Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Organization Committee of Tuesday, March 14th to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 7362834. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street Building. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in Room 1200. We've got a quorum now, but we've got some votes that we're going to be taking.

So, I'd like Members to come on down. We have six bills on today's agenda. Before we hear presentations on the bill, let's establish a quorum. Committee Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

A quorum has been established. We'll start by adopting our Committee rules. These rules have been provided to all Members of the Committee for review, and Members, right now, without any objection, we'll adopt the Committee rules for the 2022-2023 legislative session.

Hearing no objections, the Committee rules are adopted. We'll now move to the consent calendar. This includes File Item Number Two: SB 259 by Senator Seyarto, File Item Number Four: 269 by Senator Laird. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? We got a motion by Wilk, who got in first. Any discussion? I don't see any here, so Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill has nine votes. We'll place that on call. Let's move to our first author. Is Senator Skinner here? Yes, she is. Good morning. Senator Skinner, you're presenting File Item Number One: SB 59. I know you knew that. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair. Thank you, Members. Yes, I am presenting SB 59. Everyone who has had a period has a story. A story that's met with feelings of embarrassment, frustration because we didn't have menstrual products right at our fingertips. SB 59 expands accessibility to menstrual products by ensuring that restrooms in buildings--that the state government provides services or the state government funds has that nexus to state government--provides those products needed for our regular bodily functions. We take for granted the toilet papers in every restroom.

It's free. We should do the same for period products. California has enacted the most progressive policies to increase access to period products. We ended the tax on these products. We require them in our six through 12--grade six through 12 public schools, our CSUs, our community colleges.

This bill builds on those, and as I mentioned, requires those products in our women's restrooms, our all-gender restrooms, and at least in one men's restroom in all state or state lease buildings, all the buildings that I mentioned that have a nexus to the state. So by doing that, SB 59 helps every state-associated building do this, just like the people's house here in the State Capitol does, where period products are available and free. So let me have my witnesses before I conclude, and I have Filza Vaid from IGNITE and Tiffany Whiten from SCIU, California.

Good morning. My name is Filza Vaid and I am here representing IGNITE National, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping young women become the next generation of political leaders. I am the cofounder of IGNITE's UCLA Chapter, a chapter specifically dedicated to reproductive justice advocacy work. I helped spearhead a campus initiative making UCLA the first UC campus to provide free menstrual products to all students.

I am here today to speak in support of SB 59, also known as equity period. Free menstrual products are not only a matter of gender equity, but basic health and hygiene. When individuals cannot access menstrual products, they may resort to using old or unsanitary materials, even going without products altogether. Staffers, constituents, hospital workers, maintenance workers, and visitors of state-owned buildings should never have to wait out the day until they can go home and change their pad or tampon, risking fatal infections such as toxic shock syndrome.

As a student, I have seen firsthand how menstrual product access is an equity issue. A 2021 national study by Thinx and Period showed one in five college students in America struggled to afford menstrual hygiene products. Many college students intern in California state and district offices, and many are unpaid. Students, especially unpaid interns, should never have to come to work at a state or local government office and worry about how they're going to find a period product.

Community members should also know if they ever need a menstrual product, their local district offices or state-owned buildings can provide them if needed. Menstrual equity is a fundamental human rights issue, and we must continue to work towards a world where menstruators can access the products they need to live their lives with dignity and respect. It is time to take action and address menstrual equity, starting with state-owned buildings. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Tiffany Whiten with SCIU California, representing members of the workforces at California safety net programs and many workers at our public hospitals. Our workers are there when people need help. Rain or shine, pandemic or recession aside, they are there to create a more healthier and equitable California. SCIU is committed to protecting our safety net and carrying out mandates that are placed on our public sector employees and protecting and advancing public health improvements.

And the significant majority of these workers are women, women of color. In fact, seven out of ten SCIU members identify as a woman and 60 percent as a woman of color. SCIU continues to stay committed to gender equity in the workplace and like this bill, acknowledges that not all menstruating persons identify as women. Transgender men, nonbinary, and our gender-nonconforming workforce may also menstruate and experience inequities resulting from lack of access to menstrual products.

