GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, JUST A NOTE THAT ITEM
11, SB 42. ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN PULLED FROM,
FROM TODAY'S HEARING, THE RULES
FOR WITNESS TESTIMONY ARE THAT
EACH SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TWO
MAIN WITNESSES. EACH WITNESSES
WILL HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO
MINUTES TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF, OR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAMES. ORGANIZATION.
IF ANY, AND THEIR POSITION. AS
WE PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND
PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I WILL UNDERSTANDS THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING. I WILL
ELABORATE ON THAT. IF IT IS
NECESSARY, AND I HOPE THAT WON'T
BE NECESSARY TODAY, AND SO WE
WILL. WE DON'T HAVE QUORUM AT
THE MOMENT, SO WE WILL PROCEED
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, SO WE CAN
BEGIN HEARING BILLS. AND WE DO
HAVE A SENATE AUTHOR HERE WITH
US TODAY FOR ITEM ONE, SB 278.
SENATOR DODD. RUSH UP HERE
BEFORE SENATOR UMBERG.
YEAH WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
YEAH. YES. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS,
I'M PRESENTING SB 278 PERTAINING
TO ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE. SB 278
IS ABOUT PROTECTING SENIORS FROM
FINANCIAL SCAMS, PLAIN AND
SIMPLE. SB 278 IS ABOUT UPDATING
CURRENT LAW. EXCUSE ME? TO MAKE
CLEAR WHAT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE MANDATED
REPORTERS OF ELDER ABUSE NEED TO
DO TO PROTECT ELDERS WHEN THERE
IS REASONABLE SUSPICION. A
SENIOR IS LIKELY BEING SCAMMED
AND SB 278 IS ALSO ABOUT
PROVIDING BANKS, CREDIT UNIONS
AND OTHERS LIABILITY PROTECTION
WHEN THEY DO THE RIGHT THING TO
PROTECT ELDERLY PEOPLE AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS. ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE
IS EVERYWHERE. LOSSES EXCEED $23
BILLION ANNUALLY. ONCE A SENIOR
FALLS PREY TO FINANCIAL FRAUD,
THEY MAY NEVER RECOVER AS
MANDATED. REPORTERS, BANKS AND
CREDIT UNIONS ARE WELL
POSITIONED TO DETECT WHEN AN
ELDER MAY BE THE VICTIM OF A
SCAM OR OTHER FINANCIAL ABUSE
AND TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT
ELDERS FROM DEVASTATING LOSSES
OF THEIR LIFE SAVINGS.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR CURRENT
FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE STATUTE IS
NOT AS CLEAR AS IT SHOULD BE ON
WHAT STEPS A BANK OR CREDIT
UNION SHOULD TAKE TO PROTECT
AGAINST SENIOR SCAMS. SB 278
WILL HELP PROTECT SENIORS BY
ENABLING A COMPREHENSIVE UPFRONT
SCAM PREVENTION POLICY FOR
CALIFORNIA'S BANKS AND CREDIT
UNIONS. MR. CHAIR, YOUR
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS FOCUSES ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PERTAINING
TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF SB 278, A
BILL THAT WE'VE WORKED ON FOR
THE LAST 18 MONTHS. MY STAFF AND
SPONSORS WORK CLOSELY WITH YOUR
CONSULTANT TO CRAFT WHAT I THINK
IS A FAIR, TIERED AND NARROW
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WHICH
LIMITS THE LEVYING OF SERIOUS
PENALTIES TO, REALLY, REALLY BAD
BEHAVIOR, WHICH IS A VERY HIGH
STANDARD TO PROVE. I WANT TO
EXTEND MY THANKS TO YOUR
CONSULTANT. SHE WORKED
TIRELESSLY WITH MY STAFF TO
LISTEN TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS AND
HELP US DRAFT WHAT I CONSIDER AS
A REASONABLE COMPROMISE WITH ME
TODAY IS AMY WILLIAMS, THE
DAUGHTER OF TWO VICTIMS OF ELDER
FINANCIAL FRAUD, AND KIRSTEN
FISH WITH CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MISTER CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS AMY WILLIAMS
FROM SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AND
I'M HERE TO URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF
SB 278. MY PARENTS, AVE AND
WILLIAM BORTZ, ARE NOW 80 YEARS
OLD. THEY BECAME VICTIMS OF
ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE THROUGH AN
AMAZON FRAUD SCAM. THE SCAMMERS
CONTACTED THEM, PRETENDED TO BE
AMAZON REFUND CENTER EMPLOYEES,
AND CONNED THEM INTO GIVING THEM
ACCESS TO THEIR DESKTOP
COMPUTERS. THE SCAMMERS THEN
BULLIED, HARASSED AND PRESSURED
THEM INTO SENDING WIRE TRANSFERS
TO HONG KONG TO FACILITATE THE
AMAZON REFUND, THE RESULT OF
THIS WAS THE DRAINING OF THEIR
BANK ACCOUNT IN EIGHT DAYS THEY
LOST JUST UNDER $700,000. WE
CONTACTED THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, THE FBI, ADULT
PROTECTIVE SERVICES OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY AND THE SECRET SERVICE
FOR HELP WITH THE CRIMINAL SIDE
OF THIS MATTER, BUT THEY WERE
UNABLE TO BRING THE SCAMMERS TO
JUSTICE. THERE IS ALSO AN
IMPORTANT BANKING SIDE OF THE
EQUATION. EVEN THOUGH MY ELDERLY
PARENTS HAD NEVER SENT AN
INTERNATIONAL WIRE TRANSFER IN
THEIR LIFE, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO
SET THEIR BANK PROCESSED FOR
LARGE WIRE TRANSFERS TO
DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS IN HONG
KONG. IN HONG KONG, IN EIGHT
DAYS, WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED,
THE FIRST THREE WIRE TRANSFERS
WERE FOR JUST UNDER $200,000
EACH. THE FINAL AND FOURTH
TRANSFER WAS FOR $97,500, WHICH
FULLY DRAINED THEIR BANK ACCOUNT
. THEIR BANK DID NOTHING TO
PROTECT MY PARENTS FROM WHAT HAS
BEEN OFFICIALLY DECLARED
FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE BY ADULT
PROTECTIVE SERVICES. IN FACT,
WHEN WE REPORTED THIS ELDER
ABUSE TO THE BANK, THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE BLAMED MY PARENTS
FOR THE SCAM, CALLING THEM
WILLING PARTICIPANTS IN THE SCAM
. WHEN MY PARENTS TRIED TO HOLD
THE BANK ACCOUNTABLE, THEIR CASE
WAS DISMISSED IN FEDERAL COURT
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA LAW IS
UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT BANKS MUST DO
TO PROTECT THE ELDERLY CUSTOMERS
FROM THESE WELL-KNOWN SCAMS.
THIS DID NOT NEED TO HAPPEN TO
MY PARENTS. THE STRESS AND
TRAUMA CAUSED BY THIS FINANCIAL
ABUSE ACCELERATED MY MOTHER'S
DETERIORATION. WITH ADVANCED
ALZHEIMER'S. MY PARENTS NOW LIVE
IN AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY,
AND THIS MONEY WAS MEANT TO
PROVIDE FOR THEIR NEEDS. THE
MONEY STOLEN FROM THEM CAME FROM
THE SALE OF OUR FAMILY HOME
THEY'D OWNED FOR 50 YEARS.
INSTEAD, OUR FAMILY NOW WORRIES
ABOUT HOW WE MUST FILL THE GAP.
THE FACT THAT THIS WAS
PREVENTABLE HAUNTS ME TO THIS
DAY. BANKS ARE THE FINANCIAL
EXPERTS AND THE ONES WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR CUSTOMERS
BANKING PATTERNS, THE DANGERS OF
THE FRAUD, AND THE SKILL LEVELS
OF THE SCAMMERS THEY ARE THE
GUARDIANS AT THE GATE. SB 278 IS
A VITAL FIRST STEP TO HELPING
PREVENT FINANCIAL ABUSE BECAUSE
WITHOUT CLEAR GUIDELINES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, SENIORS LIKE MY
PARENTS WILL CONTINUE TO BE LEFT
WITHOUT JUSTICE AND PROTECTION.
I URGE YOUR SUPPORT FOR SB 278.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KIRSTEN FISH AND I AM
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE BILL'S
CO-SPONSOR, CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
OF CALIFORNIA. AS A FORMER LAW
PROFESSOR AND AN ATTORNEY, I
HAVE SPENT THE LAST 20 YEARS OF
MY CAREER FOCUSING ON
REPRESENTING ELDERS WHO ARE
VICTIMS OF FINANCIAL AND
PHYSICAL ABUSE, AND OVER THE
YEARS, I'VE RECEIVED MANY
HEARTBREAKING CALLS FROM ELDERS,
EXACTLY LIKE MISS WILLIAMS
PARENTS, WHO HAVE BEEN SWINDLED
OUT OF THEIR ENTIRE LIFE SAVINGS
BY SCAMMERS. I'VE MET VICTIMS
WHO HAVE BECOME HOMELESS AND
WHO'VE HAD TO RELY ON FAMILY OR
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ONCE THEIR
LIFE SAVINGS ARE GONE. AND WE
ALL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN
PREVENTING FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE
AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHO
ARE MANDATED REPORTERS OF SUCH
ABUSE HAVE A PIVOTAL ROLE TO
PLAY IN PREVENTING THIS TYPE OF
ABUSE FROM HAPPENING. SB 278 IS
A NARROW BILL THAT FOLLOWS THE
RESEARCH AND THE ADVICE OF
EXPERTS, INCLUDING THE FBI, THE
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
THE CFPB AND AARP ON HOW TO BEST
STOP ELDERS FROM LOSING THEIR
LIFE SAVINGS TO SCAMMERS. IT
PROVIDES A CLEAR ROADMAP FOR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO FOLLOW
TO PROTECT THEIR OLDER CUSTOMERS
FROM FINANCIAL RUIN. IT REQUIRES
THEY ESTABLISH AN EMERGENCY
CONTACT PROGRAM AND TAKE
SPECIFIC ACTION TO INTERVENE
WHEN THEY REASONABLY SUSPECT
FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE IS
OCCURRING. IN CONNECTION WITH
TRANSACTIONS OF $505,000 OR
MORE, AND TO ENCOURAGE VIGILANCE
IN IDENTIFYING FINANCIAL ABUSE.
IT ALSO PROVIDES LIABILITY
PROTECTIONS FOR BANKS WHO DELAY
A TRANSACTION OR WHO MAKE A
DISCLOSURE TO A JOINT ACCOUNT
HOLDER OR A DESIGNATED FINANCIAL
CONTACT, AND THE TIERED
ENFORCEMENT APPROACH HERE IS
ALSO MEANT TO INCENTIVIZE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW BY
ENACTING A CIVIL PENALTY OF UP
TO $5,000 FOR NONCOMPLIANCE AND
ANY FURTHER LIABILITY WOULD ONLY
ATTACH FOR FAILING TO CONTACT A
TRUSTED CONTACT OR PLACING THE
THREE DAY HOLD. IF THERE IS A
REASONABLE SUSPICION OF
FINANCIAL ABUSE. BY ENCOURAGING
BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
AND CREDIT UNIONS TO PUT A HOLD
ON TRANSACTIONS THAT THEY
SUSPECT ARE ABUSIVE, WE CAN ADD
A STRONG LAYER OF PROTECTION TO
PREVENT SENIORS LIKE MISS
WILLIAMS PARENTS FROM BEING
FINANCIALLY ABUSED. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 278? DEB ROTH,
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS MARIE
LOPEZ WITH THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ART PACHECO, CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SORRY,
BRENDAN. APP. ON BEHALF OF THE
CO-SPONSOR, THE CALIFORNIA LOW
INCOME CONSUMER COALITION, AS
WELL AS FOLLOWS BET ZACH LEGAL
SERVICES, CENTROLEGAL DE LA
RAZA, COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
OF EAST PALO ALTO. CONTRA COSTA
SENIOR LEGAL SERVICES, ELDER LAW
AND ADVOCACY, LEGAL AID OF MARIN
LEGAL AID, SOCIETY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, LEGAL ASSISTANCE OF
THE ELDERLY. LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOR SENIORS, OPEN DOOR LEGAL
PUBLIC COUNSEL, PUBLIC LAW
CENTER, RIVERSIDE LEGAL AID,
SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY LAW
CENTER, AND WATSONVILLE LAW
CENTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 278?
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, I'M JASON LANE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA BANKERS
ASSOCIATION. AND, WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR HIS CONTINUED
EFFORT TO WORK ON THIS. WE SPENT
THE INDUSTRY, SPENT 18 MONTHS
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A PROPOSAL
THAT WOULD STRIKE A BALANCE
BETWEEN PROTECTING SENIORS FROM
SCAMS, BUT NOT BUT ALSO NOT
CAUSING AN OVERREACTION BY THE
FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY.
THAT WOULD DENY VITAL FUNDS TO
SENIORS BECAUSE OF THE LIABILITY
ATTACHED TO THE BILL. I WAS WE
WERE PLEASED, AS PLEASED AS AN
ASSOCIATION TO REMOVE OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL IN THE BANKING
COMMITTEE. BUT WE DID WARN IN
THE COMMITTEE THAT THE BILL HAS
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,
ARE THE RESULT OF THE PROVISION
OF THE BILL THAT REQUIRES
INSTITUTIONS TO HOLD
TRANSACTIONS OF $5,000 OR MORE
AND WE WARNED THAT IN SOME
CASES, SOME INSTITUTIONS WILL
JUST DEFAULT TO HOLDING THE
TRANSACTION ENTIRELY. WE'RE A
HEAVILY REGULATED INDUSTRY, AND,
THE INDUSTRY IS ALL ABOUT RISK
MITIGATION. AND SO MY MEMBERS
WILL ALWAYS TRY AND FIND THE
STRAIGHTEST PATH TO COMPLIANCE.
AND IN SOME CASES, THAT WILL BE
JUST TO HOLD A TRANSACTION
RATHER THAN INJECTING
SUBJECTIVITY INTO A DECISION AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A
REASONABLE SUSPICION OF FRAUD.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ALSO WARNED IN
THE COMMITTEE THAT A PRA,
DEPENDING UPON HOW IT'S DRAFTED,
PROBABLY MAGNIFIES THOSE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TENFOLD.
AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THE, THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE,
THAT THE COMMITTEE IS
CONSIDERING HAS THE HAS CBA BACK
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, IT IS
A PRA BUT IT IS ALSO STATUTORY
DAMAGES FOR A TECHNICAL
VIOLATION. AND WHILE SENATOR
DODD HAS SAID THAT IT'S ONLY FOR
THE WORST OF THE WORST ACTORS,
UNFORTUNATELY WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT'S TRUE. TROUBLE DAMAGES,
NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES, PAIN AND
SUFFERING. AND THERE DOESN'T
HAVE TO BE ANY DIRECT CAUSE OF
FINANCIAL HARM TO THE SENIOR.
AND WE HAVE ASKED FOR THAT. IF
THERE IS A PRA WE BELIEVE THE
PLAINTIFFS MUST HAVE TO PROVE
THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE
INSTITUTION DIRECTLY RESULTED IN
FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE SENIOR.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS NOT IN
THE PROVISIONS THAT THE
COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING.
ADDITIONALLY, EMPLOYEES ARE
STILL HELD CIVILLY LIABLE UNDER
THE AMENDMENTS THAT THE
COMMITTEE IS, IS CONSIDERING. SO
WE MUST RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE
BILL. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS, ROBERT WILSON,
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE SENATOR HAS DONE A LOT OF
WORK ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE LAST
18 MONTHS AND TRYING TO BRING
ALL PARTIES TOGETHER. WE TRULY
APPRECIATE IT, YOU KNOW, THE
ISSUE OF ELDER ELDER FINANCIAL
ABUSE IS SOMETHING THAT CREDIT
UNIONS TAKE EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY,
AS EVERYONE HAS INDICATED, WE
ARE MANDATED REPORTERS UNDER
CURRENT LAW. YOU KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN WE END UP REPORTING
THAT, INSTANCE OF WHEN WE
SUSPECT ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE IS
PROBABLY A STORY FOR ANOTHER
DAY, BUT, IT IS OUR STRONG
BELIEF THAT THE BILL AND PRINT
THE BILL THAT CAME OUT OF
BANKING COMMITTEE IS SOMETHING
THAT WILL PREVENT FRAUD, IT IS
SOMETHING WITH THE EMERGENCY
FINANCIAL CONTACT SYSTEM THAT
OUR INSTITUTIONS WILL BE ABLE TO
CONTACT SOMEONE'S, DAUGHTER OR
SON OR WHOEVER IT MAY BE, FRIEND
OR FAMILY SAYING, HEY, LOOK, WE
THINK YOUR YOUR FOLKS ARE
UNDERGOING A SCAM AND THEN THEY
CAN HOPEFULLY TALK THEM OUT OF
THAT SCAM. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT
THE HOLD IS GOING TO CAUSE SOME
CONSTERNATION AMONG SENIORS
SAYING, HEY, LOOK, YOU CAN'T
HAVE YOUR MONEY YOU WANT TODAY.
BUT IN INSTANCES WHERE THEY
REASONABLY SUSPECT ELDER
FINANCIAL ABUSE, IT'S PROBABLY A
GOOD THING. AS MY COLLEAGUE WITH
THE BANKERS SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS
BILL IS GOING TO CREATE SOME
FRICTION. AND HOW MUCH FRICTION
THE BILL CREATES REALLY BOILS
DOWN TO THE POTENTIAL
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN THE
BILL, YOU KNOW, AS MY COLLEAGUE
SAID, WE BELIEVE IT GOES A
LITTLE TOO FAR, IN THIS
INSTANCE. AND WE THINK THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY THAT CREDIT UNIONS
WILL OVERCORRECT AND WILL START
HOLDING MORE TRANSACTIONS THAN
THEY SHOULD, WHICH WILL LEAD TO
SENIORS NOT ACCESSING THEIR
FUNDS, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING
ANYONE WOULD WANT, I ALSO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUE OF
PERSONAL LIABILITY. MY
MEMBERSHIP TAKES GREAT ISSUE
WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN
THE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA STATE
LEGISLATOR PROTECTING WORKERS OF
ALL CLASSIFICATIONS. IT REMAINS
A MYSTERY TO ME WHY WE ARE GOING
TO GO AFTER SUPERVISORS OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. WE
APPRECIATE IT NOT BEING ON THE
TELLERS, BUT THE SUPERVISORS ARE
STILL GENERALLY YOUNG, WORKING
THEIR WAY THROUGH SCHOOL AND
COULD REALLY RUIN A 20 SOMETHING
YEAR OLD'S LIFE, AND WE DON'T
WANT TO SEE THAT. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME TODAY, AND, YEAH.
THANK YOU, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB 278?
GOOD MORNING LINSEY GOLDEN WITH
CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BANKING
NETWORK. RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO THANK
YOU TO THE AUTHOR, THANK YOU FOR
THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION, IT
IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR, OUR
ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS. GIVEN THE
FRAUD, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS TO
KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO
OPPOSITION, I KNOW THEY THEY
REMOVED THEIR OPPOSITION IN
BANKING. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHY
WE'RE WE'RE AMENDING THIS BILL
TO ADD THE PRA, I MEAN, THIS IS
TO THE AUTHOR BECAUSE FAIR
ENOUGH. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND, THESE
ARE THE, THESE ARE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE WORKED OUT
WITH THE, THE CHAIR AND THE
CONSULTANT, CERTAINLY THERE HAS
TO BE ENFORCEMENT, ON A BILL.
AND I WILL POINT OUT MOST OF THE
BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO AN
AWESOME JOB. I MYSELF WENT IN
AND I AM A SENIOR, WENT IN FOR,
A WIRE TRANSFER, TO, TO WIRE
SOME MONEY SOMEWHERE AND MY BANK
ASKED ME 3 OR 4 QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE TRANSACTION. DO YOU KNOW
WHERE THIS MONEY IS GOING? DO
YOU HAVE A RELATIONSHIP THERE?
DO YOU HAVE AN ACCOUNT? YOU
KNOW, ASK THOSE QUESTIONS THAT
ARE THE VERY BASIS OF, YOU KNOW,
OF OUR BILL. SO I WAS QUITE
THRILLED ABOUT THAT, FRANKLY.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT
WRITE LEGISLATION FOR ALL THE
GOOD ACTORS. WE'RE WRITING
LEGISLATION FOR THOSE ACTORS
THAT DON'T COMPLY, THAT DON'T
WITH THE WITH JUST THE BASIC
STANDARDS. I THINK THAT SHOULD
THAT OTHER BANKS CERTAINLY
RECOGNIZE AND ARE DOING ON THEIR
OWN. SO I TALKED TO THE CHAIR.
WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS,
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. WHAT I'VE
HEARD FROM, THE OPPOSITION TODAY
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A CUSTOMER MUST
HAVE DAMAGES, YOU KNOW, THAT
MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE'LL HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS GOING FORWARD. WE'VE
WORKED WITH THEM FOR 18 MONTHS
ON THIS. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK
THAT THIS SHOULD BE A HOLDUP ON
THIS BILL TODAY. HOPEFULLY. BUT
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS, ASSEMBLYMEMBER,
SENATOR DODD AND I CAN ELABORATE
, BANKING DIDN'T LEFT BANKING
WITHOUT AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. AND SO I THINK THERE
WAS AN UNDERSTANDING, CERTAINLY
FROM THE BANKING COMMITTEE, THAT
JUDICIARY WAS THE BEST IN THE
BEST POSITION TO ACTUALLY ADD
THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, I
DON'T THINK THAT WAS LOST ON ALL
PARTIES, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND,
WHY THERE MAY BE CONCERNS. AND
QUITE FRANKLY, THERE'S BEEN
REALLY GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH
OPPOSITION. THIS IS NOT AND
THAT'S GOING TO CONTINUE, THE
ORIGINAL VERSION THAT OUR
COMMITTEE PUT FORTH IN TERMS OF,
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WAS A MUCH
BROADER PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
IT'S BEEN NARROWED AND I THINK
TAILORED TO THE POINT WHERE THE
SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES WOULD ONLY
APPLY IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW,
REALLY REPEATED OFFENSES OR
RECKLESS DISREGARD. THAT'S
PROVEN AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY
HIGH STANDARD, AND I DON'T
BELIEVE, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT WE
WOULD ACTUALLY SEE THAT HAPPEN
OFTEN, IF AT ALL, GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE BANKS HAVE, WORKED
CLOSELY WITH SENATOR DODD AND
CREATED THE CRITERIA THAT WOULD
BE REQUIRED, BEFORE THAT WOULD
BE TRIGGERED. AND SO I THINK
THESE I THINK THAT, WHAT OUR
COMMITTEE HAS PUT FORTH IN TERMS
OF AMENDMENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT IS
VERY FAIR, I DON'T THINK IT'S
OVERREACHING. I DON'T THINK IT'S
HARSH. I THINK IT IT ALSO
EXEMPTS NON-SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES. WHEN WE MET WITH THE
BANKS, THEY HAD CONCERNS FOR THE
TELLERS BEING LIABLE. WE ADDED
THAT IN THERE AT THE REQUEST OF
THE BANKS. AND NOW, I GUESS, THE
LINES MOVING TO SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHERE
YOU ARE REALLY TRYING TO LISTEN
TO WHAT SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE
AND HAVE A FAIR AND BALANCED
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, BECAUSE
WITHOUT AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM, IT'S JUST A PIECE OF
PAPER. MAY I ADDRESS THE
QUESTION? AND ACTUALLY I WOULD
LIKE TO HEAR FROM OPPOSITION AS
TO THIS. AMENDMENT, THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION, FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD WITH
MEMBERS OF THE BANKING COMMITTEE
LEADING UP TO THE HEARING, WE IT
IS TRUE THE BANKING COMMITTEE
ASSUMED THERE WOULD BE AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM, DIDN'T
NECESSARILY ASSUME IT WOULD BE A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. THERE
WERE OTHER ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS. AND IT CERTAINLY I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY CONTEMPLATED
THAT. THE PRA WOULD WOULD BE AS
SORT OF DRACONIAN AS IT IS BEING
CONTEMPLATED BY THE COMMITTEE.
