAT, MR. CHAIR, I DON'T THINK
IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. ARE
WE ASKING FOR THIS TO BE A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION? WE'RE
JUST LOOKING FOR MORE ANSWERS.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE ANYWHERE IN
THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT REQUEST
DOES IT ASK FOR ANYTHING RELATED
TO ANY KIND OF JUDGMENT OR
FINDING OF SUCH? WE'RE JUST
REALLY LOOKING FOR INFORMATION
THAT THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN
WILLING TO PROVIDE SO FAR.
SENATOR SEYARTO AND THEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS AND THEN SENATOR
LARRY, THANK YOU, SO ALONG THOSE
THOSE LINES, WHETHER THEY'RE
STATUTE OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE
IS A THERE IS A BLURRING OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY REYES BETWEEN
FEDERAL, STATE AND, AND, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THAT'S WHAT A
CITY COUNCIL IS FOR, FRANKLY, I
WAS ON A CITY COUNCIL AND ALSO
MAYOR OF A CITY ALSO, AND WE HAD
LOTS OF AGREEMENTS AND SOME OF
THEM THE CITIZENS DIDN'T AGREE
WITH. AND SO THERE ARE, OF
COURSE, OF ACTION WAS TO COME
AND YELL AT US AT THE COUNCIL
MEETING UNTIL WE GAVE THEM THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY THOUGHT
THEY WANTED. AND BECAUSE THERE'S
NO REASON TO HIDE IT, THE
REASONS THAT THE CITY HAS GIVEN
FOR ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH SOMETHING LIKE THE AIR
SHOW. AND IT'S KIND OF FUNNY
BECAUSE IN 22, I THINK IT WAS WE
RENTED A HOUSE DOWN THERE TO
WATCH THE AIR SHOW. WE WERE PART
OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EFFORT THERE. THE ECONOMIC
EFFORT THERE. SO, AT SOME POINT
IT BECOMES A BUSINESS DECISION
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ENTITY,
WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT ENTITY
PROVIDE THAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO
THE CITY. IT'S NOT OUR ROLE. I
FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, I KEEP
HEARING HUNTINGTON BEACH AND I
FEEL LIKE THE STATE IS GOT GOT
THEIR EYE ON HUNTINGTON BEACH
FOR WHATEVER REASON. AND WE'RE
GOING TO KEEP PILING ON AND I
DON'T SEE THIS AS A LEGITIMATE
AUDIT FOR THE STATE TO BE DOING,
ESPECIALLY IN THE FISCAL,
ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE OPERATING
IN NOW, TO USE OUR RESOURCES TO
GO GET IN BETWEEN A LAWSUIT THAT
WAS SETTLED BETWEEN A CITY AND A
PRIVATE ENTITY THAT THEIR CITY
COUNCIL HAS FULL AUTHORITY TO
SAY NO TO YES, AND ANSWER TO
CITIZENS FOR SO I, I'M REALLY
STRUGGLING WITH WHY YOU THINK
THE STATE SHOULD INTERVENE IN
WHAT THE CITY IS DOING IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE. IS THAT A
QUESTION OR COMMENT? ASK A
QUESTION, I WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
INTERVENE IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
WE'RE ASKING FOR ANSWERS, WHICH
AGAIN, YOU POINTED OUT YOU WOULD
GIVE THE INFORMATION. THE
INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN
PROVIDED. AND I THINK THAT'S
THAT'S THE GIST OF THIS. THE
INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THIS
AUDIT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO
THE PUBLIC. AND SO I THINK
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING
FOR AS A FOLLOW UP TO THAT, HOW
HOW DID YOU, DEAL WITH THE
PUBLIC AND MAKING SURE THEY HAD
THE INFORMATION THEY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT THEY TRUSTED THEIR
CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE
DECISION ON THEIR BEHALF,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHO REPRESENTS
THEM? ULTIMATELY, I APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION, SENATOR, BECAUSE I
THINK THIS ANSWER WILL SHED A
LOT OF LIGHT. BUT, SO ON ON DAY
ONE, WHEN THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED, WE
PREPARED A MEMO OF THE SETTLING
TERMS. THERE WERE OTHER PORTIONS
OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT
WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, AND THAT'S
IN FRONT OF A JUDGE RIGHT NOW.
