Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

And I believe. Okay, so I think that when. I mean, start from the script and work your way through it.

Good morning, Members of the Committee and the public, to the first hearing of the Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Before we begin, Assembly Member Alanis will be substituting for Assemblymember Fong today, and we need to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the road to establish a quorum. Mckinnor? Mckinnor, present. Lackey? Addis. Addis, present. Alanis?

Alanis, present. Haney? Nguyen? Nguyen, present. Schiavo? Thank you. We have a quorum. Since this is the Committee's first hearing of this season, our first order of business is to adopt the Committee's rules for the 2023-24 legislative session. Is there a motion and second, to adopt the Committee rules. Thank you, Assembly Member Addis has moved to adopt the committee rules, and Assembly Member Nguyen Addis. Assemblywoman Addis has moved to adopt the Committee rules, and Assemblymember Nguyen has seconded the motion.

Secretary, please call the role to adopt the Committee rules.

Mckinnor? Mckinnor aye. Lackey? Addis? Addis aye. Alanis? aye. Haney? Haney aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Schiavo.

Thank you. The Committee rules are adopted. Before we begin with the remainder of the agenda, I'd like to inform everyone that there will be limiting testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the bill, and each will have three minutes to speak. And being even more brief would be appreciated today.

Everyone else must only state their name, organization, if any, and position on the bill. Let's start at the top of the agenda with file number one. Assemblymember Kalra, you are here to present AB 996. Please begin when you're ready. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members.

Narrowed through the legislative process, AB 96 will require public transit agencies to notify transit unions of their intention to procure or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology at least one year prior. Additionally, employers would be required to provide the union with an analysis on worker displacement, gaps in training, and plans to retrain eligible employees.

Upon notification, the transit employer would be required to bargain with the union over the development and implementation of the new technology, as well as the creation of a transition or retraining plan for effective workers. To be clear, nothing in the Bill would prohibit the use of or prevent a transit agency from exploring autonomous technology. Instead, AB 96 rightfully recognizes these technologies often come with impacts on the existing workforce that should be reviewed.

While a transit agency may score a cost savings in labor costs, the state must be vigilant in ensuring public safety and maintaining an adequate workforce. As a former member and chair of the VTA board of directors, as well as a former member on the Capitol Corridor, Joint Powers, and Caltrain boards, I understand the considerations transit agencies must take on when exploring changes to how we offer transit, and I will continue to work with the California Transportation Association on their concerns.

With me to provide supporting testimony are Crystal McGee, President of ATU Local 256, and Matt Broad with California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Crystal McGee Lee. I am the President Business Agent of ATU Local 256. I have around 1,500 members serving this region. Our members include Sacramento Regional Transit, Paratransit, Etran Elgrove School District, and Stockton San Joaquin School District, San Joaquin. We strongly support AB 96 because it's a modest Bill that will center on transit workers and any decisions to introduce autonomous vehicle technology in our workplace.

Previously, I served as a bus operator for 19 years at Sacramento Regional Transit, so I know the transit system. And like the men and women who work on them every day, we know our passengers, we know their needs, whether it's onboarding or offboarding passengers with disabilities, giving directions, keeping an eye out, keeping safe, vulnerable communities such as children, elderly, and our members that make transit accessible to the public.

I could sit here and talk at length, but I know we have a time limit. So we need human operators on board transit vehicles. What if your mom or something happens and there's nobody there? Right now, we have a high percentage of transit being drivers being assaulted. So AB 96 only requires transit agencies to notify the union, notify me of their decision to procure autonomous vehicle technology. That's all they have to do.

And then negotiate over the implementation so that we can lend our perspective on how to implement this technology equitably. This is a common sense Bill to incorporate the much-needed perspective for my membership. For those reasons, I urge you. I urge you Aye on the vote of AB 96. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Matt Broad here on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. I'll keep my comments brief. We're continuing to work with opposition on a set of amendments that can get them to neutral, and I'm happy to answer any questions if the Committee has any. Thank you.

Are there any others remaining in support? If so, please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Madam Chair and Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. We're a proud co-sponsor of this measure. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division. It's the Sheet Metal Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers Union proud to co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ramon Castellblanch. I am a professor of public health at San Francisco State University, and I want to point out there are major public health implications to this law or this Bill, because if you make the ridership more safe and more service better through more.

Excuse me. Name?

Organization and position only, please.

Ramon.

San Francisco State.

Thank you.

Okay. I can give a card to the sergeant arms.