THERE ARE WAYS TO DO A PRA,
THAT, THAT SHOW, THAT, THAT HOLD
A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THERE'S ACTUAL
DIRECT HARM THAT'S CAUSED BY THE
INSTITUTION'S ACTIONS. THAT'S
NOT WHAT THIS IS. SO IS THERE AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM THAT CAN
BE ESTABLISHED THAT DOESN'T
INCLUDE A PRA, WE HAVE SUBMITTED
LANGUAGE THAT WE THINK COULD
WORK THAT IS ACTUALLY A PRA, BUT
IT IS CRAFTED IN A WAY, THAT
ENSURES THAT THERE IS CAUSATION,
THERE'S A DIRECT HARM TO THE
CONSUMER, AND WE UNFORTUNATELY
DID NOT HAVE SUCCESS IN HAVING
THIS BILL PUT OVER TO NEXT WEEK
AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER
FROM, FROM THE SPONSORS AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE AMENABLE
TO IT, IT ALSO DOESN'T MAKE
SENSE FOR US TO HAVE STATUTORY
DAMAGES AND A PRA THOSE TWO
THINGS DON'T REALLY GO TOGETHER.
A STATUTORY DAMAGES LIKE A PAY
PER VIOLATION THAT YOU PAY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR AN ERROR, IT
DOESN'T BELONG. IF YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE A PRA, YOU DON'T NEED
STATUTORY DAMAGES. OKAY. AND IF
I CAN ELABORATE ON THAT, THE
REASON WHY THERE'S A STATUTORY
DAMAGES IS FOR THE MORE DE
MINIMIS VIOLATIONS. NOT TO OPEN
THAT UP TO A PRA, THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION IS IN SITUATIONS
WHERE THERE'S MORE EGREGIOUS
CONDUCT. AND SO THE INITIAL
DRAFT OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
WAS A PRA FOR ANY KIND OF
VIOLATION. WE ACTUALLY PULLED
THAT BACK AND HAD, A SIMPLE
STATUTORY, YOU KNOW, PER
VIOLATION PENALTY BECAUSE WE
FELT IT WOULD BE MORE FAIR TO
NOT TREAT EVERY SINGLE INCIDENT
THE SAME WAY WITH THE PRA, BUT
RATHER ONLY THOSE WITH EITHER
REPEATED OFFENSES WITH RECKLESS
DISREGARD. AGAIN, WHICH IS A
PRETTY HIGH BAR, AND SO I DON'T
THINK THAT THIS PRA IN ANY WAY,
IS, EGREGIOUS OR DOES ANYTHING,
BUT I THINK, HOLD EVEN THE,
THOSE THAT HAVE MORE RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR ACCOUNT TO ACCOUNT, AND
SO AND TO BE FAIR, THE
OPPOSITION DID PROVIDE SOME
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS YESTERDAY
AND OUR COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED
TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION AND WITH THE AUTHOR,
AS WELL AS THE SPONSORS GOING
FORWARD. A LOT OF THIS IS MOVING
FORWARD PRETTY QUICKLY. WE HAVE
A LOT OF BILLS NEXT WEEK AS
WELL, SO WE WANTED TO GET THIS
MOVING FORWARD WITH THE WITH AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. BUT IT
DOESN'T MEAN CONVERSATION WILL
STOP. MADAM VICE CHAIR OH,
SORRY. I'M SORRY. LET ME CHECK
ONE MORE QUESTION. THE AUTHOR,
YOUR ARE YOU COMMITTED TO
WORKING WITH OPPOSITION TO DO
SOME MORE CLEANUP LANGUAGE ON
THIS BILL? ABSOLUTELY
ABSOLUTELY. I'M IN RECEIPT OF
THAT. THIS THE SAME DOCUMENT
THAT THE CHAIR, THE CHAIR IS AND
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. OKAY. I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE TO
HAPPEN, SO THAT WAY WE CAN FINE
TUNE THIS BILL BECAUSE I THINK
IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR
ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH TO THE SENATOR FOR
ALL THE WORK THAT YOU DO IN THIS
AREA, AND THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS
BEING OPEN TO WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. WELL, THOSE WERE
MANY OF MY QUESTIONS. BUT JUST
TO REITERATE, I THINK WE ALL
AGREE WE'RE SO CLOSE, BUT YET SO
FAR WE AGREE THAT WE NEED TO
HELP SENIORS, BE PROTECTED FROM
THOSE ABUSIVE, ILLEGAL
TRANSACTIONS, BUT I AM CONCERNED
THAT THIS CAME I WAS IN THE I'M
IN THE BANKING COMMITTEE, AND I
THOUGHT WE WERE ALL GOOD TO GO.
AND THEN NOW WE HAVE THESE THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT. AND IT'S
CONCERNING TO ME. SO I DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT EVEN
A HAMMER. IT'S KIND OF A GIANT
BARBELL ON, ON THE BANKING
INSTITUTION. SO I GUESS I'LL
JUST ECHO WHAT'S BEEN SAID. I
HOPE IT'S HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN
FROM TO WORK THROUGH THE
AMENDMENTS. NOW IT'S NOT COMING
BACK TO THIS COMMITTEE. SO IT
WILL GO TO THE NEXT TIME WE SEE
THIS BILL WILL BE ON THE FLOOR.
WELL, AS OFTENTIMES THE CASE
WHEN BILLS GO THROUGH
COMMITTEES, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THE COMMITTEE PROCESS STOPS IN
THE SENSE THAT IF THERE ARE
CHANGES MADE, THEY USUALLY
CONSULT BACK, JUST AS WE HAVE
WITH THE BANKING COMMITTEE
STAFF, THEY'LL THEY'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH BANKING COMMITTEE
STAFF AND OUR STAFF AS
CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE, JUST TO
ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY IS OKAY
WITH ANY CHANGES THAT ARE MADE
GOING FORWARD. SO IT DOESN'T,
OUR COMMITTEE STAFF CONTINUES TO
WORK EVEN WHEN BILLS LEAVE THE
COMMITTEE, AND THAT WILL BE THE
CASE HERE TOO. BUT THEN WE'LL
SEE IT IN ITS HOPEFULLY REVISED
FORM ON THE FLOOR. WELL, IT WILL
COME WHEN IT COMES TO THE FLOOR.
YOU WILL HAVE AN UPDATE AS TO
WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES
MADE AND IF THERE ARE WHAT WHAT
CHANGES, WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE.
AND THAT UPDATE WILL BE PROVIDED
BY COMMITTEE STAFF. I THINK IT
IS REALLY SO PROFOUNDLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE'VE GOT A GREAT
BILL. AND THANK YOU, SENATOR,
FOR RECOGNIZING THIS NEED, AND
WE'RE NOT PROBABLY TALKING EVEN
ABOUT THE BAD OPERATORS. AND
THERE ARE THOSE IN ALL
INDUSTRIES, BUT WE COULD TALK
ABOUT MILLIONS OF MILLIONS OF
INFRACTIONS OR PROBLEMS HERE.
AND SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT
THE EFFECT ON THE BANKING
INDUSTRY. SO I APPLAUD WHAT
YOU'RE DOING. YOU'VE BEEN
WORKING HARD ON THIS FOR 18
MONTHS, AND I AND I WHEN I CAME
TO BANKING, I THOUGHT THAT WAS
WE'VE REACHED A GOOD CONCLUSION,
BUT NOW IT'S KIND OF THROWN A
WRENCH. SO I'LL BE WITHHOLDING
SUPPORT. I'LL BE OPPOSING THIS
BECAUSE I BELIEVE TO SEND A
MESSAGE THAT THIS NEEDS TO GET
RESOLVED. IT'S SUCH A SUCH AN
IMPORTANT BILL AND WE CANNOT BE,
PUTTING THESE INTENSE PENALTIES
ON OUR BANKING, OUR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, WHO WILL BE WHO
ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF HELPING
THEIR CONSUMERS AND TO MAKE THEM
RETICENT TO STEP IN AND OBSERVE
TRANSACTIONS IN A SUBJECTIVE USE
OF THE WORD SUBJECTIVE. THAT'S
REALLY WHAT A LOT OF THIS IS, IS
SUBJECTIVE. AND TO COMPROMISE A
TELLER OR A SUPERVISOR WHO'S ON
THE FLOOR, MAKING THESE PROFOUND
DECISIONS AND HAVING TO BE
SUBJECTIVE ABOUT IT, I JUST
THINK THERE'S THIS IS THE AREA
WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO SORT
THROUGH THE FUZZINESS HERE. AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE AMENDMENT
THAT EVERYONE CAN AGREE ON
ENTHUSIASTICALLY TO HELP SENIORS
TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS. SO I'LL
BE VOTING NO. BUT WITH
CONFIDENCE THAT WHEN I SEE IT
AGAIN ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR, WE
COULD ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS THE
RIGHT SOLUTION. SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKINNON REALLY QUICK.
AND I KNOW THAT I'M LATE AND I'M
SORRY FOR THAT, BUT I'M, THE
SAME QUESTIONS THAT, THE TWO
ASSEMBLYWOMAN HAVE. I'D LIKE TO
SEE YOU GUYS CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE BANKS. I THINK THE
ENFORCEMENT HAS TO BE A LITTLE
BIT FINE TUNED TO MAKE SURE
THAT, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, THE
TELLERS AT THE AT THE WINDOW ARE
NOT, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MAKE
THE DECISION. AND SO I JUST LIKE
TO SEE YOU CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE OPPOSITION. LOVE THE BILL.
LOVE TO PROTECT SENIORS, HATE
THIS IS HAPPENING TO THEM. BUT
I'LL GIVE YOU AN AYE VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. WELL, THANK YOU ALL
FOR YOUR COMMENTS. AND I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT, LOOK, WE REMOVED,
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR
NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES LIKE
TELLERS. BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, THE TELLERS ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE USUALLY HAVING THAT
FIRST CONTACT, WITH OUR SENIORS
AND WITH ALL CUSTOMERS. AND SO
THE PROTOCOLS THAT ARE PUT IN
PLACE, YOU KNOW, MUCH OF WHICH
WAS WORKED ON TOGETHER WITH
SENATOR DODD AND THE SPONSORS
AND THE OPPOSITION, I THINK ARE
REALLY GOOD, KIND OF GUARDRAILS
THAT ARE IN PLACE. AND SO I
COMMEND ALL PARTIES FOR GETTING
TO THAT PLACE, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WHY
WE'RE HERE AND WHY THIS BILL IS
HERE. I CARE FOR MY FATHER,
WHO'S ALSO 80, HE GETS ANYWHERE
FROM TEN TO A DOZEN, IF NOT MORE
MESSAGES TO EMAIL AND TEXT EVERY
SINGLE DAY OF PEOPLE TRYING TO
DEFRAUD HIM, IT IS RAMPANT. AND
I APPLAUD THE BANKING INDUSTRY
FOR RECOGNIZING THAT AND WANT TO
BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. I
APPLAUD SENATOR DODD AND THE
SPONSORS, FOR TAKING THIS SO
SERIOUSLY. I THINK EVERYONE'S
TAKING IT SERIOUSLY, AND I DON'T
WANT TO IMPLY OTHERWISE. I DO
THINK THAT WE NEED AN
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. I THINK
THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO
CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, LOOK, LOOK
MORE CLOSELY. AND WHAT WAS
OFFERED BY THE OPPOSITION, I
THINK WHAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD IS
VERY FAIR, AND IT REALLY ONLY
ALLOWS FOR MORE SERIOUS DAMAGES
FOR MORE EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR.
OTHERWISE IT'S A IT'S A PRETTY,
ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, MINOR
SLAP ON THE WRIST FOR, YOU KNOW,
FOR TYPICAL VIOLATIONS OF A
TELLER OR SOMEBODY ELSE MAKING A
MISTAKE. AND THAT WAS INTENDED.
WE DON'T WANT TO PUNISH BANKS
BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE A MISTAKE.
WE DON'T WANT TO OVERLY PUNISH
THEM FOR THAT BEHAVIOR. SO, I
APPRECIATE OUR STAFF FOR COMING
FORWARD WITH WHAT I BELIEVE IS A
THOUGHTFUL, ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS. SORRY.
REAL QUICK. I KNOW AN AGENDA. I
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHO'S THE
BAD OPERATOR HERE. IT'S NOT THE
BANKING, THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS, IT'S THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE
DOING THAT TO ALL THE SENIORS,
YOUR FATHER, EVERYONE ELSE. HOW
DO WE GO OUT? THAT'S WHERE THE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION SHOULD TAKE
PLACE. AND THOSE ARE THE ONES
THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COME AFTER
WITH CRIMINAL. YOU KNOW, YOU
COME AFTER A CRIMINAL LAWS AS
WELL AS CIVIL LAWS AND GO AFTER
THEM. BUT IN THE SITUATION WHERE
SOMEONE'S IN HONG KONG
DEFRAUDING, YOU KNOW, AT THE END
OF THE DAY, AT THE END OF THE
DAY, IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO'S MORE
AT FAULT. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WHO'S IN THE BEST POSITION TO
PREVENT THAT FRAUD. IS IT OUR
SENIORS AND OUR ELDERLY, OR DO
THE BANKS HAVE SOME ROLE IN
WHICH THEY CAN STEP IN AND SAY,
YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE'S SOMETHING
FISHY GOING ON HERE. SO IT'S NOT
SAYING THEY'RE EQUALLY BAD.
THAT'S NEVER BEEN THE QUESTION.
THAT'S NEVER NOT THAT'S
CERTAINLY NOT THE CASE. IT'S
JUST THAT OFTENTIMES THOSE THAT
ARE DOING THE DEFRAUDING, WE'RE
NOT GOING TO GET THEM. THESE ARE
INTERNATIONAL FOLKS. AND SO HOW
DO WE PREVENT OUR SENIORS AND
ELDERS FROM BEING DEFRAUDED? I
THINK THE BEST POSITION WE CAN
PUT OURSELVES IN IS TO WORK WITH
OUR BANKING INDUSTRY TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE THESE GUARDRAILS IN
PLACE, WHICH THEY'VE WORKED VERY
CLOSELY WITH SENATOR DODD TO PUT
IN PLACE AND LET'S FIGURE OUT
THE FINALITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM AND MOVE FORWARD. I
THINK WE CAN GET THERE. OKAY.
SENATOR DODD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? YEAH. WITH WITH THERE IS
GOING TO BE SOME ENFORCEMENT,
YOU KNOW, AND I APPRECIATE
WORKING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE
OPPOSITION HERE. BUT WHEN IT
COMES BACK TO YOU ON THE FLOOR,
MOST CERTAINLY THERE IS GOING TO
BE ENFORCEMENT AND THERE NEEDS
TO BE ENFORCEMENT. WE HEARD FROM
OUR TESTIMONY TODAY THAT, WHERE
WHERE YOU HAVE VICTIMS THAT HAVE
NEVER WIRED I MEAN, THERE ARE
TELLTALE SIGNS BANKS DO THIS
TODAY ALREADY. UNFORTUNATELY,
THEY'RE ALL NOT REQUIRED TO DO
IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL
REQUIRED TO DO IT. WE HAVE
SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, SO THERE
WILL BE ENFORCEMENT. I'VE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY THE CONCERNS THAT THEY
HAVE ON WHAT WE HAVE TO DATE,
AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. THANK YOU. RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR AYE. AND BEFORE, WE
ACTUALLY IF WE CAN HAVE A QUORUM
ESTABLISHED AND THEN WE CAN MOVE
FORWARD. CHOLERA HERE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY HANEY
MAIENSCHEIN HERE. MCKENNA HERE.
PACHECO HERE. PATTERSON REYES
HERE. SANCHEZ ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE
QUORUM. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL? SECOND? ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTIONS DO
PASS AS AMENDED. CALL FOR A CALL
FOR AYE. DIXON NO. DIXON. NO.
BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN. AYE
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. HANEY. AYE
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO. AYE
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES.
AYE REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ ALL
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU, SENATOR DODD. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. EVERYBODY. I DON'T KNOW. I
DON'T KNOW. IF WE CAN HAVE A
MOTION ON CONSENT SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. A MOTION AND SECOND. TAKE
A ROLL CALL ON CONSENT, PLEASE.
CONSENT INCLUDES SB 70 302,
APPROPRIATIONS, SB 899, SKINNER
TO APPROPRIATIONS, SB 963, ASHBY
TO APPROPRIATIONS, SB 989,
ASHBY'S TO APPROPRIATIONS. SB
1106, RUBY 1146 WILK SB 1340
1384 DODD TO APPROPRIATIONS CALL
FOR A CALL. AYE. DIXON. DIXON.
AYE. BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN.
AYE. BRIAN CONLEY. HANEY. HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES.
AYE. REYES AYE. SANCHEZ. ALL
RIGHT. CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT.
SENATOR UMBERG WAS HERE A MOMENT
AGO. HOPEFULLY HE'S OUT IN THE
HALLWAY. OKAY. OKAY I KNOW. OH,
MY GOSH.
WELL.
YOU KNOW. NO NO, NO. NUMBER
FIVE. I WAS LIKE, WHY ARE FOLKS.
NUMBERS THE WITNESS SAID, WE
CAN'T BE GOOD. THAT'S RIGHT.
YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE
PUSHING ME LIKE THAT. NO. IT'S
OKAY. I HAVE SIX TOTAL. I THINK
OVER. YEAH, I GUESS I DO.
OKAY NO, LET ME GET THAT. READY?
OKAY OKAY, OKAY. NO WE RECOVERED
THAT. OKAY.
SO, WHAT I WANT TO DO. I DON'T
KNOW. HOW SOME OF THE OTHER, FOR
INSTANCE, BACK HERE. I'LL GET MY
. WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF.
OKAY, SO THIS.
SHE DID IT ALL RIGHT. GOOD WORK.
I LIKE THAT HUSTLE. YES. WE HAVE
TWO BILLS FROM SENATOR EGGMAN.
STARTING WITH ITEM EIGHT, SB
1184. FEEL FREE TO CATCH YOUR
BREATH BEFORE YOU BEGIN TALKING
POINTS. CATCH THE BREATH ALL.
OKAY, WE'RE STARTING WITH 1184,
CORRECT? YES. OKAY GREAT. MY
PEOPLE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD MORNING.
IT'S STILL GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING EVERYBODY. I'M HAPPY TO
BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY, RUNNING
FROM COMMITTEE TO COMMITTEE LIKE
ALL OF YOU. AND I WANT TO BEGIN
BY THANKING THE CHAIR AND THE
STAFF FOR WORKING ON THIS BILL,
WE HAD A GREAT IDEA, A PROBLEM
WE'RE TRYING TO FIX. AND WE
THINK YOUR HELP WITH IT REALLY
ALLOWS US TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS
THE PROBLEM AND, KIND OF ASSESS
IF THERE'S A BIGGER ISSUE GOING
ON WHICH MAY NEED MORE
LEGISLATIVE FIXES DOWN THE ROAD,
SO SB 1184 WILL ALLOW A
MEDICATION ORDER TO REMAIN IN
EFFECT UNTIL A SUBSEQUENT HOLD
PERIOD UNDER EXIGENT HARDWARE BY
STAFF GAVE ME A VERY HARD WORD
CIRCUMSTANCE. IT ALSO REQUIRES
DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING
TIMELINES, OF THE HEARINGS,
WHICH WILL INFORM PUBLIC POLICY.
SO RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEBODY GOES
IN ON A 5150 HOLD, LET'S SAY,
AND, AND THEY FIND THEM UNABLE
TO ACCEPT MEDICATION VOLUNTARILY
GO BEFORE A JUDGE, GET A REESE
HEARING WHERE MEDICATION CAN BE
GIVEN. OFTENTIMES, THOUGH, IF
SOMEBODY IS GOING FROM A THREE
DAY HOLD TO A WEEK, HOLD TO A
TWO WEEK HOLD TO A MONTH HOLD,
OFTENTIMES THEY HAVE NOT
REGAINED CAPACITY. AS SOON AS
THEY REGAIN CAPACITY. BY LAW,
YOU CAN NO LONGER FORCE
MEDICATION OR GIVE MEDICATION
WITHOUT CONSENT. BUT THIS WILL
ALLOW IF A REESE HEARING CAN'T
BE SCHEDULED BEFORE WHILE THE
OTHER HOLDS STARTS THAT THAT
MEDICATION ORDER WILL BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEXT REESE
HEARING CAN BE HEARD SO THAT
PATIENT DOESN'T SLIDE BACK WHILE
THEY'RE STILL IN THE HOSPITAL,
CREATING CHAOS FOR BOTH
THEMSELVES AS WELL AS THE OTHER
CLIENTS AND STAFF, THE QUICKEST
WAY TO GET SOMEBODY IN A FULL
RESTRAINT, WHICH NOBODY WANTS TO
DO, IS TO HAVE SOMEBODY UNDER
TREATMENT, BUT IN A FACILITY.
BUT, NOT PROPERLY MEDICATED OR
ANYBODY ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM.
SAFETY ISSUE FOR EVERYBODY.
AGAIN, WE DON'T THINK THIS IS A
MASSIVE PROBLEM, BUT YOU'LL HEAR
FROM DOCTOR CHEN THAT IT IS A
PROBLEM, AND SO WE FEEL LIKE
THIS FIXES IT. AND THE
COMMITTEE'S WORK ON THIS
PROVIDING, REPORTING ASPECTS WE
THINK WILL REALLY BE ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO WITH ME TODAY IS DOCTOR
ERIC CHUNG WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRIST, AS WELL AS RANDALL
HAGAR. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. AS MENTIONED, MY NAME
IS DOCTOR ERIC CHUNG. I'M THE
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF UCLA'S
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL. I'M
SPEAKING AS A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS AND AS AN ER AND
INPATIENT PSYCHIATRIST FOR THE
PAST 17 YEARS, SB 1184 FIXES
WHAT I CALL THE RISK GAP, WHICH
IS A SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION IN
THE MEDICAL CARE OF PATIENTS AND
CAUSES TREATMENT TO BE STOPPED
IN A PATIENT WHO HAS ALREADY
BEEN EVALUATED TO LACK DECISION
MAKING CAPACITY. AND THIS
HAPPENS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE
MOVING FROM ONE PHASE OF A HOLD
TO ANOTHER. THESE MEDICATION
STOPPAGES TYPICALLY LAST BETWEEN
1 TO 4 DAYS, AS THE PATIENT AND
HOSPITAL STAFF WAITS FOR THE
CAPACITY REHEARING. THE RESCAP
IMPACTS THE MOST SERIOUSLY ILL
PATIENTS ALL ACROSS CALIFORNIA,
AND I'LL GIVE YOU THIS
ILLUSTRATION. A YOUNG MAN WITH
SCHIZOPHRENIA WAS ADMITTED TO
OUR HOSPITAL ON A HOLD AFTER
HAVING SUFFERED MULTIPLE SKULL
FRACTURES. HIS CORE PSYCHOTIC
SYMPTOM WAS A DELUSION THAT HE
NEEDED TO SAVE HUMANITY BY
FALLING BACKWARDS AND STRIKING
HIS HEAD ON THE GROUND. HE DID
THIS MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY.
SADLY, HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND AND
BELIEVE THAT HE HAD
SCHIZOPHRENIA, AND HE REFUSED
MEDICATIONS. THE REES PETITION
WAS GRANTED ON HIS 14 DAY HOLD.
THE PATIENT STARTED MEDICATION
AND HE BEGAN TO IMPROVE. THEN,
UPON FILING HIS 30 DAY HOLD AND
A NEW REES PETITION AS REQUIRED,
HE FELL INTO THE REES GAP AND
HIS MEDICATION WAS STOPPED AS HE
WAITED THREE DAYS FOR HIS
CAPACITY. HEARING HIS FAMILY AND
OUR HOSPITAL STAFF WATCHED AS HE
SLID BACKWARDS. HIS PSYCHOSIS
WORSENED, HIS ATTEMPTS TO FALL
BACKWARDS AND STRIKE HIS HEAD
WERE MORE SEVERE. HE HAD
VOLATILE MOOD, NAUSEA, HEADACHES
FROM STOPPING THE MEDICATION AND
DISRUPTED SLEEP. SO WHEN THE
REES WAS REINITIATED, WE RESUMED
THE MEDICATION. BUT IT WAS CLEAR
TO EVERYBODY, THE FAMILY AND US,
THAT HE WAS STARTING OVER IN HIS
TREATMENT. THE RESCAP CAUSES
UNDUE MEDICAL HARM TO PATIENTS
BY WORSENING THEIR ILLNESS,
EXPOSING THEM TO RISKS OF SUDDEN
DISCONTINUATION OF MEDICINE AND
SAFETY RISKS FROM AGITATED
BEHAVIORS. I ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT IN SB 1184. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, RANDALL HAGER,
REPRESENTING THE PSYCHIATRIC
PHYSICIANS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WE WOULD SAY
MUCH THE SAME THING WE DID
SURVEY OUR MEMBERS FROM SAN
DIEGO TO SACRAMENTO, SAN
FRANCISCO, ORANGE COUNTY, LA.
YOU NAME IT. WE HAVE DOCTORS WHO
HAVE EXPERIENCED THE REBOUND
EFFECT. WHEN SOMEBODY GOES
THROUGH A PROCESS OF BECOMING
STABILIZED IN A HOSPITAL, AND
THEN FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS,
BECAUSE THE HEARING CANNOT BE
TIMELY, THEY GET WORSE. AND THE
REBOUND EFFECT THAT DOCTOR CHUNG
REFERS TO CAN BE QUITE SEVERE.
THEY CAN EXPERIENCE SYMPTOMS
THAT ARE WORSE THAN THOSE THAT
THEY PRESENTED WHEN THEY WERE
FIRST ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL,
AND THAT MEANS THEIR TREATMENT
HAS TO START ALL OVER AGAIN. AND
RESTABILIZATION NEEDS TO BE
ATTEMPTED. THEY STAY IN THE
HOSPITAL LONGER. THEY MAY HAVE
MORE HOLDS PUT ON THEM. AND I
THINK IT'S AN OUTCOME THAT WE
NONE OF US WANT TO SEE, SO WE AS
PSYCHIATRISTS REPRESENTING
PSYCHIATRISTS, WE RECOMMEND THIS
BILL TO YOU FOR THOSE REASONS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1184? GOOD MORNING. LIZZIE
KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF CHILD AND
ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY IN THE
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, DILLON ELLIOTT. ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1184? CAN'T
COME TO THE TABLE? SURE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. DEB ROTH WITH
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA AND
REGRETFUL OPPOSITION. WE
APPRECIATE THE STELLAR WORK OF
YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF. THE
ANALYSIS PROVIDES A LOT OF
IMPORTANT DETAIL ABOUT THE LEGAL
ISSUES YOU ARE CONSIDERING. IT
BOILS DOWN TO PSYCHIATRISTS
TAKING ONE VIEW. WHILE PATIENTS
AND CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEYS HAVE
AN OPPOSING VIEW. I'D LIKE TO
TELL YOU ABOUT ELEANOR REESE,
THE PLAINTIFF IN REESE V SAINT
MARY'S, WHICH IS THE LANDMARK
CASE CITED EXTENSIVELY IN THE
ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSITION
THAT AN INVOLUNTARY DETENTION
DOES NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO
REFUSE MEDICATION. AND IT IS A
RIGHT, AND IT TRIGGERS A
HEARING. IF YOUR DOCTOR
DISAGREES WITH YOUR REFUSAL.
ELEANOR REESE HAD SCHIZOPHRENIA.
HER PSYCHOTIC EPISODES WERE
CONTROLLED BY POWERFUL
ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDICATION, BUT
THERE WAS A PRICE SHE SUFFERED
SEIZURES AND LONG TERM BLADDER
DYSFUNCTION. SHE STOPPED TAKING
HER MEDICATION, BUT BECAUSE SHE
BEGAN EXPERIENCING PSYCHOTIC
SYMPTOMS AGAIN, SHE VOLUNTARILY
SOUGHT TREATMENT AT A HOSPITAL,
INTENDING TO TAKE THE MEDICATION
AGAIN. HER SYMPTOMS IMPROVED,
BUT THE SIDE EFFECTS RETURNED.
SHE BEGAN TO REFUSE THE
MEDICATION AT THAT POINT, THE
HOSPITAL CHANGED HER STATUS FROM
VOLUNTARY TO INVOLUNTARY AND
FORCIBLY INJECTED ELEANOR WITH
MEDICATIONS THAT HARMED HER. SHE
WON HER CASE, BUT ON THE SAME
DAY, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT DISMISSED THE HOSPITAL'S
APPEAL. ELEANOR DIED. SHE WAS 47
YEARS OLD, AND HER DEATH WAS DUE
TO RENAL FAILURE ATTRIBUTED TO
THE MEDICATION SIDE EFFECTS.
IT'S WELL ACCEPTED. SIDE EFFECTS
CAN BE FIERCE, FIERCELY AWFUL,
AND MEDICATIONS DON'T WORK FOR
EVERYONE. METABOLIC SYNDROME
WITH HIGH CHOLESTEROL, WEIGHT
GAIN AND OTHER SYMPTOMS LEADS TO
CARDIOVASCULAR PROBLEMS. ONE
STUDY ESTIMATED PATIENTS TAKING
PSYCHOTIC ANTIPSYCHOTIC
ANTIPSYCHOTIC MEDS DIE ON
AVERAGE TEN YEARS SOONER THAN
THOSE WHO ARE NOT TAKING THAT
MEDICATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS CLAIRE CORTRIGHT. I'M
AN ATTORNEY, BUT I AM NOT A
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST. I'M A
WOMAN WITH A PSYCHOTIC ILLNESS,
AND IT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. AND MY BODY THAT ARE
AFFECTED BY THIS BILL. MY
COMMUNITY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND
WHY WE ARE HERE. WHEN THE
EXISTING STATUTE REQUIRES A
COURT TO HEAR A REESE NO LATER
THAN 72 HOURS AFTER A DOCTOR
FILES IT. NO EXCEPTIONS. IF GAPS
ARE OCCURRING, IT'S EITHER
COURTS OR DOCTORS WHO ARE TO
BLAME. WHY SHOULD I LOSE RIGHTS?
UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT IS IN THE
RECORD TO JUSTIFY THIS BILL IS A
FEW STORIES THAT IF THEY ARE
TAKEN TO BE TAKEN AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL 150,000
PEOPLE EACH YEAR, PLACED ON
INVOLUNTARY HOLDS WHOSE RIGHTS
ARE AFFECTED CAN ONLY BE
DESCRIBED AS NEGATIVELY
STEREOTYPING. MY COMMUNITY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO DATA
IN THE BILL FILE TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. ALSO CURRENTLY THERE IS A
CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WINNING
THEIR REESE HEARINGS AND THIS
BILL PUSHES THAT BACK THREE
DAYS. THOSE CLIENTS WERE FOUND
COMPETENT. THIS BILL WOULD
SUBJECT THEM TO INVOLUNTARY
MEDICATION WHILE COMPETENT. THIS
IS THE CORRECT FORUM FOR THE
IMPACTED PROTECTED CIVIL RIGHTS
MINORITY. TO REQUEST FROM EACH
OF YOU OUR ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES, THAT YOU PLEASE
EXPLAIN TO US YOUR VOTE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1184? DANNY,
THERE, ON BEHALF OF MENTAL
HEALTH AMERICA OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION, RACHEL BHAGWAT ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN OPPOSITION, MARTY LOPEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
MISTER CHAIR MEMBERS KOBE
BOUZIDI WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRIC
TECHNICIANS. I RAN ACROSS THE
STREET AS FAST AS I CAN. I'M
SORRY. I'M IN SUPPORT, SO THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS. I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A
SECOND ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES.
THIS WAS A DIFFICULT BILL FOR ME
BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO BE
ABLE TO PROTECT THE LIBERTIES OF
EACH INDIVIDUAL. I THINK WHAT
MAKES A DIFFERENCE HERE IS THE
AUTHOR, QUITE FRANKLY. KNOWING
YOUR BACKGROUND, KNOWING THE
FACT THAT YOU HAVE WORKED SO
HARD TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AND
TO WORK TO MAKE THEM BETTER AND
TO FIND WAYS TO, TO PROTECT
THEM, THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE.
NOW, ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM
THE OPPOSITION IS ONCE A REESE
HEARING IS REQUESTED, IT'S 72
HOURS FOR A HEARING. SHE TALKED
ABOUT, DELAYS AND WHAT WOULD
CAUSE DELAYS. CAN CAN WE ADDRESS
THAT? I CAN ADDRESS THAT, TAKE A
SCENARIO. THE PATIENT IS BEING
TREATED TODAY WITH MAYBE TWICE
DAILY MEDICATION. MORNING AND
NIGHT. IF I FILE THE REESE
HEARING REQUEST IMMEDIATELY.
THIS MOMENT, IT IS VERY UNLIKELY
THAT IT WILL BE HEARD TOMORROW,
BECAUSE THE COURT SIMPLY CANNOT
KEEP UP WITH THAT PACE OF A
REQUEST. SO BY TOMORROW MORNING,
THE MEDICATION WILL BE MISSED,
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD. BEST CASE
SCENARIO, THE REESE HEARING WILL
BE HEARD TWO DAYS FROM NOW. AND
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME WHEN
YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE
MEDICATION, TELL US AGAIN WHAT
WHAT THE EFFECT IS OF THAT. THE
TYPICAL EFFECT IS THE WORSENING
OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITION. SO
WHEN WE COMMONLY ARE TREATING
CONDITIONS LIKE SCHIZOPHRENIA,
PSYCHOSIS OR BIPOLAR DISORDER,
THE SYMPTOMS OF THAT ILLNESS
BEGIN TO GET WORSE ALMOST
IMMEDIATELY. THERE WAS ALSO A
COMMENT BY THE OPPOSITION THAT,
MORE AND MORE OF THE PATIENTS
WHO ARE ASKING OR WHO ARE WHO
ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES IN THE
REESE HEARINGS ARE BEING FOUND
COMPETENT. ARE YOU FINDING THE
SAME THING? WE DON'T FIND THAT
IN THE CASES THAT WE BRING
FORWARD TO COURTS FOR REQUEST
FOR REESE, IN THE VAST MAJORITY
OF CASES, THESE ARE PATIENTS WHO
ARE SO PROFOUNDLY ILL THAT WE
HAVE SOUGHT THE REESE IN THE
FIRST PLACE. THEY HAVE HAD AN
INITIAL REESE HEARING ON THE 14
DAY HOLD. THEY HAVE FOUND A LACK
CAPACITY. THEY STILL ACTUALLY
HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE A WRIT ON
THAT, REESE. AND THEY CAN DO
THAT AT ANY TIME. THEY COULD DO
THAT ON DAY ONE, OR THEY COULD
DO THAT ON DAY 13 OR 14. SO
THERE ACTUALLY IS AN IMPORTANT
RIGHT THAT STILL IS RETAINED
THERE. WE HAVE TO FILE THE NEXT
REESE WITH THE 30 DAY HOLD IN
THIS CASE. AND THAT BEGINS A NEW
CLOCK FOR THE PATIENT. AND
THAT'S WHERE THE GAP BEGINS.
THEY COULD STILL ACTUALLY FILE A
WRIT AT THAT TIME. AND THROUGH
THE CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE
OPPOSITION. YOU'VE HEARD THE
RESPONSE, AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW
YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT. SURE. THERE
ARE PATIENTS WINNING THESE
HEARINGS. THERE WOULD BE DATA
FOR YOUR PATIENT RIGHTS OFFICES
SHOWING THAT THERE ARE PATIENTS
WINNING THESE HEARINGS, WHAT THE
REESE CASE HELD WAS THAT BEFORE
A DOCTOR COULD INVOLUNTARILY
MEDICATE YOU, YOU HAD TO BE
FOUND INCOMPETENT FIRST. NOW,
THERE, THAT CHANGES, RIGHT?
COMPETENCY CAN CHANGE. THESE
MEDICATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO
RESTORE COMPETENCY. THAT'S WHY
OUR FOLKS CAN WIN THE SECOND
HEARING. RESTORE COMPETENCY. THE
DOCTOR IS CORRECT. A PATIENT
COULD FILE A WRIT, BUT THAT
WASN'T THE FINDING OF THE REESE.
THE REESE COURT, RIGHT. THE
REESE COURT SAID YOU HAVE TO BE
ADJUDICATED FIRST BEFORE THE
DOCTOR CAN INVOLUNTARILY
MEDICATE YOU. IT'S THE DOCTOR'S
BURDEN. IT'S THE STATE'S BURDEN
TO DO THAT, FOR A PATIENT TO
FILE A WRIT, IT'S THEY WOULD
HAVE TO KNOW WHO TO CALL. THEY
WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT THEY
HAVE THAT RIGHT. AND THEY WOULD
HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND IT
CORRECTLY AND EMPLOY IT
CORRECTLY. AND SO REPEATEDLY,
YOU KNOW, BOTH WITH INVOLUNTARY
HOLDS AND WITH, REESE HEARINGS.
THAT'S WHY THE BURDEN IS ON THE
STATE. THE STATE HAS TO DRIVE
THE PROCESS. THE PATIENT RIGHTS
ADVOCATE HAS TO GO APPROACH THE
PATIENT AND SAY, HEY, YOU HAVE
THIS RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO
EXERCISE IT? SO, I MEAN, AND
INTERESTINGLY, YOU KNOW, REESE,
THE BASIS OF THAT, RIGHT, THAT
RIGHT TO FIRST BE ADJUDICATED
INCOMPETENT BEFORE A DOCTOR CAN
MAKE TREATMENT DECISIONS FOR YOU
IS ONE THAT Y'ALL WON. IT'S ONE
THAT SANE PEOPLE WON FOR
THEMSELVES. AND IT'S THE SAME
ONE THAT WAS EXTENDED TO US IN
REESE. SO IT'S TRUE THAT THE
PATIENT DOES HAVE WRIT OPTIONS,
BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT THESE
REESE HEARINGS ARE MANDATED BY
THE REESE CASE, AND WE DO HAVE
FOLKS THAT ARE WINNING THEM. AND
WHEN YOU PASS THIS BILL AND YOU
GIVE DOCTORS THE ABILITY TO, YOU
KNOW, ONLY GIVE A COURT EIGHT
HOURS NOTICE, TO TRY TO GET THAT
HEARING DONE. AND THEN, YOU
KNOW, THEY CAN INVOKE THAT AS AN
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND, AND
CONTINUE TO INVOLUNTARILY
MEDICATE FOLKS WE KNOW ARE
WINNING THESE HEARINGS FOR THREE
DAYS. I MEAN, WE THINK THAT'S A
SERIOUS ISSUE, YOU KNOW, WE
WOULD PREFER TO SEE THIS BILL
CUT BACK TO THE JUST THE DATA
REPORTING AND FIGURE OUT HOW BIG
OF AN ISSUE IT IS, BECAUSE YOU
KNOW, I DO HAVE RESPECT FOR
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. I DO
UNDERSTAND THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR
PATIENTS, BUT ALSO WE SHOULD
ABSOLUTELY NOT MAKE PUBLIC
POLICY BASED ON ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY WITH
SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT. I
WILL ALSO ADD, IF IT HELPS, ONE
OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT THE
FINE STAFF PROVIDED FOR US, THAT
WE'RE TAKING IS THAT THE
PHYSICIAN CAN NOW APPLY FOR THE
REESE HEARING EARLY IF THEY
THINK SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO
HOPEFULLY ALSO AVOID THAT GAP.
THE POINT IS TO TRY TO AVOID
THAT GAP AND HAVING SOMEONE I
MEAN, EVEN ANY MEDICATION YOU
TAKE, RIGHT? IT SAYS DON'T JUST
STOP IT WITHOUT A DOCTOR'S
ORDER. AND AGAIN, THESE ARE
POWERFUL MEDICATIONS, ALTHOUGH I
WILL SAY DIFFERENT FROM THE
1980S FROM WHEN THIS COURT THIS
CASE WAS HEARD, MEDICATIONS HAVE
A FEW SIDE EFFECTS, BUT THIS
WILL HELP PROVIDE THE DATA, THIS
WILL HELP GIVE US ALL A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING AND HOPEFULLY
PROVIDE SEAMLESS TREATMENT FOR
EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ALL, THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR
YOUR CONTINUED WORK IN THIS
SPACE, AS INDICATED BY SENATOR
REYES, YOU'VE DONE TREMENDOUS
WORK AND A GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU
IN THIS SPACE. AND I ALSO, I
THINK WE'VE WE ALL HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THOSE THAT ARE COMING
BEFORE THE COURT. AND, I, I THE
AMENDMENTS REALLY ARE DESIGNED
TO MAKE IT REALLY IN THE MOST
CASES, UNNECESSARY. IF
PHYSICIANS HAVE NOW 48 HOURS TO
MAKE THAT REQUEST, THERE CAN BE
A HEARING THAT'S DONE. SO THE
WHOLE GOAL OF THE AMENDMENTS, IN
ADDITION TO THE DATA TRACKING
AND THE SUNSETTING OF THE
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES PORTION,
AND I THINK THE DATA TRACKING IS
GOING TO BE CRITICAL FOR US TO
COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, IS IT
WORKING AS INTENDED? BUT THE
AMENDMENTS REALLY ARE DESIGNED
SO THAT, IT WILL PROBABLY BE
RARE BECAUSE WE'VE EXTENDED THE
AMOUNT OF TIME THAT A PHYSICIAN
CAN MAKE THAT REQUEST FOR A
HEARING. AND SO, IT'S A
DIFFICULT BILL FOR ME,
CERTAINLY, BUT I THINK WE'VE
STRUCK A GOOD BALANCE, AND THE
DATA WILL HELP US TO SEE IF
THAT'S THE CASE OR NOT, I THINK,
OR IF THERE NEEDS TO BE TWEAKS,
WHAT HAVE YOU. AND UNDOUBTEDLY
IT WILL BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.
AND SO WE'LL ALLOW THAT COURT
PROCESS, TO GO FORWARD. BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, YOU KNOW, I
DO THINK THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT
OUR COURTS, YOU KNOW, ARE
RESOURCE STRAPPED, BEING
RESOURCE STRAPPED BY ITSELF
SHOULD NOT BE A REASON, TO
IMPINGE UPON SOMEONE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. BUT I
THINK IN THIS CASE, I THINK
THERE IS. I THINK WE'VE NARROWED
IT ENOUGH TO THE, THE IN THE
TRULY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES,
THERE'S AT LEAST A TOOL THAT'S
THERE AND THE DATA WILL COME
BACK AND LET US KNOW IF THAT
TOOL IS BEING USED EFFECTIVELY
OR IF IT'S BEING ABUSED, AND WE
ALREADY HAVE A MOTION. SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I WAS
GOING TO CHECK WITH MY STAFF,
BUT YES, I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE
THE LAST MENTAL HEALTH BILL.
BILL, YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM
SENATOR SUSAN EGGMAN THROUGH
THIS COMMITTEE. SO I APPRECIATE
YOUR VOTE. AND I THINK WE HAVE
TO CLARIFY. I KNOW YOU'VE MADE
REFERENCE TO THE AMENDMENTS, BUT
CLARIFY YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. I AM ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. IF I TAKE A ROLL
CALL, VOTE ON SB 1184, MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AS AMENDED. DO PASS AS
AMENDED. CALL FOR A CALL FOR
AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY. AYE.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY A HANEY.
AYE MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES
AYE. REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. AND THEN WE HAVE SB
1491. SENATOR EGGMAN, WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN BEGIN ON
THAT ONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
THIS ONE HOPEFULLY IS EASIER FOR
EVERYBODY. SOME OF YOU, I DON'T
KNOW, 1491 IS AN IMPORTANT BILL
DESIGNED TO, PROTECT SOME OF OUR
MOST VULNERABLE FOLKS WHEN YOU
GO OFF TO COLLEGE. SHOULD BE A
GREAT EXPERIENCE. OFTENTIMES,
EVERYBODY'S NOT FEELING THAT.
ESPECIALLY WE KNOW WOMEN ARE WAY
MORE LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED ON
COLLEGE CAMPUSES, I HAD A MEMBER
IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE ASK WHY IT
WASN'T FOR EVERYBODY. AND I
POINTED OUT THAT WOMEN ARE MUCH
MORE LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED,
THAN MEN ARE, ESPECIALLY IN
SEXUAL WAYS AND ESPECIALLY TRUE
FOR LESBIANS AND LGBTQ
COMMUNITY, FOR ANY STUDENT
SEEKING HIGHER EDUCATION SHOULD
BE FUN, SAFE PLACE. AGAIN, WE
KNOW THAT WOMEN ARE THREE TIMES
MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS OF
ASSAULT, MORE THAN 1 IN 4
UNDERGRADUATES HAVE BEEN THE
VICTIM OF A RAPE OR SEXUAL
ASSAULT THROUGH FORCE, NOT GOOD
STATISTICS FOR SOMEONE WITH A 15
YEAR OLD DAUGHTER THINKING ABOUT
HEADING TO COLLEGE, 23% OF,
TRANSGENDER QUEER GENDER
NONCONFORMING COLLEGE STUDENTS
HAVE ALSO BEEN SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED, THIS IS HOPEFULLY WHY
WE'RE PAINTING A CLEAR PICTURE
THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME KIND
OF CONFIDENTIAL PLACE FOR PEOPLE
TO GO AT COLLEGES. THEY
SHOULDN'T JUST TRY TO HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT AFTER SOMETHING BAD
HAS HAPPENED, WHO THEY CAN TALK
TO. THIS IS PART OF THE PACKAGE
OF BILLS THE LGBTQ CAUCUS IS
PUTTING FORTH. THIS YEAR TO
ADDRESS, AND THIS ONE
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS
DISCRIMINATION ON COLLEGE
CAMPUSES. THIS REQUIRES, A
COUPLES THING, THE STUDENT AID
COMMISSION, TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TO STUDENTS THAT IF
THEY'RE GOING TO A COLLEGE THAT
ARE EXEMPT FROM THE HIGHER
EDUCATION ACT AND OR TITLE NINE,
INFORMING THAT THEIR INSTITUTION
IS EXEMPT FROM THOSE LEAVING
THEM LITTLE PROTECTION FROM
ISSUES AROUND SEXUAL HARASSMENT
OR GENDER BASED VIOLENCE, AND
REQUIRES THAT THE CSU AND
COMMUNITY COLLEGES, WE REQUESTED
FROM THEM SOME YEARS BACK. THERE
WAS A REVIEW DONE. ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT WE ASKED WAS THAT
THERE BE AN INDIVIDUAL
DESIGNATED AS A LIAISON FOR
LGBTQ STUDENTS, THAT WAS NEVER
DONE, DONE PRETTY WELL AT THE
èC, BUT NOT AT ALL AT THE CSU
AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE. SO THIS
JUST SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A
PERSON. THAT PERSON SHOULD BE
CONFIDENTIAL. AND IF YOU ARE A
COLLEGE THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE OR
DOESN'T FALL UNDER TITLE NINE
AND OTHER PROTECTIONS THAT THE
FINANCIAL AID FOLKS LET YOU KNOW
BEFORE YOU ARRIVE ON THE CAMPUS,
THINKING THAT YOU MAY HAVE OTHER
KINDS OF PROTECTION WITH ME HERE
TODAY IS, CRAIG PULFER WITH
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS CRAIG PULSIPHER, ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR, SB 1491 BUILDS
ON LEGISLATION THAT EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA SPONSORED IN 2016,
WHICH REQUIRED COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES TO DISCLOSE IF THEY
PERMIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LGBTQ STUDENTS. SPECIFICALLY,
THE LEGISLATION REQUIRED SCHOOLS
THAT CLAIM AN EXEMPTION UNDER
EITHER TITLE NINE OR
CALIFORNIA'S EQUITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION ACT TO DISCLOSE THIS
INFORMATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
STUDENT AID COMMISSION, AS WELL
AS TO BOTH CURRENT AND
PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND STAFF.