THAT DECISION IS IN FRONT OF A
JUDGE WHETHER TO DISCLOSE IT OR
NOT. THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
ITSELF, THE OPERATIVE TERMS THAT
ACTUALLY SETTLED THE LAWSUIT,
WERE MADE PUBLIC ON DAY ONE VIS
A VIS A MEMO THAT WAS SENT TO
THE PRESS. IT WAS SENT TO A
BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY
, AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAME, AS
YOU SAID, TO COUNCIL MEETINGS
FOR MONTHS AFTER THAT,
COMPLAINING, AND SO WE DID
DISCLOSE ALL OF THE OPERATIVE
SETTLEMENT TERMS. I CAN TELL
YOU, AS ONE WITH A UNIQUE
VANTAGE POINT, THAT THE DEMANDS,
THE INITIAL DEMANDS IN THE CASE
BY PACIFIC AIRSHOW WERE MUCH
HIGHER THAN WHAT IT WAS
ULTIMATELY SETTLED FOR.
NEGOTIATIONS WERE DIFFICULT FOR
MONTHS, AND THEY WERE WE WERE AT
IMPASSE A COUPLE OF TIMES. THE
STATE HAS PURVIEW OVER A LOT,
BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE PURVIEW OVER
EVERYTHING. AND I WILL TAKE
EXCEPTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT
CODE CITATION BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT SAY CHARTER CITIES, THE
GOVERNMENT CODE, WHEN IT WHEN
THE LEGISLATURE INTENDS IT APPLY
, INTENDS A STATUTE TO APPLY TO
CHARTER CITIES. IT SAYS COUNTY
CITY CHARTER CITIES AND OTHER
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. THE
GOVERNMENT CODE DOES NOT SAY
THAT HERE AND IF THIS COMMITTEE
NEEDS TO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN
THE AGENDA ITSELF, EVERY SINGLE
ITEM ON HERE IS A STATE PROJECT
OR A STATE FUNDED PROJECT.
EXCEPT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
ITEM, EVERY SINGLE ONE IS A
STATE PROJECT. THOSE ARE ALL
WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW. THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH ITEM IS THE
ONLY ONE. IT'S THE OUTLIER AND
IF THIS COUNCIL. I'M SORRY IF
THIS COMMITTEE WANTS TO PROBE
FURTHER WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO DO TO GET THE ANSWERS
THAT HE WANTS IS TO PIERCE
CLOSED SESSIONS, AND YOU'RE
NEVER GOING TO GET THOSE ANSWERS
, BECAUSE NOT ONLY UNDER THE
PENAL CODE, BUT UNDER STATE LAW,
CLOSE SESSION IS SACRED. AND ALL
OF THE ANSWERS, ALL THE REASONS
YOU WANT FOR WHILE THEY THINGS
WERE SETTLED, YOU CAN'T GET. AND
I CAN'T TELL YOU BECAUSE THEY
WERE PRIVILEGED IN CLOSED
SESSION THAT IS WHAT CLOSED
SESSION IS FOR. THAT'S WHERE ALL
OF THE DECISIONS WERE MADE. SO
YOU'VE HEARD SENATOR MEN SAY
REPEATEDLY, WE WANT TO KNOW WHY.