And too many of our menstruating workforce are not more than a paycheck or two away from being on the other side of the line. We support SB 59 and thank the author for bringing this bill forward. SB 59 will not only ensure, improve dignity and health for Californians our members are so proud to serve, but also because it will bring equity to members of our workforce who menstruate.

Here in the Capitol, thanks to the leadership of Pro Tem Atkins and the janitorial professionals, Capitol staff have access to free period products. This is great. It should be the standard for every state worker and for every worker who is employed to provide services under a state-funded program.

It was the labor movement which led the fight to the right to have a bathroom at work. This is a continuation of that fight, a fight for an equitable bathroom at work where everyone is ensured all the free sanitary products they need. For these reasons, we are proud to support SB 59 and please request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses in the room. Please come forward.

Good morning. Katie Van Deynze with Health Access California, the statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Erin Evans, on behalf of the California Nurse-Midwives Association, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and SupplyBank.org, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, we're now going to move on. Is there any lead witnesses against this? There is. Well, come on forward.

Committee Members, my name is Sophia Lorey, and I'm with the California Family Council. SB 59 seems to be a positive bill at first glance. How can anyone be against providing menstrual products in a women's restroom? Yet this bill also requires state-owned buildings to provide menstrual products in male restrooms, pushing the lie that men can have a menstrual cycle. This is insulting to women. This bill disregards the inherent dignity of women by attempting to obscure obvious biological distinctions between male and females.

Males do not have a menstrual cycle. Let me repeat that. Males do not and cannot have a menstrual cycle. Monthly, women endure emotional and physical symptoms from menstruating, such as anxiety, depressed moods, crying spells, mood swings, irritability, appetite changes and food cravings, joint or muscle pain, headaches, fatigue, weight gain related to fluid retention, abdominal bloating, breast tenderness, and acne flare-ups. To pretend that a man experiences this is truly absurd. To vote yes on SB 59 is to ignore basic biology.

To vote yes on SB 59 would be antithetical to women's rights. SB 59 works to erase the biological truth of what a woman is. To be truly pro-woman, it is paramount that we recognize these biological differences between the sexes and act accordingly. There is no need for menstrual products in male restrooms. Males cannot have a menstrual cycle. If you have a menstrual cycle, you are a woman. Consequently, only women's restrooms need menstrual products. I urge you to stand up for women and vote no on SB 59. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition in the room that would like to come forward? Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. This includes anyone either in support or opposition. Please as a reminder, just to state your name, your affiliation, and the position only. I'm limiting the #MeToos to a total of ten minutes, so Moderator, if you would please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 59, we'll begin.

All right. If you have opposition or support for SB 59 at this moment, press one then zero on your telephone keypad. We will go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

We will go to line number 15. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Stephanie Estrada with Cruz Strategies on behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, in support.

We will now go to line number 12. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Anika Chandra Statecran, and I am a member of UCLA's Chapter of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

We will now go to line number 11. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Allison, speaking on behalf of UCLA's Chapter of Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, and I am in strong support.

We'll now go to line number 14. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Shivani Salsi, and I'm a member of UCLA's Chapter for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, and I strongly support this bill.

Our last comment comes from line number 13. Please go ahead.

Hello Mr. Chairman and Members. Michael Radigan, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thanks for the support and opposition witness. We will now bring the discussion back to our Members. Do any Members have any questions or comments? Senator, do you want to start?

Thank you, Senator Skinner, for bringing this bill forward. As a person who has used both male restrooms and female restrooms in times of urgency and necessity, I understand that the law does not prohibit one gender or another from using public restroom facilities. So for me, it feels like a common sense approach.

In respect to what has been shared today in opposition, you know, I do see myself as a strong supporter of women, and I understand the creation of women's biology, but also recognize that we have progressed, we have evolved as a human species in that we have choice in identity and we have choice in what we pursue as humans in terms of our essential needs. And I like the analogy that you made around toilet paper as an essential need and that we have that in public restrooms. And so I'm thinking of that as well.

I also was concerned about the area of period poverty, which is very real in terms of impacting women or people that identify as a woman and feel that with the evolution of culture in our society, that this is one of the bills that would help us to evolve in our thinking and to reduce some of that stigma as well.

And I want to acknowledge that I had several students come to my office in the last few weeks from California State Stanislaus, as well as from UC Merced that are both in my district, and I asked this question about what they thought about this bill and why, and specifically about the piece around having period products in males' restrooms.

And I asked both female, male, and cisgender students what they thought, and by far the approach or the response was in favor of this bill. So I want to thank you for bringing that forward and for helping us to tease out some of the details of that.

Thank you.

Senator Ashby.

Thank you so much. It's a really good bill, Senator Skinner. Thanks for bringing it forward, and I spare everyone all of our period stories because probably don't need to go there. But I will tell you, as a person who's had three children, you will find yourself at times needing menstruation products for things other than menstruation as well.

So having them in multiple restrooms will support lots of people, and I think kind of the obvious thing is, 'hey, if you don't need it, guess what? You don't have to use it. It'll just be there for the people who do. It's not going to hurt anyone.' Also, as my colleague said, we're progressing and we're moving towards less gender-restrictive restrooms, which necessitates a broad view of access for a topic like this.

And then finally, just to be brief, I just want to say this because I think it's really important. I pride myself on being very pro-woman, and it would take an extraordinary amount of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that a no vote on this would somehow be pro-woman.

Any other comments? Seeing none, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta. First, Senator Skinner, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. If I had known what the opposition would express, I would have been equipped to give you some of this science on the fact that this is not one--whether someone, an individual menstruates or not is not just a question of what we have come to kind of narrowly define as female biology. In other words, there is great variation biologically in individuals. It is rare, but it occurs.

And so, as I think anyone who looks in the literature can see, there are people, individuals with penises that have ovaries. There are individuals who have ovaries and testes, for example. So there is a great variation. Now, it is a small percent of the population, but this is a fact. This is not just a matter of what somebody chooses as a gender identity. But beyond that, I think the other Members' points as to why this is important is more germane.

And I grew up in a family where our family ran a community pharmacy, a drugstore. So you'd think that my sisters and I all would have had plenty of access to period products, but if I had every one of my sisters right here, we could all tell you more than many horror stories when we were ill-equipped. So this is very essential, and my close is: let's promote equity for all Californians that menstruate. Period. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. The motion is 'do pass to Health Committee.' Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Bill has seven votes. We'll put that bill on call. We'll now move to file item number three. That's SB 265, Senator Hurtado. Good morning. Feel free to begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in cyber attacks towards critical infrastructure sectors. These threats, increasingly, both foreign and domestic, have devastating consequences, ultimately affecting both the health and safety of all Californians and the economic strength of California as a whole.

Within the last decade, we have seen cyber attacks attempt to release water from a dam in New York, poison water in both the Bay Area and Florida, hold private information hostage in our healthcare and education systems, and successfully disrupt the world's largest meat processing company so significantly that they had to shut down all of their beef plants in the United States. And in recent time, in December of 2022, the California Department of Finance was hit by a cybersecurity threat that took several days to control.

As a result of the increase in cybersecurity threats and the potential harm to our infrastructure, the United States EPA recently issued a memorandum requiring all states to include cybersecurity when they conduct audits specifically referring to their water systems. We need to ensure that California is proactive and making a conscious effort to strengthen our cyber defense across all critical infrastructure sectors.

SB 265 expands on previous work by directing the Office of Emergency Services and the Cybersecurity Integration Center to also develop plans to increase outreach for cybersecurity preparedness, as well as identify potential funding sources that support cybersecurity across California's critical infrastructure. By placing a stronger focus on cybersecurity and recognizing its importance to California's critical infrastructure sectors, SB 265 allows California to take a much needed step in the direction of cybersecurity preparedness.

And with me today, I have one witness, Dr. Tony Coulson, Executive Director of the Cybersecurity Center and Professor at the California State University of San Bernardino.

Hi. Thank you very much for your time. I am in support of this bill for one reason. We live in a target rich environment. You will not know you've been hacked until you've been hacked. There's no prevention that we have that is at scale anyway. This bill will enable there to be a coordinated effort within the state of California to get on the defense side and to prevent the attacks you don't hear about.

If I can get ahead of an attacker and stop it from happening, you won't hear anything about it because it didn't happen. But it's those spectacular attacks that I worry about every day. We work at our institution with 407 colleges and universities dedicated to providing a cyber workforce. In California, there's an 85,000 person deficit in cyber workforce. So who's going to protect us? Is it going to be the Federal Government? Well, in a mass cyberattack that threatens food, water, power, they're going to be overwhelmed, too.

If we don't have a mechanism in place to help within California, we're going to be left on our own. I think everybody here has probably at some point been a victim of some type of cyber attack. But imagine a mass event. It's not that it's possible, it's probable. Thank you.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in the room. I'm seeing none. We'll now move on to any lead witnesses in opposition? I'm seeing none.

So we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Operator- Moderator, excuse me. Would you prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 265?

For those that have opposition or support for SB 265 this moment, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We have nobody that has queued up in opposition or support.

Thank you very much, Moderator. We're going to bring this discussion back to the Members. At this point in time, do our Members have any questions or comments? Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this to us. And I'm in total support of SB 265. Being a veteran, knowing what our military are facing, what our National Guard is facing, this bill takes us to the next level.

And I think that right now, when we all witness the rain and our dams that are filling up and the waterways and imagine if somebody had access to revert the other way and the terrible, terrible loss to property and to the human life. So we have to stay ahead. As we heard, we've got to stay ahead. And I think this is the way to go. And I urge everyone to continue in this way, to go ahead and offset what's out there.

As they get smarter, we've got to get much, much smarter, and let's be prepared. So I thank you once again, Senator, for bringing this to us.

Anybody else? I take that as a motion, Senator Archuleta? Yes, it is. I would think so. So with that, Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The bill has nine votes. We'll put that bill on call this time. We're going to move on to file item number five, SB 336. Senator Umberg. Morning, Senator.

Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Great. Please begin.

Do I have the floor? Thank you. All right. I want to thank the chair and a particular staff member, Brian Duke, for their hard work on this bill. I'm presenting SB 336 will sure well ensure that nonprofit organizations are fairly compensated by the state for the full cost of providing services by establishing a process by which nonprofits may negotiate a uniform state indirect cost agreement to cover reimbursement of indirect costs for state-funded grants. A bill almost identical to this passed through this committee and this house a year ago. I don't think I need to explain the importance of nonprofits in the COVID crisis and the natural disasters that exist in California.

Unlike the Federal Government, California does not have a system to negotiate and provide uniform reimbursement to nonprofits, and thus, nonprofits are forced to internalize certain costs, administrative staff, technology, transportation, equipment. With me today to address this issue in the bill are Ari Neumann, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, and Jan Masaoka, the CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits.

Welcome. Please begin.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Chairman. RCAC is a nonprofit based in West Sacramento. We provide technical assistance and training to rural and indigenous communities throughout the state on the basics, affordable housing, water, sewer, economic development, opportunities for jobs. Over the years, we've had a number of grants with the State of California that do not cover our full indirect costs, and we're talking about costs for things like accounting, IT, human resources, just the basic costs of doing our work that allow my team to go out into the field, out into communities and serve communities throughout the state.

We, as an organization, due to the volume of business we do at the State of California, have to raise approximately $50,000 a year to cover those costs that don't get covered by our state grants. And we're doing that through philanthropic resources and others. But really, it's our strong belief that in order to provide these services to the communities throughout the State of California, the state should be covering the full cost of those services.

This bill will also help reduce the transaction costs, because every single time a state agency gives us a grant, we have to negotiate how we're going to get reimbursed for our actual cost of providing the service. And having the consistency that this bill would provide would allow us and state agencies to reduce those transaction costs and be much more efficient at getting services out to communities faster.