TODAY, AT LEAST NINE
INSTITUTIONS IN CALIFORNIA ARE
EXEMPT FROM TITLE NINE, AND AT
LEAST 20 ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION ACT,
AND STUDENTS DESERVE TO KNOW
WHICH SCHOOLS HAVE A LICENSE TO
DISCRIMINATE AND IGNORE STATE
AND FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS
PROTECTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, MANY
STUDENTS CONTINUE TO BE UNAWARE
OF THESE EXEMPTIONS AND WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES MIGHT BE IF THEIR
SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER
IDENTITY DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE
COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY'S POLICIES
. STUDENTS MAY ALSO NOT BE AWARE
OF THEIR ABILITY TO REPORT
CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION TO THE
US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, SO THE
OCR CAN INVESTIGATE AND
DETERMINE WHETHER THE STUDENT
WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. SB
1491 WILL BUILD ON EXISTING LAW
BY REQUIRING THE STUDENT AID
COMMISSION TO NOTIFY STUDENTS OF
THEIR RIGHTS TO FILE A COMPLAINT
WITH OCR, EVEN IF THE
INSTITUTION HAS DENIED THE CLAIM
DUE TO A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION,
THAT THE BILL IS AN IMPORTANT
MEASURE TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY
AND ENSURE THAT LGBTQ AND ALL
STUDENTS CAN MAKE INFORMED
DECISIONS AND PROTECT THEMSELVES
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, AND
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1491? GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR COMMITTEE CARL
LARSON ON BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO AGAIN.
RACHEL BHAGWAT, ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANNA MATHEWS WITH THE FACULTY
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1491? ALL
RIGHT. BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS, MOTIONS SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND, SENATOR, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THIS
GREAT STATE, I THINK I THINK
THIS PROBABLY BE THE LAST TIME
THEY'LL BE BEFORE US. BUT IN
ALL. WELL, IN ALL SINCERITY,
YOU'VE DONE SUCH TREMENDOUS
WORK. AND THIS IS ONE MORE
EXAMPLE OF THAT. AND SO WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I WOULD JUST,
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I THINK TOGETHER WE MAKE THIS
STATE BETTER, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE. MADAM
SECRETARY, I TAKE ROLL CALL,
VOTE ON SB 1491. MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHOLERA
A CHOLERA I DIXON, NÓ DIXON. NØ
BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY. HANEY.
AYE. MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA.
MCKENNA AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON. REYES
REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. I WILL PLACE THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL
VERY MUCH. SENATOR PADILLA. YES.
THIS IS SB 764.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
COLLEAGUES. I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT
SB 764, WHICH IS A CHILD CONTENT
CREATOR RIGHTS ACT, SENATE BILL
764 WOULD REQUIRE FAMILY CONTENT
CREATORS WHO ARE COMPENSATED FOR
FILMING THEIR MINOR CHILDREN IN
MORE THAN 30% OF THEIR CONTENT
TO SET ASIDE A PERCENTAGE OF
THOSE EARNINGS IN A TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE MINOR. WHEN
THEY REACH THE AGE OF MAJORITY.
AS MANY OF YOU WELL KNOW, IN
1939, CALIFORNIA ENACTED THE
COOGAN ACT TO PROTECT CHILDREN
FROM FINANCIAL ABUSE AND
EXPLOITATION IN THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY AFTER
FAMOUS CHILD ACTOR JACKIE COOGAN
HAD HIS ENTIRETY OF HIS EARNINGS
STOLEN BY HIS GUARDIANS, THAT
LAW REQUIRED 15% OF THE
PERFORMER'S EARNINGS TO BE
PLACED IN A TRUST FOR THEM TO
ACCESS WHEN THEY WERE 18,
PROTECTING THE FUNDS WHILE THE
ACTOR IS STILL A CHILD. THESE
PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN EXPANDED
UPON OVER THE YEARS AND HAVE
EVEN BECOME A NATIONAL STANDARD
FOR CHILD PERFORMERS. HOWEVER,
AS YOU KNOW, AS WELL, THE COOGAN
ACT PERTAINS TO YOUTH PERFORMERS
IN THAT SPECIFIC INDUSTRY AND
WHO ARE UNDER CONTRACT. AS YOU
KNOW. ALSO, THE RISE OF SOCIAL
MEDIA AND FAMILY CONTENT
CREATORS HAS EXPLODED IN THIS
STATE AND AROUND THE COUNTRY.
WHILE MANY PARENTS ARE FILMING
AND EARNING THOUSANDS AND
SOMETIMES MORE IN REVENUE,
SPONSORSHIPS AND ADVERTISING,
SOME REGULARLY INCLUDE THEIR
CHILDREN IN THIS CONTENT,
INCLUDING FILMING INTIMATE
DETAILS OF THEIR PERSONAL LIVES
FOR THEIR AUDIENCE OF MILLIONS
TO SEE. OBVIOUSLY THIS ALSO
RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN, WHO ARE
BASICALLY DRAFTED INTO THIS
EMERGING ENTERTAINMENT
LANDSCAPE. VIDEOS INCLUDE THOSE
ABOUT PEAK MOMENTS SUCH AS NEW
HOMES, PREGNANCY, NEW BABIES,
THOSE TYPES OF LIFE DEVELOPMENT
EVENTS ALSO INCENTIVIZE MORE
VIEWERS, BUT THEY ALSO SACRIFICE
THE PRIVACY OF MINORS AT
CRITICAL POINTS IN THEIR
DEVELOPMENT. AND CERTAINLY
RAISES THE SPECTER OF THE KINDS
OF IMPACTS IT HAS ON THE
WELL-BEING OF THOSE MINORS. AS
SOCIAL MEDIA BECOMES EVEN MORE
INTEGRATED INTO OUR DAILY LIFE
AND A GROWING SHARE OF THIS
ENTERTAINMENT LANDSCAPE, WE NEED
TO UPDATE OUR HARD FOUGHT
PROTECTIONS AND SAFEGUARD. THIS
BILL WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THESE
CHILDREN, WHO ARE SUBJECT OF
THIS, QUOTE UNQUOTE VLOGGING,
DESERVE FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND
COMPENSATION FOR BEING FILMED.
THIS BILL HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
AND HAS NO OPPOSITION. AND WITH
ME TODAY, I HAVE KIM STONE WITH
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, KIM STONE OF STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW
SCHOOL. SB 796 IS A CRITICAL
STEP IN EXTENDING EXISTING,
UNCONTROVERSIAL PROTECTIONS TO
CHILDREN WHO ARE PERFORMING IN
TRADITIONAL MEDIA, THE SAME AS
IF THEY WERE PERFORMING EXCUSE
ME, PERFORMING IN SOCIAL MEDIA
THE SAME AS IF THEY WERE
PERFORMING IN TRADITIONAL MEDIA.
FAMILY VLOGGERS HAVE EXPLODED IN
POPULARITY. MANY PROFIT BY
FILMING THE LIVES OF THEIR
CHILDREN. THIS BILL ACKNOWLEDGES
THE OBVIOUS CHILDREN WHOSE
LIKENESS IS USED BY THEIR
PARENTS FOR PROFIT, DESERVES
SIMILAR KINDS OF FINANCIAL
PROTECTION AND COMPENSATION AS
CHILDREN IN TRADITIONAL MEDIA,
SUCH AS TELEVISION OR FILMS.
THIS BILL MERELY REQUIRES
PARENTS OR GUARDIANS WHO ARE
COMPENSATED FOR FEATURING MINORS
IN AT LEAST 30% OF THEIR
CONTENT. TO SET ASIDE A
PROPORTIONATE PERCENTAGE OF
THEIR EARNINGS IN A TRUST
ACCOUNT THAT THE MINOR MAY
ACCESS WHEN THEY REACH ADULTHOOD
. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 764?
LIZZIE KUTSUNA HERE ON BEHALF OF
TECNA IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 764? ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
COMMENTS OR MOTIONS? SOMETHING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCKINNEY, I'D LIKE
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
BILL, THIS IS REALLY AN
INCREDIBLE BILL FOR OUR YOUTH. I
HAVE FAMILY MEMBERS THAT WERE
CHOPPED, WENT INTO CHILD ACTING,
AND IT WAS GREAT THAT, THAT SHE
WAS ABLE TO HAVE HER MONEY AFTER
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES
SOMETIMES MAY NOT EVEN ON
PURPOSE. THEY JUST MISMANAGED
THE MONEY. AND THEN THE KID
WORKED ALL THEIR LIVES AND THEY
COME OUT OF THIS AT 18, 21 AND
THEY'RE BROKE. AND SO THANK YOU
FOR DOING THIS. THIS IS A NEW
MEDIA, AND I AM JUST GRATEFUL
FOR THIS BILL. THANK YOU GUYS.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES
I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME
THING. ALTHOUGH I DON'T HAVE ANY
FAMILY, THAT CHILD ACTORS. BUT
ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN THAT
ARE GOING TO BE ACTING I THIS
THIS IS VERY GOOD. THIS IS WHAT
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE
CHILDREN. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS. THANK YOU. YEAH.
THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I THINK IN SOCIAL
MEDIA, OFTENTIMES SOME,
SEEMINGLY PRETTY SIMPLE VIDEOS
ARE ACTUALLY A PRETTY BIG
PRODUCTIONS AND TAKE A LOT OF
TIME, INCLUDING THE TIME OF THE
YOUTH, THE CHILDREN, THE
TODDLERS, THE BABIES THAT ARE
THESE INFLUENCERS USE TO GET
MORE VIEWS. AND I THINK THAT
NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED, JUST
LIKE WE DID THAT FOR CHILD
ACTORS A LONG TIME AGO. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MEMBERS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. I THINK
WE'RE OFTEN CHALLENGED BY THE
FACT THAT THE LANDSCAPE IS
EVOLVING AND CHANGING BASED ON
CIRCUMSTANCE AND TECHNOLOGY SO
RAPIDLY THAT GOVERNMENT FINDS
ITSELF A STEP BEHIND AND
HISTORICALLY, CALIFORNIA HAS
ALWAYS BEEN A LEADER IN THIS
SPACE, AND I'M HAPPY TO BE PART
TRYING TO MAKE US CONTINUE TO BE
SO. AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL
I. DIXON. DIXON I. BAUER. KHN
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I.
HANEY HANEY. I. MAIENSCHEIN.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. I. PACHECO, I.
J KHÎI. PATTERSON. REYES I.
REYES I. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ, I.
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. SENATOR WIENER. ITEM
FIVE, SB 988. AND AS TO WHETHER
SENATOR WIENER IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION FOR WHAT HIS STAFF
PUTS HIM THROUGH ON SOCIAL
MEDIA, THE BILL IS SILENT ON
THAT. ONE OF THESE DAYS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, SO,
COLLEAGUES, I'M HERE TO PRESENT
SENATE BILL 988. THE FREELANCE
WORKER PROTECTION ACT, TO
PROVIDE BASIC PROTECTIONS FOR
FREELANCE WORKERS. MOST
FREELANCERS LACK BASIC WORKER
PROTECTIONS, MOST NOTABLY, THE
RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR THEIR WORK
ON TIME, ACCORDING TO THE
FREELANCERS UNION, 71% OF
FREELANCERS EXPERIENCE, LATE OR
NONPAYMENT, 59% REPORT LIVING
PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK, AND ONLY
25% REPORT CONSISTENTLY HAVING
WRITTEN CONTRACTS. SB 988 WILL
ADDRESS THIS ISSUE BY REQUIRING,
MANDATORY WRITTEN CONTRACTS, 30
DAY PAYMENT TERMS, UNLESS THE
CONTRACT PROVIDES A DIFFERENT
TERM, PAYMENT AGREEMENT
PROTECTIONS. AND SO FORTH, THIS
IS A VERY BASIC BILL. IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THAT THESE FREELANCERS
BECOME EMPLOYEES. IT SIMPLY
REQUIRES THAT THEY ACTUALLY GET
PAID IN A TIMELY MANNER. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. WITH ME TODAY IS
SHANE GUZMAN FROM THE TEAMSTERS.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
SHANE GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
TEAMSTERS IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL, WE CO-SPONSORED THIS
BILL BECAUSE OUR UNION HAS A
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NATIONAL
WRITERS UNION, WHICH OF COURSE,
HAS FREELANCE WRITERS IN THEIR
ORGANIZATION, MANY OF THEM GO
THROUGH, PERIODS OF TIME WHERE
THEY PERFORM THE WORK. THERE'S
NO COMPLAINT ABOUT THE WORK. THE
ARTICLES THEY WRITE, ETC, BUT
THEY DON'T GET PAID SOMETIMES
FOR MONTHS, SOMETIMES FOR YEARS.
AND IN MANY, MANY PLACES THERE'S
NO PROTECTION. THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF STATES THAT HAVE
ENACTED SIMILAR, GUARDRAILS AS
THIS BILL. AND LOS ANGELES
COUNTY ALSO ARE. CITY OF LOS
ANGELES HAS A ORDINANCE THAT'S
SIMILAR TO THIS BILL SIMPLY
MEANS, HEY, THERE'S GOT TO BE A
CONTRACT AND YOU HAVE TO PAY
PEOPLE WHEN THEY PERFORM THE
WORK. AND WITH THAT, ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 988? IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 988? ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
MOTIONS. SECOND, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, SENATOR,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE
, DO YOU WANT TO NOTE THAT
THERE'S NO LONGER OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? WE WORKED THAT OUT,
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE ON SB 988. MOTIONS DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL FOR AYE. DIXON BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
HANEY, MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO PACHECO.
AYE. PATTERSON. REYES. Ã REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ OKAY. WE'LL PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. COLLEAGUE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWENTHAL, YOU HAVE A
BILL ON CONCURRENCE. AB 295.
BILL ON CONCURRENCE. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, SENATE
PUBLIC SAFETY SAID THEY'RE ABOUT
TO ADJOURN AND ARE ON THE WAY
BACK. OKAY I'M GONNA HAVE TO DO
THAT TO ADJOURN. CALL ME BACK.
SOMETHING WE SAID, MR.
LOWENTHAL. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, VERY PLEASED
TO PRESENT AB 295, WHICH MAKES A
VARIETY OF TECHNICAL CHANGES TO
CALIFORNIA'S FORECLOSURE LAWS.
BUT ALSO AIMS TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS FROM INDIVIDUALS
KNOWN AS SURPLUS CHASERS WHEN
GOING THROUGH FORECLOSURE. THE
SURPLUS FUND IS THE MONEY LEFT
OVER AFTER A MORTGAGE, AND FEES
ARE PAID FOLLOWING A TRUSTEE'S
SALE. THESE FUNDS, THAT THE
BORROWER THESE ARE FUNDS THAT
THE BORROWER IS ENTITLED TO.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE
INDIVIDUALS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF VULNERABLE BORROWERS BY
OFFERING TO COLLECT THESE
SURPLUS FUNDS ON THEIR BEHALF.
OFTEN, THESE SURPLUS FUND
CHASERS CHARGE EXORBITANT FEES,
SOMETIMES UP TO 40% OF THE
SURPLUS FUNDS FOR SERVICES THAT
ARE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
AB 295 WILL PROTECT THESE
BORROWERS, WHO ARE OFTEN ALREADY
IN VULNERABLE FINANCIAL
SITUATIONS BY REQUIRING SURPLUS
CHASERS TO WAIT 90 DAYS AFTER
THE TRUSTEE'S DEED HAS BEEN
RECORDED BEFORE APPROACHING THE
BORROWER SEEKING TO COLLECT
THEIR FUNDS FOR THEM. THIS WILL
GIVE TRUSTEES THE TIME THEY NEED
TO FIND THE APPROPRIATE BORROWER
AND SEND THEM THEIR SURPLUS
FUNDS, WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY
THESE SURPLUS CHASERS. THESE
CHANGES WILL HELP ENSURE THAT
THE BORROWERS RECEIVE THE FULL
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO, AND NOT BE TAKEN
ADVANTAGE OF. I'M VERY PLEASED
TO BE JOINED BY MIKE BILLOT ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION, WHO IS HERE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, MIKE BILLOT, ON
BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEES, I'LL BE
VERY BRIEF. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY
THAT PEOPLE GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF. THE TRUSTEES WANT TO GIVE
YOU 100% OF YOUR MONEY BACK, AND
SOMETIMES BY THE TIME THEY CAN
DO THAT, THEY'RE HANDED AN
ASSIGNMENT BY THE BORROWER IN
FAVOR OF A THIRD PARTY WHO'S
OFFERED TO HELP THEM GET THEIR
MONEY BACK. IT'S LIKE PEOPLE WHO
TRY TO HELP YOU GET MONEY OUT OF
THE UNCLAIMED PROPERTY FUND OF
THE COMPTROLLER. IT'S JUST A WAY
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE. AND
SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TECHNICAL
ASPECTS OF THE BILL. BUT I'D ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. DO
WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD,
PLEASE. ANY SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT UP HERE. ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS SECOND. WHAT WE
ALREADY HAD OKAY, WELL, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANYONE ASKING A
QUESTION, I'LL, I'LL ASK A
QUESTION. OR MAINLY JUST EXPRESS
MY SUPPORT. BUT ALSO FOR THE
VERY REASON THAT I'M SO PLEASED
THAT THIS REFORM IS TAKING
PLACE, BECAUSE I REALLY BRINGS
FORWARD, WHEN EMPLOYERS ARE
HEARD AS WELL AS. OH, WAIT A
MINUTE, I'M ON THE WRONG BILL, I
JUST REALIZED IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE. I APOLOGIZE. ALL RIGHT,
BRING IT UP. LET'S TAKE A VOTE.
OH, YOU WANT TO CLOSE? PLEASE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND
CONCURRENCE. CARRA. DIXON.
DIXON. AYE BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. MCKENNA.
AYE. PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE
PATTERSON. REYES. AYE. REYES.
AYE SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE IT
NEEDS ONE MORE. IT'S ON CALL.
ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE ON CALL.
WE JUST NEED ONE MORE PERSON TO
COME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS
SENATOR UMBERG HERE? DID I SEE?
VERY GOOD. WE SAW YOU EARLIER.
AND THEN YOU DISAPPEARED. YES.
HE'S GOT THREE. APPARENTLY, THIS
IS A BUSY TIME. I THINK. SO
EVERYONE'S RUNNING BACK AND
FORTH. ALL RIGHT. I THINK YOU
HAVE THREE BILLS. I DO ALL RIGHT
. WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO
BEGIN WITH? WHY DON'T WE START
WITH SB 92? OKAY. THAT'S THE ONE
I WAS JUST GOING TO TALK ABOUT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. SB
92, SB 92 CONCERNS THE PRIVATE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT, WHICH HAS
BEEN AN ISSUE OF CONTROVERSY FOR
AT LEAST THE LAST DECADE, IF NOT
MORE. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE, IN PARTICULAR, NICK
LEDECKY, FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.
BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE
STAKEHOLDERS, THE STAKEHOLDERS
THAT HAVE COME TOGETHER OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO HAMMER
OUT A COMPROMISE. NOT AN EASY
TASK, BUT ONE THAT, IS
COMMENDABLE FOR THE DILIGENCE OF
ALL SIDES TO STRIKE A COMPROMISE
UNDER EXISTING LAW. PAGA, WHICH
IS WHAT THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACT IS KNOWN AS, ENABLES
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE BY
PURSUING LAWSUITS AGAINST
EMPLOYERS TO RECOVER CIVIL
DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND OTHER EMPLOYEES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW, THEY'RE
OFTEN FILED TO ADDRESS, MAJOR
LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS, ENFORCE
FUNDAMENTAL LABOR RIGHTS SUCH AS
OVERTIME, MINIMUM WAGE, AND SICK
LEAVE, IN ADDITION TO LIMITED
PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES.
THE INCREASED USE OF ARBITRATION
CLAUSES HAS PREVENTED AGGRIEVED
WORKERS FROM FILING INDIVIDUAL
CASES OR CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS
IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
EMPLOYEES. INSTEAD REQUIRING
THEM TO GO THROUGH ARBITRATION,
WHICH SOME BELIEVE HAS
HISTORICALLY FAVORS EMPLOYERS.
COURTS HAVE RULED THAT WORKERS
CANNOT PURSUE INDIVIDUAL WAGE
ADJUDICATION CLAIMS THROUGH THE
LABOR COMMISSIONER IF THEY HAVE
SIGNED A FORCED ARBITRATION
CLAUSE. RESEARCHERS ESTIMATE AS
HIGH AS 80% OF PRIVATE SECTOR
NONUNION WORKERS ARE SUBJECT TO
THESE CLAUSES, FREQUENTLY
LEAVING PAGA AS THEIR ONLY
OPTION FOR RECOURSE. SINCE ITS
ENACTMENT, PAGA HAS SERVED AS A
CRITICAL ENFORCEMENT TOOL,
REFLECTING THE REALITY THAT
STATES LABOR ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES OFTEN LACK THE
RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE AND
TAKE ACTION IN TERMS OF
VIOLATIONS. SOME OF PAGA
STRUCTURE HAS UNINTENTIONALLY
CREATED CERTAIN ABUSES BY SOME
ACTORS IN THIS SPACE. IT'S 100
$200 PENALTY STRUCTURE APPLIES.
NO MATTER THE SEVERITY OR
DURATION OF THE VIOLATION. AND
THERE ARE ALSO NO PROCEDURAL
GUARDRAILS THAT NORMALLY EXIST
IN CIVIL LITIGATION, ALSO,
VIOLATIONS UNDER EXISTING LAW
CANNOT BE CURED, EVEN IF THE
EMPLOYER QUICKLY REMEDIES THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION. THE SAME
PENALTIES APPLY, THE CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARRA, IS CARRYING ANOTHER
COMPONENT, A COMPANION COMPONENT
OF THIS COMPROMISE IN AB 2288.
IN FACT, HE MAY BE OVER IN
SENATE JUDICIARY PRESENTING IT
RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT THESE BILLS
REPRESENT IS THESE BILLS, AS I
SAID AT THE OUTSET, THEY THEY
REPRESENT A COMPROMISE. FIRST,
THIS BILL CREATES A FORMAL RIGHT
TO CURE WHATEVER DEFICIENCY MAY
EXIST FOR SMALL AND MIDSIZE
COMPANIES, SO LONG AS THESE
COMPANIES CURE A LABOR CODE
VIOLATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, THEN GENERALLY A PAGA
LAWSUIT CANNOT BE COMMENCED.