WE WANT TO KNOW WHY. WE WANT TO
KNOW THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS. HE'S BASICALLY SAYING,
WE WANT TO PEER INTO WHAT WAS
DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION,
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY
YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT. EVERY
OTHER WAY TO GET INFORMATION IS
ALREADY A MATTER OF PUBLIC
RECORD, WHICH WE HAVE DISCLOSED,
EXCEPT FOR THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS BEFORE A
JUDGE RIGHT NOW. AND I WILL ADD,
THAT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND AN ATTEMPT TO GET MORE
INFORMATION OR TO ACTUALLY, I'M
SORRY, MORE, MORE CLEARLY
PREVENT THE SETTLEMENT IN THE
FIRST PLACE IS A LAWSUIT WAS
FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH AND PACIFIC
AIRSHOW TO PREVENT THE
SETTLEMENT TO PREVENT THE
SETTLEMENT FROM GOING INTO
EFFECT, AND THAT LAWSUIT THAT
FOR WAS BROUGHT FOR THOSE SAME
REASONS. AND A JUDGE DISMISSED
THAT LAWSUIT. SO A JUDGE WAS NOT
PERSUADED, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
WAS NOT PERSUADED BY SENATOR
MIN'S ARGUMENTS TO EITHER STOP
THE SETTLEMENT OR RELEASE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND THAT
JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE. SO
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN
ADJUDICATED IN A COURT OF LAW.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, THANK YOU,
SENATOR LAIRD. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, A FEW COMMENTS
GIVEN THIS CONVERSATION. FIRST,
I AM A FORMER CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE. I AM AWARE THAT, IN
FACT, WE HAVE AUDITED CHARTER
CITIES. WE DO IT BECAUSE WE
AUDIT ACROSS THE BOARD ON, THE
FISCAL HEALTH OF CITIES AND
THEIR CHARTER CITIES THAT
HAVEN'T YOU GET TO WAVE AROUND
THIS AGENDA. BUT IF YOU ARRIVED
AROUND THE PAST ONE, YOU WOULD
SEE THAT WE HAVE AN AUDIT
BECAUSE OF MALFEASANCE OR
ALLEGED MALFEASANCE WITH THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JAIL AND
VARIOUS CITIES THERE. IF YOU
LOOK AT ONE THAT HAPPENED SINCE
I'VE BEEN BACK IN THE SENATE, WE
AUDITED THE METROPOLITAN WATER
DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL,
HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS. THAT IS
THE HABIT AND PRACTICE OF THIS
COMMITTEE. AND I, TOO, AM A
FORMER MAYOR OF A CHARTER CITY.
AND WHEN I WAS SWORN IN IN THE
CITY COUNCIL THE YEAR BEFORE,
SIX POLICE OFFICERS WERE ACCUSED
OF 25 COUNTS OF FELONY BRUTALITY
ON UNHOUSED PEOPLE AND THE LAST
PEOPLE TO INVESTIGATE IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN THE PEOPLE OF THAT
CHARTER CITY. THIS THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A VERY APPROPRIATE
AUDIT BECAUSE IT WAS SIMILAR
ISSUES IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THAT
WAS AT THE ROOT OF THE SAN DIEGO
AUDIT. SO I THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE AT THE THING THAT
IS, IS I THINK THE DIFFICULTY
HERE IS THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO
JUMP TO THE CHARACTERIZATION
BEFORE WE KNOW THE FACTS AND IS
IT A GIFT TO PUBLIC FUNDS? WELL,
IS THE FACT THAT THE LOSS TO THE
AIR SHOW WAS $1 MILLION AND THE
PAYMENT OF THE CITY WAS 5 OR 8
MILLION? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF
YOU CAN GET TO THE FACTS, THEN
YOU CAN HAVE THE ARGUMENT ABOUT
THE CHARACTERIZATION, BUT THE
REAL ISSUE HERE IS WHAT THE
FACTS ARE AND WHETHER THE FACTS
EXIST IN A WAY THAT WASN'T CLEAR
AND SO I THINK THIS IS AN
APPROPRIATE AUDIT. IT'S
APPROPRIATE WITH A CHARTER CITY.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE
DONE AS A COMMITTEE. AND IT IS
ALWAYS DIFFICULT BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, I'VE SERVED AS A SCHOOL
BOARD MEMBER, AS A MAYOR, AS AN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, AS A BOARD
MEMBER, AS A CABINET SECRETARY.