Okay. Major public health implications because the more safety, the better it is to ride. More people are going to ride, less air pollution. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Beth Malinowski with SEIU California in support.

Hearing and seeing no others in support. We'll call on opposition to come forward again. Two primary witnesses in opposition. Oh, no, no witnesses. Just come forward. Give your name. Organization. Yes? Sorry. You have three minutes to provide testimonies. All others may only state their name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Transit Association. You should have our opposed unless amended letter in the packet. I do want to just acknowledge the remarks that the author mentioned as well as the sponsors. We have been negotiating on this issue for going back to 2022. We got really, really close on 2441.

There are a couple of outstanding issues that we're currently having a dialogue over to try to finish up kind of the more technical things in the legislation, and we hope to find resolution and as Matt said, remove our opposition by the time the bill's on the Assembly Floor. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others remaining in opposition? If so, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position only.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Mark Watts. I'm with the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority. We have concerns with the bills, but thank you.

Hearing and seeing no others in opposition, let's bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions from Members of the Committee. Is there motion already? We haven't. The Bill has been moved. Assembly Member Nguyen and second by Assemblymember Addis. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

We'll put the Bill on call. Thank you.

Next, we'll have file item number three. Arambula, AB 775. Please begin when you're ready.

Did you second?

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Now we'll move to testimony. We'll now hear from the primary witness in support of this bill. As a reminder to your primary witnesses, you have three minutes each.

Yeah. Good morning, Doug Chiappetta, Union of American Physicians and Dentists, would ask me in strong support, prime sponsor. Introducing our board President, Dr. Stuart Bussey. Okay. Three minutes.

Okay. My name is Dr. Stuart Bussey. I'm board certified family doctor of 40 years, you can see that and President of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. Our union stands strongly in support of AB 775. For decades, the California Department of State Hospitals has been handicapped by an increasing shortage of civil service psychiatrists. And as of January, it's 40 percent vacancy.

And this shortage has caused mental health care at the five state hospitals, which house thousands of severely mentally ill patients and forensic patients, to be inadequate. The federal court, the Coleman court, recognized this psychiatry shortage 30 years ago, but the state has not effectively recruited and retained its psychiatry employees. Instead, they've resorted to expensive, outsourcing private contractors, psychiatrists provide only temporary and intermediate care to the DSH patients. This care does not promote trust or build strong doctor-patient relationships.

AB 775 will help to increase recruitment and retention of DSH psychiatrists by providing additional compensation for extra work beyond their regular shifts. In effect, it will allow a more economical and more effective union based registry. Instead of offering privately contracted psychiatrists 200 percent of civil service hourly salaries, this patent pilot project will offer only a modest hourly increase over the base salary, which will be determined by the department.

Keeping this care in house is good for patients because of better continuity of care, better for UAPD doctors because of the opportunity to earn greater compensation and better for California's taxpayers because it will save millions of dollars annually by avoiding the expense of contractors. This incentive program will be monitored by a collaborative, semiannual survey, and if the modest salary increased is not attractive enough for our members, it may be adjusted upwards.

This registry is modeled after our successful LA County registry, which has been operating for over a decade. In part to its success, contracting out of psychiatry services in LA County has been virtually eliminated. The three year patent pilot project will be planned over the next year and will begin January 1, 2025. The effectiveness of recruitment and retention will be formally evaluated in a report presented to the Legislature in early 2026.

We're confident that this registry model can be used by other state hospitals, possibly even CDCR, in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others remaining in support? If so, please come forward. State your name, organization and position on bill only.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud co sponsors of 775. Thank you.

Hearing and seeing no other support, we're calling on opposition to come forward. I would like to bring it back to the committee for questions.

I just wanted to thank you for bringing this bill forward. You know, my time working with California Nurses Association, I saw how psych units were being closed and just shut down, and no investment at all by hospitals and really trying to get out of the business. And so I think it's so important that we preserve these units in this care and would love to be added as a co author to this bill. Thank you.

Any others? The bill has been moved by assemblymember Addis and seconded by assemblymember Nguyen. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Mckinnor? Mckinnor aye. Lackey? Addis? Addis, aye. Alanis? Alanis not voting. Haney? Haney aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Schiavo? Schiavo, aye.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

This bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to item number five, Jones-Sawyer, AB 1137. Please begin when you're ready, Mr. Sawyer.

Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's Jones-Sawyer.