SECONDLY, THIS MEASURE AFFORDS
ALL BUSINESSES, INCLUDING THOSE
WITH MORE THAN 100 EMPLOYEES,
THE ABILITY TO SEEK AN EARLY
EVALUATION CONFERENCE. SHORTLY
AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF PAGA
OF A LAWSUIT TO ATTEMPT TO
DEVELOP A PLAN FOR REDRESSING
LABOR CODE VIOLATIONS AND
SETTING MATTERS WITHOUT
PROTRACTED LITIGATION, THIS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BILL AND
COMPROMISE TO PROTECT WORKERS
AND PROMOTE THE EARLY RESOLUTION
OF VIOLATIONS IS SUPPORTED BY A
BROAD COALITION OF BUSINESS,
LABOR ATTORNEY GROUPS, INCLUDING
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION, AND ASSOCIATED LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS. CALIFORNIA
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, THE WELL,
THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA AND CALIFORNIA
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.
SO TODAY WITH ME IS MISS ASHLEY
HOFFMAN, THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, AND ELMER LIZARDI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION. HERE THEY ARE
HOLDING HANDS ONCE AGAIN IN
FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE. I KNOW
YOU'RE GETTING TIRED OF LABOR
AND MANAGEMENT COMING TOGETHER
ON ALL THESE MEASURES, BUT HERE
WE GO AGAIN. AN HISTORIC DAY
RIGHT? PLEASE PROCEED. WHO'S
GOING FIRST? OKAY. GOOD MORNING,
ASHLEY HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
AND WE ARE VERY PROUD TO SUPPORT
SB 92, WHICH PROVIDES MUCH
NEEDED REFORM TO THE PRIVATE
ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT. WE'D LIKE
TO THANK THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
CONVENING NEGOTIATIONS, AS WELL
AS THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION FOR WORKING WITH US
ON THIS ISSUE. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO
THANK SENATOR UMBERG, THE
LEGISLATURE, AND PARTICULARLY
THE MANY MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE THAT TOOK TIME OVER
THE LAST YEAR OR TWO TO MEET
WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND TO
HEAR THE STORIES ABOUT SMALL
BUSINESSES, NONPROFITS AND THE
LIKE THAT HAVE SUFFERED FROM
SOME OF THE ABUSES OF PAGA. WE
HAVE HEARD FROM MANY YEARS FROM
MANY OF OUR LARGE AND SMALL
BUSINESSES ABOUT HOW
UNMERITORIOUS PAGA LAWSUITS HAVE
PLAGUED THEM AND COST MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS. I AM REMINDED OF AN
EXAMPLE FROM MY OWN PRACTICE
WHERE, AN HR REPRESENTATIVE HAD
DONE A SLIGHT MISCALCULATION ON
OVERTIME. IT ONLY COST ACROSS
THE ENTIRE CLASS $80. YOU KNOW,
A FEW PENNIES HERE, A DOLLAR
THERE. THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO
SETTLE FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS. AND UNDER SB 92,
THEY COULD NOW CURE THAT
OVERTIME ERROR, MAKE THE
EMPLOYEES WHOLE QUICKLY, AND NOT
BE SUBJECT TO THE LARGE
PENALTIES UNDER PAGA, WHAT WAS
ONCE AGAIN A WELL-INTENTIONED
LAW HAS UNFORTUNATELY BEEN
MANIPULATED AT THE EXPENSE OF
WORKERS, BUSINESSES AND
NONPROFITS THAT SERVE VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS. BUT WHAT'S IN THIS
BILL AND ITS COMPANION REPRESENT
HISTORIC REFORM TO ADDRESS THESE
CONCERNS, BUT ALSO ENSURING
CALIFORNIA WORKERS CAN FEEL
CONFIDENT THAT THERE IS ROBUST
LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS
REFORM ACCOMPLISHES THOSE GOALS
BY CREATING THE PROCESSES
DESCRIBED BY SENATOR UMBERG,
WHERE LARGE EMPLOYERS AND SMALL
EMPLOYERS NOT COVERED BY AN
AGENCY PROCESS CAN SEEK AN EARLY
EVALUATION CONFERENCE WHERE
SMALL BUSINESSES CAN GO THROUGH
AN AGENCY CURE PROCESS WHERE
THERE ARE CAPS ON PENALTIES FOR
GOOD ACTORS. UNDER THE LAW, WE
ALSO SUPPORT THE
ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS TO HELP
QUICKLY STAFF UP THE LABOR
AGENCY, AND WE STRONGLY URGE YOU
TO SUPPORT THIS HISTORIC, LONG
OVERDUE REFORM. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. THANK
YOU. VICE CHAIR. MEMBER, GOOD
MORNING, ELMER LOZADA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION. THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION WAS
THE ORIGINAL CO-SPONSOR OF PAGA,
ALONG WITH THE CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION. THE
LAW WAS ENACTED TO ADDRESS
INADEQUATE LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE WORKERS,
ESPECIALLY FARM WORKERS AND
OTHER IMMIGRANT WORKERS. THE
BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED
PRESERVE POGOR'S UNIQUE
ENFORCEMENT TOOL WHILE UPDATING
THE BILL TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES FOR
WORKERS AND INCENTIVIZE EMPLOYER
COMPLIANCE. PAGA, AS MENTIONED,
IS THE ONLY WAY THAT ONE WORKER
CAN SUE ON BEHALF OF ALL
IMPACTED COWORKERS, AND IT IS
THE ONLY PATH TO JUSTICE FOR
WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN REQUIRED
TO SIGN MANDATORY ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS. SB 92 ENACTS THIS
NEW RIGHT TO CURE PROVISIONS
UNDER PAGA, A CURE MEANS THAT
WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME PERIODS,
THE EMPLOYER HAS CORRECTED ANY
VIOLATIONS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LAWS THAT THEY WERE
VIOLATING. AND THE EMPLOYER, AND
WORKERS HAVE BEEN PAID THE
UNPAID WAGES WITH INTEREST AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROCEDURES
AND SB 92 WILL PROMOTE FASTER
RESOLUTION FOR WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS ALIKE. SMALLER
EMPLOYERS CAN GO TO THE LABOR
AGENCY WITH A PROPOSED CURE, AND
FOLLOW A PROCESS TO ENSURE
FAIRNESS FOR BOTH PARTIES, AND
LARGER EMPLOYERS CAN SEEK AN
EVALUATION CONFERENCE AND A
STATE TO ATTEMPT TO CURE
VIOLATIONS AND REACH EARLY
SETTLEMENTS. THIS BILL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL
GOALS OF THIS STATUTE TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
THAT PROMOTE LABOR LAW
COMPLIANCE AND HOLD BAD ACTORS
ACCOUNTABLE, EMPLOYERS WHO SEEK
TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS AND MAKE
WORKERS WHOLE IN A TIMELY MANNER
HAVE NEW OPTIONS TO DO SO. THIS
WILL BENEFIT BOTH WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS ALIKE. THANK YOU ALL.
AND, SB 92 IS AN IMPORTANT PART
OF THIS PACKAGE TO PRESERVE AND
STRENGTHEN PCA. SO WE ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS
HERE IN SUPPORT, PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING MATTHEW.
WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION,
WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO SUPPORT SB
92. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR CHRIS MICHELI ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES AREA
OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND
SUPPORT, AS WELL AS SHERM, THE
SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGERS IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MIKE ROBSON HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
STAFFING ASSOCIATION AND THE
CALIFORNIA STAFFING
PROFESSIONALS. THANKS IN SUPPORT
. GOOD MORNING, SHANE GUSMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS, THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION, THE
MACHINIST UNION, UNITE HERE, THE
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, AND
THE UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, ALL IN SUPPORT. JACKIE
SIR, ON BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA, THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
ALBERTO TORRICO ON BEHALF OF
AIRLINES FOR AMERICA. ALSO IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
SKYLER WONACOTT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT MORNING
CHAIR MEMBERS KENT AND STANHOPE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA NEW
CAR DEALERS IN STRONG SUPPORT.
KIMBERLY ROSENBERGER, ON BEHALF
OF SEIU CALIFORNIA AND UFW
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
CARLOS GUTIERREZ HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA GROCERS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA FRESH
FOOD ASSOCIATION, AND A NUMBER
OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, OBED FRANKEL
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION,
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS. SENATOR AND
MEMBERS, WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS. THANK YOU. MATT
SUTTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION. GOOD
MORNING, RYAN, ELAINE, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LAWRENCE
GAYTAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. YEAH.
GOOD MORNING. NICK CHAPPIE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
TRUCKING ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, INDIRA MCDONALD, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION, IN
SUPPORT. AND I APPARENTLY LAST
MIKE BILLOT ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. VERY GOOD.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WOULD
BE ANY OPPOSITION, BUT IF THERE
IS AN OPPOSITION WITNESS, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. IS THERE ANYONE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? NO. OH I
JUST I JUST OH, NO. MAYBE NO,
NO, THIS IS HISTORIC. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S BRING IT UP HERE.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN. I'M SENATOR, I
THINK I'M GOING TO COME AND TAKE
I'M A FRESHMAN, SO I'M GOING TO
COME TAKE A CLASS OF BUILDING A
COALITION, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT
I LOVE SEEING. I LOVE SEEING
BUSINESS AND LABOR WORKING
TOGETHER TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. SO
THANK YOU FOR THAT. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU, AS AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL, I'D LIKE TO TAKE FULL
CREDIT FOR THIS, BUT. BUT I
HAPPEN TO JUST BE ON THE BUS
THESE FOLKS, THE GROUP THAT YOU
SAW THAT HAS COME TOGETHER TO
STRIKE THIS COMPROMISE, THEY
ACTUALLY DROVE THE BUS. THAT'S
FANTASTIC. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNOLLY, PLEASE. NEVERTHELESS,
WE ARE GOING TO THANK AND
COMMEND SENATOR UMBERG FOR YOUR
GREAT WORK ON THIS AS WELL AS
THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO GET
THIS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, I'D
LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR.
ABSOLUTELY SURE. ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS? IT MAY BE. LET ME TURN
TO STAFF AND ASK WHETHER THAT'S
DOABLE. WE BECAUSE THIS IS A
COMPROMISE AND BECAUSE WE'RE ON
SUCH A SHORT TIMELINE, IT MAY BE
A CHALLENGE THAT CHANGING A
COMMA MAY CREATE A CHALLENGE.
EVEN SO, BUT. SO, MEMBER
CONNOLLY, I'LL KEEP THAT IN
MIND. SO. RIGHT. WELL, I DO, IF
THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, I DO
WANT TO SPEAK. THIS IS WHAT I
WAS STARTING TO SAY BEFORE I GOT
AHEAD OF MYSELF. BUT THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BEING THE FRONT OF
THIS OF THE EFFORT HERE TO BUILD
THIS TREMENDOUS COALITION OF ALL
BUSINESS AND LABOR FORCES. AND
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL
92. AND THIS MEASURE IS A
PRODUCT OF YOUR SUCCESSFUL
NEGOTIATING PROWESS. I THINK, TO
BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER BETWEEN
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE LABOR
COMMUNITY. I'M PLEASED TO SEE
THE LANGUAGE REFORMS THAT TO
ENSURE THAT WORKERS STILL HAVE
THE ABILITY TO BRING FORWARD
LABOR CLAIMS AND RECEIVE THE
COMPENSATION THEY DESERVE, WHILE
IMPORTANTLY, LIMITING THE NUMBER
OF FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS THAT
NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR BUSINESS
COMMUNITY. THE REALITY IS, WHEN
EMPLOYERS ARE HURT BY
UNNECESSARY LAWSUITS,
CALIFORNIANS AND OUR ECONOMY
SUFFER. THIS POLICY IS A WIN FOR
SMALL BUSINESS, WHICH, AS YOU
KNOW, IS SMALL BUSINESSES ARE
THE BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY.
THERE ARE OVER 4 MILLION SMALL
BUSINESSES IN CALIFORNIA, AND I
THINK THEY'RE CHEERING SENATOR
UMBERG, RIGHT NOW, IF THIS KEEPS
MOVING FORWARD, SPECIFICALLY, SB
92 PROTECTS SMALL EMPLOYERS BY
PROVIDING A MORE ROBUST RIGHT TO
CARE PROCESS THROUGH THE LABOR
DEPARTMENT OR TO CURE PROCESS
THROUGH THE LABOR DEPARTMENT TO
REDUCE LITIGATION AND COSTS.
THIS IS DEFINITELY A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION FOR REDUCING
REGULATIONS ON BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH I'M A STRONG
ADVOCATE AND SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. AND DO YOU WANT TO HAVE
CLOSING COMMENTS? OH, I'M SORRY.
PLEASE. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? GO
RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS
WHO JOINED WITH YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM OUR
CHAIR REGARDING ALL THE DETAILS
OF THIS. THIS IS A BIG, THIS IS
A GREAT VICTORY, QUITE FRANKLY,
TO BE ABLE TO BRING ALL THE
PARTIES TOGETHER, MAKING SURE
THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THE
WORKERS AND ALSO PROTECTING THE
SMALL BUSINESSES. WE HEAR FROM
BOTH ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE
DON'T DO WE DON'T CHANGE IT SO
MUCH THAT WE'RE NO LONGER
PROTECTING THE WORKERS. AND FROM
OUR SMALL BUSINESSES ASKING US
TO PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO
PROTECT THEM, TO HELP THEM. AND
I APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT YOU
HAVE WORKED IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
OF THIS WITH ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY
AGREES WITH. EVERYBODY SPEAKS IN
FAVOR OF, AND THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION TO. SO
CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SECOND, AND DO YOU
HAVE A CLOSE PLEASE. WELL, YES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS,
AGAIN, I'M NOT AVERSE TO TAKING
CREDIT. I THINK I DID A PRESS
RELEASE THIS MORNING TAKING
CREDIT FOR THE SUN RISING IN THE
EAST, BUT BUT BUT IT REALLY THE
CREDIT BELONGS TO ALL THOSE WHO
TESTIFIED IN SUPPORTING THE
FOLKS THAT ARE SITTING AT THIS
TABLE. IT IS A MONUMENT TO HOW
WE CAN GET THINGS DONE WHEN WE
SPEND TIME. COLLABORATING AND
NEGOTIATING. I DO THINK THIS IS
A GREAT IMPROVEMENT TO BOTH FOR
EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS EMPLOYERS.
AND I'M, OF COURSE, PROUD TO
HAVE MY NAME ON IT. BUT I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT CREDIT IS
ACCORDED TO THOSE WHO ARE DO
THAT CREDIT. SO WITH THAT, I
WOULD URGE AND I VOTE. AND
SUCCESS HAS MANY PARENTS AND WE
HAVE A MOTION, ASSEMBLYWOMAN
SANCHEZ AND MR. AND REYES OR YOU
OKAY. EVERYBODY OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
LET'S VOTE. ALL RIGHT. MOTIONS
DO PASS. KALRA. DIXON. YES.
DIXON. I BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MCKENNA. MCKENNA. I
PACHECO. PACHECO. I. PATTERSON.
REYES REYES. I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
I GET ONE MORE. IT'S ON CALL.
ONE MORE ON. IT'S ON CALL. ONE
MORE. AND WHEN THEY COME. ALL
RIGHT. YOUR NEXT BILL. WHICH ONE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO NEXT? THANK
YOU, WHY DON'T WE DO SB, 919
NEXT? CONCERNING FRANCHISE
SELLERS, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
ONCE AGAIN, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU TO
STAFF. THANK YOU, MR. LEDECKY,
FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS BILL, I
WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR THIS BILL.
SO, ALONG WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE
ALSO COME TOGETHER TO WORK OUT
VARIOUS COMPROMISES. WHAT THIS
BILL CONCERNS IS IT CONCERNS THE
PURCHASE AND SALE OF FRANCHISES.
CALIFORNIA IS THAT OFTENTIMES
SOMEONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN,
FOR EXAMPLE, BUYING A FRANCHISE
MIGHT GO TO A FRANCHISE SELLER
UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION
THAT FRANCHISE SELLER HAS THEIR
INTEREST AT HEART. THEY MAY THEY
MAY NOT. BUT BUT WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS IT SIMPLY ADDS
TRANSPARENCY TO THE PROCESS. IT
REQUIRES AN ANNUAL NOTICE TO BE
FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER,
SIMILARLY, THE NOTICE FILING
REQUIREMENTS CURRENTLY IN PLACE
IN NEW YORK AND WASHINGTON STATE
, WHICH DISCLOSES THE TO THE
PROSPECTIVE FRANCHISEE,
INFORMATION ABOUT THE FRANCHISE
SELLERS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.
THIS IS A VERY LARGE BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA. THE PURCHASE AND
SALE OF FRANCHISES IS SOMETHING
THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE, BUT
WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE WITH
TRANSPARENT, WITH TRANSPARENCY,
SO THAT THE FOR EXAMPLE, THE
PURCHASER HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE OF
WHAT THE RELATIONSHIPS ARE
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PARTIES.
WITH ME HERE IS MR. RANDY
POLLOCK FROM THE INTERNATIONAL
FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION, AND WITH
THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. YES, PLEASE. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, RANDY POLLOCK,
ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION, WE
REPRESENT ABOUT 10,000
FRANCHISEES AND ABOUT A THOUSAND
BRANDS. THIS IS ANOTHER ANOTHER
UNIQUE BILL, AS HIGHLIGHTED IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE BRINGING
TOGETHER THE ECFA AND MANY
FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATIONS TOGETHER
ON WORKING ON THIS BILL. AND
MAINLY, AS THE SENATOR SAID,
THIS IS A CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
BILL MANY TIMES, AS YOU WANT TO
BUY A FRANCHISE, YOU DON'T KNOW
THE BACKGROUND OF THAT FRANCHISE
BROKER. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
BRANDS HE'S REPRESENTING
OUTSIDE, THE ONES HE'S
PRESENTING TO YOU. YOU DON'T
KNOW WHETHER HE HAS ANY
LITIGATION IN HIS PAST. ALSO,
THIS BILL WOULD PROVIDE THAT YOU
HAVE TO PROVIDE WHAT FRANCHISES
HE HAS SOLD IN THE PAST YEAR. SO
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF
REACHING OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE TO
SEE HOW IT WORKED OUT. HOW IS
THE BUSINESS PROGRESSING? SO WE
BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY FAIR
BILL. IT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO
REGISTER, BUT IT JUST GIVES A
LITTLE BIT MORE CONSUMER
DISCLOSURE TO SOMEONE WHO MAY BE
SPENDING NOT TENS OF THOUSANDS,
BUT SOMETIMES HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. AND WITH
THAT, I WOULD ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. OH, OKAY. NOW,
WERE THERE SOME AMENDMENTS? OH,
WE ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YES. ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. ALL
RIGHT. ANY, SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
I THINK WE'RE IT. SO ALL RIGHT.
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESS WANTS TO
COME FORWARD? ANY OPPOSITION
SPEAKERS WANT TO COME FORWARD?
WELL, THEN LET'S MOVE IT UP
HERE. ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT
TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY MISS REYES AND SECOND,
BY MISS PACHECO, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE, I URGE, AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S
VOTE. MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL
DICKSON I DICKSON. I BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN MCKENNA.
PACHECO. HI PACHECO I.
PATTERSON. REYES REYES I.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. I AND HE'S TWO
MORE VOTES ON CALL. ON CALL. TWO
VOTES NEEDED. ALL RIGHT. YOUR
THIRD AND FINAL. YES, WELL, FOR
TODAY. YES. YOU'RE RIGHT. SB
900. SB 900 IS THE HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION PROTECTION. AND
SUPPORT ACT. THIS BILL IS
BASICALLY A PRODUCT OF AN EVENT
THAT HAPPENED IN ORANGE COUNTY
IN THE CITY OF ORANGE, WHERE A
GAS LINE BROKE WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF A HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION. AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF, BASICALLY THE
INABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS AS
TO WHO AND HOW THE GAS LINE WAS
GOING TO GET REPAIRED, THERE
WERE 600 FOLKS WHO WERE WITHOUT
GAS FOR OVER TWO MONTHS, AND
THAT MEANT THAT THEY HAD NO
ABILITY TO COOK. USING THEIR
STOVES MEANT THAT THEY HAD NO
HOT WATER AND MEANT A GREAT DEAL
OF BOTH, THERE WERE HEALTH
CHALLENGES AS WELL AS JUST
CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF LIVING
AND THE ISSUE THAT THIS BILL
ADDRESSES. THE ISSUE IS, IS
BASICALLY TO ASSIGN
RESPONSIBILITY AS TO WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT, WHAT THIS
DOES IS IT SAYS THAT WHEN THERE
IS THAT KIND OF AN EVENT WHERE
THERE'S A UTILITY LINE THAT
BREAKS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
THAT, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BOARD HAS TEN DAYS BY WHICH TO
START REPAIRS FOR THE
INTERRUPTION TO RESOLVE THE
INTERRUPTION AND ALLOWS THE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO ACT
SWIFTLY TO FIX THE UTILITY. IF
THE BOARD DOESN'T MEET AND
REQUIRES REPAIRS TO HAVE FAIR
PRICING INSTITUTES RESERVE
STUDIES TO ENSURE ORGANIZED AND
TRANSPARENT BUDGETING PROCESS
AND ALLOWS THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION TO CONDUCT
ELECTRONIC VOTING TO ACHIEVE A
QUORUM, ALL OF WHICH SHOULD
FACILITATE THE REPAIR AND
EMERGENCY SITUATION, I AT THE
OUTSET, I THOUGHT THIS WAS SORT
OF JUST A DISTRICT BILL, BUT
APPARENTLY THIS HAS HAPPENED, A
NUMBER OF PLACES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
IN VACAVILLE, AND HERE IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, AS WELL AS IN
LANCASTER, WITH THAT, I URGE AND
I VOTE AND I AM IT IN TERMS OF
WITNESSES. SO DO YOU ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS? I DO ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. OKAY. ANY AT THE
OUTSET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO
MR. LITKE. ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE
OUR GO TO GUY. THANK YOU, DO WE
HAVE SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION IN
SUPPORT? AND THEN DO WE HAVE
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? OKAY
MADAM VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS TOM,
SIR. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
CENTER FOR CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION LAW. AND I'M
SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTER, I BELIEVE I'M THE AT
THIS POINT, THE ONLY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION. ALTHOUGH THE
CENTER'S PRESIDENT IS HERE, IF
NEEDED, WE CAN CALL ON HER TO
JOIN US, IN THE EIGHT YEARS AS A
SUPERIOR COURT COMMISSIONER AT
ALAMEDA COUNTY, I WAS CALLED ON
FREQUENTLY TO INTERPRET CASE LAW
AND STATUTORY LAW. THIS BILL, IN
ITS PRESENT FORM, CREATES
CONFUSION AND NEEDLESSLY INVITES
LITIGATION. HERE ARE SOME OF THE
REASONS. FIRST OFF, THE BILL
APPEARS TO MODIFY
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNER AND THE
ASSOCIATION AS SET FORTH IN THE
DECLARATION. I NOTE THAT IN THE
LAVIDA CONDO SITUATION, WHICH
GAVE RISE TO THIS LEGISLATION,
THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS SET
FORTH THAT THE UTILITIES WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF THE UTILITY LINES
IN THE COMMON AREA. AND YET THE
UTILITIES DID NOT STEP UP AND
COMPLETE THE REPAIR IN A TIMELY
MANNER. SECONDLY, IN SEEKING TO
ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF UTILITY
INTERRUPTIONS IN THE COMMON
AREAS OF KIDS, IT PLACES THE
BURDEN ON THE ASSOCIATION THAT
IS THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS
WITH POORLY DEFINED EXCEPTIONS
AND THE BURDEN IS TO ACT QUICKLY
AND TO SHOULDER THE COST OF THE
REPAIRS. THIRD, BOARDS. UNDER
THE CURRENT LAW HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO BORROW FUNDS. THIS
BILL MYSTERIOUSLY TIES THE LACK
OF TIMELY BOARD ACTION TO A
SCHEME FOR BORROWING FUNDS. THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN A LACK OF
ACTION AND THE ABILITY TO BORROW
FUNDS IS UNCLEAR. FOURTH, IT
VIOLATES THE OPEN MEETING ACT BY
ALLOWING BOARD ACTION WITHOUT A
MEETING. FIFTH, IT EMBEDS NEW
COSTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
UTILITY LINES IN THE REQUIRED
ANNUAL TRIANNUAL SORRY RESERVE
STUDY. THIS WILL INCREASE
ASSESSMENTS ON HOMEOWNERS
SUBSTANTIALLY. FOURTH, IT
EMPOWERS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TO IMPOSE AN UNLIMITED EMERGENCY
ASSESSMENT ON ENTIRELY NEW
GROUND. STATED AS A THREAT TO
HEALTH OR TO ANOTHER HAZARDOUS
CONDITION OR CIRCUMSTANCE
WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY STANDARDS
ABOUT HOW SUCH A DETERMINATION
IS MADE OR BY WHOM. OUR MOST
BASIC CRITICISM OF THIS BILL IS
THAT IT IS A HUGE GIFT TO
UTILITIES, BECAUSE IT SHIFTS
SUBSTANTIAL COST AND LIABILITY
BURDEN AWAY FROM UTILITIES AND
ONTO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS FOR
ALL UTILITY SERVICES THROUGHOUT
THE STATE, ADD NOW THE
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL COST TO
HOMEOWNERS THAT LITIGATION THAT
THIS BILL INVITES. SO FINALLY,
THE PROBLEM OF THIS BILL
PURPORTEDLY ADDRESSES IS THE
HARMFUL DELAY WHEN THERE'S AN
INTERRUPTION OF UTILITY
SERVICES, RATHER THAN CLEARLY
DEFINING HOW TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEM PROMPTLY, THIS BILL
SIMPLY PLACES ADDED BURDENS ON
THE PARTIES THAT HAVE THE LEAST
RESOURCES, THE LEAST EXPERTISE,
AND THE LEAST ABILITY TO REACT
QUICKLY. THAT IS ON HOMEOWNERS.
AND SO WE ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? SENATOR,
DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF
THOSE COMMENTS? SURE, IF YOU'D
LIKE TO. I CAN DRESS IN MY
CLOTHES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL,
I'LL ASK THE COMMITTEE. ANY
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
YES. ELOISE. MISS REYES, WITHOUT
A DOUBT, THE UTILITIES SHOULD BE
THE ONES THAT TAKE CARE OF THIS.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE A
RESPONSIBILITY BY THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION AT SOME POINT TO
STEP IN AND SAY, OKAY, THE
UTILITIES ISN'T RESPONDING. WE
NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR
RESIDENTS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST
THE UTILITY BECAUSE I MY BIGGEST
CONCERN WHEN I READ WHAT
HAPPENED AT LA VIDA IS EVERYBODY
WAS WAITING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO
TAKE THE LEAD IN THE MEANTIME,
THE HOME, THE RESIDENTS ARE THE
ONES THAT ARE LEFT WONDERING,
WELL, HERE'S A BATTLE BETWEEN
THE UTILITIES AND THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. THEIR CONTRACT IS
WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
AND SO I AGREE WITH THE SENATOR
THAT THE HOME THAT THE
ASSOCIATION HAS A RESPONSIBILITY
TO ITS RESIDENTS. AND OF COURSE,
WHATEVER THEY SPEND, THEY SHOULD
BE. IF IT TURNS OUT IT BELONGED
TO THE UTILITIES, UTILITIES NEED
TO REIMBURSE THEM. BUT SOMEBODY
NEEDS TO STEP UP AND TAKE CARE
OF THOSE RESIDENTS, BECAUSE TO
BE WITHOUT GAS FOR THREE MONTHS
IS INEXCUSABLE. THAT SHOULD
NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, IT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT THAT THAT THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE, BUT IT JUST MEANS
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO STEP UP. MAY I
? AND WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE
THE BILL. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO THAT? I DO, YES,
CERTAINLY SWIFT ACTION IS
REQUIRED. BUT WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS IT GIVES THE UTILITY
ADDED AMMUNITION FOR SAYING IT'S
NOT OUR PROBLEM. LOOK AT THE
BILL BECAUSE IT IT FOR THE FIRST
TIME STATES THE ASSOCIATION,
SHALL, YOU KNOW, BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR REPAIR AND SO FORTH. IF THE
BILL MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE
UTILITY IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD
RESPOND QUICKLY AND DO THE
REPAIR, AND THEN, OF COURSE,
THEN YOU CAN SPEND THE TIME TO
ARGUE ABOUT WHO SHOULD BE PAYING
FOR IT. THAT'S THAT WOULD BE A
SOLUTION. THE BILL IS NOT IN
ITSELF A SOLUTION. AS IT STANDS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? OKAY. MR. SENATOR,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT AND
YOUR CLOTHES AND ADDRESS THOSE
COMMENTS, PLEASE? THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE'VE BEEN AT THIS NOW FOR
SEVERAL MONTHS, AND THIS IS I
THINK, A MISCONCEPTION OF THE
BILL AND A MISREADING OF THE
BILL. I THINK IT WAS VERY CLEAR
FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE
UTILITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE UTILITIES PORTION OF THE
LINE, AND THAT OTHERS ARE
RESPONSIBLE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LINES THAT
ARE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AREA OF
RESPONSIBILITY. BUT
NEVERTHELESS, JUST TO MAKE IT
CRYSTAL CLEAR, WE ADDED THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE ON PAGE ONE
OF THE BILL. IT SAYS UNLESS THE
UTILITY SERVICE THAT FAILED IS
MAINTAINED, REPAIRED OR REPLACED
BY A PUBLIC, PRIVATE OR OTHER
UTILITY SERVICE PROVIDER
OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE
DECLARATION OF COMMON INTEREST
DEVELOPMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF
YOU THINK OF A HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, A DEVELOPMENT SORT
OF AS A SQUARE OUTSIDE OF THAT
SQUARE, OUTSIDE WHAT'S CALLED
THE LINE OF DEMARCATION, THE
UTILITY IS RESPONSIBLE INSIDE
THAT LINE OF DEMARCATION, THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE. AND INSIDE THE UNIT
THE INDIVIDUAL, IF SOMETHING
BREAKS IN YOUR HOME AND IT'S
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, IT'S YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY. IF IT BREAKS,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE LINE FROM THE
STREET TO THE HOME AND IT'S THE
UTILITIES RESPONSIBILITY, ITS
UTILITIES RESPONSIBILITY. THIS
DOES NOT SHIFT THAT AT ALL. AND
I ASSOCIATE MY COMMENTS WITH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GÓMEZ REYES. IS
THAT WHAT THIS BILL DOES? IS IT
SIMPLY ASSIGNS RESPONSIBILITY TO
GET THE JOB DONE? IT IN NO WAY,
IN NO WAY. LET ME EMPHASIZE THIS
AGAIN SHIFTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR
UTILITIES TO THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. SO WITH THAT, I'LL
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. VERY GOOD.
AND WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND,
SECOND. ALL RIGHT. LET'S VOTE.
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED.
CHOLERA DIXON I DIXON. AYE
BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN. AYE
MACKINNON. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON REYES.
AYE. REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ AYE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. IT'S ON CALL. HOW MANY?
ONE MORE. ONE MORE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WHO IS HERE TO BRING
FORWARD? LOOKS LIKE SENATOR
BRADFORD. SHE'S LETTING ME GO.
SHE'S LETTING ME THANK YOU.
OKAY, SENATOR, SB 1109. YES. I
WANT TO THANK SENATOR WAHAB FOR
ALLOWING ME TO JUMP IN FRONT OF
THE LINE. I'M HERE TO JUST
PRESENT. NO, YOU DID NOT SIGN.
OH, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY.
MENGIBAR. I'M SORRY. MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR. I SURELY DIDN'T. BUT
YOU GOT ME BECAUSE I HAVE TO GET
BACK TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THAT'S
WHY SHE WAS ON MY MIND. SO
ANYWAY, I'M HERE TO PRESENT A
THIS MEASURE. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT OF CANNABIS AND
CONTROL TO COLLECT AND REPORT
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION OF
CANNABIS LICENSEES, THIS
INFORMATION, IT WILL BE
COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY, SEVEN
YEARS AGO, I PASSED SB 1294,
WHICH WAS THE FIRST SOCIAL
EQUITY, BILL IN CANNABIS, NOT
ONLY IN THE STATE BUT IN THE
NATION, BECAUSE WE SAW HOW BADLY
, THIS INDUSTRY LACKED DIVERSITY
. IN RECENT YEARS, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS FOCUSED ON
ENSURING THAT CALIFORNIA
CANNABIS MARKET IS INCLUSIVE AND
SUPPORTIVE OF INDIVIDUALS
IMPACTED BY THE WAR ON DRUGS FOR
THE LAST 40 YEARS, AND AS
INTENDED, THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS
INTENDED, I SHOULD SAY, WHEN WE
PASSED PROPOSITION, 64, MANY OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE
EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY ENTERING
THE MARKET AND CONTEND THAT THE
MARKET CONTINUES TO LACK
DIVERSITY, DESPITE, AGAIN
PASSING 1294 TODAY, THE MARKET
STANDS AT 85% WHITE MALE
DOMINATED. WE SHOULD ALL BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THE LACK
OF WOMEN VETERANS AND MINORITIES
IN THIS SPACE, CALIFORNIA HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE OUR
CANNABIS INDUSTRY IS EQUITABLE
AND FAIR TO ALL. AND THIS IS
WHAT THIS MEASURE DOES. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR OUR VOTE.
DO WE HAVE. THANK YOU. SENATOR,
DO WE HAVE ANY, SPEAKERS IN
SUPPORT IN OPPOSITION? LET'S
BRING IT TO THE DAIS SECOND. ALL
RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS? DO YOU WANT
TO CLOSE? THANK YOU. I EXPECT
AFTER I VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS, CARL DIXON, I
DIXON, I BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY.
MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
PACHECO. PACHECO I PATTERSON.
REYES REYES I SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ.
I THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IT'S ON
CALL ON. CALL I APOLOGIZE. ALL
RIGHT. SENATOR MENGIBAR, I HAVE
THREE BILLS IN BUSINESS. AND
WHAT DO I DO NEXT TO GET. YEAH.
WHAT DO YOU SAY? WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE A CHAIR TRANSITION,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO, I NEED
TO GO TO BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONS THERE DOWN AT THE
END OF THE LINE. SO I'VE GOT TO
RUN OVER THERE. DO YOU WANT TO
CONTINUE AS CHAIR, PLEASE? THANK
YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU IN
A MINUTE. OKAY THAT'S OKAY. SO.
SENATOR CHAIR, I GUESS I. OKAY,
SENATOR, YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AND JUST SO IT'S ON
THE RECORD, I AM SENATOR
MENGIBAR. JUST FOR CLARITY, HERE
, MADAM CHAIR, JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THERE IS A
STAGGERING STATISTIC THAT HAS
SAT WITH ME A RECENT SURVEY
FOUND THAT 84, 86% OF SMALL
BUSINESSES, SMALL NONPROFITS,
HAVE OFTEN OR SOMETIMES FELT
DISPLACED IN OUR STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, THAT WORRIES ME A
LIKE MY MOM AND POP. THEY CAME
WITH A DREAM TO BE ENTREPRENEURS
, SAVED UP ALL THEIR PENNIES TO
OPEN UP A SMALL BUSINESS. AND WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WITH SB 1103,
WE KEEP THEM WITHIN THEIR SMALL
BUSINESS. WE ALLOW THEM TO
MAINTAIN THEIR AMERICAN DREAM TO
CONTINUE SELLING THEIR EXPERTISE
, THEIR, ITEMS TO OUR
COMMUNITIES. WITH SB 1103, WE
JUST WANT TO REMOVE SOME
BARRIERS THAT EXIST IN THEM.
BEING SUCCESSFUL. I'M NOT
LOOKING TO CHANGE MUCH OF THE
STATUS QUO, I'M NOT LOOKING TO
MATCH 100% OF THE TENANT
PROTECTIONS THAT RESIDENTIAL
TENANTS HAVE. I JUST WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHILE THE
LANDLORDS CAN DO AND CONTINUE TO
DO WHAT THEY DO, THAT THERE'S
JUST SOME TRANSPARENCY FOR OUR
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. I'VE
THROUGHOUT THE PAST COUPLE OF
MONTHS, I'VE WORKED VERY, VERY
HARD, HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS. THIS BILL IN FRONT
OF YOU THROUGH THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE AND, CHAIR CALDARA HAS
A TRIMMED DOWN VERSION, BUT
STILL IS LOOKING TO BRING DOWN
PROTECTIONS FOR THREE DIFFERENT
KIND OF BUSINESSES THE MICRO,
THE MICRO ENTERPRISES THAT ARE
MADE UP OF FIVE OR LESS
EMPLOYEES, A RESTAURANT THAT IS
LESS THAN TEN EMPLOYEES, AND A
NONPROFIT THAT HAS LESS THAN 20
EMPLOYEES. THIS BILL WILL ONLY
APPLY TO THESE QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANTS. NOW, THIS IS
HOW IT WOULD WORK. I AM LOOKING
FOR A LOCATION TO RENT I AFTER
THIS BILL, AM ABOUT TO ENTER
INTO A LEASE, UNTIL THE LANDLORD
I QUALIFY. I'M A COMMERCIALLY
QUALIFIED TENANT AT THAT POINT,
I HAVE LET THE LANDLORD KNOW IT
IS MY. THE BURDEN IS ON ME TO
TELL THE LANDLORD. THE LANDLORD
WOULD THEN IF I NEGOTIATED WITH
THAT LANDLORD IN SPANISH, PUT
THAT NEGOTIATION IN A SPANISH
CONTRACT, AND WOULD DO THAT FOR
FOUR OTHER LANGUAGES. NOW, I'VE
SIGNED A CONTRACT AND THREE
MONTHS IN A LANDLORD IS GOING TO
INCREASE MY BUILDING COST. THE
BUILDING MAINTENANCE COST, AND
I, BECAUSE I'M A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT, I HAVE THE
RIGHT TO ASK THE LANDLORD, HEY,
I JUST WANT DOCUMENTATION TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE
CHARGING ME IS ACCURATE. YOU'RE
NOT JUST LOOKING TO POCKET,
YOU'RE JUST NOT LOOKING TO, PUT
ON A MURAL BECAUSE YOU WANT TO
PUT ON A MURAL. THIS IS ACTUALLY
COST FOR MAINTENANCE FEES. I
WILL ASK THE LANDLORD FOR THAT
DOCUMENTATION. AND WE SHOULD
ASSUME THAT THE LANDLORD SHOULD
HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION. THESE
ARE VERY ORGANIZED INDIVIDUALS.
THESE ARE BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS
THAT ARE TRACKING EVERYTHING, OF
WHAT THEY CHARGE, WHAT THEY WILL
PROVIDE THAT DOCUMENTATION TO
THE TENANT TENANT. AND THE
TENANT WILL PAY MY BILL IS NOT
ASKING FOR A TIME TO LAPSE.
LAPSE BEFORE PAYING IS JUST
ASKING, HEY, YOU GIVE ME
DOCUMENTATION ON THE SAME DAY
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO PAY FOR
MORE, I WILL HAVE TO PAY IT
RIGHT ON THE SPOT. IS NOT
LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF INCREASED
COST FOR THE BUILDING
MAINTENANCE FEES WHATSOEVER.
NOW, PROCEED MONTHS LATER. I'VE
BEEN THERE FOR OVER A YEAR NOW
AND THEY WANT TO NOW SELL THEIR
BUILDING, WHICH IS WITHIN THE
RIGHT DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO EVICT ME AS
A QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT.
I'M JUST ASKING. I'M NOW GOING
TO BE ENTITLED FOR A, SICK 90
DAY NOTICE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE I HAVE MY NUMBERS CORRECTLY
HERE. 60 DAY NOTICE BEFORE I GET
EVICTED, GIVE ME 60 DAYS TO FIND
A NEW PLACE. DON'T EVICT ME IN
THE NEXT DAY. I HAVE TO LEAVE.
THIS IS MY BEEN MY LIFE'S LONG
DREAM. I NEED 60 DAYS TO FIND A
NEW LOCATION SO I CAN PROCEED.
SO I CAN GO TO MY FAMILY AND
FRIENDS AND SAY, HEY, THE NEW
LOCATION I FOUND IS GOING TO
COST ME A LITTLE BIT MORE. I
JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE
BIT OF HELP. I WANT TO KEEP MY
DREAM, THE OTHER THING IT'S
ASKING IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO
INCREASE MY RENT MORE THAN 10,
GIVE ME A 90 DAYS NOTICE SO THAT
AGAIN, I CAN GO TO MY FRIENDS
AND FAMILY. HEY, I DON'T HAVE
THE MONEY RIGHT NOW. I JUST NEED
A LOAN. I WANT TO STAY IN THIS
PLACE. I WANT TO CONTINUE
SERVING THIS COMMUNITY. I JUST
NEED SOME TIME BEFORE I COME UP
WITH THE INCREASED, RENT. I'M
NOT CAPPING A RENT. A LANDLORD
CAN STILL INCREASE IT. I JUST
NEED SOME TIME TO BE ABLE TO PUT
THE MONEY TOGETHER. NOW ALL OF
THESE ARE JUST ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY. IF WE PROTECT OUR
SMALL TENANTS, LANDLORDS ARE
PROTECTED AS WELL. BECAUSE THE
OTHER SCENARIO IS THAT A
LANDLORD HAS A VACANT SPOT FOR
MONTHS ON END. WE'RE GOING TO
SEE GRAFFITI IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
YOU CAN POTENTIALLY SEE OTHER
RISKY BEHAVIORS ON THOSE AREAS.
IF THERE'S NO PEDESTRIAN
TRAFFIC, EVERYBODY WINS. IF A
TENANT STAYS IN THEIR SPOT, A
LANDLORD CONTINUES TO GET THEIR
MONEY AND A TENANT CAN STILL BE
ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY
TO PAY. IF SOMETHING CHANGES.
WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO ENSURE
THAT THIS ONLY APPLIES TO THE
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANTS.
THIS IS NOT A SWEEPING THING
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. THESE ARE THE
SMALLEST OF THE SMALLEST. WE DO
NOT BELIEVE THIS WILL HINDER A
LANDLORD FROM, RENTING TO A
SMALL TENANT BECAUSE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF I'M A LANDLORD AND I
HAVE, A 1500 SQUARE FOOT THAT
I'M RENTING, I'M, I KNOW I'M NOT
GOING TO GET A RESTAURANT WITH
FIVE PEOPLE OR A SMALL NONPROFIT
OF FIVE PEOPLE. I KNOW I'M NOT
GOING TO GET A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT HERE BECAUSE,
WELL, THE PLACE THAT I'M RENTING
IS FOR A BIGGER BUSINESS. THESE
SMALL LANDLORDS ALREADY KNOW
THAT THEY'RE ALREADY ONLY CAN
ONLY RENT TO SMALL BUSINESSES,
SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
INCENTIVIZED OR DE INCENTIVIZED
TO NOT RENT TO THEM ANYMORE. WE
JUST WANT TO ADD PROTECTIONS TO
OUR SMALL TENANTS. AND I'LL END
ON THIS NOTE AND THEN I'D LIKE
TO TURN TO MY TWO WITNESSES. IS
IF THE COST OF THE TRANSLATION
IS A BARRIER, STANDING BETWEEN
YOUR EYE, BETWEEN YOUR NÓ AND
YOUR EYE ON THIS VOTE, I'D LIKE
TO SHARE THAT THIS IS
POTENTIALLY A ONE TIME COST FOR
THE GREATER CONTRACT. THE MAIN
LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WOULD
STAY THE SAME FOR EVERY SINGLE
CONTRACT. MOVING FORWARD. IT'S A
ONE TIME POTENTIAL INVESTMENT,
AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO
TRANSLATE THE ACTUAL NEGOTIATED
PIECE. AND WE SHOULD WEIGH THAT
APPROXIMATELY $1,500. BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO ON GOOGLE,
YOU CAN LEGALLY TRANSLATE THESE
WORDS. AND A STANDARD COMMERCIAL
CONTRACTS ABOUT 10,000 WORDS. IT
COMES OUT TO $1,500 THAT WEIGH
THAT AGAINST THE DISPLACEMENTS
OF THE ENDLESS AMOUNT OF SMALL
NONPROFITS, SMALL BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA. AND I THINK THAT
DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE
PROTECTIONS WE'RE LOOKING TO
BRING TO MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN
IN THOSE BUSINESSES SO THEY
DON'T LOSE THEIR BUSINESS. AND
THEN SOMETIMES LOSE THEIR HOME.
SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN
MADAM CHAIR TO TWO WITNESSES
HERE THAT I WILL HAVE THEM
INTRODUCED BECAUSE I WILL
BUTCHER THEIR NAMES ANYWAY,
GISELLE, I'LL START WITH YOU
FIRST. READERS SO. HELLO. MY
NAME IS GISELLE VILLANUEVA.
SMITH AND I AM THE PROUD OWNER
OF STEPPING OUT PERFORMING ARTS
STUDIOS. YOU HAVE TO TALK INTO
THE MIC. OH, I'M SORRY, DID I
START AGAIN? HELLO SORRY ABOUT
THAT. OKAY. HELLO. MY NAME IS
GISELLE VILLANUEVA SMITH, AND I
AM THE PROUD OWNER OF STEPPING
OUT PERFORMING ARTS STUDIO
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SANTA FE
SPRINGS, STEPPING OUT WAS
FOUNDED IN 1993, IN NORWALK,
CALIFORNIA. BUILT FROM THE
GROUND UP WITH PASSION AND THE
SUPPORT OF MY FAMILY, OVER THE
PAST 31 YEARS, WE HAVE FACED
NUMEROUS CHALLENGES, INCLUDING
THE 2008 RECESSION, A STAGGERING
75% RENT INCREASE IN 2018, AND A
FORCED RELOCATION IN 2019. IT
WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND A NEW
LOCATION THAT WAS SUITABLE FOR
OPERATING A DANCE STUDIO, AND
THE ASTRONOMICAL COST TO START
OVER REALLY SET US BACK JUST AS
WE PREPARE TO CELEBRATE THE 2020
GRAND OPENING OF OUR NEW STUDIO
IN SANTA FE SPRINGS, COVID 19
CHANGED EVERYTHING. OBVIOUSLY WE
QUICKLY TRANSITIONED CLASSES TO
AN ONLINE PLATFORM, BUT STILL
ENDURED AN 80% LOSS IN
MEMBERSHIPS AND REVENUE STREAMS,
WITH VIRTUALLY NO ENROLLMENTS
FOR OVER A YEAR. DESPITE THE
MORATORIUM PROTECTIONS, I
RECEIVED PAY OR QUIT NOTICES
TWICE, FORCING ME TO SEEK FREE
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FROM PUBLIC
COUNCIL TO KEEP OUR DOORS OPEN.
IT HAS BEEN A LABORIOUS
UNDERTAKING TO ENDURE THE
PANDEMIC CRISIS AND FULFILL THE
FINANCIAL DEMANDS OF BACK RENTS,
THE COST OF INFLATION, ANOTHER
31% INCREASE IN RENTS AND RISING
CAM FEES. INSTEAD OF PLANNING TO
PASS THE BATON ON TO MY DAUGHTER
AND RETIRE AT 58 YEARS OLD, I
FIND MYSELF WORKING LONGER AND
HARDER THAN EVER, JUGGLING THE
MOST DEBT I'VE EVER HAD. SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS ARE DEDICATED,
HARD WORKING INDIVIDUALS WHO
DESERVE ADDITIONAL SECURITY TO
ENSURE OUR INVESTMENT AND
LIVELIHOODS ARE NOT AT CONSTANT
RISK. SB 1103 IS A CRUCIAL
SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES. BY OFFERING
PRACTICAL PROTECTIONS, THIS BILL
IS VITAL FOR THE SURVIVAL OF
ESTABLISHMENTS LIKE OURS, WHICH
PLAY AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN THE
COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY'S
CULTURE AND ECONOMY. EXCUSE ME?