AND YOU ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH
WHAT TO RELEASE OR WHAT IS OUT
THERE. BUT AT THE HEART OF EVERY
ONE IS A KERNEL OF TRUTH, AND
THE HEART OF EVERY ONE IS A
PRACTICE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
LEARN FROM AND NOT REPEAT. AND
SO, I AM GOING TO AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, SUPPORT THE ON
IT. THANK YOU. SENATOR LAIRD,
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
SENATOR CORTEZ? THANK YOU, AND I
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. SENATOR
LAIRD'S, ELOQUENT EXPLANATION OF
HIS INTERPRETATION OF THINGS
TODAY, WE JUST THE AUDITOR JUST,
RECENTLY UNVEILED AN AUDIT ON
HOMELESSNESS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I WROTE THAT AUDIT
REQUEST. THE PRIMARY CITY,
IDENTIFIED FOR THAT AUDIT WAS
THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, MY HOME
CITY, WHICH IS A CHARTER CITY,
CITY SHOWED UP HERE TO GIVE
THEIR INPUT ON THAT AUDIT
REQUEST, OVER A YEAR AGO, AS I
RECALL, AND DIDN'T RAISE ANY
CHARTER CITY OBJECTIONS. SO I
FEEL LIKE THAT ISSUE TODAY NEEDS
TO BE A MATTER OF CONSISTENCY
FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE, I
DON'T THINK WE CAN PICK AND
CHOOSE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT
COUNCIL IS SOMEHOW CORRECT IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK
THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE IN TERMS
OF CONSISTENCY, WHAT THE JOINT
LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE DOES
AND HAS BEEN DOING. SENATOR
LAIRD POINTED TO, PAST CUSTOM
AND PRACTICE. AT A MINIMUM. I'M
DOING THE SAME, I SUSPECT,
BECAUSE, BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF A
GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, IF IN
FACT, THAT'S ON THE TABLE, IS
ACTUALLY EMBODIED IN THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, NOT,
YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY IN, IN
STATUTE AROUND CHARTER CITIES
THAT, THAT OUR AUDITOR HAS THE
RIGHT TO GO IN AND, AND REVIEW
ANY ENCROACHMENT ON THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHEREVER IT'S COMING
FROM IN THIS STATE, IF IT'S A
MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. AND
THEN AS TO THE ISSUE OF, CLOSED
SESSION, HAVING SPENT ABOUT 30
YEARS IN THOSE SESSIONS, I THINK
THERE IS A LEGITIMATE
INTERPRETATION THAT YOU HAVE THE
RIGHT IN THE BROWN ACT,
CONTENDED ANOTHER STATE LAW, BY
THE WAY, TO PROTECT YOUR
BARGAINING POSITION WHILE YOU'RE
IN CLOSED SESSION SO THAT THE
VERY ENTITY THAT YOU'RE
NEGOTIATING WITH ISN'T PRIVY,
TO, TO YOUR BARGAINING POSITION,
YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOUR OFFER IS
HIGH OR LOW OR WHAT THE DETAILS
ARE AND THE TERMS THAT THAT
YOU'RE WISHING TO OFFER, AND NOT
UNDERMINING THOSE ELECTED
OFFICIALS WHO MAY WANT YOU TO,
YOU KNOW, START LOW AND MOVE UP
OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER THAT
POSITION IS. WHAT I'M NOT CLEAR
ON IS THAT, THAT YOU CAN
WITHHOLD FROM THE PUBLIC THE
FINAL TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.
