Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Senate Committee on Business, Professions and economic Development will come to order. Good afternoon. Actually, it is afternoon. We continue to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. The participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217-161, 621-7161 we're holding our committee hearing today in our 1021 O Street location. I ask that all Members of this Committee report to room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have seven bills on today's agenda at the request of the author. File item number four, Senate Bill 418 has been put over. There are two measures proposed for consent. File items number five, Senate Bill 802 and 7, Senate Bill 818. We will hold off trying to establish a quorum until we have a few more Members report to the hearing room. At this point, we will start as a subcommittee and our first item is file item number one. Senator Bradford, proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm here to present SB 51, which would authorize the Department of Cannabis Control to issue provisional license for local social equity applicant licensees for cannabis retail activity for up to five years. The Bill authorizes the DCC to annually renew the provisional license until it issues or denies a provisional licensee, annuals license, or up until five years from the date the provisional license was originally issued, whichever is earlier.

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 64, which authorizes the licensure, sale, and regulation of cannabis for both commercial adult use and medical use. In 2017, the state began issuing provisional license to general applicants that allowed businesses to begin operations while they worked toward fulfilling the requirements of an annual license issued by the state. And as we all know, it's very cumbersome. This gave general applicants a five year period to operate their businesses while they prepared to obtain their full annual licensure. In 2018, the California Cannabis Equity Act SB 1294, which I authored, is funding, I should say, for grants to local jurisdictions to establish programs to assist local social equity applicants in navigating the local licensing program to successfully operate in the state regulated cannabis marketplace. Social equity applicants include persons that were disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs, specifically as it relates to cannabis prohibition. Many local governments are now preparing to launch their own social equity licensing programs.

At the same time, the authorization of a social equity applicants for social equity applicants to apply for a provisional license will expire this March 31 of 2023. To complicate matters further, the Department cannot issue provisional licenses after June of this year, and all provisional licenses will expire on January 1 of 2026. This March deadline is nearly impossible to achieve for new social equity applicants because of the many time consuming challenges associated with local approval.

Some of these include access to capital, technical support, workforce development, licensing fees, data application processing delays, processing delays from local jurisdictions, and just even complying with CEQA requirements. California Cannabis License Program is a dual license system which requires a state as well as a local license in order to operate. A provisional license allows the licensee to commence operations while they are still meeting the requirements to attain a provisional license.

The goal of SB 51 is to authorize the Department of Cannabis Control to issue provisional license for local cannabis equity applicants for retail activities for up to five years, providing social equity licensee the same runway that was available to the general applicants in the beginning of this legal market. I'm here today to testify on behalf, okay, we have Kika Keith representing the Social Equity Workers Owners Association and Eliana Green, representing Hood Incubator. I see both of them here, so you can come forward, please. At the appropriate time, I would ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Please step forward to the microphone. Name and affiliation, please.

Certainly. My name is Kika Keith. I am the proud owner of Gorilla Rx Wellness Co., the first Black woman-owned social equity dispensary in Los Angeles, and President of the Social Equity Owners and Workers Association, co-sponsors of this Bill. We are a nonprofit solely operated by social equity entrepreneurs. We are committed to fairness, justice, and equality in the formulation of public policy and oversight of institutions serving disadvantaged communities.

I'm here before you today as a drug war survivor, a single mother, three beautiful daughters from South Central Los Angeles, who was taught by my parents to fight for justice and to be a voice of the voiceless. My testimony today draws from both personal experience and my engagement with thousands of aspiring social equity entrepreneurs, community members, and advocates from cities across California.

I implore the Committee to first recognize the need to acknowledge the historical injustices of the war on drugs, which was built on the foundation of intentional racist enforcement policies. We use the term "disproportionately impacted" in war on drugs as if its terminology for Black and Brown communities. We live each and every day as witnesses to the trauma and the collateral damages that broke families, orphaned our babies, and left us at the lowest rung of the household incomes. What do I mean when I say "disproportionately impacted?"

In Los Angeles, Black people represent only 8% of the population, but a staggering 40% of the arrests. In Oakland, we represent 70% of the arrests, despite making up only 30% of the population. And even right here in our state capitol, from 2012 to 2016, African Americans represented 43% of the arrests, while comprising only 15% of Sacramento's population. These are the populations of people who were intended to benefit from the social equity program.

Honorable Senators, I provided a small sampling, I'm sure you'll be receiving it shortly, of a multitude of declarations we receive from drug war survivors, social equity retail applicants who have faced inhumane hardships, barriers, and delays at the hand of local administrators of the law. Senators, I beseech you to read these profound stories because they are not singular. These are stories that are not the exception. This is a narrative of a state of emergency for Black and Brown Californians that were disproportionately impacted by failed drug policies.

Many local jurisdictions, including my own, set up social equity application process long after general operators had entered into the market, which put social equity operators like myself at a clear disadvantage. Numerous local agencies handling social equity applications face problems like not having enough staff, poor processing systems, and administrative delays. LA began a rollout as cannabis licensing in 2018. We quickly realized that the program was designed to fail. There was no budget, no technical assistance, no education, no access to capital.