MY BUSINESS EMPLOYS A HANDFUL OF
PEOPLE, AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF
BUSINESSES LIKE MINE NEGATIVELY
IMPACTS NOT ONLY THE BUSINESS
OWNER, BUT ALSO THE WORKFORCE
AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, WHICH
RELIES ON OUR SERVICES. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR, CHAIR, DIXON
AND MEMBERS, I'M SENATOR
MENGIBAR. MY NAME IS BIANCA
BLOMQUIST. I'M THE CALIFORNIA
DIRECTOR FOR SMALL BUSINESS
MAJORITY. WE EMPOWER AMERICA'S
DIVERSE ENTREPRENEURS TO BUILD
AND PARTICIPATE IN A THRIVING
ECONOMY. I'M PLEASED TO TESTIFY
ON SB 1103, LEGISLATION THAT
EMPOWERS CALIFORNIA'S
ENTREPRENEURS AND NONPROFITS TO
MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS WHEN
ENTERING INTO A COMMERCIAL LEASE
ARRANGEMENT. THE CURRENT
COMMERCIAL RENTAL MARKETPLACE
LACKS TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS.
THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST VERY
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, OFTEN RUN
BY ENTREPRENEURS OF COLOR OR
WITH IMMIGRANT BACKGROUNDS. VERY
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS LACK
ACCESS TO SOPHISTICATED LEGAL
RESOURCES OR DEDICATED
DEPARTMENTS TO HELP THEM
NAVIGATE THE COMPLICATED
COMMERCIAL, LEGAL, AND LEGAL
MARKETPLACE. TODAY, WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE
TRANSPARENCY ON COSTS AND
PROVIDE GREATER CERTAINTY FOR
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHILE
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR
THOSE SMALL LANDLORDS WHO ARE
ALREADY DOING THE RIGHT THING.
REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA'S 4.1
MILLION SMALL BUSINESSES, SMALL
BUSINESS MAJORITY PROUDLY
CO-SPONSORS SB 1103. DESPITE
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS THE
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES INDUSTRY
CONCERNS. THIS BILL IS NOT RENT
CONTROL. IT WILL BE A LIFELINE
FOR NEW ENTREPRENEURS AND
GROWING BUSINESSES. OUR POLLING
DEMONSTRATES THAT 78% OF SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE STRUGGLED
TO AFFORD RENT AT LEAST ONCE IN
THE PAST FEW YEARS, DURING
COVID, NEARLY HALF OF ALL SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS WITH UNDER
$100,000 IN REVENUE WERE BEHIND
ON RENT. THIS BILL PROVIDES
LANGUAGE TRANSPARENCY FOR SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS WHEN NEGOTIATED
IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH.
IT GIVES SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
MORE TIME TO RELOCATE AND MOVE
THEIR WORKFORCE WHEN THEIR LEASE
IS UP, AND PROVIDES THEM WITH
THE CERTAINTY THEY NEED TO RUN
THEIR BUSINESS. THIS BILL WILL
GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC
BENEFIT FOR OUR MOST PROLIFIC
JOB CREATORS. LOCAL BUSINESS
OWNERS KEEP MONEY LOCAL THROUGH
WAGES, BENEFITS, PURCHASING,
SUPPORTING COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE LIBRARIES
AND SCHOOLS, LOCALLY OWNED
BUSINESSES CONSISTENTLY,
CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATE THIS
KIND OF ECONOMIC NEED IN OUR
LOCAL COMMUNITIES. IMAGINE A
CALIFORNIA WITH FEWER SMALL
BUSINESSES REPLACED WITH LARGER
ONES WITH ROBUST AND
SOPHISTICATED RESOURCES. SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS REINVEST IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND OUR
MARKETS NEED THIS TRANSPARENCY,
AND OUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS
NEED THIS CERTAINTY. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1103? DANICA O'DONNELL, ON
BEHALF OF ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JASMINE POBLACIÓN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LAWYERS COMMITTEE
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS IN SAN
FRANCISCO BAY AREA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. DOUG
SMITH WITH INCLUSIVE ACTION FOR
THE CITY PROUD CO-SPONSOR STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHRISTOPHER
SANCHEZ, ON BEHALF OF OUR
FRIENDS AT THE CALIFORNIA
IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTER IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS FAITH LEE.
I'M WITH ASIAN AMERICANS
ADVANCING JUSTICE, SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, WE'RE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HI, CAROL GONZALEZ,
ON BEHALF OF ESTHETIC LEGAL
SERVICES, PROUD CO-SPONSOR. AND
THEY COULDN'T BE HERE. SO DOING
THEIR ME TOO. THANK YOU JACKIE
GONZALEZ, POLICY DIRECTOR AT
IMMIGRANT DEFENSE ADVOCATES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND
GREENLINING. SORRY THANK YOU. IS
THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 1103? CAN WE. YEAH, IF YOU
CAN HAVE ONE, COME ON UP. WE'LL
MAKE SPACE. OKAY? YEAH, YEAH.
BUT WE'LL MAKE SPACE AT THE
TABLE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA. YOU CAN EITHER WAY,
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK FROM THERE.
YEAH, UP TO YOU. THAT'S FINE.
OKAY, OKAY. OH, OKAY. THAT WAS
THAT. THAT WAS A ME TOO
OPPOSITION. OKAY. AND ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU ARE YOU HAVE YOU ALREADY
HAVE BACKUP BEFORE YOU START.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MISTER
CHAIR MEMBERS. SKYLER WONACOTT
HERE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION
AND OUR MEMBERS, BOMA,
CALIFORNIA, AND NAIOP,
CALIFORNIA, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 1103. WHILE WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR'S STAFF FOR THEIR
ENGAGEMENT AND AMENDMENTS, WE
REMAIN OPPOSED TO THE BILL. SB
1103, THOUGH WELL-INTENTIONED,
POSES SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO
CALIFORNIA'S COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE SECTOR. SB 1103 APPLIES
RESIDENTIAL TENANT PROTECTIONS
TO COMMERCIAL LEASES, IGNORING
CRUCIAL DIFFERENCES. THE
REQUIREMENT FOR TENANTS TO SELF
ATTEST AS A QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL
TENANT AT SIGNING IS
PROBLEMATIC, ESPECIALLY FOR NEW
BUSINESSES. INITIALLY LACKING
EMPLOYEES, AMBIGUITY ABOUT
EMPLOYEE COUNT, INCLUDING
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS OR
SUBTENANTS, BROADENS THE
STATUTE'S REACH, CREATING
CONFUSION AND UNFAIR BURDENS ON
PROPERTY OWNERS. MOREOVER,
RESTRICTING CHANGES IN THE
FORMULA FOR CALCULATING
OPERATING EXPENSES IS
UNREASONABLE. FOR EXAMPLE,
CHANGES IN WATER AND SEWER
BILLING AND FOLSOM NOW CHARGE
PROPERTY OWNERS INSTEAD OF
TENANTS. PROPORTIONAL SHARES
ALSO SHIFT WHEN TENANT USES
CHANGE, SUCH AS RETAIL SPACE
CONVERTING TO A RESTAURANT,
INCREASING WATER AND TRASH COSTS
SUCH AS PREVENTING RELOCATION.
REALLOCATION OF THESE EXPENSES
UNFAIRLY SHIFTS THESE PAYMENTS
SOLELY ONTO THE PROPERTY OWNER,
ADDITIONALLY, REQUIRING ADVANCE
INFORMATION BEFORE COLLECTING
PAYMENTS IS IMPARTIAL, LEADING
TO POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS. IF
TENANTS REQUEST DOCUMENTS LATER.
THESE CONSTRAINTS LIMIT PROPERTY
OWNERS ABILITY TO MANAGE
PROPERTIES EFFECTIVELY. THE
PROVISION FOR PREVENTATIVE
DAMAGES, ATTORNEY FEES AND
TREBLE DAMAGES
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS SMALL
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE LESS
LIKELY TO USE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR LEASING DRAFTING.
WHILE LARGER ENTITIES REMAIN
UNAFFECTED. GIVEN THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE A NO VOTE ON SB 1103. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1103? HI,
INDIRA MCDONALD. ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE BANKERS
ASSOCIATION, WE WOULD ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THOSE OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GOOD
MORNING, MISTER CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, KAREEM TRACY, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, AUDREY
RITECHECK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, NATALIE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU,
LAWRENCE GORDON, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
, SHANTA PEIKIN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA DOWNTOWN
ASSOCIATION. IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE FOR ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS.
NO QUESTIONS, NO COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER REYES. I
ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE AND MAKING
SURE WE HAVE GREATER
PROTECTIONS, FOR THE QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANTS. I DID HAVE A
QUESTION AS I WAS READING THE
ANALYSIS IS I IT SOUNDS LIKE
IT'S SELF ATTESTATION. IF THAT'S
THE CORRECT WORD, THERE WERE
SOME SOME COMMENTS BY OPPOSITION
. HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THOSE TO
MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY WHO
COMES IN AND SAYS, I AM A
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT, HOW
HOW CAN THAT BE VERIFIED? WHAT
GUARDRAILS DO WE HAVE? RIGHT
NOW, ASSEMBLY MEMBER IT'S JUST
SELF-ATTESTATION. AND OUR, OUR
GOAL IS WITH THE SPONSORS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA TO EDUCATE AS MANY OF
THE QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANTS
AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY WILL HAVE
TO SUBMIT AN ANNUAL WRITTEN
NOTICE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
IF THEY LIE SO THAT LANGUAGE IS
THERE, SO JUST LIKE WE HAVE, IF
A LANDLORD VIOLATES, THE
PROCEDURES UNDER QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANTS, THE SAME
THING FOR A SMALL BUSINESS OR A
NONPROFIT, IF THEY'RE LYING, IN
THEIR SELF ATTESTATION AND I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY
ADDITIONAL GUARDRAILS, I. MR.
CHAIR, WHILE I HAVE I HAD TWO
WITNESSES. I HAVE ONE FOR, FOR,
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. IF I CAN
TURN TO HER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL,
THAT'S FINE. HI. I'M WITH PUBLIC
COUNSEL, ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS,
YEAH. SO WHAT THE SENATOR SAID
IS EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT THE SELF
ATTESTATION WILL BE UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY, AND IT IS A
FORM OF, DOCUMENTATION THAT A
LOT OF DIFFERENT PROGRAMS USE,
THAT APPLY WIDELY THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. IT'S TO US, IT WAS THE
MOST EASILY IMPLEMENTABLE FORM,
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE LANDLORDS TO
LOOK THROUGH ALL SORTS OF
DOCUMENTATION, THAT IS, THAT CAN
BE BURDENSOME TO REVIEW. AND
AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE
BILL, A LOT OF THE BURDEN, IS ON
THE TENANT. RIGHT? SO THE TENANT
HAS TO TAKE THE HAS TO KNOW
THEIR RIGHTS AND HAS TO FEEL
COMFORTABLE TO VOICE UP AND SAY,
HEY, I'M A QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL
TENANT AND SIGN UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY THAT THEY QUALIFY AND
THAT THEY HAVE THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NEEDED TO FIT
UNDER THIS DEFINITION. AND IT'D
BE UP TO THEM TO DO THAT EVERY
SINGLE, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. IT
SEEMED THAT THAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO FIND SOMETHING BETWEEN THE
REGULAR TENANT AND THEN THE
LARGE COMMERCIAL TENANTS TO
PROTECT THE, THE SMALL, THE
SMALLER BUSINESSES. YES. YOU
KNOW, ORIGINALLY A PREVIOUS,
VERSION OF THIS BILL HAD THE
LANGUAGE TRANSLATION FOR EVERY
SINGLE BUSINESS, AND WE'RE
TRYING TO TRIM DOWN AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE. AND I KNOW THE
OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, TALKED
ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, EXCLUDING
THE LARGER COMPANIES, I'D BE
MORE THAN HAPPY TO BRING THAT
BACK INTO THE BILL. BUT I DON'T
THINK IT'D GET OUT OF COMMITTEE
IF I DID THAT. SO WE'VE TRIMMED
DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE JUST TO
PROTECT THE MOST, MOST SMALLEST
BUSINESSES AS POSSIBLE AND
TRIMMED DOWN THE AMOUNT OF
LANDLORDS THAT HAVE TO ADHERE TO
THIS BILL SHOULD IT PASS. SO ON
THAT. SO IF IT'S NEGOTIATED, SAY
IN SPANISH, YES, THEN THE
CONTRACT, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS TO
BE IN SPANISH. YES. I HAVE TO
TELL YOU THAT I'M A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT, EVEN IF IT'S
A NEGOTIATING IN SPANISH. AND I
DON'T TELL YOU I'M A QUALIFIED
COMMERCIAL TENANT, YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO PROVIDE ME THE CONTRACT
IN SPANISH BECAUSE YOU
NEGOTIATED IN ENGLISH? NO. EVEN
IF IT WAS NEGOTIATED IN SPANISH.
IF I DID NOT TELL YOU THAT I'M A
QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL TENANT,
THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE
MY THE CONTRACT IN A DIFFERENT
LANGUAGE. SO SO, I WOULD IMAGINE
THAT MOST OF THE OWNERS WILL NOW
NEGOTIATE EVERYTHING IN ENGLISH,
AND IF THEY NEGOTIATED IN
ENGLISH AND YOU BRING IN A
TRANSLATOR, HOW DOES THAT, HOW
HOW DOES IT COME INTO PLAY HERE?
WELL, THEN THAT MEANS THAT IT
WAS NEGOTIATED IN A DIFFERENT
EVEN THE TRANSLATOR IS
NEGOTIATING IN A DIFFERENT
LANGUAGE. RIGHT. BUT IF IT'S A
NEGOTIATION IS WITH THE TENANT
IN ENGLISH, AND THE TENANT HAS
BROUGHT IN THEIR OWN TRANSLATOR.
SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
BECAUSE THERE WAS A CASE, WHERE
IT WAS, IT WAS FOR AN AUTO SALE
OF A AUTO, WHERE THEY BROUGHT
THE CHILD TO TRANSLATE, FOR THE
PARENTS IN SPANISH. AND THAT WAS
THERE WAS A CASE THAT CAME AS A
RESULT OF THAT, SO THOSE DETAILS
OBVIOUSLY NEED TO SOMETHING
THAT, THAT THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION, SOMETHING I HAVEN'T
BEEN ASKED THAT QUESTION YET, SO
I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR
YOU. I CAN DEFINITELY GET THAT
ANSWER FOR YOU. I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE. YEAH. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S
SOMETHING SO THIS, THIS
EXTENSION OF THIS PROTECTION TO
COMMERCIAL LEASES, THAT THIS LAW
ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? FOR
RESIDENTIAL LEASES AND FOR
CONSUMER CONTRACTS. THERE'S
SOMETHING IN, IN THAT LAW THAT
TALKS ABOUT INTERPRETATION. I
DON'T I HAVE TO READ REREVIEW IT
AND WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU, BUT
WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER AT THIS
MOMENT. WHAT ARE THE TIMES NOW
IF A TENANT IS GOING TO BE IF
THE RENT IS GOING TO BE
INCREASED? YEAH WHAT WHAT KIND
OF NOTICE NEEDS TO BE GIVEN. SO
THERE'S THE ONLY NOTICE IS IN
THE BILL ARE FOR RENT INCREASES
LARGER THAN 10% OR EVICTIONS.
WHEN IT COMES TO. YEAH. SO LET'S
STICK TO THAT. AND THEN I'LL
MENTION ONE OTHER THING. SO IF
MY RENT IS GOING TO BE INCREASED
BY MORE THAN 10, I NEED A 60
DAY. IT'S 90 DAYS NOTICE. SO
IT'S A 90 DAYS NOTICE. IF IT'S
MORE THAN 10% OKAY. WHAT IS IT
NOW. 30 DAYS OKAY. IF I'M
GETTING EVICTED WE'RE ASKING FOR
30 DAYS MORE. RIGHT NOW IT'S 30
DAYS. YES. AND I'M ASKING FOR 30
DAYS MORE. SO IF I'M GETTING
EVICTED, I'M ASKING FOR 60 DAYS
NOTICE TO GET EVICTED. YOU CAN
STILL EVICT ME. JUST GIVE ME 30
MORE DAYS, AND THE OTHER ONE,
I'M ASKING FOR 60 MORE DAYS FOR
THE BUILDING OPERATING COST.
THERE IS NO, TIME FRAME. HOW?
HOWEVER IF I AM A LANDLORD AND I
PRESENT TO YOU A TENANT. HEY,
YOU'RE BUILDING OPERATING COSTS
ARE GOING TO INCREASE. AND IN
THAT MOMENT, I'M NOT GIVING YOU
DOCUMENTATION. THEN THE TENANT
CAN SAY, HEY, I WANT
DOCUMENTATION, AND THE LANDLORD
HAS UP TO 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE
THAT DOCUMENTATION. I AS THE
TENANT, IF THIS BILL PASSES, DO
NOT HAVE TO PAY THE INCREASE IN
BUILDING COSTS UNTIL I AM
PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION. IF I AM
ASKED TO PAY MORE IN MY BUILDING
COSTS AND I DO NOT ASK FOR
DOCUMENTATION, THEN THE LANDLORD
DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE ME
DOCUMENTATION. AGAIN, THE BURDEN
IS ON THE TENANT TO ASK EACH
WAY, EACH CHECK POINT AND REMIND
THE LANDLORD, HEY, I'M A
QUALIFIED TENANT. HEY, I WOULD
LIKE DOCUMENTATION. IT'S UP TO
THE TENANT TO BRING THAT UP. SO
IF I BRING IT UP, I WANT
DOCUMENTATION. THE LANDLORD HAS
UP TO 30 DAYS. THEY DON'T HAVE
TO TAKE THE FULL 30 DAYS. THEY
CAN SAY, OH, HERE YOU GO
TOMORROW. THEN I HAVE TO PAY IT
RIGHT THEN. AND THERE IS
SOMETHING THE OPPOSITION TALKED
ABOUT SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE
UTILITIES, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR.
IF THERE WERE A NUMBER OF
PROBLEMS REGARDING HOW THAT WAS,
HOW THAT WAS GATHERED, AND I'M
SORRY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO
TELL US AGAIN WHAT SPECIFICALLY
ON UTILITIES. YES. AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN IN THE BILL RIGHT NOW,
LANDLORDS RIGHT NOW, WE DO AN
ESTIMATE OF WHAT OUR OPERATION
OR OPERATING COSTS WILL BE. THAT
IS SEWER. WATER, YOU NAME IT, WE
ACTUALLY CANNOT PREDICT INTO THE
FUTURE WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY
CHANGE THAT REAL WORLD EXAMPLE
FROM THE CITY OF FOLSOM. WATER
AND TRASH USED TO BE BILLED
DIRECTLY TO THE TENANT THAT IS
NOW ACTUALLY BEING BILLED TO THE
PROPERTY OWNER. SO WE WOULD HAVE
TO REEVALUATE THOSE OPERATING
COSTS. AND AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN
IN THE BILL RIGHT NOW, WE WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO REALLOCATE AND
INCREASE THOSE OPERATING COSTS
TO THE TENANT. SO THOSE PAYMENTS
WOULD THEN BE SOLELY PLACED ONTO
THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IF IT'S
WRITTEN AS AN ESTIMATE, IF THE
REQUEST IS AN ESTIMATE, THEN
THAT WOULD THAT'S SOMETHING
YOU'D BE ABLE TO DO. AN
ESTIMATE. YES, BUT NOT ACTUAL
COSTS AND HOW IT'S CURRENTLY
WRITTEN IN THE BILL RIGHT NOW
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ACTUAL COST.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN EASILY
BE EASY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT MY
INTENT. MY INTENT IS ANYTHING
THE LANDLORD HAS TO PAY. THAT IS
, FOR THE TENANT FOR TO MAINTAIN
THE BUILDING. THE TENANT SHOULD
STILL PAY THAT. WE JUST WANT
DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT IT'S BEING
USED FOR. I THINK THE EXAMPLE I
GAVE IS WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE BUILDING OPERATING
COSTS AREN'T JUST BEING, APPLIED
TO THE TENANT WILLY NILLY. LIKE,
THESE ARE ACTUALLY FOR
MAINTENANCE COSTS, THAT IT'S
GOING INTO WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO
BECAUSE, REMEMBER, BUILDING
OPERATING COSTS, NO ONE SHOULD
BE MAKING A PROFIT OFF OF THIS.
THIS IS ONLY TO MAINTAIN A
BUILDING. SO IF IT'S SOLELY TO
MAINTAIN A BUILDING, WE WANT
DOCUMENTATION THAT SPECIFICALLY
SAYS THAT. SO IF THE LANDLORD
GETS IMPOSED ADDITIONAL FEES FOR
SEWER, WATER OR ANYTHING THAT
SHOULD WITH MY BILL STILL GO TO
THE TENANT. AND IF WE NEED TO
CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE, I CAN
ALWAYS CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE,
BECAUSE THAT'S THE INTENT OF MY
BILL. IF I COULD JUST THROUGH
THE CHAIR PERMISSION WE THAT
WOULD BE ACTUAL COST. SO THAT
WOULD BE AFTER THE COSTS WERE
ACCRUED. SO YOUR BILL IS STATING
THAT WE NEED TO IN ADVANCE GIVE
THE TENANT WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE.
THAT WOULD BE AFTER THE BILLING
PERIOD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
NO, NO SORRY. SO SAY WE SAY THE
OPERATING COSTS CHANGE, THEN WE
GET A BILL. WE ACTUALLY AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE LEASE OVER A 12
MONTH PERIOD, WE ESTIMATE WHAT
THE OPERATION COSTS WILL BE.
THEN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IF
THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, WE LOOK
AT THE TOTALS BETWEEN WHAT THE
TENANT PAID AND WHAT THE ACTUALS
WERE, AND THEN WE'LL EITHER GIVE
A REFUND TO THE TENANT, OR THE
TENANT WOULD THEN PAY US FOR THE
ADDITIONAL COSTS IN THE
OPERATING EXPENSES. SO THAT'S
THE WAY IT IS NOW. THAT'S THE
WAY IT IS NOW, BECAUSE YOU JUST
CANNOT FORESEE IN ADVANCE WHAT
OUR OPERATIONAL COSTS ARE GOING
TO BE. IF SOMETHING CHANGES,
RIGHT, WATER USAGE GOES UP,
CITY, THE CITY OR LOCAL AGENCY
CHANGES HOW THEY BILL THOSE.