Sorry, Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I present AB 1137, which will ensure fairness in state employment by providing equitable benefits to state supervisors and managers. This bill will do so by providing merit based salary adjustment notifications and premium salary holiday pay to state supervisors and managers. This legislation will promote workplace equity for hundreds of state employees across California and ensure that all state employees are compensated fairly. With me is Ted Toppin on behalf of the bill sponsor, the Association of California State Supervisors. Short enough?

Yes. We'll now hear from primary witness in support.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ted Toppin for the Association of California State Supervisors, the sponsors of the bill. First, let me thank Mr. Jones-Sawyer for carrying this bill. Obviously, he has an experience in this sort of circumstance where supervisors and managers are not provided benefits that are given to rank and file employees in collective bargaining. All it does is create a lack of morale in the supervisory ranks and disunity in the workplace.

This sort of makes certain that that problem is resolved on these two benefits. One is providing premium holiday pay to supervisors and managers. The other is making certain that they are notified if they are not going to receive their merit salary adjustment within 10 days. This is fundamental fairness. We want supervisors and managers to promote. We want them to take on the responsibility of managing and directing state programs. Public health, the environmental protection programs, largely public safety programs, are what would be impacted here. So we would certainly urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Are there any other others remaining in support? If so, please come forward. State your name, organization, and position only.

Madam Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Professional Engineers in California Government and the California Association of Professional Scientists in support. Thank you.

Seeing no others in support, is there anyone in opposition? Are there anyone on the Committee that has questions? The bill has been moved by Assemblywoman Nguyen and seconded by Assemblywoman Addis. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

This bill will be put on call. Thank you, Mr. Jones-Sawyer.

Thank you.

Next we'll have item number six, Assemblywoman Bonta.

Good morning, chair and members, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to the committee staff for their thoughtful feedback and suggestions to refine this bill. In California, classified school employees perform many jobs that keep our schools safe, clean and operative, and keep our students and staff safe, healthy and supported. This bill would allow for to address AB 1273, convenes a work group to establish guidance for districts to hire the optimal ratio of classified staff, and ensure a safe working and learning environment for all.

With me to testify today, I have Tiffany Mok, a legislative representative for the California Federation of Teachers.

As noted, Tiffany Mok with CFT and I'm proud to represent those classified professionals that I serve. Our members during the pandemic were truly disheartened when they were spread thin to provide meals, to provide custodial care. And they sought our guidance and said, well, what is the reasonable amount of work, of square footage I should take care of for all of these things? How many meals should I serve within a half hour?

Because I can't get them out fast enough to these kids now they don't have recess. This surface isn't clean. And at the beginning of the pandemic, we were so worried, we thought we were spreading it. And so this bill really came out of that conversation about what's the guidelines, what are the standards, what's reasonable? And we wanted to have that in a neutral setting. And so that's what this bill does.

It creates a work group to provide these recommendations, and we are proud to sponsor this and urge your support. Are there any other remaining support? If so, please come forward. State your name, organization and position only.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee Navnit Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Thank you.

Hello, chair Members. Janice O'Malley, American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees. Apologies, but we are late, but support, proud to support this bill. Thank you.

Hearing and seeing no other support, are there any here in opposition? Anyone on the Committee have any questions? Well, assemblywoman, I like this bill because collaboration and information is important. When people come together to identify problems and purpose and propose solutions, this is a good thing, in my view. That's the essence of this bill. The only thing that I want to say is that there might be opportunity to add others to the group here, if you think it's appropriate, as the analysis suggests.

I think you might need to clarify the word reasonable as it's used in the bill, which is also discussed in the analysis. Other than those things, thisbBill makes sense because our public employees, including classified employees, are being stretched thin by taking on additional work that they didn't do before. And we should find out how, why and try to resolve those things. Other than that, I recommend an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. Mckinnor? Mckinnor aye. Lackey? Addis? Addis aye. Alanis? Alanis aye. Haney? Haney aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Schiavo? Schiavo aye.

This bill is on call. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sergeants, please call absent Member authors, Assembly Member Wicks and Assembly Member Bains. Thank you.

While we're waiting for absent authors, we'll take up the Committee rules and the bills that are on call.

For the Committee rules. [Roll Call] Item number one, the measure is AB 96. The current vote is five, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] The bill is out, five to zero. Item number three, AB 775. Current vote is five to zero. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] That bill is out, six to zero. Item number five, AB 1137. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] Item number six, AB 1273. Current vote is six to zero. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Very indecisive. So sorry.

Committee rules. [Roll Call]

Assembly Member Wicks here to present AB 472.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee for their time and consideration of this bill. Under current law, classified employees can be placed on involuntary leave during the period an employee is charged with a crime or is under investigation. When the proceedings that required the involuntary leave conclude in the employee's favor and the employee returns to work, they are not always fully compensated for their missed time.

Merit districts, which have an established personnel commission, must pay a classified employee their total compensation for a period of involuntary leave. Non-merit districts, however, do not have this same right. In addition, classified employees are often not compensated for time missed due to administrative delays that prevent them from having the required certification or paperwork to perform their duties. This can include, for example, an employee waiting for the DMV to renew their bus driver's certificate or for the Department of Human Services to reverify their employment authorization documents.

AB 472 clarifies that, regardless of merit or non-merit district status, districts must fully compensate employees who return to service after being placed on involuntary leave. The bill also requires school districts to compensate classified employees who missed time due to administrative delays for necessary job related administrative determinations. I want to thank our co-sponsors, the California State Employees Association, and AFSCME. Testifying in support today are Jessica Hay, CSEA, and Janice O'Malley, AFSCME. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Well, now we'll hear from the primary witness in support. You each have three minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this. My name is Jessica Hay, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, and we are proud co-sponsors of AB 472. First, I would like to thank Assembly Member Wicks and her staff for their hard work on this bill and for the Committee staff for their thoughtful analysis.

CSEA represents nearly 250,000 classified school employees, many whom are women and people of color. These are folks that get kids to and from school safely. They make sure kids have a welcoming, safe, clean learning environment. They support teachers in the classroom to make sure students get the academic assistance they need, and so much more.

AB 472 would provide full compensation for all classified employees placed on involuntary leave during the time an employee is charged with a criminal offense, is under that investigation, or is waiting due to an administrative delay for any necessary job related tasks or paperwork. Upon the conclusion of the proceedings in favor of that employee, the school district shall pay the employee's full compensation for that point of involuntary leave.

Under current law, merit school districts must pay a classified employee their full compensation, especially upon or once the employee is back at service and those charges are dismissed or they're acquitted of all charges. However, due to a 1968 court ruling, non-merit districts that place an employee on an involuntary leave of absence, it is unconstitutional for them to compensate the employees when they come back to service after charges are dismissed or they're acquitted of all charges. This is really a fairness issue.

Classified employees should be compensated for time missed in cases where charges are not brought, they're dismissed, or the employee is acquitted. They should also be fully compensated when they're on involuntary leave due to administrative delays that are no fault of their own and prevent them from having the required certification or paperwork to perform their duties. This issue came to us through our membership.

So we heard from a member who was facing criminal charges, was placed on an involuntary leave of absence, and because he was not a certificated employee and he was working at a non-merit district, he was not entitled to his full compensation after charges were dismissed.

Over half of CSEA members earn less than 30,000 per year, and most cannot afford to be on leave with no possibility of receiving their lost wages, even when they're falsely accused or unable to perform their duties through no fault of their own. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 472. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you today. My name is Janice O'Malley, Legislative Advocate with AFSCME, and we're proud to join CSEA as co-sponsors of AB 472. Love to echo the comments that Ms. Hay made about our appreciation for Assemblywoman Wicks for authoring and Committee staff for your analysis on the bill.

AFSCME also represents classified school staff who work as custodians, bus drivers, office assistants, plumbers, and paraeducators that help school districts and community colleges operate the day to day business of our schools while teachers educate our students. And I won't belabor the points that Ms. Hay made. I think it's a pretty straightforward bill, but want to stress that the instances of lost wages in these circumstances are rare.

But we feel that these employees should not be penalized while they wait for administrators to verify their certification or paperwork, and likewise, if they're acquitted of any wrongdoing. Classified staff are low wage workers who rely on each paycheck. Oftentimes, they're working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and any impact to their wages can affect their ability to afford housing, food, and basic necessities. So for these reasons, we urge your support of AB 472.

Thank you. Are there any others in support? If so, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position only.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you, Chair, Members, and staff. Tiffany Mok. Apologies for the lack of a letter, but CFT supports.

Good morning. Seth Bramble, here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are processing our support position.

Hearing and seeing no other support, is there anyone here in opposition? At this time, I'd like to bring it back to the Committee. Is there any questions?

I'd like to make a comment, if you don't mind.

Assembly Member Alanis.