We had to have a property to apply. In March of 2018, I released my retail location on Crenshaw Boulevard for $14,000 a month for a vacant building. Now remember, we had to be low-income to apply. We were set up for predatory investors with no established equity share guidelines and regulations, no access to banking, no access to grants and fee deferrals that were promised. We were thrown to the woods with no legal assistance or oversight of sharecropper agreements.

And despite budget allocations for the social equity program, no grants or direct services were made available. By October 2020, the City of Los Angeles received over $7.8 million in state grants and took over 700 days before equity applicants could apply for a minimum of $33,000--pennies compared to the $350,000 in rent Gorilla Rx spent holding our vacant property for two and a half years. Now multiply that times the hundreds of social equity applicants who were in my same position.

Millions of dollars were lost to bureaucratic delays, and my story is not an exception. We believe that entering the cannabis industry was a true opportunity for generational wealth, rebuild our communities, and a Governor Newsom said, right the wrongs of the war on drugs. We depended and we listened to the word that was spreading. There was actually legislation that was passed to address the disparities and inequities that existed in the cannabis industry. We couldn't believe it.

The Cannabis Equity act of 2018, SB 1294, actually was written to help us overcome barriers to entry. Well, I'm here to tell you I bear witness to the failure of local jurisdictions to adhere to the letter of the law administering fairness, equity, and inclusiveness. Read Ian's story in this packet. About three years, he rented an empty storefront, lost $250,000, waiting through delay after delay, only to have a daycare open on the block, making his compliant property noncompliant. Take your time feeling the pain of Kalina Andres Angela, whose predatory investor abandoned them, and 16 other social equity retail applicants at the finish line, less than nine months ago with no property and debt, forcing them to start all over again after investing their grant money that they received and years of their time in labor. We are exhausted from fighting. Is my time up?

Well, it's been 5 minutes.

Okay.

And I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up because I think there's one more behind you.

And her time is now about 3 minutes.

All right.

Okay, I will wrap it up.

Then I have some others, I'm sure, in the room who need to talk, too.

All right.

I apologize.

That's okay. I hate that we have to tell our five years in five minutes.

No, I understand, but we did have five and a half hours with me.

I understand. It took me 1340 days to open my store, and there are plenty of us, hundreds behind me that have the licensing opportunity and cannot open their doors. In Long Beach, San Jose, LA County, they're all opening up retail stores. The general operators have five years with a provisional license. Now that social equity finally has an opportunity with their retail license, we're asking for that same runway. Please support SB 51.

Thank you very much, ma'am. And try to keep it to 3 minutes.

Yes, sir.

I've got you on the clock. I apologize.

Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Eliana Green. I'm the Director of Community Engagement and our entry Staff Attorney at the Hood Incubator. At the Hood Incubator, we empower drug war survivors to end the drug war by 2040 through economic development, power building, and policy advocacy. We also focus on ensuring that cannabis related laws and policies are equitable and drug war survivor-friendly, while addressing and preventing future disparities. We're a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 51.

As we discuss Senate Bill 51, which sits before you today, we must keep in mind the spirit of Proposition 64 and the legislative intent of the Cannabis Equity Act of 2018. Prop 64 was passed in part to reduce barriers to entry into the legal regulated cannabis market, and the Cannabis Equity Act intended to offer assistance to those most harmed by cannabis criminalization and poverty, making the cannabis industry representative of the state's population.

These two pieces of authority should serve as a guide for our actions today. As we move forward in our discussion today, I want you to be repetitively thinking, "will passing Senate Bill 51 help fulfill the spirit and legislative intent of both Prop 64 and Cannabis Equity act?" Or, in contrast, "will inaction heighten barriers for those most harmed by cannabis criminalization?"

Over the last five years, 18 social equity programs have rolled out throughout the states, and in just the last two grant years, an additional 13 local jurisdictions have applied for funding to start developing their equity programs but aren't quite ready to launch. This means only about half of the jurisdictions who've shown interest in developing a social equity have actually launched their programs.

So, as Kika mentioned in her testimony, the state issues two types of license, a provisional license and an annual license, with the provisional license being a temporary form of approval until you can get into full compliance. Without Senate Bill 51, forthcoming Social Equity Program participants will not have the opportunity to benefit from the privileges of a provisional license, as they will not have enough time to qualify for their local jurisdiction's permitting requirements by this Friday.

Because, as Kika described in depth, there's so many time consuming challenges associated with local approval. The benefits of a provisional license include lower regulatory requirements, a less restrictive runway to launch and grow a business, significantly lower expenses and technical expertise to complete the application, and the opportunity to become compliant with all the relevant safety issues of your building while still earning revenue. So we're about to have a whole new set of 13 jurisdictions preparing to roll out their social equity program.