THEN THAT DISCREPANCY WOULD BE
TAKEN CARE OF LATER ON DOWN THE
LINE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO
IN ADVANCE GIVE ACTUAL COSTS OF
WHAT OPERATIONAL COSTS ARE, AND
I. CHAIR, MAY I RESPOND? OKAY, I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE
ESTIMATES ARE COMING FROM
SOMEWHERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S
BASED ON SOME KNOWLEDGE OF HOW
MUCH IT MAY COST AND SO WHAT OUR
BILL SAYS IS THAT WE NEED SOME
DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW WHERE THE
COSTS ARE COMING FROM, WHETHER
IT'S AN INVOICE, A STATEMENT, A
QUOTE, SOMETHING. AND SO I HEAR
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT WHAT
WE'RE FINDING IN PRACTICE WITH
SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WE'RE
REPRESENTING IS THAT THEY'RE
BEING BILLED FOR CHARGES, NOT
BEING GIVEN DOCUMENTATION, AND
THEY'RE NOT SEEING THOSE THINGS
BEING DONE. YOU KNOW, THE
LANDLORD'S TELLING THEM YOU'RE
PAYING FOR SECURITY, YOU'RE
PAYING FOR LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE, AND THEY'RE SEEING
THAT NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE
BEING PROVIDED. SO THAT'S WHERE
THERE'S DISCREPANCY. AND, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE ARE FEELING LIKE
THEY'RE PAYING FOR THINGS THAT
AREN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT
THE LANDLORD'S NOT PAYING FOR. I
CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
SENATOR IS TRYING TO DO WITH
THIS. I THINK THERE ARE SOME
AREAS THAT STILL NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED, I, DOES IT GO TO
PROPS FROM HERE? YEAH OH, NO,
IT'S JUST AS DO PASSES AMENDED.
THE OPPOSITION WOULD TEST THAT
WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY
ON THIS. AND IF THERE'S NEEDS TO
BE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE ON THIS
AND I CAN COME I CAN CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE. BUT
WE'VE WE THOUGHT WE ADDRESSED AS
MANY OF THE ISSUES AS POSSIBLE.
I AND I WOULD SAY I THINK A LOT
OF THE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED. I
THINK SOME OF THESE CAN BE
WORKED OUT, LIKE IN TERMS OF
MAKING SURE ACTUAL COSTS ARE
REALIZED AND I THINK I THINK WE
CAN CONTINUE TO THERE'S BEEN A
LOT OF LANGUAGE THAT THE THROUGH
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO HELP
CLARIFY, AND THERE'S BEEN REALLY
GOOD AUTHOR AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY. THESE ARE REALLY SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, TEN EMPLOYEES OR LESS, 20
OR LESS. IT'S A NONPROFIT. SO
YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT
WHAT WE WERE DOING TO PROTECT
NON SMALL BUSINESSES. THIS IS
OUR CHANCE TO DO IT. I THINK
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CAN
BE CLARIFIED A LITTLE BIT MORE
OR TIGHTENED UP. WE CERTAINLY
DON'T WANT THE LANDLORDS TO BE
OUT MONEY BECAUSE THEY ESTIMATED
WRONG. I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS
THAT WE CAN WORK ON, AND OUR
STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
YOU ON THAT, BUT I THINK OVERALL
I THINK IT HAS PRETTY HAS GOOD
PROTECTIONS FOR QUALIFIED, AND
IT PUTS A LOT OF THE BURDEN ON
THE BUSINESS OWNER TO, TO MAKE
THE ASKS TO ENSURE, UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY, TO SAY THAT
THEY'RE QUALIFIED TO MAKE THE
ASKS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND WHAT
HAVE YOU ALLOWS 30 DAYS OF
NOTICE THAT THE BUILDING COSTS
ARE GOING TO GO UP AND PROVIDE
DOCUMENTATION. I THINK THAT'S
FAIR. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE
AREAS THAT WE HAVE TO RECTIFY IS
THAT IF ACTUAL COSTS WERE
DIFFERENT, BY NO FAULT OF THE
LANDLORD OR THE BUSINESS, THERE
SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO REALIZE
THOSE EXPENSES TO THE EMPLOYER.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT THAT I HOPE THE AUTHOR WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK ON WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO TRY TO CLARIFY
SOME OF THOSE DETAILS. WITH
THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL. IS
THERE A SECOND? OKAY, OKAY.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. MAIENSCHEIN.
YEAH, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE SAME
COMMENTS AS AS MY COLLEAGUE,
MISS REYES, I WILL SUPPORT IT
TODAY. I DO THINK THERE'S I
MEAN, I THINK IT'S CLEAR JUST
EVEN FROM HOW LONG IT TOOK TO
GET A MOTION A SECOND, THERE'S
STILL SOME CONCERN AS TO WHERE
THE BILL IS CURRENTLY AT. I WANT
TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK ON IT, BUT I DO THINK THE
OPPOSITION HAS RAISED SOME, YOU
KNOW, REALLY SIGNIFICANT POINTS
THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED. IT
CAN'T BE THIS VAGUE. AS IT MOVES
FORWARD. WE DON'T CERTAINLY
DON'T, YOU KNOW, WANT TO PUNISH
THE SORT OF UNWARY, IF YOU WILL.
IN ANY OF THIS. I, YOU KNOW, I
TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
ON THIS AS IT MOVES FORWARD. SO
WITH THAT, I WILL GO AHEAD AND
SUPPORT IT HERE TODAY, I
APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. I
AGREE WITH THEM. I THINK THAT
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TIGHTEN UP. WE DON'T WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT LANDLORDS ARE
MADE WHOLE, BUT THAT THE SMALL
BUSINESSES, EVERYTHING'S
TRANSPARENT AND THAT THE ACTUAL
THE COSTS ARE THE ACTUAL COST.
AND I THINK THERE'S I THINK
THERE'S A WAY TO GET THERE. I
REALLY DO, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S
NOT YOUR INTENTION. TO LEAVE THE
LANDLORD HOLDING THE BAG BECAUSE
THEY MISESTIMATED A COST. AS
LONG AS THINGS ARE TRANSPARENT,
DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED. I BELIEVE
THERE'S A WAY TO CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE
SURE WE GET THERE. AND I'M
CONFIDENT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THAT IS MY HAS ALWAYS
BEEN MY INTENT. I'M NOT LOOKING
TO ADDRESS ONE INJUSTICE AND
CREATE ANOTHER INJUSTICE. I NEED
TO ALSO MAKE SURE WE'RE
PROTECTING OUR SMALL LANDLORDS
AND SO FORTH, THAT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WHATEVER THE LANDLORD
IS COMING IS HAVING TO PAY. THAT
IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
TENANT. I WANT THAT TO FLOW DOWN
TO THE TENANT. MY BILL HAS
NOTHING IN WELL, THE INTENT OF
MY BILL IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE
GOING TO STOP THE FLOW OF FEES
OR CHARGES TO GO DOWN TO THE
TENANT. I WANT THE TENANT TO PAY
FOR THAT. I JUST WANT THE TENANT
TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PAYING FOR.
THE EXAMPLE THAT THE THAT RITSU
MENTIONED REGARDING, IF I'M, IF
I'M BEING TOLD THAT I'M HAVING
TO PAY $50 EXTRA FOR SECURITY
AND EVERY SINGLE NIGHT SOMEONE'S
BREAKING INTO MY BUILDING,
WHERE'S THE SECURITY? IF I'M
PAYING INTO I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WHEN I'M PAYING INTO IS
WHAT WE'RE SEEING. HEY, I'M
PAYING $20 FOR A GARDENER, BUT
WE'RE HAVING HEDGES UP 100FT.
NOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING
THE SERVICES THEY'RE PAYING FOR.
I DON'T WANT THE LANDLORD TO PAY
ANY PENNY MORE AT THE AT. NOT
NOTHING LIKE THAT. SO I AM
COMMITTING TO CONTINUE TO
CLARIFY THAT LANGUAGE. I THINK
EVERYTHING ELSE, WE'VE WORKED
VERY HARD AND I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE SO MUCH ON THIS
BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY HARD TO
FURTHER CLARIFY OUR INTENT OF
THE BILL. AND BEFORE I BRING IT
UP TO THE FLOOR, THE KIND OF
MEMBER I AM IS MY COMMITMENT IS
I WON'T BRING IT UP TO YOUR TO
YOUR FLOOR, WITHOUT FURTHER
CLARIFYING THAT ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE. BUT IF IT'S ON THE
BASIS OF, HEY, WE WANT WE DON'T
WANT TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY. I
WILL DRAW THE LINE ON THAT, THE
HOPE, BECAUSE THE GOAL OF THIS
BILL IS TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A HEAVY
BURDEN FOR A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE
TRANSPARENCY. THEY SHOULD HAVE
THOSE RECORD ANYWAYS. I ALSO
DON'T THINK IT'S A BURDEN TO
PROVIDE, CONTRACTS IN FIVE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES, BECAUSE
THAT'S GOING TO HELP SMALL,
SMALL, SMALL BUSINESSES. SO IF
THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OPPOSITION
IS ASKING FOR AT THIS POINT,
THEN I'M OKAY WITH WORKING WITH
THE OTHER PARTY. FURTHER
CLARIFYING WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. AND I THINK
THAT I WANT TO MAKE MENTION OF
WHAT SOME MEMBER REYES BROUGHT
UP. I THINK WE'LL GET SOME
CLARITY AND KIND OF MATCH SOME
OF THE LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF
INTERPRETATION, AND MAKE SURE
THAT'S CONSISTENT. SO WE'LL WORK
ON THAT, AND I THINK THE PARTIES
CAN ALSO, WORK ON MAKING SURE
THAT LANDLORDS ARE WHOLE. AND
THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION, THE
TRANSPARENCY PIECE, I THINK I
HAVEN'T HEARD ANY CONCERNS FROM
FOLKS THAT, YES, TRANSPARENCY
SHOULD BE THERE, ESPECIALLY FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES. AND OUR STAFF
IS HERE TO HELP YOU GOING
FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT UP BY SOME OF THE
MEMBERS. AND SO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONTINUED WORK ON THIS. I'M
CONFIDENT WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET
TO A RESOLUTION, MADAM
SECRETARY, TAKE A ROLL CALL,
VOTE ON SB 1103, PLEASE. MOTION
TO DO PASS AS AMENDED. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I. DIXON. NO DIXON. NO.
BARRETT. KHN. BRIAN RYAN. I.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I. HANEY.
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIENSCHEIN I.
MCKINNEY. PACHECO. NOT VOTING.
PATTERSON. REYES. REYES I.
SANCHEZ NO. SANCHEZ. NO. THANK
YOU. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR CABALLERO,
THIS IS OUR LAST ONE FOR THE
DAY. YOU ARE SECOND. SO WE HAVE
A MOTION ALREADY ON SB 1303.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. SENATOR
AND, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE IN IN LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT I'M THE LAST BILL,
THAT IS DETAINING YOU FROM
LUNCH, I WILL MAKE THIS VERY
SHORT, AND I REALLY THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
SB 1303, WHICH IS TO INCREASE
ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS. AS YOU KNOW. WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, LET ME THANK THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS, AS YOU KNOW,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND GOVERNMENT
DOING, PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS ARE
REQUIRED TO, TO PAY PREVAILING
WAGE, AND TO GUARANTEE THAT THE
WORKERS THAT ARE WORKING ON THAT
PROJECT ARE BEING PAID
PREVAILING WAGE IN MANY
INSTANCES. NOW THEY'RE HIRING
THIRD PARTY, FOR PROFIT, THIRD
PARTY COMPLIANCE COMPANIES TO
COME IN AND MAKE SURE THAT THE
WORKERS ARE GETTING PAID WHAT
THEY SHOULD. WE HAVE NO
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THESE
THIRD PARTY COMPLIANCE ENTITIES.
AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS SET UP
A SYSTEM WHERE, NUMBER ONE, THEY
HAVE TO, INDICATE WHETHER THEY
HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN
THAT. THEY HAVE WORKED BEFORE
WITH THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEY
HAVE TO, INFORM THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR STANDARD LABOR
STANDARDS AND NUMBER TWO, IF
THEY'RE GOING TO WITHHOLD FUNDS
BECAUSE THERE'S A BELIEF THAT
THERE IS A VIOLATION, THEY HAVE
TO NEGOTIATE, THEY HAVE TO MEET
AND CONFER AND NEGOTIATE BEFORE
THEY WITHHOLD FUNDS, BECAUSE IN
THE PAST, WHEN THEY'VE WITHHELD,
HELD FUNDS, THE WORKERS DON'T
GET PAID. SO IN ATTEMPTING TO
PROTECT WORKERS, WE THEN, HURT
THEM, AND IT COULD TAKE MONTHS.
SO, WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IS,
ELMER LIZARDI FROM THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FED AND MATTHEW
CREMEANS FROM THE CALIFORNIA
NEVADA CONFERENCE OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND
MEMBERS. MATT CREMEANS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA NEVADA
CONFERENCE OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, WE ARE PROUD SPONSORS
OF THIS BILL. I WILL TRY TO KEEP
IT BRIEF AS WELL, EXISTING LAW
REQUIRES THAT ALL AWARDING
AGENCIES TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS LAWS THAT ACCOMPANY
THEIR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS,
ADDITIONALLY, EXISTING LAW
PROVIDES A TOOL FOR AWARDING
AGENCIES WHEREBY THEY CAN
WITHHOLD FUNDS FROM CONTRACTORS
AND SITUATIONS IN WHICH THEY
DETERMINE THAT LAWS ARE NOT
BEING PROPERLY FOLLOWED, IN MANY
INSTANCES, IT HAS BEEN FOUND
THAT SOME OF THESE COMPANIES
THAT THESE AWARDING AGENCIES ARE
TURNING OVER PROJECTS TO HAVE A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND THAT
THEY DO WORK FOR BOTH THE
AWARDING AGENCY AND THEY DO WORK
FOR CONTRACTORS THAT BID ON THE
PROJECTS OF THE AWARDING AGENCY.
SO THIS BILL IS SIMPLY SEEKING
TO PROVIDE SOME STATUTORY
GUIDANCE FOR THE USE OF THESE
COMPANIES ON PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS. THE BILL WILL DO THREE
THINGS. SPECIFICALLY, AS THE
SENATOR SAID, IT WILL REQUIRE
THAT THESE GROUPS DISCLOSE OF
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. FIRST AND
FOREMOST, IT WILL REQUIRE THAT
THEY MEET WITH PARTIES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
PRIOR TO WITHHOLDING FUNDS, AND
IT WILL, SORRY. AND IT WILL
ENSURE THAT CONTRACTORS HAVE A
VENUE TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION
OF AN AWARDING AGENCY, WHICH
THEY CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE RIGHT
NOW. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS ELMER LOZADA WITH
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION,
THE CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION
IS SUPPORTIVE OF EFFORTS TO
ENFORCE CALIFORNIA'S LABOR LAWS
ON EVERY WORKSITE, ESPECIALLY ON
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS WHERE
PRIVATE COMPANIES RECEIVE PUBLIC
DOLLARS TO FUND THIS WORK, AND
UNDER EXISTING LAW, PUBLIC
AGENCIES THAT AWARD FUNDS FOR
PUBLIC WORK PROJECTS ARE TASKED
WITH ENSURING THAT THE PARTIES
COMPLY WITH LABOR STANDARDS.
RECENTLY, AS MENTIONED, WE'VE
SEEN AN INCREASE IN THESE PUBLIC
AGENCIES CONTRACTING OUT THIS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT COMPLIANCE
WORK TO FOR PROFIT THIRD PARTY
COMPANIES. AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE
SEE THAT THEY OPERATE WITH
LITTLE TO NO STATE REGULATION.
OF COURSE, THIS HURTS
CONTRACTORS, THE STATE AND THE
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THEMSELVES
WHO DEPEND ON THE PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS FOR THEIR LIVELIHOODS,
I'LL BE BRIEF BY JUST SAYING
THAT, YOU KNOW, SB 1303 BRINGS
MUCH NEEDED ACCOUNTABILITY OVER
THESE PRIVATE COMPLIANCE GROUPS
BY PROHIBITING THEM FROM
PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT WORK IF
THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST, AND THEN REQUIRE THEM
TO FULLY DISCLOSE POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO
AWARDING BODIES WITH THESE
SIMPLE FIXES, THE BILL WILL HELP
ENSURE THAT THESE COMPANIES AND
THE AGENCIES THAT CONTRACT WORK
TO THEM ARE FULLY ACCOUNTABLE,
AND THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY
ENFORCING LABOR LAWS TO PROTECT
PUBLIC DOLLARS AND WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1303?
MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS, MIKE WEST
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING
TRADES AND SUPPORT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, ROB, CARRY ON
WITH THE OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL THREE, AND WE'RE A PROUD
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SHANE GUSMAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE TEAMSTERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. TODD BLUMSTEIN FOR
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION. THIS
BILL DOES PROTECT CONTRACTORS
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS AS
WELL. ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1303? ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE
TABLE. ANY ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLYMEMBERS REYES.
I WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR.
THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPORTANT
BILL. A SIMPLE BILL. I LEARNED A
NEW WORD. NEW PHRASE, PRIVATE
LABOR COMPLIANCE ENTITY HAD TO
DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT TO SEE
WHO THESE PEOPLE WERE. AND IT'S
GOOD THAT WE PROVIDE THIS
TRANSPARENCY AND THE GUARDRAILS
TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THEY DO
WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND
THAT IN THE END, OUR WORKERS GET
PAID. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ALSO ALL
DITTO THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE OUT? OH AND
JUST CLARIFY YOU'RE ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. YES.
THANK YOU I AM AND I'LL ADOPT
THAT AS MY CLOSING. IT'S TRUE. I
HAD NO CLUE EITHER AND THEN
DISCOVERED SOMETHING NEW. SO
MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I DIXON. DIXON. I
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN A BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I HANEY
MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA.
PACHECO I CHICO I PATTERSON.
REYES. REYES I. SANCHEZ. THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WE'LL GO. WE'LL GO AHEAD
AND START AT THE TOP, ITEM ONE
AND THIS IS FOR ADD ONS. FOR
ITEM ONE, THIS IS SB 278 DODD
ADD ONS. BRIAN I BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I PATTERSON.
SANCHEZ. YOU'RE NOT VOTING. OKAY
I'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO SB 764.
PADILLA BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN.
BRIAN I MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
I PATTERSON. ITEM THREE MOVE TO
CALL SB 900 UMBERG KALRA I.
KALRA I BAUER. KHN BRIAN I
BRIAN I HANEY. MCKENNA.
PATTERSON I BOWS OUT. ITEM FOR
SB 919 UMBERG MOVED THE CALL.
KALRA A KALRA I BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN. BRIAN I HANEY. MAINCHAIN
MAINCHAIN I MCKENNA. PATTERSON I
BOWS OUT. WE'LL MOVE THE CALL ON
SB 988 WIENER MÀ KHN BRIAN
BRIAN I HANEY MAIENSCHEIN I
MAIENSCHEIN I PATTERSON. THE
BILL IS OUT. MOVE THE CALL ON SB
1103 MENGIBAR BARRY KHN HANEY.
MCKENNA PATTERSON OKAY, SO ON
CALL, ADD ONS SB 1109 BRADFORD
CHOLERA I CHOLERA I BARRY KHN
BRIAN BRIAN I HANEY, MCKENNA.
PATTERSON. ADD ONS FOR SB 1184.
EGGMAN BARRY KHN BRIAN.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN I
PATTERSON. ITEM JUST THAT ONE.
ITEM TEN. MOVE THE CALL SB 1491
EGGMAN BARRY KEOGHAN BRIAN
PATTERSON I MEAN BRIAN
MAIENSCHEIN. MAIN SHINE MAIN
SHINE I 1491 YES! YEAH BRIAN I
OKAY, NOT YET. LET ME JUST GET
THROUGH ALL THIS FIRST. IF I
COULD THANK YOU, ITEM 19 IS SB
92. UMBERG. MOVE THE CALL
CHOLERA. A CHOLERA. I BARRY KHN
SB 92, SB 92 UMBERG PARGA. YEAH.
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN HI. BRIAN I
HANEY. MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN I
PATTERSON. THAT BILL IS OUT AB
295 LOWENTHAL WAS HERE FOR ON
CONCURRENCE MOVE THE CALL
CHOLERA I CHOLERA I BARRY KHN
BARRY KHN I BRIAN BRIAN I HANEY
. MAINCHAIN MAINCHAIN I
PATTERSON. THAT'S OUT. THAT BILL
IS OUT. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE?
WELL, THAT'S LET ME JUST DO A
CONSENT REAL QUICK. IF YOU JUST
ADD ONS, LET ME AND I'LL CHECK
ON THAT FOR CONSENT. BRIAN BRIAN
I CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I
PATTERSON. SANCHEZ. HI. SANCHEZ.
I OKAY, CAN YOU DOUBLE CHECK
ITEM THREE JUST TO MAKE SURE. WE
HAVE THEM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
AND THEN, IS THERE ANYTHING
ELSE? I THINK I THINK WE'RE
DONE. WE JUST HAVE TO GO BACK TO
SOMETHING ABOUT KHN AND THE
OTHERS THAT AREN'T HERE. THERE'S
STILL A COUPLE, OTHERS AREN'T
HERE. AND SUMMER SANCHEZ. YOU
WANT TO DO A VOTE CHANGE? YES,
PLEASE, SB 278. DONE. I'M NOT
VOTING TONIGHT. OKAY, THAT'S
ITEM ONE. NOT VOTING TO NØ
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING TO NO. OKAY
SO LET'S GO TO ITEM TWO, SB 764.
PADILLA BAUER KHN BAUER KHN I.
OKAY, ITEM THREE SB 900 BAUER
KHN BAUER. KHN NÓI HANEY.
MCKENNA PATTERSON SB 919 UMBERG
BAUER KHN BAUER. CAN I HANEY.
MCKENNA. PATTERSON ITEM FIVE SB
98 WIENER BAUER. KHN BAUER.
KHN I. HANEY. PATTERSON ITEM
SIX, SB 1103 MENGIBAR BAUER.
KHN NOT VOTING HANEY. MCKENNA.
PATTERSON. THAT'S STILL ON CALL.
ITEM SEVEN SB 1109 BRADFORD.
BAUER KHN BAUER. CAN I HANEY,
MCNAIR. PATTERSON. ITEM EIGHT
1180 SB 1184 EGGMAN. BAUER. KHN
BAUER. KHN I PATTERSON. ITEM
NINE SB 1303 CABALLERO. BAUER.
CAN BAUER KHN I HANEY.
MCKINNEY. PATTERSON ITEM TEN SB
1491 EGGMAN BAUER-KAHAN BAUER
KHN I PATTERSON. OKAY, I THINK
YOU'RE ALL CAUGHT UP BECAUSE WE
DID THE ADDENDUMS ALREADY, AND
WE DID CONSENT, RIGHT? YEAH.
OKAY. 1491 OH, I SEE YOU. OH,
WHO DID IT? I DID IT, TOM. 1491
OH, OUR INTERN CAN ANSWER MY
QUESTION. WELL, WHAT'S YOUR
QUESTION? YEAH, I'LL COME OVER
HERE. CAN YOU BUILD IT?
QUESTION. YOU WORKED CLOSELY
WITH HER. SO DO WE DO THIS FOR
JUST.
ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT MAYBE WE
ALREADY DO. I THINK SHE. ALREADY
SAID. I THINK IT'S ALREADY HAD.
OKAY. ITEM THREE, ITEM THREE, SB
900. UMBERG. HANEY HANEY I
MCKENNA MCKINNEY. I ITEM FOR SB
919 UMBERG HANEY. HANEY I
MCKENNA I, MCKINNEY I ITEM FIVE
SB 988 WIENER HANEY I HANEY I
MOVE TO CALL ON ITEM SIX SB 1103
MENGIBAR HANEY. HANEY I
MCKINNEY. MCKINNEY I BILL IS
OUT. ADD ON FOR ITEM SEVEN SB
1109 BRADFORD. HANEY. HANEY I
MCKINNEY. MCKINNEY. I IT'S DONE.
ITEM NINE SB 1303 CABALLERO.
HANEY HANEY I MCKINNEY.
MCKINNEY. I. IS TEN THE ADDENDUM
ITEMS I ITEM 19 SB 92 UMBERG
HANEY HANEY I AND ITEM 20 AB
2295 LOWENTHAL HANEY HANEY I
THAT'S THAT'S IT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU ALL. WE'RE ADJOURNED.