ONCE PUBLIC FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY
INVOLVED OR PUBLIC CONSIDERATION
IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AND
PERHAPS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED OR
LITIGATED AT SOME POINT FURTHER
THAN IT HAS TO DATE IN CASE LAW.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COMMITTEE TO AS SENATOR LAIRD, I
THINK, ALLUDED TO, TO JUMP AHEAD
AND TRY TO ANTICIPATE WHAT THE
INTERPRETATION WOULD BE OF
WITHHOLDING TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT THAT SENATOR MINH IS
LOOKING FOR, PURSUANT TO THE
BROWN ACT. I THINK THAT'S A
DIFFERENT QUESTION. AND IF IT'S
CHALLENGEABLE OR NOT, I THINK
THE CITY IN THIS CASE HAS TO, GO
HOME AND CAUCUS AND FIGURE OUT
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO
CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE IN THAT REGARD. BUT
WITH ALL THOSE COMMENTS, I'M
GOING TO BE SUPPORTING, I FIRST
OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY I
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE DEBATE AND
DISCUSSION HERE. I UNDERSTAND, I
THINK, WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE CITY
IS TRYING TO PROTECT, I SUSPECT
AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT, THE
CITY HAS HAS A RIGHT TO, TO MAKE
A DECISION ABOUT THE VALUE OF
THE CONSIDERATION TO, TO ARRIVE
AT A FINAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
OF SETTLEMENT AND THAT'S NOT
GOING TO BE AN ISSUE IN AND OF
ITSELF. BUT I ALSO SUSPECT THAT
THE PUBLIC IS HAS A RIGHT TO
KNOW WHAT A LOT MORE THAN THEY
DO PRESENTLY ABOUT THE FINAL
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. I THINK
THAT'S WHAT SENATOR MEANS AFTER
AND THAT THAT I'M WILLING TO
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. ARE THERE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER? QUIRK-SILVA. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT WAS
MENTIONED WAS WHAT PURVIEW DO WE
HAVE AT THE STATE TO, IN
ESSENCE, INSERT OURSELVES INTO
WHETHER IT'S CHARTER OR EVEN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT
INDEED HAS BEEN THE QUESTION OF
OUR TIME, WAS MENTIONED IS WHY
IS HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKING
HEADLINES? ARE THEY BEING PICKED
ON? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT, TO
BE PUNITIVE? THE TRUTH IS THAT
HUNTINGTON BEACH IS MAKING THEIR
OWN HEADLINES FOR NOT FOLLOWING
STATE LAW IN THIS CASE, IT'S
ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. THIS IS A
REQUEST FOR TRANSPARENCY, NOT
JUST FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO
HAVE COME TIME AFTER TIME TO
HUNTINGTON BEACH TO SAY THIS IS
OF THEIR CONCERN. BUT WHEN WE
SAY THE GENERAL FUND FUNDED THIS
, THE GENERAL FUND IS INDEED
TAXPAYER DOLLARS WAS AND IT IS
THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS TO KNOW
HOW TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE USED. I
TOO WAS A SITTING MEMBER OF THE
FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL, AND WE
OFTEN GET PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS. THERE HAS BEEN AN
EXPLOSION OF PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS AND IN FACT, IT IS THE
WHAT WE NOW ALL IN PUBLIC
OFFICE, FACE PEOPLE WANT
INFORMATION AND WHETHER THAT
INFORMATION IS USED IN A
POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, THAT IS
HOW THE PUBLIC NOW WORKS. AND WE
OFTEN OURSELVES, AS ELECTED
OFFICIALS, FIND THAT WE TOO ARE
PART OF THIS INFORMATION FACT
FINDING. BUT AT THE CORE OF
THIS, IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
AND WHEN WE SAY WE WANT
TRANSPARENCY, THèC AND
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THINGS LIKE
HOMELESS STUDIES, FOR HOW WE USE
HOMELESS DOLLARS AND WHAT IS THE
STATE'S DOING WITH ALL OF THESE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THEN WE TOO
SHOULD BE ASKING THOSE SAME
QUESTIONS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND
BE READY TO PROVIDE THAT
INFORMATION. WE SHOULDN'T. YES,
WE HAVE CLOSED SESSION IN CLOSED
SESSION, BUT WE SHOULD BE
WILLING AND ABLE TO WANT TO
SHARE WHY DECISIONS ARE MADE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CERTAIN
PRIVATE INFORMATION, THAT CANNOT
BE DISCLOSED. BUT AS MUCH AS WE
CAN BE CONSISTENT ACROSS THE
STATE TO SAY, IF YOU WANT THIS
INFORMATION FOR THIS TOPIC, THEN
WE ALSO NEED TO PROVIDE IT FOR
THIS TOPIC. SO I SUPPORT THAT
AND MOVE THIS AGENDA ITEM. THANK
YOU. SENATOR QUIRK-SILVA. ARE
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AT THIS
TIME? WE'LL ASK IF MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE COMMENT.