But in 2017, before the equity program was in place, the state began issuing provisional licenses to general applicants until just last year. General applicants were able to lobby the Legislature to gain several extensions and modifications to the provisional licensing scheme that we see today, as covered in your background packet. This ultimately gave General applicants a five year period to continue full business operations as they applied for it and came into compliance with the rules for an annual license.

So we have to ask ourselves, would it actually be equitable to effectively change the rules and pathway for obtaining a license now that folks impacted by prohibition are finally able to participate? Well, let's talk about what equity even means, as it's frequently confused with equality. Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity, on the other hand, recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.

So a cannabis equity program should take into account that operators impacted by cannabis prohibition may need different levels of support to achieve an equal outcome with their general operator peers. But in this instance, by eliminating the possibility for forthcoming social equity operators to have a provisional license, we're not only robbing them of equity, but we aren't even offering them an equal opportunity in comparison to their peers.

In conclusion, passing Senate Bill 51 is essential to fulfilling the spirit and legislative intent of both Prop 64 and the Cannabis Equity Act. It will make it easier for drug war survivors to enter the cannabis industry and prevent the heightening of barriers for those most harmed by cannabis criminalization. Thank you for considering our perspective, and we urge you to vote yes on Senate Bill 51. Time.

Thank you. Now let's move to any other witnesses here in room 2100 who would like to testify in support of Senate Bill 51. And let me tell you what the ground rules are. I want your name, I want your affiliation, and I want you to tell me you either support or oppose the Bill.

That's it?

That's it.

Excellent. I can do that.

Thank you.

I'm Caren Woodson with Kiva Confections and Kiva Sales and Surveys, and we support SB 51.

Thank you. Excellent. Next.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association in strong support.

Perfect. Next, please.

Alicia Priego, on behalf of the California Cannabis Manufacturers Association in support.

Thank you. Next.

Mel Assagai, on behalf of the California African American Chamber of Commerce, in strong support.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, in support.

Thank you. Next.

Good afternoon. My name is Khalil Ferguson, President of the United Core Alliance and the California Equity Policy Council, in full support.

Perfect. Next, please.

Pamela Lopez, on behalf of Shryne Group and California Normal, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, wonderful Committee. My name is Alfred Torgano. I'm the founder and CEO of Space Flyt Retail Dispensary, and I'm also the CFO of Social Equity Owners and Workers Association, and we're in full support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for coming. Next, please.

Morning. My name is Amir Gresham. I'm a native Los Angelenos, Board Member of the Social Equity Owners and Workers Association, and we support SB 51.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Morning. My name is Mike Snell. I'm a local veteran and member of Sacramento Social Equity CORE Community, and I will be opening a storefront retail here in Sacramento, and I'm full support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Name is Sunny Welch, on behalf of the Helmand Valley Growers Company, a veteran-founded and focused organization, and we're in full support.

Thank you, ma'am. Next.

Good morning. My name is Sheila Baroma on behalf of Gorilla Rx Wellness, and I am in full support of SB 51.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Kika Howze. I'm the Co-Founder of Gorilla Rx Wellness, and we are in full support of SB 51.

Perfect. Thank you for coming. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and members. Rand Martin, on behalf of the Parent Company, which has a very large social equity effort going on now, we're in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Now that's the way to do it. Thank you all. Let's move to any lead witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 51. Opposition witnesses, as you know, must be present in the hearing room. Any opposition witnesses? Any other individuals in room 2100 wishing to testify in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, let's move to those witnesses wishing to testify via the teleconference service. The ground rules for teleconference service, for those of you on the line, are the same.

I need your name, your affiliation, and I need you to say whether you support or oppose the Bill. You know, I'm pretty lenient during public comment, but I cannot afford to be today because of our Senate schedule. So I intend to limit public comment to 15 minutes. So for those of you on the line, if you take very long, you're cutting your neighbor out of an opportunity to speak and state a position.

So, Moderator, if you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 51, we will begin with them.

Thank you. And so please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero. We can first go to line number 10. Please go ahead.

Mr. Chair and members, Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

13, please. Go ahead.

Good morning. Jonatan Cvetko, the Executive Director of the United Cannabis Business Association, in strong support of SB 51. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Number 7, please go ahead.

I neither support nor oppose this Bill, but I oppose the process of you keeping the public out and saying you're going to limit comment when the hearing has just begun. Because government is about people. It's not about iron-fisted lawmakers controlling hearings. Just as an aside. So, be well, but maybe you should schedule your hearings a little bit better to include the people rather than your own arbitrary rules about who may or may not be included in your process.

Thank you for your suggestions. Next, please.

One moment here. We had. They dropped here. Again, if you want to comment, please press one zero. And did we hear from number 9 yet?

No. Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Yes. Go ahead, please.

Yes. Good afternoon, Senators. My name is Yvette McDowell, and I am Chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Cannabis Section, and we are definitely in support of SB 51. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line number 15.

Hello?

Please proceed.