Lastly, I want to point to a 2019 report by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I think they stated it best when they found that currently, different state grant programs promulgate different indirect cost recovery rules. This results in grantees spending inordinate amounts of time managing grants from different agencies, oftentimes for the same project, to different indirect cost recovery rules. Nonprofit organizations generally bill at well below the market rate for work performed and rely on private contributions to develop project partnerships, concepts, and proposals. Forcing them to fundraise to pay for reasonable indirect costs imposes an unreasonable burden on a sector that is indispensable to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. With that, I urge your support for the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you. I'm Jan Masoka, the CEO of the California Association of Nonprofits, an alliance of more than 10,000 nonprofits across California. And we're very pleased to support this bill in particular because it's part of a package of bills related to contracting reform. Six, seven bills altogether, and this is one of the most important ones in that package.

So as a Chamber of Commerce for nonprofits, you all know, which you already know actually, is that California's nonprofit community is essential to all the work we do. And when government sets goals about homelessness, about childcare, about vaccination, about wildlands protection, about animal welfare, when government sets goals for all, we also know that a lot of what they mean is that nonprofits are there and must be there to fulfill those goals.

Now, just as one example, 32% of Medicare services and Medi-Cal services in California are provided by nonprofits. So government relies on the nonprofit community a great deal to provide public services. If you go to a Starbucks and they say, it costs $4 for a latte, and you say, well, I only want to pay $3 because I don't want to pay for your insurance or your janitorial cost or your accounting cost. I only want to pay for this coffee and this cup.

They'll laugh you out of Starbucks. But in fact, that's what nonprofits, this position that we're put in because of what the rates that nonprofits are able to receive from state governments and from county governments. The accounting firm Grant Thornton, in a national study, showed that 50% is the medium indirect cost rate for government contracts with for-profit businesses. But in California, contracts with the state for nonprofits are often at 10%, 8%, 3%, sometimes 0%. And in addition, this is complicated by inconsistency. For example, we've talked with one nonprofit, and this is very typical, that has four different contracts with the state, one of them at 15%, one at 8%, one at 5%, and one at 0%. So just simply simplifying this system will go a long way towards efficiency as well as better accountability.

So SB 336 will align the California reimbursement rates and processes with those of the Federal Government, and that in itself will help to streamline the processes and make some of these rates more consistent than they are right now. So again, this is part of the nonprofit contracting equity initiative that we, along with 550 other nonprofits, signed a letter to, to the legislative leaders as well as to the Governor late last year. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in the room in support? Yes, we have a couple here.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, I'm pleased to represent count nonprofits at the Capitol, but also here to ask for your support for this bill on behalf of Meals on Wheels California. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of Self-Help Enterprises one of the co-sponsors of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kathy Van Osten, on behalf of Big Brothers Big Sisters, in support.

Thank you. Okay. Now are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill in the room? Seeing none. I don't think there's any other witnesses that are going to come forward on this. I think we'll just go to the teleconference line now. Moderator, this would include anyone in support or opposition of this bill, SB 336.

For anybody that has support or opposition at 336 at this moment, press one zero on your telephone keypad. We do have one that has queued up. One moment while we gather their line number. And we'll go to line number 16. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Addison Peterson with CAMEO, the California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity, and we're in support of SB 336. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that it, Moderator? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, do any of our members have any questions or comments? Senator Alvarado-Gil.

I'm chatty today. Thank you, Chair. This is just a comment. I want to thank you, Senator Umberg, for bringing forward this bill and recognizing the intricacies of rural communities and the needs of rural communities to have a say and have a voice when one-size-fits-all policies don't work. And your bill is clearly a testament to that acknowledgment. And I just want to thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

We have a motion by Senator Ashby. Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

I simply urge an aye vote.

Thank you, appreciate this bill. It's been moved by Senator Ashby. The motion is do pass to appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. We'll put that bill on call.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. Before we take up the last bill, I want to let members know that we are nearing the end of the hearing, and we have bills on call. If all members could return to the hearing immediately, we can finish lifting the calls without delay. What's that? Oh, it's his bill, isn't it?

He's here. He's just in the hall.

Yeah, I don't want to lose anybody. Well, maybe we shouldn't hear Senator Bradford's Bill. Is he here? Okay, we'll now move to file item number six, SB 392. Senator Bradford, when you're ready, please begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, SB 392 simply establishes a typical tied house exemption for the new intuit dome in Inglewood, new home of the LA Clippers.

This is an issue that we deal with throughout California anytime we want to build a new arena. This is just a common sense measure, and I just want to thank the staff for pointing out possible issues as far as placement of language. And we're communicating with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to make sure that we have technical clarifications. Here to answer any questions is none other than Bob (Don't call me Al Jarreau), representing Murphy's Bowl.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Bob Jarreau. Mr. Chair and Members, on behalf of Murphy's Bowl, LLC, and the Los Angeles Clippers, we're the sponsors of the bill. We apologize to Mr. Lopez for not getting our letter in in time. There will be one for the file after this hearing, and we are grateful to Senator Bradford for authoring this district bill for us. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Jarreau. Any other support witnesses wishing to testify here in the room? Seeing none. Is there any opposition in this room? Either lead witnesses? Seeing none. Now we'll move to witnesses waiting to testify in the teleconference service. Moderator if you could put on anybody that in support or opposition of SB 392.

Opposition or support for SB 392. At this moment, please press 1 and 0 on your telephone keypad. It appears we have no opposition or support for this Bill.

Well, thank you. Do any of our members have any questions or comments on this? We have a motion by Senator Seyarto. We have a comment over here from Senator Wilk.

Anyway, thank you for this Bill. And since this, as Bob, not Al Jarreau, said, it's a district bill. Everything I read about this new arena is supposed to be unbelievably fantastic. So I encourage you to put together a tour, maybe before it opens, for members to come and see what's going on in your district.

Without a doubt, we just did the roof-raising last Tuesday, but due to committee obligations, I wasn't able to go. But we'd love to do a tour, just as we've done with SOFI in the past.

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

I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto, and the motion is do pass to appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

That has 11 votes. We'll put it on call. So we're looking for. Senator Rubio will not be here today, so can we kind of narrow it down to who we're waiting for? Senator Glazer, could you please come? And Jones. Roth is here. Roth is in the house. Okay, so let's lift the call now on file item number one, SB 59. Excuse me, I missed that. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Secretary, please open the roll in the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

What's that? It's got 12. That bill is still on call. I do see 12 ayes. We'll now move to file item number one, SB 59 by Senator Skinner. Secretary, please call open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Eight. How many votes? Eight votes. That's still on call. We'll move to file item number three, SB 265, by Senator Hurtado. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

How many votes is that now? Madam Secretary, how many votes is that? That's 11 votes. That ball is still on call. File item number five, SB 336 by Senator Umberg. Everybody was here. Senator Bradford wasn't. Yeah. We're going to go to file item number five, SB 336. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Good. Your work here is done.

That's 11-0.

That bill has 11 votes. Can we open up file item number one, please? Secretary, please call the roll. Open the roll.

Sorry. Is this for file item?

File item number one.

[Roll Call]

No, she has it.

[Roll Call]

That bill is on call, so we only have one. Sergeants, have you called Senator Glazer's office? What committee is he on?

Good morning.

So glad you could grace us with your presence, Senator Glazer.

I've been watching everything. It's riveting testimony, Chairman.

Yeah. Kind of screwed this up. Riveting. Okay, we'll open the roll on file item one, consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

13. 13 yes, zero noes. That consent calendar is out. Now move to final item number one, SB 259 by Senator Skinner. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's 9-0. The bill's out. Did that have a dissent vote on that? No. Okay, so 9-0. The bill is out. We'll now move to file item number three, SB 265 by Senator Hurtado. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's 13 ayes, zero noes. That bill is out. We'll now move to file item number five, SB 336 by Senator Umberg.

[Roll Call]

13-0. That bill is out. Now move to file item number six, SB 392, by Senator Bradford. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 13-0. That bill is out. We have concluded the agenda. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization is adjourned.