Thank you, Ms. Chair. I just want to say thank you for bringing this as well. I do believe that this is also a fairness issue as well. I know in my prior employment, I was ordered to send a couple employees home, and apparently they were expected not to get paid and getting some attorneys involved that didn't need to get involved. They ultimately got paid. And so I think this would also address this with your issue. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Assembly Member Wicks, I understand what you're trying to accomplish here, and it makes a lot of sense and seems pretty fair to me. The only thing that I want to say is that if a school employee does something, then it's put on involuntarily without pay and determination is found in their favor, and they can get paid for that time off, what's to prevent whatever they did in the first place from happening again?

You don't have to answer that now, since it was also raised in the analysis, Including similar comments by the Assembly Education Committee. As the analysis suggests, I encourage you to consider addressing this as the bill moves forward. Other than that, the bill was moved by Assembly Member Nguyen and second by Assembly Member Schiavo. Can you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll Call] That bill is out, six votes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bains.

Good morning. Can I start?

Yes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I am here to present AB 892. Kern County Hospital Authority. AB 892 is a district bill that specifies that Kern County Hospital Authority and its associated entities are subject to the Meyer-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and the California Public Records Act. Kern County was authorized to create the Kern County Hospital Authority by enabling legislation passed in 2014 and 2015.

This change was critical to ensure the long-term financial health of Kern's only public hospital, which has served the county since its inception in 1867. I also completed my residency at Kern Medical. While this new governance structure has created many new opportunities, it has also created some new challenges. Ensuring the long-term health of Kern Medical is of particular importance to me as the hospital where I completed my residency after medical school.

I know how important Kern Medical is to the most underserved residents in Kern County. The hospital has a medical caseload north of 70% and it is also our region's only level two trauma center. Losing Kern Medical would mean losing lives and, as the closure of Madera Community Hospital has shown us in the San Joaquin Valley, the San Joaquin Valley cannot afford to lose a single hospital, clinic or doctor.

The valley is already one of the largest health professional shortage areas in the nation and our residents need more healthcare infrastructures, not less. AB 892 represents a legislative vehicle that will be used to reflect a compromise in consensus-building process that Kern Medical and SEIU, on behalf of their members with Local 521, will agreed to work through with my office.

We will explore opportunities to operate the hospital with more public transparency and accountability, while also putting Kern Medical in the best possible position to grow in a financially healthy way. I want to thank SEIU and Kern Medical for agreeing to participate in this process and I look forward to sharing the product of those conversations as soon as possible. Super honored to be in this position as the assemblywoman, prior resident of this hospital.

As the Bill is considered by this Committee today, I ask that you provide me with the opportunity to move this district bill forward and allow this process to play out with me today. In support of the Bill is Beth on behalf of SEIU.

Thank you. We'll move to your witness in support. You have three minutes.

Great. Madam Chair and Members, Beth Malinowski of SEIU California. Privileged to be here today to offer some brief remarks on why SEIU California is a proud sponsor of AB 892 and to answer any questions as well. First, I'd like to start by acknowledging Dr. Bains and her dedicated staff who have jumped right in to work with us and bring forward an important conversation regarding the Kern County Hospital Authority. About a decade ago, this legislative body took action to establish KCHA.

We are grateful for that action. A public entity with the sole purpose of maintaining and operating Kern Medical Center and its network of outpatient clinics and services. The Authority, KCHA, is critical to the health of Kern County, as Dr. Bains mentioned, and the years since the Authority was established and the board seated, we at SEIU have started to see where improvements are needed.

Improvements to guarantee greater public transparency and accountability between the Authority and the community it serves, as well as improvements to bring clarity to the rights of workers that are serving the Authority and those communities. The Bill before you today is focused on reaffirming and strengthening language and enabling statute regarding the Brown Act, PRA and MMBA, and clarifying that it applies to all employees, controlled, owned, administered and funded by the Authority, all entities.

With your aye vote today, you're not only moving this policy forward, but, as Dr. Bains noted, helping us move forward a broader conversation as well. Again, Dr. Bains has graciously created a space for dialogue between SEIU and the Authority that we are grateful will lead to even stronger policy coming forward this year. And so for these reasons, again, we're proud to support and sponsor AB 892 and urge your aye vote. So, thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others in support? Please come forward. Are there any in opposition? Please come forward. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. The Bill has been moved by Assemblymember Nguyen and second by Assemblymember Shiavo. Secretary. It was second by Assemblymember Haney. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]. That Bill is out six to one.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Seeing no further business before the Committee, this Committee is adjourned. Thank you.