Hi. This is Malaki Amen with Institute for MORE in strong support for SB 51.

Thank you, sir. Next, please.

And number 19, please go ahead.

Greetings. This is Ignite Daniel with Life Development Group, as well as Gorilla Rx and I am in full support of SB 51.

Thank you. Next, please.

And next, we've got line 17.

Hi, my name is Lisa Green of Lit Brands, and I am in support of SB 51. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

And give us just a moment here. We'll get a number to that person here.

Thank you. Next, please.

And one more with an operator. Again, give me just a moment. And we've got line 18. Please go ahead. And. Hello by Nate, you're open. Hi, my name is, my name is Michelle Garakian. I am the interim Executive Director of the Department of Cannabis Regulation here in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is in firm support of this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, please.

And we don't have anyone further in queue here.

Thank you. Moderator now let's bring the discussion back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions? Comments? Senator Wahab.

I appreciate this Bill. I will move the item. Okay.

Any other questions? Comments? Senator Niello, a comment? It doesn't have anything to do with the Bill itself. I'll support the Bill. But the problem we have is a regulatory structure actually created because of the complications of the initiative itself that is just basically dysfunctional. And we will continually have to manipulate our approach to it. It would be nice, I suppose, if we could start all over again, but it was initiated by an initiative that makes it difficult.

But learning about the regulatory challenges here, it's very frustrating to see how dysfunctional this is. Thank you, Senator Neil, Senator Archuleta. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'd like to thank the author of the Bill and obviously our Senator presenting it so professionally. Thank you so much.

I think the General public needs to understand that we have business owners that are trying to survive, build a family, build the wealth that we all talk about, and you can't do it if you can't own a business, if you can't own your home. And this pathway, I believe, was shut down. And the unfairness that I've just heard brown and black across the board, across the state. It's a shame that it's taken so long.

And some of these things were set up to fail, not to succeed. And I've heard the stories where you've had that building rented and yours was smaller, but I've heard as much as 1015 and 30,000 a month just to keep the doors open to make sure that you had a building where you weren't guaranteed. So it's a shame it happened. But this, I think, will balance it out a little bit.

And I say a little bit, but we can move forward and I will support the Bill. And I hope that everyone who wants to do this and be involved in this entity legally, please work with law enforcement, work with those officials in the city. You've got to get those in the legal way of doing these things up front so they can join the Chamber of Commerce, they can be part of the community and give back to the community.

God willing, there'll be some wealth to share, and if you do that, then you can be wrapped by the whole community who needs your help. You know what I'm talking about, and God bless you for what you do, but let's band together to keep the bad guys out. Good luck on your business. That's it. Thank you, colleagues. Any further questions? Senator Bradford, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Members.

And I appreciate the commentary from the Deus, but also the testimony from the men and women who are facing the challenges right here, right now, in real time. And I think they eloquently stated what we face, and I agree with Senator Anil. Some of the challenges that we face were because of initiative that was poorly written and the desire to have legal cannabis with a lot of red tapes for individuals to legally enter the space.

I think this is a small, piecemeal approach to trying to correct some of those wrongs that exist, but it's one that's needed to happen. So I respectfully ask for your. I vote today. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Let's establish a quorum, Senators.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Senate Bill 51 has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll hold the matter open for absent Members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members. Thank you. Next up, Senate Bill 284. Senator Wiener, proceed when ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a blockbuster Bill today for you about vending machines. SB 284 requires a person who owns a vending machine to post their telephone number, email address, or both on the machine in a conspicuous location.

In addition to their name and physical address, this will conform the businessman professions code to the health and safety code. I respectfully ask for your. I vote I don't see whether you have. Do you have lead witnesses, Senator? No. Okay. Let's move to witnesses here in room 2100 who would like to testify in support of Senate Bill 284. Seeing none, let's move to witnesses who would like to testify in opposition to Senate Bill 284. Those here in room 2100. Any takers? Seeing none?

Let's now move to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator. If you please prompt any such individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 284, we will move forward with them.

And please press 10 at this time. It currently. Nobody in queue here.

Okay, that's perfect. Members, any questions? I would move this blockbuster of a Bill. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

I'm not sure what a blockbuster Bill is, but I'll keep my comments short. Senator Wiener, just questions for clarification. So there's also a portion of the Bill that talks about the violation of the provisions not being a misdemeanor. Can you say more about that aspect of your Bill and why that was part of the package?

Well, the current law does make it a misdemeanor for not putting your name or address on there. We're adding something more on, but we're not looking to create a new crime for that. So we don't want to drop the hammer if they forget to leave their email address off.

So are you looking for more administrative remedies to kind of help with compliance or what are you looking for in terms to.

Yes.

Okay. Right. And then currently, who is responsible for enforcing that? This information is on a vending machine.

Well, for the current statute, because it's a misdemeanor, that would be the District Attorney would do it. I don't know if there's an additional agency that would have the ability to do it.

Yes. Okay. Because by removing that, I'm wondering who would be responsible for enforcement of compliance.