NOW IS YOUR TIME AND PLEASE KEEP
YOUR COMMENTS TO ONE MINUTE
EACH. I DON'T SEE ANYONE SO WE
HAVE A MOTION ON THE Ó. EXCUSE
ME, SENATOR MINH, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO MAKE A CLOSING COMMENT? YES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU,
MEMBERS, FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION, THIS IS, AS
ASSEMBLYWOMAN QUIRK-SILVA SAID
ULTIMATELY ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
AND JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS ONCE
SAID, SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST
DISINFECTANT. INFECTANT. EXCUSE
ME, I WILL RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE
WITH SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW MADE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I
DO THINK THIS COMMITTEE HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THIS AUDIT.
I DO THINK THAT THIS INFORMATION
SHOULD BE AVAILABLE, AND I DON'T
THINK THAT ANYBODY, INCLUDING
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN A
CHARTER CITY, SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW
OF CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, WITH
THAT BEING SAID, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA. IS THERE A
SECOND SECOND FROM ASSEMBLY
MEMBER VALENCIA? MADAM
SECRETARY, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? MOTION TO APPROVE
AUDIT REQUEST NUMBER 2024, DASH
103. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PACIFIC AIRSHOW SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BY SENATOR MINH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, HEART I, HEART
I BERNER I BERNER I HOOVER.
HOOVER. NOT VOTING. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. NO QUIRK-SILVA.
QUIRK-SILVA I. RUBIO. RUBIO I
VALENCIA. YES. VALENCIA. I
SENATOR. LAIRD. LAIRD I CORTEZ.
CORTEZ I EGGMAN. GONZALEZ.
GONZALEZ I. MINH MINH I SATO.
COR ITO. NØ. WILK I WILK I. THE
AUDIT IS APPROVED, CAN WE PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS ON THE
AUDIT REQUEST FOR ADD ONS? WE'LL
SEE YOU TONIGHT. MOTION TO ELECT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HART AS CHAIR OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
VALENCIA. VALENCIA. AYE. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. SENATOR EGGMAN.
SENATOR GONZALEZ. SENATOR. MIN.
MIN. AYE. MOTION TO APPROVE
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
2020 4-104. ORANGE COUNTY
SECTION EIGHT PROGRAM BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA 2020
4-105 DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS
CONTROL YOUTH ADVERTISING AND
MARKETING ENFORCEMENT BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IRWIN, 2020
4-106 TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY
CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND
OVERSIGHT BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
MURATSUCHI 2020 4-108 ALAMEDA
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES BY SENATOR
WAHAB 2020 4-109 DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
REVIEWS PROCEDURES AND OVERSIGHT
BY SENATOR GLAZER 2020 4-111
CALIFORNIA COLLEGES AFFORDABLE
STUDENT HOUSING BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HART 2020 4-114
CALIFORNIA STATE FACILITIES
MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
STAFFING CONTRACTS BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWENTHAL, 2020 4-116
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
OFFICE OF AIDS BY SENATOR LAIRD
AND 2020 4-118 DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES. STATE
TELEWORK POLICIES BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HOOVER ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA I
VALENCIA. VALENCIA I. SENATOR
EGGMAN
.
MOTION TO APPROVE AUDIT. REQUEST
NUMBER 2024. DASH 107.
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY YOUTH ACT
IMPLEMENTATION BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ZEBRA. ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
HOOVER. NOT VOTING. HOOVER NOT
VOTING. VALENCIA VALENCIA I.
EGGMAN. SENATOR. EGGMAN. MOTION
TO APPROVE AUDIT. REQUEST NUMBER
2024. DASH 115. DIVISION OF
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, QUIRK-SILVA.
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE. VALENCIA.
VALENCIA I. SENATOR EGGMAN. THAT
CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS FOR THE
DAY. AND I ADJOURN THIS HEARING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH