Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Development will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. As you well know, by this time, for individuals wishing to provide public comment, the participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217161 6217161 we're holding our Committee hearing in our 1021 O Street location. I'd ask that all Members of the Committee report to room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. In the interim, we are going to begin our hearing as a Subcommittee.

We have 12 bills on today's agenda. There's one measure proposed for consent. File item number 12, Senate Bill 887. So with one on consent, that means 11 have to be heard. We have Senate session at 02:00 p.m. If we do not finish by then, we will resume after the close of Senate session. So let's proceed with the agenda. File item number one. Senator Bradford, you're presenting one bill today. SB 384. Proceed when ready, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm here to present SB 384, which would give workers in the barbering and cosmetology field non disciplinary pathway to address a first infraction. This is a straightforward measure with remedial education program run by the State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. The education program would allow licensed barbers and cosmetologists to take remedial education programs instead of having the first offense for a health and safety violation on their professional record lead to a fine.

This bill is important because multiple violations can put license holders at risk of losing their license and their livelihood and ability to earn a living. This bill would allow workers to refresh their knowledge of health and safety requirements by taking an education class to avoid their first violation on their record. There's no opposition, and supported by the California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology and the Beauty Federation of California.

And my witness today is Kristy Underwood, the Executive Officer for the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Sir. Ms. Underwood.

Hello. Good morning. With the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. We support this bill. We believe it will be a great opportunity to allow violators to take some education that they haven't had, possibly in many, many years, so that they can keep that fine off of their record. And our fines are escalating, so they go up every time. It can end up being very costly for some of our fines.

So this educational program, we believe, will reinforce our health and safety to those who maybe have went to school many, many years ago and hopefully get better compliance and better consumer protection in California.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other individuals in the room who wish to testify in support of this measure? Seeing none, let's check. Any opposition witnesses in the hearing room who wish to testify in opposition to this measure? Seeing none of those, let's go to the teleconference service. Moderator if you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 384, we will proceed with them.

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. And one moment, please. It will go to line 31. 31, please go ahead.

Next moderator.

Line 31. Okay, we'll go to.

Hello.

Please proceed.

My name is Nitesh Kumar. I am from Fremont, California, and I oppose.

Thank you. Next, please.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you moderator. Let's bring the matter back to my colleagues. Any questions or comments? Senator Eggman?

Good morning, Senator. What is an example of an invasive procedure? Having someone just got their hair cut this weekend. I see that people are getting fines for invasive procedures. What is that?

Cosmetologist. All right, that could have answered that one.

So an invasive procedure is when you go below a certain level of the skins. For instance, microneedling is very popular. That's something that should be performed by physicians, not by our licensees. So we would consider that invasive.

Okay. And that's where the majority of these fines are happening.

No, a lot of our fines are related to things like everything you have to have labeled in your salon. You have to have your dirty tools disinfected in a properly way. Those are our more common fines.

Okay. I just saw there was an invasive procedure and I wondered.

This might be an invasive procedure right here.

Yeah. Maybe it went too low.

I agree. They went too low.

It's invasive.

Thank you, Senator. Any other. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas?

No, I just want to say how important this industry is to so much of my district, particularly in black communities, women owned business. This is such an important sector. So I want to support this, and we'll make the motion in support of this proposal.

Well, we'll take that motion when we have a quorum, but I appreciate it. Any other questions? Comments? Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you. This is a straightforward measure, and I think it's vitally important to make sure those men and women who are in this profession continue to be able to earn and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We'll take the matter up when we have a quorum. Looking for authors.

And we'll go to line 99. 99, please. Go ahead.

Sanmay Mukopadhai, Yorba Linda, opposing the bill.

Senator Eggman, why don't you present, if you're willing to do so. Otherwise, we will be here until. Okay, Senator Allen, you're presenting one bill today. Senate Bill 622. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Members. So, existing law requires the state to establish a unique identification program for cannabis to track product from seed to sale. Now, this track and trace system is intended to prevent diversion to a protection from the unlicensed market, and also to minimize threats to public health and safety in the event of a product recall. Now, law also specifies that a unique identifier must be visible and affixed by cultivators to the base of each cannabis plant.

This requirement creates unnecessary labor and operational costs for cannabis cultivators, as well as millions of pounds of needless plastic waste, including tags, zip ties, packaging and disposal bags. According to data provided to us by the Department, the DCC, the Department of Cannabis Control, something like 43 million plastic tags were issued by the Department to license cultivators in 2022 at a cost of $15 million to the state.

The individual plastic plant tags are ineffective at preventing diversion, since cannabis product would not be diverted until the plants are harvested. All individual plant tags are discarded upon harvest, and the product is then batched with a single package tag for the track and trace program. Products only ever trace back to the batch, and the individual plant is never identified. And the same batching system is used by the California Farm Bureau and the US Department of Agriculture to track produce in case of product recall.

So this Bill seeks to provide more flexibility to the Department to regulate how cannabis plants are tagged to ensure easy identification of plants for effective enforcement by inspectors and compliance by cultivators, while minimizing wasteful and expensive, and, quite frankly, absolutely unnecessary single-use tags. So, testifying in support of our Bill this afternoon, this morning is Amy O'Gorman Jenkins on behalf of Canacraft. And then we also have Jason Schmelzer on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council.

Ms. Jenkins, please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Amy Jenkins here, on behalf of Canacraft, a vertically integrated California cannabis company with a licensed cannabis farm in Lake County. Existing law requires licensed cultivators to fix a plant tag to every single cannabis plant in the state.

These tags are only used once on one plant and then thrown away as the author stated, during the summer planting, this means cultivators like Canacraft bring in temporary crews to do the backbreaking work of zip tying one tag to each individual plant in temperatures well over 100 degrees. In some cases, during the fall harvest, cultivators bring in crews again to remove those same tags and then throw them away.

As important as the human toll is the environmental toll, over the past five years, the state has used between 200 and 250,000,000 plastic plant tags, generating over a million pounds of plastic waste. But the biggest tragedy here is that those tags do nothing to prevent diversion, which was the stated intent of these tags in the first place. What I mean by that is that the one time plant tag do nothing to prevent diversion when the plant is in the ground.

As stated, SB 622 updates the individual plant tag requirement by removing the mandate that a tag be affixed to the base of each cannabis plant, and instead authorizes the Department to establish alternative mechanisms to ensure licensed cannabis is properly tracked and traced throughout the supply chain. This is a common sense Bill that will save potentially tens of $1.0 million to the state, significantly reduce the cannabis industry's environmental footprint, while improving the operational efficiency of cannabis farms.

For these reasons, Canacraft strongly encourages your support for this Bill. Today, I'm also proud to express support on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association, People's California march, and Ash and Spark. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, Jason Schmelzer here today on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, which is a nonprofit that advocates for an equitable and circular economy, we strongly support SB 622, which would reduce unnecessary single-use plastics that are currently being produced in California's cannabis cultivation system. State law requires the single use plastic plant tag be affixed to the base of each cannabis plant. 43 million of these single use tags were issued last year.

The cannabis plants are also required to have a digital tag, which essentially negates the use of the plastic tag. So eliminating the mandate would dramatically cut single use plastics in California, and we strongly support the Bill and thank Senator Allen for bringing it forward.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in the room in support of this measure? Name, affiliation and support or opposition, please.

Good morning, Members of the Committee, Good farmers, Great neighbors from Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Ventura County, representing over 30 farmers in strong support.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in support?

Chairs and Members, Marvin Pineda here on behalf of metric to go the track and trace for the State of California. We don't have a position on the Bill. We want to thank Senator Allen for introducing the Bill, and as questions come up, we're available for him and for the Committee. Thank you. Thank you. That was opposition. Any other support?

Opposition? Oh, no position. Sorry, I misunderstood. Any other support witnesses in the room? Okay. Any lead opposition witnesses seeing none. Any other opposition witnesses to this measure? Seeing none of those. Let's go to the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would, please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in the teleconference line.

Either in support or opposition for 622, please. Press one, then zero. And one moment, please. 109, please. Go ahead.

Chair and Members, Alicia Priest, on behalf of PVA Confections in support. Thank you.

Next, please. Why the camera is here. Next, please.

97, your line is open.

Good morning. This is Amber Morris with Norcal Cannabis and strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 48. My name is Kristen McGregor from the County of Orange, and I strongly oppose SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

114. It 114, please go ahead. And we'll go to line 116.

Next, please.

116, you're open?

Next.

116, please. Go ahead. Hello. My name is Stephanie Whitehead. I'm a court reporter in San Diego, and I strongly oppose 662.

We're not on that Bill, ma'am, but you may want to come back.

Thank you.

Next, please.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. Moderator. Let's bring the matter back to the dais and my colleagues. Senator Wahab?

Thank you, Senator. I just really want to appreciate you bringing this forward and working with, obviously, all the groups that have spoken in support of this and just, again, streamlining an industry that is still relatively new. So, Chair, when appropriate, I will be moving this item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Comments? Seeing none. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

Appreciate the good work of the Committee. I think Senator Wahab hits the nail on the head, and I respectfully ask for tan aye vote.

At the appropriate time, we'll take it up. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, seeing no other authors in the room, Senator Eggman, would you like to present? And Senator Eggman will be presenting item number six. And it. Bill 766 Social Workers, please proceed when ready.

Thank you. And you all may have heard me mention from time to time that I'm a social worker. And one of the other things you may have heard me mention from time to time is that social workers don't have title protection, meaning that people use it as a descriptor versus a profession. And those of us who have spent our lifetime developing our profession.

And it's been around for well over 100 years, starting with Jane Addams at the turn of the century, when the science of medicine also really came into a professionalization at that time. So this would say that social worker is not a descriptive, it is a profession. And that in order to call somebody a social worker, they have to have that title. In many of our agencies, they use the term social worker as a descriptor.

And people have that job who maybe have a degree in Spanish, a degree in English, or whatever else, but they're given a job with the title as a social worker. And certainly, we know during the pandemic, social workers have really stood in that breach, and we're calling out to them now for a lot of help. And so as a profession, what we would like to make sure of is that when we actually identify someone as a social worker, that they actually have that profession.

It is a two year master's degree or a three year, depending, with a certain amount of hours that have to be attained during that time under somebody else who already has an MSW degree. Someone can get licensed later, an LCSW. But the master's degree is the terminal degree for an MSW. It is recognized around the world, and many agencies actually call for it, like in our prison system, in our hospital system, you have to have an MSW because of the diversity of the degree.

It looks at the micro or the individual. It looks at the group. It also looks at systems, which is unlike a counseling degree per se. So this would simply say that in order to be called a social worker, you have to have an MSW degree, and we would allow a five year grandfathering for those people who may already have a job as a social worker to be able to get their degree and or the agency to be able to change that.

These are case managers, or these are something else. But you can call somebody a different kind of name besides calling them a social worker, why? You might say, just know when people come shoot for social workers did this or did that, we want to make sure we're talking about the profession as it was intended to be. And with me today, I have Rebecca Gonzalez on behalf of the California chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

Ms. Gonzalez, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, and I'm the Director of Government Relations and Political Affairs for the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter. We represent social workers with a social work degree from an accredited school of social work. NASW is the largest social work organization in the world. We represent approximately 110,000 members nationally, and we have 56 chapters. We strive to advance the quality of social work practice and to promote the unity and recognition of the profession.

Title protection for social workers has been a priority of NASW California for many years and we are the sponsor of this bill. We believe SB 766 should be passed for several key reasons. One, social work is a profession, as Ms. Eggman said, that has existed for over 100 years. A profession is commonly defined as a vocation founded upon specialized educational training. The main milestones which mark an occupation being identified as a profession are that it is a full time occupation.

The first training school has been established, the first University school has been established, the first local Association has been established, and the first National Association has been established. In addition, the profession has established and follows a code of professional ethics. The social work profession meets all of these criteria and California currently has 24 accredited CSU, UC, and private programs throughout the state. Like other professions, title protection such as realtors, nurses, physical therapists, and doctors, social workers is a profession and should be recognized as such.

Secondly, without title protection for social workers, we believe both consumers and the profession will be harmed. A consumer should be confident that their social worker is fully trained and educated. This bill will protect consumers from misrepresentation by guaranteeing that their social worker has the training and education provided by a degree in social work. Confusion over a title can be quite serious because social workers impact the lives of families and children in dramatic ways.

Professional social workers are specifically educated and trained to intervene in life threatening situations such as the abuse of a child or protecting the elderly and disabled. For these reasons, the title must not be represented. In addition, when complaints are made against social workers to program administrators, policymakers, or the media, there is no mechanism to distinguish between those who have attained the degree and the title and those who have not. This is detrimental to the public, the profession, and consumers.

Lastly, restricting the title of social worker to degreed social workers elevates and values a profession. In the years of studies spent getting a social work education, social workers are essential to health, safety, and well being and should be uplifted and valued for their contributions to our society. The Committee analysis had some concerns that employers may drop the social work title completely and utilize generic job titles.

While this is not our first choice, it is an acceptable choice because we are more concerned with the misuse of the title and in the fact the bill doesn't even say that you have to use the social work title for a social worker with a degree. We have also heard concerns that this could impact the workforce, and social workers will not apply for jobs that do not have a social work title or that it will be harder to recruit for positions.

Currently, social workers apply for jobs that they qualify for and even if it's called child welfare worker, protective services worker, et cetera. And as was stated, some counties already use generic titles. Another concern that it runs counter to county's efforts to build diversity equity inclusion. Our response is that SB 766 is not an employment act, and we are not telling counties who to hire. We're not saying you can only hire degreed social workers.

As social worker, we value those with lived experience and often work with them in teams. In addition, social workers are a very diverse profession. Overall, 41 states have title protection for social workers, and we have not heard of any problems or challenges to the statutes once they have passed. In conclusion, a consumer has the right to know they are being served by a professional social worker who is expertly trained and follows a code of professional ethics and can be obtained by protecting the social work title. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of the measure in the hearing room? Seeing none, let's turn to lead witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Cathy Senderling-McDonald, Executive Director of the County Welfare Directors Association. Counties are trying our hardest to recruit staff with lived experience who represent the communities, often communities of color our programs serve. This is a critical way to reduce disproportionality and increase equity in our systems. There is a severe shortage of degreed social work professionals of the type that this bill would affect. Our schools of social work are heavily impacted. They turn away many applicants who are highly qualified every year.

We have worked with the bill sponsor to try to address this by achieving a $30 million allotment over two years in last year's budget. This only serves a fraction of the need, and year two is now proposed to be delayed for implementation, to even provide what we could. At a time when we're struggling to fill positions providing social work services, saying that people with a combination of education and experience, even if not a social work degree, cannot do that work, will perpetuate high vacancies in those positions and cut off avenues to higher education like an MSW for those we bring in today as entry level social workers, we think that ultimately this will harm the profession as well as our ability to provide excellent services to communities.

We do typically see eye to eye with the author and her sponsor. In this case, we have a different take on the need for and consequences of a bill like this also the bill carries significant costs both to county human services to CAL HR, which does recruitment on behalf of a number of our smaller and more rural counties. And, of course, we're not the only affected agencies.

That, of course, is an issue for Appropriations Committee, and should the bill move forward, we will obviously take that up with them. Appreciate your time and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses, please step forward. Name, affiliation and position on the bill, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Danah Williams, and I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist and the immediate past President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. I'm here today on behalf of our 35,000 clinicians to respectfully oppose SB 766.

CAMFT appreciates the author and the sponsor's time to discuss our concerns regarding the unintended consequences of displacing qualified behavioral health providers at a time when our state's trained workforce cannot meet the ever increasing mental health demands of our people. Our Association conducted a membership survey, and the impact is sweeping. The survey results touched nearly every county and included settings ranging from hospice care to foster programs to hospitals and domestic violence shelters.

In Sacramento County, for example, our member is classified with a generic title, social worker working in a foster care agency. In rural Riverside, another LMFT is classified as a group home social worker. You may hear that employers can easily shift to generic titles with little to no negative impact, and if we were confident that that was true, we wouldn't oppose the bill. In settings that are far removed from Sacramento.

Policy conversations, the standalone grant funded domestic violence shelter, the substance use clinic, the rural hospice and elderly care home, all are settings where LMFTs practice and have classifications involving the words social worker. For decades, the term social worker, therapist and counselor have been used by the professions as descriptors. All three obtain their master's degree, obtain 3000 hours of experience, and take two examinations to become licensed under the board of Behavioral Sciences. LMFTs do not want to be social workers or pretend to be with their clients.

We have suggested amendments to strengthen consumer awareness by disclosing titles and credentials to every client. We have also respectfully asked for LMFTs and LPPCs to be amended out until we know with certainty that this bill will not impact the workforce, take us backwards, or jeopardize funding streams that support behavioral health clinicians. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your no vote today.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses on this measure?

Yes, Mr. Chair and Members GV Ayers with the California Association for Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors. We have joined with, CAMFT in their opposing, unless amended, position on the bill. And we respectfully ask for your consideration of the amendments.

Thank you. Now let's move to witnesses waiting to testify in the teleconference service. Moderator, if you would, please prompt. Anyone wishing to testify that seems to be waiting on the teleconference service. Will take their testimony now. In support or opposition.

Yes, sir. To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. Line 117. Line 117. Line 123.

Hello?

Please proceed.

Okay, you can hear me. My name is Ahmanise Sanati. I'm calling as a social worker and graduated from UCLA. And I'm with National Association of Social Workers. And I am in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Tiffany Wrighton, respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

100.

Hello, my name is Dorinda Wiseman. I am an LCSW. I also am a Member of NASW, a Member of the California Society for Clinical Social Work, and a Member of the Bay Area Association of Black Social Workers. I also used to teach social workers. I am in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

37.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Victor Manalo. I am a social worker. I am the President of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Social Workers and former mayor and Council Member in the City of Artesia in Los Angeles County. I am in support of SB 766.

Thank you. Next, please.

86.

My name is Kim Lambdin. I'm a master's in social work student at the University of Southern California. I'm from central heights, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

115. 115.

Hello.

Please proceed.

Thank you. My name is Francesca, and I'm a former Bay Area Welfare Director, a social worker of nearly 32 years, and the current Chief Program Officer for a large Los Angeles multi service nonprofit. I support the passage of SB 766. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

113.

Good morning. My name is Bonnie Carlson. I have an MSW from Cal State East Bay. I'm also the Director of National Association for Social Workers Region A, which includes San Francisco, on up north through Humboldt counties. And I strongly support Senate Bill 766. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

107.

My name is Dr. Glenn Thomas. I founded and currently advisor for 23 Strong, which is over 10,000 social work students in California, and we strongly support this bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

112.

Hello, my name is Andrea Kalamar. I am a social work student at Fresno Pacific University and also a member of the NASW, and I strongly support SB 766 for social work title protection.

Thank you. Next, please.

125.

Good morning. My name is Molly Zive. I'm a licensed clinical social worker, and I support SB 766. I work at the VA in San Diego, and I'm also the Regional Director for the NASW San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair. There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. Moderator. Now let's bring the issue back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions? Comments? Senator Wahab, followed by Senator Niello and Senator Ashby.

Thank you. Senator, I just wanted for you to be able to clarify this. Is a person that can call themselves a social worker under this bill? Is anybody that has a degree or the amount of hours, is that correct? Or the licensure.

It is an MSW degree, a master of social work degree.

Okay. And if they are trying to be undergraduate degree does not count for anything. Correct. If they studied social services or anything like that.

Right. Correct.

Okay. And I also want to ask.

We're not asking for title protection for bachelor's level, only master's level.

Okay, perfect. And these individuals, when we obviously have individuals working at community organizations and so forth, could you describe a little bit of the difference between a case worker and what a social worker potentially does?

A case worker oftentimes is an entry level person who will handle cases as they come in. Say it's a homeless shelter. You might be assigned so many cases. You'll be helping that person with resources. You'll be helping that person, potentially with trying to find housing, with trying to find transportation. A social worker then would probably be the supervisor of said program, providing supervision for those folks as well as being able to provide for a higher level of counseling, perhaps grant applications and coordination with other facilities. Could be therapy. There could be a wide range of things that fall under the title of a social worker.

Okay. And then with the opposition from LMFTs and often these two, let's say, professions, kind of overlap, at least in jurisdiction, of some of the things that they do. Right. Would you be able to elaborate as to how it does not necessarily harm any efforts regarding LMFTs?

This isn't a title protection for LMFTs, which is a licensed professional counselor. People could be called counselors. That could be a title that the counties or agencies could use instead of social worker. We're just saying a social work is a professional degree, which is not. The education is different. Right. It is a different focus. It is a different focus on systems level. It's a different focus on understanding organizations that an MFT does not have. It is not taught in their professional degree.

All right. And Senator, I do support this bill. I will move when appropriate. And I do just want to highlight as a person whose sister is a social worker with an MSW and a District Director who has a licensed marriage and family therapist, we had a conversation, and it's very much needed. There's a lot of community organizations that are trying to hire individuals with lived experiences that really don't have any education in and around the social work profession.

In fact, they're more like life coaches or somebody who got lucky on their own lived experience and are trying to give back to the community. But to your point, there is a standard and a level of ethics applied to social workers and obviously licensed marriage and family therapists that needs to be reinforced. And so I do support this bill and chair, I will move this bill when necessary. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby.

Thank you. I actually just have a couple of questions that I just didn't, I'm not an expert, and there are so many different, I see why you're doing the bill because there are so many different labels and titles. And I have some sympathy for the counties because I know they're really struggling to fill this. But I do a lean your way that it's really important that we know which folks are actually social workers and which people are doing social services but are not necessarily social workers. So I have two questions, though, just mostly about implementation. One is, I think I saw this right. Was it a five year grace period?

That's correct.

What if that's not quite long enough, or is there a strategy for that to help the counties or to help. Well, really the counties are the ones I'm thinking about. Do you think that's long enough? Have you heard from them about that?

Well, an MSW degree is two years, so we're giving people a five year grace period. So that's either time for somebody to get an MSW degree. And one of the things that we worked on through the budget process is the possibility for somebody with a lot of experience to be able to get an MSW at one year if they have corresponding already educational background and or experience that meets the criteria. So that is an option.

Another option is, again, I think you heard from the opposition that there is great value in the word social worker. Well, we feel like we created that value by the profession. And so we're not saying you have to let people go. We're saying you just can't call them a social worker.

I see. So the intent of the five years is actually to get people who are using the title but could actually attain it by going to a two year program to do so during that period. Which kind of begs my next question, which is, I know at the local level, we do often provide programs to try to encourage people. How does your bill interface with those educational efforts? I guess in the five years they would really be pushing people, funneling folks in. But beyond that, how would your bill interface with folks who are sort of in the pipeline with the end goal of becoming a social worker, going through those educational programs?

I don't think I understand your question. I mean, going through an educational program to get an MSW.

I'm worried that we have this, that it's not easy for everyone to get through the bachelor's program and then into the master's program. For some people, that's a long journey. And I'm worried about funding continuing to help people who are, particularly in communities that probably need social workers the most and also probably would be having to walk folks all the way from a community college through a bachelor's degree and into an MSW program, that that pipeline might be negatively impacted by the bill. And I just want to make sure that it's not okay. I think it's the reverse of your intent. I'm just asking how those two things will interplay.

But it sounds to me like you're asking if it's okay to call somebody with no. That you're presuming that there are currently people right now with no education who counties are hiring at a master's level?

No. The counties have a lot of programs in place where they hire somebody at a lower level with the intent of moving them to the social worker level. Would your bill help achieve that goal by trying to add additional resources to counties to move people from a non social worker role into a social worker role?

This bill has none of those fiscal implications, but I can tell you for the last couple of years, through budget sub three, which I sit on, and through the Administration, we have had a huge focus on workforce. And in the behavioral health update we're doing this year, there's also another large component in there for workforce. During my time as faculty at SAC State in the division of social work, we worked with MHSA with some of the wet funds or the funds to get people.

And actually I did a program, three programs in Reading, one up in the foothills where we really go out into the community and try to provide that education where students are so those fundings will continue along. So I don't see those necessarily as connected. The implementation for this bill is simply just, you have an MSW to call yourself a social worker, or you change the descriptor for the job title to be a counselor or something else.

I guess I could see as a next step, needing to pour more money into that pipeline to move people more to that MSW degree. I guess that's maybe my point. Thank you, though.

Thank you, Senator. Senator, I think you made the point. This bill doesn't call for anyone who's currently performing social service work at the county level or any other level to lose their jobs.

It does not, Sir.

Sir, if you have a wage and benefit schedule, that has position titles. They may not be listed as a social worker. They may be listed as a social service worker or some other title and innovative title that the county or the other agencies come up with. But nobody loses the job, which is why I'm having a difficulty connecting this bill to the workforce shortage, which is another issue.

Correct.

Which this bill doesn't seem to touch or worsen.

Correct.

Okay. Any other questions? Senator Niello?

Thank you. First of all, Senator Eggman, it appears this is prospective. That is, it takes effect first of next year. So anybody who's working as a social worker now, not under the qualifications that you call for, can still be called a social worker.

Up until 2019 or 2029.

That's the five years.

That's the five years.

And within the classification, there are several more specific classifications. MSW, LCSW. What does ACSW stand for?

That's somebody who has an MSW and who's getting in the process of getting their hours for their licensure, but haven't received their licensure yet.

Okay. So in my profession, that is where I first worked and what I was trained for, accounting, anybody can be called an accountant, right? But it is through experience and passing a test that you become a certified public accountant. I don't know if the classification still exists, but at least there was a public accountant, which was based upon a lower set of standards than certified public accountant. So anybody could be an accountant. But then the further qualification professionally was CPA. As an example, why would not that apply for social worker, whereby I'd be social worker comma and then MSW, LCSW, et cetera. Is there not value in that to.

Call someone a social worker and then put comma masters in speech, you mean?

No, MSW masters in social work. In other words, qualify the descriptor social work by what education, achievements, education, status they've achieved, which is basically what you're looking for, but just calling it social worker. Do you understand my point?

So you're asking the scriptor to stay the same, but a comma?

I'm not asking. I'm just saying, why wouldn't that satisfy what you're looking for to be called social worker with the qualification of the higher status based upon education achievement?

I mean, that's certainly something we could look at going forward. I'm still not quite sure I 100% understand. And I guess, to your point, counties aren't full of people who are calling themselves accountants, and people are.

Who wants to be called.

Who wants to be called an accountant?

Right.

Apparently, everybody wants to be called a social worker, which is saying you should get a darn degree before you call yourself one.

Accountants are people who are good with numbers, but they just don't have the personality to be a statistician. Right. So I get that. But I'm only relating it to the higher qualification of accountants. And there can be social workers, but then a higher qualification of social worker. And I'm not suggesting, I'm wondering why you didn't go to the descriptor of the educational achievement in addition to the job descriptor.

Well, because we're not asking for bachelor's level, only master's. And generally, if somebody is in a licensed degree, they'll have a higher title than a standard social worker, has been my experience.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just wanted to sort of follow up on something that the chair said. I spent some time in workforce development, and I want to say it's important. These titles do matter. It helps folks really understand the specialization, and as you're building pathways, that folks know exactly what they're working toward.

So I want to recognize and thank you for moving this bill forward, because it also signals, especially areas of work where women have historically shined and have dominated, that we actually create real specialization in that that correlates with pay and wages and benefits and the actual specificity and technique of that particular field. So I just want to say how important that is.

And particularly as we are building pathways that specialization, folks can really hone in on those particular skills that they want and see a career ladder in that. So thank you for moving this bill. I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you. Yeah, I always took great pride in working in divisions of social work. They were the most diverse by student bodies and by faculty in the University.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

I just thank you for the conversation. I agree. Social work, that has value, so we should call us what we are. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and other states have done it, and the world hasn't fallen apart.

Thank you. Let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum, and we also have a motion on Senate Bill 766 by Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. We're going to step back as Senator McGuire readies himself. And we're going to first take up the consent calendar. It's one item file item number 12, Senate Bill 887. Please call the roll. We better get a motion.

Motion.

Motion by Senator Eggman.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado Gil. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk.

This is the consent calendar. Let's call the absent members one more time.

Sure. Nguyen. Alvarado Gil. Alvarado Gil, aye. Becker. Dodd. Glazer. Wilk.

Consent calendar has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Let's next take up item number one, SB 384. Senator Bradford, the motion was by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye, Nguyen. Alvarado Gil. Alvarado Gil, aye. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk.

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Let's next take up item number two, Senate Bill 622 by Senator Allen. We have a motion by Senator Wahab. Please call the roll.

Motion is due passes under appropriations. Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado Gil, aye. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood Cuevas. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Wilk.

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Now let's take up item number five, Senate Bill 833. Senator McGuire, cannabis licensing following program. Please proceed, sir. When you're ready.

The chair, first and foremost just want to say thank you and to your fantastic staff team for all the work on this Bill. Truly grateful. I'm going to be very quick, as I know that you have a large docket in front of you today, SB 833 would allow small family cannabis farmers to either pause their licensing fee if they don't grow cannabis in that particular growing year, or prorate their fee based off of what their crop is for that specific growing year. Right now, if you grow or you don't, you pay the same fee. It goes against all common sense. There's been this massive drop in the cannabis market across California, and in particular, small family farmers have been hit particularly hard. Small family farmers are defined of either growing cannabis on 10,000 acre or less. Yet even when there is a massive drop in the market like we're seeing now, the state expects them to pay the same damn license fee. That license fee is $40 to $50,000 per year. No other agricultural crop in this state has to pay a license fee like that, let alone when they don't deliver their crop to market. This regulation, paying full freight for a license, goes against all common sense, and it's one of the driving factors why so many family farmers are going out of business. I'm going to end it right here and say this. SB 833 will give farmers the ability to pause their growing without losing years and tens of thousands of dollars they spent to get their license approved, and this ability already exists in many local permitting programs at the county level. Mr. Chair, have with us today Mark Smith with the origins council, as well as Paul Yoder, who will be brief with the County of Humboldt. And I'm grateful for their partnership on this Bill. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mark Smith, on behalf of Origins Council, we are an advocacy organization representing 800 members across the cannabis supply chain, but mostly these small, independent, legacy cannabis farmers that the Senator was talking about. As was pointed out, other sectors of agriculture don't have this requirement that they have to pay this licensing fee regardless of whether or not a crop comes to market. This is a significant disadvantage for us, and it is a significant business challenge, particularly in years like we've had leading up to this one, where there has been major drought and in some cases, farmers were asked not to plant things. We don't have that option because we got to pay the fee regardless, so they plant. Many of us have been affected by market volatility, drought and fire issues over the past several years. We want to thank the Senator for bringing this measure forward. We believe it's common sense, and we ask for your support today. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Yoder.

Mr. Chair, Members, very briefly, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. Humboldt County has the highest number of folks who ate growers who would be affected by this Bill. There's already a local program. It'd be amazing to pair a state program with a local program, vitally important for the industry and the individuals. Urge your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support here in the hearing room? Seeing none, let's turn to lead opposition witnesses. Any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Are there any opposition witnesses to this measure in the hearing room? Let's move to the witnesses waiting to testify in the teleconference service. Moderator if you'd please prompt them, either in support or opposition, we will take them now.

To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero, line 60.

Hi, Alex -, on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund and Trout Unlimited in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

157.

Hi, my name is Brianna Drivers. I'm with California State University of Long beach, and I support SB 766.

Well, we've already voted that, ma'am, but thank you for your testimony. Next, please.

Line 158.

Hi, this is Joseph Hammock. I'm calling out of Orange County, and I strongly oppose SB 662.

Well, that's coming up next, so we'll take that as an opposition. Next, please.

Mr. Chair, there are no further comments in queue at this time. Perfect.

Let's bring the matter back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions? Senator Eggman?

I would just ask Senator McGuire. I know there's a lot of farmers right now, almond crops, cherry crops, who are applying for crop insurance because they've had a bad year. Do cannabis farmers qualify for crop insurance?

Most do not because it is not federally recognized.

So they don't. They don't get insurance for a ruined crop, and they have to pay licenses even when they don't grow. Doesn't make any sense. I would move this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Any other questions or comments? Senator Archuleta. Senator Eggman just did that, but I'll save you for next time. Senator McGuire, would you like to close?

Thank you for your time. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

And we have a motion on Senate Bill 833 by Senator Eggman. The motion is do passed to Senate appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Alvarado Gil, aye. Archuleta. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman. Eggman, aye. Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Wilk.

Vote is 7-0. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Let's now move to item number three. Senator Rubio, this is Senate Bill 662.

Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Today I'm presenting SB 662, which will provide a life saving resource to victims and families, especially in domestic violence and child custody cases who won't have access to court records when needed. I also want to thank the committee chair and committee staff for their work on this Bill. I know a lot of work has been done, and I will be accepting the Committee suggested amendments that will direct the court reporter board to review the appropriateness of the exam and review how to decrease barriers to those wanting to take the certified shorthand reporter exam in order to increase workforce capacity. Members, hundreds, thousands of cases happen every year, and there is no court record. Please consider the number of poor, vulnerable people without financial means or without case transcripts, unable to appeal in the event that the court gets it wrong, especially when children are placed in dangerous households. This Bill will help keep them safe. I understand there's also a lot of concerns, and so this Bill in particular does include ways to strengthen the profession. And that's why we're here in Senate BMP, trying to see how we can break down the barriers for candidates to pass the exam while continuing to allow access to justice. We also know that court reporters are the gold standard when it comes to records of court proceedings. But we need more court reporters, which we don't have at this time. And until we're able to have court reporters available, we must take action to ensure our vulnerable victims, children and families, are not left without a record. I know many victims struggling emotionally, financially, and continue to be disadvantaged in their quest for justice due to lack of records. Joining me here today is Christine Smith, policy analyst with the California Partnership to end domestic violence, and our Bill sponsor, as well as Gloria Chong, attorney with the family violence appellate project, who are here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Before our witnesses start, the analysis sets this out pretty clearly, but this measure has already been heard by the Judiciary Committee, and as those in the room should know and probably do, that Committee's jurisdiction pertains to the provisions of the Bill that impact the courts and the authority to expand electronic reporting. That is not this Committee. This Committee retains jurisdiction for provisions in this measure that change the profession of court reporting and specifically that deal with licensure changes with respect to court reporters and the court reporting occupation. So having said that, please proceed.

Good morning. Thank you for considering this important issue. My name is Christine Smith, and I represent the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. So we are a supporter of this Bill and respectfully look to the Family Violence Appellate project, who is the sponsor. The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence is a statewide organization that represents over a thousand survivors advocates, organizations and allied individuals across the state. We believe that by collectively working with our diverse membership advocates and state policymakers, we can deepen the process of healing and restoration by identifying and addressing the underlying and contributing factors. Access to official records of court proceedings is critical for survivors to understand this process and ultimately the orders the court makes. It is also critical in the event that an order is wrong or places the survivor or their children in danger. Right now, having an official record depends on a certified court reporter being available and the survivor either qualifying for a fee waiver or having the resources to pay for an expensive private reporter. For most survivors, these are unsurmountable barriers. Thousands of cases are heard each month in Sacramento county alone, and for many, many of them, there is no transcript for what is said, what the judge considered, or why orders were made. This is enormously impactful, even in circumstances where an appeal is not on their horizon. For example, a judge might make findings that restrained party continues to possess firearms despite being ordered to relinquish them. That could help law enforcement locate and remove the weapons. These findings can also provide crucial context for a judge considering the renewal of a restraining order and can be extremely relevant for the next judge who's asked to make custody orders for the party's children or in a renewal. Without official records of prior hearings or trials, it is nearly impossible for future judges to have the full context in these cases, which hinders their ability to make comprehensive orders that keep children and survivors safe. Electronic records of court proceedings are not new. Standards and processes already exist in this state that can be leveraged to meet the current need, and ultimately better serve litigants and the judicial system. This Bill is an opportunity for California to embrace a technology solution to a statewide issue. We should not miss that opportunity. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning. My name is Gloria Carolina Chong. I'm an attorney with the Family Violence Appellate Project, proud cosponsor of SB 662, along with the Legal Aid Association of California. I'm here today on behalf of over 35 domestic violence and legal services organizations to urge your aye vote on this Bill. Since 2018, when the California Supreme Court declared the indigent litigants have the right to a free court reporter, not much has changed for low and moderate income people in California courts. Despite tens of millions of dollars in increased annual funding for court reporters, there are still not enough certified shorthand reporters in courts. The result is that thousands of hearings happen every day without any record. People leave court without understanding what the court decided or why they decided it. And without a record, dangerous or wrong decisions cannot be appealed. This is a crisis affecting people in all walks of life. For instance, no court reporter is required when an elderly person sues a contractor who defrauded him, or when a sexual assault survivor seeks a civil protection order against the supervisor who assaulted her, or when a domestic violence survivor seeks a restraining order, or even when an unaccompanied minor needs a court to find she was abused in her home country in order to apply for special immigrant juvenile status with USCIS, or when a parent seeks custody, visitation, spousal or child support orders, and nearly everything else that people rely on courts to protect their rights for. If these people are low income and file a request for a court reporter, they will face the trauma of coming back to court month after month until a court reporter is available. However, in the same courtroom, an eviction defendant will get an electronic recording that can be the difference between safety and abuse, or security and homelessness. For instance, in the case of Inmacion v. Flores, our client was wrongly denied the right to use a domestic violence eviction defense for acts of abuse against her. Because her trial was electronically recorded, we were able to successfully appeal her eviction. Everyone deserves a record like Ms. Flores. We are in a crisis that needs your action now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Just to remind everybody, once again, we're not deciding the electronic recording issue in this Committee. It was not covered in the analysis, and we're not doing a Judiciary Committee redo, so please proceed, sir.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Greg Rizzio, President of the consumer attorneys of California, and we support this Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Aviva Simon, on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and Members Mike Belote, on behalf of the California Judges Association, California Defense Counsel, in support.

Thank you. Okay, here's. We've exhausted the support witnesses, any lead opposition witnesses in the hearing room.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Sandra Burrow, on behalf of SEIU California. I understand the jurisdiction of this Committee is limited to the provisional licenser, but because of the proponents addressed ER, I would like to also address ER. We know that there are twice the number of court reporters than judges. So this problem isn't a court reporter shortage, it's a recruitment and retention problem. That's why the Legislature allocated funding to specifically help courts recruit and retain court reporters. Yet, despite this, many courts have refused to spend the funding. There have been several attempts in the past to expand ER, but the Legislature recognized that an inaccurate transcript is no better than no transcript at all. The intent of this Bill is to help domestic abuse victims who cannot afford a court reporter. But the cost of transcribing an electronic recording is 20% more than hiring a stenographic reporter. We also know that abuse victims often don't control the finances. And when electronic recordings fail, there's no recourse for consumers. So, for example, in one instance, an electronic recording omitted 55 pages of witness testimony. When the victim brought it to the judge's attention, she was deemed not credible and lost custody of her child for a year. For domestic abuse victims, a transcript with missing pages or inaudibles feeds the confusion created by coercive control. An abuser who hires a court reporter will have an accurate transcript, which gives them control of the process. Despite the bill's intent, we know courts want electronic recording to replace court reporters. The Judicial Council made it clear when their work group on remote proceedings produced a recommendation to expand ER. This Bill does not solve the root cause of the problem, and by legitimizing electronic recording, it gives consumers false confidence in a product known to fail. I respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please. Name, affiliation and position.

I have a brief speech. Ok. My name is Michelle Caldwell. I'm a court reporter, a Member of SEIU, and Director with the California Court Reporters Association. We urge you to vote no. Unlicensed, unregulated individuals being handed licenses is not the answer. Standards exist for a reason. We agree that reporters are the gold standard for court proceedings. 662 doesn't just deviate from gold standard. Instead, it obliterates any standards whatsoever. Who will get stuck lugging the burden of unregulated ER is no secret. It's the indigent. We have a greater responsibility than just a quick fix without consideration of consequence. The bill's proposed protection of reporters, that ER would only be used if a reporter is unavailable is not reality. The code already uses that same only if language about misdemeanors. Yet courts all over California available reporters are not used in those matters. And then there are the transcripts. At least one ER transcription service outsources its work overseas. Another charges different rates depending on who you are. Zero regulation, zero oversight and zero accountability. The funds the Legislature provided to courts in 21 and 22 to hire and retain reporters weren't used even until late last year. Since then, the 18 courts that have begun to use the money have hired reporters. Just late last year, the Legislature voted to license voicewriters as court reporters. There are currently 600 students statewide in both Steno and voicewriting schools. Last week, West Valley College opened its voicewriting registration, and on the same day it was full, and its waiting list is also full. This past Friday, Santa Clara County court extended a job offer to the state's very first licensed voicewriter. By the nature of our profession, nearly every reporter in California is also a small business owner. 662 threatens the extinction of those small businesses and those they employ. We urge you to instead choose to protect the sanctity of the record and the most vulnerable members of society who will no doubt pay dearly for the gross inadequacies of electronic recording. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Now we're at name, affiliation and position only. Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Chair Member Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and Members Ed Howard, on behalf of both the California Deposition Reporters Association and the freelance overwhelmingly women owned, small business part of the profession, respectfully urge your no vote.

Thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair and members Pat Moran, with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Court Reporter Association, on behalf of United Public Employees, in opposition, and also I was asked to mention that the following have submitted letters of opposition this morning or over the weekend, and that is the law firm of Leonard and Lyde and also the law firm of Cecino, Bertolino and Helici, as well as a letter from Judge Julius Scroggin from Yuba county in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, Chairman, members. D'artagnan Bird, on behalf of the American Federation for State County Municipal Employees, respectfully in opposition.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none, let's turn to individuals waiting to testify in the teleconference service. Moderator if you would, please prompt any of those individuals who wish to testify in support or opposition. We'll take the testimony now.

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. 137

My name is Jacqueline Chair. I'm an official reporter for Los Angeles County, and I am a Member of SBIU 721 calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

53

Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, urged no vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, please.

164.

Tamara Sumter, Vice President of the California Court Reporters Association and official reporter for the County of Tulare, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, please.

146.

This is Jamie Asbury, current President of Deposition Reporters Association of California. I strongly oppose SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

88.

Yes, my name is Russel Walker. I'm an official court reporter for the County of San Diego Superior Court and on behalf of our union, SDIU local 221. I'm calling to register our opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

72.

My name is Kelly Shadelin, certified shorthand reporter 13476. On behalf of myself and Protect Your Record Project, we strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you.

Next, please.

163.

Hi, my name is Joseph Hammock calling out of Orange County, California, and I strongly oppose SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

171.

Hi, this is Lauren Klein on behalf of the Legal Aid Association of California, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

55.

My name is Denise McCombs and I'm an official reporter at Kern County Superior Court in Bakersfield. I'm calling to register my opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

79.

Please proceed.

My name is Paula Bamkia, California certified shorthand reporter and registered voter in Sonoma County. I own and operate a deposition and trial services court reporting company in San Francisco, California. We are a WBEMC certified woman owned small business and local business enterprise in the city. I vehemently oppose SB 662.

Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Molina Homan. I'm a licensed California senographic reporter pro tem in Ventura County and a Member of California DRA, and I'm calling to register my opposition.

102.

Next, please.

106.

Hi, my name is Jessica Hayes and I'm calling as an individual in opposition. The purpose of the California court reporter examination which exceeds national report.

Next, please.

121.

Yes, my name is Lisa Busaith. I am a retired official court reporter from Sacramento county, and presently I am a pro tem for Sacramento county Superior Court and also a freelance court reporter, and I am calling to strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

130.

Good morning, my name is Jennifer Porto, certified shorthand reporter number 14098 in Los Angeles. I have been a court reporter for 10 years. I strongly oppose 662, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, please.

132.

Hi, this is Kim Yokoyama and I'm an LA court reporter at the Superior Court and I am a Member of SCIU 721, and I strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, please.

138.

My name is Michelle Gomez. I am a certified shorthand reporter, CSR number 14221. I am a Los Angeles County reporter and I strongly oppose SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

108.

Good morning, my name is Julie Federico. I am an official reporter for the County of Orange. I strongly oppose.

Thank you. Next, please.

141.

Good morning, my name is Mary Ann Scanlon. I'm a certified shorthand reporter. Number 875. I have a small business deposition firm in San Francisco, California. I'm an ex official of San Francisco Superior Court and have been reporting for over 33 years. I strongly oppose SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

142.

My name is Angela McCauley, reporter for Kern County Court in Bakersfield. I'm calling to register my opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

144.

Hello, my name is Janet Harris. I am with the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers. I'm the President and we support.

Thank you. Next, please.

150.

Hello, my name is Linda Lawson, and I am an instructor at West Valley College, and the court reporting programs for enrollment in the voice writing method has increased incredibly well, and I believe that this will address the shortage of court reporters in California in a very.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

103.

Just a reminder, it's name, affiliation and position on the measure that's I support or I oppose. Thank you. Next.

105.

Hello, my name is Justin McBell. I'm a licensed CSR in San Diego, California. I own a deposition firm and have 10 years. I've also worked as an official court reporter with the San Diego court. I strongly oppose this measure, and I think that it will only profit.

Thank you very much, sir. Next, please.

139.

Name, affiliation and position only. Next.

My name is Veronica. Good morning, Veronica Bertolu, a certified shorthand reporter at Fern County Superior Court in Bakersfield, California, a Member of CCRA and SCIU 51. And I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

140.

Hello, my name is Cassandra Medina. I'm an official reporter at the Los Angeles Superior Court, a Member of SCIU, and the current Vice President of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association. I'm calling to register my opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

145.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Whitehead. I'm a court reporter in San Diego, county, currently serving on the board of CCRA, registering strong opposition.

Thank you. For those interested, we have 32 additional callers in the queue. Next, please.

145.

Next, please.

129.

Good morning, my name is Justine Johnson, a certified shorthand reporter in Ventura County, license number 14301. I'm a Member of California Deposition Reporters Association, National Court Reporters Association, and California court Reporters Association. I'm calling to urge you to strongly oppose SD 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

32.

Hi, my name is Mary Pentangel. I'm an official reporter at this current county Superior Court. I'm calling to register my opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

46.

Good morning, I am Ana Costa, a retired California CSR and trainer of machine and voice core reporting students throughout the state. I join my colleagues in strong opposition to 662. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

48.

Next, please.

48.

Next, please.

52.

I'm Mary Fleming, certified shorthand reporter for 46 years of the State of California, and I strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

56.

Hello, Patricia Dowling. I am calling on behalf of local 21, San Francisco court reporters, and we oppose SB 662.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

61.

Hi, my name is Carolyn Dasher. I'm a Member of local SCIU 721. Past President of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association, past President of the California Court Reporters Association, and I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

74.

Good morning, my name is Therese Clauson. I'm retired after 35 years with LASC, now freelance pro tem in Orange County and LA, and I am registering my opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

75.

Hello, my name is Melissa Allwood from San Luis Obispo county. I'm a registered, skilled reporter with the National Court Reporters Association, number 992387, and I strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

80.

Hello, my name is Gyeong Jean Kim, freelance certified shorthand reporter, license 13555, living in Los Angeles. Member of California Court Reporters Association, Member of Deposition Reporters Association. I am in strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

153.

My name is Lyra Lamar. I'm a court reporter at Los Angeles Superior Court and a Member of LACRA, NCRA and SCIU. I'm calling to register my opposition to SC.

Thank you. Next, please.

Good morning, my name is Olivia Ford, a Member of CCRA calling to register my opposition to 662.

156.

Thank you. Next, please.

161.

Yes, my name is Terry Rosetti. I'm an official court reporter with the Alameda County Superior Court and a Member of SCIU 1021, and I wanted to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

162.

Good afternoon on behalf of Sacramento court reporters. My name is Priscilla Galtney and I'm an official family law court reporter for the County of Sacramento, which is fully staffed and a Member of California Court Reporters Association, Sacramento Official Court Reporters Association, and upe. I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. Next please.

165

Sandra Tweezer. I am a member of the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Scribers, and I ask that you vote yes on SB 662.

Thank you. Next please.

166

hi, my name is Coral Corey. I'm official reporter in Alameda County and I'm respectfully asking for your no vote.

Okay. Next please.

169.

Good afternoon. My name is Molly Cooper. I'm a certified shorthand reporter, license number 14313. I'm a proud board Member of the Deposition Reporters Association of, California, a Member of the California Court Reporters Association, as well as the National Court Reporters Association. I live in Orange County and work in all socal areas. I strongly oppose this matter and urgent no vote on SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next please.

172

hi, my name is Ashley Sutton and I'm an official court reporter for Alameda County Superior Court, and I'm in strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

174.

Yes, my name is Anita Cruz. I am a court reporter for Alameda County and I am calling to register my opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Next please.

175.

Good afternoon, my name is Marlene Burris and I am an official court reporter for the County of Los Angeles, and I am also a Member of the Los Angeles County Court Report Association, a Member of SCIU Local 721, California Court Reporter Association, and the National Court Reporter Association. And I am in strong opposition of SG 662. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next please.

177

hi, my name is Sandy Baldin. I'm past President for California Court Reporters Association and a Member of SCIU 1021. And on behalf of all the cons for Costa County court reporters, we ask you to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

178. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Portapazi. I'm an official court reporter at Monterey County Superior Court and a Member of SEIU 521. On behalf of the official court reporters at Monterey County Superior Court, I'm calling to register our strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

186.

My name is Ruby Michaka. I am an official court reporter in Kern County and a Member of CCRA SCIU. I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Thank you. Next please.

185.

Good afternoon. My name is Shivani Sujara Prasad, CSR number 13983, a small business partner in Redwood City, California, and Member of CalDRA, NCRA, CCRA, and I strongly oppose SB 662. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next please.

186.

Good afternoon, my name is Rosalina Nava, official court reporter, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Member of SCIU, LACCRA. CCRA. NCRA. And I respectfully urge a no vote on SB 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

188

Bianca Torres, official court reporter in Los Angeles County and resident Orange County Member of LACRA and SBIU 721, calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662. Thank you.

Next please.

191.

Hi, this is Amy Scotchko, President elect of California Court Reporters Association, President of Orange County Superior Court Reporters Association, Member of Orange County Employees Association Union, a family law court reporter, Member of National Court Reporters Association, requesting strong opposition to 662. Thank you.

Next please.

193.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Walker. I am a CCRA Member and NCRA Member, and I am an official court reporter with flare county Superior Court. I and we oppose 662. Thank you so much.

Next, please.

195.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Leslie. I'm a certified shorthand reporter, also firm owner in Orange County, California. Strong opposition to 662. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next.

196. 200.

My name is Jacquelyn Hub and I'm a core reporter at Kern County Spirit Court in Bakersfield, California, and a Member of SCIU. I'm calling to register my strong opposition to SB 662.

Thank you. Next one, please.

201.

Yes, my name is Joan Martin. I'm a court reporter, Member of CCRA and UPEC 792, registering strong opposition to 662.

Thank you. Next, please.

This is Cindy Tichell. I'm the current President of the Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association and Member of SCIU, and we strongly oppose.

202.

Thank you, thank you. Next, please.

Hi, this is Natasha Copanger, Swacker. I'm a court reporter in Los Angeles. Strong opposition. Thank you.

45.

Thank you. Next please.

68.

Hello, my name is Kelly Mccarthy. I am a former official in Santa Clara County Superior Court and a current court reporting firm owner, registering opposition to SB 662.

Thank you, thank you. Next, please.

Mr. Chair, there are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. Moderator now let's bring the conversation back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions or comments? I see no hands. Senator Rubio, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. And I really do want to thank all the witnesses, whether they're in support or in opposition of the Bill. The reality is that based on the testimony on both sides, it appears that we all have the same mission in mind, and that is to ensure that we have court reporters in every court. And that's why we're here in this Committee in VMP, because we're trying to ensure that we figure out how to strengthen the profession. And the one thing that I will say that I strongly disagree with is that no record is better than an electronic recording, as it's already proved in several cases, to be helpful and useful. And I've also seen, according to the Judiciary Committee analysis, that federal courts already use electronic recordings. I know some members had questions about storage and reliability, but even in some courts, they already have standards on how to keep records. And again, just want to reiterate, this is not about eliminating the profession. This is working towards making it better and making sure that we have enough bodies so that victims don't have to carry the burden of not having enough people currently in place to service them. So with that, I will ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I'll note that as to the issue or issues pertaining to this Committee, there's some more work to be done, as evidenced by the amendments that you're going to be taking. The court reporter board, as I recall, is up for sunset review next year. And your amendments include, as I recall, a study to try to eliminate barriers to employment in this occupational field, including a review of the court reporter examination. Is there a motion on the Bill?

I move the Bill.

Senator Alvarado-Gil moves the Bill. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate appropriations. Please call the roll.

Roth. Roth, aye. Nguyen. Nguyen, aye. Alvarado Gil. Alvarado Gil, aye. Archuleta Ashby. Ashby, aye. Becker. Dodd. Eggman Glazer. Niello. Niello, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Wilk.

Bill has five votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you.

Senator Cortese. Senate Bill 669, item number four. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First of all, let me thank you, Mr. Chair and the committee staff for working with me and my staff on the bill so diligently. And I will be accepting the committee amendments, which I know are extensive.

SB 669 represents the mutual goal of both the California Veterinary Medical Coal Association and the Registered Veterinary Technician Association. This legislation really is the rare scope of practice bill where both associations are in agreement.

Their agreement speaks to the commonsense nature of this critically important piece of legislation. The concept is simple. Empower veterinarians to enable registered veterinarian technicians to establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship for the purposes of administering preventive or prophylactic vaccines or medications. The benefits are twofold.

A technician will be able to go out into the community and administer the permitted treatments to animals, including the animals of the underrepresented and unhoused. It also would allow a technician to establish the relationship in a clinical setting for the same purpose.

Crucially, this change in the clinical setting will lower the cost of getting your pet or animal vaccinated, as well as allow veterinarians to do more complicated procedures with their time.

The need for this bill is pressing due to competition for veterinarians, the accompanying increase in costs. Nonprofits across the state particularly have been forced to curtail or close their low or no cost vaccine clinics, due to the lack of veterinarians.

By way of analogy, as we all know, during the rollout of Covid-19 vaccinations, parking lots and suburban malls became drive through vaccination clinics. And in many cases, it was not MDs, it was EMTs from local fire departments, even the National Guard, who administered that particular vaccine.

Of course, that was a human need. Here, though, there is a similar crisis threatening our public health and safety, which is unvaccinated pets in California. These pets are at risk of catching and transmitting rabies and the parvovirus.

I guess the question really is, why would we not allow a group of professionals with significant experience to administer those vaccines, just like we've done in human emergency situations?

Here with me to present today is Dr. Grant Miller, Director of Regulatory affairs of the California Veterinary Medical Association, and Mr. Kenn Altine, Chief Executive Officer of the Sacramento SPCA. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay, who's up first?

Good afternoon, Chair and Senators, thank you so much for the time today. My name is Grant Miller. I'm the veterinarian and the Director of Regulatory Affairs at the California Veterinary Medical Association.

I want to thank you for your time in consideration of SB 669, with additional thanks to Senator Cortese for championing the important causes set forth in the measure. The CVMA has a support position on the bill and feels that it is a progressive national precedent that will help animal owners access much needed veterinary care for their pets.

Access to veterinary care is a national issue that stems largely from surveys that show that one out of every four pet owning households has significant difficulty in affording even the most basic veterinary care for their animals. By basic care, this includes pets receiving vaccinations and medications to control parasites.

Studies also show unequivocally that the health of the family pets is directly linked to the health of the family members, meaning the human beings in the household. Thus, ensuring that pets are vaccinated and provided parasite control medication can equate to improved public health overall.

SB 669 will address access to veterinary care and improve public health by expanding the use of registered veterinary technicians, also called RVTs, in veterinary practice.

This bill will permit veterinarians to authorize RVTs working under their supervision, to act as an agent of the veterinarian in establishing the veterinarian-client-patient relationship for the specific purposes of administering vaccinations and parasite control.

The CVMA views this as a solution which benefits all parties. Veterinarians who choose to delegate authority to their RVTs for these specific purposes will have more time to see sick animals and emergencies.

RVTs will be able to better utilize their education and training and help animals, and the public will have better access to care at a lower cost. All of this, and the best, is that California animals will also be healthier because of this important legislation. We'd like to thank Senator Cortese.

Also, special thank you to Sarah Mason and Alyssa Silva of Senate business and profession staff for working on the most recent amendments of this bill.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote to support better access for California's pets and consumers. And I'm happy to answer any technical questions you may have about the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I'm Kenn Altine. I'm the CEO of the Sacramento SPCA, one of the largest providers of low-cost preventative care in the State of California. Annually, we see 40,000 animals through our wellness clinic, our vaccine clinic, and our spray neuter clinic.

I employ seven full time vets, 12 part time vets, and five occasional vets and 10 RVTs. And I am unable to keep up with the need for vaccinating the animals just in Sacramento County. It'll take you six weeks to get an appointment to come in to see the vet and then have the RVT give you that vaccination.

They can do all of this, but they cannot establish that VCPR unless this bill goes through. So, I very humbly ask you to consider this change that says that these licensed, professional, certified RVTs can do the full job of vaccinating the animals in our community. Thank you for your support.

What we're asking here, is not to expand the roles of RVTs. They are already able to do things like administered controlled substances.

They can apply casts and splints, they can compound drugs for use in animals, and they can administer vaccines, including the rabies vaccine. But they cannot do any of that until the veterinarian has established the veterinary-client-patient relationship, the VCPR.

What this bill, SB 669, will allow is that vet to say to his trusted RVT, who, by the way, has gone through two years of training before sitting for their boards, versus the EMT that Senator Cortese referenced, who has as little as 12 weeks of training before they're certified to give you the shot in the parking lot for Covid.

Thank you, sir. Any other support witnesses in the hearing room? Seeing none, let's turn to lead opposition witnesses. Any lead opposition? Well, where are we? Are we support? Name, affiliation and position on the bill, please?

Thank you, sir. Any other support witnesses in the hearing room seeing none, let's turn to lead opposition witnesses. Any lead opposition? Well, where are we? Are we support? Name, affiliation and position on the bill, please?

Nancy Ehrlich. I'm a registered veterinary technician and I'm the Regulatory Legislative Advocate for the California RVT Association. We support this bill because RVTs have.

Thank you, ma'am.

During vaccinations, since we're just at the.

Name, affiliation and position on the bill at this point.

Okay, we support the bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your testimony. Yes, ma'am.

Carol Schumacher with CaRVTA I support the bill.

Thank you very much for coming down. Next, please. Okay, now let's turn to opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Christina Bradbury and I am President of the Veterinary Medical Board. The board appreciated the intent of the March 21 version of the bill and as it significantly mirrored proposed regulations approved by the board at its January 2023 board meeting.

Unfortunately, the April 18, 2023, amendments have raised significant consumer protection concerns for the board.

However, the board's Executive Committee and Executive Officer hope to engage in conversations with the author and stakeholders of the bill to find an appropriate solution to these concerns while protecting animal patients. Thank you for your time.

Among other concerns, the April 18, 2023, amendments inserted new provisions for establishing the VCPR and definitions that conflict with current regulations and would allow registered veterinary technicians to treat viruses and bacteria. Due to the recent amendments to the bill, the board regretfully opposes SB 669 unless amended.

Thank you very much. Any other opposition witnesses name, affiliation and position on the bill?

Good morning. I'm not in opposition. I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA. We're what one of the other committees has called a tweener. We are extremely grateful to the Senator for all of the work on this bill. The need for this bill is significant.

We're also very grateful to the Sacramento SPCA for sponsoring the bill. And so there are just a couple of provisions. One in particular is just some language that we're hoping can be defined and that would alleviate our concerns.

Without that further definition, we're concerned that the bill will not operate as intended. And again, we all understand the need for the bill. So, we would very much like to continue working with the Senator on this.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Let's now turn to witnesses waiting to test on the teleconference service. Moderator if you would prompt any of those witnesses, or all of them actually, anyone who wishes to testify in support or opposition to Senate Bill 669 will take their testimony now.

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero.

Mr. Chair, there are no comments in queue at this time.

Perfect. Let's bring the matter back to my colleagues on the dais. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Senator Cortese, you're bringing me back to my original career of wanting to pursue veterinary medicine. And now my daughter has taken up the RVT career path, so this is an exciting one for me. My question is very simple.

I'm looking at page three, actually, page four of the analysis where it explains what this bill will be doing. So, item number one, a, section ii. So, as it currently is written, as it currently reads, there's some inaccuracies there.

So I would just ask for clarification from the author of what this paragraph should read.

Data that must be collected by physical examination of the animal. That's what that word should be. Of the animal. And the word patient. Strike the word patient in order to reasonably ensure that the administration of preventative or prophylactic vaccines or medications for the control eradication of apparent or anticipated internal external parasites is appropriate.

Thank you.

Apologize for the.

No, that's okay. I just want to make sure that in the actual bill that we have those corrections mirrored.

Yeah, those should be on the record. I appreciate you doing that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments? Senator Ashby moves the bill and the motion. Let me ask you to close. Senator Cortese, if you'd like.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Just normally, I should have said this first. Of course, we'll continue to work on the very specific language and definitions that people are hoping to get to perfection here, and I understand that. I don't think that changes the essence of the bill.

Though we like perfection here, it's rarely attained. But thank you for trying to. The motion is do pass, as amended to Senate appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. And now we will take up the various sunset review bills for you, items seven through 11. And I will turn over the gavel to.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now move on to your bill. We'll proceed to SB 812, item seven.

Thank you. I'm pleased to present Senate Bill 812, which currently makes a variety of changes to the operations of the California Tax Education Council. Based on the collaborative Sunset review oversight efforts undertaken with the Assembly Business and Professions Committee this year.

This bill will be amended to strike existing language and extend the California Tax Education Council's sunset date for four more years.

I'm continuing to work with stakeholders and interested parties, including those organizations that provided helpful feedback aimed at increasing the ability for consumers to receive important information from tax preparers.

As you know, sunset bills like this take shape throughout the process. I look forward to finding common ground to ensure continued good work by CTech and certainly by those who assist individuals in the critical task of preparing their taxes. The appropriate point in time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this measure.

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

I think I'm the lead witness.

We wouldn't move to any other witnesses here in support. Okay. We would now move on to any opposition witnesses or any individual who would like to stay in opposition. Seeing none, we would now go to the moderator. Would you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 812.

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. There are no comments in queue at this time.

Thank you, Members. Any questions or comments?

Move the Bill.

Move the Bill.

There's a motion. Senator Roth, would you like to close?

I request an aye vote.

Motion has been moved. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the call open for other members at this time. We'll hear file item number eight, SB 813. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is the sunset bill for the Structural Pest Control Board of California. The measure contains changes intended to inform the board of licensee updates.

By requiring notification in seven business days rather than 10, if the licensed operator who is designated as the qualifying manager, ceases to be connected with the particular company. I'm additionally amending the bill in order to extend board operations for another four years. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll move on to any lead witnesses in support or any individual in the room that would like to state a support. We'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition of SB 813 or any witnesses who would like to stay in opposition. Seeing none. Moderate, would you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support of opposition of SB 813, please begin.

To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. There are no comments in queue at this time.

Members. Questions? Motion? Comments?

Move the bill.

Motion by Senator Wilk. Mr. Chairman, would you like to please close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to senate appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep the roll call open. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

8-0. We'll keep the roll call open, Mr. Chairman. We'll now move to file item number nine, SB 814.

Madam Chair, Members, I'm presenting this bill, which is the sunset bill for the Bureau of Household Goods and Services. I want to accept the suggested amendments in the Committee analysis to align license expiration dates for the EAR and HFTI program registrants. Additionally, the bill deletes a requirement for the bureau to assess the financial resources of house members who are applying for a permit with the bureau. As this is an arbitrary and unnecessary assessment, you may recall that testimony from our sunset review hearing.

I look forward to continued discussions with stakeholders on the provisions of this bill, any future changes necessary to address issues raised in the Committee staff background paper and those discussed at the sunset review hearing. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll now move to lead witnesses or any witnesses in support. Any lead witnesses or witnesses in opposition. Moderator, would you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition. SB 814.

To provide comments and support or opposition, please press one, then zero. There are no further comments at this time.

Thank you, Members. Questions, comment or motion, please.

Actually, I've got. Happy to make the motion, but I'd like to ask a question first. So I was going through the analysis. You ready? Okay. No, so I was going through the analysis, and I didn't see it on there. Has the MayTag repairman taken a position on this bill?

Do you have a phone number? We could probably try to get him on the line.

He's standing waiting next to the telephone as we speak.

With that, I move.

I have no idea.

Okay, I got to call for order now. Come on. There's a motion would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to Senate appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

70 will keep the roll call open. We'll now move to file item number 10, SB 815. Mr. Chairman. Please proceed.

Madam Chair. Colleagues, SB 815 is the sunset Bill for the Medical Board of California. As you know, without legislation, the medical board will no longer exist after January 1, 2024 as proposed to be amended. At this point, the Bill responds to a number of the issues discussed publicly at the medical Board Meetings and discussed publicly in this Committee, actually for a number of years.

The changes to the Medical Practice act that are proposed to be contained in this Bill directly correspond to the lengthy sunset review oversight hearing we held with the Assembly Business and Professions Committee last month and are aimed at ensuring that the medical board has the tools to do the job that we've tasked it with and to do so efficiently and effectively.

The Bill will provide the medical board with a number of enhancements in its enforcement process to allow for swift disciplinary action when necessary and to promote consumer and patient interests. As I think you know, the medical board is insolvent and has attempted to receive increased revenue for the past number of years. This Bill increases physician and surgeon licensing fees to allow the medical board to function.

The board has been paying its bills thanks to loans from other state agencies for years, and frankly, it's time for us to Fund this important program and to allow it to effectively do its work, its licensure and its enforcement work. The Bill retains a high burden of proof for enforcement cases that would result in licensed revocation, but notably provides the board with authority that 41 other states currently have to utilize a preponderance of evidence standard for cases that are less severe.

The Bill also speeds up the medical board's ability to take enforcement action against a current licensee who is convicted of a felony where the conviction involves moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, fraud or sexual assault, whether in the course of the licensee's action as a physician and surgeon or otherwise. Obviously, these are proposed actions. I look forward to continuing to work with the broad range, and I mean broad range, of interested parties as this measure progresses and at this point, respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. We'll move to witnesses, lead witnesses or individuals who would like to support, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Senators. Aaron Bone with the Medical Board of California. We wish to express our appreciation to Senator Roth and staff for their time and engagement with the board to work through the various challenges that we face and hope to address during this year's sunset review.

Although the board does not yet have a position on SB 815, I would like to note for the Committee that the proposed amendments address a number of topics raised by the board and in some cases include specific language proposed by the board. Most importantly, the language before you, as Senator Roth indicated, includes the physician fee amount requested by the board, including our proposal to increase the amount of funds that we may hold in Reserve.

In addition, establishing a complainant liaison unit will help the board to increase public awareness of our presence, enroll, and respond to various inquiries about our enforcement process. The board requested enforcement changes included in the amendments today will facilitate the timely resolution of complaints, investigations and prosecutions of our licensees who fail to adequately care for their patients. Again, the board appreciates the efforts of the chair and this Committee to help ensure we have the adequate resources and tools to meet our consumer protection mission.

The board will review all the language in the Bill during their May 1819 hearing and may take a position at that time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses who would like to state a support? We'll now move to the opposition.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is George Sores with the California Medical Association and you really appreciate the chair and author and the Committee's work on this. It's a long process, so we look forward to continue to work there in CMA. We care deeply about everything that's in this, but something that we really want to highlight is the fee increase we're talking about. A fee that's going from CMA cannot agree to a fee increase that's nearly 60%.

That would primarily go to about $150,000,000.24 month Reserve Fund for the medical board moving forward after a couple of years. The proposed fee increase is so steep because currently the medical board would have to pay off their loans within about two years and it creates a large balloon payment. The medical board should be able to pay these off in a longer, stretched out time period.

In our opinion, if this full fee increase was adopted, the medical board would have about roughly $30 million extra after paying off their loans, which would just, we feel this is unnecessary and creates an unprecedented fee increase one time over for any other type of board as well. California currently is top three almost at all times in the nation in physician licensure fees and have some of the slowest approval wait times.

So for our Members, it's really hard to justify such a fee increase when they're like, we're waiting for a long time to begin with. We do deeply understand the structural deficit that the board has and has had in the past, and we're totally committed to helping solve that and potentially even work with the debt as well. But we don't feel like this fee increase is the right amount and we'd like to go somewhere else with it. Aside from the fee.

Just wanted to highlight a couple of other issues that are within the analysis and the mockup. We're opposed to adding a public Member majority. There has been no demonstration of why this would be good for the public, for the state, for patients or the practice of medicine. And frankly, there's not that many other boards that are like that either. So we're opposed to that. We're opposed to changing the evidentiary standard in General, and we would respectfully request that that gets moved out of the Bill.

No position has been taken because we have to take a deeper look at it, but we would like to look more into what crimes would be covered under the section related to licensure revocation for criminal cases. We see some of it in there, but where does it start and end is what we really want to get to the bottom of.

And then on the PTL, the post training licensure proposal, we're still going through that, but we're confident that we'll be able know Reach some sort of agreement on that with the stakeholders and with the board and Committee. So really appreciate everyone's work on this in the room and look forward to the continued success of the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please?

Good afternoon. Jen Chase with the University of California. The UC does not have an official position on SB 815, but we wanted to comment and say we want to engage in stakeholder discussions around the PTL licensing and we're currently reviewing the proposed changes. We're committed to working with the medical board and other stakeholders to approve and refine the PTL licensing process. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition, please state your name and Association position only.

Hello, Matt Lege with SCIU. We are not opposed to the Bill. Just want to appreciate the center and staff for continued work on the PTL. Look forward to those continued conversations.

Thank you. Any other witnesses please come forward.

Hi, good morning. Katrina Rayes with the California Academy of Family physicians we also do not have a position on the Bill, but we do REpresent 70 family medicine residency programs ANd would just like to continue to work with the Committee and the Senator to make sure that there's no.

State your name.

Sorry. Katrina Reyes.

Yeah. Name, organization.

And then just looking forward to continue to work with.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other individuals in the room seeing none moderated. Can you please prompt? Any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 815, please begin.

To provide comments in support or opposition, please press one, then. Zero. One moment, please. Line 221221, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Jeremy Vancrust Brown, a resident physician at Stanford University.

Hello. Just state your name, affiliation and your position, please.

Hi, I'm Jeremy Bancroft Brown. I'm a resident physician at Stanford University.

Are you in opposition or support?

I don't have a position on the Bill, but.

We'Re only asking for positions. We're not asking for a statement. So you don't have a position? Moderate. Next individual, please.

Line 219, please. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Carmen Balber. I'm the Executive Director of consumer watchdog. And we support the legislation, but urge amendments concerning issues that were raised during the sunset review hearing by Members of the public, and we'll provide that in writing to the Committee.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Moderators, anybody else on the call?

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to Members. Questions or comments. Senator Glazer?

Thank you, Chair Roth. I know that these sunset bills are a result of collaborative hearings with the Assembly and also active engagement. And I guess for the newer Members here, I think the point of some surprise might be that typically the substance of these sunsets appear in the summer. And so I want to just commend Chair Roth for putting this Bill out there in terms of its current form, for everyone to see, for comments to be made and engagements to occur at this early date.

And I think that's a healthy thing. And given the pathway that this Bill will go in the suing months, I'm happy to support it today. I will move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator.

Any other questions? Comment? There is a motion, Mr. Chairman. Would you like to close?

Request an aye vote. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Please call for the vote.

Roth.

Aye.

Roth aye. Nguyen. Alvarado-Gil. Archuleta.

Aye.

Archuleta aye. Ashby. Becker. Dodd. Dodd aye. Eggman. Eggman aye. Glazer.

Aye.

Glazer aye. Niello Smallwood-Cuevas. Wahab. Wahab aye. Wilk.

Aye.

Wilk aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye.

Okay, we will leave the roll call open. Thank you. We'll move to item 11, SB 816. Mr. Chairman, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, this Bill is a business and professions code omnibus Bill containing several changes to a number of the practice acts administered by various programs within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The measure makes changes to the operations of a number of these programs and the California Council for Interior Design Certification following the recent sunset review oversight work for these entities.

The Bill updates provisions of the Interior Design Chapter to clarify that the California Council for Interior Design Certification is the certifying entity, including codifying the commercial design stamp designation, among other technical and clarifying changes. I look forward to continuing to work with commercial designers and others in this space to determine what additional changes may be necessary to ensure efficiency and the appropriateness of the council's work.

The Bill deletes a current prohibition in the Veterinary Medical Practice Act that prevents the Veterinary Medical Board from being able to issue a probationary certificate, if appropriate, to an applicant for a Veterinary Assistant Controlled Substance Permit. The Bill also makes technical changes related to the authority for the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians to decrease community college fees for that board's school approval process when those institutions face declines in enrollment and commensurate declines in state funding. At the appropriate time, I would request an Aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support please come forward.

Hi. My name is Ellen Medill. I'm here on behalf of both the Northern and Southern California Chapters of the International Interior Design Association. We currently have a support, if amended, position on this Bill. We thank the staff for their conversations that we've had and look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Anyone would like to also make a statement in support? Any witnesses in opposition or make a statement in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator, could you please prompt any individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 816? Please begin. Moderator?

To provide comment in support or opposition, please press one then zero. 220. 220, please go ahead.

Yes, hi, this is Katherine Hampton. I am a certified interior designer, commercial designation in Los Angeles. I'm also a board member of the CCIDC, and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

217, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Hootan Hamedani. I'm a Vice President of CCIDC. Also, I'm international associate, AIA, lead AP, and CID commercial. I support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Line 222.

Hi, this is Roze Wiebe. I'm the Executive Director of the California Council for Interior Design Certification. We represent the entire design community in California, and we are definitely in support of this Bill.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Members. Comments, questions, motion.

Move the Bill.

There's a motion. Mr. Chairman, would you like to close?

Thank you for your Aye vote.

The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Appropriation. Please call the roll.

[Roll call].

And we'll leave the call open.

We'll open the roll in just a minute.

Start with the consent item first?

Let's open the roll. First item number 12. The consent item, Senate Bill 887. Current vote is eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Vote is 12 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Going back to item number one. Senate Bill 384. Current vote is eight to zero. Chair votingaye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 11 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Item number two, Senate Bill 622. Current vote, eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 11 to zero. We'll hold the row open for absent members. Item number three, Senate Bill 662. Current vote is five to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 10 to zero. We'll hold the row open for absent members. Item number four. Senate Bill 669. Current vote, eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 12 to zero. We'll hold the row open for absent members. Item number five, Senate Bill 833. Current vote, seven to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 11 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Item number six, Senate Bill 766. Current vote, eight to six. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 12 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Continuing on item number seven. Senate Bill 812. Current vote, eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 12 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Item number eight. Senate Bill 813. Current vote, eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 12 to zero. We'll hold the row open for absent members. Item number nine. Senate Bill 814. Current vote, seven to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 12 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Senate Bill SB 815. Current vote, eight to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 10 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members. Item number 11. Senate Bill 816. Current vote, nine to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 11 to zero. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Let's reopen the vote and call the roll, on item number 10, Senate Bill 815. Current vote is 10 to zero. Chair voting aye. I think Senator Alvarado-Gil wants to change a vote.

Okay, when? Alvarado-Gil. From aye to no.

Current vote, nine to one. We'll hold the roll open for absent members.

Okay. Let's reopen the roll for absent members. Starting with the consent calendar. Item number 12. Senate Bill 887. Current vote is 12 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Vote 13 to zero. That matter is out. Item number one, Senate Bill 384. Current vote is 11 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 12 to zero. That matter is out. Item number two, Senate Bill 622. Current vote is 11 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Vote is 12 to zero. That matter is out. Item number three, Senate Bill 662. Current vote is 10 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote is 11 to zero. That matter is out. Item number four. Senate Bill 669. Current vote, 12 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

Current vote, 13 to zero. That matter is out. Item number five, Senate Bill 833. Current vote, 11 to zero. Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]