Yeah, my apologies. We're not removing it for the name and address. We're simply, by adding new requirements. We're not extending it to those new requirements. So the basic regime is still enforceable in the same way, and it's still a misdemeanor. We're not removing that misdemeanor.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Senator Niello? Senator Wiener, this blockbuster Bill, is this actually what you intend to pursue throughout the process? I mean, I have introduced this Bill before, and we did not pass it into law, so we'll see. Because I'm not exactly sure how this Bill is going to end up. I'll be staying off. Thanks, Senator. Senator Wiener, would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote? We do have a motion. Motion by Senator Eggman. The motion is do passed to the Senate Floor.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has seven votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, sir. Move on to Senate Bill 372. Senator Menjivar, proceed when ready.

Good afternoon. He's tall. Good afternoon, everyone. Chair and Members first, thank you to the Committee staff for working with my team on this Bill, SB 372. You'll notice today that some of your colleagues are wearing pins, pins that say Trans people belong. It's because this week, our State Capitol is celebrating transgender visibility Action Day. Because this Friday is transgender visibility day. So I'm here to talk to you on a Bill that sits so perfectly to present it today on this special week.

Thank you, Chair, for putting it on right now. SB 372 would work to protect the privacy and ensure the safety of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Californians, by limiting the use of dead names. At the Department of Consumer Attorneys, the Department of Consumer attorney licensed various professionals, from manicurists to social workers.

And for those of you who don't know when transgender nonbinary individuals transition or come out, they may choose to legally change their name and no longer use what's called their dead name or their name assigned at birth. On top of protecting transgender individual nonbinary person, perhaps there's someone, a victim of domestic violence that legally changes their name for fear of being found, or someone who legally changes their name because of marriage.

How it sits right now is that the Department of Consumer attorneys has your own name in the system, the breezy system. So what happens is a transgender individual who changed their name will have to have their dead name follow them throughout their career. When I think about this Bill, I think about a friend of mine when I went to social work school, his name is Jordan.

And while going through school to be trained to help other individuals, his dead name was constantly being utilized even in a program that was made to help others. So you would think it would be in tune to protect and serve us in a way that would better help us to serve others. I think about him, how his dead name still follows him now as a licensed clinical social worker who helps transgender youth at Children's Hospital LA today.

So the intent of this Bill is to rewrite some of the wrongs that we've had for a couple for decades now to ensure that people get their legal name changed on the breezy online system. Research has shown that referring to a licensee using their chosen name also reduces depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation for Trans people as well. The Bill will not change any other documents affiliated with the licensee's former name or their license number. Their license number stays the same, and that's what should follow everyone.

It requires that DCA establish a process to identify a licensee who has changed your name, if necessary, for purposes of a complaint. Should someone want to make a complaint and they don't find that name, this Bill is requiring DCA to come up with a program to address that. SB 372 takes a simple step to protect DCA licensees, including trans as well as gender nonconforming licensed professionals at a time when it is more important than ever.

So here today to testify on behalf of this Bill, I have Dr. Tristan Buzzini, a clinical forensic psychologist and gender affirmative care specialist, followed by Dr. Trisha Wallis, a psychologist and licensed clinical social worker specializing in gender.

Please step forward. State your name for the record and proceed. Try to keep it to three minutes if you can, sir.

Thank you, sir. My name is Dr. Tristan Buzzini. Good afternoon, Chairman Roth and esteemed Members. My name is Dr. Tristan Buzzini. I am a licensed clinical psychologist in our State of California. For the majority of my 15-year career, I have also been a civil servant, working directly with some of our most underserved, vulnerable, and dangerous patient populations. I am also a transgender man.

It has been nearly a decade since I was granted a confidential, court ordered name change and had my original birth certificate sealed. This fact is directly correlated with my safety as a transgender man, my dead name name assigned at birth, being strongly associated with a female identity, making it an immediate source for outing me as transgender. Despite this, I have been subject to harassment, threats, loss of job opportunities and income, and been publicly outed without my consent.

As a result of our state's current practice of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees in public record. As a result of these disclosures, I have been despicably referred to using my dead name by disgruntled former patients and coworkers. Had new clients refused to work with me or cancel care abruptly, been threatened with violence and sexual harm, working with patients in our correctional environments, been subject to extortion attempts, and had provisional job offers rescinded after my licensing record was checked?

The act of dead naming transgender and nonbinary licensees is excruciatingly painful to our personal and professional lives. The impact of dead naming licensees is multifaceted and far reaching, putting us at risk and impeding our ability to do our jobs safely. The passage of SB 372 would allow us to engage in our work with respect, dignity, and safety. I thank you, Senator Menjivar, for your important work in this area, and thank you, Chairman Roth, and esteemed Members urging your aye vote for SB 372.

Doctor, thank you for your testimony. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, good afternoon. I'm Dr. Trisha Wallis. I'm a licensed psychologist and licensed clinical social worker in the State of California. I'm a gender specialist working as a civil servant and in my own private practice focusing on gender affirming care with transgender and gender diverse individuals. Over the past three years, we've really focused our effort working on this issue.

I've worked with transgender and cisgender psychologists, LCSWs, LMFTs, LPCCs colleagues in order to address the inappropriate current practice of dead naming folks under the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer affairs in California. I've been personally contacted by many licensed therapists who are affected by the dead naming practice and several more who are in support of this Bill. SB 372. As a psychologist and licensed clinical social worker, I work in gender affirming care.

I have personally become aware of the fact that there are so many things that I myself, as a cisgender person, have in terms of great privilege. I do not have to worry about a client stopping to work with me if they find out something about my gender identity. I do not have to have the repercussions of a recent job offer or wondering if they looked up my license and dead named me. It was dead named.

I do not have the stress of considering of whether or not to seek out another job for fear of non acceptance of my gender identity, all because of the dead naming practice that currently exists. I don't have to worry about my safety when working with patients or clients because of my cisgender identity.

These are constant emotional and psychological, as well as tangible, concrete, physical things that my transgender and nonbinary colleagues have to face every day, SB 372 would end this practice, and it's time to do so. I come from a long line of helpers. My grandmother was a Red Cross volunteer for many years. She taught me to speak up when something's not right. My father taught me to do the right thing, and passing SB 372 is the right thing.

Thank you, Senator Menjivar, for your leadership and your authorship of this important Bill. And I strongly support all Members of this Committee to have a resounding aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Doctor. Now let's move to any other individuals here in room 2100 who would like to testify in support of Senate Bill 372. As we did before, the ground rules for this portion of the program are name, affiliation, and support or oppose.

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association, a psychiatrist, proud co-sponsor. Urge your vote. Thank you. Next, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of County and Municipal Employees. We are in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Good afternoon, Members. George Soares with the California Medical Association in support. Thank you, sir. Next, please.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association, also in support and proud co-sponsor.

Thank you for coming. Next, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, also a proud co-sponsor.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good afternoon. Sumaya Nahar, on behalf of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, we're one of the proud co-sponsors of the Bill. Also want to record our support on behalf of the California Dental Association. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Dr. Kareem Mcintosh. I'm with the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association, and we are in strong support of SB 372.

Thank you, Doctor. Next, please.

Good afternoon. I'm Kathleen Houston. I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist and a board certified behavior analyst, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Good afternoon. John Drebinger with CBHA, the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies, proud co-sponsor, and we're in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Excellent. Now let's move to any lead witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 372. Opposition witnesses, as you know, must be present in the hearing room. Any opposition witnesses? Any other individuals in the hearing room wishing to testify in opposition, seeing none.

Let's move to witnesses waiting to testify one way or the other via the teleconference service. Moderator if you would please prompt any such individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 372. We will begin with them.

Thank you. And again, it's 10. At this time. We'll go to line number 12. Please. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California in strong support. Thank you, sir.

Next line number, pardon me, line number 22, please. Go ahead.

Teresa Frausto, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Next, we've got line 24.

Tara Gamboa-Eastman with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Next, please.

We've got line 25. Yes, hi, is that me? Yes. Please proceed.

Oh, great. Hi, Chair and Chair Members, my name is Sharina Latch. I'm calling from Placer County and I'm in strong opposition of this 372 Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

You're welcome. Next, we got line seven, please. Go ahead, line seven.

Next, please.

Nobody else in queue at this point.

Thank you. Moderator now let's bring the discussion back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very sympathetic to the intent of the Bill, I truly am, but I'm concerned about unintended consequences. The name of a licensee can be changed for any reason that a person changed their name or their identity. And while there is a process for a consumer to ask about that, a consumer would have no particular reason for asking that particular question.

And again, while sympathetic, the intent of the Department of Consumer affairs is to protect consumers. And I think this potentially compromises that.

Could you further explain how it would potentially compromise.

If a person changed their name because of other circumstances and that was not known to a consumer, they could be misled. Again, it's an unintended consequence. I'm sure you don't mean that, and I understand exactly your reason for proposing this, and I'm sympathetic to that. But I'm always mindful of unintended consequences, which in legislation, we practice that all too often.

I'd like to also give some time to my witness, but I will say the state bar currently has a system in place. Should someone, a consumer, be wanting to reach out to someone, a lawyer, who has a different birth name, there's a number in place for the consumer to call and reach and find that direct person. So my intent here is also to continue conversations with the DCA to put a process in place to ensure that we don't have that unintended consequence. But if there's something else that my witness can add to that, there isn't.

A question pending, but if there's some further clarification, Senator, I'm happy to. Let me get this Member. Let me just.

So, Jennifer Alley with the California Psychological Association. This legal name change would also apply to victims of domestic violence who may legally change their name and may not want to be found on the breeze system. All the other information for individuals is confidential based on health information, like a Doctor can't release information on their patient. And so we would like to continue our conversations with the Department of Consumer affairs to ensure that any former disciplinary actions associated with that license remain linked.

If there was a license search done, we're really just saying that when you do the initial search on a license number for Jennifer Alley, 1234, that was what would be showing, because that's how I would be working professionally. The problem is when both names appear, the impact that it has on individuals.

So I think we want to be really clear that we want to protect consumers with the right to know background information on anybody licensed under the Department of Consumer affairs that they may do business with. But when it comes to that licensee's private information, that it remained private.

Thank you, ma'am. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Hi, Senator Menjivar. Thank you for bringing this forward. I do have some clarifying questions, and perhaps your witnesses can help. So currently, if a consumer were to look up the license of a professional in the mental health and behavioral get, they would see what?

They would see their name. So the license stays with you. Even if you legally change your name, and the BreEZe system online system changes that name, the license number still stays the same.

So if I'm looking for someone who treated me 10 years ago, and unbeknownst to me, that individual has a different name, I will look for the license number, and that license number will show me a different name. But it's the same person that treated me should my Bill pass. Right, because that name would be different, but the license number would stay the same. So a consumer would still be able to search someone by their license because that never changes.

Is there any other identifying information that shows up on BreEZe?

As it currently stands an address is attached to a licensee number. My wife, when she submitted her information, she had to put her own home address on there. So it's your name, home address, and license number. And if I'm missing something else? No, that's it.

When you look up the license, is the gender revealed on BreEZe?

I don't think so. No. It's a name address. Yeah. And the type of license it is. Okay.

So I'm thinking about your Bill and also unintended consequences, as Senator Niello mentioned, and my experience with behavioral health and looking for practitioners that match consumers needs and wants. Oftentimes, gender is one of those questions that's brought up. Right. Would you prefer one gender over the other? And I'm concerned that the way that the Bill is drafted currently that that level of consumer inquiry would not be included.

And so being that this is coming from DCA, I'm trying to figure out what that balance is because I know even with health insurance companies, when you're calling for care, the question that they ask is, do you prefer one or the other? And currently there is no option to ask for other than male or female. So what would you say to that?

I mean, I would say to that anyone here could have a therapist and you don't know their sexuality. That's not on there right now. So you could be treated by a lesbian and you wouldn't know. That's private information. Right. If you're treated by a transgender man, a transgender woman, that's private information. You ask for a man, you'll get a man. Right.

I guess that's my response to that because there's no option there to ask for sexual orientation. You could ask. Sometimes they have that publicly, like my wife's profile when you're looking for a therapist, that she's LGBTQ, because sometimes people want that specifically. But outside of that, if you're asking for a man, you get a man. And you don't say, I want a transgender man or I want a transgender woman, man or a woman.

Yes. So, Senator Menjivar, I know you to be a very deeply caring person and a champion of LGBTQ issues and certainly bringing your experiences forward and your knowledge and you're a fighter, and I love that about you. For this Bill particularly, I'm still looking to find out how the consumer's voice would be represented here.

And what I see on your list of support is that we're coming from a practitioner's point of view. And what I'm missing is the consumer's point of view of how this would impact a consumer wanting to seek information about a practitioner, that they share their very deep and vulnerable and sometimes life or death situations. So that's what's missing for me. I'm not going to oppose the Bill, but I would like to ask more questions as it goes through.

And I would say that's probably for a Bill later on, if people are asking for a consumer to know the deep private life of a therapist, that's for someone else. I wouldn't run that. But that's my intent of my Bill. The only intent of my Bill is to ensure that the therapist you're seeing, their name, their legal name is reflected in the online system. That's it.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Wahab?

Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you to all the witnesses that have shared your personal testimony as well. This is a very simple Bill. In know, for example, people change their names for a number of reasons, including marriage, including adoption and foster youth and much more. I think the easier we make it, the better. This has no deeper impact as much as we're talking about it. So I will move the item and you can add me as a co-author. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Eggman, thank you very much. I also am supportive of this Bill and thank you for working on this issue. As somebody who is a licensed clinical social worker, I don't want everyone, I mean, it is not the consumers under the consumer's purview to know all my dark, deeper secrets or things about me before I treat them. People do you, based on your reviews, based on your license. And people make that choice. They don't have access.

And that is the whole point of being a therapist, is to be that blank slate for somebody to be able to talk to, not that they know all your things and is inappropriate in a therapeutic relationship to overshare with a client about your own personal things. And as also somebody who has an adopted daughter, her name is her name now, she's an Eggman. So we don't need other names following her around. So I appreciate this Bill. Thank you, Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas

I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this Bill and I appreciate the Senator's comment. To me, this is a way of streamlining the process and helping the consumer get to that person that they need to get to to address concerns. So I appreciate this way of strengthening the consumer protection in this case and looking forward to supporting this Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, I guess you mentioned about people can look up the license number stays with them, but if it was 10 years ago, most of the time I don't go and look for people's license number. I don't even know, actually, if you ask me any of the license number of other folks, doctors or whoever I've met, I don't ask for the license number. I remember their name. How can we address it.

So if 10 years from now, if I wanted to look for x person, how do I look for that person? If the name has changed and now I don't know the license number and their office probably has changed, they probably move somewhere else, how do I do that?

Absolutely. And even if you don't legally change your name, what if in 10 years, you're not practicing in the same city and you're looking up a person's name in a city and that person doesn't come up?

So we're going to be working with the TCA to put together a process where you can perhaps call in a number or type in something different, just like the state bar has been doing already. The state bar has a process in place to look for individuals, just like you asked, who perhaps doesn't have the same name. They got married, they got divorced, they changed their name. The state bar has a process where a consumer calls in and says, this is the information I have. Can you help me find that person?

Maybe that person is no longer practicing in the State of California. You're not going to find them there either way. So we're working with DCI to really fine tune the process a consumer can go through to find that individual.

And I would also note that I think it might even be more confusing for a consumer is they're looking up someone, they have their dead name, and then they go meet them, and it's not the person they were anticipating because they made an assumption off of the name.

But that is not currently in the builder. Right. You're working with DCA on. Yes, it is that we have requested DCA to put together a process that is in the Bill. Yes. Thank you.

Please proceed.

Senator, I just wanted to do a point of clarification because I wanted to make sure that my comment wasn't misunderstood. So my question was around gender and allowing for gender identity to be searchable or disclosed to a consumer, not sexual orientation. I do believe that that is protected and is not the nitty gritty that I would ever put out there, but specifically to gender. So I just want to make sure you understood that for me, and your comment was about gender.

Correct me if I'm wrong, in the breEZe system, you can't.

So currently, that information is available now, but when you are using your health plan insurance, that may be available on the health plans directory. And that's a different process. Right, because not everybody under all the health licenses under Department of Consumer affairs contract with every plan.

And so you would drill down for that level of information in detail when you're finding a provider in the directory. Your health plan, this is separate. This is the State Licensing Board. So that's a conversation for the health plan directory legislation that's going through now, not necessarily here. We're not advocating to include gender information at Department of Consumer affairs. We're really just looking for the protection there.

So I hear that and thank you. What I also heard from the testimony was part of the protection that we're looking is to not have a dead name as an identifier for a previous gender. And so I think it's relevant to bring that question forward and would want to make sure that we are not removing any consumer protections in moving forward with this. Definitely not. Thank you.

Have we exhausted all the questions, colleagues? Okay, Senator Menjivar, would you like to close?

I thank you, Committee Members, for your questions and engage me in engaging with me in this discussion today on transgender visibility action day. I respectfully ask that you take action and vote aye on this vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. We have a motion on Senate Bill 372. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed to Senate Judiciary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is seven to two. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator. Let's take up our consent calendar. There are two measures proposed for consent. File items number 5 and 7. Senate Bill 82 and Senate Bill 818. Please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Vote is twelve - zero. It is out.

We'll be hearing item six, SB 817. Mr. Chairman. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair. This Bill, Senate Bill 817, simply ensures that the board of barbering and cosmetology does not charge more than $50 to an individual who seeks to become a hairstylist. As currently written, the law leaves open the potential for the board to charge over $50 and more than it charges other professionals like cosmetologists and barbers. So we're simply trying to limit the fees charged to those who seek to become a hairstylist. With that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now move on to your lead witnesses in support.

I think that would be me.

Okay. We'll now move on to other witnesses here in the room. See, none will move to witnesses in opposition and also to those in the room to oppose. We will now move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Service moderator. If you would please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 817, please begin. Thank you. And if so, please press 10 at this time. And currently nobody in queue. Thank you.

I would like to now move back to Members comments, questions. Senator Rojas, thank you for this Bill. I'll move it, Senator. Mr. Chairman, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. There's a motion. And the motion is, do you pass to Senate appropriation? Please call the. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Glazer. I'm sorry. My bad. I'm all the way over here. Sorry.

I just wanted to thank the chair for bringing this forward. You've continued the efforts that previous chairs have done in this space to try to create easier access for people that are trying to create an economic enterprise. And I know this is a continuation of that effort and happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you for your work. Thank you, Mr. Former chair.

Thank you. Can you please call the role?

[Roll Call]

We're going to open the roll for absent Members, and we're going to open the roll first with Senate Bill 51. Item number one, the current vote is 90.

Senator Wynn Ashby Glazer, aye. Glazer, aye. Wilk, aye. Wilk, aye.

Vote count is 110 that that Bill is out. Item number three, Senate Bill 372, current vote, seven to two. Please call the roll.

Alvarada, Gill, Ashby. Becker. Becker, aye. Wilk.

Vote eight to two. That Bill is out. And the vote on item number six, Senate Bill 81712 to zero. That Bill is out.

That concludes our hearing today. There's no other business. The Senate Committee on Business, Professions and economic Development is adjourned.